Predict the 1st Banning for uncivil behavior in the new Religious Threads...

[D-Ric902]

I like this. Have tried to filter for personal confirmation bias but still true. Beers someday. Raincheck issued

(you're gonna get me started)
we can actually expand the idea of Revealed/progressive truth/revelation into a lot of areas. Planned Geology- if God knew we needed fossil fuels then he had to make the fossils, right? Why dinosaurs? The breed quickly, had a lot of mass. When the sufficient number and organic matter was grown.....throw an asteroid at it and start the age of mammals.

Controlled Evolution - developing life forms into something workable, make the creation leap to mankind (controlled in a specific, protected area like Eden) this is not contradicting Genesis as God created the animals "after their own kind" Adam simply named them later not created them.

Manipulated Genetics - separating the DNA strand of a particular man (Noah, and later Abraham) developing it through future generations (Hebrews) and then giving a law not to breed outside of the "faith" developed a specific DNA that even now most Jews can actually trace their specific tribe through DNA. Christians would say to progress to a "clean, untainted" DNA, as in Jesus. Catholics would say to develop an untainted Mitochondrial DNA vessel (Mary) for the birth of the first original/perfect/ fully expressive DNA since Adam. The second Adam.

The Bible isn't about scientific discovery, although it doesn't disallow it. It's about the Salvation Plan for mankind after the destruction of the Fall. From Adam's screw up to fixing it.
Logically, step by step.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think BBI has just invented a new off-shoot of Theology and Psychology, Quantum Morality. If you think like a sinner, but act like a saint, which are you?

Oh, not by a long shot. I've invented nothing and my thoughts in the area are as derivative as the Flintstones.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm more speaking from an Atheists prospective. If a "god", doesn't matter which one, set it all in motion and let humans dictate the course of history. What's the harm? You still get to believe whatever you want to believe and all of the laws of science still apply exactly as they do today.

Well, I can only speak from my own perspective. I don't see any harm, but I don't see any benefit either. It seems like the saddest possibility of an infinite number of possibilities. IIRC, the Deists such as Thomas Jefferson were proponents of the "Prime Mover" argument which is inline with what you've suggested in the post, and they had some very smart folks on their team. It still seems sad to me. More of an attempt to incorporate the rational and science based path of philosophy with religion then an attempt to actually explain anything beyond moving it one step backward.

I also still fail to see why it must be religion or science.

 

[D-Ric902]

Thank you for this frank admission. And yet, so many Creationists want it taught in our science classrooms. Thankfully, the SCOTUS has seen through their many ruses in this vein and have slapped them down for it time and again.

I didn't say it wasn't true.

read the rest of the post (don't pull a Kut on me)

 

[CathyInBlue]

The second Adam.

Except, I thought the story goes that Jesus never had sex, or even got aroused, because that would be a sin of the flesh to which the Son of God was not err. As far as I knows, the only people who claim to be genetic descendents of Jesus were a bunch of French aristocrats called the Merovingians, but no one takes the French seriously.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I didn't say it wasn't true.

read the rest of the post (don't pull a Kut on me)

Harry Potter might be true. He still doesn't belong in a public school science classroom.

 

[indiucky]

Over the years Atheists have had to deal with the stigma of very little inspired art or music....Steve Martin and The Steep Canyon Rangers decided to rectify this and wrote a Hymn for Atheists...I don't know Steve Martin's Faith (I have heard he may be an Atheist but I do not know that. If he is he is not as Evangelical about it as Dawkins, Hitchens, or Gillette to name a few of the Faith's better known Preachers ) but to compose a Hymn for those of the Atheist Faith that sounds like a perfect Bluegrass Hymn is comic genius....How he and his band can keep a straight face while doing this tune is mind blowing....

So to our Atheists...Enjoy your one and only Hymn as presented on Austin City Limits...

[video=youtube;7KMQ_7OFtiY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KMQ_7OFtiY[/video]

And remember...The "he" is always lower case......

 

[deal me in]

Again, I'm talking about pre big bang. All the things that made up big bang. Where is the test to see if something has existed forever past? It is impossible.

Here's how the conversation goes:
Scientist: Science is the pursuit of provable facts. If we can prove it, it's fact. Big Bang is fact.
Me: There is no test that could ever be conceived to prove how all the particles that made up big bang came into existence/always existed. It is an unprovable fact.
Scientist: That's not important.
Me: Lolz!! Wut?!?

I don't see what is confusing about this. The BBT is strongly supported by the evidence regardless of our ignorance about the origin of the energy/matter released. The big bang happened, how the energy got there is unknown.

Religion tries to answer every unknown with "God" regardless of lack of evidence. Science says "we'll get back to you when we have a better understanding".

Religion says "our truth is eternal". Science says "present good evidence that refutes our theory and we'll accept that we were wrong" Which method is more likely to produce accurate information?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Because a materialistic/mechanistic universe brought about through the actions of a blind watch maker and absentee landlord, is still a materialistic/mechanistic universe. There is no after life. There is no system of control or coersion based on the watch maker's inscrutable desires.

The problem with your proposition here is the very nature of Christianity. What is the life of Jesus if not the blind watch maker Jehovah taking off the blindfold and jabbing a screwdriver into the universe's gears to change it. Which is not to ignore all of the interventions depicted in the old testament, or the revelation of the Quran to Mohammed. As far as I know, there is no religion, save Atheism, which contains absolutely no breaking of this divine fourth wall. They all feature what I know to be a materialistic/mechanistic universe having a divine screwdriver shoved in its gears on some level to inject otherwise supernatural influence over it.

The point of religion is to exert control over people in this universe. The point of science is to understand the universe on its own terms. If religion is at all correct, the divine prime mover keeps shifting in his seat, which makes all of the attempts to understand the universe moot.

Beautifully said....

....with one caveat: My Bible teaches control of self, not control of others. MASSIVE difference. Any preacher who uses Scripture to control others is absolutely and unequivocally NOT Christian.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

What is the life of Jesus if not the blind watch maker Jehovah taking off the blindfold and jabbing a screwdriver into the universe's gears to change it.

What if God isn't the watchmaker, but the maker, the watch, and the screwdriver?

I think these issues tend to become less of an issue when we don't think of God as Superman, or confined to being only an entity.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I didn't say it wasn't true.

read the rest of the post (don't pull a Kut on me)

What's that? Oh... ignoring the endless fluff and trying to find the hidden legitimate point (often not found). Or the questioning the relevance of a particular post and inquiring if one actually "gets it" or is just posting to post?

 

[BugI02]

Because a materialistic/mechanistic universe brought about through the actions of a blind watch maker and absentee landlord, is still a materialistic/mechanistic universe. There is no after life. There is no system of control or coersion based on the watch maker's inscrutable desires.

The problem with your proposition here is the very nature of Christianity. What is the life of Jesus if not the blind watch maker Jehovah taking off the blindfold and jabbing a screwdriver into the universe's gears to change it. Which is not to ignore all of the interventions depicted in the old testament, or the revelation of the Quran to Mohammed. As far as I know, there is no religion, save Atheism, which contains absolutely no breaking of this divine fourth wall. They all feature what I know to be a materialistic/mechanistic universe having a divine screwdriver shoved in its gears on some level to inject otherwise supernatural influence over it.

The point of religion is to exert control over people in this universe. The point of science is to understand the universe on its own terms. If religion is at all correct, the divine prime mover keeps shifting in his seat, which makes all of the attempts to understand the universe moot.

QFT

 

[JettaKnight]

Then we are back to where we were earlier. It is irrelevant if I prove or disprove he was who he claimed to be (or who others proclaimed him to be). He set an example that pleases you, and you are attempting to emulate that example. Even if it turns out he spoke to acorn squash or whatever the comment you made earlier was, he led an exemplary life and we can learn and emulate regardless if we accept him as divine or not.

The quote comes from Austin Powers.

Now, Matthew 5:21 seems to deal with murder. As such, I will assume you are talking about 5:28 as Cathy brings up.

Sorry, Mat. 5-21-22. Murder follows anger. It's generally assumed that you harbor anger to the person you murder. Not all murder cases, I'm sure, but most.

When we look at the rest of the speech at that point, I note he talks about plucking out an eye. I'm going to assume that no one here has blinded themselves so that they don't look lustfully at a woman nor that they believe it is a good idea to do so.

Hyperbole. It's important to identify the parts of speech used in text, lest we take them out of context; that's how some cults are formed.

I'm going to equally assume that every man here has seen a woman and thought something pretty lusty, and will do so again in the future (like the next time Modern Family is on). So, perhaps there is a some differentiation going on here that isn't quite as simple as "thinking about it is the same as doing it." There is a qualifier there of "in your heart". Does that mean it is the same as the action? Is sin "in the heart" the same as sin "in action?" Or is it more along the lines of "lead me not into temptation..." instead? If I remind myself that lusty thoughts are bad, and attempt to control them, am I not less likely to act on those thoughts?

There's no differentiation. He means what he said; it's not a means to avoid the actions - it's a means to avoid the thoughts. Yes, thinking such a lustful thought is sinful and Xtians must struggle against this. And that part of my point. Why do I struggle against sin and worldly desires if sin is just a concept created by a kook in Jerusalem? Why should I store treasures in heaven if heaven doesn't exist?

 

[indiucky]

Harry Potter might be true. He still doesn't belong in a public school science classroom.

I would agree on the (Science class room part) but would encourage keeping the Bible (King James version) in the classroom....One of the biggest proponents of teaching the Holy Bible in public schools was (RIP) none other than Christopher Hitchens....Whose last book was titled (IIRC) "god is not great" where he gave his reasons for his Atheist beliefs.....

So what was his reasoning as to why the King James Version of the Holy Bible should be taught starting in 5th grade and continuing through 10th grade? Simple really..So that when one gets to be a junior and senior and begin preparing for college they would have an understanding of Western Literature of the last 2,000 years....Think about it...How many great books (and films) have been based (in one way or another) on "The Prodigal Son" Parable???? The Grapes of Wrath comes to mind but there are countless others....

Which is one of the reasons I believe....What are the odds of an unemployed former Jewish tax collector writing off the cuff, the plot premise for countless great works of literature and film?

Of course I am never afraid to undermine my own argument....How many great works of literature and film have been based on Homer's Iliad???? Quite a few...I remember reading Joseph Campbell back in the day and it's amazing how many films and books are (in one form or another) rehashing the Iliad. Remember, George Clooney may have been in it but it was Homer that wrote "Oh Brother Where art Thou".....

 

[ChristianPatriot]

James 1:27 - "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction..."

 

[jamil]

Would people be opposed to the idea of God if He had set Big Bang in motion exactly as science theorizes and then sat back as a spectator and had absolutely nothing to do with the universe?

That would make non believers pretty petty.

I'm more speaking from an Atheists prospective. If a "god", doesn't matter which one, set it all in motion and let humans dictate the course of history. What's the harm? You still get to believe whatever you want to believe and all of the laws of science still apply exactly as they do today.

That too.

So you're ok with an intelligent designer so long as as "it" does not tell us how to live our lives? I hope you will see my sincerity in this post. It's not a "gotcha" question. I'm very curious.

I am really, idunno, astonished, I guess, by this line of questioning.

1) I am not opposed to the idea of God. I like religion, particularly Christianity. I just don't believe it. And I don't practice it. And I'm not opposed at all to you believing in it.

2) Your questions seem to imply that you think non-believers are just butthurt, and if you took the causes of butthurt away, maybe they'd be okay with there being a god. To see the question as a non-believer might, at least as I do, you may as well have asked if people would be opposed to the idea of Santa Clause if he'd just given them what they really wanted when they were 5. But there's a very good reason not to believe in Santa Clause other than butthurtness. There's no reason to believe he's real, other than what people tell people.

You're just not going to convince people other than by faith that god exists. A few Christians have been trying to say this all throughout this thread. Religion is a matter of faith. There is no reason to stray from that domain.

 

[D-Ric902]

What's that? Oh... ignoring the endless fluff and trying to find the hidden legitimate point (often not found). Or the questioning the relevance of a particular post and inquiring if one actually "gets it" or is just posting to post?

The selective reading part

 

[D-Ric902]

Harry Potter might be true. He still doesn't belong in a public school science classroom.

I didn't say science classroom either

philosophy, maybe even history if you accept the historical books and their effect on future history. Eastern and western

 

[BehindBlueI's]

QFT

The point of religion is to exert control over people in this universe. The point of science is to understand the universe on its own terms.

People need a bit of control, self and external, to live in societies. Particularly if the society is to be just.

I'd also point out science has been abused for control as well. Eugenics comes to mind.

 

[D-Ric902]

Except, I thought the story goes that Jesus never had sex, or even got aroused, because that would be a sin of the flesh to which the Son of God was not err. As far as I knows, the only people who claim to be genetic descendents of Jesus were a bunch of French aristocrats called the Merovingians, but no one takes the French seriously.

my Bible refers to
"temped in all things as we are, but without sin"