View Full Version : Is Science The New Religion? Is it Making us Paranoid?
mostlyharmless
04-Mar-06, 10:58
I'm used to hearing about pestilences and diseases, earthquakes,and prophecies from biblical sources but from science?
Is it misquotes or misrepresentation from the media that is confusing me.or is it just bad science?
The world is warming up, The world is cooling down.
No some parts are really warming up and other bits will see a new ice age.
Global warming is not happening
Its all our fault because of fossil fuels
No its the worlds natural cycle.
But theres still time to make a difference
No its already too late.
The world is going to be flooded Within the next 100 years
No a 3rd of it is in 50 years.
No its already began and we should start building an ark now[okay I made that up]
Bird flu is a sweeping pandemic that will kill millions
No need to panic its all under control
Its killing people already
Its not crossed over into a human form yet?
Kill all birds... now there putting down cats...there making up as they go along.
Super Volcano in Yellowstone will destroy the world
Well it may do one day
Meteorite strike could happen any moment
A meteorite strike of the type that killed the dinosaurs is unlikely to happen .
Don't drink red wine
Do drink red wine
Don't eat meat
Organic meat is good in small quantities
Meat may cause cancer
Worcester Sauce may cause cancer
Dieting is bad for us
We must diet or we'll become obese
The list goes on indeed it already has already...religion has been accused of
keeping us in the dark, confusing us with so many man made ideas, betraying us,controlling us, sounds like science and the media are doing the same.
rockchick
04-Mar-06, 11:15
The list goes on indeed it already has already...religion has been accused of
keeping us in the dark, confusing us with so many man made ideas, betraying us,controlling us, sounds like science and the media are doing the same.
Main difference I can see between science and religion is that religion expects you to take non-understood concepts on faith alone, whereas science expects you to take non-understood concepts and think about them, test them, and discard answers that don't work.
It is entirely possible that the answers to various concepts proposed by religion are correct - maybe God did create the universe in 6 days - but it goes against a scientist's grain to accept anything as fact without being able to test it.
Why is religion so scared of science anyways? Understanding the scientific basis behind something that seems miraculous doesn't lessen the wonder of it. I know and understand how rainbows are created through light refraction, and don't believe they were placed in the atmosphere by God as a reminder never to destroy the world by flood again; I still stop and look at one with a bit of awe. Same with sunrises that light up the sky.
It is entirely possible that the answers to various concepts proposed by religion are correct - maybe God did create the universe in 6 days - but it goes against a scientist's grain to accept anything as fact without being able to test it.
Why does the word "day" in the context of the Genesis account in the Bible have to mean a literal 24 hour period?
rockchick
04-Mar-06, 11:34
Why does the word "day" in the context of the Genesis account in the Bible have to mean a literal 24 hour period?
I personally don't think that it does. I would think that it just means a period of time. Technically, it couldn't, because the first four "days" occured before the sun and the moon were created, and as our days are defined by one rotation of our Earth on its axis as respects the position of the earth to the Sun, so you can't have an earth "day" before the sun is created.
porshiepoo
04-Mar-06, 12:49
Why is religion so scared of science anyways?
Because it makes us question, and religion depends on people believing (blindly in my opinion) in the word of god as religion has deemed fit to interpret it.
The only downside to science is that it denies one rationale that is as old as time and has allowed many species to evolve and survive. Instinct!
I believe 'I know' there is a life after death, I don't question it, I never waiver from it no matter what events happen in my life. But I can't scientifically prove it.
I'm used to hearing about pestilences and diseases, earthquakes,and prophecies from biblical sources but from science?
Is it misquotes or misrepresentation from the media that is confusing me.or is it just bad science?
The world is warming up, The world is cooling down.
No some parts are really warming up and other bits will see a new ice age.
Global warming is not happening
Its all our fault because of fossil fuels
No its the worlds natural cycle.
But theres still time to make a difference
No its already too late.
The world is going to be flooded Within the next 100 years
No a 3rd of it is in 50 years.
No its already began and we should start building an ark now[okay I made that up]
Bird flu is a sweeping pandemic that will kill millions
No need to panic its all under control
Its killing people already
Its not crossed over into a human form yet?
Kill all birds... now there putting down cats...there making up as they go along.
Super Volcano in Yellowstone will destroy the world
Well it may do one day
Meteorite strike could happen any moment
A meteorite strike of the type that killed the dinosaurs is unlikely to happen .
Don't drink red wine
Do drink red wine
Don't eat meat
Organic meat is good in small quantities
Meat may cause cancer
Worcester Sauce may cause cancer
Dieting is bad for us
We must diet or we'll become obese
The list goes on indeed it already has already...religion has been accused of
keeping us in the dark, confusing us with so many man made ideas, betraying us,controlling us, sounds like science and the media are doing the same.
Taken out of context nothing makes sense and everything can be contradictory.
I'm used to hearing about pestilences and diseases, earthquakes,and prophecies from biblical sources but from science?
Is it misquotes or misrepresentation from the media that is confusing me.or is it just bad science?
The world is warming up, The world is cooling down.
No some parts are really warming up and other bits will see a new ice age.
Global warming is not happening
Its all our fault because of fossil fuels
No its the worlds natural cycle.
But theres still time to make a difference
No its already too late.
The world is going to be flooded Within the next 100 years
No a 3rd of it is in 50 years.
No its already began and we should start building an ark now[okay I made that up]
Bird flu is a sweeping pandemic that will kill millions
No need to panic its all under control
Its killing people already
Its not crossed over into a human form yet?
Kill all birds... now there putting down cats...there making up as they go along.
Super Volcano in Yellowstone will destroy the world
Well it may do one day
Meteorite strike could happen any moment
A meteorite strike of the type that killed the dinosaurs is unlikely to happen .
Don't drink red wine
Do drink red wine
Don't eat meat
Organic meat is good in small quantities
Meat may cause cancer
Worcester Sauce may cause cancer
Dieting is bad for us
We must diet or we'll become obese
The list goes on indeed it already has already...religion has been accused of
keeping us in the dark, confusing us with so many man made ideas, betraying us,controlling us, sounds like science and the media are doing the same.
I'm used to hearing about pestilences and diseases, earthquakes,and prophecies from biblical sources but from science?
Is it misquotes or misrepresentation from the media that is confusing me.or is it just bad science?
The world is warming up, The world is cooling down.
No some parts are really warming up and other bits will see a new ice age.
Global warming is not happening
Its all our fault because of fossil fuels
No its the worlds natural cycle.
But theres still time to make a difference
No its already too late.
The world is going to be flooded Within the next 100 years
No a 3rd of it is in 50 years.
No its already began and we should start building an ark now[okay I made that up]
Bird flu is a sweeping pandemic that will kill millions
No need to panic its all under control
Its killing people already
Its not crossed over into a human form yet?
Kill all birds... now there putting down cats...there making up as they go along.
Super Volcano in Yellowstone will destroy the world
Well it may do one day
Meteorite strike could happen any moment
A meteorite strike of the type that killed the dinosaurs is unlikely to happen .
Don't drink red wine
Do drink red wine
Don't eat meat
Organic meat is good in small quantities
Meat may cause cancer
Worcester Sauce may cause cancer
Dieting is bad for us
We must diet or we'll become obese
The list goes on indeed it already has already...religion has been accused of
keeping us in the dark, confusing us with so many man made ideas, betraying us,controlling us, sounds like science and the media are doing the same.
They are. A lot of guesswork is involved.....if I'd a penny for eveytime I see a news report saying "scientist are having to rethink their theories...." I'd have enough for some shopping this week! Still, they're just trying their best....
When it comes to predicting the future, especially of a decade or more, I am as impressed by present day predictions as I am by those of the Prophets of Doom in the Old Testament. All you had to do was follow their advice and all would be well and God would punish you if you didn't.
Those who got it right were hailed as the Messengers of God, those who got it wrong were either forgotten or condemned as False Prophets.
Only those who got it right are remembered with any reverence.
All you have to do is heed the warnings, mend your ways and all will be well.
Failure to do so will invoke the wrath of the Almighty and disaster will be visited upon you, your children and your children's children unto the seventh generation.
The predictions made by both Politicians and Scientist during my youth had the same success as somebody predicting the winner of the Grand National in 2020.
Oh yes. And at that time they were certain we were heading rapidly into the next Ice Age. Well, there had been a few very bad winters during the previous couple of decades.
You can believe in the dire warnings of doom from either God or Science, it's your choice whichever you follow with blind faith.
You would think as technology advances increase and man becomes more enlightened that the world would get better, isn't it interesting that the Bible said it would get worse?
Why does the word "day" in the context of the Genesis account in the Bible have to mean a literal 24 hour period?
isn't there a quote, Don't ask me the chapter or verse, in the bible that says, 'one day is like unto a thousand years to the lord and a thousand year like unto one day'.
This being the case, the world was created in six thousand years - or a thousand years may have been translated wrongly. It could mean 6 million years.
weeboyagee
04-Mar-06, 14:26
......who cares?
You believe in what you believe in, it's your belief and that's it. What can become a problem is how deeply you are convicted by your belief. The more convicted you are the more you can stand up against or succesfully answer the barrage of questions and challenges from others who can't, don't or won't accept your belief.
Why can't you believe in Science and Religion (or God for that matter) existing together? Does Science have to determine that there is no God and that everything always was and everything always will be without a creator having been there? We already came across this in another thread. Do you have a soul and spirit as well as a body? One is physical the other two are not. The body is the physical presence of your being and science would agree with that - but there are realms of science that look to prove that the other two exist also - is science looking to prove the theories of religious strains or looking to deny them?
The belief in God as stated in the bible does not allow for a belief in other gods as stated in other religious books. Religion is an evil in the context of the bible because the term religion holds to the belief in "a" supreme being but doesn't hold to a belief in "the" supreme being. The first commandment does not allow for any other gods.
So, science and religion may war against each other until the end of time - neither are feared to the person who believes in God. The answer for everything - or a cop-out to those who find that it is the easiest of answers to get away from those who have all the questions!! :)
weeboyagee
04-Mar-06, 14:27
.....now following the above and given the conversation last night Rheggers, this is now your opportunity to wade in and get going :lol:......
mostlyharmless
04-Mar-06, 16:28
My original question wasn't supposed to pit religion against science I was trying to get across how some people I know seem to go from one crisis to the next dictated to by the media which sensationalises each scientific report they get their hands on.
In a similar way to how some portray religion as being for the ignorant, science or the media take your pick is manipulating the lives of the ignorant also .
And of course the scientist wipes his hands and takes no responsibility for the consequences its usually the politician, or Gods fault.
Why does the word "day" in the context of the Genesis account in the Bible have to mean a literal 24 hour period?
Because that is what the Hebrew word "yom" means.....in the Bible, it ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour day.
Because that is what the Hebrew word "yom" means.....in the Bible, it ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour day.
How do you measure hours before the earth and sun were created?
Because that is what the Hebrew word "yom" means.....in the Bible, it ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour day.
Here is a theory that maybe throws daylight on this question
http://www.sundials.co.uk/tbhou.htm
Because that is what the Hebrew word "yom" means.....in the Bible, it ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour day.
I am not an expert on Hebrew however a quick bit of research on the word Yom shows many references to it having multi uses, sometimes 24 hours, sometimes a time period such as a growing season or the length of a king's reign.
knightofeth
04-Mar-06, 19:53
I think this news story has a lot of truth to it and answers the question: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4771154.stm
Is Science The New Religion?No.
DrSzin BSc DPhil CPhys
Is science the new religion?
"No."
The Rev. Dr. Canuck
Is science the new religion?
Some treat it like a religion and put as much faith in it as any other belief system.
Saveman BTEC National In Wholesale and Warehousing
Some treat it like a religion and put as much faith in it as any other belief system.
The essential difference between belief in Scientific findings and Religious teachings is that scientific statements are ultimately disprovable. Hence, science is set in reality rather than fantasy.
The essential difference between belief in Scientific findings and Religious teachings is that scientific statements are ultimately disprovable. Hence, science is set in reality rather than fantasy.
So that which can't be proved or disproved by testing is fantasy?
The essential difference between belief in Scientific findings and Religious teachings is that scientific statements are ultimately disprovable. Hence, science is set in reality rather than fantasy.
I always understood the purpose of scientific study was to "prove" something, not disprove it. You start with a theory and work to prove it. If along the way it shows to not be provable, then that is your conclusion. I suppose that you could start with a negative hypothesis, but that gets really confusing and I suspect fairly rare in the accepted scientific world. Now those negative proof statistics that DrSzin was on about a few weeks ago might be the exception. But they were developed by a Presbyterian minister and ....
So that which can't be proved or disproved by testing is fantasy?
I would never answer a question like that without being very careful with my wording.
Other than to say that scientific thinking goes along the lines of forming a 'scientific model' on which to work with (eg Global Warming) until it is disproved to the point that it is dropped as the model to work with. The religious model is different, it has a 'model' of the existence of God which is can't be scientifically disproved by observation, measurement etc.
God, in his omnipotence, created everything, including science and scientists, didn't he? Therefore you cannot separate them as they are both part of the same miraculous universe which doesn't really exist because it's all an illusion any way and I believe in none of it. So there!!!!!
I always understood the purpose of scientific study was to "prove" something, not disprove it.
If there is a God then prove it.
I think this news story has a lot of truth to it and answers the question: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4771154.stmThat article is spot on knightofeth. As I wrote on another thread (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=66683&postcount=16) earlier:
Scientists and (in particular) the scientific media often don't do a very good job of distinguishing between well-established science, half-established science, and way-out hypothesis.
The MMR fiasco (http://briandeer.com/mmr-lancet.htm) (link included unwisely?) is an example I have quoted on here in the past. An essentially-unsubstantiated hunch (or perhaps much worse) by one researcher led to a paper that was published by The Lancet and the conclusions promulgated to the populace at large by the Daily Mail. In my opinion, all three got it wrong: the scientist, whoever accepted the paper for publication in The Lancet, and the Daily Mail. I say this with some confidence because I did some "research" into the subject a couple of years ago.
From the BBC article:
The experts made several recommendations for improving scientific understanding among the public:
Newspapers and broadcasters should employ more science graduates
Scientists and science graduates should be encouraged to undertake media training
Universities should offer multidisciplinary science degrees which include issues of ethics
Policymakers need a better understanding of public perceptions of riskI haven't thought about science degrees which include issues of ethics (perhaps they already exist in some form?), but the others are spot on. I've considered going on a media-training course, but I'd probably be useless at it. I especially welcome the last suggestion. I've been rabbiting on for years about "public perceptions of risk" being all important.
knightofeth
04-Mar-06, 20:39
I always understood the purpose of scientific study was to "prove" something, not disprove it. You start with a theory and work to prove it. If along the way it shows to not be provable, then that is your conclusion. I suppose that you could start with a negative hypothesis, but that gets really confusing and I suspect fairly rare in the accepted scientific world. Now those negative proof statistics that DrSzin was on about a few weeks ago might be the exception. But they were developed by a Presbyterian minister and ....
As far as I understand the scientific method involves coming up with an hypothesis then challenging it to either prove or disprove it. Not one or the other. Just finding out the truth.
If there is a God then prove it.
The charge of the electron.
rockchick
04-Mar-06, 20:44
I always understood the purpose of scientific study was to "prove" something, not disprove it. You start with a theory and work to prove it. If along the way it shows to not be provable, then that is your conclusion. I suppose that you could start with a negative hypothesis, but that gets really confusing and I suspect fairly rare in the accepted scientific world. Now those negative proof statistics that DrSzin was on about a few weeks ago might be the exception. But they were developed by a Presbyterian minister and ....
My understanding of science is that nothing can ever be proven. You take a theory and form a hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis. You can test it a million times and have it come out right, but if you get even a single result that disproves the hypothesis, then it is wrong, and you have to go back and either scrap your hypothesis, or modify it to fit the facts. But you can never, ever prove something right.
knightofeth
04-Mar-06, 20:47
My understanding of science is that nothing can ever be proven. You take a theory and form a hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis. You can test it a million times and have it come out right, but if you get even a single result that disproves the hypothesis, then it is wrong, and you have to go back and either scrap your hypothesis, or modify it to fit the facts. But you can never, ever prove something right.
Thats exactly what I was trying to say! Good post. I agree with all of that.
rockchick
04-Mar-06, 20:47
If there is a God then prove it.
Prove to a blind man that light exists.
My understanding of science is that nothing can ever be proven. You take a theory and form a hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis. You can test it a million times and have it come out right, but if you get even a single result that disproves the hypothesis, then it is wrong, and you have to go back and either scrap your hypothesis, or modify it to fit the facts. But you can never, ever prove something right.Eek, I could have written that! :) (Well, your English is better than mine, but you know what I mean.)
But you missed out one step - the result that "disproved" the hypothesis has to be tested a million times in order to check that it was obtained correctly.
Prove to a blind man that light exists.
Yes you can, by treating his blindness. And for those that are 'permanently' blind, then a cure is just around the corner.
rockchick
04-Mar-06, 20:57
Yes you can, by treating his blindness. And for those that are 'permanently' blind, then a cure is just around the corner.
But...to someone who can not see, nor ever will, how do you prove the nature of light?
rockchick
04-Mar-06, 20:58
Eek, I could have written that! :) (Well, your English is better than mine, but you know what I mean.)
But you missed out one step - the result that "disproved" the hypothesis has to be tested a million times in order to check that it was obtained correctly.
Um...I was trying to be concise? laff
But...to someone who can not see, nor ever will, how do you prove the nature of light?Very easily - plug in a big laser and burn him! :eek:
You might have a tougher job convincing him that some of us can actually use this dangerous stuff called light in order to navigate our way around the world.
If there is a God then prove it.
When scientific method becomes the religion (the supreme being and way of life) then there is no proof for the existence of God as that god is defined by the sacred text and the faith community. My sense in reading these threads is that in the discussion the sacred text is understood to be the Bible and that the faith community is the Christian church.
The great theologians of the church continue to debate the issue of the proof of God's existence. I wouldn't even pretend to be able to speak with the wisdom and clarity with which they speak. So I am not even going to try to articulate the traditional proofs.
I do know that the scientific method is a human developed method. I believe that there is a creator who gave us the minds to come up with such a plan. The scientific method measures "stuff" and that includes energy. God, as I know God, is more than the realm of "stuff." In other words, the stuff of creation is of God, but God is not limited to creation.
For me, this very conversation is proof to me of God's existence. Not the hardware of computers or the technical wizzardry that gets messages through 6000 miles of space in a matter of micro-seconds. God is in the relationships of people, not limited to those relationships, but definately in them. Relationships aren't something you can measure. There is not "stuff" to them, yet we acknowledge their existence. That to me is God, those relationships of trust which can be a means of support, teaching/learning and encouagement for the people in them. Again, not all of God is relationship, but maybe a third. But, I'm not getting into the Trinity on this thread.
I am going to have to leave it here now. In short, no, Rheghead I cannot prove God's existence with the scientific method, but I am sure glad that I don't have to face the possibility of God's non-existence.
But...to someone who can not see, nor ever will, how do you prove the nature of light?
Jesus said 'I am the light' so I guess those blind people are precluded from Faith.
Relationships aren't something you can measure. There is not "stuff" to them, yet we acknowledge their existence.
Geneticists have discovered a genetic link to a propensity to Faith and biochemists have described memory and emotional behavior in terms of chemical orientation in the brain. So, there is an element of "stuff" to Faith and the measurement of relationships.
Jesus said 'I am the light' so I guess those blind people are precluded from Faith.
If you want to get all literal, then remember that the Christian Faith speaks of 2 realms. In the "kingdom of God", blindness will be gone.
If you want to get all literal, then remember that the Christian Faith speaks of 2 realms. In the "kingdom of God", blindness will be gone.
Christian fundamentalists believe in the literal word of God ie the Bible.
If Jesus said he was the light and Blind people can't see it, then so be it.
rockchick
04-Mar-06, 21:40
Jesus said 'I am the light' so I guess those blind people are precluded from Faith.
Why should they be? Light exists! Just because they don't have the eyes to see it, doesn't mean it's not there. However, they don't have the capability to understand the true nature of light. They can feel the warmth of the sun, and know that it can burn their skin so they know its there, but they can never totally understand what it IS.
So I think it is with God. We can sort of sense the power of God, through natural acts that we can't explain (miracles) and through the harmony that exists throughout the universe; we can harness this power through meditation and prayer, but with our piddly little minds we can't hope to understand the true nature of that which we call God. IMHO of course!
We can sort of sense the power of God, through natural acts that we can't explain (miracles) and through the harmony that exists throughout the universe; we can harness this power through meditation and prayer, but with our piddly little minds we can't hope to understand the true nature of that which we call God. IMHO of course!
I don't sense the power of God, has He forsaken me?
I thought God loved ALL his children?
rockchick
04-Mar-06, 21:44
I don't sense the power of God, has He forsaken me?
I thought God loved ALL his children?
Of course She does, just that she loves some more than others ;-)
Because that is what the Hebrew word "yom" means.....in the Bible, it ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour day.
was the Old Testement writen in Hebrew? I thought they were writen in a variety of "Semitic languages related to Hebrew" (New Oxford Annotated Bible).
So that could be Hebrew interpretation. Not to mention the bible is constantly undergoing revision as more is is found out about languages at time (Dead Sea Scrolls etc)
Of course She does, just that she loves some more than others ;-)
Then God is not fair and equal to all His children? He made me into a non-believer, why would he make it impossible for me to enter his Kingdom of Heaven?
If there is a God then prove it.
That is the beauty of religion.
All the proof that is needed is Faith.
Then God is not fair and equal to all His children? He made me into a non-believer, why would he make it impossible for me to enter his Kingdom of Heaven?
He gave us free will, a choice.
He's not interested in forcing you to believe in him.
He's given you all the evidence you need to make a decision. Rom 1:20
An amazing gift. What will you choose?
rockchick
04-Mar-06, 21:57
Then God is not fair and equal to all His children? He made me into a non-believer, why would he make it impossible for me to enter his Kingdom of Heaven?
Well, if you're a non-believer, then it follows that you don't believe in Heaven, so why does it matter whether or not you get into something that (according to you) doesn't exist?
I personally don't believe in the Christian God, so I can't answer your question for you. I do believe that there is a force in the universe that we don't understand, but can sense, and we choose to call it God. I don't know if this makes me a heretic, or dooms me to eternal damnation, but there it is.
What will you choose?
I will use my freewill to believe in a sentient God when I see good evidence for it. But I also have my own view on God, it is another name for Energy. It neither demands worship or judges, then again if Energy is God then the arguement about Religion v Science is just a semantic one, except that Religion has thrown in the sentience to confuse matters.
Well, if you're a non-believer, then it follows that you don't believe in Heaven, so why does it matter whether or not you get into something that (according to you) doesn't exist?
I can't recall saying that Heaven doesn't exist (though admittedly I think it), but I would say it does if I see good evidence for it.
All the proof that is needed is Faith.
The Earth was formed ~ 4.5 billion years ago and is round, yet despite of all the proof of it, eg, satellite images and radiochemical analysis, some people think that the Earth is flat and it was formed by God in 4004 BC.
When Faith blinds the senses they ultimately just make themselves look like buffoons.
mostlyharmless
04-Mar-06, 22:14
This is great stuff like a chinese whisper that keeps on going...
I think each person would be judged on his understanding of the truth that would only be fair and make each individual responsible for his own actions .
'Many mansions I have if it were not so I would not have said so.'
I think we'll be pleased with wherever we go as long as we live up to the principles we know to be true. Of course truth is not always clear .
But truth will set us "free" as the biblical phrase goes and I believe scientists and religion[in its purest form] will agree with that.
"Free" from any pause on the route to pure intelligence and joy and unity.
Yuk thats sounds trite oh well....
rockchick
04-Mar-06, 22:18
I can't recall saying that Heaven doesn't exist (though admittedly I think it), but I would say it does if I see good evidence for it.
My apologies...I assumed that as a self-admitted "non-believer" that meant the entire doctrine, not just the Creator.
Course, I picked up on your true sentiments tho!
rockchick
04-Mar-06, 22:21
That is the beauty of religion.
All the proof that is needed is Faith.
Is Faith a proof tho? I would have thought that Faith, by its very nature, was the ABSENCE of proof.
But truth will set us "free" as the biblical phrase goes and I believe scientists and religion[in its purest form] will agree with that.
Theologians and Science deal in different definitions of 'Truth'.
Science deals in the Truth that can be disproved as a lie. Theologians deal in the definition of Truth in the way that an Architect would walk into a Church(an analogy of Faith) and see that the walls are perpendicular and the beams are horizontal, they are True and strong, so the Church or one's Faith has Truth to withstand life's challenges to Faith.
rockchick
04-Mar-06, 22:33
Theologians and Science deal in different definitions of 'Truth'.
Science deals in the Truth that can be disproved as a lie. Theologians deal in the definition of Truth in the way that an Architect would walk into a Church(an analogy of Faith) and see that the walls are perpendicular and the beams are horizontal, they are True and strong, so the Church or one's Faith has Truth to withstand life's challenges to Faith.
One's walls may be plumb and one's beams may be horizontal, but if your foundations are built upon sand, then "sure as God made little green apples" your house will fall.
One's walls may be plumb and one's beams may be horizontal, but if your foundations are built upon sand, then "sure as God made little green apples" your house will fall.
My sentiments entirely...
mostlyharmless
04-Mar-06, 22:40
Theologians and Science deal in different definitions of 'Truth'.
Science deals in the Truth that can be disproved as a lie. Theologians deal in the definition of Truth in the way that an Architect would walk into a Church(an analogy of Faith) and see that the walls are perpendicular and the beams are horizontal, they are True and strong, so the Church or one's Faith has Truth to withstand life's challenges to Faith.
Whose talking about theology mans understanding of god or the universe is minuscule[and small] truth is eternal and never changes within the boundaries that it is formed within.
My original question wasn't supposed to pit religion against science I was trying to get across how some people I know seem to go from one crisis to the next dictated to by the media which sensationalises each scientific report they get their hands on.
In a similar way to how some portray religion as being for the ignorant, science or the media take your pick is manipulating the lives of the ignorant also.
I would suggest that one a person starts to believe that something, indeed anything, is either the cause and/or the solution to all that occurs and that without it they are in some way doomed, then to them it is a Religion.
The fact that the object certain people view in that way has no wish to be in that position is irrelevant, it is an unfortunate situation they are stuck with.
The Media, over a periods of time, will swing between the image of the Mad Scientist (the Devil) and the Saviour of all Humanity (God) and there is little scientists can do about it. If they protest the fact then the Media will either ignore the fact or turn it into some act of humility.
If the Media put half as much effort into making good Science Programmes as they do into making Coronation Street and Eastenders then people might be able to form a more realistic view of Science and Scientists. Instead people are just being presented with the odd soundbite forecasting either the "Brave New World" or the catastrophic end of everything!
It's only if you listen very carefully that you realise that the former is only a vague possibility and the latter scheduled to occur in five billion years or so.
porshiepoo
04-Mar-06, 23:11
Then God is not fair and equal to all His children? He made me into a non-believer, why would he make it impossible for me to enter his Kingdom of Heaven?
God doesn't distinguish between black, white, deaf, blind, dumb , intelligent, believers or non believers, only man does that.
It's not impossible for you to enter heaven Rheghead, of course you will, it's only our thoughts on this side of life that makes us think we cannot enter heaven because we haven't lived up to some standard.
God has no control over our actions in this life, why would he/she want to have? Thats not what being here is all about. We're here to learn in order to advance spiritually on the othere side. We want to experience everything which is why we write horiffic actions into our lives as well as nice ones, in order to ascend spiritually we need to experience it all, good as well as bad.
God doesn't sit back and watch while the atrocities happen in this life, he has no control over it, only we do.
If you're a non believer Rheghead that doesn't mean you won't go to 'heaven'. When it's your time to pass over you'll recognise home immediately and be glad to be going back.
The Earth was formed ~ 4.5 billion years ago and is round, yet despite of all the proof of it, eg, satellite images and radiochemical analysis, some people think that the Earth is flat and it was formed by God in 4004 BC.
When Faith blinds the senses they ultimately just make themselves look like buffoons.
For Christians, the Bible said the Earth is round a long long time ago. If a Christian believes otherwise they are making a personal choice not shared by the Bible or science.
weeboyagee
04-Mar-06, 23:55
I would never answer a question like that without being very careful with my wording.
No Rheggers my friend, but you did make a heck of a statement without thinking of the wording!
The religious model is different, it has a 'model' of the existence of God which is can't be scientifically disproved by observation, measurement etc.
Erm,.....you saying that to say that God exists is a cop-out answer in terms of the tiresome ends that science has to go to prove the alternatives? Science is not the new religion - science and religion are both as old as each other - what is their ultimate aim? Science to explain and religion to excuse?
The scientific method measures "stuff"
..what an appropriate term :)
In short, no, Rheghead I cannot prove God's existence with the scientific method
Oh, come on,.....where did science ever manage to prove God doesn't exist? Fantasy? Cop-out! Theories are theories, science tries to examine and explain them but that which is beyond the dimension of reality in the physical becomes fantasy and therefore unlikely because it can't be proved or disproved. Doesn't mean to say that that dimension doesn't exist and that we are only within the physical dimension as we see it.
Jesus said 'I am the light' so I guess those blind people are precluded from Faith.
It is also said that there are none so blind as those who cannot see - but this again was not just relating to the physical blindness - it was relating to a spiritual blindness - the problem with those who quote text often tend to quote it out of context!
Geneticists have discovered a genetic link to a propensity to Faith and biochemists have described memory and emotional behavior in terms of chemical orientation in the brain. So, there is an element of "stuff" to Faith and the measurement of relationships.
Disagree. We're back to the theory that there is "stuff" that is yet not fully discovered by science such as that which you are relating to in terms of memory and emotional behaviour, Rheggers. The fact that science hasn't discovered it or fully explained it does not mean that it ever will. What if science is limited in scope and it will never, ever be able to explain the supernatural? Science will be "stuck" or pretty dumbfounded if it ever gets to the point where it proves that to itself.
Christian fundamentalists believe in the literal word of God ie the Bible
Do they really? If so there would be an awful lot more blind people with the amount of an "eye for an eye"!! Again, careful you assume something here that you may not quite understand in terms of the book you refer to.
Of course She does, just that she loves some more than others ;-)
Do I sense a windup here? Hmm ;) Man was made in the image of God, woman was made from man - lest she forget (ooooops,....bad rep coming on from all angles here hahahahaha!!!!)
He made me into a non-believer, why would he make it impossible for me to enter his Kingdom of Heaven?
You choose to be a non-believer therefore you determine your own eternal destiny my friend. Read the Bible you are referring to so often and see what it says on the matter.
That is the beauty of religion. All the proof that is needed is Faith.
Not an easy one that. Religion is not beautiful. Relgion (dictionary reference) pertains to "a" supreme being not "the" supreme being. To class the belief in God as religion is wrong, first commandment.
I do believe that there is a force in the universe that we don't understand, but can sense, and we choose to call it God.
We don't choose to call "it" God, God IS God, any other belief in a supreme being according to the first commandment is wrong.
I don't know if this makes me a heretic, or dooms me to eternal damnation, but there it is.
I suppose given the previous statement, you really don't want me to answer that one, but the key to the answer about being doomed to eternal damnation lies in John 3:16, go read it.
But I also have my own view on God, it is another name for Energy. It neither demands worship or judges, then again if Energy is God then the arguement about Religion v Science is just a semantic one, except that Religion has thrown in the sentience to confuse matters
Nice comfortable position that one Rheggers.
The problem with the "acceptable" versions of God is just that - they are acceptable, they don't challenge your faith or belief that much because you can reason with it. God as realised in the bible is difficult for most to reason with and therefore not comfortable. Why? Because at the point they start really believing they start doubting about their belief!!!!
some people think that the Earth is flat and it was formed by God in 4004 BC...When Faith blinds the senses they ultimately just make themselves look like buffoons
Who are the "some"? You linking it with the timing as people beleive the Bible portrays it? You sure you really know what you're talking about there? Where in the Bible does it refer to the Earth being created by God in 4004BC? And before you answer I already have a reason for asking! Chapter and Verse please or the evidence and analysis the theory is based on please (on second thoughts,.......yawn,....don't bother, the theory is wrong!!!)
But truth will set us "free" as the biblical phrase goes and I believe scientists and religion[in its purest form] will agree with that.
John 8:32 states "And YE shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free". The truth as I believe you are portraying it is not the truth that the verse refers to. If science and religion realised the "truth" as portrayed in the verse they would both heartily give up their arguments against a supernatural being - God.
Is Faith a proof tho? I would have thought that Faith, by its very nature, was the ABSENCE of proof.
YES! A statement I agree with!
See what I mean Rheggers, now you know why I don't get involved in ANY discussions in similar threads like this,.......
My thoughts only (or maybe shared by one or two million others....... :lol:)
Tired after that - off to bed (thank goodness I hear you say :lol:)!!!!!!
Where in the Bible does it refer to the Earth being created by God in 4004BC? And before you answer I already have a reason for asking! Chapter and Verse please or the evidence and analysis the theory is based on please
Earth was created Sunday 23 Oct 4004 BC at 9am.
James Ussher (1581 - 1656) Primate of All Ireland.
Archbishop Ussher calculated the date from the generations in the Bible.
That date was still the subject of examination questions well into the 19th Century and is still accepted by some as completely accurate.
In 1715, Astronomer Edmond Halley (You may have heard of him) put forward the supposition, "that mankind has dwelt upon the earth about 6000 years and so confirms the evidence of Sacred Writ".
I was only in 1890 that the English geologist Arthur Holmes used radioactivity to date the Earth from rocks. He found it is 4.6 billion years old.
Seems that 4004 BC was the accepted date for the creation of the Earth for far longer than the 116 years that 4.6 billion years has been accepted.
If you Google "Earth 4004" it will provide much information and "James Ussher" will provide information on the said Archbishop's background.
Tired after that - off to bed (thank goodness I hear you say :lol:)!!!!!!
You deserve it.
31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
He deserves it
However,
My God [aka Energy], never tires, he just simply changes from one form to another.:p
weeboyagee
05-Mar-06, 01:22
The Primate of All Ireland may have calculated out the distance in time that the generations in the Bible all go back to - but how does he link that with the age of the Earth. This is the fundamental question that needs to be answered if we are to try and link the creation of the Earth by God to the scientific evidence. Who says that God didn't create the Earth etc at this point in time? And that there is a gap of time missing in the Bible?
The Primate of All Ireland may have calculated out the distance in time that the generations in the Bible all go back to - but how does he link that with the age of the Earth. This is the fundamental question that needs to be answered if we are to try and link the creation of the Earth by God to the scientific evidence. Who says that God didn't create the Earth etc at this point in time? And that there is a gap of time missing in the Bible?
He calculated the generations back to the creation of Adam and Eve and then counted the days back from that.
Sunday makes sense because that makes the seventh day Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath.
How he arrived at 23rd October and more specifically at exactly 9am is beyond me. Why not 8am or10am?
What nags at my mind is that it was accepted as a "known fact", just as the once held belief that the Earth was at the centre of the Universe.
I see no reason why, in two or three centuries hence, our scientific certainties might sound just as childishly wrong. How much of what we now believe to be a known fact is simply because we currently know no better.
Do I sense a windup here? Hmm ;) Man was made in the image of God, woman was made from man - lest she forget (ooooops,....bad rep coming on from all angles here hahahahaha!!!!)
There are two traditions. More patriarchal members of the church tend to ignore chapter 1 of Genesis.
You might want to check your quote again in Genesis 1:26-31 God created man and women both.
You are refering to Genisis 2:7-23 which has been identified by scholars as a coming from a different tradiion (a more patriarchal one perhaps???) than chapter one.
In Genesis 2:7-23 the order of creation is different than chapter 1 and it is here that man is created as a creature of earth first and women a creature of Eden second.
rockchick
05-Mar-06, 11:06
Do I sense a windup here? Hmm ;) Man was made in the image of God, woman was made from man - lest she forget (ooooops,....bad rep coming on from all angles here hahahahaha!!!!)
If you'd read Genesis 1:26-27 you'd realize that God created humankind (man AND woman) at the same time. Not one from the other.
We don't choose to call "it" God, God IS God, any other belief in a supreme being according to the first commandment is wrong.
Christians call the Supreme Being "God", Muslims call it "Allah", and I believe (although my knowledge of Judaism is limited) that the Jews call it "Jehovah". If you accept that there is only one Supreme Being, then all the religions are worshipping the same Being, just with different names/aspects. How can this be wrong?
I use the term "it" as I personally find the patriarchal views of organized religion offensive. I don't think the Supreme Being is either feminine or masculine; It just IS.
Who are we to try to define what the Supreme Being is; what it can be or cannot be? We have about as much understanding of the true nature of God as ants have of the true nature of Humans.
IMHO what we call God/Allah/Jehovah/Supreme Being is a force of energy in the universe that we can sense but do not understand; because we don't understand it we personify it to become more comfortable with it. Much like the ancient Greeks and Romans had gods for all the components of nature that they couldn't understand (i.e. a Sun God who rode his chariot across the sky every day).
If you'd read Genesis 1:26-27 you'd realize that God created humankind (man AND woman) at the same time. Not one from the other.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Who are we to try to define what the Supreme Being is; what it can be or cannot be? We have about as much understanding of the true nature of God as ants have of the true nature of Humans.
One of my favourite authers, Kurt Vonnegut, said something about trying to explain to a yeast germ why it was making wine.
Earth was created Sunday 23 Oct 4004 BC at 9am.
James Ussher (1581 - 1656) Primate of All Ireland.
Archbishop Ussher calculated the date from the generations in the Bible.
That date was still the subject of examination questions well into the 19th Century and is still accepted by some as completely accurate.
.
I think the question was 'where in the bible'
however in the suposition that not only words may have been lost in translation but also meanings. What we are taking literally is the DAY thing, and truthfully that doesn't make sense. I get back to my origonal post where 'a day is like a thousand year to the lord,'
maybe the darkness, that we translate as beeing the first night, could have been the ice age? as so many have pointed out, the bible was written by men, and men whose understanding was as it was at that time, prompted by god or otherwise, No proof here, just possibilities - and- where's the missing link? What speeded evolution up to such an extent?
Apart from man, every thing was created in the same order as science says it evolved. Since it was written so long ago before man would have had any knowledge of those things, don't you find that a bit interesting?
I think the question was 'where in the bible'
however in the suposition that not only words may have been lost in translation but also meanings. What we are taking literally is the DAY thing, and truthfully that doesn't make sense. I get back to my origonal post where 'a day is like a thousand year to the lord,'
maybe the darkness, that we translate as beeing the first night, could have been the ice age? as so many have pointed out, the bible was written by men, and men whose understanding was as it was at that time, prompted by god or otherwise, No proof here, just possibilities - and- where's the missing link? What speeded evolution up to such an extent?
Apart from man, every thing was created in the same order as science says it evolved. Since it was written so long ago before man would have had any knowledge of those things, don't you find that a bit interesting?
I quite agree with you, katarina. Much of the order in which things occur in Genesis is remarkably close to modern thoughts on the subject especially if you set aside the massive time discrepancy.
The writers of the Bible created an explanation which they found to be understandable to their state of knowledge.
Are we really any different today? How did life start on Earth? Where did life come from? Was it started by some sort of Magic or some sort of accident? Is it something which happens again and again?
How did the Universe start? Yes we believe it started with the "Big Bang". That's fine, but, "Hello Big Bang, where did you appear from?" At that point we are little further on than the writers of Genesis, we can (well, I can't. but minds better than mine can) only theorise.
How are planets formed? The more discoveries we make, the less certain we are.
All we are still doing is trying to find an explanation which fits the current day state of knowledge and makes sense to us.
The writers of the Bible did exactly the same and created an explanation which,until about 150 years ago, was acceptable to a large proportion of humanity.
Only time will tell if our ideas last as long.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. .
Hmm. Superior intellegence knew how to use dna to create new life form. Scientific lab on other planet perhaps?
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man..
He had sense. Adam was the practice run, then he made perfection!
or you could see it this way. He did not take a bone from the sole of adam's feet, which would mean he he was above her (Walk all over her)
He did not take a bone from Adam's head, which would mean she was above him,
he took it from Adam's side, so that she could walk beside him as his equal,
How do we know the whole thing is meant to be taken literally? Jesus spoke in parables which were understood by the people of his time.
Was the true message in the adam and eve story just that -
woman was man's equal, BUT with the story of the apple came a warning to man. Woman COULD be seduced by promise of power, and with her feminine wiles, she had the power to lead man astray.
If nothing else, see the deeper genius in the understanding of human nature in the writing. Isn't that whole senario the basis for many a cracking good blockbuster?
One of my favourite authers, Kurt Vonnegut, said something about trying to explain to a yeast germ why it was making wine.
Here's one for the scientist - how do weevles get into flour?
weeboyagee
05-Mar-06, 13:06
There are two traditions. More patriarchal members of the church tend to ignore chapter 1 of Genesis. You might want to check your quote again in Genesis 1:26-31 God created man and women both.
There may be two traditions, but there is only One Word of God, trouble with human beings and the Church in general is that it tends to pick and choose what it wants to believe. So since neither of us are ignoring Genesis 1, v27 holds the key. "So God created MAN in his own image, in the image of God created he him; THEN it says, male and females created he them. It does not say that WOMAN was created in his image. Woman is made after Man is given the choice of every other creature to be his partner, correctly in Genesis 2:21-23 as Fred states. Genesis 2 explains Genesis 1 in more detail, I don't see them to be in conflict.
Who are we to try to define what the Supreme Being is; what it can be or cannot be?We don't define who (not what) the supreme being is. He is God as stated in the Bible. The Bible also gives other names for God, including Jehovah so on that one I don't have a problem - The Lord God Jehovah. Allah is not mentioned and there are fundamental conflicts between belief in God and the belief in Allah. It is "comfortable" though to accept that both are one and the same - but wrong - the first commandment.
IMHO what we call God/Allah/Jehovah/Supreme Being is a force of energy in the universe that we can sense but do not understand; because we don't understand it we personify it to become more comfortable with it.
Exactly the point I was making to Rheghead. The only point about this is that everyone is prepared to have different levels of comfort - and to me this is where the opportunity to have God as you would like to have him presents itself to the man on the street. We land up with all the different sects causing all the different problems. In the end Man has created God as he sees fit. Wrong, back to the first commandment. (Feeling like a broken record here!! :)) Can see some coming back to me on the fact that a certain sect of Man has created exactly this to form the proportion of the population that have the belief in the Bible, but there you go!
How did the Universe start? Yes we believe it started with the "Big Bang". That's fine, but, "Hello Big Bang, where did you appear from?"
Let there be light and there was light. Big Bang, call it what you will. Good enough for me. Better that the Almighty created the Big Bang than the nonsense that the Big Bang happened all by itself! :)
Only time will tell if our ideas last as long.
Do you think we'll be here to meet up and talk about it Jaws my friend? :lol:
weeboyagee
05-Mar-06, 13:14
Oh Katarina, you winding up tooooo?????
He had sense. Adam was the practice run, then he made perfection!
Genesis 2:18 ".....And the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him and help meet for him"
See what we got, after all the rest of the creatures were paraded in front of us. :D :D
Oh Katarina, you winding up tooooo?????
Genesis 2:18 ".....And the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him and help meet for him"
See what we got, after all the rest of the creatures were paraded in front of us. :D :D
Ah, but old Adam knew a good thing when he saw it! where would you guys be without us?
Better that the Almighty created the Big Bang than the nonsense that the Big Bang happened all by itself! :)
This is what I can't understand about religous folk. Why can't they accept that the universe did just happen, why do they need a Supreme being, is the Universe not enough for them?
There are many instances of quantum events that happen spontaneusly without prediction, like radioactivity and the release of photons from energy states. When you realise that the whole universe once existed as a dimensionless structure then it too once exhibited quantum characteristics.
There was no before the big bang and there was no Creator, the Universe happened because it did. If I see any evidence to support the existence of a Creator then let me know instead of all this mumbo jumbo.:)
Religion was invented by Mankind.
Science and religion both have their distinctive functions and roles in human life. The limitless of universe produces a huge non-scientific area for religion to serve human spirit. In that area, human science doesn't work at all. Therefore, science not only can't substitute the role and functions of religion, but also can't challenge its status or destroy its foundation.
Haohua Jiang
I have a sense that we have just witnessed (participated in) a modern day equivalent to the medievil discussion of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." Those discussions weren't frivolous (nor has ours been.) They sharpened the mind, increased the participants' Biblical knowledge and (more importantly in my mind) led to expanded Biblical understanding. Why! I suspect that if we could explore the history, we would discover that those discussions led in part to the precusor atmosphere out of which the modern scientific method emerged.
weeboyagee
05-Mar-06, 13:43
This is what I can't understand about religous folk. Why can't they accept that the universe did just happen, why do they need a Supreme being, is the Universe not enough for them?
Erm,.......no.
Can you honestly, really honestly Rheghead, walk out your door, see all around you, wonder why we don't fall of the earth why the oceans stick to the surface, why stars are billions of light years away,.........all the "blow-your-mind" away questions of the day, and say - "huh,...just happened"?
Awwww, c'mon, you deprive the Almighty of a great applause for His works. The Universe is not enough. What is beyond it? The Universe is infinite? It is without measure? Science has not discovered it yet, it may never discover it.....so on that I actually like the statement by Abdullah......
Therefore, science not only can't substitute the role and functions of religion, but also can't challenge its status or destroy its foundation.
It is much more "comfortable" to believe in God than it is to believe in the science of creation. You can be satisfied with God, you will NEVER be satisfied with science. :p
This is what I can't understand about religous folk. Why can't they accept that the universe did just happen, why do they need a Supreme being, is the Universe not enough for them?
There are many instances of quantum events that happen spontaneusly without prediction, like radioactivity and the release of photons from energy states. When you realise that the whole universe once existed as a dimensionless structure then it too once exhibited quantum characteristics.
There was no before the big bang and there was no Creator, the Universe happened because it did. If I see any evidence to support the existence of a Creator then let me know instead of all this mumbo jumbo.:)
Religion was invented by Mankind.
Isn't the most fundamental basis for physics that you cannot have effect without cause even at the quantum level?
weeboyagee
05-Mar-06, 13:48
Ah, but old Adam knew a good thing when he saw it! where would you guys be without us?
Genesis 2:20 "....And Adam gave names to cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him" (KJV)
So on that one Katarina - Adam would probably have been told, well that's all you've got to choose from, so on that one I would hate to think where we would be if he hadn't made you - and personally I think we got a good bargain for a rib heh-heh!!!!! :lol:
I just had a mini-revelation that Rheghead might just be exercising his wicked humour to wind us up? :lol: I concede I could be wrong....if so then I apologise....if not then.....busted!
Well he got me..... :p
Can you honestly, really honestly Rheghead, walk out your door, see all around you, wonder why we don't fall of the earth why the oceans stick to the surface, why stars are billions of light years away,.........all the "blow-your-mind" away questions of the day, and say - "huh,...just happened"? When we observe or detect the Higgs particle then we will be one step further to the true nature of the cosmos.
Awwww, c'mon, you deprive the Almighty of a great applause for His works.
He wasn't expecting an applause, Energy is not sentient.
It is much more "comfortable" to believe in God than it is to believe in the science of creation. You can be satisfied with God, you will NEVER be satisfied with science. :p
Sounds like a cop out to me.:p but I am very satisfied that science will step closer to understanding the true mind boggling nature of the Universe, but that would make science sound like a religion, which it is most definitely isn't.
Have you not thought that the Universe is the Deity which you search for?
weeboyagee
05-Mar-06, 14:04
He wasn't expecting an applause...
Mans chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever! golach would even remember that at school!!! An applause somewhat, no?
Sounds like a cop out to me.
I knew I was going to get that at some point!
but I am very satisfied that science will step closer to understanding the true mind boggling nature of the Universe, but that would make science sound like a religion, which it is most definitely isn't.
You're making a better argument for it than me my friend!!! C'mon Rheggers, search your soul, deep down you're saying "ach, all this science stuff is just a load o' trock" Give in and say sorry!!!! :lol:
Have you not thought that the Universe is the Deity which you search for?
:eek: No, don't want to :p (Cop-out!)
I just had a mini-revelation that Rheghead might just be exercising his wicked humour to wind us up?
Of course, I don't have such a wicked sense of humour!! ;)
Isn't the most fundamental basis for physics that you cannot have effect without cause even at the quantum level?
It is one of the fundamental basis for physics in this space/time of the Universe but it also acknowledged that in some parts of the space/time that the physics that we see and observe do actually breakdown like near to black holes and close to the big bang.
Just because our perception of physics start to change does not rubber stamp the existence of a Supreme being, only refusal to search for an understanding will propagate the existence of such things.
You're making a better argument for it than me my friend!!! C'mon Rheggers, search your soul, deep down you're saying "ach, all this science stuff is just a load o' trock" Give in and say sorry!!!! :lol:
If the Big Bang Theory does not stand up to continued peer reviewed scrutiny then I will wait for the release of Creation Theory v3.0 onto the bookshelves. I will not allow one theory to become my undying reality.
Though I hear some people are still playing with Creation Theory Version 1.0...:p
<snip>
Have you not thought that the Universe is the Deity which you search for?
1 Kings 19:11,12
mostlyharmless
05-Mar-06, 14:20
Quote 'the Universe happened because it did.'
Is this scientifc? or religious sounds very similar to me
Are you saying that because it can't be explained by scientific methods things just happen?
Sounds like faith to me bit like like the Placebo effect .
How are all those miraculous recoveries from illness brought about?..... by the Placebo effect.... and whats that then, well if we believe something may happen then somehow we make chemicals and hormones in our brain to bring about the recovery ourselves. And how exactly do we do that then.....mmmmmmm ..thats not good science is it?
All alternative medicine or otherwise is explained incompletely by the Placebo effect and therfore they are all written off because we've made a name for it.And science decides that 'it just does happen.' Is that good science or just denial of something beyond our power to explain and therefore a miracle.
But no we can't call it a miracle because that is linked to religion which is all about keeping people in the dark.??? Is it?
Science is always going to flounder with the ultimate answer because it starts of denying the alternatives and therfeore biasing any results.
Oh yes and I understand that the truth described in the scriptures applys to Jesus Christ setting us free if we believe on him and take him into our lives by living the gospel .You are saying that is true aren't you?
TRUTH IS ETERNAL just depends on the sphere within which it was created. Like laws of the universe which science understands and a creator made otherwise how did they get there? ramble ramble...
When physics biology and chemistry are brought together in nano technology I think we may begin to understand 000000000000.01% exciting future lies ahead.
Is believing in a God, Allah, Jehovah or others, a cop-out? We exist on earth as an energy be it as human beings, animals, plants, solid matter, water, air etc., and we each have an influence on the world, universe, whatever.
When I was young, I blindly believed what I was taught at home and at school and in essence, I was rather wary of God.
Oh, I prayed to him every night and as I grew older my list of those to bless and look after got longer and longer until I felt guilty if I thought I missed anyone out, but I felt obliged to believe in him as I didn't want to think of the consequences of not believing!
As I grew up and occasionally questioned this religion I was brought up in, I became more and more confused when seeing what went on in the world via the media, life experience etc.
It became obvious that a lot of troubles (cruelty to each other, murder, war, persecution etc.,) seemed to stem from one religion or another and at one stage, I gave up on trying to doggedly believe in something I wasn't convinced about.
Then came the middle years in which I went on with my life to the best of my ability and paid more attention to what was in my heart rather than that being exerted upon me by outside beings.
Now, after experiencing many more years of life, (I'm not saying how many..) I am becoming more and more convinced that each of us have more strength and influence in us as individuals than we can even begin to believe and if we would just have more faith in that strength maybe we could influence our paths (and others) more than we do.
To quote Caroline Myss, author of "Anatomy of the Spirit", "Life is painful at times, and spiritually we are meant to face the pains that life presents. In the Western world, however, we often misrepresent God's plan for us and expect life to be comfortable and free of trouble. We measure God's presence in our lives by our level of personal comfort; we believe God is here if our prayers are answered. But neither God or Buddha nor any other spiritual leader or tradition guarantees or encourages a pain-free life".
In conclusion, I prefer paying attention to my own gut feelings and emotions and how I interact with my own little world around me and hope it has an influence on those I meet along the way as I tend to think that is my purpose in this life and I shall leave the the world to proceed at its own head-long rush to whatever it becomes in the future.
Now I am not good at participating in an intelligent debate because my brain (for some reason or other) does not hold facts very well; it gets confused very easily, but I do a lot of thinking on my own and I like hearing the theories of others. In a way, maybe I can be too influenced by others, that's why I have a great problem deciding who to vote for at election time. I believe each political broadcast as it is made! My daughter laughs at me trying to make up my own mind after listening to debate after debate!
I am enjoying the exchanges on this thread; very interesting and thought provoking indeed, thank you all.
Ann
Quote 'the Universe happened because it did.'
Is this scientifc? or religious sounds very similar to me
Are you saying that because it can't be explained by scientific methods things just happen?.
I think you are trying to put a spin to suit your own agenda.
I said the Universe happened because it did because it really did, we are here aren't we? But it is up to science to find out more about the Creation. An apple fell on Newton's head, but it may require several answers to get a definite picture why it happened (if it ever did).
The reasons why it happened may not even have an answer, it may not even be an appropriate question to to ask why, more than just when or where.
Does the Bible say why God created the Universe? And if so does the Bible's explanation satisfy every believers curiosity?
There may be two traditions, but there is only One Word of God, trouble with human beings and the Church in general is that it tends to pick and choose what it wants to believe. So since neither of us are ignoring Genesis 1, v27 holds the key. "So God created MAN in his own image, in the image of God created he him; THEN it says, male and females created he them. It does not say that WOMAN was created in his image. Woman is made after Man is given the choice of every other creature to be his partner, correctly in Genesis 2:21-23 as Fred states. Genesis 2 explains Genesis 1 in more detail, I don't see them to be in conflict.
I'm using The New Oxford Annotated Bible which is a New Revised Standard Version
Genesis 1:26 So God created humankind......
My point between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is that there are two different traditions and two different orders for creation.
Genesis 1 living creatures and then humans.
Genesis 2 Man then the creatures.
Two different traditions written for different audiences even though they were all supposed to have been written by Moses.
I personally have never seen a conflict between religion and science.
There are over 26 english translations of the Bible not to mention a further 25 translations of the New Testament. Before that there were many different authors, translators and years that the Bible has passed through, not to mention the selection process that saw some books included and others excluded. There is always a risk in taking every word in the bible as law, especially when the translations and probably even the texts themselves have changed over time.
Ann, for somebody who is "not good at participating in an intelligent debate" I think many others would agree with me if I say you made a very good job of making others think differently.
Your post sounded thoughtful and intelligent enough to me, and it made some very thought provoking points.
Is the sun the nucleus of an atom, do we live in one?
Ann, for somebody who is "not good at participating in an intelligent debate" I think many others would agree with me if I say you made a very good job of making others think differently.
Your post sounded thoughtful and intelligent enough to me, and it made some very thought provoking points.
Ann, I am with Jaws on this one, and agree with him whole heartedly on your posting
Is the sun the nucleus of an atom, do we live in one?
Hey!! Abdullah, that is VERY close to plagiarism;)
rockchick
05-Mar-06, 18:06
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
No, I said Genesis 1:26-27, the original story:
26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion..."
27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created THEM (caps mine); male and female he created THEM (again, caps mine)
Did you ever notice that the second chapter of Genesis contradicts the first chapter? First chapter states emphatically that the bird and sea creatures were created on the fifth day, and on the sixth day God created living creatures of every kind first, then humankind last. Chapter two reverses this, and says that Adam was created even before plants and certainly before the animals. The Bible does not offer any explanation for this discrepancy, but perhaps we're not supposed to notice this.
I always wondered about the use of plural in Genesis 1:27 - why does God refer to "us" when there is only supposed to be one? (Perhaps this is the Royal "We")
Now, skip forward to Genesis 4:16, when Cain gets kicked out for killing Abel. He goes off to the land of Nod, and finds a wife there. well, how? If Adam and Eve were the only ones, the original folk on earth, where'd the wifey come from?
Point is, don't be so quick to take the Bible literally. It may have been inspired by God, but it was written by humans, and humans are fallible. IMHO, of course!
Is believing in a God, Allah, Jehovah or others, a cop-out? We exist on earth as an energy be it as human beings, animals, plants, solid matter, water, air etc., and we each have an influence on the world, universe, whatever.
When I was young, I blindly believed what I was taught at home and at school and in essence, I was rather wary of God.
Oh, I prayed to him every night and as I grew older my list of those to bless and look after got longer and longer until I felt guilty if I thought I missed anyone out, but I felt obliged to believe in him as I didn't want to think of the consequences of not believing!
As I grew up and occasionally questioned this religion I was brought up in, I became more and more confused when seeing what went on in the world via the media, life experience etc.
It became obvious that a lot of troubles (cruelty to each other, murder, war, persecution etc.,) seemed to stem from one religion or another and at one stage, I gave up on trying to doggedly believe in something I wasn't convinced about.
Then came the middle years in which I went on with my life to the best of my ability and paid more attention to what was in my heart rather than that being exerted upon me by outside beings.
Now, after experiencing many more years of life, (I'm not saying how many..) I am becoming more and more convinced that each of us have more strength and influence in us as individuals than we can even begin to believe and if we would just have more faith in that strength maybe we could influence our paths (and others) more than we do.
To quote Caroline Myss, author of "Anatomy of the Spirit", "Life is painful at times, and spiritually we are meant to face the pains that life presents. In the Western world, however, we often misrepresent God's plan for us and expect life to be comfortable and free of trouble. We measure God's presence in our lives by our level of personal comfort; we believe God is here if our prayers are answered. But neither God or Buddha nor any other spiritual leader or tradition guarantees or encourages a pain-free life".
In conclusion, I prefer paying attention to my own gut feelings and emotions and how I interact with my own little world around me and hope it has an influence on those I meet along the way as I tend to think that is my purpose in this life and I shall leave the the world to proceed at its own head-long rush to whatever it becomes in the future.
Now I am not good at participating in an intelligent debate because my brain (for some reason or other) does not hold facts very well; it gets confused very easily, but I do a lot of thinking on my own and I like hearing the theories of others. In a way, maybe I can be too influenced by others, that's why I have a great problem deciding who to vote for at election time. I believe each political broadcast as it is made! My daughter laughs at me trying to make up my own mind after listening to debate after debate!
I am enjoying the exchanges on this thread; very interesting and thought provoking indeed, thank you all.
Ann
Nice post Ann! Plain and simple thats how I like it :D No need for a religion, a church, a political party to tell you how to live your life........all you need is yourself and a bit of Trust and Faith! No need to know lots of facts all that does is confuses......Keeping it simple is the only way for me........Like you Ann Im no good at debates either........does my head in! :o
No, I said Genesis 1:26-27, the original story:
26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion..."
27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created THEM (caps mine); male and female he created THEM (again, caps mine)
I always wondered about the use of plural in Genesis 1:27 - why does God refer to "us" when there is only supposed to be one? (Perhaps this is the Royal "We")
Now, skip forward to Genesis 4:16, when Cain gets kicked out for killing Abel. He goes off to the land of Nod, and finds a wife there. well, how? If Adam and Eve were the only ones, the original folk on earth, where'd the wifey come from?
Point is, don't be so quick to take the Bible literally. It may have been inspired by God, but it was written by humans, and humans are fallible. IMHO, of course!
I've wondered about this too. Read 'Chariot of the Gods,' by Eric Van whatshis name, he has a very interesting theory about this.
I've managed to did out my bible (I knew i had one somewhere) and boy has the print got smaller, or is it my eyes have grown dimmer - well I'll try to find what I'm looking for.
Getting back to the arguement about time. according to the bible, Adam was still begatting sons at the age of 845yrs! he died when he was 930!
Of course he did have many children in that time and his sons could have married their own sisters.
Found what i was looking for. Gen.6. verse 2. 'The sons of Gods saw that the daughters of man were fair and took them wives of all that they chose.'
Eric Van whatshis name claims that god came from another planet. One of the many biblical quotes he uses to back up his theory explains it this way, the men from the other planet settled on earth, and they were seen by a primitive people as the sons of gods.
Verse 4. 'There were giants on the earth in those days.
(were the visitors larger than the inhabitants of earth?) and when the sons of gods came into the daughters of men they had children to them, and the same became mighty men.'
Was this the time when evolution took a giant leap forward? Was Esua a throw back - he was born 'covered in hair' When his brother pretended to be him, he had to kill a goat and tie its skin round his arm so his blind father wouldn't know the difference.
When ordered to go kill all the people in a neighbouring village, a soldier said, 'But they are without hair on their bodies and look like us.' (can't remember where I read that but it stuck in my mind.)
If I see any evidence to support the existence of a Creator then let me know instead of all this mumbo jumbo.:)
I agree with this statement. I cannot understand why people can have the "faith" to accept that a creator, whom we have no evidence about, caused the "Big Bang", yet then find it absurd that the "Big Bang" simply occured spontaneously.
I do not believe in a "supreme being" Based on the evidence and the feeling within myself, I consider it to be highly unlikely. More importantly, if there were evidence of such a being, I don't think it would change my stance one Iota.
I was born a free-thinking individual and have always resisted being told what to do with, and how to live my life. Worshipping anyone or anything is not in my remit and never will be.
What is Heaven in any case? Why might I want to go there? Would anyone really want to live for eternity? Do you lose your individuality and become part of an amorphous energy pool?
I have always felt that the human race is a fanciful beast. We love our dreams and fantasies, our stories and films. It is an escape from the fact that we are mortal beings with a very short life-span and we almost certainly face oblivion at the end of our time. I feel that many grasp at the tantalising straw which is eternal life, through belief that our existence is more complex and that we will one day be reunited with those who have gone before us.
I am happy for people who take comfort from their beliefs, if it enriches their lives then that can only be a good thing. Sadly, history has shown that it is often not enough for some people to have their belief and keep it to themselves.
Unlike Tony Blair, maybe even Tory Blair ;o) I will live my life accepting the responsibility for my actions and for the way I led my life. I will be judged by the family and friends I leave behind me when my time comes and will be a bit peeved if I am whisked away to one, long party in the Sky that I didn't buy a ticket for ;o)
Getting back to the arguement about time. according to the bible, Adam was still begatting sons at the age of 845yrs! he died when he was 930!
I you assume that at some point there was a change from measuring time by the lunar month (an easy and fairly obvious measurement) to that of the solar year (a more difficult measurement to calculate) then just divide the ages by 13. You then get ages of 845 months or 65 years and 930 months or 71 years and you get the more realistic ages of the modern times.
Several thousand years ago these would have been quite exceptional ages at a time when life expectancy was much shorter.
Bearing in mind that originally such stories would have been handed down orally through the generations it is quite conceivable that the exceptional numbers may be remembered but the change from months to years lost in the telling.
mostlyharmless
05-Mar-06, 23:03
I think you are trying to put a spin to suit your own agenda.
I said the Universe happened because it did because it really did, we are here aren't we? But it is up to science to find out more about the Creation. An apple fell on Newton's head, but it may require several answers to get a definite picture why it happened (if it ever did).
The reasons why it happened may not even have an answer, it may not even be an appropriate question to to ask why, more than just when or where.
Does the Bible say why God created the Universe? And if so does the Bible's explanation satisfy every believers curiosity?
Yes my agenda is an answer to the question I originally posed[at the beginning..not quite the beginning of time though] and I am therefore trying to see just how much religious slant there is in any scientific answer. I suppose I was trying to manipulate your answer but just show how misquotes from a scientific scenario can be just as manipulative on mankind as misquotes from any sacred text or individual. And you did a good job.
I would like to think people were as harsh on the bad science of man as on the sacred words interpreted by man.
So is what you're saying that everything that man cannot understand has been described by religious theologists as God. So as we learn and grow in knowledge god changes into something else? So god is just a representation used by man because hes to embarrassed to say he doesnt know the answer.
But then how did all the stuff for the big bang get there and indeed where did any creator come from and can something be made from nothing and...
This has been fun but I really must go see you next winter........
So is what you're saying that everything that man cannot understand has been described by religious theologists as God. So as we learn and grow in knowledge god changes into something else?
I did not say anything of the kind.
On your first point, there is a big difference between not knowing the facts and not understanding the facts, scientists are the first to admit that they do not know, but they should not describe the unknown as acts of God. I know that Mankind does not know the full facts of Creation, but I don't think there is a limit to Mankinds understanding once he is in full posession of them.
On your second point, God will always remain the same for me which is a character from a collection of stories half-based in historical events the other half is just fantasy.
Then God is not fair and equal to all His children? He made me into a non-believer, why would he make it impossible for me to enter his Kingdom of Heaven?
God is not fair and equal, he also made me into a non-believer.
Religion was invented by Mankind.
True Mankind invented Religion.
God is God, religion is religion. man made religion, it is nothing to do with God. Jesus hated the very form of organised religion, especially the modern day examples of (so-called) “Christianity” based on greed and power that we see today. it was as rife in Jesus’ time as it is now, he spoke and fought against it , they killed him for it , and then they twisted his words and claimed them as their own.
open source theology
Whitewater
06-Mar-06, 11:45
Is believing in a God, Allah, Jehovah or others, a cop-out? We exist on earth as an energy be it as human beings, animals, plants, solid matter, water, air etc., and we each have an influence on the world, universe, whatever.
When I was young, I blindly believed what I was taught at home and at school and in essence, I was rather wary of God.
Oh, I prayed to him every night and as I grew older my list of those to bless and look after got longer and longer until I felt guilty if I thought I missed anyone out, but I felt obliged to believe in him as I didn't want to think of the consequences of not believing!
As I grew up and occasionally questioned this religion I was brought up in, I became more and more confused when seeing what went on in the world via the media, life experience etc.
It became obvious that a lot of troubles (cruelty to each other, murder, war, persecution etc.,) seemed to stem from one religion or another and at one stage, I gave up on trying to doggedly believe in something I wasn't convinced about.
Then came the middle years in which I went on with my life to the best of my ability and paid more attention to what was in my heart rather than that being exerted upon me by outside beings.
Now, after experiencing many more years of life, (I'm not saying how many..) I am becoming more and more convinced that each of us have more strength and influence in us as individuals than we can even begin to believe and if we would just have more faith in that strength maybe we could influence our paths (and others) more than we do.
To quote Caroline Myss, author of "Anatomy of the Spirit", "Life is painful at times, and spiritually we are meant to face the pains that life presents. In the Western world, however, we often misrepresent God's plan for us and expect life to be comfortable and free of trouble. We measure God's presence in our lives by our level of personal comfort; we believe God is here if our prayers are answered. But neither God or Buddha nor any other spiritual leader or tradition guarantees or encourages a pain-free life".
In conclusion, I prefer paying attention to my own gut feelings and emotions and how I interact with my own little world around me and hope it has an influence on those I meet along the way as I tend to think that is my purpose in this life and I shall leave the the world to proceed at its own head-long rush to whatever it becomes in the future.
Now I am not good at participating in an intelligent debate because my brain (for some reason or other) does not hold facts very well; it gets confused very easily, but I do a lot of thinking on my own and I like hearing the theories of others. In a way, maybe I can be too influenced by others, that's why I have a great problem deciding who to vote for at election time. I believe each political broadcast as it is made! My daughter laughs at me trying to make up my own mind after listening to debate after debate!
I am enjoying the exchanges on this thread; very interesting and thought provoking indeed, thank you all.
Ann
Great post Ann. In the Red Indian way (or should I say Native American) the great spirit is all around us and always with us. You do not have to go into a Church to experience it.
You do not have to believe in any particular religion to have faith. The great thing in life (my opinion) is to do unto others as you would have done to yourself. If we all believed in that simple message there would be a lot less trouble in the world today.
weeboyagee
06-Mar-06, 20:59
Yipee,.....been dying to get home and get stuck into this again! :)
Now where were we when we left off last night? Ah yes,.......here we were....
Quote 'the Universe happened because it did.'
Is this scientifc? or religious sounds very similar to me
Are you saying that because it can't be explained by scientific methods things just happen?
Those who believe in God (as is found in the Bible - not as everyone perceives him to be) believe that the Universe was created. Science may say that the Universe happened because it did because what's the alternative? Science can't prove how the Universe happened - it can argue the various options but it settles with the most "likely"! God created the Heavens and the Earth - well what's so difficult in accepting that? Rheghead - a lot of what I hear and see from Scientists (with the greatest of respect) is quite impressive but as much is also "a load of mumbo jumbo". Case argued against case and still they can't agree. OK, neither do a lot of Christians but they do (or should) all agree that a) the Bible is the Word of God and b) God is the creator of the Universe, the Earth and all living things.
Sounds like faith to me bit like the Placebo effect.
How are all those miraculous recoveries from illness brought about?..... by the Placebo effect.... and whats that then, well if we believe something may happen then somehow we make chemicals and hormones in our brain to bring about the recovery ourselves. And how exactly do we do that then.....mmmmmmm ..thats not good science is it?
Excellent! Haven't seen the answer yet.
But no we can't call it a miracle because that is linked to religion which is all about keeping people in the dark.??? Is it?
Still can't accept this religion thing - encompassing all "faiths". But in answer to the question - I suppose that's what science thinks that having a faith means - keeping people in the dark from what they should really be facing up to - that God doesn't exist and that the creation is anything but a work of His hand. :eyes Now they know what we think of their scientific answers! :)
Ann - must admit - I agree with my learned friend golach (who probably thinks I have now finally, well and truly, cracked - he will never look at a jambo in the same light again hahahahaha!) and jaws - you posted an excellent post. I can respect a lot of what you say but as I said before, the worst thing about believing is doubting. It then comes down to how much we are prepared to believe before it becomes uncomfortable. You have obviously become satisfied and comfortable with what you believe but what if your belief is limited in what the greater reality is? A thought, hmmm?.....
scientists are the first to admit that they do not know....
So quit debating about something you don't know and accept the alternative!!! Heh-heh!
On your second point, God will always remain the same for me which is a character from a collection of stories half-based in historical events the other half is just fantasy.
Awww, c'mon again Rheggers,.....you don't know that it isn't fact so you can't call it fantasy!
For the points made about the age of Adam and the rest of the guys in the old testament that lived to ripe old ages and had loads and loads of off-spring - were they not protected by the harmful rays of sunlight by the firmament (the water that surrounded the earth before the flood)? They did not age then as we do. What about the discovery of the ark and the fact that it has been scientifically argued that the water surrounding the earth did exist!!! After the flood men aged quicker and didn't live to be so old!
Food for thought? Or more fantasy for Rheggers!!! :p
porshiepoo
06-Mar-06, 21:02
"Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves"
(Genesis 1:26, The New Jerusalem Bible.)
A paragraph like that would suggest that a god would be both male and female, if thats how he made us.
I completely agree that we don't need religion to fulfil the life that we are here to live.
To me it makes sense that we are here to learn all that we can. We could possibly live on the other side with all it's knowledge and not need to live a life on this side to learn it but pure knowledge without experience is incomplete and empty.
weeboyagee
06-Mar-06, 21:18
"Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves" (Genesis 1:26, The New Jerusalem Bible.) A paragraph like that would suggest that a god would be both male and female, if thats how he made us.
I believe that the verse you refer to is talking about "us" meaning the Godhead - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Ourselves refers to the trinity. So I am afraid porshie that based on that God is not female (phew.......!) Nice try though. :)
I completely agree that we don't need religion to fulfil the life that we are here to live. To me it makes sense that we are here to learn all that we can. We could possibly live on the other side with all it's knowledge and not need to live a life on this side to learn it but pure knowledge without experience is incomplete and empty.
Hmmm,.......to me that's not logical. If we are born to die then why not just get it over and done with and not bother with the hassle of life? However, if there is life after death then it makes sense to believe in what the qualifications are and that precludes us from an early demise. Cynical but there you have it......:eyes
Where would Adam And Eve be if they hadn't eaten of the forbidden fruit?
I believe that the verse you refer to is talking about "us" meaning the Godhead - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Ourselves refers to the trinity. So I am afraid porshie that based on that God is not female (phew.......!) Nice try though. :)
I will admit I don’t know the Bible chapter and verse but I thought the idea of the Holy Trinity was a Catholic idea that developed out of the New Testament: God the father, Jesus the son of Man (later Son of God at his side), and the Holy Spirit that later descended upon Jesus.
I also know that God is referred to in a few different ways with varying characteristics depending on when the section of the Old Testament was written (i.e. Yahweh, Jehovah, burning bush, pillar of fire and smoke etc).
To save me time and a lot of heartache could you provide the Chapter and Verse for the reference to the Holy Trinity in the Old Testament?
Thanks
I once wanted to be an atheist, but i gave it up - they have no holidays! :p
rockchick
06-Mar-06, 22:15
I believe that the verse you refer to is talking about "us" meaning the Godhead - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Ourselves refers to the trinity. So I am afraid porshie that based on that God is not female (phew.......!) Nice try though. :)
Why would you think that? Sorry, I'm with Porshie on this one. Her explanation makes more sense than yours.
Heck, if you can believe in the Trinity, which no one in the last 2000 years has actually been able to make sense of, then surely you can stretch your mind enough to believe that God has a female aspect. Who's to say that the Holy Spirit isn't female?
Where would Adam And Eve be if they hadn't eaten of the forbidden fruit?
Now we are talking about The Fortunate Fall.
[quote=weeboyagee]I believe that the verse you refer to is talking about "us" meaning the Godhead - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Ourselves refers to the trinity. So I am afraid porshie that based on that God is not female (phew.......!) Nice try though. :)
....however, God in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) is often refered to as Elshadi. That translates into god the big breasted one and is considered by scholars to be a reference to a female image of God.
To save me time and a lot of heartache could you provide the Chapter and Verse for the reference to the Holy Trinity in the Old Testament?
Thanks
One of the most widely used and accepted by scholars to be an OT reference to the trinity is Isaiah 6:3 "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts."
The trinity just doesn't make sense to me.
Mark 13:32
sorry for being dense here, and this is an honest question, but why, if jesus was king of the jews, how can christianity be? did jesus denounce judism?
sorry for being dense here, and this is an honest question, but why, if jesus was king of the jews, how can christianity be? did jesus denounce judism?
Luke 13:34,35
He wasn't well pleased with them.
And neither was God
Matt 27:50,51
ah ha! so he took the huff!!! what happened to forgiveness?
not very christian!
I suspect his action were governed by perfect justice, something humans somewhat lack.
One of the most widely used and accepted by scholars to be an OT reference to the trinity is Isaiah 6:3 "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts."
I have read the section which is similar to Jeremiah 7:4 "This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord". Is it not there to emphasis the importance of the Lord rather than alluding to the Trinity?
Three has always been a magic number, but in the context of the rest of the passage Isaiah 6:1-5 I am not convinced it is a reference to the Trinity.
Although Isaiah is starting to talk of the Holy Spirit and we are entering the time of prophesies for a Messiah to come.
It is setting the ground work but I am not convinced we are there yet.
It was also written a good 12,000 years after Genesis and the Torah and isn’t a justification for the Us in Genesis being a reference to Trinity as weeboyagee is trying to argue?
rockchick
06-Mar-06, 22:41
I suspect his action were governed by perfect justice, something humans somewhat lack.
Or...maybe he didn't like organized religion, and being human, he showed it?
rockchick
06-Mar-06, 22:42
It was also written a good 12,000 years after Genesis and the Torah and isn’t a justification for the Us in Genesis being a reference to Trinity as weeboyagee is trying to argue?
Now I'm curious - where do you get the 12,000 year figure? Weren't we in the middle of an ice age 12,000 years ago?
<snip>
It was also written a good 12,000 years after Genesis and the Torah and isn’t a justification for the Us in Genesis being a reference to Trinity as weeboyagee is trying to argue?
Or the Creator could be talking to his Son through whom all things were made.
Or...maybe he didn't like organized religion, and being human, he showed it?
I was refering to God, not Jesus.
I suspect his action were governed by perfect justice, something humans somewhat lack.
very true, re: lack of perfect justice, though now i have thought (dangerous for me) is this the basis of anti-semitism?
rockchick
06-Mar-06, 22:46
I was refering to God, not Jesus.
Strange, as the original question was in respect to Jesus.
very true, re: lack of perfect justice, though now i have thought (dangerous for me) is this the basis of anti-semitism?
Maybe an excuse for some, but an extremely misplaced one. When Jesus said what he did in Luke 13:34,35 he was indicating that the Jews were no longer God's chosen people.
The Acts of Apostles details how salvation then went out to the Gentiles as well.....though the apostles were still Jews so it wasn't that God had condemned or cursed them all.
Strange, as the original question was in respect to Jesus.
Now you're confusing me.
You asked about Jesus. I gave the example of what Jesus said, then I refered to God's actions after Jesus died. You said something about a huff....I thought you were refering to God's actions so mentioned perfect justice etc. etc.
Maybe an excuse for some, but an extremely misplaced one. When Jesus said what he did in Luke 13:34,35 he was indicating that the Jews were no longer God's chosen people.
The Acts of Apostles details how salvation then went out to the Gentiles as well.....though the apostles were still Jews so it wasn't that God had condemned or cursed them all.
I can see how easily it would be for people to misinterpret,
Now you're confusing me.
You asked about Jesus. I gave the example of what Jesus said, then I refered to God's actions after Jesus died. You said something about a huff....I thought you were refering to God's actions so mentioned perfect justice etc. etc.
no i asked the question not rockchick
no i asked the question not rockchick
Oops....sorry...:)
lol....its all too confusing for me!!! :p :confused
sorry for being dense here, and this is an honest question, but why, if jesus was king of the jews, how can christianity be? did jesus denounce judism?
Jesus didn't renounce the Jewish faith. Saul, a Roman persecuter of the Followers of Jesus, had a blinding experience when God spoke to him and he became Saint Paul with a zealous belief he should Spread the Word.
For a time he was at odds with the Followers who had known Jesus and had heard His teachings.
The disagreement was solved for a time by an agreement that Paul would only Convert Gentiles (Non-Jews) and leave the Disciples to Convert Jews.
After a while, Paul declaired that though the Disciples had heard the Teachings of Jesus directly from Him it was of no consequence.
Paul declaired he had received direct instructions from God so he must be right and his version believed.
He then took his version to Rome and spread his version there.
The Roman Emperors later became Christians and St Paul's version spread throughout the Western Roman Empire.
Jesus spent his life teaching the Jews and never tried to change their beliefs other than to teach that He was the Messiah which the Old Testament taught would eventually be sent by God to them.
<snip>
Jesus spent his life teaching the Jews and never tried to change their beliefs other than to teach that He was the Messiah which the Old Testament taught would eventually be sent by God to them.
He did give them a new commandment and set up a new covenant.
I have read the section which is similar to Jeremiah 7:4
Three has always been a magic number, but in the context of the rest of the passage Isaiah 6:1-5 I am not convinced it is a reference to the Trinity.
It was also written a good 12,000 years after Genesis and the Torah and isn’t a justification for the Us in Genesis being a reference to Trinity as weeboyagee is trying to argue?
Wait a minute. The accounts of Genesis that we know were written down during the Exile about 600 years before Christ and at exactly the same time as Jeremiah and Isaiah. Kind of like people 200 years from now watching Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ as their source for the Jesus story.
sorry for being dense here, and this is an honest question, but why, if jesus was king of the jews, how can christianity be? did jesus denounce judism?
Jesus was no longer around when what we know as Christianity came into being.
The first Christian believers were still very much part of the Jewish community. They worshipped in the temple like they always had. It was the Jewish authorities who turfed them out some 50 years after Jesus ascended. Jesus only denounced the parts of Judiasm that were not reflecting and honouring the covenant agreement of justice and mercy.
He did give them a new commandment and set up a new covenant.
The new commandment was that they should love one another.
The new covenant if I remember correctly was at the Jewish Feast of the Passover when he broke bread and told them to share it amongst them as representative of His body which he gave for them and that they should do that as oft as they may in remembrance of Him. After the supper he passed round the cup of wine as representative of His Blood of the new testament which would be spilt for them.
There is nothing there which suggests anything other than He still considered himself as Jewish or He would not have been taking part in the Jewish celebration of the Feast of the Passover.
Even after the Crucifixion there is nothing to suggest that the Disciples remained anything other than Jewish. In fact, they were against the teachings of Jesus going outside of the Jewish Religion and did their best to prevent that happening.
Apart from the Four Gospels most of the rest of the New Testament concerns the Conversion of Paul and his various letters starting with his Epistle to the Romans.
Wait a minute. The accounts of Genesis that we know were written down during the Exile about 600 years before Christ and at exactly the same time as Jeremiah and Isaiah. Kind of like people 200 years from now watching Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ as their source for the Jesus story.
Maybe there are different chronologies
I thought the Thorah was earlier.
Exodus around 2400-1200 BC Depending on source
Isaiah 742-700 BC
I was referring to the strong oral and written tradition that does go back to 13,000 BC that the Torah was founded on and is the reason that God is referred to in so many different ways: I should have been clearer.
I believe my other point still stands. Even if the Torah was the ONLY text it was still written no earlier than 1200 BC and Isaiah was proclaiming his message in 730BC that is a 500 year difference and does not make Isaiah’s quote a strong candidate for God being the Catholic Holy Trinity in Genesis.
The new commandment was that they should love one another.
The new covenant if I remember correctly was at the Jewish Feast of the Passover when he broke bread and told them to share it amongst them as representative of His body which he gave for them and that they should do that as oft as they may in remembrance of Him. After the supper he passed round the cup of wine as representative of His Blood of the new testament which would be spilt for them.
There is nothing there which suggests anything other than He still considered himself as Jewish or He would not have been taking part in the Jewish celebration of the Feast of the Passover.
Even after the Crucifixion there is nothing to suggest that the Disciples remained anything other than Jewish. In fact, they were against the teachings of Jesus going outside of the Jewish Religion and did their best to prevent that happening.
Apart from the Four Gospels most of the rest of the New Testament concerns the Conversion of Paul and his various letters starting with his Epistle to the Romans.
I agree with most of what you're saying apart from Acts 9:15 tells us that Jesus said to Paul that he would be a "chosen vessel" to bear his name to the "Gentiles and kings and to the children of Israel."
Acts 13:46-48 shows the boldness and zeal that Paul had in preaching to the Gentiles. Some were resistant to the change, notably Peter who had to be counseled by Paul, but very soon the gospel was being preached throughout the then known world, just as Jesus said it would be. Even Peter recognised the impartiality of God in Acts 10:34,35
sorry for being dense here, and this is an honest question, but why, if jesus was king of the jews, how can christianity be? did jesus denounce judism?
Wasn't it the jews who rejected him? By not believing he was the saviour promised - aren't they still waiting?
Wasn't it the jews who rejected him? By not believing he was the saviour promised - aren't they still waiting?
Yes indeed.
thanks for that guys, i find this subject really interesting, its something i don't really know a lot about, probably as much as the hoi polloi - is there such as thing as dummies guide to religion, maybe i need something like that to bring me up to speed.
If Jesus was sooo convincing as the Son of God then Thomas wouldn't have doubted, Judas Iscariot wouldn't have betrayed, the Jews wouldn't have bayed for blood and the closer you get to Israel the more Christians should be living there and last but not least, the Bible would not be going on about belief and stuff.
Think about it.
I could write just the same stuff and nonsense about David Koresh, or other folks at fancying themselves as the next Messiah.
Faith is a dangerous thing, the Heaven's gate cult thought that the gateway to Heaven was in a spaceship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet in 1997! They committed suicide all hundred and odd of them.
It is a slippery slope this religous nonsense.
Faith is a dangerous thing, .
i don't agree that faith is a dangerous thing, faith and hope are maybe the only things some people have and if it keeps them going and maintaining a positive outlook on life then i'm all for faith......
i think that in some forms of organised religion the way "their message" is delivered can be dangerous, anyone preaching hate and intollerance is destroying faith in the people they preach too,
i don't think you necessarily have to have faith to be religous, but that is only my opinion
If Jesus was sooo convincing as the Son of God then Thomas wouldn't have doubted, Judas Iscariot wouldn't have betrayed, the Jews wouldn't have bayed for blood and the closer you get to Israel the more Christians should be living there and last but not least, the Bible would not be going on about belief and stuff.
Think about it.
I could write just the same stuff and nonsense about David Koresh, or other folks at fancying themselves as the next Messiah.
Faith is a dangerous thing, the Heaven's gate cult thought that the gateway to Heaven was in a spaceship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet in 1997! They committed suicide all hundred and odd of them.
It is a slippery slope this religous nonsense.
Rheghead, Rheghead, Rheghead...........sometimes you are hilarious! :D
Rheghead, Rheghead, Rheghead...........sometimes you are hilarious! :D
Ah but, the Faith that the Heavens Gate and the Branch Davidians lot possessed was no more and no less real to them than your Faith is to you.
Except that they were twisting the words of Bible for their own agenda as are everyone on this forum have been doing.
If you don't take the Bible as literal (all or nothing) then you are basically saying that God has lied in the liturgy.
Ah but, the Faith that the Heavens Gateand the Branch Davidians lot possessed was no more and no less real to them than your Faith is to you.
Except that they were twisting the words of Bible for their own agenda as are everyone on this forum have been doing.
If you don't take the Bible as literal (all or nothing) then you are basically saying that God has lied in the liturgy.
Some parts of the Bible are literal, some are symbolic. None of it requires anyone to commit suicide. My faith doesn't put anyone in danger...except maybe myself because, if I am a true Christian, then the world will hate me just as it hated Jesus.
...except maybe myself because, if I am a true Christian, then the world will hate me just as it hated Jesus.
In the film The Matrix the Judas Iscariot character 'Cypher' went to collect his 30 pieces of Silver in the form of being put back into the matrix as an actor with the memory of his existance of the outside wiped clean. He would rather not have to face the reality of the harsh world in which we live in, even the death finality which we must ultimately face. In the matrix, he will get reborn as the machines recycle his body parts.
I accept that having Faith and thus believing in a psuedo-afterlife sitting at the feet of God for eternity with rose-coloured specs has a certain appeal. But it is still a pseudo-reality at the end of the day without proof to believe it.
The Matrix has ye...you can't escape.:p
I agree with most of what you're saying apart from Acts 9:15 tells us that Jesus said to Paul that he would be a "chosen vessel" to bear his name to the "Gentiles and kings and to the children of Israel."
Acts 13:46-48 shows the boldness and zeal that Paul had in preaching to the Gentiles. Some were resistant to the change, notably Peter who had to be counseled by Paul, but very soon the gospel was being preached throughout the then known world, just as Jesus said it would be. Even Peter recognised the impartiality of God in Acts 10:34,35
Acts 9:15 is Paul's version of his Conversion when he says Jesus spoke to him in a flash of blinding light. All this occurred after the Crucifixion and much of The Acts relies almost totally on Paul's version of events.
Peter was the disciple Jesus told directly that he was the Rock on which His Church would be Built. Paul had the arrogance to say that was irrelevant because Jesus had spoken to him after His death so he now had the authority to spread the Word using his own methods.
Peter was quite content to Convert Jews and Paul agreed that he and his followers would restrict themselves to Gentiles.
Paul agreed to that arrangement and for a time kept to it. After a while his ego got the better of him and he insisted he had a right to take his version of Christianity to the Jews also.
Paul pushed aside those who had been taught directly by Jesus and imposed his own version of Christian Teaching which became the one we know in the West today.
The Four Gospels are the versions of those taught directly by Jesus.
The Acts and the following Books of the New Testament are based on Paul's later versions of the way he saw the Teachings.
In effect, Paul created the first schism in Christianity by his insistence that his version should prevail.
In the film The Matrix the Judas Iscariot character 'Cypher' went to collect his 30 pieces of Silver in the form of being put back into the matrix as an actor with the memory of his existance of the outside wiped clean. He would rather not have to face the reality of the harsh world in which we live in, even the death finality which we must ultimately face. In the matrix, he will get reborn as the machines recycle his body parts.
I accept that having Faith and thus believing in an psuedo-afterlife sitting at the feet of God for eternity with rose-coloured specs has a certain appeal. But it is still a pseudo-reality at the end of the day without proof to believe it.
The Matrix has ye...you can't escape.:p
My faith is life-focused not afterlife or death focused :)
For me the proof is in creation itself.
Has anyone read The Quran, Bible and Science by Maurice Bucaille? (I haven't but was recommended it today)
My faith is life-focused not afterlife or death focused :)
Sounds like you are gonna be just maggot food like me, welcome aboard!:Razz
The Acts and the following Books of the New Testament are based on Paul's later versions of the way he saw the Teachings.
Although in fairness, Acts was written by Luke who also wrote the Gospel bearing his name.
Sounds like you are gonna be just maggot food like me, welcome aboard!:Razz
You have no hope or expectations for the future apart from to grow old, die and that's that? End of story.....everything you have, everything you were gone forever?
That's bleak.
You have no hope or expectations for the future apart from to grow old, die and that's that? End of story.....everything you have, everything you were gone forever?
That's bleak.
Bleak? yes, Reality? Yes. You won't recognise death when it comes cos you will be dead, so don't worry.
We are only here to perpetuate the macro-chemical-reaction that we call the Human Race. All our emotions, memories, genetic propensity to Faith, have been added to our reaction vessels as an aide to survival via evolution. In other words, I do think by having Faith, there may be an survival advantage in forming strong family relationships. God did say 'go forth and multiply', didn't He?
It could be possible for those that are so captured by their Faith that they may not see this pithy reality.
Bleak? yes, Reality? Yes. You won't recognise death when it comes cos you will be dead, so don't worry.
We are only here to perpetuate the macro-chemical-reaction that we call the Human Race. All our emotions, memories, genetic propensity to Faith, have been added to our reaction vessels as an aide to survival via evolution. In other words, I do think by having Faith, there may be an survival advantage in forming strong family relationships. God did say 'go forth and multiply', didn't He?
It could be possible for those that are so captured by their Faith that they may not see this pithy reality.
If you came across ten Ł1 coins lying all over the footpath you'd think, "Oh dear, someone has dropped these." If you came across ten Ł1 coins neatly stacked on top of one another in the middle of the footpath what would you think?
If you came across ten Ł1 coins lying all over the footpath you'd think, "Oh dear, someone has dropped these." If you came across ten Ł1 coins neatly stacked on top of one another in the middle of the footpath what would you think?
That someone put them there.
Is this question for Reghead?
I know where your going with this.
That someone put them there.
Yeah, that's what I would think as well.
Is this question for Reghead?
It was, but you're welcome to join in. :)
I know where your going with this.
I'm not going anywhere with it. Just attempting to illustrate the reasons why I have a faith.
If the Big Bang Theory does not stand up to continued peer reviewed scrutiny then I will wait for the release of Creation Theory v3.0 onto the bookshelves. I will not allow one theory to become my undying reality.
Though I hear some people are still playing with Creation Theory Version 1.0...:p
Ah, but who caused the big bang?
Ah, but who caused the big bang?
Nobody Katarina. It was a freak chemical reaction that ultimately lead to bananas, frisbees, coleslaw, David Bowie, butterflys, Chakka Khan and of course yoghurt (amongst other things.)
;)
So if we had a Big Bang, and according to Sir Isaac Newton (who told us why an apple falls down from the sky, And from this fact it's very plain, all other objects do the same! A brick, a bolt, a bar, a cup, invariably fall down, not up, And every common working tool, is governed by this self-same rule! So when you handle tools up there, Let your watchword be "Take Care”. If, at work, you drop a spanner, it travels in a downward manner! At work, a fifth of accidents or more, Illustrate old Newton's Law, But one thing he forgot to add, The damage won't be half as bad, If you are wearing proper clothes, Especially on your head and toes. These hats and shoes are there to save the wearer from an early grave. So best foot forward and take care about the kind of shoes you wear. It's better to be sure, than dead,
So get a hat and keep your head! Don't think to go without is brave; the effects of gravity can be grave!) Whose third law states that every action shall have an equal and opposite reaction……..so at the time of this Big Bang was another Universe wiped out in a little whimper?
weeboyagee
07-Mar-06, 21:44
Hasn't this thread lightened up - pity it has enlightened the thread :eyes sheeesh (as squidge would say!!!)
Katarina,....wey-hey,......
Ah, but who caused the big bang?
That's what I asked! Easier for me to accept God created the Heavens and the Earth than for me to believe a chemical reaction just happened. Where did the chemicals come from? Who made them? Rheggers can't accept it and (dear me........) a chemical reaction indeed!!! That's what my science (yuck,....bad word ;)) teacher did in the classs, nearly blew the roof off but we didn't call him God (although he might have thought he was!!!!!) and at least he got the chemicals from somewhere - they didn't just materialise.
By the way, the writers of the good book were inspired divinely to write what they wrote. Those who can't accept it believe the writers are no better than the Borthers Grimm carrying on the next chapter from where the previous guy left off. They were not the literal words of their mind but the spiritual word of God. Read all the books (with an open mind - a sceptical one if you want but better to be open) and see how you feel when you get to the end of it. You will probably feel OK until you get to the last books and Revelation - those who have faith in God will be OK with them, those who have not will either hold fast to their hardened will or wage a greater war against their denial!!!
Have you read any of the Bible seriously Rheggers????
You have no hope or expectations for the future apart from to grow old, die and that's that? End of story.....everything you have, everything you were gone forever? That's bleak.
Funny thing is, maggot food is what the body becomes, but what about the soul and spirit? God made man from dust and to dust the body returns however, we are born into eternity, it is up to us how that eternity will be spent once the body has been given to the maggots!
Just think? What if those who don't believe are wrong - are very, very wrong? Those of us who believe have a great end to look forward to in this life but those of us who don't what's your excuse going to be when you're asked by the Almighty erm,..............
If you came across ten Ł1 coins lying all over the footpath you'd think, "Oh dear, someone has dropped these." If you came across ten Ł1 coins neatly stacked on top of one another in the middle of the footpath what would you think?
Why the question about negative entropy?
OK, I would think that someone had stacked them up, but there is a possibility that they landed like that, so what is your point?
By the way, the writers of the good book were inspired divinely to write what they wrote.
Did they write down in the Bible that they were inspired by God to write the gospels or did the early Church just make up the divine inspiration thingy up?
Ah, but who caused the big bang?
I do not know, maybe the question has no relevence
[QUOTE=weeboyagee].
By the way, the writers of the good book were inspired divinely to write what they wrote. Those who can't accept it believe the writers are no better than the Borthers Grimm carrying on the next chapter from where the previous guy left off. They were not the literal words of their mind but the spiritual word of God. Read all the books (with an open mind - a sceptical one if you want but better to be open) and see how you feel when you get to the end of it. You will probably feel OK until you get to the last books and Revelation - those who have faith in God will be OK with them, those who have not will either hold fast to their hardened will or wage a greater war against their denial!!!
Have you read any of the Bible seriously Rheggers????
[QUOTE]
the way i see it is, if it was just a book written by man as claimed by so many, then why has it had so much power and influence for so long? I believe it's still the number one best seller.
Going back to the adam and eve story, if it is to be taken literally, then we have to question the time frame, or the posibility of alien intervention. If it is a merely an illustration to help man understand the purpose of life, then it is brilliant peice of literature, almost as good as the pile of coins senario!
Just think, the nature of mankind is condensed in that one peice of writing. Greed, quest for knowledge aka power, temptation, lust, sibling rivalry and the consequesces of susequent actions.
Funny thing is, maggot food is what the body becomes, but what about the soul and spirit? God made man from dust and to dust the body returns however, we are born into eternity, it is up to us how that eternity will be spent once the body has been given to the maggots!
Just think? What if those who don't believe are wrong - are very, very wrong? Those of us who believe have a great end to look forward to in this life but those of us who don't what's your excuse going to be when you're asked by the Almighty erm,..............
I think you have just highlighted the purpose of Heaven and Hell, to frighten people into doing as they are told. Tell them a tale of fire and brimstone and eternal agony and they'll do anything you want them to, Bush uses the same principle.
Before it was declared heresy by the Roman Catholic Church in the 6th century Christians believed in reincarnation, that the soul goes to Heaven where time as we know it does not exist and then returns to earth in another body. They believed man is judged by God then pays for his sins in the next life. They believed that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elija, they believed Jesus was the reincarnation of Adam, the Son of God. They believed that if you kill someone with a sword in this life you will be killed with a sword in the next life and if you blind someone in one eye in this life you will be blind in one eye in the next.
Christians believed in Karma.
the way i see it is, if it was just a book written by man as claimed by so many, then why has it had so much power and influence for so long?
Most people fear death, eternal life and forgiveness are powerful bait for pulling in the punters. Equally, the thought of burning in the fires of hell is a good motivator to get with the "plan"
When it comes right down to it, the Human being is a pretty simple creature, driven by basic survival instincts. Food, shelter, and sex are pretty much the top of the agenda, in varying order for different people. Some parts of the world are now more developed and people live more sophisticated lives but the major, simple factors that motivate us remain the same.
Many people simply accept what was force fed to them early in life and will simply go through their lives without giving it much thought. It is no wonder they are referred to as a "flock" because they follow as unthinkingly as the sheep in the field.
In my opinion, the greatest thing about being alive is the freedom of thought that I possess. To be tied to worshipping anyone or anything is tantamount to a loss of identity as far as I am concerned.
I posed the question earlier about what Heaven is? What do believers expect when their mortal existence ceases? All I seem to see here is endless quotes from the Bible. Can any of you leave the Bible aside for a second and give an answer that comes from within yourself?
Give me Religious Dogma over Political Dogma any day.
Religion only threatens you with suffering in the next life if you behave badly.
Politics makes you suffer throughout this life no matter how you behave and then tax you to get into the next life when you die.
At least Religion promises you some redemption for good behaviour, do Politicians? They make you suffer from the Cradle to the Grave and beyond.
Most people fear death, eternal life and forgiveness are powerful bait for pulling in the punters. Equally, the thought of burning in the fires of hell is a good motivator to get with the "plan
?
don't really think that's a strong enough reason.
wickerinca
08-Mar-06, 17:00
I wasn't going to post on this thread as I haven't read about religion or delved into the intricacies of the Universe as some of you have.....but then it has never been a source of major concern for me.
Ann wrote an excellent post and I agree with her totally....but then we are a very talented family!! Sure Annie?:lol:
I don't think that there is a 'God'.........and I certainly have doubts about the Bible and No! I haven't read it but then I haven't read the Brothers Grimm either. I did read the daVinci Code , which I enjoyed immensely, but it just muddled me up and those thoughts belong in another thread.
I try to be kind and considerate. I am happy to sit by the lake with my dogs and watch the sunset (sunrise is something which happens in the middle of my night). Do I thank God for the lake and my dogs and all of the beauty around me?.....No, but I don't blame him for all of the ills in the world either. If I can die and leave good memories behind I will die happy. To have given my sons the best I can give and to brighten someone else's life with a smile or a kind word then I have left a part of me behind. Who knows what effect we have had on a complete stranger by acknowledging their existence? God doesn't make me hate the evil in people..I do! My thought processes cannot be attributed to God because I don't believe that he ,or she, exists. The only person I talk to inside my head is myself and I decide what I think is right or wrong. Heaven and Hell were wonderful whipping sticks for the uneducated masses of history but surely in this day and age no-one can seriously believe that such things exist.
Sorry.....but I think that we just 'are' same as the Universe just 'is'.... if you think that everything has had to be created then who, or what, created the creator? Gosh! This sounded so much better in my head at 4 this morning. I am starting to waffle so I am off back to my diy and if I have any inspiration on this topic, divine or otherwise;) I'll report back! Better watch my thumbs with the hammer!
I posed the question earlier about what Heaven is? What do believers expect when their mortal existence ceases? All I seem to see here is endless quotes from the Bible. Can any of you leave the Bible aside for a second and give an answer that comes from within yourself?
MAYBE if we're worthy enough, we can become gods ourselves, governing another planet in another universe?
All this debate poses another question for me. If God as we are taught to percieve him does exist, is he merely God of earth, or of the universe, or of the hundred and thousands of other universes that go on for ever and ever? Or does each life sustaining planet have its own god?
As to what to expect - well, that is blind faith, and a few of us are lucky enough to have that.
All i know is that I have had a few experiences that defy reason, and I'm not the only one. I'm talking about sane competent people without drugs or psychosis.
I suppose you don't believe in the loch ness monster either?
Wonderful post Wickerinca! Don't totally agree with you but I would have added to your reputaion except that 'I must spread some around' apparantly, although I can't remember the last time I repped anyone.
Why the question about negative entropy?
OK, I would think that someone had stacked them up, but there is a possibility that they landed like that, so what is your point?
A possibility I would discount as all but impossible.
My point was merely to illustrate that, for me, there are just too many things which have all slotted into place from the big bang until now, us, here, having this discussion. Conscious life with principles.
It is too much for me to sweep away with the brush of cynicism (an illustration too far?;)) I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong. I think I understand why you feel the way you do. I'm trying to help you understand why I feel the way I do.
wickerinca
08-Mar-06, 17:38
Wonderful post Wickerinca! Don't totally agree with you but I would have added to your reputaion except that 'I must spread some around' apparantly, although I can't remember the last time I repped anyone.
Thanks Katarina. I know what you mean about the rep thing!
I am glad that you added that you didn't totally agree with me. I don't know if I agree with your 'gods of another universe theory'...have to think about that one....but it would be kinda cool!!:)
Interesting point about God being "our' God...or the Universe's God..or all of the Universes' God...........anyone like to answer that? (Wonder if I got all my apostrophes in the right places?:roll: )
Wickerinca, thanks for the vote! And as far as grammar is concerned, you just don't know how to tackle the problem do you? It's "our" God, God of the Universe or God of all universes!
Just like if you can't spell annually, yearly suffices!
Sorry folks, didn't mean to interrupt with yet more facetiousness! Carry on......
<snip>
Funny thing is, maggot food is what the body becomes, but what about the soul and spirit? God made man from dust and to dust the body returns however, we are born into eternity, it is up to us how that eternity will be spent once the body has been given to the maggots!
<snip>
Here's a question for you WBG:
What was God's original purpose before Adam and Eve sinned?
wickerinca
08-Mar-06, 19:01
Here's a question for you WBG:
What was God's original purpose before Adam and Eve sinned?
Great question, Saveman. Wish that I had thought of it...but I will remember it:grin: Cannot answer it though:lol:
Here's a question for you WBG:
What was God's original purpose before Adam and Eve sinned?
I'm not WBG and I am not answering for him, but he is dealing with an overflow in his message box again so I will take the lull in the conversation to add 2 things.
To respond to wickerinca's question, I believe that it is the God of the universe.
As to saveman's question - God existed as a lump of love. Yet for love to really be love, it needs a recipient. So, God created humans so that God could have someone to love. The next stage in the development of healthy love was for people to love one another. That worked for a bit, but then things started to fall apart. The 10 Commandments (the Old Covenant) were a way to give people a model of how to love. Again that worked for awhile, but it too fell apart in time. Finally, a new model, a new covenant was needed. That was the role of Jesus.
Now, WBG, when you are ready take it away.......
MAYBE if we're worthy enough, we can become gods ourselves, governing another planet in another universe?
All i know is that I have had a few experiences that defy reason, and I'm not the only one. I'm talking about sane competent people without drugs or psychosis.
I suppose you don't believe in the loch ness monster either?
Well, you're not looking for much!!
I consider life itself to be enough of a gift. I am happy with the way it works, we are born, have a chance to live a life and then die, making way for someone else to take our place on the planet and see what they make of it. I just wonder why that is not enough for some people. Why does it need to be any more complex?
As for unexplained phenomenon, there is a term for it, WSH, Weird Stuff Happens (actually the middle word is something else!!). With so many people in this world and so many things going on, it is inevitable that strange things will occur. You might say, "Oh that is a Million to one shot" but when there are Trillions of events happening, the odds are actually much more likely than you would imagine.
The Loch Ness Monster and many other phenomena are notoriously shy when the scientific equipment shows up and the Human Race love their little hoaxes so pardon my scepticism ;o)
Nessie, that's easy. Elephants, people, just elephants!
weeboyagee
08-Mar-06, 22:27
Right,...now that all the PM's have been cleared out (thanks everyone for them all - not about this thread in the main - phew!!!.......)
Tell them a tale of fire and brimstone and eternal agony and they'll do anything you want them to
I agree with you on this one Fred - I don't have much time for those that preach hell, fire and brimstone to "convert" the unbeliever. To my mind the "pressure" can sometimes be the reason to believe rather than the "desire" because the individual has come under "conviction" (now there's a term some of you will have heard that will get you going! :)) Sorry but the rest of your post is meaningless to me - "they" believed. Who believed? The Bible says that there will be "many who come in my name". History is full of them - and modern times also!
In my opinion, the greatest thing about being alive is the freedom of thought that I possess.
It is a great thing I agree. The unfortunate thing about the freedom of thought is the fact that it allows us to be free to discard that there is a God! Thus follows that democracy is not of God - now there's a thing!
To be tied to worshipping anyone or anything is tantamount to a loss of identity as far as I am concerned.
To be "tied"? The individual that you are allows you to "choose" not to worship in the same way others "choose" to worship. We have brains the same as you. You make it sound that we are a subserviant being unable to break free. Believe you me, we can choose not to believe at any time, so in terms of freedom of choice, we are as free as you scorrie :)
I posed the question earlier about what Heaven is? What do believers expect when their mortal existence ceases? All I seem to see here is endless quotes from the Bible. Can any of you leave the Bible aside for a second and give an answer that comes from within yourself?
No, how can I leave the Bible aside when it is the Word of God - a fundamental part of my belief. What is Heaven? Loads of references to it in the book - the best being "I go to prepare a place for you". I don't know what it looks like or what it will be like but I know it is a wonderful place - and that answer comes from within myself!
Loved your first post wickerinca - brought a smile to my face. I actually admire the way you guys are putting over your points the way you are - normally those who believe in God are just ridiculed for their belief. But there is a part of me that sighed when you talked about sitting by the lake with the dog and watching the sun set. You know there have been so many times that I have been in places (tops of mountains, inside caves, at 39,000ft, on a boat in the middle of the sea) but especially at eventide or early in the morning - these are special times and to me (and I believe it can be for everyone) it is the best time to be able to understand that there is a creator - God. Canada and Scotland being two of his best works!!!
Here's a question for you WBG:
What was God's original purpose before Adam and Eve sinned?
Oh well, you sure you're ready for the answer? You heard of sin? Well, that's what happened when Lucifer the arch angel fell from grace - and was replaced by Gabriel. You know that story of how the price of sin was paid for - Jesus. The birth of Jesus was pre-destined before the creation of man. The only way that Jesus would be born was to create man. Jesus was the son of Adam (a unique way of saying that he was descended from Adam). I don't know if you can accept that but yes, there was obviously a purpose before they sinned - and the purpose was the very creation of all things - and the Bible says that God created all things for his pleasure.
Where are all the theologians,....they'll have a field day with the above statement. If this was centuries ago I'd have burned at the stake for being a heratic!! Many in the Christian church have a real problem with a lot of this kind of teaching (for those of you who want to call it that). The problem being the limit to which they want to stretch their spiritual thinking methinks......
Loch Ness monster?? Deary, deary me.......where did this one come in Jaws?? Awwwww,....underwater swimming elephants and all that :lol:
<snip>
Oh well, you sure you're ready for the answer? You heard of sin? Well, that's what happened when Lucifer the arch angel fell from grace - and was replaced by Gabriel. You know that story of how the price of sin was paid for - Jesus. The birth of Jesus was pre-destined before the creation of man. The only way that Jesus would be born was to create man. Jesus was the son of Adam (a unique way of saying that he was descended from Adam). I don't know if you can accept that but yes, there was obviously a purpose before they sinned - and the purpose was the very creation of all things - and the Bible says that God created all things for his pleasure.
<snip>
So God knew that Adam and Eve would sin? Were Adam and Eve not perfect when God created them?
Loch Ness monster?? Deary, deary me.......where did this one come in Jaws?? Awwwww,....underwater swimming elephants and all that :lol:
Thought that one might liven things up a little and no, for a change it isn't one of my outlandish theories.
It came from an academic on the radio a couple of days ago. His considered opinion is that when Circuses visited the Highlands they would use the Loch to let the elephants have a swim and that is what people were seeing.
He didn't explain how nobody seemed to have noticed lots of wagons with lots of cages and lots of bellowing, roaring animals.
But they were definitely seeing Circus elephants. Personally, I would have been inclined to enquire if they were pink rather than grey. :lol:
I don't know what he was on when he made his amazing discovery, but I'll have a double please! ;)
So God knew that Adam and Eve would sin? Were Adam and Eve not perfect when God created them?
Adam and Eve were perfect but God obviously had the same faith as I have in human nature.
Either that or he had one hell of a sense of humour.
I agree with you on this one Fred - I don't have much time for those that preach hell, fire and brimstone to "convert" the unbeliever. To my mind the "pressure" can sometimes be the reason to believe rather than the "desire" because the individual has come under "conviction" (now there's a term some of you will have heard that will get you going! :)) Sorry but the rest of your post is meaningless to me - "they" believed. Who believed? The Bible says that there will be "many who come in my name". History is full of them - and modern times also!
"They" are the early Christians, Jesus, those of the Jewish faith who were around at the time, they all believed that when our bodies die we are reincarnated not that we spend an eternity in Heaven or Hell.
It is interesting to know that the early Christian Church advocated the belief in Polytheism. Where they believed that a lesser god created the world and everything on it, including Humans. It was during this period that the early church put together the first collection of gospels that ultimately became the Bible. Experts estimate that half the followers believed in Polytheism until the leaders of that movement within the church were excommunicated.
But since the victor writes history and assumes the position of 'holy editor' only those books that preaches monotheism get a look in. For every contemporaneous eye-witness document that meets the criteria of the Holy editor, you can read another contemporaneous document that would be deemed as heresy. But they all have one thing in common, they are all contemporaneous of the early church and they are all opinions of the author.
The thought processes that were involved in creating the Bible are the same as in any party political manifesto, ie, if the documents don't tow the party line then they are out or burned.
wickerinca
09-Mar-06, 04:23
But there is a part of me that sighed when you talked about sitting by the lake with the dog and watching the sun set. You know there have been so many times that I have been in places (tops of mountains, inside caves, at 39,000ft, on a boat in the middle of the sea) but especially at eventide or early in the morning - these are special times and to me (and I believe it can be for everyone) it is the best time to be able to understand that there is a creator - God. Canada and Scotland being two of his best works!!!
I am sorry that I made you sigh....but you got your own back! This may surprise you but I have seen sunrises and sunsets in some pretty remarkable places........from a Buddhist temple on the top of a mountain in Korea, the Ocean side of Table Mountain in Cape Town, the odd aircraft and ship or boat although I do have to say that a beautiful sunset/rise is a beautiful sunset/rise wherever you are.
The caves on the Garden Route in Cape Province, South Africa are as spectacular as any I have seen especially if you leave the orchestrated lightshow area and descend into the unaltered blackness of the deepest caverns. I forget their exact location and I am too comfortable to traipse through to the study to find the brochure.
However I have never felt the feeling of creation...awe yes! but no sense of these wonders having been created by anything other than atoms.
I am glad that you have a faith that is strong and gives you whatever it is that you want from it.
I do have a question about the Adam and Eve thing though. How could the birth of Jesus have been pre-destined if man had to be created before Jesus could be born? I was under the impression that God made Adam and then Eve as a sort of afterthought or did he always have the design to make them. Also if he knew that they would sin why was he angry when they did?
And who wrote all of these bits down?.....if there were only the two of them,. and I assume that learning how to write was not at the top of their list of 'must learns'........then did they tell their children the story and was it passed down as folklore. Don't think that I would consider telling my sons how their Dad and I first got down to it. Please don't think that I am poking fun at you.......I am not..........I just don't understand the Old Testament.
My point was merely to illustrate that, for me, there are just too many things which have all slotted into place from the big bang until now, us, here, having this discussion.
It is too much for me to sweep away with the brush of cynicism (an illustration too far?;)..... I'm trying to help you understand why I feel the way I do.
I perfectly understand your point of view. It is a human trait to look around and take a snapshot view of anything and take in just the Gestalt or an overview without a thought for its minor parts. But those building blocks have their own evolutionary history.
To illustrate my point, take the building blocks of life, DNA as an example. It is a complex molecule that is responsible for all life that we see in all its glory. It would be easy to say that DNA must be the work of God because of it complexity in that it took just under a week to make in the Creation. But biochemists now know that DNA is not perfect. I am not too sure of the correct figures but out of all the DNA that we have, only about 5% of it is used to give the blueprint for development. The rest of it is scrap. Unused data that may/will have been used in our evolutionary past. We share lots of this scrap DNA with other animal and plants. If it was made fit for purpose then the ratio of unused/used DNA would be 0.
The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, life began about 2.5 billion years ago. 2 billion years would be plenty of time for a complex organic molecule to develop. (Scientists have already simulated the conditions of the early Earth in vitro which has resulted in the formation of of the building blocks of DNA. If the laboratory experiment was allowed to carry on then Who knows what may have resulted? )There was nothing guiding this process, it just happened and its imperfection is a sign that it is a random organic event.
The fact that we are here discussing it is that we are the empirical result of it all, no predestination involved.;)
BTW WBG
An appreciation of sunsets will be a evolutionary survival trait. Since living organisms have no way of getting away from sunsets then it makes good sense to me that the brain has developed an appreciation of them and all things terrestrial. Depressed organisms do not seem to want to reproduce, ask any animal breeder!
But there is a part of me that sighed when you talked about sitting by the lake with the dog and watching the sun set. ...
However I have never felt the feeling of creation...awe yes! but no sense of these wonders having been created by anything other than atoms.
I am glad that you have a faith that is strong and gives you whatever it is that you want from it.
I do have a question about the Adam and Eve thing though. How could the birth of Jesus have been pre-destined if man had to be created before Jesus could be born? I was under the impression that God made Adam and then Eve as a sort of afterthought or did he always have the design to make them. Also if he knew that they would sin why was he angry when they did?
And who wrote all of these bits down?.....if there were only the two of them,. and I assume that learning how to write was not at the top of their list of 'must learns'........then did they tell their children the story and was it passed down as folklore. Don't think that I would consider telling my sons how their Dad and I first got down to it. Please don't think that I am poking fun at you.......I am not..........I just don't understand the Old Testament.
Wickerinca, on your point about being in the midst of creation and not feeling a sence of the God whose work you are observing. I can understand that feeling. But WBG is an extremely creative person and that is how he experiences God. I, on the other hand, have a sence of being one with creation. I am of the same molecules and thus spiritually connected to that which surrounds me. I am particularly sensative to thin places, those areas that Celtic tradition describes as places where the earth and heaven come very close together. You have named a few sites that likely are "thin places." Such places are often marked with a worship centre of some sort. In Scotland, the Island of Iona is recognized as one. In Canada, in southern Alberta, "Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump" is another. As gruesome as the name sounds it is a place of wonder for me. There I feel that I can almost touch something, I call it the God of creation. What I am getting at is that we all feel, sence, know about God in different ways. And from that intake of knowledge we thus think about God in our own personal unique ways. In the church, limits are put on the ways we express our understanding of God, but that is to limit the chaos, not to limit God.
About Jesus pre-existing creation. First we have to introduce the idea that Jesus has 2 natures, one divine the other human. That helps to sort out his functions. Before creation, Jesus was the creating aspect of God, therefore the aspect that would join the humans when it came time to have a holy huddle. I have never considerd A and E to be an afterthought. They were the reason for the grand design of creation to take shape. Adam and Eve were created with a free will. They were free to love God or to not love God. That is what made it real love. The possibility of the incarnation which would lead to the resurrection was put in place before creation as a safety mechanism should people choose the "not to love God" route.
The writing it down returns us to the realm of science, archeology and anthropology specifically. We don't know (not a cop out) who did the writing. Your first suggestion that it was originally passed along orally is likely the best conclusion. (As an innocent tangent here, was language fully formed at creation? I don't think so, but ....) I don't think that A and E sat the boys down for a history lesson. The Bible comes to us not as a "dictated by God" kind of document, but as the words of human beings trying to express their sence, understanding, feeling and thinking about God. There will be lots of variations, but it is one God about whom they write.
Gosh, late again for the office. But, you people are worth it.
If God doesn't exist then who is it who makes me suffer for my sins when I've behaved to excess the previous night?
If God doesn't exist then who is it who makes me suffer for my sins when I've behaved to excess the previous night?
The Demon drink of course LOL
The Demon drink of course LOL
So that's why praying for it to go away didn't work! :D
mostlyharmless
09-Mar-06, 22:06
I can't believe this is still going so strongly and I'm not sure whether that is a religious or scientific statement.
Indeed when I started off this big bang or creation... as a living being or a pile of atoms, take your choice I didn't realise just how much good stuff there was out there.
So I had to have one last go here before I get anymore distracted from work.
I noted an example the other day of the science followers becoming like the Spanish Inquisition. The programme about pentecostals in schools, although I think they seem very over the top and I'm not a keen supporter of them I felt sorry for the guy who was being hammered for believing in the bible!! As though he should give up there and then and renounce it or be burned at the media stake..I thought it was a little distasteful.And definitely wouldnt be tried in an Islamic school.
Science and religion are made unsatisfactorily[sp] complicated and both use that confusion to control and belittle others.
As I understand the Adam Eve story they were meant to fall so that man could be ! They broke the commandment not to partake from the tree of knowledge of good or evil so that they would no longer be innocent and could
reproduce!
Adam was always supposed to have an Eve and his love of her helped him make the difficult choice to disobey God.
The choice to break a commandment brought about the fall from the perfect state and therefore living no longer in Gods presence .
Adam and EVE and their Progeny would have to learn by their mistakes and through them become better people.
Jesus came into the world so that they had the chance to make mistakes and learn and have the chance through the atonement[him taking on others sin] to return back to God.
But mankind had to make the choice God didnt do it for them, as so it is now Free agency is the fundamental principle of life, we are all free to choose no science or religion should force anyone in any way if it does it is not of God and is not completely true.
I've seen some wonderful confessionals on here from those not religious and some good science from those religious.
I think time is an important aspect in understanding much of the answers to everything and attraction in all its forms.
And people seeing atoms in beautiful places......stunning
Someone will be saying they see god in the lowest most miserable places next..or have they done that already.
No, science is not the new religion. Science is science. You should know better than that. :confused:
Wicca is the new religion. Why don't we ditch all this fantasy stuff and get back down to earth? Real earth. Mother Earth. And all her Creations.
Wiccarinca x
(until today)
Some people believe that God created the universe. That I can, to some degree, I can understand. They believe in an all powerful Divine Being capable of doing anything.
Some people believe the science of a Universe created in a Big Bang. That I have a little difficulty with. I accept that it is a little difficult to "put everything back in the bottle", for want of a better analogy, to see if the experiment can be reproduced.
However, "Nothing, nothing, nothing, BANG, Universe!", also seems to defy logic to a small degree.
It seems to me that there is an awful lot of Faith behind either act of Creation, neither of which can be fully explained and both of which entail an awful lot of supposition.
And then there is the small question of just when, where and how life originated.
Believers in Religion say life was created by God.
Believers in science say Life was created sometime, somewhere, somehow, of this they are certain because it's here so it must have happened.
Somewhere, somehow, everything was created, that I believe. As for exactly how, where and why, is anybody say with any certainty?
As I understand the Adam Eve story they were meant to fall so that man could be . They broke the commandment not to partake from the tree of knowledge of good or evil so that they would no longer be innocent and could
reproduce. Adam was always supposed to have an Eve and his love of her helped him make the difficult choice to disobey God.
By partaking of the Tree of Knowledge humans understood what was good and evil. They evolved a conscience as it were: they had a choice.
The love of a dog or a pet is wonderful but the love one gets from a partner or another human, a love that is freely chosen and freely given, that is magical. By eating of the tree of knowledge humans started on the road to being godlike. They now had the gift of love.
Eden existed just below Heaven, perfect in many ways but not Heaven. Because of this being removed from Eden is often seen as The Fortunate Fall because humans now had the capacity to reason and freely love. The Son of Man (Christ) led the way and by choosing to follow Christ’s teachings humans too could now enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Whether you believe in God, Christ, gods, a force or nothing there is a lot of history and a lot of wisdom in the Bible. Many ideas are WAY out of date such as many of the laws in Deuteronomy, and many ideas have been taken out of context to support politics of an age (yes even within the Bible) but the metaphor behind the stories can still be a good guide to life.
Crayola, welcome back to the land of the living!
Wicca is the new religion. Why don't we ditch all this fantasy stuff and get back down to earth? Real earth. Mother Earth. And all her Creations.
I thought Wicca was the old religion.
Some people believe that God created the universe. That I can, to some degree, I can understand. They believe in an all powerful Divine Being capable of doing anything.
There was a chap called Arthur Higgings who lived in Bolton and one day God appears to him in a vision and says "Arthur, there aint a good person left in Lancashire bar thee so it's time for another flood, it's going to rain for forty days and forty nights and Lancashire will be destroyed but don't worry, I'll save you."
Well it started to rain and the water got higher and higher and when it got to waist height a boat came along and asked him if he wanted a lift but he told them that he was alright because God was going to save him. It rained and rained, typical Manchester weather for days and days till he was sat on his roof when the Morecamb lifeboat comes along but he waves it away telling them he was alright because God was going to save him. Eventually the water got so deep he had to swim to Blackpool and he was sat on top of the tower when a helicopter comes along and a man comes down on a rope but Arthur told him that God had said he would save him and he had faith in God.
Eventually the water went over Arthur's head and he drowned and when he got to Heaven he went right up to God and says "Oi, I thought you said you were going to save me" and God looks down at him and says "well I sent two boats and a helicopter".
Aye, fred, thur reet okard in Bowt'n.
(fer them as dusn't kno' it sez, "You are absolutely correct, Frederick, people from Bolton are completely lacking in brainpower when it comes to being sensible.")
There was a chap called Arthur Higgings who lived in Bolton and one day God appears to him in a vision and says "Arthur, there aint a good person left in Lancashire bar thee so it's time for another flood, it's going to rain for forty days and forty nights and Lancashire will be destroyed but don't worry, I'll save you."
Well it started to rain and the water got higher and higher and when it got to waist height a boat came along and asked him if he wanted a lift but he told them that he was alright because God was going to save him. It rained and rained, typical Manchester weather for days and days till he was sat on his roof when the Morecamb lifeboat comes along but he waves it away telling them he was alright because God was going to save him. Eventually the water got so deep he had to swim to Blackpool and he was sat on top of the tower when a helicopter comes along and a man comes down on a rope but Arthur told him that God had said he would save him and he had faith in God.
Eventually the water went over Arthur's head and he drowned and when he got to Heaven he went right up to God and says "Oi, I thought you said you were going to save me" and God looks down at him and says "well I sent two boats and a helicopter".
That is very funny. It sort of reminds me of the current case of the Muslim child who is lying motionless because of muscular dystrophy and the doctors are wanting to stop feeding him but the parents want him kept alive, saying 'God will take our child in His own time, not ours'
I can't help imagining God saying under His breath 'I am trying!! by letting the Doctors give their expert opinion but you and your pro-life dogooders are always getting in My way!!'
As I understand the Adam Eve story they were meant to fall so that man could be ! They broke the commandment not to partake from the tree of knowledge of good or evil so that they would no longer be innocent and could
reproduce!
Adam was always supposed to have an Eve and his love of her helped him make the difficult choice to disobey God.
And people seeing atoms in beautiful places......stunning
Someone will be saying they see god in the lowest most miserable places next..or have they done that already.
mostlyharmless - you did begin what has become an interesting thread.
Perhaps you will give me the liberty of commenting on two bits of your last post. The Adam and Eve "procreation is a sin" theory went out of fashion about the same time as the "earth is flat" propaganda was ditched. However, both lived on for generations in their own isolated pockets. To this day there are some who believe that minister's children are conceived by immaculate conception. :o)
As to seeing God in the lowest most miserable places, Liberation Theology embraces that element, although most mainline churches are on board with some semblance of a belief of God in the poor and unloved.
I am sure that we shall just keep talking on this thread.
The Pepsi Challenge
10-Mar-06, 07:43
Or maybe we just don't know everything.
mostlyharmless - you did begin what has become an interesting thread.
Perhaps you will give me the liberty of commenting on two bits of your last post. The Adam and Eve "procreation is a sin" theory went out of fashion about the same time as the "earth is flat" propaganda was ditched. However, both lived on for generations in their own isolated pockets. To this day there are some who believe that minister's children are conceived by immaculate conception. :o)
As to seeing God in the lowest most miserable places, Liberation Theology embraces that element, although most mainline churches are on board with some semblance of a belief of God in the poor and unloved.
I am sure that we shall just keep talking on this thread.
I know some parts of the church looked at the Adam and Eve story and said ‘ah ha procreation is a sin’.
I took mostlyharmless's post and the fall as being about the sin of disobedience to God.
It does highlight the problem of personal bias and trying to read the Bible too literally .
Or maybe we just don't know everything.
Indeed humility, now there's a quality worth considering.
The moment you think you have it: you've lost it.
Are those people, who accept any theory science throws at them, just desperate because they don't want to answer to a higher power?
wickerinca
10-Mar-06, 17:06
I wasn't going to post on this thread again but a couple...well, three actually.....points had me awake for a while last night.
Mostlyharmless.....in your post you stated that it was "stunning" that I saw "atoms in beautiful places" I didn't say that I saw atoms......I said that I saw things created from atoms....and your remark about god being seen in the lowest most miserable places...........has your god forsaken the street children of Brazil and elsewhere in the world, who are systematically beaten, raped and killed on a daily basis. They are innocents who probably have no concept of god as no-one has been there to explain it to them but does he not know of them? And what about the poor paranoid schizophrenic who has killed because of the voices in his/her head. Will god offer no comfort or hope for an afterlife in heaven to that wretch in despair?
And canuck.....you talk about me not sensing god whose creation I am looking at. Well if I don't believe in god then how can I sense him? You also make mention of WBG being an extremely creative person. By inference you judge that I am not extremely creative and I have to take exception to that. You know nothing of my creativity or lack thereof. One of my neighbours is about as creative as a leadless pencil but she is devoutly Catholic and considers me a lost cause......but a very close and creative friend! I told WBG that I was glad that he had his faith as I would tell anyone else..I do not grudge you or anyone their faith, whatever it may be, and would certainly not judge you because of it.
Judge me if you wish but let me give you a guide! There have been times when I have called for god to come to me and give me strength to cope with some disaster or another...and this was many, many years ago when I still had a thought that there might be something greater than life. I longed for the feeling of peace or whatever it was that I saw in some of the people around me that had a deep faith.......and I am not talking about the 'Sunday morning' squad who sing the Lord's praises and listen to the minister..and then stand outside the church getting all of the local gossip and condemning people on the whisper of a rumour. My family and I have been on the receiving end of this so this is NOT a rumour. A question that was once posed to my mother, who is a member of her church, by one of her fellow choristers nearly killed her and just about destroyed her faith. Her minister was a tower of strength and we all helped to bring her through it but it left a very bitter aftertaste.
As for my beliefs......they are simple. Help who you can, be kind to who you can, love and support your family and friends.........and love and support Mother Earth as she has to support us. I'm right there with you Crayola.
And as for the bible. I agree that it should be a source for ethics and morals. It has some very interesting and thought provoking messages and will surely be the subject of much debate for years to come.....but I still have difficulteis with the 'Creation" and always will have. If, as you suggest, language may not have been one of the gifts given to Adam and Eve then how could they have told their story to anyone? Obviously god must have told someone else about it at a later stage but who? and when? and who kept note of all the 'begets' and begats'?..and if god was all powerful.......why didn't he just write it down himself?
Nope.......sorry...to many unknowns. For anyone wishing a different explanation of the 'creation' I would recommend Genome - The Autobiograohy of a Species but Matt Ridley.......another interesting and thought provoking book.
Now I am off to feed the ducks and hug a tree and I don't know if I'll be back.
mostlyharmless
10-Mar-06, 19:44
Oh dear I keep trying to leave this and not quite managing it.
Yes Tristan I was meaning as you explained .Thanks.
Oh well another science v religious ethics similarity strikes me a principle as bad as the one I was wrongly accused of above.And just to show I am not too biased towards religion. The original sin!
Sorry but a child born in sin I don't think so a child is innocent until he has some knowledge of right or wrong. The scientific example well of course they may say that yes some people are born with a genetic propensity to do wrong
which will one day be engineered out.So science is saying a child can be born with inherent sin? Sounds religious again...[ just noting a similarity not making a deep point here] Although having said that scientists are very careful on the whole but sometimes they seem intent on showing they could rather than whether they should .
Morals are not inherent just in religious individuals however unless a standard is agreed to where will we end up. Ethics committees made up from a broad sweep of scientists?
I was been ironic in my assessment of how some can see the best of things in terrible places and some are not be moved spiritually by beautiful things.
At no time have I meant that either a scientific or a spiritual answer was wrong I have only been interested in how they are both held sacred to an individual in what is described as a religious way.
Sometimes because of good or bad experiences of god the need to include or exclude him becomes quite strong
.Assumptions here could be dangerous as many or most of those believing in a god have had as much cause if not more to disbelieve because of their experience.
Wickerina I was stunned and I'm sorry you feel a need to justify where you're coming from I don't doubt your sincerity or your experience.
'My God' as you call him by which you I assume you feel I am coming from a religious perspective. I have never said I was but I see if possible no excuse for not knowing the answers to both science and religion that are out there, as I think those who are strongly opposed to either may miss out on something important.There are some very intelligent folks out there chemists physicists astronauts who believe in god but that no more or less proves that he is there.
You don't need to go abroad to see the agony of how people live and die
but if this moment on earth is just a moment and eternity stretches before us maybe there is hope for those who struggle so badly now.To better times and an understanding of why they went through it.
Bitterness to the possibility only makes the pain of those suffering who you can do nothing for unbearable.It doesnt make me less want to help those I can or give me an easy cop out, I just hope its true.
I hope I am not scared of religion or science but both are tainted by mans own weaknesses, I am afraid of missing the point ..the truth its surely out there.
Sin originates with Satan (the original fallen angel) and this is when "bad" enters the universe.
God recognizes Satan's intentions and rather than intercede allows the first humans the choice (that amazing gift of free will.)
God said to Adam and Eve if you eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad then you will die.
Satan said to Adam and Eve you will not die. In fact God knows that if you eat from it you will become like him, knowing Good and Bad (Adam and Eve didn't know "bad" as they were created perfect.)
So if Adam and Eve had refused Satan they would have lived. On earth.
God gave them the command to be fruitful and multiply, they and their descendents would have lived on earth.......without ever dying (because death was the penalty or wages of sin. Rom 6:23)
However they choose wrongly (Eve was deceived, Adam knew what he was doing) and Satan was shown to be a liar because they died just as God said they would and so through one man sin and death spread to all mankind (Rom 5:12 explains that bit.)
God immediately set up an arrangement for the redemption of mankind (Gen 3:15 the first prophecy in the Bible) and the restoration of his original purpose.
So God choose the nation of Israel as the one who would produce the Seed.
Gradually God revealed more about this Seed throughout the Old Testament.
Then Jesus arrived, the only begotten Son of God. Made a perfect man, he was without sin. So he paid the wages for all mankind because he died for perfect Adam's sin (as opposed to imperfect Adam.) So the restoration arrangement was in place that we could put faith in his sacrifice and get salvation, everlasting life, God's original purpose.
"the meek shall inherit the earth..."
Phew....I'm glad I got that off my chest.... :D
wickerinca
10-Mar-06, 21:20
Oh dear I keep trying to leave this and not quite managing it.
Yes Tristan I was meaning as you explained .Thanks.
Oh well another science v religious ethics similarity strikes me a principle as bad as the one I was wrongly accused of above.And just to show I am not too biased towards religion. The original sin!
Sorry but a child born in sin I don't think so a child is innocent until he has some knowledge of right or wrong. The scientific example well of course they may say that yes some people are born with a genetic propensity to do wrong
which will one day be engineered out.So science is saying a child can be born with inherent sin? Sounds religious again...[ just noting a similarity not making a deep point here] Although having said that scientists are very careful on the whole but sometimes they seem intent on showing they could rather than whether they should .
Morals are not inherent just in religious individuals however unless a standard is agreed to where will we end up. Ethics committees made up from a broad sweep of scientists?
I was been ironic in my assessment of how some can see the best of things in terrible places and some are not be moved spiritually by beautiful things.
At no time have I meant that either a scientific or a spiritual answer was wrong I have only been interested in how they are both held sacred to an individual in what is described as a religious way.
Sometimes because of good or bad experiences of god the need to include or exclude him becomes quite strong
.Assumptions here could be dangerous as many or most of those believing in a god have had as much cause if not more to disbelieve because of their experience.
Wickerina I was stunned and I'm sorry you feel a need to justify where you're coming from I don't doubt your sincerity or your experience.
'My God' as you call him by which you I assume you feel I am coming from a religious perspective. I have never said I was but I see if possible no excuse for not knowing the answers to both science and religion that are out there, as I think those who are strongly opposed to either may miss out on something important.There are some very intelligent folks out there chemists physicists astronauts who believe in god but that no more or less proves that he is there.
You don't need to go abroad to see the agony of how people live and die
but if this moment on earth is just a moment and eternity stretches before us maybe there is hope for those who struggle so badly now.To better times and an understanding of why they went through it.
Bitterness to the possibility only makes the pain of those suffering who you can do nothing for unbearable.It doesnt make me less want to help those I can or give me an easy cop out, I just hope its true.
I hope I am not scared of religion or science but both are tainted by mans own weaknesses, I am afraid of missing the point ..the truth its surely out there.
Yes.I am back..........a bit like mostlyharmless........i wish that I could leave this but I can't.
I am not going to get into the 'Born without sin' debate as that is a whole different thread..
But mostlyharmless, I think that you are confusing spirituality with religion. They are totally different things and I can assure you that my spirit is moved by beautiful things....as it is by the horrors that befall the human race everyday.
My reason for sharing my prayers for help was to indicate that I was not always a non-believer. I was never a strong believer and when I asked for god's help it was not for him to perform some kind of miracle and to make my 'disaster' go away, but to give me a sense of calm so that I might help others who were suffering as much if not more. He didn't answer....or at least I didn't hear him answer but I got on with life anyway and did the best I could.
I understand your point about not having to go abroad to see suffering but the street children that I referred to are such a staggering disgrace on humanity that I struggle to comprehend. There are thousands of them the world over, abandoned by their mothers, some while they are little more than babes in arms, and the little ones are manipulated, sold, whatever, by the older ones who have survived by their wits....and they are supposed to live in hope of a better life in the hereafter. I am sure that they would prefer a better life here and now.
I have no bitterness about god or believers of any faith. I don't really care what beliefs anyone has. I said "your god" because I assumed that you have a god of sorts as you never came right out and said that you didn't.....and most people do have their own concept of god. I do understand though when you made the comment that there were some who can see good in the wretchedness of some plights.
In finishing I must say that I did consider acquiring a bible and maybe getting round to reading it when I have finished my Wilbur Smith..but as Saveman has been kind enough to give me the condensed version I will have to find something else to widen my knowledge of religious matters. (Big smile........seem to have lost my 'smilies" sorry!) I do have a copy of Essential Tibetan Buddhism by Robert A E Thurman that I have glanced through a couple of times so maybe I will give that a go or there is always the Qu'ran. I am sure that it would make pretty interesting reading also.
Is the answer out there? Who knows? Perhaps the dead ....
And canuck.....you talk about me not sensing god whose creation I am looking at. Well if I don't believe in god then how can I sense him? You also make mention of WBG being an extremely creative person. By inference you judge that I am not extremely creative and I have to take exception to that. You know nothing of my creativity or lack thereof. One of my neighbours is about as creative as a leadless pencil but she is devoutly Catholic and considers me a lost cause......but a very close and creative friend! I told WBG that I was glad that he had his faith as I would tell anyone else..I do not grudge you or anyone their faith, whatever it may be, and would certainly not judge you because of it.
Wickerinca - I totally apologize for anything which I wrote which may have caused you any kind of discomfort. I was absolutely not thinking anything at all along the lines you have interpreted my words. But I can see how you may have understood them that way. I am so very, very sorry. Please don't think that I was attempting to judge anyone's faith. I am not that kind of a person. But if that is how it came across, then my words were poorly chosen. Judgement was not in my mind when I wrote them. If wickerinca is okay with it, I would like to let this now to be dropped from the discussion.
but as Saveman has been kind enough to give me the condensed version I will have to find something else to widen my knowledge of religious matters.
I didn't think Saveman had condensed it at all ;o)
Or maybe we just don't know everything.
what a sensible post!
When I see all this religion mumbo jumbo, that you lot are on about it gives me the heebeejeebies. I am glad at an early age I looked into the whole religion thing and made a concious decision to cut myself off from it, thus saving myself a lot of hassle. Just look at yourselves all at each others throats.
I have said I am an Agnostic many times before, that is my choice I dont force my opinion on anyone.
But as far as this thread is concerned I side with the scientists on this one,
see this hyperlink its is a good example of the "Big Bang Theory" and evolution of the species, if your ever in Edinburgh pay it a visit
http://www.dynamicearth.co.uk/
mostlyharmless
10-Mar-06, 22:19
religious mumbo jumbo!.....scientific mumbo jumbo????you should have started I'm not trying to be funny but......oh dear you may have put any religious person on here at your throat... except I don't think they're made that way.If people could discuss the important things here and remain relatively unscathed as they have on this thread the world may be a better place.
Your threads about summed the lets talk about the weather for 50 years theory. That is definitely it for me. Good you may say.......
This morning was interesting. I didn't have a classical god experience which one could use for a scientific proof of the existence of God because it wasn't something that is likely to be measurable or repeatable. But I had a sense that God may have been intervening to recreate a Caithnessian wet day for me. The whole Toronto area was hung with low clouds as I made my way into the city to meet rich. Yes, "rich" one of the almost originals on caithness.org. And I was going to meet him! The rain fell, not the pounding kind that we normally get here, but the gentle steady more than drizzle that so describes the Thurso weather. I couldn't help but think that it was being laid on for the observation of this meeting of orgers on a foreign soil. The coffee was good, somewhat out of character for the motherland, and the crack was great. In the hour of conversation he got to speak for about 5 minutes. I got a lesson in Gaelic pronunciation, but it still needs much work. Akin to golach's post earlier in the week, anyone listening to our conversation must have seriously raised their eyebrows over the names of our friends and aquaintances. It was great to hear the Caithnessian accent, almost uncorrupted by our Canadian drawl. It was great to talk about places that no one in my circle has experienced. It was great to connect face to face with a personality that I have known only through a computer screen. Thank you to everyone who made it possible. The rain has stopped, the sun has come out. It is a perfect day.
Speaking of Religion :) Shortly after giving birth to our son a nurse came into the labour room and asked me a couple of questions for putting on the tag they put on the babies cot ......One of them was "What Religion?" I thought eh "What do you mean what religion" she said " What religion is the baby?" by this time I was really trying hard to think about this question, I said to her "I dont know, hes only a few minutes old" she says "What religion are you then?" I said "Me!!!! Im a Protestant" :confused she said "Will I put down Protestant then?" I said "No!! my husbands a Catholic" she says "So which is it to be?" I said " Neither....... put down None, hes only just come into the world, Ill let him choose once hes old enough if he wants a religion or not" so she wrote None on his tag and of she went. Come to think of it I dont know where I got the label Protestant :o Dont need any of it all you need is yourself! [smirk]
This has been an interesting thread.
Perhaps the essence is that God's existence does not depend upon whether we believe in Him or not. Truth remains true, despite any philosophy (science, if you prefer) to the contrary.
As for my beliefs......they are simple. Help who you can, be kind to who you can, love and support your family and friends.........and love and support Mother Earth as she has to support us. I'm right there with you Crayola.Who can disagree with that?
I can think of a few. [mad]
This has been an interesting thread.
Perhaps the essence is that God's existence does not depend upon whether we believe in Him or not. Truth remains true, despite any philosophy (science, if you prefer) to the contrary.
__________________
E does not equal mc˛
Love the signature. Can you explain? :confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerinca
As for my beliefs......they are simple. Help who you can, be kind to who you can, love and support your family and friends.........and love and support Mother Earth as she has to support us. I'm right there with you Crayola.
Who can disagree with that?
I can think of a few. [mad]
Call me cynical if ye like but theres not many would disagree with the sentiments of our 2 resident witches.
All religion is based on the same concept. Science too, however destructive it can be, begins with a hope to improve the lot of mankind.
One of the problems as I see with all this gush about love and hope is, it usually ignores something much deeper happening in the depths of our very souls, if there is such a thing as a soul.
The biblical concept of sin is an example of how religion represses some of mankinds more natural instincts and creates guilt in place of fulfillment of these instincts. Celibacy in the Catholic church and the actions of many of its priests towards young boys may explain more clearly how I see it.
I dont know if I am able to love unconditionally. If, say, I try to be compassionite towards someone whose views are in direct opposition to my own, in accepting that person and their views (the 2 canna be seperated contrary to what many religious people like to suggest) I turn the aggression I feel back onto myself. Its called retroflection and is a common human mechanism, and at the root of much of the anxiety modern man and women feel.
I make no apology for being into the religion of scientism and its holy book of science. The wonderful thing about science is, like me, it is always in a process of change.
Heres something that influenced me many years ago and if anyone wants its source feel free to pm me. Its from my holy book and in my opinion it defines the nature of belief.
Without aggressive intellectual examination, individual functioning is coloured by unexamined biases, beliefs, metaphysical assumptions, linguistic usages, introjected modes of thinking and so forth. We stand on those assumptions, they permeate our contact and awareness processes, they determine and shape our thinking, feeling, perceptions and actions.
Im off to Inverness now, weather permitting, its snowing here. May your Gods bless you.
Love the signature. Can you explain? :confused:
Certainly. Which bit do you not understand?
Yvonne, maybe you can tell us in the context of your signature:
1. What E represents?
2. What m represents?
3. What c represents?
If they are the standard, accepted Scientific symbols/notification then:
E = Energy
m =Mass
c = speed of light (in empty space)
Which when put together in Einstein’s theory of relativity i.e. E = mc2, do you disagree with this? Or are you talking about another equation? If you disagree I would be very interested in the logic behind your disagreement, as to the best of my knowledge no test has ever given cause to doubt this……….yet.
I can see another long and interesting thread developing out of this.....
:Razz
Yvonne, maybe you can tell us in the context of your signature:
1. What E represents?
2. What m represents?
3. What c represents?
If they are the standard, accepted Scientific symbols/notification then:
E = Energy
m =Mass
c = speed of light (in empty space)
Which when put together in Einstein’s theory of relativity i.e. E = mc2, do you disagree with this? Or are you talking about another equation? If you disagree I would be very interested in the logic behind your disagreement, as to the best of my knowledge no test has ever given cause to doubt this……….yet.
scotsboy,
These associations are correct, except m is "rest" mass.
The part of Einstein's "equation" that I do not think is correct is that it is not an "equation" but an approximation.
Yvonne.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/BigPictures/Einstein_12.jpeg (javascript:enlarge('Einstein_12.jpeg'))
Please dont tell me the hairy mans wrong. Next your gonna tell me that it wasnt possible for a pig to love a frog. So who else was watching the Muppet tribute?
scotsboy,
These associations are correct, except m is "rest" mass.
The part of Einstein's "equation" that I do not think is correct is that it is not an "equation" but an approximation.
Yvonne.
Did the yield of the atomic bomb tests not prove that the equation was more than an approximation?
Did the yield of the atomic bomb tests not prove that the equation was more than an approximation?
I think that the tests and usage of these things prove man's inhumanity to man more than the famous equation.
I think that the tests and usage of these things prove man's inhumanity to man more than the famous equation.
I would agree with you on that point. Maybe it proves both.
I thought Wicca was the old religion.Yes it is but Wiccan and its like are becoming popular again. Look at the religion poll and see for yourself.
Wicca doesn't have any problems with science. I'm not saying that others necessarily do have problems because it's all in the interpretation, but Wiccans just appreciate Mother Earth and all who fly in Her. We pre-date Gaia but the ideas are much the same.
Certainly. Which bit do you not understand?
__________________
E does not equal mc˛
The "not" bit. :confused:
scotsboy,
These associations are correct, except m is "rest" mass.
The part of Einstein's "equation" that I do not think is correct is that it is not an "equation" but an approximation.
Yvonne.Oops, didn't see this reply before posting my last one.
Why do you think E = mc˛ is an approximation?
I like the idea of mass having a rest. Does it do this when it gets tired? :lol:
wickerinca
12-Mar-06, 03:27
Or maybe we just don't know everything.
I would think that was fairly obvious...or we wouldn't be having these debates
wickerinca
12-Mar-06, 03:32
Wickerinca - I totally apologize for anything which I wrote which may have caused you any kind of discomfort. I was absolutely not thinking anything at all along the lines you have interpreted my words. But I can see how you may have understood them that way. I am so very, very sorry. Please don't think that I was attempting to judge anyone's faith. I am not that kind of a person. But if that is how it came across, then my words were poorly chosen. Judgement was not in my mind when I wrote them. If wickerinca is okay with it, I would like to let this now to be dropped from the discussion.
I was perhaps being oversensitive canuck......a jjc moment!...you still need to explain how the A & E story got onto paper though (Big Laugh......still can't find the smilies.......has someone stole them?)
yes it is but Wiccan and it's like are becoming popular again. Look at the religion poll and see for yourself.
You still can't call it "The New Religion" when it is "The Old Religion", you could get reported onder the Trade Descriptions Act.
How about "The Recycled Religion" or even the "Born Again Religion".
yes it is but Wiccan and it's like are becoming popular again. Look at the religion poll and see for yourself.
Oh your a Cunning Woman Crayola, but looking at your religion poll at this moment your figures dont tally i.e 23 Atheists, 21 Christians and only 7 Wiccans, so that shows that most of the voters dont care about religion one way or another and especially not one of the more oddball ones such as yours, but do keep stirring your cauldron [lol]
what it would have been like if Mary had given birth to a girl instead of a boy?
Maybe something like the following;
And the Lord said:
I shall send my child to earth
to be a teacher and a comforter
and my child shall have wisdom
and shall love and nurture and save the children of men.
So shall it be, said the Lord.
And down came the Holy Spirit
and a virgin bore a daughter
who was the daughter of God.
A girl? people said.
Better luck next time.
And the child grew and ran about in Galilee
and told her cousins stories about God. For a while.
Bring in the goats!
Mix the porridge! Sew on that sandal strap!
What's the matter with you? people said.
And the day of her womanhood came upon her
and she rejoiced. Life ahead,
and her family rejoiced –
soon she'd be off their hands.
But I want to put people right about God, she said.
Nobody likes a lippy girl, they replied.
The spirit of the Lord is upon me, she said.
You're odd enough already, her family said,
don't you want a husband or what?
as they beat her
and married her off rather quickly
to a nice young fellow with his own flock of goats
so that was all right.
And she lay with her husband, of course.
And she bore him a son so everybody was pleased
and a daughter, well, can't be helped
and two more sons and another daughter,
and another son
(not counting those who died)
the spirit of the Lord on a back burner
for fifteen years and more.
Wouldn't have been without them. Heavens, no.
And when the children were grown
she said to her husband:
The spirit of the Lord is upon me.
Who's going to make my supper?
her husband enquired.
He didn't beat her. Didn't need to
begot another son instead, who died.
So she went to milk the goats
and make the porridge
and the Lord came to her in the tent.
Why don't you begin your mission, my daughter,
said the Lord, rise and go about Galilee
with twelve disciples
as my spirit may command?
I have tried, you know,
said the daughter of God.
And the Lord looked at her, at her stretch-marks,
her dishpan hands, the snaggly teeth
the place where the goat bit her
and he knew that it was so.
They are a stiff-necked people,
the children of men, said the Lord.
That's one way of putting it,
said the daughter of God.
And the Lord sighed.
You are an idea, my daughter, said the Lord,
whose time has not yet come.
A thousand years from now
still no chance.
Two thousand years? Not really.
How are you on flower-arranging? said the Lord.
It's never been my forte,
said the daughter of God.
And being weary she closed her eyes
and was gathered to Abraham's bosom,
or Sarah's bosom, perhaps, let's hope,
a bit more empathy there.
I think I'll try again next year,
said the Lord,
but this time I'll make it a boy.
And it was even so.
And the Lord said:
I shall send my child to earth
to be a teacher and a comforter
and my child shall have wisdom
and shall love and nurture and save the children of men.
So shall it be, said the Lord. You forgot to credit Moira Burgess for her work.
scotsboy,
These associations are correct, except m is "rest" mass.
The part of Einstein's "equation" that I do not think is correct is that it is not an "equation" but an approximation.
Yvonne.
Yvonne are you saying that what our children are being taught in school is incorrect and if so what qualifies you to make such a statement or is this your own interpretation??
Crayola, it's a truncation of a binomial series.
Yvonne.
Yvonne are you saying that what our children are being taught in school is incorrect and if so what qualifies you to make such a statement or is this your own interpretation??
Are you saying that your children are being taught relativity in school? If so, to what level?
I would have thought that they should be taught things like spelling and grammar in school.
By the way, Genesis has an e in the middle, not an i.
Have a nice day, "genisis".
Crayola, it's a truncation of a binomial series.
Yvonne.What is "it"? Is it painful? :confused:
Well my nephew and niece and my own children were all taught about relativity at school as well as grammar and spelling but I fail to see what this has to do with the question I asked. If it offends you to answer a straight question with a straight answer then I apologise!
As for the spelling of genisis it is spelt the right way for what I am named after!
and I assume you must be living in a different time zone to the rest of caithness because I would have thought it was evening at the time you posted your message to me, again if I am incorrect I apologise! But I thank you for the sentiment all the same!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.