Comments
561 - 580 of 846 Comments Last updated Sep 25, 2013
Phoenix

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#578
Mar 13, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>Many who proclaimed the Gospel message received not a penny.
What's the gospel according to you?
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#579
Mar 13, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I recall on at least one occasion discussing Buddhism with you. I'm not an expert, but what I've seen so far, I would say I probably know quite a bit more than you. I could be wrong. But so far, this is the only thing you've had to say, that I can recall, on the subject of Buddhism. A quote by Albert Einstein.
I've asked you a number of questions that have fallen by the wayside. At some point I forget about them. On a number of occasions you have used the term "you obviously don't know much/anything about (fill in the blank)". I'm going to call you on your bluff this time. Because so far as it appears, your only knowledge, without you doing a google search, is this quote by Albert Einstein. It's as if this is all there is know. Einstien said "this", and this is the embodiment of knowledge of Buddhism...knowing what Einstien said.
Like I said, I'm not an expert, but I read a considerable amount of information on it from probably mostly a Buddhist, or neutral position. I don't have to run to google now to convey what I currently know. I also have also talked to Buddhists. I'm from the San Francisco Bay Area, and lived in Berkeley for a time, where Buddhism and Eastern religion is fairly popular, so I've met Buddhists. I've been all over Asia, and have been exposed to the different 'types' of Buddhist teaching. There a number of different types of Buddhist beliefs.
There is also a more Western type of Buddhism. In fact, there's a term used for it that is a catchy description for the western style or views coined: "McDharma Christians".
I was raised and educated Christian like most other Americans. I did not become agnostic overnight. I started asking questions and, of course, looking for answers. I checked out other belief systems including Buddhism. I never went to a monastery (as one of my friends did) in the Himalayas but I read enough of Alan Watts, Christmas Humphreys and D.T. Suzuki to know that Buddhism is about self-knowledge and expanding consciousness not praying to supernatural beings for favors.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#580
Mar 13, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Einstein was not a Buddhist. His knowledge of Buddhism was probably more from a "Cosmic Humanism" perspective, although I don't think he was a "New Ager".
"You may call me an agnostic... I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.”- Albert Einstein
Job wrote:
I know I've brought this up to you already, but Cosmic Humanism, from what I've detected, possesses traits, or has roots in, the "Yellow Peril". Many Westerners have a good feeling about Buddhism, and other Eastern religions, due to the fact that they don't refer to accountability to a Creator. Some Westerners become authentic practitioners, even enough to become monks. Although this seems to be quite rare. I had seen 'one' Western Buddhist monk in Bangkok. But the majority seem to practice it because the idea of removing 'pain' is appealing. Some take a genuine interest, but not enough to give up their lifestyles and become a monk. Many I think have more of a casual interest because they have become Asiaphiles (liking all things Asian...or Japanese, Thai, etc.). And so by default they sort of identify themselves with Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.
There you go again demonizing any belief system that doesn’t agree with yours.
Job wrote:
As I said, there are many styles of Buddhism. There 'is' a 'spiritual' element to it. There are different degrees of belief within Buddhism, and some 'do' include deities. Buddhists in general don't deny the existence of deities or a Creator (if they don't directly believe in one/them). They may however say something like "If there is, the deities and/or Creator are of no real significance". This to me is highly illogical.
“It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell.”– Buddha
Job wrote:
And again, I'm going to call you on your bluff. What are you basing this comment on?
"You obviously know as little about Buddhism as you do about science."
Based on our “conversations” it is quite clear to me that you have never spent much time learning or reading about science. Based on your comment,“Do you know how many legends there are of the Buddha involving the supernatural”, it is quite clear that you have a very shallow understanding of Buddhism.

“No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.”– Buddha

Buddhism is about you not some supernatural “God” and his supernatural cohorts.

“Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.”– Buddha
Job wrote:
As I understand your purpose behind "quoting", and your use of quotes is often generally in relation to the topic, this just does not fly. Einstein was a brilliant man, but he probably didn't know a whole lot about Buddhism. He certainly wasn't a Buddhist.
I gave you the quote from Mr. Einstein because your response suggested a contradiction between science and Buddhism. I merely intended to show you that a great scientist would disagree with you.

Actually Einstein wrote quite extensively about spirituality and religion. I am quite certain that he would have had an, at least, equal knowledge of spirituality and religious belief systems to that of a closed-minded fundamentalist.
Job wrote:
2. I agree. Do you think this quote could also be pointing in your direction?
I don't think you actually agree. I think your rejection of the Theory of Evolution in spite of the overwhelming evidence proves that you are not open to the truth. You are not open to anything that you think disagrees with the bible.

“It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows.”- Epictetus
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#581
Mar 15, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
He didn’t welcome the views of the “creationists” of his day. I agree Galileo was not biased by the prevailing “Biblical world view” he accepted the “real world” evidence from his telescope.
“Nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called into question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages.”- Galileo Galilei
He wasn't very happy with people that used bible passages for science.
<quoted text>
1. The laws of that day was not about demanding that everyone "be a Christian". It was about adhering to Church doctrines. This is why actual professed Christians like Joan of Arc were executed. Galileo's situation was a bit different in that unlike many of the others who faced doctrine based persecution, he was a scientist. Unlike Joan of Arc who defied religious/church doctrine, Galileo defied church doctrine that had embraced a global belief among scientists that the Sun revolved around the earth. Both had good reason to defy church doctrine of that day. And in both cases, the Bible was not really what they were defying. It was simply doctrines developed by the Church, often times to exploit the common man. Galileo was a scientist, not a theologian. So if theologians like Luther thought the Bible supported geocentricism, Galileo probably would not have known that the Bible does not support geocentricism either.

The only way to prove that the Bible supports geocentricism, if that's what one wishes to do, then they have to do it by interpretation of scripture itself. Not by quoting Galileo, or theologians of that time. What people believed at that time in history does not really matter. What scripture actually teaches can be the only argument if one wants to make a particular claim.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582
Mar 15, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
1. As I and Galileo pointed out earlier when you have no evidence to support your proposition all you can do is criticize the evidence presented by others.
<quoted text>

2. Again, since Creationists present have no scientific evidence to support their propositions, other than the Bible, all they can do is invent imaginary flaws in the verifiable, reproducible evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution. The only thing Cardinal Bellarmine could do to support Geocentrism was spout Bible verses that apparently contradicted Galileo’s evidence.
<quoted text>

3. Galileo would certainly disagree with you about that.
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures..." - Galileo Galilei
<quoted text>

4. Scientists don’t just make claims they make logical conclusions based on evidence. Religious “absolutism” is the problem.
“…the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.”– National Academy of Sciences
<quoted text>

5. Would you have them say “as far as we can detect the Earth revolves around the Sun”?

6. "Scientists most often use the word 'fact' to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact.- The National Academy of Science
<quoted text>

7. Galileo and Copernicus as well as the scientists of today are “controlled” by the weight of the scientific evidence and logic, not divine revelation. The whole purpose of science is to acquire new knowledge of the world. There is no benefit to scientists in having people believe in something not supported by the evidence. Scientists have no holy book to protect because if it is proved wrong they might not get to heaven.
“In science it often happens that scientists say,‘You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again.… I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”~ Carl Sagan
1. Which is precisely what evolutionists do.

2. Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ... ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information ...(Raup, 1979).

3. I think he would he would also be able to discern "anti-theism" sentiment among atheist/agnostic evolutionists, and address them pubicly.

4. "The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems."
Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

5. No.

6.

Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection's ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.

Professor Colin Reeves
Dept of Mathematical Sciences
Coventry University

7. The exception would be evolutionists/evolutionism.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#583
Mar 15, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
1. As I and Galileo pointed out earlier when you have no evidence to support your proposition all you can do is criticize the evidence presented by others.
<quoted text>

2. Again, since Creationists present have no scientific evidence to support their propositions, other than the Bible, all they can do is invent imaginary flaws in the verifiable, reproducible evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution. The only thing Cardinal Bellarmine could do to support Geocentrism was spout Bible verses that apparently contradicted Galileo’s evidence.
<quoted text>

3. Galileo would certainly disagree with you about that.
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures..." - Galileo Galilei
<quoted text>

4. Scientists don’t just make claims they make logical conclusions based on evidence. Religious “absolutism” is the problem.
“…the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.”– National Academy of Sciences
<quoted text>

5. Would you have them say “as far as we can detect the Earth revolves around the Sun”?

6. "Scientists most often use the word 'fact' to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact.- The National Academy of Science

7. <quoted text>
Galileo and Copernicus as well as the scientists of today are “controlled” by the weight of the scientific evidence and logic, not divine revelation. The whole purpose of science is to acquire new knowledge of the world. There is no benefit to scientists in having people believe in something not supported by the evidence. Scientists have no holy book to protect because if it is proved wrong they might not get to heaven.
“In science it often happens that scientists say,‘You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again.… I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”~ Carl Sagan
1. Which is precisely what evolutionists do.

2. Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ... ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information ...(Raup, 1979).

3. I think he would he would also be able to discern "anti-theism" sentiment among atheist/agnostic evolutionists, and address them pubicly.

4. "The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems."
Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

5. No.

6.

Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection's ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.

Professor Colin Reeves
Dept of Mathematical Sciences
Coventry University

7. The exception would be evolutionists/evolutionism.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#584
Mar 15, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Communists are only novices at ideological persecution. Christians perfected it for over 1,300 years.
<quoted text>

2. That’s right, apparently evil is in the eye of the beholder. You don’t consider your “medieval tyrant God” evil when he murders thousands.

3. "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." ~ Pascal, Pensees, 1670
1. What communists (anti-theists) have managed to do in such a short period of time makes up for the lack of years of their existence. This may very well be why the atrocities committed by communism is downplayed. And....these atrocities are still going on today. While many point out historic religious persecution centuries ago, anti-theistic persecution is still going on to this day.

2. That may be the case for man....but what makes you assume that a Creator (God) would fluctuate on what is evil?

3. This man had not witnessed "Communism".
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585
Mar 15, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
You missed the point.
The point that Thomas Paine was trying to convey is that if “God” made a revelation to Paul it was only a revelation to Paul it was not a revelation to Thomas Paine. If Thomas Paine received the revelation directly from “God” he would have to believe it, but since it comes from Paul, not “God” he can decide whether to believe it or not.
“…for it was not a revelation made to ME…”– Thomas Paine
"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference." - Bishop John S. Spong

2. <quoted text>
Thomas Paine doesn’t demand that “everyone abide by his view that God”.
"I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine.”-- Thomas Paine
He doesn’t ask for faith he simply provides a reasoned argument.
<quoted text>

3. I am merely suggesting that if you get your nose out of that book and look around you might find something more interesting than imagining what might happen after you die.
1. Then why are the words of Paul given so much attention? If I believe something someone states, I give little, if no attention whatsoever. There was a claim made that the Bible indicates that the world would end in 2011. I saw no where in the Bible making such claim, and had no interest in reading the book pointing to this claim. If one is going to read the words of Paul, they are faced with a choice.

2. I'm sure he appreciated the freedom given to him to express his personal opinions. Obviously there were many who disagreed with him.

3. I have many interests, but do you have anything specific in mind?
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#586
Mar 15, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Copernicus was a Catholic priest and it wasn’t the time he spent with his nose in the bible that caused him to understand that the Earth revolved around the Sun it was the time he spent observing the motions of the stars and planets that. Like I said get you nose out of the bible and look at the world around you.
“Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest… would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves.”- Nicolaus Copernicus
“Among the authorities it is generally agreed that the Earth is at rest in the middle of the universe…”-- Nicolaus Copernicus
<quoted text>

2. I’ve answered that question several times and it’s not my problem if you don’t understand the answer but I’ll try again.
I don’t accept the bible passage which said Joshua stopped the Sun as being literally correct because I don’t interpret the bible literally. You don’t interpret that bible passage as being literally correct because you know that science has proved that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

3. For some reason you refuse to admit that virtually all of the people of Copernicus’ era (especially bible experts) believed that Bible passage to be literally correct; that Joshua stopped the actual movement of the Sun rather than Joshua stopped the rotation of the Earth.
<quoted text>

4. I’ve never denied that that virtually all of the people in Galileo’s day were Geocentrists. As a matter of fact I’ve been trying to convince you of that fact. You can’t deny that the bible was of no help to Galileo in convincing people that his scientific evidence of Heliocentrism was correct.
1. Generally speaking, great chefs who come up with great recipes don't get them from the Bible. They create recipes by experimentation, understanding food qualities, etc. This does not mean the Bible is anti-culinary. God gives certain abilities to different humans. Including creating dishes, and the ability to explore.

2. It's not a question of 'literalness' any more than someone stating that they watched the Sun rise in the morning. Why would you think someone of that day would not use a phrase like "the Sun stood still" if that's how it appeared to him? And I'm sorry, but I have to ask again: do you have a problem with the modern/common phrase "I'm going to watch the Sun rise/descend"? Why 'or' Why not?

Now I'm sure you have a problem with the incident itself, but that's another topic. But as far as the Bible 'teaching' that the Sun revolves around the Earth, you nor anyone else has proven this. The Bible quotes individuals. But what individuals say does not mean that the Bible teaches what they say to be fact. It's simply a "quotation".

3. I never once denied that. What I'm wondering is, what is the relevance?

4. Galileo was a 'scientist'. Not a 'theologian'. As I said, if the Bible was available to more people of that time, there probably would have been more theologians not tied down to church doctrine, who would have pointed out the error.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#587
Mar 15, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no tyrant, king, dictator or political regime in history that even compares to your “God” in the area of human destruction and annihilation.“He”, in your belief system, is apparently the grand tyrant of all tyrants.
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most destructive to the peace of man since man began to exist.”- Thomas Paine
So are you then suggesting that Abraham Lincoln, Harry S. Truman, and various U.S. military leaders throughout American history are tyrants...just not to the extent of the God of the Bible?
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#588
Mar 15, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I was raised and educated Christian like most other Americans. I did not become agnostic overnight. I started asking questions and, of course, looking for answers. I checked out other belief systems including Buddhism. I never went to a monastery (as one of my friends did) in the Himalayas but I read enough of Alan Watts, Christmas Humphreys and D.T. Suzuki to know that Buddhism is about self-knowledge and expanding consciousness not praying to supernatural beings for favors.
It's sounds as if you read about Buddhism from a more western perspective. There are many different types of beliefs within Buddhism, as there are many sects. But the idea that Buddhists don't believe in God seems to be more of a western view, but not by all Buddhist westerns:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/0...

When I went to Japan, I visited a number of temples, pagodas, shrines (Shinto), etc. People place their prayers on little items on a wall. I saw this specifically in Kamakura where one of Japan's biggest Buddha statues exist.

The concept of a creator God is universal, and seems to surpass notions created by westerners.

But I wasn't talking about Buddhists when referring to the supernatural. I was talking about Buddha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gaut...
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#589
Mar 15, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
"You may call me an agnostic... I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.”- Albert Einstein
<quoted text>

2. There you go again demonizing any belief system that doesn’t agree with yours.
<quoted text>

3.“It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell.”– Buddha
<quoted text>

4. Based on our “conversations” it is quite clear to me that you have never spent much time learning or reading about science.

5. Based on your comment,“Do you know how many legends there are of the Buddha involving the supernatural”, it is quite clear that you have a very shallow understanding of Buddhism.

6.“No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.”– Buddha
Buddhism is about you not some supernatural “God” and his supernatural cohorts.
“Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.”– Buddha
<quoted text>
1. I'm quite familiar with this quote. Not sure why your posting it though, accept to maybe agree that he certainly wasn't a Buddhist.

2. Like you do with "fundamentalist" Christianity?

3. In a way, this is actually a Christian principle as well. The difference is, it would seem, is that Buddha thought he could dismiss the creator. Dismissing the Creator is what I would maintain is illogical.

4. Science was never a great interest to me. However, if I told you I embraced evolution, you would hold a different opinion. Realistically, science is not at the top as far as interest goes to your average American. And many merely express a belief in evolution who don't have a great interest in science. But they use the right lingo that may give some the impression that they have significant scientific knowledge.

5. Does it? Why?

6. Buddhism being "about you" is probably why it's fairly popular in the west. Jesus Christ's teaching is that it's 'not' about 'us'. What is liberating in Christianity is when a Christian takes the focus off of "me". It's not to suggest that Buddhists are not good people. But this can be said of anyone of any religion or philosophy.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#590
Mar 15, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
1.I gave you the quote from Mr. Einstein because your response suggested a contradiction between science and Buddhism. I merely intended to show you that a great scientist would disagree with you.
Actually Einstein wrote quite extensively about spirituality and religion. I am quite certain that he would have had an, at least, equal knowledge of spirituality and religious belief systems to that of a closed-minded fundamentalist.

2. <quoted text>
I don't think you actually agree. I think your rejection of the Theory of Evolution in spite of the overwhelming evidence proves that you are not open to the truth. You are not open to anything that you think disagrees with the bible.
“It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows.”- Epictetus
1. A lot of people throughout history have been fascinated by religion/spirituality, and have read about it. Westerners have had a particular interesting in eastern religion, so it doesn't surprise me that Einstein did as well. "Holst: The Planets" actually relates to Eastern religion as opposed merely being planetary. Holst had a fascination with eastern religions. It seems that a number of westerners resent the eastern interest in Christianity.

2. Are you open to the Gospel message of Jesus Christ being truth?
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#591
Mar 15, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The laws of that day was not about demanding that everyone "be a Christian". It was about adhering to Church doctrines. This is why actual professed Christians like Joan of Arc were executed. Galileo's situation was a bit different in that unlike many of the others who faced doctrine based persecution, he was a scientist. Unlike Joan of Arc who defied religious/church doctrine,
There were no Protestants in Europe until 1517 when Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses. Until then the Church and Christianity were one and the same, but that didn’t keep them for going to war with each other. Joan of Arc was born and baptized Roman Catholic, and voluntarily became a French participant in the Hundred Years' War (a series of conflicts between England and France). She was captured by the English, put on trial by the pro-English Catholic Bishop of Beauvais for heresy. She was burned at the stake for heresy in1431 and declared a saint and a martyr in 1456 by the same Church that burned her at the stake for heresy 25 years earlier.
Job wrote:
Galileo defied church doctrine that had embraced a global belief among scientists that the Sun revolved around the earth. Both had good reason to defy church doctrine of that day. And in both cases, the Bible was not really what they were defying. It was simply doctrines developed by the Church, often times to exploit the common man. Galileo was a scientist, not a theologian. So if theologians like Luther thought the Bible supported geocentricism, Galileo probably would not have known that the Bible does not support geocentricism either.
Luther’s and Bellarmine’s understanding of the Bible passages relating to the motion of the Sun was proved wrong by Galileo. Luther and Bellarmine refused to accept the scientific evidence. Creationist understanding of Genesis relating to the development of life on Earth has also been proved wrong, but creationists refuse to accept the evidence just as Luther and Bellarmine did.
Job wrote:
The only way to prove that the Bible supports geocentricism, if that's what one wishes to do, then they have to do it by interpretation of scripture itself. Not by quoting Galileo, or theologians of that time. What people believed at that time in history does not really matter. What scripture actually teaches can be the only argument if one wants to make a particular claim.
I don’t believe that the Bible supports Geocentrism. I am not trying to prove that the Bible supports Geocentrism. I am simply trying to convince you that a literal interpretation of Bible passages (like that of Luther Bellarmine and creationists) will not stand up to the scientific evidence.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#592
Mar 15, 2013
 
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry to jump on the boat mid-stream like this...
Its not that I don't want to hear it - its that there is no proof of the NEED, or rather no proof of the slight that demands redemption. Nothing has ever been provided by any Xtian (or any other system) that proves any Super-Being was actually insulted. Outside of course of a very old and shaky story told 'round campfires.
Take any relationship - if I'm the party who didn't actually do anything wrong, but there are only base claims of a wrong, I am not going to apologize or do any dances to please anyone. Prove the wrong. Prove the actual need for "redemption".
But Xtians can't...the entire system is based on an ancient claim of a singular insult towards a God, allegedly by the very first human couple to ever exist.
The demand for redemption is certainly not an earthly demand. What I think you should consider, relationship between God and man is, and always will be an issue/interest among humankind. And this relationship is going to 'vary' in interest. We're never going to have a world where everyone views God the way an atheist does, no matter how much one wishes it.

When a human takes his interest to the level of pursuing a relationship with God, and God answers, what exactly is going to happen? Will this God be a cruel task-master? Or, the other extreme...one who just condones the human's actions no matter what they are/do? Will this God have an opinion on what is evil and what isn't? Will this God have certain standards? Will this God have a name? Will this God be associated with any of the World's religions,? Will this God have a direction for the human's life, or will this God be apathetic to what one does?

If you were to develop an interest in pursuing an encounter with God, and God showed up, which/what God would it be? In my opinion, I believe it will be Jesus Christ. And I think I have good reason for this. An example would be the references people make to ancient gods like Zeus, Thor, etc. When they do this, it's virtually never out of an interaction with these ancient gods, but often an ethnic symbolism/identity, or used as a parody against the belief in Christ much the same way the Flying Spaghetti Monster is used.

So to get back to the evil/accountability question; it's not about what humankind considers need of as far as redemption. But what God, who possesses 'personality' considers a need. No matter who it was in history who committed atrocities that we consider evil, they themselves felt no need to apologize to anyone.
Punisher

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#593
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

To Job #592 - I don't expect nor want an across the board belief system. Can't say the same for Believers now can we?

Older Gods might not have shown up for coffee - as many Xtians claim of Jesus - but they did rely on one or more for aid, etc. I don't find anything "better" about this personal God than the non-personal. Either way the claims are extravagant and like always unproved. And as for the personal, slightly crazier.

Personality? Which is as diverse a thing with Believers as snowflakes.

My point was about this xtian claim of redemption for a singular insult, against a God...who is apparently easily offended. The story itself proves it to be nothing but imagined, and pure metaphor - and wholly not real. Its made up story to make a point, for a primitive mind-set

Proto-humans insult a God to the point of damning all their progeny. Its not real, ever! Its a made up story.
Punisher

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#594
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

To Job same post - not earthly? Its all earthly in form and origin. Men claim this God was insulted...no proof...and certainly no public display of his insult...just men off on their own, dreaming up their god schemes.

Its a simple equation. Some human asked, why do we hurt and suffer? Some "leader" says, God is angry at his first creations and plagued us with their sins. Followed by, "here's a list of things we've come up with for You to do so to remain in our Clan, and gain this Gods blessings. "

My problem with whole Redemption story is that it runs counter to reality. Has for as long as humans have existed. It contradicts the obvious reality of Human biology and psychology and how they are deeply linked.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#595
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Which is precisely what evolutionists do.
“Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing 'Does not!'" ~ Brian J. Alters, Chair in Science Education McGill University
Job wrote:
2. Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ... ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information ...(Raup, 1979).
Creationists love to take quotes by reputable scientists out of context. Some other quotes from the same article by Dr. David M. Raup

“We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change....I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence...which shows that natural selection as a biological process works....but it does not tell us how this change too place... The ideas I have discussed here are rather new and have not been completely tested.”- Dr. David M. Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology" (1979)
Job wrote:
3. I think he would he would also be able to discern "anti-theism" sentiment among atheist/agnostic evolutionists, and address them pubicly.
I can’t imagine why you would think that. The only people Galileo ever had a problem with were the bible experts of his day. His comment, "It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures...” wasn’t directed at Giordano Bruno.
Job wrote:
4. "The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems."
Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
I think the science of Biology has done very well with Evolution as its center piece.

Creationists are using the same tactic the Tobacco Industry used to discredit the scientific evidence that cigarette smoking caused cancer. They also were able to find a “very few” well-credentialed scientists to criticize the evidence.

Some quotes from The Tobacco Industry:

“…there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is.”

“…there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes.”

While the vast majority of scientists accepted the evidence that

“'For the majority of people, the use of tobacco has a beneficial effect...- Dr Ian G. MacDonald, Newsweek (18 Nov 1969)
Job wrote:
5. No.
Then why would you have scientists say “as far as we can detect” in relation to the Theory of Evolution? Evolution is just as well supported a fact as Heliocentrism.
Job wrote:
6.
Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection's ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.
Professor Colin Reeves
Dept of Mathematical Sciences
Coventry University
“The body of knowledge that supports the theory of evolution is ever growing...”- American Institute of Biological Sciences
Job wrote:
7. The exception would be evolutionists/evolutionism.
Since scientists haven’t been presented “a really good argument” or any evidence at all of creationist propositions they have no reason to change their minds about Evolution.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#596
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. What communists (anti-theists) have managed to do in such a short period of time makes up for the lack of years of their existence. This may very well be why the atrocities committed by communism is downplayed. And....these atrocities are still going on today. While many point out historic religious persecution centuries ago, anti-theistic persecution is still going on to this day.
So your argument is…

…because Communists have persecuted Christians all atheists and agnostics have a tendency to persecute Christians.

I would agree that most atheists and agnostics, even in free societies, are suspicious of Christian fundamentalists, but for good reason. As Georgia Harkness (Methodist theologian) said…

“The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”

Even a cursory knowledge of history would give an atheist or agnostic good reason to be distrustful of fundamentalist Christians. I do not, however agree, that atheists and agnostics are prejudiced against Christians. Fundamentalists think everyone that does not believe as they do is “of the devil” so they think everyone is against them.

"Every fundamentalist movement I've studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced at some gut, visceral level that secular liberal society wants to wipe out religion." - Karen Armstrong
Job wrote:
2. That may be the case for man....but what makes you assume that a Creator (God) would fluctuate on what is evil?
I don’t assume that your “medieval tyrant god” fluctuates on what is evil. I am suggesting that it is you that fluctuates on what is evil. If your “medieval tyrant god” wipes out thousands it’s OK but if a human tyrant does the same it’s evil.
Job wrote:
3. This man had not witnessed "Communism".
…but he did witness Christianity.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#597
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Then why are the words of Paul given so much attention?
Most Christians for the last 1,500 years have been indoctrinated to the idea that the words of Paul are the words of “God”.
Job wrote:
If I believe something someone states, I give little, if no attention whatsoever. There was a claim made that the Bible indicates that the world would end in 2011. I saw no where in the Bible making such claim, and had no interest in reading the book pointing to this claim. If one is going to read the words of Paul, they are faced with a choice.
Thomas Paine says that he chooses not to believe that the words of Paul are a revelation from “God”. He would have to accept those same words as a revelation if they came directly to him from “God” but he doesn’t have to accept Paul’s word for anything. Do you get it?
Job wrote:
2. I'm sure he appreciated the freedom given to him to express his personal opinions. Obviously there were many who disagreed with him.
He and the rest of our forefathers had to fight for that freedom, and fortunately for us they passed it on.
Job wrote:
3. I have many interests, but do you have anything specific in mind?
No! Whatever turns you on. Copernicus was into the motions of the visible planets.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

38 Users are viewing the Christian Forum right now

Search the Christian Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 3 min 15th Dalai Lama 10,232
If Jesus said few would find the "road that lea... 4 min Old GT 293
Questions for Susan B Lange 24 min Nc resident 682
God is just 26 min Redemption 44
athieists even nasty dirty talking ones God lo... 33 min John Cena 12
WHAT GOD SAID to ME TODAY 47 min Old GT 236
About Dollarsbill .... 1 hr John Cena 36
Is the Bible always literally true or correct? 2 hr dollarsbill 1,307
A Message from Nettie 9 hr stupid is not a disease 776
•••
•••