People are worse than animals.

Petition signed. My jaw broke my keyboard. I hold back vomit as I type this even now.

These "men" do not deserve life in prison. They do not deserve life!

They deserve the pain that they put that Fox Terrier through, doubled thousands of times. Cut their hands off at the wirsts, their feet off at the ankles. Next rip their eyes from their heads and slice their noses off. But leave the ears, and I'll tell you why. So that every cry of every babe, every scream, every sound of women shrieking at their approach "Dear god what is that thing!" will be theirs to cherish in their perfect ears.

I am sick. But IMO, they deserve it.



Besides, the whole conversation of mankind supiriority over natural wildlife (The term animals sounds too much like an insult) is plain silly. The sick thing is, is that if those murderers where chimps doing it to another, people would be laughing instead of standing(or sitting) shocked, mouth forming a perfect O.

This is quite a horrific act. I think a better statement than "There is no God" would be "There is a Satan".

Ah, but how can evil exist without good and vice versa. True there could be a god and no devil, or the other way around. But if there was only evil, then they would be nothing for it to be compared to and would simply be the norm. Without context, all is meaningless.

Btw, I agree completely that that was an unspeakably horrible thing to do. This is why I like animals better. We claim to be better though, words like 'humane' and 'animalistic', there meanings should different. Only man with his 'conscious' has destroyed countless acres of land, killed millions of its own species and other, wiping other species out without care, and started to destroy the very balance that supports life here. Man, with his 'religion' as excuse for greed and racism, 'civilisation' destroying the world and 'morality' which seem to put himself above all else. Truly, man is the worst beast of them all.

Well, certain men are worse than animals. Personally I don't think I'm that terrible.

There are exceptions to the rule.

Please don't misunderstand. I was not saying there is a Satan and no God. I was implying that it's not God's fault that these men committed such a terrible act.

*shrug* His fault for not stopping it.

I'm not sure that's a valid argument, Than.

Part of the point is that each man does as he wishes. If that guy wanted to hack up a puppy then fine...he pays the consequences. His actions are his own, God has no responsibility. If God stopped every bad thing from happening, the world would be "perfect". But there's no such thing as perfect, and there is no happiness without sadness. Basically what elexxorine said. It's all about context. Some would say that God should only then stop the major transgression, the big evil, and let little things go wrong--but if that happened, there would be people who asked, "Why did God save that man and not me?"

Sadness and evil are not pleasant things to have around. But without them, there would be no happiness. This is the tragedy that is the human condition!

-Lum

EDIT: Just wanted to make it clear, I do not in any way support what that guy did, it's sick and wrong. Puppies don't deserve that kind of treatment.

Those who believe in god would then argue that evil exists so that the good may stop it.

Only I would turn a topic about tortured puppies into a philosophical debate. Sorry....

If god stops only major transgression, why didn't he stop the holocaust, the jews are meant to be his chosen people too!

Lum, very well said. That's basically how I was going to respond to "His fault for not stopping it". I would just be restating what you already said so I will hush on that for a bit.
Elex, I believe in God and I don't argue that evil exists so that good may stop it. I believe evil in the world exists because of the beginning when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit... sin enters the world.

Think of it as a philosophical discussion. An informative exchange of opinions and theories. I'm all for that.

That's bad is when people say they're right, everyone else is wrong and won't even listen to arguments. It's hypocritical to say you can have an opinion and no-one else can. Personally, I describe myself simply as 'theist' when asked, as I believe there is a god. But my view is that when people write down what god said, they will always put there spin on it. The very reason the god is a 'he' is because when the books were written it was a male dominate society (hence jesus' main disciples being male, he had others who were woman too, but the main ones were male simply because of society). If god wants me to do something, or not, or anything like that then he/she/it/they/whatever can tell me straight. Until he/she/it/they/whatever does so, I'll live like I always do.

Back to the topic of being mean to animals. Me and one of my best friends find the rats on campus cute, some other people do too, but most don't like them. They don't do any harm though, they eat the food that people carelessly leave lying around. I'm one of those people who when traveling around london, will ignore all the buildings and instead find the one tree visible, or a squirrel, whatever and look at that. Nature is lovely but so often missing. The feel of walking barefoot on grass with the sun above warming you so nicely, ah to be young and care-free. I'm lucky that my campus has lots of trees and grass, etc around. My window has the tips of lots of trees, and the half block out the engineering towers behind them. My only wish would be that my room is on the other side of coridoor so the rising sun would wake me in the morning, it comes into view around noon only cos my room sticks out a little. Sigh....

*plays the smallest violin* I say that in a nice way.

And, incase your wondering, I'm Athiest.

Where you always atheist? What about your parents (and extra parental people)? I'm not trying to convert you, I just like knowing these kinds of things, I'm weird like that.

Everyone can have a different opinion. Logically, only one can be right. In simplest terms, if the question were is there a God or not. Some people say yes. Some say no. Only one of those answers is correct, be it yes or no. It can't be both.
The reason why God is a "He" because he is referred to as the Heavenly Father. A Father is a He. Jesus was God's son. A Heavenly Father (God) and an earthly mother (Mary). He had 12 disciples per the Bible (God's Word). I never heard of female disciples. It's not a sexist issue. I just don't know where you got that information from.
God does tell you straight how to live your life. The guidelines are in the Bible. Most commonly known are the ten commandments but there are so many other important things to learn from the Bible.
I sound like I'm preaching, ha.

Atheism. Why did you decide on being Atheist?

Here's something. Evolution and creationism are not proven theories... they remain theories. It has been said that the theory of evolution came about in the 1800s to justify our existance and leaving God out of the equation. Up until that time period, it had been commonly known and believed that the world was only a few thousand years old. Evolution came around to suggest millions of years. Just giving you things to think about.

In this day and age I fail to see how anyone can be religious at all. I recently heard a quote that was so perfect.

I think it's kind of interesting to note that people learn about God around the same time they learn about Santa clause. Most kids find it hard to give up on the pleasant notion of Santa, yet they manage to do it. Why are you as adults believing in things that you should have given up as children? After all, there is as much evidence in the existence of God as there is in Santa, and you managed to get rid of him.

And it's so true. Children are brainwashed to believe in god from a young age, and their religion's ridiculous ways. There is a large majority of people in America that don't believe in evolution, and that's just pathetic. Everyone is entitled to their own view, but believing in something without evidence is just silly. Do Christians even read their bible? I'd bet atheists know more about their religion than they do. The bible tells its followers to murder people who don't believe in god. How disgusting and violent is that? How can you follow something that wrong? Sure that's the old testament, and many will say that's not supposed to be followed. However who decides that you can pick and choose what aspects you follow? I've compiled some of Youtube's best atheist videos explaining how religion is wrong and immoral, and repulsive.
Link 1
This is my favorite one. It basically describes how christianity is a repulsive religion. If you find a christian that has read the bible they might say "Only the old testament contains violent acts such as stoning." Well, that's wrong. It's both of them. Video length 10:34
Link 2
This one proves how god's plan is impossible. Ever hear a christian say "it was meant to be" or "god wanted it to happen". Well he didn't, and here's why that is a load of nonsense. Video length 4:58
Link 3
Think you can get in to heaven? Well you're mistaking. The steps to get into heaven in the bible are impossible. Every step has an equal contradiction. You're forced to sell everything you own, but than later in the bible you're supposed to give everything away. This makes no sense..*sigh* I'm doomed and going to hell. Video length 8:36
Link 4
You don't need to watch this one, it's quite repetitive. Basically he prays for three different things to happen and measures the amount of time it really happens. (None) He then wishes it will happen with a lucky horse shoe in hand, and counts the number of times it happens. (None) Point is that prayer is as stupid as a lucky horse shoe. Video length 10:23
Link 5
Jesus says in the bible that he will appear to you if you pray. Author of the video prays, but sees no jesus. Why? Jesus is not real. Video length 4:32

If you bother to leave a comment, please don't say "OMG UR AN IDIOT1!! LAWL". Please state why I'm an idiot, and have the facts to back it up. Tell me why I'm incorrect to assume that there is no god. Thanks.

And to answer Elex, no. My parent(s) are not athiest(s) and did not convert me.

Apologies at the start for a long response.

If you bother to leave a comment, please don't say "OMG UR AN IDIOT1!! LAWL".

Are you talking to me? When have I ever made a comment as pointless as that? It sounds like you're already on the extreme defensive here. May I ask how old you are? I am 31.

I'll answer your questions though as best I can without trying to offend you. Offending people doesn't help anyone.

God vs. Santa. That is an interesting comment if you really don't have a lot of knowledge about religion. In fact, you're putting down all religions with that comment, not just Christianity (which is more of a state of being; I will hit that in a second).

Believing in something with no evidence? Really? Where to begin. Just look around you at nature. Thousands of species of animals... thousands of species of plants... all working in harmony and perfect order.

Look bigger than that… planets circling a star in mathematical perfection. The universe itself is expanding at different speeds and changing speeds. Let’s assume one believes in a “big bang” (wherever that came from) and everything in existence expanded from that one explosion. Now think of the logistics of an explosion. Would chunks of an explosion slow down and speed up? Let’s go further than you’d want to know . It’s been said that in an explosion, all the bits will spin the same direction. Obviously, that is not so with our universe… nor even our own solar system. Planets (and their moons) are all spinning at different speeds and different directions.

What about our body systems? All the systems that make you breathe, digest, pump your blood and carry oxygen. All of these work together in harmony and every human and animal has the same working systems inside of them. Did all of this come from an accident?

What about your own brain? Do you think an accidental explosion “billions of years ago” eventually settled everything into place? If your brain is the conclusion of an accident, how do you know it is capable of logical thought?

Can atheism be proven? Do atheists believe in something that cannot be proven? That’s faith. Atheism must be a religion.

Ok, let’s back to your comment.

Children are brainwashed

. Would it be any different if children were told at a young age to not believe in God? Why is it pathetic (as you say) to not believe in evolution? Now you’re insulting people because they don’t believe in what you believe. To me, it’s harder to believe in the whole evolution story but that’s my opinion.

Do Christians even read their Bible

… some do, some don’t. Do Atheists read the Bible? I don't know if you read the Bible but you did go online to find where other Atheists have misinterpreted sayings in the Bible to prove their points. There's a lot of that out there. I've looked just to see what people are saying.
Tell me where in the Bible I can read about how I need to murder people because they don’t believe in God. A lot of problems come from misinterpretation of the Bible.

who decides that you can pick and choose what aspects you follow

… There were many changes in the laws throughout the Bible from the Old to the New testament. There were even changes within the same testament. For example, after the creation of the world in Genesis, God indicates that we are to eat vegetables and for 2,000 years, you couldn’t eat meat until the time of the great flood when God said to Noah that they could then eat clean animals.

I can’t view the youtube videos in my present location; perhaps I’ll watch them when I get home. At least you put a comment about each one so I’ll respond to the comments for now. Your first one talks about stoning. You have to realize that the Bible isn’t just a rule book; it’s a history book too. It’s telling about what happened back then; it’s not always an instruction to us. Just because it said there was a stoning, doesn’t mean we are instructed to do it. Perhaps the video is more specific and I’ll reply to that later.

I’m interested in seeing what the second one is about. Your comment is pretty vague “god’s plan is impossible” so I can’t really respond to it now.

I will really have to see what video 3 is talking about. You reference steps to get into Heaven. There is only one step. Pray to ask Jesus to admit that you’re a sinner and ask Him to come into your life and save you from your sins. Bang, you’re done. And that’s when you become a Christian. A Christian is someone who has asked Jesus into their life to save them.

Video 4. Praying with “no answer”. If I asked you for a million dollars and you said no, should I assume that you didn’t answer me? No… you’re answer was “No”. People commonly think that God is a genii waiting to grant your wishes. He doesn’t work that way.

Video 5. Jesus appearing when you pray. Where does it say that in the Bible? I guess I need to watch the video.

So last point for now. You started this article talking about how there is no God because of the inhumane acts done to a dog. If there is no God, there is no moral base. How could there be if we all came from an accidental explosion? If there is no God, there is no Heaven and Hell. After we die, there is nothing. If there is no moral base, why is any act considered wrong? If we are all here by accident with no purpose, can’t we all do what we want to with no consequence?

I want to reiterate that I don't mind having these discussions. I do it without getting upset and name calling and I expect any others who wish to join in to maintain the same respect.

Having watched the videos to be fair, I now know that I hit the nail on the head. All five videos are produced by the same fellow and in all five videos, he blatantly misinterprets the Bible. He is telling you how to interpret the Bible.. in video #2, he is not even talking about the Bible, he is having issues about what a modern book said about the Bible.

Because I enjoy these types of "puzzles", I took it upon myself to read the Bible verses that the fellow in the video claims we haven't read. After which, it is clear that he himself has not read it all.

I'm not going to pinpoint every single account but the best one is probably in video #3 when he quotes the Bible saying in Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple... In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."

Let's scoot back a few verses that the video guy conveniently forgot to mention (or didn't read it himself). Luke 14:21 "So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind. --verse 14:22-- And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. " and the conversation continues through the rest of that chapter.

Well how 'bout that? It wasn't the Lord God who is quoted in the first verse; it was a lord talking to his servant.

This is just one of the MANY clear examples that people try to use the Bible to get you to not believe the Bible or in God.

Although I found in humor in each video, video #3 had me rolling laughing. Pure comedic genius... with all the writing on the list of things you need to do to get to Heaven. That was funny. It's even more funny thinking the guy is being serious.

So, if we want to learn about the Bible, should we put our faith and beliefs in a guy who misinterprets the Bible in order to prove it wrong or should we learn more about the Bible from preachers who went to seminary to study the Bible at great lengths and then make an educated informed decision at that point?

We could continue this discussion if you like but I don't know how productive that would be. Who knows. From now on, I will try to save my long responses for private questions if you have any.

I had a really long reply typed out but the forum messed it up and I lost it.

I think the only way me can tell is when we die. Perhaps who-ever of us who dies first, if they can come back and give a message to the others should. It's the only way!

awwww, I know how that feels to lose a long post.

Alright, if I die first, I'll send you back an email. lol.

Alighty, If I get an email saying you're dead, I'll be sure to let everyone know they got broadband in heaven.

It only messes up when you have long posts too....

[quote]"Hmm, I wonder what happened to Paul..." *munches on sandwich*

He never understood computers.

Paul? The saint or?

*steals sandwich* *munches sandwich*

Me? Or the sandwich?

I developed the flu and DIED!!

Erm, those video's suck.
There's one video by that guy that actually was quite good but the rest were nonsense.

Just to say, the "superstition" part of that (an irrational belief) actually applies to God.
Afterall - what's rational in a belief in a multi-dimensional, quantum super-being with total power?

Anyway, let's have a look-see.

Some of those can fall into opinions. "Praying to Jesus and he will appear before you" is obviously meant in the non-literal context, as in a father saying to a son "I will always be with you" or "she will always be i your heart"... They aren't ACTUALLY in your heart.

The father xmas and God comparison is interesting, if only from the point of view that yes, they both have the same actual 'proof'.
God has his bibles and followers, as does Santa with his storybook's and movies and followers (don't wanna cross those kids!).

Let's just take a step back, and explain the DIFFERENCE between science and religion:
1) Science is based on unproven hypothesis that are then tested and proven to be mostly correct.
1.b) These can/do get revised continually since we're hardly ever correct 100% of the time - although we do get close sometimes.

2) Religion is the belief/faith that something exists in the absence of proof.
2.b) If they're right then they get into heaven - if they're not then they get the same deal as us.

Science starts out with a theory and then runs tests.
Exactly what 'test' can you do to test for God? What do you KNOW about God in the first place? ... Nadda. All you've got is word of mouth and hearsay. Not one fact that can give you a viable basis for any scientific experiment.

Ok, now Steve:
Putting down all religions with Santa.
Don't know about Buddhism, thought that was about a guy getting inner peace - never read up on the specifics.

Looking at nature/the universe is no rational or logical way to reason things out.
I might as well point to all the bad things and say "no God!". Or point to the sad girls and say "no God!"

Your theory of everything spinning in the same direction is flawed - probably on more levels then I really know.
But if one mass hits another mass, the spin and direction of that final mass is different
So depending on the impact of other objects influenced by larger objects, speed/spin/direction can change.

I think enough proof has been given for Evolution. The slight gradual change of animals has been found in many a fossil.
Also, the mysteries of the human brain, and it's achievement of creativity - music, art, etc - is still unknown.
Going from hunt-kill-eat-mate to us is a huge leap.

Our brains are 'capable' of logical thought - all we need to do is follow the rules (make sure there are no gaps for the outcome, etc).

Question:
Can atheism be proven?
...
Atheism is the non-belief in God.
It is not the belief that God does not exist, but the fact that we need proof before belief.
Therefore it is the fact that there is not proof of God which 'proves' atheism.

As for moral base - we all set the moral base as a collective community.
That is why each countries "moral base" is to a different standard.

... And what *IS* to stop you doing what you want to do?
As you say, being a Christian is simply asking for Jesus to come into your life.
You've no need to control what you do until the end.

Personally, without a god to keep me in check, I mostly respect people, I love people, I help people. And I do all this because I know it's the right thing to do to make both of us live better lives - cos that's all we have.
I don't do it because of an afterlive, or because I'll get good grades as judged by someone else.
.. And really, if you ARE doing it because of some religion - don't you need to take another look and see what live is all about?

Finally, someone agrees with me.

But hell, lets hop from this Atheism train and get back on topic, shall we? The torture and brutal murder of a puppy.

So go back to the topic's topic and not its title?

I think we all agreed it was bad... Everyone signed the petition yet then?

*huff* I hope so. It would defeat the entire point of me posting it if it would just get flamed apart over my bad choice of title.


Thana

I didn't sign it .

And I don't agree really.
True, I don't see the need for a God - but some people do.
I'm fine with that, until they start using it as justification, or as if it were a business (we need more people etc).
Or where they force kids to believe in things - it's like making a kid be vegetarian or dance on one leg every evening at 6pm so that the rains come.

Kids should grow up believing in all the magic of life - not just one way of it, and they should be able to choose their own way of life.
... Nuff said.

... Who wonders why God was often painted with a big fluffy beard like Santa?

Santa's an anagram of satan, lol. Don't get me started on how christmas is actually pagan. It's 3am here at the moment so I won't say now anyways....

Thanatos wrote:*huff* I hope so. It would defeat the entire point of me posting it if it would just get flamed apart over my bad choice of title.


Thana

Grr...

Are you replying to your own comment to make a point? Haha… Let me say that posting my views is hardly flaming. If you consider someone discussing the other side of a debate or discussion as flaming then I guess we should stop altogether.

Elex, I won’t “get you started” but 12/25 WAS a pagan holiday and the powers that be chose that day to celebrate Christmas as the glorification of the birth of Christ so the pagan holiday would one day be forgotten and for the most part, it worked. The whole "Christmas is a pagan holiday" (although that’s inaccurately stated in that manner) is not a widely known tidbit of information.

Paul, the Big Bang as taught is not described as one object hitting another. It’s one kaboom and everything spread out from there. If objects are going all different directions nowadays… how is that?

Looking at nature/the universe is no rational or logical way to reason things out.
I might as well point to all the bad things and say "no God!". Or point to the sad girls and say "no God!"

That’s not really the same in that sense. I’m simply pointing out that all the intricate complex systems in the universe all the way down the atom and smaller units that they couldn’t have come about by an accident no matter how many years you throw at it. Looking at everything bad and saying it’s because there is no God is a generalization and not looking into what God is about. God is not here to deflect bad things. A reiteration of a previous post of mine… Biblically speaking, the existence of evil (bad things) is not an absence of God, but the presence of Satan/sin. See story of Adam and Eve.

Ok, Atheism is the non-belief of God unless there is proof. As I briefly mentioned before, there IS proof but it is in the perspective of how such proof is taken. You mention fossils. There have been lots of fossils found that contradict what everyone believes regarding the evolutionary history. Certain fossils that should be in one time period are in a totally inaccurate time period. I’ll look for examples later if we want to further this discussion. Did you know there are fossils of all sorts of animals, not just dinosaurs? Did you know it doesn’t take a million years to make a fossil? There have been fossilized items found that were manmade. I recently heard of a miner’s hat found that was fossilized. What’s the creationist’s theory? Remember the story of Noah and the ark with the worldwide flood? The story of the flood has appeared in more than just the Bible. There are flood legends in other ancient sources as well. How would a worldwide flood affect the world? Burying animals under millions of pounds of churned up sediment and fossilized from the pressure in a relatively short period of time. So in perspective, we see that as more plausible than something like what evolution tells us. Ever heard of mass graveyards in fossils? What does that mean? A heard of animals all fell over and died in one spot and fossilized over millions of years?

The moral bases may be to a different standard but they are relatively most commonly similar. How about that for a group of adverbs? Ha.. And yes, being a Christian is simply asking Jesus into my life. I don’t know if I agree with “no need to control what you do until the end”. Maybe you mean “no need” being since I’ve got my soul settled, I can do whatever I want. Although a saved person will still go to Heaven after they’ve accepted Jesus, they still have a responsibility (again Biblically speaking) to live their lives as an example for others and to help others, etc.
You say you help others, etc. because you know it will help you all live a better life but how do you know that?

If I am doing what because of religion? Helping others? Life is full of things to explore. So what IS it all about?

Yeeesh. And now we are onto the meaning of life.


I do not believe in the big bang. In my opinion, we simply *are*, and thats good enough for me.
Why, because, to put it simply, if nothing existed BEFORE the big bang, what chemicals existed to cause that explosion? Nada.
Christmas = Free Prezzies. Good enough for me. I don't care if its pagan or not. Ignorance is bliss.

There is a tribe of shamans who live in Finland. They live in igloos where the only entrance is the chimney. A toatstool called Fly Agite grows in that area, raindeer eat them and get high; they make you beleive you can fly and that things are bigger than they are. Theresult is you get raindeer jumping huge leaps trying to fly over tiny objects. The shamans eats these and the rest of the people drank their piss, they all would get high. You would get people who would collect the Fly Agite in sacks and deliver it to the houses on the 25th December, entering through the chimneys. They would also hang the Fly Agite on pine trees to dry them out.

Any of that not sound familiar?

Anyways, happy winter solistice everyone!! (I know I'm a few hours too late, but I was at my dad's this weekend).

You just replaced Presents with Drugs. (unfortunetly in Australia its the other way around)

The talk is ONNNNN BIIYYYYATTTCH!!!
*rocky music plays*



OK, let's go through it top to bottom:
The big bang simply explains why all planets/stars/other stuff is in general flying apart from each other.
Take them at the solar system / galaxy level.

ALL galaxies are flying away from each other (and if I remember correctly they were proven to be accelerating still).
If you take billions and billions (and quad-billiony-billiony-googleplex-bazillion) of particles flying away from one point, and following the laws of physical attraction - the two particles will be attracted to each other - the distance between them will reduce.

This is *NOT* big bang theory - that only goes so far as explaining everything flying apart. Not AFTER the big bang (the fact each and every particle has a gravitational effect as well as dark matter holding galaxies together etc).

AND simple because solar systems/galaxies exist does not mean things are not flying apart! if you're going 200MPH in one direction and throw a ball in the opposite direction - the ball is still going (200MPH - speed ) in the same direction... Although the solar system SEEMS like it's static, IT is rotating around in a galaxy (bobbing up and down etc) which is acceleration from a central point.
Again, gravity has given things slightly different FORCES. There is still one MAJOR force (the force away from a central point).
Look at it this way: you choose to go left or right during the day, or jump, or fly... But you're CONSTANTLY being pulled towards the Earth. That is exactly the same principal (except the other way round) with the big bang.

So, what explains why things are going in different directions?
... Gravity .. Dark Matter .. Supernovae .. Laws of thermodynamics.

couldn’t have come about by an accident no matter how many years you throw at it.

That in itself is a generalisation.
I guess you mean that the solar systems/galaxies/the sun circling the earth (yeah, cheap shot I know) couldn't have come about by accident? Which isn't so much (gravity/thermodynamics/chemistry 101).
If you're actually talking about life, that is less of a physics question and more of a "where the hell DID the first cell for life come from?" question.
Which can't be explained easily... In fact I haven't heard any definitive answer which fits.
Just thinking about it I guess the enzymes which do the very basic stuff (converting one thing into another) could have slowly changed into the first single-celled organism. But who knows?

God is not here to deflect bad things.

You go from describing how God can create a complex and near-perfect system, where things obey rules, to a system of chaos where the worst of things can happen to the best of people.

Now with GOOD and BAD things covered.. Seems like nothing can DIS-prove God... Except maybe the very mundane : "that was so mundane that it shows the non-existence of God".. Don't think that has quite the same kick.

Certain fossils that should be in one time period are in a totally inaccurate time period.

I do remember hearing of some of those. Where there are gaps etc.
I've never heard of totally wrong fossils (ie, modern mad having fossils BEFORE Neanderthal man for example)... Apart from some false fossils produced by the Vatican back in the day.

Did you know it doesn’t take a million years to make a fossil?

Yes. All it is is the fact an organic object get's buried in rock and the rock takes on that shape.
Mostly done by sedimentary stuff, but ash can do the same (that volcano in Italy for example had people die in their beds and on the street I thought).

I recently heard of a miner’s hat found that was fossilized.

I take it you mean WOOLY hat.
Metal in rock I suppose can be called a "fossil" - but I'd prefer to think of it as "metal in rock"... Since the rock doesn't actually "preserve" the metal at all.
It also depends on what you mean by 'fossil'.. Come over to the UK and there's a place called "mother shiptons" where things are 'petrified'... Some stone thing in the water settles on the objects and so slowly turns them to stone. Many objects have been turned since the early-to-mid 90's.

The story of the flood has appeared in more than just the Bible.

So has the fact that the world has undergone numerous fluctuations in water level... The island/city of Atlantis getting flooded. The way Venice is mostly under water. The way loch Ness / The black sea has formed. All because of flooding around the world. Various icecap melting / ice ages have gone on in the last 6-8 (possibly more) thousand years humans have been at least close to civilised... I can't remember how old the Incan/Egyption civilisations were.

How would a worldwide flood affect the world?

It would affect the whole world?
If you mean how COULD a worldwide event happen, then the ice-caps melting should give you some indication.

Ever heard of mass graveyards in fossils? What does that mean? A heard of animals all fell over and died in one spot and fossilized over millions of years?

There are elephant graveyards. There are the fact MOST animals are infact herd-like animals and live in 'packs'. There's also water (which can shift and move animals about to one place if they are all dead).
I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to explain with this point? fossils all in one place meaning that evolution is not a possible explanation? That God has 'moved' all the fossils into the same point (he does THIS but not other easier stuff?).
As I said before, there is a whole human city where people were "fossilized" in their beds, in the street, etc... That was due to a sudden eruption of nothing more then ash - which suffocated the people due to the sulphur and other chemicals (at least if my memory doesn't fail me again).

The moral bases may be to a different standard but they are relatively most commonly similar.

And the British Empire conquered how many countries spreading the word of the lord etc?
There are/were many places where many wifes are fine (following the animal kingdom model) along with cannibalism and incest.. Not to mention perfectly every-day murder, rape and chopping off of limbs..
"Most commonly" is because we, as a nationality, have 'evolved' to be that way. We've undergone numerous religious, army, monetary and legal reform to form *most* of the world.
Not to mention most of it makes sense(tm)... If your mother just died (at the tender age of 30) and someone wanted to kill her you say "oi - YOU - NOOOOO!" and stop them... And so it becomes a general rule of thumb.
The general feeling of empathy we usually share, the fact we are mostly pack animals and so wish to keep the 'pack' happy.

they still have a responsibility ... to live their lives as an example for others and to help others,

Doesn't help if the rest of their lives is only 10 minutes.
A person can live their lives the way they want to, get to the end, accept Jesus and die..
While people could go through life very pleasantly without accepting Jesus and die..
One goes up - one goes down..

You say you help others, etc. because you know it will help you all live a better life but how do you know that?

Because people in trouble will have a miserable life. Helping them to have a better, happier, easier life isn't a matter of 'knowing their whole life will be better' but 'that moment will be better'.

If I am doing what because of religion?

Loving or helping people etc. If how you treat others is because of religion then - although the outcome is the same - the reason behind it is surely selfish. You're doing things because you wish for a good afterlife or fear the outcome of breaking your religion's views. Yes it may become second nature to you to do the 'right thing'(tm) but it's because of something else telling you you will be punished or rewarded.

... Ok then.

...

paul_one wrote:The big bang simply explains why all planets/stars/other stuff is in general flying apart from each other.
Take them at the solar system / galaxy level.

ALL galaxies are flying away from each other (and if I remember correctly they were proven to be accelerating still).
If you take billions and billions (and quad-billiony-billiony-googleplex-bazillion) of particles flying away from one point, and following the laws of physical attraction - the two particles will be attracted to each other - the distance between them will reduce.

What actually has been proven is that entire galaxies have collided with each other and not due to gravity, dark matter, etc... They are not flying apart from each other. There are, undoubtedly, scientists who speculate that galaxies collide due to gravity or whatever but it’s not proven. I also have doubts about the universe expanding. The universe is space or non-matter filled with stars and galaxies, etc. How does non-matter expand? If space is an object (of sorts) and it’s expanding, does that mean it has edges? If so, does that mean if you could travel far enough to reach the “end of the universe*” you would fall off the edge? That reminds me of a few centuries ago when they thought you would fall off the earth if you got to close to the edge.
*I wonder if they keep a restaurant there!

[quote]couldn’t have come about by an accident no matter how many years you throw at it.

That in itself is a generalisation.
I guess you mean that the solar systems/galaxies/the sun circling the earth (yeah, cheap shot I know) couldn't have come about by accident? Which isn't so much (gravity/thermodynamics/chemistry 101).
If you're actually talking about life, that is less of a physics question and more of a "where the hell DID the first cell for life come from?" question.
Which can't be explained easily... In fact I haven't heard any definitive answer which fits.
Just thinking about it I guess the enzymes which do the very basic stuff (converting one thing into another) could have slowly changed into the first single-celled organism. But who knows?[/quote]

Life cannot come from non-life. It has been proven yet scientists still try to prove otherwise. It’s a waste of time but hey, let ‘em go for it if it makes them feel better.

[quote]God is not here to deflect bad things.

You go from describing how God can create a complex and near-perfect system, where things obey rules, to a system of chaos where the worst of things can happen to the best of people.[/quote]

I never said there was a system of chaos but bad things do happen to good people. God isn’t here to control us. He allows us to live with choices. Otherwise, we are just robots doing his every command without question or choice.

Now with GOOD and BAD things covered.. Seems like nothing can DIS-prove God... Except maybe the very mundane : "that was so mundane that it shows the non-existence of God".. Don't think that has quite the same kick.

Now that was hilarious. Thank you.

[quote]Certain fossils that should be in one time period are in a totally inaccurate time period.

I do remember hearing of some of those. Where there are gaps etc.
I've never heard of totally wrong fossils (ie, modern mad having fossils BEFORE Neanderthal man for example)... Apart from some false fossils produced by the Vatican back in the day.[/quote]

There is plenty of information out there on the caveman frauds… Piltdown man, Java man, Lucy, Neanderthal man… they are all fake. Some of them were done by combining human bones with ape bones, etc to “prove” the missing links and let’s not forget about the tooth that gave rise to Nebraska man… Google it. I worded that weirdly before. There are not only gaps but mixups with the time periods. I have heard of certain dinosaurs, for example, coming before they should have come. I have heard of fossilized sea critters found in the mountains. From a worldwide flood perhaps?

[quote]Did you know it doesn’t take a million years to make a fossil?

Yes. All it is is the fact an organic object get's buried in rock and the rock takes on that shape.
Mostly done by sedimentary stuff, but ash can do the same (that volcano in Italy for example had people die in their beds and on the street I thought).[/quote]

That doesn’t really oppose what I’m saying. It basically agrees with me so I’ll move on.

[quote]I recently heard of a miner’s hat found that was fossilized.

I take it you mean WOOLY hat.
Metal in rock I suppose can be called a "fossil" - but I'd prefer to think of it as "metal in rock"... Since the rock doesn't actually "preserve" the metal at all.[/quote]

I can agree with that concept. Since I merely said I had recently heard of it, I knew nothing more about it. So I looked it up and here’s what I found. Picture and all:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp

It also depends on what you mean by 'fossil'.. Come over to the UK and there's a place called "mother shiptons" where things are 'petrified'... Some stone thing in the water settles on the objects and so slowly turns them to stone. Many objects have been turned since the early-to-mid 90's.

Again, that is agreeing with my statement about the length of time of fossilization.

[quote]The story of the flood has appeared in more than just the Bible.

So has the fact that the world has undergone numerous fluctuations in water level... The island/city of Atlantis getting flooded. The way Venice is mostly under water. The way loch Ness / The black sea has formed. All because of flooding around the world. Various icecap melting / ice ages have gone on in the last 6-8 (possibly more) thousand years humans have been at least close to civilised... I can't remember how old the Incan/Egyption civilisations were.

How would a worldwide flood affect the world?

It would affect the whole world?
If you mean how COULD a worldwide event happen, then the ice-caps melting should give you some indication.[/quote]

What I was saying is that there are multiple records in other civilizations that talk about a worldwide flood. The rocks show that the world was underwater at one time. My question about how it would affect the world is meaning, Biblically speaking, the Bible talks about the waters sprang up. Creationists generally agree that the continents were together in the beginning but the difference in our beliefs are that God separated the continents to create the worldwide flood releasing waters to “spring up” as the Bible said… not polar icecaps (which I should mention has been a total farce and now they are worried of global cooling) Some have theorized that the worldwide flood could have affected the way Carbon 14 atoms decay? See the problem is in the carbon dating. Scientists assume that Carbon 14 is a constant and has been a constant for billions of years and the idea of that dating has only been around and monitored since 1950 or so.
Here’s an interesting site talking about carbon dating. It wasn’t what I was searching for as an example but it’ll do for now. Take note of the letter part way down the page where they sent blind samples to be dated and a website reader’s response to the letter. What I was searching for though is a reference to carbon dating lava flows that happened recently but have been misdated as millions of years old. Type lava in the search block and it’s there too. It also appears that this website says similar things that I’ve already said to… one in particular the statement I just said above about carbon dating not being a constant.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

[quote]Ever heard of mass graveyards in fossils? What does that mean? A heard of animals all fell over and died in one spot and fossilized over millions of years?

There are elephant graveyards. There are the fact MOST animals are infact herd-like animals and live in 'packs'. There's also water (which can shift and move animals about to one place if they are all dead).
I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to explain with this point? fossils all in one place meaning that evolution is not a possible explanation? That God has 'moved' all the fossils into the same point (he does THIS but not other easier stuff?).
As I said before, there is a whole human city where people were "fossilized" in their beds, in the street, etc... That was due to a sudden eruption of nothing more then ash - which suffocated the people due to the sulphur and other chemicals (at least if my memory doesn't fail me again).[/quote]

No, my point was that it is more likely that the entire herd of whatever animal died at the same time. Herds move from place to place. They don’t let one die off due to old age and hang about until all of them die. The water that “shifted” them to one place is what I was referring to in the flood. Not so much that the flood shifted them in one place, but the enormous amounts of sediment that got stirred up buried the herd quickly in one location and that is where they fossilized. I don’t believe God moves fossils.

[quote]If I am doing what because of religion?

Loving or helping people etc. If how you treat others is because of religion then - although the outcome is the same - the reason behind it is surely selfish. You're doing things because you wish for a good afterlife or fear the outcome of breaking your religion's views. Yes it may become second nature to you to do the 'right thing'(tm) but it's because of something else telling you you will be punished or rewarded.[/quote]

Having someone or something tell us what is right and wrong isn’t just a religious thing. Think of parents dealing with their youngsters. It is their responsibility to teach the child right from wrong. Should we take candy from the other little boy over there without asking? You teach the child that is wrong. I would suggest that religion (in general) is to better everyone’s lives. You help others but you also help yourself. I’m not getting the selfish reason you suggest. Whether I help people or not is not going to change my afterlife nor do I fear of breaking my religion’s views. My “religion” preaches what is in the Bible. There are sects of my religion who put there own spin on things and I don’t agree with it, therefore, I am technically breaking my religion’s views. That gets too technical. Blah.

I'm sorry. Please shorten the length of your response.

But seriously... a "smilie" does not relate what it is you are feeling exactly.

Arg, not able to read this thread for a while, and look what happens! I blame you Tron!!

Anyways, regrading fossils, they usually date them from the sediment lines but 'this' much could be 1 million or 100 million years depending on the sapmle, and some go underside down. Now, to throw the biggest spanner in the works: they find whales, trees, etc upright through the layers. I also read a brochure for a cave in france (can't rmember the name, sorry), where they found lots of fossils, and they put toys, etc in the caves to be fossilsed and sold in the gift shop! Does it really take that long for things to fossilise? (Steve's hat adds to the case, flood and time-wise)

(Breif point on the flooding from the ground: they found the holes from the underground water stores. Also yes, with carbon dating it is only accurate back about 1600 years, I did study radition! Look 'half life' if you don't know about them already (no, not the game). Dating dinosaurs millions of years ago with carbon14 is immpossible from that and that hte carbon14 percent most certainly wasn't what it is today (what makes the carbon14 in the first place?) especially if the world really did look like we think it did in the dinosaur eraes.)

Btw, I'm not concluding on anything here, make your own opinions on such things, I'm mereing saying what I know.

In regrads to flood, under the current understanding of how fossilsiation works, a nice big worldwide flood that suddenly stopped would do the trick nicely, and is a good canidate for what happened, certainly exlpainslots of sedimentary layers, and the trees and whales being like that.

The fossiling of people you mentioned was hte destructio of Pompey by mount vesurvius, the ash rained down and covered everything, the people weren't so much as fossilised as left holes in the solid ashness. When digging if they find any holes, they pour plaster in them to get the shape back to reveal the horror-filled faces of people as they died all those years ago. It's horriable to look at, trust me.

In regrads to galaxies (and I've studied astonomy!!), yes they are all flying apart from each other and yes some collide still. Over large areas, everything is moving away from one point (centre of universe, and location of big bang (if it happened, but the galaxies all moving from one point helps support that theory)), over smaller areas galaxies that are close will attrach each other from gravity (everything in the universe is, in fact, attraching everything else but just so weakly), these are generally called superclusters. In several million million years, if people or another sapient species were to study astronomy they would suggest there are only a maximum of 8 galaxies in the universe, as all others have moved too far to see, except the closest who have come closer from the gravity effect.

When scietists say 'the universe is expanding', what do they mean? As steve breifly talked about. The universe is defined as everything, so what is it expanding into? The answer: nothing. It's a hard concept to understand. Everything, really, is just moving apart (as far as I understand the meaning).

No-one's sure how life started, but (this is the important bit here) it did start, at least once. You can talk about the propabilities of something happening, but what are the odd once you know it's happened before? It's unlikely you'll win the lotteryy, but some-one has to win! I read an article suggesting that life started out as simply DNA-like structures that simply self replicated, the ones better at self replicating survived more (like survival of the fittest), getting more complex over time. Fair enough, but it didn't explain where these came from or why there was a need from them to self replicate.

Steve said 'life cannot come from nonlife', fair enough, but to expand this to 'existance cannot come from nonexistance', if the big bang did happened, what the fuck caused it? It did a report on some findings of a team of people somewhere in america (sorry for constant lack to names, etc btw), using a mathematical simulation, ran the data of galxies moving apart backwards to see what would happen. There was a big bang-y thing, then surprisingly, another universe (with similar physical properties to our own) which (forwards) was shrinking and experienced a 'big crunch' (like a reverse big bang, one suggested fate of our universe), but when it became a sigularity again gravity flipped (it had some nice maths for why) and expanded out again in our big bang, this is now called a 'big bounce'. It's been theorised that this may have happened many times before.

To tangents here: fate of universe, and what started the first universe.

There are three possible fate of our universe, depending on its density. If the density is higher than the critical density it was collaspe in on itself again in a big crunch, prehaps leading to another universe. If the density is smaller, it will keep expanding forever and the stars will eventually burn out and the universe will become a void. Current working out of the current and critical density have them about the same atm.

If we simplify universes to donimo for sake of explaining things, each universe supposedly starts the next, so is like one donimo pushing the next. But it remains that something outside the system must start the first domino, the finger coming down and knocking the first one over. Many call this god, fair eonugh, but this force need only be a force, god may exist but what's to say god exists are an anthropomorphicalisation?! Perhaps god doesn't exist in a form that you can pray/talk to, or effects things like we want. Who said he was a guy sitting on a cloud throwing down lightning blots in the first place? (Btw, when I was theist, I mean in the sense I jsut said: I beleive in the force, not the cloud god. I also beleive in the inter-connectiveness of all things, but I'll get to that later)

Well, when people first evolved an started their little tribes and what-not, they had little understand of the world around them, sure they knew not to drink yellow snow and such but why and how things happened was a mystery. Natural disasters were a big one, why did the mountain explod and pour fire on their village, why did flood and fire ravage other tribes. Perhaps, a man livied in the mountain and when he gets angery, he makes the fire, maybe we need to give him things to keep him happy so the monuntain will not explode, a few virgins good enough mr. versuvius? This is the likely origin of such thinking and the pre-text to religion. Seems to me at the moment that reiligion comes from two things: the need for something after death, the need for some-one to help through life. People fear death, its instinctive and over time the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. People die and its sad that they're not around anymore, but where did they go? The idea of simply not existing is too hard for most people, they need to know that they will go onin one orm or another, whether reincarnatingon the earth again, or living in some other world. also life is hard, bad stuff happens, some people can't cope with it and need some-one to hold their hand, this person need not be really real (exist physically), so 'god' fits nicely.

Ok, the inter-connectiveness of all things. Anybody read 'dirk gently's holistic detective agency' and 'the hitchikers' guide to the galaxy'? Both are great, read them!!! Anyways, everyone knows that everything is connected, that's how you can know where everything in the universe is from a small piece of fairy cake. Maybe not, but everything i connected, almost. For those who prolly don't know about entwined particles, I'll explain them. I forget he exact process to do so (it's been a while scine studying all this physics! get off my back!), but two photons (or other particles) can be entwined. This makes it so they are exact opposites. Due to the ... damn forgot the name, the thing that basically means you can't know a particles velocity and location at he same time. The act of measuring affects the particle. If you have two entwined photons and you measure one's spin for example, you know that the other's spin is opposite. Before you measure, though both are in neither spin states (schrodinger's cat principle), but when you measure one, you essentially measure the other, this effect is instant. Now for the nice bit: if you move these particles away, say to opposide ends of the universe, it's still instant, even through if there was soemthing travelling at light speed (fastest speed) to tell them other one what to be, it's quicker than that. (Insert 'wtf's here) Scientists don't know how it works, but it does. These photons can be used to transmit data across long distances (meaure or effect one and it opposites on the other), and also in teleporting. You scan one object and campare it to your set entwined particles, then alter them to be the same. Over on mars they see the entwined set has changed, and make an opposite copy from them. Btw, both anyone starts saying, teleporting is impossible: they've already done it, mind you only with a few particles, and doing a person on a planet, scanning from space is impossible (simply from computing limits). If the big bang did happen, and everything came from the same point, then it's entirely possible that more particles are entwined and that things are all connected. I'm not trying to twist science to fit my beleifs btw. All this means is that he fairy cake is possible. so far only mentioned from hitchikers, now dirk gently: he solves crimes like lost cat by holidaying in hawaii, prolly taking the mick but he beleives everything is connected and in the end solved the big mystery.

Damn, I had one more thing I was going to talk about but I forgot. To be fair, I've been sitting here 1 1/2 hours typing all the above out. *crosses fingers that axeuk doesn't mess up posting it, like it always seems to on big posts* (yup, it logged me out in this time, and upon logging in had the post box blank, thank god for copy-paste)

... Yellow Snow is delicious.

Bravo Elex... nicely explained. I'm not saying I agree 100% but for that matter, neither were you as you said in the beginning of your post.
All I'll say right now is my "restaurant" comment was referring to the first sequel of the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy named..... The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

I read that one too. Thanks, for writing at 8am after getting up at 7 (normally get up 1pm) and having no sleep from a cold and damp room/bed, I'd say I wrote pretty well. And they say you never use your a-levels after you get them... I also read a book on quantum mechanics (the entwined stuff), as I wanted to study it but my school was doing astrophysics instead. Oh well. Glad you enjoyed my post ^_^

Anybody got anymore to add?

[LOCKED]?

Wow, thanatos, you're anxious to end this one. lol....

Do you wanna discuss any errors or contradictions you might have discovered in the Bible?

... The Bible? (thats not asking what the Bible is )

XD that's a good one. But it's unfair to just pick on the christians. What about the poor misunderstood muslims, or something fun to laugh about like scienology? We can't be biased here....

Elex - you do waffle .

Entwined pairs *I* remember hearing/reading as being a split atom/particle with one of two states - up or down (sort of like a quark/whatever).
Anyhoo - this doesn't go on to say everything's related... Chaos theory however does, and the merest fact that ALL atoms sort of touch each other is kind of obvious....
... so infact I'm touching all of you .. I feel so dirty!!

As for the petrifying stuff - sort of the same idea behind fossilization except it uses minerals instead of sedimentary layers of dirt/rock.

Do they have proof of galaxies colliding? I thought they had a theory about how something around the horsehead nebula somewhere (yes, supernova, from ober 6 thousand years ago) has caused a mess, and some computer models show 2 galaxies colliding could be an answer.

galaxies collide due to gravity or whatever but it’s not proven

galaxies collide when their trajectories cross and the gravity wells of both screw with each other making one huge mess.

How about two different galaxies moving at different speeds?
Again, both speed and trajectory can be altered within a comfortable (read: reasonable) angle range (45 degree's from the original force, in all 360 degree's of the z'th dimention... think a 3D sphere with a traffic-cone pulled out of it). - don't take that as writ, I am making that 45 degree angle stuff up there - but sounds semi-reasonable to me.

I always like thinking of the end of the universe (read:edges of the universe) and the talking cows that are totally willing to die to save all that innocent veg .
If the universe is expanding (and it follows from the big bang it still is, else we'd be seeing the edge of it already because of the speed of light etc) then what speed is it expanding at first of all? Is it constant? .. The speed must be equal to or faster then the speed of light (unless it's slowing down) since - we can't see the edge. In either case, that can only be theorised.

What's it expanding into? As Elex pointed out, nothingness is a hard concept to grip - in my mind it's similar to an air-pocket, where the air travels faster over a wing casing the wing to lift - the void causes lift in order to fill it.

Now, the problem *I* have with an expanding universe is this: If it's expanding, where is all the EXTRA matter in the universe coming from? You can't suddenly create matter from nothing - it takes HUGE amounts of energy. You'd be having millions of mini big-bangs all along the outside edge of the universe over and over and over again...
The energy left over (microwave radiation - or TV static which you can see as an everyday person) is dying down - very slowly - but it is...
As the universe expands more, the energy within the universe will become less (ie more "spread out") until it can't any longer.
As for falling off the edge? If you ever actually reached the edge you wouldn't 'see' it, nor could you pass it.

I think this is where the change in the speed of light theory comes into play.
A theory says, change the speed of light, energy etc all change and another "big bang" ooccurs.

I don't try to theorise before the big bang, I've heard of no-time and the multiple universe collision theories but I don't care really. God - as a force - could have caused the big bang. And so, s/he/it as a result, would have 'created the Earth'.
But in 7 (6 actually) days, creating everything one step after another? Nah.

Now, let's throw this in to hurt your brain: are black holes stationary to the centre of the universe?
As everything is moving away from the centre of the universe - but black holes have become SO heavy they kind of tear a rip in space-time - are black holes (or maybe more precisely, the mass that forms the black hole) still moving?
Are they heavy enough to cause a static point in the universe?
Does/Should that effect the theories on galaxies that are moving apart (since I've heard it a few times that the centres of galaxies are thought to be major black holes).

Life cannot come from non-life. It has been proven

Please - that sounds a bit TOO creationist.
Are you telling me that with massive amount of regular background universe radiation, along with everything the sun checks out - and more (objects from other systems, radiation from other suns), could not alter or fuse atoms, chemicals and/or enzymes together to create the first ever sub-single celled life-form (I say life-form since an organism must have parts to work together - life-form may simply do an exchange process... water+suger->energy+CO2 for example)... which then mutated further into the first celled organism?

Out of all the things to happen, in all the time that can be observed from starlight etc, I find it to be one of the most likely things to have happened ever.
But, again, all theorized so what does anyone know? It could have been the magical cake-fairy who thought "I want someone to bake cakes in several million years" and so created the first bit of life.

I never said there was a system of chaos

No, you're right - but you did describe it.
If God is not here to control us, and he is not here to "deflect bad things" (his wrath actually means giving out bad things), and he gives out good things (rewards etc) then infact he IS here to control us - to some pre-conceived rules at that (what to reward, what to discipline, etc)! Yet, as I said, bad things happen to good men, which means that rules don't matter.. And infact God "has a plan"... And he 'Planned' that good things happen to bad men, and vice-versa... Which doesn't sound like any sort of GOOD plan to me - but of course he can't control anything since he's given us free will.... Except when he moved the continents etc.
Who says God wasn't overthrown by the Devil again?

Now that was hilarious. Thank you.

Good
You have to keep it interesting - but I do have to say, it's pointless trying to dis-prove God, since you can't disprove an un-proven thing.. Which is why I don't dis-prove God - I dis-prove unsupported theories and remarks concerning him - they're much easier .

Geology: sea critters in the mountains..
Mountains are formed (not always) where: two plates push together and they either BOTH rise up (also commonly creating volcanoes - which can also mean hot springs due to the thinner crust) or one slides over the other.
BOTH methods mean they were lower down then they used to be.
They could have actually been under the sea while life thrived - before any land-masses even existed.
Various fossilization methods could apply to them.

Neanderthal man… they are all fake.

I thought Neadertal man was proven to have co-existed with modern-man until they were wiped out?
Like, several (hundred/whatever) years worth of evidence?

The "fossil hat" is - as I commented earlier - petrified and not ACTUALLY fossilized.
I think that it's a difference in mineral's being deposited rather then sedimentary or lava methods.
Not really sure as I am not too interested in looking up these specifics.

Minor ice-ages... Have shown that water levels were higher when an ice-age struck and then warmed up again actually lowering the water levels.
This can be seen with the fiords/whatever in greenland, along with the locks in Scotland, and as I said earlier - the black sea is a prime example of the water level changing and trapping water into an area.

The fact most of man came from the European/Asian/African continent mass (probably more African) continent - not to mention Roman, Nordic and Egyption major cultural influences across the globe, I have no surprise there is a common story or two around the globe... Remember: COMMON.
They don't all marry up, none of them all say exactly the same thing.
It's like ALL religion's - they send out basically the same big picture, but then fight on all the little stuff, and go for broke with things like creationism - where everything's only been in existence for about 6 thousand years.

When you say Carbon14 being a constant, you actually mean "constant level of carbon14 in the atmosphere/foodchain".. So the level an organism absorbs would be comparable to it's size and the part of the animal that you've got (bones obviously store it differently to hair or tissue) not to mention how the object's been kept (heated/frozen/moved/soaked/etc) AND the part of the world it's from.

So to effectively carbon date something, you need to know what it is (wood? specifically what animal bone/part?), where it's come from (high up? Low under sea? etc), how it's been treated in the meantime, and the size of the animal.

Elex - Carbon14 is an isotope of a normal carbon atom - carbon with some extra protons/neutrons. These decay at a random rate back to normal carbon atoms.

Now, I just said random didn't I? .. Yes.
I hope everyone is familiar with half-lives, and how a large enough group of radioactive substances usually have an exponential halflife where after x time, roughly half the radioactive atoms have decayed to a stable form... Then after x time again half THOSE have decayed... etc.
A line on a graph slowly reaching 0 but never actually reaching it.

NOW, after a while the difference between those two states get's SO tiny, that you can't measure the difference:
40 million years gives no measurable difference to 100 thousand years for example.
This is because the levels of carbon14 will be about the same in both samples - again, ABOUT... It's all about measurable differences, and the degree of randomness of the decay.

The website provided is totally rubbish. Spouting things such as "blind tests prove" - they prove that you don't know what you're talking about.
Providing a shell sample which get's an incorrect age - with no /actual/ proof means nothing other then lead suspicion to what information was provided in the first place.
Blind tests, as I've commented before, don't work since you give little to no detail about what exactly is being tested.

Volcanic rock being tested is curious, although the very fact it's just errupted means that's the carbon14 in the top layer of the outer core/lower mantle.. The age of 'the rock itself' *IS* a few million years.... How is that 'wrong'?
If you find out what they do to measure lava flows age - and what they use as a point of age - that'll be interesting.

No, my point was that it is more likely that the entire herd of whatever animal died at the same time.

totally possible. Getting trapped in caves that collapse, caught in bad accidents (land slides, etc) or fires or poison gas etc (poison gas such as tar-pits and sulphur monoxide etc - naturally occurring stuff).
Were you trying to say that animals over many years died?

Again, it depends on the situation - large pools of water can hold many generations of fish/water life... Which can be buried under sediment easily.
Animals in herds sometimes live in the same areas (lions patrol areas, not uncommon to stick to the same areas), elephants pass on information such as travelling routes that are remembered all their lives (and so mass graveyards happen).
Not to mention monkeys/apes, meercats, etc..

I don’t believe God moves fossils.

... Only that he moves continents?
Again, first thing that popped into my head there... Sorry, cheap shot.

You help others but you also help yourself. I’m not getting the selfish reason you suggest.

No - you help others BECAUSE you're helping yourself.
It's ike going to Church every Sunday and giving money...
You help the Church out by donating money for them to do whatever with it.
.. You mainly go to pray and worship, listen to a sermon, whatever... Which you do 'knowing' it 'helps' you (may help out in numerous ways, physically, emotionally, mentally, socially, spiritually, etc).
.. Therefore you do a charitable act based on a selfish act.
- I'm not saying I don't do it.. Sometimes when I get up to grab something I will offer to grab something else for other people too, etc.
BUT, surely the most charitable deed is to do it with no knowledge of gain to yourself until a while later.
And surely, we should live by the motto "help and help alike" meaning people help each other.

But anyway, my point was if your actions are motivated by your religion (religious outreach programme, giving money to the poor, washing a beggars feet, having unprotected sex, etc) then you need another look at your life and why you do them.

Oh, and Elex - firefox is king .

Firstly, I am using firefox.

Tron goes straight into proving a lack of understanding of nothingness. EXTRA mass? You never learnt of consovation of energy did you? It's not making any extra mass as it expands! A balloon needs no extra mass as it expands (disreguard inside). You can't fall off the edge ofthe universe, in fact the universe is spherical. A ballon is actually the best model, I feel, take a new balloon and draw dots on it (these are galaxies), then blow the balloon up slowly. That's pretty much what's going on ignoring the gravity effects of very close galaxies. Some-one might pop up and say that so far that scietists have found the universe to be flat. Yup, they thought the earth was flat too. (Not that a valid arguement, but proves my point)

The speed of light is slowing down. Some guys got a PhD in proving it mathematically. It's a tiny amount like 0.00000001 scine the start of the universe or something like that. But it is slowing.

Who-ever said black holes rip holes in space-time? All it is, is that they have so much mass that it has a fucking huge gravity. Light cannot escape because light bends around mass even though it has no mass. When you watch the sun set, the sun is actually 6 sun diameters below where you see it. The greeks knew the world was round by measuring the movement of the sun and using wells, and came up with two resons for the suns movements: either the world was round with diameter of 40,000 km, or that the world was flat and the sun was 40,000km away. They chose the former, as it explained the horizon. If the world was flat, in fact, you'd see the land scape curve upwards away from you.

I'm not sure if they're moving or not though. I would assume they are folloing the same tragectory it was as a star.

Life cannot come from non-life. It has been proven

Hmm, well on earth there was no life, then there was. QED.

Btw Tron, I'll go with youon the idea that the Devil's running the show atm, makes more sense seeing as who screwed up everything this.

I know what carbon14 is, I had to study carbon dating. They never told us what makes it have two extra nuetrons in the firt place though.

Assuming that by giving the church money, god will like you better is simply anotherform of gambling.

Sorry for short post, got to go shower. Going away this weekend hunting rabbits and such (for food, not fun! Learning to survive in the wild). You guys can have fun discussing the morals of that though, and I'll join you monday.

I'm going to preclude this by saying I totally didn't mean for it to be this long. haha

paul_one wrote:I don't try to theorise before the big bang, I've heard of no-time and the multiple universe collision theories but I don't care really. God - as a force - could have caused the big bang. And so, s/he/it as a result, would have 'created the Earth'.
But in 7 (6 actually) days, creating everything one step after another? Nah.

Biblically speaking, yes - 6 days. There is ongoing speculation and debate about the "proof" of this occurence.

[quote]Life cannot come from non-life. It has been proven

Please - that sounds a bit TOO creationist.[/quote] Is that the same as if one guy said to another, "hey check out that girls rack"... and the other guy says, "that sounds a bit TOO male."
If I am taking the creationist viewpoint, it will sound resoundingly "creationist". I don't know how it can be TOO creationist.

Are you telling me that with massive amount of regular background universe radiation, along with everything the sun checks out - and more (objects from other systems, radiation from other suns), could not alter or fuse atoms, chemicals and/or enzymes together to create the first ever sub-single celled life-form (I say life-form since an organism must have parts to work together - life-form may simply do an exchange process... water+suger->energy+CO2 for example)... which then mutated further into the first celled organism?

This is assuming I believed in evolution and life had to come from something. Since I believe God created everything in 6 days, I don't believe their was a "first celled organism".
Further, but more related to the galaxy bit, why aren't we crashing into the sun? Why is the earth and every planet in our solar system flying around the sun in "perfect" orbit. Perfect meaning that we aren't occasionally losing planets when they get too far from the sun or other planets aren't flying into the sun when they get too close. There are a couple things that make me ponder about that with the whole expanding universe/ billions of years theory. Perhaps one may say that the amount of gravity brings the planet closer to the sun but then, I don't know, slingshots it past the sun to the planets maximum edge of the ellipse and then the sun's gravity brings it back again. I still don't see why it wouldn't crash into the sun. But thinking of that concept, why aren't galaxies spinning around one another as opposed to colliding? The solar system seems uniform to a degree and the rest of the universe seems to be flying around in mayhem due to gravity and black holes and such. I'm not trying to prove a point, just posing a puzzle.

[quote]I never said there was a system of chaos

No, you're right - but you did describe it.
If God is not here to control us, and he is not here to "deflect bad things" (his wrath actually means giving out bad things), and he gives out good things (rewards etc) then infact he IS here to control us - to some pre-conceived rules at that (what to reward, what to discipline, etc)! Yet, as I said, bad things happen to good men, which means that rules don't matter.. And infact God "has a plan"... And he 'Planned' that good things happen to bad men, and vice-versa... Which doesn't sound like any sort of GOOD plan to me - but of course he can't control anything since he's given us free will.... Except when he moved the continents etc.
Who says God wasn't overthrown by the Devil again? [/quote]

I've had a similar conversation with someone about this recently and his final question was, so did God create humans merely to praise him. My answer in a nutshell was yes. In some cases, probably not all, God allows bad things to happen to good men to test their faith. It's talked about in the Bible. Job, for instance. Lost everything, wife, kids, house, animals, etc... sounds harsh but that's why people who study the Bible, try to learn from those things. God's plan? Although we can't know what his ultimate plan was, we can say, again Biblically speaking, that we were created to praise Him but we were initially created to live forever. Sin entered the world with the help of Satan tempting Eve with the forbidden fruit and Adam took it, then God cursed the entire creation. That was not his plan. Ok... so God knows all and he would have seen that Adam and Eve would screw things up and a few thousand years later, people would be debating it on the internet, so why did he still create us? In short, we can only guess.
Who says God was EVER overthrown a first time?

Geology: sea critters in the mountains..
Mountains are formed (not always) where: two plates push together and they either BOTH rise up (also commonly creating volcanoes - which can also mean hot springs due to the thinner crust) or one slides over the other.
BOTH methods mean they were lower down then they used to be.
They could have actually been under the sea while life thrived - before any land-masses even existed.
Various fossilization methods could apply to them.

Like a lot of things, we have been discussing, this is relative. If you look at this from an evolutionary standpoint (billions of years), this makes sense. If you look at this form a young earth (6,000 or so years) creationist standpoint, this also makes sense but in a different way. I could even agree that the critters were under sea first but the difference is how fast the events occurred.

Neanderthal man… they are all fake.

I thought Neadertal man was proven to have co-existed with modern-man until they were wiped out?
Like, several (hundred/whatever) years worth of evidence?[/quote]

Again. relative. Some think they were ape-like, some think they were humans.

Minor ice-ages... Have shown that water levels were higher when an ice-age struck and then warmed up again actually lowering the water levels.
This can be seen with the fiords/whatever in greenland, along with the locks in Scotland, and as I said earlier - the black sea is a prime example of the water level changing and trapping water into an area.

I do believe there could have been an ice age (or minor ice ages) after the earth had been covered in water for a period of time.

When you say Carbon14 being a constant, you actually mean "constant level of carbon14 in the atmosphere/foodchain".. So the level an organism absorbs would be comparable to it's size and the part of the animal that you've got (bones obviously store it differently to hair or tissue) not to mention how the object's been kept (heated/frozen/moved/soaked/etc) AND the part of the world it's from.

So to effectively carbon date something, you need to know what it is (wood? specifically what animal bone/part?), where it's come from (high up? Low under sea? etc), how it's been treated in the meantime, and the size of the animal.

Basically, I suppose. I had read a book about it but I don't recall some of the real intricate details. It was almost more than I wanted to know about Carbon 14, lol.

NOW, after a while the difference between those two states get's SO tiny, that you can't measure the difference:
40 million years gives no measurable difference to 100 thousand years for example.
This is because the levels of carbon14 will be about the same in both samples - again, ABOUT... It's all about measurable differences, and the degree of randomness of the decay.

The website provided is totally rubbish.

I had said.... "as an example but it’ll do for now." It was a quick reference in regards to the lava bit.

Volcanic rock being tested is curious, although the very fact it's just errupted means that's the carbon14 in the top layer of the outer core/lower mantle.. The age of 'the rock itself' *IS* a few million years.... How is that 'wrong'?

*IF* the age of the rock itself is a few million years...

Were you trying to say that animals over many years died?

No, relating it to the Flood event.

[quote]I don’t believe God moves fossils.

... Only that he moves continents?
Again, first thing that popped into my head there... Sorry, cheap shot.[/quote]

I know you're partially joking, that's ok. But to clarify, God didn't move fossils because they were too heavy; I don't believe there was a need for him to do that.

It's ike going to Church every Sunday and giving money...
You help the Church out by donating money for them to do whatever with it.

I do that because the Bible says to in Malachi.

.. You mainly go to pray and worship, listen to a sermon, whatever... Which you do 'knowing' it 'helps' you (may help out in numerous ways, physically, emotionally, mentally, socially, spiritually, etc).
.. Therefore you do a charitable act based on a selfish act.
- I'm not saying I don't do it.. Sometimes when I get up to grab something I will offer to grab something else for other people too, etc.
BUT, surely the most charitable deed is to do it with no knowledge of gain to yourself until a while later.
And surely, we should live by the motto "help and help alike" meaning people help each other.

But anyway, my point was if your actions are motivated by your religion (religious outreach programme, giving money to the poor, washing a beggars feet, having unprotected sex, etc) then you need another look at your life and why you do them.

That's kind of a weird way to think about it but if you think that's some form of selfishness, I'm not going to debate it. What you're saying in the end is that we should do good to others just because we should... not because our religion says to. I can't say that's 100% true. The Bible says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule was based off of that, I presume. Non-religious people abide by it. In some form, we are taught from others as children to be kind to others. It's an interesting concept but I don't feel like I need another look at my life in the sense you are presenting.

steve the gaming guy wrote:Is that the same as if one guy said to another, "hey check out that girls rack"... and the other guy says, "that sounds a bit TOO male."

You can never be too Male!

Buuuuut I don't swing that way

It's not making any extra mass as it expands! A balloon needs no extra mass as it expands (disreguard inside).

What? Disregard the inside?
That's like saying "pig's can fly - forget that they can't!"

For something to expand then it needs to be able to do so, in which case it's mass is growing (ie, the universe IS getting bigger and gaining mass somehow) OR the mass is getting thinned out (heavy lumps like stars, planets, etc, are breaking up).

IE: a balloon is only as big because of the pressure on the outside... Less pressure means the balloon get's bigger... Until the air cannot expand any more.

That's all for now, will be back to say more .

OK, more:

The speed of light is slowing down. Some guys got a PhD in proving it mathematically. It's a tiny amount like 0.00000001 scine the start of the universe or something like that. But it is slowing.

No they haven't.
A creationist physicist (if you can believe such an oxymoron) put forward some bizarro proof that the speed of light went from 303,000->300,000m/s from 1700-1800 (ish) and 300,000->298,xxx/s from 1850->2000 (again, ish)..
Not to mention the various balls-ups (speed of light can't change in m/s speed since metre's are defined by distance covered by light in a second and light is now defined as 297,xxx or 298,xxx m/s) while a second is set by the decay of an atom.
Again, the decay is actually predicted FROM the speed of light.

Now if you ignore that part of it and basically say "speed of light slowing", outside of the creationist circle and the theory put forward and supported by creationists (I see no other references on AiG and google returns a very slim set of actual hits).
The only proof I've seen is the red-shift *cough*proof*cough*.

Can I also laugh at the fact all visible light is appearing is a roughly spherical ball AROUND US... Please, if all light travels at the same speed (and it does - whether that is constant through time or not) then of COURSE we'll be in a roughly spherical ball - anything outside that is still on it's way.

A ballon is actually the best model, I feel,

Why? Who says the expansion is uniform anyway?
I can't honestly think of any 'best model' apart from a computer simulation or imagining in your mind the expansion of an object.

Who-ever said black holes rip holes in space-time?

I've heard of it as discussed like that - but I did put the term right after that (more specifically the mass)..
It distorts space-time so much that it has : [b]"an infinite space-time curvature."[b].
It is an "infinite mass'd, zero-volume, singularity.
It distorts space-time so much that AL time/space curve in towards it.

... I call that "a rip in space-time" since anything travelling across that space instantly ceases to exist (ie, matter becomes mass with no volume and may or may not eventually leak out as thermal+extra radiation).

Light cannot escape because light bends around mass even though it has no mass

Incorrect (mass has a mass). Bending isn't such a nice word there IMO. Imagine light as a wave - or particle. It has energy, and a direction (no mass). Mass bends space-time. The direction of the light particle/wave follows space-time, if it is distorted, the wave/particle doesn't know any difference.
OR, you can think of it as a gravitational pull (external force) action upon the wave/particle (except light has no mass so this is a slightly incorrect way to think about it) changing the initial direction until it collides with the singularity.

When you watch the sun set, the sun is actually 6 sun diameters below where you see it.

Longitude, latitude and time of the year please.
That does not apply to ALL of the worlds inhabitants. Maybe at the centre of the Earth.
Not to mention that you're more talking about the TIME light takes to travel to us rather then bending round the Earth.
And a Sun-diameter.. I'm sure that is wider then our Earth's circumference.. Do you mean from a standpoint of a person (however wide the sun is if you could look at it directly - I'm guessing one or two inches).

in fact, you'd see the land scape curve upwards away from you.

Is that the new polite way of saying someone's fat?
"Well, I'm not saying you're fat - but - if the world was flat the Earth would curve away from you.."
.. Surely, from a POV, the Earth would NOT curve... It would be flat... Until you reached the edge and then it would curve quite a lot until you realised it was the radial edge.

I thought the Greek's calculated the circumference/radius of the Earth by the curvature of it - using the well stuff simply for calculation the distance of the sun from the Earth?

I'm not sure if they're moving or not though. I would assume they are folloing the same tragectory it was as a star.

And that's the problem see?
An object going through normal space time has a volume and directional force, it distorts space-time a little but continues to move through it.
A singularity bends space-time so much that it has no volume and so infinite mass, meaning that the curves of space-time are curved infinitely towards it... Meaning surely it can't travel or else the curve of space-time isn't sufficient to be called "infinite".
(yes, I know I'm slightly simplifying the fact and there are multiple types of 'black holes')

They never told us what makes it have two extra nuetrons in the firt place though.

Sometimes proton's get knocked out, sometimes extra neutrons get put in. It's been ages since I did it a A-level.

"hey check out that girls rack"... and the other guy says, "that sounds a bit TOO male."

What girl? Where!?

... Yes it is. The guys who do that are so blind that they don't understand that it's the girl that counts, not how big her 18th century torture device is (yes yes, the only thing I could come up with).

This is assuming I believed in evolution and life had to come from something.

No it's not. I think I challenged "you're saying it's not possible at all?" which would mean you would have to NOT believe in evolution to confirm my comment..
Also notice that evolution IS a proven fact based on what humans have done (human-selected evolution of numerous plants and animals: peas, dogs, wheat, grass, hay, cattle, sheep, turnips, carrots, potatoes, the list goes on!) using it... It's more the "natural selection-based evolution" or perhaps the massive times based around this fact that creationists have issues with?
So even the creationists have to acknowledge the fact God didn't create everything as it stands today and that things have changed over the course of time... And that we have been playing God for much longer then GM stuff (don't really wish to bring this into the convo too much) since God allows us to choose our own actions and so change the animals/plants as we see fit (yes I know the subtle difference which is why I don't want GM coming into the convo).

Further, but more related to the galaxy bit, why aren't we crashing into the sun?

Physics 101. Mass, distance, and combined directional forces mean we are in 'freefall'... IE: we ARE falling towards the sun. Constantly, as are **all** 'Orbiting' objects.
Their orbits will eventually decay and crash into the objects they orbit - as can be seen around the universe (I'm sure there's gotta be some evidence somewhere other then small asteroids which probably won't satisfy your needs).

we aren't occasionally losing planets when they get too far from the sun or other planets aren't flying into the sun when they get too close.

By it's very definition, a planet is required to be an orbiting "planetoid" of a certain mass that goes round the/a solar-star (Sun).
Saying that, even if it has been such a short period of time (let's say 10,000 years) - that's more then enough time for any extra planets to be removed (via throwing out into space preferably - since hitting the sun would be bad and wouldn't fit into 10,000 years).
Now look up at the stars - at the very way THEIR star systems, THEIR supernova and planets are in different stages of creation (some forming planets still, others dying, again I may try and look for planets external to our system colliding/etc).
On EiG (evidence in genesis? ..) I read just now that the creation of the stars, with the light being created 99% of the way to the Earth is somehow "misleading" and as such, they have problems with it....
Number 1 - why? Since having evidence of evolution, and external evidence that planets and stars form in the exact same way everywhere except from 6000-years ago is in itself a misleading fallacy.
Number 2 - Why is that any WORSE then creating everything as it is (fallacy) and letting the light come to us in it's own time?
One simply means that light travels to the Earth faster.
Anyway, why - if EiG is so prudent to rule out fallacies - should we treat the creation of other "solar systems" differently to our own?

It seems EiG and all creationist "physicists" seem to be forgetting the most major scientific part: that rules are universal.
If you see a rule which fits one - but not ALL things - then the rule needs refining..

why aren't galaxies spinning around one another as opposed to colliding?

I don't know if they can or can't actually - but that is sheer size. Billions or stars/systems manage to spin around in the shape of galaxies (still crashing into each other). The Earth is pelted by loads of space-rubbish, every single day.
Most galaxies are flying apart - why would God do that instead of having them all rotate around the centre of the universe?

BUT - getting back to your text just before that: Orbiting objects.
Physics 101: an object with a force will keep moving with that force until an external force changes it.
So, an object is flying PAST the sun, the sun effects it, pulls it slightly towards it. Object moves in a SLIGHTLY different path. Sun keeps effecting it, till the object has moved around the sun, where the combined forces mean the object moves further away from the sun (force X minus force Y can still mean X is larger then Y).

In some cases, probably not all,

OK, and here are numerous paradoxes in which the church can ONLY explain as "we don't know" or "we have to keep faith".
Let's start out with your sentence verbatim: that indicates 2 classes of people, which I don't like anyway. It implies the "one rule for us, one rule for them" which as I said earlier is just plain silly, and much more complex and improbable when compared against the "simplest, one rule fits all" solution.

BUT, back to the paradoxes: God creates humans to have their own choice... But God creates people to be who they are, gives them their skills etc, so in fact he makes them who they are and so TAKES AWAY that "free choice" that they have supposedly got.
God "allows" bad things to happen. Indicating he has some sort of control, and he also gives you good things (in times of need, good fortunes, luck, miracles)... BUT he cannot control your life. That is a self denying rule (he does bad/good things for a reason - but also doesn't do them because then that would be controlling you).
And personally, my favourite is the praise of God, and the fact that creating us to praise him and keep faith, but actuaaly giving us the choice to do so... Which means he's actually not bothered if we do or not - which means he couldn't have created us for praise (since he doesn't care - whether we praise or not)... If he does care (as before) then he wouldn't have given us the choice and as such controlled us.

All three only answerable by what I said before "because he wants us to keep the faith" (or some minor variant) or "we can only guess at what he has planned".

I could even agree that the critters were under sea first but the difference is how fast the events occurred.

So a creationist would rather have God:
lying, bending time - but not bending time (or contributing to more of the lying), moving earth/etc, setting up our solar system exactly but none of the others,
Rather then believe that:
God created all matter (big bang), gave it rules by which to build itself in a timely manner (physics / quantum mech), and so built everything over time, and applied everything on a universal level.

... And they criticize the scientific world for not following scientific practice?

I was going to say something about neadertal man - but it was gonna be totally opinionated saying "I think-I think-I think".
So I cut it.

It was a quick reference in regards to the lava bit.

I did take note of that.
If you want reasons why I think EiG is rubbish then please do say so.

*IF* the age of the rock itself is a few million years

The only way to *prove* so is to test it, and the only way to test it is based on our physics work... We may come up with more full tests in the future.
Again, it comes back to God lying to our faces - he knew our tests would be these and yet altered the carbon14 in the ground?
I'm not going to say anymore on that because I don't know about ground carbon dating.

I do that because the Bible says to in Malachi.

But surely you've put more thought behind it? Like "I am /also/ doing this because it helps the church out".
As you said before, you don't mind going against certain viewpoints of your religion/sects... For instance, kicking a goat each third Saturday of the month if it were written in the Bible then you wouldn't do so simply because it said so.
Or else my point was made before: you do something as commanded by the religion and as such you need to look at your life.
Yes I've changed my words slightly from the first message (from love/whatever to just actions as commanded)... I'm sure the rough gist is in there somewhere.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

best thing I've ever heard from the Bible, and yes has shown up in many different forms.
It's basic common sense too - don't thump others cos you don't want them thumping you.

but I don't feel like I need another look at my life in the sense you are presenting.

I'm not saying do it my way.. I was simply trying to provoke some thought into the "why you do acts from the bible and reference them".. So you do this - because it's in the bible... You do that - because it's in the bible... Which means you're blindly following (even if you only do the ones you agree with) because it's in the bible.

I am just someone who questions most things, evaluates the options available to me, and likes to pick things based on which *I* personally hold to be true (which changes as I go through life) rather then a religious book, and although the book may present good stuff, I see way too many people using the book incorrectly as a rulebook instead of a book of guidance.

To clarify things, I have a brill poem from some church somewhere which is all about how a man should be.
I think I'll write it up in my next post - it's lovely.

Actually a metre is defined by vibrations of caesium atoms.

The balloon is obviously a simplification!

With black holes, you will never actually reach it as time slows down more the closer you are to it, such that you with never reach the singularity.

You miss understood me, light has no mass but is still affected by gravity, such that it's path curves slightly as it passes close to stars, planets, etc...

With the sun set, as far as I know it doesn't matter where you are, it's the earth's gravity curving the light beams.

If the earth was flat, the horizon would go up, you'd see the land keep going, curved upwards slightly (just as it curves downwards normally, stopping up seeing any further).

The greeks used the curvature, yes, but the same measures would told true if the sun was really close too. They used a well to see when the sun was directly above and at another location measured what angle the sun was to the horizon.

A singularity has a set mass, and a volume (volume is just really really small), the density can be considered near infinite though. And yes it could still move, the space-time curvature would move with it, as it does with every other object. In fact, as the centre of many galaxies have black holes and the galaxies are moving, then black holes can move fine.

Indeed the reason we don't crash into the sun is because of the earth's orbit. The earth is actually trying to move in a straight line (newton's laws, people!), but the sun's gravity keeps pulling it in, resulting in a orbit. Orbits eventually decay and stuff crashes, yes, the moon will hit us soon (in physics term, 'soon' doesn't mean that near in human terms).

Btw anyone wondering, they did not add a leap second this year. It was decided that it's so small and it'd be better to correct the time in big chunks less often. For those who don't know what the leap second is about, it's that the earth's orbit is slowing slightly and every few years or so, means the addition of an extra second, like feb29th but more accurate still. The mayans never had a problem with this, their calendar still works better than ours (dispite the time after it was made), and has the slowly of rotation and orbit of the earth factored in already. You can calculate the phases of the moon today with an inaccuracy of... 13 seconds! Truely amazing; yet it seems to suddenly stop 21st dec 2012....

Some galaxies spin around each other if the conditions are just right, just like stars can and planets too (if the moon were any bigger it'd make a binary planet with us, some planets/moon in our solar system have this already).

[quote]"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

best thing I've ever heard from the Bible, and yes has shown up in many different forms.
It's basic common sense too - don't thump others cos you don't want them thumping you.[/quote]But if they start it, show them no mercy. Eye for eye!

Actually a metre is defined by vibrations of caesium atoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre
References at the bottom of the pages.

With black holes, you will never actually reach it as time slows down more the closer you are to it

Only from the POV of an external observer. If you are the object itself time does NOT slow, and you crash into the singularity at a speed approaching the speed of light.

You miss understood me

Nah, just a bit picky on words..

With the sun set, as far as I know it doesn't matter where you are,

In southern England for instance, during winter, the sun is very low in the sky wince the Earth is tilted with the north pole away from the sun - while during summer the sun barely 'dips' below the horizon as the north pole is tilted towards the sun.
Therefore, the sun cannot be 6 suns below the horizon - possibly more of less depending on the time of year.
This obviously must change depending on the location of the observer on the Earth's surface (more north? Then the winter months mean the sun is more than 6 suns below the horizon).

Or do you mean that the sun actually set a certain time ago (which I definitely can't see as being 6 'sun widths').

If the earth was flat, the horizon would go up, you'd see the land keep going, curved upwards slightly (just as it curves downwards normally, stopping up seeing any further).

That doesn't make sense,
If you're on a sphere it curves down.
If you're *IN* a sphere it curves up.
... If you're on a PLANE (a flat disc) then.... by your non-explanation the world curves upwards to be inside a sphere.

On a spherical plane, where the observer is high in the sky, the disc is simply a circle - the horizon infront.
As the observer get's closer to ground-level (let's say to the middle) the horizon get's further apart until you hit the floor - at which point the horizon is level with the Earth.
I can find no logical proof for this.

A singularity has a set mass, and a volume (volume is just really really small)

....yes... ZERO.

the density can be considered near infinite though.

That's because ANY mass in a space of nothing (zero) is an infinite density.

many galaxies

... Is the key word.
They haven't been able to prove supermassive black holes yet as far as I know (since they can only detect it from what radiowaves are NOT sent out, or something similar).
But even then, not all galaxies would have them - are those galaxies still or do they look like they're moving because our galaxy/solar system is moving?

they did not add a leap second this year.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/07/oracle_leap_second/
I've not heard of any cancellation.

yet it seems to suddenly stop 21st dec 2012

That's like saying "the binary system mystically stops at 65536 - which it doesn't.. Simply because 16-bit computing may use that, you can still extend it.
Mayan's using the long-calendar (that's what they used to record their 52-year rotary combination of the 260-day and 365-day calendars.
It's a base-20 system in the form of: number.number.number.number.number (actually is base: 20x20x20x18x20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoameric ... t_calendar
Some mayan text show dates well into the future.
.. and the calendar (from what I've read there quickly) doesn't END on that date, but rather some predictions have been made concerning the 13'th whatever they call in.

some planets/moon in our solar system have this already).

Like what?

But if they start it, show them no mercy. Eye for eye!

Nah, if you have to fight - win

... puppies... tortured... *drowns under text*

Yes, the sun has actually set before you think it has from looking at it (ignoring the 8 minutes it takes the light to get here). I think the 6 widths is around here at this time, if it makes any difference.

With the horizon, I'm taking about how it would look! If the world was flat, the gravitional curving of light would mean that it would APPEAR to curve upwards.

Blackholes do have a volume, just infinitly small. God I hate using the word infinite unless I'm using it in its true sense. If you wish for me to explain infinity to you, and the different infinities, I will.

I read about the leap second thing in the paper a while ago.

I know how the mayan calender works, silly! What really 21/12/2012 is a new age in the mayan calender, we should enter a new level of consciousness. I think we're moving from galactic to universal, can't remember.

Eye for eye is quote from the same bible that says to turn the other cheek, it's so full of contradictions, you can use it to back up anything you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012

If you wish for me to explain infinity to you, and the different infinities, I will.

Infinity is infinity.
(or "infinity is as infinity does" )
There are no different infinities - infinity x infinity is NOT a different infinity... 0 x 0 is NOT a different zero somehow... 1 x 1 is NOT a different 1 somehow.
infinity (an UN-BOUNDED NUMBER) x infinity (an UN-BOUNDED NUMBER) doesn't not mystically turn into some sort of... super-unbounded number.
Nor does inf+1 work.. Since inf+1 = inf. They are no different than each other since they have no real-number value.

is a new age in the mayan calender,

No it's not.
The "Mayan Calendar" has nothing to do with it other then a dating system.
It's like me saying "OH MY, THE WORLD WILL END DEC 31ST 2009!!" simply because I have a calendar which has "Dec29-Dec30-Dec31-END OF YEAR".

There are no different infinities

You are wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinalit ... _continuum

Wow, now even Alex has spoken up. Ayiyiyi...

Oh Alex... You're going onto "sets" of numbers.

That's just like saying that an infinite gibonacci sequence is larger or smaller than an infinite prime number sequence...
Or an infinite odd-number sequence is larger then an infinite integer/real number.

It's simply not-true, since neither are "countable".

I've looked through a few of those wiki pages - to tell you the truth most of that goes over my head since I don't know some of the basics that is grounded on.
BUT, they do not deal with the comparisons between them.

They rely on one being "countable" - which is not possible - and one being uncountable.
Defining one as "countable" because you can sort of get an "infinity/2" point in the middle (which you can't, since inf/2 is STILL infinity).
And the other based on the first _flawed_ assumption that infinity IS countable, and then saying "well wait, seeing as how we can have an infinite pattern of numbers, and that we can construct another infinite pattern different from the first, it's not possible to create a pattern, and we go on for infinity, we can't create one that's outside this set, so it's uncountable".

Defining "sets" or "ranges" for infinity is stupid, as the very definition is "unbounded". There is no end to the range.

Please, if anyone can produce GOOD proof, then please go ahead.

Actually, the fibonacci numbers and primes are both countable.

A set is defined as being countable if it is possible to form a bijection between that set and some subset of the integers.

The integers, rational numbers, and algebraic numbers are all countable sets. The real numbers are not.

I UNDERSTAND NOTHING.

I'm guessing from my interpretation of things I've just read up on, a bijection is - for instance - 1, 2... because natural numbers cannot go between 1 and 2, therefore you cannot go any further.

While real numbers are slightly different:
0.1
0.2
0.11....

BUT, that still doesn't not mean one is MORE infinite then the other.

The basis of saying that is:
0.111
0.000
.. you can always then go to:
0.1111
.... then:
0.nnnnnnnnnn
into infinity.

BUT, you can do that with NATURAL numbers:
1
2
3
4
n
nnnnn
into, wait for it: infinity.

They are basically saying "one is MORE infinite then the other, because it is 2 dimensional"

From this interpretation of "infinite" - 'countable' means: "1..2...infinity" while "uncountable" means: "1.000..., 2.0000..., -> infinity.00000..."
That right?

Sorry - I should have said this before:
I recognise that in the mathematics world, there lies _proof_ of different "infinities", although to me they are utter b***s since infinity is a subjective term.
IE, an infinite area is of course different to an infinite cube, or hypercube, or an infinite forum thread, or an infinite bank account (I wish I had one of THOSE).
.. BUT there are not different "types" of infinity since "infinity" is simply a definition of an "unlimited, never-ending" number.

A bijection between sets A and B is a way to pair off the elements between them such that each element of A is paired with exactly one element of B, and the reverse.

Two sets are defined to be of equal magnitude if it is possible to form a bijection between their elements.

Set A is defined as being larger than set B if is possible to form a bijection between the elements of B and some subset of A, but it is not possible to form a bijection between the elements of A and B.

A set is defined as being finite if it is empty or it is possible to form a bijection between its members and those of the set { 1, 2, ... N } for some natural number N.

A set is defined as being infinite if it is not finite.

You guys are right on the first infinity, being that for natural numbers, etc. This is called aleph-null. 2^aleph-null = aleph-one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

I learnt this from my father who has PhD in physics. Lucky got such an awesome dad.

Aleph-one can be visualised like this:

1.59798046...
1.95369454...
1.37573033...
1.38066603...
1.17095437...
1.29848485...
1.52694954...
1.49497496...
... etc are are a set of numbers which are infinite (aleph-null). But we can make a new number by taking the diagonal of the decimals, like this:
1.55565456...
are there are infinite number of these from an infinite set, this is aleph-one.

Not explained very well, and been a long time since learning this then not using it for years.

That seems like a /slight/ mis-interpretation of the diagonal theorem..
Since in theory you could generate a number that has pre-existed.
The only way I see it truely working is in the limited scope of ordered binary sets... *shrugs*

BUT there you go, the only way to define differences in infinity (and actually, it isn't different 'infinities', it is in actuality different infinite 'sets') is in set theory - which is flawed IMO.

What people fail to realize is that God is a meaning and a meaning only, God means Ruler or Creator, I'm
a big believer of Karma but I do believe in God to.

Alex is a God(in a weird way), God of Quest and this community.
I Believe that God of Life is nature, Nature is also the God of Death, since
both are natural.

I know that some will disagree but that's cool to, this is what makes us human.
Just because some do horrible acts to animals doesn't make it right to
hate humans, then your no better then them, I Love both, Animals and Humans.
Animal is NOT a bad word, just people make it sound bad, Animal and Humans have
different names because it's what we chose to call them.

I usually don't talk about religion and stuff, people usually get offended very easily.

Once upon a time we were talking about a puppy getting butchered

Yes, clearly Alex is god and this is his temple...

If I was to follow any religion it'd be Laveyan Satanism, which has satan as the concept not as a fawn-like creature. With rules like:

Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
When in another’s lair, show them respect or else do not go there.
If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy.
Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
Do not take that which does not belong to you, unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved.
Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
Do not harm little children.
Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they do not stop, destroy them.

And sins such as:

Stupidity, Pretentiousness, Solipsism, Self-deceit, Herd Conformity, Lack of perspective, Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies, Counterproductive Pride, Lack of Aesthetics.

Some good rules to live buy and not really evil at all, and a hell of alot better than praying to some imaginary figure for wealth and fortune.

Agreed!

[LOCKED]

(I can dream, can't I?)

My father once told me a story, and it goes like this.

Along time ago many of the worlds top scientist got together to create what
they called a computer, this computer was as big as a building, the purpose of
this computer was to answer questions.

After completing the computer all of the scientist and leaders gathered around it.
They began to ask it questions, Like how old is the earth? a paper came out of
it's slot that said: 4.4 billion years old.
Back then there were no monitors.
Another person asked a question: are Humans different then animals?, the paper again came out, it
said: only now

One scientist decided to ask it the biggest question of them all!, is there a God?, after a delay the paper
came out and it said: There is now!.

I’m still alive. Busy times here with work and family illness…
I see poor Thani has some angst about his thread being derailed. Not really though… still along the same concepts of the “There is No God” rail. Anyway….
Because of my long absence, I won’t go back and respond to EVERYTHING but I do have a couple nuggets to add and clarify.

(human-selected evolution of numerous plants and animals: peas, dogs, wheat, grass, hay, cattle, sheep, turnips, carrots, potatoes, the list goes on)

what? I don’t even know what to begin to google to see what you’re talking about with human-selected evolution. Perhaps maybe “human-selected evolution”. LoL… I’ll google that later I suppose.
Paul, I am guessing you mean AiG (answers in Genesis) as opposed to EiG. There has been several speculations about the light being created by the stars.

So a creationist would rather have God:
lying, bending time - but not bending time (or contributing to more of the lying), moving earth/etc, setting up our solar system exactly but none of the others,

lying? No bending time? No Moving earth? What? Not setting up other than our solar system? I don’t believe that.

Rather then believe that:
God created all matter (big bang), gave it rules by which to build itself in a timely manner (physics / quantum mech), and so built everything over time, and applied everything on a universal level.

I don’t see why God would have created a Big Bang other than he spoke and BANG, it was. Hehe.. A creationist believes the accounts in the Bible for how the world was created rather than believe there was a big bang and long periods of time, etc. since it doesn’t say that in Genesis. Keep in mind, I’m not arguing the point; just telling you what creationists believe.

But surely you've put more thought behind it? Like "I am /also/ doing this because it helps the church out".

Yes. Giving 10% of your income as tithe to the church is a commandment. Giving above and beyond that is an offering to "help the church out".

Eye for eye is quote from the same bible that says to turn the other cheek, it's so full of contradictions, you can use it to back up anything you want.

When taken out of context, it does appear to be a contradiction. In one part of the Bible, it says it was morning and another part it says it was night. Goofy example but still, different times and different situations. If you want to continue the contradiction part of the discussion, I will be glad to read the sections of the Bible that you are referring to and let you know what was being talked about.

The "Mayan Calendar" has nothing to do with it other then a dating system.
It's like me saying "OH MY, THE WORLD WILL END DEC 31ST 2009!!" simply because I have a calendar which has "Dec29-Dec30-Dec31-END OF YEAR".

That was almost exactly what my response was going to be. I was going to use months instead of days saying that December is here, I guess it’s the end of time.

Redsun, I was almost sure you were going to quote the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy about the Super Computer Deep Thought who gave the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything.

OK, so this is the poem I got from my nan I think... After she died.

Desiderata
----------------

Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time. Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals; everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy.

That's nice but I don't think I would classify it as a poem. I don't know if I was reading it wrong but it doesn't appear to rhyme.

(shhhhh, thats from his dead nan, so just go with it before he virtually kicks you in the nutz)

Poem's don't need to rhyme silly .

My mum's doing a series on poems on what makes a poem a poem, as the rules are very different in different countries and styles, etc. The general rules used to be rhyming and scanning (rhythm). But modern poetry can take almost any form, much like modern art (messy bed and half a shark, anyone?).

I think by 'human-selected evolution' he means 'eugenics', selective breeding?

Like I said before on the big bang (I think), cause and effect means something outside the system has to start it all off and this is what I see god as (and that god is just a force, incapable of effecting day to day lives, but might have helped push evolution, etc the right way).

My mum gives 25% (I think it was) to her church each week. She says does done the maths for people who do and don't, and said that it works out better if you do. Although this is coming from a woman who if she stopped working the little hours she did, would earn the same (go benefits!)... Urgh, drains on society.

Giving money to the church hoping god will help you is no better than gambling.

With your day/night bible quote (where is that btw?), I remember something about god turning back time at one point.

Sometimes I say things to get a reaction, expressing opinions to get people talking. heh.

We have the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything.... but what is the question?!

I hope god knows math, otherwise all them donations are going to "hell".

elexxorine wrote:Giving money to the church hoping god will help you is no better than gambling.

I agree. I am hoping your comment is a general statement because I never said nor implied that I give money to the church hoping God will help me.

With your day/night bible quote (where is that btw?), I remember something about god turning back time at one point.

I was giving a generic example to make a point. I don't know if the Bible says anything like that. As far as turning back time, I don't think it happened in that manner; if I recall correctly, he "made the sun stand still" and lengthened the time of one day.

We have the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything.... but what is the question?!

"WHAT DO YOU GET IF YOU MULTIPLY SIX BY NINE?"

woah, i've been missing out while i was away.

these discussions typically don't typically end very well, but i guess I'll have to keep up on what's going on and bite a lil'

something I encounter in "God is dope or nope" discussions is the fallacy of inaction = non-existence. It doesn't make sense to say that if God (or anyone for that matter) doesn't perform an action, then they don't exist.

Gret to see you're back Lyte.

What is the point of something existing if it does nothing, it is the same as it not existing really as they have the same effect in the end.

six times nine= 42 in base 13!!! I know.... But you got to remember that the Golgafrinchans crashed on Earth and messed up the program so Arthur's question was wrong. We can only that the EArth as we know it is another attempt at the program and that no aliens crashed in prehistoric earth or anymore hyperspace bypasses need building...

When people have the power to stop evil things and don't, it can be really frustrating, confusing, and hurtful. It is hard to understand how so much pain happens as a result of people standing by the wayside. Engaging in conversation, love, and relationships make things spiritually and socially relevant, while promoting violence, evil, and pain is the opposite.

So of course many of us can relate to thinking something should not exist because it does nothing, but this is not the same as something not existing because it does nothing. assigning a subjective value of "should not exist" does not change an entity's existence.

but more specifcally, i was talking about a singular action. i.e. if i decide not to clap my hands, it doesn't mean i don't exist. it is a fallacy to presume so.

if i decide not to clap my hands, it doesn't mean i don't exist. it is a fallacy to presume so.

...and suddenly lyte, deciding not to clap his hands, vanished in a puff of logic.

dang. stupid logic.

Logic isn't stupid it just is what it is.

Edmund Burke wrote:All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

lyteside wrote:if i decide not to clap my hands, it doesn't mean i don't exist. it is a fallacy to presume so.

But you are hardly defined in terms of your clapping. The Christian God is frequently identified with goodness.

Thanatos wrote:

"Edmund Burke"

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Seconded. good man = god.... hello evil filled world....

There is definitely evil in the world.

Freak wrote:
But you are hardly defined in terms of your clapping. The Christian God is frequently identified with goodness.

yup! now we are in agreement. so at the lowest common denominator , this is about weather the "Christian" God is really good, not if he exists.

i really don't have a lot on the line concerning my opinions... just wanted to see what people thought. because again, i've found in my relationships with others that there are those that don't believe God exists because they are angry with him. It's difficult to be mad at something that doesn't exists; and this is why life and people can't be put into boxes of athiests, theists, believers, non-believers, etc. People are much more complicated than that. Its a much more intense struggle (and worthy cause) to reconcile conflicting feelings and thoughts about who God is, rather than just some logical theorem of weather God is or isn't. Otherwise, we distance ourselves from moving towards finding what real truth is, and these "arguments" are just a charade preventing us from really delving into hardcore answers about life and community.

That being said, me saying that God exists, doesn't exist, cares, or doesn't care -- none of that changes the fact that men committed horrible atrocities to that puppy, and wrong happened. It is very sad. We're all going to interpret the events differently, depending on our belief structures, thoughts, and especially emotions about it. We all like to think that we're purely intellectual about everything, but we'd be deceiving ourselves.

Now, for my part, for some that want to know: I do believe God exists, and that he deeply desires all of who I am and to help me become all I am created to be. I have experienced direct healing of others by his name. I have seen him change others from lives of violence, hate, and bitterness into lives of peace, joy, and charity to others, creating boldness in them to help and encourage their friends and families. I have seen his authority over evil spirits. He has connected me to impossible relationships. He has spoken to me in soft whispers that wooed my heart. I have been pissed off with him. I have been in love with him. I have been utterly confused and bewildered, and I love him all the more for it. So for me, my experiences are not just that he exists, but that he is extremely relevant in my life, bringing me fullness in my heart and those around me. and you can't experience that in a tiny forum debate. you have to live your life.

God isn't evil nor good, evil and good are only terms created by us to distinguish from right and wrong.
These terms mean nothing to God.

I think in some cases you could be right. God isn't concerned about our weak attempts at defining things: good, evil, right, and wrong. However, I do think its fair to say that God could be good or evil, in the sense that he is either working towards the benefit of humanity, or working against it. And according to some here, even inaction (not picking a good or evil side) would equate some kind of evilness, am I correct? or am I understand you guys wrong? like when Storm says to Wolverine, "At least I've chosen a side." haha.

I Don't think god is working against humanity nor for it, maybe god chose to not pick aside, he/she/it figures we'll do that for him/her/it.
as we already have countless times, so Why would god have to pick a side? we already did for god.

hmm, the problem with that is that I don't like the idea of someone else telling me if I'm good or evil, right or wrong, I choose to show and proclaim that for myself. So I can't really relate to your point very well, unfortunately.

My point exactly, you said you hate for someone else to say whether your evil or good right? how
do you think God feels? us humans have already decided whether they think god is good or evil.

This debate proves it and god only knows how many other debates.

oh, i see what you're saying. but there's still a problem...

I don't mind when people say I'm good if I think I'm good. Only when they say I'm evil. so to clarify, I don't want people to create who I am, but I do want people to proclaim who I am. Hope that clears up the confusion. I'm glad you responded, cause that helped me say it more correctly, thanks!!



if I consider myself a good person or a great musician or something, and then someone says, "This guy rocks at music. And he is really nice." I'm not going to feel offended, but rather honored. So it is safe to assume that some people think things about God that make him shake his head in dismay and other things people say that make him feel understood and known.

Not everything people say about me is a lie, so if I wanna follow the experience, just because people think different things about God does not necessarily disqualify him from being one of those things, right?

Well lets take your example for a second: Someone says You rock!, does that mean everyone thinks that? I Hate the backstreet boys,...LOL but some
people almost worship them, so to some they are good, to others they are bad/evil as you can say.

If you consider yourself a good person then you see yourself as such, I Don't think god really has this
kind of thought because he is God he can only compare to satan but I Think both are one in the same.

i think I figured that's where you were coming, so I can understand and absolutely respect your idea. *thumbs up* I do disagree with you, because I see God as being relational and someone who loves, but again, that's something I've discovered through experience and relationship, not debate.

Thats cool, I'm glad that we can actually talk about a sensitive subject because this subject tends to get people fired up.
I Respect your differences to and do not think bad things of it.

of course! yeah, hopefully we can share things and pursue real truth together. I hope that I can be humble enough to receive correction when I am in the wrong.

I Hear that.
also we all have made mistakes to, There has been times where I was in the wrong, you just need to rebound and never give up.

If god is against humanity (not that there is one) then why would he have created us? (not that he did)

And then the thread disappeared in a puff of logic

dang it, there's that stupid logic making stuff disappear again. =D

I agree, Thanatos. I believe a god that created humanity would do so because it either had intrinsic value, or there was something else to gain from it. Still, some can argue that God created the world so that he could play sick cruel games of torturing us much like a 5 year old does to ants with a magnifying glass.

Yeah. There is, like, none of that going on. Totally. *coughAFRICAcough*

Right, so there you go. Again, people's experience are gonna kind of influence their beliefs. People are helped, some blame God, some blame the people that helped them. People are hurt, some blame God, some blame the people that hurt them.

Meh. If god sits there on his cloud, twiddling his thumbs and watching people starve, drown, get shot, raped, murdered, and endure all sorts of shitty hardships as far as im concerned he can hang himself with his big white puffy beard.

I love your heart, Than! You have a heart for justice and care for innocent people. You want the evil punished and the good rewarded. You seem like a no-nonsense kind of guy that just wants the truth and things to really change. I definitely admire that.

I might recommend "The Shack" to you. It offers an extremely fresh and clean perspective on the character of God and tackles all of these sorts of issues. About a guy who's 5 year old daughter gets kidnapped, raped, and killed, and how he works that out with God. Interesting stuff. Good reading, compared to all these "perfect" little books offering steps 1,2,3 on why God does this and that and blah blah blah. The shack is a story and converstaion that's messy. I like messy. Feels like truth is in the messy.

You get a well deseved *hug* from me. Elex will tell you how awesome they are.

Sure, I'll take a look at it.

Awz! Thanks, man!

yeah, I think you'll dig the book. it's challenging for believers and non-believers alike to be sure, but not in that "you're wrong, you have to believe this" sort of way. stories are like that. people can pull out truth from it rather than having shoved in their faces. alright, man, i'm outta here for the night. Love!

w00t! Consider yourself sigged.

EDIT: Ha! Your post (combined with the [quote.][/quote.]) is exactly 256 characters long, and the forum only allows 255! Goodbye full stop.
EDIT 2: Just read the plot (Thanks Wiki) and it sounds alright. Next time I have the time I'll get a pirate version from Frostwire.
EDIT 3: Deja Vu! I knew that us three (lyte, Red and I) would be here at this moment. Mwahaha

Thanatos wrote:Meh. If god sits there on his cloud, twiddling his thumbs and watching people starve, drown, get shot, raped, murdered, and endure all sorts of s*** hardships as far as im concerned he can hang himself with his big white puffy beard.

Well this does happen, so according to the way you describe it, god is doing just that.

But I Disagree that his beard is White ...LOL

Stupid bastard is creating more air in his lungs - ugh.

Indeed Lyte, the real question is what colour god's beard is....

Blood Red, for obvious reasons.

Maybe the phrase should be 'caught red bearded?'

People are much more complicated than that. Its a much more intense struggle (and worthy cause) to reconcile conflicting feelings and thoughts about who God is, rather than just some logical theorem of weather God is or isn't. Otherwise, we distance ourselves from moving towards finding what real truth is, and these "arguments" are just a charade preventing us from really delving into hardcore answers about life and community.

Finally, someone with a brain re-enters the forum... *sigh*.

Now, Lyte - it seems you went more into the theology of God - for example, there *IS* a God for all of us, believers and non-believers. For children it's their mothers (I love the quote 'Mother is God, in the eyes of a child'), when some grow up it may be their heroes, hopes and dreams, aspirations, a loved one, a child.

I see what you've basically put down is that "God" is basically whatever we believe in... Which I agree with...
God *CAN* be a bearded geezer in a white tux, with black tap-dancing shoes and a green fedora.
Or he could be your good-luck charm.
Or he could simply be the needed push in the right direction to get two people talking.

I don't agree with another part of your posts (sorry can't get an exact quote):

The question isn't about whether a Christian God exists, but if he is good/evil.... thinking about whether he does or doesn't exist stops us getting real (true) answers for the meaning of life

So, with the first you're assuming he does exist (ie: an assumption is when you take something as true without proof) - which, let's face it, is the whole point of belief.
You BELIEVE God is there without proof.. And let's face it, the Bible is like me telling you that I've seen alien's invading the back garden for the last 2 weeks - they are stories written down by MAN (the truth of these I'm not going to argue over).
Side note: I now hate myself for writing "let's face it" twice.

You're right that arguing over whether he exists is a tiny thing in the scope of everything else.
*BUT* if you're a religious person, then you must regard God as your 'meaning of life', and that he has some idea that you won't grasp until the end (or when you're playing checkers with him)... Since he created life - thus giving it it's meaning.

.. I've highlighted true up above because I found that a bit hypocritical - a religious person, as well as a sceptic, will NEVER be able to find the 'truth', since they are bias... Take the "Earth is Flat" cult, which completely denies people have gone to the moon and that the Earth is indeed flat. Take the fact that evolution is being removed from a great many US schools (actually, is that all of evolution or the man-from-ape theory of total evolution?).
Total truth is only found through asking questions, testing suppositions, and thus gaining 'answers'.
.. Personal truth, is gained through asking questions, understanding that there are no tests and thus, no real answers.
..... God (and religion) lies here.

Just because I don't clap, doesn't mean I don't exist

True, but just because *I* write down something, it doesn't make it true either.
Similar to the "if a tree falls in the woods and no-one hears it - does it make a noise?" (.... yes) question.
.. I guess the more important question is: what is the 'clap'?
What *are* the actions he does not - or more importantly **does** - take?
How can you possibly blame something else for all the bad/evil, since God infact created them (thus meaning there is just God, instead of God and the Devil)?

Skipping past that, and onto the last point:

most atheists hate God thus don't want him to exist

Sorry again for the "not-exact" quote.
I've often wondered if I'd hate God if I knew him to exist... It would be a lot easier for me to blame something for the wrongs in my life. (I'm not an atheist by the way... agnostic)
But then, thank him at the same time for simply existing. And also trusting that he would look out for me, and thus be more free to chase after what I wanted... Although things are usually different when thinking about what you *would* do "if...".

Yes I do have a downward view on my life - not that I'm not optimistic: I believe in human kindness, I look for the best in people, etc. Not that too much has gone wrong for me (I haven't been beaten, raped, etc)..
But more then that, it really takes something vindictive to make me angry (or idiotic). And as such I don't think I would hate him - but neither would I love him.. I would treat him as I treat everything else, with common courtesy.

Anyhoo - I enjoyed writing this post .

I didn't enjoy reading it

EDIT: Aww crap, page 9. This is gonna go on forever. I think the longest thread ever is, like, 16 pages or so? (I looked)

to tell you the truth, i didn't either at first. it made me feel uncomfortable in some areas. definitely a good book for getting the blood flowing and some new thoughts stirring, weather you disagree with the whole thing, agree with it, or somewhere in between.

paul_one wrote:True, but just because *I* write down something, it doesn't make it true either.

i don't think anybody here disagrees with that. the clapping example simply illustrates the fallacy of inaction = non-existence.

it refers to function; not to be confused with properties. an example is in coding.

------------------
Let's say create variable (A) and assign a few properties to like "voice". Then I also assign an ability to function to it that I can call for, like singing. Then let's place (A) in room [1] and not place it in room [2]

so Joe walks into room [1] and does a search for singing, because he can't do a search for properties. Nope, no singing occuring. He concludes that variable A may or may not be in the room, when in fact, it is.

Bob walks into room [2] and does a search for the voice property. nope no voice property. He can undoubtedly conclude that variable (A) is not in the room.

James walks into room [1] and does a search for singing. because no singing is occuring, this guy concludes there must not be a voice, because he believes voices would sing if they existed. his premise is incorrect, because he is confusing function with property.
------------------

and this is generally how various people think about things.

so obviously, because "blowing" is a property of wind, wind is not existing if we cannot detect blowing. But since blowing into the air is a function of a person (not a property) we cannot say for sure whether the person exists or not based on a lack of blowing.

Wind is moving air, so has to blow. If the wind is stopped it's not there, it's simply air.

But yes, I agree. Things can be essentially 'hidden'. But then you question is, what is the point of being without doing? If god does exist in the way christians, etc describe him, why does he not get off his cloud and help us?

Elexxorine wrote:Wind is moving air, so has to blow. If the wind is stopped it's not there, it's simply air.

yup!


Elexx, is there something that i can pray for you for? i will ask God to reveal himself to you and really guide you in the things you are needing help with.

Meaning...?

It's fine Lyte. I used to be a Christian, as my parents were but as I grew older I just couldn't follow the beliefs. And I see going and doing things is more important than praying, make the results happen yourself. That said, some people need the reassurance of a higher being to hold their hand through life, others can manage without that. If you feel that you think you will feel better by praying, then you may do so, it's not like I can stop you anyway.

I will not impose my beliefs on anyone or try to change their opinion, I respect their views; and expect that others do the same, to do otherwise is hypocrisy.

Elexxorine wrote:But yes, I agree. Things can be essentially 'hidden'. But then you question is, what is the point of being without doing? If god does exist in the way christians, etc describe him, why does he not get off his cloud and help us?

How do we know God hasn't gotten "off his cloud and helped us"? Are there not any good things that happen in the world? Are we so overcome by the evil doings of the world that we forget the good things that happen? What is interesting (and I think this was partially discussed on page 1 or 2) is when bad things happen, people like to blame God but when good things happen, people congratulate themselves as if to say "see we don't need God".

So far, it sounds like lyteside is the closest to my outlook on God than anyone. I appreciate your offer to pray for Elex and it couldn't matters to pray for anyone and everyone, there are just other things to remember. The Bible does talk about praying to assist in matters but it also talks about God helping those who help themselves which leans towards what Elex was saying about going out there and doing things for yourself.
By the way, Elex, I don't know if I asked you this before but when you say you used to be a Christian, do you mean that you used to go to church or was there a time when you asked Jesus to save you? A common misconception (again if I hadn't addressed this before) is that a Christian is someone who simply is a churchgoer and that is not necessarily the case.

Paul, I hope by your brain comment, you aren't insulting anyone in this thread. If so, what you are saying is that if someone doesn't think like you, they have no brain. That's what I took it as anyway.

Oh one last note only because I wanted to mention the Super Bowl that was on last night, lol. If someone prays for something and it doesn't happen, it doesn't mean God didn't answer the prayer; there are more answers than simply "yes". So if someone prayed for the Cardinals to win last night, God said 'no'. lol

The bible: The best story of all time, whether It's fact or fiction is besides the point.
I personally Don't follow the bible, I Don't need a book to try to convince me how I should believe.

I Believe in God but I don't think God is higher then mother nature, if anything Mother nature is god.
but there are many different opinions on this.

Elexxorine wrote:If god does exist in the way christians, etc describe him, why does he not get off his cloud and help us?

Elexxorine wrote:And I see going and doing things is more important than praying, make the results happen yourself.

I'm slightly confused. are you getting at God doesn't help us because we're suppose to make the results happen ourselves?

Elexxorine wrote:That said, some people need the reassurance of a higher being to hold their hand through life, others can manage without that.

Do you see me as someone that needs reassurance and cannot manage without that? (i hope my tone doesn't come across mean or anything, i'm just curious.)

steve the gaming guy wrote:
So far, it sounds like lyteside is the closest to my outlook on God than anyone. I appreciate your offer to pray for Elex and it couldn't matters to pray for anyone and everyone, there are just other things to remember. The Bible does talk about praying to assist in matters but it also talks about God helping those who help themselves...

thanks for the encouragement, Steve! I do believe prayer is enough, and that God is capable of changing hearts. We cannot help ourselves if sin or our sinful nature is obstructing our pursuit of truth. I also do not find "God helping those who help themselves" to be a overtly biblical. That's not to say its not true. but Jesus often talks about coming to heal the sick, not those that think they are okay. It is indeed impossible to "fix" things when your tools are broken. If faith and trust is truly what God deems worthy in his eyes, yet the bible says that faith comes from the Lord, than God is most definitely our savior and the beginning of all redemptive things!

This is what I find so fascinating of gospel. If it is indeed true, than our wildest dreams have come true. That a creator that is full of power and authority has made himself like us and engaged with us as the most intimate of friends, to love us, to die for us, to discipline us, to mentor us, to grant our desires; all with the purpose of wooing our hearts to him and enjoying his creation with him, becoming and entering all that we were meant to be.

If the gospel is a lie, it is a cruel lie to shame and humiliate us, giving us hope where there is none really to have.

I believe it is true.

Thanatos wrote:Meaning...?

??

Actually god doesn't change hearts, men do.
no Idea why so many think we all sinned and need to repent etc.

Even the bible explains how men make there own choices, not God.
I'm a big believer in Karma and Mother nature, I see nothing that is
over mother nature therefore I will not imagine any different, If god
wanted to be known lets say then god will have no problem letting himself be known.
Until then Nature is the only God I know, see, feel, breath, hear and live.

Christians and Catholics talk so much about the truth yet they to can be blinded by written stories and
mis translated scripts.

Not saying Christians and catholics are all blinded, I met a few who are very good people, some of the
nicest people you'll meet and who follow there religion very closely but not blinded as to the way other
people believe.

But you do have some who take it to the next level and refuse any kind of fact like science, yet there so quick
to say non-Christians or non-Catholics can't handle the truth or should seek the truth.
They need to practice what they preach.

I believe both God and men can change hearts, among many other things.

Concerning sin, all I really know is that I've done my share of mistakes and crap in my life, to others, God, and myself, but I've experienced redemption, forgiveness, and love that's really turned my heart around to wanting to help and love others instead of hurting them. Let me explain what this is not. The part about Christianity that is a lie is drawing a line in the sand and saying "those that don't believe the way we do over on this side are stupid, ignorant, and full of sinful nature" That not only is rude and pathetic, but it has no power to change hearts and love. Rather, we are all in the same boat. We have all fallen short. We've all made mistakes. We have all hurt each other, believer and non-believer alike. And God does love all of us, even those rude, stupid Christians,thankfully.

Redsun wrote:Even the bible explains how men make there own choices, not God.

That's incorrect.

I Totally agree, see we aren't so different after all.

There were times where I'd do something very good so that It'll be returned
to me in someway or another(KARMA), there was a time when I only had $10 on
me and spent it on some girl scout cookies, then I gave the cookies to my mother expecting nothing in return, I Don't expect
the karma to be returned to be but it improves my odds

Another time one of my friends wanted to buy a PC off of my other friend, he refused to sell
her it because he didn't know her well, I Offered to buy it off him instead, he sold it to me for $75 and
I Gave it to my other friend asking nothing in return.

or being honest to can help you, Like when a store we were shopping at placed a few Items in
our bag that wasn't ours, we were outside and I asked my wife to run these back into
the store and let them know they weren't ours.

It is correct not Incorrect I can prove this if you'd like

All great points!

Yes, and I would of course say that good behavior pays off. Its not like we shouldn't try to be "good". Its just to understand that we all screw up, and thankfully God is patient and understanding with us.

Redsun wrote:It is correct not Incorrect I can prove this if you'd like

Okay, go for it. So the premise that you're showing to be true in the bible is that God doesn't change hearts, right? Only men. Just want to be sure we're on the same page.

My premise is that both God and man change hearts.

*edit*

and by heart, i'm talking about the hebrew word "bl" which literally means "will, mind, or inner man" so we could conclude that changing a person's 'heart' is to change what they are going to do, based on on a changed mind or will.

Yes I'll prove to you that Men change hearts not god, and I'll prove to you in the simplest way possible, watch and read closely.
















Fact1: Men wrote the bibles not God
Fact2: Men re-translated the bibles not god
Fact3: Nature only intervenes in life when it's a matter of death and life nothing else(therefor we make our own choices)
Fact4: The human brain is very good at making It's own decision without the help of a god(It's called Will)
Fact5: no book should have to tell us what we should already know, this goes for the animal kingdom to(Nature imprints this already in our minds)
Fact6: Churches are built by men not God

People need to realize that you can Love nature just as good as you love your god.

Redsun wrote:Even the bible explains how men make there own choices, not God.

I'm confused, I thought you were going to show how the bible texts reveal that God does not change men's hearts.

if you're going to start a theological proof [outside of bible texts], you will need people to agree with your metaphysical presuppositions first.

but that's what the bible is as well, It's a metaphysical presupposition, my point is we make our
own choices because we do, are you trying to tell me that all of these hundreds of Different believes is a lie?

again we ran a full circle, In search of the truth, how about that

Neither one of us said the bible has to be "true" to show whether or not the texts reveal that God changes men's hearts or not. So no presupposition is needed. Unless you're getting at... the bible doesn't exist. Than I would disagree with that, I guess.

Again, are you going to show me where in the bible it says that God does not change men's hearts? That was what I thought you said you were going to do. Did I misunderstand?

No then you mis translated what I said.
My point has already been given, but I'll take this one step further if you want to go down that road.

Prove to me that man did not write the bible, Prove to me that there is a god higher then the god
we already know(nature) prove to me that men DO NOT make there own choices.

...

I'm sorry I really don't know what you're talking about.

Were you trying to say that "because the bible was written by a man, thus God does not change hearts?"

I don't disagree that men wrote the bible.
I can't prove to you that there is a God anymore than I could prove I love my wife.
I don't disagree that men make their own choices...

Yes I'm saying that men change hearts not god.

Religion was created by man not god, Hitler for example, many hate his guts but before WW2 we never even
heard of him, other great leaders, are these not men? did a God intervene?, not to my knowledge, so why would I assume a god Intervened
without any kind of supporting facts?

But the connection doesn't make sense.

There is a leap of logic between "men wrote the bible" and "God does not change hearts"

if I write a biography about someone else, it does not prove what they did to be true or untrue. Nor does it prove that they didn't exist or do things. There is simply no connection to make there.

Do you see that?

-----------

Okay, I'll bite. What kind of facts are needed to prove God's existence or intervention, since apparently facts that are written down or recorded are not reliable by your standards?

I fail to see what you see.

I'll slow it down a bit.

The way I see it is, yes men wrote the bible(you agree to this to)
Great leaders in the world form rules/laws and make history all on the choices they make, usually based on a belief that men
also formed.

Lets scratch the bible from the convo since we agree on this part.

The conversation is about, Men changing hearts or God?
I Lean towards men because we see this every day, now does a god do something behind the scenes?, that
is only speculation so why go with something that is very much unsure?

okay, well that's something wholly different.

Of course people are going to interpret evidence differently. Some people will see God changing hearts, others will conclude we are alone in our decisions. And a whole 256 grey scale in between. I was confused because I thought you were going to find some scripture that says that God does not change hearts, and so you can understand why I was confused.

Also, in the same why I can't prove to you that God changes hearts, it would be impossible for you to prove that he doesn't; just like the biography example. We read Joe's story, but Joe may be full of crap, or he may have really witnessed Jane's life. We still don't know for sure whether Jane existed or not from the book alone. Jane maybe did nothing or all of what Joe said. In this example, (in my way of looking at things) you have chosen to believe that Joe is incorrect about Jane's actions, because Joe wrote the book. That's what doesn't make sense to me. To me either scenario is still possible, because we only have the premise of "Joe wrote the book" It doesn't prove anything except that, Joe wrote the book.

lyteside wrote:But the connection doesn't make sense.

There is a leap of logic between "men wrote the bible" and "God does not change hearts"

if I write a biography about someone else, it does not prove what they did to be true or untrue. Nor does it prove that they didn't exist or do things. There is simply no connection to make there.

Do you see that?

-----------

Okay, I'll bite. What kind of facts are needed to prove God's existence or intervention, since apparently facts that are written down or recorded are not reliable by your standards?

I Believe God exist, I already said that, Nature is god to me, now what I want to understand is why do so many think otherwise?, nobody has answered this question.
Is it because of a book?, a feeling? or what?

I Believe god is nature because God is still creating and destroying, That's nature, This is not what I read but what I've seen with my own eyes.

okay, that sounds like a fun discussion, i think we needed to conclude the other one, though.

i think you'll have to teach me more about your belief in God as "nature" before we continue. i.e. what does that mean? What does it look like? How does it play out in society? Does he feel? Is he/she intelligent, is God an "it" etc. that kind of stuff. No disagreeing here, just want to get a better understanding on where you are coming from.

The other one was going in circles but ok we'll continue that one, but we'll only
repeat ourselves.

You don't need scriptures, statues, writing, books, building etc to say that God does or does not change hearts.
Take from what you know, translate it to what makes since there you'll find the truth to the
best of our knowledge in this day and age.

ok give me a few minutes to write my full believe then I'll ask for yours, this way we better understand each other(now if only world leaders can do that)...LOL

Redsun wrote:You don't need scriptures, statues, writing, books, building etc to say that God does or does not change hearts.

well that is something i can agree with to a certain extent. again, i think i thought you said you were going to prove to me in the bible where God does not change hearts. so now i think we can wrap this one up.

My Belief: First off I Believe in God, I'm still mixed on Satan(Done my research) but still not decided, but I do believe in Demons.
I Believe after death we all go to the same place regardless of who we were in life.

I Believe nature is God because It's what we breath, feel and experience.
Also Nature has no color or sex and is not physical and Nature is still creating and destroying
as we speak and not just on earth.
These are facts not fiction or assumption.

The base of your believe needs to be on solid ground otherwise your entire
way of life can be made up.

I Also find it Interesting that in the 10 Commandments God appeared as a Tree NOT a human or anything else.

I Believe Jesus existed but was a great leader, maybe a good or bad leader who knows.
I Believe we are all children of God not just Jesus.

I Believe men created religions to manipulate and to control our own way of life.
Most see something higher then nature and this is why nature is being Ignored
and the earth is being destroyed by us, wars ravage the earth, we are cannibalizing ourselves because of
our own created religions, men got to be control freaks this is why there was slavery and women having
less rights(times are changing) new religions come to be, Sciencetology anyone? to prove how religions formed.

Arabs and Israelis hate each other, started way back long time ago all because of there differences.
If Humans wanted to we have the power of changing mans destiny for the next thousands of years, not only
God but MEN have this ability.

I could go on, this is just a brief description.

Thanks for a more detailed description of your thoughts on God and nature. Very interesting stuff.

These parts I was confused on:

Redsun wrote:I Also find it Interesting that in the 10 Commandments God appeared as a Tree NOT a human or anything else.

did you mean the old testament by saying "10 commandments"?

Redsun wrote:
I Believe we are all children of God not just Jesus.

Do you believe that Christians would disagree with that statement? And would I be correct to conclude that you believe we share God's fiber and nature because we are his "children"? In turn, is God relational because we are relational according to your belief?

I was going to inquire about that as well. To clear things up, in the 10 commandments, God didn't appear at all; they were just commandments. In the old testament, God appeared to Moses as a burning bush. When he appeared to Moses in the mountains to give him the 10 commandments, I don't think we are told how he appeared. There are parts of the Bible that talk about the power of God is so great that our human eyes cannot look upon Him. And we won't be able to until we are in Heaven. I would say that is the purpose of appearing as a burning bush.
I have more to respond to but I wanted to throw this quick response in.

I'm referring to the movie, the old movie with Heston as moses.
I wont talk about what I don't know, never read the entire bible of any version.

gotcha. Yeah, so you're point is just to illustrate that people show God in stories as being apart of nature, right?

you know what's cool?

in scripture it says God appears in the very fire that is burning the bush, yet the bush is not being consumed. How appropriate that he should be equated with living, breathing fire! A fire that is dangerous and able to destroy, yet does not. Isn't that nifty?

lyteside wrote:Thanks for a more detailed description of your thoughts on God and nature. Very interesting stuff.

These parts I was confused on:

"Redsun"

I Also find it Interesting that in the 10 Commandments God appeared as a Tree NOT a human or anything else.

did you mean the old testament by saying "10 commandments"?

Redsun wrote:
I Believe we are all children of God not just Jesus.

Do you believe that Christians would disagree with that statement? And would I be correct to conclude that you believe we share God's fiber and nature because we are his "children"? In turn, is God relational because we are relational according to your belief?

I Believe that We are gods children because of Life, Nature started life there for Nature is our, should I say "Parent and/or Creator"

How appropriate that he should be equated with living, breathing fire! A fire that is dangerous and able to destroy, yet does not. Isn't that nifty?

Like the flood that was caused by a rain storm that lasted 40 days and 40 nights? that flooded the entire earth?

Redsun wrote:no Idea why so many think we all sinned and need to repent etc.

I can answer that. Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God.” And Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life.” So that answers why so many think we all have sinned (rom 3:23) and need to repent (rom 6:23)

Redsun wrote:
Fact1: Men wrote the bibles not God
Fact2: Men re-translated the bibles not god
Fact3: Nature only intervenes in life when it's a matter of death and life nothing else(therefor we make our own choices)
Fact4: The human brain is very good at making It's own decision without the help of a god(It's called Will)
Fact5: no book should have to tell us what we should already know, this goes for the animal kingdom to(Nature imprints this already in our minds)
Fact6: Churches are built by men not God

People need to realize that you can Love nature just as good as you love your god.

I will respond to your facts in the same manner you have listed yours.

Fact1: Men wrote the Bible through inspiration of God. II Timothy 3:16 “all scripture is written through the inspiration of God..”
Fact2: I don’t have a problem with men translating the Bible. Does re-translating have a different meaning for you in this case?
Fact3: Can you explain how nature only intervenes when it’s a matter of death and life?
Fact4: God made our intricately designed brains so we can think logically. God gave us the gift of free will.
Fact5: I don’t fully understand your point here. Are you saying that you already know everything you could possibly learn from any book?
Fact6: Men did build the church buildings for anyone who wishes to gather and praise God.

I love God as a supernatural entity; I cannot love nature in that way. Nature to me means rain, plant life, condensation, animals, etc… That's just me.

Now… if I say I believe the Bible is true; that does not make it true. But if it is true, then why shouldn’t I try to learn more from it?


Oh, I love the flood talks... I addressed it here and there earlier in this thread I think but I don't mind talking about it more. I will click Submit for now though. What questions do you have about the flood?

Redsun wrote:

Like the flood that was caused by a rain storm that lasted 40 days and 40 nights? that flooded the entire earth?

You know, that would have been interesting symbolism, but no, God was not the flood. Just caused it.

In reply to your facts1 through 6

It's not the Inspiration of God It's hoping God is on our side.
Re-translating is men re-writing and changing the text from the originals because of new facts they discovered
Natures Intervenes when It's time to live or die nothing more, nothing less
God gave us the gift of free will is exactly my point, Men change hearts not God.
No, our brains can never learn everything, we can read it but doesn't make it fact.
Don't need a building to praise god or pray, do it where you are.

Nature to you is: plant life, animals, condensation, rain etc, and nothing more?, It doesn't mean Life to you?, what would your god say about that?

Flood talk: It's Impossible for the world to be flooded in 40 days and 40 nights by rain, The Flood was only a portion of the earth a very
small portion caused by a river breaking that swamped a town.

Redsun wrote:In reply to your facts1 through 6

It's not the Inspiration of God It's hoping God is on our side.
Re-translating is men re-writing and changing the text from the originals because of new facts they discovered
Natures Intervenes when It's time to live or die nothing more, nothing less
God gave us the gift of free will is exactly my point, Men change hearts not God.
No, our brains can never learn everything, we can read it but doesn't make it fact.
Don't need a building to praise god or pray, do it where you are.

Nature to you is: plant life, animals, condensation, rain etc, and nothing more?, It doesn't mean Life to you?, what would your god say about that?

Flood talk: It's Impossible for the world to be flooded in 40 days and 40 nights by rain, The Flood was only a portion of the other a very
small portion caused by a river breaking that swamped a town.

"Re-translating because of new facts." I don't know of an example where this happened.

The line about "Nature to you is", you added "and nothing more" after I had put etc. where "etc" means there is more. Sure, nature contains life and death as well. What would my God say about it? I just don't understand how nature "intervenes" at life and death. What does that mean?

Flood:
The Bible does talk about it raining for 40 days and 40 nights. It also talks about the waters springing up from the depths. Many believe that is referring to water under land in caverns erupting up attributing to the earth flooding. There are also many who believe that yes, all land probably began as one continent but was separated during the flood. I know I mentioned this near the beginning of this thread because I remember Paul making a comment about it. I'll have to look in the Bible again but I'm thinking the earth remained covered with water for almost a year before it began to subside. If the flood was merely a local flood and it took Noah 100 years to build the ark, why couldn't he have taken that time to move to another place? What was the point of the ark?

If it rained for 40 days and 40 nights in an attempt to flood the earth, why must water need to come up from the soil?

When It's your time to live: birth, Nature comes into play to make you be, when It's time to die nature takes you as well.

Compare a old bible to a 2000 bible, read it and see.

Redsun wrote:If it rained for 40 days and 40 nights in an attempt to flood the earth, why must water need to come up from the soil?

When It's your time to live: birth, Nature comes into play to make you be, when It's time to die nature takes you as well.

In my opinion, it just seems that water coming from above and below makes sense.

If that is your belief of nature, I can confidently say I love God because of more reasons than that.

Oh I did want to ask you about one of your other responses. Who do you believe Jesus was other than a leader? Where did he come from? Do you believe he was God's son and was born of a virgin woman and was sinless and later died voluntarily for our sins?

Oh I understand your last post about comparing new Bibles and Old Bibles but that doesn't answer the question. You are making a claim and telling me to disprove it by researching this where you supposedly already know. I'm just looking for an example that you might already know about.

Wow, a lot of posts for one day.

Flood was caused by water reserves in the ground, before the flood it was never meant to rain. Some evidence that these reserves existed and are now empty exists. Conclude what you will from it. Remember that all of the bible may not be meant to be taken literally, but for you to get meaning out, like the stories jesus told.

There were a lot more rules than the ten commandments, deuteronomy is full of them regarding everything from marriage to slaves.

The tree I think Redsun was referring to was when god appeared as a burning bush in moses even before they left egypt.

I've stated earlier that I won't follow any books as man will always put his spin on 'god's word' and interpret it how he will.

If people are going to quote or refer to anything in bible or other holy book, please can they try and find it, half remembering things isn't helpful.

In regards to free will, god can see past and future and knows what we'll do anyway... so why does he still try to change people and test them if he know they will fail/pass before he does it. What is the point?

You must remember the bible was originally hebrew and greek, ancient versions of what is spoken today at that, and has been translated to english. meaning will be lost where the closest english word doesn't quite mean the same or there's only one word where several different ones where used before. Also there were several books written for the bible but the church decided not to add them.

Example of what I do know about the bibles: New Testament and other bibles are pretty much changed text, with a year date stamp(when it was wrote)

Jesus is the son of god just like we are all Son's and daughters of God.
Sin is a harsh word to use, I Use bad karma Instead of Sin, I Don't think
Jesus died for our Sin, nor was Mary a virgin, Mary might have had sex with another man without
anyone knowing, or even raped, this alone could have made Jesus famous because nobody
knew of Mary being raped or having sex with another man.

My point exactly Elexx, Mis translations.

But I Don't say: God knows everything ahead of time, I Call it Destiny but destiny can be altered via choices we make.

The idea of virgin birth isn't unique to christianity. norse mythology has mushroom as virgin birth as they seem to grow without seeds, they also saw morning dew as god's semen which is where we get tinsel from, heh.

I Love norse and Greek mythology..LOL, But only reason why I have trouble believing Mary was
a virgin is because It's not Logical and against the laws of nature for a human.

Redsun wrote:Example of what I do know about the bibles: New Testament and other bibles are pretty much changed text, with a year date stamp(when it was wrote)

I'll let that go. I don't think that part of the conversion is going to go anywhere. I have heard of things being left out of the Bible but I have not found that myself in past research.

"Jesus is the son of god just like we are all Son's and daughters of God." - which means we are no different from Jesus?
"Sin is a harsh word to use, I Use bad karma Instead of Sin, I Don't think" - Sin is an act that we commit. Karma is more like something that happens to someone.
"Jesus died for our Sin," - If he was no different than us, why did he have to die?
"nor was Mary a virgin, Mary might have had sex with another man without
anyone knowing, or even raped, this alone could have made Jesus famous because nobody
knew of Mary being raped or having sex with another man." - How else would an almighty God come to earth in human form? It seems fitting that he would choose an earthly mother to bear His son. A son who committed no sin or evil act. People witnessed miracles he performed. He wasn't like the rest of us.

And your last post about it being against the laws of nature. Again, how else would the almighty God come to earth? He created nature, he can break the laws of nature.

Elexxorine wrote:The idea of virgin birth isn't unique to christianity. norse mythology has mushroom as virgin birth as they seem to grow without seeds, they also saw morning dew as god's semen which is where we get tinsel from, heh.

I knew virgin birth wasn't unique to the Bible. I have never heard of the tinsel theory though. Wow.

God to cannot break the laws of nature otherwise there wouldn't be laws of nature
in the first place, I Believe in magic but it must be on a respectful level not forced
upon nature, without nature we wouldn't exist.

With God, all things are possible.

Interesting concept about magic (me being a magician who performs tricks; I'm not a conjurer). What kind of magic do you believe in? Like Harry Potter magic? Lord of the Rings magic? Simple levitations? Making things vanish? Tell me. I'm interested.

Black and White magic, like Levitation, making things vanish, leaving your body to go elsewhere, Healing a wound, Coming into some money.
I Believe in curses to.

Interesting. How do you come to believe in this? Have you witnessed anything like that before?

A side note...I totally just remembered why I started to post this before:

Now… if I say I believe the Bible is true; that does not make it true. But if it is true, then why shouldn’t I try to learn more from it?

It was because redsun said this

but that's what the bible is as well, It's a metaphysical presupposition, my point is we make our
own choices because we do, are you trying to tell me that all of these hundreds of Different believes is a lie?

So what I meant to respond was if the Bible is true, then logically, religions or beliefs that go against the Bible are not true.

I've had premonitions before, It's not quite the same as magic but it does make you wonder.

If you believe the bible is true then that's your belief, I'm not saying the bible Isn't true, I'm
saying that because it is written doesn't make it true.

wow, i lot can happen when one goes to lunch.

i'll let you guys continue for a bit. Was there anything you wanted to know from me red sun?

What kind of premonitions, redsun?

Redsun wrote:If you believe the bible is true then that's your belief, I'm not saying the bible Isn't true, I'm
saying that because it is written doesn't make it true.

I understand that but that wasn't my point. I was answering your question about all the other beliefs being a lie.

I just found a neat-o thing about the ark that posted today! They are going to try to find it again.

I've had a premonition several times, one was when I was on the bus heading home I suddenly saw a quick
image of the bus being rear ended(in my vision it was a bad rear end though)
The next day right at that same spot again coming home from work, the bus was rear ended but not as bad
as in my vision.

Again another one, I saw a quick vision of a white car blowing it's tire as it turned the corner crashing
and hitting me, Literally 10 seconds didn't even past, a white car did turn the corner and blew it's tire but
it didn't crash.

These are just 2 of the things that I witnessed.

To lyteside: no That'd be all...hehe, Thank you for the conversation:)

I don't think I said every religion lies did I? so much writing I Can't remember what I wrote.

Redsun, I can't fully understand how you think that one unrelated point can link or challenge another point (churches being built linking back to God giving us free will for instance). Could you perhaps step back for a moment and put your points down fully instead of generalizing them?
Perhaps hitting individual key points instead of trying to hit everything at once?

Steve:

Men wrote the Bible through inspiration of God. II Timothy 3:16 “all scripture is written through the inspiration of God..”

Does that relate to ALL scripture (including al those terrible movies and the very repulsive stuff - sadistic stuff which I don't wanna go into)?
Doesn't this contradict our free will, since everything is 'inspired' by God?

Now… if I say I believe the Bible is true; that does not make it true. But if it is true, then why shouldn’t I try to learn more from it?

OO, now I do love this, because I get to ask this question:
What stops you from learning from them even if they're LIES?

I'm sure there's lots of good stuff in there - true or false, I don't think it ultimately matters.
As I don't see any Jovies about (one of my friends *IS* a Jovie), does anyone object to this supposition:
The Bible was written by man; thus the stories may - or may not - be the truth, lies, extensions of the truth, overindulgences, wishful thinking, or anything the writer thought was good at the time.

What I'm kind of saying there, is that by itself, the bible should not be used as 100% accurate (just like many of the history books are not 100% accurate).
*BUT* key events could be gathered (a mass exodus, a flood of some-sort, man ruining his 'eden' and creating a mud-ridden cess pool, etc) from it and other such scripture.

... Just wanna see what people's reaction to that is.

Thanks go to Elex for going along the same path as I've pointed out above (Bible = own words of the writers).
Cudo's to Lyte because I think he hit on the same subject too.

Along the lines of immaculate conception (baby without sex) ... Wouldn't that just suck balls!?
I saw House the other week, and it was mentioned in there as a real possibility for humans - although I have no idea how accurate that is, if someone wants to do some research then go ahead, but I am inclined to say that it's possible seeing as how it does occur in nature (amoeba's, some reptiles, etc).

What kind of facts are needed to prove God's existence or intervention, since apparently facts that are written down or recorded are not reliable by your standards?

I think I tried to hit on this earlier - we have no way to test, nor measure or quantify the existence of God. Thanks for pushing the question out there Lyteside.

Now here's another interesting question which I got from an ace film: choke.
Do you think Jesus was born good, or that he gradually changed?

Seems Steve would like to believe he was without sin.
From the movie they comment on a few books from the bible (I can get those if you'd like) which they say lean towards Jesus gradually changing, and that (as I've heard multiple times) not a lot is documented before he turned 30-ish - but I'd like to believe this slowly changing version too, it gives the character of Jesus more depth ... No, really, I don't think his words would have so much credit if he didn't have any experience behind him. Without this, the words are hollow and meaningless.

Thoughts?

How do you figure I'm hitting everything at once?, If to you religion is everything then yes It would be everything at once.

For debation purposes I will pretend to believe in God.

God is an idiot. Idiot! He frikking created the UNIVERSE in a WEEK. He could bloody fart and destroy all the evil and sadistic things in this corrupt, screwed up world. Not to mention, he could just wink and erase our memories. Why the hell did he even give his Angels a choice between good or evil? If he is the very symbol of goodness then why the hell did he create evilness? Lets look at this from a DnD view:

God = Lawful Good. God creates Evil, so:
God = Chaotic Evil. Hang on, why did he do that? Oh, the bullshitty answer of balance. So:
God = True Neutral.

Still makes no sense. As far as I'm concerned, in the choice between Absolute Peace and Complete Chaos is sort of obvious. What vexes me is God giving us the damn CHOICE. Why the hell did he do that? Of course people are going to choose to be bad, and then god goes and acts all suprised when people do so. NOT TO MENTION that if you choose to be ba and evil and so forth, you are punished for it. "Correctional Facilities" is what they call jails, for nobodies sake.

So god gives you the choice of being good or evil, and if you choose evil he either smites you or tries to convert you. If converting fails, you get smited. Ho hum.

Can't remember whether it was a true story, or based on one or what. But I watched a show about some jews in a concentration camp who ran a trial on god and deemed him guilty. It was very good and made you think...

paul_one wrote:Steve:

Men wrote the Bible through inspiration of God. II Timothy 3:16 “all scripture is written through the inspiration of God..”

Does that relate to ALL scripture (including al those terrible movies and the very repulsive stuff - sadistic stuff which I don't wanna go into)?
Doesn't this contradict our free will, since everything is 'inspired' by God?

Are you saying there are terrible movies that are considered scripture? I never heard of it. There are other references that talk about the only scripture is what is contained in the Bible so it is only referring to the Bible. Everything is not inspired by God.

[quote]Now… if I say I believe the Bible is true; that does not make it true. But if it is true, then why shouldn’t I try to learn more from it?

OO, now I do love this, because I get to ask this question:
What stops you from learning from them even if they're LIES?[/quote]
I suppose I could say that part of learning more from it is learning the truth of it. I have not learned it be lies so far.

What I'm kind of saying there, is that by itself, the bible should not be used as 100% accurate (just like many of the history books are not 100% accurate).
*BUT* key events could be gathered (a mass exodus, a flood of some-sort, man ruining his 'eden' and creating a mud-ridden cess pool, etc) from it and other such scripture.

What I hear come up a lot is that the Bible is a book of tales or parables that are to be used as references and not to take literal. But if you read these "tales", they are written in a factual manner and not like a story. There are parables that Jesus told in the Bible that makes it clear there is a lesson to be learned from them. But other stories, say the ark, for example... what are we to learn from it if it's just a story? There's no main message or punchline. Where the parable that Jesus told about the prodigal son who took his father's money and left and spent it all and came back to his father who still loved him.... the point or message was that the father had unchanging love for his son regardless of his mistakes. The parable itself may or may not have actually happened but Jesus telling the story did happen (biblically speaking). Do you get what I'm saying?

Along the lines of immaculate conception (baby without sex) ... Wouldn't that just suck balls!?

Wow... what an adequate placement of words.

Seems Steve would like to believe he was without sin.

Yes I would believe that. I need to look for specific references but there are multiple locations in the Bible referring to this. I had actually never heard of the theory of a slowly changing version. It may give Jesus more "depth" to think that but the Bible wasn't written to be a best-seller... even though it became one anyway.

Thanatos wrote:Why the hell did he even give his Angels a choice between good or evil? If he is the very symbol of goodness then why the hell did he create evilness?

I may have trouble following you on this one, because I can't seem to logically equate creating choice and the ability to do evil the same as creating evil. Especially if one is holding that "evil exists" in a strong, positivistic position, and not evil as "lacking good"

In other news, I think someone may have a difficult time convincing me that some of the discussed traits [ wiping memories, forcing people to do "the right things", and eliminating anybody that thinks and acts differently ] are good, wholesome, positive traits of a creator. Who in the world wants to be in a relationship where you have to love and honor a wife or husband against your will, or worse yet, have your will manipulated unto being a robot for a spouse's personal pleasure. yuck. =\

I do believe God is all powerful, but I don't think that means he can do all conceivable things. Its not like he can just chose to be not God, or do things like lie and have it suddenly become a truth. Please consider this example:

Somehow Elexx got her hands on an all powerful chair (and we're all jealous). This "all powerful chair", for instance, could cast a spell on me to make it look like a brick, but it cannot actually become a brick, because then it wouldn't be an all powerful chair anymore, it would be a brick (thus losing its previous properties, which is a contradiction). It could fly, it could bend, it could teleport. None of those properties violate it from being a chair, but being a brick does. Likewise, if "good" is part of God's definition, than he is bound by oath and fiber of who he is to not commit evil acts like forcing people to do things. An all powerful, good God is conceivable. The question is more, is it fact? Its not an illogical stance to have.

In my opinion, God is working on redeeming evil, not trying to justify it or tolerate it. Let's say that God does exist and if he's good, he's certainly been patient, humble, and loving towards us as we've thought of all kinds of erroneous things about him. He just takes it, because he can. He loves us so much that he his wiling to take the hits. He wants to woo us into relationship with him. This is why he sent his son. Call it what you will... "Jesus died for our sins" - "God came to show us how to live" - "Christ came to heal the sick and blind" doesn't matter the mechanics of how you believe it. Paul even says in scripture that he doesn't even understand how it all works! But he does say that he trusts in the Lord to fully redeem him through faith in his son; not as a creed, but as a relationship! oh, its so beautiful. I get excited about this stuff. Man, to me God is like my best friend and my lover. He's not a belief or creed, he's a way of life. He's my all and everything, my beloved. I have fallen in love with something that really changed my heart and life around for the better, and helped me come into my own glory.

The thing I really love about Thanatos is that he really shares in Christ's heart. God has instilled in him the conviction that this world is really full of crap and nastiness. And there's a cry of injustice inside him. This is the Lord's heart as well. He works at trying to destroy evil while at the same redeeming people through patience. What Thanatos hates is everything that God isn't and also working to fight against. He doesn't destroy evil, he does one better; he turns it for good! He takes what the enemy made for destruction, and makes it even better than before! And this turning happens through his patience, self-sacrifice, love, empowering, and holding of my heart. I don't love him because I have to (because I have to get in line) I love him because he doesn't require it of me, yet gave everything of himself to me whether I would love him back or not. What a God.

paul_one wrote:
What stops you from learning from them even if they're LIES?

wow, i love that. So true. Another example of everything being redeemable. Even learning experiences can come from pain, lies, etc. Pretty good point, different kind of learning, but learning nonetheless. Also makes me think when parts of a story or movie are false, we tend to want to throw the whole thing away, when maybe there are some aspects and facets that are worth seeing and keeping for ourselves if we just pay more attention. Like if a historical tale is false, but the message its trying to convey is true (or vise versa - horrible theme and moral, but factual or well written story worth remembering) Is that kind of what you meant?

Well the more you learn from Lies the more further you get from the truth.

But I'm not gonna say that the bible is a lie, or Religions are a lie, I'm just responding to your question.

if a person believes things are true when in fact they are lies, yes they get further from the truth. That is self-evident, and I'm sure no one disagrees with that. But I'm pretty sure that's a different concept than Paul was communicating.

Well the quote was "What stops you from Learning from them even if they're lies?" answer: nothing.

Right of choice, some people will believe anything they hear or read, others ask questions.

well, i totally get you, so don't get me wrong.

in response to "if something is true, why shouldn't i learn from it" I believe Paul is bringing to our attention: remember that things that are lies are good to know as well. we gain if we discern what is a lie and what is a truth. also, there is power in knowing and understanding your "enemy" so to speak. You can learn a lot about an opponent without agreeing with him or taking his side. If I'm wrong, Paul, you'll have to clarify, cause now I'm guilty of putting words in his mouth. That's just what I got out of it, anyway.

Redsun wrote:Well the quote was "What stops you from Learning from them even if they're lies?" answer: nothing.

You'll only learn if you know it's lies too, otherwise it will corrupt your mind not make it better.

lyteside wrote:

"paul_one"

What stops you from learning from them even if they're LIES?

wow, i love that. So true. Another example of everything being redeemable. Even learning experiences can come from pain, lies, etc. Pretty good point, different kind of learning, but learning nonetheless. Also makes me think when parts of a story or movie are false, we tend to want to throw the whole thing away, when maybe there are some aspects and facets that are worth seeing and keeping for ourselves if we just pay more attention. Like if a historical tale is false, but the message its trying to convey is true (or vise versa - horrible theme and moral, but factual or well written story worth remembering) Is that kind of what you meant?

Yup - it doesn't mater what's written, how it's written or what it's about.
It's what you learn that's the important thing.
I don't see this as a friend/enemy type situation.. For example lies aren't ALWAYS bad - do you really want to hurt someone's feelings and insult them? Or do you really think it's YOUR place to go around saying who has cheated with whom? (yay, I finally got to use whom!!)
Sometimes you take on an additional burden of secrecy to save others from worry, fear, anger, sadness, etc. Not all the time, and granted it's definately a grey line type of situation.
BUT anyway, back onto the truth from lies (and lies from truth!), the tale of a mouse pulling a thorn from a lion's paw - totally stupid lie right? A mouse would never be able to grab the thorn in the first place, not to mention cat's being able to get it out themselves.
So, this obvious lie gives a good message - to co-operate.

It all comes back to the personal truth's we all hold - Redsun holds the wonderment of nature as truth, while others see God as truth, while others see the bible as "truth" (however silly ) .
MEANING, even lies can be your own 'personal truths', and you have to understand what "truth" really is?
Are you talking about the truth of what actually happened at 4am in mid October 2003?
Are you talking about the truth of one person's feelings for another?
Or - are you over generalizing truth to be some sort of absolute entity?

Its not like he can just chose to be not God

Why not?
You've said that changing from God into something else stops him being God... And that's true... But what is stopping him?
.. Burning wood means it is no longer wood - but that does not mean we cannot burn it.
.. Hmm, sudden flash of omniscience and an ultra-being which is outside space-time came to mind there but I didn't think the bible said anything about that.
.. Brings to mind the question "does God still exist as God? Is that why he's stopped giving us all these floods and plagues, etc?"

Are you saying there are terrible movies that are considered scripture?

Oops, sorry - I took scripture in the general sense of "writing". (hence the "holy scripture" and "biblical scripture".... Otherwise it's the annoying 'holy holy writings'.. )

Everything is not inspired by God.

I wonder if anyone wants to pick that up at all?

But other stories, say the ark, for example... what are we to learn from it if it's just a story?

"Just a story"? As I said, there's nothing to stop believing in the more broader parts of that - a flood is written in more than the bible as well as leaving traces behind.
Wasn't this part of the old testament (revelations?), where God was vengeful and smote sinners? .. Again, I say "wasn't it" since who says God can never 'change'?
If so, wouldn't the key part of this message be "God is all powerful, God has washed away many sinners and he's begun again to create a better world" which can have many meanings.. The ability to start again, the fear of God, the awe of God, that God saved everything he created - meaning he obviously thought there was hope.
.. A great many things can be taken from a story, true or false.

It goes back to Jesus telling the story.. You expect people YEARS afterwards to remember what one person wrote... PRECISELY?
Or do you think there were people there writing down word for word exactly what was spoken?
Do you think Adam started writing the bible as soon as he was created, and got the low-down from God, passing it down through the generations of "begat's" so as to be 100% written fact?
Doesn't that sort of contradict the whole 'inspiration' thing?

These are all questions that people who take the bible literally don't overthink in my opinion..
.. I'd like to know what they *DO* think.. I'll have to hound my Jovie friend.

Yes I would believe that.

Not to say that he wasn't without sin - I thought that the whole mantra of "being baptised" washing away your sins?
And the Church never wanted to let the bible go - they didn't even want it translated out of Latin due to the fact that EVERYONE could read it.
.. Sorry, some late-night BBC documentary flashback there.

paul_one wrote:

"lyteside"

Its not like he can just chose to be not God

Why not?
You've said that changing from God into something else stops him being God... And that's true... But what is stopping him?
.. Burning wood means it is no longer wood - but that does not mean we cannot burn it.
.. Hmm, sudden flash of omniscience and an ultra-being which is outside space-time came to mind there but I didn't think the bible said anything about that.
.. Brings to mind the question "does God still exist as God? Is that why he's stopped giving us all these floods and plagues, etc?"

i owe an explanation, cause reading back, I wasn't very clear in communicating the logic principle being used. I'll explain it differently

According to the law of non-contradiction, "something cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same way." "In the same way" is an important part of the law, as it prevent fallacies of equivocation, while also explaining quantum mechanics.

So in your example, if wood burns, yes it is no longer wood. So the missing piece I left out is this: According to the bible, God is, was, and is forever [rather than the ability to live forever, which is a vastly different property]. So it is impossible for God to be not God, because this would contradict the nature of who he is, which is being now, ahead, and behind. Another reason it is impossible for God to be not God is because of another of his properties: he is all powerful and indestructible. If God chooses not to exist, God is no longer all powerful, so it contradicts itself (but this is the most arguable example). He was also apparently destructible, so that contradicts itself too. wood does not include properties of all powerful, indestructible, and always in the future, so it can be burnt.

To be clear, I wasn't saying that God couldn't chose to not have the "role" as God (maybe that's what you were getting at?). I was meaning that the "Christian" God couldn't "cease to be" because it would contradict the believed features of his character.

--------------

About logic itself, I believe that while God is not "bound" by logic, he cannot be against it.

If God created the universe and everything in it, then it was created from his nature. All laws had to originate in his mind. Therefore, it will have his characteristics woven into it. And this quote as well: "Also, since [if] God is self-sufficient, He cannot be self contradictory. Otherwise, He could not sustain Himself. Therefore, He cannot violate His own nature."

well at least we all agree that god exist, with the exception of Than maybe.

Rawr?

New debate: If Money is the Root of all Evil, then why do Churches want so much of it?

Actually It's the same debate: as I said before, Churches are built by man not God.
Funny how it goes a full circle.

That's not what I'm talkin' about. I'm talking about all the donation boxes, walking around with a donation platter, etc...

Well since Churches are built by man they follow the rules and laws of men.
so all donations go to the pockets of man, you shouldn't have to donate money
to appease God.

But Money is EVIL. So why does the "good guys" want so much?

I Agree money is evil, and only the so called good guys can answer why they want so much.

Do you see now - religion, if one believes like these souls, is just slavery of another kind. These souls followed their god beyond their duty, forsaking their old lives and the peace death would've brought. They suffered because of an object: a powerful and deadly at that which would've only brought pain and suffering if it fell in the wrong hands. And what did you see when you looked upon these priests? Joy? Graciousness? Neverending loyaly to their god? No. Pain and suffering...and their god just let it happen. For a greater good, I presume. What is lost in a few souls that get trampled in the eternal stampede of good and justice?

This object is Money.

Understand? Suffering is suffering and pain is pain even when looked upon in smaller scale. What made their pain so meaningless that their god allowed this to happen? What did they do to deserve this twisted fate? Nothing more than serve their lord. They chose and they remained here, in this faith, eventually forgetting what it was that bound them to this slavery. Now, what god would have them? Any fair, any just one should...But their divinity never gave them anything but torment. Even faith has to be deserved...and this God...maybe people stopped believing in it on purpose. Faith has to be deserved, but like many other things it is just expected. Your faith should be the one thing you give without doubt, without proof that the thing you believe in even exists. It is a gift without gratitude. No cake or pie in this party, just more pain and suffering. A life spent in blind faith is no life - it is only slavery of a different kind and shackles are ones you cannot see. Gods, yours and mine, are selfish beings, answering a prayer only when it serves their best interest.

I think you put it well. That's the difference between religion and relationship with the Lord. He offers love and life freely, while men tend to want to harness who he is in some kind of box, and oppress others in his name.

also, i'm a bit confused, Thanatos... are you refering to the scripture that talks about money? Cause its the "love of money" that's the root of all sorts of evil in the bible, not money itself.

1 Timothy 6:10
"10 For the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows."

1st Timothy (Message)
6 A devout life does bring wealth, but it's the rich simplicity of being yourself before God. 7 Since we entered the world penniless and will leave it penniless, 8 if we have bread on the table and shoes on our feet, that's enough. 9 But if it's only money these leaders are after, they'll self-destruct in no time. 10 Lust for money brings trouble and nothing but trouble. Going down that path, some lose their footing in the faith completely and live to regret it bitterly ever after. 11 But you, Timothy, man of God: Run for your life from all this. Pursue a righteous life - a life of wonder, faith, love, steadiness, courtesy. 12 Run hard and fast in the faith. Seize the eternal life, the life you were called to, the life you so fervently embraced in the presence of so many witnesses.

this scripture is useful correcting religious and non-religious leaders alike from losing their life to a life of greed and darkness.

Lyteside is right, it is not money that is evil but the love of it, and as the major countries here are all Capitalist that means they're built upon loving and wanting more money.... hence so much evil.

paul_one wrote:Do you think Adam started writing the bible as soon as he was created, and got the low-down from God, passing it down through the generations of "begat's" so as to be 100% written fact?
Doesn't that sort of contradict the whole 'inspiration' thing?

No, I don't believe Adam wrote any part of the Bible (at least I haven't heard that). I believe as I stated before that all scripture was written by the inspiration of God meaning that someone, I think Moses or Abraham (I forgot who wrote the first five books of the Bible) were inspired by God (got the low-down from God) to write about the generations of "begats".

Yes I would believe that.

Not to say that he wasn't without sin - I thought that the whole mantra of "being baptised" washing away your sins?[/quote]

As a I heard an evangalist once say, "If you have never accepted Jesus into your life and you get baptised, the only thing it causes you to be is wet". Being baptised is simply a public presentation to show you have been saved, nothing more.

And doggone it, lyteside beat me to the punch. The most commonly misquoted Bible verse is that money is the root of all evil where it really is the LOVE OF MONEY. Money by itself can't be evil. It's like saying a gun is evil. A gun didn't do anything wrong.

The Love of Money is really referring to those who spend all their efforts getting more and they never give to God or others... in my opinion.

Giving money to god hoping by luck and fortune in return is no better than gambling, I said that a few pages back.

And since I don't hope for luck and fortune, I agree with you. Also note, I made it a point to add "or others" at the end of my last post.

haha. I should make a bumper sticker that says "Yeah, I give my money to God, but only as a by-product of my hope for fortune and luck"

So I have some questions to everyone here.

1. do you pray? if so do you believe your prayers are answered?
2. do you go to church? at least sometimes?
3. do you believe in God exactly as it is written in the bible?
4. do you have faith?

Be honest and answer to the best of your ability

fun questions!

1. do you pray? if so do you believe your prayers are answered?
Yes, as others typically understand it. My praying typically looks like a conversation with God: hoping for things with him, arguing with him, complaining, asking for guidance, sharing dreams with him, laughing together etc. He answers in the form of scripture, through others, through common sense, through logic, through miraculous signs, through the convictions and tugs at my heart, and in a still, small voice that I am learning to discern.

2. do you go to church? at least sometimes?
I believe the "church" to be all of God's family and believers, just like it was written about in Acts (NT) . This means whenever 2 or more believers get together, pray for each other, share what God is doing in our life, worship God together, help feed and care for the homeless, and listen to other's needs, this is doing church. That all being said, I do sometimes go to the man-made institution of church, which is "meeting every sunday to do X, Y, and Z." This is a modern, limited model of church, but I do participate now and then.

3. do you believe in God exactly as it is written in the bible?
I think it would be impossible to know God exactly as it is written in the bible, because there are always contentions and disagreements. I do think that everything the bible intended to say about God is true, and the voice and spirit that is behind it all is true. The question for me is more, can we pull out all the truth embedded in there?

4. do you have faith?
Sure, doesn't everybody have faith in something? I have faith in my wife, my God, faith to believe what my eyes see and my ears here, etc.

Then your a good person regardless of what you believe in, my point is that no matter what you believe
in you can still be a good person, even if you don't believe in God at all.
It does not take the belief in God or "Gods" to make someone a saintly person.

So in other words, Is it God that really Guides our destinies?

Also never let anyone try to make you change your beliefs, Want to know what's annoying?, A preacher
on the corner telling you that you've sinned and you need to convert to save your soul.
The soul does not need saving, it goes back to where it came from regardless of what you
did in Life.

Open your mind and you'll see a much bigger Universe, I Guess that could be a form of converting, or
is it just simply the facts? who knows.

yeah, "converting" people never solves anything. true change happens when people move freely from one view to another. This is why I pray against the enemy from spreading lies to people. Of course, we all want truth, but we get sidetracked. How many times has someone told you "you're wrong about that" and even if you are, you defend your position! It's because we feel defensive and misunderstood. Only love has the power to change people's hearts and bring our defenses down so that we really let truth win out, and not our egos.

That being said, we should all respect people beliefs, faiths, religions, and ideas. They are all ours to have. We are individually responsible to ourselves and to the Lord for our thoughts and beliefs, not to one another. Instead of "proving" that God exists on a forum, I'd rather continue my relationship with a my friends and family and give to them, and pray for their needs to be met. Then when they are and their lives are touched, they will decide out of freedom that Love reigns over all! And they will change their hearts, and their beliefs, because they want to... not out of guilt, shame, etc.

1. do you pray? if so do you believe your prayers are answered?
2. do you go to church? at least sometimes?
3. do you believe in God exactly as it is written in the bible?
4. do you have faith?

1. Nope, nope.
2. only when dragged by family, so they won't haye me. Last went christmas day. Prolly last went christmas before that too.
3. nope, stated before that I beleive god is as a force and can't be communicated with.
4. not in the traditional sense at all. mildly faith in people but i'd more call it trust than faith.

Elexxorine wrote:

4. not in the traditional sense at all. mildly faith in people but i'd more call it trust than faith.

this is exactly the kind of faith that Christ talks about. Faith as trust. God does not want "belief" in him. He wants our hearts and trust in him.

For instance, when Jesus says, "Oh ye of little faith," the greek word ojligopistiva is being used, which means "trusting to little"
Also, the greek word pivstiï is often used, which means, "conviction of the truth of anything, generally with trust," or "belief with the predominate idea of trust"

God never uses the word faith to mean, "believe in something that has no evidence of being true" nor does he equate our relationship with God with "believing in his existence."


To drive the point even further, James also talks about in his book, "Do you still think it's enough just to believe that there is one God? Well, even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror!"
- James 2:19

pretty neat stuff.

1. do you pray? if so do you believe your prayers are answered?
2. do you go to church? at least sometimes?
3. do you believe in God exactly as it is written in the bible?
4. do you have faith?

1. Nope.
I do sometimes reason things out myself, question my opinions and points of views, curse nothing at all, etc.
It depends if you consider cursing and grovelling to nothing at all to be praying against all hopes for strength and hope.. I don't.

2. I don't go.
I've gone on some occasions (school xmases as a child. Funeral. Wedding).
I've never gone for prayer, mass, or anything else.

3. Nope.
4. In God? Nope.
In something (anything) larger then us? ... Nope.
In other people.... sometimes.
In myself... A little.
I think I've got most of the "faith"'s there.

paul_one wrote:

It depends if you consider cursing and grovelling to nothing at all to be praying against all hopes for strength and hope.. I don't.

haha. aka, "damn it, stupid computer, please work!"
=D

hahaha, damn - you've figured me out!


actually it's been far worse then that, but I like that version much better

lyteside wrote:Knowledge is power, and power corrupts. So study hard, and be evil.

And asbolute power corrupts absolutely... god must be amoral to the extreme.... looks like I've solved what 15 didn't...

lol =D

Redsun wrote:So I have some questions to everyone here.

1. do you pray? if so do you believe your prayers are answered?
2. do you go to church? at least sometimes?
3. do you believe in God exactly as it is written in the bible?
4. do you have faith?

Be honest and answer to the best of your ability

1. Yes. Prayers are always answered. It may not be the answer you're hoping for. Example. "Mommy, can I play a video game?" Mommy says "No." or "not right now". Those are still answers even though the answer isn't "yes".

2. Yes.

3. In a nutshell, yes. We know about God partly because of what it is written in the Bible.

4. Yes, in many things. God being one of them. Jesus another. Perhaps your question is do we have religious faith?

Then your a good person regardless of what you believe in, my point is that no matter what you believe
in you can still be a good person, even if you don't believe in God at all.
It does not take the belief in God or "Gods" to make someone a saintly person.

Who said you weren't a "good" person? What defines a person as "good"? There are people who believe in Heaven yet aren't Christians who believe they will get there because they were good. But again, what is good? You didn't kill anyone? You never stole anything? You never lied? Or you only lied a little bit? The presumption goes on and on...

dictionary.com wrote:good
   /gʊd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [good] Show IPA Pronunciation
adjective, betâ‹…ter, best, noun, interjection, adverb
–adjective
1. morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.
2. satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health.
3. of high quality; excellent.
4. right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good.
5. well-behaved: a good child.
6. kind, beneficent, or friendly: to do a good deed.
7. honorable or worthy; in good standing: a good name.
8. educated and refined: She has a good background.
9. financially sound or safe: His credit is good.
10. genuine; not counterfeit: a good quarter.
11. sound or valid: good judgment; good reasons.
12. reliable; dependable; responsible: good advice.
13. healthful; beneficial: Fresh fruit is good for you.
14. in excellent condition; healthy: good teeth.
15. not spoiled or tainted; edible; palatable: The meat was still good after three months in the freezer.
16. favorable; propitious: good news.
17. cheerful; optimistic; amiable: in good spirits.
18. free of distress or pain; comfortable: to feel good after surgery.
19. agreeable; pleasant: Have a good time.
20. attractive; handsome: She has a good figure.
21. (of the complexion) smooth; free from blemish.
22. close or intimate; warm: She's a good friend of mine.
23. sufficient or ample: a good supply.
24. advantageous; satisfactory for the purpose: a good day for fishing.
25. competent or skillful; clever: a good manager; good at arithmetic.
26. skillfully or expertly done: a really good job; a good play.
27. conforming to rules of grammar, usage, etc.; correct: good English.
28. socially proper: good manners.
29. remaining available to one: Don't throw good money after bad.
30. comparatively new or of relatively fine quality: Don't play in the mud in your good clothes.
31. best or most dressy: He wore his good suit to the office today.
32. full: a good day's journey away.
33. fairly large or great: a good amount.
34. free from precipitation or cloudiness: good weather.
35. Medicine/Medical. (of a patient's condition) having stable and normal vital signs, being conscious and comfortable, and having excellent appetite, mobility, etc.
36. fertile; rich: good soil.
37. loyal: a good Democrat.
38. (of a return or service in tennis, squash, handball, etc.) landing within the limits of a court or section of a court.
39. Horse Racing. (of the surface of a track) drying after a rain so as to be still slightly sticky: This horse runs best on a good track.
40. (of meat, esp. beef) noting or pertaining to the specific grade below “choice,” containing more lean muscle and less edible fat than “prime” or “choice.”
41. favorably regarded (used as an epithet for a ship, town, etc.): the good ship Syrena.
–noun
42. profit or advantage; worth; benefit: What good will that do? We shall work for the common good.
43. excellence or merit; kindness: to do good.
44. moral righteousness; virtue: to be a power for good.
45. (esp. in the grading of U.S. beef) an official grade below that of “choice.”
46. goods,
a. possessions, esp. movable effects or personal property.
b. articles of trade; wares; merchandise: canned goods.
c. Informal. what has been promised or is expected: to deliver the goods.
d. Informal. the genuine article.
e. Informal. evidence of guilt, as stolen articles: to catch someone with the goods.
f. cloth or textile material: top-quality linen goods.
g. Chiefly British. merchandise sent by land, rather than by water or air.

I've listed below those I think are more apropiate to this discussion.

morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious; right; proper; fit; well-behaved; kind, beneficent, or friendly; honorable or worthy; in good standing; educated and refined; good judgment; reliable; dependable; responsible; not spoiled or tainted; agreeable; pleasant; attractive; handsome; loyal; excellence or merit; kindness; moral righteousness; virtue.

That's my interpretation from the dictionary... Others may think as they do.



Also my above post was ment to say '15 pages', damn dyslexia.

I'm going to deviate a little and add in here that I've had an evaluation (yearly) at work Thursday.
Wasn't as good as last years where I gained an "above average" or "highly excellent" on most things - but then again, I'm a year older and people expect more of me.... So I can't complain.

I got, for the quality of my work etc, an above average... STILL... After being there for 3 or 4 years!!

Anyway, I think this thread's slowly coming to an end on the religeous discussion myself, and I've enjoyed it.
Hope you all did too.

Continue to your hearts content .

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.

On the subject of being "good", whether our good is good enough or not is one conversation, but I might challenge this.

If we're looking at a saintly life as being good, I think we're missing a lot of joy, depth, and richness that life has to offer. Its kind of like saying, "well, all it takes to make a friendship work is not to betray them." That's good, to be sure, and not betraying a friend is certainly a valuable quality to have! But there is much more to friendship. There is talking, hanging out with the person. Helping them in a time of need, and they to you. In order to have real intimacy, its gonna take a lot more work than just "don't betray them" I'm afraid people see this concerning God. But God is much more interested in a relationship with him (and forgiving us when we make mistakes) than having us "be good" at a distance. I hope that resonates...

In essence, lack of evil does not mean good? You should above and beyond?

Point, slightly linknig to original topic of thread. Wife beaters usually believe that they are doing good, helping their wife see wrong from right...

steve the gaming guy wrote:

"Redsun"

So I have some questions to everyone here.

1. do you pray? if so do you believe your prayers are answered?
2. do you go to church? at least sometimes?
3. do you believe in God exactly as it is written in the bible?
4. do you have faith?

Be honest and answer to the best of your ability

1. Yes. Prayers are always answered. It may not be the answer you're hoping for. Example. "Mommy, can I play a video game?" Mommy says "No." or "not right now". Those are still answers even though the answer isn't "yes".

2. Yes.

3. In a nutshell, yes. We know about God partly because of what it is written in the Bible.

4. Yes, in many things. God being one of them. Jesus another. Perhaps your question is do we have religious faith?

Then your a good person regardless of what you believe in, my point is that no matter what you believe
in you can still be a good person, even if you don't believe in God at all.
It does not take the belief in God or "Gods" to make someone a saintly person.

Who said you weren't a "good" person? What defines a person as "good"? There are people who believe in Heaven yet aren't Christians who believe they will get there because they were good. But again, what is good? You didn't kill anyone? You never stole anything? You never lied? Or you only lied a little bit? The presumption goes on and on...

What defines a person as good is the person who is doing the defining, in other words we all have opinions, so according to ME lyteside is a good person.

Are me, tron or thana good people though? We all answered various degrees of 'no'...

aw, thanks Redsun!

As for Elexx, she's totally evil! I know!

j/k

Seriously, if the yesness of our anwsers was the traditional sense of good, then how good are we? In real life we are all nice people, but are we 'good' and in what sense. Truely what should the list of questions be for good, not just regiliously?

i don't know, sis...

I think it might be difficult to define anything objectively good (having the properties of conceptual reality) without borrowing from the worldview that states something like "things outside and above this physical universe exist". One might make a motion for "good" being what is accepted in society, or a majority of thought. The problem is what happens when the society thinks "good" is not what society makes it. Does that means its suddenly not true? *KABOOM* law of non-contradiction kicks in.

My point for bringing up the good thing was because of the many people that do believe in Heaven but don't really know how to get there. In the religion that I was raised by, we learn from the Bible that we accept Jesus to save us, thus becoming a Christian, and that is the only way into Heaven regardless of the actual denomination you belong to. Christian Baptist, Christian Catholic, Christian Presbyterian, etc...
My point also, and I'll add more here in response, that those who live a saintly life still are not perfect. They have had various degrees of faults at some point in their life. They told a lie as a child or stole a piece of candy or were disrespectful to their parents.. or something. So if you compare two saintly people, who decides they are saintly? Who decides who is more saintly?
So the bottom line is you do not go to Heaven by good works "lest any man should boast". God put that in the Bible because he did not want people to say "look how good I am that I get to go to Heaven".

Shoot them all and let god decide.

steve the gaming guy wrote:My point for bringing up the good thing was because of the many people that do believe in Heaven but don't really know how to get there. In the religion that I was raised by, we learn from the Bible that we accept Jesus to save us, thus becoming a Christian, and that is the only way into Heaven regardless of the actual denomination you belong to. Christian Baptist, Christian Catholic, Christian Presbyterian, etc...
My point also, and I'll add more here in response, that those who live a saintly life still are not perfect. They have had various degrees of faults at some point in their life. They told a lie as a child or stole a piece of candy or were disrespectful to their parents.. or something. So if you compare two saintly people, who decides they are saintly? Who decides who is more saintly?
So the bottom line is you do not go to Heaven by good works "lest any man should boast". God put that in the Bible because he did not want people to say "look how good I am that I get to go to Heaven".

I see where this is going

That is only "1" way to believe in, and I'll respect that.
My Belief is we all go to the same place, You can't punish the soul for what the body did.
I didn't get that belief from the bible or any book, I got it from my own brain for what seems like It'll make since and is Logical.

hmmm. Does that mean you believe the body to be independent from the soul? Does it act involuntarily against the soul's wishes? Are there evil things that the soul can do which are punishable? If I took over someone's thoughts and influenced them to commit a murder, who do you think might be responsible?

Seems to me the logical connection might be the reverse... Why would we punish the body for what the soul is doing. For instance, if I shoot someone in the head, we don't put the gun on trial, we put me, the shooter on trial. The gun is just the weapon of choice. Likewise, the body carries out the actions and desires of my heart and soul. In fact, the soul damages its surroundings, and it becomes demented and unusable. Dog's are beaten into wild, savage beasts. Words are misused and become labeled as "cuss words". Guns are used to kill people and become outlawed. Man, I sure think our souls have a lot to own up to. Maybe you can help clarify your position, Redsun, because I just can't seem to reconcile it.

On another curious note, would you want to have a relationship with a wife that hated your guts, but did nice things for you all the time, or be with a wife who truly loved you but unknowingly did an enormous amount of things that hurt you emotionally and spiritually? I'm expecting different answers on this one!
( comparison of soul - body )

This is starting to get interesting. Let's keep the conversation flowing!

My belief is: The body is a mere object that makes us physical, The body thinks and acts, not
our soul. I believe the two are separate things not the same, Our soul returns to It's owner
upon death, It's owner is God.

If say for example my Wife Loved me she wouldn't hurt me in any way, otherwise she doesn't love me.
Though there is mistakes and forgiveness, after all we are only human and not perfect.

If you say a bad person goes to hell, I'd have to disagree, Hell is what you make it, Just like
Heaven is what you make it, One man's heaven is another mans hell and visa versa.

Redsun wrote:My belief is: The body is a mere object that makes us physical, The body thinks and acts, not
our soul. I believe the two are separate things not the same, Our soul returns to It's owner
upon death, It's owner is God.

I see, so the "soul" you're talking about is not accountable to this life, because we aren't our soul right now? As in, the soul is something we don't come into contact with until later?

Redsun wrote:If say for example my Wife Loved me she wouldn't hurt me in any way, otherwise she doesn't love me.
Though there is mistakes and forgiveness, after all we are only human and not perfect.

It sounds like your saying that a person can't love you if they hurt you a lot, but they can if they hurt a small amount, because they make mistakes. is that it?

Redsun wrote:ad person goes to hell, I'd have to disagree, Hell is what you make it, Just like
Heaven is what you make it, One man's heaven is another mans hell and visa versa.

Are you saying that if you believe that hell exists in a certain way, then for you it will be that way? But not for another person?

I see, so the "soul" you're talking about is not accountable to this life, because we aren't our soul right now? As in, the soul is something we don't come into contact with until later?

You could put It that way yes.

It sounds like your saying that a person can't love you if they hurt you a lot, but they can if they hurt a small amount, because they make mistakes. is that it?

Not exactly, I'm saying if a person hurts you allot then there is more chance that they hurt you on purpose, or Love you in a way
that they "think" is the correct way to love you, or is there way of loving someone but if it hurts someone so much then the person that
is being hurt needs to end the relationship or choose to forgive.

Are you saying that if you believe that hell exists in a certain way, then for you it will be that way? But not for another person?

Yes,close, I'm saying that That's what the person "thinks" hell and heaven will be like, because That's how
it is to them on Earth, Example: Some countries Don't allow women to even reveal there faces, for if they do
they get Executed, to that country It's normal or may even be good.
To other countries It may seem evil or bad.

gotcha!

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts for me.

Certainly, we are talking about different things. I'm speaking more to conceptual realities of "hell" while it seems maybe your talking about an interpretation of hell, i.e. the woman that see veiling themselves as good, someone else seeing it as evil.

So my thoughts are more to the reality before its interpretation; in your example, it would look like the veiling of women is happening or not happening. Though both countries think differently about the veiling, neither would disagree that it is happening.

LIke a measurement. I am 5'10". To some that seems small. To others that seems tall. But to all parties, I am always 5'10" (even if you use different measurements) it would equal to 5'10"

So, do you guys think that hell can be "measured", despite a person's experience of that "measurement"?

I Don't think hell can be measured, It's either Hell or not.

To me I Know that as you say "It is happening" nobody disagrees with that, and That's my point precisely, thus that is in fact true
and is indeed reality.

Some people don't even like meat, It's evil to them, very bad and cruel to eat another animal, but It's ok for
them to kill other living things like plants etc to eat, so to one person something is acceptable or tolerable but
to others It is not, This is where the factor of hell/bad/evil/cruel comes into play.

Ghost: I Happen to believe in Ghost, some may think I'm weird or even evil, others however may also
believe in Ghost as I do.

Witches: Many women were burned alive because people really thought they were witches, and witches to them
were Evil, yet they themselves Killed another human been.

Even Death row, People cheering because of a murderer being electrocuted, To some the people cheering
are actually evil or bad or cruel, to others they are doing Gods will. to me I Don't believe in the death penalty, but
do I think the people cheering are evil?, not really I Think they simply believe differently then me.

yeah, it does indeed seem we are talking about different things. whether or not someone will enjoy or not enjoy hell is yet to be discovered. the question still remains of does it exist or not. And if it exists in a certain way, than no matter what the subjective experience, it could still be quantified. I don't mean quantified in the limited sense of science (especially if it only exists conceptually, and not literally) but it can still be quantified nevertheless.

Going back to your stance on souls, would I be correct in making the analogy that you think our souls are kind of like an inheritance that we "come into" when we die? Do love and memories in this life last forever after passing on? Cause I'm getting the impression you think the body, mind, and spirit dies, and then we are a brand new thing that must learn all over again. is that it?

but it can still be quantified nevertheless.

Quantifying it means you impose limits - correct?

Would this mean you believe hell (and thus heaven) to be finite?
If so, then surely Hell cannot be Hell "for all" (in both variety and quantity), and thus Heaven is not Heaven "for all"...
... Which would beg the question: If you would enjoy hell - do you still go there?

I think what redsun is trying to say is one "afterlife" which probably changes depending on your soul (think "what dreams may come").

by quantifying something, iam extending limits to it, but only the limits that logic has, because its self-evident (this includes the laws of non-contradiction). It does not denote that something must be finite. That goes back to my point of God being all powerful and indestructible, but that doesn't mean he can do all conceivable things, like make himself not exist, because then he wouldn't be all powerful and indestructible.

But the first section you wrote I might agree with. The problem comes with the "What Dreams May Come" analogy (good movie by the way, definitely rings of 'plumbline' truth ) is when two opposing fantasies or experiences contradict each other:

If for instance, in my afterlife I really love the RedSun and want to hang out with him all the days of my life in heaven, because that would make me happiest. Now sometime in the future I do something to piss off RedSun so much that he can't stand to even think about me! (oh noes! =( ) anyway, he imagines heaven to be a place without me. So the dilemma is now, which one becomes the reality, they can't both be reality in the same sense. Its true that we could both experience what we thought was real, but at least one of us would have to live in an illusion world.

This is resolved as soon as there is a third party, however, such as an uncaused cause or superior being, that governs the thoughts and experiences of others, because he/she/it knows how to orchestrate things like reconciliation, redemption, rebuilding, etc. The same rings true with hell. And this is all reflected and shadowed in our reality on earth. Things exist, being created and/or governed by one person, and experienced in different ways by others.

btw, I do look to the bible for my guidance, but i certainly don't propose that I know all the intricacies of what hell will be, especially since even when Jesus talks about it, he uses language that in greek and jewish culture meant extremely different things then we understand it now. Also, at times its unclear where words of "symbolism" and words of "literalism" are being used. The line begins to blur, and I think that's the point. The scriptures are trying to warn and instruct us, giving us imaginative language. not say "this is how it is: A, B, C, blah blah blah" The ABC method of understanding scripture is very modern, starting during the enlightenment period (1300-1600 AD ish I believe?) If we really want to understand how scripture is trying to define the afterlife (and our relationship with the Lord, for that matter) than dissecting scripture like a dead frog just ain't gonna work.

I See.

and what Paul said is not exactly what I was aiming for but fairly close.

There are 2 different kinds of hell, Living hell and Hell that supposedly where Satan is(if This hell really exist).
People create there own hell and heaven, Living Hell and Living heaven simply by the choices they make in life or by
the laws and rules that govern there life.

Some people make all of this religion, hell, heaven seem more complicated then it needs to be, so people get lost
and can't seem to see the way they do.

Life is not complicated, Life is quite simple, death is where it begins to get complicated because of all of these theories and beliefs
about what happens after death etc, they say after death as if death ends, I Don't think death is any more complicated
then Life, I also cannot say if there is a "after Death" because I won't allow a book that was written by man to tell me there is, Until I'm there or
Witness it with my minds eye I cannot say(all honesty) that there is in fact a "after death".

I Just choose to have an open mind.

well, there you go. indeed we were talking about different things again it seems.

So I must be an evil ass bastard, according to this...

no, you're evil for posting a link without any hawt chicks in it. =D

The choice between porn and being on this forum is hard indeed.

Tits or GTFO!!

lol.

so than, do people give you a hard time for playing games with violence and sexual themes?

Other than my mum? Nope. Just linking something to throw the whole thread further off topic.

oh okay. =)

Yeah Interesting, how topic can go from God to porn...LOL

*shrug* His fault for giving us so many holes.

yeah pot holes and donutholes are a drag

I love doughnut holes though, best bit of the doughnut, like polo holes too.

From Torturing Puppies to The Big Bang Theory to God to Porn to Dougnuts. This is now The Epic Thread of Random Off-Topicness

... I want some dinky donuts ... But I'd need to travel all the way into town for 'em.

And I'm on call so I can't .

Get them delivered

woa, somebody change the name of the thread? clever

I did - Just edit the first post you make and change the Subject name. (Can't be done if it says Re: Blablabla, only if it just says Blablabla)

Neat, preferred the old name though. Anyways, I think the next topic for sheer randomness should be: Trucks!! Everything's always their fault...

Howard Dean wrote:I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats.

I apologize in advance for dredging this up. (Bah, it's only been a month.) Wish I had been here for this. Just wanted to say I enjoyed reading what everyone wrote. Took me a while, but I managed to get through it all. Someone start another one.

No need! Your here! OOOOOOOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

Hai.

Thana

(ps, where have you been bro?)