Drummerworld. Com lounge forum
Download 185.85 Kb.
|
|
Posted: 21.11.2004, 21:44 Post subject: M-Theory Thread MODIFIED TO THE BIG JESUS DEBATE. DRUMMERWORLD.COM LOUNGE FORUM. note: more in the thread came before this section. the topic was originally cutting edge physics and quantum theory. 1 - nutha jason jesus is quantum. being both completely God and completely man ... two mutually exclusive states. like an electron that has particle and wave nature we have to accept that he had both the full nature of God and the full nature of man. although it is hard for us to understand how this could be from the limited view point of our dimension but like an electron we have to trust that it is just so. even He gave us advice about how to describe him, he said simply 'I AM'. what i like about this is that it means that God really did create in his image right down to his own quantum nature - the universe matches its maker. j 2 - brettamusvonadverb I hope you're joking. 3 - nutha jason no joke. it is amazing to me as a christian who reads loads of science books how much science actually proves what i believe rather than causes doubt. i became a believer late in life (18) and until then i thought anyone who gave up their life for something doubtful was a fool. afterwards it was like opening my eyes. now it seems everything points in the same direction and best of all i didn't give up my life, it just got better. j 4 - superlow I whole heartedly disagree with you. God and science are like oil and water, they dont mix together very well. Christian science is an oxymoron. The antithesis of each other. There are no facts to explain anything of the miracles of religion. But there is plenty of proof that backs up science on a day to day basis. Show me some proof for a religious miracle, I dare you. People need to accept the fact that there does not have to be an explainable resaon for everything thing that happens. And just because you can't explain it does not mean it was god's will, that is a cop out. People should be lucky they get to die a quick death and not suffer boredom for an eternity. 5 - nutha jason it all depends on what you've read and experienced. since becoming a christian i have read loads through the lense of my belief. paleo-anthropology, evolution, retro-biblical history, astro physics and, as above, chaos theory and quantum physics ... all of these have revealed God to me further, rather than disproved him. i have many atheist friends and i listen to some pretty hard music but i am a free christian. i believe and am happy with what i believe. i'm no fool. i don't take things at face value. i build these opinions over years of self testing and let me tell you, no one can say anything to me that would change my mind about the fundaments of my belief. thus, when i read something in the annuls of science that has sufficient proof and logic behind it i don't go into a flat spin as some christian's might. i think to myself: "hmm, interesting so how does that fit with the whole picture ... ah yes, there. right, now let me discuss this with a few folks and see what they think." why should science even attempt to prove a miracle. if it happens or happened, halleluyah. let me tell you about a miracle ... you are looking at your computer screen through a pair of eyes that science has long ago shown could not have simply evolved, they were designed. the retina would never develope independant of the iris, independant of the occupital lobe etc. in nature we see thousands of these abberations of design that defy the fluke of natural selection. evolution occours, like the water cycle. it is a system deigned to sustain the greater system. but it is guided by a greater design. from what i know of life on earth, it would take more faith for me to believe it was all accidental than to believe in a benevolent creator. besides i would rather believe that there is a life after death, one we cannot with our limited minds or experience begin to describe, than to hope for a quick death. an eternity of boredom? the God i worship is awsomely complex and infinite. i think that living with him and being in his love ... eternity will be too short. yes. science and religion may seem like oil and water. but have you see what happens to oil and water when you add a little detergent? for the believer it is the soap of faith that lets the two mix. j 6 - superlow That miracle that you describe with eyes developing is called evolution. A very natural phenomenon that darwin proved 150 years ago. "eternity will be too short" It's called eternity for a reason. It is not short and apparently from what I hear religion preach is that it lasts forever. Yikes! That is scary shit. What would you do forever? I would like to know. Honestly I would rather rot in the ground or hang out in an earn and not know anything. It seems to me that detergent of fatith seem be brainwashing the masses as usual. 7 - nutha jason nice use of the imagery superlow. but people often turn to the tired old brainwashing argument. if you read my post carefully i'm a student of evolution. in fact i know enough about it to know its limitations. as for eternity being too short. you are still thinking like someone this side of death. we cannot, neither you nor i, know how we will be after death, what values we will hold, what sense we will possess, what knowledge will be revealed to us. i was just being prosaic. you see i think that God is clever than we can know. he has put us in a system that neither confirms his exsistence, nor denies it. if God were a huge glowing figure we could see in the night sky, everyone would be a believer (or a fool). instead he lets us choose to learn about him in the beautiful words of his book and he gave us the means and minds and curiosity to discover him in his universe if, and only if we first take the step to accepting that he exsists. like i said, before i became a believer i thought like you. but since then i have seen and experienced things that are really indescribable. you can't describe the colour red to a person who is blind from birth and get them to understand exactly what red is. you might say red is warm, or that apples are red. but put an apple in their hand and they feel that it is cold. the world of the believer is like once being blind and now seeing ... open your eyes. j 8 - superlow I respect your idea's and I think you are very well educated. I just don't believe in mixing those kinds of ideology. I have had profound almost spititual experinces on LSD. Before you write me off as a drug addict. I have felt what you have felt and seen some pretty crazy things that might suggest to me that there is in fact a god. But when the experience was over, that's all it was, an experience. An experience brought on by the mind. That is what separates us from other beings is out ability to rationalize things. I believe that our ability to rationalize thing is brought on by eveolution. It's because we are able to rationlize these things I believe we are pained by these these questions. Why are we here? Why do we do what we do? What does it all mean? I don't know what it all means but in my experiences it is not supposed to mean anything. That doesn't mean life is worthless either. It tells me one thing. Live for the here and now. Treat man the way you want to be treated. Fufill your destiny, make children if that makes you more complete. But don't expect something to be waiting for you the other end. 9 - nutha jason i would never write you off superlowe. you have my respect dude. i confess that i took drugs for years and was a christian at the same time. some might think that hypocritical but i had a lot of heart to heart conversations with my fellow users that would not have happened if i was a stiff upper lip sort. God works in mysterious ways and even now that i am off the stuff and never will go on it again i have plenty of friends still in that boat and they share their experiences and problems with me. i know what experiences you refer to and in some rudimentary ways they are spiritual but what i had was profound and lasting. not a trick of the mind, not something i could wake up from later and say, 'oh it was all just an experience.' it changed my life (for 11 years now) ... that's the difference. so why are we here? the answer is surprisingly simple: experience ... and choice. how could we begin to know the length of eternity if we did not judge time as if it were limited. death teaches us the worth of a life time and so the concept of years and decades has meaning. also suffering, destruction and chaos teach us about perfection, paradise and order. without shadow we would take light for granted. i hate english winters but summer has never been so sweetly savoured. we lose loved ones but what joy to regain them after death. we see our world polluted and run down. what a thing to get back a paradise. and then there's choice. we need to be free, and free to make mistakes too so that we can engage our God in a relationship because we know he has forgiven us. i'm still a terrible sinner, but i am free. and while i'm in that unseen unknowable infinite after life i will spend part of that eternity in awe and thanks for the forgiveness given to me. i'm not trying to convert anyone here. but i hope i've given anyone reading this food for thought. don't throw away christianity before you have really and honestly researched it. ther's far more to it than i'm even prepared to type here but it is cool that you even bothered to argue with me at all superlow. repect. j 10 - Ghosty shit, what've i walked into? i'll leave you lot to it 11 - superlow Hey, I enjoy philosophy. Humans wouldn't be humans if they did question life. I enjoy good coversation as well, I just get a little heated with religion because I feel it is responsible for a lot of bullshit in the world right now. People use it as a tool of hate and destrauction instead having a philosophical conversation with people who don't have the same spiritual views. 12 - brettamusvonadverb Jesus H..... you are serious. Superlow nailed it already but I have to ask a couple quick questions about the Baby Jesus: Christian's believe that Jesus sacrificed his life to forgive man of their sins. If Jesus knew that by going through a little suffering (not unlike countless humans before him) in order to attain everlasting rule over the universe and live in paradise for eternity, is the sacrifice he made all that significant? Kinda sounds like he sacrificed a Ford Pinto (life on earth) for a Gulfstream Jet (ruling the universe in paradise for eternity). All he had to do was spend 30yrs on earth and get tortured a little bit and ruling the universe in paradise for eternity was his reward. For a guy who has supposidely existed at the right hand of God forever, 30yrs is a fraction of a fraction of a millisecond. No offense, I've never heard any Christian answer this question without contradictions. Perhaps you know the answers. 13 - nutha jason it depends on who you think jesus was. if he was just a guy or a great prophet then yes, you are right. but jesus isn't just anything. he is God! the same man who walked the hills of israel 2000 years ago looked upon the void and said let there be light and countless stars came into being. it is hard to understand but when you do it is the most beautiful thing in exsistence ... the truth of the christ. so here it is. "a man can show no greater love for his fellow man than to lay down his life for him" how much more so that the one true God, in his endevours to give us a perfected eternity, would choose to put aside his awesome power and deserved glory, to walk amoung us as a human, to teach us the final lessons of love and then ... in spite of the fact that he could wipe them out, he allowed his own creation to torture him to death. why? to provide, amoung many other reasons, proof that he has complete control over death. it was one thing to raise other people to life, but to raise yourself? impossible. for a human that is. jesus' sacrifice fullfilled 144 prophecies (most made 500 years before he was 'born') but it is his resurrection that showed what he was trully capable of. so you see, he didn't swap 30 years for an eternity. rather he 'stepped' out of eternity into chronological time and completed his creation personally ... deeply personally. one thing you need to remember is that time is a very human limitation. when christians say that jesus forgave our sins we don't mean that the slate is clear and we won't sin again. when i found jesus eleven years ago he forgave me of all my previous sins, and ... AND all the sins i was still going to commit and still will commit to my shame. this doesn't excuse me sinning but it does provide me with goals and also sensing that forgiveness on a day to day basis is very encouraging. i love God, not because i have to, but because he gives me endless reasons to. j 14 - mediocrefunkybeat Nice debate going guys. Personally, I disagree with a lot of religion, but I'm open minded enough to not slap people down for expressing it, it's their right and who am I to say whether they're right or wrong? I'm studying the philosophy of religion at school at the moment, its really, really interesting. The Ontological Argument, the Kalam Cosmolgical Argument, Pascal's Wager, the Teleological Argument, Religious Experience, the lot. Still, to me, I don't believe religion is necessarily the belief in a God, yes, I admit this is PART of religion, but most importantly religion imposes a code of morality. This is true of almost all world religions. Take, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Hinduism, Judaism. They all say the same things at base level: Don't Kill, Don't Steal, Etc, etc... My mum, for example got called 'the most Christian person I've (not me, but from the point of view of ther person who said it) ever met' this was because she had temporarily adopted these girls when their mother was diagnosed with skizophrenia, without being legally obliged to, purely on the goodness of her heart. I think that religion could do a lot of good for the World. Unfortunately, for me, too much evil has been carried out in it's name for me to believe. I cannot believe in religion in which people commit 'holy wars' or believe that 'they are the one true faith, everyone else will rot in eternal damnation' My solution: The world should go Buddhist ;) No Gods, Just pure philosophy and enlightenment. 15 - nutha jason great to see you in on the debate again MFB. you make good points so here i'll adress them: Quote: "Still, to me, I don't believe religion is necessarily the belief in a God, yes, I admit this is PART of religion, but most importantly religion imposes a code of morality." few people remember that Christ was against religion. why do you think the pharisees and saducees had him killed. he said to them that they were hipocrits. they made laws and routines that made it easier for people to worship an unseen god, that made people more obsessed with the system of belief than the true original focus of it. i also don't like the idea of religion in many of its forms and i include christianity. i go to church on my terms. religion that works for the good of the poor and spreads the good news i can work with but if it aint written in the bible then i aint buying it. the order for me goes like this: bible first, prayers second, what people say third. Quote: "Unfortunately, for me, too much evil has been carried out in it's name for me to believe." i have studied the history of the church in depth. the estimated number of christians that have lived since christ run into the billions. if only one percent of those called themselves christians and yet were evil then their numbers run into the tens of millions. if only one percent of those were in any position of power at all where they could do something that would be bad enough to find its way into history books their numbers would run into the hundreds of thousands. divide that number by 2000 years and you would get 50 or more historically evil incidents caused by church leaders EVERY YEAR. that's more than one a week for two millenia. BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE. in the history of the world a group of people the size and complexity of the christian church has behaved itself surprisingly well ... in fact impossibly well(this is evidence that God is involved in his church through the action of the Holy Spirit). in spite of even the most biased research AGAINST the church, history shows that the church is good. a lot of people have used the tired 'evil of the church in history' arguement, citing the spanish inquisition etc, etc. but actually an open minded read of the history of the church shows that this is entirely not the case. besides, this is in spite of the devil's best attacks against the church. the antichrist obviously works mostly on and in the church and has failed utterly. Quote: "I cannot believe in religion in which people commit 'holy wars' or believe that 'they are the one true faith, everyone else will rot in eternal damnation' " well i don't necessarily believe that people will rot in eternal damnation, nor that christianity is the only way of getting 'into heaven'. it is the best and most proper way though. i cannot believe in a God that would for instance damn some cannibal child who lived in papua new guinea 100 years before europeans arrived. that child may be a good person in a kind loving family who leads a blameless life except for the fact that in their tribe they eat the flesh of their enemies ... an abomination. No, God loves us all. that child in my example is innocent and all the others like them. that is why the bible says: don't judge your brother. god judges all the world at the end of time. he examines their whole lives and motivations and emmotions surrounding every incident from birth to death and gives the soundest judgement imaginable. this is a precarious position to be in tho. all of us are selfish and do things for the wrong reasons and often without regret. we can have no idea what God's judgement on us will be. if we have ignored our very maker and the inbuilt morality of our spiritsa nd indulged in lives that cause others pain then perhaps we deserve damnation christ is the only guarantee of salvation. if we believe in him and his actions on the cross, we are affriming that we believe in god's love and that we are trusting something we cannot see ... christians call this faith. it requires an intimate life long relationship with God. and a positive endevour to love all our kind. the greatest gift we might give to someone else is to show them the way to christ so that they can also have that guarantee of salvation. sometimes that means talking, like we are now, other times it means just being a good, happy, humble, wise and above all loving, giving human. setting this kind of example speaks louder than words. which is why the bible calls love greater than faith or hope. in sum, the world is judged by God the father and the christians are saved by and answerable to jesus. and seeing what he went through for us we can be confident in his love and so have faith and hope and will therefore want to share it. j 16 - mediocrefunkybeat Good points, and I take on board a lot of what you say. Especially regarding the evils of the Church. Today, in philosophy, we did 'Pascal's Wager' which is an analogy, it's flawed, but I'll go through it and then point out criticisms. Situation 1: God does not exist: i) You choose to live your life in a religious manner, but this would stop you from doing what you want to do. You do not end up going to Heaven. You Lose. ii) You choose to live your life how you want to. This means you commit so called 'sins' and suchlike. As there is no Heaven or Hell, you have no consequences. You Win. Situation 2: God Exists: i) You live your life in a religious manner, stopping you from doing what you would truly like to do. But you go to Heaven. You Win. ii) You live your life as you want, commiting sin etc. You go to Hell. You Lose. What Pascal asks which consequence you would least like, basically, he pushes you to believing in God, 'Just in Case' However, this is a form of self-interest, and when interlinked with a belief in God, the motivation could contradict that belief. Meaning that if you CHOOSE to believe in God, and you do it for yourself, then that could contradict the whole idea of morality (and therefore God) in the first place. Secondly, how do we know what is 'sin?' Is all morality relative? Why should we be moral? If you don't believe in God, but you live your life well (in a Christian sense) then will you still go to Hell for not holding that belief? OR: If you DO believe in God, but believe in him for the wrong reasons (self-interest), will you still go to Heaven. Lastly, how do we know what God wants? I just thought it was kind of interesting. 17 - superlow I just refuse to believe that because there are so many cultures and so many religions that one can believe that their beliefs are the correct beleif. It seems to be a farce in my opinion. If a billion people in India are Hindus and Christians are spread out all over the world, then you have Buhdists in the eastern region and tribesmen in africa that believe their totem pole is god. They all seem to believe in different gods and different after lifes. It just seems to me that it is hopcrytical to say that the Chritians path to enlightenment and heaven is correct. No one has any more of clue than anyone else and you guys argue like you know where you are going. Then you say how do you know I am not going there. It's a story, some one was bored and wrote an elaborate story, you suckers all read it and bought it. You got suckered, out of money and out of time. The reason you got suckered it because you're afraid. You're afraid becuase the likely possibility that there is no afterlife and no god scares you. I think people should be afraid to die and should love life, but not be afraid because of some god in the sky or because a silly book told them it was there. 18 - nutha jason to MFB: Whatever motivation one has for searching for God is secondary and even i believe insignificant once he finds you. words cannot describe the experience ... unfortunately. we humans are so proud of our little minds that we believe we can rationalise everything. but the bible says that the wisdom of the world is foolishnes in the light of God's wisdom. epiphany does not come through study and logic. if it did then only the educated would be saved. when God finds you and reveals himself to you - and this is only when you achieve the humility to take the leap of faith and pray truly to God and ask him to come into your life - there is no doubt in your mind. he shows you what you need to know when you need to know and in the manner you need to know it. he becomes more real to you than life itself. motivation after that, is pure thanks giving. to superlow: actually i take comfort in the fact that there are so many different beliefs. if it was Gods will that we should seek him even tho we were agents of free will then shurely he would build into us a desire to understand the spiritual, a curiosity if you like. an unfortunate side effect of this necessary aspect of our natures was that we would decieve each other and the generations that followed us by either making up Gods or warping the ideas of the true God. but like i said: if you grew up, for instance in a muslim household, and lived a fairly blameless life, i find it hard to believe (actually i refuse to believe) that you would be damned for your beliefs. you would face the judgement of God ... and the old testament shows us that that particular judgement is sovereign and worthy of respect (he can be very wrathful). christians believe that ours is the only garanteed path to heaven because christ IS GOD. and so by associating ourselves with him and his teaching. by trying, and not always succeeding mark you, to follow him we show repentance, humility and love for our creator. this doesn't earn us salvation because that is his free gift to us. all the good deeds we may try to do after becomming believers are not some sort of payment, but rather an expression of our thanks and love for a God who has become real to us. as well as all this you should know that the bible is the oldest reliably transcripted text in the history of this planet. scientists and historians have now found ample proof that this is so. it was not written by some bored ancient person, but by hundreds of great men and women over thousands of years who were inspired by the holy spirit to bring god's message to us all. the same holy spirit ensured that each translation was correct too. lost books? bull dust. in all my years i have never seen or read a shred of evidence in this direction. even so if there were books missing from the bible then God meant for them to be missing and he cannot judge me for not knowing something in those missing books if he never allowed me to read them in the first place. i'm not scared of anything but needles mate. as for death, god or the afterlife. these are bread and butter to me. before you call the bible a 'silly book' spend fifteen years studying it on a near daily basis as i have willingly done. there is no greater, more profound text. a text that was as applicable for a completely foreign culture 5000 years ago as it is for us today. some of the greatest minds in history were christians and are christians and they attest to their faith in the book. i'm just a school teacher, a hopeful drummer and a nobody in the bigger picture ... so don't take my word for it. read up on it yourself. 'seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opend for you' 'let him who has ears ... listen' love life - yes fear God - yes seek truth - yes j 19 - mediocrefunkybeat Quote: "TO MFB: Whatever motivation one has for searching for God is secondary and even i believe insignificant once he finds you. words cannot describe the experience ... unfortunately. we humans are so proud of our little minds that we believe we can rationalise everything. but the bible says that the wisdom of the world is foolishnes in the light of God's wisdom. epiphany does not come through study and logic. if it did then only the educated would be saved. when God finds you and reveals himself to you - and this is only when you achieve the humility to take the leap of faith and pray truly to God and ask him to come into your life - there is no doubt in your mind. he shows you what you need to know when you need to know and in the manner you need to know it. he becomes more real to you than life itself. motivation after that, is pure thanks giving." I like that. We actually did religious experience as one of our reasons for a belief in God.. the problem is, you would have to have your own experience etc etc etc. What you say about rationalising God is interesting, have you ever heard of the Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God? St. Anselm (first archbishop of Canterbury) came up with that one. He said that: If God were a being above which no greater can be concieved (definition) and it is greater to be actually living than merely in the mind, then surely God must exist, as he is the greatest. Logically sound, fundamentally flawed in the sense that what is logically true isn't always actually true. But, an attempt, by a religious man, to rationalise belief in God. 20 - nutha jason truth is MFB, God has made the world just right, so that we can neither prove or disprove his exsistence. if we could prove it then we would all be believers and there would be no free will. if we could disprove it then no one would believe at all and exsistence would be pointless. god set up a lasting balance that allows generation after generation to seek him and decide for themselves. he wanted us to have free will because then our praise would be worth something. here's an analogy: a king in plain clothes (incognito) goes to a bar and strikes up a conversation with someone. for hours they talk about all sorts of things and then the other dude gets up to go home. as he is leaving he turns to the king and says, 'it has been great talking to you, you are an interesting person and i respect your ideas.' the king goes home and the next day talks to his butler for a while. his butler says, 'your highness is an amusing conversationalist, i am honoured to speak to your majesty.' whose praise is higher? we are the stranger in the bar. the butler is like angels and god is the king. he has had to maintain a 'plain clothes' prescence so that we each praise him, not out of duty, fear or awe (that will come later - just as if the king suddenly one day invites his bar buddy to the palace) but more out of honesty. j 21 - superlow I still think it is arrogant to believe that because a book that some one else wrote many years after many established religions would be the correct path to Heaven. Some one still wrote the book and some one still had their moral best interests in mind. So by saying Jesus is god you're basically say that the Jews are the lucky ones because Jesus was initially a Jew. I have read bits and pieces and I will agree that it is a great story. But it is still a story none the less. I know that after reading it I don't need it's guidance to know how to treat man. Because gut feeling tells you when you're screwing someone over. Why do I have to fear god? That seems like rhetoric in my opinion to scare people in to doing the right thing. Do the right thing, don't be afraid into doing it. Do it because it feels good not because some one wrote a book 2000 years ago telling you will burn in eternal hell fire if you don't. That's another bone I have pick with religion, it has no real consequences. People go out get high, cheat on their wives, abuse their children and they feel that because the go to church on Sunday that everything is OK. If there was a god, assholes like that who constantly besmirched his good name by going to church and carrying on would get real physical punishment, apparently all the hail marries and pennance they might say if the decide to go to confession doesn't do shit. 22 - mediocrefunkybeat I like both your ways of explaining things. I don't like religious hypocrisy either Superlow, and I'm glad you're not afraid to express your beliefs here. What you say Nutha.. is essentially part of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, God (if he exists) is a necessary (non-contingent) eternal being, and therefore requires on nothing for his existence. To try and observe him would be foolish, however.. him granting religious experiences seems to break this. 23 - nutha jason like i said to MFB superlow, if God did suddenly start smiting the evil in this life, people would believe for the wrong reason ... fear. the fear i was talking about earlier is respect. the fear a loving son has for his father - not of his wrath but of his disappointment. and the bible is older than any established religion by the way. read the latest literature on that. to MFB kalam kashlam. god doesn't require us for anything, but he desires us. he died for us. he loves us. we are his children. but in a very real way humankind are still adolescents so we rebel and try to make our own way. often we succeed. but often we fail and, as in a good family, the parents let their children learn some of life's hard lessons but are there to support them when it gets too much. god loves us enough to set us free. read the story of the prodigal son to see how jesus shows us the happy ending will be. j 24 - mediocrefunkybeat Or in other words, let the whole 'if God is benevolent' thing go by. Good explanation. I'm not a religious believer myself, as you've probably gathered by now (heh) but I believe that humans can only teach themselves morality. I believe that the basics of morality are rooted in evolution and the human psyche. For example, we don't want to be killed (well, most of us don't) so we don't kill to prevent this happening to us. Treat others how we want to be treated. HOWEVER, if someone is put into a submissive position, they will defend themselves and fight back and ultimately go against morality (eg. with 9/11 and Afghanistan) the offensive was actually the defensive. 25 - ayottefan Nutha: As a fellow Christian I find what you refered to above regarding the design in nature fascinating. I've seen bits and pieces of this discussed elsewhere. Just one small example I've seen illustrate this before is the bug that squirts an acid in self defense, (bombardier beetle I think). It apparently has two compartments containing different chemicals that when mixed produces a burning acid which it can eject at an enemy. The point being the design it would take to accomplish this flies in the face of random revolution. (Hope that makes sense..I'm not anywhere near as well versed on this stuff as you seem to be) Do you have more details/examples on this subject and sources/books? I'd love to hear more. 26 - nutha jason yay. i'm not alone here. a month ago i bought a boxed set of dvds. the david attenborough collection. superb. here's another one like the bombadier beetle. there is an orchid in the tropics that has a very narrow channel (in its complex petals) through which a certain species of wasp crawls. then the flower grips the wasp and a little armature drops from the top of the flower dabbing the wasp with pollen in exactly the right spot on its back. now the mechanics of all this alone is phenominal. just watching it in slow motion i was flabbergasted. but here is where it gets spooky ... the way the flower guarantees that this wasp visits it is through its smell which exactly mimics that of the wasp's pheremone. a pheremone is one of the most complex and uniquie chemicals in the world. it is a highly specific and enormous molecule that must be a pefect match for the wasp to mistake it for a mate. if even one atom is wrong the wasp won't fall for it. how did this symbiotic relationship evolve? gradual change just wouldn't work. evolution is a diversifying sustaining process, not a creationary agent. the earth is about 3.5 billion years old ... that is proven now. the earliest life?3.465 Billion-year-old (Ga) microfossils from the Apex Chert, Australia. since then life has diversified and been nearly wiped out many times. for example:Permian Period (286-248 million years ago) terrestrial faunal diversification occurred in the Permian. 90-95% of marine species became extinct in the Permian. dinosaurs 65 million years ago gone. mammals were tiny and insignificant.now look at them in just 65 million years. the maths for the length of time to evolve even one major aberration that becomes a success (eg a horn) is expressed in hundreds of thousands of years to millions. 65 million years is not enough time ... and it gets better 45 million years ago there was far more diversity than now. so in 20 million years a creature that looked like a stoat evolved into mammoths, cave bears, early man etc. i don't think so. there was a designer. pushing the changes. read books like: bill bryson: a short history of everything terry pratchet: science of the disc world lyall watson: super nature i love this stuff because it confirms stuff to me. j 27 - ayottefan That's awesome man. That's what I'm talking about. "if even one atom is wrong the wasp won't fall for it"-that type of thing gives me chills. I'm gonna check out those books. Thanks. Also, you eluded to dinosaurs above. What is your take on their absence from the bible? The only argument I've heard on that was that not all animals were specifically mentioned, etc. 28 - nutha jason well the bible is not a chronological story book. it uses imagery and parable to describe what cannot really be described in mere words. so taking the whole book literally is a mistake non-belivers often make. its why i said to superlow that it is the most complex and dynamic of all texts. the book of genesis is one of those least literal of books like revelations. noah's flood never happened the way it was literally described. if noah really had to gather every specie from everywhere he would have to gather 1.8 million species x2 in seven days. that's 35 per second!!! there probably was a flood and he did gather all the local animals. it is the imagery and the inner meaning that the bible is portraying. God was baptising the earth and washing its sins away. he was keeping two of every animal as he would keep the good parts of us, reproducing pairs indicating that he means for our goodness to grow. if you condense the story of the flood into the life of a human undergoing salvation through christ the parallels pile up into an obvious thematic nexus. the rainbow? the ark? the nephilum? the 40 days and forty nights? the dove and the olive branch? these are much more than elements in a pretty good story. they are metaphores for our own lives. so when the bible says that God created the world in seven days, he could i have no doubt. but i have heard that the word days is a hard translation from ancient writings. the term 'times' is more favourable. what is evident in genisis is that God took time and care to create his universe, that we are the pinnacle of his work and that he began to speak to us through the first persons he approached - adam and eve. these were not the first humans, but they were the first to know God. and he called them innocent. so dinosaurs fit in with this picture and all of scince begins to make sense. i've got to go now. more later. j 29 - brettamusvonadverb Holy Shite...... what did i start? The whole Jesus story makes no sense at all... it's just silly. The notion that the creator of the universe had to come to earth to "complete" his creation is pretty random wouldn't you say? I mean why couldn't he have just waved a magic wand and "forgive man of his sins"? Makes no sense... it's just made up, man. What's with "original sin" anyway? Humans are tainted at birth with the stain of sin? Babies can't even make decisions or comprehend anything, yet they're stained with sin.... nice concept. Is there any sin/evil in heaven? If not then why was it a necessary component for humans on earth? Isn't everything in existance in "accordance with god's plan"? So, didn't God design Jeff Dahmer to kill and eat all those innocent people? Nothing can contradict your god's will for he is omniscient and omnipotent, so God must have designed Jeff to massacre those people. God even knew before he created Jeffrey that his victims would be brutally tortured, yet he created Jeff anywho. So many contradictions with this untenable theory... so little time to address them. Your thoughts, all? BTW, Superlow completely nailed my philosophy on life. THIS LIFE IS NOT PRACTICE... LIFE IS PRECIOUS AND IS PRICELESS. SAVOR AND RESPECT LIFE WHILE WE'RE ALIVE AND THIS WORLD WOULD BE A MUCH BETTER PLACE. Religion is not an emparative of morality. Empathy and the understanding that a functional society is achieved through respect for individual freedoms is enough for any true intellectual. Why does anyone need Buddha/Jesus to confirm this stuff? I don't understand why people need to posit some random prophet to guide them through life. Some people need easy answers to complex questions and religion/god do indeed provide that. Some people need these things in order to be moral... by all means, stay in church if you need to be guided through how you can be a good person. 30 - nutha jason C_M you're thinking in human terms. wave a wand? i don't want to repeat anything i've written above. but god could have overrode things with his power. he chose not to. i'm a school teacher. when a child is battling with a maths problem i can do things the easy way and just show them how or the hard (and more effective way) and let them be involved in the process while i gently nudge them in the right direction. god has decided to do the same to allow us to learn, to make decisions. if he revealed himself with 'magic wand type' power everyone would want to worship him for the wrong reason. see my king in the bar story above. Quote: "What's with "original sin" anyway? Humans are tainted at birth with the stain of sin? Babies can't even make decisions or comprehend anything, yet they're stained with sin.... nice concept." most people who don't know the bible have the wrong and exaggerated, or rather distorted, view of what sin is. sin is separation from God. He may be omniprescent but we are all sinners because we are born into the world not knowing him. babies and children are not going to hell for this sin because the bible calls them innocent and says that they will be the first in the kingdom of heaven. when we sin we choose to put God aside so that we can concentrate on very basic and selfish desires. sins God is love, selfishness is not his way and since we belong to him as children he would not have it be our way either. an insane person murdering people is very different from a sane person mentally abusing his wife for years for instance. the former is an inncent the latter is a sinner. this is my view but i put it in with some reservation because we are warned not to judge (see more about this in the thread above) Quote: "Is there any sin/evil in heaven? If not then why was it a necessary component for humans on earth?" no. sin is an unfortunate consequence of free will. god gave us (not angels) true free will. what a gift! because it was a gift that had a huge price for god. for us to have true free will he had to hide from us the fullness of his glory. it had a huge cost because he had to accept that a free willed being could choose to not follow his way. he had to accept that his wonderful creation would need to be tainted, destroyed, ruined by his most beloved just because they were freed by him to do so. but it will not be forever. the cost was huge because he had to walk amoung us and show the ultimate love for us by letting us kill him. and at that point it was the beginning of the end of this tainted time. the door to restoration was opened. christ forgiving our sins through his sacrifice occours in a way because when you beleive in jesus you start to focus on god (remeber that i said sin is when we turn away from him) he becomes more and more a part of who you are. yes, i still sin. but i turn to god in prayer for forgiveness and i do sin less than i used to because with god in the forefront of my mind if find it much harder to ignore him while i go about selfishness. this would be hard or impossible for any human but once you enter a relationship with Him he helps you with his holy spirit. this is why i believe what i believe. not because of what i have read or heard but what has been revealed to me by god himself. to you the Holy Spirit is just a few words. to me it is the greatest force i have ever experienced and one that is unexplicable in human words or images. j 31 - Bunzon I got lost on the word "remotely" in the first post lol 32 - brettamusvonadverb So I guess Dahmer didn't fall under the sinner catagory eh? If not him then how about the guy who raped/killed Polly Klass (sp?). Didn't god design these creatures to behave in such a manner, since nothing can happen against god's will or prior knowlege. Why did god create these monsters, knowing full well that they'd be murderers/rapists etc? If sin/evil is a consequence of free will, do we lose free will when we go to heaven? If we do lose free will in heaven, I want to go to hell.... If we do NOT lose free will in heaven, then there IS sin/evil in heaven. What possible satisfaction could a god get out of creating humans and watching them act out his plan exactly as he wrote it..... he already knows what the outcome of every situation humans live through. What a petty god he must be... and to be "offended" or "hurt" when his creations/humans act out thier inevitable fates (as programed by an all-knowing creator) just seems ultra-retarded. Let's not take this too seriously... Peace. 33 - mediocrefunkybeat BLASPHEMER! ;-) The question I'd like to pose to nutha is: If God is all-loving and therefore all-forgiving, why does he see it necessary to send us to Hell? Maybe it was something to do with the dissent of Lucifer... 34 - drumandcoke Nutha Jason, you're a school teacher? I didn't know that. Me too. We must have similar schedules, trying to fit in teaching and music (when do you sleep?) : ) I'd like to chime in here and commend you all. You're debating and ruminating on the philosophies, and not trying to enforce anything. That's awesome. The main problem with organized religion - and fundamentalists in any ideology - has been enforcement. It's one thing to discuss and follow certain paths; it's another to streamline your society into an ultimatum: belief or death. However, I do believe and put forth a few basic ideas: The first, like I mentioned, is that there's nothing wrong with any religion or belief system. It's marginilizing others that is terrible, and is so often symptomatic (or intended) by religious leaders. The second is to quote Joseph Campbell: All religions are true, but none are literal. Do you really think Adam & Eve were in a garden with a snake? Of course not. Religion and mythology are metaphors designed to give us guidelines on how to live our lives safely and obediently. I guess in a lot of ways, that's a good thing. But for many of us, that's a scary concept - because it means our societies have doctrines which are designed to make us fearful or appreciative of authority. Hopefully, we've come to the point where most people try to educate themselves as much as possible, keep an open mind, and make up their own minds when it comes to making choices in life. In Canada, we are guaranteed Freedom of Religion and Conscience (among other things) by our laws. I wish it was the same everywhere in the world. Having said that, we're still saturated by the JudeoChristian beliefs of most of the USA and Canada... The sad side effect of this is that it means if you're not into JudeoChristian dogma, you feel like an outsider... And if you preach any of this dogma, you have to compete with the fact that so many of us are sick of hearing about it. It's a nasty paradox. Anyway... : ) 35 - nutha jason so many questions. where to start. to brettamusvonadverb. you are imposing on God the thought patterns of the human mind. his reckoning process is so far above ours that i feel a little ludicrous even trying to describe it in human terms... but here goes. point by point: polly, klass, hitler etc etc. human history is full of them and they will be judged by the only being who has the full story of theire lives before him, the only being who knows their motivations and mental deficiencies etc etc that lead to each action they took. the only being who has the right to judge. we can have an opinion of these people but what will happen to them in the next life is in God's hands. he gave us free will and these 'monsters' unfortunately made wrong decisions or were victims of aother peoples wrong decisions etc and that is why we christians call this a fallen world. god didn't create monsters. he created free human beings ... free enough to be evil...or good...or both. as for losing free will in heaven ... we won't. that's the whole point. angels have limited free will. but they were born in the prescence and live in the prescence of god. for most of them that was enough for them to be in his awe and service. when we go to heaven we will have been born outside his prescence and now be in his precence. like being born in a cold country and then moving to a warm country much later on we will be always greatful of the sun and non exsistent winters. we will choose to worship god and do so in deeply personal ways. each of us having experienced a unique life with struggles, successes and losses. we will praise him for taking us out of the dark and cold and into the light. we will praise him for knowing that we will never have to go back to a place where we can be sick, lonley or live in fear of other people, or die or watched loved ones die. we will praise him because we no longer have the desire to sin and are forgiven of all our past sins. we will praise him because he has become completely real to us again. Quote: 'What possible satisfaction could a god get out of creating humans and watching them act out his plan exactly as he wrote it..... he already knows what the outcome of every situation humans live through.' he doesn't. his satisfaction comes from watching us come back to him in spite of everything. he actually runs out to get us when he sees we are coming home (as it were ... see the story of the prodigal son to understand this analogy) but yes god does know the outcome. he is all powerful and there is no doubt in his victory. that's what makes him God. Quote: 'What a petty god he must be... and to be "offended" or "hurt" when his creations/humans act out thier inevitable fates (as programed by an all-knowing creator) just seems ultra-retarded.' and you would be quite right if he did 'program' us but he didn't. he knew us. he saw what would happen if he let us be free to choose our destiny (in as much as we can in everday life). he has interacted with millions of us over time and even commanded individuals to do things (he told abraham to sacrifice his son isaac for instance) but if the bible shows one thing about god's influence on us is that far from controlling us like robots or magically making things happen, he tells us what to do and lets us do it. take the story of jesus and the wine. jesus could have just said: 'let there be more wine' but what did he do? he told the servants to fill stone jars with over 500 litres of water. he made us do something and then he did something. he doesn't control us he works with us. a truly benevolent god indeed. not petty (a human trait) and not retarded (a human tragedy) to MFB good question. Quote: 'If God is all-loving and therefore all-forgiving, why does he see it necessary to send us to Hell?' even amoungst the most scholarly of christians there is much doubt as to the nature of hell. here is my idea of it (drummerworld closing down - jokes). from the bible we can know that hell is being permanently outside of god's thoughts. remember earlier i said that sin is choosing to turn from god? hell is the point when god for the first time ever turns from you. and since god is life then it is the ultimate death. obliteration. while we are on earth and alive we all, even hitler could, turn to jesus and be forgiven. but if you are denied paradise by god or jesus (see the two types of judgement in the thread above) then you 'go' to hell. it might be a place, certainly, although i find it hard to believe that god would create any place where he would not be. nor can i easily accept that he would make a literal lake of fire and brimestone red cave for the baddies. revelations describes hell but then like i've said before in this thread, the bible is trying to explain concepts that no words can really explain. so the hell of revelations is more of an analogy, hell did exsist in ancient times. hades was a valley outside of jerusalem where the people took their rubbish to burn. criminal's bodies were also cast there. jesusu spoke of this valley as a metaphore for the place where the fires never go out (and the hades fire, like the springfield tire fire, was kept alive ... quite possibly by spreading sulphur on the garbage) a place where things are completely destoryed. god is all loving but he never claimed to be all forgiving. right from the start he has shown us that he is a sovereign god. a benevolent king yes, but a king for sure. he is right to demand our respect since he made us, keeps us alive and holds our futures in his hands. we need to seek him. all of us. if you don't believe then that may be fine for now. but don't stop questioning and wrestling with these ideas. don't ever stubbornly put down the books and say 'enough. i am not going to believe and that is that.' the mere fact that you guys have argued with me is encouraging. at least you think about these things. keep it up and keep the tough questions coming. i'm not afraid of any of them because i have the courage of my convictions. ONLY PLEASE READ THIS WHOLE THREAD BEFORE YOU POST BECAUSE ALL THIS TYPING IS KILLING ME AND I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT MYSELF . he he. j 38 - bozzio-v-portnoy well there J, you see, the bible that you believe in isnt the whole story. the main christian beliefs were made by a pagan emperor [constantine] of rome, a few hundred years after the death of jesus! the decided, amongst other things to make jesus devine [decided at a vote in nicea], and also, the incorporated many of the things from pagan beliefs for example the humble christmas tree = pagan tradition. many other things in "christian" life are stolen from other religions for example did u know that the 25th december was also the birth date of many other gods, including horus, the falcon headed sun god of the ancient egyptians. holy communion was stolen from pagan traditions, of "God Eating" and many other things in christian life are directly taken from pagan rituals! then we come to the romon catholic church. over the years, to conceal the truth from the world, in whats now known as the dark ages, the church went on a rampage destroying all the documents and evidence showing the other side to the story of christ. im not denying the dude existed btw, to do that would be foolish, as the evidence is huge, however, it is incomplete. luckily, a few documents, e.g. the dead sea scrolls, survived, and can give us an insight into what really happened. the "prostitue" mary magdaline, was actually very close to jesus, possibly even married, as shown in the gospel of phillip [you probably wont have heard of this! the church tried to eradicate it!there were actually about 80 gospels considered for the bible, all but a few destroyed by the church] and the idea that she was a prostitute was created by the church, to smear her reputation. she did infact carry on the bloodline of christ, and this is very well documented, by the jews who lived in france, when mary magdaline fled israel from the church. now this wont be found in the main bible, as the church edited and deleted all of the texts that were deemed unfavourable to the curches will. however, there are texts that show her time in france. Protestants - this branch of the church was created by henry the eighth so he could divorce his wife, without permission from the pope!!! that is the simple truth!!! now there is no denying the enormous good that the modern church does today, but before you, J, tumble headlong into a belief, look at ALL the evidence, not just that planted on a plate by the church of today. I also agree with superlow, that people shouldnt be so arrogant as to immediately pronounce other religions as wrong, and yes MFb, if i were to choose a religion, as being sensible, it would have to be buddhism, though even it has flaws! personally though, im not swung either way, just thought id give you the other side of the story - the one that chences are, you havent heard! most of this and more is within the Da vinci Code and Angels and Demons by dan brown, i did however know most of this before reading the novels, so if it looks familiar lol thats where! great books by the way! really good!!! and to sum up, i will give you a quote by arguably one of the most brilliant men in history, in reference to the church, "Blinging ignorance does mislead us, O wretched mortals, open your eyes!" "Many have made a trade of delusions, decieving the stupid multitude" Leonardo Da Vinci On a non religious note, the string theory is very interesting, but i dont understand too much of it. Maybe PM me mfb? interesting fact, einstein once tried to create a unified theory, and near death proclaimed it was his biggest flaw! editor's note: here b_v_p triple posted by accident. 39 - bozzio-v-portnoy OOooops!!! Sorry! impatience is a sin! lol 40 - nutha jason welcome to the debate bozzio-v-portnoy. please don't be mistaken about me. i'm far more educated than you seem to suppose. i didn't tumble into my beliefs and since ive held them for eleven years and have tested them over and over again, i'm not a self deluding fool, in any length. like thomas the doubter i needed facts and i wasn't afraid to stick my fingers in the wounds of christ, as it were. i haven't just accepted belief and then rejoiced at every confirmation of it ... tho i know that a lot of believers have, and that is fine for them. i have rather, and weirdly, rejoiced at every stumbling block i ever found. i love the company of atheists ... why do you think this thread is so long? it is not that i feel have to defend my beliefs (nor is it long because of any ...ahem! ... triple postings! he he). in the past christians have been so sensitive to anything that would cause them doubt within themselves, that they have often gone to great and even violent lengths to squash controversy. i'm the opposite of that. now to business. the whole bible question has been touched on in earlier postings, but perhaps i wasn't clear enough. I PUT GOD ABOVE THE BIBLE AS WELL AS IN IT. what i mean is that whatever the history of the bible - and in your post there is nothing i haven't read or heard about before - god is in control of how it came out. it is his word after all. if it is in any way flawed, and i don't believe for a second that it is, but if it is, then he cannot judge me for obeying a flawed message from him. the fact is, constantine was not a pagan emperor, he was a convert who used to be pagan. they never decided to make jesus devine because, if you really did know your church history you would know that by the time of constantine, the church was enormous and already dividing into the two huge camps that would soon be called: the orthodix church (to the east) and the roman catholic (to the west). as much as the orthodox and catholic churches were differing in their opinions they still had the same gospels etc. if constantine had rejected some and made up his own etc, the orthodox would have loudly proclaimed their bible the right and complete one. They would have shouted that it was a heresy to call christ devine. but they didn't. why? becasue they also believed he was devine and had done so for ages before constantine was born. by constantines time, there were churches all over the known world who had suffered great hardship for their beliefs (often at the hands of the romans) they would have rebelled against an edited bible, or anything that didn't match up with the beliefs their parents and grandparents etc had died for. they would have fought for the old complete bible to be restored, but they didn't. why? because the bible was the same. the message was the same. nowhere in the bible is there any mention of xmas trees or the 25th of december. in fact christ tells us not to celebrate his birth but rather his death. here i do agree with you. there was a pagan influence and the worship of the winter solstice and the returning of the sun. a choice unfortunately made by early leaders in their zeal to win converts. they let them keep their old celebrations (with slight modifications and a shift of focus). it is well known that no one takes their flocks out at night in december in israel even today ... its too chilly. so what. i celebrate christmas, but for me it is a celebration of family and i guess a thankfulness that christ was born. personally i believe he was born sometime in september. as for the communion being based on a pagan ritual, i would be careful about saying such ignorant things. there may have been parellels but the communion has been shared without fail since the day before christ died and is one of the most fervent and common of all christian rituals. it is celebrated by every schism of the church since the beginning. as for the next paragraph you typed ... it is balderdash. i've come across this stuff before. it is highly unfavoured propaganda even in the secular historical community. but like i said before, the bible you can buy in a common bookstore is the word of god. anything that is not in there is not meant to be there. gospel of phillip? read it and while it matches up with a lot of the bible, it is not in the bible and therefore i don't have to accept it or the parts of it that are controvercial. the protestant church was not invented by king henry. he established the church of england which was a protestant branch. martin luther in germany, with many other brave wise people established the protestant church during the age of enlightenment as a protest against catholiscism selling title forgiveness (amoung many other heresies of the day). read up on the 95 thesis he nailed to a church door. the anti christ is hard at work. sometimes he is obvious and other times ingeniously subtle. i wouldn't put it past him to write fake gospels and inspire authors to write clever commentary or to twist history. some people will do controvercial things just to get famous. beware of these false prophets. all i can say bozzio-v-portnoy, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. read more broadly before you tumble headlong into a painted corner of easy to stomach lies. the truth is hard to swallow and hard to live by and then you find that god is walking beside you and suddenly the truth is a sheild and the sword of gods word is in your hand. the bible can be relied upon. read it with an open mind and trust. j 41 - Ratamatatt My theory is that Jesus was a political aggitator that pissed off the wrong Romans. 42 - bozzio-v-portnoy You make some good points (nutha jason), however, it is a common misconcepion that constantine was converted, he remained true to his pagan beliefs, and was given a death bed baptism, by his court. i dont doubt your education either! lol u have have more years of experience than me [im only 16 and you seem highly intelligent! if it came accross that way, it wasnt my intention!!!] But i have some pretty strong views. both my parents are strong christians [hence i have a fairly strong knowledge of the bible], and although i dont want to dissapoint them, i dont want to not question things either. Apologies for the tripple post - my ISP is not great....lol hmm the bible isnt the word of God, it is the word of people living in and around the time of christ [new testament] who are giving an account of what happened. that this coincides with the church's agenda is coincidence? surely some editing must have occured during the years! all of the christian demoninations, have strayed away from the original beliefs, as evidence in places such as america show us, where denominations are as common as commoners [sorry - im tired so no similies from me today!!!! and i dropped english, so dont expect great grammar etc!!!] i apologise for my mistake regarding Henry VIII - sooory no post school coffee lol!!! as for the bible being reliable, what about the Qu'ran, or Torah, or any other holy scriptures, surely these have wisdom held within them too??? anyways, i enjoy these metaphysical debates, and when i say something, i mean no disrespect to anyone, i am merely presenting my views! i have nothing but the utmost respect for all of you!!! i hope DWF stays up long enough for us to continue this!!! if not, see you all at daves!!! Mark 43 - nutha jason i'll take it point by point bozzio-v-portnoy. constantine was converted. i teach that history at school. and i've read a lot around it. no misconception. as previously stated: god uses us to achieve his will. he wrote his bible through prophets and witnesses. the church's agenda is shaped by the bible, not the other way around. any editing was guided by god. and inspite of all the denominations, the church still uses the same bible. the denominations haven't strayed from the core beliefs of christianity. they have become over time unique and applicable to their times and cultures ... a sign that the church itself goes through evolution ... hey that's a pretty good idea. lets develop the analogy: although mammals evolved into the thousands of species we have today after the dinosaurs, and the species are very different from each other; fundamentally they are the same. they all have eyes that work the same way. they all have warm blood. they all feed their young milk. evolution changed them outwardly to accomodate all the niches in nature and to equip them to survive and thrive. the church has also evolved in the same way. we may be outwardly different but the denominations (species) have in common their trust in the bible, their belief in the nature of christ, their belief in him dying and rising to life to name some of the major ones. cool that's why i like typing these posts because i'm clarifying my own beliefs to myself at the same time. the other holy books are full of wisdom but they do not contain christ and so are not the true inspiration of god. To me they are encouraging proof that humankind is inherently good ... that we could come up with such deep moral codes is excellent proof that we are meant to be sinless. but as i said before, the antichrist could use such good looking philosophy to diffuse and confuse the masses. couched in what is obviously a great way to live a peaceful, loving life there are messages that hold people back from discovering their maker, from reading or believing his true word. still i'm not that sure of the people who believe in these book's fate. i would leave the judgement of them to god (see more about this in earlier posts) to Ratamatatt jesus actually supported the romans even tho the sadducees tried to get him in trouble by asking him if the israelites should pay taxes. he said 'show me a roman coin. whose picture is on it?' 'ceasar,' they replied. and then he brilliantly answered: 'so then give unto ceasar what is ceasar's and to god what is god's.' the roman pontious pilate did not want to kill christ. he did so in the end out of fear of the jewish people rioting (inflammed by the pharisees). jesus preached peace and fellowship. he spoke about respecting political leaders and working within their rule systems. the romans will have had spies in the audience of christ and reported his harmlessness to the various authorities. read the gospels to get the full story. it was only after christ's acension in the first century AD that christianity grew big enough to worry the romans with their talk of one god. j 44 - Ratamatatt According to one whose intellect and opinions I highly respect: "Man created God in his own image." 45 - Ratamatatt ". . . it was only after christ's acension in the first century AD that christianity grew big enough to worry the romans with their talk of one god." Monotheism predates Christ by about 3700 years. 46 - Ratamatatt ". . . the church's agenda is shaped by the bible, not the other way around. . . ." Really! More people have been murdered by christians in the name of christ (including other chistians for being the wrong kind of christian) than for any other cause in human history. Is that what the bible compels the church to do? 47 - Ratamatatt ". . . the other holy books are full of wisdom but they do not contain christ and so are not the true inspiration of god. . . ." Oh! Well I guess that settles it. Good argument, you win. PS: these "other holy books" would include . . . the 10 commandments which predate christ by over 1000 years. Yes! 48 - nutha jason what is your point? i believe monotheism probably goes back to the days of early man (40 000 years or more). it is quite likely that some ice age tribes worshipped the sun as the only god for instance. how does this support your view? also twisting around a phrase in the bible to sound clever is not very wise at all. it is a mere hackneyed statement. can you back it up with anything better than saying it came from somebody you respect? read this whole thread. all those who have been arguing with me are prepared to write at length with thoughful questions that are keeping the debate vibrant. flesh out your posts more thoughtfully dude. j 49 - Ratamatatt My point is that your statements are assinine, offensive and demonstrably false. 50 - Ratamatatt quote: ". . . i believe monotheism probably goes back to the days of early man (40 000 years or more). . . ." Again, unsupportable BS. But, at least you qualified it by stating it is what you believe. 51 - nutha jason looks like you were typing while i was. why all the multiple posting? do you even read a thread before typing? quote: 'Really! More people have been murdered by christians in the name of christ (including other chistians for being the wrong kind of christian) than for any other cause in human history. Is that what the bible compels the church to do?' this was well covered several posts ago. and i won't bother to repeat myself. read the thread first please. Quote: 'PS: these "other holy books" would include . . . the 10 commandments which predate christ by over 1000 years. Yes!' and by typing this you are proving how ignorant you are about christianity. the bible includes the old testament and that has the ten commandments in it. what's with the 'yes' bit. do you think this is a competition? do you think you scored? this is a debate that no one is trying to win. we are sharing ideas and asking questions. feel free to join in with something thoughful. j 52 - nutha jason actually there is plenty of evidence to support what i just said. and if you weren't paying attention it was not against what you said it was showing you that monotheism is even older than you supposed. i could present the evidence but i'm going to cook myself some supper now and let you have some time to think and perhaps post something interesting to add to this debate. j 53 - Ratamatatt quote: ". . . twisting around a phrase in the bible to sound clever is not very wise at all. . . ." I'm not surprised that you are only able to see profundity as twisting a phrase in the bible. Perhaps when you are old enough to appreciate it some of your other currently held and expressed notions will seem as preposterous as they seem to me. 54 - Ratamatatt quote: ". . . what's with the 'yes' bit. . . ." Perhaps when you are more experineced (read: mature) you will become a more sensitive, discriminating reader. "Yes!" without a question mark denotes a rhetorical question. I was being ironic. (Read: that means I already know what the answer is). 55 - Ratamatatt quote; ". . . can you back it up with anything better than saying it came from somebody you respect? . . . ." Yes. There is NO objective proof of the existence of God. There is abundant proof that God is (and Gods are) the creation of man's arrogance and ignorance. It's revealing that your attention had to be directed to this point and that it wasn't obvious to you. 56 - nutha jason my word you are emmotive. it is clear that you are trolling for a fight. what a pity. anyway i will answer these last few posts of yours. Quote: 'I'm not surprised that you are only able to see profundity as twisting a phrase in the bible. Perhaps when you are old enough to appreciate it some of your other currently held and expressed notions will seem as preposterous as they seem to me.' i don't care if you are thriteen or thirty, insinuating i'm not old enough to have considered my notions proves two things about you: 1) you really haven't bothered to read this thread. 2) you beleive age is important in the formation of belief. a clear sign of your own immaturity. in any case i AM old enough to appreciate the notions i hold. i teach children all the time who surprise me with their ability to reason. you are selling them short ... and by the way they know how to hold a debate without slinging mud. Quote: 'Perhaps when you are more experineced (read: mature) you will become a more sensitive, discriminating reader. "Yes!" without a question mark denotes a rhetorical question. I was being ironic. (Read: that means I already know what the answer is). ' i know all about rhetorical questions and as an english major i'll tell you that they still get a '?'. but other postings of yours show that you are still competing. my statements may only be offensive to someone who is feeling so challenged by them that all they can do is start insulting rather than arguing. demonstrate that they are false if you have the wit. Quote: 'Yes. There is NO objective proof of the existence of God. There is abundant proof that God is (and Gods are) the creation of man's arrogance and ignorance. It's revealing that your attention had to be directed to this point and that it wasn't obvious to you. ' well all this proves again that you haven't read the rest of the thread. i'm sorry but i thinki you are really trying hard to get me to fight with you. superlow and MFB have my respect because they post thoughtful messages in an open debating fashion. you resort to insult and your current attitude is sadly lessening the excellence of this thread. therefore i would respectfully ask you not to post here, tho i obviously cannot stop you. i for one will no longer rise to any of your posts unless they take a more objective and friendly angle. as the bible says: 'cast not your pearls before the swine' so i wont. j 57 - mediocrefunkybeat Guys, we've gotta respect each other's beliefs. I'm willing to listen to Nutha, even though I am personally an atheist. 58 - Ratamatatt nutha jason wrote: Quote: 'and by typing this you are proving how ignorant you are about christianity. the bible includes the old testament and that has the ten commandments in it. what's with the 'yes' bit. do you think this is a competition? do you think you scored? this is a debate that no one is trying to win. we are sharing ideas and asking questions. feel free to join in with something thoughful. ' And by truncating my post you are selectively ignoring the point. My post was in response to, and included your statement that: "the other holy books are full of wisdom but they do not contain christ and so are not the true inspiration of god." The hebrew bible does not include christ. The ten commandments makes no mention of christ. So, based on your conclusion, ipso facto, they are not the "true inspiration of God." That you, in your blind faith, believe that the hebrew bible is part of the christian bible does not make it so, and does not change the fact that christ did not exist at the time these words were written. Furthermore, your implied conclusion that christ is God is based on your blind faith. There is no objective proof that christ is God any more than there is that Thor and Zeus are Gods. Moreover, your implication that all other faiths are false is no less vulgar, grotesque and moronic, than that those of all other faiths (the majority of humanity) believe, with equal conviction, that you worship a false God. In addition, your efforts to mix history with religion, in an attempt to color you blind faith with the cloak of fact, is a crude, ancient and transparent practice that cannot withstand critical review. That you believe something does not make it so. That there are questions in nature that you cannot explain or do not understand does not, ipso facto, lead to the conclusion that it must have a divine origin. In short, evangelism is vulgar, grotesque, and highly offensive practice that is more likely to create enemies than converts. If that is what you are looking for then you will, no doubt, succeed. Otherwise, I suggest that you be a little more (read: a lot more) mindful AND RESPECTFUL of the fact that your religion is not shared by all, and that your commentary, to date, is highly offensive and vulgar. Perhaps you could start by prefacing your blind faith conclusions with "it is my belief." 59 - bozzio-v-portnoy I'm with u dude (to nutha jason) - this guy hasnt read all of the tread, and although we have disagreements, but we are civil, he was just plain rude! well, i am sorry about my constantine thing, i must be basing my knowledge on bad information! like u said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so ill go and research it! you do make some good points mate, i might ask my 'rents a few of the points you have brought up! I respect u for explaining your beliefs to us, and that i think is a good quality in a person! i am enjoying this debate, and i really appreciate that you take the time to show us what you think! well done and keep it up!!! :D when i get home tommorow, ill take the time to find out some more things, just to keep it going! im not trying to disprove anyone by the way, just introducing questions! MFB - lol i bet that you never thought that the thread would get this popular, though we are a little off topic lol! Personally, i tend towards the Buddhist beliefs, but all the reincarnation stuff puts me off, and the thing about not eating meat...i dont think i'd manage! :D Mark [BVP] 60 - bozzio-v-portnoy hey chill dude (to Ratamatatt) - he isn't evangalising, he is defending his P.O.V because he was asked to, and that this has continued for as long as it has is a credit to all of us who have posed questions, which J has replied to as best he can. dont go and lower the value of this, by being aggressive. if you will notice, there is no evangalism going on, he is merely explaining his beliefs, and i respect him for it. please tone down the aggressiveness, and welcome to the friendly discussion! :D Mark 61 - nutha jason as bernhard would say: 'great moderation work bozzio-v-portnoy' nice to hear you're back. i do appreciate your support, not of my beliefs (to be carefully clear), but for our peaceful style of discussion. and as for the constantine thing, i am just expounding on a few books i've read. who knows what the real truth there is. i would go on to say that everything i've typed is based on my own experience, education, meetings with others and soul searching. it is true to me but not unchangeable. like i said before, i love being challenged so that i can grow in my opinions (either by becoming better at expressing them or by altering them to fit new information). i may have been a bit harsh on Ratamatatt in his first entry on this thread, but that was because he made a statement that was biblically false and he didn't expound on it. well, as we all agree, it is better to read the thread first and get to know the whole debate before posting anything that may have already been covered. i hope he can forgive me for my passion. i went back and read a lot of his posts on the other forums and he seems a cool dude there. i guess it is this particular subject that can get heated. you know what they say: 'don't talk about religion or politics.' but this is the lounge so lets talk. j 62 - Ratamatatt IMO: 1) religion is manifestation of man's inherent fear of the unknown and of chaos or uncertainty, and 2) evangelism is a manifestation of man's primative and vestigial instinct for tribalism as a survival mechanism. This is a powerful instinct and, IMO, informs a significant part, if not a majority, of man's behavior. ie: Are you loyal to a nation, a school, a church, a football team? How much of your time, money, energy, emotions to you spend for such loyalties? Why? I'm not saying that these are bad things or are to be ashamed of. They are inherent instincts that are no less a part of us than our organ systems and our limbs. However, they have been the underlying cause of more human conflict and misery than any other. Now, I challenge the members of this post (including NJ), to critically re-read NJ's posts with this in mind and see if you do not agree with me that these vestigial instincts run particularly strong in NJ. 63 - mediocrefunkybeat I'd disagree with you and say that religion is an inherent because we always want to find a higher power than our own, and an explanation rather than it being an inherent fear. I think sun-worship is actually pretty sensible.. I mean, it controls everything on Earth, well, most things.. so in a sense the Egyptians got it right first time lol. 64 - nutha jason now we're talking! welcome back MFB. sun worship is a logical grounding for god making. it is why i believe that monotheism is likely to be very old indeed. many tribes worshipped animals etc but then must have seen their power to hunt animals and eat them as a sign thst these were not higher beings. some then attributed a spiritual aspect to the animal which is called a totem. but some tribes must have taken another alternative. they may have then looked at the mysterious and untouchable ... the weather, the moon or the sun ... for their deity. of course we now know that the sun is a ball of gas fusion a million times the size of earth ... and that doesn't make it any less amazing though a lot less sentient. we are certainly social beings who look for rallying points instictively. tribalism cannot be denied, because it is our specie's most advanced survival strategy. even baboons walk about in troops. civilisation is a highly evolved form of tribalsim, so evolved that it doesn't quite meet the instinctual needs we have for grouping and identity. hence football teams etc. i love this sort of anthropology. we are facinating creaures for sure. but i would agree with MFB that tribalism isn't the answer for the exsistence of religion. i think that religion and tribes are probably the same age. for as long as human kind or even the older species (australopithicus for example) has gathered and feared or pondered the power of nature they have sought out explainations. in this way i must conceed to Ratamatatt; that man did create...not God, but gods. its like the chicken or the egg debate (i always vote for the chicken because eggs need incubation). IT IS MY BELIEF that God allowed or made this all occour so that we were primed for him when he introduced himself to us later in our history (to the so called 'adam' and 'eve'). so perhaps Ratamatatt is right. these vestigial instincts run particularly strong in me, and that is why i have such a passion for them, why i have devoted so much time to questioning, testing and proving them to myself. but the evidence is heavily against Ratamatatt's statement that this has caused more human conflict and misery than any other. the church and in fact many other ex-tribal institutions have done more good for our kind than anything else, and still do. the world is not nearly as rotten as it could be and history may be littered with loss and suffering but for the vast majority of humans life was to put it simply ... normal. j 65 - mediocrefunkybeat Well.. I would still argue I can't believe in religion that has condoned war, but yeah, religion does do good things. For example, in Islam, they are religiously bound to giving a certain percentage of their income to charity each year. Fantastic! I think that if all the major principles of major religions were actually held onto, and there wasn't so much dogma attached, we'd have a nigh-on 'perfect' world.. but I'm an idealistic child... 66 - OceanDirt i heard the coolest thing this summer in a theory class at a jazz camp i've gone to for the last 3 years. the class didn't really have a teacher so we had one guy just come in and teach it for the day. he was a scattered guy, and most of us were having trouble following his train of thought (myself included) as he talked about the cosmic power of music, the higher power of art. he talked about the solar system and the sun and crazy shit i can't even remember exactly, but it was awesome. it was all this stuff about theory and music coming from a man who lived out jazz as you always imagine it, and he was that stereotypical "cool" jazz guy. he was talking about the circle of 5ths, and improvising, about how sharps and flats color the music. he said that they were like paints on a pallette, and that you have to use them like an artist uses to paint a picture. he talked about the wavelengths of physical colors and how there are certain numbers that go along with every color and every sound and how sound and light are both essentially vibrations and are essentially the same thing. he said all of art and all of life and all of existence is based on math. he told us no matter what god you believe in (or don't), you have to realize that the true religion is mathematics and that everything in our universe is based so precisely on math that if there is a god, he must have been one hell of a mathematician to come up with this place. how cool is that? maybe it would have been cooler if you'd seen it yourself haha i'm not good at relating stories. 67 - OceanDirt nutha jason wrote: quote: '...its like the chicken or the egg debate (i always vote for the chicken because eggs need incubation)...' i'd have to say the egg because of evolution. the preevolution of a chicken just before the modern day version of it would have given birth to an egg that had a mutation of its species that was the first mutation into the form of a modern day chicken. the preevolution would have incubated it, it would have hatched, and it would have been raised just like all the others but as the first modern chicken. haha i always liked that riddle though. 68 - nutha jason nice one OceanDirt. but perhaps then cell division came before the egg, as mitosis was the first method of reproduction. hehe. j ps. i agree. God is the ultimate mathematician. have you ever read into chaos theory mathematics? after seeing jurassic park years ago i began reading up on mandelbrot sets and fractals etc. fascinating. and the pictures make for great desk tops. rhythm and mathematics not only describes the universe and how it runs but is its very esscence itself. string theory and quantum physics is showing this now. which kind of neatly brings us back to the initial topic of this thread: m-theory IT IS MY BELIEF that these are the blue prints of God. his language perhaps. let there be MC2. 58 - Ratamatatt nutha jason wrote: Quote: 'and by typing this you are proving how ignorant you are about christianity. the bible includes the old testament and that has the ten commandments in it. what's with the 'yes' bit. do you think this is a competition? do you think you scored? this is a debate that no one is trying to win. we are sharing ideas and asking questions. feel free to join in with something thoughful. ' And by truncating my post you are selectively ignoring the point. My post was in response to, and included your statement that: "the other holy books are full of wisdom but they do not contain christ and so are not the true inspiration of god." The hebrew bible does not include christ. The ten commandments makes no mention of christ. So, based on your conclusion, ipso facto, they are not the "true inspiration of God." That you, in your blind faith, believe that the hebrew bible is part of the christian bible does not make it so, and does not change the fact that christ did not exist at the time these words were written. Furthermore, your implied conclusion that christ is God is based on your blind faith. There is no objective proof that christ is God any more than there is that Thor and Zeus are Gods. Moreover, your implication that all other faiths are false is no less vulgar, grotesque and moronic, than that those of all other faiths (the majority of humanity) believe, with equal conviction, that you worship a false God. In addition, your efforts to mix history with religion, in an attempt to color you blind faith with the cloak of fact, is a crude, ancient and transparent practice that cannot withstand critical review. That you believe something does not make it so. That there are questions in nature that you cannot explain or do not understand does not, ipso facto, lead to the conclusion that it must have a divine origin. In short, evangelism is vulgar, grotesque, and highly offensive practice that is more likely to create enemies than converts. If that is what you are looking for then you will, no doubt, succeed. Otherwise, I suggest that you be a little more (read: a lot more) mindful AND RESPECTFUL of the fact that your religion is not shared by all, and that your commentary, to date, is highly offensive and vulgar. Perhaps you could start by prefacing your blind faith conclusions with "it is my belief." 59 - bozzio-v-portnoy I'm with u dude (to nutha jason) - this guy hasnt read all of the tread, and although we have disagreements, but we are civil, he was just plain rude! well, i am sorry about my constantine thing, i must be basing my knowledge on bad information! like u said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so ill go and research it! you do make some good points mate, i might ask my 'rents a few of the points you have brought up! I respect u for explaining your beliefs to us, and that i think is a good quality in a person! i am enjoying this debate, and i really appreciate that you take the time to show us what you think! well done and keep it up!!! :D when i get home tommorow, ill take the time to find out some more things, just to keep it going! im not trying to disprove anyone by the way, just introducing questions! MFB - lol i bet that you never thought that the thread would get this popular, though we are a little off topic lol! Personally, i tend towards the Buddhist beliefs, but all the reincarnation stuff puts me off, and the thing about not eating meat...i dont think i'd manage! :D Mark [BVP] 60 - bozzio-v-portnoy hey chill dude (to Ratamatatt) - he isn't evangalising, he is defending his P.O.V because he was asked to, and that this has continued for as long as it has is a credit to all of us who have posed questions, which J has replied to as best he can. dont go and lower the value of this, by being aggressive. if you will notice, there is no evangalism going on, he is merely explaining his beliefs, and i respect him for it. please tone down the aggressiveness, and welcome to the friendly discussion! :D Mark 61 - nutha jason as bernhard would say: 'great moderation work bozzio-v-portnoy' nice to hear you're back. i do appreciate your support, not of my beliefs (to be carefully clear), but for our peaceful style of discussion. and as for the constantine thing, i am just expounding on a few books i've read. who knows what the real truth there is. i would go on to say that everything i've typed is based on my own experience, education, meetings with others and soul searching. it is true to me but not unchangeable. like i said before, i love being challenged so that i can grow in my opinions (either by becoming better at expressing them or by altering them to fit new information). i may have been a bit harsh on Ratamatatt in his first entry on this thread, but that was because he made a statement that was biblically false and he didn't expound on it. well, as we all agree, it is better to read the thread first and get to know the whole debate before posting anything that may have already been covered. i hope he can forgive me for my passion. i went back and read a lot of his posts on the other forums and he seems a cool dude there. i guess it is this particular subject that can get heated. you know what they say: 'don't talk about religion or politics.' but this is the lounge so lets talk. j 62 - Ratamatatt IMO: 1) religion is manifestation of man's inherent fear of the unknown and of chaos or uncertainty, and 2) evangelism is a manifestation of man's primative and vestigial instinct for tribalism as a survival mechanism. This is a powerful instinct and, IMO, informs a significant part, if not a majority, of man's behavior. ie: Are you loyal to a nation, a school, a church, a football team? How much of your time, money, energy, emotions to you spend for such loyalties? Why? I'm not saying that these are bad things or are to be ashamed of. They are inherent instincts that are no less a part of us than our organ systems and our limbs. However, they have been the underlying cause of more human conflict and misery than any other. Now, I challenge the members of this post (including NJ), to critically re-read NJ's posts with this in mind and see if you do not agree with me that these vestigial instincts run particularly strong in NJ. 63 - mediocrefunkybeat I'd disagree with you and say that religion is an inherent because we always want to find a higher power than our own, and an explanation rather than it being an inherent fear. I think sun-worship is actually pretty sensible.. I mean, it controls everything on Earth, well, most things.. so in a sense the Egyptians got it right first time lol. 64 - nutha jason now we're talking! welcome back MFB. sun worship is a logical grounding for god making. it is why i believe that monotheism is likely to be very old indeed. many tribes worshipped animals etc but then must have seen their power to hunt animals and eat them as a sign thst these were not higher beings. some then attributed a spiritual aspect to the animal which is called a totem. but some tribes must have taken another alternative. they may have then looked at the mysterious and untouchable ... the weather, the moon or the sun ... for their deity. of course we now know that the sun is a ball of gas fusion a million times the size of earth ... and that doesn't make it any less amazing though a lot less sentient. we are certainly social beings who look for rallying points instictively. tribalism cannot be denied, because it is our specie's most advanced survival strategy. even baboons walk about in troops. civilisation is a highly evolved form of tribalsim, so evolved that it doesn't quite meet the instinctual needs we have for grouping and identity. hence football teams etc. i love this sort of anthropology. we are facinating creaures for sure. but i would agree with MFB that tribalism isn't the answer for the exsistence of religion. i think that religion and tribes are probably the same age. for as long as human kind or even the older species (australopithicus for example) has gathered and feared or pondered the power of nature they have sought out explainations. in this way i must conceed to Ratamatatt; that man did create...not God, but gods. its like the chicken or the egg debate (i always vote for the chicken because eggs need incubation). IT IS MY BELIEF that God allowed or made this all occour so that we were primed for him when he introduced himself to us later in our history (to the so called 'adam' and 'eve'). so perhaps Ratamatatt is right. these vestigial instincts run particularly strong in me, and that is why i have such a passion for them, why i have devoted so much time to questioning, testing and proving them to myself. but the evidence is heavily against Ratamatatt's statement that this has caused more human conflict and misery than any other. the church and in fact many other ex-tribal institutions have done more good for our kind than anything else, and still do. the world is not nearly as rotten as it could be and history may be littered with loss and suffering but for the vast majority of humans life was to put it simply ... normal. j 65 - mediocrefunkybeat Well.. I would still argue I can't believe in religion that has condoned war, but yeah, religion does do good things. For example, in Islam, they are religiously bound to giving a certain percentage of their income to charity each year. Fantastic! I think that if all the major principles of major religions were actually held onto, and there wasn't so much dogma attached, we'd have a nigh-on 'perfect' world.. but I'm an idealistic child... 66 - OceanDirt i heard the coolest thing this summer in a theory class at a jazz camp i've gone to for the last 3 years. the class didn't really have a teacher so we had one guy just come in and teach it for the day. he was a scattered guy, and most of us were having trouble following his train of thought (myself included) as he talked about the cosmic power of music, the higher power of art. he talked about the solar system and the sun and crazy shit i can't even remember exactly, but it was awesome. it was all this stuff about theory and music coming from a man who lived out jazz as you always imagine it, and he was that stereotypical "cool" jazz guy. he was talking about the circle of 5ths, and improvising, about how sharps and flats color the music. he said that they were like paints on a pallette, and that you have to use them like an artist uses to paint a picture. he talked about the wavelengths of physical colors and how there are certain numbers that go along with every color and every sound and how sound and light are both essentially vibrations and are essentially the same thing. he said all of art and all of life and all of existence is based on math. he told us no matter what god you believe in (or don't), you have to realize that the true religion is mathematics and that everything in our universe is based so precisely on math that if there is a god, he must have been one hell of a mathematician to come up with this place. how cool is that? maybe it would have been cooler if you'd seen it yourself haha i'm not good at relating stories. 67 - OceanDirt nutha jason wrote: quote: '...its like the chicken or the egg debate (i always vote for the chicken because eggs need incubation)...' i'd have to say the egg because of evolution. the preevolution of a chicken just before the modern day version of it would have given birth to an egg that had a mutation of its species that was the first mutation into the form of a modern day chicken. the preevolution would have incubated it, it would have hatched, and it would have been raised just like all the others but as the first modern chicken. haha i always liked that riddle though. 68 - nutha jason nice one OceanDirt. but perhaps then cell division came before the egg, as mitosis was the first method of reproduction. hehe. j ps. i agree. God is the ultimate mathematician. have you ever read into chaos theory mathematics? after seeing jurassic park years ago i began reading up on mandelbrot sets and fractals etc. fascinating. and the pictures make for great desk tops. rhythm and mathematics not only describes the universe and how it runs but is its very esscence itself. string theory and quantum physics is showing this now. which kind of neatly brings us back to the initial topic of this thread: m-theory IT IS MY BELIEF that these are the blue prints of God. his language perhaps. let there be MC2. 69 - Ratamatatt nutha jason wrote: quote: 'but the evidence is heavily against Ratamatatt's statement that this has caused more human conflict and misery than any other. the church and in fact many other ex-tribal institutions have done more good for our kind than anything else, and still do. the world is not nearly as rotten as it could be and history may be littered with loss and suffering but for the vast majority of humans life was to put it simply ... normal.' In response I present a only a small part of the evidence in support of Ratamatatt's statement: Nov, 1095: Pope Urban II presided over the Council of Clermont and called the First Crusade into being Spring, 1096: Peasants' Crusade set out from Europe Aug, 1096: Emperor Alexius of Constantinople shipped the Peasants' Crusade over the Bosporus Late Summer, 1096: First Crusade leaders were departing Europe Oct 1096: Peasants' Crusade annihilated in Anatolia by the Turks Spring, 1097: First Crusade contingents assembling in Constantinople End of Apr, 1097: First Crusade began the march in Anatolia to Nicaea Late May, 1097: Nicaea surrendered to Alexius Late June, 1097: First Crusaders marched overland from Nicaea toward Dorylaeum Oct 21, 1097: Crusaders arrived before Antioch; long, bitter siege ensued Early Feb 1098: Emperor Alexius' General Tacitius left the siege of Antioch Mar 10, 1098: Citizens of Edessa gave Baldwin control of the city Jun 1, 1098: Stephen of Blois & a large group of French left the siege of Antioch Jun 3, 1098: Firuz opened Antioch to Bohemond and the First Crusaders Jun 5-9, 1098: Kerbogha arrived before Antioch & besieged the besiegers Jun 14, 1098: Peter Bartholomew found the Lance Jun 28, 1098: Crusaders beat back Kerbogha's siege of Crusader Antioch Nov 27-Dec 11, 1098: Crusaders captured M'arrat-an-Numan; army restless for Jerusalem Jan 13, 1099: Raymond of Toulouse led the first contingent away from Antioch and toward Jerusalem Feb 14, 1099: Raymond began the desultory siege of Arqah, near Tripoli Late Mar, 1099: Godfrey and Robert of Flanders joined the siege of Arqah Mid-May, 1099: Raymond finally gave up on Arqah; all present marched to Jerusalem Jun 6, 1099: Citizens of Bethlehem invited Tancred to protect them Jun 7, 1099: Godfrey et al. arrived before Jerusalem Jun 13, 1099: Crusaders failed to take Jerusalem by storm Jul 15, 1099: Godfrey breached the walls of Jerusalem near Herod's Gate and soon was elected the "Defender of the Holy Sepulchre" Aug 12, 1099: Crusaders beat back the Fatimids at Ascalon 1100-18: Baldwin I, King of Jerusalem 1113: Hospitallers of Jerusalem recognized by the papacy as an independent group 1118-31: Baldwin II, King of Jerusalem 1118-9: Hugh of Payns created the Order of the Temple 1124: Fall of Tyre to Crusaders; now most of the coast in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem 1131-43: Fulk of Anjou, King of Jerusalem Dec, 1144: Zengi took Edessa, sparked the Second Crusade Dec, 1145: Pope Eugenius III issued Quantum praedecessores to initiate the Second Crusade 1146: Bernard of Clairvaux active in preaching the crusade Oct, 1147: Lisbon fell to crusaders and Portuguese; Almeria fell to Spanish Jul 1148: Louis VII of France, Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, Emperor Conrad III in the East on the Second Crusade Sep, 1144: Zengi was assassinated; Nur ad-Din acceeded to Aleppo 1143-63: Baldwin III, King of Jerusalem Jul 15, 1149: Dedication of the Crusader Church of the Holy Sepulchre Apr, 1154: Nur ad-Din took Damascus, united Muslim Syria 1160s: Series of invasions by Crusaders into Egypt 1163-74: Amaury, King of Jerusalem 1169: Shirkuh became vizier in Egypt and accepted Nur ad-Din's leadership 1174-85: Baldwin IV, King of Jerusalem May 1174: Nur ad-Din died Oct, 1174: Saladin took Damascus Nov, 1177: Crusader army defeated Saladin at Mont Gisard 1183: Saladin took Aleppo 1185-6: Baldwin V, King of Jerusalem 1186-94: Guy of Lusignan, King of Jerusalem Jul 4, 1187: Saladin won the Battle of Hattin, and took most of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem May, 1189: Emperor Frederick I (Barbarossa) left Europe on the Third Crusade Jun 10, 1190: Frederick I drowned in Anatolia Jul 1190: Kings Philip of France and Richard of England set out on the Third Crusade Winter 1190-1: French and English stayed in Sicily Jul 12, 1191: Acre surrendered to Kings Philip, Richard and Guy; Philip departed the Holy Land for France shortly afterward Sep 7, 1191: Richard met Saladin at the Battle of Arsuf Nov-Dec 1191: Richard's Crusaders marched toward Jerusalem but turned back to the coast Jun 1192: Richard's Crusaders marched again toward Jerusalem but turned back again Oct 9, 1192: Richard Lionheart departed the Holy Land Mar 4, 1193: Saladin died 1197: Abortive Crusade of Emperor Henry VI 1198-1224: Albert of Buxtehude expanded the Baltic Crusades Aug 1198: Pope Innocent III called the Fourth Crusade 1199: Political Crusade against Markward of Anweiler Nov 1202: Venetians and Crusaders sacked Zara, a Christian port on the Dalmatian Coast Apr, 1204: Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople 1208: Pope Innocent III called the Albigensian Crusade Jul 1212: King Alfonso VIII of Castile expanded the Reconquista; King Sancho VII of Navarre won the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa Dec 1215: Pope Innocent III issued Ad liberandam calling the Fifth Crusade during the Fourth Lateran Council Dec 1217: Fifth Crusaders attacked Mount Tabor May 1218: Fifth Crusaders began the siege of Damietta Aug 1221: Fifth Crusade, in the Nile Delta, surrendered Jun 1228: Emperor Frederick II, King of Jerusalem through marriage to Isabell (Yolanda), sailed East on the Sixth Crusade Feb 1229: Al-Kamil surrendered Jerusalem to Emperor Frederick II 1240s: Popes Gregory IX and Innocent IV called Political Crusades against Emperor Frederick II 1248: King Louis IX departed for the Holy Land on the Seventh Crusade Jun, 1249: Louis reached Damietta Apr, 1254: Louis departed the Holy Land Jul, 1270: Louis IX's Last Crusade; Louis died in North Africa 1291: The Fall of Acre Oct 1307: King Philip IV surpessed the Templars in France 1330-1523: Hospitallers continued crusade action from Rhodes 1334: Crusader navy defeated Turkish pirates in the Gulf of Edremit 1334-1402: Crusaders held the port of Smyrna 1365: Crusaders under Peter I of Cyprus sacked Alexandria 1396: Crusade of Nicopolis 1426: Egyptians gained control over Cyprus 1798: Fall of Hospitallers on Malta to Napoleon 70 - nutha jason as long as this list is and even if you made it longer, it would still be a very small part of church history. it highlights the unfortunate bad decisions of the few. but earlier in the thread we covered this whole idea of the evils of the church. bad deeds are often easier to recall because of the tragedy they bring about. but what of all the millions of kind ministers, caring nuns, selfless martyrs of christendom. their deeds are not so easy to recall. and yet for two thousand years they have tirelessly worked for the good of their fellow humans. i have studied church history in secular books and even during the worst times the majority of the church were behaving in a loving fashion. a man with a sword can cut a bigger headline in the annuls of history than a woman on her knees praying for the succour of a dying stranger. historic lists of church grieveinces mean nothing in that light. the statistics are staggering if you know them. see the post : Posted: 23.11.2004, 18:39 (entry 15) for more as i don't want to repeat what has already been said. on the positive side, thank you for debating with me now. j 71 - Ratamatatt nutha jason wrote: quote: '. . . but what of all the millions of kind ministers, caring nuns, selfless martyrs of christendom. their deeds are not so easy to recall. and yet for two thousand years they have tirelessly worked for the good of their fellow humans. . . . j ' The good work of these "martyrs" would include the missionaries who were kind and selfless, unless you refused to convert. "No?" I proffer the aboriginal "Americans" (North, Central and South) the majority of whom were slaughtered by their caring christian benefactors for chosing not to be educated in the ways of christ. Whatever became of the Incas, Aztecs Mayans, Quechuas, etc.? How did two continents inhabited by diverse populations become "Latin America?" (It's a rhetorical question, hopefully punctuated to your approval). It is understandably unsettling to have an essential foundation of your belief system shown to you to be murder. It is understandable that you would lie to yourself and others in defense of all that supports your understanding of the reason for your existence. But no, (your protestations notwithstanding, no pun intended although that does bring to mind the European Reformation wars, which adds to my side of the scale), the overwhelming body of the evidence is quite clear that the good deeds of christians is far, FAR outweighed by the bad. And, I have no doubt that this is the case with most religions, but especially christians. 72 - nutha jason you really have a virulent hatred for christians it seems. i don't know what history you've studied but it is clear that you don't like what i say and will continue to lower your postings to insults. it is rather sad. you still drone on about specific cases in history with no thought of all the countless good things the church has done. i'm prepared to admit that the christian church hasn't always got it right, heck, i don't get it right ... in as far leading a blameless exsistence. but you seem to have a blind spot. you conceed nothing. even your history of latin america is warped. you really believe the church did all that? not the greed of individuals and kings? oh i'm sure the church played a role but you make it sound like we were the sole agent in the change. and once again while the conquistadores marched, with them came men and women who were compelled by love to service the people and care for them. we just don't read so much about this multitude because they didn't capture cities or kill thousands. Quote: 'It is understandably unsettling to have an essential foundation of your belief system shown to you to be murder. It is understandable that you would lie to yourself and others in defense of all that supports your understanding of the reason for your existence.' could you be any more condescending? i'm only unsettled by how rude you are. i thought you might be starting to debate but now it looks like you want to debase. i really wish you would be more sensitive in your approach and not so nasty. you still seem to want to win as if this were a competition. it is sad that you cannot be more tactful. you have my sympathy. pearls before the swine again i guess. you and i may just have to agree to disagree. j 73 - Ratamatatt I'll concede that not all of the holocausts perpetrated in the name of christ were carried out by members of a church, but were, in some cases, carried out by christians, in the name of christ, who used religion as a subterfuge for personal gain or as an expression of personal hatred and bigotry. I'll concede that christians have been the victims of some of the same hatred, although given christian history it is not altogether unexpected or unjustified. I'll concede that some good has come from christain existence (not including the dark ages). I'll even concede that I was being rude and condescending. But NJ, nothing is more condescending or rude as christian proselytizing. And that's what you were doing. And you need to be aware that there are some who justifiably resent it, reject it and find it highly offensive. 74 - nutha jason then don't read it. j 75 - Ratamatatt Then don't read my posts. 76 - ayottefan Wow! This turned ugly. Proselytize: To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith. Didn't see any of that from NJ..just intelligent debate. 77 - brettamusvonadverb "the anti christ is hard at work" - Nutha You believe in the devil? You seem like a reasonably sharp guy. Why believe in such a silly idea? Let's suppose that a devil does in fact exist.... God created and designed the devil to act in exact accordance with god's plan. Nothing exists or happens against your god's will .... so. the devil and all his activities are creations of your god. BTW, man, I just listened to your drumming on the song This Time. Very cool... good time... the groove fit the song very well. Nice job. 78 - nutha jason thanks ayottefan for your support and good debating skills. thanks brettamusvonadverb for your kind comments on my drumming. now to adress your question. i do believe in the devil because the bible talks of him in many of its books. as to the devil's nature, of this i am not so sure. i don't believe he is the red fork carrying lord of hell. i believe this is an image he may have encouraged so that he would look too ridiculous to be real. the devil doesn't require belief to exsist so he revels in us not believing in him at all. he has actively worked on himself becoming a 'silly idea'. by not knowing the enemy we are exposed to him. his appearance and even how he actually affects us or what power he has are all to vague to be sure. i believe he exsists and is an enemy to be respected. Quote: 'God created and designed the devil to act in exact accordance with god's plan. Nothing exists or happens against your god's will .... so. the devil and all his activities are creations of your god.' nice one. i don't think god created the devil but rather the potential for the devil to exsist. he made a system of free will. for humans he hid is glory so our free will would be uninfluenced by the indenyability of his prescence as the free will of angels is. according to tradition* then, the leader of the angel chorus and the most beautiful and powerful of the angels (lucifer) grew proud (and this was the true 'original' sin) and defied god. the true motivations for his decision to tempt adam and eve may be more complex than something expressable in human terms, but it could be to gain worshippers for himself ... who knows. things do appear to happen against god's will, not because he has any limitations in his reach or power, but because he choses to. he choses to allow free will in spite of the cost to himself. in order to perpetuate free will he limits his interaction to a perfect balance that from our side might appear to be a struggle between good and evil. but there is no contest. we are in the seventh day, the day of rest ... or to give it a new name: the day of 'carefully limited interaction'. a great book to read on this whole topic is by C S Lewis: the screwtape letters. j * this tradition is questionable to me because it is not written in the bible. as i said before, the bible is what i am sure of, anything else i can favour or reject or tolerate until something better comes along. 79 - mediocrefunkybeat Whoa, this got heated. Well... I admit that the church have commited more good than bad over history.. but still, IMO, there is too much bad, for myself personally; I'm just an idealist. What Nutha says about a sword being remembered over a woman praying is so very truthful. We hear about murderers every day of the year, but how often do we hear about the good deeds people have done? We heard about Mother Teresa, but only because of her extreme benevolence. Good can come from evil, look at Nobel, he invented dynamite, for a good cause. Then he heard that it was being used to kill. He decided to found the Nobel Prize, which has done good for the World, recognising the achievements of our fellow man. There IS light, even in the most evil situation, regardless of faith or not. 80 - jonis All people who thinks drummers are stupid should check out this thread. I didn't expect to see this kind of smartness around here:p Too bad it's all in english, as my english isn't the best. 81 - bozzio-v-portnoy Damn right MFB the examples are everywhere! im guessing you are in 6th form now. what subjects have you taken? im doing Chemistry, Physics, Maths [mechanics] and ICT. best of luck with your Gig tonight BTW just a quick question for J - do you actually believe the bible literally or do you believe it in a metaphorical sense, e.g. the whole 7 days creation thing, and other stories? i had a look on the net, and it turns out that constantine wasnt converted, but i also found evidence that he was! guess which one came from an atheism page, and which one came from a christian page!!! LOL!!! Rattamatat - please tune down the aggressiveness! it isnt needed or necessary! if debating religion is a heated topic for you, maybe you should take a little more time with your posts, and try not to offend or be rude! just remeber, this is supposed to be friendly peace Mark 82 - mediocrefunkybeat Hey dude, I'm taking Philosophy (duh), Psychology, Biology and Music Tech. In the original texts of the bible, the term 'day' was never actually used, to find the closest equivalent, we have to look at the word 'Eons' which is basically what was meant originally, this means 'ages' So in the vernacular James I Bible.. there are a few mistranslations. Which is why I can't personally take the Bible as a literal text, unless I learned ancient Hebrew (cue Simpson's quote, Bart, I am NOT learning ancient Hebrew) 83 - nutha jason true story. b_v_p: buried somewhere earlier in this thread i said something about how i view the bible ... wait i'll look for it. it was Posted: 24.11.2004, 13:02 in this thread (entry 28). j 84 - nutha jason here is a quote of C S lewis concerning the gospels: 'either this is reportage - though it may no doubt contain errors - pretty close up to the facts ... or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique or modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. if it is untrue, it must be a narrative of that kind. the reader who doesn't see this has simply not learned to read' a study of the four gospels shows that they are reportage, as Lewis says. the errors and subtle differences far from disproving them, validate them. why? if the gospels were faked to influences the masses, the four books would be more in agreement. even if the incongrueties were faked to further the illusion, there are so many minor errors that a) it is easier to believe they are the stumbling recounts of eyewitnessess and second hand accounts with some point of view anomolies, b) the so called 'fakers of the gospels' would not have added so many problems into the mix for fear that the faith (christianity) they were trying to give birth to would be discounted. the gospels were written 65 to 90 years after christ ascended to heaven. by this time there were tens of thousands of christians living across a broad swathe of the empire. many of them were alive during the time of christ. many of them had parents and grand parents who were witnesses. if the gospel stories didn't match what they had been told or saw then they would have rejected the gospel. they didn't. why? because the story was the same (basically). what do you folks think of this? j 85 - bozzio-v-portnoy interesting view point! i can think of some who'd disagree tho lol! personally i feel that an accurate description of the times of christ would only be possible had the gospels been written at the time of christ, and had the bible included all the gospels [as you know roughly 80 were "considered"] there would be far more conflicting information than what we see now. perhaps the ones in the bible were selected for thier similarities? there are 2 sides to every story, "truth" is a matter of how many people believe each side! the more popular side is considered truth, especially historically.... 86 - Ratamatatt bozzio-v-portnoy wrote: quote: '. . . personally i feel that an accurate description of the times of christ would only be possible had the gospels been written at the time of christ, and had the bible included all the gospels [as you know roughly 80 were "considered"] there would be far more conflicting information than what we see now. perhaps the ones in the bible were selected for thier similarities? . . . . ' My understanding is that the Dead Sea Scrolls are historical writings contemporaneous with the time of christ. My further understanding is that what of the DSS's are in the public domain have been the subject of rigorous analysis by scholars the world over, some of whom (christians themselves) have concluded that the DSS disprove the notion of christ as a deity and that the entire story of christ, apostles, rising from the dead, etc. was the fiction writing of saul several decades after christ was killed, who changed his name to paul, anointed himself an apostle and created a new religion. Since I haven't read the works of these scholars myself I can't provide any more details than that. Eventually, I will read on this subject. In the mean time perhaps a member of this forum can discuss the DSS with more authority than I can. 87 - nutha jason well to learn a bit more about the contemporary view points surrounding the DSS and more along the lines of this whole arguement i would recommend reading this book: THE CASE AGAINST CHRIST by John Young (pub: hodder and stoughton) see also: GOD AND SCIENCE by David Wilkinson and Rob Frost (pub: monarch books) and LETTERS FROM A SCEPTIC by Gregory and Edward Boyd (pub: kingsway publications) j 88 - Ratamatatt I can't say if those books are the same as the one's recommended to me, but, since you've read them, why don't you share the gravamen of their author's arguments. 89 - nutha jason they're rather long and detailed but in the end they are pretty much saying a lot of the things i have been talking about on this thread. they present the more shcolarly proof of some of the things i've said. they especially squash some of the consiracy theory type assertions such as: - the dss scrolls call christ into question. - there are lost books (80 gospels) they give the dates, names and places (the statistics) that lend fact to my posts. they are (with the exception of LETTERS FROM A SCEPTIC) secular books. about the case against christ (interestingly) CLIFF RICHARD WROTE: 'this book does much to set the record straight and to demonstrate that, far from being in conflict, Christian faith goes hand in hand with reason, common sense, and historical fact' i challenge anyone to read any one of these books. the case against christ being the most compelling. j 90 - Ratamatatt So none of those books deal with the notion that the story of christ was the fiction of saul? The Dead Sea Scrolls Controversy by Steve Mizrach The current furor over the Dead Sea Scrolls has mostly been examined by the media as a simple scholarly feud. It is scandal enough that scroll researchers have restricted access by "outsiders" to the scrolls for over forty years. (The history and politics of the scrolls' acquisition is long, complex, and well known, and I will not go into it here.) But if it were merely yet another academic "turf" war or simple scholarly egoism, the controversy would not merit as much attention. The problem is that the scrolls deal with very pertinent matters surrounding the development of modern Christianity and Judaism. The position that the scroll researchers have tried to bulwark for forty years is that the Essenes of Qumran were external to "normative" Judaism or Christianity, a fringe sect with little connection to events of the time. (Recently, the theory has been raised that the Qumranites may have been Sadducees instead, as the word "Essene" does not appear anywhere in the documents. This theory has been summarily dismissed, but the difference may have been nothing more than semantic, as we shall see.) Based on Josephus' accounts, a popular image of the Essenes has been that they were pacifist, ascetic, celibate, separatist, and apolitical mystics. This image is at least partially true: but Josephus contradicts himself at various points. He adds, almost as an afterthought, the observation that some of the Essenes were married, participated in Zealot revolutionary activities, and lived within the city of Jerusalem. It is also curious that the speech at Masada delivered by the surviving Zealot commander seems remarkably Essene in orientation, at least as recorded by Josephus. Archaeological evidence found at Qumran points out some interesting facts: a forge for weapons was found, as well as many Roman and non-Roman arrowheads, and evidence of fortifications. This suggests that Qumran may have been more of a fortress than a monastery. It is curious as to why the Romans appear to have driven out these harmless mystics somewhere around AD 68, right in the middle of the Jewish Revolt. Also found at Qumran were graves for women and children; and coins minted in Jerusalem as well as artifacts produced there. Family life and commercial integration appear to have been very "mainstream" for the Qumran community. But the internal evidence of the scrolls does not make the Essenes "ordinary joes." The so-called Temple Scroll suggests that they had a dream of rebuilding a new Temple of visionary dimensions after razing Herod's to the ground. The Copper Scroll suggests they had knowledge of the whereabouts of many Temple treasures and connections to some elements of the priesthood, although they had fierce opposition to the wealthy, elite, pro-Roman, Hellenizing Sadducean Temple establishment. They had a very particular Messianic expectation of the arrival of two "twin Messiahs": the "Aaronic Messiah" would be the legitimate anointed high priest and he would herald the "Davidic Messiah" who would restore the true sacred kingship. The War Scroll suggests that they had a vision of a cosmic conflict between the forces of light and darkness: the Gentile "kittim" or Romans against the "sons of light," namely, the Essenes. Other scrolls interpret biblical prophecies to describe current political events, offer strange apocalyptic and eschatological predictions, and incorporate some of the "pseudepigraphal" and "apocryphal" material of the Intertestamental Period. And the "Damascus" Document suggests that their leader, the Teacher of Righteousness, was persecuted by an illegitimate member of the priesthood they called the Wicked Priest, and put to death. The scholarly team controlling the scrolls has kept a lid on the explosive contents of the Damascus Document by an interesting trick. Using poor philological and graphological analysis, they date that scroll to the 2nd century BCE -- hence it becomes a missive against one of the Maccabean kings, who illegitimately assumed the kingship and priesthood and became Hellenizers toward the end of their reign. But it also could be as much an indictment of Herodian rule as Maccabean... and there are some indications that it may be a 1st century CE document instead. As to the name of the document, it is a curiosity -- there were no Essenes that lived in Damascus in Syria -- unless one realizes that "Damascus," as described geographically by the scroll, can be nowhere else but on the Dead Sea. The objectivity of the scroll researchers on these controversial questions is itself questionable, as de Vaux and many others are members of the Ecole Biblique, an institution formed to combat Modernist tendencies in Catholicism and promote pro-Catholic readings of scripture. The one agnostic on the team, John Allegro, tried to release early reports of scroll contents, and was subsequently hounded off the team in the 1970s. (Though, one might note, he later responded by asserting authoritatively that Jesus may have been a mushroom, based on some speculative translations of various Aramaic words.) What are the scroll researchers really afraid of? Robert Eisenman, an independent scholar, notes that more may be at stake than just academic defensiveness. Eisenman notes that many of the names used by the Essenes to refer to themselves -- Zadokim (the Just), Ebionim (the Poor), Nazoreans (the Pure), Hasideans (Zealous for the law), etc. -- are also some of the appellations used by the entity known as the "early Church" or "Jewish-Christians" or "Jerusalem Church." Eisenman believes that the Zealots, Essenes, Nazoreans, etc. were all just names for one single movement with different aspects, but very specific goals: restoration of the legitimate anointed (Meshiach) king and high priest, expulsion of the Roman occupation and the pro-Roman Herodians and Sadducees, and religious reconstruction. Jesus, then, may have been a legitimate dynast (his genealogy from the line of David is given in two of the Synoptic Gospels), and a real political threat to the Romans , not the religious authorities of the Sanhedrin. After his death, Eisenman notes, Jesus' followers coalesced behind his brother James the Just, who may well have been the Essene Teacher of Righteousness; he was put to death by the pro-Roman high priest Phinehas, who is an excellent candidate for the Wicked Priest. A bold hypothesis, you might ask. If early Christianity was really a revolutionary political movement fully within the sphere of Judaism at the time... whence the Christianity of today? That story can be traced to a certain Saul of Tarsus. This tentmaker, who apparently had very influential friends among the Sadducees, was sent to "Damascus" to root out "Christians" there. Of course, he would have had no authority to carry out those orders in a different part of the Empire than Palestine. But if "Damascus" is "Qumran" a new picture begins to emerge... along the way Saul has a "conversion" and becomes Paul, a "Christian." Shortly after this experience, as recorded in the Acts of the New Testament, the very vigorous Paul travels all over the Roman Empire and preaches Christ. Except... James and members of the Jerusalem "Church" complain he is preaching "another Christ," telling people to be "apostates from the law," and promoting "deviation." Imagine this scenario: James and his followers attempt a Messianic crusade focusing on returning the "lost sheep" of Israel to the fold. (The key to successful revolt would be the enlistment of Jews all over the Empire -- many Jews lived in Persia, Babylonia, and Egypt at the time.) Along comes this Paul, who claims he wants to assist them in their efforts for revolutionary recruitment. Only... he seems to be preaching a new religion which is distinct from, and even inherently opposed to Judaism: proclaiming that a very holy but earthly man was also divine, recruiting among the Gentiles using pagan concepts (the dying-and-resurrected god and virgin birth are features of the Mithras and Attis cults), and betraying Jewish nationalist aspirations by focusing on a very otherworldly "kingdom of heaven" rather than a concrete political restoration. So who was Paul? Eisenman suggests he may have been an agent provocateur . He may have even been the individual that the Damascus Document identifies as "the Liar" and "the Apostate." And as to why he went to the effort to found a new religion, Eisenman suggests that it was a brilliantly conceived means to defuse the very this-world, political significance of Jesus and his Davidic bloodline. As an agent of the pro-Roman Sadducee establishment, he found a perfect way to deflect anti-Roman agitation into yet another Roman mystery cult. He apparently succeeded very well. When Bar Kochba revolted yet again against the Romans in 132 CE, he turned to the "Christians" for help, and became extremely angry when they declared opposition to his goals. The Roman authorities still remained concerned about potential threats: Eusebius records that the Emperor went to special efforts to assure that members of Jesus' family, the so-called Desposyni -- in the 2nd century CE! -- remained loyal to the Empire and were not planning rebellion. The Romans may have had more reasons to throw "Christians" to the lions than merely worrying that the moralistic folk might cancel their orgies and parties, especially if early Christianity were an anti-Roman political movement. In a sense, Constantine completes our story. His efforts to make "Roman" Christianity the religion of the Empire (which suggests that the "bishops" of cities such as Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem may have had another "brand") and to impose uniformity through the Council of Nicaea essentially cut off the stream of "Nazorean Christianity" from history. The New Testament has clearly been altered (if the accounts of Mark, etc. thirty years after the fact are even accurate) to provide a pro-Roman bias. The Sanhedrin, rather than Roman authorities, are blamed for Jesus' death, as are the "Jews" in some vague way. There are clearly Zealots in Jesus' entourage and John the Baptist appears to be an Essene; some of Jesus' sayings are borrowed from prominent Pharisees such as Hillel. Yet the New Testament seems to condemn all these groups. Incidents suggesting violent resistance, revolutionary activity, dynastic marriage, and political alliance seem to be hinted at but quietly hushed up. And everywhere attention to Rome and the real situation in Palestine are deflected to otherworldly concerns; Jesus is transformed into some kind of divine figure, though he himself repudiates those who believe such a thing. The New Testament seems to be a sort of fairy tale situated in a very bloody, turbulent time. Moses Hess wrote an important book in the 19th century entitled Rome and Jerusalem . He examined the twin roots of modern Western civilization, Hebraic and Hellenistic, monotheistic and pagan, and examined their opposition. It was clear that, for a while, the two poles struggled mightily against one another. The result was a victory of one and then a curious fusion of the two ... and through "Christendom" and the rule of the Catholic Church the West was nurtured on this admixture. Rome won that conflict, perhaps through historical accident as much as anything else. The West is a curious blend of Roman values -- hierarchy, martial rule, imperialism, bread and circuses -- and the Hebraic prophetic tradition of justice, law, and equality. Nietzche knew that and so have others. One might reflect on our "Judaeo-Christian" tradition in light of that. 91 - brettamusvonadverb If we've established the presupposition that your god is both omnibenevolant and omnipotent (all-knowing), then it's reasonable and logical to assume that he knew evil would inevitabley result from this "gift of free will". The notion you present of your god's ignorance of the devil's eventual transition toward evil is contradictory to the all-knowing/powerful nature of your god. Are you saying that god didn't fully know of the devil's fate? In fact wouldn't he have had to design the exact outcome, since he created the very blueprint by which these creatures (angels/devils/humans, etc) operate? And, another thing... how can heaven be blissful when you are seperated from your loved ones (non-believers who are burning in hell?). Why can't I wait until after I die and your god presents himself to me to believe in him? Why would it be too late to get into heaven? Did Adam have nipples or did god give those to humans later? I just threw that in for humor. lol ;) 92 - bozzio-v-portnoy well now, there was a question worthy of this forum! my own riddle assuming there is a god, and there is heaven.... by looking at thier anatomy, how could you tell in heaven who adam and eve were??? they'd have no belly button!! seriously though, the DSS are very interesting, and contain a number of books that include the missing gospels, e.g. the gospel of Phillip. i know we covered this earlier NJ but hey as were on the topic ill say it again, there is apparently [i havent read the scrolls myself lol] evidence to show that jesus was very close to mary magdaline, possibly even betrothed. now before this is branded as blasphemy, consider it. at the time, it was expected of a man to have a wife. would it be so hard to believe that jesus, who wanted to spread love and harmony could have had a wife? just because the bible doesnt account for it, the BBS do, and notably, the BBS survived the dark ages, the time when the roman catholic church went on a rampage and destroyed thousands of valuable documents that recorded jesus's times. this gave rise to many well known and documented secret societies, like the knights templar, illuminati [founded by gallieo a man persued by the church due to his love of science], the masons and the priory du sion. now i know this all sounds a little far fetched, but these organisations do/did exist. thanks for your time NJ im starting to feel sorry for you! oh well i respect your one man army, maybe you will get some support! anyways, im tired goodnight!!! Mark 93 - nutha jason to mark Ha ha. i've heard the Adam's navel one before. in the same book they proposed that the world really is only as old as the bible literally says it is (+/- 10 000 years). the book goes on to say that god created the rock strata and even the fossils to create the illusion of an older world so that we wouldn't believe in him for the wrong reasons. sort of a massive magic illusion. as you may know from previous postings, this is not what i believe of course. i don't view adam as the first human being but rather the first human being that god revealed himself to. so adam was born and did have a navel etc etc. as for your second point mark. i have to concede that it is well put. jesus' life is unrecorded for nearly twenty five years between the boy who stayed behind at the temple and the man baptised by john. we only really know about his first five or so years and his last three (biblically speaking). i also believe that part of his mission here on earth was to experience for himself a human life and live it as an example to us all. so it is quite possible then that he got married. to brettamusvonadverb Quote: 'The notion you present of your god's ignorance of the devil's eventual transition toward evil is contradictory to the all-knowing/powerful nature of your god.' i never gave any such notion. god's ignorance is an internally flawed set of words. god may know the whole of history, he may be in control but, and this is a hard concept for us linear beings to understand, from our point of view the outcome is still fluid. it is almost like a quantum physics problem...like shrodinger's cat. i think the mistake we all make when trying to understand god and his plan is that we are trying to fathom an infinite being with our very finte minds. we think we can pidgeon hole his will in human terms and we won't feel at ease until we can say 'now it makes sense to me.' but it cannot make sense to us. think of it like this. you could write ten thousand books, carefully describing beethovens fifth symphony, IN BRAILLE. would a person who has always been absolutely deaf their whole life even come close to knowing what the music sounds like should they study all the books? as for your other questions this above statement goes some way to answering them. we don't know how we will be in heaven? (or exactly who will go there - see earlier postings. it may not be as bad as you describe. i think a lot more people are going there than some people think) will such things as marriage still be important? who knows. part of the fun is not knowing, but trusting that a god who can create something as beautiful as an autumnal forest can certainly make a wonderful here after. and this gives rise to the question of faith. faith is believing without evidence. jesus once admonished a follower by saying to him that he (the follower) believes because he has seen these wonders, how much more blessed are the ones (us) who will come after him who will believe without seeing. when i first believed i was fraught with questions, similar to the ones i have been asked on this thread and worse. if i had allowed myself to be bogged down by these i would never have even started searching for the answer. and i must recognize that millions of believers, when faced with the same dilemma, still believed in spite of not having access to the information i was able to obtain. the answer is faith. faith is the first step. it is putting aside pride and taking a chance. it is that first genuine prayer to god aking him to come into your life. the bible says that true faith can only come from god. when one is a new christian the memory of ones non-believing days is still fresh. i still remember being astounded at how much was suddenly clear to me. once i faced my god and acknowledged him, he was suddenly there and everywhere; and, i realised, had always been. it was me that was ignoring him. as a new chrsitian i began reading the bible hungrily, but very quickly i discovered hard questions amoungst all the answers. questions like: and the dinosaurs? noah's ark? seven days? but now i found that my belief was strong enough to say ... these things have answers that i'm sure will be revealed later...and so rather than stumbling blocks, they became bookmarks to return to later and eventually solve ... or not. there are still questions i don't quite know the answer to, but like i said, once you have had an epiphany you find all doubt changes to curious anomoly, all dilema changes to mere temporary challenge. i find prayer helps a lot. and yes i'm sure adam had nipples, BO and bad hair days. to Ratamatatt Steve Mizrach's theory makes an interesting read. i have come across similar things before. these are often written by jewish scholars who have an obvious motivation to discredit christianity. they represent a small body of the jewish religion. most jews respect and are even fascinated with christianity, tho they don't agree with us. judeaism and christianity are compatable from our POV. i have lots of jewish friends and if you think this thread gets heated ... you aint seen nothing yet. once again we come to the issue of history belonging really to the powerful, the extreem and the controvercial ... the so called 'headliners'. but we shouldn't forget the size of the early church and how very small a group the Essenes were. consider: jesus feeds 5000 (men, not counting woman and children) jesus feeds another 5000 jesus convert a whole samaritan town 500 followers recieve the holy spirit at pentecost. etc etc. the number of people who met jesus in those three years and listened to him, and were affected by him, i would estimate from my own bible studies to be, conservatively, 30 000. and these were not a centralised group of co ordinated believers neither. they came from all over palestine and further afeild too. they were from all walks of life. many were powerful romans, some in the army. some were from the same sanhedren that condemed jesus (nicodemus who fought for jesus' life and helped bury him later). peter was entrusted with building the new church but it was alive and spreading long before he could gain any centralised control. so many witnesses, so many of them powerful and intelligent. would they let an imposter change their faith. no. so when paul came along, what he said had to match it. there can be few greater humans in the full length of history than the apostle paul. i would read all of his letters in the new testament very carefully before i start drawing a picture of him as some sort of malicious political faker. this man was a man of deep humility and love. j 94 - mediocrefunkybeat brettamusvonadverb wrote: If we've established the presupposition that your god is both omnibenevolant and omnipotent (all-knowing), then it's reasonable and logical to assume that he knew evil would inevitabley result from this "gift of free will". The notion you present of your god's ignorance of the devil's eventual transition toward evil is contradictory to the all-knowing/powerful nature of your god. Are you saying that god didn't fully know of the devil's fate? In fact wouldn't he have had to design the exact outcome, since he created the very blueprint by which these creatures (angels/devils/humans, etc) operate? And, another thing... how can heaven be blissful when you are seperated from your loved ones (non-believers who are burning in hell?). Why can't I wait until after I die and your god presents himself to me to believe in him? Why would it be too late to get into heaven? Did Adam have nipples or did god give those to humans later? I just threw that in for humor. lol ;) For the first couple of points, we covered these in philosophy on Friday... if God is all knowing and omnibenevolent, why does he appear to let things happen? Well, what I said (which was apparently a very good point showing a high understanding...heh) was that rather than observing and controlling time, God WAS time, so he controlled it, without entirely controlling all that happens within. Therefore, allowing free will and hence evil, whilst still controlling all. 95 - nutha jason good one MFB. i think we throw words like omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing and infinte without perhaps understanding their full meaning. perhaps it is because we cannot truley grasp these terms. time is not a limitation but a medium for god. did your lecturer give you kudos for that one? i wonder what they would think if you copied this thread and gave it to them. i'm copying it all the time for my own resources. i'm going to send it to my dad when it is finished (if ever) j 96 - mediocrefunkybeat Oh, he just looked at me stunned... just A/S philosophy.. and then he just smiled and walked off lol. Was quite funny really. 97 - bozzio-v-portnoy i went to church today, with my parents just because my grandparents are here, and i dint wanna annoy them, but i had a listen anyways, not much else to do!!! anyway, the speaker was talking about the very topic that we are discussing - the validity of christianity. he made pretty much the same arguments as you have done, but i did think that it wasnt as interesting or as easy to absorb as your writing. down to business.... i have had a look at the dead sea scroll situation, and am drawn to believe that the theory regarding saul aka paul is false, there too much evidence for the existance of jesus, to have been a fabricated story. it makes an interestin concept, but the flaw remains in the historical evidence, from non biased sources. regarding the missing gospels, and what they contain, this may prove interesting for you... http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/gospels.htm http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/pamphlets.html http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=15,26&Board=christianity&Number=4206&page=17&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 hope you find this interesting! i know we covered most of this before, but i thought i'd put the link in anyway! in my opinion, every major religion i can think of has flaws, which mean that i find myself uncomfortable to believe them. while they all have evidence to help support thier claims, i am not well versed in most of the worlds major religions, so i cannot speak fully, but from my limited understanding, this is what i can see. on a side note NJ - what is your opinion on George W Bush's pro-christian regieme? and his removal of the theory of evolution - a theory i am very much in support of, from lessons in some southern states? Thanks for reading... Mark 98 - mediocrefunkybeat The theory of evolution we actually observe.. look at bacteria for example. So called 'Superbugs' like MRSA only occur because they've mutated to the extent where they are the only ones who can survive antibiotics etc... 99 - bozzio-v-portnoy exactly 100 - nutha jason excellent question, george bush. hmm. i don't really like him. i mean i'm basing my opinion on a very limited knowledge here, and perhaps he is a really good person who, in the long run, may be a very good president for the states. i don't believe everything that comes out in the news so, who knows. i am however always suspicious of politicians who swing my religion like a bat. it smacks of a low esteem for one's beliefs to make laws that protect them in such a way. christianity must stand up in the face of 'so called' counter theories(evolution). from my past posts you will know that i am a firm believer in the evolutionary process. george needs to devote his policy and power to more pressing problems. he may be the president of the most christian nation in the world but he is also president of the most free nation. he needs to remember how the U.S.A got where it is. now to those links: Even Christ's Biographers Couldn't Agree. this little essay only confirms what i stated in the Post: 27.11.2004, 13:47. if the biographies were in agreement they would may be have been contrived. the fact that they aren't shows that they are genuine memories and annecdotes of different witnesses. THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD?. this, similar to above and delt with in many previous postings particularly Post 28.11.2004, 12:40 Vishal_Agarwal, in the final link, quotes HG Wells a lot and he makes some interesting critiscisms of the church which were dealt with very early on in this debate when we established that christ himself didn't like what so called religious leaders did to fundamental belief. if i think about it i could have saved you guys a lot of typing by taking these links a point at a time. i especially liked the second link because it is a detailed list of biblical errors. as i read through each one i could come up with a rebuttal and that was encouraging to me. j p.s a church course that runs in nearly every country that deals with these issued and others called THE ALPHA course is an excellent avenue for group discussion. i know how you felt sitting in the pews. as the sermon goes on you want to ask questions or point out problems but you cannot because it is a sermon. the alpha course is usually one christian and about ten near christians (in other words people who are undecided) or total non believers. they talk in an open fashion and it is very friendly(they have dinner together). in fact now that i think of it this whole thread is in some simple ways like the alpha course. look out for it in your home town and see what it is about. it could be very helpful (it usually runs once a week for ten weeks and then ends with a weekend away at a campsite or something). the course is extremely popular. see this link : http://alphacourse.org/ 101 - Ratamatatt NJ said: "Steve Mizrach's theory makes an interesting read. i have come across similar things before. these are often written by jewish scholars who have an obvious motivation to discredit christianity." Well I would think that jews would tend to be impartial since they have no steak in the outcome of their findings. I seems to me much more likely that a christian commentator would be prone to bias since it is his religion that is at issue. 102 - nutha jason true. when i posted that i had reservations since i have such repect for jewish folks. though some may have some motivation to discredit anything gentile (non jewish), this is a very small number. judaism is not that concerned with proving itself or getting converts. in fact its quite hard to become a jew. j 103 - Ratamatatt MFB said: "on a side note NJ - what is your opinion on George W Bush's pro-christian regieme? and his removal of the theory of evolution - a theory i am very much in support of, from lessons in some southern states?" Fortunately, that sock puppet masquerading as president doesn't have the jurisdiction (legal authority) to impose such a decision. 104 - nutha jason that is good news. too many people in power have imposed their will in matters that they have no right to alter. people should be free to learn and debate everything and anything as long as by doing so they do not infringe the rights of others or cause terrorist activities to result. j 105 - nutha jason well i have had a nice break from this thread. time to see if anyone wants to return to the fray. so here goes... THE DEAS SEA SCROLLS CONTROVERSY. i've been reading up on it all again. and i am pleased to say that the general secular community have stated that any of the pop anti-biblical anti-christian works are based on extremely questionable 'evidence' and conjecture. here are two quotes: professor millar burrows (yale university): Quote: 'it is my considered opinion, however, that if one will go through any of the historical statements of christian faith he will find nothing that has been or can be disproved by the dead sea scrolls.' alan millard, rankin reader in hebrew and ancient semitic languages (liverpool university): Quote: 'it is a staggering fact that in the course of 1000 years(between the text that was used by all believers while the DSS lay hidden and the DSS themselves)of copying by hand (across the length and breadth of europe and beyond) no errors have crept into the text which in any way affect the bible teaching.' there were many more but these two show enoght to go on. if a scholar says: i believe in jesus, no one pays much attention. if one says: i don't believe in jesus and can prove it, people buy thousands of his book. beware the controvercial. j 106 - mediocrefunkybeat IMO, Jesus may have existed... there's no smoke without fire and he appears in at least 3 separate religions. Just to add to this.. 107 - C_H so much for the m-theory......................................... lol 108 - brettamusvonadverb Quote: 'For the first couple of points, we covered these in philosophy on Friday... if God is all knowing and omnibenevolent, why does he appear to let things happen? Well, what I said (which was apparently a very good point showing a high understanding...heh) was that rather than observing and controlling time, God WAS time, so he controlled it, without entirely controlling all that happens within. Therefore, allowing free will and hence evil, whilst still controlling all.' This simple answer is still logically circular.You're saying that a god WAS time? Who created time? Was it God who designed its specific parameters. God IS everything and everywhere (by definition). The glaring question of who created/designed time/god itself? If god created all then he how could he have created himself? Seems that this is an inescapable/inexplicable conundrum. I'm a little disappointed that the professor in your class didn't critically examine your theory for holes... and this is a philosophy/logic class? heh Maybe that will be the lesson next semester?? ;) The conundrum of why God allowed for evil to exist as a result of free will has not been addressed. A creator should, in fact, have the ability to create exactly what his omnipotent powers allow for, which in our case, is a universe that operates EXACTLY as its designer intended. Nothing (including EVIL) exists without God's design... unless there's someone else in the universe that created evil. (ohh, don't tell me... the devil... then we're back to the creation of the devil and god designing the devil to be evil... try not using circular reasoning to address this problem of evil's existance). Why didn't god create a universe that allowed for free will and not evil? Does evil exist in heaven? Yes? Then what's so special about it? No? Why didn't god create this universe that resembled heaven? Nutha... you say that "praying helps". I'm curious to know what you pray for. If god wants something a certain way, is he going to change his mind because you ask him to? Doesn't he know what you're thinking already? What's the point of praying? God knows how the universe should operate and what is best for you, so why would you want to interupt his plan. Real faith, it would seem, would be to trust in everything god created (events in your life) and not pray for anything. And, one last question that didn't get answered.... Why can't I wait until after I die, and god presents himself to me, to believe and worship him, and get into heaven? 109 - mediocrefunkybeat God is a necessary infinite in this context, he is independent of space and time and therefore is a creator. He IS time because he created it, he is omnipotent, but he is also independent of the coporeal world in the fact that he was not created and therefore cannot exist in our reality. Hence the fact that I said he IS time, not that he is IN OUR time. Also, to create beings with free will AND a determined fate would be within the powers of an omnipotent creator, granted, but also therefore it would be in his power NOT to do such a thing. Maybe we're all part of some sick experiment.. heh. 110 - nutha jason To MFB: Quote: 'Also, to create beings with free will AND a determined fate would be within the powers of an omnipotent creator, granted, but also therefore it would be in his power NOT to do such a thing.' I COULDN'T PUT IT MUCH BETTER MYSELF. brettamusvonadverb, a lot of what you are bringing up has been adressed so i'll take the unanswered bits a point at a time. Quote: 'The glaring question of who created/designed time/god itself? If god created all then he how could he have created himself? Seems that this is an inescapable/inexplicable conundrum.' we are trying to use human linear logic to describe an infinite being. inexplicable about sums up a lot of things. you could ask similar questions about the big bang theory which states that time only started at the moment the singularity exploded. so what came before? see, the problem with infinity is that we could go on asking such questions ... and before that? and before that? ad infinitum. as for God allowing evil to exsist as a result of free will, i will say not much more about this other than to add an analogy: a parent of a sick child allows the child to go through a painful operation in order to save the child's life. god has done what he has done because in his INFINITE wisdom it was the best thing for us. We don't fully understand the why or hows; though we can trust and hope. The dying child knows that the doctor will help them but the child won't understand the workings of the actual surgery nor why it had to happen. perhaps when they grow up they will read up on it and, seeing it with an adult mind, thank their parents now that they can understand how close to death they came. Quote: 'Nutha... you say that "praying helps". I'm curious to know what you pray for. If god wants something a certain way, is he going to change his mind because you ask him to? Doesn't he know what you're thinking already? What's the point of praying? God knows how the universe should operate and what is best for you, so why would you want to interupt his plan. Real faith, it would seem, would be to trust in everything god created (events in your life) and not pray for anything.' firstly i pray because it is right to talk to those you love and none has shown me more love than god. i don't know if you have kids brett (or how old you are - not that it matters) but as a teacher i know often what a child is going to say to me ... so do parents. i don't pre-empt them just because i have that knowledge. i let them express themselves because that way they feel valued and grow. this is love. god knows the length and breadth of my life, no doubt. still knowing this i pray to him because this is a relationship between a mortal and an immortal. such a relationship requires one of the party to act within their own limitations, ie time and sapce, while the other (god) sees the whole and is pleased. prayer is worship. true prayer is not asking to win the lottery but rather a thoughtful musing ... a catharsis if you like ... that allows my human mind to think in terms of god's will. i ask for things that god would want. i do this by thinking about his nature. and by so doing i begin to change from a limited human to a son of god. this is why prayer is powerful. detractors will say it is a form of self delusion (even self hynosis) but those who regularly pray know that it is in fact very different. by praying you are aknowleding that god exsists, that he matters to you, that you believe. belief is faith and faith is power. god does not need our prayers but he wants them. he does not need our love, he desires it. he commands us to pray to him and so i pray. the first step to becoming a christian is to pray the so called 'sinner's prayer'. this comes in many forms. here is a popular one: 'Heavenly Father I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of my Sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my heart that Jesus is your Son, And that he died on the Cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Father, I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now to come in to my life and be my personal Lord and Savior. I repent of my Sins and will Worship you all the day's of my Life!. Because your word is truth, I confess with my mouth that I am Born Again and Cleansed by the Blood of Jesus! In Jesus Name, Amen.' as you can see it is statement of belief and is pretty powerful stuff when you hear it said by someone who a short while ago didn't believe in god. it is not a magical chant and is not formalised. it is based on several biblical quotations and is an honest human response to god. many churches have their own version or versions. like all prayers it is important not to sing the words out but think on each line and understand what it means. real faith is asking god for things in spite of knowing that he knows what you are going to ask for, but asking him anyway. remeber not all prayer is asking god for things. it is acknowledging, sharing and relating as well. Quote: 'Why can't I wait until after I die, and god presents himself to me, to believe and worship him, and get into heaven?' where then, is the faith? biblically speaking: god wants us to have a relationship with him in this life. he doesn't present himself for the priviledge of your belief at the end of time. he is an almighty sovereign being ... he wants it now. relativity speaking: god soes not play dice with the universe, should you play dice with god? besides all this, knowing god in this life has been the best thing that ever happened to me. wait until you die and you deny yourself having the creator of the universe to talk to, learn from and be blessed by while you live. god is truly alive and active in the world. unfortunately it is hard to see him until you believe in him and then he is everywhere. j brettamusvonadverb I would think that Jesus, being the creator of the universe, and all, could do a better job of making his presence known to us in your lifetime. It was easy for the apostles to worship Jesus... they actually saw (talked) witih him? What's the point in making himself so difficult to be observed ... a large portion of the world's population doesn't recognize jesus as being anything but a man who lived 2000 yrs ago. Why did Jesus even create those people who don't worship him?? Makes no sense. God knew that I wouldn't worship him... therefore he can't punish me for creating me with the knowlege that I would be not go to heaven... makes no sense. Healed by being bathed in Jesus' blood... that's scary, jason. (In my best John McGlaughlin voice) "Question!?" If the Romans would've decided to kill Jesus by way of a guillatine (sp?) instead of a big wooden cross, would contemporary worshippers be sporting big gold guillatines around their necks? MFB? .............. NUTHA?........... ??? big z Apprently i've heard that after you die there is 17 minutes of unexplained brain activity....the brain is dead but it keeps living for 17 minutes after. Doctors think that in that state you have no state of time perception since you're dead. Maybe thats heaven because it lasts forever to you. nutha jason once again you are getting bogged down in human logic, brett. what makes no sense to us makes perfect sense to god. since he is the expert in things spiritual and eternal we should trust that his way is the best way and then try to find out what his way is and live it. another analogy: i don't understand everything a mechanic says to me, and i'm not going to take his or my time to force him to explain everything engine related right down to the relative viscosity of gearbox fluid. he need only tell me that i need a new clutch and i say okay what do i have to do, how much must i pay etc. the concept of why jesus doesn't make himself obvious to us was dealt with in the post 20 and similarly in 35. not believing in god will not excuse you from facing his judgement. it is scary to me, who believes in god, to hear someone say god can't do this or that. its kind of like that old joke... what does a seven foot body builder armed to the teeth do? ... whatever he wants. Quote: 'Healed by being bathed in Jesus' blood... that's scary, jason.' you are being too literal. obviously i'm not going to climb into a bathtub full of blood. it is a biblical analogy of what christ's sacrifice cost and of what it achieved. christ's death on the cross was fortold (in analogy mind you) in 144 prophecies in nearly every book of the old testament. here are two examples to consider. one is the very first prophecy of christ and the style of his death... genesis 3: 11 '(said god to satan about th son of man [christ]) he will crush your head and you will bruise his heel.' crushing the head is a deadly wound, bruising a heel is not. this indicates that satan will be utterly defeated while christ will only be wounded (no contest). the bruising of the heel occours during crucifiction as the victim pushes up on the cross to take a breath. this prophecy was made more than 3000 years before christ was born!! psalms 22:16 'a band of evil men has surrounded me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.' this was made around a thousand years before christ. there is an obscure law in leviticus that a man should not be left hung on a tree after sunset. that a sacrifice must have had none of its bones broken ... well i could go on. the upshot is that christ was to be crucified. here is the amazing thing. the chances of any human fullfilling a prophecy made before they were born are slim. exceptionally slim. some may argue that you could live your life in a way that would fullfill a prophecy and, granted, christ did just that with quite a few prophecies. but no one can control where they are born, how much money will be paid for their betrayal nor how they will die. here are some statstics from Hugh Ross, Ph.D. '(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10 to the power of 5.) (2) In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history. (Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10 to the power of 5.) (3) In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave-thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used-just as predicted-for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10). (Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10 to the power of 11.) (4) Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). Again, historians and New Testament writers confirm the fulfillment: Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, and his extraordinarily quick death eliminated the need for the usual breaking of bones. A spear was thrust into his side to verify that he was, indeed, dead.' (edit note: i find this one particularly amazing. a soldier, given an instruction from his centurion, followed the order to the letter or faced a very cruel flogging. the roman army was famous for its discipline. this soldier was ordered to break the three victim's legs by a centurion who was standing right there. he follwed oreders for the other two but dissobeyed in front of his commander when he came to christ!) he goes on to give 13 such probability statements. and concludes with... 'Since these thirteen prophecies cover mostly separate and independent events, the probability of chance occurrence for all thirteen is about 1 in 10 to the power of 138 (138 equals the sum of all the exponents of 10 in the probability estimates above). For the sake of putting the figure into perspective, this probability can be compared to the statistical chance that the second law of thermodynamics will be reversed in a given situation (for example, that a gasoline engine will refrigerate itself during its combustion cycle or that heat will flow from a cold body to a hot body)-that chance = 1 in 10 to the power of 80. Stating it simply, based on these thirteen prophecies alone, the Bible record may be said to be vastly more reliable than the second law of thermodynamics. Each reader should feel free to make his own reasonable estimates of probability for the chance fulfillment of the prophecies cited here. In any case, the probabilities deduced still will be absurdly remote.' read the whole article if you want at: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml to big z what doctors THINK happens in the brain of a dying man can only be an opinion not a scientific conclusion. how on earth do they even make the assumption that time ceases to exsist in these moments is absolute balderdash. heaven is real, not the dreams of the nearly dead. i believe most doctors would be appalled by this idle fancy. j ps:As a philosopher, I have metaphysical reasons for preferring Coke over Pepsi: metaphysics is the study of reality, and Coke is, after all, the “real thing.” Z-Row BD brettamusvonadverb wrote: quote: 'For the first couple of points, we covered these in philosophy on Friday... if God is all knowing and omnibenevolent, why does he appear to let things happen?' well... again, i have no patience to read all those posts cuz umm... well just because... but about this, I'm jewish and we study the bible in school. I couldn't help noticing that it follows a very distinctive pattern: god does things and the people believe in him. then, time passes and people sin, then god punishes them and they start believing again, then they start sinning again and god punishes again........................................ you know... pattern.... I think this is the part where we are sinners and are being punished with terrorism, global warming, and lack of devine interfearence. well... I don't truely belive in that knida stuff, and I'm not religious. but that's my take on things if you ask me... nutha jason Quote: 'god does things and the people believe in him. then, time passes and people sin, then god punishes them and they start believing again, then they start sinning again and god punishes again' way too simplified dude. its more like: god commands and empowers leaders who perform miracles through his power, the people believe tho some still think that god exsists for them and not the other way around so when he tells them what to do they rebel or don't follow his instructions to the letter. they complain. sometimes this results in god holding back his power to let them see how much they need him and other times god enacts his sovereign discipline and punishes them. always he is merciful on the few who were true to him (often called the 'remnant'). the message from this? god engages us, empowers us, uses us and disciplines us ... just like a father; and tho we disappoint him over and over he never abandons us. god does not interact with us the way he used to in the old testament because his work with us is done. he doesn't interfere or punish us like he did with israel because his 2000 plus year old mission was concluded with the life of jesus. now he interacts through the power of the holy spirit who came after christ ascended. to say that terrorism is punishment from god is saying an aweful thing about all those who died or lost loved ones. millions of innocent people die every year ... not because god is punishing them (like he did to the israelites) but because it is a pretty shitty old world we've made. blaming god conveniently removes our own responsibility for what goes wrong. i personally hate the whole blame game. sometimes horrible stuff just happens and our energies would be better spent preventing them and helping the afflicted, not fattening up lawyers. j mediocrefunkybeat Where do you stand on out of body experiences Nutha? Out of interest. Oh, and has anyone here ever had a religious experience.. I've had something similar, I had an hallucination a few months ago.. (no drugs involved for the record) I'd just like to hear. nutha jason I believe in the possibility of them ... and ghosts, telekinesis and even necromancy. like you said there is no smoke without fire. i like that phrase because sometimes the fire is unlike the one we think it will be. i think that the unexplained, the mysterious are fascinating indications of the spiritual realm or and the power of the human mind (both in achieving the seemingly impossible and in fooling itself). i draw the line at predicting the future from a star sign and never read horroscopes (they say i'm a libra). i mean the doctor who delivers you has a greater gravitational pull on you than jupiter has. but i do believe that the phases of the moon may have an effect on how you respond at different times...as it obviously has on many animals. there are two fascinating books written years ago by a scientist called Lyall watson which apologetically expounds on all the main supernatural questions from a scientific and historic view point. i highly recommend them. what he said about ghosts and telepathy changed my mind about the mystical. the books are called simply: supernature and supernature 2. i had a religious experience. it converted me. i'll tell you about it sometime. j mediocrefunkybeat Nice to see you're pretty open minded about all this stuff. It's cool. brettamusvonadverb What logic am I supposed to use to understand god, if not human logic? Why would your god make the evidence of his existance so illogical? What is the ultimate point in having faith? There's no possible satisfaction an all-knowing being could gain from having creatures worship him like an army of drones. Jason, I'm sure a Jew would have a different interpretation of the scriptures in the old testemant as they relate to your jesus prophecies, wouldn't they? Jews and Hindus and Muslims are good people (some). Does jesus not care that these people don't recognize him? What happens to me (in your religion) if I'm a good person my whole life but I never can bring myself to believe in a creator... then i die... and I meet jesus at the pearly gates.... what does your religion expect god's reaction to be? Just curious... would i get into heaven or not? I might be more inclined to believe jesus if Christianity denies me entrance into eternal paradise and forces me into hell... then my faith would be more like an insurance policy. :) nutha jason i wrote:Quote: 'i had a religious experience. it converted me. i'll tell you about it sometime.' so here is my personal testamony: 'when i was in my late teens my father, whom i love and respect, began to dabble in the belief of the jehova's witnesses. in his new found zeal he tried to encourage my sister and i to join and even took us to meetings. we did not live with our father then. he loved us enough, and was unsure enough of his own beliefs not to force us into anything ... but he did engage us in debates and gave us material to read. it all seemed like balderdash and wishful thinking to me. i decided that believing in god was a waste of my life. anyone who gave up doing what they wanted for something invisible was a fool. i was very rebellious at the time. i was drinking and vandalising and even began looking into spiritualism. i wanted magic to exsist in the world. i wanted power. i looked up how to make a wand and i even bathed a stick of oak in my blood, thinking that this would somehow give it mystical qualities. i hated my small town life. i often dreamed of comitting suicide or going on some fearful rampage that would 'make them all sorry'. i was into heavy metal music, but ironically i also studied things to do with god. i was unsure. to quote C S Lewis in hindsite: "Now that I am a Christian I do not have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable." some nights, and with certain of my friends, i considered myself to be dangerous, armed and brave. we were drunk and immoral. other times i was thoughtful, poetic and curious. i hated my mother a lot in those days, and my stepfather. my sister and i fought constantly. i thought school was a waste of my time and i despised most of my teachers. i cringe now to think of what a useless selfish lunk i was. and worse, i know that i was proud of it. then i got a very special girl friend. she was a gorgeous greek, and i admit my attraction to her at the time was purely sexual. she was a trophy to me. someone who was in many ways difficult to get ... and even looking like i had got her was a badge for respect. but i soon knew why she was so hard to get. she was a devout christian. still, we guys will make a lot of sacrifices to get such a girl and so it was that when she inevitably asked me to go to church with her, i agreed. well not straight away. i put her off and came up with excuses but it was unavoidable and on the plus side it was a way of spending more time with her. so i promised i would go to her youth group with her on a friday night. i was surprised at how friendly and unjudgemental everyone was. best of all, no one asked me to pray or tried to convert me. i went again the next week. and again the week after. on this third week we watched a disturbing old film about the second coming. it was pretty cheesy. it had people getting barcodes tatooed to their foreheads and those who refused the mark of the beast were getting chased by a police state force. what that video did do, was got me thinking again about all those jehova witness discussions and books that had passed before me in years gone by. i was now in my final year of high school. this time when my girlfriend asked me to come to church on sunday i reluctantly agreed. i had only ever gone to church at weddings and funerals so i was nervous. the service, as it turns out, was pretty standard and i was happy to have pleased my girl friend. a few weeks later i went again. i still remember it now as clear as yesterday. i wore all black and my doc martens boots. i sat at the back in an attitude of scowling tolerance. there was a guest speaker and what he said was awesome. he seemed to vibrate with energy and his words, long forgotten, were challenging. i remember feeling a mixture of anger and curious surprise. i felt like i was standing on the edge of a cliff. now at the end of the service he gave an altar call. he dismissed the congregation and invited anyone who wanted to pray with him, for any reason, to come up to the front. to my annoyance my girlfriend went up, along with about thirty others. so i sat at the back of the now gradually emptying church waiting, watching. suddenly a woman i had never met who had sat during the service four seats to my right leaned over the seats, put her hand on my arm and smiled at me. she said, with conviction and love: "god is calling you, jason. go to him." at once and without a word, nor a very clear understanding of why i was doing it, i stood up and strode to the front of the church to stand at the end of the waiting semi-cirlce. i closed my eyes. my heart was pounding and i felt slightly ill. i could hear the pastor praying with someone nearby. suddenly i couldn't wait any longer. i knew what i had to do. i spoke to god. i don't even think he let me finish my first word when he hit me. i felt a great erruption of warmth and ... there is no other word for it: love. love as i had never felt it before. a full acceptance and forgiveness. a longing to see me change. it was like the words: YES, I AM AND I DO LOVE YOU. were written by god on my soul. i lay back, not caring for anything. nothing would be the same. nothing would be so bad. nothing mattered, forever, but to show the source of that love my thanks. when i opened my eyes i realised that i had fallen back like a tree into the first three rows of chairs, scattering them in all directions. i needed little biblical knowledge, little earthly logic ... precious little. in the end all i needed was to believe; in spite of my pride, my pain, my past selfishness. just turning to god was enough to finally see him. later on the knowledge and assurance would come. but first he held out his hand to me. this really was the amazing grace of god. of which we have sung: ’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, And grace my fears relieved; How precious did that grace appear The hour I first believed. and my favourite verse ... When we’ve been there ten thousand years, Bright shining as the sun, We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise Than when we’d first begun. as i type this it has been eleven years and rather than feeling like a fool for giving up my life to something invisible, i feel like someone who has gained a life from someone obvious. i have a wonderful family life now and i am a happy person even at the worst of times. though i still sin more than i should and though i have a lot to learn, i am sure of god's forgiveness through christ and i learn more about him every day. my favourite scripture is the parable of the prodigal son. for me it shows perfectly how god views us and how he forgives us. i don't write all this because god commands me to share it. i write it because it is sad to me that anyone in this whole world lives another second without knowing what i felt for real on that church floor in middleberg south africa more than a decade ago. if anyone argues with me about god my heart is gladdened because it shows that they are wrestling, struggling with the issue and have not merely turned their backs on it. that is what the word israel means: struggles with god. let the unbeliever carry on until they are weary as did jacob when he wrestled with the angel on the river side until the morning light ... genesis 32 26And He said, "Let Me go, for the day breaks." But he (jacob) said, "I will not let You go unless You bless me!" 27So He said to him, "What is your name?" He said, "Jacob." 28And He said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed." 29Then Jacob asked, saying, "Tell me Your name, I pray." And He said, "Why is it that you ask about My name?" And He blessed him there. 30So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." so let them wrestle and i will pop their hip bone with god's help. let them knock here and elsewhere. let them seek. the door will be opened to them ... for i know this is the way of god's love. ' j ps: (C S Lewis) "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important. " Directory: sitebuildercontent -> sitebuilderfiles sitebuilderfiles -> Women and their forgotten role in Slavery Nigel Sadler Sands of Time Consultancy sitebuilderfiles -> Chpt. 2 Amsco; Besides the amsco text, use chapters 2 & 3 of sitebuilderfiles -> The Seven Laws of Success sitebuilderfiles -> African literature sitebuilderfiles -> Category A: Exemplary B: Solid sitebuilderfiles -> Our sweet and beautiful daughters Taylor & Katelyn. We love you so much! Mommy & Daddy sitebuilderfiles -> Ap american History Mr. Caroddo sitebuilderfiles -> - sitebuilderfiles -> American Kennel Club: Obedience Explained sitebuilderfiles -> Vivian ely peeler Download 185.85 Kb. Share with your friends:
|