Evolution vs. Creationism

I watched every episode of Cosmos as a kid and I had no recollection of the turtleneck. Funny thing memory.

Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ whatever you said about miracles is not really relevant to the point I was making. And as for "kill all homosexuals": The bible says that. Of course I picked a statement which I know few Christians are taking literally today. But that's also exactly why it's such a good example of cherry picking. Gee Mike...I also eat pork and wear clothes of two different kinds of fabric.  That isn't cherry-picking.  It's understanding that Old Testament law was done away with in favor of a new covenant (a very common understanding)...regardless I (as a Gentile) was never bound by the Mosaic law in the first place...because God never made that covenant with Gentiles, but with Hebrews. Duuno if this was responded to because damn this thread has words and stuff.   The problem is why you would make a Covenant, with moral commands, that won't be absolutely true, or good.   I can't buy the argument that ancient peoples needed a "stepping stone" morality. If God really wanted to, he could have endowed them with reason, spoken in more than parable, vague metaphors, smoke and mirrors, and given real true good reasoning. And we'd be so far ahead now morally if he did.   But this stepping stone morality doesn't make sense to me coming from a Creator that is supposed to be eternal, amongst other things. And you are telling God what He should be?  That's rich!  .... But of course, everyone has an assumption of what God must be, and if God doesn't fit that mold, He can't exist.

It's perfectly reasonable to outline what aspects a creator should have.

Say God kills all Inuits and says he was right in doing it (via some text somewhere). It's an old philosophical question: "Is something right because God says it is?" I cannot accept that. It's too counter-intuitive, for one thing, but it can't stack up even to various philosophical arguments completely away from intuition. The heart of the matter we have to deal with, as humans, is we cannot accept something is right because "a God" in one text of many is supposed to be justified in doing it because it's his will. It cannot be that way. We have to use our own reason, and if the best we can muster agrees that God wasn't moral in acting that way, God was wrong. If it turns out that God does exist, and somehow by some tragic cosmic anomaly was right in acting that way, we are all slaves to a malevolent being who somehow endowed us with enough cognitive dissonance to despise his actions while making us pay for it.

Epignosis wrote: Anyway, it is incorrect to assume that God made a covenant with the Hebrews to instill moral character in them (that is really an incidental aspect of the covenant).  If you want to know why, figure out why God commanded even their diets (or to do no work on the Sabbath day).  It's so much deeper than than morals...and it's rather profound.

You could explain, but I think the profundity of it all will be lost on me.

p0mt3 wrote: Citizen Erased wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Citizen Erased wrote: Pah. I was cynical of it myself beforehand. It's not something I could control. But if that's your response I'll hardly convince you. Either I'm a raving lunatic or I am telling you the truth about what I experienced. Believe me or not. I don't really lose or gain anything from it. You're neither, actually. Just somebody who gets so caught up in the motion that you join in with the others. I have no doubt that you actually do believe in it, yet it's very curious . . . why is it that only certain congregations are able to do that? If it's truly something God-given, shouldn't every church be able to do it? 'Course the only churches who do speak in tongues are the churches who actually believe it to be possible. See what I'm getting at, here? If you believe something to be true, you will convince yourself of it as well, in one way or another. For you it's making incoherent noise, for others it's allowing snakes to bite them, but for most Christians it's just simply believing, and nothing else is required to ''sell'' the illusion to the participants. I don't think regular church attendees are liars. I just think they are greatly misguided. I doubt I'll be able to convince you. I can't remember much of the meeting up to that point but I barely knew a word of the songs (this was in Canada) and I didn't know anybody. I just asked God to 'move in me' and boom. As for why can't all churches see the same results? They don't ask for it/don't believe it quite simply. I've spoken to a priest from down south before and his logic was similar to yours, except he believed that God didn't "manifest himself in such ways". Basically, he'd blocked the idea from his mind and so wasn't letting God in, is my theory. This is a bit of a tangent anyway. So you're saying that if somebody doesn't believe in something, it simply dosn't exist for them? Well that sounds nice, and all, but it just isn't true. I don't believe in rainstorms. Does that mean when I go outside, I'll never be able to see or feel rain? If the ability for God to enter somebody is real, then He should be able to do it with anybody. Now you'll argue that he only chooses to enter the hearts of His believers. Okay, fine . . . I was a believer for 19 years, yet I never once experienced being 'taken over' by anything, much less the Holy Spirit. It wasn't because I didn't believe it was possible, or that I simply chose to block it out. I believed, and God could have done that at any time. But He didn't. Because it just isn't possible. Even most Christians know this. Even if you go by the Bible itself, it confirms this. The pentecost was a one-time incident, and it never happened again. God does that kind of stuff all the time in the Bible when he allows certain events to take place only once for a certain reason, then he brings everything back to normal again, and those abilities are no longer possible. But people in churches like yours choose to ignore that completely. Also, the whole 'unkown tongues' thing is also misunderstood. The word 'unkown' is italicized. Meaning that it has been ADDED to the already existing scripture. It's to make the english readable. It does not exist in the actual manuscripts. These 'tongues' were understood by everybody else there, not just the supposedly possessed. Here ya go: http://www.biblestudysite.com/tongues.htm But of course, that won't convice you, either, because guess what? You don't really want to know the truth. You would rather remain in the dark and unaware of the actual answers because it comforts you to believe in such things. That's fine, but if you're that kind of person, you have no business jumping on here and accusing us non-believers of being the stubborn ones.

To be honest, your arrogant tone is beginning to irritate me. I've not accused anyone of being stubborn. Please direct me to such a post? Or is it just my 'tone'?

I don't want to know the truth? It's like trying to tell someone who has tasted water that what he just tasted isn't water at all. Seriously, experience counts for a lot when it comes to somebody's beliefs. I remember discussing this with my philosophy teacher years ago - he had a lifechanging incident that convinced him there was a God despite finding scientific evidence that told him he was wrong for years.

As for tongues, if you actually listen to people 'possessed' as you seem to put it (it's actually just a special language for talking to God), many of the words are pure hebrew. How would you explain being able to speak hebrew if you've never spoken it in your entire life? At the time I was saying words that I had no idea meant Jewish for love etc.

As for saying, he should be 'able' to do it with anybody - God isn't a circus act. And believe me, it IS about the heart. I know people that have gone over to South America and seen miracles of a monumental scale.

I was a believer for 19 years, yet I never once experienced being 'taken over' by anything, much less the Holy Spirit. It wasn't because I didn't believe it was possible, or that I simply chose to block it out. I believed, and God could have done that at any time. But He didn't. Because it just isn't possible.

So how come it 'worked' with me then? I don't try and explain God's actions, I'm just saying what happened to me. That's all I can do after all?

Another eternal question that nerdy scientific types seem to have little handle on...

Edited by Negoba - December 03 2009 at 10:28

I've never been "pissed off" about any of the posts in these threads ... considering the topic, I actually think the discussion is quite civil. And as far as the off topic trends are concerned ... well, it is page 15. Most opinions have been covered, and some people are going in circles. That's to be expected, and I'm even enoying it to some extent. 

Mike is going to be awful pissed to find that dicks have derailed his thread.

Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: jampa17 wrote: Lucky I'm Catholic... we don't cut off nothing of our bodies... Give me sometime... I have to read another two pages of answers to know what I miss... Now, there's the thing - I expect that is the result of selective interpretation. My interpretation is that Paul (& Barnabas?) was asked whether gentiles who converted to judeo-christianity should be circumcised, and he decided that it would be unfair to expect adults to undergo that and probably thought it would scare off potential converts, so he said no - but he did say they should only eat kosher food (he later changed his mind on that too). He never said anything about the children and offspring born to converted gentiles and their descendants. That is somewhat accurate, but if you don't mind a little clarification: Gentiles were only expected to be circumsized and keep kosher if they expected to join Hebrew society and live among them.  The major controversy at the church of Galatia (and to a lesser extent, the church at Rome) was on whether or not Gentile proselytes must be required to keep the law of the Hebrew covenant (the God of Jesus is after all, the God of the Hebrews) in ordered to be saved.  This, of course, isn't the case since only belief in Christ and repentance of sin  is required.

Dean wrote: jampa17 wrote: Lucky I'm Catholic... we don't cut off nothing of our bodies... Give me sometime... I have to read another two pages of answers to know what I miss... Now, there's the thing - I expect that is the result of selective interpretation. My interpretation is that Paul (& Barnabas?) was asked whether gentiles who converted to judeo-christianity should be circumcised, and he decided that it would be unfair to expect adults to undergo that and probably thought it would scare off potential converts, so he said no - but he did say they should only eat kosher food (he later changed his mind on that too). He never said anything about the children and offspring born to converted gentiles and their descendants.

That is somewhat accurate, but if you don't mind a little clarification:

Gentiles were only expected to be circumsized and keep kosher if they expected to join Hebrew society and live among them.  The major controversy at the church of Galatia (and to a lesser extent, the church at Rome) was on whether or not Gentile proselytes must be required to keep the law of the Hebrew covenant (the God of Jesus is after all, the God of the Hebrews) in ordered to be saved.  This, of course, isn't the case since only belief in Christ and repentance of sin  is required.

jampa17 wrote: Lucky I'm Catholic... we don't cut off nothing of our bodies... Give me sometime... I have to read another two pages of answers to know what I miss...

Now, there's the thing - I expect that is the result of selective interpretation. My interpretation is that Paul (& Barnabas?) was asked whether gentiles who converted to judeo-christianity should be circumcised, and he decided that it would be unfair to expect adults to undergo that and probably thought it would scare off potential converts, so he said no - but he did say they should only eat kosher food (he later changed his mind on that too). He never said anything about the children and offspring born to converted gentiles and their descendants.

Dean wrote: AmbianceMan wrote: Sorry. Ken Ham is a complete and utter idiot. He's a young earth creationist and believes humans co-existed with dinosaurs. Find another person, please.   Interesting story.  He once took a rock that had been created in 3 hours by a recent volcano to scientists to date it.  They came back with something like 10,000,000 years.  Everything you read about him is going to be skewed by the way.  People hate this guy.  That's probably why I decided to read some of his stuff.  Seriously check out his answers book.  It WILL be thought provoking.   By the way ^ I'm with the cheesemakers.... Trivia: what movie is that from?  Easy one... You offer a Monty Python Pop quiz?   Here's my question -- how do "scientists" date rock?