Huge!

[debussy symbolism]

According to what I understand concerning your previous responce about the ultimate forgiveness, I am apt to assume that according to that logic, the most ruthless of dictators can massacre, and yet then be forgiven and ultimately appear before God. That just doesn't sound right to me now.

You aren't addressing my inquiry concerning you fulfilling the notion of providing proof. You are just reciting anectodes from texts, but yet provide no evidence of it. Should something as great as that actually occur, it is bound to leave some form of physical evidence.

Pianistimo, I am nudging you to actually supply the evidence. I have listed before certain phenomenon attributed to religion. Perhaps state that. I want you to present some information so that we don't go in circles to great annoyment of members.

[debussy symbolism]

"Sin isn't pleasant anymore". I find that a very compelling point that you just made. The thing is, "sin" is a natural human emotion and need. Going back to animal instincts, our primal urges may include lust, anger, hate, need to dominate, etc. However, such indulgence would not result in a world that we have today, but would result in chaos and mayhem, since lack of order. Christianity tries to suppress those urges by propagating the fear of punishment and suffering. However, if we are to look at this from another view, in order to assure a debate, we have to look at an opposing viewpoint: Satanism. What are their beliefs? Their beliefs include indulgence in sex, violence, power, and anything that is generally though of as taboo by Christianity. Whilst you may feel repulsed at such a notion, you have to understand that you feel that way because of the beliefs inculcated into you by Christianity. To them, what they are doing seems right and natural. Can you argue with them? I don't think you can because they are merely addressing to their urges that are essentially human. The only stance against their beliefs is that in accordance to their behavior, should it be assimilated to daily lives, we would be reduced to nothing but an uncivilized pack of savages, thus rendering our species useless, a living "hell" if you will. These are my thoughts on sin and penitence.

[pianistimo]

if God was a dictator, we would not have free will to choose life over death.  he would be interested only in His own power.  but, He already HAS all the power and has no need to try to keep it or impress us with it.  Christ could have done the world 'in' at his first coming - but, instead, died for us.  i've never seen a dictator die for his people willingly.

also, the main focus of christianity is for salvation - not for murder.  do you know how many dictators have murder millions!  of their own people...for disagreeing.  and yet, God, in his mercy 'allows rain, etc. and blessings' for his enemies.  enemies of the salvation that He gives.  this is a totally different manner of governing.  one which a person chooses their own fate. 

yes.  at the judgement - we will be judged by our own actions.  but, if 'today is the day of salvation' - we all have a part to play in determining what we want to happen.  it is not dictated to us.  it is something we choose.  it is like being part of a government that has rules and systems - but ultimately we can choose not to be a part of the system our whole entire life.  and, yes, some repent at the end and are saved.  for others, they die suddenly and have no more chance for repentance in this life. 

if God has the power over death -whom would you rather serve.  Satan or God.  there are no other choices available to us.  we know of no other rulers or masters - excepting money.  but, if money is the root of all evil -and satan is the master of evil - then money leads to satan's thoughts of desire for mastery over the physical.  but, we wnat to be masters over the spiritual.  to fight him on his turf.  we fight satan by praying to God for strength and wisdom.  satan is full of deceit and makes sin look good.  if we succumb to sin then we are succumbing to his power.  HE is a dictator.

[debussy symbolism]

Pianistimo, I am sure that you have read the passages concerning Antichirst and his coming to power. I believe that it says that he would "salvate" a nation in despair by providing aid and help in a time of need. To an "unsuspecting" citizen, that would be an act of good sacrifice.

God has power only if he has followers. Otherwise, he doesn't exist. He can only manifest himself in the minds of believers and therefore have an influence over their lives. A dictator seeks the same thing. That is where propaganda comes in and all of the political advertisements needed to inveigle the masses into following a dictator.

"No other masters"? That may be so to you, but not to countless other religions. Tell me: because the ancient Egyptians didn't belive in Christ, were they all doomed to eternal banishment and suffering?

[pianistimo]

where you and i differ is over the ultimate power of God.  whether he has or doesn't have followers is a moot point.  if He existed before any of creation (the angels - first created good - and then 1/3 fell away) then He is supreme over all.  there is no real comparison of masters (satan and God or ANTIchrist and God). 

say - all the angels fell away (which wouldn't happen because 2/3 have continued to serve Him to this day) - say every human being desired to be ruled by dark powers.  would that somehow overpower God?  i'm laughing because we don't realize that the Holy Spirit itself gives life and without life - we are NOTHING.  everything could be NOTHING in a matter of seconds.  return to zilch.  we have the breath of life because of God.

if God is in and through everything that exists (including spirit created beings - giving them life spiritually) then - if He was really angry (which He controls His temper quite well) He could take it all back.  the angels, according to my understanding, were first created spirit beings.  this means that death was never an issue.  perhaps that is why satan wants to foist off on us the idea of eternal torment (being separated from God).  fire or brimstone or physical pain/sufferring is all in the mind for him - since he is not affected by 'fire.'  he cannot be 'burned up.'  but we can.  also, our deeds can be burned up with us.  at the judgement - it is not he that will suffer our pain - but ourselves (dying a second death - by the lake of fire).   his deceit will only cause our own lives to be ruined in terms of salvation.  he chose his own ruin long ago when he fell away from serving God (mentioned in jude) and abandoned his proper abode.  (near God - as a covering for the very throne of God).  an archangel - the likes of michael and gabriel. 

he saw power.  wanted it.  thought he got it.  but, all he has now is a memory.  kind of like 'cats' or 'phantom of the opera.' 

[pianistimo]

you ask some really interesting questions - and i don't claim to have so much knowledge of satanism at all.  perhaps a person who has experienced the derangement of satan's influence (and has come out of it) can explain a possible 'ruling' that goes far beyond choosing good or evil - to being 'possessed.'  for committing acts that they had no control over at the time and don't even remember.  possibly sexual sins, or murder.  that is usually the outcome, from what i hear, of witchcraft that strays into the darkest realms of satanism.  it looks good at the first, but ends up in death always - whether now or later.  why else the symbols of death.  skull and cross bones being one example.

interesting that so much of the symbolism on t-shirts and logos today are satanic symbols of us ruling our own selves.  it is a matter of public knowledge that God is obsolete - in terms of what things are allowed in public (no 10 commandments in public - but many many symbols of witchcraft are allowed in public schools - not to mention books).  if this was an issue that was truly understood - people would see that they are serving a master that does not have their best interest at heart.  a system of drugs, depression, suicide, sexual dysfunction, sexual diseases, etc.

God's Spirit guides people to learning about holiness and sexual purity.  about a pure river of life (unmuddied by spiritual dark water) - about the Holy Spirit - washing our sins away.  about cleanliness of mind and body and spirit.  about wisdom.  which is the essential difference.  with satanism (as i understand it) you are not talking about totally comprehending what's going on at first.  it is a sort of gibberish that people get used to as with background noise.  a sort of mantra of unintelligibility.  how can Satan have any wisdom left?  he's been gone from God too long.  he's crazy.

[debussy symbolism]

Pianistimo, now you are getting somewhere. You are now referring to God as a symbolic entity, not an existing entity. I claim that because you seem to be referring to "good" and bad" as being amongst the primal forces of the universe. Where we disagree is in that we have different notions of what those good and bad forces might be. Whether it is extrauniversal, or intrauniversal. To tell you the truth, I am at no stance to explain just what exactly causes the universe to be that way. To rephrase the statement, I do not know how the universe was created. We have two ideas: one being that someone else created the universe for us, thus fulfulling the notion of being called God, or that the universe was created on its own natural accord.

Congratulations! We are back to phase one!

I think that we are overlooking one aspect of the universe: it's relationship with the human consciousness. To this day, scientists haven't yet been able to locate consciousness. They are however certain that it is everpresent despite any medical state (except maybe death). I would like to make an observation in accordance to the beliefs of others and evidence presented, that the human consciousness is very similar to space matter itself. Both are everlasting; both cannot be touched; and both have two sides of existing: the vacuous side, and the everpresent, everfull side.

Should the universe have been a product of God, we wouldn't be able to have a consciousness, due to the fact that if the universe was truly created, it would have to be artificial, otherwise it would have to be labeled as natural.

Should the universe be of natural origin, then we as space itself, retain the qualities of a conscious mind as I pointed out above. A conscious mind, everpresent and ambiguous like space itself.

Given the evidence and observations I have presented and discussed herein, I stand towards the latter hypothesis.

If you would support the first hypothesis, then you would admit that by serving God, you would be a mindless( unconscious) creature just attending to God's needs, whether for good or for bad.

Best.

[pianistimo]

interesting your analogy between matter in the brain (grey matter) and what's in space (either void or fillled).  what if conciousness was not in the realm of anything physical including space?  what if it was beyond it?  what if we have access to the literal mind of God through the Holy Spirit.  that would put us beyond time and space.  a great gift of God. the mystery of mysteries (of which the ancient people - before Christ's time - longed to see).  if the egyptians had known what would give them everlasting life - perhaps they would have listened to joseph more and realized that even dreams can be interpreted by the Holy Spirit.  the unexplainable things of our brains are understood only by God.

the craziness of lack of wisdom comes from Satan.  He no longer has access to the library and makes up his own knowledge (which is foolishness to God).  it has no purpose and leads nowhere.  if you can name a satanist that has some kind of sanity and does not have to be protected occasionally from hurting himself or others - i'd like to know who it is.  usually, you see crazy people obsessed with blood.  draining life from humans is what satan is about.  he knows 'the life is in the blood.'  the physical life.

[debussy symbolism]

Yes, but that would imply that God is elsewhere. That would then eliminate the probability that this universe is of natural origin. Going "beyond" is literally becomind eternal like space itself. This concept is greatly venerated in many religions such as Buddhism (altough Buddha wasn't a God, so we can't call it a religion). This concept is also illustrated in many paintings of great artists. The "subatomic" paintings of Dali show Jesus Christ manifesting as atoms, with atoms containing the holy (If I am wrong please correct me, I don't want to send out spurious information, altough I am positive that I am somewhat correct). Joan Miro also exploits this concept thorough his "paintings" (that is literally what they are called), by providing symbols against a space-like and eternally vast background, thus giving an impression of depth. You should also look into his "Constellations".

Best.

[debussy symbolism]

Pianistimo, I am all for corrections of posts, but you are literally inserting paragraphs into yours, well after they have been posted. That can have its share of negative consequences, to me and others who are reading or replying in that it might alter the overall meaning of your posts.

[pianistimo]

there are places in the bible that mention the heavens and earth being 'wrapped up as a tent.'  if it can be folded up or wrapped up...then it is a purposeful thing while here - but will be replaced by a NEW heavens and a NEW earth.  the old would 'pass away.'  it is not eternal.  if God is eternal - how can he dwell in a place that humans have made for Him (even temples and churches).  Rather, He is making a place for us to dwell with Him.

[debussy symbolism]

Although the exact meaning of the text is very ambiguous, it is plausible to assume that whether divine or not, universes are subject to a "Big Bang" and a "Big Crunch", which is the opposite of the birth of the universe. Our universe is ever-expanding, thus eternal.

[pianistimo]

just because we feel an expansion doesn't mean it is impossible to implode...as you just said. 

[debussy symbolism]

By claiming that God did indeed produce this world, you are also claiming that you are a figment of his creation, serving his purpose, without a will. That is contradictory to a consciousness theory, because accordings to findings, we all have it. Therefore, you do infact live in a natural world. Otherwise, you would be just the same thing as a machine with no thoughts.

[mike_lang]

By claiming that God did indeed produce this world, you are also claiming that you are a figment of his creation, serving his purpose, without a will.

Why can created man not have a free will?

[Derek]

Let's get down to basics. There are those of us coming from religious perspectives and those of us coming from atheistic scientific perspectives.  Instead of endlessly argue over specifics, let us examine one basic premise that we leave un-discussed.   Are you humbled by the astounding mystery of the universe,  or do you believe humans are so great, and so smart, that we can understand all of its mysteries?

It seems to me all religious people fall into the humble category, the category of people who choose to say, OH MY! look at the GLORIOUS NIGHT SKY!    quite far removed from individuals who say such egregiously dismissive nonsense as: "DNA is incredibly simple"  Oh yeah?  Design a new animal then.  I'm not trying to say it was all done in one shot by God, maybe God used evolution as his tool.  Still--- it seems to me there is a vast difference between those who choose to be in awe,   and those who choose to appear to be cool headed rationalists who have the answers to everything.   

So basically I'm saying atheists can't call religious people arrogant.  They might get arrogant in response to arrogant atheists,  but they were just sitting there being innocently in awe of the magnificent universe when an uppity arrogant atheist came along and said "GOD DOESN'T EXIST. HEH."

[prometheus]

Are you humbled by the astounding mystery of the universe,  or do you believe humans are so great, and so smart, that we can understand all of its mysteries?

I do not understand the 'or'. The universe is astonishing and a big mystery and of course very humbling. But because of that I think we should try to be 'smart' and try to understand as much as possible. I can't see how you can say that we shouldn't try to understand because the universe is amazing and a big mystery. The more you understand the more amazing it is.

Look at the 'universe' of the bible. A firmament seperating heaven and earth. Now what is more amazing. The one we understand slightly today or the shallow mystery of the bible?

It seems to me all religious people fall into the humble category, the category of people who choose to say, OH MY! look at the GLORIOUS NIGHT SKY!

To me religion then adds: "God did it. And that is all I need to know."

Just looking at the sky is not very relevant. It only becomes astonashing when you realise what you are seeing. It only becomes really glorious the moment you watch high resolution Hubble Telescope pictures and realise what exactly is in the picture.

quite far removed from individuals who say such egregiously dismissive nonsense as: "DNA is incredibly simple"

I said that DNA is simple compared to the rest of the human body. I told a story about the history of the discovery of DNA which is absolutely true.

Only DNA specialists truely realise how amazing something relatively simple as DNA is.

Oh yeah?  Design a new animal then.

It is easier to build a DNA molecule from scratch than to build a huge protein from scratch. As for understanding how DNA is encoded, that is something else.

  Still--- it seems to me there is a vast difference between those who choose to be in awe,   and those who choose to appear to be cool headed rationalists who have the answers to everything.   

I think your view is completely distorted. To me it is the other way around. Religion proposes arrogance and ignorance while science proposes humility and knowledge. The latter is the most beautiful by a long long shot.
The scientists are those that are truely in awe. They are so inspired and touched that they devote their lives trying to find out one little detail of it all. Religious people say "God did it." and they just continue with their lives. Then when a scientist tries to explain how amazing our universe is they don't want to listen or they try to ban the teaching because of religious dogma.

People that deny evolution or the big bang just talk down nature itself.

[Derek]

hmm okay maybe I'm just weird then cause I certainly don't fall into the "God did it" (without further thought) camp. However I don't fall into the "we must assume God doesn't exist because we can't see him" camp, either.

[prometheus]

I didn't say that all religious people are that way. I said that is what is proposed by religion.

Also 'because we can't seen him' is a straw man. We must assume god does not exist because there is no sign of god in our reality.

If we abandon this principle then we also can't assume fairies don't exist. Or a god like Thor.

[pianistimo]

as far as i know, there is no dictum in the bible that says 'do not study science.'  the three wise men must have been studying something to be called wise men.  and, they were observing something unique in the sky that they considered a 'sign.'  something unusual.  they must have been studying the sky previously to even notice it. 

as you say...we now have telescopes and satellites, and missions with spacecraft designed for intense heat and cold.  no church that i know of has held rallies around the launch pads saying 'God will strike you down, you monkeys.' 

i think all of us appreciate the advances in science - particularly when they help medical research or something that directly affects humans.  but, the beauty of the night sky is hard to resist and when beautiful pictures come back - to religious people it affirms the same things as to non-religious.  it's 'wow, that's amazing'  the only difference is the belief in God vs. evolution. 

now, there are many sites that promote a closer look at how dna works because it disproves many of darwins theories.  natural selection for instance.  if things could evolve over time by 'adaptation' then - dna could have this process in it.  but, it doesn't.  it doesn't allow for it.  in fact, if you remove a mother/father gene - you have  gene that dies out.  things don't mutate on their own unless we are talking bacteria or viruses (i think).  i am not a scientist - but i do realize the potential for dna to be a sort of 'bomb' to the evolutionary process.

[pianowolfi]

maybe God used evolution as his tool. 

Hehe, right. God and Darwin might be hand in glove with each other.

[pianistimo]

suggested reading on that would be 'the ambiguous heritage of frankenstein.'  you can find an essay on this by levine at www.english.upenn.edu/Projects/knarf/Articles/levine.html

[debussy symbolism]

I think that on the contrary, the "do study science" idea is not necessarily valid. Sure, the Bible can say nothing agaisnt the study of science, but at it's ulitmate, it assimilates God as the ultimate creator. That ensures that no matter how much you study, you can't best God and your are nothing but a hopeless wonderer. Therefore the idea that Bible supports the study of sciences is false. It doesn't care if you study or not, as long as you pursue the Bible.

Should we be in awe of the universe? Yes, but not from a point in which we consider ourselves just these inferior and capable of nothing beings, taking the universe for granted. The more we advance, the further we stretch. Up until recently has space exploration been considered in great detail. That would mean that we would eventually probe more into the universe and explore it. The Bible says that you are free to explore it, but whatever you find you will take it as granted. Should it be indeed for granted, then there is no real reason to explore, and we might as well turn into animals tending to their biological needs such as eating, living, and reproducing.

[prometheus]

It's not that much that the bible says not to research science, the people that wrote the bible had no idea of science because it was alien to them, but the bible makes definite claims about things that are now within the field of science. The scientific method is to approach questions without any bias. This means science questions the claims of the bible which is a big thing because it means to question god for a theist. And then science proved the bible wrong as well. And for that reason the Church fought against science. And today some christians do too.

[debussy symbolism]

The discovery of electicity comes to mind. During that time, scientists were trying to use electicity to spark life in the dead, and possibly solve the meaning of life. You can see why the Church would dislike that. This would mean that whatever invention is new and is somehow iconoclastic to Christian values, then that invention would be deemed as unholy, evil, whatever. That proves to me that the Church indeed does not really approve of science, othewise they would not have reacted so drastically to such inventions such as electicity and such.

[pianistimo]

we were talking about the here and now.  many christians today, though i disagree with their views, believe in evolution.  also, the only relgions i know of that have a 'thing' about electricity would be the amish or ultra orthodox jews.  this is such a small segment of population of bible believers (though there might be some arabic counterparts) that it hardly makes the assertion valid that somehow 'electricity,'  which btw was used by a lot of christians in the 1800's by creating it with water power, is a sin.  if it was a sin - the bible would say 'when electricity is commercialized you shall not use it.'

this is such a wierd conversation.  it's like you assume the inquisition is yesterday's event - and that all christians belong to the faith that started it.  it is a check against christianity - even though not all belonged to that faith. 

just as with evolutionary theories, which btw are constantly changing, we don't preach darwinism anymore in the same way as before.  textbooks have been ammended a slight bit - and also time periods (and no two textbooks are really the same when it comes to dating) - but, we look to the most recent works and not the ones written when darwin was alive.  why?  because science has disproven some of darwins theories.

if i were to argue with YOU - i would try to read up-to-date articles and not something from 20 years ago.  you are choosing something thousands of years ago and arguing with it.

[mike_lang]

it's like you assume the inquisition is yesterday's event - and that all christians belong to the faith that started it.  it is a check against christianity - even though not all belonged to that faith. 

It is not a check against Christianity - it is a reminder of the fact that the Church's members on earth can sin and do sin.  It was not the Catholic faith that started it - it was a group of corrupt members.  Please don't confuse the transcendental faith with the changing human guardians and human believers.

Best,
ML

[mike_lang]

It's not that much that the bible says not to research science, the people that wrote the bible had no idea of science because it was alien to them, but the bible makes definite claims about things that are now within the field of science. The scientific method is to approach questions without any bias. This means science questions the claims of the bible which is a big thing because it means to question god for a theist. And then science proved the bible wrong as well. And for that reason the Church fought against science. And today some christians do too.

Please cite your examples - what scriptural passages that were intended to be read literally, as scientific fact, were proved to be incorrect?  And which of these are significant to the integrity of the Bible?

Thanks,
Michael

[pianowolfi]

the transcendental faith

hmmmm i like that expression.

[pianistimo]

forgive me, michael_langlois, for my biases too.  i happen to believe that through the catholic faith many things were sort of 'victorianized' and went downhill from there.  some of the ideas of the papists were from people who combined mithraism with religion to please each portion of their congregation.  the priests - high priests - were at one time serving the caesars (who were termed 'gods').

why did the inquisition KILL people for science?  this has caused a stumbling block down to this day.  not to mention the idea that priests should not marry.  even today we have old mirthraic ideas - that cause people to sexually stray (to priests w/ young boys).  the old pagan ideas were also combined with newer ones as few as 250 years ago when the illuminati infiltrated the highest orders of the catholic church.  why do you think the papcy is so important (one of the most important religions) to europe and political machinations under the table.  the papacy has always been a part of rome.  the empire.

[pianistimo]

the fact that God created things to be observed is no surprise.  He even showed noah a plan for a boat that would withstand what every other boat in the area would not.  it was the only boat left after the deluge!  it must have had a design better than the others.

other scientific marvels would have been the pyramids, the tower of babel (which must have been fairly tall - and must have been to put symbols of pagan worship at the top - so that people would deny God) - these types of ziggurats were found all over the world once the design was followed and some are quite similar to others.  since then, we've had amazing types of construction of buildings, bridges, waterways etc. from ancient to present.  if the church had truly restricted rome - the colloseum would never have been built. 

i think science has expanded - while the knowledge of the one true God has disappeared.  i think it is the other way around.  we have 6000 of man's knowledge and hardly any of God's anymore.  what we think is important - might actually be solved in a short-cut.

for instance, when Christ returns - one of the first things he is said to do is to 'the eyes of the blind shall be opened, the tongue of the dumb shall be unstopped, and the lame will leap for joy' - or something like that.  in an INSTANT - without any sort of science that we know yet - he can HEAL.  this sounds like a pipe dream.  but, if we turned to God now - who is keeping God from doing what He could have been doing all along.  He healed many people when He walked the earth - and he brought many to life that had been dead!  God has the ultimate power, the ultimate science, and the ultimate hand in creation and life. 

[pianistimo]

some interesting similarities of mithraism with christianity as known today:

no women members
sunday was to be kept holy (prayers were offerred)
the blood of a bull - (body and blood of mithras to be actually eaten and drunk - eerie similarity to the body and blood of Christ taken symbolically by bread/wine)
25th of december was mithras birthday
cathechumens part of the the worship

levels of mithraism:
1 consecrated
2 crow - accepting black or dark powers
3 occult
4 soldier
5 lion
6 persian
7solar messenger
8 and FATHER! (patos)

babylon, the ancient mystery religion simply transferred the zoroaster idea to new spot!

also, in regards to communion - down to this very day!  the wafers are round (sun shaped) and have the initials I H S  which stand for Isis Horus and Seb (EGYPTIAN gods). 

the bent crucifix - a symbol of OCCULTISM

there are many things that are not as they seem.  but, some are. 

mussolini actually declared roman catholicism the official religion of Italy and restored the pope to his temporal power within GOVERNMENT.  are there any other religions offerred this power by democratic means? 

[prometheus]

Please cite your examples - what scriptural passages that were intended to be read literally, as scientific fact, were proved to be incorrect?  And which of these are significant to the integrity of the Bible?

Thanks,
Michael

Of course whole of Genesis. Plus the bible thinks that bats are birds, that whales are fish, that the earth is flat, that the sky is a firmament, that the earth is the center of the 'universe', that the universe doesn't exist, that pi is 3, etc. Not so strange these people were bronze age people.

But the result was the dark age. The church destroyed knowledge and civilization. Then scientists were a victim of the inquisition. Of course Galileo is a famous example but this was common.

[pianistimo]

winged creatures can mean exactly that - winged creatures.   whether a bat is a bird or isn't a bird according to our modern scientific categorizations is a moot point to God.  if he created 'winged creatures' then - whether they are cold blooded or warm blooded is more the issue.  birds and bats are both warm blooded and fly - therefore if they are in a category of 'bird' it doesn't matter.

whales - i think that God says 'great fish' swallowed noah.  if it was a great fish - then it doesn't particularly have to be anything but a great fish.  if it was a whale.  then it was certainly one that could swallow him whole.  fishermen usually don't doubt this story - which i find interesting.  usually people who don't do much fishing.  i mean - if you go out in shark infested waters - at least a half body would do for a full sized shark.  now, i don't think noah was swallowed bya  shark - but i think it was a 'great fish.'

also, there are numerous finding archeologically that prove almost every element of history of the bible.  but, the one most facinating would be the shroud of turin:

www.shroudstory.com/art.htm

the manner of making the linen fiber is explained to be accurate to the time period.  as you can guess, i am a literalist...and i believe that every word of the bible is true.  if parables are spoken - then they are categorized as such - so you know it is a story.  but, if the bible is the Word of God - then every Word is truth (for teaching, instruction in righteousness) - and every law continual to our day.  He does not change from day to day.  otherwise, He would be a liar.

[mike_lang]

as you can guess, i am a literalist...and i believe that every word of the bible is true.

The Bible does not have to be taking literally in order to be true.

Literalism would be quite alright if:
a) the Bible were intended to be read in a vacuum
b) the Bible did not deal with metaphysical realities, some of which can be described only by metaphor

[prometheus]

How would you know if it is a moot point to God? If God really created both of them he should know better than present day scientists the differences between bats and birds and the reason as to why they are different.

And the differences are significant.

But even if God does exist, even if the God that exists is the god of the bible then still he did not write the bible. It was written by people that didn't know much about the natural world around them. They were primitive people. And the fact that they called bats birds points this out to us today.

Also, is a ray a winged creature? Don't they 'fly through the water'?

also, there are numerous finding archeologically that prove almost every element of history of the bible.

What about the relevant ones? The jewish people in Egypt? The seperation of the red sea that swallowed the Egypt army plus its pharaoh? What about a global flood that killed all humans and land animals?

In the end your point is that science must be false because if it isn't god would be a liar, and that is of course never true. You can't question other points in your reasoning because of religious dogma. You are beyond reason.

[pianowolfi]

some interesting similarities of mithraism with christianity as known today:

no women members
sunday was to be kept holy (prayers were offerred)
the blood of a bull - (body and blood of mithras to be actually eaten and drunk - eerie similarity to the body and blood of Christ taken symbolically by bread/wine)
25th of december was mithras birthday
cathechumens part of the the worship

levels of mithraism:
1 consecrated
2 crow - accepting black or dark powers
3 occult
4 soldier
5 lion
6 persian
7solar messenger
8 and FATHER! (patos)

babylon, the ancient mystery religion simply transferred the zoroaster idea to new spot!

also, in regards to communion - down to this very day!  the wafers are round (sun shaped) and have the initials I H S  which stand for Isis Horus and Seb (EGYPTIAN gods). 

the bent crucifix - a symbol of OCCULTISM

Wow I'm impressed. You seem to have a real clue about occultism!

[henrah]

Promey is right about the global flood, and how it can't be possible if it killed all humans and land animals except those that were in Noah's Ark. I've been told that to restart the human race, you need at least 50people to stop incest problems with genes. Did Noah take someone with him? And were they female?

Btw, what was the reason why God flooded the (supposed) world and yet allow Noah the time to build an ark which would save him?

[pianistimo]

dear michael_langlois,

agreed that there are metaphysical elements (Holy Spirit being one) to the bible and that 'we see through a glass darkly.'  also, i do not doubt your sincerity and i believe that each of us is judged by what we understand to be the will of God.  the bible says 'faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.'  if the word of God is TRUE then even what we do not understand CAN be true.  we may differ on the literallness - but i do not think that we differ that much in terms of sincerity.  God says He wants people to worship him in sincerity and truth.  if we are sincere - then that is what counts.  also, He doesn't want us to be unaware of deceptions - so we have to 'prove what is true...'  by the Word of God. 

dear prometheus,

i don't believe the people before us were that primitive as you say.  they spoke many languages, had systems of government, monetary systems, religious systems - many of which were quite complicated.  they understood what they could at that time without the aid of our modern technology (but i sort of wonder how much technology they had at the time babel was introduced).  do you realize these people were probably healthier than we are today and had brains that were fully oxygenated (without pollution) and probably worked on a higher level than ours.  of course, technology is somewhat built upon previous cultures and science grows upon itself - in terms of intricacy - but i don't think there is much proof that humans were that much different or uncivilized than today.  in fact, through dna it has been proven (to the surprise of scientists) that the neanderthal man (as so named) was more similar than they thought to humans.  perhaps the ideas of evolution are coinciding more with the reality of the bible?  i don't claim to have all the answers - as i've not gone to any archeological sites besides a few in israel and also seen the grand canyon.  the grand canyon was awesome.  if i knew what to look for in terms of creation science - i'd do it - but all i could think is that an awful lot of water would have had to be there to create these gorges.

[pianistimo]

henrah,  you are absolutely correct.  noah took his wife.  also, his three sons took wives and that is how we still have the genetic pool from adam and eve's time.  it is thought that through noah's family - all the people that now exist have their genes. 

proving a worldwide flood is only an impossiblity if you are unconvinced that God can do ANYTHING.  anything!  we aren't used to thinking in impossibilities. 

and, yes, pianowolfi , despite the fact that i am not interested in astrology or witchcraft or mithraism - but it is a known fact from the time of nimrod that there were people who used 'dark powers' to obtain what they call 'knowledge.'  they combined this with religion and it was their way to hold power by using methods of deception.

with our modern technology i do not doubt the bible will be proven 100% accurate.  for instance, we can now trace people's migration much better.  also, language studies prove the connections between people's and where they were and where they have gone.  if this counters the bible - then where is the proof.  the burden of proof is on those who doubt.   

[pianistimo]

all it took was adam and eve at the beginning (and that was TWO people).  in gen. 9:19  'these three were the sons of noah; and from these the whole earth was populated.'  we know that when they entered the ark, they took their wives with them - so there were SIX altogether. 

i read somewhere that if the earth had been populated any sooner than this time-frame - we would not be able to hold the population of the earth as it is today.  if you could referentially go back, which you can with the geneologies of the bible (generation-wise) - as we know the approximate age that Christ lived - you can sequentially see how this could be true.  and, how the other is the lie. 

also, there have been 2006 approximate years to add forwards to the birth of Christ.  so, if we knew an approximate population then - counting census and deaths (due to plagues,etc) we could gauge how the population today is accurately reflecting how many years we have been on the planet.

[prometheus]

I don't believe the people before us were that primitive as you say.  they spoke many languages, had systems of government, monetary systems, religious systems - many of which were quite complicated.  they understood what they could at that time without the aid of our modern technology (but i sort of wonder how much technology they had at the time babel was introduced).  do you realize these people were probably healthier than we are today and had brains that were fully oxygenated (without pollution) and probably worked on a higher level than ours.

I don't really know what to answer to all this. I never said they didn't have any culture. Obviously these people were exactly the same as we are today. But they had customs we now consider cruel and primitive. And they had no good view of the world they lived in.

Sure, there have been some civilisations that were quite advanced for their time. But those people were not the people of the bible.

As for your claims that they were more healthy. This is false. We find their skeletons and we can see their ages by looking at their bones. Most people didn't become very old.

As for brains and polution. I don't see the connection. Also, even if these people had IQs of 200 it doesn't really matter since they still had primitive cultures. Maybe if they all had high IQs they would advance more quickly.

proving a worldwide flood is only an impossiblity if you are unconvinced that God can do ANYTHING.  anything!  we aren't used to thinking in impossibilities. 

What you believe is of no relevance when you look at reality. Reality won't change based on your beliefs. Surely I also think that if there was an all-powerful god she would be able to do anything. But that's not of any relevance. There is no sign of a global flood.

So are you proposing that there is no evidence because god removed it? Do you really want to believe in a trickster god?

if i knew what to look for in terms of creation science - i'd do it - but all i could think is that an awful lot of water would have had to be there to create these gorges.

Sure, if you think the earth is only 6000 years old you need a lot of water to cause the erosion you see becuase you have only a little time. But because the earth is as old as it is it doesn't need an extreme amount of water. It needs just a little creek and a lot of time. Just look at the creeks and little rivers that flow through canyons.

The burden of proof is on those who doubt.   

This is absolute non-sense.

i read somewhere that if the earth had been populated any sooner than this time-frame - we would not be able to hold the population of the earth as it is today.

That's why we don't have the population the earth wouldn't be able to hold today. Because it wouldn't be able to hold it.

If you know a little bit about biology then you know reproduction isn't exponentially. It is only exponentially as long as food and space is infite. It never is. It also isn't if there are processes working against an exponental growth. For example plagues, diseases, war. Do you know that the people in Europe were almost whiped out twice by the black plague? That the Spanish flue killed off 1/3rd of the people in Europe? And then add both wars.

Doesn't the bible mention God ordering genocide several times? Primitive people often just killed all the people off an neighbouring tribe. If people do those kinds of things we will never see exponential growth.

You live in America. The indiginous people of America, about 60 to 160 million were largely killed off. A whole continent whiped out.

[pianistimo]

does science make us more advanced as humans?  we can go more places and understand things previously understood - but the basis for God's putting us here was to learn to get along.  to take care of the planet.  and, to enjoy life and our families.  if others in history didn't get to look through a microscope - were they less civilized.  i don't think so.  if they didn't have the sanitary systems we do today - were they less civilized.  not according to the times they lived in.  say - we were suddenly put back 1000 years or more.  we would be starting from whatever point of history was made available to us.  it seems that what you are saying is this generation is the only thing that matters.  but, we have our forefathers to thank for where we are!

[debussy symbolism]

Should we be indeed descendants of 2 people, we should definately have many many incest problems, and our population wouldn't be what it currently is. As mentioned earlier, 50 people are required to avoid incestual problems, and 6 doesn't make it.

"Dark Powers"? Research into science has often been deemed by the church as "dark" process.

I am only using the past's experience because it ultimately relates to everything the church would do, if it be now, or 200 years ago. Yes, the church did shun electricity when it was just getting experimented with, and even though that that was a long time ago, we cannot discount the fact that although they change, the churches primal beliefs are to adhere to the church's original though process as much as possible, and given that they reject any sort of "contradicting" scientific advancement in the past, they will most likely to do so in the future.

[pianistimo]

which churches currently now do this?

regarding the incest problems - i believe that God created that 'problem' at some later point.  obviously adam and eve's children had to marry bro and sis.  and, even down to the time of jacob - we see people marrying cousins.  the earth wasn't populated enough and families -if they wanted to maintain a certain genetic trait or family tie - married into their own families.  genesis 20:12 is where abraham says '...she actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife.'  if this was a sin at this time - abraham wouldn't be counted among the faithful.  it just wasn't a problem back then.

but, after the earth was populated - that is when God gave his law.  and the laws of incest began.  before that, there was no law against it - and therefore no curse.  God is the one that causes curses for breaking the law.  so, if it was ok - who are we to argue with God how He does things?

[debussy symbolism]

It is a Christian belief, as far as I am concerned, to adhere to religion (God) as much as possible. The reason for it to reject science, is because science tries to disprove the churche's thought process, by disproving God.

[pianistimo]

i thought that the purpose of science was to not have any sort of preconceived notion at all.  true science seems to simply prove what was already there.

[debussy symbolism]

Yes, it does prove that what is already there, but for all we know, God isn't. Therefore, science tends to disprove God, on the account that we have no evidence of God as an existing figure.

[debussy symbolism]

i thought that the purpose of science was to not have any sort of preconceived notion at all.  true science seems to simply prove what was already there.

On the contrary, it is the purpose of religion to not have any preconceived sense of anything but God. It takes everthing for granted, whilst scientific theories are always changing.

[prometheus]

Science doesn't really disprove God. It just doesn't have to by logic. Just as one wouldn't expect science to disprove fairies or gnomes or pink unicorns, etc.

It is just that god isn't part of our reality. Therefore one should assume that god doesn't exist. If you don't you need to believe in everything you can't disprove; which is an endless list of all kinds of things.