? to all the people that believe in the b
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Discription: Topics relating to philosophy
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17567
Printed Date: 12-May-2024 at 18:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: ? to all the people that believe in the b
Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Subject: ? to all the people that believe in the b
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2007 at 12:46
| Do you think if the world was perfect like in the Garden of Eden, that racisms, and murders, and other crimes would not exist period? Because i mean God could take it away if he is all power and all...But what if the humans that come into existence still have alot of hate and want to cause trouble in a perfect world do you think God's perfectness would cancel it out or would god let the person test the other humans, and not interfere? |
Replies:
Posted By: Top Gun
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2007 at 14:46
|
I think that it's to hard to make all humans perfect for god because we are made to be independent and thats what God keeps.
he would interfene in the humankind ------------- |
Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2007 at 16:08
Same here thats why sometimes its hard to believe in the Adam and Eve were once perfect and lived for ever story....Because in order to keep everyone from not sinning you would have to make them into like a robot which isn't free will....... |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 04-Feb-2007 at 00:33
|
Actually, I believe that Adam and Eve were not perfect. I think Adam and Eve were perfect because they were sinless initally.
One does not need to be absolutely controlled by God to be considered "Follower of Christ". See, Adam and Eve did not even know what is evil before they ate the fruit. But they fell for the snake's temptation. Why? Because when they fell for it, that was not the sin. They don't know that when they eat fruit, they are sinning until they swallowed the fruit that was forbidden.
Against popular misconception, Adam and Eve were exiled from the Garden of Eden because they ate the fruit. God knew that Adam and Eve ate the fruit, but without even getting angry... he calmly looked for them. Afraid of God's presence, Adam and Eve hid from God, until they came out and committed their first sin. Denial.
Adam was questioned why he ate the fruit. He blamed it on Eve. Eve blamed it on the snake. God was angry because when Adam and Eve knew it was sinful to hide their sin and blame on others... they still did it. And this time, they knew that they are sinning because they ate the fruit.
We have the free will to choose whatever we desire. We do not just go to hell because we made the mistake. That's why God sent Jesus. He paid for all our sin by being crucified to the cross, even though Jesus lived in sinless life. His suffering paid for our sins, which is the reason why Christians can hope to coexist with God in heaven. Christians are not perfect. Yes, we try to live a sinless life. But since we are all humans, we still can make mistake. But the important thing is, we learn from it. We know that we sinned if we did not follow God's way. It''s called conscious. But we pray to God, admitting our sin and saying that we will try not to do it. Living in sinless life is difficult, but it's not impossible. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2007 at 00:07
|
Sounds like a nice explanation pekau. But why did God make the fruit forbidden in the first place? And how does the sacrifice of Jesus, who is one with God; how does the death of one who doesn't really die because he is God, somehow redeem humanity's sins? And who decides what is a sin? God? in that case isn't the whole point of a grand gesture to overlook his own rules a little moot? That is the problem.... And Top gun, if God is omnipotent and he somehow created us in his own image, then why are we not perfect? See, I think that actually reading too literally the Bible has one going into circles. I think that at least certain parts of it are a metaphor. As I see it, the original sin was the creation of our imaginary set of rules, our attempt to create our own world. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they realized that they were naked. So in other words, they thought that the natural order of things was not good enough and they had to change their enironment, and assign an arbitrary value to wearing clothes which they didn't really need. For the first time, they introduced an imaginary dual concept: naked as opposed to clothed. The presence of clothes also had a sexual connotation, so it signalled the humans need to assign a mystical quality to certain natural acts: it was the beginning of religion. They actually thought for themselves and started to change the world to their liking, both on a physical (environment) and imaginary (religion) way, even though the world was created specifically for them (or they were created specifically for the world). In other words they questioned God's design, indrectly questioning God himself. And we still do now.... Our own curiosity and drive for knowledge and comfort: that is what creates all the problems. But to deny that is to deny being human. Asking a human not to sin is like asking him to deny what gives him his identity. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi 
|
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2007 at 00:25
Haven't u seen Jason and the Argonauts. ------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2007 at 01:02
God did not make the fruit forbidden, he said in Genesis 2:17 "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." Therefore the fruit was not forbidden it only meant that Adam and Eve were perfect creatures in body and spirit, and that God intended them to live forever, knowledge can easily lead to the corruption of humanity and that is why God chose not to give his creations knowledge.
Jesus DID die. As many theologians have debated, Jesus is fully divine because man's sin was so great that only God himself could redeem us. Jesus is fully human because if he wasn't then his sacrifice would be meaningless in relation to us. Jesus suffered as any other man would have suffered, actually moreso because for a brief moment Jesus' divinity left him alone for the first time, so that he could accept our sins. Therefore his sacrifice was very real, he COULD have been King over all of Earth, but instead he chose to be King over Heaven.
Yes, quite simply.
Overlook his own rules? I don't quite follow? Sin is merely the act of separating yourself from God. The severity of the sin is the amount of separation you put between yourself and God. Humans can only enter heaven as perfect beings, but we are all tainted by sin. Therefore until Jesus' sacrifice no one could be one with God.
I disagree I see the first sin, eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge as a yearning of immature creatures wanting to go beyond their station. Adam and Eve so desired to be 'like God' that they were tricked by the Devil. It would be like a 12 year old who stole his dad's keys and took the car around the block. Definetily not ready to handle the consequences of the action.
Being naked has nothing to do with clothes, one can be fully clothed and naked at the same time. The nakedness has to do with the fact that Adam finally saw that his action was a bad idea. To use my similar analogy lets assume the twelve year old crashed the car into a fire hydrant. The first thing the kid would do, run away because he realized his father was right. In this manner Adam realized that he had overstepped his boundaries and had offended God.
They did not question God's design, the serpent merely told them they would be 'like God'. Of course they wanted to be like their "hero". I mean God spoiled them, gave them eternal life and beauty, gave them mastery over all of his creation. They wanted to be like him as a form of flattery. That statement you mentioned above though, I believe, sums up the views that Satan had during the Fall.
No asking a human not to sin is like asking him to deny the false identity he has given himself. Our true identities are our purified selves. What we had the potential to become in life but because of our sinful cultures we could not achieve, that is why God died on the cross and why we can have hope in his mercy. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2007 at 15:00
So Janus how's it going:
*Still, it's fine while christans don't try to make the O&NT a scientific textbook. |
when she was hungry. Not to mention what she did before she even knew what physyological acts are. What's a perfect being? A brainles creature, a computer? You know, I have an old K6 that still works, I may device an OS that only says:"God, You are, God I'm Perfect, God, I'm in heaven".
) Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2007 at 23:52
Sup Cezar.
Yes, yes I am.
Many people have also been killed in the name of Freedom, does that mean freedom is wrong? Just because Jesus has been used by others inappropriately doesn't mean he had anything to do with that. Jesus never taught us to torture people or kill people or even to insult people. Besides God is only interested in our salvation, he guides us, but he lets us find our own way. Also, the Inquisition is one of the most misunderstood periods of Church history.
Why is it important to have a list of sins and the exact penance. Salvation isn't a bank where you can have positive and negative amounts of holiness. It's a matter of sincerety, humility and honesty. The sacrament of Confession exists so that we as humans can have a peace of mind. To quote something I was told once. "Sin is like nails driven into your body, Confession removes the nails, Purification by the Holy Spirit after death fills in the holes."
All children that haven't been baptized are separated from God. Therefore they carry the sin of all humanity.
Adam and Eve, the first parents of humanity.
Of course not, and for a matter of fact no one does.
A perfect being is a soul without the taint of sin, and in total communion with God at all times.
It wasn't that they weren't allowed to have sex, they just had no desire to have sex. Before the fall they were like children, and sex wasn't one of the concepts they thought of. Besides once we are joined to God in heaven sex will become irrelevant to us. Sex exists so that we may bring new life into the world, once we are in the afterlife there is no need or want for it.
We are fully capable of questioning God's designs. It's just Adam and Eve weren't questioning his designs the moment they ate from the tree of knowledge.
The concept of free will is debateable. Free will means that we have the ability to erase our answer of whether we choose to live in God's kingdom or not. The angels did not have that choice, once they had chosen that their very natures prevented them from being redeemed.
I don't understand what your getting at? But anyway, it's not whats in your heart and soul that matters because ultimetely if we are in a state of sin and denial of an inherent truth then we are at the mercy of God.
We are only human and we are prone to making mistakes, all we can hope is that God forgives our transgressions and allows us to enter his Kingdom upon death. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 04:54
Wouldn't anyone? ------------- |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 11:52
|
Janus, are you a priest or have studied theology?
Could you accept the idea of an inconsistent God? |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 15:21
Touche', glce. I guess so, but when Jesus made the choice, he knew nothing of the kingdom of heaven but Satan did show him the results of what the king of earth would bring.
Not a priest, but I am an amateur theologian.
Well of course, we all say we are right in our beliefs. However faith can only be judged on whether its beliefs follow logic and nature. You can only discount faiths that don't make sense, anything else has the potential to be correct.
And yourself, we have all committed sins in our past and we all must atone for these sins. It is your confession and acceptance of the punishment for these sins that must be sincere. Your humility comes from the fact that your are indeed at the mercy of God and that if he chose to he could deny you from his kingdom. Honesty comes from the fact that in the end you cannot lie to yourself or God about your true feelings and that determines whether you are with him or not.
It would, which is exactly what he'll do during the Apocolypse.
Because we cause confusion with ourselves, God does not enjoy seeing people doing wrong, he has listed his message as simply as possible all we have to do is follow it as best we can.
His sins are not erased he is merely being brought into communion with God's church. Which means that he has just as much chance at forgiveness as everyone else in God's church.
Sex is not sinful, it's just pointless in the afterlife, like breathing and eating. Once your in heaven the urges your body experienced in this life are gone since God provides everything you could ever need.
In order to be in heaven you are freely thinking, it's just your thoughts will be in conformity with "religious dogmas", as if those even have a point in heaven. God doesn't force a change in your thoughts from without, but causes a change within yourself, without coercion or "brainwashing" or anything sinister.
That's why I said it's debateable.
Who said that heaven or hell are rewards or punishments respectively. They are just states of being, EVERYONE is brought back to life at the apocolypse and EVERYONE is given the choice to either be with God or not. There is no fire and brimstone, no devils with pitchforks, it's just wandering in the darkness without God. Anyway any choices you make are meaningless, since God knows exactly what you are going to do even before you do it.
Huh? So why doesn't God make the choice to be with himself? Huh?
Then you won't be with God when he raises you from the dead, and until you choose to be with God you will feel like you are missing a part of yourself....
No which is why I follow the teachings of a very consistent God. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 18:55
Christianity is so complicated  ------------- |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 11:02
|
Omar, does that mean tha Islamism is simple? Janus is no different from you. You uphold the Quran he stays with the Bible. You both think that you are right. I think of both of you to not necessarily be right not that you are wrong. You are both trying to be consistent but consistency on your opinion is sticking to a religious dogma that is inconsistent. Whenever one questions someting about your religion you com with explanations based your or other coreligionaries ideas regarding the meaning of some quotes or same actions.
You both state that we are given free will yet you also define this as the choice between living acording to the rules of God, an eventually get some kind of eternal reward, and not doing so, wich results in some kind of terrible eternal unhappines or something like that.
My opinion is that people are more important than God. What the guy is going to do about this i really don't care as long as humans are OK with me. Tha fact that bothers me with religious people is that they are bound by their belief to give more consideration to an entity not to the people around them.
It's the difference between Freedom and Jesus. Freedom is for people and only for them. Jesus was supposed to be for people but he was in fact satisfying some kind of twisted judgemend of God (why did people need to be unsinned by a single individual and why once it happened it wasn't permanent?). O and since God and Jesus were One that looks like some kind af sado-maso behaviour.
People dying in the name of Jesus is stupidity, people dying in the name of freedom is heroism. Same goes for Allah, Mohamed or whatever religious figure.
|
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 21:28
Speaking for myself, I know that I am not right, but I know that I am not wrong either. Religion is how God guides us to him, it is not a means in and of itself.
What pray tell is so inconsistent about the Abrahamic Religions?
Which is the same thing a scientist does when evolutionary theory is questioned. Everyone is supposed to support their claims with observed phenomena, religion is no different than any other belief or idea.
Cezar you need to understand, heaven isn't a reward, hell isn't a punishment. The differences between them are the differences between happiness and sadness. In life you can be either happy or sad at any given moment but in the afterlife you can only be one or the other. Hell is no more a punishment than being sad is, heaven is no more a reward than being happy.
Which is utterly inconsistent with the concept of God, because the very definition of his nature is a being that has no equal or superior.
They are not bound by any belief you can either get to heaven on your own or with others, in fact Abrahamic religions have always been about people first, theology second.
The sacrifice of Jesus is permanent. No one could be allowed entry into heaven until God sacrificed his Son on the cross. We still have original sin because we must carry the burden of our predecessors. However that sin has all ready been paid for by God's sacrifice. The only thing we have to do is accept him into our hearts and we shall know everlasting life. Sado-Masochist behavior? God took no pleasure in what needed to be done. He only did it because his love for us was so great and because he did not want to see us suffer through death.
Why is freedom heroism and religion stupid. What about people who die for freedom of religion? Are they idiots or heroes? Calling freedom a noble cause to die for is missing the point. Anything we experience in this life is merely transitory, it has no substance, everything we do should be focused on the more real afterlife. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 02:27
Most things are complicated until you understand them ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 04:10
|
What kind of a meaningless line is that? It's like saying most books are boring until you read them!
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 06:00
Omar, do you actually believe that (I haven't seen you say it.)
I guess JanusRook does, but there are an awful lot of Christians that don't. ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 07:42
Caliming to understand Islam is quite daring...
 After all, people have been fighting over its 'truth' for centuries... (and the same for Christianity as well of course.)The point of religion of course is you are not supposed to understand. As Janus has mentioned above: God did not want his people to have knowledge because it is corrupting. Which is essentially: keep them stupid or they will spot the obvious bull in the story. ------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 12:43
| Sorry, guys, something came up and I'm about to get myself out of this for some 15 days, at least. I'm sorry for not being able to hold on to my posts but I must earn my payroll. See you all at least on the 26-th of February! |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 19:32
Ah, but I never actually did that. I only claimed that I thought Christianity was complicated because I didn't understand it. The core of Islam is simple (at least so muslims think). Believe in one God who cannot be compared to anything else, believe in the day of judgement, say your prayers, obey the laws God set. If you do this as best you can heaven if you don't hell. Don't be worried if you can't, God is merciful, do be worried if you don't but can. There isn't any complicated theology about the basic tenants. The "mechanics of the universe" in Islam is not simple, areas like free-will are quite complicated, and then all the bits that have been created by men, the Islamic Sciences such as Hadiths and Shariah, are complicated. I think men have a vested interest in making things complicated so that only educated people can do it. Most of the fights are over Hadiths, or over who should rule.
Yes... but at the same time No. Its complicated and I don't understand  The way I currently think of it, is as if your walking past a pretty girl and you stop to talk to her. You know that you made the choice to stop and talk to her, you know you could've chosen otherwise, but at the same time you were only responding to the chemicals in your body, the smell and look of the girl, your bodies natural cycles, the fact that your friends had been teasing your for not having a girlfriend. So was it your "free will" that made you stop and talk to her, or was it the scientific explaination ("Gods Will")? It was both in my mind, a situation was setup for you, and you made that decision. But that decision then sets up a situation for someone else (such as the girl), so it is both the will of God, and the will of man at the same time.
Its not meaningless at all. Has a teacher ever put up a problem on the board, which you thought was complicated and were unable to do. Then the teacher explains it to you and suddenly it all makes sense? ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 19:44
Hopefully whatever you are doing goes all right.  ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 19:56
You have a point there, but just because God's decision does not make sense to us does not mean that it's false or stupid. For instance, I simply cannot understand (Although I try to) the full understanding of Quantum Physics, but I can assure that everyone would know it's true, when Hiroshima and Nagasaki was bombed. God's decision may not be rational to us, but simply because our knowledge is limited. The little children may not understand why it's wrong not to have too much candy, but adults (Most of us, anyway) would certainly understand that having too much candy is not good for us.
I will try to justify, though it may be flawed. I don't think God would be satisfied with puppet dolls prasing God all the time. He gave us the free will for a reason. I would perfer to have someone who trusts me even though they have some doubts instead to a robot that follows my command 100%. Why? Because it builds trust, it builds relation. That's why He allowed snake's temptation. That's why He allowed the sin of pride to enter Lucifer's heart.
Bible may be a bunch of metaphors, but I don't see it this way. As science and archiology begins to advance, we are seeing how accurate the Bible is. The great exdus. The civilization of Hittites. The journey of Abraham. The gret Flood. I feel that science is same thing as religion, both shouting the praise that the Lord deserves. It's like two different language. Just because I say God in Korean does not mean the God I worship is different from a French nun praying to God in French. We have different ways to interpret and praise God. Did you know that more and more elite scientists and archiologiests are being converted to Christian? ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 20:14
|
Islam or Christianity isnt complicated - nor is Judaism or any other mainstream religion in fact. They are simple concepts, and they have to be simple to the average person.
They are FAITH's - and that term implies that you cannot reason yourself to a certain truth - you HAVE to believe it.
Its the theologist/clerics who makes it complicated. If religions werent simple, most people wouldnt understand anything - and even today most people, regardless of religion, dont understand the basic concepts to the full extend.
And more important - most people today - nomatter what they claim, cannot adhere and live to the full extend of what their religion originally demanded of its followers. They bend and twist the words to make it meet their needs and present situation.
Sometimes I claim to be a Christian, trying to follow the simple teachings of Christ. But if I read my bible - read what should characterize a true Christian, I utterly fail.
I dont know anyone who could meet those standards, and certainly not me.
Its not enough to CLAIM you are Christain/Muslim - you have to be recognized as such - by the original standards.
To my best knowledge and assesment - thats impossible if you still plan to function in a modern society.
~ Northman
------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 20:23
Exactly. Faith, by definition, is the ability to believe even though you cannot prove it. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Eondt
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 02:19
Well said
 There's alot of sections in the bible that can be interpreted differently. People have always and will always argue about these (the debating that can surround the Christain faith is one of its beautiful qualities to me). Sometimes these arguments can get quite heated and even lead to splits in the community. In the end though I believe these seemingly complicated issues are all personal and should be decided upon between yourself and God.
The core message of the bible isn't complicated at all though and that is what all Christains of all denominations should remember when dealing with one another.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 03:48
Faith is the ability to go on believing in something after it has been disproven. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 05:39
I think thats just being stubborn
Learned men of any field have a vested interest in making sure that their field of study is complicated enough that not everyone can do it. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 05:49
That too. If you abandon faith just because you're proven wrong, what's the point of having faith? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 06:14
Like GCLE here follows the Evolution faith. ------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 10:47
To make a name for learning - when other roads are barred,
take something very easy - and make it very hard.  ------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2007 at 00:34
>.> ,Keep people stupid? I'll ask you a rhetorical question as an example, Does human caused global warming exist? It must because that's what some scientist told me. This is just blind faith, you don't personally know that. You just trust someone based on your belief system. If you really wanted to know you'd become a climatologist or a geologist or something like that and learn about global warming in depth before you'd make a statement. Do you need to do this to make an intelligent decision? No, of course not, sometimes you can trust people when what they say is common sense, like take care of the environment in the global warming issue. This is the same for religion, some people just trust what others say is true. Others want to learn more about the issue so they specialize in religious matters. It's not that your not supposed to understand it's that you don't need to understand, as long as what you do doesn't harm anything important.
Well then Omar, Christianity shouldn't be as complicated as you think since what you just described is exactly the "core" of Christianity as well.
Let me correct your statement a bit glce2003: Blind Faith is the ability to go on believing in something after it has been disproven. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2007 at 02:48
Reminds me of one of Gregory Nazianzen's quotes (or was it Gregory of Nyssa). Something about faith being belief even should the laws of nature rebel. If you like, I may be able to dig it up for you, but it would be a bit of a chore.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2007 at 04:53
|
Well, that particular phrasing I made up myself, but I owe the thought to one of the students of George Vetter, a professor at New York University, who defined religion to him as "beliefs that cannot be destroyed by the presentation of contrary evidence, and practices whose continuance is independent of their efficacy".
I came across that some thirty-odd years ago, and used it in one of my books.
Which of course doesn't mean the student didn't lift it from somewhere else. Since student habits don't change much  , he probably did.------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2007 at 15:40
Well, no. I'm not even aware there is an 'Evolution faith'. There are several theories that account for evolution. While some of it overlaps my fields of expertise (numerical taxonomy) not much of it does, so I'm content to let people who know more about it than I do put forward their various explanations, and use my standards of assessment to judge between them. But I'm not committed to any one.
That the whole universe was created at 9:15 pm BST July 4 1933 would for instance be an article of faith, were I to believe it, because it cannot be disproven, just as no other single-moment creationist theory can.
And, just for the record, why the personal dig?
------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2007 at 16:50
|
I don't mean to single you out, Zaitsev, but please end your vendetta! It has become somewhat tiresome to see the continuation of this conflict in every thread the both of you participate in.
Many thanks. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2007 at 21:47
Am I the only one who sees a slight contradiction here? After it's been disproven, because it can't be disproven
I could ask you, why the blatant attack against people of faith? As a side note I find it quite disgraceful that gcle's open personal insult towards praetor was ignored. In addition, targetting me in "every thread you both participate in". Seems less than impartial, but I'm sure you have your reasons. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 01:42
I am afraid that science-religion debate has been going on ever since the Age of Renassiance... and is still continued today. That would be a difficult demand. Could one get banned for their religious ideas?
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 01:51
|
Not directly...
------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 02:02
As you have pointed it out in many of my World War II debate, I think the usage of "if" is well... dangerous for the topic. I could use if to prove anything. If Omar al Hashim was a hamster, his favorite food is pie. If pekau was 1000kg MacDonald fan, his dream would be to live in MacDonald shop. But that's beside the point.
But I will take your challenge. Even if religion was bunch of lies and God did not existed, I would still be religious. Why? Christianity improved my life for the better. Its teaching, its spiritual inspiration that science cannot explain entered to my heart... and I strive to become better person everyday due to religion. I also recall that Bible was another prime resource I used to improve my English as well.... because the Bible is a very difficult book and its teaching promised that whoever that sincerely reads the Bible would be enlightened. And I have. I have great interest not only in religion, but history, math, chemistry, physics, biology, philosophy, and other studies that cry out the greatness of God. You got to admit that even if Bible was a fallacy... it's a brilliantly written book. Even if science today somehow proved that God did not existed, I would still have faith. Proven or disproven, I am very happy about my life because of the Bible's impact to my life. It's a joy, not due to brainwashing, to follow the path of God. If you haven't, I am sorry to hear that.
So there's the point of faith, assuming that God does not exist.
But if you were wrong... well, I wish you the best luck. Trust me, you will be needing it.
You have nothing to lose if you have a religion. simple math. Your fate would be still the same like other non-believers. But if you have a religion, then you would have a better chance to enjoy the afterlife.
People argue that the Bible is bunch of lies made up by the Christians. Well, I am unsure about this accusation. I have never ever seen anyone who doubts the writings of Homer, Plato and other great writers of the ancient times... that were written as old as Bible. So what is the main cause of the doubt? Not the account of Bible. The supernaturals. They can admit that Adam and Eve existed. They can accept that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. They can accept that Jesus was real. But they cannot explain the divinity of God rationally. Due to their lack of knowledge, they call it blasphemy. When Einstein invented the Theory of Relatively, no one believed him because they could not explain rationally. I can assure you that none of the members in AE forum can rationall understand the Quantum Theory or Theory of Relatively simply because not many minds cannot rationally understand it. Worse, it's not even a completed theory. There are so many gaps and exceptions.
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 02:21
No, only by continuously breaking the code of conduct. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 02:35
|
A question that I've always found relevent, is WHY would the apostles make it up?
------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 03:56
I'll certainly pay that. I could use a King James bible to improve my english too, which version were/are you reading?
But I won't pay that one ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 10:15
Yes you probably are the only one that sees it, because there isn't one. It can't be disproven. I never said 'After it had been disproven'. If I had said that it would have been a contradiction, but you just made it up.
No single-moment creationist theory can ever be disproven. That's all i've ever said. And it is because they cannot be disproven that they are useless.
You could, and that would be dodging the issue as usual.
What 'blatant attack on people of faith'?
Omar is a person of faith - are you claiming I made a blatant attack on him? Or are you for some reason maintaining that 'people of faith' should have some special privilege and be beyond criticism?
When I criticise people's knowledge, or their arguments, or their presentation, I'm not criticising their faith. I'm totally uininterested in their faith, except insofar as I do interest myself in the wild variety of things people believe in, and studying their interrelatiionships.
It wasn't a 'personal' attack on Praetor, but an attack on his ability to present an argument properly and convincingly. I certainly don't think he is an idiot: he probably is intelligent but he unfortunately has obviously been badly educated. That's not his fault. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 10:46
My interjection had nothing to do with the "science-religion debate"; I would just like for us all to communicate in a more cordial tone and refrain from ad hominem. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 12:13
Why would Muhammad make the Quran up? Why would Brigham Young (or whoever wrote it, im not really into the subject) make the book of Mormon up? Why would the Mayans make the Popul Vuh up? Since religions are mutually exclusive (if one religion is true all others have to be false) either all of them made it up, or all of them minus one. If the latter is true, I wouldn't know which one to pick. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 17:36
Well, I am not denying anything... but Muhammad wanted to gain support from the Jews and Christians in the beginning. He condemned the Christians and Jews when they refused to support Muhammad's cause. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 18:25
Sex is not a sin in Islam, it is seen as a natural, and healthy function between two people, marriage as a pre-requisite for it to not be sinful, adultery and sex without marriage is a sin, but not the actual act of sex.
In Islam everyone is born with a clean slate, and it matters upon your actions in life as to how you will be judged
In Islam, there is a freedom of choice, however, not all actions will lead to heaven or hell particulary, character, intent etc, are factors too, and most importantly God
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 18:35
[/QUOTE]
I agree
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 18:40
That is not true at all that he condemned anyone, he simply stated that the is an update to God's comandements, he is the intermediary that is going to fulfill that update.
Christians and Jews were seen as co-religionists on a lower level, considering that Islam means submission to God, and both Christians and Jews do that as well.
And the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is qouted " study the Torah study the Bible, even though the Qu'ran should be sufficient."
How is that a condemnation?
There is a charter given to the monks at Sinai, that among giving them rights to maintain their Monastery, practice their faith, outlines some of the rules of interaction between Muslims and Christians, such as that a Muslim can not refrain his/her spouse from attending a Church and practinsing their faith.
Now if he had condemned it, why so tolerant of it then?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 18:43
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 18:58
I do not see what is inconsistent either, it is a set of beliefs, the scriptures themselves are full of methaphors, taking them literary leads to confusion, every act has a meaning behind it, it is that very meaning that counts.
True.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 19:08
How would you put people, a rather feeble, not to mention young creation before God, the omnipotent, infinite? Various species have existed for far much longer than people, all of God's creations, are nothing compared to God. Evolution just proves God, as does Science, it is only mostly in Protestant countries that I notice a huge gap between science and religion due to the literal interpretation of the Bible ( World being 6000 years old and such). Science proves God, the Big Bang proves God, the two atoms that collided must have come from somewhere, out of them the universe had been created, actually the Qu'ran references to the Big Bang, the creation of Earth, Stars, among other things even the possibility of Space travel. The Qu'ran goes hand in hand with science, because that is how God chose to operate the universe, with physics, with chemistry, with mathematics, and we humans get to know that, and the true infinite power of God through science as well.
True, the focus is one people, on communities, such as the value of helping others, and the value of progressing, of learning, of inventing for the sake of humanity's advancement.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 19:12
In the early days of Muhammeds preaching, he had expected that the Jews and Christians would recognise his prophethood, and help him. When the professional Jewish and Christian clergy rejected his message*, he was quite shocked and disappointed. Given that one of the meanings of condemn is
*This would have put them out of a job of course. The rejection of the clergy also didn't prevent the ordinary Jews & Christians of arabia from converting ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 19:19
| Condemn is a strong word, I'd rather say disapproved |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 19:32
But then how are we supposed to know which religion is the real one and which ones are the corruptions? Of course Muhammad said his religion was the real one, and the others are the corrupted version, but everybody could claim that and there's absolutely no way to decide who is right. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 21:18
That is why it is up to the individual to decide what they want to do/believe..... "There is no compulsion in religion" Qu'ran.
Also according to the Qu'ran it is not only "Muslims" who enter Heaven, but those who deserve it, wheter they be Muslims or not.
|
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 01:53
Take that, Chinese who believe in Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism and Folk Religions simultaneously. Or Japanese who are born Shinto, marry Christian and buried Buddhist.
The one that survives the test of time is the real one, unfortunately we won't know in our lifetime, but we can try. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 06:21
For four reasons. One is that people undeniably and actually exist, whereas there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of anyone's particular concept of divine beings. Anything real is more important than anything imaginary.
The other three come into play if you accept the existence of divine beings.
The second is exactly what you say: people are weak, the divine beings strong. We should support the weak.
The third is that we ourselves are people and our highest allegiance must be to our own kind.
And the fourth is that God can look after himself. He doesn't need us. People do.
I would agree the original statement went too far. Not all religions are mutually exclusive. However, e.g., Islam, Judaism and Christianity are mutually exclusive, and Calvinism and Episcopalianism are mutually exclusive within Christianity.
How would you suggest we try?
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 06:25
Right there. It's in this thread, on page 2. About half way down, you can't miss it. So yes, there's your contradiction. So could you please stop making stuff up, it's a sign of desperation.
So unless you can comprehensively prove all religions false, as you have already claimed is impossible, that qualifies as an attack. It's a shame you have so little to back up your words.
Ah well at least he's managed to keep his argument consistent, which is more than I can say for you. ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 08:25
But if I would study deeper into climatology, I would undoubtly find evidence that what the climatologists are saying is true, or that they were wrong. As they base their theories on research of facts, their findings can be either proven or disproven. But if I would study religion in depth, I would find that it is just based on assumption and blind faith, because there is no factual basis for it. After all, faith is at the basis of religion.
If people want to believe in it, that's totally fine, but it doesn't do it for me.
It's not that your not supposed to understand it's that you don't need to understand, as long as what you do doesn't harm anything important.
I do not understand this line... Are you saying that you can believe whatever you want as long as you dont harm anyone with it? True, but not a good point in defence of faith. Or do you mean that as long as the spiritual leadership is good, the people can follow them blindly? Also true, but very very dangerous from an ethical point of view. I think it is absolutely vital that everyone does understand what he or she believes in. Faith I can accept, blind faith is unacceptable. An example: "That man has studied the subject and you have not, so he knows better than you" is the exact answer a former friend gave me when I disagreed with her about her choice to trust in a quack instead of a certified doctor. Not a very good argument, wouldn't you say? -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 19:08
Not really. People began to criticize the accuracy of the Bible since the Age of Enlightenment. But as science and archeology advances... they are slowly admitting how accurate the Bible is. Many world class scientists and archeologiests are being converted into Christian. And the foundation of science that we know today mainly the works of religious people who believed that science was another language of praising the divine God.
Pyramid of the Ramsesse when Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt showed some interesting evidence that proves the accuracy of the Bible. As some may recall, Ramsesse provided the straws for the Hebrews to use in order to make bricks. When Moses came to urge his people to be freed, he was not happy. In fact, he showed his anger by ordering that Hebrews must now collect their own straws... Well, the study of the bricks used in his pyramid shows that as the layers of pyramid went higher, the straw components in the bricks were less concentrated than the lower layers. Many believed that Roman's order for every Romans and her subjects to count their number of families and report was ignored as made up stories. After studying Roman laws, the world archeologists concluded that the Roman authorities actually did this. In fact, such census have taken place every 14 years. Ancient civilization of Hittite was mentioned many times in the Bible, and many disregard it as Biblical myth. The archoleogical digs not too long ago discovered several cities (Including the capital city) of the Hittite. I could go on and on if I have to...
Have anyone wondered why the Bible, unlike many other religious books, gave so many details that just seems irreverent. Why not just get to the point? It could save papers, efforts and (For modern days) it could save some memory spaces in the harddrives. Bible is a realiable source that is slowly gaining credibility in the field of science and others... including math! The Bible is among the first earliest books to mention that the skilled people of Carthage used pie (Math term) to accurately build the temple that Solomon designed. Many professional people (Scientists, archeologists, professers) who rejected the Bible in the beginning admits that they did not make careful investigations to reserach and make careful conclusion. And let's face it, the Bible must be wrong. You do not see a man returning from the dead. You do not sea a man waving his walking stick and the sea splits in half. This is, from my point of view, a careless and rude reaction. Imagine you and your friends spent all their life dedicated to write a researched paper and when you handed in, with swelling pride, the teacher scoff that your essay without even reading it... since the first sentence mentions something that makes no logical sense... so he gives you 0.
Let's be honest. How many of you that believe in Bible actually read the Bible? How many of you that does not believe? Just because it makes no sense to your 3 pound brain does not mean it's not true. Einstein's Theory of Relatively should not make sense to any AE members (Those that truly understand it and can explain it fully, well... congradulation. But you get the idea) but I can assure you that it is real because when a nuclear warhead strikes to you, you will feel the Einstein's theory as the atoms split and convert the lost mass to energy. Lots of energy.
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 01:45
By trying to understand religion and our own faith, and trying to become closer to God. Sorry that statement got a bit convoluted, it made perfect sense in my head but looking back on the statement it seems like I'm advocating religious genocide or something. Which I'm certainly not, although I believe I am advocating religious extinction, "survival of the fittest" kind of mentality, the false religions in time will die off and the real religion (since it would have to be supported by God) will survive.
Of course faith is the basis of the religion, but there is also logic involved (at least hopefully) and this is what theologians do, they take statements of faith and logically try to reduce them to their basic ideas and if those ideas aren't contrary to the laws of the universe and the logical reasoning is sound, that statement of faith carries more weight than say "seven literal days of creation". Again I agree it's all a matter of faith.
As long as you live your life in a manner that is respectful and loving of others then you don't need to understand the nuances of religion, because realistically you are 'living the faith'. I think that this is the ultimate defense of religion, because if you said that in order to lead a religious life you have to follow all of these specific tenants then every religious person would be a hypocrite because we aren't perfect, we screw up, and it isn't up to men to determine how egregious our transgressions are. This is what I mean when it's not necessary, its preferable that you do understand your religion so that you can make better decisions during the course of your life.
I also agree with this, it's like a parent-child relationship. The parent looks out for the well being of the child, even if the child doesn't understand what taxes are, what a seatbelt is used for, or why they lock their doors at night. Wouldn't you agree that in this case the child should just blindly follow the parent's advice? On the reverse side of this, (and why I agree this is dangerous) if a parent is abusive the child should no longer listen to the parent. The same is true with a church, if the leadership isn't looking out for the well being of the congregation then they shouldn't be followed blindly. This again is why it is important for at least a few to understand.
True but that's why you have credentials, in the case of the doctor, if he got his degree from Bahamas University, I would be extremely suspicious, but if he had a good record with his patients in comparison to other doctors in the field I would still go to him. Same in the case of religious studies, if you go to the homeless man on the street corner preaching "The end times." then you are getting a "quack". However if you go to a Quranic scholar of 30 years who has written multiple articles on the Sharia and is praised by muslims everywhere for his piety, then you are getting a "cancer-specialist type of doctor". ....Back to your specific reference, if you had studied medicine you could have pointed to your friend specifically what was wrong with what the quack said, instead of what you saw as generally wrong. To make another religious example, you wouldn't need much training in religion to find the references in the Da Vinci code ridiculous, yet many people believe in that quackery. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 05:09
|
Pekau, I'm sorry but I very much disagree. The more we learn about history, the more it is shown that the Bible is wrong on any historical matter. To take your example: There is no evidence at all (and the number of straws in a pyramid is no evidence in whatever sense of the word) neither historically or arhaeologically that the Jewish nation was ever in Egypt or has ever left it en-masse.
In fact the Bible mixes up so many dates, facts, rulers and events it is historically hardly any more reliable than the Saga of the Volsungen.
All religious historians I know take the Bible as a methaphorically meant writing. But this whole issue does not matter to religious belief at all: the historical accuracy of the Bible is completely irrelevant to the queston of faith. We know that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is historically accurate, but it does not make people believe in the eternal thruth of Viking Invasion.
Your remark that the amount of detail in the Bible suggestt authenticity is also not too convincing. The Illias is also full of irrelevant detail, that does not make it the truth.
And I although I agree that there is a fair number of things my three pound brains will probably never get, it does not mean that anything is true or false because I do not get it. The fact that I do not understand the relativity theory does indeed not mean it is false, but that I do not understand the theory behind Star-Trek warp power does not make it true.
But just because the fundamentals of faith do not contradict the fundamentals of the Universe does not make it any more believable... (besides, this is rather arguable: miracles as in making people coming back from the dead do contradict the fundamentals of the universe...)
Yes it is faith, and that doesn't work for me, but it does for you, so we are both happy as we are then...
True, but what I meant is that if you can believe whatever you want as long as you don't hurt others with it is not a good defence for any specific faith. After all, this theory can be used in defence of every religion or belief, including my atheism. I do not hurt others by being an atheist, I can do things like caring for my fellow human being and living a decent life without being religious. After all, you don't have to be religious to be consiencious.
I think quite a few have to understand what they believe in. In a democracy, everybody can vote. I think that as a consequence, everyone has to know politics enough to realise what their vote means. To take a rather extreme example: One of the main points of the German National-Socialism in WWII was that people should not think for themselves but do as their leaders told them. When confronted with the crimes committed in this period, the only defence they had was "wir haben es nicht gewusst' and 'befehl ist befehl'... People always should know what they believe in to make sure their leaders stay trustable. That is what the trias politica of all western nations is based on, so why not faith?
"Others in the field" would in this case be other quacks, as the field was not an scientifically accepted one. The doctor told her that she was indeed overweight (partially because a bad gland) but that she only needed to abstain from sugar. This in itself was no problem with me, but he also told her that she could eat as much fat as she wanted to and that unrefined sugar was also ok. That is bull. This man was giving her advice that could serously damage her health.
Oh, I really did not need any medical training to see what is wrong with his advice, just a little common sense would do, but like I said, whenever I tried to point out the obvious errors in his theory, she would give me the quoted reply. End of discussion.
I dont... I thought that book was the dissapointment of the century. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 07:21
Everybody has ALWAYS thought the Bible is accurate in places: there has, for instance, always been plenty of evidence of the Babylonian captivity. And no-one as far as I know has ever denied that Jerusalem was the capital of Judaea, or that the two Herods mentioned were historical characters, or that Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judaea under Tiberius.
But to give the impression that people are finding the Bible to be more and more accurate is ridiculous.
This discussion is more easily carried on in Jewish terms. What you presumably call the Old Testament has always in Judaism been seen as three separate collections: that's why it is referred to as the Tanakh - an acronym for Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim - respectively the books of the law, the books of the prophets, and the 'writings'. The Ketuvim are then divided into subcollections including the histories (Kings, Chronicles, etc) and purely literary (Proverbs, Song of Solomon, etc).
The histories reflect an oral tradition of Jewish history, which, not surpringly, is more accurate the closer it gets to the time of the earliest written versions we have - Maccabees is probably the most historically accurate of all. It basically consists of things for which there is outside historical evidence, plus things for which there isn't. So it can't be surprising that occasionally evidence is found confirming, or in line with, stuff in the histories.
That happens in all traditions. I'm pretty sure that if any of the Indians among us happen to read this, they would be happy to give examples from Indian tradition.
But none of that goes any way to improving the chances that the other sections of the Tanakh are true - though of course for writings like Job or the Song of Solomon, literal truth has nothing to do with it.
But the vast majority aren't.
And anyway it isn't the historical accuracy of the Bible that is doing it.
Not me.
The Tanakh is a mixture of all kinds of different sources. The books of the law lay down rules and regulations for conduct, just like similar codes in other regions. Then there are all sorts of poetic and fictitious tales that don't particularly pretend to be historical, but just point a moral - and the Jews were and are a culture that used parables a lot. Then there are the equivalent of, say, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, which are histories (accurate or otherwise).
So what you have is almost the entire literature of the Jews bound in one volume - as if you were to bind together the Homeric epics, a few plays by Euripides and Aristophanes, a collection of the laws laid down in various Greek city states, Xenophon and Herodotus, and some works by Aristotle and Plato and call the whole thing one book.
And the accuracy or otherwise of Xenophon and Herodotus would have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth of of Aristotle's or Plato's philosophies.
Just as the fact that the considerable historical accuracy of the Sherlock Holmes stories (far more than the Bible) doesn't prove that Sherlock Holmes existed. Or that the stories ever happened.
Me. At considerable length. Starting when I was a child and continuing to now. In various versions.
Of course I have also spent time studying the Guru Granth Sahib, the Bhagavadgita, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the Homeric myths, the Bok of the Dead and many others of equal validity.
Somehow I doubt you have.
I would hope that most AE members are fully capable of understanding Einstein's two (not one) theories of relativity.
It's not anyway a question of making sense. The fact that something makes sense isn't particularly important to its validity. For instance, continuing your analogy, Aristotle's laws of motion and Newton's theory of gravity all make sense. But they're not true.
Afterthought: Showing that something is not incompatible with an assertion, as with your example of the straw, doesn't contribute to proving it true. ------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 09:22
Yet with current technology defibrilators give an electric shock which makes the heart beat again, and science has shown that people can be thought dead when they really aren't, such as haitian vodoo priests creating zombies. What many people considered dead in the past, we would now consider "critical condition" or dying. Besides we are to believe that Christ is the incarnation of a being that exists outside of our current space-time. Your telling me that such a being wouldn't be able to manipulate matter in such a way as to change it. Of course this is where faith and science split, since we get into the no-evidence available mantra.
True and under my beliefs as long as you lead a righteous life you will attain salvation with less soul-cleansing.
Aha! But how many people actually know what their representatives stand for. Ask any random person and you will find either a. they don't know who represents them or b. what they stand for besides a few basic issues. I'm not sure how it is in the Netherlands, but American voters really don't know enough about the issues to warrent "universal suffrage". Anyway, I think this is a good analogy for religion, you really want people who know things about the subject to install your leaders, but in reality the majority of the people might as well draw names out of a hat.
We do have a secondary source, it's called the Bible (or any Holy Book for that matter) and Church Tradition, if a current spiritual leader goes way out of bounds on either the book or the tradition then the populace can see that they are not "trustable".
Yeah, that's pretty bad. I guess the only religious counter I can give to that are cults of personality that fade away once the leader either dies or abandons his followers. Like suicide cults, and such.
If this was a religious situation the only advise would be to pray for them, since hopefully once they realized the truth they wouldn't have done anything too bad. I mean once your friend realized she wasn't losing any weight, she stopped believing in the quacks right?
I never suggested you did, obviously. But yes I am glad to hear that there is one more intelligent person in the world. I mean, it wasn't even original, they copied some other guys work without any shame.
I assume glce you mean that they aren't because they all ready considered themselves christians? Even if they didn't consider themselves "practicing christians"? ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 11:02
Correct assumption. The point I was answering was the claim that many scientists are being converted to Christianity by the discovery that more and more details of the Bible are historically correct.
People who were born Christian, brought up Christian, or converted to Christianity for other reasons obviously shouldn't be included, any more than those who belong to other religions or are atheist or agnostic. Which must add up to the vast majority of scientists.
Personally I very much doubt that any scientists have been converted to Christianity by discovering that some part of the Bible was historically accurate. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 11:07
|
Some have been converted to Christianity by observing science though, which I find quite interesting.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 11:28
|
If there was a God, we can presume he would be perfect and his thoughts would also be perfect as to think of imperfections would be an imperfection itself. If therefore, God created us in his perfect image we must be perfect but as religion tells us, we must not think of ourselves as being as perfect as god. This is another great hypocrisy of religion. If we are imperfect something perfect could not have created us! ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 15:03
They've also been converted to Buddhism via the same path. And I've no doubt at all that other religions can make the same claim.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'observing science' but if you mean studying the universe as revealed to us through scientific investigation then that has accounted for many religious experiences, not just Christian ones.
But you can't believe all you hear. Einstein slipped up once and mentioned 'God' and then had to spend the rest of his life indignantly denying that he believed in any kind of personal god. But still the rumour doesn't get damped out that he believed in God.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 17:49
Let's put this Einstein issue behind us once and for all. Here is what he said on the issue-
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism." "I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Now! No more of this nonsense! ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 19:29
True. Although the period of history at the time of Pharoh Merneptah (c1224 BC) is a period that an exodus could have occured in.
And, um, what would these obvious errors be exactly? You shouldn't attempt to apply common sense to science, too often I find it leads you to a mistake. I haven't studied nutrition, although others in my family have, and if I remember correctly, refined sugar is much worse for you than unrefined sugar or fat regarding putting on weight. So this "quacks" advice actually looks to have a solid scientific foundation. Unless of course you listen to the pharmacuiticals and alopathic medicine boards and don't consider nutrition to be a science (which is a load of nonsense ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 21:47
|
If you apply common sense to science then you won't believe much of it.
------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 23:43
Depends on the science but essentially yes. Common sense is often wrong. Its uncommon sense you need to understand the world. ------------- |
Posted By: Eondt
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 02:40
I haven't studied nutrition either but I do suffer from diabetes and have read up alot on nutrition. Unrefined sugar is definately worse for you than refined when it comes to putting on weight. It has to do with the Glycemix Index. Unrefined sugar (carbohydrates) takes a bit longer to enter the blood. If you don't immediately burn the carbohydrates that enter your blood, the body transforms it into fat. Therefore if you're an active athlete like a runner, refined sugar is fine for you. If you're not so active, try to eat foods where the carbs enter your blood at a slower rate. Fat, although bad for you regarding cholestrol does nothing to your blood sugar, so perhaps his advice was in context to a blood-sugar problem?
PS. Sorry for side-tracking the thread
 |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 05:13
|
We did get sidetracked a bit yes...
On the nutrition point:
People with overweight are at a risk for diabetes (type 2 I think) because this type is caused by immunity of your body to insuline. It is the same as with all types of immunity: overexposure causes it. Eating lots of sugar causes your body to make lots of insuline. If you do it too much, you will become immune to it and the insuline will not work (or will not be made, I'm no expert either so don't pin me down on the exacts). As unrefined sugar goes from your digestive system into your blood a lot faster, and all at once, it causes insuline spikes. So it is bad for your health in that respect.
And then of course there is the fact that if you do not start some pretty intensive sporting right after, the sugar will be turned into fat for storage. This goes for any form of sugar, carbs or fat: if you don't burn it, it will add on to the love-handles. Overweight is very seriously unhealthy because of the strain on your organs and the damage to bloodvessels and such.
Telling an already overweight person that she can eat all the fat and unrefined sugar she wants is extremely bad advice for her health. But whatever, it is none of my concern anymore. About a year ago she decided to post her true opinion of me on her blog and I then decided I was not interested in any further contact with her. She can explode for all I care.
 -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 05:24
The problem with that dating is that there is a stele which, inter alia, commemorates a victory of Memeptah's over Israel during his Canaan campaign. That would place the exodus, if any, much earlier: Memeptah only reigned ten years.
Personally I prefer the dating that puts the emigrant Hebrews - the first 'children of Israel' - among the followers of the Hyksos who conquered Egypt, ruling roughly 1650-1550 BC, until being finally kicked out by Ahmose.
But I don't want to divert into a discussion more properly placed in another forum.
------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 05:29
 I am SO MAD! I just typed an enormous post, and I just got an error and now it is GONE...
AND THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!
I HATE IT!
I'll be damned If I type the whole lot again! -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 06:58
I.really.hate.it.when.that.happens 
------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 12:21
I know the feeling so many times I've posted a huge reply and then just gave up on it. Here's some advice next time this happens that works for me about 80% of the time. Just hit the refresh button (do nothing else on the window) and if you get the error again wait a minute and hit refresh again. Or you could do what some of our more paranoid posters do and just notepad everything. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 12:27
|
Another hint that works most of the time is to highlight and copy your post before sending it. Previewing a post beforehand also keeps it available instead of re-writing it. Oh, I guess I'll join in on the topic of this thread once I finish reading a book I'm currently on about the history of Bible authors. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 15:33
I copy everything to the clipboard before sending. Just select the text & press Ctrl-C.
------------- |