Post by: Maximumbeing on May 26, 2004, 02:30:00 PM
I was talking to some people of a nearby presbyterian church the other day, and they told me that human eyes could never handle seeing the divine, which begged me to ask how they were able to witness the "miracles" of Jesus. They told me then that Jesus was not divine in the human flesh, but only as he was performing such "miracles". Doesn't that seem a tad inconsistant though? He's divine only when need be, reminds me alot of the people who use the bible only when convenient.
In the end it's plain to see what has happened to religion:
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. 'Whither is God?' He cried; 'I will tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers.'
-Friedrich Nietzsche
Post by: gainpresence on February 07, 2003, 05:33:00 PM
I say there are two options:
1: You die, you get burried, people cry, you rot.
2: You die, you go to heaven or hell (in your case, hell), you are there eternally.
Post by: vincent_y79 on February 07, 2003, 05:58:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| If we wish to have a chance in our future, we must get rid of it |
Religion is a cohesive force that have held many lives together through traumatic events which would have otherwise been torn apart without it. Families that have lost love ones console themselves that their beloved have gone to a better place. Individuals that have nothing else to look forward to in the future and is on the verge of suicide can comfort themselves that God is still out there and loves him. These individuals chance to even continue with their future was given to them by their faith.
There are no arguments to say otherwise that religion have never been the cause of war. The Muslim extremist and the Jews in the Bible are certainly easy examples. But religion drove their civilization forward through conquest of land and people.
Its almost undeniable that a strong goverment is essential for a stable future. It sets a structure to how business can be conducted, punishment be served and down to something as mundane as when you can hunt. Religion is also such that it can set rules to how we treat each other. Teaching good morale isn't enough, those morales have to be universal and structured and everyone agree so life can be harmonious. Let goverment govern the body and religion the spirit. Both are essential for the future.
Edit:I can give a better argument later (maybe) I did this while answering telephones at work so my line of thought kept getting interrupted. I want to be more elloquent but I don't feel like getting into college mode right now. I feel like I'm writing a paper for a prof. This isn't for a paper is it?
Post by: bagel5009 on February 07, 2003, 06:14:00 PM
Post by: gainpresence on February 07, 2003, 06:18:00 PM
Maybe catholic?
Post by: Snakers on February 07, 2003, 06:19:00 PM
Post by: Ace25 on February 07, 2003, 06:22:00 PM
Post by: gainpresence on February 07, 2003, 06:25:00 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
That, of course, is to protect the church from the state controlling it (which will eventually happen, and you will join in on it).
The writers of our constitution were Christians.
Post by: vincent_y79 on February 07, 2003, 06:27:00 PM
| QUOTE (Snakers @ Feb 7 2003, 09:19 PM) |
| Religion is a form of control that a government uses to control people. |
Thats only when you let religion to be the goverment. A big mistake that happened in England around the 13-15 century I think when even the king have to ask the permission of the church to take a piss. The church became so corrupt that you can pre-pay for forgiveness before you actually do the sin. Indulgence it was called. Disgusting little thing.
Post by: gainpresence on February 07, 2003, 06:31:00 PM
Coincidentally, this is the same year (or time period) that morals declined rapidly and diseases shot up drastically (STDs).
Post by: vincent_y79 on February 07, 2003, 06:34:00 PM
| QUOTE (Ace25 @ Feb 7 2003, 09:29 PM) |
| Wow, guess your right.. so where did the term "seraration of church and state" actually come from and what prohibits having religion taught in public schools? |
Prohibiting prayer from school isn't on the constitution but was only recently passed as law back in the late 80's or early 90's?? Someone had a notion on their head that praying in school forces religion on their children. A boyscout was in the news also, he got kicked out cause he refused to take their oath or something that included believing in god or something. And surely you must have heard of that recent controversy regarding the Pledge of Allegiance's revision? I think the changing the Pledge of Allegiance comes to the same ridiculous bullshit as that lady that sued McDonalds for having a hot coffee.
Edit: gainpresence had the right date on the prayer in school thing.
see above.
Post by: N00bvin on February 07, 2003, 06:36:00 PM
| QUOTE (bagel5009 @ Feb 7 2003, 06:14 PM) |
| Im Christian and i believe in it very strongly and have no doubts about it |
...and I honestly don't think there is anything wrong with that, per se.
I don't want to convince others, exactly, but to open dialogue on both sides.
Let me stress that point too... if you have a belief, then believe... do not try to push your "opinion" on others. I state clearly that my thoughts and beliefs are just that MINE... I will not call your house or knock on your door (though some do) to talk you into believing what I believe.
Unfortunately the Muslim extremist believe that if I don't believe, then I should DIE. Well, excuse me if that is not a fucked way of thinking.
Continue to believe... but let everyone else (including your children one day) make a choice.
BTW... any "God" that would send me to hell for having an opinion (though I'm "fairly" moral... and actually a pretty nice guy) is not a god that I would want to "believe in" in the first place.
Why can't families have cohesion without religion? I know it is comforting to know that someone is in "a better place"... but I don't think I like that thought either. Too many people "waste" there life thinking that there is something else. Well, maybe there is, maybe there isn't...
Argument for: There is a heaven... you live your life spiritually, but conservatively thinking that there is an after life...
Argument against: There is no heaven... you die and that's it... you wasted the ONE CHANCE you had to do exactly what you want. Instead of going mountain climbing on Sunday, you went to church...
...neither is much of an argument... but my point... this MAY be it... don't waste it... believe in YOURSELF.
I'm down with the Mother Earth thing... not in a Wicca way, but I dig it. That reminds of a thought I've always had. Extremist tree huggers. Yes, I believe in recycling and such... but more because I want to save my ass and save the ass of my children... not because of "Mother Earth"... if you are a SEVERE BIG TIME tree hugger, your best bet is to throw your trash on the street, drive SUVs that chug fumes and gas, and throw styrofoam in the ocean. Why you ask? If you love Mother Earth so much... kill all the humans by making the place uninhabitable. Guess what... the Earth will outlast ALL OF US no matter what (save a huge meteor that blows the planet in half). We could have a world devestated by nuclear war... in 3 million years the Earth will still be here and nothing would know humans existed (except in maybe fossils) a whole new life form would pop up oblivious to whatever happened...
Post by: gainpresence on February 07, 2003, 06:36:00 PM
Post by: Snakers on February 07, 2003, 06:37:00 PM
Post by: Snakers on February 07, 2003, 06:43:00 PM
it is not illegal to say a prayer in school. however it is illegal to say it out loud in the presence of others because you may be forcing your religion on them. religion is allowed to be taught in schools, but as a teacher, you can not favor a religion or say that it is better. Basically everything comes down to how you use it. theres 2 ways to everything. and about the pledge, nobody is forcing you to say or listen to it, so dont. if you want to say the pledge but dont believe in god, skip that part. if you refuse to have anything to do with the likeness of god, dont spend or own money, "in god we trust" is plastered on every US piece of currency.
Post by: N00bvin on February 07, 2003, 06:47:00 PM
| QUOTE (Snakers @ Feb 7 2003, 06:19 PM) |
| Religion is a form of control that a government uses to control people. |
Not so much the case anymore, but it does have its influence.
BTW, I notice your avatar (and I don't want to make an assumption)... are you anti-religion, or "God forbid"
a Satanist?Not directed toward you... but that "religion" is just a silly. There IS good and evil, but there is no devil and there is no God. (Remember kids, the important thing to remember about this conversation is that it is opinion).
Many of us now lead "blurred" lives. Bagel says he is a Christian and a firm believer... but I have to wonder how many song he's downloaded... or Xbox games? Is that an "evil" thing? In my opinion no... but in some opinions it is stealing (technically it is as well). Stealing is a sin and sins are evil, so by that rational, Bagel would be evil and not a very good Christian.
I myself have dabbled in some downloading and ... gasp... even looked at pr0n. Am I evil... conveniently, in my opinion... no. I do a LOT of good things. I work for charities, I give gobs of money... non for recognition, I just like helping my fellow man.
George Bush is a "religious man" but he is about to send a bunch of people to there death... American and Iraqi. Does he think he is going to hell? ...makes me wonder...
Post by: Snakers on February 07, 2003, 06:48:00 PM
Post by: vincent_y79 on February 07, 2003, 06:50:00 PM
| QUOTE (N00bvin @ Feb 7 2003, 09:36 PM) |
| I don't want to convince others, exactly, but to open dialogue on both sides. Let me stress that point too... if you have a belief, then believe... do not try to push your "opinion" on others. I state clearly that my thoughts and beliefs are just that MINE... I will not call your house or knock on your door (though some do) to talk you into believing what I believe. Unfortunately the Muslim extremist believe that if I don't believe, then I should DIE. Well, excuse me if that is not a fucked way of thinking. |
I totally agree with this. Although I think its okay to tell someone your belief and maybe even try to convince them but don't shove it in their face. Don't go killing someone that doesn't see things the same as you do. It goes with the gay community. Its fine if you're gay but that rub that in my face. Don't make it your excuse to act like an ass.
As far as extremist goes; They're all scary. Extremist in the animal rights activist. Extremist in the environmental movement. Extremist makes me want to kill them. They want to tell us what to eat (no meat) what to wear (no leather) where to even freaking live. Kill em KILL EM ALL.
Post by: Snakers on February 07, 2003, 06:51:00 PM
| QUOTE (N00bvin @ Feb 8 2003, 03:47 AM) |
| BTW, I notice your avatar (and I don't want to make an assumption)... are you anti-religion, or "God forbid" a Satanist? |
more or less, im an athiest or agnostic (i always get the 2 mixed up). i dont believe in, or disprove that there is or is not a god. i dont have enough proof to decide wether one exsists or not, so i dont choose.
as for my avatar, its just a symbol off the cd of a band that i like
Post by: Ace25 on February 07, 2003, 06:53:00 PM
One thing I differ a little on from you Vin is that I have a lot less patience with "religious" people. I honestly cant stand a word about how god will save me.. it all sickens me, god, jesus, allah, budha (which I agree is not as terrible for being organized), Shiva (6 armed woman created life? anyone else thinking alien theory?) Why people are so hopeless with themselves that the only way they can decipher right&wrong is by seeking out guidance from faith, god, etc, rather than take resposiblity for themselves is beyond me.. Religion is a scapegoat for peoples problems and also the solution for some, although, I am possitive that if organized religion solved someones problems, there is at least 2 other non religious solutions to the same problem..
Anyone else having a hard time posting? This sucks.. like 10 retries so far...
Post by: Snakers on February 07, 2003, 06:55:00 PM
think about this, adam and eve are created to populate the world.
chrisitian = premarital sex = sin
adam and eve werent married.
to spread population, it would lead a whoe line of incest.
noah's arc. everything and everyone but a male and female of each species was wipped out. to get where we are today it would be an extremely long line of incest. i would be related to every one of you.
Post by: bagel5009 on February 07, 2003, 06:59:00 PM
| QUOTE (N00bvin @ Feb 8 2003, 02:47 AM) |
| Many of us now lead "blurred" lives. Bagel says he is a Christian and a firm believer... but I have to wonder how many song he's downloaded... or Xbox games? Is that an "evil" thing? In my opinion no... but in some opinions it is stealing (technically it is as well). Stealing is a sin and sins are evil, so by that rational, Bagel would be evil and not a very good Christian. I myself have dabbled in some downloading and ... gasp... even looked at pr0n. Am I evil... conveniently, in my opinion... no. I do a LOT of good things. I work for charities, I give gobs of money... non for recognition, I just like helping my fellow man. |
I, myself, do not believe that that is stealing, and my parents do not mind, rather brag about me, heh, also, say i was stealing, that does not make me a "bad" christian, just because i steal, a bad christian is someone who completely defys there faith and God in whole.
Post by: KazuyaWaruasobi on February 07, 2003, 07:03:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Religion is a cohesive force that have held many lives together through traumatic events which would have otherwise been torn apart without it. Families that have lost love ones console themselves that their beloved have gone to a better place. Individuals that have nothing else to look forward to in the future and is on the verge of suicide can comfort themselves that God is still out there and loves him. These individuals chance to even continue with their future was given to them by their faith. |
These people are weak and need to be lied to. As I said before: many people can't handle reality. It disgusts me.
| QUOTE |
| Its almost undeniable that a strong goverment is essential for a stable future. It sets a structure to how business can be conducted, punishment be served and down to something as mundane as when you can hunt. Religion is also such that it can set rules to how we treat each other. Teaching good morale isn't enough, those morales have to be universal and structured and everyone agree so life can be harmonious. Let goverment govern the body and religion the spirit. Both are essential for the future. |
Funny. You seem to be ingnoring the true nature of goverments and religion. Goverments and religions control and manipulate for their own purposes. They use the population that sustains them as a puppet, and whenever there is an opprtunity for that government or religion to gain power or vanquish an enemy, the population will be sent to war. Government and religion will do anything to save itself, but they always forget that without a population, there can be no government. They always send off their population to die, not realising that protecting the population is the best way to protect the government or religion. Government and religion will always be corrupt, and will always be destructive.
| QUOTE |
| But religion drove their civilization forward through conquest of land and people. |
For it's own goals, and they were used by that religion. Do you see that as a good thing> If so than I truly pity you. . .think about it more. . .
| QUOTE |
| Im Christian and i believe in it very strongly and have no doubts about it. |
And you're a good little Christian aren't you? Not questioning, but still ignoring Christian morals when you have something to gain.
| QUOTE |
| Religion is a form of control that a government uses to control people. |
Religion and government go hand-in-hand. One does not control the other. Even military governments of the past have created their own religions based or combat.
| QUOTE |
| Thats only when you let religion to be the goverment. A big mistake that happened in England around the 13-15 century I think when even the king have to ask the permission of the church to take a piss. The church became so corrupt that you can pre-pay for forgiveness before you actually do the sin. Indulgence it was called. Disgusting little thing. |
You are intelligent, but you only let yourself see isolated, and blatantly obvious instances. You don't see religions and it's motives playing part in many more less-obvious parts of history, and how long-term it's affects really are.
| QUOTE |
| The law prohibiting Religion (and prayer) in schools was enstated in 1963 (?). Coincidentally, this is the same year (or time period) that morals declined rapidly and diseases shot up drastically (STDs). |
Do you really think that's linked with some miniscule act to promote religious freedom in children? If so, then maybe you should tell a few sexually-mollested choir-boys about how degenerate people without religion are.
| QUOTE |
| I think the changing the Pledge of Allegiance comes to the same ridiculous bullshit as that lady that sued McDonalds for having a hot coffee. |
That's an incredibly stupid comment. I'm sure you also know that we want the Pledge changed BACK. The 50s are are a good example of a well-subjugated Christian population, and I bet you think those were good; peaceful times as well.
| QUOTE |
| I state clearly that my thoughts and beliefs are just that MINE... I will not call your house or knock on your door (though some do) to talk you into believing what I believe. |
But I wish that were always the case. I DO happen to hate Christianty. I despise it, but I don't preach to Christians or treat them poorly. If I get preached to, then they pay for it, but thet never seem to see preaching as a bad thing. Preaching is fascist.
| QUOTE |
| BTW... any "God" that would send me to hell for having an opinion (though I'm "fairly" moral... and actually a pretty nice guy) is not a god that I would want to "believe in" in the first place. |
Exactly one of my points.
| QUOTE |
| Being a "nice guy" has nothing to do with salvation, God offers you a gift, accept it.. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for our sins, we must accept this to get into heaven. It is satan, not God, that is keeping you from heaven right now. |
A gift my ass. You know the price of this theoretical "gift". Satan, if existant, is not evil. He fought for US, and all of the evil that Christians claim are because of Satan is really because of YOU!! You are the most hypocritical bastards that have ever existed!
| QUOTE |
| And about the pledge, nobody is forcing you to say or listen to it, so dont. if you want to say the pledge but dont believe in god, skip that part. if you refuse to have anything to do with the likeness of god, dont spend or own money, "in god we trust" is plastered on every US piece of currency. |
Bullshit. We shouldn't need to tiptoe around your religion. It should know it's boundaries and allow other people their freedom. Don't give us shit like: "If you don't want to see a huge billboard about God, then don't look at the billboard."
N00bvin- For most of my life I wa tolerant of religion. I had my beliefs, and they had theirs, but after countless instances of being "interrogated" by teachers or stangers because I didn't believe in God, and seeing it's negative effects everywhere, and seeing it shoved in everybody's faces, can you blame me for becoming bitter? I had a period of pure hatred of Christians. I now have more tolerance, but it makes no difference. I am extremely anti-religion, but my views come from years of intelligent analysis and observation.
Ace25- I agree with pretty much everything you say. Being spriritual can be very good for people, and I think that religion can exist peacefully, it just needs to exist differently in every person. Everybody can find their own personal spirituality if they want to, and they can respoect others'. As long as hordes of people subscribe to one "brand" of religion though, nothing good will happen.
Post by: Snakers on February 07, 2003, 07:03:00 PM
Post by: vincent_y79 on February 07, 2003, 07:06:00 PM
| QUOTE (Snakers @ Feb 7 2003, 09:55 PM) |
| if you actually go through and read the bible....everythign contradicts its self. there are many things. think about this, adam and eve are created to populate the world. chrisitian = premarital sex = sin adam and eve werent married. to spread population, it would lead a whoe line of incest. noah's arc. everything and everyone but a male and female of each species was wipped out. to get where we are today it would be an extremely long line of incest. i would be related to every one of you. |
Hehe, I don't thinks it's exactly premarital sex. God gave them each other so it was already under his sanction. But its wrong to believe that every single one of us came from just those 2 people. Hell I wouldn't want to be related to some people I know. And incest is just sick sick sick. I always find the entries in the Genesis the best but Adam and Eve just screwed it up for all of us. I don't think the rest of the bible would be what it is if Eve kept her hand to herself and away from that tree.
Post by: Lizard_King on February 07, 2003, 07:37:00 PM
For instance, while it is often the claim of the anti-religionist that religion is the source of much conflict, I would argue that materialist secularism, from the blood drenched French Revolution to Marx to Stalin and the Nazis, and from there to modern variations of socialism, has represented a seriously negative turning point for mankind, at least as much as Islamic fanaticism (which has far less to do with religion than with the manipulation of religion for political ends, ie keep the people pacified with minimum subsistence and direct their hostility outside).
Other than that, I would urge you to attempt to see the question you asked originally as one separate from your criticisms of George Bush, as I think the latter have a lot more to do with political questions than with his faith. I would say the same for the (admittedly always fun to talk about) legal questions about the proper role of religion according to the law, which ultimately has little to do with the private individual's choice of faith (at least in America, the People's Republic of Europe, and a few other spots).
Ace25, I think it is safe to say that if you seriously view mankind as a virus, it is a sad and tragic thing. Moreover, if you think substituting half-baked hopes for space travel is all that different from the blindest religious faith, I would say all those trees you no doubt mourn for more than humans must be keeping you from seeing the forest.
Anyhow, to get back to the question at hand, religion and science can coexist in many people (in fact, many of our most brilliant scientists are religious to a degree most would find surprising) because they serve different purposes. Francis Bacon back in the seventeenth century was among the first to seek to resolve the question of the coming brawl between theologians and scientists by pointing out that each has their proper domain, most simply defined as religion=why and science=how, and that when one seeks to interfere with the other nothing good comes of it.
I can understand such a viewpoint because it seems to me that in the absence of a structured faith with absolute morals, such as Catholicism offers, I find that many of the people that claim they are doing just fine without religion are simply substituting a religion of their own kind, be it a blind faith in evolution or socialism or whatever floats their boat. Personally, I see nothing wrong with someone sticking with a religion that gives them a higher standard to conform to, even if they do not succeed every time, rather than simply a rationalization to justify whatever behaviour catches their fancy.
At any rate, did not mean to ramble on quite as far, but I leave you with LaMettrie, an 18th century biologist:"He who builds in his heart altars to superstition was born to worship idols and not to appreciate virtue."
He meant that as a criticism of organized religion, but given that he was trying to set up (fairly cohesively) a system of beliefs based on early biology, I find it profoundly ironic that he could not see the altars, so to speak, in his own heart.
Post by: Ace25 on February 07, 2003, 07:45:00 PM
I dont understand....Last thing, unfortunately, I do have more respect for tree's than I do people. Not saying I am one to chain myself to a tree to stop it from death, but when I turn on TV, read the newspaper, go to a news webite and 90% of the stories are about death and destruction, day after day, year after year, then you make a comment about the tree's.. I think.. well, tree's dont kill nearly as many people as people kill people.. plus they provide oxygen instead of being a total waste of it.. so ya, guess I do like trees more than people.
Post by: socrates on February 07, 2003, 07:45:00 PM
Post by: KazuyaWaruasobi on February 07, 2003, 07:49:00 PM
Anyway, I added to my previous post, so read it if you wish.
Post by: Tripamang on February 07, 2003, 07:56:00 PM
Any religon that doesn't develop some sort of individual values of whats right and wrong imo isn't worth particiapting in. Why? Because unless they have some personal meaning, you're really not going to totally abide by them.
Anyways IMO god is the force that drives life =) I'm done ranting and i'm pretty stoned on cold medicine and this doesn't seem to be making much sense.
Post by: socrates on February 07, 2003, 07:57:00 PM
Post by: KazuyaWaruasobi on February 07, 2003, 08:08:00 PM
Post by: socrates on February 07, 2003, 08:10:00 PM
Post by: socrates on February 07, 2003, 08:15:00 PM
those things are the best....but those little fucking girl guide bitches run out of them every fucking year before they get to my house so this year im gunna pretend i moved down the street and cut them off....fuck the niebours 
Post by: Hammy on February 07, 2003, 08:19:00 PM
Post by: Infraded on February 07, 2003, 08:23:00 PM
*moves one house before him to buy them all first*
Post by: Infraded on February 07, 2003, 08:27:00 PM
thats why it was created...i don't see why it still exists. Most likely as something weak people use to make their life seem to have a reason and/or purpose
Post by: Lizard_King on February 07, 2003, 08:33:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Also, sorry if the virus analogy offended you, I actually thought it fits nicely if you look up the definition and life of how a virus lives, and see the path that mankind is on, to me it seems similar.. that's not to say that it can't change, but serious social changes will have to be made. We are using up natural resourses so much faster than can be replaced, and are reproducing at an amazing rate. Procreation is another topic that is a good one for debate.. I really dislike the view of procreation to carry on the family line. So many have children with that as a concern in mind. Religion has also added to that, ie, Mormons.. my company is run by mormans and all the top brass (10 of them) have no less than 10 children each... I dont understand.... |
First off, since your statement was in no way a personal attack on me, why would I be offended by the honest expression of your point of view? The aspect of "man as virus" that I find sad and incorrect is not the behavioural parallels that can be drawn as you have, but rather the trivilization of human life that would accompany such a viewpoint.
As to the rest of this quote, I think we are moving far more into the domain of economics than of religion. Your point of view about humanity outstripping nature, while certainly a popular one, is by no means an open and closed case. Such population explosion mentality has been present in nearly every generation of thinkers going back to the enlightenment; the difference is that now we have the scientific data to discuss such questions in a more objective manner. The fact is that in terms of food technological advances in agriculture and bioengineering have more than provided for us in the past, leaving us with considerable surpluses in the present (famine as a modern occurrence is the product of flawed politics rather than an actual absence of food). As to mineral resources, humans have proved nothing if not adaptable, finding substitutes and changes in lifestyle to accomodate nearly all changes in supply.
To quote libertarian Timothy Roloff : "The economist Julian Simon pointed out time and time again how the doomsayers manipulate and exaggerate environmental hazards to further their personal agendas, rather than for the environment's sake. Julian Simon won his title as the world's foremost "doomslayer" by winning a bet against acclaimed chicken little, Paul Ehrlich. Ehrlich authored a book called "Population Bomb", and has been a big voice in the "the sky is falling" crowd. Simon bet him that anyone could pick five natural resources, and over a period of ten years, the average combined price for those resources would decline. If we're really raping the Earth, and running out of natural resources, this should have been an easy bet for a doomsayer to win. Ehrlich took Simon up on the bet, and it made the front page of the papers. But when Ehrlich lost and mailed off his check ten years later, it made the back page."
There is no reason to be any less skeptical of those who preach messianism (ie socialism, radical environmentalism, as utopian solutions for mankinds problems) on pseudo-scientific grounds than you would be of someone making the same claims on purely religious grounds...The man yelling that the end of the world is coming is probably the same guy trying to sell you the only way to prevent it.
Post by: vincent_y79 on February 07, 2003, 08:33:00 PM
| QUOTE (KazuyaWaruasobi @ Feb 7 2003, 10:03 PM) | ||||
These people are weak and need to be lied to. As I said before: many people can't handle reality. It disgusts me.
Funny. You seem to be ingnoring the true nature of goverments and religion. Goverments and religions control and manipulate for their own purposes. They use the population that sustains them as a puppet, and whenever there is an opprtunity for that government or religion to gain power or vanquish an enemy, the population will be sent to war. Government and religion will do anything to save itself, but they always forget that without a population, there can be no government. They always send off their population to die, not realising that protecting the population is the best way to protect the government or religion. Government and religion will always be corrupt, and will always be destructive. |
I was responding to the original post about whether religion is needed for the future. My point with the family was that they used their belief to move on and reconcile themselves. I don't believe that the true nature of Government and religion is manipulation although its a very easy platform for corrupt individuals to gain massive power.
| QUOTE | ||
For it's own goals, and they were used by that religion. Do you see that as a good thing> If so than I truly pity you. . .think about it more. . . |
n00bvin argued that If we wish to have a chance in our future, we must get rid of it. With this, I didn't really care if it was a good thing or not but to show that it pressed their civilization forward. And its not like the religion told them to conquer land but its the people themselves that did it and used their faith as a backbone. If for some unlikely chance that we find some alien community out there and we want their planet, we can say its Manifest Destiny. God wanted us to take that land. You better bet that we'll fight a whole lot harder believing that those planets are owed and believing some all encompassing power is on our side more than just wanting them.
Post by: Lizard_King on February 07, 2003, 08:51:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| There can't be a right or wrong answer to what someone believes. |
It depends on whether you are embracing moral relativism on a philosophical level (ie as a means of understanding different systems of belief) or on a practical level. The former means, for example, trying to get inside the head of a fanatical islamist to understand what makes him tick. The latter means accepting obviously immoral acts simply because they come from the aforementioned islamist's system of beliefs, and are for that reason alone valid.
Morality is not something determined by a democracy; if you live in a village of 100 people, and 99 of them vote that it is ok for them to kill you and take your property, that does not make their act any less immoral.
While it is something that can be affected to some degree by upbringing, an understanding of morality exists in all but the insane, as it is predicated both on biological instinct and on the means of peaceful coexistence. The refusal to condemn people for their wrong acts is a far worse brand of weakness than the much reviled proclivity to religion.
Post by: Hammy on February 07, 2003, 08:56:00 PM
Post by: socrates on February 07, 2003, 08:58:00 PM
Post by: vincent_y79 on February 07, 2003, 09:00:00 PM
Post by: socrates on February 07, 2003, 09:05:00 PM
Post by: dkoikadabra on February 07, 2003, 09:11:00 PM
N00bvin, did you have a bad experience with religion and 'superstitious mumbo-jumbo' when you were a kid? You seem to cling to science overly, and it's never a good thing to desperatly cletch a belief that constantly proves itself wrong.
I'm not trying to insult you, just ease up on the 'science is everything' bit. There IS other things in the world that science has no idea of, you know.
Post by: Lizard_King on February 07, 2003, 09:13:00 PM
gainpresence: I am not entirely sure I understand the nature of what point you are trying to get across with that excerpt. Do you mean it as a general condemnation of material wealth as something that is inherently sinful? (which I would vehemently disagree with, and I think it is one of the most tragic failings of the Christian faith that it has been unable to divorce itself from such monastic interpretations of what God would want us to do)
It seems to me that it is precisely such teachings, if the excerpt is indeed standalone and we are not missing anything, that make it so easy for opponents of the Christian faith to claim it is a means of controlling people in the material world by promising them paradise in the next life. What am I missing?
Post by: gainpresence on February 07, 2003, 09:16:00 PM
It was also meant to point out how things are going to be after we die.
Post by: vincent_y79 on February 07, 2003, 09:20:00 PM
| QUOTE (Infraded @ Feb 7 2003, 11:27 PM) |
| seriosly..i think religion is just a scapegoat...something to blaim or use for something some dictator wanted thats why it was created...i don't see why it still exists. Most likely as something weak people use to make their life seem to have a reason and/or purpose |
Religion is not just for the weak to have a reason or purpose. People can join the military if they don't have a direction in their life and would definitely have their fill with orders but you can't really say everyone in the armed forces are weak. Maybe some joined because they believe what it stands for. People can stay in their religion if they believe what it stands for and go on missionaries. If you haven't seen what those people go through well i don't know, its a tough life. But those people that those people that are too blind to see that some TV Evangelist are scamming them and also can't see that there are other things out makes me want to slap them to wake up.
Its late and I can't say what I want to say in a more educated way. I always seem to make this excuse. Goodnight for now to you all.
Post by: Ace25 on February 07, 2003, 09:22:00 PM
Post by: kickassdude on February 07, 2003, 09:22:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| People can stay in their religion if they believe what it stands for and go on missionaries. If you haven't seen what those people go through well i don't know, its a tough life |
whats the deal with missionaries? they dont have anything better to do than go off to some third world country to force their beliefs on people?
Post by: gainpresence on February 07, 2003, 09:23:00 PM
Post by: Ace25 on February 07, 2003, 09:24:00 PM
Post by: eug2k on February 07, 2003, 09:28:00 PM
Post by: kickassdude on February 07, 2003, 09:30:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Hey, come on, that is only part of their humanitarian work, they do a lot of great things also, bring fresh water to villages, doctors, medicine, etc.. |
i guess but ive always seen this as a bribe to get people to join their religions
Post by: gainpresence on February 07, 2003, 09:31:00 PM
| QUOTE (eug2k @ Feb 7 2003, 11:28 PM) |
| i went through a couple pages of this and i am too tired (from all the devprivation of sleep that i inflicted on myself) to finish, i will read it all eventually and just want to add my 2 cents before collapsing on my bed(or floor) - i think that people that are weak are brainwashed by religion. i also think the bible (and other holly scriptures)were manipulated to brainwash them. i dont hate anyone for their religion(except extremests, but that is for their manipulation of religion). i think that whatever created us is beyond our comprehension. possibly extraterestrials. maybe we r just a virus. there was a whole show on history channel about how the bible is really just about ufo sightings and such and i think this is more plausable than any "orginized religions" today. not once in the bible was heaven ever refered to as a place that u go for being good. it was only used to mean the sky - just an example of how it was manipulated to brainwash ppl. sry if i sound like a crackpot right now but im too tired to orginize my thoughts any better |
There are actually 3 "heaven"s (all different words in the Hebrew/Greek that the bible was written in) referred to in the bible.
1. The layer of water that used to cover the earth (way up in the sky).
2. Space/Sky
3. God's little city (or dimension). Unfathomable to us.
And you're right, nowhere in the bible does is say that you go to heaven for "being good".
Post by: Infraded on February 07, 2003, 09:34:00 PM
Post by: Lizard_King on February 07, 2003, 09:36:00 PM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Feb 8 2003, 06:16 AM) |
| The point was not that the rich are going to hell, and that poor are going to heaven. But rather that, Athiests (or, non-Christains) tend to get comfortable in their thoughts, while Christians are always being persecuted for our beliefs. It was also meant to point out how things are going to be after we die. |
I suppose I see your interpretation, although I am not sure where you see persecution of Christians in that story...all I see is non-Christians going to hell.
I think the issue of being comfortable with your thoughts is far more universal, and applies to Christians just as often. Many people of all creeds are unwilling to even argue their own positions, apparently assuming that intractability is a means to infallibility.
Post by: HSDEMONZ on February 07, 2003, 09:45:00 PM
The truth is...
Post by: SmilingFlyer on February 07, 2003, 10:01:00 PM
By the way, I just read a post where someone JUDGED and threw the first stone. Wow, how Christian-like!
And that's all I'm gonna say about that.
Post by: jasonmvt on February 07, 2003, 10:08:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| You are going to hell for this (actually, commited just ONE sin condemns you). Christ can save you, you just have to ask for his forgiveness and accept his eternal salvation. |
You have proven my point. Is this sort of thing not accepted in other religions? How is it that your way can be the only way to a positive afterlife? If you were born and raised in another country, that subscribed to another religion, you might perhaps regard Christians as condemned for their beliefs. Surely you can concede this.
| QUOTE |
| I agree, but by adding this to your post, you are showing your hypocrisy. I accept God's explanation for things, I know that I cannot fully understand this world (nor can anyone else). |
Here lies the self perpetuating mechanism found in most organized religions: You cannot fathom that another method of belief may be just as significant or meaningful as your own. I have no hatred towards Christians, but Christianity is no more than another explanation for creation. How is it any more correct than the other major religions of the world?
Post by: N00bvin on February 07, 2003, 10:09:00 PM
Religion is not for everyone. For those of you who can imbrace it without "knowing"... I applaud you, since you are doing what is the definition of "faith". For those of you playing on my team... the hedonists
, I applaud you as well. I DO believe in science... and so far it has done me no wrong. I've yet to see a "proven" miracle, or something to stir my "faith". Maybe if I won the lottery... I would be thanking God, but until that time... I worship only myself. That is not in a vain way, but I believe in myself... there is no higher power that is going to do shit for me. I had nothing in my past to drive me towards this... both my parents were raised in the church systems, but left it up to me. I think most with that background has my same views.
No matter what your beliefs, do not fight each other. No matter what I believe in what is right and wrong... and being good to your fellow man is "right" as long as what they believe in doesn't harm anyone. Don't let your faith be blind however... know why you believe...
The only thing I WILL preach is tolerance.
Post by: jasonmvt on February 07, 2003, 10:30:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| In the domain of faith, such relativism as you advocate would make existence impossible. There is no way even strict materialists such as you appear to be can adhere to the standard you are setting for Christians; you are judging them for having a different viewpoint from your own, which is neither provable nor absolute |
In fact, the relativism to which I have been referring to is only meant to proclaim this: Believe what you choose to the extent that it governs your own existence solely; do not attempt to force your methods upon others out of a determination that they are in fact the only correct ones.
I do have beliefs regarding creation, death, and afterlife, but they do not demand that others must follow my path to reach enlightenment; merely that they work for me personally as Chrstianity may work for others. I concede that my beliefs are just that, my beliefs and that they are what I choose to follow. They are what I have accepted as truth, and what truth others may find is no more or less significant -regardless of how different they may be from my own.
Post by: Lizard_King on February 07, 2003, 10:35:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Believe what you choose to the extent that it governs your own existence solely; do not attempt to force your methods upon others out of a determination that they are in fact the only correct ones. |
While I am far from an advocate of coercing others into agreeing with one's faith (besides which, you can't force people to believe something, only convince them to, since it is ultimately an internal decision), I really don't understand your statement. Do you believe that you exist in a space wholly independent of everyone else, and thus that everyone exists according to how they believe they do?
Post by: tupac on February 07, 2003, 10:38:00 PM
Post by: jasonmvt on February 07, 2003, 10:47:00 PM
You are trying to pigeon-hole me into an absolute relativist's corner. I am merely stating that proclaiming others will certainly suffer in afterlife because the religion, or lack of, that they are a part of is of a different nature than one's own is a form of moral bigotry. Accept that what others believe is as significant as what you do; it is simply different, neither correct or INCORRECT.
Post by: Lizard_King on February 07, 2003, 10:50:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Well, i didn't read all the posts except the first page |
and
| QUOTE |
| sorry if i rambled on, but u should here me opinions on whether life exists and what life even is, maybe later |
Why should anyone "here" your opinions if you do not bother to read ours?
That said, I find the mention of race interesting in your post. Would it make things better if it were a black/asian/indian/arab preacher saying those things?
Also, I think judging the entire Christian faith on the basis of televangelists is a bit weak, and I think such a narrow view is seriously limiting the ability of your criticism to be effective. I am sure that gainpresence is far more able than I to detail why Christianity and liberty are inextricably related; the founding fathers were Christians and Deists, not an atheist among them, and they certainly had their shit together.
Also, why is it that anti-religionists are so persistent in attributing courage to their stance and cowardice to that of their opponents? It seems to me that neither group has the monopoly on bullshit.
Post by: jasonmvt on February 07, 2003, 10:54:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| the founding fathers were Christians and Deists, not an atheist among them, and they certainly had their shit together |
Yes, and I think James Madison stated quite insightfully, "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?"
Post by: Lizard_King on February 07, 2003, 10:55:00 PM
| QUOTE (jasonmvt @ Feb 8 2003, 07:47 AM) |
| You are trying to pigeon-hole me into an absolute relativist's corner. |
Um, no I'm not. Actually, I'm asking you what you think that I may better understand it, and thus differentiate it from the moral relativism you claim not be a part of.
And I still think that your clarifications have not succeeded in distancing you from a moral relativist...using terms like "moral bigotry" is a pretty solid indicator that you want to go beyond simple toleration in a negative sense (ie that you don't want to interfere with others) to the positive sense, promotion of the poisonous concept that all ideologies and religions are created equal.
(by the way, I use positive and negative in their legal sense of what they affect, not in the general sense of good and bad...sorry about that but working for lawyers does that to you)
Post by: jasonmvt on February 07, 2003, 10:59:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| promotion of the poisonous concept that all ideologies and religions are created equal. |
It is only 'poisonous' to those who feel their ideals are threatened by simply the existence of others.
Post by: Ace25 on February 07, 2003, 11:01:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Also, why is it that anti-religionists are so persistent in attributing courage to their stance and cowardice to that of their opponents? |
I think that would be a 3rd group of people, because I wouldnt call evolutionist anti-regionists.. I am not against religion, I am against what religion in todays society has become. It started out great, way to give people hope, meaning, life, but has been so twisted, distorted, and abused over time for gain of power, money, land that I feel I couldn't trust the majority of the "Church's employees" if I were to meet one.. guess I can say the same for most gov't officials as well, not picking soles on the church.. I know many are very good upstanding citizens, but its the bad minority I see in the news every day...
| QUOTE |
| It seems to me that neither group has the monopoly on bullshit. |
Really? What groups are you referring to here? Anti-religionists vs religionists?
Post by: jasonmvt on February 07, 2003, 11:01:00 PM
Post by: Lizard_King on February 07, 2003, 11:03:00 PM
| QUOTE (jasonmvt @ Feb 8 2003, 07:59 AM) |
| It is only 'poisonous' to those who feel their ideals are threatened by simply the existence of others. |
Not true at all. It's poisonous to anyone who has ever been affected by the material consequences of flawed ideologies and religions, which are often promulgated by people's refusal to pass judgement on others. While their is certainly a place for reasoned debate on all ideas, it must be constrained by the realization that the moment those ideas are put into action, they have consequences. Just ask the tens of millions dead thanks to Communism.
Post by: Lizard_King on February 07, 2003, 11:05:00 PM
| QUOTE (jasonmvt @ Feb 8 2003, 08:01 AM) |
| I know that the quote refers to church & state, but it also applies to one's tolerance and acceptance of other particular beliefs. |
I think that is a bit of a stretch, unless you mean it in a strictly legal context, which has little to do with the argument at hand. Madison was precise about his speech, and if he meant to issue a big hug to every worldview other than his own on a personal, moral level I think he would have done so.
Post by: jasonmvt on February 07, 2003, 11:08:00 PM
Post by: Ace25 on February 07, 2003, 11:10:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Just ask the tens of millions dead thanks to Communism |
Ummm, I thought it was the fanatics that ran the communist state that killed all the people, but communism as a gov't system, if run like designed, would probably work very well. It does require its people to agree and conform to it, that was the problem, it was forced upon so many unwilling to be part of it... and also the insane leaders like Stalin...
Post by: Lizard_King on February 07, 2003, 11:12:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| I am not against religion, I am against what religion in todays society has become. |
That sounds like against religion to me.
I mean, I don't think anyone is defending religion as a purely intellectual ideal, but as a practical reality, which appears to be what you are against.
I still think that religion is not something that can be branded wrong as a simple aggregate of everything that has ever been done in or near its name. Moreover, I think that Christianity in particular in America is a defensive movement, not an offensive one, and does not deserve the heaps of vitriol that are tossed at it daily.
| QUOTE |
| Really? What groups are you referring to here? Anti-religionists vs religionists? |
Indeed I am. I think Richard Dawkins claiming he has all the answers is at least as bad as the Pope claiming infallibility.
Post by: Lizard_King on February 07, 2003, 11:18:00 PM
| QUOTE (jasonmvt @ Feb 8 2003, 08:08 AM) |
| Communism is a wonderful thing, just put in practice badly etc... |
First off, I don't mean to start a separate discussion on communism, but I will say that both your posts are indicative of exactly the reason why I think Socialism is a far more dangerous threat in the modern world than religion (with the possible exception of Islamic fundamentalists). If man's nature cannot conform to the idea of a collectivist society, and in fact is harmed irreparably by it being put into practice, the idea is what is flawed, not man.
That is unlike Christianity, in that Christianity is not inherently opposite to that which drives human nature (self-interest), and can in fact coexist with liberty quite handily. Communism requires totalitarianism, and is therefore poisonous.
Post by: Ace25 on February 07, 2003, 11:24:00 PM
And I agree completely about your statement on communism, if its not in human nature, then its a flawed system to begin with...
Post by: jasonmvt on February 07, 2003, 11:27:00 PM
To summarize, Lizard, can you truthfully not see that almost all religion is based from different cultural interpretations of creation? And that because of that, no one religion is more 'correct' than another? It really is a simple concept that those who push their ideals on others cannot seem to grasp.
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."
Albert Einstein
Post by: tupac on February 07, 2003, 11:31:00 PM
and, i included that part on what i see in christian preachers on t.v., because that what religion does. it tries to entrap u and diminish ur individuality, not that it makes us mindless zombies, but it can and has been used to control people. it has been used for good also, but religion is a lie, and the fact that people are worshiping a lie is what bothers me.
Post by: jasonmvt on February 07, 2003, 11:58:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| And I agree completely about your statement on communism, if its not in human nature, then its a flawed system to begin with... |
Ace25, you are wise beyond your years. (However many you have...)
Tupac, I agree with some of the things that you are saying as well.
Noobvin, I may still be new here, but I can recognize an intelligent topic introduction when I see one
gainpresence, I respect your knowledge of your faith and your ability to focus that knowledge when called upon. I disagree with your prognosis of my (and others) certain damnation, but that is what makes this all so interesting to me.
Lizard King, You are obviously a well educated individual with whom I enjoy conversation with. It is refreshing to read such well thought out responses, and I look forward to your posts on other topics in the future.
Sorry to bow out now, but it's 4:00am here and I am missing out on my warm bed with my warm girlfriend.
Post by: Lizard_King on February 08, 2003, 12:36:00 AM
"Accept, as your moral ideal, the task of becoming a man...Redeem your mind from the hockshops of authority. Accept the fact that you are not omniscient, but playing a zombie will not give you omniscience-that your mind is fallible, but becoming mindless will not make you infallible- that an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error... I swear--by my life and my love of it--that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine;"
-Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Post by: maximusg on February 08, 2003, 02:05:00 AM
i have to say that i am with n00bvin on this one...
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on February 08, 2003, 04:01:00 AM
Post by: Dark-Entity on February 08, 2003, 05:20:00 AM
Post by: cnt on February 08, 2003, 06:01:00 AM
Post by: N00bvin on February 08, 2003, 06:05:00 AM
this weekend).
Post by: cnt on February 08, 2003, 06:13:00 AM
Post by: vincent_y79 on February 08, 2003, 06:15:00 AM
| QUOTE | ||
Ace25, you are wise beyond your years. (However many you have...) Tupac, I agree with some of the things that you are saying as well. Noobvin, I may still be new here, but I can recognize an intelligent topic introduction when I see one gainpresence, I respect your knowledge of your faith and your ability to focus that knowledge when called upon. I disagree with your prognosis of my (and others) certain damnation, but that is what makes this all so interesting to me. Lizard King, You are obviously a well educated individual with whom I enjoy conversation with. It is refreshing to read such well thought out responses, and I look forward to your posts on other topics in the future. |
I'm a little dissappointed I didn't make that list but come to think of it I'm not sure I said anything memorable. This is probably my last post in this thread (though I have a friend that I'll quote later here, she wants to add her 2 cents) but all I want to say in a nutshell is that religion is neither good nor bad (it depends on the individuals that makes up the body) Religion has not exceeded its usefulness or need on individual lives and in our society. Religion is not just for the lamb or the weak. As far as defending my views, maybe later, maybe never. I just woke up afterall. Morning everyone. It's Saturday and I'm hoping my X2P would come in from GotMod.
Pray for that.
Post by: Mshake on February 08, 2003, 07:29:00 AM
I have always been fascinated with the issue of religion.
Gathering from all what i have read recently since the terrible issues of terrorism etc, even from my younger days readings and of course the bashings in this thread or whatever, ... i just cannot come to a sensible conclusion without bashing at least 'someone' or 'something' here. But it's just not that easy...
In religion/religions in planet Earth, there is always a human factor... and human IS the root of all evil in my opinion. We are all judgmental, prejudice, etc, etc. What we don't know, we are afraid and quickly move to condemn it or even kill it. What we know, we try to manipulate it to the maximum!, hell yeah, just look at our xboxes!... it's never meant to fit a 120gb hd or whatever!.. like i say, what we happened to understand/know deeply enough, we will always try to manipulate it to the best we can...and this includes religion...
Christianity is pure, Islam is also pure, and also Buddhism, Taosim, etc etc, Hinduism.. or whatever, in pure sense of love, peace and security for our human spirituality side. History tells a different story however. Let's think of it, the Bible was written with 66 different people, the Quran was written by one person, Buddhism is originated from India and today, China's Buddism IS slightly different from India etc etc... Hinduism comes from the appraising of different kinds of gods, rivers, mountains, warriors etc etc..
But all of them comes from one source---> human!
Are they believable?... Yes n No?...
I consider myself a Christian, in which deep inside i believe in Christ and i do pray. But there's been always one single thing that i do not like..... how many different types of churches are there in the world? Protestants? The Church of a,b,c, d?... methodists etc etc?... what is the point of all these?.. and as far as i know, Christians came from Catholics?... am i correct?...
Well, don't wanna bore all of you here with my story, let's get on with what i think/opinion...
The only religion that PEOPLE understands in the 21st century/now is the religion of MONEY....
which is extremely evil...... come on, even making bombs to blow up people in the name of religion needs money.. and where do terrorists get this?... from financial sources..who i don know obviously...
There isn't a pure stream of religion that merely tells people to love one another. Going to church is more like a concert. People sing and dance, although the lyrics are about appraising God, but let's face it, how many times you have been to Churches for mass service etc, but after about 2 hours in there, you tend to get bored until a good band comes up and sing a few songs?... after that probably there are drinks/refreshment everywhere? and the pastor comes up and tells you there's this thing going on right now, would you like to make a donation?... blah blah blah?.... sighhh...
Whenever something is in the hands of human, it perishes, sad to say... but i believe at times, we do need to question the basis of any religion... in todays world of knowledge and science... hell anyone here could have gone back in time and claim to be God for whatever it takes..... grab a few stones, get some acids and wolla, gas comes out.... or u could make light appears from no where!... make rainbows or whatever?... predict rain, etc etc?.. u then be the messenger?...
if only time machine is available...
Well getting back to the topic of the thread here, like i say, money is the religion now... people believe in it, people cherish it, people want it etc etc.. what if one day, humans found ET living next door and the proof of aliens come to life... what would happen then?... chaos?.. the end of religion?... no one made the world anymore?... there isn't a creator?... everything would come rushing down... the instutitions of churches, mosques, the extremists' cause.. etc etc... and worst of all, the purpose of life for humans... no longer would we be working for money, we would prob be working for knowledge to improve ourselves!...
then there's always the theory, ... nuclear war---> end of world---> some dickhead made a time machine---> went back ---> wanted to end sufferings---> started a religion----> etc ---etc....predicted the future---> words in religions/sacred books---> warning people of certain events that may happen----> sounds logical?... or a plot from a movie?.. u never know?...
No point bashing people over what they believe currently, no point cursing over the institutions of whatever.... talking about Jewish/Islam conflicts in Israel doesn't help either.. what's done is done.. there's nothing people could do about it... United Nations is just an entire unified of selfish 'corporations' trying to salvage whatever good things left in this world... You could say they helped create Israel but there were people suffering there as well.... u can't blame the UN for that.... why does it that Christians/Jewishs/Muslims have gotta live there?.... good question..
Only people that have the financial needs such as us, who have nothing better to do than to come into a forum for xboxes (an entertainment thing) have the time to talk about all these issues in a clear state of mind. If you live in a war torn area like the middle east, etc... would you have the time?... there's nothing left for you apart from the idealogy of freedom through religion!... that's why people managed to be conned/manipulated into doing harmful things...
Conclusively,
it's all about the $$$$$$$ religion, would anyone be willing to destroy that?.. fuck no!... and so the debate continues on who should be blamed... what we see on television is merely less than 1 percent of the actual happenings, ...
regards... sorry if this doesn't sound like an opinion, but it's what i could type out at this time..
Post by: KazuyaWaruasobi on February 08, 2003, 07:56:00 AM
Post by: chuki3 on February 08, 2003, 08:07:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Damn, don't have time to write much... have to go to work (got to work on Saturday and the Sabbath this weekend). |
Acutally the sabbath IS saturday.... many ppl oftern confuse this...
anywho... religion is there as a guidance for those who searches of meanings... you cant just force any1 to take up a religion... cos i wont make any sense.. you are forced believe what u dun understand and dunt believe its true or jus dun think there is sufficient proof to belive... so why bother with religion wat would it do... but those who choose to follow a path may be filled with enlightenment and meanings.... therefore there are ppl who follow and dont for these reason... *i'm sure there's plenty more*....
as for the fighting amoung religions... its juss plan stupid... abt the Muslims, the ones who use the word "Jihad" for their cause is totally wrong... ppl may think it means "holy war" but what it is supposed to mean is that u would die for your religion.. but not actually "blowing" urself up to kill others.... but stand up for ur belief peacefully even if it means ur death....
and between the problems in Isarel... its more like... when God ask Moses to take His people to a land where He had given them... thus the settlement in Isarel... but islamic people had been living in the area for a longtime... therefore the war between the two occured.. one claims it as their own.. but there are also other religious signifcants aswell... * can be bothered going into it*
anyway religion is there for ppl who are in search for meanings, answers, and peace of mind etc etc..... when we look at it it seems true...
wat abt the cult Raelian Movement.. now u see that ppl who actually follow them for their beliefs that aliens made us.. now many of us would find that funny and weird
... but for them its fulfils their questions abt life etc.... apply that concept to those who choose to have a religion....i admit i'm a catholic...i pray.. i go to church... i TRY to follow the teachings... * but who CAN do it *... i believe cos i gain from personal enlightenment from this.... oso others ....
as for christanity.. it is basically a branch of catholism.... juss that few guys didnt like the "laws" n wanted to change it... thus the birth of other christian religions....
and basically the mojor religion catholism, Islam, Judaism, and christainity it all had the same roots but different interpetations...oso inclusion and exclusion of certain details.....
well thats my 2cents......
GuyBrush: hahaha that damn funny mann.... good one....
Post by: N00bvin on February 08, 2003, 08:18:00 AM
If you wish to read it... here is the LINK
If there is no Lucifer or Hell... how does that "change" religion?
Post by: N00bvin on February 08, 2003, 08:36:00 AM
I just want to see how OTHERS see it... as well as myself. I envy those with faith, because it is something I'll never have. I only WISH that I could believe that my family and friends go to a "better place" when they die. I can not however... viewing the current religions no differently than Greek, Roman or Norse (or other) religion.
Humans always ask "why"... some use religion as an answer. Would Retard Monkey go to "Heaven" if he died right now. That's silly, I know... but humans think they are "special" because we are "aware".
I don't, however, think humans are the root of all evil. I think that we are basically "good" but taught to be "bad". We learn to hate. We learn to love possesions. We learn to kill. Children are not born with these things inside them... they are taught. Human nature is to survive... that is our only basic instinct. But because we are "aware" we seperate ourselves from the animals... because we not only want to survive, but we FEAR death. Ah, that is key... we are afraid to die.
I always wonder why people cry at funerals if they "believe" in such a better place. No one admits that they are just being selfish. They want that person around for themselves... they don't care that the person is dead. Hear me out on this one. I'm not saying it's "wrong" to cry, but realize why you're doing it. If has everything to do with YOU and NOT the person that died. YOU miss that person, and you have fear in your heart that it could also be you. Here are all these devout Christians at a funeral crying... but, wait, the person is in a "better place"... you all should be happen. He/she is singing with the angels and looking at you through a cloud...
Question these things and WHY you do them. Is religion for your OWN selfish reasons or is it trully something you have faith it. Do you have faith in YOURSELF first? What are YOU doing to help man be better? Believing is going to help feed starving people... don't pray for them, give them money. Why is a pastor in a town driving a Mercedes, when there are homeless in the same town...?
Is these kinds of things that make the non-religous bitter.
Post by: N00bvin on February 08, 2003, 08:39:00 AM
| QUOTE (Cheerio @ Feb 8 2003, 08:21 AM) |
| 3 things not to talk about at dinner parties: religion politics other peoples children |
Good thing this isn't a dinner party.
Oh, and don't talk about abortion either...
Oh, I forgot... creationism. That's just the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Even you God-fearin' types must agree that that is just a "story".
Evolution makes SENSE, people...
Post by: Cheerio on February 08, 2003, 08:41:00 AM
Post by: bagel5009 on February 08, 2003, 08:53:00 AM
| QUOTE (Ace25 @ Feb 8 2003, 03:03 AM) |
| See Bagel, that is your opinion, I can find 10 christians pretty quickly that would completely disagree with your views and say your a bad christian for stealing.. again, that would be their opinion.. there are so many degrees to everything.. |
i could easily find 100 christians who would comply and agree with my views, again just a matter of opinion
Post by: Cheerio on February 08, 2003, 09:05:00 AM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Feb 8 2003, 12:04 PM) |
| Hmm.. I don't know where to start. Ask me a question. |
do you drive a car?
Post by: gainpresence on February 08, 2003, 09:06:00 AM
Post by: bagel5009 on February 08, 2003, 09:09:00 AM
| QUOTE (N00bvin @ Feb 8 2003, 04:39 PM) |
| Oh, I forgot... creationism. That's just the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Even you God-fearin' types must agree that that is just a "story". Evolution makes SENSE, people... |
If evolution makes "sense" where did that ball that exploded come from? it had to come from something according to evolution, some1 could say it came from something else, but SOMETHING had to be creating by SOMETHING, hense there would be nothing, i do not agree with evolution because that they say that because of "millions and billions of years" will make people think that time can do everything, without any other source of information, rather just mis leading others with the time factor, charles darwin became a christian b4 he died, because he knew it was fake and he was making fake findings and misleading people and even misleading himself, i believe in God since something had to be created, and God was the one who did do that in my opinion, there are many many factors that why evolution could never be possible. Scientists have set the probobility of evoluition at an acurate state that if you were to be in a hela copter and reach down into texas to find a gold coin in 4ft high of hay throughout the whole state of texas, and in the first grab you found that gold coin, that is the probobility of it happening, and thats if that ball had existed the whole time.
Post by: gainpresence on February 08, 2003, 09:13:00 AM
The only thing Darwin doubted was the evolution of the Eye.
Also, did you know that evolution relys on the fact that some races are more evolved than others? This is why, in most textbook drawings you see, early "Ape-men" (none have been found that haven't been proven a hoax or false) are black.
Post by: bagel5009 on February 08, 2003, 09:15:00 AM
Post by: bagel5009 on February 08, 2003, 09:20:00 AM
Post by: gainpresence on February 08, 2003, 09:23:00 AM
).
Post by: bagel5009 on February 08, 2003, 09:24:00 AM
Post by: Tripamang on February 08, 2003, 09:31:00 AM
Post by: Lizard_King on February 08, 2003, 09:35:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| . Learn your history. |
I suggest you follow some of your own advice. The UN did not create Israel, for all practical purposes the British both as a response to the Holocaust and in return for Jewish financial assistance, with the assent of the United States, in the post WWII period.
| QUOTE |
| The rampant problems with Islam now are dueto the fact that there are a handful of crazy extremists who have successfully spread their idealism to the general population. But I feel the reason they have succeeded in doing that is because of Israel. |
To blame Israel for the misdeeds of their Arab neighours is absolutely ridiculous. Next you're going to give me some crap about how US foreign policy "forced" Al Qaeda to respond.
| QUOTE |
| For some reason, the UN thought it was fitting to create a country where the Muslim lived, in Jerusalem, throw the old people out and put the Jewish there. Now both cultures despise each other, and war ensues, for many, many years. |
Simply not true. The "Palestinian people" were largely a construct of the 1930's, basically an agglomeration of
refugees from various areas. Really, the only people who were there before were Arab Christians, Jews, and genuine Muslim natives, the sort who currently are a part of the Israeli polity (and, in fact, are among the very few Arabs in the Middle East living in a democratic republic where one gets to vote). In fact, the organization now known as the PLO was founded immediately after the end of WWII, the moment Arabs got wind of what Britain was contemplating, and several years before Israel was ever on the map. The Egyptian Yasser Arafat proved exceptionally adept at murder and manipulation, and thus rose through the ranks quickly. From the beginning the PLO's mission has been the eradication of Israel and the elimination of the Jews; it is obvious to anyone who listens to what they say to each other rather than to CNN.
| QUOTE |
| Israel used to be getting a ton of international support, so they are heavily armed and able to defend themselves from possible invasions. |
Bullshit. The only support Israel has gotten since its creation has been from the United States, and even that came a decade and a half after its creation, after the Jews had already defended themselves from local attempts to eradicate them.
| QUOTE |
| Yet they continually used that to attack Muslim positions because they felt they were in THEIR country. |
Again, really untrue. Name a war the Israelis started...None. Name a war the Israelis lost....None. Here's a general overview of the wars so you can get a feel for it. The fact is their Arab neighbors kept banding up and attacking them, thinking they could win, what with outnumbering them ridiculously. The Israelis knew they were in deep shit, so in the 1948-49 war, they basically told every able bodied male on the land that if they wanted to get this sucker off the ground they had better fight, or at least stay out of the way. Unfortunately for the "Palestinians", the Arab countries had a better offer. They said "Don't worry about, we'll kick the shit out of these pesky Jews, and you'll get the whole land for yourselves. So 400,000 Arab Muslims said the hell with Israel and jumped the border to await the Arab victory...which never came. Once the Arabs got their ass handed to them the first time, and the UN barely stopped Israel from demolishing the lot of them, the "Palestinians" still had hope. Then the Arabs lost again. And again. Then America got involved on the Israeli side, and it became clear that Israel was here to stay.
So what to do with these refugees, living in border camps and growingly increasingly desperate. Well, if you are a normal human being you allow them to emigrate, perhaps use some of that oil wealth to distribute a little Muslim charity. But alas, the Arab nations need to keep their people angry at Israel to keep their minds off how bad their leaders are screwing them, and the Palestinians provide the perfect lynchpin for such a resentment strategy.
| QUOTE |
| So the Muslim get angry and strike back. The Jews keep hitting them back, and so it goes, round and round. The Muslim see their brothers being killed all the time by Jews, so they start hating them, and extremists use that opportunity to spread their ideas |
Again, bullshit. Israel is just an excuse. Don't use it to rationalize Muslim violence, which of course has to do with a lot more things than just their religion.
Post by: gainpresence on February 08, 2003, 09:37:00 AM
The general theory of evolution is based on several faulty assumptions. (Note: It is important to understand by this statement that we are not disputing simple variations that some call "microevolution," whose micro-changes are often observed but never lead to a fundamentally different kind of plant or animal.) The following assumptions of evolutionary theory are easy to prove false:
1. the universe is billions of years old,
2. life spontaneously arose from nonliving minerals,
3. mutations create or improve a species,
4. natural selection has creative power.
In this section we will deal with the first of these assumptions. The others will be dealt with elsewhere. If, in fact, it could be demonstrated that the universe is not billions of years old, all other arguments about evolution become meaningless and unnecessary.
In childrens fairy tales, we are told:
frog + magic spell (usually a kiss) = prince
In modern "science" textbooks we are told:
frog + time = prince
The same basic fairy tale (evolution) is being promoted in textbooks today, but the new magic potion cited is time. When the theory of evolution is discussed, time is the panacea for all the thousands of problems that arise.
In nearly all discussions and debates about evolution that I have held at universities and colleges, I ask the evolutionists how certain things could have evolved by chance. Their answer is nearly always "Given enough time..." Time is the evolutionists god. Time is able to accomplish anything the evolutionists can propose. Time can easily turn a frog into a prince. Time can create matter from nothing and life from matter. According to evolutionists, time can create order from chaos.
But lets remove time from the above equation. There would be the following three results:
1. Evolution becomes obviously impossible.
2. Evolutionists will scream like a baby whose pacifier has been pulled out because they know that if time is removed, their religion (evolution is religion, not science) is silly.
3. Creation becomes the only reasonable alternative explanation for the existence of this complex universe.
Lets imagine we are exploring an old gold mine, and we find a Casio Databank watch half buried in the mud on the floor of the mine. Suppose also that the correct time and date are displayed on the watch and it is still running smoothly. Then imagine that I tell you the watch has been there for over one thousand years.
"Thats impossible!" you say. "That watch could not have been there for a thousand years, and I can prove it!"
"How can you prove Im wrong?" I say.
"Well, for one thing, this mine was just dug 150 years ago," you say.
"Okay," I admit, "youre right about the thousand years being too much, but the watch has been here for 150 years at least!"
"No!" you say. "Casio didnt make the Databank watch until twelve years ago."
"All right," I say. "The watch was dropped here twelve years ago then."
"Impossible!" you say. "The batteries only last five years on that watch, and its still running. That proves it has been here less than five years."
While we still cant prove exactly when the watch was left there, you have logically limited the date to five years at the most. You have effectively proven that my initial statement about the watch being 1000 years old is wrong. The larger numbers prove nothing in this debate. Even if I were to radiometric-date the mud or the plastic in the watch to try to prove that it is thousands of years old, my data would be meaningless. The same logic can be applied to finding the age of the earth. If several factors limit the age of the earth to a few thousand years, the earth cannot be older than a few thousand years! Even if a few indicators seem to show a greater age for the earth, it takes only ONE fact to prove the earth is young.
The Bible teaches that: God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, ex nihilo (out of nothing) in six literal, twenty-four hour days. Then, approximately 4400 years ago, the earth was destroyed by a worldwide Flood. This devastating, year-long Flood was responsible for the sediment layers being deposited (the water was going and returning, Gen. 8:3-5). As the mountains rose and the ocean basins sank after the Flood (Psalm 104:5-8, Gen. 8:1), the waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid-erosion through still-soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today, in places like the Grand Canyon. The uniformitarian assumptionthat todays slow erosion rates that take place through solid rock are the same as has always beenis faulty logic, and ignores catastrophes like the Flood. (2 Pet. 3:3-8 says that the scoffers are "willingly ignorant" of the Flood.)
Listed below are some of the factors from various branches of science that limit the age of the universe (including earth) to within the last few thousand years. Though it cannot be scientifically proven exactly when the universe was created, its age can be shown to not be billions of years old. Each of the following evidences of a young earth is described in great detail in the books referenced below. Source number and page number are given for the following statements (at the bottom of this page):
Evidence from Space
The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive. (1, p. 169; 2, p. 30; 4, pp. 56-63; 5, p. 26; 6, p. 43;)
The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. (2, p. 26; 3, p. 22; 4, p. 15; 6, p. 35; 7; 9, p. 25) *Insufficient evidence to be positive (almost all estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.)
"I get a picture therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice, level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first, and sinking majestically out of sight." -- Isaac Asimov, Science Digest, January, 1959, p 36
Lyttleton felt that the X-rays and UV light striking exposed moon rocks "could, during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep." -- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, vol. 115, pp. 585-604
The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old. (2, p. 31; 3, p. 27; 4, p. 35; 6, p. 37; 7)
Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks. (4, p. 26)
The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents. (3, p. 25; 6, p. 43; 7)
The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old. (8, p. 177; see also 4, p. 51, for information on rock "flow")
The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young. (3, p. 29; 6, p.44)
At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years. (3, p. 29; 4, pp. 30 and 59; 6, p. 44)
Saturns rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old. (4, p. 45)
Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. (5, p. 26; 4, p. 43; Jupiters moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old. (4, p. 3)
Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red startoday it is a white dwarf star. Since todays textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.
Evidence from Earth
The decaying magnetic field limits earths age to less than billions. (1, p. 157; 2, p. 27; 3, p. 20; 5, p. 23; 6, p. 42; 9, p. 25; 10, p. 38)
The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earths lava was deposited rapidly. (1, p. 156)
Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation. (1, p. 153; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 42)
The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.) (1, p. 151; 6, p. 42; 9, p. 25)
The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils. (2, p. 31; 6, p 38; American Science Vol 56 p 356-374)
Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation. (6, p. 38)
Niagara Falls erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Dont forget Noahs Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.) (6, p. 39; 7)
The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years. (2, p. 32; 3, p. 24; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 37; 7)
The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noahs day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.) (3, p. 23; 6, p. 38; 7)
The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution. (3, p. 25; 7)
A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution. (1, p. 155; 6, p. 28; 7)
The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4400 years. (5, p. 27; 6, p. 39; 7)
The Sahara desert is expanding. It easily could have been formed in a few thousand years. See any earth science textbook.
The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now. (7; 9, p. 26; 10, p. 37)
Ice cores at the south pole and Greenland have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet. The aircraft that crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and excavated in 1990 were under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years. This indicates all of the ice could have accumulated in 4400 years. (7)
Evidence from Biology
The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years. (1, p. 167; 3, p. 27; 6, p. 41; 7)
The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. (6, p. 39; 7)
The oldest living tree in the world is about 4300 years old. (6, p. 40; 7)
Another factor to consider: The genetic load in man is increasing. Geneticists have cataloged nearly 1300 genetic disorders in the human race. It is certainly reasonable to believe that the human race was created perfect from the hand of the Creator but has been going downhill as a result of our disobedience to the laws established by the Creator and the increased radiation from the sun. The Bible teaches that we live in a sin-cursed world as a result of Adams sin.
Evidence from History
The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old. (1, p. 160)
Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood. Nearly 300 of these Flood legends are now known.
Biblical dates add up to about 6000 years.
The following Bible verses tell when "the beginning" was:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)
Moses because of the hardness of your hearts permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Mt. 19:8)
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mk. 10:6)
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. (Jn. 1:1)
That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have handled, of the Word of life. (1 Jn. 1:1)
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (1 Jn. 3:8)
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time. (Mt. 24:21)
Ye are of your father the devil.... He was a murderer from the beginning. (Jn. 8:44)
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel. (Lk. 11:50, 51)
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth. (Heb. 1:10)
For in six days the Lord made heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is. (Ex. 20:11)
Since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (2 Pet. 3:4)
The works were finished from the foundation of the world. For God did rest the seventh day from all his works. (Heb. 4:3, 4)
For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created to this time. (Mk. 13:19)
Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? Have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? (Is. 40:21)
Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord am he. (Is. 41:4)
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? (Mt. 19:4)
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. (Ro. 1:20)
Those who believe the earth is billions of years old will typically try to discredit one or two of these evidences and then mistakenly think that they have successfully proven the entire list wrong. This is not logical, of course. Each evidence stands independently: it only takes one to prove the earth is young. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists if they expect all taxpayers to fund the teaching of their religion in the school system. Many who believe in evolution are great at "straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel" (Mt. 23:24).
Evolutionists love to assume uniformitarian processes. Many of the preceding evidences follow the same logic evolutionists use all the time in dealing with carbon dating, strata formation, genetic drift, etc.
It is interesting to read the ramblings of nay-sayers like Scott, Matson, Babinski, etc. as they try to answer theses evidences for a young universe. See how many times they use words like: we believe, perhaps, could have, there is some reason to believe, etc. Evolutionists may need billions of years to make people believe a rock can turn into a rocket scientist, but that time just isnt available.
-By Dr. Kent E. Hovind
Post by: Lizard_King on February 08, 2003, 09:49:00 AM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Feb 8 2003, 06:13 PM) |
| Actually, bagel, Darwin did not change before he died. The only thing Darwin doubted was the evolution of the Eye. Also, did you know that evolution relys on the fact that some races are more evolved than others? This is why, in most textbook drawings you see, early "Ape-men" (none have been found that haven't been proven a hoax or false) are black. |
I am in agreement with your assessment of Darwin. I find it highly unlikely that he converted, not because he thought he had all the answers but simply because not even death would have prompted him to give up his life's work like that.
The eye question has been answered to my satisfaction by many evolutionary biologists; Richard Dawkins covers it quite well (ironically enough) in "The Blind Watchmaker", I think. Although I do not think his proof is categorical, I think it is far more reasonable than the last anti-evolutionist salvo, Michael Behe's ridiculous "Darwin's Black Box".
As to your comment on evolution and race, there are several issues that must be raised.
1. Social Darwinism (the ranking of races, for instance, as Hitler believed along with so many others), while it may seem the logical descendant of Darwin's theories, in fact makes little sense to anyone who really understands the theories of evolution. Mother nature, so to speak, hardly ever chooses survivors on the basis of some objective superiority; natural selection is situational and long term, and therefore it is arrogant nonsense for a man to assume he can select humans for "superiority" on any objective scale on a genetic basis.
2. What Darwin certainly would have agreed with is that races do evolve differently, and can have certain general trait advantages and disadvantages that, while not true for every individual, can be taken as an aggregate. Hence the highly controversial bell curve, which has yet to be disproved on a scientific basis (rather than an emotional basis).
Post by: gainpresence on February 08, 2003, 09:56:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Feb 8 2003, 11:49 AM) | ||
I am in agreement with your assessment of Darwin. I find it highly unlikely that he converted, not because he thought he had all the answers but simply because not even death would have prompted him to give up his life's work like that. The eye question has been answered to my satisfaction by many evolutionary biologists; Richard Dawkins covers it quite well (ironically enough) in "The Blind Watchmaker", I think. Although I do not think his proof is categorical, I think it is far more reasonable than the last anti-evolutionist salvo, Michael Behe's ridiculous "Darwin's Black Box". As to your comment on evolution and race, there are several issues that must be raised. 1. Social Darwinism (the ranking of races, for instance, as Hitler believed along with so many others), while it may seem the logical descendant of Darwin's theories, in fact makes little sense to anyone who really understands the theories of evolution. Mother nature, so to speak, hardly ever chooses survivors on the basis of some objective superiority; natural selection is situational and long term, and therefore it is arrogant nonsense for a man to assume he can select humans for "superiority" on any objective scale on a genetic basis. 2. What Darwin certainly would have agreed with is that races do evolve differently, and can have certain general trait advantages and disadvantages that, while not true for every individual, can be taken as an aggregate. Hence the highly controversial bell curve, which has yet to be disproved on a scientific basis (rather than an emotional basis). |
Here is the full title of Darwin's famous book:
On
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
First Edition
by Charles Darwin
Post by: Al_Ghazi on February 08, 2003, 10:06:00 AM
Karl Marx said it baby.... Conflict is a political struggle, it has always been about money and politics - even the Crusades.
The truth about the "towelheads" as you so eloquently put it, is that we are engaged in a political struggle, not about religion, but about power. There are not one, but two nations in the Middle East that are in violation of UN security council mandates, that have Weapons of Mass Destruction programs, that have appalling human rights records One is Iraq and the other is Israel. The total support for Israel by the United States and the wholly unjust human rights atrocities committed by Israel (in violation of UN security council mandates) has made some bitter enemies of the United States.
When you seek to totally disempower a people, you also create a people with nothing to lose. During the second world war, the Japanese kamikaze pilots were portrayed as crazy, as representative of a people who had no value for human life. Do we believe that now? The same was true of the Vietnamese in the 1960s. Instead of seeing a people whose suffering and loss drove them to total desperation, we just put them down as crazy. Ill agree being ignorant and strong has advantages, but it also makes you a resented bully.
The best thing we can do is get Israel off our back. But with a government made up on people like Ira Fleicher, Donald Rumsfeld, Alan Greenspan, and Leiberman etc (I hope the last name theme has not escaped you) We have just become a lap-dog for Israel.
Gaz
Post by: M3_DeL on February 08, 2003, 10:07:00 AM
I do NOT believe in religion.
I DO believe in a personal relationship.
Anyone can argue all day about how the universe was or was not created all day.
Anyone can also argue about how religion is to control the mass or how it is the opium for the masses (can't remember who said that Tim leary?)
These arguments become extremely pointless over time as neither of the sides have any kind of proof that is worth anything to the other.
This is my statement of faith.
I know what i have seen, felt and experianced. It was not in a room full of people or presured on to me as I have seen happen so many times before. I can't force anyone to see these things only live my life as an example to what I proclaim.
My goal with working with youth, such as kids Bagels age, is to first instill good idea's and morals into them. My second goal is to make these kids realize that it is ok to question your faith and question the existance of God and everything else.
I encourage this because youth are often told what to believe and even if in their heart or brain do not understand it 100% they will stick to it. That is not healthy. A person much search to find and if these "Students" search with all their hearts they will find.
Post by: garry on February 08, 2003, 10:09:00 AM
http://reptile.users...h/r102799b.html
http://www.reptilian...h/r110199b.html
http://www.mutanex.com/mib.html
http://www.mutanex.com/ultra7.html
http://seekers.100me...ssedHistory.htm
http://reptile.users...nuresearch.html
THE SUPPRESSED HISTORY OF PLANET EARTH
Condensed from Robert Morning Sky's
"Terra Papers: The Hidden History of Planet Earth"
I am called 'Morning Sky.' I grew up hearing the stories my grandfather told of a Space Being he helped rescue. My grandfather was one of six young Native Americans who witnessed the crash of a spaceship in 1947, shortly after the now-famous Roswell incident.
When they reached the site, they found one being still alive. They took him back to their camp where they hid and nursed him back to health. They called him 'Star Elder' out of respect; as time passed he revealed his name. He was called Bek'Ti. He revealed to them the history of mankind and the planet Earth.
In the late 1960's, when I started college, I found myself entertaining the possibility that these stories might not be true. I thus enrolled in Religious Studies, an independent study program that would allow me an opportunity to research ancient records to prove or disprove the many stories of Star Elder.
I submitted to my Religious Studies professor a thesis that summed up my three years of research. It was entitled "Terra, A Hidden History of Planet Earth." Within days, he had labeled it "a work of blasphemy and outrage!" It nearly got me thrown out of school.
Having had no success in the academic field, I decided to contact then existing UFO organizations and researchers. The general response was to label the work "the stuff of myth and legend of Native Americans, not suitable to the serious study of a scientific phenomena."
The total rejection made me angry. For nearly thirty years, I refused to even pick up a book on UFO's or New Age Phenomena. I religiously refused to read or listen to what is out there.
Circumstances have changed. My Grandfather is gone, but not before he had elicited a promise from me to try once more to tell the story.
The history of mankind and Earth as revealed by Bek'Ti is both exciting and frightening. Man's creation and his place in the galaxy is made clear, but in the process, Man's nobility and pride are injured. The abduction phenomena and the attending grey beings are integral parts of humanitiy's history, and explained against a framework of the Star Beings' purposes for mankind.
The sources of Man's religions and the origins of legendary figures like Zeus, Osiris, Isis, the Minotaur and a number of other 'mythological' beings are explained and also placed into the framework of Earth's history.
Part 2: The Story of Man's Creation
In our galaxy are billions of Star Beings. Humanoid races are the rule, not the exception. These races descended from many life forms: reptiles, insects, dinosaurs, birds and other life forms mankind cannot begin to imagine.
One of the oldest Star Races in this sector of the universe is the reptilian Ari-An which descended from dinosaur ancestors in the star system of Orion. Ruled by Queens, they created the most powerful empire in this galaxy. Ari-An warriors were unmatched for ferocity and bravery, and the Ari-An Empire was unmatched in power and size.
Millions of years of countless battles had allowed this Empire to develop advanced war strategies. Among these, the Ari-An practiced "conditioning" or "reprogramming" to control conquered populations and make them assets rather than liabilities. Enemies became obedient servants of the reptilian queens' throne. In this way, the Ari-Ans eliminated resistance.
An unexpected evolution of another race in the star system Sirius posed a threat to the Ari-An Empire. Though not as old or as advanced as the reptilians, the warriors of the Kanus Empire, a doglike race (similar to wolves) made up for any lack with their fierceness. Even the most disciplined of the Ari-An warriors feared these vicious and barbaric Sirian warriors, who stopped to devour the flesh of their enemies on the battlefield.
Rapid advancement of the Sirian warriors threatened the very existence of the Ari-An Empire. As a result, the queens approached the Sirian kings to offer an alliance. A treaty was agreed upon that delineated which sectors of the galaxy each empire was to rule and, for a time, the warriors of both empires fought side-by-side.
With the birth of a new star system was born, the Sirian King was quick to claim it. As the Sirians began to exploit its resources, this new system became an outpost for both the Ari-An and Sirian Empires, and the power and wealth for both continued to grow. But eventually war broke out again, this time among rival Sirian kings. In the end, Ari-An forces joined King An. Entire worlds held by the opposition were totally destroyed, including their moons and colonies.
Much later, King An sent his son Prince Ea and daughter, Princess Nin-Hur-Sag (both genetic scientists) to rebuild the destroyed world of Eridu and once again tap into the valuable and much needed resources found there. They successfully restored the atmosphere; refilled the seas with life; recreated plants, trees and flowers; and hybridized many different kinds of creatures. The planet Eridu (Earth) was reborn.
New creatures were produced to inhabit the planet. One such creature, Apa-Mus, was an ape-beast hybrid whose only purpose was to serve and to slave in the fields and mines. But this beast was different from the others. It could understand orders and could communicate. Princess Nin-Hur-Sag had genetically engineered the ape-beast hybrid by using her own DNA. The beast grew in intelligence and began to teach his own quickly multiplying offspring.
When another species of genetically engineered workers -- underground - dwelling Sheti Lizards, revolted and seized power, the ruling Star Beings fled from the planet. With the opposition out of the way, the Sheti used mind-control and programming techniques they learned from their masters to alter the memories of the remaining Star Being descendants. Mankind's knowledge of Star Beings was replaced with myths and legends.
Sheti dominance has been and continues to be challenged by many other star races attempting to regain control of Earth -- and mankind -- for their own purposes. The struggle for power goes on.
Part 3: Overthrow Attempts -- Past, Present and Future
The reptilian Ari-An race has made several attempts to overthrow the present power on Earth. In the early 20th century, the world-wide Aryan movement nearly succeeded in conquering the entire "docile" world. If, as the author suggests, they are continuing in their efforts, new movements in the supremacy groups will appear. Reptiles will appear in all aspects of the media as friendly or heroic beings, fighting on man's behalf. Reptilian superheroes will become children's role models.
Religious uprisings have been staged throughout Earth's history by the Sirians. The Inquisition, the Papal Wars, the numerous "Messiahs" and the "Miracle Sightings" were engineered by them to bring mankind back into their influence. If they, too, are trying to take over the Earth as the author suggests, then a return to fundamentalism will also occur, as will the increasing appearance of angels and miraculous occurrences.
Patterns show on-going efforts to direct the people of Planet Earth and also predict upcoming events: Mankind will soon be surrounded with images of asteroids and falling fiery comets. Black pigs will be seen everywhere as will angelic figures and miracles. Dinosaurs will become children's heroes and violence will be the foundation of their play. New airborne diseases, immune to existing treatments, will surface. NASA will be rendered weak and impotent, if not terminated.
A galactic war of conquest rages over our heads. Earth -- and Man -- are the prize.
Crop Circles -- Visual Communications
In an attempt to communicate with the descendants of Star Beings - especially those who are able to remember the "clues" -- visual signals are being sent in the form of crop circles. Signs meant for the Sirian descendants usually have a striking resemblance to ancient Egyptian glyphs, football-shaped designs, circle-in-cross forms, or circles with a dot in the center. They may also appear as mathematical formulations.
Crop circles from the Ari-Ans often have a snake-like form, or insect or bug-like creatures. Whatever the form, crop circles are signs to the descendants that they have not been forgotten.
As a signal that a starship has been dispatched to the solar system and Earth, images of enormous planetary starships and crews comprised of heroic "saviours" of mankind and the Earth will be everywhere. To counter this image of a "good" heavenly body, images of falling asteroids and crashing comets will be used as justification for aiming anti-asteroid missiles skyward for "defensive" purposes.
Part 4: Forms of Control
Meanwhile, to maintain control of mankind, the Sheti have introduced new devices to continue the bombarding us with a numbing and controlling electronic blanket. Many of these electronic instruments are carried on the person: Tape and CD players with headphones, virtual reality gear, pagers, pocket games, cellular phones, beepers, etc. are now commonplace.
Drugs of all kinds, legal and illegal (including alcohol, tobacco and narcotics) are part of the control program to keep mankind docile.
Behavior modification to prevent us from being motivated to fight for ourselves, will require that no human being be allowed status as hero. Those who do not fight back, but endure great suffering will become the new "heroes" and role models: victims, martyrs, tortured POWs, and people who die in service to their country.
Population control will increase in intensity and only the select will be allowed to continue. Disappearances and abductions will increase, especially of women and young children. New airborne diseases will appear. Obesity will increase, sexual dysfunction will increase in males, and female menstrual cycles will decrease from 28 days to 25 days.
To maintain control of mankind and keep us stranded on Earth, NASA will be eliminated or severely restricted in its scope. Any evidence of extraterrestrial life will be strictly suppressed and denied.
Mankind's Hope: Royal Blood
The battle lines have been drawn for a coming galactic war for the domination of planet Earth. As long as mankind seeks salvation "out there," he paves the way for beings vying to become his Overlords. But mankind has another option.
Though born of beasts and bred to serve, mankind was created by the genetic scientists, Prince EA and Princess Nin-Hur-Sag using their own DNA and their own royal blood. This royal line of Sirian Blood entitles mankind to claim Earth its own. This is the story that has been suppressed, the truth that was kept hidden.
As long as mankind accepts Overlords and Gods, we accept an existence of servitude. When we finally remember that our own kingdom has been taken away, when we finally look to ourselves as our own Overlord or God, then and only then will we be free of extraterrestrials.
The author asks the reader to investigate for himself the information presented here. Accept none of it, challenge all of it. Decide for yourself if the words of Bek'Ti are true. You are your own god, you are the master of your destiny -- if you can remember The Truth.
This version of Robert Morning Sky's "Terra Papers: Hidden History of Planet Earth" was condensed especially for Perceptions by Betty Bland who lives and works in Seattle. She is executive director of Light * House Promotions, and is involved in producing the annual Ocean Shores Convergence Psychic Fair on Memorial Weekend in Ocean Shores, Washington.
Post by: Tripamang on February 08, 2003, 10:13:00 AM
| QUOTE |
The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. (6, p. 39; 7) The oldest living tree in the world is about 4300 years old. (6, p. 40; 7) |
Living is the key word here, trees die, a 4200 yr old living anything is pretty impressive, same goes for coral reef which frequently gets buried in sediment.
| QUOTE |
The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old. (8, p. 177; see also 4, p. 51, for information on rock "flow" |
These short lived isotopes are created by the radioactive decay of other elements, so high concentrations of those elements just means their high concentrations of their precursors.
What else we got here...
| QUOTE |
| The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive. (1, p. 169; 2, p. 30; 4, pp. 56-63; 5, p. 26; 6, p. 43;) |
The sun is losing mass, but we're talking billions of tons of matter might be 1 thousand of an inch difference in our orbit and it would take MILLIONS of years for this to affect us.
You put together an impressive little number there, but theres a lot of holes =/
Post by: Lizard_King on February 08, 2003, 10:19:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| While we still cant prove exactly when the watch was left there, you have logically limited the date to five years at the most. You have effectively proven that my initial statement about the watch being 1000 years old is wrong. The larger numbers prove nothing in this debate. Even if I were to radiometric-date the mud or the plastic in the watch to try to prove that it is thousands of years old, my data would be meaningless. The same logic can be applied to finding the age of the earth. If several factors limit the age of the earth to a few thousand years, the earth cannot be older than a few thousand years! Even if a few indicators seem to show a greater age for the earth, it takes only ONE fact to prove the earth is young. |
Well, let's begin with this watch example of yours. It is an awe-inspiring display of flawed logic, so brazen that I assure you that, if there is a hell, there is a special room for people that come up with statements like this. All you have proved in the preceding example is that the battery is five years old, and that paralleling human creations to questions of the earth and the universe is an inherently flawed analogy. It is a common technique, used by creationists to force the premise of intelligent design as a framework of any argument.
I assure you, that if a part of the Universe is found to be 5000 years old; and another part of the universe is found to be 5 billion years old, that relates only to that particular part of the universe, and when circumstances combined to arrange atoms in that particular configuration. In no way does one outweigh the other, and to postulate so is absurd.
While I don't have the time nor the inclination to go through all of this fellow's "proofs", here's a couple that caught my eye.
| QUOTE |
| The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive. |
From a simple primer on star life cycles
THE LIFE CYCLE OF STARS
Stars are born in nebulae. Huge clouds of dust and gas collapse under gravitational forces, forming protostars. These young stars undergo further collapse, forming main sequence stars.
Stars expand as they grow old. As the core runs out of hydrogen and then helium, the core contacts and the outer layers expand, cool, and become less bright. This is a red giant or a red super giant (depending on the initial mass of the star). It will eventually collapse and explode. Its fate is determined by the original mass of the star; it will become either a black dwarf, neutron star, or black hole.
This guy is going to have to do a lot more than quote himself to convince me that our sun is currently (and has been for the last few billion) expanding and becoming more massive, as all evidence suggests.
| QUOTE |
| The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old. |
No, they don't. They just mean that the comets are short period. If I am 22 years old, and someone else is 10 years old, and dies at age ten, does that mean I am only 10 years old? Come ON!
| QUOTE |
| Evolutionists may need billions of years to make people believe a rock can turn into a rocket scientist, but that time just isnt available. |
Pithy quotes do not an argument make.
Post by: Lizard_King on February 08, 2003, 10:26:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life |
If you read the book, you would understand what is meant by races, and it is not what you think it is (not that Darwin wasn't most likely a racist at many levels, just that evolution does not logically prove racism as a valid means of classification of the relative worth of humans).
Post by: gainpresence on February 08, 2003, 10:30:00 AM
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k
Make $250,000 for any proof of evolution.
Post by: Lizard_King on February 08, 2003, 10:32:00 AM
| QUOTE (M3_DeL @ Feb 8 2003, 07:07 PM) |
| Anyone can also argue about how religion is to control the mass or how it is the opium for the masses (can't remember who said that Tim leary?) |
"Religion is the opiate of the masses." Karl Marx, 1844
But Karl Marx was wrong about a whole lot of things, he just sounds right...For every grain of truth in some of his works there is a whole packet of disingenuous lies.
| QUOTE |
| I encourage this because youth are often told what to believe and even if in their heart or brain do not understand it 100% they will stick to it. That is not healthy. A person much search to find and if these "Students" search with all their hearts they will find. |
Kudos to you for doing with action what most people just talk about.
Post by: M3_DeL on February 08, 2003, 10:34:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (M3_DeL @ Feb 8 2003, 07:07 PM) Anyone can also argue about how religion is to control the mass or how it is the opium for the masses (can't remember who said that Tim leary?) "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Karl Marx, 1844 But Karl Marx was wrong about a whole lot of things, he just sounds right...For every grain of truth in some of his works there is a whole packet of disingenuous lies. |
I said that to say I will not agrue over what people think or say as if it is right or wrong.....it is not my place to say that
I mentioned my work with youth because Noobvin brought it up in the orig post
Post by: Ace25 on February 08, 2003, 10:35:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief. |
Of course its a religious belief, but for some reason, religions that beleive in a "god" type creator of all don't accept the hypothesis of evolution as a viable religion.. so its really not considered a religion by most people because if doesnt fit the standard definition of religion, which to me, is the beleive in a higher power, more often than not, that is one super being, which is exaclty what I am against. I beleive in a higher power, but I would rather put my faith in something I can touch, feel, see, as a normal human does.. and for me, that is earth itself as my creator. Oh well, I think I am done in this one now as well.. it was fun and elightening, just dont think I have much more to offer.
Post by: Lizard_King on February 08, 2003, 10:38:00 AM
| QUOTE (M3_DeL @ Feb 8 2003, 07:34 PM) |
| I said that to say I will not agrue over what people think or say as if it is right or wrong.....it is not my place to say that I mentioned my work with youth because Noobvin brought it up in the orig post |
I understand, and I did not mean that as a criticism of what you were actually saying, which I completely respect. I just really, really hate Karl Marx, and not just because I've been subjected to so many of his writings...didn't mean to make it sound like I was criticizing what you were saying per se, I just hate seeing that motherfucker quoted approvingly anywhere.
And again, thanks for doing what you do. It's good work, irrespective of religious questions. Kids need all the help they can get these days.
Post by: Lizard_King on February 08, 2003, 10:42:00 AM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Feb 8 2003, 07:30 PM) |
| Might I interest all you evolutionists in this offer? http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k Make $250,000 for any proof of evolution. |
Tell ya what, I'll match Dr Dino's bullshit bet: I'll give $250000 to anyone who proves god exists, empirically.
Why will that bet never be called in? Because absolute proof is a logical impossibility in either scenario. I have never cast myself as an evolutionist, I just think evolution requires a smaller leap of faith than creationism. That is about all I expect on a question of this magnitude.
Post by: M3_DeL on February 08, 2003, 10:43:00 AM
Post by: Lizard_King on February 08, 2003, 11:02:00 AM
| QUOTE (Al_Ghazi @ Feb 8 2003, 07:06 PM) |
| What an anus you are.....The truth about the "towelheads" as you so eloquently put it, is that we are engaged in a political struggle, not about religion, but about power. |
I don't recall calling anyone a towelhead. I certainly don't recall using any ad-hominem attacks. But you're tempting me....
| QUOTE |
| Karl Marx said it baby.... Conflict is a political struggle, it has always been about money and politics - even the Crusades. |
Karl Marx again! If the best summation of your position is that sack of shit's pathetic excuse for historical analysis, you are in seriously muddy intellectual waters. In this case, it just KM stating the obvious, and then pretending it supports his ridiculous theses...much as you are no doubt about to do.
| QUOTE |
| There are not one, but two nations in the Middle East that are in violation of UN security council mandates, that have Weapons of Mass Destruction programs, that have appalling human rights records One is Iraq and the other is Israel. The total support for Israel by the United States and the wholly unjust human rights atrocities committed by Israel (in violation of UN security council mandates) has made some bitter enemies of the United States. |
Sure, and if the UN were an objective standard for human rights and or political questions, that would be an important point. You state at the beginning of your post that everything is political...well, so are UN resolutions, and any organization that puts Lybia on the Human rights council and Syria on the Security Council as a matter of procedure is no paragon of virtue in my book.
Bitter enemies? Bring it. Billions for defense, not one cent for tribute. America tried playing nice with the Arab nations inasmuch as the Cold War permitted us; we tried making friends, we tried buying them, we tried everything.
| QUOTE |
| During the second world war, the Japanese kamikaze pilots were portrayed as crazy, as representative of a people who had no value for human life. Do we believe that now? |
What the hell does the incredibly complex history of Imperial Japan have to do with your point?
| QUOTE |
| The same was true of the Vietnamese in the 1960s. Instead of seeing a people whose suffering and loss drove them to total desperation, we just put them down as crazy. |
Equating Japan's situation as an aggressive wannabe superpower with Vietnam's as a country caught between expanding Communism and a United States hell-bent on containing it is patently absurd, and I still don't get what it has to do with your point.
| QUOTE |
| Ill agree being ignorant and strong has advantages, but it also makes you a resented bully. |
Unless, of course, your "point" is that American foreign policy is founded on Imperialism and oppression, yada yada yada, which has been better made with actual fact-based arguments, and still does not impress me a great deal.
| QUOTE |
| The best thing we can do is get Israel off our back. |
Oh, suddenly it's "we" again, is it? Tell ya what, we'll settle for obliterating Arab despots, one at a time, and we'll just keep Israel on our side, if that's alright with you.
| QUOTE |
| But with a government made up on people like Ira Fleicher, Donald Rumsfeld, Alan Greenspan, and Leiberman etc (I hope the last name theme has not escaped you) We have just become a lap-dog for Israel. |
It's Ari Fleischer, and all this last sentence does is establish the rank anti-semitism that pervades your post. Cut it with the "We" nonsense, because if you think so highly of these third-world tyrants, I suggest you give them a visit and see how much you like them.
In fact, I'll do you one better; even if all the Arab conspiracy theorists weren't full of shit with their "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", I would not mind one bit if it were in fact revealed that our country was run by Jews. At least then I'd take comfort in knowing we we were in capable hands.
Post by: Lizard_King on February 08, 2003, 11:03:00 AM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Feb 8 2003, 07:47 PM) |
| Anywho, I think I'm out of the debate, it's been fun, but of course no one is going to change. |
Right back at ya, big guy.
Post by: Tripamang on February 08, 2003, 11:11:00 AM
But yes somebody made a stupid towel head comment.
I'm not going to tell to you whats right and wrong.. but i'm kinda hoping you said a lot of that stuff out of anger =p
Post by: Lizard_King on February 08, 2003, 11:22:00 AM
| QUOTE (Tripamang @ Feb 8 2003, 08:11 PM) |
| I'm not going to tell to you whats right and wrong.. but i'm kinda hoping you said a lot of that stuff out of anger =p |
What stuff? What did I say that would have to be out of anger to be understandable?
Post by: gainpresence on February 08, 2003, 11:53:00 AM
| QUOTE (N00bvin @ Feb 8 2003, 01:50 PM) |
| As far a evolution... are you say at there is NO evolution? That all the animals of the Earth were created as they are today? If so, I can only laugh and feel pity. Evolution is obvious all around us. |
There is a difference between macroevolution and microevolution.
Post by: kickassdude on February 08, 2003, 12:11:00 PM
Post by: gainpresence on February 08, 2003, 12:12:00 PM
| QUOTE (kickassdude @ Feb 8 2003, 02:11 PM) |
| How come nowhere in the bible does it mention dinosaurs? its a fact they existed and nobody doubts that BUT why doesnt the bible at least touch on this? why? because at the time the bible was written people didnt know about this sort of thing but when the dinosaurs were discovered that alone could have disproven half the stuff in the bible so religious organizations simply dont admit that the dinosaurs ever existed, they ignore this fact even though theres pretty much anybody knows that the dinosaurs DID exist |
They are mentioned twice in Job.
Post by: kickassdude on February 08, 2003, 12:15:00 PM
Post by: N00bvin on February 08, 2003, 12:18:00 PM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Feb 8 2003, 12:12 PM) | ||
They are mentioned twice in Job. |
So... there were dinosaurs less than 6,000 years ago you are saying? (I mean, that's when the Earth was created... or the Universe?)
They were around in the time of Adam and Eve? Kind of like the Flintstones?
Where does the Ice Age fall into all of this? How exactly did Noah get two of each animal on board (there is approximately 200,000 species of instects alone)?
Post by: gainpresence on February 08, 2003, 12:23:00 PM
1": Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
"2": Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
"3": Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
"4": Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
"5": Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
"6": Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
"7": Canst thou fill his skin with barbed iron? or his head with fish spears?
"8": Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
"9": Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
"10": None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
"11": Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
"12": I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
"13": Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
"14": Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
"15": His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
"16": One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
"17": They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
"18": By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
"19": Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
"20": Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
"21": His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
"22": In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
"23": The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
"24": His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
"25": When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
"26": The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
"27": He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
"28": The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
"29": Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
"30": Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
"31": He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
"32": He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
"33": Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.
"34": He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.
Job 40:15-24
"15": Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
"16": Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
"17": He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
"18": His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
"19": He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
"20": Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
"21": He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
"22": The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
"23": Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
"24": He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
Also, yes dinosours did live with people, there are probably still some around today.
This apparent Plesiosaur washed up on Moore's Beach in Monterey Bay, California in 1925. The neck was described as being about 20 feet long. No credible explanation has ever been made to explain it, other than Plesiosaurs still living in the Pacific Ocean. The story is given in Shipwrecks and Sea Monsters, available from CSE for $9.00. The sardine fishermen often reported seeing creatures like this in the 1920-40 era.
These two pictures are of an apparent Plesiosaur caught by a Japanese fishing boat off the coast of New Zealand in 1977. It had apparently been dead for a couple weeks. It was 32 feet long and weighed 4000 pounds. Some have argued that this is a basking shark because the protein was 96% similar to shark protein. No one has ever seen plesiosaur protein to know what it should look like. Scores of vastly different animals have very similar proteins. This only proves a common designer for both.
Post by: gainpresence on February 08, 2003, 12:25:00 PM
| QUOTE (N00bvin @ Feb 8 2003, 02:18 PM) |
| Where does the Ice Age fall into all of this? How exactly did Noah get two of each animal on board (there is approximately 200,000 species of instects alone)? |
Noah only needed two of each KIND (IE dogs, not dachshunds). Microevolution can explain this.
The animals also came to him.
Genesis 7:
"14": They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
"15": And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life
Post by: N00bvin on February 08, 2003, 12:31:00 PM
If you mean creatures like alligators, which are dinosaur like in nature... you're right.
Where are human fossils? If we lived together, shouldn't there be fossils for human as well?
Post by: gainpresence on February 08, 2003, 12:37:00 PM
Post by: N00bvin on February 08, 2003, 01:30:00 PM
...I KNEW you were going to bring that up...
I've also seen bigfoot tracks... bigfoot exists too?
Post by: kickassdude on February 08, 2003, 01:33:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| "19": Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. "20": Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. |
sounds more like a dragon than a dinosaur. dragons were mythical creatures very much believed in medival times but had no relation to dinosaurs.
also how big exactly was noah's arc that he could fit those huge dinosaurs with the long necks (jurrasic park anyone?) or were they all wiped out in the flood?
also scientists have proven that the fossils were millions of years old..not 6000 years
Post by: M3_DeL on February 08, 2003, 01:46:00 PM
I am not saying your point of view is right or wrong....heck I don't even care.
I think gain was saying that dinosaurs dod not come on the arc
Post by: Canmore on February 08, 2003, 02:18:00 PM
Everyone has to remember that the bible (any version) was not written by God but by man, based purely on what he wanted to say or his interpretation of events.
Hell a thousand years ago people didnt even know the world was round. And when it was discover to be round the churches fought it.
I mean so many of the verses in the bible are so vague that they can be interpreted to mean practically anything. The Dinosaur mentioning in Job could mean anything from a dragon, dinosaur, large alligator or any large lizard like creature.
Post by: Dark-Entity on February 08, 2003, 05:35:00 PM
Post by: M3_DeL on February 08, 2003, 05:44:00 PM
total joke
Post by: M3_DeL on February 08, 2003, 05:46:00 PM
lol
or not
Post by: Majinbuu on February 08, 2003, 06:20:00 PM
Buu
Post by: HSDEMONZ on February 08, 2003, 06:30:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| If evolution makes "sense" where did that ball that exploded come from? |
God farted...
Post by: gainpresence on February 08, 2003, 08:31:00 PM
I'M NOT A REDNECK!
Post by: Lizard_King on February 08, 2003, 08:39:00 PM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Feb 9 2003, 05:31 AM) |
| Hehe, whoops... insect.. I'M NOT A REDNECK! |
Sure buddy. Whatever
Post by: Dark Schneider on February 08, 2003, 10:25:00 PM
Post by: gainpresence on February 08, 2003, 10:26:00 PM
| QUOTE (Dark Schneider @ Feb 9 2003, 12:25 AM) |
| Religion Kills...................nuff said. |
Non-Religion kills........... nuff said.
........wait, I thought you'd left, D-S, what happened?
Post by: N00bvin on February 08, 2003, 11:16:00 PM
How do you know that evolution is not what God intended? That is something that I can swallow easier... that there is a God who started the Big Bang and left everything to its own design.
When it's said that "we" were created in His image... the image is not us (humans specifically), but the Universe. God is an actual Universe... and we are just a small part of it.
Imagine infinity... you can't. What makes you think you could "realize" a God with something as religion? It's like taking a glass of water and saying... "well, this is kind of like the ocean". The only part you have right is the water, but you're way off in explaining what an ocean actually is...
The depths of what religion is, is far beyond anyone's understanding... so why is it so strange that the stories in the bible is the best they could do in explaining these things at the time. They are analogies... like the glass of water, but only touch the surface of what the universe is about.
Science is our hope of actually explaining things. (i.e., the glass of water is made up of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom... the ocean has the same composition, but is vastly different in content).
Religion would explain the water... the water is there because He created it to show us the path to drink. We drink the pure water, that is of the ocean, that is like the ocean that He created.
Post by: Dark-Entity on February 09, 2003, 12:39:00 AM
Post by: GuyBrush on February 09, 2003, 01:23:00 AM
The Egyptian story of creation has their main honcho masturbating the universe into existence (big bang-creation from nothing...)Also not sure bout this but having recalled that I read it somewhere...
Jews and Muslims (reading both texts) r sed to be descendants of Abrahams 2 sons Isaac and Ishmael (I'm using names as written from religious books so alternate spellings.) So in a way its like the biggest family feud in history.
I may have missed/wronged something but forgive cos the last I read the Quran, Bible, Vedas, and other religious texts was around 5-6 years ago...
Post by: Al_Ghazi on February 09, 2003, 05:26:00 AM
Post by: Al_Ghazi on February 09, 2003, 05:48:00 AM
We need to educate ourselfs as to the cost, the moral outrage, and the manipulation of the United States by Israel. Please don't put me down to some rabid racist, but when you start to actually look, you see that this has gone too far.
Post by: capninsano on February 09, 2003, 07:22:00 AM
Post by: Lizard_King on February 09, 2003, 10:23:00 AM
Thank you for removing any value from further posting to this thread. Your hybrid of drooling racism, anti-Americanism, and revisionist history is utterly nauseating. As usual, it only takes one asshole to ruin it for everyone else, and the internet provides you with the anonymity necessary for the unhindered display of such reckless idiocy.
Your arguments stand on their own as monuments to the barrier that will never likely be gone between Western culture and the Arab world: ignorance.
Best of luck in your crusade, and here's to hoping that your ignorance is fully matched by your cowardice and there will be no need for the FBI to kick down your door.
Have a country day, motherfucker.
Post by: Majinbuu on February 09, 2003, 10:44:00 AM
Buu
Post by: Puckster069 on February 09, 2003, 10:51:00 AM
Post by: socrates on February 09, 2003, 11:05:00 AM
Post by: gainpresence on February 09, 2003, 12:31:00 PM
| QUOTE (burning_arc @ Feb 9 2003, 02:29 PM) |
| damn...its sad there are so many athiests in this world.. there is nothing i can type to change that fact on this forum so im not gonna bother... oh one thing though, i dont see downloading games as stealing, i see it more as copying. there is no thing in bible/10 commands saying you cant copy. its not stealing because your not taking anything away from someone, you are just making an identical copy of it. If you were never planning to buy the game or buy the cd you downloaded the mp3s from, how is it stealing? |
It, of course, is stealing and it IS wrong.
I wish we could kill this thread, it's been fun but now it's getting irritating.
Also, If you are a Christian, then you are commanded to follow man's laws unless they contradict God's laws.
Post by: Al_Ghazi on February 09, 2003, 12:58:00 PM
Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person... And for what - waht do we give them all that money for? Because they run our asses... Thats not Racisim - that the truth, but go ahead and hide behine 2000 years of percecution. Where I come from - if someone gets booted out of every country in Europe then that person is an asshole - not that everyone else is a racist...
Gaz.
Post by: shaklee3 on February 09, 2003, 01:50:00 PM
Post by: shaklee3 on February 09, 2003, 05:45:00 PM
| QUOTE (Ace25 @ Feb 9 2003, 11:51 PM) |
| Im just so glad we were able to have a rational debate before all the ignorant people came in and started posting, as we see now, they are starting to flood in... We can all read to know who I am referring to.. dont need to point names... Lizard Man, Gainpresence, Noobvin, Vin79, it was fun, thanks for sharing your beliefs in such a rational manner.. Even though I am more on the evolutionist side of it all, I very much respect you Gainpresence for your beliefs and such rational debating skills. |
No need to thank me, but the truth hurts doesn't it?
Post by: socrates on February 09, 2003, 05:52:00 PM
Post by: Al_Ghazi on February 09, 2003, 10:37:00 PM
I hear a lot of you guys whining about the the cost of XBOX games! How about the cost of keeping israel going? So far, US taxpayers in the United States have paid over $23,000 to each and every Israeli. Just think - if President Bush dumped israel, that would be like... 10,000 free video games for each of us!
Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)
Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000
Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200
Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S. aid to Israel
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000
Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200
Total Cost per Israeli
$23,240
Post by: shanafan on February 09, 2003, 10:40:00 PM
Jamie: You know what I figured out today?
Landon: What?
Jamie: Maybe God has a bigger plan for me than I had for myself. Like this journey never ends. Like you were sent to me because I'm sick. To help me through all this. You're my angel.
Post by: Lizard_King on February 09, 2003, 11:55:00 PM
| QUOTE (shanafan @ Feb 10 2003, 07:40 AM) |
| Jamie: You know what I figured out today? Landon: What? Jamie: Maybe God has a bigger plan for me than I had for myself. Like this journey never ends. Like you were sent to me because I'm sick. To help me through all this. You're my angel. |
LOL...finally, to the heart of the matter in one fell swoop!
Post by: KazuyaWaruasobi on February 09, 2003, 11:58:00 PM
Post by: shanafan on February 10, 2003, 01:46:00 PM
Post by: 007jamesbond on February 10, 2003, 01:48:00 PM
is strother also a tennisplayster or? probably not in top 20 atm? 
Post by: shanafan on February 10, 2003, 01:49:00 PM
Post by: 007jamesbond on February 10, 2003, 01:52:00 PM
i`m gonna be 20 next monday (17februari) 
ah no wonder shes looking above, would have been abit strange as tennisplayster or maybe as a emotion
Post by: 007jamesbond on February 10, 2003, 01:55:00 PM
but daniela hantuchova and mandy moore are some years younger then you, but i wouldnt care aswell cause they look awsome
Post by: Al_Ghazi on February 12, 2003, 11:02:00 AM
Post by: Al_Ghazi on February 12, 2003, 12:19:00 PM
Post by: Raised on February 12, 2003, 03:27:00 PM
Post by: Al_Ghazi on February 13, 2003, 09:39:00 AM
Post by: socrates on February 13, 2003, 09:44:00 AM
Post by: Al_Ghazi on February 13, 2003, 09:49:00 AM
Yeah I know the one... he rocks!
Post by: socrates on February 13, 2003, 09:59:00 AM
Post by: Al_Ghazi on February 13, 2003, 10:36:00 AM
Catch ya later.....
Post by: HSDEMONZ on February 13, 2003, 04:25:00 PM
"lest he who is without sin cast the first stone..."
so I did!
Post by: Rebel-Soul on February 13, 2003, 06:00:00 PM
Post by: Rebel-Soul on February 13, 2003, 06:06:00 PM
Post by: socrates on February 13, 2003, 06:13:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| (Rebel-Soul @ Feb 13 2003, 08:00 PM) Well the real fact of the matter is MAN needs a GOD. One god who is almighty. There is no athiest. there is always something in which a person believes in and goes to for comfort or joy. EG God allah money xbox. I personally believe in God some believe in money and some believe in their Xbox. you may not admit it but it is tru . for you hold something more precious than anything else. it may even be yourself. So really it comes down to this in 2 hundred years when we are materially rotting nine feet under. I will look down upon you in hell. and say i beleived in the one tru God and i have been saved... |
My penis is very precious to me, is that my god?
Post by: feflicker on February 13, 2003, 06:14:00 PM
Post by: gainpresence on February 13, 2003, 06:14:00 PM
| QUOTE (feflicker @ Feb 13 2003, 08:14 PM) |
| I have newfound respect for N00bvin. Glad to see there are other people out there who have "went down the rabitt hole" and seen the truth. |
He may be in wonderland, but I am in the real world.
Post by: Rebel-Soul on February 13, 2003, 06:14:00 PM
| QUOTE (socrates @ Feb 14 2003, 03:13 AM) | ||
My penis is very precious to me, is that my god? |
that is for you to kno not me! lol
Post by: socrates on February 13, 2003, 06:16:00 PM
Post by: HSDEMONZ on February 13, 2003, 06:16:00 PM
Only Sinners need apply!
Post by: Rebel-Soul on February 13, 2003, 06:17:00 PM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Feb 14 2003, 03:07 AM) |
| You seem to have a thing against Japanese people. |
not really just against their opinions...
Post by: jujupinto85 on February 13, 2003, 06:26:00 PM
and cetainly catholics at that matter
first u aint got much say on theology or probly havent even taken studies or courses on it.
you guys dont no shit so dont go running your mouth
those who are open minded and like to hear about reason and truth and not all about flaming shit is difernt
religion and society dont mix very well nowadays as they never did before but dont go flaming on somthing you have NO idea about.. and that thing is being Catholic
Post by: N00bvin on February 15, 2003, 12:53:00 AM
If "Heaven" is such a great place, then how did Jesus make such a big fucking "sacrifice" being nailed to a cross and sent to this great heaven?
That's like being at work and saying... "Guys, I'm making a huge sacrifice for you all... I'm going to Hooters for lunch. Oh, and when I come back... you're all fired." (Even throwing the Apocolypse in there for good measure...)
Post by: gainpresence on February 15, 2003, 10:22:00 AM
| QUOTE (N00bvin @ Feb 15 2003, 02:53 AM) |
| Heard something in a movie tonight... If "Heaven" is such a great place, then how did Jesus make such a big fucking "sacrifice" being nailed to a cross and sent to this great heaven? That's like being at work and saying... "Guys, I'm making a huge sacrifice for you all... I'm going to Hooters for lunch. Oh, and when I come back... you're all fired." (Even throwing the Apocolypse in there for good measure...) |
He didn't go to heaven, all the sin of the world (present/future) was upon him. He went to hell until he was raised from the dead (3 days, but you have to remember that in hell/heaven there is no time).
Post by: Cheerio on February 15, 2003, 10:23:00 AM
Post by: Lizard_King on February 15, 2003, 11:30:00 AM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Feb 15 2003, 07:22 PM) |
| He didn't go to heaven, all the sin of the world (present/future) was upon him. He went to hell until he was raised from the dead (3 days, but you have to remember that in hell/heaven there is no time). |
Interesting point. However, I did always find a similar question interesting: didn't the fact that Jesus knew he was the Son of God make invalid the entire exercise? I mean, it certainly removes the doubt of whether an earthly martyrdom is worth it if you are absolutely sure there is a God and you are serving him.
I always thought it would make more sense for Jesus to have been created with doubt, as all humans are, and to overcome that through a very human struggle; otherwise, (and I don't mean any insult) what purpose is there to the exercise except as a public relations stunt?
Post by: socrates on February 15, 2003, 11:56:00 AM
Post by: gainpresence on February 15, 2003, 01:19:00 PM
"21": Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
"22": And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Matthew 17:1-9
"1": And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
"2": And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
"3": And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
"4": Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
"5": While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
"6": And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
"7": And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.
"8": And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.
"9": And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
Post by: Lizard_King on February 16, 2003, 03:14:00 AM
I dunno, just curious.
The book that first started me thinking down these lines was "Memnoch the Devil" by Anne Rice, the fifth but unrelated book of the Vampire Chronicles. Shows what good books will do to impressionable youths.
Post by: jujupinto85 on February 16, 2003, 04:47:00 AM
just think...
Jesus is God so how could God make him self lowly as a man? its part of the Trinity, Christ was fully man, so of course he had to suffer the great pains of man kind, one being all he suffering from being tortured, and two he suffered from humanly struggles, one including pride....
but one thing that seperates between Jesus and anyother man was that he was the perfect human, who of course, acted the way God intended to act. he gave up the perfect sacrafice, his own free will
God gave us free will, but to give up this, our will, say to obey our parents, to listine to our elders, to listin to our military officers, is the greatest sacrafice one can make, since free will is what God gave to us not to abuse but to make use of..
Christ died because God told him to, and hence God being his father, he died on the Cross, becuase he was sacraficing himself, for the fate of the world
Post by: ice1138 on February 19, 2003, 06:28:00 AM
-ice1138