Vieope, it's not so much that you are wrong as you are irrelevant to anything. But we still love you; when you are not around...Vieope said:I knew somebody would try to prove me wrong.
OD
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter sweatshopchamp
- Start date
OD
This is precisely why God told humanity that "I will write my word on your hearts". His complaint was that we had hearts of stone and that he will break that stone (i.e. our hearts) as Moses did the tablets which upon the 10 commands were written and would restore us hearts of flesh again.Crono1000 said:
I am going to get out of camp with some of my friends here but the Word of God (which became flesh in Jesus) is a perpetually living thing. It is NOT simply a static bit of ink, fonts, syllables, words, paragraphs and footnotes recorded and put together in a bound form. Fundamentally it is MUCH more than this and people need to open their hearts to that reality.
"Where two or more of you gather in my name and agree I am there". Agreement implies peace. May Peace be with You.
I also caution everyone to not banter about in idle talk of God as if he is some novelty to be debated or mused over. Humanity has been warned repeatedly that God will not be mocked. So speak lightly and reverently as many of the modern visionaries have stated that there is only one thing holding back his arm from striking the earth in divine retribution at this time - and that is the incessant inter-pleading of the woman that bore Jesus to extend the period of mercy and individual's final opportunity for reconciliation.
They laughed at the time of the Great Flood too...
OD
The Church preaches nothing about other lifeforms or the nature of the universe except that God is the Creator and the single one with the authority to Create or Destroy. Can you be more specific?Rich46yo said:
In fact some of the most influential and renown scientists and philosophers and intellectuals of all time were Christians. To name just a few:
??? Michael Faraday (Sandemanian)
??? John Flamsteed
??? Alexander Fleming (Catholic)
??? Augustin Jean Fresnel
??? Galileo Galilei (Catholic)
??? Luigi Galvani (Catholic)
??? Josiah Gibbs
??? John Herschel
??? William Herschel
??? Edward Jenner
??? James Joule
??? Lord Kelvin (William Thomson)
??? Johannes Kepler (Lutheran)
??? Donald Knuth
??? Antoine Lavoisier (Catholic)
??? Anton van Leeuwenhoek (Dutch Reformed)
??? Gottfried Leibniz (Lutheran)
??? Carl Linnaeus
??? Joseph Lister (Quaker)
??? Guglielmo Marconi (born Catholic, converted to Anglicanism)
??? James Clerk Maxwell (born Presbyterian, converted to Baptist faith)
??? Gregor Mendel (Catholic Abbot)
??? Edward Morley
??? Samuel Morse
??? Isaac Newton (born Anglican, converted to Arianism)
??? Nicholas Oresme (Catholic)
??? Blaise Pascal
??? Louis Pasteur (Catholic)
??? Bernhard Riemann
??? George Stokes
??? Urbain Le Verrier (Catholic)
??? Wright brothers (Brethren)
OD
Yeah, I am the one that people don´t like.OceanDude said:
I think the take home message here is that Stephen created everything, and he did it with little more than a roll of duct tape, some zip-ties, and a zest for life.
milliman said:
You may find it interesting to know that the original scribes penning the original portions of scriptures secretly used an a self referential and embedded encryption number system based on prime numbers. It produced a "digital fingerprint" when one added up the Jewish letters in their number sequence and made it irrefutable that the texts were not edited from the originals since the "check sums" were all in place in the original manuscripts when modern day scholars discovered this system. I think they did find a few manuscripts that were dubious to scholars to have portions of the texts proved altered by "someone" in areas where a scribe or religious leader was clearly inserting his own opinion or teaching on a matter. Very interesting stuff and there is a book out on it now.
For the record I am perplexed by the Mormons and have studied their manuscripts quite a bit. They are some of the finest and most devout people I have ever met on a personal basis. But Joseph Smith is either an absolute liar or an absolute Saint. There is no middle ground. Sadly for my Mormon friends I am currently inclined to think he was the prior because the teachings of the dubious angelic being called Moroni subordinate the role of Jesus and there are terrible inconsistencies in the concept of taking the "whole of the bible" and tacking on a completely new book that is rooted in American Patriotism and Americans as being God's chosen people. I personally think it is a form of national patriotism masquerading as religion. It is very difficult for me to say this since I have the highest respect for the good people of this denomination and they have made and continue to make enormous contributions to mankind and are a force for God. But there is a future conflict down the road that must be resolved at some point by God.
OD
camarosuper6 said:
And some how conservatives will make money out of the deal
Luke9583 said:
The meaning of our life is to serve God and continue on the Creation process through the dynamic of Life and to evolve ourselves into the creatures that God intended us to be and to participate in Creation.
The meaning of God's life is known to him alone but based on what I am seeing I assume a large part of that is to save Humans from becoming ineligible to participate with him eternally in Creation. I genuinely believe he intends to let humans evolve (with his grace) to greater than an angelic state of existence and participate intimately with him in Life and all of Physical Creation as well as great dimensions of all of Spiritual Creation. I sense infinite possibilities, unbounded and unending friendship and unfathomable abilities and higher levels of existence. I think of it in terms of a marriage and a commitment and all the possibilities implied in a union not constrained by human limitations or physical abilities. I think that there was something profoundly sacred and (possibly prophetic with respect to his relationship with all that are in him or a part of him) when he referred to himself as "I am whom am".
OD
Last edited:
In fact all things use to be equal until some revolted and thought they were more equal than others. Satan was a liberal...camarosuper6 said:
OD
You are SO WRONG! We love to not like you. Just kidding bro...Vieope said:Yeah, I am the one that people don´t like.
OD
OceanDude said:
That was a reterhical question OD. I know what the meaning of my life is. Knowing the meaning of somebody else's life doesn't help me and for somebody to adopt somebody else's reasons, can very well make life less enjoyable.
Well enjoy yourself then. If you did not know it that singular self-focused philosophy is fundamentally what the Hedonist subscribe to. There is even a religion and set of rules for that...Luke9583 said:
OD
I think you're missing the point OD. I"m starting my own religionOceanDude said:
and nobody is invited! I'm developing my own rules as I go through life that will help me to accomplish my meaning for life. It would be unfair for anybody else's religion to bound me on my OWN path. I'm sorry you don't understand that.Please note, i'm not saying I make laws for some fantasy world that I"ve created for myself to live in. My laws are my morals. Unfortunately, many people mistake morals for their personal religious 'rules' that you talk about.
Does that not make sense? Please tell me how my logic is.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 861
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich46yo
Yeah? And where did you get this? I can't find it right now, but I will look later. Galaxies were going in different directions than the expected expanding ball theory.
Pray do tell me when you find out.
From MTV? First off all the Hubble "discovered" was the age of the Universe. The one who discovered how its actually expanding was the guy its named after, in the '20s or thereabouts. There is no such conflict with the Big Bang theory because when the "big bang" happened there was no such thing as space, matter, and time. That came later. There is no center of the Universe and there is no edge. And everything, except for a few galaxies locked with ours by gravity, is moving away from us. """Well, there would be a theoretical center if you worked backwards to the original spot or area. The no edge concept is really intriguing. What is it expanding into then, an empty void ? """
Basically thats correct. Where the Universe doesn't yet exist then neither does space,mass, and time. At the time of the big bang the universe didn't exist yet right? So neither did the physical laws to explain it and make it. The edge, is such a thing exists, cant even be called an edge because it doesn't have ANY properties of any kind to even describe it.
Nothing is flat, the Universe exists in 3 spacial dimensions, but a 2 dimensional model to imagine it all is this......imagine you ink a bunch of dots on a balloon and then start blowing it up. No matter what dot you stand on, on the expanding balloon, it appears your on the center and everything else is moving away from you. The Universe is the same way, no matter where you are it appears that your in the center and everything else is moving away. But the paradox is there is no center because the Universe was created before there even was any laws of physics. """""Rich, do you have access to any pictures that show the universe ? If this is true and we are on the edge of the balloon, then everything on one side of us should be totally empty, since we have not expanded into it yet. But you do not find that. You find stars and galaxies all around us in all directions."""""""
Your not listening to me. There is no "edge". I used the balloon as a Two dimensional model to make a point with something that would help you understand it. The Universe exists in 3 spacial dimensions, at least those that we can observe, the balloon two. You can no more say there is an edge to the universe then you can say there is a north to the north pole.
What E. Hubble discovered was that the Universe was expanding at a non-uniform rate. That Objects farther from us are moving away at a faster speed, as we are from them. Don't ask me what all this shit means because I forgot, didn't really understand it in the first place, don't want to look it up again, and probably wouldn't understand it this time either. I know he used the Doppler effect which I do understand.
And to find other earth like planets, in life zone stable orbits around hospitable Stars, would be huge. As was the discovery of other planets in the first place, as was the discovery of the universe. Each one further chips away at the nonsense the Church preaches and when we eventually find evidence of life evolving on other worlds the whole house of religious cards will come crashing down. I wouldn't bet the house on that happening.
I think religion is a good thing. And I'm not knocking it! But they should really open their eyes and step into reality..........Rich
Maybe I mis-stated what I had heard. I should go listen to the astronomy guys again some time. The brain in this old fart has been know to show signs decay and not recall info correctly.
Hey I never said I can understand it all either. Heres the thing, what Hubble discovered was that the Universe is expanding at different speeds, and no matter where your at in it you appear to be in the center and almost all the other galaxies, other then the few grabbed in gravity by your own, are moving away from you. He also found that the farther the object from you the faster its moving away.
How did he find all this out? Well imagine a train going by you blowing its horn? The farther the train gets from you the longer the horn blows, even tho its blowing the horn exactly as long as it did when it went right by you. The reason for this is because as the space between you and the train increased the sound waves stretched making the sound last longer, "I hope I remember all this right". The same thing happens with light waves in all the spectrum's. The farther away the object the more the light stretches and if you can measure that then you know the distance of the object from you. Thats how the telescope discovered the age of the universe, "around 15 to 20 billion right"? And thats why they talk about "red shift" from far off objects. Because the farther the object the redder the light in the visible spectrum appears to the human eye.
So whats going to happen to the Universe? One of two things, and its all comes down to its critical mass. If its mass is high enough it will probably reverse on itself and start expanding inward, eventually collapseing completly, thus destroying itself. If low enough it will expand outward forever and space/time as we know it will have no end. But again you cant think in terms of beginnings, edges, middle of, south,north...whatever. You may be able to only measure the universe in terms of "time". But linear measurments are impossable because space,mass,time, didnt even exist at the time of the universe being created.
The fascinating thing is that one ridiculous hairy ape came down from the trees and in a length of time so short it can hardly be fitted into "universe terms" they figured so much of this shit out already. Even more fascinating when you consider "modern science" is only a few hundred years old. Imagine what we'll know 200 years from now?, if we don't murder ourselves completely by then that is.......................Rich
Originally Posted by Rich46yo
Yeah? And where did you get this? I can't find it right now, but I will look later. Galaxies were going in different directions than the expected expanding ball theory.
Pray do tell me when you find out.
From MTV? First off all the Hubble "discovered" was the age of the Universe. The one who discovered how its actually expanding was the guy its named after, in the '20s or thereabouts. There is no such conflict with the Big Bang theory because when the "big bang" happened there was no such thing as space, matter, and time. That came later. There is no center of the Universe and there is no edge. And everything, except for a few galaxies locked with ours by gravity, is moving away from us. """Well, there would be a theoretical center if you worked backwards to the original spot or area. The no edge concept is really intriguing. What is it expanding into then, an empty void ? """
Basically thats correct. Where the Universe doesn't yet exist then neither does space,mass, and time. At the time of the big bang the universe didn't exist yet right? So neither did the physical laws to explain it and make it. The edge, is such a thing exists, cant even be called an edge because it doesn't have ANY properties of any kind to even describe it.
Nothing is flat, the Universe exists in 3 spacial dimensions, but a 2 dimensional model to imagine it all is this......imagine you ink a bunch of dots on a balloon and then start blowing it up. No matter what dot you stand on, on the expanding balloon, it appears your on the center and everything else is moving away from you. The Universe is the same way, no matter where you are it appears that your in the center and everything else is moving away. But the paradox is there is no center because the Universe was created before there even was any laws of physics. """""Rich, do you have access to any pictures that show the universe ? If this is true and we are on the edge of the balloon, then everything on one side of us should be totally empty, since we have not expanded into it yet. But you do not find that. You find stars and galaxies all around us in all directions."""""""
Your not listening to me. There is no "edge". I used the balloon as a Two dimensional model to make a point with something that would help you understand it. The Universe exists in 3 spacial dimensions, at least those that we can observe, the balloon two. You can no more say there is an edge to the universe then you can say there is a north to the north pole.
What E. Hubble discovered was that the Universe was expanding at a non-uniform rate. That Objects farther from us are moving away at a faster speed, as we are from them. Don't ask me what all this shit means because I forgot, didn't really understand it in the first place, don't want to look it up again, and probably wouldn't understand it this time either. I know he used the Doppler effect which I do understand.
And to find other earth like planets, in life zone stable orbits around hospitable Stars, would be huge. As was the discovery of other planets in the first place, as was the discovery of the universe. Each one further chips away at the nonsense the Church preaches and when we eventually find evidence of life evolving on other worlds the whole house of religious cards will come crashing down. I wouldn't bet the house on that happening.
I think religion is a good thing. And I'm not knocking it! But they should really open their eyes and step into reality..........Rich
Maybe I mis-stated what I had heard. I should go listen to the astronomy guys again some time. The brain in this old fart has been know to show signs decay and not recall info correctly.
Hey I never said I can understand it all either. Heres the thing, what Hubble discovered was that the Universe is expanding at different speeds, and no matter where your at in it you appear to be in the center and almost all the other galaxies, other then the few grabbed in gravity by your own, are moving away from you. He also found that the farther the object from you the faster its moving away.
How did he find all this out? Well imagine a train going by you blowing its horn? The farther the train gets from you the longer the horn blows, even tho its blowing the horn exactly as long as it did when it went right by you. The reason for this is because as the space between you and the train increased the sound waves stretched making the sound last longer, "I hope I remember all this right". The same thing happens with light waves in all the spectrum's. The farther away the object the more the light stretches and if you can measure that then you know the distance of the object from you. Thats how the telescope discovered the age of the universe, "around 15 to 20 billion right"? And thats why they talk about "red shift" from far off objects. Because the farther the object the redder the light in the visible spectrum appears to the human eye.
So whats going to happen to the Universe? One of two things, and its all comes down to its critical mass. If its mass is high enough it will probably reverse on itself and start expanding inward, eventually collapseing completly, thus destroying itself. If low enough it will expand outward forever and space/time as we know it will have no end. But again you cant think in terms of beginnings, edges, middle of, south,north...whatever. You may be able to only measure the universe in terms of "time". But linear measurments are impossable because space,mass,time, didnt even exist at the time of the universe being created.
The fascinating thing is that one ridiculous hairy ape came down from the trees and in a length of time so short it can hardly be fitted into "universe terms" they figured so much of this shit out already. Even more fascinating when you consider "modern science" is only a few hundred years old. Imagine what we'll know 200 years from now?, if we don't murder ourselves completely by then that is.......................Rich
I disagree...............I think the correct one is the 1611 KJV. The only one translated from the original greek and hebrew. All the new ones leave out any reference to the blood and other things that are of major importance.milliman said:
Jim
I understand now the path that you are on and can see that we probably have a different opinion on what constitute commonly accepted morals.
But I do know the difference from morality, religion and self idolatry thank-you. And yes, what you say now I am confident makes perfect sense to you. Perhaps if I ponder the greater mysteries of self indulgence I can come to the same conclusion that you have but I suspect you and I are worlds apart in our natural inclinations and abilities in this regard. A man needs to know his limitations eh? What I have observed to be true though is that everyone sees their actions and motives as sane and rational from the perspective of their own existence. Truly, the majority is not always guaranteed to have the correct view. But frankly I am not certain that God (certainly not the god of self) wants a majority view and I am lead to believe he seeks quality over quantity. But I think it probable that as there are billions of individuals there are at least that many opinions on a given day as to what is correct in this regard (and no doubt many billions more that proceeded us and perished). Clearly they can???t all be right from an individually unique insight since the behaviors of humanity all conflict so greatly (we have peaceful people, hateful people, murders, wishful thinkers, social drop outs etc...). If there is only individual choice as you imply then that means that behavior does not count and there is no notion of good and evil as a real force or even as a conceptual construct. At least that???s what my logic resolves to in the matter. Given that we live in a 3-dimensional world (minimally) it would seem anomalous to not be ale to use the concepts of good and evil as a label for the axes of existence in a way that can bound all possible combinations of behaviors. How else could e we categorize murder and what would we categorize compassion if not good and evil? Perhaps simply ???an experience??? and ???another experience??? or in the most generalized expression of self worship ???my choice???? Depending on where you stood in your religion of personal physical pleasure, murder and self fulfillment/actualization could both be equally acceptable practices. Not that you subscribe to any of this personally but the pattern of your thinking could clearly permit this possibility if I understand what you are saying. Pardon me for saying it seems a little scary for the rest of us.
It would seem to me that I can???t comment on your logic though because I have yet to see an example of it? Have you anything to offer based on logic?
OD
Oh, I did not realize you were on a crusade to set up a new religion. From the little I read it sounded like you already were replicating in large part a portion of Hedonism. Now that you have made your intentions clear on this you might check into that system and not trouble yourself to replicate the hard work of others. You might also make yourself familiar with the works of Jim Jones, Charles Manson, Sun Myung Moon, David Koresh, Aum Shinri Kyo, Order of the Solar Temple, Heaven's Gate and The Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God. Sadly, few followers remain alive from most of these (except the prolific Moonies) since they all murdered each other or committed suicide directly or indirectly.Luke9583 said:I think you're missing the point OD. I"m starting my own religion
Please note, I'm not saying I make laws for some fantasy world that I"ve created for myself to live in. My laws are my morals. Unfortunately, many people mistake morals for their personal religious 'rules' that you talk about.
Does that not make sense? Please tell me how my logic is.
I understand now the path that you are on and can see that we probably have a different opinion on what constitute commonly accepted morals.
But I do know the difference from morality, religion and self idolatry thank-you. And yes, what you say now I am confident makes perfect sense to you. Perhaps if I ponder the greater mysteries of self indulgence I can come to the same conclusion that you have but I suspect you and I are worlds apart in our natural inclinations and abilities in this regard. A man needs to know his limitations eh? What I have observed to be true though is that everyone sees their actions and motives as sane and rational from the perspective of their own existence. Truly, the majority is not always guaranteed to have the correct view. But frankly I am not certain that God (certainly not the god of self) wants a majority view and I am lead to believe he seeks quality over quantity. But I think it probable that as there are billions of individuals there are at least that many opinions on a given day as to what is correct in this regard (and no doubt many billions more that proceeded us and perished). Clearly they can???t all be right from an individually unique insight since the behaviors of humanity all conflict so greatly (we have peaceful people, hateful people, murders, wishful thinkers, social drop outs etc...). If there is only individual choice as you imply then that means that behavior does not count and there is no notion of good and evil as a real force or even as a conceptual construct. At least that???s what my logic resolves to in the matter. Given that we live in a 3-dimensional world (minimally) it would seem anomalous to not be ale to use the concepts of good and evil as a label for the axes of existence in a way that can bound all possible combinations of behaviors. How else could e we categorize murder and what would we categorize compassion if not good and evil? Perhaps simply ???an experience??? and ???another experience??? or in the most generalized expression of self worship ???my choice???? Depending on where you stood in your religion of personal physical pleasure, murder and self fulfillment/actualization could both be equally acceptable practices. Not that you subscribe to any of this personally but the pattern of your thinking could clearly permit this possibility if I understand what you are saying. Pardon me for saying it seems a little scary for the rest of us.It would seem to me that I can???t comment on your logic though because I have yet to see an example of it? Have you anything to offer based on logic?
OD
Last edited:
Yes, the incest and violence and atrocities brought on by the scornful God.dg806 said:
OD,
I've seen this before, where individuals call non conformers 'self idolizers' I think you're just jealous that I dont need to depend on a twenty century old book to know what is moral and what is not.....
You speak of god being selective and valuing some more than others. Why would god not "value" american indians?
I am BY NO MEANS trying to sway anybody here. I am not starting a 'religion', i'm just not adopting one. I worded that part of my post poorly, i apologize. I'm sure there are several people reading that are afraid to post. You are free to 'think'. It's in your nature anyway, but be prepared for OD's kind to call it "doubt", "disbeleif" or "self Idolization".
I've seen this before, where individuals call non conformers 'self idolizers' I think you're just jealous that I dont need to depend on a twenty century old book to know what is moral and what is not.....
I didn't say I was starting a cult. Unfortunately you cannot understand somebody not worshiping your god, and I had to use the word 'religion' when talking about my take on what I ideally would like to do.
I beleive behaviour is a result of the conditioning and understanding of chemical reactions that take place in everybodies body. Although the reactions maybe different, they can all be conditioned to be known and accepted. For example, the color blue, to me, looks different than to a colorblind indiviual, but it's still recognizable as 'blue' .... See any logic in there?
I disagree, I think either of us could be forced to re-think our existance during a single traumatic event. God Forbid (<---- using that as a common phrase, not a prayer )
And you honestly beleive that YOU will be valued over me? I'm in school right now about to change programs to help me realize a great majority of the meaning of my life. I've just been offered two jobs in a feild I enjoy, but turned them do to persue studying tissue and nural engineering in a different city. I have dream of developing artificial orgrans for people who need them. I promise I wont discriminate by religion. I'm not trying to show 'worth'. And for you to make a statement like that shows that you at least have some stake in your religion for the sole purpose of being more 'valuable' Good luck with that buddy, I sincerely hope you can fill that void.
I agree with this 100%. Now show me how having your religion makes you make the right choice. There are more murderers in church on a sunday morning than in the bar on friday nights. Fear brings them there. Don't simplify or rationalize human thought. Everybody operates differently. Some people just don't need your god.
I am equally scared of your type. The secret..... listen closely because this is something you need to work on.... is to open up and accept that people are different.
Here's a peice of my logic. American indians.... Very peaceful people (in general). They were never introduced by jesus or your god. Jesus never visited them. They have their own religions.It would seem to me that I can???t comment on your logic though because I have yet to see an example of it? Have you anything to offer based on logic?
You speak of god being selective and valuing some more than others. Why would god not "value" american indians?
I am BY NO MEANS trying to sway anybody here. I am not starting a 'religion', i'm just not adopting one. I worded that part of my post poorly, i apologize. I'm sure there are several people reading that are afraid to post. You are free to 'think'. It's in your nature anyway, but be prepared for OD's kind to call it "doubt", "disbeleif" or "self Idolization".
Last edited:
Evolution, by definition, is the mutation of genes to create a better more sophisticated animal. A new species with better capabilities. Life supposedly started in the primordial soup, then single cell things, then multi cell things, then invertabrates, then vertabrates etcetera.Monolith said:
You have to get from ameoba to man. Thus, you need to be able to add new genes to the gene pool since they did not start there. And you will never breed enough desireable traits into an amoeba to get to a man.
Breeding horses does not introduce any new genes into the species or world. It only makes more of what was already there. If you only breed black horses and kill all others, eventually, you will only have black horses. You will eliminate all of the other genes. BUT, you still have HORSES.
I am lost on your point.Monolith said:
I think you are saying that we wouldn't know how advanced we had evolved since we are in the middle of evolving, at whatever stage that is.
Why is this relevant ?
My point is how did the genetic blue print get there in the first place.
Whether it is the blue print for things living in sulfer vents or horses or whatever. In order to get that blue print I think you need a creator rather than an accidental conglomeration of the millions of enzymes, proteins and amino acids in just the perfect order to make it live.
I realize its not as simple as "poof".Monolith said:
First, this violates the second (and most fundamental) law of thermodynamics which states things will go from a state of order to disorder, and not vice versa. Example, if you have a bunch of smoke in one corner of the room, it will not stay there, it will spread out into the whole room. Building blocks do not miraculously arrange themselves into a castle or something, they need someone to put the thought process together to do that.
So first you have to assume that enzymes and amino acids somehow come together out of nothing.
Second, you have to believe they somehow know how to work together to start some type of living thing.
Third you have to believe that new genes were consistently added into the gene pool to have better and more sophisticated animals.
Oh yeah, and you have to believe that the second law of thermodynamics has to be wrong. That total order can come from a world of total disorder.
I think that takes a lot of faith !
I think these people are called "entrepreneurs" or "businessmen".Luke9583 said:And some how conservatives will make money out of the deal
They have been around since the beginning of time.
DGdg806 said:
I know NIV is translated from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages too. I think NASB is too, but I would have to check.
KJV is hard for me to read with all of the old english.
I don't think they leave anything out. If you think so, give me an example so I can see.
Yes, Yes Lion, blame God for everything evil and nothing good.maniclion said:
Here is a short story that you might find enlightening.
At a certain college, there was a professor with a reputation for being tough on Christians. At the first class every semester, he asked if anyone was a Christian and proceeded to degrade and mock their statement of faith.
[size=-1]One semester, he asked the question and a young man raised his hand when asked if anyone was a Christian. The professor asked, "Did God make everything, young man?" "Yes he did, sir," the young man replied.[/size]
[size=-1]The professor responded, "If God made everything, then God made evil, and if we can only create from within ourselves, then God is evil."[/size]
[size=-1]The student didn't have a response and the professor was happy to have once again proved the Christian faith to be a myth.[/size]
[size=-1]Then another man raised his hand and asked, "May I ask you something, sir?"[/size]
[size=-1]"Yes you may," responded the professor. The young man stood up and said, "Sir, is there such thing as cold?" "Of course there is, what kind of a question is that? Haven't you ever been cold?"[/size]
[size=-1]The young man replied, "Actually, sir, cold does not exist. What we consider to be cold, is really only the absence of heat. Absolute zero is when there is absolutely no heat, but cold does not really exist. We have only created that term to describe how[/size]
[size=-1]we feel when heat is not there."[/size]
[size=-1]The young man continued, "Sir, is there such thing as dark?" Once again, the professor responded "Of course there is." And once again, the student replied "Actually, sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is really only the absence of light.[/size]
[size=-1]Darkness is only a term man developed to describe what happens when there is no light present."[/size]
[size=-1]Finally, the young man asked, "Sir, is there such thing as evil?"[/size]
[size=-1]The professor responded, "Of course. We have rapes, and murders and violence everywhere in the world, those things are evil."[/size]
[size=-1]The student replied, "Actually, sir, evil does not exist. Evil is simply the absence of God. Evil is a term man developed to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. It isn't like truth, or love, which exist as virtues like heat and light. Evil is simply the state where God is not present, like cold without heat or darkness without light."[/size]
[size=-1]The professor had nothing to say.[/size]
^milliman said:Yes, Yes Lion, blame God for everything evil and nothing good.
Here is a short story that you might find enlightening.
[size=-1]The young man continued, "Sir, is there such thing as dark?" Once again, the professor responded "Of course there is." And once again, the student replied "Actually, sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is really only the absence of light.[/size]
[size=-1]Darkness is only a term man developed to describe what happens when there is no light present."[/size]
If you are born blind then light and dark have no meaning.
[size=-1]The student replied, "Actually, sir, evil does not exist. Evil is simply the absence of God. Evil is a term man developed to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. It isn't like truth, or love, which exist as virtues like heat and light. Evil is simply the state where God is not present, like cold without heat or darkness without light."[/size]
So Buddhists, some of the most unthreatening humans, are pure evil because they don't worship your God?
Lion,
How did you get that out of this little story ?
Somebody is not evil because they do not believe like me, or believe in God.
But if they do not believe in the same God, they may have a totally different idea of what is right and wrong. What is acceptable behavior and what is unacceptable.
Since America was a nation founded on Judeo-Christian ethics, there a lot of people who grew up here who may hold many of the same values as me and still not be a Christian or believe in God (the so called moralist).
I, as a Christian, can be held to a standard that is written in the Bible. It does not change this year and next year as I see fit. To some people, what is right and wrong can change from year to year or just based on the facts presented at that time (moral relativism).
How did you get that out of this little story ?
Somebody is not evil because they do not believe like me, or believe in God.
But if they do not believe in the same God, they may have a totally different idea of what is right and wrong. What is acceptable behavior and what is unacceptable.
Since America was a nation founded on Judeo-Christian ethics, there a lot of people who grew up here who may hold many of the same values as me and still not be a Christian or believe in God (the so called moralist).
I, as a Christian, can be held to a standard that is written in the Bible. It does not change this year and next year as I see fit. To some people, what is right and wrong can change from year to year or just based on the facts presented at that time (moral relativism).
It's say's clearly that evil is the absence of God and from what I learned as a young Baptist God is in the heart, but Buddhist don't believe in a God so he is not in their hearts.
Why can we not all live by the Golden Rule and let it rest at that, no harm no foul.
ChristianityAll things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
[size=-1]Matthew 7:1[/size]
ConfucianismDo not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
[size=-1]Analects 12:2[/size]
BuddhismHurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. [size=-1]
Udana-Varga 5,1
[/size]HinduismThis is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
[size=-1]Mahabharata 5,1517[/size]
IslamNo one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
[size=-1]Sunnah[/size]
JudaismWhat is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
[size=-1]Talmud, Shabbat 3id[/size]
TaoismRegard your neighbor???s gain as your gain, and your neighbor???s loss as your own loss.
[size=-1]Tai Shang Kan Yin P???ien[/size]
ZoroastrianismThat nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
[size=-1]Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5[/size]
Why can we not all live by the Golden Rule and let it rest at that, no harm no foul.
ChristianityAll things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
[size=-1]Matthew 7:1[/size]
ConfucianismDo not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
[size=-1]Analects 12:2[/size]
BuddhismHurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. [size=-1]
Udana-Varga 5,1
[/size]HinduismThis is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
[size=-1]Mahabharata 5,1517[/size]
IslamNo one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
[size=-1]Sunnah[/size]
JudaismWhat is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
[size=-1]Talmud, Shabbat 3id[/size]
TaoismRegard your neighbor???s gain as your gain, and your neighbor???s loss as your own loss.
[size=-1]Tai Shang Kan Yin P???ien[/size]
ZoroastrianismThat nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
[size=-1]Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5[/size]
Yes, the heads of Enron and Halaburton are really just 'businessmen'. What did it say in the Bible that the conservatives hold about greed?milliman said:
Comments embedded in situLuke9583 said:OD,
I've seen this before, where individuals call non conformers 'self idolizers' I think you're just jealous that I dont need to depend on a twenty century old book to know what is moral and what is not.....
Nope, not jealous. Not even upset with you. Just making conversation and testing your resolve. I'd advise though against holding the ancient wisdoms with scorn. A lot of the science you are currently studying is based in ancient ideas and discoveries.
I didn't say I was starting a cult. Unfortunately you cannot understand somebody not worshiping your god, and I had to use the word 'religion' when talking about my take on what I ideally would like to do.
I don't really need to understand why someone does not worshiping God. That is their problem - frankly I could care less. There are plenty of people who do not. Every choice has consequences. As long as your choices do not impose a burden on me then you will be free to live and die without me even likely to take much notice of you.
I believe behavior is a result of the conditioning and understanding of chemical reactions that take place in everybody's body. Although the reactions maybe different, they can all be conditioned to be known and accepted. For example, the color blue, to me, looks different than to a colorblind individual, but it's still recognizable as 'blue' .... See any logic in there?
No I disagree with your premise here but its not big deal to me one way or the other unless you are trying to understand these mechanisms for the purpose of changing the behavior of others to a way you prefer them to be
I disagree, I think either of us could be forced to re-think our existence during a single traumatic event. God Forbid (<---- using that as a common phrase, not a prayer )
OK - let's see.
And you honestly believe that YOU will be valued over me? I'm in school right now about to change programs to help me realize a great majority of the meaning of my life. I've just been offered two jobs in a field I enjoy, but turned them do to persue studying tissue and nural engineering in a different city. I have dream of developing artificial orgrans for people who need them. I promise I wont discriminate by religion. I'm not trying to show 'worth'. And for you to make a statement like that shows that you at least have some stake in your religion for the sole purpose of being more 'valuable' Good luck with that buddy, I sincerely hope you can fill that void.
What made you get so defensive? Did I mention anything about how I thought God valued me or me relative to you? Come now, settle down. For a man supposedly in touch with his own inner self you seem to be prone to some serious insecurities about things. Interesting program you are going into - artificial organs. May I ask, without provoking an emotional response, why do you seem to have a preoccupation with religion as a conflicting element of your life? Why would anyone dream to think you might want to discriminate by religion in your studies or job? I just don't understand why you seem to think anyone needs to know that unless you are harboring some kind of guilt or something. Hint: your comments make you conspicuous in an area normal people would not be inclined to worry about. I think you are overanalysizing what my deepest thoughts are about my religious beliefs. Differentiating and resolving between what we value and what God values are what man of us seek to accomplish all our life. Do you think someday you will be able to create an artificial brain? How about a soul (joking). Thanks by the way for the sincere wishes of luck - But I have little use of luck since I only gamble on rare occasions for entertainment and count on loosing it all then going home.
I agree with this 100%. Now show me how having your religion makes you make the right choice. There are more murderers in church on a sunday morning than in the bar on friday nights. Fear brings them there. Don't simplify or rationalize human thought. Everybody operates differently. Some people just don't need your god.
Hmm, to quote a wise man I'll say "I have seen this before" and its usually with the people who have learned it from something they read in a paperback philosophy book in their sophomore year of college. Choices depend on the state of mind one is in at the time a choice is made and how clearly we perceive and understand the situation, consequences, risks and rewards. My religion causes me to consider an universal perspective of "good" that may be more important than my own immediate self interest. Given the time to think through my options my choice process is to step through and weigh the risks to self and others and to consider the benefits to self and others and ultimately resolve if the choice is optimum with respect to other choices. Sometimes alternatives are few and we have only one cut and dry option. Other times we have little time to respond to a choice and rely on instincts. To answer your question religion helps me to automatically do what I believe is the "right thing" for everyone body. That often times means self sacrifice or deferring personal benefit for the sake of others - friends, family, community or even enemies whom I'd rather not harm unless presented no choice in a survival situation. Comprehend?
I am equally scared of your type. The secret..... listen closely because this is something you need to work on.... is to open up and accept that people are different.
Oh, me thinks you fear me unjustly and needlessly. "My type" implies all kinds of harsh judgments. Where I only indirectly intimated a concern for what appeared to be a dubious philosophy that you seemed to be espousing that could be harmful to you and society (out of concern for you) you want to hold me in contempt for being so concerned. Oh well... I have listened carefully to your italicized words of wisdom and found them... lacking. But this is only because I do accept the fact that people are different. What I don't accept are people that deliberately go out of their way to be wildly different simply because they are insecure and demand attention. Now, settle down, I am not saying you are like this but just telling you what I still "need work on". I see such as phoneys and sniffling children attention starved for someone to come take notice of them. I have always been impatient and less than accommodating to those that refuse to help themselves and want to feel sorry for themselves. Its refreshing to see that you you think you are such a self sufficient and profoundly deep thinker and not in need of any help in self determination of your values and have worked through them all at such an early age. Bravo. Do you think they will ever invent an artificial ego?
Here's a piece of my logic. American indians.... Very peaceful people (in general). They were never introduced by jesus or your god. Jesus never visited them. They have their own religions.
You speak of god being selective and valuing some more than others. Why would god not "value" american indians?
Why do you think God does not value Indians? I personally have a tremendous respect for a people with such deeply held and authentic spiritual beliefs. Much of what they believe (not that I am well versed mind you) seems to be amazingly consistent with universal principals of good and evil and a greater Creator.
I am BY NO MEANS trying to sway anybody here. I am not starting a 'religion', i'm just not adopting one. I worded that part of my post poorly, i apologize. I'm sure there are several people reading that are afraid to post. You are free to 'think'. It's in your nature anyway, but be prepared for OD's kind to call it "doubt", "disbelief" or "self Idolization".
I misunderstood your intentions then since it caught my attention when you said you were staring your own religion. I would just suggest resisting the urge to categorize me as any "kind" of the person that you imply here. go back and read my words and I think you will see that I did not attack you personally only put forth contrasting indirect example of people and behaviors that represent the extreme of what certain philosophies can lead to in the limit of their logical conclusion. Do I make any sense to you? My intent is really to provoke self awareness and deeper thought about these things that I think will prove harmful to you in the event you have not thought them all the way out. As it turns out it appears we have crossed wires here.
Do you think they will ever invent an artificial organ that can read minds?
OD
Whoops, had to edit this.Luke9583 said:Yes, the heads of Enron and Halaburton are really just 'businessmen'. What did it say in the Bible that the conservatives hold about greed?
Nothing wrong with making an honest profit.
Although Enron and Haliburton have had problems. I am not defending them.
Why do you try to tar and feather only conservatives here for making a profit?
Here are some big time liberal Democrats making profits
Bill Gates
Barbara Streisand,
Dixie Chicks . . .
Michael Moore (lying sack of s**t)
Larry Flynt
Hollywood in general
Are all these people saints while making a profit ? I would say no.
Not all conservatives or liberals are good people. And not everyone who makes a profit is bad.
Last edited:
OD,
Another reason... I sat through 10 years of Caticism (sp?) I am a confirmed catholic. I have seen 10 caticism teachers come and go, as well as several fathers in our community. I haven't found a single person worth looking up to, let alone letting them preach to a community and try to represent some "supreme being". I have trouble listening to preaching There are so many thing that's cannot be expressed that way. There are so many things that people need to go out and understand on their own. And the meaning of an individuals life..... god, that's the most important one IMHO.
As I said, I don't like to hear people preach. I perfer to find things on my own. Who knows, maybe one day I"ll find "god". All I can tell you is that it'll be because I found him on my own, not because some 'born again' crack addict child molestor that got booted from one church and ended up in mine preached to me about 'god'
lmao That's what I was hinting at about you.
I have no intentions of creating 'life' as you are suggesting. again with the self idolizing. lmao Get off of it O' dude.
These responses sure do contain an awful lot of 'fluff'... May I ask what kind of education you have?
I could understand the need for religion is you had to resort to your bible to find detailed answers to your daily problems...
I could understand if god himself told you what you need to do....
But no, in the end, it's you ocean dude. You tell you what to do. You Interpret the bible that you read. The whole book is interpreted and translated up the goat ass. It's been through 4 languages, 2 of which are DEAD.
Although i do comprehend what you are saying, your answer really just wasn't sufficient
Please allow me to quote you from 4 paragraphs up...
"I don't really need to understand why someone does not worshiping God. That is their problem - frankly I could care less. There are plenty of people who do not."
Which is it Mr. John Kerry. Are there many like me, or am I wildy different?
Something else both of us might need to work on.
But once again, I view the bapitist born-again christian preacher types as the ones with the ego issues. So it's a matter of perspective.
BUT, there is a difference.-
Please explain how my position makes me look like more of an ego-maniac than you? 
BUT, you made a TERRIFIC POINT!
"Much of what they believe (not that I am well versed mind you) seems to be amazingly consistent with universal principals of good and evil and a greater Creator"
You are admitting that although they don't beleive in the same god as you... they make the same decisions.
Now explain to me again why I am 'wildly different'?
BTW, i am enjoying this Ocean dude. If I offend you please PM me and I'll gladly edit my post to your liking.
Now if you'll excuse me, i've rented some movies and can't decide what to watch first; the summer of sam or the excorsist.
As a matter of fact you did. There was a touch of arrogance that set me off. Nobody's perfect.
That's an excellent question. The simple answer is that I beleive that freedom is the distance between church and state. And with this past election, I've gotten more interested in issues such as health care, stem cell research, partial birth abortions, capital punishment, and the funding of science and technology. I truly beleive that the future of our economy will depend on some of these issues; especially science and technology. You can see why the 'religious rules' of a political party would be something of interest to me.
Another reason... I sat through 10 years of Caticism (sp?) I am a confirmed catholic. I have seen 10 caticism teachers come and go, as well as several fathers in our community. I haven't found a single person worth looking up to, let alone letting them preach to a community and try to represent some "supreme being". I have trouble listening to preaching
There are so many thing that's cannot be expressed that way. There are so many things that people need to go out and understand on their own. And the meaning of an individuals life..... god, that's the most important one IMHO.As I said, I don't like to hear people preach. I perfer to find things on my own. Who knows, maybe one day I"ll find "god". All I can tell you is that it'll be because I found him on my own, not because some 'born again' crack addict child molestor that got booted from one church and ended up in mine preached to me about 'god'
Don't steal my material dude
lmao That's what I was hinting at about you.There you go with the self idolizing again. By me mentioning my plans, I was hoping to show you that I have good intentions about helping people. ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE, every religion; contarary to how your god is selective. By artificial organs, i'm referring to hearts, livers, and nervous system components. MS is a very serious dissease that is going to effect more and more people in the next couple generations. Both my mother and her sister (my aunt) have MS. I would like to have something to do with the development of treating the dissease, not the symptoms.
I have no intentions of creating 'life' as you are suggesting. again with the self idolizing. lmao Get off of it O' dude.
Is this a metaphor or are you talking about money? Because the conversation is about religion, what are you implying that you are counting on loosing 'it all' too?
These responses sure do contain an awful lot of 'fluff'... May I ask what kind of education you have?Not really... what is a "everyone body" ? lol Yes buddy, I DO comprehend that your religion helps you to do what is "RIGHT". Now why is it so difficult to 'comprehend' that religion isn't neccessary to know what is right from wrong? (Please note this response when reading the last response about american indians)
I could understand the need for religion is you had to resort to your bible to find detailed answers to your daily problems...
I could understand if god himself told you what you need to do....
But no, in the end, it's you ocean dude. You tell you what to do. You Interpret the bible that you read. The whole book is interpreted and translated up the goat ass. It's been through 4 languages, 2 of which are DEAD.
Although i do comprehend what you are saying, your answer really just wasn't sufficient
Concern for muah? You compared me to Charles Manson. Was he Captured because somebody was concerned about him. More Fluff dude.
Wow, what is so wildly different about me?
Please allow me to quote you from 4 paragraphs up...
"I don't really need to understand why someone does not worshiping God. That is their problem - frankly I could care less. There are plenty of people who do not."
Which is it Mr. John Kerry. Are there many like me, or am I wildy different?
Once again, people are different. I for example view you as the type that is sniffling and crying out for attention
Something else both of us might need to work on.You're starting to look weak here. When somebody strings together a 36 words sentance full of sloppy grammar just to tack on a corny insult.....
But once again, I view the bapitist born-again christian preacher types as the ones with the ego issues. So it's a matter of perspective.
BUT, there is a difference.-
- You are preaching.
- I am informing that people don't have to listen. I am not telling people what to do. I am simply telling them that they can decide on their own.
Please explain how my position makes me look like more of an ego-maniac than you? Wow, you didn't answer my question at ALL... no suprise there. Ask your father next time you go to church. Why do indians not beleive in your god.
BUT, you made a TERRIFIC POINT!
"Much of what they believe (not that I am well versed mind you) seems to be amazingly consistent with universal principals of good and evil and a greater Creator"
You are admitting that although they don't beleive in the same god as you... they make the same decisions.
Now explain to me again why I am 'wildly different'?
BTW, i am enjoying this Ocean dude. If I offend you please PM me and I'll gladly edit my post to your liking.
Now if you'll excuse me, i've rented some movies and can't decide what to watch first; the summer of sam or the excorsist.
Last edited:
Sorry guy, i'm just a smart ass. When I say 'conservative', what i really mean is people who make money in oil companies.milliman said:
