The SimTropolis House of Worship

[jglei701 8]

Moganite,

Not much time, but here's another perspective on "God time." God created the earth, and when it was created, time began. There will come a time when the creation ends. This will end time. God is outside of time. That means that He doesn't pass through, day by day, like you and me. He just IS (see Exodus 3:14). It's mind boggling... and really hard to understand, because we're so intertwined in our time-bound existance.

Now, there's nothing to say that these God days are 1000 earth days. They could be more, they could be less, no one really knows.

Also, the timeframe of Eden is constricted by the Hebrew language it was described in. There was a very loose definition of time that, translated into English, could mean one day... but it could also mean one period of time. Like I said, it's very vague.

Ok, that's all the time I have... I start a new job today, wish me luck!!

[RiverCocytus 0]

We measure time by the movement of things in our world. If that movement stopped, how would we measure time? If God is all powerful, then he can control the rate at which things vibrate, move, etc. So for God to be all-powerful he almost -has- to exist outside of time...

Heard an interesting thing:

"I am that I am" - don't know how you've interpreted this particular fairly cryptic phrase that God says to Moses. But here is an interesting interpretation I've heard:

God is saying that, whatever 'I am' that he needs to be, he is that I am. "I am your deliverer" "I am Judge, Jury, executioner" ... etc. So in other words, He is trying to explain, or at least give some idea of His infinite nature to Moses.

About the Adam and Eve thing; we have a certain number of extrons in our DNA. Extrons (I think that is the spelling) are genetic data that does not (or to our understanding and knowledge) express anything. In other words, we're talking about DNA that is not part of genes. In fact, there are a series of RNA-based structures called 'SRNP's (again, I'd have to consult my college biology text to see the exact spelling) which have the sole purpose of clipping out the Extrons so that a continuous strand of genetic data can be translated to mRNA and sent to the ribosomes (something that is happening thousands of times a second in each of us.)

I might have switched the Introns/Extrons names, but the general idea is there. Bacteria and creatures of a certain simplicity do not have these 'buffers' in their genes, so they don't have SRNPs. Still, again, from taking college bio I can see that there is a great deal that we really don't know about biology still.

These buffers seem to have the purpose of protecting our genetic data from decay from free radicals. It is fully possible that God shortening our lifespans was a matter of clipping off a bunch of the buffer so that our genetic data decays quicker overall. How exactly this was performed is up to speculation; an excess of free radicals in the environment for a long period of time might have been sufficient to transmit lesser and lesser amounts of the buffer DNA to each generation of kids.

---

I see technology as an essentially neutral force in the world. This doesn't really come from a religious leaning, but just from observations of what technology does. Technology is a tool, and its alignment is a product of who utilizes it, or more specifically, how it is used. Some technology has the characteristic of being easier to abuse (take a needle versus a safety pin) but being easier to abuse does not equate to evil. Thus I say with certainty; guns are not evil.

As far as guns are concerned, we should not limit their utility to what they actually do (fire a projectile) but also consider the effect of the knowledge of their potential.

As for other technology, I'd say how and why we use it makes us sin, not the tech itself. Technology it seems could be a result of knowledge of Good and Evil (talking Genesis here.) I'm however, with my experience in life, more inclined to believe that technology is the result of us applying our intelligence to try to solve or mitigate the problems created by our original sin. To wit, its not that Adam and Eve couldn't create tools, its just that tools are a result of need, and with all needs taken care of, tools were unneeded. The potential for creating technology always existed in man.

Then again, I really can't say, never talked to Adam or Eve...

But I hope frndofyaweh has something to input about that.

---

About intentionalism, it has become clear to me that meaning comes from the author of the message primarily, who uses signs to try to convey their intent to the receiver. So you could say the 'true meaning' is what the author intended when he spoke, wrote, painted, performed, etc. Naturally, it presents a problem, in that some times we do things without intentionally crafting a meaning. Sometimes the meaning may be clear, as in things that don't require abstract thought (or language) to communicate. Other times we may be imperfectly communicating our message, or not really saying anything at all.

Then, there is the meaning that a person assigns to what they are observing. The author's intent is in no way necessarily dependant on it. (In other words, I can say 'hi', and mean it as a greeting, and no matter what you -think- I meant, it doesn't change what I meant when I said it.) We should not confuse 'interpreting' which is trying to decipher signs to uncover intent, with creating a new 'text' or meaning from the signs ourselves.

This comes back to the bible, and what I find to be the third element. In almost everything, I believe, God in some way speaks. Since he is the author of all creation, it would only make sense that things would deliver a message from Him in some form. So while I might craft this message trying to convey a particular intent, I inadvertantly potentially become a vessel for a message from God. Its like, you write a story about someone writing a story, kind of.

In this way, things may take on different meanings; I think that this 'message' that the Author (to give God another handle) is trying to convey is the Truth. We can intend lies and deceptions, but God who is perfect and not of sin only conveys truth. But, we, as the receiver of the message, are free to assign whatever meaning, or misdecipher the signs however we see fit. Some messages might not even be for me, or for you, but for someone else.

When I read the Word of God the message is very clear; even when I see and read things that are not regarded as the Word sometimes I hear or see God speaking.

Anyway, that's my take on intentionalism and the Bible. I'll probably change my opinion next year, so I don't like to hold too tightly to it.

---

About the virgin birth of male, that is part of the miracle. As God is the Author, he had a little message waiting for us of the more 'enlightened' age, who have greater knowledge of science. We know for certain that the 'y' chromosome that a male has must come from his father. So I guess Jesus' father was God?

---

I like this talking about perfect and imperfect conception; I think that this is one of the things we've totally messed up. We get into our dichotomous mode of thinking again and determine one of two things

1. All sex is sin!

2. No sex is sin!

Come on, you know it!

Obviously not everyone sees it that way, but these are prevalent ideas among our culture. Some folks, perhaps the Menonites, (or even other Christians) could fall into category 1.

Then folks of the counter-culture movement might fall into category 2.

Of course, there are mixtures; believe that sex is always ok if certain acts are involved or certain actors. You can think of a bunch of 'em, no doubt.

In most cases, what makes these wrong from what I can tell is that we are reading the text that is God's creation, and instead of listening to his intent we create our own message from the signs.

To be honest I've never gotten too much into understanding what makes sex not a sin, and what does. It is clear that certain sexual acts are sinful -- think rape. Sex which occurs outside of a commitment also has the quality of sinfulness, it tends to destroy lives through fatherlessness, disease, emotional damage, etc.

I think that the answer is probably pretty obvious, all occam's razor and all, somewhere contained within the phrase 'become one flesh'.

In this kind of severe sense, the act of sex is actually the act of becoming one flesh; which means that the partners involves are no longer two but one (well, the sense is the same sense of the word 'syzygy': meaning the joining of entities without loss of identities) In a holistic sense, meaning we're treating all of the person as an essential whole, as opposed to like, an imperfect body which is a vessel for a perfect spirit, (to make an example) we must extend that all parts must be made 'one flesh' for the union to be 'perfect'. I think this is something of what is meant when they say "What God has brought together, no man may seperate'?

Weirdly, my mind has wandered to the game Alpha Centauri, and the description given to 'Graviton Theory'. Gravitons being the theoretical attractive particle associated with the force we all know as gravity. To paraphrase its something like:

"A graviton is a bridge. The more you stretch it, the stronger it becomes, but if severed, it is broken forever."

I guess Moganite might remember the quote better (as his avatar originates from the game.)

This might be the reason why divorces are permitted at various times. In my own parents' now ongoing divorce, I can see that they were severed long ago. In truth, like the graviton, the most useless thing you could do is try to bring them back together.

How a graviton could be severed or why that removes its attractiveness permenantly is totally beyond me, but the metaphor might be helpful.

So the imperfection of our marriages, sex, conception, etc thusly is a product of the imperfection of our mortality (possibly.) The triune (body, mind, spirit) is not imperfect, but the bodies we have are. Removing the imperfect part (the body) does not create perfection, for the body is essential to the whole. In this way, one might say we're damned if we do, damned if we don't -- nothing we can really do can reproduce the perfection of what God intented our bodies to be.

Of course, the imperfection or perfection of (or rightness/wrongness) of a conception might not be linked to the parts involved, but how they are joined. Which is, erm, I mean to say, if we are not wholly joined, then the union would be incomplete, and the conception imperfect.

So, what I meant above is that possibly our original sin introduced something that makes a perfect union impossible.

I guess, unless that union is with God.

---

Which is interesting, says my rambling mind, that the product of God and a human would be fully divine and fully human. We tend to think of the result of a pairing or mixing to be about half of one thing and a half of another. Maybe this links to a misunderstanding we have about what conception is, and how it is different than just two things mixing together to produce another.

Erg, well, I'm rambling now, I confess. But what I want to know is, is there a difference between perfect conception and imperfect but othewise acceptable conception? Its weird I should ask, but seperating structure from form, a structure can be correct but the form incorrect, and vice versa.

Anywho, comments are welcome on my opinions. I hope you did well on your first day, jglei701.

Night.

(edit: I think I finally figured out what 'to wit,' means! Well, maybe.)

[timotheus4 39]

Well mOganite, I can't hope to answer all your questions, but here's one.

Where did all that water go?quote>

Into the ocean.

Also the virgin birth is always regarded as a miracle, as a metaphysical event.

[RiverCocytus 0]

Point and set on that issue, maybe; before the flood there was supposedly a time when it didn't rain; water rose from the ground (like a major dew) to water the earth. There were no major bodies of water (thus why Noah's Ark seemed so silly)

There is a flood story in nearly every mythos; perhaps the descendants of the city of babel carried that tale to the ends of the earth.

Edit: to keep with the 'personal beliefs' postage, here are mine

1. Love the Lord thy God with all of thy mind, thy soul and thy strength.

2. Love thy neighbor as thyself.

These two commandments are a positive version of the 10.

2 has a neat implication that is uncommonly considered; if you don't love yourself, you can't love your neighbor. What is a love for yourself that allows you to also love your neighbor? Or, wait, maybe that's what love actually is. Or maybe .1 is the thing you need to do to be able to love your neighbor and yourself?

e. all of the above

[moganite 4]

Jglei

Good luck and hope it is sucessful for you.

Gods realm could have any value and you could say god could change it in any way he wishes but for us time still ticks over at 1 second persecond unless  you are in extremecircumstances like travelling at the speed of light then it would only affect the object under the influence, similarly for black holes and objects in their proximity.

River

That god is outside of ourtime is logical after al to create anything you have a difficulty if you are also part of it. Second ly communication whith whatever is inside shouldn't be a problem intercating would probably be a problem as it would ne next to impossible to change  anything and be able to preidict the consequences.  This comes from both quantum mechanics and choas thaory imposibility of knowing what fundamental particles are doing or their state and a tiny variation in the state at the start giving rise to very different outcomes.

From biblical texts and discusion here i have comet to the conclusion there are atleast  5 realms/dimensions they are. This is from a christian viewpoint. Including other religions would only complicate thins but some have no concept of hell and others have no concept of heaven or eden. And then there are some that have no concept of the after life.

1)Heaven

2)Eden AKA Paradise

3)Our universe

4) Purgatory

5) Hell

6) holding area

There are numerous refernece to hell and purgatory and heaven but only very few for eden/paradise mostly because it appears you can'd get there afeter you die. Is it the accepted wisdom of the church that  you can go to three of those places from here when you die but none of them include Eden? the holding area was sort of  my own hypothesis  and i dont think you would nessecarily need it and there is no real evidence for it It would be a spot where you are waitng for your judgement /orders on where to go.

My other qestion is in what order where they created? i would guess Heaven has always existed but only fron the  viewpoints of  Us/Eden. Puragatory and hell probably were created near the same time as the Original sin by Adam and eve but before Earth, need some where to contain those who continue to sin.

But isn't travel between these possible? you only have to break what ever dimensional barriers are in your way and you can get there. Also Jesus was sent here .... the only way back to heaven through death.

Now back to biology

its all correct but remember telemorase and what it does in the body it adds caps(telemores) on the ends of the chromosones and renews them whenpresent in high enough levels. Every time a cell replicated these ends of null coding get shortened and when they are bleow a certain length the cell stops dividing shorten the telemores and the cell stops dividing. If a cell has active telmorease the telmores lenghten and don't shorten  and the mutation that leads to telemorease being produced in a cell is one of the stps to cancer.  To become cancerous a cell has to short circiut its destruct if damaged mechanisim

a protien called p53 is responsible for this I think.

As for free radicals they would need to be present premantly as they would not   do any long term damage down the generartions as they dont change Nuclear/germline DNA and in most cases and dammage casues a cell to shutdown and activate its suicide switch. This damage only has to be in the right place to do so if it only case mutations in the sahpe of the protiens then there may be apossibility there. However it must be in the germline cells that endup being babies before it can be established in the population.

Typicaly the free radicals would be something like oxygen or similar chemical species say chromate ions, chlorate ions, protons etc  Obviously yhe oxygen content canot bechanged to any great dgree because if it was there would be a record of it and it would cause masive fires acros the globe. Most of the others leave pollution or are toxic on a much more rapid scale than a generation.

Technology and Morals

Your paragraph on technolgy and morality is clear and sucinct and better than my own attempts on the subject but  if anyone wants to reference them they are in my previous posts in this thread.

Virgin birth

Wouldnt that mean that god would of needed to come here in human form an well impregnate Mary or is it more like artifical insemination? Either way there would be some interference and again why would god not say he had been here  in the bible or are we meant to see it that way and evidence of a son to an unmarried woman at hat time having a child. This leads to my next question, I am not sure Mary was married so was she?

Sex

i do know that some things are definetly wrong and considered sin. For example any sex involving a differing level of power is unetthical if not a sin,. Also Sex that is nonconsentingl is definetly a sin ie   that involves  an adult  and a child, rape,  sex while under the influence of a drug. In all of these cases it is the indivual with more power that is the culpable one or the person that uses force/drugs/bribes/threats to subdue.

that quote is pretty close I found it in the game files and it reads.

##Graviton Theory

#TECH21

This unusual specimen is not so much a classic particle as a

connector--a kind of string attaching two particles. As distance

increases the connective power becomes attenuated, but if it is

cut the power vanishes: forever.

^

^        -- Academician Prokhor Zakharov,

^           "For I Have Tasted The Fruit"quote>

This is extracted directly from the file Called blurbs.txt  in the rood directroy of the game and from the patched version For verification I would sugest you go to www.apolyton.net

Timotheous

at that point wasn't there just a global ocean so it would only rais the level I should of made it read what happend to the vertical collum of water that was the flood water/ocean?

River  again

Thats something i am trying to do comming out of a pit of depression learning to love myself or atleast like myself for who I am. It seams a good rule set to have in addition to someof the others we have come across.

Will need to look into the language thing but i wold say it didn't happen

[ephorex_77 0]

1)Heaven

2)Eden AKA Paradise

3)Our universe

4) Purgatory

5) Hell

6) holding area quote>

 

Well, Heaven is there.

Eden (Paradise) is locked out to us through man's Original Sin. Although the good news, Heaven is our new paradise. Eden (I think) was just a perfect earth, but Adam and Eve sorta canned that whole thing.

Our universe...well, that's just earth.  =)

Purgatory is there, although millions of Protestants would fight tooth and nail for you to recant that "theory". You see, not many outside the Catholic Church believe in the existence of Purgatory, but to each his own, however misguided, I guess.

Hell is definitely there. It's not many people who will willingly admit that there's a Hell, much less a dumbed-down version. I cerainly subscribe to the belief tha there's a fire and brimstone hell full of the nastiest being you can imagine (in fact, worse).

Holding area?? That's Purgatory IMO. Purgatory is the holding area where you have your sins paid for through suffering. 

Technology and Morals

Virgin birth

Wouldnt that mean that god would of needed to come here in human form an well impregnate Mary or is it more like artifical insemination? Either way there would be some interference and again why would god not say he had been here  in the bible or are we meant to see it that way and evidence of a son to an unmarried woman at hat time having a child. This leads to my next question, I am not sure Mary was married so was she? quote>

Well, seeing as God made a lady (a few hundred years old I believe) fall pregnant although she was biologially incapable of doing so, I'd have to say that making a young lady fall pregnant isn't beyond His unfathomable powers. 

God is God. If you believe in a God, then this should be no problem.

Sex

i do know that some things are definetly wrong and considered sin. For example any sex involving a differing level of power is unetthical if not a sin,. Also Sex that is nonconsentingl is definetly a sin ie   that involves  an adult  and a child, rape,  sex while under the influence of a drug. In all of these cases it is the indivual with more power that is the culpable one or the person that uses force/drugs/bribes/threats to subdue. quote>

Lol =)

Try telling that to the Jews whose religion (from their Talmudic text) allows them to do so. Nine years for boys and...I think four or thereabouts for girls?? Oh, I think that rape is allowed for them as well, with a caveat. They have to do it in a place where no one will recognise them, then it's perfectly permissible. Cool eh??

I have reputable sources for what I say, so don't bother with the usual "ANTI-SEMITE!!". What I say is backed up. Besides, I worship a Semite anyway: Jesus.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: ephorex_77

Try telling that to the Jews whose religion (from their Talmudic text) allows them to do so. Nine years for boys and...I think four or thereabouts for girls?? Oh, I think that rape is allowed for them as well, with a caveat. They have to do it in a place where no one will recognise them, then it's perfectly permissible. Cool eh?? quote>

Well, muslims are permitted to kill anyone that isn't muslim or has dishonored themself or others, and catholics are encouraged to be "soldiers of god" and force catholic morals on those who don't believe in them. All major religions have something they permit their members to do that they really shouldn't. The reverse is true, too. All major religions have things they forbid or discourage their members from doing that they really shouldn't. The reasons vary, though, and sometimes aren't known for sure.

....

...and "It says so in the bible/koran/talmud/whatever" doesn't count as a reason. Some person had to have made the rule, or it couldn't be in the holy book. I'm talking about why the rule was made, not why it's followed.

....

...and "god said so" isn't a reason for the rule being made. Man invented god, after all, not the other way around as many like to believe.

[ephorex_77 0]

...and "It says so in the bible/koran/talmud/whatever" doesn't count as a reason. Some person had to have made the rule, or it couldn't be in the holy book. I'm talking about why the rule was made, not why it's followed. quote>

True that. The Talmud is a collection of wise sayings (although there are whole chapters describing the proper examination of a women's period) and stories by rabbis who don't claim (unlike the writers of the Bible) to have been inspired by God. 

Well, as the proper way of urinating is in the Talmud, descriptions of how goy (non-Jews) females are in a state of filth from birth and how it's perfectly all right to kill goys (provided you lock him up in an airtight alabaster tomb and don't provide an artificial means of consuming the oxygen i.e. a candle), I'd say personally (again personal opinion here), it doesn't sound very God-inspired.

...and "god said so" isn't a reason for the rule being made. Man invented god, after all, not the other way around as many like to believe.quote>

Well, as a person who believes in the supreme veracity of science and as a person who's brought this up, the burden of proof lies with you to prove (via science I guess) that bold statement. Can you do that?? Can you show that man invented God and not the the way around??

[Compromise 1]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Well, Muslims are permitted to kill anyone that isn't Muslim or has dishonoured themself quote>

Generally there are only two crimes in Islam which justify the death penalty:

- Murder 
- Openly threatening Islam by attacking it and been an ex-Muslim.

However Muslims can change there religion as they like and not be condemned to death and that there should always be a fair trial and taking the law into your own hands is not allowed.

I have yet see anything in the Qur'an or Hadith that says that you can just plainly kill a non-Muslim. Here are some quotes from the same subject I could find...

'He is not a believer who eats his fill while his neighbour remain hungry by his side.' - Hadith

'If anyone is a oppressor to strengthen him, knowing that he is an oppressor, he has gone forth from Islam." - Hadith

'You shall not enter paradise until you have faith, and you cannot have faith until you love one another. Have compassion on those you can see, and he whom you cannot see will have compassion on you.' - Hadith

'God will not show mercy to the one who does not show mercy to others.' - Hadith

'Remind them [non-Muslims], for you are a reminder; but you are not a warder over them.' - Surah 88: 21-22 (Qur'an)

'But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thu [also] incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for  He is One that heareth and knowerth [all things].' - Surah 8: 61 (Qur'an)

One of the five articles of faith in Islam is Jihad. Part of this is Military Jihad, most Muslims agree that this is fighting for rights to worship Allah in peace and leaving others to do as they wish. Unfortunately a small group of extremists and as a result a lot of the western world interpret it as fighting to takeover the world and forcing everyone to become a Muslim. What happened on September 11th 2001 to most Muslims is not Jihad at all, just aggression by people who want to be narrow minded for there own wishes and not for Islam.

Originally posted by: ephorex_77

...and "god said so" isn't a reason for the rule being made. Man invented god, after all, not the other way around as many like to believe.quote>

Well, as a person who believes in the supreme veracity of science and as a person who's brought this up, the burden of proof lies with you to prove (via science I guess) that bold statement. Can you do that?? Can you show that man invented God and not the the way around??quote>

 

Neither has been or possibly can be proved, that is a ultimate question.

[moganite 4]

I would agree with compromise on this

My other point is i Dont belive in a god at all as there is no need for one and that has been my position . I was trying to at least see things from a different perspective to my own

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

The water is still here Moganite. Read my previous posts in this House, for what I believe about the flood. The part about children in the garden; is just me making assumptions. 

The Bible and science actually fit quite nicely, hand in hand.

Dinosaurs are in the Bible, Dinosaurs were in the story of Bel And The Dragon, from the Tanakh in Hebrew.

Man and Dino did walk together before the flood happened.

 The Bible shows why Carbon dating may not ever work properly.

The cure for bubonic plague or black death, was also shown in the Bible.

The Bible itself is mathmatically and scientifically logical.

Einsteins search for, Gods perfect formula for all things, led him to his proven thories on relativity and Energy. Einstein went to his death still attempting to solve it and not accepting quantum theory. Sadly, his Bible held the answer to this.

Nostradamus knew secrets he carried to his grave. One of those was the same secret that Einstein attempted to solve and the answer to it all is in your Bibles, but the spiritual part of the formula belongs to God.

Science, the universe and all things that are or shall be, are of one thing.

Just more theory of course, because I am no math genious. But My God has taught me many things through experience that also connects with all other things.

God performs miracles. Science cannot explain the siritual part of Gods formula, nor could Einstein or Nostradamus, although they both tried and both read their Bibles fervently.

[moganite 4]

Frndofyaweh

noted can you please tell me (pm) what page they are on I think I might of missed them.

I do have alot of experince with maths and science and could probably work a way to debate illustrate what the science involved is actually is. One thing you may not know is if you change a few numbers/universal constants you get a very different universe eg if the strong nuclear force was even a tiny bit different it would be alot more difficult to have stars or life as the stable elemnts would change considerably.

Where I have problems is with spiritual matters and it is mostly my hypothesis and guesswork and deduction with a bit of learning froma anumber of sources.

[Boggy1 45]

On something totally different (since if I reply to the current topic at hand I will most likely get banned), I know a Christian person who says something very much to the effect of;

"Global warming is a lie told to us by infidels and liberals! Anyone who believes in global warming shall go to hell for all eternity! No true Christian believes in global warming!"

So, what is your stance on this?

[Compromise 1]

Originally posted by: Boggy1 I know a Christian person who says something very much to the effect of;

"Global warming is a lie told to us by infidels and liberals! Anyone who believes in global warming shall go to hell for all eternity! No true Christian believes in global warming!"quote>

 

There are always going to people that will say that sort of thing. However I think in general most religions including Christianity are quite caring about the environment and although most fundamental holy books were written before the thought of global warming general beliefs would point toward global warming been something worth to think about.

[Boggy1 45]

Hmm, well, to be honest, I think Christianity is one of the least envrionmentally caring religions. They think of humans as superiour to everything, and that animals are almost like our slaves. They only believe that WE have souls, and that would apparently justify killing an anmimal because it doesn't have one...

But that's just my opinion and how I see it...

[jglei701 8]

Boggy,

From a scientific standpoint, I am quite skeptical of global warming (especially in terms of things like how it affects huricanes in the Eastern United States, among other things). The sample size for weather observations isn't actually that large... it's only been happening for, at the longest around 100 years.

You call out Christians and say that they're terrible to the environment... but why aren't you calling out secular humanists who don't believe in anything but their own pleasure and well being? For example, industrialists at the turn of the century served themselves and didn't care about who they stepped on to get to where they were and didn't care what they did to the environment. Lumping Christians into a huge group is just stereotyping and leads to nothing but an over-generalized view from your standpoint, and while that may be the most expedient way for you to deal with those around you, it isn't taking into true account anything real about the individuals who you are speaking of.

You may be talking about specific people, but don't stereotype.

If you read the Bible, it says that we are to be good stewards with what we have been given and that it's man's responsibility to take care of it. This sounds like an environmentally responsible view, as opposed to saying that we're on equal standing with the plants and animals (and ultimately putting the blame of how our world is on them, too).

[Boggy1 45]

I was just giving Christians as an example. Sorry to offend.

I know it says that we are the Stewards of the Earth, but to be frank, I believe that is human impotence. We always like to think that we are the best and at the top, when in fact we are not.

That's why being a Buddhist is so great, I have huge respect for all the environment, and am not afraid to say I am not at all imporant in the grand scheme of the Universe.

[koffee 0]

The Christians are terrible to the environment. Oh, and let's not forget all those oil wells in the Middle East, so I guess the Muslims are not aligned with Greenpeace either. And Jewish and Mormon investors finance all sorts of things that are harming the environment. What about the Chinese and their environment, or the Former Soviet Union, the USA, Europe, etc., etc.?

It is easy to pick on a religion or country or culture or whatever. And, it is almost as easy to find some facts to back you up. Why single out the Christians? I'm not doing that, I hope, but I can think of lots of reasons, right or wrong. (The thread does seem a bit Christian-heavy, for example.)

But they seem to be a popular target in general, lately, what with The Da Vinci Code and all that. I think some people believe it is not PC to pick on the Muslims lately. Again, I'm not saying any of this is right. I think John Lennon said it best. Now you may think Imagine is a blasphemous song, but I really can't see how anyone can argue that religion (among other things) is so often a dividing line.

And, IMHO, it is an unfortunate fact of humanity that such lines create targets and bring about us vs. them mentalities.

I was raised Roman Catholic. I was baptized and confirmed, and attended Catholic school from first grade through high school graduation. I left the church in high school. In part, I credit my High School Religion teacher with opening my eyes to the alternative. She actually played Imagine in class and then tried to put it down.  (Another big influence around this time was Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet.)

I guess you could say I wandered for quite a while spiritually before I found direction. Oh, please don't try to save me or bring me back to the church. I'm in my 40's now, so this wasn't a rash decision.

I am not at all opposed to organized religions. But they are not for me. I am not at all opposed to the belief and worship of some deity. Again, that's not my thing.

One of the problems I sometimes face is that people still expect me to attach some religious label to what/who I am.

OK, I'm a poly-atheist. I disbelieve in multiple gods.

I like the play on words, and after all, can't most/all of us list gods we don't believe in?

How about this? I'm like Boggy, a bit Buddhist and a bit Deist.

I won't try to explain those terms. Actually, I started to when I first typed up this post, but it was loooong!

One of my minor hobbies, though, is reading some stuff that could be considered anti-religious, or at least anti one specific religion. Many people might classify some of those religions as cults, though, but sometimes it can be hard to draw a line between cults and religions. I've read everything from Dan Brown's book to fictional novels about Amway-like organizations. I especially like reading stuff opposed to one church that I won't name, but has ties to a famous science fiction author. I don't have a voracious appetite for this stuff- it is just a minor hobby/interest.

Another minor interest is reading about similarities between some religions and their beliefs and/or historical events. (For example, some Native American tribes have legends about a great flood and a raft.) Again, I'm no expert on these subjects, but I think I get a pretty wide view of many sides.

And now I will return you to your regularly scheduled debates.

p.s. I really want to find some explanation of how the bible shows carbon dating doesn't work properly. I think I'll hit Google after this.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: koffee 

 . . . Now you may think Imagine is a blasphemous song 

. . . quote>

 

I never did understand this one.  

The song is about "imagining" various things.  As is, take a minute and think about them.

What is so horrible about considering different ideas?

[Boggy1 45]

I always guessed that if you thought of different ideas...you would realise that most organized religions are flaud...(my opinions)

It kinda works on the same principles as a Dictatorship.

[koffee 0]

The lyrics do tend to draw some conclusions based on this imagining, though.

[jglei701 8]

Personally, my skepticism with carbon dating has to do with the limited sample size. Scientists say that carbon decays as a constant rate, and it has, for as long as the world has been around. I'm not sure they can really make that claim... scientists have been carbon dating for just over fifty years. What's to say that carbon decay hasn't slowed down in the last 1000 years? The earth's rotation has. Now, you might say that this is a minute amount and doesn't really matter... but the earth's rotation is something that people, at one time, thought was constant. It, however, is not.

This is just one example. I think that science does a lot of good things and accomplishes much. But when certain ideas are accepted and demonstrated as TRUTH (in a scientific sense) then it goes beyond the scope of what science can and ultimately is able to do.

Like I said earlier, I am a mathematician. I have done statistics and statistical surveys. When I was in college, my stats teacher said one of the things he loved about statistics is that you never have to say you're 100% certain. For example, we used pig dice from the game "Pass the Pigs" and tried to determine the probabilities of each side coming up. When our findings were presented, we did not give a number answer (i.e. the chances of rolling a leaning jowler when rolling a pig die is 34%), we gave a range (we are 95% confident that the chances of rolling a leaning jowler is between 32 and 36%). This 95% confidence interval says that we are 95% certain that the average value of a sample set will lie within the range stated. One could perform a 99% confidence interval... but they can never be 100% certain that they have the correct answer. As my professor said, only God truly knows the actual probability of obtaining the different rolls for Pass the Pig.

Is my example a little dumb? Yes, it is. But what was the size of the sample that we needed to perform the 95% confidence interval? Over 1200 rolls. If scientists look at carbon dating at this moment in history, they need to look at it from other moments in history as well, to see if the rate of carbon decay has remained constant over this time. This can't be done during a 5, 10, 50 year increment, it must be done over longer periods of time.

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

Moganite: I love science friend! anything you can illustrate, I could easily understand. I can speculate, just cannot calculate. lol.

Boggy1 said this;

"I was just giving Christians as an example. Sorry to offend.

I know it says that we are the Stewards of the Earth, but to be frank, I believe that is human impotence. We always like to think that we are the best and at the top, when in fact we are not.

That's why being a Buddhist is so great, I have huge respect for all the environment, and am not afraid to say I am not at all imporant in the grand scheme of the Universe. "

How odd; that is nearly a Christian point of view also. I cannot come to my Father without first; admitting I am weak when I stand alone, second is to come to Him in humbliness, open heartedness and third is being teachable.

I am a Christian and I am merely the dirt of this Earth. I pray for those who are against me and love them. The reason I feel these things for an enemy is only because I know I am just the same and no better than my enemy, in my nature. We all have the same potential to build a civil world or a corrupt one.

Christians do not think they are better than other people. Although it appears that way to those other people.

Why? Why is it that Christians appear stuck up? Why does it appear as if they think they are above everyone else?

It is the confidence folks! You are seeing the confident and inner peace shining from them! These Christians KNOW without any doubt what so ever, that God really has gave them a better life. They know that He will help them at every turn in life, that as long as they look up, He looks down on them. That is why they carry themselves so boldly. Remember; A faithful Christian does not fear death itself. Christians do not think they are better than non-Christians. Those who have never felt this spiritual confidence cannot define it properly and assume it is a high and mighty attitude problem, but it really is not that at all.

[koffee 0]

jglei701: That's smells of science.  It is also logical (IMHO) and mentions a bunch of ideas I already know or have heard.  I'm trying to find more about how the bible explains all of this.

 

And because I have "dating" as one of the search terms, Google brings up some sites that I can be sure have little to do with this discussion.    Of course, most pages I've found talk about the same stuff you mentioned, and explain how carbon dating is not proof against the bible.

 

So far, I haven't found anyone that mentions specific bible passages and how they relate to or explain this issue.  I'm looking forward to finding this, regardless if I believe it, and hope that it is not simply: "Well, the bible is true and contradicts carbon dating, so that is false."

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

Koffee: Our entire Bible hints at our Earths inconsistant aging process.

Read Job for evidence of Dinosaurs. Read Genesis for evidence of the Firmament or translated properly from the Hebrew and the Bible description; A water canopy that protected our atmosphere and held in moisture(tropical). Before the flood, the Bible tell us it never rained and "giants roamed the Earth".  The Earth was very tropical and the night time mists were all that need be, to keep the plants and animals surviving. Makes perfect sense with all other science you see?

The book of Genesis describes a light that breaks through that canopy and magnetises our planet. (meteor)

There are plenty of logical explainations for sciences mysteries in our Bible. People are just timid about actually looking at it from another perspective, I think.

Gosh Koffee, My whole Bible is full of references to dark men, giants, diminishing lifespans of all species, etc..

Carbon dating is completely and utterly hinged on carbonic decay remaining constant, but that decay is just as well hinged on carbon level and oxygen levels in our atmosphere. So if you have a planet with an ALL TROPICAL Enviroment; You also must have increased gases, primarily oxygen and carbon dioxide.

 What does the pre flood Earth of my Bible have in common with carbon dating?

 Those conditions described in Genesis,  will irrefutably increase the rate of decay and carbon will build up much much faster. This would give a scientist in the future, who thinks carbonic decay remained constant, a much much older reading that they should be getting.

[thesonofgray 0]

Um...I'm gonna try to stay out of the science debate since I've really said all that I can on the subject, but I do want to point out one thing in the post by jglei701:

This might sound a little odd (it did when I reread this post) but statistics is as exact a science as anything else that can be called science (including geology, physics, etc).  The point of statistics is not to give an answer but a level of predictablitiy or confidence in an answer.  That in and of itself is exact.  Statistical conclusions are then sometimes used to predict an answer but that is not statistics.  By stating 'we are 95% confident that the chances of rolling a leaning jowler is between 32 and 36%' you are giving an exact statistical analysis.

And while your professor believes that only God truly knows the actual probability of obtaining the different rolls for Pass the Pig, I believe that no one knows because the act required to find the definitive probability hasn't occured and never will.  But that's my opinion.

There is a level of error in everything we do.  After all, we are only human.  But that error shouldn't be reason to dismiss the whole of what science has achieved and is currently achieving and will achieve in the future.  Unlike the Bible, science is a living, growing, and adapting thing.  Everything we do is not perfect and some things we do are most definately wrong (or very imperfect) but that is why science is so amazing.  Science yearns to correct and better itself, to find more, learn more. 

Some will say this makes science and religon parallels, but I don't believe that.  Religion is definitive, or at least the way it is practiced makes it definitive.  Science is not nor ever will be definitive.  There will always be something new to find, something to correct, and everything to make better.  Science is contantly changing for the better (but possibly abused by its users).  Religon does not change (for better or worse), only the people who practice religion change (again for the better or worse).

The reasons outlined above are why I will probably always find science in a higher regard than any religion.

D***.  I just did the exact opposite of what I said in my first sentence of this post.

[koffee 0]

frndofyaweh: Thank you.  That's actually better than I was expecting.  I was trying to make the connection, and couldn't really picture someone quoting one of the books with like, "And so it was said, go forth now and know that carbon dating is flawed." 

 

If I were to put all my belief in science, I would still need to have faith in something.  That something may just be faith in the accuracy of my work and calculations, my initial assumptions, and so on.

 

I've read a lot of the same evidence as you.  But what you see as evidence, I simply see as one possible theory, possibly shrouded in metaphor.  There are other theories, and they also claim lots of evidence.  I feel that any evidence -yours, mine, theirs- requires faith in something.

 

But you back this up with science.  Cool!  I'll take that any day over a simple "because it is God's will".  Just because I don't believe some things doesn't mean I can't accept them as hypothetical.  It's nice to see things lead logically (to me) from those beliefs or hypotheses.

 

Gosh Koffee, My whole Bible is full of references to dark men, giants, diminishing lifespans of all species, etc..quote>

Mine too.  Cool book, ain't it?  There are a lot of good stories in there, and some really good advice too! 

 

I appreciate the fact that you find a lot more in it than that, but that's all it is to me.  My view is different.  And, btw, it is so cool to stumble across such a lengthy, intelligent, and civil thread where we can see and express  these different views.

 

I had "Religion" as a regular class for all 12 years of Roman Catholic school, and then some.  I'm not saying that this makes me an expert on anything.  In fact, I might have gotten a distorted view because I did not get the "and science explains this part like so..." explanations, and I didn't have a lot of insight into other religious alternatives.  Luckily, I can often turn to one of the Discovery channels now to get some of that.  And then there's the web, books, documentaries, etc.  Sure, there is also your community and church but let's face it: we live in a global village, and those places might not offer the widest variety of viewpoints.

 

Of course, with the web or cable TV or any source, you must remember Sturgeon's Revalation (aka Sturgeon's Law).  This is, of course, a theory- but it is one I put a lot of faith in. 

 

I'm not a confirmed 100% deist, if there is such a thing.  Intelligent design?  Can't rule it out for sure, and science still can't piece together the big bang 100% or come up with the unified theory, so who can say.  When presented with a theory and a non-theory, I'll give the edge to the theory.

 

I personally find evolution to be a fascinating theory.  I'm a self-labeled critter person, after all.  I'm sure someone can point how the bible (or other scriptures/theories) leaves room for evolutionary events or whatever.  Here's one for you: If the Creator is so powerful and exists beyond time, than why does the blueprint for His creation have to be fixed?  Can't things change (evolve) according to His plan?   I think there is room for Deism and Evolution and probably a few more things thrown in.

More theories, though, and no proof (from me).  My belief system isn't about the ultimate answer anyway- at least for right now.  To me, it seems that following the right path through life is part of many religions.  Perhaps the religion has guides, teachers, teachings, scriptures, rules, and so on.  All of these help to define and/or show the path . The path probably has a goal.  It may even have some forks that lead off to a really bad alternative.

For me, it is all about the right path through life.  That's an extreme simplification of Buddhism.  In a way, my faith is that the right path leads to the ultimate answers.

 

And on another note:

 

I always welcome the idea that we should not take the 6 days and day of rest literally, but think in "God time".  To misquote a comedian I saw years and years ago:

 

"God, you are so powerful, you could create the universe.  I mean, you did create the universe.  Just look at the Grand Canyon.  Scientists say that took thousands of years.  But to you, it was probably like a minute."

 

"This is true."

 

"Why, I bet you're so powerful and beyond earthly things that a million dollars is like a dime."

 

"True, as well."

 

"So, God, can I have a dime?"

 

"Sure.  Just give me a minute."

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

Lol! Think I heard that joke as well before, Koffee.

Actuallly, have had great opportunities to meet some interesting people. People who can show many connections to science and God and all things in the universe.

I have been to a seminar where star charts were perfectly matched, with Bible events and at that very same time also matched to earths position and also to the Hebrew tribes Of Isreal.

12 tribes of Isreal, with one lost tribe of 13.  12 astrological symbols in the zodiac, with one being lost of the 13. But that wasn't enough I had to see more.

All those charts laid out actually did jump right out at you. Science has easily measured the distance and revolutionary time scales of all our planets as well as Stars and there positions at any given time in history.

This fellow took established astronimical data on  known constellations and married it up with events in the BIble and clearly I could see the connections.  As someone who has viewed the stars and used a telescope and star charts, I could see he was correct;  the constellations and the moon and the earth were always in direct line with each other during life changing events in the Bible.

Wish I could get to all that information, because it was completely amazing stuff, whether you believe in God or not.

This guy had dates, times, charts and even the tropic lines of the earth fell into it. Tropic of capricorn, tropic of Cancer. He even showed how specific ages were named; age of aquarius and age of Picses(fishers of men). The Bible even contains this quote: "This is the dawning of the age of aquarius" and what signs to look for when it arrives.

[Joesocwork 4]

Sounds interesting frndofyaweh, do you have a link?

Oh man I wish I had the ability (and mostly time) to be able to read and to respond to everyone's posts; I still owe a couple. But one of the great things I like about this thread as a participant is everyone's sincerity.

[ephorex_77 0]

Originally posted by: Boggy1 I always guessed that if you thought of different ideas...you would realise that most organized religions are flaud...(my opinions)

It kinda works on the same principles as a Dictatorship.quote>

 

Oh??

Reason and logic aren't incompatible with religion. And yes, most of them are flawed; it's a logical conseqence of being fallibly human I guess. 

Guess I should be an animal instead eh?? But unfortunately (or so it would seem), my religion doesn't respect animals, placing man above animals and plants. Oh dear...

Well then, I guess I'll have to bear in mind that God made man and animals equal (I'll just forget that pesky verse in Genesis which says that God made man masters of animals ). I'll bear that in mind the next time I see a dog. I'll be sure to wish him good day; heck, I might even try and talk to him about the weather. Seems almost possible doesn't it??

A dictatorship eh?? Well, forcing people regardless of their beliefs to recognise every single "right" (no matter how...interesting) known to man is pretty dictatorial IMO. Sounds familiar??