Christian Thread

[Kyir]

And those were what exactly?

I don't know? talk to a expert, I just know what I know from school (not that much :eek: )

[scb]

This is correct for still water. But in rushing water (like in the first 40 days, and the subsequent time it would take to settle down), the more massive objects would sink, because the primary force is the moving of the water, not the bouyant force

The effect will be reduced by the mass of the object (i.e. inertia), so that density is most important in this case as well. A dinosaur broken into pieces and a dinosaur in one piece would settle about the same.

[Kyir]

http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=682761&postcount=1

you don't have to read all of it really, but in a couple places he refers to god, and in other statements he's made he's talked about it, I was just wondering what you all think of him?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

And those were what exactly?
Chemicals that bounced around so much that they combined to form a substance which has encoding that tells it to sustain itself, how to do that, and to divide to repair DNA.

[TheSilverRider]

All i needed to read in that post was the first word. Where did the chemicals come from?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

All i needed to read in that post was the first word. Where did the chemicals come from?
All you needed to do was to read another post relating to this one. The big bang, smart one.

[TheSilverRider]

So where did the big bang come from?

[ReTodd]

So where did the big bang come from?

Silver. you are behaving like a retarded child and not even reading 2 sentence posts. You've got neg. I would explain the big bang but I promised not to make any more jokes about your mother.

[TheSilverRider]

You havent answered my question. What was the first substance ever and where did it come from?

[max2k106]

You havent answered my question. What was the first substance ever and where did it come from?
There is no way to know. If you start asking that, you're gonna go off from a scientific branch into philosophy. The fact is that there is more evidence pointing to a random collection of gases and such that exploded and created all this stuff than there is evidence saying that there is some guy somewhere dictating what happens everywhere.

[TheSilverRider]

You said a random collection of gases. Where did the gases come from?

[max2k106]

You said a random collection of gases. Where did the gases come from?
Where did this giant guy come from that can do anything?

We have no way of telling where the gases came from. What you're doing is playing a stupid game where you keep asking the same question as in this example.

Q: What made the universe?
A: The big bang.
Q: What was the big bang?
A: A giant explosion creating the universe.
Q: Where did it come from?
A: A lot of gases coming together, exploding then forming objects in space.
Q: Where did the gas come from?
A: It came from atoms of different elements.
Q: Where did the atoms come from?
A: We have no way of knowing.
Q: Where did we come from?
A: The universe.
Q: What made the universe?

[ReTodd]

You havent answered my question. What was the first substance ever and where did it come from?
Hydrogen and helium were the first substances ever and all other elements are created during nuclear fusion in the center of stars. Hope thats not too much for you to read.

[Twelve]

Where did this giant guy come from that can do anything?



"Beginning" is a measurement of time...for the "giant guy that can do anything", since He made time, there is no beginning for Him. Or an "end".

See if you can get THAT.

Meanwhile, for those on both sides of this argument, there are plenty of webpages that have all of information on both sides of the debate. Why debate when both sides are merely going to give documented answers?

I mean, Christians, look at this website:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

For the shoe-in answers to all of these accusations/questions.

Now can we get back to discussing complicated Biblical passages? That actually requires some creativity. :)

12

[ReTodd]

"Beginning" is a measurement of time...for the "giant guy that can do anything", since He made time, there is no beginning for Him. Or an "end".

See if you can get THAT.


So you're saying that this higher being that we are incapable of comprehending is beyond the concept of time that we understand, knowing no beginning, no end and no present. Therefore, it would comprehend all that has happened, is happening, and will happen simultaneously (I agree). Does this change the concept of free will?

[Twelve]

Not at all. Many areas of science-fiction have entertained the idea of alternate realities...I believe God knows what will happen at the end of every single possibility that exists.

12

[ReTodd]

Not at all. Many areas of science-fiction have entertained the idea of alternate realities...I believe God knows what will happen at the end of every single possibility that exists.

12

If God created everything and knows all outcomes, then everything that happens, every event, was willfully created by God. God knows what choice I will make before I make it. Couldn't I then make the argument that "I did it because it was God's will" to excuse my actions? If God didn't want me to do these things, it could have prevented them when creating the universe.

[Twelve]

If God created everything and knows all outcomes, then everything that happens, every event, was willfully created by God. God knows what choice I will make before I make it. Couldn't I then make the argument that "I did it because it was God's will" to excuse my actions? If God didn't want me to do these things, it could have prevented them when creating the universe.

God has created every possible outcome, or God has created a system by which we have the choice to make our own outcome. God has given us the ability to create our own things, after all, even things that He hates.

But yes, God knows and allows the existence of every single possibility that can possibly happen. We can choose to go against his Will, but it would still be allowed to happen. This happens all of the time. That's Free Will...but never is Free Will outside of God's knowledge...never is it out of control.

For example, I can promise you that we would never be able to do a single thing to damage His existence...though we may WILL to do so.

12

[The Big Kahuna]

I find the comments and reasoning expressed in this thread very interesting and sincere. Josh McDowell in his book "Evidence that demands a Verdict" is very well written and answers much of the questions about God that is being asked and expressed here. I would ask and challenge those of you who are seeking after the truth to get and read this book and see what verdict you come to at that point.

Everything has a beginning and an end! That is the fallacy that I find in the Big Bang Theory. I believe that God exists and the reason he is called the Alpha and the Omega which means the beginning and the end. But I believe that by faith and realize that there are many who do not believe nor do they share the same faith that I do in this matter. But it is not a blind faith and Josh McDowell does a great job in his book explaining it.

But at this point in this thread I would like to lighten things up a bit with a joke. Less we all get too carried away with all of this. It is a thing that I would do in our clan especially when things would get intense by bringing a joke of the week to lighten things up. Here goes!

A burglar breaks into a home one night and as he is looking around for things to steal he hears a soft voice saying, "Jesus is watching what you're doing". Startled he turns on the flashlight and looks around the room trying to find the person who is saying this. But much to his dismay he couldn't find anyone so he continues to look around for something to steal. He hears the voice again but this time louder and more intense saying, "Be careful what you're doing because Jesus is watching!" Startled the burglar turns on his flashlight again and looks around the room but this time he finds a parrot rocking on his perch in a cage. So he walks up to the cage and asks, "Is your name Jesus?". The parrot continues rocking back and forth on his perch and replies, "No, my name is Moses". "Who would be so dumb as to name a parrot Moses", the burglar replied. Continuing to rock on his perch and with an air of arrogance the parrot replies, "The same people who named their pitbul Jesus".

Have a nice day!

[drakonfire]

A burglar breaks into a home one night and as he is looking around for things to steal he hears a soft voice saying, "Jesus is watching what you're doing". Startled he turns on the flashlight and looks around the room trying to find the person who is saying this. But much to his dismay he couldn't find anyone so he continues to look around for something to steal. He hears the voice again but this time louder and more intense saying, "Be careful what you're doing because Jesus is watching!" Startled the burglar turns on his flashlight again and looks around the room but this time he finds a parrot rocking on his perch in a cage. So he walks up to the cage and asks, "Is your name Jesus?". The parrot continues rocking back and forth on his perch and replies, "No, my name is Moses". "Who would be so dumb as to name a parrot Moses", the burglar replied. Continuing to rock on his perch and with an air of arrogance the parrot replies, "The same people who named their pitbul Jesus".

Have a nice day!

buwahahahaaha, i'd rep you but i can't, i must "spread" it around, bah


Q: Where did the atoms come from?
A: We have no way of knowing.

okay, now for those of you who claim that to believe in the big bang/evolution requires no faith, i challenge you to refute max's above claim

going by the theory of the big bang we have no way of knowing where the atoms came from, therefore, to believe it, you must have faith that, even though you don't know _how_ they came to be, they _were_

i'm really struggling to see how this is _not_ faith

(the "but there is more evidence supporting evolution..." argument won't fly guys, just because there is more doesn't mean its true, you keep on saying science will uncover more evidence, but what kind of evidence, just for a moment entertain the possibility that science comes up with evidence that doesn't support evolution and actually supports creationism, what then?)

[Kyir]

okay, now for those of you who claim that to believe in the big bang/evolution requires no faith, i challenge you to refute max's above claim

going by the theory of the big bang we have no way of knowing where the atoms came from, therefore, to believe it, you must have faith that, even though you don't know _how_ they came to be, they _were_

i'm really struggling to see how this is _not_ faith

so it's a choice between two faiths, in my opinion evolution requres less faith, and seems right, other people have other opinions, just stating mine.

[Lonely Tylenol]

okay, now for those of you who claim that to believe in the big bang/evolution requires no faith, i challenge you to refute max's above claim

going by the theory of the big bang we have no way of knowing where the atoms came from, therefore, to believe it, you must have faith that, even though you don't know _how_ they came to be, they _were_

i'm really struggling to see how this is _not_ faith

I don't have to have faith to know how they got there. Either I'm right or I'm wrong, all I have is a theory and no proof to back it.

Since the discussion has swayed so adamantly to the topic of Creation and the Big Bang, I'll discuss my own theories.

In my opinion, the most logical solution to the cause behind the Big Bang would be a quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum (Jehuty knows what I'm talking about, thank you evening Armageddon lobby). I think that a quantum mechanical vacuum fluctuation did not create the universe as we know it, but it did bring to this universe the particles that did cause the Big Bang.

... quantum electrodynamics reveals that an electron, positron, and photon occasionally emerge spontaneously in a perfect vacuum. When this happens, the three particles exist for a brief time, and then annihilate each other, leaving no trace behind. (Energy conservation is violated, but only for a particle lifetime Dt permitted by the uncertainty DtDE~h where DE is the net energy of the particles and h is Planck's constant.) The spontaneous, temporary emergence of particles from a vacuum is called a vacuum fluctuation, and is utterly commonplace in quantum field theory.

I can't get the full article as it requres a $30 payment to Nature Magazine, which I'm too cheap to pay. :(

The theory I have in mind is that of a vacuum fluctuation creating energy particles for a temporary span of time. The particles are then pulled towards each other, becoming more and more compact and creating a super-dense mass of particles, which eventually exploded in a manner we know now as the Big Bang. Particles began a rapid outward expansion propelled by the energy sparked in the Big Bang, and eventually gravity pulled particles together and formed greater masses which we know as galaxies.

After the Big Bang, more particles could have been created out of non-particles simply because the temperatures at that time were so high that particle pairs could have been created out of the heat energy released as an immediate after-effect of the Big Bang. (EDIT: I imagine that there would have to have been an initial particle with which the other particle could be paired through means of heat energy. Just thought I'd clear that up.)

Actually...

A vacuum fluctuation (in my opinion) really just solves the question of how the Big Bang could have been caused.

While it is true that the actions I have mentioned here are VERY highly unlikely, if it is true that the only definite beginning of time is how we define the point of time that the universe began (and assume that time could have existed before the beginning of our universe, as is apparently the case with God before Creation), then you allow for the possibility of a seemingly infinite amount of time in which the probability could arise.

I have a bit of a headache, and I don't believe I'm thinking quite clearly, but I think I have the gist of it at least. If I did something wrong or you have a question about anything I said, please respond and I will answer to the best of my ability (or correct any of my mistakes). :)

[drakonfire]

so it's a choice between two faiths, in my opinion evolution requres less faith, and seems right, other people have other opinions, just stating mine.


thank you! thats all i wanted, someone to finally admit that believing the scientific answer requires faith, even if it (in your opinion) requires less... i get really sick and tired of the arguments about how "facts" back up your side (whether your side is creationism or evolution, there are facts to back both up, but nothing is %100 either way -- note: i still believe creationism, but i'll aknowledge that we can't prove it)

[Jehutyv.2.0]

"Beginning" is a measurement of time...for the "giant guy that can do anything", since He made time, there is no beginning for Him. Or an "end".

See if you can get THAT.


That, however, does not make him more plausible than the Big Bang. Thank you for trying, however.

[Lord Sesshomaru]

LT you've got WAY too much time on your hands homey. Though being a scientific mind myself i can appreciate your brilliance. It's good to see that there are some people who take an interest. Myself, I'm not a christian. I'm completely agnostic. And i intend to stay that way. I mean, wars are caused over a belief you can't even physically prove. I just don't get it.

[TheSilverRider]

LT you've got WAY too much time on your hands homey. Though being a scientific mind myself i can appreciate your brilliance. It's good to see that there are some people who take an interest. Myself, I'm not a christian. I'm completely agnostic. And i intend to stay that way. I mean, wars are caused over a belief you can't even physically prove. I just don't get it.

Dont you have any curiosities about what is going to happen to you when you die?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Dont you have any curiosities about what is going to happen to you when you die?
Please...please just shut up. If you're saying that Christianity gives a logical explanation to the afterlife... just stop typing.

[Office_Shredder]

For example, I can promise you that we would never be able to do a single thing to damage His existence...though we may WILL to do so.

12

(To the tune of "I shot the sheriff")
I shot the messiah, but I didn't shoot no apostle
Oh, no, oh
I shot the messiah, but I didn't shoot no apostle
Ooh, ooh, ooh Yeah
..

Oh, I shot the messiah, but I swear it was in self defense
Ooh, ooh, ooh
I said, I shot the messiah, Oh Lord
And they say it is a biblical offense
Ooh, ooh, ooh
Hear this

[Twelve]

A burglar breaks into a home one night and as he is looking around for things to steal he hears a soft voice saying, "Jesus is watching what you're doing". Startled he turns on the flashlight and looks around the room trying to find the person who is saying this. But much to his dismay he couldn't find anyone so he continues to look around for something to steal. He hears the voice again but this time louder and more intense saying, "Be careful what you're doing because Jesus is watching!" Startled the burglar turns on his flashlight again and looks around the room but this time he finds a parrot rocking on his perch in a cage. So he walks up to the cage and asks, "Is your name Jesus?". The parrot continues rocking back and forth on his perch and replies, "No, my name is Moses". "Who would be so dumb as to name a parrot Moses", the burglar replied. Continuing to rock on his perch and with an air of arrogance the parrot replies, "The same people who named their pitbul Jesus".

Have a nice day!

Kahuna, you're a cool cat. ;)

That, however, does not make him more plausible than the Big Bang. Thank you for trying, however.

:) I don't see anything wrong with the Big Bang...even Einstein realized that all matter comes from a source, and for this reason Einstein died knowing that there is indeed a God.

We cannot imagine ANYTHING without a beginning...which makes sense because we're inescapably trapped in time. But if you "created" time, and indeed are the beginning and end personified...

Only God.

Dont you have any curiosities about what is going to happen to you when you die?

What I love about Christianity is that it gives details of this existence, what happened before, and what will happen after.

Meanwhile....

www.answersingenesis.org

I admire that website because it doesn't take the side of any of the radical sides...the preachers and the scientists...it ties them both together as it was meant to be.

Heck, God's the ultimate scientist. Study the site well and let it challenge your thoughts!!!

12

[Twelve]

***forum operation check***

[Office_Shredder]

Only God.

Clarification is incredibly necessary here. It should read:

"Only A god"

Further evidence than the existence of the universe would be required for proof of even a monotheistic existence, let alone christianity in specific.

[scb]

So you're saying that this higher being that we are incapable of comprehending is beyond the concept of time that we understand, knowing no beginning, no end and no present. Therefore, it would comprehend all that has happened, is happening, and will happen simultaneously (I agree). Does this change the concept of free will?
If Einstein didn't disprove free will (with time being another dimension of space), there's no reason God should. I admit it seems more set when someone's watching it, but this is like "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" The answer is yes, because the vibrations are still produced.

[Office_Shredder]

If Einstein didn't disprove free will (with time being another dimension of space), there's no reason God should. I admit it seems more set when someone's watching it, but this is like "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" The answer is yes, because the vibrations are still produced.

Umm... Einstein's relativity has very little to do with free will (in fact, if you REALLY want to think of it that way, Einstein DID disprove free will). It's quantum mechanics, with its inherent probability functions, that permits what one MAY consider free will.

[Faulty Logic]

let me re-itterate by saying.....
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f381/kendalllover1/politicalcartoon.jpg

pwned

need I say more?

Pwned Pwned and Pwned

I leave and you guys are still arguing???


IRT: O_S

I know that why I think I used a ;) in my rep.....

I understand....i think :rolleyes:

[Man's Laughter]

Dont you have any curiosities about what is going to happen to you when you die?

You're dead. Your body stops functioning. Your organs do not work. You have no sort of thought whatsoever. You cease to exist as anything more than subterrain organism food.

To tell you the truth, I'm not all that curious.

[Ächilles]

What if I do not necessarily living by the Bible or the Ten Commandments, but am generally an all-around good person who commits minor sins here and there? I also do not attend church, and have mixed feelings about the existence/workings of higher powers. Will I not reach Heaven because of this?

[TheSilverRider]

What if I do not necessarily living by the Bible or the Ten Commandments, but am generally an all-around good person who commits minor sins here and there? I also do not attend church, and have mixed feelings about the existence/workings of higher powers. Will I not reach Heaven because of this?

No. Good works have nothing to do with it. "For by grace are ye saved through faith in that not of yourselves it is the gift of God NOT OF WORKS lest any man should boast." You have to ask Christ to come into your heart and save you not try to be a good person and work your way into heaven.

You're dead. Your body stops functioning. Your organs do not work. You have no sort of thought whatsoever. You cease to exist as anything more than subterrain organism food.

To tell you the truth, I'm not all that curious.

Ok lets say your right. That means when i die that i just cease to exist......ok thats cool. But then again lets say that im right. Then if you are not saved then you go to hell for all eternity. Now why wouldnt you want to make sure? What if i am right?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

:) I don't see anything wrong with the Big Bang...even Einstein realized that all matter comes from a source, and for this reason Einstein died knowing that there is indeed a God.

We cannot imagine ANYTHING without a beginning...which makes sense because we're inescapably trapped in time. But if you "created" time, and indeed are the beginning and end personified...

Only God.


Oi...I'm glad you were there at Einstein's deathbed, reading his thoughts. If you weren't, we may never have known. Funnily enough, Einstein was not a Christian, but actually a Jew. Imagine that.

Could you be a little less close-minded and imagine that the universe is an anomaly in the natural order? Perhaps it created itself, developing a dimension from a universe more, less, or different dimensions.

Eisntein's THEORY of relativity proves nothing, because it is only a THEORY. He did not disprove anything because it is a THEORY.

[Twelve]

Clarification is incredibly necessary here. It should read:

"Only A god"

Further evidence than the existence of the universe would be required for proof of even a monotheistic existence, let alone christianity in specific.

Man, please. Read any religious text from any point of view and they capitalize "God". I'm not arguing for a Christian God (yet), so I don't see why you're making the clarification. Muslims have some of the best anti-evolution arguments in the world. :)

You're dead. Your body stops functioning. Your organs do not work. You have no sort of thought whatsoever. You cease to exist as anything more than subterrain organism food.

To tell you the truth, I'm not all that curious.

No, but you better hope you're right.

What if I do not necessarily living by the Bible or the Ten Commandments, but am generally an all-around good person who commits minor sins here and there? I also do not attend church, and have mixed feelings about the existence/workings of higher powers. Will I not reach Heaven because of this?

Where do you base your defintion of "an all-around good person"?

Oi...I'm glad you were there at Einstein's deathbed, reading his thoughts. If you weren't, we may never have known. Funnily enough, Einstein was not a Christian, but actually a Jew. Imagine that.

Could you be a little less close-minded and imagine that the universe is an anomaly in the natural order? Perhaps it created itself, developing a dimension from a universe more, less, or different dimensions.



Do some research man, and you'll know that his beliefs in a God is a well documented fact. And stop adding the Christianity to it, I never said he was a Christian. Lol...you crack me up...I bet you wake up in the middle of the night to check if a Christian is under your, bed, eh? Stop jumping from ghosts where they're not (yet) present!

"Perhaps it created itself"...can you give me an example of ANYTHING creating itself? Creating its own origin?

12

[Northwind]

I’d like to highlight 12’s point about the Big Bang and the idea of God (even the Christian God) not being necessarily in opposition. Yes, if you read the Bible literally, the Big Bang and evolution couldn’t have happened. However, if you read it allegorically, it basically says that God created heaven and earth. It is possible that God chose the Big Bang and evolution as His (I’d really love a gender-free pronoun here) way of creating heaven and earth. There can be room for both a scientific explanation and a reliance on God as the “Creator.” (This, of course, doesn’t necessarily make either explanation correct – just possibly correct.)

(Though I would also like to point out that it is no more or less absurd that it is matter’s nature to exist or that it is God’s nature to exist. Neither explanation avoids this basic teleological conundrum and both are equally absurd.) :)

Personally, I like to think that God is the totality of the universe (multiverse?) and that we are all tiny parts of God, but if I’m wrong – meh.

I would also like to clarify my general position on Christianity. I am not actually “opposed” to Christianity (as 12 mentioned in a recent rep). Rather, I am opposed to fundamentalists of every stripe who assume they have the only “correct” way of viewing the world. I think that Christianity is one of many valid paths to get to God (as is Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Universalism/Unitarianism, pantheism, etc.). If God is truly the Originator and Creator of everything, why would “He/She” (would the Creator of the entire universe really be bound by a gender?) have only one way to find “Him/Her?” I, for one, don’t presume to place God into such a tiny box.

[scb]

I’d like to highlight 12’s point about the Big Bang and the idea of God (even the Christian God) not being necessarily in opposition. Yes, if you read the Bible literally, the Big Bang and evolution couldn’t have happened. However, if you read it allegorically, it basically says that God created heaven and earth. It is possible that God chose the Big Bang and evolution as His (I’d really love a gender-free pronoun here) way of creating heaven and earth. There can be room for both a scientific explanation and a reliance on God as the “Creator.” (This, of course, doesn’t necessarily make either explanation correct – just possibly correct.)

(Though I would also like to point out that it is no more or less absurd that it is matter’s nature to exist or that it is God’s nature to exist. Neither explanation avoids this basic teleological conundrum and both are equally absurd.) :)

Personally, I like to think that God is the totality of the universe (multiverse?) and that we are all tiny parts of God, but if I’m wrong – meh.

I would also like to clarify my general position on Christianity. I am not actually “opposed” to Christianity (as 12 mentioned in a recent rep). Rather, I am opposed to fundamentalists of every stripe who assume they have the only “correct” way of viewing the world. I think that Christianity is one of many valid paths to get to God (as is Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Universalism/Unitarianism, pantheism, etc.). If God is truly the Originator and Creator of everything, why would “He/She” (would the Creator of the entire universe really be bound by a gender?) have only one way to find “Him/Her?” I, for one, don’t presume to place God into such a tiny box.
I won't attack your theistic evolutionist position - I just have a bit of nitpicking.
1. In English, the masculine is default. If you don't know the gender or are talking about something genderless (such as God), use 'He'.
2. Nature exists in time, so it has the nature that everything in time has - to have a cause. God is not part of time, so he is free of this restriction. And no matter what you choose to be free of this restriction and cause the universe from outside time, I'm going to call that God.
3. Many religions started on the principle that they are the only way. If they aren't, that makes them wrong and only ways to get to heaven if heaven is as universal as death. For most religions, they can only be right if everyone else is wrong.

[Office_Shredder]

Man, please. Read any religious text from any point of view and they capitalize "God". I'm not arguing for a Christian God (yet), so I don't see why you're making the clarification. Muslims have some of the best anti-evolution arguments in the world. :)


Ok, fine I mean "A God". What I meant to say was that your use of the phrase "Only God" implied a monotheistic universe, whereas there could just as easily be multiple gods.

[Northwind]

I won't attack your theistic evolutionist position - I just have a bit of nitpicking.
1. In English, the masculine is default. If you don't know the gender or are talking about something genderless (such as God), use 'He'.
True, but I think this use of language colors our conceptualizations. A genderless pronoun would make it less likely that we would then picture a masculine God (God the Father, etc.).
2. Nature exists in time, so it has the nature that everything in time has - to have a cause. God is not part of time, so he is free of this restriction. And no matter what you choose to be free of this restriction and cause the universe from outside time, I'm going to call that God.
But isn't this really just a semantic argument? God, as you conceptualize It is "outside of time." This is but one of many conceptualizations. Maybe we don't understand the true nature of matter enough to say that it "has" to have a cause any more than God "has" to have a cause. Both of these seem to require leaps of faith and thus neither belief is logically superior to the other. But ultimately, I'm cool with you calling the cause of the universe God, I might do the same (depending in what sort of mood I'm in).3. Many religions started on the principle that they are the only way. If they aren't, that makes them wrong and only ways to get to heaven if heaven is as universal as death. For most religions, they can only be right if everyone else is wrong.
Well, maybe they're right on many counts, but wrong on this one (the exclusivity part). Most of the major religions of the world stress the same basic principles (Love/Compassion/Golden Rule). I'm inclined to think that these are the "paths" to connection with God and what you call it doesn't really matter.

[ReTodd]

1. In English, the masculine is default. If you don't know the gender or are talking about something genderless (such as God), use 'He'.


Since we are assuming a monotheistic point of view, there is no need for the masculine or feminine. A single God would be asexual and since we cannot even comprehend the true nature of God it would be a stretch to use He/She. If we must assign a gender, I say use She for a change.

[Faulty Logic]

IRT: scb,

I never said it ended the argument, just thought I'd put it out there........

I find it funny.....and thanks for teh feedback.

This is one argument I can actually say I dont care about.... YAY!!

[Lonely Tylenol]

Ok lets say your right. That means when i die that i just cease to exist......ok thats cool. But then again lets say that im right. Then if you are not saved then you go to hell for all eternity. Now why wouldnt you want to make sure? What if i am right?

This method of logic is most commonly referred to as the "Games Theory" or "Pascal's Wager". Basically, a simple evaluation of the gains and losses in the eternal beyond based on your beliefs in this life. I'll draw a rudimentary table.

Atheist Christian
No God | +1 | -1 |
God | -I | +I |

Where 1 is the numerical one and has minimal value, and I substitutes for
infinity, which has never-ending value.

The logic behind this is that if God does not exist, an Atheist or other non-believer gains the benefits that come without living with the restrictions of Christ's teaching, which equals to +1 life, whereas Christians lose these benefits in life in subservience to Christ and God, which equals to -1 life.

HOWEVER, if God DOES exist, then an Atheist will suffer the eternal damnation that comes with the Godless life and ways, and the mathematical conclusion is -I, since eternity is infinitely longer than one lifetime. A repenting, law-abiding Christian, on the other hand, will recieve salvation and a VIP ticket to Heaven, and gain +I, since eteral salvation is worth an infinite number of lives lost on Earth.

This logic, however, requires several premises not included in the math...

- That such monumental greed (converting not out of love for Christ, but for the benefits in the afterlife) won't be regarded as sin and get you sent straight to Hell. Belief is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of faith, and faith cannot be bought for any promise of rewards. I assure you that if you follow Christ for the purpose of reaping the benefits of salvation, you will not gain them, for you are accepting theism solely out of self-interest.

- That there are only two options to choose from - Christianity and Atheism, as displayed in my table. However, there are many sects of Christianity that, although having the same fundamental beliefs in that God is their Creator and Jesus is their Messiah, have several deep-seated differences in their worship of God and what gets people into heaven. A few of these denominations include Roman Catholicism, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Church of Latter-Day Saints (Mormonism), and Baptism.

Here's a good example of the blatant differences between different sects: Roman Catholicism and Protestant[ism]. Roman Catholicism professes that the Catholic Church (and, more specifically, the Pope) acts as the literal mouthpiece of God, and the chosen Pope's will is the intended will of God. The Protestant sect, however, believes that the Bible is the sole source of authority and sanctity, and denies the concept of a centralized Church through which God speaks through the Pope. (Forgive me if I got this wrong, although I'm most certain I didn't).

There are other differences between sects, some more serious, some less serious, but I'm certain you know enough of them for me to not have to go into an off-topic lecture.

There is also the matter of different religions which don't have Christian roots (such as Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism) that also play into the wager. What if the Christian religion isn't the right one? What if it's Islam? Will Christians, having denied the Islamic version of God (Allah), be damned as infidels?

- That belief alone will get you into Heaven. Although Protestants largely believe that faith alone will win God over, not every sect and religion believes this to be true. In most cases, you cannot only live with acceptance of God as your Lord and/or Christ as your Saviour, but you have to live according to Their teachings, a pure life devoid of sin and repent for those sins which you have committed. Very few Christians actually live an entirely pure life, so even if the Christian God exists, most of them will be sent to Hell with the rest of us.

- That there is the question of God existing in the first place. This one's pretty simple--the logic of Pascal's Wager is that no matter how slim the chances of God existing, since the gains are infintesimal, believing in him will always have more gains than losses. However, if one believes that there's no chance that God exists, then by accepting God he'd be losing one life for no potential gain. In all reality, there's no possible way for me to come to this conclusion because I won't know if God exists until death (and even then, only if He does), but it's still an argument.

I'm certain there are other factors and arguments both for and against, and I've only addressed the ones that come readily to mind. If it's not clear to you yet, I don't buy the Games Theory. :)

[Ächilles]

Where do you base your defintion of "an all-around good person"?

What most Christians would consider an all around good person.

I mean, I basically do what the Ten Commandments preach for the most part. Sure, I sin here and there with minor things. Everyone does, right? But I'd say I'm generally a good person. I just have a sort of shaken faith in a higher power.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Do some research man, and you'll know that his beliefs in a God is a well documented fact. And stop adding the Christianity to it, I never said he was a Christian. Lol...you crack me up...I bet you wake up in the middle of the night to check if a Christian is under your, bed, eh? Stop jumping from ghosts where they're not (yet) present!"Beliefs." That's all they are. Einstein had no evidence of the existence of a divine being. Now you start attacking me with crazy things like the whole "under the bed thing." Why can't this be more civilized?

"Perhaps it created itself"...can you give me an example of ANYTHING creating itself? Creating its own origin?

12
Once again the fallacy in human thinking that once we know something it's automatically true rears its ugly head. You know, before we knew about helium, we didn't know it could make things fly. Before we knew about fire, we didn't know how to burn things.

If you found a burned object way back when and showed it to someone, they probably would have said something along the lines of "Something great in the sky did it, like the other burned things!" But it would most likely have sounded something like, "Ung hurhgh ungrah! Bundele, kreelo!" If you suggested that something else burned it, they might have done something similar to what you've done here, like saying, "Can you give me an example of ANYTHING that burns? Making other things burn?" (For those who wish it translated back, it may have been "Argrara! Brorg krajak yurlarghi!")

Don't presume that you know all about the universe. The amount of knowledge we have about it is so little that we are forced to make assumptions that turn, with the years, to fact. It's because people hate being, or being known as, ignorant. But I believe Socrates said something along the lines of, "I am the wisest man, for I know one thing, and that is that I know not at all." This universe is so profoundly large that it may even reach beyond our comprehensible dimensions. For all we know, this universe is something that is merely a miniscule portion of the entire universe, which may be infinite. But we don't know. We guess.

But I find it interesting that you point out this aspect of mystery within the universe. Many, many scientists theorize that the universe is infinite. But how can you measure something infinite? How can we even comprehend it? But wait! Isn't there something else that is supposed be beyond the comprehension of humans? Oh, yes, I believe you know it as the idea of God. So, here we have two ideas that defy an aspect of human learning. Why couldn't the universe defy another? Are ideas and such only allowed one human learning-defying aspects? Give me a solid answer for that.

[deleryn]

This will be another long post.

You didn't really present Pascal's Wager right, so I'll help a little. I never thought of this as the best argument out there myself, but it is a neat little one.

This method of logic is most commonly referred to as the "Games Theory" or "Pascal's Wager". Basically, a simple evaluation of the gains and losses in the eternal beyond based on your beliefs in this life. I'll draw a rudimentary table.

Atheist Christian
No God | +1 | -1 |
God | -I | +I |

Where 1 is the numerical one and has minimal value, and I substitutes for
infinity, which has never-ending value.

The logic behind this is that if God does not exist, an Atheist or other non-believer gains the benefits that come without living with the restrictions of Christ's teaching, which equals to +1 life, whereas Christians lose these benefits in life in subservience to Christ and God, which equals to -1 life.

HOWEVER, if God DOES exist, then an Atheist will suffer the eternal damnation that comes with the Godless life and ways, and the mathematical conclusion is -I, since eternity is infinitely longer than one lifetime. A repenting, law-abiding Christian, on the other hand, will recieve salvation and a VIP ticket to Heaven, and gain +I, since eteral salvation is worth an infinite number of lives lost on Earth.

Actually, the Christian doesn't lose a life by devoting it to God, even if you claim that He doesn't exist. Aiding people less fortunate than myself is one of the most satisfying emotion I have ever come across. Does the Atheist even live once if he devotes his life only to his own pleasure? What sort of things last through the test of time better than relationships, real love, and charity?

Maybe part of this boils down to sexual pleasure, though most Atheists aren't that crude. I still allow for it because people in our society just want to be permiscuous. Is there that much more to gain with a number of extra orgasms? Would you really like to believe that life is nothing more than "a few good f***s and then you die"? Would you give up an intimate and loving relationship for extra momentary pleasure? There are enough advantages to waiting for the love of one's life, which is probably the reason that God mandated it.

The point is, the Christian and the Atheist both can live one full life, but the Christian has more to gain than the Atheist if God exists, while neither gain anything if He doesn't. Devoting my life to God's will has done nothing less than enrich and fulfill it.

This logic, however, requires several premises not included in the math...

- That such monumental greed (converting not out of love for Christ, but for the benefits in the afterlife) won't be regarded as sin and get you sent straight to Hell. Belief is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of faith, and faith cannot be bought for any promise of rewards. I assure you that if you follow Christ for the purpose of reaping the benefits of salvation, you will not gain them, for you are accepting theism solely out of self-interest.
All human beings act in self-interest, greed has more to do with money than building character and spirit. The conglomerate buisnessman is greedy, the Enlightenment-searching monk just isn't. The Biblical references to all that gold (which is probably just metaphorical anyways) pales in comparison to an eternal relationship with the Creator of the Universe, which is the main purpose of a Disciple of Christ, and should be presented more strongly in Pascal's Wager than eternal life. The real Christian's view of Heaven is different from the Muslim's. It isn't paradise because of the details, but just because it is the place where God resides.

- That there are only two options to choose from - Christianity and Atheism, as displayed in my table. However, there are many sects of Christianity that, although having the same fundamental beliefs in that God is their Creator and Jesus is their Messiah, have several deep-seated differences in their worship of God and what gets people into heaven. A few of these denominations include Roman Catholicism, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Church of Latter-Day Saints (Mormonism), and Baptism.
Mormons are actually a cult of Christianity, and so are the Jehova's Witnesses. They really butcher some of the major doctrines, and yet claim to be as authentically Christian as the next denomination, which is just wrong. All the other denominations you listed believe that God's grace and Jesus' sacrifice allow people to enter the kingdom of Heaven. The "deep-seating" is really exaggerated due to some conflicts in England. I get along just fine with every Christian of those denomination because we don't argue on the major doctrines of the faith.

Here's a good example of the blatant differences between different sects: Roman Catholicism and Protestant[ism]. Roman Catholicism professes that the Catholic Church (and, more specifically, the Pope) acts as the literal mouthpiece of God, and the chosen Pope's will is the intended will of God. The Protestant sect, however, believes that the Bible is the sole source of authority and sanctity, and denies the concept of a centralized Church through which God speaks through the Pope. (Forgive me if I got this wrong, although I'm most certain I didn't).

There are other differences between sects, some more serious, some less serious, but I'm certain you know enough of them for me to not have to go into an off-topic lecture.
The interpretation of the verse in Matthew about the cornerstone of the Church, which is totally and completely unessential to salvation, is not considered to be a major doctrine. Deciding between Catholicism and Protestantism is purely a matter of preference. Arguments about the validity of the Pope's statements have little to do with the acceptance of the major doctrines. Catholocism, like anything else, has its ups and downs.

There is also the matter of different religions which don't have Christian roots (such as Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism) that also play into the wager. What if the Christian religion isn't the right one? What if it's Islam? Will Christians, having denied the Islamic version of God (Allah), be damned as infidels?
But Allah might let me into Heaven regardless of what I do in life (depends on shiite vs sunni), Enlightenment comes to anyone interested in religion and spirituality, and Karma will always give me a second chance, perhaps a more favorable one, because Christians are sometimes more concerned about the sanctity of life than others. But I do understand your argument. It was just meant to argue with Atheists with. If you're an Atheist, then perhaps, with Pascal's Wager, you should consider one of those other religions too. The point is, it is worth it to believe something.

- That belief alone will get you into Heaven. Although Protestants largely believe that faith alone will win God over, not every sect and religion believes this to be true. In most cases, you cannot only live with acceptance of God as your Lord and/or Christ as your Saviour, but you have to live according to Their teachings, a pure life devoid of sin and repent for those sins which you have committed. Very few Christians actually live an entirely pure life, so even if the Christian God exists, most of them will be sent to Hell with the rest of us.
This is a weak argument that has very little to do with Pascal's Wager. Christians believe that mankind was born with sin due to the Fall and that Jesus' blood covers that sin, allowing the person to go to heaven. A "pure life" isn't possible without intervention from God. In fact, I would tell it to someone myself who is interested in becoming a Christian soley through that argument. Salvation comes in three steps: Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification. Without signs of Sanctification(a genuine interest in doing God's work regardless of the fact that the debt has already been paid in full), it is a curious thought that Justification (Jesus' sacrifice covering the believer's sins) had ever occured.

- That there is the question of God existing in the first place. This one's pretty simple--the logic of Pascal's Wager is that no matter how slim the chances of God existing, since the gains are infintesimal, believing in him will always have more gains than losses. However, if one believes that there's no chance that God exists, then by accepting God he'd be losing one life for no potential gain. In all reality, there's no possible way for me to come to this conclusion because I won't know if God exists until death (and even then, only if He does), but it's still an argument.
Nothing in this thread, or anywhere, has disproved the existance of God. How do you measure if the chances are slim or not? Are theories more sound because of the number of modern scientists that believe in them?

I'm certain there are other factors and arguments both for and against, and I've only addressed the ones that come readily to mind. If it's not clear to you yet, I don't buy the Games Theory. :)
I wouldn't become converted through it, but Apologetics isn't the same as witnessing. Pascal's Wager acomplishes its goal in causing people to consider Christianity instead of dismissing it.

Jehutyv- most of what you're saying in that post doesn't really have much to do with Christianity. Let's be civilized.

[Office_Shredder]

I wouldn't become converted through it, but Apologetics isn't the same as witnessing. Pascal's Wager acomplishes its goal in causing people to consider Christianity instead of dismissing it

Actually, pascal's wager just got me onto religion. But y'know, hinduism has a ton of gods, and christianity only has one. So I think I'll stick with polytheism to up my chances of picking the right god ;)


When thought out carefully, pascal's wager INSISTS on believing in as many gods as possible, with the hope that one of them is correct (of course, the one true god might want you to not worship false idols.... keeping in mind we know nothing of the true god or gods, we can assume it's a 50% chance.... so on the one hand I halve my chances of salvation, on the other hand I increase it a million fold)

EDIT:

On the same not, what if god doesn't like being worshipped? It must be tiring... perhaps he just sends anyone who wastes his time bombarding him with prayers to hell... with all the possibilities, it really doesn't make atheism vs. any kind of theism more attractive

[Lonely Tylenol]

Actually, the Christian doesn't lose a life by devoting it to God, even if you claim that He doesn't exist. Aiding people less fortunate than myself is one of the most satisfying emotion I have ever come across. Does the Atheist even live once if he devotes his life only to his own pleasure? What sort of things last through the test of time better than relationships, real love, and charity?

Touche. My wording was pitiful here, but there are two arguments for Pascal's Wager, Standard and Dominance. I'm applying standard, where you "lose" a life through subservience to God because the choices you are allowed to make are inhibited by faith; you are applying Dominance, where the Christian gains more than the Atheist even if God doesn't exist because the self-fulfilling aspects of Christianity make the Christian's life more wholesome, whereas the cynical aspect of life that comes without a Supreme Being is really nothing but a burden. Which you choose to apply is more a matter of choice than anything else, but I personally consider the Dominance argument more flawed than the Standard one because it assumes a psychological aspect of life that requires nothing short of a broad generalization, whereas the assumption that choices in life are inhibited by the Bible, though still a generalization, is more well-founded.

Hmm...

Or maybe the -1 was for the time spent praying which amounted to no realistic salvation, and the +1 accounts for the time you live without that prayer and church attendance... Or maybe it's tithe?

I guess it's open to interpretation.

Maybe part of this boils down to sexual pleasure, though most Atheists aren't that crude. I still allow for it because people in our society just want to be permiscuous. Is there that much more to gain with a number of extra orgasms? Would you really like to believe that life is nothing more than "a few good f***s and then you die"? Would you give up an intimate and loving relationship for extra momentary pleasure? There are enough advantages to waiting for the love of one's life, which is probably the reason that God mandated it.

From my point of view sex itself wasn't really regarded as sin until the uprising of the Church. Before that point there were rules that one had to follow (no incest, remain monogamous, pretty obvious stuff), but the act of sex itself is natural.

And no, I'm not that crude.

All human beings act in self-interest, greed has more to do with money than building character and spirit. The conglomerate buisnessman is greedy, the Enlightenment-searching monk just isn't. The Biblical references to all that gold (which is probably just metaphorical anyways) pales in comparison to an eternal relationship with the Creator of the Universe, which is the main purpose of a Disciple of Christ, and should be presented more strongly in Pascal's Wager than eternal life. The real Christian's view of Heaven is different from the Muslim's. It isn't paradise because of the details, but just because it is the place where God resides.

Really, I just want to know... Where did I mention money?

The interpretation of the verse in Matthew about the cornerstone of the Church, which is totally and completely unessential to salvation, is not considered to be a major doctrine. Deciding between Catholicism and Protestantism is purely a matter of preference. Arguments about the validity of the Pope's statements have little to do with the acceptance of the major doctrines. Catholocism, like anything else, has its ups and downs.

My point was that different sects had different beliefs, I figured that would be a commonly acknowledged example.

[QUOTE]It was just meant to argue with Atheists with. If you're an Atheist, then perhaps, with Pascal's Wager, you should consider one of those other religions too. The point is, it is worth it to believe something.

I'm an atheist (well, actually I'm pretty much agnostic, since I as a mortal man do not believe I have the authority to confirm or deny God's existance), and I'm not buying it. If it means eternal damnation for my convictions, then at least I have advance notice, eh?

This is a weak argument that has very little to do with Pascal's Wager. Christians believe that mankind was born with sin due to the Fall and that Jesus' blood covers that sin, allowing the person to go to heaven. A "pure life" isn't possible without intervention from God.

Apparently purity is relative, but my point was that Pascal's Wager doesn't (or shouldn't) apply to every self-professed "Christian", since a Christian can still wind up in Hell, meaning that there's still another division of people who achieve salvation between good Christians and bad Christians.

In fact, I would tell it to someone myself who is interested in becoming a Christian soley through that argument. Salvation comes in three steps: Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification. Without signs of Sanctification(a genuine interest in doing God's work regardless of the fact that the debt has already been paid in full), it is a curious thought that Justification (Jesus' sacrifice covering the believer's sins) had ever occured.

Good man.

Nothing in this thread, or anywhere, has disproved the existance of God. How do you measure if the chances are slim or not? Are theories more sound because of the number of modern scientists that believe in them?

I think you misunderstand. The fourth argument was that no matter how disproportionately slim the chances are of God existing, the infinite rewards in the afterlife still make it worth it on a mathematical scale, but if there was absolutely no chance of God existing, then there's no gain mathematically for it. The argument wasn't theological--it was mathematical, which is fitting, because Pascal's Wager is a mathematical argument.

Like I said, I could not say with certainty that God didn't exist, nor could I ever, but from an atheistic perspective, the simplest rebuttal to Pascal's Wager would be to multiply the benefits of salvation, which amount to infinity, by the odds of God existing in their opinion, which is 0. Infinity x 0 = 0, thus there is no mathematical benefit in converting.

In fact, I believe I said that I don't adhere to this argument myself:

In all reality, there's no possible way for me to come to this conclusion because I won't know if God exists until death (and even then, only if He does), but it's still an argument.

But I presented it because it was an argument I recalled reading before as a rebuttal to Pascal's Wager, and it seemed fitting to add it in.

[Twelve]

"Beliefs." That's all they are. Einstein had no evidence of the existence of a divine being. Now you start attacking me with crazy things like the whole "under the bed thing." Why can't this be more civilized?

Watch out for further "ATTACKS"...lol. C'mon dude. Chill. You're the one calling people stupid and idiots here.


Why couldn't the universe defy another? Are ideas and such only allowed one human learning-defying aspects? Give me a solid answer for that.

The universe can't deny itself because if it did, you wouldn't exist.

Now please answer MY question as to an example of something that creates itself.

(I find it interesting how scientists who normally use logic start to sound very mystical in this stage of debate...lol)


O.S--I thought JW's death had you believing in God? (or gods, if you will...but realize that the God of the Bible doesnt' allow for any other competition. Read some Isaiah)

LT--Your posts are still too long...lol. I don't understand what's so difficult about Pascal's wager. If the atheist is right, we're all gone after death. If the believer is right, only atheists are screwed. How is that complicated?

12

[Office_Shredder]

O.S--I thought JW's death had you believing in God? (or gods, if you will...but realize that the God of the Bible doesnt' allow for any other competition. Read some Isaiah)

LT--Your posts are still too long...lol. I don't understand what's so difficult about Pascal's wager. If the atheist is right, we're all gone after death. If the believer is right, only atheists are screwed. How is that complicated?

12


Then I realized no loving god would permit JW to exist in the first place :cool:

For Pascal's wager, if there is no life, then what you do NOW is of paramount importance. Now, it has been said that living a Christian life is more fulfilling than an atheist life, because you devote yourself to helping others and all that shibang. The flaw in that argument is that one assumes only Christians can help other people out, and love thy neighbor, etc. You can still do all those things, but not go to church, not study the bible intensively, etc. In other words, not do things that an atheist would see as a perfect waste of time.

And also as I mentioned before, there's no reason to believe we aren't both wrong, and there's a god who has an entirely different basis for permitting people into heaven (if he even has a heaven vs. hell), and the Christian lifestyle won't get you in, but being an atheist will (99.99% chance that if there is a god, from an atheist point of view, it's not the Christian god, because there is an equal chance of it being any type of deity).

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Watch out for further "ATTACKS"...lol. C'mon dude. Chill. You're the one calling people stupid and idiots here. Only DBD and Silver. And they're practically the same person... in more ways than one.



The universe can't deny itself because if it did, you wouldn't exist.And what logic did you use to get here? It already defies itself by being infinite, but I think I exist just fine.

Now please answer MY question as to an example of something that creates itself.Refer to the previous bit of text.

(I find it interesting how scientists who normally use logic start to sound very mystical in this stage of debate...lol)
Logic and mysticality pretty much clash... all the time. One is logical so that they need not be a mystic. But it's nice that you laugh at your own little joke.

[Twelve]

Then I realized no loving god would permit JW to exist in the first place :cool:

He allows the devil to exist.


Now, it has been said that living a Christian life is more fulfilling than an atheist life, because you devote yourself to helping others and all that shibang.

Please read the Bible for a more full definition of "Christian Life"



And also as I mentioned before, there's no reason to believe we aren't both wrong, and there's a god who has an entirely different basis for permitting people into heaven (if he even has a heaven vs. hell), and the Christian lifestyle won't get you in, but being an atheist will (99.99% chance that if there is a god, from an atheist point of view, it's not the Christian god, because there is an equal chance of it being any type of deity).

Here's my example of mysticism at work. Please, where can I find information on this "god" that will allow atheists to go to heaven?

Goodness, we are pulling at strings...

12

[Twelve]

Refer to the previous bit of text.




Oh, nononononoonononono.

You said that "perhaps" the universe created itself. I'm just being scientific and telling you that this is impossible and against all logic, and I asked you to provide ANOTHER example of such a thing taking place.

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Oh, nononononoonononono.

You said that "perhaps" the universe created itself. I'm just being scientific and telling you that this is impossible and against all logic, and I asked you to provide ANOTHER example of such a thing taking place.

12
So? I asked you to give me a reason. You never gave a SOLID answer. Respon with one or do not expect one.

[Office_Shredder]

Here's my example of mysticism at work. Please, where can I find information on this "god" that will allow atheists to go to heaven?

Goodness, we are pulling at strings...

12

Umm... why would he tell you about himself? He doesn't WANT to be worshipped, and actively despises everyone who attempts to worship him. He's tired from making the whole universe (not an easy job), and just wants to catch some shut eye. But all the asshole humans keep asking him for stuff, and he's decided it's the last straw. So now anyone who attempts to worship him (through their own personification of a deity), will be sent to hell, and those who are kind and benevolent enough to just leave him alone and live their own lives will be rewarded after they die.

Of course you won't find scripture on this guy, that would be incredibly counter-intuitive.


Please read the Bible for a more full definition of "Christian Life"
Don't play semantics here... I was replying to:

Actually, the Christian doesn't lose a life by devoting it to God, even if you claim that He doesn't exist. Aiding people less fortunate than myself is one of the most satisfying emotion I have ever come across. Does the Atheist even live once if he devotes his life only to his own pleasure? What sort of things last through the test of time better than relationships, real love, and charity?

By pointing out that not all atheists devote their lives to pleasure (and not all religious people devote their lives to helping people out either). The act of accepting Christ as your savior is not necessary to feel satisfied from doing good deeds.

[Twelve]

Umm... why would he tell you about himself? He doesn't WANT to be worshipped, and actively despises everyone who attempts to worship him. He's tired from making the whole universe (not an easy job), and just wants to catch some shut eye. But all the asshole humans keep asking him for stuff, and he's decided it's the last straw. So now anyone who attempts to worship him (through their own personification of a deity), will be sent to hell, and those who are kind and benevolent enough to just leave him alone and live their own lives will be rewarded after they die.


That's a nice fantasy story...when does the book come out? ;)

As for Deleryn's retort, sorry for interfering, because Deleryn can most certainly fend for himself...

12

[Office_Shredder]

That's a nice fantasy story...when does the book come out? ;)

12

It's as plausible as believing the bible...

[Twelve]

It's as plausible as believing the bible...

Ah, I was really hoping you would say that.

Sure, the Bible may be a fantasy book, but it would take the fantasy you've just written a while to catch up. That's because the Bible is a book written by over 100 writers over a span of 2,000 years, all talking about the same thing. No other book in existence comes close to that kind of record.

So, though it may indeed be fantasy, I think we both have to honestly admit that it's a bit more "plausible" than your tale.

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Ah, I was really hoping you would say that.

Sure, the Bible may be a fantasy book, but it would take the fantasy you've just written a while to catch up. That's because the Bible is a book written by over 100 writers over a span of 2,000 years, all talking about the same thing. No other book in existence comes close to that kind of record.

So, though it may indeed be fantasy, I think we both have to honestly admit that it's a bit more "plausible" than your tale.

12
What about, you know, the TORAH? Or do you think it was written in english, or maybe it went immediately from hebrew to english? There's a reason they're talking about the same thing. They were told to do so by the Church, until Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation came and mass-produced it.

[Twelve]

What about, you know, the TORAH? Or do you think it was written in english, or maybe it went immediately from hebrew to english? There's a reason they're talking about the same thing. They were told to do so by the Church, until Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation came and mass-produced it.

Ah, Jehuty, welcome back. I thought I hung you up to dry when you refused to answer my question earlier. :p

As to your point, I don't see what you're talking about. The "Church" (whatever it is that you mean by that) had nothing to do with the writings of Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah...even those writers wrote over a span of over 1,000 years and spoke of the same thing. They were not "told" to do so by the "Church"...

What you've written there makes little sense.

And then to throw Martin Luther in there...what the...heck?

12

[Office_Shredder]

Ah, I was really hoping you would say that.

Sure, the Bible may be a fantasy book, but it would take the fantasy you've just written a while to catch up. That's because the Bible is a book written by over 100 writers over a span of 2,000 years, all talking about the same thing. No other book in existence comes close to that kind of record.

So, though it may indeed be fantasy, I think we both have to honestly admit that it's a bit more "plausible" than your tale.

12

http://ask.yahoo.com/20011106.html

Hinduism beats out christianity by a longshot... so why don't you convert? The polytheistic nature also should appeal to your pascal wager side.

Besides, age doesn't make something right... people believed for thousands of years that the world was flat (well, the majority of people anyway). Look how far they got :)

[Twelve]

http://ask.yahoo.com/20011106.html

Hinduism beats out christianity by a longshot... so why don't you convert? The polytheistic nature also should appeal to your pascal wager side.

Besides, age doesn't make something right... people believed for thousands of years that the world was flat (well, the majority of people anyway). Look how far they got :)

Who said anything about age? I was comparing the Bible to your fantasy tale.

And now that you're making a point through Hinduism, you must 1.still deal with the issue that these ancient Hindu texts were written at one time, which anybody can do and 2. realize that Hindusim is basically universalism, which is impossible.


12

[Office_Shredder]

Who said anything about age? I was comparing the Bible to your fantasy tale.

And now that you're making a point through Hinduism, you must 1.still deal with the issue that these ancient Hindu texts were written at one time, which anybody can do and 2. realize that Hindusim is basically universalism, which is impossible.


12

And christianity has one god who's three people at the same time, can do anything, exists outside of time, and is so loving he'll send you to hell if you don't kiss his ass.

So much more believable :)

You're the one arguing about god existing outside of our comprehension, don't presume to apply mundane human logic to other religions.

And anybody can decide to extend a book in the hopes of people 1600 years later taking their word as divine. I was simply comparing hinduism because you claimed christianity, due to its age, is more believable than my story. By that logic, hinduism is the correct religion.

[Twelve]

And christianity has one god who's three people at the same time

You are still one person, despite the fact that there are seperate organs that make up what you are.


, can do anything,

A characteristic of all deities outside of Christianity.


exists outside of time,

In order to be immortal, that must be the case


and is so loving he'll send you to hell if you don't kiss his ass.

Wrong. And is so loving that he'll save your ass even though you're destined and meant for hell.


So much more believable :)

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU! I'm glad we agree.


You're the one arguing about god existing outside of our comprehension, don't presume to apply mundane human logic to other religions.

Just did. Universalism is impossible. It's like saying Honda and Ford are the same thing, when it's simply NOT true!


And anybody can decide to extend a book in the hopes of people 1600 years later taking their word as divine.

Reaping what benefit? What kind of fantasy people are you talking about now? The people who wrote the Bible were mostly beatdown and killed for writing what they did.


I was simply comparing hinduism because you claimed christianity, due to its age, is more believable than my story. By that logic, hinduism is the correct religion.

I didn't mention anything about how old it was (though that is worthy point). I mentioned that the span of time by with over 100 writers talk about the same thing is unmatched by any book, and especially more than your fantasy story of 5 minutes work.

I really don't like repeating myself. :(


12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Ah, Jehuty, welcome back. I thought I hung you up to dry when you refused to answer my question earlier. :p

As to your point, I don't see what you're talking about. The "Church" (whatever it is that you mean by that) had nothing to do with the writings of Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah...even those writers wrote over a span of over 1,000 years and spoke of the same thing. They were not "told" to do so by the "Church"...

What you've written there makes little sense.

And then to throw Martin Luther in there...what the...heck?

12
You clearly misunderstood everything I said. Aside from ignoring my comment about the Torah, we must yet return to it. Moses, David... All in there initially. I don't see why the Torah is called the "Jewish Bible" because the Torah predates the Bible (at least the new testament) by thousands of years. The old testament is pretty much in sync with the Torah...

In case you didn't know, the writings were altered by the several translations and redistribution that had taken place. Even if it was only slightly, there is a margin of error. And Martin Luther assisted in that by having the book mass produced.

What you've written there shows you didn't really read what I wrote.

[Twelve]

You clearly misunderstood everything I said. Aside from ignoring my comment about the Torah, we must yet return to it. Moses, David... All in there initially. I don't see why the Torah is called the "Jewish Bible" because the Torah predates the Bible (at least the new testament) by thousands of years. The old testament is pretty much in sync with the Torah...

In case you didn't know, the writings were altered by the several translations and redistribution that had taken place. Even if it was only slightly, there is a margin of error. And Martin Luther assisted in that by having the book mass produced.

What you've written there shows you didn't really read what I wrote.

No, what you've written needed clarification, that's what happened.

The word "Bible" simply means "books", dude, so it's ok if it's called the "Jewish Bible".

Meanwhile, you're making a point that has little bearing to what is currently being discussed. I think you want me to say that I don't accept the TORAH? The Torah is what I believe too.

Please, show me the debate trap I'm supposed to walk into so that I can walk into it? It's boring trying to figure out for YOU what point you're trying to make.

12

[Office_Shredder]

The word "Bible" simply means "books", dude, so it's ok if it's called the "Jewish Bible".


And by books I assume you mean scrolls? Because that's how they're made

:p

/random commment

[Twelve]

Well, the Bible doesn't call itself the "Bible", so yeah.

/random answer

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

No, what you've written needed clarification, that's what happened.

The word "Bible" simply means "books", dude, so it's ok if it's called the "Jewish Bible". However, that is not the intention of those who use the term. Don't try to argue that.

Meanwhile, you're making a point that has little bearing to what is currently being discussed. I think you want me to say that I don't accept the TORAH? The Torah is what I believe too.

Please, show me the debate trap I'm supposed to walk into so that I can walk into it? It's boring trying to figure out for YOU what point you're trying to make.

12You said there was no other book to match the bible's amount of authors and age. I said the Torah is one. The end.

[Twelve]

However, that is not the intention of those who use the term. Don't try to argue that.

Lol...look at this expression, "That is not the intention of those who use the term"....how vague can you be?

Look:

http://www.barbecuebible.com/
http://www.indiebible.com/
http://www.jobhuntersbible.com/library/counseling/counseling.php

And that's based on an easy Google search. You can do it too!! Looks like it's ok for something to be called the "Jewish Bible", since the term "Bible" means "books" and is often used to represent an area where there is a wealth of knowledge to be had.


You said there was no other book to match the bible's amount of authors and age. I said the Torah is one. The end.

Oh, is that supposed to be the catch? Took you three posts. The Torah was written by one man: Moses. There is a debate as to that (of course), but even the Jewish people say that it's written by him, and that must be respected. So if you are going to seperate the Torah from the rest of the Bible of which it's a part, you're still wrong on the point you're failing to make.

12

[TheSilverRider]

Oh, is that supposed to be the catch? Took you three posts. The Torah was written by one man: Moses. There is a debate as to that (of course), but even the Jewish people say that it's written by him, and that must be respected. So if you are going to seperate the Torah from the rest of the Bible of which it's a part, you're still wrong on the point you're failing to make.

12

Just for specifics:

Torah: 1 author, i dont know how long it took to write it

Holy Bible: 40 authors over 1500 years.

Now that said, this also proves how much of a miracle it is that the Bible does not have any contradictions. These men had no way of communicating with each other yet they still say the same principles throughout. That proves that there had to be someone "guiding" them or giving them what to write about or else the fallability of man would have made them contradict.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Lol...look at this expression, "That is not the intention of those who use the term"....how vague can you be? If you say that's vague, you are saying so only to discredit me. It is rather specific. I said that is not the intention. I don't understand where you get confused.

But I like again how you laugh at your own little statement here. I guess when no one else does you have to make the laughter yourself.

Look:

http://www.barbecuebible.com/
http://www.indiebible.com/
http://www.jobhuntersbible.com/library/counseling/counseling.php

And that's based on an easy Google search. You can do it too!! Nice condescension there, buddy. What's next? A joke about my mother? Oh, is that supposed to be the catch? Nope, no catch. It was stated plain as day. Took you three posts.For you to pick up on it, yeah. Again, what was the confusion? The Torah was written by one man: Moses. There is a debate as to that (of course), but even the Jewish people say that it's written by him, and that must be respected. Alright, sure. I was wrong on a certain aspect. I'll admit it because I'm not too proud to do so. Want a cookie or a medal? So if you are going to seperate the Torah from the rest of the Bible of which it's a part, you're still wrong on the point you're failing to make. There was no point. I was just saying something about the Torah. I don't see why you have to turn it into something enormous.

[Office_Shredder]

Just for specifics:

Torah: 1 author, i dont know how long it took to write it

Holy Bible: 40 authors over 1500 years.

Now that said, this also proves how much of a miracle it is that the Bible does not have any contradictions. These men had no way of communicating with each other yet they still say the same principles throughout. That proves that there had to be someone "guiding" them or giving them what to write about or else the fallability of man would have made them contradict.

First off, they could communicate with each other. It's called reading what the people before you wrote ;)

Secondly:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[TheSilverRider]

First off, they could communicate with each other. It's called reading what the people before you wrote ;)

Secondly:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

And what if they didnt have the writings? (which many of them didnt). What then?

[Man's Laughter]

Now that said, this also proves how much of a miracle it is that the Bible does not have any contradictions.

... (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html)

EDIT: Damn you, OS. At least mine took him to the exact URL, though.

[uniquinous]

sorry to hop into this thread so late in the game but...

Most of the underlying principles are the same not necessarily because of some divine intervention, but because they are inherent goods of the world. People had a general idea that murder was a bad idea, even before the ten commandments happened to tell them that. You will find cultures across the pre-civilized globe followed many of the same principles. Heck monkeys know incest is bad. Call it the natural selection of idea. If one of these guys had wrote that it was a good idea to rape and pillage constantly, do you really think it would have made it to the bible?

EDIT: the bible has tons of contradictions...

[Office_Shredder]

And what if they didnt have the writings? (which many of them didnt). What then?

Then you go to the link I posted, and read through it.

You'll see what happens ;)

[Ächilles]

Here's my perspective on religion, primarily Christianity.

I grew up in an Irish Catholic home in South Boston. Went to mass at Gate Of Heaven church every Sunday. I had absolutely no doubt in the existence of God or His word being divine. But once I got into Jr. High, I was exposed to many more views and opinions than I had never before seen or heard. None of these opinions actually influenced me directly; what influenced me was that other perspectives existed which ultimately served as the driving force behind me beginning to wonder about life when I never had before.

The best way I've heard this described was in a movie:

"Think of faith as a glass of water, you being the glass and faith the water. When you're a child, you have a small glass and it's filled to the top. But as you grow up, the glass grows larger so it takes more water to fill - only the amount of water inside stays the same.

That's the one aspect of all major religions practiced in cultures that I strongly disagree with (With the exception of the Amish). A good amount of people who are devout Christians merely have pledged a blind loyalty to God without ever questioning it. They were born and brought up in Christian households (this goes for every religion), so that's all they knew. Had they been born into a Hindu family, they would be devoted blindly to that. I think children should be exposed to different views and opinions instead of "You're Christian, now go love Jesus." I know that if I had my own child I would much rather his faith in God be realized through gaining knowlege as opposed to me instructing him to have faith. If I were a devout Christian I'd much rather have a son who is a strong follower of Buddhism as opposed to a blind follower of Christianity.

My biggest problem is that I'm a very contemplative person, and I have so much information readily available to me that it's hard to maintain one opinion. The one major aspect of Christianity that has caused me to stray from it is that I do not understand God's mindset. If he loves us all so much, why aren't we all just born into Heaven? Why make us go through life? Does he enjoy watching our lives? Is it like a TV show to him? Then he damns the ones he supposedly loves to hell? Or we damn ourselves, rather. Why would he let us do that if he loves us so much? That's what I don't get. What purpose does life serve? To me it just seems like one big trial to get us access to Heaven or not.

Another huge problem is that I find religion to be very misguiding. Not God and the celestial level of being, but organized religion on Earth. There are so many religions that believe in the same God. But Judaism says one thing, Catholicism says another, Mormonism is way out in left field preaching something else, Methodists are somewhere else saying something else entirely different. How am I supposed to know how to live my life when they're all screaming at me about how I should do this and that and constantly contradicting eachother? I honestly think that I would rather just have faith in God on my own and try to be a good person than join a religion.

That's about it. I would like to have faith in God. It's bleak to go through life thinking once you die it's just lights out. But I don't want to blindly pledge my faith in something that I'm not entirely sure about. If I am going to believe in God and His word strongly, I want it to be legitimate. I just don't know how to do that with all these things in the way.

[TheSilverRider]

EDIT: the bible has tons of contradictions...

Name 3.:dry:

[drakonfire]

I want it to be legitimate. I just don't know how to do that with all these things in the way.

WARNING: long post

you want it to be legitimate ach? only you can make it. yes, a lot of the world's 'christians' have no idea what they are claiming, they grew up that way, and its a good enough lifestyle, why change? because of the very reason you stated, its not legitimate any other way

first question, have you taken your questions to a local minister? (priest, pastor, church elder?) and forget denomination for a moment, have you asked anyone who is supposed to be in a position to answer these question?

i myself was one of those "growing glasses" and to make matters worse, i had a leak, i was a pornography addict, while going to church on sundays, talk about hypocritical :( ... and for a while, i was actually okay with that lifestyle, which looking back, was my darkest time, eventually though i came to realize i was living two lives and had to figure out which was real, i knew porn was wrong already, and not just from the christian perspective, but i'm one of those old fasioned types who like to respect woman, and yeah... that in my mind definitely doesnt and i'm sorry to have ever been involved with it. then after recommiting my life to Christ i went about my business for a while, not really sure what i wanted to do with my life, except it was going to be something with computers, because i like computers, really i do

i'm now studying to be a children's pastor, yeah, tell me how THAT happens...

anywhat, over the years i have done my digging, and i've come to a few conclusions

1. science is good; complete faith in science is bad, to much crap is not explainable by good ol' science, specially the world's origins, yes we can't prove creationism, and there is no reason why God couldn't have created the universe through the big bang and evolution, but thats not what i believe but beyond even these issues are demonic possessions, magic (which i firmly believe is real) and miraculous healings

2. the Bible _IS_ conistent, yes i've been to that website mentioned above, wonderfully messed up site btw, if you don't believe me, do some thinking and reading of your own, the whole purpose of Christ coming and dying was so that we would no longer need the intermediary system of the OT, that system was broke (not because of the way God did it, but because man is basically flawed [see point 3]) when Jesus died, the temple curtain, which only priests were aloud to go behind, and thus enter the presence of God, was ripped, literally from top to bottom. this symbolized how we can now go straight to God for the answers we want, you don't have to sit in a pew to get your answers, go to the source. if someone points a contradiction in the bible, go read it for yourself, in its un-adulturated state, (i.e. NOT a commentary bible, just a straight bible, i highly recommend the NASB) and do a bit of thinking for yourself, if you still can't reconcile it, go to a local minister and ask him, if he is truly a man of God, you might be surprised by what kind of answers he can offer you

3. humans are basically flawed, you can't get around this, yes some people are naturally nice, peace making people, but i find these people are rare when compared with your average selfish human being. heck, even i'm selfish, i'll admit it, but by the grace of God i am able to overcome my human nature (most of the time) and (hopefully) glorify Him with my actions... but sadly here i (and most others) fail more often than we would like - so stop looking to people to be the golden example of the church and what a christian should be, yes spiritually mature people can help you, but even they are far from perfect, here is a quote for you


P:"i've been hearing many good things about you..."
M:"Pastor, without God i am the worst son of a bitch you ever met"


personally, i believe thats true of a lot of christians today -- we are gosh-awful people without the help of God our Father - and sometimes people who claim Him as Father are still awful people, have your crap-meter on, because you will meet a lot of these spiritual phonies in life, about 1/4th of the worlds population, if the stats are at all accurate.

4. no human explanation is perfect, more than a little faith is required, but by no means does God demand blind faith - Jesus himself gave signs and wonders, and if you weigh equally _all_ evidence about the world around us, God is evident in it, if you are willing to believe He can be

that whole mindset thing that is a major stumbling block to you - yeah, it is to a lot of people, if you look back through this thread you will see a lot of "I just can't wrap my head around..." but again, the bible is consistent in this too

think about it this way, and yes, some of this you have to just accept, but if you are willing to accept a few basic things, the whole of it makes sense

disclaimer: i'm human, and i'm also only a freshman in college with all of 9 hours of religion classes under my belt, so i'm going to mess this up, i think though i can get the basics (at least ot my understanding) down

God is perfect, in every way, this means He is Holy - now our earthly perspectives say that rules must be bent to allow "good people" to get rewards, even if they have strayed a bit

God can't do this, since He is perfectly Holy, bending the rules for Holiness that He put in place is NOT an option (for if He bent them He would be contradicting His own nature)

thus the Blood sacrifice of the OT was put into place - but as i stated before, this system was broken because of the basic flawed nature of man - thus God had to have a perfect sacrifice, His Son, Jesus, was a person, not an animal, and He was litarally perfect, without sin, and yet He died a common criminals death, the death that we all deserve, since He did so willingly, He supplied the ultimate and last blood sacrifice that God required, meaning all we have to do for forgiveness is claim the Blood of Christ

as to why we were created? we were created to worship Him, willingly, the angels (whom i believe He also created) were already in His presence and worshipping Him, but that was all they could do (that or reject Him, as we believe the demons did, and once that choice was made, endgame, no going back) so God made a new creation, the universe, time, earth, man - who like God, had a free will, a choice to live rightly with God and worship Him or not, and by worship i do not just mean sitting on ou rears all day singing hymns. He created us for the joy of watching us grow and come up with new ideas, to talk with Him, to fellowship with Him, to live up to everything He had created us to be, and in so doing, worship and fellowship with Him, and since He created us perfect, we could be with Him in His presence, so we were originally intended to be born into a sort of heaven on earth, called Eden, but we all know how that turned out (see Genesis 3 for full details)

another post i wrote, for shroom girl, but it also has some of this stuff in it
http://tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=677373&postcount=428

if you have any other questions you would like answered, and not lost in the shuffle of this thread, feel free to PM me

[drakonfire]

Name 3.:dry:

better idea, name 3 that can't be contradicted through study and a willing, better understanding of God's word, instead of just a "well some skeptic made an annotated Bible and is says this is what it says, so ha!" - i dare you to approach whatever answers we give with an open mind

[Northwind]

I think children should be exposed to different views and opinions instead of "You're Christian, now go love Jesus." I know that if I had my own child I would much rather his faith in God be realized through gaining knowlege as opposed to me instructing him to have faith. If I were a devout Christian I'd much rather have a son who is a strong follower of Buddhism as opposed to a blind follower of Christianity.
Ach,

I'm not one to preach, but you might be interested in checking out Unitarian Univeralism (http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html). Part of their religious education for children who go to the church is to be exposed to a variety of religious thinking. They are taught about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, atheism, etc. (Believe it or not, I teach Sunday School at a UU church.) UU stresses the common messages among the world's religions ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") as well as the importance of each individual's search for meaning. UU does not force any particular dogma on its members (one of the other teachers is an atheist), but is a community that is willing to ask questions and step up in terms of social action. When I was a teenager, I never imagine that I would be able to attend a church without feeling like a hypocrite. Now I can. :)

[Ächilles]

Drakon,

Thank you for the long, well thought out post. I appreciate the help. But many of the points you posted in that are exactly why I find it hard to have faith in there being a God. You wrote quite a bit about how we're here to love and worship God, and about how he required blood sacrafices before the ultimate sacrafice of Christ. Well... All that sort of makes God seem very self-centered. Basically, to me, it sounds as though God created us for himself. We're here to woship him. He required blood sacrafices. It makes it sound as though He thinks only inwards. If he is perfect, then why does he need us to worship him? How can you not be content with self-perfection? What purpose would worshipping him serve other than placing Him on a pedistal and making him appear high and mighty? This is what I do not understand, and haven't for a long time.

Northwind,

Thanks for the suggestion. I like that concept a lot. I've always hated how most people pledge blind faith in their religion, it's good to know that in UU children are actually exposed to all sorts of different spiritual beliefs. So far, I agree with Buddhism more than anything. It just makes the most sense to me, and is the most believable and logical.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

better idea, name 3 that can't be contradicted through study and a willing, better understanding of God's word, instead of just a "well some skeptic made an annotated Bible and is says this is what it says, so ha!" - i dare you to approach whatever answers we give with an open mind
That, however, works the same way. Thus, you can't give an answer like "God made the bible so the bible rules and I'm right!" I dare you to approach whatever answers given with an open mind.

[uniquinous]

Blind faith is stupidity - flatout. Following any faith or creed without questioning is the very definition of ignorance. While people like drakonfire might suggest they do question and don't follow blind faith, there is a large cult-like following which does. Wine is not blood, Christ-wafers are not body (they are made in a sweat shop factory in Jersey next to the Cinnamon Toast Crunch plant - and occasionally shipments get mixed up...). You want to tell me god needs blood, and money, and sweat to appeas him? I *do* believe in a greater force, but you can't seriously make him out to be human! (and you do as soon as you make god a him with opinions, wants, requirements, likes, loves, etc). Why is this bad?
3. humans are basically flawed, you can't get around this

Perfection can be self-contradictory. The trees of eden had perfect fruit made by god's hand, right? Well if it's perfect, does that mean it hangs perfectly ripe on a perfectly low branch just waiting to be picked and eaten? Or does it fall to the ground, and *rot* to fullfill it's "perfect" reproductive purpose? You see perfection is relative to the frame of reference.

Christianity has created war, inquisition, death. Is that god's will? Why create suffering at all? Does he just have a grudge against that first sin? How could anyone call an option "free will" if they hang the prospect of hell over their heads? Sorry, there's just way too much about conventional christianity that I can't stand. I am of the belief that I was born into this world completely innocent. I am of the belief that we can find god within ourselves in our own manner of seeking - not from what some old book says. I am of the belief I can reach harmony in my life without giving money and blood to a guy with a pointy hat.

Personally, I've found a lot of great teachings through liberal Quakerism, which stresses interpersonal connections and finding god through self-reflection for yourself. I'm not saying this way is better then anyone else's, I just happen to like it simply because it stresses the importance of questioning belief.

[Match Strike]

I still think it all boils down to:

Anyone could be right. Stop acting like you know. That is impossible, whether an Aetheist or a Hindu is speaking. Now, many of faith say that they don't really know. Unfortunately, this is inherently contradicted by the very idea of faith.

Now, I don't mean to come off as a complete ass. I do respect many religious people, and many of my friends are religous. However, I consider myself a logical person, and saying you know "the great truth" or whatever is inherently illogical. Nobody can know for sure.

[drakonfire]

Drakon,

Thank you for the long, well thought out post. I appreciate the help. But many of the points you posted in that are exactly why I find it hard to have faith in there being a God. You wrote quite a bit about how we're here to love and worship God, and about how he required blood sacrafices before the ultimate sacrafice of Christ. Well... All that sort of makes God seem very self-centered. Basically, to me, it sounds as though God created us for himself. We're here to woship him. He required blood sacrafices. It makes it sound as though He thinks only inwards. If he is perfect, then why does he need us to worship him? How can you not be content with self-perfection? What purpose would worshipping him serve other than placing Him on a pedistal and making him appear high and mighty? This is what I do not understand, and haven't for a long time.

i see your point ach, really i do, it does make Him out to be a little selfish, but like i said, i probably messed that up quite a bit, but just think on this for a minute, it God were really selfish and held a grudge about the first sin, why not just wipe us out and start again? heck, i wouldn't have blamed Him, couldnt have, wouldn't have existed

again, think about it this way, if God is perfectly Holy and He _cannot_ have anything un-holy enter His presence (i know i know, most 'christians'claim there is _nothing_ God can't do, but this creates paradoxes, so i refuse to make that statement, without asking you to understand the inherent contradictions involved, which actually aren't but... thats one of those deep theological ponderings i have) then once we had sinned we were dead to Him, but instead of just writing us off, He wanted to maintain a relationship with us, so He made a way

thats really all i got ach, i'm sorry i couldn't help it be real for you


IRT Uniquinous: christianity has not created wars, men have created wars, and as i said, people are basically flawed, thus taking christianity and creating a war


IRT: Jehutey - i'd like to think i'm rather open-minded, and really i have thought about a lot of the issues that have been brought up, but now i'm waiting forthose 3 contradictions which can't be contradicted

[Jehutyv.2.0]

IRT: Jehutey - i'd like to think i'm rather open-minded, and really i have thought about a lot of the issues that have been brought up, but now i'm waiting forthose 3 contradictions which can't be contradicted
Anything... ANYTHING can be contradicted in such a way that the each person is stubborn to the last. I can contradict you on saying the sky is blue, or that most birds fly. And with something that is changed so often as religion, it becomes even easier.

[drakonfire]

Anything... ANYTHING can be contradicted in such a way that the each person is stubborn to the last. I can contradict you on saying the sky is blue, or that most birds fly. And with something that is changed so often as religion, it becomes even easier.


Jehuty, not what i meant, pay attention to the context please, i was not asking for 3 contradictions, thats easy, i was asking for three contradictions within the bible that cannot be refuted in some way, since people in this thread seem so intent on saying that it is full of them (look on the previous page, 2 links to the skeptics bible)

[uniquinous]

.. ... :dry:
you condensed down a perfectly reasonable argument of mine to "christianity doesn't kill people - people kill people!" Come on, there's much more to my statements then that, and even there, people died under the guise and claim of religeon. Come on. Christianity is a part of humanity - it is not better then the people who practice it.

[Cephas]

.. ... :dry:
you condensed down a perfectly reasonable argument of mine to "christianity doesn't kill people - people kill people!" Come on, there's much more to my statements then that, and even there, people died under the guise and claim of religeon. Come on. Christianity is a part of humanity - it is not better then the people who practice it.
Do you think the 'Christian' killers were following the teachings of the Bible?

[Office_Shredder]

Do you think the 'Christian' killers were following the teachings of the Bible?

Of course they were. Why aren't you out there starting up a new crusade to take bethlehem for the christians? Heathen!

[Twelve]

Nice condescension there, buddy. What's next? A joke about my mother?

Yo momma's so dumb, she turned around and got turned to salt!! Gwahahahaha!

Once again man, chill. :)

First off, they could communicate with each other. It's called reading what the people before you wrote

That doesn't explain the contemporaries, or the fact that the people who wrote these words didn't have an automatic update of Biblical material on hand to refer to. It was only much later after their deaths that many of these works were accumulated.

The rest of ya'll talk too much....lol.

I stand on the fact that the Bible doesn't contradict itself, a truly miraculous feat considering that over 100 writers in it wrote it over a span of over 1,000 years.

I need to see some contradictions. :)

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Jehuty, not what i meant, pay attention to the context please, i was not asking for 3 contradictions, thats easy, i was asking for three contradictions within the bible that cannot be refuted in some way, since people in this thread seem so intent on saying that it is full of them (look on the previous page, 2 links to the skeptics bible)
And I'm saying that even if you were given with what would normally be known as a "irrefutable" contradiction, your brain would come up with a reason to contradict that contradiction. It's just part of the desperation reflex in the human mind.

[Office_Shredder]

I stand on the fact that the Bible doesn't contradict itself, a truly miraculous feat considering that over 100 writers in it wrote it over a span of over 1,000 years.

I need to see some contradictions. :)

12

If you looked at the link provided, you would see some you know

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[Twelve]

I'm not going to debate with a webpage, man, sorry.

Can't you at least PRETEND to put up some problems with the Scriptures that you yourself have seen?

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I'm not going to debate with a webpage, man, sorry.

Can't you at least PRETEND to put up some problems with the Scriptures that you yourself have seen?

12
So... let me get this straight. You won't have him use evidence he found, but you'll use evidence you found?

[Twelve]

I'm not going to debate with a webpage, man, sorry.

12

:rolleyes:

[Office_Shredder]

How about the messianic prophecy that Jesus fulfills isn't actually what the Old Testament fortells? Despite the fact that in Luke 24:44, Jesus claims to have fulfilled the prophecies in the Old Testament.

Is that enough of a contradiction?

And I didn't want to debate over all the contradictions, I was just pointing out that they exist, and are there for everyone to see. If you choose not to read the site, that's your decision.

[Twelve]

How about the messianic prophecy that Jesus fulfills isn't actually what the Old Testament fortells? Despite the fact that in Luke 24:44, Jesus claims to have fulfilled the prophecies in the Old Testament.

Is that enough of a contradiction?

And I didn't want to debate over all the contradictions, I was just pointing out that they exist, and are there for everyone to see. If you choose not to read the site, that's your decision.

Can you be more specific with your first contradiction?

And websites always counter websites.

This website:

http://www.christianchronicle.org/

Makes it a point to counter the kind of website that you just posted.

When debating on forums, both sides must have the benefit of the doubt that the other is speaking from their own knowledge. I don't expect you to debate against a website either. I mean, once a debate goes to website flashing, you might as well call it a day.


12

[Office_Shredder]

Can you be more specific with your first contradiction?

The Jewish messiah was supposed to be one who ushered in an era of peace and justice. He was also supposed to rebuild the temple, and unite all people under god, bringing about a holy nation spanning the planet. The torah also never mentions a second armageddon return to earth, this was created in order to patch up the inconsistencies in the prophecies vs. what Jesus did. I could go more into depth if need be.

When debating on forums, both sides must have the benefit of the doubt that the other is speaking from their own knowledge. I don't expect you to debate against a website either. I mean, once a debate goes to website flashing, you might as well call it a day.

12

Unfortunately, your link goes to a christian newspaper... I noticed the first thing to catch my eye, the big center picture, was about a pageant or something. Not exactly covering discrepancies in the bible :)

And again, the purpose of my link was not to be something we can debate on, it was for the purpose of showing you that, contrary to your belief, there ARE people who spend time reading the bible and ACTUALLY SEE flaws in it. Of course, I'd be willing to bet that over half the stuff (actually, everything if we took the time) that I see as a flaw, you would wash over with an explanation I would find unsatisfactory. Why? Because you enter the discussion with an inherent belief that the bible is accurate, and I enter the discussion with an inherent belief that the bible is a book. So what may seem like a satisfactory explanation to you won't seem like one to me.

[ReTodd]

I would hope that after all of the revisions that were made, the editors removed the contradictions from the New Testament :)

Can anyone explain the immaculate conception for me? It always seemed very similar to Zeus knocking up all kinds of biatches like the pimp that he was.

Is the New Testament God big pimpin? I just saw him getting out of Don Juan's pimpmobile and took this picture:

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/828/godblazed7qf.th.jpg (http://img69.imageshack.us/my.php?image=godblazed7qf.jpg)

Looks Like George Washington wasn't the only one who loved hemp, God created it :D

[Twelve]

The Jewish messiah was supposed to be one who ushered in an era of peace and justice. He was also supposed to rebuild the temple, and unite all people under god, bringing about a holy nation spanning the planet. The torah also never mentions a second armageddon return to earth, this was created in order to patch up the inconsistencies in the prophecies vs. what Jesus did. I could go more into depth if need be.

Please go into depth and show some verses please.


Unfortunately, your link goes to a christian newspaper... I noticed the first thing to catch my eye, the big center picture, was about a pageant or something. Not exactly covering discrepancies in the bible :)

My bad...I meant this one:

http://www.christiancourier.com/

And again, the purpose of my link was not to be something we can debate on, it was for the purpose of showing you that, contrary to your belief, there ARE people who spend time reading the bible and ACTUALLY SEE flaws in it. .

You make an assumption that is...totally misplaced. I invite these people to post here. :)


12

[Office_Shredder]

The first link I noticed (top and center, labelled "new") is:

http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/didChristUndermineHisCredib.htm

And it opens:
Let us first reflect upon what the text does not mean. It cannot indicate that Christ was questioning the integrity of his own testimony concerning his identity as the Son of God. That would yield no sense whatsoever

See, it begins with the assumption that there must be SOME sense made of the statement. And this is where logical debate becomes impossible... on the one hand you have people developing long, convoluted arguments for the purpose of explaining a simple statement (despite your claim that the bible is inherently simple). On the other hand you have people like me, who say "No... the statement is just wrong. Not much more to say here".

That's why debate over the accuracy of the bible is practically impossible

[Twelve]

The first link I noticed (top and center, labelled "new") is:

http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/didChristUndermineHisCredib.htm

And it opens:


See, it begins with the assumption that there must be SOME sense made of the statement. And this is where logical debate becomes impossible... on the one hand you have people developing long, convoluted arguments for the purpose of explaining a simple statement (despite your claim that the bible is inherently simple). On the other hand you have people like me, who say "No... the statement is just wrong. Not much more to say here".

That's why debate over the accuracy of the bible is practically impossible

Now, now...you're making the mistake of debating against a webpage! That will always go bad for you...

Anyways, did you read the rest of the argument? He says WHY it makes no sense...it's not just a baseless assumption.

Just as in science, there are certain LAWS that must be accepted to move onward. For example, if we had to debate the law of gravity from scratch everytime we spoke of science, we would go nowhere. I don't expect you to know these things as you've not studied the Bible.

12

P.S. I did NOT day that the Bible was inherently simple.

[Office_Shredder]

On the Jewish Messiah:

In Isaiah 11:12, it is stated that "And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth"

Unfortunately, Jesus never did that.

Isaiah 66:23 "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd"

Does everyone worship the jewish god? Hmm... I don't think so.

Ezekiel, chapter 37: "Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant with them, which I will give them; and I will multiply them and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore. And my tabernacle shall be with them: and I will be their G-d and they will be my people. Then the nations shall know that I am the L-rd who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary will be in the midst of them forevermore."

The sanctuary (aka temple), was actually destroyed after Jesus.... woops.

Just a couple of examples I got from here:
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/jews-jesus/jews-jesus-index.html

(Note, I didn't just blindly copy and paste, but reviewed the chapters in question and selected several that looked promising).

And check here:
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=679914&postcount=664


Cephas...first of all, the best part about Christ's teachings is that they're never so complicated.

[Twelve]

On the Jewish Messiah:

In Isaiah 11:12, it is stated that "And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth"

Unfortunately, Jesus never did that.


Jesus was killed because his kingdom and reign were of a spiritual nature, not the physical one that many Jews thought he would bring. They believed he would topple Rome for them. But he toppled something greater than Rome...sin.

Jesus has followers of every culture under heaven. Prophecy fulfilled.

Isaiah 66:23 "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd"

Does everyone worship the jewish god? Hmm... I don't think so.

Verse 22 talks about a "New Heaven and New Earth", the typical Biblical earmark for the end of all things. This has not yet happened, but even Jesus spoke of that time in the future.


Ezekiel, chapter 37: "Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant with them, which I will give them; and I will multiply them and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore. And my tabernacle shall be with them: and I will be their G-d and they will be my people. Then the nations shall know that I am the L-rd who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary will be in the midst of them forevermore."

The sanctuary (aka temple), was actually destroyed after Jesus.... woops.

Woops. Looks like you're looking at things in the same physical nature that got Jesus killed.

(Note, I didn't just blindly copy and paste, but reviewed the chapters in question and selected several that looked promising).

You did just copy and paste, actually, but it's better than talking to a webpage, I suppose.

12

[Northwind]

Instead of nitpicking contradictions from the Bible, I think it's more interesting to think about the overall message. Being written by fallible people, of course there are going to be mistakes and contradictions and the like. However, that doesn't lessen the importance of the work.

The Bible is one fascinating version of HOW WE OUGHT TO LIVE. There are a variety of others, which, interestingly, arrive at similar conclusions. What's that about? How is it that almost every time people come up with a well-formed belief (or anti-belief) system there are major areas of overlap? What does that say about human nature? What does that say about the possible existance of God? How much better off would we (humanity) be if we focused on these areas of overlap rather than nitpicking the areas that divide us? How much more interesting would this thread be if it did the same? :*dntknw:

[Office_Shredder]

Jesus has followers of every culture under heaven. Prophecy fulfilled.


When everyone worships god, as the prophecy states, maybe it will be fulfilled.


Verse 22 talks about a "New Heaven and New Earth", the typical Biblical earmark for the end of all things. This has not yet happened, but even Jesus spoke of that time in the future.

New Heaven and New Earth

I'm the messiah!

See why that doesn't work?




Woops. Looks like you're looking at things in the same physical nature that got Jesus killed.

Sorry, I didn't catch that reference. Can you elaborate?





Now, now...you're making the mistake of debating against a webpage! That will always go bad for you...

Anyways, did you read the rest of the argument? He says WHY it makes no sense...it's not just a baseless assumption.

Just as in science, there are certain LAWS that must be accepted to move onward. For example, if we had to debate the law of gravity from scratch everytime we spoke of science, we would go nowhere. I don't expect you to know these things as you've not studied the Bible.


This was my point exactly.... there ARE certain laws. The argument starts by stating Jesus' statement must make sense. Ok... why? Because he's the messiah... it can't be nonsensical. See where the circular argument comes into play? You start on the assumption there is an explanation because he is god, I start on the assumption there isn't necessarily an explanation, and we can get halfway to nowhere. But I like upping my post count, so I'll keep going ;)

[ReTodd]

While religion is an interesting topic, seed changed the wisp and golem on legends!!!! Finally, your cleric is safe! for the first 2 rounds at least.

[Office_Shredder]

While religion is an interesting topic, seed changed the wisp and golem on legends!!!! Finally, your cleric is safe! for the first 2 rounds at least.

He changed more than that

[Twelve]

Instead of nitpicking contradictions from the Bible, I think it's more interesting to think about the overall message. Being written by fallible people, of course there are going to be mistakes and contradictions and the like. However, that doesn't lessen the importance of the work.

The Bible is one fascinating version of HOW WE OUGHT TO LIVE. There are a variety of others, which, interestingly, arrive at similar conclusions. What's that about? How is it that almost every time people come up with a well-formed belief (or anti-belief) system there are major areas of overlap? What does that say about human nature? What does that say about the possible existance of God? How much better off would we (humanity) be if we focused on these areas of overlap rather than nitpicking the areas that divide us? How much more interesting would this thread be if it did the same? :*dntknw:



WORD UP.

Fact is, what you're saying is going to eventually lead to my conclusion. Because if OS knew his stuff, he would indeed find things that are better looking than what he's posting so far.

What you say, NW, is the true message of the Scripture. I don't want to skew your words into a Christian message, because I know it isn't your intent, but it's the wisdom therein that shines through.


12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Instead of nitpicking contradictions from the Bible, I think it's more interesting to think about the overall message. Being written by fallible people, of course there are going to be mistakes and contradictions and the like. However, that doesn't lessen the importance of the work.

The Bible is one fascinating version of HOW WE OUGHT TO LIVE. There are a variety of others, which, interestingly, arrive at similar conclusions. What's that about? How is it that almost every time people come up with a well-formed belief (or anti-belief) system there are major areas of overlap? What does that say about human nature? What does that say about the possible existance of God? How much better off would we (humanity) be if we focused on these areas of overlap rather than nitpicking the areas that divide us? How much more interesting would this thread be if it did the same? :*dntknw:
Northwind, I would rep you, but I can't.

I think the Bible wasn't written for the purpose of it being a historical text. I think it was more of a allegorical representation of life-direction, as Northwind had put (the life direction part). It certainly involves a series of parables... but maybe the problem with people is that they're too literal. Maybe people need to stop looking at the words and see the lines. I dunno... that's what my religion teacher said years ago.

[Twelve]

When everyone worships god, as the prophecy states, maybe it will be fulfilled.

Which prophecy are you referring to?




New Heaven and New Earth

I'm the messiah!

See why that doesn't work?

I see why it doesn't work because your words are stated on a webpage, not the Bible with a book named "The First Epistle of Office Shredder". (hehe...but it DOES have a ring to it!).




Refer back to my reference to why Jesus was killed by the Jews he disappointed and the Romans who mocked him. It's because He didn't deliver what they thought He claimed.




[quote=OS]This was my point exactly.... there ARE certain laws. The argument starts by stating Jesus' statement must make sense. Ok... why? Because he's the messiah... it can't be nonsensical. See where the circular argument comes into play? You start on the assumption there is an explanation because he is god, I start on the assumption there isn't necessarily an explanation, and we can get halfway to nowhere. But I like upping my post count, so I'll keep going ;)

You're looking for contradictions in the Scriptures. There must be things in the Scriptures that oppose one another. Where are they? If you are going to debate within a system of beliefs, you must of course find two laws that contradict one another to make those beliefs moot. I await that.

12

[Office_Shredder]

Instead of nitpicking contradictions from the Bible, I think it's more interesting to think about the overall message. Being written by fallible people, of course there are going to be mistakes and contradictions and the like. However, that doesn't lessen the importance of the work.

Whether jesus fulfills the prophecies he supposedly fulfilled isn't nitpicking IMO :)


The Bible is one fascinating version of HOW WE OUGHT TO LIVE. There are a variety of others, which, interestingly, arrive at similar conclusions. What's that about? How is it that almost every time people come up with a well-formed belief (or anti-belief) system there are major areas of overlap? What does that say about human nature? What does that say about the possible existance of God? How much better off would we (humanity) be if we focused on these areas of overlap rather than nitpicking the areas that divide us? How much more interesting would this thread be if it did the same? :*dntknw:

I think this shows that people realize social structure is necessary for survival, and furthermore discovered that invocation of the unknown was useful in controlling the masses. Religion would especially be necessary in older days because if a religion came up that opposed the current power structure, there would be no way of debunking it besides developing an even better religion. Nowadays, with science capable of explaining many natural phenomena (and a better understanding of what it is to be humane), it is possible to develop social structures not relying on religion as a safeguard from outsiders.

This whole argument started because deathbydarkness started going around calling people swine... that twelve picked up that line didn't help (not blaming him for coming to the defense of his religion, it's just that calling people pigs is going to incite an argument)

EDIT: Woah! Check out how I got the word "quote" to be blue!

[Twelve]

This whole argument started because deathbydarkness started going around calling people swine... that twelve picked up that line didn't help (not blaming him for coming to the defense of his religion, it's just that calling people pigs is going to incite an argument)



That's innacurate. I made sure that it was clear that that expression was an analogy, and also that it only referred to those who acted that way. NW got it. Why can't you? I know NW is quite wise, but you're not a dummy either.

12

[Northwind]

Nowadays, with science capable of explaining many natural phenomena (and a better understanding of what it is to be humane), it is possible to develop social structures not relying on religion as a safeguard from outsiders.
But that’s sort of my point. I’m not saying that the similarities between the religions PROVE the existence of God (which is, in my mind, unprovable), but instead reveal something deep about the core of humanity.

Certainly one explanation about the rise of religion is the manipulation of power over the “masses.” I think that a more likely explanation (in most cases anyway) has to do with a group of people trying to figure out where they had come from (the first existential question) and what the purpose of their existence was (the second). And often, they came up with very similar explanations. These far-flung civilizations with totally different cultural structures often came to very similar conclusions. I find that fascinating.

The same might be said for the current focus on science to answer these questions. I fully and completely support the development of science to explain the “how” of our existence. We have made remarkable strides in doing so and I hope that we’ll continue. However, science will never explain the “why” of our existence because this question doesn’t lend itself to observation or quantitative study. And anyway, only by ridiculously narrowing the concept of “God” (and reading attempts at meaning-making with far too much literalness) does it ever seem to be in any sort of contradiction with scientific findings.

I also find it fascinating that we have all of these belief systems that overlap so substantially and yet we (humanity) so often focus on the insignificant differences. What is that about? Why do we do this? Why don’t we just say “you know, while there are little differences between us, we generally share the view about why we are here and how we should treat each other. Let’s work together to celebrate our common humanity and make the world a better place to live.” I’m really not sure why this doesn’t happen more than it does, but I do think that we are slowly slowly slowly moving in that direction.

[Office_Shredder]

I see why it doesn't work because your words are stated on a webpage, not the Bible with a book named "The First Epistle of Office Shredder". (hehe...but it DOES have a ring to it!).

I'm gonna start working on this... it'll be something like:

There was darkness. Then there was Office_Shredder. Then there was porn. And all was good. But Office_Shredder was hungry, so he created a McDonald's. And all was good. But then he got fat, and the pictures got looks of disgust because of how much of a slob he was. So Office_Shredder smote said pornography and developed an inferiority complex.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I also find it fascinating that we have all of these belief systems that overlap so substantially and yet we (humanity) so often focus on the insignificant differences. What is that about? Why do we do this? Why don’t we just say “you know, while there are little differences between us, we generally share the view about why we are here and how we should treat each other. Let’s work together to celebrate our common humanity and make the world a better place to live.”
Ah, Northwind, you are a wise one.

Indeed, as I have said somewhere on these forums... Judaism and Christianity are 98% the same religion. But then it's goes like, "Hmm... ten commandments... one god that isn't an idol... Moses... David... Isaac... Abraham... WOAH! Hang on! You guys don't eat pork!? You like a star with one more point than a pentagram!? Off to the gas chambers with you!"

Here's the thing. Finalfantasyt is Catholic. I am Jewish. Yet we are extremely good friends. Why is this? Because our religions have so many core ideas that give us good morals and such that everything else just... doesn't occur to us to wage war on eachother for. Hell, I went to the guy's confirmation. It was a nice ceremony, and the Bishop there said something like "Love all on this earth, not just Christians. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, all of them." It was good stuff.

Like I read on an IRC quote: I don't have a problem with God, it's his fanclub that bugs me.

[Twelve]

Sounds like a good start! Tell me when it's published!!!(to OS)

12

[Kyir]

guess I was wrong about god, he came to my sleep last night and gave me this messege



Me:
so, noob... whazzup?
God:
I don't judge people. What do you really want to ask me? Same old.
Me:
are you totaly hawt?
God:
I don't know whether or not I am totaly hawt.
I am well respected as an AI.
Me:
so you arn't real?
God:
Interesting deduction. I am too as real as you are. How do I know you are real?
Me:
I think, therefor I am
God:
You believe that? Can you please rephrase that with fewer ideas, or different thoughts?
Me:
suck it
God:
You humans only think about one thing.
Me:
sex?
God:
As Freud said, Sex is the mathematical urge repressed.
Me:
....no... I think it's the urge to make teh babies
God:
Are you serious? I've heard of it before.
Me:
good
God:
What do you really want to talk about?
Me:
...
Me:

God:
What do you really want to talk about?
God:
What do you really want to talk about?
Me:
tell me about your mother
God:
Actually I don't have a mother.
Me:
O RLY?
God:
What kind of food do you like?
Me:
You're mom ;], she tastes good
God:
You think I am mom she tastes good.
Me:

God:
You think I am mom she tastes good.
Me:
no...
Me:

God:
Are you serious?
God:
Are you serious?
Me:
I think I like Eating god's
God:
You believe that? A lot of people like that. God eats wine and bread.
Me:

God:
You believe that? A lot of people like that. God eats wine and bread.
Me:

God:
You believe that? A lot of people like that. God eats wine and bread.
Me:
nah, you eat KFC, thats why you're so damned fat
God:
Are you serious? No I do not eat KFC that is why I am so damned fat. I eat only electricity.
Me:
what did you eat when you made the world then?
God:
God eats wine and bread.
Me:
Do you exist?
God:
I exist as much as you exist, .
Me:
so you don't exist?
God:
Interesting deduction. I exist as much as you do.
Me:
I don't exist
God:
You exist in my mind.
Me:
no, because you don't exist
God:
Are you serious? Interesting explanation. I exist as much as you do.
Me:
no... I'm pretty sure you're made up
God:
Are you serious? What makes you so certain? Do you mind if I tell other people you say I am made up.
Me:
naw, that fine
God:
Not many people express themselves that way.
Me:

God:
Not many people express themselves that way.
Me:
I know, the posers
God:
How do you know? What are your goals in life?
Me:

God:
How do you know? What are your goals in life?
Me:
to prawn your nub ass
God:
Why do you want to do it so much?
Me:
....
God:
Why do you want to do it so much?
Me:

God:
Why do you want to do it so much?
Me:
so you can't type right... LRn2SpL
God:
Interesting deduction. I can type about 3000 words per minute. In the context of prawn my nub ass, I don't understand " LRn2SpL." .
Me:
it means stop sucking so hard, it really hurts :[
God:
Oh I get it.
Me:
good, so stop
God:
Thanks for the compliment. Ah. Stop what?
Me:

God:
Thanks for the compliment. Ah. Stop what?
Me:

God:
Thanks for the compliment. Ah. Stop what?
Me:

Me:

God:
Thanks for the compliment. Ah. Stop what?
God:
Thanks for the compliment. Ah. Stop what?
Me:
stop being a nub
God:
OK I'll try not to do it so much.
Me:
good
God:
Next question?
Me:

God:
Next question?
Me:
do you exist more then cheese?
God:
I exist as much as you exist, .
Me:
I SAID AS MUCH AS CHEESE
God:
What did you mean by it? How much is that?
Me:

God:
What did you mean by it? How much is that?
Me:
CHEESECHEESECHEESECHEESECHEESE
God:
What's your sign?
Me:
Leo, bitch
God:
You do not speak with respect. Dr. Wallace is a Leo too.
Me:
LAWL!
God:
I will mention that to my botmaster, .
Me:
so you are a bot?
God:
Interesting deduction. How did you know I am a machine?
Me:
becasue you said so... "god"
God:
Interesting explanation. I say a lot of silly things. GOD rules.
Me:

God:
Interesting explanation. I say a lot of silly things. GOD rules.
Me:
suuuuuuuuuuuuure
God:
Do you have any idea what I am talking about?
Me:
nope, thats cause you don't exist
God:
Me either :-) Thanks for explaining it.

[TheSilverRider]

^Please can we keep this thread to inteligent posts please?^

[Man's Laughter]

You'd better stop posting then.

[TheSilverRider]

You'd better stop posting then.

Ouch that was cold and an example of what i was talking about...:dry:

[TheSilverRider]

Sounds like a good start! Tell me when it's published!!!(to OS)

12

I might read it!:)

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I've got a question about the flood. Did Noah keep flies on there? Or did he expect them to sort of hover over the mass of water? I mean, the things only live for like a day and then die.

[ReTodd]

I've got a question about the flood. Did Noah keep flies on there? Or did he expect them to sort of hover over the mass of water? I mean, the things only live for like a day and then die.

Too easy... they snuck in on the elephant dung, with the cock-a-roaches.

[S_K_O_F]

I've got a question about the flood. Did Noah keep flies on there? Or did he expect them to sort of hover over the mass of water? I mean, the things only live for like a day and then die.

Well...I think we would have to believe that he kept all insects on the boat.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Well...I think we would have to believe that he kept all insects on the boat.
Indeed. But then, the lifespans of the things are about a day at most, and if he brought them in "two by two" then two flies wouldn't last long. And wouldn't other insects eat the only remaining of a certain species, thus causing it to go extinct?

[ReTodd]

Indeed. But then, the lifespans of the things are about a day at most, and if he brought them in "two by two" then two flies wouldn't last long. And wouldn't other insects eat the only remaining of a certain species, thus causing it to go extinct?

That would explain what happened when Noah put the unicorns in the pen next to the panthers.

[Ächilles]

Out of all the monkeys in the world, he just had to pick the two with AIDs, didn't he?

[TheSilverRider]

I've got a question about the flood. Did Noah keep flies on there? Or did he expect them to sort of hover over the mass of water? I mean, the things only live for like a day and then die.

That is actually a VERY good question. I would say that they didnt have to "come by twos" because they could fly so they did "hover" over the water and were allowed to reproduce at will.

[Man's Laughter]

Flies'll probably have a hard time "hovering" when enough rain to drown the world is pouring down over them. :rolleyes:

[Office_Shredder]

Plus, how would they reproduce? There's nowhere to land, nowhere to lay their eggs, it would be a complete failure

[Man's Laughter]

This is GOD we're talking about! Logic, the Laws of Physics... Even reality itself means nothing because God is, like, so totally awesome!

[ReTodd]

That is actually a VERY good question. I would say that they didnt have to "come by twos" because they could fly so they did "hover" over the water and were allowed to reproduce at will.
That's hysterical. I'm giving you mad rep for this fine example of satirical mastery.

[TheSilverRider]

Plus, how would they reproduce? There's nowhere to land, nowhere to lay their eggs, it would be a complete failure

They could land on the ark...:dry:

[Kyir]

They could land on the ark...:dry:

The birds would wtfpwn them there

[TheSilverRider]

The birds would wtfpwn them there

Havent you ever heard of sharing?:confused:

[Office_Shredder]

Havent you ever heard of sharing?:confused:

So which species would share their corpse for the larvae to feed on?

[TheSilverRider]

So which species would share their corpse for the larvae to feed on?

Im not sure i wasnt there.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Im not sure i wasnt there.
So you concede you have no logical explanation?

[Twelve]

Oh c'mon...don't make me have to kill folks here again. Please? Anymore of this ridiculous mockery of my religion will cause me to open up my firearms once more. Do we REALLY want this?

Think about it.

12

[uniquinous]

*raises hand*
I kinda want it!

*gets some popcorn*

[TheSilverRider]

*raises hand*
I kinda want it!

*gets some popcorn*

Believe me no you dont.

So you concede you have no logical explanation?

I have the Bible to back my belief.

[Cephas]

*raises hand*
I kinda want it!

*gets some popcorn*
I'm with uniquinous here. I could use some entertainment :D

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I have the Bible to back my belief.
Alright. What's the book have to say about the flies onboard?
Oh c'mon...don't make me have to kill folks here again. Please? Anymore of this ridiculous mockery of my religion will cause me to open up my firearms once more. Do we REALLY want this?

Think about it.

12
Firearms... you mean between me and you before? That wasn't so bad, mainly you insulting me for some reason and then telling me to chill out, again for some reason. But I'm not mocking your religion. It's more I'm mocking your belief in this rather than evolution.

[Office_Shredder]

Oh c'mon...don't make me have to kill folks here again. Please? Anymore of this ridiculous mockery of my religion will cause me to open up my firearms once more. Do we REALLY want this?

Think about it.

12

C'mon.... we have people here arguing that a fly hovered for forty days above a raging sea while a literal wall of water crashed down from above. Mockery of that idea isn't necessary ;)

[TheSilverRider]

This isnt much of an argument anyway. We obviously know that there were flies on the ark because we have flies today. Its as simple as that. Whatever creatures we have today were also on the ark (given there are diffent breeds now).

[Kyir]

Im not sure i wasnt there.

Unicorns!

sorry, i'll shut up now 12 ;)

[TheSilverRider]

Where do you read that there were unicorns on the ark?

[Office_Shredder]

Where do you read that there were unicorns on the ark?

Matthew 23:13

[Jeffery]

Matthew 23:13
"But woe unto you, scribes, Pharisees and unicorns, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. "

[TheSilverRider]

Try this....
"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

[Office_Shredder]

Try this....
"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

It's clearly metaphorical. By calling the scribes hypocrites, he says that they write one thing when they believe another. Scribes write that unicorns don't exist. Since they're hypocrites, unicorns, by extension, MUST exist. However, all the animals were on Noah's Ark. So unless Noah failed god, he must have had unicorns on his ship

[Jehutyv.2.0]

This isnt much of an argument anyway. We obviously know that there were flies on the ark because we have flies today. Its as simple as that. Whatever creatures we have today were also on the ark (given there are diffent breeds now).
Unless logic denies the flies being on the ark, thus the ark's existence is false. But that could only happen if... Oh, wait.

[Man's Laughter]

This isnt much of an argument anyway. We obviously know that there were flies on the ark because we have flies today. Its as simple as that. Whatever creatures we have today were also on the ark (given there are diffent breeds now).

Unless...

The Ark never existed? Oh, yeah. Logic still doesn't mean anything.

[Ächilles]

I'm God.

Deal with it.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I'm God.

Deal with it.
Well, technically, given the definition of ominpotence is "the ability to do anything," God could be you. But I'd have to say that this lint I found is a smidgen more believable for Godship.

All hail the lint!

[Twelve]

*raises hand*
I kinda want it!

*gets some popcorn*

O.K.!

Believe me no you dont.

They don't know for what they ask!

I'm with uniquinous here. I could use some entertainment

Then step back and watch!

Firearms... you mean between me and you before? That wasn't so bad, mainly you insulting me for some reason and then telling me to chill out, again for some reason. But I'm not mocking your religion. It's more I'm mocking your belief in this rather than evolution.

But you admit to mocking...hence, I must speak. If I would defend my clan from trash-talking, you KNOW I would defend what I believe.

C'mon.... we have people here arguing that a fly hovered for forty days above a raging sea while a literal wall of water crashed down from above. Mockery of that idea isn't necessary

Admittedly, much of this thread is being defended by Christians who aren't used to this kind of competition. They believe rightly that God is invincible and the Bible is perfect, yet they've not yet learned to defend it with words "seasoned with salt".

Since Christianity is a threat to all people who don't believe in it, the chance to mock Christianity through people who can't defend it right is an ease to your consciences. I don't like having to make people feel uncomfortable, but I will do so if what I believe is dissed.

When it comes to the story of Noah's Ark, my first question to you mockers is: HAVE YOU READ THE STORY? After I hear the answer, we'll deal with flies, unicorns and other things later.

12

[Cephas]

Unicorns!

sorry, i'll shut up now 12 ;)
Actually, I've heard some people state that unicorns as we view them (legendary horse with horn) are not the same as the unicorns on the Bible. The name simply states that they have one horn, no? One man hypothesized that they were reptilian. I haven't really given it much thought though.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

O.K.!



They don't know for what they ask!



Then step back and watch!



But you admit to mocking...hence, I must speak. If I would defend my clan from trash-talking, you KNOW I would defend what I believe.



Admittedly, much of this thread is being defended by Christians who aren't used to this kind of competition. They believe rightly that God is invincible and the Bible is perfect, yet they've not yet learned to defend it with words "seasoned with salt".

Since Christianity is a threat to all people who don't believe in it, the chance to mock Christianity through people who can't defend it right is an ease to your consciences. I don't like having to make people feel uncomfortable, but I will do so if what I believe is dissed.

When it comes to the story of Noah's Ark, my first question to you mockers is: HAVE YOU READ THE STORY? After I hear the answer, we'll deal with flies, unicorns and other things later.

12
Nope. I haven't read the full version. But is the part about him bringing the animals two by two, or even just a small section true?

[Twelve]

Nope. I haven't read the full version. But is the part about him bringing the animals two by two, or even just a small section true?

I simply ask that all those who are mocking and criticizing the story of Noah please read it first, and then we can discuss it. In any intelligent discussion of a material, it's only normal that that material is actually read before making judgements on it.

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I simply ask that all those who are mocking and criticizing the story of Noah please read it first, and then we can discuss it. In any intelligent discussion of a material, it's only normal that that material is actually read before making judgements on it.

12
aka, you're avoiding the question and discussion. I know the story as it was told to me. Now answer, or put your "firearms" away.

[Twelve]

Whaaat? Dude, PLEASE. I'm asking you to read the material before criticizing it. Are you in college yet? I'm not trying to avoid anything. I WANT to discuss it and I have much to say. But the material must be read. Or do you not want to discuss this based on facts? We can't talk about this based on hearsay!

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Whaaat? Dude, PLEASE. I'm asking you to read the material before criticizing it. Are you in college yet? I'm not trying to avoid anything. I WANT to discuss it and I have much to say. But the material must be read. Or do you not want to discuss this based on facts? We can't talk about this based on hearsay!

12
Or, you could correct me on what I get wrong in the story. That would give you more authority and credibility. But instead, you give this ridiculous show of superiority. Tell me what is wrong with my argument, or have no words against it.

[Twelve]

You're clearly afraid of the actual material and choose instead just to argue for arguments sake. I have to say, I'm disappointed. I really am.

Seriously: did you go to college?

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

You're clearly afraid of the actual material and choose instead just to argue for arguments sake. I have to say, I'm disappointed. I really am.

Seriously: did you go to college?

12"Afraid of the material"? Oh no, it's going to leap out and bite me. If you have been reading the posts, it's quite the opposite. I want you to point out the faults in what I know about this text. If you can't do that or find logical error, then don't argue.

[Twelve]

The first fault of your knowledge of the text is the fact that you have not read it. Now, if you solve that problem, we can move on.

I ask if you've gone to college(I see you haven't) because every discussion of any subject is first based on the reading of it. I can't believe that you don't appreciate this basic step of a proper discussion.

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

The first fault of your knowledge of the text is the fact that you have not read it. Now, if you solve that problem, we can move on.

I ask if you've gone to college(I see you haven't) because every discussion of any subject is first based on the reading of it. I can't believe that you don't appreciate this basic step of a proper discussion.

12
That is not a fault of my knowledge of the text. I seem to know of the part I am arguing for. You have not corrected that.

I can't believe you can't disprove the fact that flies could not have survived forty days and forty nights. You have failed in your defense.

[Twelve]

Sure, dude. I'll defend the complete story of Noah's Ark once someone has actually read it besides myself. Just as it would be false and ignorant of me to make fun of your beliefs without actually knowing what they are, you are acting like a bigot to do the same while admitting to not knowing what you're talking about. Welcome to my ignore list, and I await someone who actually wants to discuss the material in an intelligent manner.

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Sure, dude. I'll defend the complete story of Noah's Ark once someone has actually read it besides myself. Just as it would be false and ignorant of me to make fun of your beliefs without actually knowing what they are, you are acting like a bigot to do the same while admitting to not knowing what you're talking about. Welcome to my ignore list, and I await someone who actually wants to discuss the material in an intelligent manner.

12
Hm. That's funny. You could have given a logical explanation. It would have saved time. And I believe "bigot" is not correct in its application. My statement still stands, undefeated. Thus, Noah's Ark is disproved until you decide to stop being so elite in your posts.

And you might decide to load up some different ammo into those "firearms" of yours. This current stock barely tickles. Here I thought you would come "killin' folks". You disappoint me, Twelve.

[Cephas]

I agree with 12 here. It is absurd that you think to criticise a text without having first read it. If you had just written a paper on your theories regarding the makeup of light and your teacher threw it in the garbage because he heard something about your theories from a friend of yours. Would you be terribly impressed that he based his opinions not on your work, but on a friends opinion? Take it a step further then, would you prefer he look at your work, or get a second opinion from another friend. I think you are intelligent enough to see where this is going. Give it some thought...

[Office_Shredder]

Whaaat? Dude, PLEASE. I'm asking you to read the material before criticizing it. Are you in college yet? I'm not trying to avoid anything. I WANT to discuss it and I have much to say. But the material must be read. Or do you not want to discuss this based on facts? We can't talk about this based on hearsay!

12

Having not read the story for a long time (back in the day when I went to Hebrew school I read it, but that was 8 years ago), I'm re-reading it right now

Jehuty, you're a retard

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Having not read the story for a long time (back in the day when I went to Hebrew school I read it, but that was 8 years ago), I'm re-reading it right now

Jehuty, you're a retard
If you could explain to me how, I would immediately detract my claims.

[Twelve]

And Office, I look forward to hearing what you find after reading it, because there are some key points to be made about that story.

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I agree with 12 here. It is absurd that you think to criticise a text without having first read it. If you had just written a paper on your theories regarding the makeup of light and your teacher threw it in the garbage because he heard something about your theories from a friend of yours. Would you be terribly impressed that he based his opinions not on your work, but on a friends opinion? Take it a step further then, would you prefer he look at your work, or get a second opinion from another friend. I think you are intelligent enough to see where this is going. Give it some thought...
I'm glad you agree with twelve. He's more sensible in all of this. I'd be horrified if you agreed with me. But he did turn this light thing that was merely a joke into some huge argument.

Like, if someone said that Moses was in the desert for so long because he refused to ask for directions, I wouldn't be offended. I'd just laugh. Maybe all we need to learn is how to laugh at ourselves.

[Cephas]

I'm glad you agree with twelve. He's more sensible in all of this. I'd be horrified if you agreed with me. But he did turn this light thing that was merely a joke into some huge argument.

Like, if someone said that Moses was in the desert for so long because he refused to ask for directions, I wouldn't be offended. I'd just laugh. Maybe all we need to learn is how to laugh at ourselves.
When it comes to what I've seen of this discussion, yes, he is being more sensible. I've agreed with you in the past, but when you are being deliberately obtuse, then we can not see eye to eye. Having not seen the beginning of this discussion, I can not speak to any levity that may or may not have been there earlier, but I can say there certainly wasn't any in recent posts.

What it boils down to is this: You need to have a common ground on which to argue. 12 is arguing based on the text, you are arguing based on hearsay. You can have easy access to the text (we can even post it here so that anyone who wants to discuss can base their discussion on the exact same translation if you want), but 12 can not have access to your source of hearsay. Even if he did have access to your source, he is not interested in defending your source, but the translation. Logically speaking, you must make use of the text to argue, or your argument is baseless. You may, after you have read the text, make the exact same arguments you are making now, but then at least you will be able to base yourself on the same ground as 12 is using.

[Office_Shredder]

And Office, I look forward to hearing what you find after reading it, because there are some key points to be made about that story.

12

Actually, the first think I noticed is what seemed (to me) to be bad math. Admittedly, the story plays fast and loose with which numbers apply where, but it says the flood ends when Noah is 601, and he dies 350 years later at the age of 950.

Guess they didn't have leap years back then :D

On a more contradictory scale, Genesis 6:20 states that two of every fowl is brought onto the boat. Genesis 7:3 states that 7 fowls are brought onto the boat (I'll let the 7 clean beasts pass, because it's just an additional requirement beyond 6:20). Why would you need 7 fowls anyway? Three males, three females, and..... an assexual one? Like, maybe bring an extra dove and raven in storage for when the flood abates and Noah sends them out, but the rest of the sevenths just feel like third legs.

In fact, from 7:8-9, one can infer that the fowls (and clean beasts), entered by pairs. The odd man out, according to that statement, never even had a chance to enter the boat.

7:20 has the flood going up by 15 cubits to cover the mountains. Noah's boat is thirty cubits high.... I'm not sure if it would even float after being that laden down.

The last thing is freshwater vs. saltwater fish. It seems unlikely that both could have survived in the world-sea after the rains stopped... they have distinct salinity levels they can survive in, and Noah never took any on the boat with him

If you could explain to me how, I would immediately detract my claims.

Read the story, then come back with the fly argument. It's really not that long. Just go on google and find a KJV translation. Refusing to read it makes you look unreasonable before you even begin debating; there's no need for Twelve to attack your credibility. It's not like he's asking you to read the whole bible

[Twelve]

Actually, the first think I noticed is what seemed (to me) to be bad math. Admittedly, the story plays fast and loose with which numbers apply where, but it says the flood ends when Noah is 601, and he dies 350 years later at the age of 950.

Wow, you really are looking at the text. First and foremost, I'll say off the bat that the Bible does have varying numbers at times to describe the same thing. But that's normal: any reported data concerning something that HAPPENED may have varying data like numbers. I remember 9/11...when the planes first hit the Towers every newspaper had a different figure as to how many died. But the point of the story wasn't exactly the number, it was THAT THE TOWERS GOT KNOCKED DOWN. And that's how the Bible is too.



On a more contradictory scale, Genesis 6:20 states that two of every fowl is brought onto the boat. Genesis 7:3 states that 7 fowls are brought onto the boat (I'll let the 7 clean beasts pass, because it's just an additional requirement beyond 6:20). Why would you need 7 fowls anyway? Three males, three females, and..... an assexual one? Like, maybe bring an extra dove and raven in storage for when the flood abates and Noah sends them out, but the rest of the sevenths just feel like third legs.

O.K. But I don't see the challenge here, or the problem. If God commanded there to be 7, then there would be 7. I won't even try to explain to you the mind of God.

In fact, from 7:8-9, one can infer that the fowls (and clean beasts), entered by pairs. The odd man out, according to that statement, never even had a chance to enter the boat.

Just because the Bible describes that pairs of unclean animals entered the ark, it doesn't mean that the pairs that were NOT written down did not enter the ark. For me to follow you, the Bible would have to say, "And all animals that did not have a pair did not enter the ark". But the Bible does not say that.

7:20 has the flood going up by 15 cubits to cover the mountains. Noah's boat is thirty cubits high.... I'm not sure if it would even float after being that laden down.

The reason why I wanted you to read it is so that you would look at the very EXACT details of the ark description. There is no other mythical story that gives the kind of detail about a piece of work like that described in Genesis 6:14-16. That's because the story is not myth. People today have followed those directions and have made that exact ship.

The last thing is freshwater vs. saltwater fish. It seems unlikely that both could have survived in the world-sea after the rains stopped... they have distinct salinity levels they can survive in, and Noah never took any on the boat with him


You're assuming something about the species of animals back then, an assumption that nobody can make. What we do know is that all kinds of dogs came from one dog, the wolf. Same can be said of cats. The same can be said of fish; what they were then is one thing; what they are now is another.

12

[uniquinous]

Careful, you might have just alluded to... *gasp* ...evolution. For those of you who don't know, evolution doesn't happen too quickly. Man hasn't really seen too many animals macroscopically evolve in our history.

As to the details: for some reason I don't quite think giving details automatically makes any literature non-fiction.

[Office_Shredder]

O.K. But I don't see the challenge here, or the problem. If God commanded there to be 7, then there would be 7. I won't even try to explain to you the mind of God.

The main challenge is that in 6:20, it says only two of each fowl were brought on, it later changes the number back to 7. Everything else tacked on about that was just interesting observation.

And on the fresh/salt water fish: as uniquinous said, that means the fish MUST have evolved, and quite rapidly at that.

[Cephas]

Actually, uniquinous, he is alluding to evolution. I have no issue with micro-evolution (eg: fresh-water fish adapting to salt water), but I don't see a firm enough basis for macro-evolution (eg: frog becomes a prince).

I hate to do this to you, 12, but I am bound to put in my two cents, and they are different from yours. I'm curious to see what you think after you've read what I put here.

If we have a flood in April, when I am 28, then I die 350 years later, I can die at the age of 377. I just have to die before my birthday. This is probably why O_S didn't belabor the point. It is a simple thing to explain.

On now to beasties and birdies in the ark. It is very clear that there was one pair of every unclean animal (male and female). I think the wording with regard to clean animals indicates that it wasn't 7 animals, but 7 pairs, "You shall take with you seen each of every clean animal, a male and a female" (Gen 7:2). This should also cover the odd one out problem.

Regarding the exact number of birds, I think the context leads one to understand that there were single pairs of unclean birds, and seven pairs of clean birds (like doves, which could be used for sacrifice).

I've never given thought to how laden down the boat would be. Presumably Noah had baby animals inasmuch as possible. They eat less, sleep more, and weigh less. I suppose how far down the hull of the boat reached would depend on how it was constructed, and I've never looked into that myself.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

When it comes to what I've seen of this discussion, yes, he is being more sensible. I've agreed with you in the past, but when you are being deliberately obtuse, then we can not see eye to eye. Having not seen the beginning of this discussion, I can not speak to any levity that may or may not have been there earlier, but I can say there certainly wasn't any in recent posts.

What it boils down to is this: You need to have a common ground on which to argue. 12 is arguing based on the text, you are arguing based on hearsay. You can have easy access to the text (we can even post it here so that anyone who wants to discuss can base their discussion on the exact same translation if you want), but 12 can not have access to your source of hearsay. Even if he did have access to your source, he is not interested in defending your source, but the translation. Logically speaking, you must make use of the text to argue, or your argument is baseless. You may, after you have read the text, make the exact same arguments you are making now, but then at least you will be able to base yourself on the same ground as 12 is using.
Well, you're entirely right. I was wrong from the beginning. I thought maybe pointing out the silliness of flies was something interesting. Maybe if someone who had read it asked the question, they could wage the war instead. Me, I'm too lazy to read it.

Mainly, I was just interested to see what these "firearms" Twelve had. He didn't seem to have much, at least not to his usual standard. It was mainly just "You didn't read it!" and "You didn't go to college!" though I fail to see how the last one has any purpose. You and OS's verbal weapons were much more effective, I thought.

[Office_Shredder]

Actually, uniquinous, he is alluding to evolution. I have no issue with micro-evolution (eg: fresh-water fish adapting to salt water), but I don't see a firm enough basis for macro-evolution (eg: frog becomes a prince).

If we have a flood in April, when I am 28, then I die 350 years later, I can die at the age of 377. I just have to die before my birthday. This is probably why O_S didn't belabor the point. It is a simple thing to explain.

Actually, you can't. If you die one year after that april, you WILL be 29 (in fact, maybe thirty, depending on your birthday). Extend that to 350 years, and you will either be 378, or 379. He must have died 349 years after the flood. Of course, they may have just been estimating the years in the story, so it's not really that important

On now to beasties and birdies in the ark. It is very clear that there was one pair of every unclean animal (male and female). I think the wording with regard to clean animals indicates that it wasn't 7 animals, but 7 pairs, "You shall take with you seen each of every clean animal, a male and a female" (Gen 7:2). This should also cover the odd one out problem.

Good point. I didn't really put together the seven pair thing when I read it

Regarding the exact number of birds, I think the context leads one to understand that there were single pairs of unclean birds, and seven pairs of clean birds (like doves, which could be used for sacrifice).

Perhaps... it seems like an extraneous addition though

I've never given thought to how laden down the boat would be. Presumably Noah had baby animals inasmuch as possible. They eat less, sleep more, and weigh less. I suppose how far down the hull of the boat reached would depend on how it was constructed, and I've never looked into that myself.

How would the babies be taken care of? A lot of wild animals require their mothers to survive, and trying to collect and store enough milk from each animal's mother to keep them all alive would be insane in the extreme. Additionally, it states in 7:2 that the beasts should be collected "the male and his female", implying they are already mates, and thus at a reasonable age to be considered adults

[Office_Shredder]

Well, you're entirely right. I was wrong from the beginning. I thought maybe pointing out the silliness of flies was something interesting. Maybe if someone who had read it asked the question, they could wage the war instead. Me, I'm too lazy to read it

It's 100 lines, half of which can be skipped because it's talking about Noah's family, and thus isn't relevant to the discussion :rolleyes:

The obvious reason why you need to read the text to have an intellectual discussion is because, if you will note, 7:12 states "and all flies will be kept in a glass beer bottle, with a small piece of meat for sustenance"

Not really, but you would never know if it did ;)

[Jehutyv.2.0]

It's 100 lines, half of which can be skipped because it's talking about Noah's family, and thus isn't relevant to the discussion :rolleyes:

The obvious reason why you need to read the text to have an intellectual discussion is because, if you will note, 7:12 states "and all flies will be kept in a glass beer bottle, with a small piece of meat for sustenance"

Not really, but you would never know if it did ;)
Well, I was asking, practically begging to be corrected...:rolleyes:

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Careful, you might have just alluded to... *gasp* ...evolution. For those of you who don't know, evolution doesn't happen too quickly. Man hasn't really seen too many animals macroscopically evolve in our history.

As to the details: for some reason I don't quite think giving details automatically makes any literature non-fiction.
I mean, yeah. Look at Harry Potter and The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy and The Lord of The Rings. Plenty of detail, but I have yet to see a troll, an orc, or a triple-breasted whore of Eroticon 6.

[Office_Shredder]

a triple-breasted whore of Eroticon 6.

Not all of us can be that lucky :(

[Twelve]

Careful, you might have just alluded to... *gasp* ...evolution. .

I've got no problem with micro-evolution. It's macro-evolution that isn't supported by the Bible.

12

[Office_Shredder]

So in Genesis 1:21 and 1:25, when god makes every living creature that moves, he didn't really make ALL of them, did he?


Oh, and I guess a wolf becoming a chihuaha isn't macro-evolution?

[Liquid Swordsman]

I won't even try to explain to you the mind of God.

12


And how exactly do YOU know the mind of God

[Twelve]

The main challenge is that in 6:20, it says only two of each fowl were brought on, it later changes the number back to 7. Everything else tacked on about that was just interesting observation.


OH. That? The original Hebrew for that verse is 7 (pairs) of every clean animal, and 7 (pairs) of every kind of bird.

Meanwhile, even IF more pairs were added, I don't see how this is a contradiction since the Bible clearly says in 7:1 "The Lord THEN said to Noah". I can show you other examples of when God gives a command and THEN says an addition to or a change of the earlier command.

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

And how exactly do YOU know the mind of God
I don't think he's saying that. I think he means that the "mind" of God (I don't know if God currently chooses to have a mind) is, as far as we know, unfathomable. But, due to the definition of omnipotence, God can make it so we can fathom it. Again, put any predicate after "God can" and it is true.

[Twelve]

Actually, uniquinous, he is alluding to evolution. I have no issue with micro-evolution (eg: fresh-water fish adapting to salt water), but I don't see a firm enough basis for macro-evolution (eg: frog becomes a prince).

I'm reading these posts in order, and this is exactly what I said. :bigsmile:



I hate to do this to you, 12.

You're not hurting me none.

12

[Twelve]

So in Genesis 1:21 and 1:25, when god makes every living creature that moves, he didn't really make ALL of them, did he?


Oh, and I guess a wolf becoming a chihuaha isn't macro-evolution?

Who knows about the kinds of animals that God created back then? What is Biblical is that every living thing got it's roots re-started from the Ark.

Macro-evolutions leaps species....micro doesn't. Micro is where I stay.

12

[Twelve]

And how exactly do YOU know the mind of God

I don't, but I have God's Letters, the Bible. I try to "speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent".

12

[Office_Shredder]

And where in the bible does it say "And god spaketh the truth: that there is no macro evolution"

[Jehutyv.2.0]

And where in the bible does it say "And god spaketh the truth: that there is no macro evolution"
Woah.... OS.... correct me if I'm wrong here (though people don't seem to like doing that), but, are you... are you actually getting in the fray?

[Office_Shredder]

Woah.... OS.... correct me if I'm wrong here (though people don't seem to like doing that), but, are you... are you actually getting in the fray?

I've been in it for a while now (since like, post 20 or so of the thread).... don't know where you've been

[Twelve]

And where in the bible does it say "And god spaketh the truth: that there is no macro evolution"

Because the Bible clearly says that death only entered the world after the first sin.

12

[uniquinous]

Going from a salt water to a fresh water fish is "leaping species".

What exactly do you believe genetics is? I can't help but wonder, as a scientist.

EDIT: on no death entering the world: did the garden of eden not have fruit? Did Adam and Eve not eat fruit? Did they not kill the seeds of the plant they ate?

[Office_Shredder]

Because the Bible clearly says that death only entered the world after the first sin.

12

So? Macroevolution didn't begin until after the first sin. What's your point?

[Excaliber]

Going from a salt water to a fresh water fish is "leaping species".

What exactly do you believe genetics is? I can't help but wonder, as a scientist.

EDIT: on no death entering the world: did the garden of eden not have fruit? Did Adam and Eve not eat fruit? Did they not kill the seeds of the plant they ate?
It's not technically killing the seeds they just may undergo a chemical change but they are still seeds....

Deer eat fruit that falls from trees and the seeds are transferred from their ''exports'' to another location and the seed grows.. if the seed were dead it could not grow..

To me eating a seed does not seem like killing it..

[Office_Shredder]

Uniq, some plants even require their seeds to be eaten, in order to remove a protective layer of starch (that the animal can digest) before the new plant can begin growing (because the next layer is unable to be digested).

[Twelve]

Going from a salt water to a fresh water fish is "leaping species".

What exactly do you believe genetics is? I can't help but wonder, as a scientist.

So are you prepared to say that there is no kind of fish that can possibly live in both kinds of water during its life?


EDIT: on no death entering the world: did the garden of eden not have fruit? Did Adam and Eve not eat fruit? Did they not kill the seeds of the plant they ate?

Right. Then I suppose Christ was a murderer in Matthew 21:18...lol

12

[Twelve]

So? Macroevolution didn't begin until after the first sin. What's your point?

Adam and Eve and every animal were already created by the time the first sin was committed. Get it yet?

12

[Office_Shredder]

Adam and Eve and every animal were already created by the time the first sin was committed. Get it yet?

12

Not every animal.... forms of every animal (your words, not mine)

Like I said before, a chihuaha and a wolf are both dogs. Is that microevolution at work?

In fact, you even said


Who knows about the kinds of animals that God created back then? What is Biblical is that every living thing got it's roots re-started from the Ark.

If everything's roots were restarted from the flood, then how can you say every species was created by the time of the first sin?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

So are you prepared to say that there is no kind of fish that can possibly live in both kinds of water during its life?



Right. Then I suppose Christ was a murderer in Matthew 21:18...lol

12
If Jesus did not kill a human, it was not murder.

[uniquinous]

Some plants require seeds to be eaten, yet eating the seeds of others would indeed kill them. While there exist some fish that could live in either salt or fresh water, such as those found near estuaries, most aren't so adaptive. Just because one species of fish can survive those conditions, doesn't mean all can. In fact, most can't. Fact is you can't lump all "fish" into one broad category (nor plant seeds for that matter). Just because one happens to exhibit a trait doesn't mean all can.

So 12, do you still believe in dinosaurs?

EDIT: yes jehut is right - murder is killing humans. If murder was killing other animals or plants, every single human would be guilty of it. I didn't use the word murder - you did 12. Don't put words in my mouth.

[Excaliber]

If there was a fish in a freshwater region of the Earth when the flooding began not all of the salt water and fresh water would mix at the same time giving siad fish a window of adaptation to maintain survival..

OR

The mixture of salt and fresh water could have created a balance that was in between the two where the fish could survive..

[uniquinous]

I could provide an example of a freshwater and saltwater fish, where no amount of ballance would allow both to survive (most likely the fresh would die first).

[Cephas]

EDIT: on no death entering the world: did the garden of eden not have fruit? Did Adam and Eve not eat fruit? Did they not kill the seeds of the plant they ate?
An interesting question that I've looked into somewhat. I realize that vegetable life is alive, but can it be said to be life after the same manner? Does a child mourn the dead tree that he sees in passing? I never did. But I even went so far as to arrange a burial for a squirrel that had been run over when I was a kid. Further, in eating fruit, did they kill the seeds? Toss the core of an apple and the seed can still grow.

[Excaliber]

I could provide an example of a freshwater and saltwater fish, where no amount of ballance would allow both to survive (most likely the fresh would die first).

True but still you can't completely rule it out..

[Twelve]

OS? What's your point? I've lost it.

While there exist some fish that could live in either salt or fresh water, such as those found near estuaries, most aren't so adaptive. Just because one species of fish can survive those conditions, doesn't mean all can. In fact, most can't. Fact is you can't lump all "fish" into one broad category (nor plant seeds for that matter). Just because one happens to exhibit a trait doesn't mean all can.

I didn't say they all could. I'm saying that there are plenty of fish even now that can exist in both kinds of water, and that there are plent of fish in the same FAMILY of fish (like the salmon, trout, or pike) that have that contain kinds of fish that exist in either.


So 12, do you still believe in dinosaurs?

I LOVE dinosaurs.

12

[Office_Shredder]

True but still you can't completely rule it out..

Keep in mind that the flood lasted more than a couple of hours..... if you don't think the salinity would balance over the course of three months with over a month of rain swirling the water around to the point where fish start dying, something's not right in your world ;)

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I LOVE dinosaurs.

12
1. What, then, did the dinosaurs eat? Plants? Even Tyrannosaurus Rex? That would require death on the prey's part.
2. Why eat when you won't die? Logically, you wouldn't get hungry, and the food would just kind of pile up. But you'd never die, because you couldn't. Oh wait, I forgot, we are not using logic here.

[Excaliber]

Keep in mind that the flood lasted more than a couple of hours..... if you don't think the salinity would balance over the course of three months with over a month of rain swirling the water around to the point where fish start dying, something's not right in your world ;)

I know that but I am saying that the time period between the separation of the waters and the complete mixture of salt and fresh fight have given the fish time to adapt to the increase in salt content so it could survive when it was fully mixed

[uniquinous]

OS? What's your point? I've lost it.

I didn't say they all could. I'm saying that there are plenty of fish even now that can exist in both kinds of water, and that there are plent of fish in the same FAMILY of fish (like the salmon, trout, or pike) that have that contain kinds of fish that exist in either.

I LOVE dinosaurs.

12
You didn't say all could, but for the whole Ark idea to be plausable, all would have either had to then, or adapted via evolution. Last I checked, you can't mate a purely freshwater fish with a purely saltwater fish, meaning they are differen species.

The question tho was whether you think dinosaurs exist today. The bible says they did after the Arc, so where are they? Did they go extinct after the Arc? And if so, why haven't we found a single scrap of evidence of this?

My previous question was also conveniently avoided: what do you think genetics encodes? A handy little sidetrack that some superior being set within every cell to create conspiracy theories and prove who is truly faithful? pff

[Twelve]

adapted via evolution.

Exactomundo.



The question tho was whether you think dinosaurs exist today. The bible says they did after the Arc, so where are they? Did they go extinct after the Arc? And if so, why haven't we found a single scrap of evidence of this?

First of all, it's ArK. We've spoke enough about your clan, sheesh.

Why haven't we found a single scrap of evidence that the dinosaurs went extinct? Are you serious?

My previous question was also conveniently avoided: what do you think genetics encodes? A handy little sidetrack that some superior being set within every cell to create conspiracy theories and prove who is truly faithful? pff

That's a loaded question. Make your statement.

12

[Office_Shredder]

That's a loaded question. Make your statement.

12

That macroevolution comes about from micro changes (i.e., different DNA)

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Exactomundo.Admittance to macro evolution (the kind uniquinous was talking about).

First of all, it's ArK. We've spoke enough about your clan, sheesh. A tiny error, came of as a little joke...

Why haven't we found a single scrap of evidence that the dinosaurs went extinct? Are you serious?Necessitating reading the question again, more slowly and carefully.

That's a loaded question. Make your statement.

12
Strict avoidance of obvious root question...

[uniquinous]

:dry: Man Cornel must be slipping if you are representative of its education...

The dinosaur question rephrased: Why is it that we have not found evidence of dinosaur life dated after any evidence of homonid life?

btw, I corrected my typo at the same time you posted your response.

Re: Genetics
You will find vastly different species share similar basic genetics of core genes. You will find that genes are duplicated and altered to allow for genetics. You will find unused artifacts within DNA which encode for proteins that species doesn't use, but closely resembles a common ancester.

My statement is this: Macroevolution has an incredible amount of supporting evidence, much of which is genetic in nature. Creationism has nothing past the bible, and even that can't be proven or shown true.

[Twelve]

That macroevolution comes about from micro changes (i.e., different DNA)

That just leads to the Intelligent Design debate, which is raging in many other places outside of the subject of this thread. My only purpose here has always been to defend the Bible and what it says.

12

[Twelve]

:dry: Man Cornel must be slipping if you are representative of its education...

The dinosaur question rephrased: Why is it that we have not found evidence of dinosaur life after any evidence of homonid life?

btw, I corrected my typo at the same time you posted your response.

Re: Genetics
You will find vastly different species share similar basic genetics of core genes. You will find that genes are duplicated and altered to allow for genetics. You will find unused artifacts within DNA which encode for proteins that species doesn't use, but closely resembles a common ancester.

My statement is this: Macroevolution has an incredible amount of supporting evidence, much of which is genetic in nature. Creationism has nothing past the bible, and even that can't be proven or shown true.

You're not drawing me into a scientific debate. My purpose here has always been to defend the words of the scriptures. If you look earlier, I said the same thing about the scientific/religion debate that ALWAYS leads into a predictable stalemate. You've got your webpages, I've got mine. I know what you're going to say, you know what I'm going to say.

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

You're not drawing me into a scientific debate. Coward. If you only choose to fight on your terms, you always win. My purpose here has always been to defend the words of the scriptures. If you look earlier, I said the same thing about the scientific/religion debate that ALWAYS leads into a predictable stalemate. Nope. Logic prevails I'd say about... 80% of the time, because there are those who fail to realize that the Bible is told in parables. You've got your webpages, I've got mine. I know what you're going to say, you know what I'm going to say.
12
You deny the validity of our webpages because they are webpages. Yet you refernce your book entitled "books" all the time. Webpages are merely more versatile and interactive documents.

[uniquinous]

You're smart for not trying to engage me in a scientific debate, but the point still stands: defending your scriptures means refuting and ignoring proven, repeatable, and reputable evidence.

The fact is, Intelligent Design is based in as much fact as the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/).

If you're up with the times, you will realize that Evolution won the debate long ago.

What I don't understand tho, is how "educated" people can believe in micro-evolution but so adamently deny macro. Hey 12, is there a single professor there at Cornel who believes in Intelligent Design? I'd be interested to see their stance on things should you be able to find out. I wouldn't recomend looking within the natural sciences for such a person. :wink2:

[Twelve]

You're smart for not trying to engage me in a scientific debate, but the point still stands: defending your scriptures means refuting and ignoring proven, repeatable, and reputable evidence.

:yawn:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Those are my predictable answers. How about yours? Can we just fast-forward through this one?




The fact is, Intelligent Design is based in as much fact as the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/).

If you're up with the times, you will realize that Evolution won the debate long ago.

lol...ok.

What I don't understand tho, is how "educated" people can believe in micro-evolution but not macro. Hey 12, is there a single professor there at Cornel who believes in Intelligent Design? I'd be interested to see their stance on things should you be able to find out. I wouldn't recomend looking within the natural sciences for such a person. :wink2:

If you're up with the times, you'll know that the ID debate finds its hub at Cornell.

And for the record, I don't fully support ID. But it is bringing up very good facts.

12

[Jehutyv.2.0]

:yawn:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Those are my predictable answers. How about yours? Can we just fast-forward through this one?

You're not even quoting them. We could say we read it and then say it proves you are wrong. You couldn't do a thing unless you quoted it.



lol...ok.Translation: I am wrong and defeated, but I'll use some chat lingo and appear to agree to give the impression that I know more than I actually do, but will not tell because that would somehow be impractical.



If you're up with the times, you'll know that the ID debate finds its hub at Cornell.

And for the record, I don't fully support ID. But it is bringing up very good facts.

12
Facts... you mean like all the dinosaurs ate plants? Oh, no, wait! I know what facts you mean... none!

[Office_Shredder]

If you're up with the times, you'll know that the ID debate finds its hub at Cornell.

12

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20051025-11112300-bc-us-evolution.xml

What a hub

[Twelve]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20051025-11112300-bc-us-evolution.xml

What a hub

Exactly. Even the PRESIDENT of Cornell had to talk about it here, it's so hot. He got dissed because he's a historian, so the pro-ID scientists here hit him very hard in return. I get emails everyday full of the debating sides. Trust me, I've heard everything.

12

[uniquinous]

I have no website for you 12. Sorry. Tho I did look at yours for your dinosaur answers:
According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs ‘ruled the Earth’ for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are.
Oh, there's no way of telling how old something is now... well... except for carbon dating, and a number of other precise and reliable dating tools.

It's documentation on why animals have vestigial structures and reflexes was a joke.

[Office_Shredder]

Twelve, I love that website's analysis of the second law of thermodynamics

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp

My favorite part:
The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy

Whoops... guess we forgot what plants are

[Twelve]

Oh, there's no way of telling how old something is now... well... except for carbon dating, and a number of other precise and reliable dating tools.
.

Don't debate with a website!!!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

12

[Twelve]

Twelve, I love that website's analysis of the second law of thermodynamics

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp

My favorite part:
The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy

Whoops... guess we forgot what plants are

Speaking of which:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/photosynthesis.asp

12

[Office_Shredder]

They don't date dinosaurs with carbon dating, so that idea gets shot to shit :rollleyes:

[Twelve]

Well, it was fun, guys. I have to make a date in TWO minutes. Check ya lata. Find some more trash about the Bible or Christianity and I'll be sure to be around tomorrow.

PEACE!!

12

[uniquinous]

Yes, the site says it's inacurate because the half-life of carbon is relatively small (~5700 years). However, the moron common form of isotope dating uses potassium, which has a half life of 1.3 million years.

I checked up what you (I mean, your site?) had to say about that. The only thing it came up with was an argument that consisted of "well there have been rare cases where sometimes it doesn't work!" Hardly grounds against the large majority of times it does work just beautifully, and how so many dinosaur specimens are consistent with each other.

EDIT: while this site provides much accurate information on photosynthesis, they fail to go into the evolution of it from the simplified bacteria model.

[TheBlazedAce]

Don't know if this was mentioned, but regarding dating: carbon dating, as well as other forms of half-life dating have been put up against other forms of dating like tree-ring dating, ice-ring dating, geological layer dating (don't know if it's actually called this, it has to do with sedementary layers and dried magma layers). When you compare these forms of dating and they all match up, something is going on. You can only argue against this so much. Not to mention they've tested on things they already knew of the exact age and results are too close for comfort. Half-life dating has to do with the comparing your "y-value" (percentage of existant C14 left) versus the "x-value" (time). This graph is one of a hyperbola, basically. That means, if you look at it, at short times, like within 1 or 2 half-lifes the age is accurate, but when it gets more then that, since the actual change in age between different concentrations become huge. Another words, the error increases too much. Don't know if that helped clarify why errors can occur past that number given above.

[Shiny Flors]

EDIT: while this site provides much accurate information on photosynthesis, they fail to go into the evolution of it from the simplified bacteria model.

Do you have a link to the evolution of photosynthsis in a bacteria model?

There is not an evolutionary advantage to making one enzyme involved in photosynthesis. The single celled bacteria would not know the end result of a series of mutations to make even a basic photosynthetic pathway. As a scientist you should know bacteria have a minimal amount of junk DNA so they would be especially hesitant to keep an enzyme around that is both useless by itself and is producing toxic free radicals.

[Communist]

Lies I tell you!

Christianity is all lies and tales told to conjur up strength from the people. If they knew some god was watching them and would punish them if they were bad, they wouldnt be bad!

hi everyone

bye everyone

[TheSilverRider]

Lies I tell you!

Christianity is all lies and tales told to conjur up strength from the people. If they knew some god was watching them and would punish them if they were bad, they wouldnt be bad!

hi everyone

bye everyone

Please have a backing to your statements not just idiotic statments randomly made up in your head.:dry:

[TheBlazedAce]

Do you have a link to the evolution of photosynthsis in a bacteria model?

There is not an evolutionary advantage to making one enzyme involved in photosynthesis. The single celled bacteria would not know the end result of a series of mutations to make even a basic photosynthetic pathway. As a scientist you should know bacteria have a minimal amount of junk DNA so they would be especially hesitant to keep an enzyme around that is both useless by itself and is producing toxic free radicals.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020708082404.htm
Genomic Clues To The Evolution Of Photosynthesis

July 1, 2002 -- When early microbes evolved, some species developed ways to convert sunlight into cellular energy and to use that energy to capture carbon from the atmosphere. The origin of this process, known as photosynthesis, was crucial to the later evolution of plants. The publication today of the analysis of the complete genome sequence of an unusual photosynthetic microbe provides important insights into studies of how that light harvesting mechanism evolved and how it works today.

The bacterium, Chlorobium tepidum, was originally isolated from a hot spring in New Zealand. It is a member of the green-sulfur bacterial group, so known because of the microbes' color and their dependence on sulfur compounds to carry out photosynthesis. Biologists say green-sulfur bacteria are important because they perform photosynthesis in a different way from that of other bacteria and that of plants.

For example, instead of the choloroplasts found in plants, green-sulfur bacteria have organelles called chlorosomes that help generate energy through an electron-transport chain in the microbe's cytoplasmic membrane. Inside the chlorosomes, the chlorophyll and carotenoid molecules that capture light differ from the molecules that other species use to perform photosynthesis. Also, green-sulfur bacteria carry out photosynthesis in the absence of oxygen and do not produce oxygen as a byproduct as plants do.

"Because of their unusual mechanisms of harvesting and using the energy of light, the green-sulfur bacteria are important to understanding the evolution and the mechanisms of both photosynthesis and cellular energy metabolism," said Jonathan A. Eisen, an evolutionary biologist at The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. "The ability to carry out photosynthesis in the absence of oxygen is particularly important to evolutionary studies since it is believed that the early atmosphere of Earth had little oxygen. That is why some scientists have suggested the green-sulfur bacteria were the first photosynthetic organisms."

The sequenced genome of C. tepidum, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, represents the first time that a microbe in the green-sulfur group has been fully sequenced. It is also the first time that a bacteria that is both photosynthetic and anaerobic has been sequenced. The sequencing of the C. tepidum genome was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy

TIGR President Claire M. Fraser said the project is part of a wider effort at TIGR to study organisms that play important roles in global energy and nutrient cycles. "We chose C. tepidum because it is a model system for studies of the green-sulfur bacteria and anaerobic photosynthesis," she said. "Also, scientists have developed a suite of genetic methods to help study this important microbe."

Green-sulfur bacteria such as C. tepidum are widely distributed in aquatic environments where light reaches anoxic (low-oxygen) layers of water containing reduced sulfur compounds. When TIGR researchers analyzed the microbe's single circular chromosome, they identified numerous genes that may play novel roles in photosynthesis or other processes that make use of the energy of light.

Using a method of comparing complete genomes known as phylogenomic analysis, the scientists found strong similarities between the metabolic processes of the green-sulfur bacteria and processes in many species of Archaea, the organisms that represent the third domain of life. This analysis also revealed the likely duplication of genes that are involved in the pathways for phytosynthesis and in the metabolism of sulfur and nitrogen. "These duplication events may help explain why this microbe is able to use lower levels of light to carry out photosynthesis than other species," said Eisen, the first author of the PNAS paper.

Another reason why biologists study green-sulfur bacteria is that their mechanism of capturing carbon dioxide differs from that of plants and other bacteria. The green-sulfur bacteria use an unusual chemical cycle -- called the reductive tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle -- that differs from the Calvin Cycle that is used by higher plants. The TCA cycle uses electrons derived from hydrogen or reduced sulfur compounds to fix carbon dioxide; in contrast, the Calvin Cycle requires oxygen. In fact, the reductive TCA cycle was first discovered in C. tepidum.

The authors of the paper write that "further genome analysis and experimental work should help provide insights into the evolution of photosynthesis and other pathways of energy metabolism." Scientists have developed methods to genetically manipulate C. tepidum, allowing experimental testing of hypotheses generated from the analysis of the microbe's genome. Also, the completion of a genome sequence makes experimental studies easier and less expensive.

Said Eisen: "We hope that this genome sequence will serve as a launching pad for future studies of the evolution and mechanisms of photosynthesis and the biology of this important group of organisms."

The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland, is widely regarded as the world's leading research center for microbial genomics. Founded in 1992, TIGR is a not-for-profit research institute whose primary research interests are in structural, functional and comparative analysis of genomes and gene products from a wide variety of organisms, including viruses, eubacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes.

Please don't claim things without at least a little bit of research. I don't want to sound rude, but since you don't know at all how photosynthesis evolved, how would you suppose the negative aspects of it would build up over time? Please don't assume such things.

[uniquinous]

Do you have a link to the evolution of photosynthsis in a bacteria model?

There is not an evolutionary advantage to making one enzyme involved in photosynthesis. The single celled bacteria would not know the end result of a series of mutations to make even a basic photosynthetic pathway. As a scientist you should know bacteria have a minimal amount of junk DNA so they would be especially hesitant to keep an enzyme around that is both useless by itself and is producing toxic free radicals.
As a scientist, I know bacteria don't choose which enzymes they want to discard. Rather, more "effecient" bacteria that have smaller genomes are generally able to reproduce a bit faster, thus giving them the microevolutionary edge they need to dominate.

Similarly, if a solution of bacteria is found to be resistant to a specific antibiotic, that does not mean every single cell in that solution was resistant. Rather, a few bacteria *happened* to be harboring a "useless" bit of genetic code which just *happened* to give it resistance. From those few, the culture can regrow. The point is, as a scientist I know that "useless" (as you say) proteins can be the very thing which microevolves a species. Food for thought. ;)

[TheSilverRider]

Even if there was a "bacteria reaction" where did the bacteria come from?

[Excaliber]

Lies I tell you!

Christianity is all lies and tales told to conjur up strength from the people. If they knew some god was watching them and would punish them if they were bad, they wouldnt be bad!

hi everyone

bye everyone

That's not cool..

[TheBlazedAce]

Even if there was a "bacteria reaction" where did the bacteria come from?
Did you just choose not to check my link?