PDA

View Full Version : Scientologists and Evangelicals



roybaty
02-10-2008, 09:35 PM
Who's scarier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


I say they are equally terrifying.

Stew278
02-10-2008, 10:58 PM
Evangelicals. They actually have enough political clout to follow through on their agendas. You're not going to see any presidents that are scientologists anytime soon, but how many presidents, senators, reps, governors and other high ranking politicians could be considered evangelicals?

Scientologists might have a lot of money but they don't have much power in Washington, at least for now. Most people just regard them as a cult of eccentrics, whereas evangelicals are actually taken seriously.

Pirschjaeger
02-11-2008, 02:17 AM
Hmmm, wouldn't it be cool if anonymous pitted them against each other.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Fritz

flyingloon
02-11-2008, 03:51 AM
like celebrity deathmatch, but real? gets my vote.
scientologists are more of a laughable, cult-like entity, and anonymous going after them is kinda hilarious. but the evangelicals (whatever particular religion they follow) are scarier. they are, historically at least, the ones more likely to get the poo-poo storm going. the crusades, the reconquista in spain (that led to large scale anti-semitism, expulsion of the moors and then the inquisition), the current state of affairs in the world in general with terrorism, and in the US where abortion clinics are attacked and creationism is being pushed as a viable, credible alternative to evolution (becoming an issue in the UK as well). and the general cross cultural unease in the UK, particularly helped by the archbishop and his "sharia law in certain cases in the uk" comments. and then in africa where measures to tackle aids are met with resistance from the church.

leitmotiv
02-11-2008, 04:47 AM
I can't stand dour prudes from the Right or from the Left---I was raised in a Swedish Evangelical environment in Colorado, and most of us grew up to be full-throttle debauchees and libertines---the minister's daughter was randier than all the other girls in town put together. There is something to be said for repression! As for the snobs and prudes of the Left---sanctimonious, Victorian, hypocrites. UGH!

SeaFireLIV
02-11-2008, 05:07 AM
I had an evangelist shout down my face at Church once.

I was 18 and getting rebellious (I think) and on this particular Sunday i happened to be at the front row (was I strategically manouevered there, i wonder now?)

Anyway, the Preacher just focused on me almost the entire time going on about hellfire and brimstone and the consequences of sin, etc, etc.

I felt like I was in the dock being squeezed more and more.

Subsequently, I never went back until about 15 years later and only then to please my Father - and only briefly. I prefer Preachers to be a little less `in your face`. Literally.

I think the message can be told without shoving it down one`s throat.

Pirschjaeger
02-11-2008, 05:55 AM
And Seafire, did you stop dating the preacher's daughter?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SeaFireLIV
02-11-2008, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
And Seafire, did you stop dating the preacher's daughter?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

How`d you guess? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

leitmotiv
02-11-2008, 07:32 AM
When I was 18, I was in a college class where a Jewish guy was declaring Christians were all repressed, anal, sexually dysfunctional basket cases. Though I was a pagan, I was a former Christian, and I knew this was ridiculous. I looked at a friend and said derisively "Idiocy, Christians love to f--k!" The whole class exploded in gales of laughter---I had neglected to modulate my natural boom. At any rate, the dweeb was completely defeated.

SeaFireLIV
02-11-2008, 08:11 AM
Isn`t it interesting how former Christians still feel the need to strongly defend Christianity when its being attacked, especially wrongly?

I think `former` Christians never truly stop being Christian in some way. And that`s a good thing in my view.

leitmotiv
02-11-2008, 08:55 AM
As bogey men, I think contemporary Christians are highly overrated. Compared to the level of fanaticism of an al-Zarqawi who rejoiced in sawing off heads, and rationalized that killing fellow muslims was giving the gift of martyrdom, Christians are in the minor leagues. However, as Germany was laid waste during the 30 Years War by Catholics and Protestants, I'd rate them as major crazed fanatics. This is not to say there are no maniacs out there---there are. I know some who would love to exterminate Jews and blacks for Christ, and are absolutely convinced the Jews are spawn of the Anti-Christ. The error is to say these types represent a significant number of the Christian community. If anything, many are too out of touch with good Bible scholarship, and have transformed the religion into a cult of passivity---that isn't on target.

Blood_Splat
02-11-2008, 09:20 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyJI9xDUYV8

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-11-2008, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Isn`t it interesting how former Christians still feel the need to strongly defend Christianity when its being attacked, especially wrongly?

I think `former` Christians never truly stop being Christian in some way. And that`s a good thing in my view.

As a "former christian" I have to disagree, when I fanally realized it was BS I've never looked back, defending christians is the last bloody thing I'd do. Now I don't discriminate against individuals who are nice people who happen to be christian but on a whole I feel no love for a faith that abused and accepted as such. I'm always a little surprised and disappointed when I meet someone who's intelligent and sophisticated and then find out they are christians. That sort of discrimination is wrong, I know, but after whats been done to followers of my faith by those of that faith, well, it's at least understandable.

MEGILE
02-11-2008, 10:09 AM
Dogma by any other name...

MEGILE
02-11-2008, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
I'm always a little surprised and disappointed when I meet someone who's intelligent and sophisticated and then find out they are christians. That sort of discrimination is wrong, I know, but after whats been done to followers of my faith by those of that faith, well, it's at least understandable.

Good point... in College I know some staunch evolusionist but wholly religious people.
Needless to say, they appear embarassed about their religion sometimes in light of their scientific rational studies... and I can't say that's it wrong.

Take guys like Ken Miller of Brown University though.. a Brilliant Evolutionary biologist, and devout catholic.

SeaFireLIV
02-11-2008, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Isn`t it interesting how former Christians still feel the need to strongly defend Christianity when its being attacked, especially wrongly?

I think `former` Christians never truly stop being Christian in some way. And that`s a good thing in my view.

As a "former christian" I have to disagree, when I fanally realized it was BS I've never looked back, defending christians is the last bloody thing I'd do. Now I don't discriminate against individuals who are nice people who happen to be christian but on a whole I feel no love for a faith that abused and accepted as such. I'm always a little surprised and disappointed when I meet someone who's intelligent and sophisticated and then find out they are christians. That sort of discrimination is wrong, I know, but after whats been done to followers of my faith by those of that faith, well, it's at least understandable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I wrote my statement I knew there would be some with bitter experiences and bitter anger. I cannot vouch for every former Christian everywhere. Except you must understand that it`s not the religion that`s at fault, but the people who sometimes portray it in a too `enthusiastic` manner.

Of course, I `m sure this explanation will not satisfy you as religion goes deep, and all that will happen is the deep venom will become directed at me (if not already) so i`ll say no more.

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-11-2008, 10:25 AM
Well I didn't mean my response to be antaganistic, just displaying the other side of the story. I like discussing this sort of thing as I think far too few have any clue what pagan religions are about (if I had a dime for everytime someone said "thats devil worship, isn't it?" I'd be a rich man). If any of my ramblings come off as offensive or inflamatory thats my mistake and I appologize. With that said, lets continue the surprisingly civil religious discussions we've been having in the lounge as of late, it's fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

SeaFireLIV
02-11-2008, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
I'm always a little surprised and disappointed when I meet someone who's intelligent and sophisticated and then find out they are christians. That sort of discrimination is wrong, I know, but after whats been done to followers of my faith by those of that faith, well, it's at least understandable.

Good point... in College I know some staunch evolusionist but wholly religious people.
Needless to say, they appear embarassed about their religion sometimes in light of their scientific rational studies... and I can't say that's it wrong.

Take guys like Ken Miller of Brown University though.. a Brilliant Evolutionary biologist, and devout catholic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm.

Talking about these scientists who are strong christians. does this not make any one wonder?

These guys study evolution or space, yet they are staunch Christians?

i`ve heard some scientists dare to say that evolution was very possibly God`s making of the world and we`ve just chosen to read the result, rather than `how` it came about.

I even saw a program of scientists who study space wondering how it is that we`ve never been visited by any kind of sentient aliens. Sure, space is big, but space is also very old, even way older than the eartn itself.

So, during time before earth, civilisations surely must have emerged and grown and certainly by earth`s advent should be roaming space in explorer fleets.

yet nothing.

Surely something else must be out there, and if so, where is it? we cannot be the only ones.

then the startling statement was made that if we are the only ones then that would point to something that made us come to existence, rather than a 1\10000000000000 coincidence for the one planet in the entire universe.

Perhaps that`s why some scientists are christians.

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-11-2008, 11:11 AM
I think most people are christians out of ignorance. Now I know that can be taken the wrong way so I'll attempt to explain (though I'm not very good with words so I'll probably fail ,lol). Almost all western industrialized countries have a majority of christians (this is of course due to the long era of "convert or die"). I'll speak mostly about the US as I'm most familiar with it. Christianity pervades our culture. The american "norm" is to be raised christian, go to church on sundays, etc. etc. There's a tremendous social pressure that leads most to beleive that any non-judeo-christian faith is "wierd" or even dangerous. The majority of even religion studies is taught from a christian perspective. Most never even have a chance to find and explore other avenues to Deity. One doesn't realize how this american culture is so permiated with christian belief until one is of another religion. I mean, it's almost disgusting, we make so much talk of religious freedom in this country but all the majority means is freedom for christians. One of my main beliefs is that everone is entitled to find thier own path, it's sad how few even have the oppertunity to find any path but the one they are told they have to use. To me the one unforgivable sin is to impose your will upon another, evangelism is the embodiment of this sin. Sure, make people aware of your faith, make teaching available to those who want it. If anyone comes to me asking about the Old Religion then I will be glad to tell them all they want to know, but to go out and "recruit" people, never.

Badsight-
02-12-2008, 03:03 AM
the southpark episode on scientologists wasnt a lampoon

it was a documentary

9.9 out of 10 christians dont know their own book

Airmail109
02-12-2008, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
I'm always a little surprised and disappointed when I meet someone who's intelligent and sophisticated and then find out they are christians. That sort of discrimination is wrong, I know, but after whats been done to followers of my faith by those of that faith, well, it's at least understandable.

Good point... in College I know some staunch evolusionist but wholly religious people.
Needless to say, they appear embarassed about their religion sometimes in light of their scientific rational studies... and I can't say that's it wrong.

Take guys like Ken Miller of Brown University though.. a Brilliant Evolutionary biologist, and devout catholic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm.

Talking about these scientists who are strong christians. does this not make any one wonder?

These guys study evolution or space, yet they are staunch Christians?

i`ve heard some scientists dare to say that evolution was very possibly God`s making of the world and we`ve just chosen to read the result, rather than `how` it came about.

I even saw a program of scientists who study space wondering how it is that we`ve never been visited by any kind of sentient aliens. Sure, space is big, but space is also very old, even way older than the eartn itself.

So, during time before earth, civilisations surely must have emerged and grown and certainly by earth`s advent should be roaming space in explorer fleets.

yet nothing.

Surely something else must be out there, and if so, where is it? we cannot be the only ones.

then the startling statement was made that if we are the only ones then that would point to something that made us come to existence, rather than a 1\10000000000000 coincidence for the one planet in the entire universe.

Perhaps that`s why some scientists are christians. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a friend whos very religious, wants to become a vicar in later life. His own interpretation of the story of creation, is that it is actually a story about gods involvement in evolution and that the time-scale was corrupted/misunderstood over the past 1000s of years.

MEGILE
02-12-2008, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:


I have a friend whos very religious, wants to become a vicar in later life. His own interpretation of the story of creation, is that it is actually a story about gods involvement in evolution and that the time-scale was corrupted/misunderstood over the past 1000s of years.

Genesis is quite explicit about the creation story, and original sin is a tenet of Christianity.

In school the bible was sold to me as allegory... I didn't buy it.

Badsight-
02-12-2008, 03:36 AM
you really should find the southpark episode on scientology

it made the guy who played chef quit the show (he's a scientologist)

whats funny about modern theology is how they try to rewrite the bible , as if God didnt know what he was on about & how we know better today

Blood_Splat
02-12-2008, 07:03 AM
Look at this scientology dork. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3SfSs18D1w&feature=related

MEGILE
02-12-2008, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
Look at this scientology dork. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3SfSs18D1w&feature=related

If I was that news reporter, I would have found it difficult to not break that guys fingers.

buzzsaw1939
02-12-2008, 08:05 AM
Oh.. but thats what they wanted him to do!

SeaFireLIV
02-12-2008, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:


I have a friend whos very religious, wants to become a vicar in later life. His own interpretation of the story of creation, is that it is actually a story about gods involvement in evolution and that the time-scale was corrupted/misunderstood over the past 1000s of years.

IMHO, you either believe or you don`t. You can`t be a Preacher or vicar and half-believe. You can`t say `Well I believe this, but not that.` the whole premise of the Bible, jesus Christ and all that depends on full belief.

Sure, how you preach it can be done gently or harshly, with calm assertive patience or fanatical overbearance, but you cannot customise christianity and the teachings in the Bible to suit people.

If a guy is going to believe then he must understand that God`s words cannot be changed to suit the people, but the people must change to suit God`s word. Because God knows bettter.

sure, most people won`t like the sound of that, but that`s the truth of it.

BadA1m
02-12-2008, 08:24 AM
I didn't have time to read the whole thread, but I will take the risk of telling you guy's that I am a Christian, and I am also a man of science, but I am most certainly not "Religious". I really hate being lumped in with racists and wack jobs that insist on doing evil in the name of Jesus. Unfortunately that is the way it is and all I can do is tell you that that is not Christianity. Jesus taught Love and Grace. In fact his harshest words were reserved for the religious professionals of the time, sinners (that's us boys) he gave only kindness (and his very life). I'll try and do the same.

BadA1m
02-12-2008, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:


I have a friend whos very religious, wants to become a vicar in later life. His own interpretation of the story of creation, is that it is actually a story about gods involvement in evolution and that the time-scale was corrupted/misunderstood over the past 1000s of years.

IMHO, you either believe or you don`t. You can`t be a Preacher or vicar and half-believe. You can`t say `Well I believe this, but not that.` the whole premise of the Bible, jesus Christ and all that depends on full belief.

Sure, how you preach it can be done gently or harshly, with calm assertive patience or fanatical overbearance, but you cannot customise christianity and the teachings in the Bible to suit people.

If a guy is going to believe then he must understand that God`s words cannot be changed to suit the people, but the people must change to suit God`s word. Because God knows bettter.

sure, most people won`t like the sound of that, but that`s the truth of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

roybaty
02-12-2008, 08:28 AM
I once new a woman that was "saved" she kept trying to covert me. It made me sad she was intelligent but still fell into it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I believe there may be "something" after life but do not subscribe to any religion, as I feel mortal man cannot proclaim to know what happens when you die if anything.

Ancient writings about religion are no more credible than Hubbards writings IMO.

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-12-2008, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:


I have a friend whos very religious, wants to become a vicar in later life. His own interpretation of the story of creation, is that it is actually a story about gods involvement in evolution and that the time-scale was corrupted/misunderstood over the past 1000s of years.

IMHO, you either believe or you don`t. You can`t be a Preacher or vicar and half-believe. You can`t say `Well I believe this, but not that.` the whole premise of the Bible, jesus Christ and all that depends on full belief.

Sure, how you preach it can be done gently or harshly, with calm assertive patience or fanatical overbearance, but you cannot customise christianity and the teachings in the Bible to suit people.

If a guy is going to believe then he must understand that God`s words cannot be changed to suit the people, but the people must change to suit God`s word. Because God knows bettter.

sure, most people won`t like the sound of that, but that`s the truth of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, the "bible is the actual word of god" approach. The only problem with that is which translation, which writings, etc. Hell there are writings that talk about reincarnation as one of the tenents of the new christian religion but they were left out at the Council of Nicaea. There are still references that did make it into the bible that reincarnation was accepted, jesus himself said that john the babtist was the reincarnation of Elijah. If you have to accept all the teachings of the bible does that not mean you are bound to kill me as I am a witch?

MEGILE
02-12-2008, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by roybaty:

Ancient writings about religion are no more credible than Hubbards writings IMO.

Agreed.

SeaFireLIV
02-12-2008, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:


I have a friend whos very religious, wants to become a vicar in later life. His own interpretation of the story of creation, is that it is actually a story about gods involvement in evolution and that the time-scale was corrupted/misunderstood over the past 1000s of years.

IMHO, you either believe or you don`t. You can`t be a Preacher or vicar and half-believe. You can`t say `Well I believe this, but not that.` the whole premise of the Bible, jesus Christ and all that depends on full belief.

Sure, how you preach it can be done gently or harshly, with calm assertive patience or fanatical overbearance, but you cannot customise christianity and the teachings in the Bible to suit people.

If a guy is going to believe then he must understand that God`s words cannot be changed to suit the people, but the people must change to suit God`s word. Because God knows bettter.

sure, most people won`t like the sound of that, but that`s the truth of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, the "bible is the actual word of god" approach. The only problem with that is which translation, which writings, etc. Hell there are writings that talk about reincarnation as one of the tenents of the new christian religion but they were left out at the Council of Nicaea. There are still references that did make it into the bible that reincarnation was accepted, jesus himself said that john the babtist was the reincarnation of Elijah. If you have to accept all the teachings of the bible does that not mean you are bound to kill me as I am a witch? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a load of reactionary rubbish.

I get this all the time. People quote selective bits of the Bible that suit their prejudice, hang up, bitterness or whatever. but they don`t understand anything of what they`ve read. Everything you`ve said there are either misunderstandings and not studying the bible properly or just plain spiteful comments of something you don`t like. the Bible isn`t something you hear of a few times then think, "Ah, i`ve got it!" It`s far deeper than that. You cannot take quotes in isolation. But you know this and many others do too, but would rather block their view with a zillion other obstacles so as to avoid the true meaning.

You make the same mistake as the fanatics, Inquistors and others have made... simply not understanding, or more seriously, not wanting to understand and are using selective quotes for your own benefit.

Good thing I`m not a Preacher, otherwise I`d feel bound to put you right by quoting the whole parts of the Bible with comments on what they mean in context with the whole passages.

And that`s why I don`t get in too deep with personal individuals, cos I ain`t a Preacher, and I`m not trying to convert anyone as you seem to think.

I`m just saying it like i was taught and what I was taught is certainly not bad to live by.


My only and only advice to you and any others is that if you`re really looking for answers or help to these questions, don`t look to man. go away, privately, in a room and, for a minute ot two, genuinely pray to God with your genuine questions.. something as simple as `I don`t understand. Please help me understand.`

And who knows, maybe the answer will come to you.

don`t ask me.

MEGILE
02-12-2008, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:

What a load of reactionary rubbish.



I can see that Shinjiro's alluding to the arbitrary selection of Christian central dogma is upsetting for you.

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-12-2008, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:


I have a friend whos very religious, wants to become a vicar in later life. His own interpretation of the story of creation, is that it is actually a story about gods involvement in evolution and that the time-scale was corrupted/misunderstood over the past 1000s of years.

IMHO, you either believe or you don`t. You can`t be a Preacher or vicar and half-believe. You can`t say `Well I believe this, but not that.` the whole premise of the Bible, jesus Christ and all that depends on full belief.

Sure, how you preach it can be done gently or harshly, with calm assertive patience or fanatical overbearance, but you cannot customise christianity and the teachings in the Bible to suit people.

If a guy is going to believe then he must understand that God`s words cannot be changed to suit the people, but the people must change to suit God`s word. Because God knows bettter.

sure, most people won`t like the sound of that, but that`s the truth of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, the "bible is the actual word of god" approach. The only problem with that is which translation, which writings, etc. Hell there are writings that talk about reincarnation as one of the tenents of the new christian religion but they were left out at the Council of Nicaea. There are still references that did make it into the bible that reincarnation was accepted, jesus himself said that john the babtist was the reincarnation of Elijah. If you have to accept all the teachings of the bible does that not mean you are bound to kill me as I am a witch? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a load of reactionary rubbish.

I get this all the time. People quote selective bits of the Bible that suit their prejudice, hang up, bitterness or whatever. but they don`t understand anything of what they`ve read. Everything you`ve said there are either misunderstandings and not studying the bible properly or just plain spiteful comments of something you don`t like. the Bible isn`t something you hear of a few times then think, "Ah, i`ve got it!" It`s far deeper than that. You cannot take quotes in isolation. But you know this and many others do too, but would rather block their view with a zillion other obstacles so as to avoid the true meaning.

You make the same mistake as the fanatics, Inquistors and others have made... simply not understanding, or more seriously, not wanting to understand and are using selective quotes for your own benefit.

Good thing I`m not a Preacher, otherwise I`d feel bound to put you right by quoting the whole parts of the Bible with comments on what they mean in context with the whole passages.

And that`s why I don`t get in too deep with personal individuals, cos I ain`t a Preacher, and I`m not trying to convert anyone as you seem to think.

I`m just saying it like i was taught and what I was taught is certainly not bad to live by.


My only and only advice to you and any others is that if you`re really looking for answers or help to these questions, don`t look to man. go away, privately, in a room and, for a minute ot two, genuinely pray to God with your genuine questions.. something as simple as `I don`t understand. Please help me understand.`

And who knows, maybe the answer will come to you.

don`t ask me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, lets not make this a heated argument, thats not hwat I'm going for, I'm enjoying the civil discussion.

Second, how is anything I said reactionary?

Third, look at the highlighted bits. You tell me I'm picking and choosing the bad parts, aren't you just picking and choosing the good parts? "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live", tell me the meaning behind that? It that out of context, in what context does it belong? If you beleive the whole thing don't you beleive that too? All I was trying to point out in my previous post was that if you really are serious about studying the teachings and following jesus christ then you most certainly should NOT follow the whole word of the modern bible. It's been mistranslated (intentionally and unintentionally), and peiced together to satisfy the churches intentions, most certainly not to the intentions of jesus. I'm not trying to insult anybody, I'm just stating the sad facts about the state of the modern text known as the bible and the folly of those who choose to think the *******ized modern incarnation of that text is the literal word of god.

joeap
02-12-2008, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:


I have a friend whos very religious, wants to become a vicar in later life. His own interpretation of the story of creation, is that it is actually a story about gods involvement in evolution and that the time-scale was corrupted/misunderstood over the past 1000s of years.

IMHO, you either believe or you don`t. You can`t be a Preacher or vicar and half-believe. You can`t say `Well I believe this, but not that.` the whole premise of the Bible, jesus Christ and all that depends on full belief.

Sure, how you preach it can be done gently or harshly, with calm assertive patience or fanatical overbearance, but you cannot customise christianity and the teachings in the Bible to suit people.

If a guy is going to believe then he must understand that God`s words cannot be changed to suit the people, but the people must change to suit God`s word. Because God knows bettter.

sure, most people won`t like the sound of that, but that`s the truth of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry but I disagree with you (and Megile http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ). Why wouldn't the bible be allegory in parts? This is not being selective but the fact is understanding changes with time. After all, for Christians, some parts of the OT are no longer applicable which is selecting what parts of the bible to believe. Anyway the bible (Psalms?) speaks of God's time not being Man's time, that a thousand years is but a brief moment of time.

Some early Church Fathers like Saint Basil thought the same way. In fact evolution has never been a problem for the Orthodox faith if you look at this site:

Science and Orthodoxy (http://www.orthodoxcanada.org/sciandorth/)

From that page:
Science and Faith (http://www.orthodoxcanada.org/sciandorth/scienceNfaith.htm)

ultraHun
02-12-2008, 01:13 PM
Science, *theory* of evolution and christian belief are not exclusive.

Science is about everything that is immanent in this world; believe is transcendental.

Even if man evolved in incremental steps and even if it might be someday proven that his mind is nothing but an derivation/expression of his neurological physis, one might still believe in an eternal soul that god once gave to man.

The Genesis is remarkable similar to even elder myths of ancient Sumer, it seems in part to compile them. The english wikipedia only dares to hint at it, the german wikipedia entry on Geneis is more explicit. In my catholic religion lessons in grammar school I even learned it that way as agreed theological *theory*.

Heretically, one could say that everybody who reads the Genesis literally believes in paganic myths.

ultraHun
02-12-2008, 01:17 PM
Note: my above post is for sure European thinking, in some respect equating immanent with material and transcendental with immaterial, spiritual.

If you are form an Asian background you will think in different categories and you are of course free to do so.

MEGILE
02-12-2008, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by joeap:


I'm sorry but I disagree with you (and Megile http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ).

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Say it aint so Joe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Originally posted by joeap:

Why wouldn't the bible be allegory in parts?


Scripture becomes allegory when it is eventually too rediculous to believe as literal (even for theologans).

The 6 day creation was quoted as literal, until guys like Darwin finally came up with a mechanism which explained the development of life.

God hides in the gaps of science these days.

I like the ID/creationists because they, like I think the existence of God IS a Scientific question... we just happen to have different answers.

None of the Abrahamic religions (or anyother) lend credence to the idea that they are in any way true.

mortoma
02-12-2008, 02:07 PM
I stay out of religious discussions. You wouldn't want to hear my opinion and most would think I'm just making up stories anyway. You can't make unbelievers believe. Mostly because they don't want to believe. Can't convince people against their will, so that's why I stay out of this stuff. Waste of time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

MEGILE
02-12-2008, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
I stay out of religious discussions. You wouldn't want to hear my opinion and most would think I'm just making up stories anyway. You can't make unbelievers believe. Mostly because they don't want to believe. Can't convince people against their will, so that's why I stay out of this stuff. Waste of time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Try me. I don't doubt your sincerity for one minute.

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-12-2008, 03:42 PM
Not a scientologist are you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif?

Badsight-
02-12-2008, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
I stay out of religious discussions. You wouldn't want to hear my opinion and most would think I'm just making up stories anyway. You can't make unbelievers believe. Mostly because they don't want to believe. Can't convince people against their will, so that's why I stay out of this stuff. Waste of time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif JC did it face to face . text based discussions go nowhere


Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roybaty:

Ancient writings about religion are no more credible than Hubbards writings IMO.

Agreed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
your both wrong , the bible & the koran both contain info that humanity hadnt discovered on our own when they were written

the only parts of the bible we cant verify are the parts that go "god said this' , or "god did this"

all the rest - the places , the peoples , the battles , the towns ect - all backed by references found outside of scripture

joeap
02-13-2008, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by Megile:


The 6 day creation was quoted as literal, until guys like Darwin finally came up with a mechanism which explained the development of life.



Well you are wrong there, I mentioned Saint Basil of Cappadocia who lived in the 6th century IIRC and took the 6 days as symbolic long before Darwin. There were others. A bit off topic but the Song of Songs was always taken allegorically though it is really an erotic poem.

Jesus used parables to illustrate many points. You know, even bible literalists disagree with each other which says something.

I agree that ID has no place in the classroom. Sunday school, fine.

I really hope someone will read the links I've posted.

MEGILE
02-13-2008, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:


all the rest - the places , the peoples , the battles , the towns ect - all backed by references found outside of scripture

Disagree 100%. The gospels are contradictory, and incoherent.

As for scientific principals which Koran readers often mentioning... you have to really stretch the imagination, squint one eye, and hold the book upswide down (confirmational bias) to link the words to any modern scientific theories.
Please, when you find evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old, hook me up.

The bible vs. history is a huge topic and I can't do it justice, but it appears God makes lots of mistakes.


Even if it were historically correct in some areas (such as naming towns), that still doesn't lend ANY credence to the idea it is written by God.

MEGILE
02-13-2008, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
Well you are wrong there, I mentioned Saint Basil of Cappadocia who lived in the 6th century IIRC and took the 6 days as symbolic long before Darwin. There were others. A bit off topic but the Song of Songs was always taken allegorically though it is really an erotic poem.

Jesus used parables to illustrate many points. You know, even bible literalists disagree with each other which says something.

I agree that ID has no place in the classroom. Sunday school, fine.

I really hope someone will read the links I've posted.

The difference with parables is they are marked as such.

The creation story in Genesis isn't marked as allegory, and original sin is the main theme of the messianic prophercies about Jesus.
If you have no Adam and Eve, the rest of the book looses it's point.

Please explain to the non-enlightened from the beginning: Genesis 1:1

The first allegory - has it always been considered allegory, if not why not? when was it changed from literal to allegory? By whom? Why? what is the meaning? how do you know its allegory?

The first literal passage - how do you know it is literal? Why is it not allegory.

Ty

joeap
02-13-2008, 03:12 AM
Well Megile, I'm supposed to be working so I'll get back to you but can answer this now. The Eastern Christian view on many things is very different frm the Western one. I don't claim to be an expert on everything, nor a very observant person myself.

I will say the Orthodox don't speak of the "Original Sin" in the same way. They don't say we all inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve's sin of eating the apple, rather we inherit the fallen human nature that has the propensity to sin.

I'll post a youtube link of a lecture on this subject late tonight Western European time.

About the 6 days and allegory vs. literal, well again got to do some research but I'll find links and bible quotes. Suffice it to say that there were different schools of thought from the beginning, no doubt many common people (many whom could not read) believed things literally.

Last point the Orthodox Church never belived the bible contained all truth. I mean Christians existed before the NT was even written!

Anyhow, accept or reject it I just want to say it is different. FWIW; I am certain evolution happened and that the universe is billions of years old.

There might be a Xenu out there somewhere as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Badsight-
02-13-2008, 03:15 AM
you can disagree all you like . but archeaology verifies the bible as accurate

the last king proven to exist was an assyrian & evidence for him was found in the 60's

there isnt any contradictions in any part of the bible . what one apostle omits another fills in

the word day . its used to mean different periods of time in the book . it has no set span

the bible has earth already existing when god starts creating - where do you get the earth being only 6000 years old from ?

there is a timeline in the bible you can follow back 6030 odd years from now . going backwards you end up at adams appearance

how long the creative process actually was is not given

how old the earth actually is , is not given

MEGILE
02-13-2008, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
you can disagree all you like . but archeaology verifies the bible as accurate


The bible has locations and moncarchs for the period of time it was written. And your point is?
L Ron Hubbard says the world is round and in the solar system.

Accurate is not the word however.


John 1:28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.


There is no such place as Bethabara, and Matthew and Luke both point to John (baptist) working in Jerusalem (ie. NOT beyond the jordan)
Many New translations explain this away by simply changing Bethabara to a suburb in Jerusalem. (bye bye contradiction)


John 7:41


Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?



The people appear to be confused, because Jesus doesn't come out of Galilee. Yet..


Luke 2:11


Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us

According to Luke, Jesus WAS born in Bethlehem.

Truth is both of them are clueless. Neither knew Jesus personally, and neither knew where he was born. Luke (and Mathew) are merely trying to fulfill the old Jewish prophercies.

Actually there is another problem in John 7:41.
If Mary never got laid, I wonder how Jesus could be from the seed of David. I don't spose many can live with half their chromosomes missing, but I digress.



Matthew 2:1
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king.



Luke 2

2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2:2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

2:3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of Davidhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif




Here we have a couple of problems.

Matthew says Jesus was born in the days of Herod... and we all know his antics.

Herod died in 4BC.

But Luke says, Jesus was born after a cencus decreed by Caesar Augustus, when Cyrenius was govner.
Problem 1) Cyrenius became govener AFTER Herod had died.
Problem 2) David lived 1000 years before Jesus was born. Why would the Romans require Joseph to go to the city where an old ancestor lived. It's like a census being called, and you Badsight having to travel to a village outside of Paris where a remote ancestor lived. The notion is as rediculous now as it was then.
Problem 3) There was a local census, but it wasn't decreed by Caesar.


The reason for these problems is Ad hoc reasoning - the gospel writers are trying their best to fulfill messianic prophercies.

There many many more, if you are interested, jsut read your bible.

MEGILE
02-13-2008, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:


the word day . its used to mean different periods of time in the book . it has no set span



Literalists have no truck with this notion, and I don't either. SO I'll let them explain it for you.

The word for "day" in Genesis 1 is the Hebrew word yom - It can mean either a 24 hour day , the daylight portion of an ordinary 24-hour day , or occasionally it is used in the sense of an indefinite period of time.
Without exception, in the Hebrew Old Testament the word yom never means "period".

we are told in Genesis 1:2628 that God made the first man (Adam) on the sixth day. Adam lived through the rest of the sixth day and through the seventh day. We are told in Genesis 5:5 that he died when he was 930 years old. If each day was, for example, a million years, then there are real problems. In fact, if each day were only a thousand years long, this still makes no sense of Adam's age at death either.

In Genesis 1:14 we read that God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." If the word "day" here is not a literal day, then the word "years" being used in the same verse would be meaningless.

The word day, literally means, day. The difference between you and them is, you feel embarassed to actually read the bible and admit it says and means 6 days, because the logical part of your brain says otherwise.

MEGILE
02-13-2008, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:

how old the earth actually is , is not given

Disagree.

6 day literal creation + the (very boring) time lineages, give around 6,000 years.

MEGILE
02-13-2008, 04:25 AM
Originally posted by joeap:


I'll post a youtube link of a lecture on this subject late tonight Western European time.


Cool. I don't know much about the Orthodox church.

Badsight-
02-13-2008, 10:39 PM
let me guess , using a king james ?

the earth was already in existence when the creative days started

God rested on the seventh . nowhere in scripture is given for it having ended - thats a day lasting over 6030 years

Adam was told in the day of his eating he would die , then he lived untill 930

numerous other scriptures use that exact word way out of a 24 hour context

there is no way to tell how long the creative days lasted

i feel embarrassed for people who dont understand biblical concepts , people who read supposed knowledge on the internet , people who brush off belief without ever having come to know whats involved in the first place

Badsight-
02-13-2008, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
And your point is?
that the bible is a verified record , as much as can be proven . its not a history book , but its backed as accurate by the historical record

far from being a make-believe book full of myth

Originally posted by Megile:
Herod died in 4BC.

But Luke says, Jesus was born after a cencus decreed by Caesar Augustus, when Cyrenius was govner.
Problem 1) Cyrenius became govener AFTER Herod had died.
the date Herod died isnt knowen for sure , but JC was born on 1 or 2 BC , Herod died the next year

Quinrinius was the govenor - & he governed twice

you say theres more , sorry there is none

MEGILE
02-14-2008, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
Herod died in 4BC.

But Luke says, Jesus was born after a cencus decreed by Caesar Augustus, when Cyrenius was govner.
Problem 1) Cyrenius became govener AFTER Herod had died.
the date Herod died isnt knowen for sure , but JC was born on 1 or 2 BC , Herod died the next year

Quinrinius was the govenor - & he governed twice

you say theres more , sorry there is none </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a clear anarchronistic problem, which is highlighted by bible scholars. Your failure to recognize it as such is I assume, endemic to your faith.

Herod died before Quinrinius was govener. One apostle says Jesus was born under herod, and other after the census called by Quinrinius.
This is simply the result of them wishing to fulfill messianic prophercy.

MEGILE
02-14-2008, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:


the earth was already in existence when the creative days started



Quote please.

MEGILE
02-14-2008, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:

God rested on the seventh . nowhere in scripture is given for it having ended - thats a day lasting over 6030 years




Quoting the creation story as allegory is pure revisionism. It was written as literal.

A number and the phrase "evening and morning" are used with each of the six days of creation (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).

Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time it means an ordinary day.9 Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?

There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.

6 day creation + 1 day of rest, is created as a premise for the working week and Sabbath.


Dr. James Barr - Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University:

So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 111 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.16

joeap
02-14-2008, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:


I'll post a youtube link of a lecture on this subject late tonight Western European time.


Cool. I don't know much about the Orthodox church. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here I am, sorry am a bit late.

Well here is the link part of a series by a retired bishop and abbot of an Orthodox monastery in Canada.
Garden of Eden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43F72sbiYuM)

Just to explain a bit about the Orthodox faith. I find it interesting that non-religious people sometimes think religion, or rather faith can't evolve in time just like other aspects of human society.

Thing is that Orthodoxy posits a sort of progressive salvation and transformation of human society as well as individuals by synergy between man and God. Hence no "sudden transformation" by being "born again" like Protestants, neither just the word of the Pope or College of Cardinals.

This means that even if people took the first part of Genesis literally, at the time, their understanding could not change later on. I can't find other Hebrew experts I had noted that disagree with your experts ( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) but I did read some Jewish writing along the lines of a long creation.

A couple more Orthodox links:

Models of Reality (http://www.orthodoxcanada.org/sciandorth/modelsOFreality.htm)


N OUTLINE OF THE MAIN POINTS OF OUR CONSIDERATION

1. Metaphor is integral to language, and the language of Scripture is rich in metaphor.

2. There are serious problems and loss of meaning when one literalises metaphor.

3. All tribes and societies throughout history have used stories to transmit their understanding of the meaning of life. It is a singular curiosity of our modern era that these stories are often presented, not as landscapes of meaning, but as concrete fact, history and science.

4. Challenging models of reality formed by the literalisation of metaphor and simple narratives is inevitable, and sincerely believing persons need to be clear about the language of meaning that constitute the purpose of a story, and not become party to the reduction of that story to history or science. We should also be open to changes in our models of reality.

5. Testing models of reality with regards to cosmology, the creation narrative and man's history:

a. Science: the scientific method.

b. Religious: consistency of meaning, rather than concreteness of facts.

6. Theoria: a shared concept between physics and Orthodox Christian theology.

7. Science and Christianity: The challenge of living harmoniously with one another.


Last link (http://orthodoxcanada.org/qa_archives/question7.html)


Scripture is inerrant, our understanding of it is not always so. Contradiction which appear to occur in Scripture are often the result of the natural dissonance of metaphorical language.

SeaFireLIV
02-14-2008, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:


the earth was already in existence when the creative days started





Quote please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to help badsight out here, although he`s probabaly given up with megile, which I should do after this.

Here, megile

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

This quote is at the , er very start...

It doesn`t say that it was day 1 does it? It simply says god created the heaven as well as the earth. Then it says:

"And the earth was without form and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters..."

This indicates that the earth was already there, but just not ready for man yet.

later...

"And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let dry land appear: and it was so."

This indicates that some kind of land was already there, created earlier (in the beginning). God simply gathered up the waters from over it and separated them to make the land appear and so be habitable for humans. Of course, it is simplified, but you`ll need to ask God for the details of exactly what the land looked like... or maybe the evidence is already in the earth itself?

So we don`t know how old the earth is. that`s how I see it anyway.

Still I think this pinpoint arguing misses the whole point. So what whether the earth was built in 6 days or 6 million years? this is not the point of it all. There isn`t much detail of how the earth was put together or when because it`s not important to the main message.

It`s like we are studying the petrol that flows through a car engine with pinpoint analyse without looking to see where the car is going or who`s driving it.

thefruitbat
02-14-2008, 10:35 AM
Something i've never understood, i've read that Jesus was born in either 4,2 or 1 BC.

Whichever one it was, surely somebody can't count.

Either that, or they didn't understand the concept of what 'before christ' means.

Of course maybe Jesus being the son of god and all, could be born before he was born http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

fruitbat, slightly tounge in cheek.

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-14-2008, 10:39 AM
The gregorian calendar was miscalculated. It's a silly calendar anyway, I propose we start using a new calendar entirely. I nominate the Hobbit Calendar, makes perfect sense that one does.

MEGILE
02-14-2008, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by joeap:


A couple more Orthodox links:

Models of Reality (http://www.orthodoxcanada.org/sciandorth/modelsOFreality.htm)





Joe interesting video, in so far as viewing other interpretations of the book. I'm not however impressed by their philosophy.


Scripture is inerrant, our understanding of it is not always so. Contradiction which appear to occur in Scripture are often the result of the natural dissonance of metaphorical language.

The first fallacy with their argument (which applies to all of the holy books), is the proposition, no.. statement of fact that their book is innerant (and their religion is correct).

The reasoning goes like this...

We have a book.
It's inerrant (the word of God).
Here is our interpretation.

I saw no argument for why they accepted it is inerrant, infact quite the opposite.



Within this stream, myth was converted to a systematic concept of ethics and social morality and the philosophers, both secular and religious, became the dominant practitioners who formed the grid of thought, beliefs, and structural changes in politics and governments and our concepts of humanity, the world and the universe.

Agreed. Myths are collected, and from them dogma is deduced. The Myths aren't however based in reality.

Accepting Scientific principals creates for them more problems than it seemingly solves.
The concepts of miracles, prayer, virgin birth, resurrection et al. all rely on the deity suspending the laws of physics intermittently.


and modern science can be illumined by Orthodox Christian spiritual experience

Exactly how?

MEGILE
02-14-2008, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
although he`s probabaly given up with megile


Don't be so sure. I sense devotion in this one.


Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
which I should do after this


As you wish.

Just so I know I have Seafire's and Badsight's arguments correctly.

They are arguing:

1) The "day" referred to in Genesis really means long period of time.

2) The periods described in Genesis, are REAL periods, but their time scale is not.

__________________________________________________ _________________

Extended periods as an attempt to unify Genesis with modern scientific principals, offers this story NO refuge,

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Where are the stars for this light? Made A couple of Days (years? millenia?) later ofcourse!

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

But wait..! The day (years? millenia?) before God made grass, herbs and fruit trees. How do you suppose they photosynthesized for the second millenium without Nuclear Fusion going on above.


That's enough.. I'm sure you get the jist, and I no doubt know you think I'm misrepresenting the creation story.

Perhaps it would be useful, for anyone interested to explain what the creation story means.

I'll have a go..

The genesis creation story is... a myth, or more accurately a culmination of myths from ancient times, based on mystical ideas so obvious to primative humans (eg. the moon as a light source), yet so opposite to modern understanding. The story is no more real than fairies at the bottom of the garden, or universal karma.

Am I close?

Badsight I commend you. I am absolutley convinced, had you lived 1000 years ago, your faith would have allowed you to believe genesis as literal.

joeap
02-14-2008, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Megile:

The first fallacy with their argument (which applies to all of the holy books), is the proposition, no.. statement of fact that their book is innerant (and their religion is correct).

The reasoning goes like this...

We have a book.
It's inerrant (the word of God).
Here is our interpretation.

I saw no argument for why they accepted it is inerrant, infact quite the opposite.



Agreed. Myths are collected, and from them dogma is deduced. The Myths aren't however based in reality.

Accepting Scientific principals creates for them more problems than it seemingly solves.
The concepts of miracles, prayer, virgin birth, resurrection et al. all rely on the deity suspending the laws of physics intermittently.



Well then we have reached the end of our argument. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I can't prove to you something that should be felt with faith. If there is a God then his book would be inerrant, at least the God most Christians believe in.

You can't state that the myths are not grounded in reality when clearly many historical myths (for example) are grounded in fact.

I don't see a problem with a deity allowing miracles after all that why they are called miracles. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

As for the last bit about science being illuminated by faith. Well spirituality is an important part of the human experience.

Anyway nice discussion see you back at the Cheerleaders thread.

Perhaps the chart monkeys.

Did we evolve from chart monkeys?

SeaFireLIV
02-14-2008, 04:43 PM
I`m not quite done yet, but needed to follow this important point:



Originally posted by joeap:
I can't prove to you something that should be felt with faith. ?

This is the key point and a key point in the whole Christianity business - Faith!

Looking for proof doesn`t show faith. Of course, megile will say `Then without proof, how can i believe?`

Faith.

You will NOT get ABSOLUTE proof in your life time (unless God returns in your lifetime, by which time it`s too late), because that`s not how you truly prove your faith. Jesus said it several time himself. He even quotes that those who ask for proof will NOT get it. I can post the quote if you wish. Jesus has been through all this type of talk before, in a different guise. It`s all in the NT.

Once you have the faith, then you may get the proof, of course, once you have the belief you won`t need the proof even when you see it. Until you get that, you`ll be searching to the end of your days.

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-14-2008, 08:43 PM
Once again I'm glad I'm pagan. This whole faith V. proof thing is irrelevant to me. My religion requires no faith, it's all about personal experience. The ways of the gods are the ways of nature. There is nothing "supernatural" about my religion, it's all a part of nature, as are we (no matter how much the christians would like to remove us from it). Physical nature is merely a reflection of spiritual nature, it doesn't take faith to figure that out, it merely takes observation and occam's razor. The basic nature of reality is pretty much applicable to all subjects and doesn't need to be modified into something "supernatural" to be pretty dang amazing. I know what you're thinking, "you say there are gods, isn't that a matter of faith?", the answer is no. You can arrive at the answer several ways (and the truth usually works that way), simplest is that in nature nothing comes from nothing, it all comes from somewhere. All things come from the Divine Source. Some say karma is a matter of faith, but thats ridiculous. One of the basic tenants of nature and reality is cause and effect, why should we presume that stops at the physical. The place where we went truly wrong as a species is when we decided that physical matter and thoughts dwelt in separate worlds. I don't need faith know what I know, it's all around us, nature is the great teacher. From the neolithic days when we still were truly a part of nature (before we falsely separated ourselves) we knew of the goddess, the "mother nature", even in these times no one truly has forgotten that.

To get back to the point, experience is they key, not faith. Some say that we need faith and that god said there will not be proof, I say thats a cop out. And before you say "prove it", I can't, it's up to you to prove it to yourself through experience. I can say I love my wife, someone can say prove it, I can't. But I don't need proof to know that I do love my wife. I don't need proof to know that we are all from and of the divine and that as above, so below.

BaldieJr
02-14-2008, 08:51 PM
i believed. now i dont. it seems silly to me. all of it.

MEGILE
02-15-2008, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
You can't state that the myths are not grounded in reality when clearly many historical myths (for example) are grounded in fact.


When those myths contradict the laws of physics, and historical record, then they can be put at down as myths in the true sense - not reality.


Originally posted by joeap:

I don't see a problem with a deity allowing miracles after all that why they are called miracles.

A process of suspending the laws of physics, for a single person would demonstrate itself to the world.

Why do you suppose God doesn't perform miracles on amputees? Too much evidence?


Originally posted by joeap:

Well spirituality is an important part of the human experience.

For some, perhaps, those that require it.


Originally posted by joeap:

Did we evolve from chart monkeys?

Charts have been found in Monkey DNA.

MEGILE
02-15-2008, 04:28 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I`m not quite done yet,

Knew so.


Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
This is the key point and a key point in the whole Christianity business - Faith!

You mean, the process of non-thinking, non-evaluating, anti-criticism. If that's a virtue of religion, then I'm not suprised theologians write terrible sci-fi thrillers.


Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:


You will NOT get ABSOLUTE proof in your life time (unless God returns in your lifetime, by which time it`s too late), because that`s not how you truly prove your faith.

If I gave my "faith" to every ideology which promised me eternal life, 70 virgins, rebirth as a rich man, then what do you suppose I would be? Delusional?


Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:


Once you have the faith, then you may get the proof,

Read confirmation bias.

IMO, those who proclaim "no proof necessary", are misleading their listners, and themeselves.

You believe in God because you have experienced something for yourself (ie. something has provided you with proof) of his existence.... it could be anything, bright lights, breeze in the trees or perhaps an innate belief from childhood.. whatever exactly is irrelevant,

MEGILE
02-15-2008, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
Some say karma is a matter of faith, but thats ridiculous.

I say it's a matter of over active imagination.

Karma is as flawed principal as the other religions. It relies as far as I can tell, on the illusion of "free will". Karma is just an elaborate attempt at retribution.

BaldieJr
02-15-2008, 10:44 AM
retribution. thats what its all about. it gives the devout emotional justification.

"this person wronged me and will spend eternity in hell"

gypsies deploy curses against enemies too.

judging from my limited knowledge of Scientology, its followers don't depend on voodoo for retribution. evidently science offers better tools.

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-15-2008, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
Some say karma is a matter of faith, but thats ridiculous.

I say it's a matter of over active imagination.

Karma is as flawed principal as the other religions. It relies as far as I can tell, on the illusion of "free will". Karma is just an elaborate attempt at retribution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I understand karma (and beleive me, the european pagan idea of karma is not as elaborately codefied as the eastern versions) it's merely cause and effect, there is no "punishment" or "retribution" involved. If you grab a hot pot handle what happens, you get burned. If you treat people badly you will be treated the same in return, this is not limited to just physical action, this basic principle of reality carries over to thoughts as and emotions as well as matter and energy. As far as being born with this advantage or that disadvantage because of what you did in a previous life, no, thats not how it neccessarily works although the cause and effect are not neccessarily tied to the same lifetime. You're born with this adcantage or that disadvantage because you have some lesson to learn from it.

MEGILE
02-15-2008, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:


judging from my limited knowledge of Scientology, its followers don't depend on voodoo for retribution.

Why wait till death?
subjugate them while they are still warm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MEGILE
02-15-2008, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
You're born with this adcantage or that disadvantage because you have some lesson to learn from it.

Pray tell the lessons the new born have the privelage to learn, when they are slayed by congenital defects, with in a week of their birth.

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-15-2008, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
You're born with this adcantage or that disadvantage because you have some lesson to learn from it.

Pray tell the lessons the new born have the privelage to learn, when they are slayed by congenital defects, with in a week of their birth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats an easy one, it's not the baby that had the lesson to learn, it's the parents, there are valuable lessons to learn from loss and the way we handle them.

Copperhead311th
02-15-2008, 12:03 PM
I wore a Mahomhed Bomb/turban t-shirt to the mall. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Politics and religion.
wow two of the most flamible topics in the world. this should be intersting.

<shouts over his shoulder> "Hey can we get a fire hose in here. gonna neeed one soon!"

MEGILE
02-15-2008, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
I wore a Mahomhed Bomb/turban t-shirt to the mall. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


I prefer my MILF Hunter teeshirt tbh. but whatever makes your pen1s erect, as they say..

Copperhead311th
02-15-2008, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
I wore a Mahomhed Bomb/turban t-shirt to the mall. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


I prefer my MILF Hunter teeshirt tbh. but whatever makes your pen1s erect, as they say.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh i have some of those too. favorite is "Over worked and under F*cked.
admittely...the last few months has been the other way around. lol

Sillius_Sodus
02-15-2008, 02:48 PM
Meanwhile, those sneaky Freemasons, move in and take over...wait!, they already run the world!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Good hunting,
Sillius_Sodus

roybaty
02-15-2008, 04:23 PM
Fear the Illuminati http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Badsight-
02-15-2008, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
That's enough.. I'm sure you get the jist, and I no doubt know you think I'm misrepresenting the creation story.
well of course . if you had quoted the verses preceding you would have read what ?

that light & dark , like the earth was already in existence

the literal viewpoint of genesis came about & was promoted by modern theology , which is the attempt to take God out of scripture & view it as a work of man - none of it stands up

reading genesis as literal leads certian christians to make weird comments , & is done by people trying to break down the bible as something it isnt - both groups lose

no contradictions exist in the bible with an understanding of not only the history behind it , but also the intent . without either you can take wrong conclusions

no one becomes a believer in God because of text discussions

Badsight-
02-15-2008, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
There is a clear anarchronistic problem, which is highlighted by bible scholars. Your failure to recognize it as such is I assume, endemic to your faith.

Herod died before Quinrinius was govener. One apostle says Jesus was born under herod, and other after the census called by Quinrinius.
This is simply the result of them wishing to fulfill messianic prophercy. absolutly not true
the census were ordered by rome (ceaser) of his entire area . carried out in Palestine when Herod was ruler & Qurinius govenor of syria .

Joesephus got a lot of things wrong , among them dates . its only him putting Herods death at 4bc