Is this stuff really taught in churches?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lplate @ Nov 26 2007, 10:16 PM) [snapback]544523[/snapback]</div>

ahhhh, harun yahya. the same one whose name is on the "creation atlas" that was sent out to many scientists on my campus last week. yeah, we looked at it briefly and it's about as merit-worthy as the webpage that F8L used to start this whole thread.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lplate @ Nov 26 2007, 10:21 PM) [snapback]544523[/snapback]</div>

the second the term "irreducible complexity" entered the picture, that was it. that's not science.

likewise.

 

The creation of material is our only reference point, the realm of God is not material. From God's realm, or what we see as nothing, matter, or energy, were created. From nothing as we see it. We are unable to perceive that realm. We don't even know what anything is really made of, let alone how it was made from "nothing." We are trying to find out and spend lots of money and time on that topic, with no solution. Time itself, from our limited reference point, exists from the creation of material (energy), the "beginning." The existence of God is not bounded by physical size and time, but is infinite and eternal. That is our way of describing the realm of "nothing." Many like myself have come to believe, at quite late ages, after decades of thought and cynicism. That God exists and always was and always will be is very hard to accept or understand. It takes some faith to accept this (as in leap of.) Being created implies a time point, a beginning. God's realm does not have that dimension. We only have limited senses. It is mind boggling to think of eternity and infinity. Human senses were designed to work in order to survive in our environment, but our minds can reason further, unlike our "ancestors", the animals. IMHO this mind is what is meant by being "made in the image of God" rather than our world necessary physical organs.

I hope non God believers can come to see God believers actually have thought about these issues and have formed answers and not form negative judgements about them. For many this is why they become believers.

That's my quick evening shot at an answer, there are many highly intelligent people out there who do better.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lefat1 @ Nov 25 2007, 09:41 PM) [snapback]544090[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, I do.

But then again, we are related, said Rev. TJ Maher.


Who agrees with his cousin, when he says that religion is the evil, and that Christ is alright.


I believe in this: No one knows it all, and the universe is way too large to try to pin down.

For instance, and something that helps me illustrate this: I saw Cris Angel levitate above the ground, crossing between two buildings. I saw it with others. How he did this, I have no earthly clue. But he did it. Now, if I can't tell you how a man managed to float above the ground, and from one building to another, how can I know how exactly we got here? From some book? From some scientist? No one knows. It's almost like some kind of magic trick.

Someday, I would love to find out how mankind got here.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriuStorm @ Nov 25 2007, 11:44 PM) [snapback]544144[/snapback]</div>

It has it's moments. And the Bible will never be perfect, since it was transcribed by man. But, it has various historical points, and just like other history books, is often written by the victor.

Even the history of the USA is at this point, given to various historical inaccuracies. For instance, and one recent example, the assassination of President Kennedy. If that event, covered by the news, in photo and in video and in print, can be seen as inaccurate, a book that has no actual original hand written copy, is even more prone to inaccuracy.

Yet, there is truth to be found in the Bible. It's a matter of how much you are willing to dig for.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(traydragen @ Nov 25 2007, 11:58 PM) [snapback]544150[/snapback]</div>

Well, I have read what you questioned, and I have also decided, that we can't just assume that because a book says it's true, it is. We have to think for ourselves, decide, then accept that we may learn more later that changes our view.


The Apocrypha is my favorite trump card when someone says the Bible is perfect. If this book is indeed, perfect, the word of God, then how come the Apocrypha was in the 1611 King James Bible, the one Bible often used as the historical Bible, the one so many translations jump off from, how come it was in that first version of the Bible as we know it, but was removed by 1726? With no real explanation? Did God order a re-write? Did He send down revisions?

If a book is perfect, it needs no revisions, no translations, nothing. It would be, perfect.

Which is why, the Bible, while astounding, and fairly accurate for a book that was handed down over centuries, is not perfect, nor will it ever be. And that is okay. My faith, is larger then a book anyway.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Nov 26 2007, 12:12 AM) [snapback]544154[/snapback]</div>

Not entirely true. The time of Moses and the Pharaohs, are fairly represented outside of Biblical text. And there are historical accounts of a man named Jesus Christ outside the Bible.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lplate @ Nov 27 2007, 12:21 PM) [snapback]544511[/snapback]</div>

This can not be true for acording to the Holy Bible: -
"In the begining god created the heavens and the earth"
So if in the begining god created, then prior to the begining there was nothing as how could there be anything before the begining?

Watching out for the exploding heads of creationists.

Why if god always was did the universe need to be created? Why wasn't it always there?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(banjoman @ Nov 26 2007, 05:23 PM) [snapback]544492[/snapback]</div>

There's a movie about this, called Idiotocracy. A silly, fun movie. Not great, but enjoyable.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Nov 26 2007, 05:43 PM) [snapback]544497[/snapback]</div>

You left out a flying spaghetti monster. What if a flying spaghetti monster created everything? Then the contradictions disappear because everyone knows that, unlike god, there has always been a flying spaghetti monster, and there always will be, for ever and ever, ramen!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lplate @ Nov 26 2007, 06:51 PM) [snapback]544511[/snapback]</div>

The fossil evidence of a common ancestor of humans and great apes is so voluminous that to fail to see it you must have put out your own eyes, like Oedipus, with the bejeweled broaches from his self-hanged mother's gown. See ANY modern biology textbook! (Except maybe the ones used until recently in Kansas.)

 

Can religious people PROVE that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't just a long lost twin brother showing up to the party late and not revealing the truth cause, Hell, they were calling him a miracle? Is this a possible scenario?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lplate @ Nov 26 2007, 07:21 PM) [snapback]544523[/snapback]</div>

These hardly qualify as peer reviewed scientific publications.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Nov 27 2007, 07:23 AM) [snapback]544647[/snapback]</div>

Don't know, ask God.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Nov 27 2007, 12:25 PM) [snapback]544837[/snapback]</div>

It's much simpler than that: It's a fable. No twin brother. No resurrection. No burial in a crypt behind a rock. The Romans did not allow crucified criminals to be buried. They were left on the cross for the birds and wild animals to eat. But a couple of hundred years later you can write a fairy tale in which your "god" is buried and resurrected, complete with holes in his hands (people were not nailed to the cross through the hands) and pretty soon you've got even the doubters trying to explain how the stone was moved or who it was who "appeared" to the apostles.

No, Burritos, it was not a long-lost brother. The whole thing was made up.

 

Again and again the religious insist that "proof" is antithetical to "god's" purpose: that the strength of TRUE belief is in the strength of FAITH, and "proof" is not merely unnecessary but sacriligeous to even seek.

So what would happen if science ever did reveal an incontrovertible proof that some sort of "god" exists? Would the religious cringe in discomfort that it would no longer be possible to "prove" strength of faith, upset that "god" would thenceforth have no reason to suppose a worshipper believed in "him" on faith alone? Hell no! The religious would thrust out their chests and strut and boast and not spare a single worldly ear from having to hear that awful proof blasted at top volume from every church roof and steeple. "Faith," that virtue of virtues, would be instantly discarded, a superfluous tissue as useless as dead leaves.

When it comes to supporting their belief, there is no scruple, no principle, no moral value the religious wouldn't instantly sacrifice if they believe it furthers their belief, just as Job meticulously prepared to murder his son in reaction to a voice in his head.

How can any rational mind do anything but recoil in horror?

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 27 2007, 04:59 PM) [snapback]544961[/snapback]</div>

"Zeitgeist" is a free Internet movie http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ that provides an interesting perspective on religion, 9/11, and international banking. A must see for all budding atheists and conspiracy doubters. B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Nov 27 2007, 07:05 PM) [snapback]545015[/snapback]</div>

#1: There is no single "religious" viewpoint. Some feel that it's not "faith" if you have proof. But others engage in every sort of mental gymnastics to try to construct "proofs."

#2: Job was not the guy who was going to kill his son. Job was the guy who lost his property, then his family, and then got boils all over because god wanted to prove to the devil that Job was securely in god's camp.

Abraham was the guy who was going to kill his son. Remember the Bob Dylan song?: "God said to Abraham, 'Kill me a son.' Abe said, 'Man, you must be puttin' me on.' God said, 'No.' Abe said, 'What?' God said, 'You can do what you want to but, the next time you see me comin' you better run.' Abe said, 'Where you want this killin' done?' God said 'Do it out on Highway 61!' "

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Nov 27 2007, 02:25 PM) [snapback]544837[/snapback]</div>

Yup. It's possible.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 27 2007, 06:59 PM) [snapback]544961[/snapback]</div>

Ah, but what really happened, more often then not, is the Romans TIED their victims up to the cross, let them hang there for about three h ours, and turn their backs when their families would show up, and let them down off the cross. It was more for the show, and most of the time, there were no repeat offenders. The nailing of Christ to the cross, was meant to send a message, and that message was, 'This guy ain't coming back'. That is also why they shoved a spear in Him. They wanted Him dead, and dead but good.

The tomb was provided by a rich person, who bought Christ's body, so to speak, and gave up his own burial tomb. The stone in front was common at the time, as was laying the body on a slab inside, and anointing it with oils and the like three days later, in a ceremony. This is all fairly common knowledge of the time period; I am surprised you would not know of it, Daniel.

And, your steadfast belief that it was 'made up', is fair for you. However, I could, in theory, believe that Lincoln was assassinated by his own party, who was pissed that he welcomed back into the union all the rebel states with no penalties. My view on that, could be, well, should be as valid as your view on Christ and His risen resurrection. Neither event, has eyes on it, that are still here. We need to trust that someone got it right; someone who was there, or close to being there at the time, to write it down.

Faith is something that is not easily described. It can be a feeling, based on centuries old writings, it can be based on cultural leanings. It's not a bad thing to have faith, in fact, it can open one up to the possibility, that there are things, that we simply do not understand, nor will we ever.

With my faith, I am open to the idea that there is more to this universe then meets the eye. That there is more out there, then I can fathom. I can rest assured, that I don't know everything, and that is okay, and I don't need to know everything to die a happy person.

Simply put, I have faith in humans and their ability to accept one and another, despite their differences, and someday, we all will see that we are not so different, that we are cut from the same cloth, and that it really doesn't matter if I am right, or you are, or any of it, since in the long run, no one, not even Christ, has come back to tell us what is really on the other side. It's a matter of what ever gets you through the night, it's all right, it's all right.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lplate @ Nov 28 2007, 06:41 AM) [snapback]544853[/snapback]</div>

I refered to his holy word in his holy bible. Well that's what the god botherers call it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 28 2007, 03:41 AM) [snapback]545127[/snapback]</div>

And you will also be unable to tell which are real and which are myth. As long as you "feel" its true it becomes real.

The whole Jesus thing is easily disputed. People do not come back from the dead. That Jesus became a zombie falls into the likely impossible and would require extraordinary proof to convince me otherwise.

Word of mouth, specially when there is evidence that was not the original story, doesn't cut it for me. Consider that the earlier versions we have of the Gospel of Mark DO NOT contain the resurrection story. The disciples find only an empty tomb.

Someone made the point that the gospel is proof of the resurrection because it means there are many witnesses. That person does know the gospels where not written by the disciples, right? The Mark, Matthew, Luke and John of the gospels are just some other guys that "happened" to have the same name. The gospels were likely written after everyone was long dead.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Nov 28 2007, 08:43 AM) [snapback]545151[/snapback]</div>

It must suck not being able to think outside of the box.......

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ 2007 11 28 08:55) [snapback]545237[/snapback]</div>

Not being able to think outside of the book is the problem.

 

the number one thing taught in all churches around the world is hate.