Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 11:34:39 GMT -5
Rational ... it think you are getting somewhat stuck in a rut. Are you saying that creation and evolution can't be discussed on the same sheet of paper? Or what in the world is your point? Sometimes short skirts and long hair get clumped together in discussion and although they admittedly cover quite different areas of the body --- they can be dealt with in the same discussion without a procedural meltdown like you are implying.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 10, 2014 12:51:12 GMT -5
Rational ... it think you are getting somewhat stuck in a rut. Are you saying that creation and evolution can't be discussed on the same sheet of paper? Or what in the world is your point? Sometimes short skirts and long hair get clumped together in discussion and although they admittedly cover quite different areas of the body --- they can be dealt with in the same discussion without a procedural meltdown like you are implying. Go ahead. Discuss any number of diverse subjects clumped together. I guess the problem I have is when answering the people who clump them all together is that you first have to take them apart and then answer the questions as they relate to each topic. And then when you do provide the answers the next comment is "No one even knows what started the big bang so how can evolution be said to be true." It was an attempt at a preemptive separation - Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 10, 2014 13:13:44 GMT -5
One person's "God" (of the Gap) is another person's frontier of scientific inquiry.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 10, 2014 21:54:52 GMT -5
They are neither incompatible nor compatible. They are different topics. It would be like stating that felling a tree is compatible with milking a cow. Of course they are different topics....but in my view they can co-exist very comfortably. Could it be that in your view they can co-exist comfortably because you want your bread buttered on both sides?
You don't want to give up your supernatural views of a paranormal entity called "god," yet you are young and an intelligent person of your times, therefore you don't want to discard your knowledge of science?
However, think about this, in the religious terms used in Christianity, you can't "serve two masters."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 10, 2014 23:09:57 GMT -5
Rational ... it think you are getting somewhat stuck in a rut. Are you saying that creation and evolution can't be discussed on the same sheet of paper? Or what in the world is your point? Sometimes short skirts and long hair get clumped together in discussion and although they admittedly cover quite different areas of the body --- they can be dealt with in the same discussion without a procedural meltdown like you are implying. Creation and evolution are indeed two very different topics. Edgar, yes, they can be discussed on the same sheet of paper, but why should they be? Isn't it simply because the creationists, have forced the discussion to be argued in the same venue?
Since the "intelligent design" people have forced the subject, we just have to take them on! One of the arguments used for intelligent design is that we are are so complex that we just had to have an "intelligent designer."
Doesn't that go exactly against Occam's principle of economy by which that one employ the most simple ways for application of a design to get the best results?
Here is an example noted in an article by Evan Sinclair in the recent The Humanist.
1) "the (man's) urethra passing through the prostate"
(It often causes older men much distress in the problem of urinating).
Sinclair states:
2) "Why can't the fluid secreted by the prostate during ejaculation simply be added to the sperm though ejaculatory ducts as it passes by the prostate, rather through it, -like vehicles entering the freeway on an on ramp?"
Now which one of these two shows "intelligence?" Sinclair, or a supposed know-it-all perfect "designer" deity?
Is this "intelligent designer" really intelligent or is this perfect "designer" being capricious and really doesn't care how HIS creation is affected? Or could it simply be that HE only exists in the minds of some people who just can't be without HIM?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 10, 2014 23:22:01 GMT -5
No, I seriously haven't had to rationalise that religion and science can co-exist very comfortably. There are quite a number of theologians, philosophers and scientists in history who have found no conflict between their faith and science - so it's not just a question of the times we now live in. Science and religion are different streams and will approach things from different angles. Science is not my master - I accept and respect it as a valid line of reasoning but I don't worship it - I worship a God who has created all things, much of which science is ultimately trying to find out more about. It would be easier to dismiss the supernatural if Jesus hadn't lived, died and rose again, raised people to life and defeated death himself - of which there is much evidence. My faith is firmly planted in a God who has delivered on His promises to humanity - not some airy, fairy paranormal entity who I can't relate to. It's interesting that people worship God, who has created everything ... but who reveals nothing for sure without a scientific "discovery".
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 10, 2014 23:46:26 GMT -5
No, I seriously haven't had to rationalise that religion and science can co-exist very comfortably. There are quite a number of theologians, philosophers and scientists in history who have found no conflict between their faith and science - so it's not just a question of the times we now live in. Science and religion are different streams and will approach things from different angles. Science is not my master - I accept and respect it as a valid line of reasoning but I don't worship it - I worship a God who has created all things, much of which science is ultimately trying to find out more about. It would be easier to dismiss the supernatural if Jesus hadn't lived, died and rose again, raised people to life and defeated death himself - of which there is much evidence.My faith is firmly planted in a God who has delivered on His promises to humanity - not some airy, fairy paranormal entity who I can't relate to. Actually, there is NOT as much evidence as you suppose that Jesus died and rose again. Out side of the NT, there are very few other mentions in history of Jesus. Josephus & Tacitus barely mention him.
In all due respect you can't use the same book, the NT, -as evidence as to whether something is true or not.
It is like saying something in Alice in Wonderland is true because there is evidence somewhere else in the same book that verifies it.
Also there are other mythical instances of people who died & rose again. If you would deny that those instances are true, then you need to prove that the Jesus "rose again" instance IS true.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 10, 2014 23:50:36 GMT -5
One person's "God" (of the Gap) is another person's frontier of scientific inquiry. I agree!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 11, 2014 1:24:24 GMT -5
It's interesting that people worship God, who has created everything ... but who reveals nothing for sure without a scientific "discovery". He has not only revealed that he can raise someone to life but has defeated death - science hasn't quite discovered the secret to that yet. I'm sure (with God's help it's coming... That's what I meant -- when science discovers how it happens.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 11, 2014 1:30:45 GMT -5
Actually, there is NOT as much evidence as you suppose that Jesus died and rose again. Out side of the NT, there are very few other mentions in history of Jesus. Josephus & Tacitus barely mention him.
In all due respect you can't use the same book, the NT, -as evidence as to whether something is true or not.
It is like saying something in Alice in Wonderland is true because there is evidence somewhere else in the same book that verifies it.
Also there are other mythical instances of people who died & rose again. If you would deny that those instances are true, then you need to prove that the Jesus "rose again" instance IS true.
Come on - there are thousands of manuscripts, many authors (ultimately formed into the NT) and secular accounts. You wouldn't expect too many people of the day (who hated Christ) to say too many positive things about Him.... I don't know anyone yet whose birth, life and death (method of death etc), resurrection were predicted hundreds and thousands of years in advance and they came about. If it had of all been fiction, it would have died out very quickly. The reason you don't know of "other" such person as you've described is because you have never educated yourself about them. There were many of them throughout history, and as you suggested, since they stopped happening they may ALL have been fiction after all. I used to cringe when a worker would get up in a gospel meeting and say such a thing -- it's been common knowledge among educated people ever since such incidents appear to have stopped occurring. The Roman government decided which one we should believe.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 11, 2014 5:18:01 GMT -5
It would be easier to dismiss the supernatural if Jesus hadn't lived, died and rose again, raised people to life and defeated death himself - of which there is much evidence. Taking the text of the bible out of the mix - what evidence is there?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 11, 2014 5:20:39 GMT -5
Bob - I am reasonably well educated but there's a lot I don't know :) I'm happy to be educated on others whose birth, life and death (including method of death) were predicted hundreds and thousands of years in advance and it happened exactly as it had been predicted. I only know of one - Jesus Christ. Who are the others? Before we start down this road, could you provide us with references to a couple of these predictions?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jul 11, 2014 7:56:20 GMT -5
Rational ... it think you are getting somewhat stuck in a rut. Are you saying that creation and evolution can't be discussed on the same sheet of paper? Or what in the world is your point? Sometimes short skirts and long hair get clumped together in discussion and although they admittedly cover quite different areas of the body --- they can be dealt with in the same discussion without a procedural meltdown like you are implying. Creation and evolution are indeed two very different topics. Edgar, yes, they can be discussed on the same sheet of paper, but why should they be? Isn't it simply because the creationists, have forced the discussion to be argued in the same venue?
Since the "intelligent design" people have forced the subject, we just have to take them on! One of the arguments used for intelligent design is that we are are so complex that we just had to have an "intelligent designer."
Doesn't that go exactly against Occam's principle of economy by which that one employ the most simple ways for application of a design to get the best results?
Here is an example noted in an article by Evan Sinclair in the recent The Humanist.
1) "the (man's) urethra passing through the prostate"
(It often causes older men much distress in the problem of urinating).
Sinclair states:
2) "Why can't the fluid secreted by the prostate during ejaculation simply be added to the sperm though ejaculatory ducts as it passes by the prostate, rather through it, -like vehicles entering the freeway on an on ramp?"
Now which one of these two shows "intelligence?" Sinclair, or a supposed know-it-all perfect "designer" deity?
Is this "intelligent designer" really intelligent or is this perfect "designer" being capricious and really doesn't care how HIS creation is affected? Or could it simply be that HE only exists in the minds of some people who just can't be without HIM?
Another example of "intelligent" design youtu.be/cO1a1Ek-HD0
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 11, 2014 11:18:35 GMT -5
Bob - I am reasonably well educated but there's a lot I don't know :) I'm happy to be educated on others whose birth, life and death (including method of death) were predicted hundreds and thousands of years in advance and it happened exactly as it had been predicted. I only know of one - Jesus Christ. Who are the others? Before we start down this road, could you provide us with references to a couple of these predictions? And thoughts on these predictions?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 11, 2014 12:58:12 GMT -5
The reason you don't know of "other" such person as you've described is because you have never educated yourself about them. There were many of them throughout history, and as you suggested, since they stopped happening they may ALL have been fiction after all. I used to cringe when a worker would get up in a gospel meeting and say such a thing -- it's been common knowledge among educated people ever since such incidents appear to have stopped occurring. The Roman government decided which one we should believe. Bob - I am reasonably well educated but there's a lot I don't know I'm happy to be educated on others whose birth, life and death (including method of death) were predicted hundreds and thousands of years in advance and it happened exactly as it had been predicted. I only know of one - Jesus Christ. Who are the others? Well, you can find a brief introduction to SOME of them in a book called The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves. It's about a century old now, so it's not footnoted as a 21st century research paper would be, but I read it nearly a decade ago and since then I have not found any credible research that has contradicted anything he has written. But I have to warn you -- this is not a lesson in theology, it is a study in historical records that Christian theologians have disregarded.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 11, 2014 14:11:30 GMT -5
No, I seriously haven't had to rationalise that religion and science can co-exist very comfortably. There are quite a number of theologians, philosophers and scientists in history who have found no conflict between their faith and science - so it's not just a question of the times we now live in. Science and religion are different streams and will approach things from different angles. Science is not my master - I accept and respect it as a valid line of reasoning but I don't worship it - I worship a God who has created all things, much of which science is ultimately trying to find out more about. It would be easier to dismiss the supernatural if Jesus hadn't lived, died and rose again, raised people to life and defeated death himself - of which there is much evidence. My faith is firmly planted in a God who has delivered on His promises to humanity - not some airy, fairy paranormal entity who I can't relate to. My question is WHY do you need to "worship" anything, -a God or anything else?
Why does anyone with the information that we have in this day and age, of the history of religion & understanding of WHY people "worshiped" a supernatural entity , -why do you still feel a need to "worship" a supernatural being? What is the difference between some " airy, fairy paranormal entity " and your God that is different than others "GOD"?
What "promises to humanity" has HE "delivered?"
All by itself, the universe, our own planet & life itself is awe inspiring, without any need to "worship" some age old superstitions & myths as people often did in the past when they didn't have the answers that we have today.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 11, 2014 14:24:00 GMT -5
It's interesting that people worship God, who has created everything ... but who reveals nothing for sure without a scientific "discovery". He has not only revealed that he can raise someone to life but has defeated death - science hasn't quite discovered the secret to that yet. I'm sure (with God's help it's coming... Just what does has "defeated death" mean?
Isn't the supposed ability to "raise someone to life" the same as "defeated death?"
Do you also believe to be true that all the other instances outside of Christianity where people were purported to have been raised the dead are also true?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 11, 2014 14:52:10 GMT -5
Actually, there is NOT as much evidence as you suppose that Jesus died and rose again. Out side of the NT, there are very few other mentions in history of Jesus. Josephus & Tacitus barely mention him.
In all due respect you can't use the same book, the NT, -as evidence as to whether something is true or not.
It is like saying something in Alice in Wonderland is true because there is evidence somewhere else in the same book that verifies it.
Also there are other mythical instances of people who died & rose again. If you would deny that those instances are true, then you need to prove that the Jesus "rose again" instance IS true.
Come on - there are thousands of manuscripts, many authors (ultimately formed into the NT) and secular accounts. You wouldn't expect too many people of the day (who hated Christ) to say too many positive things about Him....I don't know anyone yet whose birth, life and death (method of death etc), resurrection were predicted hundreds and thousands of years in advance and they came about. If it had of all been fiction, it would have died out very quickly. christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/a/Prophecies-Jesus.htm Actually there weren't many secular accounts of Jesus and it was not because people of the day "hated" Christ therefore didn't say positive things about Him, -it was simply because the rest of the world didn't even know that he existed!
The "thousands" of manuscripts & many authors that ultimately formed into the NT were not secular of course but bits & pieces of the bible already in existence plus the Q "document" You are trying to verify something written in the NT by the same book, the bible.
It would be like me attempting to prove something said in Asimov's Foundation fictional series by parts of the same books. I don't think it would convince anyone. Well, maybe Nathan!
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Jul 11, 2014 15:00:58 GMT -5
It really is telling when the percentage of people in that poll came out as being creationists! I really don't understand how a biology teacher could support it though? American school boards is the answer. Religious people clamor for school board positions so they can control what kids are taught in school. This is Las Vegas, you know the reputation -- but the school board has only 1 non-Mormon and the way the school system is run reflects that. Huh? Nevada is only 4% Norman and they control the Los Vegas school board?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 11, 2014 15:42:53 GMT -5
American school boards is the answer. Religious people clamor for school board positions so they can control what kids are taught in school. This is Las Vegas, you know the reputation -- but the school board has only 1 non-Mormon and the way the school system is run reflects that. Huh? Nevada is only 4% Norman and they control the Los Vegas school board? I don't know where you got that statistic. Nevada is most certainly more than 4% Mormon. The two dominant religions in the state are Roman Catholic first and then Mormons. In fact, of all the Non-Catholics in the state, the Mormon congregation outnumbers all the other denominations and religions combined. There is a total of 99 Mormon churches in Las Vegas. It is unusual to have a class of kids in school with no Mormon(s) in it.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 11, 2014 15:56:41 GMT -5
Huh? Nevada is only 4% Norman and they control the Los Vegas school board? I am surprised there that many Normans in either Los Vegas or Las Vegas. I thought they all settled in England and stayed put except for the third crusade!
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Jul 11, 2014 15:59:39 GMT -5
I'm on my iPad so can't link, but I was quoting the Las Vegas review journal for the 4%. According to wiki there are a little less than179,000 Mormons (2012) in Nevada and nev has a pop of about 2.8 million so that's about 6.4%. If the Mormons had that much control there certainly wouldn't be that much gambling.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 11, 2014 16:02:15 GMT -5
The reason you don't know of "other" such person as you've described is because you have never educated yourself about them. There were many of them throughout history, and as you suggested, since they stopped happening they may ALL have been fiction after all. I used to cringe when a worker would get up in a gospel meeting and say such a thing -- it's been common knowledge among educated people ever since such incidents appear to have stopped occurring. The Roman government decided which one we should believe. Bob - I am reasonably well educated but there's a lot I don't know I'm happy to be educated on others whose birth, life and death (including method of death) were predicted hundreds and thousands of years in advance and it happened exactly as it had been predicted. I only know of one - Jesus Christ. Who are the others? PS There are a few hundreds, but thousands of years of historical records -- we can count them on the fingers of one hand, especially since the phenomena of Jesus birth, etc. has not recurred in the last 2000 years, that I know of. One thing you will find is that all such birth predictions are sketchy -- including Jesus'. The Christian knee jerk response is to dismiss the other predictions out of hand, despite the fact that the writers of the approved Christian predictions were not predicting a "Christ", because they emphatically did not believe in anything relating to the topic. Jews, of course, know well what all the "Christian predictions" mean, but Christians have showed no interest at all in what it meant to Jews. There is one most remarkable discovery one finds when one begins to study pre-Christian "Christ" theology religions: There is not a single thing in the Jesus story that was not previously recorded about some other such "Christ" individual. I hesitate to ignore that fact because it would involve a world-wide conspiracy against the Jesus mission for centuries before his advent. That I simply cannot accept as reasonable under any circumstance. FWIW
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Jul 11, 2014 16:04:20 GMT -5
Huh? Nevada is only 4% Norman and they control the Los Vegas school board? I am surprised there that many Normans in either Los Vegas or Las Vegas. I thought they all settled in England and stayed put except for the third crusade! Ouch! I refuse to spend waste time proofing a message board post, but that's a good one
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Jul 11, 2014 16:08:57 GMT -5
It's interesting that you chose to blame the Mormons. The official stand is that Adam was the first man god communicated with. How that happened will be explained in due course when god decides. They take no stand for or against. Seems this is another example of attacking a religion one doesn't understand, just because no one will defend them.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 11, 2014 16:30:01 GMT -5
I am surprised there that many Normans in either Los Vegas or Las Vegas. I thought they all settled in England and stayed put except for the third crusade! Ouch! I refuse to spend waste time proofing a message board post, but that's a good one I hope you know it was a joke. But then I find it difficult to empathize since I never make any mistakes!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 11, 2014 16:40:51 GMT -5
I'm on my iPad so can't link, but I was quoting the Las Vegas review journal for the 4%. According to wiki there are a little less than179,000 Mormons (2012) in Nevada and nev has a pop of about 2.8 million so that's about 6.4%. If the Mormons had that much control there certainly wouldn't be that much gambling. The RJ got it wrong -- or at least the individual who wrote the article got it wrong. The Mormon churches here are about all larger than any other denomination's churches, and there are 99 of them just in Las Vegas. But Mormons are a bit like the 2x2s -- they don't acknowledge anyone unless they are in good standing with the hierarchy. There are as many Jack-Mormons around as there are adherent Mormons -- slack Mormons that the church either won't count or won't allow to go to church; or splinter congregations like the fundamentalist Mormon groups. The Wiki statistic is undoubtedly misleading because it refers to the number of "adherents" And about casinos -- don't fool yourself. They frown on gambling, but they most certainly do not frown on profits gained from ANY "legal" source -- if you get what I mean. And that is no secret at all. And two other things: (1) in Nevada it is illegal for casino employees to gamble, so it is safe for a Mormon to work in any casino related job to impress the congregation of his non-indulgence, and (2) to Mormons it is not a sin to make profit from the "sins of gentiles", so being a bar maid is a legitimate source of income. This city elects the most prominent Mormon in the whole of US government.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 11, 2014 16:43:16 GMT -5
It's interesting that you chose to blame the Mormons. The official stand is that Adam was the first man god communicated with. How that happened will be explained in due course when god decides. They take no stand for or against. Seems this is another example of attacking a religion one doesn't understand, just because no one will defend them. Who are you answering. Did someone blame the Mormons for something?
|
|