What is Your take on what Jesus Said?

Mark, that list was very colorfully rendered on an episode of the West Wing. It was halirious to see Martin Sheen deliver it.

Even if that covenant was with an old nation and no longer stands... why was it ever made? Those rules are very base and ethically undermine the Christian movement.

Either, those rules were introduced into the record of the exchange between man and god under fraud,

Or the Christians are following a false Messiah,

or there are powers and magics that this god is very intentionally hiding from us. To believe that the burning of a bull can do anything more than waste a perfectly god meal is like saying that the Tarot can true divinate.

*shrug*

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Mark, that list was very colorfully rendered on an episode of the West Wing. It was halirious to see Martin Sheen deliver it.

---

I LOVE that show!!!!!!!! I wish there was someone in charge like Jed Bartlett.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by barrk
I LOVE that show!!!!!!!! I wish there was someone in charge like Jed Bartlett.

---

YES! That is the only show I went out of my way to watch all season. And yes, even if I don't explicitly agree with Bartlett's stand, I appreciate the fact that he atleast believes in it. I would vote for him even if we disagreed on everything. I never get the feeling that Bush/Gore/et al believe in anything.

The show is also very well written (if you get over the fact that every conversation has a quick Law & Order beat). I've cried a few times while watching the show, not necessarily because it is sad, but because it is just so well written. If only I could write that well.

Beacon

Quote:

---

But still there would be currents, water flowing perhaps even wirl pools and the potential of the ark hitting rocks etc. is great. Also this flowing of water would put stress on the arks structure and as i said before even if the wooden ark was caoted in tar, tar is like glue waterproof yet the join will snap at a certain level of stress and that stress level would of been easily reached with the size and weight of the ark thats not including outside forces.

---

I hate to fall back on this, but it is possible that God could've helped prevent such adverse conditions from befalling or even affecting the ark if they did happen.

nullus

Quote:

---

If they're sentient, it means they'd be concious, intelligent, and self-aware and therefore have the right to live how they want. Obviously you'd have to give them some sort of morality so that they wouldn't go around killing and stuff, but that's about the only rule I'd impose on them, the rest is up to them as far as I'm concerned. Any more and I'd consider it oppressive.

---

And where do they get that right from? You, or someone higher than you, gave it to them. Whenever you speak of anyone or anything's rights, they come from someone, usually God. In this case, you said that the robots are sentient, so they have the right to live. So where does that right come from? If it came from you, it was your choice. If it didn't, then that means it came from someone higher than you. You gotta remember that God didn't have anyone above Him, so He was making the rules. This was the whole point the tree in the garden of Eden was trying to prove.

Quote:

---

But Adam was just a normal guy though right? Why should everyone else be condemned at birth for his little mistake? I mean God created an imperfect species, so surely it's his fault?

---

God didn't create an imperfect species. We became imperfect after Adam's sin. When someone is perfect, they are held fully accountable for their sins. When someone is imperfect, they keep getting second chances (but not forever, and they still gotta suffer the consequences of their actions) because God understands that they are imperfect.

Because Adam and Eve were both perfect when they sinned, they got no second chances. Angels that rejected God are doomed to the same fate as Satan (See Jude 6). They, too, didn't get second chances.



everyone
I still got the question of the ice caps during the flood for beacon, and simonm's, technocrat's, and CiberTHuG's posts to reply to...

Quote:

---

You've put up with an onslaught from all sides and you're still here fighting your corner

---

Yeah I even had to argue with a fellow bible supporter, but that didn't last too long. :)


I don't seem like the average christian, do I?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tygur
I don't seem like the average christian, do I?

---

No, you have a link to Watchtower in your sig. You are one of the freaky Christians. :)

Tygur:

I suppose God could of done that or Noah had sun shining out of his butt!
;)

But even so without rough seas the cargo load would be enough plus the shifting of weight it would hardly be probable that it would stay afloat for that much time!

The ice caps one should be interesting!

simonm

Who says the entire future has to be fixed if God fortells a couple choice events? God can see what's going on inside our heads. That's how he fortells the future. He knows us better than we know ourselves. The way I see it, He knows what we all are thinking and what we all act like. All he has to do is play it out and figure out what might happen. This should be no trouble for God. Sure, this method isn't foolproof, because we can change our minds. But I already showed that His ability to fortell the future is not unlimited. (either by choice or not, I don't know, but if it is by choice, consider it a show of respect) Also, He can manipulate our affairs to make something happen. This, too, doesn't violate our free will. We can choose to do whatever we want, and God would be preventing us from doing something, but not from trying. Think of it like you trying to go through a door but a guard preventing it. The guard certainly isn't taking away your free will.

Does that make sense to you?




CiberTHuG

Quote:

---

Even if that covenant was with an old nation and no longer stands... why was it ever made? Those rules are very base and ethically undermine the Christian movement.

---

How do you figure?

The rules in ther are much more sanitary than what the other nations of the time. For example, they had to bury their excrement away from water. They had to wash their hands. This was before anybody ever heard of germs.

As for slavery, you gotta remember that times were different. Slaves weren't always treated as harshly as you think. I'm not saying they were never treated bad, just that slavery isn't synonymous with bad treatment. The concept of slaves is simple. They work to have a roof over their head, food to eat, etc instead of working for the money to go out and buy the stuff. Of course, their master did own them, too, so thay can't leave at will, but that's all it means. Slaves still got some respect. There were many laws within that law covenant that governed the treatment of slaves and guaranteed them a degree of dignity.

As for the sacrifices, they were just that. They were sacrifices. The people were required to give sacrifices because it meant something to loose that sheep or that bull or whatever. It was payment for their sins, just like Jesus was payment for all our sins. An animal isn't worth nearly as much a perfect man, so it was only considered a temporary thing. If they did something wrong, and it wasn't so big that they were to be killed for it, they had to give extra sacrifices.

I think I explained that right.




Now I only got Technocrat's post and the ice cap thing...

Quote:

---

Who says the entire future has to be fixed if God fortells a couple choice events? God can see what's going on inside our heads. That's how he fortells the future.

---

It's not as simple as that is it? I've heard christians say that he exists outside of time itself. i.e. Time does not pass for God as it does for us. He is not restricted by it in the way that we are.

When God kicked the first atom into motion at the beginning of the universe, given his capacity for grasping systems of infinite complexity, the exact consequances must have been clearly laid out before him. Every subsequant intervention he makes in the universe can only be corrections on his original course. How many "corrections" has he made since he created the universe? How many adjustments has he made to his original plan? Why does he keep changing his mind?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tygur

And where do they get that right from? You, or someone higher than you, gave it to them. Whenever you speak of anyone or anything's rights, they come from someone, usually God. In this case, you said that the robots are sentient, so they have the right to live. So where does that right come from? If it came from you, it was your choice. If it didn't, then that means it came from someone higher than you. You gotta remember that God didn't have anyone above Him, so He was making the rules. This was the whole point the tree in the garden of Eden was trying to prove.

---

So you're saying that God never gave us the right to exist? If God created me and knows me better than I know myself, then, in his infinite wisdom, he must have known what sort of person I'd turn out to be, and whether I'd worship him or not. So why create someone that you know you're going to kill anyway? Or is he just sadistic like that?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tygur

God didn't create an imperfect species. We became imperfect after Adam's sin. When someone is perfect, they are held fully accountable for their sins. When someone is imperfect, they keep getting second chances (but not forever, and they still gotta suffer the consequences of their actions) because God understands that they are imperfect.

Because Adam and Eve were both perfect when they sinned, they got no second chances. Angels that rejected God are doomed to the same fate as Satan (See Jude 6). They, too, didn't get second chances.

---

But why would a perfect species have an imperfection? That makes no sense. If Adam and Eve were perfect, they wouldn't have sinned in the first place. Simple fact is, God screwed up. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tygur

I still got the question of the ice caps during the flood for beacon, and simonm's, technocrat's, and CiberTHuG's posts to reply to...

---

But you STILL haven't answered my question on evolution!!! ;)

Here it is for the third time :p

Proof of evolution exists all around us. For example, we all came from Adam and Eve right? So how do you explain the physical differences between Blacks, Whites, Asians, etc.? The only explanation is that humans spread around the world, adapting to their various surroundings (ie. evolved). If humans didn't evolve, then we'd all have the same physical characteristics.

If you can't answer it, that's fine. I'm just interested in whether or not the bible explains this.

There have been many things debated in this thread. What I think is futile though (As I have said before) is that the Bible shouldn't put itself up against science. Science is the search for fact theology and philosophy are the search for truth. They are distinct things although often confused.

You will always get in trouble if you try and use science to demonstrate truth. It can never tell us how to live our lives or even how to get fulfillment from our lives. Science produces models that resemble reality and can be used help simplify and understand what's around us.

The bible offers truth but not fact. It's primary purpose is to establish a collection of ethics by which we should live our lives. It is not an encyclopedia or a detailed (impartial) account of scientific fact.

The Bible's story of creation is not a valid objection to evolution. It is not even an attempt to explain what evolution attempts to explain. On the other hand, evolution is not a valid objection to the existance of God. Evolution does not tell us why we are here or what the point to existance is. That is outside the scope of it's remitt.

The story of Noah's Arc is another example. Arguing over whether the Ark was technically viable is missing the point of the story. Scientifically speaking, it is a ridiculous notion. Not even worthy of debate. But, that isn't the point of the story. It is conveying a truth about God's feelings towards the human race.

What I am saying then is that the debate should not be about the facts (or lack of) in the bible but rather should be about the validity of the "truth" found there in.

:mad:

I do Believe Jesus is the Savior
Doubtful
I do not believe Jesus is the Savior
I want Jesus in my Life..but don't know how

What are you trying to do - recruit?

I'm sure that if people want a god, they will go out and find one - or buy one for that matter...

Please don't take any of this personally, i'm sure you're a very nice guy, but I feel very strongly about religion.....

"But if you've got enough naivety and you've got conviction, then the answer is perfect for you...." - Bad Religion

simonm

I've heard of all kinds of things about time and God, but I figured that time flows in one direction for Him, too, either by choice or not.

It appears that he made all sorts of laws to govern the universe and he doesn't like to break them, Himself. If you think about it, why did he need to send Jesus down? He didn't really need to do it, but he's trying not to break His rules. (Actually, he's being pretty successful at it. I don't need to say He's trying.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tygur
It appears that he made all sorts of laws to govern the universe and he doesn't like to break them, Himself. If you think about it, why did he need to send Jesus down? He didn't really need to do it, but he's trying not to break His rules. (Actually, he's being pretty successful at it. I don't need to say He's trying.)

---

So how come Jesus broke the laws of physics by walking on water? ;)

nullus

Quote:

---

So how come Jesus broke the laws of physics by walking on water?

---

Why do you say he broke the laws of physics? He could've very well used them to his advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tygur
Why do you say he broke the laws of physics? He could've very well used them to his advantage.

---

But it aint physically possible to walk on water, unless he tied some floatation devices to the bottoms of his feet so no one saw. :p If it was possible for Jesus to walk on water, then so can I :D

If you had really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, big, flat feet, you could.

Quote:

---

It appears that he made all sorts of laws to govern the universe and he doesn't like to break them, Himself. If you think about it, why did he need to send Jesus down? He didn't really need to do it, but he's trying not to break His rules.

---

I have thought about it and it isn't logical that he should send Jesus down. That's why I don't believe it. What rules was he operating within with the imaculate conception?

Quote:

---

I've heard of all kinds of things about time and God, but I figured that time flows in one direction for Him, too, either by choice or not.

---

If God is not outside of time itself then how could he have created the universe (before time itself existed)?

OK, so if God doesn't know the future that means that all the prophecies were merely educated guesses at what might happen. He couldn't have been sure of any of them comming into fruition. That itself would imply that the vast majority of prophecies would never come to pass as they were only possibilities (that were averted due to preceeding events).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Behemoth
If you had really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, big, flat feet, you could.

---

Not any more he couldn't. He's got a couple of nail holes in them now!

SD

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nullus
Proof of evolution exists all around us. For example, we all came from Adam and Eve right? So how do you explain the physical differences between Blacks, Whites, Asians, etc.? The only explanation is that humans spread around the world, adapting to their various surroundings (ie. evolved). If humans didn't evolve, then we'd all have the same physical characteristics.

---

Yes, Nullus, proof of evolution exists, and I am quite confident that it played a roll in our past. But, if a god exists, are arguements are moot. God may or may not have used evolution, and if he didn't, evidence of such may have been planted to undermind faith (see also Lucifer).

Anyway... what I want to take issue with is... the differences between whites, blacks, yellows, browns, reds, et al, is a result of speciation. It works the same way evolution does, and contributes heavily to the process, but it is very widely accepted that if man evolved from an earlier primate, that all human species developed from the same. It is speculated that the blacks are the oldest of the human species, and that possibly whites evolved at the same time but seperately. I'm not sure of the evidence, but all of this is very sketchy. It could be possible that blacks are the oldest of the humans, and that all others developed as a result of speciation. That could just as easily be wrong.

There are also species within the skin tones. For example, in Europe, there are the Romans, the Gauls, the Celts, the Nordic, all of these species have very distinct differences (nose, hair color).

And if you look to dogs, you can not only see how different species evolve on their own, but how we can create new species. The Australian Terrier is a result of breeding. It is a specie we created by intentionally forcing the mixing of two other species.

We can do the same with humans, but things get to be more subtle since people only group themselves by skin color. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'm rambling, but the point is, don't confuse speciation with evolution. One is a subset of the other. It is much easier for the religious to accept speciation as a result of genetics that god created then to accept evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nullus
But it aint physically possible to walk on water, unless he tied some floatation devices to the bottoms of his feet so no one saw. :p If it was possible for Jesus to walk on water, then so can I :D

---

Yes, well... we have made a material so dense that it slows the travel of light to centimeters per minute. It is entirely fesible that you could change the specific density of water, or yourself.

Again... I attribute this to exageration, but it is entirely possible that you may one day walk on water.

Cyberthug

Quote:

---

It is much easier for the religious to accept speciation as a result of genetics that god created then to accept evolution.

---

Yes, that is true but only because they believe that all genes in a partular species are present in every member. Each race (within the species) manifests different genes to display the relevant characteristics but they're all selecting from the same gene pool.

What they don't accept is that new characteristics arise from genetic mutation. They insist that a species' gene pool is static. This is not the case.

They don't like the idea that each species is developing new characterisics by mutating existing genes as well as selecting different genes from it's "pool".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CiberTHuG

Anyway, I'm rambling, but the point is, don't confuse speciation with evolution. One is a subset of the other. It is much easier for the religious to accept speciation as a result of genetics that god created then to accept evolution.

---

Good answer :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CiberTHuG

Yes, well... we have made a material so dense that it slows the travel of light to centimeters per minute. It is entirely fesible that you could change the specific density of water, or yourself.

Again... I attribute this to exageration, but it is entirely possible that you may one day walk on water.

---

Sure, a lot of stuff is possible with the use of technology, but all Jesus had were his sandals :p Unless he was an alien, and posessed a piece of technology that was able to change the molecular structure of things, such as water into wine, and his feet into airbags :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Cyberthug



Yes, that is true but only because they believe that all genes in a partular species are present in every member. Each race (within the species) manifests different genes to display the relevant characteristics but they're all selecting from the same gene pool.

What they don't accept is that new characteristics arise from genetic mutation. They insist that a species' gene pool is static. This is not the case.

They don't like the idea that each species is developing new characterisics by mutating existing genes as well as selecting different genes from it's "pool".

---

Exactly.

Silly zealots.

nullus

Quote:

---

So you're saying that God never gave us the right to exist?

---

Adam and Eve did have the right to exist until they did something wrong.

Quote:

---

If God created me and knows me better than I know myself, then, in his infinite wisdom, he must have known what sort of person I'd turn out to be, and whether I'd worship him or not.

---

Since you have free will, you do as you choose. You can change your mind at any time. God didn't forsee everything.

Quote:

---

But why would a perfect species have an imperfection? That makes no sense. If Adam and Eve were perfect, they wouldn't have sinned in the first place. Simple fact is, God screwed up.

---

If they're perfect, it doesn't mean they can't do anything wrong. Eve was totally deceived by Satan. Satan completely restructured her perception of the world around her. That's why she made the bad decision to eat the fruit. Adam just listened to his wife. He wasn't deceived. He knew what he was doing, and he chose to do it. He may have been perfect, but he still had free will.

Quote:

---

Proof of evolution exists all around us. For example, we all came from Adam and Eve right? So how do you explain the physical differences between Blacks, Whites, Asians, etc.? The only explanation is that humans spread around the world, adapting to their various surroundings (ie. evolved). If humans didn't evolve, then we'd all have the same physical characteristics.

---

I forgot about that one. Sorry.

I was trying to do recsearch to find out what that was called. CiberTHuG said it was speciation. I knew it was different from evolution, but I didn't know where to look for information on it. It appears that he answered your question quite well.


CiberTHuG also answered the walk-on-water question pretty well, too. There is much about the world around us that we don't know. You can be sure that God knows all of it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tygur
I forgot about that one. Sorry.

I was trying to do recsearch to find out what that was called. CiberTHuG said it was speciation. I knew it was different from evolution, but I didn't know where to look for information on it. It appears that he answered your question quite well.


CiberTHuG also answered the walk-on-water question pretty well, too. There is much about the world around us that we don't know. You can be sure that God knows all of it.

---

To be honest, I'm not all that sure I understand this speciation theory. Are you saying that Blacks, Whites, Asians, etc. are the result of simple genetic mutations from 2 humans with different characteristics, such as you'd get with 2 different breeds of dog mating to create a cross-breed?

If so, why are Black people very well suited to the climate of Africa, White people suited to the climate of Europe, Asians...well you get my point. :) One day, Europe may move to the equator, and White people aren't exactly well suited to the climate there. The same if Africa moved to the South Pole. The species would have to adapt to the change in climate.

There was a documentary here not long ago, that followed the history of the human species. They believe they've discovered where humans first emerged on the planet (the east coast of Africa I believe) about 150,000 years ago or something. They then tracked the movement of the species northward, spreading out into Europe (where they encountered Neanderthals) and Asia. The humans that went in to Asia then moved on to the Americas. They also believe that the humans that had to share Europe with Neanderthals became the dominant species due to their superior brain power, and the Neanderthals ended up becoming extinct.

I guess they could've bred with the Neanderthals, but it seems pretty unlikely, seeing as Neanderthals were much larger in size and didn't last that long.

If i was God-like i could walk on water, without breaking any laws, mainly because there are none.
The physical laws were made up by man, it seems contradicting that God would have to obey man.
Man usually has two problems with reality: 1. He think he owns it and 2. He think he knows what it is.
Now going for some God axioms: 1. A God needs to know everything and be able to do anything, he is the master of his reality. 2. Everything within his reality obeys him, so he are the rules. And my teorem is: if God decided man was the big deal in his creation, he wouldn't create man to fit into a universe but made a universe to fit for man.

If that doesn't make sense, then i'll explain again, it has to, because it's our logics, and if i was God i would let my creation inherit my logics.

If you throw a 6 on your dice, it isn't because of the physical laws, it's because there was a reason for why you would need a 6 and physics adapted that reason. Doesn't make sense for a scientist but it is still logical.

Technocrat

Quote:

---

All religions have done some "evil" deeds and claimed they were for god. It doesn’t take much to find those deeds. There hasn’t been a religion that I have seen that hasn’t been evil or corrupt at some point in there history.

---

Check out Jehovah's Witnesses. The most evil thing they've done is take a couple minutes of your time at the door. That and going to jail for refusing to fight in wars.

Quote:

---

Can't really argue that one too much. Except if we live are lives to the best of our abilities why must it matter if we worship to him or not. If he is really all loving and everything it should not matter if we warship him as long as we lived a good life.

---

If you don't worship him, you aren't really living your life to the best of your ability. You are choosing not to worship him. Worshipping him is just as required as not lying, cheating, etc.

If you live a completely good life except for committing adultery, that's not considered a good life. It was spoiled by one thing. It's the same thing with worshipping God. If you do everything else, but you don't worship God, it was ruined by one thing.

Quote:

---

Which makes me think of another point, prayer. Know where prayer (In this case putting your hands together, facing the floor, and praying to god) comes from. It was stolen from those dirty Satan worshiping, heathens, the Pagans.

---

I don't know where the stereotypical position for prayer came from, so I'm going to have to assume you're right.

The bible mentions all sorts of positions of prayer, and there is no set posture you must have when you pray. You can actually say a prayer without having any outward appearance that you are praying. (See Nehemiah 2:4) The bible says to pray "with every form of prayer and supplication" (See Ephesians 6:18).

Quote:

---

If god is so powerful why doesnt he supply the money and land? Why do the people have to?

---

How can I answer this? The money always came from the people. Though it is bad to waste the money on material posessions and showing off, as the catholics so blatantly did. In the bible, the money came voluntarily. (See Mark 12:41-43) My best answer is that it's a way the people can show their devotion.

Quote:

---

Still why does a religion need that much land and money?

---

How much is "that much"? See my above answer.

Quote:

---

It was a well-discussed historical discovery a few years ago that the first known copy of a bible, showed up years before AD and Jews had it. I can’t remember much about it because I read about it awhile back, but it was traced back to a Jewish (I believe) writer and scholar. Not a religious person, not a priest, not a king, a writer. Before this time no recorded evidence was ever found about the bible. But most religious officials tried to discredit this discovery and bury it. I have not heard about it since then. But this does not surprise me, because if it were true, it would greatly hurt their base of ideas and beliefs. With all the money, power, and high-powered people they could through at this problem, it does not shock me it just went away.

---

I can't say anything about it because I don't know anything about it. All I can say is that I've never heard of it. If it was so well-discussed, there's gotta be something about it somewhere..




Okay, I got halfway through. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do the rest right now. I'll have to answer it later.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman
If you throw a 6 on your dice, it isn't because of the physical laws, it's because there was a reason for why you would need a 6 and physics adapted that reason. Doesn't make sense for a scientist but it is still logical.

---

Uhm... its called fate.

Nullus, the speciation thing works just like evolution, it is part of evolution. Man is taller now than he was 1000 years ago. That came about because of speciation. It is evolution because taller is the dominate specie.

I hope that makes sense, but I doubt it.

Anyway... yes, groups adapt to their environment. Usually you will find that certain traits are physically more attractive and that is why the specie gravitaties to that trait.

The difference between evolution and speciation is simply the size. We've seen speciation, we can invoke it. To see evolution, to see man come from [not neandthratal but the other one] is evolution. We likely aren't sexually compatible with out ancestor because there is that much of a shift in our genetics. But species are sexually compatible.

Anyway, speciation is just evolution on a small scale. Even zealots can accept evolution on that degree, since man hasn't fundamentally changed, we just think tall is sexy. To convince people that all mammallian life is distantly related, well... that's tough.

Tygur, what is with this finite list that the Jehovah Witness's talk about?

Nope, fate is not the word. It's all about control, this assumes there is a controlling entity that makes three things possible: 1. There is a God, 2. There will be a God 3. There's no need for a God. The third is fate

Now I see neither you or Tygur don't understand my point, because it should explain for all of you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman
Nope, fate is not the word. It's all about control, this assumes there is a controlling entity that makes three things possible: 1. There is a God, 2. There will be a God 3. There's no need for a God. The third is fate

Now I see neither you or Tygur don't understand my point, because it should explain for all of you.

---

*grumblegrumble* Okay, I'm sick of having to post in the wide format. Somebody needs to wrap this stuff.

Anyway... Kedaman, you will have to rewrite that post. Its not making sense. The post is saying that fate assumes that there is a divinity that has three rules, and that the third rule is fate?

Your example of the cast die: If you needed a 6, and you got a six, that is called fate. You enter a semantic arguement if you debate that point.

Mind you, it is also fate if you didn't get it. But the idea is the same, there was some rational decision behind the result, and not Chaotic chance.

And while I'm here

Quote:

---

from Kedaman
If i was God-like i could walk on water, without breaking any laws, mainly because there are none.
The physical laws were made up by man, it seems contradicting that God would have to obey man.
Man usually has two problems with reality: 1. He think he owns it and 2. He think he knows what it is.

---

If there are no laws, then why do you have to be a god to walk on water? Can't you do it now?

If man made the laws, then one can only conclude that man came before the laws. If that is so, evolution is wrong, there can only have been a creation.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't think there is any man in this forum who thinks he owns reality. And we all know what reality is. No matter how we define it, it is that which is still there when we are not.

fate assumes predestination which is not what my example does, anyways it was meant to be relevant to the topic, which got totally ignored.

Quote:

---

If there are no laws, then why do you have to be a god to walk on water? Can't you do it now?

---

I could if i was God. I'm having a theory that i could implicitely do it if i assumed i was God.

Quote:

---

If man made the laws, then one can only conclude that man came before the laws. If that is so, evolution is wrong, there can only have been a creation.

---

Don't missunderstand me now, i'm sticking to what i've been trying to explain to you earlier, about laws being models for explaining observed phenomenons

Quote:

---

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't think there is any man in this forum who thinks he owns reality. And we all know what reality is. No matter how we define it, it is that which is still there when we are not.

---

Do you own your computer? it's part of your reality. Do you have right to eat and live? You assume. Do you stand for your thoughts? theyre's yours. Man consumes and assumes.



kedaman

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Tygur, what is with this finite list that the Jehovah Witness's talk about?

---

Finite list? List of what?

Quote:

---

...if God decided man was the big deal in his creation, he wouldn't create man to fit into a universe but made a universe to fit for man.

---

Which did he do then?To me it would seem we're trying our best to fit into the universe rather than the universe being shaped around us.

Quote:

---

If i was God-like i could walk on water, without breaking any laws, mainly because there are none.

---

Do you mean that Jesus might have believed he was divine so much that he shaped reality around him?

It seems to me, though, that if he used the laws of physics to walk on water then that's simply another way of saying he cheated. If all his 'miracles' were just applications of the laws of physics then that renders him a bit of a fraud really.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm


Which did he do then?To me it would seem we're trying our best to fit into the universe rather than the universe being shaped around us.

---

I'm not particulary for the idea about a bible dictating the scientifical truth for me, because i don't find it useful scientifically.

We really try to fit into universe don't we? in fact i think we fit perfectly and that life can be so very simple if you just let it be, but our eagerness and selfishness makes it difficult. It's natural for us to improove ourself, evolve and try to be as efficient as possible, but does it really result in nothing but temporary personal satisfaction, and usually more problems? Ok that was a bit off topic but i wanted to mention that.

Imagine God drawing a painting. If our struggle between our selfish thinking and "being a good being" is the key in god's creation's purpose, rather than say the randomness of nuclear decay, he would first draw man, with his twisted mind, and then draw something around him which he can interact with and use to project his actions on, experiment and observ the results on.

If there was a purpose, say Jesus had to walk on water for some dumb reason, and then man would need to have his physical laws around him that says you just can't do what Jesus just did, then wouldn't it be the same issue; God prioritized Jesus actions before the consistency of man's physical laws, he didn't bend the laws, the laws were put there, after he drew Jesus, in programming terms; Jesus walking wasn't the exception, but the laws.

Quote:

---

Do you mean that Jesus might have believed he was divine so much that he shaped reality around him?

It seems to me, though, that if he used the laws of physics to walk on water then that's simply another way of saying he cheated. If all his 'miracles' were just applications of the laws of physics then that renders him a bit of a fraud really.

---

I'm not assuming Jesus was a man, but a God or maybe a projection of God in a man or something, doesn't matter. The point is that he was not a man like us.

And again, "miracles" came first, then the laws. And if someone is trying to missunderstand me here, i'm talking about priority, not chronology. A programmer could see it in a way of dependencies.

Quote:

---

And if someone is trying to missunderstand me here, i'm talking about priority, not chronology. A programmer could see it in a way of dependencies.

---

Programmers round here? Don't be daft!

Quote:

---

We really try to fit into universe don't we? in fact i think we fit perfectly and that life can be so very simple if you just let it be, but our eagerness and selfishness makes it difficult. It's natural for us to improove ourself, evolve and try to be as efficient as possible, but does it really result in nothing but temporary personal satisfaction, and usually more problems?

---

It depends what you think our purpose is before you can judge how well 'suited' we are to the universe. But, considering how vulnerable we are (and insignificant in the grand scheme of things) it doesn't really seem that the universe was created with us in mind. How few places there are in the universe that we could even survive in is incredibly few. Infact, I don't even think that the universe is particularly receptive to life in general (let alone human life).

First off, destiny is that which is involved with predestination. Fate is of the same ilk, but doesn't require the involvement of your destiny. In either case, this is a semantic arguement. I brought up fate because the idea you proposed has been around since the time of polythesitic religions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman
If there was a purpose, say Jesus had to walk on water for some dumb reason, and then man would need to have his physical laws around him that says you just can't do what Jesus just did, then wouldn't it be the same issue; God prioritized Jesus actions before the consistency of man's physical laws, he didn't bend the laws, the laws were put there, after he drew Jesus, in programming terms; Jesus walking wasn't the exception, but the laws.

---

This assumes that no man in the history of man had ever tried to walk on water himself. Man didn't make that law, he got wet and realized that walking on water unaided was not a good thing. And he got wet long before Jesus was born.

I see what you are trying to say, but you still have no basis, no proof for your idea. And since it is as far-fetched as flying pigs (its possible but it didn't happen), it simply can't be accepted. The rest of your conversation hinges on this obtuse spirituality, and since I don't believe in the god of any organized religion, I'm don't going to believe in the god that is man or Kedaman.

Tygur, I've heard there is a list, of fixed size, of the people who will be admitted into heaven.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
It depends what you think our purpose is before you can judge how well 'suited' we are to the universe. But, considering how vulnerable we are (and insignificant in the grand scheme of things) it doesn't really seem that the universe was created with us in mind. How few places there are in the universe that we could even survive in is incredibly few. Infact, I don't even think that the universe is particularly receptive to life in general (let alone human life).

---

Stephen Craine I believe...

"Sir," a man said to the universe,
"I exist."
"I know," replied the universe,
"but this fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."

I may have quoted it wrong, but you get the idea.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tygur

Check out Jehovah's Witnesses. The most evil thing they've done is take a couple minutes of your time at the door. That and going to jail for refusing to fight in wars.

---

Even though I would bet money that sometime in their history they have done something “evil”, you actually reminded me of what I feel is the greatest “evil” in religion, attempting to force your beliefs on to someone else. Jehovah's Witnesses are really guilty of this. The two times I have dealt with them they kept attempting to “*****” their beliefs on me. I think that this is just wrong. One thing that makes all who we are is what we believe.

Sure you and I can stand here for months fighting this out, but the bottom line is that there is very little chance you will change what I believe, and very little chance I will change what you believe. That’s just fine because that’s who you are and that’s who I am. In all likelihood this will never change any time soon.

But I hate it, REALLY HATE IT, when people, priest, religions, attempt to use and/or force religious beliefs, that they have, on to other people. That’s why when they come to my door, attempting to prostitute their beliefs on to me, I get pissed off. Which usually ends in a full on shouting match with them mumbling something about god and my soul.

Quote:

---

If you don't worship him, you aren't really living your life to the best of your ability. You are choosing not to worship him. Worshipping him is just as required as not lying, cheating, etc.

If you live a completely good life except for committing adultery, that's not considered a good life. It was spoiled by one thing. It's the same thing with worshipping God. If you do everything else, but you don't worship God, it was ruined by one thing.

---

I just do not understand this at all. If god is supposed to be forgiving and everything then why would one thing in my live, not worshipping him, destroy everything good that I have done in my life. This just seems stupid to me. So once again, why would he be so vain as to require people to worship him. Just seems like god is really insecure.

Quote:

---

I don't know where the stereotypical position for prayer came from, so I'm going to have to assume you're right.

The bible mentions all sorts of positions of prayer, and there is no set posture you must have when you pray. You can actually say a prayer without having any outward appearance that you are praying. (See Nehemiah 2:4) The bible says to pray "with every form of prayer and supplication" (See Ephesians 6:18).

---

I think that if I were a religious type I would not use that previous type, but something more like the Muslims or a silent prayer.

Quote:

---

How can I answer this? The money always came from the people. Though it is bad to waste the money on material posessions and showing off, as the catholics so blatantly did. In the bible, the money came voluntarily. (See Mark 12:41-43) My best answer is that it's a way the people can show their devotion.

How much is "that much"? See my above answer.

---

I live next to what must be 10 churches. There is a Baptist, Catholic, Christian, Later day Saints, Calvary, Protestant, Jehovah, and more that I can no think of. Every single one of these is a huge church, with a large cross, most of the crosses glow some kind of color at night. They all have huge stain glass windows, large doors, and expensive looking exteriors. Now I have never been inside of any of these, but I would wager that the inside of these are as nice and expensive as the outside.

Now I live in a very nice, expensive area in California. Where the growth is the second fastest in Cali, and fourth in the nation. So maybe these churches are out of the norm. But why is that these churches have to be this big and this expensive looking? Did god say “I feel like you guys need to worship me in style, so build these huge expensive buildings”.

I would guess it’s the same reason some people buy nice clothes, or cars or houses. They feel they are better than everyone else so they try to flaunt it. Oh look we got more money so we are going to build a better church then those other guys. Umm isn’t this evil? Once again it looks like religion is being hypocritical again.

Quote:

---

I can't say anything about it because I don't know anything about it. All I can say is that I've never heard of it. If it was so well-discussed, there's gotta be something about it somewhere..

---

If I ever get some free time I will try to look it up. It came out like 5 years ago and was quickly attacked by everything/everyone that has a stake in religion in any way. So like I said I am not supprised that it just kinda went away

I would also like to give you some BIG TIME credit. You have been standing by your beliefs and fighting a good battle. You have done a fine job, you should be proud of yourself. Like I said, we my not agree on what we think is right, but I respect someone that will stand up for what he believes in. Even when he is fighting a battle against overwhelming amount of people.

UNLIKE THAT PU$$Y jesus4u that start this thread and just barely stands up for what he started. I have no respect for you.

Quote:

---

Now I live in a very nice, expensive area in California. Where the growth is the second fastest in Cali, and fourth in the nation. So maybe these churches are out of the norm. But why is that these churches have to be this big and this expensive looking? Did god say “I feel like you guys need to worship me in style, so build these huge expensive buildings”.

---

You think you have extravagant churches in California? Check out some of the churches/cathedrals in Europe!

I think the extravagance of the church (particually in the past) has been used to inspire awe and respect in the mind of peasants.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tecnocrat

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tygur

Check out Jehovah's Witnesses. The most evil thing they've done is take a couple minutes of your time at the door. That and going to jail for refusing to fight in wars.

---

Even though I would bet money that sometime in their history they have done something “evil”...

---

History? What history? They've only been around for about 100 years. They haven't had a chance to do much "evil" yet.

I don't need to stand up for Jesus. He can stand up for Himself.
I just tell it like it is.

As for this thread I was posting a poll.

:D