Guest Starship Trooper Posted February 16, 2000 Share Posted February 16, 2000 Kroffus the Snail Jedi Knight posted February 10, 2000 06:23 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why did those stupid kansas people ban the teaching of evolution? It seems pretty non-sacriligious to me. There is a big heap of physical evidence and proof of evolving forms of life WAAAAAAAAY before we started toddling around on two legs. If they're taking the biblical creation story literally, that's amazingly foolish--they can't deny the fact that the Earth and every creature on it that we see today didn't just pop into existance. They probably aren't taking it seriously, but by denying the kids the opportunity at school to look at the more scientific and logical story of how we came to be, they can better combine science and regiligion in their lives, or totally obliterate one or the other from their beliefs, should they decide. Anybody on Kansas'(<---I just realized I had that misspelled. Kanasas, lol) side? I'm interested to hear the positive arguments for this. [This message has been edited by Kroffus the Snail (edited February 11, 2000).] Kroffus the Snail Jedi Knight posted February 10, 2000 06:24 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, in case you couldn't tell, I'm kind of on science's side for this topic Nodrin King Jedi Knight posted February 10, 2000 08:01 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe the same reason "Professional" wrestling, TV Evangelists, Home shopping channels and Pokey Mon are running wild. We just aren't as smart as we used to be. I believe in evolution too...question is, what are we evolving into? ------------------ Paint a 3 on the side and I'll drive it!!! Darth Kurgan Jedi Knight posted February 10, 2000 08:08 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am afraid to post.. as you might just delete the whole thread after I answer! Do I dare, and, do I dare? Well I don't know the reason why they decided to ban it. Perhaps because of some Bible literalists, perhaps not. I don't see a big contradiction between science and religion. I think they can both enrich our lives, and they can be reconciled between one another. A webpage that attempts to do this in a rational manner is www.doesgodexist.org . When I was in school, we learned about evolution, but it wasn't like they told us "God is dead" or anything like that, or that this was the only way to interpret the origin of life on this planet. I also never saw a big rift between the two (except what people make for themselves, atheist scientists vs. fundamentalist preachers). Kurgan Kroffus the Snail Jedi Knight posted February 10, 2000 11:56 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I always saw as the bible as sort of a big book of stories with well-meaning morals that most people don't use in real life unless they try really hard. The Bible has a really weak creation story, whereas the various forms of the evolutionary theory extend that "god said this, it was good, hot damn, he's the man" to a more detailed and evidence-supported theorem and better way of teaching why we're here. I sure as shecky don't know which thing to believe as to the very creation of the universe, but I tend to lean towards the things that have lots of physical evidence and not mostly verbal accounts. I'm not saying that there isn't evidence of stuff told in the bible, but show me an Egyptian wall that tells the story of moses. I haven't heard of one. I figure I'll be devoid of religion until I'm old, then I'll make peace with god, get forgiven, and go to heaven like a nice repentant little boy, regardless if it actually is the true way to get to heaven/enlightenment/chocolate paradise, whatever you want to call it. I find religion a bit restricting, at least from my point of view. Don't try and convert me I'm happy being saccccreligious, I tell ya Wakka wakka dooo Conor Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 12:08 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But the question is: Is happiness the be all and end all, or is it doing what is right? Of course following the scientific evidence is the best way to go, but that means following the evidence whether you like what it says or not. It is a pity the God Thread went caput, because you may have found it interesting. If you want, someone could email it to you, but you don't seem really interested. I am sure that the Exodus is part of Egyptian history, but I can't say for sure. As for the creation story, I for one don't think it is meant to be a detailed scientific description of the beginning. That doesn't mean it isn't accurate (as Wizzywig could eloquently demonstrate for you). If God told the writers, "First was the Big Bang, where atoms were created and then hydrogen, followed by the rest of the heavy elements, etc.," they would probably have checked themselves into a madhouse or everyone would have rejected the Jewish writings as nonsense. ------------------ "There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them." -J.R.R. Tolkien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starship Trooper Posted February 16, 2000 Share Posted February 16, 2000 Kroffus the Snail Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 10:16 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for the Big Bang, that has become a bit outdated; many people say that there must be other universes aside from ours. Universes either have a torus shape (donut) are a sphere or a kind of cylinder with the ends reeeeally stretched out. Depending on the circumstances, it is possible that we bubbled off of another universe, or that perhaps their "as small as a pin" description of how the matter was contained is a little dumb (I think it was monsterous if that's what actually happened) I see the creation story more of as an explaination of why we have disease, discomfort, and "sin" in general (Doing what god said was a no no; they're out on their asses) rather than as a story as why the hell I'm typing this and you're reading it. I think that the ball of stuff that exploded into our universe (IF that is what happened; I'm using that theory as the basis of this one) I think it was a very large and dense primitive star; simply a multi-googolplex of raw matter. There were atoms in that state, yes. If this simple-bodied star went into supernova, the beginning compression and extreme environmental circumstances afterward could have caused many atoms to randomly attract, creating the elements. Yes, I know, "so then why don't we have a multi-googolplex of elements?" It's still flawed. Scientific explainations often are part science and part guesswork, and religious explainations are more comforting and put the whole thing out of your mind in that perspective. (Sort of "Sweeeeee Jeezis, this universe kicks ass!" instead of "why am I here?" Conor Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 10:28 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am unaware that there is any evidence for alternate universes. Are you sure it isn't simple guesswork? Where is this information coming from? I think the case for a finite starting point of the universe is fairly concrete. Wiz? ------------------ "There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them." -J.R.R. Tolkien wizzywig Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 01:15 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kroffus has been sucking on too much snailbait ( ) when he says: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for the Big Bang, that has become a bit outdated... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1992, COBE verified the Big Bang. There are now no competing models. The Big Bang is now considered the ONLY model of the universe. (There are various fine-tuned versions of the Big Bang, but all the old models--steady state, oscillating, etc.--are now utterly kaput.) --wiz wizzywig Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 01:21 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S.-- Re Kroffus' statement: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...religious explainations are more comforting ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Atheist explanations are more comforting to many people--particularly to those who want to live their lives in an accountable-to-no-one, don't-give-a-damn-about-God mode. Those who accuse Christians of blindly accepting "comforting myths" ignore the fact that both sides--atheists and believers--do that. They just have different definitions of what they find "comforting." But the facts are the facts. I choose to follow the facts where they lead, and live my life accordingly. --wiz wizzywig Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 01:24 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, COBE, which I mentioned two posts up, is Cosmic Background Explorer. --wiz Conor Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 03:24 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Could you please elaborate on that? I have honestly never heard of it before. I was under the impression that the Big Bang was still the most widely accepted theory, with the most convincing body of evidence. I was not aware they had any way of verifying it. ------------------ "There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them." -J.R.R. Tolkien wizzywig Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 04:23 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snail-- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I figure I'll be devoid of religion until I'm old, then I'll make peace with god, get forgiven, and go to heaven like a nice repentant little boy, regardless if it actually is the true way to get to heaven/enlightenment/chocolate paradise, whatever you want to call it. I find religion a bit restricting, at least from my point of view. Don't try and convert me I'm happy being saccccreligious, I tell ya -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You figure you can BS with God? Good luck. Hey, how you want to live your life is your lookout. You prefer a shallow, meaningless existence and a wasted life? Be my guest. Personally, I prefer to go deeper into life. --wiz wizzywig Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 04:30 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conor-- Here's a brief passage from my forthcoming book that will explain: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1992, a team of astrophysicists tabulated over 400 million temperature measurements made by NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), discovering faint fluctuations in the background microwave radiation of the universe--the lingering echo of the Big Bang. These fluctuations--"ripples in the fabric of space-time," as they were called by research director George Smoot (astrophysicist, U.C. Berkeley)--explain how galaxies formed and clustered together out of the initially smooth and uniform Big Bang. Physicist Steven Hawking called the COBE discovery "the discovery of the century, if not of all time," and Smoot said, "It's like looking at God." [footnote: Michael D. Lemonick, "Echoes of the Big Bang," Time, May 4, 1992, p. 62.] Astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge quipped that his fellow astronomers had all joined "the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang." [footnote: Stephen Strauss, "An Innocent's Guide to the Big Bang Theory," The (Toronto) Globe and Mail, April 25, 1992, p. 1.] What many people don't realize is that the Big Bang is not something that happened billions of years ago. It is still happening now. The universe is still expanding, being propelled apart by the force of the initial blast. We are living inside the most massive explosion there ever was. The sheer size and force of the Big Bang aside, this was no ordinary explosion, in which material was blasted outwards into empty space. Rather, the Big Bang actually created space and time. At the moment of the Big Bang, everything that is--matter/energy, the three geometric dimensions of space, and the fourth dimension of time--blossomed forth from a "quantum fluctuation" the size of a geometric point, swelling at the speed of light. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --wiz Kroffus the Snail Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 05:54 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey now, I remember that if you sincerely ask for god's forgiveness and accept him and his son, your sins are forgiven. Am I wrong there, or are you talking about something in a diff variation of christians? BTW, about the "outdated" thing of the big bang; I was referring to the commonly heard "little bright hot thing goes poof and makes stuff" explaination that has since been evolved into more detailed and plausible explainations. I read about multiple universes in a recent issue of Scientific American (The one before the one about Io on the cover, I believe) I wasn't referring to those as existing, I was using the theoretical idea. Sorry if I forgot to say that in there. Oooh, a book? Whatzit gonna be called? wizzywig Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 06:03 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kroffus-- Re: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey now, I remember that if you sincerely ask for god's forgiveness and accept him and his son, your sins are forgiven. Am I wrong there, or are you talking about something in a diff variation of christians? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I highlighted the word "sincerely" for a reason. Previously, you wrote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I figure I'll be devoid of religion until I'm old, then I'll make peace with god, get forgiven, and go to heaven like a nice repentant little boy, regardless if it actually is the true way to get to heaven/enlightenment/chocolate paradise, whatever you want to call it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doesn't sound like you intend to be very sincere about God, either now or later. Sounds instead like you think you can live like the devil's own bad boy now, then make a chump out of God later. Life doesn't work that way. --wiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starship Trooper Posted February 16, 2000 Share Posted February 16, 2000 Kroffus the Snail Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 06:42 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Right now I'm 14 and in the point in my life where I'd like to do what I like to do, not be bugged by religion. I may go back to whatever I was when I was dumb enough to fully believe everything I heard in church when I'm 36 or something, but right now I'd like to screw religion and do whatever the hell I want within my own restrictions and the law's. I don't know a single kid that more than 2 people like that's openly religious. Nobody never swears, they do "immoral" things (Yoink a pencil, sheesh) but good american pie, who in a middle school is going to be religious and act like it? Nobody says "You shouldn't swear, it's one of the ten commandments" without a joking manner. (Heck, I haven't even heard that in a JOKING manner since I was 12) So until I'm less of a kid stop bugging me about my anti-godness. And I'm not thinking I'm the devil's little boy, because I think the devil is some olden-days crap used to explain why there was evil; now we know it's mental illness, screwy parents, or (for exceptionally dumb kids) pro wrestling, music, or other parts of the media (I know that's been proven otherwise, but there are some kids who imitate that crapola) At first I wasn't seriously talking about the devil actually existing, it was a silly bit of speculation I did in LA class. I don't seriously or semi-seriously consider myself mister crusader against god, because currently I could care less if there is one; I especially find prayer as a total bit o' crap, as I've never ever had my prayers answered, be it a "sign" or a feeling or a "help" through a hard day. That's my side of the mountain on this subject. No, I'm not mad, I'm just annoyed that you continually refer to religious stuff more than science, and that you keep on hinting that I should be a nice little goddy god boy, cause right now I'd like to be anything but. wizzywig Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 07:20 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kroffus-- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So until I'm less of a kid stop bugging me about my anti-godness. ... I'm just annoyed that you continually refer to religious stuff more than science, and that you keep on hinting that I should be a nice little goddy god boy, cause right now I'd like to be anything but. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not bugging you. You asked me a question, I answered it. In fact, I specifically told you, "Hey, how you want to live your life is your lookout. You prefer a shallow, meaningless existence and a wasted life? Be my guest." I'm specifically and quite pointedly telling you I don't care how you live your life. There's only one life to a customer, and when it's done, it's done--but how you choose to use it is totally up to you. I'm not looking over your shoulder, I'm just responding to some things you posted on a public forum. If you are going to post a lot of anti-God rhetoric on a public Internet forum, you have to expect that someone's going to come along and disagree with you. That's fair, isn't it? Doesn't mean anyone's bugging you are trying to run your life for you. Just means there are other points of view in the world. As to whether I "continually refer to religious stuff more than science," I find that the two issues are intertwined. You can't talk about the origin of the universe or the ultimate end of life without dealing in both science and God. I don't know why that should offend you. Again, this is a public Internet forum, and you can't expect everybody to see things the way you do. --wiz Kroffus the Snail Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 07:27 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JEEZ, you did it again! You overlooked what I'm talking about! "You prefer a shallow, meaningless existence and a wasted life? Be my guest." Stop inserting your beliefs in there like that! To YOU it is meaningless! I don't need a fricking deity to make my life meaningful if I never have any actual contact, personal relationship, instead of just knowing he's THERE. I have PLENTY of meaning in my life! I don't need your crap about without god life is meaningless. I have lots to live for aside from god. I want to live for all of the fun things I do, the stuff I learn, the job I'm sure to get and the family I might have! THAT'S the meaning in my life, to ENJOY it! I don't need religion to enjoy life when I have so many enjoyable things and so much to look forward too! And SHEEZ, I can figure out that some people won't agree with me! It's just that after I acknowledge the differences you continue to throw in little tidbits about what you think while referring to me! [This message has been edited by Kroffus the Snail (edited February 11, 2000).] Conor Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 09:22 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You certainly sound happy. What if, at the end of your life, you meet God, and He says, "You went your entire life ignoring My laws, now you can continue on without Me." There is a very big question you have to ask yourself. Is it worth the risk, the very big risk, to have 'fun' for a very brief time (a few score years?) and perhaps lose your soul? Is this a gamble you want to take? If you think it worth the risk, go ahead, and I will pray for you. ------------------ "There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them." -J.R.R. Tolkien theahnfahn Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 09:27 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please, don't present it as a risk Conor. I hate it when people do that. Conor Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 10:18 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You mean you don't think it is? Deliberately ignoring objective right and wrong because you can't be bothered with it? I think it is a very big risk indeed, it is no less than putting your soul on the line for the sake of 'fun'. ------------------ "There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them." -J.R.R. Tolkien Nodrin King Jedi Knight posted February 11, 2000 10:34 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Observation: I haven't ever seen in either the Bible or any scientific work where God's time and our time are measured the same. Our time can only be measured in units that we can appreciate...like days, years, decades,miliniums etc. I pose a question. How long is forever? If we accept the concept of God (and I personally do) then doesn't it make a certain amount of common sense that we could be existing with our own swolen egos thinking that our measley time actually means something? Yes, scientists agree that the universe is still expanding, but at whose RATE of expansion? I personally beliieve that in the extremely small time the Earth has been formed into what we know, the echo from God's creative voice has not even faded. He has just finished his declaration. In a nutshell, I believe in the GREAT BIG BANG theory. God said it...BANG!...and it was so...this just takes a heck of a lot longer by OUR standards than by His. ------------------ Paint a 3 on the side and I'll drive it!!! wizzywig Jedi Knight posted February 12, 2000 01:27 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm sorry I offended you, Kroffus. No offense intended. --wiz wizzywig Jedi Knight posted February 12, 2000 01:32 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nodrin King-- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a nutshell, I believe in the GREAT BIG BANG theory. God said it...BANG!...and it was so... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agreed. Physicist John Wheeler (the man who gave black holes their name) once said that the more we understand of the universe, the more it looks like the universe is "one great thought." "In the beginning was the Word (Greek logos: word, logic, thought)..." John 1:1 --wiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starship Trooper Posted February 16, 2000 Share Posted February 16, 2000 wizzywig Jedi Knight posted February 12, 2000 03:33 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kroffus-- I want to clarify some things here because you have been reacting to things I've said in such a hostile manner. I wasn't trying to make you mad. You had put forth some questions, and I respected you enough to put forth some answers, serious and straight up. You objected to my use of the terms "shallow" and "meaningless," and I was surprised that you found that offensive, because I thought you were telling me that you had no interest in considering the deep issues of life when you said: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I figure I'll be devoid of religion until I'm old, then I'll make peace with god, get forgiven, and go to heaven like a nice repentant little boy, regardless if it actually is the true way to get to heaven/enlightenment/chocolate paradise, whatever you want to call it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you don't think that's a shallow point of view, then fine, I accept that. You also say: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stop inserting your beliefs in there like that! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Everything I say is my belief. I won't stop speaking my beliefs, but I will certainly respect your right to say what you want, believe what you want, and behave as you please. I, of course, have the same right. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't need your crap about without god life is meaningless. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are perfectly free to disregard my "crap." quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't need religion to enjoy life when I have so many enjoyable things and so much to look forward too! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know. You're absolutely right. In my own experience, however, I have found that when a person has a relationship with God, life takes on a lasting significance that it wouldn't have otherwise. That's what I mean when I talk about this deep/shallow, meaningful/meaningless thing. Please don't be offended, I am not judging the way you live your life--in fact, I don't even know you, beyond what you have said about yourself. This is not directed at you in a judgmental way. I'm just explaining what I meant in my previous posts. Let me tell you a little about myself to show you where I'm coming from. I first encountered science fiction (of a sort) when I was no older than five years old. It was an old black-and-white sci-fi show for kids called SPACE PATROL. I still remember some of the episodes of that show, though in story and visual effects it would be laughably crude by today's standards. It hooked me forever on science fiction. From there, I went on to good science fiction literature, which of course led to a fascination with science--astronomy, cosmology, and physics. When I was around ten or twelve, I also began to get very serious about my interest in God. (Incidentally, contrary to some of the observations about Christian kids that you mentioned in one of your posts, I was not a geeky kid without any friends; I was neither superpopular nor a loner/loser/dweeb--I was just average.) In my late teens and twenties, I went through a lot of questioning about God. Religion seemed to be telling me one thing about God, while a lot of the scientific books I read kept telling me that there is no God, and that belief in God is foolish. This created a deep split in my thinking. Then, about fifteen years ago, I was reading ANALOG Science Fiction Magazine about a startling new concept called the Anthropic Principle. According to the evidence of cosmology and quantum physics, the universe now appears to be the artifact of an intelligent designer. The article, appearing in a completely secular publication, avoided the use of the word "God," but of course an intelligent cosmic designer of the entire universe would be, by definition, God. In the years since I first encountered that article, the evidence has just gotten stronger and stronger (see the Alien Life Unlikely thread in the Cantina for more discussion of these issues) that the universe is the product of intelligent design, not random processes. To my mind, the evidence is, in fact, irrefutable. It has been fascinating, over the years, for me to make a pilgrimmage from a point of feeling divided in half between my love of science and my love of God, to where I am now, a place in which science and faith both converge on the same truth--God is real. I hope this will help you to be a little less angry with my position. When I talk about living deep instead of living on the surface of life, this is what I'm talking about: Getting serious about the deepest questions of life--Why are we here? Why does the universe exist? Why not nothing at all? Is there a God, and if so, what does he expect of us? How can we know him? What makes my life meaningful? Will there be any significance to my life after I'm dead, or is my life just a brief and meaningless flicker of existence, and then darkness and nothingness? These are the questions that life asks all of us, including you, including me. I've committed my life to answering those questions. There is a passage in the New Testament book of Hebrews that says that God rewards those who seek him--in other words, when people sincerely look for God, they find him. Your comment that you would ignore God all your life, then make a quick turnabout at the last moment when you saw the Grim Reaper bearing down on you, struck me as the comment of someone who doesn't understand how life works. That is clearly not living your life seeking God, and I would question whether God would reward someone and reveal himself to someone who is not even making the attempt to seek him. I respect you too much to leave that unsaid. I hope that doesn't anger you, because I'm not preaching to you or trying to inflict my views on you--I'm merely responding, as honestly as I know how, to the statement you posted. I wish you well. --wiz Kroffus the Snail Jedi Knight posted February 12, 2000 04:40 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeesh, this is getting to intense for me. I'm dropping the subject. wizzywig Jedi Knight posted February 12, 2000 05:19 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In that case, I overestimated you. Have a nice life. --wiz Kroffus the Snail Jedi Knight posted February 12, 2000 05:45 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can I delete this? I mean, I can, but are you going to get all pissy like you did last time Conor Jedi Knight posted February 12, 2000 06:42 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes. Don't delete it, just leave it alone if you don't want to contribute anymore. Wiz spent a lot of time on that post, I can tell. Don't make it wasted time. ------------------ "There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them." -J.R.R. Tolkien Kroffus the Snail Jedi Knight posted February 12, 2000 06:53 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fine then. wizzywig Jedi Knight posted February 13, 2000 01:56 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conor, what is the source of that Tolkien quote? It's not from "On Fairy Stories," is it? --w Conor Jedi Knight posted February 13, 2000 12:17 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I Think I got it from theonering.com and their quote on the front page. I don't know what book it came from. ------------------ "There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them." -J.R.R. Tolkien [This message has been edited by Starship Trooper (edited February 16, 2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starship Trooper Posted February 16, 2000 Share Posted February 16, 2000 BeastMaster Jedi Knight posted February 13, 2000 01:45 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just to add fuel to the fire of the good versus evil debate that I missed (earlier in this thread). I once got a chance to read a copy of the Gnostic Texts (a series of writings that the Vatican decided to omit from the Bible for various reasons --real X-Files stuff IMHO) that paint the snake in Eden as a saviour. You see, God gave Adam and Eve a choice; live in blissful ignorance or seek knowledge and its attendant troubles. Without the serpent (which the Gnostics view as a manifestation of the True God, not Satan) we would still live in simplistic ignorance. This just feeds into my "God helps those who help themselves" philosophy. ------------------ "The Beasts know much that we do not." -Ancient Jedi proverb Starship Trooper Jedi Knight posted February 14, 2000 01:50 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Driving around town this morning, I didn't notice many Gnostic churches holding Sunday services. Looks to me like this Gnostic religion is kind of a dead end. Darth Kurgan Jedi Knight posted February 14, 2000 08:09 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay, listen, much as I thought "Stigmata" was a cool film (imagine the X-Files movie, only the Vatican is the conspiracy agent, and it's God's secret, not the alien's secret..), this has to be cleared up. I have read the Gospel of Thomas (it's published and widely available, and the complete text is online), and while it is interesting, let me say this: The GOT is one of the few non-canonical gospels discovered this century that was more or less found in complete form (which is important for archeology and for historical study). The Gnostic Christians believed that there were many gods. In fact, they were all gods (the Gnostic believers), and for them Jesus was the "True" "God." The God of the Hebrew Bible, for them, was an evil deity, who created the world, and imprisoned them (the holy gods) inside matter. Thus matter was a prison, an evil creation of this malevolent deity. I don't think they were satanists. They emphasize the "secret teachings" of Jesus, that is he spoke in code, imbuing esoteric (hidden) knowledge to his followers, and thus the ordinary folks hearing what he said would not understand it in that sense. If you read the Gospel of Thomas (which is mentioned in the movie) it sounds great, then you get to the fishy part, where Jesus lets Thomas (of all people) in on all this secret stuff, and plus you get this rather un-Christian sounding set of passages: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 113 His disciples said to Him, "When will the Kingdom come?" "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'Here it is' or 'There it is.' Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it." 114 Simon Peter said to Him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Gnostic non-canonical writing, "Gospel of Thomas" was discovered some fifty years ago with the other Nag Hammadi scrolls (previously unknown). It is a list of "secret sayings of Jesus" not a narrative like the NT gospels. Many biblical scholars speculate that if the so-called "Q" gospel exists, it would be similar in structure and arrangement to the GOT. Note that the Gnostics emerged some time after Christ's death (some 100-200 years after). They were not the original Church. The proto-Orthodox Christians (Peter and Paul's group) rejected the Gnostics are heretical, and many writings came out from them that denounced their beliefs as contrary to what Jesus and his apostles taught. Just to clear that up in case you're convinced this was some "Vatican Conspiracy" to "hide the true word of God." There may be some Gnostics today in Iraq, or something, if they survived the war (there is apparently a "Gnostic Society" online, of uncertain size). I dunno. Of course they will certainly tell you they have the true Gospel. They, like many of the early heresies all relied on sola scriptura ([written]"scripture alone") for their authority (no apostolic tradition). ; ) I have not read every Gnostic writing, but I have a pretty good idea of their belief system if the GOT is any indication. Also, just another bit of info, it should be noted that the Protestants are the ones who rejected many canonical books during the Reformation. The Greek "canon" (roughly speaking.. since it was not 100% official) in the first century included the same books that are in the Catholic canon today (the Septuigit.. sp?). Sources (just one of the many sites out there for info): http://wesley.nnc.edu/noncanon.htm "Noncanonical Homepage" Also: Documents for the Study of the Gospels by David R. Cartlidge and David L. Dungan (both are professors of Religion), ed. c. 1994. and The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart D. Ehrman (Professor of Religion). c. 2000. Kurgan [This message has been edited by Darth Kurgan (edited February 14, 2000).] Kroffus the Snail Jedi Knight posted February 15, 2000 05:53 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I want to delete this. If you want any part of it I'll give you 24 hours to copy it out. theahnfahn Jedi Knight posted February 15, 2000 06:11 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am just warning you now, if you delete this I, as well as the majority of the people here, will never post in one of your topics again. It is extremely rude to delete what others have written. If you start a topic, it should only end when everyone else decides not to post in it anymore. You are the first person out of a great many that I have seen delete their topics. Don't do it again. Kroffus the Snail Jedi Knight posted February 15, 2000 06:52 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cheez, that's a bit over the top. Even a dead topic that no one replies to? Jesus. I can always dissappear for a few weeks then re-register under a different name should you become all pissy. You'll never know. This is just a FORUM. If you don't want me deleting old topics stop writing enormous replies that you pour almost half an hour of your time into. I don't even read those big long replies. They're a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starship Trooper Posted February 16, 2000 Share Posted February 16, 2000 Too much valuable effort and time was put into these posts (well, most of these posts) to have them done away with in the blink of an eye. When people pour a half-hour or more of their time into a post, it gives this forum something to be proud of. The only thing that is a "waste of time" to read are posts that obviously have no thought or care put into them whatsoever. I hope that most people here will agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darth Kurgan Posted February 16, 2000 Share Posted February 16, 2000 Thanks for posting the discussion. ; ) I also find it odd to spend so much time pouring out your opinions and beliefs, then remove it all the moment somebody else decides to share their side of it. I hate to think all our discussion is for nothing, and nobody can learn anything from it. Kurgan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wizzywig Posted February 16, 2000 Share Posted February 16, 2000 Agreed. -w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bounty Hunter Posted February 17, 2000 Share Posted February 17, 2000 I really don't think that if every creature was to have bean made out of clay from god. I don't think that we would all share the same basic characteristics such as carbon based, oxygen breathing, brains on our skulls, etc.. and this applies to animals as well. I belive if the beliefe of creationism was true that god would have been more original than that. but because we share those similarities, I believe in evolution. We don't get brown eyes or red hair from god's simply wishing it to be that way but because we inherit genes from our parents. and over time the blue eyes that our great grandparents had are now brown in my eyes. that is evolution on a small scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darth Kurgan Posted February 17, 2000 Share Posted February 17, 2000 Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it wrong to say inherieting brown eyes from your parent is "evolution"? Just a thought. Also, I think "bible-literal creationists" and "atheist-evolutions" basically are saying the same things, they are just ascribing differnet ULTIMATE CAUSES to the same result. I don't see a contradiction with believing in God and accepting the lastest scientific findings related to the creation of life. If you ask me, yes, I am a creationist. I don't think that it makes sense to assume that matter has always existed, but that at some point it had a beginning. Since we have no way of showing that something can create itself, we then must assume that it was created by some other agency. This makes perfect sense to me, and thus I can justify a belief in God based on this realization alone. To someone who does not wish to believe in God (by definition, an intelligent Cosmic Designer being God) one will either have to assume that matter came about of itself, that it always existed (something humans cannot logically fathom), or some other hypothesis that has not been thought of yet. I think the most logical assumption then, is that there had to be some agency, apart from the universe that initiated the creation of matter. This is an inferred assumption. It could be wrong (as any theory could be), but given the possible theories, this one is the most logical. Of course, personally, you are free to believe whatever you please, whether or not you use logical analysis to reach that conclusion or not. ; ) Kurgan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Argath Posted February 17, 2000 Share Posted February 17, 2000 Bounty Hunter, Having brown eyes isn't evolution, it's simply a matter of what genes your parents possess. You didn't "evolve" from the blue eyes of your grandparents, it just happened that you inherited brown eyes from your parents. Growing a third arm or having the ability to breathe underwater would be considered evolution. Being born with different color eyes or hair isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nodrin King Posted February 17, 2000 Share Posted February 17, 2000 Again we seem to be looking at the short version. Time to us is measured in lifetimes and other hominid inspired units of time. Actual time is far, far more inclusive than simple passing of genes from our parents to us. Over millions of years the genes have been passed down from critter to critter. Only the strongest were able to survive. Time to the Creator is just a snap of the fingers. I think He created this cosmos WAAAAAY before we ever came along. It's evolved, cooled, gone through chemical reactions and we're just the new part. Now we are like a comedy troop running around putting name tags on stuff and thinkin' we're so smart.... For those of us who are statisticians. What are the odds of getting all the chemicals, electrical inputs, and other goodies together just right? Then factor in the place we live, again with the chemicals... YIPE>>> I gotta go to bed now...I have more details on all of this. Can discuss in more jargonistic manner... this was just a summary before the thesis in this case. ------------------ Paint a 3 on the side and I'll drive it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darth Kurgan Posted February 17, 2000 Share Posted February 17, 2000 Also, whether or not you ascribe to any particular religious faith, cult, philosophy, creed or what have you, I think in the face of the evidence, it takes alot of faith to deny all the evidence for the existence of a Cosmic Designer. While some anti-creationists will say that its silly to believe that "God said, 'make it so' and then poof! here we are," while they say with a straight face that it was simply "poof! and we created ourselves." Kurgan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Galdarin the Goldfish Posted February 17, 2000 Share Posted February 17, 2000 How can you say THAT with a straight face? You know that the theories are much more complex then us simply appearing. That's a big generalization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Conor Posted February 17, 2000 Share Posted February 17, 2000 Actually, not really. The Big Bang says everything in existence came into being in one big poof. Space, time, reality as we know it came into existence at one precise point. The atheist argument says this happened on its own, which is preposterous from any logical or rational standpoint. Something created the universe, that is a fact. ------------------ "There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them." -J.R.R. Tolkien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Galdarin the Goldfish Posted February 18, 2000 Share Posted February 18, 2000 but the question is, was that something another cosmic event or a deity? I think the BB theory is flawed, at least when it is explained in layman's terms. There are at least 5 variations of the theory, each explaining what the other left out, and having some odd bits of its own. Take a look on the Scientific American website, they had a few issues with articles on that stuff, maybe they've archived them on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darth Kurgan Posted February 18, 2000 Share Posted February 18, 2000 If another cosmic event, then the question is begged, what cosmic event caused that cosmic event? (and so on) Kurgan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Galdarin the Goldfish Posted February 18, 2000 Share Posted February 18, 2000 I'm not referring to some currently unexplained cosmic event, perhaps a kind of supernova, quasar activity, etc. Nothing gosh golly wowness like neutrinos causing a rift in space-time when they pop out of existence at the right instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darth Kurgan Posted February 18, 2000 Share Posted February 18, 2000 It's still a cyclical argument.. you can still claim something else causes that cause, etc, etc. The "God" solution, does not claim anything about its cause except that the cause was intelligent and probably infinite (otherwise it would beg, who created God, and then who created that which created God, etc, etc). Plus by definition, a God would not be created. Kurgan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bounty Hunter Posted February 19, 2000 Share Posted February 19, 2000 yes I under stand that getting brown eyes from our parents is not evolution. I was simply making a example of how over time we change. Over the last Centuries it is known that man over all has been getting taller. this is somewhat like evolution because we are changing one thing to another(from short to tall), may it be that we do so by passing on genes or simply by adapting to our environment. Evolution by definition is "The changes that take place as something developes into a different form. Obviously I was speaking earlier in such a hard-to-understand way that I lost a few of you. I'm sure that this post will clear up any misunderstandings with my earlier post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Conor Posted February 19, 2000 Share Posted February 19, 2000 Yes, that is called microevolution. What does that have to do with anything again? ------------------ "There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them." -J.R.R. Tolkien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darth Kurgan Posted February 19, 2000 Share Posted February 19, 2000 I think some scientists will take issue with Darwin's theory of evolution (just one theory within the broader scope of evolution) is by natural selection. How would this accout for a one-celled organism forming into all life on earth, and some life forms (like amphibians) "becoming" reptiles, and then becoming birds, and reptiles becoming mammals. I've always wondered about the thing with Whales coming from land animals. What, some animals were just born with flippers and said "let's go for a swim!" I mean really, that's a bit simplistic. Nothing is certain. However most scientists agree that species did and are changing, they just don't agree yet, HOW they did and are changing. And really, on an evolutionary scale, you aren't likely to see any significant changes until some millions of years have gone by. That is why I laugh when I see people saying that today we are more "evolved" than people of say, the middle ages, or even people of ancient times. Our cultures may be different and our technology more complex, but are we really "better off" ? I don't think so, alot of our main fundamental problems are still here, in fact many of them worse, we have a score of new problems to deal with, and we seem to create new ones the more we solve. Biologically, we're basically the same. Some of us might be a bit taller, but c'mon, is that really significant? Kurgan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.