Suziegirl,

I am quite intringued as to your argument that you have used against priests. If you know the bible more than "most christians", then they were just people who called themselves christians. There is a difference. True christians, well are just different and unfortunately rare. I believe the Christian God exists, but I don't claim to be a christian. I don't claim to be, because I myself am one of those who would taint the Lords name, something I do not want to do. I used to be what I'd call a
Christian, but have back slidden drastically, I also don't think I'm ready or strong enough mentally to take up the kind of commitment and conscious it takes to be a true Christian.

Anyhow I'd very impressed if you could stump a priest or a christian scientist. I don't agree with everything Christian Science says, but then I don't believe everything people conclude from regular science. I do question the existence of a deity, even that of Christian God. I think God wants us to question, only in asking can we find the truth. Some people spend all of their life asking, but never ask the right questions. Some just conclude on other's answers, never asking for their own.

So what is your argument?

My argument for the existence of God has several points. The first and strongest to me is personal experience from the time I was a true Christian. I was filled with the Holy Ghost at one time in my life. It's something very hard to explain. It was at least ten times the intensity of the best orgasm I've ever had, with another person or by myself and a good sock of mine, but it was not arousal. It just left me in awe, I felt as powerful as a diesel locomotive, it was like a high I've never experienced before. All I can say is try it, but it's much easier said than done. You have to want it, you have to pray for it, you have to let it happen, you have to believe it can happen. I've seen people, very young as well, speak in tongues, languages they do not know, but languages that do exist and can be translated, they are used today. Most common I've heard was of course Hebrew and Latin was even heard at one time.

Then there is the feeling a Christian gets whenever he enters a church, sometimes when you get close to a Christian you've never met for, you just know they are a Christian.

However that is emotional, personally I accept it, because it happened to me. But I am a scientist and emotion cannot make a play in proving a theory. So here goes.

The Bible, written by several authors speaks of similar happenings. Some of these authors never spoke to one another or knew the other even existed. Yet comparitively the Bible is 99 percent accurate when compared to itself.

The Bible is also a history book. Cities mentioned in the Bible existed at one point, catastrophies did happen. The rock layers, our geological records, show catastrophies form time to time, exists in evidence of flood, world wide.

Sodom and Gamorrha are thought to have been found. Two ancient cities that are in close proximity have been found covered in ashes from a not to distant volcano.

The city of Jericho is thought to have been found, and great walls it does have.

God uses many parables and metaphors. I don't believe the universe was created in seven days, I believe in the theory of evolution, I don't believe the world could flood in 40days and 40 nights from rain alone.

I believe God uses tools, evolution for example. What is a better way than evolution to shape man in one's own image? You have millions of years on your hands to correct imperfections, make things more efficient. The Human body is quite the work of art as are all lifeforms. I do believe that in 40days and nights that the world or pervievalbe world could flood from rain, plate techtonics, and a shift in the ice flow. By percievabel world I mean the horizon. I doubt the whole world flooded, just much of it. I think it took Noah 40 days and nights to reach dry land, not that land just appeared. The Lord Promised that such a thing would never happen again, well obviously since the last record of flood in rocks one hasn't. I don't know if the Rainbow as a Promise thing is true, I don't remember the Bible mentioning it anywhere.

What do you have?

Any particular reason you're picking on me today?

Doesn't this belong in the religion forum anyway.?

The bible when compared to itself is not 99% accurate. It's obvious from the stories in the gospels that they were not written simultaneously, and probably not by people who ever knew the "real" Jesus if such a figure existed.

There is substantial evidence that the authors of at least one or more of the gospels copied parts from the others.

Remember the story of the Talents? The boss who gave each of his employees a certain amount of money and went away for a bit?

I forget which gospels mention this story, but it is mentioned twice. In one story, the amounts of money are reasonable, for the times. In the other, it's obvious there's been a mistranslation, as the story is altered slightly, and the amounts of money are ridiculous.
I didn't exactly sit down prepared to write this, which you're obviously going to criticise, as you seem to have some reason to attack me and my beliefs.

Tell me, if you have a girlfriend, do you beat her as a true christian should?

I don't recall ever saying that the bible is not partly history, however, the contents are largely legend and hearsay. Not fact. Most of the books were written many years after the events they describe, from stories handed down in the oral tradition. Just because a few cities are mentioned in the bible and exist in the real world, does not mean that the bible is true in any other sense. Fiction commonly places it's events in real cities, but the events are not necessarily true.

As for flood, were you aware that every major religion recounts a great flood?
It's entirely probably that there was a great flood worldwide at some point, which survived, as stories of great events do, in the collective mind of every major religion which survived beyond it. Just because a flood happened, does not mean that it was because of the wrath of god, or that a dude named Noah was the only one to survive, along with his family and mobile zoo.

The bible contains 2 creation stories. Both can't be correct. I don't believe that the bible is a historical document who's every word is true, and there is no evidence to support that. Urban legends arise from small parts of truth, and large parts of exaggeration and hearsay.
Have people changed so much in 2000 years? No, if anything, we've gotten less credible. 2000 years ago, people would probably believe anything, because they didnt' know what couldnt' exist.

Believe what you want though, Your arguments don't hold water with me, they're just your way of making true to yourself what you believe. I dont' need to believe any of it is true, so I dont'. If you want to believe that, I'm not stopping you. I dont' understand what your purpose in starting this topic was.

Maybe you're trying to convert me, I don't know.

Heres the thing though. Why believe in christianity? I have no more evidence to suggest that the christian god exists than I do that Hercules and his Dad did.

I'm not going to go around believing in one god, unless I beleive in ALL gods ever worshipped by all people. Since that is patently ridiculous "I AM THE ONE TRUE GOD" and all that stuff, I believe in none. I do understand the bible, but I dont' understand your right to attack me specifically for my views.

that wasn't an attack. that was a reasonable question i would think. i have to answer it all the time.

I'm not attacking you, just wanted to hear what you had to say. Yes the bible is 99% accurate you mentioned 2 things out of the whole book. Those two things could reasonably add up to less than 1%. I am not familiar with the two counts of creationism. Perhaps I never came by that or am too dumb to realize what I had read.

God, nor Jesus has never said it was ok to beat your wife, or anybody else for that matter. Please quote some scripture that says so.

If I remember correctly a Jesus did exist, I'll have to dig for resources, but there are mentions of such a Messiah in other records beside the Bible. The real question is, was he really the son of God? The Gospels were written by apostles, all of which most likely knew Jesus as they traveled with him, ate with him, learned with him, and taught with him.

The attack thing again. How did this come off as an attack? I don't think anybody is bad for accepting or rejecting a religion, you hethen (just kidding). I am only interested in hearing your argument. Also I don't expect you to go to a local college library and dig up 45 books and prepare an essay. I'm assuming you have some points memorized that you've used before, and that's fine with me.

Some of it is hearsay, but archaeology has proven at least some of this hearsay, making some of it fact. The cities of Sodom and Gamorrha, said to have been destroyed in a rain of fire, are thought to have been found, covered in volcanic ash. The description fits very well, it happened fast as the Bible depicts and probably unexpectedly. So some of the Bible has been proven, some has not. I agree, but just because something has not been proven or disproven does not mean it didn't happen or exist.

It would have been impossible for Noah and his small family to regenerate the population of the earth. I agree not only Noah survived. Like I said I think only part of the world flooded, people would have to have lived elsewhere, unless of course there were thousands of people named Noah. Samething for Adam and Eve. They are metaphors. They have been the first two people on earth, but the only ones at the time. How do you think their offspring bore more offspring? Again metaphorical.

My purpose is starting this topic was purely of interest. Nothing rude, irrational, or to start flaming, it's peaceful up in this piece. And no I'm not trying to convert anybody, again just wanted to hear different arguments, but in particular, yours.


Wow you take great offense to this. For the third time you mention the word, "attack". I really don't think I in any way launched any sort of attack. I just read that you argued your views with priests and I was somewhat impressed and wanted to hear what you had said. I hope we're cleared up on this now, not trying to start anything but conversation. The only things I get riled up about are guns, rape, thievery, loss of rights, and the screwing of people by the government, or misinformation in chemistry and other weapons. Other than that I'm pretty easy going.

The historical accuracy of any religon can be debated, dissected, proved and disproved 'till the sun implodes. When it comes down to it, all religons require a certain act of faith. The problem with trying to have any sort of serious religous debate with someone who has the afformentioned faith, is a problem that has been faced over and over again.

Faith is belief in the absence of facts, and even in the face of evidence or reasoning to the contrary. Faith in a persons innocence, in some cases, requires a dismissal of facts at the time, because you have faith in the afformentioned person. So, in essence, its pretty damn hard to argue away faith.

I personally have had one heluva time having faith in something I can't see, call me a realist or what-the-fuck ever, but I have faith in the god in all of us, not in some distant parental figure that presides over all of us.

I can understand other peoples blind faith (not meant in a demeaning manner) in a single gentle, forgiving god. There are times that I truly wish I had such faith, but all I see when I close my eyes and pray are my eyelids.

Real, you make my point in your first post when you say that...

quote:

---

The first and strongest to me is personal experience from the time I was a true Christian. I was filled with the Holy Ghost at one time in my life

---

The strongest point is not anything substantial, not anything documented or something that can be repeated at whim, but something deep, personal, and infinitely holy.

I have, as well, had experiences which I could possibly relate to what you've described, but I took that experience in a completely different direction than you did. To a truthfully much colder, and lonelier, but in my opinon, a much more intricate, complex, and beautiful place then you may have.

I'm glad for those who have faith in a higher being. I'm glad that they have something to believe in, that they can fully trust, and once again, there are times I wish I had that, but I don't, and that difference between us is not anything that can be argued away by facts.

Religon is an infinitely personal, and irrational creature, and no amount of logic, reasoning, or evidence can change the minds of those who have faith...

The Real, forgive me for allying myself with you, for it may forever taint your
potential for prevailing with reasonable arguments on this topic. Mostly, I agree with what you've said, with the exception of this, I do not beleive that one has to pray for , be ready for or want the intervention or presence of god in their life. When I say God, what I am referring to is the creative power which is at the heart of all the worlds religions, by a hundered or more names,
people, like you and I who have , for one reason or another been privy to the "God shit" are Real,(not that those who haven't arent, real in that we're not loony toons or inherintelyweak! Like Mahtius said, no witnessing unless it's called for,now I like your name and you, actually I've thought very well of you since the end of the litter box thread, I wish we could argue about the god stuff, cause I know I'd win, not by being able to change your mind, just because, well, it seems like I get to know the answers to so many things that I myself would never ever have come up with, is' just that way, but since we are both on the same side and personally, like Mathius said< by the way did any of you wish him a Happy Birthday? If not, well he deserves his own topic, anyhow , as Tony would say, "fuck You!!! We agree!" just kidding, take it easy and unless you don't. Oh yeah, my kid came home from boyscout camp with two bullseyes, hooray!!!!!1Back to the topic, I have personally seen God or whatever you want to call it, take someone whom the last thing they are doing is praying for or wanting the
attention and literally kicking them up to the Jesus trip level replete with miracles , healing the whole thang ding allang, I couldn't beleive the news papers weren't at my house! I don't think people neccessarily need to acknowledge God as a God, singular or otherwise, I think all the material available now and throughout time , was and is basically produced for those who would feel the neeed or have occasion to desire that which they could see in black and white and share a communal type kinship with others apppraised in the same way by the same "facts" I'm tired now, but I will write a post about perception and multiple realities sometime, I think what makes me want to tell whomever I tell whatever I tell em is just like when you get done with a really good book, at least, for me, I always wish that someone else had just finished it too, so we could discuss it, anyway, that's all for now, save my apology for the tiresome nature, at best ,of my posts.:P Did you get the cat picture?

[This message has been edited by winki (edited 08-09-2000).]

Okay, took me ages to read all that (10 minutes actually) but I'd just like to say

WINKI! WHERE THE HELL IS MY MAIL?

Sorry, but to me it seemed like an attack.. I mean, saying that because I know the bible better than many christians they must not be christians is ridiculous. Does that mean that all christians must have read the bible cover to cover to be able to call themselves such? I thought christianity was supposed to be something more than that.

I don't own a copy of the bible for obvious reasons, but in the old testament somewhere (I forget where) it says it's ok to beat your wife, as long as the stick you use is not wider than your thumb.

I gave 2 examples, I'm sure they're not the only ones.

The bible cannot be taken in the literal sense, which on one hand you seem to argue, and on the other you seem to say that it must all be correct.

Just because Sodom and Gomorrah were possibly destroyed by a volcano/rain of fire, does not mean that God did it.

Early peoples once believed that rain was water leaking through the holes in the sky. That, to them, was the most plausible explanation.

God destroying a city in a rain of fire for it's debauchery, could also be seen as the most plausible explanation of a volcano to them. Doesn't mean that because it survived in the stories they told to their children, and their children's children and eventually to the writers of the bible, that their explanation was correct, and I really dont' see how any of your examples can "prove" the existance of a deity.

The bible is 99% accurate when compared to what?

What about the gospel of St Thomas?

Supposedly the most accurate of all the gospels, certainly the oldest. Yet it disagrees with the others.

Who was present at the birth of Jesus?

Shepherds? Wise men? Neither? Both?
All four gospels disagree on this point..
Scholars comparing the 4 gospels have surmised that because of the content, at least John had access to the other gospels at the time he wrote his own version, and I remember reading that his gospel could have been written up to 200 years after the events it describes.

What about all the other gospels too?
The ones the early church destroyed and removed from the bible because they didnt' agree with current church thought and doctrine. I think this was around 4-5 CE, although I'm not sure.

The bible is somewhat a historical document. It's a document based on some facts, interpreted, reinterpreted and told many times, in the oral tradition of those times, and finally, written down.

The geneology of Christ differs, again in the gospels. How can he have 2 different lined of ancestry? Both of which are traced to his father?

I'm not really saying that some events in the bible didn't happen, but you cannot use their happening as (a) Evidence of god or (b)proof of the bible being 99% accurate.
Stories based on historical events are just that, stories.

The creation stories, well, it's obvious if you read Genesis carefully, that one story starts in Chapter One, and another, different story begins in I think Chapter 3, although without a bible to hand, I can't check that. I agree they're metaphors. Most of the bible is metaphors, or explanations for events that we would consider totally normal.

Epilepsy for example.
Someone having an epileptic fit could look as though they are possessed by demons. Yet, if you saw someone having a fit, your first explanation would be epilepsy. If you were writing a diary of your day, you would put, "I saw someone having a fit today, I think it was epilepsy or something similar"

What about Christ's contemporaries? "I saw a man possessed by demons writhing around on the floor today"

So which explanation is true? Is christ's contemporaries explanation of an epileptic fit evidence that a man was posessed by demons? No. Could he have been really possessed? Sure, he could, but thats not the only explanation.

Hell, for all I know, 99% of the miracles Jesus did could be explained in a different way. What if he wasn't the son of God. What if, instead, he was just a guy, from maybe a couple of hundred years from now, who invents a time travel device. He could cure diseases.. just like we can today, use jet boots to walk on water, use a startrek type replicator device to turn water into wine..

Sure, it's a totally ridiculous and improbable explanation, but so is the idea that someone 2000 years ago could do all those things personally, using the power of God.

Your experience and your life allows you to believe in god, thus, taking that premise, you apply it to the bible and find what you want to find, evidence that God exists, that Jesus did what he did, all of that.

None of your arguments so far however, PROOVE that he does exist. They may, as I have said, prove that events in the bible happened, however, it's easy to come up with plausible alternatives for pretty much every event. Just because the bible is old, does not mean that it is true as is. It's just a bunch of long dead people's interpretations of the events around them.

Where do you get the figure of 99% accurate from anyway? and what do you mean by accurate? If you've already agreed that Noah, Adam and Eve, were all metaphors, thats already a pretty large chunk.

All the bible really is, is a hell of a story book, in my opinion. For all I know, the prophets could just have been guys on a really really good trip... Can you prove otherwise?

Suzie, they were guys on a really good trip!
You almost wrote my alternate realities post for me...
Sort of funny how the scriptural testimony of women is so fundamentally lacking in the first person venue eh? Couldn't be that there is no god only male chauvanist pigs since the dawn of time could it?
Of all the things I am inclined to pursue an interest in,
(Actually, should the game show host of the cosmos come to me -as todays lucky contestant- and force me(uh...WHAT!?!?!?,uh, offer me the opportunity, ahem,yeah just you hush up already!!- I meant offer to..nevermind-so then I get to choose from a glass bowl of,insert cheesy datingame music) YOUR VERY OWN PERSONAL ASPIRITIONS

~~THE PRECEEDING PARAGRAPH WAS INSERTED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANNOYING THOSE WHO FIND MY POSTS TIRESOME, AT BEST ~~

Suzie, like I have said , I never sought out nor was encouraged to familiarize myself with
religious teachings, so the St. Thomas stuff
is existent in my mind only due to your comment re> Stigmata, of the "insult me"
thread, I haven't the desire to go on and on
w/ regard to spiritual matters today, usually don't , actually, mostly when I see someone of unmistakable intelligence expressing an interest whether in a positive or negative manner to the body of information which encompasses all that we would refer to as religion, unexplained phenomena, etc. etc.

I have a half-baked theory that there is an
understanding to be attained and that the way
in which one attains it is pretty much irrelevant(WHAT?!?!?!?! You have an elephant???)-call that winkinese-and with that my head will surely fall from it's precarious position atop my ill-suited for such a grand exhibit -shoulders yaddda ydadda
da da da) Anyway, first, I would never argue
with a person who's understanding or maybe
capacity for understanding was ,in my potentially worthless opinion, insufficient to grasp the concepts which the argument would entail, and since to argue with anyone who is actively pursuing higher truth would be tantamount to "evil" I just think well, good! more power to them, they will get there
eventually....(get it, power to them??
Of course you do, I know, I know , it's just not that funny, this I also know, back to topic-->I beleive that there are many people
who openly assert a disbeleif in "god" who are far closer to complete attainment of higher truth than many of those who honestly
claim to be ~*~*reborn~*~*or~*~Born Again~*~
The degree to which one has contemplated the
infinite possibilities of the nature of existence is what, again IMHO, whether it was
contemplation based on unrequited curiosity or, like myself a more after the fact of -unsuspecting bystander caught in , ha ha, too much, caught in cross-fire of spiritual events unfolding around them, the
point of view I feel I am and in their own way(whose else?)others , are privy to or in possesion of- while something that many may
desire but be as yet unable to acheive personally , or that which many have dismissed as whimsy of the weak of spirit-
it is a higher truth and not higher as in more intelligent or more deserving of or anything like that, just higher as in, beyond
that which is held as common knowledge even if the acheivemnts of science and technology
are anything but common in there design. i think what "god" wants of us is to be intelligent, I think he just as any creature that we may be aware of, desires companionship and commaradere, I beleive that he wishes us, his creations, to become enough like him to where we may help him create and the variable of choice, though it has wreaked havok in the species to date, was and is his best choice of ingredient in his creations to allow for enough variance for the creation to be intersting and potentially infinite in nature.
I am fairly proud of myself for getting that out as clearly as I did. Now to see if
it has, conceptually been understood, and if so , met by what reaction from fellow intelligent life forms....................

Should anyone having taken time to read this be of the opinion that it is tiresome
and unintelligible, or that it , as usual makes no sense, please accept my faceitious apologies and take note of the gfact that I have all but mastered the technique of italicizing word and phrases!!!!!!!

hooray for god!!!!!!! hooray for ubb!!!!!
have a nice day!

evolving to god?

That's kinda freaky, comparing god with orgasm

Wink, some of your ideas come closer to taoism than they do to christianity..

Anyway, I have studied some of this stuff, but it was a few years ago, hence the non availability of chapter and verse quotations in my head..

To be honest, I didn't really want to be having this discussion, but, my thoughts and opinions on the whole matter were called upon, and while it seems to me like a righteous waste of time (get it?) I felt I had to post something or be considered a coward who cannot back up her claims or statements, which I'm not.

I am kind of bored of all this though..

Evolving to God? Uh, evolving
to the status of co-creator having
acquired the confidence of the creator

Did I compare? I didn't mean to,
but if it works for you...

Suze, no problem, once again
you tell me something I have no idea of that probably offers as much validation as anything I could personally conjure
I will look into what Taoism is,mmmmm

Why is it that whenever I lose faith in the intellegence of this board's members, you start an intellegent discussion like this and completely redeem yourself.

I haven't read the bible ; but there are a few things bugging me.

1)If incest is a sin, how could two people populate the earth . Secondly, if two people did populate the earth, wouldn't that make people sterile drooling mongoloids long before now.

2)If thou shalt not kill, why are there people in the bible who killed and became heroes. David, Samson etc.

3)If God is all loving and all caring why would he punish people for worshipping a differant God. If you grow up in a Muslim or Buhddist family you don't get much of a choice.

Suz, Real, winki, anyone?

The bible says, that it is right to follow the law as long as it doesn't conflict with the Bible (in the book of Romans im pretty sure, that book is a bible in itself).

Incest is a sin partially because marrige between blood relatives is illegal. The Law shows, moreover, that there is nothing more acceptable to God than obedience. Hence, all superstitious and hypocritical modes of worship are condemned. A remedy against superstitious worship and human presumption.

when it says, thou shalt not kill, that is more like murder. Samson, killed because he was being held captive. he was blinded, and he was chained to pillars i believe. David killed goliath in a war. that wasn't murder. BUT king david DID basically commit one of bthe biggest sins from a riteous man in the Bible. there was the guy called uriah. he was with this chick that david had his eyes on for a while. scince david was a king, he could do whatever he wanted. so he sent uriah's ass to the front lines and got him killed. he then did what he wanted with his wife.

God is all loving and all caring, but he is also the most jealous and vengeful all of them.

"You shall have no other gods besides Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the four fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

~bar room hero

Sorry, barroom, chicken and egg problem there, incest isn't a sin because marriage between blood relatives is illegal.

Marriage between blood relatives is illegal because incest is a sin.

Modern law has it's roots in the bible. If it wasn't for god doing the whole ten commandments thing, you could go marry your brothers wife, murder her, and then steal all her belongings, and noone would care.

Suzie's quick and cheerful guide to Taoism

Taoists believe in a huge oneness, the Tao, which is neither good, nor evil, nor specifically aware, rather is everything, and everyone. They believe the main purpose in life is to work towards becoming more aware of the Tao and one with it whilst at the same time being it, and that since everyone and everything is the Tao, crime is kind of pointless on a cosmic scale, because by murdering someone else you're really murdering yourself. Either way, the Tao really doesn't give a fuck.
(can you see why this is a religion that appeals to me yet?)

Suze, wow.... so??? then if I am inclined toward Taoism, then...smoke coming from ears am I an athiest? Wait, wait..I've got it, okay, yes never mind, if you are bored with
this as you said, I have answered my own question and do not post this response out of any disrespect for your most clear, and thankfully succinct moderatory:P edicts

The answer is yes spiritualism is a viable
alternate reality/ parallel universe/etc. etc.Perhaps we are soulmates , I don't even know I have a question and there you are with the answer! I'm trying to persuade you to consider my impression of reality and you are waiting ever so patiently for me to catch up with your of late shelved whimsy, or something like that, bows to Suzy, actually at 5ft2 is in permanent state of bowdom...

Lose my number bitch!!
just kiding, couldn't resist scaring the scarables, well, nevermind
Am I compelled to beleive in something specific, oh hell no! nuff thought!

Religion is the figurative backsliding of man, in that if good intentions pave the way to hell then fanaticism or zealous adherence to any one given religion is routed in much the same manner.. travel agent, we don't need no stinking travel agent! Sensationalism, well whose in charge of the media? no one, thats right we consume what we hunger for, you do the meth, funny how the well founded attempts of men to give their impressions of reality and their progress toward enlightnement more onus than it bore itself is in many ways it's undoing, but then again for many it is an entirely palpatible meal so go figure, eat too much and the figure goes. Oh, above I meant do the math, I don't care much for math all that infintesiml increments of time stuff just copped me an attitude.

Deep thought: I don't understand why, in math
they've got to have only one answer, I mean can't we call them impressions and if you get a different impression than somebody else, so what...can't we all just get along?*circa 1989

But much of what I've gathered from hearing people talk about the bible leads me to see
too much detail on a larger scale drawing~
another one of those pseudo programmer types with control issues..(that is a creation joke, this and that , good and bad.

Religion is mans attempt to define, supervise and legislate all that he sees and all that he does not, rather ambitious , sortof cute in a stupid human tricks way, but okay.

Now Bar Room Hero, take good care of your parents, you carouse with quite a group around here, try not to let any ugliness come off-line with you, maybe you don't even have to try huh? none of my business anyway, I just hate to see you thinking that "GOD" is vengeful and jealous,
those are human traits two of hundreds of mechanisms allowed by the creator either by design or chemically through evolution , but variations in behavior that apply to and are generally attributable to humans. You don't see alot of jealous, vengeful animals on the discovery channel, do you? I know about the male lions and all, but point is that along with the opportunity to work on our souls and
eventually be capable of participating in creation on a larger scale than we can now comprehend(but we get the opportunity to practice w/ creating children) we get the opportunity to see and absorb as much as possible or as little as our frightened little hearts and minds will allow, I think that whomever is responsible for the vengeful and jealous God thing was probably a man who as life began to wind down, realized that he was still unaware of so much and having lived in such a way that he felt close enough to the creator to write things that would have there credibility debated for centuries to come, shows he must have known a little, I 'll bet he just threw in that Jealous and vengeful part to secure as many more "recruits through his testiment as he could, simple human greed securing it's validation thru extortion -I guess he must have felt that since he was so certain of his facts that he could relay them as he felt neccessary and either apply creative liscence
for staying effect over time, this too shows foresite in keeping with the road to enlightenment, very much on the road though or else I guess he wouldn't be hanging out on this planet doing admin. assits. work,or perhaps in his reality the way he wrote it was the way it occured to him in his mind, you get your own mind courtesy of the creator and so you can think whatever you want- but who knows, ??????not I ????I have much respect for the conviction of your beleifs, as I've said before, I've much respect for conviction of beleifs, not afraid to speak out,in general, and whether or not I agree with the person embodying those beleifs, the conviction is practically if not more important, IMHO-I have no way of knowing what a bout w/ cancer is like or what it would do to a persons psyche, especially a
young persons, I know it sounds trite and all that, but I do not beleive that anything that happens to us good or bad is allowed or intended as such by the creator, I beleive that our individual souls ability to deal with tradgedy and be thankfull for blessings
is on us. Now I am scared(not) but I do know I've been going on and off too much for one day, so that's all.
TRIPPY-MAIL IS STILL SWIRLING AROUND IN MY HEAD ") }P =B>8==

Q:How can I use ubb code to make a smiley face roll across the page?

A: With your tiresome, promiscuous imagination fo course!
THE END

Bar room hero, nice but didn't really answer question 1 or 3. winki, got your mail it was.... uhhh..... i have to go now.

suzi, not to sound annoyed or anything, note the words: incest is a sin PARTIALLY because.
i did not say that it was the only reason. yeah, it basically is a chicken and egg situation, but i said i the way i did, because others may not see things as "sins" because i believe one must first have a belief system (to be redundant). what one sees as a sin, another may not. so i used the "common denominator" if you will: the law.

Trippy, yes i did answer your questions. for question #1, look to the second paragraph. question #3, examine paraghaphs 4 and 5.

Winki, i appreciate you concern.

but God IS vengeful. this is the MOST obvious of them all. Read Psalm 94!!! that entire thing is in praise of a vengeful God. Romans 12:19 says to never avenge yourself, but leave it to God's wrath.

God IS a jelous God: Duteronomy 5:9. Ezekiel 5:13 (basically the entire chapter.) depicts in great detail what God can do spurred by jealousy.

i am not saying that he isn't caring, because he is. it isn't just paintings of him holding sheep and letting children sit on his lap. if one ever saw the actual "physical" manifestation of God (as John did in revelation), he would look something like this discription: Then i saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True, and in rightousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed which no one knows but himself. He is clad in a robe dipped in blood,....From his mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscibed, King of kings and Lord of lords.

i can go on.

~bar room hero



[This message has been edited by Bar room hero (edited 08-12-2000).]

Bar room, I guess you answered my questions, but I'm not satisfied with the answers. Are you trying to say that if a child grows up in a Hindu house, and is raised a Hindu, and never evens hears about Christianity, God will incur his wrath apon this Hindu, that this Hindu has sinned, through no fault of his own? A caring God will punish a man for an unavoidable situation?

And if we are all descended from Adam and Eve, wouldn't our race have died out eons ago? Wouldn't we become sterile, drooling mutants? Nature favours assymitry.

Trippy,

keep in mind that there wern't as many diseases back then. things have had a a huge chance to mutate and develop. Cancer was practically nonexistant back then. There wern't as many genetic problems due to them not having so much time to develop (accepting the fact that humanity was just recently created).

i was often told by my folks (my mother primarily. again, my Dad doesn't talk much) that there is a way for a person of a different religon who has not heard of the word of God to do such a thing, but i don't recall it. i will have to look through the Bible agian to find it. it might take forever.

do you believe that god is omnipotent and omnipresent?

don't forget omniscient

If he is all those things, then what is he doing with all that power and knowledge..

If he was omnipresent, wouldn't that mean effectively that we were inside god since god is everywhere?

okay, assuming that that knowledge of all extends into the future, why is there a hell?

because god's not a nice guy?

do you really wanna believe in an asshole god?

suzi,

chicken and egg problem there. christians believe that their physical body, what they live in, is the Temple of the holy spirit. which is why christians abstain from sex until marrige. such actions is called "defiling the temple" essentialy.

in fact, i wouldn't even doubt that a manifestation of God is in hell itself (now that you bring it up. just a thought. im not sayin that it is fact or nothin), tormenting lucifer.

Jaded,

God is not nessicarily someone you can label or pin down like that. i see a lot of "i hate my father" type of anger and rebellion going on and conflicting with your ability to have faith in a divine being. in reference to your on 08-09-2000 at 07:51, most of the prophecies in the Bible have been proven to be correct. they are historical record.

just my $.02

I don't believe in any god, asshole or not,

Bar room, not sure what you're talking about there..
what chicken and egg problem?

I'm new to this BBS, and new to this discussion, but the one thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that the bible was not written in English; it was written in Hebrew. Unfortunately, it is a matter of historical fact that King James changed much of what is now the Bible, and that his changes left out much of the truth about women, mystics, and the miracles that Jesus had performed.

King James also translated many words wrongly to give his personal political slant. For example, the word "poisoner" was changed to read "witch", and this lead to some of the worst attrocities Christianity ever knew.

The worst of his schemes, however, came to bear on the fact that he wanted his new Bible translated by his birthday. Running out of time, the scribes that were hired for this job simply wrote whatever they wanted to just to get the job done.

So, with this information, I suggest that no one argue the Bible unless/until they learn Hebrew and find an original version to get the REAL "word of God". All other arguments fall null and void without this info.

Sorry to butt in, but I thought someone could use this information.

nyah nyah :-P
thanks sienna

Barroom: No, I just have a problem with an entity that creates a concious soul for no other purpose then to spend a short time on earth and an eternity in agony, doesn't work for me.

Too sadistic
Too dark
Too cold
thats no god I want to believe in...

Suzi,

you said: Does this mean that we are in God (if God is everywhere)?

i said, to the contrary, God is in us.

that was the chicken and egg problem. erm. sort of. it was fun to say it. chicken and egg.... HEE!

but believe what you all want. i am not trying to change your beliefs, just defend my own.

**groan** an aol subsciber

Baruch he ba B'shem Adonai.

i was planning on taking a hebrew class at night school to examine that theory.

God is dead. Simple.

not really, because you're just talking about a specific belief. If god is omnipresent, that means he is everywhere at once, hence if he's everywhere, we're inside him.

jaded, the theory is that when someone goes to hell its because they have turned away from God and that he wants you to spend eternity in Paradise.

My opinion is that christianity is a form of indebtured servitude. You're is born in sin, then all your life you have to "slave" to be forgiven. Kind of like like getting to states in early 18c.

the point is, if god knows the future, he knows the "sins" to be commited, and so every person he creates that will eventually end up in hell, he knows will end up there, that's my point...

yea its fucked like that, but everyone is given free will. its still you doing it. but yeah, god is a jackass. i might have to shoot Alanis Morisette...

Jaded, if your point is true, then there is no point in existence, there's no way to tip the scales. I mean if your fate is already known to god, wouldn't that a complete waste of human being, or being a human? If you have been "pre-programmed" to commit evil and sin, then all prayers and confession and repentance is to no avail. That's more than just a bit fucked up, don't you think?

Now if I have a free will, and my will is to follow no god, then I end up in hell. Sorry, but where's that free-will? Seems to me it's more of a "you do this shit, you're good. You do that shit, you're fucked." It's catrch-22, what's good for me is good for you, and you can't say nada, since you'd be going against what's good for all. Therefore, free-will is just a phrase to keep us sheep in line, Matrix-style.

I have always said - we don't live 500 years, no time for purity. No time to repent, no time to be afraid. So every moment should be something to rejoice in and laugh about, and not sit there in the corner and ponder whether god will scold your nekked butt for commiting sins. I would like to know I am free to commit my own deeds, good or bad, without the sanction of hell and heaven. No-one can be pure of heart, it's against the idea of having a mind and being a human. My mistakes are commited in order not to be repeated, so I cannot be punished for doing something wrong once, as long as I realize it was wrong. I don't see any justice in seeking permissiona and forgiveness from god. He does not exist for me. The only valuable forgiveness one could ever have is from your own self.

ps: by saying I don't have a god, I mean that I don't need another burden in my life. I don't want to look back and shiver at all the things done wrong, and morals broken in fear of godly retaliation. I've enough shit as it is, without any organized religion shoving their shovinistic gods in my face. Maybe I had god in me when I was little, but I am sure I smoked the fucker out years ago.



[This message has been edited by sckbch (edited 08-14-2000).]

sckbch: I pretty much agree, hence my non-belief in that system, problem is not a lot of people see it like that....

im sick of this already. now you can all take pride in the fact that you turned away the boards only Christian who happens to be vocal about his beliefs. goodnight. erm. goodmorning.

congrats i guess.

[This message has been edited by Bar room hero (edited 08-15-2000).]

Dude, don't be like that. We love you man.

Say that "at the dawn of time an entity existed that encompassed all that we could ever hope to comprehend.

Given that only a small percentage of our brains are utilized this is a fair assumption, that being that before the dawn of time we needn't worry over.but if you want to wait until this part makes sense.

Now say that this entity in all its all encompassing grandeur, was a combination of
positive and negative energy and that it was held together with a cohesive like polarity.
arent we and everything we know of made of atoms that are the same? coincidence?...


Polarity could also be defined as potential, latent, as yet to be realized, not yet in possesion of a element, poitive or negative ,...of choice. Potential is some serious stuff too! yes, ying and yang whatever..


Lets call it Golltor for God , all ,and creator just to be fair and not offend anyone. Now for some reason there was a
momentary shift in the quantitiy of positive and negative energy that Golltor embodied and for just a moment, the positive prevailed and in doing so created the need for this destablilizing ion, byproduct, reaction or whatever to be emitted from the Golltor.
We, or our microscopicn infintisimally small begginings occured not we as in humans, but we as in the universe as we know it.

Say that this Golltar was both positive and negative and that these momentary imbalances
occasionally occurred. However when it was negative energy prevailing nothing was created, to the contrary anti-matter was created.

Again, we probably cannot understand the nature of Golltar but for now just say that whatever is positive creates and what ever is negative destroys or at least serves to negate.

Lets say that eventually the scientists will
find that all dna type data shares something
and that that something is the dna of golltar.

As ameobas and cells divided and reproduced
the division produced other things that produced other things and science is pretty well on it's way to eventually tracking down the whole deal. But what about the fact that
as these things divided and what was created remained apparent, if it did in fact contain the dna of golltor , then it too would have omitted a like amount of anti-energy and this
accumulated also along with the organisms evidencing themselves .

Say that Golltors eternal battle within itself is the constant jockeying of good and evil positive and negative and that were one to gain a foothold, golltor would be no more.
Say he is just a wee bit more inclined toward existence than non-anti-blackholeness, and so as long as he keeps trying to be , that inclination toward positive , like all else, divides and propagates and gets carried down through evolution along with the rest of the dna recieved from him as his byproduct .
Say that since creations are created by creators and that the dna we are made up from is an offshoot/descendant of Golltor that it is perfectly resonable to expect that we would be made up of good and evil, say that the descisions we make about faith and purpose have as much signifigance to gootor as did the reasons for microorganisms to divide millions of years ago.

If Golltor is busy with battling darkness, that with every small victory becomes a bit deeper into nothingness, that is ,has quite a task and that in his expansive body of knowledge about the properties of various positive energy emitances, dude is of course
a scientist, that in the time after which the
balance was tipped toward a byproduct being jetisoned from Golltors entitanus or whatever,he, through thougt, (I beleive the chemicals in our brains that control us to some degree and cause trouble as well, are vastly diluted forms of the chemicals Golltor contains in his entity. )So it makes perfect sense that just as if we are able to use our minds to make descisions along with the desire to make them as well as the availing the functionablity to carry them out
depends on , partly, the chemical make up of our brains .

Perhaps a thought was enough to ensure that the product of Golltor that led to us would
afford the byproduct certain properties that would pre-dispose it to completing a cycle which included, in a way as minute as we are in the cosmos, the ability to come full cycle back to the entity of Golltor and not as negative energy, but since positive is what spawned it and negative has been and will continue to see to itself, I think that we
were created with the ability and versatility
to fulfill our task as a varitable compost pile of positive energy, that by design comes with dna provided by one that has like amounts of negative energy.

I beleive that the earth is like a giant resistor, Is that the dealie in electronics?
anyhow ,whatever the one is that only lets current flow one way. I believe that this is hell. the resistor called earth aka hell, although many have yet to realize it. That this is the place where good and evil are represented most evenly and to allow our souls the opportunity to return full cycle to Golltor having a preponderance of
negativity in tow would not have been such a good idea.

but as his struggle with negative is everpresent, so to then will be ours. the reason for religion all of which is most likely to have been spawned by divine inspiration, of the mind of whomever spawned it, some souls are more aware than others and take the steps that to them seem obvious, including making as many of his or her fellow human beings aware of what it is that constitutes positive and those people are the ones who in their well intended but , sorry,
pitifully human way started the organized religions we are familiar with. I think any human whether they consider themselves good or evil right or wrong of the dark or of the light is biologically predisposed to head to
the positive side of existence. I beleive that the earth was created to provide us with the nicest environment that Golltor could imagine in the time he had to exercise creative control before he had to turn his attentions back to holding the fort against negativity.

it is an ongoing battle against the everpresent other half of all and certainly the existence of evil, negativity, antimatter
etc. cannot be denied, however it should not be embraced and the horrors history shows us
represent to dark side of humanity being permitted to rear its ugly head always. though in the presence of light, goodness and positive energy. The division is not by borders of countries, it is withing each human being and both positive and negative
posses the same properties on earth as they do in the universe only proportionatly enhanced. this is why I don't think we can expect to understand everything, and don't really need to for present purposes, our brains would probably short out or something.

For us to expect to know the nature of all existence beyond that which created us is pretty ambitious and fairly preposturous as well. I beleive in prayer and I think that those who would insist in an impatient" tell me or forget you"," nothing created us, we created ourselves nya nya nya" way is like someone getting through here and asking how to hack, you could tell em, but they wouldnt understand and if they really wanted to know
they'd take appropriate steps.

I think things have turned out fine, and rather beautiful for that matter(get it, that matter?) anyway. No one is going to hell, we are already here having our souls tempered for the return fullcycle to Golltor and to the competancy level to ,on our own, with creative control, should we wish or decide to
try a bit harder or care abit more, create our own alternate realities.

HE even affords us the opportunity to hone our creative skills while here by having and raising children.of course a dual prupose is fulfilled in that we carry on the species and do our part in the cycle. Bar Room Hero, when I read that 94psalm I guess it was, there was something about spiteing generation after generation, well I can see that ,but it is not God who personally is carrying this out. It is his transcriptionists references to the harm and negative effect that ones poor or evil or of the dark or just plain negative behavior and expenditure of the life he has afforded us with ,in other than a productive positive appreciate good way , that the effects of such will be felt for generations. That, I suspect, does not serve to conjure vengefullness or jealousy ha-ha in something so powerful and encompassing to be responsible for us, be serious, everything that we do or do not do here is our choice and we can keep on trying until we get it right and make it back to him or we can remain here for all eternity and I suppose if we truly do not wish to be aquiescent, we can probably take a bus into anti matter if that is what we are so bent on.

The bus would leave I guess just about when the planet has been destroyed by the equally good and bad humans having lived on it for eons. remember positive creates and negative destroys. eventually the destruction that humans adherence to or lack of immunity from evil, darkness, negativity and wrong will ruin this planet and we don't need to worry about it , but our children will and so on and so forth.

Also I could beleive that if we wish to, we may retain our individuality,it is
probably another one of those accessories built into the design of our particular alternators plans, a chemically afforded option that we opt for out of the need to
have control and an understanding of the process, so we get it in order to make things
flow more smoothly and also to expand the opportunity for creative thought to work it's way into the mix to change it up a bit a sort of cosmic refresher key cookie or whatever.

Ultimately this may change, maybe not, when I consider the things I think about on any given day it occurs to me that in order to be personally responsible all the infitesimal things that go into a reality such as the one we are aware of, and do not yet fully understand, is quite an undertaking and I for one would certainly not object to other souls
participating along with my souls accumulation of information, data, experience and imagination should I ever get the opportuniy to create something really all on my own. I would probably by then trust whomever was delegating responsibility for creatorships or organizing available energies
for another momentary predominance to be aware of and appreciative of whatever my qualities were and to trust them to combine me with other souls with whom I might co-create.

It seems as though what ever part of the cycle I am speaking of or that I look at. It is of the same positive-negative held by polarization w/ ability to mutate by increments of choice and descision and to evolve toward and end as well as propagate its numbers and with the help of enlightened thought via chemicals or prayer or any other
potentially effective application of brain waves or dna or whatever provide the byproduct of itself w/ all the information it needs to continue the cycle back to it's natural conclusion.

All religions are in possesion of some truth as well as some untruth, all men and women the same, all we get is everything we need to make the appropriate descisions, appraise our
offspring for generations to come of what we've as a race accomplished to date and hopefully enough sense to realize the miniscual part that this life time plays in the grand scheme of things without being as mundane a soul as to squander it for that fact.

Life doesn't owe us anything it, in and of itself ,is a commodity. We owe life something and how ever each of us comes to terms with
that is up to us. Doesn't make a bit of difference, really, well it does, but only about as much as we can imagine, because we are capable of understanding Golltor ,it is only how much faith he has put in us, collectively by creating us , in his dna-ish likeness to propagate him,that we lack respect for. it is the inkling or all pervasive awareness of that which we do not wish to understand that limits us and our intellect..and so we don't imagine we mean more , unless we do... and there arent any policemen to bust us if we don't.
Our existence is one big qc dept. in a pretty nice building, so pick up your garbage and don't pilfer all the office supplies!

I sure hope I don't read this later and feel it to be unintelligible, it has made perfect sense to me as I've written it.

Winki, do you check your email often?

once when I log in and before I shut down.Or in between if I have reason to.
Why?

[This message has been edited by winki (edited 08-15-2000).]

*winkarooned*

scary part is, that made a lot of sense too...

My belief in God is more of a practical nature. Let's say I believe in God and you do not, and we both die. If I am wrong, I will never know...If you are wrong, you will know for all eternity.

well my imput is this genisis is right, the earth was once all water.before it got closer to the sun it slowly thawed and gassed
and mold, and thus we came from mold, slowly mold evolved into fish as the world was water, then the fish grew and evolved into birds as well as the water evaorating more leting the the earths land show and the water grass and the fish evoved into land creatues, and as evolutin states we evoved from apes, as the bible states adom and eve,
one pre-human woman found herself having sex with snakes, then she gets her mate to have sex with the snake(anal) so was the first sin
the knolage that they were sick pople and were not worthy of this and around the same time some of the first thorn bushes grew so rapidly they felt that the great one whom all this came of kicked them out.

well that was a brain leack, if dont buy that and feel that God did infact make the earth in seven thousand year, seven of his days, there is white, black, and indian(asian,native american indian and mexican are all indians, brown and yellow skin)well
the indians evolved from apes, and were here first!! the whites were made by God, and then Gog turned cain black with the mark that could never be hiden. we the natives came from the great darkness the true god who made himself light, whom made white man and then turned white to black. and here we are.

"black hole sun wont you come"

Are you serious?

:-o

im high?

somkie,
Doesn't it seem a little bit silly, that you are not concerned about what other gods would do to you? I mean if the sole reason you believe in god, is that just incase, you will not have to worry about going to hell. I would suggest researching other gods and religions, to see what they would do to you just incase they exist.

I dont know just a thought that popped into my head.

Also here are some of my ponderings...

Truth was is this? something that is absolute, entirely correct, if this is so then a fact doesn't equate to a truth. A fact is the best we can make out of a given amount of inputs. Inputs can be our perceptions, our experiences, and 2nd hand experiences (you know the ones where you watch some do something stupid and you know that "yes, i don't want to do that."). Also a common agreement between the parties involved must believe in the interpretation of the inputs(i.e. have the same opinion about the inputs) to have a meaniful, discussion, bebate, etc.

So a long time ago we had the fact that the earth was flat. We know to the contrary that this is false, but back then all of the input that most poeple could gather pointed to the fact that the earth was flat. Now due to flaws of human nature we don't know everything, and cann't examine everything in our world/universe. We do not have an infinte amount of inputs! I don't feel we can really know the full TRUTH about anything. We have a finite amount of evidence and a finite amount of understanding. I think god is a fact but not a truth. Given that faith is a valid input for a fact (more like an opinion, but a fact is a majority of opinions). Faith is just a justification method for the factiod, just as proof and evidence are just other justifaction methods as well. Just becuase we don't have proof of some sort or the other, doesn't mean that this isn't so. And of course. just becuase you believe in something doesn't make it right. You could be dead wrong! And I guess that is the thing you either have faith in proof or faith in god. I am more inclinded to proof than god. But i am always aware of the limitations of my belief system.

Any commentary, questions of my sanity, reply or free to email me if you want, the mail should be soullace@hotmail.com.

i've always found one of the most fascinating stories in the bible the very first: creation.

for the time it was written, it is surprisingly scientifically accurate

(1) let there be light,and god called the light day, and darkness night: once the earth started revolving their would be day and night
(2) let an expanse come to be in between the waters: the formation of an atmosphere"and god began to call the expanse heaven"
(3) let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let dry land appear: as the earth cooled dry land came to be
(4) let the earth cause grass to shoot forth: at this time most of the atmosphere was carbon dioxide, poisonous to animals, plants thrive on it
(5) let luminaries come to be in the expanse of heaven: light was created on the first day but the source of that light could not be seen until the cloud cover went down
(6) let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living creatures: all scientists agree life originated in the oceans
(7) let the earth put forth living creatures: it would have been impossible for creatures to occur before plants for obvious reasons

show me one other religion that has such an accurate account of the beginning of the earth in their creation theories.

the truly amazing thing is that it is written as if actually witnessed, even though there is the exaggeration of it being 6 days.

[ Original Message from: Lostmind
My remarks will be in these square brackets ]

i've always found one of the most fascinating stories in the bible the very first: creation. for the time it was written, it is surprisingly scientifically accurate

[ In the bible i am reading (King James version) you forget the creation of the earth. "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was apon the space of the deep." So you have creation of the earth and then creation of light. Arguably the light could be considered the sun. (Please excuse my spelling.) Now if im understanding this correctly the Earth was created, and then the Sun. Even though this was still the first day this is the ordering in my bible(earth then sun). This is scientificaly inaccurate; star always form before planets do. ]

(1) let there be light,and god called the light day, and darkness night: once the earth started revolving their would be day and night

[ Technically there could still be night without the earth rotating. Night would be on the opposite side of the earth from the sun. Although the point is moot because that was your comment on the passage though. ]

(2) let an expanse come to be in between the waters: the formation of an atmosphere
"and god began to call the expanse heaven"

[ Does this mean heaven is in our very own atmosphere? If so its hiding very well, for such a big place. ]

(3) let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let dry land appear: as the earth cooled dry land came to be

[ Yes this can be interpreted your way. But i could think of other possible interpretations. But I shall spare you. ]

4) let the earth cause grass to shoot forth: at this time most of the atmosphere was carbon dioxide, poisonous to animals, plants thrive on it

[ And again can be interpreted many ways.]

(5) let luminaries come to be in the expanse of heaven: light was created on the first day but the source of that light could not be seen until the cloud cover went down

(6) let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living creatures: all scientists agree life originated in the oceans

[ What about bacteria and such? Where is there such a mention. The bible implictly mentions fish, and such what about bacteria? i know any human couldn't of know about bacteria in that time but this is from the view point of god. How could any human know how god created the earth unless told by god him/her/itself. If that was the case then god could have told the person about bacteria ]

(7) let the earth put forth living creatures: it would have been impossible for creatures to occur before plants for obvious reasons

[ Correct. Just like stars form before planets. ]

show me one other religion that has such an accurate account of the beginning of the earth in their creation theories.

[ I dont know any other relgious texts. I found the bible in my house. i doubt i would be able to find the egyptain book of the dead or any other reglious texts for that matter. My refrence to other religions in my previous posting was so the poster would consider other options than the one the majority throws down your throat. ]

the truly amazing thing is that it is written as if actually witnessed, even though there is the exaggeration of it being 6 days.

[ Exaggeration! Yeah if it took him/her/it 10 days to create the earth and the heavens, then 6 days(it takes 6 days to clean my room) would be an exaggeration. But as we can best guess it took a lot longer than that.

I realize that religion is base on certain facts. Just like math, you have to except the fact that 1 + 1 = 2, etc. Like christainity, you have to except the fact of god. Otherwise you couldn't do math, and no way you could be a christian.

Your arguments are very good but still base themselves off that the bible is a fact and that god is a fact. You can't start an argument which discusses the existance of god, with the pretense that god exists. If you already assume that god exists what is the use for the debate/discussion?

But in the end your arguments don't prove that god exists and mine don't prove that he doesn't exist. ]

[This message has been edited by soullace (edited 09-25-2000).]

it was not meant to prove he exists.

it mentions the creation of light, before the creation of the sun, and i speculate that a person standing on the earth at this time would not have seen the sun because of the methane clouds in the atmosphere at the beginning, but still would have been able to perceive the light, once the clouds were gone you would see the sun, the stars and the moon, and then think they were created then.

and the earth was without form and void, before the star had it's nuclear reaction we were just a spiral arm of dust(without form and void).

when you look up to the sky, isn't it sometimes referred to as looking toward heaven?

i don't necessarily tend to believe the bible or that it was written by god, but i just thought the creation was remarkably accurate, compared to a lot of others.

i don't believe in evolution, all i've ever seen is variance within a species, never a species giving birth to new species. scientists will find bones and say that this species came from this species, but without confirming that the parents were of another species, it is just conjecture. when the first fish crawled out of the ocean, how did it know it needed lungs to breathe air instead of gills? where is the link between animal and plant life? if we all started from the same thing shouldn't there be some creature defined as animal or amphibian that breathes in co2 and exhales 02 and gets it's food from chlorophyll. why didn't we all evolve into the same thing? what was the purpose for leaving the ocean in the first place? isn't the purpose of dna to make sure you look like your parents? if the missing link between man and ape was inferior to both how would man have survived, and if it was superior to ape why isn't the ape extinct and the missing link dominant?

i personally do believe in a god, not in any religious sense like christianity, buddhism, muslim, jewish, etc. but i just personally believe with so many things in the entire universe that have to be just so for anything to happen like it has in the history of the universe there had to be something that started the ball rolling.

mold grass agar errgot grass sea groth from water to grass darkness deploy aport
re groth re birth repent aviod darkness rejoyced feel find owneth the mildew
$M%K!e D* B* rapture all who?

quote:

---

it was not meant to prove he exists.

---

Sorry thought it was

quote:

---

it mentions the creation of light, before the creation of the sun, and i speculate that a person standing on the earth at this time would not have seen the sun because of the methane clouds in the atmosphere at the beginning, but still would have been able to perceive the light, once the clouds were gone you would see the sun, the stars and the moon, and then think they were created then.

---

Im still confused at whose perceptive this is coming from. Becuase no humans could have possibly existed at this time. And its not god's perpective either.

quote:

---

and the earth was without form and void, before the star had it's nuclear reaction we were just a spiral arm of dust(without form and void).

---

Cute you just described the form as a "spiral arm" i dont call that formless. But that is nit picking a little too much. See your interpretation vs. mine, this was the point i was trying to get at.

quote:

---

when you look up to the sky, isn't it sometimes referred to as looking toward heaven?

---

Ever wonder why it is so? Well i have always heard of heaven in reference to something we can quite reach. Back in the medevail ages we at no point could reach the sky so they said heaven was in the sky, beyond the clouds. If you have ever flew in an airplane you can see that the cloud layer is very low.

quote:

---

i don't necessarily tend to believe the bible or that it was written by god, but i just thought the creation was remarkably accurate, compared to a lot of others.

---

Accurate compared to what science you dont believe in?

quote:

---

scientists will find bones and say that this species came from this species, but without confirming that the parents were of another species, it is just conjecture.

---

Hold on a second. Haven't you ever seen the bones of a dinosaur? Fossiled imprints of shell fish? Mammoths preserved in an ice tundra? The key here is constant minor changes. Some evolution theorists think that evolution just happens and we jump ahead on level. I dont believe that. I believe in constant minor changes occur through generations. I feel we just draw an imaginary line to be able to comprehend an organism as a species. So as far as i see it the parents of the child will be of little genetic difference. But if you go back a millon or so years you will see a big difference between the species today and its 1 million year old ancestor.

quote:

---

when the first fish crawled out of the ocean, how did it know it needed lungs to breathe air instead of gills?

---

Evolution is blind an goes off of trial and error. It didn't know to go on land its a process not an intellegence. It tests all possiblities in a variety of ways, then if certain possiblities get good results those results are favored, so on and so forth.

quote:

---

where is the link between animal and plant life? if we all started from the same thing shouldn't there be some creature defined as animal or amphibian that breathes in co2 and exhales 02 and gets it's food from chlorophyll.

---

I know for a fact bacteria have many ways to gain energy. Photosynthesis, fermentation, but some bacteria at some point must of had aerobic resperation. And bacteria evolved into eukaryotic cells (meaning true nucleus.) This cells are the building blocks for all life forms in both the plant and animal kindoms. This is your link between plants and animals. Note that bacterium have been discovered and proven to be billions of years old.

quote:

---

why didn't we all evolve into the same thing?

---

Evolution is about change, and conservation. Good genes must be kept and bad ones eventually get thrown away(sometimes they dont, they just sit around doing nothing) The earth is constantly changing, temperature, molecules flying everywhere, wind, pressure, gamma rays bombarding our cells. Gamma rays if they strike DNA can modify its structure and therefore allow mutation. If this is a good mutation evolution will embrace it. This is only passive change, there are other way as well but i will digress.

quote:

---

what was the purpose for leaving the ocean in the first place? isn't the purpose of dna to make sure you look like your parents? if the missing link between man and ape was inferior to both how would man have survived, and if it was superior to ape why isn't the ape extinct and the missing link dominant?

---

No purpose, evolution doesn't have reasons. It isn't smart. No, the purpose of DNA is to store genetic code of the evolutionary proccess, and to control the way you grow (or as i like to call a mini evolution). The link as you would probally think of it is "inferior". Man is at some point was equal to that of a monkey as far as evolution is concerned. But obviously we had particular changes that have been proven to be evolutionarly superior.

quote:

---

but i just personally believe with so many things in the entire universe that have to be just so for anything to happen like it has in the history of the universe there had to be something that started the ball rolling.

---

Ow, that almost ran me over.
Okay here it goes: Since we know that we were created from our parent, and our parents were created from our parents parents, and so on, we can assume that something must have created us originally. The big question is who create our existance and hence our universe. Now some people say god and others the big bang. Now lets assume that god created the universe. Who created god. Most people would say he was just there nothing created god. Well if that reasoning can hold true, why can the universe just have been there?

Now you see my problem i ask way too many questions and get way too few answers.

you still haven't proved evolution to me, you gave variance within a species examples, i want examples of one species giving rise to another. there were bones found of a neanderthal man in france, the bones were "disfigured" so to say, they based every version of a neanderthal man on this ONE find, only to find out 150 YEARS LATER that he had a disease that gave him a hunched appearance and an ape-like walk. i hope in 500,000 years when they find my bones they don't say this is what every human looked like at this time. don't you think there would be just one, out of all the different forms of life on earth, just one that mutated in recorded history, that we do not have to have a 5 million year old fossil for, and no fruit flies. again variance within a species, correct me if i am wrong. no matter what to go from a algae to fish, fish to frog, frog, to lizard, lizard to bird, lizard to mammal(which also occur in the ocean?) to man there has to be one offspring that is genetically different from the parent to create a new species, the whole genetic code has to be different. it is hard to tell an ape skull from a human skull just by looking at it, but with dna it is PROVEN that these are two distinct and separate creatures, one simien, one homo erectus. i want to see this point in change from one species to another, not just for man, i'll settle for anything, but i want distinct difference where one species gives birth to another, or better yet the first piece of inanimate matter that gave rise to animate matter will suffice, until then i think it is just a theory, which can only be based on belief, kind of like religion don't you think?

i do believe in science, i was referring to other religious accounts of creation like the one where we are just a thought process in the mind of god, as for perspective remember the bible was written by man, and if you had to sum up the creation of the earth in half a page of a book i think it's remarkably accurate, yet generalized greatly, i wasn't trying to say that it is written like it happened to scientific constant. with the intelligence level we have now imagine a six year old seeing this how would they describe it? i also tend to side with the controversial theory proposed by erich van daaniken in his book "chariots of the gods" that civilization was given a boost so to speak by extra-terrestrials, and that these beings were mis-interpreted as gods, what if the information was given to them in a way they could understand, this i am not stating as fact but a possibility.

i have to say i love these types of conversations, even if it is with people who disagree with me, just for the point of view, especially when they can give me intellectual rebuttals like you have.

beyond a religious sense, do you think that you have a soul? i am really interested in knowing how you feel about this. especially since you have soul in your user-name.

[This message has been edited by lostmind (edited 09-27-2000).]

[This message has been edited by lostmind (edited 09-27-2000).]

"all is vanity and vexation of the soul"

Wow I'm impressed.
When I first found this place it seemed to be one giant posting for sex drugs and rock n roll, not that I have anything against any of the above, in fact i like to indulge in all three on every occasion i can. But I have longed for some new people to debate and learn with on every topic from god to science. So I take a little trip and forget all about this place for a couple of months, and low an behold when I return I find I missed one of the largest most well thought out series of postings i've ever seen on here. Go figure, the unfortunate downside of all of this, is that it seems you guys have all just managed to make every point I've ever spent serious time thinking about. This leaves me with little to say, other than I had never really studied toaism, and am intrigued to find that much of my train of thought so closely follows it. Here I thought I was all cool and shit? My thanks for renewing my faith in human kind. I was afraid there weren't many people interested in furthering philisophical thought these days. I figure as long as there are at least a few then maybe we as a species do still have the chance of growing beyond our petty problems and one day acheiving the means to guiding our own destinies.

Feeling warm and fuzzy
whoops that was just acid indigestion

quote:

---

you still haven't proved evolution to me, you gave variance within a species examples, i want examples of one species giving rise to another.

---

As i said before there are minor changes going on here. Small mutations and changes affecting each organism. Over time the changes build up, this is when a "new" species is born.

quote:

---

don't you think there would be just one, out of all the different forms of life on earth, just one that mutated in recorded history, that we do not have to have a 5 million year old fossil for, and no fruit flies. again variance within a species, correct me if i am wrong.

---

Yes, but i feel dna would be more conclusive than bones. Sorry dont know enough about fruit flies except that they have short generational cycles. Which could mean more conclusive proof for evolution.

quote:

---

no matter what to go from a algae to fish, fish to frog, frog, to lizard, lizard to bird, lizard to mammal(which also occur in the ocean?) to man there has to be one offspring that is genetically different from the parent to create a new species, the whole genetic code has to be different.

---

The simularities in chimps and humans when the dna is compared is somewhere in the ball park of 93%. Meaning that we are 93% genetically simular to chimps. The therefore most of the genetic code is the same.

quote:

---

i want to see this point in change from one species to another, not just for man, i'll settle for anything, but i want
distinct difference where one species gives birth to another, or better yet the first piece of inanimate matter that gave rise to animate matter will suffice,

---

Fair enough. I will reply to this with well though out detail and research. (It may take some time)

quote:

---

until then i think it is just a theory, which can only be based on belief, kind of like religion don't you think?

---

Yeah, i always thought that science was a kind of religion, that uses proofs as truths.
For more clairifaction (or confusion) see my 09-19-2000 09:24 post, on page 2 of this thread.

quote:

---

i also tend to side with the controversial theory proposed by erich van daaniken in his book "chariots of the gods" that civilization was given a boost so to speak by extra-terrestrials, and that these beings were mis-interpreted as gods, what if the information was given to them in a way they could understand, this i am not stating as fact but a possibility.

---

Okay as far as extra-terrestrials are concerned, they exist, in my opinion. Now i dont think they have ever been to this earth. I have no proof for this so i don't need an arguement. I dont like the notion that we are not smart enough to devise our own technology. Come on we are smart like that.

quote:

---

have to say i love these types of conversations, even if it is with people who disagree with me, just for the point of view, especially when they can give me intellectual rebuttals like you have.

---

Yes, i enjoy this too. It's not an argument if you don't have a disagreement.

quote:

---

beyond a religious sense, do you think that you have a soul? i am really interested in knowing how you feel about this. especially since you have soul in your user-name.

---

Well as far as my user name it just poped in my head one day and i used it. I have a wild imagination in which i can imagine things that don't logically exist. As far as my opinion of a soul, well, i used to believe in one in a more spiritual since. But as i grew older my reasoning became flawed. I feel we don't have a soul. Yes we die, but we continue being useful to our planet. We get recycled. Your genetic legacy is passed on through your children. And a historical legacy could be passed on if you earn it. I like the phrase "The only people who deserve to be remembered are those who earn it" Damn that isn't the exact quote, the exact one sounds better.

Still deep inside me; i want to believe in all of this wonderful stuff. Think think that yeah there is a great place im going to be after i die. to know that i am unique. To know that i am loved by an ever powerful being. Just like i would love for there to be a santa claus. I want to believe in it but reality is too powerful.

i was starting to wonder when you would reply,

i agree with evolution in the variance withing a species, but not one species giving rise to another, there may be small changes but you still have to have that one change that creates a whole new species. they did a lot of experiments on fruitflies in the 70's to prove evolution. because of their lifespan you can get several thousand generations within a couple of years. did all kinds of tests from radiation exposure, to just plain mating. and ALL MUTATIONS produced a fruit fly, some had more wings, more legs, more this and that, less this and that. but was still genetically a fruit fly, and ALL MUTATIONS besides those which resulted in different color, bigger body, or smaller body, had a lifespan of about a quarter of what the normal life span, i believe the tests are still going on today, or at least they were a few years ago, and still just producing fruitflies, all mutations in this study have short life expectancies, again variance within a species, not species giving birth to another.

ever been tihuanoco in mexico it's an exact replication of the solar system with the two major monuments being the temple of the sun and moon the two biggest objects in our solar system, even down to a representation of pluto which wasn't discovered in the "western world" until the 1900's which actually opened the debate on the site of how did they know? how about the map of piri reis, he was a phoenician sailor who had a map of the world dated 3400 bc(carbon dating) with a geographic center over cairo, and unlike most maps that give a uniform distance from the center to edge, this was distorted at the edges as if it was being viewed from the air, in fact one of our satellites too a photo of the earth in the 70's over cairo i can't recall the distance offhand, but if an artist had to draw both the photo and the map with the clouds removed from the photo of course they were exactly alike, even had the exact outline of antartica without the ice cap, we didn't know the shape of antarctica until the 50's using radar.

the map is currently on display in the smithsonian institute in washington d.c. i do believe they also have an onlight site with pictures of all the displays. and i even think they have the satellite photo on display right beside the map.

you can't say proofs as truths though regarding evolution, evolution is just a theory, and a theory which is yet to be proven true can be proven false at any time as well, just like god wouldn't you say.

i've always thought that einstein in a way proved the existance of a soul when he stated that energy can neither be created nor destroyed it can only change forms. and the thought patterns that make you feel love, hate, pain, pleasure, make you think make you who you are are nothing but electrical impulses, which is energy, and the energy i used to think of this(which has dissipated into the universe as heat energy, adding to the entropy of the universe) has been here since the beginning of time and will be till the end of time. whether or not we are "aware" after we die i don't know, but i think there's hope.

will you marry me(if you're a girl that is, maybe soullace has something to do with it)

just kidding with the above statement.

one more thing i just went to the next topic and this popped into my head, the face on mars is estimated at 500,000 years old, the same age scientists have estimated man has been around. coincidence?

[This message has been edited by lostmind (edited 10-10-2000).]

"every thing was created ="?/////??????///?
mind fucked eh?

Think of it this way. The variations add up. If the "mutation" or change was advantagous it will be adopted. If all the changes are piled up on one and another, we might see this theroy emerge. I'll explain all of my points in a more thought out manner.

quote:

---

you can't say proofs as truths though regarding evolution, evolution is just a theory, and a theory which is yet to be proven true can be proven false at any time as well, just like god wouldn't you say.

---

I agree that it can be proven false at any moment. but ill explain later in more detail.

Btw, i am a guy.

The face on mars may or may not be related to anything. Look for patterns and you will find them.

even with little variations there has to be one that is genetically different from the parent to create a new species.

the thing i saw on the face on mars, was "hoaglands mars: the nasa-cydonia briefings" hoagland spoke before members of congress and nasa to raise money to fund the project of going to mars in the 90's, and the main mission in this was the total mapping of the cydonia region, ironically it was the mission that failed(of the two that went up) where they lost contact.

on the 70's pictures they didn't look for patterns they looked for redundant frequencies in the area. like other object at a 90 degree relation to the face, they found three pyramid looking shapes exactly 90 degrees to the west of the face, a wall "built" over the spray from a crater, instead of covering the wall like the spray should've from the impact; you have spray, this "wall", which is exactly the same length as the face, and then more of the spray, and this feature is exactly 90 degrees to the east of the face.

straight south of the wall is a spherical mound which bears a striking resemblance to silbury hill in england, exactly 90 degrees to west of this mound is 5 sided pyramid, and any scientist will tell you that 5 sided proportional shapes do not occur naturally.

straight north of the pyramid is the city, the pyramid is at a 225 degree angle from the face, and the mound is at a 135 degree angle.

dividing all the measurements in a number of ways they came up with the numerations for the symbols of pi and e, not in one angle but numerous angles, they also found a formula that creates more energy than is put into it, i can't remember the name off hand, i've got the video of this so i can look it up easily. and also found that this energy happens naturally. the best of example of it would be the storm on jupiter. used this to predict the existance of the same occurance on neptune, and when voyager flew by, it was there.

quite a lot of information gathered from a formation that supposedly happened naturally.

hoagland is convinced that extra-terrestrial built all five of the monuments, and even stated this to congress, congress must have believed him, or believed that there was a chance he was right, because they funded the project in the 90's

i'm not saying it's true, but it sure as hell is interesting.

Evolution isn't about a species giving rise to a wildly different species.. I mean, aren't we just smarter chimps with opposable thumbs? And that took, like, 3 million years. To go from some reptile to some mammal would probably take a couple billion, if it happened at all.

there is a genetic difference betweeen monkey and man. it may be only a small difference, but in genetic code small differences are huge. and to go from one species to another no matter how small the difference, you still need one offspring genetically different from the parent, otherwise the genetic code will still show a simien creature. there had to be a simien that gave birth to a homo erecutus. there had to be otherwise where would you draw the line, and you can't say he developed into a man, he had to be born that way. and to populate an entire planet meant that it didn't just happen with one. you can make this argument for everyone of the species. to go from reptillian to mammal, you had to have a genetic reptile give birth to genetic mammal. even with variations within a species you can still classify that species within it's parent species. where is the one that is classified other than it's parents species

First about e. e as i am aware of is defined as such:

e = the limit of (1+1/n)^n as n approaches infinity.

Does anyone know how to define e in terms of angles? It might be possible considering that sin can be defined using e's:

sin(x) = (e^(ix)-e^(-ix))/2i

y = sin(x) also x = arcsin(y)

we know that sin will return a ratio for a given angle x. The arcsin function will return an angle for a given ratio y.

if y = sin(x) then:

y = (e^(ix)-e^(-ix))/2i

It only goes to show if we can solve x for this equation we can express an answer given in terms of constants, e's, and y's. I've tried but i can't solve x, i dont know if its possible. Then if we get arcsin defined in terms of e's we can find what angles cancel out to get e.

But really i dont know. This is just all theory anyways.

it wasn't just angles used, i should've clarified.

distances of each object to each of the other objects.

lostmind, i haven't been able to get around to that promised reply. I have been busy with school. It better be good considering the wait.

e defined with distances, maybe. But even that is a strech. Even if "aliens" have been on mars some time ago, they haven't been on earth. And even if they have its of no real value. Real value will come when we trade ideas and information with them. I belive in their existance, but not their traversal to earth. Even though your theories are interesting, they are not convensing.

[ This message was written by Soullace, things are by no doubt mispelled. ]

well i just gave the theories in a condensed form; for full information on the theories since you do find them interesting, would be "hoaglands mars: the nasa cydonia briefings" a video, "chariots of the gods" by erich von daaniken, "fingerprints of the gods" by graham hancock.

there are a million others that border on foolishness, these though are probably the most believable(convincing?).

i patiently await your reply.

Here is my opinion. I believe the writings of John Calvin.. hence, predestination. You can't believe in the bible, and then believe you are saved by works of your own. Man is inherently evil, due to the fall of man in the garden of eden. Therefore, if you believed you had to "save yourself," that would be believing Jesus only came to earth and did half the job. "Here is the gift of eternal life, and even though i know every ounce of your being will draw you away from me, you must come and get it." I can't believe that. I'm not saying that predestination proves anything, but it sure makes it easier to have faith.

[This message has been edited by AltF4 (edited 10-14-2000).]

If we did evolve from animals, at what point did we gain the ability to reason? Learn the difference between good and evil? Where in the line of evolution did we gain a conscience? These are the things I just can't see nature coming up with out of the blue. They would not be necesarry for "survival of the fittest." Since when would the knowledge of good and evil help to forward a species? Just some things that bother me about evolution...

geesh i really need to get the time to write a big reply. I need to take into account both of your points. Believe me i have thought of the things both of you are thinking. And i need to pull the resources that i have found. Im sorry but im pretty busy right now. I have done some research, but haven't found what i wanted so far.

If god was just there, then by logical argument the universe could just have been there. Do you not even admit to the possiblity?

I don't belive in god and my friends are always mad and they are always the ones that bring up heaven and shit and then we get in a big arguement and they ask why I always bring it up (i never brout it up ever) and why I always call my self an athiest (I have never called myself that although I guess that is what I would be or something along that lines).

Over 2,000 prophecies in the bible have come true, God can't be put in a test tube.
Among the most defining emotions in the human race are honor and integrity, but we can't scientifically prove they exist. No rock-solid concrete evidence, the individuals that possess these traits may just be all coincidences right?

No way. I have personally witnessed miracles myself, so my faith is set, maybe it will take the same personal experience to move the most jaded of individual in their pursuit.

Btw, i have heard an argument that if the Earth was as old as it is claimed to be, all the oil pressure would be gone? Anyone care to address this? I think the Earth moving around and changing could re-create pressure again.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 25-10-2000).]

oil pressure? the earth isn't a car. Expain what you mean.

Ok, scientists claim that if the Earth was as old as we think it is (billions of years), then all the pressure in the earth that drives oil to the surface would be gone. It would all just eventially sink down toward the core or remain stationary forever they say.

Of course, these scientists smoke crack..

(Yeah, I'm done with the evolution shit, but this is something else..)

The "pressure" that keeps the oil in the ground, the sand on the beach, and everything on earth (including the earth) together is gravity. That's been in existence for as long as the universe has. If gravity was fading away, we'd be floating.

Einstein said that for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. In this case, there has to be a pressure working opposite of gravity, or else we'd all get sucked into one tiny ball of matter that was constantly falling in on itself. The only way that pressure could be gone is if gravity was gone.

ever read "a brief history of time" soullace, by stephen hawking. the big bang is considered fact, the only evidence left to obtain will never be obtained, because nobody was alive at the moment of singularity, and no one will remain alive at the return to singularity. i don't disagree that the universe has always been here, just not at it's present state, which is confirmed by the expansion of the universe, it is never the same size from one second to the next. when the singularity existed it was infinity. a black hole is a singularity, however for it to experience a big bang of its own, entropy needs to begin. which is something we will never witness or know if it occurs or has occurred. to a witness of our universe from the outside we still appear to be a singularity, the big bang was the explosion from within which gave infinity boundaries, and set up laws to govern the movement of the these boundaries, these laws helped to coalesce denser parts into galaxies from which stars and planets were born. damn, i believe more in god every day.


the "pressure" you speak of is called centrifigual force, as the earth rotates objects on the surface are pulled to the center, this is called gravity, under the surface though free moving objects are pushed away from center, this is the centrifigal force, both forces work together to keep the planet from exploding or imploding and are present on anything that rotates from a baseball to a star.

i think it's a pretty safe bet the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old, this is the age of the oldest rock found, until an older rock is found this is the age scientists will continue to use, until we 4.6 billion years old of course.

No, i haven't read that book.

Oh about this quote

quote:

---

when the singularity existed it was infinity. a black hole is a singularity, however for it to experience a big bang of its own, entropy needs to begin. which is something we will never witness or know if it occurs or has occurred. to a witness of our universe from the outside we still appear to be a singularity, the big bang was the explosion from within which gave infinity boundaries, and set up laws to govern the movement of the these boundaries, these laws helped to coalesce denser parts into galaxies from which stars and planets were born.

---

When the singularity existed it was infinitly small. With a finite mass. Infinity is defined as not having boundaries, in either direction.

quote:

---

damn, i believe more in god every day.

---

I still don't see how any of this has to do with god. All things you use as evidence can be applied to any deity.

forgive me soullace you are right, i posted on the singularity at work, and did not have the book for immediate reference, and knew what i wanted to say but not how to say it, thank you.

to any deity, you imply that i refer to god in the christian context, i believe in god, i do not believe in religion, though while with a strong christian upbringing by my parents i adopted the name as well.

to me though whether you call god jehovah, yahweh, zeus, the sun god, amen-ra to me it is still belief in a "god".

would a rose smell as sweet by any other name?

alot of my religious references i make though are based upon christianity, because it is what i grew up with, about 5 years ago, i did not become non-denominational, i classified myself as all-denominational. with the thinking that if you take the base teachings of all religions you might come up with something pretty close to what is. about 3 years ago i dropped religion altogether and just held a belief in a "god" and not in what man says god is, and based a system i thought would be right, my own religion so to speak, in that how can you classify good or bad, what you consider good i might consider bad, and vice versa and couldn't believe that a god would hold something against you as evil that you can justify to yourself as right without infringing on basic moral codes, like the wronging of others through murder, stealing, etc.

Do you fall under the cateragory of monotheism or polytheism? (one God, or several for those who don't know)?

-"I do not miss the sun,
the very memory of it
burns my eyes."
-Volrath

monotheistic belief systems seem silly to me.

monotheist.

Spiffy McGee, it was newton. Whenever there is an action there is an equal and opposite reaction. But otherwise you were dead on the mark.

McBang! Not McGee. I don't care, but Trippy might break a rock off in your ear or something, and I'd hate to see that. Anyway, thanks, my bad. I always default to Einstein when I shouldn't.

I apologize for mixing you 2 up. As you can see its not very hard.

Damn, Real kicks ass! This has got to be the most replies on a topic that I have ever seen since I joined TOTSE.
~Dark

You obviously haven't Seen The holy *SQUIZBIT* See DIY Religion.

DarkMag Using the comic collector guy in the Simpsons tone)

I withdraw my statement (Real is still kool tho).

How do you know for sure there is only one god? There could be 6, 4, 18, 2 of them. How can you say that there is only one? You say you are not restricted by religon but you restrict yourself in beliving christain like.

it kind of defeats the purpose of an omniscent, omnipotent being if their are more of them. what if one was stronger or smarter than the other? you'd still just have one wouldn't you? and what better reason for creation, than the fact that you are alone.

all great inventions and discoveries are most often the ideas of one man, and the ideas are carried out by others.

[This message has been edited by lostmind (edited 11-06-2000).]

But probility would dictate that more than likelty wherever one god came from at least one more would have come from that or a similar place. The probability of unique creation in the vastness of the universe is quite unlikely. Monotheism requires a much greater serving of Faith than even polytheistic belief systems.

you think uniqueness is unlikely?

you are unique are you not?

that tree outside your window is unique.

the sun our planet orbits albeit ordinary is unique.

uniqueness is everywhere you look if you open your eyes and stop generalizing and take any object for what it is.

even automobiles that are "created" on an assembly line are unique. one car the clock works, one car it doesn't. one car goes for 200,000 miles the next 20.

object or living things may share similar traits but each one is unique in its own way(hence the term unique).

i can't believe in creation by committee, there may be other beings where god came from(if he came from anywhere, can you specify a point in space where nothing is supposed to exist) but the overall layout and design had to be the work of one.

ever worked with somebody on something, there were times when you thought "your idea blows" and times when he thought "your idea blows".

when ford created his car, did he have others dictating alongside what it would look like, what it would do, should the engine be in front or back.

no, he said this is the way it is going to be, now the rest of you build it.

all religions are monotheist, even the ones from greek and roman mythology, the egyptians, the native americans, they had demi-gods who were all ruled by one supreme god, the greeks called him zeus, the romans jupiter, the egyptians amen-ra, the native americans the sun god(don't know their word for it).

even christianity has demi-gods, they call them angels, like greek mythology pluto was part of the court of zeus, so to was lucifer(satan) until he challenged god's authority.

what did zeus do to those who challenged his authority?

there may be more beings like god, but there still had to be one who layed out the design.

there are 250 million americans, one president.

Maybe time is like a bubble and God exists outside this "bubble", thus making him technically having no beginning or end in terms of time within the bubble.

As for soullaces comment, I didn't say anything about other Gods not existing, that's why God says "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" and that he is the most jealous of all Gods.

Did you catch that: "of all Gods"? That indicates plurality, but if there are other Gods and they showed themselves (just a farfetched example), I would acknowledge their existence, but not "believe" in them or their methods.

My stand on the existance of other Gods is a neutral one, either they are or they are not, but either way i'm still hangin with the big man.
~Dark

lostmind,

this kinda goes way back, but the whole big bang thing, well, just doesn't make sense.

take a ball of yarn. a metal bucket of water, the most powerful explosive you can find.

take a ball of yarn, plain and boring. stick it in a metal pail. then, add water, the stuff life is made of. now, set the explosives around, in, on, or under the pail. blow up the pail


tell me, what are the odds of that ball of yarn, becoming an intricate, finely woven, oriental rug? such chances are only apparent in cartoons.

Uniqueness comes in varying levels.. for example, I have a 1998 platinum-colored Dodge Neon. In and of itself, it is unique. No one else has my car, nor does it exist anywhere else in the world. However, there are other 1998 platinum-colored Dodge Neons in existence. They're built to be identical, but, technically, are not.

Polytheistic religions generally hold a similar view. The Greeks had Zeus has the King of the Gods, but that didn't mean that the other gods were in any way weak, or beings to be trifled with. Zeus simply had a leg up on them. They were certainly gods, however, and had all the trappings of any god- worshipers, temples, etc.

Angels are not considered to be "godly" in any way- they may be God's chosen, people who have been selected as messengers and such because they're such incredibly wonderful people (or they fit whatever other criteria is used), but they are in no way considered objects of worship. They are considered to simply be servants of the one Christian god.

Just clarifying.

bar room i think the theory is called indeterminate possiblities.

this theory states that every possible state the universe can exist in, it will exist in.

this is also another theory that cannot be proved because many other universe models would not support life, and since we are caught in this one there is no way to tell the others.

this theory was proposed in this way.

place a cat in an air tight box that is filled half with a poison gas and half with oxygen. diffusion states that eventually the two gasses will mix, but you can also formulate that the cat would be able to position it's head so that all it breathes is oxygen, since at any one time the poison cannot occupy more than half of the box anyway.

when you open the box you expect the cat to be dead, but there is always a chance it will be alive.

they used this example for a largescale analysis of something that happens at the microscopic level.

when a particle is forced to "move", it will move in not just any of the proposed paths, but all of the proposed paths, the fact that you witness the continuation of one path, does not mean that it does not travel the others.

and spiffy i agree i was just drawing similarities between monotheist and polytheist beliefs.

and are these figures not being worshipped.

every christian(catholic type, not jehovahs witnesses) church has an altar to the sacrifice of the son of god, and the virgin mary has plenty of altars as well.

didn't the israelites have to leave blood on the door for the angel of death? couldn't that be viewed by an outsider as a form of worship.

communion is a worship of christ who was the son of god, not god.

Hmm.. that's a good point, I hadn't thought about those others. I was only thinking about angels, as opposed to all the important people in the religion, but you're definitely right about the angel of death. See, I really haven't been to church in years, heh.

my roommate brought up a great point about worship.

why would god need worship?

it seems like a self centered and greedy human trait not worthy of a god.

he's agnostic hence we get in great discussions about god.

A god is only as powerful as the number of worshipers he or she has. True, no?

No, God is all powerful infinite etc.

quote:

---

place a cat in an air tight box that is filled half with a poison gas...

---

hee-hee poor cat.

I'm sorry that this is only the second time I have stepped into this forum and that I truly regret because it seems to be a plectra of intelligent posts.

I hope I don't fail that tradition.

quote:

---

why would god need worship?
it seems like a self centered and greedy human trait not worthy of a god.

---

maybe that's one of the reasons he gave us freewill? I mean we have the choice to turn our back on him and belive he doesn't exist. and I don't think he needs worship. but yeah commanding us to worship him seems pretty petty for a deity.

------------------
Only through pain and deprivation may one know true joy.

amen.

no pun intended.

yep, bringing up a dead topic.

back to the issue of evolution it was previously thought that man was only 4.5 million years old.

new fossils found date that to be 6 million years old, and the fossils found in kenya were that of a man, genetically and physically a human being.

Wow, its been pages since my last posting.

It would seem that the main difference between science and religion which respect to the creation process is whether or not we were created by intellegence, or by random chance. It is argued that everything we see is so complex and works together so beautifully, it must be made by some higher form of intellegence. i.e God. I think this is becuase we look at it from a top-down perpective.

A top-down perspective is one in which you look at the upper layers of a thing and try to guess at the lower ones. By peeling away the layers we start to see the relationship/structuring between the peices, even though we don't know what the peices are. We think this a complicated task because we don't know the pieces. No, that isn't true though, it's complex becuase the relationship between the peices is always more complex than the pieces involved. To prove my point just think about your own relationships with other humans, you will find them to be very complex.

A bottom-up prespective is when you know the peices but have to create the structure/relationship between the peices. This is hard becuase you have to know how to create relationships.

In affect you need both perspectives to understand a system, both the peices and the relationships.

Now god comes in when we are trying to understand complex relationships, and have no real way to fathom it. And this only comes in during a top-down perspective becuase the other one just deals with peices, and we know what the peices are. What is one of the easiest questions to answer. But how and why can never really be defined. We can only guess. Why does this book exist? Could be a question with an infinite amount of answers. This is were relevance comes in. You might not care that it came into existance because its molecules were postitioned in such a way to give it, a particular form. You might only want to know that the author wrote it becuase he/she felt that it was important for them to write it.

Since we know that relationships between two parts are greater than the sum of the whole of those parts. The creation of such reactions shouldn't be as complex. Once one reaction comes into play, many more reactions and relationships can be formed. It is very hard to imagine that reaction. But we are here. So it must have happened. "Energy can not be created nor destroyed." Hmmm, nothing to something in an instant. I would call that energy being created.

damn, now i am lost within a chasm of thought and can't find my way to the point.

"nothing to something in an instant, sounds like energy being created to me"

hate to disagree, but it wasn't nothing, it was a singularity, and singularities contain enormous amounts of energy.

what created that singularity? And among the same thought to infinity

i don't understand do you assume this is the only universe?

it is theorized that outside our universe we are still a singularity, and quite possibly just a black hole within another universe, which quite possibly could be a black hole within another universe, which quite possibly could be a black hole within another universe, etc...etc...etc... to infinity.

the great thing about dealing with infinities is that anything is possible, and since it has been proven that time works differently for each observer and no one certain time can ever be defined, since the end happened at the same time as the beginning, you could theorize the point that nothing exists, nothing has ever existed, nothing ever will exist.

yet here we are.

infinities i love them for the mind numbing effect they have.

lostmind, haven't you argued against some of these theories you are using now? i can swear i've seen posts.

I am aware of these different theroies.

When we look at energy or any value in a global vs local sense, we see certain things. In a global since everything is static. The same amount of thing moves around and about. In a local sense, things can be "created" or "destroyed". This happens when they leave a particular system. But as a whole nothing has changed. This is where the basis of energy can't be created nor destroyed (on a global sense). If we think on the thought that our reality is fractal like (recursive to infinity in both directions), infinitly small and infinitly large. This according to the infinite universe theory, account all energy. I was saying in the "local" instance of our universe energy was created. But in a global sense of all know universes not energy has be en lost just changed.

As in the case of any recursion we do not know our global context. we only know local context. meaning we don't know if we are a universe inside a or many universes. We only know our system, which we consider absoulte (or global). Which may or may not be the global context, we have no way of telling. If you have ever looked at a fractal you know what i mean.

Imagine all energy is being shrinked at the point in which the point has no size the density of the mass will reach infinity. At this point it is nothing and everything. This is what i believe is the closest thing to "god" the point where nothing is everything. Our creation and destruction at the same moment. And they only reason i relate it to god is this is a creation like force.

With all this we really don't know, infinities on top of infinities to infinity.

With this we know that any number will be a local measurement compared to infinity. Which is the real global measurement. The ultimate global context is infinity.

[ Im tired need to sleep, this probally makes no since oh well. ]

*watches the Energizer Bunny pass out*

God wants us to follow his rule freely. God will not dictate your actions for you, but he might've thought we needed a little motivation. What better motivation is there than endless suffering?

My confirmation class is coming back to me.

Negative reinforcement sucks.

No dicatation is up to the church.

Who's giving the motavation anyways? I haven't heard a word out of god in a while

to answer your question about god not talking.

"sometimes i wander in the prehistoric skies
i feel it's all beginnning right before my eyes
i must go back re-examine my love

here she comes with here penetrating stare
i don't know when but i wish i knew where
cold calculations
there's not nearly enough

follow her down to worship some god
who never speaks to me i wonder if i died
but then he says
"you're never listening"

can't you see imagination is your butter and your bread
it's an exquisite course and it's lips are red
and it's teeth are glistening

if you're alone and you're feeling blue
everyone in persia probably feels like that too
i just hope you don't believe like you do

here she comes with her unforgiving way
almost forever i've been drinking with drugs
it must be time to change our
cruel, cruel youth

before we're lost"

the church(not a religious band and quite fascinating, lyrically and musically while on acid.)

i don't think god speaks in the oral roberts way, that if he doesn't have so much money by such and such a time god's going to have him killed, never envisioned him as a mafia hitman.

ever felt a moment of pure joy, where it overwhelmed you, about anything a girl, the view outside your window, the football game you just watched, whatever, at times like this it feels like god "speaks" to me saying "whoa, sit back, take a deep breath, and just enjoy this moment you're in right now"

maybe you're listening just to and for the wrong things, so many people expect god to slap them in the face to prove he exists, but if i was god i wouldn't slap anybody in the face, why should i have to prove myself to you, you think you're so special that i should just come knock on your door, and you're selfish prayers are annoying me, why should i intervene in your pathetic personal affairs, you yourself have the power to make your prayers come true, get off your ass and do some work, and if you never felt pain you would never appreciate joy, and if i had a master plan the only way your prayer would be answered would be if it fell in that plan, and if it didn't you will blame me and say i don't exist, because you are just so special that i have to bow to YOUR every wish. when things go bad instead of blaming yourself for the situation that YOU placed YOURSELF into, you get on my case for not bailing you out, how would you grow, how would you learn if i did everything for you.true peace and independence comes from dependance upon yourself and nobody else. if i did do everything for you, you'd revolt for your independence, saying what right do you have dictating our actions, why even create us if you know how we're going to be, you could've just skipped this part and put us in paradise right away. and to that i would say "ahh, you all think of me as your parent, but i created you out of my likeness not my seed, for i want you to truly live and experience pride in your accomplishments, and despair in failure, what it's like to love and how it hurts to hate, to experience all there is that life has to offer, while contributing to the greater good of something that is so much more than you are, a place where your children can have hope, prosperity and to carry on the legacy that you have started. i don't want your worship, i want your company, and when you are ready, after you have lived we can sit around like two long lost friends and reminisce about what was, what is, and what will be. and if you believe your science than that is already happening only you are temporarily unaware while you are currently fixed in your linear existance, so laugh, cry, hope, dream, hurt, live and die and get everything there is to get out of life, because it really is short compared to eternity, but an eternity where time has no meaning.

started rambling again, it was a great new years i should sleep soon though.

oh so god is now doing a cover-up. we really don't have free choice, but we don't know about this. hmmm... a deceptive god. you say i don't listen but why would a all powerful being speak to me? or in that case anyone on this small, bleak, dismal planet. In that case anyone in histroy? Are we so special that we get a divine entity all to ourselves? why pray? that is if our future is already planned out. I feel that religion makes you dependant on your god and on your prayers. Religion creates this mentality, "...get off your ass and do some work..." I am in no way mad at God or the God concept, becuase i don't believe in it. I believe it's my responsabitlity for my actions. Not god's divine plan, with my controled actions.

Life is short compared to an eternity. I would'nt want to live an eterinity, too boring. Think about it. What would you do for the first 100 years or so, i know you would live it up, have the best time of your "life". What about the next 1000, then the next millon, then the next billon, and so on. You would get bored pretty quickly.

The concept of an afterlife is so you don't feel so bad, when you look back on your life. You can say well it will only look up from here. This is so people don't feel cheated out of their lives. Pretty neat if your an organization that likes to control people.

huh?

how does what i said refer to a controlling god?

time has no meaning except in this existance, if you accept theoretical physicists mathematical reasoning behind it.

and if there is time, well it's awfully big universe, you could say an infinite amount that i haven't seen, i'd probably start there.

if time means anything that is.

some people get so wrapped up in a way of life, that this is how it always is.

i know i will live forever, the energy that makes me up can never end, whether or not i'll be a conscious entity after i die, don't know, and if i am a conscious entity will i be affected by the constraints of time? don't know, and given explanations of all the different dimensions, kind of doubt time, in the sense we view it in now, is relevant to any dimension but the first three, and relevant only locating a specific object in a specific point for a specific time.

time is not constant, it's not even constant for you when you are rest or when you are in motion.

the faster an object moves the slower time passes, that difference is very small and not noticable on a level such as ours, but if you flew to the nearest star and back at lightspeed you would only age 8 years, while here on earth you would come back to see your great-grandchildren. and that's scientic fact, not theory or speculation fact.

so tell me what does time mean?

Hmm, that's an interesting thought that "God is only as powerful as the number of followers".

That falls under my thought of if enough people believe in something that it may actually exist/happen.

Ever seen the movie "In The Mouth of Madness"? It is a great movie, elaborates on the same thought concept I described previously. Go see it or get your hands on it whenever you can if you haven't seen it yet, it is a very kool movie.

that point should be re-written, to say "god is only as powerful as the number of followers in the mind of man"

And as a bonus you can always state...

How can so many people be wrong? If so many people believe in the pink elephants, that must mean they exist. Right?

an acid trip enlightened me to this little paradox.

if i can "see" something that isn't there, it must also be possible to "not see" something that is there.

My mom always said I did that with the garbage in the kitchen.

i believe the christian god exists, since i think that god exists all together. But i think christianty is bullshit, and was made out of the poor hearts and the hopeless of years past. I'd rather go to judiasm because in fact christ was a jew and judaism has been around longer then christianity has .

no

um ok, so what is your reason sir? Doesn't the bible blatantly say that we all had one religion then we got seperated across the earth with different tongues?

The bible does say that. But some of us don't believe what the bible says.

i understand that spiffy, thanks for clearind up what the other guy said. I know most of it's not right because the bible has been on earth for how long? Thousands of years and it's bound to be edited to hell and translated a billion times etc. Hell even as we speak people are putting there own thoughts into the bible. And besides i think the stories are semi true, spoken out of the men and women, and how they were raised, and through time i think the stories kinda get not believable. But even the tower of bable may not be true, but i do know one thing science has proved over 90 percent of out gene structure is the same, so somehow the human race must come from one something.

what's the deal about elephants passing down memory, if only in bits, about where the watering spots and such are? i know that sounds like complete bullshit; i would'nt even bring it up if i hadn't seen it on a documentary some time ago (and the fact that a bunch of people have been talking about passing down traits, etc)

sorry Spiffy- hate to bring it up again, but i wanted to wait until i've read all of the posts before saying anything

Don't apologize to me.. doesn't bother me any..

There's a big difference between passing down genetic traits and literally passing down pieces of memory. Genetic traits are inborn, the building blocks of any living thing. Memories are gained during life, which means for such things to be passed on, they would have to alter the creature's DNA, which would then be passed on.

Maybe what an elephant learns before it's able to reproduce is somehow implanted in its genetic code. It seems rather unlikely, but who knows?

www.jesus8880.com

this will blow your mind.

now let's talk about the truth in biblical passages.