Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
Christians dont believe in evolution , and maybe he could get a better view if he reads this book
You getting paid to promote that book or something? ;) Give it a rest, man. People will read it if they want to.

hey man I apologized sorry man you want to sacrifice me or something;)

You don't have enough meat on you. Sorry.

EDIT TO RESPONSE BELOW: Funny man. Funny man.

BigTeddyPaul

*looks at chiseled body* I guess your right no meat only muscle:D

Originally posted by BigTeddyPaul
Ohhhh. Most Christians believe in evolution. Bold statement. Must be a regional thing because I have found quite the opposite. People refute evolution in Christianity as far as I know. Some believe that God uses evolution to help create us but bunches still believe we have always been like this.

I am interested to see responses to that comment.

BigTeddyPaul

I believe in the 'half-way' point. There's somewhere where religion and evolution (science) had to meet. My vote, just before th big bang. God started it off then sat back and watched the universe. :D

EDIT: Damn, forgot to actual say I was Christian...I'm Christian. Catholic if you want to get specific.

All of this stuff is fine, whether or not god got the big bang rolling or stirred the first soup of evolution, those are cool ideas that can be debated or believed. But my biggest beef is that if you say you are a Christian or Catholic or whatever various branch you worship, then you're saying that only you and your kind have an exclusive ticket to the afterlife, while the rest of us are doomed to rot in hell or purgatory or on Heavens front lawn (way outside the gates). That's the concept I despise. That God would rest the fates of all our souls on whether or not we believe an inconsistant poorly translated extremely subjective history book sounds extremely suspect, implausible, and very human, to me. The universe isn't the NFL, where only one predestined team wins the superbowl. The idea that only the chosen and faithful few go to heaven is such a ridiculously elitist concept, a 'master race' of faith.

If that's the case, then I summon Zeus and the rest of the polytheisitic titans to give your god a good fight in a game that he can't fix.

As lowly and human (and funny) as a multi deitic rumble sounds, so does your christian monopoly on the afterlife sound.

Few points in regards to previous statements:

Personal belief from a Christian perspective: You believe Jesus died for your sins and accept him as your personal savior you are in. IF YOU HONESTLY believe that and follow that you are going to heaven. That is the bottom line. Nothing else really matters what you did. Lets say though that at age 18 you do this and at age 40 you are the opposite. That is like landing on go to jail and negates your earlier actions. Catholics do fall in the believing in Jesus category and thus go to heaven. Jews do not because they do not believe that Jesus was God's son. Kind of ironic that God's people don't get in isn't it. Those are my beliefs.

Now what you also said was polytheism which was in another missing thread. Now this is interesting. If you look at the Bible and the Christian faith it is yet is not monothiestic. There are polythiestic principles with the whole Holy Trinity thing going on. Most scholars believe this was to help get members from many pagan religions to join. It was sort of like a compromise to those who wanted to follow more than one god. I am being very breif in this but that is the gist.

It also sounds like you want to talk a little about predestiny and fate and the like according to the all powerful God who can control all. That subject I am not touching again as most people know my views. I am sure someone will go into it with you though.

BigTeddyPaul

Um... what model Ferrari has a back seat?

Mondial 1982 ,for instance, the best. The Mondial 8s are considered one of the most reliable Ferraris. There're others...

In response to some of all the posts:

The Bible was not just a history book by men, that is only your philosaphys(I have a feeling that's spelt wrong.) The Bible says that the Bible is God's word, that God physically told some such as Moses what to write, and others through the Holy Spirit.

In case you havent read it, you can see in the new testament, that what they say and what has happened was predicted in the old testament(some of it anyway, not all) And the Bible does not contradict itself. There are parts that may seem contradictory, but if you study it carefully you can desifer the significance and similarity.

And these people did not have access to each others manuscripts, and most of them never met each other.

Some manuscripts miraculously survived 2 thousand years in a cave before being found. And in those manuscripts can be found references of futer and past events coinciding with other parts of the Bible.


As for christianity, I see there are alot of different views, well I believe christianity in it's origional state. The solid foundations Jesus set through the Bible.

I almost can't understand why people go off believing some of these wierd things, like God set evolution in motion. Why do you believe that? do any scriptures tell of evolution? did some wise man claim God told him in a dream?

Basicly, I am just curiouse, I have never really been told why some people believe some things. So why do you believe that God set evolution in motion?

How can someone have faith in a book written by man that says its the word of an all-powerful God that has been changed more than enough times over the past 5000 years? If I wrote a book and said 'God told me to write this and say it is His word', would anyone believe me? NO. The reason the Bible was believed in was because back in the day people needed explinations for what they feared or couldn't explain with VERY early alchemy. And then, people needed an excuse for power, so they claimed that this all powerful being gave them divine rights over man, and that their word is the word of God. And now, we have our Freedom of Religion, thought up BY Christians, and yet nowadays, it seems most Christians wouldn't want you to express any kind of will over who or what you do and don't worship. If we don't worship THEIR God, we go to THEIR Hell.

And about Hell, why is Hell in existance? Simply put, to put fallen angels and sinners to punishment. Now, who was the first fallen angel? Lucifer. Okay, now then, what did Lucifer want? He wanted to be God. So, what does God do for Lucifer's insubordination? Sends him to Hell, where Lucifer rules over fallen souls...whereas God rules over 'elevated' or 'righteous' souls. Hm, lets look at this again...*elevator music while you re-read it*...seems like all God did was give Lucifer his wish.

Ok, about the evolution thing... This is my personal belief and by no means does any other Christian have to agree with me.

I believe that God let evolution happen as well as he created all living things. BUT!!!!!!!!!!! I also believe that Christians should NOT spend all their time bickering about if God did or if he didn't. Isn't the purpose of the Bible to bring Christains to a deeper and more intimate relationship with God such as showing how much he loved us? Isn't it to show non-believes about how much he loves us? Do you think that someone who is interested in becomeing a Christian really cares about the evolution or creationalism debate? No, they care about understnading why God loves us the way he does and what has he done for them that would make them love HIM. Does God want us to concentrate on the evolution vs. creationism debate or does he want us to focus on having a deeper relationship with him? I think it is the latter.

Originally posted by Mandolorian54
I almost can't understand why people go off believing some of these wierd things, like God set evolution in motion. Why do you believe that? do any scriptures tell of evolution? did some wise man claim God told him in a dream?

In the Bible, Genesis, it says God created all the living things correct? It is now apparent by fossil evidence that some animals such as the modern day lion, were not around a while ago, while ANCESTORS of that lion were. I know Samuel or someone kills a lion but we're talking farther back than that. I believe that, yes, God created all the living things but he created them differently than they are today, and let the ADAPT to whatever their environment was. Take the flood for instance... the environment after the flood went down was probably a LOT different than it was before the flood... so, it is safe to assume that God let those animals adapt to their new environment.

And yes, it can go either way, since the Bible does not state explicitly that evolution did or did not happen, why would it be wrong for Christians to have different views on that?

I dont know why I'm bothering here... I'll just be ignored. But I just love picking apart your posts...

The Bible was not just a history book by men, that is only your philosaphys(I have a feeling that's spelt wrong.) The Bible says that the Bible is God's word, that God physically told some such as Moses what to write, and others through the Holy Spirit.

First off... ok, so you believe that the bible is a history book. Right, I disagree, but whatever. I take issue with the second part of this quote. "The Bible says that the Bible is Gods word..." Do you see the bad logic here? I could use it again here "I'm right. Why? Because I said so." I didnt believe it when my sister said it, and I dont believe it now.

I almost can't understand why people go off believing some of these wierd things, like God set evolution in motion. Why do you believe that? do any scriptures tell of evolution? did some wise man claim God told him in a dream?

I pose a counter question. Does it have to be said in the scriptures to have any authenticity? Do wise men have to dream up everything in order for it to be true?

Okay, now this is interesting. You should really look into the history of how and when the new testament was actually written. The emperor of Rome, Constantin, was concerned that Rome was losing a foothold as the all powerful empire and that all these polytheistic religions were separating people. So it wanted to adopt a monothesitic religion that was the official religion of rome that everyone could unite under. All descisions that are made to decide what rules are 'Canon' were beaurocratically made. There was a huge committe that decided on what went into the New testament and what didn't. That's why it's the only religion that's structured like a government, with priests, and bishops, and cardinals, and finally the pope.

The gospels were written long after Jesus had already died, and they took the best four that correlated with what the old testament predicted. Like a Hollywood screenplay, they were shaped and formed and re-written, until it was decided it was finished. In fact one can simply study history and research to find out what other cultures and religions influenced these writers of the new testament.

I say this not as an offensive non believer, but as an objective student of all religion. I just want to share with you some examples of similar Christ like stories, that existed hundreds to thousands of years before Jesus: (these are facts, they don't require faith)

Buddha

Although most people think of Buddha as being one person who lived around 500 B.C., the character commonly portrayed as Buddha can also be demonstrated to be a compilation of godmen, legends and sayings of various holy men both preceding and succeeding the period attributed to the Buddha.

The Buddha character has the following in common with the Christ figure:

* Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the "Queen of Heaven."
* He was of royal descent.
* He crushed a serpent's head.
* He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water.
* He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."
* He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
* He was transfigured on a mount.
* Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.
* He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven."
* Buddha was considered the "GoodShepherd", the "Carpenter", the "Infinite and Everlasting."
* He was called the "Savior of the World" and the "Light of the World."


Horus of Egypt

Not many people even know of Horus, but the stories of he and Jesus are strikingly similar. Horus and his once-and-future Father, Osiris, are frequently interchangeable in the mythos ("I and my Father are one"). The legends of Horus go back thousands of years predating Christ, and he shares the following in common with Jesus:

* Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
* He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old.
* Horus was also baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who becomes "John the Baptist."
* He had 12 disciples.
* He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
* He walked on water.
* Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
* He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
* He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word" etc.
* He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish ("Ichthys").
* Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father."
* Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the Christians duplicated the story.


In fact, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis - the original "Madonna and Child" - and the Vatican itself is built upon the papacy of Mithra, who shares many qualities with Jesus and who existed as a deity long before the Jesus character was formalized. The Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version it replaced. Virtually all of the elements of the Catholic ritual, from miter to wafer to water to altar to doxology, are directly taken from earlier pagan mystery religions.

Mithra, Sungod of Persia

The story of Mithra precedes the Christian fable by at least 600 years. According to historians, the cult of Mithra was, shortly before the Christian era, "the most popular and widely spread 'Pagan' religion of the times." Mithra has the following in common with the Christ character:

* Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.
* He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
* He had 12 companions or disciples.
* He performed miracles.
* He was buried in a tomb.
* After three days he rose again.
* His resurrection was celebrated every year.
* Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd."
* He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."
* He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
* His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
* Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
* His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."


Krishna of India

The similarities between the Christian character and the Indian messiah are also many. In fact, a common earlier English spelling of Krishna was "Christna," which reveals its relation to '"Christ." It should also be noted that, like Jesus, many people have believed in a historical, carnalized Krishna.

* Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One")
* His father was a carpenter.
* His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.
* He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.
* He was of royal descent.
* He was baptized in the River Ganges.
* He worked miracles and wonders.
* He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.
* Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
* "He lived poor and he loved the poor."
* He was transfigured in front of his disciples.
* In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.
* He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
* Krishna is called the "Shepherd God" and "Lord of lords," and was considered "the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word."
* He is the second person of the Trinity, and proclaimed himself the "Resurrection" and the "way to the Father."
* He was considered the "Beginning, the Middle and the End," ("Alpha and Omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
* His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus," meaning "pure essence."
* Krishna is to return to do battle with the "Prince of Evil," who will desolate the earth.

There are many others, but those are the most popular and accessable.

I implore you to look at other historical records, just to get all the facts about the times and conditions under which the Bible was written and who influenced what. Just as Mandalorian says that the Bible doesn't contradict itself if you study it hard enough, none of the other religions really condradict the Bible if you study them hard enough. In fact it's clear, they influenced it.

Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger
How can it be a cave/manger?:confused:
And why are you so adament about trying to prove their is no god? Does it frighten you that there might be a omnipresence that knows and is more powerful than you?

Cave, meaning a dirty un-royal place to be born, just like the manger was. And why would you equate my questioning the Jesus story as me being a afraid of God? The existence of God does not depend upon the physical existence of Jesus, that much is clear. It's not the existence of God that I'm disputing, it's the written words of men who claim to 'know' God I dispute.

Well said, Speck.

Your questioning basically follows my own. People often seem to interpret questioning the Bible as disbelief in God. They dont see that one can simply not know.

Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
Does it frighten you that there might be a omnipresence that knows and is more powerful than you?

Does it frighten you and other Christians that there might NOT be an omnipresence that knows and is more powerful than you?

Speck, despite that overwhelming well written post and fantastic list of facts a mile long, I have a feeling some of the Christians here are going to either use the excuse that Shock described (You're wrong because I say so) or they're going to attack the validity of the science behind it. Or, they'll avoid countering it and ask you a question that has no bearing on the topic, like Thrackan.
Like yourself, I'm a seeker of truth - that pursuit has led me to study many different types of faith and belief systems, and as a result I feel I have tolerance and an open mind for all different types of religion/belief systems. Funny that the Bible, which teaches tolerance of other faiths as one of it's messages, is a trait not found in many Christians (but not all).

Most Christians have never bothered to study the history of the Bible (or any religious text, for that matter). To add to what you said, even before Constantine, Christians were incorporating parts of other belief systems in order to attract more people to convert.

Mandalorian - Those 2,000 year old scrolls you're talking about that were recovered? I believe you're referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Interesting that you should bring that up, because the public has never seen them. The reason that we likely won't (if the church hasn't gotten rid of them already) is that they probably contain an earlier version of the Bible than has not undergone all the various revisions and edits and additions the modern Bible has, and contains information that contradicts or upsets the continuity of the current Christian religion.

Thank you Eldritch and Shock...

Look I don't want to burst anyone's bubble here. Believe anything that feels right to you. I just like to peel the onion all the way before I commit my tears, know what I'm saying? Religion and science used to be intertwined. But science jumped far ahead because it's core maxim is to admit when it was mistaken and adapt to what is experimentially proven to be right. And since science is constantly poking holes in it's own conclusions, it's constantly changing and adapting it's laws. Changing and adapting are the two key components of GROWTH. Whether or not you believe in evolution on a grand scale, it's proven on a short term day to day basis that's how human beings grow, by changing and adapting. Whether it's their technology, or artistry, or their attitude, human beings progress by adapting new discoveries. I believe that religion should do the same. There are plenty of Scientists who get stuck in their ways and refuse to believe they're completely or even slightly wrong. I think that's bad science. And when religion refuses to bend or adapt, that's (dare I say) bad religion...

The truth is I wish the world was simple enough where a savior would come down and show humanity how to evolve into enlightened and loving divine beings. Or in star wars language, where there shall be ONE who will restore balance to the force. And who knows, maybe there is? I'll tell you what, if or when he ever comes, the first thing he'll do is educate himself with all the cultures and histories he can find, so he can do his job better. Because saving God's creatures means understanding them all, and not cutting anyone out.

I think I've said all i can on this topic for now. Time to give my lightsaber a rest, lol. Again I mean not to offend but to share what I've learned and what I'm continually discovering.

Originally posted by speck of dust
...But my biggest beef is that if you say you are a Christian or Catholic or whatever various branch you worship, then you're saying that only you and your kind have an exclusive ticket to the afterlife, while the rest of us are doomed to rot in hell or purgatory or on Heavens front lawn (way outside the gates). That's the concept I despise...

The last I heard the official word from the Catholic Church is that they think almost any religious person is going to heaven.

What I don't understand is why people who think you are going to hell offend you. If you don't believe what they are saying then how can you be offended? It just seems like you are awfully hung up on a group of people you don’t have any respect for.

This is great....

I go on holiday for a week, and in the meantime three cool people and a cool thread appears.

Damn. Where are my stand-ins when I need them?

Skin? Wacky? Templar?

Anyway, great debate - keep it rolling until I get home, 'kay?

Originally posted by ioshee
The last I heard the official word from the Catholic Church is that they think almost any religious person is going to heaven.

What I don't understand is why people who think you are going to hell offend you. If you don't believe what they are saying then how can you be offended? It just seems like you are awfully hung up on a group of people you don’t have any respect for.
If you read his posts carefully, Speck has stated that he has great respect for all the different religions (and has studied them in-depth). But the behaviour of some of the followers and the way they choose to tell others that unless they accept Jesus they're going to hell comes off as a little self-rightious (sp?). Saying that indirectly implies that "I am right and you are wrong," and since hell isn't supposed to be a nice place, I'd take someone telling me that I'm going there as an insult, so why wouldn't I be offended?

I understand a little better now.

So you might not believe in trolls but if someone called you one it would be offensive right? Because trolls are not supposed to be nice? That makes sense if that is what you mean.

Self - righteous
and why dont you critcize Muslims for calling "non-muslims" infidels? Isnt that self -righteous?

Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
Self - righteous
and why dont you critcize Muslims for calling "non-muslims" infidels? Isnt that self -righteous?

That's very deserving of criticism. I dont think it's a question that thats an offensive and self-righteous thing to say. What's your point, exactly?

Eldrich, would you stop it.

Or, they'll avoid countering it and ask you a question that has no bearing on the topic

Speck has been giving all the good points, I've only seen you agree with him.







I'm being honest here.

Speck, I cannot counter those points that you made about the other religions. You have apparently studied a religion for many years or you're just good at copying and pasting off of websites. ;) Who am I to argue.
As the Bible says, If someone hits you, turn your other cheek. Trying to counter those points would be honorable but it would not be turning the other cheek.
Very good points but... this changes nothing in my mind. I don't care what all the other religions believe although it is rather interesting to see the simalarities with the other religions.
The God of the Bible is my one true God...

But...

I tip my hat to you as you have made the best arguments I have seen on this forum.
*Tips hat*

He either knows his stuff or he knows a good site which knows its stuff.

BigTeddyPaul

Yes but the only counter arguement for that the I could come up with was "But they aren't right." I would rather tip my hat to him than make an arguement that is stereotyped for Christians.

Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
Self - righteous
and why dont you critcize Muslims for calling "non-muslims" infidels? Isnt that self -righteous? if they do that its not their being muslim but them being nationalistic. the prophet muhammed said to not criticize another religion or its followers.

Thracken, I think that the Muslim religion could not exist without the Christian religion before it, nor could the Christian religion exist without the Jewish religion before it. The 'Big Three' are just extensions of each other. They all at times are self righteous and elitist. I think degrading outsiders as infidels, is similar to Christian's saying non believers will go to hell, and the Jews claiming to be the chosen people. This exlusion is where religion goes all wrong and starts wars and genocides and inquisitions. I think religion should look at humanity as a whole, at everyone being equal, their only differences lie in the cultures they grew up in. Tribalism and Territorialism are what screw it all up. Don't we all understand by now that they're all saying the same thing to the same god just in different languages? That's the only way to stop petty religious rivalries and remove the stain their wars leave on the modern world.

Right now the Islamic religion is facing a grave crisis in the eyes of the world, and I completely and utterly disagree and disapprove with many of their cultural practices and beliefs. But again, look at the history and the environment under which Muhammad started the religion (i'm not going to write another long post and get into it here) but if many Muslims did that, they would see that those ways are not relavent or necessary in todays world. Adapt and change, Adapt and Change.

Originally posted by ioshee
So you might not believe in trolls but if someone called you one it would be offensive right? Because trolls are not supposed to be nice? That makes sense if that is what you mean.
Exactly.
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Speck has been giving all the good points, I've only seen you agree with him.
I've stated several points that Speck has backed up. If you're only seeing me agree with him, you haven't read my posts. And way to turn the other cheek on me, by the way. Jesus would be proud. :rolleyes:
And no one's trying to change your mind, so it's kind of unnecessary to state that you are unmoved.
Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
Self - righteous
and why dont you critcize Muslims for calling "non-muslims" infidels? Isnt that self -righteous?
You could apply my statement to any person who exhibits the behavior I described (i.e. believe in what I believe or something bad will happen to you). I'm not limiting it just to Christians, or even just to religious folk, for that matter. Anyone can be "elitist."

Speck of dust, would you mind giving a link or source to validate some of those 'Jesus-like fables' you listed? I'm not questioning your validity, but I would like to see some of that myself.

I'm personally not going to comment on speck of dusts comments until a link or source is provided, but in the mean time I'd like to clear up a few things.

As a Roman Catholic we believe that the Bible is NOT absolute history. Some of the events of the Bible were written long after the events which that book occured in. Many of the stories found in the Bible are intentionally symbolic and have absolutely no historical value. Even some of the events and attributed words of Jesus may not have been done in the order which they are presented in the Bible, nor may they have been done in the same manner. In general, the times when you see Jesus speaking for a very long time in one instance in the Bible, it was, infact, not recorded and written down as such. Instead after Jesus' death the early members of the Church would say "The teacher used to say..." about certain instances or subjects. They would then attribute it to certain parts of the New Testament. Also, not everything is ment literally in the Bible: 1000 years, 40 days, 7 days, the number 6 all have much different meanings than simply the numerical value showen. A thousand years signifies a very long period of time, the number 7, perfection, the number 6, imperfection, ect. Those numbers are simply applied to certain dates or predictions, to add some symbolisiom to what is factual. This is not necissarily a flaw of the Bible, though I will not get into that today. I will attempt to answer the circlular debate which will surely arrise from such an assumption once the link which I requested is provided.

The teaches of the Catholic church do not say that everyone who is not a Catholic will go to hell. Those who see the Catholic church, and do SEE, but refuse to follow, will, without a special intervention from God, or a change of heart go to hell. That is to assume that they had total knowledge, but still refused. The same applies to other Christians. Anyone who is invincibly ignorant of the Catholic church (or have never been exposed to it), but follows the "Law of God which has been written on their hearts" which is basically the set of morals which everyone has will go to Heaven (atleast eventually). The Catholic faith does not say that all Catholics will go to Heaven. If you die in the state of a totally acknowledged mortal sin, have no intention of confessing it, then, without some special intervention, you will go to hell... Catholic or not. To put it simply (though somewhat compromised); anyone who is a moral person regardless of religion will go to Heaven, though it makes it harder for one who is not Catholic.

Eldritch, regardless of wether or not the Dead Sea Scrolls contain an 'unedited' version of the Bible should be irrelevent to you. In your own logic, why should you believe such a foolish thing? Why do you even believe those Dead Sea Scrolls exist?

Sience and Religion may have been intertwined by individuals that happened to be in one form of religion, and one aspect of sience. However, these are human beings no matter how you look at it. And human beings can be wrong; just because some members of a specific religion believed one thing to be sientificially proven -- through misinterpretion of their religion -- yet later on, that sience proves that theory false, does not bear any resmblance to the teachings of that religion.

The Catholic Church, for example does not specifically say anything about the truthfullness of theories in sience to be fact or fiction. Leave sience to what sience does, it cannot disprove the beliefs of the Catholic Church, nor does it benifit from discoveries made there in. While an individual can benifit from knowing sience aswell as their religion, the two do not have a natural tie, a tie which becomes severed when one ceases to change, while the other proves and disproves new theories. On the contrary, no matter how much sience changes, the Catholic Church can always work in harmony with it.

In the Catholic Church, nothing new can be added to part of the doctrine of the faith unless the Pope declares 'from the chair' that it is indeed unfailibly so. A Pope neither has the authority to, nor will declair that something such as evolution is fact or not. Neither view contradicts with the teachings of the faith. For example, our current Pope, Pope John Paul II did not approve of the USA's preemptive strike against Iraq. This does NOT reflect the belief of the whole Church, it DOES NOT does that mean that we must believe that, or else we are no longer Catholic. I personally believe that it was indeed a good idea, and has proven to be quite succesfuly in all fronts. Once again, a Pope would never declare something not directly relating to religion or not to be infailibly true or not. The Pope does not have all the information on the conflict; if he new everything that Bush knows, then I would hope that he would agree with it.

Anyways, this post is not ment to give an answer as to *why* the Catholic Church is the one true faith, and why all other faiths are wrong. Nor am I trying to say that the Bible is subject to change and editing. If I were to propose that with the ammount of information I gave in my above post it would only lead to a useless circular arguement. If and when I post again I will give more concrete knowledge and facts as to why we believe that the Catholic Church has the truth. This post is merely for correctly some of the misconceptions that have arisin in this thread.

speck of dust, some totally awesome info you presented. :thumbsup:

I thought I already knew it all... but that was.. interesting indeed. :)

I have a point to make, the impossibility of a non- created universe is enormous. I agree with you that it doesnt mean that the God is the God of Christianity, but the chances of everything coming together the way it did would be incredible odds. Wouldnt you think that the world would be off with something? The Periodic Table is evidence of a God, the organization of the chart and how it all falls together is no coincedence, if they came from nothing then how could they all fall together the way they do?

It's random.

You would say the same thing if the Periodic Table was different, since you didnt know any other Periodic Table.

Originally posted by Silent_Thunder
Eldritch, regardless of wether or not the Dead Sea Scrolls contain an 'unedited' version of the Bible should be irrelevent to you. In your own logic, why should you believe such a foolish thing? Why do you even believe those Dead Sea Scrolls exist?
It's not irrelevant to me, because as I've stated several times now, I'm interested in the truth, and am not limited to just science or just religion. I will continue to seek that truth from any source, regardless of whether it is religious or secular.
And I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls exist because it's existence has been confirmed by both science and the church... unless they're plotting something together, this is pretty solid evidence that they're real.
Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
I have a point to make, the impossibility of a non- created universe is enormous. I agree with you that it doesnt mean that the God is the God of Christianity, but the chances of everything coming together the way it did would be incredible odds. Wouldnt you think that the world would be off with something? The Periodic Table is evidence of a God, the organization of the chart and how it all falls together is no coincedence, if they came from nothing then how could they all fall together the way they do?
Your first sentence is a little confusing. I think you meant, "it's not likely that a higher being [God] didn't create the universe." If so, it's a double negative statement. If this isn't true, please correct me or restate your point more clearly.
The Periodic Table isn't evidence of a God - the organization comes from the scientists who organized it, not some naturally occuring position in nature. Not to mention that some of the elements are man-made.

It depends on how you interpret the bible concerning the world. The Bible states that it took 6 days to create everything but it also says that a day in the presence of the Lord is like a thousand of ours so it could have taken six thousand years for everythig to be made.

Not necessarily the right way to view it but just something to be thought of.

Concerning the periodic table what are you talking about. There is a good of chance as some THING creating it as it jsut happened. Your viewpoint is not based on anyhting factual in the least. If you had some more evidence then I could see it but you provided nothing. A scientist who questions everyhting who rules out a god could say that the periodic elements could have been made with the same randomness as humans being made.

BigTeddyPaul

Originally posted by C'jais
This is great....

I go on holiday for a week, and in the meantime three cool people and a cool thread appears.

Damn. Where are my stand-ins when I need them?

Skin? Wacky? Templar?

Anyway, great debate - keep it rolling until I get home, 'kay?

Your welcome Cjais. Speck is a friend of mine on a server that I play MOH:AA on. I saw a nice big fancy post that I knew that you guys would like so I gave him a link when I posted when answering a question back. As for the other guys I don't know if they came with speck.

As for everything that you guys are posting I will just ignore it cause I kinda tend to flame in these threads.

:lsduel: :duel:

Thracken, I tend to agree with the point you're making. There is such a beauty to the universe (the little of it that we can see and know) and a preciousness to it all that make it seem like a grand design. So many variables could have happened to make the universe nothing like the one we live in and inhospitable to stars, planets, and life. The way molecules interact with each other, the way stars dance around each other, and the way DNA adapts and effects life, there is a whole process going on that seems like they're all dancing to a similar piece of music. Now what that music is, or who orchestrated it, is the ultimate question. Us lowly little humans have tried to answer it through religion, science, philosophy, and art. Can we ever really answer it? Definitly not while we're alive. However, I'd like to think that we will 'know' it when we die. I'd like to think that the 'energy' that enters our being as the sperm enters the egg, and then recycles through out our bodies for the next nine months and ninety or so years, is part of that music. Call it a soul, call it electricity, I don't care what the words are. And I don't care who's playing the music or who wrote the music, as long as we're a part of it. This is what feels right to me, because it doesn't exclude anyone or anything and it leaves no room for the useless petty conflicts that often surround the issue of God.

Could I be completely wrong? 100%. Maybe it all really is random and there is no music or no dancing and no grand design to it. That is not an exciting Idea to me. But I won't deny it's possibility. It also doesn't fully play into what I know and see in life in general. In it's vaguest sense, I see that there is a 'design' all around us in nature. The food chain, is a design of sorts. The weather is a design of sorts. The earth, is an organism of sorts. Organism meaning organized parts that make the design of a funcioning whole. Everything on our planet seems to serves a purpose in this 'design'.

This could just be my subjective view, personifying nature into my own ideas of symmetry. But when i think of these ideas, of God being an artist creating or maintaining a beautiful masterpiece, my heart feels a tug of affirmation. Doesn't it to you guys?

Everything else is politics to me. Laws, economy, territory, those are the things that humans really need to think about and work out and, if they're ignorant enough, fight wars over. Communism vs. Capitalism, Democrats vs. Republicans, those are issues that can be solved by simply practicing them. But the religion thing cannot be solved (unless Jesus really does return, or if buddha comes down to gives us a reincarnation tour , or if Zeus makes a comeback on his lightning bolt). As I said, I hope that this non denominational God will make itself known to us when we die. I will go on believing that, because it's more meaningful to me than thinking our lightswitches are just flipped off when we die and we cease to be and experience nothing. But I accept that in a universe with endless possibilites, anything is possible.

Random design or God's design, it's a beautiful place to live.

Originally posted by speck of dust
Random design or God's design...I'd like to think it was random. It's kind of disheartening to think that such a supreme being such as God made man the way he is. For instance, if it was me, I know I could do a better job. Making sperm need to be a cooler temperature then the body thus having the testicles hang freely in a sack of skin, and then make them so sensitive...yep, that must have been the design of an infinitely wise being. Making the fetal position the pose of choice for protection, but then neglecting to maybe add another rib or some other bone to protect the kidney's...once again, the true sign of omnipotence. Toenails? You guessed it, absolute genius. I could go on for quite some time, but I reckon those are enough.

What is the point of making something that is so inherently flawed?

Speck of Dust, would you mind giving a link to the original post you made about those people who had very similar lives to Christ? Before I rebut those facts with any kind of arguement I would first like to give it the benifit of the doubt by understanding the original source better.

Originally posted by Silent_Thunder
Speck of Dust, would you mind giving a link to the original post you made about those people who had very similar lives to Christ? Before I rebut those facts with any kind of arguement I would first like to give it the benifit of the doubt by understanding the original source better.
Well, the original source is probably from Speck's brain after having studied the religions in question, but here are a few links on the people he mentioned :
Buddha (http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/saints/buddha.htm)
Mithra (http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/mithra.htm)
Krishna (http://krishna.avatara.org/)

Originally posted by speck of dust
Religion and science used to be intertwined.

Before Templar goes ballistic over this, I'll just say it right here instead:

No. They have never been intwined. Science has only existed during the last 150 years, AFAIK.

As soon as Faith enters the building, Science leaves. Science concerns itself only with data, and the logical conclusions you can draw from that. The conclusions can be proven wrong with time, as new data supliments or substitutes the old, but as long as the right conclusion is made from the existing data, it can never be "wrong" in the scientific, logical way of things.

This is why Faith will never be fact. As soon as it's fact, there's no need to believe in it. As soon as it's redundant to believe in something, it has become natural.

Thus, there will always only be the natural in the universe. Everything else is a subjective expansion of it which occurs only in the head of the believer. Not that there's anything wrong with that - it's false and illogical, but who am I to judge based on this?

And when religion refuses to bend or adapt, that's (dare I say) bad religion...

As I can see you're very proficient in the history of religion, can I ask you this?

When has a certain religion ever adapted?

I'm aware that the pope accepts evolution (thank God), but it's still just a different interpretation of the same, outdated, useless texts. Or this is how you define adaptation? :confused:

Oh, and welcome to the forums, Speck! :thumbsup:

Originally posted by speck of dust
The way molecules interact with each other, the way stars dance around each other, and the way DNA adapts and effects life, there is a whole process going on that seems like they're all dancing to a similar piece of music.

That "music" is nothing less than nature.

Why can nature simply not be beautiful in itself? Can we not just be content with the beauty we can see and stop looking for someone who orchestrates that music, or something that keeps the music playing after we're no longer there?

Why? Can we not just accept that the beauty of the music is that it plays by itself, and that everything is a part of that beauty, no matter how cacophonous it sounds?

People like Einstein tried to understand how the music played to its own notes with the correlation between energy and mass. The beauty of nature is how it plays, not why it plays. The beauty of a piece of music is that it plays the way it does, how the notes interact to generate a flowing rythm - not who made the music. So curse me if I don't have several posters of Mozart in my room. I'll accept my fate in hell if I don't want to idolize the guy who wrote the music. That's just shifting focus from what's important to who made it important.

I hope all of you will some day find that you're the same God you've been worshipping all along. But even if you don't, it doesn't matter - what matters is that we're sitting here and pondering about this. What matters is that it's impossible to throw the inner beauty of nature away. What matters is that it's possible to just for one second see yourself as part of it, flowing and rippling through the universe like everything else.

The beauty in humans is that they're capable of seeing the music in something as trite as nature. I think believing is a woundrous, beautiful thing to do. But to realize that there's no need to believe at all, to realize that all the beauty you will ever see is all around you, within your reach at all times, is even more beatiful to me.

Speck, even if there's no grand design to the randomness of nature, it can still be beautiful - right? We don't need to invent something supernatural in order to instruct us to see the beauty in the natural, s'all I'm sayin'.

Now, that's enough preaching of C'jaisism for today folks...

I wanted to paste the whole post of C'jais as a quote but it's too large. Some notes are definitely needed here

Why can nature simply not be beautiful in itself? Can we not just be content with the beauty we can see and stop looking for someone who orchestrates that music, or something that keeps the music playing after we're no longer there?

To stop looking for is a mistake. Can orchestra play without it's conductor? perhaps possibly but improbably. Conductor is the essence of the opera, the same with God.
Somehow I feel that it is not God you're trying to question but the christian worshiple symbol of Him. If so, to find someone who orchestrates that music is as dear to you as to any believer. Let the worshipers have their idol.

I'll accept my fate in hell if I don't want to idolize the guy who wrote the music. That's just shifting focus from what's important to who made it important.

Idolization is a superstition. Only religious fanatics and dummies idolize God. Do you listen to them while making your decisions? (I doubt it). God is only what we perceive. If you don't agree with Bible interpretation there is no big problem with that.

The beauty in humans is that they're capable of seeing the music in something as trite as nature. I think believing is a woundrous, beautiful thing to do. But to realize that there's no need to believe at all, to realize that all the beauty you will ever see is all around you, within your reach at all times, is even more beatiful to me.

Atheism is a religion too but only illogically fanatic one and you ( Noble Jedi of knowledge and logic) must never try to step that way. That's where the Dark Side is. It's just another easy path. You do believe that nature does the trick then you can start a new religion from here because it is the nature you have just worshipped. Of course you didn't but some might say you idolize it.
And if I could just raise my lightsaber and cut all the absurd religions we have invented (like atheism) then I must admitt that against all better judgement Christianity and Many others would survive my stroke

People like Einstein tried to understand how the music played to its own notes with the correlation between energy and mass. The beauty of nature is how it plays, not why it plays.

Do you believe that Einstein wrote his general relativity just to check his statistical and mathematical skills. Or just tryed to marvel at his beautiful result or tryed to satisfy his ambitions by only proving that classics were wrong. I can't believe you do.

I hope all of you will some day find that you're the same God you've been worshipping all along

I love this part (can't help pasting again) and you're probably right about this. Great respect

Originally posted by Homuncul
To stop looking for (God?) is a mistake.

Sure, if there were the slightest proof of the "design argument", it'd be silly to not look for the designer. However, with logic it's possible to deduce that the universe is not designed, but rather, it exists pure natural causes.

The food chain may look "designed" from a brief look at it - but upon closer inspection, it's easy to see that it's "merely" a natural reaction to predators and prey in any kind of environment. A watch found in the desert may look like it was designed to be there somehow, but upon closer inspection we can see that it's fabricated from natural materials from natural causes. No magic.

Everything so far has been able to be explained as natural. When we suspect something is supernatural, we research it and is explained as natural. Thus, soemthing which is supernatural can never exist, except as a concept in people's minds. This is why it is futile to search for God in the real world. This is why people must believe to realize God. Believing is the opposite of knowing - it's stepping outside of fact.

Can an orchestra play without it's conductor? perhaps possibly but improbably. Conductor is the essence of the opera, the same with God.

"Music" is a metaphor for how we perceive everything works together the way it does. It means there are no places where a higher power has to step in and correct impossible things to make everything flow smoothly. Everything interacts with everything. It's a beautiful music because, from simple natural causes, everything can be explained.

Move your hand. Drop a rock. Play an MP3 file. Make graceful movements on a dancefloor.

The beauty of these and all actions is that the "music" they produce is caused from itself. No outside director, only natural causes and products. Sure, put a God on top of all this if you want, but it is redudant. Why place a god in a universe which can exist by itself? Why put a designer on something which has designed itself? Why explain the universe with God when it can explain itself? Redundancy. Worthless redundancy to me.

Somehow I feel that it is not God you're trying to question but the christian worshiple symbol of Him.

I like the idea of a personal faith more than the outdated, dogmatic insitutition of Christianity. But it is both, really - it's just that Christians have this funny idea that some people are "damned" and whatnot. That's so funny.

Idolization is a superstition.

Faith is superstition. Christianity is a superstition.

Only religious fanatics and dummies idolize God.

Really? I thought God was one big idol in people's minds.

God is only what we perceive.

God is exactly what we do not perceive. God is what we'd like to perceive, but cannot. He's the redundant variable in the equation of everything that exists - he can be removed without causing any loss of anything at all. No loss of understanding. No loss of reality.

If you don't agree with Bible interpretation there is no big problem with that.

Yup. But if you don't agree with the accepted logical interpretation of things, there is a big problem. Like evolution.

Atheism is a religion too

It's not a religion, but don't worry - I'm agnostic if it makes you feel better about me.

but only illogically fanatic one and you

Less illogical than religions, but still flawed, yes.

You do believe that nature does the trick then you can start a new religion from here because it is the nature you have just worshipped.

Nature is the kinder god. I'm an agnostic naturalist.

Of course you didn't but some might say you idolize it.

Yeah, hehehe. True that.

But still, how can you idolize everything that is? Makes no sense to me.

And if I could just raise my lightsaber and cut all the absurd religions we have invented (like atheism) then I must admitt that against all better judgement Christianity and Many others would survive my stroke

Why that? Explain yourself. After all, Christianity has spawned far more fundamentalists and reality skewed individuals than atheism.

I love this part (can't help pasting again) and you're probably right about this. Great respect

Thank you. Same goes to you.

Now check yourself

I hold to that there is an ultimate cause but it is different vision of God we're talking about. Have you ever heard a voice of God? Do you always see God as a superbeing looking like an old man all in white, shining like the sun (or something like that)? This is only a vision that comes from Bible or christianic painters. Science is another road to God. The ultimate cause God not just a simplified symbol which Bible carries. I too believe in accepted logical interpretation of things as Evolution and I myself hate words such as "divine" or "faith" and "religion". But that is really how they should be named only knowing that a line between being divine, faithful, religious or being sumreme,egoistic (in a theological way),fanatic is very short. That's where tolerable Christianity ends and untolerable begins. (same with Faith)

Science can not explain many things: superstring theory (yet), God etc. But that doesn't mean that these things are unknowable. Perhaps some day I will know God for I myself never in life had a revelation or a miracle to say exactly that God exists. To know thing is completely different from understanding it. We know for example a human genome but it gives us nothing because we can't understand what it says, it's like reading a foreighn book without knowing a language. But we move on: step by step, acid by acid, gene by gene - Hey, here comes the answer. So we will possibly never understand God but we would probably know. Don't you agree?

As soon as we remove God from understanding only pure facts will remain we have nothing to do with. It's just statistics which give no tendency rate or anything. And from that point any of us is a God himself because in the end we do not agree with asking a question and not recieving the answer.

Maybe there's nothing to talk about because as I see we both believe in Science as a complete understanding theory of Genesis which we can prove in thousands of ways but that doesn't really exclude God. Maybe on the contrary? And isn't agnosticism "an intellectual justification for a desregard of theology"?

Christianity introduces us with a superbeing and it's a knowledgable thing for instance. This is a reason it should be kept and any try of demytholization of God won't work. Myth is the primary base for any philosofy. God is necessary intellectually as well as politically, economically and so on. It will always be at least something you learn at school.

I understand perfectly that when a religious belief is concerned, argument is not the whole matter but it's the same shade of intolerance.You cut it from your understanding - you see better but not necessarily clearer.

to Silent Thunder: the information I listed is based various studies I've made through college courses, libraries, bookstores, and yes the internet. I can find some books to tell you about and some websites as well.

to Cjais and Homuncul and Eldritch:

Well hell, it seems like we're all saying the same thing...lol....

C'jais, thank you for finally joining this little fray. And for welcoming me into the larger one.

I was just pointing out that when I look at nature, I see many things that indicate small pieces that make up a whole. The idea that we could just be metaphorical 'blood'cells' that make up planetary 'organs' that make up galactic 'systems' that make up a universal 'organism' is intriguing to me and fun to explore what that ultimate organism may be, and how many are there, and what's beyond them...etc... Science itself is sees the relationship between the microcosm and the macrocosm, the desire to connect them is inherent in string theory and any other 'theory of everything'. Why is it a stretch to think that the vibrations of the sun (which are often in synch with the vibration of the earth's core) aren't a manifestation of some higher dimensional intellegence, one that is beyond our comprehension? On a much smaller scale, even whales, dolphins and elephants, all have communication that is beyond our understanding. As humungous of a scale as the universe is, who's to say what's what? The ideas I'm talking about certainly aren't new, but they excite me and that's why I mentioned them. You could say that assigning an 'intellegence' to the universe is very human of me, but denying intellenge to something so much greater and complicated than you is even more human! :P

Again the only way that we'll know any of the answers to those bigger questions in the forseeable future is if an older more intellegent species (extra terrestrials) can come down and share it with us. So until then, we can all debate which answers seem rational to us and which ones don't.

Originally posted by speck of dust
Again the only way that we'll know any of the answers to those bigger questions in the forseeable future is if an older more intellegent species (extra terrestrials) can come down and share it with us. So until then, we can all debate which answers seem rational to us and which ones don't.
That's assuming that they're not smarter than we are. :p
I would certainly hope that they were, though... having created technology advanced enough to bring them here from elsewhere in the Universe. :D

But they would certainly be dumb enough to fly all that way, just to land here....

;)