The Joys of Life Without God

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Interesting article!

-----------------------------------------------------
The joys of life without God

Skeptics Society founder Michael Shermer explains why Darwin matters, how believing in God is the same as believing in astrology, and why it doesn't take divine faith to experience something bigger than ourselves.

Editor's note: This is the latest entry in a Salon series of interviews about religion and science with today's leading thinkers.

By Kevin Berger

Aug. 23, 2006 | Michael Shermer has done a fine job in his new book of letting the air out of intelligent design's tires. As you recall, the so-called scientific movement, which says that nifty things in the universe, like human eyes, are so perfect they couldn't possibly have been created by the crude steps of evolution, was rolling along quite nicely through school districts last year, kicking up a chorus of hallelujahs from creationists. Some of Shermer's ivory towerish science pals, like Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould, told him not to bother with the I.D. boosters, that acknowledging them meant going along for their political ride, where the integrity of science was being run into the ground.


http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/23/shermer/story.jpg


But true to his genial nature, Shermer ignored his friends' advice and penned "Why Darwin Matters." With admirable patience and humility, he spells out each of the fancy I.D. tenets, like "design inference," in which only a higher intelligence could have come up with something as cool and ingenious as DNA. Shermer shows how imperfect evolution, and not intelligent design, has been, for generations, the only quantifiable driver behind nature's wonders.

In one way, he didn't have to write the book. You could get the rundown on I.D. by reading Judge John E. Jones' decision in the infamous trial in Dover, Penn., last year, which pitted the local school board, who supported teaching I.D., against evolution experts. The Republican judge spanked the I.D. proponents hard, calling their bedrock assumptions "utterly false," and concluded with a swipe at the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover School Board. Yet there's no doubt that Shermer's book is a nice ally for science teachers in the perpetual battle against the creationists.

When I met him, I didn't want to get bogged down in the details of his defense. Shermer, 51, is executive director of the Skeptics Society, bold debunkers of all things supernatural; a columnist for Scientific American; and author of a bunch of readable books about why people flock to God or astrology. So while we delved into the real agenda of intelligent design advocates (like techno-guru George Gilder) we also talked about psychics, atheism, why one famous molecular biologist believes in God, and Shermer's halcyon days as a Jesus freak.

The Skeptics Society is situated in a warm little house in Altadena, a tree-shaded town, north of Los Angeles, in the shadow of the San Gabriel Mountains, home to Mt. Wilson Observatory, one of the world's pioneering astronomy centers. We chatted around the dining room table, stacked with issues of the latest Skeptic magazine, all about religion.

Why does Darwin matter?

Because we live in the age of science. And the Darwinian worldview is the preeminent and best supported theory for the explanation of the natural and biological world. Marx is gone. Freud is gone. History and data have not supported their theories. But Darwin was right. You have to know evolution to understand the natural world. And that cannot be a threat to people of faith. There's a serious problem if you are forced by your faith to reject the most well supported theory in all of science.

Why do you say evolution shouldn't be a threat?

If you believe God created the world, it's reasonable to ask, How did he do it? What were the forces and mechanisms he used? Why not look to science and see that he started with the big bang, the force of gravity, inflationary cosmology, quarks and natural selection. Those were his tools. To that extent, science is not a threat, it's your best friend. It's the best tool you have for illuminating the grandeur of creation. A Hubble Space Telescope photograph of the universe evokes far more awe for creation than light streaming through a stained glass window in a cathedral. I mean, come on, that photo is an actual representation of the reality that God created, if that's what you believe. So why not embrace science rather than fear it?

Why do people fear it?

They've been sold a bill of goods by people who like the warfare model of science and religion, particularly fundamentalists and militant atheists. Both sides want to force a choice and debunk the other side. But it need not be so. It's an incorrect interpretation promoted by extremists. The tendency is for liberals to embrace science and conservatives to mistrust it. Conservatives like technology but tend to be leery about science because it threatens their religions. They fear the Darwinian worldview is the liberal worldview, which says that if there is no God, there is no absolute right and wrong. And without an Archimedean point outside of ourselves that says this is right or wrong, then anything goes, there's no basis for morality. Therefore America will go to hell in a moral handbasket.

What do you say to them?

I say you don't need religion, or political ideology, to understand human nature. Science reveals that human nature is greedy and selfish, altruistic and helpful. Conservatives can find family values in nature. We are pair-bonded. We practice serial monogamy. Human infants are helpless for such a long time that it's better to have two parents rather than one to raise them. That's what Darwin gives us. He showed us how we evolved to be cooperative and altruistic within our groups, and competitive and avaricious between them. Within groups, amity; between groups, enmity. That explains a lot about the good and evil in our nature. I'm saying to conservatives, you're right. If you want to use the metaphors of God and Satan, fine, but let's ground them in science.

Why do we reach so hard for a divine force to explain life?

The natural inclination in all humans is to posit a force, a spirit, outside of us. That tendency toward superstitious magical thinking is just built into our nature. What's more, it doesn't cost anything to have a false positive, to assume there's a force behind the lightning or a spirit in the rock. In the ancestral environment, when we evolved, we might think spinning around three times is going to bring rain. Well, once in a while it works and makes everybody happy. And it doesn't cost much to keep doing it. It doesn't take you out of the gene pool.

You sound so benign. Yet your day job is debunking pseudo sciences like rain dances and astrology. There's no harm, then, in me thinking that because I'm a Libra I just might get what I wish for today?

[Laughs] No, for most people astrology is just light entertainment. But the problem with taking it seriously is it can lead to other irrational beliefs. And presumably in an educated democracy we want to have a certain level of education, as Jefferson says, so we can have a serious national discussion about problems. I mean, people who believe in astrology tend to believe all kinds of goofy things. All the pseudo sciences -- astrology, Tarot cards, psychics, mystic healing -- use the exact same principle. They work because we have a selective memory and a confirmation bias. We look forward to finding evidence for what we already believe and forget the rest.

In an hour reading, a psychic will make 200 or 300 statements. If a person walks away with half a dozen things the psychic got right, he's ecstatic. It's like Skinner with the rats. You don't have to reinforce them every time. In fact, they'll press the bar even faster if you give them intermittent reinforcement. It's the same with slot machines. You just have to pay off every once in a while and it will keep us pulling the levers.

Next page: "If you said God is real, and you sent your evidence to the journals ... you'd be laughed out of the room" (http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/23/shermer/index1.html)

Pages 1 2 (http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/23/shermer/index1.html) 3 (http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/23/shermer/index2.html) 4 (http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/23/shermer/index3.html)

[GonzoLays]

Why are these guys so damn preoccupied with God? What in the hell does that have to do with proving the big bang theory or how we evolved from a single cell organism to over 1.5 million species.

[mhgaffney]

Darwinism was an important development because it broke the grip of institutional religion over the human mind. It's also easy to understand why many are skeptical about intelligent design - because they fear, with some justification, that it represents a return to creationism and biblical literalism.

That is not the case, however. There is more to the intelligent design debate than first meets the eye.

What people need to understand is that Darwinism has failed as a scientific theory. Despite Mt Shermer's statments to the contrary, Darwinism has failed at every level. Even in Darwin's day scientists knew about the gaps in the stratigraphic record. Darwin believed that new discoveries would eventually fill in the gaps. But this never happened -- and it's increasingly clear it is not going to happen.

Stephen Jay Gould had a good grasp of the problem. He helped explain it and point toward a solution. His idea of punctuated equilibrium grasps the essence of it. Powerful and growing evidence indicates that the gaps in geology are best explained in terms of enormous cataclysms on planet earth -- that have recurred intermittently in the history of our planet and have played a vital role in the process of speciation -- the emergence of new species.

This is one of the signal failures of Darwinism, which has yet to explain the emergence of a single species. Natural selection tends to preserve species as they are -- not create new ones. Of course, people resists catastrophism for psychological reasons that are not difficult to appreciate. The impermanence of things is an affront to the way we prefer to think about ourselves.

In the 1980s the brilliant astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle calculated that the probability of human evolution in the Darwinian mode at 10 to the minus 40th power -- which as he pointed out, is essentially zero. Hoyle concluded that it is far more likely, from a probability standpoint, that the biological world emerged through a special creation, i.e. God. Not that Hoyle believed this either. He didn't. He put his eggs in a different basket. Hoyle believed that the universe probably had (has) no beginning. Life emerged somewhere sometime, probably long long ago and far far away -- whence it began to spread from galaxy to galaxy. Over eons -- through a process we may never fully understand -- intelligent life emerged and took over the reins of intelligent design.

The implication here is that we are not alone. In short, Hoyle basically agreed with Francis Crick, who -- recall -- received the Nobel Prize for his discovery in the mid 1950s of the double helix. As early as 1973 Crick authored a famous (or infamous) paper, "Directed Panspermia" in which he theorized that extra terrestrial life forms had presided over natural evolution on earth. In other words, we have been carefully cultivated over the millennia.

It's a wild theory - still on the frontier of science -- but becoming less far out with every passing year. Crick looked into the incredible complexities of DNA and saw what was written there -- the present as a mirror of our past and our future.

I hasten to add: IF we have a future. At the moment the issue hangs very much in doubt.

I personally find it comfortng to think there is intelligent life out there in the vastness of the universe -- even there is none here on earth.

MG

[footstepsfrom#27]

I keep wondering why atheists are so obsessed with God???

I like this quote:
What do you say to them?

I say you don't need religion, or political ideology, to understand human nature. Science reveals that human nature is greedy and selfish, altruistic and helpful. Conservatives can find family values in nature. We are pair-bonded. We practice serial monogamy. Human infants are helpless for such a long time that it's better to have two parents rather than one to raise them. That's what Darwin gives us.
Eh...don't look now but few of us are pair bonded anymore, and half of those who are decide that only works till we get tired of it..."serial monogomy"?...what planet is he living on? Serial monogomists are a rare breed today. Human infants are helpless so it's better to have two parents? How 'bout it's better to abort them if they're inconvenient or likely to be economically draining to society...that's what Darwin has really given us.
He showed us how we evolved to be cooperative and altruistic within our groups, and competitive and avaricious between them. Within groups, amity; between groups, enmity. That explains a lot about the good and evil in our nature. I'm saying to conservatives, you're right. If you want to use the metaphors of God and Satan, fine, but let's ground them in science.
It seems to me the whole "survival of the fittest" thing allows for man to kill each other at will, which is what you see in the animal kingdom. We are...after all...according to Darwin, merely animals with bigger brains. With no moral point of acountability, why is murder not logically considered just one organism fighting another for survival as Darwin illustrated? If Darwin is correct, no moral code of ethics is needed in human society any more than it's needed in the animal kingdom.

Thanks for the read though.;D

[Rohirrim]

It seems to me the whole "survival of the fittest" thing allows for man to kill each other at will, which is what you see in the animal kingdom. We are...after all...according to Darwin, merely animals with bigger brains. With no moral point of acountability, why is murder not logically considered just one organism fighting another for survival as Darwin illustrated? If Darwin is correct, no moral code of ethics is needed in human society any more than it's needed in the animal kingdom.

Thanks for the read though.;D

You bring up an interesting point. Perhaps man is the only creature on earth with the will, and the ability, to decide whether he should evolve, or not? ;D

[BroncoInferno]

I keep wondering why atheists are so obsessed with God???

It's more or less because there have been (and continue to be) attempts by certain sects of Christianity (not all sects, by any means, but a fair segment of the population nonetheless) to incorporate laws, based solely on their religious beliefs, that will effect everyone (including nonbelievers). You also have hot topic issues like homosexuality, which many religious people condemn and attempt to marginialize (again, not all, but many). Personally, I don't care one drop if someone wants to believe in Jesus or the Easter bunny, so long as those beliefs aren't forced on me via law and don't make life a bit more difficult for certain segment of the population that isn't causing harm to anyone else.

[alkemical]

I keep wondering why atheists are so obsessed with God???

I like this quote:

Eh...don't look now but few of us are pair bonded anymore, and half of those who are decide that only works till we get tired of it..."serial monogomy"?...what planet is he living on? Serial monogomists are a rare breed today. Human infants are helpless so it's better to have two parents? How 'bout it's better to abort them if they're inconvenient or likely to be economically draining to society...that's what Darwin has really given us.

It seems to me the whole "survival of the fittest" thing allows for man to kill each other at will, which is what you see in the animal kingdom. We are...after all...according to Darwin, merely animals with bigger brains. With no moral point of acountability, why is murder not logically considered just one organism fighting another for survival as Darwin illustrated? If Darwin is correct, no moral code of ethics is needed in human society any more than it's needed in the animal kingdom.

Thanks for the read though.;D


Guns and Cars helped remove 'survival of the fittest' as well -

[TailgateNut]

It's more or less because there have been (and continue to be) attempts by certain sects of Christianity (not all sects, by any means, but a fair segment of the population nonetheless) to incorporate laws, based solely on their religious beliefs, that will effect everyone (including nonbelievers). You also have hot topic issues like homosexuality, which many religious people condemn and attempt to marginialize (again, not all, but many). Personally, I don't care one drop if someone wants to believe in Jesus or the Easter bunny, so long as those beliefs aren't forced on me via law and don't make life a bit more difficult for certain segment of the population that isn't causing harm to anyone else.


Don't you realize they are just trying to SAVE us heathens by shoving their beliefs down our collective throats!

[BroncoInferno]

Don't you realize they are just trying to SAVE us heathens by shoving their beliefs down our collective throats!

It would seem to me that obedience to God wouldn't mean a whole if achieved via government coercion rather than free choice, but, hell, what do I know ???

[footstepsfrom#27]

Don't you realize they are just trying to SAVE us heathens by shoving their beliefs down our collective throats!
Actually I've seen far more proselytizing in here by atheists than fundies.

Go figure.

[TailgateNut]

Actually I've seen far more proselytizing in here by atheists than fundies.

Go figure.


You may be right regarding this MB, but i the real world the opposite tends to be closer to the truth.

[BroncoInferno]

Actually I've seen far more proselytizing in here by atheists than fundies.

Go figure.

Usually when religion is brought up on this board, it is within a political context. So, sure, you will be inundated with arguments from the other side when topics like gay marriage and intelligent design come up. In the real world, though, that doesn't tend to be the case. I know in my part of the woods I try to avoid religious discussions if possible, especially at work, as my views are certainly in the minority and are not usually received well or with a whole lot of respect.

[TailgateNut]

It would seem to me that obedience to God wouldn't mean a whole if achieved via government coercion rather than free choice, but, hell, what do I know ???


I always thought this country was based on freedom of choice, but that was before the religious right put George in the White House. Now we're fugged, but were not burning flags and those damned gays aren't getting married!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Usually when religion is brought up on this board, it is within a political context. So, sure, you will be inundated with arguments from the other side when topics like gay marriage and intelligent design come up. In the real world, though, that doesn't tend to be the case. I know in my part of the woods I try to avoid religious discussions if possible, especially at work, as my views are certainly in the minority and are not usually received well or with a whole lot of respect.


Maybe you should consider the context. Look at where you live.

I've spent some time in SC. I think that it's much less about the religion and much more about the culture. Those people are ardent loyalists.

The situation is much different elsewhere. In the areas of Texas and Oklahoma that I have lived in, the schools have had a decidedly anti-religion curriculum since the early 1980's. At the same time I was forced to attend classes on American Indian culture and the sciences.

A real class on the Bible was not available, even as an elective. Odd, considering the number of taxpayers that claim to believe in what it says.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Actually I've seen far more proselytizing in here by atheists than fundies.

Go figure.


This is correct. It is in the tradition of this forum.

[Mile High Shack]

i'm much happier w/God than w/o him

been in both places in my life

[BroncoInferno]

Maybe you should consider the context. Look at where you live.

I've spent some time in SC. I think that it's much less about the religion and much more about the culture. Those people are ardent loyalists.

This is true. That's pretty much the case throughout most of the south. Agnostic and atheistic viewpoints are not well received in these parts (generally speaking).

The situation is much different elsewhere. In the areas of Texas and Oklahoma that I have lived in, the schools have had a decidedly anti-religion curriculum since the early 1980's. At the same time I was forced to attend classes on American Indian culture and the sciences.

What do you mean by "anti-religion"? Just not teaching overtly religious precepts, or actual denouncements of religious precepts?

A real class on the Bible was not available, even as an elective. Go figure.

I do not believe there was one available at my school, either; nor should it have been. Churches are all over the place and free to attend; if one wants an extensive Biblical education, that's the place to go. Even in a public school environment the religious still can express themselves. There is no rule against students forming Bible study groups amongst themselves on school grounds, so long as it is not officially sanctioned by the school.

[BroncoInferno]

Odd, considering the number of taxpayers that claim to believe in what it says.

A lot of taxpayers like to read Playboy, too; should we allow that in schools?

[epicSocialism4tw]

A lot of taxpayers like to read Playboy, too; should we allow that in schools?


Okay, that's possibly the most incongruent comparison that I've ever seen on this site.

[alkemical]

Okay, that's possibly the most incongruent comparison that I've ever seen on this site.


Not really - i mean if you are stating that "majority" of the populous does X - then it should be allowd in public schools.

Personally i think all religion should either be left out, or all religions have to be INCLUDED - i'm with the left out. Religion is best learned at home, and if you want it in school - go to a private school.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I do not believe there was one available at my school, either; nor should it have been. Churches are all over the place and free to attend; if one wants an extensive Biblical education, that's the place to go. Even in a public school environment the religious still can express themselves. There is no rule against students forming Bible study groups amongst themselves on school grounds, so long as it is not officially sanctioned by the school.

You are missing the point. In a representative democracy, localities are allowed to fix their education standard to the appropriate needs and wishes of the immediate constituency.

The authority on the subject (the philosopher) seems to think that any number of suitable paradigms exist in the human collective. Why does the school system force the philosophy of science on the whole of the body of students? Very few of those students will go on to use science at all in their vocation. A liberal arts education should allow for a student to pursue other interests at the behest of their parents, and not to force an unneccesary philosophy down their throats.

We can argue the merits of one or the other until the South rises again, but it will not change the fact that neither will be uprooted. Well, I take that back...science uproots itself quite regularly.

You are screaming "Science is true!!!!", and the matierialists agree. But, the world is not made up of materialists alone. Truth is so elusive that we have to wonder if it even exists at all. Ironically, truth might just be an idea alone.

[BroncoInferno]

Okay, that's possibly the most incongruent comparison that I've ever seen on this site.

How? Playboy includes educational materials (i.e. short stories written by respected authors, articles on geopolitical issues, extensive study of the human anatomy ;D). This is the logical extension about the "majority" getting to determine what is taught in public schools. I suspect your tone would change if you found you weren't in the majority.

[RaiderH8r]

I like the article. Now, time to prostelitize (sp? screw it). Come to the Church of the Holy Pedestrian. Jesus walked, his apostles walked, we all walk, its a fundamental similarity. Jaywalking is the only hellworthy tresspass. Joe Pesci is a prophet. Why? He gets **** done.

I don't know that a course in philosophy and relgious thought in a High school would be a bad thing. Good, bad or indifferent, religion and philosophy have shaped the way we live our lives every day. It might have some value to understand where the dogma came from, how it evolved, differences in perspective, etc. I found it a tremendously interesting course (Methodist College...as an atheist (since converted and started my own church) Why? Football, that's why.)

[RaiderH8r]

How? Playboy includes educational materials (i.e. short stories written by respected authors, articles on geopolitical issues, extensive study of the human anatomy ;D). This is the logical extension about the "majority" getting to determine what is taught in public schools. I suspect your tone would change if you found you weren't in the majority.
Hustler is extensive study of the human anatomy, Playboy is an aesthetic study of the human anatomy. ;D

[errand]

Why are these guys so damn preoccupied with God? What in the hell does that have to do with proving the big bang theory or how we evolved from a single cell organism to over 1.5 million species.

A million miles in this vast universe we inhabit is like a toad's hair....now think about this -

If the earth was one million miles closer to the sun, it would be uninhabitable...period. A vast wasteland of sand.

If the earth was a million miles further away from the sun it would be uninhabitable as well....a vast wasteland of tundra.

This suggests that the earth was placed here carefully to sustain life. I choose to believe it was by God...others choose to think it was luck.

As for evolution, if it was true, then why have the apes stopped evolving?

[errand]

You bring up an interesting point. Perhaps man is the only creature on earth with the will, and the ability, to decide whether he should evolve, or not? ;D

...or perhaps we have been created by God and given morals, and dominion over animals like the Bible says?

No law has prevented a crime from being committed, criminals will always committ crimes. People with morals will not.

[errand]

Personally, I don't care one drop if someone wants to believe in Jesus or the Easter bunny, so long as those beliefs aren't forced on me via law and don't make life a bit more difficult for certain segment of the population that isn't causing harm to anyone else.

Which is odd since you being a liberal have cheered when activist judges have run roughshod over the will of the people......

[errand]

i'm much happier w/God than w/o him

been in both places in my life

Exactly...couldn't have said it better myself.

[errand]

Okay, that's possibly the most incongruent comparison that I've ever seen on this site.

I agree ...his statement is patently false. Everyone knows nobody reads Playboy.

[The Lone Bolt]

As for evolution, if it was true, then why have the apes stopped evolving?

Organisms evolve when they adjust to environmental demands. We cannot know that the apes "stopped evolving" because we have no way of knowing if they have reached an equilibrium with their environment. Sharks for example have changed little in the last several million years because they are adapted well enough to their environment in their current configuration that they have been able to survive and pass on their genes with little change. Species that encounter environmental changes that threaten their survival either adapt or die off. Sharks have not encountered such environmental challenges, but those species that have and have overcome them adapt to environmental changes through genetic changes that occur either through mutation or selective breeding (or both). These genetic changes promote survival of the organisms and thus survival the genes which carry the change. That is how phenotypic changes are passed down from one generation to another.

Second of all we cannot know if apes have stopped evolving because evolution in relatively long lived organisms such as apes cannot be directly observed. If the species has not changes significantly in the past 100,000 years or so it doesn't necessarily mean that the process of evolution has stopped.

[alkemical]

A million miles in this vast universe we inhabit is like a toad's hair....now think about this -

If the earth was one million miles closer to the sun, it would be uninhabitable...period. A vast wasteland of sand.

If the earth was a million miles further away from the sun it would be uninhabitable as well....a vast wasteland of tundra.

This suggests that the earth was placed here carefully to sustain life. I choose to believe it was by God...others choose to think it was luck.

As for evolution, if it was true, then why have the apes stopped evolving?


But only... life as 'we' know it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

As for evolution, if it was true, then why have the apes stopped evolving?
Who told you this tripe, the local pastor?

[alkemical]

I don't understand why all this galvanizing towards science and religion/spirituality?

In the golden age people combined them and came up with wonderful and newly beautiful concepts in which helped enrich the world.

Stoopid Huemans

[The Lone Bolt]

What people need to understand is that Darwinism has failed as a scientific theory. Despite Mt Shermer's statments to the contrary, Darwinism has failed at every level. Even in Darwin's day scientists knew about the gaps in the stratigraphic record. Darwin believed that new discoveries would eventually fill in the gaps. But this never happened -- and it's increasingly clear it is not going to happen.

How is that "increasingly clear?" Life has existed on this world for approximately 3 BILLION years. It should come as no surprise that in the mere 100 or so years that humans have been actively uncovering and classifying fossils that every single species that has existed on Earth has not yet been discovered.


This is one of the signal failures of Darwinism, which has yet to explain the emergence of a single species. Natural selection tends to preserve species as they are -- not create new ones.

Not true at all. Natural selection promotes the continuation of genes that are favorable to the survival of a species. If the environment changes then those organisms best suited to surviving the changes live and pass on their genes, The rest die off and do not pass on their genes. Genetic changes occur through mutations and selective breeding. If any change enhances the survival of an organism then that organism passes that change on to another generation (unlike it's less fortunate conspecifics who are stuck with the old, less survival-enhancing genes). Those that are born with genetic changes that diminish survivability do not pass on their genes. Therefore natural selection does indeed favor genetic (and thus phenotypic) change when the environment demands it.

In the 1980s the brilliant astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle calculated that the probability of human evolution in the Darwinian mode at 10 to the minus 40th power -- which as he pointed out, is essentially zero. Hoyle concluded that it is far more likely, from a probability standpoint, that the biological world emerged through a special creation, i.e. God. Not that Hoyle believed this either. He didn't. He put his eggs in a different basket. Hoyle believed that the universe probably had (has) no beginning. Life emerged somewhere sometime, probably long long ago and far far away -- whence it began to spread from galaxy to galaxy. Over eons -- through a process we may never fully understand -- intelligent life emerged and took over the reins of intelligent design.

The probability of human evolution occurring is only a guess. Too many factors involved to make an accurate calculation. And how could Hoyle conclude that it was less than the probablility of IT if the probability of IT is impossible to calculate considering we have not established the existence of a designing intelligence?

There are an estimated 100-400 billion stars in our galaxy alone, and an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the known universe. In all of that infinite space and countless stars and possible planets, how can the evolution of intelligent species like our own be considered a fluke?

[BroncoInferno]

Which is odd since you being a liberal have cheered when activist judges have run roughshod over the will of the people......

It's, of course, only activism when it's something you don't like. If the judges were to overturn abortion laws (something a majority of Americas are OK with), I doubt we would hear any bemoaning of "activism" from conservatives.

By the way, it's not the job of judges to answer to the "will of the people". The judiciary was set up as it is precisely so there would be a way to rule on cases fairly, without judges being influenced by changing shifts in popular opinion.

[DBruleU]

Nice thread title.

I wonder how "Joyful" it will be after life w/out God?

I'd be more concerned about that, in all honesty.

[alkemical]

Nice thread title.

I wonder how "Joyful" it will be after life w/out God?

I'd be more concerned about that, in all honesty.


I'm sure some people have a fine life with it DBRULEU - it's fine with me - not my cup of tea - but i like my tea made a bit differently.

[sisterhellfyre]

There are an estimated 100-400 billion stars in our galaxy alone, and an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the known universe. In all of that infinite space and countless stars and possible planets, how can the evolution of intelligent species like our own be considered a fluke?

In a truly infinite universe, every possibility is inevitable.

Regards,
m.

[sisterhellfyre]

Much happier w/God than w/o Her.

Exactly...couldn't have said it better myself.

There, guys, fixed it for y'all. Don't thank me or nuthin'. :-)

Regards,
m.

[The Lone Bolt]

In a truly infinite universe, every possibility is inevitable.

Regards,
m.

And our galaxy is considered one of the smaller ones.

[Mile High Shack]

There, guys, fixed it for y'all. Don't thank me or nuthin'. :-)

Regards,
m.

I don't think it matters really.......God isn't a physical being

[alkemical]

There, guys, fixed it for y'all. Don't thank me or nuthin'. :-)

Regards,
m.


Yeah the OT god is rather like a woman scorned. ;)

[alkemical]

And our galaxy is considered one of the smaller ones.


Only if a larger one is looking at us....

[gunns]

I'm one who likes life with God. I'm also one who believes that God gave us science and they both work hand in hand. It's the human that comes up with the wrong theory that confuses us all since we can't make 1 + 1= 2. It's also the humans belief in one side or another and refusal to see the other side at all.

[mhgaffney]

How is that "increasingly clear?" Life has existed on this world for approximately 3 BILLION years. It should come as no surprise that in the mere 100 or so years that humans have been actively uncovering and classifying fossils that every single species that has existed on Earth has not yet been discovered.

I was not talking about a missing link. I am talking about missing layers of the stratigraphic record. There are disparities, for example, between the cretaceous and tertiary epochs, the so called K-T junction. The layers below the break are fossil rich -- with many species represented. Then, just above the K-T line the record suddenly and dramatically changes. Almost none of the species below the line are represented. There is a void, with very few species. Then, as you move higher the number of species slowly increases again.

Darwin believed that this break was an artifact -- that for some reason a large chunk of the geological record had been erased -- possibly by erosion. We now know this is wrong. Instead of "missing strata" we have a genuine break. Many scientists today believe an extinction event was responsible. A catastrophe occurred on earth that erased not just strata but a large fraction of life itself. The evidence for this is mounting.


[/QUOTE]
The probability of human evolution occurring is only a guess. [/QUOTE]

Exactly. This is why Darwinisn is but one theory and should be accorded no special status, especially since it has yet to document a single case where one species changes into another species. Not even one case. Yet, Darwinism has become a sacred cow -- criticism not welcome. This is not genuine science. We must be continually questioning and trying to explain anomalies.

[/QUOTE]
There are an estimated 100-400 billion stars in our galaxy alone, and an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the known universe. In all of that infinite space and countless stars and possible planets, how can the evolution of intelligent species like our own be considered a fluke?[/QUOTE]

The universe is probably teaming with life. But the actual creation of life -- that's another separate question. The complexities of even the simplest cell are so far beyond inorganic matter that it's fair to question the improbability of life's emergence. Then consider the complexities of human intelligence, which are so far beyond the single cell that we are almost at a loss for words to describe the chasm.

Life may be common -- though it's original emergence extremely rare. This was Hoye and Crick's reasoning -- and I find it hard to fault.

MG

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

......God isn't a physical being

How do you know this for sure?

I'm sure that if I were to ask you to define God, you would give me something like the standard brand image of a cosmic male parent or a monarch who sits on a golden throne above the stars.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...or perhaps we have been created by God and given morals, and dominion over animals like the Bible says?

Actually, this is closer to the truth:

Man did not weave the web of life;
he is merely a strand in it.
Whatever he does to the web,
he does to himself.

- Chief Seattle

[kappys]

I don't think it matters really.......God isn't a physical being

You could argue that God is by defintion an infintely powerful being. Stating that he must be a physical being would place a limit on that, as would stating that he could not assume the form of a physical being if it suited him.

[mhgaffney]

Actually, this is closer to the truth:

Man did not weave the web of life;
he is merely a strand in it.
Whatever he does to the web,
he does to himself.

- Chief Seattle

Exactly.

This is why when Bush/Cheney bomb other nations thay are actually bombing America.

[Saddletramp]

there is no joy in life with out God.

[Hogan11]

Nice thread title.

I wonder how "Joyful" it will be after life w/out God?

I'd be more concerned about that, in all honesty.

"Imagine there's no heaven.....it's easy if you try...etc."

[Saddletramp]

so are you saying there is no heaven? :kiddingme

[Hogan11]

so are you saying there is no heaven? :kiddingme

I'm sayin' that maybe Lennon was right afterall...

[Saddletramp]

okay

[epicSocialism4tw]

I'm sayin' that maybe Lennon was right afterall...

Lennon was more confused than your average bear.

Maybe he learned the true path through beating and alienating his wife, taking massive amounts of LSD, and smoking marijuana regularly.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Lennon was more confused than your average bear.

Not during the last few years of his life.

Maybe he learned the true path through beating and alienating his wife, taking massive amounts of LSD, and smoking marijuana regularly.

:oyvey:

None of which has any bearing on the question of whether the things he believed, i.e., about God, heaven, etc., are true or not.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

so are you saying there is no heaven? :kiddingme

I was watching the History Channel the other night, and some Bible scholar or other was saying that, in every instance in which it appears in the Bible, the word "heaven," when translated, is a reference to the sky (as opposed to some mythical place in the hereafter.)

[footstepsfrom#27]

I was watching the History Channel the other night, and some Bible scholar or other was saying that, in every instance in which it appears in the Bible, the word "heaven," when translated, is a reference to the sky (as opposed to some mythical place in the hereafter.)
BAAAHAAA! That's funny...LOL

1) that's a lie, and 2) Lemme guess...the "scholar" is from...where?...Princeton?...Harvard?...Fuller Seminary?...some other leftist/theologically liberal school? Well obviously he's counting on a low level of familiarity with basic biblical study resources among his audience. From Strongs Exhausive Concordance (trust me it is exhaustive and exhastING as well), the definitive work on Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Chaldean dictionaries for Biblical translation...you'll find this on the most used words for heaven (there are actually several words used and in addition to "sky" the word is also translated "dust", "whirlwind", "clouds", "wheel", "firmament", etc...there are hundreds of referenced verses and associated translations...look 'em up if you've got a couple of free hours. The most common:

Heaven

Hebrew- 8064; "shamayim" (shaw-mah-yim) from the root "shameh" (shaw-meh) meaning to be lofty, the sky as aloft, the dual; perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve; air, astrologer, heaven

Chaldean- 8065; "shamayn" (shaw-mah-yin, coresponding to 8065, heaven

Greek- 3772; "ouranos" (oo-ran-os), perhaps from the same as 3735, (through the idea of elevation) the sky, by extention "heaven", as the abode of God, by implication "happiness", "power", "eternity"; specifically "the Gospel" (Christianity), "air", "heaven[ly]", "the sky"

Since context is critical in translation, something any linguist or first year seminary student knows, it's absurd to suggest that even if the same word was used in every instance where the word "heaven" is translated (which it's not), that has nothing to do with how the word should be translated.

Sorry...your "scholar" is a phony.;D

[Saddletramp]

I was watching the History Channel the other night, and some Bible scholar or other was saying that, in every instance in which it appears in the Bible, the word "heaven," when translated, is a reference to the sky (as opposed to some mythical place in the hereafter.)
why does this not surprise me coming from you? :kiddingme


labf I swear I dont know if you make posts like this to get to people, you actually believe the :bs: you post or if you are just an idiot. ??? :kiddingme

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Since context is critical in translation, something any linguist or first year seminary student knows,

Sorry...your "scholar" is a phony.;D

Ah, you just have to have the "right" translators to understand "heaven".

[gunns]

I was watching the History Channel the other night, and some Bible scholar or other was saying that, in every instance in which it appears in the Bible, the word "heaven," when translated, is a reference to the sky (as opposed to some mythical place in the hereafter.)

Some people, when referring to heaven, are referring to the sky, as in looking to the heavens, some are referring to a place or state of mind, as in when I go to heaven. Bible scholars are just like anyone else stating something about the Bible, it's their opinion. What makes the difference is a person's faith and what they believe in.

[Rohirrim]

I'm sayin' that maybe Lennon was right afterall...

More right than just about anyone I've heard in my life:

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...


You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
and the world will be as one.


Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

[Spider]

Freaking hippy ;D

[alkemical]

Some people, when referring to heaven, are referring to the sky, as in looking to the heavens, some are referring to a place or state of mind, as in when I go to heaven. Bible scholars are just like anyone else stating something about the Bible, it's their opinion. What makes the difference is a person's faith and what they believe in.


nothing is true, everything is permissible.

[alkemical]

Ah, you just have to have the "right" translators to understand "heaven".



Of course, you need an authority to tell you what a higher authority ment...:pimp:

[footstepsfrom#27]

Ah, you just have to have the "right" translators to understand "heaven".
It has nothing to do with the "right" translators. It has to do with simple, basic definitions of words and the LAWS of language and how it's understood called "hermeneutics". You're using those laws right now...without even realizing it. If you're reading my words and using the principles of linguistical analysis...ie; grammar, syntax, vocabulary, context...etc...you're using hermeneutics...the SAME hermeneutics that ALL written forms of communication are subject to. This is not that tough. Words have meanings and those meanings are known, catalogued and established by thousands of scholars over centuries of work. Do you wish to differ on the meanings? Explain why if that's the case.

Tell me how anyone could take from the following statement that the word should be translated "sky":

"My Father, which art in Heaven, hallowed by thy name"..."thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Even if you're not familiar with Hebrew or Koine Greek, common sense should tell you that a word that has multiple meanings and is used hundreds of times is not going to be used to mean the same thing every time, which is what this guy's saying. Common sense should also tell you that the Hebrews and Greeks who these writings were issued to both had the well established concept of "heaven" in their theology, and they didn't get it by being to stupid to understand their own language.

This is not subject to debate, nor is it a matter of interpretation or even an issue of theology. The "scholar" is simply being intellectually dishonest. He's counting on his audience being to simple minded to know better or to lazy to check his work.

He's probably right...;D

[Bronco_Beerslug]

He's counting on his audience being to simple minded to know better or to lazy to check his work.
He's probably right...;D
Yeah, how could anyone (not at least a first year seminary student) have a different interpretation of anything biblical and know what they're talking about.

[alkemical]

well since most people aren't linguists or have got to seminary school - it's settled, most people have no idea what god is talking bout.....

[footstepsfrom#27]

Yeah, how could anyone (not at least a first year seminary student) have a different interpretation of anything biblical and know what they're talking about.
Dude...you and the "scholar" are, for all practical purposes...basically arguing with the DICTIONARY, and it's painfully apparent you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so give it up.

Strong's is essentially the closest you'll get to Websters...an exhaustive lexicon of every single Old and New Testament word in the Bible backed by a level of research few things on on the planet compare to. It is not a commentary, not beholden to any theological treatise, and not even put together by a single source or a single theological view. Strong's was compiled by over a hundred of the best scholars of their day, including theological liberals, and was painstakingly edited multiple times over the course of more than a century. You might just as well argue about the word's we're using in here. Unless you can offer something substantive in terms of criticism...you're only making yourself look more and more foolish.

[alkemical]

Dude...you and the "scholar" are, for all practical purposes...basically arguing with the DICTIONARY, and it's painfully apparent you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so give it up.

Strong's is essentially the closest you'll get to Websters...an exhaustive lexicon of every single Old and New Testament word in the Bible backed by a level of research few things on on the planet compare to. It is not a commentary, not beholden to any theological treatise, and not even put together by a single source or a single theological view. Strong's was compiled by over a hundred of the best scholars of their day, including theological liberals, and was painstakingly edited multiple times over the course of more than a century. You might just as well argue about the word's we're using in here. Unless you can offer something substantive in terms of criticism...you're only making yourself look more and more foolish.



used gysin to method cutup brion point illustrate

[TheDave]

used gysin to method cutup brion point illustrate


Alright now i'm really confused

[epicSocialism4tw]

used gysin to method cutup brion point illustrate

This thread has devolved into jibberish. :)

[gunns]

Alright now i'm really confused

Me too. Am I going to hell now? Naw I don't believe in hell. People create their own hell, in my opinion.

[TheDave]

Me too. Am I going to hell now? Naw I don't believe in hell. People create their own hell, in my opinion.


Your definitely going to hell.... I'll save you a seat :thumbs:

[epicSocialism4tw]

Dude...you and the "scholar" are, for all practical purposes...basically arguing with the DICTIONARY, and it's painfully apparent you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so give it up.

Strong's is essentially the closest you'll get to Websters...an exhaustive lexicon of every single Old and New Testament word in the Bible backed by a level of research few things on on the planet compare to. It is not a commentary, not beholden to any theological treatise, and not even put together by a single source or a single theological view. Strong's was compiled by over a hundred of the best scholars of their day, including theological liberals, and was painstakingly edited multiple times over the course of more than a century. You might just as well argue about the word's we're using in here. Unless you can offer something substantive in terms of criticism...you're only making yourself look more and more foolish.

I have always been impressed with the level of Biblical scholarship throughout the ages. There has been nothing more rigorously analyzed academically in the West. I once doubted the authenticity of the Bible, challenged myself to actually dig a bit, and came out surprised at the great scholarship that has gone into the canon.

Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ" is a good place to start for those that doubt the authenticity. His story is basically my story.

[alkemical]

Alright now i'm really confused


used gysin to method cutup brion point illustrate


Used Brion Gysin cutup method to illustrate point

Words are more powerful than you think.

[alkemical]

This thread has devolved into jibberish. :)


you familiar with this llama?

[epicSocialism4tw]

you familiar with this llama?

Nah, what is it?

[alkemical]

I have always been impressed with the level of Biblical scholarship throughout the ages. There has been nothing more rigorously analyzed academically in the West. I once doubted the authenticity of the Bible, challenged myself to actually dig a bit, and came out surprised at the great scholarship that has gone into the canon.

Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ" is a good place to start for those that doubt the authenticity. His story is basically my story.


Find a copy of William Stirling's Canon - it's pretty cool - it does have some paganism - but not as for any real religious purpose - just to explain sacred geo in architecture, etc - pretty cool....

[alkemical]

Nah, what is it?



Lots of singers/songwriters today use it (dave matthews, mike stipe as example) -

you basically write something or take something written - cut it up and rearrange it - since it's sort of foreign, it forces your brain to actually read to understand instead of the normal reading we do (which we only really read probably 25% - rest is lost pretty quickly) - i've used it for fun - and it's powerful - (I think it works like tarot priciple - you cut it up and allow the subcons. to rearrange them in a proper order)

[epicSocialism4tw]

Lots of singers/songwriters today use it (dave matthews, mike stipe as example) -

you basically write something or take something written - cut it up and rearrange it - since it's sort of foreign, it forces your brain to actually read to understand instead of the normal reading we do (which we only really read probably 25% - rest is lost pretty quickly) - i've used it for fun - and it's powerful - (I think it works like tarot priciple - you cut it up and allow the subcons. to rearrange them in a proper order)

Interesting.

Here's mine:

"Mushrooms at smell concert dirty on phish dance a like and pachouli hippies armpit."

[alkemical]

Interesting.

Here's mine:

"Mushrooms at smell concert dirty on phish dance a like and pachouli hippies armpit."


lol

try it with some print media like a magazine (my fav. is the WWN) - and see what you come up with.

(PS that was funny)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

why does this not surprise me coming from you? :kiddingme


labf I swear I dont know if you make posts like this to get to people, you actually believe the :bs: you post or if you are just an idiot. ??? :kiddingme

Yo jackass:

If you could comprehend what you read, you would see that the claim didn't 'come from' me - it came from some Bible scholar on the History Channel.

If you have a problem, take it up with him.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

BAAAHAAA! That's funny...LOL

1) that's a lie, and 2) Lemme guess...the "scholar" is from...where?...Princeton?...Harvard?...Fuller Seminary?...some other leftist/theologically liberal school? Well obviously he's counting on a low level of familiarity with basic biblical study resources among his audience. From Strongs Exhausive Concordance (trust me it is exhaustive and exhastING as well), the definitive work on Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Chaldean dictionaries for Biblical translation...you'll find this on the most used words for heaven (there are actually several words used and in addition to "sky" the word is also translated "dust", "whirlwind", "clouds", "wheel", "firmament", etc...there are hundreds of referenced verses and associated translations...look 'em up if you've got a couple of free hours. The most common:

Heaven

Hebrew- 8064; "shamayim" (shaw-mah-yim) from the root "shameh" (shaw-meh) meaning to be lofty, the sky as aloft, the dual; perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve; air, astrologer, heaven

Chaldean- 8065; "shamayn" (shaw-mah-yin, coresponding to 8065, heaven

Greek- 3772; "ouranos" (oo-ran-os), perhaps from the same as 3735, (through the idea of elevation) the sky, by extention "heaven", as the abode of God, by implication "happiness", "power", "eternity"; specifically "the Gospel" (Christianity), "air", "heaven[ly]", "the sky"

Since context is critical in translation, something any linguist or first year seminary student knows, it's absurd to suggest that even if the same word was used in every instance where the word "heaven" is translated (which it's not), that has nothing to do with how the word should be translated.

Sorry...your "scholar" is a phony.;D


Actually, the guy was referring to Strong's Concordance in his presentation.

But the following statement says it all re: your particular set of biases and forgone conclusions, doesn't it?

Lemme guess...the "scholar" is from...where?...Princeton?...Harvard?...Fuller Seminary?...some other leftist/theologically liberal school?

[sisterhellfyre]

(Ref: The Hebrew definition of "heaven.")

Actually, the guy was referring to Strong's Concordance in his presentation.

But the following statement says it all re: your particular set of biases and forgone conclusions, doesn't it?

Oh no. It is too late on Friday afternoon to even get anywhere close to this one.

Backing slowly away from the keyboard...

Regards,
m.

[Saddletramp]

Yo jackass:

If you could comprehend what you read, you would see that the claim didn't 'come from' me - it came from some Bible scholar on the History Channel.

If you have a problem, take it up with him.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! LOL LOL


man you do have a short fuse. Thanks for the laughs.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! LOL LOL


man you do have a short fuse. Thanks for the laughs.

This from an ignoramus who saw a statement made by some guy on the History Channel, mistakenly attributed that statement to me, and knee-jerked, i.e., called me an "idiot," without even realizing his error in comprehension/attribution?

ROFL! That's a thigh-slapper.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Actually, the guy was referring to Strong's Concordance in his presentation.
Well if that's the case he's not only deceptive, he's also stupid. Hint: if you're going to quote something...better quote what it actually says...just in case somebody else has the source you're quoting. Duh. LOL
But the following statement says it all re: your particular set of biases and forgone conclusions, doesn't it?
Actually it only shows I know where this kind of idiocy comes from. If by "biases" you mean that I think one ought to tell the truth...guilty as charged. If by "forgone conclusions", you mean I'm capable of identifying something that walks and quacks like a duck as a duck...again...guilty on all counts.

Let's face it...the guy's not terribly smart is he? I'd expect somebody making foolish claims like this to decline to reveal sources...maybe alude to something vague that can't be easily checked...not to quote something easily obtainable and basically tell you where to look to prove that their full of it. Ha! Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If by "biases" you mean that I think one ought to tell the truth...guilty as charged.

No.

When I said "bias" I had the following statement in mind:

Lemme guess...the "scholar" is from...where?...Princeton?...Harvard?...Fuller Seminary?...some other leftist/theologically liberal school?

So, the upshot is, if I'm hearing you correctly, that neither folks who've received an education at the aforementioned schools nor religious liberals can possibly be in possession of "the truth?" (This is also what I meant by "foregone conclusion," BTW.)

[Spider]

used gysin to method cutup brion point illustrate


Used Brion Gysin cutup method to illustrate point

Words are more powerful than you think.
could you draw me a picture ? ;D

[footstepsfrom#27]

So, the upshot is, if I'm hearing you correctly, that neither folks who've received an education at the aforementioned schools nor religious liberals can possibly be in possession of "the truth?" (This is also what I meant by "foregone conclusion," BTW.)
Not just attended those schools...attended those schools of theology, which are flagships for liberal theological ideas. Mere attendance of course means little. Lots of people attend these liberal theology schools and don't buy the party line, but that doesn't change the fact that pretty much all the liberal theological views come out of these and similiar institutions. All chickens are birds but not all birds are chickens in other words...now as to whether religious liberals are in possession of the truth, on that point you have me crystal clear. Why should that surprise? They deny the deity of Christ, the innerancy of scripture...etc...so it goes without saying I believe they're far from the truth IMO.

It is about opinion in here isn't it?

[Spider]

I have been to the mountian , I know the 3 secerets of life ..........
1.Faster horses
2. younger women
3. More Money .............
Ok I was near the mountian heard a Tom T hall song ............but it still apllies

[Saddletramp]

Not just attended those schools...attended those schools of theology, which are flagships for liberal theological ideas. Mere attendance of course means little. Lots of people attend these liberal theology schools and don't buy the party line, but that doesn't change the fact that pretty much all the liberal theological views come out of these and similiar institutions. All chickens are birds but not all birds are chickens in other words...now as to whether religious liberals are in possession of the truth, on that point you have me crystal clear. Why should that surprise? They deny the deity of Christ, the innerancy of scripture...etc...so it goes without saying I believe they're far from the truth IMO.

It is about opinion in here isn't it?


amen brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DBruleU]

amen brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice Avatar.

[Saddletramp]

Nice Avatar.

thank you sir. You too.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It is about opinion in here isn't it?

Well, I'm glad you can at least acknowledge that your statements about religious liberals are just your own opinion. :thumbsup:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nice Avatar.

thank you sir. You too.

:TJnPopps: The hypocrisy is enough to make you want to hurl. :TJnPopps:

Why choose symbols that are the opposite of what you really stand for?

Reality check:

The *president you support has done incalculable harm to America on almost all fronts, i.e., economic, military, social, environmental, international relations, etc.

The troops you claim to support have lost their lives and limbs unnecessarily in a war the *president you support started on false pretenses, and the party you support continues to slash funds and support for veterans and active duty personnel on a routine basis.

And Jesus? Anyone who knows anything about Christ's teachings knows He wouldn't approve of the torture, rape, and slaughter of innocents in the name of greed and imperial ambition.

If the anti-Christ is a real person or phenomenon, then he/it definitely has guys like you wrapped around his little finger.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

More examples of 'Christian' Love

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8305.html

First up from the God machine this week is a Baptist church that is filled with the Christian spirit — just as long as church officials approve of your racial background.

Fellowship Baptist Church in Saltillo, Mississippi, voted out a 12-year-old boy who "asked Jesus to live in his heart" at the church two weeks ago. Why the ban? Joe is biracial, and church members didn't want the black side of his family attending with him.

They were "afraid Joe might come with his people and have blacks in the church," church pastor John Stevens told the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal.

[footstepsfrom#27]

More examples of 'Christian' Love

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8305.html

First up from the God machine this week is a Baptist church that is filled with the Christian spirit — just as long as church officials approve of your racial background.

Fellowship Baptist Church in Saltillo, Mississippi, voted out a 12-year-old boy who "asked Jesus to live in his heart" at the church two weeks ago. Why the ban? Joe is biracial, and church members didn't want the black side of his family attending with him.

They were "afraid Joe might come with his people and have blacks in the church," church pastor John Stevens told the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal.
These people have the spirit but it's not the Spirit of God.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

These people have the spirit but it's not the Spirit of God.

That's for damn sure.

It's unfortunate that there are so many people like these hypocrites out there who are peddling bigoty, hatred, and intolerance in the name of Christ.

It's even more unfortunate that these are the type of people who always seem to get the lion's share of media attention.

[W*GS]

It's unfortunate that there are so many people like these hypocrites out there who are peddling bigoty, hatred, and intolerance in the name of Christ.

It's even more unfortunate that these are the type of people who always seem to get the lion's share of media attention.

Yeah, like your fellow Democrat Fred Phelps...

[DBruleU]

:TJnPopps: The hypocrisy is enough to make you want to hurl. :TJnPopps:

Why choose symbols that are the opposite of what you really stand for?

Reality check:

The *president you support has done incalculable harm to America on almost all fronts, i.e., economic, military, social, environmental, international relations, etc.

The troops you claim to support have lost their lives and limbs unnecessarily in a war the *president you support started on false pretenses, and the party you support continues to slash funds and support for veterans and active duty personnel on a routine basis.

And Jesus? Anyone who knows anything about Christ's teachings knows He wouldn't approve of the torture, rape, and slaughter of innocents in the name of greed and imperial ambition.

If the anti-Christ is a real person or phenomenon, then he/it definitely has guys like you wrapped around his little finger.

What does the support of a President, or party have anything to do with my faith LABF?

And who are to say I'm not a Christian?

Maybe you should look at yourself before you look at me, after all, that is what Jesus said, isn't it?

You should know since you are obviously so far "above" me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What does the support of a President, or party have anything to do with my faith LABF?

And who are to say I'm not a Christian?

Maybe you should look at yourself before you look at me, after all, that is what Jesus said, isn't it?

You should know since you are obviously so far "above" me.

It's quite simple, really:

Anyone who knows anything about Christ's teachings knows He would not approve of the despicable things the criminal administration you support is doing in all of our names.

[DBruleU]

It's quite simple, really:

Anyone who knows anything about Christ's teachings knows He would not approve of the despicable things the criminal administration you support is doing in all of our names.

Yeah, according to you.

You have an agenda, so I'm not worried about what you think.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah, according to you.

No - according to Christ's teachings as represented in the Bible.

That's what you say you believe in.

You have an agenda, so I'm not worried about what you think.

Whether or not I have an "agenda" has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of my statement.

[DBruleU]

No - according to Christ's teachings as represented in the Bible.

That's what you say you believe in.



Whether or not I have an "agenda" has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of my statement.

So God was not in favor of defending yourself?

Interesting. Needless to say, I should have known better than to get into these types of discussions with you again. It goes no where except in the same merry-go-round that you love so much.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So God was not in favor of defending yourself?

I said Christ. You claim to be a follower of Christ.

Show me where Christ condoned torture, rape, and murder.

Show me where He sanctioned lying.

BTW, Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq wasn't about self-defense. Iraq did not attack us and was no threat to us.

Interesting. Needless to say, I should have known better than to get into these types of discussions with you again.

Because you can't show me where I'm wrong in pointing out that Christ didn't condone torture, rape, or murder.

It goes no where except in the same merry-go-round that you love so much.

That's because you're stuck on a merry-go-round of denial and delusion.

[DBruleU]

I said Christ. You claim to be a follower of Christ.

Show me where Christ condoned torture, rape, and murder.

Show me where He sanctioned lying.

BTW, Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq wasn't about self-defense. Iraq did not attack us and was no threat to us.



Because you can't show me where I'm wrong in pointing out that Christ didn't condone torture, rape, or murder.



That's because you're stuck on a merry-go-round of denial and delusion.

Have you still not figured out that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are the same?

The trinity doesnt have different set of rules or guidelines attributed to them, like you just suggested.

And you're right, Jesus never did condone those things, so whats your point? You still have your own agenda that Bush has commited all of these acts, and hes the worlds worst terrorist. I take what you say with a grain of salt.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And you're right, Jesus never did condone those things, so whats your point?

That you support an administration which engages in actions Jesus did not condone - yet you claim to be a follower of Christ.

[alkemical]

Have you still not figured out that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are the same?

The trinity doesnt have different set of rules or guidelines attributed to them, like you just suggested.

And you're right, Jesus never did condone those things, so whats your point? You still have your own agenda that Bush has commited all of these acts, and hes the worlds worst terrorist. I take what you say with a grain of salt.


Since the concept of the 'trinity' exisited before christianity (from pagans, to native americans, to other religions/philosophies) it can be mired and explained in many different fashions.

But as god, holy spirit and jesus are one in the same (sort of anyway) - it was to be explained as well that you as well are the holy trinity. Were you have in the QBL tradition what makes the supernal triad - to what is indended (IMO) that the holy trinity is ment to explain that God is the source, Holy Spirit is the enabler (if you will, i'm being simple today), and the last one is the physical incarate of the logos or word (which literal bible followers will see only as jesus, which i disagree but that's another issue).

[DBruleU]

That you support an administration which engages in actions Jesus did not condone - yet you claim to be a follower of Christ.

But you said in an earlier post that Jesus would not "sanction" LOL lying, right?

Does that mean you were wrong to support Clinton?

[mhgaffney]

Have you still not figured out that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are the same?

The trinity doesn't have different set of rules or guidelines attributed to them, like you just suggested.


There is zero scriptural foundation for the Christian doctrine of the trinity. You'll look through the New Testament in vain for any passages that support this idea.

The Trinity is one of the dogmas the Church introduced after turning its back on the original mystical and Gnostic teachings of Jesus, in particular, the teaching of the divine and immortal nature of the soul. In this regard, the teaching of Jesus was identical with that of Socrates and the Hindu saints.

However in the second century the Church turned its back on the immortality of the soul and introduced its own theory of the soul. Tatian, Jerome and Gregory of Nyssa contribted to this development of ideas. In the Church's new view, the soul is created along with the body at conception. Even today this remains the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet, very few Christians understand this is the case.

The problem inherent in this new theory of the soul became obvious in the 4th century when a Libyan priest named Arius pointed out the flaw in the Church's soul doctrine.

Arius pointed out that if souls are created out of matter then the soul of Jesus must also have been created thus. Whence was born the Arian controversy, which had to do with the divine versus human nature of Jesus. Things reached a head at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, when Arius was condemned as a heretic. The Church declared that Jesus was one with the Father and had been from all time. But notice this created a rift between God and Man, since ordinary human souls were made of lowly matter.

The Trinity doctrine was also announced at this time -- almost as an afterthought. It followed logically that the Holy Spirit was also of the same divine stuff -- it couldn't be excluded. Hence the Trinity was born.

It is based on a lie: that human souls are not divine but are made of lowly dust. So it happened that Christianity began to persecute the very folks (the Gnostics) who held onto the original teaching of the immortality of the soul.

That's how Christianity became so ****ed up -- and helps to explain the spiritual decline iof the West - which continues even as I write.

MG

[Rohirrim]

There is zero scriptural foundation for the Christian doctrine of the trinity. You'll look through the New Testament in vain for any passages that support this idea....

...That's how Christianity became so ****ed up -- and helps to explain the spiritual decline iof the West - which continues even as I write.

MG

I'm agreeing with you more and more. I must need a check up. ROFL!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But you said in an earlier post that Jesus would not "sanction" LOL lying, right?

Does that mean you were wrong to support Clinton?

I'm not the one who is claiming to be a Christian.

Nevertheless, your feeble attempts to compare lying about a sexual affair to lying about the reason for sending >2,400 Americans and 100,000 Iraqi civilains to their deaths are always amusing.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=1211&dateline=1156878665


ROFL!