Do you believe there is a God? [Archive]

Website Rob

04-21-2002, 06:42 PM

Having seen a Clock, I believe there is a Clock maker.

I have yet to see a Web site that was created through the randomness of Atoms, Molecules, whatever, spontaneously coming together.

Using the term "God" is a misnomer as it leads to confusion. People start to think in terms of Religion and there is no such thing. Religion is term, or concept, created to give people a point of reference -- unfortunately, that point of reference is usually incorrect.

There is My way, there are other ways.
My way is not the same as the other ways.

To believe in My way and follow the other ways,
Is to sow the seeds of confusion.

For only those in doubt, are confused.

So Said Our Father

Maybe not poetically correct as it's just a little diddy that came to me one day and helps me to keep on track. Like everyone else, I have my periods of doubt and confusion, but can always trust my baseline philosophy.

As a student of the Bible, believing and following the teachings of our Saviour Jesus Christ, I don't recall reading anywhere that a person has to believe in "X" Religion. He simply said, "follow the ways of our Father" and all shall be well. When Jesus was teaching people and they asked him, "How do we pray? What should we say?", he gave them a prayer that starts with "Our Father" and which anyone can use -- then and now.

The ways of Our Father should be our philosophy on life -- not a Religion. The Bible is full of good ways to live and good habits to live by. We live & die by our habits which is determined by our philosophy on life. We all know that good habits are better than bad habits and hopefully, we have more of the former than the latter.

Faith is our most strongest habit and, is a funny thing. Odourless, colorless, and sometimes hard to see. Like the air we breathe, though, we cannot live without it. Ever use an electrical device that you had no "Faith" in? What about driving a vehicle that you had "doubts" about. Did you feel safe?

We only need to focus on the correct Faith and all shall be well

Works for me.

Studio64

04-21-2002, 07:00 PM

I have the solution to our great problem here...

Ready...

ping god
ping: unknown host god

AH-Tina

04-21-2002, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Bogdan
I highly doubt God is our creator. I believe in evolution, I can't admit I that do not believe in God for the same reason as SWR. :)

BTW, my name means Given By God - odd stuff.

Why does it have to be God OR evolution? Doesn't it make sense that both can exist in the same world?

I don't believe in "God", in the closed-minded religious sense...I do believe that there is an all-powerful, loving, all knowing creator that I happen to call "God".

--Tina

creid

04-21-2002, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by AffordableHost

Why does it have to be God OR evolution? Doesn't it make sense that both can exist in the same world?

I agree with Tina here... You Don't think a God can co exist with Darwin's theory?Where did the "Monkey" com from then?

Chris

DanielP

04-21-2002, 07:34 PM

Sorry, i'm a pure evolutionist here. However, I do believe that there are things out there we can't explain and I also know we are not alone in this universe. (To think so is utterly insane and stupid). I believe that there may have really been a Jesus, however, bibles were written by men, and men glorify things they idolize. and well.. after a few thousand years, of he said she said and translations you can't tell me that things weren't lost, much less changed. We're not even going to touch on some of the things the pope and roman catholics keep hidden away :-/

AH-Tina

04-21-2002, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by DanielP
Sorry, i'm a pure evolutionist here. However, I do believe that there are things out there we can't explain and I also know we are not alone in this universe. (To think so is utterly insane and stupid). I believe that there may have really been a Jesus, however, bibles were written by men, and men glorify things they idolize. and well.. after a few thousand years, of he said she said and translations you can't tell me that things weren't lost, much less changed. We're not even going to touch on some of the things the pope and roman catholics keep hidden away :-/

Hi Daniel,

Can you separate God from religion?

I believe that Jesus probably existed and that he was probably a great man - but is he a god of some sort? Who knows. As you say, the Bible was written 1000s of years ago and changed so many times to suit mans' beliefs at the time of translation.

Regardless, there is too much circumstantial evidence to say that God does not exist.

PS: I saw the coolest signature the other day. It said "Dear God, please protect me from your followers." How true!

--Tina

iamdave

04-21-2002, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by cperciva

Yep, quite a big difference. Delivering millions of presents during a single day is *much* more believable than creating the entire world in a single week. How do you suppose the Earth was created? Big Bang?
I strongly believe there is a God, for no man can create such an intricate machine, that we call our body.

iamdave

04-21-2002, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by AffordableHost

Hi Daniel,

Can you separate God from religion?

I believe that Jesus probably existed and that he was probably a great man - but is he a god of some sort? Who knows. As you say, the Bible was written 1000s of years ago and changed so many times to suit mans' beliefs at the time of translation.

Regardless, there is too much circumstantial evidence to say that God does not exist.

PS: I saw the coolest signature the other day. It said "Dear God, please protect me from your followers." How true!

--Tina And what would that evidence be? Do you know of one man, that can create a person, without the means of artifical isemination, or cloning? How could have man created itself? Think about it...

DanielP

04-21-2002, 07:46 PM

Well, every religion has to have a figure head of some sorts.... the greeks with all of their gods, the one god religions, the religions that pray to mother earth etc..

so in most religions you cant' really seperate god from them, however, the story of creation and all of this stuff came from either visions, wise men, and things like that, no-one ever sat down with god and did an interview. So, lets say if Jesus really did exist and was a great man and sparked all of this off, well then we all know belief is a powerful tool, i mean, people will see the virgin mary (sp?) in a waffel or piece of bread or on a tree and think they've had a sign etc because they believe in that religion, then they go and try and intrepret what they saw, place that into words, give it a few thousand years, and voila you have the bible and other written texts regarding religions.

So no, while directly you can't seperate it, indirectly you can, and if you really want to go way out in left field you could say god was an experiment by aliens to see how easily they could fool the human race, i mean really any way you look at it, there's only the word of man to prove things right or wrong, where as with evolution we have at least a good tracking of how humans came to be.

AH-Tina

04-21-2002, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by iamdave
And what would that evidence be? Do you know of one man, that can create a person, without the means of artifical isemination, or cloning? How could have man created itself? Think about it...

Go back and re-read what I said. You misunderstood my point.

--Tina

rey

04-21-2002, 08:41 PM

As you say, the Bible was written 1000s of years ago and changed so many times to suit mans' beliefs at the time of translation. Yes and no. The bible was written long time ago but it is never changed to suit man's belief. It may be translated differently to make us understand it better, since our language is also evolving, but the truth and the message are still the same. You can compare the original manuscript and today's bible :)

Alberto

04-21-2002, 08:42 PM

Maybe, but I haven't seen any proof.

rey

04-21-2002, 08:45 PM

Have you looked for it?

cperciva

04-21-2002, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by rey
You can compare the original manuscript and today's bible :)

Err, where exactly would we find the original manuscript of the bible?

dektong

04-21-2002, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Abu Mami
Not true. I can too prove that my mom exists. She sends me emails :-)

As far as we are concern, no :)

cheers,
:beer:

rey

04-21-2002, 09:20 PM

Err, where exactly would we find the original manuscript of the bible? Will you compare and find out if I tell you? :)

Bogdan

04-21-2002, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by AffordableHost

Why does it have to be God OR evolution? Doesn't it make sense that both can exist in the same world?

I don't believe in "God", in the closed-minded religious sense...I do believe that there is an all-powerful, loving, all knowing creator that I happen to call "God".

--Tina

We are all free to be believe in our own theory, which is why I personally do not believe there was a creator who just said 'Let me put some life on this planet, and I'll call it Earth'.

Evolution explains everything.

Rewdog

04-21-2002, 09:42 PM

...creator who just said 'Let me put some life on this planet, and I'll call it Earth'...

Instead of just doing it because he was bored...
What if the creator is perfect and magnificent and he knows that he is perfect. He decides things should live to worship him...
That makes more sense to me then yours..

rey

04-21-2002, 09:42 PM

We are all free to be believe in our own theory We may have this flexibility, but the truth doesn't.

cperciva

04-21-2002, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by rey
We may have this flexibility, but the truth doesn't.

Try talking to an epistemology professor for a few hours, and you may reconsider that statement. ;)

Matt Lightner

04-21-2002, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by rey
Yes and no. The bible was written long time ago but it is never changed to suit man's belief. It may be translated differently to make us understand it better, since our language is also evolving, but the truth and the message are still the same. You can compare the original manuscript and today's bible :) That's true... and I'm sure that they would have about the same message. I think Daniel's point was that the Bible was written by men--not by God. Therefore the Bible, as some people see it, can not be taken as the absolute word of God--it is inherently flawed simply because man is not God.

rey

04-21-2002, 10:19 PM

True, if it's from man's own mind. But in this case, the man was God-breathed and wrote God's word, thus the content and the writing is God's and therefore it flawless in context and in meaning. :)

akashik

04-21-2002, 10:34 PM

I always think it's best to never speak religion or politics at the dinner table. You will always have two parties that disagree, knowing that they're the right answer.

Politics and religion kill more people every day than any other reason. The fact this thread even exists is testiment to the trouble and discussion it provokes.

If everyone could look past trying to foist their opinion on others, whichever persuasion you follow, and instead look at the things we all have in common the world would be a better place.

Religion and politics have their place, but that place is never is discussion with other people. Be content in your own opinion, instead of trying to justify it by forcing it on others, and you'll be stronger as a person because of it.

Does God exist? Why does it matter if we can't all get along and accept the differences between us, instead of not understanding that beyond those differences we're all still the same.

Greg Moore

Rewdog

04-21-2002, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by akashik
I always think it's best to never speak religion or politics at the dinner table. You will always have two parties that disagree, knowing that they're the right answer.

Politics and religion kill more people every day than any other reason. The fact this thread even exists is testiment to the trouble and discussion it provokes.

If everyone could look past trying to foist their opinion on others, whichever persuasion you follow, and instead look at the things we all have in common the world would be a better place.

Religion and politics have their place, but that place is never is discussion with other people. Be content in your own opinion, instead of trying to justify it by forcing it on others, and you'll be stronger as a person because of it.

Does God exist? Why does it matter if we can't all get along and accept the differences between us, instead of not understanding that beyond those differences we're all still the same.

Greg Moore

I disagree. A discussion between civilized people who are courteous to one another, which this thread so far seems to be, I see no problem discussing it. I do see religion and politics do cause deaths, wars, killings but to not be able to discuss such huge issues at all is quite different if the people who are in the discussion aren't extremists... I see no one here forcing anything on others.

How can you learn and find your own beliefs without the discussion of such a topic? A topic that IMO determines where one spends eternity?

I can accept anyone, I may disagree with them. I will not kill them or yell at them for their belief, so I guess I have a higher expectation of the WHT forum than the rest of society....

Bleh, I need food :)

rey

04-21-2002, 10:49 PM

What I like about WHT is that most people here respect each other, and regardless whether anyone here believe in God's existence or not, we are all the same who needs to be treated with honor and respect. I am not suggesting that I'm better than anyone, for I maybe a worse person than anyone here. But if anyone is asking, I would be glad to share what I know :)

Wavmeister

04-21-2002, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by Bogdan
Well.. We have more facts gathered about evolution than God, that's for sure. I believe God is just a belief to make people feel better, and it also makes them believe in afterlife and all that. Do you really think when you die, your soul (?) is going to leave your body and your life will go on?

It has been proven that the body loses a little weight at the instance of death. Would you care to explain what is leaving the body at that time?

Evolution does not have proof. They have a few bones, a lot fewer than you think. The rest are man made pieces made to fit together. I just watched "The Real Eve" on the Discovery Channel. They claim she was somewhere in Africa. I kept getting interrupted, so didnt get to see much. I need to watch it again next time it comes on.

As for Jesus. I dont know. They say about one in 10 billion men are telekenetic. Perhaps he was one of these? Perhaps he really was the first son of God. It has been explained to me this way: You see an egg, do you believe there is a yolk in it? Why? Anyway, this is how God is. You have God, the Holy Spirit, and the Word (Jesus). They are all one being, yet seprate, like an egg.

Aliens? Ezekial saw the wheel within the wheel up in the sky didnt he?

Anyway, God did not create religion, man did. Jesus set an example of the proper way to live your life. The Bible set certain rules and laws for us to abide by. Religion focuses on Jesus' accomplishements, but that was not his intent. His intent was to set an example of how to live your life with goodness and forgiveness. Even if God an Jesus are false, it's still a good book to live your life by.

As for God not being proven and evolution being proven. Pardon me?? Most of the history in the Bible has been proven. Ruins of cities found, dead sea scrols, etc, etc. There's a reason God cant be proven. It's because he is greater than you, or any man. No scientist is smarter than God. Anything man can come up with, God can get around it. He has however, proven that YOU exist.

Put it this way. You have an ant farm. Wouldnt it be funny to be able to hear the conversations of those little ants and hear them say they dont believe in you despite all you have done to try and show yourself to them. You wonder if they are just too close minded to understand. They sit there and say you dont exist because they have no proof of it, therefore you dont. If I were the God, I would think these little insignificant ants are conceited in their beliefs, and that they believe they are greater than they really are. Yet I know that I could simply put a finger against some of the non-believers and kill them. Do you think the other ants would understand, or would they still not believe? They wouldnt, therefore the killings accomplished nothing. Tell me how you would prove to those ants in a way they understand that you DO exist. If you put your hand down there, they wont understand and they will attack it. Much like man in general does to God.

Bogdan

04-22-2002, 01:48 AM

Well put together information, quite interesting. I never said God does not exist, it is not up to me to say it. I see the world in a different way. From my point of view it's just a big game. You can't make me believe that God created everything on earth, and that he has control over us - that is what probably the first people thought when they've seen light, dark, rain etc... they had to think someone is doing it all.

I'm not a rocket scientist, I'm not religious, I might not know as much about certain subjects, it's just my plain opinion. Yes, evolution of life is not a law, it's just a theory which to >me< makes sense.

Wavmeister

04-22-2002, 02:08 AM

He didnt have to create the earth. I'm sure when he set the big bang into motion a few trillion years ago, everything was plotted and planned out. For all Bible believer, I do have proof that something went wrong and was unplanned. You could say it caught even God off guard. It's in the Bible. It's a single verse and the only one of it's kind in the Bible, but you can deduce a lot of history from it. Before I give the answer, I will give others a chance to try to figure this out. That little two line verse is proof that even God doesnt know how every detail will turn out.

Tim Greer

04-22-2002, 02:09 AM

I have absolutely no doubt that God exists, and I don't feel any need to justify it or prove it (since I don't see how I could).

As for comments about 'Jesus maybe existing', well, religious or not, most historians and archeologists agree he did. Whether or not you believe in his mother being a virgin, him being the son of God and performing miracles, that's another story. However, most won't argue that he did all the other acts told about him, rebelling against corruption in temples and people that take advantage of the poor and sick. No matter what, a very good and cool person. No matter what, someone that died by crucifixion. Be it you believe he was the son of God and died for your sins, is another matter though. Keep in mind though, scriptures in existence speaking of every single small detail about how Jesus, the son of God, would be killed and even down to the Roman guards that gambles over his clothes.

Anyway, I'm not aware of any text being modified too much, although some has and some must be more accurate than other's. Nonetheless, there's some pretty close/accurate text depending on what bible you read. Even the transcribers of the Authorized King James version, way back, encouraged people to check it, because some of the translation is still not perfect, but simply checking a concordance for the Hebrew and Greek, will tell you what you need to know. It will make more sense that way. Anyway, just my thoughts on this. I personally don't see how or why anyone would question it, but it's only because it seems to obvious to me. Fact of the matter is, only I am me, so I don't assume my logic or my reason to apply to anyone else. Look into it if you are interested in stuff like this, because no matter what, it is pretty fascinating, be it you believe any of it or not, it's the best book ever written.

richy

04-22-2002, 02:21 AM

;) the counter argument being no one in their right mind would have created me so therefore god is either insane or doesnt exist hehe

Wavmeister

04-22-2002, 03:13 AM

Nah it just shows that He does indeed have a sense of humour :D

richy

04-22-2002, 03:22 AM

good call
the guys got one weird imagination tho lol.

and why did he ensure my fiancee has the most expensive birthstone on the planet. emerald, cos you shouldnt really buy emerald unless its set with diamond. grrrr. flippin 21st birthdays :(

rey

04-22-2002, 07:27 AM

and why did he ensure my fiancee has the most expensive birthstone on the planet. So you do believe that God exists :) And happy birthday for your fiancee.

Abu Mami

04-22-2002, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by richy
and why did he ensure my fiancee has the most expensive birthstone on the planet. emerald, cos you shouldnt really buy emerald unless its set with diamond. grrrr. flippin 21st birthdays :( Does the word finance come from the word fiancee or the other way around?

code_renegade

04-22-2002, 07:37 AM

I believe...

Because I have felt and seen his work :D

Seriously! :)

grandad

04-22-2002, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Rewdog

Instead of just doing it because he was bored...
What if the creator is perfect and magnificent and he knows that he is perfect. He decides things should live to worship him...
That makes more sense to me then yours..

Or that he has such love that He desires others to enjoy the gift of life - and that worship of Him and obedience to Him are ways to enhance the quality of life. Consider too - shouldn't we expect a loving Creator to tell His created beings the best way to live their lives (hence the Bible) - even a washing machine manufacturer gives its customers a manual!

richy

04-22-2002, 07:51 AM

im pretty certain the word finance is derived from fiancee, along with words like debt restructuring, massive credit card bill and ohhh dearthey let her in the gucci shop.

and yes i do kinda believe in a way. its hard to explain. if i ever understand ill let ya all in on the secret lol. god god and religion can be viewed as two seperate entities. religion is abused in *some* cases. one day ill know. until then its blissful ignorance as you cant believe just because you want to. lifes complicated enough at times, if you believe then god is simple, if you dont its an impossible concept. belief is an intangible so until you truly believe dont wreck your brains. least thats my thinking.

thanks for the happy birthday, our 21sts are about 3 weeks apart so i get the feeling somethings gonan have to happen, mastercard are preparing for the rush lol.

Wavmeister

04-22-2002, 01:57 PM

I seriously doubt we would sit there and worship Him for eternity. I think a good example is parents and their kids. You try to be a good parent and hope your kids will always love you for everything you have done for them. You hope they will realize as they get older that the times they thought you were being mean, that you were doing it for their own good. I guess you could say that the human race is made up of teen spirits that graduate into adulthood at mortal death. And just like teens, we think we know it all. I remember a few years after not being a teen anymore and was adult, how I looked back and realized how much I really didnt know when I thought I knew it all. As a teen I thought my parents were idiots, now they seem to be a lot smarter than I ever thought they were, and they still continue getting smarter.

They dont know computers, but they know life. They merely want me to love them and care about them, and I think that is all God wants from us. The Churches would have you believe that God needs nothing, but they are wrong.

Rewdog

04-22-2002, 05:27 PM

Just for the heck of it,
If you were in front of him and feeling like the most powerful love and emotion imaginable, better than any earthly high or even sexual climax, I think you'd worship him :)

rey

04-22-2002, 09:25 PM

If you were in front of him and feeling like the most powerful love and emotion imaginable ... , I think you'd worship him Amen! I would be honored doing that for eternity. Worshipping Him is not the same as slavery. It is, just like Rewdog said, better than *pardon me* man-wife most wonderful sexual intimacy or other earthly satisfaction, and even better than having uncountable riches and spending 1 million a day to satisfy us (I wish I could).

First time I thought, I was like a puppet and God was a mean and arrogant powerful being who 'wants' to be worshipped, who will get angry if we didn't worship Him. Actually, not at all. I worship God because of who God is and because I know what He has done for us all. And we are not alone, God angels worship Him too because they know who God is. Even Satan and his angels are afraid of God and worshipped Him previously. :)

richy

04-22-2002, 09:57 PM

4solutions

04-22-2002, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Bogdan
I believe in evolution...Evolution is the program. God is the programmer. And, of course, Satan is the original hacker.

;)

richy

04-22-2002, 10:16 PM

yeah but what about the mice and the Magratheans ;) dont forget them.

rey

04-22-2002, 10:52 PM

if theres anything in life or death more special then my fiancees smile then to be honest im not sure i want to experience it. i can totally understand how to you its worth more then any material assets. There are things that last for a lifetime, and there are things that last for eternity. Both are very real, though the other is not yet seen. :)

I believe that God created your fiancee with very fine detail, and He's so perfect that even the tip of the iceberg can be seen as incomparable. But believe me, I'm sure the real beauty is yet to come. :)

Wavmeister

04-23-2002, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by 4solutions
Evolution is the program. God is the programmer. And, of course, Satan is the original hacker.

;)

Woah! Perfect example!
Anyway, the Bible has had much more affect on every American's life than you think. You should read http://www.bible.com/answers/aamerica.html

Anyway, back to where I said I had proof that something went wrong. Read the following:: #6 is where God is sorry that he ever made man. That tells you that things didnt go as originally planned. Either math was wrong somewhere, or Satan did unexpected damage.

Genesis:
6. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7. So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."
8. But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

It must have been pretty bad for him to completely wipe out all life and start over again.

ProSam

04-23-2002, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by avium
I believe...

Because I have felt and seen his work :D

Seriously! :)
Me Too!

God has done so much for me in my 24 years of life that I could not not believe in him? I have seen it with my very eyes and felt it with my very hands. How real can that not be?

:)

nelix

04-23-2002, 01:09 AM

I am an atheist and am open to discussion:

1. What type of being is god if he feels the need to create a world full of ppl just to worship him???

2. Who created god???

3. How can people take god seriously if they go around deliberatley commiting sins over and over again???

4. What makes "God" the true god and not buddha the real god etc.???

Tim Greer

04-23-2002, 01:19 AM

I have a different outlook than Wavemiester does about that meaning God made a mistake. I already debated the reasons in ICQ before and I sure don't want to rehash anything. I just don't see it the same way, or meaning the same thing. God knows what we're all going to end up doing, so why did he put us here to give us a chance? That same argument can be said. Just because God was sorry he created those people, didn't mean he didn't know he would be. If anything, that means he knew it, just as he knows the kind of people were are and where we'll ultimately end up. That doesn't mean he doesn't get angry or not like the things we do or that he didn't expect them. (I know, a poor argument, but I went into too much detail late last night).

Seer

04-23-2002, 01:46 AM

I don't for the most part.

I was raised to, but I really grew tired of people blaming the good and the bad things on "God's will". Seems that people in that state of mind are irrational, I like to know that i'm in control of my future and it's not some predetermined agenda. Personally, if such a God existed, the last thing i'd be doing is worshipping. It all just seems like a big pyramid scheme to me.

Tim Greer

04-23-2002, 01:58 AM

But there's a difference between knowing what will happen and controlling what will happen. You are still in control, God just knows what it will end up like. If God changed that even for the better, you would not be free to make your own choices and you would therefore not be in control. So, as bad as it is sometimes, if God was to interviene, than you would be a puppet. Well, that's just the way I look at it, which helps explain why bad things are allowed to happen or why things aren't perfect. Perfect might sound (or be) nice, but you can't be free if you aren't allowed to make choices. If other people were only allowed or able to do good to you, you'd have the variables controlled and you'd not be free. I think that would bother me, a lot, personally. That's just my take on it, that might not be what God intends, thinks or does.

Website Rob

04-23-2002, 02:01 AM

Seer, you've hit one of the "proverbial" nails, on the head. It is a commone misconception that Our Father let's bad happen as people don't realize the big picture. Our Father has gvien us "Free Will" which is the greatest gift that can be given to anyone. Being as Humans can choose, what to do or not to do, Humans are to blame in most cases. No doubt "bad" things happen with some encouragement from bad influences, but its our choice whether or not to listen.

There will come a time when we are each called to stand up and be responsible for our actions.

Our Father is also not looking for Robots. Each individual is Free to do and behave as they see fit. Giving thanks for what has been provided to us, or for us, can be considered as a form of worship. Good manners go far and many ways.

Tim Greer

04-23-2002, 02:17 AM

To add to what Website Rob said, whether he might agree with this claim of mine or not; God wants us to love and follow him, he never makes us. I'm glad for that, even though I know what choice I'll be making. I never blame God for what man does or for things that happen and I know what it would ultimately mean if he took away that freedom of nature, people and whatever else. As hard as it can be, I'd prefer this way and I don't try and figure out all the reasons why it's "this way" and not "that way". I imagine things can also sound good in theory and how they'd be better "ran", but it likely wouldn't be and it surely wouldn't be true/genuine or real. I don't think anyway, but what do I know. :-)

Seer

04-23-2002, 02:39 AM

Tim and Rob, both good points. I keep an open mind for the most part, but this is one subject that tends to circle around without every making any true sense of things. If I were to believe...
It's not that i'd be upset that God's never intervened, but that such a being would create a near perfect world and introduce such an imperfect, self destructive race. Human history isn't exactly filled with good things, which leaves me to question the principles behind human nature. This subject could delve quite deeply, the more I ponder it, the more complicated it becomes. Why bother really, what's the purpose behind it all. (I guess that's the question everyone asks?) If it's suppose to be some sort of lesson or test, who knows. Until there are some sensible answers and people not murdering each other over hypothesis, I stand away from the Religion scene and those that try to pursuade me otherwise.

Tim Greer

04-23-2002, 02:57 AM

I know what you mean and where you're coming from. It's just that so much of this, is not related to what God does, is what I meant. And, that can be pretty discouraging. Yet, I think a lot of people expect or demand God push his face through the clouds to prove he's there. I think it's supposed to be more than "See, here I am, now believe". Sort of like having someone standing there watching you, you won't steal. Let's see what kind of people they are when there's no one watching. I don't think that's a good analogy, but it's all I've got at midnight. *L*

I think the reason for the human creation, was supposed to be giving us all a chance, in a non-perfect human form, to see how we'll do. To see if we will be good or not. To give every human a chance to be born of a woman and live life and see what they become (or, rather, to give tham a chance). Even without that, we would never have been truly given a chance and therefore never have that freedom. Of course this goes deeper, like you said. So much deeper, which is why people have discussed it for so many thousands of years. I won't dare pretend to have the information that will answer anything. I find that reading the (to me, the more correct translation/version) authorized Kings James Bible, as a Christian and referencing a Strongs' Exhaustive Concordance, along with a little (or a lot of) guidance from some scholars in this field that have a level head on their shoulders, tend to help answer a lot of my questions, and a lot before I thought of them. I know a lot of people question "if", or "yes, but", type of things, but I'm confident enough personally, to be at the point where I try and consider a lot of other things, like (and I know this sounds corny probably) how God feels. He has feelings too, and I am at the point where I have been considering things like that. Not just if I believe he exists. So, there's a lot of room to fill in regards to inpirationalism and faithm as well as knowledge and a lot of my own views, to get me this far, but I am confident enough to be beyond wondering (even if we all do sometimes and I'm sure I do). Therefore, and even still, I'm so very unprepared to try and give prove or support for even existance, since it just feels so obvious and natural to me personally.

Website Rob

04-23-2002, 03:14 AM

I do believe, Tim, when Jesus used to say, "Oh, ye of little faith" pretty much sums up what you were trying to say. :)

If we have Faith, that the information provided within the Bible is true and accurate knowledge, then we agree that it was a perfect Human who screwed things up by doing something they were not supposed to. Being as only another perfect Human could atone for that mistake and make perfection available again to all Humans, Our Saviour Jesus Christ stepped to do what was required -- hence the title "Our Saviour."

Jesus was also given the responsibility of making Judgement on who will enter the new Kingdom and who will not. Every Organization ever created has always had its "regulations and rules of conduct", the new Kingdom is no different. Those judged worthy of entering will not act, for the most part, like we Humans do today. There will still be lots of goods acts done, as there is today, and none of the bad.

That is why those of us who have Faith and act accordingly, await the second coming of Jesus with great anticipation. We know, because it was written in the Bible, that the new Kingdom will better than any civilization has ever been on Earth. We can only hope to be deemed worthy enough to gain entrance.

Anyone who believes in God, Our Father, also believes what is written in the Bible is true, accurate knowledge, and put there as guidelines for us to follow -- so that we may earn the right to be given entrance to the new Kingdom. Those that choose not believe in God, Our Father, and the teachings written in the Bible do not have to worry either. Their life on Earth will end and that will be it.

That's the beauty of Freedom.

Tim Greer

04-23-2002, 03:25 AM

<insert thumbs up>

It this sums it up in regards to my belief, I personally think that the most important knowledge anyone can obtain in their entire life, is the word of God and the Holy Bible. That would probably sound seriously dellusional to people that didn't believe, but I'm happy to see that most people here that might not or aren't sure, aren't the type to ridicule me for such a statement and that is a small thing that makes me feel good to know.

Lawrence

04-23-2002, 04:32 AM

I don't think faith is enough. Many people seem snug thinking that because they believe in God, they will be saved. I don't think it's about believing in God, but walking with God, and I also think you needn't believe in order to walk with God (metaphorical interpretation required ;) ).

In answer to the question, I'm fairly indifferent as to whether there is a god. Besides acknowledging the possibility, I don't think it matters. Life is almost like an exam - stop looking at the examiner, she's not allowed to help you, just get the work done!

But also, I think any human perception of God, even with faith, would be so flawed that it could be dangerous. To do good for the sake of a God who you cannot really understand almost makes your intentions suspicious. It needs to be a self realisation to be true, not something you've been told to do. And those who do good so that they can "go to heaven", really have a selfish view of life from the outset. I think the best you can do is to do good for the sake of others, which is along the lines of something Jesus says - "Love your neighbour as yourself".

It's about doing good, without needing a reason why. Yoda had something to say about that *digging through Star Wars videos*.

rey

04-23-2002, 07:47 AM

Hi Nelix,
1. What type of being is god if he feels the need to create a world full of ppl just to worship him??? He is God. The beginning and the end. The all-powerful, the all-knowledge, and the creator God. We will not understand Him completely, because He is outside our comprehension. If we have numbers from - billions to + billions, His number is from - infinite to + infinite. What He gave us is the knowloedge to know Him as far as the Bible tell us.
2. Who created god??? Noone. God is the cause of everything. He was never created. He exists from eternity to eternity.
. How can people take god seriously if they go around deliberatley commiting sins over and over again??? These people don't take God seriously, because they don't know who God is. Imagine if in the war, you took a bullet for me and saved me. I owe my life to you, and I will give you everything in my power, because you saved me. God is in the business of saving people from their own sin, and it is by repentance. We may not able to be completely sinless, because we are weak and are still in the flesh, but deliberately sinning the same sin over and over again is not the fruit of the repentance and faith in Jesus. You'll know the tree by its fruit.
4. What makes "God" the true god and not buddha the real god etc.??? Buddha was a human, a creation and a mortal. God is the creator, immortal being. Both are totally different, and Buddha was never a god. He was just a man, like you and me :)

Coder

04-23-2002, 09:06 AM

I'm not sure I believe or not, having read some interesting pro god posts here I was being swayed one way, and then reading pro-evolution posts swayed me the other way.

I was brought up as a roman catholic, but I do not follow that religion or any religion anymore.
What gives a priest/bishop/pope the right to tell others how to lead their lives ? They are all just men like me.

And if you believe in jesus the son of god, who was born and brought up as a jew, how can any other religion be the right one ? I mean if god chose Mary who was a jew as the mother of the son of god, doesn't that mean that the Jew's are right and all other religions are wrong ?

To those that believe in god, do you also then believe in the devil and heaven and hell and jesus christ and anti-christ ?

I think we today are more willing to question things, and one of the biggest things to question, are why was I born, why am I on earth, who made me.

It's a fact that the human race has evolved, even over the last 2000 years, does that not mean that evolution has been proven ?

All roman catholics that sinned all their life, and on their death bed, just confess their sins to a priest and get absolution, die and then go to heaven.
Does that make sense to anyone ?
Wouldn't that mean that 99% of roman catholics believe that no matter what they do they will go to heaven ?

I believe that if you do what you personally think is right, live your life by not doing what you personally think is wrong, then if there is a god and heaven, then you will go there and do that.
If there is no god and heaven, then you will die knowing you lived a decent life.

rey

04-23-2002, 09:25 AM

I mean if god chose Mary who was a jew as the mother of the son of god, doesn't that mean that the Jew's are right and all other religions are wrong ? Christianity is about God saving us. It is an active God who reaches down to earth to save us from our sin through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ. The detail of why Jesus Christ is the son of God can be found in the Bible, and other history artifacts. To those that believe in god, do you also then believe in the devil and heaven and hell and jesus christ and anti-christ ? Yes, I do. I think we today are more willing to question things, and one of the biggest things to question, are why was I born, why am I on earth, who made me. I'm glad you asked, because I was asking the same thing myself. Don't stop asking, and dilligently search for the answer. If you are truly honest to yourself and humble before God, you will find Him. If you want to read from the Bible, I would recommend the book of John. :)It's a fact that the human race has evolved, even over the last 2000 years, does that not mean that evolution has been proven ? It has been proven that since Adam and Eve, Noah, David, and Jesus time which went back to more than 4000 years ago, men were men, women were women, and monkeys were monkeys, even until now.All roman catholics that sinned all their life, and on their death bed, just confess their sins to a priest and get absolution, die and then go to heaven. Not only Roman Catholics, but all have sinned, including you and me. The Bible said "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Believe it or not, it doesn't make sense that if someone was on his death bed, and confess their sins and receive Christ as Savior and Lord, he will go to heaven. What about the sin that he did all his life? According to our standard, he didn't deserve to be saved. But, that's not what the bible said. God's grace is greater than all our sins combined, and that man will be saved, because the gift of salvation is free. That's how bad God wants to save you and win you back from your sin, which shows how much God loves you and committed to you. He gave His only begotten Son, and whosoever believe in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. Jesus came not to condemn the world, but that through Him the world be saved. (John 3:16-17). And frankly, I could never understand how deep and wide the love of God is to us. As God, He could easily wipe us all up and created a new race that is better. But no, He choses to save you and I, because He loves us soooo much. :)I believe that if you do what you personally think is right, live your life by not doing what you personally think is wrong, then if there is a god and heaven, then you will go there and do that. The question is, can you continually do what is right and not do what is wrong? The problem is, we are all sinners and love to do our own way. And our standard fall in comparison with God's standard, even when we are at our best. The problem is that we are hopeless without God. Also, if you can save yourself from your sin, God wouldn't have to send Jesus Christ to save us. :)

God is all about saving you and me, and to bless you, and to live with you. One verse that I really like comes from the book of Jeremiah 29:11-13:

"11 For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord , "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."

[edited for grammar and content]

Rewdog

04-23-2002, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Coder
I was brought up as a roman catholic, but I do not follow that religion or any religion anymore.
What gives a priest/bishop/pope the right to tell others how to lead their lives ? They are all just men like me.

I personally don't agree with catholosism(*Sp, sorry)... but that is a whole nother story.

And if you believe in jesus the son of god, who was born and brought up as a jew, how can any other religion be the right one ? I mean if god chose Mary who was a jew as the mother of the son of god, doesn't that mean that the Jew's are right and all other religions are wrong ?

At this time, there weren't christians. Jesus was the 'King of the Jews'.

To those that believe in god, do you also then believe in the devil and heaven and hell and jesus christ and anti-christ ?

So basically how many people here are christians? ;) . Christianity and believing in a god are 2 different things.
Personally, I believe in heaven and hell, and Jesus Christ and that the anti-christ will come.

It's a fact that the human race has evolved, even over the last 2000 years, does that not mean that evolution has been proven ?

I'd like a website proving that...

All roman catholics that sinned all their life, and on their death bed, just confess their sins to a priest and get absolution, die and then go to heaven.
Does that make sense to anyone ?

Not to me

I believe that if you do what you personally think is right, live your life by not doing what you personally think is wrong, then if there is a god and heaven, then you will go there and do that.
If there is no god and heaven, then you will die knowing you lived a decent life.
So you follow your own standards rather than your creators.. You are taking the place of God? At 5 years old, what you think is right many times isn't right because you are young. Your father or mother tells you that is wrong and that is right. For Christians we have a rule book, the Bible.

EDIT:
Bleh, rey you beat me ;)

rey

04-23-2002, 11:16 AM

Actually, I didn't beat you Rewdog. ;) Here's what I missed:
originally posted by Coder
I was brought up as a roman catholic, but I do not follow that religion or any religion anymore. What gives a priest/bishop/pope the right to tell others how to lead their lives ? They are all just men like me. Coder, you are absolutely correct. They are all just men like us. So, why are they doing what they are doing right now? Here's a little story.

In the early church, bible had not been formed yet, and the books of the bible are only accessible by some (priests), and most of them have to learn the language and history and so on for years before they can even read it. To make the long story short, people had to go to the priest, and that's the only way to know God's word. Some people (like William Tyndale and others) are trying to get the book published to the mass in English, so that everyone can read it. The church did not agree for some reasons, and sentenced William Tyndale with treason. But, before he died, he prayed "Lord, open the King of England's eyes". Two years after that, Henry VII who's known as King James gave orders for the bible to be published using Tyndale's translation, which we called 'King James' version to everyone.

Until now, the priest and the pope are still helping other people to know God while keeping the tradition just like the old church. However, this must be done according to the bible. They should be the helper, and not the governor of your life, because that's not their job. They should help you in such a way so that God is the one who should govern your life directly. You can actually ask God forgiveness directly through prayers as well, because through Jesus, God will see you as His child. :)

Lawrence

04-23-2002, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by rey
Actually, I didn't beat you Rewdog. ;) Here's what I missed:
Coder, you are absolutely correct. They are all just men like us. So, why are they doing what they are doing right now? Here's a little story.

blah blah

Just to add to that with a concrete example, there has been some controversy in fairly recent times over the Sacrament of Reconciliation and its relevance in modern times given this new standing of priests. Some see it as irrelevant, claiming that a priest is not needed for forgiveness. Others see the priest as an essential element, someone to confess to perhaps. In particular, the Third Rite of Reconciliation, where participants don't actually see a priest to confess their sins, but rather do it in reflection during a sort of prayer ceremony (not a Mass, as there is no Eucharist, but very much like it besides that), has drawn a lot of flak from those seeing the priest as an essential element.

Maniac

04-23-2002, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by grandad
Considering all of the good things that you receive from our Creator - it's a good thing that he believes there is a you!

Agreed.

My vote was a Yes because I do believe and know there is only one true God.

richy

04-23-2002, 11:54 AM

one thing that does constantly nag me ,
god gave us free will, yet anything good we do were supposed to give him credit for. this sounds incredibly like work to me ;) not having a go at all im genuinely interested on a truly religous persons view on this subject. but dont we deserve a little more respect and credit for our own actions. i know pride is a sin, but im proud of my achievement, ive worked hard, if it was god that was doing it im thinking he was letting me carry the heavy end, either that or lifes a bit more uphill :) where is religion on this? are we truly autonomous in which case our actions arent gods will and therefore the result of our own intent and therefore at least the majority of the credit should reside with us, or are we automotons inwhich case when someone does something naughty why didnt god stop them, if it wasnt there free will it must have been his? it cant be both ways.

reyner you helped me on a problem a while back. it was incredibly generous of you, and yes i believe it was your faith that possibly helps you have a generous nature, but it was your actions and your personality and i think you should take more credit for your actions. i think theres every chance im missing the point entirely on that one tho and that the big reward at the end of the road is the only one that counts. oh and say hello next time your on aim or something :) i seem to keep missing you.

rey

04-23-2002, 12:03 PM

Hi Richy,

Yeah, I know what you mean :) If I worked hard for this, I should get credit for this. However, since I was asking God to help me out and gave me wisdom to take care of the problem, I feel like cheating if I took the credit myself. So, that's why I said what I said. I'm just a small ordinary guy, but I have a super God! :)

PS: sorry about the aim. My computer crashed and I forgot to reinstall it. I'll see you in AIM sometime (and say hi to Ben for me will you) ;)

Coder

04-23-2002, 12:13 PM

I disagree, whatever I have in this life I got it, not god.

And before you say god gave it to you, well I haven't prayed/gone to mass in so many years.
It's easy for anyone to say well if it wasn't for god you wouldn't have that, but that is impossible to prove, hence it's easy to say it.

As for catholic priests, they do more harm to the community than good, especially the latest scandal.
Now there blaming pedeophile (sp?) priests on their vow of chastity. I would never trust a priest, nun, brother, monk or any other type of religious figure.

Religion causes more problems than it solves.

rey

04-23-2002, 12:21 PM

And before you say god gave it to you, well I haven't prayed/gone to mass in so many years. Well, you don't have to go to mass or prayed and God still give it to you. For example, God gives us air, rain, etc regardless whether you pray or not. And whether you don't believe it, He is still going to give it to you and others for free. :)

richy

04-23-2002, 12:33 PM

i certainly wouldnt stereotype like that. you cant say all catholic priests, they must have 10 of 1000s of them and it only takes one or two to get on the news. its not a good idea to tar everyone with the same brush. it simply isnt true. i dont doubt that the vow of chastity has a lot to do with some of the cases, hormones and feelings etc mixed together dont always produce acceptable answers. the church needs to clean up its act for dealing with things like this thought. it needs to be hard to protect its image. i trust people on my experience of them not because of a type or label. no offense intended but i believe its important to seperate what happened from the institution. ive no reason to defend the church as i dont go. merely as an impartial opinion.

you may be just one person reyner, but your a good one, and you need to now and again give yourself a pat on the back :) god may have given you the answers, you set aside the time to ask. remember free will ;) you may feel you cant claim all the credit but surely some is yours.

jmcmike

04-23-2002, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Coder
I disagree, whatever I have in this life I got it, not god.

And before you say god gave it to you, well I haven't prayed/gone to mass in so many years.
It's easy for anyone to say well if it wasn't for god you wouldn't have that, but that is impossible to prove, hence it's easy to say it.
No, not impossible to prove. All that really needs to be proven is the existance of an all powerful, eternal God. The rest is a given having proved that. So yes, everything you have is granted you by God's sovereign hand. This is true for believers as well as unbelievers.

God is sovereign. This means that all things that transpire in this universe do so by His doing and all is done for His glory. Yes, even the Hitlers of the world obey his will, whether they believe in Him or not.

Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.

If the heart of the king is in God's hand, how much more so than the hearts of you and I?

richy

04-23-2002, 12:53 PM

forgive the ignorance, but that proverb, it is meant to convey the message that god can 'direct' a persons heart i.e. he can influence they emotions \ thoughts. whether they know it or not.

if so, do we have free will or not? or is the truth in the middle? im getting conflicting messages, if hitler obeyed his will, why did god not stop him, was it cruel to be kind time? that we need to learn the repecussions of our own actions? or does god only get credit for positive things?

Lawrence

04-23-2002, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by jmcmike

God is sovereign. This means that all things that transpire in this universe do so by His doing and all is done for His glory. Yes, even the Hitlers of the world obey his will, whether they believe in Him or not.

No human obeys the will of God unless they choose to. That is what the gift of free will is about. So no, not everything transpires in this universe directly by his glory, as if it did, there would be no free will. The Hitlers of this world do not necessarily obey his will.

(not that I devoutly believe in all this, but I know what the teachings are)

Rewdog

04-23-2002, 01:08 PM

God knows the future of what the free will creatures choose. Free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen. For example, A father might know his child will choose to eat chocolate cake over cauliflower. If the father were to set them both before his child and turn to his wife and say, "We know which one she will choose, don't we?", this is not taking away the freedom of the child. Likewise, for God to know what a person will choose does not mean that the person has no freedom to make the choice. It simply means that God knows what the person will choose. This is necessarily so since God knows all things.

richy

04-23-2002, 02:02 PM

thanks for the reply. its very interesting to share views and finally get answers on some things.
so god knows in advance what everyone will do, but this is totally seperate from having an affect on what they will do, its our free will and our mental makeup that actually decided which way to choose. does this mean the future is set in gods eyes, i.e. a fixed path, or just that he knows what we will do in any given eventuality?

Rewdog

04-23-2002, 02:11 PM

Well since we have free will, I don't think it makes sense to be puppets of God's whole plan. He does know what will happen.

rey

04-23-2002, 02:54 PM

does this mean the future is set in gods eyes, i.e. a fixed path, or just that he knows what we will do in any given eventuality? Wow .. this is a tough question. I think it wouldn't be a problem at all for God if He wants to know what we will do in any given time. Is it predestined? Some are, and some are not. For example, there are something that for sure will be done (like death, judgment, heaven and hell), but there are something that God gives for us to choose.

Edit: Rewdog, you beat me :)

richy

04-23-2002, 03:03 PM

thanks :) you missed off taxes btw from the things that are certain ;) i suppose we havent to be given choices otherwise we couldnt be judged on them.

Shyne

05-10-2002, 01:16 AM

Why do you feel the exsitence of god should be present? I don't believe in god.

Bible is another person's opinion. So far no one said who created the bible. It's not god for sure.

If evolution never happened then that means history never happened. From 200 years ago to present day, people DID evovle. Are you dying that?

Why do people think there is a god like structure in society?
Why can't power be distributed?

grandad

05-10-2002, 03:09 AM

Just because you do not believe does not make believers wrong. A question - have you ever examined and studied the Bible to see whether or not it contains evidence of God as our Creator and the author of the Bible?

Most people who challenge the Bible have never even taken the step of examining it thoroughly for evidence, they just elevate themselves above God and say "I don't believe" as though they in their puny life have all the knowledge of the universe, creation and the existence of man. The Bible refers to men as "dust on the scales" ...and... "a mist, here today and gone tomorrow". In this universe and in God's context of things that's what we are like at present, dust on the scales when the grocer weighs out the potatoes - of little significance or use, and yet we make such grand statements as to whether or not God exists!

In due time we will all find out, some to their dismay and others to their joy but in the meantime a little more respect would be a worthwhile gesture in anticipation of meeting our Maker.

Tim Greer

05-10-2002, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Shyne
Why do you feel the exsitence of god should be present?

I don't think of it as a "feeling".

I don't believe in god.

Okay.

Bible is another person's opinion.

The bible exists. I have one.

So far no one said who created the bible.

Firstly, what bible are you talking about? There's a lot of faiths and a lot of versions and a lot of confusion. It depends on what you mean by that question. A publisher printed this one, which was a by-product of deforestation. As for who wrote it down and why, read it and it will tell you.

It's not god for sure.

It's God's word, God's message, he didn't put the ink on the pages of my bible though, no.

If evolution never happened then that means history never happened.

Evolution is not an argument against God's existence anyway. History and evolution are also not the same thing. History (things, events) can still happen, and even be significant, that doesn't mean evolution is involved. Some things have evolved, yes. There's lizards that live deep down in caves 1/4 of a mile beneath the surface of the earth, whom have evolved to not have eyes -- since it's so dark, they don't need them. They are also pure white, since there's no light to make them have any need to hide. What does evolution have to do with history? Did things evolve throughout history? Yes, definitely. Did people? We simply don't know. There's no evidence to really support a major evolving from sea amoebas to fish-like creatures, to fish with legs, to small varmints, on up to monkeys and apes, and then to humans. We see there's prehistoric humans that have different bone structures, whom were larger, stronger and hairier to deal with the environment -- early man. So? Yes, over millions of years, humans appear to have evolved -- from a different and very similar type of human model.

If you study any science dealing with DNA sequences and whatnot, you will know that monkeys and apes have a completely different model than humans, and we are not based from them. Leopards aren't assumed to come from evolved frogs, it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous to just assume we have evolved from moneys and apes and smaller, stranger creatures. There's no "in-between" unearthed skeletons that would support any stage of Darwin's theory, for example. So, while we *might* have evolved from "cavemen" (since we still don't know that Neanderthals weren't just a different "type" of people (this is a heavily debated subject), we can't even say we came from them), we can't go on that theory either. Even if we did, there's not a big difference and that doesn't support evolving in stages like Darwin suggested.

From 200 years ago to present day, people DID evovle.

Oh? What has happened? Explain how have we evolved? Do we have fewer or more digits? I still see five fingers and five toes, two eyes, one nose, hair, two ears, two legs, two arms, two hands, and so on. How have we evolved in the last 200 years? Did you mean 2,000? If so, how have we evolved in the last 2,000 years? Did you mean 2 million? If so, are you saying we definitely did evolve from Neanderthals? How do we know this, when it's debated that they might very well have just been a different people.

Are you dying that?

I must be missing something, as I don't understand this part.

Why do people think there is a god like structure in society?

I must be missing something, as I don't understand this part.

Why can't power be distributed?

I must be missing something, as I don't understand this part. This seems rather irrelevant.

Lawrence

05-10-2002, 05:13 AM

No Tim, you're completely wrong. Bible's aren't the product of deforestation, as they're printed on rice paper. :D

Seriously, I think the average height of humans has become slowly taller over the last few hundred years. Life expectancy has also increase dramatically. Both tend to be caused by diet and health issues, but that's what evolution is about - adaptation to a changing environment. So even just in the last 200 years you can see evolution at work.

I'm fairly certain that there's solid scientific evidence now that we've evolved from other primates. But as for before that, there's a rather wide gap, I agree. So there's no solid evidence that we evolved from the first walking fish. But by a sort of induction argument, it seems quite plausible to me.

Incidentally, I have heard some [completely indecisive] evidence of humans evolving from fish. Apparently at one stage in development, a human faetus has what appears to be primitive gills. Not working gills like a fish, of course, but just something that looks like the slits of gills. But I don't remember any more about it, and it could just be nonsense. I remember it was in a documentary I was watching.

Anyway, evolution is much more believable when you don't think of a tiny bacterium morphing into a human being, but rather a primitive strand of DNA that changes. Genes from the strand are modified, removed, added, and the strand made longer, all in a random fashion. So each time a life form reproduces, its offspring have the same DNA, but just with some slight modifications for mother nature to test. As life reproduces, these strands are tried and re-developed over and over. What works remains, and what doesn't, dies off (which is, of course, the idea of natural selection - what works survives to reproduce, what doesn't dies before it can; or more importantly, the lifeforms with the superior modifications tend to have higher survival rates, and so get to reproduce more, cementing the changes into the gene line).

So you get these DNA strands that are just slowly, over millions of years, coding up slightly superior life forms at each step of the way. So they work their way from encoding a bacterium to encoding a fish, then onto mammals, primates and finally humans. Obviously, it takes an incredibly long time. But when you think that humans have been around for 2 million years tops (I believe Homo Erectus was around from 1.6 million to 500,000 years ago), and the earth has been here for several billion years, it's mind blowing to think what has happened in that time. As the analogy usually is, if you compressed the whole history of the earth into a single year, humans wouldn't appear until about 11:59 PM on 31 December.

richy

05-10-2002, 07:05 AM

humans have evolved a great deal in the past 200 years, not so much in the physical sense but mentally and socially. social and intellectual evolution isjust as valid as physical. evolution occurs at random but is sustained thru need. i.e. peopl may be born with extra digits, as they are, but unless an extra digit confers anevolutionary advantage that trait wont become predominant. these days anextra digit doesnt help, a few extra braincells does. our way of living does. society evolves, we are society, urgo we evolve. darwins theory doesnt stop with how tall i am, it is just as valid for ideas and intellectual capacity as it is for how many fingers i have.

monkeys and apes in the form they take today do not have identicle dns to humans, (btw you share 70% of your dna with a bananna so thats how appropriate stats like that are), this is due to the way evolution works. you get convergant and divergant evolution. for convergant evolution you have species A and B and they interbreed and you get species C , species A & B generally disappear. their niche in the environment has gone, species C became the uber species in their niche, it had an evolutionary advantage or it wouldnt have become dominant. its rare for a newtrait to form a species and for it not to affect the old one\s.
divergant evolution is where a species generates a trait and the new trait is large enough to affect the animal so much it seperates as a species , so you get a forming b & c. humans didnt evolve from apes as we know them today. humans and apes formed from a different species of 'proto ape' hence yes the proof genetically doesnt exist because the species we both evolved from doesnt exist more.

re humans and gills, theres a hole in the heart in the foetal stages that allows us to 'breath' oxygenated blood. imnot familiar with the exact details as its been a long time since i ever looked at this but its not strong enough evidence to suggest a link to fish relatively near in our evolution. maybe a long long long way back.

as for the bible, in the christian sense it is the word of god, written and translated over time by many men. the new testement for a great part lays out the acts of jesus by his disciples, ok its not an auto biography but its a biography all the same. jesus is in effect god, the new testement contains his words transcribed by others therefore the bible is the word of god.

Tim Greer

05-10-2002, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Lawrence

Seriously, I think the average height of humans has become slowly taller over the last few hundred years. Life expectancy has also increase dramatically.

There are no people alive now, that are generally taller than people were 200 years ago... not that I'm aware of from any studies. The fact is, people were tall then too, and there's a lot more of us now. I don't see any signifant increase in height due to any studies performed. Can you document this, please?

As for life expectancy, that has no relevance to evolution, but simply diet, as you stated, and the ease of life. I'm not saying that we haven't changed in some way, but physically evolved. People are always learning, improving and whatnot, and that might be somewhat relevant, sure, but not in regards to history, evolution and any belief in God, compared to ruling out God by evolutionary equations. I'm simply saying, by your post and the other poster, those do not apply to this topic to support any reasonable or relevant debate against the existance of God. Not that things don't evolve, or people don't, either physically, socially, intellectually and so on. Again, it's irrelevant, and what I stated I stand by, in regards to this aspect of it supporting the existance of God one way or another. I hope that makes more clear in regards to my response.

Tim Greer

05-10-2002, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by richy
humans have evolved a great deal in the past 200 years, not so much in the physical sense but mentally and socially.

I agree, I never disputed this. I am speaking in terms of evolutionary reasonability to disprove or prove another issue that people bring up in regards to God's existance.

social and intellectual evolution isjust as valid as physical.

Not in regards to this discussion, it's not.

[SNIP]

society evolves, we are society, urgo we evolve. darwins theory doesnt stop with how tall i am, it is just as valid for ideas and intellectual capacity as it is for how many fingers i have.

There's no denying that society and so much more, can result in the evironment chaning enough, via medical, home life or whatever else, to result in slow, minor evolution of the body and/or mind. However, in regards to this subject, this isn't a relevant issue to debate, even if it is interesting.

monkeys and apes in the form they take today do not have identicle dns to humans, (btw you share 70% of your dna with a bananna so thats how appropriate stats like that are), this is due to the way evolution works.

You can relate animals (that have evolved) in the DNA to family tree. This does not support the money/ape -> human debate.

[SNIP]

Then we can argue that anything evolved from anything, since anything can be "removed" or "added". We are all of the same basic elements, sure, but that alone doesn't support that we all evolved from something else. We can only simply speculate, there's no solid or strong evidence to support this.

As for the bible, depending on what one, what faith, the accuracy, the translation, the research, etc., it would simply need to be read and studied to understand what it's saying, why, who wrote what, and so on. There's too much to that aspect alone, to try and explain or sum up, I think. It tells you how and why it's written, the meaning, the lessons, the [fill in the blanks].

grandad

05-10-2002, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by richy
humans have evolved a great deal in the past 200 years, not so much in the physical sense but mentally and socially. social and intellectual evolution isjust as valid as physical. evolution occurs at random but is sustained thru need. i.e. peopl may be born with extra digits, as they are, but unless an extra digit confers anevolutionary advantage that trait wont become predominant. these days anextra digit doesnt help, a few extra braincells does. our way of living does. society evolves, we are society, urgo we evolve. darwins theory doesnt stop with how tall i am, it is just as valid for ideas and intellectual capacity as it is for how many fingers i have.

This is NOT evolution as expressed by Darwin's "survival of the fittest" - evolution deals with changing from one "species form" to another, not merely changes like social changes.

monkeys and apes in the form they take today do not have identicle dns to humans, (btw you share 70% of your dna with a bananna so thats how appropriate stats like that are), this is due to the way evolution works. you get convergant and divergant evolution. for convergant evolution you have species A and B and they interbreed and you get species C , species A & B generally disappear. their niche in the environment has gone, species C became the uber species in their niche, it had an evolutionary advantage or it wouldnt have become dominant. its rare for a newtrait to form a species and for it not to affect the old one\s.
divergant evolution is where a species generates a trait and the new trait is large enough to affect the animal so much it seperates as a species , so you get a forming b & c. humans didnt evolve from apes as we know them today. humans and apes formed from a different species of 'proto ape' hence yes the proof genetically doesnt exist because the species we both evolved from doesnt exist more.

Please show two species that have mated to produce a 3rd species!

re humans and gills, theres a hole in the heart in the foetal stages that allows us to 'breath' oxygenated blood. imnot familiar with the exact details as its been a long time since i ever looked at this but its not strong enough evidence to suggest a link to fish relatively near in our evolution. maybe a long long long way back.

This is a miraculous factor of creation - when in the womb the foetus derives its "life" directly from the blood circulation - after birth the lungs come into play and the heart does a "switch" to allow the oxygen to come from the lungs (all by chance according to the evolutionists) :rolleyes:

as for the bible, in the christian sense it is the word of god, written and translated over time by many men. the new testement for a great part lays out the acts of jesus by his disciples, ok its not an auto biography but its a biography all the same. jesus is in effect god, the new testement contains his words transcribed by others therefore the bible is the word of god.
The Bible was written by men who were inspired by God - Jesus was not God but God's Son

Lawrence

05-10-2002, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
There are no people alive now, that are generally taller than people were 200 years ago... not that I'm aware of from any studies. The fact is, people were tall then too, and there's a lot more of us now. I don't see any signifant increase in height due to any studies performed. Can you document this, please?

I did try a search about it in Google before I posted the last one, but couldn't find much. All I could find were height changes in Icelanders with colder weather http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html, right at the bottom, some discussion of it above), which is only partly relevant.

But changes based on health and diet do constitute evolution in my books. They're changing environmental factors, and in this case, humans have evolved to take advantage of them. They would fluctuate heavily, however, as diet may not have any permanent effects in a species; for example it may just affect individuals and not their offspring. Perhaps this better health and diet is actually stopping evolution rather than assisting it in the case of humans.

I don't find religion and evolution to be mutually exclusive though, I was raising the point just because it was interesting, and wasn't trying to rule out the existence of a god either. I expressed my opinion on that one earlier on in the thread.

grandad - The Bible was written by men who were inspired by God - Jesus was not God but God's Son

Yes, at least the stance of the Catholic Church is that it's the "Inspired Word of God". But whether you believe Jesus was God, God's son, both or neither depends on your particular Christian denomination (or lack thereof). For example, Catholicism has its teaching of the trinity, where God is the father, son and holy spirit - three in one - so that Christ is God.

grandad

05-10-2002, 08:39 AM

QUOTE:

But whether you believe Jesus was God, God's son, both or neither depends on your particular Christian denomination (or lack thereof). For example, Catholicism has its teaching of the trinity, where God is the father, son and holy spirit - three in one - so that Christ is God.

But who did Jesus say he was???

richy

05-10-2002, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Grandad

Originally posted by richy
humans have evolved a great deal in the past 200 years, not so much in the physical sense but mentally and socially. social and intellectual evolution isjust as valid as physical. evolution occurs at random but is sustained thru need. i.e. peopl may be born with extra digits, as they are, but unless an extra digit confers anevolutionary advantage that trait wont become predominant. these days anextra digit doesnt help, a few extra braincells does. our way of living does. society evolves, we are society, urgo we evolve. darwins theory doesnt stop with how tall i am, it is just as valid for ideas and intellectual capacity as it is for how many fingers i have.

This is NOT evolution as expressed by Darwin's "survival of the fittest" - evolution deals with changing from one "species form" to another, not merely changes like social changes.

evolution is the process of change, not just physical form but also social and intellectual changes. by intellectual changes i mean PHYSICAL changes to the makeup of the brain. darwinian evolution expresses that traits (not just 6 fingers, its just as applicable to intelligence or social actions e.g. democracy) that convey an advantage will become predominant amongst a species. evolution does not just pertain to physical differences. the rate of physical evolution has slowed in our near history. our rate of mental and social evolution has accelerated because it is this form of evolution that conveys the most advantage. if i have a son with 4 arms does this make him better suited for life? if i have a son with an iq of 200 does this make him better suited for life? ask the same questions if i lived in 20000 BC.

Originally posted by Grandad

monkeys and apes in the form they take today do not have identicle dns to humans, (btw you share 70% of your dna with a bananna so thats how appropriate stats like that are), this is due to the way evolution works. you get convergant and divergant evolution. for convergant evolution you have species A and B and they interbreed and you get species C , species A & B generally disappear. their niche in the environment has gone, species C became the uber species in their niche, it had an evolutionary advantage or it wouldnt have become dominant. its rare for a newtrait to form a species and for it not to affect the old one\s.
divergant evolution is where a species generates a trait and the new trait is large enough to affect the animal so much it seperates as a species , so you get a forming b & c. humans didnt evolve from apes as we know them today. humans and apes formed from a different species of 'proto ape' hence yes the proof genetically doesnt exist because the species we both evolved from doesnt exist more.

Please show two species that have mated to produce a 3rd species!

http://geology.wcedu.pima.edu/~jhodnett/Hodnett.html

do a search on convergant evolution.

Originally posted by Grandad

re humans and gills, theres a hole in the heart in the foetal stages that allows us to 'breath' oxygenated blood. imnot familiar with the exact details as its been a long time since i ever looked at this but its not strong enough evidence to suggest a link to fish relatively near in our evolution. maybe a long long long way back.

This is a miraculous factor of creation - when in the womb the foetus derives its "life" directly from the blood circulation - after birth the lungs come into play and the heart does a "switch" to allow the oxygen to come from the lungs (all by chance according to the evolutionists)

Thanks, wasnt sure on exactly how that worked, unfortunately i seem to leak memories now and again lol. personally i wasnt making a comment as to whether god existed or not. i dont presume to be in a position where i could possibly know enough to make a decision for definate either way. neither is anybody yet on the planet to be honest.

Originally posted by Grandad

as for the bible, in the christian sense it is the word of god, written and translated over time by many men. the new testement for a great part lays out the acts of jesus by his disciples, ok its not an auto biography but its a biography all the same. jesus is in effect god, the new testement contains his words transcribed by others therefore the bible is the word of god.
The Bible was written by men who were inspired by God - Jesus was not God but God's Son

jesus was gods sun. jesus god and the holy spirit form the holy trinity, all are one and therefore jesus is god, jesus spoke the word of god, the bible is jesus's word, ergo the bible is gods word. my logic may be flawed but thats why im typing it :) if its flawed i welcome a different view.

i do view evolution as important, its important to know exactly what it is and what it encompasses. its being used as an argument to prove \ disprove the existance of god. tim mentioned that evolution hadnt occured, i merely pointed out it had and explained how. the reason i believe it to be valid is as follows. we only have detailed records that matter for modern history, a few thousands years is less then the blink of an eye in terms of physical evolution. 200 years is literally nothing for physical evolution. i personally think physically there will be a change over the next 20000 years. over the next 200 there wont. by social and intellectual evolution is far quicker, esp in the current environment. priorities are changing as to what confers an advantage. you wont see much physical evolution in 200 yrs. you should see social and intellectual evolution.

it depends what you view as strong evidence really. fossil records and maps make for a reasonble argument. we may not have dna evidence to support us evolving from todays apes, thats because we didnt, we both evolved from other species. go back a few million years and take a dna sample from whatever we both evolved from. or even better build a space ships that travels faster then light and fly away from earth and look back with a powerful telescope. youd see earth in the past and be able to view the different species.

theres no definitive proof, there is only evidence and scientists extract the most logical explanation. they also look for similies in current nature that can be applied. bacteria evolve quickly and its possible to see differing types of evolution. you then look at this evidence and transpose it onto a greater picture and look to see if humans and modern apes could have come from common stock.

im not trying to convert anybody here, just discuss :)

edit : jesus said he was the son of god, according to catholacism jesus god and the holy spirit are one.

Lawrence

05-10-2002, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by grandad
But who did Jesus say he was??? [/B]

Well, they punished him enough for saying he was the son of God, let alone if he said he was God! ;)

akashik

05-10-2002, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
So, while we *might* have evolved from "cavemen" (since we still don't know that Neanderthals weren't just a different "type" of people (this is a heavily debated subject), we can't even say we came from them), we can't go on that theory either. Even if we did, there's not a big difference and that doesn't support evolving in stages like Darwin suggested.

Actually Tim, the current thinking on the subject goes along the lines of Neanderthal were living in europe during one of the ice ages, after having migrated north from Africa. While their diets and breeding were restricted due to climatic change their 'brothers' in Africa continues to evolve into Cro-Magnon (taller, thinner, and more adept at learning - and most importantly - weapon making).

We're talking 10's of thousands of years folks - just like the birds on the Galapogas Is. A single species separated by environment.

Anyway, the ice receded, and Cro-Magnon migrated north to meet their now very different looking brethren. Being a more evolved species due to better environment they're reputed to have slaughtered Neanderthal, or at the very least enslaved them. (look at your evening news - we still do this by the way).

The fossil record shows evidence of both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon living at the same time in certain areas of Europe, and coupled with the known movement of the icesheets, it's a fairly well grounded theory, and of recent origin (less than a hundred thousand years ago). Considering dinosaurs were extinct 65 million years back, that time frame is almost yesterday compared to the age of the earth.

Cro-Magnon was virtually the same as us. Beyond a few pyhsical difference, you'd be hard pressed to notice much of a difference if you saw one today (beside not having a fully formed vocal language, and probably trying to beat your skull in with a bone axe)

From there we all migrated across europe and them spread to the US, Asia etc, still evolving as we did (Unuit's and their eye fold to prevent freezing damage to their eyes for example, Pacific Is darker skin to protect their skin from the sun etc)

Oh... we're not evolved from monkeys. Primates, of which we are one, are thought to have evolved from a common ancestor. The classes of Primate have then evolved themselves along different paths into the seperate species we have today.

To use a glib analogy (and not even a very correct one at that), I'll use dogs. All dogs are evolved from wolves, even poodles. You wouldn't call a poodle a wolf by any stretch of the imagination, and breeding poodles with wolves wouldn't produce any offspring as they're unable to breed together due to enough difference in their DNA. However that doesn't disprove the fact that all dogs are evolved from wolves - their common ancestor.

Greg Moore

akashik

05-10-2002, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Lawrence
Apparently at one stage in development, a human faetus has what appears to be primitive gills. Not working gills like a fish, of course, but just something that looks like the slits of gills. But I don't remember any more about it, and it could just be nonsense. I remember it was in a documentary I was watching.

That's entirely correct. In fact a large amount of mammals have that feature in the first period of their development. I have a true story to go along with that too.

A friend of min a few years back noticed a lump in his throat and thought the worst. He went to the doctor and had it looked at. Turns out that the 'gill' on the side of his neck had never completely disappeared. There was a pocket of fluid that had never affected him till it got infected. It turned into a cyst that he had to have cut out. He still bears a scar on his neck from where the doctor had to remove it.

Good thing he has a sense of humor as we nicknamed him 'Aquaman' for a while :)

Greg Moore

dynamicnet

05-10-2002, 11:16 AM

Greetings Granddad:

"Just because you do not believe does not make believers wrong. A question - have you ever examined and studied the Bible to see whether or not it contains evidence of God as our Creator and the author of the Bible?

Most people who challenge the Bible have never even taken the step of examining it thoroughly for evidence"

(This is Peter of our team) I was raised Roman Catholic, went to classes at church, have a high school diploma, went to college, and have a degree.

During the mid to late 1980's I was involved in BBS; though mainly in the technical arenas.

In mid to late 1989 the one BBS I was on started a group of forums from the new life Christian network.

I read through the posts out of curiosity, and almost fell out of my chair immediately.

Word of God this, and Word of God that? Who where these people? They had to be uneducated? Or nuts? Or worse?

They had no clue about what they where talking about, I said to myself. This just isn't right.

So I started to post messages to the forums stating such things as "God is a liar" and "God is a murderer" and the like based on my many-years-past understanding of things.

I didn't read the Bible; why should I? I'm educated after all. Right? These people obviously aren't. So?

"Most people who challenge the Bible have never even taken the step of examining it thoroughly for evidence"

I fit into this category perfectly.

People in the forums offered to send me a Bible, but I figured I didn't need their charity, and could buy my own.

Eventually I did, and ran into the "So and so begat, begat, begat" and got lost.

They suggested starting in the Gospels. I figured it didn't matter where I started. The book was written by mankind. Was it not? At least that is what I thought.

To err is to be human. There has to be errors and contradictions in the Bible. After all it was written by us? Was it not?

As I started reading (now around March / April 1990), I started to ask questions that at least appeared more civilized.

They suggested taking a Bible study course. Where do you find them in the Yellow Pages? I could not find any, and (at the time) I live in the boon docks where they roll up the streets around 7 PM each night.

A gentleman from Maryland (I'm in Berks County, PA) emailed about a Mennonite (Meno what?) pastor who held a Bible study once a week.

I decided to give it a shot. And as I read more I found consistency in the message even though authors and their life experiences varied. I did not find contradictions.

Towards the end of April 1990, it was actually making sense; but I had more questions than answers.

Then Bible study stopped. Hugh? It was planting season. Go figure. The pastor offered to take turns holding the class at his house and mine so I would not be left with a cliff hanger until fall.

And on May 8, 1990 I accepted Jesus as my Lord, Savior, and King of Kings.

Yes, there is a God, one true God.

And I fell into the fast majority of people who believed they were right having never read the Bible or maybe having read it years ago. But never having read it seeking to find out if there is truth or not in it.

As a detailed oriented person who believes an education matters, I didn't stop in my quest but for several years after continued to verify the veracity of the Bible. That way you don't get into the Bible says the Bible says it is right.

And I found an unbelievable amount of archeological and other third party proofs concerning all of the historical statements in the Bible from the existence of the five plains to King Neb. mentioned in the book of Daniel, and so on.

Before I go on, let me just end in stating there are many people who just believe but have no defined definition. There are many people who don't believe. There are many who doubt. I believe the challenge is to just read the Bible with an open mind and heart (I read it with a closed one, but look what happened).

Thank you.

JKLIVIN

05-10-2002, 01:48 PM

yes

grandad

05-10-2002, 03:50 PM

Darwin's Theory of Evolution was summed up by Darwin himself, as follows: “Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

Even Darwin himself knew that the fossil record did not yet support his theory. However, he believed that future years of paleontology would help support his claims. Well, they haven’t. In fact, the fossil record has been an embarrassment to Darwinian evolutionists. It’s just that the adherents to the theory have yet to share this reality with the general public, especially our school kids.

dynamicnet

05-10-2002, 04:41 PM

Greetings grandad:

How much space dust was found on the moon?

What relevance does that have to do with the age of the Earth and the universe?

And how does this and other related issues cause problems if the theory of evolution is to hold any water?

Is there a difference between a scientific law and a theory?

What is the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Has this law ever been by-passed (circumvented)?

What does this law have to do with whether evolution is even possible?

Is Darwin's theory based on the assumption that life was built on levels from simple to complex? That is, the earliest forms of life were simple, and more and more complexity was added as the evolutionary process continued.

If so, what does the invention of the electron microscope and the 2nd law of thermodynamics have to do with the theory of evolution?

Just some thoughts....

Thank you.

dynamicnet

05-10-2002, 05:05 PM

clocker1996

05-10-2002, 07:17 PM

Shyne

05-10-2002, 07:40 PM

Evolution can't disprove the existance of god, however it can disprove some events in the bible. If evolution happened then adam & eve was a false event.

dynamicnet

05-10-2002, 08:45 PM

Greetings:

"Evolution can't disprove the existance of god, however it can disprove some events in the bible. If evolution happened then adam & eve was a false event."

It takes more faith to believe in evolution given the facts than it does to believe in God or the Bible being the Word of God <smile>.

How much space dust was found on the moon?

What relevance does that have to do with the age of the Earth and the universe?

And how does this and other related issues cause problems if the theory of evolution is to hold any water?

Is there a difference between a scientific law and a theory?

What is the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Has this law ever been by-passed (circumvented)?

What does this law have to do with whether evolution is even possible?

Is Darwin's theory based on the assumption that life was built on levels from simple to complex? That is, the earliest forms of life were simple, and more and more complexity was added as the evolutionary process continued.

If so, what does the invention of the electron microscope and the 2nd law of thermodynamics have to do with the theory of evolution?

Just some thoughts....

Lawrence

05-10-2002, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by dynamicnet
How much space dust was found on the moon?

What relevance does that have to do with the age of the Earth and the universe?

And how does this and other related issues cause problems if the theory of evolution is to hold any water?

Is there a difference between a scientific law and a theory?

What is the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Has this law ever been by-passed (circumvented)?

What does this law have to do with whether evolution is even possible?

Is Darwin's theory based on the assumption that life was built on levels from simple to complex? That is, the earliest forms of life were simple, and more and more complexity was added as the evolutionary process continued.

If so, what does the invention of the electron microscope and the 2nd law of thermodynamics have to do with the theory of evolution?

Just some thoughts....

I'll have to express some ignorance here and admit to having no idea what you're getting at... care to explain?

But, as has been reiterated throughout this thread, lack of sufficient evidence to prove a theory does not disprove that theory. It is as hard to refute evolution as it is to refute creationism.

But in the case of evolution, there is also *some* scientific evidence to support it, whereas in the case of creationism there is *none*. Creationism is a belief, and by that nature is not founded on hard evidence. Also by that nature, it need not be.

I do think, however, that to conclude the existence of a God due to the lack of another explanation is flawed. At the same time, I realise that the faith of many comes from within, and is not based on that. I once had a strong faith too, you see, but it has since gone.

Rewdog

05-11-2002, 12:46 AM

Creation seems much more logical to me than having evolved from a small cell by chance... I mean look at the complexities in the human eye.. that happened by chance?

Lawrence

05-11-2002, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Rewdog
Creation seems much more logical to me than having evolved from a small cell by chance... I mean look at the complexities in the human eye.. that happened by chance?

Well the idea of evolution would be that there were billions upon billions of different eyes that were tried out, from simple to complex, and over millions of years, but only the best of them survived to this day. So the design of the eye came up by chance, but its survival did not. As I mentioned above, it's easier to contemplate if you think of a DNA strand. It's hard to describe an eye in detail, but if you think of the DNA code, which can be represented discretely, it makes more sense.

An excellent analogy is in software. When looking at a piece of software, most users can't fathom how it works. To a programmer though, who understands how it is constructed from a programming language, it makes perfect sense. Also, for a programmer to add extra features to the software is a breeze. What evolution is doing is randomly adding code to a program and then testing to see if the new code works. It takes many attempts seeing as this is all random, of course, but eventually it comes up with working combinations.

I just thought of an example that's relevant today - antibiotic resistance. You have a group of millions of bacteria, which you then attempt to kill off with antibiotics. A small percentage, perhaps 0.1%, have a trait that makes them immune to the antibiotics. The bacteria with this trait survive the antibiotic attack, whereas all others die. These surviving bacteria are then left to multiply, and as their gene code is passed down to their offspring, they have the same immunity to the antibiotics as their "parent". So the strong ones survive to pass on their superior traits, whereas the weak ones die off.

Relevant today is that because the same antibiotics have been in use for decades, there are increasing numbers of bacteria populations that have evolved in this fashion to be immune to particular antibiotics.

I do appreciate that others find creation more logical then evolution though. I can understand that, so don't get me wrong.

Tim Greer

05-11-2002, 01:32 AM

There are people that believe that trying to fight off diseases with drugs and antibiotics, are interfering with our evolution, in regards to not evolving to be immune to them and what might come next. They might be onto something. Just a thought, we can really go into a lot of theories and ideas and whatnot, but I don't really have the time. Interesting topics though. :-) It's interesting to see what threads people will click on.

grandad

05-11-2002, 12:52 PM

I give up - WHT is broke!

phpjames

05-11-2002, 12:58 PM

Do you believe there is a God?

No! There is no god. Rewdog was allowed to live after birth. :)

Lamont

05-11-2002, 01:25 PM

This has been an interesting discussion and I commend Rewdog for bringing it up. There have been some interesting points made and none of the vicious attacks that are usually associated with things that touch a tender nerve. So, into the mix, I would like to add my thoughts.

I believe in God as a loving father. Every bit a real as the father I have in this mortal life. To me, the family is the basic unit around which all things are built. Most who believe in God often refer to Him as “Father”. Which signifies a family relationship and also leaves open the concept of there also being a “Mother”. I believe this life is no more than a blip on the timeline of our existence. Extremely short yet, extremely important. An analogy would be in our own lives. We are born to parents who love us (hopefully) and as we grow and progress at home we get to a point where we have to go out and prove ourselves on our own. In many cases this would be college. We are, possibly for the first time, on our own to put to the test the things we have learned about what it means to be a responsible part of the larger family. Some do better than others and some fall flat on their face. Regardless of how you were raised, only you are responsible for your actions at this point. If all goes well, you marry and have a family of you own. You honor your parents by becoming a good parent yourself and teaching your children the correct principles to live by. The cycle continues.

I believe this is also how it works on the eternal timeline. We are born to good Parents who raise us to be like Them. The time comes when we need to put to the test what we have learned so we head off to College Earth. We bring with us only the capacity to learn and grow with no memory of what was before. Our personality remains the same because that is the essence of who we are and how well we had learned our lessons before coming here. The goal of this life is not to ‘survive’ but, to live. What is important is not the physical aspects (pain, suffering, happiness, etc) but, what we learn from these experiences. We are here to improve the spirit, not the body. We honor our heavenly Parents by living a life worthy of the way we were raised. When the final exam comes and we return home it is not to stay there. We have matured and it is time to start our own eternal families. We honor our Parents by becoming like Them and raising our children to be like Them. My parents here find no greater praise and worship than that found in the eyes of their grandchildren.

The cycle continues.

Abu Mami

05-11-2002, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Shyne
If evolution happened then adam & eve was a false event. Why do say that? Where is the conflict. I'm an observant Jew (what's usually referred to as orthodox) and I have no problem with evolution. According to the bible, the sun was only created on the fourth day. So what happened before then. How long was a day before the sun was created? How long was a day after the sun was created? Not only that, but Genesis (Brei**** in Hebrew) narrates God's creation of the world. What world? One could say that there were worlds that preceded the current one, and there could very well be worlds that follow this one.

We are mere humans. We can only TRY to understand God's creation. There are those who make "good" attempts. Scientists such as Newton, Einstein, and Pasteur; Philophers and theologians such as Aristotle, Maimonides, Buber, Kant, and Kafka; all of these individuals help shed a little light on God's creation. But will we ever really know the "truth". We THINK they made good attempts - maybe they were really off course.

The bible was written by God for man. Since the bible is for man, it had to be written in a language that man understands. There's a lot that God had to leave out because we just wouldn't understand it. Let's face it - there's a lot that we don't understand, and that we never will.

We just don't know. Anyhow who says they know the "truth" is either misinformed or lying. How can they know the truth? One man's truth is another mans myth. We all interpret things in our own way.

jasonX

05-11-2002, 03:36 PM

grandad

05-11-2002, 03:38 PM

Quote:

"Anyhow who says they know the "truth" is either misinformed or lying"

"So Jesus said to the Jews who believed in him, "If you are faithful to what I have said, you are truly my disciples. And you will know the truth and the truth will set you free!"

(NT in Modern English)

Question - was Jesus misinforming or lying? and those early disciples who professed the truth and gave their lives for it, were they misinformed or lying?

grandad

05-11-2002, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by jasonX
cane made it with a monkey. thats how evolution came about. plain and simple.

You'd think so judging by some postings like this.

bakura82

05-11-2002, 05:40 PM

Yes.

richy

05-11-2002, 08:06 PM

heheh nice comeback grandad.
but as regards evolution etc, go have a look at super bugs, the anti biotic resistant strains. thats evolution at work on a timescale we can comprehend.
as regards fossils not being sound evidence, unfortunately you cant rely on every animal you want to study to get sozzled on cavemans best bitter and fall in the tar pit. the records incomplete, the important thing is it doesnt disprove anything and what information it does supply supports evolution more then not. i guess evolution could be thought of as a viewpoint just like religion. i dont see that one totally precludes the other.

either way its all interesting.

Website Rob

05-11-2002, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by grandad
[b]Quote:

"Anyhow who says they know the "truth" is either misinformed or lying"
Grandad, not sure where that came from, but anyone reading it knows it is utterly false.

By definition, in order to read that quote at this Forum; one has to have a working computer, an Internet connection, acccess to this forum, etc. If all of that was not "true" how does one explain reading that quote? ;)

Maybe you were using it to direct thoughts to another matter, I'm not sure. It's just that in reading that quote I couldn't help but laugh at the absurdity of it.

Anything man-made is flawed.

   -That is a Truth, not a fact.

What most people don't realize or think about, is that the Truth never changes. Facts do, but they are only man-made observations that have held up for "X" amount of time. Some think "facts" are the same as Truth which is where a lot of confusion comes in -- such as answers to the question this thread is based upon.

The Bible speaks the Truth, even if, at times, somewhat hard to interpet or understand. That is why Our Saviour Jesus Christ, spoke of important matters in parables. It was easier to give people the "gist" of the Truth he was to pass on to us. I still find myself referring a lot to those parables -- because they are the Truth -- which still apply today.

Lawrence

05-12-2002, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by Website Rob
That is why Our Saviour Jesus Christ, spoke of important matters in parables. It was easier to give people the "gist" of the Truth he was to pass on to us.

Not only that, but parables such as those are so full of symbolism that they leave a great deal of interpretation to the reader. People tend to interpret such symbols in a way that is closely relevant to themselves, giving the parables a great sense of profoundness.

grandad

05-12-2002, 03:19 AM

"At this the disciples approached him and asked, 'Why do you talk to them in parables?' (Matthew 13:10 - concerning the parable of the sower.)

"... This is why I speak to them in these parables:because they go through life with their eyes open, but see nothing, and with their ears open, but understand nothing of what they hear. They are the living fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy which says:
'You will hear and hear but never understand; you will look and look, but never see. For this people has grown gross at heart; their eyes are dull, and their eyes are closed. Otherwise their eyes might see, their ears might hear, and their heart understand, and then they might turn again, and I would heal them." (Matthew 13:13-15)

Parables were not used to picture something unexplainable, open to anyone's interpretation, but as Jesus said above, to make people think and demonstrate their desire to understand his teachings. The disciples listened to him and questioned him about his parables and they learned and benefited from them, others just walked off and forgot them, never bothering to think further about them, to their own loss.

Jesus also used illustrations as teaching aids to help his listeners get the sense of his teaching, for example to fishermen he spoke illustrations involving fishing; to farmers, farming illustrations etc. This is what made his teaching so memorable to his listeners (..a picture paints a thousand words etc..).

But NEVER did Jesus use parables or illustrations for something to say because it was otherwise impossible for people to understand. He did however make prophetic statements which were not at that time understood by his followers but he told them that they "would receive holy spirt" and then they would recall his words and understand them (not interpret them individually) - sure enough at Pentecost 33 CE they did receive holy spirit and they then went spiritually from strength to strength unitedly explaining the same "truth" to people everywhere.

On the matter of microbiology...

"Microbes" becoming resistant to antibiotics, etc etc does not establish evolution - they remain microbes and will never become fish, animals or humans. It is as the bible recorded in the Book of Genesis "And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that it was very good". (Genesis 1:25)

dynamicnet

05-12-2002, 09:47 AM

Greetings Lawrence:

Evolutionists expected to find at leat 10 feet of space dust on the moon to add proof the world in their view being millions of years old and the galaxy older.

However, the lunar module and team found only a fraction of an inch of dust on the moon's surface.

What does this mean? By the dust found, the Earth and moon are less than 10,000 years old.

To answer the other questions.

A scientific law has been established as fact. It is accepted as fact by everyone. Such as the Law of Gravity.

A theory is an observation. It may contain interspersed facts, but is not proven and is not a scientific law.

Furthermore, not all theories involve direct observation such as the theory of evolution.

What is the 2nd law of thermodynamics (remember a law is proven fact)?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life.

It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust.

Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law.

The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.

What does this law (proven scientific fact) have to do with the theory of evolution?

Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.

Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.

However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite.

In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics has never been by-passed (circumvented).

What does the invention of the electron microscope in the 1950's have to do with the theory of evolution?

But since the invention of electron microscopes in the 1950s, we have been able to look into the cell and see that this assumption, which is fundamental to evolution, is incorrect.

A single simple cell contains as much data as all the individual letters in the world's largest library—that's about a trillion bits of information.

Lastly, some one mentioned virus issues with strains "mutating." It must be noted there is a gigantic difference from a mutation to an evolution of a species.

Thank you.

Tim Greer

05-12-2002, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by dynamicnet
Greetings Lawrence:

[SNIP]

What does this mean? By the dust found, the Earth and moon are less than 10,000 years old.

The Earth is far older than 10,000 years old. We have a lot of evidence to prove this. Did you make a typo?

A theory is an observation. It may contain interspersed facts, but is not proven and is not a scientific law.

True.

Furthermore, not all theories involve direct observation such as the theory of evolution.

True.

Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.

Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.

I agree with this, and I don't believe that there's any evidence of humans, or anything they evolved from, having been around for a long enough period to have evolved from such a degree, to such a degree.

In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.

I'm agreeing here again, but I'm not making an effort to just reflect exactly what you stated, though (even though I agree). I'd just think that if we were going to evolve to be more suited for the environment, you can probably bet that we would not be built anything like we are now.

Lastly, some one mentioned virus issues with strains "mutating." It must be noted there is a gigantic difference from a mutation to an evolution of a species.

Exactly. I agree with this as well. We're talking about something completely different. And, furthermore, in regards to any debate that can be posed as supporting anything to refute God and support evolution in it's place, just doesn't fit. Things do and have evolved, but not in regards to the aspects of this discussion (although I guess this thread has inevitably gone off into another subject by now), and people have certainly learned more, changed socially and intellectually, and even evironmentally, but I just don't see the relevance to this thread in regards to those statements.

richy

05-12-2002, 10:30 AM

ok i think my point must ave got a little lost in the fog.
evolution, should it have happened, has occured over hundreds of millions of years. it isnt possible to verify it completely due to the nature of the evidence required. so you look to the short term, a virus mutating to form a new virus is short term evolution. one species forming another. i was trying to present an example of evolution thats in a timescale we can comprehend. it may not be as grand as a few amino acids ending up as a human but that took a little longer then 50 years. the gigantic difference is in what can be achieved in the timescale you look at. rome wasnt built in a day, neither were humans. nuff sed.
thats as short n sweet as i can put it :)

as for entropy, totally agree, the 2nd rule in incontravertable.

dynamicnet

05-12-2002, 10:37 AM

Greetings Tim_Greer:

There was no typo.

Evolutionists expected to find a minimum of 10 inches of space dust on the moon to correspond with their theory of a very old Earth.

Instead, they found less than a quarter of an inch. Whose measurement corresponds to an Earth that is less than 10,000 years old.

Thank you.

dynamicnet

05-12-2002, 10:38 AM

Greetings:

1. The 2nd law of thermodynamics (an actual law of science as opposed to a theory) has never been circumvented.

2. Mutation is not evolution. They are separate words, and have different meanings.

Thank you.

dynamicnet

05-12-2002, 10:40 AM

Greetings:

Another issue with mutations vs. evolution:

Scientists have seen bacteria exchange genetic material. They have seen bacteria become antibiotic resistant. They have seen bacteria become bigger from mutations.

But have they ever seen bacteria become anything other than bacteria?

No.

Have they ever seen one type of bacteria, such as E.coli, become some other type of bacteria that is not (in this case) E.coli?

No

In fact, with over a hundred years of work with E.coli behind us, (at 20 minutes per generation time, that's over 2.5 million generations of E.coli minimum that have been witnessed), and despite forcing or encouraging mutations, they still cannot get anything but E.coli.

Thank you.

grandad

05-12-2002, 10:49 AM

Quote:
"a virus mutating to form a new virus is short term evolution. one species forming another"

A virus does not change into another virus (even if it did it would not be evolution) it merely mutates its form within its species. To truly provide evidence of evolution we must find a change from one species to another. Such an example does not exist.

It seems that some people think of mutation of species as evolution, but this does not constitute evolution as expressed by Darwin. The common teaching of evolution contends that man "evolved" from the lower species, however that was not so.

It is as stated in my previous posting - God created each according to its kind THEN the account tells us "God said 'Let us make man in our image'". So man was created, a distinct entity in the image of God (unlike the animal creation). Man was the culmination of Gods creation on the earth and rather than being from the animals was "given dominion over the animals", i.e. assigned to lookafter them.

The explanation is basically so simple - it doesn't require any theory - however it does require a belief in God!

Tim Greer

05-12-2002, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by dynamicnet
Greetings Tim_Greer:

There was no typo.

Evolutionists expected to find a minimum of 10 inches of space dust on the moon to correspond with their theory of a very old Earth.

Instead, they found less than a quarter of an inch. Whose measurement corresponds to an Earth that is less than 10,000 years old.

Thank you.

The moon is not the Earth.

The moon is not the Earth.

The moon is not the Earth.

The moon is not the Earth.

Also, the moon is not the Earth.

I've never heard of this finding that says the moon is less than 10,000 years old, let alone the Earth. Please document this, as I find this next to impossible to believe. (Although carbon dating isn't entirely accurate, we know it's accurate enough to at least know that fossils we unearth are _millions_ of years old, sedement layers in the Earth's sufrace, erosion, uh, human remains we have found, are older than that, aren't they? Cave paintings.. again, dinosaurs, and so much more.

Ahmad

05-12-2002, 11:16 AM

I do believe in God, the one and only.

The realation between God and nature is that God made nature, and based on that by his wisdom (not by chance) he placed certain materials together to form the complex and smart creatures on earth.

* God:

Two proofs why God exist:

1) The existance of the universe. We know that the universe exists and that we are part of it, but who created the universe?

Lets assume that the universe was made by something, nature for example, then who created nature? And so on.

The explanation to this is that there must be one original creator that existed since an infinite time. He was never created, and he doesn't have a point of start.

2) The maintainance of the universe.

We know that there are four foces in nature: mass attraction, electric, strong nuclear, weak nuclear.

Even if we say that these forces together with the materials in earth did get together and these advanced creatures were made by chance then what does make masses attract to each other in the first place.

Our undestanding of nature could change. But still, there is the upper force that keeps everything going.

* Nature

As somebody said, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that the universe was made by nature. People think this way because all the complex systems in lif boil down to basic simple principles of atoms, .. etc.

This cannot be true because it would require an extremly large amount of time and wrong combinations to reach the right combination you find in complex systems found in all forms of life, espicially the advanced ones.

Even when you think that life started in its simplist forms and evolved from there, then it would take nature, again, an extremely large amount of time to create such a smart form of life that is capable of doing such a large jumps in adaptation.

The reason why God made life with these basic non-changing rules is to facilitate learning for the human beings. If life was not consistent, there would be no knowledge and advancement and there will be no reason for the thinking abilities of human beings.

* Evolution

People think of evolution because living creatures exist in such a way that it seems like one of them evolved from the other.

I'm sorry to say that but this sounds very silly to me. If you go to a computers shop and you see a 1 GHz processor, and a 1.13 GHz processor, and then a P4 1.6 GHz processor.

Would you think that the P3 processors, being the thinking parts of computers, could have evolved by themselves into P4 processors?

The reason why different creatures exist in life in different forms with a gradient in their abilities is that each one of them was found to do a specific job. All the creatures in nature depend on each other.

Remember the cycle of nature? Plants depend on animals and animals depend on plants.

Plants wouldn't have survived long enough to evolve into animals if animals weren't there in the first place!

* Last point ..

God is superior, because all we have was made by him.

richy

05-12-2002, 11:28 AM

mutation facilitates evolution. its one of the methods by which diverisification and change is implemented.

im sorry ahmad but you should realise thats your opinion, proof in the conventional sense isnt strong. so statements god is superior to us because he created us all could cause offense :) personally whilst i dont believe or disbelieve i twinge everytime i hear something like that. if your happy to think hes superior to you thats fine, dont tell me your god is superior to me.

watch the metaphors, that simply doesnt hold true. a p4 1.6gig had evolved from the earliest puters.

Ahmad

05-12-2002, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by richy
mutation facilitates evolution. its one of the methods by which diverisification and change is implemented.

This is not evolution. It is just bacteria that posses a certain gene sequence that enables it to resist the effect.

This is like having a blue eye or a brown eye.

Actually, I can equally say that all bacteria originally had that gene sequence but then it was lost due to a mutation, hence the bacteria that couldn't resist the antibody. So, it is not necesserily that the mutation was made to create better bacteria (evolution).

im sorry ahmad but you should realise thats your opinion, proof in the conventional sense isnt strong.

Still I can't find answers to my questions!

What makes electrons revolve around the nucleus in an atom?
Of course, certain types of forces.
Why do these forces exist??

This migh be answered by science in the future, still, the cause of the force must have a cause itself .. and so on.

There must be an absolute cause to all of that.

so statements god is superior to us because he created us all could cause offense :) personally whilst i dont believe or disbelieve i twinge everytime i hear something like that. if your happy to think hes superior to you thats fine, dont tell me your god is superior to me.

Now, if this thing did really exist, it must be superior to everthing else to keep everthing else work. It it must not be like anything else because then there will be something else that made it and maintained it, and that thing would be God.

If you don't think that it exists, then that is a different story.

If you don't believe or disbelieve, you shouldn't have any reason to have an attitude toward it being superior or not :D

watch the metaphors, that simply doesnt hold true. a p4 1.6gig had evolved from the earliest puters.

Not "by themselves" ;)

grandad

05-12-2002, 01:08 PM

Quote - richy:

"if your happy to think hes superior to you thats fine, dont tell me your god is superior to me."

Come on richy - a little humility wouldn't go amiss here!

richy

05-12-2002, 01:29 PM

its not a matter of humility, by that i meant that whilst i respect someones right to believe what they want but people need to realise that not everyone shares their view and such statements can be viewed as very condescending and offensive. your god not mine. superior to you not me.

as for mutation and evolution etc, whilst i dont think what i was saying was wrong, im beginning to feel it wasnt entirely relevant. i dont disagree with what your saying about mutation and evolution but boundries blur on these things. it depends where people draw the line which is subjective. personally i just feel its differing scales.

the absolute cause for everything? lol. my answer 'why not':) but seriously there arent conclusive answers for everything, even science and let alone religion. your faced with two choices. settle for the fact you wont know all the answers. or let religion provide an answer for you. whilst i would be tempted to say the religion provides an easy answer but thats just my view. i can seperate religion from god which might explain some of my views. i have a strong scientific background as well. which prolly fills in the rest of the picture lol.

but if i were to invent some supernatural being and run around saying how great he was and how pathetic we were im comparrission and how we should be eternally greatful then im sure youd get real pissed at me real quick. having beliefs is fine, but dont let them affect they way you think about other people too much.

grandad

05-12-2002, 01:49 PM

Hi richy - you're right, you are free to believe or disbelieve as you see fit. The problem is, for those of us who have found faith and believe in God and His Son Christ Jesus, we just want everyone to enjoy what we have found and have the hope and comfort that it has brought to us.

We tend to find it upsetting when people claim that what we believe is false.

Personally I wish that everyone could enjoy the peace and joy that I have experienced in knowing God, it is such a contrast to the sadness reflected in this world. I hope that one day you will experience this but I acknowledge your right to believe as you wish and to act accordingly.

R Doherty

05-12-2002, 02:00 PM

I believe that God is in your mind. He is an imaginary character who you seek to evolve to. He is perfect, he does everything right. He forgives others even if they do something completely wrong. That's what you should try to do.

I don't believe in the common connotation of 'God' (lives in the sky, all-seeing eye, etc etc.).

richy

05-12-2002, 02:29 PM

totally understood grandad. i can imagine its very similar to the i just had a baby syndrome, you wanna share your joy with everyone. you just dont run around saying my sons better then yours, hes more intelligent then you etc lol

it may be your belief hes superior but tact would tend to dictate you limit or censor what you say so as to not offend people :)

i certainly wouldnt say what you believe is false, i may say im not convinced by your arguments, or that personally i feel the evolution big bang route more convincing but thats my beliefs. either of us could be wrong or right :)

grandad

05-12-2002, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by richy
totally understood grandad. i can imagine its very similar to the i just had a baby syndrome, you wanna share your joy with everyone. you just dont run around saying my sons better then yours, hes more intelligent then you etc lol

it may be your belief hes superior but tact would tend to dictate you limit or censor what you say so as to not offend people :)

i certainly wouldnt say what you believe is false, i may say im not convinced by your arguments, or that personally i feel the evolution big bang route more convincing but thats my beliefs. either of us could be wrong or right :)

richy, I dont accept your analogy but I accept your right to say what you think.
As for me I know that my God is superior to all men and I can't help talking about it - just as was the case with Jesus and the disciples in the 1st century.

cperciva

05-12-2002, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by grandad
We tend to find it upsetting when people claim that what we believe is false.

That goes both ways. Many atheists find it upsetting when people (like you) claim that what they believe is false.

As for me I know that my God is superior to all men and I can't help talking about it - just as was the case with Jesus and the disciples in the 1st century.

Care to give a citation for this? I certainly can't remember reading anything like that.

grandad

05-12-2002, 04:26 PM

Originally by cperciva:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for me I know that my God is superior to all men and I can't help talking about it - just as was the case with Jesus and the disciples in the 1st century.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Care to give a citation for this? I certainly can't remember reading anything like that.

Certainly!

God is superior to all men:

"In the begining God made the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1), see also:

Romans 1:20, Psalms:1-4, Isaiah 40:26, Isaiah 29:16, Psalms 94:9, Psalms 100:3, Exodus 18:11, Psalm 95:3-6, Psalm 83:18,

Jesus and the disciples could not stop talking about it:

"My task is to bear witness to the truth. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, and all who are not deaf to truth listen to my voice". (Jesus at John 18:37).

"Go forth therefore and make all nations my disciples; baptise men everywhere in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you". (Jesus to all of his disciples at Matthew 28:19,20).

"And every day they went steadily on with their teaching in the temple and in private houses, telling the good news of Jesus the Messiah". (1st century christians at Acts 5:42).

See also Acts 5:27-32. Luke 12:8, 1 Corinthians 9:16, Romans 10:9,10, Acts 1:8

I could provide many more scriptural quotations but assume that the above will be sufficient.

cperciva

05-12-2002, 04:47 PM

You misunderstand me. I agree that the bible makes claims of the supremacy of God, and I agree that Jesus et al couldn't stop talking.

What I can't find anywhere is a reported statement by Jesus to the effect that "God is superior to all men".

grandad

05-12-2002, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by cperciva

What I can't find anywhere is a reported statement by Jesus to the effect that "God is superior to all men".

Let me remind you of the Lord's Prayer...

"This is how you should pray:
'Our Father in heaven, thy name be hallowed; thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, On earth as in heaven. Gice us today our daily bread. Forgive us the wrong we have done, As we have forgiven those who have wronged us. And do not bring us to the test, but save us from the evil one.'" (Jesus to all Christians at Matthew 6:9-13)

To whom would you pray for sustenance, forgiveness and help, but someone superior to you? Jesus refered to God as "Our" Father - even he viewed God as a "Superior".

richy

05-12-2002, 05:15 PM

umm what did i do wrong that i personally have to beg forgiveness for. i have yet to miss my fiancees birthday so thats 99% of things out the window.

Tim Greer

05-12-2002, 05:26 PM

If you believe God exists, you'd have to believe he's superior to all of us. If you aren't sure, then you just haven't found any reason for yourself to believe -- if you did and once you did, you'd believe this. Finally, just because someone might not believe, doesn't make it untrue or inaccurate of what the 'believers' say or have faith in.

An interesting side note, I think anyway; For people that don't believe there's any evidence. I think it's interesting that no one usually brings up this in the debate (and maybe there's a reason why, that I fail to see): Humans, we all, have the same basic ways about us -- and in an evolutionary regard, we shouldn't _all_ be the same way like this; that is, we all sin. Why is it that the bible teaches us and tells us of so many things about how people are, good and bad, from then, until now -- things people couldn't have known and how they'd be by now -- all without fail?

Moreover, again, that we all sin. This isn't an evolutionary debatable aspect. Not one person hasn't sinned. We (not all of us have done all these things, but at least one -- at while at an age when we knew better); lie, we steal, we lust, and so on. Why is this? How is it that _none_ of us can live a life in perfection? I don't believe people have God as an imaginary "Big Brother" that we have some need to look up to, to be like him. There'd certainly have to be more than that, but seriously, why even in this one small aspect that it mentions in the bible, along with many other's, can none of us simply not sin?

Isn't that an interesting twist? I mean, there's absolutely no reason for it. And, I don't mean in like "Why can't we all not walk in God's ways?", when that would be irrelevant and inapplicable for people that don't believe; but I'm talking about basic things that we know are wrong, be it wrong against a person or people, or socially corrupt or whatever -- sin. Rules that are laid out and agreed to for a reason -- rules and laws that we should all live by and agree on, even if they don't believe in God. Civil and criminal laws. Laws about how to treat people, how to live, what to do and not do that go beyond the obvious and how it affects other people. What purpose is there for these? Because they are needed, they are a good guide. No doubt, someone that believes in God or not, would be a lot better of a person by following these laws. Most people say they do or will, but we all fall short. It speaks so much about not only these statutes and laws, but how we _will_ break them and how none are perfect.

I'm not saying the fact that we aren't perfect must support there's a God. I'm simply saying, believing in God or not, why can't any of us manage to do, live like, or see any events transpire that are not clearly documented in the bible? Why can't any of us do one simple thing (that we should be doing anyway), and just not sin? Why have the things it says will come to pass, historically, socially and so much more, all come to pass? Have you read this thing? I mean to say, we're talking more about observations here about people and society, it's just a little more compelling than what I could even begin to put up for debate.

I did a search for "proof of God" on google (heh, I just HAD to, as ridiculous as that sounds, I wanted to see if someone could come up with a better argument from a different set of eyes and words), and although I didn't read much of it, it looks like an interesting set of facts and opinions; http://www.daveandangel.com/CRN/BibleProofs.html

grandad

05-12-2002, 05:36 PM

"It was through one man that sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death pervaded the whole human race, inasmuch as all men have sinned". (Romans 5:12)

Who was that "one man"? It was our human father Adam - sin is an inheritance we received from him (just like some inherited disease) - hence everyone of mankind needs forgiveness from sin (yes even you richy :) ). The way to gain forgiveness is through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

cperciva

05-12-2002, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by grandad
Let me remind you of the Lord's Prayer...

Ah yes, the prayer which Jesus gave to his disciples.

Jesus may feel that Yahweh is superior to him; his disciples likewise. I don't see any indication that he considered Yahweh to be superior to *all* men.

grandad

05-12-2002, 05:47 PM

cperciva - you seem to forget that Jesus came to give a ransom for the salvation of ALL mankind, not just his then disciples - you can split hairs if you wish but Jesus and his disciples definitely did view God, Yahweh, whatever you wish to call Him as Superior to all men (as indeed did all the prophets before them {see the Old Testament}).

God is superior to you and to me - you may chose to ignore that, God has given you the freedom to do that if you wish but that doesn't alter the fact.

cperciva

05-12-2002, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by grandad
you seem to forget that Jesus came to give a ransom for the salvation of ALL mankind

Ok, let's address that point. Why did Jesus do that?

you can split hairs if you wish but Jesus and his disciples definitely did view God, Yahweh, whatever you wish to call Him as Superior to all men (as indeed did all the prophets before them {see the Old Testament}).

I've read the TNKH, and I don't see any such claim. Yahweh entered into a covenant with his people that they would worship him "above all other gods". Why, one wonders, did he make such a covenant with only one tribe out of many? The historical -- and biblical -- record is clear that he made no such covenant with the surrounding tribes.

Tim Greer

05-12-2002, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by cperciva
Ok, let's address that point. Why did Jesus do that?

Because he loves us.

I've read the TNKH, and I don't see any such claim. Yahweh entered into a covenant with his people that they would worship him "above all other gods". Why, one wonders, did he make such a covenant with only one tribe out of many? The historical -- and biblical -- record is clear that he made no such covenant with the surrounding tribes.

Because he loved them above all other people; he was fond of the father's of Isreal, knew what kind of people they were and made a promise to them. Also, they were the only lineage that was not so, fully corrupt like the other peoples. The other people were heathens.

cperciva

05-12-2002, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
Because he loves us.

And what did he accomplish?

Because he loved them above all other people; he was fond of the father's of Isreal, knew what kind of people they were and made a promise to them. Also, they were the only lineage that was not so, fully corrupt like the other peoples. The other people were heathens.

When did Yahweh make this promise of which you speak? How were the other people any more heathen than those of Judah and Israel?

Rewdog

05-12-2002, 06:22 PM

Gill slits..
Interesting page
http://www.carm.org/evolution_archive/human_embryo_gillslits.htm

Thermodynamics..
http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/secondlaw.htm

Tim Greer

05-12-2002, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by cperciva
And what did he accomplish?

Giving more people a chance to be saved.

When did Yahweh make this promise of which you speak? How were the other people any more heathen than those of Judah and Israel?

The first 4 or 5 books of the Old Testament come to mind.

cperciva

05-12-2002, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
Giving more people a chance to be saved.

How does Christ's death save people?

Tim Greer

05-12-2002, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by cperciva

How does Christ's death save people?

Hi, I don't want to seem rude or like I'm being sarcastic here, but; Have you read the New Testament? It's not very long, there's only a few books in it and they don't have very many versus. If you have and you are just playing the debate game, for whatever reason, just let me know. However, if you haven't, I think there's some "online" bibles that will make it easier for you to read, rather than going out and buying a bible. Honestly, if you need to ask me this, you must not have read it and I don't think I'd like to try and sum it up and risk missing some vital aspects or not properly explaining it, as this is a rather important trhing to be familiar with -- and in more ways than I could try and explain it (assuming I was even qualified to try).

cperciva

05-12-2002, 06:49 PM

Don't worry, I have read the new testament several times. (And debated on a number of occasions with theology students here in .ox.ac.uk.)

My point is this: In the context of an all-powerful God, Christ's sacrifice should have no power. If Yahweh-the-all-powerful wants everyone to go to heaven, He can send everyone there... he doesn't need to send someone off to the crucifix in order to do so.

The sacrifice of Christ is only meaningful if one admits a limit to Yahweh's power.

Tim Greer

05-12-2002, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by cperciva
Don't worry, I have read the new testament several times. (And debated on a number of occasions with theology students here in .ox.ac.uk.)

Okay, that saved time. I debate with people about different aspects myself (as you can see).

My point is this: In the context of an all-powerful God, Christ's sacrifice should have no power.

Well, this is just how you feel and view it. I don't agree with it. God did this, to show us that he too will put himself (his son) through this life as well and he will make himself to suffer through life just as we do, and that even so, you _can_ live a life without sin. Also, to go through this punishment and die for our sins, here on Earth and by the hands of people nonetheless. (This is just a small, badly exampled/explained part of how I feel).

If Yahweh-the-all-powerful wants everyone to go to heaven, He can send everyone there... he doesn't need to send someone off to the crucifix in order to do so.

Yes, true. However, he doesn't want sin in the Kingdom of Heaven. He won't tolerate it, and why should he? How would you feel if you knew God let in some rapist or cold blooded murderer?

The sacrifice of Christ is only meaningful if one admits a limit to Yahweh's power.

Please explain what you mean.

So, if I understand you correctly, or at all, you are questioning why God would have his son die on the cross for our sins, when God could have done it another way? I'll admit that I don't really think of it that way or agree with that view and I don't question it like that at all, but that I'm also not currently prepared to answer this in a manner that would make me feel that I was qualified to debate that and explain why -- so I'd suggest you speak with someone that is qualified. I'm sure you're aware of how debating something like this on a web board on the Internet is going to result in a lot of people's opinions, and they can vary a lot, and few if any, of us are qualified to debate all the aspects people bring up. I know I'm not. I.e., let me get back to you on that, when and if I can give you a reasonable answer.

cperciva

05-12-2002, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
Well, this is just how you feel and view it. I don't agree with it.

If Yahweh is all-powerful, how can Christ's sacrifice have any power? If Yahweh is all-powerful, people will go to heaven or not based on His wishes -- Christ's sacrifice will not have any effect either way.

God did this, to show us that ... you _can_ live a life without sin.

In that case, his pedagogical technique is absolutely awful. "Hey look everyone, you can live a life free of sin, and in the end you'll get to die an excrutiatingly painful death!" That's *really* going to make people want to follow his example.

Yes, true. However, he doesn't want sin in the Kingdom of Heaven. He won't tolerate it, and why should he? How would you feel if you knew God let in some rapist or cold blooded murderer?

Oh... so, err, Christ died to save us all, except for the rapists and cold blooded murderers?

So, if I understand you correctly, or at all, you are questioning why God would have his son die on the cross for our sins, when God could have done it another way?

That's more or less it. Unless one believes that God decided to inflict pointless suffering, one must accept that there was a point to the sacrifice of Christ; but if that sacrifice achieved something which God could not achieve otherwise, we must conclude that God is not all-powerful.

Tim Greer

05-12-2002, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by cperciva
If Yahweh is all-powerful, how can Christ's sacrifice have any power? If Yahweh is all-powerful, people will go to heaven or not based on His wishes -- Christ's sacrifice will not have any effect either way.

God wants people to follow him. So, debating why God doesn't just let everyone into Heaven without any trials or tribulation, is not relevant. Christ died to off-set the things we do. How and why, are explained in the New Testament. I again will not try and sum it up. If I can come up with a reasonably short (and I mean, short, as in less than 50,000 words) position to argue in regards to this, I will post it.

In that case, his pedagogical technique is absolutely awful. "Hey look everyone, you can live a life free of sin, and in the end you'll get to die an excrutiatingly painful death!" That's *really* going to make people want to follow his example.

Firstly, that's not what I meant. I have oversimplified. Also, that wasn't to show people they'd die a horrible and painful death, but the length he will go and suffer for us. If you think how he died was the driving factor to have people follow him, there's something seriously wrong with your view.

Oh... so, err, Christ died to save us all, except for the rapists and cold blooded murderers?

I did not say that. I simply said, what if he just let everyone in, and how would you feel? If you want to debate why God doesn't just let in whomever he wished, then what's the point of even being here in the first place? Furthermore, without *us* choosing, as explained previously in this thread, we wouldn't have a choice (obviously) or be free.

That's more or less it. Unless one believes that God decided to inflict pointless suffering,

I'm terribly sorry that you feel it was pointless, really. This is not something I'd be happy at all to hear from anyone that's read the bible or the New Testament. Jesus did this willingly, for us. He could have ran, hid, etc.

one must accept that there was a point to the sacrifice of Christ;

Yes, there was a point and it's explained in the N.T. Again, I won't pretent I am prepared to sum it up or put up a good explaination or argument opposing your view. I don't agree with it, but I'm not prepared to explain why. I also wouldn't have the odacity try and assume one way or another about why God did this, instead of something else. I don't pretend to speak for God, and I really don't always feel comfortable trying to pose my views in a debate about something like this, for the sake that I might; A: Provide the wrong information. B: Not explain something properly or clearly. C: Might be misunderstood. D: Might deter someone from finding the answers the proper way. E: I could go on. However, I try to express my views, but I don't try and say "Well, it's simple. God did 'this' because..." or "This is what God thinks", and so on.

but if that sacrifice achieved something which God could not achieve otherwise, we must conclude that God is not all-powerful.

But God *did* achieve that, and that's how he did it. It's not that he couldn't have done it another way. We don't know how things would have been if another approach would have been taken. While this might seem like an unhelpful event in regard to saving us in your eyes, it was a willing thing he (Christ) sacraficed himself for, so this was what God did, and he did it, and he was in power to do it or not. Just because you don't agree with how he did it by how it looks on the surface, doesn't mean that it was wrong, means he didn't have control or any other options. If I was to sacrafice my life for you, I'd sure wonder why you were so caught up on the fact that I did that for you and complained about it. This was planned, this was written it would happen, God was in control, and simply because you don't understand all the ramifications and reasons, doesn't mean that God lacks power. After all, lot's of things could be different and you can go on forever about the "why's" and complain. Heck, the Irealites constantly complained throughout the Old Testament, even when they were with God and following him to the promised land.

cperciva

05-12-2002, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
If you think how he died was the driving factor to have people follow him, there's something seriously wrong with your view.

I don't think that. I was simply eliminating one possible explanation for why Christ died. We agree, then, that whatever the purpose of his death, it was not to gain followers?

I did not say that.

Then let me ask: Do rapists and cold blooded murderers go to Heaven?

I'm terribly sorry that you feel it was pointless, really.

I don't think it was pointless. The notion is absurd, as we both seem to agree; thus we must accept that there was a point. Logically, I had to pin that down before I argued about what the point might have been.

I don't agree with it, but I'm not prepared to explain why.

In that case, I don't think we're likely to get anywhere.

But God *did* achieve that, and that's how he did it. It's not that he couldn't have done it another way.

Very well then, let me put another question to you: Is God "all powerful", "all powerful, if he is willing to inflict a torturous death upon someone", or "not all powerful"?

Tim Greer

05-12-2002, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by cperciva
I don't think that. I was simply eliminating one possible explanation for why Christ died. We agree, then, that whatever the purpose of his death, it was not to gain followers?

If you didn't think that, at least have the respect to not bring it up like you do. It's confusing to the topic when people do that.

Then let me ask: Do rapists and cold blooded murderers go to Heaven?

I'm not God, don't ask me. I just asked how you'd feel if anyone could commit any act, not even be sorry or ask for forgiveness, change their mind or their ways, and still get into Heaven? I am not going to try and pass judgement and say who will go to hell or not. I simply asked how you'd feel. Moreover, how you'd feel about life in general, if you were bothered by the fact that God gave people a choice to life their life, and since we all fall short and sin, that Christ died on the cross to off-set that fact and that we can still be forgiven in his name. I'm not bothered by that fact, I'm glad for it and I appreciate it and the sacrafice he made. He shows us that he cares, genuinely, to put himself through that. Perhaps that's a little of the point, perhaps... Do I like the fact he was murdered for our sins? No, I hate to think of that, but the fact is, he knew he would do it, and he did it. He didn't have to, so whatever horrible thing done to him, he was willing to do for us. I'm not a mindless person, I want to be educated on all the why's and why's and I ask questions. We all should about things like this. You agree on that yourself too, which is good. However, I personally know enough (and perhaps this only applies to me, just like beliving and faith and reasons, will only apply to the individual), to not wonder or question in regards to there being a point and to what it is. I'm simply being honest and saying that I don't really have a good argument to tell you without any doubt why it *had to be that way*. I expect you can respect the fact that I'm not going to make things up about it. Perhaps I'll think of something to say that I'll be satisfied with, but I'm also not a bilical scholar either.

I don't think it was pointless. The notion is absurd, as we both seem to agree;

Okay??

thus we must accept that there was a point. Logically, I had to pin that down before I argued about what the point might have been.

Perhaps I was confused by your earlier post then? You were just typing out things to rule them out, and not ask, because you already knew? I'm a bit tired today, I must have missed something.

In that case, I don't think we're likely to get anywhere.

Well, I simply said that I was not prepared to try and debate that one aspect. Right now anyway. It's like trying to explain to someone of why they should have faith... it's not easy and it's a personal thing that they have to find. I can't make someone have an opinion or belief, and i have no desire to want to.

Very well then, let me put another question to you: Is God "all powerful", "all powerful, if he is willing to inflict a torturous death upon someone", or "not all powerful"?

There's no reason why he's not "all powerful", based upon how he uses that power. I don't know how *everything* works, why things might happen for the better in the long run or not, or if it was or could have been done any differently, etc. Who did God inflict 'torturous death' upon? I don't pretend, as I stated previously, to know all the reasons why. I'm not a BS'er and I'm not a liar, and for me to claim either way, would make me one or the other (or both). I simply don't have any good debating point to this. It's not because I'm "stumped" or am not capable of debating the aspects your brought up, but again, it's not an easy thing to do and I don't want to risk stating anything but my views at this point due to that. Again, when I have some idea of a good way to debate that, which I also suggest you do as well (I don't say that in any offensive way, so don't misunderstand me), I will post something more valueable in regards to this aspect.

Tim Greer

05-12-2002, 08:25 PM

So, I guess then, my question to you, since we agree it's not pointless (and I fail to understand why you brought that aspect into the debate then?), is what do you mean by your line of debating and why? Do you have a theory or view about how it had a point, or are you literally interested about and want to what it is, since you genuinely don't understand why it had to be that way? Or, are you just bringing up issues to debate about out of interest? I'm just trying to keep up, I'm a bit (a lot) tired today, so I'm a little slow.

cperciva

05-12-2002, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
Do you have a theory or view about how it had a point, or are you literally interested about and want to what it is, since you genuinely don't understand why it had to be that way?

I do have a view, yes. My view is that if one accepts the Christ story as written -- and, let me be clear, I'm not saying that I do -- then one must be willing to discard the possibility of a unique, benevolent, omnipotent, God.

Tim Greer

05-12-2002, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by cperciva

I do have a view, yes. My view is that if one accepts the Christ story as written -- and, let me be clear, I'm not saying that I do -- then one must be willing to discard the possibility of a unique, benevolent, omnipotent, God.

Can you explain the reasons why you believe that? I don't see any real support for that theory based on your above posts. Perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean and why, and I'll knoew better where your issues lie. Not that you're seeking answers from me, and not that I'll have the answers, but it might help one of us better understand what the other means, and why. And, for the record, if you don't mind, what do you believe? I mean, do you believe there's a God, or that Christ was the son of God, or do you simply question how accurate the words written in the bible outlining events and words is?

jimb

05-12-2002, 09:05 PM

I believe in God. I dont know how those who dont believe in God can live, its almost like what are you living for if you arent trying to get to God.

Jim
- Roman Catholic

cperciva

05-12-2002, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
Can you explain the reasons why you believe that?

Assume God is both benevolent and omnipotent. Then whatever was accomplished through Christ's death, God could have accomplished without Christ's death (since He is omnipotent). Given that He *could* have accomplished whatever He wanted without Christ's death, He *would* have done so (since He is benevolent, and would want to avoid putting anyone through such a painful death). But this contradicts the Christ story, which tells us that Christ died a painful death. Thus we must conclude (if the Christ story is accurate) that God is not benevolent and omnipotent.

And, for the record, if you don't mind, what do you believe? I mean, do you believe there's a God, or that Christ was the son of God, or do you simply question how accurate the words written in the bible outlining events and words is?

To quote Laplace, "I have no need of that hypothesis." God, Gods, and the Great Purple Daffodil in the Sky exist, or do not exist, independently of whether I believe in them or not. I hold myself separate, undecided, and impartial; I set myself not to be judged by God, but instead to judge God.

Historically, the purpose of God is to resolve the prisoner's dilemma; the threat of powerful retribution is sufficient to enforce the behaviour necessary for society to exist. The purpose of religion is to codify murder; to enact the scapegoat, thereby saving society from a violent self-destruction. And the purpose of Christ... well, I think he wanted to be the last scapegoat, but to that extent he failed.

In the modern world, God and religion are both unnecessary. Modern society takes the place of god in imposing laws and punishing the violators; and the scapegoat likewise is obsoleted by modern human rights law.

cabalstudios

05-12-2002, 09:31 PM

I believe in GOD ... and have stong views on it .... There are many things to prove that there is someone out there (GOD) who does everything for a purpose and we are here for a test, the real life begins when you die (after judjment day).

just my view and few cents :D

Regards
Shazad

Tim Greer

05-12-2002, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by cperciva

[SNIP]

In the modern world, God and religion are both unnecessary. Modern society takes the place of god in imposing laws and punishing the violators; and the scapegoat likewise is obsoleted by modern human rights law. [/B]

Well, I suppose I'm a little guilty of posting only views and opinions and few to no facts, so I'll not go into a debate about how you view things. However, I don't think it's correct to state that we have no place for God, and to me, that's a horrible thing to fathom. Not because I don't want to, or to live in denial, but because I feel bad that you feel this way -- and because I truly believe that the existence is obvious and I still only see very weak view points of people trying to make "excuses" of why people ever had this "idea" to believe in something that didn't exist. However, I have a different intellect and thought process, so I don't expect these rationales to apply to your logic, just as your's don't apply to mine. I honestly do question how people fail to see how it's all so obvious, but you probably question the same of me and my beliefs. So, I don't see the point to debating that issue, since it's your opinion and I can't debate it. I can try and dispell some of your views about the reasons and whatnot to try and convince you, but I'm not qualified to do that, albeit I try and cover the issues you bring up. I simply don't know where to go with people's opinions about humans conjuring up the idea of God, when I know God exists. Indeed, it's difficult to explain or give reason for other people to believe that same belief though. After all, there's a few things in life that you can feel or believe, that are real, but some people will not ever believe it. Perhaps there's something vital I've neglected to mention, but it's (from experience, I find) unusual for someone to have read the bible and still doubt.

Tell me something, what does this mean to you, when the bible says that God wants people to fear him? Answer me that question, if you would be so kind.

Also, God says that to follow him and worship him, that you have to love him and not love your brother, father, mother and sister. What does that mean to you? Do you know what I mean when I ask you these questions? Or what part of the bible I speak of? This is one of many examples, and people don't seem to understand clearly of what they mean. People end up thinking God is wanting you to be afraid of him, or that they can't be a Christian if they love their family members, and it's ridiculous. So, I'm wondering if you know what these example questions mean and why. Just to try and get an idea of how much you understand the bible, before you make statements like you did above -- even making them without, seems odd -- but again, I base this on what I find to be logical, real and obvious (but that's just (for) me).

cperciva

05-12-2002, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
Tell me something, what does this mean to you, when the bible says that God wants people to fear him? Answer me that question, if you would be so kind.

"fear" is a really bad translation. Can we just call it "yirah" instead? (yirah = somewhere between "fear", "awe", and "respect", and is an anagram of reah = seeing.)

Also, God says that to follow him and worship him, that you have to love him and not love your brother, father, mother and sister. What does that mean to you?

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about here, unless it is a warped version of Deut. 13.

Rewdog

05-12-2002, 10:56 PM

Why can't an all powerful God define the rules - that all who are saved must be saved through Christ's sacrifice? How does Him setting the rules limit His power?

Tim Greer

05-12-2002, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by cperciva

"fear" is a really bad translation. Can we just call it "yirah" instead? (yirah = somewhere between "fear", "awe", and "respect", and is an anagram of reah = seeing.)

Correct, to revere him.

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about here, unless it is a warped version of Deut. 13.

Well, I guess you didn't read that part, or remember it, or perhaps something of that nature. However, that's basically (or very close or just was) what it said. Basically, it's just some of the wording and mistranslitation getting in the way, where is was actually meaning to say that you should love the Lord more than your brother, father, mother, etc., not "don't love them". And it explains the reasons for that as well as what it means as well. The point is, this is something that I wanted to see if you were aware of, to just get an idea of how much you knew or understood even some of these simple aspects, to try and understand what you based your comments on. Anyway...

Tim Greer

05-12-2002, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Rewdog
Why can't an all powerful God define the rules - that all who are saved must be saved through Christ's sacrifice? How does Him setting the rules limit His power?

I agree. I'd be a little uneasy about things if God wasn't sure what he wanted to do and how.

cperciva

05-12-2002, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
Well, I guess you didn't read that part, or remember it, or perhaps something of that nature.

Which part are we talking about here? Deut 13 doesn't even mention love, it speaks only of not allowing people to draw you into evil.

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 12:08 AM

Greetings Tim_Greer:

You are right, the moon is not the Earth.

However, you cannot change science, Tim.

The Evolutionists expected to find a given amount of space dust to prove the long Earth THEORY. They did not. They expected to find it on the moon. They didn't find what they expected.

Futhermore, you cannot argue with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

This is a scientific LAW, like the LAW of gravity.

If you truly want to debate, Tim, I suggest you start studying facts instead of going from any memories or generic reading.

Study the Bible. Study the evidence against Evolution. Try to prove the evidence wrong by studying it.

Otherwise you are just stating an opion based on opinions of others based on opinion of others.

Thank you.

Tim Greer

05-13-2002, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by cperciva

Which part are we talking about here? Deut 13 doesn't even mention love, it speaks only of not allowing people to draw you into evil.

I wasn't talking about that at all, I was talking about a completely other verse.

Tim Greer

05-13-2002, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by dynamicnet
Greetings Tim_Greer:

You are right, the moon is not the Earth.

Indeed. Now, please document where this claim of yours is supported, as well as why how thick the dust on the moon proves that both the moon and the Earth are only 10,000 years old.

However, you cannot change science, Tim.

No kidding, but science can change, as well as what we *thought* or *thought* meant something. However, I'm not goign to argue that. You must be confused here. Please re-read what I said. You must have me confused with someone else, unless me asking for you to document your claim that what you said is fact, hit some nerve -- I guess so?

The Evolutionists expected to find a given amount of space dust to prove the long Earth THEORY.

Explain this and document this, as well as how it proves anything.

They did not. They expected to find it on the moon. They didn't find what they expected.

So?

Futhermore, you cannot argue with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

Did I? Please re-read what I said.

This is a scientific LAW, like the LAW of gravity.

Don't insult me, I said nothing foolish in response. I simply asked you to document your previous claim. Why not simply do that?

If you truly want to debate, Tim, I suggest you start studying facts instead of going from any memories or generic reading.

Again, don't insult me. You're confused. I asked you to document the moon/earth theory, nothing more. I said nothing whatsoever that would indicate that I was going from "memories or generic reading". This thread has been civil, and people are posting views, theories, facts and fiction, as well as opinions. There's no need to act like a jerk.

Study the Bible.

I suggest you read my post again, you're confused.

Study the evidence against Evolution.

Again, you're confused. Pick someone else to pick on, please. Read my posts, and maybe you can see what side of the debate I'm on. That would be the respectable thing to do, especially before trying to insult me. Everyone else has debated and stated their opinions, the facts they know or think they know and no one has sunk to a level of insulting people for no good reason, I ask that you do the same.

Try to prove the evidence wrong by studying it.

Again, read my posts.

Otherwise you are just stating an opion based on opinions of others based on opinion of others.

Thank you.

It would be nice if you would at least read my post, and point out the discrepency you have and maybe answer my question. There's no reason to be so confused about this or what I said. You'll see that I do not believe in evolution of humans to refute the existence of God, if you had. Moreover, ..well, you know what? Just READ IT.

However, you didn't and choose to take offense to my request of asking that you simply document what YOU *claim* as fact. So, rather than taking this stance and trying to insult me and stating inaccurate opinions you have about me, simply for asking you to document something, why don't you try reading it again. I'll be waiting for your apology. Thanks.

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 12:58 AM

Greetings Tim:

Let's deal with the LAW of themodynamics...

The second law of thermodynamics has to do with heat transfer explicitly. It is perhaps safer to refer to a more generalized tendency toward entropy which is far more inclusive of other phenomena.

The tendency from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity, from life to death, is something we all see and can both define and measure.

The theory of evolution dictates simple to complex, and anarchy to order.

Since the LAW of thermodynamics has never been circumvented, you cannot have evolution without breaking this SCIENTIFIC law.

==

The evidence presented shows that evolution could not have happened no matter how much time we give it.

But here is another problem for the theory. Evolution requires huge amounts of time.

Of the hundreds of dating methods or evidences of the age of the earth, perhaps 90 percent of them give evidence of a young earth, far too short amount of time for evolution to have happened.

Some of these include the decay of the earth's magnetic field, influx of minerals and sediment into the ocean via rivers, decay of natural plutonium, decay of lines of galaxies, the slowing rotation of the earth, the moon's recession rate from earth, the amount of atmospheric helium, pleochroic halos, the existence of comets and meteors, population growth, the "Poynting-Robertson effect", the existence of star clusters and super stars.

One interesting example is the evolutionists' prediction when the U. S. was planning its lunar expedition that the moon would have at least 10 feet, perhaps dozens of feet, of dust on its surface.

The lunar module was equipped for this expectation. But when we got there, we found the theory in error. There is only a fraction of an inch of dust on the moon's surface.

An interesting piece of evidence came from the aftermath of the 1980 Mt. St. Helens volcanic eruption, the most extraordinary geologic event of the Twentieth Century.

When one looks at strata of rock layers, for example in the Grand Canyon, evolutionists assume that each small layer of rock was laid down over millions of years.

But scientists witnessed similar layers of sedimentary rock laid down by water flooding and lava flows caused by the Mount St. Helens eruption-proving that it doesn't require millions of years, but merely hours in catastrophic conditions.

Tim, I used to be an athiest. I was a wiccan for a period of time.

Yet, back in late 1989 and early 1990 I started reading the Bible because a bunch of people who I thought were lunatics speaking about the Word of God kept stating the book was without error.

I went to prove them wrong with their own book. Instead, on May 8, 1990 I accepted Jesus as my Lord, Savior, and King.

I used to believe in evolution, Tim. However, when I did my own homework (something many people refuse to do), I found the truth that God did indeed create the universe, the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and the Bible is the written Word of God.

Many people here, Tim, including you continue to point to this and that about how you are right and we who state otherwise are worng.

However, when was the last time you read the Bible in entirety when it was not forced on you (school, classes, whatever)? Where you read it out of a quest for knowledge? Trying to seek answers?

When was the last time you did your homework on the theory of evolution? Or did you just take memories of what you where thought? Memories of other people's opionions?

Thank you.

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 01:09 AM

Greetings Tim:

Please take some time and read:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html for some detailed issues dealing with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how this Scientific Law means "No" to the Theory of Evolution.

Thank you.

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 01:30 AM

Greetings Tim:

Please consider reading http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-110.htm for information on the space dust issue.

A quote:

"The prelunar landing predictions of evolutionary scientists gave great concern to the astronauts. Their predictions were that due to a presumed 4.5 billion year age of the moon and the rate of influx of dust and the lunar physical processes of rock break-up, the astronauts might be lost in a great depth of dust on the moon.

Fortunately the evolutionary predictions of great dust depth were wrong. Our astronauts were not lost in the predicted "quicksand" of age-accumulated dust on the moon. The creationist predictions of only a thin layer of dust were correct."

See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3747.asp for scientific informaton concerning the moon and The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.

Please keep in mind that like the Law of Thermodynamics, we are talking scientific fact vs. theory.

Want to talk about the Earth instead of the moon?

See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1401.asp for a discussion on Helium and how Helium goes towards a young Earth.

See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1193.asp for how Red Wood trees help prove a young Earth.

See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3317.asp for a discussion on Earth's magnetic field as it relates to a young Earth.

See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4127.asp for geological issues.

See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1224.asp for how coral reefs impact the issue of a young earth.

See http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html for a good summary discussion.

Thank you.

Tim Greer

05-13-2002, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by dynamicnet
Greetings Tim:

[Snip nonsense]

Read my post again. I never said I was a supporter of evolution. Who are you arguing with here?

Since saying things 4 or 5 times seems to be the only thing that catches your attention, let me say:

Read my post again. I never said I was a supporter of evolution. Who are you arguing with here?

Read my post again. I never said I was a supporter of evolution. Who are you arguing with here?

Read my post again. I never said I was a supporter of evolution. Who are you arguing with here?

Read my post again. I never said I was a supporter of evolution. Who are you arguing with here?

And, finally; Read my post again. I never said I was a supporter of evolution. Who are you arguing with here?

[SNIP]

You're talking scientific theories, not fact. Secondly, who are you arguing with?

But here is another problem for the theory. Evolution requires huge amounts of time.

Indeed, and as I stated, I don't see how, even after millions of years, given the history of the planet, fossils and whatnot, that not only do not prove that's what happened, but there's not enough of a time line anyway. Again, who are you arguing with?

Of the hundreds of dating methods or evidences of the age of the earth, perhaps 90 percent of them give evidence of a young earth, far too short amount of time for evolution to have happened.

And I simply asked you to document it. I see you made another post below, and perhaps you did in that post, and hopefully it's not a bunch of conspiracy nuts' web sites.

[SNIP more theories]

One interesting example is the evolutionists' prediction when the U. S. was planning its lunar expedition that the moon would have at least 10 feet, perhaps dozens of feet, of dust on its surface.

We're talking about two different bodies. All scientists do not agree with other scienists theories. I've seen a lot of "out there" type of theories and there's always some kook that claims people that don't agree with them are ingnorant.

The lunar module was equipped for this expectation. But when we got there, we found the theory in error. There is only a fraction of an inch of dust on the moon's surface.

Yes, an error in the theory, exactly. Meaning, perhaps that wouldn't prove it is old (OR NEW). Re-hypothesis time.

[SNIP volcano story]

When one looks at strata of rock layers, for example in the Grand Canyon, evolutionists assume that each small layer of rock was laid down over millions of years.

That's one theory, indeed. Other people that claim that, are not evolutionists, just so you know. There's scientists that have different views, options and theories, just so you know. Just because *you* happen to agree that one scientists' theory is more sound in your mind, does not mean they are correct in theoir theory or how it applies over the other scientists, just so you know. We know when we can say it's a fact, not a theory, just so you know. I asked for documentation on facts, just so you know.

But scientists witnessed similar layers of sedimentary rock laid down by water flooding and lava flows caused by the Mount St. Helens eruption-proving that it doesn't require millions of years, but merely hours in catastrophic conditions.

I find that scienists are often wrong, but they are right a lot of the time too. Perhaps they are wrong. I just am saying, that be it new or old, I don't believe evolution was a plausible scenario. If you run around yelling how everything we unearth dating back 65+ million years ago was in the last 10,000 years, people are going to have issues with that. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I don't see that as a viable explaination either and I asked you to document it, you in turn insulted me. So be it.

Tim, I used to be an athiest. I was a wiccan for a period of time.

And? I've never been stupid enough to be into either of those. I'm glad to hear you're not, but how is this relevant to Earth's age? Hey, for that matter, how is any of it relevant? The bible says the Earth was "void and without form", it didn't say it didn't exist in some form before God created the seas and creatures. So, do you assume maybe he wiped out the dinosuars and started over with a "new layer".. oh crap.. let's not go there... I can tell when someone doesn't have a sense of humor.

I went to prove them wrong with their own book. Instead, on May 8, 1990 I accepted Jesus as my Lord, Savior, and King.

That's great. I'm always glad to see another person following Christs' teachings, and I usually find that after someone has simply studied the book, they often understand how obvious it is. (Usually, and from my experience).

I used to believe in evolution, Tim.

I never have, which seems to be what you're confused about. I only stated that some creatures did evolve, I didn't think or see any evidence to support the "theory" that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, at most -- it is a theory, I've never seen anyone claim it as fact... well, other than you. I'd not dare claim someone was ignorant, or insinuate they are stupid or a fool for not agreeing with me agreeing with a theory of all things.

However, when I did my own homework (something many people refuse to do), I found the truth that God did indeed create the universe, the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and the Bible is the written Word of God.

I agree, I believe this as well

Many people here, Tim, including you continue to point to this and that about how you are right and we who state otherwise are worng.

Are you familiar with the term "The pot calling the kettle black"? Why don't you "research" that. I *encourage* you to "practice what you preach" and re-read my postings. I have *never* said anyone that didn't agree with me was wrong. As a matter of fact, why don't you document THAT? Then, look in the mirror. Apparently you are intent on just ignoring the reality of this dicussion and would be more confortable practicing the ancient art of "accusing other's are you've done to them". Nicely played!

However, when was the last time you read the Bible in entirety when it was not forced on you (school, classes, whatever)? Where you read it out of a quest for knowledge? Trying to seek answers?

Ho hummmmmm.... Is this a "I read the bible more than you" contest? geez, at least ask what bible, before we really get into a mess. Tell me, when's the last time you were calm, humble and civil in a debate?

When was the last time you did your homework on the theory of evolution? Or did you just take memories of what you where thought? Memories of other people's opionions?

Thank you.

You, sir, are a jerk.

Hey, whatever grinds your gears though, right? After all, why cover the issues, when you're content on making stuff up and annoying people. After all, that's much easier to do. Yeah, yeah, you're better than I am, a much better Christian, right? Good for you, wonderful and all that good stuff. Very convincing... just fabulous...

Def

05-13-2002, 01:57 AM

As to the original question... most definitely yes!

Tim Greer

05-13-2002, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by dynamicnet
Greetings Tim:

Please take some time and read:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html for some detailed issues dealing with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how this Scientific Law means "No" to the Theory of Evolution.

Thank you.

Dare I say, that you need to get a life!? How about READING my post and SEEING that I NEVER, EVER said I support the theory of evolution. What did you miss? How could you have missed it? Is this your way of winning people over? I can't say I'm overly impressed with your tactics, but whatever makes you feel special. How about I just start posting 10 more posts to each one of your replies and keep reminding you of why we didn't evolve and there's a God? Oh, right, because **I** recognize that you don't believe in it, because you didn't say you did. Now, WHAT ever gave you the idea that I DO? And, WHAT is the reason for your nonsense, offensive posts? This is making you look bad. I once again suggest, respectfully, that you READ my posts, unless your only intention is to annoy people.

Tim Greer

05-13-2002, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by dynamicnet
Greetings Tim:

[SNIP irrelavance]

Refer to my above posts and stop being annoying. I can dig up all sorts of Christian THEORIES about a lot of stuff, and how they prove this or that. However, I'm not going to blindly believe, unlike YOU, that it must be fact. They didn't say it was fact, they stated it disproved the theory they had. Do you realize what that actually means? It sure doesn't mean that if your theory is proven wrong, that the opposing idea is fact, you nut! I'm serious now, read my post, this is ridiculous!

I will re-state what I've said this ENTIRE TIME--> I DO most definitely and genuinely believe there's a God, I believe Jesus Christ is our savior, and that I don't believe that we are a product of evolution. Since you've missed this "fact" multiple times and prefer to just keep posting nonsense to try and prove I'm wrong and you're right, about something I never even opposed in the first place. Now, knock if off and bug someone else, you're acting insane or very dense -- and if anything, you are displaying reasons why people assume Christians to be these irrational nut cases and can't make a good argument to save their life. It's an embarrassment and I'd expect someone that claims to be so devoted to following the Lord's word, to not act like a troll and post nonsense to try and make himself look better, rather than simply READING what the other person said. Unless you truly believe that's an endearing quality. Enough of you, I have better things to do.

grandad

05-13-2002, 02:57 AM

Quote - originally cperciva:

"The sacrifice of Christ is only meaningful if one admits a limit to Yahweh's power."

{After a night's sleep}

Not so - power is only one "quality" - with power I can knock you down, but with love I can demonstrate to you that a different course is the way to go. The sacrifice of Christ is an evidence of God's love.
In the begining the perfect man Adam threw away the prospect of perfect human life for all of his offspring (inc. you and me). When he committed an act of disobedience to God he became a sinner and passed sin on to all of his offspring (Romans 5:12).

God is also a God of justice and cannot overlook sin He could rightly have put Adam & Eve to death at that point and that would have been the end for you and me - yes that would have demonstrated Gods power. However for the benefit of their offspring and as an example to His heavenly creatures the angels He allowed them to have offspring. This provided time for an important lesson and expressed His love.

An issue was here raised, as Satan (in the form of the serpent) in the Garden of Eden had questioned God's rightness in witholding the fruit of the tree of knowledge. In essence, was God or Satan a liar? This was no mere academic question or debate! Upon the answer to that question rests the life prospects of both heavenly and human creation. God has allowed a passage of time to allow that question to be answered once and for all - the evidence of living under Satan as the "ruler of the world" is there clearly for all to see. His view that man can live successfully whilst independent of God is shown to be flawed.

Out of love for mankind God provided a ransom sacrifice in the form of His Son Jesus to pay the ransom price for the sins of mankind. All of the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law pointed forward to that greater sacrifice of Jesus, which would be required only once to fulfill its purpose. All who exercise faith in that ransom sacrifice are acceptable to God and can gain the way out from sin and its consequences.

God is all-powerful and does not need to prove that to you or me, however in providing the ransom sacrifice He demonstrates His love for ALL and gives them the chance to accept Him and find salvation. The power of love is so much greater than the power of force.

Lawrence

05-13-2002, 04:45 AM

Well, first up, my sincere apologies if I bring up something that's already been raised, as like many of us, it's hard to find the time to keep up with a whole thread when it explodes like this!

Regarding the moon dust. It would almost certainly have been a case of "If there are 10 feet of moon dust, then our theory is right, if not, then we don't know". The lack of 10 feet isn't enough to disprove the theory of evolution on its own, and there's certainly not enough evidence overall to have disproved the theory. It hasn't been proven either, but it's still on the table. If anything, the few inches of dust would have disproved some sort of "moon dust as an indicator of the age of the earth" theory rather than the theory of evolution. And look, it takes a great deal more direct and decisive evidence than one observation to prove or disprove a theory.

The Big Bang has evidence as well. The main fact is that taking the energy from the calculated size of such an explosion, there should still be energy left from this that has essentially spread out at the universe has expanded. Such energy should be at a particular frequency so that together it essentially adds up to the original energy of the explosion, as per the laws of conservation of energy. That's the theory greatly simplified, and worded imprecisely, so for the physicists among us, please don't try to break my neck...

This energy was found in the form of microwaves originating from every point in the universe in every direction, and is now known as Cosmic Background Radiation. The frequency of this radiation is in line with calculations of what it should be. This, and other calculations regarding the expansion of the universe etc dates its age at something like 12 billion years (from memory) or more. I think some estimates go up to 50 billion. But certainly far more than 10,000. These ages are generally accepted.

Carbon dating isn't entirely accurate, but the margin of error is small relative to the dates it gives. It's based on radioactive decay, which while random, is also consistent over long periods of time. 65 million years for the end of the dinosaurs would be off by one million years either way at most I would guess.

Originally posted by jimb
I believe in God. I dont know how those who dont believe in God can live, its almost like what are you living for if you arent trying to get to God.

That's a very interesting question. I'm always open minded about the existence of a God. The different religions of the world all have their experiences and stories about their relationship with such a being or power. However, in my mind, any sort of human attempt to describe, explain, rationalise, visualise, ritualise or personify a God is fundamentally flawed by the fundamental limitations of humans themselves (limitations in terms of knowledge and understanding, perhaps social and psychological limitations also).

So if I have any gripes, it is against religion, and what I would consider its futile rituals and sacraments. Now, such rituals and sacraments serve their purpose in helping communicate the message of God to followers, but I think it is wrong to make such human made things themselves holy. For example, the Catholic Church and its sacraments I believe to be stepping across this line of making human inventions holy. I would much prefer a Catholic Church where the experience is purely personal, with communal sharing and learning, but without the ritual of the current Mass which to me is growingly irrelevant as times change. That opinion goes as far up as the Eucharist, which I do not believe in at all, beyond it being a symbol of a communal meal. The ideal mass for me would be one of reflection and learning from the word of God, rather than all the singing, prayers, responses, robed figures and candles.

I have nothing against the belief of religious people. To deny them their right to believe is an assault against their freedom, and freedom is something I believe in above all else.

Now, to answer the question after that lengthy babble. I live life for me, for you, and for all. To advance the knowledge and understanding of humanity, to defend freedom, and to help bring a greater social respect. I do not knowingly live for a God, but if your God is who you claim he is, then indeed I do.

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 06:56 AM

Greetings Tim_Greer:

Sometimes I think you post just to read your posts ;-)

You don't support anything, yet you argue without presenting any facts.

What was presented was scientific facts againt an old Earth and against evolution.

Thank you.

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 07:00 AM

Greetings Lawrence:

Please see http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/sy2001/1-4.asp and http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html as to why carbon dating has serious enough problems that were are not talking mere percentages of error.

Thank you.

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 07:05 AM

Greetings Lawrence:

Just a note, God does not want a religion. God wants a personal relationship with us.

There are some branches of Christianity that has scraments and rituations; but there are many that do not have such.

For instance, the Assemblies of God -- http://www.ag.org/top/ -- have no sacraments and use the keep it simple approach <smile>

There are many other branches that focus on a personal relationship with God.

If you take some time to read just the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), you will see God reaching out to us to bring us to Him in a very personal way.

It is not a religion; God never wanted that and it is show in the Gospels and elsewhere.

Thank you.

grandad

05-13-2002, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by dynamicnet
Greetings Lawrence:

Just a note, God does not want a religion. God wants a personal relationship with us.

{Snipped}

It is not a religion; God never wanted that and it is show in the Gospels and elsewhere.

Thank you.

Hmmmmmmm - I would like to know what gives you the belief that God only requires a personal relationship with us and where the Gospels support that view? Whilst it is true that a personal relationship with God is vital, all the biblical evidence points to the fact that God setup a "church" or "congregation" of disciples, to worship as a composite group of people.

Consider the organisation behind the worship offered by the Jews under the Mosaic Law - over 600 specific laws and regulations (inc the 10 commandments), specific details for the priesthood, the construction of the tabernacle/temple, sacrifices and timings and requirements for festivals. By no stretch of the imagination could those arrangements be considered purely "personal".

Similarly in the New Testament we read of Jesus setting up the Christian Congregation, of followers meeting together for worship and arranging missionary tours and preaching activity. Consider also Paul's admonition to the Christians about meeting together for worship:

"We ought to see how each of us may best arouse others to love and active goodness, not staying away from our meetings, as some do, but rather encouraging one another, all the more because you see the Day drawing near". (Hebrews 10 24,25).

Peter similarly showed that an "organised" worship was God's purpose:

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a dedicated nation, and a people claimed by God for His own, to proclaim the triumphs of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvellous light. You are now the people of God, who once were not His people; outside his mercy once, you have now received His mercy". (1 Peter 2:9).
"race", "priesthood", "nation", these are not "personal" terms.

Lawrence

05-13-2002, 09:15 AM

dynamicnet -

I've read much of the Bible, and I understand Catholicism well. I'm a practicing Catholic, in fact, albeit habitually. My father has a Master of Theology, and much of my knowledge comes from him.

I don't really have a whole lot of time to read through those pages, but I did have a skim read and their arguments seem to have a pre-bias. They already believe that evolution is false, and they're arguing against it. That's all well and good, but there's a whole other realm of opinions, evidence and fact representing the other side of the story. Those URLs are an argument, whereas what I'd be more interested in is a neutral discussion of the facts.

The other side of the argument is more mainstream, and far more accepted than any theory that the earth is only 10,000 years old. While I appreciate anyone's belief in God, believing that the earth is 10,000 years old just seems like nonsense. With the number of fossils we have, then the number of dating techniques, the evidence of all continents forming one - Pangea (did they move to their current locations in 10,000 years? Or did they not move at all?), ice cores from the poles, rings from fossilised trees... there's just so much more against the idea.

Abu Mami

05-13-2002, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by grandad
Consider the organisation behind the worship offered by the Jews under the Mosaic Law - over 600 specific laws and regulations (inc the 10 commandments), specific details for the priesthood, the construction of the tabernacle/temple, sacrifices and timings and requirements for festivals. By no stretch of the imagination could those arrangements be considered purely "personal".The 613 mitzvot (laws) as enumerated in the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) are a system of personal interaction with God. Many of these involve ritual, and they touch on both man's relationship with man, and man's relationship with God. This does not preclude a personal relationship with God. Rather, the Jewish relationship with God is VERY personal - there is no intermediary (the "son" of God, the holy mother, etc). The prophets' function was one of teaching and preaching, and not of being an intermediary. According to Jewish thought, man addresses God directly, and God addresses man directly.

To explain the mitzvot, the liturgy, and Jewish philosophy would tax both the patience of the members of this forum, as well as my limited intellectual capacity. Suffice it to say that I devote a considerable amount of time each day learning Torah (written and oral) in an attempt to understand, to the best of my abilities, God and his world. It is through this learning that I have strengthened my belief in God, as well as my personal relationship with Him.

Just my two agorot. (100 agorot in an Israeli shekel)

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 09:25 AM

Greetings Lawrence:

Being raised Roman Catholic, at one point I practiced it.

I don't know about you, but I never read the Bible as a quest.

When I did start reading it in late 1989 and early 1990, it was actually a quest to prove the Bible contained errors. In the end, I found out I was the one in error.

Lawrence, there is a difference between a theory and laws of science. Gigantic differences.

There is not a predisposition in the web sites mentioned, there are scientific facts and scientific laws stated which disprove the "theory" of evolution.

Thank you.

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 09:28 AM

Greetings grandad:

The Biblical issues dealing with a personal relationship with God do not negate the need for corporate worship. And, my post did not imply otherwise <smile>

As you go through the Biblical journey, you will see God saving individuals, families, and households of families. Yet on the basis of one-by-one.

While corporate worship is extremely important, going to church or belong to church saves no one. It is that personal relationship with God where you accept God as your personal Lord, Savior, Redeemer, and King that brings about salvation.

Thank you.

P.S. The thief on the cross is the best example of grace. No church, no works, just a confension of faith.

Imortant: Per the book of James, I do believe faith breeds works; however, per Galations and other scriptions, works without faith does nothing.

Abu Mami

05-13-2002, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by dynamicnet
The Biblical issues dealing with a personal relationship with God do not negate the need for corporate worship. And, my post did not imply otherwise You posted this just as I was to post that it was my feeling that you two guys basically agree. There is no conflict between a personal relationship with God and community worship (corporate worship sounds too much like Wall Street :) ). In fact, community is an integral part of religion and worship of God. This manifests itself in various ways, but the simplest expression is charity - taking care of others, the community. In Hebrew, charity is tzedakah. The meaning of tzedakah is righteousness. God has given us the task of "correcting" a wrong. By taking care of those in need we achieve righteousness.

I guess I'm up to 4 agorot now.

Lawrence

05-13-2002, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by dynamicnet
Being raised Roman Catholic, at one point I practiced it.

I don't know about you, but I never read the Bible as a quest.

When I did start reading it in late 1989 and early 1990, it was actually a quest to prove the Bible contained errors. In the end, I found out I was the one in error.

Lawrence, there is a difference between a theory and laws of science. Gigantic differences.

There is not a predisposition in the web sites mentioned, there are scientific facts and scientific laws stated which disprove the "theory" of evolution.

But any theory is based on established laws. The counter-theory that they argue is not a law in itself, it is just based on established laws as the theories of evolution themselves are. It's a theory itself. Certainly, it questions evolution and uses solid data to raise inconsistencies in it, but it by no means refutes it. I don't mean this to be a personal attack, but you seem to be calling your own evidence "proof" and "law", and the evidence against the argument "bias" and "theory". In reality, at this point in the ongoing scientific debate about these matters, both are theory, and there is no proof, only evidence. I have no doubt that if these articles refuted evolution, there would have been a great deal of fuss about it.

Another point, look at the authors of the article in that second link. Three authors, and it's only the editor who has a PhD. Without being able to experience the theories and observations myself, I would be much more willing to trust the life long work of vast numbers of Doctors and Professors in well established Universities and research institutions around the world than these few people. It's an interesting paper, but it doesn't come from a reliable source in my opinion. Some good ideas yes, but a trouncing of evolution theory? Not even close.

Abu Mami

05-13-2002, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Lawrence and cut mercilessly
Some good ideas yes, but a trouncing of evolution theory? Not even close. Interesting points Lawrence. I think we see eye to eye on this issue.

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 09:57 AM

Greetings Lawrence:

"But any theory is based on established laws."

This is incorrect. A theory is based on obversation; sometimes, like evolution, on indirect observation.

The 2nd Law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.

"but you seem to be calling your own evidence "proof" and "law", "

The 2nd Law of thermodynamics has been a law for some time.

I didn't create this law, and to date it has been immutable.

"Without being able to experience the theories and observations myself, I would be much more willing to trust the life long work of vast numbers of Doctors and Professors in well established Universities and research institutions around the world than these few people."

1. I was actually suprised by the number of scientists that believe in creation. See http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

2. Do you know how many well established doctors and professors believed the world was flat?

Lastly, why not do some home work and investigate the issue yourself.

Then it is not as much as putting faith in the opions of others as in putting faith into what you have verified and read.

Hence, I ask you to please consider reading the Bible outside of any setting where you feel you have to do so; but in a quest to learn whether it contains the truth or not.

And if you find out the Bible is without error (almost everything Jesus stated came out of the Torah and what we call the Old Testiment). Jesus believed in a literal Adam and Eve. Et all.

If you read the Bible, and find it without error. Then if God states He created the World in 7 days, then He did so.

And this does not go against science. Because there is scientific facts to prove a young Earth; and there are scientific laws that disprove the theory of evolution.

Thank you.

It's an interesting paper, but it doesn't come from a reliable source in my opinion. Some good ideas yes, but a trouncing of evolution theory? Not even close.

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 09:59 AM

Greetings Abu:

"You posted this just as I was to post that it was my feeling that you two guys basically agree. There is no conflict between a personal relationship with God and community worship."

Correct.

Thank you.

Lawrence

05-13-2002, 10:18 AM

To explain better, by theories being based on laws, I meant "built upon". The famous words of Newton sum it up, "If I have seen further than other men it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". Science it about developing theories based on established facts, then proving those theories building up again. So, for example, the work of Rutherford in his atomic models was based on Bohr.

So that's really what I meant. Those articles have pulled together many laws to come up with a theory of a young earth. But that theory of a young earth is not itself a law. Likewise, the theory of evolution builds on archealogical finds and other such primary evidence, but is not itself a law.

Also, as I've said, I am well read on religion, and well read on the Bible. I understand the teachings of Christianity. I once believed them, but I do no longer. I once had faith, and it felt great, and I could do many things with great confidence. Gradually, the faith grew stale, perhaps due to my frustration with the Church, but I could do the same things with the same confidence, making me realise that the faith was blind and unnecessary. Perhaps I never had true faith, but when it is a personal experience, it is hard to argue against. I've moved in the other direction to you I guess :)

I have done reading on this, although not as much on evolution as on religion. What I'm trying to explain is that the reason I do not believe in God is not because I do not understand the concept, but because I do understand the concept, but do not accept it. In the same way as you obviously understand the concept, but do accept it. I am not ignorant of what religion, faith and belief are, and I hope you don't think that a lack of belief implies that.

Actually, we had another thread like this some time ago, and I still remember something cperciva said - it takes just as much faith to not believe as it takes to believe (sorry for the misquote cperciva, but that was the gist of it :) ).

Lastly, why not do some home work and investigate the issue yourself.

Then it is not as much as putting faith in the opions of others as in putting faith into what you have verified and read.

I don't agree with you there. If you are reading the writing of others, then you are putting your faith in them, not experiencing it yourself. Furthermore, if you are reading the Bible, you are putting your faith in the Hebrew oral tradition, their writing of it, and their rewriting of it, and similarly for the early Christians. I take it that you are a fundamentalist, however, and believe the Bible to be the precise Word of God? In that case, as explained previously, there is no way to refute such a belief, or any belief.

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 10:37 AM

Greetings Lawrence:

"Science it about developing theories based on established facts, then proving those theories building up again."

I do agree with you, Lawrence, there are some facts in theories. However, not all theories are based on established facts.

The theory of evolution, for example is more based on indirect observation than any established facts.

1. What scientific laws estabish a basis for evolution?

2. What are your thoughts on the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how it impacts the theory of evolution?

"and well read on the Bible"

How recent is the "well read?"

I ask because in late 1989 when I thought my higher education made me smarter than a group of Christians on a BBS system, I would have stated I was "well read" on the Bible and religion.

I went to classes (I would kill the spelling) at our Roman Catholic church. My brother and I where Altar Boys for about a decade of our lives.

Yet, when I started to read the Bible fresh, I found out I was not really "well read" at all. I was going by memories or recollections or biases that were established over the years.

There was no "freshness" to it. Just stale memories that I did not know where stale.

"I understand the teachings of Christianity. I once believed them, but I do no longer. I once had faith, and it felt great, and I could do many things with great confidence. Gradually, the faith grew stale, perhaps due to my frustration with the Church, but I could do the same things with the same confidence, making me realise that the faith was blind and unnecessary."

Don't take this the wrong way (it is not a cut), but you stated earlier that you were a practicing Roman Catholic. How so given the above statement?

While there are many Roman Catholic Christians, there are many who are not. The same goes for any organized faith and religion.

For me... I've found going back to the Bible to provide the fruit necessary to turn me from a non-believer (ranged from believing in no God to there is a God and He is ok and I'm ok -- do your own thing, but don't hurt anyone) to a believer.

"don't agree with you there. If you are reading the writing of others, then you are putting your faith in them, not experiencing it yourself."

Lawrence, you make this statement after just stating you believe in some PHD's and doctorate fellows as opposed to doing your own homework <smile>

There is a lot to be said about experiencing things for yourself. I am one who often learns by doing and experiencing.

But that doesn't mean I have to do it all myself. It doesn't mean that I have to put my hand on the fire to get 3rd degree burns to see if what is written is for real.

Lawrence, I used to believe the Bible was written by man; and to err is to be human.

When I went on my own quest, which was to prove the Bible wrong, I found out (even through 3rd party geographical and archeological and historical evidence) the Bible is without error.

That the 1st five books of the Bible were given to Moses by God Himself; and the last book is a direct testimony from Jesus to John.

And that every book inbetween was written by divine inspiration from God Himself.

I started the journey fo reading the Bible, Lawrence, to prove Christians and Jews wrong with their own books.

Yet, I was the one proven wrong.

Thank you.

Lawrence

05-13-2002, 11:17 AM

Don't take this the wrong way (it is not a cut), but you stated earlier that you were a practicing Roman Catholic. How so given the above statement?

It's odd, I know. The Bible has a lot of good wisdom in it, and it's worth reading and listening to. I do not think it is the word of God, however. I suppose I'm still in transition between believing and not believing, so I still attend Mass. I can see the final straw coming soon though, and I'll break away from that. But that sort of situation is difficult to convey in speech let alone text.

I don't mean to try and disprove anyone's belief. As I've said, it's their right to believe it, and not only that, such belief is a personal thing and cannot be disproved. But, as your belief is personal, other's lack of belief is also personal.

"don't agree with you there. If you are reading the writing of others, then you are putting your faith in them, not experiencing it yourself."

Lawrence, you make this statement after just stating you believe in some PHD's and doctorate fellows as opposed to doing your own homework <smile>

That's the gist of what I said, yes. What I said precisely though was this:

Without being able to experience the theories and observations myself, I would be much more willing to trust the life long work of vast numbers of Doctors and Professors in well established Universities and research institutions around the world than these few people.

To explain again, short of experiencing it myself, and having to rely on others, there's some I'd pick to rely on over others. So no, I'm not saying I prefer to rely on others over my own homework, rather that when I can't do the research and scientific reports myself, it's necessary to choose reliable reports to believe.

By you reading those articles, or anyone else for that matter, you are not experiencing the results and observations reported first-hand. You cannot be sure they are true. With enough time, you could verify them by chasing up the references given. But I think you are in error to take them as law, and to accept them as true but not arguments for evolution. It seems as though you have read only one side of the story, and convinced yourself it was true before reading the other side.

Also, about the second law of thermodynamics, obviously that raises some questions for evolution as you've explained. But again, it doesn't disprove it, and it's going to take someone with much more knowledge in the field than me to explain it, so I won't even try!

I'm starting to repeat myself though, so perhaps a summary of what I'm saying won't go astray. My stance is that faith and belief are personal things. I think it's important to keep an open mind to other ideas but be willing to discuss and defend your own if necessary. Ideally it is exercising your freedom while respecting that of others. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to prove or disprove any particular belief at this stage, and any idea that one can "prove" their belief I believe to be flawed.

And because I believe it, you cannot refute me :D. But it's all healthy discussion. What makes a belief is really that it cannot be proven. If it can be proven, it is no longer a belief, but accepted knowledge.

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 11:32 AM

Greetings Lawrence:

"By you reading those articles, or anyone else for that matter, you are not experiencing the results and observations reported first-hand. You cannot be sure they are true."

The same goes for the material on evolution, Lawrence.

"Also, about the second law of thermodynamics, obviously that raises some questions for evolution as you've explained. But again, it doesn't disprove it, and it's going to take someone with much more knowledge in the field than me to explain it, so I won't even try!"

How does it not disprove it? If the theory is based on simple to complex and anarchy to order and the 2nd Law states the opposite, then what?

Evolution would have to break the laws of science in order to work.

"To explain again, short of experiencing it myself, and having to rely on others, there's some I'd pick to rely on over others. So no, I'm not saying I prefer to rely on others over my own homework, rather that when I can't do the research and scientific reports myself, it's necessary to choose reliable reports to believe. "

Did you know that over 80% of the Bible was historical? That such history can be verified by 3rd parties?

That archeologists found the cities of the plains as mentioned in Genesis. That they found a non-Christian, non-Judaic scroll that mentioned King Neb. as mentioned in Daniel was ill for seven years, and advisors ran the kingdom (as was mentioned in Daniel).

That's one set of facts for me that made the "leap of faith" a small one for me to make.

When is the last time you read the Bible seeking answers?

In ending, you are correct, Lawrence, when you state faith is personal. I do apologize if I came across the wrong way.

You are right. Just knowing my own background about being raised Roman Catholic, been an Alter Boy, falling away into being a Wiccan, an Athiest, and Agnostic. Being educated with a computer science degree.

Thinking myself well read and well educated... I thought experience and education was the only thing that matter.

Yet, when I made that journey, really to disprove the Bible, I found out that reading it afresh, checking for 3rd party evidence, and reading 3rd party historical documents that corresponded to the history I learned I was wrong.

Hence, my belief that if more people just read it fresh (don't go by years gone by; memory does become stale and could have been biased by circumstances times past) on quest of their own choosing, there might be surprising results.

Thank you.

Tim Greer

05-13-2002, 01:45 PM

You guy's were having some interesting debates earlier, but every since this dynamicnet hypocrite started posting, this thread has degraded into complete and utter nonsense about how being correct only applies to dynamicnet, even if you agreed with dynamicnet. This is utter stupidity, I suggest you just put dynamicnet on "ignore" (I did) in your settings, unless you enjoy wasting time.

On a final note, I only doubted the Earth is ~10,000 years old. I never said it was impossible -- I wasn't there and all our dating techniques could be way off. There's a lot of people that think the Earth is ~15,000 to ~25,000 years old, but I don't see any proof one way or another. I tend to think it's at least a few million years old, but be it 10,000 or 65 million, I really don't see how that alone supports evolution or there being no creation factor by God, so people like dynamicnet can be petty, bitch all they want and try and make themselves feel important, but I have no need for hypocrites and jerks just sitting there insulting people and acting like they have some special, exclusive right to be correct about the theories they choose to believe in, based on very biased views. Just ignore the troll. Cheers!

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 02:08 PM

Greetings Tim_Greer:

I do apologize if you feel I insulted you; no insult was intended.

"There's a lot of people that think the Earth is ~15,000 to ~25,000 years"

Do a lot of people having an opinion on something make it correct?

"I tend to think it's at least a few million years old, but be it 10,000 or 65 million"

Based on what facts that you yourself have checked out?

Take care.

Tim Greer

05-13-2002, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by dynamicnet
Greetings Tim_Greer:

I do apologize if you feel I insulted you; no insult was intended.

Yeah, sure. Actions speak louder than words -- of course, your words speak for themselves.

"There's a lot of people that think the Earth is ~15,000 to ~25,000 years"

Do a lot of people having an opinion on something make it correct?

Well, of course not, _you_ didn't agree with them. And, did I say that meant they were correct, or more correct? No. If you would only just stop trying to contort the things I say. I have been clear in my words.

"I tend to think it's at least a few million years old, but be it 10,000 or 65 million"

Based on what facts that you yourself have checked out?

Take care.

Based on a lot of theories that I tend to think are more sound than the theories that YOU agree with, you goof! What kind of question is that? Really, who do you think you are anyway? And you base your opposing opinion on _your_ agreement with some other people's theories. So what? Are you insane? You need to figure something out here and stop being a hypocrite. [A note in response to your earlier post asking me if I knew what it meant, give me a break]. Realize, you need to practice what you preach. I forgot to disable my email alerts after I put you on ignore. Go argue with someone else now.

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 03:05 PM

Greetings Tim:

"Based on a lot of theories that I tend to think are more sound than the theories"

So based on the opinion of others you formulated what you think?

I don't follow. Since you've presented no counter facts, I guess I will not understand.

Take care.

Tim Greer

05-13-2002, 04:00 PM

Greetings dynamicnet,

Shouldn't you be on a Crusade, or something?

Anyway, just so you know, and end the nonsense that you surely posted, all I see is this, and not your post:

"This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]"

I'm not going to "click [here]", because I know the gist of it anyway and I'm pretty sure it's not any apology for the lowly way you've been posting. You seem to be confused that your rantings and ego matter to me. Let me make this clear to you. I know what I believe to be true in regards to the Lord, and I study God's word and Christ's teachings. I don't need to argue with you to feel that I'm right about something, and I educate myself and do my own research. Your personal opinions don't hold any water with me.
After all, I was respectful enough to initially request you document something, since I didn't know it to be a fact, when you claimed it was. Your opinions don't apply to fact, just so you know and you can go on and on about this nonsense, and you surely will.

My point is, all this nonsense isn't helping and it's just annoying. When you have something intelligent or civil to discuss... well, you know what, I don't foresee that, so I just won't know if that ever happens with you unless I see your comments in a response where someone quoted you. You aren't going to impress anyone with your claims and comments, unless you can be level headed and fair in your debating, and you have failed to do this thus far. Again, you're muted, there's nothing I have interest in, so this is my final comment directed to you and just so you know to not bother to respond. It's unfortunate you choose this manner, but it's none of my concern. Good luck.

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 04:08 PM

Greetings Tim:

"After all, I was respectful enough to initially request you document something, since I didn't know it to be a fact"

What have you documented?

I posted source material detailing the issue with the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well as other issues.

What have you stated that contains facts?

I'm sorry you feel the best way for you to debate is to resort to name calling.

Thank you.

grandad

05-13-2002, 04:27 PM

"Return evil for evil to no one, Provide fine things in the sight of all men. If possible, as far as it depends upon you, be peaceable with all men." (Romans 12:17,18) :)

Tim Greer

05-13-2002, 04:32 PM

Grandad, I've enjoyed reading your posts in this thread, as well as other's. I neglected to be clear earlier, of whom my recent posts were directed to, it was not "everyone else". Cheers!

[Edit: Noticed major typo -- like that's new :-) I have to remind myself to do a spell check for now on!]

dynamicnet

05-13-2002, 04:34 PM

Greetings Grandad:

"Return evil for evil to no one, Provide fine things in the sight of all men. If possible, as far as it depends upon you, be peaceable with all men." (Romans 12:17,18)

Thank you for reminding all of us about name calling and about seeking peace.

And I realize this applies to all of us and not just one.

Thank you.

Marts

05-13-2002, 07:51 PM

have to say

YES without a doubt

CobaltConn

05-13-2002, 09:43 PM

I've attended church for about 18 years..hmm thats how old I am :)

Anyway, to me, I don't know how I couldn't...

How else..could there be...anything?

Evolution, big bang?

Why hasn't everything evolved..eg, bacteria probably would be more efficient if they could culture themselves in a nice warm environment that they created themselves...

...and WHY NOT?

Why not believe in something greater than yourself, help you strive for a better life...joy...?

What if it turns out there is no God, what have you lost?

What about all the history that matches up?

What about miracles that happen TODAY?

ADEhost

05-13-2002, 10:15 PM

Hmmm I had to laugh after reading so many post.

Still it's good to see that people still believe in god, gives them something to pick a fight over.

well enjoy yourselves.

mike

Choppy

05-13-2002, 11:17 PM

I believe in God...

I Pray everynight without fail, or sometimes in the morning if there is a problem with a server. :)

I believe its important to have faith to lead a moral and respectable life...

Many can argue many can talk, sceptics etc.

Should be noted and remembered that religion/faith was in control of many countries ( Some till this day )

Just my opinion as per usual

Tim Greer

05-13-2002, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by ADEhost
Hmmm I had to laugh after reading so many post.

Still it's good to see that people still believe in god, gives them something to pick a fight over.

well enjoy yourselves.

mike

I don't know if I misunderstood you, but if I didn't, I don't think that comment is fair or accurate. People that believe in God, are human too, and arguments happen. For the most part, this thread was a civil debate or just people posting opinions and discussing things. However, anything to do with God or religion is usually a pretty heated one, as is the same with politics, etc. -- but it's _not_ usually the believers that pick fights -- not anymore than the non-believers anyway. And again, this is so, since we're all human (whatever they tend to believe) and no one in their right mind is going to act like they are beyond emotions, so things happen. I know a lot of people expect people that have faith to me maniacs, mindless, want to go out on crusades, push their opinions on people, always think they are right, or better.. or people sometimes yell that someone's not what they claim, because they aren't acting "perfect". I don't pretend I'm something I'm not, just because I have faith. If I did that, then I'd be dynamicnet. (See, there's a good example, I don't let people try and walk over me or put words in my mouth either and I'll say something. Yes, I am human). I thought the thread went pretty well, for the most part, until recently. :-)