I'm a full blown apostolic and I'm curious to see if there are other christians who practice lucid dreaming! :D
Printable View
I'm a full blown apostolic and I'm curious to see if there are other christians who practice lucid dreaming! :D
Is there such a thing as a half blown apostolic. That could lead to frustration me thinks.
Btw, yeah there are more Christians here than any other religious belief closely followed by those who brand themselves "spiritual non-religious". I would be in that category myself. This being a mainly US site and the US being mainly Christian as far as religious belief goes, you will have no trouble finding other Christians. Apostolics on the other hand are more than likely harder to find. There are several post-Apostolics on the site that I know of including myself, but you are the first presently practicing Apostolic that I have seen. Glad to see even Apostolics can have an open mind toward dreams. :)
I have been a Presbyterian, Episcopalian, agnostic, Taoist, Zen-Buddhist, and Hindu. Now I'm an atheist.
The Religion forum isn't the happening place it used to be. For a while, we had some major fundamentalists frequent the place. It might have been the same person with multiple accounts.
I just like dreaming haha but I'm one to back out of religious arguments because I don't like making people mad lol
Brahman?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I went from believing in the Tao to believing in Brahman. The difference is that Brahman is supposed to be a conscious spirit. Then I briefly started believing in the Hindu gods that are forms of Brahman. That didn't last long. I realized that I had gone too far and started my thinking all over. My uncle's death happened right at that time, and it is what convinced me that gods do not exist. I have been an atheist ever since then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
I still have one foot in the Taoist/Zen door, but the Tao is not a god.
I was joking about "one guy with multiple accounts" cause we are all supposedly just Brahman's multiple accounts.
Oh, I didn't notice the boldface. I mean Brahman didn't notice the boldface, although he also did the boldfacing and noticed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
I am technically an atheist though, at least in regard to some gods. But I'm a downright zealot regarding other gods.
Christians only make one exception to their mass atheism. If you round down just a point, they believe what I believe.
So, what about the christians? haha
Christianity is so 11th century. It's all about Islam now.
And I repectfully disagree. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Whoa, whoa, dude I'm not trying to start a debate here. Take it easy, let's keep this civil.
I'm sure a christian or two is scuttling about somewhere. They tend to shy away from my lair though.
there are a lot of christians here, but this side of the forum is a scary and dangerous place for them. Honestly people lack the skills to have debates here without getting tossing personal insults!
And Universal Mind! No more Brahman? Is it time for a name change? "Universal Mind" kinda implies Brahman. I should just call you Universal for now! (unless something changes your mind.....)
There might be something to it. I don't think it's like a person with individual thoughts and emotions, but it might be some principle involving pure consciousness as part of the fundamental fabric of existence. Whether it is a reality or not, it is a really fascinating concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
So - you are a fullblown Apostolic dollarway64!
That sounds interesting - this would mean Pentecostal, right?
And such the inerrancy of scripture - wonderful - nobody wanted to play with me in this thread:
http://www.dreamviews.com/religion-s...believers.html
Sensei is a biblical literalist, who even aspires to become pastor, but he doesn't frequent here and our last religious themed encounter ran dry - I suppose I became too intense in my probing ..
http://www.dreamviews.com/general-lu...g-satanic.html
I am an atheist = I do not believe in god(s).
And also an agnostic = I cannot know for sure - nor prove a negative anyway
There is even a god scenario completely within the frame of current scientific understanding, if you stretch semantics a bit:
Nothing speaks against a reality, where we/our subjective consciousnesses are just a simulation, running on some advanced beings' computational arrangements. The ones having set up the simulation could rightfully be denominated as "gods". I guess.
Something like the movie Matrix - but the minds having been created in the simulation, not put in simulation to use the pre-existing bodies, though.
That does not mean, that I find it "bloody likely" - just a basic thought-experiment.
But nearly everything in Christianity's myths is clearly contradicted by uncountable scientific discoveries and shown to be just that - very old folk myths. In case of the 3 desert-religions - quite lively ones, unfortunately.
Pray tell - which would these be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Hail Discordia?
:alien:
And i still respectfully disagree :)Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
I don't share every commandment with the Biblicans but I share one. I do not use their names lightly.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
^^ … It's this guy.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mallow-man.jpg
I do not defend them from false symbolism either, it is not that they shall not be named or depicted. They cannot.
The correct religion is revealed here:
LiveLeak.com - Gnome -The Correct Answer is the Mormon's (comments)
Oh well - you do what you do Original Poster!
Of course you do! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarway64
How about coming on over into the Moses thread and telling us your take on that particular tale?
Off-topic: This post helped me go back down to my baseline this morning after several days of hypomania.* Many thanks, kind sir; I was getting rather delusional. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
* My family doctor and I think I have bipolar disorder, but I'm still waiting for an appointment with a psychiatrist to get the official diagnoses.
Wow, I had no idea that might happen, but I'm glad it worked.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
I used to work with a lot of bipoloar clients when I worked at a mental health center. I also have some good friends who have it. It's a very treatable condition, if you follow all of the rules of treating it.
Hm - fascinating - what brought you down to earth about his post, Gavin?
That he's been through so many religions and safely arrived in rational waters around this topic?
Bipolar moods and spirituality are quite connected in some way, I believe..
I had a manic episode a while ago and I became somewhat delusional. I was spending a fair bit of time learning about Sikh, Islamic, Buddhist, Taoist, etc philosophy and getting caught up in it all, so when I saw Universal's post, I was like "Oh lawdy, what a fucking hippie... oh wait..." :PQuote:
Originally Posted by StephL
His post sort of served as a mirror, I guess.
Yeah, I've been familiarizing myself with the process these last few weeks. I'm passed the worst of it. Now that I know what to watch out for, I have certain strategies and systems in place to keep my mood within a reasonable range. I've also been reading up on the disorder so I'm growing fairly comfortable with it. It tends to freak people out when they're diagnosed with it, but I first found out about the illness through a book called "A First Rate Madness." It covers world leaders that likely had the mood disorder (Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Gahndi, etc) so it put a positive spin on the whole thing in my eyes. I was surprised by how much I was able to relate to it, and by the the time was finished reading it, I had spiraled into full blown mania.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I even drew up a blueprint for an nonviolent political organization that would have been loosely based on the Black Panthers of the 1960's and Napoleon Bonaparte's Grande Armée. Much of it was delusional nonsense, but some of it was realistically feasible if, and only if, our current socio-political climate began to mirror the radical 1960's (it was Huey Newton's bipolar disorder and messiah complex that birthed the Black Panthers afterall). Needless to say, I threw away the notebooks and have spent the last few months undoing some of the personality changes those grandiose thought patterns brought about in me. Some of the changes were for the better though - I've managed to reform myself from a lazy degenerate to a dedicated philanthropist, and have become fascinated with concepts like democracy, justice, morality, etc.
The delusions of grandeur are gone, and I'm left with an almost fanatical zeal for higher education. Thoughts of suicide - which have plagued me since childhood - have been replaced with a desire to learn as much as I can before I die. Hell, more than mere desire, it feels like a moral obligation. I've been rifling through countless books on politics, law, psychology, history, military maxims and stratagems, philosophy, the fine arts, etc... and with each text and tome I gorge myself upon, my appetite for knowledge grows evermore insatiable. Once I begin treatment and recover from the effects of the illness (it's taken a considerable toll on my physical health), I'm going back to university and studying more diligently than any motherfucker that's ever set foot on that campus.
That's a good attitude. Determination is the main thing you need for handling the situation. It is true that a lot of brilliant, talented, and extra strong people have been bipolar. Some people think it's because of having a chemical imbalance that comes with having a special brain. In that case, being bipolar isn't a strength. It just comes along with strength. It can mess things up, though. The fact that strong people have had it doesn't mean that treating it won't make you stronger.
I really find it deeply disappointing, that all the Christians on board avoid the topic like the devil holy water!
And it's not just coffee shop Christians on here - we got (at least) an apostolian and a biblical litereralist aiming to become a pastor - nobody willing to declare their faith and enter a debate??
Is your faith really that weak, gals and guys?
Come on!!
Attachment 7066
Very lucid post Universal Mind! Attachment 7067
@Gavin: Sounds good! Stay alert now, though - look out for yourself not slipping into a depression in the aftermath - esp. since you are no stranger to them. There are good possibilities to treat depression these days, there really are.
Of course I hold all thumbs and big toes for it not happening (German idiom, without the toes, though, usually just thumbs must suffice :wink:).
I have book tips for you: Tom Wootton - "The Bipolar Advantage" or "Bipolar In Order" - bipolar himself, Wootton has a wonderful personal outlook on it all - while not opposing medical treatment at the same time. The first chapters: Bipolar Advantage Podcast Channel
I hope, you enjoy it!
I have read "A First Rate Madness" as well - while it is interesting and a good read in the beginning - I find some of his deductions about historical persons quite weak up to non-conclusive. Anyway - I enjoyed the first part.
If you want to watch a good movie on topic - it's a bit sad, though: "The Hours".
Has three strands of narrative, one of which is Virginia Wolf writing a novel, another woman reading it, and yet another living out the theme of it. One of my all-time favourite movies - get the tissue paper out in time, though.
My warmest wishes for you!
:gab:
Yeah, I've no qualms with treatment. I cycle far too quickly for me to bother going it alone without professional help. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Thanks, I'll check those out. And as for "A First Rate Madness," I read some of the criticisms of that book, so I know it's a little off at parts. It was mainly a fun little read that got made me a little more comfortable with the disorder.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Is the debate these days not "what is a Christian in the first place?"
I love the historical figure that Jesus was, and all that he represented. I also believe he was an extremely enlightening individual... and unarguably the most influential person in the history of humanity (but I'm not here to debate our opinions of history, or even debate at all.)
So yes I am a ZEALOUS follower of Jesus, the lowly laborer who was baptized by John. I wish to finish what he set out to do, and that was to abolish the EVIL SUPPRESSION and WORLD SYSTEM of IMPERALISM (abolishing = the bringing of the Kingdom of God.) Jesus taught His disciples that the only way we were going to be able to do this was to control our human desires that imperialism , greed, and suppression created for us. He taught to have faith in God, the Great Spirit, the Great Master, the Tao.... whatever you want to call it. He taught us to have faith in the Tao, that suffering is okay because it is a fact of life. But Jesus also taught that the best form of worship to God is serving these less-fortunate people.
That is MY take on Christinaity, and I call myself a follower of Jesus, and a Christian.
Kind of a minor point in the greater context of this thread, but it caught my attention:
Suffering is okay in what sense? That we should recognize that it happens, or that it is a positive thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidTruth
I think that's what a Christian is supposed to be. I prefer to qualify the rest as Biblicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidTruth
That physical and emotional suffering and inevitable. Because we, our inner spirit, are in human bodies with both emotions and certain biological processes that can cause us great pain. We are are going to suffer...that is a fact of life... but it is okay because in the end, all those with a pure heart, will cease to suffer once their spirit leaves their body.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
As far as answering the question as to why some suffer more than others? And why is there unfathomable amounts of suffering around the world? I don't know the answer to that. HA, I don't know the answer to anything... but especially that! But I do know that I find happiness is serving those less fortunate than me. I'm not wealthy by any means, but the way I see it, it is each and every one of our utmost responsibility to help those in life who got dealt lesser cards than us. And I believe that was the core of Jesus message.
LOL... all because of those damn Romans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
I think you're right. But these days does anyone care?Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Being as how I have an evolutionary perspective on religion, I suppose the labels don't matter. But it's nice to separate holier than thou, self-absorbed and judgmental douchebags from the Christians that actually help and keep open hearts. Granted, the label you give yourself holds no weight on your character anyway. For every kind atheist, there's an obtuse dickbag and you'll never be enough of a hippie for some hippie or dirty enough for some dirty kid or straight-laced enough for some Mormon.
So no, labels do not need to perfectly encapsulate what they're labeling, and rarely do. Marriage equality doesn't mean equality for polygamists and being pro-choice doesn't implicate the choice to own slaves or something. And I suppose the all you can do is get over it and live your life.
If you want to give yourself a label, it's either to include yourself in a community or to explain yourself for others. Whenever possible I like to avoid labeling myself, people will put enough labels on me as it is, I don't really need to participate.
I don't know, ask the 2+ billion people who culturally associate with the religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
^^ And if we did ask them, would they care? I mean, would they care about being a christian in the terms that Christ originally laid out, or will they simply find contentment or completion in dogmatically assuming everything in the Bible is true, even though Jesus himself was wiling to take exception with much of it? "Care" ought not be conflated with simply following current doctrines or tenets, I think -- and I have to wonder how many of those 2 billion really do care...
As far as your argument goes, I am afraid I am not following. You are arguing that "perhaps 2 billions people who claim they are followers of Jesus, don't really care what their Messiah taught? I don't know whether I'm supposed to take that seriously or not...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Obviously, there is the "mainstream" segment of any spiritual practice.
^^ I wasn't "arguing" anything, I was asking a question. And that question is indeed "Do those 2 billion really care what the messiah taught, or do they care more about what the current interpretations of the Bible tell them to care about?" Simple question, not an argument, and maybe one worth asking.
After all, in this world of guns, every man for himself, nationalism, and endless volleys of righteous indignation, is there even any room left for crazy little ideas like the Golden Rule or turning the other cheek? If we asked those 2 billion if they as individuals were no more important than any of the other 5 billion on this planet, would they say they were not? I myself wonder.
The gap between what that guy Jesus tried to teach and what these modern 2 billion believers believe has expanded so far that I fear only a precious few can still straddle it and remember what it originally meant to be Christian.
So no argument; just a question, a rhetorical one at that, I guess.
[full discloseure: i was born a catholic, was raised a catholic, and went to catholic school for all of the 16yrs I attended, so I guess I am one of those 2 billion -- if you ask me]
I agree, it is a question worth asking. And perhaps you are right. Perhaps, Christianity is becoming watered down into an apathetic religion . After all, a Catholic student of 16 years thinks that "the Golden Rule" is just a crazy little idea. That is the core of Jesus' teaching! I think that statement alone shows the direction the religion has taken as a whole.
I also think you're right that some are just looking for security and meaning and they find that in Christianity. And that the dogmatic traditions of Christianity go unquestioned. Is that wrong? I don't think so. A blind man can't lead another blind man... I find that it's helpful to have spiritual guidance.
I, however, find that you are mind-reading the desires of a LOT of good-intentioned people. Maybe you are projecting your own assumptions onto these 2 billion Christians and portraying them as apathetic sheep. You seem pretty confident in asking your "rhetorical question." Maybe you're right, maybe Christians have just become aphetic sheep who don't question anything their pastor preaches...
Or maybe you are just projecting your own feelings towards the religion onto everybody else? Not everybody has such a weak-willed nature towards accepting the esoteric...
^^ Sorry: When I was calling the Golden Rule crazy I was being intentionally sarcastic/ironic. I figured you would understand that. So, in case you didn't, I was pointing out that the core of Jesus' teaching has been left behind -- not forgotten, perhaps, but instead shrouded in 20 centuries of rules, words, and man-made dogma that have reduced doing unto others to a relative term.
Regarding the mind-reading bit: perhaps I am projecting my own feelings toward what has become of christianity on everyone else... but that projection is a reflection of decades of mindful observation, not some selfish discomfort with faith (I'm fine with it).
I have no idea what "weak-willed nature toward accepting the esoteric" even means, but I assume it is another insult. That's just fine; I'll turn the other cheek while you do unto others! Still, I'm just fine with the esoteric, BTW, and I think I've been investigating it long enough now that I feel no weakness at all about it...
It wasn't an insult at all Sageous, and I'm sorry if you took anything I that way! That is literally how I interpreted your description of the majority of Christians (and still do?)
I can tell which direction this discussion has gone, and I'm done with this conversation. I really am sorry if I came across the wrong way. I just find your opinion of the "majority of Christians" to be extremely subjective... that the majority don't question what they believe. And I simply disagree with that surprisingly broad assumption.
Good Night! :-)
^^ Fair enough...
Though I made a broad assumption to make a point and not declare a truth (remember I was asking a question), I do agree that the direction of this conversation is becoming useless, so I'll say G'Night as well.
Oh, and if you ever come across an opinion that is not subjective, let me know!
:cheers:
:fuckyeah::offtobed:
How could I have overlooked this?
Wow – a ZEALOT, in capital letters, no less - and all and everything you believe to know, is that it feels good to be kind.
Good question – and you didn’t answer it yourself, either – the above (and below) is no more than wishi-washi.Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidTruth
Okay - no problem with that - so there was a guy, who spoke wisdom, and was hugely influential.Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidTruth
How does it follow from the above to be a ZEALOT - is this how you see yourself:Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidTruth
Wonderful - Christian zealots are among the worst people in my eyes - and they usually avoid denominating themselves such in polite conversation. My guess is - you just thought it sounds cool.Quote:
an immoderate, fanatical, radical or even militant adherent to a cause, esp a religious one
What is EVIL SUPPRESSION? Synonymous to imperialism?Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidTruth
It has never been the goal of Christianity to abolish imperialism – Jesus himself supposedly said, give to Caesar, what is his – namely the taxes – and that the kingdom of heaven is to be found within – explicitly discouraging from interfering with the empire.
And later on Christianity was undoubtedly one of the main driving forces of imperialism itself – proselytizing included.
It’s nice you don’t like imperialism – but you can hardly claim, that’s inherent in Christianity.
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidTruth
Are human desires not supposed to come from Satan? You do believe in Satan, I guess?
So now human desires spring forth from imperialism and greed?
Does that include sexual desire? I am intrigued..
So by suppressing desires, we can abolish imperialism and "evil suppression" and greed, where these desires came from in the first place?
I have never set eye on this specific quirky interpretation before – and if I did – it wouldn’t make sense anyway. You want to proclaim your course of zealotry action here, and are totally confused about what is what, and comes from where – not convincing.
Um - one cannot help but acknowledge that suffering is a fact of life. That has absolutely no bearing on it being okay or not. See below.Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidTruth
Also - you are aware that what you say about there being an overlap between Tao and god is blasphemy, aren't you?
And the overwhelming majority of your 2 billion would see it as such as well?
There is no doubt about Christianity being of the firm opinion to have the only veracity at all - no other system, let alone one openly promoting magical practices could possibly have a place in that.
You can believe whatever exotic things you want - but don't hide behind the number 2 billion in justification then!
Well - finally something at least congruent with the usual doctrine.Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidTruth
It is okay they suffer - god doesn't bother to do something about it - but you must worship him anyway, and it's your job to deal with the misery.
Not that it was anything original to say, one should be kind to other people - that is what is innate in humans, even some animals - baseline moral compass. For a religion to take credit for empathy is laughable.
This famous golden rule (treat others as you would like to be treated…) has been uttered uncountable times in uncountable places by uncountable people in more or less the same form. Why did anybody pay so much attention to Jesus?
Because of the pretty miracles – why else?
Think about it - either he was the real deal and did his miracles - or he was an enormously gifted illusionist, faking it - there are only two possibilities.
I find it strange, when people say, they don't believe in the miracles, but they think Christ was enlightened and wise and adorable anyway.
Either they happened - or he was a fraud!
He justified himself with these activities – it would never have made it into a book, his wisdom, without the magical demonstrations - up to his resurrection and rise to heaven, but also while his time - either you believe in miracles - or you believe Jesus was a confidence trickster.
It amazes me, that you believe, you have said anything of relevance up to now – it really does.Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidTruth
Ah – now finally here comes something, which “makes sense”. You believe, that as a good Christian, you will be rewarded with an afterlife – and a blissful one I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidTruth
That’s a classical justification to believe – averting the fear of the absoluteness of death and clinging to the promise of divine “justice”.
Let’s say, there is an immortal soul - how do you know, there will be justice and all will be good?
How do you know, what constitutes a pure heart and if you have one?
How about your friends and loved ones who have failed - wonderful people, despite being atheists - how could you be happy in heaven, knowing they burn for eternity, and the devil even grows them new skin to burn away over and over? Or do you categorically refuse to feel empathy with atheists?
How do you know any of this?
Because there is a book, and it says so in it? Do you take it word by word for the truth?
If not - how do you decide, which parts of it to discard?
You do discard stuff – otherwise you couldn’t come up with your weird ideas, see above.
And why bother at all then - you can find the same basic wisdoms in humanism, without the hocus-pocus and atrocities of esp. the Old Testament?
I do find the thought of a scape-goat human sacrifice to pin ones sins on atrocious either, by the way.
A "good" atheist of saintly behavior goes to hell, and a coward of a psychopath finds to Jesus in his last hour and a panic, and goes to heaven - or how is it? Fair?
At least you realized the emptiness of your above statement on suffering as a justification to have faith of all things.Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidTruth
But - the central message of Christianity is that it feels good to be kind to others??
Who on earth needs to be told that? Every child finds that out herself!
And neuroscience finds stuff like mirror neurons ..
No - the central message of Christianity is that you have to obey god's rules or face the most horrible punishment for eternity, and that there is a reward for unquestioningly obeying as well. The most precious human delusion - promise of life after death.
What an unsorted salad, your faith-declarations – besides the above central message – what else do you believe?
Let’s get down to some basics:
Creation when and how?
Adam and Eve, original sin?
Are we are all born sinners, without and before ever doing anything immoral, and we need Christianity, to absolve us from it?
Hell? Does everybody go there, who has had the chance to look into Christianity, and doesn't start to believe - whatever s/he did or didn't do in life?
Moses, genocide and the ark?
Virgin birth and miracles and ascending to heaven?
Second coming?
Armageddon?
The dead rising in the flesh?
Excellent post, Steph, and I hope LucidTruth responds just as excellently!
One small clarification, though:
Actually, that's more a caricature of Christianity then a central message. Yes, there is a resurging crowd of fundamentalists who believe this (and also that bit about a very good atheist going to hell but a last-minute repentant psychopath being saved), but I don't think that reflects the central message of Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
In fact, I believe that one of the reasons Jesus showed up in the first place was to dispel messages like this, to urge us to be good to everyone, and to tell us that every person has God in him, whether she believes it or not. That so much of Christianity has embraced this odd "believe or be damned" tenet is quite sad, and more than a little disturbing.
I'm not sure this really has much to do with your general arguments, but I figured it was worth mentioning.
I am a full blown Christian literalist and aspiring pastor. :P as StephL said. haha.
@StephL our last conversation ran dry? I believe that I joined saying that I didn't want an argument, but that I would answer her questions. I answered and she argued back. I read all of your response and checked it against my previous post and realized that all the questions that you responded with were already answered in the first post, so I didn't feel like retyping my 5 page response. If you wanted my opinion, you had it, if you want to argue about what I believe, you will have to talk to someone else, because I don't have to answer to you for what I believe. The truth will reveal itself at sometime (either in this life or after) and I will answer for what I believe then. Arguing never solved anything ever. If you want my opinion on something, then ask, if you want to change my opinion on something, then you are not welcome to that. Proof that you want to argue: everything that you posted other than that you mentioned that I was a christian, because you can post that anywhere. ;)
@Everyone else
If you want to know what a Christian is, then read your Bible, especially the parts in red. ;) Don't take your opinion from what you think the Bible says, or what some random pastor (or a kid training to be a pastor) says, but what does Jesus actually say? I could post verse after verse contradicting a lot that has been said, but unless you are looking for the truth yourself, you won't find it.
You would be surprised to find out how much atheists tend to know about the Bible. What claims can you contradict with Bible verses?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
Well there is a third option as I see it. Perhaps these miracle stories were constructions of a mythos around a central figure? Reading the Gospels and/or the Epistles chronologically might yield some interesting insights.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
As an aside, I will go out on a limb and mention that miracles were/are kind of a dime a dozen and certainly couldn't/can't support any "proof" of divinity. As I understand, miracles weren't unheard of before Jesus. Many of the various traditions point(ed) to their own miracles as some sort of "OUR GOD IS AN AWESOME GOD" kind of mentality. Even today, there are stories of "holy" people performing the similar (if not the same) miracles that have been attributed to Jesus. So if miracles are a form of divinity, there are/were a lot of divine people rolling around through our timeline (and they aren't all Christian). So Jesus manifesting miracles is really irrelevant. I do find the notion of miracles, outside of pure statistical chance, to be a bit preposterous. However, if anyone ever instantly heals an amputee it would certainly have me questioning my position.
In any case, I think that you laid down a pretty good argument and I am interested in the response to this post.
Indeed!Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
My impression goes, that if all supposed Christians would read the bible and read it in an English, they can actually follow - there wouldn't exactly be many left. And I am very much with you - I want to see the bible verses, which contradict my claims, Sensei - give me a proper exegesis! :wink:
Thank you Sageous - but I am afraid it was Jesus alright, who said such things - over and over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Well - except you take the viewpoint, that everything, which doesn't fit with the pretty picture must be mythology, made up, put in his mouth - but thing is - it does fit, there is no pretty picture and he kept making sure, not to be misunderstood:
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
There is also no doubt, that he said, who does not believe in him and god goes to hell - it is evens so, that you get punished for what your city elders decide on the matter:
Behold: Matthew 10
So far so good - he sends out his disciples - they should not go to the Samaritans and the gentile - not to the intelligentsia - but to the gullible.Quote:
10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
10:4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
10:9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
10:11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
10:12 And when ye come into an house, salute it.
10:13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
They shall perform miracles and raise people from the dead and preach and tell them the end of the world is near. That's what they actually thought - Armageddon within their lifetimes - that's for another bible-session. But it makes a lot of things more clear, if you keep that in mind.
Like - see the birds and flowers in the field - they work not, but the Lord provides for them ...
Anyway - now it gets interesting:
Soo - if a whole city does not want to listen to the preachings - a worse fate even than Sodom and Gomorrha will befall the whole city.Quote:
10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Niiice! Not only the ones not believing - even those not hearing the message, because their city wouldn't let them!
Riight - if they are in and people don't like the preachings, then they would start to speak in tongues, inspired by God, and that would then elicit the following self-punishments:Quote:
10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
10:17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
10:18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
10:19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
Ah - one more hint at doom is near - coming while the disciples are still teaching!Quote:
10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
Uups - thought, that souls are indestructible??Quote:
10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.
10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
10:26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Funny - I just dug that up for the cities that won't listen - but like usual with the bible - start reading and the idiocy of it becomes clear enough.
There - the atheists! And more loveliness - including the advice to make a martyr of yourself - oh - and it's not enough to believe - you got to love god more than any other being, otherwise it doesn't count:Quote:
10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
10:30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
10:31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
"Typically church" - they watered that down, the Catholics, in some council or other, and said, that you don't go to hell, if you didn't have the chance to listen to the happy news. They had to decree that - it contradicts the above and other passages. Sometimes the church seems to be nicer and more well-meaning than the original. Chilling thought.Quote:
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
10:40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
10:41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
10:42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.
And in general - does anybody reading this, have the feeling of listening to a wise and enlightened person - full of love and forgiveness?
This is a long passage - is there anything of spiritual value in it?
Compare that to the teachings of the Buddha - striking difference, isn't there?
That's right - you do not have to engage in argument with me. But you didn't answer my questions - some, yes - but most not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
I tell you why I let off - I put you into the situation to consider, if your specific brand of faith would be okay with you LDing.
I think not - and I argued my case - the ultimate solution would be for you to speak openly and honestly to your spiritual leaders and ask their advice.
That you won't do - and sort of good you don't - I wouldn't want to rob you of your hobby - and I can't hope to rob you of your faith.
You are probably having a nice social environment, where everybody knows everybody else, and goes to church, and looks up to the preachers and that's what you want to have for yourself. I don't think, you especially care, actually.
But yeah - this "to everybody else" - please - post verse after verse to contradict my claims!
That's the least you could do as an aspiring biblical literalist pastor.
It is very cheap to point to the book and we should search ourselves - go do it, if you claim you can!
I am well able to do it your way - lets see, how firm you really are in scripture!
Well yeah - that third possibility would be that there was a historical person Jesus - but everything in the New Testament pertaining to the miracles - including his own incessant mention of doing/having done them - is freely invented and without his intention and knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by balban
You could claim that, yepp - but I find it so highly unlikely, that I dismissed the possibility.
The whole (historical) story of his depends on flabbergasting the gullible masses with his tricks - see above, that's the entry ticket to be heard for his disciples too.
Anyway - amounts to the same conclusion - rubbbish.
I was making a clarification, Steph; not offering up an argument.
Please be assured that, not only might I be one of those people who "take the viewpoint, that everything, which doesn't fit with the pretty picture must be mythology, made up, put in his mouth," I would take it one more step than that: I'm pretty sure that the gospels, all of which were written a minimum of 70 years after Jesus' death by men who never met him, not only put lots of words into Jesus' mouth on their own, but they also altered much of his life, words, and deeds to better reach their various audiences. Also, I think much of the "pretty picture" mythology, like loving one another, entered the Christian ethos many centuries after Jesus died, if not millennia. So I find literal interpretation of the Bible -- in any direction -- is not a helpful route to take.
That said, I read carefully all the verses you posted and found nothing that says, "If you do not believe, you will be damned to Hell." Sure, Hell was mentioned, as was the potential wrath and power of God (a popular theme for Matthew's audience, BTW), but I'm not seeing where it says that good men who do not believe in God will be damned to Hell. Did I miss it? Could you maybe be doing that which you are railing against, and finding stuff in the Bible that, if interpreted just right, will support your argument? ;)
Again, I was just making a point; I really don't have the energy or interest in getting into a prolonged discussion about this stuff. Plus, believe it or not I don't find your "side" entirely wrong, so I would be a bit of a hypocrite to defend the other (As an aside: organized religion ranks 2nd on my personal list of the worst things in the world... that's organized religion, of course, and not personal religion, which is quite different)
If you really want to bolster (or temper, in some cases) your arguments, though, there is a recent book about Jesus you might want to get your hands on, if you haven't already, called Zealot, by Reza Aslan; it paints a picture of the historical Jesus that might surprise you.
:sageous:
How is it unlikely? Take the Epic of Gilgamesh and its central character. Chronological examination of this narrative reveals a staggering inflation of the central character to the point near god like status. It matters little whether or not Gilgamesh actually existed and/or had any hand in any versions of the narrative; the latter being unlikely given the sands of time. The larger point is that the story grew over time regardless of the actual existence of the character and the inflation took longer than any possible character's lifetime. Basically, someone else probably wrote it and each successive writer inflated it.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Given that, I am basically suggesting a parallel between these two narratives to clarify my original point; when reading the narratives through the lens of time, it can be suggested that the central character's story was probably written by someone else and their status was inflated with each successive version (whether a version was from the same author or not).
In addition to my original point, it can be suggested that there is some shaky evidence, outside of the respective sources, that both characters may have actually existed. To that end, I suggest that it doesn't matter whether or not either of these characters viewed themselves as divine. Who cares? Neither of them wrote word one about themselves, so assuming that either of the actual people perpetrated their own myths is just that... an assumption. But who cares if they did? The only thing we have to go by is what is written, when and by whom. What I think is more interesting is the mindset of those that actually took pen to paper to document these tales. I believe it to be fairly evident, in the case of the Jesus narrative that is, that Paul, specifically, was attempting to further a belief system that was competing for the hearts and minds of an already crowded ecosystem.
In the end, we can call it rubbish all we want. But the fact remains is that the Jesus narrative worked. Perhaps the real conversation should be why did this narrative, which is so contradictory and so unbelievable, work? I don't believe anyone can honestly attribute it to everyone, but a select few, is just being duped by a few stories. In my opinion, there has to be something fundamental, something deeply human, at play here.
I see, what you mean, balban - it's possible of course!
Even the flood might have made a jump from Gilgamesh into the OT narrative, other topic.
This is indeed a very good question - a much more interesting one.Quote:
In the end, we can call it rubbish all we want. But the fact remains is that the Jesus narrative worked. Perhaps the real conversation should be why did this narrative, which is so contradictory and so unbelievable, work? I don't believe anyone can honestly attribute it to everyone, but a select few, is just being duped by a few stories. In my opinion, there has to be something fundamental, something deeply human, at play here.
I am afraid, I don't understand, what you mean with "I don't believe that ... stories." Could you please rephrase that for me?
I keep thinking of a short story by K. J. Parker, about how the main religion in the world, the novels and other stories are set in, came to pass. It is hilarious and wonderful, very insightful and clever - maybe I find a link and put it up.
Found it - highly recommended: The Sun And I by K. J. Parker — Subterranean Press
Ah - I'm unhappy with the below - I lost the prior paragraph in editing, but now I need food..
I believe that without giving a show of some sort with miraculous effects - people wouldn't have followed him in such numbers.
Just the pretty words - I doubt it - why should people believe him?
I'm sure, he didn't even have to give it much effort any more after having been established as wonder-doing - the miracles tend to work themselves after a while, and if only in retelling and embellishing. But if he wouldn't have set out like that - nobody would have listened.
Then a martyr's death - fantastic - nothing better - except rising from the dead..
And the huge strike of luck - but probably also based in the awe at the special effects - was Constantine making it official religion of the Roman empire, at a time in history, which was conductive to the following spread. The church as institution with money, power, political agendas... Until Luther, most people weren't even able to read the thing themselves.
People tend to be willing to believe almost anything, given that almost everybody else believes it as well..
@Sageous - I might completely misunderstand you here, I think. My conjecture: You hold a Christian belief, which is based on some parts of the bible, it is basically home-grown and fits in with a larger customized spirituality system. Is that in etwa the case?
First question of course - what convinces you of the truth of a Christian god?
And – what is it, that you do believe in exactly, which justifies, that you are a Christian as opposed to a "mere" Humanist?
It would be helpful to know, as what you personally see Jesus, for example - was he more than a philosopher, a religious reformer?
When I gave my polemically phrased "central Christian message" - basically obedience, reward and punishment - you said, that you think “the reasons Jesus showed up in the first place” was to dispel such notions.
Again - if so – why not say so?
Say it so clearly and often, that it manages to survive manipulation and editing?
That would be quite some massive manipulation, if Jesus would have wanted to do away with the notion of hell, and what came out is the New Testament. If you want to assume at the same time, that some of the messages do actually stem from him personally, that is.
He keeps talking about judgement, hell, heaven, redemption, salvation, guilt, evil - everywhere in the NT - and in shed-loads.
Yes you were - by saying that obedience/reward/punishment was only a caricature and not absolutely central to the Christian faith! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Okay – now I really need clarification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Of course I am with you, from step two onwards – but – do you really mean “not only” as in inclusively? That would mean, you accept that, and only that in the bible, which conforms to what for you consider as morally valuable – fitting, what you perceive is the true message - and discard all the rest.
Why not make up your own mind in the first place, if so?
Acknowledging, how much must seem wrong to you, probably especially in the OT - how can you bring yourself to believe in the truth of any of it? Like the basics - that the described god created the world and grants life after death and brings fair judgement?
You do believe in some sort of divine judgement, or don't you?
If you wouldn't - that would open up a whole new bucket of fish - but I await your answer.
Moment - now I fail to follow – I thought, you said, that the pretty picture is the only valid one above?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
And that he came to dispel the older un-pretty picture with the new one?
That his was a message of purely love and forgiveness and peace?
If you think, that is add-on - then I really fail to understand, what you want from Christianity. Well if you do. Want something, I mean.
What I showed was, that a whole town will fall under the wrath of god, and be worse off even than Sodom and Gomorrah, if they don’t let the apostles in and do their preaching. Everybody in that town will be punished, for whoever decides about the preaching. I repeat from Matthew:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
If that is supposed to be a joke – a là S/G have been punished already – it is a very bad one.
What is it in Christianity, which is superior to your very own moral compass?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Immortality?
Well – how is that picture in etwa? I needed a bit more appetizing. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Is there a punch-line?
@Sensei
I am curious about some administrative details of hell.
Do you believe, that hell is eternal - once you are there - that was it?
Or is there a possibility to repent and redeem oneself from down there?
Maybe the cases get rolled up anew on judgement day?
Isn't it so, that sinners went to hell no matter what before Christ - and after Christ, you can free yourself from all guilt by "taking him into your heart"? How is that fair to the ones born before Christ?
Nice observation! The similarities are far too many to dismiss this as a very real possibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
I think my colloquialisms may have missed their marks. I apologize.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
What I meant was that I don't think anyone can honestly make the case that the only reason someone believes in X is because they are simply being fooled by a few ancient stories scribbled down in a book. I think that is too simple of an answer. It certainly is a logical conclusion and I wouldn't fault someone for having come to that (I thought the same at various points in my life as well), but this really hasn't been my experience when talking with believers. I think there is something far more fundamental going on. Perhaps its part of our evolutionary process? But that is where my thoughts get kind of weird. I'll admit it.
Further, I have to admit that I tend to gravitate to discussions like these. During past conversations I often find myself wondering why I can read these stories and slap my forehead in disbelief and yet many people, if not the majority, can read these stories and consider them to be legitimate and live their lives by them. Why is this? I certainly don't believe "I" am smarter than "them". I've meet some really intelligent religious people who were very articulate in their beliefs. Yet when we start to discuss inconsistencies and such, they seem to descend into this bizarre, obtuse mindset of "well... you just have to believe". Exasperation ensues.
Sounds interesting. I will certainly take a look at it. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Fair enough and you certainly may be correct. Again, from my perspective, most of the Christians I've ever talked to, it was only the miracle of the resurrection that really mattered. Sure he healed the sick and brought people back to life, cast out demons, etc... But all of that wouldn't have mattered without Jesus overcoming death. And through that specific miracle, I believe that he became the deity he is today.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Additional to this, I am reasonably sure that miracle workers weren't uncommon in those days (hell... even today there are stories of the exact same miracles being performed... whatever). I don't recall where I discovered this information over the years, which is why I am only "reasonably sure", so take it for what it's worth. But, if I am accurate, healing the sick, curing the blind, etc... happened through other people at the time. So I can't believe, putting myself in the mind of someone witnessing these events, that watching Jesus perform said miracle would have caused me to assume him being a deity, must less "my deity". But I don't doubt that the other miracles added to his elevation. Certainly. I could type more about this, but I'll probably bore you.
And yes, I completely agree with your notion that people will tend to believe if surrounded by believers. 100% accurate.
To further your thoughts concerning Luther, I think the most power thing he did for Christianity was bring a personal god to the people. And yes, reading "the word" on your own was part of it. YOU should know god personally, etc... Contrast that with many monotheistic religions, Catholicism, Judaism, etc... there is an intercessor - someone who speaks to god for you. Luther did away with that and basically gave the believer a personal relationship with their deity. That is some really powerful stuff.
I think that is enough for now or I will have to include a tl;dr paragraph. :)
Ah, Steph, your confusion about my answers only shows how well you understood what I really meant! Does that make no sense? Let me go the long way, then:
First, I said I was raised a catholic and educated in catholic schools, which I feel gives me a solid understanding of both the tenets of Christianity and what it means (to me) to be a Christian; I never said I believe anything in the Bible is true, because in truth I really don't care. I was speaking in my posts more from a position of knowledge and experience than belief. For me, the thing that is Christianity transcended the Bible a very long time ago, and if anything it is a shame that in recent years the Bible has become so important again (more in a bit).
On top of all that, I left all interest, or reverence for, any organized religion decades ago, and do not seek to defend anything they proscribe, including what the stuff in the Bible means. Any interest now, like reading Zealot, is more based on a curiosity about a subject that so many people find so important, and that has endured in the human zeitgeist for millennia. So in a nutshell I really hold no deep regard for the Bible, and I recognize that it was a book written by men with a mission that may or may not have had anything to do with Jesus -- but it was a mission. I might still have faith in something, and I certainly have the highest hopes that there is something "more" for me than just this existence, but it really doesn't line up at all with Christianity anymore -- especially the bible-thumping variety.
Now, more specifically [fair warning: almost all your questions would require book-length answers for me to properly address, so I hope this abbreviated stuff makes some sense]:
Funny; I think you understand me just fine, but still have raised an incorrect conjecture! My belief system (or, rather, my hope system) left Christianity behind a very long time ago. As far as I know, I have based nothing of my current mystical mindset on what's in the Bible and do not look to it for guidance. So no; I don't hold a fundamental Cristian belief -- indeed, I would imagine that my "larger customized spirituality system" would prove quite blasphemous to the average fundamentalist. Not that some stuff -- like the Golden Rule -- in the Bible doesn't make sense or doesn't blend with my current beliefs, but you could say the same about stuff from the Bhagavad Gita, Tao te Ching, Bardo Thodol, or even the Koran... the best parts of all the belief systems tend to say the same things -- it's when all the ancillary crap is added in by well-intentioned (or otherwise) men that differences and contradictions are created.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
I give up: what does "etwa" stand for, or mean?
Nothing. Indeed, the first line of one of my books reads, "First, there is no God." And if something were to convince me of the truth of a God, you can bet that that truth would not include the word "christian." Or Hindu, or Buddhist, or Muslim, or anyone else... God, in truth, would be God, period, with no need for human-initiated definition or embellishment.Quote:
First question of course - what convinces you of the truth of a Christian god?
What I believe in, or hope for, is that there is something "more" for us, and that something may well be created by us during our lifetime. In other words, the "more" may be based upon an accumulation of our lifetime of thoughts and actions and... you know what? I can't answer this here. To fully do so would take too long and wander way too far from the topic. Suffice it to say that I believe in nothing that "justifies" that I am Christian, and promise you I have not tried to make such a justification. And, given that I do still hope (and strive every day) for something "more," I'm not sure I could be deposited into a "mere" Humanist bucket either.Quote:
And – what is it, that you do believe in exactly, which justifies, that you are a Christian as opposed to a "mere" Humanist?
If he existed at all, Jesus was likely a very charismatic, rough-and-tumble zealot of a man with Messianistic tendencies (messiahs were, believe it or not, fairly common in Jesus' time) and a transcendental understanding of himself and his world. Whether this understanding was his own invention or put there by God, I couldn't tell you; but I can tell you that it was a powerful enough trait to convince a small group of people to spend centuries organizing a mighty religion around it. And sure, his was a message of reform, of breaking away from the institutionalized mess that Judaism had become at that point, and of seeking freedom or release from the oppression of the Roman Empire (also a fairly big deal in Jesus' time). I also want to believe that if Jesus was a manifestation of God, he would have been a bit more efficient: I have a lot of trouble believing that a God who could create an entire universe would need to send his message in such a clumsy manner. So my confusion ensues.Quote:
It would be helpful to know, as what you personally see Jesus, for example - was he more than a philosopher, a religious reformer?
Yes, I did say that. And, in the context of "the central Christian Message," I still do say that. I could be wrong, and could be simply spouting wishful thinking, but from what I've read and learned over the years, it seems to me that Jesus was rebelling against the rules, and trying to extend a message that focused more on doing what is right, rather than what you're supposed to do (aka, what was written).Quote:
When I gave my polemically phrased "central Christian message" - basically obedience, reward and punishment - you said, that you think “the reasons Jesus showed up in the first place” was to dispel such notions.
Excellent point -- that sort of matches my concern above about God working in such an inefficient manner.Quote:
Again - if so – why not say so?
Say it so clearly and often, that it manages to survive manipulation and editing?
Well, 2,000 years and a hundred generations of priests leave a lot of room for massive manipulation, I think. There is an excellent chance that nothing Jesus said or meant to say made it into the Gospels. He may have talked continually about Heaven, Hell, etc, or he may not have... remember that the entire New Testament was written based on what people thought he said, were told he said, or decided he said, and not necessarily on what he actually said. Perhaps these men thought or decided the right things; perhaps not. But the mere fact that men, and men with agendas (especially Paul), did that thinking and deciding is enough for me to question everything in the gospels, good or bad, and to steer away from accepting any of it as evidence as anything. The Bible is a valuable tool, and certainly has its place, good or bad, in human history, but to use it as an ultimate, infallible, and literal source for truth is, I think, not the best tool for growth.Quote:
That would be quite some massive manipulation, if Jesus would have wanted to do away with the notion of hell, and what came out is the New Testament. If you want to assume at the same time, that some of the messages do actually stem from him personally, that is. He keeps talking about judgement, hell, heaven, redemption, salvation, guilt, evil - everywhere in the NT - and in shed-loads.
I think I already said I don't think any of those things, so hopefully the rest of my asnwers above gave clarification -- let me know if it didn't. I believe what I believe, and choose not to use any part of the Bible to back up or justify that belief. I am not cherry-picking the Bible as much as I'm choosing not to pick at all.Quote:
Okay – now I really need clarification.
Of course I am with you, from step two onwards – but – do you really mean “not only” as in inclusively? That would mean, you accept that, and only that in the bible, which conforms to what for you consider as morally valuable – fitting, what you perceive is the true message - and discard all the rest.
I try to do just that in all things; I'm not sure what I said that might have led you to believe something else.Quote:
Why not make up your own mind in the first place, if so?
I cannot. Even the basics don't make a lot of sense to me these days (i.e., why would a loving God who created us, nurtured us, and above all knows us choose to judge us at all? If He created us to have a life after death, why would He take it away? And of course, there's my overriding problem with It All: Why would an omniscient, eternal God with the ability to create a universe encompassing 100 million galaxies even give a crap about the doings of a couple of humans on a lonely little planet circling the frontier of a mediocre galaxy?Quote:
Acknowledging, how much must seem wrong to you, probably especially in the OT - how can you bring yourself to believe in the truth of any of it? Like the basics - that the described god created the world and grants life after death and brings fair judgement?
No. I do not.Quote:
You do believe in some sort of divine judgement, or don't you?
It sure would, wouldn't it? Especially when the proper Christians viewing chime in with why I'm wrong!Quote:
If you wouldn't - that would open up a whole new bucket of fish - but I await your answer.
And that is why I dislike getting embroiled in these conversations! While struggling to speak within the context of the conversation, I so often step on my own thoughts with resounding clumsiness!Quote:
Moment - now I fail to follow – I thought, you said, that the pretty picture is the only valid one above?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous:
Also, I think much of the "pretty picture" mythology, like loving one another, entered the Christian ethos many centuries after Jesus died, if not millennia. So I find literal interpretation of the Bible -- in any direction -- is not a helpful route to take.
And that he came to dispel the older un-pretty picture with the new one?
That his was a message of purely love and forgiveness and peace?
If you think, that is add-on - then I really fail to understand, what you want from Christianity. Well if you do. Want something, I mean.
What I was trying to say was the the "pretty picture," or the Golden Rule, love one another, God is Love, My Kingdom Dwells in all of you, etc. symphony of ideas is what forms the core of the ideal "Christian." Now, aside from the Gospel of John, very little of that stuff is even in the Bible -- they formed in the hearts of thoughtful Christians over the centuries, passed so effectively from generation to generation that they have become the foundation of modern Christianity (in spite of the fundamentalist attempts to override it). The truly amazing thing is that the pretty stuff ever even developed, I think. But it did so because of Christians, and not because of what was written in the Bible.
Not a joke, but a simple message meant to impress simple people... and a message that I truly believe a loving God would have nothing to do with. Sadly, that message still works with too many people, despite the fact that after all these thousands of years God has yet to smite a single city, regardless of what they believe.Quote:
What I showed was, that a whole town will fall under the wrath of god, and be worse off even than Sodom and Gomorrah, if they don’t let the apostles in and do their preaching. Everybody in that town will be punished, for whoever decides about the preaching. I repeat from Matthew:
10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
If that is supposed to be a joke – a là S/G have been punished already – it is a very bad one.
Not a thing. In fact, I think that the problem with Christianity, and organized religion in general, is that it offers a moral compass/direction to people who are too lazy or insecure to establish their own. I think we are all more than capable, through self-awareness, to understand what is good or evil, and to direct ourselves toward goodness or right-mindfulness. This is probably the most important thing a sentient being can do, and to pass that job onto someone else (or, worse, to decide that you do not need a moral compass) seems like a shirking of personal responsibility to me.Quote:
What is it in Christianity, which is superior to your very own moral compass?
Immortality?
Immortality? That either exists or it doesn't; I do not need to believe in it for it to occur (though I do think it would help to prepare for it regardless, if that makes any sense), and as I said above, I do not believe that a God who bestowed us with immortal souls would deem take them away because we were bad for the extremely brief moment of time we spent as mortals.
Again, I am not sure what you mean here... what is "etwa?" Am I going to be embarrassed by the answer? I only suggested Zealot because I thought you would appreciate it; no punch line.Quote:
Well – how is that picture in etwa? I needed a bit more appetizing. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous:
If you really want to bolster (or temper, in some cases) your arguments, though, there is a recent book about Jesus you might want to get your hands on, if you haven't already, called Zealot, by Reza Aslan; it paints a picture of the historical Jesus that might surprise you.
Is there a punch-line?
Exactly!!Quote:
Originally Posted by balban
But - if we are honest - I guess, we have to acknowledge that we both come from a society, which is much more secular than the numbers of people officially part of churches in Germany might suggest.
Anyway - what I forgot - hell is a concept from the New Testament - there are only sparse mentions of a life after death in the OT at all.
What seems to have been the fate of "irrelevant" people is oblivion - not eternal punishment - only the very few exceptionally holy persons could pin their hope of being raised to the realm of God - such as Moses. What people were afraid of seems to be rather being smitten in real life.
I had to look that up - I wasn't aware of the fact, that "our" hell is a unique Christian notion - well - and Islamic, but that came after Christianity.
What did Old Testament Believers think of life after death?
"Is There a Specific Reference to Heaven or Hell in the OT?" - Probe Ministries
So it can't quite be that Jesus wanted to do away with such notions theoretically - no - hell is something added by Christianity.
How's that for loving kindness?
Uuups - missed your post Sageous - will come back later!
I tend to agree with the premise here, but I think its far too critical to lay laziness or insecurity at the feet of the believer. The environment the believer is immersed in plays a huge role in what they believe. The idea that if you grew up in whatever social group that believes X, you are probably going to believe X and breaking from the herd is kind of a frightening thing. In some archaic societies, disagreement with X could end your life. In my opinion, it has a lot to do with survival. Maybe not survival in a physical sense, but, at a minimum, emotional survival.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
In saying that, I do agree that most everyone has the capacity to figure it out on their own. I don't, for a second, believe any kind of morality comes from some specific source. But I do wonder, if it were really left up to each of us to make up our own beliefs, what would that society really look like. Would we all start warring with each other because we seem attached to this I-am-right-and-everyone-else-is-wrong mentality? These same divisive feelings creep into nearly every aspect of our daily lives... politics, religion, economics, sports, etc... I honestly don't think we've evolved enough for that.
Anyway, Sageous. I think see where you are coming from with your bigger points. It isn't all the bizarre or complex to me. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but you are coming across as a bit confused. However, in your defense, I think that is the nature of where you are at as opposed to you not understanding what it is you do believe. I think it probably sounds right to you, but there is no way in hell you can explain it. I get it. Beliefs are a f'ing complex thing.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
The Jews had an idea of a sort of "underworld" (for lack of a better word). It was sort of a place of non-existence from what I understand. But I think that this idea is really kind of nebulous. I don't believe an afterlife is something that Judaism really focus on traditionally. The Egyptians kind of had a "hell", but it's more closely related to the Shoal concept, in the Jewish tradition. If one was judged unworthy, you simply didn't exist anymore. Something like that. But no, I don't believe there was a place of eternal torture until Christianity came around.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
As to the Christian tradition, I don't find the concept of hell to be in-line with a merciful god at all. If we are to come to god as our father (as described by Jesus), how is that that a father, any father, would damn his child to an eternity of the most horrible tortures for simply disobeying laws he obviously acknowledged that I couldn't follow in the first place (because he had to come down here and do it for me)? Seems preposterous. And yes... not very loving or kind. Not even close.
Let's take this a little further... if god made me and knew what I was going to become in my life (regardless of my supposed "free will"), then he basically made me to be eternally damned? He knew what I would become because his is omniscient; he knew and still created me anyway. WTF! That concept is worse that original sin, IMO. It's baffling how anyone could honestly believe that... but they do. Not only that, they defend it as if somehow this is justice. Silly.
Thank you Sageous - now I think, I also see, where you are coming from!
Sorry for the "in etwa" - that's common in German, and I was of the misconception, it would exist in English, too - like "et. al." or "a là".
What it means is "approximately" - that had a slightly different ring to my meaning-generator, though, and I was too lazy to check and find, I should use it anyway.
Thank God you are not a "proper Christian" - home-grown, hope-based spirituality systems are a topic for another thread maybe! :wink:
This actually throws over one of my pet-theories - namely that the "power-base" of the three desert-religions would be the promise of life after death right from the start. It's sort of typical, that I wouldn't know that hell and heaven were a Christian invention. I was raised Lutherian, the usual watered down variety.Quote:
Originally Posted by balban
Like - the OT is the fairy-tale collection, and full of misunderstanding, and lets not dwell on it - and Jesus the big loving reformer, his miracles mostly metaphors except the rising from the dead and to heaven.
Somehow sneakily, hell and Satan were pushed in the same corner - "of course there is no punisher with horns, metaphor"!
Jesus a divine being, getting it all right, and stupid Catholics dwelling on their guilt-complex, sexual fixation etc., still sad, they can't buy themselves free of sins any more. That might have made it easier for me as a child to decide, that I can just as well throw the whole thing in the bin, if most of it doesn't count anyway. In a way I always found the Catholics more honest, who were at least taking their faith seriously.
You speak from my heart - in general - and so concisely - lovely!!Quote:
Originally Posted by balban
There are so many such details - if you abstain from believing in young earth creationism - there is also the problem of at least 150.000 years of humanity, and god was cutting his toe-nails instead of taking an interest and revealing himself to somebody.
They had to struggle with a world they did not understand at all - full of dangers, sickness, misery and early death.
Supposedly, if you believe that god introduced the first notion of morals with his commandments - they have been constantly stealing and raping and killing, and leaving their elders to die in the desert. Nope. If they wouldn't have followed their inborn moral compass all along - they would of never have made it anywhere - incl. mount Sinai.
Revelations - another good topic - why did God not reveal, that the earth is round and goes around the sun, that matter consists of atoms and that creatures have evolved? Now that would have been impressive!
That's what irks me so - the incredible obvious irrationality of this whole belief system - and on the other hand the billions of followers.Quote:
Originally Posted by balban
What is really marvellous, is that you don't even need to do anything immoral yourself - you need to be a devout Christian, in order to be properly saved. Why?
Because Eve had a thirst for knowledge, the bitch!
Of course God in his omniscience didn't expect that..?
And since all humans sprang from these two ancestors (lets just for now forget genetics) - we are all born with this original sin!
How practical - not that someone sets it in her head to decide being completely good and free of sin herself - and such she can abstain from following Jesus - nooo - not so!
In general - the message is - we humans are basically unworthy of god - seems he decided against genociding his second batch again with another flood, the batch stemming from righteous Noah and his family this time.
No - he sent his only son (is God now impotent? No more offspring possible?)! And now we have to be thankful for that - what a sacrifice he gave for us unworthy worms!
Can't he create proper humans, really after his own image, so that they finally function as he planned it?
Nope - he still has huge problems with quality control, it seems.
Attachment 7156
But yeah - what is the lure, the gain you get from religion?
Besides hope for immortality and divine justice - being recompensed for the suffering after all - and the satisfaction of the wicked neighbour burning in hell, while you couldn't do something against him being more "blessed" in real life. Directions, rules - the possibility of being holier than thou?
Maybe that ritualized, community-based "raising of the human spirit" - esp. when you consider sacral music, also architecture and art in general, preachers with a heart aflame - it provides a feeling of "transcendence" (horrible word, but anyway) of the menial, hard or simply boring life - conveying, what can be had in nature-contemplation and with secular art as well, but seemingly more powerful - a sense of awe and wonder.
All validated by being institutionalized and shared.
Confusion about a subject like this seems a sensible mindset to hold. To assume that you know with certainty a truth that you cannot know in this life is to me a bit delusional... and yet the very nature of faith gives us a strong sense, a happy possession, of this knowledge, this delusion. A stance of confusion, or a willingness to shift your perspective as new ideas or facts trickle in, can both make the full volume of this stuff easier to absorb and help prepare you for anything that might follow death. In the meantime, though, belief is indeed a freakin' complex thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by balban
I'd like to hear an expanded version of your theory. Care to share? Sounds interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
As far as the Old Testament, there is evidence that early Judaism wasn't monotheistic. It is suggested that it wasn't until the Babylonian exile that the individual gods where merge into one. This is one possible explanation for the contradictory nature of the OT god. I've taken a trip through Documentary Hypothesis a time or two in my life. It is an interesting theory and worth a look if you haven't already.
I can't figure out how anyone could support the Young Earth Theory. These people baffle me. Science knows far too much to even consider that the Earth is only 6K years old. The problem is that these people make the claim that both parties are taking their beliefs by faith. It's because I can't "explain" the entire theory to their satisfaction. This is obvious and I openly admit that. However, the bar to understanding the big bang, evolution, etc... is very high. One needs to have a massive amount of knowledge in many things. I would venture to say that no one has this level of knowledge. The difference is is that, should I have the desire, the skill, the intelligence, to perform the tests, do the math, etc.. I would probably arrive at the same conclusion. It's a stark contrast to what the Young Earth theory has to offer. I consider myself to have a layman's knowledge of the science behind creation, but I understand it well enough to believe that science is probably on the right track.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
I think the morality issue is where most believers fear that unbelief will lead us to a breakdown in the social order, which kind of bothers me. What goes on in their minds that they actually have fear that if there wasn't something all powerful always watching that they themselves would conduct themselves any differently (assuming they are doing good that is)? As if the fear of losing out on some big reward in the end is the only reason for "doing good"? How about not raping, murdering, stealing, etc., because it violates any kind of decency, which, I think, most of us can be on board with in order to get along? In all honesty, if anyone really think the social order will disintegrate any further without some deity or hope for an eternal reward, then I am just fine with them believing that. Things suck enough as they are.
As for revelations, I've seen all sorts of crazy claims attempting to match biblical stories with modern day science. It's shaky at best. I've always believed that god could convince me very easily that it exists. Yet... I am still waiting. And yes... I am putting god to the test. Shameful!
It can be annoying. I don't know what it is in me that argues over such things. Am I looking to "convert" someone as zealously as they are trying to convert me? In the end, my experience is that the discussions descend into an endless pissing match and it all just become a worthless exercise. Think about your own "awakening"... did someone convince you or did you ultimately convince yourself? I've come to realize that discussing religion with the believer is like pushing a stone up a mountain only to have it roll back down on me - obvious sisyphean reference because that is what religious discussions feel like to me. So I tend to shy away from unending diatribes. This is why I try to say things there are of value to me. I don't seek to take someone's faith away from them (like I can). It can be traumatic and you have to be in the right place to accept that this might be all there is and that death is probably the end (the big black). I still find myself, at times, trying to come to terms with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
What you mention here is very powerful stuff in the end. My quick answer is yes! Of course! That is the lure. What you get is an instant tribe. You gain an identity and some semblance of meaning in your life. You are probably less fearful because your deity is watching out for you. Maybe worry a little less about your future, etc... Putting aside the bad side of Christianity for a moment, they do tend to help others in some meaningful ways. And I wouldn't necessarily think that the average Christian would relish in the fact that someone is going to burn in hell. I believe this to be the main reason for all the proselytization. I had some well meaning dude actually cry for me because I was an unbeliever. It was really f'ing uncomfortable. But I believe his tears were out of genuine fear for my eternal soul nonetheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
All this isn't to say that these things can't be gained from some other source, but I recognize the attraction and take it for what its worth. Ultimately, I think its a low buy in for a decent gain. Plus their music isn't bad. :D
Being in the state of always searching isn't a bad place to be. I read a book called "The Spiritual Tourist" some time back. It brought some value to my life. I've never stopped looking for something, though I tend to gravitate to a this is all there is conclusion. But I will admin that, like you, I am hopeful that there is some kind of afterlife. Contemplations of the idea of "not existing" does bring me some anxiety. Which is kind of bizarre when I really think about it; I haven't existed for billions of years. So I should really know how to not exist by this point. I would even say I am an expert after all that practice! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
I don't know why it bothers me, but I does from time to time.
I don't want to debate, or argue. StephL and Universal Mind. You are both poking and trying to get me to argue back, but I am not a bear... I am more like the Pillsbury Doughboy. There are people smarter than each of us on both sides of these issues, so it obviously isn't a matter of intelligence which one you believe.
@Universal Mind specifically. I know that a lot of athiest know a lot about the Bible, more than lots of Christians. I don't want to argue or debate though. It would be a huge waste of time for all of us. I find debating boring, and I have better things to do with my free time.
@StephL specifically. I don't want to debate or argue, you make fun of Christianity enough in your posts, that I feel no need to answer, if you want to mock Christianity, you can do it without my answers. sin and death were pretty well answered in the other thread, if you want to reread my answer from before. If you have real questions about what I believe I would recommend listening to this sermon series. But if you are just looking for ways to poke holes in Christianity, than I don't really care to answer.
Fresh Life Church | Kickstart: Salvation : Kickstart
^The first in the series called Kickstart.
I understand that Sensei - and it's true - I mock Christianity here, and am not exactly behaving like a "Friendly Atheist".
So I wouldn't hold not entering debate with me against you, if you were "just a regular Christian believer".
I would have to concede - my fault - I scare the sheep away - hopefully only from talking and not from reading, though.
But you are not that - you have nothing better to do with your life, than to become leading part in a fundamentalist Christian church.
If it was me, planning that - oh well - you bet I would tackle all of my and balban's posts (at least ours) in detail - for fear for the reader's souls.
Is it not so, that what I write here comes directly from the devil, to lead souls astray? Not worth your time?
I would see it as a test of my own abilities, too - fitness for the job, practice, you see? Maybe you won't ever encounter any doubt in your organized circles anyway, and think, debate is therefore irrelevant. And maybe you are correct in foreseeing it so. Shame that, just saying.
But thanks for this video instead - I am at it, and I guess, it will sort of suffice as substitute.
Charismatic guy - able to take an audience with him, surely - he's got what you need for good preaching and effective salesmanship - enthusiasm, radiating conviction, fervour, verve - you name it. I'm at 6 min. - and there is a lot left - but lets see, if I can't try and distil, what it says in a friendly, non-polemic manner - try to take a neutral look at this confession of faith.
See ya later brothers and sisters - will take a while - after all this is not my main mission in life! :wink:
Steph makes a good point, Sensei...
An example of the "hit and run" tactic, everyone. Post something in regards to an argument, but when confronted, back off and say you don't want to argue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
First, I will admit to not completely watching the entire first video. I did watch about 45 minutes of it and realized that there really wasn't anything new that I haven't already heard many times over. You can take that for what it's worth, but I'll explain why I am saying this. I've been to MANY churches that present this exact same message in the exact same way. My earliest recollection is sitting in a large hall, in Calvary Chapel, on a Wednesday night, listening to the youth minister present a nearly verbatim message to the "new christians" as well as the "unsaved". Ultimately, this evening lead to a horrible experience (for me and probably those who gathered around to watch the process) because I was dumb enough to actually challenge someone that chose me to walk up to me and ask me if I was "saved". It probably isn't worth sharing for the purposes of this discussion, but I will say is that this experience didn't sour me to this style of Christianity. Again, take that for what it's worth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
In attempt to invite you back into the discussion, I will only make one personal point concerning the video. The speaker talked briefly about Paul. Paul has always been an interesting character to me. Here is a lifelong Jew whose apparent mission was to destroy this new movement centered around a man whom the Romans executed for what was essentially blasphemy against the Jewish tradition (this is just the kernel and not relevant to my point). Paul is then visited by the resurrected Jesus, which caused Paul's immediate conversion. I can imagine being in Paul's shoes and the level of fear he would have had in that moment. I make the connection that this is the "rattle to the core" life event that these pastors like to reference in the born again process. I get it.
But here is my problem with this story. And let me preface this by saying that I am making the assumption, for the sake of my larger point, that all of this really happened and that God is real in order to demonstrate my confusion with this particular story. First, for the vast majority of us, we have to basically "guess" whether or not God is real; or better, most of us have take it all on faith. I've never met anyone who could, beyond a shadow of a doubt, prove anything beyond their insistence that I just have to accept it on faith alone (so it is my fault, not God's.. fair enough). Paul, on the other hand, received some pretty solid evidence in that God directly revealed himself to Paul and basically proved that he was wrong (not that God was real - he probably already believe that, but that Jesus was in fact who he said he was). He even received a specific direction for his life along with the initial message. Along those lines, I've always believed that God could very easily prove that he exists, at least to me. I freely admit that I am a doubting Thomas who needs to see with my own eyes. I've honestly given God every opportunity to reveal himself (I am lacking better vocabulary to explain precisely what I mean without sounding arrogant - hopefully you won't take it that way), and continuing down this honesty road, I still do keep myself open to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, all this is true. God certainly knows this about me, yet nothing... crickets. And the bigger rub, I am not out persecuting his church - far from it. I am just some schlub, on a forum, who is earnestly looking for the truth. Why wouldn't God, who loves me so much, reveal himself under those conditions as some kind of a mercy (at a minimum)? <--- I know there is no answer to this and I don't expect you to answer it. I mean this rhetorically.
I've had others explain to me that it's all about free will. God doesn't want to reveal himself to me because he desires ME to come to him freely, faithfully and beyond all reason or logic. Blessed are those that believe without seeing! It is a gift that God is lovingly handing to me by NOT revealing himself -- I should feel lucky! Then what about Paul's "free will"? Extending this out further, this is to mean that Paul isn't as "blessed" as me because he got what I am openly admitting that I need? Considering Paul's stature in the church, I find that hard to believe.
Logically, this is completely broken. And the very nature of this break is why I can't imagine an all knowing deity using any of this as a means to connect with his creation.
In the end, Sensei, and if I can step in and speak for StephL for one sentence, this is the general confusion that manifests in us BECAUSE of these these logically bizarre stories. At times, these conversations make me feel frustrated. I feel like I am in this tiny minority of people, standing on the outside and completely baffled as to how anyone could believe this. It seems so basic and simple to me that I wonder if I am somehow broken because I just don't get it. StephL has her own reasons for reacting in the way that she reacts. But I can tell you, with some certainty, that this is the core of why (if that makes any sense to you).
I guess this was the long way to make a point of "let's all just take a breath"? Sorry for that. :/
I would love to hear about this in detail!Quote:
Originally Posted by balban
As promised I'll try myself at summing up the video in a non-polemic manner, which I did watch completely with making notes - but that's not ready yet - even if it's not going to be much. In the meantime - I am really curious as to your experience, balban!
And - I guess, that didn't is a typo there?
Edit: By the way - the second part of this series is seriously cringe-worthy - but it was to be expected, of course.
Every single word of the bible is true. Literally. How do we know that? Because it says so in the bible!
At least he is correct in saying - if you dismiss only one single passage - the whole thing comes tumbling down.
That I can full-heartedly agree with.
Soo - Sensei - when was the earth created?
Evolution?
Surprisingly, no. That wasn't a typo. :) I think you are going to be more surprised after reading this. My guess is that your next question will be "WHY?"Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
This is going to be long. And I mean long. Book long! Which is why I didn't want to really go into it. But you asked... so grab your popcorn. Here goes...
This happened when I was 15 years old. The funny thing is that, at the time, I probably would have considered myself to be a "believer". I wasn't a very "good" one, but believer nonetheless. Suffice it to say that I was a believer when I went to Calvary Chapel that night. But... that wasn't what got me there. It was a girl. I really liked her. When she mentioned that she was "Born Again", it didn't even register in my mind as to what that meant. I probably just thought that she was saying that she believed in god they way I did, which, admittedly, was pretty watered down. Something I think you can relate to, StephL? Either way, she told me about her church and invited me to this "Wednesday night youth worship service" thing. I honestly don't even think I heard that part. For me, it was a chance to be close to her. :/
I arrived at the event. I see her there. She smiled at me and then proceeded to ignore me. After several attempts at trying my best to get her attention again (hey... I was 15 and far from smooth), I still stayed. I took a seat, in the back of course. Being alone in a new group of people is a little intimidating for me, so I was happily surprised when I saw a few people that I knew and I felt relieved that they had came over to sit with me during the service. It made me feel a little more "comfortable" so to speak.
The "pastor", if you really want to call him that, appeared on the stage (this place was huge and there were a lot of kids there, maybe 200 - 300?) and the audience erupted with excitement at his presence. He hushed the crowd and talked for a bit. If I can remember correctly, he was basically saying what the night was going to be about (benign stuff). He then said a prayer and the concert began. It was a spectacle, chock full of excitement for a young mind. Musicians running all over the stage. Loud music. It certainly whipped everyone into a frenzy. This part was actually kind of "fun" dare I say? Then, just as suddenly as it all began, the pastor popped out on stage and everything got really quiet. Everyone returned to their seats and that is when the movie started.
It was about this guy who had it all (except for Jesus of course). He was rich, powerful, had a loving family, great health - the works. A perfect life in the grandest sense. Along the way, there would be certain people in his life, his boss, his wife, a friend or two, that would ask him about his "relationship" with Jesus. He would brush them off, sometimes harshly, because he had little time in his life for "all that". As expected, his life began to crumble. He loses his job, his friends disown him, he starts drinking, then descends into drugs. He finally loses his wife and kids, his fancy cars and his home, etc... In the very next scene, he is sitting alone in some no-tell motel, cigarette smoke billowing throughout the room, beer cans everywhere, drug paraphernalia thrown about the room... and... of course... he had a gun. He's would bounce between weeping and cursing god for what god had done to him. These statements were occasionally interrupted by him saying that he's going to end it all because of YOU GOD! YOU DID THIS TO ME! He put the gun to his temple and "click". Pissed off that he is even a failure at suicide, he grabs the television remote (for some unknown reason... well.. because it was just there), throws it down... and poof, it magically switches channels to some televangelist reciting the Sinner's Prayer. "Just pray it with me..", he said. The guy falls to his knees, a heaping mess and with tear stained eyes pointed toward the ceiling, he recites the prayer along with the televangelist. Then... just like Job, god restores his life. He reconciles with his wife and kids, becomes really active in his local church, gets a new set of Christian friends, he gets a job, etc... you get the picture.
Now... I was 15; young and dumb. And I watched all this unfold knowing that this is not how life really works - believer or not. But... whatever floats your boat.
Then came the altar call. This is where they invite you to go up to the stage and receive Jesus into your life in front of everyone. And these kids went up in droves. So many kids went up to that stage, one after the other. I kept thinking that this can't be real. It seemed... well... cultish(?) and a little uncomfortable. So, no... I did not go up and receive Jesus that night.
After the alter call, that was pretty much it. The house lights came on and kids all got up and began milling around, talking to each other. I stayed where I was at, just sitting and talking with the people I knew. This is when we were interrupted by some 18ish year old guy. A little on the smarmy side and he seemed to be "trying too hard" to talk to us. He opened with some talk about surfing, but quickly looked right at me and directly asked me if I was "saved". The question surprised me. Being a little off balance and not knowing how to handle that question, I asked him why he chose me, out of the four of us, to ask this question. He said he noticed that I didn't go up during the altar call (I wasn't nearly the only one that didn't... still... why me, dude?). He also told me that god was "directing" him toward me and that he had been watching my reactions during the movie because of it. He continued on that he had noticed that I was "laughing" at the movie. Well.. I wasn't laughing. Winching maybe. A little mocking, perhaps? But no... not laughing. But I bit down on the hook anyway and made the claim that, "If that is what you call 'Being Saved', I don't think I can believe in that." Keep in mind, I did believe in god. I really did. My real position was that I didn't believe in THAT. So...
Well... from that one statement I made, the high pressure salesman came out in him. This kid (well... kid to me now) just wouldn't let it go. He kept telling me how I was going to hell because I was a sinner and the only way to escape it was to be "saved" and "born again", to have a "relationship with Jesus!" He kept telling me, over and over, how much Jesus cared for me... that he cared for me... that everyone that was there cared for me. No one wanted to see any of god's wonderful creation to burn in hell forever... and ever... and ever! I remember reiterating that I do believe, but I just don't believe in THAT brand of Christianity. But it really didn't matter to him. I was bad... he was good... end of story.
There was finally a lull in the conversation, which gave me a few seconds to look around and notice the rather large group of people surrounding us. Apparently, they had been watching us talk the whole time. This made me feel really uncomfortable and totally awkward. To add insult to injury, I also noticed that the people I knew, who were sitting with me, abandoned me at some point in the conversation. And... obviously, the girl I liked was standing right front and center, right behind the guy. That, above all, embarrassed me and it started a chain of events that lead up to what was about to happen.
During the lull is where the 18ish year old guy let me know that I was frustrating him. Why wouldn't I just believe? What was wrong with me that I just don't see how simple it was? Then he asked me if it would be OK if he had someone else talk to me. Someone who could explain it "better". Someone he really wanted me to listen to. Whatever... I've already jumped down the rabbit hole... let's see where this will go (again... too patient, plus I didn't want to the girl I liked to hate me... Yes... that stupid!).
The crowd parted, allowing the "pastor" through. He takes a seat near me and just stares at me for an unnerving amount of time. And I mean it; it felt like FOREVER! Ever been just stared at for a minute or more? Come to find out, it's not all the fun when it happens. Then he began to talk. He said that he had heard my arguments, he knew that I "thought" I was a Christian. But the reality was that my belief in my belief was the devil making me think it it was true. He also mentioned that god was telling him that I, in fact, needed to be "saved". He then said he wanted me to hear something.... He raised his arm, snapped his fingers and called out for a bible. I wouldn't be exaggerating when I say that more than 25 bibles were immediately thrust in front of him. They came from all directions. He took one, opened it up and started reading passages from it. I couldn't even begin to recall what they were and, honestly, I wasn't really listening. But there he sat, reading one passage after another, refusing to let me say anything; silencing me with total contempt when I tried to stop him. So... I just sat there and let this 30+ year old man calmly recite bible verses AT me. After a brief pause and some more uncomfortable staring, he asked if I now had realized how condemned I was because of the "truths" that he had just read to me. I might have had a better answer had I been listening, but the situation was so damn uncomfortable - all those eyes looking at me... feeling like I was the most hated guy in the room... mostly, feeling like I had somehow let down the girl I liked (yes... that stupid).
But something welled up in me after he said that to me; rage! And I mean f'ing RAGE! That is the only way I can accurately describe it. But it was deeper and way more primal; more scary. Dare I say, uncontrollable? Then, just as if someone had spun up a top that let go, I took off into this visceral, verbal tirade. I don't even know what I said. It was all a blur, but I know it made everyone gasp and clutch their pearls with each word that left my mouth. I am pretty sure I turned beet red, I sprouted horns and pulled a pitchfork from my pocket. I even remember standing up and pointing around the room at all the others in the group, muttering some kind of foolishness. "You call me convicted... Nay!!! YOU!!! YOU, FOOLS, ARE THE CONVICTED ONES!!!" Yeah... it got pretty ugly and I can't say it was a proud moment in my life. I guess the point is that I had become the devil for them that day.
And all the while, that f'ing "pastor" just sat back, watching me with this shit-eating grin. He had this satisfied look, like he had handily defeated his enemy. And he did. I acknowledge that. He won. I lost. I get it.
After I calmed down (more like exhausted myself), I fell back in my chair. You could hear a pin drop and I could feel everyone glaring at me. I remember feeling really, really guilty. All I could do was look at the girl and mouth the words, "I'm sorry." (Yes... that dumb! Starting to see a trend here?)
Then something possessed me to lock eyes with the pastor and point blank ask him, "So... what you are basically trying to say is that if I don't believe in exactly what you believe in, I am a piece of shit?" He smiled and simply said, "Yes."
Finally, f'ing FINALLY, that was it. I stood up and calmly headed toward the door, holding my head with as much dignity that I could find for myself. Dead man walking! That is kind of what it felt like. And to top it all off with a cherry... that a-hole pastor had the balls to yell toward me and ask, "Would you mind if we prayed for you?"
So... that's the story, in detail. :)
tl;dr, but you're still curious... I was 15 and stupid enough to stay in a no win situation. A pastor of a church was mean. I reacted poorly. All over a girl. Hilarity ensues.
He also accused us of being fight pickers and threw in a "There are people smarter than you on this!" on his way out. The religious instigator tradition used to be to start an argument, act like a victim when people respond, and then say there isn't enough time to argue because of a paper that's due or something. This latest one did the first two and then just said that there are better things to do. I guess times have changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
I have said before that these people make me think of people who show up for soccer games and walk out onto the field to play but then start whining and acting like victims when there is a game happening on the field. This is a religion forum. People who come here and post but don't want to discuss and debate religious ideas are very much in the wrong place.
@ balban That's a fine story, and you are a fine story-teller, too! Thank you for sharing!
And says something about you, that you still feel, that the affair didn't sour this style of Christianity for you and once and for all.
It would have surely done the trick to me.
No chance with the girl after that, I suppose? Of course I think "thank God for that" - if you hadn't flipped - who knows under which sort of pressures and influences you might have fallen with her. You probably were darn unhappy - but right you were!
@UM So there used to be somebody a bit more energetic in religious extended discussion? Shame I missed out on that fun!
"There are people smarter than you on this!" - well yeah - Sensei formulated it like this:
Now while I feel, the meaning you (UM) address is indeed implied as well, he goes a step further there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
Namely saying that being an atheist vs. being a Christian fundamentalist is a feature, not being related to intelligence.
I don't have intelligence tests at hand - but I do have numbers concerning higher education - here we go - from this year:
It's these numbers that convince me, that it is worthwhile to to debate, even fight - on the one hand these horrifyingly high absolutes - on the other hand, that it looks as if at least the younger, more educated and probably more intelligent population slowly rids itself of cultural impregnation.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriendlyAtheist
There are also numbers, on how many actual scientists believe in each of the categories - I don't have them at hand - but there are almost none at all subscribing to Creationism, and only a small (hopefully I remember correctly) minority to God-guided evolution.
So I guess, I made a good case against Sensei's argument here.
@Sensei I'll give it a shot with summing up the video:
The only way, not to go to hell is to become a born-again Christian. All and everybody else has to go - even regular Christian believers with saintly conduct, if they haven't undergone this salvation process properly, with taking on the correct doctrine.
So how do you get born again?
First of all you need an invitation from god - you are being dead before it happens - "and dead people can't do anything on their own - not even seek for salvation."
I have a question here - what is meant with invitation? Does one need the church for that, the specific brand you follow, Sensei?
Or did the invitation go out to everybody, when Jesus died on the cross?
If so - why are not all Christians born again, once they believe in Jesus Christ?
Besides - how can I become born again, if I was "dead" before?
With invitation - in the very moment, when you start to “believe in Jesus Christ being what the bible says he is”, in that moment you are saved.
Salvation is instantaneous and final.
It entails regeneration - that would be the being born again - something which changes your state of being, a happening in your soul, and it protects you from the power of sin (to a degree).
Secondly – justification, which is what happens before god's throne - defines your standing - it's the declaration that you are hereby per definition a righteous person. And that means, that not only all the sins, you committed before your salvation are washed from you - but also all the following sins are - "case dismissed".
God is outside of time - he sees the beginning and end of your life - and when he declares a life justified - all that, what follows in that life is entirely justified by god as well. Because that's God's gift - all the infinite righteousness of Jesus goes on the scales - and you can't ever sin enough to tip the scale against you any more. Even if you lose your faith. You have been adopted by god.
How is that fair to the souls having lived and died before Jesus Christ, or without knowledge of him?
That's glaringly unjust in my eyes. But believing in the OT verbatim - you are probably okay with an unjust, capricious and cruel god. So this is progress, of course.
Then there is sanctification - that's what you got to do in your life-time - an ongoing process - you can't help to become at least little bit holier with true salvation, that's implicit. How good and righteous a life you lead is about your happiness while alive - and it also promises extra reward in heaven.
You are supposed to level up your character and conduct to your state and standing, which are unconditional presents to a person, who at least once in their lives truly had the Holy Spirit come into their hearts.
The third thing then is glorification - comes after the second coming and the endgame between god and Satan.
“The sky will roll back and there'll be lightning from the east to the west and the bodies will shoot out of the ground ..” and so forth.
And in the kingdom of god thereafter - you will not only be free from penance for your sins (justification) and from the power of sin (regeneration) but also from the presence of sin, that's glorification then.
How do I know this is true? Because of the holy spirit in my heart as down-payment!
But at the same time, he acknowledges, that some people will "feel nothing" while being born again - so how do I know, I got that spirit?
Did I get this correctly, Sensei?
What can I say?
It’s a fairy tale - directed at people feeling guilty and dead on their own devices.
Again Sensei - please don't forget to tell me, when you think, the earth was created, and if you believe in evolution - humans having evolved from animals?
An aside:
What is sort of funny, is that he cites somebody saying in the bible, that glorification would be nearer in time, than the time the addressed person started to believe in the first place. That concurs with the notion, that people in Jesus time expected the end of days being immediately ahead - in their own life-times.
And it did not happen - how can he cite this, and not notice the dissonance? Remarking again, how the end is really, really near now - and advise us to check our cell-phones for the time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Let me know if you have any questions about the videos. I am glad you are listening to them. :P
If you want to set up a debate on one issue when you are done listening, then we can debate the Sheol out of that issue. But one debate is all that I have the time and effort for. There won't be any changing the subject or debating seven thousand things, but one singular issue. Sound like a compromise?
Didn't see this post. :P I will answer what I can with the time I have.Quote:
I have a question here - what is meant with invitation? Does one need the church for that, the specific brand you follow, Sensei?
Or did the invitation go out to everybody, when Jesus died on the cross?
If so - why are not all Christians born again, once they believe in Jesus Christ?
Besides - how can I become born again, if I was "dead" before?
The invitation is any time God reaches out to you. Any sermon you hear or anything like that. In Turkey, 50% of the people in the Church were actually converted through a dream, before anyone had told them about Jesus.
To be born again is to trust in Jesus.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever "trusts" in Him will have eternal life.
The word you normally see here is believe, but the idea in the Greek is stand solely upon, or to trust only in Him. So to be born again, you have to trust in Jesus as the way to heaven. Calvary Chapel (Fresh Life is a type of Calvary Chapel) is distinctive in the fact that they believe that most all denominations are fine, as long as they have Jesus right. Jehovah's witness for instance believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, and change around a bunch of verses to fit that, and they don't believe in salvation through Jesus sacrifice, so they wouldn't be saved because they don't trust in Jesus, but actually their works (that is why there is so much door to door stuff by them, they are trying to get to heaven that way). Catholics, add some books that we don't think are Cannon, but what do they think about Jesus? Died for our sins, and rose again. Sounds good. Some of them put stock in the legalistic side and not in Christ, but all denominations will have people that miss the point because they were not trusting in Jesus, but in their works.
To be born again is to be a Christian. Many people call hardcore Christians born again.
We believe in God the Father
We believe in Jesus Christ
We believe in the Holy Spirit
And He's given us new life
We believe in the crucifixion
We believe that He conquered death
We believe in the resurrection
And He's coming back again.
In a simple way^^
I'll answer the rest later.
I LOVED this forum from 2005 to 2010. It was a total riot. There were multiple fundamentalists who came here and did what Sensei did, but they were more extreme about it. They would start thread after thread with really provocative titles and claims and then respond to the storm of comments by saying that they didn't have time to answer questions or counter points. They would do that even with threads where they challenged people to ask them questions. Then they would drop a few majorly flaming comments in and still say they didn't have time to answer questions. They might have all been trolling, but it was hysterical. The forum was flooded with atheists who were really getting into the discussions. This forum was created in 2005 because a character named Awaken4e1, who claimed to be a preacher, stirred up so much chaos in the Philosophy forum. For a while, only members who electronically signed an agreement were allowed to even see the Religion/Spirituality forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
I talked about that recently. You might have read what I wrote, but it's worth telling others about it. There was no better discussion forum on the internet in the second half of last decade than this one.
Ne-yo taking quotes from scientists out of context (e.g. Francis Crick) to support creationism was pretty fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Okay - good news for all the Christians with faulty doctrine - somehow I got the impression from the first, but especially from the second video, that it would be important to believe in the correct doctrine in order to be saved.
So if you believe this, and nothing else in the bible, it is sufficient?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
Why the urgency and need for proselyting from the side of the fundamentalists towards people already holding a Christian belief then?
Be that as it may - answering my two little questions about when you think, the earth was created, and if you believe in evolution, especially in humans having evolved from animals should be easy and really fast to do.
A number and a yes or no.
Don't stall!
Why the need for trying to get everyone to the right exact same doctrine? I do not quite know. If you look at Calvary Chapel, they do not try to get believers from other churches, but we try to fulfill the great commission and teach our own the correct way. I, for instance, don't plan on staying in the supersaturated United States, but I plan to move to Japan where 95% of the people have never heard the Gospel. Jesus and the Resurrection is sufficient.
number:
approx 6000 years
Sheol no. :P
Care to link?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
I would be willing to bet that if you asked your pastor if Catholics are "Christians", he/she would probably tell you no, regardless of what the Catholics think about Jesus. My guess is that your church wouldn't be able to get passed the whole "worshipping" of saints, engraven images, the pope, the transfiguration of the host, purgatory - basically major, fundamental issues that are completely at odds with their beliefs. If your church is anything like Calvary Chapel, I don't believe that they would be as forgiving or lenient as you are portraying them to be. Have you ever presented these views to your pastor or others in your church? Just curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
Not really. Born Again has a specific doctrine rooted in Protestantism, though Born Again is technically considered to be non-denominational. And I know for a fact that the vast majority of Catholics would never refer to themselves like this. However, they do call themselves Christians. I am not trying to split hairs here, but this first point isn't even close to being accurate. I think you just think this, which is fair enough. But I doubt you would have much support inside of your community when you pastor finds out you think this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
I do agree that some people call "hardcore" Christians "Born Again". But this term usually comes from non-Christians who are being derogatory when comparing the intense and open style of someone's Christian belief rather than any kind of doctrine they would follow. So.... yeah.
Basically a modified version of the Nicene Creed....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
^^ The hard way ;) Catholics memorize this and recite it at every mass! Point... Catholics! j/kQuote:
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one substance with the Father,
through Whom all things came into existence,
Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from the heavens,
and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became man,
and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried,
and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures
and ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father,
and will come again with glory to judge living and dead,
of Whose kingdom there will be no end;
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver,
Who proceeds from the Father,
Who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified,
Who spoke through the prophets;
in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.
We confess one baptism to the remission of sins;
we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen
My guess is that "And He's given us new life" is what makes this patently "Born Again". Just a thought when I was comparing the two. I think it is interesting that you added this (or that that is how it was taught to you - either way... interesting).
So how could the Catholics be right if your way is the "correct" way? How could the Lutherans, the Episcopalians, the Methodists, etc... be right if your way is the "correct way"? I really don't understand why you wrote that given all the other things you've written. True, Catholics, specifically, do believe in Jesus; that he is the only son of God; that he sacrificed himself for our sins; that he was resurrected on the third day; that only through Jesus are you redeemed and saved because you believe. If I am following you correctly, you are saying that THIS is the "correct" way. But man... Catholics do a lot of things that I am positive that your brand of Christianity would consider blasphemous. If so, don't Catholics need saving given the "great commission"? And if so, wouldn't that directly violate your non-pilfering from other churches statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
Really... I am not trying to be argumentative. I am really trying to follow what you are saying and what you are writing is confusing me. Did you mean to write "correct way"? If so... why did you write that in the light of all you said in your previous post? Do you know anything about the other brands of Christianity specifically or are you only versed in your own (not that this is a bad thing, but maybe... expected)? How much searching have you done before you arrived at your conclusion that your church is THE church? I am just curious.
Balban:
:bowdown:
Sensei flies his faith-plane blindly and autonomously from his church anyway. I challenged him, if he was sure, really sure about LDing being permitted by his church. And he was not. Just quite sure. But he wouldn't ask his elders for fear of their answer, and he prefers to just go on as if nobody had raised the issue.
While it is obviously a part of his faith, that people gain revelations of immense magnitude in their dreams (Turkey - I'd like a link as well) - he holds the opinion, that it might be ignorance would get the better of him, when he asks. Really??
Doesn't sound as if they had no opinion on dreams and their supernatural potential!
I just very much doubt, they would be delighted at his sexual encounters with DCs, dressed up as his wife, or any other stuff from his DJ.
And as I said before - how could they even theoretically be ignorant of LDing, having the wisdom of god at hand, the complete wisdom, everything pertaining to god and human souls, which would be in that book, as they take pains to repeat?
If he thinks, he has wisdom, they have not - why not initiate them?
Riight - now there is the basic problem I have with all this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
If you manage to get a bunch of Japanese to throw their brains in the trashcan, forsake the path of reason and science by scaremongering them with hellfire, then you will have made the world a darker place - a more stupid place and a place less capable of dealing with humankind's problems, like for example climate change. Do you at least believe climate change is man-made?
I'll ask you directly once more - lets say you do ask, and it turns out it is forbidden - would you give up your hobby of LDing, Sensei? After all - you are saved anyway and already - is that maybe your line of thinking?
My pastor knows, he doesn't care. My church is less conservative on any issues not in the Bible and more conservative on issues in the Bible. For instance, we don't dress up to go to church, we just go. Many people on staff (including me) have tattoos, some people go to Tai Kwan Do, when I know that other churches would see these as some form of heresy.
The complete wisdom? Where is it called that? I have never read something in the Bible or heard it in my church (or the seven churches I went to before this one).Quote:
the complete wisdom, which would be in that book, as they take pains to repeat?
Forsake the path of reason and science? That is interesting. Would you like to make this a straight up debate about evolution? I have studied this subject immensely, and wouldn't mind that. :PQuote:
Riight - now there is the basic problem I have with all this.
If you manage to get a bunch of Japanese to throw their brains in the trash-can, forsake the path of reason and science by scare-mongering them with hellfire, then you will have made the world a darker place - a more stupid place and a place less capable of dealing with humankind's problems, like for example climate change. Do you at least believe climate change is man-made?
Climate change being man made? Partly man made, and partly just how the earth works. Now that man has destroyed a large amount of the earth and is polluting the ground and the air, it is becoming more and more because of man. I don't see how we could think that this would have no effect on the earth.
Work time, I will talk to you later. :P If you want me to answer some of Balban's questions, you will have to ask them or point them out, because my debate is with you, I don't have time for debating both of you separately, but at the same time would be fine.
http://31.media.tumblr.com/f72791a0a...zmko1_1280.jpg
Going with Fresh Life and Calvary Chapel - add "dead" to the left, and "alive and happy" to the right side here!
Really? You told your pastor in the meantime??Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
Wow - tell us what was said!
So if I knew his name and e-mail and would send him a link to this thread: http://www.dreamviews.com/general-lu...g-satanic.html and your DJ - he would stand by your side - or she? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - but I really do doubt, he or she has an idea what you were actually on about.
I also wonder, why you haven't brought this fact up yourself yet, unprompted - for the kudos, you know?
Yes - it is repeated over and over in your kick-starter video number two. And he says it would be really, very important to be clear about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
Really? Sweet, finally something worth your time!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
Na then - present your case!
Looking forward to how you think, you know and understand more than all of evolutionary biology!
Hallelujah - at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
Yes - I definitively want you to answer his questions - he is clearly more erudite concerning the details and differences in doctrine than I am - also more intimate with Christianity personally - and he makes excellent points, where I just said - "well, good news then".Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
It looks childish and cowardly, to avoid debating him directly - that very much ascertains the impression, that you feel inferior and unable to counter his arguments. Is that really the impression you want to make - just taking on the less well informed "girl"?
His questions are mine as well, Sensei - no chickening out!
Just imagine, I would have copy-pasted his last post with it's questions in here - I suppose I don't have to physically do this, or do I?
But take your time - I don't want to harm your daily responsibilities - the topic doesn't run away - neither do we! :wink:
One thing, you should keep in mind: People posting in this thread are by far not the only ones, who read it - not even only forum-members do - be assured, there are very many wavering souls out there - "depending" on you getting it right.
That surely counts as part of the "great commission", doesn't it?
Who else than a pastor in the making should be listened to by people looking for Christian guidance on here after all? In absence of an actual pastor, that is.
By the way - where are our other outspoken Christians - Lmrhone - don't you want to chime in as well, if you're reading with us?
Assist poor Sensei?
Hmmm... maybe I'll just have to fill out the contact form on your church's website and ask them myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
<5 minute pause for filling out the contact form....> Done.
Here is what I sent them....
As you can see, I didn't out you or even refer directly to this website. It isn't my intention to monkey around with your RL. The point here is that I wasn't debating you. Rather I was asking you legitimate questions concerning claims you have made. Thus far, you haven't even attempted to answer ONE of my questions. So if you won't answer me, perhaps your church will. I will post the their response, should they actually take me seriously and respond to my questions. I will post their unedited response in this thread so you can then figure out what it is that you actually have signed up for and how you can reconcile it with your thoughts. Or, certainly a possibility, me telling you that you were right on these two points I have made. I am certainly not above an admission that what I thought was wrong.Quote:
I heard about your church via, of all places, a Lucid Dreaming forum. One of the participants in the discussion there was making some statements concerning some of your core values that surprised me. So I am writing to you, not in the interest of "outing" one of your parishioners, but more of a clarification for myself as to what it is that you actually believe on these two specific subjects being discussed.
First, this person mentioned that Lucid Dreaming was in line with your church's beliefs. I am really surprised by this, given what I do know about mainstream Christian doctrine. I was under the impression that areas such as these were viewed as occultish and evil. I know that it is believed that the holy spirit has communicated with certain people through their dreams, but there was no "intention" of having said dream, if that makes sense. I was curious as to what, exactly, is your position on the subject. FYI - if you are unsure what Lucid Dreaming is, here as a link to wikipedia concerning the subject - Lucid dream - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second, this person made the claim that your church is pretty much fine with other Christian faith's doctrines as long as they believe in the core believe that A) Jesus was the son of God, B) He died for our sins on calvary, C) He was resurrected on the third day, conquering sin and death. This person referred to these teachings as the "correct way" and as long as a church believed in this, they were fine with you. There was a mention of Catholicism. It was said that they to believe in this "correct way", but Catholics also believe things that, as it is had been pointed out, your doctrine would probably consider heretical. So, my question is what exactly is your stance on other Christian faiths? And more specifically Catholicism?
I certainly appreciate your kind consideration of these questions I have and I am really looking forward to your answers.
Just so you know, I will ask them two questions...
*holds breath*
Don't do that... my guess is you'll turn as blue as your avatar's eyes. Drum your fingers.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
See... this is why I really don't like debates. I go to work and ya'll start thinking that you have won. :/ I don't even have time to write today, and probably won't until Monday, in which case there will probably be at least 10 posts saying that I am running and that I can't come up with a response etc. as well as like 50 new questions. I am excited to see "my church's" response for this. I will try to answer everything above this post by Monday, but I can't really promise more. :P
We shall wait and see. Originally I was going to only answer questions from Steph, so I am sorry if this seemed like I was ignoring you specifically. As I said, will have time on Monday, post your response and all when you get it, but if you ask any more questions, I don't know when I will be able to answer them. :PQuote:
As you can see, I didn't out you or even refer directly to this website. It isn't my intention to monkey around with your RL. The point here is that I wasn't debating you. Rather I was asking you legitimate questions concerning claims you have made. Thus far, you haven't even attempted to answer ONE of my questions. So if you won't answer me, perhaps your church will. I will post the their response, should they actually take me seriously and respond to my questions. I will post their unedited response in this thread so you can then figure out what it is that you actually have signed up for and how you can reconcile it with your thoughts. Or, certainly a possibility, me telling you that you were right on these two points I have made. I am certainly not above an admission that what I thought was wrong.
Wait and see we shall!
Don't you worry Sensei - I am still patient and respect the time you invest in this - but in the meantime - I came across some really adorable stuff in the bible - this inerrant lovely book. You surely have read all and every word of the bible yourself and such also have an opinion on these.
Funnily - one gets the impression, that Jesus himself didn't view the OT as inerrant - stone casting only for the sin-less etc. - confusing to say the least:
"But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." (Deuteronomy 22: 20-21)
^^So who got it right now - Jesus or the OT?
"I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent." Timothy 2:11
^^Ui - women in leading positions - beware of Sensei!
"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." (Luke 16:18)
^^Don't you ever consider divorce, baby!
"A bitched* shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2)
*bastard, it means
^^Another nice example of being punished for what your forefathers did - ten generations - lovely!
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."(Deuteronomy 23:1)
^^So if you are so unlucky as to have serious problems with your genitals - it also means your soul is in deep trouble!
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:35-27)
^^Family values!
"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head..." 1 Corinthians 11:5
^^Ah - so the Muslims got it right after all!
"If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, 28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. 29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters."(Leviticus 26:27-30)
^^Uaah - cannibalism as punishment??
"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
^^That's lovely - did this actually happen so regularly that it needed to be regulated - women dragging their husbands around by their private parts?
"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)
^^Uuups...
"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)
^^Dirty, dirty womenfolk - uagh..
"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." (Mark 9:43)
^^Is that to be taken literally?
"For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God." (Leviticus 21:18-21)
^^What goes through biblical literalist minds while reading this, I wonder - shun the disabled! Or what?
"Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother." (Mark 12:19)
^^Wow - that I call grief-counselling!
"And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." (Matthew 5:40)
^^Good to know - I'll rob a born again Christian, if in dire need - that should work out really nicely!
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalm 137:9) (for punishment in case of disobedience)
^^Words fail me...
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39)
^^I don't think, I'd like to put that to the test, actually.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)
^^All hail loving kindness and tolerance! Thanks to American fundamentalists making religious adventure holidays in Uganda - this is has become horrific reality! Praise the Lord!
If you happen to disagree with your inerrant bible in some of these cases - I would be delighted to hear about it Sensei!
How can one take seriously a book, which contains stuff like this - let alone use it for moral guidance. It's beyond me.
Together with what the picture with the little girl expresses, and with the incredible ignorance it takes to assume the world would be around 6000 years old and evolution bogus - that's the kernel of my concerns.
But I am really interested in the two topics balban has brought to the attention of your church, LDing and Catholicism supposedly being just fine with them - and of course your treatise on evolution.
So again - this should be fast to clarify - do you agree with all of the above or not?
If not - how come you think the bible is inerrant?
That's two more questions - I'm a bitch, I know!
Those are fascinating. Here are some other jewels:
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,
but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
- Exodus 21:20-21, New International Version
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her."
- Exodus 21:7-8, English Standard Version
"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."
- Exodus 31:15, King James Bible
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
- Isaiah 45:7, King James Bible
Ah - great thanks - I had it in mind to search for the slave business as well!
Bible-thumping - yes we can as well!
Ha ha, exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
I did receive a response for Fresh Life Church. It did come the day I sent it. So, why did I wait so long? Well... I started thinking about what I was actually doing. So I reread my email to FLC; several times in fact. It began to be clear to me that, in the heat of the moment, I never mentioned to FLC that I intended on posting their replies on a public forum for all to see. Seemed kind of like "shock journalism" and unfair to me. They weren't part of the discussion and I never made it clear to them what I was doing. So, I sent them back a reply basically spelling out what I was doing and asked them for permission to post their replies here. That email has gone unanswered, which I honestly can't blame them.
In what is probably my vain attempt at "protecting" everyone, who is now involved, I knowingly acknowledge that I am making the case for you, Sensei, that am just dodging the issue because I didn't like the answer, I will say this... First, I really did think that I would get some kind of response to my request for permission from your church. I didn't know what they would say, but to not answer me at all? And I allowed this issue to get down to the wire (that being all buttoned up for you and ready for your Monday morning rebuttal) even though I would be the one that ended up with egg on my face. Second, my only issue is posting their responses publicly without their permission. I certainly don't have an issue providing the exact response to anyone who is interested. So, if you want it, PM me and I will provide it to you.
In light of all this, I certainly will paraphrase what was said and, obviously, offer my additional comments to continue the discussion.
As to the LD question, the responder said that they didn't know enough about LD to comment. Even though I provided a link, the responder said that they had to research it. They offered me the opportunity to discuss it more and suggested a phone call. Honestly, I am not so committed to this to make a phone call. My reply was basically that I am really interested in their opinion once they are done with their research. What else could I really say?
During the lull in this conversation, I've read through the other thread, on this forum, that specifically addresses this exact issue. From my experience, I tend to agree with StephL's thoughts. However, I understand Sensei's side of things as well. But I think he is dancing a fine line between "sinful thoughts" vs. "actual sin" (Christianity doesn't separate the two - both are the path to death). Not necessarily in the act of LD, but in what is being dreamed about. Honestly, I don't know how you can reconcile all of that with your Christian beliefs, Sensei. But... whatever. I will add that I have no reason to necessarily doubt you that you've "gotten the OK" from your church to engage in this activity. But, in order for this to reconcile in my own mind, I believe that maybe you aren't being very honest with them about the content of your LD. But... whatever.
The second issue, concerning Fresh Life's feelings toward other Christian faiths... This is where FLC's answer and Sensei's answer matched. There was little real detail and it was nearly verbatim of Sensei's post on the subject. So, yeah, Sensei... what you think is what your church says it thinks. Just as you mentioned, as long as XYZ church agrees with and follows the Apostles' Creed, FLC seems to take little issue with it by all outward appearances. So, I will give this one to you. Incidentally, I did reply to FLC with a more direct question on this subject, but it has yet gone unanswered.
But, in saying that, I've compiled a VERY SHORT list of other "Christian" faiths that also believe in the Apostles' Creed....
Association of Vineyard Churches
Unification Church
Christian Identity
The Living Word Fellowship
Followers of Christ
Jesus Army
Seventh-day Adventist theology
Aladura
Westboro Baptist Church
All links are to their respective Wikipedia pages. I didn't want to link to anything out of the ordinary so everyone would feel free to click the links and read about them should they really want to (there is a lot here).
And, of course, this list is meant to be provocative. It can certainly be argued that these aren't legitimate "Christian" churches. And yes, I would probably agree with that sentiment. But all of these churches have a few things in common - they are rooted in whatever denomination of Christianity, they acknowledge the Apostles' Creed as one of their fundamental beliefs and they do weird shit. I don't believe Sensei and FLC would "agree" with any churches on this list. But, based on their answer to this question, then they aren't being all that honest either.
Very interesting!
I would have been more concerned, that they might actually find out, where this is all coming from, namely Sensei - especially if he did indeed bring up the subject of LDing himself already. I was bracing myself for an eventual rl overflow. But it seems, that this did not happen. On the other hand, why haven't they already researched LDing in order to properly answer his question - one should think they have, shouldn't one? I've been not really making my case exhaustively in the "satanic thread" as far as I remember - but I let off, not actually wanting him to run into the problem irl and in the end give up LDing, and have that on my conscience.
But lets see, what he has got to say himself.
Please send me their message, balban - of course I am highly interested - who would have thought that? :wink:
I would be less reluctant - not reluctant at all, actually - to post it in here verbatim. They have been warned by you mentioning, you would have come across Sensei on an internet forum after all. So it was kind of to be expected, that you would share it publicly!
Besides - what could they possibly have against cost and effort-free publicity?
I wonder, if they will come across the phenomenon, that LDing generally strongly gravitates towards sexual content. Especially true for male LDing, but I know exactly what I am talking about myself, too. There is no doubt about that at all - just check out the TOTM threads. People are even regularly asking for advice on how to circumvent the onslaught of desire in order to not crash their LDs with having sex and nothing else.
So that titbit needed to be mentioned explicitly. I do not think, it makes any difference, if you try and simulate your wife for that - obviously what you are having sex with is not the wife, but yourself. Or is it Satan's temptation directly after all - and you are weakened in your resolve, because not fully conscious!? Attachment 7192
If they really stand by the assertion, that the basics for being saved in their eyes is "getting Jesus right" - as opposed to mixing in archangels for example - I would have to say then, that I find that respectable and also logically consistent. So - with this little bit of information - point for New Life - and also half a point for at least expressing willingness to research LDing further. Minus one for not answering the second mail.
The other question, though, is if these Christians "getting Jesus right" would in their eyes be able to properly sanctify their lives.
That which is asked of you to do yourself after having gained the entry ticket to heaven - concerning not only your happiness, but also promising extra reward in heaven, as the speaker had asserts in the first video.
I guess, there lies the difference then?
I'll wait till Sensei gets back to us and I will then clarify once more, what I'd like him to comment on further.
But my fingers are already itching to post a very clever conversation I found on John 3:16 - which would be at the heart of "getting Jesus right". One after the other, though - too much for this post, while we still got other relevant stuff pending.
My problem with the "getting Jesus right" justification is that every single one of these "religions" I have mentioned, and the hundreds and hundreds more I didn't, all believe they are getting it right based on what they are interpreting. Christian Identity is probably the most bizarre example of my broader point. This is a group of white supremacists that believed that Jesus only died for them. In their literature, they cite many biblical examples of why the redemption story is limited to only a select group and how the rest of the people simply aren't people. Whatever... my point is that I believe it to be intellectually dishonest to make the kinds of simple assertions made by both Sensei and FLC. I guess it bothers me because these kinds of comments don't come from a place of someone's faith (the inclusions of the words "correct way" when describing your own set of beliefs, for example), but rather someone's "politics"; and by that I mean that I think these kinds of answers probably come from the feeling that society, especially now, seems to value diversity, and to appear rigid and unbending will probably be perceived as being wrong or bad. So... it's a political answer, IMO. But you can't have it both ways... either you have it right or you are wrong. It certainly can't be both.
Balban, if you could PM me that message that would be great as well. I don't think that they would mind you sharing it like that, but putting it on an open forum does seem kind of dishonest. Kudos to you messaging them exactly what you are doing. If it is to Fresh Life, they might get back to you. Sunday is full of their worship experiences and Monday is their day off, I am hoping that this is there delay.
Frick mothers. You guys were so patient with me and everything. Do you guys want to open a skype or line group and talk about it? I had a terribly long day at work and I am leaving my house right now to help my dad out with some stuff at his house. If we open a skype group to talk (Me, Balban, and StephL) I could begin answering tomorrow morning. If not, then Wednesday is my next open day to do any typing. Note, I am not the slowest typer ever, but my "O" and "M" are broken and it takes a very deliberate hit to hit them. This actually slows me down way more than you would think. :P
If you can wait for me, then great, if skype, then BeaconBoss, and if you can't wait... then well I can't help you.
:cackle: I love this stuff.
Should this actually be....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
Naa - no Skype!
Don't disappoint us - so looking forward to the evolution treatise for example - and I still got the John 3:16 interpretation-aid up my sleeve.
And - don't forget:
Just checking back - I gave you another 2 very easy questions some posts back - almost as easy as the age of the earth and the yes or no to evolution. In order to answer them - you had to just read my and Universal Mind's bible-thumping posts and then get back to us on this:Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Do I not simply loove the edit-function? Lets make it three questions!Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
What goes through your mind when pondering this picture?
http://31.media.tumblr.com/f72791a0a...zmko1_1280.jpg
Going with Fresh Life and Calvary Chapel - add "dead and miserable" to the left, and "alive and happy" to the right side here!
It would have taken a lot less time! :PQuote:
Originally Posted by balban
StephL.
I'll take the 2 questions real quick right now.
How can I take seriously the book with stuff like that and believe it is inerrant?
Because those verses are either taken out of context, so it is pretty easy. :P
I cannot write up a verse study on all of then, but if you want to pick one or two, I can do a quick verse study and give you my opinion on it. I will walk you through it really slow so you know that I am not just jumping to a biased opinion. The best one would be one of universal minds probably, they seem more difficult and more fun to look up.
A lot of yours I have already looked up and studied.
Will answer more tomorrow. Should be able to give yall an answer that you will be more satisfied with. :3
I wanted to respond to you StephL, but I really think it'd be quite pointless. Ahh..... the irony of bigotry found in atheists.
Either taken out of context, or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
They are not taken out of context - not a one of them - and if you know them already - get your keyboard in order and walk us through! :tonguewiggle:
You seem to say this a lot, Sensei. I've given you the benefit of the doubt, but I am starting to wonder if you are, intentionally or unintentionally, being the banging gong in this conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
If it were my choice to select the topic, I'd like for you to address the evolution issue. You claim to have "studied 'it' immensely". I'd be very interested in what you have to say regarding this rather than your biblical verse studies. Honestly, how you could have "studied evolution" as much as you claim to have had and still honestly believe that the Earth is only 6K years old is totally baffling to me. Well... I guess if your studies have only included "biblical proofs" told to you by people that don't understand science and/or how it works, then yeah... I can see why you believe that. But, if you are really claiming to have studied the real science behind evolution, then I am completely baffled.
Feel free to dodge this too with what little time you have. :/
I believe in the superhero in balban's avatar. Who is that, balban? He reminds me of Goldar, Spectreman, and Ultraman, but he's none of those. Is he Iron Jesus?
This is PROOF that evolution is total nonsense. There is no way around it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ASzDDOaLyk
Johnny Sokko and his Giant Robot!Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Check... and mate!Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
@UM: :cackle: So typical - the theory of evolution hasn't even got anything to do with how life came into being initially. Commenting on that feels almost like taking this guy seriously, though. Na well - we will see how this goes on.
Most definitively Sensei - I am fully with balban on this one - your evolution treatise is what I look forward to the most!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
I'll take back my three question for an eventual later discussion, and I'd like you to focus on this absolutely central issue for now. Since you are a self-proclaimed expert on the topic - this promises to be a lot of fun!
So evolution override the other questions? If so I will need a link to the type of evolution you believe. Depending on where you live and how you.were raised, there are a few different ways I could go. Universal mind, balban, and StephL, I would like each of you to answer independent of each other (don't just say "what universal mind said!")
It's been a while since I've seen a good evolution discussion. I'm game to watch/participate. I'm interested in how you've studied it immensely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
This should be fun; I for one had no idea there was more than one theory of evolution... of course, I also don't know why creationists need to prove or defend anything, because they should know that a God Who can create 100 million galaxies ought to be able to create a populated earth, complete with a scientifically provable history -- including evolution -- any time He wants, even yesterday; so clearly I'm not qualified for a debate...I guess I'll be an interested onlooker, if you guys don't mind (even if you do ;))!
Yeah, after seeing memories in dreams it makes you realize that fake memories are way too similar to real memories that any omnipotent being could have started the whole world yesterday or 3 seconds ago. Lol. So if you go by that it is impossible to prove that the world wasn't created. From a Christian perspective, It is impossible to believe in evolution, unless through ignorance as a Christian. The Bible is very very clear about creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
StephL, this is not really the great commission, arguing online. :P the great commission is to tell people the gospel and.then disciple them. I believe yall know the gospel, if not, then PM me and we can talk about it in more close detail. This is really me just trying to cover for my mistake of posting here and trying to leave on a note that doesn't make Christians look bad.
Balban, you say that I am not giving you good answers, but yall roped me into this, and instead of answering a few questions, there are over 50 questions that are waiting for me on every side of Christianity, from the validity of the BIble to what it actually takes to be a Christian, to evolution. Now I would be able to give more clear and accurate responses if this was a discussion about one thing, but a whole arsenal of things. Now I am more busy than I have ever been in my life, so I am trying to rattle the discussion into one thing before typing out a huge response that will take an hour of my packed day.
Since evolution is impossible from a Christian perspective, it will be scientific perspectives that I come from. I am not the best when it comes to science, but I will do my best. This way as well yall get the debate you want, and we will all hopefully learn something.
There are many, many people who would disagree with you. Are you taking the bible too literally or do you think you have found the correct version of Christianity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
Arguing against evolution from the perspective of science will be, well, difficult enough that it may not be worth your time. I hope I don't need to state why.Quote:
it will be scientific perspectives that I come from. I am not the best when it comes to science, but I will do my best.
How did a dinosaur change into a bananda?
Universal Mind said something already? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
You could start with watching his 2 min. video and making sure to convince us, that you do not agree with what this creationist has got to say on the topic. Or do you concur with the guy that if evolution were true - we would find new life in jars of peanut butter all the time?
If so - that's a fallacy - and I explained why in my last post.
But I will repeat myself - the theory of evolution has got nothing to do with how life initially came into being. Nobody knows how that happened yet. There are very good hypotheses - it might have to do with hydrothermal vents in the ocean, and little pockets in stone, which enabled closed systems - but this is really another topic altogether. That's why your usual Christian has no problem with evolution - they can (still) say - well yeah - god did that 3.6 billion years ago, and then evolution. What it is all about, is how life evolved from these initial single-cellular organisms - the protozoa. So you can spare your breath on that one. Or can you?
As Sageous has already remarked - in "which sort of evolution" we believe, has got nothing to do with where or how any of us grew up!
There are absolutely zero controversies about the general concept.
It's Christianity, not science, which comes in almost 40.000 different flavours. Taking into account, that not everybody actually listens in biology class, or when otherwise confronted with the evidence, there is the possibility of misconceptions, even among people who believe in it. All the more so among people who don't. So to clear the field of some of these - here a nice and easily digestible info-graphic on the topic. It's big and contains nothing new to probably most of us - so I spoiler it:
Could it be that some of your "scientific arguments" against evolution are already cleared up by this?Spoiler for common misconceptions about evolution:
No?
Well then - what are your "scientific arguments" against the conclusion, that human beings and modern animals have a common ancestor, and that life has evolved over billions of years? Besides "it says so in the bible" of course.
Small print: Evolution is the most fascinating topic in here - but anyway - if you really want to leave this thread with making a good impression - you will have to eventually get back at walking us through the bible-thumping. Not overly soon, though - we got almost all the time of the world after all. But letting that stand virtually guarantees leaving behind an extremely bad taste.
@Sagous - almost, if not virtually everything is theoretically possible - we could be a simulation on some advanced beings' computational arrangements, and such everything we perceive could be an elaborate fake. But does Christianity's version make one shred of sense?
It would come down to god taking the piss out of his creation - deceiving us about virtually everything. Why would a divine being do such a thing?
Burying fossils for his entertainment?
Letting us watch evolution in progress in micro-organisms - enabling us to interfere with it in logical ways?
Extremely unlikely - and not in the least, what Sensei believes, too.
Since I am fiddling with my posts already - I'll drop the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate in here as well - fodder for the patient on both sides:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
Been reading some of the following discussions on both sides - even most creationists seem to agree, that Nye "won" the debate - unfortunately in their eyes, and of course not because he is right. Attachment 7202
I can link that up, if somebody would be interested.
First, no one is roping anyone into anything. No one is forcing you click this link and type your responses. So this is a very poor excuse, IMO. Second, I realize there are many more questions that have been put in front of you, which I why I suggested to narrow the discussion to just one. It seems that the others are in agreement. So... in case you missed it, I am asking you to answer just one subject. How can you not see that? I believe that you are attempting to play the victim here? It isn't working and you are just coming off as a banging gong. Either respond with something or don't respond. Honestly, I wouldn't blame you if you just gave up; I think this is going to go very poorly for you based on this one comment you just made....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
I don't know how you can make the statement "I've studied the subject immensely" and then come back around making comments like this before your big reveal. Suffice it to say, I've had this type of conversation many, many times in my life and I've heard these words uttered by many believers who sought to "school" me in the facts. And with questions like "what type of evolution do you believe in", I am willing to put myself out there and predict this will not go well for you. Just saying. :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
Finally, I'll go ahead and answer your question about the "type of evolution" I believe in. I come from the premise that the theory encompasses many different scientific principles. The act of combining these individual principles together and considering the predictions that are made when viewing one principal through the lens of other principles and then comparing these predictions with reality after meticulous testing, I believe that. Basically the type of evolution that was discovered using the scientific method.
It doesn't need to make sense; that is not their point, or the point of faith. Aside from that:Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
I wasn't arguing for creationism, Steph, or even the inherent absurdity in believing stuff that some guys wrote a few thousand years ago (based on stuff they in turn heard from other guys for generations) in order to explain their existence and importance to frightened tribesmen, and maybe pick up a few free meals in the process (it was good to be a priest back then).
No. Rather, I was simply stating my ongoing surprise that creationists get themselves caught up in defending or proving their faith or, worse, disproving evolution or the real age of the earth. A simple shrug and maybe a statement like "God could have created us whenever he felt like it; so there," really ought to be enough for a truly faithful creationist, right? If you truly believe in creationism, there is no reason to defend it with complex explanations or embarrassingly empty "scientific" proofs, like that video's peanut butter "experiment." Just shrug, say "I'm right, you're wrong, because God said so," and walk away. Sort of like Sensei's been trying to do for many a post now.
I often wonder if the reason creationists make these elaborate defenses is because somewhere in the back of their heads, perhaps in their own genetic memory, they know that the earth is 4 billion years old, that we did evolve from other things (again, no reason why God couldn't have arranged this as well; strange that believers dismiss that concept as well), and that yes, if you left a peanut butter jar in warm temperatures, bathed in water and primordial gasses, in 100 million years or so it too would produce life.
The touting of Creationism for me is a defense mechanism, another excuse to hold humans above all other things. For them, to scientifically, logically, or common-sensibly dismiss creationism is to dismiss or diminish humanity. Who knows? This may have nothing to do with the Bible at all -- that book is just a go-to for "proof" of something that is unprovable.
Who says He's deceiving us? When we set up an aquarium with lots of rocks and plants that makes a fish comfortable, or seem at home, are we deceiving the fish? God might just know that if He creates sentient beings, they are going to need some sort of aquarium, and that aquarium must match the complexity of His pets.Quote:
It would come down to god taking the piss out of his creation - deceiving us about virtually everything. Why would a divine being do such a thing?
Just more layers of realism for the aquarium, something to keep us occupied, entertained, and perhaps to solidify the illusion of independence that the aquarium's careful assembly created.Quote:
Burying fossils for his entertainment?
That fits the aquarium metaphor too, I think! A good creationist might point out that, with all the manipulation we seem to be able to do, we always fail to really change anything -- no doomsday bugs, no nanotech gray goo, no nuclear annihilation -- it is as if there is some force holding us back from really harming ourselves, or the aquarium... but they never do point that out. Odd.Quote:
Letting us watch evolution in progress in micro-organisms - enabling us to interfere with it in logical ways?
Keep in mind, Steph, that all this is said to make a point, and that I personally am confident that this world of ours is billions of years old, that we evolved from little more than primordial matter and energy (and a whole lot of time), and that if there ever was a God, He did little more than set things in motion 15 billion years ago, and then went on to whatever other things gods do. He might come back occasionally to check out the aquarium, but I highly doubt he cares much about what we do or say, or in Whom we believe. So, again, due to that bit of ambivalence, I really shouldn't be arguing here.
Alright. Then we shall begin. Ya'll type a lot more than me, so I will try to make it as to the point as possible. :P
Balban, which question is it that you want me to answer above all? I did not say that as a disclaimer. "I am not the best, but I shall do my best" is actually something that I say. :P I have studied evolution, from an evolutionist and creationist perspective. As well as studying creation from both perspectives as well. I drew up my own conclusions, lol, they may be crazy, but they are mine. :p
Steph, I am not confused by those things. They are pretty much what you will always see when you look at evolution from a modern evolutionist perspective. You want me to answer that picture most of all right? I do not agree with a lot of it. The Bible says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. The price of a thing is the amount that a thing is bought for, and since Jesus spent the most precious gift, then the human soul is worth a lot. The being dead thing versus alive is like this, when we were made we were alive in the spirit and flesh, neither would have died had we not fallen. When we fell, the spirit died, and the flesh started to die (we shall all die, so we are really "dead men walking"). When one gets "born again" like it says in John 3:16, what happens is that "not by works of righteousness that we have done, but by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, he saved us". So the spirit gets regenerated, the second birth. The first birth is just birth in the normal way. :P The main thing missing on both sides is purpose. If I am just a cosmic accident, then what is my purpose? God said that he knew you before you were born and gave you everything that you needed to walk a path of good works that he set up beforehand. David says in Psalm 16 that:
You will make known to me the path of life;
In Your presence is fullness of joy;
In Your right hand there are pleasures forever.
Do you think that it is a coincidence that as there becomes less and less Christians (especially in America that knew God before), the suicide rate and the depression rate have gone up? Having no purpose means having no reason for living. What is your purpose?
Blueline, from a literal perspective, which is taking it in context, what did the original author mean to the original recipient. When reading Genesis you see that it takes painstaking care to make sure you know that it only takes 6 days. In between each day it says "and the evening and the morning were the first day" and so on. Now if you don't believe that the Bible is literal, then you can change every single bit to what you believe, and I could probably even get it to say that Papa Smurf is the supreme deity if I wanted to. So the question from a literal standpoint would be "did Moses when giving this to the Isrealites mean 6 literal days" and I don't think that there would be a doubt in your mind that it is 6 days. The only margin for error would be between verse 1 and 2, but I don't think that you are talking about gap theory. :P
I know this has little to do with the subject, but I need to interject as an American with a purpose in life:
First, this country is in the midst of a christian resurgence it hasn't seen since the 19th century, so please spare us the right-wing-talk-radio BS that we're getting less christian. Next, I'm pretty sure that overall the suicide rate (and the murder rate, and the violent crimes rate, etc) has been dropping for years. The depression "rate" could mean pretty much anything, so I'll give you that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
Even if it were all true, to conflate any of this with the assumption that anyone who is not christian has no reason to live is naive at best. There are plenty of reasons to live beyond dedicating your life to some religious doctrine.
What the hell... I'll bite. ABOVE ALL... tell me how you could have "immensely" studied evolution, from a scientific perspective, and come to the conclusion that the Earth is only 6 thousand years old. And, just so we don't go around and around with this, please expand on exactly what scientific principles you have studied in order to make your points and show us the path(s) you have taken to arrive at your "own" conclusions. Just so we are clear, I am asking you to argue for your position and tell the scientific world why Sensei thinks they've got it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
You don't have to answer today. I am not looking for a response immediately. I won't post in a few hours or days that you lose because you are taking too long (our thoughts on your winning or losing status seems to be important to you). I'm really patient and more than willing to wait for as long as it takes for you to roll it around in your head, figure out exactly what you want to say and type it out on your broken keyboard, all the while respecting the time challenges you have in your life. For what it's worth, I am inviting you to give us a really good response. Blow my doors off, man! Be the ball! There is no try... only do! Whatever it will takes for you to answer something... anything I have asked you.
Let's put some numbers with your response, Sageous. Since the origin of this part of the conversation was about suicide, let look at that. From the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (who got their numbers from the CDC), here are the suicide rates from 1981 to 2010. For 30+ years, the suicide rate has fluctuated between 10 and 12 per 100,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
So... you are right, but based on which years you happen to be comparing. Your broader point was spot on.
Do you have any idea how disgustingly insulting that is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
I probably shouldn't interfere here, since the debate seems fiercely hot, and I have not followed it from the beginning, but the above quote by Sensei does not in any way seem insulting from my perspective. He is merely posing a question ("Do you think that it is a coincidence ..."), followed by a statement ("Having no purpose ..."), followed by yet another question ("What is your purpose?").Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Do you have any idea how disgustingly insulting that is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
The statement is arguably true (unless you really want to redefine common usage of the words employed), and the questions may simply be honest attempts at knowing the position of the person asked. Acknowledged, Sensei certainly seems biased in his position, but any persons position on anything is by nature biased.
Where's the insult?
@Sageous - I like your aquarium metaphor! And it is consolable with a theist god, talking to and interfering with his creation, too.
But he would have never been taking his sentient and sapient fish seriously, when they asked about their environment. Nor does or did he ever truly love us - with all that theoretical power - he could have done much better.
And now he's lost interest for ages.
It's a nice thought-experiment, though.
Attachment 7215
I know you want me to come out with my John 3:16 interpretation-aid. I will, but not just yet. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
I want you to stay on topic - and we agreed on the topic. And I wanted to kick start said topic off with these:
Unfortunately you ignored the second set of questions. Balban asked you for exactly the same thing again, just in different words - see below.Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
So come on, do not dodge!
And no - I did not want you to "answer the picture", it doesn't even constitute a question. I wanted you to consider it, before you bring up one of the mentioned misconceptions as an argument.
But since you say, you do not agree with all of the information it contains - please point out, what exactly you don't agree with!
It is easy to only quote the relevant parts of it, too - it consists of many singular pictures.
Otherwise I position myself behind this completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by balban
Including being very patient and wanting you, Sensei, to really give it your best shot. Take your time! May it be several days - it's okay.
It's adequate, you know. This is important.
And it makes no sense to bring up more, before you even have begun to answer, what is already here.
Take that one step further -- what if He never intended that humanity be sentient? What if He were going simply for an incredibly complex biped that could dominate the food chain with brain power rather than muscle power? Then He would not only be confused at their asking about anything, but He likely wouldn't have cared much, aside perhaps for feeling a bit of consternation that his Plan hadn't gone as planned... yes, that would make the whole "omniscience" thing a problem, but it could explain why God really tossed Adam & Eve out of the Garden: "What? You're asking me a question? That's not right! Get out of here so I can try again! Honey, where's my clay?".Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
So no, there would have been no reason for this particular version of God to take His creations seriously.
Also, keep in mind that God, if there was one, might have left at the moment of creation, without ever returning to see how the aquarium was developing.
Right, there may never have been a reason to love us at all. I often wonder if that "loving God" theme is a bit of anthropomorphism on humanity's part: since love is the most excellent thing in human experience, God must do it as well, and necessarily perfectly, right? Of course, this is in spite of the albeit arguable fact that love is more a result of combining our reproductive/nurturing/herding instincts with sentience than it is some mystical magical power within us.Quote:
Nor does or did he ever truly love us - with all that theoretical power - he could have done much better.
He sure could have done much better. Maybe things improved with His next try... or the one after that... or the millionth one after that?
Perhaps forever.Quote:
And now he's lost interest for ages.
Thanks... I do still find that a part of me sort of hopes is isn't true... and another lingering facet of my past still cringes in anticipation of the lightning bolt from Heaven that never comes! ;)Quote:
It's a nice thought-experiment, though.
@Voldmer - this debate is most definitively hot - but if you want to see fierce hot - go look at page eight in here, please:
http://www.dreamviews.com/general-dr...d-brain-8.html
It would be nice to hear your thoughts in there as well, as it were. Also anybody else's of course. :wink:
Otherwise - I agree with BLUELINE and Sageous - see below.
I thought he was drawing an odd causal relationship between Christianity and happiness, which I'd love to see a source for. There is the implication in his question that those who are not Christian have no purpose in life and have no reason for living. It paints the non-religious (or at least non-Christian) as depraved and dejected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voldmer
I'm willing to give Sensei the benefit of the doubt that he did not actually know he was being incredibly offensive, but he should know for any future arguments he has with the nonreligious: a lack of religion does not mean a person has no reason to live. They can and do live happy, fulfilling lives. To say otherwise is to be, well, just plain wrong.
I drew the same conclusion as Blueline, Voldmer. Though Sensei's question might have been semantically sound, it did indeed come off as an insult, or perhaps a moment of directed condescension because of the implied context -- that only christians who have found Jesus can possibly be happy, with all others being without purpose and subject to suicide. All in all such a question makes a hell of a statement, I think, and offense would be taken by "otherwise" happy or fulfilled people, should they care.
Main point: even if he didn't mean it as an insult, it has been used by creationists so much as an insult that it is insulting no matter what the person's intentions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
^^ True.
That's what catholic indoctrination in childhood does to people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Disgusting.
Sorry for ya - but you're too much of a seeker to keep being deceived! :wink:
^^ I can't argue with that...but keep in mind that to me that bit was the least important bit of my post.
I know this - I was about to answer more in depth, actually - there is much, that I could say - but I don't have the energy right now. It is noted, though - and since Sensei is at work at the moment - I might get back to your thought experiment at a later point.
I love this part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
I misspoke a little as Sageous pointed out. Suicide rates are going down in America, interesting. I knew I had heard something about this before, so I looked it up:
In More Religious Countries, Lower Suicide Rates
So I misspoke when I said "Christian". The idea really goes to anyone that believes in a purpose from something that is not in our flesh. So religious people. Sorry about that.
Sageous. What is your purpose? Do you believe in something more than the physical, or is your purpose something that in 1000 years will be gone? I do not mean to offend. But I am curious to know more about you. You are a smart man that seems to have lived a happy life and seems to succeed in things that he does. Your art is incredible, and I will be reading your books soon as well.
Also, thought experiments like that are very interesting to me. :) I enjoyed reading it and toying with the idea and trying to see which parts would be plausible and what would go through a creators head when doing this. Of course I love all things fiction, so I find many things to be interesting like that.
Blueline... I find this interesting that you would ever be insulted by a Christian. Isn't your profile pic a joke of our God? Not saying that I am offended, but it seems to me that your picture would be saying "I don't care what Christian's think." As Voldmer says, according to my worldview, I said nothing insulting, so what is your worldview, and how is that insulting to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
StehpL!
We are talking about the picture with the kid right?Quote:
But since you say, you do not agree with all of the information it contains - please point out, what exactly you don't agree with!
According to religion:
broken
flawed
sinful
dumb
weak
nothing
Ok... let me look at these. These are things that Christianity uses when comparing us to God or the fact that we are going to die when we were made to live forever: Broken, flawed, sinful, and weak. Dumb is only when it comes to spiritual things. There are two types of smarts mentioned in the Bible. One is worldy wisdom and one is spiritual, it mentions being smart in both as a blessing, but one is obviously better than the other. The Apostles for instance were "laymen" they were not over learned pharisees or Sadducees, they were wise when it came to God though because the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
nothing? Can you give a reference for this? As I see it, God paid everything for us, so we are worth Christ Blood as I mentioned before. Which is the highest price paid, so we are worth quite a bit. Beautifully and wonderfully made... etc. God thought that we were worth it. I could add a million good things to this side, but I will move on.
According to Science I am:
full of wonder
smart
a great learner
beautiful
potential for greatness
Can't argue with these. Though all but #2 are taken from scripture. Remember that as a Christian we don't think that Religion is directly opposed to science. Actually the opposite, we believe that science shows the existence of a supreme being. The heavens (all 3 heavens described, the sky, the universe, and heaven) declare the glory of God.
Frick! I was so confused about why I didn't get any answers to the whole evolution part of my post and I realize that I left it out yesterday accidentally. :P I am forgetful sometimes. That Ken Ham vs Bill Nye (Love both of those dudes, listened to both when growing up) debate was about Creation, our debate is about evolution! Though funny enough I have some evolutionist friends that think that Ken Ham won the debate. Strange... :P
Evolution
One of my scientific arguments is this:
Evolution states that we went from a single celled organism to what we are now. From simple to complex
Since matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another, it is an isolated system
an isolated system, unless acted on by an outside force, will go from complex to simple, not the other way around.
If these above are true, then Evolution would be implausible.
Not the best argument, and since I have never heard anyone else use it, I am sure that there is a simple answer. I am actually delighted to see your answers. I have more reasons, but since this one is uniquely mine, I would like to see your answers.
It's Jesus smoking, from an album cover (or a piece of merch, maybe) from the band Down. No, it should not imply that I don't care what Christians think. If it is insulting, I'd wager it's a lot less insulting than implying your opponents have no reason to live, whether you meant it that way or not. Read what I said to Sageous: even if you didn't mean it as an insult, it has historicaly been used that way by your intellectual colleagues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
This is just a rehash of the argument that uses the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to disprove evolution. It is indeed not the best argument (nor is it unique), because:Quote:
Evolution
One of my scientific arguments is this:
Evolution states that we went from a single celled organism to what we are now. From simple to complex
Since matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another, it is an isolated system
an isolated system, unless acted on by an outside force, will go from complex to simple, not the other way around.
If these above are true, then Evolution would be implausible.
Not the best argument, and since I have never heard anyone else use it, I am sure that there is a simple answer. I am actually delighted to see your answers. I have more reasons, but since this one is uniquely mine, I would like to see your answers.
Evolution states that we went from a single celled organism to what we are now. From simple to complex
Evolution states that inherited traits in a population will change over time. The empirical data states that all life shares a common ancestor, which were likely single-celled organisms.
Since matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another, it is an isolated system
What is an isolated system? If it's Earth, then this part of your argument is incorrect, because:
an isolated system, unless acted on by an outside force, will go from complex to simple, not the other way around.
Earth is not a closed system; it receives energy from the sun, which is used by plants for photosynthesis, which are then eaten by herbivores and omnivores, which are then eaten by carnivores and omnivores. And when the primary produces (plants), herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores die, the detritivores eat them.
An isolated system has nothing to do with the conservation law of energy. The matter and energy, contained inside an isolated system (or any thermodynamic system for that matter), will observe this law; however, simply because matter and energy observe this law, the act of observance doesn't define the system that they are contained within. To that end, an isolated system is only a theoretical concept that doesn't even exist in nature. You are altering the meaning of an "isolated system" to make your ends meet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
But, you could argue that our universe is an isolated system. Sure... maybe. But so what. To that which exists inside of this system, all that means is that what is inside stays inside; what is outside stays outside. My point is your theory doesn't apply to an atom or a molecule or a cell or a body or a planet or... you get the point. Because we don't live in an isolated system, and we ourselves aren't an isolated system, and we aren't made up of isolated systems, there is no need to dive into your complexity argument unless you choose to package it in another way. I'll address it then should you chose to throw out the complexity argument again.
So... just for the sake of saying it - the above isn't true, therefore evolution should be plausible to you now.
I did not mean the little girl!! I meant the below, it used to be spoilered in my post from the 11.06.14
http://37.media.tumblr.com/7fdeec40f...66ao1_1280.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/2cfa7dfd2...66ao2_1280.jpg
http://38.media.tumblr.com/8e65ae4b1...66ao3_1280.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/cdd56c6a7...66ao4_1280.jpg
http://31.media.tumblr.com/1099b1107...66ao5_1280.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/10d190a1c...66ao6_1280.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/d039ddaa8...66ao7_1280.jpg
The below is how that looked in the post from three days ago:
Since we do have agreed on evolution - I wonder, how you could have come to the conclusion, I would have meant the picture with the little girl. But you might have indeed:Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Just - what could you have meant with "not confused by those things"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
I thought, it could only refer to the infographic - but maybe not.
Aanyway - my answer to that on the 12.06.14 was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
WTF?? Yesterday? Hm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
No - I was repeatedly talking about the infographic - first three days ago - my first and obviously at evolution directed step.
I did notify you as to why I posted it - and everybody as to why I spoilered it.
And I mentioned, also repeatedly, that the picture would provide information about common misconceptions in laypeople concerning the theories of evolution. Sic - plural - but not the way, you had implied.
Now be that all as it may - maybe I post too convolutely - this is what I want from you:
Take a close look at the graphic and it's text, and please reconsider, if you do indeed agree with all of the information in the common-evolution-misconceptions-infographic/picture or not!
And if you do not agree with all of it - please tell us, with what all do you exactly disagree, and on which grounds!?
As I said, the graphic is very nicely quotable - easy to only quote the relevant parts, since it consists of several singular pictures.
So please - use the quote-function - it does make sense! Including by alleviating confusionary excursions.
Well then - over to you! :wink:
What's my purpose? I'm not sure I can answer that in one post... In that sort of space I cold provide little more than hints only, I think, or unreadable vagaries, I suppose. But regardless let me give you a hyper-abbreviated answer that might sum things up at least:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
Yes, I believe that there is, or there ought to be, something "more," though I think that "more" may stem more from our own potentials than from any outside source. Is my purpose something that will survive another millennium? I sure hope so! My current spiritual/fantastical goals do indeed include the survival of my essence -- or some version of it -- for a thousand years or more. If you want to get a more expanded feel for my purpose, or what I believe, wish to be, and how I think this universe's gears grind, checking out my books would be an excellent idea -- and of course I would certainly appreciate it if you did!
That said: I also try to maintain a clear understanding that that "more," should it exist, very likely transcends anything I can expect right now, and might possibly entail something far different than expected: Who knows? Maybe there will be a bearded old man greeting me after death with arms folded and a severe frown, saying, "You never listened." Because of that understanding, I am more preparing myself to be open to whatever the "something more may be," regardless of my expectations, than I am in focusing on one set of tenets (especially someone else's tenets). Sleep yoga is a great tool for this, BTW. And, yes, succeeding in continuing past death would certainly be a nice cap to my happy life! ;)
I hope some of this made sense, or at least let you be assured that straight materialism is simply not my gig, and that my life, to me, has some purpose.
This is Evolution 101:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU
Nothing in science says that things goes from complex to simple in an isolated system. Science say that stuff in an isolated system tend to seek equilibrium, as in it remains stable and doesn't change. So if I have an ice cube in a cup and nothing enters or escape the cup the ice cube will remain an ice cube. If I have water in a cup and nothing enters or leaves the cup it will remain water. If there is water and an ice cube in the cup, and nothing leaves or enter the cup the the two are going to transfer heat between them until they are in a stable state and then it is going to remain unchanging from then on.
Complexity isn't a factor in anything at all. If the more 'complex' form is the more stable form then it will become more complex. For example if we take two very reactive elements and put them in an isolated system together they may very well react with each other and produce a more 'complex' object.
Also, as was pointed out, we are not living in an isolated system. Life forms are always eating stuff, and if you eat something you are adding stuff from outside your body. So anything that eats stuff isn't isolated. Then we also have the sun hitting us, sending us energy. So the earth isn't isolated either. Then we have light from other solar systems hitting us, and our sun is sending light out of our solar system so the solar system isn't isolated either.
Better save than sorry? Hm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
"AND NOW I WILL SMITE THOU!! With a lightning bolt - surprise!"
Could it really be like this - what do you honestly think? Besides for poetic purposes?
Somehow I have to think of this famous exchange at a podium discussion again - not really on topic, though:
"But what if you're wrong?" - somebody
"...science works - bitches!" - Richard Dawkins
Christianity simply doesn't compute - it could never have worked like that!
Universal Mind!Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
You know I have a problem with some of your opinions in the off topic area of this affair - but I have to say - I'm so happy about you having graced the thread with this lovely video - I'll give you immaterial flowers:
Attachment 7243
Phantastisch - absolutely crystal-clear and correct concerning the text - easily followable and hilarious and entertaining. Which is important at times! And these "evolution-bears" are the sweetest thing I saw in public education. Including because you may watch them fornicate and love each other, die and deal with worms.
The finches!
Mitosis and meiosis - mutation and recombination - chance - it is all there.
Soo - Sensei - now you have my info-graphic and UM's video - besides three logical, understandable and correct counterings of
your "complexity argument". Please get back to us on graphic and video - I think, you will agree, that complexity is not your friend.
Not at all, actually.
How could there be anything more complex than a personalized god?
And if the complex universe "needs" a cause, an origin, being created - because it is so complex - what then about God?
Do you really believe, that the most complex of all imaginable "things" was the very first and original thing?!
Why don't you need a "cause", an origin in time and space or "outside of these", a creator - for a god as well?
Why not?
Who created god - how did god come into being? Hm?!
Turtles all the way down.
Meaning, you end up in infinite regress - and that's surely not where Yahweh is supposed to reside! :wink:
This especially to all the Deists out there!!
I can't quite understand it, really.
Not specifically for Sensei - you might want to take a look at this simulation of the last 14 billion years of the history of our universe! If you acknowledge the validity of it, that it depicts what we can detect outwards and backwards in time - then you will also see this:
The unfolding went from the simple to the more complex! So maybe this is "more natural" for universal beginnings?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jXVDeUHMSA
Origins of the Universe Exposed in Dazzling 3D Videos | Supernova SimulationsQuote:
Published on May 7, 2014 - The simulation, called the Illustris, begins just 12 million years after the Big Bang and illustrates the formation of stars, heavy elements, galaxies, exploding super novae and dark matter over 14 billion years.
As far as I can see - this link brings you to text and a video about how they computed the above simulation at Stanford, and "what it all means". Some of that.
For the fascinated - and I will watch and read around a bit too!
Attachment 7246
Sensei - fascination or not - you have a legacy to work on first: my info-graphic and Universal Mind's video. Complexity being a bitch and all.
Take a very close look at both - and then tell us, which exactly all the things are, where Sensei thinks, they got it wrong. And on which grounds.
You didn't quote my whole paragraph, Steph, which in this case I think might have omitted the actual the context of what you bolded, so here it is in its entirety:Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
I think if you look at the whole paragraph, you will see that the understanding I maintain is that, should there be a something "more," it will very likely be something that I do not expect, or perhaps am currently incapable of expecting. I am not playing it safe; I am trying to maintain a state of mind that is open to anything that might occur, one that will not attach artificial, incorrect, or perceptually safe meaning to what I find based on the stuff they tried to teach me while I was alive (the hard part, BTW). The bit about the the old guy with folded arms was a joke; I am not trying to cover all the bases -- probably quite the contrary, as a matter of fact: if anything I'm trying to eliminate any sense of bases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
This is what I honestly think -- that I hope and expect that there will be "more," that this "more" is formed more from our own potentials than from an outside source or benefactor, and it will very likely be transcendental in nature -- and I believe I did say that above. I have a feeling that you understood that, Steph, but I wanted to make it clear that I am not trying to be some bobble-head covering all the bases, just in case someone else misunderstands. I rarely actually say this stuff about myself and my views & goals, even briefly, so I wanted to be clear.
Will watch all the vids before I post back.
Sageous, I will also post about your ideas... Intriguing to me.
Sensei!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
:shakehead2:
Info-graphic!!
And quote that graphic in it's singular parts from my last before last post!!
You fear it like the devil holy water, don't you?! Attachment 7252
@Sageous: Later. I believe, I had to shout this at Sensei first. I start to feel like a god-damn broken record. Attachment 7251
I hope, he will finally acknowledge that EVOLUTION = TOPIC, and not keep sneaking about the place!
He is constantly on the look-out for an opening, through which he might steer into different thematic waters - that is my impression!!
Let's maybe get a fresh thread up on "transcendental" one fine day - I have a problem with that, but it's off-, or overreaching the local topic! :wink:
This is one of the reasons that I believe religious thinking flourishes. We can't seem to get passed the idea that we are completely insignificant. The writing on the wall and yet we fight against it. The reality is that for the vast majority of us our "lasting" impression will probably die off when our children die. Maybe, if you're "lucky", when your grandchildren die. That's about it. And for the most "significant" of us, they are just one cataclysmic event away from total annihilation. Life on this planet is one asteroid strike away from never having existed. This can be an emotionally difficult thing to wrap your head around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
But this isn't a call to hedonism as some would believe; it doesn't mean that at every moment it is somehow OK to search out or take only that which satisfies your own needs. Rather, this knowledge forces me to think about how I am perceived by others in this moment, because right now is really all that matters. I know that my survival, all of the successes that have gotten me to this moment, was ultimately the result of cooperation from other people - from my parents, to my friends, to my co-workers, to my acquaintances, all the way to total strangers who have made/discovered/done things that I've rely upon to get me to this point in time. I know that for me to survive and have all the experiences that life affords me, good or bad, you have to survive and have these things as well.
Not everyone makes these choices in life. There is a lot of misery in the world. However, along with all the horrible, unimaginable evils we impose on each other, there is something beautiful within us as well. We all have the capacity to provide all the properties that religions hold sacred - charity, self sacrifice and love. History is littered with examples of this. Perhaps one day we will grow up and realize that this is our lives, our only life and that the reward was always to have even existed at all. Shouldn't that be enough?
@Balban: :bowdown:
This is such an adorable answer! Acknowledging one's insignificance in the grand scheme of things is indeed too painful for most people.
But it is on every one of us to personally find and create significance in this life and in this very moment - which is all we ever have.
I harbour some fantasies around science-fiction concepts like longevity to the extreme - I won't lead this sorry thread astray with them, though.
But even if such things were to come one day - it wouldn't change the above notions.
Sensei!!
How long can it possibly take to comment on my damn info-graphic from a week ago?!
Now go ahead and quote this post and say something!!
:bang:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/2cfa7dfd2...66ao2_1280.jpg
http://38.media.tumblr.com/8e65ae4b1...66ao3_1280.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/cdd56c6a7...66ao4_1280.jpg
http://31.media.tumblr.com/1099b1107...66ao5_1280.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/10d190a1c...66ao6_1280.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/d039ddaa8...66ao7_1280.jpg
While you are at it Sensei - do we agree on the fact, that your "complexity argument" doesn't hold water?
Have you read the several answers you got on the topic a while back and thought them through?
Then there is simply no other conclusion for you to draw - be a man and admit it!! Attachment 7280
I was a Christian, but then discovered lucid dreaming, and the thought of doing anything with no consequences opened me up to a world of possibility that wasn't available before, when I let the church run my life.
Attachment 7282Quote:
Originally Posted by AirRick101
Thank you for speaking up!!
I will now sneakily use this post to transfer my edit-tirade on over, which I had originally put into my last post earlier today - so that it doesn't clutter, what I expect Sensei to quote.
What I was editing in was, that I almost feel like apologizing to everybody else in here for my insistence.
But Sensei has been taking his mouth extremely full on the 5th of June:
He must have meant something with this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
And my best guess is, that he was about to dish out the above depicted misconceptions at the heart of his "argument".
Most Creationists do.
He lets a week go by without commenting on it (I first posted it on the 11.06.14) and instead dances about, doesn't even acknowledge it is there, and now seemingly hopes for it to go away. It won't.
In the meantime then comes this complexity thing, he gets refuted several times over, also quite a while back - and why do we still lack a statement on that!?
Three days ago:
Nobody expected him to watch and comment on the Nye/Ham debate - I hope, I made that clear - and the other "all the vids" consist of:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
2 min. fresh life in peanut-butter
11 min. wonderful video explaining evolution
2 min. of only pretty pictures and no text about the history of the universe, which I told him, was not for him to answer on
So - that makes a rounded up 16 min. of "vids", out of which only Universal Mind's 11 min. video was actually meant to be commented on by him!!
I watched his whole one hour+ kickstarter thing, even the start of the next one, I recapitulated the essence of it in here and then started analysing it! Took me at the most maybe 2 h (incl. watching it). How long could one possibly need for 11 min. I wonder?
But what the ever - I was first with the info-graphic anyway!!
@Sensei - you don't run away on us now, do you?! Quote my last post - #143, damn it - and pleease as well!
If you feel, you are out of your league with us - why don't you ask your church elders for help with it?! :wink:
We are all gods, just young ones , gods life is one big lucid dream ,
Ok, I'm gonna stop this witch hunt right here.
Personal attacks are not ok. Putting words in peoples mouth is not ok. If this conversation can not continue without that, it will be ended.
Editing a post and reposting it again, so someone has new time limit to edit is just wow.
If somebody is not replying here anymore, a little benefit of doubt would go long way. Maybe their lives don't revolve around this? Maybe they don't care for tone and language?
Maybe comments like this tell people that someone doesn't wish to debate, but selely change someone's mind?
Quote:
And my best guess is, that he was about to dish out the above depicted misconceptions at the heart of his "argument".
Does anybody really think that comments like this are conductive to productive conversation?Quote:
While you are at it Sensei - do we agree on the fact, that your "complexity argument" doesn't hold water?
Have you read the several answers you got on the topic a while back and thought them through?
Then there is simply no other conclusion for you to draw - be a man and admit it!! Name: wink.gif Views: 5 Size: 999 Bytes
Quote:
"If you feel, you are out of league with us - why don't you ask your church elders for help with it?!"
Oh, and the winkies, somehow they don't soften the blow.Quote:
"sensei - you don't run away on us now, do you?!"
I could go on and make dozens of quotes from not only this thread. But I hope this is enough.
And this is not an invitation to debate this. If this can't be let go without a reply to me, PM please. I'm posting this here in public, because private avenue has been utilized already to no awail. And it will be utilized again.
Thank you all.
Weell - the one draw-back with lucid dreams is, that one is completely and utterly alone in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by abcde
I feel "only" human and not divine in my real life - but I have to say - being human is something absolutely wonderful - not something somehow insufficient.
But yupp - in my lucid dreams I am a goddess - all the power, which comes with it, though - is only playing out in my own head.
So what is the significance of what you say here, abcde? Besides being poetic, I mean? :wink:
Iv been having ld for about 20 years and all this time never new anyone else had them iv got to the point of saying to myself when in ld, not rc but " here we go again!!" its just the norm to me , iv never done any training or all that but it just happens naturally,, trying to figure an answer to all the questions in my head or in my dreams come to one conclusion,,, in my dreams i am the creator, therefore i am a god,,,---- note i did say A god, and not god.
All is set for the future( heaven) don't be afraid
Lucid dreaming is the way god thinks, the church doesn't run your life, god does, but seeing as you think the same as god ,then you run your life,, can u see were this is going,,,o wise one ,,,
Well... for all intents and purposes, our god has spoken. And with that being said, it's time to cool our heads and recalibrate the discussion, should all the participants decide to continue on from here. I believe the floor is yours, Sensei. No pressure.
IM sorry i don't understand, im a bit shit at reading peoples posts the way you wrote it, please forgive my lack off wisdom, i am young at heart and mind,,, for now,,
Attachment 7285Quote:
Originally Posted by balban
I had the next part mostly typed up, but I don't really care to continue. :P if you need any help with LDing, feel free to ask, I respond to LDing stuff than boring debates (I find all debates boring) since LD work > debate. I shall see you around the forum!Quote:
Originally Posted by balban
R u a natural?? If not don't speak to me like that son
Sort of an aside to the purpose of this thread, but the part that always gets me is not once "life" exists, the theory of how it may have undergone transformations, but how raw elements and forces produced a living cell with compounds like DNA in the first place. That leap seems infinitely larger than the transformations and mutations over time within an existing ecosystem of "living" things. The following link discusses it a bit:Quote:
Evolution states that we went from a single celled organism to what we are now.
HowStuffWorks "How Evolution Works"
There sure are a lot of "perhaps"'s in describing how that living single cell ancestor *may* have come to being.
Ultimately it boils down to either: 1) a random event (of unimaginably astoundingly astronomically small probability) versus 2) purposeful creation. IMO, I think Occam's razor comes down on the side of creation for this question. Actually, I think this argument can be extended to just about every single question of why anything, at its fundamental roots (matter, energy, etc.) is the way it is.
The origins of all things is a really interesting philosophical exercise. Infinity is quite problematic: both infinite time and infinite space are bizarre (impossible?) if you ever really think about them. Even if you accept "The Big Bang" as the cause for the existence of our current universe, who/what caused it? If it was a white hole/black hole/leak/whatever from another, existing universe, what caused that one? And so on, back to first causes. There had to be a first universe, or an original birthing place as the ancestor of all that "is" (in our plane of existence at any case), who/what created it? Ultimately, doesn't time itself have to be a creation? Doesn't there have to exist *something* outside of time itself for any existence to be possible?
Ultimately I think Ygritte had it right: "You know nothing, Jon Snow."
:laugh: History repeats itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
At least you said you are not going to respond. People in the past would make lots of debate-provoking comments, then say they don't have time to respond but would have time in a matter of weeks, and would then just disappear. Then they would come back months later and act like there was never an issue. You followed that pattern (except for coming back later, which may happen) but added an extra step. You are the first to announce that you aren't going to follow through. IF you are trolling like I am certain at least most of the people in the past who did this were, I am a big fan. I get such a kick out of this stuff.
http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lv...cjw7o1_500.gif
edit: Dangit! I posted this BEFORE you added that paragraph to your post.
Geek, !!!! Get a bath your a dreamer����������
IMO, given all the evidence for evolution, the tests; the predictions; the cross confirmations of predictions in multiple scientific principles; the simulations that are performed and reshaped with new information; the real world confirmations based on predictions made by those simulations; the simplest answer, IMO, is the one that science is providing. Evolution is fact. It happens. We see it happen. It's been documented to death since Darwin for those that, at a minimum, have the desire to just look at the science and understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FryingMan
In saying that, your post is mixing the discussion of evolution and the how life began argument (plus of lot of other things, but these additions seem to be leading to the large point of how life began). Evolution has no opinion on how life started. These are two completely separate questions and to argue both at the same time is just plain wrong since the two generally get mixed and nothing but confusion results - pointing at your post as the example. If you really wish to change the subject, then fine. But to argue both at the same time is not sustainable nor productive.
So switching gears... my wider rebuttal to your post is that anyone can posit a "simplest answer" argument by just coming up with whatever possibilities, which may be based on fact or superstition. I can think of a bunch of "easy answers" to the big bang, the creation of life, multiple universes. But I guarantee that they will all be bullshit. Simple... sure... but bullshit nonetheless. Additionally, Occam's Razor is actually used to create a path toward discovery when all paths are in chaos. It doesn't mean, "even if it hasn't been verified, the simple answer is probably true unless proven otherwise." It does mean, "ignore these other possibilities for now and look at only this possibility until it is either proven or disproven"; at which point, Occam's Razor is again applied and the next "simple answer" is then studied. Occam's Razor has nothing to do with truth and yet it has always been misused to argue for it. With that in mind, based on what you said, you would be suggesting that science gives up all the current scientific paths (least simple path of your two suggestions) and begin studying the supernatural answer because, in your mind, that is the simplest answer. I don't necessarily believe this is what you are suggesting, but it's what you said in your invocation of Occam's Razor in the way that you did.
And, for what it's worth, I don't think Ygritte knew much in making such a judgement, and she has totally underestimated how much Jon Snow actually knows (since you used it in this way).
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei
My post was more about "thinking in the small" vs. "thinking in the large" on the whole notion of creation, life, the universe, and everything, which I agree is a bit of a diversion, as I noted. Evolution is just a tiny drop in the bucket in that discussion. I just find it arrogant considering the vastness of infinity, time, and space that anybody pretends to "know" how anything actually works, at the roots.
Personally, "because it was made to be so" makes much more sense than "it just happened that way," because (at least for one thing) it provides a halt to infinite regress.
I have time paradox capabilities in my arsenal.Quote:
Originally Posted by OpheliaBlue
To answer OP's question, and stay completely on-topic. Yes! There are Christians here. *raises hand* I'm one of them, and I very much practice lucid dreaming, right now I'm working on MILD. I'm pretty much a Bible-based Christian, I don't really care for a denomination and I believe in 100% of the Bible.
I truly do want to have a civilized conversation with you guys because I know that just as much as I am a person, so are you, I won't (and can't) judge your lifestyle or personality from what I see here. Though what I can see or at least saw is that you guys don't really care for a conversation, at least not as "friends" or even being on the same side, and that's all I wanted, to see a different perspective, no persuasive post or trying to prove or disprove. Just a positive experience that makes you smile when you look back. Not too sure anyone else likes that though because when I looked back I saw someone who said that they liked this side of DV when it was at it's most chaotic and discussion were extremely fierce.
Civilized conversations can (and do) happen here. I think when a post (not yours specifically) questions somebody's will to live based on their lack of religion, the degree to which the conversation will be hard to judge. I don't agree with some of the posts here pestering Sensei to "hurry up and post," but he did play himself up to be a guy who was well versed in a scientific topic. He then ruined his credibility by using one of the oldest and most incorrect arguments against evolution in the book. So you'll have to forgive some of us for getting frustrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lmrhone
I'd much rather talk about nuanced, well-thought out ideas rather than having to explain why somebody is very obviously wrong, only to have him/her give up for whatever reason.
There is a different kind of growth in "same side" conversations. Sure, it's always fun to have friends that agree with you, but that is not the best thing. It is not that people don't like friendly conversations, it's just that they care about the world around them intensely. The important thing to understand is that what matters is much bigger than you and I. A personal attack is one thing, but when simple frustration is looked down upon it starts to resemble a nursery school. I've seen all manner of crude and (in my opinion) degenerate, disgusting, even borderline scummy comments posted on this site. Nobody says a word; yet being aggressive about something very important is somehow terrible? I didn't read through all of the posts, so perhaps I am unaware of something here. I apologize if I am way of base.
By the way, I am not really directing this post at you Lmrhone, just putting it out there in general. Admittedly it is better to walk away from a conversation where the other side is clearly set in mind, but it is not always easy. We tend to have high hopes of positive change in spite of the fact that we know better from experience. I know this all too well. It took me many years to finally give up on most people.
Well put.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meskhetyw
Sometimes a person cares so much about their world and their reality, that they defend it a little TOO violently (as you've seen with the personal attacks). And that's a shame. We hate having to moderate otherwise decent threads when that type of behavior happens.
I agree that a friendly amount of debate is healthy, as well as some friendly banter. Some of my favorite posts have been when members poked each other in a debate over some topic. But someone almost always ruins it for everyone by getting overly self-righteous, stirring up drama, and temporarily (or permanently) destroying the thread.
See THIS is why we can't have nice things DV!! :P Seriously though, the good news is that we have a great staff. And they're always eyeballing this stuff, making sure the majority of the community is having a good time, intervening only when things escalate to the point of ruining most peoples' fun, and hopefully getting the thread in question back on track.
And if we miss something, please let us know! Actually y'all have been doing a great job of reporting suspicious posts. This helps us identify problem-makers as well as alt accounts that have been created by banned members who want to come back just to start more trouble. So thank you Community!
Okay – here I am again – and with quite an apprehensive feeling.
I know how you meant it in the last paragraph of course Ophelia – how it was – that it wasn't me running an alt account – but I really must try to make sure that people are making absolutely no mistake about the following:
I did never ever run an alt account on a forum!!
And I also want to apologize to everybody for having caused a grinding halt to affairs in this otherwise very interesting thread!
Plus - you can find fresh religious fodder for debate below the blue line of dots!!
Indeed! Thank you Meskhetyw!Quote:
Originally Posted by OpheliaBlue
Yes – this is also true and true for me. First of all I do really and honestly care a lot about the topic – and yes – I got carried away and regret the style and tone and impatience I wielded in this thread here. Sorry for that – see below! Honestly!Quote:
Originally Posted by OpheliaBlue
No – I don’t quite see. Please elaborate in another place and to another time maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by OpheliaBlue
Here is the point, where I do indeed feel guilty and want to apologize!!Quote:
Originally Posted by OpheliaBlue
It is true what you say here – I did all of the above – except maybe ruining the thread altogether I hope. I feel sorry for everybody, but especially for my “co-combatants” (please note that I put these things around it: ““) Balban and BLUELINE, Universal Mind, Alric, AirRick101 and Meskhetyw - and whom I forgot and many readers! I did everybody in this thread and myself a grave disservice with it and will try to better myself, maybe grow up a bit more and avoid such unfortunate happenings in the future.
It might sound a bit weak now of me to say that I had been “riled up” in other places and contexts at the time – it was so – but I shouldn't have let that spill over.
I am not going to say something to this here.Quote:
Originally Posted by OpheliaBlue
Imagine how this reads to somebody watching matters from the side of an uninformed member. Seeing first me and then abcde banned after each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by OpheliaBlue
Please people – I might have "made trouble" - but coming back as an alt account is not one of them!! Neither does she say so!
I am not being paranoid here – I would like to know how many people have come to exactly this conclusion in this very thread in the meantime!?
I really wonder how many of these people with wrong conclusions will come to find out that it was not so - not all of them, surely.
Now I will have to try and save my reputation as an honest person, somebody who would never go as far as faking a persona – let alone behaving abysmally in the process.
This is not meant as something to debate, though, people! Please don't do me a disservice - debate what comes below instead!!
I just needed to make a statement for my atheistic peace of mind!
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..................
What I find exceptionally sad, is that Sensei had already typed up most of his answer, when I came in and destroyed it all with being impatient. Shame for your wasted time and effort, Sensei – I am also sorry for that. If you would still be willing to post about evolution – I could take on a passive stance towards you and just look on if you like – I would not get back to you in whichever fashion then.
I agree with UM - quite unusual of you to actually announce that you want to step back from the evolution debate because of boredom with debate in general, though! And I respect that.
Since this seems to rob us of the only creationist (formerly) willing to debate evolution - also thanks to myself unfortunately – my recent discovery of “Ken Ham’s Rant Against UK Schools Banning the Teaching of Creationism as Science” from the 20th of this June comes in very handy!
We might use it to analyze Ham’s opinions and standpoints instead of pestering Sensei! His links are a feast as well. Ham is the “leading authority” on creationism after all and even has his own museum about it. :wink:
This is it: Creation Banned from UK
It is a long one – in its entirety it can be found in the spoiler – here some excerpts:
Hits the nail on the head indeed - I have to full-heartedly agree with Ham here - an extremely rare occurrence. ;-)Quote:
Creation Banned from UK’s State-Funded Schools
Here is another sign of the increasing secularization of the Western world, as secular humanists are trying their hardest to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). It’s the result of a minority viewpoint being imposed on a public that is seemingly oblivious to the ongoing loss of religious liberty and the growing intolerance of Christianity all around.
This week a number of news sources around the world have reported on a series of bias-filled documents produced by the Department of Education in the United Kingdom. One of these documents includes this comment about new science standards: “They explicitly require that pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching ‘creationism’ as scientific fact.” In other words, teaching creation as science has been banned in state-funded schools; instead, the education department wants the belief in molecules-to-man evolution to be taught as fact to UK students.
“Theory of Evolution” vs. “Creationism”
Notice the wording on the UK website. It frames the issue as “the theory of evolution” vs. “creationism.” Why do they not present it as evolution vs. creation? Because that would make creation sound more legitimate. As we have consistently stated, evolution does not even qualify as a valid scientific theory. Furthermore, secularists will gladly use the term creationism, indicating that it is a belief system and is not scientific, but they avoid the term evolutionism. Is there even such a word? Dr. David Menton has written an insightful article on the word evolutionism.
The use of the word creationism and avoidance of the word evolutionism is intentional: the secularists want you to believe that evolution (the belief that life arose by natural processes; also called naturalism or atheism) is fact, and creation (the belief that life is designed by the Creator God) is an outdated idea that should be extinct. ...
The Problem in the Church
The education document continues, “Creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream Churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community.”
This statement actually hits the nail on the head. Why is the United Kingdom in its current state as a nation? One of the main reasons is because many Christian leaders have compromised God’s Word starting in Genesis by accepting man’s fallible opinions of evolution and millions of years. If we cannot trust God’s Word in Genesis, how can we trust the Bible in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? The simple answer is that we cannot, which is one of the major reasons we are seeing so many youth leaving our Western churches in droves. ...
What is quite faszinating is following the multiple links in this "rant" - here is one of them:Spoiler for Ken Ham - Creation Banned from UK’s State-Funded Schools:
Evolution: Not Even a Theory
What is nice is that it seems indeed to have arrived in the heads of creationists, that “theory” has another meaning in science than it has in common tongue.
Now it's "not even a theory" instead of the old "just a theory". Ha! Evolution in action!
They also recommend buying a DVD:Quote:
Evolution: Not Even a Theory
Although some Christians have attacked evolution as “just a theory,” that would be raising Darwin’s idea to a level it doesn’t deserve.
A theory has its genesis in a hypothesis, which is a working assumption as to why we observe something—an educated guess. To test this assumption, scientists conduct experiments that either disprove or correlate with the hypothesis.
Over time, if a hypothesis continues to stand up to scrutiny and many different experiments, the scientific community may begin referring to it as a “theory.” In essence, this means that because the hypothesis has not been disproved over many years and no other known hypothesis works, then we can be reasonably sure that it’s accurate.
Theories, however, are not imperishable. If new technology allows better experimentation, for example, a theory may need to be discarded. (See Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs).
Where Evolution Falls Short
Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.
Some point to natural selection as a form of “evolution in action,” but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.
Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.
So What Is It?
Evolution, at its core, is a necessary requirement of naturalism. Since naturalists cannot allow a higher power, they must rely on a form of spontaneous generation and the unguided development of life. Either someone or something created, or nature created itself.
Because naturalism depends on this assumption, evolution artificially carries the weight of a theory for naturalists—without meeting the requirements. Evolution has been grafted in simply out of the desire to deny the Creator or to deny His power and authority.
No Need for a Theory of Origins
Ultimately, we have no need for a theory about the origin of life and the universe. God, our Creator, gave us a perfect, factual account of how and when He created, and how humanity came to be. While we can—and should—study His universe, He graciously provided the proper framework to truly understand—the Bible.
Evolutionary ideas are simply one way in which humans seek to deny God’s authority. In fact, all of us are guilty of this; all of us have rebelled from Him and deserve death. But because of His great love, God provided a means of being rescued through His Son, Jesus Christ, so that we may be made right with Him again (see The Gospel of Jesus Christ).
I would love to know and answer these – but I don’t want to spend money on it…Quote:
4 Power Questions to Ask an Evolutionist
Do you struggle to find an appropriate response to the proponents of evolution? In this presentation, Mike Riddle equips you to turn the tables by asking your evolutionist friends four simple yet powerful questions. Learn more!
We could at a later point in time also go about the game: “What would I have said to Ken Ham at this and that point in the Nye/Ham debate?”
I for one was shouting things at my laptop while watching it! But I find Nye did very well overall.
Over to you guys!
since I gave up hope on further womenfolk taking part in on topic action
NO ONE IS SAYING YOU MADE AN ALT ACCOUNT STEPHL.
Please chill out. And don't pick apart my posts, especially in a thread that's about something else, not your ban or about your insanity. If you have a problem with that, PM me. For now, I'm locking this thread. I'm sorry to the other posters in here, but this is just a temporary lock until this nightmare is over.
