# Repent for being a Mac user!!



## simX (Apr 22, 2002)

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

This is priceless.

http://members.truepath.com/objective/propaganda.html

(You have to look halfway down the page.)


----------



## uoba (Apr 22, 2002)

"but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism."...

I new there was another reason why I got into using Apple!!


----------



## uoba (Apr 22, 2002)

I have printed this article and I am keeping it forever. Wow Wow Wow!!!!! This article has cheered me up for the next couple of months!!!

Where do we start!!!!!!


----------



## uoba (Apr 22, 2002)

1. Apple logo based on Isaac Newton's discovery! Not Adam & Eve! (Are we denying the existence of gravity as well!)

2. Apple system stands for simplicity, more Zen than Christianity I suppose!

3. Was it not the Christians that where persecuted for "Thinking Different"!!

4. What is Dr Paley to make of Microsoft's Roman Empire then?!!

5. "This OS -- and its Darwin offspring -- extensively use what are called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.)" he he he, if Dr Paley had done any research, he would realise that this was how Old English was used, a recognised  higher standard of English!

666. Apple have produced 'shiny lickable buttons', hmm, Dr Paley, are you by any chance writing this article from your soft-cell?


----------



## Matrix Agent (Apr 22, 2002)

I know eighth graders who understand communism and evolution better than this guy. Seemingly, he does not understand that neither of them have anything  to do with religion. He's simply using history as a benchmark for each of these ideas, and if that's any indication or a doctrine's value, then Christianity has a long while to go. (i.e. crusades, child molestation)

BTW, I guess I don't fit the mold, since I go to church every week and use a Mac.


----------



## Bluefusion (Apr 22, 2002)

LOL this is friggin' hillarious. I printed it out as well. This may be the funniest thing I've read in a while


----------



## ladavacm (Apr 22, 2002)

That guy has not been around when &lt;deity of his choice&gt; has been passing brains.  Sometimes I wonder whether free speech is such good an idea, especially considering young and/or easily impressionable.

In their corrupt minds, these people will not even listen to the classical definition of daemon (attempt at a classical Latin spelling of a classical Greek word), since these pre-date Christianity (Pagans), and are automatically excluded.

Fortunately, we here have laws against Wiederbetaetigung; these should apply in this case, as well.


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 22, 2002)

That is so stupid.

I'm a Christian and a Mac user!

It's idiots like that who give Christians a bad reputation.


----------



## Paragon (Apr 22, 2002)

This one is even better than the thread with the link where it says that Quake is a program for terrorists to practice and so on. 

ebolag4: I didn't know that christians had a bad reputation?


----------



## rinse (Apr 22, 2002)

Slightly OT: That Hexley mascot is pretty dumb. Looks like a Platypusish Donald Duck ripoff wearing a hood. Don't like it.


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 22, 2002)

Paragon: 

Christians have a bad rep for a lot of us who aren't Christians.  I'm not saying that I hate all Christians or any stupidity like that.  But if someone walked up to me and said "Hi, I am a Christian" I would immediately be cautious.  I have had _way_ too many "religion salesmen" knocking on my door.

I couldn't load the page -- operation timed out, so I'll try again later and come back with something witty to say.  Well, as witty as I ever am...


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 22, 2002)

Christian often have bad reputations, usually brought upon themselves. Most of the time when Christians are looked at as "freaks" or "nuts" or some other equivalent, it's because of something stupid like that website. Most other times it's because they either act hypocritcal, hypercritical, over-zealous, holier-than-thou, or overbearing.

Hey, nkuvu, I'm a Christian. Yes, I have a certain set of beliefs that I live by as a rule, and yes, I believe that I am right. But I also believe that every person on this planet has the right to believe and live they way they choose.

As far as being a religious salesman, I'm always interested in sharing my faith, but I would rather do it through building a relationship. If those I have a relationship ask questions, or if it is topically appropriate, I will share. If not, I just focus on the relationship.

Can't tell you how many times people, myself included, are put off when a Christian gets "preachy." There is an appropriate time and place for all things.


----------



## banjo_boy (Apr 22, 2002)

I myself am a Christian and an Apple User. This is the most pathetic example of ignorance if I have ever seen it. Yes, Apple was founded by long haired hippies, but Steve sure is not giving away all of his "capitalist pig" money. And the obviousness of the apple logo relating with the fall of man!?! Come on!

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther made himself a heratic by the Catholic church by posting the 95 theses. I guess, as of April 20, 2002, I am a heratic times two because I am not switching.


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 22, 2002)

> _ebolag4 said:_
> But I also believe that every person on this planet has the right to believe and live they way they choose.


This, I believe, is the critical difference between Christians who I will talk to and Christians I avoid.

I also should point out that I really have no problems with any religion, as long as they don't try to push it on me.  I had a friend that I knew for two years before I found out that he was a Jehovah's witness.  I had another friend who I knew for five years before I knew he was a member of the Latter Day Saints.  In both cases I found out only through indirect information.  This is the kind of religious person I really enjoy being around.

Both of these people had very good, intelligent conversations about religion with me.  If I know the person beforehand, it is a lot more likely that I won't recoil when they declare their religion.


----------



## Alexandert (Apr 22, 2002)

And I thought the question "Cant install OS X on a PC. Why?" was funny.


----------



## scruffy (Apr 22, 2002)

You know you're dealing with great satire when over half the audience isn't sure if it's satire or not...

Check out the 'for kids' page, it's even better.  The whole site is a brilliant joke.


----------



## Valrus (Apr 22, 2002)

Ha ha. Seriously though, is it satire?

Please say yes. Please say yes.

-the valrus


----------



## banjo_boy (Apr 22, 2002)

Sorry scruffy. That's the real thing. We are not dealing with a hoax. And yes the kids page is hilarious. For one, my 4 year old would laugh at that page too, especially the maze. Another, this REALLY puts a bad image of nonChristians to children. And vice versa. And to add also, the Bible does say we are to be in the world, but not of the world. This page is telling not to live in either.

I wish I could tell you all how NOT Christian this site is.


----------



## Koelling (Apr 22, 2002)

I agree banjo boy, this site is about as hypocritical as you can get. The first half is about propaganda and what is he doing? He's spreading lies and stretching truths on a mass media level. 

Replacement sig: I'm a christian and use a macintosh. Who am I as a mortal to judge spirituality of my fellow man. If someone has questions I let them ask, otherwise let my personal walk with Christ be just that: personal. 

We should all focus on excommunicating the real evil, Windows ;-P


----------



## phatsharpie (Apr 22, 2002)

Can this site be real?! It's so ridiculous... I can't imagine anyone being THIS clueless.

-B


----------



## Bluefusion (Apr 22, 2002)

I'm not sure what's scarier--the fact that this isn't satire, or the fact that someone took the time to actually _do_ this.


----------



## banjo_boy (Apr 22, 2002)

We can't be judging this man. His judgement will be in the end, however we are called to show our brothers their error. And he has erred.

Excommunicating Windows...  Arm up, soliders!



> _Originally posted by Koelling _
> *I agree banjo boy, this site is about as hypocritical as you can get. The first half is about propaganda and what is he doing? He's spreading lies and stretching truths on a mass media level.
> 
> Replacement sig: I'm a christian and use a macintosh. Who am I as a mortal to judge spirituality of my fellow man. If someone has questions I let them ask, otherwise let my personal walk with Christ be just that: personal.
> ...


----------



## fryke (Apr 22, 2002)

Must say I didn't read the article, but I guess I've noticed what it's like, what it's about and so on. Not to interrupt the religious discussion here, which I think is very interesting (I'm raised a Catholic, but am a religion-less believer in nature & UNIX), but I've got a link that might be even more interesting to those who haven't read it before.

The link is to Neal Stephenson's page about 'Cryptonomicon', where he gave us his text: 'In the beginning was the command line'. There you can download a .zip-file of the whole text (or you can buy the book as a paperback).

http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html

It's a really interesting read comparing several operating systems and the development of the GUI at all.


----------



## gamedog00 (Apr 22, 2002)

This must be the funniest thing i've ever read.


This is taken right out of the 4 kids section!


Mr. Gruff says: 'Bah! I don't believe in anything! I'm staying home on Sunday!'
Atheists such as crotchety old Mr. Gruff think they've got it all figured out... ...but then why are they always so sad? If you find an atheist in your neighborhood,
TELL A PARENT OR PASTOR RIGHT AWAY!

You may be moved to try and witness to these poor lost souls yourself, however
AVOID TALKING TO THEM!
Atheists are often very grumpy and bitter and will lash out at children or they may even try to trick you into neglecting God's Word.

Very advanced witnessing techniques are needed for these grouches. Let the adults handle them.


----------



## Tigger (Apr 22, 2002)

ROTLFL


----------



## simX (Apr 22, 2002)

OK, sorry, but today apparently is a laughing day for me!

Oh, I had to burst out laughing when I saw CARS today:



> Jobs, Satan, Vehemently Deny Any Connection.
> 
> Responding to accusations by Dr. Richard Paley of a strong link between Apple and the forces of darkness, both Apple CEO Steve Jobs and Satan, often referred to as the Prince of Darkness, steadfastly denied the charge.
> 
> ...



"We also 'support' gravity, a Sun-centered solar system and the laws of thermodynamics."  AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that's even more priceless!


----------



## scruffy (Apr 22, 2002)

That's not satire?  Oh dear.  That's sad, or scary, or anyway something double-plus ungood.

But, but, but - if you look at the mall mission page, the picture of 'mall security making a missionary leave a mall' shows about ten cops in full riot gear.  And, and, somewhere one of their pages says dinosaurs still walk the Earth and swim in the oceans.  I mean, maybe it's a hoax on all of us, including their web hosting service.

Given their views on open source and daemons and all, perhaps someone should tell them their website is running on Linux...


----------



## Jermsmingy (Apr 22, 2002)

ebolag4
I am with you brother.


----------



## uoba (Apr 23, 2002)

the register have caught wind of this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/24968.html


----------



## rharder (Apr 23, 2002)

Just don't forget that no one person can speak for an entire group. Just like not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Christians think this way or that, not all Mac users think this way or that, not all Windows users think. =)

-Rob


----------



## Bluefusion (Apr 23, 2002)

Good point, and true. If everyone acted like this, we would accept it as the norm. Hmmm... maybe that's why Windows users are so dumb most of the time? They accept this sort of illogical evangelism as the truth, since they have no other proof...? Sounds a bit familiar to the Windows arguments...


----------



## AdmiralAK (Apr 23, 2002)

for an anti-mac site this site sucks 
it doesnt load on the w2k box I am currently using at work 
I suppose that its not the "target audience" lol


----------



## Bluefusion (Apr 23, 2002)

Nope. It won't load on ANY computer, because computers are Satan's tools. It will load only if you have Faith (version 7.0) and Utter Devotion to Hopelessly Outdated Ideas Left Over From the Middle Ages (101). If you don't have both of them, you're out of luck. And no place for you in heaven, either, so don't ask. *Slams the Pearly Gates in your face*


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 23, 2002)

I was able to load the page and read the article.  I'm a Christian, and while I agree with *some* of what he says, he certainly likes to pick out circumstantial evidence and seems to judge a lot more than he should.

As far as "Darwin" goes, he has a point, in that Darwin (the open source project) is equated with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.  Christianity *is* at odds with evolutionism.  Evolution *does* conflict with the Bible's Creation.

I do not understand how he can possibly equate Apple with communism, as Apple is clearly, very much entrenched in capitalism.  Open source?  Would communists use open source or Windows?  I would say Windows!  

Anyway, like I said.  Circumstantial evidence and dripping judement.  That's not what Christianity is all about.  It's a real relationship with a real God.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 23, 2002)

> Dr. Paley:
> 
> I am a Mac user and a Christian.  I don't believe in evolution, nor do I "believe" in Apple but I am an Apple fan.  I read your article to the full, and while you have me convinced that Apple is certainly not a Christian company, I find some of your comments hard to stomach
> 
> ...



{ADDITION}
I tried emailing this message twice, but it has not gone through.  I have since posted the message on the guest book, and have fixed the second link on this message.


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 23, 2002)

MDLarson:

Nicely said, brother.

--ebolag4


----------



## lethe (Apr 23, 2002)

3 things: 

1. here is another good one, that was already mentioned in this thread

2. apple was panned in the tech press a few years ago for demanding that the church of satan remove any links to apple computer.  note that the church of satan is not a group of devil worshipers.

3.  i can t think of anything more communist than Open Source software.  the preacher was not saying that apple is communist, but that open source software and Darwin is open source.  now apples open source license is one of the least "copyleft" licenses out there, so it is not too communist.

however i think that the microsoft guy was right on when he said that the GPL is communist.  GPL software means software for the good of the community, whereas commercial software for the good of the author (to make money).  so you see how obvious it is that open source software is communist and commercial software is capitalist. and darwin is certainly open source.

now, it may be true that politically speaking, communism anti-american.  i have always thought that communism sounds really good in theory, and i support open source software, and i support laws that are in favor of helping the most people, instead of being controlled by rich lobbies.  

and of course, windows is the ultimate capitalist operating system.  

so i agree with that weirdo on that point.


----------



## vic (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *I was able to load the page and read the article.  I'm a Christian, and while I agree with some of what he says, he certainly likes to pick out circumstantial evidence and seems to judge a lot more than he should.
> 
> As far as "Darwin" goes, he has a point, in that Darwin (the open source project) is equated with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.  Christianity is at odds with evolutionism.  Evolution does conflict with the Bible's Creation.
> ...



no it does not. ask the pope. The pope, the only person that has the right to speack in the name of all christians has accepted evolution as a reality and that it does not contradict the bible. furthermore you should know that you can read the bible and believe it and still live a normally accepted social life today, the bible is a cumulation of stories that reflect certain historical and creative narations written a very long time ago, some of them not even written untill much later afterr the author died, therefore subject to twisting and change from it's original stories. anyone that takes the bible literally is naive. not even the pope does. i am a christian but i do not practice it. Furthermore in the defense of "normal" christians most of them are really adaptable o changes, almost more then any other religios followers out there. the reason christianity has survided fo so long and is one of the biggest, if not the biggest followed religion out there is because of it's adaptability, (which has something to do with darwinism, but let's not piss off the author of this article anymore)

anyway, in my honest opinon religion's days are over in the high standard of living coutries. it is known that religion is created when a group of people suffer together a certain hardship , etc. (check out the birth of any religion and you will see) as human standard of living increases, religion decreases, at least practices of religion. i'm mostly pissed off at any form of religion because more often than not it has caused separation between people and war. Christianity and muslims the biggest religions could also be looked at as having the most violent and criminal followers. 

that;s my rant about religion for now, maybe i'l think of something later.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Apr 23, 2002)

Actually the pope only has "power" over teh catholics    The anglican church's head is the King of England, Greek orthodox, russian orthodox too have their own church leaders.  I am not sure what leadership body reigns over episcopilians, baptists and whatnots.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by vic _
> *no it does not. ask the pope.*


Yes it does, and think (and read) for yourself.  The pope cannot override the Bible, and certainly does not dictate to protestant Christians.  Very simply and quickly, to defend my 1 statement, let me show how Genesis truly conflicts with evolution

Evolution is a process of struggle and death when it comes down to it, that is beyond dispute.  Before the original sin of Adam & Eve, God proclaimed all of Creation "very good".  After the sin was committed, God cursed all mankind as punishment and one of the curses was death.  The key point here is that before this curse of death, humans were designed to live forever.

If you follow the written text, your only logical conclusion is to discount the validity of the Bible, as you did.  Now you can comfortably live with evolution and still (somehow?) consider yourself a Christian.

I'm sorry for diverting this thread somewhat, but I have to defend myself!


----------



## vic (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *
> Yes it does, and think (and read) for yourself.  The pope cannot override the Bible, and certainly does not dictate to protestant Christians.  Very simply and quickly, to defend my 1 statement, let me show how Genesis truly conflicts with evolution
> 
> ...



1. why do you have to defend yourself? have i attacked you?
2. the pope by admiting to such thing as evolution is not contradicting the bible.

first off, do you take verythig you read literally? why do you think christians should take the bible literally? waht's more impportant? believing a and old book word for word? or doing good in your society? what makes you a better chrsitina? arguing like that mad man (the author of that stupid article) or having positive action?


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by vic _
> *1. why do you have to defend yourself? have i attacked you?
> 2. the pope by admiting to such thing as evolution is not contradicting the bible.
> 
> first off, do you take verythig you read literally? why do you think christians should take the bible literally? waht's more impportant? believing a and old book word for word? or doing good in your society? what makes you a better chrsitina? arguing like that mad man (the author of that stupid article) or having positive action? *


I have to defend my statement, otherwise I'm a weeny.  You didn't "attack" me, but you did say I was wrong in saying what I said.

Christians ought to take the Bible literally (and seriously) because it defines them!  How can you claim to be a Christian if you don't even believe your own faith-book?  There *are* places in the Bible where an absolutely literal interpretation would be ridiculous (poetry, hyperbole).  But for the most part, the Bible should be taken straight-forward.  And amazingly enough, the Christian is expected to do good works.  Not like Dr. Paley, he does more harm than good, I thought that at least that was clear from my previous posts.

*Please explain how the pope did not contradict the Genesis account when he said "evolution is A-OK with me".  I'm dying to know.*

Please, friends, do not take this as me pushing my beliefs on anybodyI just want to clarify true Biblical doctrine.


----------



## lethe (Apr 23, 2002)

> Please explain how the pope did not contradict the Genesis account when he said "evolution is A-OK with me". I'm dying to know.



what vic meant, if he will allow me to explain, is that the pope was not contradicting the bible, because he does not take the bible literally.  if i say that tortoises don t race hares, am i contradicting the story of the tortoise and the hare?  no, because that never happened.  it is just a story with a moral, and the moral is true whether the story actually happened or not.

i believe that vic made this point pretty clear, if you reread his posts


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 23, 2002)

All that you have convinced me of is that the pope does not believe the Bible.  This still does not solve the question of whether or not evolution contradicts with the Genesis account (which is still part of the Catholic Bible, I believe).

Wether or not you believe a certain passage to be _literally true_ or not is irrelevant when determining if it is simply contradictory to another belief.  THAT is what I'm getting at.

So let me ask again; can you believe Genesis and evolution at the same time?  I challenge anybody to explain how it can be so.  I will be happy to move to a new thread for this discussion, as this one is quickly moving away from Dr. Paley's article


----------



## Bluefusion (Apr 23, 2002)

I think we need to stop calling him "Dr. Paley". There are so many more expressive words, most of which have four letters, that would be a much more appropriate prefix for "Paley".


----------



## vic (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by lethe _
> *
> 
> what vic meant, if he will allow me to explain, is that the pope was not contradicting the bible, because he does not take the bible literally.  if i say that tortoises don t race hares, am i contradicting the story of the tortoise and the hare?  no, because that never happened.  it is just a story with a moral, and the moral is true whether the story actually happened or not.
> ...



thnak you!  if i wil need a lwayer i will call on you first


----------



## WDRAM (Apr 23, 2002)

LMFAO!!!! OMG!!
I am a Christian and a Mac user...and I couldn't get enough of the web page
Talk about brainwashing kids...

STAY AWAY FROM ATHEISTS!!!
GO TO CHURCH, DON'T SLEEP, EAT, TALK TO GIRLS, OR MAKE MONEY!!!
THE EARTH IS 10,000 YEARS OLD!
I guess that means that the perfect Christian is an anorexic, gay, poor insomniac (I guess that's why the priests are molesting people)

they may as well say GOING #2 IS EVIL!! THAT'S COMPRESSED EVIL FROM SATAN COMING OUT OF YOU!!! GOD WILL HATE YOU IF YOU DO THAT!!!

Isn't Darwin a very fitting term for Apple's FreeBSD, considering when developers tinker with the source code, the OS EVOLVES?!!

Waaaaaay to funny...I'm sure overprotective parents actually believe that horse ****.


----------



## vic (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *All that you have convinced me of is that the pope does not believe the Bible.  This still does not solve the question of whether or not evolution contradicts with the Genesis account (which is still part of the Catholic Bible, I believe).
> 
> Wether or not you believe a certain passage to be literally true or not is irrelevant when determining if it is simply contradictory to another belief.  THAT is what I'm getting at.
> ...



can you believe an apple can be red and yellow and green?

sure you can.

can you define the question? 

there are many ways you can believe something.

u mean believe in geneseis as literal description of a historical account?


----------



## scruffy (Apr 24, 2002)

MDLarson - I just have to know:  What about the bits where the bible contradicts itself?  I mean, you've got two different creation myths sort of shuffled together in Genesis, right?

Oh, incidentally, the reason the site is down is because it (finally, inevitably) got slashdotted.

I still think the whole thing is a parody.  As someone pointed out on slashdot - the university the guy claims to teach at doesn't exist, or at least is not referred to online anywhere other than this one website.  And, a professor of theobiology?  The only place other than this site I could find that referred to such a field was the "Vedic Cultural Fellowship", whoever they are.


----------



## uoba (Apr 24, 2002)

Let's call him iPaley!!


----------



## simX (Apr 24, 2002)

As an athiest, I can't really say that I know a lot about the Bible or can tell anybody what they should do with respect to religion, but I do know that the Bible does not have to be taken literally and thus does not contradict evolution.

Also, on another note, like WDRAM pointed out, "Darwin" is not necessarily related to the evolutionary theory of the creation of Earth.  "Darwin" simply refers to the evolution of the operating system, and the name was only chosen because of who came up with the theory.  Just because the underlying system is named "Darwin" doesn't necessarily mean that all users of that system need to believe in evolution, nor does it imply that evolution is true.


----------



## edX (Apr 24, 2002)

hey matt, how many people did God create in the garden of eden?

just checking to see how well you know this source you take as literal truth. 

frankly, i agree with the article and find it a very supportive argument for using a mac


----------



## uoba (Apr 24, 2002)

is precisely what you said, it supports the argument for using a Mac.

But iPaley does have a point, I'm a commi (theoretically) atheist (actually).


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 24, 2002)

I don't want to address anything other than the original point of discussion right now, and that is the unanswered question:  "How can the theory of evolution happily coincide Woah, a fruit-fly bug just flew into my cereal!

Anyway, *how can evolution be true and Bibilical creation be true as well?*

C'mon people, there are theories on the matter, and I haven't heard one yet--I just hear people saying "Well, I just know that the Bible doesn't have a problem with evolution."  WHY?  I say it does, and I'm willing to defend my position.

Scruffy, I'd be willing to talk about those apparent contradictions privatelyI just can't keep up in a public setting like this.


----------



## uoba (Apr 24, 2002)

The Bible has been so drastically changed, reinterpreted  -- equally the church has reinterpreted and changed their views on all matters concerning society and the law of God according to the bible. 

Christianity today is not the same law or philosophy as it was 500 years, 200 years, even 100 years ago. This inevitably came about due to social change and demand. Relaxed views towards other cultures, genders etc. But also, the church HAD TO give in to popularist views of the society. (Do you really think the church would tolerate homosexuality if it was left to it's own devices?)

The church, or more specifically, christians acceptance of the evolution theory could possibly fall under these changes.

However, to your question:

'how can evolution be true and Bibilical creation be true as well? '

Logically, it can't. And I for one think that Biblical creation doesn't. However, their is no reason why somebody can't go through life without thinking otherwise. The great thing is, you don't have to accept either one or the other propositions, mainy because (I presume) you live in a society that accomodates both viewpoints. However, the crux of this forum is Dr Paley's article. And it is people like Dr Paley who would have us only submit to his belief. Very dangerous indeed.

As an atheist (though I don't transcribe to an atheist belonging), or to better position myself, as an agnostic, I would not seek a reconciliation of both views existing side-by-side, this, I would see this as trying to conform to a sympathetic-diplomatic solution in order to please the opposing party.


----------



## twyg (Apr 24, 2002)

Who's to say that there weren't "lesser" forms of humanity before Adam and Eve? Think about it. Do you think God said 10,000 years ago. "Hrm... well this rock is boring, let's put some people here, not to mention some animals..."

So, Genesis doesn't contradict itself. Just so long as you change your view point. 

Let's look at it this way. "And so God made man in his image" Maybe there was neanderthal running about, but they didn't have souls as we do. That's what makes angels different than man. Angels have no souls according to every religious scripture I've studied. (Qur'an, Torah, Bible) So if God's messengers have no souls isn't it possible that early man didn't have a "soul"?

I know that animals have feelings, but do they act "civilized" no. They don't hold grudges (for long) nor do they weep or laugh. Or do they? 

My beliefs are leading me to realize that there are many stages and levels of everything. An ant with its 8 neurons knows danger, food and loyalty. A wasp with 18 neurons knows danger, anger, food, community and loyalty. We leap up to cats and dogs and suddenly see the same core responses that live in the ant... and in ourselves. 

"Blind faithers" as I coin the term ignore the facts and ignore the fact that the whole world is one. They thrive on focusing on differences and will strive to eradicate them. They are right because "God says so right here." They are dangerous to not only themselves, but to humanity as we know it. Thoughts are exceedingly powerful. Everytime you curse at your computer, do you think it stops at your computer? No, that animosity carries forward, landing on someone or something. Everytime someone cuts you off and you respond my giving them some childish hand gesture they don't "take it" it goes somewhat to them, but most of it keeps on going, hitting someone else. 

I would encourage everyone with a true open-mind and those who are looking for answers. i.e. Why doesn't God talk directly to me when I pray?, Is there a God?, How can God exist if he took Mom, Dad, Grandpa, Brother, Sister etc., There is no God. I would encourage you to read Conversations with God. 

As fair warning most people consider this book to be heretical, even "Written by Satan himself!" (As iPaley would say)

*end rant


----------



## bighairydog (Apr 24, 2002)

Aah - another Religion thread, tailor made for Matt. I love these )





> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *Anyway, how can evolution be true and Bibilical creation be true as well?*


Some reasons:
Darwin was a Christian, and a creationist. He managed to believe the two could co-exist.
The bible doesn't specify how god created the species. Would deliberately designing the mechanism for evolution be any less of a creation that conjuring organisms out of thin air? God could even have taken however many days Genesis says he did to lay down the groundwork for evolution to occur.
Evolution doesn't say how life came about, just that species change progressively. Life could have been created, and then evolve.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This is not the first time the Bible has supposedly been at odds with Scientific fact. Back in the 17th Century (I think), before it was proven otherwise, the bible was interpreted as saying that the world was the centre of the universe, and the Sun revolved around it. That turned out to be a load of crap, so the Bible scholars admitted that their interpretation must have been flawed.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Why can't people do the same with Evolution? The literal interpretation came about before the evidence about evolution came to light, why can't hardcore Creationists just say "Well, looks like we interpreted it wrong, what does this new evidence tell us about how we ought to have interpreted it?" Isnt it kind of arrogant of some Creationists to think that their interpretation of Gods words are so flawless that they can never be proved wrong? After all, theyre just mortals  and therefore fallible. By putting forward the idea that belief in their religion and in scientific fact are mutually exclusive, they do their religion a great disservice.

End Rant ;o)

Bernie     )


----------



## edX (Apr 24, 2002)

gee Matt, yoou ignored my question. isit because you don't know the answer? 

let me also assure you that the answer might even be related to how creationism and evolution can coexist. 

but for other more obvious things that contribute -

language differences - unless you have been reading the Torah in the original Hebrew, then you are getting a version that has gone thru various translations and interpretations to arrive to you in english. plus it is probable that the language that was used in the original does not have all the same meanings it does today or even at the time of translation.

calender differences - keeping track of time was a very different concept back then. it certainly wasn't a science at that point.


----------



## vic (Apr 24, 2002)

religion is an explanation for things humans did not understand at a certain time in history.

religion believed the sun went round the earth, when a guy sid no, everything goes around the sun (in our solar system) they burned him alive. does anybody now believe that the sun goes around the earth? 

so you see, this is why i don't take aboslutely anything from the bible literally. this is why the more scientific knowlege evolves the more religion looses its meaning and truth... actually there is no truth to religion, it's myth and popular myth. it's power comes from it's popularity not it's truth. and whoever asked that silly question 3 times , no the two beliefs canot coexist, at an equal level of belief, one has to be more true than the other.


----------



## banjo_boy (Apr 24, 2002)

Vic, your footer says it all for me.


----------



## bighairydog (Apr 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by vic _
> *and whoever asked that silly question 3 times , no the two beliefs canot coexist, at an equal level of belief, one has to be more true than the other. *


Although I personally reject the bible's version of evolution, I disagree with that statement. I think a preson can believe in the Bible's events and not have to deny evolution to do so. They'd be a little bit strange by the standards of others who tend to beleive only one, but it's possible without being illogical

Bernie     )


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by bighairydog _
> *Aah - another Religion thread, tailor made for Matt. I love these )*


Sorry, I'm just defending my faith.  


> *Some reasons:
> Darwin was a Christian, and a creationist. He managed to believe the two could co-exist.
> *




I've never heard of Darwin being a Christian, unless you are speaking of his deathbed experience (which, if true, he recanted his evolutionist theory)


> *[*]The bible doesn't specify how god created the species. Would deliberately designing the mechanism for evolution be any less of a creation that conjuring organisms out of thin air? God could even have taken however many days Genesis says he did to lay down the groundwork for evolution to occur.
> [*]Evolution doesn't say how life came about, just that species change progressively. Life could have been created, and then evolve.*



The Bible *does* say how God created.  Quite simply, God spoke the world (and the species) into existence.  It is interesting to note that in verse 22 God said "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."  What role does evolution play if God proclaimed his creation "good", and THEN wished the animals to multiply and fill the earth?


> *&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This is not the first time the Bible has supposedly been at odds with Scientific fact. Back in the 17th Century (I think), before it was proven otherwise, the bible was interpreted as saying that the world was the centre of the universe, and the Sun revolved around it. That turned out to be a load of crap, so the Bible scholars admitted that their interpretation must have been flawed.
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Why can't people do the same with Evolution? The literal interpretation came about before the evidence about evolution came to light, why can't hardcore Creationists just say "Well, looks like we interpreted it wrong, what does this new evidence tell us about how we ought to have interpreted it?" Isnt it kind of arrogant of some Creationists to think that their interpretation of Gods words are so flawless that they can never be proved wrong? After all, theyre just mortals  and therefore fallible. By putting forward the idea that belief in their religion and in scientific fact are mutually exclusive, they do their religion a great disservice.*


To quote 1 Corinthians 15:19, "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, _we are to be pitied more than all men_."  The same can be said of Creationist scientists.  If we truly are wrong in our stubborn belief of literal 6 day creation, we are truly the stupid ones, and to be pitied.

BUT!  (you were waiting for this)  BUT, creation scientists firmly believe they have science on their side.  (you probably scoffed right now)  I'm willing to debate this if you are willing, but that's another thread.

The thing I want to really push is how, taken straight-forward, the Bible is truly incompatible with evolution.

To further strengthen my argument, let me move back to Genesis and take a look at the word "day", as used in the text.  I think for clarity and ease, I will just quote the commentary in my Defender's Study Bible:



> The use of "Day" (Hebrew _yom_) in Genesis 1:5 is its first occurence in Scripture, and here it is specifically defined by God as "the light" in the cyclical succession of light and darkness which has, ever since, constituted a solar day.  Since the same word is used in defining all later _"yoms"_ as used for this "first" _yom_, it is incontrovertible that God intends us to know that the days of creation week were of the same duration as any natural solar day.  The word _yom_ in the Old Testament almost always is used in this natural way and is never used to mean any other definite time period than a literal day.  This becomes especially clear when it is combined with an ordinal ("first day") or with definite bounds ("evening and morning"), neither of which usages in the Old Testament allow non-literal meanings.  It is occasionally, though rarely, used symbolically or in the sense of indefinite time ("the day of the Lord," I Thessalonians 5:2), but such usage (as in English or other languages) is always evident from the context itself.  Thus the so-called day-age theory, by which the days of creation are assumed to correspond to the ages of geology, is precluded by this definitive use of the word in its first occurence, God Himself defining it.



My goal is not to exasperate any readers, but to provide a _Biblical_ viewpoint.  No doubt there is still much doubt in many minds as to the reliability of the scripture over time, which certainly should not be without scrutiny.  But there are a great many Bible scholars out there that know how to read Hebrew and still believe the Bible means what it says in my NIV.  So, by faith, I believe in the translations.

It is also not my intent, Ed, to ignore your question, but to focus on one thing at a time.  If you would please elaborate on your theory of how the number of people created in the Garden of Eden is a valid point, please do.  I will try my best with what little resources I have to give a satisfactory response.


----------



## wdw_ (Apr 24, 2002)

> Atheists are often very grumpy and bitter and will lash out at children or they may even try to trick you into neglecting God's Word.


That is such BS! My friends and I are all atheists. Are ages are 13-16. We accept people for what they are. Couldn't this be turned around:

Christians are often very delusional and their superiors usually lash out and molest children or they may even try to trick you into believing God's Word.

I don't mean to offend anybody here. I'm just trying to stretch the truth as much as they did.

And what is this?


> Pepper the Moth: Hey Professor! Havent dinos been extinct for millions of years?
> 
> Professor Giraffenstein: Wrong, little buddy  Dinosaurs still walk on the land and swim in the seas! And the Earth is only 10,000 years old! Incredible but *TRUE!*



Wouldn't the thing about dinosaurs still walking the Earth reinforce the theory of dinosaurs *evolving* into birds? If this isn't what they're talking about then what's their explination?

There is so much weird stuf on this page! look at this:


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Goldman 





Kyle started out hating Christians. He listened to anti-Christian music, played violent video games, and created a website attacking various Christian organizations while praising the work of Chris Harper. Kyle was a troubled boy. However, this all changed when he found Jesus. Since then he has gotten himself cleaned up, has started listening to Christian rock, and is now a respectable looking young lad. His parents - being Jewish - were hesitant to accept his new found faith, but they do consider it better that Kyle is now following Jesus instead of Marilyn Manson. Kyle has been helping us maintain our website since finding Jesus and is now attending Fellowship Christian High School. 

Favorite Passage From Scripture  John 8:32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weird.


----------



## uoba (Apr 25, 2002)

Seriously, is this site a fake?? 

I mean, here's a passage about the Moon:


The core of the moon is essentially a large crystal of metallic iron. When it is struck by meteorites (or moon landers) it will reverberate for a period of time - depending on the strength of the impact - much as a tuning fork does. The reason we do not hear the moon reverberating in the sky is that sound waves do not propagate through the vacuum of space that is between the moon and earth. However, in 1969, Apollo astronauts placed seismic devices on the moon's surface to measure the reverberations directly. These devices recorded the impacts of meteorites as expected, but they also picked up a strange, persistent, low-frequency waveform. When the waveform was run through audio processing computers which sped it up and applied various filters to it, it was discovered to be an echoing voice. The voice was speaking in ancient Aramaic!

NASA has refused to release these recordings to the public (for the obvious reason that it contradicts their evolutionistic position) and the details of what the voice was actually saying have not been uncovered directly. We know it was something in Aramaic since at the time NASA had brought in linguists to try and decipher it, and after a week all but the one who knew the ancient tongue were allowed to return home. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what this voice truly represents: The core of the moon still reverberates with the Lord's words from the day when He created the Heavens.

Has anybody on this forum heard of David Ike? This iPaley guy draws distinct comparisons!


----------



## jkazules (Apr 25, 2002)

This has been a hilarious thread! That guy is embarrassing to any thinking Christian! If you want to see a legitimate Christian Creation Research site check out: http://www.icr.org

I have to tak sides with Matt. I want to point out something that everybody knows but seems to forget when talking about "taking the Bible literally."

When you read anything, it is important to take into account the purpose for which it was written. A well written piece usually will indicate how it is supposed to be read. Thus, when picking up a newspaper and seeing that it is reporting on events in Israel, you naturally understand that it is meant to be taken "literally." That's not to say that if the article says that "it was raining cats and dogs" we would believe that cats and dogs were falling from the clouds.

The Bible needs to be included in this common sense. If the author wrote the ten commandments with the intention that they would be real laws to be followed, then it would be stupid for us to read it now saying "It doesn't really mean don't murder." The fact is it says "Don't murder" and means "Don't murder."

There are other passages in the bible that use metaphor with the clear intention that it is trying to teach a moral. Bible scholars that accept the Bible to be what the Bible claims it is: God's very own revelation to mankind, these same Bible scholars will tell you that Genesis was meant to tell us that Creation was made in 6 literal days. Therefore: The book of Genesis does conflict with the theory of Evolution.

Oh, BTW, Evolution for the most part does try and explain the origin of creation. The little story of the big bang, and then the matter slowing down and forming galaxies, and stars and solar systems and lightning hitting the earth over and over to finally create amino acids which somehow survive and then evolve into proteins and then simple cells, so on and so on....

Another fallacy someone above mentioned was that the Bible has facts that have been proven wrong. Someone was more accurate in pointing out that men's interpretation of the Bible was wrong. To this date, there have been no biblical statements of fact proven to be wrong. Even the mathmatical pi is correctly used in the OT. That's really pretty amazing when you realize how the Bible was written over a span of 1,600 years on 3 different continents by over 40 authors and yet nowhere does it conflict with itself or with observable scientific fact.


One last note: Mac's Rule!!!!


----------



## edX (Apr 25, 2002)

matt - you are doing it again. espousing words that you get from others. you don't need the defender's whatever it is to answer questions about the bible. it is a primary source. we aren't s=discussing what other people believe or why they say it is true. we are discussing what you have stated as your belief. 

to answer my question all you need to do is read Genisis. You have read Genisis haven't you? you know excatly what it says and can refer toit at any time to make your point. Or are you citing a source that you haven't read, having only read what others have said about it? poor scholarly work if that is what you are doing. if you want to use the bible as reference, then use only the original source material. 

so how many people did God create in the Garden? 0? 1? 2? 3? 4? 5? 6? 7? 9? 13? 25? 100? 1,000? more than the grains of sand on a beach?

the answer is in Genisis and you should know it before you go around quoting the first book of the Torah as your defense against evolution. 

btw Matt - your faith, if it is real, isn't something you have to defend to anyone.


----------



## jkazules (Apr 25, 2002)

Ed, I'll nibble:

I'd have to say 2 people. He created Adam and then from Adam he made Eve. You may say that he created 1 but depending on how you want to take it, it is 1 or 2. No more.

Other people didn't show up until after mankind was thrown out of the garden and Adam & Eve started having children.

Does that answer your question?


----------



## jkazules (Apr 25, 2002)

Ed, one other thing. If one's faith includes a demand to defend one's faith, then one MUST defend it! Right? It would then be a matter of obedience and not one of pride.


----------



## 4398579-857 (Apr 25, 2002)

OK, I know I am **MOST** certainly going to piss some off with what will follow. BUT as of (9/11 and now this whole preist and kids crap I just can't hold my thoughts to myself any longer.


My blood is bioling at this point and I am in a rage beyond what I have felt in a very very long time.

History, I was brought up, no, make that forced up Roman Cathaholic (bullshit, cough excusse me). As soon as I made my confirmation I was out! Um wait let me think a second? hmmm "Confirmation" confirm hmmm doesn't that mean I am confirming something? I never beleived one peice of crap I was forced to listen to every wednesday at ccd what ever the hell CCD stood for?

any way - just wanted it clear as to my past link with religion. oops sorry about the foul word (religion) I swear I won't say the F*cking word again. from here onI will refer to it as the "R" word.

At this point in my life I really MUST say The world is F*cked up because of the "R" word.

Before I continue I would like to mention I have friends of many faiths and we respect eachother... we may not agree but we do have respect. So this is NOT targeted at one religion but the whole freeking mess of them (stress on mess)

Let's look at the mid east - It's a pile of sandy wasteland, though parts are rich in history, it for the most part is a war torn crap hole because of thousands of years of war over the "R" word  I don't even have to get into it for those of you intelligent enough to know what I mean and not get upset with that comment.

Hmmm let's move on - Israel and well let's say the rest of the mid east more war over the "R" word and the lands that the "R" word was formed on. if there is a god please let me go deaf so I don't have to here about this crap any more... it's boring me to death!

I live about 15 minutes from Ground Zero in NYC - they did in the name of the "R" word, yeah um they are sane people. I send my son out to blow himself up in the NAME OF GOD! and I am proud of him - he shit head if you think it's sooooo freekin great to blow yourself up go and do it your self numb nutz!

Now we have all these priests that have well to put it nice had some fun with some little boys... heh hey we all got our pervs and shit but that's plain sick... it's not like they got themselves a S&M woman and got tied up.... not like they played DR. with some nun but little freekin boys sorry the whole idea of marriage to your faith and absinance is so abnormal un human it's bound to attract sickos like that.... I bet some of them became priests just to avoid the law... hey he's a preist they don't do that. Grow the fu** up! it has happened was happening and will continue.

All this shit pisses me off so G*d Damn much and it's ALL tied to the "R" word
in case you missed it the "R" word is religion.

I have friends some are pagan, druid, shaman amongst the "normal" accepted religions and you know what? these people are more intelligent, more same, more normal, nicer, easy going, honest, true people.

I have found almost all that follow religion to be FULL OF CRAP! sorry but honest they are. They lie, they cheat, they steal amongst other things.

I'm very sorry to those I am sure to have offended but at least I am honest.
I just couldn't keep that in any more.

I honestly feel it is time for a revolution or a time for growth and change.
Religion is 2000 years old. All things come to an end or grow and mature.
Religion has not changed in 2000 years. It's time for change and growth.
I don't have the answer but I sure hope someone out there does, before the nukes fly and the world is gone, ALL IN THE NAME OF RELIGION!

Peace and Intelligence


----------



## uoba (Apr 25, 2002)

first post 4398579-857!


----------



## Bluefusion (Apr 25, 2002)

I lived 300 feet from the base of the world trade center, and now live about 1200 feet from its shattered outer wall, and I feel exactly the same way (although I could probably explain it a bit more eloquently, with fewer curses, if anyone is interested)


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *
> btw Matt - your faith, if it is real, isn't something you have to defend to anyone. *



Not meaning to answer for MDLarson, but for myself. Ed, that is very true, but at the same time some of us feel the need to "defend" our faith, especially to people we care about. I will defend my faith in certain places and in certain situations, but at the same time, I really don't give a rip whether or not anyone else agrees with what I believe. I have faith, and no one else's opinion, belief, theology, science, mantra, whatever matters.

As for 4398579-857, don't lump all "religious" and "christians" together just because there are some fakes, pervs, and morons in the mix. I have met just as many atheists, evolutionists, agnostics, pagans, etc. that are bad. However, I have met *many more* of those who are upstanding, good contributing members of society. There is "good" and "bad" examples in all walks of life, in all faith/belief systems, etc. I never make the assumption that they're all bad because of just a few.

/rant


----------



## Nummi_G4 (Apr 25, 2002)

Has anyone stopped laughing yet? ahahhah! I  also printed the article out.  That man is soooo funny.  Steve Jobs is god.

 And what about Apple being a cult?  isnt religion a huge cult?


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *matt - you are doing it again. espousing words that you get from others. you don't need the defender's whatever it is to answer questions about the bible. it is a primary source. we aren't s=discussing what other people believe or why they say it is true. we are discussing what you have stated as your belief.
> 
> to answer my question all you need to do is read Genisis. You have read Genisis haven't you? you know excatly what it says and can refer toit at any time to make your point. Or are you citing a source that you haven't read, having only read what others have said about it? poor scholarly work if that is what you are doing. if you want to use the bible as reference, then use only the original source material.
> ...


Yes, I must defend my faith because if I stand idly by and read others rip into its validity, it attacks me as a Christian.  Yes, the Bible is a primary source, but I need help in determining deeper questions like the day-age theory, which I attempted to do.  I could not have provided a strong enough case if I had just quoted Genesis 1 and the verses that have "day" in it.  Somebody would surely have questioned if that's what it REALLY meant, so I took a step further and brought in the original Hebrew, which, I think, cleared up the question considerably.

To answer your question, God created 2 people in the Garden of Eden; Adam and Eve.  I will be waiting for your response and elaboration.

As a side note, how would you feel if I or somebody else attacked your pagan faith?  Not you, but your faith.  Would you not feel motivated to respond and correct?  If not right away, what if we kept doing it?  You see, it becomes personal now and you cannot rightly say "You don't have to defend your faith if it's real", because some people just do not know what they are talking about.  You would feel very compelled to DEFEND.  Agreed?


----------



## 4398579-857 (Apr 25, 2002)

I never said ALL are bad and yes while they seem to be fewer and far between, there are bad pagans, druid, etc notice I give no credence to "Satan" worshipers if you are a satan worshipper I hear your mommy calling please return home and grow UP!

any way...

I merely state that all the sh*t happening in the world today is directly related to religion, something that is supposed to bring peace and understanding!?!?

forget about problems of the world today let's go back to the very beginning of religion... IT IS THEE #1 CAUSE OF MORE DEATH AND WAR THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

Sorry my posts on this topic are not eloquent but it's not a very eloquent topic.


----------



## dricci (Apr 25, 2002)

So you bash all religions because there's a minority of bad members and leaders?

Sure, there are law breaking priests. There are also law breaking Cops, law breaking politicians, law breaking tow truck drivers, law breaking parents, even law breaking janitors! I'm not saying it's ok or these people shouldn't be punished, but I'm saying welcome to the real world, there are a lot of bad people. But the majority aren't. Don't blame an entire group or idea for problems that a minority of the believers start.

You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want, but don't try to make an entire idea or thing seem bad because of a minority of bad people. You sound like the media!

Religion helps a lot of people stay on focus and be generally good people. Don't forget that, too.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Apr 25, 2002)

> law breaking politicians



all politicians are law-breakers


----------



## uoba (Apr 25, 2002)

we'd have to invent him.

...who said that? (wasn't me!) Anyway, I was think of 456634... whatever's response, of religion being the number one reason for war in the world and history. Then I thought, if you took that religion away, there would probably still had been war of the same scale. Equally, we would, as humans, have to believe in something, thus creating a religion, hmm a paradox.


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 25, 2002)

uoba,

You are absolutely correct. Even as a Christian, I see that most of the stupid bloodshed and violence done in the name of Christ (Yahweh, Buddha, Vishnu, Allah, Zeus, etc.) was just an excuse to commit atrocities and be excused from it. Do I think, as a Christian, that things in history like the Crusades and the Inquisition were terrible? Absolutely. In fact, I abhor them all the more because they were done in the name of "religion" or "faith" or "God" or whatever.

(Man! I told myself I wasn't going to get this deeply involved in this!)


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 25, 2002)

> As a side note, how would you feel if I or somebody else attacked your pagan faith? Not you, but your faith. Would you not feel motivated to respond and correct? If not right away, what if we kept doing it? You see, it becomes personal now and you cannot rightly say "You don't have to defend your faith if it's real", because some people just do not know what they are talking about. You would feel very compelled to DEFEND. Agreed?


Sorry, but no.  You can attack my faith (which is actually a philosophy -- Taoism isn't a religion per se) as much as you want.  All the while that you are attacking my beliefs, I will do one of a few things: 
1.  I will try to talk to you so that you understand -- this is assuming that you are attacking out of ignorance, and are listening to what I say.
2.  I will assert that your beliefs are not my beliefs, nor are mine yours -- this is assuming that you are not listening, or already understand my beliefs, but will not stop trying to get me to believe in your beliefs.
3.  I will ignore you -- this is assuming that I have tried the other steps (as well as anything else I can think of to do for you) and you still attack.

Maybe it's because of the nature of Taoism.  But you attacking my beliefs does not in any way harm me.  I believe what I do, and I will most certainly listen to your beliefs (I am not narrow minded), but do not expect me to agree with you.

As Ed said, I believe that true faith needs no defending.


----------



## bighairydog (Apr 25, 2002)

Aah - zealousy (hey, I just made up a cool word)





> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *I've never heard of Darwin being a Christian*


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As I understand it, Darwin was dismayed at the time that some people took him to be saying that he had disproved creation. His book "The Origin of Species", portrayed Natural Selection as a way in which new forms could arise to be better suited to changing environments. He saw Evolution as a device to cope with change, ingeniously built into species by god.





> *The Bible does say how God created.  Quite simply, God spoke the world (and the species) into existence.*


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Do you think that Genesis is supposed to be taken literally? After all, Jesus told parables that were stories to illustrate points, nobody believes that he was imparting a perfect replica of events that occurred (or _do_ they  nothing surprises me any more ;o)





> *BUT!  (you were waiting for this)  BUT, creation scientists firmly believe they have science on their side.  (you probably scoffed right now)  I'm willing to debate this if you are willing, but that's another thread. *


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I agree  another thread, but first I want to point out that as a technicality, Creation Science is not Science. Science, from the Latin _to know_, is the pursuit on knowledge, starting with evidence that you wish to explain. Creation Science starts with knowledge that is considered irrefutable, and searches for evidence. Hence it is reverse science, or as I prefer to call it, simply backwards.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Also, I believe there is without doubt a great deal of deliberate deception on behalf of Creation Scientists, justified on the grounds that there are people who wouldnt believe without deception, and they ought to be made to believe any way possible. Some (not all Im sure) Creation Scientists deliberately twist words and hide contrary evidence. Either that or theyre stupid, but Ill give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that its deliberate deception.





> *The thing I want to really push is how, taken straight-forward, the Bible is truly incompatible with evolution.*


The evolution of life from none, without intervention, yes. Change of species, no. God may have proclaimed his creation good, but he never said that it would always be good, and therefore would remain constant. The world changes, and species must change with it. Besides, you can see evolution happening, in evolution experiments, on a timescale of months. Unless God is intervening in each and every evolution experiment, then organisms _do_ change.





> *To further strengthen my argument, let me move back to Genesis and take a look at the word "day", as used in the text...*


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You assume a day is a human 24 hour day. That is of course a by-product showing and hiding of the sun, but the sun was supposedly not created until day 4  after the day/night dichotomy was created right at the start. errr...





> *My goal is not to exasperate any readers, but to provide a Biblical viewpoint.  No doubt there is still much doubt in many minds as to the reliability of the scripture over time, which certainly should not be without scrutiny.  But there are a great many Bible scholars out there that know how to read Hebrew and still believe the Bible means what it says in my NIV.  So, by faith, I believe in the translations. *


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Yeah, the Bible scholars that thought that the Bible was evidence that the sun revolved around the earth read Hebrew too. They were so certain of themselves that they burned people alive for doubting them publicly.

Anyway, nice rant, Im off for more tea.

Bernie     )


----------



## 4398579-857 (Apr 25, 2002)

There may still be war without religion, but! I do think there would be much less!

More people in the world have been slaughtered in the name of god than ANY other reason.

Christian Crusades, Northern Ireland, Middle East, Africa, Hitler, to name a few more blood has been shed over religion than anything else I can think of.

And while you may point out that there are bad people every where... those bad people never professed to being good or religious... Islamic, Priests, Christians all claimed to be peace loving, gentle people THAT is my problem with them! they are full of crap. AND AGAIN I don't say ALL just way too many! If they didn't claim to be peaceful, nonviolent people I wouldn't care as much since at least they never claimed to be ANYTHING of the sort. then it could be accepted that this is just human. 

All these people have said they have chosen a special path to be non violent and peaceful, loving and forgiving... sorry I don't see it.

And honestly so far the very very worst I have seen are Cathoholics, Christians and  Islamic

They seem to cause the most trouble and claim to be so much but always seem to cause the most trouble.

Yet there are those such as Gandhi who claim it and LIVE IT! and I completely respect those! but I can't and won't respect phony, false, liars that claim to be one thing and actually don't follow their own faith!


Peace and respect to all
I mean no harm or hurt through this
It is purely my sight of the world and I doubt it will ever change.
You are all free to choose and follow whatever path makes you happy, BUT if you claim it... LIVE IT! WALK THE WALK! and not some half assed version of it!
Jesus never tried to convert ANYONE you had to want to follow. So don't push people. Let them find things for themselves. If they want it they will find it.


Cheers


----------



## scruffy (Apr 25, 2002)

So, was Ed's question about how many humans God created in Eden, or in all of Genesis?

If it's the latter, then, here's my shot at an answer.  I'm not terribly familiar with the Bible; don't even own an Old Testament so I had to look it up online:

Two or more at 1:27 (day 6), at least one man and one woman
One man at 2:7 (since as of 2:5 the first lot weren't available for farm work), placed in the garden once it was made around 2:8
One rib-based woman at 2:22, created as the latter man slept in the garden

Then, the part that seems to me not to make any sense at all:
Adam and Eve have sons at 3:1 (Cain), and 3:2 (Abel).  Abel is killed at 3:8 by Cain, who _leaves the presence of the omnipresent God_ to go live in the land of Nod (presumably a descendant of the first lot who were too busy for farming) and by 3:16, has found himself a wife, presumably one of Nod's brood.


----------



## edX (Apr 25, 2002)

1st - thanks to 439 for the nice words about Pagans. it is such a nice thing considering that we are the ones who most often suffer attack at the hands of others. We lose jobs, family, friends, and even the right to be parents because of our faith - even in this day and age. But somehow in the process it felt like we were excluded from being a religion since religions are bad and we aren't. Being given validity and legal standing as a religion has been a long hard fight for us and it is important that Paganism be recognized as such. Just because we tend to organize in groups of 13 or less doesn't mean we are any less organized than Christianity because they form larger groups devoted to differences in biblical interpretation. There is as much or more infighting between Christian sects as there are among Pagan ones. Which i also find to be a disturbing point in Matt's arguements. He tends to take the view that most Christians think like he does when in fact he is presenting a very fundamentalist, literalist interpretation that is considered to be dangerous by most other Christian sects.

2nd - i do not need to defend my faith to anyone. However i will fight strongly for my right to practice my faith. If you attack my right to have my faith, then i will defend. if you attack me for believing that all Gods are One God and that I will go to your hell because of it, then that is no big deal. I have faith that the universe doesn't work that way and it is stronger than any books or intellectual arguements.  I do not fear my Gods.  I try to walk in harmony with them. In this process i have no need to "push" any of my beliefs upon anyone else. It really scares me when anyone feels they must "push" something upon anyone else. Pushing is a physical act of violence and even its symbolic usage brings up associations with the crusades, the inquisition, the holocaust and many other unpleasant events that reflect poorly on the human species.

3rd - It is often helpful to distinguish between religion and spirituality. Religion is an institution. It is made up of people who have banded to together under a set of beliefs. It has served both good and bad purposes throughout time. Religions would not exist without members. Or has one of my proffs once said, "There is really no such thing as Christianity, there are only Christians and without them there would be no such thing as Christianity". Substitute the name of any religion in that statement and it is equally true.

Spirituality is the relationship we each have with our God(s). It has nothing to do with books or dogmas or anything except our personal relationship with diety or the universe. Religion is nothing more than a social institution if its members have no true spirituality. However spirituality can be practiced very easily without a religion.

4 - There were only 2 people created in the Garden. That is correct. But there were 2 people created before Adam and Eve. they were the ones who were told to go forth and multiply. Try reading Genesis 1 and comparing it to Genesis 2.  A careful read reveals that there are 2 different creation stories contained in Genesis. and this is not some new revelation of modern evolutionists trying to discredit creationists, this was pointed out centuries ago, probably before the oldest known source Nachmanides, wrote it down. The first 2 were the ones created in God's image and were created concurrently with no description of how they were created. The second 2, Adam and Eve, were formed one at a time with a combination of physical manipulation and divine breath. They were told to stay in the garden and tend it. They didn't do nearly so well at that as the man and woman who were told to go out and have domination over the earth.


----------



## edX (Apr 25, 2002)

Great job Scruffy, you posted your reply while i was composing mine. I think your addition of the 'land of Nod' was a very important piece as well.

also as another line of reasoning about the correctness of the Torah's account of creation, keep in mind that there are many, many versions of how creation took place that exist in many different cultures. There is a bigger question here of 'what makes Judaic history any more correct or even important than all the others?' 

and why do Christians such as Matt feel the need to so strongly defend a work that is the basis of another religion and not really their own. Or at least, why do they reinterpret that work to suit themselves rather than relying upon Judaic interpretation? Jesus never refuted the validity of traditional interpretation. he only pointed out that the Jews were not following it very well and so the rules were getting changed a little. Not that the past was now different because of him.


----------



## divibisan (Apr 25, 2002)

> Who's to say that there weren't "lesser" forms of humanity before Adam and Eve?



If you take the Bible literally there cant because it says that the earth was created 10,000 years ago and before then there was nothing in the universe except god.
Just because you don't take the Bible literally, doesn't mean that you cant practice your religion.
As other people were saying, a few hundred years ago, everyone thought that the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat, but now that has been proved otherwise, except for the flat earth association, and now nobody thinks that that contradicts the Bible


----------



## divibisan (Apr 25, 2002)

> And, and, somewhere one of their pages says dinosaurs still walk the Earth and swim in the oceans.



That doesn't disprove the fact that their site is real, some people believe that. 



> Wouldn't the thing about dinosaurs still walking the Earth reinforce the theory of dinosaurs evolving into birds? If this isn't what they're talking about then what's their explination?



What they think (there is a link to a site about this on their creation page) is that after the flood and the tower of Babel, god hid the dinosaurs from us  Link 

Also, they believe in the Loch ness monster and some other "famous" examples of living dinosaurs.
It would be impossible for a single or a few dinosaur to survive so there must be many. If there are so many dinosaurs it seems strange that no one has seen them (except for rumors like the Loch Ness Monster). For them to go unnoticed (they mention brontasourises)they must have evolved to be smaller, but then that confirms evolution. 

Like the rest of the site, that part makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## 4398579-857 (Apr 25, 2002)

For people like nkuvu and Ed!

Bravo and cheers! I appreciate and admire your ideology and tact!

Faith is faith no religion needed. Do what thou wilt be it harm none! That is exactly as I do in MY life each day, though not Wiccan or aligned to any faith what-so-ever... 

Throughout the years I have delved into many beliefs:

Gnostic/Agnostic, Hindi, Wicca, Shamanism, Druidism, Buddhism, et all at some time or another.... Theology consumed me until I personally realized, it's nothing and everything. It's what I made it out to be.

What anyone else said or did made no difference as long as they didn't harm ME personally.

I now believe what I believe and don't really give a damn if anyone else on this entire planet believes as I do. It makes me feel good and provides me with an inner peace. I am a good person, I don't hurt anyone or wish harm on anyone. I would just like to live in peace without the world battling over who is going to heaven or hell when in the end all we wind up is a little pile of rotting dust and scattered energy. I await the day that some one returns to tell me that there IS some other place. Until then this is what I know and see and feel! so this is what IS. I do what I can HERE and NOW!

All these people are so contradicting it makes my brain hurt, we see on TV people who claim to be peaceful Islamics - carrying machine guns and killing people. All because they feel they are chosen and all else must be cleansed from the earth (heralds overtones of Nazis to me)

We have extreme Christians and Catholics that go and blow up abortion clinics because the people INSIDE are killing babies? Huh?! so they go kill a few doctors and patients? Again in the name of their religion or beliefs.

Then we have those crazies that go door to door telling us how we are all doomed to hell! but we can still save our souls...

I'm sorry to tell you if they are who are going to be there in heaven I would rather go to hell. See above though cause I will be a lump of dirt in the end and not in either place.

I feel heaven or hell is a state of mind as you are dieing. IF you sincerely believe you are going someplace your mind makes it happen... If you think you are going to heaven then that will be where you go... If you believe you are going to hell then that is where you will go.  The mind is incredibly powerful and can make you feel and believe all sorts of things.

I, am at peace with myself and am happy with what I have done with my life.
If I die tomorrow I will die happy and that will be the end. Sure there is much more to see and do but I am not worrying over it.

More people should just focus on inner peace than trying to convert others, or clean the world of infidels! go have some sex or eat a nice meal! build something, write a book anything just stay out of everyone else's business.

Religion was a tool and is an old one at that, it was used to control people before we had current governing law. It was a a guideline to live by. Many of the current religions are twisted, combinations of the pagan systems that had been in place before them ( I will NOT go into all those details because I am afraid those thoughts will mainly fall on deaf ears other then Ed   )

Religion also gave people with way tooooo much time on there hands something to think about and to look forward to... Lives are more complex now and we have other things to think about and worry about... Religion is a dinosaur that should fade into history... Oh wait dinosaurs didn't exist (boy they sure do spend a lot of money on those fake bones they find all over the world!) (sigh!)

Oh well... This is my last post I have said my peace and it is out of my system. Nice chatting with you all. I hope some day things even out and we all can get along without these relics in the way.


Cheers

PS Ed - I won't say who I am but we have corresponded prior to this on a completely unrelated topic. It's nice to know a little more about you.

Also any one else out there that reads this.... IF you are of an outcast faith or belief! DON'T GIVE UP in the end you actually have more love and faith in what you believe in than the idiot that goes to Church EVERY Sunday and doesn't give a crap about what the guy up front is saying! You are the ones that actually care and take the time to understand what it is that you have faith IN! bravo and kudos to you! Unfortunately most of the other religious people mostly spit facts and quote writings and seem to have a huge flame and battle inside! but it for the most part is still facts and quotes sort of like learning history in school, you could spit back the facts but did you honestly give a crap? BE HONEST! that is the first step!

I have been nothing but honest only my name has been withheld to protect the inocent!

Cheers All
No hard feelings I hope


----------



## scruffy (Apr 25, 2002)

The university where this guy claims to teach does not exist.  See my earlier post in this thread (after the one you quote) for further confirmation that this is phony


----------



## edX (Apr 25, 2002)

well 439, i thought you were someone who has talked to me about a somewhat related subject. If it was about a totally unrelated story then i would surmize you are the one i call Z...    

and just for anybody who might not have caught it elsewhere, i must admit to having a BA in Religious Studies. I love to discuss religion and spirituality. It is my favorite subject - even more so than macs. (i can hear the cries of "Blasphemy" now ) and i will never try to force my beliefs on anyone else. 1st, it against my religious/spiritual beliefs to do so and 2nd, my religion doesn't need people who blindly accept someone else's faith as their own. It is my belief that there is no other way to be with God than thru the experience of God. It should only be thru inner searching and personal validation that one comes to any type of faith, but especially to the pagan faith. unfortunately we tend to attract lots of whack jobs who just think it is 'cool'.  So i am well aware that there are some pagans who help make the cases against us.

i also recognise that there are plenty of pagans who put down Christians as a generalized group and that i feel they are just as bad as the Christians who see pagans that way.  But for most that is just a part of their lesson and the need to feel like that passes with maturity into their faith.

gotta go now, the TV God awaits

oh, and bernie - i like "zealousy"  I keep forgetting to tell you that.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by bighairydog _
> *Aah - zealousy (hey, I just made up a cool word)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As I understand it, Darwin was dismayed at the time that some people took him to be saying that he had disproved creation. His book "The Origin of Species", portrayed Natural Selection as a way in which new forms could arise to be better suited to changing environments. He saw Evolution as a device to cope with change, ingeniously built into species by god.*


That's interesting and maybe true (I don't know, can you post some sources on this?)  But I'm unconvinced that Darwin was a Christian.





> *&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Do you think that Genesis is supposed to be taken literally? After all, Jesus told parables that were stories to illustrate points, nobody believes that he was imparting a perfect replica of events that occurred (or do they  nothing surprises me any more ;o) *


Yes, I believe Genesis should be taken literally.  Nothing in the text suggests it is a parable or poetry.  This is prose history.  Yes, Jesus spoke in parablesHe was the greatest story-teller.  He used the parable as a tool to reach the huge crowds that gathered.





> *&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I agree  another thread, but first I want to point out that as a technicality, Creation Science is not Science. Science, from the Latin to know, is the pursuit on knowledge, starting with evidence that you wish to explain. Creation Science starts with knowledge that is considered irrefutable, and searches for evidence. Hence it is reverse science, or as I prefer to call it, simply backwards.*


Well, I dunno.  A quick trip over to Merriam-Webster.com and a search for creation science clears things up for me.  And why don't you check out Answers In Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research?  I find their FAQs to be quite thorough and their science to be credible.





> *&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Also, I believe there is without doubt a great deal of deliberate deception on behalf of Creation Scientists, justified on the grounds that there are people who wouldnt believe without deception, and they ought to be made to believe any way possible. Some (not all Im sure) Creation Scientists deliberately twist words and hide contrary evidence. Either that or theyre stupid, but Ill give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that its deliberate deception.*


I find it difficult to accept that creation scientists, who are defending the same book that says "Though Shalt Not Lie" are generally liars as you are saying.  On the contrary, evolutionists, who adhere to no moral code, have "much less to lose", if you catch my meaning.  I am not saying that all creation scientists are saints, but only trying to put this in perspective.





> *The evolution of life from none, without intervention, yes. Change of species, no. God may have proclaimed his creation good, but he never said that it would always be good, and therefore would remain constant. The world changes, and species must change with it. Besides, you can see evolution happening, in evolution experiments, on a timescale of months. Unless God is intervening in each and every evolution experiment, then organisms do change.*


You might be suprised, but I aree with youspecies DO change today; you are referring to adaptation / micro-evolution (change within a species) or mutation.  But the distinction to note is that these processes will never give you an INCREASE in genetic information, which evolution (macro-evolution) requires.





> *&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You assume a day is a human 24 hour day. That is of course a by-product showing and hiding of the sun, but the sun was supposedly not created until day 4  after the day/night dichotomy was created right at the start. errr...*


Go to this page on AIG and scroll down to "Light Before the Sun?"  Good questionhopefully a good answer?





> *&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Yeah, the Bible scholars that thought that the Bible was evidence that the sun revolved around the earth read Hebrew too. They were so certain of themselves that they burned people alive for doubting them publicly.*


No doubt about it, great atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, but those who carry out these deeds are still wrong in murder, and the truth of the Bible does not change.  The Bible is the standard for Christianity, not the crusaders, the molesting priests and pastors, the hypocritical church-goers, or Dr. Paley.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 25, 2002)

I have to walk a thin tight-rope between trying to answer people's questions / statements and not appearing as if I am "pushing my beliefs".  Please note that I am NOT trying to preach or push Christianity on anyone.  My motivation for sticking in this thread and others are simply defense and hopefully a greater understanding on all our parts.

We're all friends here, and hopefully we can at least learn from each other!


----------



## RacerX (Apr 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *And why don't you check out Answers In Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research?  I find their FAQs to be quite thorough and their science to be credible.*



lol, I loved living next to the Institute for Creation Research! Those guys were great! I never had as much fun with a group of people in my life. That is the only place in the world where a PE teacher can become a Professor of Biology.

Yes the good ol' Institute for _Propaganda Propagation_, just one more reason I miss home.


----------



## Valrus (Apr 26, 2002)

For a debate about religion, this has been almost seven pages of remarkable civility. Keep it up, all! The debate is good too! I'm giving this thread 5 stars.

I'd join in, but I'm a godless heathen who doesn't really know much about religion. Actually I refer to myself as a "passionate, die-hard agnostic." 

-the valrus


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 26, 2002)

I know where you're coming from, Valrus.  I'm there with you...

I read a bumper sticker not too long ago:

"I am a militant agnostic.  I don't know and _you don't either_"

  Anyway, just thought I'd share.


----------



## edX (Apr 26, 2002)

> _ originally said by young matt_
> On the contrary, evolutionists, who adhere to no moral code, have "much less to lose",



Matt - you had best watch what you are saying and how you say it or we may stop discussing and go back to not being friends. To imply that evolutionists, by lack of being literal interpretationists of the Bible, lack a moral code is just plain ignorant and borders on stupid. You might not have intended it that way, but you have just attacked me and claimed that i have no morals. or that my morals aren't as good as yours because they aren't written down where i can check them when i forget what they should be. (or maybe because i don't have somebody telling me what to believe, i can't believe anything) shame on you young man.

 frankly i must admit that i stretched the truth a while back. i haven't gone to the original site and read the original article that started this thread. I read a few bits and pieces of what people said about it and their quotes of it, and then proclaimed to agree with it. It would appear that your understanding of Genesis is about the same as mine of the original article which makes it rather hard to discuss it with you. or maybe that is why you are so busy retaliating to accusations that have nothing to do with you (like the pope) and not to a discussion with scruffy and i about the 2 different accounts of creation in genesis.



> _ said by matt and also asked less explicitly by jkazules_
> As a side note, how would you feel if I or somebody else attacked your pagan faith? Not you, but your faith. Would you not feel motivated to respond and correct? If not right away, what if we kept doing it? You see, it becomes personal now and you cannot rightly say "You don't have to defend your faith if it's real", because some people just do not know what they are talking about. You would feel very compelled to DEFEND. Agreed?


I will reitterate to you and jkazules that my faith and members of my faith come under much greater attacks on a daily basis simply for our beliefs than you have probably experienced in your whole lifetime. What you are experiencing here is like a child crying because it  has to eat spinach instead of jello. While across town a child is crying because it has no food.

If you would like to be educated as to my beliefs then i would be glad to help with that. If you would like to believe that i worship your Satan, then go ahead. i don't need to defend the fact that i don't. mostly because i know i don't. but if you come into my world and attempt to take away my life because of my beliefs, then you can bet you are in for a fight.  It's funny (_ironic use_) how Christians seem to gather around pagans to tell them all about what is wrong about the way they believe, but you will never find a true pagan seeking a Christian out just to condemn them. Why is that? and do not try to tell me that it is because the bible says to, because i know it doesn't. if you expect to prove me wrong about that then you had better come armed with chapter and verse and no links to fundamentalist propaganda. 

see, if you can't make a good enough argument for it on your own, then you don't know it well enough to go around saying that is what you believe. and it is always better to argue what you believe than what you think you ought to believe.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 26, 2002)

Matt, I know how much you hate it when I argue your points by contradiction, but this one really need to be looked at.



> _by Matt_
> *I find it difficult to accept that creation scientists, who are defending the same book that says "Though Shalt Not Lie" are generally liars as you are saying. On the contrary, evolutionists, who adhere to no moral code, have "much less to lose", if you catch my meaning. I am not saying that all creation scientists are saints, but only trying to put this in perspective.*



Lets look at this for a minute (remembering that I am one of those people you claim _adhere to no moral code_ having written and done research on the origins of the Universe). Do you really think that all of us _know_ that creation is correct and that we are all collectively _lying_ about this fact?

As I pointed out earlier, I know people at the ICR. These are not the brightest people I've come across. They do *not* research anything. This is as much of a cult as I have ever come across. They are only interested in believing what they set out to believe and nothing else matters to them. There was not one independent thinker there (at least five years ago when I last had the pleasure of spending time with their members).

As for the question of them lying, no, the members of ICR are not conscience of the fact that they are misleading others. They truly believe what they are saying because they need to truly believe what they are saying. These people (and I am starting to think you may also be included in this) are phobic. This is okay, a world without bounds, without all the questions answered, where there is still much that is unknown is a scary place.

Please understand, the people at the Institute for Creation Research are not that different from the people of the Flat Earth Society. If the Universe as we know it (and more importantly what we don't know about it) scares you, that is okay. It is a scary subject and hiding in a book like the Bible is a common occurrence.

In light of this, we really should leave Matt to his beliefs. Granted from our point of view, this is nothing more than removing someone's _security blanket_, but anyone who knows about people who are phobic about things knows that you really shouldn't play with their fears. Remember that if others are not completely wrong, then he is going to be scared to death because he may not be completely right (and it does explain quite a bit about past posts). With that, I'll just say I feel sorry for him and leave it as such.


----------



## scruffy (Apr 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *Please understand, the people at the Institute for Creation Research are not that different from the people of the Flat Earth Society.
> *



Actually, the members of the Flat Earth Society don't take the flat earth thing seriously any more.  It's really a joke society now, even to its members.  Check out their website: http://www.flat-earth.org/ 

edit: I should mention, I'm not really sure if it was ever actually taken seriously by anyone at all.  It was apparently only founded in 1993...


----------



## RacerX (Apr 26, 2002)

I think this is a better page.

The Flat Earth Society


----------



## edX (Apr 26, 2002)

well, i think RacerX has some points. if Matt isn't overall phobic, he should be feeling pretty claustrophobic at this point. it probably isn't fair that we are all ganging up on him I would invite jkazules to step in and help out a little more. It has come to my attention that his points are largely being ignored. i know in my case it is because i know, and have gradually come to like Matt and have a little history of debating this kind of thing with him.

i would like to address jkazules statement that there are no contradictions in the bible. Where did you hear that? It has been my expereince in reading it that many of them exist. there are plenty of contradictions between the new and old testaments to be sure. In fact, the existence of the new testament is a contradiction to the old testement. Jesus does not meet the qualifications described by prophecy for the messiah. 

and to be clear, i am not attacking christians for believing any way they would like to. keep in mind i was raised Christian. i found lots of things about it that didn't make sense to me and so i found it very difficult to believe. Things i present about the bible, its interpretations and about Christians are some of the things that led me to feel this way. If they still make sense to anyone else, then more power to them. 

btw - if there is anyone who is reading this who hasn't seen the 'what relgion are you?' poll, then this would be a good time to check it out.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 26, 2002)

And this one is pretty good too. 


The International Flat Earth Society


----------



## bighairydog (Apr 26, 2002)

Firstly, it's good that you are willing to debate this  other Christians who are not so secure in their beliefs just get angry when I argue with them. Ill answer your points:


> _Originally posted by Matt_<BR>
> *That's interesting and maybe true (I don't know, can you post some sources on this?) &nbsp;But I'm unconvinced that Darwin was a Christian.*


I couldnt find an authoritative text, but a google search reveals that majority opinion is that he was a Christian, and that those who say that he wasnt are generally using his beliefs to say that he cant have been a real Christian, regardless of whether he thought he was or not. It was a lecturer who first told me.





> * Yes, I believe Genesis should be taken literally. &nbsp;Nothing in the text suggests it is a parable or poetry. &nbsp;This is prose history.*


Not even the existence of two different creation stories convinces you that either one is true and the other not,or alternatively that they are both metaphors?





> *Well, I dunno. &nbsp;A quick trip over to Merriam-Webster.com and a search for creation science clears things up for me.*


That clears it up for you? It says just what I did, i.e. that creation science is arguments put forward to support creationism, nothing about seeking better hypotheses or considering any arguments that do not support creationism 





> *I find it difficult to accept that creation scientists, who are defending the same book that says &quot;Though Shalt Not Lie&quot; are generally liars as you are saying. On the contrary, evolutionists, who adhere to no moral code, have &quot;much less to lose&quot;, if you catch my meaning. &nbsp;I am not saying that all creation scientists are saints, but only trying to put this in perspective. *


I'm not sure if they lie in  the sense of making up evidence, but they commonly use a 'scientific' argument, and then forget to mention a vital clause in the theory that renders what they are saying a misapplication of that theory. This is tantamount to lying.
Take the argument that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Creation scientists build the law up to be inviolable, say that evolution violated it, and then forget to mention that it only applies to closed systems, and therefore doesnt apply to the open system of DNA/Organisms. I dont believe that they dont know this  it is an integral part of the theory and any physicist knows it, and by missing out a point in the theory they are effectively deceiving  hoping that the listener doesnt know that what they are saying isnt the real law of thermodynamics. 





> *You might be suprised, but I agree with you&#8211;species DO change today; you are referring to adaptation / micro-evolution (change within a species) or mutation. &nbsp;But the distinction to note is that these processes will never give you an INCREASE in genetic information, which evolution (macro-evolution) requires. *


Firstly, I agree - evolution of life from molecules is of course not compatible with creation, but the Creation scientists often say that evolution of one form of life into another doesnt occur as well. Also, you have steered the debate to a field in which Im more comfortable arguing ) There are well known processes that increase the amount of genetic information. To name three:
Genetic Translocation, vector induced or spontaneous. This involves the duplication of a section of DNA to another part of the Genome, and has been observed in the furit fly Drosophila. Evidence that it has hapened is in the fact that cows have two almost identical Digestion Enzyme genes, flagged by sequences similar to the translocation sequences in Drosophila
Polyploidy  the mating of two genetically distinct species which doubles the number of chromosomes in the offspring. Modern strains of wheat are made this way by plant breeders
Chromosomal mutations  e.g. downs syndrome is the result of a duplication of a chromosome, and not all such duplications are detrimental
I think that creationism is an equally valid explanation of how life came about originally as the Dawkins-esque story of molecular replicators - i.e. there is no evidence to support either. One of the cleverest people I had the honor of being taught by - a Dr David Shotton (poineer in cell biology) believes that creation is the only explanation for cellular life, but that all life evolved from single celled organisms. 





> *Go to this page on AIG and scroll down to &quot;Light Before the Sun?&quot; &nbsp;Good question&#8211;hopefully a good answer?*


Treating literal interpretations of bible passages as evidence to support the idea that literal interpretations of bible passages can be used as evidence is a circular argument: Q: how do we know that this book is the word of god? A: Because the book tells us so  Q: How do we know that the book is correct?  A: Because it is the word of God.

Nice, as always, to converse with you Matt,

Bernie     )


----------



## bighairydog (Apr 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *it probably isn't fair that we are all ganging up on [Matt].*


It is the common destiny of those that believe in the scientific truth of Genesis and choose to take it up with others to be in a minority in intellectual forums.
However, Matt is currently doing a good job, and has increased my estimation of Christians.

Bernie     )


----------



## scruffy (Apr 26, 2002)

Speaking of ganging up - I admit here I didn't read Matt's relevant post, just Bernie's counterarguments.  I may be taking Matt out of context here.



> Yes, I believe Genesis should be taken literally.  Nothing in the text suggests it is a parable or poetry.  This is prose history.



History, surely, is a narrative of events as recorded, remembered, or passed on by witnesses.  But then

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

pretty much rules out witnesses to record those events, seems to me...


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 26, 2002)

In the Judeo/Christian belief, many of us (myself included, call me a wacko if you wish) who are literalist in our interpretation of Scripture believe that the Bible is a record of both history and doctrine (among many other uses as well). Some of us believe that the Bible came from God himself verbally (written/spoken) and that He is the only source of that knowledge. In that light, some of us believe that there are events in the recorded history of Scripture that only He witnessed. Things that we would otherwise have no knowledge of if He did not choose to reveal it. Some of us even believe that there are innumerable things that He has not chosen to reveal to mankind. That there are some things He might reveal in the future, and some things He might never reveal. He's God, what He does is up to Him, and my opinion of Him makes absolutely no difference (my personal belief).

Hopefully some of that made sense.


Not trying to start another war here,  but I have a question to Ed and others of pagan belief. This is for my own knowledge and not to start another debate, so feel free to PM me if necessary. Are there things (beliefs) in paganism that would not change if modern science found evidence that a paganistic belief was in error (as many charge Christianity), or do modern day pagans place their belief in a modern day framework that is changeable according to the knowledge of man through scientific discovery?

For example, is there something in paganism like the creation/evolution debate. I, as a literalist Bible believer, reject science as having the answer to origins. I believe that science can find evidence of origin, but science cannot prove origin (neither evolution nor creation). Therefore, my faith relies totally on the Scripture. Are there things in paganism that are the same. Are there paganistic beliefs that have scientific evidence against them that are still believed, or do pagans follow current scientific thought in their belief system?

Enjoying the thread

-ebolag4


----------



## Valrus (Apr 26, 2002)

> I believe that science can find evidence of origin, but science cannot prove origin (neither evolution nor creation).



Proof? Proof?
Proof is why the closest thing I have to a religion is mathematics. It's weird but it has worked for me... I think it's as legitimate a belief system as any and it doesn't lead me to go out and kill people or anything. Check this out if you want to know more about this craziness. And if you liked that, you might just love this... I'm pretty proud of those two journal entries. Comments anyone?

I'm vain. I know.

-the valrus


----------



## 4398579-857 (Apr 26, 2002)

No long post here...

just a quick answer, I'm sure others will fill in more.

Pagans and or counter religions or faiths have the same mixed bag of those who have absolute belief and faith systems that are not influenced by anything science says. In fact I would have to say that is more the norm.

Pagan beliefs are very old and steeped in tradition and have less science to them than even some more modern religions.

Then again there ARE groups that have a more modern thought and application of the beliefs and practice. I do know Jews and Catholics with the same concepts though.... some follow strict traditional belief while others have their own more modern version of the religion.

I am of no particular faith or religion I suppose you could call it "Me,ism" I follow my heart and my inner spirit. My Wife on the other hand is a completely NON practicing Jew that observes nothing. Go figure. She sees being Jewish more as a cultural identity but shuns all that has to do with religion.


----------



## Edge100 (Apr 26, 2002)

What if, one day, God wanted to bake a cake.  And He decided to go down to the grocery store and look for a box of Betty Crocker chocolate fudge.  He was so hungry, He said "I think I'll go home and make a cake identical to the one on the box...Yes, I will make a cake in the image of the one on the box!"

So God goes home and adds some eggs and milk to the mix and beats it all up and puts it in the pan.  He then thinks to Himself, "This doesnt look the one on the box."  God, being a quick worker, had forgotten to read the box and didnt realise the cake needed to be baked first.  "Ahh," said God, "I shall bake it first, then I shall have a cake in the image of the one on the box."

So God puts the cake in the oven, and low and behold, 20 minutes later he has a cake that looks identical to the one on the box.


Sorry for this trite little story, but evolution and creation are NOT necessarily opposites.  God surely could still be in the process of making us in his own image.  We may be "baking" right now.

To be honest, I am not a Christian.  I believe in myself.  The whole thing (religion...ALL religions) can so easily be seen as simple metaphors used thousands of years ago to provide solace to people who had no answers and no way of finding answers to what they saw around them.  I believe Jesus existed and that he was a great leader.  But Immaculate Conception?  Sorry.  Jesus was akin to Mohammed or Ghandi, for that matter.  

Evolution occurs every day in my lab (yes, I'm a scientist).  It happens in cell culture when I use selection pressure to select out a certain strain of bacteria or cell.  Evolution is fact.  It is not (necessarily) inconsistant with creation (although I do not agree with creation).

Thank you.


----------



## scruffy (Apr 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Edge100 _
> *Sorry for this trite little story, but evolution and creation are NOT necessarily opposites.  God surely could still be in the process of making us in his own image.  We may be "baking" right now.
> *



That reminds me of a native Canadian story that accounts for the reason people come in different colours.  I guess it was an adaptation of the creation stories they were hearing from European missionaries.  Sorry, no links to back any of this up, I just remember it from a while back, probably high school sometime.

God was going to make the perfect man and woman to inhabit the most beautiful paradise on Earth - North America, obviously.  He dug up some sandy clay, and molded a man and a woman out of it.  When they had dried, he saw that they were all pasty-looking and pale from the sand in the clay.  'Eugh.  They're too ugly for paradise.' He threw them away from himself, and they landed in Europe.

He tried again, but this time he baked the man and woman in an oven to darken them.  They turned a funny yellow colour, and he decided they wouldn't do either.  He threw them away from himself, and they landed in Asia.

He found some darker clay, and made another set, but he left these ones in the oven too long, and they were burnt completely black.  He threw them away from himself, and they landed in Africa.

He tried again with the darker clay, but watched the humans carefully, and pulled them out of the oven as soon as they had turned a beautiful coppery red colour.  Finally, he had a set of humans beautiful enough to go into his paradise garden.

The moral of the story is: You shouldn't hate people whose skin is the wrong colour; after all, they couldn't help it if God was a lousy potter.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *Matt - you had best watch what you are saying and how you say it or we may stop discussing and go back to not being friends. To imply that evolutionists, by lack of being literal interpretationists of the Bible, lack a moral code is just plain ignorant and borders on stupid. You might not have intended it that way, but you have just attacked me and claimed that i have no morals. or that my morals aren't as good as yours because they aren't written down where i can check them when i forget what they should be. (or maybe because i don't have somebody telling me what to believe, i can't believe anything) shame on you young man.*


I want to apologize for that.  I meant no offense and I should have made it clear that I was just trying to reply to the accusation that most creation scientists were deliberatly misleading people.  I didn't pause to realize that some would feel the same exact way I felt.

Maybe I can elaborate a little further so my point isn't missed completely:  If indeed we are a product of random evolution (I'm using the atheistic version of evolution, of course), who's to say what's wrong or right?  I don't doubt that many Christians are lacking morals and many non-Christians DO have morals, but that's not the point.  The point is that Christians have a source to look to, an instruction book if you will, that claims to be the Word of God complete with the 10 commandments.  There are very clear statements about what is wrong, and what is right.  Those who have no foundation therefore have no absolute right and wrong, as Christians may claim.  That's not to say non-Christians don't ever choose to do the "right thing".  But taken from a completely non-Biblical perspective, there's nothing to stop them, really, from doing whatever they want and still feel like they did no wrong.





> *It would appear that your understanding of Genesis is about the same as mine of the original article which makes it rather hard to discuss it with you. or maybe that is why you are so busy retaliating to accusations that have nothing to do with you (like the pope) and not to a discussion with scruffy and i about the 2 different accounts of creation in genesis.*


I don't think so.  It only came up recently what your true intentions were for asking the question of how many humans were created, and I simply didn't follow.  Perhaps you could do a little better job explaining what you are getting at right from the get-go so as not to confuse me.  I can probably reply with a much more thoughtful answer.  Also please realize that my discussion regarding the pope was very rightfully discussed, because somebody made (and continued to make) the claim that since the pope believed in evolution, Christians shouldn't have a problem with it.  I have two major issues with this statement (1) I am not Catholic, which is the branch of Christianity that the pope has power over.  (2) The pope is NOT the final authority on what the Bible says or what it doesn't say.





> *if you can't make a good enough argument for it on your own, then you don't know it well enough to go around saying that is what you believe. and it is always better to argue what you believe than what you think you ought to believe. *


I have always said what I believe.  Maybe not as thoughtfully as I should have or whatever, but I am sure I do NOT post paragraphs that I myself do not believe, whether that be what my pastor said or what AIG says.  Perhaps this would explain my apparant lack of understanding of Genesis, as you claim I have.  I am willing to debate to the best of my ability, but I would be foolish to agree or disagree with something right off the bat, without researching it first.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *As I pointed out earlier, I know people at the ICR. These are not the brightest people I've come across. They do not research anything. This is as much of a cult as I have ever come across. They are only interested in believing what they set out to believe and nothing else matters to them. There was not one independent thinker there (at least five years ago when I last had the pleasure of spending time with their members).*


This disturbs me.  What you're implying is absolutely contrary to their name, _Institute for Creation *Research*_.

I should mention that I was present at a Grand Canyon trip organized by ICR.  Dr. Andrew Snelling and a guy by the name of Dr. Steve Austin (not the "Stone Cold" type) were both scientists on the trip.  Dr. Snelling was the acting tour guide, and while Dr. Austin was present for part of it, his real reason for being in the canyon was some type of research (I forget exactly what).  Anyway, that is my experience with ICR.

Here's a pic of us in the Colorado River, somewhere in the upstream half of the canyon


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 26, 2002)

Ahh, this is the $64,000 question.  How do you decide what is right?

I've heard this before, _a lot_, and my answer _never_ satisfies the asker.

I decide what is right by what feels right.  I can't explain it more than that.  There is no one source that I rely on to make those choices.  Part of my feelings come from society, part from reading about religion (any religion), part from just my gut feelings.

Tell me -- do you torture small animals?  I am hoping that the answer is no.  But how did you decide that?  The bible?  Where does it say that you should not torture small animals?  What about situations where the bible does not address?  You just kind of extrapolate, correct?

I do not believe that _any_ book has all the answers.  Nor do I believe in taking the bible as the last word.  In my mind, when people respond to a question with "Because the bible tells me so" I feel that those people are missing something.  Usually it is the ability to think for themselves, but I realize that this is a vast overgeneralization, so please don't take offense if this doesn't describe you.  I also encounter a significant number of bible-followers who have never taken the time to look in to any other religions or philosophies.  I think that it is extremely important for anyone to research everything before deciding on one thing for their whole life.


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by nkuvu _
> *
> Tell me -- do you torture small animals?  I am hoping that the answer is no.  But how did you decide that?  The bible?  Where does it say that you should not torture small animals?  What about situations where the bible does not address?  You just kind of extrapolate, correct? *



To answer for myself at least, you are correct when you say that we "extrapolate" when the Bible does not say word for word exactly what to do. Take your example for instance. No, I don't torture animals, nor do I condone such actions. Take this passage from the Bible: "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." --Proverbs 12:10. This would be my basis for treating the animals of this planet with kindness. There are other verses and passages which would add weight and qualify this belief. This passage does not tell me not to torture small animals, but this one tells me to regard the life (care about) of my own animal. I am also admonished by other Biblical passages to regard the property of others, and to be a good steward of the planet God has created. All of these together, plus some others, create a framework for me.

Some follow their "heart" while others of us use this "book" to give our heart a guide to follow.

Does that make sense? I don't claim to be a Bible expert. I'm learning and growing more every day. I don't agree with everything that other Christians believe, and often argue with many Christians over issues much like what we have been discussing here. But one of the main things is that we can remain friendly and open in our discussions.

I guess one of the main things that I am serching for is for those who are non-Christians to extend the same hand of friendship and tolerance than they are asking from us. I know this is not politically correct, but tolerance does not mean acceptance. Many of you here totally disagree with Matt, myself and other Christians, yet you have been tolerant of our beliefs. Just because it is tolerated does not mean you believe it or accept it yourself. I can tolerate a belief that is in opposition or conflict with my own without accepting it.

Where did all that come from? This post went a little longer than I planned.

Cheers!


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by bighairydog _
> *I couldnt find an authoritative text, but a google search reveals that majority opinion is that he was a Christian, and that those who say that he wasnt are generally using his beliefs to say that he cant have been a real Christian, regardless of whether he thought he was or not. It was a lecturer who first told me.*


Let me briefly point out that your search was hopelessly biased in looking for sources saying that "Darwin was a Christian".  But the point is moot, because I tried this Google search and the result yielded only 2 results to your 28.


> _From here._
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"When thus reflecting [on the origin of life], I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analagous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist... The mystery is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally, but not always, an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention of writing atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world... I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.  Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can"
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"I am sorry to inform you that I do not believe in the  Bible as divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God"


The above quote is allegedly directly from Darwin's own letters, and if true, makes him non-Christian by definition, at least at the time he said this.  The catch is in the last paragraph when he says "I do not believe in the Bible as divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God".  Very simply, one must accept Christ's divinity in order to claim Salvation.  Otherwise, how can Christ claim to offer it?  If we can agree on this point, and if Darwin really said the above, we should safely be able to say that Darwin was not a bona-fide Christian.





> *Not even the existence of two different creation stories convinces you that either one is true and the other not,or alternatively that they are both metaphors?*


As I posted just a little bit ago, I am only now really becoming aware of this idea.  I plan on looking at it.  In the mean time maybe you and Ed can explain what the apparent inconsistency is, for the benefit of others.





> *That clears it up for you?  It says just what I did, i.e. that creation science is arguments put forward to support creationism, nothing about seeking better hypotheses or considering any arguments that do not support creationism*


Here is the definition I was referring to:





> scientific evidence or arguments put forth in support of creationism


I understand your point, and it's valid, but only in a scientific community where the possibility of the supernatural is tossed out the window.  By default, creation scientists believe in a Creator God, and only seek to prove the truth of creation by _means_ of science.  Science is not an end, but a means to a greater truth.  This may "cheapen" creation science to you, but it is a matter of perspective.  This definition also allows for perfectly valid scientific arguments within the greater context of creation science.  All that is left for debate within *this* context can be solved in a case by case examination of the evidence and which world-view it supports; evolution or creation.  My arguement would be that more evidence _really_ suggests a young-earth creation, but I think neither side of the current debate is ready for that.  (Maybe we are?)

Let me ask you a question, though; have you ever performed an experiment and afterwards asked yourself how it fit into the bigger picture of evolution?  If you have, we are in the same boat.  (not that I'm a scientist, mind you   )

Also, regarding the genetic biology stuff, you probably will win.  Biology does not interest me very much, and admittedly, I probably know the classic creationist arguments and that's it.  I definitely want to hear you explain (in layman's terms) the positive mutation stuff.  To give you an idea of what I think about molecular biology

I know that past science believed the cell to be the smallest building block of life, then it was something like the cell parts, then the atom, then we find that the atom has different parts to it, etc  The point is that the more we look, the more complex life becomes, and the more unlikely this all happened by chance.  The creation scientist rejoices while it forces the evolutionist to ask more questions (and change the theory of evolution yet again).

Whew!  I've been going at this for a few hours now.  Hope you don't get too bored with my posts!


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 26, 2002)

> _ebolag4 stated:_
> I can tolerate a belief that is in opposition or conflict with my own without accepting it.


That is _precisely_ what I want to hear.  Far too often, I meet religious people who are *1.* certain that I am doomed because I do not accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour and *2.* intent on converting me to their beliefs.

When I have time, I really enjoy discussing religion with level headed individuals.  I have enjoyed this thread, because when things got near to the point of name-calling, everyone apologized and backed off.  That's cool.

I chose the small-animal-torture bit because I didn't think that there was anything in the bible about it.  I am no expert on the bible, of course.  And before anyone thinks that I am a hypocrite, you don't have to read the bible to understand the basics of Christianity.  In fact, it is often the case that different factions of Christianity differ from my interpretation of biblical passages, so it is better for understanding if I _don't_ look at the bible.

My point is that when there is any extrapolation of the biblical passages, you are doing what I do in every day life.  You extend what you believe to be right and just, and do that to your best ability.  I do the same.  You start from the bible, I start from what has been taught to me as right and wrong by society (and previous experiences of my own).

For a specific example.  When I was a lot younger, I was not sure what my own boundaries were for right and wrong.  That's part of growing up, so I doubt that anyone can honestly say that they aren't the same as me in this respect.  Anyway, I was not a troublesome child as such.  But I did get into a few fights.  In one particular instance, my mom and I had just moved to a new state, and I was starting to attend a new school.  There was one kid there who thought that I was an easy target.  He was a little smaller than I was, but I was a shy child, so he tried to get me to fight him.  His first attempts were met with a brush off.  "Go away, I don't want to fight you"  He kept it up, and would not be dismayed by my lack of response.  I talked to my teacher, I talked to my parents, I even went on my own to the school principal.  All to no avail.  The kid kept it up, trying to engage me by name calling, shoving, et cetera.  One day I decided that enough was enough.  I attacked him after he pushed me, and I think his surprise was what caught him off guard.  I don't recall exactly, but I believe that I hit him four times in the face and stomach.  He ran, and I chased.  He stopped behind a teacher's desk (unoccupied) and I basically had cornered him.  Someone asked if I wanted them to grab him so I could hit him some more.  Disgusted with the whole instance, I shook my head and walked away.  It didn't _feel_ like the right thing to do, at all.  I hated that I had to hit him to stop him from taunting me.  He never bothered me after that, and we were friends for a while.  But I never heard from my brief stints in Sunday school that fighting is wrong.  I never heard it at home.  It just felt wrong.

To this day I trust those same instincts, and I am considered by many of my friends to be a gentle and tolerant person.  Intolerance (whether it be for race, gender, nationality, or other) feels wrong.  Hurting others feels wrong.  Forcing my beliefs on one who disagrees with me feels wrong.  And my one unshakable truth:  Killing _is_ wrong.

Hopefully that may give a little more insight to how I decide on things, but I honestly doubt that it does.  

Sorry for the long post -- I even tried to trim it down some, but I have too much to say.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 26, 2002)

> _by Matt_
> *This disturbs me. What you're implying is absolutely contrary to their name, Institute for Creation Research.*



I didn't _imply_ anything, it is a statement of fact. The goal of ICR is to provide proof for true believers like you that the Bible's accounts are accurate. Any research would mean that there would be the possibility that any part would be brought into question. Also, why doesn't Snelling note where he got his PhD? A PhD is a more important degree than a BS, why omit this? 

And you have yet to address my statement about why people like me would take part in a mass cover up when the _truth_ (as you and the ICR would like to believe it) must be completely clear to us.

Also, I would like to point out the method that I (and others like me) use in doing our research.  When working on a theory, I take observation and try and create a model of nature from it. I then take and use this model and try and make predictions to see if the model holds true to nature. If it does I continue trying with other predictions. If the predictions do not match nature, then I rework the theory to take into account the new observations, and then apply the model once again to see how it compares with nature.

My personal area of study is large scale structure of space-time, where I apply my specialty in the area of differential topology to the general areas of gauge theory, quantum field theory, and relativity. Though my work puts me at odds with the physics community at large (when it comes to the current inflation cosmology theory), it does not put me in a situation where I am disregarding evidence and observations that can be easily checked (I just see a different theory using the same observations).

And Matt, I don't want to damage your safe little world, but I would point out that these people have a great deal of power over you. Think about this for a moment. You need reaffirmation that what the Bible is saying is accurate, people who need that are not going to ask the really hard questions of those willing to confirm this because it might prove that the evidence that you must have (in your rigid world) may not be there, or worse, completely false.

When I started my studies of the early Universe, I knew that what we had was some observations and a number of theories that had been disproved (like steady state theory for the most part, though I did have a professor who still believed in it) or had been reworked as more and more data was collected (like the big bang theory which has given rise to inflation cosmology). I also realized that some people had amended things that really didn't need amending with the introduction of a large amount of data from the late 70's (this is not that hard to believe seeing as many physicist do not have a complete command of the mathematics that they are using). The point being, there is no dogma involved. At no point did we all collectively come together and say we are going to believe this one thing and stick to it no matter what. On the contrary, science is ever changing, which is the nature of dealing with the unknown (which I can understand where that scares someone like you).

You don't want to see the conflict of interest of those you want to believe in. I know that evidence that proves otherwise is dismissed because it does prove them wrong. Is this lying? I would like to think they are of the same mind set as you, your faith lets you not see what is clearly in front of you (this is not _rejoicing_, it is hiding). It protects you from the parts of the world that you can't handle. Which is fine.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 26, 2002)

Ugh Racer, you wear me out! 

To answer the implying thing, you're right.  I used the wrong wording.

My Grand Canyon post was nothing more than my experiences.  I was hoping you would shed some more info on the subject, but you're theorizing too broadly.

Am I living in my own little world?  Nah  I don't mind the debate, but for now I'm tucking in.

{ADDITION}
Actually, I believe a lot of things, but I believe the evidence really supports Creation, like I said in one of my latest posts (what am I up to tonight?  4?).  I think instead of both sides saying "You're deceived!", we should bring up evidences in favor of their favorite worldview.  Whaddya think?


----------



## RacerX (Apr 26, 2002)

You know I don't want to put time pressure on you.

Interesting point.

ICR's age of the Universe vs time needed for light to move from point to point. As I recall from the talks I had with ICR members, they were under the impression that the Universe was about 7,000 years old. This means that light would only be able to reach us from objects that are within 7,000 light-years of where we are.

The Grand Canyon: ICR would have you believe it was formed by the _great flood_, but very large floods leave a different type of scarring (badlands here on earth and areas of Mars both show what large scale floods can do).

And again, the conspiracy theory about us, who must be hiding the truth for some reason. Why are we doing it, what would stop me from letting the cat out of the bag.

Why would _God_ provide us with false data? Assuming that we are not lying about all this, why would the data counter Biblical stories so sharply.

Why is the World not flat? Biblical accounts would have the world be both flat and unmoving. The motions of the planets in our own solar system and the Earth's place run completely counter to what _literalist_ should be getting from the Bible. Why take some things as actual facts and not others (shouldn't the rule for reading the Bible be completely steadfast)?

That should give you a good start.


----------



## bighairydog (Apr 27, 2002)

Now were getting somewhere  Matt this is the best argument against my beliefs I have been given. Wrong, but very good ;o)





> _Originally posted by Matt _
> *Let me ask you a question, though; have you ever performed an experiment and afterwards asked yourself how it fit into the bigger picture of evolution?  If you have, we are in the same boat.  (not that I'm a scientist, mind you   )*


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Interesting point. I think that many evolutionist zealots *cough* Richard Dawkins *cough*, shoot themselves in the foot by assuming that evolution is true, and formulating an Ad Hoc hypothesis to explain away any evidence against it. They then criticise Creation Scientists for doing the same, and they are undoubtedly both guilty of it. Ill answer your question seperately, for the three levels of evolution, to avoid confusion.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For many experiments, I have interpreted the results of them on the presupposition that _natural selection_ occurs, basing that presupposition on experiments (using guppies) that have proven that natural selection occurs. Id love to put a link up, but I cant find one. Natural selection is a fact, which nobody informed person can deny, because you see it happening over the course of weeks.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As for evolution in the sense of new species emerging from others, I believe that I have seen enough evidence to think that this occurs, and has occurred, so I would frame observations about e.g. fossils in the context of evolution over huge time scales. Yes, if I saw a strange fossil I would instantly think "how did this evolve?" In this way I am being as unscientific as the Creation Scientists. However, I justify it on the basis that My opinion is based on evidence I have evaluated, not on a decision to believe a book. I constantly try to pick holes in the logic of textbooks to test them, and for example have identified several flaws in Richard Dawkins anti-creationism books. Conversely, I dont see Creation Scientists saying Can I disprove the Bible, does it stand up to rigorous attacks from all conceivable angles? I only believe a book when the facts in it have withstood numerous attempts to invalidate them, and no holes have been opened up.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;However, I would never fit an experiment into the context of evolution of life from molecules without divine intervention, as I have no reason to know whether or how that might have happened.

Ill PM you the other questions answer, as this post is getting a bit long...

Also, as for the argument that the Bible gives people morals, I have morals, and I didnt get them from the Bible. 





> *Those who [dont base their morals on a book] therefore have no absolute right and wrong, as Christians may claim...      there's nothing to stop them, really, from doing whatever they want and still feel like they did no wrong.*


 Thats absurd. I do what I want to. I do not want to cause others harm. Therefore, I dont, and I dont need a Book to tell me that. You imply that what non-Christians feel like doing are horrible, wrong and immoral things. Thats silly.

//edit -

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Also, can I point out, that although you didn't explicitly say this, you implied that human wants are at odds with the Bible, and therefore humans will behave immorally if they do not have a defined moral code. This conjures up an image in my head of Christians desiring to break the code laid down in the bible, but being restrained by fear of divine retribution.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Does that really qualify as morality?

Bernie     )


----------



## RacerX (Apr 27, 2002)

Not to take this to far off the subject, but Bernie brought up an interesting point based on this quote:



> *Those who [dont base their morals on a book] therefore have no absolute right and wrong, as Christians may claim... there's nothing to stop them, really, from doing whatever they want and still feel like they did no wrong.*



Matt, Christians do the "wrong" thing all the time. I am constantly amazed at how non-Christian many Christians act. Your faith lets you get away with anything because you believe that by believing in Jesus your salvation is secured. I would take it a step further and say that the fact that you don't need to follow those _morals in a book_ make you more of an unknown ethical element than those who reach their own ethical conclusions independently.

My personal experiences with Christians has been that the more Fundamentalist they are, the more there is a risk that they are going to act without regard for ethics (actually, I think that is true of Fundamentalist of any of the middle east religions). And lets face it, if you have not actually struggled with ethics to reach your own conclusion, then you are more of a risk. I would trust someone who knows right from wrong because they feel it more than someone mindlessly following a book.

Quick question here: If you found out that nature does not follow a Creation model, are you going to stop following the morals and ethics that our society is based on? 

_(note: if the answer is yes, Bernie and I should stop right here)_


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> Why is the World not flat? Biblical accounts would have the world be both flat and unmoving. The motions of the planets in our own solar system and the Earth's place run completely counter to what _literalist_ should be getting from the Bible. Why take some things as actual facts and not others (shouldn't the rule for reading the Bible be completely steadfast)?



Not trying to start a two-front argument here, but why do you keep bringing up flat-earth weirdness like that is what a literalist Christian believes. I've never believed that, in fact, if people had actually read their Bibles back during the times when that belief was held, they would have found Biblical evidence to the contrary:

Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the *circle of the earth,* and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

There are other passages that give evidence of the earth being round in Scripture, but I can't remember them off the top of my head right now.

As for the morality argument, here's my take. As a literalist Christian, I believe that the Bible is the ultimate guide for morality. However, I also believe that every person has a built in conscience because they are created in the image of God. (Remember, this is my belief, not necessarily yours.) With this in mind, I see that every person has a built in sense of right and wrong, but we don't always agreed because we are in different stages in life, differenent environments, cultures, and so on and so forth. There is also the belief that God created all people with free will to do as they wish.

I'm not explaining this too well, and I've gotta take my son to a birthday party.

Good debate.

-ebolag4


----------



## RacerX (Apr 27, 2002)

> _by ebolag4_
> *There are other passages that give evidence of the earth being round in Scripture, but I can't remember them off the top of my head right now.*



Small problem here, round does _not_ equal sphere. Round would seem from my reading to represent disk. Again, if all must be literal, exceptions should not be allowed even in the face of the over whelming sphere-ness of the Earth.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Apr 27, 2002)

I saw something worth noting yesterday,
you know those fishes, the ones that have text in them, most of the say "jesus"

well yesterday I saw a car sporting 2 of them 
One with "Jesus" and another one saying "Darwin" .
you make your own conclusions


----------



## simX (Apr 27, 2002)

... and then there's the dead fish with feet, that is upside down, and has a cross for an eye.   I love those things.   That would be funny if someone had all 3 on his car.

Interesting conversation about religion..

MDLarson: One question for you.  The evidence for things like evolution and the universe being billions of years old: what do you say to this?  How do you refute it?  I know they may be wrong, but you can't simply ignore evidence to this theory and say it's wrong.

And I would just like to respond about your comment about how we used to think cells were the smallest thing, and then atoms, and now sub-atomic particles, and how creation scientists are rejoicing at this:

I should hope that we never figure out everything in the universe.    I don't care if it's becoming more and more complicated.  So be it!  For me, I think the ultimate goal of human beings is the attainment of knowledge.  Not to know everything, but to strive to learn about new things.  If one day we explained everything using science and there was nothing left to discover, I would be sorely disappointed.  The universe would be so boring if there was nothing left to discover, even if there is a God for me to believe in.  For me, when we discover that sub-atomic particles are divisible, I will be "rejoicing" (along with creation "scientists", as you say they are) too, because I WANT there to be things left to explain.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *I should hope that we never figure out everything in the universe. I don't care if it's becoming more and more complicated. So be it! For me, I think the ultimate goal of human beings is the attainment of knowledge. Not to know everything, but to strive to learn about new things. If one day we explained everything using science and there was nothing left to discover, I would be sorely disappointed.*



I would like to strongly echo simX's sentiments.


----------



## simX (Apr 27, 2002)

Whoa, did hell freeze over or something?  RacerX and I AGREE on something?

Haha, j/k Racer.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Apr 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *
> 
> I would like to strongly echo simX's sentiments. *



Hmm.....reminds me of teh Q in star trek....(think about how they procreate.,...how boring )


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *My personal experiences with Christians has been that the more Fundamentalist they are, the more there is a risk that they are going to act without regard for ethics (actually, I think that is true of Fundamentalist of any of the middle east religions). And lets face it, if you have not actually struggled with ethics to reach your own conclusion, then you are more of a risk. I would trust someone who knows right from wrong because they feel it more than someone mindlessly following a book.
> 
> Quick question here: If you found out that nature does not follow a Creation model, are you going to stop following the morals and ethics that our society is based on?*


I don't mindlessly follow the Bible, to answer what I think you're getting at.  And I don't consider myself Fundamentalist in the traditional sense, if you're curious about that too.  But I do take the Bible seriously because of what I believe and _feel_, and what I can research (as I will attempt to show in my next posts).  Also let me assure you that I do not mindlessly follow the Bible, either.  That notion of _mindless_ zealousy (remember that word?  ) is disgusting to me.

To attempt to answer your quick question:  If it became obvious to me that the Bible was false, I would certainly be less inclined to follow the laws of the land.  I don't know exactly what I would do.  You proposed a hypothetical situation which I believe just won't happen because I believe the "morals and ethics that our society is based on" are themselves based on Biblical truth, with some exceptions of course.  I don't mean to dodge the question, but I answered as truthfully as I can.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 28, 2002)

> _by Matt_
> *If it became obvious to me that the Bible was false, I would certainly be less inclined to follow the laws of the land. I don't know exactly what I would do.*



That in and of it self says quite a lot about you. It explains why you think others that don't believe as you do have no morals or ethics (because you yourself, do not believe that you would have morals and ethics without someone/something watching over you to keep you in line).



> *You proposed a hypothetical situation which I believe just won't happen because I believe the "morals and ethics that our society is based on" are themselves based on Biblical truth, with some exceptions of course.*



I'm sure no one who believed at one point expected not to at some later time. If you would have asked me at the age of six if I believed I would have said _yes_. By the age of nine my questions where starting to get beyond what people could answer, so my beliefs changed. My moral and ethical foundation did shift at that point. I realized that I could no longer ask for forgiveness from anyone/anything else but me, and I was more inclined to judge myself harshly because I would not forget anything wrong that I did. My studies of philosophy (specially Kant) was only second to my studies of nature while growing up.

Needless to say, I find is disturbing and sad that you are unable to see that morals and ethics can have a separate existence from the Bible. It sounds more like your personality is more of a measure of your programing than of self realization (sorry if that sounds harsh, it was not meant to be).


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *ICR's age of the Universe vs time needed for light to move from point to point. As I recall from the talks I had with ICR members, they were under the impression that the Universe was about 7,000 years old. This means that light would only be able to reach us from objects that are within 7,000 light-years of where we are.*


Good point, and I've heard it before.  Quite simply, God must have created the streams of light when he created the stars.  This explanation is really not that difficult to accept if you believe in an omnipotent God.  For if God is capable of creating these huge stars, He is certainly capable of creating the streams of light in between the stars and earth.  The Bible does not explicitly say this, of course, but it is perfectly reasonable given the previous assumption of an all-powerful God.

Another thing worth mentioning is that God created _light_ before He created _lights_.  As pointed out by Bernie, the Sun was created *after* the day / night phenomenon of verse 5.  How God accomplished this is beyond our knowledge, but the supernatural is not to be divorced from interpretation.  There is no contradiction within the scripture here.





> *The Grand Canyon: ICR would have you believe it was formed by the great flood, but very large floods leave a different type of scarring (badlands here on earth and areas of Mars both show what large scale floods can do).*


ICR's theory is that the Grand Canyon was formed as a result of flood _drainage_.  Most likely from a huge lake that was backlogged from the flood.  The canyon was formed quickly as a result of a dam burst as this lake accumulated more and more water.  I'm not sure if this is what you mean by large scale floods, as it is more a result of the flood, not the flood itself.  By your mentioning the badlands, are you hinting to a very large flood, akin to Noah's flood?





> *And again, the conspiracy theory about us, who must be hiding the truth for some reason. Why are we doing it, what would stop me from letting the cat out of the bag.*


Firstly, I did not use the term conspiracy theory.  You did.  My belief is that evolutionists believe what they do out of necessity, that is, the necessity to deny the supernatural (of any kind).  After that, they do the best they can to interpret what they see.  Either evolutionists or creationists are flawed from the beginning.





> *Why would God provide us with false data? Assuming that we are not lying about all this, why would the data counter Biblical stories so sharply.*


The problem here is probably misinterpretation, which can be cleared up.  I'll attempt to answer your following questions (below) in another post shortly.





> *Why is the World not flat? Biblical accounts would have the world be both flat and unmoving. The motions of the planets in our own solar system and the Earth's place run completely counter to what literalist should be getting from the Bible. Why take some things as actual facts and not others (shouldn't the rule for reading the Bible be completely steadfast)?
> 
> That should give you a good start.*


----------



## ulrik (Apr 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *
> Needless to say, I find is disturbing and sad that you are unable to see that morals and ethics can have a separate existence from the Bible. It sounds more like your personality is more of a measure of your programing than of self realization (sorry if that sounds harsh, it was not meant to be). *



I completely second that opinion. 

I consider myself to be somebody who doesn't believe in god, since the god or the gods how they are described in various religions are unreal to me. Not only unreal, unbelievable, unlogical (to me, that is). I don't say I believe in nothing, but I don't believe in any omnipotent force. Still, I have very strong ethical and social feelings, opinions and morals. They are not based on anything religious, but on what I see in the society, what I see in the relationship between beeings and what in my opinion has to be preserved to keep this relationship and this society running.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 28, 2002)

> _by Matt_
> *Quite simply, God must have created the streams of light when he created the stars. This explanation is really not that difficult to accept if you believe in an omnipotent God...*



This brings us to an important point. Why? There is no need or point to this. Why create light images of thing happening before the beginning of time? Is God trying to give us false evidence? Why would God falsify the nature of His creation?



> *By your mentioning the badlands, are you hinting to a very large flood, akin to Noah's flood?*



Yes, as I recall from my talks with ICR members, they felt at that time that it was evidence of Noah's flood.



> *Firstly, I did not use the term conspiracy theory. You did. My belief is that evolutionists believe what they do out of necessity, that is, the necessity to deny the supernatural (of any kind).*



Again you can only deny that which you actually know.



> *After that, they do the best they can to interpret what they see. Either evolutionists or creationists are flawed from the beginning.*



Which brings us back to a very sticky point. When the nature of the Universe has been fixed to appear as something different than what it really is (which seems to be your argument), further discussion is pointless on actual facts.



> *The problem here is probably misinterpretation, which can be cleared up. I'll attempt to answer your following questions (below) in another post shortly.*



Like I pointed out earlier, there is no logical reason for there to be the things that you say were generated in mid path. Also, the fact that light is being generated mid path means that there doesn't have to be the event which is being seen on the end of that path. This brings us back to the flat earth argument. People who believe that the earth is flat would use (and do) the same arguments. If you believe your arguments here, their arguments become yours. 

Think about this, why couldn't the light from the Sun or Moon also be generated in the same way right now? In fact why couldn't the light that you saw reflected off me not just be divinely generated mid path? Further, why couldn't everything you know, everyone you know, all the things that are real to you not actually be God interacting with you. You could be alone with God in the Universe and not know it.

If, for the sake of a book, you are willing to believe things that run counter to your experiences, then anything is possible. You really can't trust anything you see, touch or hear. I can't say that my existence is any better than that, but I seem to have more to work with than you do.


----------



## edX (Apr 29, 2002)

I keep meaning to give an answer to a question that was asked awhile back about pagans and beliefs that might have to be changed based upon scientific evidence. I believe it was ebolag that asked. Fryke gave  pretty good response to it but i will add more.

Pagan is a very braod umbrella term that includes people from many different traditions. there is no one set of beliefs that define a pagan. In fact most modern pagan 'traditions' are reconstructions of the old ways, the true old ways having been lost at the hands of Christians who feared that knowledge of anything other than christianity was dangerous. That we have so little of our true religion left is because of the inquisition. the most complete surviving sources are the Norse Eddas. There is considerable debate among those who follow that path as to whether Ragnorak has already come to pass. If it has, then the old Gods are dead. If it hasn't then there is something like the apocalypse yet to come. Like the Bible, there are only small hints here and there as to whether that day has passed and all are pretty open to interpretation. I personally believe that it has yet to happen and the old Gods are still powerful based upon my interpretation of the translated source material. Evidence to the contrary might change some of my beliefs.

there is also some original source material from the British isles and the Druid tradition although the authenticity of much of it is suspect. The best sources are in bardic poems that survivied becasue the messages were not understood by Christians since no direct references to Gods and Goddesses were in them.

and then we have Greek and Roman 'mythology'. so full of moral and ethical content that the stories are considered classic material today and taught in universities.

other than that, most pagans accept the One Law of Wicca (often known as the Wiccan rede) - And ye harm none, do what thou wilt. Want to talk about a moral code? This is far tougher that 'accept jesus as your savior' and having all your moral indiscretions forgiven!!  Learning no to harm others is a really big task. Most of us have no idea of how we are affecting others. And how do we know what constitutes harm? If i eat cow and another feels the suffering of all harm to animals, am i harming them? because of this, i am on the constant lookout for things i do that cause harm to others. and yes, i often change my lifestyle and my beliefs because of what i discover. 

there are plenty of degrees of pagan belief as well. arguements over who worships corectly and who doesn't are rampant. People who proclaim to have all the answers are always springing up. Nitpicking over supposed right and wrong ways to perform ritual is neverending. and i am sure that there are many pagans who simply ignore science and anything else that tries to disagree with them But like with Christians, these kind of people are a vocal minority who only get attention because they seek it so stonrgly. Unfortunately, they are often the ones the world gets a good look at because they draw attention to themselves.  

but since most pagan, or 'neo-pagan' religions as they are more accurately called at times, have only resurged in the past 40-50 years, most are in harmony with science up to a point. and that is the point that science ceases to be of any use. However many of us are involved in seeing if science does support any of or beliefs in things like psychic phenomenon or spiritual healing. We believe that these things exist and if we can jsut find the right tools to measure them, then they will be shown to be natural, not supernatural.

i am sure there is more i should add, but i grow tired of the typing. perhaps later. Blessed Be.


----------



## edX (Apr 29, 2002)

> _poor matt said this_
> To attempt to answer your quick question: If it became obvious to me that the Bible was false, I would certainly be less inclined to follow the laws of the land. I don't know exactly what I would do.



when i read what you have implied by this, i am truly saddened. It sounds like you live a life where your actions are controlled only thru fear of a vengeful God who will strike you down if you do not do what he says. it sounds like you would forsake your fellow humans if it weren't for your perceived consequences of such actions. 

of cousre i could also go off on a tangent about how the 'laws of the land' aren't always God's laws and how there would still be consequences involved in some actions. Is life imprisonment really that much less scary than supposedly going to hell? especially if your source for believing in hell were no longer valid? no assurance of an afterlife might make making the most of this life that much more important. 

or i might infer that you don't think for yourself, since you have no realization of what you would do without being told what to do.

or i might argue that the morals and ethics in the Bible are all good ones, even if it was just another story book. there is no reason to believe they have any less value just because there is no greater power enforcing them. They are still some wonderful guides for how to live. In fact, the ethics and morals in the Bible are my favorite parts of it. If only more Christians would live by them instead of taking refuge in the bottom line - being forgiven their indiscretions by a simple act of believing in Jesus.  If only more people would really live like Jesus and like the ethical stories illustrate, the world would be a much nicer place to live in.


----------



## scruffy (Apr 29, 2002)

Some replies to a number of points.  Sorry this is so long...



> *originally by RacerX*
> My personal experiences with Christians has been that the more Fundamentalist they are, the more there is a risk that they are going to act without regard for ethics (actually, I think that is true of Fundamentalist of any of the middle east religions). And lets face it, if you have not actually struggled with ethics to reach your own conclusion, then you are more of a risk. I would trust someone who knows right from wrong because they feel it more than someone mindlessly following a book.



Why stop there?  Fundamentalist Hindus, Communists, Free Market Capitalists, all fundamentalists, are living out of a book.  And those who live out of books don't live fully in the real world - consequently, their actions (in the real world by necessity) are more likely to be  inappropriate, disproportionate, and inconsiderate of us fellow occupants of the world.



> My studies of philosophy (specially Kant) was only second to my studies of nature while growing up.



Only thing weirder than religious crazies, is them freako Kantian types 

Actually, I was going to bring up Kant in response to one of Matt's postings (from a while back, I guess) to the effect of their being no solid moral grounding without Biblical belief.  Not that I really know a lot of Kant, but he does make an excellent example of a _very_ firm moral framework free of religion.



> *originally by MDLarson*
> My belief is that evolutionists believe what they do out of necessity, that is, the necessity to deny the supernatural (of any kind).



I'm not sure all, or even most, evolutionists would deny the possibility of _any_ supernatural phenomena, or indeed of an omnipotent God.  It just seems that, where there's lots and lots of signs that all point toward a coherent, consistent non-supernatural explanation, and when that explanation seems to hold up to considerable scrutiny, there's no reason to turn to a supernatural explanation.

For example - I'm not even going to get into whether I believe in a god, or if so what sort, but I will go into what sort of god I specifically _don't_ believe in.  I don't believe in a god that's got so much time on his hands that he goes dicking his creations around, by planting evidence of creation being older than it is.  Planting moving streams of light between the stars and us, planting insta-fossilized bones of creatures showing a gradual development through various stages into the creatures we finally see around us, planting geological formations carefully crafted to look like the result of millions of years of sedimentation and erosion...  And then telling one select tribe of nomadic middle-eastern goatherds "Hey, for future reference, the whole thing is a plant, and you're the only ones in on it."  Surely, any omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being would enough of a life to be above childish pranks like that.


----------



## edX (Apr 29, 2002)

> _ from the scruff's mouth_
> .. And then telling one select tribe of nomadic middle-eastern goatherds "Hey, for future reference, the whole thing is a plant, and you're the only ones in on it." Surely, any omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being would enough of a life to be above childish pranks like that.



yea, that one always got me as well.  Why would the creator of all beings go and pick a favorite. i mean we are just humans and most of us know you love your children equally, and if you don't, then at least don't show it. and we just picked this up by making mistakes. We were all knowing and all powerful to start with.

it leads me to 2 other problems with Christianity -

1st - why is it ok to rip off a whole religion from the Jewish people but not ok to do so with native americans? I mean, i know plenty of Christians who run around defending native americans and how white people have oppressed them and all that who don't think anything of their whole religion having been stolen from a small group of very oppressed people known as the Jews. and who have the gall to look down on Jews and Judaism all because they didn't tag along with the new bastardization of it. All the while, denying and excluding the Talmud and other oral traditions that surround the Torah, yet claiming the Torah as part of their tradition and their interpretation of it as the only correct one? where is the sensibility, much less morals and ethics in that?

2nd - even when i was a church goer, i have believed in a God who is as smart or smarter than me and can learn from their mistakes. there is even eveidence in the bible that God learns - noah's ark and the flood. So how can a being that can learn, already know everything? Hmmm. Is that one of those things that is just supposed to be too great for our little minds to handle? or that we have to have faith that it is possible because the bible says so? It's a contradiction for whoever said the bible has no contradictions a while back. 

but let me clear, i see no reason not to believe in God just because the Bible isn't 100% comprehensible. I also don't see it as any proof of God because it is so convoluted. But why can't anyone have faith in God simply thru personal relationship? If there is a God, surely God will communicate with those who seek communion and guide them thru moral and ethical choices. I still believe that God is to be expereinced, not read about and quoted.

btw, as long as we are getting deeper and deeper into religion, xtianity in particular, do any of our xtians know why Jews have never accepted Jesus as the messiah? there are a few possible answers to this, but only one that is really relevant to any discussion of it in the present context.


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 30, 2002)

Somewhat off topic -- I haven't been following the thread recently.  But I found an interesting website:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/welcome.htm

Figured this would be a good place to share it.  

Edit:  Found another interesting site.
http://www.tftb.com/deify/hierophant.htm
Asks about 130 hard questions about the bible and Christianity.  Please note that I am not providing this link to offend anyone.  But I know a few Christians who were surprised by some of the information in this questionnaire.


----------



## bighairydog (May 1, 2002)

Arguments as to whether this site was a hoax now seem to be cleared up - the site has been shut down by the Christian web hosting company that hosted it.

<words = "wise">
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I think that there comes a point where an institution becomes so absurd
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;that it's ridiculousness can't be exaggerated, and satire is therefore rendered
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;obsolete by being indistinguishable from the subject of it's mockery.
</words>

Bernie     )


----------



## MDLarson (May 1, 2002)

I'd be more active in this thread, but I suddenly became really busy with work and a paper for my aesthetics class (not that I'm not busy the rest of the time).  Anyway, I plan on catching up on the thread and hopefully offering a more respectable defense.  It's hard to defend yourself when you're in the minority.


----------



## ebolag4 (May 2, 2002)

Matt,

Keep it up man, and you have my prayers for your class. I, too, am in the same situation. I have so much at work to do and catch up on that I just don't have the time to properly give to this thread. Hopefully it can be a long term discussion.
I also am a frequent sufferer of migraines, and I've really had a bout this week. Missed a day of work on Tuesday. So, you know how it is.

BTW, Ed. Why don't you go ahead and inform us as to which reason some of my people (yes, I'm a Jew) reject Christ as their Messiah is the pertinent one to our conversation here. I'm interested in what you have to say about it.


----------



## RacerX (May 5, 2002)

> _Originally noted by nkuvu _
> *Found another interesting site.
> http://www.tftb.com/deify/hierophant.htm
> Asks about 130 hard questions about the bible and Christianity.  Please note that I am not providing this link to offend anyone.  But I know a few Christians who were surprised by some of the information in this questionnaire. *



I was finally able to finish reading all 130 questions. Those are some hard questions, and I would love to hear responses to them.


----------



## nkuvu (May 5, 2002)

I don't know the bible verse by verse, but I have looked at a few of the passages quoted in these questions, and the questions are valid.  If you haven't read these questions (even a few of them) I encourage you to do so.  They are very interesting to me -- I agree with Racer.  I'd love to see some answers for these.

From the website:





> If I think that your answers justify my return to Christianity, then I will get in touch with you. I will probably get in touch with you anyway, simply because I will be impressed that you truly gave it your best shot.


I would be _very_ impressed to see someone answer these questions fully.


----------



## tagliatelle (May 6, 2002)

This information is intended for everyone on this site. We all know that the cube wasn't selling well. I have been analysing in Belgium how long that Cubes are available there and now I see iMac, Powermac, eMac, iBook and Titanium.


----------



## bighairydog (May 6, 2002)

Glad we got that one straightened out )


----------



## bighairydog (May 6, 2002)

OK - totally off topic here, but remember back on page 2 when fryke posted this





> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *I've got a link that might be even more interesting to those who haven't read it before.
> 
> The link is to Neal Stephenson's page about 'Cryptonomicon', where he gave us his text: 'In the beginning was the command line'. There you can download a .zip-file of the whole text.*


OK, 36497 words later - Damn that is the best bit of downloaded text I have ever read. Witty, so true,  and a really good advocation of freedom and sensibility.Even if it did take me 3 weeks to read...

Cheers fryke, I toast you with my next cup of tea.

Bernie     )


----------



## nkuvu (May 6, 2002)

Thanks for the reminder, bighairydog.  I downloaded the text, read it, enjoyed it thoroughly, and forgot where it came from.

Thanks, fryke.


----------



## bighairydog (May 7, 2002)

Glad you liked it 

BTW, anybody who's not trying to sell me insurance can call me Bernie

Bernie     :o)


----------



## nkuvu (May 7, 2002)

Yeah, I was thinking about that.  'bighairy' sounds too insulting, 'dog' sounds like I am trying to be a hip G...


----------



## bighairydog (May 7, 2002)

I once knew somebody who called me dog, but then again he did prefix every sentence with "Yo", so I wouldn't go down that line. Come to think of it, I have no idea why I ever thought of the name bighairydog - it was a school thing years ago. I would change my macosx.com ID to 'Bernie', but that would mean having any old body knowing my name.

That would never do ;o)

Anyway, looks like this thread is bottoming out - probably a good thing (if the last christian thread was anything to go by, we collectively can manage about 5 pages of discussion, before we need a month or two to refresh). I'm off to tell some guy in the Support forum why OSX isn't installing on his x86 box.

Bernie     )


----------



## Valrus (May 7, 2002)

nkuvu, Bernie - I recommend "dawg." 

-the valrus


----------



## scruffy (May 7, 2002)

dogge
dhaug


----------



## edX (May 7, 2002)

why is it that so many discussions about God eventually lead to the topic of dogs? 

i will be back with that answer shortly but if anyone else wants to take a stab at it, go ahead. Scruffy?


----------



## dlookus (May 7, 2002)

Dislexia.


----------



## RacerX (May 7, 2002)

> _asked by Ed_
> *why is it that so many discussions about God eventually lead to the topic of dogs?  *



Oh, oh.. I know... it is because we are talking about _dog_ma!


----------



## bighairydog (May 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *why is it that so many discussions about God eventually lead to the topic of dogs?*


They do?

Well I've learned that the answer to any religious question is "Because of the love of the lord our saviour Jesus Christ", so I'm tendering that as an answer. How'd I do?

Dawg     )     (nope, doesn't work. I'll stick to my real name for now.   Bernie     )


----------



## scruffy (May 7, 2002)

Bernie got it right!

Who loves us better then Jesus?  No one.  And yet "a dog is a man's best friend."  

Surely then, dogs are in fact avatars of Christ.  (not in the "gif or jpeg image to represent you in a forum" sense, but in the "descent to earth and incarnation as an animal or a human of a deity (esp. Vishnu)" sense)  (unless there's something you feel you should tell us, Bernie)


----------



## bighairydog (May 7, 2002)

You've half sussed me scruffy.

But although I was sent from beyond this earth by a biblical being, it wasn't Jesus. proof.

;o)

Bernie     )


----------



## The Madhatter (May 10, 2002)

Unfortunately, I missed out on the meat of the discussion a few weeks ago because of finals.  Thank you MDLarson for defending our faith (Christianity), and wish I had been there to help, although I don't agree with you on everything (esp. the Creation stuff).

My father is a geophysicist and a Christian (believes in the Bible, that Jesus' lived a perfect life, his death was the only way to God, and practices what the Bible says) whose experiences have led him to believe that God used evolution as a tool for Creation.  There is a website that states a lot about what some Christian Geologists believe, and when I get the address from my friend, I will post it.

Being a Christian does take faith, yes, but I believe that reason is just as much a part of it as any of your religions (or antireligions).  There are a great number of true Christians who have reasoned their faith, and everyday I strive to do the same.  A good example is C.S. Lewis, who wrote Mere Christianity, a wonderful work explaining how faith is a function of reason.

Someone previously had said that they believed in mathematics, because it made sense, well sure it does, but there are many things it fails to explain.  No integral (whether surface, double, triple, definite, indefinite, regardless of coordinate system), sequence or series (convergent by any test, including Ratio, Alternating Series, Integral, Comparison, Limit Comparison), solid angle, inhomogenous linear differential equation, or anything else can explain something so simple as love (I assume many of us here like math, so I thought that sentence would be funny).  I don't believe science will ever be able to explain certain things, and for this reason, I disagree with the statement that as modern science progresses, religion becomes obselete.

Unfortunately,  there are hundreds and thousands of bad examples of Christians (aforementioned priests, crusaders, and the like) who tarnish the truth of Jesus.  But, as the Bible says (whether you believe its doctrine or not), all men are sinners (do wrong, bad things), and Christians often succumb to tempation, that is our nature as humans.

I'll post more of my thoughts as they come.

BTW I am so glad school is out


----------



## bighairydog (May 10, 2002)

Firstly, welcome into the ring Madhatter.

OK, well given the 'defending of beliefs' stance taken by believers on this board, I'm adopting a defence of mine.





> _Originally posted by The Madhatter _
> *No integral (whether surface, double, triple, definite, indefinite, regardless of coordinate system), sequence or series (convergent by any test, including Ratio, Alternating Series, Integral, Comparison, Limit Comparison), solid angle, inhomogenous linear differential equation, or anything else can explain something so simple as love (I assume many of us here like math, so I thought that sentence would be funny)*


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;True, but no integral sets out to. Whilst I accept that sentence was intended in jest, so I won't hold it to be representitive of your best argument, you might as well have said "No microwave oven manual can explain my backache, therefore faith in an omnipotent being is required to explain it". That would be a bit of a large intuitive leap, and I'd suggest considering the possibility of bad posture to explain it. A silly analogy I know, but you see my point.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In truth, There is no scientific explanation for love, but until recently, there was no explanation for why food spoiled faster when left out in the Sun. Saying that Your emotions are such that they must have been created, they could not possibly have come about naturally through evolution, is in my humble opinion an argument based on convenience. We all like our conciousness, and the idea that it could be evolved is abhorrant to some. But our behaviour is full of what appear to be artifacts of evolution. All of the following subconcious attributes observed by psychologists are, from a theoritical point of view, what would maximise our evolutionary fitness, and therefore what we should expect if our minds did evolve as tools to help us survive and reproduce:
People are most attracted to people resembling ourselves to a degree approximating a 2nd cousin.
All things being equal, people will generally tollerate 1/2 of a sibling's danger to rid them of it, e.g. risk a 50% chance of being beaten up to save a sibling from certain beating.
We generally find things that lower our survival / reproductive success, painful.
We generally find things that raise our survival / reproductive success, pleasurable.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I dont see a problem of assuming we evolved. After all, It requires concionsness to deleberately create conciousness, so If we propose creation as the answer to the 'why are we here' question, it merely shifts the question of where conciousness came from up one level. We don't know where god came from. Unsurprisingly, the standard response to this question is something like 'God is not bound by the mortal requirements of having to have started to exist at some point', or 'INFIDEL! how dare you question his almighty holiness, don't you know that pisses him off.'

</rant>

Wow, break from revision to have that rant, very ejoyable it was too. Don't take my ranting personally, it's just that I feel I should defend my beliefs with the same vigor that people defend their religions, because I actively chose agnosticism as opposed to the default Christianity in my family, so these arguments are about a fundamental choice in my life just as they are with religious people.

Bernie     )


----------



## RacerX (May 10, 2002)

Madhatter,

I'm sure the best is yet to come and that you haven't missed out on too much.

One thing that I think is missed by people who believe in religions is the fact that belief is more than choice. I can not just say _today I believe_. Many people of faith don't seem to get this. If you told me that for me to be saved I had to believe something that goes against my experiences, then I could not believe no matter what rewards await true believers. And honestly, this does go both ways. I have had to take a step back at times to remember that people of faith actually do believe this stuff, no matter how far fetched it may seem to me.

As for love and math, I would point out that one of my favorite philosophers, Immanuel Kant, was a mathematician. He set out to explain how ethics and morals are logical constructs, and that they exist independent of religions (though he was a Christian). As Bernie pointed out, though you may have intended it as a joke, the tools you sighted were never designed for exploring aspects of human social behavior. This is not to say that they could not be use for such, as these tools are being used for economic studies (I remember having one economic grad student in one of my topology classes). I would point out that the true global tool of mathematics are not these pretty characters used in equations that are taught in lower level math courses, it is the tool of proofs. Proofs are based on logical arguments and can be used to study many different types of human interaction (which is why most philosophy courses require a logic course as a prerequisite).

I'm sure that once we all get time, this thread is going to start up again. While your waiting, what were your thoughts on the questionnaire that nkuvu posted?


----------



## tismey (May 10, 2002)

I've purposefully not been getting involved in this conversation, but I just have to duck in here and ask - did anyone save the text of the original article that started this all off? the original link way back at the top of the thread is returning a 404 now and I want to show it to one of my colleagues...


----------



## bighairydog (May 10, 2002)

When in doubt, recall words from the atricle (or copy/paste from a quotation in this thread), put it into google, and get their cached copy.

No images, but the words are all here.

Bernie     )


----------



## MDLarson (May 10, 2002)

Hey all, I just wanted to pop in and let people know that I haven't forgotten about this thread.  I have enjoyed the thread in spite of my minority stance and would like to continue the debate, but things are busier than ever in these weeks.  Packing boxes is more important to me now.    We're moving, and I am at the end of a school year as well.

Madhatter, thanks for joining in.  Maybe we can talk about Christianity and evolution sometime too.

-Matt


----------



## tismey (May 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by bighairydog _
> *When in doubt, recall words from the atricle (or copy/paste from a quotation in this thread), put it into google, and get their cached copy.
> 
> No images, but the words are all here.
> ...



cheers bernie. That's a really useful idea. I notice that they've moved the entire site. For continued amusement, point yer browsers here and check out the addendums. This is my favourite....



> _
> ADDENDUM V (4/29/2002): It appears we have entered a terrible new phase in the Evolutionism propaganda campaign that Apple Computers has been waging. Apple has just announced the "eMac", a Macintosh computer designed specifically to smuggle Darwinism into our schools! According to their propagandistic sloganeering, the "e" in "eMac" ostensibly stands for "education", although it should be obvious to readers by now that it's really a cryptic tipping of the hat to their true agenda: "Evolutionism". However, this isn't the only thing hiding behind this choice of moniker; according to my research, the name eMac is also a referrence to "Emacs", a program that is a standard-bearer for the Communistic Open Source movement mentioned above and whose mascot is some sort of effeminate-looking, horned devil-man. Is there no end to this tangled web of evil?
> 
> _


----------



## nkuvu (May 10, 2002)

Just a few quick questions.


> _Originally posted by The Madhatter_
> *No integral (whether surface, double, triple, definite, indefinite, regardless of coordinate system), sequence or series (convergent by any test, including Ratio, Alternating Series, Integral, Comparison, Limit Comparison), solid angle, inhomogenous linear differential equation, or anything else can explain something so simple as love (I assume many of us here like math, so I thought that sentence would be funny)*


Does religion explain love?  Why is it here, what is it, how does it work?  Why do I fall in love with one person even if they are not a good match for me?

As has been noted previously, if this was just in jest don't worry about defending it.


----------



## edX (May 10, 2002)

well, mathematics as a discipline may not explain love, but the social science of psychology certainly has a lot to say about it. and in the process we use mathematics, in the form of statistics, to make sense of the information we gather about it. There is no shortage of informational books on love. and there is at least some evidence that what we refer to as love is nothing more than a physiological set of reactions to phermones or a conditioned set of habitual responses.


----------



## bighairydog (May 10, 2002)

OK, devils advocate here. I just thought of quite a good reason not to criticise those who believe in god.

Conciousness is an untestable hypothesis. I know I am concious, because conciousness is defined as an awareness of your own mental processes, and I have that. However, there is *absolutely* no way of discriminating between another individual who is concious, and one who is merely very good at giving that apperence.

Even so, we don't say that as it is untestible, it doesn't exist, because we feel it ourselves. we _know_ it exists.

<critical point>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;_It is the feeling that we are concious that is the evidence._
</critical point>

God is a similarily untestable hypothesis. There is nothing in this lifetime that can proove the existance of a God, and vice versa. Powerful though Occam's Razor is, it is not infalliable.

The thing that causes people to believe that god exists is a feeling that they have, which I imagine must be a bit like my feeling that I am concious.

Arguing to a beleiver that there is no god, is like arguing to me that I am not concious. Moreover, as non believers are not experiencing the feeling that God exists, they do not know how strong the 'evidence' is.

OK Matt & Co, How'd I do?

Bernie     )


----------



## bighairydog (May 10, 2002)

BTW, have you seen the source for the objective ministries site?
	
	



```
<META name="generator" content="Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath generated all">
```
LOL!

Bernie     )


----------



## Valrus (May 10, 2002)

Okay, I believe I'm the Math=Jesus guy. 

So. Here's what I think. I think that everything has a _basis_ in math - that if you go down to the lowest level, the most basic concepts on which this universe operates, you'll find that the rules that hold constant all the way down are the rules of mathematics.

But it's not simple. Not at all. While I do think that you could explain love with math - I think you could explain everything with math - it would be like creating an artificial intelligence with nothing but 1's and 0's. As in computer science, you build up levels and levels of abstraction to make things easier to work with, so with math we have things like physics and chemistry to take math concepts and apply them to what we see. It's not a perfect metaphor, but it'll do. 

But where can you find absolute truth? Are there any other places you can find things that you just _know_ to be true, with every fiber of your being? Even things like "thou shalt not kill" can get cloudy under complicated circumstances. But what about 1+1=2? We don't really even know how to _define_ numbers, and yet this is a truth that seems evident to everyone. The way I see it is, people are trying to explain things using the laws of physics, but even the laws of physics bow to the laws of mathematics.

This is not a belief system that's very applicable to everyday life, but it just _feels_ like a solid foundation to me, and I think that's what faith is about. So I have faith in the things that feel to me like they're absolutely incontrovertible, no matter what happens, no matter what changes.

I can get by fine in everyday life with a belief system completely separated from what I think about math, but math is what underlies it all, and it's a comforting thought to think that there is this beautiful order to the universe. It's probably similar to being comforted by the thought that there's a benevolent God watching out for you.

-the valrus


----------



## MDLarson (May 10, 2002)

I wasn't planning on jumping in yet

*but I've got a sermon to preach!!!*
    Just kiddin'  

Has anybody seen Contact with Jodie Foster?  I actually disliked the movie very much, but it was interesting nonetheless.  The whole premise of the movie was based on the idea of finding the "universal language", or mathematics.  Well, crazy Jodie Foster found it in the form of a blue print for a kind of wormhole-time-warp-machine-thingy.

I forget the end, which might have been important, but it was interesting to ponder the universality of math.


----------



## simX (May 10, 2002)

NOTE:  There contains spoilers to the book Contact AND the movie contact below.  So don't read if you don't want to know.

Ah, yes.  Contact.  Great book  the movie was OK, but it kind of deviated.

They didn't show this in the movie, but in the book, it was only the character of Jodie Foster who went through the ball thingy that took them to the other world.  So there was a "trial" of some sort, and she needed some sort of evidence that what she went through on the alien place was true.

Of course in the movie, the evidence was that while on Earth it looked like she had only been gone 20 minutes, the video recorder or whatever recorded *18 hours* of static.  Not all too interesting except for the time thing.

In the book, it was much better.  Jodie was told in the alien environment that there was something hidden in the number pi.  When she was back on Earth, she used all sorts of algorithms on the number.  The same algorithm that was used to decode the message from the aliens helped her decode the message in pi: the picture created from the number was a perfect circle.

Interesting, if you think about it.


----------



## The Madhatter (May 12, 2002)

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the responses to my post, and am extremely impressed with the civility of this thread.  I did intend the math comment as a joke, but love the responses it got.

There are just a few points I would like to bring up.  I am not sure whether or not this has been discussed, but I got the feeling from previous posts that people have been convinced there is overwhelming, solid evidence to support evolution as a fact .  Now, granted, I am not exactly sure what I believe happened, other than that God set the world into motion by some method, but from what I have researched, there seems to be evidence both in support of traditional creationism and evolution.  Assuming this is true, how can one be absolutely sure of either?  The scientific method consists of observance, which was impossible for any human at the beginning of time.  So any hypothesis proposed is just that, an educated guess.  Evolution has never been proved, neither has creation, so I think we should stop referring to our beliefs as having been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.  Regardless, believing in one God or being a Christian makes no requirement as to beliefs of the origin of the universe.

Something I have always held against the theory of evolution (without divine interevention) is this:  We (humans) have never witnessed the creation of something out of absolutely nothing.  I find it hard to swallow that chance (absolute randomness) brought about a universe so ordered as this one.  In previous posts, many were ranting about the beauty of mathematics, and I too think it is equally wonderful.  But knowing the power and universality of math, I don't see how chance could create such a wonderful thing.  It seems to me that this whole concept completely violates Newton's (First, I think) Law which says that everything tends toward a state of greater disorder.  In chemistry, it is taught that without work being put into a system, the system will tend towards randomness.  How could an ultimately disordered universe have turned out so perfectly without guidance, some kind of intervention?  As I previously stated, evolution may very well have happened, but without a God to direct it, it seems completely infeasible.  I would love to hear your comments.

My opinion, about humans, is that we have a soul, something extra, that no other animal does.  If one day scientists could put together an exact replica of a living human, with every atom in place, there would be something missing.  In other words, if I put together a model in my backyard, made of mostly carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, in exactly the same composition as a normal homo sapien, the "thing" would not be a  person, a living, breathing being.  There would be something, lets call it the breath of life, that would be nonexistent.  It would have no soul, no life.  I will not argue that we are in many, many ways like animals (even down to the molecular level), but there is something intangible that we have that no other being does.  And what we have was put into us by a divine being

Christianity, I believe, is a thinking man's religion.  Now let me be clear it is not the religion we believe in, or that a simple belief in one God is the same thing as Christianity.  The main tenant of our faith is that there was a man (Jesus) who was the Son of God, and that man by nature is sinful (because he chose to be so), and only a perfect sacrifice could save us (another topic completely).  Reason, I think, warrants faith.  It is by reasoning and experience that I believe in one God and His Son.  Often times Christians are construed as being blind, ignorant, and stupid, but what I propose is the opposite.  Faith is a product of reason.  I will expound another time.

I don't agree with one who says that religion, or faith in general, is just a way of explaining the unexplainable, which is exactly what I was taught in Anthropology.  Isn't that exactly what science, math, and all other objective studies aim to do?  But the difference is this:  An atheists faith is grounded in things he can see and touch, while our (a Christians) faith is based on something greater than ourselves, something beyond what we see and touch.  We can easily believe in what we understand, but that doesn't make it necessarily true, just easier to swallow.  But the great thing is is that our faith is rewarded, because we can have an real experience, perhaps not physical (although it may be), with the God in which we believe.  It is a personal and universal thing all in one.  Reason and thinking are very much an integral part of faith, that is what I am trying to say, and I hope it is clear.

Lastly, I was talking to an athiest down the hall, who believes that man is good, and that improving humanity is the ultimate goal of man.  He did admit, one time, something that gave me great encouragement.  He said, "I will tell you though, Micah, that either I am right (there is no god), or one single religion, belief system is the answer, but not all of them", and he was banking on the first.  Out of curiousity, how many of you would agree?

Oh, there is so much more to say, but this post is certainly long enough, for which I sincerely apologize, but I had to get everything out or else I would forget it.  My purpose is to try to help you understand what I believe, never to offend, be pushy, or make anyone angry.  I had a kernel panic earlier, so I had better post this.

Happy Mother's Day! (especially if you are my momma)


----------



## bighairydog (May 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by The Madhatter _
> *I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the responses to my post, and am extremely impressed with the civility of this thread.*


That's the plus of discussing religion in a computer forum as opposed to a religion forum of any sort ;o)


> *I got the feeling from previous posts that people have been convinced there is overwhelming, solid evidence to support evolution as a fact ... there seems to be evidence both in support of traditional creationism and evolution.  Assuming this is true, how can one be absolutely sure of either? *


I as a student of evolution (among other things) would very much like to separate evolution (new kinds of life arising from old) from the bunch of crackpot theories describing how life could have come about from none, that call themselves evolution in order to parasitize the success of evolutionary theory. Such theories are on an equal footing with creation and inoculation by curious aliens, i.e. there is no hard evidence in either direction.

Evolution of new life forms from old _has_ been proven, as long as you accept that in experiments in which we see it happening, the observations are not really just God intervening to give the appearance that evolution is occurring.



> *My opinion, about humans, is that we have a soul, something extra, that no other animal does.  If one day scientists could put together an exact replica of a living human, with every atom in place, there would be something missing.  In other words, if I put together a model in my backyard, made of mostly carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, in exactly the same composition as a normal homo sapien, the "thing" would not be a  person, a living, breathing being.  There would be something, lets call it the breath of life, that would be nonexistent.  It would have no soul, no life.*


Aah, now this is a really sticky philosophical question, with no answer. Think about these three problems. Firstly, if animals have no soul, does that mean they are not conscious? If they so, is it OK to cause them pain, because if they are not conscious, then they do not feel, they merely give that appearance. If it is possible to be conscious but have no soul, then how can we tell for sure that we have a soul?

Secondly, Imagine an atom-level cloning device. You stand in a booth, and it creates a duplicate of you, down to the last atom, with every speed and trajectory and charge and pressure of every part of you maintained. What do you think this would result in? Assuming that we have a soul but animals dont, then this thing would survive as well as an animal does, and behave as a human does, but does not have this arbitrary construct that is the soul. Now somebody tortures it, and it begs for mercy. Is this wrong? If it has no soul, then surely torturing it is merely causing it to go through various motions, much as pressing a button on my computer causes it to play a movie.

Thirdly, and most critically, when does this soul start to exist in humans? We have a very detailed understanding of the process of fertilising and embryo development, at what point is a new soul created? What about identical twins, where a developing embryo splits into two balls. There is a certain probability that this will happen to any embryo  do identical twins have 1/2 as much soul as other humans?



> *Christianity, I believe, is a thinking man's religion.*


<voice = 'austere'>Damn right, dont want those darkies being compared to us on an intellectual level.</voice>

Excuse me, but what a load of crap. Firstly, which of the several hundred mutually exclusive denominations of Christianity is the thinking one, or are they all? Secondly, how is Christianity better than any other religion worshiping the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God? The Jews say they are right because Jesus wasnt the Son of God sent to direct mankind, and the Christians say that they're right because he was. That seems to me to be the fundamental split between the two religions which worship the same God, and as you quite rightly pointed out (when referring to the first life), if there are no witnesses to events, so how can we know? How is taking one side being a "thinking man", and do you think you would still be on the side you are on if you had been raised in a Jewish family? If you were a Jew because you had been raised that way, would you be less of a thinker?





> *The main tenant of our faith is that there was a man (Jesus) who was the Son of God, and that man by nature is sinful (because he chose to be so), and only a perfect sacrifice could save us (another topic completely).  Reason, I think, warrants faith.  It is by reasoning and experience that I believe in one God and His Son.  Often times Christians are construed as being blind, ignorant, and stupid, but what I propose is the opposite.  Faith is a product of reason.  I will expound another time.*


I would love you to. If you succeed in providing a logical reason for believing in Christianity (not merely God, but specifically Christianity), then I will salute you as a man who has managed to do what I tried to do, but could not. In fact, if you only reply to one bit of this post, let it be this one. I would very much like you to dedicate a post to the logical train of thought that led you to this conclusion.


> *[the atheist] said, "I will tell you though, Micah, that either I am right (there is no god), or one single religion, belief system is the answer, but not all of them", and he was banking on the first.  Out of curiousity, how many of you would agree? *


I agree. If atheists are wrong, then there must be a correct belief system, but that does not go to say that any people alive have that system.

Bernie     )


----------



## simX (May 12, 2002)

I thought I'd post a bit in response to The Madhatter, having read Bernie's post.



> _Originally posted by The Madhatter _
> *I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the responses to my post, and am extremely impressed with the civility of this thread.  I did intend the math comment as a joke, but love the responses it got.
> 
> There are just a few points I would like to bring up.  I am not sure whether or not this has been discussed, but I got the feeling from previous posts that people have been convinced there is overwhelming, solid evidence to support evolution as a fact .  Now, granted, I am not exactly sure what I believe happened, other than that God set the world into motion by some method, but from what I have researched, there seems to be evidence both in support of traditional creationism and evolution.  Assuming this is true, how can one be absolutely sure of either?  The scientific method consists of observance, which was impossible for any human at the beginning of time.  So any hypothesis proposed is just that, an educated guess.  Evolution has never been proved, neither has creation, so I think we should stop referring to our beliefs as having been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.  Regardless, believing in one God or being a Christian makes no requirement as to beliefs of the origin of the universe.*



The "fact" that 1+1=2 has never been proven.  The "facts" about geologic activity on this Earth have never been proven  like the fact that there was an original supercontinent.  I could go on.

I'm not trying to be a smart aleck here, but I'm trying to illustrate a point.  Many things we will probably never be able to prove unless we have a time machine.  We can gather data in the present and extrapolate the most reasonable explanation of what happened in the past, but we will never "prove" it.  Evolution is a "theory", not a "fact", but I believe it's probably the most reliable, most reasonable, and most probable explanation of how human beings came to be.  I, at this point, can't conceive of any other more reasonable way of explaining our existence from a scientific point of view.  This is how science works  we create the most compelling explanation for something based upon the data that we have gathered in the present.  Then when we find something that goes contrary to our theories, we modify them slightly to accommodate, or we completely trash the old theory and come up with a new one that makes more sense.  It's what science is all about  I know we're probably going to know for a fact only one billionth of the things out there, and even that is a major exaggeration.



> *Something I have always held against the theory of evolution (without divine interevention) is this:  We (humans) have never witnessed the creation of something out of absolutely nothing.  I find it hard to swallow that chance (absolute randomness) brought about a universe so ordered as this one.  In previous posts, many were ranting about the beauty of mathematics, and I too think it is equally wonderful.  But knowing the power and universality of math, I don't see how chance could create such a wonderful thing.  It seems to me that this whole concept completely violates Newton's (First, I think) Law which says that everything tends toward a state of greater disorder.  In chemistry, it is taught that without work being put into a system, the system will tend towards randomness.  How could an ultimately disordered universe have turned out so perfectly without guidance, some kind of intervention?  As I previously stated, evolution may very well have happened, but without a God to direct it, it seems completely infeasible.  I would love to hear your comments.*



Of course, the seeming completely infeasible is an opinion.  I, for one, think that it possibly could have happened.  But I would like to point one thing out  how can you say that the creation of life violates Newton's Law which says that everything tends toward a state of greater disorder?  In my opinion, the universe before the big bang would be perfectly orderly (whatever it was, and assuming that the big bang theory is correct).  Then everything exploded and you get planets and supernovas and all sorts of star clusters, and you get Earth.  Earth is geologically active, but nothing too interesting except for geologic formations.  Then somehow, "life" comes to be.  It branches into different forms and different species and different genuses ad infinitum.  Then, somehow, human beings come to be, and they have the ability to create tools, and create novel ways of doing things, advancing technology little by little, until things like the steam engine, railroads, the printing press, computers, etc. were created.

Is this really MORE orderly than before?  I should think not.  If anything, this is obeying Newton's Law, if it is even applicable in this case.  The randomness that created the first form of life is just increasing the entropy on Earth, as I see it.  So I think it's entirely possible, on this point.  Furthermore, there is evidence that organic substances like amino acids could be created from pools of liquid with electricity applied to it (this is a very oversimplified statement of the experiment).  Even though we don't have evidence of LIFE arising from inert materials, I think the fact that amino acids came to be is pretty significant.

*



			My opinion, about humans, is that we have a soul, something extra, that no other animal does.  If one day scientists could put together an exact replica of a living human, with every atom in place, there would be something missing.  In other words, if I put together a model in my backyard, made of mostly carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, in exactly the same composition as a normal homo sapien, the "thing" would not be a  person, a living, breathing being.  There would be something, lets call it the breath of life, that would be nonexistent.  It would have no soul, no life.  I will not argue that we are in many, many ways like animals (even down to the molecular level), but there is something intangible that we have that no other being does.  And what we have was put into us by a divine being
		
Click to expand...

*
I would tend to disagree.  I think that our "soul" is simply consciousness, that has somehow evolved into ourselves.  I think that if you cloned me, my clone would be conscious, and would be able to exhibit the exact same feelings as me.  He would be capable of sadness, of happiness, of love, of anger, and of all the other emotions.  To me, this is all that is needed for a person to have a "soul", but I only think the consciousness that we have separates us from animals.  I think that it's possible that some animals could have a limited consciousness, even if it's simply in the form of self-awareness.

Personally, I think it's kind of arrogant to think that we are above animals and plants in some way.  I prefer to think of it as something that's evolved in us, and that could easily evolve in some other form of life if it ever happened.

*



			Christianity, I believe, is a thinking man's religion.
		
Click to expand...

*
I believe that Bernie handled this quote well.

*



			Now let me be clear it is not the religion we believe in, or that a simple belief in one God is the same thing as Christianity.  The main tenant of our faith is that there was a man (Jesus) who was the Son of God, and that man by nature is sinful (because he chose to be so), and only a perfect sacrifice could save us (another topic completely).  Reason, I think, warrants faith.  It is by reasoning and experience that I believe in one God and His Son.  Often times Christians are construed as being blind, ignorant, and stupid, but what I propose is the opposite.  Faith is a product of reason.  I will expound another time.
		
Click to expand...

*
I agree that faith is a product of reason.  But in my case it manifests itself as a faith in science and as a faith in observation and the tangible.  I would go so far as to say that science is a religion of sorts, although I know there are probably many, like Ed, who would disagree.

What I don't understand is how you can put faith in something that leaves no trace of itself, and has no evidence of existing besides the feeling inside a person.  For me, anyway, I *need* to have some evidence or something tangible that could point to the existence of something, before I believe in it.  That's why it's so hard for me to believe that there is a God out there.  There may very well be, but I just haven't seen any true of evidence of there.  As always, though, science can neither prove nor disprove, so I can't say that because of the lack of evidence, there is no God.  I usually regard myself as an atheist, because I don't believe in God.  In truth, though, I probably would more closely be an agnostic.

*



			I don't agree with one who says that religion, or faith in general, is just a way of explaining the unexplainable, which is exactly what I was taught in Anthropology.  Isn't that exactly what science, math, and all other objective studies aim to do?  But the difference is this:  An atheists faith is grounded in things he can see and touch, while our (a Christians) faith is based on something greater than ourselves, something beyond what we see and touch.  We can easily believe in what we understand, but that doesn't make it necessarily true, just easier to swallow.  But the great thing is is that our faith is rewarded, because we can have an real experience, perhaps not physical (although it may be), with the God in which we believe.  It is a personal and universal thing all in one.  Reason and thinking are very much an integral part of faith, that is what I am trying to say, and I hope it is clear.
		
Click to expand...

*
Reason and thinking ARE very much an integral part of faith, which is why I put MY faith in science.


----------



## simX (May 12, 2002)

Ack!  That's probably the first time my post was over 10000 characters long, necessitating me to post a double-reply.  Anyway, here's the rest of what I was going to say.



> *Lastly, I was talking to an athiest down the hall, who believes that man is good, and that improving humanity is the ultimate goal of man.  He did admit, one time, something that gave me great encouragement.  He said, "I will tell you though, Micah, that either I am right (there is no god), or one single religion, belief system is the answer, but not all of them", and he was banking on the first.  Out of curiousity, how many of you would agree?*




Personally, I think that's a stupid statement.  Faith is from inside a person.  I can believe in science even while someone believes in christianity, and someone else can believe in buddhism at the exact same time.  Why should there be a correct faith?  If a person believes strongly enough in something, then it's right for that person!  That's not to say it's a UNIVERSAL faith, but it is a legitimate faith for that person, and it's very arrogant to say otherwise. 



> *Oh, there is so much more to say, but this post is certainly long enough, for which I sincerely apologize, but I had to get everything out or else I would forget it.  My purpose is to try to help you understand what I believe, never to offend, be pushy, or make anyone angry.  I had a kernel panic earlier, so I had better post this.*



We all our expressing our feelings.  As long as everybody watches their language as they have been doing, I see no reason for anyone to get offended.  I certainly wasn't offended by your post, and I hope you won't be by mine.


----------



## bighairydog (May 12, 2002)

Been thinking about whether a religion would be bad just because it is wrong. Should it be? Where is it written that logic is the all-consuming goal of the universe? Can something be factually wrong, yet still the best belief?

Consider the proposition that people should believe what makes them happiest. I might be happier if I was absolutely convinced that I was going to have an afterlife in heaven. I can't believe in heaven, because I am afflicted with a desire to discover the truth, and this has lead me to reject all current religions.

Could it be said that science and logic have created in me the negative effect that I often accuse religions of creating - being less happy?

Just a thought. In actual fact, I doubt that I would be happier on average if I was a devout christian, but it certainly would have helped in some situations.

Bernie     )


----------



## tagliatelle (May 12, 2002)

Ok for all your religeous thoughts. Today I was at Scherpenheuvel who is a place like Lourdes in Flanders.
I have found those specifications from a serversite. The price of the hardware was indicated 0 and there were no pictures available, also it means that the new server may come without CD, HD and with not much memory if you want to have a cheap one.


----------



## bighairydog (May 12, 2002)

I'm never sure if Herve's comments are beautifully phrased metaphores, too intricate for me to comprehend their enlightening meaning, or if he's posted in the wrong thread.

Either way, thenks for that Herve ;o)

Bernie     )


----------



## RacerX (May 12, 2002)

To keep this post short, I'm only quoting enough to lead the reader back to Madhatters original statements.



> *There are just a few points I would like to bring up. I am not sure whether or not this has been discussed, but I got the feeling from previous posts that people have been convinced there is overwhelming, solid evidence to support evolution as a fact ...*



Other than maybe the _1+1=2_ part, I think Simone covered all the points I would have made here.



> *Something I have always held against the theory of evolution (without divine interevention) is this: ...*



I have always felt that we live in a causal universe. Cause and effect can be used to lead us to almost any information we need. As such, our universe being touched by _God_ would be an effect without cause (because _God_ would be outside of our existence). I have seen no evidence of such an event, and the closest thing I know of (the big bang) we can not get close enough to make a judgment on at this time anyway (though the Pope has said the existence before the big bang is the realm of _God_, I'm still wanting for more to work with). 

As for the universe and entropy, the current understanding is that the universe is cooling, the energy needed for expansion is limited, and that the matter which we are made of is the result of such energy loss. We still get additional energy from other sources in the form of radiation and gravitation, which is all we need here on our planet to continue on for now. Only a small (by the standards of the universe) amount of energy is needed for our world to work. 

As for guidance, we have found that math explains much of the randomness which you seem to see as divine in nature. Chaos theory covers most of the mathematics needed for generating complexity from rather simple origins (I leave it to the reader to find out more on that point, as I recall there are some nice general information books on the subject). So, for me, _God_ would not have needed to have a hand in evolution. I would also go as far as to ask why _It_ would lower _Itself_ to this task when the nature of the universe (_It's_ creation) covers this process so nicely.



> *My opinion, about humans, is that we have a soul, something extra, that no other animal does.*



As stated, this is your opinion, so I have no problem with that.



> *Christianity, I believe, is a thinking man's religion...*



Faith is a gift at best, but it is anything but a product of reason. I can not reason myself into believing something that runs contrary to everything I know. I would point out that by definition _Faith_ requires acceptance of things that are beyond reason and that are beyond man's experiences. As has been pointed out, you really don't have a case for saying that Christianity is any better or worse than any other belief that requires Faith, all of which seem completely un_reason_able to me.



> *I don't agree with one who says that religion, or faith in general, is just a way of explaining the unexplainable...
> 
> *_and (because it is important)_*
> 
> ...Isn't that exactly what science, math, and all other objective studies aim to do? But the difference is this: An atheists faith is grounded in things he can see and touch, while our (a Christians) faith is based on something greater than ourselves, something beyond what we see and touch...*



This is not true for me (an atheist), my beliefs extend beyond what we as humans can experience. In my area of study (differential topology) I work with manifolds (both immersions and embeddings) of higher dimensions into spaces that are either euclidean or non-euclidean in nature. These things (though abstractions) are real to me, though those without the ability to work with such math would have to take the application of this to nature with faith. All of this is beyond what we can see and touch, it is just not beyond the ability of us to reason and think (two qualities which apply here, but actually don't apply to religious Faith, I would point out).



> *Lastly, I was talking to an atheist down the hall...*



I strongly disagree with that. I am looking for answers, not _banking_ on any given belief system. It is important to understand that not all atheist believe the same things (or for the same reasons), our only real commonality is not believing in a deity. Beyond that, there is no organized belief structure for atheist. Maybe you made a convert that day, maybe he didnt believe for some personal reasons, but he is not reflective of anyone else but himself.

And then there is Bernie's point. I agree that religions may actually be a good thing. I agree even more strongly in the light of Matt's revelation that he would not be inclined to follow morals and ethics unless there was a deity dictating them to him. Lets hope that strong moral and ethical beliefs go hand in hand with those who seek the true (even though it is known that the answers are mostly not coming in our lifetime). I personally believe that living without the _God_ safety net requires a strength of character that I have not seen in many Christians (and others who follow other religious beliefs), and I would not want those people not believing. They truly are not ready, and that is just fine with me.


----------



## The Madhatter (May 12, 2002)

Just a quick clarification, I'll come back later and see what's going on.

"Christianity is a thinking man's religion"...

I am sorry I caused a misunderstanding.  I didn't mean that smart, thinking people choose Christianity, or that other religions aren't for thinking people, only that being a Christian and adhering to our beliefs does take much thought.  I said this in contrast to what I so often hear, that Christianity consists of blind faith, and that is what I wanted to point out, that it certainly is not to be taken ignorantly.


----------



## nkuvu (May 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by The Madhatter _
> *Just a quick clarification, I'll come back later and see what's going on.
> 
> "Christianity is a thinking man's religion"...
> ...


Heh.  I had to laugh out loud at this one.

I had a talk with a Christian a few yeas back, and he asked me about how I could decide what is right and wrong without the bible (a question which I believe I have already answered earlier in this thread).  I explained, then asked him how he decided.  "The Bible tells me what is right and wrong."  The questions continued in this manner for quite some time, and each of his answers was "The Bible tells me so."  When confronted with things such as contradictions in the bible, he adamantly refused to acknowledge any possibility that the bible may be wrong.  "It's all right here in the Bible.  You don't need anything else."

Needless to say, this was not someone I consider to be a thinking person.  Have you taken the time to learn about my beliefs?  Have you examined all other religions?  To me, a thinking person is open minded.  Therefore, if you haven't even looked at anything else, how can you claim to be a thinking person?  (That's a general you, not you specific, btw)

I'm not saying that you _can't_ be a thinking person to be a Christian.  But you're saying that if you're a Christian, you _are_ a thinking person.  Which I think is a load of hooey.


----------



## MDLarson (May 12, 2002)

I'd like to jump in real quick again and maybe clarify something.  For me, the integrity of the Bible is *absolutely important*.  Like I've stated before, if the Bible is _truly_ wrong, I, a Bible-believing Christian should be pitied.  I don't want somebody's acceptance simply because they believe in relativism.  Above all, I want to know the truth.

If there's an apparent contradiction in the scriptures, I'd like to investigate it and hopefully come up with an acceptable remedy.  This was the area I was hoping to get into sometime with this thread, but unfortunately I don't have the time these days.

A note about why I think people have morals without believing in the Bible (I'm going to sound religious); We have an inherant conscience that tells us what is right and wrong.  This (I believe) is a product of the eating of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden (the knowledge of Good and Evil).  I view the Bible as being the "manual for life," if I may use the cliché.

Illustration:  We all know how to assemble a book shelf, but to build the book shelf as the manufacturer intended and to build it well, we should follow instruction manual.  You should be able to see the parallels.


----------



## nkuvu (May 12, 2002)

> If there's an apparent contradiction in the scriptures, I'd like to investigate it and hopefully come up with an acceptable remedy. This was the area I was hoping to get into sometime with this thread, but unfortunately I don't have the time these days.


Have you read the questionnaire I posted a little bit ago?  There are a few inconsistencies there that could use some explaining.  Not that I think this would help on the time issue, but at least you'd have some pointers on where to look.

And no offense is meant by the following, so don't read it if you're easily offended:

In general, I _do_ pity the Christians.  There are _very very few_ Christians that I know that have looked into any other religion.  I have never met one who has examined every one that I can think of off the top of my head.  This is not a huge list (if you dismiss Christianity itself):
  All sects of Christianity
  Judaism
  Hinduism
  Islamic religions
  Buddhism
  Taoism (more a philosophy, really, but hey, who's nitpicky?  )
  Confucianism
  Jainism
  Wiccan
  Animism

I am no expert in any of these religions, but have at least a passing acquaintance with them.  And yet every firm believer in Christianity that I have met insist that theirs is the One True Way.  How the heck do you know if you don't even know the other major highlights?

I also pity anyone who cannot make up their own mind about things, without referring to a 2000 year old book (give or take a century (my bible history isn't that great, so I may be off by quite a bit)).  I am not pointing at anyone here, I don't know you that well.  But I _have_ known Christians who cannot think for themselves, as I think I demonstrated in my last post.


I apologize in advance for stepping on anyone's toes.  I truly don't mean to attack any one faith.  It's just that Christianity is the religion I have had the most experience with, and the most unpleasant experiences.

Oh, almost forgot:  Don't apologize for sounding religious if you _are_ religious and people know it.  I assume that I sound like a Taoist in a lot of what I write, because I _am_ a Taoist.


----------



## RacerX (May 12, 2002)

> _by Matt_
> *If there's an apparent contradiction in the scriptures, I'd like to investigate it and hopefully come up with an acceptable remedy.*



Okay, what were your answers to some of the 130 questions on the questionnaire that nkuvu posted a few pages back?



> *This (I believe) is a product of the eating of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden (the knowledge of Good and Evil).*



And if none of that existed, morals and ethics are out the window for you. I fear that some day you may come to some hard realizations. I truly don't believe you are ready for the universe of the real. People like you really _need_ this type of stuff, and fortunately you are willing to fight to keep your eyes closed to the greater world around you. I did not realize to what extent your dependance on this stuff was. Given all this, please consider not following this thread. I would hate for it to damage your faith.


----------



## scruffy (May 12, 2002)

Whoo!  That hierophant questionaire is _just a bit slanted_ against Christianity, wouldn't you say?  (Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

Here is another questionaire, at The Philosopher's Magazine (a UK publication), that might be interesting to some here.  Only 17 questions, so it should be reasonably quick.  It isn't biased, or tries not to be in any case; it's just an examination of the logical consistency of one's beliefs on God - any logically consistent set of answers is "right".

Taoists (like nkuvu and me, apparently) might have a hard time picking a true/false answer to some of the questions, depending on how we think they are defining 'God', but that's just by the way.

Also, you might want to check out some of their other games, they can be fun.


----------



## nkuvu (May 13, 2002)

Slanted?  No way.  

Keep in mind that this questionnaire was designed to be given to people who come to your door selling religion.  This makes the tone quite a bit more bearable IMO.  I'm not suggesting that this be copied off and distributed down by the church.  It's a direct reaction to having someone try to force their religion on the author.  But it does seem to have a lot of valid questions, and a lot of references to apparent contradictions in the bible.  As you can see from some of the notes, this is not the first version of this questionnaire, and the latest revisions have been toned down in anger.  I'd hate to be a recipient of the first draft.

I haven't looked at your link, yet, scruffy -- but I'm about to.  Just wanted to fire off a quick response, so if someone does go to the website I linked they might have a better idea of where it is coming from.

Edit:
I like the link you posted, scruffy.  Especially since I finished it with no direct hits and two bitten bullets.  I disagree with one of the bullets, because it basically explained something ("You said this, so you implied that") and I agreed.  That's exactly how I feel about it.  I'll wait to expand those thoughts until more people have seen it...


----------



## RacerX (May 13, 2002)

> _ask by scruffy_
> *That hierophant questionaire is just a bit slanted against Christianity, wouldn't you say?*



I would say that it is directed at Christianity, yes. I don't see that being a bad thing.  



> _out of nowhere_
> *(Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)*



Is there a point to that? Was it supposed to be funny? Does it have a point in this thread (or anywhere on this site)?  

Lets get to these questions (which are far more than true and false, even though those are your only choices for answers except for question #1)

*1. God exists.* Personally, asking myself, I would say no. When asked in general, I would have to answer that _I don't know_ because I would not want my views to effect the views of someone who has not reach a conclusion.

*2. If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality.* This is absolutely false. Morals and ethics can be shown as a logical construct of duty and reason. Of primary importance is intentions. If you make a choice with good intentions, it is a good choice no matter what the consequences. If you make a choice with bad intentions, it is bad no matter if the out come is actually good. In this way, to have morals and ethics requires acts of selflessness that are not rewarded (when acting for a reward, the act becomes selfish and the intentions were misguided... my problem with the reward of heaven).

*3. Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything.* I would guess true. The problem is that any being that would meet my definition of _God_ would have little to do with us, and would not be a reflection of humanity in any form. What is the nature of _God_? It is most likely beyond _free_dom and beyond _anything_, I would suspect.

*4. Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible.* False. Why would a _God_ care?

*5. Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything.* Once again we run up against the nature of _God_, which we could not possibly know.

*6. Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.* The theory of evolution is a _theory_. Our best model that fits all the facts that are currently available. As a theory it is able to be reworked as more information becomes available, but even at this stage, the general idea is very sound and far beyond Biblical fairy tales in meeting with the actual facts as we know them today.

*7. It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions.* One is often left with many unanswered questions which we must fill in the blanks for. I believe that there are two paths placed before everyone. One is to use answers that others have come up with because working on the problems themselves requires too much energy. The other is to actively search for the answers even if you know that the answers are not coming in your own lifetime. Most people choose the easy path (no matter what their beliefs are).

*8. Any being that it is right to call God must know everything that there is to know.* Once again we run up against the nature of _God_, which we could not possibly know. This line of questioning shows poor insight on the part of the writer (or a lack of effort).

*9. Torturing innocent people is morally wrong.* True, unless it is scruffy's wife beating joke I guess.

*10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.* Okay, whatever.

*11. People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.* What _higher purpose_ would that be?

*12. If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.* I believe that morals and ethics are a construct of human reason, and why would a _God_ care either way? Do we really need to be the focus of a _God_ if there is one?

*13. It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.* It is a pointless exercises for most, but for others (like our friend Matt) the foundations of morals and ethics are only valid with a reward and punishment system in play.

*14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.* Not believing in something because of a lack of evidence has nothing to do with Faith. To believe in something when there is an overwhelming lack of evidence, now that is truly the definition of Faith.

*15. The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.* Bizarre.  

*16. If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.* Circles and squares are human abstractions, and I heard of someone who wrote a 100+ page proof of how 1 + 1 = 3. Why would a _God_ care about any of this?

*17. It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of the conviction that God exists.* I have no problem with people believing as they want. I do have a problem with people needing others to believe like themselves in order to reach a level of comfort.


----------



## bighairydog (May 13, 2002)

Firstly, Cheers Racer for your answere, which I enjoyed reading, and your formatting, which I have stoled to save myself work ;o)

Secondly, this reply is riddled with splenning nistikes, because I don't have time to proof-read, because I'm a bad boy and I should really be reading about insect pest managment.

I've tried to answer these as truthfully as possible, and according to the cgi, am at least being completely consistant:

*1. God exists.* I would call myself as agnostic, so I don't know. Had the question asked to me whether the god that the Jews call Yahweh, the Christians call Jehovah and the Muslims call Allah exists, I would say I believe not. At least not in the forms that they are described in the relavant holy texts.

*2. If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality.* Absolutely not. I think morality is an emergent property of human personality in a social context. I also note that much of morality is _exactly_ coincident with what you would expect humans to do if their behaviour evolved for the purposes of maximising fitness, e.g. strong family loyalty and aviodance of inbreeding.

*3. Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything.* I don't think so. If this were true, my position as an agnostic would be flawed, as I also think absolute omnipotence is not possible.

*4. Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible.* False: Why should a god care? It might, but this is not an essential property of a hypothetical god.

*5. Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything.* See Q3.

*6. Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.* I think it is true, because it is defined as something that is logically inescapible. Given the provisos that you have (a)Inheritance (b)Any effect of inherited characteristics on survival, Evolution _will_ occur. QED, end of story. Any arguments against evolution result from arguing against straw men that are not actually evolution per se. An example of such a straw man would be that evolution implies non-creation; it doesn't, it just implies change since creation.

*7. It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions.* If you have a firm inner conviction, then that _is_ belief. You therefore have no choice to believe it or not, you already do. This is therefore a null question, but basically, the answer is yes.

*8. Any being that it is right to call God must know everything that there is to know.* As per 3, substitutint 'omnipotence' for 'omniscience'

*9. Torturing innocent people is morally wrong.* True.

*10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.* Yup, sure is.

*11. People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.* Ditto Racer's answer: What _higher purpose_ would that be?

*12. If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.* False, as I said, morality is a human construct

*13. It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.* No. Nothing is certain, a feeling that I think god exists would be enough for me, I just don't have that feeling.

*14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.* In some ways, Yes. Absolute atheism: "I _know_ that there is no god", is a statement of faith unless you have good evidence of absence. However, I don't think most atheists say that, I think most of them on reflection say "I have no reason to believe that there is a god, and therefore my default action is to behave as if there is none".

*15. The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.* Nutcase...

*16. If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.* If a sufficiantly powerful god exists, she can make humans redefine their own constructs to make it so that these examples are possible, but then again so could a sufficiantly powerful hypnotist P

*17. It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of the conviction that God exists.* As per Q13, a feeling is enough. People can believe what they want. However, I think that evangilism should require more than just a feeling.


Wow, that was fun...

Bernie     )


----------



## MDLarson (May 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *I truly don't believe you are ready for the universe of the real. People like you really need this type of stuff, and fortunately you are willing to fight to keep your eyes closed to the greater world around you. I did not realize to what extent your dependance on this stuff was. Given all this, please consider not following this thread. I would hate for it to damage your faith. *


What an arrogant thing to say!  Do you really believe I'm as fragile as you make me out to be?  I don't know if you've ever been the minority, but when it comes to my faith, I'm one of only a handful of my kind around here, and I'm doing my best with the time I'm given.

Is it my age?  I'm 22, and Ed has sometimes insulted me by using the phrase "young man".  Is it my disposition?  We've met personally and you seem like a nice enough guy, so I'm confused that you would show this much ignorance about me.

I have gone into this thread with the attitude of informing readers of my belief, and to learn more about what makes the typical non-Christian tick.  You do not scare me, nor does anybody else on the board.  I am humbled when it comes to molecular biology and some of the other scientific fields you guys are familiar with, but I am not scared nor as fragile as you make me out to be.

I am INSULTED by you, RacerX, and would have expected such a message from you privately if you really are concerned about my faith.  Because you posted the above publically, I can only believe you are setting out to embarass me.

Also, you must have misread my previous post when I said that I want to know the truth, whatever it is.  Clearly, you would rather me live in my own little dream world than know the truth according to RacerX.


----------



## bighairydog (May 13, 2002)

Reading Matt's post, I have to agree that the comments in this forum have gone beyond civil. Whilst this _is_ the forum to discuss the taboo (according to Admin's classification), I have read some of the replies to Matt, Madhatter & Co's posts, and thought that they were not being as diplomatic as could be.

The fact is, that although the ideal of free discourse without emotional involvement is a noble one, and worth pursuing to further our rational knowledge of the universe, as humans we don't have an on/off switch on our human nature. Part of that nature is to be offended when people question our beliefs aggressively, and for that reason, even if a zealous post seems to demand an aggerssive reply, it is often best to be more placid.


> _Matt on RacerX_
> *I am INSULTED by you, RacerX, and would have expected such a message from you privately if you really are concerned about my faith. Because you posted the above publically, I can only believe you are setting out to embarass me*


*I have to agree with this. My gripe is by no means with the reasoning of your posts, but their tone.

bye all

</melodramatic departure>

Bernie     )*


----------



## RacerX (May 13, 2002)

> _by Matt_
> *If it became obvious to me that the Bible was false, I would certainly be less inclined to follow the laws of the land. I don't know exactly what I would do.*



This public statement has left me (and I suspect others) somewhat disturbed. Yes, this statement makes me afraid. Sorry if this hurts, but you made this statement in an open forum (not a privite message) and it is still in play for myself and others.


----------



## RacerX (May 13, 2002)

To Matt, Bernie and others (who think I post too aggressively),

I am sorry if my posts seem harsh, they are meant to be direct and to the point. They are not meant to reflect any personal feelings against anyone (except trolls). As pointed out in Matt's case, these are responses to public statements in a public forum, private statements in a private messages are treated differently (as they should be). Matt seem to not be aware of the gravity of his statements, and my post was there to point out the implications of those statements. If he is going to stand by them... then stand by them all the way. If the implications are coming back to hurt him, the retract or amend the earlier statement. I have always honored retractions and amendments by people in this forum, and this would be no different.

I do censor myself and have posted less than half the responses that I have actually written. And I have rarely held anything that someone has posted against them outside of a thread (or topic if more than one thread is involved). I would hope that people are aware by this time that though I tend to be short and direct, I still respect people and their opinions (I just like to have the last word on things  ). 

As for being diplomatic, there is a time and a place for it, and varying degrees with which it should be applied. I have a hard time seeing where I have over stepped such bounds in this thread.


----------



## nkuvu (May 13, 2002)

Quick note about the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"  It's a loaded question.  If you answer Yes, it implies that you were beating your wife, but are doing so no longer.  If you answer No, it declares that you are still beating your wife.  A significant number of people tend to answer yes or no to this question.  I believe that scruffy was associating the questionnaire questions to this sort of loaded question.

RacerX, I don't feel that you have posted anything aggressive or insulting.  I understand MDLarson's initial reaction, but I do not think it warrants a censure or apology from you.

Let me paraphrase what I saw as the basic dialogue (separated by several posts, of course):
MDLarson: "If I found out that my beliefs were false I don't know what I'd do.  I _have_ to believe in the Bible."
RacerX: "Then perhaps an in depth discussion of where Christianity fails is not such a good idea for you."

Given this interpretation, I see no aggression or open hostility on either part.  I feel that for a religion thread, this whole thread has been remarkably civil, and continues to be so.

Oh yeah, on the philosopher's questions:  I "bit the bullet" for question 16.  Basically their rationale was that I would have to agree that God could change logic and reason at any time, so rational, logical discussion about God is not possible.  Which I fully agree with. Even without the premise of God being able to change logic and reason at any time, I feel that rational logical discussions about God are not possible.  If we could perform scientific experiments to prove or disprove the existence of God, then we might be able to speak rationally.  Until then, everything is based on faith and conjecture.


----------



## bighairydog (May 13, 2002)

I guess I'm just an incouragable diplomat ;o)

Bernie     )


----------



## edX (May 13, 2002)

while i have much to say and no time to say it, i must interject here.

Matt - if calling you a young man is insulting to you , then you are terribly insecure with your age.There is no possible insult involved in the issue of age. You are how old you are . period. nothing is going to change that. 

each age has its advantages and disabilities. and your perception is never going to change from wherever you are chronologically. I happen to have the advantage of being twice your age (or disadvantage if you consider that you will likely live to see things i will not). Believe it or not, i know what it is like to be limited by youth. i was there. and i would say that there are those older than me who understand things i cannot, but hopefully will if i should be so lucky as to live that long.

when you get upset about someone calling you what you are, then you are revealing how terribly defensive you are. The truth is upsetting to you. I would agree then that you might not want to get too involved in anything that challenges the truths that hold your world together. especially if you would be willing to turn against your morals and ethics should your premise for them be shattered. I think that was Coach's point.


----------



## simX (May 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *Matt - if calling you a young man is insulting to you , then you are terribly insecure with your age.There is no possible insult involved in the issue of age. You are how old you are . period. nothing is going to change that.*



Ed, you have to be a little more careful with what you say, as does RacerX.  There are times when the term "young man" can have an arrogant or offensive tone.  One of the best examples is when a parent chides his son by saying, "Young man, you have done something very bad.  Go to your room!"  While that's probably not a good example in this setting, and I admittedly don't know the context of your statement, you can't be quick to judge other people's feelings.  Please be a little more sensitive before you start saying that people are getting defensive.

RacerX, you also need to be a little more careful.  You've stated numerous times that it is scary that Matt needs the bible to have morals.  You've stated it MANY, MANY times.  Now you don't need to go on and say that Matt shouldn't follow this thread.  He has come back and debated with you guys despite many very difficult questions.  You don't need to look down on him saying that he can't handle what is being discussed in this thread.  It's obvious that he can.

I am reminded of a thread which you and I, RacerX, were debating about pride of being American, and you had the same tone as you are starting to have here.  Please have some restraint with your tone in your posts.  There *IS* a way to be direct and to the point without being arrogant and offensive.  Unfortunately, after a while, you seem to tend to become a little arrogant.  Like you said yourself, you like to have the last word  fine, but at least be aware of what you say, how you say it, and the feeling you are getting across.  In that other thread, you admittedly were getting me fuming from the way you looked down upon me and that you seemed to be oblivious that you did.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that you can't dictate the feelings that other people have, no matter if the effect that you had on them was intentional or not.  But what you do have control of is your post, and you can change the effect that it has on other people by changing the specific words in your posts.  Once you say it, however, you can't change the effect.

Please don't let this turn into the other thread where RacerX and I were debating and seemingly didn't get our points across.  We have had many good points made in this thread, and the debate has never turned for the worse  unfortunately now it seems it is, and I want to stop that.  You can pose your difficult questions to Matt and Co. as much as you want, and I'm sure he will be happy to try and answer them.  But do it in a way that you won't push each other's buttons.


----------



## RacerX (May 13, 2002)

> _Simone getting in to something that he shouldn't_
> *RacerX, you also need to be a little more careful...*



My opinion of where Matt was coming from is quite clear, and Matt knows my feelings on the subject in detail so I shall not labor on this point even if Simone feels the need to.



> _The meat of this post_
> *I am reminded of a thread which you and I, RacerX, were debating about pride of being American, and you had the same tone as you are starting to have here...*



As I recall, you were having a very hard time with producing an organized thought in that thread. Would you like to go back and finish what we started? I don't think I was finished, but you stopped posting and I wasn't going to push the issue... but I would be happy to start it up again. Is that what you want? Is that why you have brought this up here?

This is an in appropriate venue for that, and both your post (and Matt's for that matter) are very off topic. You are turning this into another thread like the other one. I don't think it needs to be that way... we should go back an finish the other one.

I have said that I don't hold things against people from other threads, this is apparently not true for our friend Simone. 

If you want to finish this Simone, lets take it outside... 

(um, outside this thread to the other thread, but I'm sure you knew what I meant  ).


----------



## simX (May 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *My opinion of where Matt was coming from is quite clear, and Matt knows my feelings on the subject in detail so I shall not labor on this point even if Simone feels the need to.*



Your tone is also quite clear.  You don't care whatsoever about Matt's feelings.  Like I said, there is a way to be direct and to the point without being arrogant and offensive, but apparently you seem to think the contrary.

It seems to me that it's not me who's posting off-topic or who is having trouble making a coherent argument, RacerX, but you who is having trouble seeing the obvious connection.  My point is that people are getting upset because of things that you have said, and you aren't one to say that they don't have these feelings.  You could simply be a little more careful in the tone that you have in your posts.


----------



## edX (May 13, 2002)

Simone - you don't know the context in which i referred to Matt as young. Frankly i doubt i used the exact words "young man" and especially not in the way you described. I will be glad to eat these words if shown otherwise. but since i am no one here's parent, i certainly can't get the condescending parent award for pointing out developmental differences. and I could get into the development of moral reasoning which is often quite seperate from physical age after a certain point.

and Sim, you should feel honored and repected if i were ever to refer to you as a young man. Most folks my age would refer to you as a boy.  and while you might not believe it yet, there is a world of difference between your age and Matt's. In 4-5 years you will be a different person than you are today. You will have learned more than you currently imagine.

(hint - i like you, i wouldn't purposely disrespect you )

back to the yard work.


----------



## simX (May 13, 2002)

Ed: I never said or implied that I knew exactly how you said the words; in fact, I specifically said that I did NOT know the context.  I was just trying to say that you can sometimes say something that you didn't mean, and it could be hurtful to others.

Anyway, hopefully the topic can get back into the right direction, as I am interested in hearing Matt's responses to some of those 17 statements that other people are responding to.


----------



## Valrus (May 13, 2002)

RacerX, you just itchin' for a fight!

I dunno... as much as I'd love to see this thread _*burst into flames*_, maybe you all should stop _shooting daggers at each other from your keyboards._

But if you are going to fight, you know what you need?

_*Lasers.*_

That is all.

-the valrus


----------



## MDLarson (May 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by me_
> *If it became obvious to me that the Bible was false, I would certainly be less inclined to follow the laws of the land. I don't know exactly what I would do.*





> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *This public statement has left me (and I suspect others) somewhat disturbed. Yes, this statement makes me afraid. Sorry if this hurts, but you made this statement in an open forum (not a privite message) and it is still in play for myself and others. *





> _PM'd my way by RacerX, reproduced with permission_
> *If you plan on staying in the thread, try to keep that anger in check. And for God sake (  ), fill in the holes that I pointed out. If you know anything about me by now, it should be that I can use peoples own word against them better than anyone. When I point things like that out to you, just remember what I would do if it was anyone else but you.*


My main frustration with you RacerX is that while others can disagree with me (Bernie especially), they are willing to politely debate and still get their point across and still make me think twice about why I believe what I believe.  You are a very good debater, but because you jump the gun sometimes, some of us [read: ME] don't follow as quickly.  Which leads me to my explanation of my statement above that has generated so much fear

Because you get to the point *so* quickly, often times I am asked to make decisions that I have not thought about before.  You say you have never pressured me for a quick reply, which is true, but my method for debate is much more nitpicky and I find your bluntness overbearing at times.  Such is the case for your questioning of whether or not I would adhere to morality if the Bible was proved false.  I answered as honestly as I could at the time, which was "I don't know".  That is not to say that I'll blow myself up or something crazy, it is simply that I would probably speed in my car more and live a life that could be summed up with two words:  "Who cares?!?!"  As it is, I believe in a sovereign God who is above all, holy, holy, holy.  And I will attempt to live a life of perfection in keeping with the commandments of the Bible.

I hope that is a satisfactory ammendment.


----------



## MDLarson (May 13, 2002)

So how did everybody do exactly?  I got one direct hit and two bitten bullets.  I kind of complain a little bit because I got snagged by technicalities, but at least I got the TPM medal of distinction!  What's TPM stand for?

-Matt Larson, the crazy Christian Bible-banging fundamentalist freaky guy who just won't go away


----------



## scruffy (May 13, 2002)

I've got a job interview!  Tomorrow !  Morning !  For my first real computer job, and I haven't even officially done school yet. I'm so excited!  Wish me luck, y'all.

To get back on topic then:  Yes, I suspect we all need to chill out here, and make sure we don't come across as aggressive or condescending.

On the poll, I answered two ways, for different definitions of God - once as 'any supernatural being inconceivably more powerful than we', then again as 'the Tao'.

In the first go-round, I got a direct hit - I said one could reaonably assume there is no Loch Ness monster if nobody's managed to find evidence, and then that atheism is a matter of faith under lack of evidence.  The problem was, I added some assumptions of my own - that the monster is a big lizardy creature that would occupy a significant volume of lake, and be visible to sonar and so on, so its not turning up if it did exist would be extremely unlikely.

In the second round, I got one bitten bullet, same as nkuvu.  Basically, the problem there (in my opinion) was with the inherent assumption in some of the questions that 'God' is a sentient being with a mind that works like ours, i.e. with what we would call 'will', 'identity', etc.

Oh, and Matt - TPM = The Philosophers' Magazine


----------



## simX (May 13, 2002)

I got two direct hits, but no bitten bullets.

The first direct hit was because I said that any being that was right to call God could do anything, but then I said that God couldn't make circles into squares.

The second direct hit was because I had first said that it was foolish to believe in God when there was an apparent lack of evidence, but then I answered no it wasn't foolish in the similar question later on  I guess in retrospect it was a direct contradiction, but I would probably agree with bernie: people can believe what they want, but I don't have that strong inner feeling.


----------



## The Madhatter (May 13, 2002)

hey guys, I'll be absent a few days from the board, but as soon as I come back I'll see what I missed.  I have to get my wisdom teeth pulled, so I will be even smarter when I return.  Haha  Hopefully I don't have any nerves wrapped around roots or anything nasty like that.  Anyways, I'll be back ASAP.


----------



## nkuvu (May 14, 2002)

Oh sure, likely story.    Once things start to get interesting, the main proponent for religion up and leaves, claiming "real life" issues.  First Matt, now MadHatter, who's next?  Sheesh.  




This is a joke.  This is only a joke.  Had this been an actual criticism there would be more logical content and less rolling of eyes.  This concludes this joke.


----------



## RacerX (May 14, 2002)

An emergency had kept me out most of yesterday (and part of this morning). As one not to let things go unsaid, let see what we have to respond to...



> _by the Valrus_
> *RacerX, you just itchin' for a fight!*



No, but I have found from experience that walking away from one is the best way of being stabbed in the back. And Simone had no point in trying to take such a righteous attitude (or getting involve at all for that matter) in something that he was not a part of. His conduct in his posts provides him with no moral high ground on this issue, and I also hate it when people drag a thread off topic for personal reasons. Maybe hell get the point (but some how I doubt it).



> _poor Simone's attempt to be the center of attention_
> *You don't care whatsoever about Matt's feelings.*



You have no idea what I care about with regards to Matt, so your statement is pointless. The real reason this is going on is because you wanted try to make a point with me, not for Matt's sake. You are working very hard to escalate this because I bruised your ego at one point and you haven't gotten over it. Like I said, we should take it outside this thread because you, Simone, are being far more disruptive to this thread than Matt's out burst this morning.



> *Like I said, there is a way to be direct and to the point without being arrogant and offensive, but apparently you seem to think the contrary.*



And you seem to think that posting being vindictive and petty is okay by comparison. Anyone who holds a grudge as long as you Simone has real problems (most likely an inferiority complex, but who is to say). At any rate, try and get yourself in check here, your blood pressure is cutting off the circulation to your brain.



> *It seems to me that it's not me who's posting off-topic or who is having trouble making a coherent argument, RacerX, but you who is having trouble seeing the obvious connection.*



Oh, no... to late, logic is out the window (Simone you are so predictable,  ). My posts in this thread (up to my responses to your wounded-ego posts) have been very directed, very on topic, and stand on their own. I am not going to bring Matt into an argument with you (seeing as you should really never have been part of it to begin with), but you are going to need to show us where I was posting off-topic (please do a better job here than you did in the _Sports_ thread).

Lets see if you can do a better job in the next exciting sentence (I can hardly wait)...



> *My point is that people are getting upset because of things that you have said, and you aren't one to say that they don't have these feelings. You could simply be a little more careful in the tone that you have in your posts.*



People? As in many? Over what? (note to Simone: please provide a direct quote that is upsetting _people_)

I don't know, I think I can see the difference in my tone from a discussion to responding to a vindictive attack, but if you need more examples... please post off topic some more. Either that or move it out of the thread, your ego isn't going to be saved here.

(_for others in this thread_: I apologize for this and all future posts that may need to be made because Simone needed to get involved in something that didnt concern him. I hope we can stay on topic, but I am going to respond to ALL of Simones post on this issue.)


----------



## RacerX (May 14, 2002)

Matt,
Sorry about being so direct, and yes, the amendment does help ease my concerns.

_____________________________________

Though the thought of some members being shot at (e.g. Simone) is a somewhat amusing thought at this time, I was hoping more would take the time to give more full and complete response to at least some of the questions (sorta like Bernie and I did).


----------



## bighairydog (May 14, 2002)

OK, this is a defense of Matt's original, unammended post, that got so much attention. Two disclaimers - 1) I know he has since ammended it, and 2) I am not implying what I think Matt thinks, just talking about the logic of a Christian mindset.





> _Originally posted by Matt_
> *If it became obvious to me that the Bible was false, I would certainly be less inclined to follow the laws of the land. I don't know exactly what I would do.*



In this post, I'm not dealing with whether a Christian belief is logical, just with what the logical course of action would be if one did have such a belief. (most) Christians have a strong feeling that their god exists, and face it - If anybody had such a feeling, they would believe too. I am not questioning here the rationality behind this feeling.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of a loyal Christian. You think that there is a god, who will reward you with Heaven if you are good. You think that the Bible is his 'life manual', telling you how to be good. Now you find out that the Bible is wrong. It is entirely rational at this point to become dissilusioned - what you thought was the right way to live your life, it now turns out is just a falliable book written by humans. That's quite a mindfsck!

Of course you would now question the laws of the land, which are for the most part based on Christian ethics.

Back to talking specifically about Matt, Matt never said he would go out and rob a Drug Store, just that he would be less inclined to slavishly follow the rules laid down by the government, presumably because the connection between these rules and the word of god would have been removed. A more positive rephrasing of what he said might be "If I found out the bible was wrong, I would be more inclined to question authority" Questioning authority is in my opinion a good thing.

I think it wrong that Matt's post quoted above was treated with such distain. It would logical result of a major reshuffling of your beliefs, and whilst one might question Matt's beliefs, I don't think that that post is open to criticism, insofar as it is logical within the framework of his beliefs.

// ever the diplomat

Bernie     )


----------



## RacerX (May 14, 2002)

Let me explain where I am coming from with my moral and ethical structuring, and maybe you can see where I became alarmed by what Matt had originally said.

I believe that all acts that are moral and ethical are determined by duty and reason. Further I am of the belief that if you do something (anything) for a reward, it is a selfish act (even if the act seems good for all concerned). Any action which would meet my standards of being moral and ethical is always going to have negative consequences for the person doing the act (basically, _no good deed goes unpunished_ type of thing).

Lets look at some (simple) examples:

(1) You are driving down the road and you see someone in need of help. The only thing you can count on is that you are going to be late by stopping (anything else is really beyond the foresight of your position). Do you stop to help someone even though it is going to cost you in some way?

(2) You have just left the drive thru at _McDonald's_, you have driven for a couple minutes before you notice that the cashier gave you a $10 bill in stead of the $5 you should have gotten (having worked at _McDonald's_ as a teen, I remember that being off by more than $1 was enough to end someone's job). Do you turn back and return the money?

These are real choices, and for me there is no reward of _heaven_ (or anything else for that matter) involved... and no question of what is the right thing to do.

The actions I would take would not change no matter how drastically my understanding of the world changes. These types of character traits are who I am independent of all external influences.


----------



## bighairydog (May 14, 2002)

Racer - Whilst your last post gave interesting insights into your morality and outlook on life, the Law has little to say about what is the correct course of action under those circumstances, so questioning the law doesn't mean that you would question what to do in those situations. Therefore my previous post stands.

Also, I doubt that I have ever performed an unselfish act in my entire life. I have given back the extra to cashiers that gave me too much change, knowing that if I didn't do so It would be taken out of their wages, but I did so because it makes me happy to see somebody else happy as the direct result of my actions. In that sense, It was a selfish act - I did it to make _me_ happy. Have you ever done anything that was entirely selfless? I put it to you that in *every* choice situation in your entire life, you did what you tought would make you happiest. I don't think humans are capable of doing anything else.

Take the example of the change from McDonalds. If you drove back then you would lose time, so perhaps feel angry at being late, but surely you drove back because you would have fealt worse through guilt at getting somebody fired if you didn't. In that sense, driving back was a selfish deed to maximise your own happiness.

Altruism is overrated IMHO.

Bernie     )


----------



## RacerX (May 14, 2002)

The answer to your question... yes.

And though I wish not to talk at length on the subject, I can say that my life and everything I had worked for to that point is gone because of my actions. And even knowing the consequences of those actions, I would do them again because they were the right thing to do. I have only the satisfaction (though no joy) of knowing that I was that person I always believed I would be when face with personal sacrifice of that magnitude.



> *I put it to you that in *every* choice situation in your entire life, you did what you tought would make you happiest. I don't think humans are capable of doing anything else. *



I think only humans are capable of something else, it is the real difference. You may live that way, I could not.


----------



## bighairydog (May 14, 2002)

That answer satisfies me - I think the difference in our points of view arise from my personal definition of what constitutes selfishness, and we are actually fairly similar morally.





> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *I wish not to talk at length on the subject *


Agreed (we have argued on the same side splitting hairs before ;o) - another thread, another time perhaps.

I'm off to bed, for tomorrow I rise at 6:30 and hit the Bodlean library. A truely selfless act )

Bernie     )


----------



## RacerX (May 14, 2002)

Maybe I should clarify what I am saying. If your actions are based on the intention of doing the right thing, then the consequences and/or reward and the actual out come have no effect on the ethics and morality behind that act. If you do good deeds based on earning some reward (and not because it is the right thing to do), then that act is selfish no matter the rewards or outcome. If you save someone for a reward, then you are no hero because your motives are not those of a hero (that is, your motives were not selfless).

So Bernie, if you go and give back the money because it is the right thing to do and you are rewarded by feeling good, then you did the right thing. If you wanted to feel good, so you returned the money to achieve this, then your motives were selfish (even if the act produces a good outcome for someone else).

This is where I have problems with the _Heaven_ as a reward idea. If the only reason you are being a good person is to get to _Heaven_ (even if it doesn't exist), then your motives are basically corrupt. My question has always been _why would God reward people who are acting solely on the basis of getting a reward?_ In the end it makes religions suspect because I question the real motives behind them.



> *I'm off to bed...*



Hope to talk to ya tomorrow then!


----------



## bighairydog (May 14, 2002)

True, and an interesting take on the "is altruism possible" question. However, it isn't possible to separate 'doing the right thing' and acting selfishly, because they are the same. An example:

You give back the change to the cashier in McDonalds. You do this because you think that this is the right thing to do. If you had not done so, then you would feel bad for not having done the right thing. Therefore, surely this is indistinguishable from selfishness, as your actions avoided a bad feeling of guilt.

I think humans get their morality from what they think is the correct thing to do, and by thinking that something is the correct thing to do, they will be happier doing it than an immoral alternative. Therefore selfishness is a truism by co-definition, as I have defined being selfish as doing what you want to do, and defined what you want to do as what you actually do. I have therefore been introducing a null point into the debate, and should be put to sleep.

I really am going to bed now...

Bernie      )


----------



## xoot (May 14, 2002)

An anonymous comment about this thread:

<****> Oh, and *****, if you're bored and you don't mind reading through some sludge, would you look through the "Repent for being a Mac user" thread and tell me what you think about RacerX's comments?


----------



## RacerX (May 14, 2002)

That is why I like to keep things in public! Read away!


----------



## AdmiralAK (May 14, 2002)

this thread is still alive ?


----------



## edX (May 15, 2002)

well, on this tangent to the main subject, i have to agree with Bernie. There is no such thing as a selfless act. all acts must be considered from a self view in some way or another. To try and raise one's moral and ethics beyond one's self is to deny the contributions of the subconscious and the emotions. That does not mean that all selfish acts are done for the sake of reward. From my point of view, all acts are rewarded - some more justly than others. Inaction is more likely to bring nothing back to oneself. But then one can selfishly avoid having negative actions return to them by avoiding the actions that bring them.

But to bring Coach's point of view in line with this way of thinking, i would say that empathy is one of the most fundamental tools in developing a less "self centered" set of morals and ethics. One must be able to put one's self in another's situation in order to know how they are effected/affected by one's actions. But this requires connecting one's sense of self and self gratification in order to accomplish. Or to put it another way, one cannot 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' until one has a firm grasp on how one would like others to do to them.

selfish, in the sense that Bernie is proposing is not a bad thing, or an immoral one. It is the foundation of human happiness. We know lots about what makes people unhappy and depressed. But one of the few things we know about what makes people happy is that acts done for someone else's benefit bring the giver longer lasting happiness than acts they do for their own benefit. 

We also know that people who act too selfishly or selflessly (in the more classical sense) are more prone to depression and other problems in life. In other words, a good balance of both has been show to be the healthiest.

now back to Matt - so where is it written that the laws of the land are any of God's concern? well, at least the idea of following them? Wasn't it Jesus who challenged the laws of the land because they were in contrast with the laws of God? So following laws is not a demonstration orf morals and ethics. It is showing what a good follower you can be. So why would the truth or falsness of the bible have anything to do with your obeying the speed limit or such?  And is it now possible, that just because the ethics and morals presented in the bible are pretty good ones even if they were laid forth by men?

my problem has never been with the morals and ethics presented in the bible. Having been raised Christian, i am aware that they form my training in the first levels of moral reasoning.  But at some point one must ask "why" are these such important rules and how do i recognize the exceptions to the rules? That is my problem with bible thumpers who use the bible as their shield. "Because it says so" is not enough for higher levels of moral reasoning. It is better than having no morals or ethics at all, but it is lacking an important element or two that are needed to apply those morals in diverse situations.


----------



## simX (May 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by xoot _
> *An anonymous comment about this thread:
> 
> <****> Oh, and *****, if you're bored and you don't mind reading through some sludge, would you look through the "Repent for being a Mac user" thread and tell me what you think about RacerX's comments?
> ...



Hahaha xoot.  Good one.


----------



## RacerX (May 15, 2002)

I completely agree!  



The only thing that would make it better would be if they didn't have to read through your sludge to find my comments... but hey, intellectual content was never your strong suit.


----------



## benpoole (May 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AdmiralAK _
> *Actually the pope only has "power" over teh catholics    The anglican church's head is the King of England, Greek orthodox, russian orthodox too have their own church leaders.  I am not sure what leadership body reigns over episcopilians, baptists and whatnots. *



We Brits have a _king_?


----------



## edX (May 21, 2002)

ok, time to bring this thread back. i may have to reread some of it over the next few days, but i know i owe an explanation for why the Jews don't except Jesus as the Mesiah.

First, this goes to what i was talking about with the Christians selectively accepting certain texts and traditions of Judaism and not others. In the talmud, (i believe - it might also be in the bible), there is a very strict set of prescriptions for the characteristics of the mesiah. Christians tend to cling to the one that says he will be descended from King David. They tend to ignore the one that says he will not change jewish law. Jesus attempted to change jewish law when he said it was ok to eat pork and other such things - that those old ways no longer mattered if they believed in him. In essence, this was like declaring oneself a false prophet. This went against all previous communications of God. which in turn goes against the basic understanding of God as unchangable. which also goes against the idea that the mesiah would be a human leader, not God incarnate. In other words, if jesus was God, then God had been lying to them in the past. and the concept of God lying was and is unbelievable.


----------



## AdmiralAK (May 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by benpoole _
> *
> 
> We Brits have a king?  *



wow this is taken from a while back 
Well technically they should, but with the state of the monarchy in the UK I doubt that charles is going to be crowned any time soon lol 

ANyway, the anglican church made the king head cause the kind wanted to divorce his wife but the catholic church did not allow it, so he said to hell with it and made his own branch of christianity


----------



## benpoole (May 21, 2002)

Uh, believe me, I know how the Church of England came about... 



I was just making the point that the head of the church isn't necessarily the _king_ -- cos we don't have one -- but the _monarch_.

So the Queen is currently the head of the CoE.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 19, 2003)

Would someone be able to share this article with me?  It's no longer on the website.

Thanks,


----------



## doemel (Mar 19, 2003)

Ask uoba, he has a hard copy. Maybe he can fax it to you 

_I have printed this article and I am keeping it forever. Wow Wow Wow!!!!! This article has cheered me up for the next couple of months!!!_ (see first page)


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 20, 2003)

I remember this article when it first came out... I'd just like to remind people that this is an extreme minority position under the banner of Christianity.  I am a Christian and I (obviously) do not have a religious problem with Macs or Apple.


----------



## scruffy (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *I remember this article when it first came out... I'd just like to remind people that this is an extreme minority position under the banner of Christianity.  I am a Christian and I (obviously) do not have a religious problem with Macs or Apple. *



It was a parody.  Parody parody parody.  Not for real.  Their bios claimed they were professors of subjects that don't exist at universities that don't exist.  Nobody at all really believes that, mkay?


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 22, 2003)

I for one *did* believe the website at first, like most here.  But I'm probably forgetting half of what was talked about here anyway (including any post that claimed it was a hoax.)

Thanks for the info though...


----------

