Religion

[MotherGunner]

I don't teach my kids about illusory, magical things. Thus, no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, no Tooth Fairy, and no God.

^^^ No SpongeBob either?

[OldRover]

They watch Spongebob on TV but know that he's not real.

[ParanoiaDragon]

I don't teach my kids about illusory, magical things. Thus, no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, no Tooth Fairy, and no God.

^^^ No SpongeBob either?

So, in otherwords, you teach them that life came about magically by itself, instead of by magical beings that planned it all out? Kidding.

But seriously though, I was one of the few Christian kids growing up in school that was taught that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, The Great Pumpkin, & Uncle Sam aren't real, & I'm grateful for my parents raising me that way.  It was always a pain as a yung'n(or a yout) to get flak for not believing in that stuff, but I honestly don't consider it healthy to teach kids that these things are real........& then you have to teach them later that *har har, we were kidding*!  I'm no brain surgeon, but, I feel like that kind of behavior can have a really negative effect on a child growing up.  Whether it's just plain confusing for them, or they end up with trust issue's, I believe it's damaging to the child & their relationship with their parents.

[Joe Redifer]

Actually, either way life seems to have magically come about by itself.  On the creationist side, it is said that God has always existed.  And that's it, no further explanation.  God just magically came into existence.

Honestly, though, we can't explain the exact origins of everything at this point in time.  Theories are changing and improving as we learn more.  But just because we can't explain it 100% right here right now does not mean the answer MUST be God.  The human need for everything to be completely explained kind of embraces that rationale.

[blueraven]

Chili Dog's are pretty awesome. Why don't people believe in Chili Dogs?

[ParanoiaDragon]

Actually, either way life seems to have magically come about by itself.  On the creationist side, it is said that God has always existed.  And that's it, no further explanation.  God just magically came into existence.

Honestly, though, we can't explain the exact origins of everything at this point in time.  Theories are changing and improving as we learn more.  But just because we can't explain it 100% right here right now does not mean the answer MUST be God.  The human need for everything to be completely explained kind of embraces that rationale.

Indeed.  Though, I'm a lil' different in that, I believe in creation, but that it wasn't in 6 24 hour days.  Each day could've been millions of years, maybe there's not even a set amount of time that a human would understand.  Who knows.  And I also believe the way the scripture starts out, that the earth & the universe in general were made before the 6 "creative days".  I'm not sure, but I think creationists technically believe everything, including the earth was all put together in 6 24 hour days.

Actually, my personal theory is that God is a (for lack of a better term) a multi-chrono singularity.  I'm sure that's probably phrased wrong, but, it sounds kinda cool.  Basically, my theory about God is that he exists outside of time, since, according to creation stories, he was there before everything else, he would be there before time even started.  And even then, I think about God existing unchanged & the same all thruout time, as well as outside it.  

I'm not totally sure how to explain it.  I came up with the idea when reading about some entities in the various Trasnformers universes.  For instance, Unicron, Primus, & Alpha Trion are multiverse singularities.  They each exist as the same exact being in every universe, rather then there being multiple versions of themselves, like there is with Optimus Prime & Megatron.  

For God, I think that he's the same being in & out of time, & can access every time period anytime he wishes due to this.  You & I are slightly different now, then we were 1 minute ago, & 1 minute from now, we'll be different(due to age, acquired knowledge, injury, etc).  We are constantly changing, but if God exists, maybe he is existing not only in the present, but also does exist(rather then did) in the past, & does exist(rather then will) in the future.

It's just something I've pondered about, & I'm almost sure the multi-chrono singularity phrase is inaccurate, but, it's the best way I could think of to describe my theory.  Plus, some people God is 3 persons in one, so if he exists, for them it'd be a multi-chrono trinity I suppose.

Anyways, I deffinitly believe in chilli dogs, no doubt, but, I try not to enjoy their gloriousness too often, for I fear they will one day kill me, but good grief, chilli dogs rule!

[MotherGunner]

PD that was a good read man.  Now knock out 50 push-ups for being so damn enlightened! =)

[Joe Redifer]

That's a pretty cool theory, PD.  Of course some religious folks would go apeshit if they heard that.  And along those same lines, I don't understand what God or lack thereof has to do with evolution.  Many religious folk believe in the Adam and Eve story literally.  I don't think the Bible was meant to be interpreted literally (at least I sure as hell hope not).  What if evolution was just part of "God's plan"?  I don't see why it couldn't be... that is if there was/is a god.

[MotherGunner]

Joe I agree.  I am a Catholic Christian myself and trust me when I say not all Catholics think literally.  You can't when given the evidence such as the theories of evolution Darwin wrote about.  Most Catholics don't even read their Bible anymore in part due to this.

These days I am still religious but I have lost faith in "organized religion" itself.

[_Paul]

Despite being a complete douche, even the Pope accepts evolution while crazy creationists desperately try to use pseudoscience to debunk it. It's quite amusing watching religion constantly backpedal in the face of hard evidence. The sooner children are taught it as literature and not fact, the better.

Most Catholics don't even read their Bible anymore in part due to this.

If more religious people read their bibles, there would be less religious people.

[_Paul]

Did it end? Oh...

[Ceti Alpha]

Believing in a god doesn't answer any questions. I don't begrudge people for believing it, but I don't see what people get from that belief. It's fairly...wait...it's completely obvious that God didn't create the Earth or has some special relationship with humans. So, if you believe that god created the universe and then went off to play in the sandbox with Odin, Apollo and Zeus, where does that get you? It's basically a featherbed for your disbelief in religion, i.e. Christianity/Judaism/Islam. In fact, it answers nothing and raises a whole slew of questions.

[Joe Redifer]

While I generally agree (atheist here), I know why many people are religious and why it appeals to them.  Most religious people are fools (hell, probably most atheists, too).  But there are some that are genuinely good people and may even be better because of their beliefs.  I know that sounds odd coming from an atheist, but it does work for some people.

[_Paul]

I can understand what people get from belief - They get a sense of community and comfort in thinking that some magic sky-man is always watching out for them. They can feel when things go wrong that it is part of a plan which is out of their control. It's a coping mechanism for fear of death and the easy way out to explain things that you are too lazy to bother to try and understand. There are people that are better because of their beliefs. There are also people that are worse. But none of that makes it fact, and the one thing that many religious people share is an unwillingness to accept fact when it conflicts with their 'truth'.

[Starfighter]

People can believe what ever they want as long as they don't expect anyone else to follow their rules.

[ParanoiaDragon]

I deffinitly don't believe the Bible is totally litteral, there's just no way IMO.  There's alot of poetic & figurative language involved.  For instance, there's alot of mythical type "beasts" thruout the Bible.  I don't believe a single one of them is real.  Some of them(I think in Daniel) are clearly labled as representing certain kingdoms, such as Babylon, Rome & Greece.  Other's  you have to figure out what they represent based on their attributes & features.  Also, seems like alot of people believe the so called Anti Christ is real.  One lady I do work for believe that "he" is a human son of the Devil & is walking the earth, causing problems whereever "he" goes.  If that's what she wants to believe, that's up to her, but, I believe the Anti Christ is figurative along with other things, like Gehenna/the lake of fire.  I believe that is symbolic of destruction, not torture or whatever.

I think that if God exists, alot of the miracles in the bible, are God using natural laws.  For instance, I believe it says that God caused ridiculously strong winds to hold up the Red Sea, rather then him just, making it stand up with no explanation whatsoever.  I believe most of the 10 plague's were also stated as being stuff like God causing something to effect something else....rather then just....it happened, if that makes any sense?  Another example, is when the Israelites wanted more food to eat, & I think it says God caused an east wind to bring quail into the camp of Israel, rather then just...quail appeared magically before them.

I agree, that atleast for some, it's a coping mechanisim. They want to think that everythings going to be alright in the end, & that they'll go to heaven, & boo-yah, life is sweet!  I don't feel like that's why I believe in creation.  A being of some kind as I described above(multi-chrono singularity or maybe it's omin-chrono?) is what seems most logical to me.  And I find that logic differ's from person to person, so what I believe, isn't always going to be logical to the next person.  And yeah, there's deffinitly the sense of community. I think there are deffinitly people that are worse with religion, as, there's been so much done in the name of God or god's that has hurt people over the centuries. 

There's alot of people that use it as an excuse to hurt or take advantage of people.  TV evangelists are that first that come to mind, but also cult's.  There are so many little grouple that believe in some human leader that will lead them to so called salvation, but I believe most, if not all of those leaders are just taking advantage of the people, & in alot of case(if not all) are living off the fat of the land that their followers provide for them!   It's hard to have faith in any kind of organized religion thanks to all those bastards that have led people like sheep to the slaughter.  However, it does sound to me that the first century Christians were an organized group, based on there congregating together & the preaching work as well.

Personally, I've always been more of a rebel & underdog type person(probably the reason I was a TG man rather then SNES or Genesis).  I tend to hate fads & trends & popular opinion.  I try to think more about what I'm into or getting into, rather then just going along with the crowd.  I try to reason on things, rather then just taking a blind leap of faith like alot of Christians to do.

I was raised around both creation & evolution, & while I deffinitly believe in creation, you could say I partially believe in evolution.  All creatures deffinitly evolve & adapt & make new kinds of the same creature, there's just no way I can believe that every type of each creature had to be created.  This is why we not only have so many different types of dogs, birds, & cats, but also humans.  Who knows what type of races of humans we'll have in another couple of years.  However, I do personally believe that with each generation, we are gradually dying, & that our dna is corrupted, & if not for modern science as well as just plain cleanliness, our life spans would be shorter then they generally are in comparison to hundreds of years ago, when you could be 35 & an old man!

I don't believe that everything came from nothing however, & I believe there is a limit or plateu to evolution, & that everything stays within this limit.  I believe it's possible that we don't actually have vestigial organs, but that the one's that are considered vestigial(I think most people accept that the appendix is linked to the immune system IIRC?), are either just not understood yet, or are even faulty.  As I said, I believe that to some degree we are degrading, rather then upgrading.  And unlike alot of people, I don't believe we'll eventually evolve into pure light.

I think the story of the flood is a good example of evolution.  If it's true, & only 2 of every kind of animal was on the so called "ark", then they over time would've evolved into new types of that creature.  For instance, I'm inclined to believe that there was maybe some kind of wolf like creature on the ark, that eventually led to not only wolves, but foxes, hyeanas(sp?) & all the differe types of domestic dog's.  Same with cat's, there was probably 1 or 2 types of cats, that eventually evolved into both the bigger & smaller cats. 

And the same goes with the 8 people that allegedly survived the flood.  I believe that they all gradually made up new races of humans.  I do believe in the lineage of man from Adam & Eve, which also makes me think that there some types of humans that no longer exist, if they were killed in the flood.  It might explain the different types of primitive humans that have been discovered

I do believe that with the male & female, that it makes it harder to procreate, & wonder why we divided into two specific seperate creatures that have to mate with eachother, rather then being some kind of creature that can just split off to procreate, or some kind of hermaphrodites like some creatures are.  What made me think about this is an episode of Star Trek Enterprise, where it's mentioned that the Andorian's require 5 to procreate.  With male & female, from what I understand, they would've had to evolve at the exact same time & be fully compatible with eachother for them to make a child.  And if their parts weren't fully compatible, that would make those part vestigial, & they would be discarded.

I personally havn't come up with my own thoughts on why God would've used full blown evolution, it seems like, from my point of view, that it would make more sense to just create the different animals & allow them to broaden out within those types.  But, just because I don't believe in evolving from one creature to the next, doesn't make me right.  It's just what seems most logical to me.

For me, belief in God doesn't mean he'll just go around granted me wishes or protecting me.  The Bible says that he makes it rain upon the good & the wicked, & sun shine upon the good & wicked, & I think Jesus said that we are all victim's of time & unforeseen circumstance.  So, just because I believe God is there, doesn't mean I have a magic bubble around mean, deffinitly not.  We all have to go thru good times & bad, no doubt. 

Ofcoarse, some believe in an imortal soul that goes to heaven or hell, but I don't believe in that.  I don't believe that Bible teaches that.  Infact Jesus said that death is like sleep, & that there's no knowledge, nor wisdom, nor devising, etc. in sheol(the grave), & the dead are concious of nothing at all.  They're not being burned in fiery torment(quite a few old religions teach that or something similar, & it did get adopted into most Christian churches), nor are they in limbo twiddling their thumbs, & along with that, I don't believe that anyone is sitting on a cloud strumming a harp.  The words Sheol(Hebrew) & Hades(Greek), usually get translated into the word hell, but, IIRC it actually litteraly means "the common man's grave".  That's it, we die, we're done.  The soul that is sinning, it itself shall die.  I believe we all sin/imperfect, & that a person "is" a soul, rather then "has" a soul, & then we die & aren't aware of anything at all.

In regards to Adam & Eve's children mating with eachother(brother & sister), my thoughts are that it goes back to our dna degrading.  I think at one time, we were in much better shape(might explain the longgggggg life spans earlier in the Bible), but that once Adam ate the fruit(the Bible doesn't actually say what kind of fruit it was), that he passed on corruption, so to speak.  I believe that corrution is passed on from the male, & that if he were to not have eaten, he could've still mated with Eve, & they would've had perfect children.  And that might explain why Jesus was to be born of a virgin.  With no male involved, the "sin gene" would not be inherited.  So, if that's true, then God didn't do it, just to be some kind of miracle, but, also because he had to, based on the laws he had already set in place. So, then theoretically I think their children would be, for lack of a better term, closer to perfection, allowing humans to mate with someone related closer to them, then what we are physically capable of today....nor socially accepted(thankfully) in most area's of the world.  When someone does commit incest, our corruption would be increased 10-fold, resulting in entire town's in the backwoods  

As for the tree of good & bad(which I think is also where the Greek Ambrosia comes from), I don't know if it was something in the fruit that actually started breaking down Adam's genes, or if somehow, the act of willfully sinning(since they were "perfect" they would've had to sin totally on purpose I would guess ) corrupted his body.  Apparently though, some Christians believe that the forbidden fruit was sex itself...but, that makes no sense, how the heck are we supposed to have children & enjoy eachothers bodies if Adam & Eve weren't allowed to have sex?!?

None of this makes me right though, it's just what I believe based on what I've been able to gather in my lifetime thus far.  Who knows what I will discover, or what humans in general will discover in the next 5, 10, 20 years, etc.

[OldRover]

Interesting stuff... a couple of points though:

Evolution isn't a ramp to which an "ultimate form" can be accomplished, therefore there is no "ceiling". It's a process where organisms change to survive better in their environment. Just because something is evolved, that doesn't mean it's advanced. Even amoeba has evolved over the millenia. It's not something you "believe", it's something you "understand". Oh, and the appendix's function is already known... it's meant to aid in the digestion of wood. Since we don't eat wood anymore, it currently serves no function. It's a throwback from our ancestral species; earlier species ate plants exclusively.

The story of Adam and Eve is nonsense. The Jewish version is also nonsense. They're based on previous creation stories from a time when mankind didn't have a clue as to the nature of abiogenesis. We know better now.

The flood story is also total nonsense. This too is based on previous stories. Portions of The Epic Of Gilgamesh is where most of the Bible's flood story comes from.

Keep in mind that these stories were written thousands of years ago by people who believed that the earth was flat, that the sun was drawn by chariots, that diseases were caused by demons, and that two of every kind of animal lived within walking distance of Noah's house.

[Joe Redifer]

But Noah's Ark has already been discovered!

Funnily, they used carbon dating to determine that the remains are about 4,800 years old.  It works for Noah's Ark but NOT for dinosaurs.

[ParanoiaDragon]

I was kidding about the evolving in to balls of light or whatever, was thinking of the Q continuim from Star Trek on that  It's all about what it takes to survive, I'm not counting on anyone turning into a guy with bones claws & regenerative powers that will be needed to survive.  Yeah, I'm sure amoeba has evolved, everything does.  Actually, the thing about our ancestors being exclusive plant eaters makes alot of sense.  After the flood, they were instructed to eat meat to survive, maybe because of the lack of vegatation is one of my first guesses.  But, if there was a global flood like how it's described, it could maybe even change the environment, maybe the carbon changed drastically from such a catastrophic event.  

Kind of off topic, but, after visiting Stone Henge, my wife & I were thinking it might be possible for it to be pre-flood & have survived.  There's no seismic activity in the area, the stones are sunken in the ground by 1/3 IIRC, & I think they date back to sometime around when the flood was supposed to have happened, somewhere around I think 4500 years ago or something like that, which seems to go along with those remains of Noah's ark....if they're real.  I don't know that if it exists, that it would be intact.  Ofcoarse, most people believe the ark was a boat with Noah hanging out with the animals doing some rain bathing.  However, that's not how the Bible describes it.  Based on cubits, it sounds like some sort of giant rectangle, which makes more sense to me, seems like a boat would get absolutely destroyed in that kind of situation.  And ofcoarse, that so called discovery says it has a stern.....so, yeah, I'm not buying it being Noah's ark.

Actually, atleast in the Bible, it says the earth is a sphere that hangs upon nothing, even though everyone else at the time believe it was maybe held up by 4 elephants on a turtles back, etc.  It also seems to indicate that disease was spread atleast partially from filth.  The Israelites were absolutely required to take a dump outside the camp, & I think not only that, but not anywhere near a source of water....unlike the Thames of more recent centuries

Ive thought about the dinosaurs, & havn't personally thought of a reason for them dying off, though, some Christians don't believe in them at all!  I deffinitly believe alot of the similar stories from other cultures are related, like what I mentioned about ambrosia(not that I have any proof though) as well as Hercules(half human son of a god) being linked to maybe the nephilim(half human sons of spirits/gods).  I think it may be possible that the Bible's version of various linked stories just weren't starting to be written down until Moses time(later then Gilgamesh, etc.).  And if God exists, that he inspired the various writers to have the correct details, rather then just relying on passed down word of mouth.  If it was word of mouth, then I would think there's bound to be things that changed, like the telephone game.  Noah built the ark & purple monkey dishwashers.

As for the animals, if God exists, I think the Bible does say that the animals were guided to the ark by him.  Even if not, that's what I personally think, that even if Noah was to just gather up the animals, I would still think that God was involved somehow.  Plus, I forget how long the ark took to make...40 years maybe?  Might've been longer.  I would think there would be plenty of time for animals to make a trek to his area.  Plus, it seems like alot of the ancestors of the animals we have today were around the area of the garden of eve.  From there, they could've evolved into what we have now.  Animals like penguins that survive in a cold climate couldve been totally different then, & have since evolved to thriving in that type of climate, if that makes any sense?  Even then, I don't know if maybe there was a certain type of bird that we have now that was on the ark that evolved into different types of birds.  I would think, with birds, there was probably many kinds on the ark, & those all evolved into what we have today.

[OldRover]

There was no flood within the time of modern humans. Period. The story is hogwash. Even if the time period was 40 years, there's way too much to consider in terms of logistics. This video will sum it up:

Our ancestral species ate plants exclusively... not our species. Many other members of the homo genus ate plants and nothing else. Homo neanderthalensis was also omnivorous, but they were "outbred", so to speak, about 130 thousand years ago. The homo genus goes back about two and a half million years, but our kind is only about two hundred thousand years old. Our primary rival subspecies, idaltu, was vanquished about 160 thousand years ago, leaving only us, homo sapiens sapiens, as the sole survivor of the homo genus. Eventually, homo will either have another subspecies evolution or will be eliminated entirely.

[ParanoiaDragon]

My understanding of the ark is that it was a giant retangle box.  The example of the ark in the video is not like the ark described in the Bible, if they were trying to be accurate from how I understand the measurements.  But, I'm no mathmetician, so, I'm the wrong person to go to for what cubits translates to into feet, etc.  And I'm inclinded to believe that all animals back then may have been herbavores, but that's only based on the commandment that Noah & his family eat meat after the flood, & later in Revelation where it speaks of the lion eating straw like the bull, which may be just figurative & not literal.

I deffinitly don't believe it was all magic, but that's just my own thoughts.  I think God did use alot of the natural laws in regards to alleged miracles, rather then stuff just appearing.  But, ofcoarse God guiding the animals that would be on the ark, could still be considered magic.  I actually believe that the flood created ice ages, so, that all makes sense to me.  IIRC they believe that the ice age started suddenly, with mammoth's etc. still having edible food in their mouths.

I have no problem with the figures stated of how much food was needed, etc.  The ark was friggin' huge, I don't recall specifically, wasn't it like the size of 3 football fields or something riciculous like that, once again, comes down to cubits.  I recall cubits being something along the lines of the basic mearsurement from a man's fingers with an open palm down to the elbow?  So, in looking at my arm, roughly 18 inches was a cubit if I'm recalling right.  Though, I suppose it's possible that no one has the cubit figured out right?  Assumingly, it would've had atleast 8 people working on it over however many years it took to build it with the various wood(was it some kind of cedar??) & tar & I think even had primitive nails  IIRC.  Honestly, with things like the pyramids, etc. I believe ancient man was alot smarter & capable then most people give them credit for.

But I also am inclined to believe in the flood based on the various cultures found around the world, including Native Americans that have the story.  I was talking to one Native American from south eastern Canada IIRC, he said their tradition was something, like a squid or octopus got stuck in a hole in a lake, & plugged it up & it filled the whole world.  Somethign like that.  While I don't believe that's what happened, nor do I think it's any kind of proof, I still find it interesting none the less.  There's no way that I know of to prove that a global flood happened during the life & times of the homo sapien, but.  And honestly, maybe animals & humans can evolve quicker then we currently understand.  Maybe there will be some new discovery someday, we're always discovering something new about not only the universe itself, but the planet that we live on.

Once again though, just because I believe or understand something one way, doesn't mean I'm right.  While I believe there could be aliens, I personally don't think there are.  But I could be totally wrong, no doubt.

[_Paul]

I have a few observations. I've tried to word these so they are not misconstrued as a personal attack (which they are not), but I know belief is a touchy subject.

I deffinitly don't believe the Bible is totally litteral, there's just no way IMO... I don't believe a single one of them is real.  Other's  you have to figure out what they represent based on their attributes & features. 

I think a lot of Christians have a similar outlook on the Bible. The question to be asked is waht is the criteria for determining which parts are literal and which are not? You state later that you believe in Adam and Eve, yet not in the Antichrist. Why not? Are you just picking and choosing which bits of the Bible you like and discarding those that you don't? If so, what basis do you have to believe any of its claims?

I think that if God exists, alot of the miracles in the bible, are God using natural laws.  For instance, I believe it says that God caused ridiculously strong winds to hold up the Red Sea, rather then him just, making it stand up with no explanation whatsoever. 

So if all these 'miracles' happened by purely natural mechanisms, why jump to the conclusion that 'Godditit.'? Hey, I saw a double rainbow the other day, so Godditit even though it's explainable by natural means. So if these miracles were not supernatural (as you imply) then there is nothing to distinguish the world with God from the world without God, and the God hypothesis is not only redundant, but really stretching credibility.

A being of some kind as I described above... is what seems most logical to me. And I find that logic differ's from person to person, so what I believe, isn't always going to be logical to the next person. 

A supernatural being seems most logical? Despite all we know of the way the universe works, the logical conclusion is some sort of invisible magic entity? Really? Logic does not differ from person to person. At least the rules of logic are objective. It's the conclusions that are drawn that tend to differ, but I get your point.

There are so many little grouple that believe in some human leader that will lead them to so called salvation, but I believe most, if not all of those leaders are just taking advantage of the people

There was this guy called Jesus...

I try to think more about what I'm into or getting into, rather then just going along with the crowd.  I try to reason on things, rather then just taking a blind leap of faith like alot of Christians to do.

Yet you can't deny that some of your beliefs still require a blind leap of faith, often completely at odds with the evidence.

I was raised around both creation & evolution, & while I deffinitly believe in creation, you could say I partially believe in evolution. 

Common misconception. Creation and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive. They each have absolutely nothing to do with each other. You are mistaking evolution with abiogenesis.

However, I do personally believe that with each generation, we are gradually dying, & that our dna is corrupted,

Evidence?

& if not for modern science as well as just plain cleanliness, our life spans would be shorter then they generally are in comparison to hundreds of years ago, when you could be 35 & an old man ,

People weren't actually 'old men' back then in terms of rapid ageing. They just died younger due to disease and other factors. I guess you meant that, just wanted to clarify.

I don't believe that everything came from nothing however

To the best of our knowledge, the universe came from a singularity. I don't think we have a way to know if this came from nothing or something. If it came from something, where did that something come from? It's one of those questions which is probably impossible to answer.

I believe there is a limit or plateu to evolution, & that everything stays within this limit. 

There is no artificial ceiling to the process of evolution, and no evidence to suggest that there is. Of course, we cannot evolve in a supernatural way physically impossible, and the only limit to evolution is the environment in which the process of natural selection takes place.

I believe it's possible that we don't actually have vestigial organs, but that the one's that are considered vestigial(I think most people accept that the appendix is linked to the immune system IIRC?), are either just not understood yet, or are even faulty.

I'm sure biologists would be very interested if you can refute the mounds of evidence to the contrary. You'd probably win the Nobel Prize.

I think the story of the flood is a good example of evolution.  If it's true,

It isn't.

only 2 of every kind of animal was on the so called "ark",

The Bible states that 2 of each unclean beast was taken. Clean beasts were taken in sevens.

For instance, I'm inclined to believe that there was maybe some kind of wolf like creature on the ark, that eventually led to not only wolves, but foxes, hyeanas(sp?) & all the differe types of domestic dog's.  Same with cat's, there was probably 1 or 2 types of cats, that eventually evolved into both the bigger & smaller cats. 

However, the timescales involved in the Bible are not nearly sufficient to see such rapid evolution take place. I can highly recommend the book The Greatest Show on Earth by Rickard Dawkins. It's a wonderful explanation of the evolutionary process.

And the same goes with the 8 people that allegedly survived the flood.  I believe that they all gradually made up new races of humans.  I do believe in the lineage of man from Adam & Eve, which also makes me think that there some types of humans that no longer exist, if they were killed in the flood.  It might explain the different types of primitive humans that have been discovered.

No. What explains the different types of primitive humans is the process of evolution via natural selection. In fact, it explains it so perfectly that no other hypothesis (particularly one relying on magic) is required. By your reasoning, what did Adam and Eve look like? Homo habilis? Nakalipithecus? How far do you go back?

I do believe that with the male & female, that it makes it harder to procreate, & wonder why we divided into two specific seperate creatures that have to mate with eachother, rather then being some kind of creature that can just split off to procreate

This is likely due to the genetic benefits and survivability that comes from sharing genetic information. I'm really no biologist, but there are plenty of places to get a start on the ideas about this.

And if their parts weren't fully compatible, that would make those part vestigial, & they would be discarded.

Not necessarily. Vestigial does not mean useless.

I personally havn't come up with my own thoughts on why God would've used full blown evolution, it seems like, from my point of view, that it would make more sense to just create the different animals & allow them to broaden out within those types.

It's probably because every God is a non-existant man-made being.

But, just because I don't believe in evolving from one creature to the next, doesn't make me right.

Very true. But you need to ask yourself why you don't accept the evidence. Perhaps you need to understand evolution better; many people only have a vague grasp on evolution based on things they've mostly forgotten from school and disinfomation from religious organisations.

For me, belief in God doesn't mean he'll just go around granted me wishes or protecting me.  The Bible says that he makes it rain upon the good & the wicked, & sun shine upon the good & wicked, & I think Jesus said that we are all victim's of time & unforeseen circumstance.  So, just because I believe God is there, doesn't mean I have a magic bubble around mean, deffinitly not.  We all have to go thru good times & bad, no doubt.   

The Bible says a lot of things. Many of them contradict each other or are so vague as to be completely useless. So you can pretty much make the Bible say what you want it to say. All your wishes granted? Check. Not all your wishes granted? Check.

Ofcoarse, some believe in an imortal soul that goes to heaven or hell, but I don't believe in that.

Agreed.

I don't believe that Bible teaches that.  Infact Jesus said that death is like sleep, & that there's no knowledge, nor wisdom, nor devising, etc. in sheol(the grave), & the dead are concious of nothing at all.  They're not being burned in fiery torment(quite a few old religions teach that or something similar, & it did get adopted into most Christian churches), nor are they in limbo twiddling their thumbs, & along with that, I don't believe that anyone is sitting on a cloud strumming a harp.  The words Sheol(Hebrew) & Hades(Greek), usually get translated into the word hell, but, IIRC it actually litteraly means "the common man's grave".  That's it, we die, we're done.  The soul that is sinning, it itself shall die.  I believe we all sin/imperfect, & that a person "is" a soul, rather then "has" a soul, & then we die & aren't aware of anything at all.

There are so many conflicting views, even within Christian circles about fiery torment, hell etc. Some believe hell is just being disconnected from God. I think you'd find more than a few Christians who would disagree that the Bible doesn't teach about our souls going to heaven or hell though.

In regards to Adam & Eve's children mating with eachother(brother & sister), my thoughts are that it goes back to our dna degrading.  I think at one time, we were in much better shape(might explain the longgggggg life spans earlier in the Bible), but that once Adam ate the fruit(the Bible doesn't actually say what kind of fruit it was), that he passed on corruption, so to speak.  I believe that corrution is passed on from the male, & that if he were to not have eaten, he could've still mated with Eve, & they would've had perfect children.

Or it might be just a story and you made all of that up based on nothing.

And that might explain why Jesus was to be born of a virgin. 

Originally a mistranslation of the word almah, which means 'young woman'.

With no male involved...{snip}...how the heck are we supposed to have children & enjoy eachothers bodies if Adam & Eve weren't allowed to have sex?!?

While an interesting mental exercise (like filling in the blanks in movies with lots of plot holes), this really has no bearing on actual fact.

None of this makes me right though, it's just what I believe based on what I've been able to gather in my lifetime thus far.  Who knows what I will discover, or what humans in general will discover in the next 5, 10, 20 years, etc. 

I admit it's fun to pick apart stories and come up with clever mental gymnastics to explain away things you don't understand, but if you actually, truthfully, believe all this, I would suggest you do further research, particularly in biology, the history of the Bible (and all religions) and the counter arguments.

[ParanoiaDragon]

Cool, I don't want to feel awkward around friends.  

I don't think I would say that I pick & choose what to believe is literal & what is figurative.  It's more about context.  Sometimes some things in scripture are ridiculously obvious that they're literal(though, I'm sure some would argue otherwise) or figurative.  It seems to me like literal things are in groups(for lack of a better term), as are figurative.  It doesn't seem like alot of figurative stuff is lumped right in the middle of literal stuff, not sure how else to word it, but, I could be wrong.  I believe that Adam & Eve were real based on the lineage traced from Adam to Jesus in a couple of the books, including David & Solomon in the lineage, & also I recall a time or 2 when Jesus spoke of them as if they were real people, rather then just a story.  So that's what inclines me to believe they existed in general.  

As for miracles, I didn't mean to give the impression that they were all based on natural law.  Just that, I think in many cases, God used natural laws, like with the Red Sea, & atleast some of the 10 plagues, & the delivering of quail into Israel, etc.  However, there's other things I just don't think were using natural laws, unless there's still some natural law's we still don't understand today, I suppose that's possible.  But, for instance, I can't think of any way Jesus could've kept supplying continuous fish & bread, using natural laws. Assuming it actually happened, it does indeed sound like magic.  Same goes for alot or all of the healings in the Bible, not that I'm a scientist, but, I have no idea how they'd be done, without God breaking the natural laws.

The anti-christ seems more like a mythical beast so to speak, & earlier it was stated that in the first century, there are already many anti-christs.  I don't believe that the anti-christ is a mythical magical superhuman or anything.  I'm more inclined to believe that it maybe refers to a group of people with no magical powers or anything.  More like a group that doesn't even know they are the so called anti-christ, & they could even consider themselves christian, but teach ideas that seem contrary to the Bible, like hellfire, limbo, the trinity, that Mary's image will appear in grilled cheese sandwhiches, etc.  That's probably the easiest way to explain it.  Once again though, what sounds literal to one, sounds figurative to another.  I won't say I can prove one way over another, just because I believe a certain way.

My idea about God being some kind of multi or omni-chrono singularity is ofcoarse, nothing more then an idea, no proof, I doubt there ever would be.  It's just me thinking about things.  Probably my ocd kicking in gear, I tend to just think about random stuff, especially stuff based on what we know so far about the universe & natural laws.  Though, I do think we'll probably know alot more in another 100 years.  The stuff we keep discovering is amazing, The Fibonacci sequence is something that impresses me & I think is quite cool, though I'm no mathmetician.  I saw watched a documentray or 2 on it, & I personally find it intruiging, & to me seems like design, rather then chance.  I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me, it's just one of those things that really seems to make sense to me.

Yeah, most Christians worship Jesus, though, they think he IS God, so, if he's God, then he's technically not a human, just was for a short period of time.  Either way, I don't believe he is God, but rather God's son.  I don't believe that God is a 3 headed ogre of some sort.  That's one interesting thing.  I can't figure out how people can believe the Trinity, & they can't figure out how I don't.  To them, the Bible is riddled with scriptures that support the Trinity.  To me, just the opposite.  Yes, Jesus talked about being one with the Father....but, he also said that a husband & wife should be one!  Is that literal..or figurative?  Are my wife & I supposed to litteraly join our bodies together based on scripture?  He also said let his disciples be one, just as he & God are one.  Once again, are they supposed to be some sort of literal multi headed hermaphrodite or something??  I don't believe it, it sounds figurative of being unified in love, joy peace, etc. etc.

Oh yeah, faith is deffinitly involved, & I personally feel I lack alot of faith, & I pray to have faith where I lack it.  In no way, shape or form can I see or show anyone, God.  What I call evidence to me, is certainly not evidence to someone else.  I've always been taugh though, not to have just faith, but to examine & think about things, rather then just blindly believe every last thing without any seeming proof.  ?And the Bible itself says that anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps, & encourage using the power of reason...of which I tend to think alot of Christians don't do, but end up literally blindly believing in stuff, but I can't say for sure, I'm no mind reader

Yeah, I know nothing about abiogenesis, so, that's something to learn about, no doubt.  There's always plenty for me to learn about, though, I'm honestly no book worm, even though I am a thinker.  I'll be learning till I'm old & grey.

As for us gradually dying(so to speak), I have no evidence, it's just another one of my thoughts, & nothing more.  To my knowledge, no religion I know of teaches it, & I don't necessarily believe it, but to me it might make sense only based on lifespans allegedly getting shorter in the Bible.  Maybe there's still more at play in regards to aging & dna, etc. that we still haven't discovered?  I have no idea.

And yeah, I didn't literally mean old men, just relatively speaking.  

I tend to think that the big bang sounds logical for starting things.  I think I stated earlier, that I believe the planets & universe itself were started before the 6 creative days, which could've been random lengths of time, thousand or millions or billions, what is time to a being that I think may be outside of time as we understand time currently?  In any case, yeah, I have no idea if anyone can ever answer that one way or the other.  Maybe someday someone would find an answer, but later it's found they didn't fit in a certain calculation?  Who knows.

Nobel Prize, hear I come  No, but seriously, it's just my own thoughts, & nothing more.  I don't aspire to be anyone great that has some awesome discovery, though it'd be cool if I did discover something, no doubt.

Yeah, I know about the 2 for unclean & 7 for clean.  Seems like most people just focus on the 2 unclean, so I just didn't bother to include them.

Adam & Eve's appearance?  No idea.  Once again, just a thought of mine in regards to ancient man.  I'm inclined at the least to think they were dark skinned.  Even now we do have a bit of variation in the different races, probably have alot more we're capable of for all I know.  And in the same general location there's groups like the hutu's, tutsi's & twa's. If nothing else, it's just interesting in general to see diversity. My dad made a comment to me(he tends to be a thinker as well) about to him that it seems like maybe having male & female would introduce more variety into the genepool, rather then amoeba or hermaphrodite type breeding, where it would seem like that would be more like just straight cloning.

Actually, in regards to God or god's, I've had a couple of thoughts on what they could be composed of.  I think the most obvious idea for someone to come up with, is that they exist in a different dimension, one that we havn't figured out yet.  And that they are not material, infact, not male nor female.  Even though biblicaly they take the form of a male, doesn't necessarily mean they have a sex.  I'm inclined to belive they sexless & don't procreate, other then God making others.  I have no proof though, just me musing.  Another is that maybe God is composed of the elements we havent' discovered yet?

I'm still learning about how evolution works, & will continue to do so.  And yeah, any book that uses figurative language can be taken in a millions different ways, so then it's, who has it figured out?  Is my belief's the truth?  Just because I believe it is, doesn't make it so.  It seems like most the Christians I run into still believe in hellfire, though, in this day & age, I'm sure there's more churches teaching it dfferently...thankfully.  I know my grandmothers church taught that if a baby doesn't get baptized, & it dies, then it'll burn in hell forever.  That was always something that to her seemed to conflict with other teachings in the Bible, & it truly disgusted her, & she eventually left when she found a group that, to her, reasoned with the scriptures, instead of just saying, that's the way it is, & didn't believe in seemingly contradicting ideas.

In regards to heaven or hell though, to me, it's more about, what did the original translation of hell mean, especially when it even spoke of good people going to hell/sheol/hades.  And as strange as it sounds, at this time, I still believe that a small number of people will go to heaven to rule as king's & priests, but I am not one of them, & don't wish to be.  I wish to live on earth along with the great crowd of other sheep spoken of that would live on earth, though, this is probably getting a bit wierd sounding, so I'll move on.

Yeah, like I said, it's just more thinking on my part(in regards to Adam & Eve & their children, etc.).  To my knowledge, it's not a teaching of any religion, just PD pondering  

That thing about the mistranslation of almah sounds familiar.  I have no proof in front of me, but feel like I read an article on that very thing, & that there was another word used in the hebrew scriptures(or was almah the hebrew word?) that also referred to the vigrin conception & did mean virgin, or maybe that it was that almah translated to young woman literally, but back in those times meant a virgin?  I honestly don't know, but it does sound familiar.  And yeah, I always have continuing research to do...I'd say, life is research, atleast in my case



 

[OldRover]

What I wanna know is... if you don't actually believe the Bible... why bother calling yourself "Christian"?

[Joe Redifer]

I would think that "Christian" defines those who believe that Jesus was the son of god.

[OldRover]

Not necessarily. The word means "Christ-like", indicating that those who call themselves "Christian" strive to be like their religious figurehead. Of course, this alone eliminates over 99% of self-proclaimed "Christians".

[Joe Redifer]

Well I doubt Jesus ever read the Bible, so they're just like Christ!

It's funny, because I know a few Christians who insist that Catholics aren't Christians.

[OldRover]

A lot of Protestants claim that Catholics aren't Christians, which is kind of like claiming that the PC Engine isn't a game console.

[Gogan]

Jus saw this thread, Here's what I believe:

1. Do the right thing, and 2. treat people good.

Idk what religion that is, but man, if everyone followed that....

[Joe Redifer]

Agreed.  Nobody needs religion to do good.  Well, some people use it as their crutch, saying you can't do good without religion.  Those people would be idiots no matter if they were religious or not.

[ParanoiaDragon]

I also agree, there is good already in man in general.  That's not saying there aren't evil people, I think there are.  But even religion-less people do good deeds...........along with religious people that do truly wicked things.

[_Paul]

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Steven Weinberg

[Gogan]

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Steven Weinberg

My mind has just been blown lol

[Fatality]

I'm a Catholic. I feel bad that I don't go to church as often as I should. Damn lazyness and NFL on Sunday 

[Joe Redifer]

That's OK.  Tim Tebow is religious so you can get your god-time through him while watching football.

[_Paul]

[ParanoiaDragon]

I don't see anything about anyone raping a girl in verses 28 & 29.  To me it sounds like a guy & girl who got their freak on & she lost her virginity, etc.  So then he has to pay 50 silver shekels to the father & they must get married. 

Even then, that was only under the Mosaic Law which ended technically when the Messiah arrived, but officially it ended I believe around 70 CE when I think the temple was destroyed by Rome, the Israelites no longer had a temple or alter, or the Ark of the Covenant, so they couldn't even continue officially with the Law anymore.  I think some believe that the Ark may have been taken when captured by Babylon, but I'm not sure which took what.  Either way,  the Law was done away with, I think atleast partially due to the Israelite nation being spread out because of their capture by the Babylonians, & plus the allowance of gentiles into what I think is called spiritual Israel.  At that point, there was no longer a specific nation that had special privlidges(including many gentiles that were called at the time, Jewish proselytes IIRC).

Back to the rape thing, offhand, the only thing I can think of that would sound like rape was involved was a scripture that implied that if a girl didn't scream loud enough or something to that effect, they wouldn't call it rape.  I forget exactly, but either way, I think it's more about was she trying to scream, or was she actually consenting, maybe even later claimed it to be rape(like some women do today unfortunately) even though she consented when they were getting their freak on.  I don't remember if that was in the Hebrew or Greek scriptures.  Probably doesn't matter honestly, but if a law is in the Hebrew scriptures, that doesn't mean it can be applied in the Greek scriptures since the Law had passed away. 

Even then, in regards to laws that were broken intentionally or even unintentionally under Mosaic Law, there's nothing that says that people who were put to death for breaking the law, wouldn't be resurected later along with both the righteous & unrighteous & given another chance.  The only time I know of when people won't be resurected is when they die at Armageddon, or if they sinned against the holy spirit, like the priests who conspired to have Jesus put to death.  Even then, I can't say anyone for sure, as only God is the judge, it's up to him.

As always, this is just what I believe at this point in life, & that doesn't mean I'm right.  Hell, maybe all of us are wrong, maybe there's something nobody's ever even thought of that is "the truth".  But, we deffinitly keep learning more as time goes on, so, assuming we don't nuke ourselves in World War 3, we'll all continue to learn about what makes up life as we know it.

[nectarsis]

That deuteronomy version is the NIV not KJV.

[ParanoiaDragon]

Yeah, I was thinking about that, there's probably some translations that sound like rape.  Either way, I'm sure scholars will continue to learn more & more about the original languages used in the Bible.  So there could still be plenty of things that we're off on in regards to various scriptures, so even now there could still be mistranslations in every Bible up to this very day, making it hard if not impossible for many to believe the Bible.

[_Paul]

Here are the passages for those interested in clarification:

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,

    29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

I think it's mostly because once a woman is 'violated', she is worth less in monetary terms (in those days in that area), so she is forced to marry her rapist and her father is compensated.

Rapists get off lightly compared to adulterers though:

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,

    24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death— the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

    25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.

That's some twisted logic right there.

[Joe Redifer]

So do you get killed for raping or a new wife?  The Bible does not make this clear.

[blueraven]

I just wanted to see this again.

[ParanoiaDragon]

Wierd, I've never read that version of those scriptures before.  In the NWT there's no mention of rape or anything.  Infact, it implies that if it's found out what "they" did(not he, but they), then he must pay the 50 shekels for fornicating, etc. etc.  It's no wonder people hate the Bible, especially when stuff ends up being translated like that.  I think I have an NIV laying around somewhere, but havne't read it much. People who believe in God being 3 people & an immortal soul, etc. seem to go to that translation these days.  Since I don't believe in that stuff, I haven't done alot of research on that particular Bible, though, I have done a few comparisons & found area's in the NIV that still made it sound like God & Jesus are seperate, & that a person's soul dies, which goes against what most people believe.

Even still, I wonder how much translator's will learn as time marches on.  There could still be things that every translator is waaaaaaay off on for all I know.

[Joe Redifer]

Wierd, I've never read that version of those scriptures before.

That's another thing I take issue with.  Which version is correct?  How can you prove that such-and-such a version of a passage is the right one?  If it is God's word, then why is it modified?  God's word should be God's word, no?  You don't go changing that around unless you are simply making adjustments to fit the needs of your particular sect.  In that sense, you have already taken God out of the equation.

[_Paul]

It's a bit of a stretch that the most powerful being in the multiverse can't make sure that all translations are accurate to his meaning. Just a subtle nudge of inspiration here and there would do it.

Perhaps he will have to perform another human sacrifice to sort it all out again soon.

[ParanoiaDragon]

Yeah, believe me, it's annoying.  At the very end of Revelation, is specifically states not to add nor take away from the Bible(certain extra-biblical books come to mind...but I will not name names), but some so-called scholars have been called out on adding there own stuff to the Bible itself.  Really, it's hard to know if there's any translator who's not even slightly biased one way or another.  And then even with any translation, like the NWT, some who aren't Jehovah's Witnesses will give it big props for sticking close to the oldest surviving texts, & call it one of the most accurate(though quite dry) Bible's, but then others will say they took liberties when making the NWT(ie:supposedly changing scriptures that support the trinity, imortal soul, hellfire, etc.). 

So who can be believed?  I won't say it's not difficult, cuz it is.  I tend to be a conspiracy theorist, so I have a hard time trusting anything anyone says.  Just the whole JFK fiasco makes me wary of who's really in control of the information we recieve.  I do consider it a matter of prayer though, & the Bible says there would be a great apostacy, false christs, etc.  And there deffinitly has been thruout the centuries.  Just with the various atrocities done in the name of God we can all see people who claim to be followers of Christ, but are nothing like him.  Same goes for anyone who changes the scriptures. 

For instance, most Bibles nowaday don't have even a hint of God's name in it, even though the Bible clearly says that his name is important.  Is his name "the Lord", is it just...."God", is it Elohim or Abba?  Those are all just titles, not names.  It's a conspiracy I tell'z ya, a CONSPIRACY!   Seriously though, I do believe(even though I'm sure it sounds like nonsense) that's it the Devil guiding people to make translations that are inaccurate, so it's nigh impossible to even know which one is.  Thankfully, some of the stuff that monks & such added over the centuries, have been found out, & are removed from modern day Bibles, which is why you'll see some scriptures that are blank.

[_Paul]

How do believers know what the Bible actually is? Translation aside, there's all those other gospels that the church have decided at some point will not be included. Should those be taken into account? And if not, should some that are already in there also be discarded? It's a whole spaghetti mess.

You believe the devil is guiding people to make bad translations? Well what if it was the devil himself that wrote/inspired the Bible? It certainly seems the most effective way to make people fight and kill each other, not to mention the really nasty stuff in the OT (Satan obviously got wise for the NT and toned it down so the intolerance was a lot more subtle). How's that for a conspiracy theory? 

I think it's a good sign that you arern't just taking things at face value like many believers do, even if I don't exactly share your conclusions. I think you'd find it quite interesting to do more 'research' into critical thinking/skepticism. It might blow away some of your sacred cows, but it's quite enlightening. (A great podcast that deals soley with religion is Reasonable Doubts, check it out if you have some spare time).

[ParanoiaDragon]

Yeah, I've thought about those very same things many times, that maybe the Devil wrote it, or maybe God is just evil & is screwing around with people, but I've seen the good the Bible's done personally in my own life, & in others I know that don't go around harming others.  My dad became a believer on the old 17th century King James version, even with any error's in it, he was able to figure out what made sense to him. I'm inclined to believe, even from a terrible translation, that people can learn alot of basic things, but even in those things, plenty of it can get misused.

Oh, as for those other books added to the Bible, there deffinitly seems to be things in those books that seem totally off.  I can't attest to this personally, but many books like the Maccabee's, Judas, Mary, etc. don't have, as some would say, the ring of truth or canonicity.  There's also the Jewish Targum's I've heard about.  All of these books may actually have some things that are true, but scholar's can't find a way to include them in the Bible.  This, like so many things, is something I still need to do more research on though.

I do believe that religion as a whole will be destroyed eventually(hopefully in my lifetime), & that should lead eventually into Armageddon, though, if I'm right remains to be seen.  If it happens, it'll be scary for someone like me, but I hope I hang in there & make it thru the alleged Armageddon.

[rag-time4]

I see Noah and the flood story were mentioned a few pages back... One of the things most memorable to me about Noah is that the Bible says he lived to be 950 years old.

I was wondering what your thoughts were on it paranoia d?

scripture link

[_Paul]

I see Noah and the flood story were mentioned a few pages back... One of the things most memorable to me about Noah is that the Bible says he lived to be 950 years old.

I was wondering what your thoughts were on it paranoia d?

scripture link

For your interest, here's a timeline of the bible flood comparted to real historical events: