I believe that an infinite being who loves His creation with an infinite love has all the time in infinity to be with us every moment of every one of out lives, and still has time to cook some eggs. Why? For the same reason a dog licks his balls. Because He can.
Those two lines brought a smile upon my face. Arthur Dent was brought to mind for some reason.
I am a Jewish Christian with a pagan soul, who tries to walk the Tao mindfully. I've also got a bit of Coyote in me, and consider God and my relationship with Sophia (His wisdom and a definitely feminine aspect, even in the Jewish Christian tradition) to be a loving relationship that grows as I learn more about His creation and my place in it. I got that from Islam, Sufism most specifically.
You never want to make it simple, do you.
I am a Deist. I look at the world - the universe - and know that a higher being helped bring it into existence. However, the "meddling" ends there. I don't believe God, or whatever any one religion calls him/her, interferes within the lives of mortals. Our known existence was merely a creative project and, when finished, we were simply left alone to live our lives how good, or bad, we wished to do so.
I believe that an infinite being who loves His creation with an infinite love has all the time in infinity to be with us every moment of every one of out lives, and still has time to cook some eggs.
I have seen too much evidence of his interference, and too much evidence where he has made claims of interference and proved it by mucking with Time and Death to give evidence for that belief.
I believe He answers prayers, when it pleases Him (probably means he will intervene when He finds something we are doing compelling or interesting and the help wouldn't mess up the space time continuum), but my point is that He is intimately involved in His creation and it is all kept going by the passive effects of the Holy Spirit running on automatic -- that which we call energy one century or quantum reality in another, and perhaps through strings in another.
I feel he is more than a Divine watchmaker, although I thoroughly understand and appreciate that view, and feel we MUST hold that view when we practice the art of science. That is when we explore the set rules of His creation.
I do however believe firmly that we all have a relationship with Him right here and now and He is always with all of us all the time forever and always.
Why? For the same reason a dog licks his balls. Because He can.
Betcha never heard stuff like THAT in Church!
EDIT: Oh, and I WAS making it simple! I left a bunch out -- like my whole stint with ritual magick lol.
Soo you're like a light-saber weilding John Lennon who actually likes religion while casting fireballs at people to start discussions?
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Originally posted by Eronakis Obviously you don't understand the bible sir. No, I don't fully understand carbon dating but I know enough. I have stated many times of why EVOLUTION CAN NOT WORK ACCORDING TO GOD's WORD. I use the bible for my arguement and you use science. And you just used a bible verse. Man, people like you ruin arguements. Sorry fishermage, you spoke too soon. Oh, because the bible says the four corners of the earth, that automatically means they believed the earth was flat? No, do you comprehend the cardinal directions? North, South, East and West? Four corners, not in a literall translation. When I see people say evolution, I stop there. Know both sides of the coin before you ramble about stupid nothings. Because it makes you look bad. And we all know most people like you are self loathing. Better get your ego back. Your just lost.
Rather than point out the inconsistancies of your complaint here, allow me to explain instead the basic principles of our dating methods. If you honestly see a problem with them then, you will hopefully be able to actually make a coherent argument about it.
Certain elements are slowly radioactive in a stable environment. Given enough time, a block of Carbon - 14 will turn into Carbon -12, each atom having lost two electrons. Some other elements will actually lose protons over time, which effectively makes them new elements entirely. The clincher is that the rate at which these materials decay is exceptionally steady, allowing us to precisely determine how long a particular sample has been sitting relatively undisturbed.
Different elements are more or less useful depending on the age. For example, Carbon dating is accurate to within just a few decades, but it becomes almost fully decayed within about 70,000 years. That means it is appropriate for use in human history, but not for instance back to the Pliocene Epoch (it ended about 2 million years ago). Potassium-Argon dating isn't nearly as accurate, but its long half life allows for dating all the way back to the beginning of the Earth.
The half life of these materials have been all determined through long study by independant laboratories using known age references. The only possible explaination for them being innaccurate by the degree you seem to suggest is that those studies were deliberately faked in what must have been the biggest and most public worldwide conspiracy ever.
If that fails to make you think again, consider this. Ice cores at the polar ice caps are niether complex, hard to understand, or at all open to misinterpretation. Over the course of a single year, the previous year's snowfall is compacted into ice, forming a single layer. Much like the rings of a tree, these layers can be used as a record of previous times, showing periods of warmth or cold, high or low precipitation, even certain major events such as volcanic eruptions.
Now, here's the issue. A literal translation of the bible suggests a timetable of between 6 and 15 thousand years depending upon who is asked. Ice cores however have been drilled that date back several hundred. I think the longest one ever was somewhere around 800 thousand years.
Any moron with sufficient attention span can walk along these cores and count for himself. The only way for the dating to be off is if there was a year with no snowfall whatsoever, leading to the actual date being even OLDER than estimated.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
I am a Jewish Christian with a pagan soul, who tries to walk the Tao mindfully. I've also got a bit of Coyote in me, and consider God and my relationship with Sophia (His wisdom and a definitely feminine aspect, even in the Jewish Christian tradition) to be a loving relationship that grows as I learn more about His creation and my place in it. I got that from Islam, Sufism most specifically.
You never want to make it simple, do you.
I am a Deist. I look at the world - the universe - and know that a higher being helped bring it into existence. However, the "meddling" ends there. I don't believe God, or whatever any one religion calls him/her, interferes within the lives of mortals. Our known existence was merely a creative project and, when finished, we were simply left alone to live our lives how good, or bad, we wished to do so.
I believe that an infinite being who loves His creation with an infinite love has all the time in infinity to be with us every moment of every one of out lives, and still has time to cook some eggs.
I have seen too much evidence of his interference, and too much evidence where he has made claims of interference and proved it by mucking with Time and Death to give evidence for that belief.
I believe He answers prayers, when it pleases Him (probably means he will intervene when He finds something we are doing compelling or interesting and the help wouldn't mess up the space time continuum), but my point is that He is intimately involved in His creation and it is all kept going by the passive effects of the Holy Spirit running on automatic -- that which we call energy one century or quantum reality in another, and perhaps through strings in another.
I feel he is more than a Divine watchmaker, although I thoroughly understand and appreciate that view, and feel we MUST hold that view when we practice the art of science. That is when we explore the set rules of His creation.
I do however believe firmly that we all have a relationship with Him right here and now and He is always with all of us all the time forever and always.
Why? For the same reason a dog licks his balls. Because He can.
Betcha never heard stuff like THAT in Church!
EDIT: Oh, and I WAS making it simple! I left a bunch out -- like my whole stint with ritual magick lol.
Soo you're like a light-saber weilding John Lennon who actually likes religion while casting fireballs at people to start discussions?
You're getting warmer...although I am more adept at air and earth...
Originally posted by Eronakis Obviously you don't understand the bible sir. No, I don't fully understand carbon dating but I know enough. I have stated many times of why EVOLUTION CAN NOT WORK ACCORDING TO GOD's WORD. I use the bible for my arguement and you use science. And you just used a bible verse. Man, people like you ruin arguements. Sorry fishermage, you spoke too soon. Oh, because the bible says the four corners of the earth, that automatically means they believed the earth was flat? No, do you comprehend the cardinal directions? North, South, East and West? Four corners, not in a literall translation. When I see people say evolution, I stop there. Know both sides of the coin before you ramble about stupid nothings. Because it makes you look bad. And we all know most people like you are self loathing. Better get your ego back. Your just lost.
Rather than point out the inconsistancies of your complaint here, allow me to explain instead the basic principles of our dating methods. If you honestly see a problem with them then, you will hopefully be able to actually make a coherent argument about it.
Certain elements are slowly radioactive in a stable environment. Given enough time, a block of Carbon - 14 will turn into Carbon -12, each atom having lost two electrons. Some other elements will actually lose protons over time, which effectively makes them new elements entirely. The clincher is that the rate at which these materials decay is exceptionally steady, allowing us to precisely determine how long a particular sample has been sitting relatively undisturbed.
Different elements are more or less useful depending on the age. For example, Carbon dating is accurate to within just a few decades, but it becomes almost fully decayed within about 70,000 years. That means it is appropriate for use in human history, but not for instance back to the Pliocene Epoch (it ended about 2 million years ago). Potassium-Argon dating isn't nearly as accurate, but its long half life allows for dating all the way back to the beginning of the Earth.
The half life of these materials have been all determined through long study by independant laboratories using known age references. The only possible explaination for them being innaccurate by the degree you seem to suggest is that those studies were deliberately faked in what must have been the biggest and most public worldwide conspiracy ever.
If that fails to make you think again, consider this. Ice cores at the polar ice caps are niether complex, hard to understand, or at all open to misinterpretation. Over the course of a single year, the previous year's snowfall is compacted into ice, forming a single layer. Much like the rings of a tree, these layers can be used as a record of previous times, showing periods of warmth or cold, high or low precipitation, even certain major events such as volcanic eruptions.
Now, here's the issue. A literal translation of the bible suggests a timetable of between 6 and 15 thousand years depending upon who is asked. Ice cores however have been drilled that date back several hundred. I think the longest one ever was somewhere around 800 thousand years.
Any moron with sufficient attention span can walk along these cores and count for himself. The only way for the dating to be off is if there was a year with no snowfall whatsoever, leading to the actual date being even OLDER than estimated.
yeah, there is NO reason to assume that the Creation story in the Bible was ever meant to be taken literally. One must look at it and ask, what the heck is this thing? What, if God inspired man to write it, were they writing there?
If we look at when it was probably written, let us assume for the moment that it was written for Moses, or at least in its first form.
Who was Moses? A descendent of Sumerians living in Egypt leading descendents of Sumerians living in Egypt. remember Abraham was Sumerian, and Joseph and His father Jacob eventually soujourned in Eqypt, became respected, even powerful, but THEIR descendents got the screwjob later on when a New Pharoh came to power.
Let us assume for a moment that this is a close approximation to what happened.
They were people living in Eqypt with a triple history -- one Sumerian, with all the stories of the Sumerians, one Egyptian, with all the stories of the Egyptians, and one from the family line of Abraham -- a dude who evidently chatted up with God. Now remember at this point Abraham's God was far from codified, nothing was written, this begins, at least by tradition, with Moses and his Five books, including genesis.
Now, what Story did the people have about creation? Probably the Egyptian one, which no doubt many believed, and also the Sumerian one, which no doubt many believed also.
Ever read the Enuma Elish? That's the sumerian one. It has some interesting similarities, especially stylistic ones. It does however have one difference.
In the Enuma Elish, man was made to please the Gods in a war between the Gods and teh Gods were in charge of natural phenomena -- pretty typical of early pagan stories.
genesis flips that and has God declaring about the natural world and man -- no, these extraterrestrial, or perhaps extrademensional, beings did not make the workd teh sun the moon or the stars and man -- no, dudes...I the one God did that.
God has Moses write this in the form of a epic poem, just as the Enuma Elish is written. same form, different story, different meaning, different everything, except all in a form that Moses and his people would understand.
Genesis teaches what it was meant to teach, and no more. It doesn't give the people more science than they need, but it does declare that a living God, who they are starting to interract with (remember these are the people LIVING the exodus story which Moses is presumably recording), so this God is merely explaining who and what He is to them.
It's really not about time and how old the earth is. God knows we will discover how old things are with carbon dating later, much later.
Until that point this story serves its purpose. people know the sun the moon and the starst came from Him -- they are not divine beings themselves. they have the beginning of knowledge that man is God's and placed in a physical world He made for him to learn about and play in.
Then thousands of years later people decide to get dumb and forget where all this came from. Oh the humanity....
I just have to ask.... Where in the Bible does it tell you that you should selectivly take things literally? And if it does how would you know what parts?
Why should the Bible tell you this? We are humans, we can make rational inferences, and discuss and debate them. In Hebrew this was known as halacha (debate over the Law, or the OT), and it is a tradition as old as the old testament itself.
This is what Jesus does when he debates everybody, and what we are all doing here when we debate. It's a good thing.
The Bible is not a book. It is a Library. One looks at each document and decides. Some tell you what they are, some don't (like the song of songs is a love poem). One can not check one's brain at the door. If you want to take the material seriously you must think about who what where why and when with each piece.
...........(shortened to prevent more excessively long quotes) NOTE: The above is a statement of my own PERSONAL beliefs and views from experience and study, and it is not up for debate. I continue to evolve in my spirituality, however, that journey has nothing to DO with anyone ELSE's study, beliefs, or opinions on the matter. It is MY journey ALONE. It grows and changes as I, myself, grow, change, and discover. Someone ELSE'S "revelations" have no altering affect on my own, as they are not mine.
You were the one who said that science and faith are diametrically opposed.
Where did I say that? Actually, I believe I said quite the opposite, that they are NOT "mutually exclusive." I probably stated previously that the basic thinking processes of atheists and Christians are opposed. One believes that everything can be explained by logic and reasoning, and the other believes that everything can be explained by faith that often lacks logic and reason. My assertion there is that both fail by assuming that they alone are "right." As I said before....no one, and no one system of thought or belief holds all the answers. So their "opposition" is in the way they (meaning MOST who ascribe to those two schools of thought) define "fact," and "truth."
I do NOT believe that science and faith THEMSELVES are diametrically opposed.
I, in attempting to say, it ain't necessarily so, tried to be helpful and recommend the stories of believers who do not share what you said. They believe that Science and Faith are fully compatible, sometimes complimentary, sometimes necessary components of a greater world view.
I'm sorry if i wasn't clear -- it didn't really matter what your personal views were about God, in this context, it was what your personal views were about faith, science and how it related to discussion.
I find taht dialogue is possible, natural, and wonderful. It is exceptionally difficult on the internet, because you took what i wrote to be in a completely different tone than in which it was written, and then responded in what certainly sounds like a rather angry tone.
LOL, and you read in an "anger" that wasn't there. I am not angry. I am, however, adamant that my own personal beliefs are not up for debate. I do listen to what others have to say and consider those things. I do NOT "debate," the validity of those things that others choose to share, nor the validity of my own experiences and beliefs.
Sorry I used poor words or whatever that got you all...well whatever led you to answer the way you did.
I pretty much agree with most of what you said, just not the way you said it.
Yeah, everyone has a different way of saying things, and I think often we find that others aren't agreeing nor totally disagreeing, but perhaps just restating their own similar beliefs and views with their own personal "flavor."
One last issue: you don't find that reading the words of others helps you on your journey? We can't share and grow together? You really believe that all spirituality is something we must do behind locked doors?
There I would disagree.
I agree....we disagree. Religion, or what I prefer to call spirituality, is not a topic for light-hearted debate. I didn't say "locked doors," however, I do have the perogative to choose what, when, and IF I share anything about my own journey. Do I think it's for public consumption and judgment? Absolutely not. Do I read, listen, and consider what others share? Certainly, and I weigh what others share with sober reflection. But that doesn't obligate me to bare my own soul in regards to any thought or belief that I have, just because someone else might choose to do so. I believe that my spiritual path is a very sacred, dear, and precious thing. I guard it jealously. I don't share those intimately precious parts of my being with someone out of a sense of obligation because THEY chose to do so, nor do feel obligated to "lay my pearls before swine," as it were, or someone that has not earned my trust. Sorry, but that is "how I roll."
And just WHY do you "recommend" this? Did I elude in ANY way shape or form as to what my own personal beliefs are, or are you just assuming, since I am not obviously siding with faith, nor science, that you know what my beliefs are? This....right here....is why religious discussion or debate is fruitless. One person always makes the assumption that they are more "enlightened" or "educated" (depending on which system of beliefs you ascribe to) than the other person in the discussion. Immediately that sets the discussion or debate up to fail in "enlightening" or "educating" either person, because one (or both) have then taken a position of pride, or even arrogance, which renders them lacking in the humility (capacity) to possibly learn and discover.
Incidentally, I will disclose that I am a born again Christian (09-10-1972). I believe that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ, and that we work out our salvation from there on out through our communion with God through the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that salvation is "fire insurance," I believe it is only an INITIAL entering into a JOURNEY of faith, it is not the end of the matter. Incidentally, I do NOT subscribe to many, many other beliefs that self-proclaimed "Christians" seem to cling to like a life raft on a raging sea of uncertainty. I am not so insecure in my own faith as to assume it is my job to be "Junior Holy Spirit" and interject myself into another's ideas, beliefs, and creeds, because I am not so arrogant as to hold the opinion that I am all-knowing and all-seeing and that I have all (or perhaps ANY) of the answers that another person seeks. MY God, leads each person on their OWN path, and He is big enough that He doesn't need MY help. LOL
I also believe that science is an inarguable factor in all things that we see around us, and that if God wanted to create all that we see by using spit balls and a straw...He could have. I do not think that evolution and Christianity (nor any other world religion) are mutually exclusive. I do not believe that Christians have all the answers. I do not believe that science has all the answers. I do not believe that any ONE institution or order of beliefs has all the answers. I also don't believe that to have faith (nor to be an atheist) it is necessary for every QUESTION to HAVE an answer.
I DO believe that the teachings of Jesus Christ have the power, if followed, to bring light, life, and peace into a world that desperately needs LOVE, not judgment and condemnation. I believe that "Christians" very very often, do not follow the teachings of Christ, but rather use assorted other "scriptures", often out of context, (including writings by disciples that were written to SPECIFIC people to solve specific problems AT THAT TIME) to attempt to control and manipulate, as the Church has ALWAYS done throughout history. Religion is, and always will be, the very definition of evil. Religion is man's attempt to control. Spirituality and religion are two utterly separate things. One is connected to the divine, the other is connected to legalism, human power, control, and manipulation. I do NOT ascribe to those things.
NOTE: The above is a statement of my own PERSONAL beliefs and views from experience and study, and it is not up for debate. I continue to evolve in my spirituality, however, that journey has nothing to DO with anyone ELSE's study, beliefs, or opinions on the matter. It is MY journey ALONE. It grows and changes as I, myself, grow, change, and discover. Someone ELSE'S "revelations" have no altering affect on my own, as they are not mine.
You were the one who said that science and faith are diametrically opposed.
Where did I say that? Actually, I believe I said quite the opposite, that they are NOT "mutually exclusive."
I, in attempting to say, it ain't necessarily so, tried to be helpful and recommend the stories of believers who do not share what you said. They believe that Science and Faith are fully compatible, sometimes complimentary, sometimes necessary components of a greater world view.
I'm sorry if i wasn't clear -- it didn't really matter what your personal views were about God, in this context, it was what your personal views were about faith, science and how it related to discussion.
I find taht dialogue is possible, natural, and wonderful. It is exceptionally difficult on the internet, because you took what i wrote to be in a completely different tone than in which it was written, and then responded in what certainly sounds like a rather angry tone.
LOL, and you read in an "anger" that wasn't there. I am not angry. I am, however, adamant that my own personal beliefs are not up for debate. I do listen to what others have to say and consider those things. I do NOT "debate," the validity of those things, not the validity of my own experiences and beliefs.
Sorry I used poor words or whatever that got you all...well whatever led you to answer the way you did.
I pretty much agree with most of what you said, just not the way you said it.
Yeah, everyone has a different way of saying things, and I think often we find that others aren't agreeing nor totally disagreeing, but perhaps just restating their own similar beliefs and views with their own personal "flavor."
One last issue: you don't find that reading the words of others helps you on your journey? We can't share and grow together? You really believe that all spirituality is something we must do behind locked doors?
There I would disagree.
I agree....we disagree. Religion, or what I prefer to call spirituality, is not a topic for light-hearted debate. I didn't say "locked doors," however, I do have the perogative to choose what, when, and IF I share anything about my own journey. Do I think it's for public consumption and judgment? Absolutely not. Do I read, listen, and consider what others share? Certainly, and I weigh what others share with sober reflection. But that doesn't obligate me to bare my own soul in regards to any thought or belief that I have, just because someone else might choose to do so. I believe that my spiritual path is a very sacred, dear, and precious thing. I guard it jealously. I don't share those intimately precious parts of my being with someone out of a sense of obligation because THEY chose to do so, nor do feel obligated to "lay my pearls before swine," as it were, or someone that has not earned my trust. Sorry, but that is "how I roll."
Well, since you seem to just wanna talk at me instead of to or with me, and are now starting the old word chopping crap, I'll leave you to whatever is going on in your head. Grace and peace to you.
Oh, and I don't really have a "religion" per se either. I don't even believe Christianity is or should be a religion. I feel with Christ's sacrifice came the end of religion, but that's a little semantic thingy that starts another whole set of issues.
I call it spirituality too. Too bad we can't seem to be nicer to one another. Your taking what I am saying in the worst way possible, and I guess I am doing the same. Bummer.
Well, since you seem to just wanna talk at me instead of to or with me, and are now starting the old word chopping crap, I'll leave you to whatever is going on in your head. Grace and peace to you.
Too funny. I was staying on topic. I explained precisely the answer to the ORIGINAL post's question. (Just read the title of the thread.) YOU, on the other hand, seem to want to debate, "educate," and/or "enlighten" others, suggest books to read, etc., etc. I could do the same, but why? To prove that I'm a well read intellectual? To "share" out of the kindness of my heart? Tell me....what exactly is the purpose of this "sharing," from your perspective? I'm interested in knowing. What do you presume to gain or GIVE by "sharing" your resources and beliefs? I don't see how what I said is "word chopping." I guess I offended you by not entering into the debate on science and spirituality?
/shrug
You know....people do have the right to CHOOSE the course of their conversations. And since we obviously have nothing to converse about, I will gracefully bow out and leave you to your thread. My initial posts and the follow ups were just an attempt to answer the question that is in the title to the thread.
Well, since you seem to just wanna talk at me instead of to or with me, and are now starting the old word chopping crap, I'll leave you to whatever is going on in your head. Grace and peace to you.
Too funny. I was staying on topic. I explained precisely the answer to the ORIGINAL post's question. (Just read the title of the thread.) YOU, on the other hand, seem to want to debate, "educate," and/or "enlighten" others, suggest books to read, etc., etc. I could do the same, but why? To prove that I'm a well read intellectual? To "share" out of the kindness of my heart? Tell me....what exactly is the purpose of this "sharing," from your perspective? I'm interested in knowing. What do you presume to gain or GIVE by "sharing" your resources and beliefs? I don't see how what I said is "word chopping." I guess I offended you by not entering into the debate on science and spirituality?
/shrug
You know....people do have the right to CHOOSE the course of their conversations. And since we obviously have nothing to converse about, I will gracefully bow out and leave you to your thread. My initial posts and the follow ups were just an attempt to answer the question that is in the title to the thread.
nah, I just wanna have a nice chat with people, and you don't seem to. Nuff said.
No word chopping is what I call chopping up my words and answering piecemeal. That kinda mkes me then chop your words and craps up the whole thing.
I don't like when people do it, and I walk away from conversations when people do it. Indeed, it seems on many levels we have nothing to talk about.
yeah, there is NO reason to assume that the Creation story in the Bible was ever meant to be taken literally. One must look at it and ask, what the heck is this thing? What, if God inspired man to write it, were they writing there?
I agree personally, but Eronakis there appears to be one of the few that do take it literally, at least in part. I figured I would clear up at least one of the things he seems to have trouble understanding.
What really gets me in these cases are the people who take Bible portions B,C, and E literally, but assume the rest is parable. It is either a literal accounting, or it is not. The dang thing isn't a salad bar.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
I just have to ask.... Where in the Bible does it tell you that you should selectivly take things literally? And if it does how would you know what parts?
Why should the Bible tell you this? We are humans, we can make rational inferences, and discuss and debate them. In Hebrew this was known as halacha (debate over the Law, or the OT), and it is a tradition as old as the old testament itself.
This is what Jesus does when he debates everybody, and what we are all doing here when we debate. It's a good thing.
The Bible is not a book. It is a Library. One looks at each document and decides. Some tell you what they are, some don't (like the song of songs is a love poem). One can not check one's brain at the door. If you want to take the material seriously you must think about who what where why and when with each piece.
It's a puzzle, and I personally find it fun.
And if we go older than that, Socrates and other Greek philosophers did that with many ideas, it was actually considered the better form of finding out the truth of a matter. Even the "loser" in such a debate wasn't really one since they could go and rethink, improve their ideas.
I don't believe either that any book, much less the bible, should be taken literally. Hell the Eden and the apple thing for example. Literally it's just that, but you can always interpret it as "Take responsibility, don't make excuses for your mistakes". Critical thinking helps.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Well, since you seem to just wanna talk at me instead of to or with me, and are now starting the old word chopping crap, I'll leave you to whatever is going on in your head. Grace and peace to you.
Too funny. I was staying on topic. I explained precisely the answer to the ORIGINAL post's question. (Just read the title of the thread.) YOU, on the other hand, seem to want to debate, "educate," and/or "enlighten" others, suggest books to read, etc., etc. I could do the same, but why? To prove that I'm a well read intellectual? To "share" out of the kindness of my heart? Tell me....what exactly is the purpose of this "sharing," from your perspective? I'm interested in knowing. What do you presume to gain or GIVE by "sharing" your resources and beliefs? I don't see how what I said is "word chopping." I guess I offended you by not entering into the debate on science and spirituality?
/shrug
You know....people do have the right to CHOOSE the course of their conversations. And since we obviously have nothing to converse about, I will gracefully bow out and leave you to your thread. My initial posts and the follow ups were just an attempt to answer the question that is in the title to the thread.
Without taking sides here, from what I understand, your posts have a bit too much ego in them. And let's not start with the "ego is a good thing" thingy, people seem to go on and on when I mention it. I am talking about excessive pride and arrogance. Fisher has a way of writing that yes sometimes it can be interpreted in a way, but it's easy to figure out if he does it to "Prove that he is an intellectual" or actually having a good conversation. It all comes down with what set of colored glasses you start to post I guess.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Please surely you all know aliens wrote the bible to give us a guide line on how to live our lives. With out religion we have chaos. Without religion people would have no conscious they would be killing whom ever they want raping whom they want stealing from whom ever they want... oh wait kind of like our society now....
It really does not matter what religion you believe in they are all the same god he is just coming to you in one of his many faces. I truly believe you will die and be reborn and be reborn so many times you will walk in all religions as time marches on.
We are all in just a big experiment by the aliens and when you die they respawn you so you have to learn or teach someone else a lesson.
interesting
The Truth you can't handle the Truth.......
played M59,UO,lineage,EQ,Daoc,Entropia,SWG,Horizons,Lineage2.EQ2,Vangaurd,Irth online, DarkFall,Star Trek and many others that did not make the cut or i just plain forgetting about.
yeah, there is NO reason to assume that the Creation story in the Bible was ever meant to be taken literally. One must look at it and ask, what the heck is this thing? What, if God inspired man to write it, were they writing there?
I agree personally, but Eronakis there appears to be one of the few that do take it literally, at least in part. I figured I would clear up at least one of the things he seems to have trouble understanding.
What really gets me in these cases are the people who take Bible portions B,C, and E literally, but assume the rest is parable. It is either a literal accounting, or it is not. The dang thing isn't a salad bar.
Actually, it's a lot like a salad bar. It is a library, not a book. It is a collection of histories, biographies, wisdome poetry, erotic poetry, prophecies, and metaphorical exposition.
It is far from a literal accounting all the way through, and was never meant as such. One must look at each book, piece and letter as a separate piece and determine what it is before determining what is meant to be literal and what is not meant to be literal.
Eronokis THINKS he takes it literally, but he does so only selectively as well. he takes it literally that God will condemn 90% of humanity to eternal torture in Hell, all due to certain passages, yet ignores the many many passages that say that in the end, ALL shall be reconciled to Christ and become part of God's love.
He resolves the paradox with JUDGMENT, I resolve it with LOVE and TRUST in God.
I think mine is the way that is more consistent with the character of God as revealed in Jesus.
I just have to ask.... Where in the Bible does it tell you that you should selectivly take things literally? And if it does how would you know what parts?
Why should the Bible tell you this? We are humans, we can make rational inferences, and discuss and debate them. In Hebrew this was known as halacha (debate over the Law, or the OT), and it is a tradition as old as the old testament itself.
This is what Jesus does when he debates everybody, and what we are all doing here when we debate. It's a good thing.
The Bible is not a book. It is a Library. One looks at each document and decides. Some tell you what they are, some don't (like the song of songs is a love poem). One can not check one's brain at the door. If you want to take the material seriously you must think about who what where why and when with each piece.
It's a puzzle, and I personally find it fun.
And if we go older than that, Socrates and other Greek philosophers did that with many ideas, it was actually considered the better form of finding out the truth of a matter. Even the "loser" in such a debate wasn't really one since they could go and rethink, improve their ideas.
I don't believe either that any book, much less the bible, should be taken literally. Hell the Eden and the apple thing for example. Literally it's just that, but you can always interpret it as "Take responsibility, don't make excuses for your mistakes". Critical thinking helps.
Yeah, I don't feel anyone ever loses a good debate, or discussion. Each side learns from the other. If anyone ever proves me wrong, I love them for it, because I am therefore closer to truth than I was the moment before. That is an awesome favor they have done me.
Lets get this thread alive and kicking again! To the Abrahamic Relgions/Creationists What is your rationalization against the findings of carbon dating?
I am a creationist and I have no problems with carbon dating, an earth that's billions of years old, a universe that's billions more years old, and still believe in scripture. We do not need to concede that the Fundamentalists (actually it is only some fundamentalists who believe in the young earth stuff) are RIGHT about what the Bible says and means.
here's a cool site where this stuff is discussed a bit:
I have my criticisms of Augustine, but he was a still showing that he was a very smart dude when he said this:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'" (Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, ch.19.)
If God is the truth, he effectively owns all truth. Therefore if we find something is TRUE, God owns it.
If a simplistic, narrow interpretation of scripture seems to conflict with what the evidence surely shows, than it is time to broadens one's interpretation of scripture.
simple answer: DONT TRY. Realize your atheism is just as much of a religion as theirs, you have your view points that are valid to you and they have their view points that are valid to them. The problem with comparing is both you are going to think your right, and naturally no one wants to be wrong so in essence it just wont do any good period.
Lets get this thread alive and kicking again! To the Abrahamic Relgions/Creationists What is your rationalization against the findings of carbon dating?
I am a creationist and I have no problems with carbon dating, an earth that's billions of years old, a universe that's billions more years old, and still believe in scripture. We do not need to concede that the Fundamentalists (actually it is only some fundamentalists who believe in the young earth stuff) are RIGHT about what the Bible says and means.
here's a cool site where this stuff is discussed a bit:
I have my criticisms of Augustine, but he was a still showing that he was a very smart dude when he said this:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'" (Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, ch.19.)
If God is the truth, he effectively owns all truth. Therefore if we find something is TRUE, God owns it.
If a simplistic, narrow interpretation of scripture seems to conflict with what the evidence surely shows, than it is time to broadens one's interpretation of scripture.
What I don't quite understand is the idea that the Bible is anything other than a propaganda tool written by MAN to control other MEN.
I'm assuming that most people in here have read books from a previous time of learning. I myself have a full set of Encyclopedia from 1906. I also have a London Journal from 1867. These are both original works from the times stated. You should see what some of the beliefs that are stated as FACT are. You go back to a slightly earlier time and look at what they thought the original dinosaurs looked like. Completely different to what people think they look like now. Yet at the time it was considered true and real.
Now add that to the bible and the time frame it was supposedly written in. Do people not think that the Old Testament and a lot of the things that are said within it are the explanations OF THE TIME to explain things which have happened which they can't explain?
Oh btw. I do believe in God. I don't necessarily believe in the prophets of God. Why? Because i think that man has taken the teachings and turned them into a method of control.
How can you believe in a book which has been written and re-written countless times. Things kept in that suited the author and other things left out that didn't suit the author AT THE TIME OF WRITING.
If you believe that humanity is inherently evil. Which you do if, as you say, all humanity is living in sin ever since we were cast from the garden of eden then is a newborn baby born evil? If that is the case then why even bother to let the child live?
Christ may have been a prophet of god but Christianity and for that matter ALL organised religions are an aberration to god himself as they are all designed for the subjugation of mankind to a persons way of thinking whoever right or wrong that way may be.
But as pointed out before. This is a silly arguement as believers won't stop believing and non believers won't stop believing either
Thanks T
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Hmm....interesting. What I don't quite understand is the idea that the Bible is anything other than a propaganda tool written by MAN to control other MEN. I'm assuming that most people in here have read books from a previous time of learning. I myself have a full set of Encyclopedia from 1906. I also have a London Journal from 1867. These are both original works from the times stated. You should see what some of the beliefs that are stated as FACT are. You go back to a slightly earlier time and look at what they thought the original dinosaurs looked like. Completely different to what people think they look like now. Yet at the time it was considered true and real. Now add that to the bible and the time frame it was supposedly written in. Do people not think that the Old Testament and a lot of the things that are said within it are the explanations OF THE TIME to explain things which have happened which they can't explain? Oh btw. I do believe in God. I don't necessarily believe in the prophets of God. Why? Because i think that man has taken the teachings and turned them into a method of control. How can you believe in a book which has been written and re-written countless times. Things kept in that suited the author and other things left out that didn't suit the author AT THE TIME OF WRITING. If you believe that humanity is inherently evil. Which you do if, as you say, all humanity is living in sin ever since we were cast from the garden of eden then is a newborn baby born evil? If that is the case then why even bother to let the child live? Christ may have been a prophet of god but Christianity and for that matter ALL organised religions are an aberration to god himself as they are all designed for the subjugation of mankind to a persons way of thinking whoever right or wrong that way may be. But as pointed out before. This is a silly arguement as believers won't stop believing and non believers won't stop believing either Thanks T
You make some fair points, but Christianity is in no way an organized religion. I would say it is the least organized religion in the history of religons.
Comments
Those two lines brought a smile upon my face. Arthur Dent was brought to mind for some reason.
hehehe I have MANY infuences.
fishermage.blogspot.com
You never want to make it simple, do you.
I am a Deist. I look at the world - the universe - and know that a higher being helped bring it into existence. However, the "meddling" ends there. I don't believe God, or whatever any one religion calls him/her, interferes within the lives of mortals. Our known existence was merely a creative project and, when finished, we were simply left alone to live our lives how good, or bad, we wished to do so.
I believe that an infinite being who loves His creation with an infinite love has all the time in infinity to be with us every moment of every one of out lives, and still has time to cook some eggs.
I have seen too much evidence of his interference, and too much evidence where he has made claims of interference and proved it by mucking with Time and Death to give evidence for that belief.
I believe He answers prayers, when it pleases Him (probably means he will intervene when He finds something we are doing compelling or interesting and the help wouldn't mess up the space time continuum), but my point is that He is intimately involved in His creation and it is all kept going by the passive effects of the Holy Spirit running on automatic -- that which we call energy one century or quantum reality in another, and perhaps through strings in another.
I feel he is more than a Divine watchmaker, although I thoroughly understand and appreciate that view, and feel we MUST hold that view when we practice the art of science. That is when we explore the set rules of His creation.
I do however believe firmly that we all have a relationship with Him right here and now and He is always with all of us all the time forever and always.
Why? For the same reason a dog licks his balls. Because He can.
Betcha never heard stuff like THAT in Church!
EDIT: Oh, and I WAS making it simple! I left a bunch out -- like my whole stint with ritual magick lol.
Soo you're like a light-saber weilding John Lennon who actually likes religion while casting fireballs at people to start discussions?
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Rather than point out the inconsistancies of your complaint here, allow me to explain instead the basic principles of our dating methods. If you honestly see a problem with them then, you will hopefully be able to actually make a coherent argument about it.
Certain elements are slowly radioactive in a stable environment. Given enough time, a block of Carbon - 14 will turn into Carbon -12, each atom having lost two electrons. Some other elements will actually lose protons over time, which effectively makes them new elements entirely. The clincher is that the rate at which these materials decay is exceptionally steady, allowing us to precisely determine how long a particular sample has been sitting relatively undisturbed.
Different elements are more or less useful depending on the age. For example, Carbon dating is accurate to within just a few decades, but it becomes almost fully decayed within about 70,000 years. That means it is appropriate for use in human history, but not for instance back to the Pliocene Epoch (it ended about 2 million years ago). Potassium-Argon dating isn't nearly as accurate, but its long half life allows for dating all the way back to the beginning of the Earth.
The half life of these materials have been all determined through long study by independant laboratories using known age references. The only possible explaination for them being innaccurate by the degree you seem to suggest is that those studies were deliberately faked in what must have been the biggest and most public worldwide conspiracy ever.
If that fails to make you think again, consider this. Ice cores at the polar ice caps are niether complex, hard to understand, or at all open to misinterpretation. Over the course of a single year, the previous year's snowfall is compacted into ice, forming a single layer. Much like the rings of a tree, these layers can be used as a record of previous times, showing periods of warmth or cold, high or low precipitation, even certain major events such as volcanic eruptions.
Now, here's the issue. A literal translation of the bible suggests a timetable of between 6 and 15 thousand years depending upon who is asked. Ice cores however have been drilled that date back several hundred. I think the longest one ever was somewhere around 800 thousand years.
Any moron with sufficient attention span can walk along these cores and count for himself. The only way for the dating to be off is if there was a year with no snowfall whatsoever, leading to the actual date being even OLDER than estimated.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
You never want to make it simple, do you.
I am a Deist. I look at the world - the universe - and know that a higher being helped bring it into existence. However, the "meddling" ends there. I don't believe God, or whatever any one religion calls him/her, interferes within the lives of mortals. Our known existence was merely a creative project and, when finished, we were simply left alone to live our lives how good, or bad, we wished to do so.
I believe that an infinite being who loves His creation with an infinite love has all the time in infinity to be with us every moment of every one of out lives, and still has time to cook some eggs.
I have seen too much evidence of his interference, and too much evidence where he has made claims of interference and proved it by mucking with Time and Death to give evidence for that belief.
I believe He answers prayers, when it pleases Him (probably means he will intervene when He finds something we are doing compelling or interesting and the help wouldn't mess up the space time continuum), but my point is that He is intimately involved in His creation and it is all kept going by the passive effects of the Holy Spirit running on automatic -- that which we call energy one century or quantum reality in another, and perhaps through strings in another.
I feel he is more than a Divine watchmaker, although I thoroughly understand and appreciate that view, and feel we MUST hold that view when we practice the art of science. That is when we explore the set rules of His creation.
I do however believe firmly that we all have a relationship with Him right here and now and He is always with all of us all the time forever and always.
Why? For the same reason a dog licks his balls. Because He can.
Betcha never heard stuff like THAT in Church!
EDIT: Oh, and I WAS making it simple! I left a bunch out -- like my whole stint with ritual magick lol.
Soo you're like a light-saber weilding John Lennon who actually likes religion while casting fireballs at people to start discussions?
You're getting warmer...although I am more adept at air and earth...
fishermage.blogspot.com
Rather than point out the inconsistancies of your complaint here, allow me to explain instead the basic principles of our dating methods. If you honestly see a problem with them then, you will hopefully be able to actually make a coherent argument about it.
Certain elements are slowly radioactive in a stable environment. Given enough time, a block of Carbon - 14 will turn into Carbon -12, each atom having lost two electrons. Some other elements will actually lose protons over time, which effectively makes them new elements entirely. The clincher is that the rate at which these materials decay is exceptionally steady, allowing us to precisely determine how long a particular sample has been sitting relatively undisturbed.
Different elements are more or less useful depending on the age. For example, Carbon dating is accurate to within just a few decades, but it becomes almost fully decayed within about 70,000 years. That means it is appropriate for use in human history, but not for instance back to the Pliocene Epoch (it ended about 2 million years ago). Potassium-Argon dating isn't nearly as accurate, but its long half life allows for dating all the way back to the beginning of the Earth.
The half life of these materials have been all determined through long study by independant laboratories using known age references. The only possible explaination for them being innaccurate by the degree you seem to suggest is that those studies were deliberately faked in what must have been the biggest and most public worldwide conspiracy ever.
If that fails to make you think again, consider this. Ice cores at the polar ice caps are niether complex, hard to understand, or at all open to misinterpretation. Over the course of a single year, the previous year's snowfall is compacted into ice, forming a single layer. Much like the rings of a tree, these layers can be used as a record of previous times, showing periods of warmth or cold, high or low precipitation, even certain major events such as volcanic eruptions.
Now, here's the issue. A literal translation of the bible suggests a timetable of between 6 and 15 thousand years depending upon who is asked. Ice cores however have been drilled that date back several hundred. I think the longest one ever was somewhere around 800 thousand years.
Any moron with sufficient attention span can walk along these cores and count for himself. The only way for the dating to be off is if there was a year with no snowfall whatsoever, leading to the actual date being even OLDER than estimated.
yeah, there is NO reason to assume that the Creation story in the Bible was ever meant to be taken literally. One must look at it and ask, what the heck is this thing? What, if God inspired man to write it, were they writing there?
If we look at when it was probably written, let us assume for the moment that it was written for Moses, or at least in its first form.
Who was Moses? A descendent of Sumerians living in Egypt leading descendents of Sumerians living in Egypt. remember Abraham was Sumerian, and Joseph and His father Jacob eventually soujourned in Eqypt, became respected, even powerful, but THEIR descendents got the screwjob later on when a New Pharoh came to power.
Let us assume for a moment that this is a close approximation to what happened.
They were people living in Eqypt with a triple history -- one Sumerian, with all the stories of the Sumerians, one Egyptian, with all the stories of the Egyptians, and one from the family line of Abraham -- a dude who evidently chatted up with God. Now remember at this point Abraham's God was far from codified, nothing was written, this begins, at least by tradition, with Moses and his Five books, including genesis.
Now, what Story did the people have about creation? Probably the Egyptian one, which no doubt many believed, and also the Sumerian one, which no doubt many believed also.
Ever read the Enuma Elish? That's the sumerian one. It has some interesting similarities, especially stylistic ones. It does however have one difference.
In the Enuma Elish, man was made to please the Gods in a war between the Gods and teh Gods were in charge of natural phenomena -- pretty typical of early pagan stories.
genesis flips that and has God declaring about the natural world and man -- no, these extraterrestrial, or perhaps extrademensional, beings did not make the workd teh sun the moon or the stars and man -- no, dudes...I the one God did that.
God has Moses write this in the form of a epic poem, just as the Enuma Elish is written. same form, different story, different meaning, different everything, except all in a form that Moses and his people would understand.
Genesis teaches what it was meant to teach, and no more. It doesn't give the people more science than they need, but it does declare that a living God, who they are starting to interract with (remember these are the people LIVING the exodus story which Moses is presumably recording), so this God is merely explaining who and what He is to them.
It's really not about time and how old the earth is. God knows we will discover how old things are with carbon dating later, much later.
Until that point this story serves its purpose. people know the sun the moon and the starst came from Him -- they are not divine beings themselves. they have the beginning of knowledge that man is God's and placed in a physical world He made for him to learn about and play in.
Then thousands of years later people decide to get dumb and forget where all this came from. Oh the humanity....
fishermage.blogspot.com
I just have to ask....
Where in the Bible does it tell you that you should selectivly take things literally?
And if it does how would you know what parts?
Why should the Bible tell you this? We are humans, we can make rational inferences, and discuss and debate them. In Hebrew this was known as halacha (debate over the Law, or the OT), and it is a tradition as old as the old testament itself.
This is what Jesus does when he debates everybody, and what we are all doing here when we debate. It's a good thing.
The Bible is not a book. It is a Library. One looks at each document and decides. Some tell you what they are, some don't (like the song of songs is a love poem). One can not check one's brain at the door. If you want to take the material seriously you must think about who what where why and when with each piece.
It's a puzzle, and I personally find it fun.
fishermage.blogspot.com
You were the one who said that science and faith are diametrically opposed.
Where did I say that? Actually, I believe I said quite the opposite, that they are NOT "mutually exclusive." I probably stated previously that the basic thinking processes of atheists and Christians are opposed. One believes that everything can be explained by logic and reasoning, and the other believes that everything can be explained by faith that often lacks logic and reason. My assertion there is that both fail by assuming that they alone are "right." As I said before....no one, and no one system of thought or belief holds all the answers. So their "opposition" is in the way they (meaning MOST who ascribe to those two schools of thought) define "fact," and "truth."
I do NOT believe that science and faith THEMSELVES are diametrically opposed.
I, in attempting to say, it ain't necessarily so, tried to be helpful and recommend the stories of believers who do not share what you said. They believe that Science and Faith are fully compatible, sometimes complimentary, sometimes necessary components of a greater world view.
I'm sorry if i wasn't clear -- it didn't really matter what your personal views were about God, in this context, it was what your personal views were about faith, science and how it related to discussion.
I find taht dialogue is possible, natural, and wonderful. It is exceptionally difficult on the internet, because you took what i wrote to be in a completely different tone than in which it was written, and then responded in what certainly sounds like a rather angry tone.
LOL, and you read in an "anger" that wasn't there.
I am not angry. I am, however, adamant that my own personal beliefs are not up for debate. I do listen to what others have to say and consider those things. I do NOT "debate," the validity of those things that others choose to share, nor the validity of my own experiences and beliefs.
Sorry I used poor words or whatever that got you all...well whatever led you to answer the way you did.
I pretty much agree with most of what you said, just not the way you said it.
Yeah, everyone has a different way of saying things, and I think often we find that others aren't agreeing nor totally disagreeing, but perhaps just restating their own similar beliefs and views with their own personal "flavor."
One last issue: you don't find that reading the words of others helps you on your journey? We can't share and grow together? You really believe that all spirituality is something we must do behind locked doors?
There I would disagree.
I agree....we disagree. Religion, or what I prefer to call spirituality, is not a topic for light-hearted debate. I didn't say "locked doors," however, I do have the perogative to choose what, when, and IF I share anything about my own journey. Do I think it's for public consumption and judgment? Absolutely not. Do I read, listen, and consider what others share? Certainly, and I weigh what others share with sober reflection. But that doesn't obligate me to bare my own soul in regards to any thought or belief that I have, just because someone else might choose to do so. I believe that my spiritual path is a very sacred, dear, and precious thing. I guard it jealously. I don't share those intimately precious parts of my being with someone out of a sense of obligation because THEY chose to do so, nor do feel obligated to "lay my pearls before swine," as it were, or someone that has not earned my trust. Sorry, but that is "how I roll."
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
You were the one who said that science and faith are diametrically opposed.
Where did I say that? Actually, I believe I said quite the opposite, that they are NOT "mutually exclusive."
I, in attempting to say, it ain't necessarily so, tried to be helpful and recommend the stories of believers who do not share what you said. They believe that Science and Faith are fully compatible, sometimes complimentary, sometimes necessary components of a greater world view.
I'm sorry if i wasn't clear -- it didn't really matter what your personal views were about God, in this context, it was what your personal views were about faith, science and how it related to discussion.
I find taht dialogue is possible, natural, and wonderful. It is exceptionally difficult on the internet, because you took what i wrote to be in a completely different tone than in which it was written, and then responded in what certainly sounds like a rather angry tone.
LOL, and you read in an "anger" that wasn't there.
I am not angry. I am, however, adamant that my own personal beliefs are not up for debate. I do listen to what others have to say and consider those things. I do NOT "debate," the validity of those things, not the validity of my own experiences and beliefs.
Sorry I used poor words or whatever that got you all...well whatever led you to answer the way you did.
I pretty much agree with most of what you said, just not the way you said it.
Yeah, everyone has a different way of saying things, and I think often we find that others aren't agreeing nor totally disagreeing, but perhaps just restating their own similar beliefs and views with their own personal "flavor."
One last issue: you don't find that reading the words of others helps you on your journey? We can't share and grow together? You really believe that all spirituality is something we must do behind locked doors?
There I would disagree.
I agree....we disagree. Religion, or what I prefer to call spirituality, is not a topic for light-hearted debate. I didn't say "locked doors," however, I do have the perogative to choose what, when, and IF I share anything about my own journey. Do I think it's for public consumption and judgment? Absolutely not. Do I read, listen, and consider what others share? Certainly, and I weigh what others share with sober reflection. But that doesn't obligate me to bare my own soul in regards to any thought or belief that I have, just because someone else might choose to do so. I believe that my spiritual path is a very sacred, dear, and precious thing. I guard it jealously. I don't share those intimately precious parts of my being with someone out of a sense of obligation because THEY chose to do so, nor do feel obligated to "lay my pearls before swine," as it were, or someone that has not earned my trust. Sorry, but that is "how I roll."
Well, since you seem to just wanna talk at me instead of to or with me, and are now starting the old word chopping crap, I'll leave you to whatever is going on in your head. Grace and peace to you.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Oh, and I don't really have a "religion" per se either. I don't even believe Christianity is or should be a religion. I feel with Christ's sacrifice came the end of religion, but that's a little semantic thingy that starts another whole set of issues.
I call it spirituality too. Too bad we can't seem to be nicer to one another. Your taking what I am saying in the worst way possible, and I guess I am doing the same. Bummer.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Well, since you seem to just wanna talk at me instead of to or with me, and are now starting the old word chopping crap, I'll leave you to whatever is going on in your head. Grace and peace to you.
Too funny. I was staying on topic. I explained precisely the answer to the ORIGINAL post's question. (Just read the title of the thread.) YOU, on the other hand, seem to want to debate, "educate," and/or "enlighten" others, suggest books to read, etc., etc. I could do the same, but why? To prove that I'm a well read intellectual? To "share" out of the kindness of my heart? Tell me....what exactly is the purpose of this "sharing," from your perspective? I'm interested in knowing. What do you presume to gain or GIVE by "sharing" your resources and beliefs? I don't see how what I said is "word chopping." I guess I offended you by not entering into the debate on science and spirituality?
/shrug
You know....people do have the right to CHOOSE the course of their conversations.
And since we obviously have nothing to converse about, I will gracefully bow out and leave you to your thread. My initial posts and the follow ups were just an attempt to answer the question that is in the title to the thread.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Well, since you seem to just wanna talk at me instead of to or with me, and are now starting the old word chopping crap, I'll leave you to whatever is going on in your head. Grace and peace to you.
Too funny. I was staying on topic. I explained precisely the answer to the ORIGINAL post's question. (Just read the title of the thread.) YOU, on the other hand, seem to want to debate, "educate," and/or "enlighten" others, suggest books to read, etc., etc. I could do the same, but why? To prove that I'm a well read intellectual? To "share" out of the kindness of my heart? Tell me....what exactly is the purpose of this "sharing," from your perspective? I'm interested in knowing. What do you presume to gain or GIVE by "sharing" your resources and beliefs? I don't see how what I said is "word chopping." I guess I offended you by not entering into the debate on science and spirituality?
/shrug
You know....people do have the right to CHOOSE the course of their conversations.
And since we obviously have nothing to converse about, I will gracefully bow out and leave you to your thread. My initial posts and the follow ups were just an attempt to answer the question that is in the title to the thread.
nah, I just wanna have a nice chat with people, and you don't seem to. Nuff said.
No word chopping is what I call chopping up my words and answering piecemeal. That kinda mkes me then chop your words and craps up the whole thing.
I don't like when people do it, and I walk away from conversations when people do it. Indeed, it seems on many levels we have nothing to talk about.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I agree personally, but Eronakis there appears to be one of the few that do take it literally, at least in part. I figured I would clear up at least one of the things he seems to have trouble understanding.
What really gets me in these cases are the people who take Bible portions B,C, and E literally, but assume the rest is parable. It is either a literal accounting, or it is not. The dang thing isn't a salad bar.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
Why should the Bible tell you this? We are humans, we can make rational inferences, and discuss and debate them. In Hebrew this was known as halacha (debate over the Law, or the OT), and it is a tradition as old as the old testament itself.
This is what Jesus does when he debates everybody, and what we are all doing here when we debate. It's a good thing.
The Bible is not a book. It is a Library. One looks at each document and decides. Some tell you what they are, some don't (like the song of songs is a love poem). One can not check one's brain at the door. If you want to take the material seriously you must think about who what where why and when with each piece.
It's a puzzle, and I personally find it fun.
And if we go older than that, Socrates and other Greek philosophers did that with many ideas, it was actually considered the better form of finding out the truth of a matter. Even the "loser" in such a debate wasn't really one since they could go and rethink, improve their ideas.
I don't believe either that any book, much less the bible, should be taken literally. Hell the Eden and the apple thing for example. Literally it's just that, but you can always interpret it as "Take responsibility, don't make excuses for your mistakes". Critical thinking helps.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Well, since you seem to just wanna talk at me instead of to or with me, and are now starting the old word chopping crap, I'll leave you to whatever is going on in your head. Grace and peace to you.
Too funny. I was staying on topic. I explained precisely the answer to the ORIGINAL post's question. (Just read the title of the thread.) YOU, on the other hand, seem to want to debate, "educate," and/or "enlighten" others, suggest books to read, etc., etc. I could do the same, but why? To prove that I'm a well read intellectual? To "share" out of the kindness of my heart? Tell me....what exactly is the purpose of this "sharing," from your perspective? I'm interested in knowing. What do you presume to gain or GIVE by "sharing" your resources and beliefs? I don't see how what I said is "word chopping." I guess I offended you by not entering into the debate on science and spirituality?
/shrug
You know....people do have the right to CHOOSE the course of their conversations.
And since we obviously have nothing to converse about, I will gracefully bow out and leave you to your thread. My initial posts and the follow ups were just an attempt to answer the question that is in the title to the thread.
Without taking sides here, from what I understand, your posts have a bit too much ego in them. And let's not start with the "ego is a good thing" thingy, people seem to go on and on when I mention it. I am talking about excessive pride and arrogance. Fisher has a way of writing that yes sometimes it can be interpreted in a way, but it's easy to figure out if he does it to "Prove that he is an intellectual" or actually having a good conversation. It all comes down with what set of colored glasses you start to post I guess.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Please surely you all know aliens wrote the bible to give us a guide line on how to live our lives. With out religion we have chaos. Without religion people would have no conscious they would be killing whom ever they want raping whom they want stealing from whom ever they want... oh wait kind of like our society now....
It really does not matter what religion you believe in they are all the same god he is just coming to you in one of his many faces. I truly believe you will die and be reborn and be reborn so many times you will walk in all religions as time marches on.
We are all in just a big experiment by the aliens and when you die they respawn you so you have to learn or teach someone else a lesson.
interesting
The Truth you can't handle the Truth.......
played M59,UO,lineage,EQ,Daoc,Entropia,SWG,Horizons,Lineage2.EQ2,Vangaurd,Irth online, DarkFall,Star Trek
and many others that did not make the cut or i just plain forgetting about.
I agree personally, but Eronakis there appears to be one of the few that do take it literally, at least in part. I figured I would clear up at least one of the things he seems to have trouble understanding.
What really gets me in these cases are the people who take Bible portions B,C, and E literally, but assume the rest is parable. It is either a literal accounting, or it is not. The dang thing isn't a salad bar.
Actually, it's a lot like a salad bar. It is a library, not a book. It is a collection of histories, biographies, wisdome poetry, erotic poetry, prophecies, and metaphorical exposition.
It is far from a literal accounting all the way through, and was never meant as such. One must look at each book, piece and letter as a separate piece and determine what it is before determining what is meant to be literal and what is not meant to be literal.
Eronokis THINKS he takes it literally, but he does so only selectively as well. he takes it literally that God will condemn 90% of humanity to eternal torture in Hell, all due to certain passages, yet ignores the many many passages that say that in the end, ALL shall be reconciled to Christ and become part of God's love.
He resolves the paradox with JUDGMENT, I resolve it with LOVE and TRUST in God.
I think mine is the way that is more consistent with the character of God as revealed in Jesus.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Why should the Bible tell you this? We are humans, we can make rational inferences, and discuss and debate them. In Hebrew this was known as halacha (debate over the Law, or the OT), and it is a tradition as old as the old testament itself.
This is what Jesus does when he debates everybody, and what we are all doing here when we debate. It's a good thing.
The Bible is not a book. It is a Library. One looks at each document and decides. Some tell you what they are, some don't (like the song of songs is a love poem). One can not check one's brain at the door. If you want to take the material seriously you must think about who what where why and when with each piece.
It's a puzzle, and I personally find it fun.
And if we go older than that, Socrates and other Greek philosophers did that with many ideas, it was actually considered the better form of finding out the truth of a matter. Even the "loser" in such a debate wasn't really one since they could go and rethink, improve their ideas.
I don't believe either that any book, much less the bible, should be taken literally. Hell the Eden and the apple thing for example. Literally it's just that, but you can always interpret it as "Take responsibility, don't make excuses for your mistakes". Critical thinking helps.
Yeah, I don't feel anyone ever loses a good debate, or discussion. Each side learns from the other. If anyone ever proves me wrong, I love them for it, because I am therefore closer to truth than I was the moment before. That is an awesome favor they have done me.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Lets get this thread alive and kicking again!
To the Abrahamic Relgions/Creationists
What is your rationalization against the findings of carbon dating?
I am a creationist and I have no problems with carbon dating, an earth that's billions of years old, a universe that's billions more years old, and still believe in scripture. We do not need to concede that the Fundamentalists (actually it is only some fundamentalists who believe in the young earth stuff) are RIGHT about what the Bible says and means.
here's a cool site where this stuff is discussed a bit:
www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml
I have my criticisms of Augustine, but he was a still showing that he was a very smart dude when he said this:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'" (Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, ch.19.)
If God is the truth, he effectively owns all truth. Therefore if we find something is TRUE, God owns it.
If a simplistic, narrow interpretation of scripture seems to conflict with what the evidence surely shows, than it is time to broadens one's interpretation of scripture.
fishermage.blogspot.com
simple answer: DONT TRY. Realize your atheism is just as much of a religion as theirs, you have your view points that are valid to you and they have their view points that are valid to them. The problem with comparing is both you are going to think your right, and naturally no one wants to be wrong so in essence it just wont do any good period.
I am a creationist and I have no problems with carbon dating, an earth that's billions of years old, a universe that's billions more years old, and still believe in scripture. We do not need to concede that the Fundamentalists (actually it is only some fundamentalists who believe in the young earth stuff) are RIGHT about what the Bible says and means.
here's a cool site where this stuff is discussed a bit:
www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml
I have my criticisms of Augustine, but he was a still showing that he was a very smart dude when he said this:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'" (Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, ch.19.)
If God is the truth, he effectively owns all truth. Therefore if we find something is TRUE, God owns it.
If a simplistic, narrow interpretation of scripture seems to conflict with what the evidence surely shows, than it is time to broadens one's interpretation of scripture.
Bingo. This is beautiful.
there is no winning in a debate between a devout christian, and a literal athiest.
Hmm....interesting.
What I don't quite understand is the idea that the Bible is anything other than a propaganda tool written by MAN to control other MEN.
I'm assuming that most people in here have read books from a previous time of learning. I myself have a full set of Encyclopedia from 1906. I also have a London Journal from 1867. These are both original works from the times stated. You should see what some of the beliefs that are stated as FACT are. You go back to a slightly earlier time and look at what they thought the original dinosaurs looked like. Completely different to what people think they look like now. Yet at the time it was considered true and real.
Now add that to the bible and the time frame it was supposedly written in. Do people not think that the Old Testament and a lot of the things that are said within it are the explanations OF THE TIME to explain things which have happened which they can't explain?
Oh btw. I do believe in God. I don't necessarily believe in the prophets of God. Why? Because i think that man has taken the teachings and turned them into a method of control.
How can you believe in a book which has been written and re-written countless times. Things kept in that suited the author and other things left out that didn't suit the author AT THE TIME OF WRITING.
If you believe that humanity is inherently evil. Which you do if, as you say, all humanity is living in sin ever since we were cast from the garden of eden then is a newborn baby born evil? If that is the case then why even bother to let the child live?
Christ may have been a prophet of god but Christianity and for that matter ALL organised religions are an aberration to god himself as they are all designed for the subjugation of mankind to a persons way of thinking whoever right or wrong that way may be.
But as pointed out before. This is a silly arguement as believers won't stop believing and non believers won't stop believing either
Thanks T
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
You make some fair points, but Christianity is in no way an organized religion. I would say it is the least organized religion in the history of religons.
fishermage.blogspot.com