Trace2010:
Scientists still have struggled over THE MISSING LINK, and the so called GREAT LEAP FORWARD. Why? CAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!!

Science has proven that Great Leap Forward exists, heck there is more evidence of Mao existing than Jesus.

Sneakypenguin, I propose a more logical conclusion that the Bible makes - God has foreknowledge about everything because he has determined every single action for his own ends. For me it doesn't make sense that God can see the future (as you propose) but does and can do nothing about it - if thats the case then God is weak. However the Bible is CLEAR that God has foreknowledge because of predetermination.

And desires "all to be saved" - language study, who is the "all"? In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul defines "all" as "those who belong to Him" - and remember, you have to read one verse holistically along with all the others. If John 11 says that Jesus died for the Children of God scattered throughout the World (limited atonement) and 1 John 2 says that Jesus died for the "whole world" (supposedly unlimited atonement) - the logical language study is to say this:
both were written by John.
both were saying the same thing.
Therefore it is fair to say, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not just ours but also the (children of God scattered throughout) whole world" - 1 John 2 (insert John 11)
Thus the one verse that could be seen to uproot limited atonement actually defends it.

Dele:

Trace2010:
Scientists still have struggled over THE MISSING LINK, and the so called GREAT LEAP FORWARD. Why? CAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!!

Science has proven that Great Leap Forward exists, heck there is more evidence of Mao existing than Jesus.

LOL. Scientists has proven..... Great Leap Forward? I think you are taking science way too seriously. But, yes, there is plenty of evidence for it, for a start there's the mass deforestation, that's not mentioned in books or on the net thanks to censorship and the fact no one cares, but there are plenty of villagers' tales of green landscapes turning to bare muddy hills. Also there are all the gaps in lots of family trees corresponding to people who died after this period.

Dele:

Trace2010:
Scientists still have struggled over THE MISSING LINK, and the so called GREAT LEAP FORWARD. Why? CAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!!

Science has proven that Great Leap Forward exists, heck there is more evidence of Mao existing than Jesus.

You mean how there's more evidence of Jesus living than Shakespeare?

Dele:

Trace2010:
Scientists still have struggled over THE MISSING LINK, and the so called GREAT LEAP FORWARD. Why? CAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!!

Science has proven that Great Leap Forward exists, heck there is more evidence of Mao existing than Jesus.

I hate how people always point to the missing link. There isn't one, there doesn't need to be one, that's the point.

Trace2010:
I am not saying mankind hasn't evolved- of course we have. What do you think skin pigmentation is- or round and slanted eyes are (evolutions of man to protect against THE SUN)? But I AM saying we didn't start with the rest of the universe- WE WERE PLACED within it at a particular place and time where the planet could best facilitate human growth and development. And the fact that we were placed in the proper place, in the proper time, with THE ABILITY TO EVOLVE only furthers my point. Scientists still have struggled over THE MISSING LINK, and the so called GREAT LEAP FORWARD. Why? CAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!!

Trace,

The stuff you're posting is rather, err, scientifically misguided. Hell, with all the exclamation points and capital letters it kinda comes off as downright insane.

No "scientists" "struggle over the missing link." Paleontologists are continually discovering new ancient species to fill in these supposed evolutionary "gaps." That's why cdesign proponentsists have to continually shift the goal post (even then, they're still not fooling anyone).

Of course humans emerged in circumstances that were favorable to their development. That's how natural selection works.

-- Alex

Anarchemitis:

Dele:

Trace2010:
Scientists still have struggled over THE MISSING LINK, and the so called GREAT LEAP FORWARD. Why? CAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!!

Science has proven that Great Leap Forward exists, heck there is more evidence of Mao existing than Jesus.

You mean how there's more evidence of Jesus living than Shakespeare?

Okay obviously you failed to understand my post and what it had to do with evolution so I guess I gotta do it the old good way.. With pictures!

Here is your regular unevolved farmer. Obviously he is discontent to his life as can be seen from his expression but fortunately for him there are higher forces in the world trying to change his life completely.

Introduce a little influence from Mao Zedong (theistic folk can replace him with God) and the evolutionary process shall begin.

Irrefutable proof about existance of the missing link that scientist are supposedly struggling with

An artistic view about Great Leap Forward producing modern civilized people out of unevolved farmers. You can read more about GLP from Encyclopedia Galatica

There you have it! A farmer evolved into a happy communist through influence by divine being causing evolution to happen. It doesn't get any simple than this folks... Any futher questions? No? Good

Actually I do have a question; what does Communist Cult of Personality have anything to do with God?
Don't answer that. Back on topic.

Trace2010:
They actually taught a chimp one time to play all 12 major scales on a xylophone. He can't do that rather well- just don't ask him to sight read or play in a symphony any time soon.

You seemed to be implying that the 2% variation meant that we couldn't have evolved. The fact that such a small change can cause such a big difference is in fact evidence for evolution.[/quote]

I am not saying mankind hasn't evolved- of course we have. What do you think skin pigmentation is- or round and slanted eyes are (evolutions of man to protect against THE SUN)? But I AM saying we didn't start with the rest of the universe- WE WERE PLACED within it at a particular place and time where the planet could best facilitate human growth and development. And the fact that we were placed in the proper place, in the proper time, with THE ABILITY TO EVOLVE only furthers my point. Scientists still have struggled over THE MISSING LINK, and the so called GREAT LEAP FORWARD. Why? CAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!![/quote]

the Great leap forward indeed existed, the only reason skepticism still abounds is due to the nature of China's ability to censor its media. And many candidates for "missing links" exist in the fossil record, the only reason none of the "believers" accept this is because they demand a living link. Humans and chimps both use tools, both wage war, both have intricate social structures, both have sex for pleasure, and both have the same number of hair follicles, humanity's body hair is usually just less pronounced.

Alex_P:

Trace2010:
But I AM saying we didn't start with the rest of the universe- WE WERE PLACED within it at a particular place and time where the planet could best facilitate human growth and development.

Of course humans emerged in circumstances that were favorable to their development. That's how natural selection works.

If we evolved in a place favorable to our development, why didn't God plonk us down in like, Malibu or the Rivera or somewhere like that? Somewhere favorable enough to some day be a Club Med or serve as the location for a Corona ad? I mean, at the very least, why put us in East Africa when North Africa has a perfectly good river with a flood plain for agriculture in the form of the Nile?

As for the Great Leap Forward, I think this is what he's talking about:

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

This many mentions of the Great Leap Forward--"Man Women Together"--necessitates a response from the forum denizen known as cheeze_pavilion:

http://www.vh1.com/video/play.jhtml?artist=299&vid=53839#

In the Cheese Pavilion, and the only noise I hear/is the sound of someone stacking chairs and mopping up spilled beer...

and as a nod to Prop. 8, Billy's anthem of sexual freedom that still sounds great all these years later:

http://www.vh1.com/video/play.jhtml?artist=299&vid=46310#

I've had relations/with hamsters and dalmatians...

double post

Alex_P:

Trace2010:
I am not saying mankind hasn't evolved- of course we have. What do you think skin pigmentation is- or round and slanted eyes are (evolutions of man to protect against THE SUN)? But I AM saying we didn't start with the rest of the universe- WE WERE PLACED within it at a particular place and time where the planet could best facilitate human growth and development. And the fact that we were placed in the proper place, in the proper time, with THE ABILITY TO EVOLVE only furthers my point. Scientists still have struggled over THE MISSING LINK, and the so called GREAT LEAP FORWARD. Why? CAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!!

Trace,

The stuff you're posting is rather, err, scientifically misguided. Hell, with all the exclamation points and capital letters it kinda comes off as downright insane.

No "scientists" "struggle over the missing link." Paleontologists are continually discovering new ancient species to fill in these supposed evolutionary "gaps." That's why cdesign proponentsists have to continually shift the goal post (even then, they're still not fooling anyone).

Of course humans emerged in circumstances that were favorable to their development. That's how natural selection works.

-- Alex

So, can we get maggots from meat?
No, I assure you Alex, I am quite lucid in my arguments. Please pardon my overexhuberance.

I believe that science is mankind's attempt to realize complete understanding and control of the world he lives in- a noble ambition to be sure, but one that is always limited to concepts and calculations within the realm of human understanding. This is where science reaches its limitations on what can and cannot be proven as fact- once you get to a scale TOO big, you lose the accuracy of what can be proven.

Michael Chrichton said it best in Jurassic Park- paraphrased, "humans had no standard of measurement that would allow them to conceptualize 100 million years ago". Radio carbon dating is still inexact- 10 million years from now, the carbon in the bones of me, you, Chairman Mao, Ghengis Kahn, Shakespeare, Mozart, and Napolean Bonaparte would all register in the same period of time. I am quite sure that scientists are still struggling to put everything in the right order.

So saying that, yes, I believe evolution is a possibility, and it is the one possibility that the "enlightened human mind" can grasp and hold on to using it using the evidence and the rules of science to explain the world around it.

However, if this is true then everything being done on this earth to civilize it is a waste of time...time started, but there is no overall goal of life, no purpose. What people argue as "purpose" being an abstract idea, I find preposterous. Without purpose, all we have is instinct. Some scientists would actually interchange the words "purpose" and "instinct"- I find that silly. Assume we are the chimps: we eat, drink, mate, survive, thrive, born again. Maybe we develop complex social structure; maybe even something regarding speech patterns or songs to attract a mate. But we don't build or paint the Sistine Chapel; we don't compose Marraige of Figaro- there is no purpose to these things for a chimp. A chimp cannot be taught what art is, or what music is, or even what architecture is- and comparing a termite fishing rod to a screwdriver, or a sand burrow to the Palace of Versailles, is the complete definition of insanity- yet it is done by scientists all the time. That's the same arrogance as saying on the basketball court, "you're pretty good for a girl".

Also, if we are chimps, we do not have complex thoughts; we do not ask complex questions; we have no need of complex moral ideals. Evolution tells me these things would eventually come in time- but not if there is not an immediate need, a cause for the change (the scientific term escapes me for the moment). What was the basic cause for science to be developed in the first place? Quite frankly, the answer was organized religion- (on one side the attempt to prove its existence, on the other to discredit it entirely).

If there was no God (poly or monotheistic), there would be no reason to create anything: Art, Literature, Fashion, Architecture, Music, - what other species do you know that does THOSE things for pleasure.

Just as many atheists claim believers use religion as a "security blanket", I believe that the reverse exists as well- that science is used as the security blanket to protect a person from something that can exist outside of the metaphysical. While I am not going so far as to state belief in the "Boogyman", I do believe that there are forces (both absolutely good, and absolutely evil) that attempt to shape the world as it sees fit. It is the only "scientific" explanation (for lack of a better term) that covers every stupid/sick thing man can do to his fellow man, as well as give ordinary people extraordinary courage.

Lastly, I love how everyone says you can't prove what is in the Bible- Egypt still exists, as does Jerusalem, Jordan, (and many other historical biblical sites)- yet are so quick to say they do not like God because of what (supposedly) was done in the Bible.

I am interested: what does China's media have to do with this argument anyway?

Oh, one more thing---

There is no evidence to support that either or both of these occurances could have happened at the same time. But man, that would be another bone and a half to pick, now wouldn't it?

Trace2010:
However, if this is true then everything being done on this earth to civilize it is a waste of time...time started, but there is no overall goal of life, no purpose. What people argue as "purpose" being an abstract idea, I find preposterous. Without purpose, all we have is instinct. Some scientists would actually interchange the words "purpose" and "instinct"- I find that silly. Assume we are the chimps: we eat, drink, mate, survive, thrive, born again. Maybe we develop complex social structure; maybe even something regarding speech patterns or songs to attract a mate. But we don't build or paint the Sistine Chapel; we don't compose Marraige of Figaro- there is no purpose to these things for a chimp. A chimp cannot be taught what art is, or what music is, or even what architecture is- and comparing a termite fishing rod to a screwdriver, or a sand burrow to the Palace of Versailles, is the complete definition of insanity- yet it is done by scientists all the time. That's the same arrogance as saying on the basketball court, "you're pretty good for a girl".

Also, if we are chimps, we do not have complex thoughts; we do not ask complex questions; we have no need of complex moral ideals. Evolution tells me these things would eventually come in time- but not if there is not an immediate need, a cause for the change (the scientific term escapes me for the moment). What was the basic cause for science to be developed in the first place? Quite frankly, the answer was organized religion- (on one side the attempt to prove its existence, on the other to discredit it entirely).

If there was no God (poly or monotheistic), there would be no reason to create anything: Art, Literature, Fashion, Architecture, Music, - what other species do you know that does THOSE things for pleasure.

Your entire argument boils down to equating "should be" with "is." "Oh, I would much prefer if God existed. Therefore, he must!" Aesthetic arguments certainly have a place in theology and philosophy but, well, you need something with more substance as well.

At best, you're looking around and saying "Hey, here is some stuff we don't know! Lets fill it in with the same stuff that people two thousand years ago used to fill in stuff they didn't know, despite the fact that what we do know now has consistently shown that their beliefs make much more sense as metaphors than as statements about the direct objective nature of reality -- probably because they were just big ol' guesses to begin with."

Heck, even aesthetically, the "God of the gaps" rather sucks. Fundamentally, he's a God who's constantly in retreat, shirking away from every new particle, every new fossil, every new AI algorithm -- a God that is doomed to wither and die. There's gotta be some other conception of God that, at the least, isn't being slowly strangled by our own growing abilities to perceive the very universe that he supposedly created.

-- Alex

Alex_P:

Trace2010:
However, if this is true then everything being done on this earth to civilize it is a waste of time...time started, but there is no overall goal of life, no purpose. What people argue as "purpose" being an abstract idea, I find preposterous. Without purpose, all we have is instinct. Some scientists would actually interchange the words "purpose" and "instinct"- I find that silly. Assume we are the chimps: we eat, drink, mate, survive, thrive, born again. Maybe we develop complex social structure; maybe even something regarding speech patterns or songs to attract a mate. But we don't build or paint the Sistine Chapel; we don't compose Marraige of Figaro- there is no purpose to these things for a chimp. A chimp cannot be taught what art is, or what music is, or even what architecture is- and comparing a termite fishing rod to a screwdriver, or a sand burrow to the Palace of Versailles, is the complete definition of insanity- yet it is done by scientists all the time. That's the same arrogance as saying on the basketball court, "you're pretty good for a girl".

Also, if we are chimps, we do not have complex thoughts; we do not ask complex questions; we have no need of complex moral ideals. Evolution tells me these things would eventually come in time- but not if there is not an immediate need, a cause for the change (the scientific term escapes me for the moment). What was the basic cause for science to be developed in the first place? Quite frankly, the answer was organized religion- (on one side the attempt to prove its existence, on the other to discredit it entirely).

If there was no God (poly or monotheistic), there would be no reason to create anything: Art, Literature, Fashion, Architecture, Music, - what other species do you know that does THOSE things for pleasure.

Your entire argument boils down to equating "should be" with "is." "Oh, I would much prefer if God existed. Therefore, he must!" Aesthetic arguments certainly have a place in theology and philosophy but, well, you need something with more substance as well.

At best, you're looking around and saying "Hey, here is some stuff we don't know! Lets fill it in with the same stuff that people two thousand years ago used to fill in stuff they didn't know, despite the fact that what we do know now has consistently shown that their beliefs make much more sense as metaphors than as statements about the direct objective nature of reality -- probably because they were just big ol' guesses to begin with."

Heck, even aesthetically, the "God of the gaps" rather sucks. Fundamentally, he's a God who's constantly in retreat, shirking away from every new particle, every new fossil, every new AI algorithm -- a God that is doomed to wither and die. There's gotta be some other conception of God that, at the least, isn't being slowly strangled by our own growing abilities to perceive the very universe that he supposedly created.

-- Alex

Aesthetic arguments do not have a place in science as well? AHA, I have now proven that something exists outside the quantifiable realm of science!! lol..

I guess this is how you and I differ- you, Mr. Tom Masters(whose paper I have read and I believe you are quoting), and all the non-believers believe that human discovery is strangling the existence of God...when I believe He is actually being revealed and mankind is too slow to understand this, because within themselves, they are secretly hoping that God can one day be disproven with finality. But really: How is my God being strangled by our depth in human understanding? I understand that the wind, the rain, the forest, etc. all had their own gods back in the days of polytheism until monotheism came along and debunked them. The ultimate problem with many gods: they were given human qualities and were supposedly in constant struggle with eachother- which did not ultimately reflect the balance of life. The problem with the new god called science is, even if we find an underlying answer to a question, it does not present the ultimate answer- it only adds more questions. I firmly expect when a scientist dies for them to find God- have Him look at them and say "What took you so long?"

Stimulus-Response-Stimulus-Response-Adaptation-Stimulus-New Response-New Stimulus

The wheels on the bus go round and round, but they had to start somewhere- and we had to jump on, fully in rhythm, ready to evolve with the planet, but given a completely different skill set (both in size and in capacity), than the other animals. That takes talent, not trial and error, and not blind luck.

No Alex...God is not in retreat- He has always been there. People are in the state of constant retreat- the same people who subverted the word of God that caused the Inquisition and the Crusades; that caused Reformation; and Counter Reformation; that placed the King of England back in control, and have recently been the source of everyone's "control issues". Me, I am not a scientist, nor a theologian, which is why it is very easy for you to punch holes in my science or in my religious history and doctrine- but not my logic or my reasoning...I am an artist and creator, which makes it much easier for me to understand God who is both.

Oh one more question/observation: Even if Evolution were proven, would it actually refute God anyway? Or is science on the single most slippery sloped fallacy of our time?

Why don't you people start referring them to TalkOrigins.org?

Trace2010:
What was the basic cause for science to be developed in the first place?

Surviving as a basically hairless, weak, slow, small ape with dull, tiny teeth and fragile nails?

Trace2010:
Assume we are the chimps: we eat, drink, mate, survive, thrive, born again. Maybe we develop complex social structure; maybe even something regarding speech patterns or songs to attract a mate. But we don't build or paint the Sistine Chapel; we don't compose Marraige of Figaro-

Actually, we do; it involves things like Peak Shift: http://www.pbs.org/howartmadetheworld/episodes/human/

+++++

Also, here's a really great blog on where the philosophy of aesthetics (among other things) meets modern neuroscience:

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/

G_Wright:

yes it might if we were to ignore the scriptures & make it up how God feels on the subject

there is only a few references to homosexuality in the scripture's

homosexuals are cast in with the other behaviours & actions that get humans condemned to death

there are NO scriptures that say homo love is good or acceptable or dignified . not one single scripture casts homosexual behaviour in a positive light . none

......

Hmmmm, yes, well my point was that the Bible's condemnation of homosexuals can be derived from only a man and a woman being allowed to marry in addition to mandating that only a married couple can have sex. This basically restricts homosexual sex, but I was curious as to the restrictions of a celibate homosexual relationship.

Does this mean that as long as sex/marriage isn't involved, homosexual tendencies aren't condemned by the Bible? (Although I suppose that the specific point of homosexuality is sexual attraction to the same sex, meaning a homosexual relationship is based on the desire for sex with the same gender.)

jordan.:
Sneakypenguin, I propose a more logical conclusion that the Bible makes - God has foreknowledge about everything because he has determined every single action for his own ends. For me it doesn't make sense that God can see the future (as you propose) but does and can do nothing about it - if thats the case then God is weak. However the Bible is CLEAR that God has foreknowledge because of predetermination.[not saying that He can do nothing about the future but that He chooses not to and allows man free will.]

And desires "all to be saved" - language study, who is the "all"? In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul defines "all" as "those who belong to Him"

{how can you take the meaning of "all" from one verse and transfer it to another? Words have different meanings do they not? One could also be fair in stating that"all who belong to Him" means those that have placed their faith in Christ not those that God selects}

- and remember, you have to read one verse holistically along with all the others. If John 11 says that Jesus died for the Children of God scattered throughout the World (limited atonement) and 1 John 2 says that Jesus died for the "whole world" (supposedly unlimited atonement) - the logical language study is to say this:
both were written by John.
both were saying the same thing.

Therefore it is fair to say, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not just ours but also the (children of God scattered throughout){transfering meaning again}
Thus the one verse that could be seen to uproot limited atonement actually defends it.

And I think you missed my point on God being all knowing but choosing not to predestine .
Some have suggested that the idea of man having a free will is somehow a denial of the sovereignty of God. If it is God who created man with a free will, omnisciently knowing how man will exercise it, omnipresently influencing man to use it for God's glory and omnipotently holding man responsible for how he exercises the free will, how is His sovereignty denied?

For God to elect those for salvation (and by logic condemn those that arent) is to show that He is not a just and fair God as shown in the scriptures. But it would show malevolence in that he would create people specifically for hell. It also brings no glory or honor to God if man has no free will. IE if people serve you because you make them that means so much less than people having a love for Christ and serving Him

Basically I'm saying yes God does predestinate events He also gave man a choice to pick between choosing to place faith in Him or rejecting Him.
All knowing and all powerful =/= pre-selection for salvation

I put my replies to your post in brackets cause I'm not sure how to separate it into little quote blocks.
Again appologies for not replying in a full manner as i'm in class atm of writing

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Trace2010:
What was the basic cause for science to be developed in the first place?

Surviving as a basically hairless, weak, slow, small ape with dull, tiny teeth and fragile nails?

Trace2010:
Assume we are the chimps: we eat, drink, mate, survive, thrive, born again. Maybe we develop complex social structure; maybe even something regarding speech patterns or songs to attract a mate. But we don't build or paint the Sistine Chapel; we don't compose Marraige of Figaro-

Actually, we do; it involves things like Peak Shift: http://www.pbs.org/howartmadetheworld/episodes/human/

+++++

Also, here's a really great blog on where the philosophy of aesthetics (among other things) meets modern neuroscience:

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/

Interesting= I'll have to look at them when I have more time...if you could send these to me in private e-mail so I don't lose them in the blog.

sneakypenguin:

jordan.:
Sneakypenguin, I propose a more logical conclusion that the Bible makes - God has foreknowledge about everything because he has determined every single action for his own ends. For me it doesn't make sense that God can see the future (as you propose) but does and can do nothing about it - if thats the case then God is weak. However the Bible is CLEAR that God has foreknowledge because of predetermination.[not saying that He can do nothing about the future but that He chooses not to and allows man free will.]

And desires "all to be saved" - language study, who is the "all"? In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul defines "all" as "those who belong to Him"

{how can you take the meaning of "all" from one verse and transfer it to another? Words have different meanings do they not? One could also be fair in stating that"all who belong to Him" means those that have placed their faith in Christ not those that God selects}

- and remember, you have to read one verse holistically along with all the others. If John 11 says that Jesus died for the Children of God scattered throughout the World (limited atonement) and 1 John 2 says that Jesus died for the "whole world" (supposedly unlimited atonement) - the logical language study is to say this:
both were written by John.
both were saying the same thing.

Therefore it is fair to say, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not just ours but also the (children of God scattered throughout){transfering meaning again}
Thus the one verse that could be seen to uproot limited atonement actually defends it.

And I think you missed my point on God being all knowing but choosing not to predestine .
Some have suggested that the idea of man having a free will is somehow a denial of the sovereignty of God. If it is God who created man with a free will, omnisciently knowing how man will exercise it, omnipresently influencing man to use it for God's glory and omnipotently holding man responsible for how he exercises the free will, how is His sovereignty denied?

For God to elect those for salvation (and by logic condemn those that arent) is to show that He is not a just and fair God as shown in the scriptures. But it would show malevolence in that he would create people specifically for hell. It also brings no glory or honor to God if man has no free will. IE if people serve you because you make them that means so much less than people having a love for Christ and serving Him

Basically I'm saying yes God does predestinate events He also gave man a choice to pick between choosing to place faith in Him or rejecting Him.
All knowing and all powerful =/= pre-selection for salvation

I put my replies to your post in brackets cause I'm not sure how to separate it into little quote blocks.
Again appologies for not replying in a full manner as i'm in class atm of writing

That was very well put, I shall use this when arguing with Calvinists.

jordan.:
Typecast - can you back up your nihilist conclusion?
Because to me it sounded like your argument was a bunch of conclusions without a premise.

You obviously have NO clue who Jesus is.

Matt 10:34 - "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"

And "a man" - have you read the claims of Jesus?
He repeatedly, emphatically declared and was ultimately killed for saying "I AM GOD"

Dude, Jesus isn't a good teacher if his claims aren't true. He's probably the biggest jerk in the history of the world.
People worship him as God and pray to him as they die. Parents tuck in their children praying to Jesus.
Unless you have actually researched his claims and declare them to be true -
don't crap yourself talking about a man with a message of peace.
Because you believe he's a liar.

I sure do believe he's a liar. But like the great Buddhist scholars, he lies for a reason you don't at first understand. I also believe you seem to have an interesting, if not outright jingoistic sounding opinion about what Christian means. And as for his "I AM GOD" statement, you seem to be as confused as the Pharisees. Jesus is a part of God, one of his three virtues. The first being the Creator, God the Father, the second being Sustainer/Provider/Will/Force(not being starwarsy here) (ugh what a stupid name for it too)Holy Spirit and lastly Redeption, the Son who has redeemed his(the collective's) offspring, man(or humanity to be a little more PC). Now I consider it I was careless in my use of the word 'being', for you see these three aspects are a part of the same entity, which forms the trinity. Sorry, Holy Trinity.

If you think about it in terms of the overarching narrative the sacrifice of the "son" is really a sacrifice on God's part to redeem its mistake at Eden. Then Jesus returns with the miracle of eternal life(Please tell me you supposedly Christian people understand the concept of eternal...*crys*) as compesation to make up for the exile. Jesus is Gods way of admitting he was wrong about the firey vengeance and making peace with humanity(mankind if you're a chauvenist pig).

If you want to throw the words "I bring a sword" around you should be aware of what was meant. The sword was not meant for the enemies of God or Jesus, but his followers who would risk their lives for generations to come following him whilst turning the other cheek.

I sure do believe he's a liar. But like the great Buddhist scholars, he lies for a reason you don't at first understand. I also believe you seem to have an interesting, if not outright jingoistic sounding opinion about what Christian means. And as for his "I AM GOD" statement, you seem to be as confused as the Pharisees. Jesus is a part of God, one of his three virtues. The first being the Creator, God the Father, the second being Sustainer/Provider/Will/Force(not being starwarsy here) (ugh what a stupid name for it too)Holy Spirit and lastly Redeption, the Son who has redeemed his(the collective's) offspring, man(or humanity to be a little more PC). Now I consider it I was careless in my use of the word 'being', for you see these three aspects are a part of the same entity, which forms the trinity. Sorry, Holy Trinity.

If you think about it in terms of the overarching narrative the sacrifice of the "son" is really a sacrifice on God's part to redeem its mistake at Eden. Then Jesus returns with the miracle of eternal life(Please tell me you supposedly Christian people understand the concept of eternal...*crys*) as compesation to make up for the exile. Jesus is Gods way of admitting he was wrong about the firey vengeance and making peace with humanity(mankind if you're a chauvenist pig).

If you want to throw the words "I bring a sword" around you should be aware of what was meant. The sword was not meant for the enemies of God or Jesus, but his followers who would risk their lives for generations to come following him whilst turning the other cheek.[/quote]

WOW...let's rewind and take this one back from the top.

1)The Trinity:

A) God the Father- all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and all-terrible, Creator of Heaven and Earth. Liberator to the Hebrews in the time of Ramses II. Gave 1 Law to Adam and Eve, 10 Commandments to Moses, formulator of covenants with the people of Israel

B) God the Son- Jesus Christ, answer to the inevitable truth that it was impossible for humanity to live by the laws of God, to bring a new covenant from the Father to humanity, died on the cross- became intercessor to the Father on behalf of all who invoke His name.

C) God the Spirit- the essence of the Holy Spirit instilled with the Word of God that was bestowed upon the Twelve Apostles (and subsequent apostles) to carry on the teachings of Jesus. In their first appearance, they took on the form of tongues of fire.

2) God did not make the mistake in Eden- Adam and Eve did. Adam and Eve kept their immortality until they were chased from Eden for eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil- NOT "TREE OF KNOWLEDGE" as most people mistakenly assume.

3) The sword was not just meaning that. Jesus's parable of the sword in His time was referring to divisions on several levels:
A) The division that Jews would have with Him after believing Him to be the Messiah. He would become the Messiah of the world, but not in a way any man living during His time believed He would be.
B) The divisions within His own apostleship after they found out He would NOT be destroying the Romans to liberate the Jews. This would lead Judas Iscariot to betray Him, and Peter to deny Him three times.
C) The many divisions that would incur as His new covenant was preached and His new church was constructed.

And maybe...just maybe...

D) The fact that said church would be corrupted and subverted by the ways and means of man, causing other churches to break away. This lead to the Great Schizm, and the Reformation.

I have a question.

I recently read Exodus; the part where Moses asks the pharao to let his people go; at some point the pharao says yes, but makes him revert that descision time upon time, so that the pharao and his army can be squashed in the red sea later. This is, as written, done so he can show his power as god.

This kind of...irks me in a wrong way. Why make someone act like an ass so you can punish him later for being an ass?

SunoffaBeach:
Where does a Theologian draw the line between knowledge and belief?

...still waiting.

SunoffaBeach:

SunoffaBeach:
Where does a Theologian draw the line between knowledge and belief?

...still waiting.

Hrrrm...as a theologian, knowledge is information you know to be true, belief is what you believe to be true. The two can conflict or overlap.

Both can be false.

Alex_P:
Your entire argument boils down to equating "should be" with "is." "Oh, I would much prefer if God existed. Therefore, he must!"

TBF, most counter arguments are "Oh, Religion has done some bad things. Therefore, he mustn't or he's a git."

Trace, I direct these questions at you.

By the same standard you applied to science, does Religion also not work? And I mean all religion.

IF God existed, why would be need to reveal himself, judge us, create us only to tell us how to live and think? Does not creating something to live and be free contradict the brainwashing needed for almost all religion?

What created God?! For what purpose would he have been created?

If humans views are flawed and everything we do is marred with inadequacy and mortality (etc), then how do we know of "the perfect one"? Surly such a being is just something created in myth to sustain the morale of the weak-willed and easily motivated?

The_root_of_all_evil:

SunoffaBeach:

SunoffaBeach:
Where does a Theologian draw the line between knowledge and belief?

...still waiting.

Hrrrm...as a theologian, knowledge is information you know to be true, belief is what you believe to be true. The two can conflict or overlap.

Both can be false.

Then why do people get upset when I tell them: "You don't know if God exists?"

SunoffaBeach:

The_root_of_all_evil:

SunoffaBeach:

SunoffaBeach:
Where does a Theologian draw the line between knowledge and belief?

...still waiting.

Hrrrm...as a theologian, knowledge is information you know to be true, belief is what you believe to be true. The two can conflict or overlap.

Both can be false.

Then why do people get upset when I tell them: "You don't know if God exists?"

Because it's like saying "You don't know if your cat/dog has just got run over.". Faith is strengthened by positive belief, as is love and a number of other insubstantial knowledges. If someone said, "By the way, I've wiped my bum with your controller/keyboard." then you're going to still feel really quite icky, even if you know it to be false.

Alex_P:
Michael Chrichton said it best in Jurassic Park- paraphrased, "humans had no standard of measurement that would allow them to conceptualize 100 million years ago". Radio carbon dating is still inexact- 10 million years from now, the carbon in the bones of me, you, Chairman Mao, Ghengis Kahn, Shakespeare, Mozart, and Napolean Bonaparte would all register in the same period of time. I am quite sure that scientists are still struggling to put everything in the right order.

Carbon dating isn't the only form of dating that scientists use, it's only good for ~10000 years because the half life of the carbon isotope they use is too short(something like 800 years i think) so it decays too quickly. That's why they use other radioactive isotopes of other element that are common enough but have longer half lifes and can go back to much much more distant times. If you look at Uranium-lead dating, it can go back 2.5 or so billion years with a potential error of around 2 million( ~2%) and thats only one of the techniques that are used.

Anyway that was slightly off topic, back to religion

Trace2010:

So, can we get maggots from meat?
No, I assure you Alex, I am quite lucid in my arguments. Please pardon my overexhuberance.

I believe that science is mankind's attempt to realize complete understanding and control of the world he lives in- a noble ambition to be sure, but one that is always limited to concepts and calculations within the realm of human understanding. This is where science reaches its limitations on what can and cannot be proven as fact- once you get to a scale TOO big, you lose the accuracy of what can be proven.

You do realise that we can do calculations without understanding? It won't be long until we build a computer that can understand things outside of the meta-level we can.
For an example of a meta-level, we need only take a look at one of Escher's woodcuts. While within the two-dimensional framework of the picture, the picture is impossible, we can step back into the 3rd dimension and see that it is very possible. So many of the things that seem impossible to understand now (c.f. Quantum Mechanics) would actually be rather simple to understand on another level of thinking.
What I'm basically trying to say is that science isn't bounded by human experience, it can go much further than that.
Ironically it is on the small scale that things can't be proven; Einstein's relativity serves us well for now, and new theories will eventually arise to take into account the anomalies.

Apologies if these have been asked elsewhere, but it's a damned long thread.
1. If you are a biblical literalist, how do you account for the errors within the bible (i.e continuity/repitition of an event with different viewpoints etc)
2. Do you believe that the bible is valid because it is the word of god? Then how do you get around the circular logic that would seem to invalidate it.
3. Would you kill for your religion.

The_root_of_all_evil:

SunoffaBeach:

The_root_of_all_evil:

SunoffaBeach:

SunoffaBeach:
Where does a Theologian draw the line between knowledge and belief?

...still waiting.

Hrrrm...as a theologian, knowledge is information you know to be true, belief is what you believe to be true. The two can conflict or overlap.

Both can be false.

Then why do people get upset when I tell them: "You don't know if God exists?"

Because it's like saying "You don't know if your cat/dog has just got run over.". Faith is strengthened by positive belief, as is love and a number of other insubstantial knowledges. If someone said, "By the way, I've wiped my bum with your controller/keyboard." then you're going to still feel really quite icky, even if you know it to be false.

I don't question their faith. All I say is: "You don't KNOW if God exists. You believe it, but you don't know it."
Then they often get confused as if they can't make the difference between knowledge and belief.

SunoffaBeach:

The_root_of_all_evil:

SunoffaBeach:

The_root_of_all_evil:

SunoffaBeach:

SunoffaBeach:
Where does a Theologian draw the line between knowledge and belief?

...still waiting.

Hrrrm...as a theologian, knowledge is information you know to be true, belief is what you believe to be true. The two can conflict or overlap.

Both can be false.

Then why do people get upset when I tell them: "You don't know if God exists?"

Because it's like saying "You don't know if your cat/dog has just got run over.". Faith is strengthened by positive belief, as is love and a number of other insubstantial knowledges. If someone said, "By the way, I've wiped my bum with your controller/keyboard." then you're going to still feel really quite icky, even if you know it to be false.

I don't question their faith. All I say is: "You don't KNOW if God exists. You believe it, but you don't know it."
Then they often get confused as if they can't make the difference between knowledge and belief.

Ah, but you're starting with a negative statement. The latter statement says you're dealing with logic, but belief is the knowledge of the heart.

If I say "You don't know if your [live family member] has died when you've been writing your reply." you may not KNOW it to be false, but you definitely BELIEVE/HOPE it to be false.

It's still a shitty thing to say without the corollary.