A Christian Looking for a Debate [Archive]

Omni Conglomerates

31-10-2005, 04:35

Where to start? It has been a long while since I have posted in the general forums, but as my last spurt of posting, the drudgery of school has lead me to plunge into the steamy soup that is the general forums on NS. I really doubt there are any here who remember me now, but that is just as well. Before I get to my topic though, is MKULTRA really gone? I was reading a thread about dead posters and I felt a bit sad to hear of the loss of that lovable loon from these forums.

Now to preface my post of this evening, I am a Christian, as you might have guessed. I have been a Christian going on eight years now, so I am not new to the faith. To be specific, I am a Sunday School teacher. I am also a history major at my university. I was born in Newport, Rhode Island. I lived there for a time, but since then I have lived in New Orleans, Louisiana; Hattisburg, Mississippi; Cleveland, Mississippi; and Soda Springs, Idaho. I am again residing in Mississippi at the moment. I have traveled to the fourty-eight contigous states, and this summer I will likely be studying in Florence, Italy for about five weeks.

I said all of that to give a background for what I will say now. It is my desire that you know where I come from when I say what I will say. I am simply interested it a little motivated discussion, a little debate. I enjoy it immensely. I, being a Christian, am predisposed to a certain set of beliefs, and I look at the forums and I see a great deal of ridicule of my faith based on what I see as misconceptions of what it is we believe and what we are as a faith. I suppose I should start with the creation of life, the universe, and everything.

I am a Creationist, if you define a Creationist as one who believes that God was completely behind the creation and formation of the universe as opposed to a great however it is evolutionary theory currently explains the creation of the universe followed by a fortuitous accident in which life came from nonliving matter. It doesn't really matter to me the specifics of the creation of life, the universe, and everything. What matters to me is the fact that God was behind it. For all I care it could have been six days or six trillion years in its formation. As far as I am concerned, God could have created the universe and given us oceans made of tappioca pudding, and we would not think twice about why it was the way it was. Personally, I would find it very funny, and would be more inclined to visit the beach.

I also feel that, if God chose to, He very well could create an entire universe in the process of six human days or however He chose to define time. God, in my mind being the author of time as well, can say that He did something in six days and it be six days. It all depends on how big your God is. Mine, being the creator of life, the universe, and everything and being a being that has always been, is infinite. Man being finite, and not capable of fully understanding the concept of infinite, is really not very capable of understanding the full nature of God.

I am now brought to evolution. I would not believe in the theory of evolution even if I did not believe in God. I simply do not see it as a viable scientific theory. I will admit that my field of study is not science. I merely dabble at it. I am a historian at heart. It is what I do and what I love, so I will admit that my knowledge on the subject is lacking. What I understand about evolutionary theory, however, makes me very skeptical of it. There is simply so much left unexplained. Why is there matter, not to mention how it gets around that whole nonliving matter turning into living matter thing? Does that not directly contradict cell theory? You may argue that I am simply trading one set of flawed beliefs for another, but I find the existance of God to be more logical than floating pond scum being struck by lightning to produce life. The more I look at evolutionary theory, the more it just looks to me like an anything-but-God theory. Don't get me wrong, I believe in the concept of adaptation. I see that all around me. I simply don't believe in species to species evolution. I can see evolution on the micro side, but not macro evolution.

Now that I have finished with creation and evolution, I suppose the Scripture is what I will move on to next. Do I believe that the Bible was inspired by God and written by men? Yes. Do I believe that it is a completed revelation on the nature of God? Yes. I will now explain my meaning in this. I believe that the Bible is God, through the Spirit, inspiring man toward revalations about His nature. I believe that the Scriptures as they are now are what God wants them to be. I do not believe that God would allow the fundamental message of His book to ever be changed no matter what machinations man may have to the contrary. I have studied the apocrypha, and I have read what Gnostic Gospels I could get my hands on. I have seen nothing that I see as needing to be added. I view the apocrypha in the same way I view a book related to the Scriptures, A Purpose Driven Life - for example. That book is, in my opinion, a fairly good Christian book. That doesn't mean I think it needs to be put into the Bible. Not all of the apocrypha is good, and not all of it is bad. Its existance does not make a case for the errancy of scripture.

There, those are the initial points I will make. I look forward to any intelligent debate that anyone has. Also, if you would like to bring up something I did not mention, politics and the like, I would be more than happy to discuss that as well. It has been a while since I have been here on the forums and I hope that I can still expect some good lively debate from this place.

Neo Kervoskia

31-10-2005, 04:37

You've come to the right place. Prepare yourself.

Hobbesianland

31-10-2005, 04:42

Gargantua City State

31-10-2005, 04:53

I just heard the other day that Evolutionist scientists believe they can explain up to a few billionths of a second after the universe was created. But they can't explain WHY the Big Bang happened.
Really, I don't think the statement was entirely true, as I've never heard a good answer for the question brought up here: how did non-living matter turn into living? Maybe there was living stuff in the initial matter egg? Why? I dunno.
The problem with evolution is that it takes so bloody long for anything to happen that we won't likely be around to see any species evolve into another one... the best we get is seeing differences in insects... and not even changes into other kinds of insects. They're just new kinds of the same old group.
Maybe that lends some credibility to apes turning into humans. Maybe we're just the last in a long line of steps away from the big hairy beasts. But with insects, you can find examples where the middle steps are still around. If it's been so terribly long since we were apes, why aren't there other mini-steps still around that we branched from?

I like the idea of evolution better than being formed from mud. But I'm also quite comfortable with the idea of God existing. I try to find a nice middle ground between the two.

Economic Associates

31-10-2005, 04:55

I am a Creationist, if you define a Creationist as one who believes that God was completely behind the creation and formation of the universe as opposed to a great however it is evolutionary theory currently explains the creation of the universe followed by a fortuitous accident in which life came from nonliving matter. It doesn't really matter to me the specifics of the creation of life, the universe, and everything. What matters to me is the fact that God was behind it. For all I care it could have been six days or six trillion years in its formation. As far as I am concerned, God could have created the universe and given us oceans made of tappioca pudding, and we would not think twice about why it was the way it was. Personally, I would find it very funny, and would be more inclined to visit the beach.
I think most people tend to define creationists as people who believe in creationism or the literal interpretation of the creation story in the bible or any other holy text for that matter. Also you don't seem to quite understand the the concept of evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Nor does evolution make any claims about what started the process.

I am now brought to evolution. I would not believe in the theory of evolution even if I did not believe in God. I simply do not see it as a viable scientific theory. I will admit that my field of study is not science. I merely dabble at it. I am a historian at heart. It is what I do and what I love, so I will admit that my knowledge on the subject is lacking. What I understand about evolutionary theory, however, makes me very skeptical of it. There is simply so much left unexplained. Why is there matter, not to mention how it gets around that whole nonliving matter turning into living matter thing? Does that not directly contradict cell theory? You may argue that I am simply trading one set of flawed beliefs for another, but I find the existance of God to be more logical than floating pond scum being struck by lightning to produce life. The more I look at evolutionary theory, the more it just looks to me like an anything-but-God theory. Don't get me wrong, I believe in the concept of adaptation. I see that all around me. I simply don't believe in species to species evolution. I can see evolution on the micro side, but not macro evolution.
You are once again showing your misunderstanding of the evolution theory. Evolution does not try to explain the begining of life. And it doesn't exclude god whatsoever. Evolution makes no claims about the divine or supernatural. On the subject of macro evolution there is no real way to witness this process. We can see micro evolution and there is lots of evidence for macro evolution.

Now that I have finished with creation and evolution, I suppose the Scripture is what I will move on to next. Do I believe that the Bible was inspired by God and written by men? Yes. Do I believe that it is a completed revelation on the nature of God? Yes. I will now explain my meaning in this. I believe that the Bible is God, through the Spirit, inspiring man toward revalations about His nature. I believe that the Scriptures as they are now are what God wants them to be. I do not believe that God would allow the fundamental message of His book to ever be changed no matter what machinations man may have to the contrary. I have studied the apocrypha, and I have read what Gnostic Gospels I could get my hands on. I have seen nothing that I see as needing to be added. I view the apocrypha in the same way I view a book related to the Scriptures, A Purpose Driven Life - for example. That book is, in my opinion, a fairly good Christian book. That doesn't mean I think it needs to be put into the Bible. Not all of the apocrypha is good, and not all of it is bad. Its existance does not make a case for the errancy of scripture.
The whole bible as the word of god gig really doesn't seem logical. Not only do you have the book being translated into many different languages it was also put together by a group of falible men. Not only that but how do you judge which book of god is more valid? Is the Quran more valid then the bible or etc. In reality you need faith to believe the bible is the word of god but there is no real evidence to suggest it is.

There, those are the initial points I will make. I look forward to any intelligent debate that anyone has. Also, if you would like to bring up something I did not mention, politics and the like, I would be more than happy to discuss that as well. It has been a while since I have been here on the forums and I hope that I can still expect some good lively debate from this place.
Welcome aboard.

Smunkeeville

31-10-2005, 04:56

I'm sure you'll get a debate in no time.. the evolutionists are a feisty bunch these days.

Basically, Christian (Catholic) to Christian, the response is likely to revolve around the lack of scientific, empirical evidence for the existence of God, and the existence of empirical evidence supporting evolution. Most people who object to Creationism object to it being taught in a science class when considering the origin of the world or development of life on earth. Creationism is religion - I certainly wouldn't want kids to be taught evolutionary theory in religion class, so I can understand the desire to keep Creationism out of science class.

If you want kids to believe in Creationism, teach them at home and send them to Sunday school. Home is where teaching like this should be taking place anyways, imo.

Anyways, enjoy the hot-seat!

ditto, I will check back to see if I can help in case you get stuck.

Remember though just because you can't prove that God does exist doesn't meant that they can prove he doesn't. Try to avoid conversations with people from either side willing to "prove" things like that.

Omni Conglomerates

31-10-2005, 04:59

I'm sure you'll get a debate in no time.. the evolutionists are a feisty bunch these days.

Basically, Christian (Catholic) to Christian, the response is likely to revolve around the lack of scientific, empirical evidence for the existence of God, and the existence of empirical evidence supporting evolution. Most people who object to Creationism object to it being taught in a science class when considering the origin of the world or development of life on earth. Creationism is religion - I certainly wouldn't want kids to be taught evolutionary theory in religion class, so I can understand the desire to keep Creationism out of science class.

If you want kids to believe in Creationism, teach them at home and send them to Sunday school. Home is where teaching like this should be taking place anyways, imo.

Anyways, enjoy the hot-seat!

I am not arguing that it should be taught in classrooms. I am also not that comfortable with the idea of evolution being taught as is in the classrooms. I would rather see a teacher admit lack of knowledge by science than science trying to jumble together a theory simply to have an answer.

As far as teaching Creationism in the home and school, that is what I do. In fact, it is part of my job description.

Much thanks for your comment, and I do plan to enjoy it for all it is worth.

Kryozerkia

31-10-2005, 04:59

Wow, Omni... I can kind of remember your name. I am a little younger than you, but I have been around long enough to remember some names.

It is very nice to see someone explain a reason beyond a religious one as to why they believe one theory of life as we know it over another. Your reasoning makes sense and actually makes you someone more credible than the others out there. Your reasons are actually quite intelligent and will help provide for a good debate.

Rotovia-

31-10-2005, 05:02

You can believe what you like, but that doesn't mean you can teach it in schools. Science class is a place for science.

Gargantua City State

31-10-2005, 05:04

Vegas-Rex

31-10-2005, 05:05

UpwardThrust

31-10-2005, 05:05

UpwardThrust

31-10-2005, 05:09

I say teach both theories in whatever class .
Too bad creationism does not fit the description of what a "theory" is in reference to a scientific theory

just because people get lazy and apply the term "theory" to any idea does not automatically mean they should be considered equals

Omni Conglomerates

31-10-2005, 05:12

I think most people tend to define creationists as people who believe in creationism or the literal interpretation of the creation story in the bible or any other holy text for that matter. Also you don't seem to quite understand the the concept of evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Nor does evolution make any claims about what started the process.

You are once again showing your misunderstanding of the evolution theory. Evolution does not try to explain the begining of life. And it doesn't exclude god whatsoever. Evolution makes no claims about the divine or supernatural. On the subject of macro evolution there is no real way to witness this process. We can see micro evolution and there is lots of evidence for macro evolution.

The whole bible as the word of god gig really doesn't seem logical. Not only do you have the book being translated into many different languages it was also put together by a group of falible men. Not only that but how do you judge which book of god is more valid? Is the Quran more valid then the bible or etc. In reality you need faith to believe the bible is the word of god but there is no real evidence to suggest it is.

Welcome aboard.

I understand that evolution is the process through which one species slowly evolves through a series of adaptations into a completely new species. I do feel that evolutionary theory is often touted as some great scientific explanation and argument against the existance of God. I also realize that I sometimes have a tendancy to lump those who follow evolutionary theory with those who add in the Big Bang theory and the horde of other explainations as to the creation of the universe, and I apologise for doing so. It is my error. I will remind you, however, that I never said I had a firm understanding of evolutionary theory. My specialty is history.

I will also say, that I am not trying to convert anyone with my arguements. I don't believe in that kind of witnessing. It is unbiblical. If I can convince a man of something, then someone else can just as easily convince them of otherwise. Far better to simply state your case and let man decide for himself, in my mind at least. It is faith and nothing else that holds us to Christianity. In truth, what Christians feel in their hearts is really all the evidence they need for the existance of God. As far as the religious texts of other faiths, well, I will reserve my comments on them.

Rather, welcome back aboard. This experience is not entirely unfamiliar, although I still miss hearing the insane clamorings of MKULTRA.

Gargantua City State

31-10-2005, 05:12

Too bad creationism does not fit the description of what a "theory" is in reference to a scientific theory

just because people get lazy and apply the term "theory" to any idea does not automatically mean they should be considered equals

I only suggested teaching them both in both types of classrooms because people would probably bitch about it being biased if it was only taught in one. If you teach religion in a science class, the science teacher is more likely to point out it's not a "theory" just as religious teachers would be likely to point out the flaws with evolution.

Rotovia-

31-10-2005, 05:12

Funny, I think I learned a bit of evolutionary theory in religion class...
You should have complained. Science has no place in religous classes.

Vegas-Rex

31-10-2005, 05:12

Funny, I think I learned a bit of evolutionary theory in religion class... I don't see what the big deal is. So long as you're not being taught just one theory, and being told it's the truth, and everything else is wrong... I say teach both theories in whatever class (religious or science), and let the people decide for themselves.

The problem here is that nonevolutionary biology is a nonexistent field: there have been no predictions, etc., made off of nonevolutionary theory because it has not gotten off the debate stage. The same things apply to nonatomic theory and non-plate-tectonic theory. You can teach them, but there the curriculum ends. In order to have a chemistry class you have to acknowledge that matter is made of atoms in order to get past the first week. The same applies for biology: a class might teach "both theories", but then it goes on to teach Mendelian genetics, taxonomy, etc., all of which are linked only to evolution. There aren't corresponding doctrines in any non-evolutionary theory.

LazyHippies

31-10-2005, 05:12

You'll certainly get debate here. There are about 75 clones of this guy on this forum:

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/atheist.htm

Gargantua City State

31-10-2005, 05:15

You should have complained. Science has no place in religous classes.

I had no reason to complain. I was still learning something useful, and related. I'm not going to start picking fights with prof's over trivial details. :P

UpwardThrust

31-10-2005, 05:16

Vegas-Rex

31-10-2005, 05:16

I only suggested teaching them both in both types of classrooms because people would probably bitch about it being biased if it was only taught in one. If you teach religion in a science class, the science teacher is more likely to point out it's not a "theory" just as religious teachers would be likely to point out the flaws with evolution.

Except that teachers talking about religion don't critique evolution. Comparative Religions teachers almost invariably are in-the-closet universalists: they believe that everyone is right in their own way, without actually connecting that to their own beliefs. It's kind of sad, really.

Amestria

31-10-2005, 05:17

The more I look at evolutionary theory, the more it just looks to me like an anything-but-God theory. Don't get me wrong, I believe in the concept of adaptation. I see that all around me. I simply don't believe in species to species evolution. I can see evolution on the micro side, but not macro evolution.

Viruses* and Bacteria, both are witnessed in the process of evolution on a daily basis by scientists. There are many recorded species, which are at this moment dieing out from natural pressures.

(*It is an interesting fact that viruses are not alive. There currently exist only two non-living things, which can evolve, one is viruses and the other is ideas.)

I am now brought to evolution. I would not believe in the theory of evolution even if I did not believe in God. I simply do not see it as a viable scientific theory. I will admit that my field of study is not science. I merely dabble at it. I am a historian at heart. It is what I do and what I love, so I will admit that my knowledge on the subject is lacking. What I understand about evolutionary theory, however, makes me very skeptical of it. There is simply so much left unexplained. Why is there matter, not to mention how it gets around that whole nonliving matter turning into living matter thing? Does that not directly contradict cell theory? You may argue that I am simply trading one set of flawed beliefs for another...

No, I argue that you have no understanding of evolutionary theory what-so-ever.

UpwardThrust

31-10-2005, 05:17

You'll certainly get debate here. There are about 75 clones of this guy on this forum:

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/atheist.htm
Matches well with the 75 clones of http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/deacon.htm

IL Ruffino

31-10-2005, 05:19

Gargantua City State

31-10-2005, 05:19

The problem here is that nonevolutionary biology is a nonexistent field: there have been no predictions, etc., made off of nonevolutionary theory because it has not gotten off the debate stage. The same things apply to nonatomic theory and non-plate-tectonic theory. You can teach them, but there the curriculum ends. In order to have a chemistry class you have to acknowledge that matter is made of atoms in order to get past the first week. The same applies for biology: a class might teach "both theories", but then it goes on to teach Mendelian genetics, taxonomy, etc., all of which are linked only to evolution. There aren't corresponding doctrines in any non-evolutionary theory.

I missed the passage in the Bible where God said, "There are no atoms!" :P ;)

I just don't think it would take long to address the non-science alternatives since, as you say, they don't have real theories. I can't see a problem with going through a biology class, looking at the underlying structures, and pointing out that there are things we don't understand about it that are far above us at this time. You might even throw in some philosophy, and say, "Is it really possible for a human brain to understand the workings of the human brain?" :) Because goodness knows we don't actually understand how that contraption works. But I don't want to duck not knowing by saying, "God did it," either. That always sounds like a cop-out.

UpwardThrust

31-10-2005, 05:20

Amestria

31-10-2005, 05:22

Evolution in science, and religion in history.

Evolution is also history, read "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

LazyHippies

31-10-2005, 05:22

Matches well with the 75 clones of http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/deacon.htm

Funny, I can only think of one and he/she is actually very nice despite always bringing up the Ba'hai faith. Jesussaves was the only thing resembling a deacon and as it turns out (and shouldve been obvious to anyone who read his posts), he was actually one of these:

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/impostor.htm

UpwardThrust

31-10-2005, 05:24

Funny, I can only think of one and he/she is actually very nice despite always bringing up the Ba'hai faith. Jesussaves was the only thing resembling a deacon and as it turns out (and shouldve been obvious to anyone who read his posts), he was actually one of these:

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/impostor.htm
I can think of a few calvanists that were around deffinatly
such a depressing faith

Vegas-Rex

31-10-2005, 05:25

I missed the passage in the Bible where God said, "There are no atoms!" :P ;)

I just don't think it would take long to address the non-science alternatives since, as you say, they don't have real theories. I can't see a problem with going through a biology class, looking at the underlying structures, and pointing out that there are things we don't understand about it that are far above us at this time. You might even throw in some philosophy, and say, "Is it really possible for a human brain to understand the workings of the human brain?" :) Because goodness knows we don't actually understand how that contraption works. But I don't want to duck not knowing by saying, "God did it," either. That always sounds like a cop-out.

There is a biblical passage that says pi is three, though.

While I agree that we should point out where scientists still have questions, that point really isn't where you're making it out to be. There is real scientific controversy on dozens of biological subjects, from abiogenesis to the Cambrian Explosion. Any of these places would be situations where the teacher could say, "And here we don't completely know: here's the controversy." On evolutionary biology, however, claiming that we don't know when we do and then using totally different standards for much more controversial theories such as plate tectonics or quantum mechanics seems like the teacher is lying to the students.

Omni Conglomerates

31-10-2005, 05:25

Hey, first of the attack crowd, apparently. Don't worry, I'm not too rabid.

Your problems with evolution are similar to many atheists' problems with chrisitianity: they're both based on misunderstandings of the basic concepts. What you are talking about is the big bang theory and abiogenesis, not evolutionary biology. EvoBio is the basis for much of modern biology. It's not something that might have happened or might not have happened, it's something that would happen no matter what the extenuating circumstances because it operates on two fundamental concepts: things that don't succeed die, things that die don't pass on their genes. Unless there was direct divine intervention to stop these two things from happening, evolution, both macro and micro, would happen anyway.

What you find troubling is more abiogenesis theory, or proposed ways that life could have arisen from nonliving matter. Here it gets slightly trickier. While the origin of cells (or at least cellike protein clusters) from amino acids has been demonstrated, so far it has been fairly difficult to accurately demonstrate the origin of amino acids from an early earth. There are numerous possible ways, but none has been definitively shown to work. That doesn't mean they can't merely that scientists haven't gotten all of the details right yet.

I don't object to your other views, though I'm not sure I get your view on the Scripture. Are you saying that Scripture is always an effective guide to the faithful, that Scripture is always accurate, or something else?

As an atheist, it would be impolite of me to not throw in an anti-god argument, even if it doesn't seem as necessary in this case. In this case I would like you to consider this paradox (not the stereotypical one, stay with me): God is an omnipotent, omniscient being with free will. As a being with free will, God pursues that which grants it happiness. The question is: if God is omnipotent, why doesn't it simply grant itself happiness? God could simply define itself to be infinitely happy and infinitely fullfilled. No matter what makes it happy to begin with, God can still merely declare itself happy and be happy. Yet it doesn't, as evidenced by the fact that it appears to take more complex actions to pursue happiness. The question is: why?

Firstly, I have already admitted my imperfect understanding of evolutionary theory, and I have also stated that I do agree with the concept of microevolution. It is with macroevolution that I am skeptical.

Secondly, yes, I am saying that the Bible is always an effective guide to the faithful, or even those who are looking upon it with an open mind. I believe that God will guide those towards the words that need to be read. That is a matter of faith, however, and I will not be providing any argument to back it up. Faith cannot be proven as fact, only demostrated as belief.

Lastly, I find that one of the first errors people make when thinking about God is they think of Him in human terms. If you get right down to it, the mind of God is completely alien and incomprehensible to man. This is demonstrated in the Book of Job. Even the masculine he to refer to God is a human labelling and truly an increadible demostration of the shortcomings of the English language. The statement that God is pursuing happiness and pleasure would imply that God in need of it.

Dempublicents1

31-10-2005, 05:26

I am a Creationist, if you define a Creationist as one who believes that God was completely behind the creation and formation of the universe as opposed to a great however it is evolutionary theory currently explains the creation of the universe followed by a fortuitous accident in which life came from nonliving matter.

Hmmmmm, so many problems here I'm not sure where to start. First of all, if you define "Creationist" as "one who believes a deity of some sort was behind the creation of the universe, however it happened," then you have just described most scientists - yes, even those who study evolution. Thus, there is no opposition between that sort of "Creationist" and evolutionary theory.

Second, as others have pointed out, evolutionary theory has nothing at all to do with the beginning of the universe. The current leading theory on that is the Big Bang theory, which still doesn't in any way exclude God from the process.

Evolutionary theory also has nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of life. There is no real "leading theory" on that right now, as it is all still under investigation. Most have heard the hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which self-replicating molecules competed and eventually formed cells. However, that isn't part of evolution - it is simply related.

Evolutionary theory deals with natural selection, mutation, and speciation. It really is as simple as that.

I am now brought to evolution. I would not believe in the theory of evolution even if I did not believe in God.

That's a rather bold statement, considering that you have already demonstrated how very miniscule your understanding of the theory is. I would think that you would have to understand something, before you could reject it.

What I understand about evolutionary theory, however, makes me very skeptical of it. There is simply so much left unexplained.

If there weren't still questions, there would be no point to science!

Why is there matter,

Irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

not to mention how it gets around that whole nonliving matter turning into living matter thing?

Irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

Does that not directly contradict cell theory?

No.

The more I look at evolutionary theory, the more it just looks to me like an anything-but-God theory.

You apparently haven't looked at evolutionary theory at all. You have looked at completely separate proposals in science and placed them all under the "Evilution" (no, I didn't misspell that) banner.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the concept of adaptation. I see that all around me. I simply don't believe in species to species evolution. I can see evolution on the micro side, but not macro evolution.

There is no logical difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". "Macroevolution" is simply a build up of lots of "microevolution" over time. Are you not aware of the concept that lots and lots of little changes over time add up to really big changes?

I believe that the Bible is God, through the Spirit, inspiring man toward revalations about His nature.

Do you think that inspiration makes human beings infallible? Do you believe that God inspires us, individually, even today, through the Holy Spirit? What then shall we do if the guidance we receive from God is different from a given Biblical translation or interpretation?

I believe that the Scriptures as they are now are what God wants them to be.

But does that necessarily mean that they are absolutely correct? It seems a bold claim to claim to know the will of God. Perhaps there are supposed to be errors, so that we would find them.

I do not believe that God would allow the fundamental message of His book to ever be changed no matter what machinations man may have to the contrary.

Problem is, most people don't focus on the fundamental message. In fact, many, many Christians seem to completely ignore it. It is in the details that people get stuck.

And there are quite a few details that I have to wonder about. For instance, did God really think that a woman who wasn't rescued from rape in a small town was obviously willing? Did God really think that a woman who didn't bleed on her wedding night was necessarily not a virgin? Did God really think that genocide was a good thing? Did God really think that it was perfectly fine to have slaves, and that Hebrew male slaves were to be treated differently from all other slaves? I don't. First off, my God wouldn't think that anything absolutely biologically wrong would be true. Nor would my God be unaware of the situation in which a woman can be raped, but not call out, as she is too afraid. Nor would my God approve of genocide or slavery. However, I could certainly see how the Hebrew men being inspired would have thought that these things were God-inspired as well, just as I see people today who think that certain decisions of theirs are God-inspired, while I don't think that they would be. Just as I am sure that some people look at some of my decisions that I believe to be God-inspired, and think that they are not.

I have studied the apocrypha, and I have read what Gnostic Gospels I could get my hands on. I have seen nothing that I see as needing to be added.

....but that was a decision made by you - and you, I would assume, are a fallible human being. How do you know that the person who feels that some of the apocrypha is more important is wrong? They receive revelation through the Holy Spirit, same as you, but it is always filtered through our imperfect fallible minds.

LazyHippies

31-10-2005, 05:27

I can think of a few calvanists that were around deffinatly
such a depressing faith

Yeah, I can see how seeing happy, upbeat people can depress someone who is constantly sad.

IL Ruffino

31-10-2005, 05:28

Evolution is also history, read "Guns, Germs, and Steel".
You don't learn it in depth though, eh? :p

UpwardThrust

31-10-2005, 05:29

Yeah, I can see how seeing happy, upbeat people can depress someone who is constantly sad.
? not sure I quite caught the drift of where you were going there

Omni Conglomerates

31-10-2005, 05:30

Evolution in science, and religion in history. I think thats a perfectly neutral compromise. In my school we learned about religion in history, why shouldn't they teach the theories too?

Im an evolution backing atheist, but if the issues were in the correct classes, well.. what the hell.. let em be there.

Actually, religion is theology. In history, you teach what certain peoples believed, but statements of right or wrong towards belief have no place whatsoever. History is about fact, events occuring in sequential order. Only in theology classes should religion be taught in any great degree.

KShaya Vale

31-10-2005, 05:34

Dude, my first comment is that you should have broken this down in to several threads. But let's plunge into it. I am also Christian BTW, but I won't claim any denomination. I don't trust any organized church.

I am a Creationist, if you define a Creationist as one who believes that God was completely behind the creation and formation of the universe as opposed to a great however it is evolutionary theory currently explains the creation of the universe followed by a fortuitous accident in which life came from nonliving matter. It doesn't really matter to me the specifics of the creation of life, the universe, and everything. What matters to me is the fact that God was behind it. For all I care it could have been six days or six trillion years in its formation. As far as I am concerned, God could have created the universe and given us oceans made of tappioca pudding, and we would not think twice about why it was the way it was. Personally, I would find it very funny, and would be more inclined to visit the beach.

I also feel that, if God chose to, He very well could create an entire universe in the process of six human days or however He chose to define time. God, in my mind being the author of time as well, can say that He did something in six days and it be six days. It all depends on how big your God is. Mine, being the creator of life, the universe, and everything and being a being that has always been, is infinite. Man being finite, and not capable of fully understanding the concept of infinite, is really not very capable of understanding the full nature of God.

I think you and I are pretty much on the same wave length here. You are putting forth the basis of Intelligent Design, or at least how I understand it. In our beliefs as Christians, we believe that God did it all. Now HOW He did it is still up for debate and really besides the point. How it is reported in the Genesis would by necessity have to be written to the understanding of that day and age. Mark Twain did a wonderful story on how Moses decided to tell the story of Creation. Man could not concept millions of years so it was translated into days. My argument for those days of God not being the same as the days of man is the fact that He didn't create the sun, moon and stars until the 4th day. Since the concept of a day is based on the sun, the days measured in the creation can not be the same as ours.

I am now brought to evolution. I would not believe in the theory of evolution even if I did not believe in God. I simply do not see it as a viable scientific theory. I will admit that my field of study is not science. I merely dabble at it. I am a historian at heart. It is what I do and what I love, so I will admit that my knowledge on the subject is lacking. What I understand about evolutionary theory, however, makes me very skeptical of it. There is simply so much left unexplained. Why is there matter, not to mention how it gets around that whole nonliving matter turning into living matter thing? Does that not directly contradict cell theory? You may argue that I am simply trading one set of flawed beliefs for another, but I find the existance of God to be more logical than floating pond scum being struck by lightning to produce life. The more I look at evolutionary theory, the more it just looks to me like an anything-but-God theory. Don't get me wrong, I believe in the concept of adaptation. I see that all around me. I simply don't believe in species to species evolution. I can see evolution on the micro side, but not macro evolution.

Well getting around the whole life from non life is rather easy. All living matter is made up of various atoms. All non living matter is made up of various atoms. We are made mostly of carbon as is a diamond. Our bodies require salt which is made from Sodium and Chloride. We need water with is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen. Our daily diety needs include Iron, Zinc, Calcium and other trace elements. Therefore, it is only logical that it is the specific combination of Atoms that make the diffrences between living and non-living matter. Depending on how those various atoms interacted, it might not have even required a lighting bolt to strike some primordial ooze to start the eventual development of life.

My personal opinion, tying the previous two topics together is that God created man by this evolutionary process.

However, in support of Creationism (the all of the sudden man appears on earth version), consider this: There is a gap in the evolutionary path of man. We've still to find the "missing link(s)". What if there was none? The bible talks about some of the fallen angels having sex with human women and monsters being the result of such unions. What if there were a evolutionary attempt from lower apes that never held and that these monsters were in effect de-evolutionary steps due to the incompatability of angels and humans?

Now that I have finished with creation and evolution, I suppose the Scripture is what I will move on to next. Do I believe that the Bible was inspired by God and written by men? Yes. Do I believe that it is a completed revelation on the nature of God? Yes. I will now explain my meaning in this. I believe that the Bible is God, through the Spirit, inspiring man toward revalations about His nature. I believe that the Scriptures as they are now are what God wants them to be. I do not believe that God would allow the fundamental message of His book to ever be changed no matter what machinations man may have to the contrary. I have studied the apocrypha, and I have read what Gnostic Gospels I could get my hands on. I have seen nothing that I see as needing to be added. I view the apocrypha in the same way I view a book related to the Scriptures, A Purpose Driven Life - for example. That book is, in my opinion, a fairly good Christian book. That doesn't mean I think it needs to be put into the Bible. Not all of the apocrypha is good, and not all of it is bad. Its existance does not make a case for the errancy of scripture.

I'm sorry I can't take the bible at it's most literal word. King James really did a number on it when he had it translated, by forcing several changes to his liking. Plus if the Pope could change the Sabbath from a Saturday to a Sunday, what else could the Vatican have changed. In addition if God was not allowing errors to occur in the bible then copies like the Adulterer's Bible would have never occured, yet alone slip out in to distribution.

I have full faith that the message is sound and whole, and while I'll use specific passages to make my points, I always make the assumption that may not have been the original intent. Most of my faith is based upon the 4 gospels only. The rest is all guidelines and history. Even Peter and Paul had diffrent ideas on what was important, so I just look at how Christ's life was lived in the eyes of the 4 writters and use that as my basis of living to the best of my ability.

Hobbesianland

31-10-2005, 05:35

A sign of how popular this topic is: at the time of this post,

Views = 36
Posts = 35

not many freeriders in this debate! :D

Dempublicents1

31-10-2005, 05:39

I understand that evolution is the process through which one species slowly evolves through a series of adaptations into a completely new species.

That is part of it. Of course, it generally isn't an entire species evolving into a completely new species. It is generally some subset of the population evolving one way, another evolving another way, another, possibly, staying about the same.

I do feel that evolutionary theory is often touted as some great scientific explanation

It is a rather great scientific explanation. And, without the understanding we gain from it, most of modern biology and a great deal of modern medicine really just wouldn't be here.

and argument against the existance of God.

And that it is where people go wrong. It is a logical impossibility to use science to try to argue against the existence of God (or for it, for that matter).

I will remind you, however, that I never said I had a firm understanding of evolutionary theory.

Would you respect someone who rejected Christianity as a religion without first understanding it? Would you respect someone who rejected the historical truth of something, without researching it? If not, why should anyone respect someone who says, "I don't understand evolutionary theory, but I think it is wrong."?

I will also say, that I am not trying to convert anyone with my arguements. I don't believe in that kind of witnessing. It is unbiblical.

I can certainly agree with you here. One of my favorite quotes is "Preach often. If necessary, use words."

Vegas-Rex

31-10-2005, 05:39

Firstly, I have already admitted my imperfect understanding of evolutionary theory, and I have also stated that I do agree with the concept of microevolution. It is with macroevolution that I am skeptical.

Secondly, yes, I am saying that the Bible is always an effective guide to the faithful, or even those who are looking upon it with an open mind. I believe that God will guide those towards the words that need to be read. That is a matter of faith, however, and I will not be providing any argument to back it up. Faith cannot be proven as fact, only demostrated as belief.

Lastly, I find that one of the first errors people make when thinking about God is they think of Him in human terms. If you get right down to it, the mind of God is completely alien and incomprehensible to man. This is demonstrated in the Book of Job. Even the masculine he to refer to God is a human labelling and truly an increadible demostration of the shortcomings of the English language. The statement that God is pursuing happiness and pleasure would imply that God in need of it.

Sorry about the first issue, I submitted reply a lot later than I thought I would.

I think I listed this in the post, though: macroevolution is inevitable. Creatures will evolve via mutation and natural selection into different niches, and they will eventually become so different that they cannot have viable children. That is all marcoevolution is.

Your idea that one can get what one needs out of the Scripture isn't really something I can debate, as because of the human capacity for seeking patterns it is possible to get fundamental, essential truths out of any such text. People can make meaning remarkable easily.

As for the proof issue, even if God is completely alien, he is still bound by the attributes we give him. These attributes include free will. In effect, however inhuman God is, it is a rational being that makes rational decisions. Furthermore, unlike humans, God is a pure rational being, with no internal limits on its ability to come to the correct decision (see omnipotence). God seeks happiness simply because happiness is by definition that which one seeks. If God does not have need, God does not have any reason to pursue anything. That would mean that either God is an entirely random being or an entirely inactive one. The only way to force God to have structure of any sort is to impose limits from outside.

IL Ruffino

31-10-2005, 05:42

Actually, religion is theology. In history, you teach what certain peoples believed, but statements of right or wrong towards belief have no place whatsoever. History is about fact, events occuring in sequential order. Only in theology classes should religion be taught in any great degree.
Ah, then offer that as an elective? Seems ok.

KShaya Vale

31-10-2005, 05:45

I will also say, that I am not trying to convert anyone with my arguements. I don't believe in that kind of witnessing. It is unbiblical. If I can convince a man of something, then someone else can just as easily convince them of otherwise. Far better to simply state your case and let man decide for himself, in my mind at least. It is faith and nothing else that holds us to Christianity. In truth, what Christians feel in their hearts is really all the evidence they need for the existance of God. As far as the religious texts of other faiths, well, I will reserve my comments on them.

BROTHER!!!!!

It is so hard to find someone else who thinks in this way like I do. Usually it's either all or nothing.

KShaya Vale

31-10-2005, 05:51

Except that teachers talking about religion don't critique evolution. Comparative Religions teachers almost invariably are in-the-closet universalists: they believe that everyone is right in their own way, without actually connecting that to their own beliefs. It's kind of sad, really.

By the very nature of what religion is, no one can be right. Each person, regardless of having many shared beliefs, will still have those that differ from everyone else. You may be either right or wrong, but there will be no absoultly way of knowing until we die. If the Athiists are wrong, they actually pass onto an afterlife. If the Christians are wrong, maybe we'll all find ourselves in the Summerlands. But until then we are all simultaniously right and wrong.

Omni Conglomerates

31-10-2005, 06:00

Do you think that inspiration makes human beings infallible? Do you believe that God inspires us, individually, even today, through the Holy Spirit? What then shall we do if the guidance we receive from God is different from a given Biblical translation or interpretation?

But does that necessarily mean that they are absolutely correct? It seems a bold claim to claim to know the will of God. Perhaps there are supposed to be errors, so that we would find them.

Problem is, most people don't focus on the fundamental message. In fact, many, many Christians seem to completely ignore it. It is in the details that people get stuck.

And there are quite a few details that I have to wonder about. For instance, did God really think that a woman who wasn't rescued from rape in a small town was obviously willing? Did God really think that a woman who didn't bleed on her wedding night was necessarily not a virgin? Did God really think that genocide was a good thing? Did God really think that it was perfectly fine to have slaves, and that Hebrew male slaves were to be treated differently from all other slaves? I don't. First off, my God wouldn't think that anything absolutely biologically wrong would be true. Nor would my God be unaware of the situation in which a woman can be raped, but not call out, as she is too afraid. Nor would my God approve of genocide or slavery. However, I could certainly see how the Hebrew men being inspired would have thought that these things were God-inspired as well, just as I see people today who think that certain decisions of theirs are God-inspired, while I don't think that they would be. Just as I am sure that some people look at some of my decisions that I believe to be God-inspired, and think that they are not.

....but that was a decision made by you - and you, I would assume, are a fallible human being. How do you know that the person who feels that some of the apocrypha is more important is wrong? They receive revelation through the Holy Spirit, same as you, but it is always filtered through our imperfect fallible minds.

Ok, since I have already answered the first part of your post twice on this thread, I will skip down to the Bible stuff, my meat and potatoes.

First, no, inspiration does not make man infallible. That was in no way what I was saying. However, inspiration does mean at point and time of the writing, the writers were under the direct inspiration of God. They were inspired to write what the wrote, beyond that, they were just as fallible as you or me.

Second, I would argue that there is no purpose in God placing doubt in the heart of man. Man, by nature, is predisposed to fall away from God. Also, a man can claim to know the will of God. He says Himself in His Son which is Him that His will can be found in Scripture.

You are right that most people who profess Christianity are far from following the message presented to us in the Bible. We as Christians are supposed to totally submit ourselves to will of God, and that means a desire to follow the message of Christ in loving the Lord, our God, with all our hearts and loving our neighbors as ourselves.

All I have in defense of myself is Scripture, and you are right that my belief that I am correct on certain issues where others are wrong is just that. I will also say that there have been many events throughout history in which Gods name has been abused for the whim of man, but I would also say that those who claim to kill or do any evil in the name of God are in no way truly under divine revelation. People who wish to kill will do so, reguardless. If they can do it under the sanction and banner of religion, then it is all the better. That is not inspiration.

Lastly, in reguard to apocrypha, I say some is wrong because, through study of it, it can be determined that the manner and nature of its writing did not coincide with what has been revealed as the will of God. God doesn't change. Man changes. If this means a predestination arguement, then so be it. Anything contradictory of what God has reveal of Himself, is not inspired of God, but made up by man. Also, some apocryphal texts are simply pure histories which is why they are kept out. Other texts deal heavily with angels and the celestial hosts, and I will reserve my comments on that subject.

Americai

31-10-2005, 06:04

[QUOTE=Omni Conglomerates]
I'm not going to debate with you due to the lack of time I generally have on the net. However I WILL tell you why people feel your faith is an ill on society and why the generalizations happen even though they do not apply to everyone of your faith. Keep in mind I am a moderate American, but paleo-conservative in politics. (Meaning I'm not a goddamned neo-con who is boning Americans or religious right-winger who are puppets to the neo-con. My republic and my people come first.)

1. Organized religions of faith tend to give birth to people who zealously believe that their faith is correct and that their perspective must be adopted or accepted first above others by the masses. In short, while it does help many people live better lives and direction as I have seen it happen; it also spawns far to many people who shove your beliefs down others throat because it is an accepted practice to covert due to the nature of organizations. Thus, people of your faith convert in many ill ways such as cohersion and more disasterous methods and they are readily willing to bone over others who have differing opinions. A lot of people are sick and tired of it.

2. You know crap of science but then ignore why evolution is a well established theory that is practically law. To many of your organized religious sect undermine America's advancement through such brainwashing of other's who are much more easily swayed and uneducated.

The reason for the "theory" in the theory of evolution is that in the future, man could alter the rules through science thus negating its natural phenomena steps.

I don't care if you think you dabble in science. You showed that you don't even know what matter is. Ever heard of E=MC^2? Well, its kind of a famous concept now in science. It explains that matter is in fact energy similar to how solids can be turned into a gas. This is why you get such a huge explosion in a nuclear bomb of a small amount of matter. When matter is converted into energy... the amount of energy from its condensed form of matter can be apocolyptic.

You in fact pre-judge evolution ONLY because of your faith and lack of education. You probably know very little of science or why the scientific community accepts its explaination. In fact, it is evident that you never really seek real answers to your questions because you'd also wouldn't understand them. You only tidy them up in your mind with the concept of god. I'm a deist like the American founding fathers. Never do I make the mistake in ignoring truth of how our world works because I fear it may invalidate my concept of god. My concept of god is more infinite and a more universal figure. Relativity makes it common sense such an entity of universal porportions likely not even be aware of people of a single planet due to it being bigger than a goddamned X-box. You refuse basic scientific tenents because it would utterly ruin your beliefs of a man in the sky looking out for you because he is a deity like the gods of olympus or in the bible.

Your god's not a universal and elemental figure that can't be disproven by sicence. Your god is just an iconic and etheral figure that science proves invalid or unlikely. This is why you refuse real scientific learning and understanding.

Remember, your here on a forum with very little scientists. You are NOT bringing up your creationalism to a forum of scientists. The reason you don't is obvious. You know you and your beliefs are out of their league.

But its fine if you don't believe it. It is your right to believe and be free to practice and be free of organized religion. Get out of the habit of preaching to American's that an accepted scientific explaination it isn't real. Its fine if you tell that to a middle easter guy. At least then he won't be competing against us in the technological market. It is your right to believe it, but you MUST encourage others to learn more about it and develop their own opinions without any bias for your damned position. They don't even have to accept mine. Just ask they LEARN about it for themselves.

3. People like you force your beliefs on others' young through campaigns to promote the general public's ignorance. I do NOT want my child to be taught the same crap you'd teach your child. I wan't my child to learn and become an enlightened person, not to become a dumbass for the sake of my personal religion. This general behavior from people of your religion is one that REALLY burns my side. Why do punks like you want Americans to become even dumber? You don't think your part of it, but the truth is you accept those who do and encourage them to make America dumber as the years past. Why do you hate America and learning?

4. Religious organizations have and continue to lie to such an extent, they are not credible for many people. I was raised catholic. I KNOW about how the organized religion covers its ass with a mountain of lies. I noticed other religions like yours do it as well. The ONLY people who don't, are people who are not into organized religions. Once they become an entity, lying becomes a tool of recruitment and suppression of dissent.

5. No one cares if you believe the bible or take it literally. Its your natural right to believe. It is a right given to you by greater MEN than you and I. The only problem is when people force feed this concept on others that it becomes a reviling behavior.

Omni Conglomerates

31-10-2005, 06:09

BROTHER!!!!!

It is so hard to find someone else who thinks in this way like I do. Usually it's either all or nothing.

Really? That must be harsh. The university I attend actually holds quite a few like minded individuals. By that I mean roughly thirty or more throughout campus. It is the largest concentration I have found yet. Funny thing, for all their agreement, none of us belong to the same faction...errumm...denomination. Baptists, reformed and otherwise, Presbyterians, Methodist, even a few very liberal Pentecostals - we have a little bit of everything. It is a crazy place with lots of wonderful debate.

Omni Conglomerates

31-10-2005, 06:25

I'm not going to debate with you due to the lack of time I generally have on the net. However I WILL tell you why people feel your faith is an ill on society and why the generalizations happen even though they do not apply to everyone of your faith. Keep in mind I am a moderate American, but paleo-conservative in politics. (Meaning I'm not a goddamned neo-con who is boning Americans or religious right-winger who are puppets to the neo-con. My republic and my people come first.)

1. Organized religions of faith tend to give birth to people who zealously believe that their faith is correct and that their perspective must be adopted or accepted first above others by the masses. In short, while it does help many people live better lives and direction as I have seen it happen; it also spawns far to many people who shove your beliefs down others throat because it is an accepted practice to covert due to the nature of organizations. Thus, people of your faith convert in many ill ways such as cohersion and more disasterous methods and they are readily willing to bone over others who have differing opinions. A lot of people are sick and tired of it.

2. You know crap of science but then ignore why evolution is a well established theory that is practically law. To many of your organized religious sect undermine America's advancement through such brainwashing of other's who are much more easily swayed and uneducated.

The reason for the "theory" in the theory of evolution is that in the future, man could alter the rules through science thus negating its natural phenomena steps.

I don't care if you think you dabble in science. You showed that you don't even know what matter is. Ever heard of E=MC^2? Well, its kind of a famous concept now in science. It explains that matter is in fact energy similar to how solids can be turned into a gas. This is why you get such a huge explosion in a nuclear bomb of a small amount of matter. When matter is converted into energy... the amount of energy from its condensed form of matter can be apocolyptic.

You in fact pre-judge evolution ONLY because of your faith and lack of education. You probably know very little of science or why the scientific community accepts its explaination. In fact, it is evident that you never really seek real answers to your questions because you'd also wouldn't understand them. You only tidy them up in your mind with the concept of god. I'm a deist like the American founding fathers. Never do I make the mistake in ignoring truth of how our world works because I fear it may invalidate my concept of god. My concept of god is more infinite and a more universal figure. Relativity makes it common sense such an entity of universal porportions likely not even be aware of people of a single planet due to it being bigger than a goddamned X-box. You refuse basic scientific tenents because it would utterly ruin your beliefs of a man in the sky looking out for you because he is a deity like the gods of olympus or in the bible.

Your god's not a universal and elemental figure that can't be disproven by sicence. Your god is just an iconic and etheral figure that science proves invalid or unlikely. This is why you refuse real scientific learning and understanding.

Remember, your here on a forum with very little scientists. You are NOT bringing up your creationalism to a forum of scientists. The reason you don't is obvious. You know you and your beliefs are out of their league.

But its fine if you don't believe it. It is your right to believe and be free to practice and be free of organized religion. Get out of the habit of preaching to American's that an accepted scientific explaination it isn't real. Its fine if you tell that to a middle easter guy. At least then he won't be competing against us in the technological market. It is your right to believe it, but you MUST encourage others to learn more about it and develop their own opinions without any bias for your damned position. They don't even have to accept mine. Just ask they LEARN about it for themselves.

3. People like you force your beliefs on others' young through campaigns to promote the general public's ignorance. I do NOT want my child to be taught the same crap you'd teach your child. I wan't my child to learn and become an enlightened person, not to become a dumbass for the sake of my personal religion. This general behavior from people of your religion is one that REALLY burns my side. Why do punks like you want Americans to become even dumber? You don't think your part of it, but the truth is you accept those who do and encourage them to make America dumber as the years past. Why do you hate America and learning?

4. Religious organizations have and continue to lie to such an extent, they are not credible for many people. I was raised catholic. I KNOW about how the organized religion covers its ass with a mountain of lies. I noticed other religions like yours do it as well. The ONLY people who don't, are people who are not into organized religions. Once they become an entity, lying becomes a tool of recruitment and suppression of dissent.

5. No one cares if you believe the bible or take it literally. Its your natural right to believe. It is a right given to you by greater MEN than you and I. The only problem is when people force feed this concept on others that it becomes a reviling behavior.

W00T! My first angry post.

First, I am sorry you do not wish to debate. I would love to continue discourse in a good and respectful manner, but if you don't want to I cannot make you.

Second, if you ever decide to post again, I would love for you to explain how you can extrapolate that I do not know what matter is. I am pretty sure that I have it right when I say that matter is the stuff of the universe, that matter is that which makes up and is everything. Also, I would wonder why you would state that I am uneducated. Granted, I am not a student of science. Truth be told, I keep myself out of the sciences because I really don't plan on entering a profession requiring a broad knowledge of the sciences. I do plan to take more sciences that I might learn more about that which I do not understand, but above all I am a history major. I plan on teaching history. After I graduate I will move on to the graduate program, and, Lord willing, I will eventually move on to earn a PhD. In that time, I will not have to take many science courses. My education will focus on foreign languages, philosophy, sociology, and history. I would argue that a lack of proper instruction on evolutionary theory does not make me altogether uneducated, but merely unqualified to properly debate on that particular topic as I have already admitted. That being said, your insults are not very appreciated.

Also, like it or not, I will one day be teaching the youth of America. I can keep my personal bias out of the class room. Could you say the same thing?

Omni Conglomerates

31-10-2005, 06:29

Ah, then offer that as an elective? Seems ok.

Sure, I actually attended a highschool in which a Bible class was offered as an elective course. I did not choose to take it, but I heard good things from those who did. It was actually taught as Christian worldview rather than a base theology course. I would like the idea of Muslim worldview or Atheist worldview as well, as long as the instructors could keep it informative rather than persuasive.

BAAWA

31-10-2005, 06:30

Some problems you will have:

I am a Creationist, if you define a Creationist as one who believes that God was completely behind the creation and formation of the universe as opposed to a great however it is evolutionary theory currently explains the creation of the universe
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the spatiotemporal continuum.

followed by a fortuitous accident in which life came from nonliving matter.
You have the problem of where god came from, if life only comes from life.

Man being finite, and not capable of fully understanding the concept of infinite, is really not very capable of understanding the full nature of God.
Humans understand infinity just fine. You misapply it.

I am now brought to evolution. I would not believe in the theory of evolution even if I did not believe in God. I simply do not see it as a viable scientific theory.
Others don't see germ theory as viable, nor that a spheroid earth is viable, either. Doubting evolution is the same thing.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the concept of adaptation. I see that all around me. I simply don't believe in species to species evolution. I can see evolution on the micro side, but not macro evolution.
Then you doubt that a series of steps will lead you to be able to walk around your block.

I think you should take care of your problems before you want to debate.

Omni Conglomerates

31-10-2005, 06:37

Man, now this is all coming back. It has been so long since I had to answer the same question fifty times because people don't bother to read the thread to find out whether or not they are restating someone else's argument. I really don't mind it, but from now on I will just say read the rest of the thread if something has already been stated.

Dempublicents1

31-10-2005, 06:41

First, no, inspiration does not make man infallible. That was in no way what I was saying. However, inspiration does mean at point and time of the writing, the writers were under the direct inspiration of God. They were inspired to write what the wrote, beyond that, they were just as fallible as you or me.

But were they inspired to write exactly what they wrote? Or were the inspired to write certain things which they may or may not, being fallible themselves, have completely understood?

Second, I would argue that there is no purpose in God placing doubt in the heart of man.

I'm not sure where you got this from. I didn't say anything to even suggest that God places doubt in the heart of man. In fact, I basically said the opposite. I think that God wants us to follow God, not other human beings. Following any set of Scripture, with no regard to what God guides you to do, is following humankind, not God. It is placing faith in those who wrote, scribed, translated, and rewrote the Scriptures, not in God.

Also, a man can claim to know the will of God. He says Himself in His Son which is Him that His will can be found in Scripture.

Yes, that is a belief that a human being might have, although an honest human must admit that he might be wrong. Of course, there are many, many different interpretations of Scripture. There are many, many different ways of looking at it. If you cannot say with absolute certainty that your interpretation is better than mine, how can either of us claim to truly know the will of God?

Lastly, in reguard to apocrypha, I say some is wrong because, through study of it, it can be determined that the manner and nature of its writing did not coincide with what has been revealed as the will of God.

Careful reading of the entire Bible reveals all sorts of things in the OT that are completley contradictory to what Christ teaches. Did God change God's mind? Or were the ancient people wrong? Or is my interpretation wrong? Is yours?

Careful reading of Paul, depending on exactly how you look at it, can reveal things that seem to contradict the teachings of Christ - yet much of Paul's words were included.

Careful study of the early church reveals that there were all sorts of disagreements, all sorts of beliefs. What came out at the end was essentially a vote by a bunch of politicians. Do we trust them implicitly? Should we? Or is it more important to read, to pray, and to ask God's direct guidance in the matter?

Anything contradictory of what God has reveal of Himself, is not inspired of God, but made up by man.

How can you state with certainty that the texts included are not the incorrect ones, while the apocryphal texts were correct? Christ Himself told us that his words would not be accepted by many.

1. Organized religions of faith tend to give birth to people who zealously believe that their faith is correct and that their perspective must be adopted or accepted first above others by the masses. In short, while it does help many people live better lives and direction as I have seen it happen; it also spawns far to many people who shove your beliefs down others throat because it is an accepted practice to covert due to the nature of organizations. Thus, people of your faith convert in many ill ways such as cohersion and more disasterous methods and they are readily willing to bone over others who have differing opinions. A lot of people are sick and tired of it.

Any time you get people together in groups - any groups - there will be corruption and people vying for power. It is human nature. Your tirade is not a condemnation of organized religion, but of organization period. However, sometimes we do need organization (governments, etc.), even with the problems that come along with it.

The reason for the "theory" in the theory of evolution is that in the future, man could alter the rules through science thus negating its natural phenomena steps.

Completely and horribly incorrect. You can't start a tirade against someone not understanding science and then demonstrate that you don't understand it either.

The reason for the word "theory" is that everything in science (even those things we call laws) are theories. That is as high as it gets in science. Why? Because the scientific method demands that any hypothesis or theory be falsifiable. Thus, there is always a chance that any theory/law/etc., no matter how well-supported, will be found in the future to be wrong. Now, the more support we get, the smaller that chance gets, but it is still there.

Remember, your here on a forum with very little scientists. You are NOT bringing up your creationalism to a forum of scientists. The reason you don't is obvious. You know you and your beliefs are out of their league.

Actually, if you went into the Creationsm threads, you'd realize there are a larger number of us here than you might expect. And *gasp* some of us are even Christian!

Americai, the rest of what you say are unecessary attacks. Omni did not suggest, in anything he has said, that he wants to force his beliefs upon others or teach Creationism in science class. In fact, he has said quite the opposite.

IL Ruffino

31-10-2005, 06:50

Sure, I actually attended a highschool in which a Bible class was offered as an elective course. I did not choose to take it, but I heard good things from those who did. It was actually taught as Christian worldview rather than a base theology course. I would like the idea of Muslim worldview or Atheist worldview as well, as long as the instructors could keep it informative rather than persuasive.
Lets be friends :fluffle:

Good Lifes

31-10-2005, 06:50

Don't have tome to read all the posts but I will answer the first.

I think you need to do some research as to how the Bible came to be. It didn't majically apear. Different Pope's had different committees select from many which books should be cannon. Some went in by one committee and were taken out by another, and another put others back in. The final committee, (they didn't know it would be the final) about left out Hebrews because there were no Hebrews in the church. They almost also left out Revelation. They only put it in at the last minute because they didn't have any examples of apocolyptic books and they felt they should put in at least one example. They chose the revelation of John from the pile at stuck it at the back. The reason that changes quit being made wasn't a voice from above, it was the printing press. That's right, Gutenburg (sp) made the final choices as to which books should be in the Bible.

You said that you aren't hung up on time for creation. I agree. I also agree that there seems to be organization in the universe. But I also have been involved in agriculture all my life. Yes there is macro evolution. One example is the milo "green bug". It developed around the late '60's. It came from a corn aphid. But, it adapted to milo and became a new species. It almost destroyed the domestic milo crop. Farmers didn't know what they were so they called them "green bugs". Up until that time milo had no natural preditors. Milo can survive today because seed companies developed resistant varieties of milo.

There are many other examples of species development among fast producing animals and plants. Have you heard of the "bird flu"? It is a new species and is feared to adapt again to invade humans and the 1918 flu did. Now humans are also able to develop new species. With genetic engineering we are able to take parts out of different species and put them in a new species, thereby developing a third species. Try studying chimeras. If man can do it, why do you deny the power to change species to God?

Omni Conglomerates

31-10-2005, 07:00

But were they inspired to write exactly what they wrote? Or were the inspired to write certain things which they may or may not, being fallible themselves, have completely understood?

I'm not sure where you got this from. I didn't say anything to even suggest that God places doubt in the heart of man. In fact, I basically said the opposite. I think that God wants us to follow God, not other human beings. Following any set of Scripture, with no regard to what God guides you to do, is following humankind, not God. It is placing faith in those who wrote, scribed, translated, and rewrote the Scriptures, not in God.

Yes, that is a belief that a human being might have, although an honest human must admit that he might be wrong. Of course, there are many, many different interpretations of Scripture. There are many, many different ways of looking at it. If you cannot say with absolute certainty that your interpretation is better than mine, how can either of us claim to truly know the will of God?

Careful reading of the entire Bible reveals all sorts of things in the OT that are completley contradictory to what Christ teaches. Did God change God's mind? Or were the ancient people wrong? Or is my interpretation wrong? Is yours?

Careful reading of Paul, depending on exactly how you look at it, can reveal things that seem to contradict the teachings of Christ - yet much of Paul's words were included.

Careful study of the early church reveals that there were all sorts of disagreements, all sorts of beliefs. What came out at the end was essentially a vote by a bunch of politicians. Do we trust them implicitly? Should we? Or is it more important to read, to pray, and to ask God's direct guidance in the matter?

How can you state with certainty that the texts included are not the incorrect ones, while the apocryphal texts were correct? Christ Himself told us that his words would not be accepted by many.

Any time you get people together in groups - any groups - there will be corruption and people vying for power. It is human nature. Your tirade is not a condemnation of organized religion, but of organization period. However, sometimes we do need organization (governments, etc.), even with the problems that come along with it.

Completely and horribly incorrect. You can't start a tirade against someone not understanding science and then demonstrate that you don't understand it either.

The reason for the word "theory" is that everything in science (even those things we call laws) are theories. That is as high as it gets in science. Why? Because the scientific method demands that any hypothesis or theory be falsifiable. Thus, there is always a chance that any theory/law/etc., no matter how well-supported, will be found in the future to be wrong. Now, the more support we get, the smaller that chance gets, but it is still there.

Actually, if you went into the Creationsm threads, you'd realize there are a larger number of us here than you might expect. And *gasp* some of us are even Christian!

Americai, the rest of what you say are unecessary attacks. Omni did not suggest, in anything he has said, that he wants to force his beliefs upon others or teach Creationism in science class. In fact, he has said quite the opposite.

Yes! Predestination time!

Ok, God, creator of the universe, created the universe, right? Just go with me on this one. God is therefore not subject to the things which bind the universe. God is not subject to time. There is no linear sequence. What happens now has happened, is happening, and will happen in the future. There is process and planning. God does not change. God's mind and God's process is permenant and fixed. Who is to say that God does not have a process. Christ coming was the promised changing of one system for another. It was the end of the age of belief by sight and conviction by action and the ushering in of salvation by grace and not by any good work man could do. It was part of a predetermined process. Man was always going to screw up, Christ was always going to come, and man will always continue to screw up but now with a happy free safety net. Why do all of this if the outcome is certain? Because it had to happen? I am no longer answering, but posing questions. Doctors of Theology cannot answer that question. That is one of the things, in my mind, that man is not ment to know. I again refer to Job when God said that his will is not for human comprehension.

Now I will also say, that in relation to evolution. I knew full well my shortcomings before I even started this thread. I really could care less the right and wrong of the statements. I am here for interesting intellectual discourse and solid debate base on the merits of argument. I don't do this to sway a body to believe as I do. Heck, I get just as much enjoyment when I say something that is incorrect and get ripped into as I do when I am able to successfully make a more convincing argument than the man next to me.

I really want to say more, but I have much to do tomorrow. I work at the local performing arts center and Bram Stoker's Dracula is being performed. I have to awake and ready to help set up for the show as soon as I get out of class. I will post more tomorrow.

The Riemann Hypothesis

31-10-2005, 07:01

Humans understand infinity just fine. You misapply it.

Actually it's pretty much impossible for us to understand infinity.

Let's say you have a basket that contains ping pong balls. These balls are all numbered, starting with 1, 2, 3, 4, ... etc. The numbers never stop, right? So there's an infinite amount in this basket. So take out 10 of them (1, 2, ..., 9, 10) and put them in another basket. Put back 1 ball. Then take out the next 10 (11, 12, ..., 19, 20) and put back the ball numbered 11. Keep going until you're "done" (see this is one of the parts that's impossible to understand. How can you ever be "done?"). There will be an infinite amount of balls in both baskets, right?
Okay now start over. Take 10 balls out of the first basket and put them in the second basket. Then take ball 1 and put it back. Take the next 10 balls (11 - 20) and put them in the other basket, then put ball 2 and put it back. Take the next 10 balls and put them in the other basket, then put ball 3 back, etc. So you've put the same amount of balls into the second basket and removed the same amount as our last example, right? Well it turns out that when you're "done," there will not be any balls in the second basket, because any ball in there will have a number on it, but I can tell you exactly when I took that ball out of that basket and put it back. So although we put in 10 balls and took out 1 at every step, we end up with all of the balls back in their original basket. So I'm sorry, but humans cannot understand infinity.

Omni Conglomerates

31-10-2005, 07:03

Lets be friends :fluffle:

Look me up on NS, and send me a telegram. More than happy to meet new people. Hope you get a kick out of the region you find my nation in.

PasturePastry

31-10-2005, 07:13

My apologies for not being able to read all of this, but there is one idea that struck me: the idea that evolution couldn't work because it would mean life coming from non-life. I would say that everyday experience would demonstrate the contrary. The reason that life is possible is because of non-life. How to we continue to exist? By eating non-living things.

There may be another way to look at it though: life exists as a potential in all things, requiring the proper circumstances before it becomes manifest.

KShaya Vale

31-10-2005, 07:34

Really? That must be harsh. The university I attend actually holds quite a few like minded individuals. By that I mean roughly thirty or more throughout campus. It is the largest concentration I have found yet. Funny thing, for all their agreement, none of us belong to the same faction...errumm...denomination. Baptists, reformed and otherwise, Presbyterians, Methodist, even a few very liberal Pentecostals - we have a little bit of everything. It is a crazy place with lots of wonderful debate.

Well I said it was hard, not that I hadn't found anyone...lol

I have my own "family" of the heart and we pretty much all feel the same in reguards to religions. We consist of Christians, Wiccians, A Druid and a generalist pagan. From our collective circle of friends we can throw in some Catholics and Mormons (both of which are argued in some circles not to be true Christian religions. Not necessarily our opinions but that's why I seperated them), Athiest and Agnostics. I hope to soon have some Jews and Muslims in the collection. We enjoy our debates and are pleased to allow everyone else to believe as they wish.

IL Ruffino

31-10-2005, 07:42

is one idea that struck me: the idea that evolution couldn't work because it would mean life coming from non-life.
I'm not using this as a reply, but to ask a question.

What is God considered? A person? A spirit? Spirits aren't alive though..

Dempublicents1

31-10-2005, 07:47

Ok, God, creator of the universe, created the universe, right? Just go with me on this one. God is therefore not subject to the things which bind the universe. God is not subject to time. There is no linear sequence. What happens now has happened, is happening, and will happen in the future. There is process and planning. God does not change. God's mind and God's process is permenant and fixed.

Sounds fine to me. And nothing I have said is inconsistent with it. Interestingly enough, this could be seen as an argument for evolution - that God, in God's wisdom, would know exactly how to set things up at the beginning of time (which God is not subject to but set up a system which was) such that things would evolve in exactly the way God wanted.

Who is to say that God does not have a process. Christ coming was the promised changing of one system for another. It was the end of the age of belief by sight and conviction by action and the ushering in of salvation by grace and not by any good work man could do. It was part of a predetermined process. Man was always going to screw up, Christ was always going to come, and man will always continue to screw up but now with a happy free safety net.

Here's the problem. I wasn't talking about man screwing up. I was talking about man believing, and writing in his holy book, that God told him to do something or told him something that is unmistakeably a screwup. I agree that human beings did (and still do) screw up. The question is whether or not they, at all, screwed up when writing down the Scriptures as they saw them.

Now I will also say, that in relation to evolution. I knew full well my shortcomings before I even started this thread. I really could care less the right and wrong of the statements. I am here for interesting intellectual discourse and solid debate base on the merits of argument.

The two last sentences are mutually exclusive. If you want intellectual discourse and solid debate, you must be concerned with the accuracy of statements. Neither can be based upon inaccurate statements.

BackwoodsSquatches

31-10-2005, 09:33

Omni,

Mind if I ask you a couple of questions?

I must tell you, Im formulating an arguement, based on your hopefully forthcoming responses.

1. Do you believe in ghosts, or the supernatural?

Why, or why not?

2. Do you believe in E.S.P, or psychic abilities?

Why/why not?

3. Alien abductions?

I await.

BAAWA

31-10-2005, 16:34

Yes! Predestination time!

Ok, God, creator of the universe, created the universe, right? Just go with me on this one. God is therefore not subject to the things which bind the universe. God is not subject to time.
How can god create without time?

BAAWA

31-10-2005, 16:36

Actually it's pretty much impossible for us to understand infinity.
Actually, it's not. All it means is that a certain mathematical set has no limit. What's not to understand? How difficult is that to grasp? I understand it quite well. Perhaps you're just projecting YOUR inability to understand it on all of humanity.

Balipo

31-10-2005, 16:44

I am now brought to evolution. I would not believe in the theory of evolution even if I did not believe in God. I simply do not see it as a viable scientific theory. I will admit that my field of study is not science. I merely dabble at it. I am a historian at heart. It is what I do and what I love, so I will admit that my knowledge on the subject is lacking. What I understand about evolutionary theory, however, makes me very skeptical of it. There is simply so much left unexplained. Why is there matter, not to mention how it gets around that whole nonliving matter turning into living matter thing? Does that not directly contradict cell theory? You may argue that I am simply trading one set of flawed beliefs for another, but I find the existance of God to be more logical than floating pond scum being struck by lightning to produce life. The more I look at evolutionary theory, the more it just looks to me like an anything-but-God theory. Don't get me wrong, I believe in the concept of adaptation. I see that all around me. I simply don't believe in species to species evolution. I can see evolution on the micro side, but not macro evolution.

I snipped this just because I find it so interesting. To quote again, "I find the existance of god more logical than floating pond scum being struck by lightning to produce life".

While that isn't evolutionary theory, I am more confused by the fact that you never explain why god's existance is more logical. I mean a great big being "up there" creating planets and universes for kicks that exists infinitely? Where is the logic.

Secondly, since evolutionary theory has nothing to do with god, does not mention god or no god, how exactly is it "anti-god".

If you cannot see macro evolution how do you explain the severe lack of australeopithicines walking about these days? And the lack of humans 20,000 years ago? God tried the Homo Habilis and then said, "This one sucks" killed them all, buried them, and tried again with Homo Sapiens?

If you are going with logic as your argument, you've clearly missed the boat.

Balipo

31-10-2005, 16:45

Actually, it's not. All it means is that a certain mathematical set has no limit. What's not to understand? How difficult is that to grasp? I understand it quite well. Perhaps you're just projecting YOUR inability to understand it on all of humanity.

Good point...you made my argument for me. :)

It's like when people try to argue, which came first the chicken or the egg...

The egg came first...the dinosaurs had eggs...chickens didn't come until eons after the dinosaurs. So the egg came first, it isn't hard to understand that.

UpwardThrust

31-10-2005, 16:46

Good point...you made my argument for me. :)

It's like when people try to argue, which came first the chicken or the egg...

The egg came first...the dinosaurs had eggs...chickens didn't come until eons after the dinosaurs. So the egg came first, it isn't hard to understand that.
Then what came first the dinasaur or the egg? :p

Balipo

31-10-2005, 16:50

Then what came first the dinasaur or the egg? :p

the egg...more than likely a formation of some sort of protection to protazoans offspring (albeit not quite the egg like we see today).

Omni Conglomerates

31-10-2005, 19:46

Actually, it's not. All it means is that a certain mathematical set has no limit. What's not to understand? How difficult is that to grasp? I understand it quite well. Perhaps you're just projecting YOUR inability to understand it on all of humanity.

Actually it is impossible for man to understand infinity. Simply knowing that something does not end does not imply that you understand it. Sure, I can say that because I know that something has no end that I understand it, but that has no meaning. A non-infinite mind, a mind that does not view things in terms of infinity, cannot think in terms of infinity. In everything you do, you think in terms of begining and end. It is what you understand. As we are, we cannot grasp what it is to exist forever, to continue doing something forever, or even the very concept of forever. We tire of things. My favorite food is fried okra. I could not go on eating okra forever, though. Eventually, I would move on to other things. I would honestly like to see a human explain the concept of forever. It would answer a lot of my questions actually, but it cannot be done. You can use the synonyms in the definition, but that doesn't get you any closer to understanding it.

How can god create without time?

Why would God need time? If God has existed forever, then He doesn't conform to the bounds of time. Something that has no begining does not conform to the bounds of chronology.

Omni,

Mind if I ask you a couple of questions?

I must tell you, Im formulating an arguement, based on your hopefully forthcoming responses.

1. Do you believe in ghosts, or the supernatural?

Why, or why not?

2. Do you believe in E.S.P, or psychic abilities?

Why/why not?

3. Alien abductions?

I await.

Do I believe in things supernatural? Yes. Do I believe in ghosts? I am very skeptical, but my own personal belief in a supernatural all-powerful being requires me to keep an open mind. I accept on faith that there is reality beyond what we percieve. That is required if a person is to believe in God in the first place. The concept of the spirits of the dead lingering in this reality is something that I question, but at the same time cannot discount completely. I believe in the existance of angels and demons. I believe that the presence of both has been felt on this world, but I do not immediately jump to the supernatural for my explaination. I recognize the need for reason.

Do I believe in man possessing power such as telepathy, telekinesis, or a sixth sense? Yes and no. Man uses ten percent of his brain. God gave man a very powerful thing when He gave us the brain we have, and we only tap ten percent of it. I believe that there are some who use their brain a little more than others, but I am still very skeptical of accounts of such people. I am open to the idea that such things are possible, but I prefer to exhaust all other explainations first.

Do I believe in alien abductions? I would have to believe in intelligent life beyond ours first. Do I believe that life can exist on other worlds? Of course it can, if God willed that it be there. My Biblical view allows for flora and fauna, but nothing that thinks and reasons like man. In other words, nothing that else that is made in God's image exists out here. (That being spiritual image, not physical. God has no physical image, physical manifestation, but not physical image.)

Here's the problem. I wasn't talking about man screwing up. I was talking about man believing, and writing in his holy book, that God told him to do something or told him something that is unmistakeably a screwup. I agree that human beings did (and still do) screw up. The question is whether or not they, at all, screwed up when writing down the Scriptures as they saw them.

The two last sentences are mutually exclusive. If you want intellectual discourse and solid debate, you must be concerned with the accuracy of statements. Neither can be based upon inaccurate statements.

Ok, I did not understand you. No, I do not believe the screwed up when copying them down. I don't believe that any of the twelve disciples yawned while they were copying the teachings of Christ down and missed something vital. I do not believe that Moses might have sneezed while writing down the Ten Commandments. I cannot accept that God would allow the core of his message to be tarnished in any way by man no matter how hard man tried to do so. I recall someone talking about how the Bible came to be as it was today, but I can't find their post now. I think they assumed that I had not studied the history of how the Bible came to be as it was today. I know full well how the Bible was assembled, and I still support it wholeheartedly. Looking at the men who assembled it, I do not believe that it was in any way marred or the message covered up, no matter what attempts to twist it transpired.

Also, have you never been in a debate in which you supported a side in which you were opposed? I can remember being in class on numerous occasions in which I supported abortion in debate even though I am personally opposed to its practice. I do not find the arguments I used to be of any worth, but I argued them the same to the best of my personal ability. There were a few occasions when I actually defeated the pro-life side of the debate. That doesn't make them wrong, it just means that they could not defend themselves as well. In the same manner, I could not use my own personal beliefs to debate because I, in truth, really do not care. I am neutral. Therefore, I used the arguments I had heard used by more than a few creationists with a few added thoughts of my own since I was trying to form my own argument. I know full well that I am not an avid student of cell science. I understand the most basic of precepts, but beyond that I really do not care. I leave the knowledge of that to men who are more interested in it, and they leave the study of history to people like me who are more interested in it than they are. I just felt like throwing in a little evolutionary debate into the mix. Sorry it didn't work out as well as I had hoped. I now know that if I ever have to argue one side or the other in the future I will need to do more research.

Dempublicents1

31-10-2005, 20:47

Ok, I did not understand you. No, I do not believe the screwed up when copying them down. I don't believe that any of the twelve disciples yawned while they were copying the teachings of Christ down and missed something vital. I do not believe that Moses might have sneezed while writing down the Ten Commandments. I cannot accept that God would allow the core of his message to be tarnished in any way by man no matter how hard man tried to do so.

So you believe then, that God doesn't understand biology (as it is evident that many of the laws in the OT are based on a very flawed understanding of it indeed), that God supports the denigration of women, slavery, and genocide? Either God supports (or supported, and then changed God's mind, which you have already said can't happen, since God doesn't change) these things, or the men writing the Scriptures got some things wrong.

Which is it? Did God think a woman who didn't bleed on her wedding night was necessarily not a virgin, or was God actually aware that the hymen (a) doesn't always bleed when broken, (b) can be broken by normal everyday activities - ie. ridiing a horse (or camel), and (c) not all women even have hymens and the men writing the laws just thought it was necessary?

Which is it? Did God think that a rabbit chewed the cud? Or did God actually know that a rabbit does no such thing, but men saw rabbits chewing their food again (actually after swallowing their own feces) and thought it must be like cows?

Which is it? Did God think that a woman attacked in a large town would automatically be rescued from her rapist if she didn't actually want it? Or did God realize that a woman could be raped and not rescued, and men blamed the victim (just as many do today), saying that "if she didn't want it, she would've cried out and someone would've helped her."

Looking at the men who assembled it, I do not believe that it was in any way marred or the message covered up, no matter what attempts to twist it transpired.

This line of thought assumes that any marring would be intentional on the part of the men involved (most of whom, btw, were more politicians than anything else - and I have little trust for politicians). And like I said, I'm not talking about changing the underlying message. I'm talking about varying details that can make the message seem different to different people.

I don't think anyone intentionally altered or changed the message. I think that human beings are fallible, and we will see any message (even from divine inspiration) through our own fallible minds. Each apostle (none of whom appear to have actually written anything down - it is much more likely that their followers wrote it down later, when people realized that "soon" didn't mean "tomorrow" or even "in my lifetime") had his own view of Christ's message, as run through his own fallible mind. The people who passed down ancient Hebrew stories and eventually wrote them down had their own view of revelation. The priests who compiled law after law after law in the Hebrew tradition had their own views of revelation. Were any of them WRONG? I don't think so. Were they wrong on some things? Of course. Just as you are wrong on some things, I am wrong on some things, the guy down the street is wrong on some things. Not a single one of us is infallible and none of us can claim complete understanding even of our own revelations, much less those made to other human beings.

Also, have you never been in a debate in which you supported a side in which you were opposed?

Certainly. It's fun to do occasionally. I once had a whole classful of girls really ticked off at me for arguing the, "Women shouldn't be allowed to fight in the front lines of the military" side of a debate.

That doesn't make them wrong, it just means that they could not defend themselves as well.

The only way you could have possibly truly defeated them in a debate is by using truthful statements to back you up. You couldn't have one the debate, for instance, by shouting, "I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE FETUS DOESN'T HAVE A SOUl UNTIL IT IS BORN THEREFORE I AM RIGHT." That doesn't have anything behind it that you can demonstrate to be truthful. You could have won, however, by bringing in other truthful statements, even if you are not personally convinced by them.

In the same manner, I could not use my own personal beliefs to debate because I, in truth, really do not care. I am neutral. Therefore, I used the arguments I had heard used by more than a few creationists with a few added thoughts of my own since I was trying to form my own argument.

And since their arguments are inherently flawed by the misunderstandings and (often) complete lack of factual data in them, you cannot possibly have a solid debate using them. This is no different than if I said, "I don't really have any opinion on religion. I don't know anything about it. So I just found some random atheists who don't understand the situation, and took their arguments. It doesn't really matter to me if they are solid arguments."

I know full well that I am not an avid student of cell science. I understand the most basic of precepts, but beyond that I really do not care. I leave the knowledge of that to men who are more interested in it, and they leave the study of history to people like me who are more interested in it than they are.

You may be surprised how interested in history biologists may be =). My advisor is one of the most well-read people I know, in all sorts of subjects - including history. I, myself, am very interested in history, although I don't have the time to study it as much as I may like - at least not until I finish this degree.....one of these days.......hehe. I am also very interested in theology, philosophy (although my interest in philosophy is purely interest - I don't see much, well, real-world application in it), and music.

The thing is, if you aren't interested in something enough to truly research it, you cannot expect to have any type of solid debate about it. If you were ever on any sort of debate team, or even simply had debates in class, as I did, you would know that debate isn't about repeating talking points and screaming rhetoric. If your support isn't solid, and your opponent isn't trying to pass of non-solid support as well, you aren't going to get through the debate without looking a little silly. It seems that there is at least one person on these forums that has researched just about any topic in quite a bit of depth, so if you don't do the research, you'll find yourself out of your league really quickly - I certainly have.

I just felt like throwing in a little evolutionary debate into the mix. Sorry it didn't work out as well as I had hoped. I now know that if I ever have to argue one side or the other in the future I will need to do more research.

=)

And I'll be sure not to try to debate anything historical with you, at least not without doing my research. =)

BAAWA

31-10-2005, 21:34

Actually it is impossible for man to understand infinity.
Actually, it's not, as I've shown.

Hint: infinity is a mathematical concept. It has no application outside of math.

Why would God need time?
Because creating is a temporal act.

If God has existed forever, then He doesn't conform to the bounds of time. Something that has no begining does not conform to the bounds of chronology.
How can god exist apart from the universe? What is the ontology for it?

Omni Conglomerates

31-10-2005, 23:09

Actually, it's not, as I've shown.

Hint: infinity is a mathematical concept. It has no application outside of math.

Because creating is a temporal act.

How can god exist apart from the universe? What is the ontology for it?

Actually, no you have not. Your knowing that something is infinite does not show understanding of it. Can you really comprehend the concept of an infinite universe, or can you simply give it definition by the lack of comprehension of it? I can't place a limit on this, so I will just give it this definition and throw it in the corner until we have some means of giving it measure.

Also, you are putting limits on the omnipotent. You are trying to apply math and physics to the creator of math and physics. God created such concepts but is not subject to them.

God created the universe. There was God, and then there was God and the universe. God is a spiritual being, not a physical form. You cannot define God in terms of weight, height, shape, size, coloration. God can manifest physical form, but God is nevertheless inherently spiritual. When I speak of God, I speak of a being with the power to create a universe at His whim. That takes an infinitely powerful God, a God you cannot place limit on. Which again is why I say beyond our understanding. The world of science gets in to trouble when it tries to define God, the being who made the concept of science possible.

This is why I like my theology and my science separate.

Sol Giuldor

31-10-2005, 23:23

Gymoor II The Return

31-10-2005, 23:36

Economic Associates

31-10-2005, 23:39

UpwardThrust

31-10-2005, 23:41

New Sans

31-10-2005, 23:41

This was a joke, right?

*Looks at poster in question*

September join date: Check
Post count below five: Check
Random inflamitory statements: Check

Yea pretty much.

Dempublicents1

31-10-2005, 23:42

Wow just wow. Do you even have a basic understanding of the theory of evolution? I mean if you did understand it you'd already have the answers to all the mer men and bird people questions. Also free will has nothing to do with evolution at all. And the theory of evolution says nothing about what animals we evolved from.

I'm wondering how it was demonstrated that humans are the only creatures with free will - as if we are the only creatures that make decisions?

Gymoor II The Return

31-10-2005, 23:52

I'm wondering how it was demonstrated that humans are the only creatures with free will - as if we are the only creatures that make decisions?

Studies have shown that bonobos and dolphins have self-awareness. Proving that they have free will is as difficult as proving that we have free will.

Omni Conglomerates

01-11-2005, 00:14

Studies have shown that bonobos and dolphins have self-awareness. Proving that they have free will is as difficult as proving that we have free will.

That is an interesting statement. I have heard that dolphins were said to be highly intelligent creatures, but I had not heard they were self-aware. How exactly does one go about proving self-awareness? I am just wondering.

Dempublicents1

01-11-2005, 00:17

That is an interesting statement. I have heard that dolphins were said to be highly intelligent creatures, but I had not heard they were self-aware. How exactly does one go about proving self-awareness? I am just wondering.

They did an experiment with a chimp that had been taught sign language once. They gave the chimp a stack of pictures - human beings and various types of apes. They asked the chimp to sort the pictures into two stacks - human beings and apes. The chimp did all of them completely correctly - save one - he put the picture of himself in the human pile. He was apparently aware that there was something different about him. That could be one way.

Good Lifes

01-11-2005, 08:09

Do I believe in alien abductions? I would have to believe in intelligent life beyond ours first. Do I believe that life can exist on other worlds? Of course it can, if God willed that it be there. My Biblical view allows for flora and fauna, but nothing that thinks and reasons like man. In other words, nothing that else that is made in God's image exists out here. (That being spiritual image, not physical. God has no physical image, physical manifestation, but not physical image.)

Omni, Did you ever consider why the majority of the Jews missed the messiah? Could it be that they had an idea in their head as to what the messiah was supposed to look like and was supposed to do and the facts didn't conform to the image they had in their head? Did it make the Messiah wrong or the teachings wrong when what they expected to happen didn't happen the way they expected it to happen? Or could it be that they needed to consider that language is flawed and when we use language we use it with a prejudice. We see meaning based on what we have been told and what we expect rather than what the language says. Could it be that Christians have a prejudice toward one meaning in the scriptures and refuse to consider other meanings? Could it be that Christians are doing the same as the Pharisees when they strained the gnat and swallowed the camel (Mat 23:24)? Could it be that "conservative" Christians are too hung up on the language to see the meaning? Jesus didn't come in the exact language, he came in the meaning of the prophets. The Pharesees (the conservative religious believers at the time) had memorized the bible, but didn't know it's meaning. They memorized the law, but didn't understand what the symbols stood for. Example---Why could they eat chicken but not eagles? Chickens eat seed, they don't kill to live. Eagles live off the suffering of others. At every meal, the Jews were to see how they were to live. They were to live as the things they were allowed to eat, and not live as the things they were not allowed to eat. The Pharesees, just like today's "conservative" Christians got hung up on the symbol rather than the meaning.

There is NOTHING in the theory of evolution that denys God. Just read Genesis as a symbol and not a LAW.

Why did I quote the above? Read John 14:2. The Bible does not deny other intelligent beings in the universe. If you read the scripture with an open mind, Jesus may today be finding a place for many others. We are in God's image? But God is a spirit. Then we are essentially a spirit that lives in a puppet. Why could God not put his spiritual likeness in many puppets? Where does the Bible ever say that ONLY man was made in God's image?

I think you, and all the "conservative" Christians need to put away your commentaries and dream of possibilities. God is a dreamer not a dictator.

BackwoodsSquatches

01-11-2005, 09:38

Do I believe in things supernatural? Yes. Do I believe in ghosts? I am very skeptical,

As you point out later in your answer, wich I snipped, you say that an open mind is required when believing in a supernatural all powerful being.

My question to you then, is why are ghosts, or spirits, hard to believe, but the aformentioned all powerful diety, is not?
Both have about as much evidence to prove their existance, only ghosts have many more eye-witness accounts to support thier existance.

Do I believe in man possessing power such as telepathy, telekinesis, or a sixth sense? Yes and no. Man uses ten percent of his brain. God gave man a very powerful thing when He gave us the brain we have, and we only tap ten percent of it. I believe that there are some who use their brain a little more than others, but I am still very skeptical of accounts of such people. I am open to the idea that such things are possible, but I prefer to exhaust all other explainations first.

So then, psychic powers make you very skeptical, but miracles do not?

You have an athiests mind, my friend, except that you choose to believe in something wich cannot be supported except by the weakest of evidences.
You see, when I ask myself, "do I believe in God?", or similar questions, I too, look for the most rational answer.
In my case no other answers make sense, especially in terms of creation, than scienctific ones.

So then, with a mostly analytical mind, you are naturally skeptical of such things as ghosts, or alien abductions, or psychic phenomenon.
However, when it comes to the ultimate questions in life, especially "where did it all start?".....you turn completely around, and choose God and a quick and easy solution.

Surely you must see the absurdity.

Its perfectly natural and probably wise to be skeptical of anything deemed "supernatural", simply, becuase there is so little solid evidence that any of it is real.
But, when faced with the question of the ULTIMATE SUPERNATURAL...do you not find it strange that you show none of the cauton and reserve as other subjects?

My contention is this:

Christians are exactly like ghost hunters, or psychic mediums, or folks claiming to have been taken aboard a space ship, and probed.

They choose to believe, regardless of how little proof there is.

If then, Christians, or any other religious types, can be so choosy in what they believe spiritually, how can any of it be real?

The answer is simple:

It cannot.

God does not exist beyond the minds of those who follow him.
To you, as a christian, god is very real, although most likely in a distant sense.
Outside of your mind, there is nothing to consolidate God as an entity.

God is no more real than Odin, or Zues, or Ra, but to those who believed in them, they exist.

Gymoor II The Return

01-11-2005, 11:11

That is an interesting statement. I have heard that dolphins were said to be highly intelligent creatures, but I had not heard they were self-aware. How exactly does one go about proving self-awareness? I am just wondering.

They did various tests to see if they recognized themselves in mirrors or thought it was another Dolphin/Bonobo.

Here's a link for an article about the study on dolphins.

http://www.jhu.edu/~newslett/05-3-01/Science/2.html

UpwardThrust

01-11-2005, 15:31

They did various tests to see if they recognized themselves in mirrors or thought it was another Dolphin/Bonobo.

Here's a link for an article about the study on dolphins.

http://www.jhu.edu/~newslett/05-3-01/Science/2.html
Cool thanks!

Pzra

01-11-2005, 16:04

I am a fellow believer in Jesus Christ being the only way to salvation.
I think that you are exactly right.
The reason, I belive that is evident in the Bible, that God made all things, is for his glory. Why are some people saved and others not? It's so the belivers will look at God and think that 'it's nothing that I've done.'
Another thing. The Bible says that man has no excuse for not beliving in Christ because of all the nature found around him. So that someone will look at Nature and wonder/ponder at the creator of the all of it.
All of evolution has no backing for the evidence that they bring. All most all of the evolutionists twist and lie about all of the facts that one brings forth. I think that .0125% of the skeletons evolutions find, matches their thoery, with the twistin and lying. Why didn't all of the 95% of the sea shells. or ect. change?
I back up your theory.
I'm from Three Rivers Michigan, and I'm 17. My country is Pzra

Bottle

01-11-2005, 16:09

That is an interesting statement. I have heard that dolphins were said to be highly intelligent creatures, but I had not heard they were self-aware. How exactly does one go about proving self-awareness? I am just wondering.
This is actually one of the most fascinating research areas out there, because it's so difficult to come up with solid standards for "consciousness" or "self-awareness."

For instance, using most modern tests of self-awareness, a chimp is more self-aware and conscious than a 4-year-old human child...what does that do to our concept of "humanity" as distinct from all other forms of animal life?

Balipo

01-11-2005, 16:53

Hello, and I am adamant that the evolutionist idiots who try and pass off evolution as a valid argument be silenced for good. If we evolved from primates, WHY ARE WE THE ONLY RACE WITH FREE WILL??? Evolution theory states that mankind evolved from a monkey, if so, why aren't there mer people that evolved from fish? Or bird people that evolved from birds? I am a devout Catholic, and am tired of hearing such liberal and idiotic talk, God is offended enough by our sins, now you are trying to disprove his existance?
Also, infinte is a not a valid statement to the human mind, meaning we cannot understand it at all. So dont try. You will hurt your brain. I have tried:confused:

We are the only race (really species should be here) with free will?

I'm pretty sure the will of a bears, bees, carpenter ants, and any other fairly intelligent lifeform is not hindered in regard to free will. I have never seen them controlled mentally or anything.

Why aren't there "mer-people" descended from fish? Let's stretch this a bit. Will you agree that the mammal is the most evolved life form? And if so, dolphins and whales, which are highly intelligent (more so than all other marine life), could be the "humans of the sea"? I think that is possible.

If god is offended that shite on him for creating the offensive. I think it is truly idiotic to walk around with your hands over your eyes and say "I refuse to believe in these proven things because I don't want to". God created and delights in those too weak to realize he doesn't exist.

But then, evolutionary theory has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD. And many christians (some catholics too) have no problem accepting evolutionary theory and making it part of their belief in god. To deny the facts though, that's just idiocy.

Dempublicents1

01-11-2005, 17:56

My question to you then, is why are ghosts, or spirits, hard to believe, but the aformentioned all powerful diety, is not?

I can't answer for Omni, but I can answer for myself:

I have no personal experience of ghosts. I have no personal experience of psychic powers. These things very well might exist - and I am open to that possibility (although I would not consider them supernatural if they do exist, as they would still be bound by the rules pertaining to this universe).

I do have personal experience of God.

So then, with a mostly analytical mind, you are naturally skeptical of such things as ghosts, or alien abductions, or psychic phenomenon.
However, when it comes to the ultimate questions in life, especially "where did it all start?".....you turn completely around, and choose God and a quick and easy solution.

You make far too many assumptions my friend, the main one being that, because you have no experiences that have led you to believe in a God, no one else can have such experiences either.

Omni Conglomerates

01-11-2005, 19:50

Omni, Did you ever consider why the majority of the Jews missed the messiah? Could it be that they had an idea in their head as to what the messiah was supposed to look like and was supposed to do and the facts didn't conform to the image they had in their head? Did it make the Messiah wrong or the teachings wrong when what they expected to happen didn't happen the way they expected it to happen? Or could it be that they needed to consider that language is flawed and when we use language we use it with a prejudice. We see meaning based on what we have been told and what we expect rather than what the language says. Could it be that Christians have a prejudice toward one meaning in the scriptures and refuse to consider other meanings? Could it be that Christians are doing the same as the Pharisees when they strained the gnat and swallowed the camel (Mat 23:24)? Could it be that "conservative" Christians are too hung up on the language to see the meaning? Jesus didn't come in the exact language, he came in the meaning of the prophets. The Pharesees (the conservative religious believers at the time) had memorized the bible, but didn't know it's meaning. They memorized the law, but didn't understand what the symbols stood for. Example---Why could they eat chicken but not eagles? Chickens eat seed, they don't kill to live. Eagles live off the suffering of others. At every meal, the Jews were to see how they were to live. They were to live as the things they were allowed to eat, and not live as the things they were not allowed to eat. The Pharesees, just like today's "conservative" Christians got hung up on the symbol rather than the meaning.

There is NOTHING in the theory of evolution that denys God. Just read Genesis as a symbol and not a LAW.

Why did I quote the above? Read John 14:2. The Bible does not deny other intelligent beings in the universe. If you read the scripture with an open mind, Jesus may today be finding a place for many others. We are in God's image? But God is a spirit. Then we are essentially a spirit that lives in a puppet. Why could God not put his spiritual likeness in many puppets? Where does the Bible ever say that ONLY man was made in God's image?

I think you, and all the "conservative" Christians need to put away your commentaries and dream of possibilities. God is a dreamer not a dictator.

"Conservative"

That is pretty funny. It has been a long time since I have been labeled a conservative Christian. You haven't read much of what I have said have you?

I will argue a few points, though. While I am neutral in the arguement over the interpretation of Genesis, I will ask who are you to decide that it is symbol and not law? Are you saying that God couldn't not have done it that way? Are you saying that he could not make the world as it looks today in the blink of an eye? Just a question.

Also, the majority of Jews missed the Messaih because they did not listen to the words of their own nabi, their prophets. The old Hebrew texts do not point to a military leader for salvation. The priests of the time simply preached that someone would come to deliver them from the current conquering power, the Romans, because it was a popular idea amoungst the Hebrew people who disliked Roman rule intensely.

Another point I would make involves the practicality of the law over the symbolism. Pork for example was a meat that would quickly rot and could not be stored. Disease was easily spread in the time before proper medicine. The same goes for the regulations on mildew. God was looking out for the well being of His people. In many things, there was not so much symbolism as there was practicality.

Also, I will say this, your arguments for the possibility of other intelligent beings are really not very good if you are only going to use the Bible. The omission of their mention does not mean that they exist, nor does it mean that they do not exist. I tend to lean on the side of caution and say that they do not. This is because, not being Mormon, I say the work of Jesus was through when he said it was. I do not believe his is out saving the people of Alpha Centauri. Which is why I do not believe they exist in the first place. If they were intelligent beings, then they would in turn have souls, and I don't believe God would leave anything with a soul out of the possibility of achieving salvation.

One last note, God is both dreamer and dictator, actually. Even as I cannot ignore the law over the meaning behind it, you cannot simply disreguard one part because you favor it more, either. You have to take both law and love, judgement and forgiveness hand in hand. You cannot forget either.

As you point out later in your answer, wich I snipped, you say that an open mind is required when believing in a supernatural all powerful being.

My question to you then, is why are ghosts, or spirits, hard to believe, but the aformentioned all powerful diety, is not?
Both have about as much evidence to prove their existance, only ghosts have many more eye-witness accounts to support thier existance.

So then, psychic powers make you very skeptical, but miracles do not?

You have an athiests mind, my friend, except that you choose to believe in something wich cannot be supported except by the weakest of evidences.
You see, when I ask myself, "do I believe in God?", or similar questions, I too, look for the most rational answer.
In my case no other answers make sense, especially in terms of creation, than scienctific ones.

So then, with a mostly analytical mind, you are naturally skeptical of such things as ghosts, or alien abductions, or psychic phenomenon.
However, when it comes to the ultimate questions in life, especially "where did it all start?".....you turn completely around, and choose God and a quick and easy solution.

Surely you must see the absurdity.

Its perfectly natural and probably wise to be skeptical of anything deemed "supernatural", simply, becuase there is so little solid evidence that any of it is real.
But, when faced with the question of the ULTIMATE SUPERNATURAL...do you not find it strange that you show none of the cauton and reserve as other subjects?

My contention is this:

Christians are exactly like ghost hunters, or psychic mediums, or folks claiming to have been taken aboard a space ship, and probed.

They choose to believe, regardless of how little proof there is.

If then, Christians, or any other religious types, can be so choosy in what they believe spiritually, how can any of it be real?

The answer is simple:

It cannot.

God does not exist beyond the minds of those who follow him.
To you, as a christian, god is very real, although most likely in a distant sense.
Outside of your mind, there is nothing to consolidate God as an entity.

God is no more real than Odin, or Zues, or Ra, but to those who believed in them, they exist.

Interesting argument.

I am a skeptic. This is true. I am a skeptic in all things, except when it comes to God. I was a skeptic before I became a Christian. God, to me, is as real as any person I see and touch. I do not feel his presence distantly. I see God in everything around me. I feel His presences within me, guiding me. It is something that no one can really explain to someone else. It has to be experienced. What I have been through in my life has left me with no doubt that there is a God. It argues against every fiber of my logical nature, but I still believe it to be true. You are right that it is a contradiction in the way I percieve everything else, and I have been over all of those questions in my mind a thousand times as to why I believe what I do. Every Christian who has even a shred of education does the same thing. It is not something we can viably explain to you. We have faith. We question it sometime, often times actually, but we do not doubt. I know how it sounds, but it is what we believe, reguardless.

Mt-Tau

01-11-2005, 20:11

I only suggested teaching them both in both types of classrooms because people would probably bitch about it being biased if it was only taught in one. If you teach religion in a science class, the science teacher is more likely to point out it's not a "theory" just as religious teachers would be likely to point out the flaws with evolution.

You nailed why I go with evolution over any scripture. You have a scientific theory, based on countless man hours, observation, and analysis by very educated people. This versus someone arguing against it who has a book thats X x 1000 years old. Then they did not have the knowledge or equipment that is availible now. The best they had was speculation and superstition. I am in no way saying the religious teacher is uneducated, however I will beleave in math and science over blind faith anyday.

BackwoodsSquatches

02-11-2005, 00:21

I can't answer for Omni, but I can answer for myself:

I have no personal experience of ghosts. I have no personal experience of psychic powers. These things very well might exist - and I am open to that possibility (although I would not consider them supernatural if they do exist, as they would still be bound by the rules pertaining to this universe).

I do have personal experience of God.

You make far too many assumptions my friend, the main one being that, because you have no experiences that have led you to believe in a God, no one else can have such experiences either.

Forgive the brevity of this response, and the inflammitory sounding text, but my time is short.
I do not wish to flame.

Your "personal experiences" with God do not exist.

They are nothing more than you convincing yourself you had such experiences.
Outside of your mind, there is nothing to show that you hjave communed with any god.

More later.

Isurus Oxyrinchus

02-11-2005, 00:48

I am not arguing that it should be taught in classrooms. I am also not that comfortable with the idea of evolution being taught as is in the classrooms. I would rather see a teacher admit lack of knowledge by science than science trying to jumble together a theory simply to have an answer.

As far as teaching Creationism in the home and school, that is what I do. In fact, it is part of my job description.

Much thanks for your comment, and I do plan to enjoy it for all it is worth.

As you mentioned, science is not your strong point, so I will fill you in with some background on science and theories. Science is basically tring to find answers to questions we have using all the available facts we have at our disposal, at that time. A "theory" is a informed, educated guess, using the facts we have at that point in time. So, keep in mind that a theory is NOT a fact, only sciences best expailation to a question, at that given time, useing the information we have to work with. Scence is constantly disproving old theories, and theories we have today are at risk of being disproved at anytime, as soon as we learn new information, or technology allows us to observe things we can't at this point.

The "Theory of Evolution" has been revised several times, and most likely will be many more times as we learm more, and possible be comepletely disproved at some point. However, it is sciences best answer for how we came to be with the information we have at this point.

Creationism works in the opposite way, Making a statement and then using specific facts to "prove" it while rejecting information that would detract from it.

About 70% of scientist believe in God.

Dempublicents1

02-11-2005, 00:56

Your "personal experiences" with God do not exist.

That's a bold claim. Care to prove it (or at least provide evidence for it)?

They are nothing more than you convincing yourself you had such experiences.

Another bold claim. Care to prove it (or at least provide evidence for it)?

Outside of your mind, there is nothing to show that you hjave communed with any god.

There is nothing I can show you, this is true. If someone walked by me and hit me on a dark road when I was alone at night, but didn't leave a bruise, I could show you anything at all to show that it happened. Would that change the fact that it happened?

You are awfully bold to make such solid-sounding claims about the experiences of another. Unless you, yourself, are omnisicent, you have nothing with which to back them up but the workings of your own mind. Incidentally, that's all I have to back up my faith in God. Go figure.

Legendel

02-11-2005, 20:47

I'm sure you'll get a debate in no time.. the evolutionists are a feisty bunch these days.

Basically, Christian (Catholic) to Christian, the response is likely to revolve around the lack of scientific, empirical evidence for the existence of God, and the existence of empirical evidence supporting evolution. Most people who object to Creationism object to it being taught in a science class when considering the origin of the world or development of life on earth. Creationism is religion - I certainly wouldn't want kids to be taught evolutionary theory in religion class, so I can understand the desire to keep Creationism out of science class.

If you want kids to believe in Creationism, teach them at home and send them to Sunday school. Home is where teaching like this should be taking place anyways, imo.

Anyways, enjoy the hot-seat!

I guess I kind if agree. Creationism should NOT be taught in school except in a theology class, or philosophy class. But evolution has also gotten interwined with the philosophical ideals of atheism. Science today makes an effort not to even try to look for a creator.

Gymoor II The Return

02-11-2005, 20:50

I guess I kind if agree. Creationism should NOT be taught in school except in a theology class, or philosophy class. But evolution has also gotten interwined with the philosophical ideals of atheism. Science today makes an effort not to even try to look for a creator.

Devise an experiment that supports God and you'll revolutionize science. Get to it!

Legendel

02-11-2005, 20:55

I'm just saying, i believe in God mostly because of personal experiences and my faith in the bible. BUt thinkk of this . . . you recieve a code that has about as much info as the encyclopedia britannica scratched out on a rock that came from space. Most people would assumme that that is evidence for intelligent beings. DNA has MORE info than the encyclopedia britannica, so i take that as evidence of something intelligent that either A. Guided processes of evolution, or B. created creatures.

Omni Conglomerates

02-11-2005, 21:09

First, my apologies on not responding to several posts that have been made thus far. I am a full-time student and I support myself by working as a theatre hand (technical crew/theatrical electrician being the official titles) at a performing arts center. I get increadibly swamped with work at times. I have a few responses I will be posting up soon.

In response to Legendel's posting, I don't support scientific research for a creator either. There is no point. What is faith if you can see everything right before you? Where would forgiveness based of faith be? We would all be under the law again, and you saw just how well the Hebrews did under it.

UpwardThrust

02-11-2005, 21:20

Hebrews did under it.
Yeah god really fucked that one up
I guess we are lucky that the second try was the charm this time

Omni Conglomerates

02-11-2005, 21:48

Yeah god really fucked that one up
I guess we are lucky that the second try was the charm this time

Actually, man is the answer we were looking for; man really ------ that one up. Having free will, we are all accountable for our own actions no matter the circumstances.

Man cannot control the events life sends his way, but he can control how he reacts to those events.

UpwardThrust

02-11-2005, 21:52

Actually, man is the answer we were looking for; man really ------ that one up. Having free will, we are all accountable for our own actions no matter the circumstances.

Man cannot control the events life sends his way, but he can control how he reacts to those events.
Yeah but as you infered mosaic law as proscribed by god was obviously inferior method to salvation

I mean he even decided to revoke it and implement salvation version 2.0 (jesus)

Must have worked all the final bugs out of his ruleset

Omni Conglomerates

02-11-2005, 22:06

Yeah but as you infered mosaic law as proscribed by god was obviously inferior method to salvation

I mean he even decided to revoke it and implement salvation version 2.0 (jesus)

Must have worked all the final bugs out of his ruleset

As we have argued before in this thread, that implies that God used linear time or is even subject to it. You use linear time, I use linear time, but God created time. Assuming you can think in terms of there being a diety for a second and it in fact being the one I speak of, God was not born. He does not have a begining. That is us trying to use human terms that we understand and applying them to something infinitely more knowledgable and powerful then we are. The first plan is/was/will be always ment to go the way it did. It is a developmental process ment to come to a head. Of course, then we begin to go into predestination, which I am too tired to go into right now.

I think I will take a nap. Be back later tonight.

Good Lifes

02-11-2005, 23:29

"Conservative"

That is pretty funny. It has been a long time since I have been labeled a conservative Christian. You haven't read much of what I have said have you?

Are you saying that God couldn't not have done it that way? Are you saying that he could not make the world as it looks today in the blink of an eye? Just a question.

Also, the majority of Jews missed the Messaih because they did not listen to the words of their own nabi, their prophets. The old Hebrew texts do not point to a military leader for salvation. The priests of the time simply preached that someone would come to deliver them from the current conquering power, the Romans, because it was a popular idea amoungst the Hebrew people who disliked Roman rule intensely.

Another point I would make involves the practicality of the law over the symbolism. Pork for example was a meat that would quickly rot and could not be stored. Disease was easily spread in the time before proper medicine. The same goes for the regulations on mildew. God was looking out for the well being of His people. In many things, there was not so much symbolism as there was practicality.

I do not believe his is out saving the people of Alpha Centauri. Which is why I do not believe they exist in the first place. If they were intelligent beings, then they would in turn have souls, and I don't believe God would leave anything with a soul out of the possibility of achieving salvation.

Sorry if I assumed conservative. Usually a Creationist is a conservative.

Could God have created a world with fossils in the ground? Yes, but why would he create such confusion. God gave man a mind. I also assume (maybe I'm wrong) that he wanted man to ues it. I guess we could be Amish and go back 100 years. Or even go back 2000 years. But, I think God wanted us to gain knowledge.

"The priests of the time simply preached that someone would come to deliver them from the current conquering power, the Romans, because it was a popular idea amoungst the Hebrew people who disliked Roman rule intensely."
Your words say it all----TODAY the priests, ministers, preachers, etc. send out a message that is popular with the people, with little thought as to what is really in the scriptures. Pharisees are Pharisees no matter what they call themselves today. These same people once said that moving the earth from the center of the universe would destroy religion. Well, the universe changed, the earth became a minor planet, spinning around a minor star, on the edge of a minor galaxy, and religion wasn't destroyed. Evolution says nothing that would destroy religion any more than moving the earth did.

The laws of eating have some health benefits but that was not their purpose. They were given so the people could understand with every bite they took, how they were to live. Pigs are not naturally herd animals like cows, sheep, goats, deer. Herd animals take care of each other, Pigs take care of themselves. Fish without scales and crustaceans live on the bottom, in the mud. Fish with scales live above in the clean water. Followers should live above the mud, in mind as well as body. I could fill a page with explaining this, but if you look at the list of "clean" and "unclean" notice how each animal lives. The problem is the Pharisees remembered the rules but not the meaning. Jesus said, straining gnats and swallowing camels.

John 14:2 In My Father's house there are MANY rooms. Who might be in those "rooms"? Where does it say ONLY man was made in the image of God? Are there people on other planets? I don't know, but the Bible doesn't say no.

Dempublicents1

02-11-2005, 23:44

As we have argued before in this thread, that implies that God used linear time or is even subject to it. You use linear time, I use linear time, but God created time. Assuming you can think in terms of there being a diety for a second and it in fact being the one I speak of, God was not born. He does not have a begining. That is us trying to use human terms that we understand and applying them to something infinitely more knowledgable and powerful then we are. The first plan is/was/will be always ment to go the way it did. It is a developmental process ment to come to a head. Of course, then we begin to go into predestination, which I am too tired to go into right now.

I think I will take a nap. Be back later tonight.

Of course, if you truly believe that all of the OT laws came from God, you either have to believe that God lied to the ancient Hebrews (I suppose as part of the plan) or that much of human and animal biology drastically and immediately changed the minute the NT came into play. You also have to believe that God wanted genocide, slavery, and the denigration of women.

Personally, I'm not all about those beliefs.

BackwoodsSquatches

03-11-2005, 10:49

That's a bold claim. Care to prove it (or at least provide evidence for it)?

Another bold claim. Care to prove it (or at least provide evidence for it)?

There is nothing I can show you, this is true. If someone walked by me and hit me on a dark road when I was alone at night, but didn't leave a bruise, I could show you anything at all to show that it happened. Would that change the fact that it happened?

You are awfully bold to make such solid-sounding claims about the experiences of another. Unless you, yourself, are omnisicent, you have nothing with which to back them up but the workings of your own mind. Incidentally, that's all I have to back up my faith in God. Go figure.

The difference is, in the case you mention, two entities are involved.
You, and the man who hit you on the dark road.

Experiencing God, involves you, and your mind.

I could say that it is not up to me as the athiest to disprove a negative, but rather you, to prove your case.
However, I like to argue new lines of thinking from time to time...

You see, when you say you have "had a personal experience" with God, you probably mean an event where you most likely prayed for a certain outcome, and glory be, it happened!'
Or, you may mean a certain feeling you had, inside your mind, wherein you interperated it as a religious exprience..

Either way, there is nothing tangible to show for this conclusion drawn from that experience.
If such events, or feelings had no scientific explanations, or mundane explanations, there would be no doubting such "experiences".
Sadly, mere coincidence, or chemical changes in the body can often explain things nicely.

In other words, no evidence to prove any kind of experience with any sort of God.

In still other words, you believe, becuase it brings you comfort, not becuase God is real.

Lashie

03-11-2005, 11:33

Omni Conglomerates

03-11-2005, 13:21

The difference is, in the case you mention, two entities are involved.
You, and the man who hit you on the dark road.

Experiencing God, involves you, and your mind.

I could say that it is not up to me as the athiest to disprove a negative, but rather you, to prove your case.
However, I like to argue new lines of thinking from time to time...

You see, when you say you have "had a personal experience" with God, you probably mean an event where you most likely prayed for a certain outcome, and glory be, it happened!'
Or, you may mean a certain feeling you had, inside your mind, wherein you interperated it as a religious exprience..

Either way, there is nothing tangible to show for this conclusion drawn from that experience.
If such events, or feelings had no scientific explanations, or mundane explanations, there would be no doubting such "experiences".
Sadly, mere coincidence, or chemical changes in the body can often explain things nicely.

In other words, no evidence to prove any kind of experience with any sort of God.

In still other words, you believe, becuase it brings you comfort, not becuase God is real.

Still, you really haven't made an argument that disproves the existance of God. You are skeptically calling into question the validity of a religious experience, but I could just as easily argue that your atheism is merely you trying to convince yourself that there is no God because that idea brings you comfort.

Perhaps your disbelief in God is merely the result of your own internal wish for there not to be one.

Afterall, there is no evidence to prove the lack of an experience with God.

Just a note, religious experiences are more than you pray and it happened. Religious experiences more commonly occur in moments of deep worship when you are not asking anything of God more than His presence and love in your life. It is a indescribable feeling of absolute euphoria and comfort as one basks in the presence of the Lord. Of course, that is just based off of my personal observations during my own experiences and witnessing the experiences of others. Granted, when you work for the church as I do, you see people have religious experiences quite often, and I will tell you that there is nothing stranger than seeing a thirty year old biker break down into tears. That is a story for another time, though.

Lastly, I know I am behind in my responses to previous posts. Classes and work take their toll. Perhaps later tonight I will get some more responses up. Now off to the shower of solitude and then to class!

KShaya Vale

03-11-2005, 15:25

I could say that it is not up to me as the athiest to disprove a negative, but rather you, to prove your case.

One can't prove a negative, unless it's a mathmatical negative.

Back in the 1200's Nuclear Physics still exsisted. It always has. We just didn't discover it untill recently. But someone back in 1200 would tell you it didn't exsist. But there would be no way to prove it. Now we can prove it DOES exsist, proving a positive. But it has not always been so. Thus we may one day be able to prove God (or Goddess or whoever).

In still other words, you believe, becuase it brings you comfort, not becuase God is real.

One could also easily argue that you dont believe because God IS real and you can't handle the concept of someone beyond your ability to at least potentially affect. You believe God doesn't exsist because it brings you comfort, not because God isn't real.

</Devil's Advocate>

Iztatepopotla

03-11-2005, 15:48

If people want to believe in God that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. If they want to believin in heaven and the after life, that's also fine. But what I can't understand is why, oh, why do people with absolutely no grasp or understanding of science feel the need to debate science?

Please, all you people attempting to debunk science, make us all a favor and go read some books on what science is and how it works before you try to discuss it.

Otherwise it's like trying to explain colors to the blind.

Dempublicents1

03-11-2005, 17:13

The difference is, in the case you mention, two entities are involved.
You, and the man who hit you on the dark road.

Experiencing God, involves you, and your mind.

In order to say that, you must first make the assumption that there is no God.

You could just as well start from the assumption that there was no man on the dark road and say, "You must have imagined it, there is no man there."

I could say that it is not up to me as the athiest to disprove a negative, but rather you, to prove your case.
However, I like to argue new lines of thinking from time to time...

It is up to anyone who makes a definitive statement, if they are trying to support it as absolute, to provide evidence. Since you are making a definitive statement that there is no God, you have to back it up.

I have made no definitive statement that there is a God, and that you are just deluding yourself by not believe. Therefore, I have nothing that I need to prove to you.

You see, when you say you have "had a personal experience" with God, you probably mean an event where you most likely prayed for a certain outcome, and glory be, it happened!'
Or, you may mean a certain feeling you had, inside your mind, wherein you interperated it as a religious exprience..

I don't generally pray for any certain outcome and expect it to happen. I pray for guidance in my life, and I receive it.

Either way, there is nothing tangible to show for this conclusion drawn from that experience.

If you always needed something "tangible", human emotions like love would also be discounted, as all you have to say that you love someone is in your own mind.

If such events, or feelings had no scientific explanations, or mundane explanations, there would be no doubting such "experiences".
Sadly, mere coincidence, or chemical changes in the body can often explain things nicely.

It *can* explain things, but does it? Do the chemical changes come as a result of the experience, or as a cause of it? This isn't really something we can determine.

In other words, no evidence to prove any kind of experience with any sort of God.

The great thing is, I'm not trying to prove anything to you.

In still other words, you believe, becuase it brings you comfort, not becuase God is real.

This doesn't logically follow from anything you have said. It is based on an assumption that you started with to begin with - that there is no God. Obviously, I don't start with the same assumption, so I won't come to the same conclusions as you.

Your entire argument is, "I don't have evidence of this, so it doesn't exist." However, this is clearly a logical fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If people want to believe in God that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. If they want to believin in heaven and the after life, that's also fine. But what I can't understand is why, oh, why do people with absolutely no grasp or understanding of science feel the need to debate science?

Please, all you people attempting to debunk science, make us all a favor and go read some books on what science is and how it works before you try to discuss it.

Otherwise it's like trying to explain colors to the blind.

Maybe this is not your intention, but you seem to be suggesting that anyone who believes in God, heaven, and/or an afterlife (a) have no grasp or understanding of science and (b) tries to debunk science.

Interestingly enough, most scientists believe in a God, and often, in heaven or some afterlife. We still understand science, and we don't try to debunk it.

Uncle Vulgarian

03-11-2005, 20:50

One can't prove a negative, unless it's a mathmatical negative.</Devil's Advocate>

Unless I'm misunderstanding you I'm pretty sure I can prove a negative.

The earth isn't square.

Proof:

http://www.notinourname.net/graphics/globes/earth_graphics.html

Iztatepopotla

03-11-2005, 20:50

Maybe this is not your intention, but you seem to be suggesting that anyone who believes in God, heaven, and/or an afterlife (a) have no grasp or understanding of science and (b) tries to debunk science.
No, that was not my intention. On the contrary, I believe that religion and science can coexist in the same individual. The point I was trying to make is that it seems that only those people who don't have grasp on science try to debunk it and it's therefore useless to debate them.

The religion disclaimer is there so that I won't be accused of being a god-hating atheist.

Dempublicents1

03-11-2005, 20:59

No, that was not my intention. On the contrary, I believe that religion and science can coexist in the same individual. The point I was trying to make is that it seems that only those people who don't have grasp on science try to debunk it and it's therefore useless to debate them.

The religion disclaimer is there so that I won't be accused of being a god-hating atheist.

KK, no problem then =)

The South Islands

03-11-2005, 21:00

Unless I'm misunderstanding you I'm pretty sure I can prove a negative.

The earth isn't square.

Proof:

http://www.notinourname.net/graphics/globes/earth_graphics.html

But you can't prove absolutely that it is round. Your eyes could be decieving you. You can prove beyond all reasonable doubt, but nothing can be proven false totally.

Kystiva

04-11-2005, 00:07

I couldn't stop myself.

What I really don't understand about religion is the whole "god will lead you" then a second later "god gave you free will". Someone (pretty sure it was post number 1) said that they didn't think god would let anyone misrepresent him in the bible, that he wanted it to be this way. Doesn't that mean he would have taken away someone's free will in order to keep the bible the way he wanted it? Sounds like a serious contradiction to me.

I know what I'm talking about, too people. I was mormon for seven years. Now I'm happily pagan.

The Psyker

04-11-2005, 00:31

Letila

04-11-2005, 01:31

I really don't care much either way on the creationism/evolutionism thing. I'm more interested in the ethics and philosophy behind Christianity. I could do a debate on those terms, if you want.

Omni Conglomerates

04-11-2005, 01:43

I really don't care much either way on the creationism/evolutionism thing. I'm more interested in the ethics and philosophy behind Christianity. I could do a debate on those terms, if you want.

Sure, but I may be slow in responding. I have a rather large response post I am trying to type up. Actually, it isn't rather large. I just haven't had the time to finish it. I feel that I should respond to what others have said first for the sake of common curtesy. I will be more than happy to debate the ethics and philosophy behind the Christian faith or the Christian religion. It is your pick.

Good Lifes

04-11-2005, 04:12

Unless I'm misunderstanding you I'm pretty sure I can prove a negative.

The earth isn't square.

Proof:

http://www.notinourname.net/graphics/globes/earth_graphics.html

The problem with any proof is you have to make an assumption and base evidence on that assumption.

We assume that our vision isn't distorted, we assume our cameras aren't distorted, we assume traveling in one direction and returning from the other means round, we assume our instruments are accurate. We assume we exist.

How do we "know" the earth orbits and the stars are still instead of the other way around? We don't. We assume that it would be easier for the earth to orbit than for the stars to orbit the earth. But everything would LOOK the same if the earth were still and everything else moved around it.

Logic demands we start with what we all agree with and build from there. If we assume the Bible is 100% correct, we build from there. If we assume the scientific model brings "truth" we build from there. So the question becomes, what do we all agree with? Do we agree that the fossils ar the remains of actual plants and animals, or are they "plants" put in the ground to throw people off? If we can find one agreement we can build together. If we can't we pass in the night.

CthulhuFhtagn

04-11-2005, 04:40

Not all that devout if you don't know that the last pope came out in favor of evolution and science as being there to describe the how of creation with it being religons role to explain the why. Of course thats asuming you aren't a puppet.
The current Pope supports evolution too.

The poster might not be a puppet, though. There is a guy who used to troll NS that was a Catholic, a creationist, and had a Latin-sounding name.

Edit: I checked the other posts he has made, and I suspect that TT is back.

Dempublicents1

04-11-2005, 06:05

I couldn't stop myself.

What I really don't understand about religion is the whole "god will lead you" then a second later "god gave you free will".

There is no contradiction here. If I ask a guide to lead me through a forest, I still have the option of either following him or not following him. In fact, I made the choice to ask him for that guidance in the first place.

Asking God to lead you is no different. I make the choice to ask for guidance. I then make the choice to follow the guidance I receive. I didn't have to ask for guidance, and I could easily choose not to follow it.

Eolam

04-11-2005, 06:07

Hello, and I am adamant that the evolutionist idiots who try and pass off evolution as a valid argument be silenced for good. If we evolved from primates, WHY ARE WE THE ONLY RACE WITH FREE WILL???

Humans are primates; that is, they belong to the biological order Primates. "Race," by the way, is valid only in the context of sub-species-tier divisions - it is not taxonomically interchangeable with "species." I'd be interested to know what you meant by "free will."

Evolution theory states that mankind evolved from a monkey

It quite plainly does not. Precisely what do you mean by "monkey"?

if so, why aren't there mer people that evolved from fish? Or bird people that evolved from birds?

Evolution does not proceed with distinct aims.

Also, infinte is a not a valid statement to the human mind, meaning we cannot understand it at all. So dont try. You will hurt your brain. I have tried:confused:

Personal failure to comprehend such a concept is not tantamount to universal inability.

BackwoodsSquatches

04-11-2005, 13:08

Still, you really haven't made an argument that disproves the existance of God. You are skeptically calling into question the validity of a religious experience, but I could just as easily argue that your atheism is merely you trying to convince yourself that there is no God because that idea brings you comfort.

What comfort can athiesim bring?
Being an athiest, means that Im sure that there is no God, watching over me, or anyone else.
It means ultimately, we are spiritually alone.
It would be far more comforting to know that I am wrong, and that there is a benevolent creator watching over us.

So rest assured that Im not trying to convince myself to bring me comfort.
Thats rather silly.

Perhaps your disbelief in God is merely the result of your own internal wish for there not to be one.

Again, why would I wish that?

Afterall, there is no evidence to prove the lack of an experience with God.

Wait...so youre saying there is no proof that you didnt have an experience with god?

So, youre saying that if anyone claims to have spoken to marilyn Monroe, 43 years after her death, they should be taken at face value, becuase there is no proof to discredit them?

My point is, you can claim that god has spoken to you, or that you had an experience with him, but what can you show me to make me believe you?

Nothing.

So then, how can you expect someone who doubts, to take that at face value?

The only thing you offer, is your word.
Since your word is claiming to be in some sort of contact with the ultimate supernatural force in the universe, the only rational, and logical recourse, given the lack of evidence to support your claim, is to reject it entirely.

Just a note, religious experiences are more than you pray and it happened. Religious experiences more commonly occur in moments of deep worship when you are not asking anything of God more than His presence and love in your life. It is a indescribable feeling of absolute euphoria and comfort as one basks in the presence of the Lord. Of course, that is just based off of my personal observations during my own experiences and witnessing the experiences of others. Granted, when you work for the church as I do, you see people have religious experiences quite often, and I will tell you that there is nothing stranger than seeing a thirty year old biker break down into tears. That is a story for another time, though.

I have a story for you as well.

There is this martial arts instructor who claims to be able to focus his chi so well, he can render opponents unconcious, without even touching them.
He sets up one of his disciples, and makes a little show of concentrating, shouts a "kia!" and performs a little thrusting manuver, and the student falls down.

Then he puts another student behind a sheet, so they cant see the blow coming.
Then, he does the same thing.
Sure enough, the student falls down.

So, a Italian pysicist wanted to see how it was done, and if it could be performed on him.
He went to the school, and the sensei was happy to oblige.
Strangely, the instructor was unable to affect the scientist at all.

Why?

Becuase the students were followers of this man, and were in a way, expected to be knocked out.
Thus, they were subsceptible to suggestion.
They did, perhaps even unconciously, what they were expected to do.

The same is true with religion.

You felt a euphoria, becuase you convinced yourself you should, and your brain obliged.
Its sort of like hypnosis, your condition your mind to feel this way, when in church, or while praying.

Its really no different.

[/QUOTE]

Omni Conglomerates

04-11-2005, 13:23

What comfort can athiesim bring?
Being an athiest, means that Im sure that there is no God, watching over me, or anyone else.
It means ultimately, we are spiritually alone.
It would be far more comforting to know that I am wrong, and that there is a benevolent creator watching over us.

So rest assured that Im not trying to convince myself to bring me comfort.
Thats rather silly.

Again, why would I wish that?

Wait...so youre saying there is no proof that you didnt have an experience with god?

So, youre saying that if anyone claims to have spoken to marilyn Monroe, 43 years after her death, they should be taken at face value, becuase there is no proof to discredit them?

My point is, you can claim that god has spoken to you, or that you had an experience with him, but what can you show me to make me believe you?

Nothing.

So then, how can you expect someone who doubts, to take that at face value?

The only thing you offer, is your word.
Since your word is claiming to be in some sort of contact with the ultimate supernatural force in the universe, the only rational, and logical recourse, given the lack of evidence to support your claim, is to reject it entirely.

I have a story for you as well.

There is this martial arts instructor who claims to be able to focus his chi so well, he can render opponents unconcious, without even touching them.
He sets up one of his disciples, and makes a little show of concentrating, shouts a "kia!" and performs a little thrusting manuver, and the student falls down.

Then he puts another student behind a sheet, so they cant see the blow coming.
Then, he does the same thing.
Sure enough, the student falls down.

So, a Italian pysicist wanted to see how it was done, and if it could be performed on him.
He went to the school, and the sensei was happy to oblige.
Strangely, the instructor was unable to affect the scientist at all.

Why?

Becuase the students were followers of this man, and were in a way, expected to be knocked out.
Thus, they were subsceptible to suggestion.
They did, perhaps even unconciously, what they were expected to do.

The same is true with religion.

You felt a euphoria, becuase you convinced yourself you should, and your brain obliged.
Its sort of like hypnosis, your condition your mind to feel this way, when in church, or while praying.

Its really no different.

For starters, the existance of God means the existance of absolute morality, black and white, right and wrong. It means that we are all unclean animals not fit for the presence of the almighty. Salvation, for the Christian, means total submission of the self to the will of God. Trust me, Atheism is the far easier path. If I believed I had just this one life, I would live it up for me. I would live this life for my own personal pleasure and comfort.

As far as suggestion, why did I feel euphoria? No one taught me what I was going to feel. No one said,"This is what happens when you have a religious experience." Before I became a Christian I had heard that some people suffered from stigmata during their religious experiences. Why didn't I bleed from my palms, feet, and side then?

Lastly, I don't want to make you believe me. I can only present to you what I know as the truth. If I can convince you of it, then someone else can convince against it again. The job of the Christian is not to prove the correctness of Christianity, but to simply present the faith as what it is, faith. You are right that my belief flies in the face of all logic. I know that better than you think. All I can ask of you is to keep an open mind, and that you realize that human logic can be very fallible.

BackwoodsSquatches

04-11-2005, 13:41

For starters, the existance of God means the existance of absolute morality, black and white, right and wrong. It means that we are all unclean animals not fit for the presence of the almighty. Salvation, for the Christian, means total submission of the self to the will of God. Trust me, Atheism is the far easier path. If I believed I had just this one life, I would live it up for me. I would live this life for my own personal pleasure and comfort.

No, trust me, Christianity is far easier.
Having been one, I can tell you from experience, wich path is harder to follow.

As far as suggestion, why did I feel euphoria? No one taught me what I was going to feel. No one said,"This is what happens when you have a religious experience." Before I became a Christian I had heard that some people suffered from stigmata during their religious experiences. Why didn't I bleed from my palms, feet, and side then?

Actually, funny you should mention the stigmata, thats the far extreme of the power of religious suggestion.

Surely, a priest or minister, or a parent, or others, told you what it was like to bask in the glory of god in your early childhood, or when you started to believe.
You, in a sense, were conditioned to have this repsonse.

Lastly, I don't want to make you believe me.

Nor I you.

I can only present to you what I know as the truth. If I can convince you of it, then someone else can convince against it again. The job of the Christian is not to prove the correctness of Christianity, but to simply present the faith as what it is, faith. You are right that my belief flies in the face of all logic. I know that better than you think. All I can ask of you is to keep an open mind, and that you realize that human logic can be very fallible.

I would ask the same of you.
Keep an open mind to the idea that god is an illusion of the human mind, and his existance just may be attributed to the power of suggestion.

Ultimately, if your faith brings you comfort, then stay with it.
Even if I could use a magic switch, and make you see what I consider the truth, I wouldnt use it.
There is precious little comfort to be had in this world, and if your faith brings you some, then real or not, it serves a purpose.
If that faith and its dogma, makes you a better person, the so much the better.
Just know that its possible to be a good person, and do good things, without the need for a god.

Omni Conglomerates

04-11-2005, 14:21

No, trust me, Christianity is far easier.
Having been one, I can tell you from experience, wich path is harder to follow.

Actually, funny you should mention the stigmata, thats the far extreme of the power of religious suggestion.

Surely, a priest or minister, or a parent, or others, told you what it was like to bask in the glory of god in your early childhood, or when you started to believe.
You, in a sense, were conditioned to have this repsonse.

Nor I you.

I would ask the same of you.
Keep an open mind to the idea that god is an illusion of the human mind, and his existance just may be attributed to the power of suggestion.

Ultimately, if your faith brings you comfort, then stay with it.
Even if I could use a magic switch, and make you see what I consider the truth, I wouldnt use it.
There is precious little comfort to be had in this world, and if your faith brings you some, then real or not, it serves a purpose.
If that faith and its dogma, makes you a better person, the so much the better.
Just know that its possible to be a good person, and do good things, without the need for a god.

Having also been both, I still disagree with you on which is the easier path.

Also, no one told me what it was like to bask in the glory of God. My relatives left me to decide on my own what I was to believe. My first religious experience was not influenced by preacher, minister, parental suggestion. I never got the benefit of someone telling my what it was like, what to do, or how to go about doing it. In fact, I was quite alone. All I had with me was a Bible.

I know well that there are people who are do good acts without God. I have more Atheist friends than I can count who are as "good" a person as I. When I am out doing work for the community, they are right there with me. We work together on canned food drives, and when I give blood I will usually go with one or two of them. Of course, I would have to believe in fundamental human good to believe that they or I were good.

Now I am going to breakfast. I hope you have a nice day/afternoon/night depending on your time zone.

Snorklenork

04-11-2005, 15:35

But you can't prove absolutely that it is round. Your eyes could be decieving you. You can prove beyond all reasonable doubt, but nothing can be proven false totally.
But saying "Your eyes could be decieving you" is just putting doubt into any observation used as proof or proof to the contrary. That is, it merely says you can't really (dis)prove anything with your senses and know that it is in fact (dis)proven.

So, can you give me a positive you can prove? If not, then sure, you're right, you can't prove a negative. If you can, I bet I can find a converse that is disproven.

Dempublicents1

04-11-2005, 19:29

What comfort can athiesim bring?
Being an athiest, means that Im sure that there is no God, watching over me, or anyone else.
It means ultimately, we are spiritually alone.
It would be far more comforting to know that I am wrong, and that there is a benevolent creator watching over us.

That might be more comforting, it might not. Some people are made very, very uncomfortable by the idea that there might be an entity watching over them, knowing what they are doing, what they are thinking. These people would be much more comforted by the idea that there is no God.

And of course, there is the fact that some people are "comforted" by what is uncomfortable to them. It doesn't make sense to some if they feel comfortable, they feel that only their discomfort and their pain defines them....

Then there is the issue of individuality. Many, many people (hard-core libertarians are an excellent example) like the idea that they do everything absolutely alone, that no one ever helps them, purposely or inadvertantly, to acheive anything they acheive. Having a God there wouldn't really work for that philosophy, now would it? (OK, it might, but only if that God was the deist God - never inerfering with anything, or a God that tried to thwart your every move).

So, youre saying that if anyone claims to have spoken to marilyn Monroe, 43 years after her death, they should be taken at face value, becuase there is no proof to discredit them?

Strawman. Marylin Monroe was a human being. We can go and look at her grave and see that it has not been disturbed (ie., no one jumped out of it and went to talk to anyone). We know from human experience that human beings don't jump out of graves and walk around (except in some pretty rare circumstances).

You are trying to replace a discussion of the supernatural with a discussion of the natural. It doesn't work that way, my friend.

My point is, you can claim that god has spoken to you, or that you had an experience with him, but what can you show me to make me believe you?

Why do I (or Omni) need to make you believe me? I haven't tried to tell you that it is a fact that God exists, and Omni hasn't either. I haven't suggested that you should believe as I believe. You are the only one making absolute statements.

So then, how can you expect someone who doubts, to take that at face value?

I can't, and I don't. How can you expect somoene who has had personal experience of God to take your personal doubts at face value? You have no proof that they are accurate, so why should we take your assertions that there is no God at face value?

The same is true with religion.

Again, a bold and absolute claim that you have absolutely no evidence for.

Is this a possibility? Certainly. Have you said anything that provides any absolute proof or even obvious evidence for it happening in this case? None at all.

People can get highs from drugs. We can also get high just from having an exhilarating experience. It doesn't mean that anyone who gets on a roller coaster is on drugs.

Likewise, the fact that the placebo effect (essentially what you described) exists and happens sometimes, does not mean that any occurrence which you can't explain or you don't believe happens is a result of the placebo effect.

Uncle Vulgarian

04-11-2005, 20:53

But you can't prove absolutely that it is round. Your eyes could be decieving you. You can prove beyond all reasonable doubt, but nothing can be proven false totally.

If you are to take that veiw then you cannot prove a positive absolutely either as there is always a minute chance you will be wrong. You can prove a negative just as much as you can prove a positive.

Dempublicents1

04-11-2005, 21:09

If you are to take that veiw then you cannot prove a positive absolutely either as there is always a minute chance you will be wrong. You can prove a negative just as much as you can prove a positive.

This is only true if you make a "negative" that is simply a positive statement made as a negative.

When someone says, "You cannot prove a negative," they generally mean, "You cannot prove that X does not exist." This is absolutely true. Why? Because X might simply be in the place you haven't looked yet, or might not be measureable by your means, or any means. Thus, you cannot prove non-existance.

Another instance is trying to prove "never". You cannot prove that something will never happen. You can't say, "People will never float up off the ground and start flying. Why? Because we cannot say, with 100% certainty, that it will never happen. Now, millenia of experience later, we can say that it is very, very uncertain, but we have not proven the negative - the never.

Of course, in all of these instances, proof must really be replaced with "evidence". The only place you can truly "prove" anything (at least in the absolute way in which most people use the word) is in mathematics and logic - and that is because we have defined the system as such.

Good Lifes

04-11-2005, 21:19

For starters, the existance of God means the existance of absolute morality, black and white, right and wrong. It means that we are all unclean animals not fit for the presence of the almighty. Salvation, for the Christian, means total submission of the self to the will of God. Trust me, Atheism is the far easier path. If I believed I had just this one life, I would live it up for me. I would live this life for my own personal pleasure and comfort.

Do you really see things as "black and white"? You obviously have had a very easy life or are very young if you can say something like that.

It seems easy when you read the Bible and see the catchy answers Jesus came up with for difficult questions. But in real life the answers don't come so easily. It seems for every advancement there is a penalty. You can have cars and airplanes, but you will destroy the air. You can have the freedom of speech but you will also have to listen to the most far out, evil, ideas. You can produce a "test tube" baby, but hundreds of fertile egs will be destroyed. You can use those eggs for stem cell therapy, but is it right to save many by destroying one. And what if that one were to be destroyed anyway? You can hold onto the exact wording of the poetry of the Bible, but to do so means you can't develop vaccines to save lives. For if evolution doesn't exist, neither does new disease. You can say you are against abortion, but what if the doctor says, "If born, this child will be a real mess?" Is it right to save such a child only so it can live a life of suffering never being self aware, or aware of anything but pain?

Are things in your mind really "right and wrong"? OK, look in the Bible for the answers. I know the Bible better than all but the most learned ministers. I can quote passages most ministers don't know exist. But, not all the answers are there. WWJD? Sometimes the answer is "Who knows?"

We go through life doing our best. When we make a decision, any decision, there are TWO or more sides. In your world there would be no decisions of any kind. In my world, every decision, every action, every word, can and does effect the world in ways I will never know.

I recommend that you read the book, "The Five People You Meet In Heaven." Sorry I can't remember the author, it might be Levin. Or look into the "Chaos Theory" which basically says there is no chaos. Every action, even the pattern a butterfly uses to go from flower to flower effects totally unknown results.

What you have to eat tonight is not "black and white". What morality went into that next bite you take? How was it produced? How were the people paid? What chemicals were used? How was it transported? Where did the energy come from to cook it or keep it cold?

Please explain how eveen one action you take can be "black and white" or right and wrong.""

Dempublicents1

04-11-2005, 21:35

Do you really see things as "black and white"? You obviously have had a very easy life or are very young if you can say something like that.

Seeing things as "black and white" and things being easily determined as "black and white" are two very different things my friend.

The existence of an absolute morality would not mean that we (any of us) actually know what that is. Thus, to human view, morality would seem subjective - and would seem to be shades of grey.

Of course, if you define something well enough, most people don't see those grey shades.

If I ask the question, "Is it moral to kill a human being?" the answer will likely be another question, "In what situation?" However, if I completely define the situation: "Is it moral to kill Bob when he is about to murder Suzie and John and the only way to save them is to take his life?" there might be a black and white answer to the question.

But in real life the answers don't come so easily.

The existence of "black and white" answers would not mean they were easy to determine.

Are things in your mind really "right and wrong"? OK, look in the Bible for the answers. I know the Bible better than all but the most learned ministers. I can quote passages most ministers don't know exist. But, not all the answers are there. WWJD? Sometimes the answer is "Who knows?"

The answer to us is who knows? But there is still an answer to what Jesus would do in a situation. The fact that we don't know it does not preclude its existence.

We go through life doing our best. When we make a decision, any decision, there are TWO or more sides. In your world there would be no decisions of any kind. In my world, every decision, every action, every word, can and does effect the world in ways I will never know.

Illogical. This doesn't, in any way, follow from anything Omni said. The existence of a "black and white" morality would not mean that there was only one side to a given decision - it would simply mean that only one of those sides is, ultimately, the correct one.

Please explain how eveen one action you take can be "black and white" or right and wrong.""

It is simple. Every single action (involving morality) you take can be "black and white" or "right and wrong". However, you, being a fallible human being, will not know for certain which way you have gone.

Omni Conglomerates

04-11-2005, 22:03

Do you really see things as "black and white"? You obviously have had a very easy life or are very young if you can say something like that.

It seems easy when you read the Bible and see the catchy answers Jesus came up with for difficult questions. But in real life the answers don't come so easily. It seems for every advancement there is a penalty. You can have cars and airplanes, but you will destroy the air. You can have the freedom of speech but you will also have to listen to the most far out, evil, ideas. You can produce a "test tube" baby, but hundreds of fertile egs will be destroyed. You can use those eggs for stem cell therapy, but is it right to save many by destroying one. And what if that one were to be destroyed anyway? You can hold onto the exact wording of the poetry of the Bible, but to do so means you can't develop vaccines to save lives. For if evolution doesn't exist, neither does new disease. You can say you are against abortion, but what if the doctor says, "If born, this child will be a real mess?" Is it right to save such a child only so it can live a life of suffering never being self aware, or aware of anything but pain?

Are things in your mind really "right and wrong"? OK, look in the Bible for the answers. I know the Bible better than all but the most learned ministers. I can quote passages most ministers don't know exist. But, not all the answers are there. WWJD? Sometimes the answer is "Who knows?"

We go through life doing our best. When we make a decision, any decision, there are TWO or more sides. In your world there would be no decisions of any kind. In my world, every decision, every action, every word, can and does effect the world in ways I will never know.

I recommend that you read the book, "The Five People You Meet In Heaven." Sorry I can't remember the author, it might be Levin. Or look into the "Chaos Theory" which basically says there is no chaos. Every action, even the pattern a butterfly uses to go from flower to flower effects totally unknown results.

What you have to eat tonight is not "black and white". What morality went into that next bite you take? How was it produced? How were the people paid? What chemicals were used? How was it transported? Where did the energy come from to cook it or keep it cold?

Please explain how eveen one action you take can be "black and white" or right and wrong.""

Well, actually, while I consider myself young, I don't consider myself very young.

Alright.

White is what is what is within God's will. What is black is that which isn't. With eating, if it is God's will that I chose what I eat that night, then I have nothing to worry about. If you have an omnipresent, omnipotent God, then most of the particulars are worked out for you as long as you are seeking after his will. Right and wrong come in to dinner when perhaps there is something else you could be doing. Is there a distressed friend who asked you to talk to him? Are you putting it off? Well, you shouldn't. Omission of action is just as bad as action.

You are right that every action I take will effect the world in ways I will never know, but that is because I don't see the big picture. No one else aside from the one who created the universe sees the big picture. Doesn't make absolute morality any less present. All we have to go by is, seek the will of God. God having a plan for each life, their seeking after that plan is following the right path. We are put on the right path by God when we submit to His will. We are not on it when we are not seeking after it. It is really as simple as that. Try to do things yourself, and your life will inevitably spiral into sin. Let God guide your actions, and you are doing things right. Even Christians fall of the path. There is no way to stay on the right path all the time. Therein we get into salvation and the utter lack of man's deservedness to recieve it.

Now for a particular action, I choose abortion. If that child in the womb is a human life, then killing it before it is born at any time, reguardless of mitigating circumstances, is wrong. It is sin no matter what else is going on. If a woman, who has been raped let's say and decided to be a noble woman and take the child to term because in her mind it is not the child's fault, is having her own life threatened by her pregnancy. Killing the child is wrong. That has been established. The question now becomes not if letting the mother possibly (no let's say definitely wrong just to make it a little more muddy to the populace at large) die in order that the baby might possibly live, but are you willing to live with killing the baby.

In the same situation, I cannot tell you which I would choose, not because I did not know which choice was right, but because I am not sure I could cope with the right outcome. Knowing the woman I wish to one day take as a wife, I am not sure which I would choose, even knowing the right choice.

There is no gray, there is simply choosing to disobey the will of God or obeying the will of God. Saving billions by killing on is still sin for killing the one. There is no way to be perfect in this world, even without such seemingly "gray" decisions.

I have led a very hard life by the standards of most, but I do not hold any illusions over which actions I take are wrong and which are right.

Good Lifes

04-11-2005, 23:08

Omni Conglomerates

04-11-2005, 23:23

Ok Omni,

Let's see how much you know about the Bible that you claim is 100% correct. The Bible is correct in this case but few Christians know the correct answer.

Luke 23:55 Jesus was buried at sundown with the women watching.

Luke 23:56 They prepared spices and oils. (Which took quite a bit of ceremony)

They rested on the weekly Sabbath.

Luke 24:1 They returned early Sunday morning with the spices and oils.

Fact: The Jewish day began at sundown. So sundown Friday began the Sabath of Saturday.

If the Bible is correct (and I believe it is). When did the women buy and prepare the spices?

You have me in not knowing specifically when they bought and prepared the spices. My knowledge of Hebrew society would state that they likely did it Saturday at sundown or Friday before sundown depending on both when they had time to do it and how long the oils would last after they were prepared. Of course, I do not remember if the procurement of oils and spices for burial ceremony was not considered a breach of the sabbath, then they very well may have done it on Saturday.

I have studied the Bible extensively, but there are still plenty of things I do not know. I am just a college student who volunteers as a Sunday School teacher because the preacher and deacons consider me generally knowledgable and competent enough to teach the basic tenets of Christianity. I am by know means a doctorate holding theologian. That is one set of verses I have not yet studied intensively as I go through the Bible.

I await your informing me of the correct answer, as I assure you I certainly would like to know.

Good Lifes

04-11-2005, 23:30

Omission of action is just as bad as action.

Now for a particular action, I choose abortion. If that child in the womb is a human life, then killing it before it is born at any time, reguardless of mitigating circumstances, is wrong. It is sin no matter what else is going on.

I have led a very hard life by the standards of most, but I do not hold any illusions over which actions I take are wrong and which are right.

I agree, Omission is as bad as action. But we omit doing good everytime we spend a cent that doesn't aid others. "Sell everything, give the money to the poor, follow me." 3 cents (US) will give a child vitamin A which will stop blindness.

What about the example of the child to be born, "A real mess"? Is life so important that a life of torture to insure that life is justified? I don't know that God sees death at the ultimate evil. I live on a farm. When I have an animal that is suffering, I shoot it. Would I be more justified to force it to live in pain? Is human suffering more justified that human death?

You know (with no illusions) which actions you take are right and which are wrong? I'm sorry but that is just not possible in the real world. When I teach, I wonder how an "A" or "F" will effect the entire future of a student. When I farm, I wonder how the things I put in the ground will effect the future. When I employ, I wonder how the amount I pay will effect that person. And even more, when I fire someone, am I being fair?

Maybe God sits on the edge of your bed and tells you exactly what is right and wrong, but he doesn't tell me anything. I just have to evaluate from the things that were written and take my best guess.

Uncle Vulgarian

04-11-2005, 23:53

This is only true if you make a "negative" that is simply a positive statement made as a negative.

When someone says, "You cannot prove a negative," they generally mean, "You cannot prove that X does not exist." This is absolutely true. Why? Because X might simply be in the place you haven't looked yet, or might not be measureable by your means, or any means. Thus, you cannot prove non-existance.

I'd disagree with that to a degree. You can say that something does not exist but it is dependant on where and what you are searching for. I can say that there is no cup on my desk. I could prove that unicorns do not exist on earth. I may even able to prove that unicorns do not exist anywhere (assuming I could be everywhere at once or alternatively be able to search everywhere by other means, which while impossible at the moment may not be in the future). I could not prove that god does not exist because of the nature of god (i.e. he's all powerful and you can't detect his existence).

In the case of the question of proving that something will never happen you could prove that but only if you could view the whole of time from beginning to end. That is of course very unlikely to happen.

Negatives are often more difficult to prove, some are very unlikely to be proved and some are impossible to prove, but so are some positives i.e. you cannot prove that god does exist.

Dempublicents1

04-11-2005, 23:54

I agree, Omission is as bad as action. But we omit doing good everytime we spend a cent that doesn't aid others.

Are you saying that it is not good to support yourself? That it would be good if you died or lost your livelihood? Of course not! Those, we do not omit doing good everytime we spend a cent that doesn't aid others, as our own livelihood is, in and of itself, a good. Now, if you want to say that needless spending is an omission of possible good, I'll go with you there. Someone who decides not to buy a yacht could get a lot of vitamin A for many children and lose nothing he needed.

When I teach, I wonder how an "A" or "F" will effect the entire future of a student.

You may wonder that, but is it part of your consideration in giving them the grade? If you think a student is more likely to suffer from an F, do you give them a better grade than another student who did the same caliber work?

This may be off-topic, so you don't have to answer, but I saw it and wanted to ask.

Good Lifes

04-11-2005, 23:54

You have me in not knowing specifically when they bought and prepared the spices. My knowledge of Hebrew society would state that they likely did it Saturday at sundown or Friday before sundown depending on both when they had time to do it and how long the oils would last after they were prepared. Of course, I do not remember if the procurement of oils and spices for burial ceremony was not considered a breach of the sabbath, then they very well may have done it on Saturday.

I have studied the Bible extensively, but there are still plenty of things I do not know. I am just a college student who volunteers as a Sunday School teacher because the preacher and deacons consider me generally knowledgable and competent enough to teach the basic tenets of Christianity. I am by know means a doctorate holding theologian. That is one set of verses I have not yet studied intensively as I go through the Bible.

I await your informing me of the correct answer, as I assure you I certainly would like to know.

You won't like this answer because it goes against "tradition". Aristotle said tradition is the hardest thing to change.

The answer is Jesus was killed on Wednesday. He was buried Wed. night (the beginning of Thur.) Thursday was a special Sabbath. John 19:31 The women bought the spices and prepared them on Friday. They didn't have time to deliver them before sundown (Saturday), so they had to wait until Sunday.

Jesus siad the only sign he would give was to be in the grave three days and three nights. So he was buried on Wed sundown and arrose Sat sundown. He was gone and so were the Guards by Sunday morn.

Sunday he entered the city, spoke and evaluated the situation. Monday he returned and really ticked off the conservative religious leaders. Tuesday he celebrated the passover early but he didn't have time to do it right. Tues night (Wed) he was arrested, tried, Remember Peter's denial was early morn. Wed he was killed at the same time the passover lambs were being killed. Thursday was the Feast of Unleaven Bread. (A High Holy Day, Sabbath) Part of the ceremony is to "bury" (hide) one of three loaves of bread. At the end, the buried loaf is brought out and shared. (This is my body) Another interesting trivia: Do you know the prayer said over the bread and wine? Every Jewish child does.

If you read carefully when he entered and left the city, and study the feasts of the Jews, it all fits. The problem is the Gentiles took over the church and didn't understand that any day of rest was a Sabbath. They saw Sabbath and thought Saturday. (ignoring all of the other text and the schedule of feasts).

Good Lifes

05-11-2005, 00:11

Someone who decides not to buy a yacht could get a lot of vitamin A for many children and lose nothing he needed.

You may wonder that, but is it part of your consideration in giving them the grade? If you think a student is more likely to suffer from an F, do you give them a better grade than another student who did the same caliber work?

This may be off-topic, so you don't have to answer, but I saw it and wanted to ask.

A yacht or a Coke or a stick of gum...All are a total waste.

I'm actually considered a "hard-ass" grader because I still consider a "C" to be average. If you want better, you better work extra for it. You would be amazed how many college students have never seen anything less than an "A" and feel one is their God given right.

On the other end, you really have to work to get an "F". Believe it or not, I swear, some students actually seem to work at getting an "F". Papers are late, projects are late, miss class everytime there is a test, then want "extra time" to prepare for a make-up test. I really worry about what is going to happen when students hit the working world. And what else can I do to prepare them for it. I don't believe "grade inflation" is the answer. Don't know of one boss that grade inflates. But they are good at going to the Dept. Head and bitching and complaining they aren't being treated fair. And most Dept. Heads have never had a real job, so it becomes a problem.

Dempublicents1

05-11-2005, 00:16

A yacht or a Coke or a stick of gum...All are a total waste.

Yacht, yes. Gum, yes. Coke? That is nourishment. =)

I'm actually considered a "hard-ass" grader because I still consider a "C" to be average. If you want better, you better work extra for it.

Good for you!

You would be amazed how many college students have never seen anything less than an "A" and feel one is their God given right.

Not really. TA's around here are taught how to deal with the, "My parents are paying for this class so you should give me an 'A'" argument. And I used to SI for classes where students would come to me the night before the test (in Chemistry!) with, "I haven't started studying yet, but...." If I had been allowed, my response would have generally been, "Well then, you're going to fail. Sorry."

Omni Conglomerates

05-11-2005, 00:26

You won't like this answer because it goes against "tradition". Aristotle said tradition is the hardest thing to change.

The answer is Jesus was killed on Wednesday. He was buried Wed. night (the beginning of Thur.) Thursday was a special Sabbath. John 19:31 The women bought the spices and prepared them on Friday. They didn't have time to deliver them before sundown (Saturday), so they had to wait until Sunday.

Jesus siad the only sign he would give was to be in the grave three days and three nights. So he was buried on Wed sundown and arrose Sat sundown. He was gone and so were the Guards by Sunday morn.

Sunday he entered the city, spoke and evaluated the situation. Monday he returned and really ticked off the conservative religious leaders. Tuesday he celebrated the passover early but he didn't have time to do it right. Tues night (Wed) he was arrested, tried, Remember Peter's denial was early morn. Wed he was killed at the same time the passover lambs were being killed. Thursday was the Feast of Unleaven Bread. (A High Holy Day, Sabbath) Part of the ceremony is to "bury" (hide) one of three loaves of bread. At the end, the buried loaf is brought out and shared. (This is my body) Another interesting trivia: Do you know the prayer said over the bread and wine? Every Jewish child does.

If you read carefully when he entered and left the city, and study the feasts of the Jews, it all fits. The problem is the Gentiles took over the church and didn't understand that any day of rest was a Sabbath. They saw Sabbath and thought Saturday. (ignoring all of the other text and the schedule of feasts).

Cool. I hadn't known that before now. Pretty sweet.

Omni Conglomerates

05-11-2005, 00:33

A yacht or a Coke or a stick of gum...All are a total waste.

I'm actually considered a "hard-ass" grader because I still consider a "C" to be average. If you want better, you better work extra for it. You would be amazed how many college students have never seen anything less than an "A" and feel one is their God given right.

On the other end, you really have to work to get an "F". Believe it or not, I swear, some students actually seem to work at getting an "F". Papers are late, projects are late, miss class everytime there is a test, then want "extra time" to prepare for a make-up test. I really worry about what is going to happen when students hit the working world. And what else can I do to prepare them for it. I don't believe "grade inflation" is the answer. Don't know of one boss that grade inflates. But they are good at going to the Dept. Head and bitching and complaining they aren't being treated fair. And most Dept. Heads have never had a real job, so it becomes a problem.

Well, as a man who will someday soon enter the teaching profession, I would argue that at the college level it is not your job to prepare them for the real world. A person should, note I said should, be recieving all the education they need to make it in this world from high school. Trying your best to prepare a student for the working world by reteaching them what they should already know is a good thing on your part, though. What do you teach, by the way?

Omni Conglomerates

05-11-2005, 00:39

I agree, Omission is as bad as action. But we omit doing good everytime we spend a cent that doesn't aid others. "Sell everything, give the money to the poor, follow me." 3 cents (US) will give a child vitamin A which will stop blindness.

What about the example of the child to be born, "A real mess"? Is life so important that a life of torture to insure that life is justified? I don't know that God sees death at the ultimate evil. I live on a farm. When I have an animal that is suffering, I shoot it. Would I be more justified to force it to live in pain? Is human suffering more justified that human death?

You know (with no illusions) which actions you take are right and which are wrong? I'm sorry but that is just not possible in the real world. When I teach, I wonder how an "A" or "F" will effect the entire future of a student. When I farm, I wonder how the things I put in the ground will effect the future. When I employ, I wonder how the amount I pay will effect that person. And even more, when I fire someone, am I being fair?

Maybe God sits on the edge of your bed and tells you exactly what is right and wrong, but he doesn't tell me anything. I just have to evaluate from the things that were written and take my best guess.

I have found, through my own experience, he does indeed lead us if we are really willing to listen. If I am unsure about what to do, I ask. He answers. Sometimes I still don't listen because I don't like the answer, then I realize how stupid I was later. The Scripture serves as one guide, the Spirit serves as the other.

As far as grades go, I view giving a grade out of pity to be more damaging than taking pity. A student has to learn that it is their responsibility to learn the information just as much as it is the teacher's job to present it.

NationStates Jolt Archive

A Christian Looking for a Debate