The science thread - Controversial

MDLarson said:
You have already disqualified the validity of the Bible's creation account. You do not approach the Bible with any respect, neither in matters of religion nor history nor science. You're assuming you already know all the facts "...but is in fact pretty close to what we know so far today." I'm telling you that you got the interpretation of the evidence wrong.

On the contrary, I approached the Bible originally not knowing anything else. It was it's failings that made me turn to other possibilities. I've done the same with many areas of religion, philosophy and science.

Scientist have put forth a Steady State model of the universe, one of them was one of my professors in school. I liked that professor a lot, thought very highly of him, and came to the conclusion that it didn't work given what I knew.

Current Big Bang theory (known as Inflation Cosmology) is the most widely followed theory on the subject today. I looked at it very hard, I understand why they came up with that model, but I've came to the conclusion that it didn't work given what I know.

You assume that because you blindly accept what others give you, that the rest of us must be doing the same thing only from different sources. This is completely untrue in my case. I don't assume I know all the facts, I assume that all the facts are not known. I assume that models can be modeled with what facts are known. And I assume that models are going to be shown to have short comings and they'll need to be modified.

The problem with the Biblical view point is that the model is set and can not be modified. If the facts don't match the model, you throw out the facts. In science if the facts don't match the model, you throw out the model.

Case in point; dinosaurs and my very last post. How can you deal with the possibility of dinosaur / human coexistence? How do you deal with T. Rex bones that have not totally fossilized? There is heaps of evidence for a young earth, but it is ignored or prematurely disqualified, all because "it doesn't fit the evolutionary model."

I know of no evidence of the things you are talking about. I know that neither you nor the person who told you (nor the person who told them, etc.) probably have the ability to check those facts.

Plus, in science, people are looking for anything new. If something like this was uncovered, it wouldn't be an object of Creationist myth, it would be the subject of much debate.

I'm telling you that the evidence fits better and can be explained better in the context of a global flood and a designer. Therefore, the whole post you directed at me started with a false premise that indeed I was wearing a "blindfold" to "true science."

No it doesn't. Here is the problem with your logic, you are looking for anything that might fit your Biblical view, you dismiss everything else. You've been told of these few stray facts (which are hard to even find) and you are saying those make the Bible the best fit. The best fit would be a model that fits most of the evidence, not the smallest (unverified) parts of the evidence.

When I was back in San Diego, I sat down with a couple people from ICR and we made a puzzle together while talking on these issues. I had brought the puzzle, it was a picture of a seal in the snow (very hard, I'll tell ya), but I brought it in a box with a Polar Bear in the snow on the cover. Before we started, I removed about a quarter of all the pieces. I said we are going to build this with what we have and not use the box for a reference because that is very much what working in science is like.

Part way through the puzzle I asked them what they thought the end product was going to be, they said a polar bear (they were using the box, what I told them they shouldn't do). When we finished we had the head of a seal almost complete. I asked if that was the head of a polar bear, which they agreed it wasn't, they realized that it was a seal in the snow.

They said I had tricked them by having a box with a completely different picture on it. I said that is the same thing as using the Bible as a starting point for science.

The whole premise of my post was possibilities. Not false at all. It was a completely valid question which you are now refusing as it asks you to ask what if. Faith doesn't let you ask "what if". Faith is a blind following without question. I have no faith. Not in science, not in religion, not in philosophy. Everything is open to possibilities, everything is open to questions.

Can you honestly look at that post and answer the question? Or is the possibility that the Bible's accounts are false to much for you as a person to handle. The possibilities that what I believe today is in fact false isn't hard for me to deal with. Why are you having problems with this? You asked us to open up to possibilities, you must give as much as we are here.
 
The bible (old testament) was written appx. 6 thousands of years ago. Humanity is a lot older than that.

Before that .. what do you think about the religions older than jewism or christianity? why is there the gap - a big cap - between the appearance of the human race and "the" religion? there were many other religions that time, but most of them have died now. Why did _those_ religions (and do the actual non-jewish based religions) exist?

What is the origin of god? was it (rather than he or she) a casual creation? who made it? (I never liked the answer "eternal", not even when I was three years old. It sounded already too much "we don't know the answer so we have to tell you something like this")

Why did god chose _one_ nation as his favorite? Isn't taht called specism? if he chose one nation/population etc as his favorite, why did he create other populations? If god is supposed to love everyone, why did he choose a favorite population? (Of course the books of that population will continue tellign they were chosen...) And, why did he choose some special people as his special favorites; moses, mary, jesus, all the saints, mohammed etc? And why is there such a thing as "inherited sin"? (Unless it was originally meant in the context of reincarnation, everybody being responsable for their past lives). Does the inherited sin make any sense? Everyone is born quilty - that does not sound right. If he made the humans, why did he decide everryone was born quilty then? Why do [the church] blame for the actual people for jesus' death? I was born 2000 years after he died, he would have died anyway. And, did I or any of us, ever ask to be born?

The origin of all, as explained in the bible, seems really to be written a few thousand years ago. I personally always liked more the (american) Indian explanations of the origin of the world: a big turtle egg and so on. Of course the people nowadays are telling that even the story in bible isn't supposed to be taken letterally .. well? What does it matter _what_ is the origin of everything? I remember the history books of some populations trying to explain the origin of _that_and_that_ population, knowing that many people living in that country did not 100% fit to The ideal place some scientists had thorized as the origin of that population .. The origin of the world (or just existance) is probably like the moon .. even if The Real Reason (that everyone could agree) was ever found, what would be next? Have you ever read any stories about how the humanity would transform, a few years before reaching the moon? .. has the humanity really turned to that (to the new man of the era of aquarius ..)? The man went to moon.. and there still are wars around, people who do everything in their life for money and so on ..

If the human [race] was made by god, when will he release the human 1.0 where all the bugs of the actual beta will be fixed? When will all we be blond, tall, thin [whatever you think ideal], without having to worry about the heart diseases, obesity, PMS, IBS, EDs, FMS, rheumatism, arthritis ...? and where even the shortages species-wise will be fixed - more tolerance, no one looking only on surface (i.e. not ignoring someone only because he's not white etc), more patience, less violence ...
 
RacerX said:
You assume that because you blindly accept what others give you, that the rest of us must be doing the same thing only from different sources.
I don't wear a freeking blindfold! Why do you say that? Have I not offered sound explanations for why I believe what I do? I believe what makes sense to me, that's it. Creationism makes sense to me, evolution doesn't. Don't make assumptions about me that aren't true.

And a friendly note to everybody; I'm not a scientist. I'm not good at debates. I'm not trying to prove that you are wrong and I am right. All I'm trying to do is convince people that I have reasons for believing what I do. For people to say that I'm wearing a blindfold in any way is pretty insulting. I'm a pretty self-aware kind of guy, and those who know me agree.

Cat, good point about the watch thing, but I was trying to point out the ridiculous odds of the possibility of evolution in general.

But here's a question for biology people: let's just say an animal experienced a "good" mutation in its gestation period. This particular animal was dominant over its peers because of this unique trait, and was the "fittest", so it survived. Is this mutation permanent in all strands of DNA and / or genes? Would this trait be passed on to its offspring no matter what? Just a question - not trying to make a point.
 
I'm having trouble keeping up. I had a bit to post (heh heh a quick reply;)) and went to check a fact, came back and my point is no longer so sharp:D

or maybe too sharp.

MD - I thought Racer's point was not antagonistic, but well put. The Bible is full of many kinds of references, some historical, some political, some alegorical, all written in a language we no longer use and full of nuance we no longer have. It is almost certain that we will fudge the reading somehow.

Take for example the whole book of revelations. The references and alegories are clearly aimed at first century Rome. It was put in the book mainly as a political tool to leave the impression that the Bible was the last word, when Jesus had already clearly said there was more to come. The contradictions (apparent contradictions) in the text are legion. Some need to be seen as alegory and some as literal. But which ones?

So Racer's question is very valid. It echo's Jesus' challenge to those who say "lord lord, did we not prophesize... in your name" - he says "get away from me... I never knew you."

It is in the Bible because it's true means that we can find it out through study of God's world and add to our spiritual knowledge of His presence through our experience. Otherwise faith is not blind, but dead.
 
Quick Reply...

Yes Racer, moral goodness requires extra effort. It is there that man's true value, true freedom and lie. I agree that how we live our lives is the point, we stand at a crossroads at every minute, a choice between doing and not doing. I think it is sometimes a choice between good and evil, but more often a choice between good and better. I appreciate your position, I would call it a description of faith.
 
Giaguara has now asked twice about religion before the Jews, I'll take the challenge.

Jews, Christians and Muslims are monotheistic, they believe in one single god, creator, infinite, perfect etc.
Before that we had faiths of many gods, one of which or three of which were the main, chief gods. These gods incorporated natural phenomena that were inexplicable at the time. These gods were definitely anthropomorphic, not only had they bodies like ours, but also moods, emotions etc. Most importantly they were not omnipotent or omniscient. This is the case with the mainstream well-known Nordic and Greek religions. E.g. Zeus is certainly not omnipotent/-scient, but just the most powerful god. There are sophisticated discussions whether he effectively governed faith, or was subject to it, but all agree that Zeus was not the creator. In Greek mythology Chaos is the creator of the earth and Ouranos (heaven) and Gaia (Earth) the creators of all the living species. Zeus is a more political god in this respect: not simply a primitive god of lightning and thunder, but the lord of cities, justice and laws. As the population grows more sophisticated, so do the gods. Before Greek civilisation, most religions considered almost everything inexplicable or beyond human control as divine (or demonic). With primitive populations the most important things are basic needs: food. Many religions originally derive from agricultural rituals and are bound to the seasons. The cycle of seasons inspired many mythology to thin of a deity that died and was reborn, in Greek mythology we still see this myth honoured with Persefone. This death/rebirth cycle was often enacted with a ritual and sacrifices to make sure that spring and fertility would come. The very first rites were developed to control the supernatural. Since in primitive cults most concerns went out to fertility, the divinities were often female: Gea or Gaia, Demetra and Persefone, Isis, etc. The Great Mother is omnipresent is primitive cultus.
Besides this popular, mainstream religion, we also have mysteric cults, that claimed to go beyond the normal religion. Beyond apparences, to the truth behind the truth. These required a complex initilisation ritual, test, and were more focused on finding spiritual balance in oneself instead of in supernatural forces beyond us: to become like a god. Gnosticism, for example, but also mysteric rites inspired by the figure of Orpheus.

We see a lot of this back in christianity, since the christians have been so good to take over most primitive myths and adequate them to their needs and doctrine. All main religious celebrations are blatant ripoffs of prior art in christianity.

Jesus resurrection is derived from the agricultural rites: jesus hangs like ripe fruit at the tree (has been described as such by poets) and then transcends into heaven. On the cross he relinquishes eartly life to gain spiritual life: catholics seem to have focused excessively on the suffering and corporeal death. The oriental church has focused more on the transcending into eternal life part with a triumphing christ. In agricultural myth a natural spirit dies during winter and is reborn in spring (lets say around Easter ... ;) ) to bring life to the earth.

The motherly figure is preserved in Mary, obviously. She shares some of the characteristics of the virginal pure maid (like Artemis and Athena), and some of the mother (like Demetra).

Also jesus shares attributes with greek gods, mostly his hippy hairstyle: e.g. Hermes and jesus both have long flowing hair and a pointy beard. Jesus is the young consort of the Great Mother and will be sacrificed to bring life to the rest. Sound familiar? We find this theme in many many religions and cults.

Read Marion Zimmer Bradley's "the Firebrand" or some of the cyclus around the "Mists of Avalon" or Jane M. Auel's "Earthchildren" saga. Or better yet, try "The Golden Bough" by Frazer ;)
 
MDLarson said:
I'm telling you that you got the interpretation of the evidence wrong.

So you can question me but I can't question you?

On another note, I'm really wondering why people aren't challenging me more.

Because you take challenges personally.

(RacerX was my main debate partner)

I didn't join this thread right away because I didn't want to make you feel like you were being attacked. I know what you believe and you know what I believe. I respect you for that, but discussions are there to challenge our positions. I don't expect people to just except what I say. I do expect to be challenged to make me think about these things. Without being challenged I'll only examine my beliefs as far as I am comfortable doing so. Being challenged makes me look at things deeper then I other wise would have.

You need to be ready to look harder at your beliefs. It is going to be uncomfortable, it always is... for all of us.

But most importantly, you should know by now that I have no ill feelings for you in anyway. When you ask why you were not being challenged, I thought you wanted and were ready to be challenged. It was the only reason I joined in.
 
Cat you beat me to it. But this may be interesting too.
Damn, it's long...

Gia, this is the second time you post in a similar way. I skipped it the first time, because it goes into a lot of doctrinal stuff. The thread has since moved more into that area and you deserve a reply.
One of the points you bring up is the gender issue. As for me, I think God is both masculine and feminine. Every level of the world has some level of polarity. Men and women, male and female. So the cause has to be both too. Not dualist, but containing the contents of both masculinity and femininity. The Bible gives a clue. "... in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them." So the image of god is both male and female, Parents.

The bible (old testament) was written appx. 6 thousands of years ago . Humanity is a lot older than that.

Well, not really. Moses "wrote" the Pentateuch around the time of the exodus, the time of Ramsis. He worked with many oral traditions that were around for ages before that. The Pentateuch was edited and re-written many times to give it the flavor of "chosenness", a mostly human construction that has some root in truth. It speaks of human society as having started some 6,000 years ago. I have seen the footprints of ancient humans in a pit in Managua, Nicaragua that are at least 7,500 years old and I am sure that "Eve" lived many years before that. Knowing how many exactly is a curiosity, but not an imperative for me

Before that .. what do you think about the religions older than jewism or christianity? why is there the gap - a big cap - between the appearance of the human race and "the" religion? there were many other religions that time, but most of them have died now. Why did _those_ religions (and do the actual non-jewish based religions) exist?

Many take it as some proof of the truth of the religion. I would say that due to man's fall, he became quite base and it took many many years to come to a point in the providence of restoration that could be receptive of the word of God (ten commandments). For what it's worth, civilization seems to have coalesced around the same time as the Biblical Abraham. Isaac Asimov wrote a very interesting analysis of the old testament and the dietary laws that he says are the basis for the survival of the Hebrews. His approach and conclusions are very secular, as one would expect, but the conclusions are rather interesting. I haven't read it, and can't remember the title, but I had a long talk with someone about it - and I respect Asimov, even if he did have a lousy barber.

In Gabon, the casava is the dietary staple. Malaria is the plague of the people and that presents a problem. Casava sweetens the blood and makes it more tasty to mosquitos. The religious tradition of Gabon calls the people to refrain from eating casava in September, a month before the main harvest, as an offering to the gods. The anopheles is most abundant in September, so the Bible is not the only place where religious tradition protects physical health.

What is the origin of god?

I don't know. Maybe we are all living in collar around the cat's neck (MIB), and God has his own issues of who his God is but so what. This is our reality and for better or worse it is here that we make our mark.


Why did god chose _one_ nation as his favorite?

The concept of chosen one is, IMHO, one of the most abused in all of theology. The old testament says that God's blessing would flow from Zion like milk and honey reaching to all the nations of the earth. Being "chosen" is being cursed with the task of loving the rest of the world in God's stead. Chosen means chosen to serve and to love, not chosen to be served and loved. The real root of it is connected to the principles of creation and the providence of restoration.

And, why did he choose some special people as his special favorites; moses, mary, jesus, all the saints, mohammed etc?

Maybe because when he spoke to them, they listened...

And why is there such a thing as "inherited sin"?

If you are born in Italy, are you not Italian? (OK, in Europe, it depends on whether your parents were Italian or not) If there was an original sin, and that has not been solved, then are not all the people born in that state? The question then is "was there an original sin?" The easy answer is no. The truth may be otherwise.

If he made the humans, why did he decide everryone was born quilty then?

Here we have a conundrum. Does God define sin, or do we? God defines goodness. When we act away from that goodness, we do so against His will. That is why it is called sin. One of the problems with many religious traditions today is that they blame sin on God, saying he tempted man or he knew he would fall. Even the doubters do so when they ask how they can believe in a god of goodness when the world is so flocked up, as if they weren't part of the flocking. When He created man he gave him a most precious gift. Not free will, but perfect authority over the outcome of his life. Perfect authority to be true to the moral imperative that Racer describes. Not being true to that moral imperative is at root of sin. It is not the root itself, but damn close to it.

Why does the church blame people of today for jesus' death? I was born 2000 years after he died, he would have died anyway.
(hope the edit is correct)

See the space time bits that Racer describes. Sorry to use you unwillingly in this apologesis Racer, but there's a kernel of truth in every heresy. ;)
It is an allegorical thing, a catharsis for the believer, mixed with a bit of political maneuvering of guilt. (...cause the buyers and the sellers were no different fellers than what I profess to be...)

The contradiction is that traditional Christianity holds that Jesus was supposed to die on the cross. They base their theory of salvation on Jesus being the sacrificial offering. Believers in the old testament could receive benefit by making an offering. So whoever crucified Jesus should have gotten the best benefit. They should be heavenly heros. But the ones who did it were (according to early Christian dogma) punished and their nation destroyed. And then they use his crucifixion as that guilt trip to get you to believe. It was this contradiction that made me give up on Catholicism. There is a way to understand it all, but that gets too far off topic.

The origin of all, as explained in the bible, seems really to be written a few thousand years ago. I personally always liked more the (american) Indian explanations of the origin of the world: a big turtle egg and so on.

Perhaps because it is more clearly allegorical (or because no-one is around to try to say it should be understood literally.) Still, the Indian legend also deals with the origin of sin and the process of reconciliation between man and god (or at least the world that the first Indian came from.)

What does it matter _what_ is the origin of everything?

Great question. If there is an intelligent origin, a designer, then we have purpose that goes beyond our own determination of our life's goals. If that intelligent origin has been giving clues about man's purpose consistently through many different religions, we may need to pay heed to those clues.

Have you ever read any stories about how the humanity would transform, a few years before reaching the moon?

Hey, where would mankind be without Tang :p

has the humanity really turned to that (to the new man of the era of aquarius ..)? The man went to moon.. and there still are wars around, people who do everything in their life for money and so on

you're kidding, right? No external event will ever change anyone. No alignment of planets, celestial event. That's one of the reasons that religion is so necessary. It calls one to personal change, to a personal path on Racer's moral highway, the path of choosing to do good, at every moment. Again we are talking about religion, not some institution or organization.

If the human [race] was made by god, when will he release the human 1.0 where all the bugs of the actual beta will be fixed? When will all we be blond, tall, thin [whatever you think ideal], without having to worry about the heart diseases, obesity, PMS, IBS, EDs, FMS, rheumatism, arthritis ...? and where even the shortages species-wise will be fixed - more tolerance, no one looking only on surface (i.e. not ignoring someone only because he's not white etc), more patience, less violence ...

Oh, come on! You want to free of PMS!!?? ;)

Now there we go blaming God again for the problems of this world. Sin is an act that violates the moral principles of the world and is completely man's doing. I think he already released the GM human. Man is perfectly capable to do good if he decides to make the effort. The point is our growth to be able to realize the potential is completely within our own control. We can do it or take the easy way out and not do it. When will wars stop? When we stop fighting them. We, men and women. When we become Christians in the realest sense, we walk the way of taking responsibility; when we become Muslim in the truest sense, obedient to the moral principles of God, that we be absolutely responsible to be good; when we become scientists in the deepest sense, with a deep respect for the world that God created.
 
Cat, I will look for the Golden Bough, though without a lot of hope to find it here in Cairo. The censor here is seriously hardnose when it comes to matters of religion. It may have to wait for another visit to the states.

Still, if your post is running in that vein, I get the drift and it works for me. The similarities between the religious tendencies of dissimilar peoples is part of my path of faith. It confirms for me that there is some common root, some common being.

The task is to find that root.
 
Interesting answers, pds.

As talking about god, everyone uses "he" .. not only in english, but still the male form. If god included both sexes, in english the male form would not be correct, right? In italian if you have lets say ONE boy (ragazzo) and 100 000 girls (ragazza), you have to use the form 'boys' (ragazzi; if all were girls it would be 'ragazze') (there is no gender neutral term including both; similarly man (uomo) and woman (donna) plural if containing at least one male (and ANY number of females) becomes > men (uomini). If god contained both sexes, wouldn't ... require an otehr for? nor he or she seem correct. it? or a form used only about the god probably. It may sound only a terminology question but ...

Yes, I want to have the human 1.0 be free of a lot of bugs including PMS. ;)
 
Points taken. I still think you use harsher language than you should, but maybe I just take it personally when I shouldn't.

I'm going to take a break from these types of threads though; I only frustrate myself and other people. PM me if you have burning questions or whatever.
 
Si, en espanol tambien. Pero odio el termino PC, he/she. It is too impersonal for me, He/she is too real.

My brother gives me a hard time for my faith, especially since I moved to the Middle East. He blames the desert and harsh desert life for the overly judgmental masculine god that monotheism presents. He may have a point, and the only way around it is through love. I find God in my wife, and in my prayer and in my speaking with otheres but he is still he.

She is she for my wife. Let him be her to you if that is where you find yourself more comfortable.
 
Wow, after reading all these responses, I think I'm ready to renounce religion completely. :rolleyes:

I think religion has always been a quest to find answers to questions you don't know how to answer. If you want to know how something works, either look it up or chalk it up to divine creation. (That's not a very good explanation... oh well, it's close.) However, in this age, I don't think people have a need for religion, especially in an enlightened country like the US. Almost any question you might have has an answer, and if it doesn't, you can bet good money that there's someone out there working on the problem. People turn to religion, I think, because they are too confused by scientific explanations or are too lazy or naïve to look it up.

Anyway, more to come on this if necessary... this thread seems to be coming to a close.
 
About the chosen people thing ... well, notice how primitive populations tend to call themselves "the people" or "humanity"? Same thing with their gods: it's their god, they invented him, so obviously he/she protects them and strikes out at their enemies. Religious war is "my god is better than your god" etc.

Cicero (and others before him) argued that if beasts had gods, lions would make a lion-like god and horses a horse-like god: humans make a human-like god: men a He, women a She.
When the ruling cast is male, the gods thend to be male and occupy themselves with male-like activities: politics, justice, war for instance.
Where females casts rule, goddesses tend to represent female like things: fertility (both agricultural and childbearing), natural cycles, domestic arts (weaving, pottery etc.). This is not to offend females and press them in a corner, this is a recorded anthropological fact among primitive populations. In modern society things are surely ... ehm ... different, not better maybe, but different. ;)
 
How about this...

Given God as first cause and therefore male and female, male characters, having more male characteristics than female ones, are able to be aware of masculine characteristics, while females are sensitive to her feminine aspects. War and politics won't carry a civilization far for long, if there're no kids and no wheat harvest. The two are complementary pairs. (well, maybe the war bit should go;))

BTW justice is feminine in my lexicon.;)

Anthropomorphic (leopomorphic) fantasy or a simple fact of deopomorphism?

What is masculinity anyway, and how is it related femininity? If we look at this world we see a kind of dualistic structure of things. Mankind (people kind) have mind and body, inner and outer aspects of their total self. The body has male parts and female parts. The mind also has male imperatives or operatives as well as female. When you say love, each one has a fundamentally different definition of the contents of the term. Mars and Venus are not pop-fiction, they represent a real state of affairs. One word, two definitions.

One voice of God, two interpretations of the word.

Arden, i think the only way you can renounce religion is via labotomy. Ever step you take is one more on your path to your ultimate home. Just outside of Houston, I10 takes a big turn south in order to continue west.
 
Well well .. masculine and feminine. I could talk hours about yin and yang (maybe the next 2 peripherals to my mac) or tao .. or just eastern religions. there both are valid, and the desired thing is balance, not the overdose of one [the one considered better].

Have you guys read the 'men are from mars, women are from venus'? i read it once, over a ten years ago. I had hard time trying to understand how the female way of thinking works. I understood how the males act, why they say or do something, just the male ones.. So, "I feeel sooooooooo baaad tonigth" > when I hear that in a discussion etc, I assume I am being asked an advice .. so that I am supposed to listen to caarefully whatever the other person is talking about, and then if the [processing of the bad emotions by talking about them to other people] lasts for over 5 minutes and gets spred to life-wide rant of everything, I feel frustrated ("what can i do? what is the point of telling all that to me? change your life if you want something better, rather than just talking") .. "Does my butt look wide in this dress?" > Why aren't questions like that ever wanted to have answers that are honest? "No, but you look like a ridiculous 50 y old aunt who does not have any sense in dressing, thus dressing like a 13 y old girl would.." "It looks big anyway. You won't find a dress that makes it look like you were Naomi" and so on. In one house I lived in there was a girl who always had to ask "how do you feel?" and she expected a long, analyzative answer. I know if I feel a) particualrly good (you see that, no need to ask) b) neutral (relatively ok, not very bad at least, this is the boring state of being), c) bad (I cannot distinguish the states of being angry, nervous, frustrated, in pain, etc. They are all the same; and when I'm in this, I prefer to be alone so leave me alone...) and d) leave me alone, I don't want to talk. That felt frustrating, especially when on the non-good state. .. Plus, I never have understood the point of "this is a secret, don't tell it to anyone". If anyone tells me a secret or anything that is better not spread around, I keep it. But more than once some girls/women have really got pissed off with me because I did keep the secret - after that "this is a secret, don't tell it to anyone"-thing. No wonder why most of my friends are male.

Well, I don't like the male/female ideas of the god(s) .. i think whatever there is/if there is, is just some kind of 'supreme power' without human charachters.
 
G, you almost sound like a man trapped in a woman's body.
pds said:
Arden, i think the only way you can renounce religion is via labotomy. Ever step you take is one more on your path to your ultimate home. Just outside of Houston, I10 takes a big turn south in order to continue west.
Whatever you say there, bud. I'm sorry, whatever you believe.

Where did you get the idea that I live in Texas? :confused:
 
Cat said:
So evolutionists ultimately appeal to chance, creationists to the will of god. Both cannot claim absolute truth, because who can fathom either the will of god or chaos? Personally I appreciate the heroic and tragic effort made by the scientist, rather than the unconditional surrender to ignorance sive "will of god" by the creationist.

Christianity CAN claim absolute truth, because born again Christians CAN know the will of God.



In the time before Jesus Christ, the will of God was known by the priests and by personal visitations by God. After Jesus Christ died (sacrificed) Himself for us, the barrier was broken, and men could know God personally, and know His will. The Comforter (the Holy Spirit) that was sent to us when Jesus returned to heaven shows the born again the will of God.

We are called the sons/daughters of the Father for good reason; we walk with Him as sons and daughters.

For a verse that talks about the Holy Spirit, go to John 16:12 NIV (Jesus is telling His disciples He has more He wants to tell them, but they aren't ready yet).

In John 16:13 NIV, Jesus talks about the Holy Spirit coming to lead the disciples in the will of God (The Holy Spirit will guide Christ's followers in truth; just a quick Greek note, the word guide seemed to have been used in the sense of to teach, to give guidance to, to "lead on one's way"
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3594&version=nas This verse gives the Greek reference.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/freqdisp.cgi?book=joh&number=3594&count=1&version=nas
This verse gives the Bible verse in the book of John.
(the verses from the lexicon are from the New American Standard Bible.)

Therefore, the Holy Spirit was going to, and does, guide people by teaching them.

What is it He teaches Christians? That's answered in John 16:13 as well;
Jesus says that He (the Spirit) will only speak to the Christian what He hears. Direct quote from the Scripture (NIV, John 16:13, the last part of the verse; "; He will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come." We can know the will of God, because the Spirit (who a person of the Triune God) communicates to us the will of God.
 
eph115 said:
Here's a question for y'all; how can evolution be proven to be real?

I'd like to see you prove the Christian's God is real.

I've seen evidence of evolution. I've seen proof of the process around me every day. The path of evolution is the part that is still theory, and will most likely always remain that way as we can not possibly have all the pieces. From what we know an image of the path is viewable. It is not completely clear, but the general picture we have today works nicely to help out in other areas of study.

But God (any deity for that matter) is something I have yet to see any proof of.

Do you have proof? Why is God unable or unwilling to provide even the simplest proof like He supposedly did at one point in time? And why provide contrary evidence to the writing on creation within His own handy work (the Universe)? Why is God steeped in human failings? Shouldn't he be above such things?

And who made God? Did God rest on Sunday out of respect for his God? Are you worshiping the right God? Is your God just a middle man?
 
Back
Top