PDA

View Full Version : Why do you believe in God? (First 1000 post thread in the PoFo!!!!)



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sulamar
10-09-2005, 03:20 AM
There was a time when I believed in God. Mostly when I was a child and my parents told me what was right and wrong. Then I grew up and became an adult and started thinking on my own and did a lot of research on science and God. There is no right answer yet. We as people can only take things from each side and make our decisions on what we believe.

I personally believe there is no God, to me science has proven that the world is continuing to evolve. We have seen such a growth in technology in the past 30 years. For millions of years before it was just people living life, not educating themselves on the world. People are growing and learning more and more everyday. With this knowledge we find things that God never talks about, such as, space, other galaxies, stars aren't actual "Stars" just balls of gas in laments terms.

So my point in this thread is can you tell me why you do believe in God with evidence, please dont respond by saying "I look in my childs face and I know God exists." I am really interested into finding out why you believe in God.

If you dont believe in God I encourage you to post as well, and tell me why you dont believe in God.

~Sulamar

DonShula84
10-09-2005, 03:23 AM
I wouldnt say I dont believe in God. I really dont know, I think it is possible there is a God, but I think it is almost just as likely that there is no God. I have issues w/ organized religion and many religious people but that is a different thread. Also, I dont think it possible for a religious person to give a satisfactory answer to your question. They believe because of faith, but explaining that faith in a way for people w/ out faith to understand seems impossible to me atleast.

ohall
10-09-2005, 06:21 AM
I believe in God because I do not think I am a descendant of green ooze!

Wildbill3
10-09-2005, 06:38 AM
I believe in God because I do not think I am a descendant of green ooze!I do not think that green ooze could've formed on it's own without help and guidance, and I further don't believe that even if Green ooze had formed on its own, I don't believe the everything on earth today would evolved from it without some type of guidance.

Miamian
10-09-2005, 07:11 AM
I used to be agnostic and got the proof I was seeking. I believe that I was punished for the way I was acting. Here it is if anyone is interested:

Although people love the weather in Miami especially in winter, there's a serious downside. As the southernmost big city in the country it's very attractive to homeless people especially in the winter when the homeless population would balloon.

Because the problem was getting out of hand, police in Miami got very aggressive with them, to the point of burning their belongings. The ACLU sued on behalf of the homeless and in a landmark decision, they one. Miami's police were enjoined from taking ANY action against the homeless and then the problem really got of hand, I heard stories that at one time downtown's homeless population was estimated at 10,000.

There's no doubt that the decision was in part politically motivated. Note that the ACLU brought suit only against the City of Miami, the 30-some-odd suburbs were not affected (how many of the ACLU's members actually live in the City of Miami?). Miami became the dumping ground for the nation, downtown in particular. Suburban police would often just drop them off downtown. The streets were filthy, smelled of urine and feces, aggressive panhandling was rampant, robberies also common. Some of the more appalling cases: stealing the wiring out of the streetlights, the letters off the Freedom Tower, and a case I know of personally were one of my neighbors was forcibly ejected from his wheelchair which was then stolen.

After some time the City came to an agreement with the ACLU in which they would be able to remove the homeless if there was room at the new emergency shelter. As part of a remedy to address the problem, the City created a Citizens-On-Patrol (COPS) squad for downtown and as a resident (SE Overtown) I participated. Well, about 90% of the time when we offered to have a homeless person transported to the shelter, he/she refused. After time that took a toll. I decided to start acting on my own.

When I would walk the streets around my neighborhood at night I would intetionally stomp to make as much of a racket as I could in order to wake the homeless up. My goal was to either choose the shelter or drive them out of the neighborhood.

After a year I got new neighbors and my life became a nightmare. They would get drunk on their balcony and yell in the middle of the night so often that it began to affect my health. It could be any night of the week, any time at night. After about a dozen security calls, they started ignoring security, so I called the police who must have come out about dozens of times themselves. This went on for about a year. Thus, I believe that the Almighty sent these lowlifes into my life to punish me for my actions. It's too coincidental.

BTW, if you read this whole post, props to you or as they say here: "kol ha-kaVOD" (all the honor to you).

Ferretsquig
10-09-2005, 09:48 AM
I always wondered why they chose this god? Whats the matter with Zoraster, Allah, Ra, Jupiter, or any other god that spawned some monotheistic religion? They all make it clear god is there to explain the unknown, wy a drunk moved next door or why humans came into existance. Thats perfectly understandable. A couple centuries ago they needed god to explain weather patterns and a persons humors. But whats so great about the christian god that makes him better than all the rest? The stories arent that great, certainly are trumped by the vedic texts. There are even other gods who are more ambiguous and can be redefined with even more ease.

SacTownPhinFan
10-09-2005, 10:56 AM
For those who are agnostic and have issues with organized religion, I would recommend a book, Conversations with God. It helped me find some of my own answers. For those of you who are more scientifically inclined, you might want to rent or buy the movie, "What the Bleep Do We Know." If you are spiritual (whether religious or not) I would ask, why are you spiritual? I believe in God, Universe, Source, Oneness as pure love beyond measure in human terms. Let's face it, no one here knows what happens when our bodies die. There have been many spiritual teachers and masters who have shared their own experiences and beliefs. The commonality among them was that they could only point you to their inner experience of God through their limited definition of God...and this has taken many forms over the years. Why do I believe in God? That my friend I cannot articulate in human words that would not be open to attack, ridicule, judgment and hate from those who would have a different definition from mine.

DeDolfan
10-09-2005, 11:08 AM
There was a time when I believed in God. Mostly when I was a child and my parents told me what was right and wrong. Then I grew up and became an adult and started thinking on my own and did a lot of research on science and God. There is no right answer yet. We as people can only take things from each side and make our decisions on what we believe.

I personally believe there is no God, to me science has proven that the world is continuing to evolve. We have seen such a growth in technology in the past 30 years. For millions of years before it was just people living life, not educating themselves on the world. People are growing and learning more and more everyday. With this knowledge we find things that God never talks about, such as, space, other galaxies, stars aren't actual "Stars" just balls of gas in laments terms.

So my point in this thread is can you tell me why you do believe in God with evidence, please dont respond by saying "I look in my childs face and I know God exists." I am really interested into finding out why you believe in God.

If you dont believe in God I encourage you to post as well, and tell me why you dont believe in God.

~Sulamar

Well, I believe something caused the very first matter to exist, somehow. Contrary to "popular" belief, schidt just doesn't happen. if matter didn't exist, then everthing would be just like space, a voidless, vaccum of nothing. Now, IMO, something caused/made the first bits of matter to exist, some force somehow, it just didn't happen on it's own. if that force was "God", then so be it, and then from that, the evolution process was allowed to commence.
Right or wrong, that's simply MO.

The Rev
10-09-2005, 11:23 AM
There are so many thoughts swimming in my mind (pardon the dolphin pun) about how I can explain why God is real. But it all comes down to is what I said in another thread, it's about faith: "Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the hope for things unseen." Anyone can argue why there is no God, but let me tell you (IMO) why there is: there had to be a catalyst to the Big Bang, Surivival of the Fittest, etc. Looking at the intricacies of the human body is another way to say that there was a greater power involved.
Please don't start asking me if there is a God, why is there so much war, famine, etc. I don't know why. The world is not perfect. All of us have sinned and fallen short. But because this world is flawed is the reason I look forward to what is awaiting me afterwards Here is where faith comes in again. (IMO) :)

chrome4
10-09-2005, 11:30 AM
There was a time when I believed in God. Mostly when I was a child and my parents told me what was right and wrong. Then I grew up and became an adult and started thinking on my own and did a lot of research on science and God. There is no right answer yet. We as people can only take things from each side and make our decisions on what we believe.

I personally believe there is no God, to me science has proven that the world is continuing to evolve. We have seen such a growth in technology in the past 30 years. For millions of years before it was just people living life, not educating themselves on the world. People are growing and learning more and more everyday. With this knowledge we find things that God never talks about, such as, space, other galaxies, stars aren't actual "Stars" just balls of gas in laments terms.

So my point in this thread is can you tell me why you do believe in God with evidence, please dont respond by saying "I look in my childs face and I know God exists." I am really interested into finding out why you believe in God.

If you dont believe in God I encourage you to post as well, and tell me why you dont believe in God.

~Sulamar
I don't think we should spend 10 billion dallars to go to the moon when there are hungry children dying in our country. God never wanted us to go into space, he wanted us to focus on the earth.

Ferretsquig
10-09-2005, 11:31 AM
?You dont see that you are just taking things that are beyond your comprehention and associating god with them? Whether it be the existance of matter or the "big bang." How is this different from the ancients associating thunder with their god Zeus or the rise and fall of the sun with Ra? When something is explained to the satisfaction of the religious element they eliminate that aspect of their faith and what is explained by god just shrinks to a slightly smaller sphere.

chrome4
10-09-2005, 11:34 AM
For those who are agnostic and have issues with organized religion, I would recommend a book, Conversations with God. It helped me find some of my own answers. For those of you who are more scientifically inclined, you might want to rent or buy the movie, "What the Bleep Do We Know." If you are spiritual (whether religious or not) I would ask, why are you spiritual? I believe in God, Universe, Source, Oneness as pure love beyond measure in human terms. Let's face it, no one here knows what happens when our bodies die. There have been many spiritual teachers and masters who have shared their own experiences and beliefs. The commonality among them was that they could only point you to their inner experience of God through their limited definition of God...and this has taken many forms over the years. Why do I believe in God? That my friend I cannot articulate in human words that would not be open to attack, ridicule, judgment and hate from those who would have a different definition from mine.
Good stuff right there. I will know use that sentence when an athiest asks me that question.

The Rev
10-09-2005, 11:36 AM
?You dont see that you are just taking things that are beyond your comprehention and associating god with them? Whether it be the existance of matter or the "big bang." How is this different from the ancients associating thunder with their god Zeus or the rise and fall of the sun with Ra? When something is explained to the satisfaction of the religious element they eliminate that aspect of their faith and what is explained by god just shrinks to a slightly smaller sphere.

Again, that is where the person's faith plays a part. I can explain my views and respect your views but in the end, your faith will determine what you believe in.

Blitz
10-09-2005, 02:47 PM
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them."

- Bertrand Russell

I can't think of a better way to sum up the facts of the matter.


I don't think we should spend 10 billion dallars to go to the moon when there are hungry children dying in our country. God never wanted us to go into space, he wanted us to focus on the earth.

I don't think we should give a $1 trillion tax cut to the wealthiest of the wealthy and eliminate the Estate Tax, which would further shift the tax burden from the wealthiest of the wealthy onto the middle class, when there are hungry children dying in our country.

If you don't think space exploration is a worthy endeavor, you ought to check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345376595/qid=1128883723/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-0385902-3760136?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

If you want to see other nations one-up us technologically, then support eliminating NASA. NASA is possibly the greatest government program in the world's history. The Russians would have won the space race and perhaps the Cold War if not for President Kennedy's bold vision.

Sulamar
10-09-2005, 03:05 PM
I appreciate everyones response. I would like to ask another question.

History tells us so much. We look at past religions and gods and we call them mythology. You have Zeus for the greeks, Osirus for the Egyptions, The Sun for the Native American's, Ahura Mazda for Persia, Jupiter for Roman. Etc, etc.....

Anyways, we look at these former gods and they are simply chalked up as Mythology. We look at it now, and some people might even go as far to say they were stupid to believe in something as silly as the Sun being a God. Because now we have education, we know what the sun is. Now Christianity is one of the newest religions and Gods out there, the one that stuck IMO. What makes Christianity different from all of those. I believe history continues to repeat itself, and who knows, in year 2988 the children could be reading about Christian Mythology.

One thing that made me really challenge my belief was the story of Horus. Which was written 2000 years before Jesus was born. Horus was the son of Orisus, the Egyption god, and if you look into the writtings of Horus you will find something interesting.

1.) Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.

2.) His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph").

3.) Horus walked on water.

4.) He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, was resurrected.

5.) He performed miracles, exorcized demons and raised El-Azarus from the dead. (This one is one of the most similar seeing how Jesus raised Lazerus.


These 5 are one of many things that mimic Jesus's teachings in the Bible, but these were written 2000 years before Jesus waseven born.

I found this most interesting, and I stopped believing in Jesus and still believed in God. So I started researching science, and carbon dating. Carbon dating clearly states how old this world is, but according to the Bible the world is only 12,000 years old. How can we explain the Dinosaurs, which are millions of years old. I have many other things to talk about, but this will do for now. Curious on what you think of all this.

DonShula84
10-09-2005, 03:07 PM
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them."

- Bertrand Russell


Nice quote Blitz

Dolphan7
10-09-2005, 06:10 PM
There was a time when I believed in God. Mostly when I was a child and my parents told me what was right and wrong. Then I grew up and became an adult and started thinking on my own and did a lot of research on science and God. There is no right answer yet. We as people can only take things from each side and make our decisions on what we believe.

I personally believe there is no God, to me science has proven that the world is continuing to evolve. We have seen such a growth in technology in the past 30 years. For millions of years before it was just people living life, not educating themselves on the world. People are growing and learning more and more everyday. With this knowledge we find things that God never talks about, such as, space, other galaxies, stars aren't actual "Stars" just balls of gas in laments terms.

So my point in this thread is can you tell me why you do believe in God with evidence, please dont respond by saying "I look in my childs face and I know God exists." I am really interested into finding out why you believe in God.

If you dont believe in God I encourage you to post as well, and tell me why you dont believe in God.

~SulamarI used to be an atheist and a full blown evolutionist. So I understand their arguements. But I became a believer in the God of the bible through a sequence of steps. First off let me say that if you are looking for a "here is god in a test-tube" type of answer you won't get one from me, or anyone else for that matter. God cannot be proved like that, in a physical or scientific sense. But we can intellectually and logically conclude that God does indeed exist and that it is the God of the bible. How?

It all rests on the holy bible. In it we find everything we know about God, Jesus and how we got here and where we are going and how things are going to end. So the premise is, if the bible is indeed the real deal and is God's written word to mankind, then all that is written in it is valid. If it isn't of God, then it is nothing more than a manmade document. So how do we know it is of God?

What made me believe it was of God is this:

1. It was written over a span of 1600 years.
2. By over 40 authors;kings, pheasants, philisophers, fishermen, poets, shepards, generals, doctors and many others.
3. In several different places; Wilderness, dungeon, prison, in battle, etc..
4. Different moods; happy, sad, angry, greiving, fearful etc...
5. Three different continents; Asia, Africa, Europe.
6. Three different languages; Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

With all these differences the bible speaks to hundreds of controversial issues , but with harmony and continuity on each. As much as it has been attacked of the centuries, it has never been disproven in any area. In fact many that have taken the task of doing just that have either given up or become believers themselves. Check out Josh McDowal, Frank Morrison and CS Lewis.

The reliability and authenticity of the bible is second to none of the works of antiquity. How can the bible come into existance and be maintianed throughout all this time "without" the assitance and guidance of a divine creator? Men who couldn't have known each other as they were thousands of years apart on time could not have compiles the bible alone. It cannot be the work of men alone.

Fullfilled prophecy in the bible is simply amazing hitting on every prediction made. Predictions made thousands of years before they were actually fullfulled. As an example Jesus was to be scourged according to the OT. But this was written 700 years before scourging was invented by the Romans. Just the fact alone that Jesus fullfilled over 300 prophecies about himslef alone is amazing. Could he have just read the OT and attempted to fullfill them on his own? Read this:

A descendent of Abraham, Isaac, (not Ishmael), Jacob, (not Esau), Judah, (not any of his 11 brothers), Jesse, and David. Born of a virgin (this narrows it way down yes?) Born in Bethlehem. Preceded by a messenger. His Ministry of miracles. Betrayed by a friend. Sold for 30 pieces of silver. Money had to be thrown in to the house of the Lord. Money given for a potters field to bury poor people. Accuse by false witness. Struck and spit on. Scourged.. Gall and vinegar to drink. Hands and feet pierced. Crucified with criminals. Lots cast for his clothing. People wagged their head and repeated exactly the right words. Mocked by people. Darkness at noon. Friends standing away from him at a distance. Bones not broken. He was pierced. Buried in a rich man's tomb.

And this all had to be controlled by one man who knew that he would have to sufer through all that just to fullfill prophecy? I don't think so.

So what are the odds of one man fullfilling these by accident? Take the state of Texas, fill it up 2 feet deep with silver dollars. Walk out into the silver dollars and pick one up and that would be the one = 1 to the 17th power, or once chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000.And that is only for just 8 fullfilled prophecies. Jesus fulfilled over 300.

If you look at the historic record of Jesus the person. He did exist. And the resurrection and the fact that there is no way it could not have happened. All theories to the contrary have been soundly debunked; The swoon theory, the theft theory, the wrong tomb theory. There is no doubt in my mind that the bible is in fact the accurate word of God.

And I have not provided all the info I have behind each of these areas due to time and space constraints, but there is much much more. If you would like more info please pm me. We can intellectually and logically show that there is a preponderance of evidence that point to a creator. But what we can't prove, we can comfortably know that God exists anyway and that is called faith.
HEB 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.


Now as for science, you mention that you believe science has proven evolution. I believe that Evolution has not been proven. It is just as much a faith religion as christianity. Because of it's lack of proof and it insermountable odds against it happening I have discounted it is a valid reason for our existance. That is what drove me to God and christianity.

Now there are many opinions for and against what I have stated and these have been debated many times in here and probably will again. I am not sure this is a thread to do that in. You asked a question and you have been given many answers. If you want to inquire further just let me know.

Dolphan7
10-09-2005, 06:22 PM
I appreciate everyones response. I would like to ask another question.

History tells us so much. We look at past religions and gods and we call them mythology. You have Zeus for the greeks, Osirus for the Egyptions, The Sun for the Native American's, Ahura Mazda for Persia, Jupiter for Roman. Etc, etc.....

Anyways, we look at these former gods and they are simply chalked up as Mythology. We look at it now, and some people might even go as far to say they were stupid to believe in something as silly as the Sun being a God. Because now we have education, we know what the sun is. Now Christianity is one of the newest religions and Gods out there, the one that stuck IMO. What makes Christianity different from all of those. I believe history continues to repeat itself, and who knows, in year 2988 the children could be reading about Christian Mythology.

One thing that made me really challenge my belief was the story of Horus. Which was written 2000 years before Jesus was born. Horus was the son of Orisus, the Egyption god, and if you look into the writtings of Horus you will find something interesting.

1.) Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.

2.) His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph").

3.) Horus walked on water.

4.) He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, was resurrected.

5.) He performed miracles, exorcized demons and raised El-Azarus from the dead. (This one is one of the most similar seeing how Jesus raised Lazerus.


These 5 are one of many things that mimic Jesus's teachings in the Bible, but these were written 2000 years before Jesus waseven born.

I found this most interesting, and I stopped believing in Jesus and still believed in God. So I started researching science, and carbon dating. Carbon dating clearly states how old this world is, but according to the Bible the world is only 12,000 years old. How can we explain the Dinosaurs, which are millions of years old. I have many other things to talk about, but this will do for now. Curious on what you think of all this.Not sure about the Horos thing, only that there have been many other such claims that the bible is actually a plagiarized document. The bible still stands. There is some new and fascinating research into radio-isotope dating techniques and that there is evidence that the half lives are much slower today than they were in creation week. This could explain the long timeframes in dating the earth and fossils and rocks and such. I don't believe the dating techniques used by scientists are 100 percent based on a definitive model. Too much chance for error. Too many assumptions. The main assumptions are that rates of decay are constant. I think there is growing evidence and support that says that rates of decay were faster in the beginning then they are now, which would explain a lot.

Based on that the dinosaurs are not millions of years old but are actually part of the animal group created by God in Genesis 1. They are even mentioned in the bible. Check out Job starting in 40:15.

ABrownLamp
10-09-2005, 08:10 PM
As much as it has been attacked of the centuries, it has never been disproven in any area.

What?
Dude most of the Bible can be disproven with common sense.

A talking bush?
A talking snake?
A woman born from a rib?
A man living in a whale's belly?

You really think these things can't be disproven?

ohall
10-09-2005, 08:23 PM
Here we go again. The bashing of Christianity and religion never fails to happen!

ABrownLamp
10-09-2005, 08:40 PM
Here we go again. The bashing of Christianity and religion never fails to happen!

Ok. Similar to your daily Liberal bashing.

Blitz
10-09-2005, 08:50 PM
What?
Dude most of the Bible can be disproven with common sense.

A talking bush?
A talking snake?
A woman born from a rib?
A man living in a whale's belly?

You really think these things can't be disproven?

Rush Limbaugh witnessed all of the above the last time he smoked OxyContin. Listen to Rush, folks!

ohall
10-09-2005, 09:08 PM
Ok. Similar to your daily Liberal bashing.

This is a political MBoard as far as I'm concerned, this is not a religious MBoard!

I have no idea why these subjects are on the same area. It's freaking annoying!

ABrownLamp
10-09-2005, 09:13 PM
This is a political MBoard as far as I'm concerned, this is not a religious MBoard!

I have no idea why these subjects are on the same area. It's freaking annoying!

LOL

Ya, religion and politics have nothing to do with one another.

Wildbill3
10-09-2005, 09:14 PM
LOL

Ya, religion and politics have nothing to do with one another.:lol:I like them being on the part of the board, because they feed off of each other, no other subjects can elitcit the same feelings, emotions and debate that these two subject can. They are PB&J, salt and pepper, etc of subjects.

ohall
10-09-2005, 09:19 PM
LOL

Ya, religion and politics have nothing to do with one another.

As funny as it may be to some of you, no I do not feel it should be as much as some of you want it to be.

jnewmant
10-09-2005, 09:55 PM
Not sure about the Horos thing, only that there have been many other such claims that the bible is actually a plagiarized document. The bible still stands. There is some new and fascinating research into radio-isotope dating techniques and that there is evidence that the half lives are much slower today than they were in creation week. This could explain the long timeframes in dating the earth and fossils and rocks and such. I don't believe the dating techniques used by scientists are 100 percent based on a definitive model. Too much chance for error. Too many assumptions. The main assumptions are that rates of decay are constant. I think there is growing evidence and support that says that rates of decay were faster in the beginning then they are now, which would explain a lot.

Based on that the dinosaurs are not millions of years old but are actually part of the animal group created by God in Genesis 1. They are even mentioned in the bible. Check out Job starting in 40:15.i took the time to read job and i'd say he was describing an elephant that's just what it sounded like to me.

tucker
10-10-2005, 12:04 AM
i apprecaite what you wrote 7, but alot of what you wrote also can be answered with common sense..and i feel that many of teh writings have been misinterpreted b/c of languages hard to decipher...the predictions have been hit and miss depending on how you interpet them...and i think there was is a higher being..maybe it is "GOD" or or who knows, b/c something had to create what there is now..what actually bothers me is that at one time there was NOTHING..i mean nothing, all white, black, whatever you want it to be, and the next thing you know there was a beginning..its so wierd how at one time not a single thing ever existed and out of nowhere the universe of created..kinda weird...but anways back to what i was saying is that i find it hard to belive how the bible says the earth is only thousands of years old, when fossils have been found that have been shown to be over millions of yrs old...i dont know how pple can just disregard that and say that the bible is correct....evolution in a sense has been proven...we have records of how the evolution of man has developed over the years..(anthropology) how different species have evolved etc...plus what about all the gods from greek mythology? how are they different from the bible god? (kind of a rhetorical question)...but i believe in a higher being and it just seems like there has to be something out there that created all this, but for it to be the GOD in the bible, i dont know

Wildbill3
10-10-2005, 12:05 AM
Isn't this supposed to be a "WHY Do You Believe In God?" thread? If so why are so many people telling others why they shouldn't believe in God?

tucker
10-10-2005, 12:12 AM
umm i dont think anyone has actually billy boy

Wildbill3
10-10-2005, 12:14 AM
umm i dont think anyone has actually billy boyWatch yourself.:rolleyes:

GreenMts
10-10-2005, 12:33 AM
Not sure about the Horos thing, only that there have been many other such claims that the bible is actually a plagiarized document. The bible still stands.

Not as much about plagarism as it is about oral traditons being the basis for later belief that was finally written. Also oral traditions intermingling over time and dispersing into different geography. Don't forget that man was nomadic. Give consideration to the oral tradition of nomadic people in the mid-east and then how that influenced them as they developed agriculture and domestication of animals and finally "settled down" . The common/original basis for their story transformed into their regional story and was written down with the development of an alphapet.

CharlestonPhan
10-10-2005, 12:50 AM
Ok. Similar to your daily Liberal bashing.

interesting comparison, glad you are finally admitting the altar at which you worship... the first step to getting help is admitting you have a problem.
:D

CharlestonPhan
10-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Rush Limbaugh witnessed all of the above the last time he smoked OxyContin. Listen to Rush, folks!

oh c'mon, everyone knows that Al Gore was the inspiration for the Bible, just like "Love Story."

CharlestonPhan
10-10-2005, 12:56 AM
As funny as it may be to some of you, no I do not feel it should be as much as some of you want it to be.

there is a symbiotic relationship between the two to the left... it goes like this: to Libs, they will always fan the flames and keep the Christian Religion in the forefront, so they can trot out the "Christian Right" demagoguery and stir up donations from their base.

CharlestonPhan
10-10-2005, 12:59 AM
Isn't this supposed to be a "WHY Do You Believe In God?" thread? If so why are so many people telling others why they shouldn't believe in God?

im left wondering why those who dont believe even care. if you are secure in the belief there is no God, why waste time with it?

DonShula84
10-10-2005, 01:06 AM
im left wondering why those who dont believe even care. if you are secure in the belief there is no God, why waste time with it?

Those who dont believe constantly have religion thrown in there face by those that believe. It is hard to just ignore religion even if you dont believe in it. Besides it gives us something to discuss on the mboard ;)

Wildbill3
10-10-2005, 01:10 AM
Those who dont believe constantly have religion thrown in there face by those that believe. It is hard to just ignore religion even if you dont believe in it. Besides it gives us something to discuss on the mboard ;)I'd like to know (who outside of this mobo) is throwing it in your face. First it doesn't look good on them to pressure you into a belief, because what we yearn to discover on our own is always closer to our hearts, while that stuff that is forced on us is always discarded at the earliest oppurtunity. God is patient, and so should be those who seek to help you find God. When you are ready in life, (if ever) you'll find him, or he'll find you. :)

DonShula84
10-10-2005, 01:12 AM
I'd like to know (who outside of this mobo) is throwing it in your face. First it doesn't look good on them to pressure you into a belief, because what we yearn to discover on our own is always closer to our hearts, while that stuff that is forced on us is always discarded at the earliest oppurtunity. God is patient, and so should be those who seek to help you find God. When you are ready in life, (if ever) you'll find him, or he'll find you. :)

The damn Mormons who keep knocking on my door! Please make them stop

Wildbill3
10-10-2005, 01:14 AM
The damn Mormons who keep knocking on my door! Please make them stopMan if it was a witness I could give you some pointers, but you could always tell them: "don't you have another wife to marry somewhere?":lol:

Miamian
10-10-2005, 06:20 AM
I appreciate everyones response. I would like to ask another question.
I found this most interesting, and I stopped believing in Jesus and still believed in God. So I started researching science, and carbon dating. Carbon dating clearly states how old this world is, but according to the Bible the world is only 12,000 years old. How can we explain the Dinosaurs, which are millions of years old. I have many other things to talk about, but this will do for now. Curious on what you think of all this.This doesn't disprove anything. If you read the Bible, it is full of metaphors and allegories, that being the case, it is not much of a leap of faith, pardon the pun, to realize that a "day" in Creation does not necessarily correspond to the 24-hour period we call a day now. For all we know, a "day" could have been hundreds of millions of years.

As far as the dinosaurs, the Bible only says that G-d created the creatures of the earth, it doesn't describe their form and appearance. Also, as the Bible recounts creation it states that G-d separated the darkness from the light and waters from the land, not that He created the waters. Think about this, according to the most widely accepted scientific belief dinosaurs were wiped out because of the onset of the ice age precipitated by a comet striking the Yucatan peninsula. That comet raised a cloud of dust and ash which covered much of the earth and blocked out the sun, plunging the earth into constant freezing conditions. When G-d separated the darkness from the light, in effect, He removed the cloud cover.

SkapePhin
10-10-2005, 08:16 AM
I do not think that green ooze could've formed on it's own without help and guidance, and I further don't believe that even if Green ooze had formed on its own, I don't believe the everything on earth today would evolved from it without some type of guidance.

Its not neccesarily green ooze.. That term is just a saying...

The first organic life on the planet were single-celled organisms.. very much like the cells that make up every single living organism on the planet at this moment.. This is fact.

Furthermore, experiments have been done that replicated getting organic materials from inorganic materials.. http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html Using what was believed to be early earth atmosphere, they successfully got sugars and amino acids from inorganic material.. This study has been updated, and successfully replicated many times since..

Interestingly, it is believed that clay, which is often used in religious creation metaphors, served an integral role as a polymer to create those first organisms.. This is why it is believed life originated around underwater volcanic vents, where this synthesis would occur.

SkapePhin
10-10-2005, 08:32 AM
There was a time when I believed in God. Mostly when I was a child and my parents told me what was right and wrong. Then I grew up and became an adult and started thinking on my own and did a lot of research on science and God. There is no right answer yet. We as people can only take things from each side and make our decisions on what we believe.

I personally believe there is no God, to me science has proven that the world is continuing to evolve. We have seen such a growth in technology in the past 30 years. For millions of years before it was just people living life, not educating themselves on the world. People are growing and learning more and more everyday. With this knowledge we find things that God never talks about, such as, space, other galaxies, stars aren't actual "Stars" just balls of gas in laments terms.

So my point in this thread is can you tell me why you do believe in God with evidence, please dont respond by saying "I look in my childs face and I know God exists." I am really interested into finding out why you believe in God.

If you dont believe in God I encourage you to post as well, and tell me why you dont believe in God.

~Sulamar


While I see where you are coming from, there are still many things that science does not yet even come close to explaining.. Particularly in physics and metaphysics.. The odd properties of Quarks, anti-matter, etc.. A bunch of stuff that could have very serious implications in terms of our concept of the Universe and our role..

One reason I tend to side with the notion that a conscious afterlife is unlikely to exist is due to the fact that we know the mind is a physical construct.. It is not external.. Therefore, physical events can alter "consciousness".. So, a step would have to occur, upon death, to convert all of these physical chemical signals into some type of unkown energy source in order to maintain consciousness.. This brings in to consideration some odd possibilities.. If a conversion were to occur, would this not mean that those with impaired consciousness, like re-tardation which can be caused by something as unfair as the doctor squeezing a vice on an infant's head a little too much, would thus remain re-tarded in the afterlife? I would think so..

Secondly, in regards to the notion of a God, how would a God come about? There would have to be a process in which to form a God being.. Could a God being "evolve" just as humans evolved? I suppose so.. But why would only ONE God evolve? And for what purpose? This brings me to my belief, that if there is a God being, it wouldnt be so much a conscious one in the way we associate with humans and the like.. It would be more of a stabilizing energy force.. Something more akin to an energy factory than a father/mother.

In this regards, I find notions of reincarnation to be more likely.. Seeing as that all living organisms are made up of energy and atoms and ions.. Upon death, this energy is "recycled" back into the universe..

Yet, there are ALWAYS possibilities of the seemingly impossible being possible.. Like a previously stated, there is still much science does not know.. Possibilities of alternate universes, alternate timelines, etc still exist.. So even notions of Christian afterlife, a Muslim afterlife, even a Greek Mythological afterlife could be indeed reality.. We shall never know, until our heart stops flowing blood to the brain.. then we shall know with certainty.. or not know.

Pagan
10-10-2005, 09:42 AM
Here we go again. The bashing of Christianity and religion never fails to happen!
Just as the quoting of the bible and stating that "this is FACT!" never fails to happen. ;)

The following quote is a prime example. :lol:


Based on that the dinosaurs are not millions of years old but are actually part of the animal group created by God in Genesis 1. They are even mentioned in the bible. Check out Job starting in 40:15.

And as for this comment...


Not sure about the Horos thing, only that there have been many other such claims that the bible is actually a plagiarized document. The bible still stands.
The koran still stands. The torah still stands. Other religious texts still stand.

What's your point?

Did you ever stop to think that the bible does indeed still stand....to Christians?

Non-Christians really don't give a rat's azz about the bible, so saying that it "still stands" is pretty meaningless.

ohall
10-10-2005, 09:45 AM
Just as the quoting of the bible and stating that "this is FACT!" never fails to happen. ;)

The following quote is a prime example. :lol:

Again for the I don't how many times, that is why it is called faith. Just as you can rationalize your irrational faith in many Gods.

It seems to me you of all ppl can relate to Christians more than most!

Pagan
10-10-2005, 09:48 AM
Again for the I don't how many times, that is why it is called faith. Just as you can rationalize your irrational faith in many Gods.

It seems to me you of all ppl can relate to Christians more than most!
No ohall, if it was said that it is faith, I have no problem with that. Now go back and read D7's statement about dinosaurs. He's not saying anything about faith, he's claiming it to be fact.

BIG difference.

And it's kinda funny how my faith is deemed by you as "irrational", and even funnier that you got it wrong....AGAIN. I do not have faith in many gods.

I know you guys have a problem with comprehension unless it's in the bible, but Wiccan's have faith in one god and one goddess. We acknowledge that many gods exist. We don't have faith in all of them.

Again....big difference.

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 11:24 AM
What?
Dude most of the Bible can be disproven with common sense.

A talking bush?
A talking snake?
A woman born from a rib?
A man living in a whale's belly?

You really think these things can't be disproven?You obviously didn't get my point, which is if god was involved in writing the bible, then it's contents are for real. I believe God had a hand in the bible. You obviously don't. Instead of trying to disprove the contents, try to disprove who wrote it. Are you the next CS Lewis?

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 11:28 AM
Isn't this supposed to be a "WHY Do You Believe In God?" thread? If so why are so many people telling others why they shouldn't believe in God?Exactly. The man asked a question, people gave him answers.

ohall
10-10-2005, 11:30 AM
No ohall, if it was said that it is faith, I have no problem with that. Now go back and read D7's statement about dinosaurs. He's not saying anything about faith, he's claiming it to be fact.

BIG difference.

And it's kinda funny how my faith is deemed by you as "irrational", and even funnier that you got it wrong....AGAIN. I do not have faith in many gods.

I know you guys have a problem with comprehension unless it's in the bible, but Wiccan's have faith in one god and one goddess. We acknowledge that many gods exist. We don't have faith in all of them.

Again....big difference.

I simply used the word irrational because I have heard you describe Christians faith as irrational.

Yes there is a big difference. You have your faith, and no one is bashing your faith all the freaking time!

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 11:32 AM
Not as much about plagarism as it is about oral traditons being the basis for later belief that was finally written. Also oral traditions intermingling over time and dispersing into different geography. Don't forget that man was nomadic. Give consideration to the oral tradition of nomadic people in the mid-east and then how that influenced them as they developed agriculture and domestication of animals and finally "settled down" . The common/original basis for their story transformed into their regional story and was written down with the development of an alphapet.I understand all that, but the bible is the only written record of those oral traditions. Why don't we have many more of these bibles from other cultures and areas? Why is the bible the only one? You have to wonder if maybe it had divine guidance.

On a side note did you know that many cultures have a oral tradition describing a flood in the early part that cutlures history? I find this fascinating.

Pagan
10-10-2005, 11:38 AM
Yes there is a big difference. You have your faith, and no one is bashing your faith all the freaking time!
ohall, if I was to....

~ Come in here all the time, quote from religious texts of my faith
~ Say that said texts are the stone-cold truth
~ Turn what seems to be EVERY thread into an opportunity to spread my beliefs, and brought my faith into pretty much EVERY discussion.
~ Constantly tell people that they were doomed to eternal damnation if they didn't believe what I believed, no matter how good of a life they lived.
~ Constantly challenge people with "If you're right, I have nothing to worry about, but if I'm right are you prepared for that?"
~ Patronized those of other beliefs by saying I believed in their right to worship who they want, but then backhandedly hinting that their gods are really MY god

...then you'd have EVERY right to bash away.

However, I don't. I keep my beliefs to myself.

That is why no one is bashing my beliefs, except of course when D7 started that "Why Pagans Suck" thread. ;)

Then again, no one is really "bashing" christianity. They're just pointing out the MANY inconsistancies and contradictions that YOU BRING INTO THE DISCUSSION YOURSELVES.

Apparently, disagreeing with christians when they state something - like I've said in here before - equates to "bashing". :rolleyes:

Pagan
10-10-2005, 11:49 AM
On a side note did you know that many cultures have a oral tradition describing a flood in the early part that cutlures history? I find this fascinating.
Know what I find even MORE fascinating?

That if all these cultures describe a flood in the early part of their history, why don't any of them mention Noah?

If Noah and his family were the only ones who survived, everyone is descended from Noah, no? Wouldn't his name be a HUGE part of EVERY culture's history then? Or did they all just forget about him, and in the process the natives in Africa completely forgot everything they knew about civilized living?

And every culture changed their language, in some instances COMPLETELY changing - including alphabets - from the language Noah and his family spoke?

Wow....guess they all EVOLVED, huh? ;)

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 12:02 PM
Know what I find even MORE fascinating?

That if all these cultures describe a flood in the early part of their history, why don't any of them mention Noah?

If Noah and his family were the only ones who survived, everyone is descended from Noah, no? Wouldn't his name be a HUGE part of EVERY culture's history then? Or did they all just forget about him, and in the process the natives in Africa completely forgot everything they knew about civilized living?

And every culture changed their language, in some instances COMPLETELY changing - including alphabets - from the language Noah and his family spoke?

Wow....guess they all EVOLVED, huh? ;)Tower of Babel.

Pagan
10-10-2005, 12:27 PM
Care to elaborate?

*EDIT*

Nevermind, did some online research.

Wow...nice story! :up:

CharlestonPhan
10-10-2005, 01:01 PM
Those who dont believe constantly have religion thrown in there face by those that believe. It is hard to just ignore religion even if you dont believe in it. Besides it gives us something to discuss on the mboard ;)

ill buy the discussion part, but just where is it "thrown in anyones face?"

spydertl79
10-10-2005, 02:25 PM
I believe in god because I can't comprehend how something became of nothing (the beginning of the universe). The big bang theory states that the entire universe exploded from a dot smaller then a pin's head but doesn't explain where that dot came from.

spydertl79
10-10-2005, 02:26 PM
You obviously didn't get my point, which is if god was involved in writing the bible, then it's contents are for real. I believe God had a hand in the bible. You obviously don't. Instead of trying to disprove the contents, try to disprove who wrote it. Are you the next CS Lewis?
Many people wrote it and Constantine the Great chose what went in it correct?

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 02:36 PM
Many people wrote it and Constantine the Great chose what went in it correct?Actually no. The catholic church didn't decide what went into the bible at all. The bible was already intact well before the catholic church came into existance in 380 ad. The OT was already written by Jesus time. It is the new testament that was added since Jesus died. These books or letters were already widely accepted as authentic by the early 2nd century ad.

Ferretsquig
10-10-2005, 02:49 PM
I understand all that, but the bible is the only written record of those oral traditions. Why don't we have many more of these bibles from other cultures and areas? Why is the bible the only one? You have to wonder if maybe it had divine guidance.

On a side note did you know that many cultures have a oral tradition describing a flood in the early part that cutlures history? I find this fascinating.

Wait a sec. Since the bible is the only document you are aware of it suddenly is the only one that exists? The Indians have the four Vedas, which were written down around 1600 BC. They contain the same basic stories of the flood, creation etc... The Chinese have Confucius, although his ideas probably didnt contribute that much to the bible.

I imagine most every culture of that area had a story of a flood. Probably because one happened. The black sea wasnt always full of water.

Wildbill3
10-10-2005, 03:12 PM
Actually no. The catholic church didn't decide what went into the bible at all. The bible was already intact well before the catholic church came into existance in 380 ad. The OT was already written by Jesus time. It is the new testament that was added since Jesus died. These books or letters were already widely accepted as authentic by the early 2nd century ad.uh, the first pope was pope in 32 AD so offically if there was a pope in 32 ad then the catholic church has been around since then. And what about the lost books of the bible like the gospel of thomas? why are they now in the bible?


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

Wildbill3
10-10-2005, 03:16 PM
Wait a sec. Since the bible is the only document you are aware of it suddenly is the only one that exists? The Indians have the four Vedas, which were written down around 1600 BC. They contain the same basic stories of the flood, creation etc... The Chinese have Confucius, although his ideas probably didnt contribute that much to the bible.

I imagine most every culture of that area had a story of a flood. Probably because one happened. The black sea wasnt always full of water.well that could lead to a whole string of thoughts, namely, that the flood did indeed happen the whole world over, and that there must've been more than one "noah." Which would further mean that God was talking to many races in many forms (different Gods, etc) and that there is diffenately more than one way to reach heaven. This would certainly be more plausable than thinking that two of everything was loaded onto ONE HUGE *** BOAT. Now if everything was loaded on 1000 huge *** boats? now we are starting to talk reason.

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 03:17 PM
Wait a sec. Since the bible is the only document you are aware of it suddenly is the only one that exists? The Indians have the four Vedas, which were written down around 1600 BC. They contain the same basic stories of the flood, creation etc... The Chinese have Confucius, although his ideas probably didnt contribute that much to the bible.

I imagine most every culture of that area had a story of a flood. Probably because one happened. The black sea wasnt always full of water.None of these, although they may be real, have the content and exposure as the bible. None are as widespread as the bible. None speak to the hundreds of issues with harmony and continuity as the bible. Compared to the bible, they simplistic and narrow in scope. None make the claims the bible does and none state that their "written word" is from God. None pre-date the oral and then the written accounts of the bible. The bible is the most published and read work of all time combined and no other writing has had such an impact on the world.

Your premise is that the bible is just another story from long ago that took oral histories from other cultures and published it. We an see that the flood story is prevalent in ancient cultures, that stands to reason after the tower of babel. It stands to reason that these cultures talked about and then wrote down what they remembered and were told. That fits the bible just fine. That all these cultures talked and then wrote about it at about the same time is also possible. What makes the bible unique is that it continued for 1600 years in the making by several writers in different places, continents, occupations, events, moods and time in history in three different languages and yet survived and spoke to hundreds of issues consistantly. There is no other document in the history of the wrold that can make that claim.

DeDolfan
10-10-2005, 03:44 PM
I believe in god because I can't comprehend how something became of nothing (the beginning of the universe). The big bang theory states that the entire universe exploded from a dot smaller then a pin's head but doesn't explain where that dot came from.

Nor what even caused the explosion !!

DeDolfan
10-10-2005, 03:46 PM
Actually no. The catholic church didn't decide what went into the bible at all. The bible was already intact well before the catholic church came into existance in 380 ad. The OT was already written by Jesus time. It is the new testament that was added since Jesus died. These books or letters were already widely accepted as authentic by the early 2nd century ad.

Just curious, what do you think about the book of mormon?

Pagan
10-10-2005, 03:48 PM
None make the claims the bible does and none state that their "written word" is from God.
Maybe because none of them are that pretentious? :lol:

Sorry....you set me up with the straighht line. :lol:

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 03:58 PM
uh, the first pope was pope in 80 AD so offically if there was a pope in 80 ad then the catholic church has been around since then. And what about the lost books of the bible like the gospel of thomas? why are they now in the bible?Who was the first pope? The catholics will have you believe it was Peter, who was the first leader of the Jerusalem church, which is true he was the first leader of the church. But the Pope didn't exist in ad 80. They didn't use the word "pope" officially until 384 ad (siricius)The church wasn't even called the "catholic church" until 380. Another interesting note is that the pope is the official head of the "roman catholic church", which didn't exist until 380 ad, but for the first 200 years after Jesus died the "church" and christians were persecuted to death, until Constantine became a believer himself in 312 ad. Peter was the supposed first pope of the roman catholic church, yet he was killed because of his beliefs. Doesn't make sense to me. Not only that but Peter was to be the leader of the Jews , while the apostle Paul was to be the leader and spreader of the Gospel to the gentiles. The Romans were certainly not jews.

The Gospel of Thomas and other such books, 14 in all, are not in the bible. They are only in the "Catholic Bible", and if you read the news lately the catholic church has stated that the bible is not to be considered valid any longer. The books they added, and have now denounced the whole thing, were not believed to be inspired by God. They were included in the bible in 1546, called the apocrypha. They are historically innacurate, teach legends, no basis in fact and could not have been written by who they say were written by. It is moot because they have denounced it's authenticity all together. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 04:08 PM
well that could lead to a whole string of thoughts, namely, that the flood did indeed happen the whole world over, and that there must've been more than one "noah." Which would further mean that God was talking to many races in many forms (different Gods, etc) and that there is diffenately more than one way to reach heaven. This would certainly be more plausable than thinking that two of everything was loaded onto ONE HUGE *** BOAT. Now if everything was loaded on 1000 huge *** boats? now we are starting to talk reason.You discount the studies made that show that all the animals could have fit on the ark according to the dimensions given in the bible and noting that many animals were not full grown, were in egg form, etc...???

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 04:15 PM
Just curious, what do you think about the book of mormon?This is what I think of that book.

-created by a known con artist and dreamer.
-no archelogical proof has ever been found that subtantiates the tribes it says were in existance in the Americas at that time, or ever.
-contradicts the bible on many occasions; takes away hell and everyone goes to heaven, just depends on what level (there are 3).
-Says Jesus is just one of many Gods, even their founder Jospeh Smith is considered a God.
- Says that we can all become God's ourselves and populate our own planet , making spiritual babies or some such nonsense.
-It just does not stand up the the same scrutiny that the bible does and has.
-and there is much much more.

ohall
10-10-2005, 06:43 PM
I believe in god because I can't comprehend how something became of nothing (the beginning of the universe). The big bang theory states that the entire universe exploded from a dot smaller then a pin's head but doesn't explain where that dot came from.

They cannot and they never will be able to. IMO that is why it is nothing more than another form of faith. Not at all different than religion and the belief of God(s).

SkapePhin
10-10-2005, 07:03 PM
They cannot and they never will be able to. IMO that is why it is nothing more than another form of faith. Not at all different than religion and the belief of God(s).

Quick, has any religion ever created any type of allopathic medicines that bettered quality of life and extended life-expectancy? Has any religious text ever lead to discoveries that aided in the understanding of biological processes, which in turn lead to these medical breakthroughs?

This is the difference between science and relgiion.. Scientific Theories can lead to discoveries that can turn into tangible, life-altering, world-altering technologies.. While faith is a great benefit to human mental wellness and aid in maintaining social control, it cannot, and never will, lead to things that can actually change our physical surroundings, for the better or the worse..

This is one thing I believe many discount when it comes to the theory of evolution.. Without it, we wouldnt have made all the progress we have made in terms of many crippling diseases and disorders.. Understanding more about genetics and how cells and chemicals interact within the body and brain has lead to many medical breakthroughs, and will continue to do so..

It isnt faith if it can actually have physical and observable applications to ourselves and our surroundings.. But like I have previously stated, there are many things that science has not even come close to explaining.. so there is still mystery out there.. But that doesnt make supported science into faith, it just means there is more research to be done to continue to get the big picture.

Ferretsquig
10-10-2005, 07:17 PM
They cannot and they never will be able to. IMO that is why it is nothing more than another form of faith. Not at all different than religion and the belief of God(s).

There is the primary reason why I hate and fear religion. Because they say things like "never will" and "cant." The big bang theory can never be described because it is in the realm of god, not man. Evolution can never be proven. etc. etc. Every problem can and will be solved in time. The human body, which is to this day completely misunderstood, will be mapped down the to individual atom within a decade. The human mind is capable of marvelous things, and religion only serves to restrict it.

Ferretsquig
10-10-2005, 07:34 PM
None of these, although they may be real, have the content and exposure as the bible. None are as widespread as the bible. None speak to the hundreds of issues with harmony and continuity as the bible. Compared to the bible, they simplistic and narrow in scope. None make the claims the bible does and none state that their "written word" is from God. None pre-date the oral and then the written accounts of the bible. The bible is the most published and read work of all time combined and no other writing has had such an impact on the world.

I cant argue with the exposure. Christianity had the good fortune of being the religion of a conquering society, and has spread over the area the europeans colonized. Islam got stopped in Vienna and Tours, otherwise you would be extolling the virtues of Allah.

You love your book...thats great. All I would have to say is do a little reading before trashing the Vedas as being "simplistic and narrow." Noone knows how old these stories are or from where they originated, but most people would agree the Vedic texts pre-dated the bible as a written document.


Your premise is that the bible is just another story from long ago that took oral histories from other cultures and published it. We an see that the flood story is prevalent in ancient cultures, that stands to reason after the tower of babel. It stands to reason that these cultures talked about and then wrote down what they remembered and were told. That fits the bible just fine. That all these cultures talked and then wrote about it at about the same time is also possible. What makes the bible unique is that it continued for 1600 years in the making by several writers in different places, continents, occupations, events, moods and time in history in three different languages and yet survived and spoke to hundreds of issues consistantly. There is no other document in the history of the wrold that can make that claim.

It sure is true that they have tried to keep those words the same. Its like our constitution, they keep re-interperting what is says, but those words are sacred. Of course now people with more humor have gone back and tried to re-translate the greek/hebrew texts more accurately but you guys cant have your words messed with.

ohall
10-10-2005, 07:35 PM
There is the primary reason why I hate and fear religion. Because they say things like "never will" and "cant." The big bang theory can never be described because it is in the realm of god, not man. Evolution can never be proven. etc. etc. Every problem can and will be solved in time. The human body, which is to this day completely misunderstood, will be mapped down the to individual atom within a decade. The human mind is capable of marvelous things, and religion only serves to restrict it.

I agree, but not the way you think. That is where each of our faiths come in to play.

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 07:36 PM
There is the primary reason why I hate and fear religion. Because they say things like "never will" and "cant." The big bang theory can never be described because it is in the realm of god, not man. Evolution can never be proven. etc. etc. Every problem can and will be solved in time. The human body, which is to this day completely misunderstood, will be mapped down the to individual atom within a decade. The human mind is capable of marvelous things, and religion only serves to restrict it.I am not sure if you realize the irony of your post. You are convinced that all will be solved in time, and you must have faith to believe that, as you have no other way to know that this will happen.;)

Ferretsquig
10-10-2005, 07:40 PM
I agree, but not the way you think. That is where each of our faiths come in to play.

Well as Skape said, nothing productive comes from religion. Advancement comes from freedom of thought, not the restriction of it. Your faith keeps you from dreaming of other possibilities, no matter how remote they may seem.

Ferretsquig
10-10-2005, 07:42 PM
I am not sure if you realize the irony of your post. You are convinced that all will be solved in time, and you must have faith to believe that, as you have no other way to know that this will happen.;)

Certainly, I have a great deal of faith in human ingenuity. Its been proven to me time and time again.

SkapePhin
10-10-2005, 07:45 PM
Well as Skape said, nothing productive comes from religion. Advancement comes from freedom of thought, not the restriction of it. Your faith keeps you from dreaming of other possibilities, no matter how remote they may seem.

Well, I wouldnt go that far.. Its just that they are based upon different philosophies.. Just by its very nature, religion cannot lead to physically-altering discoveries/technologies... But they are prodcutive in other ways.. There IS a role for religion and faith, otherwise it wouldnt exist.. It plays an integral role in stabilizing human societies and appeasing wandering human minds.. Religion is productive in its own way..

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 07:49 PM
Well as Skape said, nothing productive comes from religion. Advancement comes from freedom of thought, not the restriction of it. Your faith keeps you from dreaming of other possibilities, no matter how remote they may seem.I don't think Skape was saying that religion is not productive. He was saying that science is what provides us with cures and technology and stuff like that and religion does not (nor should it) and that because of the belief in evolution we have seen great discoveries in the science fields that may or may not have happened otherwise.

I believe that science and religion can and have co-existed for centuries. Many of the great scientists were men of faith and religion.

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 07:50 PM
Certainly, I have a great deal of faith in human ingenuity. Its been proven to me time and time again.Isn't that a form of religion?

ohall
10-10-2005, 08:01 PM
Well as Skape said, nothing productive comes from religion. Advancement comes from freedom of thought, not the restriction of it. Your faith keeps you from dreaming of other possibilities, no matter how remote they may seem.

No nothing, just our entire society!

Ferretsquig
10-10-2005, 08:11 PM
I don't think Skape was saying that religion is not productive. He was saying that science is what provides us with cures and technology and stuff like that and religion does not (nor should it) and that because of the belief in evolution we have seen great discoveries in the science fields that may or may not have happened otherwise.

I believe that science and religion can and have co-existed for centuries. Many of the great scientists were men of faith and religion.

Science and religion have coexisted, and the religion of many scientists has kept them restrained. Newton and Einstein were two notable examples of religion supressing scientific thought. One constant has remained throughout history....less religion = more productive and creative society.

Den54
10-10-2005, 08:17 PM
Well as Skape said, nothing productive comes from religion. Advancement comes from freedom of thought, not the restriction of it. Your faith keeps you from dreaming of other possibilities, no matter how remote they may seem.

I'm reminded of this saying " There is nothing more dangerous then a closed mind"

ABrownLamp
10-10-2005, 08:24 PM
I don't think Skape was saying that religion is not productive. He was saying that science is what provides us with cures and technology and stuff like that and religion does not (nor should it) and that because of the belief in evolution we have seen great discoveries in the science fields that may or may not have happened otherwise.

I believe that science and religion can and have co-existed for centuries. Many of the great scientists were men of faith and religion.

Science and religion have certainly not coexisted peacefully until recently (relatively recently anyway).

Let's not forget the Renaissance (dark Ages) where decades of knowledge and research were subdued all in the name of God.

ABrownLamp
10-10-2005, 08:25 PM
No nothing, just our entire society!

Society would be just fine without religion.
Would society be fine without science?
Absolutely not.

SkapePhin
10-10-2005, 08:33 PM
Society would be just fine without religion.
Would society be fine without science?
Absolutely not.

I dont know if I adhere to this... I think you are understating the positive effects religion can have on certain people.. I honestly believe that consciousness is not something that humans, or any living being that would ever attain consciousness, are really comfortable with.. It leads to a plethora of problems for a species.. Things like religion and faith help us deal with the problems posed by self-awareness.. While severe mental pathologies still exist, I think there would be far more if people didnt have some sort of outlet.. And for many, religion and faith serves that need.. For others, it might be a more detrimental outlet, such as drug abuse.. I believe most people arent optimally designed to cope with what their consciousness imposes...

It also serves as a stablizing force in most societies..

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 08:35 PM
Science and religion have coexisted, and the religion of many scientists has kept them restrained. Newton and Einstein were two notable examples of religion supressing scientific thought. One constant has remained throughout history....less religion = more productive and creative society.I know what you are trying to say, but I don't think you have the evidence to back it up. I will go with you half way though - I agree less religion = progression. But by progression I mean a more liberal mind and less moral and most importantly less of a standard of morals. Face it - our society and world are much worse off moralistically today than at any point in time in history. Think about it for a minute - Abortion, suicide, lying, cheating , stealing, adultery, sex outside marriage, unwed pregnancies, selfishness etc.... these are all on the rise as religion is on the way out. Something has to fill the void, and it won't be science to the rescue, it won't be some "tolerant everyone gets along and agrees with what we aught to do" type of thing.

Also I think science has done wonders co-existing with religion. Most of the great discoveries have been right alongside religion.

Why do you think Newton was "restrained" by religion? OR Einstein? Did they say they were?

SkapePhin
10-10-2005, 08:39 PM
I know what you are trying to say, but I don't think you have the evidence to back it up. I will go with you half way though - I agree less religion = progression. But by progression I mean a more liberal mind and less moral and most importantly less of a standard of morals. Face it - our society and world are much worse off moralistically today than at any point in time in history. Think about it for a minute - Abortion, suicide, lying, cheating , stealing, adultery, sex outside marriage, unwed pregnancies, selfishness etc.... these are all on the rise as religion is on the way out. Something has to fill the void, and it won't be science to the rescue, it won't be some "tolerant everyone gets along and agrees with what we aught to do" type of thing.

Also I think science has done wonders co-existing with religion. Most of the great discoveries have been right alongside religion.

Why do you think Newton was "restrained" by religion? OR Einstein? Did they say they were?

Somehow, I dont think you have the stats to backup this claim D7.. It may appear that this is so, but mainly, because of the amount of media today and our access to this information.. I feel that if you were to compare these statistics with those of the past, they would be rather constant.. Except for abortion, since means for widespread abortions did not exist in earlier times..

Things are as bad now as they ever were.. Id actually go so far to say they may be even be a little better.. If we are to believe what historians have written of their times, there have been some far more brutal and immoral times in human history.

Ferretsquig
10-10-2005, 08:48 PM
I know what you are trying to say, but I don't think you have the evidence to back it up. I will go with you half way though - I agree less religion = progression. But by progression I mean a more liberal mind and less moral and most importantly less of a standard of morals. Face it - our society and world are much worse off moralistically today than at any point in time in history. Think about it for a minute - Abortion, suicide, lying, cheating , stealing, adultery, sex outside marriage, unwed pregnancies, selfishness etc.... these are all on the rise as religion is on the way out. Something has to fill the void, and it won't be science to the rescue, it won't be some "tolerant everyone gets along and agrees with what we aught to do" type of thing.

Also I think science has done wonders co-existing with religion. Most of the great discoveries have been right alongside religion.

Why do you think Newton was "restrained" by religion? OR Einstein? Did they say they were?

Sure I'll accept that one. Religion leads to a society with less abortion, suicide, adultry etc... Evil to some, entertainment to others.

Newton spent an enormous amount of time thinking and writing on the existance of god. He went through the process that a lot of brilliant minds constrained by an ideal go through. They try to justify and explain their existance. Einstein spent half his life trying to debunk his own theory of relativity merely because of his belief in god.

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 08:50 PM
Somehow, I dont think you have the stats to backup this claim D7.. It may appear that this is so, but mainly, because of the amount of media today and our access to this information.. I feel that if you were to compare these statistics with those of the past, they would be rather constant.. Except for abortion, since means for widespread abortions did not exist in earlier times..

Things are as bad now as they ever were.. Id actually go so far to say they may be even be a little better.. If we are to believe what historians have written of their times, there have been some far more brutal and immoral times in human history.Right there have been many brutal things that have happened. But my point is the relative acceptance of these things in a sliding (down) morality that we have today. Bad things happened back then, but people thought of them as bad. Today these things are considered "OK". Do you understand the difference. That is what morality is - defining what is acceptable in a society, and what is not.

Ferretsquig
10-10-2005, 08:51 PM
Somehow, I dont think you have the stats to backup this claim D7.. It may appear that this is so, but mainly, because of the amount of media today and our access to this information.. I feel that if you were to compare these statistics with those of the past, they would be rather constant.. Except for abortion, since means for widespread abortions did not exist in earlier times..

Things are as bad now as they ever were.. Id actually go so far to say they may be even be a little better.. If we are to believe what historians have written of their times, there have been some far more brutal and immoral times in human history.

Well his morals are based on his religion, so naturally a society without his religion would be less moral.

SkapePhin
10-10-2005, 08:51 PM
Sure I'll accept that one. Religion leads to a society with less abortion, suicide, adultry etc... Evil to some, entertainment to others.

Newton spent an enormous amount of time thinking and writing on the existance of god. He went through the process that a lot of brilliant minds constrained by an ideal go through. They try to justify and explain their existance. Einstein spent half his life trying to debunk his own theory of relativity merely because of his belief in god.

Thats what any good scientist does.. You try to disprove your theory.. and if you cant, its a good one.

And I certainly wouldnt call abortion and suicide "entertainment".. :lol:

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 08:56 PM
Sure I'll accept that one. Religion leads to a society with less abortion, suicide, adultry etc... Evil to some, entertainment to others.

Newton spent an enormous amount of time thinking and writing on the existance of god. He went through the process that a lot of brilliant minds constrained by an ideal go through. They try to justify and explain their existance. Einstein spent half his life trying to debunk his own theory of relativity merely because of his belief in god.Still not buying it. Scientists discover and create, all the while wondering at the creation of the creator (or other processes) and how He put it all together and how it all works. That is what science is - figuring out how things work. So a healthy belief in a creator shouldn't prevent a creative mind from these discoveries.

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 08:57 PM
Thats what any good scientist does.. You try to disprove your theory.. and if you cant, its a good one.

And I certainly wouldnt call abortion and suicide "entertainment".. :lol:I can see adultery being entertainment for some, until it happens to them.:eek:

SkapePhin
10-10-2005, 08:57 PM
Right there have been many brutal things that have happened. But my point is the relative acceptance of these things in a sliding (down) morality that we have today. Bad things happened back then, but people thought of them as bad. Today these things are considered "OK". Do you understand the difference. That is what morality is - defining what is acceptable in a society, and what is not.

Lol.. Which historical society are you directly reffering to? I STILL would say modern society is the least tolerant of immoral behavior, and by immoral I mean behavior that detrimentally effects other humans, than any society we have ever seen in history.. Im talking about on a whole, not just small factions like Puritans and the like.. because those groups exist today too, but are a minority, as they were then..

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 09:02 PM
Well his morals are based on his religion, so naturally a society without his religion would be less moral.No my morals are based on an unchanging standard, the highest standard. So yes when a society disregards that standard the only logical end result will be a lower standard, and an even lower one yet to come.

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 09:06 PM
Lol.. Which historical society are you directly reffering to? I STILL would say modern society is the least tolerant of immoral behavior, and by immoral I mean behavior that detrimentally effects other humans, than any society we have ever seen in history.. Im talking about on a whole, not just small factions like Puritans and the like.. because those groups exist today too, but are a minority, as they were then..Abortion, cheating, adultery, lying, stealing etc.....we are more intolerant today than in the past? Are you kidding? All these things I have listed are looked at today as no big deal by a very large portion (and growing) of our society and the world. How can you miss this?

SkapePhin
10-10-2005, 09:18 PM
Abortion, cheating, adultery, lying, stealing etc.....we are more intolerant today than in the past? Are you kidding? All these things I have listed are looked at today as no big deal by a very large portion (and growing) of our society and the world. How can you miss this?

It sounds like you have a rather limited knowledge of history.. These things, with the exception of abortion, have remained constant throughout human history given the proper circumstances. Do you not consider the massive wars of the past to be stealing? Because thats what conquer is.. The theft of land and resources.. Theft by force of course, not by guile.. Further, lying is not something that can be readily quantified in terms of the past.. It cant really even be quantified in the present, but I can say that it certainly isnt tolerated by a good many people.. While fibbing and deception are certainly commonly practiced in certain areas of employment (politics, business, etc.) they have always been ingrained in those professions, and have always been tolerated to the same degree.. I would say even moreso in the past, since nowadays we have far many more checks and balances in place to thwart such deceptions (media, consumer services, etc.)

As far as adultery, Id say its about as pervasive as ever.. The only difference is that it now leads to more divorce now that couples feel they have that option to explore if they discover infedility.. In the past, particularely in terms of women, if they husbands cheated, they just had to deal with it.. And there is widespread acknowledgement that cheating has occurred since the beginning of human civilization.. In fact, there is even scientific evidence of a human penchant for promiscuity and infidelity.. (the size of the male testes *large* are congruent with the events of sperm competition, wherein the sperm of several males compete to reach the egg in the female, something only brought about in organisms with medium to high amounts of promiscuity, chimps for instance.. Gorillas have small testes because they have a harem-based mating type, which rules out sperm competition..)

ABrownLamp
10-10-2005, 09:27 PM
I dont know if I adhere to this... I think you are understating the positive effects religion can have on certain people.. I honestly believe that consciousness is not something that humans, or any living being that would ever attain consciousness, are really comfortable with.. It leads to a plethora of problems for a species.. Things like religion and faith help us deal with the problems posed by self-awareness.. While severe mental pathologies still exist, I think there would be far more if people didnt have some sort of outlet.. And for many, religion and faith serves that need.. For others, it might be a more detrimental outlet, such as drug abuse.. I believe most people arent optimally designed to cope with what their consciousness imposes...

It also serves as a stablizing force in most societies..

I suppose the dregs of humanity need something to hold on to.

Outside of that, our society would not need it.

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 09:31 PM
Society would be just fine without religion.
Would society be fine without science?
Absolutely not.We can only pick one? I think both are benefits to society, and I think the abuse of both are detrimental to society.

ABrownLamp
10-10-2005, 09:31 PM
Abortion, cheating, adultery, lying, stealing etc.....we are more intolerant today than in the past? Are you kidding? All these things I have listed are looked at today as no big deal by a very large portion (and growing) of our society and the world. How can you miss this?

Amazing how people think today's society is less civilized than the days of Christ.

SkapePhin
10-10-2005, 09:31 PM
I suppose the dregs of humanity need something to hold on to.

Outside of that, our society would not need it.

If by dregs you mean roughly 80% of the current population, I suppose so.. Even with all of our scientific knowledge, I still do not foresee a future utterly devoid of spirituality.. It always has been, and always will be imo, a part of the human experience.

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 09:33 PM
I suppose the dregs of humanity need something to hold on to.

Outside of that, our society would not need it.How "Tolerant" of you to classify billions of people of faith, values and morals as the lowest form in the societal hierarchy.

ABrownLamp
10-10-2005, 09:33 PM
We can only pick one? I think both are benefits to society, and I think the abuse of both are detrimental to society.

I agree.
There are many great Christian organization that are a great benefit to society.

What I was saying is that if those organizations and their religion wasn't there, society would be ok.
Now if science wasn't here...

ABrownLamp
10-10-2005, 09:34 PM
If by dregs you mean roughly 80% of the current population, I suppose so.. Even with all of our scientific knowledge, I still do not foresee a future utterly devoid of spirituality.. It always has been, and always will be imo, a part of the human experience.

What I'm saying is that is the only societal necessity for religion

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 09:43 PM
It sounds like you have a rather limited knowledge of history.. These things, with the exception of abortion, have remained constant throughout human history given the proper circumstances. Do you not consider the massive wars of the past to be stealing? Because thats what conquer is.. The theft of land and resources.. Theft by force of course, not by guile.. Further, lying is not something that can be readily quantified in terms of the past.. It cant really even be quantified in the present, but I can say that it certainly isnt tolerated by a good many people.. While fibbing and deception are certainly commonly practiced in certain areas of employment (politics, business, etc.) they have always been ingrained in those professions, and have always been tolerated to the same degree.. I would say even moreso in the past, since nowadays we have far many more checks and balances in place to thwart such deceptions (media, consumer services, etc.)

As far as adultery, Id say its about as pervasive as ever.. The only difference is that it now leads to more divorce now that couples feel they have that option to explore if they discover infedility.. In the past, particularely in terms of women, if they husbands cheated, they just had to deal with it.. And there is widespread acknowledgement that cheating has occurred since the beginning of human civilization.. In fact, there is even scientific evidence of a human penchant for promiscuity and infidelity.. (the size of the male testes *large* are congruent with the events of sperm competition, wherein the sperm of several males compete to reach the egg in the female, something only brought about in organisms with medium to high amounts of promiscuity, chimps for instance.. Gorillas have small testes because they have a harem-based mating type, which rules out sperm competition..)You are referring to governments taking land and conquering as justification for stealing. I am refering to personal human interactions. We need go no further than Clinton lying to the GJ, which he really got a pass on (a fine woopdeedo). But do you remember the people defending him saying that is was a lie about sex no big deal? This is what I am talking about. Yes these things have been constant throughout history, but the acceptance of them has not. Only in our most recent world are we seeing these things accepted more and more. For years adulterers were considered whores. Many were outcast. Today it is a badge of honor almost. Teen sex before marriage is widespread today and acceptable to a great many who think it is no big deal, just wear protection. That was unheard of even 50 years ago. And there are certain subjects that I am purposely laying off of as I don't want this thread to get hijacked. The point is our acceptance of these immoral things is becoming more and more common, not that these things are happening more and more often (which they are but...). It is our acceptance of them that I raise issue with and provide the basis for my original point, a lower morality without religion.

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 09:45 PM
I agree.
There are many great Christian organization that are a great benefit to society.

What I was saying is that if those organizations and their religion wasn't there, society would be ok.
Now if science wasn't here...I don't now about that. Religion has provided us with the morals to function as a society. Where do you get your morals without religion? Science can't provide it.

ABrownLamp
10-10-2005, 09:51 PM
You are referring to governments taking land and conquering as justification for stealing. I am refering to personal human interactions. We need go no further than Clinton lying to the GJ, which he really got a pass on (a fine woopdeedo). But do you remember the people defending him saying that is was a lie about sex no big deal? This is what I am talking about. Yes these things have been constant throughout history, but the acceptance of them has not. Only in our most recent world are we seeing these things accepted more and more. For years adulterers were considered whores. Many were outcast. Today it is a badge of honor almost. Teen sex before marriage is widespread today and acceptable to a great many who think it is no big deal, just wear protection. That was unheard of even 50 years ago. And there are certain subjects that I am purposely laying off of as I don't want this thread to get hijacked. The point is our acceptance of these immoral things is becoming more and more common, not that these things are happening more and more often (which they are but...). It is our acceptance of them that I raise issue with and provide the basis for my original point, a lower morality without religion.

So in other words you think life during the Dark Ages, where religion ruled the land and science was repressed completely (with penalty of death for bringign it up) was a time where morals were at their highest.

Please.
Do you hae any idea what kind of things went on back then.

SkapePhin
10-10-2005, 09:52 PM
You are referring to governments taking land and conquering as justification for stealing. I am refering to personal human interactions. We need go no further than Clinton lying to the GJ, which he really got a pass on (a fine woopdeedo). But do you remember the people defending him saying that is was a lie about sex no big deal? This is what I am talking about. Yes these things have been constant throughout history, but the acceptance of them has not. Only in our most recent world are we seeing these things accepted more and more. For years adulterers were considered whores. Many were outcast. Today it is a badge of honor almost. Teen sex before marriage is widespread today and acceptable to a great many who think it is no big deal, just wear protection. That was unheard of even 50 years ago. And there are certain subjects that I am purposely laying off of as I don't want this thread to get hijacked. The point is our acceptance of these immoral things is becoming more and more common, not that these things are happening more and more often (which they are but...). It is our acceptance of them that I raise issue with and provide the basis for my original point, a lower morality without religion.

Nope, again, I dont see how you can definitively say our society is more accepting of immoral behavior as before.. And Clinton didnt get a woopdedoo, he got IMPEACHED.. You really are putting alot of your own perceptions into our current situation.. Historically, this doesnt bear out..

Sex before marriage, yes in some societies, yes probably across the board, but not because of social morality.. Rather, because of new technologies.. Contraception specifically.. And as for your point on adultery.. Only women were ever labeled whores for sexual behavior.. All the while, men ROUTINELY committed adultery.. And this was not an uncommon occurence.. Sure, women did to, but they suffered all the negative social side effects.. Jeez, there are COUNTLESS examples of men, even prominent men, and their mistresses and liasons.. Id certainly say it was quite accepted in those days.. Particularly men in power.. Even the beacons of American morality, our founding fathers were privy to some rather public affairs.. I believe both Washington and Jefferson had historically recorded affairs with their slave women..

And theft is against the law and commonly punished by all last time I checked..

ABrownLamp
10-10-2005, 09:53 PM
I don't now about that. Religion has provided us with the morals to function as a society. Where do you get your morals without religion? Science can't provide it.

A good family.

I don't need religion to tell me right from wrong.
Do you really think without Christianity that you would be killing people?

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 09:54 PM
Amazing how people think today's society is less civilized than the days of Christ.YOur missing my point. See post #105

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 09:56 PM
So in other words you think life during the Dark Ages, where religion ruled the land and science was repressed completely (with penalty of death for bringign it up) was a time where morals were at their highest.

Please.
Do you hae any idea what kind of things went on back then.You're still missing the point. Bad things happened no doubt. But they didn't say that the bad things were acceptable and good like in todays society.

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 09:58 PM
A good family.

I don't need religion to tell me right from wrong.
Do you really think without Christianity that you would be killing people?And where did that family get those morals/values from? Trace it back. Did it come from religion or science, as it seems that these are the two subjects being contrasted here.

ABrownLamp
10-10-2005, 10:03 PM
You're still missing the point. Bad things happened no doubt. But they didn't say that the bad things were acceptable and good like in todays society.

No I get it.

You're saying decadence of religion is the cause and effect relationship of America's acceptance of certain events.

That's why I illustrate a time where religion exclusively ruled the land.
A time where murders, adultery and indescribable acts occurred on a daily basis.
It was a far worse time to live in than it is today and you know that.

ABrownLamp
10-10-2005, 10:05 PM
And where did that family get those morals/values from? Trace it back. Did it come from religion or science, as it seems that these are the two subjects being contrasted here.

I am from an areligious family.

Dude, come on.
You know people can gain morals, education successful lives from sources outside of the Bible.

SkapePhin
10-10-2005, 10:05 PM
And where did that family get those morals/values from? Trace it back. Did it come from religion or science, as it seems that these are the two subjects being contrasted here.

They come from nature.. and from each other.. Morals are social contracts with each other.. Thats all they are.. Animals do not have morals in any real sense.. but some social animals such as Chimps and Dolphins have some unwritten, but commonly acknowledged social behavior.. Same thing with humans, only our social contracts are more well defined.. Relgion is just a mechanism of codifying these naturally occuring social contracts. Anarchy never occurs for any prolonged amount of time within any society.. As social beings, our strengths lie with our ability to work with each other.. Heck, our very survival DEPENDS on this.. And for this to work, and for us to coexist, these sets of rules, ie morals, must ultimately develop..

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 10:08 PM
Nope, again, I dont see how you can definitively say our society is more accepting of immoral behavior as before.. And Clinton didnt get a woopdedoo, he got IMPEACHED.. You really are putting alot of your own perceptions into our current situation.. Historically, this doesnt bear out..

Sex before marriage, yes in some societies, yes probably across the board, but not because of social morality.. Rather, because of new technologies.. Contraception specifically.. And as for your point on adultery.. Only women were ever labeled whores for sexual behavior.. All the while, men ROUTINELY committed adultery.. And this was not an uncommon occurence.. Sure, women did to, but they suffered all the negative social side effects.. Jeez, there are COUNTLESS examples of men, even prominent men, and their mistresses and liasons.. Id certainly say it was quite accepted in those days.. Particularly men in power.. Even the beacons of American morality, our founding fathers were privy to some rather public affairs.. I believe both Washington and Jefferson had historically recorded affairs with their slave women..

And theft is against the law and commonly punished by all last time I checked..We are getting closer. Clinton was impeached but went no where from there. Big deal. My point was all those who jumped to his defense saying that the lie wasn't that big a deal. That is the point. But this is just one example of many. True - adultery by men was common place, but they didn't make it public and it was limited to men of power who could afford it and get away with it. It wasn't like he went home to the Mrs. and told her he had just been with Constance the chamber maid.:eek: Now compare that to today? They still don't go tell their wives they are cheating, but our society as a whole is more accepting of it. People aren't ashamed of it anymore it seems. You may not see it, but the edges of morality are slowly being eaten away, one slow bite at a time. And we haven't even hit on Pornogaphy and the "other subject".

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 10:12 PM
I am from an areligious family.

Dude, come on.
You know people can gain morals, education successful lives from sources outside of the Bible.Today yes. But my point is where did morality originate? It had to come from somewhere.

ohall
10-10-2005, 10:13 PM
Society would be just fine without religion.
Would society be fine without science?
Absolutely not.

Just how do you know this? Is this a faith based opinion you hold?

FYI I have no problems with science. It has it's flaws and more often than not it has more holes in it than swiss cheese. We all have to have our faith. One way or the other, we all do.

ABrownLamp
10-10-2005, 10:17 PM
Today yes. But my point is where did morality originate? It had to come from somewhere.

intrinsic knowledege.
God had nothing to do with knowing that hurting other people was wrong.
Humans have rational thought

ABrownLamp
10-10-2005, 10:18 PM
Just how do you know this? Is this a faith based opinion you hold?

What do you think this world would be like without science today?

ohall
10-10-2005, 10:19 PM
intrinsic knowledege.
God had nothing to do with knowing that hurting other people was wrong.
Humans have rational thought

Just how do you prove such a statement? I mean you are a man of science, please prove there is no God.

It shouldn't be that difficult. I mean it's science!

SkapePhin
10-10-2005, 10:20 PM
We are getting closer. Clinton was impeached but went no where from there. Big deal. My point was all those who jumped to his defense saying that the lie wasn't that big a deal. That is the point. But this is just one example of many. True - adultery by men was common place, but they didn't make it public and it was limited to men of power who could afford it and get away with it. It wasn't like he went home to the Mrs. and told her he had just been with Constance the chamber maid.:eek: Now compare that to today? They still don't go tell their wives they are cheating, but our society as a whole is more accepting of it. People aren't ashamed of it anymore it seems. You may not see it, but the edges of morality are slowly being eaten away, one slow bite at a time. And we haven't even hit on Pornogaphy and the "other subject".

So you are saying that its worse because its more public? So sin is fine as long as its more private? I dont get it.. Allowing it to be more private, ie covering up the fact, to me appears to be a bigger sign of acceptance than anything.. And if you think adultery was limited to those in power, you are solely mistaken.. Money and power doesnt create a cheating heart, it might create more opportunities, but it doesnt mean Joe Schmoe doesnt jump on the few opportunities that present themselves to him.. BTW, this "publicness" probably has more to do with media and technology, than acceptance.. Its just more visible than any time period before us because of pervasive media..Not because the behaviors have somehow changed.

And as to your point on Clinton, that acceptance of his behavior was no more than POLITICS.. That same acceptance is shown for other politicians by those who support his ideology.. This same partisan effect has also been present for quite sometime.. This is nothing new..

And things like pornography, again, just like the sex before marriage issue, come to ahead due to technology.. People in earlier times didnt exactly have internet access, or even cameras to gain access to such sexual stimuli..

ohall
10-10-2005, 10:20 PM
What do you think this world would be like without science today?

Not such a nice place. I'm all for science, but science does not disprove other types of faiths.

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 10:24 PM
They come from nature.. and from each other.. Morals are social contracts with each other.. Thats all they are.. Animals do not have morals in any real sense.. but some social animals such as Chimps and Dolphins have some unwritten, but commonly acknowledged social behavior.. Same thing with humans, only our social contracts are more well defined.. Relgion is just a mechanism of codifying these naturally occuring social contracts. Anarchy never occurs for any prolonged amount of time within any society.. As social beings, our strengths lie with our ability to work with each other.. Heck, our very survival DEPENDS on this.. And for this to work, and for us to coexist, these sets of rules, ie morals, must ultimately develop..Ok I think we are even closer on this, although we will probably get to a point where there are diminishing returns. At some point in time ( in nature you say) the first societies developed these morals. They decided that one should not steal from another. They determined that this was bad. But if they needed food to survive then how is that bad? (I'm thinking caveman here). At some point they did decide that stealing was bad, but how did they determine that? What made them come to that conclusion? There must have been some aughtness that existed that told them that it was right vs. wrong. Where did that come from? Based on your idea that we get it from nature and others wouldn't it be valid that one group decided stealing was good, while another decided it was bad? Which one is right? Who decides which is right? They both agreed as groups what was to be the societal acceptable conditions. You can't decide which is right without an objective standard. I say that that standard comes from religion and in my case I put forth the christian bible as that standard, being given to us as the innerrant word of God.

Now this is where we probably part ways again, but it has been interesting and intellectually stimulating as usual.

ABrownLamp
10-10-2005, 10:25 PM
Not such a nice place. I'm all for science, but science does not disprove other types of faiths.

Right!!

So no science = a crappy place to live

No religion = what? What exactly would happen?

ABrownLamp
10-10-2005, 10:27 PM
Just how do you prove such a statement? I mean you are a man of science, please prove there is no God.

It shouldn't be that difficult. I mean it's science!

How do I prove that believing God exists does not mean you will have morals?
Well go to any prison.

Never said I could prove God doesn't exist. WTF?

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 10:30 PM
intrinsic knowledege.
God had nothing to do with knowing that hurting other people was wrong.
Humans have rational thoughtYou say they had intrinsic knowledge of good and evil, I say that knowledge came from their creator and was made evident in them. This debate still goes back to - you don't believe, and I do. We are at an impass at this point. Good debate though.

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 10:33 PM
Right!!

So no science = a crappy place to live

No religion = what? What exactly would happen?Chaos

SkapePhin
10-10-2005, 10:34 PM
Ok I think we are even closer on this, although we will probably get to a point where there are diminishing returns. At some point in time ( in nature you say) the first societies developed these morals. They decided that one should not steal from another. They determined that this was bad. But if they needed food to survive then how is that bad? (I'm thinking caveman here). At some point they did decide that stealing was bad, but how did they determine that? What made them come to that conclusion? There must have been some aughtness that existed that told them that it was right vs. wrong. Where did that come from? Based on your idea that we get it from nature and others wouldn't it be valid that one group decided stealing was good, while another decided it was bad? Which one is right? Who decides which is right? They both agreed as groups what was to be the societal acceptable conditions. You can't decide which is right without an objective standard. I say that that standard comes from religion and in my case I put forth the christian bible as that standard, being given to us as the innerrant word of God.

Now this is where we probably part ways again, but it has been interesting and intellectually stimulating as usual.


There is one very crucial element that you are forgetting here.. A social contract also states that, when you need help, I will help you.. and when I need help, you will in return help me.. For this to occur, to have such a contract, you have to have faith that this other guy isnt going to skip out on his end of the bargain.. If a contract isnt binding, what good is it.. So who determines what is right and what is wrong? They both do.. All parties inolved in the contract have to sign off on it...Because each is dependent, or may be dependent in the future, on each other in order to ensure survival. This is recipricoal altruism... If one steals my resources, that certainly isnt aiding my survival, and others within the group who also have formed this social contract with each other, will see this, and come to your aid, thinking "Hey, hey could steal MY resources next time!" and reprimand the thief.. That thief loses alot of social value, and in ancient times, probably his life..

That is why theft and deception only become present in certain contexts... Either in times of severe desperation (For instance, food looters in Katrina) or when they perceive a weakness they can exploit (Politicians, Businessmen, etc.).. Or they are just plain stupid (Plasma TV Looters in Katrina.... :tongue: ) You think its a coincidence that crimes of theft are prevalent in really poor people (desperation) and really rich people (exploiting weakness - opportunity)?

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 10:49 PM
There is one very crucial element that you are forgetting here.. A social contract also states that, when you need help, I will help you.. and when I need help, you will in return help me.. For this to occur, to have such a contract, you have to have faith that this other guy isnt going to skip out on his end of the bargain.. If a contract isnt binding, what good is it.. So who determines what is right and what is wrong? They both do.. All parties inolved in the contract have to sign off on it...Because each is dependent, or may be dependent in the future, on each other in order to ensure survival. This is recipricoal altruism... If one steals my resources, that certainly isnt aiding my survival, and others within the group who also have formed this social contract with each other, will see this, and come to your aid, thinking "Hey, hey could steal MY resources next time!" and reprimand the thief.. That thief loses alot of social value, and in ancient times, probably his life..

That is why theft and deception only become present in certain contexts... Either in times of severe desperation (For instance, food looters in Katrina) or when they perceive a weakness they can exploit (Politicians, Businessmen, etc.).. Or they are just plain stupid (Plasma TV Looters in Katrina.... :tongue: ) You think its a coincidence that crimes of theft are prevaent in really poor people (desperation) and really rich people (exploiting weakness - opportunity)?Good points all. The social contract reminds me of the aughtness seminar I attended. There is an aughtness that :

if I do for you, you ...

or you promised.......

or leave him alone he didn't bother you ........

or pick on someone your own size......

These are basic societal sense of fairplay, justice. It is an aughtness that exists. I say it comes from God, you will say that it is inborn in human nature. This is where we part ways.

xiidaen
10-10-2005, 10:58 PM
The damn Mormons who keep knocking on my door! Please make them stop


My ex-roommate's solution of answering the door naked and inviting them in to disucss the issues seemed to solve the problem quite quickly.

Rafiki
10-10-2005, 10:59 PM
For me to explain why I believe in God, I think I'd have to first establish the absolute fact that there is such thing as good and evil. Negative energies, positive energies- pleasure, pain- sickness, health- love, hate; all denote the existence of polar oposites in this universe. The energies of good and evil surround us every day, and affect our experiences in this world constantly.

God, to me, is without definition and without explanation. But his place in this spectrum is on the extreme side of the good and positive. He is the father of humanity, and the path to righteousness.

xiidaen
10-10-2005, 11:02 PM
Care to elaborate?

*EDIT*

Nevermind, did some online research.

Wow...nice story! :up:

Heh, if you liked that read Stephenson's 'Snow Crash' for the cyberpunk interpretation of the events. (Plus, it's a good book).

SkapePhin
10-10-2005, 11:02 PM
Good points all. The social contract reminds me of the aughtness seminar I attended. There is an aughtness that :

if I do for you, you ...

or you promised.......

or leave him alone he didn't bother you ........

or pick on someone your own size......

These are basic societal sense of fairplay, justice. It is an aughtness that exists. I say it comes from God, you will say that it is inborn in human nature. This is where we part ways.

That is fair..

I just think that these moral systems would come about in any social group through a logical, natural process.. Its a neccesity. Whether it comes from an external force, such as God, thats another matter.. But a society MUST have a social contract in place in order for it to survive and prosper given the harshness of nature, and they all do.. Sure, in all of these societies there isnt a 100% compliance with these social rules, but if the rules are worth having, and are truly integral in the survival of all within the group, those who do not adhere to this contract get weeded out somehow, sooner or later..

One more point though, I believe these rules are present with or without Religion... They are common cross-religions, and thus, one must come to the conclusion that they are not based solely off one belief system.. There havent been many societies completely devoid of a spiritual belief system, actually none that I can think, but that imo supports my notion that religions serve to codify these neccesary social contracts in some form so as to be easily passed down to their kin for their use, reinforcement, and an accepted list of the social more's

Pagan
10-10-2005, 11:07 PM
Chaos
I think it's a pretty accurate statement that religion has been the cause of more chaos than anything else.

Even YOU can't deny that.

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 11:09 PM
My ex-roommate's solution of answering the door naked and inviting them in to disucss the issues seemed to solve the problem quite quickly.That will work everytime. :rofl3:

Dolphan7
10-10-2005, 11:12 PM
I think it's a pretty accurate statement that religion has been the cause of more chaos than anything else.

Even YOU can't deny that.No I would have to say SIN gets that award. But that also includes the abuse of religion to perform many bad things.

Pagan
10-11-2005, 06:58 AM
No I would have to say SIN gets that award. But that also includes the abuse of religion to perform many bad things.
That's a nice spin on it, but unfortunately false. Again you choose to ignore the fact that not everyone is so focused on "sin". That's the christian's dance, pretty much no one else's.

Proven fact, take away religion and over the course of history alot of the wars, alot of the mass killings and alot of the atrocities wouldn't have happened.

ohall
10-11-2005, 07:45 AM
Right!!

So no science = a crappy place to live

No religion = what? What exactly would happen?

Same thing, this would not be such a nice world. There has been bad science, such as insane ppl using human beings as test subjects. There has been bad religion, where crazy ppl kill in the name of God.

Your idea that science is some kind of utopia (at least that is how I read your opinion here) is simply just wrong. Man has a way of corrupting everything we touch.

Everyone has their faith, why belittle someones faith you do not agree with? Are you really that insecure?

ohall
10-11-2005, 07:46 AM
How do I prove that believing God exists does not mean you will have morals?
Well go to any prison.

Never said I could prove God doesn't exist. WTF?

I never made such a claim.

If science is so perfect it seems to me proving God does not exist would be quite simple!

ohall
10-11-2005, 07:46 AM
My ex-roommate's solution of answering the door naked and inviting them in to disucss the issues seemed to solve the problem quite quickly.

My brother use to do that until they started to come in!

SkapePhin
10-11-2005, 07:55 AM
That's a nice spin on it, but unfortunately false. Again you choose to ignore the fact that not everyone is so focused on "sin". That's the christian's dance, pretty much no one else's.

Proven fact, take away religion and over the course of history alot of the wars, alot of the mass killings and alot of the atrocities wouldn't have happened.

I dont think that is quite true.. Just because Religion appeared to be the vehicle for these events, doesnt mean they wouldnt have occurred without it.. Just like spirituality, this violent nature is innate in humanity.. In certain contexts, extreme violence and apparent madness will occur.. More often than not, Religion becomes a convenient excuse for wars that are really waged for more tangible reasons such as land and power..

For example, Spanish Conquistadors used Catholicism as a way of assimilating native peoples in order to make land acquisition a little easier.. If they didnt convert, they just slaughtered them in the name of God in order to take their land by force.. God wasnt the reason, Man's quest for land was.. But, in order to validate that, they made claims that God wanted them to take this land.. Its a form of self-justification.. It cant be bad if God said its alright..

Ferretsquig
10-11-2005, 10:03 AM
I dont think that is quite true.. Just because Religion appeared to be the vehicle for these events, doesnt mean they wouldnt have occurred without it.. Just like spirituality, this violent nature is innate in humanity.. In certain contexts, extreme violence and apparent madness will occur.. More often than not, Religion becomes a convenient excuse for wars that are really waged for more tangible reasons such as land and power..

For example, Spanish Conquistadors used Catholicism as a way of assimilating native peoples in order to make land acquisition a little easier.. If they didnt convert, they just slaughtered them in the name of God in order to take their land by force.. God wasnt the reason, Man's quest for land was.. But, in order to validate that, they made claims that God wanted them to take this land.. Its a form of self-justification.. It cant be bad if God said its alright..

Real question is, what came first? This desire for land and power or religion? Did religion drive the first civilizations to conflict or was it just a means of subduing the masses? I dont buy that concept that people are inherently evil, and are always out to gain for themselves. That is a very modern, western concept.

Pagan
10-11-2005, 10:19 AM
I dont think that is quite true.. Just because Religion appeared to be the vehicle for these events, doesnt mean they wouldnt have occurred without it.. Just like spirituality, this violent nature is innate in humanity.. In certain contexts, extreme violence and apparent madness will occur.. More often than not, Religion becomes a convenient excuse for wars that are really waged for more tangible reasons such as land and power..

For example, Spanish Conquistadors used Catholicism as a way of assimilating native peoples in order to make land acquisition a little easier.. If they didnt convert, they just slaughtered them in the name of God in order to take their land by force.. God wasnt the reason, Man's quest for land was.. But, in order to validate that, they made claims that God wanted them to take this land.. Its a form of self-justification.. It cant be bad if God said its alright..
Your example is a valid one Skape, and I'll counter it with:

~ Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to become a Christian, had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his.
~ The Crusades
~ The Burning Times
~ The Salem Witch Trials

Not much land aquired during this, and those are just a couple of examples. ;)

I wasn't saying ALL wars were based on religion, but they've had their share of atrocities.

SkapePhin
10-11-2005, 12:25 PM
Your example is a valid one Skape, and I'll counter it with:

~ Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to become a Christian, had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his.
~ The Crusades
~ The Burning Times
~ The Salem Witch Trials

Not much land aquired during this, and those are just a couple of examples. ;)

I wasn't saying ALL wars were based on religion, but they've had their share of atrocities.

Much of the Crusades were land acquisition type deals.. Constantine, Id say was about power.. He was trying to establish order through force.. He used Christianity to retain his power and subdue the masses. The others I would chalk up to paranoia.. Yes, the Religion played a major role in the development of these atrocities, but many would occur even without it imo.. The religion is a vehicle for political gain.. The thing with the Christian religion particularly, is that it became HIGHLY polticized almost immediately after its inception.. So, when all of these atrocities were occuring in the name of a religion, it was more political than anything imo..

SkapePhin
10-11-2005, 12:27 PM
Real question is, what came first? This desire for land and power or religion? Did religion drive the first civilizations to conflict or was it just a means of subduing the masses? I dont buy that concept that people are inherently evil, and are always out to gain for themselves. That is a very modern, western concept.

Man isnt inherently evil, but they ARE inherently opportunistic.. Most deeds that we term evil are rather contextual in nature..

Like I stated in the prior post, the thing with some of the major religions is that they become overly politicized.. That intermingling of faith and politics is when the problems occur..

Dolphan7
10-11-2005, 02:55 PM
Man isnt inherently evil, but they ARE inherently opportunistic.. Most deeds that we term evil are rather contextual in nature..

Like I stated in the prior post, the thing with some of the major religions is that they become overly politicized.. That intermingling of faith and politics is when the problems occur..Good point about the power thing. The christian church existed for a couple hundred years before Constantine came into power. Through him the church gained that political power. You know what is said about power:Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The kind of power the newly formed catholic church had at this time was enormous, and we all know what happened after.

MischiefDolphin
10-11-2005, 03:35 PM
I believe in God. However I also believe no MAN could possibly do him/her justice in writing. So the old/new/Koran/anything else... is well wrong.

I believe God. I believe he/she is always there for everyone and that his/her gift was meant to be enjoyed.

tucker
10-11-2005, 07:46 PM
I am from an areligious family.

Dude, come on.
You know people can gain morals, education successful lives from sources outside of the Bible.my family raised my brother and I without the use of the bible and we came out just fine imo....

tucker
10-11-2005, 07:50 PM
I think it's a pretty accurate statement that religion has been the cause of more chaos than anything else.

Even YOU can't deny that.most wars are b/c of religion...so that would seem like a correct assesment

themole
10-11-2005, 08:39 PM
The damn Mormons who keep knocking on my door! Please make them stop

Just tell them you are not interested. They will leave.

Den54
10-11-2005, 08:50 PM
Just tell them you are not interested. They will leave.

Yes but offer them a drink and a sandwich. They're good kids. :D

themole
10-11-2005, 09:40 PM
Yes but offer them a drink and a sandwich. They're good kids. :D

I doubt there are many here aware of what these guys are giving up to do what they are doing.

Whether they believe their message is worthwhile or not they should know that these young men are away from their love ones on their own accord.

They are dedicating 18 months of their lives to spread the message of the savior without pay. All that they receive is from the money they have worked for and saved, to pay the rent and put food on the table.

The least that should be done is to give them the respect that anyone should give someone for making so many sacrifices to something they are commited to.

ABrownLamp
10-11-2005, 09:57 PM
I doubt there are many here aware of what these guys are giving up to do what they are doing.

Whether they believe their message is worthwhile or not they should know that these young men are away from their love ones on their own accord.

They are dedicating 18 months of their lives to spread the message of the savior without pay. All that they receive is from the money they have worked for and saved, to pay the rent and put food on the table.

The least that should be done is to give them the respect that anyone should give someone for making so many sacrifices to something they are commited to.

Ya, they are usually really nice about leaving you alone when you tell them you aren't interested unlike the Jahovahs Witnesses.

Mormans, while endearing a stupid religion are genuinely nice people.
Never met a Morman that wasn't a good person.

themole
10-11-2005, 10:05 PM
Ya, they are usually really nice about leaving you alone when you tell them you aren't interested unlike the Jahovahs Witnesses.

Mormans, while endearing a stupid religion are genuinely nice people.
Never met a Morman that wasn't a good person.

Something that gives structure and meaning to ones life, while causeing no harm to others should never be considered "stupid" AB.

SkapePhin
10-11-2005, 10:06 PM
My great grandmother became a Mormon at the age of 95.. She just died this past year at the age of 101..

Still, mormonism is a pretty wacky religion... But the mormons Ive seen are nice. :) A little loopy though, but thats alright.

ABrownLamp
10-11-2005, 10:09 PM
Something that gives structure and meaning to ones life, while causeing no harm to others should never be considered "stupid" AB.

true enough

themole
10-11-2005, 10:10 PM
My great grandmother became a Mormon at the age of 95.. She just died this past year at the age of 101..

Still, mormonism is a pretty wacky religion... But the mormons Ive seen are nice. :) A little loopy though, but thats alright.

In all due respect Skape. Would you consider your 101 year old grandmother "Wacky"?

SkapePhin
10-11-2005, 10:15 PM
In all due respect Skape. Would you consider your 101 year old grandmother "Wacky"?

Well, at 101 she really wasnt all there any more.. So, yes.

I actualy sat down and read some of the pamphlets and things from the Book of Mormon when 2 mormon kids knocked on our college apartment door once.. My roomate invited them in and talked, and out of courtesy he took their materials.. And we read them... The guys came back to see how our studies were doing.. There is just alot of odd events and history in it..

I must say though they have some determination.. Riding around on a bike, in a black suit, in hot Orlando summer all day isnt an easy task.

themole
10-11-2005, 10:28 PM
Well, at 101 she really wasnt all there any more.. So, yes.

I actualy sat down and read some of the pamphlets and things from the Book of Mormon when 2 mormon kids knocked on our college apartment door once.. My roomate invited them in and talked, and out of courtesy he took their materials.. And we read them... The guys came back to see how our studies were doing.. There is just alot of odd events and history in it..

I must say though they have some determination.. Riding around on a bike, in a black suit, in hot Orlando summer all day isnt an easy task.

Thanks for treating them kindly. They desreve it.

Pagan
10-11-2005, 10:41 PM
Ya, they are usually really nice about leaving you alone when you tell them you aren't interested unlike the Jahovahs Witnesses.
All you have to do to rid yourself of Jehovah Witness people is to answer the door in your underwear, scratch yourself, and when they ask if you'd like some pamphlets twitch a little and say "Sure....but I have to see your hiney first..."

Worked for me. :D

themole
10-11-2005, 10:43 PM
All you have to do to rid yourself of Jehovah Witness people is to answer the door in your underwear, scratch yourself, and when they ask if you'd like some pamphlets twitch a little and say "Sure....but I have to see your hiney first..."

Worked for me. :D

Pagan, Have you picked up your new pony yet?

Dolphan7
10-12-2005, 01:01 AM
Every Mormon I have met and talked with is very upstanding, respectful, holds many of the same values and morals and views of the world as I. I have nothing against the people, just the doctrine. Funny this subject comes up; We had 8 mormons come into our service last Saturday night halfway through our music service, in which I play. So as I am playing I can see 8 white shirts with ties and little mormon badges walk in and sit down. They clapped along to the music, listend to the teaching, looked up scripture in the bible as the teaching went on. Very respectful, but had the curiosity of all the church. I ended up sitting next to them and when service was over I was the first to greet them and ask them what they thought, and of course "Why are you here"? They said it was cool and that they visit other churches from time to time. I took it not as an interest in other religions/churches, but more a requirement of their mission. It was cool, but strange. Pretty bold move in their part.

NaboCane
10-12-2005, 02:04 AM
My great grandmother became a Mormon at the age of 95.. She just died this past year at the age of 101..

Still, mormonism is a pretty wacky religion... But the mormons Ive seen are nice. :) A little loopy though, but thats alright.

Mormon chicks are hot. Very hot.

Den54
10-12-2005, 06:50 AM
All you have to do to rid yourself of Jehovah Witness people is to answer the door in your underwear, scratch yourself, and when they ask if you'd like some pamphlets twitch a little and say "Sure....but I have to see your hiney first..."

Worked for me. :D

Why did'nt you just spin your head around and hurl at them? :lol:

Pagan
10-12-2005, 07:00 AM
Why did'nt you just spin your head around and hurl at them? :lol:
Well, I thought that would be a little too harsh. Instead I had that creepy nanny with the rottweiler talk to them. ;)


Pagan, Have you picked up your new pony yet?
Not yet Mole, she comes in late February or early March. Gunna be a looooong winter. :lol:

themole
10-12-2005, 09:55 AM
Every Mormon I have met and talked with is very upstanding, respectful, holds many of the same values and morals and views of the world as I. I have nothing against the people, just the doctrine. Funny this subject comes up; We had 8 mormons come into our service last Saturday night halfway through our music service, in which I play. So as I am playing I can see 8 white shirts with ties and little mormon badges walk in and sit down. They clapped along to the music, listend to the teaching, looked up scripture in the bible as the teaching went on. Very respectful, but had the curiosity of all the church. I ended up sitting next to them and when service was over I was the first to greet them and ask them what they thought, and of course "Why are you here"? They said it was cool and that they visit other churches from time to time. I took it not as an interest in other religions/churches, but more a requirement of their mission. It was cool, but strange. Pretty bold move in their part.

Definately not a requirement, 7.

Curiosity most likely. Especially if they have been on the receiving end of a lot of bashing.

These guys aren't doing what they are doing for pay or any other monetary reward. It is 100% spiritual.

PhinPhan1227
10-12-2005, 12:04 PM
There was a time when I believed in God. Mostly when I was a child and my parents told me what was right and wrong. Then I grew up and became an adult and started thinking on my own and did a lot of research on science and God. There is no right answer yet. We as people can only take things from each side and make our decisions on what we believe.

I personally believe there is no God, to me science has proven that the world is continuing to evolve. We have seen such a growth in technology in the past 30 years. For millions of years before it was just people living life, not educating themselves on the world. People are growing and learning more and more everyday. With this knowledge we find things that God never talks about, such as, space, other galaxies, stars aren't actual "Stars" just balls of gas in laments terms.

So my point in this thread is can you tell me why you do believe in God with evidence, please dont respond by saying "I look in my childs face and I know God exists." I am really interested into finding out why you believe in God.

If you dont believe in God I encourage you to post as well, and tell me why you dont believe in God.

~Sulamar

Actually, that seems like a wonderfull reason to me. You are asking why people have faith in a God. For the vast majority of the world it probably is because they were taught to have that faith, and over time it became a part of who they are. But bear in mind that all of us put our faith in something. For some it is a God, for others, science, for most, a combination of the two. For people like me, there is no conflict between science and God. The Bible doesn't address issues like atoms, and supernovas because they aren't important to a persons spiritual growth. Knowledge of how a human beings DNA is tied to eye color doesn't make you a better or worse person. Whether we evolved from primordial ooze through the hand of God, or due to random chance isn't important to me, anyy more than it is important whether God waved his hand and created us in a 24 hour period. How does that affect me as a person, as a soul? Will I treat my fellow man any more kindly? If you want some kind of concrete answer to back up my faith, the only thing I can tell you is that the odds against the universe being naturally balanced EXACTLY right for life to have become possible is a number too large to be expressed on this forum. And that's from the established physics community. The only way they can find around that is to say that in an infinite number of possible universes, we just happen to be in the one that got it right. Now, tell me that's not a form of faith. Then, tell me how that faith is any more rational than a faith in God? One last little tidbit. Science says that evolution takes place. Beings become more complex. In an infinite universe, why is it not reasonable that a being could have evolved to become what we would percieve as a God?

ABrownLamp
10-12-2005, 12:38 PM
If you want some kind of concrete answer to back up my faith, the only thing I can tell you is that the odds against the universe being naturally balanced EXACTLY right for life to have become possible is a number too large to be expressed on this forum. And that's from the established physics community.

You are assuming that if the universe was not as we know it today that life of some other form would not have been created in its place.

There are billions of galaxies and billions of stars within each galaxy.
When you have numbers like that the odds of a perfect natural balance are not so bad anymore.

Let's not forget that human beings are not Earth's first attempt at life either.

PhinPhan1227
10-12-2005, 02:03 PM
You are assuming that if the universe was not as we know it today that life of some other form would not have been created in its place.

There are billions of galaxies and billions of stars within each galaxy.
When you have numbers like that the odds of a perfect natural balance are not so bad anymore.

Let's not forget that human beings are not Earth's first attempt at life either.


Wrong ABL, it's much more basic than that. Consider the amount of force it takes to hold an atomic nucleus together. If that amount of force was just a tiny bit less, no atoms. Just a tiny bit more and no hydrogen, only massive elements. Consider the expansion rate of the universe. Just a bit slower and the Big Bang collapses back in upon itself before any life can form. How about the balance in charges between Protons and Electrons? If either charge were any stronger atoms would never form. There are anywhere from 12-20 universal constants(depending on who you read) that need to be exactly as they are for STARS to form. Whatever games you want to play with how "life" can form, all of them still require stars. The explanations for these constants fall into two basic catagories. Either a "guiding hand" was involved, or an infinite number of universes exist which allow us to live in "just the right one". Where the debate comes in is where Occams Razor falls. Which is the simpler explanation, "infinite number of universes", or "superior being". Going by established biological and cosmological theorum, I can prove the probability of there being beings which are well beyond our level of complexity/development/power/whatever. The only proof of infinite universes is as a means of explaning that which we cannot otherwise explain. Which is, btw, the chief complaint that scientists are suppossed to have with relying on a God to explain that which we cannot otherwise explain.

SkapePhin
10-12-2005, 04:02 PM
Wrong ABL, it's much more basic than that. Consider the amount of force it takes to hold an atomic nucleus together. If that amount of force was just a tiny bit less, no atoms. Just a tiny bit more and no hydrogen, only massive elements. Consider the expansion rate of the universe. Just a bit slower and the Big Bang collapses back in upon itself before any life can form. How about the balance in charges between Protons and Electrons? If either charge were any stronger atoms would never form. There are anywhere from 12-20 universal constants(depending on who you read) that need to be exactly as they are for STARS to form. Whatever games you want to play with how "life" can form, all of them still require stars. The explanations for these constants fall into two basic catagories. Either a "guiding hand" was involved, or an infinite number of universes exist which allow us to live in "just the right one". Where the debate comes in is where Occams Razor falls. Which is the simpler explanation, "infinite number of universes", or "superior being". Going by established biological and cosmological theorum, I can prove the probability of there being beings which are well beyond our level of complexity/development/power/whatever. The only proof of infinite universes is as a means of explaning that which we cannot otherwise explain. Which is, btw, the chief complaint that scientists are suppossed to have with relying on a God to explain that which we cannot otherwise explain.

I am attempting to grasp how "God" would be the simplest answer.. Considering the immense amount of steps that would in all likelyhood have to occur in order to bring about such a God being.. Unless the claim is that God IS the Universe and that they are synonomous(sp?).. Meaning none came before the other, and none begat the other.

Dolphan7
10-12-2005, 04:21 PM
I am attempting to grasp how "God" would be the simplest answer.. Considering the immense amount of steps that would in all likelyhood have to occur in order to bring about such a God being.. Unless the claim is that God IS the Universe and that they are synonomous(sp?).. Meaning none came before the other, and none begat the other.
Christians' view of god, after asking where did God come from, is that he just "is". We don't know where God came from, or what he looks like or what makes up his being. He just is. All we have are the characteristics of God.

PhinPhan1227
10-12-2005, 04:49 PM
I am attempting to grasp how "God" would be the simplest answer.. Considering the immense amount of steps that would in all likelyhood have to occur in order to bring about such a God being.. Unless the claim is that God IS the Universe and that they are synonomous(sp?).. Meaning none came before the other, and none begat the other.

"God" would be the simplest answer because we can explain the mechanism by which such a superior being could come about through Evolution. The "immense" amount of steps is miniscule in comparison to the likelihood of the universe existing by accident. Lee Smolin in his book The Life of the Cosmos describes it thusly...

"The probability he comes up with is 1/10exp229. To give a sense of the smallness of this number, consider the fact that there are about 10exp22 stars in the visible universe, and they contain a total of about 10exp80 protons and neutrons. Divide one by the total number of protons and neutrons in the universe. Now consider the fact that the a priori probability that the universe contains stars is 149 orders of magnitude smaller than this."

http://www3.baylor.edu/~Bruce_Gordon/smolinone.htm

Bear in mind that Smolin describes religion as "mysticism", so he is no fan of God theories. Bottom line is that we can prove that evolution takes place. Therefore we can prove that a Superior being COULD exist. You can't prove the Infinite Universes model except as a solution to unsolvable problems. Once again I ask the question...how is that any different from invoking a Superior Being?

SkapePhin
10-12-2005, 05:26 PM
"God" would be the simplest answer because we can explain the mechanism by which such a superior being could come about through Evolution. The "immense" amount of steps is miniscule in comparison to the likelihood of the universe existing by accident. Lee Smolin in his book The Life of the Cosmos describes it thusly...

"The probability he comes up with is 1/10exp229. To give a sense of the smallness of this number, consider the fact that there are about 10exp22 stars in the visible universe, and they contain a total of about 10exp80 protons and neutrons. Divide one by the total number of protons and neutrons in the universe. Now consider the fact that the a priori probability that the universe contains stars is 149 orders of magnitude smaller than this."

http://www3.baylor.edu/~Bruce_Gordon/smolinone.htm

Bear in mind that Smolin describes religion as "mysticism", so he is no fan of God theories. Bottom line is that we can prove that evolution takes place. Therefore we can prove that a Superior being COULD exist. You can't prove the Infinite Universes model except as a solution to unsolvable problems. Once again I ask the question...how is that any different from invoking a Superior Being?


But this is my point.. If God were to have evolved, A Universe, galaxies, stars, planets, etc would all have to already existed in order for the evolution to take place.. So, if that were the case, God wouldnt be a creator.. He would be just another creature that forces of the Universe created.. Its a paradox.

What are your thoughts on String Theory?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

PhinPhan1227
10-12-2005, 06:47 PM
But this is my point.. If God were to have evolved, A Universe, galaxies, stars, planets, etc would all have to already existed in order for the evolution to take place.. So, if that were the case, God wouldnt be a creator.. He would be just another creature that forces of the Universe created.. Its a paradox.

What are your thoughts on String Theory?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

Not really. Some form of existance would have been in place, but there's no way of knowing how old such a being could be. Such a being could have evolved in a universe prior to the Big Bang, and engineered the universe we now live in. Conversely, such a being could be a part OF that existance which is beyond our "universe". Science can't answer what existance was like prior to the Big Bang. As for String Theory, it seems to make sense. As with many things it can't be proven, but it fits with what we currently know. Only problem is that we don't yet know what we don't yet know which might invalidate such a theory. But it certainly works with Buckaroo Banzai. ;) :lol: ;)

Wildbill3
10-12-2005, 06:58 PM
But this is my point.. If God were to have evolved, A Universe, galaxies, stars, planets, etc would all have to already existed in order for the evolution to take place.. So, if that were the case, God wouldnt be a creator.. He would be just another creature that forces of the Universe created.. Its a paradox.

What are your thoughts on String Theory?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html an evolved being on the order of God may have existed in a previous universe, and stuck around for the birth of this one. Or he may have reached such a state of evolution that time and space no longer hold restraints, and thus he could've been the mechanisim for his own birth, chicken and egg if you will.

(the first theory I proposed actually happened as a plot for marvel comics involving Galactus)

SkapePhin
10-12-2005, 07:24 PM
Not really. Some form of existance would have been in place, but there's no way of knowing how old such a being could be. Such a being could have evolved in a universe prior to the Big Bang, and engineered the universe we now live in. Conversely, such a being could be a part OF that existance which is beyond our "universe". Science can't answer what existance was like prior to the Big Bang. As for String Theory, it seems to make sense. As with many things it can't be proven, but it fits with what we currently know. Only problem is that we don't yet know what we don't yet know which might invalidate such a theory. But it certainly works with Buckaroo Banzai. ;) :lol: ;)

There is one quite large problem with the notion that God is the product of evolution.. Why is there only one? Either God was one of many God beings that for whatever reason have become almost extinct.. Or God is plural...

Also, who or what created the other universe that begat God? Another God.. Is it just cyclical?

HansMojo
10-12-2005, 07:50 PM
I believe in God for many reasons. One reason is answered prayers. This is a true story that happened to me personally. A couple years ago, after my first daughter was born, we needed to sell our home. In fact, we were desperate to sell it or faced losing it. Money was a serious issue for us at the time. We put the house on the market and waited…for months. No offers. When we finally did get our first (and only offer) it was for more than 98% of the asking price. We were so relieved. We set up the meeting for the inspector to come by with the buyers and do the walk through. It had been raining pretty much non-stop for weeks. Almost everyday it rained. There was a lot of flooding in the area. Anyway, the day the inspector was to come by (still raining…) I went down to the basement to finish straightening things up and to my horror found the basement was flooding. Water was literally pouring in through the walls (in streams) near the floor in a couple places (coming through little holes where rebar had been laid horizontally and I guess the concrete didn’t form a water tight seal around the rebar). The water had pooled up and was already about an inch deep in that area of the basement….and spreading out. Imagine a couple water fountains squirting water into my basement and you’ll have a pretty good idea of what it looked like. I called the builder, who told me that it was no problem, that they could come and inject some polyester goup into the holes and that this would fix the problem but that he unfortunately couldn’t come out that day because of some other emergency he had. He informed me that it was a common thing for water to seep in around those areas and that the stuff they could inject in with a special machine was a permanent fix. I explained that the inspector was going to be here in a couple hours with the buyers and he said whatever you do, find a way to stop the water and dry up the floor or they might freak and back out of the deal. I of course totally panicked. We were desperate to sell the house and couldn’t afford to have anything go wrong with this deal. I started trying to stop the water but nothing worked. I tried to dry up the floor but no matter how much I mopped up, it was still pouring in. It was crazy. I’m sure I looked pretty ridiculous panicking and freaking out but luckily no one saw me. . After desperately trying everything I could think of, I finally gave up. I literally fell to my knees, and pleaded with the Lord to stop the water, to dry up the basement floor, and to remove any odor that might scare the buyers away. I vowed to pay whatever it cost to fix the basement if He would only bail me out of this mess. I totally put it in God’s hands, went upstairs leaving the water pouring in, and tried not to worry about it too much (Pretty hard to do I must admit, but I acted on my faith none the less.). About an hour later and about 10 minutes before the buyers were scheduled to show up, I went downstairs to see what things looked like. I found that the water was no longer coming in, the basement floor was totally dry and there was no wet concrete odor. There was no doubt in my mind that this was a miracle! I again fell on my knees in prayer, but this time it was with incredible joy and relief, and with a great sense of worship. Now, to me, this was a direct answer to prayer. I can’t explain it any other way. It was still raining outside and continued to do so for weeks, so it’s not like all the water in the ground had already come into the basement. The rains had never let up. And even though it took the builder about three weeks to come out and inject the goop into the holes…the basement never leaked again….not a single drop…even though the rain continued to come down for weeks. The people bought the house, and we used the money to get ourselves out of debt and into a much healthier financial situation. This might prove nothing to you. But to me, it proves that God is real. To me, it proves that he is loving and kind and cares about us. Unless you have your own experience with him, you will probably never be convinced by any claim or discovery, or scripture. But if you ask God to reveal himself to you and if you are sincere and patient, I believe that in his own time and in his own way he will do so. The thing is, we all put our faith in something and that faith depends on our particular world view. Creationists look for evidence to support their belief in God because this makes sense to them. Evolutionists look for evidence to support their belief and world view. In a way, it all comes down to faith. Anyway, God Bless and I will pray that someday you are able to accept him as your Lord and Savior as I have.

Den54
10-12-2005, 08:00 PM
God could be a being much like Q from Star Trek The Next Generation imo. :D

Pagan
10-12-2005, 09:02 PM
There is one quite large problem with the notion that God is the product of evolution.. Why is there only one?
Psssssst...there isn't. ;) :lol:


God could be a being much like Q from Star Trek The Next Generation imo. :D
:roflmao:

Rafiki
10-12-2005, 09:45 PM
Every Mormon I have met and talked with is very upstanding, respectful, holds many of the same values and morals and views of the world as I.

I was raised Mormon and was part of that religion until about 13 years ago. I stopped going as an adolescent as did all of my family. They rejected us as much as we rejected them (the members I mean). The reason being that my parents are both deaf and the sign language made the members uncomfortable, and they wanted us to move to the Mormon church 5 miles away that had a deaf ward. There's so much more stuff I could tell that they did, but I don't want this to turn into a bashing thread.

So- yes on the outside they appear nice and friendly, and some of them are genuine, but you have to understand that the religion grooms them to look that way outwardly. Inside they're just as rotten or worse than normal people. Outward appearances are everything to Mormons.

ABrownLamp
10-12-2005, 11:25 PM
Wrong ABL, it's much more basic than that. Consider the amount of force it takes to hold an atomic nucleus together. If that amount of force was just a tiny bit less, no atoms. Just a tiny bit more and no hydrogen, only massive elements. Consider the expansion rate of the universe. Just a bit slower and the Big Bang collapses back in upon itself before any life can form. How about the balance in charges between Protons and Electrons? If either charge were any stronger atoms would never form. There are anywhere from 12-20 universal constants(depending on who you read) that need to be exactly as they are for STARS to form. Whatever games you want to play with how "life" can form, all of them still require stars. The explanations for these constants fall into two basic catagories. Either a "guiding hand" was involved, or an infinite number of universes exist which allow us to live in "just the right one". Where the debate comes in is where Occams Razor falls. Which is the simpler explanation, "infinite number of universes", or "superior being". Going by established biological and cosmological theorum, I can prove the probability of there being beings which are well beyond our level of complexity/development/power/whatever. The only proof of infinite universes is as a means of explaning that which we cannot otherwise explain. Which is, btw, the chief complaint that scientists are suppossed to have with relying on a God to explain that which we cannot otherwise explain.

Like I said, an entirely new form of dynamic life can exist in its place.
You are using what we know today to be the end all be all of existence.
As if without the elements that exist in nature and space today life could not possibly exist under some other dimension or element.

Also, no one has any idea what is occuring at the center of the universe.
What is creating the new matter that causes the universe to perpetually expand? It is unfathomable.
There is no way you or science can explain it right now.

You are using info (probably not 100% accurate since you are not an astrophysicist) with our current level of understanding about how life can potentially exist.
What I am saying is that with our current level of understanding it would be impossible to create probablilities.
It is all guess work

Section126
10-13-2005, 02:11 AM
Like I said, an entirely new form of dynamic life can exist in its place.
You are using what we know today to be the end all be all of existence.
As if without the elements that exist in nature and space today life could not possibly exist under some other dimension or element.

Also, no one has any idea what is occuring at the center of the universe.
What is creating the new matter that causes the universe to perpetually expand? It is unfathomable.
There is no way you or science can explain it right now.

You are using info (probably not 100% accurate since you are not an astrophysicist) with our current level of understanding about how life can potentially exist.
What I am saying is that with our current level of understanding it would be impossible to create probablilities.
It is all guess work

This is the most thoughtful post in the history of finheaven that also managed to say nothing.

PhinPhan1227
10-13-2005, 11:46 AM
There is one quite large problem with the notion that God is the product of evolution.. Why is there only one? Either God was one of many God beings that for whatever reason have become almost extinct.. Or God is plural...

Also, who or what created the other universe that begat God? Another God.. Is it just cyclical?


There could be only one for a variety of reasons. Perhaps he was the only one to reach such an assendant state. Perhaps in reaching that state all of them became one. As for who created the other universe, maybe it WAS the result of random chance, but was without the stability of our universe.

PhinPhan1227
10-13-2005, 11:49 AM
Like I said, an entirely new form of dynamic life can exist in its place.
You are using what we know today to be the end all be all of existence.
As if without the elements that exist in nature and space today life could not possibly exist under some other dimension or element.

Also, no one has any idea what is occuring at the center of the universe.
What is creating the new matter that causes the universe to perpetually expand? It is unfathomable.
There is no way you or science can explain it right now.

You are using info (probably not 100% accurate since you are not an astrophysicist) with our current level of understanding about how life can potentially exist.
What I am saying is that with our current level of understanding it would be impossible to create probablilities.
It is all guess work


Actually, it's the physicists who are coming up with those numbers, not me. And all of them that I have read are either atheists, or agnostics, so it's not like they have a motivation that works in my favor. Consider this however, when you recognize the fact that life can exist beyond the parameters we now accept, you are in fact making a case FOR the possible existance of a superior being we could recognize as God.

MischiefDolphin
10-13-2005, 01:59 PM
Actually, it's the physicists who are coming up with those numbers, not me. And all of them that I have read are either atheists, or agnostics, so it's not like they have a motivation that works in my favor. Consider this however, when you recognize the fact that life can exist beyond the parameters we now accept, you are in fact making a case FOR the possible existance of a superior being we could recognize as God.

Is it not then also possible that we could exist outside another life form parameters?

And therefore do not recognize us as fact either?

ABrownLamp
10-13-2005, 02:17 PM
This is the most thoughtful post in the history of finheaven that also managed to say nothing.

Trademark Section post

ABrownLamp
10-13-2005, 02:22 PM
Actually, it's the physicists who are coming up with those numbers, not me. And all of them that I have read are either atheists, or agnostics, so it's not like they have a motivation that works in my favor. Consider this however, when you recognize the fact that life can exist beyond the parameters we now accept, you are in fact making a case FOR the possible existance of a superior being we could recognize as God.

There may well be.

What I find silly is the idea that this being would have the human characteristics laid out in the Bible.
With all of these English spoken conversations it has with people.
And metaphoric journeys and sacrifices.

Dolphan7
10-13-2005, 03:28 PM
There may well be.

What I find silly is the idea that this being would have the human characteristics laid out in the Bible.
With all of these English spoken conversations it has with people.
And metaphoric journeys and sacrifices.The bible states that WE are made in HIS image and likeness, not the other way around. It makes sense that the creator would create us with much of his own characteristics.

zach13
10-13-2005, 03:41 PM
I believe that only God could create a leader as great as Al Gore :)

SkapePhin
10-13-2005, 05:26 PM
The bible states that WE are made in HIS image and likeness, not the other way around. It makes sense that the creator would create us with much of his own characteristics.


You believe God literally "looks" human? Like in a physical sense?

I thought most everyone just took that "in His likeness" to mean that God is conscious and intelligent like humans..

ABrownLamp
10-13-2005, 05:27 PM
The bible states that WE are made in HIS image and likeness, not the other way around. It makes sense that the creator would create us with much of his own characteristics.

So you really think that God has the long white beard, white robe and sandals?

Come on man, don't take it to this level.

Rich L
10-13-2005, 05:35 PM
There was a time when I believed in God. Mostly when I was a child and my parents told me what was right and wrong. Then I grew up and became an adult and started thinking on my own and did a lot of research on science and God. There is no right answer yet. We as people can only take things from each side and make our decisions on what we believe.

I personally believe there is no God, to me science has proven that the world is continuing to evolve. We have seen such a growth in technology in the past 30 years. For millions of years before it was just people living life, not educating themselves on the world. People are growing and learning more and more everyday. With this knowledge we find things that God never talks about, such as, space, other galaxies, stars aren't actual "Stars" just balls of gas in laments terms.

So my point in this thread is can you tell me why you do believe in God with evidence, please dont respond by saying "I look in my childs face and I know God exists." I am really interested into finding out why you believe in God.

If you dont believe in God I encourage you to post as well, and tell me why you dont believe in God.

~Sulamar

Enlightenment is achieved only after understanding evolution, one's-self, and human nature.

The idea of "God" was created with man's own ignorant thoughts, due to his lack of understanding of the world, and universe around him.

Fear God, live by his rules... or perish eternally.

That is what we teach our kids.

How sad.

To this day, all Religions drive people to believe in a higher power via fear and ignorance. It creates strife and war. It serves no purpose other than to comfort people under hardship. No one can explain God and where he came from or how he came to be...

...and yet a great majority of people dedicate their lives and even fight and die for something they have no true understanding of.

It seems silly, but that is what makes us human.

Sulamar...
It is only after one challenges that fear, instilled into them at such an early age... only then, they will truely appreciate and value life. God or not.

Dolphan7
10-13-2005, 06:51 PM
So you really think that God has the long white beard, white robe and sandals?

Come on man, don't take it to this level.Is that what you think of when you think of God? I don't. If we are made in his image and likeness, it stands to reason that he would look like us. But I have no visual idea as to what God looks like exactly.

Dolphan7
10-13-2005, 07:00 PM
You believe God literally "looks" human? Like in a physical sense?

I thought most everyone just took that "in His likeness" to mean that God is conscious and intelligent like humans..The word likeness can mean characteristics, emotions, spirituality, values, morals etc.....Any non- physical trait. But when it says Image, I take it to mean just that - a physical appearance to be viewed with our eyes, just like a picture or statue. But it does not matter what God looks like, but what he represents that is important. He could be the purest bright light, so pure and bright that we can't even bear to view it, or a bright light that takes on the appearance of a human form, or a mixture of both. All I am saying is that all the bible really says about what God looks like is what I have already posted - Image and Likeness.

Pagan
10-13-2005, 08:45 PM
The word likeness can mean characteristics, emotions, spirituality, values, morals etc.....Any non- physical trait. But when it says Image, I take it to mean just that - a physical appearance to be viewed with our eyes, just like a picture or statue. But it does not matter what God looks like, but what he represents that is important. He could be the purest bright light, so pure and bright that we can't even bear to view it, or a bright light that takes on the appearance of a human form, or a mixture of both. All I am saying is that all the bible really says about what God looks like is what I have already posted - Image and Likeness.
Then how do you explain Blacks, Asians, Eskimos, Aborigines, the Jets, etc, etc, etc.

Could it be that whole "evolving" thing again? ;)

Wildbill3
10-13-2005, 09:01 PM
The word likeness can mean characteristics, emotions, spirituality, values, morals etc.....Any non- physical trait. But when it says Image, I take it to mean just that - a physical appearance to be viewed with our eyes, just like a picture or statue. But it does not matter what God looks like, but what he represents that is important. He could be the purest bright light, so pure and bright that we can't even bear to view it, or a bright light that takes on the appearance of a human form, or a mixture of both. All I am saying is that all the bible really says about what God looks like is what I have already posted - Image and Likeness."Image" could also be a poor translation. but maybe we should look to the dictionary?:lol:

Dolphan7
10-13-2005, 09:24 PM
Then how do you explain Blacks, Asians, Eskimos, Aborigines, the Jets, etc, etc, etc.

Could it be that whole "evolving" thing again? ;)Last time I checked they were all human, except there is a question mark next to the Jets.

Wildbill3
10-13-2005, 09:32 PM
Last time I checked they were all human, except there is a question mark next to the Jets.My understanding is that physical appearence means nothing at all to God (and should mean nothing to us also) and that the soul is what is most important, and thus our soul could've been made in his image, in fact the soul may be the only thing that is perfect in us (at least to start) and then we currupt it through knowledge of various kinds, thus the example of adam and eve, they had perfect souls until the apple incident.

Dolphan7
10-13-2005, 09:37 PM
My understanding is that physical appearence means nothing at all to God (and should mean nothing to us also) and that the soul is what is most important, and thus our soul could've been made in his image, in fact the soul may be the only thing that is perfect in us (at least to start) and then we currupt it through knowledge of various kinds, thus the example of adam and eve, they had perfect souls until the apple incident.Possibly, but I would tend to think that the soul part would be under the "likeness" part of Gen 1:26, while the image part would be more of a physical appearance.

Pagan
10-14-2005, 07:38 AM
Last time I checked they were all human, except there is a question mark next to the Jets.
If by "human" in appearance you mean two arms, two legs, etc...then apes are created in his image also.

When I gave those examples I meant to point out how VASTLY different those races are from one another.

Sooooo...apparently god has many images of himself, or else it's just not true.

PhinPhan1227
10-14-2005, 10:02 AM
There may well be.

What I find silly is the idea that this being would have the human characteristics laid out in the Bible.
With all of these English spoken conversations it has with people.
And metaphoric journeys and sacrifices.


Actually, I am only refering to A god, not the Judeo/Christian God. But to your point, why couldn't a god assume the characteristics that would allow him to interact with the people he created? When you are speaking with a one year old, do you use the same langauge, the same manerisms you would use with a forty year old? Do you speak to your dog the same way you speak with another adult? More to the point, does that child or that dog percieve you the same way a forty year old would? When I was a little kid, my dad was the smartest, strongest, bravest, borderline superhuman man in the world. In my perception, at that age, he was all those things.

PhinPhan1227
10-14-2005, 10:04 AM
The bible states that WE are made in HIS image and likeness, not the other way around. It makes sense that the creator would create us with much of his own characteristics.



Consider the important part of "image". We have a soul that is capable of growth and development. That is what seperates us from all other animals. That is the "image" I believe the Bible refers to. Everything else is just window dressing.

ABrownLamp
10-14-2005, 10:15 AM
Is that what you think of when you think of God? I don't. If we are made in his image and likeness, it stands to reason that he would look like us. But I have no visual idea as to what God looks like exactly.

Yes, that is how I think of God...exactly as he is portrayed on the Simpsons.
Long white beard. Long white robe. Birkenstocks. Can never see his face.

I really find it hard to believe some dude is floating around in space that looks like a human being.

SkapePhin
10-14-2005, 10:19 AM
Consider the important part of "image". We have a soul that is capable of growth and development. That is what seperates us from all other animals. That is the "image" I believe the Bible refers to. Everything else is just window dressing.

Humans arent that much different from other animals. If you place a human from birth in a species-atypical environment, ie without language and other social beings, they become very much like other animals.. There are several examples of feral children and such..

ABrownLamp
10-14-2005, 10:25 AM
Actually, I am only refering to A god, not the Judeo/Christian God. But to your point, why couldn't a god assume the characteristics that would allow him to interact with the people he created? When you are speaking with a one year old, do you use the same langauge, the same manerisms you would use with a forty year old? Do you speak to your dog the same way you speak with another adult? More to the point, does that child or that dog percieve you the same way a forty year old would? When I was a little kid, my dad was the smartest, strongest, bravest, borderline superhuman man in the world. In my perception, at that age, he was all those things.

I guess anything's possible with the contemporary version of God.

Back in the day, he was talking to everyone.
He was giving missions, making proclamations...
Now, the only thing we have to go on is some crap he said to people a few thousand years ago...and "signs" from God...such as a water stain of the Virgin Mary under a busy Chicago overpass.

Years from now, the human species will be destroyed for whatever reason.
I suppose Christians want us to believe that once that happens, the universe will collapse upon itself?

Pagan
10-14-2005, 10:48 AM
and "signs" from God...such as a water stain of the Virgin Mary under a busy Chicago overpass.
Don't forget that "Virgin Mary grilled cheese sandwich", that actually sparked a bidding war on Ebay before some schmuck bought it for $28,000!!! :roflmao:

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

PhinPhan1227
10-14-2005, 11:16 AM
I guess anything's possible with the contemporary version of God.

Back in the day, he was talking to everyone.
He was giving missions, making proclamations...
Now, the only thing we have to go on is some crap he said to people a few thousand years ago...and "signs" from God...such as a water stain of the Virgin Mary under a busy Chicago overpass.

Years from now, the human species will be destroyed for whatever reason.
I suppose Christians want us to believe that once that happens, the universe will collapse upon itself?


Actually, physicists want you to believe that the universe will collapse upon itself. That's gravity for you babay!! As for what Christians believe, I didn't read anywhere in the Bible where it said that humans were the be-all end-all of the universe. Who says that Gods creative urges were spent on one planet full of people?

PhinPhan1227
10-14-2005, 11:21 AM
Humans arent that much different from other animals. If you place a human from birth in a species-atypical environment, ie without language and other social beings, they become very much like other animals.. There are several examples of feral children and such..

It's called potential. You can make a feral human. But you can't make a chimp who will ever ask why the universe exists. Animals can be incredibly smart, brave, loyal...really, better "people" than many ACTUAL people. But it doesn't change the fact that a dog will never try to make itself a better dog. A human being however has the capacity to strive to be better...to be "more".

Section126
10-14-2005, 12:43 PM
Trademark Section post

And what is yours? A bunch of pseudo intellectual verbal diarrea?


Mod Note: One liner insults do not make a debate. 24. WB3

Dolphan7
10-14-2005, 12:59 PM
Don't forget that "Virgin Mary grilled cheese sandwich", that actually sparked a bidding war on Ebay before some schmuck bought it for $28,000!!! :roflmao:

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gifWhich looks more like that blond from the King Kong Movie.:D

Dolphan7
10-14-2005, 01:06 PM
If by "human" in appearance you mean two arms, two legs, etc...then apes are created in his image also.

When I gave those examples I meant to point out how VASTLY different those races are from one another.

Sooooo...apparently god has many images of himself, or else it's just not true.Although different in appearance, they are still human and part of the human race. No matter what ethnicity we are, we are still considered in His likeness and image. Gen 1:26 isn't about what God looks like, it is what we look like and what our qualities and characteristics are like.

Dolphan7
10-14-2005, 01:09 PM
Consider the important part of "image". We have a soul that is capable of growth and development. That is what seperates us from all other animals. That is the "image" I believe the Bible refers to. Everything else is just window dressing.As I have stated in another post in this thread, I believe the soul part falls under the "likeness" in Gen 1:26. The physical aspect falls under the "image" part. Gen 1:26 is not about what God looks like anyway, it is about us. I believe from Genesis 1:26 that we are given a soul and a body that is similar to God.

Dolphan7
10-14-2005, 01:15 PM
Humans arent that much different from other animals. If you place a human from birth in a species-atypical environment, ie without language and other social beings, they become very much like other animals.. There are several examples of feral children and such..But they are different, and I would say much different. That human put in those conditions will only progress as far as his environement will allow. How much can a human learn from a pack of wolves or a gang of gorillas anyway. Put that human with other humans and we get language, creativity, intelligence etc... Take a wolf or a gorilla put them with humans, and they ain't gonne speak, paint or build skyscrapers.

SkapePhin
10-14-2005, 01:16 PM
It's called potential. You can make a feral human. But you can't make a chimp who will ever ask why the universe exists. Animals can be incredibly smart, brave, loyal...really, better "people" than many ACTUAL people. But it doesn't change the fact that a dog will never try to make itself a better dog. A human being however has the capacity to strive to be better...to be "more".

That is a side effect of consciousness.. Of course, the entire debate is how we got consciousness.. Is it evolved, or is it given to us by some other force?

Many things appear to support the notion that consciousness is a direct side effect of language acquisition.. Without language, consciousness could not exist, because sentience truly is the ability to speak to oneself. Self-awareness stems from that ability to recognize oneself, and transmit their communicative thoughts to oneself. Internal communication.

Dolphan7
10-14-2005, 01:17 PM
Yes, that is how I think of God...exactly as he is portrayed on the Simpsons.
Long white beard. Long white robe. Birkenstocks. Can never see his face.

I really find it hard to believe some dude is floating around in space that looks like a human being.You know for many years as an atheist I wondered the same thing. I would look up in the sky and say "There is nothing up there people, get real".

SkapePhin
10-14-2005, 01:19 PM
You know for many years as an atheist I wondered the same thing. I would look up in the sky and say "There is nothing up there people, get real".

Well, I think one thing science has proven with certainty is that God does not exist in any PHYSICAL sense in the sky, clouds or Earth atmosphere. If heaven/God do exist, they exist on another plane than the one we currently reside in. There is no giant man hanging out on Earth clouds or outer space on OUR plane.

Dolphan7
10-14-2005, 01:23 PM
I guess anything's possible with the contemporary version of God.

Back in the day, he was talking to everyone.
He was giving missions, making proclamations...
Now, the only thing we have to go on is some crap he said to people a few thousand years ago...and "signs" from God...such as a water stain of the Virgin Mary under a busy Chicago overpass.

Years from now, the human species will be destroyed for whatever reason.
I suppose Christians want us to believe that once that happens, the universe will collapse upon itself?Don't think that these "signs" from God in the form of an image of Mary, are really signs from God. That is more of a catholic thing. There is a reason God does not speak directly to us these days. The human species will not be destroyed and the universe will not collapse. According to the bible there will be a new heaven and a new earth and all will be perfect and peaceful.

Under your "there is no God" view, yes the earth will eventually wear out, the sun will expire and all life on this planet will cease to exist. You better hope Capn' Kirk finds that new solar system! :D

Pagan
10-14-2005, 02:29 PM
There is a reason God does not speak directly to us these days.
I gotta ask bro, care to tell us what that reason is?

I mean, I could say it's because now man has become far too intelligent to fool with parlor tricks the way primitive men were fooled, but ya know....;)

Dolphan7
10-14-2005, 03:08 PM
I gotta ask bro, care to tell us what that reason is?

I mean, I could say it's because now man has become far too intelligent to fool with parlor tricks the way primitive men were fooled, but ya know....;)No I won't answer your question BRO. What would be the point? You are not interested in the answer, only interested in finding more reasons to belittle the faith. Now if I am wrong about that then I apologize. But something tells me I am not.:)

PhinPhan1227
10-14-2005, 03:21 PM
As I have stated in another post in this thread, I believe the soul part falls under the "likeness" in Gen 1:26. The physical aspect falls under the "image" part. Gen 1:26 is not about what God looks like anyway, it is about us. I believe from Genesis 1:26 that we are given a soul and a body that is similar to God.


But God doesn't have a body in the physical sense. God is in all things. God IS all things. If man were created in Gods current physical image than man would have the appearance of all things.

PhinPhan1227
10-14-2005, 03:24 PM
That is a side effect of consciousness.. Of course, the entire debate is how we got consciousness.. Is it evolved, or is it given to us by some other force?

Many things appear to support the notion that consciousness is a direct side effect of language acquisition.. Without language, consciousness could not exist, because sentience truly is the ability to speak to oneself. Self-awareness stems from that ability to recognize oneself, and transmit their communicative thoughts to oneself. Internal communication.


Many animals have been shown to have language skills. Apes can form complex statements, as can some birds. Further, you are creating another chicken/egg situation. If you have no consciousness, there really isn't a reason for language beyond that which animals use. There's no need to put a label to your soul unless you are first aware that you HAVE a soul.

Pagan
10-14-2005, 04:46 PM
No I won't answer your question BRO. What would be the point? You are not interested in the answer, only interested in finding more reasons to belittle the faith. Now if I am wrong about that then I apologize. But something tells me I am not.:)
No, I'm actually interested in how YOU know why god doesn't speak to anyone anymore.

And what I said wasn't belittling anything, it was giving a PLAUSIBLE possibility. Obviously if you think the answer would be something I could use to "belittle" you, then you obviously yourself think it sounds ridiculous, no? If not, I'd love to hear it.

And I call everyone "bro", don't think it was anything special for you now. ;)

Dolphan7
10-14-2005, 05:02 PM
But God doesn't have a body in the physical sense. God is in all things. God IS all things. If man were created in Gods current physical image than man would have the appearance of all things.

We think that God doesn't have a physical body. It is just that, a thought. No one knows for sure.

MischiefDolphin
10-14-2005, 05:05 PM
No one knows for sure.

Yep. Nobody does. No one knows 100%.

PhinPhan1227
10-14-2005, 06:00 PM
We think that God doesn't have a physical body. It is just that, a thought. No one knows for sure.


God HAD a physical body. It was called Jesus. That manifestation may or may not still exist, but the totality of God is not confined into any one physical body. It says so in the Bible when he says that he is in all things.

SkapePhin
10-14-2005, 06:53 PM
Many animals have been shown to have language skills. Apes can form complex statements, as can some birds. Further, you are creating another chicken/egg situation. If you have no consciousness, there really isn't a reason for language beyond that which animals use. There's no need to put a label to your soul unless you are first aware that you HAVE a soul.

That primitive language that some primates are able to use are imo a precursor to how humans developped language. Being that Chimps and Humans share 98 % of their genetic makeup.. There were some further "tweaks" that were needed before the species could form true language. If I were to pick a second species on Earth that could some day develop sentience it would be those of the line of porpoises.. They have an intricate series of clicks and beeps that are probably the second most complex form of communication on the planet..

As for labeling your soul, for a long time the soul and mind were considered synonymous.. We know now that the mind is not an external entity. It is a physical almagam of chemicals, electrical impulses and receptors.. Now, defintions of the soul vary.. It is no longer considered part of the mind.. Consciousness can be altered by physical means.. Thats a fact.. Thats the point where I sortve come to question the presence of "conscious soul".. For instance, Terri Schiavo lost her consciousness.. She no longer had that quality paramount to humanity's unique existance.. Now the debate comes into play. perhaps her consciousness, her soul, was just dormant to Earthly appearances.. Maybe it had already vacated once the portions of her brain that controlled language and certain cognitive processes was disabled.. Who knows.. But our thoughts on what a soul is has had to be redefined once faced with knew information on the inner working of our mind.

HansMojo
10-14-2005, 09:49 PM
A human trying to fully understand God is like a flea trying to understand the dog it rides on. I doubt our brains (in our present condition) are even capable of grasping the concept. It’s like trying to empty the ocean into a bucket. Now of course as a Christian, I believe God has chosen to reveal certain aspects about himself to us but certainly not everything. As a Christian I accept these revealed things as truth and beneficial to my present and future situation. Sure, I’m curious and always interested in hearing and discussing various theories that people come up with, but I certainly wouldn’t want to put my “faith” in any of it. To me, the truth which is relevant to our salvation (all that really matters in the long run) is found in the Bible. I patiently await the Second Coming when more information will be revealed to us. Genesis 1:26 is the verse that much of this present discussion refers to. Here it reveals that God said “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” and verse 27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” I understand this image and likeness of God to have to do both with God’s character attributes as well as his outward appearance. Our nature reflected God’s likeness until sin entered the picture. I believe that we’re a far cry from that image of God today. I’d also like to add that the NY Jets are a result of sin. Anyway, a bad joke aside, Philippians 2 tells me that Jesus, who was in the form of God, took upon the form/likeness of men. So from this passage I feel it’s safe to say that at the time of Christ, God’s form was somewhat different than our own (since he had to take on this form). I believe this difference is the direct result of sin. I also think this text has to do with God choosing to set aside his “Godness” for lack of a better word, and live as a mere human being for a time. In other words, he took the form of mortal man. And from the description of Jesus at the Second Coming found in Revelation 1, it appears to me that he will still be in “human” form at that time (sometime in the future…hopefully sooner rather than later), albeit a glorified version of human form. In other words, he’ll have a body that we can relate to, but will definitely be divine…fully God. Various places in scripture describe God as sitting on a throne and I couldn’t tell you if these are to be taken literal or figurative. My feeling is literal…but I don’t think it’s really important to my salvation so I don’t worry about it. In other words, I don’t believe that the exact details of what God looks like has been revealed to us. So I assume either it’s unimportant for us to know at this point, or beyond our comprehension. By the way, Exodus 33:18-23 reveals that God told Moses that he would allow Moses to see his back, but not his face for “there shall no man see me and live.” Take from that what you will but it certainly sounds like God has a human like appearance to me. On a side note, I think the point of the passage is that when Moses asks to see Gods Glory in v. 18 of this passage, God answers that he will show Moses his goodness. In other words, God’s glory is his goodness…his character. God is Love. That’s what is important for us to understand. The point isn’t necessarily to reveal that God has a face, a back, and hands although you can draw these conclusions from this text. Anyway, this is already too long so I’ll stop here. I doubt anyone read my last post because it was so long….and you may do the same with this one. Oh well. Go Dolphins!

Dolphan7
10-15-2005, 12:59 AM
A human trying to fully understand God is like a flea trying to understand the dog it rides on. I doubt our brains (in our present condition) are even capable of grasping the concept. It’s like trying to empty the ocean into a bucket. Now of course as a Christian, I believe God has chosen to reveal certain aspects about himself to us but certainly not everything. As a Christian I accept these revealed things as truth and beneficial to my present and future situation. Sure, I’m curious and always interested in hearing and discussing various theories that people come up with, but I certainly wouldn’t want to put my “faith” in any of it. To me, the truth which is relevant to our salvation (all that really matters in the long run) is found in the Bible. I patiently await the Second Coming when more information will be revealed to us. Genesis 1:26 is the verse that much of this present discussion refers to. Here it reveals that God said “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” and verse 27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” I understand this image and likeness of God to have to do both with God’s character attributes as well as his outward appearance. Our nature reflected God’s likeness until sin entered the picture. I believe that we’re a far cry from that image of God today. I’d also like to add that the NY Jets are a result of sin. Anyway, a bad joke aside, Philippians 2 tells me that Jesus, who was in the form of God, took upon the form/likeness of men. So from this passage I feel it’s safe to say that at the time of Christ, God’s form was somewhat different than our own (since he had to take on this form). I believe this difference is the direct result of sin. I also think this text has to do with God choosing to set aside his “Godness” for lack of a better word, and live as a mere human being for a time. In other words, he took the form of mortal man. And from the description of Jesus at the Second Coming found in Revelation 1, it appears to me that he will still be in “human” form at that time (sometime in the future…hopefully sooner rather than later), albeit a glorified version of human form. In other words, he’ll have a body that we can relate to, but will definitely be divine…fully God. Various places in scripture describe God as sitting on a throne and I couldn’t tell you if these are to be taken literal or figurative. My feeling is literal…but I don’t think it’s really important to my salvation so I don’t worry about it. In other words, I don’t believe that the exact details of what God looks like has been revealed to us. So I assume either it’s unimportant for us to know at this point, or beyond our comprehension. By the way, Exodus 33:18-23 reveals that God told Moses that he would allow Moses to see his back, but not his face for “there shall no man see me and live.” Take from that what you will but it certainly sounds like God has a human like appearance to me. On a side note, I think the point of the passage is that when Moses asks to see Gods Glory in v. 18 of this passage, God answers that he will show Moses his goodness. In other words, God’s glory is his goodness…his character. God is Love. That’s what is important for us to understand. The point isn’t necessarily to reveal that God has a face, a back, and hands although you can draw these conclusions from this text. Anyway, this is already too long so I’ll stop here. I doubt anyone read my last post because it was so long….and you may do the same with this one. Oh well. Go Dolphins!Good post and welcome to Finheaven!

HansMojo
10-15-2005, 01:52 AM
Thanks Dolphan7. I've enjoyed your posts and in fact it was you that inspired me to finally set up an account and type something. My first post was that other long one a couple pages back. I've been a lurker for awhile.
Much Aloha.

Dolphan7
10-15-2005, 11:01 AM
Thanks Dolphan7. I've enjoyed your posts and in fact it was you that inspired me to finally set up an account and type something. My first post was that other long one a couple pages back. I've been a lurker for awhile.
Much Aloha.Oh yes I remember the leaking basement. Another good post. Keep 'em coming. :)

PhinPhan1227
10-15-2005, 03:17 PM
That primitive language that some primates are able to use are imo a precursor to how humans developped language. Being that Chimps and Humans share 98 % of their genetic makeup.. There were some further "tweaks" that were needed before the species could form true language. If I were to pick a second species on Earth that could some day develop sentience it would be those of the line of porpoises.. They have an intricate series of clicks and beeps that are probably the second most complex form of communication on the planet..

As for labeling your soul, for a long time the soul and mind were considered synonymous.. We know now that the mind is not an external entity. It is a physical almagam of chemicals, electrical impulses and receptors.. Now, defintions of the soul vary.. It is no longer considered part of the mind.. Consciousness can be altered by physical means.. Thats a fact.. Thats the point where I sortve come to question the presence of "conscious soul".. For instance, Terri Schiavo lost her consciousness.. She no longer had that quality paramount to humanity's unique existance.. Now the debate comes into play. perhaps her consciousness, her soul, was just dormant to Earthly appearances.. Maybe it had already vacated once the portions of her brain that controlled language and certain cognitive processes was disabled.. Who knows.. But our thoughts on what a soul is has had to be redefined once faced with knew information on the inner working of our mind.



We've never come close to defining the soul. What we do know is that we are the only species that asks the question "why". Dolphins, apes, dogs, birds, they are concerned with "what", they don't ask the bigger "why". It is that bigger "why" that sets us apart.

HansMojo
10-15-2005, 03:53 PM
As a Christian, there is really only one definition of soul that matters to me. It’s found in Genesis 2:7. It states here that, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” So the body, plus the breath of life equals a soul. According to Genesis, God didn’t put a soul into man, God gave life to a body and that combination equals a soul. Remove the breath and you no longer have a living soul…just a dead body. Does this create problems for the mainstream Christian understanding of death? Yes. I mean no offense to my Christian brothers, but I think this is one of those places where we need to do a little work. I’d address the issue now, but since my wife and kids are waiting on me I won’t be able to fully discuss it now. We’re headed up to the North Shore and then later tonight I have a UH football game to attend. Anyway, I will post more about it later.

MDFINFAN
10-15-2005, 06:29 PM
As a Christian, there is really only one definition of soul that matters to me. It’s found in Genesis 2:7. It states here that, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” So the body, plus the breath of life equals a soul. According to Genesis, God didn’t put a soul into man, God gave life to a body and that combination equals a soul. Remove the breath and you no longer have a living soul…just a dead body. Does this create problems for the mainstream Christian understanding of death? Yes. I mean no offense to my Christian brothers, but I think this is one of those places where we need to do a little work. I’d address the issue now, but since my wife and kids are waiting on me I won’t be able to fully discuss it now. We’re headed up to the North Shore and then later tonight I have a UH football game to attend. Anyway, I will post more about it later.

This is precisely what the soul is..it's only a result of the breath of life, (the spirit\our real self that looks like the father) being placed into a earthly vessel, the body, the shell made of dirt and thus goes back to dirt once the breath of life leaves in a earthly death.

CsonkaClone
10-15-2005, 10:53 PM
Society would be just fine without religion.
Would society be fine without science?
Absolutely not.


Religion and Christianity are not the same thing. Just as Catholisism and Christianity are not one and the same. If you think that society would be just fine and dandy without Christianity you are so wrong it's not even funny. I don't want to offend anyone here but I thought I would biefly ring in on the subject. Maybe we should be asking whether any believe in the existence of "Satan" as well as the question of God's (Jesus Christ) existence.

MDFINFAN
10-15-2005, 11:05 PM
God HAD a physical body. It was called Jesus. That manifestation may or may not still exist, but the totality of God is not confined into any one physical body. It says so in the Bible when he says that he is in all things.

Not quite, His Word had a physical body called Jesus, but God is a Spirit, when Jesus took on the sin of the world he separated himself from the father. So in essence, the Father and Holy Spirit are in Spirit form, the Word or God's son, took on the shell of a body of man. But the Word was God's son before he took on sin and that doesn't make him less than afterwards..God's Word is His bond, thus His Word is Him..This may sound complicated but it's not. The Son keeps the sin separated from the Father, but the Son still has all the rights he's always had and now sits on the right hand of the Father, still in heaven there are 3, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the 3 agree as one.

CsonkaClone
10-15-2005, 11:09 PM
I gotta ask bro, care to tell us what that reason is?

I mean, I could say it's because now man has become far too intelligent to fool with parlor tricks the way primitive men were fooled, but ya know....;)


"Professing themselves wise, they became fools" Romans 1-22

MDFINFAN
10-15-2005, 11:13 PM
"Professing themselves wise, they became fools" Romans 1-22

Excellent point..and we still haven't learned, man repeats the same foolishness all the time and call it wisdom..

ABrownLamp
10-15-2005, 11:28 PM
Religion and Christianity are not the same thing. Just as Catholisism and Christianity are not one and the same. If you think that society would be just fine and dandy without Christianity you are so wrong it's not even funny. I don't want to offend anyone here but I thought I would biefly ring in on the subject. Maybe we should be asking whether any believe in the existence of "Satan" as well as the question of God's (Jesus Christ) existence.

Oh ok.
I guess Christianity is not a religion anymore.
WTF are you talking about?

I am "so wrong it's not even funny?"
How old are you?
What kind of response is that?

CsonkaClone
10-16-2005, 12:07 AM
Regarding man being created in God's image...


And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: Genesis 1-26

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Geneseis 1-27

I would just like to share what I've seen and been taught from these passages...I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread so here it goes. This is what I believe the passage means.

Man is in 3 parts...just as God is in 3 parts. Man has a body, a soul and a spirit. And each of these 3 constituent parts correspond to the 3 parts of God...God "The Father", God "The Son" and God "The Holy Spirit". And each part of man corresponds to the 3 parts of God. God "The Father" corresponds to the Soul of man...God "The Son" with the Body of man...and God "The Holy Spirit" with the spirit of man. This is what is meant when God says that he created man in his own image. Which is also proof of the "Trinity of God"
Now...it must be understood that Adam was created without sin, and so he had the Spirit of God, or the "image of God" completely. But when Adam sinned he lost the "image of God" because he lost the Holy Spirit of God when he sinned. Which is why you see in Genesis 5-3 "And Adam lived an hundred and 30 years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image;"You see...After Adam's sin, his sons were not born in "God's image" but were born in "Adam's image" and Adam's image was no longer the image of God. Because we are all born without the "Spirit of God" due to Adam's sin...so we are all born as sinners...Which is why we must believe in the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to regain the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit...Which is why when we believe in him we say that we are Born again...And if you do not believe in him you are not in God's image completely...because you are still lacking the "Spirit of God" or the "Holy Spirit".

This is just what I believe and if you don't believe it that's cool...believe what you will...I just thought I would offer these thoughts as part of the "Image of God" part of the discussion in this thread.

CsonkaClone
10-16-2005, 12:08 AM
Oh ok.
I guess Christianity is not a religion anymore.
WTF are you talking about?

I am "so wrong it's not even funny?"
How old are you?
What kind of response is that?

My age is just below my avatar if you must know. What do you mean what am I talking about? I'm talking about what I said. What I meant partially is that Christianity does not represent all religion and is not responsible for all of it either.

ABrownLamp
10-16-2005, 12:39 AM
My age is just below my avatar if you must know. What do you mean what am I talking about? I'm talking about what I said. What I meant partially is that Christianity does not represent all religion and is not responsible for all of it either.

Well thank you for clearing that up.
Were you under the impression that I thought Christianity was the only religion out there?

If Christianity faded out of existence there would be numerous other religions to take its place.
The human race would continue on and the world would be the same.

CsonkaClone
10-16-2005, 01:17 AM
Well thank you for clearing that up.
Were you under the impression that I thought Christianity was the only religion out there?

If Christianity faded out of existence there would be numerous other religions to take its place.
The human race would continue on and the world would be the same.

Well...I believe it would be much worse with the exclusion of Christians but it is getting to the point where the evil in this world is becoming too much to bear regardless of our existence. One of the things I mentioned in the earlier post was the existence of Satan...Who is the major culprit in the mess we see in religion as a whole. There is no doubt that I can see why a non-believer would be reluctant to be open to any religious ideas whatsoever with all the confusion generated by the sheer volume and number of various religions in contradiction with each other. It kind of reminds me of that Indiana Jones flick...'search for the Grail" or whatever...At the end when he had to select the one true Grail from a table with like a hundred other cups...I mean...I've seen documentaries where church members were handling rattlesnakes and drinking poison in their sermons or worship....I guess because they read in the bible where the twelve apostles were given power over death from serpents or poison. So they apparently think they have the same power...And we've all heard of the misenterpretations that led to things like the Salem Witch trials. I for one would never be judgemental or look down on someone who finds it hard to believe in Jesus Christ because I know and understand the enemy. And the enemy doesn't want to be seen for who or what he is...not yet anyway. One of his greatest weapons is anonymity...And he is the master of deception, among other things.

ABrownLamp
10-16-2005, 01:35 AM
Well...I believe it would be much worse with the exclusion of Christians but it is getting to the point where the evil in this world is becoming too much to bear regardless of our existence. One of the things I mentioned in the earlier post was the existence of Satan...Who is the major culprit in the mess we see in religion as a whole. There is no doubt that I can see why a non-believer would be reluctant to be open to any religious ideas whatsoever with all the confusion generated by the sheer volume and number of various religions in contradiction with each other. It kind of reminds me of that Indiana Jones flick...'search for the Grail" or whatever...At the end when he had to select the one true Grail from a table with like a hundred other cups...I mean...I've seen documentaries where church members were handling rattlesnakes and drinking poison in their sermons or worship....I guess because they read in the bible where the twelve apostles were given power over death from serpents or poison. So they apparently think they have the same power...And we've all heard of the misenterpretations that led to things like the Salem Witch trials. I for one would never be judgemental or look down on someone who finds it hard to believe in Jesus Christ because I know and understand the enemy. And the enemy doesn't want to be seen for who or what he is...not yet anyway. One of his greatest weapons is anonymity...And he is the master of deception, among other things.

Ok. Well at least you aren't acting like a dick about it.

You say the people who committed atrocities in the name of religion weren't truly practicing Christianity.
And that those who live good lives are true Christians

I say people who live good lives never needed religion to tell them what is right and wrong in the first place.
It is intrinsically rewarding for most people to make others feel good and to be a good citizen.

Also, the fact that the Rapture will occur someday, but it could be tomorrow or it could be 10000 years from now is a bit difficult to swallow.

To me "evil" is a product of genetics and upbringing, not a mythological character called Satan.

Dolphan7
10-16-2005, 01:45 AM
Regarding man being created in God's image...


And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: Genesis 1-26

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Geneseis 1-27

I would just like to share what I've seen and been taught from these passages...I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread so here it goes. This is what I believe the passage means.

Man is in 3 parts...just as God is in 3 parts. Man has a body, a soul and a spirit. And each of these 3 constituent parts correspond to the 3 parts of God...God "The Father", God "The Son" and God "The Holy Spirit". And each part of man corresponds to the 3 parts of God. God "The Father" corresponds to the Soul of man...God "The Son" with the Body of man...and God "The Holy Spirit" with the spirit of man. This is what is meant when God says that he created man in his own image. Which is also proof of the "Trinity of God"
Now...it must be understood that Adam was created without sin, and so he had the Spirit of God, or the "image of God" completely. But when Adam sinned he lost the "image of God" because he lost the Holy Spirit of God when he sinned. Which is why you see in Genesis 5-3 "And Adam lived an hundred and 30 years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image;"You see...After Adam's sin, his sons were not born in "God's image" but were born in "Adam's image" and Adam's image was no longer the image of God. Because we are all born without the "Spirit of God" due to Adam's sin...so we are all born as sinners...Which is why we must believe in the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to regain the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit...Which is why when we believe in him we say that we are Born again...And if you do not believe in him you are not in God's image completely...because you are still lacking the "Spirit of God" or the "Holy Spirit".

This is just what I believe and if you don't believe it that's cool...believe what you will...I just thought I would offer these thoughts as part of the "Image of God" part of the discussion in this thread.Interesting take on Gen 1:26. Good post. I never looked at it that way.:)

Dolphan7
10-16-2005, 01:46 AM
Religion and Christianity are not the same thing. Just as Catholisism and Christianity are not one and the same. If you think that society would be just fine and dandy without Christianity you are so wrong it's not even funny. I don't want to offend anyone here but I thought I would biefly ring in on the subject. Maybe we should be asking whether any believe in the existence of "Satan" as well as the question of God's (Jesus Christ) existence.Excellent point.:)

Dolphan7
10-16-2005, 01:52 AM
Well thank you for clearing that up.
Were you under the impression that I thought Christianity was the only religion out there?

If Christianity faded out of existence there would be numerous other religions to take its place.
The human race would continue on and the world would be the same.Christianity is different than religion in that it is about a relationship with God, not a works salvation as all other organized religions seem to be.

Dolphan7
10-16-2005, 01:53 AM
Well...I believe it would be much worse with the exclusion of Christians but it is getting to the point where the evil in this world is becoming too much to bear regardless of our existence. One of the things I mentioned in the earlier post was the existence of Satan...Who is the major culprit in the mess we see in religion as a whole. There is no doubt that I can see why a non-believer would be reluctant to be open to any religious ideas whatsoever with all the confusion generated by the sheer volume and number of various religions in contradiction with each other. It kind of reminds me of that Indiana Jones flick...'search for the Grail" or whatever...At the end when he had to select the one true Grail from a table with like a hundred other cups...I mean...I've seen documentaries where church members were handling rattlesnakes and drinking poison in their sermons or worship....I guess because they read in the bible where the twelve apostles were given power over death from serpents or poison. So they apparently think they have the same power...And we've all heard of the misenterpretations that led to things like the Salem Witch trials. I for one would never be judgemental or look down on someone who finds it hard to believe in Jesus Christ because I know and understand the enemy. And the enemy doesn't want to be seen for who or what he is...not yet anyway. One of his greatest weapons is anonymity...And he is the master of deception, among other things.Dude I am liking you more and more each post I read. Another good post and very accurate biblically speaking.:)

CsonkaClone
10-16-2005, 02:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABrownLamp
Well thank you for clearing that up.
Were you under the impression that I thought Christianity was the only religion out there?

If Christianity faded out of existence there would be numerous other religions to take its place.
The human race would continue on and the world would be the same.




I also think you make a great point here because that scenario could come to pass when the rapture of the church takes place...I know something like the rapture probably sounds crazy to some people but some of us actually believe that we'll be taken out of here just before all hell breaks loose. Of course there's no telling when that may occur. Could be another 1000 years from now. But when asked when these things will come to pass Jesus did say that there would be an increase in knowledge. And pretty much all of the major advances in technology have happened in the last 120 years. From the beginning of time Man traveled across land by beast till the invention of the automobile which wasn't that long ago and look where we are today.


As for evolution I don't believe in it at all and consider carbon dating to be nothing but guess work. Carbon dating can only be reliable in a fixed system...or an unchanging system. And as for the extinction of dinosaurs and the ice age both of these things could have easily resulted from Noah's flood. It should also be noted that God made it clear in the bible that after the flood man's lifespan would be reduced to 120 years of age rather that what was previously the case before the flood where people lived much longer...Noah was 600 years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. Most people find these long lifespans too incredible to believe and I admit that it does seem incredible, but it can be explained. According to the bible God placed a firmament above the earth that divided the waters below the firmament from the waters above the firmament and God called this firmament Heaven. Biblical scientists and creationists believe that this firmament was like an invisible canopy that surrounded the earth...blocking the suns radiation and creating a system much different than the one that was present after the flood and that still exists today...with some wear and tear taking place over the years apparently according to ozone layer depletionist theory. Now in Genesis 7-11 when the rain begins the bible says "The windows of Heaven were opened and the rain was upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights. For some of us this is how we explain the long lifespans of the old testament...That conditions on earth were much different before the flood than after due to the removal of this "Firmament" at the time of the Noah's flood.

Another interesting fact is that man is divided into 3 classifications...Negroid,Caucasoid, and Mongoloid. And according to the bible everyone on earth today is a decendant of one of Noah's 3 sons. This would indicate that Noah's sons were each representative of one of these classifications. I doubt that at the time of the writing of the bible that they knew about the 3 classifications of human beings.
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif (http://editpost.php?do=editpost&p=1639575)

Dolphan7
10-16-2005, 02:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABrownLamp
Well thank you for clearing that up.
Were you under the impression that I thought Christianity was the only religion out there?

If Christianity faded out of existence there would be numerous other religions to take its place.
The human race would continue on and the world would be the same.




I also think you make a great point here because that scenario could come to pass when the rapture of the church takes place...I know something like the rapture probably sounds crazy to some people but some of us actually believe that we'll be taken out of here just before all hell breaks loose. Of course there's no telling when that may occur. Could be another 1000 years from now. But when asked when these things will come to pass Jesus did say that there would be an increase in knowledge. And pretty much all of the major advances in technology have happened in the last 120 years. From the beginning of time Man traveled across land by beast till the invention of the automobile which wasn't that long ago and look where we are today.


As for evolution I don't believe in it at all and consider carbon dating to be nothing but guess work. Carbon dating can only be reliable in a fixed system...or an unchanging system. And as for the extinction of dinosaurs and the ice age both of these things could have easily resulted from Noah's flood. It should also be noted that God made it clear in the bible that after the flood man's lifespan would be reduced to 120 years of age rather that what was previously the case before the flood where people lived much longer...Noah was 600 years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. Most people find these long lifespans too incredible to believe and I admit that it does seem incredible, but it can be explained. According to the bible God placed a firmament above the earth that divided the waters below the firmament from the waters above the firmament and God called this firmament Heaven. Biblical scientists and creationists believe that this firmament was like an invisible canopy that surrounded the earth...blocking the suns radiation and creating a system much different than the one that was present after the flood and that still exists today...with some wear and tear taking place over the years apparently according to ozone layer depletionist theory. Now in Genesis 7-11 when the rain begins the bible says "The windows of Heaven were opened and the rain was upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights. For some of us this is how we explain the long lifespans of the old testament...That conditions on earth were much different before the flood than after due to the removal of this "Firmament" at the time of the Noah's flood.
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif (http://editpost.php/?do=editpost&p=1639575)I have read and heard that this canopy was actually a water canopy and explains how much of the rain came from the sky. In fact the people of Noah's time thought him a fool as they had no knowledge of what rain was as it had never rained until the flood, when the water canopy broke. Think of it as a greenhouse. The earth pre-flood was a giant greenhouse or biosphere. Lot's of vegatation and greenery. A tropical warm climate worldwide, without the direct rays of the sun. Interesting enough this is what we find in the fossil record.