Religion Revisited?

[imported_JagdWulfe]

I used to be pestered by the Chaplains here about converting to Christianity. They did this tell I told them I am a Disciple of Cthulhu. They made the mistake of asking me what my religon is about and I told them that we pray for the day when the stars are right and Cthulhu rises from his Death Slumber in Ryleh and crushes humanity. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif And yes I have it on my dog tags.

 

[imported_snoopy]

Is he the same one that those Ralian cloning freaks worship?

 

[Lady_Magica]

ot slightly, i had some jehovah's witnesses pop past this morning... kept them talking for about 10 minutes before i gave the hint that i wasn't interested

anyone that bothers me at 9am on a saturday morning will not get much attention... teeeheehee

 

[Mystery Meat]

answer the door naked

worked for me but you being female may only encourage them

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

The laws of physics are never definete nor complete.

<hr></blockquote>

What? And how abouts do you determine this? Your cutting edge knowledge of physical and/or astronomical dynamics?
Let me reiterate my positiong regarding your posts ; shut your gaping gash of a pie-hole L.C.!!
That response to you is kind of growing on me....are you okay with it? =]

Nah man, I think we've pretty got the laws of physics down, and thus, they're regarded as laws. I'd argue anyways.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I think the idea of a creator is allot more complex then you you think.

<hr></blockquote>
7 days and seven nights doesn't seem too complicated, but I'd be interested in hearing your argument.

PLEASE, convince me there is a 'god', if you have the will. I'd love to believe it.

 

[Devin MacGregor]

This from a harvard study:

<blockquote><hr>


Over the course of the Harvard study, the low-carb dieters consumed an extra 25,000 calories, which mathematically should have added up to an extra 7 pounds. But it didn't! And that strikes at the most basic scientific assumptions of a calorie, which has at least one critic, Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University, muttering, "It violates the laws of thermodynamics." Still, it's hard to argue with a smaller belt size.


<hr></blockquote>

You said:

<blockquote><hr>


Nah man, I think we've pretty got the laws of physics down, and thus, they're regarded as laws. I'd argue anyways.


<hr></blockquote>

I guess then for the laws of thermodynamics we don't huh? It's only Harvard. The wiser you get the more you realize the less you know and that these laws are not finite.

 

[Mystery Meat]

A researcher doing poor science (extremely small control group) and using the results to discount thermodynamics is quite laughable. Even more so is using this study to discount fundamental laws of physics. If that extra matter somehow disappeared the energy release would have vaporized her specimens and most of Harvard University.

I doubt her paper concluded that thermodymanics was wrong. Further netscape news articles are not scientific papers.

This 'research' was about low fat vs smaller and larger low carb diets to see which netted the most weight loss. The only logical conclusion which can be drawn is that human metabolism is not fully understood with respect to certain diets. She obviously never met my stomach *belch*

You should use examples from astrophysics or quantum mechanics, not nutritional sciences.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

7 days and seven nights doesn't seem too complicated, but I'd be interested in hearing your argument.

<hr></blockquote>
Depends on your belief. I do not believe in the writtin word of creation in the litteral sense, I think of it as a story or folk lore of our creation in time.

I also do not buy into the Creationism theory, I believe in Darwinism and the Big Bang theory. I think if we are truly in Gods likeness then he creates much the same way we do, twist here, twist there, some Organic compounds here, few tectonic plate movements there.

If you look on how impossible it is for us to even be here it is mind blowing. But we are thriving all alone in the middle of a sea of destruction. Just to be what we are is amazing, other animals are smart, most Primates have a 4-6 year old intelligence, and Dolphins are as intelligent if not more then us or so they think. But we have thumbs, we can use and make fire, we can learn and communicate our history so it is cumulative. We have conquered and thrived in every climate and land in the world. All of this is because of the meticulous touching and nudging of God. I think of God useing natural laws in the same way we use them, but he has ultimate knowledge and power of them. I have never thought of God a magician and just think a tree and plop there it was.

<blockquote><hr>

PLEASE, convince me there is a 'god', if you have the will. I'd love to believe it.

<hr></blockquote>
I cannot convince you, or ever even get close. You need to find him, you need to accept his gift of Faith. I can help you along but it is a singular pathway. I think you are haveing preconcieved feelings of who or what God is. He is more then you think he is about. God is also differant to everyone in differant ways, but that is because we are all differant.

 

[Guest]

You're correct about the study. The woman quoted was totally confused because the results defied the dietary "law" she had been taught was sacrosanct. It didn't, btw, surprise those of us who have dieted for years and have seen it in action repeatedly.

The common reaction in the past before the study was to simply assert we who made the claim were either mistaken, delusional, or just plain lying.

 

[imported_snoopy]

<blockquote><hr>

If you look on how impossible it is for us to even be here it is mind blowing.

<hr></blockquote>
Actually, given the abundance of the base chemicals and protiens in the universe, and the prediction of the existance of massive numbers of planets with conditions condusive to life, it is likely (as opposed to impossible) that life exists on other planets.

Intelligence, on the other hand, seems to be quite rare (at least on our planet), and if it (earth) is a gage, intelligent life should be hard to find (not sure I believe we are all that intelligent but that is a different debate).

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>"Actually, given the abundance of the base chemicals and protiens in the universe, and the prediction of the existance of massive numbers of planets with conditions condusive to life, it is likely (as opposed to impossible) that life exists on other planets."</font color=blue>

I agree with the possible notion of other life in the universe. Some Christians think that is impossible just because it does not say anything in the Bible, or we at least have not found it yet in the Bible at least. Just like the World was flat for years and was the center of the universe, but yet the OT stated that it was round and not the center, but was not deciphered as that till later.

 

[Guest]

OT stated that it was round and not the center, but was not deciphered as that till later.


Can you provide a relevant quote?

 

[Devin MacGregor]

<blockquote><hr>


I doubt her paper concluded that thermodymanics was wrong. Further netscape news articles are not scientific papers.

This 'research' was about low fat vs smaller and larger low carb diets to see which netted the most weight loss. The only logical conclusion which can be drawn is that human metabolism is not fully understood with respect to certain diets. She obviously never met my stomach *belch*

You should use examples from astrophysics or quantum mechanics, not nutritional sciences.


<hr></blockquote>

Oh come now and the only conclusion is that the laws of thermodynamics are not fully understood otherwise human metabolism would be as well. It was on when I opened up netscape and thought how funny that some are implying that these laws of science are absolute.

Therefore they are not absolute laws but guidelines of current knowledge. If they were absolute then no matter the diet the laws would apply. Dont dismiss it because it is nutrition nor dismiss it because netscape posted the article.

This applies to all science. Science cannot be absolute. It has to be open for change. Unless you are saying we humans know all that there is to know? Which is even more laughable than your attempt to discredit here.

A law is a law is a law and in order for it to be absolute it has to apply to ALL situations otherwise it is not absolute.

I am an athiest so this is no stance to claim the right of any diety. I simply laugh at my own genre that acts like they dont have faith and blindly believe many things to be absolute based on our extremely finite access to the universe as if all elements reside here in our limited sphere and that there arent factors/elements that we are unware of that could quite possibly change what we call laws. What percentage of the universe have we explored at the moment? Have we landed on any other celestrial body other than a satellite? Oh wait we had an expense RC car run into some rocks. Oh wait we had some hunks of metal flung around our solar system. Damn but nothing from any other solar system.

These laws are defined by us as we discover new events in our universe. So to go on what Cyne said or implied: Gawd is the universe then I guess Gawd could lift that rock since Gawd is that rock but then he couldnt lift it over his head till we define what "head" is exactly. Since he is the universe then to lift it over him would be impossible since he would have to lift it outside of himself and if he gets a hernia doing so then does he have adequate medical coverage? But none of this disproves the existance of that being or entity or energy or whatever you want to call it. It simply discounts that Gawd is Gandalf.

 

[ClubaSealPup]

<blockquote><hr>

Sex is considered a sin because constantine the great, who cobbled the most common version of the new testament together and held a coucil to declare jesus christ divine three centuries after his death, was attempting to stamp out paganism which revered woman and set them equal to men in their religion, if not above. Also why women can't go very high up in the church. It is small minded to think that any god would make the distinction between two sexes to grant that one of them would be more able to carry his word than the other.

One of the most effective smear campaigns in all of history.

<hr></blockquote>
Also known as the "pap smear" campaign

 

[Mystery Meat]

*wonders what's in Devin's bong and sneaks a pinch* /php-bin/shared/images/icons/laugh.gif

The first law of thermodynamics: matter or energy is never created nor destroyed.

Second Law of thermodynamics: all systems tend to a state of entropy (disorder) over time.

I suggested looking at astrophysics and quantum mechanics because there are as you say limits to our understanding and the laws which we have developed through observation, particularly with respect to the first law in infinitely warped space or at the subatomic level.

Precise observation is really the key here as it is the foundation of science. We exist in a macroscopic world and certainly not in the core of a blackhole. Our physical laws are built around that reference frame and in it the laws of thermodynamics are quite firm as they are essentially mathematical certainties much like how ordinary matter in our reference frame cannot exceed or achieve the speed of light.

I would not dismiss this experiment out of hand simply for being about nutrition but this article is not the paper on which the research is based. Show me the abstract for this research paper and I guarantee you that there is no mention of thermodynamics because that can't be adequately observed in this type of experiment. You'd have to go to physics and deal with matter and energy in pure albeit exotic systems or examples.

Human metabolism and nutrition simply have too many outside factors such as the subject's physiology, activity levels, respiration rates, physical and even emotional health, hormone levels, food texture (did they chew their food to the exact consistency), etc, on and on. Were the subjects clones held in a closed system so they could measure O2 uptake, co2, h2o output, solid and liquid waste elimination versus food intake and subject's mass? That's what it would take to use a human beings to fart around with the validity thermodynamic laws.

 

[Guest]

I think deciphering is just another way of justifying a change because a stance seems silly to some.

Even the "You shall not murder" interpretation is silly...I mean, why make 9 laws that are independant of mans law, then make the most important one completely dependant on mans law?

According to this, even Saddam Hussein didn't break that rule.

 

[Guest]

Neither of the two laws, nor the reference to exceeding speed of light are 100% certain.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Oh come now and the only conclusion is that the laws of thermodynamics are not fully understood otherwise human metabolism would be as well.

<hr></blockquote> But could you have stated an opposing argument without so many damn variables??
<blockquote><hr>

If they were absolute then no matter the diet the laws would apply.

<hr></blockquote>
The circumstances wherein these laws were tested would have to be absolute as well. Taking different people with different metabolisms and trying to deny the laws of thermodynamics via a small study group based on nutritional observances does not a sound study make. IMO.

<blockquote><hr>

I simply laugh at my own genre that acts like they dont have faith and blindly believe many things to be absolute based on our extremely finite access to the universe as if all elements reside here in our limited sphere and that there arent factors/elements that we are unware of that could quite possibly change what we call laws.

<hr></blockquote>
Can I summarize that you may be considering people small or close-minded? I absolutely agree.
It's humorous that Leandra brought up the proposition to close the patent office, because that's one of the things I'd argue to prove your own point Devin. I have plenty of times before =P

However, I think there might come a point where, based on scientific leaps, we can safely call those who believe in a god 'small-minded'.

Yeah, nothing is absolute, but how absolute do we have to get in order to succesfully debate the logical assumption that there is no god? The believers would have us PROVE he doesn't exist, like you earlier stated. But does there EVER come a point where we don't have to rely on proof that isn't going to manifest itself and instead rely on our own proof? There has to be a turning point somewhere in our evolution where we can do that. I hope.

 

[Mystery Meat]

<blockquote><hr>

Neither of the two laws, nor the reference to exceeding speed of light are 100% certain.

<hr></blockquote>

Granted, and that's what I said, though to challenge physical law, the method, data and observations must be "100%". 21 various people eating various diets as part of a nutritional experiment just doesn't cut the mustard in the context in which Devin sees as the conclusion as it was a statement taken out of context.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I do not believe in the writtin word of creation in the litteral sense, I think of it as a story or folk lore of our creation in time.

<hr></blockquote> Well if you admit to the fallability of things stated in 'the book', you have to question everything, don't you?
Noah's ark?? Are you kidding us, Noah? At no point did someone not swat one of the two misquitos? Who was hell-bent on making sure they got a few carpenter ants for the ride? Or termites?? Ooooh, termites could damn well have been the destruction of our entire species should they have taken an interest in the boat, eh?
My point is that I'm not sure what god you believe in, or how you can have the belief at all considering how loosely you define him/it, and admit the fallacies in the bible.
<blockquote><hr>

But we are thriving all alone in the middle of a sea of destruction. Just to be what we are is amazing, other animals are smart, most Primates have a 4-6 year old intelligence, and Dolphins are as intelligent if not more then us or so they think.

<hr></blockquote>
Then what is it that makes us special??
<blockquote><hr>

But we have thumbs, we can use and make fire, we can learn and communicate our history so it is cumulative.

<hr></blockquote>
This is what makes us special? Because we have these attributes? What other attributes does our species have?
Let's see, he have violence, intolerance, IGNORANCE, small-mindedness, a thirst for power, a taste for vengeance, a need for intellectual comfort and the propensity to believe in the words of whomever speaks with the most conviction.

So we get Hitler, Koresh, Jones, Osama, the suicidal comet club and many others that we blindly follow because of their belief in what they are saying.

What I'm saying is that humans, in regards to your assesment, have ultimately proven themselves stupid and easily led, which I'd think would further dismiss your entire argument (that you helped to dismiss yourself) that we're somehow ordained with the capability of understanding or recognizing a 'god' because of this great gift that he's bestowed upon us. Two thumbs? I'd rather have been born a dolphin, at least they're admirable creatures.

I find nothing admirable about ****-sapiens. We can't co-exist without killing eachother, and we can't exist without completely disrupting the eco-system surrounding ourselves, animals included. I'd argue that a lot of these downfalls could be attributed to this belief in a 'god', which we can't seem to overcome because of our own, selfish fear of our individual demise.

<blockquote><hr>

You need to find him, you need to accept his gift of Faith.

<hr></blockquote> Faith based on what?? The bible? Jesus Christ? I have every faith in Jesus's teachings, but none in what civilization has inferred into them.

I'm with you in what you seem to be saying. The temple of god is within each of us, but that's for US, that's not for the good of a greater being. I think that's an important point that Religion overlooked in their church building and in deploying missionaries to conquest the rest of the population.

Church = $, and power, and I'd want nothing from a god that would condone these human endeavours in his name.

If we've got a large sect of our planet's population thumping a book which you, yourself stated to be fallable, then what's that saying?

Maybe we're all a little ignorant? Maybe? And if that's the case (which it most certainly is), how much can we trust what we've been taught by ourselves?

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Nobody knows I'm a redneck.

<hr></blockquote>
Well we do now! But who the hell knows what a redneck is??

Where'd this term come from and why is it so prevailent? I call BS on your sig and and hereby confronting you in a manner wherein I won't be denied!

No, C'mon, whats a redneck? Inquiring minds want to know! Do you have a large adam's apple?? Is it red??

 

[Guest]

Good point about Noahs ark really. Your post is alot more sober than usual, very nice.

 

[Guest]

Thanks L.C. =]

I'm a little drunk now, but not as bad as usual! JUST drunk enough to appreciate your response without thinking you're about to lambast me =]

 

[Guest]

The diet study had zip to do with the laws of thermodynamics. That was brought into it when some woman tried to use that as an argument against accepting the study's findings because they didn't agree with her presuppositions.

 

[Guest]

A redneck is a southern country type who is supposed to be stupid, racist, sexist, and ignorant beyond belief. It's sterotype obviously, but Jeff Foxworthy has made a lot of money making jokes about it. One of my favorites is: You know you're a redneck when you go over to visit your rich relative to help him take the wheels off of his house.

 

[imported_snoopy]

Naw...there are lots of rednecks up here in alberta too. Go sit in the bar in any oil patch town and you will understand the work redneck in a hurry...hehe.

 

[imported_JagdWulfe]

"Is he the same one that those Ralian cloning freaks worship? "

No you are mistaking my Deity for that Christian one.

 

[Mystery Meat]

<blockquote><hr>

No, C'mon, whats a redneck? Inquiring minds want to know! Do you have a large adam's apple?? Is it red??

<hr></blockquote>

I'm just a hick with an attitude. No, no turkey neck or mullet or anything like that and I have good teeth. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/biggrin.gif

 

[Wisty]

&gt; In the Christian view, sex is a sin.

Good post except for the above part. In the Christian view, if biblically followed, sex is not a sin. Fornication, adultery, prostitution, incest, ****, etc., are indeed a sin. But sex it self isn't. It is stated that if you burn (in desires) take on a mate, get married. That way you can have sex, safe sex, secure sex, blessed sex, which also is more likely to be responsible sex -- that is, if children are conceived, the mates more likely will hang around to raise them. The bible also advises for husband and wife to give and receive pleasure from each other, sexually.

Though it depends upon which interpretation, which sect has twisted it out of context, which have taken a good thing and think they can make it "gooder" by pushing it so far over the line that no mortal could possibly follow the rules, imo.

In addition to the examples you listed and then I listed, I tend to think some other reasons why religions have gotten out of hand are because when the original concepts and precepts didn't seem to help (example, during times of crises or catatrosphes) the people and or their leaders blamed themselves and dove even deeper and harder and more impossibly into those concepts and precepts in hopes it would appease their god (such as many of the superstitions that arose); or good-hearted (who became corrupt) and or the not so good-hearted (who already were corrupt) came into power in the group and twisted things around to benefit them rather than the rest of the group; or people branched away from the main congregation when rules didn't work for them, so they twisted or outright fabricated their own set of (religious) rules. I would guess, however, the biggest reason was people simply misunderstood what was written, what prophets said, and what Jesus said -- and then centuries muddled them further.

However the general principles which Jesus taught remain the same, and are generally very simple, such as; it makes sense to take care of your health and body because no one else will and because if you don't you will suffer and die a lot sooner than you should; it makes sense to do things that make others healthy because we cannot live alone in this world, it requires many peoples, many skills, much help -- and because if you wound someone, likely they or their family/friends are going to want to wound you right back; lying, cheating, stealing don't pay off because sooner or later someone is going to discover it and you'll be in big trouble here on earth with the man-made laws, as well as with God later on; benevolence, love, joy, laughter, hope, peace all feel better than do malevolence, hate, depression, dejected tears, despair, stress and tension and fear -- that is, if you're sane -- if you're insane (whatever degree) you more likely may think it's the reverse. To me it just makes more sense, requires sanity, to want to be healthy and happy up to your final moment; whereas makes less sense and is born of insanity to want to harm your body/mind and become sick and suffer up to your last moment. Punishing yourself doesn't help anyone. The only good it does is at the beginning where it raises your conscience (hopefully); afterwards, learning from your mistakes, righting them with yourself and others, and thereafter living/behaving more sanely and heathily is the best way to go about it.

Well, anyway, not to imply I'm perfect either. I've learned, still learning. Just my two cents again, the likes of which may come across so obvious that it's ridiculous, and yet, you'd be amazed how many people overlook the obvious until someone actually makes them look at it. Common sense is a cool thing. Coupled with listening to one's inner wisdom and instincts, while looking back at any hindsight as points of references what to repeat or not repeat....

 

[Wisty]

<blockquote><hr>

&gt;&gt;Religion is what keeps people together.

&gt;I disagree there. It's one of the things that keeps people divided.

<hr></blockquote>

It does both: keeps people together and divides them, depending upon which religion, which country, which era, and so on. So technically you're both right.

 

[Wisty]

re, Noah's Ark and mosquitoes

Well, ever heard of mutations? Maybe mosquitoes mutated from one of the animal pairs that were invited onto the Ark. Or, if you believe in satan, maybe he/she/it snuck them on, along with gnats, ticks, fleas, internal parasites, and so on? Or, maybe someday down the line we will discover there is a very important scientific or medical NEED for mosquitoes. For example, the leech -- which was considered an icky thing, a disease-spreader, and so on; and then it became used in medeival medicine for "bleeding" (for all the wrong reasons) and then was abandoned throughout history until more recently, it was discovered that leeches actually serve a beneficial function at the site of wounds, because of their anti-clotting properties and I forget what else. See? Who knows!

Just now did a search. Leeches and maggots in history and in modern medicine: http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2003/july/leech.htm

 

[Wisty]

As for termites, carpenter ants, various molds and bacterias, etc. Do you have any idea what our forests would look like if there weren't any animals to eat and or decompose all that hard wood? The same for dead animals. There are reasons why things are eaten and or decompose -- as gross as it is, it serves a necessary function, otherwise we'd be so piled high with dead fauna/flora we'd find ourselves (those on the top layer) execeding the atmosphere and if not floating out into space (dead of course, soon imploding) we'd die anyway with no way to move or walk around. (Or did my explanation just break some sort of scientific earthly theory? But WHERE ELSE would things GO if there was nothing to recyle that which no longer was functional?? Wouldn't they just continue to pile up everywhere?)

 

[Guest]

The main reason it was thought of it being flat was is Revelation 7:1, being 4 corners it was thought of it being flat. But it is thought of now it meant 4 directions N,S,E,W. OT evidense of a round earth can be see in Isaiah 40:22, and Job 26:7, to name a few. There are a few Websites that go in better detail though. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

 

[Wisty]

<blockquote><hr>

What is this need for God that people have? It varies per person. Some need God to eliminate their fear of death. Some need to excuse their own bad deeds that they lack the courage to accept responsibility for. Some need an invisible friend. Some need a scapegoat. Some need justification for acting like ****s. With all these needs comes all kinds of strangeness . . . which may or may not have any basis of reality, if indeed God is a reality.

<hr></blockquote>

And some NEED "not" to believe in God; others NEED to "not know" one way or other -- all for many of the same reasons you listed, plus others. So the NEED can be on all sides. Or not -- since some don't NEED God at all. Least not in the way you portrayed. There are some who simply found someone/thing who/which believes as they always have or have come to believe, and it's a kindred spirit thing. Not a NEED, per se. Just a going where it feels right, normal, homey.

Though I will grant, it is much pleasanter to know (beyond belief): that life here on earth is not in vain, that this is not the end, that there are bigger and better (or worse, if you go that route*) things to come, and that talking to and or appealing to something much more powerful will bring the help and guidance one needs. Contrarily, if it is more pleasant for those to DISbelieve or be UNable to decide one way or other, that's their choice. I've been in all shoes, and my current pair are far the best. But to each his/her own "free will" to do as they wish.

* = In knowing God will deal with those kinds of people when the time comes, specially when our earthly laws and capabilities cannot.

 

[Wisty]

&gt; So we get Hitler, Koresh, Jones, Osama, the suicidal comet club and many others that we blindly follow because of their belief in what they are saying.

This will seem out of character for me because I have been rather pessimistic about the human race in the last five or ten years because of things done to me and things I see people doing to other people; nevertheless, if you could go back to the beginning of recorded history and weigh the good-hearted people and harmless people against the malevolent people and the monsters (such as Hitler and Saddam), your scales would crash not just down through to the center of the earth, but out the other side and fly off into space -- because there have been just way too many good/harmless folks than there have been malevolent/monsters. I'm not saying the good/harmless folks were perfect and never did anything hurtful (albeit nothing major); however, in general their lives weren't based just on how much they could hurt/control/detroy others. They even dive into the pits of hell fires (as we saw during 9/11) to try to save lives even though they knew that they themselves might and likely would die in the process. Or put aside grudges, dislikes, hates, and give people a chance or another one. Small and large acts of kindness and heroics. All over the earth, all throughout history, every day of the week, always -- going on -- everywhere. It's just that the monsters do such massive damage, they stand out above all, and all throughout time, and make a mockery out of the human race in general.

Anyhow, remind me I said all this, next time my people-pessimism (born of disgust) tries to predominate. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Well if you admit to the fallability of things stated in 'the book', you have to question everything, don't you?
Noah's ark?? Are you kidding us, Noah? At no point did someone not swat one of the two misquitos? Who was hell-bent on making sure they got a few carpenter ants for the ride? Or termites?? Ooooh, termites could damn well have been the destruction of our entire species should they have taken an interest in the boat, eh?
My point is that I'm not sure what god you believe in, or how you can have the belief at all considering how loosely you define him/it, and admit the fallacies in the bible.

<hr></blockquote>
I never stated that the Bible was fallable did I? The bible is infallible and has no contradictions beyond face value. Taking a verse it a non-litteraly sense is not questioning the Bible, the Bible was written in a differant time and a differant culture. You have to be able to remove the Culture social overtones to see what the meanings are, you also have to understand how the Bible was writtin and that it oral for few thousand years.

As for Noah, as again you have to look at that culture, the World to Noah was allot smaller then it is today. There are a few scientists who can back up a major flood in the Black sea area and in that time period, was it global as we see it? I don't know. God did not write the Bible he just authored it.
<blockquote><hr>

This is what makes us special? Because we have these attributes? What other attributes does our species have?
Let's see, he have violence, intolerance, IGNORANCE, small-mindedness, a thirst for power, a taste for vengeance, a need for intellectual comfort and the propensity to believe in the words of whomever speaks with the most conviction.

So we get Hitler, Koresh, Jones, Osama, the suicidal comet club and many others that we blindly follow because of their belief in what they are saying.

What I'm saying is that humans, in regards to your assesment, have ultimately proven themselves stupid and easily led, which I'd think would further dismiss your entire argument (that you helped to dismiss yourself) that we're somehow ordained with the capability of understanding or recognizing a 'god' because of this great gift that he's bestowed upon us. Two thumbs? I'd rather have been born a dolphin, at least they're admirable creatures.

I find nothing admirable about ****-sapiens. We can't co-exist without killing eachother, and we can't exist without completely disrupting the eco-system surrounding ourselves, animals included. I'd argue that a lot of these downfalls could be attributed to this belief in a 'god', which we can't seem to overcome because of our own, selfish fear of our individual demise.

<hr></blockquote>
You need a hug or something? Feeling alittle down?
But I am not sure how I helped dismiss anything.
I am not sure how you can relate everything bad on the earth is from the Belief in a God. Was Ghangis Kahn a holy roller? Or how bout Lennon? Stalin? I am not saying Christians do not have blood on their hands but it is not just God fearing people who are to blame it is Human Nature.
Also don't be a Dolphin cause I might just eat you when I eat a Tuna Roll/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
<blockquote><hr>

Faith based on what?? The bible? Jesus Christ? I have every faith in Jesus's teachings, but none in what civilization has inferred into them.

<hr></blockquote>
You cannot have Faith in his Teachings, you can only have Faith in his existance.

<blockquote><hr>

I'm with you in what you seem to be saying. The temple of god is within each of us, but that's for US, that's not for the good of a greater being. I think that's an important point that Religion overlooked in their church building and in deploying missionaries to conquest the rest of the population.

Church = $, and power, and I'd want nothing from a god that would condone these human endeavours in his name.

<hr></blockquote>
Agree for the most part about the Church. But as again, it is just about you and him. The Church should be a place for you to worship in, not worship the Church as some people do. People do allot of things in the name of something, some are good others are bad. You need to stop looking at the Negatives so much.

<blockquote><hr>

If we've got a large sect of our planet's population thumping a book which you, yourself stated to be fallable, then what's that saying?

<hr></blockquote>
Please do not misquote me, look above.

<blockquote><hr>

Maybe we're all a little ignorant? Maybe? And if that's the case (which it most certainly is), how much can we trust what we've been taught by ourselves?

<hr></blockquote>
Not sure what you mean here. Sorry.

 

[Wisty]

&gt; According to this, even Saddam Hussein didn't break that rule.

Yes he did. Insofar as his own people whom he tortured and exterminated and experimented upon and often just for sadistic pleasure. He also allowed no free will. Even God allows that -- we are free to choose, even bad things. Saddam allowed no one to choose anything. You either did what he said or were tortured and murdered -- and often murdered anyway. Saddam didn't just kill. Saddam murdered. Not everyone he murdered was out to get him. I can't really see what he did as self-defense. I could see it when U.S./U.K. invaded -- even though ethically Saddam had no right to defend himself, technically (in self defense) he did. I'm amazed he didn't just get into power but held it. Just as I'm amazed about Hitler and all the other crazies. It's people like them that make me think twice about the thing called "evil" and "satan." Normally I tend to believe more scientifically (as in, mental illness and so on); but as monstrous as some of the infamous are, specially those belonging to any sort of religious or cultic philosophy, it gives more evidence in favor of evil. Though the medical doctors, psychiatrists, and psychologists of the world would probably disagree and hang it on psychoses and neuroses and genetics and other physical peculiarities.

Then again, maybe you were talking about some other aspect of "Thou shalt not murder"? If so, sorry if I missed your main point.

 

[Wisty]

&gt; Thanks and may Peace be with you

And the same to you. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Guest]

You admitted to believing the bible was writen with certain folk-lore. This means that you've admitted to it's fallability. If you can admit to recognizing a portion, then you'd generally question the whole.

And yes, I do believe in the teachings of Jesus, and believe that his teachings are much more important then the aknowledgement of his existance.

Wisteria (sp?), you're absolutely correct in that we do need the existance of certain creatures to ensure the breakdown of biological matter, but how is professing that aknowledgement contradictory to my argument?

Maybe I do need a hug, Jermosh. Anything that would help comfort me in my lack of 'faith' wouldn't be turned away.

<blockquote><hr>

Maybe we're all a little ignorant? Maybe? And if that's the case (which it most certainly is), how much can we trust what we've been taught by ourselves?

<hr></blockquote>
I mean that what we profess to believe has been handed down from generation to generation and accepting the reality of the ignorance of our past, can be seen as balderdash by those that would actively inquire in regards to the truth in what was forced on them by their culture and/or upbringing. Keeping objective the human nature inherent in all of us.

 

[Wisty]

&gt; Wisteria (sp?), you're absolutely correct in that we do need the existance of certain creatures to ensure the breakdown of biological matter, but how is professing that aknowledgement contradictory to my argument?

For the paragraphs in question to which I responded, I was just playing the devil's advocate except on the side of God. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif I wasn't in the mood to tackle your entire posts, at this time. Sorry if it confused you.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

You admitted to believing the bible was writen with certain folk-lore. This means that you've admitted to it's fallability. If you can admit to recognizing a portion, then you'd generally question the whole.

<hr></blockquote>
Do you know what Folk Lore means? It means in this sense it was a story of creation, it was lored for years but still holds some truth. I believe in the Creation of the universe, and I believe in god useing Natural Laws to build it. I also believe in the story of Adam and Eve but not in the literal rigid sense.

<blockquote><hr>

And yes, I do believe in the teachings of Jesus, and believe that his teachings are much more important then the aknowledgement of his existance.

<hr></blockquote>

Ohhh oh oh, I see a possible convert. Goodie, one more point and I get my own golden Host Chalis! LOL.

Its a start, there are some Christians who do not fully believe in him in a Devine state. I am not sure how you find him thats important. But that you do Find Him, thats the important part.

<blockquote><hr>

Maybe I do need a hug, Jermosh. Anything that would help comfort me in my lack of 'faith' wouldn't be turned away.

<hr></blockquote>
Well this is a weird turning point for you. Do you feel like you are missing something? I still feel you are thinking of God in the Wrong way. You have to remember it is You and Him, you make the Relationship, and he makes the Terms

 

[Guest]

The problem is that some people simply are not capable of blind faith and need something in the nature of proof to believe in something, while others are not. Since god is essentially unprovable, and proof would in fact negate the notion of faith, it is there that the problem lies.

What Cyne says, however, is true. There are indeed people who need faith. There are others, as you pointed out, who simply enjoy having it. Personally I don't believe it's a "choice" per se. I cannot simply say I believe and actually do so. It's more complicated than that.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Saddam murdered.

<hr></blockquote>

No he didn't, as per Iraqie law at that time, it was not murderer. Which is the fault of the interpretation of the commandment, because murder is an arbitrary thing, decided by humans.

Americans kill many people each year in fashions that other people on this planet would find as murder....so who is right?, the commandment doesn't state "You shall not murder according to the law of the United States of America in the year 2003"

Which brings me back to my point, why would god base 1 commandment (and argueable the most important one) on mans ever changing law?

<blockquote><hr>

but as monstrous as some of the infamous are

<hr></blockquote>

Very typical human reaction, distance oneself from whatever human characteristica and actions that does not conform to your belief by calling them monsterous.

 

[Guest]

So, why exactly do we have belief?, why does God need it?, and does he get some sadistic pleasure out of confusing everyone by allowing people to run around with about 6 billion different versions of beliefs and then judging us upon death?

 

[Guest]

When we still had our snakes, I used to answer the door with both of them draped over my shoulders. The JW's left real quick./php-bin/shared/images/icons/sgrin.gif

 

[Guest]

There is no god...there is no earth...

We are all living in large studio where the biggest reality show of the galaxy is running 24/7...just to find out which humans pick the right faith and which do not. Of course the correct faith changes with each new season, this seasons faith is *spins the BIG wheel*...FAITH IN THE GREEK GODS!!! Good luck humans!

This seasons winners will receive the knowledge that they have been part of the biggest hoax in the universe...now start slaughtering those bulls!

 

[imported_snoopy]

Assuming that there is a god that approaches what theists believe in...what a petty insecure insignificant little being he would be that he would vest so much interest in what we think of him...

 

[Guest]

I dont have a clue for a answer to your valid points. This is what Faith is about.

 

[Shai'tan]

Whew, where to begin.
The bible always contradicts itself.
It is understandable however, seeing as it was written by very simple minded folk who had no other way to understand their universe.
A book which describes human beings as having "free-will", but yet their final destination is determined at their birth. Their name is either placed in "the book of life," or it is not.
And noahs ark?
Don't get me started.
The story of "Noah" is from a sumerian story born far earlier than the bible.
The only difference was that the man was named Utnapishtim.
Makes me wonder why the christian book would would take a story from the Sumerians. A people who's religion also recognized Baal, the fertility god symbolized as a calf. Also looked down upon when moses had finished getting the "rules" from God and found his people worshiping a golden calf.
As for thermodynamics.. heh.. ya..
All matter and energy IS conserved.
I suppose this is true. Seeing as all matter IS energy. Matter is just concentrated energy, therefore E=mc^2.
When matter and its antimatter are "annhialated," massive amounts of energy are released. Never lost, never created.
The second law states "disorder."
I beleive things like disorder, chaos, and randominity may only exist in apparent relative terms.
There is no such thing as perfect randominity.
I cannot logically understand how a god can exist in any religious matter that I have seen so far. But thats just IMO.
All in all, I feel its a waste for people to kill/hate/burn books over this.
In fact, the bible never calls for anyone to do any of these things.
I believe it says "bless, bless and do not curse thine enemies."
And yes, I think I question most everything.
I could go on forever about this stuff probably...

I personally do not know what the universe has in store for me.
Or how I can realize my own existence.
I simply plan on living life folowing what I only "believe" to be my humanity.
GL, HF, drink, and be merry! /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif