Huge!

[debussy symbolism]

I would rather spend some time here involved in an intelligent(if somewhat) discussion, rather than post mindless associated words in the association thread.

Best.

[jas]

As serious this thread may seem, there is no reason the malign others Phil. In any case, no one is forcing you to look at this thread. No one is forcing you to not restrict yourself to only the association thread. If you indeed "not give a (censored)", then why post in this thread at all. You could just ignore it. Unless, you do in fact give that (censored) and are interested in the outcome or the thread in general.

I think his point is that he shouldn't have to not look at this thread. This thread isn't supposed to be about religion, and neither are most of the others that have been taken over by pointless, repetitive religious debates. Most us not involved in this endless bickering (ie. pretty much everyone but pianistimo, prometheus and debussy symbolism) are getting totally fed up with it. Take it elsewhere and stop hijacking unrelated threads.

[pianistimo]

ok.  we'll take it back to the original galaxies found far far away.  somewhere, in space...there are   what are there?  musicians.  a planet entirely of musicians.

[jas]

a planet entirely of musicians.

Sounds like a scary place.

[Derek]

But interpreting the bible either literal or allegorical as you see fit has all kinds of problems. Furthermore, if Genesis didn't happen than Christ died for nothing, which did happen according to you?

Fact is that by taking a stance like this you still betray reason. But you betray faith as well. I don't understand it.

And if you think the OT is a myth then how can you believe in a biblical God?

Also, the NT is clearly a story containing themes that are commen to myth, even if it is based on actual historical events. You yourself say it contains miracles. Those miracles aren't historical, they are mythological.

Recognising old stories are pure fictional mythology, legend, or historic fact based on a text alone is impossible. If Jewis claimed to have this magical ability then what did he say about other ancient texts? Illiad for example...

Also, can a modern person understand an allegorical story written by someone living in the bronze age? I think one cannot because one does not understand the cultural references and bases of the story. A scholar can. But even these people disagree, meaning some of them are wrong.

As for a modern religious person. This person will not only lack their cultural frame. They will also be biased towards their own dogmas.

I can't see how ancient texts can have any religious function.

What you seem to be doing is projecting a scientific point of view on a topic which cannot be scientific.  When people write down parables or stories or legends in a book in a pre scientific age, their concern is not with factual truth but rather with intuitive truth.  religion is all about how we as humans relate to the universe in a very personal, spiritual way. It has nothing to do with atoms and matter and so forth, though religions do often mention we are made out of those things. (it's like...duh, of course we are).     One does not abandon reason by considering carefully what truths are actually revealed in a religious text such as the Bible.  One abandons reason by taking a black and white, either/or attitude towards it such as yourself and others on this website.  Your method is a cop-out, a dismissal of any endeavors made by C.S. Lewis or like minded individuals to reasonably discuss what truths the bible reveals.

The truth is, there is scientific research, and then there is religious thought and theology.  We cannot scientifically analyze something which does not produce any sort of physical evidence. Therefore, the existence of anything which does not produce physical evidence (such as God, or souls, or anything else super-natural)  cannot be proven nor disproven by science.   The only method left to us to find out the nature of these super natural things is religion (or some sort of spritual mysticism---obviously organized religion is not neccessary for this pursuit).  Some people, such as Lewis, begin with an assumption that we have a soul, and that this super natural element of our own minds is what allows us to learn about God and the spirit world in general.
I should add that this assumption is not taken for granted---in Miracles, C.S. Lewis discusses at lengh even a plausible scientific "vulnerability" in the very matter we are made out of which makes the idea of a super natural force altering our physical behavior/thoughts etc.  plausible.  Your way of thinking is very Newtonian.  Cause and effect. Either/or. Black and white.    You should move into the relativity/quantum mechanics age---there is more room for the spirit world in science today than in the Newtonian past.

[phil13]

I think his point is that he shouldn't have to not look at this thread. This thread isn't supposed to be about religion, and neither are most of the others that have been taken over by pointless, repetitive religious debates. Most us not involved in this endless bickering (ie. pretty much everyone but pianistimo, prometheus and debussy symbolism) are getting totally fed up with it. Take it elsewhere and stop hijacking unrelated threads.

Yes. Precisely my thoughts.

Thank you for clearing that up. 

Phil

[debussy symbolism]

How should I put this? Oh well, you guys are boring. Just when you thought you could have a discussion someone will always show their annoyance. Kind of like in life, which may be ironic. If you want to think that this is annoying, why don't you check out the association thread. Its been going on for nearly 100 pages now. Have I complained once?

[debussy symbolism]

Ooh, just when I mentioned the word "ironic" did I really notice just how ironic this is. I have just stumbled upon the "thread about nothing", and to me, this is quite an insult. You can post the most worthless of things on multiple threads, and the nothing thread has already over 60 posts, mind you, but you tell to stop the discussion here? What is this? I find this somewhat offense, even though downright funny, but will plan on resuming the conversation unless someone finds a good excuse.

Best.

[sissco]

Riiight...To be honest I have'nt read all of this and I don't speak english that well to understand it, but isn't this one of the reasons that this earth and all his people are going maddd! crazy! People are arguing, discussing, making war! because that one believes in God, and that one in Allah and...what! We are all in this huge universe on this tiny little stone killing eathother because nobody knows why we are here.   

Oh by the way, I think science can explain everything. Theory of evolution, the fact that scientists say that there was ice in that time explains why Jezus walked "over" water etc. But that is just my little opinion of course. Why the *** are we here  But on-topic: it is just pretty d'a'm'n beautifull

Edit: I don't even understand my own post, sorry for my english dear friends. Good night

[prometheus]

What you seem to be doing is projecting a scientific point of view on a topic which cannot be scientific.

THat's largely because of what you said. You said that religion can answer things science can not. And then when I ask you to give an example you claim that I am projecting a scientific point of view?

When people write down parables or stories or legends in a book in a pre scientific age, their concern is not with factual truth but rather with intuitive truth.

Acient people really believed in many of the myths they put forth. I am sure in Jesus time everyone thought that that described in Gen1-2 really happened. Really, critical thinking, even when biased against modern ideas, is something new.

...religion is all about how we as humans relate to the universe in a very personal, spiritual way. It has nothing to do with atoms and matter and so forth, though religions do often mention we are made out of those things. (it's like...duh, of course we are).

Religious people that accept the existance of what science calls atoms accept this not because of religion but because of science. And often in spite of religion.
Before science make these discoveries no one believed them. Religion does not mention atoms or molecules, obviously.

So you are saying that religion does not concern truth and vice versa?

From my point of view philosophy deals with how humans relate to the universe and other questions outside of science. While religion may express ideas on this it is not about this. If you are correct then what is the difference between religion and philosophy?

One does not abandon reason by considering carefully what truths are actually revealed in a religious text such as the Bible.

I think the view that bronze age myth, written down by people considered highly immoral by our standards, doesn't really have anything to tell us or to teach us is quite a rational and careful consideration of religious text. You are making a straw man saying that those who do not find anything worthwile in the bible can't have considered what is in it carefully enough.

My point is quite clear. Maybe science and religion oppose each other. I think they often do but that they don't have to by definition. But I do think that reason and belief/faith contradict each other. If you are religious this can only be because you abandon reason.  And if you abandon orthodox religion because it is too irreasonable but when you stay a believer you clearly abandon both faith and reason.

I don't think people have to be reasonable per se. I probably have quite some irrational faith and belief in my friends. But you need to accept this as irrational.

One abandons reason by taking a black and white, either/or attitude towards it such as yourself and others on this website.

I don't think so. I may have questioned that what you have said. But I don't oppose it per se. I am critical, yes. But I am also willing to hear your answers though I must say you did dissapoint me a little in discussing my questions.
As you have seen I do not discuss with someone like Pianistimo. I only point out their disinformation or their lies. Or in the case of Pianistimo probably honest misunderstandings.

Your method is a cop-out, a dismissal of any endeavors made by C.S. Lewis or like minded individuals to reasonably discuss what truths the bible reveals.

So what truths does the bible reveal? You claimed before that religion can answer questions. I asked which ones. But you didn't answer that point. Sure, the bible can tell us something about what kind society the writers lived in. And though that we can understand human nature. But the relation of humans with the universe? As far as the people of the bible is concerned the earth was flat, there were waters underneath and above was a firmamentt seperating earth from heaven. And the stars were little holes in this firmament. Really, these people had no conception at all of the universe.

The truth is, there is scientific research, and then there is religious thought and theology.  We cannot scientifically analyze something which does not produce any sort of physical evidence. Therefore, the existence of anything which does not produce physical evidence (such as God, or souls, or anything else super-natural)  cannot be proven nor disproven by science.

So because of this you also can't answer my questions?

Also, you misunderstand something. If you can't prove or disprove something because of a lack of evidence then it just does not exist. Or we have to assume it does not exist.

The only method left to us to find out the nature of these super natural things is religion (or some sort of spritual mysticism---obviously organized religion is not neccessary for this pursuit).

I agree that science can't tell us anything about the super-natural, even if it would exist. But what can religion teach us? Doesn't it just say that we have to believe? I mean, if religion could really tell us about the supernatural and answer questions about things outside science then it wouldn't require faith, right? And then it wouldn't be religion.

Some people, such as Lewis, begin with an assumption that we have a soul, and that this super natural element of our own minds is what allows us to learn about God and the spirit world in general.
I should add that this assumption is not taken for granted---in Miracles, C.S. Lewis discusses at lengh even a plausible scientific "vulnerability" in the very matter we are made out of which makes the idea of a super natural force altering our physical behavior/thoughts etc.  plausible.

If a supernatural force alters the physical then wouldn't that leave behind physical evidence? I don't see how a supernatural can exist, not generate physical evidence while being relevant. Either the supernatural should produce evidence. Or it is outside our reality which makes the question of its exiistence or not irrelevant.

Your way of thinking is very Newtonian.  Cause and effect. Either/or. Black and white.    You should move into the relativity/quantum mechanics age---there is more room for the spirit world in science today than in the Newtonian past.

I think this is a gross misunderstanding. Modern physics may allow about every 'miracle' and act of 'magic' you can come up with, but only under very special circumstances, but it does not give more room to religion. On the contrary. I don't see how you can say this. I also don't see how you can say I think newtonian. Surely no one can think in terms of quantum mechanics.
You are implying I misunderstand modern physics. I don't. I may know very little compared to a actual physicist and my understanding may be shallow. But I have been careful enough to make sure that that what I understand I understand properly.

New Age thinkers have been trying to hjiack quantum mechanics for all kinds of things. Maybe some theists have done the same. But this is just wrong. Both in terms of if it is true or not and in terms of ethics.


As for being religious and being honest at the same time. I think one should just make up your own religion or set of beliefs. And either make sure that you keep all of them inside the supposed supernatural or you apply double think.
This way you can use religion especually for the way it wants to be used and it solves all problems of religion I have except that it is not reasonable. But I said before I don't have that big a problem with that. As long as you are honest about it.

[debussy symbolism]

What you seem to be doing is projecting a scientific point of view on a topic which cannot be scientific.  When people write down parables or stories or legends in a book in a pre scientific age, their concern is not with factual truth but rather with intuitive truth.  religion is all about how we as humans relate to the universe in a very personal, spiritual way. It has nothing to do with atoms and matter and so forth, though religions do often mention we are made out of those things. (it's like...duh, of course we are).     One does not abandon reason by considering carefully what truths are actually revealed in a religious text such as the Bible.  One abandons reason by taking a black and white, either/or attitude towards it such as yourself and others on this website.  Your method is a cop-out, a dismissal of any endeavors made by C.S. Lewis or like minded individuals to reasonably discuss what truths the bible reveals.

The truth is, there is scientific research, and then there is religious thought and theology.  We cannot scientifically analyze something which does not produce any sort of physical evidence. Therefore, the existence of anything which does not produce physical evidence (such as God, or souls, or anything else super-natural)  cannot be proven nor disproven by science.   The only method left to us to find out the nature of these super natural things is religion (or some sort of spritual mysticism---obviously organized religion is not neccessary for this pursuit).  Some people, such as Lewis, begin with an assumption that we have a soul, and that this super natural element of our own minds is what allows us to learn about God and the spirit world in general.

Not such a while ago we didn't even understand the secrets of gravity. Cave men didn't understand fire, similarly. By assuming that science has no way of tracking down the supernatural is not logical, because science may eventually come up with more information about such matters, and possibly, get solid evidence.

[debussy symbolism]

Should religion be true to it's word, then nothing in it should change. The Bible has undergone many many changes in the text due to an advancing society. Should it be indeed the ultimate word, it wouldn't change due to an increase in knowledge. With more and more discoveries made, and more and more reason behind the holy, the Bible will have no other choice but to change so that it doesn't lose its purpose of holding believers, an act that most churches would happily embrace.

[pianistimo]

dear prometheus,

i see where you are coming from, and i hope you'll excuse my calling you 'my dear.'  you are not unrational to others, just as you and they might hope to find me faithful to my beliefs which are based upon faith.  as i see it, when Christ performed miracles, he was hoping that many WOULD believe because HE (and ONLY HE could perform such miraculous things).  his disciples were given this gift of the Holy Spirit to cast out demons and to heal people - but not the extent of miracles that Christ did.  (changing water to wine, raising lazarus, etc.).
now, i can see how, to a reasoning scientific mind, how this would seem a myth.  but, if you are open to the idea that there is more to our minds than just understanding our physical universe - you would see that LOVE is the essence of living.  and, if God IS love, then all of his acts will represent a totality of a loving Father to his children.

the wedding party ran out of wine.  He had the solution.  and, his mother knew it.  she was full of faith.  why bother going to the local wine seller when Christ could just instantly make some more.  i don't think that her motivation was simply to tell him they ran out.  she had seen enough of His power as a child.

now, scientific people readily believe sometimes in the supernatural powers of various scientists such as tesla.  to be able to discover such things as galileo, newton, einstein, etc. makes  people think that some people are given a GIFT of knowledge or learn very quickly how to use knowledge in a way that seems mystifying at first to the average person (how a person would obtain this understanding).  i do not doubt that many previous civilizations were far more advanced than we give them credit for.

but, one thing noone can do is raise someone from the dead.  let alone be an atoning sacrifice to our God for our sins (taking our place).  there is no scientist that can save you now or later after death.  that is why christians make it a point to at least tell people the choice they have now, while they are living.  it is a choice to love.  God IS love.  love was and is expressed in all His actions.  science is knowledge.  we can use it for Good or Evil - but love surpassed knowledge.  just as it says in I corinthians - the greatest of these is love.

if mere thought were enough - thousands of years of ancient chinese civilization would have continued down to today uninterrupted.  but, mao tse tung realized after the people's revolution that they wanted more than wisdom.  they wanted freedom and the ability to express love to society and family in a more PERSONAL way.  this is Christ's way.  to deal with us one on one.  personally.  HE doesn't restrict access - or kill millions for disagreeing with 'company policy.'  in fact, he has allowed many thousands of years to go by with people doing their own thing! 

but, He is a judge as well.  and, when He considers 'time up'  - according to the bible 'time is up.'  He warns us to be ready for his coming because His return will be like a thief int he night.  He wants us to have  track record of loving people and caring about society and our communities.  not to hole up and only do scientific things - but to also research how to make an impact on someone's life, or someone's mental outlook.  to cheer them up.  to do something for someone else.  this is outward thinking instead of inward.  that is what Christ came to be a light to us - to follow.  to be willing to bend - and yet to hold to values that are Godly.  what i mean by bend - is not to be harsh or unwilling to see another's point of view.  but, as the disciples did - to gently nudge  people in the direction of their Savior's light to experience the joy and happiness of not having sin reign over one's life.  you have no more guilt or shame - and also, you have a way to express yourself directly to God - when you obtain the gift of the Holy Spirit.  it talks for you - and explains in God's language, to Him, exactly what you are feeling and sends back exactly what you need.  sort of like an e-mail.

[debussy symbolism]

Pianistimo, should the Bible have said that Christ turned water into glue, would you take that for granted as well. Perform miracles? I will ask you once again to prove it. You have no literal proof. You are basing your opinions on merely what others pass down to you. Sure, it may have happened, but the probability of that is very low, and by providing no literal information or fact, the chances that Christ really did perform miracles is unlikely. Should he indeed have once roamed the land, wouldn't you think that he would do it again? I am sure you have read that Jesus would defeat the Antichist after his rule. I am also sure you have read about the "great rapture". According to the text, correct me if I am wrong, the rapture should have already taken place, and all devotees would be deported from the misery of this planet. As far as we know, you are still posting, and in big quantities. What happened? Does Jesus not like to be recorded as a fact, and only preferring to appear to those that wouldn't have the capacity to set the period in fact? That wouldn't be so helpful to him if he wants people to know of His existence.

[pianistimo]

dear debussy symbolism,

i believe that the bible speaks for itself.  if every word of God is true - and given for reproof, for doctrine, and for instruction in righteousness - who are WE to change God's own words.  translations are one thing - changing the words to fit our own ideas is another.  we cannot put words into God's mouth.  in fact, there is a curse mentioned in revelations if anyone changes the words written in the book.  i believe the apostle John didn't realize at the time that it was not just the book of revelations that the curse covered - but the entire bible.  Christ said 'not one jot or title - until all is fulfilled.'  if He said that - and HE is the author of the inspiration of each person that contributed to the Word - and probably (very probably) inspired the publishing of the exact books He wanted in it - then we have today the gospel in it's entirety as defined by what has been given to us divinely.

the discovery of the dead sea scrolls has lended credence to the gospels that were extant (and their accuracy) in Christ's OWN day.  and, they are available at the library of congress (online) to view.  all the gospels speak of the ressurrection, the descent to hell to overcome and take the crown of rulership and ascention to God the Father in heaven, and also, the fact that He is now currently at the right hand of God awaiting the time that He can usher us into a kingdom of His creation (just as this one was created).  perhaps better called a 'recreation.'  i say 'recreation' because the prophets spoke of the earth as it is.  about rain.  about the animals being at peace.  about swords turning to plowshares and spears to pruning hooks.  and that nation would not lift up sword against nation ANY more. 

this gospel of the millineal rule (and return of Christ to THIS EARTH) is hidden in many doctrines of 'heaven.'  we are told we will somehow fly to heaven and be with God.  this is not true according to teh bible.  We will be CHANGED.  in a moment.  in a twinkling of an eye.  at the LAST trumpet.  and, when that happens.  there will be a change of government on this earth.  as i understand it - we will be helping create peace instead of war.  this is a good cause, to me.  and, like Christ, we will be able to appear and help others who are still living and haven't been 'called yet' or fulfilled their entire lives - or even heard ABOUT God.  we will be able to show them what it means to worship in sincerity and truth.  it is about believing that God CAN do anything.  and, His first goal is to teach others how to get along.  like parents want their children to get along.  we are all part of one huge family.

[mike_lang]

dear debussy symbolism,

i believe that the bible speaks for itself.  if every word of God is true - and given for reproof, for doctrine, and for instruction in righteousness - who are WE to change God's own words.  translations are one thing - changing the words to fit our own ideas is another.  we cannot put words into God's mouth.  in fact, there is a curse mentioned in revelations if anyone changes the words written in the book.  i believe the apostle John didn't realize at the time that it was not just the book of revelations that the curse covered - but the entire bible.  Christ said 'not one jot or title - until all is fulfilled.'  if He said that - and HE is the author of the inspiration of each person that contributed to the Word - and probably (very probably) inspired the publishing of the exact books He wanted in it - then we have today the gospel in it's entirety as defined by what has been given to us divinely.

the discovery of the dead sea scrolls has lended credence to the gospels that were extant (and their accuracy) in Christ's OWN day.  and, they are available at the library of congress (online) to view.  all the gospels speak of the ressurrection, the descent to hell to overcome and take the crown of rulership and ascention to God the Father in heaven, and also, the fact that He is now currently at the right hand of God awaiting the time that He can usher us into a kingdom of His creation (just as this one was created).  perhaps better called a 'recreation.'  i say 'recreation' because the prophets spoke of the earth as it is.  about rain.  about the animals being at peace.  about swords turning to plowshares and spears to pruning hooks.  and that nation would not lift up sword against nation ANY more. 

this gospel of the millineal rule (and return of Christ to THIS EARTH) is hidden in many doctrines of 'heaven.'  we are told we will somehow fly to heaven and be with God.  this is not true according to teh bible.  We will be CHANGED.  in a moment.  in a twinkling of an eye.  at the LAST trumpet.  and, when that happens.  there will be a change of government on this earth.  as i understand it - we will be helping create peace instead of war.  this is a good cause, to me.  and, like Christ, we will be able to appear and help others who are still living and haven't been 'called yet' or fulfilled their entire lives - or even heard ABOUT God.  we will be able to show them what it means to worship in sincerity and truth.  it is about believing that God CAN do anything.  and, His first goal is to teach others how to get along.  like parents want their children to get along.  we are all part of one huge family.

Thanks be to God for your incredible amount of patience.

M

[debussy symbolism]

On what account do you believe that to be true? You are insofar reciting ideas presented by many men before you. Children also believe in Santa Claus as well, until they find out that he doesn't exist due to no Santa Claus actually appearing. This is a very similar case, with you reciting previously accepted and contorted thoughts. The Church doesn't ammend the text? I find that very hard to believe. You seem to state your beliefi that the Bible isn't of spurious origin on the fact that the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered. Okay, so what? Does that mean that whatever they say is true? Does that mean that God is the unltimate author of the text? Even if divinity was at hand in creating the text, wouldn't the endless emendations in it contradict His word about not lying? Should the text stay true to itself as a divine word, all of its contents should have come into being, such as the Rapture I mentioned earlier. Did it happen? That either means that the Bible is of false content, or somehow contorted.

[pianistimo]

i have no idea if the shroud of turin is accurate or not - but from pbs documentaries - it would seem that the blood is accurately in the right places (hands and feet) and that it was of a cloth that was used then, and also a sort of x-ray of the face of God appeared on it as well as the imprint of the thorns.  now, i have no idea if helene (was it constantine's wife) obtained the real thing or a forgery - but it surely seems that if one was to believe something - one  would look at history and wonder WHY did people seek relics?  relics of the cross, relics of the places of worship, relics of this and that.  why, if people thought this was bogus, did they ALL THROUGH HISTORY, either try to prove or disprove the existence o f Christ and his miracles and more importantly 'the gospel' which was passed on both orally and inscribed into books.  and, why were christians persecuted all down through the ages - if it didn't matter.  obviously, it matters to governments.  take the roman government.  immediately after Christ died - they had the tomb surrounded by guards.  why?  if they really thought HE was just a man -they would have dumped him.  something about Him (and this is also recorded by josephus - a historian of a shorter later age who talked to some of the disciples directly) that was DIFFERENT.  that was HOLY. and that was MIRACULOUS. 

you are right, in that we cannot show someone an atom OR God.  so why are science and the bible opposing.  i say that if God is an energy that we cannot see yet - why is it opposing science?  God made many things unvisible to the human eye.  do they not exist?  we see their cause and effect.

[mike_lang]

On what account do you believe that to be true? You are insofar reciting ideas presented by many men before you. Children also believe in Santa Claus as well, until they find out that he doesn't exist due to no Santa Claus actually appearing. This is a very similar case, with you reciting previously accepted and contorted thoughts. The Church doesn't ammend the text? I find that very hard to believe. You seem to state your beliefi that the Bible isn't of spurious origin on the fact that the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered. Okay, so what? Does that mean that whatever they say is true? Does that mean that God is the unltimate author of the text? Even if divinity was at hand in creating the text, wouldn't the endless emendations in it contradict His word about not lying? Should the text stay true to itself as a divine word, all of its contents should have come into being, such as the Rapture I mentioned earlier. Did it happen? That either means that the Bible is of false content, or somehow contorted.

You and your piano must lead a very sad life...

[debussy symbolism]

Pianistimo, if I were you, I would present the proof of divinity, such as the unexplained bleedings in accordance to Christs wounds, formations of angels in the clouds, etc. That is your evidence.

The notion that God sees everything that humans cannot see is contradictory to reality, because the microscope can also see that what we cannot see with a naked eye. So you are looking into something that has access to minute detail of the world. You are looking at the laws of science and the conscious.

[debussy symbolism]

You and your piano must lead a very sad life...

If "sad" is a synonym for curious, then you are right.

[mike_lang]

If "sad" is a synonym for curious, then you are right.

Yes.

[debussy symbolism]

Yes.

Sorry to straw off topic, but is yours supposed to be an insult?

[mike_lang]

you are right, in that we cannot show someone an atom OR God.  so why are science and the bible opposing.  i say that if God is an energy that we cannot see yet - why is it opposing science?  God made many things unvisible to the human eye.  do they not exist?  we see their cause and effect.

That's right - how can science, the study of the finite, and the bible, which concerns the infinite, conflict?  They do not deal in the same sector of reality.  And to those evolutionists who say that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive, I say, what Prime Mover initiated the process of evolution?

[debussy symbolism]

To support my proof, I will mention here that many many civilizations, some ancient, have written(or carved, if you will) down evidence of spaceship like objects visiting earth. I know that this idea may not be very plausible, is somewhat silly, but there is a chance that Earch was a host for many advanced civilizations that may appeared to people as Gods, or somehow divine.

This is one of the theories of course.

[debussy symbolism]

That's right - how can science, the study of the finite, and the bible, which concerns the infinite, conflict?  They do not deal in the same sector of reality.  And to those evolutionists who say that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive, I say, what Prime Mover initiated the process of evolution?

A need for survival. That is also a part of consciousness and hence very adaptive. A better question would be 'how was consciousness created', because today scientists cannot locate the source of consciousness, but nevertheless, it is there. Perhaps the consciousness is infact what we refer to as "soul".

[mike_lang]

Perhaps the consciousness is infact what we refer to as "soul".

This is close - the [spiritual] soul comprises a will and an intellect, and this is what is spoken of when it is said that man was created in God's image.

[debussy symbolism]

Will and intellect are two very different things. Are dogs on the same level of consciousness as we are? Are insects? To say that conscience depends on the intellect would imply that the bigger the brain, the more conscious we are. That greatly contradicts many religious beliefs, namely Buddhist. That would also mean that we could rule out any sort of ethics. Should a different civilization that is significantly "smarter" than us exist have a higher level of consciousness. That doesn't make sense because consciousness is a trait that everyone possesses despite their current state. Scientists tried to locate consciousness in the brain, but couldn't. Even if you are in an "unconscious" state, you are still conscious.

[debussy symbolism]

Actually, it is more likely that man created God's image.

[mike_lang]

Actually, it is more likely that man created God's image.

On what grounds?

[debussy symbolism]

On Earth's ground. We have more evidence that mankind has created God, and have no evidence that God has created mankind.

[mike_lang]

Will and intellect are two very different things.

Yes, they are...the will is to be subordinate to the intellect.  Nevertheless, conscience does not relate to the size of the brain, as it is a function of the spiritual soul.

[mike_lang]

On Earth's ground. We have more evidence that mankind has created God, and have no evidence that God has created mankind.

There is a tome of which Pianistimo frequently speaks that you might be keen to page through.

[prometheus]

That's right - how can science, the study of the finite, and the bible, which concerns the infinite, conflict?  They do not deal in the same sector of reality.  And to those evolutionists who say that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive, I say, what Prime Mover initiated the process of evolution?

That's not the point. The bible is clearly not an account about what happened. Evolutionists don't say there can't be creation and evolution. Actually, most creationists believe in creation plus evolution anyway.
The point is that the bible is the sole source for creationism. There is no evidence at all. So if the bible is wrong then this creationism even loses the basis of faith. No one would believe in creationism if it wasn't for the book of genesis.

As for creation in science and abiogenesis. There is no hard evidence that some supernatural force created something. Also, a supernatural force would require extraordinary evidence to sound probble.

As for a comet bringing cellular life to earth, that is a lot more probable because it has much less assumptions. But this also doesn't have evidence that really backs it up. In fact none of the abiogenesis theories have. We know complex biochemical molecules like amino acids can automatically form. But that doesn't equal life.

What we do know is that at some point there was life and then it evolved.

[jre58591]

what ever happened to the original discussion about the universe being very big? i think we REALLY ought to start a child board dedicated to religion for boring, long-winded, religious, off-topic conversations like this. some people might actually want to discuss trhe website that sissco linked us to.

[phil13]

i think we REALLY ought to start a child board dedicated to religion for boring, long-winded, religious, off-topic conversations like this.

Maybe I should ask Nils nicely this time for one. 

Phil

[debussy symbolism]

what ever happened to the original discussion about the universe being very big? i think we REALLY ought to start a child board dedicated to religion for boring, long-winded, religious, off-topic conversations like this. some people might actually want to discuss trhe website that sissco linked us to.

What's there to discuss about? Yes, there are many galaxies, and hence forth many stars and planets. How much more can you say?

No, I do not think that a sub-board dedicated for religion is worthy. My explanation for this is in the piano website.

Hope this helps.

[jre58591]

What's there to discuss about? Yes, there are many galaxies, and hence forth many stars and planets. How much more can you say?

well, if there isnt much to say about it, this thread should have died a long time ago. if you or any one else had wanted to go off on a tangent like this, a new thread should have been created.

[debussy symbolism]

Yes, but then that would be just another religious discussion thread with no energy behind it. This debate was a result of the poster's thread concerning the magnificence and vastness of space. If this thread would have died off anyway, why not continue it?

[phil13]

Debussy, in a PM you asked me to use my anger toward participating in this religious discussion. For purposes of showing all of you why I am so angry, this is my response, and I quote:

The problem with participating, DS, is that I lack the knowledge about God or the Bible, or about disproving that they exist. Nor do I truly wish to voice an unsupported opinion- thus my current stance.

When I go into a thread about the universe, I expect that thread to contain discussions about the universe and connotations to that topic. When I see that the thread has turned into a religious debate, that irritates me and offends me, because I feel I have been led to a discussion which I do not want to read and which I have been led to under false pretenses, and I cannot join in because I lack the information to lead a viable opinion. That hurts.

I could just go away and ignore it, as Pianistimo and you have suggested, but I do not, because there are other forumers who feel the same way I do about being led into religious debates, who have read the same religious text for the 50 billionth time in the 50 billionth place, and who, instead of voicing their annoyance, say '*** it. I'm sick of this' and leave. Someone has to voice their opinion, and it may as well be me, since I am so tired of reading religious text that I am seriously reconsidering staying on this forum.

Phil

[debussy symbolism]

And you claim that you are calm whilst asking for a sub-board.

[pianistimo]

for christian, the idea of 'conversion' and 'healing' - both spiritually and physically is a miracle that is unexplainable.  unless you experience it - you don't really have clue it's infinite moving potential in your life.  so, unless you accept Christ and are baptized into his body and blood - you have to take everything by what a christian tells you they experience.

i have experienced direct answer to prayer almost every day of my life.  can i explain this? no.  someone might say - well that's her impression - that God listens to her.  but, what if it is specific requests or prayers for myself or others that are ANSWERED.  some are not answered in a day.  some are answered in minutes or seconds.  how can this be?  how can God work intimately in our lives and brains.  to help us think of an answer or find a lost item or whatever it is that we are insignifiantly (to us) praying about.  the Love of God is so vast that He cares about our insignificant problems.  if we were like insects - we would have no connection to HIS Holy Spirit.  His thoughts.  His care.

i don't think i am any different than any other christian.  that i am anyone more special than anyone else.  i don't see visions.  i am not a prophetess.  i am a nobody.  but, to God - he sees our smallness and just decides - well, they need help.

[debussy symbolism]

If you were to pray that your cat should grant your wishes, they will occur too. The prayers that have "gone true" have gone true in your head, according to your head. What you are experiencing is nothing but self induced hypnosis.

On the other stance, prayers might work because of the collective energy involved. That is nothing divine and is perfectly explainable, even though we do not understand the mind a whole deal. By tuning the brain to certain wavelengths, certain feats are achievable, whether prayer or telepathy, or whatever.

What you are experiencing is entirely sane and not unexplainable.

Best.

[pianistimo]

the only collective energy that i feel is God's and my own aliveness.  if i were dead, i suppose i would feel and think nothing.  but since i am alive, i choose to believe that i am able to direct my mind towards my creator and make attention getting moves.  one of which is 'help - i am lost on the freeway.  can you make this so it isn't an endless loop.' 

[debussy symbolism]

You are not directing it to God, but only to yourself. That is a slight illusion because you think that you are directing your thoughts to God. Because of your beliefs, to you, it makes no difference, but in truth, you are directing thoughts at only yourself. It is self induced hypnosis. Actually, ancient priests come to mind. They used the San Pedro cactus to induce hypnosis on the follower, who was then subjective to anything the priest says, and was therefore influenced. This is not quite the case here, but similar.

[pianistimo]

how do you know what goes on between myself and God?  that is a private matter for each person that lives.  if you choose to believe something else - why must you write about it?  i consider it an insult - even though you are trying to joke.  it is the most important relationship that a living person can have.  one with God.  it is the secret to living a fulfilled life. 

many think - if i could find a mate.  if i could find more money.  if i could find this or that.  but, life is nothing without finding God.  and, i do not think that hypnosis will help one do that.  there are prescribed methods in the bible to finding God.  one is repentance.  one is baptism.  one is laying on of hands.  one is obtaining the gift of the Holy Spirit.  THAT is why Christ died.  acts 8:12, 36-37, and after paul's conversion acts 9:18 'and immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he arose and was baptized.'  (this was after his blindness - caused by God - for his saving healing and salvation).

i think that you actually understand all this pretty well - but choose to be hypnotized.  there is no 'bettering' in God's system.  all are equally sinful - but, their sins are removed as far as east is from west.  it makes you free from burdens.  that's why Christ says 'my burden is LIGHT.'  if you want a religion that isn't burdensome - think about conversion and what it means.

to all the disciples, their lives were RADICALLY changed after conversion.  take paul for instance.  he was killing christians.  the amazing thing about him (even after he had taken part in the killing of stephen, i believe) is that God decided to call him despite himself.  when he realized what he had done - instead of saying - 'oh, i'm too sinful to ever be a christian' he said 'God, whatever you say.'  he switched masters.  he was serving satan before (unwittingly) and then he realized (by divine intervention) that he was not serving the living God.  but, death.  by killing people.  death goes nowhere and will continue to go nowhere.  it is the essense of being NOTHING.  unless a person repents and is baptized and ressurrected - they will be judged and given the second death - which returns them to NOTHING.  nothing at all.  dust and ashes. 

[jakev2.0]

"Big....very big" ...girls tell me this a lot. 

[debussy symbolism]

I don't want to sound repetitious or otherwise arrogant, but what you are claiming is backed up by no coherent proof. I don't care if a million texts from all over claimed the same thing. Unless you provide me physical proof of anything that you claim that concerns uniting with God, then I may give your reasoning( or copying) any acknowledgement.

I was not joking. Your relationship with God is purely hypothetical and self induced, because you don't know God, you don't know what he looks like, what he feels like, or even if he exists. You may counteract by saying that you do in fact feel him, but those are just your own mind's interpretation of information that has been etched into you by the texts.

I would be blind if I would be ignoring that what happened. So far, there is no eivdence of any sort of divine presence making a physical impression on Earth, unless of course you manage to prove me wrong.

Forgiveness for penitence? Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not a fact that Jesus offers salvation to those that turn to him, despite their sins? If so, what would be of mass murderers or ruthless dictators such as Hitler? Would they do their deeds and in the last minute say "God please forgive me"? According to your logic that would be the case.

Concerning conversion, unless you give me credence to people actually changing their beliefs in accordance to God, then I would possibly hint at believing you. Unfortunately, that cannot be tested, so that resorts to giving conversion the stance that it is entirely based on peer pressure, church pressure, and individual belief, and not necessarily divine intervention.

[pianistimo]

faith is not something you go around proving to other people.  you experience it yourself by asking for it.  icannot explain to you the miracles that constantly appear in my life - the things that i am grateful for day by day.  just the sun coming up in the morning is, to me, proof that God exists powerfully.  to you, it might be just the sun.  i'm not saying i worship creation - but i worship the creator.

for paul, he was spiritually blind.  noone could have convinced him but God.  for the thief on the cross - he had the witness of Christ - whom He realized had the power over death.  yes, i think any sort of sinner - once repentance and conversion happens - cannot limit the love of God.  perhaps the greatest sinners should be the greatest christians later.  they realize how great their sin was and have the most humility afterwards.

paul killed many christians (not one or two).  he was in agreement to have stephen stoned to death.  this is not a mindset unlike hitler - who was nonplussed at death.  but, hitler worshpped another God - but his acts of 'extermination' were temporary.  this god of death - has no real power over death.  it just appears that way at the time.  when the ressurrection occurs - all those who have died in death camps will fear death no longer - while he will be judged for his actions.  if it can be proven that SATAN took over his mind (as he probably was demon posessed) - and when satan is banished in the millenium - perhaps the jews that were exterminated will convert Him to be able to see what he did to them was wrong.  God is always fair - and equals the playing field.  they were under His power.  in the next life, as i see it - he will be under their power.  they will treat him much better - and he will be ashamed.

the disciples of the new testament DID change their lives according to what was written.  for christians today - noone sees the inner corners of our lives and what makes us different from other people.  they do not see the things that God does - and often make the assumption that because we sin (sometimes as much or more than they do) that we are not converted.  this is because God himself said He called the weak to confound the mighty.'  the very act of getting up the next morning and confessing to God our helplessness to sin -and our need for Him to direct our lives afresh - is persistence.  christians don't give up.  king david sinned after conversion - he bore the penalty of his sins (baby dying, etc) but, God did not hold this sin against him forever.  Satan is the one that wants us to have continual guilt and unreassurance of our future with God. 

now, there are places in the new testament that talk about being fed milk or meat - of the Word.  if we are babies in Christ - we go around talking and doing foolishness that doesn't equal maturity in Christ.  if we are mature - we take every word and consider it's implications in our lives.  we judge ourselves according to the Word of God.  therefore 'there is no condemnation' for either.  one is immature - the other mature - but both still sinners at various times. 

also, I believe the Holy Spirit guides us into learning about doing things better day by day.  it's like going to a rehabilitation camp for destructive behavior - and learning better ways to cope.  we are no longer interested in things of this world - things that temporarily make one 'feel good.'  we are interested in the long term.  the 'savings account.'  the little steps we make in this life are towards a 'reward' of greater magnitude than sins little 'rewards.'  sin is deceptive.  the reward is similar to the 'bill of goods' that jacob sold esau.  for a bowl of soup - he sold his birthright.

*paul wrote to the corinthians (in I cor.10:6) a warning (because they had become christians) of what not to return to after baptism.  he mentions 'we should not crave evil things...do not be idolaters (worshipping food, money, material posessions)...be people who sit down to eat and drink all the time, and stand up to play...nor act immorally...nor grumble (God isn't fair, blah blah - he lets others have blessings who are sinners)...therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.

so, we are warned not to return to sin as a dog returning to vomit.  those are crude words but, the words of the bible.  we know, when we do wrong because it now FEELS wrong to us.  we've experienced the joy of salvation.  sin isn't pleasant anymore.

[debussy symbolism]

Devotion to God may not be any different than a devotion to a dictator. From what I know, God proposes an agenda on which people should devote themselves, carying out the specific needs, such as praying, going to church, fasting, etc. A dictator also provides his protocol. I am sure you know about the lives of the proletariat. A God has his own moral code that the followers follow. A dictator also has his own do's and don'ts. People follow God for a hope of salvation and happiness. They do so too following a dictator. God promises a utopia, and a dictator promises a utopia. Given these notices, it is practically impossible to distinguish God from a dictator. How can you be sure then? I am sure that the people before Hitler thought of him as the best there is, and looking at the videos of his oratory and the people's reactions, it is difficult to disprove that. What evidence do you have that God isn't just that: a dictator? Should you follow someone, you should always take risks. After all, a utopia is impossible- a concept clearly illustrated in much literature, namely George Orwell "1984". (Sorry to have to name the same book so many times here).