Keeping the faith

[ahinton]

Alistair, if you please...

I don't please, especially, thanks all the same. The hippocratic oath is vital to practitioners of medicine, but I don't think that this is the subject here...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Susan:

I hold absolutely no brief for Thal and his gross insults, yet I do understand his concern about your apparent dismissal of those who do not happen to support the particular view of Christianity to which you so obviously adhere, with all its untruths about the creation of the world in six days and all that stuff.

Let's just examine that one, for an example. God created the earth in six days and then sat back and took pleasure in what he'd done on the seventh day - or so we are told. Now, assuming that God has always existed, what concern would he have for the measurement of a "day" as we earthlings understand it? You believe that God created this planet, so do you also believe that he created the sun and the other planets in our solar system? I don't know for sure, but let's assume that you do believe that as well. Why did God only want to have life on earth and not on the other planets? What is a "day" to him - in the sense that a "day" in terms of our solar system is relative to each planet's revolutions and relationship to the sun, so that a "day" on earth is far longer than one on Mercury and far shorter than one on Neptune? What is/was a "day" in God's terms? God is surely not especially concerned with what we humans on earth perceive as a 24-hour duration, so where does this "six day" idea come from? And as for the creationists' bizarre idea that God did this just a few thousand years ago when ample scientific evidence already exists to support the idea that our planet has been in existence for far longer than the creationists would have us all believe - well, words fail me.

Best,

Alistair

[general disarray]

Nowadays most europeans seem identify themselves as athiests, aganostics or something similar.

How many of us here are still strong adherents of the three major monotheistic religions.

And where are you from?

I'm not European, so I'm going to use that loophole to say that I'm a practitioner of a particular kind of Buddhism, known as Zen. 

It's not a "religion."  Religions require subscription to a "belief system," i.e. accepting that which you cannot prove, but take on faith. 

Zen says a close and lifelong observation of the workings of your own mind through meditation will answer every question a human can ask -- and without having to rely on the crapshoot of faith.

The mysteries of the Universe are within.  Look inward, Zen says.  Not outward, towards spiritual authorities of any kind. 

[thalbergmad]

so that a "day" on earth is far longer than one on Mercury and far shorter than one on Neptune?

Sorry to stick my celestial oar in, but you have got that round the wrong way.

Substitute day for year and you are correct.

Thal

[ahinton]

Sorry to stick my celestial oar in, but you have got that round the wrong way.

Substitute day for year and you are correct.

Er - excuse me? Have another look at that one. The point in this context is, in any case, that the idea of a "day" in Biblical terms is clearly predicated upon that of an "earth" day, which is self-evidently very different in duration from that of a "day" on other planets, yet those planets are supposedly also part of God's creation during this so-called "six-day" period (by whatever parameter anyone might or might not care to try to measure that "six-day" duration)...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Er - excuse me? Have another look at that one.

OK, had another look.

The day on Mercury is still longer than an Earth day and the day on Neptune is still shorter, whatever "context " you are using.

I will have a another look at Patrick Moore's book of planets later on tonight to see if it has changed.

Thanks

Thal

[ahinton]

OK, had another look.

The day on Mercury is still longer than an Earth day and the day on Neptune is still shorter, whatever "context " you are using.

I will have a another look at Patrick Moore's book of planets later on tonight to see if it has changed.

Thanks

But Thal, whichever way you may look at that at any given moment, you are still seemingly avoiding my point about earth days being of different lengths to those on other planets in that solar system which, one may assume, God also made in however long it supposedly took Him; this is what I cannot grasp about the fundamentalist notion of God having created absolutely everything (although obviously only earthly things rather than all things, in terms of what is accounted for in the Bible) in what is quaintly called "six days" (whatever that may or may not be supposed to mean)...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

this is what I cannot grasp about the fundamentalist notion of God having created absolutely everything (although obviously only earthly things rather than all things, in terms of what is accounted for in the Bible) in what is quaintly called "six days" (whatever that may or may not be supposed to mean)...

I cannot grasp it either. I did once propose to pianistimo that the day in the bible might be millions of years, but her programming would not allow her to think outside of the "day" as mentioned in the Bible.

If you are expecting an answer to your question, i am sure you will get one. If you are expecting a coherent one, i am sure you will not.

Thal

[ahinton]

I cannot grasp it either. I did once propose to pianistimo that the day in the bible might be millions of years, but her programming would not allow her to think outside of the "day" as mentioned in the Bible.

If you are expecting an answer to your question, i am sure you will get one. If you are expecting a coherent one, i am sure you will not.

I have no expectations one way or another, as a matter of fact, but such expectations as I might possibly have had otherwise would surely be subject for the most part upon who decided to answer the said question, n'est-ce pas?(!)...

Best,

Albergmad

[ahinton]

I am a Muslim with a large teddy bear collection.

Which we now know to be pardonable in Sudan.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

which religion has the longest history and has ideas from which other religions plagarized?  To me, the answer is simple - the Christian religion.

How old is Zoroastrianism, then?

What is also interesting to me, is the origin of many ceremonies that typically would not come from a human idea.  In other words, if we were evolved - why get married?

Not everyone does, Susan; apart from the fact that, in countries where the one-spouse opposite-sex marriage arrangement is freely available, not all couples necessarily marry. Not all countries yet have same-sex marriage arrangments, but even in countries where these are legally available, not all same sex couples marry. Others don't form couples anyway. In some countries, the one-spous marriage is not the only form of marriage legally available, whereas in may others, bigamy is illegal.

Why be faithful to one spouse?  I think this idea comes from God.  He created the idea of the marriage ceremony or admission of vows to another.

God created all that, too, did He? My, he must have been busy during those six days! No wonder he needed a rest; he must have been absolutely knackered! No, Susan, God didn't create it; humans did; I'm sure that, had God created the married state, He would not have had it vary from country to country and from time to time as described above. Now none of what I say here is intended to imply that I think marriage is in any sense devalued; far from it, in fact. It is somthing to be taken very seriously - reverenced, indeed - and the vows taken are appropriately important. That said, it is a matter of human choice; even God doesn't "tell" people that they must marry.

And, the vows that ones says in taking oaths of office. These oaths are ancient but obviously changed drastically over the years.  The only oaths that have not changed drastically are the oaths for the British Monarchy - which can be traced (even the music) to the time of the Davidic Kings!  Basically, King David.

The British monarchy indeed has a long history, but King David was around well before it began!

Another idea which proves genetically that people have not mutated much is mtDNA.  It basically disproves on the spot the idea that people have mutated much because so much depends upon mtDNA and it's maternal link which has led to the idea all going back to one mother.  Now, how could the first mother be very far from the first father?  It's just insane to predict that this 'eve' was suddenly thousands of years removed from the first 'adam.'  And, in some of Richard Dawkins premise's you'll find really random and ridiculous ideas about the very origins of life and human life especially.  Read his books more carefully and you will find MANY theories - some kind of absurd and absolutely unproveable.

There remains, of course, much still to be discovered on this subject, but what has already been discovered proves nothing of the kind that you argue here; all it does is offer some idea of the extent to which humans have changed over the years - and it is a lot of years - but then some of us believe humans to have been on our planet for longer than some others of us believe the planet itself has existed, so I don't see much chance of agreement here!

Best,

Alistair

[pianowolfi]

Nowadays most europeans seem identify themselves as athiests, aganostics or something similar.

How many of us here are still strong adherents of the three major monotheistic religions.

And where are you from?

I am from the land beyond time and space and I believe that there exists *something* 

[ahinton]

Even the EMO stuff is out of hand - because I have not chased around anyone saying 'you are brain dead because you are not a Christian.'  I have been told that i am 'emo' for being a Christian.

Not by me, you're not! Anyway, "pianistemo" just doesn't look right...

I think that the true situation here is one of putting down Christians because supposedly they start arguments and 'wars.'

Some Christians do this; many don't. In any case, warmongering is undoubtedly not confined to Christians.

Have you ever seen the true conditions of Christians in many countries?  They are jailed, tortured, asked to revoke their beliefs, etc.  Many are executed. Some have been also abducted when doing good in a country.  This is really strange.  They are there to help and give - and then are accused of 'whatever' and killed.

But I very much doubt if anyone here, including atheists, agnostics and other non-Christians - would support such actions.

And, I'm not excluding catholic charities here.

Maybe not, but you are giving them a small "C"!...

I have no problem with doing good.  What I have a problem with is when someone says - 'this is the Christian faith.'  Being Christian depends on believing what Christ taught.  He didn't ONLY talk about doing good.  He also preached 'the gospel of the kingdom.'  what Churches today READ THE BIBLE and preach what it says?  Some don't, you know.  they preach that all you ahve to do to be saved is 'be yourself.'  Is this TRUE?  What IF it isn't.  Will ALL BE SAVED?  Only God knows.  But, I know that the bible says many times to forsake what we (all of us) were before we knew God and turn towards truth.  What is truth.  That means SEEKING TRUTH.  There are many lies.  I believe that every word of God is truth... and  'for REPROOF and instruction in righteousness.'

The very fact that different Christian churches and other organisations teach Christianity in such fundamentally different ways is surely something that is of concern to quite a few Christians, whether or not they are of your particular persuasion - and that is perfectly understandable. However, the very fact thats (a) the Bible can be interpreted in so many different ways - in fact, it can hardly be otherwise - for all the reasons I've given previously and which I won't repeat now and (b) our various present-day societies would be unrecognisable to those living in Biblical times surely make this inevitable. The only sensible sentence in your paragraph above is "What is truth" - except that you ommitted the all-important question mark after it. You say that you "believe that every word of God is truth"; well, that's fine as far as it goes, but if you can genuinely hear/read him at all times talking/writing about every aspect of contemporary human life, then fine, but you clearly have ears and eyes that I don't have, because I don't hear such things, neither do I see a massive Book of Life constantly being expanded by anyone visible, let alone God (or are you now going to tell us that God is in fact visible as well?).

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

I Peter 1:20 'No prophecy (idea or word) of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.'  Since this is so for Christians, we should take the Word of God as literally as it is meant.  In Genesis, there are verses which confirm how long a day is.  One evening and one morning.  'In six DAYS God made the heavens and the earth... and on the seventh He rested from all His works....'  OK.  If you understand how far God is ABOVE our thoughts and ways - and how is the ultimate creator - then it's no large leap to say - 'yes, He could create or do anything BY HIS WORD alone.'  We think in human terms - 'this is impossible for a man, therefore, it must be impossible for God.'  But, it's not.  He planned the creation FAR before He made it.  There are many places which indicate that before the earth was created - the method for our salvation was already in place and our rewards were also planned - 'from the foundation of the earth.'  The foundation - was just thinking about making it.

I believe God made science.  Anything that seems to contradict possibility just means to a Christian that we don't understand it yet.  God can break His own rules.  It makes the bible seem like a bunch of stories - and yet, if you SAW something like this happen - you would say 'wow, this is something that is unexplainable in human terms.'  I tend to give a lot of leeway in the leap between known and unknown as various humans experience different levels of it (even today).  Miracles.  Things that you know were 'meant to be' - or things prayed for that end up being.  Jesus said 'ask for what you want...'  That must mean that He deems his sacrifice and closeness to God to intercede for our simplest requests.  I take Him seriously on that and pray for help, for help for others, and for His soon return many times - and I never feel that He doesn't hear.  Only when we refuse to believe that He is - then we are doubting His existance.  How can you pray to someone that you doubt their existence?  By Him the heavens were created (that's not even the earth yet!)  How amazing are the heavens!

[ahinton]

I Peter 1:20 'No prophecy (idea or word) of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.'  Since this is so for Christians, we should take the Word of God as literally as it is meant.

Fine - but this was the word of one man only - Peter; it was what he believed - or at least what he wrote that he believed (and there is no obvious reason to doubt his sincerity). "Scripture" is, by definition, something written down, but when it has been so written, it has to be accepted as being the writing of its author.

In Genesis, there are verses which confirm how long a day is.  One evening and one morning.  'In six DAYS God made the heavens and the earth... and on the seventh He rested from all His works....'

There are several issues here.  Many of the books that make up the Bible as we understand it today are by authors who identified themsleves as the authors of their work; Genesis is not one of them, as far as I can recall. We all know how long an earth day is without requiring the book of Genesis to tell us, but that's only an earth day; if you believe - as you do - that God created all things, why would he choose the duration of an earth day and multiply it by six for the purposes of determining how much time to allot Himself to complete his creative activities? The book of Genesis doesn't tell us that, does it?! Furthermore, if God is immaculate and all-powerful, why did He need a rest after his efforts? I don't believe that the book of Genesis lets us in on that one either, does it?!

OK.  If you understand how far God is ABOVE our thoughts and ways - and how is the ultimate creator - then it's no large leap to say - 'yes, He could create or do anything BY HIS WORD alone.'  We think in human terms - 'this is impossible for a man, therefore, it must be impossible for God.'  But, it's not.  He planned the creation FAR before He made it.  There are many places which indicate that before the earth was created - the method for our salvation was already in place and our rewards were also planned - 'from the foundation of the earth.'  The foundation - was just thinking about making it.

I don't understand what you mean here. You write first of "the creation" (by which one might assume you to mean all of it) but then refer only to that of the earth. Where, however, are these "many places" of which you write? - i.e. where and what are the sources of written evidence (and by whose hand/s) that God planned his creative acts well in advance (which would seem a pretty sensible thing for him to do in any case, really)? Then we have to consider HOW God created everything, yet all that you can come up with on this is that He did it "by His word alone"; do you literally mean that God merely said something like "there will be a sun of (whatever) size and there will be a number of planets of varying sizes according to my will that will revolve around it" and all the rest of it and, hey presto, there it was? If so, who was listening and carrying out His orders? - and why were they created first so as to be there on hand (right hand, left hand? - who knows?) to carry out God's orders? And he made "the heavens" too; where exactly are they, then? Have you seen them?

I believe God made science.  Anything that seems to contradict possibility just means to a Christian that we don't understand it yet.  God can break His own rules.

You believe that God made everything; we all know that. "Anything that seems to contradict possibility" means to EVERYONE that we don't understand it yet - not just to Christians; taken literally, your assertion here appears also to imply that only Christians can hope to grasp scientific matters, which is clearly not the case and seems to come across as an arrogant dismissal of the intelligence of all non-Christians.

It makes the bible seem like a bunch of stories - and yet, if you SAW something like this happen - you would say 'wow, this is something that is unexplainable in human terms.'

The Bible is not just a bunch of stories; it is a blend of historical chronicling, story-telling and imaginative fantasy. If I'd seen the creation happening (which I couldn't have done because I'd not have been created myself!), of course I'd have been utterly amazed, but then I've seen lots of things that amaze me and which I do not fully understand, but I can't expect to understand everything anyway - not even those things that can be explained successfully "in human terms" to those that are capable of understanding them.

that I tend to give a lot of leeway in the leap between known and unknown as various humans experience different levels of it (even today).

Well, that at least is good to know!

Miracles.  Things that you know were 'meant to be' - or things prayed for that end up being.

A mixture of fantasy and coincidence, this.

Jesus said 'ask for what you want...'  That must mean that He deems his sacrifice and closeness to God to intercede for our simplest requests.

Cart before horse here, methinks; Jesus hadn't sacrificed Himself at the time when He is supposed to have said this. Furthermore, He could not intercede for anyone other than those who can make direct contact with Him, which is very difficult for us to do in reality now that He has been dead for over two thousand years.

I take Him seriously on that and pray for help, for help for others, and for His soon return many times - and I never feel that He doesn't hear.

Oh, we know that you take Him seriously all right! I take his legacy seriously, too, but that's not necessarily the same thing. But you've not addressed this "second coming" business. Why would He even want to do that if it were possible? Do you suppose that He feels that his teachings have failed and He therefore needs a second opportunity?

Only when we refuse to believe that He is - then we are doubting His existance.

Well, that's so obviously the case that you may as well have written "only when we refuse to believe that my name is Susan - then we are doubting that my name is Susan"...

How can you pray to someone that you doubt their existence?

Well, of course you can't - but then how can you pray realistically to anyone that's been dead for two thousand years and ask that He intercede on your behalf to God?

By Him the heavens were created (that's not even the earth yet!)  How amazing are the heavens!

As I suggested before - busy boy, that God! Anyway, so you HAVE seen them, then; well, please give us a description. I have seen The Plains of Heaven by that magnificent 19th century English artist John Martin, but that's as near as I've gotten to the real thing; you ought, incidentally, to get to know his work if you don't already, for he was very adept at Biblical epics, sometimes on a most ambitious scale (I'm not sure whether they'd be to your taste, but...)

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

Yet Peter was an apostle as well as disciple.  That meant that he was deemed by Christ to have understood Christ while he walked on this earth well enough that he was given 'the keys.'  Everyone jokes about Peter at the gates of heaven - but seriously - Christ said whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven.  This implies that of all people after Christ, He probably had the most bountiful gift of the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit guides people to follow the words of Jesus Christ.

Peter wrote several books in the NT - and it is interesting what they say about the heavens and earth in ancient times to now.  II Peter 2:5 'and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly....and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gommorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter....'

So, there is a distinct element to Peter's gift of the Holy Spirit - which takes the Word of God literally.  That there were literally only eight people after the flood (a fact also disputed by many) - and that Peter believed that it was symbolic - just as the destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah - of God's judgement.  He wanted to warn people of this judgement so that they did not follow the 'fallen angels.'  These angels (demons) Peter apparently was taught about - that they were not spared when they sinned, but cast into hell (apart from God) and committed to pits of darkness (without the light of God's word), reserved for judgement.  Peter makes a comparison that if the angels are judged - how much more should we be wary of believing all doctrine - because as in chapter 2 says - there are many 'false' doctrines.

This is perhaps why Christianity is difficult.  We have a doctrine that 'we are just here.  Just here living.  There is no after life.  There was no 'beforelife' with Jesus Christ.  We were not planned.  We just happened into existence.  Or, as Christians believe - that before the foundation of the world - the idea of the 'kingdom of God' was created.  That we would dwell with God after our earthy dwelling here.  That our dwellings here are like 'tents.'  And, when God pulls up the 'tent stakes' - it's not permanent for those who trust him.  It's like a temporary change of dwelling place.  'How Lovely Are Thy Dwellings, Oh Lord of Hosts... My Soul Longeth Yet faints for the House of My Lord...As bird finds a nest...'  These were King David's words when He recognized how temporary things are on the earth.

[ahinton]

Yet Peter was an apostle as well as disciple.  That meant that he was deemed by Christ to have understood Christ while he walked on this earth well enough that he was given 'the keys.'  Everyone jokes about Peter at the gates of heaven - but seriously - Christ said whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven.  This implies that of all people after Christ, He probably had the most bountiful gift of the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit guides people to follow the words of Jesus Christ.

Peter wrote several books in the NT - and it is interesting what they say about the heavens and earth in ancient times to now.  II Peter 2:5 'and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly....and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gommorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter....'

So, there is a distinct element to Peter's gift of the Holy Spirit - which takes the Word of God literally.  That there were literally only eight people after the flood (a fact also disputed by many) - and that Peter believed that it was symbolic - just as the destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah - of God's judgement.  He wanted to warn people of this judgement so that they did not follow the 'fallen angels.'  These angels (demons) Peter apparently was taught about - that they were not spared when they sinned, but cast into hell (apart from God) and committed to pits of darkness (without the light of God's word), reserved for judgement.  Peter makes a comparison that if the angels are judged - how much more should we be wary of believing all doctrine - because as in chapter 2 says - there are many 'false' doctrines.

This is perhaps why Christianity is difficult.  We have a doctrine that 'we are just here.  Just here living.  There is no after life.  There was no 'beforelife' with Jesus Christ.  We were not planned.  We just happened into existence.  Or, as Christians believe - that before the foundation of the world - the idea of the 'kingdom of God' was created.  That we would dwell with God after our earthy dwelling here.  That our dwellings here are like 'tents.'  And, when God pulls up the 'tent stakes' - it's not permanent for those who trust him.  It's like a temporary change of dwelling place.  'How Lovely Are Thy Dwellings, Oh Lord of Hosts... My Soul Longeth Yet faints for the House of My Lord...As bird finds a nest...'  These were King David's words when He recognized how temporary things are on the earth.

I notice, yet again, that an entire litany of questions and points goes ignored and unanswered throughout the above; this comes as no surprise, however, as I and others here are used to the Sermons of Sister Susan that studiously take little or no note of what anyone else has put to you. Perhaps youmight like to address them now.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

No answers, just deluded drivel.

No change then.

Thal

[general disarray]

At last!  My first-time, real-time experiencing of pianistimo's FaithFestForum!

I admire your tenacity, pianistimo.

Maybe you're the successor to C. S. Lewis?

[pianistimo]

I hope not.  I don't write sci-fi.  Narnia.  What a name!  What's in a name anyways.

Well, CS Lewis isn't my style - but i credit him for creativity.  I'd rather write down things that people find unbelieveable but actually proven true.  Not imaginative and descriptive of things not seen yet.  Somehow, I just want to be the one to capture that image of the floating lighted ball that NASA can't seem to get.  Or has descriptions of, but not a close-up shot.  I want to take an astronomy class and say 'what's that over there?'  Not that I expect to find God, mind you - but I want to understand what others do about what holds the universe together.  I mean - that's a real subject but nobody seems to be able to wrap their heads around it.  For instance, people try to confine the universe to a 'set.'  But, IS the universe a 'set' or does it have changeable qualities where God adds and takes away from it at will without telling us?

And, what about those donated hearts that people say seem to enliven the donor to have feelings they didn't before.  This is probably going much farther than I would - not being a doctor and no inclination for learning about heart-transplant or anything.  But, I'm curious to what extent a heart-transplant takes some non-genetic things with it.  I can't explain my thoughts really - but they are questions.

[general disarray]

Reach for the stars, pianistimo reach for the stars.

[thalbergmad]

I want to take an astronomy class and say 'what's that over there?' 

Yeh, why don't you.

Take an astronomy class and tell everyone the Universe is 6,000 years old.

Thal

[pianistimo]

Just figuring out how to use a telescope would keep me quite occupied.  I still haven't figured out all the features on my cell phone.  The problem with life is that you can't have every question answered.  So you have to pick one quick and then study it your entire life.  I think I'm going to study how long it takes for a fossil to form.

[thalbergmad]

The problem with life is that you can't have every question answered.  So you have to pick one quick and then study it your entire life.  I think I'm going to study shoe leather.

And what have you spent your entire life studying?. I guess it must be geology and astronomy.

Shoe leather is probably more your level, so i suggest you start as soon as possible.

Thal

[pianistimo]

Ok.  This cowboy in ND lost a hat - and 30 years later 'voila' fossilized.  Leather is basically a skin - just processed a bit.

Actually, I'd like to skip the leather and go right to gemology.  You know.  Find a diamond in the raw or some gold or something.  I never did have any luck with goldpanning - but that was just once at this well-visited mining operation.  I think real golddiggers go to glaciers and risk life and limb waiting for tides and sand to be just right.  Isn't gold $81. per ounce now?  I'm not going to go wasting my money buying it.  I want to find it.  Who's with me?

(sorry, this is in the wrong thread now - isn't it.  faith and gold?)

[thalbergmad]

Isn't gold $81. per ounce now?  I'm not going to go wasting my money buying it. 

Right again.

I would not buy gold if it was as much as $81 per ounce.

[ahinton]

Just figuring out how to use a telescope would keep me quite occupied.

Ah, well, that's all right, then!

I still haven't figured out all the features on my cell phone.

Maybe you've missed the odd miracle there - or maybe you just don't understand it all (or necessarily even need to, come to that).

The problem with life is that you can't have every question answered.

No, indeed, you can't, can I?!...

So you have to pick one quick and then study it your entire life.  I think I'm going to study how long it takes for a fossil to form.

Why don't you just ask God? He created them all, did He not? And you're in regular direct contact with Him, apparently. So you could ask Him...

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

How old is Zoroastrianism, then?

Best,

Alistair

You seam to be interested in this religion. Are you?

And Zoroastrianism is of course older than all of the abrahamic religions.

[thalbergmad]

You seam to be interested in this religion. Are you?

And Zoroastrianism is of course older than all of the abrahamic religions.

I think there is a Sorabji connection here somewhere, if i remeber one of Alistair's old posts.

Thal

[ahinton]

You seam to be interested in this religion. Are you?

And Zoroastrianism is of course older than all of the abrahamic religions.

Indeed it is - and I am interested it in no more than any other, in particular - but my point in the context concerned was merely to put across the fact that, as you rightly repeat here, that religion is considerably older than Christianity, despite what it would appear to suit Susan to have us believe about the origins and historical longevity of the latter...

Best,

Alistair

[buick8]

USA
Christian Believer:
Seems lots of people lose interest in faith, or place their faith in worldly things like government, politicians, education, whatever they think they need the most they will look for what seems to them most likely to fill their need. So, they're not so much against religious faith, as they think they just don't need it, that something else "out there" will meet their needs if they can only find it.
my testimony is this: that in adulthood as I encountered life, I began to be amazed at what I was seeing: the things people do, the ways we behave (and misbehave) and even more amazed at how, Hey! I read that somewhere; that somewhere was the Bible. The the more I noticed, the more I began to notice: it hit me like a brick, and so I am continually amazed at the understanding I get. I am so glad I did not just ignore the Scripture and look elsewhere. There is amazing peace in this understanding (incomplete understanding, for sure, but definately the beginnings). Telling you this is like going on a trip somewhere and trying to tell others about it on your return; I don't think I am articulate enough and I have no photos; it's so real, though. I hope it happens to you.

[pianochick93]

Ok.  This cowboy in ND lost a hat - and 30 years later 'voila' fossilized.  Leather is basically a skin - just processed a bit.

Sorry, but skin or hide doesn't fossilize well, it breaks down too easily. Also it takes A LOT longer than 30 years for a fossil to form.

[mcgillcomposer]

No faith (Christian, Muslim, Jewish...whatever) is necessary for God to exist. If one were to kill all of the Christian inhabiting the Earth, would God cease to exist in your mind? This may seem very superficial, but it is a very powerful question because it gives insight into the nature and quality of your belief.

Another idea which proves genetically that people have not mutated much is mtDNA.  It basically disproves on the spot the idea that people have mutated much because so much depends upon mtDNA and it's maternal link which has led to the idea all going back to one mother.  Now, how could the first mother be very far from the first father?  It's just insane to predict that this 'eve' was suddenly thousands of years removed from the first 'adam.'  And, in some of Richard Dawkins premise's you'll find really random and ridiculous ideas about the very origins of life and human life especially.  Read his books more carefully and you will find MANY theories - some kind of absurd and absolutely unproveable.

This argument has been refuted by several credible scientists numerous times - the most insistent one being Richard Dawkins. Unless you can fully understand the science behind what you are saying, you shouldn't use it as an argument to defend your religion - the most likely case is that you've misunderstood something in the scientific information just as so many of us have 'misunderstood' something about your faith. Stick to what you know and now what you pretend to know.

[mcgillcomposer]

I find too much hippocracy in Christianity.

And what do you make of rhinoceroucy in Christianity?