Your Vote, Your Reasons

[tp2021]

no

DANGIT! I can't believe you got the 1000th post with THAT.:bang

You got post 1000!
1000! 1000!
vq5csKvXCT4

:lol

[TheMadHatter]

no

No to what.

If you are unwillingly to acknowledge to me that what you believe about God and religion may indeed be incorrect that is arrogance of the highest degree IMHO. In other words, I want you to admit to me that everything you believe about God is entirely faith based and not based on any factual evidence.

You and the majority of Christians, Muslims, and Jews cannot do this though. You cannot hold your views without denying the idea that maybe, just MAYBE, you might be wrong. It's the ultimate in small mindedness.

[timvp]

I want you to admit to me that everything you believe about God is entirely faith basedReligion is based on faith?

TheMadHatter is really charting new territory. Impressive :tu

[TheMadHatter]

Religion is based on faith?

TheMadHatter is really charting new territory. Impressive :tu

That's my point Tim. To many Christians faith and fact are one and the same.

[Trainwreck2100]

It's the ultimate in small mindedness.

so is "I have no problem with you as long as you do this, this, and this."

[Tully365]

The interesting thing about faith is how it is usually unacceptable in any other argument outside of religion. If two people are debating economic theory and one asks the other to justify a certain stance, the response "I don't need to prove it-- I have faith in it..." would be met with ridicule, even from religious economists.

[TheMadHatter]

so is "I have no problem with you as long as you do this, this, and this."

No.

Here is what I'm saying.

If you are a Christian, you have no factual proof or evidence that would indicate that Jesus is the Son of God. There is none, it just doesn't exist I'm sorry. And no, the Bible is not factual proof that would stand up in any court of law or scientific/historical debate.

You believe what you believe through FAITH. Faith is believing in something that you have no factual proof or evidence for. Therefore it is not unreasonable at all for me to ask that those who do believe in Christianity to acknowledge that they do so through complete blind faith. Not because they can factually prove what they believe is right.

[Trainwreck2100]

No.

Here is what I'm saying.

If you are a Christian, you have no factual proof or evidence that would indicate that Jesus is the Son of God. There is none, it just doesn't exist I'm sorry. And no, the Bible is not factual proof that would stand up in any court of law or scientific/historical debate.

You believe what you believe through FAITH. Faith is believing in something that you have no factual proof or evidence for. Therefore it is not unreasonable at all for me to ask that those who do believe in Christianity to acknowledge that they do so through complete blind faith. Not because they can factually prove what they believe is right.

Same can be said for science.

[TheMadHatter]

Same can be said for science.

:bang

Wow you are challenging Angel Luv for the most ridiculous thing said in this thread. Congrats! :toast

[TheMadHatter]

Same can be said for science.

And for the record everything we believe as factual in science is actually backed up by facts. Nothing you believe in religion is supported by any real convincing factual evidence, that is why you have blind faith that it is true. It is imperative that you understand this distinction.

[Tully365]

"I do not think that modern science-- and the theory of relativity in particular-- provides us with any justification for moral relativity. On the contrary, our age is marked by a clear division between talk about science and talk about values. This means that moral responsibility cannot hide behind self-interested justifications. On the other hand, I believe that, even in the past, what has really counted, more than the weight of well-defined moralities, has been a process of ethical seeking, forever problematic and forever risky. A Christian too sure of himself about what is right and wrong has never, I believe, been a good Christian."

~Italo Calvino

[DWest30]

:::cough::: Sri Lanka :::cough:::

:rollin

Thank you....

[jochhejaam]

"I do not think that modern science-- and the theory of relativity in particular-- provides us with any justification for moral relativity. On the contrary, our age is marked by a clear division between talk about science and talk about values. This means that moral responsibility cannot hide behind self-interested justifications. On the other hand, I believe that, even in the past, what has really counted, more than the weight of well-defined moralities, has been a process of ethical seeking, forever problematic and forever risky. A Christian too sure of himself about what is right and wrong has never, I believe, been a good Christian."

~Italo Calvino

Biblically speaking, wrong equates to sin, therefore to be right one must refrain from sin. Regarding salvation, the focus for Christians in their quest to share this message should not be on dealing with the right or wrong of any one particular sin, but sin in general. True conversion (that is, a realization or enlightenment that we are all sinners; a redemptive, confessing and cleansing from those sins), once obtained, instills within the heart of man a rather clear sense of what is right and what is wrong, there should be no conflict with the morality, or absolutes that abide in Scripture.

The emphasis from a Christian to the unenlightened should not be to hammer them about their sinful life, nor to heap condemnation upon them (indeed, we are born into sin), but to inform them that the Christ was "sent into the World, not to condemn, but to bring salvation to the World.

We don't get caught up in trivial arguements such as "is smoking a sin, is drinking a sin", etc., those are side issues or distractions from the Gospel's thrust which is to release us from the burden and condemnation of all sin.
When we fall short, and we all do on a daily basis, we know it, the reflexive realization of that sin leads us to seek forgiveness, and that forgiveness is uncondition and immediately there upon asking, we then move on from there.

I don't get caught up in arguments about what is and what is not sin on minor issues, there are ample opportunities each day to talk to and encourage those who are earnestly seeking God, or who have sincere and honest questions about God and Christ.

[AntiChrist]

I notice that this thread was started by DarkReign.

That's what my presidency will be.


I fell into a burning ring of fire.
I went down, down, down, and the flames went higher.
And it burns, burns, burns. The ring of fire.
The ring of fire.

[ElNono]

Same can be said for science.

WTF? Are you really this ignorant, or you're just being a douche?

[Trainwreck2100]

And for the record everything we believe as factual in science is actually backed up by facts. Nothing you believe in religion is supported by any real convincing factual evidence, that is why you have blind faith that it is true. It is imperative that you understand this distinction.


WTF? Are you really this ignorant, or you're just being a douche?

what came before the big bang?

[Goliadnative]

what came before the big bang?

This hasn't been discovered yet, but they have faith, to the point of almost being blind, that science some day, some way will find out.

[Findog]

what came before the big bang?

An extremely dense and hot primordial state.

[Mr. Peabody]

what came before the big bang?

There is no "before the Big Bang" because there was no time until the Big Bang occurred. Therefore, the question is meaningless.

[MannyIsGod]

what came before the big bang?

You suck at bebating. The answer is we don't know. Science doesn't have all the answers and it has never claimed as much.

[DaDakota]

Voting for the steady hand, the intelligent thoughtful person....someone who WILL blink and think.

Obama.

DD

[BRHornet45]

sons anybody but this long legged freak called Obama

[Extra Stout]

If you are a Christian, you have no factual proof or evidence that would indicate that Jesus is the Son of God. There is none, it just doesn't exist I'm sorry. And no, the Bible is not factual proof that would stand up in any court of law or scientific/historical debate.

You believe what you believe through FAITH. Faith is believing in something that you have no factual proof or evidence for. Therefore it is not unreasonable at all for me to ask that those who do believe in Christianity to acknowledge that they do so through complete blind faith. Not because they can factually prove what they believe is right.
There is no scientific evidence that the one God of the universe was incarnated into the womb of an adolescent Jewish virgin in the Levant during the height of the Roman Empire: correct.

There is no scientific evidence that he miraculously transformed water into wine, healed people of diseases, and fed thousands of people with small amounts of food: correct.

There is no scientific evidence that he, having been crucified, was resurrected on the third day and later ascended into heaven: correct.

There is a reason it is called salvation by faith, and not salvation by objective proof.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Biblically speaking, wrong equates to sin, therefore to be right one must refrain from sin. Regarding salvation, the focus for Christians in their quest to share this message should not be on dealing with the right or wrong of any one particular sin, but sin in general.

The problem for me, and I think some of the frustration being expressed by others is that in my experience so few people claiming to be practicing Christians actually read or know the Bible. They do not contemplate or question the finer points of their religion. Instead they simply regurgitate things they have been told. When they are confused, they pray and when there's no burning bush telling them otherwise, they assume everything's okay. Obviously, not all Christians are like this, and it is not just a problem effecting those of faith. However, when one holds themselves up to be better than his peers, that person will be expected to maintain the higher standards they set for themselves. If most people claiming to be Christians actually followed more of the teachings of Christ and fewer of the warped interpretations that have filtered down, I can't imagine anyone having a problem.


True conversion (that is, a realization or enlightenment that we are all sinners; a redemptive, confessing and cleansing from those sins), once obtained, instills within the heart of man a rather clear sense of what is right and what is wrong, there should be no conflict with the morality, or absolutes that abide in Scripture.

And yet so many Christian "leaders" speak in nothing but absolutes, and they have brainwashed many of their followers to do so as well. Many who are on the fence about faith or who have (at least for the moment) rejected faith find this even more repulsive and frustrating. This is no way to promote fellowship.


The emphasis from a Christian to the unenlightened should not be to hammer them about their sinful life, nor to heap condemnation upon them (indeed, we are born into sin), but to inform them that the Christ was "sent into the World, not to condemn, but to bring salvation to the World.

Seriously, I get you. The thing is, growing up in America, I'm pretty sure there isn't a single person who hasn't been given the opportunity to learn this. There are signs at big events, commercials, television and movies, most of our National holidays. And, if that wasn't enough, we all have our peers inviting us to Bible camps, holiday pageants, picnics, special services, etc. Most people are informed to the point where Christ is jammed down our throats everyday, and that is not enough for some who want to all but force us to live in a Christian police state. I understand you may not be one of those people, but you should understand that those people exist, they are vocal, they have power and agendas and they annoy and often scare the rest of us.


We don't get caught up in trivial arguements such as "is smoking a sin, is drinking a sin", etc., those are side issues or distractions from the Gospel's thrust which is to release us from the burden and condemnation of all sin.

You may not get caught up in such things, but I assure you, most Christians I know worry about little else. Catholics have to keep a tally so they can report back for cleansing on a regular basis. Moreover, many preaching from the pulpit do little else but dwell on those "side issues or distractions" and most claim to have the 411 from the big guy himself.


When we fall short, and we all do on a daily basis, we know it, the reflexive realization of that sin leads us to seek forgiveness, and that forgiveness is uncondition and immediately there upon asking, we then move on from there.

I understand this is something that gives you peace and that you find beautiful about your faith. Unfortunately it is the basis for many confused Christians to justify and rationalize every wrong they do. "Oh well, if it's a sin, we all sin and God will forgive me." / "If I'm wrong, God will show me the right path." Or worse, they think God is okay with it because they had the idea in the first place. And this ease with which many "move on" from sin is also a bit terrifying for those of us who have to live with the cult like behavior of others on a regular basis. I'd much prefer people to sit in reflection, consider the sin, question themselves as to why they were led to it, spend legitimate time attempting to not make the same mistakes again. But for so many the "oh, well, Jesus forgives me and loves me" is the end of that process.


I don't get caught up in arguments about what is and what is not sin on minor issues...

Would that a majority of your fellows followed the same course - the attitude of people like myself would be much different toward Christians in general.


...there are ample opportunities each day to talk to and encourage those who are earnestly seeking God, or who have sincere and honest questions about God and Christ.

Forgetting, for one moment, that many of us don't want to be subjected to such talk and encouragement, you should at least understand when trying to engage in entering into fellowship with others that many claiming to be of your faith do more harm than good to your cause on a daily basis.

You may follow a more respectful path in your faith and that is commendable. But many - many - other "Christians" are doing everything they can to limit the rights and freedoms of the rest of us. That you cannot be responsible for their actions I understand. But that you might seek to justify them, or that you are content to let them warp the teachings of Christ makes you complicit in the overall problem. I understand you might not see it that way, and that's fine -- but it should be a point of view you keep in mind when interfacing with the more secular members of our species.

[LnGrrrR]

what came before the big bang?

I guess the same thing that came before your God.

[BacktoBasics]

The partical collider they are working on should shed some light on the big bang and it orgins. I'm pretty sure once that thing is fully functional there isn't a scientist in the building that is expecting God to appear as the particals collide.

[ratm1221]

There is no scientific evidence that the one God of the universe was incarnated into the womb of an adolescent Jewish virgin in the Levant during the height of the Roman Empire: correct.

There is no scientific evidence that he miraculously transformed water into wine, healed people of diseases, and fed thousands of people with small amounts of food: correct.

There is no scientific evidence that he, having been crucified, was resurrected on the third day and later ascended into heaven: correct.

There is a reason it is called salvation by faith, and not salvation by objective proof.

You put your faith in a book written by man in a time of superstition, confusion, and ignorance.

[DaDakota]

The Bible, the Koran, the Torah, any other religious book was written by man to control the ignorant masses.

DD

[Phenomanul]

Those who believe that their scientific worldview is built solely on facts, or that none of the elements on which it is built stand on faith... have either been mislead, misinformed, or simply refuse to "see" the Truth.

DNA and RNA (the molecules which are considered by most as the basis for LIFE) or even the smallest self-replicating prions, cannot spontaneously form from a broth of chemicals. It requires not one, not two, but three pH reversal steps to create them from an achiral reagent broth (did earth's environment flip-flop three times within a span of only a few micro seconds?). Sure, we can create those species in a lab by controlling the environment; actions which inherently negate a corollary to the natural order. Furthermore, the entropic energy that needs to be overcome in order to create DNA from smaller molecules is cosmically prohibitive. And the boundary layer required to satisfy the entropic law would pose a flux limitation that no scientist can ethically ignore or simply throw out the window (yet this constraint has been subdued and largely ignored out of convenience).

What good is a belief that "mother nature" has been running things all along from point zero when science indicates that no such formation process for life is natural? The origins subject will forever baffle science because science is incapable of addressing the supernatural; that which by very definition is not bound by the natural order. It incorporates as much "speculation" as the next theory.

You see then... belief in said theory requires as much faith as belief that they were created and designed with a purpose. You dare call us indoctrinated? Half of you don't even understand the "science" which you have elevated above all other things.

[Phenomanul]

BTW it's laughable that anyone would actually consider Obama to be the Anti-Christ...

Under the largely accepted interpretation of scripture that role can only be fulfilled by someone with Jewish ancestry. Christians should know of this requirement. Then again, there are many who believe that the Ant-Christ role has already come and gone (with Nero Ceasar, Hitler, "fill in the blank") and others still who believe that the term is a generality that represents an Anti-GOD spirit.

[ratm1221]

Those who believe that their scientific worldview is built solely on the facts, or that none of the elements on which it is built stand on faith... have either been mislead, misinformed, or simply refuse to "see" the Truth.

DNA and RNA (the molecules which are considered by most as the basis for LIFE) or even the smallest self-replicating prions, cannot spontaneously form from a broth of chemicals. It requires not one, not two, but three pH reversal steps to create them from an achiral reagent broth (did earth's environment flip-flop three times within a span of only a few micro seconds?). Sure, we can create those species in a lab by controlling the environment; actions which inherently negate a corollary to the natural order. Furthermore, the entropic energy that needs to be overcome in order to create DNA from smaller molecules is cosmically prohibitive. And the boundary layer required to satisfy the entropic law would pose a flux limitation that no scientist can ethically ignore or simply throw out the window (yet this constraint has been subdued and largely ignored out of convenience).

What good is a belief that "mother nature" has been running things all along from point zero when science indicates that no such formation process for life is natural? The origins subject will forever baffle science because science is incapable of addressing the supernatural; that which by very definition is not bound by the natural order. It incorporates as much "speculation" as the next theory.

You see then... belief in said theory requires as much faith as belief that they were created and designed with a purpose. You dare call us indoctrinated? Half of you don't even understand the "science" which you have elevated above all other things.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Science doesn't claim to KNOW anything. They are theories came to by LOGICAL thinking.

There is no logic behind religion.

Our understanding about the way things work increase every day. Some of these things may be understood one day scientifically. If people 1,000 years ago saw a TV, they would have no understanding of how it worked. They would probably believe God made it and sent it down from the heavens.

[BacktoBasics]

Those who believe that their scientific worldview is built solely on the facts, or that none of the elements on which it is built stand on faith... have either been mislead, misinformed, or simply refuse to "see" the Truth.

DNA and RNA (the molecules which are considered by most as the basis for LIFE) or even the smallest self-replicating prions, cannot spontaneously form from a broth of chemicals. It requires not one, not two, but three pH reversal steps to create them from an achiral reagent broth (did earth's environment flip-flop three times within a span of only a few micro seconds?). Sure, we can create those species in a lab by controlling the environment; actions which inherently negate a corollary to the natural order. Furthermore, the entropic energy that needs to be overcome in order to create DNA from smaller molecules is cosmically prohibitive. And the boundary layer required to satisfy the entropic law would pose a flux limitation that no scientist can ethically ignore or simply throw out the window (yet this constraint has been subdued and largely ignored out of convenience).

What good is a belief that "mother nature" has been running things all along from point zero when science indicates that no such formation process for life is natural? The origins subject will forever baffle science because science is incapable of addressing the supernatural; that which by very definition is not bound by the natural order. It incorporates as much "speculation" as the next theory.

You see then... belief in said theory requires as much faith as belief that they were created and designed with a purpose. You dare call us indoctrinated? Half of you don't even understand the "science" which you have elevated above all other things.You say supernatural they call it the unknown. Thousands of times in the last 50 years...hell decade scientist have uncovered and studied things that we're once deemed "impossible" or "supernatural". The work and theories and actual facts are constantly evolving from unknown to known. The shining difference is that they seek logical truth rather than dismiss it as impossible. Its not faith based but cold hard fact and better yet research based.

[spurster]

No.

Here is what I'm saying.

If you are a Christian, you have no factual proof or evidence that would indicate that Jesus is the Son of God. There is none, it just doesn't exist I'm sorry. And no, the Bible is not factual proof that would stand up in any court of law or scientific/historical debate.


It has been fairly well established that most (if not all) of the New Testament was written in the 1st Century. That makes it evidence though obviously not to your standards, which no document from antiquity could pass.

[Phenomanul]

You are comparing apples to oranges. Science doesn't claim to KNOW anything. They are theory's came to by LOGICAL thinking.

There is no logic behind religion.

Our understanding about the way things work increase every day. Some of these things may be understood one day scientifically. If people 1,000 years ago saw a TV, they would have no understanding of how it worked. They would probably believe God made it and sent it down from the heavens.

Thanks for proving my point.

Science attempts explains what can be measured, predicted or observed.

It can make inferences about what occured in the past based on observations from the present, or the natural record. But not statements of objective fact about things that left little to no record.

Science cannot account for the supernatural. Nor can it be used to categorically disprove the existence of a higher being, i.e. GOD. Unfortunately, many believe that to be the case. Science is the "be all", "catch all", tool to them.

All I'm trying to suggest is that belief in certain theories still require certain amounts of faith. Otherwise they would be known as laws. Someone made the claim earlier that Science was not tied to faith at all... which is just not true. By definition no, but in practice... all the time.

[JoeChalupa]

My Faith is rock solid. Carry on.

[ratm1221]

This is purely hypothetical. Let's say we put a crazy number to the chances that the Earth was created by a fluke accident. That the chances for everything to be just perfect for it to happen would be a very long shot. Let's say that number is something insane like 1 in a quindecillion, and you insert it in infinity since as far as we know the universe and time are infinite. What are the odds that the accident would occur in infinity?

You guessed it 100 percent.

[DaDakota]

My Faith is rock solid. Carry on.

Is that why you have a picture of the face on Mars....?

ROCK solid.

LOL

DD

[BacktoBasics]

Thanks for proving my point.

Science attempts explains what can be measured, predicted or observed.

It can make inferences about what occured in the past based on observations from the present, or the natural record. But not statements of objective fact about things that left little to no record.

Science cannot account for the supernatural. Nor can it be used to categorically disprove the existence of a higher being, i.e. GOD. Unfortunately, many believe that to be the case. Science is the "be all", "catch all", tool to them.

All I'm trying to suggest is that belief in certain theories still require certain amounts of faith. Otherwise they would be known as laws. Someone made the claim earlier that Science was not tied to faith at all... which is just not true. By definition no, but in practice... all the time.
I don't see how you say that science cannot account for the supernatural.

Sincerely,

The Giant Squid

[ratm1221]

Thanks for proving my point.

Science attempts explains what can be measured, predicted or observed.

It can make inferences about what occured in the past based on observations from the present, or the natural record. But not statements of objective fact about things that left little to no record.

Science cannot account for the supernatural. Nor can it be used to categorically disprove the existence of a higher being, i.e. GOD. Unfortunately, many believe that to be the case. Science is the "be all", "catch all", tool to them.

All I'm trying to suggest is that belief in certain theories still require certain amounts of faith. Otherwise they would be known as laws. Someone made the claim earlier that Science was not tied to faith at all... which is just not true. By definition no, but in practice... all the time.

You didn't prove anything. You are saying that because we can't scientifically explain something yet, that it has to be supernatural. That's called giving up and if everyone was that lazy we'd still be sitting in the dark reading by candle light. You are the dumbest smart person I've ever heard, given that you aren't just regurgitating someone else's ideas as your own.

[JoeChalupa]

Is that why you have a picture of the face on Mars....?

ROCK solid.

LOL

DD

Well, I have been known to be hard headed and out of this world.

[TheMadHatter]

There is no scientific evidence that the one God of the universe was incarnated into the womb of an adolescent Jewish virgin in the Levant during the height of the Roman Empire: correct.

There is no scientific evidence that he miraculously transformed water into wine, healed people of diseases, and fed thousands of people with small amounts of food: correct.

There is no scientific evidence that he, having been crucified, was resurrected on the third day and later ascended into heaven: correct.

There is a reason it is called salvation by faith, and not salvation by objective proof.

Then why does your kind speak as if they know the definitive truth about God? Why pass judgment on non-believers when you even admit you don't know the truth?

Humble yourself.

[DaDakota]

Well, I have been known to be hard headed and out of this world.

That's cool.....if you aren't hard headed, you aren't trying baby !!

DD

[101A]

Then why does your kind speak as if they know the definitive truth about God? Why pass judgment on non-believers when you even admit you don't know the truth?

Humble yourself.

Your lack of reading comprehension is surreal.

[Phenomanul]

You say supernatural they call it the unknown. Thousands of times in the last 50 years...hell decade scientist have uncovered and studied things that we're once deemed "impossible" or "supernatural". The work and theories and actual facts are constantly evolving from unknown to known. The shining difference is that they seek logical truth rather than dismiss it as impossible. Its not faith based but cold hard fact and better yet research based.

1). Science can't break it's own laws. When it does those laws weren't laws to begin with... were they? Now I certainly won't build a strawman around the formation of DNA. But attempting to create the molecule without the use of any pre-exiting biological process is a formidable task. One that goes against the natural order that Science defined to begin with.

2). Why do you assume the Christian belief system wishes to suppress the Scientific movement? Many prominent discoveries were made by Christians. The propagation of this lie has been pushed by secular agendas rather irresponsibly.

[DaDakota]

At least science is willing to update itself and not take the writings of some uneducated goat herders writing down their mythos as factual.

DD

[JoeChalupa]

At least science is willing to update itself and not take the writings of some uneducated goat herders writing down their mythos as factual.

DD

Many scientists have "theories" as well.

[Phenomanul]

I don't see how you say that science cannot account for the supernatural.

Sincerely,

The Giant Squid

You mean the one we know very little about because we rarely observe the species in its natural environment. The one that rarely surfaces due to it's conditioned baric requirements at extreme ocean depths. The one who broke all our expectations because they were developed with very little factual context... That one?

Way to build yourself an argument.

Hey I've been around for over 400 million of years, unchanged and unscathed by all of earth's era defining cataclysms...

Sincerely,

The Coelacanth

[BacktoBasics]

1). Science can't break it's own laws. When it does those laws weren't laws to begin with... were they? Now I certainly won't build a strawman around the formation of DNA. But attempting to create the molecule without the use of any pre-exiting biological process is a formidable task. One that goes against the natural order that Science defined to begin with.

2). Why do you assume the Christian belief system wishes to suppress the Scientific movement? Many prominent discoveries were made by Christians. The propagation of this lie has been pushed by secular agendas rather irresponsibly.Absolutely they can and have. Types of kenetic energy...cold fusion and very partical collider I mentioned earlier all have either broken pre-existing laws or are working twords breaking ground on new laws.

Its called advancement. Its the backbone of Science. The earth was flat...its the biggest planet...the sun circles the earth.

[TheMadHatter]

The scientific community is constantly challenging existing theories and putting new ones up to rigorous examination and testing. They never pretend or assume they are correct, in other words faith has no place in science.

Dogmatic religion like Christianity and Islam, OTOH, tend to produce a stagnation of thought more than anything. Why should we research about our weather patterns, the way ocean currents work, etc.? We already know the answer. God made it that way.

[DaDakota]

Many scientists have "theories" as well.

Yep, and they are willing to discuss those theories and amend them as more evidence is brought to the table.

Can you say the same about religion?

I mean the new testement is based upon the editing of the Nicene council which left out books because they did not support the resurrection or the views of how women were treated....the Books of Mary Magdaline, or The Book of Thomas for example were left out.

And, in France the Cathers were crushed for their gnostic beliefs.....which went against Jesus as being resurrected among other things that the Catholic church in power at the time found dangerous.

And the Old testement is based upon mythos at the time, like the Summarians and Gilgemesh, heck the Resurrection myth comes straight from the Egytians and their God Horus.

Then you have the Muslim faith - possibly the biggest mythos of them all, it's lunatic ramblings actually change as Mohammeds life changes.....as he goes from peaceful preacher to warlord, his message changes, like God would actually change his message based upon the life of one man....give me a break !!!

Not to mention the Satanic versus....which uh....Mohammed spoke and then recanted saying....ooops...I was possesed by Satan.

I have no issue of religion as a guideline as most of their rules are well....flat out obvious....

But it is when people start to claim it as factual, that the house of cards all falls down.

DD

[TheMadHatter]

Yep, and they are willing to discuss those theories and amend them as more evidence is brought to the table.

Can you say the same about religion?

I mean the new testement is based upon the editing of the Nicene council which left out books because they did not support the resurrection or the views of how women were treated....the Books of Mary Magdaline, or The Book of Thomas for example were left out.

And, in France the Cathers were crushed for their gnostic beliefs.....which went against Jesus as being resurrected among other things that the Catholic church in power at the time found dangerous.

And the Old testement is based upon mythos at the time, like the Summarians and Gilgemesh, heck the Resurrection myth comes straight from the Egytians and their God Horus.

Then you have the Muslim faith - possibly the biggest mythos of them all, it's lunatic ramblings actually change as Mohammeds life changes.....as he goes from peaceful preacher to warlord, his message changes, like God would actually change his message based upon the life of one man....give me a break !!!

Not to mention the Satanic versus....which uh....Mohammed spoke and then recanted saying....ooops...I was possesed by Satan.

I have no issue of religion as a guideline as most of their rules are well....flat out obvious....

But it is when people start to claim it as factual, that the house of cards all falls down.

DD

I don't agree with you on much, but you are spot on here.

The issue is that many religious folk pretend to have a monopoly on truth. The reality is they can't prove anything and they are no closer to knowing the truth than anyone else. If they would humble themselves and admit that yes they don't actually know for certain that what they believe is true I reckon would have far less problems in this world. The problem comes about because Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. all have a need and desire to be right....to be the exclusive truth.....to be God's only chosen people.

[DaDakota]

I don't agree with you on much, but you are spot on here.

The issue is that many religious folk pretend to have a monopoly on truth. The reality is they can't prove anything and they are no closer to knowing the truth than anyone else. If they would humble themselves and admit that yes they don't actually know for certain that what they believe is true I reckon would have far less problems in this world. The problem comes about because Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. all have a need and desire to be right....to be the exclusive truth.....to be God's only chosen people.

We probably agree because we support the 2 best teams in the conference.

:D

DD

[Centaur of the Sun]

I'm still undecided as to whom I will be voting for. I'm hoping to have some epiphany while in the voting booth and making my decision there. Doubt it will really happen like that, but if push comes to shove I'll likely vote third party.

I just feel, like many, that neither candidate truly has the solutions that are needed to secure the long term interests of this country.

I'm a social Democrat, but mostly conservative personally. My political views are such a mish mash of the candidates stances that it makes it hard to get a good grasp on things. Making priorities is tough though, considering I put so many things in high regard.

I'll hopefully be voting Friday morning.

[ElNono]

what came before the big bang?

We don't know yet. Actually we don't really know if there was a big bang at all. And that's the rational position to take when you don't know something.

So, what's your point again?

[Extra Stout]

Then why does your kind speak as if they know the definitive truth about God? Why pass judgment on non-believers when you even admit you don't know the truth?

Humble yourself.
I don't know the definitive truth about God. I believe Christianity, and I know, broadly, what Christianity claims about God.

Christianity claims that people who reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ end up separated from him eternally. I can read the Bible and it says that. Essentially all Christians who have read the Bible over two millenia have come to the same conclusion. So, I know with high confidence that that is the orthodox Christian doctrine. And I believe Christianity, so I trust that doctrine is correct.

But I don't know it the same way that I know that the sky is blue.

[DaDakota]

I don't know the definitive truth about God. I believe Christianity, and I know, broadly, what Christianity claims about God.

Christianity claims that people who reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ end up separated from him eternally. I can read the Bible and it says that. Essentially all Christians who have read the Bible over two millenia have come to the same conclusion. So, I know with high confidence that that is the orthodox Christian doctrine. And I believe Christianity, so I trust that doctrine is correct.

But I don't know it the same way that I know that the sky is blue.

Do you honestly believe that the majority of the world is going to hell because they don't follow Christianity?

Do you think the Hindus children who have never heard of Jesus are going to hell?

What about the people who live on Islands in the pacific that have no contact with outside civilization and have never heard of Jesus, are they going to hell?

This is why religion is such a joke....they are so concerned with making their own mythos.....RIGHT....that they fail to look inside at their own religious insecurities and inaccuracies.

DD

[Extra Stout]

The scientific community is constantly challenging existing theories and putting new ones up to rigorous examination and testing. They never pretend or assume they are correct, in other words faith has no place in science.

Dogmatic religion like Christianity and Islam, OTOH, tend to produce a stagnation of thought more than anything. Why should we research about our weather patterns, the way ocean currents work, etc.? We already know the answer. God made it that way.
The statement that Christianity and Islam produce a stagnation of thinking reflects ignorance of history.

[spurster]

Those who believe that their scientific worldview is built solely on facts, or that none of the elements on which it is built stand on faith... have either been mislead, misinformed, or simply refuse to "see" the Truth.

DNA and RNA (the molecules which are considered by most as the basis for LIFE) or even the smallest self-replicating prions, cannot spontaneously form from a broth of chemicals. It requires not one, not two, but three pH reversal steps to create them from an achiral reagent broth (did earth's environment flip-flop three times within a span of only a few micro seconds?). Sure, we can create those species in a lab by controlling the environment; actions which inherently negate a corollary to the natural order. Furthermore, the entropic energy that needs to be overcome in order to create DNA from smaller molecules is cosmically prohibitive. And the boundary layer required to satisfy the entropic law would pose a flux limitation that no scientist can ethically ignore or simply throw out the window (yet this constraint has been subdued and largely ignored out of convenience).

What good is a belief that "mother nature" has been running things all along from point zero when science indicates that no such formation process for life is natural? The origins subject will forever baffle science because science is incapable of addressing the supernatural; that which by very definition is not bound by the natural order. It incorporates as much "speculation" as the next theory.

You see then... belief in said theory requires as much faith as belief that they were created and designed with a purpose. You dare call us indoctrinated? Half of you don't even understand the "science" which you have elevated above all other things.

You are confused about science. Scientific theories are frameworks that both account for many observations and generate problems of how other observations can be accounted for. You think to discredit science by pointing out one of the problems, when instead, one of the triumphs of the scientific method is differentiating between what is and is not accounted for combined with a process for studying problems, often solving them and adding to our technology. A successful scientific theory is not one that explains everything, but one in which problems are clearly identified and successfully solved.

Are there problems? Yes, there are. Do they invalidate the theory? Not as long as progress can be made on the problems as a whole. Picking out an individual problem that hasn't been solved and that appears to be difficult isn't much of an argument.

Anyway, the entropy argument is dopey. The sun provides plenty of energy.

[DaDakota]

The statement that Christianity and Islam produce a stagnation of thinking reflects ignorance of history.

No it doesn't.....it vacilates based upon who is in power at the time, at one point Islam was leading the world in intellectual pursuits, but now that the far right of their party has taken such a strangle hold it is actually stopping intellectual pursuits if it contradicts the Koran.....

Christianity the same thing......remember the Dark Ages and the Spanish Inquisition?

Scientists were killed and persecuted as heretics.....

Religion is an outdated conduit to a time when man was ignorant....why in the world people would turn to the uneducated as knowing more about God 2000 years ago than we do now is beyond me and it is intellectually bankrupt.

DD

[TheMadHatter]

Do you honestly believe that the majority of the world is going to hell because they don't follow Christianity?

Do you think the Hindus children who have never heard of Jesus are going to hell?

What about the people who live on Islands in the pacific that have no contact with outside civilization and have never heard of Jesus, are they going to hell?

This is why religion is such a joke....they are so concerned with making their own mythos.....RIGHT....that they fail to look inside at their own religious insecurities and inaccuracies.

DD

Man you're on a roll today.

It's exactly religion's incessant need to be the exclusive truth that causes so many problems around the world. ExtraStout is one of the few devoutly religious Christians I've met who has actually humbled himself to admit that he doesn't really know that what he believes is true. That's probably why he is so well liked on this board.

If you cannot admit that what you have faith in is not something you can say definitively is true there is no way you can have a rational discussion about anything important.

[AntiChrist]

This is purely hypothetical. Let's say we put a crazy number to the chances that the Earth was created by a fluke accident. That the chances for everything to be just perfect for it to happen would be a very long shot. Let's say that number is something insane like 1 in a quindecillion, and you insert it in infinity since as far as we know the universe and time are infinite. What are the odds that the accident would occur in infinity?

You guessed it 100 percent.


YES! YES! YES! Spread the word, brother! We need more nonbelievers.


Einstein said "God doesn't play dice with the universe". What does that dude know anyway?

[Phenomanul]

Absolutely they can and have. Types of kenetic energy...cold fusion and very partical collider I mentioned earlier all have either broken pre-existing laws or are working twords breaking ground on new laws.

Call me when the amazing discoveries in the unstable particle physics realm begin to impact the relatively stable interactions of molecules in the normal, observable, reaction set realm.



Its called advancement. Its the backbone of Science. The earth was flat...its the biggest planet...the sun circles the earth.

Hey I'm one of sciences' biggest proponents having largely dedicated my life to scientific endeavors. You're preaching to the choir with that ill-attempted jab. I'm the first to acknowledge that there are many things left to be discovered. IMO however, the closer we look, the more evidence we will find that it was designed.

The difference between us is that I don't accept other scientists conclusions as fact without questioning the data of their experiments myself. In certain fields I have the cognitive ability, and critical thinking skills to interpret the data myself. Many times the analyses are spot on but you know what? Other times the data does not support their claims... Why do you think so many preconceived notions are always being debunked by further studies??... Because someone, at somepoint made some unsubstantiated claims along the way.

[TheMadHatter]

No it doesn't.....it vacilates based upon who is in power at the time, at one point Islam was leading the world in intellectual pursuits, but now that the far right of their party has taken such a strangle hold it is actually stopping intellectual pursuits if it contradicts the Koran.....

Christianity the same thing......remember the Dark Ages and the Spanish Inquisition?

Scientists were killed and persecuted as heretics.....

Religion is an outdated conduit to a time when man was ignorant....why in the world people would turn to the uneducated as knowing more about God 2000 years ago than we do now is beyond me and it is intellectually bankrupt.

DD

Exactly.

Major religions as we know them today are perhaps an outdated conduit. We will likely see a shift in religious thought away from religions that rely on myths, fairy tales, and rituals. Science can never answer certain questions about life, and people will invariably look to something beyond themselves to explain those things.

[DaDakota]

Exactly.

Major religions as we know them today are perhaps an outdated conduit. We will likely see a shift in religious thought away from religions that rely on myths, fairy tales, and rituals. Science can never answer certain questions about life, and people will invariably look to something beyond themselves to explain those things.

Exactly the religions today are no different than the Romans, Babylonians, Egyptians, Summarians, Greeks, and Pagans that came before it.

In fact, they borrowed from the mythos in all of them to create their own mythos.

I mean it is ok for people to want to believe......but for anyone to sit back and claim something is the truth without actually knowing it is....is not faith....it is ignorance.

DD

[TheMadHatter]

Call me when the amazing discoveries in the unstable particle physics realm begin to impact the relatively stable interactions of molecules in the normal, observable, reaction set realm.



Hey I'm one of sciences' biggest proponents having largely dedicated my life to scientific endeavors. You're preaching to the choir with that ill-attempted jab. I'm the first to acknowledge that there are many things left to be discovered. IMO however, the closer we look, the more evidence we will find that it was designed.

The difference between us is that I don't accept other scientists conclusions as fact without questioning the data of their experiments myself. In certain fields I have the cognitive ability, and critical thinking skills to interpret the data myself. Many times the analyses are spot on but you know what? Other times the data does not support their claims... Why do you think so many preconceived notions are always being debunked by further studies??... Because someone, at somepoint made some unsubstantiated claims along the way.

You're not actually arguing a point here. Scientists don't accept other scientist's findings as facts. What the fuck do you think the purpose of the scientific community is? It's to re-examine, re-investigate, and scrutinize the theories of others so we can come up with the best answer possible.

[Extra Stout]

Do you honestly believe that the majority of the world is going to hell because they don't follow Christianity?

Do you think the Hindus children who have never heard of Jesus are going to hell?

What about the people who live on Islands in the pacific that have no contact with outside civilization and have never heard of Jesus, are they going to hell?

This is why religion is such a joke....they are so concerned with making their own mythos.....RIGHT....that they fail to look inside at their own religious insecurities and inaccuracies.

DD
To summarize what I said earlier in the thread:

There is no definitive doctrine in Christianity regarding the fate of the unevangelized because the Bible is not clear about it. All there is is speculation. It is only clear about those who are evangelized and make a choice.

I do not believe that the unevangelized are condemned with no opportunity, but that is simply a personal belief with no support one way or the other in Christianity.

P.S. Your statement about the New Testament canon's being defined at the Council of Nicea is false. This is a very popular lie. The other popular lie is that Nicea was about Gnosticism, and that the Gnostic texts were thrown out of the Bible there. While I cannot show you objective truth about God, I certainly show you objective proof that those kind of statements are wildly inaccurate and demonstrate an ignorance of church history not written in a fiction book by Dan Brown.

[Shastafarian]

P.S. Your statement about the New Testament canon's being defined at the Council of Nicea is false. This is a very popular lie. The other popular lie is that Nicea was about Gnosticism, and that the Gnostic texts were thrown out of the Bible there. While I cannot show you objective truth about God, I certainly show you objective proof that those kind of statements are wildly inaccurate and demonstrate an ignorance of church history not written in a fiction book by Dan Brown.

Then what was done at the Council of Nicaea?

[ElNono]

Those who believe that their scientific worldview is built solely on facts, or that none of the elements on which it is built stand on faith... have either been mislead, misinformed, or simply refuse to "see" the Truth.

DNA and RNA (the molecules which are considered by most as the basis for LIFE) or even the smallest self-replicating prions, cannot spontaneously form from a broth of chemicals. It requires not one, not two, but three pH reversal steps to create them from an achiral reagent broth (did earth's environment flip-flop three times within a span of only a few micro seconds?). Sure, we can create those species in a lab by controlling the environment; actions which inherently negate a corollary to the natural order. Furthermore, the entropic energy that needs to be overcome in order to create DNA from smaller molecules is cosmically prohibitive. And the boundary layer required to satisfy the entropic law would pose a flux limitation that no scientist can ethically ignore or simply throw out the window (yet this constraint has been subdued and largely ignored out of convenience).

What good is a belief that "mother nature" has been running things all along from point zero when science indicates that no such formation process for life is natural? The origins subject will forever baffle science because science is incapable of addressing the supernatural; that which by very definition is not bound by the natural order. It incorporates as much "speculation" as the next theory.

You see then... belief in said theory requires as much faith as belief that they were created and designed with a purpose. You dare call us indoctrinated? Half of you don't even understand the "science" which you have elevated above all other things.

Wow, you're so far off I don't even know where to start.
Science accepts that we don't know how certain things work, and doesn't automatically assigns that unknown to an imaginary entity. There's no such thing as faith in science. You don't 'hope' something backs up your theory. Actual tests are conducted and either you prove or disprove your theory. If tests cannot be done at the present time, then you present your theory to the world, and wait for somebody to be able to either prove or disprove your theory. A theory is nothing more than an attempt to explain an occurrence with what we know so far. It's not a scientific law and not a fact, nobody tries to pass it as one. As we evolve, technology advances, or we get new elements to work with, theories scrutinized again and either rejected, or when all components of the theory are factually tested, promoted to a scientific law. That's why whatever you build from scientific laws, you're building over factual, verified, sound science.
Your DNA/RNA example is entirely erroneous, because you are pre-assuming that all the material we're working with is what's here on our planet. And all we know about those material is what we know in the present. And that's where you're going completely away from science.

[TheMadHatter]

To summarize what I said earlier in the thread:

There is no definitive doctrine in Christianity regarding the fate of the unevangelized because the Bible is not clear about it. All there is is speculation. It is only clear about those who are evangelized and make a choice.

I do not believe that the unevangelized are condemned with no opportunity, but that is simply a personal belief with no support one way or the other in Christianity.

P.S. Your statement about the New Testament canon's being defined at the Council of Nicea is false. This is a very popular lie. The other popular lie is that Nicea was about Gnosticism, and that the Gnostic texts were thrown out of the Bible there. While I cannot show you objective truth about God, I certainly show you objective proof that those kind of statements are wildly inaccurate and demonstrate an ignorance of church history not written in a fiction book by Dan Brown.

Actually the real truth about the formation of the New Testament as we know it today would shock and astound many Christians.

I'm sure you still believe that there were no political motivations involved in its formation...

:lmao:lmao:lmao

[BacktoBasics]

Call me when the amazing discoveries in the unstable particle physics realm begin to impact the relatively stable interactions of molecules in the normal, observable, reaction set realm.




Easiest search ever


The LHC was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) with the intention of testing various predictions of high-energy physics, including the existence of the hypothesized Higgs boson and of the large family of new particles predicted by supersymmetry.

It is theorized that the collider will produce the elusive Higgs boson, the last unobserved particle among those predicted by the Standard Model. The verification of the existence of the Higgs boson would shed light on the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking, through which the particles of the Standard Model are thought to acquire their mass. In addition to the Higgs boson, new particles predicted by possible extensions of the Standard Model might be produced at the LHC. More generally, physicists hope that the LHC will enhance their ability to answer the following questions:[12]

Is the Higgs mechanism for generating elementary particle masses in the Standard Model indeed realised in nature?[13]

If so, how many Higgs bosons are there, and what are their masses?

Are electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force just different manifestations of a single unified force, as predicted by various Grand Unification Theories?

Why is gravity so many orders of magnitude weaker than the other three fundamental forces? See also Hierarchy problem.

Is Supersymmetry realised in nature, implying that the known Standard Model particles have supersymmetric partners?

Will the more precise measurements of the masses and decays of the quarks continue to be mutually consistent within the Standard Model?

Why are there apparent violations of the symmetry between matter and antimatter? See also CP-violation.

What is the nature of dark matter and dark energy?

Are there extra dimensions[14], as predicted by various models inspired by string theory, and can we detect them?

Of the possible discoveries the LHC might make, only the discovery of the Higgs particle is relatively uncontroversial, but even this is not considered a certainty. Stephen Hawking said in a BBC interview that "I think it will be much more exciting if we don't find the Higgs. That will show something is wrong, and we need to think again. I have a bet of one hundred dollars that we won't find the Higgs." In the same interview Hawking mentions the possibility of finding superpartners and adds that "whatever the LHC finds, or fails to find, the results will tell us a lot about the structure of the universe."[15]

[TheMadHatter]

The statement that Christianity and Islam produce a stagnation of thinking reflects ignorance of history.


The Islamic civilization which had at the outset been creative and dynamic in dealing with issues, began to struggle to respond to the challenges and rapid changes it faced during the 12th and 13th centuries onwards towards the end of the Abbassid rule. Despite a brief respite with the new Ottoman rule, the decline continued until its eventual collapse and subsequent stagnation in the 20th century.

Tolerance about different ideas reduced and faded, with some seminaries systematically forbidding speculative philosophy, while polemic debates also appear to have been abandoned after the 13th century. A significant intellectual shift in Islamic philosophy is perhaps demonstrated by al-Ghazali's late 11th century polemic work The Incoherence of the Philosophers, which lambasted metaphysical philosophy in favor of the primacy of scripture, and was later criticized in The Incoherence of the Incoherence by Averroes. Institutions of science comprising Islamic universities, libraries (including the House of Wisdom), observatories, and hospitals, were later destroyed by foreign invaders like the Crusaders and particularly the Mongols, and were rarely promoted again in the devastated regions.[208] Not only wasn't new publishing equipment accepted but also wide illiteracy overwhelmed the devastated lands, especially in Mesopotamia.

Oh really?

[DaDakota]

Your statement about the New Testament canon's being defined at the Council of Nicea is false. This is a very popular lie. The other popular lie is that Nicea was about Gnosticism, and that the Gnostic texts were thrown out of the Bible there. While I cannot show you objective truth about God, I certainly show you objective proof that those kind of statements are wildly inaccurate and demonstrate an ignorance of church history not written in a fiction book by Dan Brown.

What the heck are you babbling about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Just because you don't like it does not make it true......

Thinking someone got the info from Dan Brown is beyond funny......maybe you should study the issue more and educate yourself.

For fun you can start here with some of the books that were not put into the Bible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_from_the_Bible

DD

[ElNono]

All I'm trying to suggest is that belief in certain theories still require certain amounts of faith. Otherwise they would be known as laws. Someone made the claim earlier that Science was not tied to faith at all... which is just not true. By definition no, but in practice... all the time.

Theories are not created on faith AT ALL. They're created from logical thinking and based on both sound science and/or another theory.

[Phenomanul]

You are confused about science. Scientific theories are frameworks that both account for many observations and generate problems of how other observations can be accounted for. You think to discredit science by pointing out one of the problems, when instead, one of the triumphs of the scientific method is differentiating between what is and is not accounted for combined with a process for studying problems, often solving them and adding to our technology. A successful scientific theory is not one that explains everything, but one in which problems are clearly identified and successfully solved.

Are there problems? Yes, there are. Do they invalidate the theory? Not as long as progress can be made on the problems as a whole. Picking out an individual problem that hasn't been solved and that appears to be difficult isn't much of an argument..

You missed the point of my analogy.



Anyway, the entropy argument is dopey. The sun provides plenty of energy.

How big is your envelope? :lol

You're suggesting the sun can preferentially focus the necessary entropic requirements to the micrometer scale? Again, there is a flux limitation inherent to the law of entropy... You wish it to disappear because it doesn't suit your argument? Ummm no.

This doesn't even address the pH reversals required in building the A,T,G,C,(U) bases, the sugar backbones and the addition of phospate groups. Nor does it address how such an unstable molecule is supposed to exist long enough for replication to proceed without the 20 plus stabilization enzymes that hold it together. Enzymes which are made from DNA itself! Enzymes which require about 90 other additional enzymes for the transcription/translation process to even proceed. Another chicken-before the egg dilemma.

[ElNono]

1). Science can't break it's own laws. When it does those laws weren't laws to begin with... were they? Now I certainly won't build a strawman around the formation of DNA. But attempting to create the molecule without the use of any pre-exiting biological process is a formidable task. One that goes against the natural order that Science defined to begin with.


What natural order Science defined? I don't follow you. Science is not a cult.



2). Why do you assume the Christian belief system wishes to suppress the Scientific movement? Many prominent discoveries were made by Christians. The propagation of this lie has been pushed by secular agendas rather irresponsibly.

I don't subscribe to the idea that, currently, the Christian belief system wishes to suppress the Scientific movement. I mean, during Galileo days? sure. The inquisition? sure. But not today.

[DaDakota]

Actually the real truth about the formation of the New Testament as we know it today would shock and astound many Christians.

I'm sure you still believe that there were no political motivations involved in its formation...

:lmao:lmao:lmao

Come on, if they were actually interested in "THE TRUTH" they would not believe in the bible as fact....but more a bunch of stories giving a moral outline.....which, I think it succeeds at....far more than that crap they call the Koran.

DD

[Extra Stout]

Then what was done at the Council of Nicaea?
The council of Nicea:

1) Rejected Arianism and affirmed that Jesus Christ is fully God and not created by God.
2) Affirmed the Trinity
3) Developed the Nicene Creed (later appended in 381)
4) Set the date for Easter

There were other resolutions regarding clerical rules, schisms, the readmission of apostates, and ceremonial ranking of patriarchs.

[Phenomanul]

Easiest search ever

:lmao

At your belief that the article somehow negated the point I had made.

Subatomic particles aside...

Carbon is still carbon,
Oxygen is sill oxygen
Hydrogen is still hydrogen
Nitrogen is still nitrogen
Phosphorus is still phosphorus
Sulfur is still sulfur
Silica is still silica
Sodium is still sodium
Potasium is still potassium
Calcium is still calcium
Iron is iron
Magnesium is magnesium

etc....

Not to be missed was the fact that those species represent the most common atoms found in biological molecules.

[DaDakota]

From the council.....yep....non political....ROFLMAO...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refuses to endorse the Creed will be exiled. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to adhere to the creed, and were thus exiled, in addition to being excommunicated. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and consigned to the flames.[20] Nevertheless, the controversy, already festering, continued in various parts of the empire.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------Books left out of the approved Cannon..for various political reasons.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/noncanon.html

DD

[Shastafarian]

The council of Nicea:

1) Rejected Arianism and affirmed that Jesus Christ is fully God and not created by God.
2) Affirmed the Trinity
3) Developed the Nicene Creed (later appended in 381)
4) Set the date for Easter

There were other resolutions regarding clerical rules, schisms, the readmission of apostates, and ceremonial ranking of patriarchs.

Can you expound on this?

[Phenomanul]

What natural order Science defined? I don't follow you. Science is not a cult.
Who said I was comparing it to a cult? I made no such claim.

Science is one of mankind's ultimate tools.

It has managed to create an increasingly expanding, dynamic knowledge library, that attempts to define what we know about our universe. It's always growing, always changing.




I don't subscribe to the idea that, currently, the Christian belief system wishes to suppress the Scientific movement. I mean, during Galileo days? sure. The inquisition? sure. But not today.

Unfortunately not everyone is that openminded. They are inherently biased against those things they don't understand, wish to understand, or fear.

[BacktoBasics]

:lmao

At your belief that the article somehow negated the point I had made.

Subatomic particles aside...

Carbon is still carbon,
Oxygen is sill oxygen
Hydrogen is still hydrogen
Nitrogen is still nitrogen
Phosphorus is still phosphorus
Sulfur is still sulfur
Silica is still silica
Sodium is still sodium
Potasium is still potassium
Calcium is still calcium
Iron is iron
Magnesium is magnesium

etc....

Not to be missed was the fact that those species represent the most common atoms found in biological molecules.Yeah I guess I fell victim to you big worded posts. You lost me mission accomplished.

Regardless the point still remains the same. You think science is faith based when in fact its the polar opposite. You think a law is a law to science when it fact its the polar opposite. You think science is incapable of understanding the supernatural when in facts thats exactly what it seeks to explain.

Obviously I'm not as good as you at posting important sounding information relevant or not to sound smarter.

[Phenomanul]

Theories are not created on faith AT ALL. They're created from logical thinking and based on both sound science and/or another theory.

The point specifically (not in generalities), was that the mainstream theory of how life began requires as much faith as my belief that a supernatural being created all things. Furthermore, the burden of proof is immaterial... unless of course you have access to Doc's DeLorean.


After all, if abiogenesis has been disproven with countless of scientific experiments. A few more (by the reflexive principle) won't hurt... The atheistic sector of the scientific community would love nothing more than creating life from scratch... I say have at it. Just for the record, though, I prefer the biologically ordained method. :p:

[Extra Stout]

What the heck are you babbling about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

The Nicene council edited the books out that did not fit their particular agenda.

Just because you don't like it does not make it true......

Thinking someone got the info from Dan Brown is beyond funny......maybe you should study the issue more and educate yourself.

For fun you can start here with some of the books that were not put into the Bible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_from_the_Bible

DD
You do not know what you are talking about and apparently have no interest in knowing. For you to lecture me about how educated I need to be about the church councils makes you look like an absolute fool. Your mind is every bit as closed as are the caricatures of religious people you fabricate to justify yourself.

Believe me, I am extremely familiar with canon development, and no, Wikipedia does not have it right, and neither do you. No, the Gnostic texts were not in common circulation in the self-called 'orthodox' churches prior to Nicaea. By Constantine's time, the Gnostics were separate, with their own texts, largely written in the second and third centuries. The dispute in 325 was between the 'orthodox' and the Arians, and that dispute continued for centuries thereafter.

The New Testament canon as it is known was accepted informally by consensus by the middle of the second century. As I have already explained, were you interested in learning rather than just issuing ignorant polemic, four epistles at the end of the New Testament were somewhat disputed, and some ancient eastern Christian churches from Syria to India (which we never talk about because we're Eurocentric) still treat them as second-canon. The books which didn't make it also are well-known, and they are not the Gnostic writings. They are:

1) The First Epistle of Clement
2) The Didache, or the Teaching of the Twelve
3) The Epistle of Barnabas
4) The Shepherd of Hermas

There was never a global ecumenical council that ever formally defined the Biblical canon. The Roman Catholic Church claims that the Council of Carthage in 397 did so, but none of the other four patriarchies at the time accepted that synod as valid. Yet the Eastern Orthodox church uses the exact same 27-book canon, not because some bishops defined it, but because those were the consensus books everyone was using.

Feel free to convince yourself you know what you're talking about, even though I've studied it and you haven't. You have a sensationalist book and a Wikipedia article on your side. Just spare me your insistence that you care about "objective truth." You believe what you want to believe and you have your own agenda.

[DaDakota]

Feel free to convince yourself you know what you're talking about it, even though I've studied it and you haven't. You have a sensationalist book and a Wikipedia article on your side.

If you have studied it, as you claim, then how in the world can you believe it?

I mean did you study the histories of the stories? The connection between the Jesus mythos and Horus?

The taking of the Winter solstice from pagan rituals and making it Jesus birthday?

How can you support this stuff, if you are as learned as you say you are....

DD

[2centsworth]

my 4th grade daughter can't even use wikipedia as a source.

[Trainwreck2100]

You suck at bebating. The answer is we don't know. Science doesn't have all the answers and it has never claimed as much.

I'm not calling out science I like science and science has already proven through science that it can't prove everything. My argument is in that original quote that he argues that we believe in something that we have no proof exists, when it's existence has yet to be disproven. So instead of believing in something they take the easy way out and play the "we don't know" card and then hate on the people that feel that they do.

[Drachen]

Ok, so I have been reading this thread for days, and finally decided to find out what my password is so that I could comment on this particular subject. First off, Extra Stout, I have to say that among my group of friends and coworkers, I am the guy who everyone says is "so smart" and "go ask him, he knows everything," and I dont proclaim to know everything. I only said that to say this, WOW it is extremely enjoyable to read your posts here because I learn a lot. I think you are "so smart" and if I had a question, I would have no qualms in asking you because it seems "you know everything." - ha Also, I really enjoy reading your views on your personal belief system, because it seems closer to what I understand Christianity to teach. These arguements about "you and your kind" come out of the fact that either you are in the minority among Christians, or your belief system is being hijacked by an extremely LOUD and powerful minority that professes exactly all of the things that you are now having to answer for (even though it is not right, or even what you believe). Shoot, I grew up in a Catholic Church, went to a Catholic School, and I must have had the coolest parish of all Catholicism, because of the whole host of issues I have had to answer for (even now when I struggle with the issue of if there is a God or not) is ridiculous. My Catholic school, even encouraged me to question my faith, and the reason behind it was that if faith is question, then proved (yes it would be a personal proof, not objective proof), that same faith would grow that much stronger. I tell people that and their jaws drop. That's just how I grew up.

Anyway the original point of the post was this:
Your idea that science is built on faith is preposterous. You state that scientists take a theory and accept it (or parts of it) on faith, that is patently untrue. When a theory is presented to the scientific community, the peers of the creator of the theory get busy trying to disprove it. If, eventually enough peers are unable to disprove it, then it is seen as a law. Now while a law sounds concrete, it is not, more like wet concrete. The reason for this is that all scientific laws come with the caveat that this is a law only under the circumstances in which it is observed (The laws of gravity and all that comes out of these laws break down under certain conditions, etc.). I really suggest you read Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. The first several chapters are devoted exclusively to the scientific method, how it is used by scientists, and why it should be utilized more in everyday life. The rest of the book are specific examples of how it can be used to enrich your life. Also, when something is "disproved" Sagan encourages the reader to not see it as disproved, but to admit it still may be possible, but that there is insufficient evidence. I would think from reading your posts that you might specifically like that last part. Anyway, gotta get back to work.

[peewee's lovechild]

Manny,

First of all, you do realize I am half black, right?

If TD Jakes, or any candidate with his strong Christian convictions, were to run for president, while sticking to those convictions, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

If said candidate were green, I would vote for him.

I have a problem with both Senator Obama and Senator McCain because neither of them have stood up and consistently said this election, " I am a Christian and this is how my Christianity is going to effect the way I run the country."

My beliefs may not always be popular or even respected but I am always consistent and emphatic in my statements about my beliefs.
As such I have no qualms in seeking the same in the men asking me to elect them president.

You and others have compared the election process to a job interview.
Well I want to elect a sold out Christian as my president and I am within my rights to vote or not vote along those standards.
For someone to attempt to regulate why or how I vote would undermine the whole process.

Unfortunately for me, neither Senator has impressed me. I wish there was a third party candidate with a viable chance of being elected that I could consider voting for.

But since there is not, I have to go with the lesser of two evils, so to speak.

McCain may not stand up for my faith the way I wish he would. But of the two candidates, I think he is least likely to undermine my faith.
How will Senator Obama undermine my faith? I tried to explain it above.
Senator Obama saying " We are no longer a Christian nation but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation" concerns me.
The fact that people do compare Senator Obama to being a messiah and more so, that I have never heard of him saying, " There is no way I am the Messiah because Jesus is"- again giving credit where credit is due- concerns me as well.
If Senator Obama had said such a thing, my guess is it would have been all over the news.
Since I watch the news and have not heard it, I am assuming no such comment has been made.
If I am wrong, correct me.

Am submitting this before I lose it again.

First of all, it doesn't matter that you're half black. What Manny said is completely plausible.

Did you know that there are Ultra Orthodox Jews that claim the Holocaust never happened and that if it indeed happened, they deserved it for abandoning God?

You fall into that catagory.

Now, you're proving yourself to be extremely hypocritical. You said that the Anti-Christ would never accept Jesus as his savior. You have been given evidence that Obama has accepted Jesus into his life as his savior.

And, yet, you continue to insinuate that he may be the Anti-Christ.

This irrational fear that you have of him can only be based on what Manny said.

[peewee's lovechild]

The "I'm half black" card is not going to work.

[Phenomanul]

Yeah I guess I fell victim to you big worded posts. You lost me mission accomplished.

Regardless the point still remains the same. You think science is faith based when in fact its the polar opposite. You think a law is a law to science when it fact its the polar opposite. You think science is incapable of understanding the supernatural when in facts thats exactly what it seeks to explain.

Obviously I'm not as good as you at posting important sounding information relevant or not to sound smarter.

I never stated that science was faith based. I endorse true science; science that is developed in the name of knowledge alone and not influenced from the distracting agendas that emanate from either side of the religious/atheistic camps.

I did however, state that belief in the notion that life originated from a chemical soup was pretty unfounded. All of our experiments since the 40's have managed to show just how complex even the smallest of biological compounds really is. The discovery of DNA, and with it the field of molecular genetics, has only expounded on that principle. On this specific premise, which happens to be pretty big, and worldview-defining... faith is unequivocally required.

[Extra Stout]

From the council.....yep....non political....ROFLMAO...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refuses to endorse the Creed will be exiled. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to adhere to the creed, and were thus exiled, in addition to being excommunicated. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and consigned to the flames.[20] Nevertheless, the controversy, already festering, continued in various parts of the empire.

Not good enough. The claim you make is that the Christianity that exists today only exists because of Constantine's politics. Constantine tried to get rid of the Arians and failed. Subsequent emperors in the fifth century were Arians and kicked the Nicenes out of the churches.

But you don't want to hear it, I know. Your reason is impervious to facts.


Books left out of the approved Cannon..for various political reasons.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/noncanon.html

DD
You have so made up your mind that the reasons were "political" that you didn't even read that article you linked to.

At least TheMadHatter tries to be intellectually honest.

[TheMadHatter]

You do not know what you are talking about and apparently have no interest in knowing. For you to lecture me about how educated I need to be about the church councils makes you look like an absolute fool. Your mind is every bit as closed as are the caricatures of religious people you fabricate to justify yourself.

Believe me, I am extremely familiar with canon development, and no, Wikipedia does not have it right, and neither do you. No, the Gnostic texts were not in common circulation in the self-called 'orthodox' churches prior to Nicaea. By Constantine's time, the Gnostics were separate, with their own texts, largely written in the second and third centuries. The dispute in 325 was between the 'orthodox' and the Arians, and that dispute continued for centuries thereafter.

The New Testament canon as it is known was accepted informally by consensus by the middle of the second century. As I have already explained, were you interested in learning rather than just issuing ignorant polemic, four epistles at the end of the New Testament were somewhat disputed, and some ancient eastern Christian churches from Syria to India (which we never talk about because we're Eurocentric) still treat them as second-canon. The books which didn't make it also are well-known, and they are not the Gnostic writings. They are:

1) The First Epistle of Clement
2) The Didache, or the Teaching of the Twelve
3) The Epistle of Barnabas
4) The Shepherd of Hermas

There was never a global ecumenical council that ever formally defined the Biblical canon. The Roman Catholic Church claims that the Council of Carthage in 397 did so, but none of the other four patriarchies at the time accepted that synod as valid. Yet the Eastern Orthodox church uses the exact same 27-book canon, not because some bishops defined it, but because those were the consensus books everyone was using.

Feel free to convince yourself you know what you're talking about, even though I've studied it and you haven't. You have a sensationalist book and a Wikipedia article on your side. Just spare me your insistence that you care about "objective truth." You believe what you want to believe and you have your own agenda.

Where is your proof? You can't just say I'm smart, you're wrong. That's not how you effectively debate an argument.

DaDakota may very well be wrong, but at least he is quoting his sources. If you want to successfully argue your point I suggest you get to work and start providing us with references to what you claim.

[JoeChalupa]

Yep, and they are willing to discuss those theories and amend them as more evidence is brought to the table.

Can you say the same about religion?

I mean the new testement is based upon the editing of the Nicene council which left out books because they did not support the resurrection or the views of how women were treated....the Books of Mary Magdaline, or The Book of Thomas for example were left out.

And, in France the Cathers were crushed for their gnostic beliefs.....which went against Jesus as being resurrected among other things that the Catholic church in power at the time found dangerous.

And the Old testement is based upon mythos at the time, like the Summarians and Gilgemesh, heck the Resurrection myth comes straight from the Egytians and their God Horus.

Then you have the Muslim faith - possibly the biggest mythos of them all, it's lunatic ramblings actually change as Mohammeds life changes.....as he goes from peaceful preacher to warlord, his message changes, like God would actually change his message based upon the life of one man....give me a break !!!

Not to mention the Satanic versus....which uh....Mohammed spoke and then recanted saying....ooops...I was possesed by Satan.

I have no issue of religion as a guideline as most of their rules are well....flat out obvious....

But it is when people start to claim it as factual, that the house of cards all falls down.

DD

Religion is all about faith so you do have valid points but for me my faith cannot be shattered in what I believe in. Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe.

Carry on.

[peewee's lovechild]

As a Christian I am sad that the USA is not a Christian nation but saw no sign that Obama shared any of that concern.

It is my belief that one's faith in Jesus ought to determine one's politics not that politics should define faith.

Senator Obama is not the first (and unfortunately, likely won't be the last) to shy away when a microphone is put underneath his face.

Since the USA represents millions of people with different cultures and religions . . . you have to understand that it will never be a single Christian nation dominated by one particular faith.

The Founding Fathers made sure of that.

You want everyone to be part of your faith. Do you understand how absurd this is?

I'm an American. I was born here. I don't believe in your faith. As a matter of fact, due to what you have been posting as of late, I'm disgusted by your so called faith.

I don't want a President telling me that we should be living in a Christian nation. And, there are literally millions more like me.

That is a fact that you have to face and live with the rest of your days. You will never have a President that will make this country into a "Christian Nation", as is your want.

Deal with that.

Accept it.

You have no other choice.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I never stated that science was faith based.



Those who believe that their scientific worldview is built solely on facts, or that none of the elements on which it is built stand on faith... have either been mislead, misinformed, or simply refuse to "see" the Truth.


You see then... belief in said theory requires as much faith as belief that they were created and designed with a purpose.

[BacktoBasics]

Left to Right
This thread/Phenomanul

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k300/xoxpashyxox/Airplanes/Airplane%20Crashes/aircraft01.jpg

[peewee's lovechild]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=2

"I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals."

I'm not sure how much clearer that could be.

She just doesn't want to accept the facts.

Like I said, I strongly believe that she's just repeating the things she hears at church.

Manny was right in his assessment of her.

[ElNono]

The point specifically (not in generalities), was that the mainstream theory of how life began requires as much faith as my belief that a supernatural being created all things. Furthermore, the burden of proof is immaterial... unless of course you have access to Doc's DeLorean.

It doesn't require faith at all. And if you're a scientist as you claim, you're being entirely intellectually dishonest. It requires more research and scrutiny based on sound science. There's no faith involved in that process at all.



After all, if abiogenesis has been disproven with countless of scientific experiments. A few more (by the reflexive principle) won't hurt... The atheistic sector of the scientific community would love nothing more than creating life from scratch... I say have at it. Just for the record, though, I prefer the biologically ordained method. :p:

But we do create life from scratch. That we have not yet found how that process could have happened outside a lab doesn't invalidate the fact that creation of life is not an exclusive act of the supernatural. The fact that we did create life in a lab, is actually another nail in the coffin for the belief in the supernatural.

I would even dare to say that when you attempt to include the supernatural into science, you're being intellectually lazy. It's a lot easier to chalk up the unexplained to the supernatural, and be done with it. That's not science at all. Real science takes a lot of work to formulate a rational theory based on previous science, and then it takes a lot of work to scrutinize it and test it. It's actually the opposite of intellectually lazy.

Could you have engineered and built something like the empire state building based solely on faith?

[BacktoBasics]

She just doesn't want to accept the facts.

Like I said, I strongly believe that she's just repeating the things she hears at church.

Manny was right in his assessment of her.
Thats pretty much exactly what I think as well. She's beyond thinking on her own outside of simple things like chicken or pork for dinner and even then I'm not so sure those decisions aren't based on careful consideration wether the chicken or pork has stronger faith and what her pastor expects her to eat for dinner.

[ElNono]

I'm not calling out science I like science and science has already proven through science that it can't prove everything. My argument is in that original quote that he argues that we believe in something that we have no proof exists, when it's existence has yet to be disproven. So instead of believing in something they take the easy way out and play the "we don't know" card and then hate on the people that feel that they do.

LOL... the 'we dont know card'...
Can you tell me how many fingers I'm using to type this text?

'I don't know' would OBVIOUSLY be the rational answer. Let's hear YOUR answer.

[peewee's lovechild]

I don't get it.

Being black (or some % of it) automatically means you are not racist?

Do you know what the word racist means?

I was going to point that out, but I'm just so tired of dealing with his stupidity.

[BacktoBasics]

LOL... the 'we dont know card'...
Can you tell me how many fingers I'm using to type this text?

'I don't know' would OBVIOUSLY be the rational answer. Let's hear YOUR answer.
No fingers. God created fingers and since god was here before he created fingers he's not subject to needing them. So in fact your fingers aren't relative at all because its all predetermined in gods plan.

[rascal]

So are you saying all other religions other than what you believe are a path to hell and damnation? Thats the type of thinking that turns off rationality. Your literally taking a line or two from the Bible and misinterpreting it. When Jesus says i am the way and only through me why could it not mean his basic teachings and message is the way.

Jesus teachings are basically the same message in other religions.
In your close mindedness all Jewish Hindus Muslims ect. are doomed.

Are you not against the war in Iraq (Jesus preached peace)? Would you not vote in the president(Obama) more likely to put an end to it?


Where are you angel_luv? I would like to see your answers to my questions.

[rascal]

LOL... the 'we dont know card'...
Can you tell me how many fingers I'm using to type this text?

'I don't know' would OBVIOUSLY be the rational answer. Let's hear YOUR answer.

My answer and it would be right would be at least one.

[Drachen]

Where are you angel_luv? I would like to see your answers to my questions.

After many many pages of this, she stated that one of her posts would be her last in this thread. That she was going around in circles with everyone, and it was no longer productive. I would finish reading the thread.

[ElNono]

I did however, state that belief in the notion that life originated from a chemical soup was pretty unfounded. All of our experiments since the 40's have managed to show just how complex even the smallest of biological compounds really is. The discovery of DNA, and with it the field of molecular genetics, has only expounded on that principle. On this specific premise, which happens to be pretty big, and worldview-defining... faith is unequivocally required.

Untrue, again. What is required is a theory based on science that can explain how that molecular composition came to be. If you were to get up your lazy ass and take the time to study the subject, research it, and propose such theory, instead of just chalking it up to the supernatural, or 'faith', then we could actually advance our civilization as a result.

[ElNono]

My answer and it would be right would be at least one.

Not necessarily...

[Shastafarian]

Did you know that there are Ultra Orthodox Jews that claim the Holocaust never happened and that if it indeed happened, they deserved it for abandoning God?


Who?

[TheMadHatter]

Still waiting on those references ExtraStout......and no I don't want to see any links to www.NewLifeBible.com or www.JesusIsMySavior.com.

[rascal]

Not necessarily...

So tell us how you type without using your hands (fingers).

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

After many many pages of this, she stated that one of her posts would be her last in this thread. That she was going around in circles with everyone, and it was no longer productive. I would finish reading the thread.

She took a lot of unnecessary personal heat, which is unfortunate, but she wasn't going around in circles, she was, as someone said, constantly moving the goal posts to accommodate an undefended position. Obviously she has every right to her own opinions and doesn't have to defend them to anyone, but characterizing all the exchanges as nothing more than a round-and-round isn't true. She expressed her concerns, asked others for documentation against her feelings and then suddenly developed new misgivings when such documentation was presented. That's not a circle, it's a road to nowhere.

[Drachen]

She took a lot of unnecessary personal heat, which is unfortunate, but she wasn't going around in circles, she was, as someone said, constantly moving the goal posts to accommodate an undefended position. Obviously she has every right to her own opinions and doesn't have to defend them to anyone, but characterizing all the exchanges as nothing more than a round-and-round isn't true. She expressed her concerns, asked others for documentation against her feelings and then suddenly developed new misgivings when such documentation was presented. That's not a circle, it's a road to nowhere.


Point taken, I was just stating what she said, not trying to defend her statement or pass it off as true.

BTW (belatedly) Great First Post!

[ElNono]

So tell us how you type without using your hands (fingers).

I could have used my toes. Or maybe I could have used my fingers.
Do you have a way to know?
But I want to see what is Trainwreck2100 answer before I post the correct answer.

[rascal]

After many many pages of this, she stated that one of her posts would be her last in this thread. That she was going around in circles with everyone, and it was no longer productive. I would finish reading the thread.


So she supports cut and run policy.

[Drachen]

So she supports cut and run policy.

I dont think that she is that political, so bringing up a phrase such as the above is kind of, well, out of place.

Seriously, though, read the rest of the thread, it's great and has so many twists you would be surprised!

[rascal]

I could have used my toes. Or maybe I could have used my fingers.
Do you have a way to know?
But I want to see what is Trainwreck2100 answer before I post the correct answer.

You could have but you didn't use your toes. You were looking for a number 1-10 in the answer.

You could have also used your mouth holding a pen or pencil but you would not have likely spent the time to do it that way because you were just looking for a number 1-10. So the most logical answer is at least one.

[DarkReign]

Before responding, I'm going to again point out your self proclaimed regarding Christianity; you clearly stated that your knowledge of the Bible consists of having 'read a few pages, and thrown it down', don't proclaim ignorance on a subject and then expect your opinions to be taken seriously, that serves only to compound your ignorance.

Fair point.


It's true, and you're screwed only if you wish to be, your choice, and even though your intent is to be sacastic, you are correct in that salvation comes simultaneously with the request, even if it's right before you pass on.

Thank you, thats all I needed.



Because you say so, huh?

Nope, because that line is in the Bible and you confirmed its literal meaning. If youre right, JJ, I feel really really bad for the millions of people in this world who have never heard of Jesus Christ.

Im sorry.

[ElNono]

You could have but you didn't use your toes. You were looking for a number 1-10 in the answer.

How do you know wether I did or did not use my toes?



You could have also used your mouth holding a pen or pencil but you would not have likely spent the time to do it that way because you were just looking for a number 1-10. So the most logical answer is at least one.

Likely being the keyword. And I was not looking for the answer to be a number between 1-10, or can you factually prove it otherwise?

See, the reality is that you DONT KNOW what I did to type that message. What's so wrong of saying just that?

[CuckingFunt]

Thats pretty much exactly what I think as well. She's beyond thinking on her own outside of simple things like chicken or pork for dinner and even then I'm not so sure those decisions aren't based on careful consideration wether the chicken or pork has stronger faith and what her pastor expects her to eat for dinner.

Nah. She'd create a poll in The Club to make that decision.



/snarky

[rascal]

How do you know wether I did or did not use my toes?



Likely being the keyword. And I was not looking for the answer to be a number between 1-10, or can you factually prove it otherwise?

See, the reality is that you DONT KNOW what I did to type that message. What's so wrong of saying just that?

I play the odds that you did not use your toes to type the entire message. I stated you would not have spent the time to type it that way and the odds that you don't have any arms is small.

Nothing wrong in saying I don't know. But the reality is you can say anything because no one can prove otherwise how you typed it but there is a true reality and I still say you used at least 1 finger. Thats my answer.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I play the odds that you did not use your toes to type the entire message.

This is going to lead to questioning people's toe faith and whether or not Obama is a foot demon.

[DarkReign]

@ JJ

Ok, enough of the back-biting bullshit between you and I. I am going to level with you.

I have never tried to convert the religious to my ideals. While I admittedly show little respect for organized religion (and I never will), I can and do respect the people who follow who show the capacity to think for themselves.

Here is my problem with most religions: their exclusivity.

That famous, probably most well known quote from the Bible (I am the way...) is the bone of contention, the hurdle I will never get over.

Because, according to you and others who do know scripture and its (supposed) deeper meaning, it quite literally means if you do not accept Jesus Christ specifically as your Lord and Savior, you do not go to our heaven.

Not Allah, not Buddha, not Shiva, not Santa Clause, not the Easter Bunny...Jesus Christ and JC only.

So, with that in mind, what happens to the people who are ignorant to Christianity by way of birthplace?

I dont know if this troubles you or why you waste your time responding to me (specifically) every time this religion stuff comes up, quoting some post I made years ago as evidence of my ignorance (you only had to ask) when I have NEVER, EVER claimed to know everything about the Bible and Christianity in general.

To be quite honest, I dont want to know. Not when I live under completely different moral principles that obviously do not disclude millions of other human beings based on their profession of belief to another God.

I think its too simple and quite narrow-minded to actually believe that there are a vast majority of people in the world going to hell (by your definition) based on those flimsy, faith-based criteria.

Like I said and I will always say, I would never align myself to such an ideal, no matter where it comes from. Its the same thinking we have in our current political climate.

Some parts of America are more American than others, or You hate America if youre against the Iraq war or the myriad of other divisive platforms used to seperate "Us" and "Them".

Im sorry, that sort of thinking and rationale runs completely counter to the very idea of "United We Stand, Divided We Fall, whether its politics or religion.

And by my judgement, of the the two philosophies, I would much rather participate and endorse the platform that includes the whole of man with NO caveats.

Its that simple.

[tp2021]

This is going to lead to questioning people's toe faith and whether or not Obama is a foot demon.
Like the demon of feet, or a sexual deviant?

[LnGrrrR]

YES! YES! YES! Spread the word, brother! We need more nonbelievers.


Einstein said "God doesn't play dice with the universe". What does that dude know anyway?

I'd like to note that this was not about religion, but about science, and quantum physics. Einstein decried it as "spooky action" at a distance. He later realized that what he thought was impossible was actually happening, and walked back his earlier statements.

[ElNono]

I play the odds that you did not use your toes to type the entire message. I stated you would not have spent the time to type it that way and the odds that you don't have any arms is small.

Nothing wrong in saying I don't know. But the reality is you can say anything because no one can prove otherwise how you typed it but there is a true reality and I still say you used at least 1 finger. Thats my answer.

Right, so in a nutshell, you don't know. I mean, the only fact you can take after you remove all the innuendo and guesstimates, is that you don't know.
That's exactly the response I was looking for. And that's fine, because rational thinking will take you to that. Heck, rational thinking will narrow down the options to a number between 0 and 10. If you could actually test those numbers, you would eventually find a response. I'm just not going to let you test those numbers until Trainwreck2100 answers.

The thing is, I suspect he's too prideful to come around and simply say 'I don't know', because then it would invalidate his assertion that 'I don't know' is an excuse, not a rational answer.

[LnGrrrR]

It's true, and you're screwed only if you wish to be, your choice, and even though your intent is to be sacastic, you are correct in that salvation comes simultaneously with the request, even if it's right before you pass on.

I love this idea; that you have a CHOICE to believe or not.

To all the religious people in the audience... could you CHOOSE to start believing in Allah? Just try it. Tell me if you acheive it.

Whether we believe or not is not a choice. We do believe, or we do not. We can make choices to be informed about the decision, but that decision comes to us unbidden. It's not a conscious realization.

(Additionally, if God wanted all of us to be saved, wouldn't he know what would convince each one of us? Wouldn't he therefore have the power to do so?)

[Trainwreck2100]

LOL... the 'we dont know card'...
Can you tell me how many fingers I'm using to type this text?

'I don't know' would OBVIOUSLY be the rational answer. Let's hear YOUR answer.

you tell me you are the only one who knows the answer to that. But i won't think less of you for knowing

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Whether we believe or not is not a choice.

Without chosing faith, you have not accepted Christ. This is the whole point of the fall from Grace and forgiveness through Christ.

What I think you mean is that the belief is so powerful it doesn't feel like a choice. Yes?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Here is my problem with most religions: their exclusivity.


just wondering. which religions do you agree with?

[LnGrrrR]

Without chosing faith, you have not accepted Christ. This is the whole point of the fall from Grace and forgiveness through Christ.

What I think you mean is that the belief is so powerful it doesn't feel like a choice. Yes?

Somewhat. The "choice" thing is false framing, just like the "choice" to be gay or not is.

Everyone who says they've CHOSEN Christ have not chosen it in a conventional sense. It's not what we normally define as a 'choice'. For instance, I can choose to have orange juice or apple juice. However, I can not choose to like or dislike the flavor of apple juice. I have no RATIONAL control over my tastebuds.

The same goes for religious 'choice'. No one "chooses" to believe on a conscious level. They either do or do not. Certain actions or knowledge can influence our belief structure, which may alter our outlook. But again, this is not a 'choice' per se, or not one as we normally define it.

I hope I've made myself more clear.

[101A]

@ JJ

Ok, enough of the back-biting bullshit between you and I. I am going to level with you.

I have never tried to convert the religious to my ideals. While I admittedly show little respect for organized religion (and I never will), I can and do respect the people who follow who show the capacity to think for themselves.

Here is my problem with most religions: their exclusivity.

That famous, probably most well known quote from the Bible (I am the way...) is the bone of contention, the hurdle I will never get over.

Because, according to you and others who do know scripture and its (supposed) deeper meaning, it quite literally means if you do not accept Jesus Christ specifically as your Lord and Savior, you do not go to our heaven.

Not Allah, not Buddha, not Shiva, not Santa Clause, not the Easter Bunny...Jesus Christ and JC only.

So, with that in mind, what happens to the people who are ignorant to Christianity by way of birthplace?

I dont know if this troubles you or why you waste your time responding to me (specifically) every time this religion stuff comes up, quoting some post I made years ago as evidence of my ignorance (you only had to ask) when I have NEVER, EVER claimed to know everything about the Bible and Christianity in general.

To be quite honest, I dont want to know. Not when I live under completely different moral principles that obviously do not disclude millions of other human beings based on their profession of belief to another God.

I think its too simple and quite narrow-minded to actually believe that there are a vast majority of people in the world going to hell (by your definition) based on those flimsy, faith-based criteria.

Like I said and I will always say, I would never align myself to such an ideal, no matter where it comes from. Its the same thinking we have in our current political climate.

Some parts of America are more American than others, or You hate America if youre against the Iraq war or the myriad of other divisive platforms used to seperate "Us" and "Them".

Im sorry, that sort of thinking and rationale runs completely counter to the very idea of "United We Stand, Divided We Fall, whether its politics or religion.

And by my judgement, of the the two philosophies, I would much rather participate and endorse the platform that includes the whole of man with NO caveats.

Its that simple.

DR.

As a Christian, I, for one, have never assumed our ability to know Jesus would be limited to our time as walking, talking Humans. My God isn't an asshole - he is all forgiving, all merciful, and all loving. He loves ALL of us; literally like a parent loves his children. You know how you go 1, 2, 2 and a half, 2 and three quarters.......etc. with your kids, because, ultimately you WANT them to do what you want them to do, but you can't make them, and damned if you're not going to get to 2 and 9944/10,000 before you ever say "THREE!" and have to ACTUALLY punish them. Not that God isn't above punishment - but he doesn't want to; he's full of second, third, etc...chances. Again, I never beleived those chances were limited to THIS life. Of course, like a parent, I also think he sets different levels of expectation: to him who much is given, much is expected, Camel through the eye of a needle, and all of that.

Also, MUCH of the bible (the New Testament) is the thoughts of disciples and the apostle Paul - that are not actually the words of Jesus. It is brilliantly assembled, and gives an outstanding model to live your life by. It certainly allows some people, on both sides of this argument, to pick and choose verses, out of context, to support an argument, or a flawed belief. Is it all "Divinely Inspired?"; Jesus did not say so, so that is, frankly, up for debate. Jesus NEVER mentions the New Testament (because it didn't exist). However, as a Christian, it is what I have - so, although I study the entire text; some of it I take as kind of preaching (James, for instance), but the Gospels, the stories of Jesus, and specifically his words; I take as, well, Gospel. They are a great starting point to find out what he was about, what his message is - and why he has so many followers today.

By the way, as a Christian, I have learned to, "Test Everything. Hold on to the good". 1 Thessolonians 5:21. That is what I do. I cannot be put into a box as to what I believe, because my Christianity is different than anyone elses.

You are right about many Christians: they are exclusionary, Christianity, and more specifically, Jesus Christ, are not.

[LnGrrrR]

just wondering. which religions do you agree with?

I know this question wasn't aimed towards me, but I'd just like to throw out that I think, of all exclusive faiths, Jewish people are the most honest with theirs. Their God is cruel in many ways, and they know and accept it. Also, I don't believe many Jews believe in a hell for non-believers. (At least, those I've talked to don't.)

[ElNono]

you tell me you are the only one who knows the answer to that. But i won't think less of you for knowing

LOL, nice attempt at dodging the question.
Answer the question.
I'll even promise to entertain your crackpot theories about god knowing the answer too later on. Do you know the answer to my question? If you do, then what is the answer?

[duncan228]

I know this question wasn't aimed towards me, but I'd just like to throw out that I think, of all exclusive faiths, Jewish people are the most honest with theirs. Their God is cruel in many ways, and they know and accept it. Also, I don't believe many Jews believe in a hell for non-believers. (At least, those I've talked to don't.)

As I understand it, Jews have no hell and no judgement day. They have a day of atonement every year on Yum Kippur, where they forgive and ask forgiveness of each other and God. You atone for your sins (hopefully) daily, and certainly once a year on the High Holy Days.

[Shastafarian]

I know this question wasn't aimed towards me, but I'd just like to throw out that I think, of all exclusive faiths, Jewish people are the most honest with theirs. Their God is cruel in many ways, and they know and accept it. Also, I don't believe many Jews believe in a hell for non-believers. (At least, those I've talked to don't.)

Jews don't believe in hell.

[101A]

I know this question wasn't aimed towards me, but I'd just like to throw out that I think, of all exclusive faiths, Jewish people are the most honest with theirs. Their God is cruel in many ways, and they know and accept it. Also, I don't believe many Jews believe in a hell for non-believers. (At least, those I've talked to don't.)

The Christian faith is an extension of Judaism. Jews are God's chosen people - from Abraham on. God made a covenant with them, that if they would obey the Ten Commandments, and follow the law set up in the old testament, they could earn his good favor. I believe that covenant still exists, and a Jew that can live up to that very high standard, does indeed earn God's favor. Many Christians believe that covenant no longer exists. My God isn't an indian-giver.

Jesus Christ refers to himself as the "New Covenant". He was born a Jew - and was a practicing one. Almost his ENTIRE message was that the original covenant, or set of instructions, had gotten too complicated, and weren't working out - we had screwed them all up. Jesus came to Earth as a man, led a sin-free life, and was killed for no good reason AT ALL. Jews at the time gave sacrifices to God for their sins - as instructed in the old Testament; Jesus was the ULTIMATE sacrifice - he lived a perfect life, and was sacrificed for the sins of our ENTIRE RACE - fulfilling the pact of the old covenant with God for ALL of us.

[DaDakota]

What ever happened to free will? Why edit out the books that don't agree with a certain male dominated dogma?

Why not include them and let each individual decide?

Why keep the Bible exclusively in Latin for centuries, until Martin Luther translated it in German?

Why? Becuase, religion is selling air......it is hocus pocus, selling what you can't see.....

You have to trust me....I know you are suffering now, but if you give me some of your money, I will tell you how to reach salvation.

Oh hogwash !!

DD

[DarkReign]

just wondering. which religions do you agree with?

None. Theyre started, fielded, organized and maintained by humans who by design or circumstance are put into an unelected position of authority in the lives of its followers.

An authority of God, no less. Which means no amount of reason, logic or science can sway the followers on many subjects of public interest.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[101A]

What ever happened to free will? Why edit out the books that don't agree with a certain male dominated dogma?

Why not include them and let each individual decide?

Why keep the Bible exclusively in Latin for centuries, until Martin Luther translated it in German?

Why? Becuase, religion is selling air......it is hocus pocus, selling what you can't see.....

You have to trust me....I know you are suffering now, but if you give me some of your money, I will tell you how to reach salvation.

Oh hogwash !!

DD


Ironic that you would use the practices of the Catholic Church to condemn Christians, who probably have a strong distaste for that institution. Luther wasn't the first. The Venerable Bede in the 7th century did parts, then John Wykclif in the 14th century did the whole deed. He was killed, burned and his ashes were scattered randomly OUTSIDE of a cemetary as reward for his service.

The Catholic Church thought it heretical for the bible to be read and understood by lay-people (and for good reason; it pretty much refutes everything they were teaching) - in a world where 1/4 - 1/3 of the entire population were dying of plague - having the ability to grant, or remove the ability to enter eternal salvation was pretty powerful stuff. The fact that somehow, with how dangerous they could be, and ultimately were to the power and influence of the Church, that the original, Greek translations of the Bible were not destroyed by the Church, is a miracle.

[Bartleby]

Why? Becuase, religion is selling air......it is hocus pocus

Funny you should use that phrase since it has it roots in people making fun of the Catholic concept of transubstantiation (hoc est corpus).

[TheMadHatter]

The Bible cannot be true as it constantly contradicts itself. Yet it might be an inspiration to good morals and proper conduct. So let us see what the Bible says about goodness, justice, kindness, morality and respect for family, friend and neighbor.

Let us look at some of the sexual morals that are in the Bible. I will begin with Genesis 19. As I read the story, two "angels" are guests in Lot's house when "the men of the city" come to the house and Genesis 19:5-8 reads: "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (6) and Lot went out the door unto them and shut the door after him: (7) and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. (8) Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known men; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing, for therefore they came under the shadow of my roof."

Naturally, I cannot know what that says to anyone else, but to me it seems to say: "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known men; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes;"

What kind of father would offer his children to a mob to be used as they see fit? I will be honest with you, if you were a guest in my house, I would protect you with all my might, but if it came to the point of it being either you or my children, it would be you. And I would expect the same, if it were your choice between your children or me. If it were God himself, if there is a God, he would go before my children. I am not a Christian. I am very pro- family, my innocent children come first.

But that is not the end of the story, it goes on and gets worse. In Genesis 19:31-32, Lot's daughters are talking: "And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our Father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come unto us after the manner of all the earth: (32) come let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father."

And this seedy story goes on until Genesis 19:36 reads: "Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father."

Now I know that is not what the Bible says to you who believe it to be "the word of God." But to me, it seems to say: "Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father." To me that story is pure filth, but others say there is no filth, and no immorality, in the Bible, so I do not know what that story says to others, but to me it is pure filth. And, to me, filth cannot be a part of "the word of God."

There are many stories in the Christian Bible that I believe are immoral, pure filth. but that one will serve as an example for the rest. After all, we are considering the Bible as "the word of God," we need only one "bad" story, only one contradiction, only one untruth or injustice, to prove the Bible is not "the word of God."

Let us consider God's justice as recorded in the Bible.

King David obtained one of his many wives through kidnap, rape and murder. The story is in the second book of Samuel, chapter 11, and verse 4 reads: "And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him and he lay with her . . ." I hope you will forgive me for repeating such filthy stories, but that is what the Bible says. The story goes on and Bathsheba is pregnant. David has her husband, Uriah, killed and in verse 26 and 27 we read: "And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. (27) And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord."

Good! Now we will have a chance to see God's justice in action. How did God punish David for those most awful crimes? How do you think such a terrible man should be punished? Well, God's punishment for David's crimes can be read in the second book of Samuel, chapter 11: verse 15, it reads: "And the Lord struck the child, that Unah's wife bore unto David, and it was very sick." and verse 18 reads: "And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died." Believe it or not; God's idea of justice for the murder of Bathsheba's husband, was for God himself to murder Bathsheba's innocent baby. That is God's justice according to the Christian Bible.

I don't know what that story says to a believing Christian, but if what I understand the Bible to say, is what it says, it would take a very deprived mind to believe the Bible is "the word of God."

[Extra Stout]

If you have studied it, as you claim, then how in the world can you believe it?

I mean did you study the histories of the stories? The connection between the Jesus mythos and Horus?

The taking of the Winter solstice from pagan rituals and making it Jesus birthday?

How can you support this stuff, if you are as learned as you say you are....
DD
For the Jesus/Horus alleged similarities, check the actual source documents like the Egyptian Book of the Dead, rather than the specious work by Achayra S. Most of the "similarities" are fabricated.

Please bring up Mithra next.

Many of the Christmas traditions we have carry over from the Roman holiday of Sol Invictus: the tree, garland, holly, exchange of presents, markets, getting all giddy about snow. Christians "adapted" that holiday into Christmas, partially so they could participate, and partially to avoid attention. Nobody knows for sure what day Jesus was born, but it almost certainly was not in December.

In the Catholic and Orthodox churches, there are holy days whose dates were chosen for reasons that have nothing to do with any history. Take for example the Assumption of Mary. The date was chosen to commemorate a Roman victory over the Persians.

How those sorts of things might debunk Christianity is beyond me.

I do not let popular sensationalized "exposes" on the Bible affect me, because I understand that there is money to be made in finding "proof" that Christianity is not true. There are a bunch of people who, though already rationally convinced that Christianity is not true because of the lack of objective evidence, nevertheless buy books filled with pseudoscience and specious arguments in order to buttress their unassailable rational conclusions.

[101A]

The Bible cannot be true as it constantly contradicts itself. Yet it might be an inspiration to good morals and proper conduct. So let us see what the Bible says about goodness, justice, kindness, morality and respect for family, friend and neighbor.



Every example you cite is from the Old-Testament - the Jewish bible. It is part of the Christian bible, but not the part I usually read.

In case you were not aware, you are a bigot.

[Shastafarian]

Every example you cite is from the Old-Testament - the Jewish bible. It is part of the Christian bible, but not the part I usually read.


Huh? This is the part that always made me wonder how christians can just ignore the basis of their religion. I've never really been given an explanation on why the sabbath was changed.

[MannyIsGod]

101,

You mention that your god isn't above punishment which is one of the fundamental flaws with me. I have extreme trouble rationalizing an all knowing omnipotent being need to punish. It just doesn't make sense to me. I don't mean this in a condescending way and I just assume you have a different perspective which allows you to understand things, but I just can't come to terms with how that works.

Its one of many fundamental issues I have. Punishment is an imperfect method of persuasion and I don't understand why an omnipotent being would use an imperfect method.

[101A]

Huh? This is the part that always made me wonder. How can christians just ignore the basis of their religion. I've never really been given an explanation on why the sabbath was changed.

Read may earlier post regarding Old vs. New covenants.

[Findog]

Huh? This is the part that always made me wonder how christians can just ignore the basis of their religion. I've never really been given an explanation on why the sabbath was changed.

Cause teh Jesus is like a service pack upgrade. What's funny is that most "Christians" adhere to Old Testament morality and ignore the moral implications of Jesus' teachings.

[Shastafarian]

Read may earlier post regarding Old vs. New covenants.

is this what you're talking about:


Jesus Christ refers to himself as the "New Covenant". He was born a Jew - and was a practicing one. Almost his ENTIRE message was that the original covenant, or set of instructions, had gotten too complicated,

[Viva Las Espuelas]

None. Theyre started, fielded, organized and maintained by humans who by design or circumstance are put into an unelected position of authority in the lives of its followers.

An authority of God, no less. Which means no amount of reason, logic or science can sway the followers on many subjects of public interest.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."that's cool. you said "most" and that's what made me ask. i'm pretty much in your same train of thought. i'm not for religion(catholicism, baptist, episcopalian, etc).

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I do not let popular sensationalized "exposes" on the Bible affect me, because I understand that there is money to be made in finding "proof" that Christianity is not true.

Seriously? You discount data on this basis? Because it could be used to generate income?

[101A]

101,

You mention that your god isn't above punishment which is one of the fundamental flaws with me. I have extreme trouble rationalizing an all knowing omnipotent being need to punish. It just doesn't make sense to me. I don't mean this in a condescending way and I just assume you have a different perspective which allows you to understand things, but I just can't come to terms with how that works.

Its one of many fundamental issues I have. Punishment is an imperfect method of persuasion and I don't understand why an omnipotent being would use an imperfect method.

Frankly, I struggle with this exact issue. God loves us as we love our children - got it; I would never punish my children for eternity; nor would I punish them for something that couldn't do anymore, anyway.

However, God does not MAKE anyone choose him; we have free-will, and they can turn away. I guess "punish" might be the wrong word. Maybe "allow them, ultimately, to lie in the bed they have made for themselves" would be more appropriate. What that means? I have no clue. The concept of eternal damnation in Hell certainly has a certain crowd control ring to it, and I am not uncynical enough not to recognize that.

Phenomanu is hanging around some; he could help with this, and maybe ES will chime in again.

[101A]

Cause teh Jesus is like a service pack upgrade. What's funny is that most "Christians" adhere to Old Testament morality and ignore the moral implications of Jesus' teachings.

Eye for an Eye? None I know.

Just funnin.

You have a point.

[Findog]

Eye for an Eye? None I know.

Just funnin.

You have a point.

I'm not saying that all Christians are like that, but most of the ones that I know definitely deserve this designation. Part of the reason I've made the journey from choosing baptism at a young age to being defiantly agnostic today.

[Trainwreck2100]

LOL, nice attempt at dodging the question.
Answer the question.
I'll even promise to entertain your crackpot theories about god knowing the answer too later on. Do you know the answer to my question? If you do, then what is the answer?

It;s a loaded question in which even the right answer could be wrong because the only one who knows the truth is you. So the only way to win this game would be to not play

[101A]

is this what you're talking about:

yeah, here's the entire post; not sure it covers EXACTLY what your point is; I might be coming from such a different angle as you it doesn't make sense:


The Christian faith is an extension of Judaism. Jews are God's chosen people - from Abraham on. God made a covenant with them, that if they would obey the Ten Commandments, and follow the law set up in the old testament, they could earn his good favor. I believe that covenant still exists, and a Jew that can live up to that very high standard, does indeed earn God's favor. Many Christians believe that covenant no longer exists. My God isn't an indian-giver.

Jesus Christ refers to himself as the "New Covenant". He was born a Jew - and was a practicing one. Almost his ENTIRE message was that the original covenant, or set of instructions, had gotten too complicated, and weren't working out - we had screwed them all up. Jesus came to Earth as a man, led a sin-free life, and was killed for no good reason AT ALL. Jews at the time gave sacrifices to God for their sins - as instructed in the old Testament; Jesus was the ULTIMATE sacrifice - he lived a perfect life, and was sacrificed for the sins of our ENTIRE RACE - fulfilling the pact of the old covenant with God for ALL of us.

[Shastafarian]

No I get it I think. Does Jesus saying the old covenant had become too complicated give Christians reason to totally ignore old testament laws? Because it seems the majority do.

[LnGrrrR]

I know that Jesus said to ignore some of the sillier Ten Commandments. Honestly, Jesus was pretty much a hippie. Honor thy mother and father, don't lie, don't steal... you know, the basic preconditional law necessary for a successful society.

[romad_20]

The Bible cannot be true as it constantly contradicts itself. Yet it might be an inspiration to good morals and proper conduct. So let us see what the Bible says about goodness, justice, kindness, morality and respect for family, friend and neighbor.

Let us look at some of the sexual morals that are in the Bible. I will begin with Genesis 19. As I read the story, two "angels" are guests in Lot's house when "the men of the city" come to the house and Genesis 19:5-8 reads: "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (6) and Lot went out the door unto them and shut the door after him: (7) and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. (8) Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known men; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing, for therefore they came under the shadow of my roof."

Naturally, I cannot know what that says to anyone else, but to me it seems to say: "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known men; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes;"

What kind of father would offer his children to a mob to be used as they see fit? I will be honest with you, if you were a guest in my house, I would protect you with all my might, but if it came to the point of it being either you or my children, it would be you. And I would expect the same, if it were your choice between your children or me. If it were God himself, if there is a God, he would go before my children. I am not a Christian. I am very pro- family, my innocent children come first.

But that is not the end of the story, it goes on and gets worse. In Genesis 19:31-32, Lot's daughters are talking: "And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our Father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come unto us after the manner of all the earth: (32) come let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father."

And this seedy story goes on until Genesis 19:36 reads: "Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father."

Now I know that is not what the Bible says to you who believe it to be "the word of God." But to me, it seems to say: "Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father." To me that story is pure filth, but others say there is no filth, and no immorality, in the Bible, so I do not know what that story says to others, but to me it is pure filth. And, to me, filth cannot be a part of "the word of God."

There are many stories in the Christian Bible that I believe are immoral, pure filth. but that one will serve as an example for the rest. After all, we are considering the Bible as "the word of God," we need only one "bad" story, only one contradiction, only one untruth or injustice, to prove the Bible is not "the word of God."

Let us consider God's justice as recorded in the Bible.

King David obtained one of his many wives through kidnap, rape and murder. The story is in the second book of Samuel, chapter 11, and verse 4 reads: "And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him and he lay with her . . ." I hope you will forgive me for repeating such filthy stories, but that is what the Bible says. The story goes on and Bathsheba is pregnant. David has her husband, Uriah, killed and in verse 26 and 27 we read: "And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. (27) And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord."

Good! Now we will have a chance to see God's justice in action. How did God punish David for those most awful crimes? How do you think such a terrible man should be punished? Well, God's punishment for David's crimes can be read in the second book of Samuel, chapter 11: verse 15, it reads: "And the Lord struck the child, that Unah's wife bore unto David, and it was very sick." and verse 18 reads: "And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died." Believe it or not; God's idea of justice for the murder of Bathsheba's husband, was for God himself to murder Bathsheba's innocent baby. That is God's justice according to the Christian Bible.

I don't know what that story says to a believing Christian, but if what I understand the Bible to say, is what it says, it would take a very deprived mind to believe the Bible is "the word of God."

Excellent post.

I remember reading the illustrated version of the bible as a young child and being confused as to why God did these types of things to punish people. When I actually read the KJV at a later age the stories of death and wiping out entire cities (livestock, children etc.) in the name of god was scary. The story of Lot was always one that frighten me. To think God would basically have a contest with Satan and ruin a life (and many other lives) to prove a point just didn't sit right with my concepts of right and wrong.

I'm curious to hear the discussion about your post.

[101A]

No I get it I think. Does Jesus saying the old covenant had become too complicated give Christians reason to totally ignore old testament laws? Because it seems the majority do.

Jesus had many teachings on what a virtuous life would look like.

He was a model to live your life by - he is the also the reason the "laws" became irrelevant.

Here's the Reader's Digest Version

God is Perfect
Sin is imperfect
Sin cannot be near God
If you have Sin YOU cannot be near God

Jews had/have a series of laws that taught them what was sin (still in effect); and things YOU had to do to absolve yourself of those sins. Diet restrictions, sacrifices, gifts, etc...I should know more about this, but since I'm a closed-minded Christian I don't

Jesus is the answer to all of that - if you sin; and ask for forgiveness, it is forgiven through Jesus; you can be near God.

Many Christians stop RIGHT THERE

However, the Bible has MUCH to say about Hypocricy - actions speaking louder than words and all of that.

Bottom line, people were all caught up in obeying laws, doing this on Friday, not doing this on Sunday, eating this, slaughtering that, the concept of being "good" and "loving your fellow man" was completely lost.

Jesus came said, O,k. - forget all of that law stuff; act this way - first of all "Love God, your neighbor and yourself"; "I've got a deal with the old man, I'll take care of the rest."

[DarkReign]

DR.

As a Christian, I, for one, have never assumed our ability to know Jesus would be limited to our time as walking, talking Humans. My God isn't an asshole - he is all forgiving, all merciful, and all loving. He loves ALL of us; literally like a parent loves his children. You know how you go 1, 2, 2 and a half, 2 and three quarters.......etc. with your kids, because, ultimately you WANT them to do what you want them to do, but you can't make them, and damned if you're not going to get to 2 and 9944/10,000 before you ever say "THREE!" and have to ACTUALLY punish them. Not that God isn't above punishment - but he doesn't want to; he's full of second, third, etc...chances. Again, I never beleived those chances were limited to THIS life. Of course, like a parent, I also think he sets different levels of expectation: to him who much is given, much is expected, Camel through the eye of a needle, and all of that.

While I appreciate the good analogy, I think you may be in a minority amongst your faith.


Also, MUCH of the bible (the New Testament) is the thoughts of disciples and the apostle Paul - that are not actually the words of Jesus.

Again, I think you may be in a minority amongst your faith with that sort of interpretation.



It is brilliantly assembled, and gives an outstanding model to live your life by. It certainly allows some people, on both sides of this argument, to pick and choose verses, out of context, to support an argument, or a flawed belief. Is it all "Divinely Inspired?"; Jesus did not say so, so that is, frankly, up for debate. Jesus NEVER mentions the New Testament (because it didn't exist). However, as a Christian, it is what I have - so, although I study the entire text; some of it I take as kind of preaching (James, for instance), but the Gospels, the stories of Jesus, and specifically his words; I take as, well, Gospel. They are a great starting point to find out what he was about, what his message is - and why he has so many followers today.

By the way, as a Christian, I have learned to, "Test Everything. Hold on to the good". 1 Thessolonians 5:21. That is what I do. I cannot be put into a box as to what I believe, because my Christianity is different than anyone elses.

You are right about many Christians: they are exclusionary, Christianity, and more specifically, Jesus Christ, are not.

Then I'll ask you, according to the church you adhere to, and the scripture you have read, and the populist interpretation as you understand it, by the preacher/priest/pastor who you listen to...

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Is there, or is there not, a way into heaven, to meet God our Creator, without accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?

All humans have no excuses on this matter, either. None. You are either with Him or you are without, regardless of your ability to actually know of the Bible. If the Bible is to be taken literally, anyway.

If its not, and its just a moral anecdote, then that is an acceptable statement.

Anyway, its a matter of personal faith, and its a hump I can personally never get over. I just cant make the leap of logic and faith that it takes to be so damn bigoted to people who are not my faith. Sure, anyone can tolerate anyone, even for a lifetime. But you'll always know youre a Christian and they were not, I have salvation, they do not.

I will never understand that mentality. Its brutally divisive, its like the ultimate "fuck you".

[Phenomanul]

It doesn't require faith at all. And if you're a scientist as you claim, you're being entirely intellectually dishonest. It requires more research and scrutiny based on sound science. There's no faith involved in that process at all.

To believe it as fact at this point in time requires faith. The fact that it requires further study means that the theory as currently constructed has a major flaw... actual evidence supporting the primary claim!!!

But no, that hasn't stopped people from teaching abiological origins as irrefutable scientific fact; which suits the audience just fine because most people simply don't care enough, or aren't informed enough to get involved with all of the derailing details. And unfortunately pointing them out is cause for scorn (ask Ben Stein).




But we do create life from scratch. That we have not yet found how that process could have happened outside a lab doesn't invalidate the fact that creation of life is not an exclusive act of the supernatural.

As scientists we have to offer valid processes that can substantiate our claims. If the chief claim of this theory is that life can begin from a chemical broth of methane, ammonia, and water (among other species), we not only have to show that the chemical process is possible, but that the process could actually occur naturally - that is to say without having to radically alter the enviroment in which the products are created. Those factors, after all must be fully* representive of earth's early environment (*whatever that may have been from the model of your choosing)... And while earth's early environment was certainly volatile... I don't know of any place in the natural order where the pH levels can swing from basic to acidic then back again within microseconds, all while the pressure changes from subatmospheric pressures to 4 atmospheres, and while the temperatures rapidly change from 40 degrees to 142 degrees. Catch my drift.

The ends do not justify the means... this is not Machiavellian chemistry....

For example, the desk I'm sitting at is very real. It has fixed dimensions, intrinsic properties, a function and purpose. I'm sure there are countless of other desks out there just like it. If you wanted me to believe that it came out of the tree in this configuration it would require faith on my part to believe it. The fact that it exists, doesn't negate the fact that a factory or a worker was required to put it together. The laborer is just as essential to the desk's existence as the wood itself...

Likewise, I make all sorts of chemical products where I work. They don't naturally exist... am I to believe that given enough time certain polymers would arise on their own? Not likely. Sure, the reactancts are pre-existing chemicals... nevertheless the creation of the final product requires several reaction steps, and successive changes to the environment. For one, we have to concentrate the reactants to unnatural concentrations. How would nature counteract diffusion?

Further still, would you expect a 50 piece LEGO set to build itself if you placed all the pieces in a bag and shook it on end?... after all all the necessary pieces are present? This scenario is not likely either. And guess what? The DNA molecule is far more complex.




The fact that we did create life in a lab, is actually another nail in the coffin for the belief in the supernatural.

Not quite. See above. The supernatural just happens to be one more theory; but one that isn't any less substantiated.



I would even dare to say that when you attempt to include the supernatural into science, you're being intellectually lazy. It's a lot easier to chalk up the unexplained to the supernatural, and be done with it. That's not science at all. Real science takes a lot of work to formulate a rational theory based on previous science, and then it takes a lot of work to scrutinize it and test it. It's actually the opposite of intellectually lazy.

You keep fooling yourself into thinking that this is what I'm doing. Or that this is my mindset.



Could you have engineered and built something like the empire state building based solely on faith?

No... but thanks for the great set-up that explains what I've been trying to say. The Empire State Building required thousands of workers, several million lbs of steel and concrete, thousands of man-hours and most importantly a plan (or funding depending on who you ask). If you wanted me to believe that it came into being from a natural process... that my friend, would require a great deal of faith.

Listen, I don't have the time to sit here and argue this with you. You believe what you want. I'm not here to change your mind. Besides, I have to work.

[dg7md]

Voted, went straight dem and feel very good about it. Line wasn't too bad but I saw many young people there so that's a good sign.

[Trainwreck2100]

Voted, went straight dem and feel very good about it. Line wasn't too bad but I saw many young people there so that's a good sign.

That's great

[101A]

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Is there, or is there not, a way into heaven, to meet God our Creator, without accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?




My reading of the words of Jesus are that I am going through him to get to Heaven.

What does that mean?

Does it say "No one comes to the Father without accepting me as their Lord and Savior".

No, it doesn't.

It says "Through" it doesn't say anything about anything I might do - just a path everybody going to God will take. It also doesn't say when I will go "through" him.

Salvation is a gift, not a reward.

Regarding being in the minority; you are right, in my post I am the ONLY Christian, probably, who believes exactly like I do; and, in my reading, it's supposed to be that way.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I'm not saying that all Christians are like that, but most of the ones that I know definitely deserve this designation. Part of the reason I've made the journey from choosing baptism at a young age to being defiantly agnostic today.my faith was shooken up when i used to play for WV Grant's church. i think i've told this before on here. i saw many things that i didn't like and it really tested my faith. up until we took an offering one time and the guest pastor looked at the collection plate and said that "God wasn't speaking loud enough to everyone's hearts"......................................sent me on a tailspin for a while, but i realized it was the people that were whoring out God's word.

[romad_20]

Voted, went straight dem and feel very good about it. Line wasn't too bad but I saw many young people there so that's a good sign.


Back to voting, I tried reading up on some of the lower races, such as Chief Justice and certain propositions and ended up being more confused than before I read anything. I'm not sure how you would be able to cast a real informed vote unless you followed these people's political career constantly, not to mention, trying to figure out what any proposition really means.

[ElNono]

It's a loaded question in which even the right answer could be wrong because the only one who knows the truth is you. So the only way to win this game would be to not play

Ladies and gentleman, I rest my case. Thank you!!! Thank you so much!!!!
This is exactly the irrationality I was talking about. You just made my case while at the same time making a fool of yourself.

And now I will tell rascal, that entertained a theory of the count being at least 1 finger, that his theory is correct, and to save him the testing part, I'll tell him the correct answer was 5 fingers. Well done rascal.

And you know what Trainwreck, everybody except you knows that it was a trivial question, that you did not know the answer, and that you're unable to be humble enough to just say 'I don't know'. That's just how silly you are.

[101A]

I'm not saying that all Christians are like that, but most of the ones that I know definitely deserve this designation. Part of the reason I've made the journey from choosing baptism at a young age to being defiantly agnostic today.

I agree with you; it is sad. The actual message gets clouded and obscured in nearly the exact same way it was obscured when Jesus came to clear things up. Some churches are better than others; there are many I cannot stomach.

[101A]

Back to voting, I tried reading up on some of the lower races, such as Chief Justice and certain propositions and ended up being more confused than before I read anything. I'm not sure how you would be able to cast a real informed vote unless you followed these people's political career constantly, not to mention, trying to figure out what any proposition really means.


On Chief Justice, Fromwaydowntown said to vote for the current, Republican one - said he was top-notch. FWDT is NOT a conservative Republican, but he is a lawyer - his endorsement should considered a +

[LnGrrrR]

101A,

As an atheist, I'd like to say that I wish more Christians felt the same way about faith as you do. I am all for freedom of religious belief and tolerance.

[JoeChalupa]

It is those who push religion on to others that give it a bad name. I pray and worship but don't push my religion on anyone else. If you believe, great, if not, that is great too. To each his own. All this blah, blah, blah going back and forth just cracks me up.

[101A]

While I appreciate the good analogy, I think you may be in a minority amongst your faith.



Again, I think you may be in a minority amongst your faith with that sort of interpretation.




Then I'll ask you, according to the church you adhere to, and the scripture you have read, and the populist interpretation as you understand it, by the preacher/priest/pastor who you listen to...

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Is there, or is there not, a way into heaven, to meet God our Creator, without accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?

All humans have no excuses on this matter, either. None. You are either with Him or you are without, regardless of your ability to actually know of the Bible. If the Bible is to be taken literally, anyway.

If its not, and its just a moral anecdote, then that is an acceptable statement.

Anyway, its a matter of personal faith, and its a hump I can personally never get over. I just cant make the leap of logic and faith that it takes to be so damn bigoted to people who are not my faith. Sure, anyone can tolerate anyone, even for a lifetime. But you'll always know youre a Christian and they were not, I have salvation, they do not.

I will never understand that mentality. Its brutally divisive, its like the ultimate "fuck you".


Also, DR, Christianity today is probably not what Jesus intended; but that is no reason to not study on what he DID teach. The new translations are an easy read - and are enlightening. It's what happened to me, frankly. I was raised Catholic; stopped going to church while in college, then at one point picked up a NIV bible and started reading at Mathew - had never seen a modern translation before. As I read, I felt like I had been screwed by what OTHER people had told me was in that book. I was a Christian before I started attending church again.

[Trainwreck2100]

Ladies and gentleman, I rest my case. Thank you!!! Thank you so much!!!!
This is exactly the irrationality I was talking about. You just made my case while at the same time making a fool of yourself.




You're original question
€
LOL... the 'we dont know card'...
Can you tell me how many fingers I'm using to type this text?

'I don't know' would OBVIOUSLY be the rational answer. Let's hear YOUR answer.


;2843626]How do you know whether I did or did not use my toes?

Then you answer that there is a possibility fingers weren't used,henceforth it's a loaded question. I would have gladly answered if you stuck to your own criteria. you acknowledged that fingers may not have been used. Instead of discounting the possibility of outside variables that were introduced. And while i doubt you typed with your toes dictation was always a possibility.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Phenomanul it's hard to figure out if you're just having fun, or being intentionally misleading.

There is a difference between "facts" that are established based on logic, years of experiments and trials and "facts" that are based on mythology. You want to say that nothing can 100% be proven as a fact. Yes. But when the average person uses the word "fact" we all know what they mean. You can technobabble all you want about DNA, but you're overloading the issue without any purpose.

The intelligent design agenda is so sinister in this very way because it attempts to undermine the advancement of real science by equating the validity of one theory against another. The scientific argument for evolution is based on centuries of observation, theory, exploration, discovery. The scientific argument for intelligent design is based on "you can't prove it's not true" and mythology.

Comparing scientific temporary assumptions that are used in order to craft theorems to the faith required of religion is disingenuous. It's this kind of sloppy two-step that gives zealots the comfort of not having to examine anything beyond the "facts" that back up their base.

Science: "If X, then Y."
Religion: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

If you don't see the difference between these two statements and understand that one requires blind faith in something that can never be proven, and one simply requires the suspension of disbelief long enough to assume X in order to examine possibilities of Y, then you're either trying to be deliberately deceiving, or you've formulated your world view to fit preconceived notions in such a way that there is no reasoning with you.

In the scientific community, nothing is above re-examination. Everything can be questioned, challenged, debated, and must be supported by the best means at our disposal. Religion? Not so much...

Scientific nut: "There is a black hole in my closet."
Scientific community: "Prove it."

Religious nut: "Mary's image just appeared in my grilled cheese sandwich."
Religious community: "It's a miracle!"

Or worse:

Religous nut: "I think that woman is a witch and a demon."
Religous community: "Burn her."

[101A]

101A,

As an atheist, I'd like to say that I wish more Christians felt the same way about faith as you do. I am all for freedom of religious belief and tolerance.

Thanks.








it's just too bad you've condemned yourself to an eternity in the fiery pits of Hell!!!!!!

[romad_20]

On Chief Justice, Fromwaydowntown said to vote for the current, Republican one - said he was top-notch. FWDT is NOT a conservative Republican, but he is a lawyer - his endorsement should considered a +

That's what I gathered after the reading on some of their decisions. Judgepedia.org had quite a bit of info. I was a bit apprehensive when it said that one of them was appointed by Bush and replace Gonzalez, but after reading on his opinions on certain cases it seemed like he made good decisions.

Propositions however are another story.

[101A]

That's what I gathered after the reading on some of their decisions. Judgepedia.org had quite a bit of info. I was a bit apprehensive when it said that one of them was appointed by Bush and replace Gonzalez, but after reading on his opinions on certain cases it seemed like he made good decisions.

Propositions however are another story.

If you have trouble voting for a Bush appointee; you're really limiting yourself; dude was Gov. for a few years; then Perry since....

[angel_luv]

I know I said the last post was my last one, but I need to say the following- to everyone and particulary to Pee Wee.

I want to apologise for mentioning my stated concerns about Senator Obama.
I said what I did because I was asked a direct question and felt responsible to answer it directly and truthfully.

While I do not regret my attempts at completely honest disclosure , I have no proof that Senator Obama is not a good person and have no business making suggestions about anyone, especially things I cannot substansiate.


So regarding my personal comments about the Senator, I do apologise. I was out of line.

This really is my last post in this thread.

[Creepn]

Mission Accomplished

[Trainwreck2100]

Mission Accomplished

A George bush mission accomplished or a real one?

[DarkReign]

My reading of the words of Jesus are that I am going through him to get to Heaven.

What does that mean?

Does it say "No one comes to the Father without accepting me as their Lord and Savior".

No, it doesn't.

It says "Through" it doesn't say anything about anything I might do - just a path everybody going to God will take. It also doesn't say when I will go "through" him.

Salvation is a gift, not a reward.

Regarding being in the minority; you are right, in my post I am the ONLY Christian, probably, who believes exactly like I do; and, in my reading, it's supposed to be that way.

:tu

[ratm1221]

I know I said the last post was my last one, but I need to say the following- to everyone and particulary to Pee Wee.

I want to apologise for mentioning my stated concerns about Senator Obama.
I said what I did because I was asked a direct question and felt responsible to answer it directly and truthfully.

While I do not regret my attempts at completely honest disclosure , I have no proof that Senator Obama is not a good person and have no business making suggestions about anyone, especially things I cannot substansiate.


So regarding my personal comments about the Senator, I do apologise. I was out of line.

This really is my last post in this thread.

Brovo! And so it comes full circle.:clap

[TheMadHatter]

Every example you cite is from the Old-Testament - the Jewish bible. It is part of the Christian bible, but not the part I usually read.

In case you were not aware, you are a bigot.

Then you are not following the word of Christ.

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words and letters!

When dealing with the people of His day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?" (Matthew 22:31); "Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?" (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and "Have you not read what David did?" (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and He trusted it totally.

He confirmed many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot's wife (Luke 17:29, 32), the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31-51), the judgment upon Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 1-1:21), and many others.

Not only did Jesus confirm the historicity of these accounts, He also authenticated some of the passages that are most disputed today. Many modern scholars do not believe that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, but Jesus did (see Matthew 19:8, 9; John 7:19; Mark 12:29-31).

Some modern scholars also assume the existence of more than one Isaiah, but Jesus believed in only one. In Luke 4:17-21, He cites Isaiah 61:1, 2 (the so-called second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah) while in Matthew 15:7-9 He refers to the first part of Isaiah's work (Isaiah 6:9) without the slightest hint of more than one author.

The account of Daniel is rejected today by many as actually coming from the pen of Daniel, but the Lord Jesus believed him to be a prophet (Matthew 24:15). The account of Adam and Eve often is ridiculed today as legend, but Jesus believed the story to be true (Matthew 19:1-6).

Likewise, the narrative of Noah and the great flood not only is authenticated by Jesus (Matthew 24:37), it also is used as an example of His second coming. Finally, the most unbelievable of all-the account of Jonah and the great fish-is used by Jesus as a sign of His resurrection (Matthew 12:39ff).

If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he should be consistent and believe that the Old Testament and its accounts are correct. Many want to accept Jesus, but also want to reject a large portion of the Old Testament. This option is not available. Either Jesus knew what He was talking about or He did not. The evidence is clear that Jesus saw the Old Testament as being God's Word; His attitude toward it was nothing less than total trust.

[romad_20]

If you have trouble voting for a Bush appointee; you're really limiting yourself; dude was Gov. for a few years; then Perry since....


Nah, I don't. It just made me think about it harder. I wouldn't limit myself like that. I'm just new to Texas politics (only lived in Austin for 6 years). I'm just not as familar with all the players in this state. I voted for Bush in 2000, so an appointee doesn't scare me that much :lol

[DarkReign]

I know I said the last post was my last one, but I need to say the following- to everyone and particulary to Pee Wee.

I want to apologise for mentioning my stated concerns about Senator Obama.
I said what I did because I was asked a direct question and felt responsible to answer it directly and truthfully.

While I do not regret my attempts at completely honest disclosure , I have no proof that Senator Obama is not a good person and have no business making suggestions about anyone, especially things I cannot substansiate.


So regarding my personal comments about the Senator, I do apologise. I was out of line.

This really is my last post in this thread.

:clap

No one said "Vote for Obama" or "Vote for McCain", just vote with your reason and intellect first and your heart and your faith second.

[romad_20]

I know I said the last post was my last one, but I need to say the following- to everyone and particulary to Pee Wee.

I want to apologise for mentioning my stated concerns about Senator Obama.
I said what I did because I was asked a direct question and felt responsible to answer it directly and truthfully.

While I do not regret my attempts at completely honest disclosure , I have no proof that Senator Obama is not a good person and have no business making suggestions about anyone, especially things I cannot substansiate.


So regarding my personal comments about the Senator, I do apologise. I was out of line.

This really is my last post in this thread.


Dammit, you're going to ruin the fun :lol

Good post though.
:tu

[Bartleby]

Brovo! And so it comes full circle.:clap

Almost.

[DarkReign]

Almost.


Why? What else you got in store for making epic threads?

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

So regarding my personal comments about the Senator, I do apologise. I was out of line.

I'm ridiculously new to this forum, so I don't dare speak for anyone but myself, but I really don't think you've done anything to apologize for. Personally, I'm glad you were honest because it generated several good discussions and I doubt I'd have joined this forum if I hadn't been directed to this thread.

I admit, I found it difficult at first to accept the sincerity of your concerns simply because they seemed so unusual and because you seemed to ask for information only to discard it in favor of sticking to a single "feeling."

Just my take, but I don't think you were at all out of line, no matter how much I question your mindset, and I thank you for taking the time to continue the conversation for as long as you did.

[Creepn]

Then you are not following the word of Christ.

Jesus believed that the......

In reality its "Matthew believed that Jesus believes..." or "Paul believed that Jesus believed..."

because Jesus died years before Paul came into existance. Each of the gospel described Jesus Christ in their own way depending on their audience. Thats why you got so many different versions of Jesuses(?). Which one is the real one dammit!?!

just thought I'd throw that little tidbit in there.

Also, how come we got evidence of historic people that was born waaay before Jesus but we never have any evidence of famous biblical characters like Jesus or Moses?

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

In reality its "Matthew believed that Jesus believes..." or "Paul believed that Jesus believed..."

So...the teachings of Jesus are hearsay and couldn't be admitted in a court of law. Well...maybe whatever he said on the cross under the outcry witness exception....

Brilliant!

[Bartleby]

Why? What else you got in store for making epic threads?

My work here is done, but this bad boy of a hijacked thread keeps chugging along.

[TheMadHatter]

In reality its "Matthew believed that Jesus believes..." or "Paul believed that Jesus believed..."

because Jesus died years before Paul came into existance. Each of the gospel described Jesus Christ in their own way depending on their audience. Thats why you got so many different versions of Jesuses(?). Which one is the real one dammit!?!

just thought I'd throw that little tidbit in there.

Also, how come we got evidence of historic people that was born waaay before Jesus but we never have any evidence of famous biblical characters like Jesus or Moses?

Hence why many acclaimed historians now believe in the very real possibility that Jesus himself is a myth.

Do you find it strange that it took a full 40 years after his death before anyone wrote anything about Jesus? Furthermore, in those early Christian writings there is not any mention of the history of Jesus as a man that we now know of in the NT Gospels. If Jesus was really walking around performing miracles in front of thousands of people it would have been documented by someone. The fact that even the earliest writings of Christian followers make no mention to any of this has to be alarming to someone who is willing to look objectively at the Bible. What's more logical, that Christian followers beefed up their religion many years later with fantastical stories of miracles and what not or that the earliest followers of Jesus simply forgot to mention the most amazing feats that Jesus performed?

I'm telling you, do some research on the historicity of the Bible. It will blow your mind how many things we accept as truth today about the Bible that are simply not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination.

[Extra Stout]

Where is your proof? You can't just say I'm smart, you're wrong. That's not how you effectively debate an argument.

DaDakota may very well be wrong, but at least he is quoting his sources. If you want to successfully argue your point I suggest you get to work and start providing us with references to what you claim.
Sources:
On I Nicaea:

Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History
Eusthasius of Antioch, Writings of Theodoret
Athanasius of Alexandria, de Decretis
Socrates, Sozomenus, Theodoret, Ecclesiastical Histories

These are the original and ancient primary sources. All are available in English translation at ccel.org.

On the development of the canon:

Muratorian Canon (AD 200)
Patristic citations from: Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius of Salamis, Eusebius of Caeserea, and Athanasius of Alexandria, and from Marcion, Valentinius, and Origen (the heretics)
The Diatesseron (AD 150)

[ElNono]

To believe it as fact at this point in time requires faith.

Say what? A theory is inherently not factual until all the claims have been verified. You can't apply that little magical 'faith' dust to it, and all of a sudden believe it's fact. That's not the scientific method. You need to apply rigorous testing to it. THAT, is the scientific method.


The fact that it requires further study means that the theory as currently constructed has a major flaw... actual evidence supporting the primary claim!!!


What the hell? The fact that it requires further study means that the theory requires further study. How the heck you arrived to the conclusion that it has a major flaw, if you did not conduct the 'further studies'? What you just said makes no sense AT ALL.



But no, that hasn't stopped people from teaching abiological origins as irrefutable scientific fact; which suits the audience just fine because most people simply don't care enough, or aren't informed enough to get involved with all of the derailing details. And unfortunately pointing them out is cause for scorn (ask Ben Stein).


What is being taught is evolutionary theory (emphasis mine).
That is a theory that is testable and can be scrutinized. Not a single scientist that knows how the scientific method works will tell you it's a irrefutable scientific fact.



As scientists we have to offer valid processes that can substantiate our claims. If the chief claim of this theory is that life can begin from a chemical broth of methane, ammonia, and water (among other species), we not only have to show that the chemical process is possible, but that the process could actually occur naturally - that is to say without having to radically alter the enviroment in which the products are created. Those factors, after all must be fully* representive of earth's early environment (*whatever that may have been from the model of your choosing)... And while earth's early environment was certainly volatile... I don't know of any place in the natural order where the pH levels can swing from basic to acidic then back again within microseconds, all while the pressure changes from subatmospheric pressures to 4 atmospheres, and while the temperatures rapidly change from 40 degrees to 142 degrees. Catch my drift.


It could have been an exceptional event. I can see an impact of two bodies generating both the heat and pressure differentials in the time you have suggested. What are the odds of that exceptional event happening? Without further research, I don't know. But to lazily disregard it as 'impossible' without actually conducting testing is not the scientific method.



The ends do not justify the means... this is not Machiavellian chemistry....


The problem with your take on this is that you don't have factual proof that it's not possible. That's why it actually warrants further testing.



For example, the desk I'm sitting at is very real. It has fixed dimensions, intrinsic properties, a function and purpose. I'm sure there are countless of other desks out there just like it. If you wanted me to believe that it came out of the tree in this configuration it would require faith on my part to believe it. The fact that it exists, doesn't negate the fact that a factory or a worker was required to put it together. The laborer is just as essential to the desk's existence as the wood itself...


It would require you to have an education or google. Whatever is more handily available. Once you are educated, then you have the answer to your question. Faith didn't enter the equation at all.



Likewise, I make all sorts of chemical products where I work. They don't naturally exist... am I to believe that given enough time certain polymers would arise on their own? Not likely. Sure, the reactancts are pre-existing chemicals... nevertheless the creation of the final product requires several reaction steps, and successive changes to the environment. For one, we have to concentrate the reactants to unnatural concentrations. How would nature counteract diffusion?


One problem is that you discount exceptional events, like I stated above.
The other problem with your argument is that you believe science is entirely restricted to this planet. How do you know another planet does not have the preconditions to create such polymers?



Further still, would you expect a 50 piece LEGO set to build itself if you placed all the pieces in a bag and shook it on end?... after all all the necessary pieces are present? This scenario is not likely either. And guess what? The DNA molecule is far more complex.


What you naively forget is that the bag was shaken for millions of years, and that the 50 piece lego figure built is only a part of a million different sets inside the bag. The odds are actually not as small as you think they are.



Not quite. See above. The supernatural just happens to be one more theory; but one that isn't any less substantiated.


Wrong again. The supernatural doesn't attempt to explain or substantiate anything. Thus, it's not a theory at all.



No... but thanks for the great set-up that explains what I've been trying to say. The Empire State Building required thousands of workers, several million lbs of steel and concrete, thousands of man-hours and most importantly a plan (or funding depending on who you ask). If you wanted me to believe that it came into being from a natural process... that my friend, would require a great deal of faith.


Why would I want you to believe it came from a natural process, when both you and I factually know it was built by humans? I mean, there's factual evidence to that. All it takes you is education to know, not faith.



Listen, I don't have the time to sit here and argue this with you. You believe what you want. I'm not here to change your mind. Besides, I have to work.

I'm glad you engaged in the conversation anyways. Thanks!

[JoeChalupa]

No need to apologize Angelluv. None at all. :tu

[ElNono]

You're original question

Then you answer that there is a possibility fingers weren't used,henceforth it's a loaded question. I would have gladly answered if you stuck to your own criteria. you acknowledged that fingers may not have been used. Instead of discounting the possibility of outside variables that were introduced. And while i doubt you typed with your toes dictation was always a possibility.

:lmao
My answers to rascal do not add any possibility. It's implicit in the VERY SIMPLE question. Please explain what outside variable was introduced?

This is priceless, please continue.

[ElNono]

I know I said the last post was my last one, but I need to say the following- to everyone and particulary to Pee Wee.

I want to apologise for mentioning my stated concerns about Senator Obama.
I said what I did because I was asked a direct question and felt responsible to answer it directly and truthfully.

While I do not regret my attempts at completely honest disclosure , I have no proof that Senator Obama is not a good person and have no business making suggestions about anyone, especially things I cannot substansiate.


So regarding my personal comments about the Senator, I do apologise. I was out of line.

This really is my last post in this thread.

Did you discuss this thread with your pastor?
I know you said this was your last reply, but I'm just curious.

And BTW, freedom of speech is a fundamental right of our nation, so no need to apologize for speaking your mind.

[Trainwreck2100]

:lmao
My answers to rascal do not add any possibility. It's implicit in the VERY SIMPLE question. Please explain what outside variable was introduced?

This is priceless, please continue.

You acknowledged the possibility of you using your toes. yes or no? Yuor original question was how many fingers, there were no toes mentioned in the original question then we go from 10 possible answers in your original question to 11. that increase from ten to 11 comes from the added toe variable not in your original question.

Let me give you an example you're gonna start adding new things not in the original question, how do i know you didn't hold onto a pencil with three fingers type it out with the eraser end of said pencil. And then you could argue you typed it out with zero fingers or three.

[BacktoBasics]

Apology not accepted.

[peewee's lovechild]

There was still nothing said about Obama NOT being the Anti-Christ.

[DarkReign]

Apology not accepted.

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/n39/n195562.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

You acknowledged the possibility of you using your toes. yes or no? Yuor original question was how many fingers, there were no toes mentioned in the original question then we go from 10 possible answers to your original question to 11. that increase from ten to 11 comes from the added toe variable not in your original question.


Uhm... I'm pretty sure "none" is a valid answer. Maybe somewhat of a "trick" answer, but surely still valid.

[Trainwreck2100]

Uhm... I'm pretty sure "none" is a valid answer. Maybe somewhat of a "trick" answer, but surely still valid.


Exactly that "trick" part is what makes it a loaded question, because a loaded question is meant to trick. He quotes me saying i'm an idiot, because i call him out on it's loaded capacity, and you a 3rd party see that the possibility is there.

[TheMadHatter]

Sources:
On I Nicaea:

Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History
Eusthasius of Antioch, Writings of Theodoret
Athanasius of Alexandria, de Decretis
Socrates, Sozomenus, Theodoret, Ecclesiastical Histories

These are the original and ancient primary sources. All are available in English translation at ccel.org.

On the development of the canon:

Muratorian Canon (AD 200)
Patristic citations from: Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius of Salamis, Eusebius of Caeserea, and Athanasius of Alexandria, and from Marcion, Valentinius, and Origen (the heretics)
The Diatesseron (AD 150)

Notwithstanding the great influence of his works on others, the accuracy of Eusebius' accounts has sometimes been questioned.

* In the Ecclesiastical History, book 8, chapter 2, in which he introduces his discussion of the Great Persecution under Diocletian with: "Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment. [...] We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

* In the Martyrs of Palestine, chapter 12, in which Eusebius provides a list of events which are omitted from the text: "I think it best to pass by all the other events which occurred in the meantime: such as [...] the lust of power on the part of many, the disorderly and unlawful ordinations, and the schisms among the confessors themselves; also the novelties which were zealously devised against the remnants of the Church by the new and factious members, who added innovation after innovation and forced them in unsparingly among the calamities of the persecution, heaping misfortune upon misfortune. I judge it more suitable to shun and avoid the account of these things, as I said at the beginning."

* In his Praeparatio evangelica (xii, 31), Eusebius declares that it is "lawful and fitting" to use fictions (pseudos) as medicine[5].

* His treatment of source documents is also in doubt, since his Ecclesiastical History quotes extensively from a fictional exchange of letters between Abgar V of Edessa and Jesus[6].

* The panegyrical tone of the Vita, plus the omission of internal Christian conflicts in the Canones, suggests to many that his writings should be trusted with caution.[7].

These and other issues have invited controversy and the condemnation of historians. Gibbon noted that "He indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion".[8], while the Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt was considerably blunter and dismissed Eusebius as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity".

Great sources pal. Keep up your biased pro-Christian research. I'm sure you're getting the complete story :rolleyes

[DarkReign]

If youre going to plagiarize, at least provide a link.

[Trainwreck2100]

oh damn you got called out

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Great sources pal. Keep up your biased pro-Christian research. I'm sure you're getting the complete story :rolleyes

You do realize that you're asking for a bit of the impossible? In ancient times, the only educated people that kept records were scholars of one mythology or the other. You're asking for secular ancient texts on the events that surrounded a religious event. Why not ask for Bigfoot's home movies? :p:

[angel_luv]

Did you discuss this thread with your pastor?
I know you said this was your last reply, but I'm just curious.

And BTW, freedom of speech is a fundamental right of our nation, so no need to apologize for speaking your mind.

My pastor has been out of town the past few days at a funeral.


The reason I made that last post is because, after praying about it, I felt that I should.

[JoeChalupa]

My pastor has been out of town the past few days at a funeral.


The reason I made that last post is because, after praying about it, I felt that I should.

Stop flip-flopping. :lol

:toast

[ashbeeigh]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51YyP69CcuL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

Good read.

Angel, check your PMs.

[angel_luv]

Apology not accepted.

I tried. :)


There was still nothing said about Obama NOT being the Anti-Christ.

Pee Wee,

Thanks to this thread, I will forever go down in history as someone who thought Senator Obama was the anti Christ.

For better or worse, I have made my peace with being so categorized.
Why can't you?

[angel_luv]

Stop flip-flopping. :lol

:toast

You mean repenting? :)

Thanks for the :toast to go with my humble pie. :lol

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I'm ridiculously new to this forum, so I don't dare speak for anyone but myself, but I really don't think you've done anything to apologize for.

I would agree. You should never apologize for having an opinion, no matter how bat-shit crazy/inane it sounds.

[JoeChalupa]

I would agree. You should never apologize for having an opinion, no matter how bat-shit crazy/inane it sounds.

I concur. :tu

[TheMadHatter]

You do realize that you're asking for a bit of the impossible? In ancient times, the only educated people that kept records were scholars of one mythology or the other. You're asking for secular ancient texts on the events that surrounded a religious event. Why not ask for Bigfoot's home movies? :p:

That's sort of my point. If the only evidence that exists is clearly pro-Christian biased and doctored sources it makes it rather hard to form any definitive conclusions about anything relating to Jesus.

[timvp]

That's sort of my point. If the only evidence that exists is clearly pro-Christian biased and doctored sources it makes it rather hard to form any definitive conclusions about anything relating to Jesus.

You are just figuring this out now? You thought you might be able to find definite proof that Jesus was in fact the son of God? That might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[ratm1221]

I tried. :)



Pee Wee,

Thanks to this thread, I will forever go down in history as someone who thought Senator Obama was the anti Christ.

For better or worse, I have made my peace with being so categorized.
Why can't you?

You scare me. I think you are more categorized with this dude...

http://s3.amazonaws.com/findagrave/photos/2002/283/6610999_1034366375.jpg

[romad_20]

You scare me. I think you are more categorized with this dude...

http://s3.amazonaws.com/findagrave/photos/2002/283/6610999_1034366375.jpg

Geddy Lee?:lol

[LnGrrrR]

My pastor has been out of town the past few days at a funeral.


The reason I made that last post is because, after praying about it, I felt that I should.

A question Angel_Luv, if I may: Is there a threshold for things that you think are important enough to pray about?

I'm genuinely curious because I'm not religious at all.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

That's sort of my point. If the only evidence that exists is clearly pro-Christian biased and doctored sources it makes it rather hard to form any definitive conclusions about anything relating to Jesus.

But isn't your claiming to know about texts being thrown out at certain events just as invalid, then?

[TheMadHatter]

You are just figuring this out now? You thought you might be able to find definite proof that Jesus was in fact the son of God? That might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

:bang:bang:bang. There you go again with your ASSumptions.

The point I'm trying to discuss with Extra and other conservatives is whether or not the historicity of Jesus as indicated in the NT Gospels can be trusted. He believes so, I don't. We debate. You make asinine comments and inferences. Life goes on.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

But isn't your claiming to know about texts being thrown out at certain events just as invalid, then?

Logic isn't a prerequisite for posting.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/images/strawman.jpg

[ratm1221]

Geddy Lee?:lol

I hope you are joking. Geddy Lee would probably kick your ass if he found out you said he looks like David Koresh. :lol

Or he would play Tom Sawyer and make your head explode.

[TheMadHatter]

But isn't your claiming to know about texts being thrown out at certain events just as invalid, then?

I suppose so.

In that case nobody can say anything definitive about Jesus. Which goes back to my original point with Extra, the burden is not on me to disprove the historicity of Jesus. It's on him to prove it to me.

I liken it to you trying to prove to me that Bigfoot exists. If you can't provide me with evidence and facts that Bigfoot exists I can say that your claim is false. It doesn't mean I can't disprove Bigfoot's existence, it just means that your claim is false.

[timvp]

:bang:bang:bang. There you go again with your ASSumptions.

The point I'm trying to discuss with Extra and other conservatives is whether or not the historicity of Jesus as indicated in the NT Gospels can be trusted. He believes so, I don't. We debate. You make asinine comments and inferences. Life goes on.Classic Freudian slip within that post :lmao

What exact proof would you accept that would prove to you that Jesus is in fact the son of God? I'm interested to see where your naivety ends ... if it does, at all.

[ElNono]

You acknowledged the possibility of you using your toes. yes or no? Yuor original question was how many fingers, there were no toes mentioned in the original question then we go from 10 possible answers in your original question to 11. that increase from ten to 11 comes from the added toe variable not in your original question.


None is a valid answer too, and it's implicit in the question. There's nothing tricky/loaded about it in the way the question was proposed. I don't need to propose toes, or dictation or using a pen with my mouth to imply that 'none' is also a valid answer.



Let me give you an example you're gonna start adding new things not in the original question, how do i know you didn't hold onto a pencil with three fingers type it out with the eraser end of said pencil. And then you could argue you typed it out with zero fingers or three.

There's ZERO ambiguity in the question. Absolutely NOTHING was added to the original question. What happened is that rascal tossed a theory that the response would need to be a number between 1-10. His theory is wrong in that the response needs to be a number between 0-10, and I gave him an example to sustain that 0 is a valid answer too. Unlikely? sure, but as the question was posed, absolutely valid.

The problem with you is that you made a stupid comment and now that you've been called out for it, don't have the balls to agree that you were wrong. And your whole premise of science being stupid because they pull out the 'we dont know' card, comes down crashing when you use pull out the exact same card every day in life.

But if you want to keep amusing us, please go ahead, and defend your 'loaded question' position one more time.

[JoeChalupa]

Blessed are those....oh, never mind.

[ElNono]

Uhm... I'm pretty sure "none" is a valid answer. Maybe somewhat of a "trick" answer, but surely still valid.

How is it 'somewhat of a trick' answer? I mean, we could argue it might be non-obvious, but as the question was presented, it's an entirely valid answer.

[ElNono]

Exactly that "trick" part is what makes it a loaded question, because a loaded question is meant to trick. He quotes me saying i'm an idiot, because i call him out on it's loaded capacity, and you a 3rd party see that the possibility is there.

What part of 'valid answer' from his post you didn't understand? Really...

[Viva Las Espuelas]

deleting is bad.

[LnGrrrR]

How is it 'somewhat of a trick' answer? I mean, we could argue it might be non-obvious, but as the question was presented, it's an entirely valid answer.

Trick as in non-obvious.

[ratm1221]

I suppose so.

In that case nobody can say anything definitive about Jesus. Which goes back to my original point with Extra, the burden is not on me to disprove the historicity of Jesus. It's on him to prove it to me.

I liken it to you trying to prove to me that Bigfoot exists. If you can't provide me with evidence and facts that Bigfoot exists I can say that your claim is false. It doesn't mean I can't disprove Bigfoot's existence, it just means that your claim is false.

If I told someone that I was going to create a new planet. On this new planet I'm going to create a new race of people. I'm going to let them run around aimlessly for a while and let them fight amongst themselves and kill each over about how they think they got there. Then I'm going to impregnate one of them, and I'll have my son tell them that I created them but I'm not going to give him any proof of it. I just want to see who believes him and who doesn't. Those that choose to believe him, I'm going to give them a reward. Those that choose to question him and not blindly follow him, I'm going to set them on fire.

"Sound good buddy?"

They would probably call me an asshole. Just sayin'.

[romad_20]

I hope you are joking. Geddy Lee would probably kick your ass if he found out you said he looks like David Koresh. :lol

Or he would play Tom Sawyer and make your head explode.

:lol I would go with the latter. He is Canadian, ya know?

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I suppose so.

In that case nobody can say anything definitive about Jesus. Which goes back to my original point with Extra, the burden is not on me to disprove the historicity of Jesus. It's on him to prove it to me.

I agree, but in all fairness to Stout I'm not getting the feeling that he's trying to prove to you anything definitive about Jesus (in this thread, there could be a lot of history I don't know). To me, his posts are all about explaining the current official position of the church which is something that can be proven.

"Jesus was the son of God" - Can't be proven.
"The Church currently maintains that Jesus was the son of God." - Easily proven.

Am I spectacularly missing it?

[Jesus]

When many of you see the proof it will be too late.

[romad_20]

When many of you see the proof it will be too late.


I know for a fact that the real Jesus isn't a Kings fan.

[AntiChrist]

When many of you see the proof it will be too late.


Oh crap! I'm outta here.

[angel_luv]

A question Angel_Luv, if I may: Is there a threshold for things that you think are important enough to pray about?

I'm genuinely curious because I'm not religious at all.

I pray all the time for all sorts of things.

These are not necessarily listed in order of importance but to give you some examples...

I pray good dreams when I sleep, to bless my food, for traveling mercies, for wisdom in decision making, for comfort when I am sad, peace when I am afraid, for the safety of loved ones and myself, for favor at work and in life.
I have prayed for the Spurs to win.

Prayer to me is conversation with God. I pray all the time the same as I frequently call up my friends and trusted mentors to visit with them.

[TheMadHatter]

I agree, but in all fairness to Stout I'm not getting the feeling that he's trying to prove to you anything definitive about Jesus (in this thread, there could be a lot of history I don't know). To me, his posts are all about explaining the current official position of the church which is something that can be proven.

"Jesus was the son of God" - Can't be proven.
"The Church currently maintains that Jesus was the son of God." - Easily proven.

Am I spectacularly missing it?

Actually I believe Extra's position on the historicity of Jesus is that the accounts as stated in the NT Gospels are accurate. He can correct me on this if I am wrong though, I don't want to speak for him.

[Tully365]

Biblically speaking, wrong equates to sin, therefore to be right one must refrain from sin. Regarding salvation, the focus for Christians in their quest to share this message should not be on dealing with the right or wrong of any one particular sin, but sin in general. True conversion (that is, a realization or enlightenment that we are all sinners; a redemptive, confessing and cleansing from those sins), once obtained, instills within the heart of man a rather clear sense of what is right and what is wrong, there should be no conflict with the morality, or absolutes that abide in Scripture.

The emphasis from a Christian to the unenlightened should not be to hammer them about their sinful life, nor to heap condemnation upon them (indeed, we are born into sin), but to inform them that the Christ was "sent into the World, not to condemn, but to bring salvation to the World.

We don't get caught up in trivial arguements such as "is smoking a sin, is drinking a sin", etc., those are side issues or distractions from the Gospel's thrust which is to release us from the burden and condemnation of all sin.
When we fall short, and we all do on a daily basis, we know it, the reflexive realization of that sin leads us to seek forgiveness, and that forgiveness is uncondition and immediately there upon asking, we then move on from there.

I don't get caught up in arguments about what is and what is not sin on minor issues, there are ample opportunities each day to talk to and encourage those who are earnestly seeking God, or who have sincere and honest questions about God and Christ.

But again, terms like "wrong" and "sin" are extremely and maybe entirely subjective. Amish Christians think it is wrong to drive a car. Mormons are opposed to consuming alcohol. Quakers refuse to serve in the military. And it seems to me that all Christians pick and choose what rules are relevant. The Old Testament mentions a few times that a man should not share a bed with his wife while she is menstruating, but I have never in my life heard a single Christian preach or follow that law. But when the same book has a few sentences about homosexuality, entire legions are ready to change the way they vote, the schools they send their children to, and the neighborhoods they live in.

If by some bizarre twist of fate, our country became dominated by Amish mayors, governors, and presidents, would you happily adhere to their proposed restrictions on driving, dancing, colorful clothing, and the use of electricity? Or would you say that they were fanatics and fight them as often as possible in order to live your life as you see fit?

[TheMadHatter]

But again, terms like "wrong" and "sin" are extremely and maybe entirely subjective. Amish Christians think it is wrong to drive a car. Mormons are opposed to consuming alcohol. Quakers refuse to serve in the military. And it seems to me that all Christians pick and choose what rules are relevant. The Old Testament mentions a few times that a man should not share a bed with his wife while she is menstruating, but I have never in my life heard a single Christian preach or follow that law. But when the same book has a few sentences about homosexuality, entire legions are ready to change the way they vote, the schools they send their children to, and the neighborhoods they live in.

If by some bizarre twist of fate, our country became dominated by Amish mayors, governors, and presidents, would you happily adhere to their proposed restrictions on driving, dancing, colorful clothing, and the use of electricity? Or would you say that they were fanatics and fight them as often as possible in order to live your life as you see fit?

Couldn't have phrased it any better myself.

[temujin]

I pray all the time for all sorts of things.

These are not necessarily listed in order of importance but to give you some examples...

I pray good dreams when I sleep, to bless my food, for traveling mercies, for wisdom in decision making, for comfort when I am sad, peace when I am afraid, for the safety of loved ones and myself, for favor at work and in life.
I have prayed for the Spurs to win.

Prayer to me is conversation with God. I pray all the time the same as I frequently call up my friends and trusted mentors to visit with them.

Very human.

I think you believe in gods, not in God.

[angel_luv]

Very human.

I think you believe in gods, not in God.

I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only Savior of the world. I have accepted and confess Jesus as my Lord and Savior.

And I forever stand by that decision.

[Phenomanul]

Say what? A theory is inherently not factual until all the claims have been verified. You can't apply that little magical 'faith' dust to it, and all of a sudden believe it's fact. That's not the scientific method. You need to apply rigorous testing to it. THAT, is the scientific method.

So then what makes your belief in abiological origins any more valid than my belief in a supernatural GOD?

In the meantime continue to wait for validation of said theory...

Oh... and don't pretend to lecture me on the scientific method.


What the hell? The fact that it requires further study means that the theory requires further study. How the heck you arrived to the conclusion that it has a major flaw, if you did not conduct the 'further studies'? What you just said makes no sense AT ALL.

You're the one going in circles. Quit trying to suggest that I've somehow made a blanket statement against all science.

I'm not debating the principles behind belief in scientific theories. I'm debating the skewed nature of the 'evidence' being used to validate the theory of abiological origins... the burden of proof in this case does not fall on me, it falls on those trying to substantiate the claim that life sprung out of no where.

My claim was that belief in abiological origins requires a certain amount of faith. Why? Because as of right now that claim is only an unproven theory. You stated that much yourself, I don't know why admission of that statement is so difficult for you to accept. Also, just because you have acknowledged it as a theory doesn't mean that the mainstream audience considers it as such. They have come to accept it as fact because it was taught to them that way; most aren't even aware that this particular theory has yet to be proven.

Furthermore, I believe there is a disconnect between our use of the word "faith". To me, faith is to believe in something without having physical proof of its existence. There is no spiritual connotation involved. Your rebuttals leave the impression that I'm somehow not disassociating the two premises.



What is being taught is evolutionary theory (emphasis mine).
That is a theory that is testable and can be scrutinized. Not a single scientist that knows how the scientific method works will tell you it's a irrefutable scientific fact.

Evolution equals not abiological orgins....

One is a biological model that defines the dynamics for speciation. The other, well... attempts to define how life itself began.

The theory of evolution (lower case enphasized) is supported by much geological and empirical evidence. But it doesn't address the origins question.



It could have been an exceptional event. I can see an impact of two bodies generating both the heat and pressure differentials in the time you have suggested. What are the odds of that exceptional event happening? Without further research, I don't know. But to lazily disregard it as 'impossible' without actually conducting testing is not the scientific method.

Who says I've disregarded the research??? I've read through 65+ years worth of articles on the subject. It kind of comes with the territory of attaining a degree in Molecular Genetics.

Collisions like the one you're suggesting would incinerate living organisms - not sprout life. Without its protective enzymes DNA would denaturalize (at temperatures slightly over 200 deg F). I believe this line of reasoning was abandoned in the early 80's because it was found that most of the 'organic' compounds required to produce amino acids would crack and oxidize. Furthermore, the concentration gradient required to keep the products from thermally breaking down after the reaction couldn't be overcome by any known natural process. As soon as amino acids were formed they would revert to lower energy states by breaking down into their constituent species.

Also, the production of right-handed amino acid species in those experiments curbed subsequent attempts to grow polypeptide RNA chains longer than 5 amino acid bases - that is because all known biological molecules use the left-handed version of enantiomers, right-handed ones essentially 'stop' the growth of any growing polypeptide chain.

So you see, the lab setting is an essential participant in the quasi-successful creation of 'life in a flask' - don't disassociate the two. The reactions can't proceed without our deliberate intervention. More specifically, we eliminate all the physical (natural) constrainsts that would otherwise negate the reaction towards viable genetic material - and even when finally produced the molecules don't survive very long.

For example, the environment required to form the sugar-phosphate backbone polymer is radically different from the enviroment required to produce amino acids (5 of which also act as DNA/RNA polypeptide bases). Neither is sufficiently stable in solution... Labs are hence required to bring the two together. Undermining the effects of human interaction, however convenient, is what would be 'intellectually dishonest.'



The problem with your take on this is that you don't have factual proof that it's not possible. That's why it actually warrants further testing.

You don't see me lobbying against institutions who are seeking answers to the origins question? As I said earlier, "[let them] have at it". Why repress such research? Let them surprise me.

I stated earlier that I haven't built a strawman around the origins of DNA... I stand by that comment.



It would require you to have an education or google. Whatever is more handily available. Once you are educated, then you have the answer to your question. Faith didn't enter the equation at all.

hardy har har... nice little red herring. Faith would undeniably be required if you wanted me to believe that something as complex as a simple desk sprung out of a tree. Of course I know who makes them. You missed the point entirely. Intelligent design is also required, as the wood pieces alone don't assemble themselves into the desk.




One problem is that you discount exceptional events, like I stated above. Or that you have placed your faith in such events? Same difference... hmm where have I heard that before? Oh yeah... this "big fella in the sky," AKA GOD created the Universe and all Life as we know it... sounds like a pretty exceptional event to me!



The other problem with your argument is that you believe science is entirely restricted to this planet. How do you know another planet does not have the preconditions to create such polymers?

While mathematically possible it is not really plausible. Those polymers were 'designed' and created by man.

Look, I've already played the numbers game with Random Guy before. Ultimately, creation of DNA from pure chance alone was on the order of 10^-289... or some ridiculous number that was for all intents and purposes zero. But no, he admitted that he would rather hold on to that statistical chance than to ever admit that belief in GOD was more likely. At least I'm aware of the numerical chances that people such as yourself have willingly chosen to hinge their disbelief to.



What you naively forget is that the bag was shaken for millions of years, and that the 50 piece lego figure built is only a part of a million different sets inside the bag. The odds are actually not as small as you think they are.

No, I didn't forget it. The odds would be staggering (check your math), which is why I used it as an example. For that matter, the number wasn't chosen randomly as 50 represents the amount of base pairs of the smallest known, genetically significant RNA sequence; a segment comparable in size to a prion (entities which borrow their replicative enzymes from pre-existing DNA/RNA organisms). Anyways, a 50 base polypeptide strand, while small, retains an entropic order beyond belief.



Wrong again. The supernatural doesn't attempt to explain or substantiate anything. Thus, it's not a theory at all.

So says the atheistic sector of the scientific community.

Answer me this then - since no one around here has attempted to answer the question in the three years that I've been a member of this forum. What differentiates a recently deceased corpse from a living person? I mean, the corpse has every necessary biological component and element required to live. Why then is it dead? The DNA is still there, no? Shouldn't life be there too then? We all know this is not the case, as corpses just wither away.

IMO life is not a physical attribute. It is a gift from the spiritual realm. So until that realm is physically defined, I will continue to believe that life itself is by very definition 'supernatural'.



Why would I want you to believe it came from a natural process, when both you and I factually know it was built by humans? I mean, there's factual evidence to that. All it takes you is education to know, not faith.

Yeah it's absurd. About as much so as belief that one of the most complex biological molecules suddenly sprung out of a chemical broth. Except I'm not ignoring the 'big elephant' in the living room... I acknowledge the Creator's hand was involved. I mean, could you imagine if someone tried to prove that it was mathematically possible for construction materials to transform themselves into the Empires State Building??



I'm glad you engaged in the conversation anyways. Thanks!

[Creepn]

Actually I believe Extra's position on the historicity of Jesus is that the accounts as stated in the NT Gospels are accurate. He can correct me on this if I am wrong though, I don't want to speak for him.

Wait a minute, are you saying that the gospels are accurate about the whereabouts of Jesus Christ?

[Creepn]

I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only Savior of the world. I have accepted and confess Jesus as my Lord and Savior.

And I forever stand by that decision.

Thats the equivalent of saying of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I DONT WANNA HEAR IT! LA LA LA LA LA!!!"

[dg7md]

Thats the equivalent of saying of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I DONT WANNA HEAR IT! LA LA LA LA LA!!!"

I agree, but it's a free country and she has the freedom of religion much like we do. She's not forcing anybody onto her religion so let her have her peace.

[Creepn]

I agree, but it's a free country and she has the freedom of religion much like we do. She's not forcing anybody onto her religion so let her have her peace.


GRR but its so annoying!!!! Your totally right though.