Reborn Outcast Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Originally posted by MydnightPsion A single being that existed since eternity was but a flicker of space and time? Excuse me if it sounds a bit...I dunno...childish? not that I mean to call anyone here childish. The existence of one omnipotent and supreme being just seems more along the lines of fantasy or hallucations of a race aspiring to cope with what couldn't be explained at the time. Heathens, heretics, all made by a church who wanted power. Sadly, they did get power through the kings of old times. And what happened to those who said 'The earth revolves around the sun and the earth isn't the center of the universe'? I'd say religion is a way to keep order in an otherwise chaotic world, which isnt a bad thing by any means. But even in the most eutopian society, you'll have that one person who dosen't believe God casts lightning at us from above, but its an electrice attraction, and lighting dosen't even come from above. I'd trust theories and fossils before I trust a 5000 year old manuscript that's seen more change than a chameleon running through a city. Could science have been considered fantasy? We are still trying to figure out ways to do things that, to us as humans, seem impossibel and only a fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast Could science have been considered fantasy? We are still trying to figure out ways to do things that, to us as humans, seem impossibel and only a fantasy. "Any smoothly functioning technology gives the appearance of magic." - Arthur C. Clarke Many things that are now commonplace to us would be perceived as magic or miraculous by people from the past. However, nowadays we are intelligent enough that we would know the difference between technology and fantasy. The majority of things today that science is trying to figure out are things that are not fantasy, but feasible. So to answer your question more directly, science could have been considered fantasy in the past, but is much less likely to be confused now. On another note, I notice that no one from the religion side has answered the questions I asked in my second post on this thread, which could mean a couple of things: 1 - You don't have an answer for the questions I asked. If this is the case, you've proved my point. 2 - You're ignoring my questions because you know the answer and you're afraid of it. This also would prove my point. 3 - You just haven't read it. I have a feeling this is the most likely case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian54 Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Sience may not prove God exists, but it is the only explenation for our existence. To me it seems silly to believe we can funcion in an orderly way in this complex galaxy by a simple cell evovling into evrything. An All Powerfull Being seems more realistic than a tiny cell. Which do you think is more capable of producing life? If man did indeed evolve, and this one cell did indeed multiply, then why is it that it seems the opposite today? the cells in our body produce a new cell with the death of two. Gravity weakens, man ages. Evrything degenerates, nothing gets younger it only gets older. What could cause a cell to evolve? Why is it not demonstrateable? You may ask why God is not demonstratable, but were Jesus' miracles not enough? The Bible's preservation is a miracle in itself. The more I learn about science, the harder it seems for me to understand why people can believe somthing so contradictory to it. A fairy tale is when a frog turns into a prince in an instant. Evolution is when a frog turns into a prince over millions of years. To me, evolution seems like a fairy tale. But believe it if you want, there are still people who believe the world is flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speck of dust Posted April 8, 2003 Author Share Posted April 8, 2003 Okay, wait, as I wrote my piece, Mandalorian posted his, so I'm changing this to respond to him. I agree, there is much unexplained about the core energy of life that 'makes' us evolve and 'makes' stars form and, hell even gravity is still mysterious to us. Newton and Einstien could still both be wrong. There probably is a God-like energy or being who, like an artist, dips his brush in the cosmic paint and creates existence. But the Bible is not apart of that. It's a book that was written by man who was speculating his own existence, just as we're speculating here. For what we know about earth and societies and history and how mankind keeps records of his actions, we all know too well how fallable and fragile this is. As far as technology and magic and fantasy go-- if a nuclear war destroyed all of society, most survivors would have no idea how to build a car or a computer or even a telephone from scratch. In fact, i'd wager that no one would be able to do much of anything, save build a few shelters. Perhaps Fire is the only thing we could muster up on our own. We'd be stuck riding horses stabbing fish with spears and roasting them over burning leaves. All our records and plans that are digitally stored, would be destroyed and erased. All the libraries, incinerated. In a few generations the legend of a "technological society" would grow and would seem magical and god like. But we would know that they weren't gods, they were men who acheived great feats but somewhere went wrong and destroyed themselves. Maybe these future earthlings however would shun technology, calling it the destroyer of a great civilization. They would consider technology evil. It would be a new religion of sorts, whose sole purpose is to avoid the thing that tempted and destroyed us before. It's easy to see where this goes. 2000 years after that, something that was once concrete and man made as technology would be built into mythical religious proportions. When the reality of those of us who live in it now know that it's not. The point is, NOBODY KNOWS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED two or five thouseand years ago. For all we know the Tower of Babel could have been a nuclear melt down or a spaceship or just a tall building that fell. That's why for millenia the ruling bodies of all civilizations knew that the written word was the ultimate power, they knew that whoever wrote history had the power to change it make it suit whatever needs or wants they had. That's why they only taught the few privledged how to read and write, because the masses were the ones to be manipulated. The Bible is no exception. Say what you want about God giving the words to the Prophets to write them down, as likely as it sounds to you and as unlikely as it sounds to me, we can't prove either way what happened so long ago. But stories definitly change through time and through who tells it and who remembers it. Exaggerations, dramatic lisences, anything to make a story compelling and fit whatever agenda the teller has in telling it. One should look at the history of Catholicism, and see just how and why Constantin adopted it for the Roman Empire. There is a definite agenda there, in a falling Empire, to bring Eastern and Western Philosophy together in a monotheistic belief system. Rome was spreading itself thin at the time, this was it's last hope to Unite all the different cultures and lands they conquered. You all know what I'm saying. I wish a religious person would speak up and counter my point.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Originally posted by Eldritch On another note, I notice that no one from the religion side has answered the questions I asked in my second post on this thread, which could mean a couple of things: 1 - You don't have an answer for the questions I asked. If this is the case, you've proved my point. 2 - You're ignoring my questions because you know the answer and you're afraid of it. This also would prove my point. 3 - You just haven't read it. I have a feeling this is the most likely case. Your forgot number 4 - We read it but are not responding because we don't feel like writing a long post Although I actually haven't read it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 If man did indeed evolve, and this one cell did indeed multiply, then why is it that it seems the opposite today? the cells in our body produce a new cell with the death of two. Gravity weakens, man ages. Evrything degenerates, nothing gets younger it only gets older. Well, as far as the cells in our body go, the human body, while still in the womb, grows by cells splitting (I forget the term for this). So, in fact, humans coming from one cell does still happen. I'm not sure what you are getting at with the gravity and age thing... You may ask why God is not demonstratable, but were Jesus' miracles not enough? The Bible's preservation is a miracle in itself. Again, we have the assumption that the Bible is 100% correct and can be taken as a historical text. And it's no miracle it survived. We have various Roman and Greek legends and myths that are in their original form. The fact that the bible is so widespread is more a testament to its status as the central religious document in the worlds predominant religion. But this says nothing to its authenticity. A fairy tale is when a frog turns into a prince in an instant. Evolution is when a frog turns into a prince over millions of years. To me, evolution seems like a fairy tale. Erm... exactly how, in that analogy, does evolution become anything like the fairy tale you cited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Come now, Mandalorian. You look foolish with your post above. I'd nit-pick at it, but Shock beat me to it. How do we know that the Bible wasn't just a story to people 5000 years ago as Star Wars is a story to us? If within the next 5000 years, the world ends up like it did in Fallout, i.e. Humans hiding in giant vaults until the fallout recided until they rentered the world, making small tribes, and perchance one of these tribes finds a Star Wars-The Phantom Menace book. Well, wouldn't you think that they'd think this really happened by simply reading the text 'A long time ago...'. Its kinda like 'In the beginning...'. My point is, the book could have been some guys fantasy that he wrote down and then it was inherited by the Hebrews, then the Christians who added to it, and finally the Mulims who added to it. We can't prove this is wrong, but we can't prove its right, which is why religion goes on because all they have to say is 'Prove HE dosen't exist' and then we(non-religious) say 'Prove he does'. Its alot like abortion, but I'll leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 It all goes back to my one question that no one has addressed yet - how do you know you're [meaning religion in general] right? And don't say the Bible - that's been updated so many times and edited and has so many different versions (aside from not even being written by the people the stuff was supposedly happening to) that it doesn't count as proof. And even if it were historically accurate (which it's not), it'd be circumstantial evidence at best. Science has put forth its theories based on evidence and/or observation... i.e. this is what we believe, and this is the hard evidence we have to back it up. And for all of you religious types that find it so hard to put faith in science... I don't see you doubting and not using other forms of technology (read : science). You're all at least using a computer, or we'd never even read what you had to say. Many of you also probably use cars (or will sometime in the future) or ride in them. You're also likely to have flown on a plane or have watched a movie or a videotape/dvd. You're so ready to accept and put faith into your religion without proof, yet you don't want to accept certain facets of science even when the proof is being put in your face? That's not only extremely selective, it's hypocritical. "I won't put faith in science because it's not certain. But I'll put faith in religion, even when it's equally uncertain because some guys wrote a book about it thousands of years ago. And even though other people wrote books explaining the same thing, I don't like what they said so they're wrong." Can you see how absurd this argument looks to a rational mind, let alone a logical one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Originally posted by ET Warrior Your forgot number 4 - We read it but are not responding because we don't feel like writing a long post Although I actually haven't read it.... That falls under number 1 or 2 in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 If man did indeed evolve, and this one cell did indeed multiply, then why is it that it seems the opposite today? the cells in our body produce a new cell with the death of two. Gravity weakens, man ages. Evrything degenerates, nothing gets younger it only gets older. You do not get one new cell from two old ones dying. If we did that, we'd eventually waste away to nothing, essentially eating ourselves. You're right though... nothing gets younger, it gets older. Can you name anything that grows younger? I don't understand your point here. What could cause a cell to evolve? Why is it not demonstrateable? Stimuli. To the environment, to other cells, to anything. Just like you yourself will adapt to new conditions. It's not demonstratable because we don't have the power to reproduce millions of years of evolution in a single lifetime. However, science finds hundreds of thousands of new pieces of evidence for the fossil record each year, which includes some of the so-called "missing links," that are strong proof that evolution has taken place. You may ask why God is not demonstratable, but were Jesus' miracles not enough? The Bible's preservation is a miracle in itself. Consider the source. Shock countered this point best, so read his post. The more I learn about science, the harder it seems for me to understand why people can believe somthing so contradictory to it. You've made the case for science with that statement. How can so many people believe in something so contradictory to science? A fairy tale is when a frog turns into a prince in an instant. Evolution is when a frog turns into a prince over millions of years. To me, evolution seems like a fairy tale. Not according to the definition you just gave. If evolution happened in an instant, then it would be a fairy tale. The fact that evolution takes millions of years because the process is slow seems proof enough of that. But believe it if you want, there are still people who believe the world is flat. Those people have never seen an image of the Earth from space... P.S. - Sorry for 3 posts, but there was just so much to say and so many excellent arguments to counter! Good job, guys... keep those synapses firing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Ok, hope ya like this one Eldritch. Originally posted by Eldritch On another note, I notice that no one from the religion side has answered the questions I asked in my second post on this thread, which could mean a couple of things: 1 - You don't have an answer for the questions I asked. If this is the case, you've proved my point. 2 - You're ignoring my questions because you know the answer and you're afraid of it. This also would prove my point. 3 - You just haven't read it. I have a feeling this is the most likely case. Maybe if you'de go back and read the epic 10 pager, you'll see why we don't want to post such huge things AGAIN. Originally posted by Eldritch It all goes back to my one question that no one has addressed yet - how do you know you're [meaning religion in general] right? Wait wait WAIT!!!! Here we go again. You're stereotyping ALL Christians under the assumption that we believe that ALL science is false. We do not. Some might, others (like myself) don't. Its called faith. The ability to believe in something that I have not seen with my own eyes or touched, is amazing to me. Faith. Am I forcing upon you that my religion is correct? No, I BELIEVE that it is correct but I would never go so far as to say that ALL of science is incorrect. I admit, there are some parts of science that I do not agree with. Originally posted by Eldritch And don't say the Bible - that's been updated so many times and edited and has so many different versions (aside from not even being written by the people the stuff was supposedly happening to) that it doesn't count as proof. And even if it were historically accurate (which it's not), it'd be circumstantial evidence at best. Why do you say its not historically correct? Because you have other records from THAT SAME TIME PERIOD that state otherwise? And what right makes these historically correct? How do you know that the records weren't altered in order to keep a revolt from occuring? Your "proof" that the Bible is historically inaccurate is circumstancial evidence. Originally posted by Eldritch Science has put forth its theories based on evidence and/or observation... i.e. this is what we believe, and this is the hard evidence we have to back it up. And for all of you religious types that find it so hard to put faith in science... I don't see you doubting and not using other forms of technology (read : science). You're all at least using a computer, or we'd never even read what you had to say. Many of you also probably use cars (or will sometime in the future) or ride in them. You're also likely to have flown on a plane or have watched a movie or a videotape/dvd. Ahhhhh... you said this i.e. this is what we believe. I thought science doesn't believe in anything? I thought it was all hard proven facts, not beliefs. You're entering the realm of religion when you say believe, which you seem to hate. Once again, you are putting forth a stereotype about all Christians when you say that we don't put faith (Ah wait, I thought people who trust in science and not religion don't HAVE faith. I thought they have hard facts. Once again, saying faith enters you into the realm of religion.), into science? Just because I am a Christian and believe in God with all my heart means that I cannot think science is correct? Evolution and God could have gone hand in hand. God could have started it, then partially controlled its course when the time arose but otherwise it could have been let free. I don't know. I don't know what God thinks, noone on this earth does, so who can say that He didn't do this? The Bible is NOT a scientific tool? Does it tell people how to make DVD players? No, it tells them how to live their lives, therefore, comparing it to technology is impossible. Originally posted by Eldritch You're so ready to accept and put faith into your religion without proof, yet you don't want to accept certain facets of science even when the proof is being put in your face? That's not only extremely selective, it's hypocritical. Once again, you stereotype the Christian believers as a WHOLE by saying that we disregard science completely. And once again, this is not true. And may I remind you that, no matter how much "evidence" evolution and everything has, it is STILL A THEORY!!! Originally posted by Eldritch "I won't put faith in science because it's not certain. But I'll put faith in religion, even when it's equally uncertain because some guys wrote a book about it thousands of years ago. And even though other people wrote books explaining the same thing, I don't like what they said so they're wrong." Ever heard of dark matter? That is needed to complete the THEORY of the Big Bang. Ever heard of a scientists or spaceshuttle finding, seeing, bumping into or coming back with dark matter? I think not. Originally posted by Eldritch Can you see how absurd this argument looks to a rational mind, let alone a logical one? Are you calling me non-rational or non-logical because I believe in God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast Wait wait WAIT!!!! Here we go again. You're stereotyping ALL Christians under the assumption that we believe that ALL science is false. We do not. Some might, others (like myself) don't. My question there has nothing to do with science. I'm simply wondering what makes you believe so strongly that your religion is right and others are wrong. And don't say faith, because other religions have just as much faith as yours, if not more. Why do you say its not historically correct? Because you have other records from THAT SAME TIME PERIOD that state otherwise? And what right makes these historically correct? How do you know that the records weren't altered in order to keep a revolt from occuring? Your "proof" that the Bible is historically inaccurate is circumstancial evidence. Because it's not a history book. It's a written version of the beliefs of a Jewish sect that was later called Christianity. There are no dates, unlike other historical documents from that time. And while I can't prove that the historical documents from that time weren't altered, many Christian scholars who have written about the history of the bible seem to think they are genuine. If you'd like a listing of books I suggest on the history of the Bible, i'll be more than happy to post them. The Bible was not written to educate people in the history of the time, it was written to teach lessons. Ahhhhh... you said this I thought science doesn't believe in anything? I thought it was all hard proven facts, not beliefs. You're entering the realm of religion when you say believe, which you seem to hate. Then you're not aware of what science truly is. Science is most simply the pursuit of truth. Pursuing that truth means that you never EVER stop questioning. The beauty of science is that it evolves as new information comes in. It's not all hard proven facts, and any scientist that says so is no true scientist. However, a little faith is required now and then, but it's never blind faith - it's always backed up with evidence. And all possibilities are considered... science just tends to go with the one that makes the most sense with the evidence. Once again, you are putting forth a stereotype about all Christians when you say that we don't put faith (Ah wait, I thought people who trust in science and not religion don't HAVE faith. I thought they have hard facts. Once again, saying faith enters you into the realm of religion.), into science? Just because I am a Christian and believe in God with all my heart means that I cannot think science is correct? Evolution and God could have gone hand in hand. God could have started it, then partially controlled its course when the time arose but otherwise it could have been let free. I don't know. I don't know what God thinks, noone on this earth does, so who can say that He didn't do this? I'm not putting forth any stereotypes, i'm simply responding to the viewpoints expressed in this thread. I happen to agree with you on part of this - I think, like any good scientist, that it's possible God exists and that he set in motion the Big Bang, evolution, etc. But I don't see any reason to believe in God over anything else without proof. And no one can say definitively that he didn't do this, but there's certainly no proof that he did. The Bible is NOT a scientific tool? Does it tell people how to make DVD players? No, it tells them how to live their lives, therefore, comparing it to technology is impossible. I'm not comparing the Bible to scientific tools or technology, so i'm not quite sure where you got that from. I agree that it's main purpose is to teach people how to live their lives (and that's it). I wasn't comparing the Bible to technology, I was saying that it's odd that people can attack science and try and prove it wrong when it comes to their faith, but love it when science/technology does something for their benefit (e.g. dvd players). Once again, you stereotype the Christian believers as a WHOLE by saying that we disregard science completely. And once again, this is not true. And may I remind you that, no matter how much "evidence" evolution and everything has, it is STILL A THEORY!!! As I said earlier - I'm not stereotyping, I'm responding to views expressed in this thread. I don't think you understand what 'Theory' is in the scientific sense. Theory (specifically, the Theory of Evolution) is not just someone's educated guess. It's a possible explanation based on the gathering of evidence. To date, Evolution has gathered millions of pieces of evidence; Creation doesn't even come close in that department. What I wonder is how many pieces of evidence will be required before religious folk stop dismissing it. I bet it'll be right around the time science turns it from theory into fact, or law. Ever heard of dark matter? That is needed to complete the THEORY of the Big Bang. Ever heard of a scientists or spaceshuttle finding, seeing, bumping into or coming back with dark matter? I think not. If you actually knew what dark matter was, you'd understand why it's impossible for scientists or a spaceshuttle to bump into any. And it's not necessary to capitalize 'theory,' as everyone knows it's just that. No one's accepting it as truth yet, but just like with evolution, the evidence is mounting and religion has yet to provide evidence for its explanation. Are you calling me non-rational or non-logical because I believe in God? No, I'm saying that this argument is irrational and illogical: "I won't put faith in science because it's not certain. But I'll put faith in religion, even when it's equally uncertain because some guys wrote a book about it thousands of years ago. And even though other people wrote books explaining the same thing, I don't like what they said so they're wrong." Now that is a generalized, stereotypical Christian argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTeddyPaul Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Hahahaha! I love these threads. I love the stuff Mandalorian says regarding cellular degredation and cellular evolution. Makes you think about such things as an appendix. What did it do? I know that people who do not have one are more prone to sickness but it had a more valuable attribute earlier before CELLULAR EVOLUTION went into effect and made the thing mostly obsolete. Same with the tail bone. What is up with that. It serves no purpose as far as I know besides knocking out our quarterback all year my Junior year. Those things couldn't have been part of a few million years of evolution could they? There are many great articles on CELLULAR EVOLUTION and if you want to learn about them just go to a search engine. Here is something to throw in the mix. Someone or some people have said that God is God and he is just there. Who said God did not evolve? Who says God is not an alien? Who said that God was not created in the supposed big bang? I don't recall anywhere in religious articles where it tells the origins of God. Not as good as the other one but still fun to read. According to Homer Simpson, when he took the crayon out of his brain, he found the formula that proved there was no God. Flanders immediately burnt it. To answer your question there are a few parts: 1. People feel the need to have a reason to live. Most people don't want to accept that they are here for approx 65 years and then are nothing. Most religions provide an afterlife. 2. Humans are stubborn. Our forefathers died and lived their lives by this and so will we. 3. The Bible does try to teach most of the positive aspects of humanity and has consequences for failure. People can convince themselves that their religion is the best because that is human nature. Religion is a BIG THING. It is one thing you don't want to get wrong. Also, most religions say they are the only right ones. Another aspect is ignorance. 95% of all Americans only know little of more than 3 religions. They might know Mormons can't have caffine or JW come to thier houses but do they know what the ultimate goal of Buddhism is? What about Catholic cardinal sins? Most don't. They are raised to believe in one religion and not others because they are right and people hate to admit that they might even be wrong. Gone for a few days and look what happens at the Senate. 13 more hours and 43 minutes until hockey! Woot. It is 2 AM. I have to get up early. Night all. I will reply to almost everyone and I am pretty sure I made some errors in there. Have fun! BigTeddyPaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 The existence of one omnipotent and supreme being just seems more along the lines of fantasy or hallucations of a race aspiring to cope with what couldn't be explained at the time Have you read Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality. A bit fanatic but you may like it Humans are gods... Morihei Ueshiba Why do so many people in an educated society still find the need to believe in a book that was written 5000 years ago? What is so special about it? It's a bunch of stories created by nomads to justify their own existence and create law and order and a moral standard First Point. Upbringing. It's stupid but it's the clue First 5 years of your life you're out of free will. That's when the worst thing happens. You're told that god's everything and he created you instead your mommy having sex with your daddy on the back seat of their Ferrari and so on. You do not feel it till you're put to the extreme (for example forwarding an suggestion or a new theory). I was forced to memorize some passages from Bible at that age and I cryed at 11 after assuring myself that god doesn' exist. You grow up and you're told that the world wasn't created in 6 days and you feel embarrassed in school for saying that. You only then learn words like metaphor or myth and of course History of the Universe Forums. And from that position Bible is so simple. It says you what to do while in science you have to do everything on your own. It is as simple as that. You can do mistakes and Bible says there are sins for which there's a death penalty. You see a man making mistakes while seduced by The Evil One (Darth Vader? No dear...) and wins at last earning his reward and salvation of his precious soul on the heavens. From this point of view there's no such thing as mistake or sin in science. It is always in move. One miscalculation leads to a new method or even creation of a brand-new idea. Second point. Group Implement. Isn't that obvious. Every human wants to feel that he belongs to something, that is more important than anything else for him: not to feel lost, not to be alone. In our daylife we all find some comunication circles: a job, our home, our hobby, Lucas Forums etc.. Belonging to any of these circles requires understanding of rules on which it all stands. I saw for example a sort of jealousy when I tryed to enter some groups that were unfamiliar with me. They hold a club. You partcipate, you must pay. They do not notice you, you try hard, you learn the rules and finally you succeed. Then you see another Bantha Fodder trying to catch up. You fight your own jealousy to this rookie and then you become best friends. (positive thinking) The competion drives us to fight like our far far away ancestors (bacterias, toads, monkeys, grandpas and ofcourse clowns) did. A very strong human stays alone and feels alright (for a shirt time), others go mad almost instantly. And there is another thing here I'd like to talk about. Extremism (It's not about arabic terrorists). Let's go back to our upbringing and inheretence. If your father was great mathematician or astrophycisit and you've got his genes you're probably to become a matheatician (or a serial killer or anything else). Then if your mommy visitted a sunday church and after spent 10 years in the monastery and then was expelled for homosexual affair and finally got married your father then you're probably to have religious upbringing. In normal situation you would become a mathematician with simple religious beliefs. But your mommy was homosexualist that's why you won't. Something has happened and you were forced to live as a priest. You would live this life with understanding that somehow you're truely good at something else. You would never say it to yourself directly. That's why you go to the library and find near the Bible a small esoteric book hidden. You start to read it and other books and see that these texts about emanations contain some number implications. Then (so many then) you read Tritemiy, become a kabbalist and try to find a way to control the world with some mystique powers of alchemy. That's an extremism resulted from your inheretence, group implementation and ofcourse upbringing. Now think of it and try to change attitude to clowns for the time being Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 first i have mormon friends they can't have coffee they are allowed caffine. now about the tail bone, it is there from evolution. previous stages had little tails, kind of like a hamster or a baboon. in the next stage it will most likely be gone or near being gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 A couple of weeks ago I went to make a copy in my University and got acquainted with 2 professors who were working on the creation of some highly sophisticated diving maschine project and for an instant were discussing the way whales dive on a great depth and stay there for hours. After that these professor were never seen again. I suspected that they work on the government and they mouthed too much to me and were anihilated for that by some alien force. They stopped me and asked if I had a minute to listen, so I did. They said that when was counted the possible depth and time a whale can support the result wasn't original: WHALES CAN'T DIVE. So they spoke about all mammals of this type (dolphins killer whale). The essence of the talk was in the way whale breathes, that there was something than just cellular acidification and there is another way whale actually breath. They also pointed that not only whales were having such anomalies: that yoga can be burried alive and then digged up alive. The body of yoga can outlive by hibernating itself because of their mental control or anything but the brain is in need of oxigen constantly. That's the prolem because I had no time listen the answer to this Can anybody help me in answering? Or just those suckers for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioshee Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul ...You're told that god's everything and he created you instead your mommy having sex with your daddy on the back seat of their Ferrari and so on... Um... what model Ferrari has a back seat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTeddyPaul Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 About the mormons and caffeine I could be wrong. I know they aren't supposed to have soda and coffee so maybe it has something to do with liquids. Mormons are not my strong suit. Maybe you could ask them the rule so I could know for my own person. And about the tail bone just something I throw out there to screw with people's minds. Not neccessarily true or even what I believe in. It is more just something to think about. BigTeddyPaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 faith doesnt say God creates us instead of sex, it says we wre created in spirit and put here by God. and most christian religions eccept the theory of evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTeddyPaul Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Ohhhh. Most Christians believe in evolution. Bold statement. Must be a regional thing because I have found quite the opposite. People refute evolution in Christianity as far as I know. Some believe that God uses evolution to help create us but bunches still believe we have always been like this. I am interested to see responses to that comment. BigTeddyPaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrackan Solo Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 If any non-believers are here, then you should pick up a copy of the book by C.S Lewis Mere Christianity it is a book by an educated man with an interesting approach to the Bible and Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTeddyPaul Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Shouldn't you recommend that to believers or at least tell people that it is more of a Christian book? Atleast tell them you are trying to help convert them instead of tricking them into it. BigTeddyPaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrackan Solo Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Here t is like THrawn studying pictures of races before he engages in military action, it is just a way to learn more about are religion, faith doesnt say God creates us instead of sex, it says we wre created in spirit and put here by God. and most christian religions eccept the theory of evolution Christians dont believe in evolution , and maybe he could get a better view if he reads this book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTeddyPaul Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 And that is where the problem lies. To him he probably honestly feels that most Christians believe in evolution. You don't believe that. I don't know percentages on what the beliefs are but I am sure there is a fair percentage to both or atleast most believe in the possibility of both. I do also believe in learning about most religions to better understand your own but you just told non-believers to read it. That implies to me that you want them to read it and maybe think about it and turn to Christianity. It is just you directed it toward non-believers when it is a pro-christian book. BigTeddyPaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrackan Solo Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Allright I had debated putting that and I guess I should have put everyone, but I just thought that Christians would allready know the stuff, forgive me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.