Evolution vs Creation, Youtube series

[White Noise]

Originally Posted by Gulp

What?

I'm saying that small gradual changes over the course 500,000,000 can lead to an entirely unrecognizable animal, especially in animals that reproduce quickly.

You assume that because something happens in the present, it must have occured in the past on a much larger scale. And, small changes in arm length, coloration, etc. do not a new part make. At most it would mean the difference between, say, a robin and a hawk.

Originally Posted by Gulp

Genes didn't spring up in multiple animals at once. All those animals are descendants of a set of organisms that was gradually evolving genes.

So instead you mean to tell me that one species evolved into many during that relatively short period of time? Still sounds fairly preposterous. And you didn't explain the last bit of the issue I raised.

Originally Posted by Gulp

The neocortex of the human brain was a quicker development, in terms of evolution. Scientists using evolution predicted that if the brain experienced quick growth spurts, then there must be some explanation and the most likely culprit would be the environment. Something different from what it's ancestors were dealing. Recently they found evidence that Africa went through a long period of time where for 1000 years it would be a marsh or a gigantic lake. Every thousand years or so the environment was fluctuating between those two. This is exactly the sort of instance that causes quick changes in evolution.

But, like I said earlier, changing conditions do not affect the mutation rate.

Originally Posted by Gulp

Here's a short video by a biologist that updated evolution in 1976 by showing that evolution was gene-centered. He explains the evolution of the eye.

Dawkins overlooked something major. Where did the light sensitive cells come from? Also, for the creature to be able to actually make use of them, it would have to have it connected to a nervous system. The problem is, which one would have come first, the nerve connection or the sensitive patch of cells? One would be useless without the other.

Originally Posted by Gulp

BTW, the mutation would occur in the same place for the same reason that your body knew where to put your feet. You are currently filled with lots of mutations. Many mutations don't have an effect on the body. If it occurred in a vital section of the DNA then you might die for various health reasons. But it could something a simple as your body processed glucose very efficiently.

I meant the place on the DNA strand. DNA is really long, and for a mutation to do what you want it to do it would have to appear in just the right place on that incredibly long code.

Originally Posted by Gulp

The question are all explained by the very basic ideas behind evolution. The answer to all of those question is that those are behaviors that developed gradually by animals that survived whatever their condition: prey, environment, food scarcity.

Yeah, sure, it's perfectly logical that the mutant with one fewer chromosome passed on its gene by having infertile children. Evolution explains how that works completely.

Likewise, it makes sense that aquatic rodents developing a habit to randomly drag sticks out into the water is a survival trait, so it eventually grew into an elaborate dam building scheme.

Producing sterile members of your species is incredibly helpful to passing down your genetic code.

And clearly the penguins discovered that their eggs froze to death if they touched the ground, so they wished really hard and mutated a way to keep them from freezing...

</sarcasm>

If you've gotten to the point where you refuse to answer any of my completely valid points, it makes it look like you have no answer.

And the bandwagon effect says nothing to me. Just because some elites insist it's true does not mean that the theory is flawless.

[Grungebob]

Awful lot of you are using the term offensive or offended. I'd remind you that if you are offended so easily, please do not engage in these kinds of debates. Hot topic debates follow a looser set of rules. The gloves come off a bit so that folks can break through the mental walls that divide us. Be passionate, but there really is no reason to attack another persons beliefs even when they seem far fetched, poorly thought out, or just plain loony.

[White Noise]

Originally Posted by jschild

I see no one has still explained why humans develop gills while an embryo and why we contain the genetic information for tails.

Why do whales contain the genetic information to make legs and feet.

Why do chicken contain the genetic information to make teeth.

Why do snake develop hind legs while an embryo?

These only "prove" evolution if it's already assumed to be true. Intelligent design can explain this by simply saying the designer put the genes in there for some purpose, perhaps laziness.

Christians generally believe that God wants people to love him of their own free will, and having no other belief available other than, "Oh, yeah, I guess God exists because there's no other explaination" certainly interferes with that. In order to prevent that, I would argue, He could have created "evidence" that we could have come about through other means.

Originally Posted by jschild

Why do you have such a crappily designed appendix?

Why are our eyes so poorly designed they have a blind spot?

That is a good question jschild. If natural selection weeds out bad mutations, why do humans have such flaws? It's pretty bad when your attempt to disprove a competing theory calls your own into serious question.

I noticed also that you used the word "designed". Freudian slip, perhaps?

EDIT:, are you offended by people being offended? I find that awfully offensive .

[jschild]

But, like I said earlier, changing conditions do not affect the mutation rate.

It can greatly alter the survival rate of certain members of species however.

As for White Noise's arguements....

Think of any problem as the the Alphabet. A is the question, Z the answer.

Science works by observation and testing, forming hypothesis and theories that predict what the missing letters in between are.

For if we start with A and Z, science tries to fill in the blanks.

The problem with White Noises arguments is that it deliberate ignores all progress on the question.

Science might go We know ABCDE GHI LMN RST XYZ. And we have ideas on what goes in between.

White Noise is using Irreducibly Complexity as his argument, which is a flawed argument method.

He is essentialy saying we can't explain F J K O P Q U V W so evolution is wrong until we can explain them.

As science has progressed, evolutionary theory has filled in blanks and new evidence has now filled in F, J, P, and Q.

Now he goes...aha... You cannot explain K, O, U, V and W. So you're wrong. But the truth is this. Even when these are explained, it won't end. A new goalpost will be put up. You cannot explain A.A, B.K, C.U. And when those are explained they will bring up A.AAK, and B.KUPD and C.USU.

It will go on forever because the simple truth is, there will never be an amount of evidence to sway people like that. If science went around the same way, we wouldn't understand 1/10000 of what we do. We wouldn't have Einstein's gravitational laws because we can't explain how gravity propagates. Doesn't matter that we can predict and show that it does work. Because we can't fill every blank in an infinite set of blanks.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

[jschild]

These only "prove" evolution if it's already assumed to be true. Intelligent design can explain this by simply saying the designer put the genes in there for some purpose, perhaps laziness.

Wow...so your arguement is that God is lazy. And lets not pretend that "designer" is anyone else than God. No cute code words here. So god is lazy and cannot be bothered to do a decent job.

That is a good question jschild. If natural selection weeds out bad mutations, why do humans have such flaws? It's pretty bad when your attempt to disprove a competing theory calls your own into serious question.

Actually, you would expect bad design through evolution. Evolution does not produce perfection. If it doesn't threaten the species as a whole or prevent reproduction of the members, it would continue to be passed on. The simple fact that you don't understand that shows your idea of evolution is extremely warped. Evolution guarantee's imperfection due to the very fact that they are not designed.

I noticed also that you used the word "designed". Freudian slip, perhaps?

No, merely using your idea of a designer to point out the poor job he has done on many things.

[White Noise]

jschild, there are so many problems with your statements I don't know where to begin.

First of all, as has already been stated, evolution is not science. It's making up stories on how newly found evidence fits into an outdated theory.

Using your analogy, we have XYZ. Evolutionary scientists claim that it began with an A. How can they be absolutely sure that the whole thing, isn't, say, 123XYZ? And when someone finds something that looks like a 3, these scientists claim it is an E.

As for the irreducable complexity, how can we be absolutely sure that a random sequence of letters produced the entire alphabet, when mutating ABCDEF could prove fatal?

Your link is flawed on two counts:

1.) They started with an even more complex system. Where did that come from?

2.) Who's to say that the bacteria they mentioned did not exist before hand? Bacteria species are difficult to distinguish and are usually only identified by their respective chemical immunities. Also, bacteria has a form of reproduction in which they swap RNA (bacteria's form of DNA) bits. It's entirely possible that the one in question picked up the genes for the enzymes somewhere else, and within a few generations it had gathered the three required genes.

And where is this so called progress? I don't see a single one of my arguments fully debunked. Every explanation you and Gulp brought up I have pointed out a hole in, to which I receive either no response or another problematic attempt at explaining it.

As for the explanation as to why a designer (aliens are a possibility...) would have left them in, re-read my entire post. I added a bit.

Your argument for bad mutations (again with the design naming!) makes sense for minor problems, but having a flaw where a lion could jump at you from a certain angle and you wouldn't see it coming is more than a minor problem. So is an organ that could kill you.

EDIT: If the designer in question had meant for us to be mortal, you could bet your bottom dollar that they'd intentially include flaws.

[jschild]

He could have created "evidence" that we could have come about through other means.

Oh yes, the trickster defense.

First of all, as has already been stated, evolution is not science. It's making up stories on how newly found evidence fits into an outdated theory.

No, as has been claimed by you. Evolution is testable because it is predictable. Despite mountains of new genetic information coming in each and every year, nothing pushes away. Instead, we see what we expect and predicted instead.

It's obvious by that statement you simply consider every scientist working on the issue is a fruad and probably a liar.

As said, it doesnt matter how much evidence I provide. You will always demand the next smallest bit and on and on to cling to you belief despite mountains of evidence from multiple disciplines.

Your "designer" must either be incompent or a liar to support him. That is literally your defense. Either he couldn't do a good enough job, or he did a bad job on purpose to "trick" people.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

is enough evidence to prove that evolution occurs, even if we cannot prove every single mechanism (just as we can prove and predict gravity but cannot prove every single mechanism).

Your argument for bad mutations (again with the design naming!) makes sense for minor problems, but having a flaw where a lion could jump at you from a certain angle and you wouldn't see it coming is more than a minor problem. So is an organ that could kill you.

Again you miss the forest from the trees. The very fact that it is only a certain angle prevents it from being weeded out by natural selection. And as for appendicitis, it occurs most in those between 10 to 30 years old. Considering that for the bulk of time people were sexually active and breeding from 14-16 ensures that most would reproduce and have children before dying from a faulty appendix.

I'm surprised you haven't yet claimed that greater complexity cannot arise from an open system yet.

[ProtoFury]

Originally Posted by jschild

I see no one has still explained why humans develop gills while an embryo and why we contain the genetic information for tails.

Why do whales contain the genetic information to make legs and feet.

Why do chicken contain the genetic information to make teeth.

Why do snake develop hind legs while an embryo?

Why do you have such a crappily designed appendix?

Why are our eyes so poorly designed they have a blind spot?

Why do creationists tend to avoid this questions so bad since no one has responded to any of these questions.

I didn't see any of these questions earlier, but I will respond.

First, to answer those in bold. We've already proven that we can manipulate genes in many different ways. For instance, the South Koreans recently genetically engineered a cat that can grow in the dark. If you implement a gene in the correct place in any creature, it can exhibit properties of that gene. So asking why a whale has the genetic abilit to make legs and feet, or why chckenshave the genetic ability to grow teeth is pointless. It's like asking why a cat has the genetic ability to glow in the dark. They have thability to do these things, but the genes that triger those effects have been turned off at the point in development that a creature with legs or teeth would have thr genes activated (thus forming said legs and teeth). Those questions aren't a matter of creationism versus evolutionism. All animals have the same genetic code. Therefore, all animals can exhibit any given trait--if you could manipulate the gentic code of a dog to perfecly match that of a human during development, you woul havea hua being born. The fact that they have certain gees that all creatures share has no bearing on creationism vs. evoltionism.

Now, the italicized snake question. Snakes actually have verey small legs in their bodies as adults, but they ae so miniscule that they do not matter. They are what's nown as vestigal structures, which serve no apparent purpose in an animal. (Vestigal structures are often usedalongside evolutionist theory, but I'm not about to ignore factual information, even if it is often attributed to the opposing cause.) I'm no snake embrology epert, but I'm assuming that they grow them as an embryo, but as specialization of the embryo continues and different genes are activated and disactivated during development, the legs grow to their nearly nonexistant forms.

Next, The underlined questions, but more specificall, the question about the eye. This is a typical argument about how humans are physically "flawed." The fact that we have a blind spot is in no way a flaw--we have two eyes to account for the blind spot, and our brain will help fill in the gap basd on the surroundings--so most people don't evn knothat we hve a physical lind spot (the blin spot in your car not counting here--that doen't have as much to do with our eyes as t does with mirrors and our position in the vehicle). It may have an "imperfection," but it is a trade-off. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, said that the blind spot is "a tradeoff that allows the eye to process the vast amount of oxygen it needs in vertebrates." He also compared it to the trade-offs of making a laptop. You may think that the small screen of your laptop and (what you may consider) small memory capacity two imperfections in your computer. However, if you wanted a bigger screen, you'd be sacrificing the size of the laptop as a whole for the size of the screen, and if you wanted a bigger memory, it would cost a lot more. The trade-offs allow that specific model of computer to be wht t is supposed to be--a small, less expensive laptop--and allows it to perform its given functions as it was intended. In the same way, the "imperfections" of the blind spot in the eye are a trade-off that help the eye work best as it was intended.

Hope those answer your questions.

Originally Posted by Bonecrusher

What I do think is twofold:

Regardless of whether or not you believe in God, it shouldn't/won't affect whether or not you get into heaven.

As a result of the previous statement, regardless of whether or not you believe in God, it shouldn't change the way you live your life.

You are correct as far as getting into Heaven not relying on belief in God. I believe as many (if not most) of my fellow Christans do, athat it is not believing in God that counts--many religions believe in God, or another form of God. It is believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ that counts, and accepting Him as your personal lord and savior. So yes, technically, it's about believing in God for starters, but it's about much more than that.

And whether you choose to believe in God or not doesn't necessarily have to affect the way you live your life, I'll give you that. But as Christians, by being saved, it's something we want and choose to do--we're not forced to in any way.

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

I already don't like your tone. >>

Yes, now that it's been a bit, I can see that I kinda worked myself up on that one. Apologies for my apparent attitude--I feel extremely passionate about these, and I gues I was taking it a little too far without realizing it. No bad blood intended, I just percieved your oiginal post as more of an attack, and got more or less a bit defensive. Again, my apologies.

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

You are using fear. Maybe I didn't explain it well enough, I'm sure there are people on this board who can explain it better, but it's a fear tactic, just like how in church they tell you to pray, and fast, and beleive, and confess, or whatever X religion does for Y event. And if you don't, you'll go to hell.

I didn't mean to use it as a fear tactic, all I was meaning was that, if I'm wrong, it isn't a big deal--I really won't lose out. I'll have just been wrong.

On the other hand, I do realize that Hell is often use as the end-all-be-all, scare-you-to-death-so-do-what-i-say tactic. I don't approve of this. Hell is a scay thing, bt you shouldn't follow God just because you're scared of going toell--that's not supposed to be how it works. Someone who chooses to follow God should choose to do so becaue they want to, not out of fear. Hell is not supposed to be the "time-out" corner of existence--and I believe that God is not a God who wants to throw people in Hell--but He can't accept them into Heaven, because they haven't been redeemed by Jesus Christ. This is my belief--you don't have to adopt it, but I stand by it.

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

What I don't understand is how anyone could be so sure that by not beleiving I would go to hell. Doesn't that seem a bit harsh for being a skeptic? A skeptic of a possible God that could exist, because a book said so? If I were going to base all of my faith on a book, I think I would pray to Rand Al'thor, cause I liked it better.

It does seem harsh for being skeptical, yes. However, in the Bible, Jesus clearly states: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). It's black and white--accept Jesus as lord and savior, or not. There's no grey area, according to the Bible. So as much as we would like to think that thre is some fluff room for someone who is skeptical, as opposed to, say, someone who is a Satanist, the ible clearly states that there is not. It's a harsh standard, to be sure, but it's a standard to which everyone is held.

Now the arguments like "What about people like the Native Americans who had no idea and no way of knowing?" are abundant--and I can say that I just plain don't know. I'm not God, and I don't have those answers. If there is a seperate judging scale besides the one in the Bible, I can't say--but I choose to believe in what is written. Any othr standards, if they exist, don't matter to me. All that matters to me is the one in the Bible.

There are many, however, who believe in an "age of innocence," which s a point at which someone is able to be held accountable to the standards of the Bible. This is something that I tend to agree with. Anyone still within this age of innocence does not have the capacity or the options to understand the standards tat the are held to. A common example would be babies and young children, who simply just can't understand the whole thing. I don't think that a baby or young child that dies goes to Hell automatically, instead, I believe that they are accepted into Heaven.

Now if that standard is extended to Native Americans or others who simply didn't have the acesibility of the Word, I don't know. Someone more vesed in theology than me may have a more informed answer. I'd be extremely curious to hear what they think.

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

And I'm taking Psychology 101 now, I know what reaction formation is thank you. And thanks for assuming I didn't know.

Again, I didn't mean to assume you didn't know, I meant to clarify. Sorry to sound condescending again--I find that when I use psychology terms in everyday situations, many people don't know what I mean. I could have been more polite though.

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

I'm living in a sort of heaven right now, and it's hell. I don't have to work for anything, I'm waited on hand and foot, I don't have to try for anything. Heaven would be boring, because that's how I've heard it described, you live in eternal bliss, which gets boring.

The italicized sentence: I can only think of the line from Paradise Lost here--"The mind can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven."

As for the rest of this, I find some common ground with you here. Many descriptions of Heaven are unatisfying. If everything was like the "All Dogs Go To Heaven" version of things, I can see myself going crazy i that kind of Heaven (I have terrible ADHD ). I know that's one of the stereotypical views of Heaven, but I was brought up and have always been surrounded by (in terms of a church-setting) a different view. I hold the beie that Heaven willbe an exciting place. I have always believed that if we share many of the same emotions as God, as described in the Bible (love, hatred, jealousy, anger, joy, etc.), that boredom would be on the list. I don't think Heaven will be a static place ofjust singing and worshpping or anything. I believe that Heaven will be a place that will never get boring, that we will enjoy being in for eternity. If tin got stale there, I totally agee, it would be a living hell. But I don't believe it will be.

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

I'm not saying the pain would go away, I'm saying that if you started having headaches all the time, you would eventually forget about them. The pain would still exist, and it would probably be pretty bad at first, but you would get used to it after a while, and then there would be peace.

I still disagree with you here, but I think we've said enough on these points. I think we can agree to disagree on this one?

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

I'm sure if they had to live with the pain for all eternity, and it wasn't just on and off, they would get used to it. Eventually, you just stop recognizing it.

Same as above. I don't think it'd be a pain that would be ignorable--nothing like the pain here on earth. But again, agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

So I'm wrong because you interpreted the bible differently than I did? The Bible didn't clearly state much, if anything. You could read the same book twice and walk away with a different view point. And again, this is what I was taught in a Christian church, the few times I did go with my friends. Typically, his mom would drag us with her before a YuGiOh event or something. Most of the Christians I've asked about heaven have given me one of those two responses.

That's understandable. Not all Christians have to agree on the same thing, but I think that a lot of Christians get ignored simply because they are so stuck in their ways. I think the minority of Christians that exhibit stereotypical Christian views do nothing to help those of us who don't believe that way. I suppose every group of people has those that in some way inhibit the progress of the group as a whole, but if that's the view of Heaven they choose to accept, so be it.

The long and short of it is, no one knows exactly what takes place. All we know is that it's a place of rejoicing and happiness. I think God, being God, would know tht we,as humans, would get tired of the stangant "sitting on a cloud" version of Heaven. He knows us, and so He wouldn't make Heave a place we'd get bored.

But again, this is a point you can argue about forever (Literally. ). None of us know, so we can't really argue over somthing we do not know much about.

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

Offensive? What did I say? Until now I don't think I've said anything particularly offensive. Just that I really hate that particular argument for joining Christianity, and my reasons why. I didn't speak against you specifically, I didn't put down Christians as a whole, I just expressed what I had heard, my interpretations.

Sorry I offended, but what happened to turn the other cheek?

I suppose "offensive" was the wrong term. Either way, I wasn't exactly respectful in my post, either. I suppose we could probably oth stand to be a bit more polite.

And turning the other cheek? Doesn't mean we shouldn't stick up for ourselves.

[Bonecrusher]

I think, Proto, that I don't have to recognize him as my savior to "come through him." By exhibiting true traits of holyness, Jesus (if God exists) is in my soul, whether or not I recognize it.

[ProtoFury]

Originally Posted by Bonecrusher

I think, Proto, that I don't have to recognize him as my savior to "come through him." By exhibiting true traits of holyness, Jesus (if God exists) is in my soul, whether or not I recognize it.

However, the Bible does state that works (good deeds, acts of holiness) are not what counts. I submit these two verses to your consideration:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works , so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about-but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:1-5)

Just curious of your thoughts on these verses.

[jschild]

First, to answer those in bold. We've already proven that we can manipulate genes in many different ways. For instance, the South Koreans recently genetically engineered a cat that can grow in the dark. If you implement a gene in the correct place in any creature, it can exhibit properties of that gene. So asking why a whale has the genetic abilit to make legs and feet, or why chckenshave the genetic ability to grow teeth is pointless. It's like asking why a cat has the genetic ability to glow in the dark. They have thability to do these things, but the genes that triger those effects have been turned off at the point in development that a creature with legs or teeth would have thr genes activated (thus forming said legs and teeth). Those questions aren't a matter of creationism versus evolutionism. All animals have the same genetic code. Therefore, all animals can exhibit any given trait--if you could manipulate the gentic code of a dog to perfecly match that of a human during development, you woul havea hua being born. The fact that they have certain gees that all creatures share has no bearing on creationism vs. evoltionism.

Actually, almost everything you said is completely wrong. They inserted a gene from another creature in the cat's case. The cat has no built in genetic ability to "glow". All animals do not have the same genetic code. They use the same code book, but the code is different for every animal, although some do indeed share pages because they are related. In the case of whales, they retain the genes (though typically inactive) to grow legs since they evolved from creatures that had legs. What you wouldn't expect to find is mammals with the genetic code to make feathers or wings, since those developed in a different branch AFTER mammals broke off that tree.

Now, the italicized snake question. Snakes actually have verey small legs in their bodies as adults, but they ae so miniscule that they do not matter. They are what's nown as vestigal structures, which serve no apparent purpose in an animal. (Vestigal structures are often usedalongside evolutionist theory, but I'm not about to ignore factual information, even if it is often attributed to the opposing cause.) I'm no snake embrology epert, but I'm assuming that they grow them as an embryo, but as specialization of the embryo continues and different genes are activated and disactivated during development, the legs grow to their nearly nonexistant forms.

You've just argued my point. If they were created or designed, why would you have that pointless information there in the first place? It only makes sense if their ancestors had legs.

Next, The underlined questions, but more specificall, the question about the eye. This is a typical argument about how humans are physically "flawed." The fact that we have a blind spot is in no way a flaw--we have two eyes to account for the blind spot, and our brain will help fill in the gap basd on the surroundings--so most people don't evn knothat we hve a physical lind spot (the blin spot in your car not counting here--that doen't have as much to do with our eyes as t does with mirrors and our position in the vehicle). It may have an "imperfection," but it is a trade-off. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, said that the blind spot is "a tradeoff that allows the eye to process the vast amount of oxygen it needs in vertebrates." He also compared it to the trade-offs of making a laptop. You may think that the small screen of your laptop and (what you may consider) small memory capacity two imperfections in your computer. However, if you wanted a bigger screen, you'd be sacrificing the size of the laptop as a whole for the size of the screen, and if you wanted a bigger memory, it would cost a lot more. The trade-offs allow that specific model of computer to be wht t is supposed to be--a small, less expensive laptop--and allows it to perform its given functions as it was intended. In the same way, the "imperfections" of the blind spot in the eye are a trade-off that help the eye work best as it was intended.

Except that blind spot would not account for that much. Again, if you are designing something, why would you leave in a blatant flaw that could easily be designed without said flaw and not hurting anything.

EDIT: Heading out for the night for more Dragon Age - will gladly rejoin the fray tomorrow. Good night to everyone.

[Hal0fan117]

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

Yes, now that it's been a bit, I can see that I kinda worked myself up on that one. Apologies for my apparent attitude--I feel extremely passionate about these, and I gues I was taking it a little too far without realizing it. No bad blood intended, I just percieved your oiginal post as more of an attack, and got more or less a bit defensive. Again, my apologies.

Lol, it's cool. You clearly feel strongly about your beliefs, so sorry if it seemed like I attacked you

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

I didn't mean to use it as a fear tactic, all I was meaning was that, if I'm wrong, it isn't a big deal--I really won't lose out. I'll have just been wrong.

On the other hand, I do realize that Hell is often use as the end-all-be-all, scare-you-to-death-so-do-what-i-say tactic. I don't approve of this. Hell is a scay thing, bt you shouldn't follow God just because you're scared of going toell--that's not supposed to be how it works. Someone who chooses to follow God should choose to do so becaue they want to, not out of fear. Hell is not supposed to be the "time-out" corner of existence--and I believe that God is not a God who wants to throw people in Hell--but He can't accept them into Heaven, because they haven't been redeemed by Jesus Christ. This is my belief--you don't have to adopt it, but I stand by it.

okies ^_^

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

It does seem harsh for being skeptical, yes. However, in the Bible, Jesus clearly states: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). It's black and white--accept Jesus as lord and savior, or not. There's no grey area, according to the Bible. So as much as we would like to think that thre is some fluff room for someone who is skeptical, as opposed to, say, someone who is a Satanist, the ible clearly states that there is not. It's a harsh standard, to be sure, but it's a standard to which everyone is held.

Now the arguments like "What about people like the Native Americans who had no idea and no way of knowing?" are abundant--and I can say that I just plain don't know. I'm not God, and I don't have those answers. If there is a seperate judging scale besides the one in the Bible, I can't say--but I choose to believe in what is written. Any othr standards, if they exist, don't matter to me. All that matters to me is the one in the Bible.

There are many, however, who believe in an "age of innocence," which s a point at which someone is able to be held accountable to the standards of the Bible. This is something that I tend to agree with. Anyone still within this age of innocence does not have the capacity or the options to understand the standards tat the are held to. A common example would be babies and young children, who simply just can't understand the whole thing. I don't think that a baby or young child that dies goes to Hell automatically, instead, I believe that they are accepted into Heaven.

Now if that standard is extended to Native Americans or others who simply didn't have the acesibility of the Word, I don't know. Someone more vesed in theology than me may have a more informed answer. I'd be extremely curious to hear what they think.

Yeah, that's one of the biggest problems I have with the way through Jesus thing. To be honest, if I did decide to be Christian, I would be the type who believes the old Testament, since that was the word of God, rather than the New testament, which was written by people. I think that would make me Jewish iirc...lol.

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

Again, I didn't mean to assume you didn't know, I meant to clarify. Sorry to sound condescending again--I find that when I use psychology terms in everyday situations, many people don't know what I mean. I could have been more polite though.


The italicized sentence: I can only think of the line from Paradise Lost here--"The mind can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven."

As for the rest of this, I find some common ground with you here. Many descriptions of Heaven are unatisfying. If everything was like the "All Dogs Go To Heaven" version of things, I can see myself going crazy i that kind of Heaven (I have terrible ADHD ). I know that's one of the stereotypical views of Heaven, but I was brought up and have always been surrounded by (in terms of a church-setting) a different view. I hold the beie that Heaven willbe an exciting place. I have always believed that if we share many of the same emotions as God, as described in the Bible (love, hatred, jealousy, anger, joy, etc.), that boredom would be on the list. I don't think Heaven will be a static place ofjust singing and worshpping or anything. I believe that Heaven will be a place that will never get boring, that we will enjoy being in for eternity. If tin got stale there, I totally agee, it would be a living hell. But I don't believe it will be.

Let's hope so, eternity is a loooooooooong time

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

I still disagree with you here, but I think we've said enough on these points. I think we can agree to disagree on this one?

Same as above. I don't think it'd be a pain that would be ignorable--nothing like the pain here on earth. But again, agree to disagree.

Sounds good

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

That's understandable. Not all Christians have to agree on the same thing, but I think that a lot of Christians get ignored simply because they are so stuck in their ways. I think the minority of Christians that exhibit stereotypical Christian views do nothing to help those of us who don't believe that way. I suppose every group of people has those that in some way inhibit the progress of the group as a whole, but if that's the view of Heaven they choose to accept, so be it.

The long and short of it is, no one knows exactly what takes place. All we know is that it's a place of rejoicing and happiness. I think God, being God, would know tht we,as humans, would get tired of the stangant "sitting on a cloud" version of Heaven. He knows us, and so He wouldn't make Heave a place we'd get bored.

But again, this is a point you can argue about forever (Literally. ). None of us know, so we can't really argue over somthing we do not know much about.

The only way I could see that happening is if you just...felt ecstasy, like a drug or something. Oh well.

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

I suppose "offensive" was the wrong term. Either way, I wasn't exactly respectful in my post, either. I suppose we could probably oth stand to be a bit more polite.

And turning the other cheek? Doesn't mean we shouldn't stick up for ourselves.

Yup, definitely. -hug-

Just poking fun lol ^_^