God/Jesus Loves You

[REB]

Matthew 5:42-44 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[b] and pray for those who persecute you,

[Northman]

Guess loving the " Evildoers " wasnt included in the Love thy Enemies scripture. lol

[Hogan11]

God listens.....

[REB]

Matthew 6:5
[ Prayer ] "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

[freak6]

Sweet baby jesus told Bush to invade Iraq.

Sweet baby jesus needs to keep his nose out of foriegn policy, and stick with feeding the starving...

http://www.thesahara.fsnet.co.uk/starving/starving_baby.jpg

[Bronco_Beerslug]

42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
I'd need some money for a new boat?

[BroncoBuff]

Guess loving the " Evildoers " wasnt included in the Love thy Enemies scripture. lol

THAT is a powerful, powerful comment.

Reminds me of my 'Easter Sunday' blog on MySpace: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=55764835&blogID=250719821


It's amazing how these neo-Christians seem to disreagrd the New Testament. Jesus didn't mince words much actually.

[DBruleU]

THAT is a powerful, powerful comment.

Reminds me of my 'Easter Sunday' blog on MySpace: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=55764835&blogID=250719821


It's amazing how these neo-Christians seem to disreagrd the New Testament. Jesus didn't mince words much actually.

Huh? Did Jesus say, "Don't defend yourself?"

I mean, He sent the Isrealites into battle, he sent David to slay Goliath.

He wasn't a pacifist by any means.

[Bronco Bob]

Huh? Did Jesus say, "Don't defend yourself?"

I mean, He sent the Isrealites into battle, he sent David to slay Goliath.

He wasn't a pacifist by any means.

Wasn't Jesus the guy who said

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

and

"Blessed are the meek they shall inherit the earth "

and

"Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

Sounds like Jesus was advocating peace to me.

[Taco John]

Huh? Did Jesus say, "Don't defend yourself?"

I mean, He sent the Isrealites into battle, he sent David to slay Goliath.

He wasn't a pacifist by any means.



Matthew 26:52

"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

[Bob]

Somehow, and sadly, I think that this thread is going to end in metaphorical bloodshed... The Freak is lurking somwhere....

[DBruleU]

I think you guys confuse revenge, with self-defense

Here's a good link that will answer this question...although I doubt any of you will take the time to read it. Here's just some scriptures used as evidence.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-pacifist.html

"Out of His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron scepter. He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty." Revelation 19:15

“There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heaven…a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” Ecclesiastes 3:1, 3, & 8

Jesus Himself said, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law---a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household’” Matthew 10:34-36

"From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it" Matthew 11:12

[BroncoBuff]

I mean, He sent the Isrealites into battle, he sent David to slay Goliath.

CLASSIC neo-Christian mistake: You're confusing the OLD Testament with the NEW Testament!












(To clarify: "Jesus" = "New Testament." ;D)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I think you guys confuse revenge, with self-defense


No - you just confuse Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq with self-defense.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Sweet baby jesus told Bush to invade Iraq.

Sweet baby jesus needs to keep his nose out of foriegn policy, and stick with feeding the starving...

http://www.thesahara.fsnet.co.uk/starving/starving_baby.jpg

DOG EAT DOG
Artist: Joni Mitchell

DOG EAT DOG
It's dog eat dog--I'm just waking up
The dove is in the dungeon
And the white-washed hawks pedal hate and call it love
Dog Eat Dog
Holy hope in the hands of
Snakebite evangelists and racketeers
And big wig financiers

DOG EAT DOG
On prime time crime the victim begs
Money is the road to justice
And power walks it on crooked legs
Prime--Time--Crime
Holy hope in the hands of
Snakebite evangelists and racketeers
And big wig financiers

Where the wealth's displayed
Thieves and sycophants parade
And where it's made--
the slaves will be taken
Some are treated well
In these games of buy and sell
And some like poor beast
Are burdened down to breaking

DOG EAT DOG
It's dog eat dog, ain't it Flim Flam man
Dog eat dog, you can lie, cheat, skim, scam
Beat'em any way you can
Dog eat Dog
You'll do well in this land of
Snakebite evangelists and racketeers
You could get to be
A big wig financier

Land of snap decisions
Land of short attention spans
Nothing is savored
Long enough to really understand
In every culture in decline
The watchful ones among the slaves
Know all that is genuine will be
Scorned and conned and cast away

Dog eat dog
People looking, seeing nothing
Dog eat dog
People listening, hearing nothing
Dog eat dog
People lusting, loving nothing
Dog eat dog
People stroking, touching nothing
Dog eat dog
Knowing nothing
Dog eat dog

[Taco John]

I think you guys confuse revenge, with self-defense


Why don't you clear it up then, and show us which scripture Jesus defended himself from his aggressors.

He didn't.

He ran.

John 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

John 10:39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.

Luke 4:29-30 And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. But passing through their midst, he went away.


And his most damning condemnation for even self defense:

Luke 9:23-25 “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?"

[Spider]

Sweet baby jesus told Bush to invade Iraq.

Sweet baby jesus needs to keep his nose out of foriegn policy, and stick with feeding the starving...

http://www.thesahara.fsnet.co.uk/starving/starving_baby.jpg
powerful picture

[TailgateNut]

powerful picture


...not as powerful as a 55Gallon drum of oil and private bank accounts filled with $$$.

[Spider]

...not as powerful as a 55Gallon drum of oil and private bank accounts filled with $$$.

yeah thats true . if it were , that kid would have enough to eat

[Stormontheplains]

How much money do Atheist organizations send to third world countries for hunger? How many houses in south America have they built? I could go on and on. The religion that you gentleman hate, I have never seen. There has been nothing but good come from every church I have been a member of. Our church has spent hundred of thousands feeding, building, and educating the poor from different countries.

[Spider]

How much money do Atheist organizations send to third world countries for hunger? How many houses in south America have they built? I could go on and on. The religion that you gentleman hate, I have never seen. There has been nothing but good come from every church I have been a member of. Our church has spent hundred of thousands feeding, building, and educating the poor from different countries.

Is Jimmy Carter an atheist? I dont know ..... or does he even count ?

[DBruleU]

Why don't you clear it up then, and show us which scripture Jesus defended himself from his aggressors.

He didn't.

He ran.

John 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

John 10:39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.

Luke 4:29-30 And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. But passing through their midst, he went away.


And his most damning condemnation for even self defense:

Luke 9:23-25 “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?"

Do you even know what that scripture means? Like usual, things are taken so far out of context.

That has nothing to do with self-defense, or "running" away like you like to put it. It simply means, to follow Christ, and to be a Christian, we are to deny any of our own ambitions, needs, pleasures, and follow with Him and trust Him completely with our lives. If we live our lives just fulfilling our earthly desires, and do nothing for Christ, we have wasted our lives, and gained nothing for eternal life.

Again though, if you guys would put down your hatred for Christianity, and take the time to read what I posted earlier, you'd find your answers to your arguments right there.

[DBruleU]

CLASSIC neo-Christian mistake: You're confusing the OLD Testament with the NEW Testament!












(To clarify: "Jesus" = "New Testament." ;D)

uh....wha!?

What's your point?

Did Jesus come to do away with the OT? If you think so, then you have a major problem right there that needs clarifying for you in order to read the Bible correctly.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily I say to you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven". Matthew 5:17-20

..and if you're even so confused to think Jesus and God are two seperate beings, well then you need clarifying there as well.

[Stormontheplains]

Is Jimmy Carter an atheist? I don't know ..... or does he even count ?

Spide, I am talking about everyone here that complains about the government not doing enough, and my question is what do the individuals that bitch here on the mane do? I personally through my church have given around $1500 this year. That is not alot, but the most I can do. That money went to south America to build a house. I have also volunteered to help disaster relief and other things. What pisses me off is whether we are talking about GOD, GW, or something else. God and GW are separate, no matter what he thinks.

[TailgateNut]

How much money do Atheist organizations send to third world countries for hunger? How many houses in south America have they built? I could go on and on. The religion that you gentleman hate, I have never seen. There has been nothing but good come from every church I have been a member of. Our church has spent hundred of thousands feeding, building, and educating the poor from different countries.


How much money has "the Church" recently spent to buy themselves out of deviant behavior lawsuits? Does $66million sound about right? That could have been used to help millions of starving children!

[DBruleU]

How much money has "the Church" recently spent to buy themselves out of deviant behavior lawsuits? Does $66million sound about right? That could have been used to help millions of starving children!

What church is this?

[Spider]

Catholic church

[DBruleU]

Catholic church

Good thing I don't belong to that then.

I don't agree with much the catholic church does. Especially the Pope's new decree that the only way to be saved is through the catholic church. As if the church has anything to do with saving someone.

Protestants aren't right according to him.

[Spider]

Good thing I don't belong to that then.

I don't agree with much the catholic church does. Especially the Pope's new decree that the only way to be saved is through the catholic church. As if the church has anything to do with saving someone.

Protestants aren't right according to him.

so many difference between the different sects of religion .... you are going to hell unless you believe us , no we have the true path to heaven , No we do .....pretty confusing .......

[DBruleU]

so many difference between the different sects of religion .... you are going to hell unless you believe us , no we have the true path to heaven , No we do .....pretty confusing .......

I agree. It has been made confusing. Everything has been distorted unfortunately.

Why not just trust Jesus when He said the only way to heaven is through Him, and God the Father. You can't get yourself there alone on any acts, it's simply through faith in Him.

[Bronco Bob]

I agree. It has been made confusing. Everything has been distorted unfortunately.

Why not just trust Jesus when He said the only way to heaven is through Him, and God the Father. You can't get yourself there alone on any acts, it's simply through faith in Him.

Why not trust Bhudda or Vishna or Mohammed or Xenu instead?

[alkemical]

Why not trust Bhudda or Vishna or Mohammed or Xenu instead?

I like jesus, buddha & krisna. I'm not a devotte of any - but i've been helped personally by types of all three groups when i really needed.

[Stormontheplains]

How much money has "the Church" recently spent to buy themselves out of deviant behavior lawsuits? Does $66million sound about right? That could have been used to help millions of starving children!

Wrong church, I am methodist. But you didn't answer the question of what you do for the misfortunet.

[Taco John]

[/B]

Do you even know what that scripture means? Like usual, things are taken so far out of context.

That has nothing to do with self-defense, or "running" away like you like to put it. It simply means, to follow Christ, and to be a Christian, we are to deny any of our own ambitions, needs, pleasures, and follow with Him and trust Him completely with our lives. If we live our lives just fulfilling our earthly desires, and do nothing for Christ, we have wasted our lives, and gained nothing for eternal life.

Again though, if you guys would put down your hatred for Christianity, and take the time to read what I posted earlier, you'd find your answers to your arguments right there.



Yeah, I know exactly what that scripture means. I've been a part of Bible study since I was an adolescent. In fact, I didn't take it out of context at all. Nor have I taken out of context the fact that Jesus ran from his attackers. It's the truth.

Being a Christian isn't about protecting yourself. It's about giving up the self, and serving others. Christ was the ultimate pacifist.

I take issue with your charactarization that I have any sort of hatred for Christianity. I find true Christianity the most noble cause in the world. I will admit, though, that I have a distaste for your distortion of it. Nothing you have presented is scriptural in any way, whereas, on the other hand, everything I've said has been backed up by scriptures, none of which I've taken out of context as you say.

[RkyMtnThunder]

How much money do Atheist organizations send to third world countries for hunger? How many houses in south America have they built? I could go on and on. The religion that you gentleman hate, I have never seen. There has been nothing but good come from every church I have been a member of. Our church has spent hundred of thousands feeding, building, and educating the poor from different countries.

While religious groups are well known for charitable activities, it is misinformed to imply that charitable efforts are spearheaded by religious groups alone.

www.charitynavigator.org is a watchdog website that tracks all sorts of charitable groups.

You will see many religious groups listed here. You will also see many secular based organizations as well. Neither religious or secular charity organizations are immune from fraud - so this website was created to help people like ourselves get more information about a given group prior to donating.

Its doubtful any secular group would go out of their way to demonstrate their 'atheism', as they arent also using the charity as a platform to evangelize their beliefs to the people they are helping. They just dont evangelize at all during their charitable activities/events.

[orangeatheist]

Its doubtful any secular group would go out of their way to demonstrate their 'atheism', as they arent also using the charity as a platform to evangelize their beliefs to the people they are helping. They just dont evangelize at all during their charitable activities/events.


Gee, I wonder if Clavi would find that ironic?

Can you imagine an atheist group getting together to open a soup kitchen and then, while the patrons are filling their bellies, going amongst the unfortunate to hand out copies of Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion and pointing out the fact that no Heavenly Fathers, Sons or Holy Spooks were in the kitchen helping to bust suds or cut up potatoes? Ha!

EDIT TO ADD:
Interesting to note from that link, the "10 Charities Worth Watching." These ten are singled out because they operate on less than $2 million a year and have earned a 4-star rating from this watchdog group. Note the following:

#1 - Asha for Education: "...is a secular organization dedicated to change in India by focusing on basic education..."

#2 - Louisville Zoo Foundation - "...dedicated itself to the pursuits of education, conservation, scientific study and recreation."

#3 - Animal Welfare Institute - "...a non-profit charitable organization founded...to reduce the sum total of pain and fear inflicted on animals by humans."

#4 - Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation - "The Meso Foundation is the non-profit collaboration of patients and families, physicians, advocates, and researchers dedicated to eradicating the life-ending and vicious effects of mesothelioma."

#5 - The Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust - "...accepts gifts through workplace giving campaigns, including the Combined Federal Campaign and United Way, employee matching gift programs, and similar special giving arrangements, and provides a variety of direct services for America’s disabled veterans."

#6 - Children for Children - "...promotes hands on youth volunteering and giving programs which teach and instill the value of community involvement and civic engagement in children from all backgrounds..."

#7 - Enviornment Northeast - "...accepts funding from sources that allow us to maintain our independence as an impartial source of information and a credible advocate."

#8 - National Ataxia Foundation - "...the Foundation first began direct funding of ataxia research through the NAF Research "Seed-Money" Program. Since that time, the Foundation has established two additional research programs including the NAF Young Investigator Award and the NAF Fellowship Award. These three NAF research programs continue to fund promising ataxia research studies throughout the world."

#9 - American Skin Association - "...a volunteer-led health organization dedicated - through research, education and advocacy - to saving lives and alleviating human suffering caused by the full spectrum of skin disorders and cancer...Through its national grants and awards program, the ASA has given more than $5 million in recognition and support of research to promising physician/scientists and leading figures in the field, and to research centers at major institutions throughout the country."

#10 - Dogs for the Deaf - "...founded in 1977 by the late Roy G. Kabat, a long-time Hollywood and circus animal trainer who raised animals for motion pictures and television shows...mission is to rescue and professionally train dogs to assist people and enhance their lives, maintaining a lifelong commitment to all dogs we rescue and all teams we serve."

A lot of good being done out there, not necessarily in the name of any one god or pantheon of gods.

[Stormontheplains]

Gee, I wonder if Clavi would find that ironic?

Can you imagine an atheist group getting together to open a soup kitchen and then, while the patrons are filling their bellies, going amongst the unfortunate to hand out copies of Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion and pointing out the fact that no Heavenly Fathers, Sons or Holy Spooks were in the kitchen helping to bust suds or cut up potatoes? Ha!

No I cant see an atheist group doing that, and Yes if they did, I can see them spreading thier agenda. I haven't met a atheist yet that didn't let me know they were atheist and proud.

[RkyMtnThunder]

No I cant see an atheist group doing that, and Yes if they did, I can see them spreading thier agenda. I haven't met a atheist yet that didn't let me know they were atheist and proud.



No offense, but that is kind of a silly statement.


......

If people feel strongly about something, they dont tend to be shy about it. Regardless if that is in support or opposition of the concept of higher power or not

and in the same light - there are also people that tend to keep things to themselves and have no desire to change other people's minds or argue their cases.

So what you are talking about is a personality type.

I can almost gurantee you that you have met atheists that didnt rub it in your face...likely without realizing their beliefs (or lack thereof)

Probably come across them every day

[alkemical]

Gee, I wonder if Clavi would find that ironic?

Can you imagine an atheist group getting together to open a soup kitchen and then, while the patrons are filling their bellies, going amongst the unfortunate to hand out copies of Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion and pointing out the fact that no Heavenly Fathers, Sons or Holy Spooks were in the kitchen helping to bust suds or cut up potatoes? Ha!

Why not? The churches do it.

I know when i was homeless the only ones it seemed making an effort to actually "help" were alot of theist groups. I know i filled my belly many a time when needed at "my sweet lord", which was run by the Krishna's (and also funded from the george harrison foundation).

Or the Churches in Ballard (Seattle) that fed us on mondays & thursdays. I don't like some of the zeal of some of the practicioners (It's always sunny in god's house, etc) - but they did work to feed us.

But one thing with those groups was - they didn't make 'practice' a requirement to eat. That was much appreciated and really broke my disdain for classifying religious types. Even though i wasn't "one of them", they took care of me when i needed it most.

Believe in God or not - They made the world a better place through non-judgement.

[alkemical]

No offense, but that is kind of a silly statement.


......

If people feel strongly about something, they dont tend to be shy about it. Regardless if that is in support or opposition of the concept of higher power or not

and in the same light - there are also people that tend to keep things to themselves and have no desire to change other people's minds or argue their cases.

So what you are talking about is a personality type.

I can almost gurantee you that you have met atheists that didnt rub it in your face...likely without realizing their beliefs (or lack thereof)

Probably come across them every day

I agree - pride is a different animal all together.

[orangeatheist]

I'm not saying religious charities are bad. I'm just saying atheists don't hide behind theirs with an agenda to get more people to abandon their beliefs.

[alkemical]

I'm not saying religious charities are bad. I'm just saying atheists don't hide behind theirs with an agenda to get more people to abandon their beliefs.

All athiests?????? and ALL religious charities????????

[Bob]

How much money has "the Church" recently spent to buy themselves out of deviant behavior lawsuits? Does $66million sound about right? That could have been used to help millions of starving children!

And your statement implies what? That the Catholic church has had a problem with preists and molestation? Yup, sure -- and I dont think to many active Catholics are saying that child molestation is a good thing?

Just becuase you may not feel comfortable with those of faith -- there is evil in almost every corner of society, large insain jumps by insuation, panting broader good groups as some how evil may refelct a disintest in truth? Not sure.

It is a fact that those that go to churches give more $ on average to various charitable causes (on a percentage basis) than those who dont attend church -- I am not sure all of all the reasons are for this fact, but it is true. There are many folks who attend no church that give alot, but there is a false assumption lead by a left-leaning media that the left are always generous, the right are alway stingy. It is another example of the parties and thier puppets wanting to cram people into boxes of thier own making.

[orangeatheist]

All athiests??????

I can't answer that. I'm just not aware of any atheist charity that dishes out anti-Chick tracks with a bowl of soup. Are you?

[alkemical]

I can't answer that. I'm just not aware of any atheist charity that dishes out anti-Chick tracks with a bowl of soup. Are you?

Nope, when i was homeless in seattle i didn't run into any charities that were athiest...... Not to mention my post above regards to the churches/temples in seattle that didn't require any form of worship to eat.

[Bob]

so many difference between the different sects of religion .... you are going to hell unless you believe us , no we have the true path to heaven , No we do .....pretty confusing .......

Most churches that I have been exposed to do not promote "the my faith or to hell with you." stance.

The New Testament would be a good place to start, and using that a guide for decison making and church shopping.

[BroncoInferno]

Nope, when i was homeless in seattle i didn't run into any charities that were athiest

I think there is a good reason for that. Atheism only means one thing...lack of belief in a god or gods. That singular belief is not much of a foundation on which to start an entire organization. That said, there are many atheists who devote their time to charitable causes, but it simply isn't under any banner of "atheism."

[Taco John]

How much money has "the Church" recently spent to buy themselves out of deviant behavior lawsuits? Does $66million sound about right? That could have been used to help millions of starving children!



I think that you are painting Christianity with a pretty broad and unfair brush, friend. While it's true that the Catholic church seems to be suffering a systemic problem, the phenomenon of Christianity is much larger than the original co-opters of Christ's message. Obviously, my use of the word "co-opt" reveals my own personal bias. Bias aside, I think it's unfair to paint the entire religion, especially its adherents with the transgressions of miscreant individuals who have tarnished the religion. I feel the same way about muslim terrorists. Just as there are Christians who claim the religion even if they don't particularly live it, so goes it for any religion or religious sect...

[Bob]

Why not trust Bhudda or Vishna or Mohammed or Xenu instead?

A legit question. One thought is to consider those faiths that let you get out without a death sentence, and do not force conversion at the edge of a sword...

It may come down to having an open mind to conider options, but a closed enough one, to hold onto something...

[BroncoInferno]

The New Testament would be a good place to start, and using that a guide for decison making and church shopping.

Should I look for one where the women wear veils and don't speak since that is what Paul states is the proper decorum for women in the church?

[Taco John]

I think there is a good reason for that. Atheism only means one thing...lack of belief in a god or gods. That singular belief is not much of a foundation on which to start an entire organization. That said, there are many atheists who devote their time to charitable causes, but it simply isn't under any banner of "atheism."


I don't think there is any way to quantify that. I have doubts that there are "many." I would wager that anybody who is willing to devote their time to aiding their fellow man believe in some form of spiritualism, and thus some form of God, even if they shun religion.

In fact, most athiests that I know believe devoutly in Darwinism, and see the plight of the poor as an extension of the survival of the fittest. I've been in disucssions before with athiests who believe that charity weakens the collective gene pool, and thus society.

[orangeatheist]

Nope, when i was homeless in seattle i didn't run into any charities that were athiest......

Does that mean there are no atheist (or non-religious) charities in Seattle, or does that mean you just never ran into one?


Not to mention my post above regards to the churches/temples in seattle that didn't require any form of worship to eat.

Then how did you know if they were religious or not?

[orangeatheist]

I think there is a good reason for that. Atheism only means one thing...lack of belief in a god or gods. That singular belief is not much of a foundation on which to start an entire organization. That said, there are many atheists who devote their time to charitable causes, but it simply isn't under any banner of "atheism."

Extremely good point. Well said.

[alkemical]

I think there is a good reason for that. Atheism only means one thing...lack of belief in a god or gods. That singular belief is not much of a foundation on which to start an entire organization. That said, there are many atheists who devote their time to charitable causes, but it simply isn't under any banner of "atheism."

Only telling you what i saw first hand. I disagree about a singular belief being used to start a whole organization. I mean - there are LOTS of them: (NRA, Insert religion here, Insert Cause here, etc).

[BroncoInferno]

I don't think there is any way to quantify that. I have doubts that there are "many." I would wager that anybody who is willing to devote their time to aiding their fellow man believe in some form of spiritualism, and thus some form of God, even if they shun religion.

In fact, most athiests that I know believe devoutly in Darwinism, and see the plight of the poor as an extension of the survival of the fittest. I've been in disucssions before with athiests who believe that charity weakens the collective gene pool, and thus society.

I'd wager that is a minority view point among atheists. Most these days are secular humanists. Charitable works are very much a part of that philosophy. It doesn't appear to me you've talk to a very good sampling of atheists.

[RkyMtnThunder]

And your statement implies what? That the Catholic church has had a problem with preists and molestation? Yup, sure -- and I dont think to many active Catholics are saying that child molestation is a good thing?

Just becuase you may not feel comfortable with those of faith -- there is evil in almost every corner of society, large insain jumps by insuation, panting broader good groups as some how evil may refelct a disintest in truth? Not sure.

It is a fact that those that go to churches give more $ on average to various charitable causes (on a percentage basis) than those who dont attend church -- I am not sure all of all the reasons are for this fact, but it is true. There are many folks who attend no church that give alot, but there is a false assumption lead by a left-leaning media that the left are always generous, the right are alway stingy. It is another example of the parties and thier puppets wanting to cram people into boxes of thier own making.



Link?

I am not disputing that religious folks can be charitable. And I am not atheist myself. But blanket statements are usually incorrect so I would like to see this 'fact' come from an unbiased source....does that source exist?

I provided a link to a charity watchdog site that provides plenty of evidence of an abundance of secular charitable groups. You are saying that the majority of the $$ these secular groups receive are from religious people? And that its a fact?

[Bob]

Yeah, I know exactly what that scripture means. I've been a part of Bible study since I was an adolescent. In fact, I didn't take it out of context at all. Nor have I taken out of context the fact that Jesus ran from his attackers. It's the truth.

Being a Christian isn't about protecting yourself. It's about giving up the self, and serving others. Christ was the ultimate pacifist.

I take issue with your charactarization that I have any sort of hatred for Christianity. I find true Christianity the most noble cause in the world. I will admit, though, that I have a distaste for your distortion of it. Nothing you have presented is scriptural in any way, whereas, on the other hand, everything I've said has been backed up by scriptures, none of which I've taken out of context as you say.

I do think that Christ was loving and attempted his whole life to get people 2000 years ago who felt that exaltation came from exalting themselves above others and to consider there own weaknesses, and to be humble and accepting of others – including those who were outcast. I am with you there, but when Christ cleared out the money changers from the temple, he did it with force (actually he did it own two occasions)

The second time he cleared out the money chargers forcibly from the temple, Jesus hung out there and proceeded to preach what seems like a long sermon – he didn’t bolt, he stood up to what he felt was evil.

I don’t think that Christ told people to put a sign on our backs that reads “kick me I am humble.” Regarding issues of physical conflict, I don’t think that I would be following his commandments if someone were to break into my home, and I let those people hurt my family. I know this is an extreme example, and admittedly when it comes to war one should be very deliberate, and careful before thinking that you are anointed by God to kill so and so… I do think that if I had my scriptures here at work I could pull out a few examples where Christ may have directed followers to standup for themselves – not sure to what degree though. All of the examples I can think of now, regarding Christ reflect a position of promoting peace – not war.

[RkyMtnThunder]

A legit question. One thought is to consider those faiths that let you get out without a death sentence, and do not force conversion at the edge of a sword...

It may come down to having an open mind to conider options, but a closed enough one, to hold onto something...


many religions have been spread by the sword at one time or another. Abrahamic faiths included.

Shocking anyone would need to be reminded of that

[alkemical]

Does that mean there are no atheist (or non-religious) charities in Seattle, or does that mean you just never ran into one?



Then how did you know if they were religious or not?

There were no atheist groups that i ran into doing work for the poor. Not saying there isn't, but they didn't seem nearly as active at helping people like the churches and temples did. They promoted where to get help, etc. I didn't see "Atheists for the homeless" out and about (please use some levity before you rant). Not saying they weren't, just saying if there was/were - they didn't promote their services to help those who really needed it.

I'd thinking going to a church or to a Krisna temple - you'd find that to be religious. Unless of course you are telling me atheists are donating time and money to churches and temples.

[Bronco Bob]

Only telling you what i saw first hand. I disagree about a singular belief being used to start a whole organization. I mean - there are LOTS of them: (NRA, Insert religion here, Insert Cause here, etc).

For example here is a dating site for atheists:

Free Thinker's Match Maker - personal ads for atheists, agnostics, humanists and other freethinkers

Welcome to the Free Thinker's Match Maker. Do any of the following describe you...

* Atheist
* Agnostic
* Freethinker
* Humanist
* Non-Religious
* Non-Practicing
* Objectivist
* Skeptic
* Pagan
* Deist

...as well as single and looking?

If so, then this site is for you. Browse 1000s of profiles and photos placed by like minded singles.

http://www.freethinkermatch.com/

[orangeatheist]

II would wager that anybody who is willing to devote their time to aiding their fellow man believe in some form of spiritualism, and thus some form of God, even if they shun religion.

?

When I give to a charity I do so out of the service they provide. In other words, I have donated to my local PBS station because I support the children's programming they offer as well as such science documentaries as NOVA. I have donated to schools in my area because I believe that supporting the education of my neighborhood children is important. I have donated to a variety of "causes" that I agree with (certain disease research and the like). None of that giving was done out of any sense of "spiritualism".


In fact, most athiests that I know believe devoutly in Darwinism,

Oh, please. "Believe devoutly" as if Darwinian evolution is a religious belief system. I ACCEPT evolution because it is the most supported theory that accurately reflects the facts of decent with modification and makes the most accurate predictions. It's a scientific theory with the most muscle. I don't "believe" in it.


and see the plight of the poor as an extension of the survival of the fittest. I've been in disucssions before with athiests who believe that charity weakens the collective gene pool, and thus society.

Not all charity is for the poor. It's rather absurd to use evolution as an excuse to get out of giving. In fact, evolution rather encourages us to help the needy. I'll let you chew on that and try to figure it out.

However, any atheist who claims that charity for the poor "weakens the collective gene pool" is an idiot. As if poverty were some sort of inheritable biological trait. thwack

[BroncoInferno]

I'd wager that is a minority view point among atheists. Most these days are secular humanists. Charitable works are very much a part of that philosophy. It doesn't appear to me you've talk to a very good sampling of atheists.

Just to test this, do any of you atheists here (OA, Bronco Bob, freak, etc)consider yourself social Darwinist? That is a pretty arcane idea these days. I don't personally know any atheist who adheres to that kind of thinking.

[Bob]

I think there is a good reason for that. Atheism only means one thing...lack of belief in a god or gods. That singular belief is not much of a foundation on which to start an entire organization. That said, there are many atheists who devote their time to charitable causes, but it simply isn't under any banner of "atheism."

Atheism should only be defined by unbelief, and for some it is. For others additional baggage seems to find a way onto that train of thought (just like any beliefe of non-beliefe system) that may have nothing, or may be contrary to the idea itself. Make sense? People are inconsistent –

[RkyMtnThunder]

There were no atheist groups that i ran into doing work for the poor. Not saying there isn't, but they didn't seem nearly as active at helping people like the churches and temples did. They promoted where to get help, etc. I didn't see "Atheists for the homeless" out and about (please use some levity before you rant). Not saying they weren't, just saying if there was/were - they didn't promote their services to help those who really needed it.

I'd thinking going to a church or to a Krisna temple - you'd find that to be religious. Unless of course you are telling me atheists are donating time and money to churches and temples.

Granted this might represent the minority...

But in Tempe Arizona, near and around ASU campus there is a large population of transient youth. There are a few groups trying to help these kids off the streets, the most active group, sponsored by the state of Arizona in conjunction with the university, is not affiliated to any particular religion. Volunteers individually may be, but they do not appear to be working under a unified religious banner

Just an example of at least one group in this country helping people get off the streets that is not religiously based..rather humanitarian in general.

Of course with them being state funded...one can see why they havent drawn any theological lines in the sand

[Bronco Bob]

In fact, most athiests that I know believe devoutly in Darwinism, and see the plight of the poor as an extension of the survival of the fittest. I've been in disucssions before with athiests who believe that charity weakens the collective gene pool, and thus society.

A lot of atheists also believe in the law of gravity, nuclear physics,
the germ theory of disease, plate tectonics, mathematics, electricity,
and a whole host of other scientific principles.
So it's not surprising they would also believe in evolution.

[Bob]

many religions have been spread by the sword at one time or another. Abrahamic faiths included.

Shocking anyone would need to be reminded of that

Oh, sorry, I should have qualified it and said since the crusades -- or freaking 2007.

[alkemical]

Granted this might represent the minority...

But in Tempe Arizona, near and around ASU campus there is a large population of transient youth. There are a few groups trying to help these kids off the streets, the most active group, sponsored by the state of Arizona in conjunction with the university, is not affiliated to any particular religion. Volunteers individually may be, but they do not appear to be working under a unified religious banner

Just an example of at least one group in this country helping people get off the streets that is not religiously based..rather humanitarian in general.

Of course with them being state funded...one can see why they havent drawn any theological lines in the sand

No, that's a good example. I do understand the line/sand issue as well.

[RkyMtnThunder]

Oh, sorry, I should have qualified it and said since the crusades -- or freaking 2007.


Look at American history. It wasnt thousands of years ago that 'heathens' were converted - frequently with inhumane tactics.

I am not trying to argue with you, but you are spitting out blanket statements left and right.


Edit: BTW I am not an atheist, nor have I sworn alligence to any particular religious group or movement. I do find I have taken to defense of atheist/secular charitable groups in this thread because it really seems that truths are being glossed over and that desire to contribute to the greater good is not necessarily a 'religious' trait but a HUMAN trait.

[BroncoInferno]

However, any atheist who claims that charity for the poor "weakens the collective gene pool" is an idiot. As if poverty were some sort of inheritable biological trait. thwack

No kidding. Taco claiming that this idiotic brand of social Dawinism is a majority view point among atheists is laughable. He needs to talk to more people.

[orangeatheist]

Just to test this, do any of you atheists here (OA, Bronco Bob, freak, etc)consider yourself social Darwinist? That is a pretty arcane idea these days. I don't personally know any atheist who adheres to that kind of thinking.

I find the notion not only antiquated, but repulsive.

[Taco John]

?

When I give to a charity I do so out of the service they provide. In other words, I have donated to my local PBS station because I support the children's programming they offer as well as such science documentaries as NOVA. I have donated to schools in my area because I believe that supporting the education of my neighborhood children is important. I have donated to a variety of "causes" that I agree with (certain disease research and the like). None of that giving was done out of any sense of "spiritualism".


I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not referring to "giving" money to charity. I'm talking about the giving of yourself to philanthropic service.



Oh, please. "Believe devoutly" as if Darwinian evolution is a religious belief system. I ACCEPT evolution because it is the most supported theory that accurately reflects the facts of decent with modification and makes the most accurate predictions. It's a scientific theory with the most muscle. I don't "believe" in it.

Paint it how you want. I have no stake in how you want to frame your beliefs, or whether you want to frame them as something other than "beliefs." However you want to frame it, the dichotomy is you either "know" something as fact, or you "believe" it to be fact. Those are the ends of the spectrum.



Not all charity is for the poor. It's rather absurd to use evolution as an excuse to get out of giving. In fact, evolution rather encourages us to help the needy. I'll let you chew on that and try to figure it out.

I'm not chewing on anything. It wasn't my argument. It was a friend of mine who believed in individualism at the expense of everything else. He didn't believe in God. He didn't believe in men. He only believed in himself.

[Taco John]

Just to test this, do any of you atheists here (OA, Bronco Bob, freak, etc)consider yourself social Darwinist? That is a pretty arcane idea these days. I don't personally know any atheist who adheres to that kind of thinking.



I don't know anyone who would call themselves a social darwinist. Nobody wants that label. Likewise, there aren't a lot of Aryans who will call themselves Nazis.

I'd wager that you know more athiests who subscribe to some form of social darwinism though than you think you do. In fact, you'll find a lot of Americans (even those who would call themselves Christians) who subscribe to the belief, though they would never call it that. Listen to Rush Limbaugh for any amount of time and tell me he isn't a social darwinist. Of course, he'd deny it. But the label isn't the important thing here... It's how you apply your beliefs.

[orangeatheist]

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not referring to "giving" money to charity. I'm talking about the giving of yourself to philanthropic service.

Hey, I'm here out of my love of humanity, trying to hatchet my way through human ignorance to bring the light of Reason and Free Thought to the lost on this forum! What more do you want? You want to bleed me to death? ;)

But, seriously, I know a number of non-believers who give of their time and energy for worthy causes. Two weeks ago my brother and his son (both non-believers) gave of their time to help with a Habitat for Humanity project. I haven't done anything of late --with a 3 and 5 year old I barely have time for myself outside work-- but I've volunteered in the past for worthy causes.


Paint it how you want. I have no stake in how you want to frame your beliefs, or whether you want to frame them as something other than "beliefs." However you want to frame it, the dichotomy is you either "know" something as fact, or you "believe" it to be fact. Those are the ends of the spectrum.

And there are no in-betweens? Such as having enough convincing evidence to rule out other possibilities other than the one remaining? Of course, you don't need to be dogmatic about it and you can allow that falsifiable evidence could come to light in the future and change your mind; but, for now, you are firmly convinced of a particular idea. This isn't "belief" but acceptance based upon overwhelming evidence.


I'm not chewing on anything. It wasn't my argument. It was a friend of mine who believed in individualism at the expense of everything else. He didn't believe in God. He didn't believe in men. He only believed in himself.

And, thus, he wasn't representative of anyone but himself.

[DBruleU]

Yeah, I know exactly what that scripture means. I've been a part of Bible study since I was an adolescent. In fact, I didn't take it out of context at all. Nor have I taken out of context the fact that Jesus ran from his attackers. It's the truth.

Being a Christian isn't about protecting yourself. It's about giving up the self, and serving others. Christ was the ultimate pacifist.

I take issue with your charactarization that I have any sort of hatred for Christianity. I find true Christianity the most noble cause in the world. I will admit, though, that I have a distaste for your distortion of it. Nothing you have presented is scriptural in any way, whereas, on the other hand, everything I've said has been backed up by scriptures, none of which I've taken out of context as you say.

Ugh...what a losing battle this place is. I don't know what else to say man. I didn't take any scriptures out of context. I didn't distort any part of it either. I'm not advocating killing people in the name of Jesus. I'm simply saying Jesus would not have a problem with self-defense...which this conversations started with. He is not a pacifist, nor ever was.

And how again is nothing I've presented scriptural, when all I've done is quote scripture, pain and clear? Or is that just selective memory? And what I lack in getting my point across, I substituted with a link that explains clearly Jesus' stance on war.

I don't care if you've been part of a Bible study...what does that mean? You clearly don't believe what it is you learn though...or you choose to only hear what you want, which is a major problem today.

The scripture's I posted are clear as day...not only that, but for the last time...God sent HIS OWN people into battle...yeah thats a pacifist for you.

I'm finished with this merry-go-round.

[Taco John]

And there are no in-betweens?

Not really, no.


Such as having enough convincing evidence to rule out other possibilities other than the one remaining?

You're saying that the theory of Darwinism has ruled out all other possibilities and is the only one remaining possibility? Even with all of its problems?

Darwinism might be the best explination that is currently popular, but it's hardly bullet-proof. You have to ignore a lot of evidence and even missing evidence to come to the conclusion that it is the only one remaining possibility.


Of course, you don't need to be dogmatic about it and you can allow that falsifiable evidence could come to light in the future and change your mind; but, for now, you are firmly convinced of a particular idea. This isn't "belief" but acceptance based upon overwhelming evidence.



Sounds like denial to me. You don't want to be painted with "believing" something. You want to come across as more rational and grounded, and say that you accept something based on the prevailing thought. But in the end, it's still just a belief, because it's not a knowing. If you don't know something, but you accept something based on your faith in the prevailing interpretation of the evidence, it's still nothing more than "belief."

And for the record, that's all Darwinism is: faith in the prevailing interpretation of the evidence, despite the gaps that exist in the theory. Perhaps you believe that those gaps will be filled in due time? Or, excuse me, perhaps you accept that those gaps will be filled in due time?

[RkyMtnThunder]

[QUOTE=DBruleU;1649942]I'm simply saying Jesus would not have a problem with self-defense...which this conversations started with. He is not a pacifist, nor ever was.

/QUOTE]




Forgive me for being confused here.

But when Judas betrayed Jesus and brought the Romans down on him - why did he not defend himself? Why did he not allow his fellow disciples to defend him?

Why did he not organize local groups to defend themselves from the persecution and oppression of Roman rule?

You are making Jesus sound like some kind of freedom fighter holy warrior.

I view Jesus as one of THE major historical pacifist figures. The original hippie flower child - talking peace & love to power, anti-violence, anti materialism, beard, sandals and everything.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Here's an interesting question...

In the garden of Gethsemane, Peter was carrying a sword. Jesus told him to put it away so that he could be taken into captivity.

Why did Peter have a sword?

Surely he wasnt carrying it for looks.

[orangeatheist]

Here's an interesting question...

In the garden of Gethsemane, Peter was carrying a sword. Jesus told him to put it away so that he could be taken into captivity.

Why did Peter have a sword?

Surely he wasnt carrying it for looks.


And Captain America doesn't swing that shield for nothin', nor does Wolverine have those claws just to pick pimentos out of olives!

[RkyMtnThunder]

And for the record, that's all Darwinism is: faith in the prevailing interpretation of the evidence, despite the gaps that exist in the theory. Perhaps you believe that those gaps will be filled in due time? Or, excuse me, perhaps you accept that those gaps will be filled in due time?




You do realize that is the same argument an atheist would make in regards to believers?

That believers have faith in something despite gaps that exist?


So by making this statement as if it were truth, are you willing to accept them making similar statement as if it were truth as well?

I mean - is it good or bad to believe in something despite gaps in the theory/ideology?!?






and its stuff like this that make theological debates interesting to me. I wonder if people can actually see what they are saying sometimes

[mosca]

We should be grateful for all the charities that exist to help the needy. Whether they are religious, secular, or outright atheist is irrelevant.

[alkemical]

You do realize that is the same argument an atheist would make in regards to believers?

That believers have faith in something despite gaps that exist?


So by making this statement as if it were truth, are you willing to accept them making similar statement as if it were truth as well?

I mean - is it good or bad to believe in something despite gaps in the theory/ideology?!?






and its stuff like this that make theological debates interesting to me. I wonder if people can actually see what they are saying sometimes



That's more or less how i see it. I've spent time in different reality tunnels and it's amazing at how seemless the brain bridges the gaps.

The thinker thinks, the prover proves.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You do realize that is the same argument an atheist would make in regards to believers?
That believers have faith in something despite gaps that exist?So by making this statement as if it were truth, are you willing to accept them making similar statement as if it were truth as well?
I mean - is it good or bad to believe in something despite gaps in the theory/ideology?!?
and its stuff like this that make theological debates interesting to me. I wonder if people can actually see what they are saying sometimes

I'm pretty sure that he knows what you are getting at here, because that is the point that he is making with his posts.

It's not good or bad to believe a particular thing. That distinction is up to the believer by his own rationalization. Both the theist and the atheist sit in this same boat, and science is only one of the many paddles to drive the vessel.

[Deacon Blue]

Good thing I don't belong to that then.

I don't agree with much the catholic church does. Especially the Pope's new decree that the only way to be saved is through the catholic church. As if the church has anything to do with saving someone.

Protestants aren't right according to him.

Like I said in another thread that thing got blown WAY out of proportion.

Here's the last part of Dominus Iesus:

“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

[RkyMtnThunder]

Here's an interesting question...

In the garden of Gethsemane, Peter was carrying a sword. Jesus told him to put it away so that he could be taken into captivity.

Why did Peter have a sword?

Surely he wasnt carrying it for looks.




I think the allegory is that Peter may have had a weapon, but when things got heated - he laid it down...honoring Jesus request

peace > violence....no matter the circumstance

But hey, thats what I get from that aspect of the story...if others see it differently, more power to em.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I think the allegory is that Peter may have had a weapon, but when things got heated - he laid it down...honoring Jesus request
peace > violence....no matter the circumstance
But hey, thats what I get from that aspect of the story...if others see it differently, more power to em.

What happens when he unsheathed the sword is beside the point. Peter had been with Jesus quite some time by then, and he was carrying a sword. Why would Peter carry a sword at all?

[OregonBronco]

And for the record, that's all Darwinism is: faith in the prevailing interpretation of the evidence, despite the gaps that exist in the theory. Perhaps you believe that those gaps will be filled in due time? Or, excuse me, perhaps you accept that those gaps will be filled in due time?

Here's the difference between scientific method and religion, though:

They are using the best evidence available to try and fill the gaps. When those gaps are filled, the theory will change to reflect the new evidence. Science starts with a question and tries to find an answer based on the evidence available. Religion starts with a question, makes up an answer, then tries to find evidence to support it. Religion and the scientific method are polar opposites.

[BroncoInferno]

I don't know anyone who would call themselves a social darwinist. Nobody wants that label. Likewise, there aren't a lot of Aryans who will call themselves Nazis.

I'd wager that you know more athiests who subscribe to some form of social darwinism though than you think you do. In fact, you'll find a lot of Americans (even those who would call themselves Christians) who subscribe to the belief, though they would never call it that. Listen to Rush Limbaugh for any amount of time and tell me he isn't a social darwinist. Of course, he'd deny it. But the label isn't the important thing here... It's how you apply your beliefs.

I can agree with that (that is, your point about applying one's beliefs versus simply making a profession of belief). In my experience, I have never noticed the actions of my atheist firends and aquaintances as being more selfish/less charitable than my theist friends and aquaintances. In some cases, quite the contrary. My friend Brad, for example, spent three years with the Peace Corps. He also volunteers time reguarly to one of the local Elementary schools. It's anecdotal evidence, sure, but I think what you are talking about is something more specific to individuals (such as your friend) rather than something representing a greater trend. Your example of Limbaugh proves my point, as he is a professed Christian who always whines about the religion being persecuted. I'd wager you know more atheists who practice altruism and humanism than you think.

[OregonBronco]

I can agree with that (that is, your point about applying one's beliefs versus simply making a profession of belief). In my experience, I have never noticed the actions of my atheist firends and aquaintances as being more selfish/less charitable than my theist friends and aquaintances. In some cases, quite the contrary. My friend Brad, for example, spent three years with the Peace Corps. He also volunteers time reguarly to one of the local Elementary schools. It's anecdotal evidence, sure, but I think what you are talking about is something more specific to individuals (such as your friend) rather than something representing a greater trend. Your example of Limbaugh proves my point, as he is a professed Christian who always whines about the religion being persecuted.

It's all about the individual. I'd wager that if you took a sampling of of Christians vs a sampling of atheists, you'd get the same proportions of assholes and really nice people. Religion is as much an indicator about a person's inner worth as is whether or not they like ice cream. There's no correlation.

[RkyMtnThunder]

What happens when he unsheathed the sword is beside the point. Peter had been with Jesus quite some time by then, and he was carrying a sword. Why would Peter carry a sword at all?

IMO

Because Peter is not perfect. Peter is human.

Jesus, representing the voice of divinity (but not divinity himself IMO) tells simple human to put passionate irrationality aside and stand down in the face of violence.


Kind of hard to have that interchange if Peter left his sword at home.



But again, this is merely my perception and opinion on this allegorical story.

[baja]

The irony here is the posts themselves given the title of the thread.

[Taco John]

Here's an interesting question...

In the garden of Gethsemane, Peter was carrying a sword. Jesus told him to put it away so that he could be taken into captivity.

Why did Peter have a sword?

Surely he wasnt carrying it for looks.



I would imagine Peter carried a sword in order to protect himself. He might have had other survival uses for it as well.

[Taco John]

Here's the difference between scientific method and religion, though:

They are using the best evidence available to try and fill the gaps. When those gaps are filled, the theory will change to reflect the new evidence. Science starts with a question and tries to find an answer based on the evidence available. Religion starts with a question, makes up an answer, then tries to find evidence to support it. Religion and the scientific method are polar opposites.



If only what you posted were true, this would be a lot closer to a perfect world.

Science has become much more dogmatic than that.

[orangeatheist]

You're saying that the theory of Darwinism has ruled out all other possibilities

No. Evolution isn't ruling anything OUT, it merely has ruled itself IN. Any other theory that is better able to explain the facts and make equally powerful predictions is invited to compete with evolution's dominance as the prevailing theory of biological diversity. But, frankly, I can't name a single competing theory that qualifies as such. Can you?


and is the only one remaining possibility? Even with all of its problems?

What problems?


Darwinism might be the best explination that is currently popular, but it's hardly bullet-proof.

And who is claiming that it is? Every time I have a discussion regarding evolutionary theory, I try to remind my readers that like EVERY scientific theory, evolution is open to falsification. That's one of the things that MAKES it a scientific theory. The reason evolution is in the exhaulted position it is today is because for nearly 150 years, no one's been able to falsify it. Doesn't mean it won't happen in the future --all good science holds out for that possibility--but what it does mean is that it hasn't happened yet. Thus, evolution remains the foundation of all modern biological study.


You have to ignore a lot of evidence and even missing evidence to come to the conclusion that it is the only one remaining possibility.

Really? Enlighten me. What other possibilities are there and what weight of evidence do they hold?


Sounds like denial to me. You don't want to be painted with "believing" something. You want to come across as more rational and grounded, and say that you accept something based on the prevailing thought.

Damn. Will you people ever begin to LISTEN to a person is saying instead of JAMMING words down their throat? When did I ever say I accept evolution because it is a "prevailing thought"? I said I accept it based upon the overwelming evidence in favor of evolution (and the lack of ANY valid dissenting opinion) and because it makes the best sense out of ALL the available facts as well as upon its astounding predictive power. If you're going to represent what I said, represent it accurately.


But in the end, it's still just a belief, because it's not a knowing. If you don't know something, but you accept something based on your faith in the prevailing interpretation of the evidence, it's still nothing more than "belief."

Ok. Given that definition I believe in gravity. Don't know about for sure, but I sure have enough evidence to believe it's true. Let's go ahead and equate that with religion, shall we?

Or how about electromagentic theory? Guess I can only believe in the interrelationship between electric fields, magnetic fields, electric charge, and electric current.

You see, because unlike religious assertions that claim to KNOW for a fact that God created Adam and Eve, or that morality derives from a Supreme Being, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections. Thus, you can never state -in the venacular you choose-- to KNOW anything about evolution, gravity or electromagnatism. You can only believe in these things. Is that what you're tryng to say, Taco? Or does evolution get special treatment in this department? You can KNOW that gravity is force of nature (even though it is only a theory) but you can't KNOW that decent with modification has occurred. Is that really what you want to argue?


And for the record, that's all Darwinism is: faith in the prevailing interpretation of the evidence, despite the gaps that exist in the theory. Perhaps you believe that those gaps will be filled in due time? Or, excuse me, perhaps you accept that those gaps will be filled in due time?

What gaps?

[Taco John]

You do realize that is the same argument an atheist would make in regards to believers?


That believers have faith in something despite gaps that exist?



Of course I'm aware of that. It's the other side of the same coin.




So by making this statement as if it were truth, are you willing to accept them making similar statement as if it were truth as well?

I mean - is it good or bad to believe in something despite gaps in the theory/ideology?!?


I'm not here to make good or bad judgements. I'm just recognizing what is, and accepting it for what it is. Science relies on belief and faith just as much as religion does. And often times, like religon does, Science gets it wrong.

[RkyMtnThunder]

Of course I'm aware of that. It's the other side of the same coin.





I'm not here to make good or bad judgements. I'm just recognizing what is, and accepting it for what it is. Science relies on belief and faith just as much as religion does. And often times, like religon does, Science gets it wrong.




I dont agree with that.

Maybe pseudoscience like cryptozoology relies on belief and faith as much as religion does....that might be more accurate

[orangeatheist]

You do realize that is the same argument an atheist would make in regards to believers?

That believers have faith in something despite gaps that exist?


You mean that one, gigantic gap between saying god exists and proving it? Or the related one that asserts there's an Intelligent Designer and providing the evidence of how, why and what it designed?

Hardly the "same coin" Taco believes it is.

[OregonBronco]

Science has become much more dogmatic than that.

I don't that that's anymore true now than it has been in centuries past. The world is filled with people who want to maintain the status quo and will try to silence anyone who threatens that. Look at the pressure put on Galileo by the church. Look at what Bush has done to silence stem-cell research. This has been the case for as long as science, politics and religion have coexisted. Eventually someone comes along and makes a new discovery that shakes up the community. Science can at least admit that it was wrong when enough evidence comes to light (even though it may take a while).

When has religion ever admitted it was wrong about its explanations for why things happen? Never. To admit one piece of the puzzle is wrong is to throw the whole thing away. Religion can't adapt to the changing world and new ideas, that's why everyone was so pissed off about the prospect of the DaVinci code.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

He (Jesus) wasn't a pacifist by any means.

Do you have any evidence to support this?

Can you give us even one example?

Or are you just trying to make Jesus who you want Him to be?

[DBruleU]

Do you have any evidence to support this?

Can you give us even one example?

Or are you just trying to make Jesus who you want Him to be?

My gosh...just read the posts I've made. The Scriptures for one.

It's you who makes Him who you want him to be.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

My gosh...just read the posts I've made. The Scriptures for one.

Which scriptures, specifically, support your claim that Jesus was not a pacifist?

Can you give us examples?

It's you who makes Him who you want him to be.

Can you give an example of when I've done this?

Didn't think so.

[DBruleU]

Which scriptures, specifically, support your claim that Jesus was not a pacifist?

Can you give us examples?



Can you give an example of when I've done this?

Didn't think so.

I'm not going to repeat myself.

Have a good day.

[BroncoInferno]

Top 10 reasons why beer is better than religion

10. No one will kill you for not drinking Beer.

9. Beer doesn't tell you how to have sex.

8. Beer has never caused a major war.

7. They don't force Beer on minors who can't think for themselves.

6. When you have a Beer, you don't knock on people's doors trying to give
it away.

5. Nobody's ever been burned at the stake, hanged, or tortured over his
brand of Beer.

4. You don't have to wait 2000+ years for a second Beer.

3. There are laws saying Beer labels can't lie to you.

2. You can prove you have a Beer.

1. If you've devoted your life to Beer, there are groups to help you stop.

[Taco John]

Ok. Given that definition I believe in gravity. Don't know about for sure, but I sure have enough evidence to believe it's true. Let's go ahead and equate that with religion, shall we?

Or how about electromagentic theory? Guess I can only believe in the interrelationship between electric fields, magnetic fields, electric charge, and electric current.

You see, because unlike religious assertions that claim to KNOW for a fact that God created Adam and Eve, or that morality derives from a Supreme Being, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections. Thus, you can never state -in the venacular you choose-- to KNOW anything about evolution, gravity or electromagnatism. You can only believe in these things. Is that what you're tryng to say, Taco? Or does evolution get special treatment in this department? You can KNOW that gravity is force of nature (even though it is only a theory) but you can't KNOW that decent with modification has occurred. Is that really what you want to argue?


I can't respond to your entire post, because I'm behind on a press release, but to be sure, even the theory of gravity, per Einstein, is a belief based on the best available evidence.

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

[Taco John]

When has religion ever admitted it was wrong about its explanations for why things happen? Never.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1DA1F31F932A35752C1A9649582 60

[BroncoInferno]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1DA1F31F932A35752C1A9649582 60

LOL

Well, big kudos to the church for absolving Galileo in such a timely fashion. Welcome to the 18th century!

[OregonBronco]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1DA1F31F932A35752C1A9649582 60

That wasn't disproving a religious belief, that was disproving the current scientific theory. The church wasn't the only group that believed the sun revolved around the earth....most of the western world did.

How about something like, oh, the earth was created out of the blue 6000 years ago? You don't hear "Oh, yeah, that was wrong"....you hear crap like "That was really a metaphor for God-years, so 6000 God-years is like a bajillion human years".

Anyways, I'm getting off-topic. My point is this: don't say scientific theories are full of holes when your explanations are nothing more than fairy tales with no (zero, nada) evidence to back it up.

[orangeatheist]

I can't respond to your entire post, because I'm behind on a press release, but to be sure, even the theory of gravity, per Einstein, is a belief based on the best available evidence.

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Ok, so you admit there are "gaps" in other scientific theories. So, is gravitational theory merely a belief system? Atomic Theory? They have "gaps", too. More so than evolutionary theory.

I'm just curious about what other option you think is out there that rivals evolution and why "gaps" in a scientific theory render it faith-based.

[RkyMtnThunder]

You mean that one, gigantic gap between saying god exists and proving it? Or the related one that asserts there's an Intelligent Designer and providing the evidence of how, why and what it designed?

Hardly the "same coin" Taco believes it is.

I believe in 'god' but I cannot prove its existence any more than I could prove my love for my son to anyone on this board.

But I do understand where you are coming from because there are holes in many religions that cannot rationally be explained other than to take a leap of faith.

And I also believe there are less holes within the realm of science than religious types would like to believe. But holes still remain.

The difference being that within science, the quest to find answers never stops. Contemporary answers are questioned as advancements in technology and human understanding/awareness is made.

Religion on the other hand, accepts what is told as fact - never bothering with the questions. Questioning the answers rarely if ever happens regardless of any advancement in human awareness.


Evolution IMO is real. And people evolve, Science evolves.

Religions do not evolve. People eventually outgrow contemporary religions in favor of new ideas and faiths.

Human beings are smart and need to have their questions satisfactorily answered. As a religion slowly becomes unable to answer more and more complex questions as humanity evolves - that religion ultimately is phased out. And I believe we are witnessing a major phasing out as more and more people no longer identify with the traditional religions concepts as their questions have evolved beyond the religions ability to satisfactorily answer.

Its been a long time since the last global spiritual shakeup. But if one looks at human history, major world religions tend to change every 2,000ish years.

And looking at society in general today, it really appears that another spiritual ideological shift has begun.

Some may claim this shift at this time of the world has been prophesized - age of aquarius, new aeon of horus, etc, etc

whatever it is...seems pretty clear that a shift away from major religions of the past 1500-2000 years is happening - at least in western society - which happens to be the most advanced

And what we are seeing from the religious right these days - IMO is a last gasp for control and power.

Of course this shift will take several generations to finalize itself - just like any other time in human history.

But it seems undeniable the wheels of change are in motion


but I digress......big time

lol

[Taco John]

How about something like, oh, the earth was created out of the blue 6000 years ago?


The Bible never makes this claim. This is a commonly held misconception.

[Deacon Blue]

How about something like, oh, the earth was created out of the blue 6000 years ago? You don't hear "Oh, yeah, that was wrong"....you hear crap like "That was really a metaphor for God-years, so 6000 God-years is like a bajillion human years".

Anyways, I'm getting off-topic. My point is this: don't say scientific theories are full of holes when your explanations are nothing more than fairy tales with no (zero, nada) evidence to back it up.

Just don't say Catholics believe in that 6000 year old BS because we sure as hell don't.

Pope John Paul II said himself that he believed God's hand guided the creation of the universe and mankind, however it may have happened.

[Spider]

Do on to others before they do on to you .......
book of spider Chapter 12 vs 10

[epicSocialism4tw]

Just don't say Catholics believe in that 6000 year old BS because we sure as hell don't.

Pope John Paul II said himself that he believed God's hand guided the creation of the universe and mankind, however it may have happened.

There is also a commonly held misconception that all Christian groups believe in young earth creationism.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Do on to others before they do on to you .......
book of spider Chapter 12 vs 10

I thought that that was "Dag nab it...when the transmission gets stuck in the middle of a haul, dont bide your time by entertaining truck stop women."

[Spider]

Just don't say Catholics believe in that 6000 year old BS because we sure as hell don't.

Pope John Paul II said himself that he believed God's hand guided the creation of the universe and mankind, however it may have happened.

But believe in Kidding dipping .........

[Spider]

I thought that that was "Dag nab it...when the transmission gets stuck in the middle of a haul, dont bide your time by entertaining truck stop women."

LOL there you go thinking again .......

[OregonBronco]

Just don't say Catholics believe in that 6000 year old BS because we sure as hell don't.

Pope John Paul II said himself that he believed God's hand guided the creation of the universe and mankind, however it may have happened.

Yeah, and I'm fine with that kind of view. I'm fine with people that want to interpret the Bible metaphorically. But what drives me nuts are the quacks (and I know it's a small minority) that say God created the earth with things like fossils to make it look older than it really is. Err....wha? :kiddingme

Anyways, for me it basically boils down to this:

Where did the universe come from?

Western religion -> God, 7 days

Me -> I dunno, but I'm pretty sure you don't either

My belief really is that the universe has always been and always will be. There are laws that apply to everything in the universe. Whether or not some divine intelligence is responsible for that is a moot point. Chances are we will never know and even if we find out, it is completely outside of human comprehension.

[Deacon Blue]

Yeah, and I'm fine with that kind of view. I'm fine with people that want to interpret the Bible metaphorically. But what drives me nuts are the quacks (and I know it's a small minority) that say God created the earth with things like fossils to make it look older than it really is. Err....wha? :kiddingme


LOL

I had some friends come out to visit who happen to be fundamentalist Baptists and took them to the Garden of the Gods.

One of my friends with me(not fundamentalist Baptist) made the mistake of saying: "Damn, these things are all millions of years old...."

We were really in for it for the next few hours.

[OregonBronco]

LOL

I had some friends come out to visit who happen to be fundamentalist Baptists and took them to the Garden of the Gods.

One of my friends with me(not fundamentalist Baptist) made the mistake of saying: "Damn, these things are all millions of years old...."

We were really in for it for the next few hours.

LOL

They're not from the Kansas school board, are they?

[orangeatheist]

The Bible never makes this claim [that the earth is roughly 6000 years old]. This is a commonly held misconception.

Not directly, but it certainly is implied.

What is also implied is a solid, domed sky, a flat earth and "special" creation.

What ISN'T implied is an earth roughly 4.5 billion years old, biodiversity the result of evolution and common decent, a permeable atmosphere and a spherical earth.

(Now all I need to do is await the inevitable references to 2 Peter and the Books of Isaiah and Job.)

[Bob]

The Bible never makes this claim. This is a commonly held misconception.

I have never met one Christain who believe in a the young earth idea...

Next thing you know they will say we have to believe in a flat earth as well...

[Bob]

Opps I was too late in posting...

[BroncoBuff]

Being a Christian isn't about protecting yourself. It's about giving up the self, and serving others. Christ was the ultimate pacifist.

If only these neo-Christians understood that.

I honestly, truly wonder how Bush can be a true Christian. I would say that about a president of either party who starts a war unprovoked.

I truly don't get it. I think he THINKS he's a Christian, I don't think it's an act. But there is a disconnect going on between Jesus' teaching and their behaviors.

[REB]

Matthew 5:45-47 (New International Version)



45. that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47. And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

[RkyMtnThunder]

I have never met one Christain who believe in a the young earth idea...

Next thing you know they will say we have to believe in a flat earth as well...

(No offense Bob)


this is a good example of how religious people will distance themselves from some of the holes in their faith once the modern world can disprove what is written. (thanks Galileo!)





In regards to young earth theory, earth is flat, earth is center of the universe, etc...

its almost like some theists collectively said:

"Dang! We lost that one! Well...never mind all that. Not very important anyways. Everything else we say is true though! Really! Wait! Where are you going?!? Come back!"

[Bob]

Yeah, and I'm fine with that kind of view. I'm fine with people that want to interpret the Bible metaphorically. But what drives me nuts are the quacks (and I know it's a small minority) that say God created the earth with things like fossils to make it look older than it really is. Err....wha? :kiddingme

Anyways, for me it basically boils down to this:

Where did the universe come from?

Western religion -> God, 7 days

Me -> I dunno, but I'm pretty sure you don't either

My belief really is that the universe has always been and always will be. There are laws that apply to everything in the universe. Whether or not some divine intelligence is responsible for that is a moot point. Chances are we will never know and even if we find out, it is completely outside of human comprehension.

God said there was six-day creation, and one day of rest. So how long is a day to God? There are scriptures that say one day to God is 1000 years to man. The word "Create" means to reform existing matter. I just don’t think that the creative periods (or days) were ever translated into years. I do think the order that is outlined in the Creation story is similar (or the same) as those that believe in strict scientific "evidence."

Separation of light and darkness – the creation of the seas/separation from land --the creation of plant life -- the creation of animal life --- then lastly humans.

[REB]

When it comes to the whole self-defense thing I don't believe Jesus has a problem with people defending themselves. He told his disciples to purchase swords for themselves if they didn't already have one. He knew that he soon would no longer be with them and that their spreading of the good news would be met with resistance and that they may need to defend themselves from time to time. That's what I think anyway. Yes Jesus taught to turn the other cheek but he didn't say you couldn't kick some arse after that ;D

Luke 22

35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.

36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

[OregonBronco]

God said there was six-day creation, and one day of rest. So how long is a day to God? There are scriptures that say one day to God is 1000 years to man. The word "Create" means to reform existing matter. I just don’t think that the creative periods (or days) were ever translated into years. I do think the order that is outlined in the Creation story is similar (or the same) as those that believe in strict scientific "evidence."

Separation of light and darkness – the creation of the seas/separation from land --the creation of plant life -- the creation of animal life --- then lastly humans.

Just a few of the questions that come to mind...

So where did god come from and what was he doing before he decided to create the earth? And for what purpose? Was he bored? Lonely? Did he need someone to worship him? How come just one planet with people? There are microbial lifeforms on Mars...is that an experiment of his? If god is all-powerful, how come it took him 6 days and why did he need a rest?

[Taco John]

I'm just curious about what other option you think is out there that rivals evolution...


I don't doubt that evolution exists. What I doubt is it's ability to fully explain the origins of man, particularly where the evolution of consciousness is concerned. With regards to your question about what other option is out there, let me put it this way:

There is plenty of evidence that exists to support an interventionalist theory, though both science and religion have done their damndest to discount that evidence, either by ignoring it, or explaining it away.

And don't read me wrong... I'm not saying that theory is the answer. I just think there is merit to exploring it.

[Taco John]

So where did god come from?

I would suggest that God came from realization.

"I am."

[OregonBronco]

I would suggest that God came from realization.

"I am."

Ok, so what was there before god realized? Then you get into the classic chicken/egg problem. God had to exist for him to realize, right?

[DBruleU]

I would suggest that God came from realization.

"I am."

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

And how "I am" ties into that. Just curious.

[baja]

? ?

[Taco John]

Ok, so what was there before god realized?


There was only God. Realization isn't what made him God. It only made him aware of it.

[Bob]

Just a few of the questions that come to mind...

So where did god come from and what was he doing before he decided to create the earth? And for what purpose? Was he bored? Lonely? Did he need someone to worship him? How come just one planet with people? There are microbial lifeforms on Mars...is that an experiment of his? If god is all-powerful, how come it took him 6 days and why did he need a rest?

Do your answers work for you? Are Christain notions non-sensical -- I think that many are as well -- as they were framed some 1000 years ago, but some folks who thought they were speaking for God. Many answers are right in the NT, but ignored by traditionalists.

I think that there are answers to several of your questions if you really want to know, but if you are a bait-and-switch kind of guy, then it would take too long to explain.

Hebrews chapter 1 does say that God created "the worlds" -- it was not a singular experience, but a plural one. I for one think that he created numerous worlds with people on them. Why not? If his purpose is to exalt us, and let us experience His joys, and not torture us, as some think, why would he limit those joys to a mere 15 billion?

As for the purpose of creation -- that is a pretty important topic isn’t it? If there was a God who cared about his children, and the process for teaching his children required that we learn those lessons outside his direct presence (hard to learn faith about Father if he is right there -- huh?) then a world would need to be created. There are other reasons as well, but it does boil down to glorifying his literal children -- us.

If you can have a dialogue on this we can talk, but it seems sadly that many cant talk about issues of faith (or non faith) with out freaking6 out.

[Bronco Bob]

I don't doubt that evolution exists. What I doubt is it's ability to fully explain the origins of man, particularly where the evolution of consciousness is concerned. With regards to your question about what other option is out there, let me put it this way:

There is plenty of evidence that exists to support an interventionalist theory, though both science and religion have done their damndest to discount that evidence, either by ignoring it, or explaining it away.

And don't read me wrong... I'm not saying that theory is the answer. I just think there is merit to exploring it.

But there is more evidence out there showing that men and apes evolved
from a common ancestor than perhaps the evolution of any other animal
on earth. First there is the fossil record, the missing links were found years
ago. Then there is the DNA about a 99% match between humans and chimps
and a 98% match with gorillas. Then there is the fact that apes make
tools. And apes use language, sign language in their case rather than a
spoken word, but it is still language. Why is a supernatural being making
a man out of mud and breathing on this mud man to bring him to life
more believable than a cumulation of genetic changes over thousands
of years resulting in the divergence of apes and men?

[TheDave]

I have never met one Christain who believe in a the young earth idea...

Next thing you know they will say we have to believe in a flat earth as well...

Bob meet DBruleU... DBruleU meet bob.

[Spider]

Bob meet DBruleU... DBruleU meet bob.

ROFL! Freaking rep .......

[DBruleU]

Bob meet DBruleU... DBruleU meet bob.

Thanks man...

I just don't believe the earth is billions and billions of years old.

[freak6]

I don't doubt that evolution exists. What I doubt is it's ability to fully explain the origins of man, particularly where the evolution of consciousness is concerned.


That makes sense since humans are the only animals to have consciousness...

Do some research on early humans and the evolution of use of tools, speech, and the need to work together in a community to survive and you will see how consciousness, loyalty, emotions, and a higher functioning brain was needed for us to survive.

Elephants and other animals exhibit clear emotions which make them evolutionary successful. Without them, they and us would be extinct.

It's hard to realize because we live a short amount of time, but our ancestors have been developing for millions of years, plenty of time to develop our minds/consciousness.

[Bronco Bob]

Thanks man...

I just don't believe the earth is billions and billions of years old.

Why not? How do you explain the ratio of uranium to lead isotopes on earth then?

[Taco John]

Thanks man...

I just don't believe the earth is billions and billions of years old.




Why wouldn't you?

[BroncoBuff]

I just don't believe the earth is billions and billions of years old.

Like TJ said, WHY?

What makes you so SURE? Why are you gripping so tightly?



Truth is Dee, you have absolutely zero idea how old this planet is. Besides, the time concepts we use to measure things are based ENTIRELY on the motion of the Earth. Therefore, once you leave the Earth, time ceases to be measured the same way. In fact, it merges with space in a fabric. Time itself is an illusion.

And I just saw a Science Channel documentary about the Moon ... did you guys know that not so long ago the Earth spun a LOT faster than it does now? The Moon's gravity, which pulls toward it the oceans closest to it (causing the tides), also S L O W S - D O W N the Earth's rotation! So, when you're saying it's "billions of years" old ... which time definition are you using to measure years? Time is relative to space and motion ... so, because Earth used to spin really fast, one day NOW is equal to 6 days THEN. That oughtta throw off your calculations, DBruleU.

[BroncoBuff]

The problem I have with ALL of this is that man is so full of himself. You guys too.

We all look back at the medical procedures or scientific beliefs or religious practices of 100, 500, a thousand years ago and we laugh! We laugh at folks just a few generations back, "bleeding" patients, crappin outdoors, thinking the Sun goes round the Earth, or believing in Zeus and Apollo. What makes anybody think we're any different? Do any of you doubt that in 100 years (probably less), people who might read the posts in this very thread will think the same things? Laugh at how naive we were? The major religions//philosophies in the world now are EXACTLY LIKE the seven blindfolded men who feel up an elephant, then give seven different descriptions of it ... each man more certain than the last that only HE is correct.

The secret is ... DON'T BE SO DAMNED CERTAIN!

Mankind should mellow out, embrace some serious humility, and start at Square One: Believe the best of what our collective brains can learn. God made our brains after all. Trying to deny what our senses and intelligence teach us is (to me at least) kind of like evil. It's denying and supressing (sometimes by force) the best gifts God/Nature/Evolution gave us, namely sencience and intelligence. These crazed neo-Christians and jihadi Muslims both GRIP SO TIGHT to their "certain-ness" that they can't hardly breathe.

"The elephant is exactly like a TREE TRUNK! I will KICK ANY MAN'S ASS WHO DISAGREES!!" :chairhit: :cuss: :bash:

When these people are exposed to knowledge or experience, or another person's knowledge, experience or beliefs that threaten their tightly bounded belief systems, they blow a gasket out of fear!! And their reaction is to start blowing things up, or nervously claiming (though Jesus never mentioned it) that every word in the Bible is exactly correct (grip tight!) If these neo-Christian knotheads had any earthly idea some of what the Bible says in Deuteronomy, Leviticus ... they have no idea. ALL GAY MEN should be put to death. That's what it says. And the FOOD rules? You don't EVEN wanna know. KOSHER rules are pretty tame compared to what they really say in there. There is NO WAY every word in that thing is law (but there I go being all full of myself! ;D)

The sad part is, the vast majority of these neo-Christians DON'T know what's really in there. They're so busy gripping tight with fear shadowing their every step, that these crude beliefs give them the illusion of control.





The problem is FEAR. Nothing more.

[alkemical]

That makes sense since humans are the only animals to have consciousness...

Do some research on early humans and the evolution of use of tools, speech, and the need to work together in a community to survive and you will see how consciousness, loyalty, emotions, and a higher functioning brain was needed for us to survive.

Elephants and other animals exhibit clear emotions which make them evolutionary successful. Without them, they and us would be extinct.

It's hard to realize because we live a short amount of time, but our ancestors have been developing for millions of years, plenty of time to develop our minds/consciousness.


Not nec. true. There is some new evidence of how chimps may have more of a 'culture' and society than we were aware of.

[BroncoInferno]

Not nec. true. There is some new evidence of how chimps may have more of a 'culture' and society than we were aware of.

I think that works towards the evolutionary argument, though. Chimps may well be exhibiting the nascent stages of an emerging consciousness.

[alkemical]

I think that works towards the evolutionary argument, though. Chimps may well be exhibiting the nascent stages of an emerging consciousness.

Exactly, but they aren't sure when it started. Since it was noted how they had "language" and operated in a group. The 100 monkey theory is also interesting.

[BroncoInferno]

Exactly, but they aren't sure when it started. Since it was noted how they had "language" and operated in a group.

Yep. It is, of course, impossible to pinpoint an exact cause or starting point for such things. After all, natural selection by gradual modification is such a minute, time consuming process that one would have to have been tracking chimps for a couple of thousand years (likely much longer) to have noted significant developments. There probably isn't one specific reason, but a myriad a reasons related to various enviromental pressures etc.

The 100 monkey theory is also interesting.

Not sure I'm familiar with that one. Can you explain?

[alkemical]

Yep. It is, of course, impossible to pinpoint an exact cause or starting point for such things. After all, natural selection by gradual modification is such a minute, time consuming process that one would have to have been tracking chimps for a couple of thousand years (likely much longer) to have noted significant developments. There probably isn't one specific reason, but a myriad a reasons related to various enviromental pressures etc.



Not sure I'm familiar with that one. Can you explain?

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC09/Myers.htm

The Hundredth Monkey Revisited


It's not the best source to cite, but it gives the quickest overview of the "gist" of the story.

[Bob]

Bob meet DBruleU... DBruleU meet bob.

Hilarious! Fine, you got me.

[Bob]

Thanks man...

I just don't believe the earth is billions and billions of years old.

You can feel how you want about anything, and if by beliving one thing -- i.e a young earth --you may feel that by connection that you have to throw out other principles you believe/know to be true. I think that there are times, when some Christian ideas like a young earth might not be something that a person needs to literally interpret in order avoid not getting watered down in other areas. I do admit -- it can be a slippery slope if everything becomes a metaphor…

Anyway, that is my thought. For many here on this board the latest scientific “findings” are the driving force in what they have faith in. They may have believe lock-stock and barrel in the Population Explosion” written several decades ago, that predicted our destruction – In the seventies we were going to all die in a great deep freeze, now according to the prophet Gore we are going to suffer in a fire, than die in a flood. Unfortunately (for them) in ten years if we start having cooler weather, they will forget all about earlier inconsistencies and start a new religion to oppose the old druid faith. Science has obvious value, and for some like Inferno he seems to not adopt it as a faith – there doesn’t seem to be much emotional baggage or belief that he puts into it, while others are more Evangelistic than me with there supposed “non-faith.”

[Bob]

[QUOTE=BroncoBuff;1650722]Like TJ said, WHY?

What makes you so SURE? Why are you gripping so tightly?



There are many times when ideas on how to live one’s life are all tied together – I mean if you are trying to make sense of it all, one tries to put each thing in its place, and if one things that by adopting one idea a young earth, it might mean by extrapolation/connection that you cant hold as tightly to other cherished believes, than that become a difficult proposition.

I just think that there are some assumptions that Christians have made about some ideas that they have to be true as the Bible says that it is – when those ideas may not even be “biblical”, but are the ideas of old dead pre-Catholic philosophers. (like the flat earth idea that the Catholic church “sanctioned” from early Greek writings.)

[Bronco Bob]

In the seventies we were going to all die in a great deep freeze, now according to the prophet Gore we are going to suffer in a fire, than die in a flood. Unfortunately (for them) in ten years if we start having cooler weather, they will forget all about earlier inconsistencies and start a new religion to oppose the old druid faith. Science has obvious value, and for some like Inferno he seems to not adopt it as a faith – there doesn’t seem to be much emotional baggage or belief that he puts into it, while others are more Evangelistic than me with there supposed “non-faith.”

Ah, the old "global cooling myth" rears its head again. One scientist makes
this prediction. Most didn't agree with it at the time. But Newsweek
picks up on the story (which they later retracted) and all of a sudden
EVERYONE thought there was going to be global cooling in the 70's.
Never mind that a lot were also predicting global warming even in the 70's.
They just didn't make the cover of Newsweek. And never mind that
the consensis of all legitimate scientists now is that global warming is real
and the danger it presents is real.

[DBruleU]

You can feel how you want about anything, and if by beliving one thing -- i.e a young earth --you may feel that by connection that you have to throw out other principles you believe/know to be true. I think that there are times, when some Christian ideas like a young earth might not be something that a person needs to literally interpret in order avoid not getting watered down in other areas. I do admit -- it can be a slippery slope if everything becomes a metaphor…

Anyway, that is my thought. For many here on this board the latest scientific “findings” are the driving force in what they have faith in. They may have believe lock-stock and barrel in the Population Explosion” written several decades ago, that predicted our destruction – In the seventies we were going to all die in a great deep freeze, now according to the prophet Gore we are going to suffer in a fire, than die in a flood. Unfortunately (for them) in ten years if we start having cooler weather, they will forget all about earlier inconsistencies and start a new religion to oppose the old druid faith. Science has obvious value, and for some like Inferno he seems to not adopt it as a faith – there doesn’t seem to be much emotional baggage or belief that he puts into it, while others are more Evangelistic than me with there supposed “non-faith.”

I don't feel that I would have to throw anything away to believe in another. It's not going to change my faith, or my belief in God...or anything like that for that matter.

In all honesty, I'm not 100% certain, and neither is anyone else. You weren't there, and you don't know how old the Earth is. I'm sure someone thats smug will start throwing out their science, and how the earth is proven to be billions of years old....and frankly I don't care. There really is only one truth I believe in...one truth that I know is constant, and will never change. Thats the only truth that will give me everlasting life...believing, and basing everything I know on science isn't going to do that.

And if I care enough to know how old the earth is, I'll just ask God when I come face to face with Him...along with all the other millions of things I wonder about that the human brain can't even begin to understand.

One thing I find funny, is that everyone in this thread wants to understand God completely...and I don't even think that is possible. We are finite....and God is infinite. There's just too much to Him that our brains can't even comprehend about him...and I don't think we will until we are given our new bodies in eternal life. I wish I could know it all as well...so I could answer everyones questions they have about God in this thread, but I can't and my knowledge is limited only to what God allows me to know. There is only one thing that I truly do need to know though, and believe in, and I already do, and that will be enough for me in this life on earth.

[Bob]

I don't feel that I would have to throw anything away to believe in another. It's not going to change my faith, or my belief in God...or anything like that for that matter.

In all honesty, I'm not 100% certain, and neither is anyone else. You weren't there, and you don't know how old the Earth is. I'm sure someone thats smug will start throwing out their science, and how the earth is proven to be billions of years old....and frankly I don't care. There really is only one truth I believe in...one truth that I know is constant, and will never change. Thats the only truth that will give me everlasting life...believing, and basing everything I know on science isn't going to do that.

And if I care enough to know how old the earth is, I'll just ask God when I come face to face with Him...along with all the other millions of things I wonder about that the human brain can't even begin to understand.

One thing I find funny, is that everyone in this thread wants to understand God completely...and I don't even think that is possible. We are finite....and God is infinite. There's just too much to Him that our brains can't even comprehend about him...and I don't think we will until we are given our new bodies in eternal life. I wish I could know it all as well...so I could answer everyones questions they have about God in this thread, but I can't and my knowledge is limited only to what God allows me to know. There is only one thing that I truly do need to know though, and believe in, and I already do, and that will be enough for me in this life on earth.

I can respect that viewpoint...

[REB]

Matthew 22

The Greatest Commandment
34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

[orangeatheist]

God said there was six-day creation, and one day of rest. So how long is a day to God? There are scriptures that say one day to God is 1000 years to man.


Isn't that what I predicted someone would do to rescue the Bible's Creation myth from its obvious absurdity? I prophetically wrote: "Now all I need to do is await the inevitable references to 2 Peter..." And what does 2 Peter say?

2 Peter 3:8: "But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day."

Nevermind the context of this quote and how OEC rip it out to argue against their embarrassing YEC cousins. The fact is, I knew someone would reference this passage and they did.

Now, the fun part is getting the creationist who leans on 2 Peter to demonstrate why it applies to Genesis 1 and the days of Creation. Oh, it's a hoot! There a so many hurdles to jump that when they try, they inevitably trip up and fall flat on their faces. Suffice to say that 2 Peter has absolutely nothing to do with the days of Creation and that the days of Creation were intended to be read as literal 24-hour periods. Thus, the earth --according to implications in the Scriptures-- is roughly 6,000 years old. People have to turn the Bible into a pretzel to have it mean otherwise.


The word "Create" means to reform existing matter.

The Hebrew word is bara' and it simply means to create, shape or form. If God created the Heavens and the earth as it is claimed in Chapter 1 of Genesis, and you assert that creation means to merely reform existing matter, then that existing matter was already here for God to create with. Who created the existing matter?


I just don’t think that the creative periods (or days) were ever translated into years.

Of course not, because the context of Genesis 1, and the word choice, clearly indicates that the days were just that: days. As in literal 24 hour periods. And thus, every YEC has a biblically sound leg to stand on when they state that the earth is roughly only 6,000 years old. The EOC has no such firm footing. Of course, the YEC doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on but since when did that stop them from looking foolish?


I do think the order that is outlined in the Creation story is similar (or the same) as those that believe in strict scientific "evidence."

Utterly untrue. The order is completely out of whack.

You have God moving across "waters" which, presumably, are covering the entirety of what will become the earth. Either that, or the entire universe is made of water. Either way, the picture --scientifically speaking--is absurd. The earth was never completely covered by water. In fact, in the scientifically accurate beginning of the earth, the earth was mainly a spinning glob of molten rock. In no way could water have been here.

If we are to assume that Genesis 1 is speaking of the earth (and not the entire universe) when it discusses God moving across the waters, the next thing that supposedly happens is light is formed. But that light is independent of the sun and stars since they won't come into existence for a few more days. Science knows that the sun was here first, and then earth formed. And that other stars that give light in our galaxy are many, many times older than our own sun. So, light was here LONG before the earth was. Besides, how can you have light on the earth without the sun?

Then, God creates a solid dome to separate the waters. Sort of like a giant snowglobe in the middle of all this watery chaos. Is that how it really happened, scientifically speaking? Is earth's atmosphere really a solid object that blooped into existence in the middle of a huge puddle of water?

Next, God calls forth solid ground to pop up underneath the dome (sort of like the base of the snowglobe). Does earth science tell us that the earth was once completely covered with water out of which the continents rose? No. The rock had already cooled into solid form long before water began to collect in the basins that would become our oceans. The Bible has this entire story backwards.

Following, Genesis claims plants and grasses grew upon the land. First of all, grass didn't exist on this planet until after the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. There could NOT have been any grass among the first plants on this planet. Genesis got that wrong (so far it hasn't gotten anything right). Secondly, life is believed to have formed in the oceans first, THEN it came onto the land, including plants. Plants followed the first life that arose in the seas. But there's another problem: How did all these plants grow without the sun? It hasn't been created yet!

It isn't until the next day of creation that God finally gets around to making the sun, the moon and the stars. Science knows that the sun was here before the earth (contrary to the Genesis account) and that most of the stars we see in the night sky are far older then even our own sun. In addition, the moon isn't a recent addition to our solar system but appeared LONG before there were any oceans and any plants upon the land. Genesis screws this up royally!

After the plants and THEN the sun (snicker, snicker!) God gets around to plopping life in the sea. Of course, Genesis gets that backwards according to what science knows. Life came from the sea first, THEN it came upon the land. Not only that, but Genesis says that whales and birds were made at this time and evolution shows us that these are modern animals. They didn't even exist until after the age of the dinosaurs!

And then, of course, at the end of the chapter, Genesis says human beings were made. Not early hominids, but humans. Fully formed. Just like we are today.

Sorry, Bob. Genesis isn't even CLOSE to modern science. It's a religious myth.


Separation of light and darkness – the creation of the seas/separation from land --the creation of plant life -- the creation of animal life --- then lastly humans.

Yep. And that's the wrong order!

[Smiling Assassin27]

Sweet baby jesus told Bush to invade Iraq.

Sweet baby jesus needs to keep his nose out of foriegn policy, and stick with feeding the starving...

http://www.thesahara.fsnet.co.uk/starving/starving_baby.jpg

The more you post, the less understanding you demonstrate. Still, I'm not sure what Reb was aiming for with this thread. Feeding frenzies kill brain cells.

[orangeatheist]

I don't doubt that evolution exists. What I doubt is it's ability to fully explain the origins of man, particularly where the evolution of consciousness is concerned.

And is it suppose to? All scientific theories have "gaps" in them that need to be filled with further research. Had you uttered this objection even 20 years ago the gap you'd be mentioning would have been even greater. It steadily grows smaller with each passing year as more and more information is gathered and studied (and guess what? No supernatural being has turned up yet!).

Also, what does "fully explain" mean? What do you mean by "fully"? Archaeology, for example, cannot fully explain the origins of agriculture. To what do you attribute the development of early agriculture? Archaeology cannot fully explain the origins of human writing. To what do you attribute the development of early human writing?

You haven't stated it outrightly yet, but I wonder if you are one of those "God of the gaps" believers. Are you?


With regards to your question about what other option is out there, let me put it this way:

There is plenty of evidence that exists to support an interventionalist theory,

Such as? So far, this is nothing more than an empty assertion. Can you give examples of this evidence? Shouldn't be too hard if there's plenty of it.


though both science and religion have done their damndest to discount that evidence, either by ignoring it, or explaining it away.

Hmmm...I'm curious to have you give me an example of this evidence that points to an "interventionalist theory" and then to show how this example has been ignored or explained away. I need something more concrete. A Holocaust denier could say "there is plenty of evidence that exists to support the fact that no Holocaust took place, but both science and religion have done their damndest to discount that evidence either by ignoring it or explaining it away." "Explaining it away" may be EXACTLY what science is suppose to do with silly theories that have no merit. I wonder if the same may be true in your case. But I withhold judgement until I see your evidence.


And don't read me wrong... I'm not saying that theory is the answer. I just think there is merit to exploring it.

Ok. So let's explore it.

[orangeatheist]

Feeding frenzies kill brain cells.

Odd that you would characterize it that way. Tells me a lot about you.

[Bob]

Isn't that what I predicted someone would do to rescue the Bible's Creation myth from its obvious absurdity? I prophetically wrote: "Now all I need to do is await the inevitable references to 2 Peter..." And what does 2 Peter say?

2 Peter 3:8: "But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day."

Nevermind the context of this quote and how OEC rip it out to argue against their embarrassing YEC cousins. The fact is, I knew someone would reference this passage and they did.

Now, the fun part is getting the creationist who leans on 2 Peter to demonstrate why it applies to Genesis 1 and the days of Creation. Oh, it's a hoot! There a so many hurdles to jump that when they try, they inevitably trip up and fall flat on their faces. Suffice to say that 2 Peter has absolutely nothing to do with the days of Creation and that the days of Creation were intended to be read as literal 24-hour periods. Thus, the earth --according to implications in the Scriptures-- is roughly 6,000 years old. People have to turn the Bible into a pretzel to have it mean otherwise.



The Hebrew word is bara' and it simply means to create, shape or form. If God created the Heavens and the earth as it is claimed in Chapter 1 of Genesis, and you assert that creation means to merely reform existing matter, then that existing matter was already here for God to create with. Who created the existing matter?



Of course not, because the context of Genesis 1, and the word choice, clearly indicates that the days were just that: days. As in literal 24 hour periods. And thus, every YEC has a biblically sound leg to stand on when they state that the earth is roughly only 6,000 years old. The EOC has no such firm footing. Of course, the YEC doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on but since when did that stop them from looking foolish?



Utterly untrue. The order is completely out of whack.

You have God moving across "waters" which, presumably, are covering the entirety of what will become the earth. Either that, or the entire universe is made of water. Either way, the picture --scientifically speaking--is absurd. The earth was never completely covered by water. In fact, in the scientifically accurate beginning of the earth, the earth was mainly a spinning glob of molten rock. In no way could water have been here.

If we are to assume that Genesis 1 is speaking of the earth (and not the entire universe) when it discusses God moving across the waters, the next thing that supposedly happens is light is formed. But that light is independent of the sun and stars since they won't come into existence for a few more days. Science knows that the sun was here first, and then earth formed. And that other stars that give light in our galaxy are many, many times older than our own sun. So, light was here LONG before the earth was. Besides, how can you have light on the earth without the sun?

Then, God creates a solid dome to separate the waters. Sort of like a giant snowglobe in the middle of all this watery chaos. Is that how it really happened, scientifically speaking? Is earth's atmosphere really a solid object that blooped into existence in the middle of a huge puddle of water?

Next, God calls forth solid ground to pop up underneath the dome (sort of like the base of the snowglobe). Does earth science tell us that the earth was once completely covered with water out of which the continents rose? No. The rock had already cooled into solid form long before water began to collect in the basins that would become our oceans. The Bible has this entire story backwards.

Following, Genesis claims plants and grasses grew upon the land. First of all, grass didn't exist on this planet until after the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. There could NOT have been any grass among the first plants on this planet. Genesis got that wrong (so far it hasn't gotten anything right). Secondly, life is believed to have formed in the oceans first, THEN it came onto the land, including plants. Plants followed the first life that arose in the seas. But there's another problem: How did all these plants grow without the sun? It hasn't been created yet!

It isn't until the next day of creation that God finally gets around to making the sun, the moon and the stars. Science knows that the sun was here before the earth (contrary to the Genesis account) and that most of the stars we see in the night sky are far older then even our own sun. In addition, the moon isn't a recent addition to our solar system but appeared LONG before there were any oceans and any plants upon the land. Genesis screws this up royally!

After the plants and THEN the sun (snicker, snicker!) God gets around to plopping life in the sea. Of course, Genesis gets that backwards according to what science knows. Life came from the sea first, THEN it came upon the land. Not only that, but Genesis says that whales and birds were made at this time and evolution shows us that these are modern animals. They didn't even exist until after the age of the dinosaurs!

And then, of course, at the end of the chapter, Genesis says human beings were made. Not early hominids, but humans. Fully formed. Just like we are today.

Sorry, Bob. Genesis isn't even CLOSE to modern science. It's a religious myth.



Yep. And that's the wrong order!

So I guess your faith has it all figured out -- good to know.

[orangeatheist]

So I guess your faith has it all figured out -- good to know.

No. Faith (Hebrews 11:1) has nothing to do with it.

I did notice how you side-stepped my entire post which sunk your assumptions, however.

[Bob]

No. Faith (Hebrews 11:1) has nothing to do with it.

I did notice how you side-stepped my entire post which sunk your assumptions, however.

Yes, it was one of my lamer posts...

Your post was very in depth, and well-thought out. I have been spending too much time at work getting sucked into debates, as it is interesting to me. I would like to keep my job though. :angel:

I think that my problem is that as I am LDS I do not just look at what the Bible has and say -- that is it. I love the Bible, don’t get me wrong. I may know it as well as most traditional Christians, and read it often -- I do think it is correct "as far as it is translated correctly" but there were a few early pre-Catholic religionists who changed some scriptures to fit into their own biases. They may have changed some doctrines they felt uncomfortable with. So when someone says that the Christian historical evidence contradicts when modern science has to say, I think -- you bet... and so what, what does Saint Jerome have to do with me? Or does someone in the Early Catholic church by adopting a non-heliocentric universe as doctrine reflect my views? It is not really my concern directly. In the 1830's leaders in my faith said that "they guessed the earth was over 2 billion years old." What are we at now according to modern thought/evidence? Are we at 6 billion yet?

The whole descriptive account of the creation outlined in Genesis I think is very cool, and more accurate than people realize. Part of my reasoning is connected to LDS doctrinal issues, that would quickly turn into two-member blood bath between Freak and me (and would be disrespectful hijack to the rest of you) so I stick with the Bible only where I can still argue the majority of my points – it is harder though. I do think that you may want to look at the word “create” again. The Hebrew equivalent does describe a process of organizing pre-existent matter. The truth is: nothing can come from nothing. I think that is a basic law of science -- that energy cannot be created or destroyed? Perhaps a minor point, but I don’t think that God created something out of nothing – the earth, or us -- but rather creation was the intelligent process of re-organizing matter that existed in some form already.

[Taco John]

...the days of Creation were intended to be read as literal 24-hour periods.


Says who?

[Bronco Bob]

Says who?

Are you saying we are allowed to pick and chose which parts of
the Bible are to be taken literally and which parts are metaphors?
Isn't the whole concept of creationism that the Bible is the
literal explanation of how the earth was created?
That God made each animal individually and man especially.
Otherwise then you have what the Catholic Church's position is.
That evolution is a fact and that God merely guided things along,
including the evolution of humans, but in the case of humans
God inserts a soul somewhere along the way to being born.

[alkemical]

I just want to know about methusala & enoch.

[BroncoInferno]

Says who?

You can't honestly believe that the Hebrew scribes of 1500 B.C. meant anything other than for folks to take the seven day creation story as literal, can you? Why wouldn't they have clarified the issue more rather than giving an inaccurate number, or if they didn't know the accurate number why not just leave out any kind of calibration? Give me a break.

[BroncoInferno]

Yes, it was one of my lamer posts...

Your post was very in depth, and well-thought out. I have been spending too much time at work getting sucked into debates, as it is interesting to me. I would like to keep my job though. :angel:

I think that my problem is that as I am LDS I do not just look at what the Bible has and say -- that is it. I love the Bible, don’t get me wrong. I may know it as well as most traditional Christians, and read it often -- I do think it is correct "as far as it is translated correctly" but there were a few early pre-Catholic religionists who changed some scriptures to fit into their own biases. They may have changed some doctrines they felt uncomfortable with. So when someone says that the Christian historical evidence contradicts when modern science has to say, I think -- you bet... and so what, what does Saint Jerome have to do with me? Or does someone in the Early Catholic church by adopting a non-heliocentric universe as doctrine reflect my views? It is not really my concern directly. In the 1830's leaders in my faith said that "they guessed the earth was over 2 billion years old." What are we at now according to modern thought/evidence? Are we at 6 billion yet?

The whole descriptive account of the creation outlined in Genesis I think is very cool, and more accurate than people realize. Part of my reasoning is connected to LDS doctrinal issues, that would quickly turn into two-member blood bath between Freak and me (and would be disrespectful hijack to the rest of you) so I stick with the Bible only where I can still argue the majority of my points – it is harder though. I do think that you may want to look at the word “create” again. The Hebrew equivalent does describe a process of organizing pre-existent matter. The truth is: nothing can come from nothing. I think that is a basic law of science -- that energy cannot be created or destroyed? Perhaps a minor point, but I don’t think that God created something out of nothing – the earth, or us -- but rather creation was the intelligent process of re-organizing matter that existed in some form already.

I'm going to try and be kind, but if the don't think the LDS book, particularly its origins, has its own severe issues, then I don't know what to conclude other than you're kidding yourself. The whole story about how Smith supposedly translated the gold plates is beyond absurd.

In 1826 the "prophet" Smith was convicted of fraud after fleecing folks in a crazy gold mining scheme and claiming to have "necromantic" powers (this according to a newspaper article from the relevant time). Four years later, he claims to have obtained gold plates from heaven, which the illiterate Smith calls on his neighbor Martin Harris to jot down for him. Then Smith separates himself from Harris with a blanket (!) and threatens him with sudden death if he were to look beyond the blanket Uhh Harris' sharper wife stole the first sixteen pages transcribed by her husband and challenged Smith to reproduce them, which he shockingly was unable to do. God, apparently unable to reproduce the original text, instead furnished Smith with smaller plates to dictate to Harris. After the recitation, the gold plates were miraculously transported back up to heaven.

C'mon!

[BroncoBuff]

Two sayings encompass nearly the whole thing imo:




DON'T BE SO DAMNED CERTAIN!


Always push back against FEAR. It ruins everything


Regardless what book ytou read or what you think you know .... we don't know d!ck! We don't know 1% of 1% of 1% of what is out there. Those oif us who read for example clav's thread about the "Holographic Universe," or who've read up a bit on quantum mechanics or string theory realize that you can never have too much humility.

[BroncoInferno]

Two sayings encompass nearly the whole thing imo:




DON'T BE SO DAMNED CERTAIN!


Always push back against FEAR. It ruins everything


Regardless what book ytou read or what you think you know .... we don't know d!ck! We don't know 1% of 1% of 1% of what is out there. Those oif us who read for example clav's thread about the "Holographic Universe," or who've read up a bit on quantum mechanics or string theory realize that you can never have too much humility.

Precisely. The point is, the religious aren't any closer to knowing either (though they pretend to).

[alkemical]

I didn't reply to the post and forget where it is:

But OA - my belief system as how everything works together an overall is really probably more "darwinistic" than it is not. Come on, if i can justify murder, hermaphrodites (by nature only, not by choice), Homosexuality (by nature only, not by choice), etc - I'm not sure how much more cold blooded that is than not.

It's why i support anyone's right to believe anything, but dislike people's fundamentalist view of reality.

If person X feels they escaped an even due to god's grace, and if person Y just feels it's a close call - neither is nec. wrong. That's about the root of it.

"Belief is the death of intelligence. " Robert Anton Wilson

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So I guess your faith has it all figured out -- good to know.

Doesn't come off that way to me. Fully explains his answers with known facts and science leaving the "believers" with nothing more than a personal interpretation of ancient writings, myths and legend handed down for centuries and centuries as an explanation for the basis of their whole belief system.

[TheDave]

I'm going to try and be kind, but if the don't think the LDS book, particularly its origins, has its own severe issues, then I don't know what to conclude other than you're kidding yourself. The whole story about how Smith supposedly translated the gold plates is beyond absurd.

In 1826 the "prophet" Smith was convicted of fraud after fleecing folks in a crazy gold mining scheme and claiming to have "necromantic" powers (this according to a newspaper article from the relevant time). Four years later, he claims to have obtained gold plates from heaven, which the illiterate Smith calls on his neighbor Martin Harris to jot down for him. Then Smith separates himself from Harris with a blanket (!) and threatens him with sudden death if he were to look beyond the blanket Uhh Harris' sharper wife stole the first sixteen pages transcribed by her husband and challenged Smith to reproduce them, which he shockingly was unable to do. God, apparently unable to reproduce the original text, instead furnished Smith with smaller plates to dictate to Harris. After the recitation, the gold plates were miraculously transported back up to heaven.

C'mon!

Wow... I new it was a goofy sounding story, but that's scientology weird.

[Bob]

I'm going to try and be kind, but if the don't think the LDS book, particularly its origins, has its own severe issues, then I don't know what to conclude other than you're kidding yourself. The whole story about how Smith supposedly translated the gold plates is beyond absurd.

In 1826 the "prophet" Smith was convicted of fraud after fleecing folks in a crazy gold mining scheme and claiming to have "necromantic" powers (this according to a newspaper article from the relevant time). Four years later, he claims to have obtained gold plates from heaven, which the illiterate Smith calls on his neighbor Martin Harris to jot down for him. Then Smith separates himself from Harris with a blanket (!) and threatens him with sudden death if he were to look beyond the blanket Uhh Harris' sharper wife stole the first sixteen pages transcribed by her husband and challenged Smith to reproduce them, which he shockingly was unable to do. God, apparently unable to reproduce the original text, instead furnished Smith with smaller plates to dictate to Harris. After the recitation, the gold plates were miraculously transported back up to heaven.

C'mon!

Thanks for wanting to be respectful. You do have some parts of the historically accepted history wrong. I am pretty familiar with some early LDS history, but I am not an expert by any means. Although my guess I have probably read more on the topic than everyone here – on what is a very broad topic. I am active in my faith – and so that means I have tried to look at the whole picture. I have tried to look at what others see/saw as the “weak links” in the chain, and that means spending time looking at not just what those that hated the church 175 years ago had to say, but also the flip side. I do think that when one doesn’t believe in God, they read religious claims through those glasses – how can we do otherwise? Inferno, when you read any history of Islam, Hinduism, LDS doctrine, or the claims of the resurrection naturally you read it with the idea that God is not real. Based on that belief – than any story about a kid saying they saw God would in the best case imply that he was mentally ill. Folks living at the time who believed in God (who did not think that God could talk with anyone directly anymore) took it more personally. It does surprise me that some folks now see JS with their own inclination to look for scandal, or charlatanism – just as some did in 1828. There are some morons that think that our government blew up the second tower – some 6 years after the event. Are those folks reflecting reality, or than themselves?

Your are right that there were several pages lost – not just 16, but some 116 pages. Joseph Smith was seen by many during his era as the equivalent at a “radical Muslim” would be seen in America today – maybe worse. Inferno, you know some of the history of hatred against Mormons don’t you? Mormons were not always the doves in this process, but usually the level of stuff that was thrown toward the Saints at the time were heavily indicative of religious intolerance toward LDS folks. Think of freak6, give him a pitchfork, an eighth grade education, and replace is non-belief and replace it with the notion that Mormons are worshiping Satan down the street -- and you get the idea. The governor of Missouri did execute an extermination order that made it legal to expel Mormons for the area “by any means possible” so JS was accused of many crimes, and hauled into court dozens of times – and I might add, not by secular humanists – folks during that time had problems with a whole slue of doctrinal issues, and what made things a powder keg, was throwing political issues on top of it. The Saints as a whole were North Easterners (and later Europeans) who opposed slavery – that didn’t help in Missouri, a slave state. So can people who have strong religious beliefs create a few trumped up charges to protect their own interests? Yup, sure.

Now, you are bringing up a charge before 1830 – At least understand that that JS was very disliked before 1830, and that it might be possible, that (even if you have to think that he is a liar about seeing God) that there was plenty of motivation of those who didn’t like him for what he claimed to bring up false charges. The moment he shared with a family member, and then a preacher in the area that he had literally seen God – that caused a great deal of persecution for him and his whole family. It would have been better finically and socially (as the farmers they were) for JS and his whole family to let the whole thing go. When you have a 14 year old kid say they had seen God in 1820, and would not retract it – during that time in American history, that kind of statement is going to stir up problems, and feelings that JS was not only a charlatan, but guilty of intolerable blasphemy. Some of the flip-side historical narratives to at least consider.

[orangeatheist]

Says who?

First of all, says me. I’m the one who wrote that post!

Second of all, any serious scholar who has studied the relevant passages in context, both literally and historically. There’s something called word-choice and phrases. If you really want to get into it, I can. I spent a great deal of time studying the literary and historical context of Genesis 1. In that time, I came to conclusion (along with a vast number of biblical scholars) that the “days” of Genesis are to be understood as literal 24-hour periods.

If you’d rather not discuss the issue with me, then perhaps you’d feel more comfortable with Dr. Gerhard Hasel‘s paper, “The “Days’ of Creation in Genesis 1: Literal ‘Days’ or Figurative ‘Period/Epochs’ of Time?”, which concluded, “The cumulative evidence, based on comparative, literary, linguistic and other considerations, converges on every level, leading to the singular conclusion that the designation yôm, "day," in Genesis 1 means consistently a literal 24-hour day.” The late Professor Hasel was the John Nevins Andrews Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan. His paper can be accessed here:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm

I just want to know about methusala & enoch.

They were myths.

Next?


I didn't reply to the post and forget where it is:

But OA - my belief system as how everything works together an overall is really probably more "darwinistic" than it is not. Come on, if i can justify murder, hermaphrodites (by nature only, not by choice), Homosexuality (by nature only, not by choice), etc - I'm not sure how much more cold blooded that is than not.

To be honest, I don't know what you're trying to say here.


It's why i support anyone's right to believe anything, but dislike people's fundamentalist view of reality.

Because of a "darwinistic" viewpoint of life? Not sure how that follows, but it may be due to the fact that I didn't understand the introduction to this last post.


If person X feels they escaped an even due to god's grace, and if person Y just feels it's a close call - neither is nec. wrong. That's about the root of it.

But that's the point. Logically speaking one of them HAS to be wrong. Either a close call was escaped because a deity interfered or did not. Two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time. How someone feels about it isn't going to get us very far.

I tell my daughter every day to search for the truth. It's the only way she's going to be able to make wise decisions. If she just goes about basing decisions and assigning meaning to things just as the mood strikes her, she's not going to get very far. Her decisions will be like pissing into the wind. Some of the drops might miss her, but others won't. She needs the BEST map of reality so she can make the wisest decisions. And "feeling" that a god is there that helps create "close calls" isn't going to set her (or anyone who believes that way) up for a successful shot at life.


"Belief is the death of intelligence. " Robert Anton Wilson

"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem." William of Ockham

[alkemical]

She needs the BEST map of reality so she can make the wisest decisions. And "feeling" that a god is there that helps create "close calls" isn't going to set her (or anyone who believes that way) up for a successful shot at life.



That's only YOUR interpretation from your POV for your own reality map. You live in an binary world. (Last time i checked, i view in colour.) Of course, the new wave of quantum mechanics (look at the new quatum computing models that include a/b/c as a predicative indicator - so true/false/other exist at the same point in time as "valid") will invalidate just about everyone's view of this type of thinking (binary), it's really this type of thinking what holds the human race back.

But i understand where you stand by your comments much clearer than before.

[REB]

Matthew 24

12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold,

42 "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

[Northman]

Huh? Did Jesus say, "Don't defend yourself?"

I mean, He sent the Isrealites into battle, he sent David to slay Goliath.

He wasn't a pacifist by any means.


The Ten Commandments werent created by Jesus.

[Northman]

Being a Christian isn't about protecting yourself. It's about giving up the self, and serving others. Christ was the ultimate pacifist.




Bingo.

[Bob]

Are you saying we are allowed to pick and chose which parts of
the Bible are to be taken literally and which parts are metaphors?
Isn't the whole concept of creationism that the Bible is the
literal explanation of how the earth was created?
That God made each animal individually and man especially.
Otherwise then you have what the Catholic Church's position is.
That evolution is a fact and that God merely guided things along,
including the evolution of humans, but in the case of humans
God inserts a soul somewhere along the way to being born.

"Are you saying we are allowed to pick and chose which parts of
the Bible are to be taken literally and which parts are metaphors?"

Yeah, pretty much...

Oh, and we get to choose which commandments to keep and break as well -- We may not get to choose which consquences come as a result of violating the "thou shalt not kill" thing and others but one of the points of Christainity is having and making choices.

[Bob]

The Ten Commandments werent created by Jesus.

So God of the Old Testament was who in relation to Christ?

[Northman]

So God of the Old Testament was who in relation to Christ?


His maker.

[REB]

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

[DBruleU]

The Ten Commandments werent created by Jesus.

Jesus was God in human form bud. They were/are the same.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Jesus was God in human form bud. They were/are the same.Really? So how was that cyphered and who did the translation?

[codeman]

You guys need to find something constructive to discuss.

The ones that don't believe won't because of this thread and those that do will only endear themselves to the LWNJ's that populate the board.

[Northman]

Jesus was God in human form bud. They were/are the same.


" For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son "

[DBruleU]

" For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son "

And...?

I really don't feel like going into it. It won't change a thing...for you, or for me.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

And...?
I really don't feel like going into it. It won't change a thing...for you, or for me.Then why did you bring it up?

[orangeatheist]

That's only YOUR interpretation from your POV for your own reality map.

Which is based upon mounds of experience and rational thought. I'm not looking at a brick wall as some sort of alternate reality and wondering if I think hard enough my fist will transform into a glob of ether and pass right through it if I punch it hard enough...because...well, brick walls aren't necessarily solid; it's just a POV. And, besides, at a quantum level they're mostly just empty space anyway...both existing and not existing at the same time.

Trippy, dude.

I'm just not so "opened minded" that my map of the world includes a hollow center populated by the Oompa Loompas because it just MIGHT be true. :loopy: I take a stand.


You live in an binary world. (Last time i checked, i view in colour.)

Wow, talk about your mixed metaphors. But, ultimately, just more gobbledygook.

You know, Clavi, if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.

(And I thought you were from Seattle? What's with this English [UK] spelling of "color"?)


Of course, the new wave of quantum mechanics (look at the new quatum computing models that include a/b/c as a predicative indicator - so true/false/other exist at the same point in time as "valid") will invalidate just about everyone's view of this type of thinking (binary), it's really this type of thinking what holds the human race back.

And this somehow can be extrapolated into the world of our experience how? I don't care what quantum physics figures out about what goes on inside an atom when it comes to making a map of the reality we inhabit every day. Sure, freaky things are being revealed by science, but so what? You see something odd about a quantum particle and suddenly all bets are off? God just MIGHT exist? How do you figure? How does your logic work? Like this?:

A. Something weird was discovered by science.
B. Man, that's weird.
C. Therefore God could exist.

Every post I read from you has that as a buzzing undercurrent.

Let me tell you something: Quantum particles may be able to exist in two places at the same time and that's very interesting, academically. But when you step out into the street you better be operating with a map that allows you to know the difference between a quantum particle speeding at you which could disappear before it hits you and a freakin' Mac truck. That binary enough for you?


But i understand where you stand by your comments much clearer than before.

This isn't clear to me, either. No offense, but based upon your spelling of "color" and your sometimes incoherent sentences, might I assume English isn't your native language?

[TheDave]

Jesus was God in human form bud. They were/are the same.


See i always found that confusing... We are always told that there is a major difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In fact most people usually just defer to the teachings of the New while ignoring some of the Old... BUT... If Jesus and God are the same then there seems to be something amis between the forgiving peace loving Jesus on earth and the God that seemed OK with sacrifice, rape, mass murder and everything else that took place in the Old Testament. Personally, I was never able to make sense of that.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

See i always found that confusing... We are always told that there is a major difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In fact most people usually just defer to the teachings of the New while ignoring some of the Old... BUT... If Jesus and God are the same then there seems to be something amis between the forgiving peace loving Jesus on earth and the God that seemed OK with sacrifice, rape, mass murder and everything else that took place in the Old Testament. Personally, I was never able to make sense of that.There you go, bringing logic, common sense and reason into the debate.

[TheDave]

There you go, bringing logic, common sense and reason into the debate.

I'm just a lowly ex-catholic school kid trying to make sense of this world :thumbsup:

[baja]

You too huh...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm just a lowly ex-catholic school kid trying to make sense of this world :thumbsup:I grew up with the catholic mob in North Denver, Carbones, Garramones, etc... My best friend (older by a year than me) across the street (Judish's) parents had 8 kids. The parents were staunch catholics too. Bob introduced me to cigarettes, alcohol, pussy and and drugs by the time I was 14 :)

[TheDave]

I grew up with the catholic mob in North Denver, Carbones, Garramones, etc... My best friend (older by a year than me) across the street (Judish's) parents had 8 kids. The parents were staunch catholics too. Bob introduced me to cigarettes, alcohol, p***Y and and drugs by the time I was 14 :)


Sounds like a good catholic boy to me... ;D

[epicSocialism4tw]

What a garbage pile this thread turned out to be.

The Religion-Hater Brigade strikes again!

[mosca]

What a garbage pile this thread turned out to be.

The Religion-Hater Brigade strikes again!
Really. I'm no Christian, but I agree. If you take a look at the first post by REB, an innocent, well-intentioned post, and then scroll on through the thread to where it is now, it's pretty sad.

[Spider]

Spide, I am talking about everyone here that complains about the government not doing enough, and my question is what do the individuals that b**** here on the mane do? I personally through my church have given around $1500 this year. That is not alot, but the most I can do. That money went to south America to build a house. I have also volunteered to help disaster relief and other things. What pisses me off is whether we are talking about GOD, GW, or something else. God and GW are separate, no matter what he thinks.

I didnt mean any offense,1,500 is alot + time......no doubt you walk the walk......thats something you can hang your hat on and be proud of ......
and you know I wouldnt say that unless I meant it .....

[Spider]

What a garbage pile this thread turned out to be.

The Religion-Hater Brigade strikes again!

I thought I was well behaved in this thread ......... ;D

[BroncoBuff]

I grew up with the catholic mob in North Denver, Carbones, Garramones, etc... My best friend (older by a year than me) across the street (Judish's) parents had 8 kids. The parents were staunch catholics too. Bob introduced me to cigarettes, alcohol, p***Y and and drugs by the time I was 14 :)

Dude, I had to know you as a kid !!! We knew the Judish's, and we ate Carbone's bread ALL the time.

How weird BBS ... I PM'd you ....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Really. I'm no Christian, but I agree. If you take a look at the first post by REB, an innocent, well-intentioned post, and then scroll on through the thread to where it is now, it's pretty sad.:) Uh, posting Biblical scriptures is just asking for comment. I'm pretty sure Reb knew what was coming.

As far as the Mane resident hypocrite (Mad Yak) being offended by the thread, it only validates it.

[Northman]

See i always found that confusing... We are always told that there is a major difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In fact most people usually just defer to the teachings of the New while ignoring some of the Old... BUT... If Jesus and God are the same then there seems to be something amis between the forgiving peace loving Jesus on earth and the God that seemed OK with sacrifice, rape, mass murder and everything else that took place in the Old Testament. Personally, I was never able to make sense of that.



Bingo.

[REB]

Mark 12 (New International Version)




Mark 12

The Parable of the Tenants

1He then began to speak to them in parables: "A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 2At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. 5He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed.
6"He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, 'They will respect my son.'

7"But the tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' 8So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

9"What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10Haven't you read this scripture:
" 'The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone[a];
11the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes'[b]?"

12Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.

[REB]

The Greatest Commandment
28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these."

32"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

34When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

[alkemical]

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

Do you think the word/name of god, is why the people of babel were punished. Because they wanted to make a "name" for themselves?

[REB]

Do you think the word/name of god, is why the people of babel were punished. Because they wanted to make a "name" for themselves?

I guess that's possible and may very well be a part of it, but when I read the whole thing...

(The Tower of Babel
1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, [a] they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, [B]"Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel [c] —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth._ )


...I tend to think that knowledge was increasing to quickly. God said that in the later/last days mans knowledge would rapidly increase. (And I think we can see just how much mans knowledge increased in the 20th century and continues now.) And with God there's a time for everything, even the last day. So by confusing the language of the whole world he drastically slowed down the increase of knowledge. Just my own thoughts on the matter doing my own reading.

[REB]

Matthew 6

14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

[alkemical]

I guess that's possible and may very well be a part of it, but when I read the whole thing...

(The Tower of Babel
1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, [a] they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, [B]"Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel [c] —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth._ )


...I tend to think that knowledge was increasing to quickly. God said that in the later/last days mans knowledge would rapidly increase. (And I think we can see just how much mans knowledge increased in the 20th century and continues now.) And with God there's a time for everything, even the last day. So by confusing the language of the whole world he drastically slowed down the increase of knowledge. Just my own thoughts on the matter doing my own reading.



That's it IMO. As in, the knowledge of the people creating their own name (example YVHV - depending on your dialect & system) - by elevating themselves to god status....

[BroncoInferno]

Do you think the word/name of god, is why the people of babel were punished. Because they wanted to make a "name" for themselves?


No. It's just a myth created by a primitive civilization who had no other way to explain the existence of folk speaking different languages. They tailored the tale to fit in with their vision of an angry god.

[alkemical]

No. It's just a myth created by a primitive civilization who had no other way to explain the existence of folk speaking different languages. They tailored the tale to fit in with their vision of an angry god.

Nah, i don't buy that. Left over treasures from Greece, Rome, Aegypt, South America, Inda & china created great engineering feats, and knew alot more about science than what is credited. So i don't really count them as being primative.

I mean Rome & Greece founded the basis of what our civilaztion sits on. Rules, laws, philosophies, etc.

They didn't have cars & computers - but then again - the mayans had a calander that is exact and they didn't have HAL to do it for them. In many ways i deem them MORE intelligent than most of civilisation today.

[orangeatheist]

Nah, i don't buy that. Left over treasures from Greece, Rome, Aegypt, South America, Inda & china created great engineering feats, and knew alot more about science than what is credited. So i don't really count them as being primative.


WTH?

Indeed the ancients achieved some marvelous things, but to credit the ancient Hebrews with feats the level of the Greeks and Egyptians is taking it a bit far. Fer cryin' out loud, Clavi, the same book tells you the world was created in 6 days, plants that grew before there was a sun, a flat earth, a solid-domed sky, a talking snake and a talking donkey, a worldwide flood, an exodus of nearly 3 million people from slavery (in a time when barely that many fit in the entire country they supposedly fled from), water coming out of rocks at the tap of a staff, parting seas, huge fish that swallow people and the list goes on and on and on.

I know you like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and leave room open for Mac trucks to drive through, but really...! The Tower of Babel story is really quite simple. The ancients believed Yahweh lived on the other side of the solid dome that covered the earth. His throne actually rested on the dome from where he could open the "windows" of heaven to release rain water. The story reflects the Hebrew distaste for their Mesopotamian neighbors who built ziggurats --tall, tower-like temples to their gods. And these people were very much at odds with the ancient Hebrews. The story of the Tower of Babel serves two purposes. One is to explain the various languages of the world (there is NO WAY these people understood the evolution of human language so they explained the way many ancient peoples explained the unknown--through myths, often involving their god(s). The other purpose was to show the "depravity" of their Mesopotamian brothers. In Hebrew myth, their god was a jealous god and did not approve of measly human beings building temples that could --theoretically and in reality--reach up to the dome of the sky and actually give people a chance to access the realm of the god(s). If the Eden and Flood stories didn't teach the lesson, this one did: Yahweh's Realm is OFF-LIMITS to human beings. Gods and humans DON'T mix.

Here's your "Tower of Babel":

http://www.iranian.com/History/2005/March/Gutians/Images/ziggurat_ur_recona.jpg

[BroncoInferno]

WTH?

Indeed the ancients achieved some marvelous things, but to credit the ancient Hebrews with feats the level of the Greeks and Egyptians is taking it a bit far. Fer cryin' out loud, Clavi, the same book tells you the world was created in 6 days, plants that grew before there was a sun, a flat earth, a solid-domed sky, a talking snake and a talking donkey, a worldwide flood, an exodus of nearly 3 million people from slavery (in a time when barely that many fit in the entire country they supposedly fled from), water coming out of rocks at the tap of a staff, parting seas, huge fish that swallow people and the list goes on and on and on.

I know you like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and leave room open for Mac trucks to drive through, but really...! The Tower of Babel story is really quite simple. The ancients believed Yahweh lived on the other side of the solid dome that covered the earth. His throne actually rested on the dome from where he could open the "windows" of heaven to release rain water. The story reflects the Hebrew distaste for their Mesopotamian neighbors who built ziggurats --tall, tower-like temples to their gods. And these people were very much at odds with the ancient Hebrews. The story of the Tower of Babel serves two purposes. One is to explain the various languages of the world (there is NO WAY these people understood the evolution of human language so they explained the way many ancient peoples explained the unknown--through myths, often involving their god(s). The other purpose was to show the "depravity" of their Mesopotamian brothers. In Hebrew myth, their god was a jealous god and did not approve of measly human beings building temples that could --theoretically and in reality--reach up to the dome of the sky and actually give people a chance to access the realm of the god(s). If the Eden and Flood stories didn't teach the lesson, this one did: Yahweh's Realm is OFF-LIMITS to human beings. Gods and humans DON'T mix.

Here's your "Tower of Babel":

http://www.iranian.com/History/2005/March/Gutians/Images/ziggurat_ur_recona.jpg

Good summation.

[Bob]

Do you think the word/name of god, is why the people of babel were punished. Because they wanted to make a "name" for themselves?

If they looked anythink like the king portrayed in the Hollywood version (who short the arrow threw the clouds) that would explain allot.

In all seriousness, it is a cool story -- one principle truth that is contained in it is the idea that a a group of folks wanted to build a physical structure (a tower in this case) “to get to heaven” as some sort of short-cut from changing their lives and depending on grace to get there… the message (whether the story is literal or figurative) is that ya cant get into the presence of God based on the strength of your own efforts alone.

[Bob]

"This isn't clear to me, either. No offense, but based upon your spelling of "color" and your sometimes incoherent sentences, might I assume English isn't your native language?[/QUOTE]

Maybe he is a Brit? That's how it is spelled over there...

But whenever folks around here decide to become English professors, you may be missing the points he is making, and looking down your nose at all of those Christian intellectual midgets, that "are just not smart enough" to understand that your path is the way to enlightenment and sound judgment?

[orangeatheist]

If they looked anythink like the king portrayed in the Hollywood version (who short the arrow threw the clouds) that would explain allot.

In all seriousness, it is a cool story -- one principle truth that is contained in it is the idea that a a group of folks wanted to build a physical structure (a tower in this case) “to get to heaven” as some sort of short-cut from changing their lives and depending on grace to get there… the message (whether the story is literal or figurative) is that ya cant get into the presence of God based on the strength of your own efforts alone.

I like that, Bob. And in the context of Hebrew theology, I wouldn't doubt this interpretation (as one of several) for a second. Very good. I would merely add, however, that the ancient Hebrews did not believe that human beings had "souls" and that, following death, the soul would be reunited with Yahweh in Paradise. That is a later theological accretion to their set of beliefs. However, certainly recognition and approval from Yahweh was not based upon human effort alone. Part of the job was in Yahweh's approval as the sovereign king. He either liked you (chose you) or he didn't. Building massive temples wasn't going to impress Yahweh or earn you any points (don't tell that to Solomon, however!). Ha!

[orangeatheist]

Maybe he is a Brit? That's how it is spelled over there...

But whenever folks around here decide to become English professors, you may be missing the points he is making, and looking down your nose at all of those Christian intellectual midgets, that "are just not smart enough" to understand that your path is the way to enlightenment and sound judgment?

No, not at all. It's just that, sometimes, Clavi writes things that I don't understand. I don't want to say he's merely "mumbling", and instead want to know if part of the problem may be that English isn't his primary language. Plenty of non-native English speakers learned English in the UK and thus they spell words in the UK way instead of the American. Yet, they still will struggle with grammar. This is what I see, sometimes, in Clavi's posts. I see the British spellings but also the incoherency which can sometimes come from a non-native speaker/writer. My wife's from Japan and her English sometimes is a bit rough to get through. While she can communicate just fine in English, sometimes she hits rough spots --especially in her writing. It's just something I see in Clavi's posts from time-to-time.

[Bob]

WTH?

Indeed the ancients achieved some marvelous things, but to credit the ancient Hebrews with feats the level of the Greeks and Egyptians is taking it a bit far. Fer cryin' out loud, Clavi, the same book tells you the world was created in 6 days, plants that grew before there was a sun, a flat earth, a solid-domed sky, a talking snake and a talking donkey, a worldwide flood, an exodus of nearly 3 million people from slavery (in a time when barely that many fit in the entire country they supposedly fled from), water coming out of rocks at the tap of a staff, parting seas, huge fish that swallow people and the list goes on and on and on.

I know you like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and leave room open for Mac trucks to drive through, but really...! The Tower of Babel story is really quite simple. The ancients believed Yahweh lived on the other side of the solid dome that covered the earth. His throne actually rested on the dome from where he could open the "windows" of heaven to release rain water. The story reflects the Hebrew distaste for their Mesopotamian neighbors who built ziggurats --tall, tower-like temples to their gods. And these people were very much at odds with the ancient Hebrews. The story of the Tower of Babel serves two purposes. One is to explain the various languages of the world (there is NO WAY these people understood the evolution of human language so they explained the way many ancient peoples explained the unknown--through myths, often involving their god(s). The other purpose was to show the "depravity" of their Mesopotamian brothers. In Hebrew myth, their god was a jealous god and did not approve of measly human beings building temples that could --theoretically and in reality--reach up to the dome of the sky and actually give people a chance to access the realm of the god(s). If the Eden and Flood stories didn't teach the lesson, this one did: Yahweh's Realm is OFF-LIMITS to human beings. Gods and humans DON'T mix.

Here's your "Tower of Babel":

http://www.iranian.com/History/2005/March/Gutians/Images/ziggurat_ur_recona.jpg

Try to be more gentle -- get the idea accross understanding that a moral system may be attached to it that lends purpose and meaning.

[baja]

No, not at all. It's just that, sometimes, Clavi writes things that I don't understand. I don't want to say he's merely "mumbling", and instead want to know if part of the problem may be that English isn't his primary language. Plenty of non-native English speakers learned English in the UK and thus they spell words in the UK way instead of the American. Yet, they still will struggle with grammar. This is what I see, sometimes, in Clavi's posts. I see the British spellings but also the incoherency which can sometimes come from a non-native speaker/writer. <b>My wife's from Japan </b>and her English sometimes is a bit rough to get through. While she can communicate just fine in English, sometimes she hits rough spots --especially in her writing. It's just something I see in Clavi's posts from time-to-time.

Wouldn't that be "wife is"?

[Bob]

I like that, Bob. And in the context of Hebrew theology, I wouldn't doubt this interpretation (as one of several) for a second. Very good. I would merely add, however, that the ancient Hebrews did not believe that human beings had "souls" and that, following death, the soul would be reunited with Yahweh in Paradise. That is a later theological accretion to their set of beliefs. However, certainly recognition and approval from Yahweh was not based upon human effort alone. Part of the job was in Yahweh's approval as the sovereign king. He either liked you (chose you) or he didn't. Building massive temples wasn't going to impress Yahweh or earn you any points (don't tell that to Solomon, however!). Ha!

I am not convinced you are right. Sure some scholars may concur but hear me out. Think of it this way: Unlike the described evolution of the horse which shows a somewhat seamless transition from the small dog-like creature (with several toes) to much larger hoofed animal. I contend that there are some universal truths that “shouldn’t evolve.” A people’s understanding of the truth might evolve; as they are able to handle the truth ---but the idea is independent of folk’s ignorance. IF there is a universal truth regarding the nature of the soul then it is possible that there was an ebb and flow to the Jews understanding of the nature of the soul, of God, and the concept of life after death.

Even if a person took writings from 4000, 3000 and 2000 years ago and a “pattern was seen” in the “development of the Jews understanding of the nature of life after death” it is a leap of faith to say that there understanding was linear, or evolved from the small to the big (or more abstract.) I believe (and I think that some historians would agree) that there was an ebb and flow to the Jewish people’s understanding of God and his nature and cultural maturity.

If one believes that the Jews were in slavery under the Egyptians for some 400 years plus, that might lead to spiritual immaturity. The Old Testament also shows that the people as a whole were dealing with constant cyclical periods of spiritual apostasy. Bad things would happen they would “turn to” God, good things happen and they become fat a lazy – a pattern that I see that is alive and well in my own life and those around me.

Also, look at the different ideas represented in the NT – the Pharisees did believe in an after life and the resurrection – or I should say that they SAID that they believed in these concepts, but when confronted with attempting to clean the inside of their soul so they would be ready for these events, they did not find an unworldly reward worth not feeling superior to others right now.

Some thoughts….

[Bronco Bob]

Wouldn't that be "wife is"?

Would not "wife's" be a contraction of "wife is"?
Much like "it's" is a contraction of "it is".

[baja]

Is it not a possessive contraction as in wife's car?

The most ignored punctuation mark, yet one that causes many writers grief and professors' headaches, is the simple apostrophe. The mark signals either a contraction or a possessive word (Can't, John's). Here are spots where writers trip up:
Unneeded and missing apostrophes:

Writers' need to bring their papers to tutorials at the Writing Center. ("Writers" is simply plural. Omit the apostrophe)
The Joneses cat is at it again. (That should be "Joneses' cat" For words ending in "s" the rules are very simple. For these words, such as "Joneses," just add the mark. This works for singular or plural words, so "Thomas' dog is at it too." also is correct).
"Is that cat your's?" (No apostrophe is needed for what is already possessive, so "yours" works fine here).
Misplaced apostrophes:

The students' car was towed away. (If the students all owned the car, this works. If it belongs to one student, then it would be "student's car")
Contractions and "It": a special case

This is irregular. For "it is," use "it's." For the possessive, use "its" without the apostrophe. Please don't ask us why!
By the way, many faculty members consider contractions too informal for academic writing. Thus "cannot" would be safe usage if a professor might mark"can't." Ask the faculty member to be certain of her policies in this case.
Some Plurals and abbreviations are downright odd

Sometimes writers will include apostrophes for plurals such as DVD's, 1960's, and so on. The grammar texts cannot agree on this. It may be best to omit apostrophes in such cases for the sake of simplicity.
It is acceptable usage to use an apostrophe before a shortened term or date, such as "my '67 GTO raced his '69 'Cuda the other night."

[Bob]

Is it not a possessive contraction as in wife's car?

The most ignored punctuation mark, yet one that causes many writers grief and professors' headaches, is the simple apostrophe. The mark signals either a contraction or a possessive word (Can't, John's). Here are spots where writers trip up:
Unneeded and missing apostrophes:

Writers' need to bring their papers to tutorials at the Writing Center. ("Writers" is simply plural. Omit the apostrophe)
The Joneses cat is at it again. (That should be "Joneses' cat" For words ending in "s" the rules are very simple. For these words, such as "Joneses," just add the mark. This works for singular or plural words, so "Thomas' dog is at it too." also is correct).
"Is that cat your's?" (No apostrophe is needed for what is already possessive, so "yours" works fine here).
Misplaced apostrophes:

The students' car was towed away. (If the students all owned the car, this works. If it belongs to one student, then it would be "student's car")
Contractions and "It": a special case

This is irregular. For "it is," use "it's." For the possessive, use "its" without the apostrophe. Please don't ask us why!
By the way, many faculty members consider contractions too informal for academic writing. Thus "cannot" would be safe usage if a professor might mark"can't." Ask the faculty member to be certain of her policies in this case.
Some Plurals and abbreviations are downright odd

Sometimes writers will include apostrophes for plurals such as DVD's, 1960's, and so on. The grammar texts cannot agree on this. It may be best to omit apostrophes in such cases for the sake of simplicity.
It is acceptable usage to use an apostrophe before a shortened term or date, such as "my '67 GTO raced his '69 'Cuda the other night."


What's the proper English for: "cram that apostrophe up your Butt??" :redbutt:

Sorry, I could not resist...

[Bronco Bob]

What's the proper English for: "cram that apostrophe up your Butt??" :redbutt:

Sorry, I could not resist...

Well, first off, the c in cram should be capitalized. The first letter in a sentence is always capitalized. :peace:

[baja]

Also "Butt" should not be capitalized.

[Bronco Bob]

Also "Butt" should not be capitalized.

And only one question mark at the end of the sentence is required.

[baja]

And the quotation marks should be inside the question mark.

[alkemical]

WTH?

Indeed the ancients achieved some marvelous things, but to credit the ancient Hebrews with feats the level of the Greeks and Egyptians is taking it a bit far. Fer cryin' out loud, Clavi, the same book tells you the world was created in 6 days, plants that grew before there was a sun, a flat earth, a solid-domed sky, a talking snake and a talking donkey, a worldwide flood, an exodus of nearly 3 million people from slavery (in a time when barely that many fit in the entire country they supposedly fled from), water coming out of rocks at the tap of a staff, parting seas, huge fish that swallow people and the list goes on and on and on.

I know you like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and leave room open for Mac trucks to drive through, but really...! The Tower of Babel story is really quite simple. The ancients believed Yahweh lived on the other side of the solid dome that covered the earth. His throne actually rested on the dome from where he could open the "windows" of heaven to release rain water. The story reflects the Hebrew distaste for their Mesopotamian neighbors who built ziggurats --tall, tower-like temples to their gods. And these people were very much at odds with the ancient Hebrews. The story of the Tower of Babel serves two purposes. One is to explain the various languages of the world (there is NO WAY these people understood the evolution of human language so they explained the way many ancient peoples explained the unknown--through myths, often involving their god(s). The other purpose was to show the "depravity" of their Mesopotamian brothers. In Hebrew myth, their god was a jealous god and did not approve of measly human beings building temples that could --theoretically and in reality--reach up to the dome of the sky and actually give people a chance to access the realm of the god(s). If the Eden and Flood stories didn't teach the lesson, this one did: Yahweh's Realm is OFF-LIMITS to human beings. Gods and humans DON'T mix.

Here's your "Tower of Babel":

http://www.iranian.com/History/2005/March/Gutians/Images/ziggurat_ur_recona.jpg



I personally feel that the tower of babel was more allegorical in terms of man's ego to be god will lead to 'his' downfall. either that or there were really "gods"/"aliens"/"another race" that made us their biatches. ;)

But to say they didn't know the evolution of languages is not correct either. In fact, i'd argue that the symbology/hieroglyphic writings are more "pure" than our "written" languages due to the nature of them being symbolic. Of course you have to understand what the symbol points too, but it's a highly complex written language (first basis possibly the cuniform in sumeria).

Nordic texts elaborate that the vikings understood that you go one place far away and what ever is there, doesn't speak. Which is why they spoke with clubs. ;)

I've spent (probably too much) time reading countless old and ancient texts. IMO from what i can tell, the tower of babel happened BEFORE (well before) it takes place in the bible. I think it's a sort of "memory" that was passed down. Which would IMO - validate the "human origin" POV that we all came from one place, etc.

Just my own POV from what i've read and looked at.

[alkemical]

If they looked anythink like the king portrayed in the Hollywood version (who short the arrow threw the clouds) that would explain allot.

In all seriousness, it is a cool story -- one principle truth that is contained in it is the idea that a a group of folks wanted to build a physical structure (a tower in this case) “to get to heaven” as some sort of short-cut from changing their lives and depending on grace to get there… the message (whether the story is literal or figurative) is that ya cant get into the presence of God based on the strength of your own efforts alone.

I'd go into more of an "ego-centred" principle, but that's more or less teh "jist" of it.

[alkemical]

I like that, Bob. And in the context of Hebrew theology, I wouldn't doubt this interpretation (as one of several) for a second. Very good. I would merely add, however, that the ancient Hebrews did not believe that human beings had "souls" and that, following death, the soul would be reunited with Yahweh in Paradise. That is a later theological accretion to their set of beliefs. However, certainly recognition and approval from Yahweh was not based upon human effort alone. Part of the job was in Yahweh's approval as the sovereign king. He either liked you (chose you) or he didn't. Building massive temples wasn't going to impress Yahweh or earn you any points (don't tell that to Solomon, however!). Ha!

No different in some ways than Cain/able sacrificing the least, whilst the other sacrifices a real sacrifice.

[orangeatheist]

I am not convinced you are right. Sure some scholars may concur but hear me out.

I’ll hear you out, but I wonder what quantity “some” is? 2 out of 10? Or 9 out of 10?


Think of it this way: Unlike the described evolution of the horse which shows a somewhat seamless transition from the small dog-like creature (with several toes) to much larger hoofed animal. I contend that there are some universal truths that “shouldn’t evolve.”

I’ll continue to “hear you out” but I wonder why I should give anything you claim anything more than just a hearing? This is an unsupported assertion. It doesn’t really matter how you “feel” about a subject such as this. It is more important, if you are trying to be persuasive and not just taking the microphone for a few seconds of preaching, to demonstrate that what you say has any merit.


A people’s understanding of the truth might evolve; as they are able to handle the truth ---but the idea is independent of folk’s ignorance.

Indeed. Just as the Bible speaks of a solid dome covering the sky, stars close enough to the earth that they can literally “fall” to it, a flat earth, etc., people’s ideas of these things (cosmology) eventually evolved. The earth has always been a sphere, regardless of what the Bible implied. The sky has always been a permeable atmosphere, regardless of the Bible’s description to the contrary. And stars have always been huge bodies of burning gas, most of them many times larger than our own sun and many, many light years away. Such stars could hardly “fall to earth” notwithstanding the Bible’s assertion that they will someday.

So, people’s understanding of what is true about the earth and about the universe has changed over time as they explored these ideas and rejected the mythology of their holy books. It really had nothing to do with their ability to “handle” the truth; it was just that they didn’t possess the tools to uncover the truth. So, they made up stories that fit with their limited observations. For example, if you have ever been out on a moonless night, far away from city lights, and looked up, the sky looks very much like a solid domed object with tiny pin-pricks in its canopy. Beyond which there is a very bright light shining through those holes. There certainly is no suggestion to the naked eye that those tiny points of light are actually huge masses of burning fuel, billions of miles away.


IF there is a universal truth regarding the nature of the soul

That’s too many assumptions to me. First, I don’t buy that there is any such thing as a “soul” and I guarantee you will be unable to substantiate that claim. Therefore, postulating a “universal truth” about them is sort of like putting the cart before the horse.


then it is possible that there was an ebb and flow to the Jews understanding of the nature of the soul, of God, and the concept of life after death.

IF we’re going to play the “IF GAME” then I can see your point. Just like their understanding of the cosmos, they could have had a very primitive understanding of the soul (or no understanding at all) and their earliest writing reflects that ignorance. That that is such a huge “if” that I can’t even begin to fit it on my plate, much less chew on it or swallow it. “Souls” are part of a faith system and I don’t share it. If you want to create an apology for why the Hebrews didn’t believe in a transcendent soul, that’s fine. But it has no place in science or the rational world. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid subject for research, but to date –and with research already being done in that field—no souls have ever turned up and thus any discussion regarding “universal truths” about them is rather premature.


Even if a person took writings from 4000, 3000 and 2000 years ago and a “pattern was seen” in the “development of the Jews understanding of the nature of life after death” it is a leap of faith to say that there understanding was linear, or evolved from the small to the big (or more abstract.) I believe (and I think that some historians would agree) that there was an ebb and flow to the Jewish people’s understanding of God and his nature and cultural maturity.

The Hebrews took many of their religious ideas from their neighbors. There is plenty of evidence in the Bible to suggest that the earliest Hebrews believed in multiple gods and had no concept of the human soul. Over time, and exposure to other religious ideas as well as reflection of their own, the Hebrews/Jews altered those early beliefs and developed their own religious understanding of the world.

However, I doubt you are trying to argue anything similar. I believe what you really want to say is that these “universal truths” regarding souls, the afterlife, god, etc. were gradual revelations to these people from a divine source and these revelations were understood better by some people (Adam, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, etc.) than others. The final understanding, of course, coming from Jesus and whatever Christian sect you’ve come to adopt for yourself. Am I right?


If one believes that the Jews were in slavery under the Egyptians for some 400 years plus, that might lead to spiritual immaturity.

I have substantial evidence that no such slavery ever took place.


The Old Testament also shows that the people as a whole were dealing with constant cyclical periods of spiritual apostasy.

Or so the Deuteronomic writer(s) would have you believe.


Bad things would happen they would “turn to” God, good things happen and they become fat a lazy – a pattern that I see that is alive and well in my own life and those around me.

No one said the writers and editors of the Hebrew Scriptures weren’t observant. But you really can’t take their word for it that they were recording accurate history. They left enough clues in the text to see otherwise.


Also, look at the different ideas represented in the NT – the Pharisees did believe in an after life and the resurrection – or I should say that they SAID that they believed in these concepts, but when confronted with attempting to clean the inside of their soul so they would be ready for these events, they did not find an unworldly reward worth not feeling superior to others right now.

Interesting that you should bring up the Pharisees (a rather powerless group in the days of Christ –relatively speaking--, but MUCH more influential in the days following the Temple’s destruction). Let me ask you a question: What did the Sadducees believe regarding the soul, the afterlife and the ‘resurrection’? And why?

[alkemical]

Which is based upon mounds of experience and rational thought. I'm not looking at a brick wall as some sort of alternate reality and wondering if I think hard enough my fist will transform into a glob of ether and pass right through it if I punch it hard enough...because...well, brick walls aren't necessarily solid; it's just a POV. And, besides, at a quantum level they're mostly just empty space anyway...both existing and not existing at the same time.

Trippy, dude.

I'm just not so "opened minded" that my map of the world includes a hollow center populated by the Oompa Loompas because it just MIGHT be true. :loopy: I take a stand.



Wow, talk about your mixed metaphors. But, ultimately, just more gobbledygook.

You know, Clavi, if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.

(And I thought you were from Seattle? What's with this English [UK] spelling of "color"?)



And this somehow can be extrapolated into the world of our experience how? I don't care what quantum physics figures out about what goes on inside an atom when it comes to making a map of the reality we inhabit every day. Sure, freaky things are being revealed by science, but so what? You see something odd about a quantum particle and suddenly all bets are off? God just MIGHT exist? How do you figure? How does your logic work? Like this?:

A. Something weird was discovered by science.
B. Man, that's weird.
C. Therefore God could exist.

Every post I read from you has that as a buzzing undercurrent.

Let me tell you something: Quantum particles may be able to exist in two places at the same time and that's very interesting, academically. But when you step out into the street you better be operating with a map that allows you to know the difference between a quantum particle speeding at you which could disappear before it hits you and a freakin' Mac truck. That binary enough for you?



This isn't clear to me, either. No offense, but based upon your spelling of "color" and your sometimes incoherent sentences, might I assume English isn't your native language?



Whose rationale thought and experience? Yours? Sorry, but you aren't the authority on human consciousness - so i'm going to have the jury disregaurd.

Re: Bricks - Not turn into a glob - but i've seen someone break 15 cinder blocks in a row with their hand. Obviously they believed they could do it. I also highly doubt i'd like to be punched by "he".


I never said there was an ooompaloompa land, so your choice of absurdism does not work here.


So if you don't care about what science is extrapolating, then why bother to stand on some argument of science that you so proudly and loudly do? This would be dismissing evidence.

I'm only interested in changing what "god" is. Not finding god, i find god each day i look in the mirror.


as for your last point:

It wouldn't matter if on this reality grid if i were hit on a bus.

the little experiment i gave you a while back, the quarters. I was hoping you and inferno would have figured out the point - by the mere terms of the experiment:

Believe you find quarters, and make them appear.

Believe you find quarters because odds dictate so.

The longer you would do the experiment would provide you a greater baseline of probability on if one or the other is more viable.

I've been doing the experiment for over a year now, but with different "terms".

Anyway - I hope you are more open to what science presents. After all, it may say that "we" as individuals are "god". (Which could be my whole agenda).


Now as for whether english is my native language. No, it is not. I learned to talk with cries & laughter first, then pictures -then words. All the english grammer i've learned is via books, since the educational material presented in this country is very lacking. Not to mention spanish makes more sense grammatically.

[Bob]

I’ll hear you out, but I wonder what quantity “some” is? 2 out of 10? Or 9 out of 10?



I’ll continue to “hear you out” but I wonder why I should give anything you claim anything more than just a hearing? This is an unsupported assertion. It doesn’t really matter how you “feel” about a subject such as this. It is more important, if you are trying to be persuasive and not just taking the microphone for a few seconds of preaching, to demonstrate that what you say has any merit."

"Unsupported assertions" -- meaning that I am not cross referencing similarly believing anthropologists? I guess I could, sometime....the idea that the Hebrew people’s belief system was not a linear profession from the simple to complex is not a hard one to understand. It is clear from the OT that there was a great number of ideological conflicts between the influence of foreign ideas and peoples on the Hebrew people. You say they adapted/adopted their ideas. I say you are right: they did – and to the degree they did, they fell into apostasy.

Regarding the exact evolution of language and the religious concepts of the Hebrew people, there are as many views/debates of these things as their are people, and I wonder if the bantering is full of sound and fury signifying nothing... I am one of those people that believe in the events outlined in the Old and New Testaments.




"Indeed. Just as the Bible speaks of a solid dome covering the sky, stars close enough to the earth that they can literally “fall” to it, a flat earth, etc., people’s ideas of these things (cosmology) eventually evolved. The earth has always been a sphere, regardless of what the Bible implied. The sky has always been a permeable atmosphere, regardless of the Bible’s description to the contrary. And stars have always been huge bodies of burning gas, most of them many times larger than our own sun and many, many light years away. Such stars could hardly “fall to earth” notwithstanding the Bible’s assertion that they will someday."

If you know off the top of your head -- please provide references regarding the stars thing-- I may have some thoughts on it...

"So, people’s understanding of what is true about the earth and about the universe has changed over time as they explored these ideas and rejected the mythology of their holy books. It really had nothing to do with their ability to “handle” the truth; it was just that they didn’t possess the tools to uncover the truth. So, they made up stories that fit with their limited observations. For example, if you have ever been out on a moonless night, far away from city lights, and looked up, the sky looks very much like a solid domed object with tiny pin-pricks in its canopy. Beyond which there is a very bright light shining through those holes. There certainly is no suggestion to the naked eye that those tiny points of light are actually huge masses of burning fuel, billions of miles away."

Please no unsupported assumptions... :rofl:


"That’s too many assumptions to me. First, I don’t buy that there is any such thing as a “soul” and I guarantee you will be unable to substantiate that claim. Therefore, postulating a “universal truth” about them is sort of like putting the cart before the horse.

"I guarantee that I could not prove it to you either – and am not deposed to try as you can feel how you want on the issue. I believe that man has a spirit, but not because I crammed a test-tube up someone behind to measure it. That might not be the best method for finding the soul, or anything else for that matter."


The Hebrews took many of their religious ideas from their neighbors. There is plenty of evidence in the Bible to suggest that the earliest Hebrews believed in multiple gods and had no concept of the human soul. Over time, and exposure to other religious ideas as well as reflection of their own, the Hebrews/Jews altered those early beliefs and developed their own religious understanding of the world.

Partially true -- yes they were influenced by their neighbors – There were many who feel off the deep-end dontrinally and bought into just about every false concept. But yes, if one looks at the even the Hebrew name of the God of the Old Testament (Elioheim) sp, it is plural. Again if one looks at the account reflected in Genesis we see the use of plural language to discuss the idea of creation. So, the Trinity “all in one” idea is a reflection of a later pollution of true concept of God. The original idea reflected in some scriptures (that were not altered by scribes many centuries later) is that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost were separate distinct beings. Can these three beings one in purpose? – you bet, thus fulfilling many scriptures that talk about “oneness.”

"However, I doubt you are trying to argue anything similar. I believe what you really want to say is that these “universal truths” regarding souls, the afterlife, god, etc. were gradual revelations to these people from a divine source and these revelations were understood better by some people (Adam, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, etc.) than others. The final understanding, of course, coming from Jesus and whatever Christian sect you’ve come to adopt for yourself. Am I right?"

Yes you are right about that -- except that sometimes the revelations were not gradual --



I have substantial evidence that no such slavery ever took place.

Ok, good -- let me know when they dig it up: Maybe they should try digging next to where they found King Herod's tomb, or the inscriptions of Pilate's home office.


No one said the writers and editors of the Hebrew Scriptures weren’t observant. But you really can’t take their word for it that they were recording accurate history. They left enough clues in the text to see otherwise."

"Just because you spend great time and energy attempting to read between the lines of ancient text, staring at the white unwritten text of atheism -- past, beyond, over, and through all of those silly, unsubstantiated miracles doesn’t make your understanding of scripture more coherent. It may be that in this process you can support your own “need” to not believe in things of a spiritual nature. So smart folks (like yourself) go through great intellectual contortions to ferret out tid-bits of ”hidden gems” to support previously held notions, while ignoring the broader themes of God’s interactions with mankind.



Interesting that you should bring up the Pharisees (a rather powerless group in the days of Christ –relatively speaking--, but MUCH more influential in the days following the Temple’s destruction). Let me ask you a question: What did the Sadducees believe regarding the soul, the afterlife and the ‘resurrection’? And why?

The Sadducees believed as you said...and as they were part of the Aristocratic ruling class of the people – Christ had a few problems with this group – didn’t he? Not what I would say is a ringing endorsement of their false doctrines? The Jews, were a multi-doctrinal society, with many ideas fighting from prominence. As we sift through the “evidence” that has been filtered over the years and handed to us, and as we piece these ideas together, it might be hard to say which ideas are the oldest, and even more difficult, but more important, which are more correct. As all these notions of the Nature of God are not your primary focus and are “unsubstantiated”, they are all equally untrue and so I wonder what value you find in working hard to convert others to “the moving target signifying nothing. I wish you the best as you continue to literally dig in the dust, and revise views about if the non-existent gates of heaven swing or slide, those discussions are secondary to me.

[REB]

42"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.

43"Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces.

[orangeatheist]

Whose rationale thought and experience? Yours? Sorry, but you aren't the authority on human consciousness - so i'm going to have the jury disregaurd.

This is one of the things that cracks me up about you. Not only do you give wide berth to the Woo-woos, but you also love to set up and attack straw men. Tell me, Clavi, when I have I ever stated I was the authority on human consciousness? Let me help you: Never.

Now, between the two of us (which is what this is about) I think the jury can clearly see who holds a better grip. And it’s not the guy who finds Zecharia Sitchin to have “interesting” ideas because “I just don’t know.” “Interesting” isn’t quite how I’d describe them. Looney, yes. Interesting? Well, maybe. As a case study in woo-woo.


Re: Bricks - Not turn into a glob - but i've seen someone break 15 cinder blocks in a row with their hand. Obviously they believed they could do it. I also highly doubt i'd like to be punched by "he".

Good. I’m glad you concede that brick walls won’t turn to goo at the mere thought or belief. But how about quarters appearing out of the universe at someone’s desire? Does that happen?


I never said there was an ooompaloompa land, so your choice of absurdism does not work here.

Ok. How about I'm just not so "opened minded" that my map of the world includes a body of water in Scotland populated by some sort of “sea creature” or dinosaur because it just MIGHT be true (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1608067&postcount=59)? Is that better?
Or, that a demon may bewitch Dover, PA (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1576887&postcount=1)?

I can list a bunch of other woo-woo that you post and allow room for that would make a hollow earth populated by Oompa Loompas look downright rational!


So if you don't care about what science is extrapolating, then why bother to stand on some argument of science that you so proudly and loudly do? This would be dismissing evidence.

Name the science I am dismissing.


I'm only interested in changing what "god" is. Not finding god, i find god each day i look in the mirror.

We’ve already gone down this road before and it dropped us off at the doorstep of the Woo-woo family. God is DNA, remember? God is your reflection in a mirror. God is a homeless guy in Seattle. I know. I know. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt which at least had more substance (100% cotton! 0% woo-woo!) than your definition of “god”. And is more useful, too!


as for your last point:

It wouldn't matter if on this reality grid if i were hit on a bus.

“This reality”? Well, in what reality WOULD it matter, then? Woo-woo reality?


the little experiment i gave you a while back, the quarters. I was hoping you and inferno would have figured out the point - by the mere terms of the experiment:

Believe you find quarters, and make them appear.

Believe you find quarters because odds dictate so.

The longer you would do the experiment would provide you a greater baseline of probability on if one or the other is more viable.

You see what I mean, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury? Clavi thinks you can conduct experiments to produce evidence that perhaps thinking about quarters will actually “make them appear.”

I rest my case.


I've been doing the experiment for over a year now, but with different "terms".

Shoot, based upon your statistics I would think that if you were fairly successful at producing quarters just by thinking about them that you’d be making that a fulltime job. I know I would. Sort of like Rumpelstiltskin spinning straw into gold. It’s just that in your case it’s producing quarters out of oxygen molecules or asphault stones.


Anyway - I hope you are more open to what science presents. After all, it may say that "we" as individuals are "god". (Which could be my whole agenda).

This cracks me up, too. You are so wishy-washy that you can’t even take a stand on your own agenda. God might exist or it might not. A monster in Loch Ness might exist or it might not. UFOs might exist, they might not. You may have an agenda to show that all human beings are collectively god, or you might not.

I’m open to science, Clavi, in all its legitimate forms. I’m not open to pseudoscience. I’ve no room for woo-woo.


Now as for whether english is my native language. No, it is not. I learned to talk with cries & laughter first, then pictures -then words. All the english grammer i've learned is via books, since the educational material presented in this country is very lacking. Not to mention spanish makes more sense grammatically.

You can’t even answer a sincere question directly. We all make errors from time to time but yours are just so numerous and deep. I guess I’m going to have to assume that English is your native tongue and that you, frankly, just suck at communicating in it. That and the fact that you have to communicate through woo-woo. Poor English skills and woo-woo. That explains it.

I like you, Clavi. I really do. I think you’re a very kind and compassionate person. I admire that you give everyone a fair shake. But, in my opinion, you just go too far. That’s all. I’m going to wish you well and let you alone. Have all the woo-woo you like. But any hope of holding a rational discussion with you has flown out the window. I figured you were a decent fellow, and I’m right about that. I just didn’t know how far into the deep end you liked to swim. I got you figured right, Clavi. You do have your feet planted on one side of the fence.

[orangeatheist]

The Sadducees believed as you said...

Why did they believe that way?


and as they were part of the Aristocratic ruling class of the people – Christ had a few problems with this group – didn’t he?

Or so the Gospels report.


Not what I would say is a ringing endorsement of their false doctrines?

Funny. They had the same revulsion to Jesus’ blasphemy and false teachings.


The Jews, were a multi-doctrinal society, with many ideas fighting from prominence.

Yes. Including whether or not Yahweh had a consort.


As we sift through the “evidence” that has been filtered over the years and handed to us, and as we piece these ideas together, it might be hard to say which ideas are the oldest,

Actually, that’s not as difficult as it might seem at first blush. Older traditions are not very hard to locate in the current texts if you know what you’re looking for.


and even more difficult, but more important, which are more correct.

Correctness, in this context, is rather a subjective opinion, don’t you think?


As all these notions of the Nature of God are not your primary focus and are “unsubstantiated”, they are all equally untrue and so I wonder what value you find in working hard to convert others to “the moving target signifying nothing.

My primary motive is my love of the truth. Another motive is sharing that love with others who profess, but do not demonstrate, the same passions. Out of these motives comes my posting activity when I see someone displaying any kind of ignorance regarding the Hebrew and/or Christian Scriptures. The texts are a passion of mine and I have studied them at great depth both on my own time and academically. I’d hate to see all that hard work go to waste!

I’m not sure what you mean by “the moving target signifying nothing.” That was rather a meaningless sentence to me. Do you mind rephrasing in an attempt to help me understand?


I wish you the best as you continue to literally dig in the dust, and revise views about if the non-existent gates of heaven swing or slide, those discussions are secondary to me.

As they were to me until I realized I was only fooling myself. My love for the truth trumped my love of comfort.

[alkemical]

I got you figured right, Clavi. You do have your feet planted on one side of the fence.


[QUOTE=orangeatheist]Name the science I am dismissing. [/QUOTE=orangeatheist]


[QUOTE=orangeatheist] I don't care what quantum physics figures out [/QUOTE=orangeatheist]


Yup, i do. But since you are only looking at one side of the fence you fail to see the other. I had you figured out as well, i understood you were a fundamentalist when it comes to your beliefs. Which you are. I don't have beliefs, i have suspicions.

Allot of things are entertaining for myself. Some stuff i enjoy reading just because of the wow factor. Not that i 'believe' it. I mean afterall the threads i have started you cherry picked. Why not pick many of the other numerous science articles i've posted. Why would that be?

Because it's an ego driven response that happens when ever anyone is pushed beyond the limits of their own definitions of what things should be and are. It's small-mind thinking that is not able to view itself outside of the trappings of itself. Anyone can believe anything. Just like the big-bang isn't so far-out as "god spoke and the universe was made". Just left brain/right brain interpretations.

You still haven't got me pegged because you are too busy trying to prove to yourself how rationale and how reasonable you are. (esp when you are busy spending allot of time writing really long responses, while taking a position that really has no basis or merit on anything - you say atheists want left alone - yet whom was it that came in this thread and started any confrontation? Hmmmm - atheism just as ugly as anything humans have created (gods included)?????? Imagine that).

But really, you've done nothing more than spin your wheels because you don't want discussion. You want confrontation to prove you and your beliefs are right. Atheism is no more than a reaction to Theism. It's a relativistic view of how things are that is antiquated.

Once theism changes and dies off, so will atheism - and that is the day when belief systems start to crumble as a whole and man will finally start to move on.

Since you are still contradicting yourself, maybe you should come back another time when you are actually unified in a clearer objectivity.

[Bob]

Why did they believe that way?



Or so the Gospels report.



Funny. They had the same revulsion to Jesus’ blasphemy and false teachings.



Yes. Including whether or not Yahweh had a consort.



Actually, that’s not as difficult as it might seem at first blush. Older traditions are not very hard to locate in the current texts if you know what you’re looking for.



Correctness, in this context, is rather a subjective opinion, don’t you think?



My primary motive is my love of the truth. Another motive is sharing that love with others who profess, but do not demonstrate, the same passions. Out of these motives comes my posting activity when I see someone displaying any kind of ignorance regarding the Hebrew and/or Christian Scriptures. The texts are a passion of mine and I have studied them at great depth both on my own time and academically. I’d hate to see all that hard work go to waste!

I’m not sure what you mean by “the moving target signifying nothing.” That was rather a meaningless sentence to me. Do you mind rephrasing in an attempt to help me understand?



As they were to me until I realized I was only fooling myself. My love for the truth trumped my love of comfort.

Not sure if we are speaking the same language...

Any thoughts on what I outlined earlier:

Your statement: The Hebrews took many of their religious ideas from their neighbors. There is plenty of evidence in the Bible to suggest that the earliest Hebrews believed in multiple gods and had no concept of the human soul. Over time, and exposure to other religious ideas as well as reflection of their own, the Hebrews/Jews altered those early beliefs and developed their own religious understanding of the world.

Partially true -- yes they were influenced by their neighbors – There were many who feel off the deep-end dontrinally and bought into just about every false concept. But yes, if one looks at the even the Hebrew name of the God of the Old Testament (Elioheim) sp, it is plural. Again if one looks at the account reflected in Genesis we see the use of plural language to discuss the idea of creation. So, the Trinity “all in one” idea is a reflection of a later pollution of true concept of God. The original idea reflected in some scriptures (that were not altered by scribes many centuries later) is that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost were separate distinct beings. Can these three beings one in purpose? – you bet, thus fulfilling many scriptures that talk about “oneness.”

I think you are operating on as many assumptions as I am -- and leaps of faith.

[BroncoInferno]

Once theism changes and dies off, so will atheism -

Well, now you are starting to get it! You are 100% correct. If theism were to die off, atheism WOULD die off as well, because it IS merely a denial of a claim, NOT a structured belief system on par with religious belief as you've tried to imply. The day when atheism is unnecessary is a day I imagine most atheists hope for (though realize it's probably a pipe dream for the time being). And we've been trying to tell you this for months. Wow, these debates have been productive...you've finally admitted the obvious, which has in fact been our position all along.

[BroncoInferno]

Since you are still contradicting yourself, maybe you should come back another time when you are actually unified in a clearer objectivity.

Anyone who has followed these debates realizes that orangeatheist--whether they agree with him or not--has made cogent, well argued posts that are clear in their meaing. It is your posts that get muddled in obsurantism and incoherency. But that is inherent in an experiencial relativist view point such as yours.

[alkemical]

Well, now you are starting to get it! You are 100% correct. If theism were to die off, atheism WOULD die off as well, because it IS merely a denial of a claim, NOT a structured belief system on par with religious belief as you've tried to imply. The day when atheism is unnecessary is a day I imagine most atheists hope for (though realize it's probably a pipe dream for the time being). And we've been trying to tell you this for months. Wow, these debates have been productive...you've finally admitted the obvious, which has in fact been our position all along.

No, i have always "gotten" that. I just felt the need to explore your belief structure is all.

[alkemical]

Anyone who has followed these debates realizes that orangeatheist--whether they agree with him or not--has made cogent, well argued posts that are clear in their meaing. It is your posts that get muddled in obsurantism and incoherency. But that is inherent in an experiencial relativist view point such as yours.


Not really - it's just the resistence from people as a whole who refuse to accept there's more out there, then what they define as reality. It does seem wishy-washy to anyone whom doesn't understand reality selection, or the relatable items of "new" (if you count from the 80's on up give or take) ideas shaping science in the quatum realm.

But that's always happened through out time. It usually takes one or two generations to weed out the insolence from stubborn humans to accept change as a whole.

[REB]

Luke 16:13-15 (New International Version)




13"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."

14The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.

[epicSocialism4tw]

As they were to me until I realized I was only fooling myself. My love for the truth trumped my love of comfort.


Truth. Is there such a thing? Would you be able to recognize it if there was?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Truth. Is there such a thing? Would you be able to recognize it if there was?Absolutely! ............... Dallas Mavericks, first round losers.

Need to learn any more truths?

[Taco John]

...you've finally admitted the obvious, which has in fact been our position all along.


According to quantum science, a particle can be in two places at once...


hmmm...

[TailgateNut]

Luke 16:13-15 (New International Version)




13"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."




.

Someone should pass this gem on to the crooks in the WH. Especially to the "chosen one"!

[Bronco Bob]

According to quantum science, a particle can be in two places at once...


hmmm...

How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all?

[REB]

"For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." - LUKE 14:11

[epicSocialism4tw]

"For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." - LUKE 14:11


Wise counsel. I should have listened to that one when exalting the Mavs heading into the playoffs. :thumbsup:

[REB]

Wise counsel. I should have listened to that one when exalting the Mavs heading into the playoffs. :thumbsup:


:giggle: