I don't want to offend anyone at all here, but I think religion is a joke. I myself have no interest in it, nor believe in any of it. Religion is nothing more than reason for war or heated debate. That's just my take on it. And even though I don't believe in a hell, I'll probably be down there on a shish-ka-bop after I go for saying this...
<< I just can't belive in a theory with so many holes in it. >>
Don't call it a theory, it just encourages them.
<< I think religion is a joke. >>
Right on.
i really like the initial post here, but it's somwhat degenerated... I, myself am agnostic, my best friend is staunch christian. We get along great, no conversion attempts or anything...this makes me wonder, why can't large groups of people of various religious beliefs get along? some people are just assholes i guess. Also, if you have the right to tell me about god, i have the right to tell you that I don't want to hear it, correct?
VisionsUCI, great post! 
I support you 200%!
It's pretty clear what this thread is about, therefore no one can complain as to its content.
It is a common misconception that one must abandon common sense and logic to become a christian.
Conversely I feel that one must abandon reason and logic to say that God does not exist.
Creation v evolution is a sidenote. One or the other does not mean God does or doesn't exist.
Evolution however does not stand up to scientific scrutiny and has NOT been PROVEN either. There is no proof or any kind of record of one species evoling into another. This is the kind of evolution I do not believe happened, am I without logic? No, I don't believe so. If there was so much scientific proof for evolution then it wouldn't still be a THEORY, would it?
Evolutionist mainly agree that all species have a common ancestor (ex. all types of dogs evolved from a common ancestor, all horses evolve from a common ancestor...), this agrees with the story of Noah's ark. 2 of each kind. Also, historians used to say that the Bible was inaccurate historically. Not true, it has been proven accurate time and time again by secular sources.
Non-christians argue that christians use circular logic, true some do. But I ask you what exactly is 'survival of the fittest' if not a supreme example of circular reasoning?
The main reason many people have a problem with christians is because of Christ. People do not want to hear the message. It was true then and it is true know. I know, "i don't go to church because of all the hypocrites", uh yeah, and that keeps you from going to work also, right? I didn't think so. What people fail to realize is that yeah, there are hypocrites in church and liars and murderers and adulterers...DUH. The church is for sinners! Christians are not perfect, we all fall short, quite often.
And some say that the Bible is just myths. Well name a myth where it gives exact information so that you can place the time and geographic location in history.
For all you people that have to have things proven scientifically. I have one for you: Prove to me scientifically that William Shakespeare wrote 'Romeo and Juliet'. Bet you can't.
You must first understand what it means to "prove something scientifically" before you start demanding it. Please look up what the scientific method is. Everything cannot be proven scientifically.
I support you 200%!It's pretty clear what this thread is about, therefore no one can complain as to its content.
It is a common misconception that one must abandon common sense and logic to become a christian.
Conversely I feel that one must abandon reason and logic to say that God does not exist.
Creation v evolution is a sidenote. One or the other does not mean God does or doesn't exist.
Evolution however does not stand up to scientific scrutiny and has NOT been PROVEN either. There is no proof or any kind of record of one species evoling into another. This is the kind of evolution I do not believe happened, am I without logic? No, I don't believe so. If there was so much scientific proof for evolution then it wouldn't still be a THEORY, would it?
Evolutionist mainly agree that all species have a common ancestor (ex. all types of dogs evolved from a common ancestor, all horses evolve from a common ancestor...), this agrees with the story of Noah's ark. 2 of each kind. Also, historians used to say that the Bible was inaccurate historically. Not true, it has been proven accurate time and time again by secular sources.
Non-christians argue that christians use circular logic, true some do. But I ask you what exactly is 'survival of the fittest' if not a supreme example of circular reasoning?
The main reason many people have a problem with christians is because of Christ. People do not want to hear the message. It was true then and it is true know. I know, "i don't go to church because of all the hypocrites", uh yeah, and that keeps you from going to work also, right? I didn't think so. What people fail to realize is that yeah, there are hypocrites in church and liars and murderers and adulterers...DUH. The church is for sinners! Christians are not perfect, we all fall short, quite often.
And some say that the Bible is just myths. Well name a myth where it gives exact information so that you can place the time and geographic location in history.
For all you people that have to have things proven scientifically. I have one for you: Prove to me scientifically that William Shakespeare wrote 'Romeo and Juliet'. Bet you can't.
You must first understand what it means to "prove something scientifically" before you start demanding it. Please look up what the scientific method is. Everything cannot be proven scientifically.
<< is no proof or any kind of record of one species evoling into another. >>
I quote talkorigins.orgBiologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.
<< . If there was so much scientific proof for evolution then it wouldn't still be a THEORY, would it? >>
You are misinterpreting use of the term theory. Again from talkorigins In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed", as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors - the historical reality of evolution - is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution"; it simply has not been an issue for a century.
In response to your final statement, I quote Stephen J. Gould. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
<< I don't want to offend anyone at all here, but I think religion is a joke. >>
EZD,
Clearly, you are a liar. If you really didn't want to offend anyone, you would not call the beliefs of billions of people a "joke".
Russ, NCNE
Russ: I don't want to make an enemy with someone that has a crackrack, but EZD was just expressing his opinion. Don't think Athiests and Agnostics don't get offended when someone here starts quoting the bible and preaching about god.
If I recall, the original point of this thread was to post questions to christians about christianity. I'd like to do so now. As a Jew, I am aware that christianity long blamed the jews for the death of jesus. I was wondering, what does christianity currently teach regarding jesus-do you acknowledge him as a Jew? and are you still taught that he was killed by the Jews? Just wondering.
DRGrim,
There is a big difference between quoting the Bible, and "preaching" as you call it, and leveling personal attacks and insults. I can show you reams of the latter coming from Atheists, directed at Christians. I'll bet you can't find a sentence in the other direction.
Russ, NCNE
There is a big difference between quoting the Bible, and "preaching" as you call it, and leveling personal attacks and insults. I can show you reams of the latter coming from Atheists, directed at Christians. I'll bet you can't find a sentence in the other direction.
Russ, NCNE
1) There is no proof unless you count moths changing color. A white moth is one species a mottled moth is another. Evolution is exactly about " a frog changing into a cow". We all evolved from the same primordal(sp) soup right?
<<<But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed", as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. >>>
Held by whom? Evolutionists? So theory only means that when applied to evolution? ROFL!
Couldn't have said it better myself.
2) From the American Heritage Dictionar: theory-1.a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. b.Such knowledge or such a systems distinguished from experiment or practice. 2. Abstract reasoning; speculation 3. An assumption or guess based on limited information or knowledge.
<<<In response to your final statement, I quote Stephen J. Gould. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.>>>
3) Is this definition of fact only found in the evolutionists dictionary also? You should note that I did not bring up the "prove it to me scientifically" arguement. The sources you quote are twisting definitions for its own purpose. You can't have it both ways. Evolutionists don't want us to play by their rules. They want their set of rules and our set of rules which they decide.
If evolutionists make no claim of perpetual truth then why are you even arguing?
<<<But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed", as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. >>>
Held by whom? Evolutionists? So theory only means that when applied to evolution? ROFL!
Couldn't have said it better myself.
2) From the American Heritage Dictionar: theory-1.a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. b.Such knowledge or such a systems distinguished from experiment or practice. 2. Abstract reasoning; speculation 3. An assumption or guess based on limited information or knowledge.
<<<In response to your final statement, I quote Stephen J. Gould. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.>>>
3) Is this definition of fact only found in the evolutionists dictionary also? You should note that I did not bring up the "prove it to me scientifically" arguement. The sources you quote are twisting definitions for its own purpose. You can't have it both ways. Evolutionists don't want us to play by their rules. They want their set of rules and our set of rules which they decide.
If evolutionists make no claim of perpetual truth then why are you even arguing?
<<<If I recall, the original point of this thread was to post questions to christians about christianity. I'd like to do so now. As a Jew, I am aware that christianity long blamed the jews for the death of jesus. I was wondering, what does christianity currently teach regarding jesus-do you acknowledge him as a Jew? and are you still taught that he was killed by the Jews? Just wondering. >>>
Yes and no.
No, not specifically. Yes as part of the world. Jesus died to take the sins of the world. For Jew and gentile.
[spelling]
Yes and no.
No, not specifically. Yes as part of the world. Jesus died to take the sins of the world. For Jew and gentile.
[spelling]
Russ:
<< It saddens me that they are blinded >>
posted by qacwac in a recent thread, refering to everyone that was not a christian. He also stated that all other religons were a 'game'
Please don't start to hate me because I don't believe in what you do.
Edit:
<< I'm right. You're wrong >>
Posted by ... Cobalt someone in the born-again thread
<< It saddens me that they are blinded >>
posted by qacwac in a recent thread, refering to everyone that was not a christian. He also stated that all other religons were a 'game'
Please don't start to hate me because I don't believe in what you do.
Edit:
<< I'm right. You're wrong >>
Posted by ... Cobalt someone in the born-again thread
Semper_fi-so, to clarify, you're saying that the current christian teachings state that jesus was a jew who died for the sins of both jews and non-jews (but not killed by the jews)? just want to clarifty-there's no sarcasm or anything intended in this question
i think i'm gonna jump in here. Jesus was a Jew. He died for everyone out there, be it Red Dawn, Russ, Me, Anand Lal Shimpi, Zuni, everyone.
DRGrim,
First, I don't "hate" anyone because they believe differently than I do. As a matter of fact, I don't hate anyone at all. It is not an emotion of which I am capable, so please do not confuse intensity of discussion with personal feelings about the individuals involved in that dialogue.
As to your quotes, those are not slurs or insults directed at anyone. They are a statement of feeling and beliefs. They are not even in the same league as the garbage directed at those of Faith here at this forum.
Russ, NCNE
First, I don't "hate" anyone because they believe differently than I do. As a matter of fact, I don't hate anyone at all. It is not an emotion of which I am capable, so please do not confuse intensity of discussion with personal feelings about the individuals involved in that dialogue.
As to your quotes, those are not slurs or insults directed at anyone. They are a statement of feeling and beliefs. They are not even in the same league as the garbage directed at those of Faith here at this forum.
Russ, NCNE
Oh, I think I understand your question.
Jesus went through six trials. Three jewish and three roman. The jewish court brought forth false witnesses and condemned Him, Pontius knew Him not to be guilty yet ordered Him crucified anyhow. Where do we place the blame? In the narrow view I am sure some will say that the jews should have recognized their Messiah or that since Pontius knew Jesus was not guilty should have let Him go. The jews were schooled in the prophecies of the old testament and proclaiming themselves wise yet did not know are held more accountable. Is this referring to all jews, I don't believe so. It's referring the pharisees and sandhedrin that sought to have Him silenced. Jesus was sent to be crucified for the sins of the world, WE(the world) killed Him.
Jesus went through six trials. Three jewish and three roman. The jewish court brought forth false witnesses and condemned Him, Pontius knew Him not to be guilty yet ordered Him crucified anyhow. Where do we place the blame? In the narrow view I am sure some will say that the jews should have recognized their Messiah or that since Pontius knew Jesus was not guilty should have let Him go. The jews were schooled in the prophecies of the old testament and proclaiming themselves wise yet did not know are held more accountable. Is this referring to all jews, I don't believe so. It's referring the pharisees and sandhedrin that sought to have Him silenced. Jesus was sent to be crucified for the sins of the world, WE(the world) killed Him.
Those were quotes from christians, to everyone else, maybie not ment to offend, but i get offended when someone tells me that my beliefs are wrong, or a game. Especially since I know that I am right
Since we are discussing religion, could someone explain why people display posters that says John 3:16 at sporting events. What does it mean exactly?
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eteranl life.
NIV
For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eteranl life.
NIV
Semper_Fi:
Interesting, seeing as how I never knew what christians believe. Now, I myself don't know much about what Jews believe, other than saying a collective "we didnt do it". However, I do own a book titled "the complete idiots guide to jewish history and culture", so my response to your post comes from that.
First, the book makes no reference to 6 trials, it only states that it was the Romans who put him on trial (and that they did it on Passover, when Jews can't hold court procedings) and crucified him (an act not accepted by the Jews). Now, I realize that the two versions of history could be debated, but the author then goes on to quote a speech by Pope John Paul the second, made on april 13th, 1986. The speech contained the following quote "no ancestral or collective blame can be imputed to the Jews as a people for what happened in Christ's passion". Just wondering if the christians have a response to that speech, and what it is.
Finally, as for whether Jews accept Christ as the messiah: Since Jesus did not 1) restore the national sovereignty of the Jews in Israel or 2) bring about God's universal kingdom of justice and peace on earth, before he died, Jews believe that he is not, currently, the messiah. Should he come back and preform these two acts, Jews would then accept him (or whoever does preform these acts) as the messiah.
I hope you do not find the above post offensive in any way. I found yours to be interesting since I've never heard the christian account before, and I figured I'd post the Jewish account as well. Feel free to respond, especially to the quote by the Pope, which would seemingly question Jewish fault in Jesus' death.
Interesting, seeing as how I never knew what christians believe. Now, I myself don't know much about what Jews believe, other than saying a collective "we didnt do it". However, I do own a book titled "the complete idiots guide to jewish history and culture", so my response to your post comes from that.
First, the book makes no reference to 6 trials, it only states that it was the Romans who put him on trial (and that they did it on Passover, when Jews can't hold court procedings) and crucified him (an act not accepted by the Jews). Now, I realize that the two versions of history could be debated, but the author then goes on to quote a speech by Pope John Paul the second, made on april 13th, 1986. The speech contained the following quote "no ancestral or collective blame can be imputed to the Jews as a people for what happened in Christ's passion". Just wondering if the christians have a response to that speech, and what it is.
Finally, as for whether Jews accept Christ as the messiah: Since Jesus did not 1) restore the national sovereignty of the Jews in Israel or 2) bring about God's universal kingdom of justice and peace on earth, before he died, Jews believe that he is not, currently, the messiah. Should he come back and preform these two acts, Jews would then accept him (or whoever does preform these acts) as the messiah.
I hope you do not find the above post offensive in any way. I found yours to be interesting since I've never heard the christian account before, and I figured I'd post the Jewish account as well. Feel free to respond, especially to the quote by the Pope, which would seemingly question Jewish fault in Jesus' death.
it continues to say that
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned , but whoever does not believe stands condemned already becasue he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
NIV John 3:17-18
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned , but whoever does not believe stands condemned already becasue he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
NIV John 3:17-18
They were 1) before Annas, the high priest 2) Caiaphas 3) before the Sanhedrin (jewish trials)
Roman: 1) Pilate 2) Herod 3) Pilate again.
I can't say the order is correct.
The point with the number of trials is that many different people had many opportunities to change their minds but didn't. The blame lies on the whole.
For the pope's speech. No response from me. I would have to read it first so I can't say.
I am not sure of the question also. From what I can tell, what I previously said agrees with the pope's statement.
The original apostles were jewish as were many of the first christians. Many jews today accept Christ. The old testament foretold of His rejection and crucification.
I am not a biblical scholar, I am still learning and growing in my walk with Jesus.
I can only urge you to turn to the Bible and the Holy Spirit to answer your questions. I find the New International Version very good for beginners because of the easier language.
I take no offense.
But I do need to get some sleep.
When getting information always take the source into consideration.
Roman: 1) Pilate 2) Herod 3) Pilate again.
I can't say the order is correct.
The point with the number of trials is that many different people had many opportunities to change their minds but didn't. The blame lies on the whole.
For the pope's speech. No response from me. I would have to read it first so I can't say.
I am not sure of the question also. From what I can tell, what I previously said agrees with the pope's statement.
The original apostles were jewish as were many of the first christians. Many jews today accept Christ. The old testament foretold of His rejection and crucification.
I am not a biblical scholar, I am still learning and growing in my walk with Jesus.
I can only urge you to turn to the Bible and the Holy Spirit to answer your questions. I find the New International Version very good for beginners because of the easier language.
I take no offense.
But I do need to get some sleep.
When getting information always take the source into consideration.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
I'm going to run back into the evolution fray, and try to show in simple terms, how logic and reason fail. Let's use math, since it's easily understood, and the most logical system I know of.
We'll start with a simple equation:
5 + 5 = 10
Easy right? Now let's remove part of the equation.
x = 10
Now tell me what x is. Sure it's 10, but what where the steps to arrive at 10? How about
5 + 5 = 10
Well, that's one possibility, but so is
3 + 4 + 3 = 10
The current state of the universe in this example, is 10. Slowly but surely, scientists are gathering information to find parts of the original equation. To illustrate
1 + 3 + 2 + 3 + x = 10
So x = 1, right? Wrong. x could just as easily be 3^3 - (5 x 3) + 7.
x is evolution. It's one possibilty, but until that equation has more variables plugged in, we're not really that much further than we were thousands of years ago when man speculated that everything was created by God in 6 days.
We'll start with a simple equation:
5 + 5 = 10
Easy right? Now let's remove part of the equation.
x = 10
Now tell me what x is. Sure it's 10, but what where the steps to arrive at 10? How about
5 + 5 = 10
Well, that's one possibility, but so is
3 + 4 + 3 = 10
The current state of the universe in this example, is 10. Slowly but surely, scientists are gathering information to find parts of the original equation. To illustrate
1 + 3 + 2 + 3 + x = 10
So x = 1, right? Wrong. x could just as easily be 3^3 - (5 x 3) + 7.
x is evolution. It's one possibilty, but until that equation has more variables plugged in, we're not really that much further than we were thousands of years ago when man speculated that everything was created by God in 6 days.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 403
-
Facebook
Twitter