Fellow minds -
I have noticed several arguements based on whether a god created the universe, or vice versa. I have seen many people say that creation requires a sentient creator. My questions are as follows;
If the universe requires a creator, does its creator also require a creator? If not, why? It seems as if creationists use the arguement both ways, that the universe does, yet the creator of the universe doesn't. If there is something that does not require a creator, how can it be stated that something does require a creator just because it is there?

Regards,
FyreStar

The universe does not "require" a creator, as the universe is comprised of all that exists, including God, who is, was, and always will be. However, certain aspects of the universe exist as a result of God's creative activity, including humans. God brought an orderly universe out of primordial chaos. Humans are the climax of God's creative activity. We resemble God because of the dominion that God gives us over the rest of creation. The rest of "creation" was made by God for human's sake.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 07, 1999).]

FyreStar--

I would turn the question back at you first: "If the big bang is true, and a hypercondensed mass exploded to form the universe we experience, what created that original mass?"

In its most naked form, the debate becomes whether we have a cheerleader force rooting for us in the universe, or if time itself becomes a fiction. If nothing begins--that is, there is no moment of genesis for the universe, then time is arbitrarily fixed, and everything from electron orbits to your daily appointment schedule becomes useless fancy. If, however, we have an omnipotent God watching over us, then much remains to explain the state of things--either God's mystery has nothing to do with people, or it's quite pointless, random, and cruel.

One thing I would urge you to consider when viewing the paradox of faith is that the faithful have faith because they don't think of "having it both ways". One of the nice things about having religious faith is that you are licensed by God to be rude to people. That's a mighty empowerment. If a concept doesn't make sense--that is, if, say, a Biblical principle is utterly violated by conduct of the alleged faithful--then the perpetrating faithful can throw up their hands and say, "It's God's mystery." How could the forcibly illiterate societies of modern Europe oppose the Inquisitions? After all, the cruel priests just held out their hands and said, "It's God's will."

So in that sense I'm always amused by religious creation myths. After all, if we look at the Bible, it's so unclear as to how God created the universe that the writers had to make up two different stories. Furthermore, I asked a pastor who created God, on that very same principle as your question. My answer from this Lutheran preacher was that "We do not ask those questions in God's house." Of course, all the universe is God's house, so there goes the free will to ask questions.

And yes, true, scientists don't know where that original mass came from. But their answer is better: "Stay tuned, we'll let you know." Hey, at least there's a show to make the ticket price palatable. In the Godly theatre, the writers went on strike 2000 years ago, and all of the actors just plain suck.

***

Truestory--

If we remove the capitalization, and make the word "god" instead of the name "God", then there is nothing in your 10/7 post which I can disagree with. But I'd like to ask about one aspect:

I don't understand the notion that "God" (capital G) is a being which resembles humankind. Certainly we resemble the godly image, but only if that image is all the universe and its confines. We cannot be something which the universe will not allow. But when I hear people talking about resemblance and God's relationship with humans, I get that old notion of the bearded guy in a toga and sandals with lightning shooting out of his ears and so on. And that just doesn't work for me.

I'm sure we've exchanged ideas about "god" as a parallel for "universe" somewhere here before. But I'm trying to be a little specific here, so forgive me if I'm asking for the intimate details of your faith. But I simply don't get the image of God that makes us, as godly creations, any more special than worms, ferns, stars or lightning.

Philosophical "resemblance" to god I can understand; I've reached a few hypotheses that have served me well in life. These view the religious world as pre-science, or science without science. That is, a means for reflecting all we have observed as a human race, and all that we know or think or feel. But the physical resemblance is what I have a problem with. Help me out here ... I'd hate to think I'm writing this many words in response to a point I'm missing.

thx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

Tiassa,

The resemblance of mankind to God includes, but is not limited to, the following:

As God has dominion over all things created in the universe, so God has given mankind dominion over the rest of creation.

As the eternal Holy Spirit is a major aspect of God, so God has given mankind an everlasting soul, capable of being filled with the Holy Spirit.

As God has the ability to rebuke Satan (evil), so God has given mankind the ability to rebuke Satan (evil).

As God has the free will to choose everlasting fellowship in the Holy Spirit with the souls of mankind, so God has given mankind the free will to choose everlasting fellowship in the Holy Spirit with God, if that is what one wants.

truestory -
Thank you for avoiding the question. I shall rephrase. Why, in that case, does humanity require a sentient creator, as opposed to a combination of forces in the universe?

tiassa -
Your question is irrelevant. The difference between myself and creationists is that I say "This is my best estimate as to what caused the creation of the universe", and creationists say "God created it". They seem to be certain, yet I see no cause for certainty. That is what I am trying to ferret out. Since you do not seem to be of this persuasion, then I won't redirect my question to you, but thank you for your attempt :)

FyreStar

FyreStar--

Your reply, also, is irrelevant. Thank you for demonstrating that your reading comprehension stopped after the first paragraph. Since you're not so concerned with what goes with the rest of the words, I won't waste any more on you.

Of course, if nobody's opinion is as valid as yours, I guess you don't have a reason to give them due consideration.

--Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

FyreStar,

Believe me, I made no attempt to avoid your question. As a matter of fact, if you think about it, I was one of the few who even attempted to answer your question, albeit not to your satisfaction... Perhaps there is just a misunderstanding.

If the focus is on "sentient" then I would add the following: There is no valid scientific evidence for human consciousness. This leaves some "guessing" about the validity or non-validity of the non-creationist theory.

There is, however, written evidence of the word of God. Taken by itself, there are those who believe the word of God and there are those who doubt it's validity.

Add to this the well-documented life and teachings of Jesus Christ, and we have further evidence of the existence of a "sentient" creator. Given both, the word of God and the well-documented life and teachings of Jesus Christ, there are still those who believe and those who doubt.

Add powerful individual spiritual experiences to the above, which can be explained only through the existence of a higher consciousness, and one comes to the point of certainty.

For example, if you were to have a number of powerful spiritual experiences in the future, then you probably would no longer have to guess. Your best guess-timate would most likely change to a certainty in the existence of a "sentient" creator.

I must caution, however, that you must be as open to the possibility of a "sentient" creator as you are to the possibility of creation through a combination of forces before you can understand what is actually happening.

tiassa -
My comprehension of your post is complete. You simply did not address what I was trying to discover in your reply. I didn't say that your opinions are invalid in some way, simply that they are out of context to this topic. I know the faithful don't think they are having it both ways, that is partly what I am trying to explore. Also, I'm not overly concerned with the bible, because it was written by men, and is the focal point of only some of the major religions. If you would like to continue with the conversation, you are welcome to, but be warned that I am only concerne with what I asked about.

truestory -
There is no "evidence" for the word of god. There are texts written by men attempting to quantify what they perceive as god. You or I could write something and call it the word of god, but it still would not be evidence. I am open to both of these views of creation, and many more, simply because I truly do not know how the universe started. Indeed, that is the crux of what I am asking.. how it is that some people can "know" a creator was involved.

FyreStar

FyreStar--

Ooh, forgive those who see your question in a different perspective than you intended! We would all love to be as relevant as you think we should be.

However, I'm sorry if it's not relevant to you that the question you're asking requires more than a simple yes or no. But asking as fact a question that pertains to the innermost aspects of a person's faith means you're not going to get the most objective answers. We've seen most of the sujbective come through here, so if its faith interpretations you're looking for, you need not even ask the queston.

But if it's objectivity you pursue here, you're not going to find it. To say that the converse or inverse of any philosophical question is irrelevant to the question is just flat out ridiculous. Before you can examine the answers, you have to understand the full implications of the question.

If you think your perspective on the question is so definitive that you have no need to consider perspectives which don't fit your subjective, pretentious template, then you might as well ask an innocent man why he committed murder.

Now, maybe you're not concerned with the Bible because it was written by men, but, aside from American Christianity, I don't see this question really being considered. There are two possible reasons for this, as I see it. Either, A) Sikhs, Muslims, Wiccans, Buddhists, &c. have not yet reached the point in their social evolution where they can afford to consider these questions, or B) they've figured out that the question is paradoxical and have reconciled themselves to the perspective which best accommodates their faith. But take the Bible out of this argument, and you're asking a moot question.

Furthermore, you might want to consider that nobody else in the world has your set of experiences. Therefore, we all are bound to fail to be relevant. Unless, of course, you want to spill the details of your life history, including ridiculous stuff like bedwetting, masturbation, and how many times you fantasized about your mother. Perhaps then we will have the perfect set of experiences to consider when answering your question.

Interpret, comprehend, innovate. Don't just stand there and say "I don't hear you because you're not saying what I want to hear." It's insulting to other people and reveals the lack of thought you've put into the issue.

So if you still care about the answer, it's "Yes with an if," or "No with an if...." Yes the universe requires a creator if you are so instructed to believe as a child. No, the universe does not require a creator if you're anyone who weighs the efficacy of a threat (belive in me or burn) against the efficacy of demonstrable processes (say, the scientific method).

But there is NO definitive answer. Not until you get out there with a camera and a tape recorder and ask God to do an interview for Vanity Fair.

You're only concerned with what you asked about ... hee-hee. That's the sound of an idiot trying to answer the question: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" It's all what you asked about. Or did you think that something like the creation of God was a narrow subject with its own considerations that have nothing to do with anything else?

Or are you one of those people who just likes to tell everyone they don't meet your approval?

Incidentally, your ill-writ, sarcastic response to Truestory was less than appropriate: if you read closely and think just a little bit about how someone's faith affects their decision-making and academic processes, you might notice that the answer you so loathe was about as on the mark as you could possibly want. I rarely agree with what Truestory actually writes, but you're obviously missing a few things if you think the post doesn't properly address your question. Your answer is there, painted with faith. But since you're too busy to do the brainwork yourself ... well, no, I won't speak for Truestory. And I also won't try to interpret that post for you because you really need to learn how to read context.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 08, 1999).]

FyreStar,

It sounds like you are getting frustrated with your search for an answer in this thread. I would ask you to please review the questions which you have posed, and realize that, although they might be related, you have actually asked a number of different questions.

First, you asked: If the universe requires a creator, does its creator also require a creator...?

Next you stated that your question was avoided and you rephrased, asking: Why does humanity require a sentient creator as opposed to a combination of forces in the universe? (You also indicated that you were trying to ferret out the reason why some people are "certain" about creation).

Third, you ask: How is it that some people can "know" a creator was involved.

I'm not sure if you are actually listening to the answers of others or not but, if you are serious in your quest, it might be helpful if you define your terms at this point. Specifically, how to you define "to know"?

As I see it, God is the energy that permeates all things and holds the universe together, down to the last quark. God was not created and cannot be destroyed, but has always existed and will continue to exist throughout eternity (remember the energy conservation principle?). God's laws are the observable, inviolable and immutable laws of physics.

That brings us to the question of how we were created in God's image - a good question, since God doesn't exactly have a body and therefore, has no image.

There are many clues in the Bible as to who our "creators" really were, at least in the general sense. Genesis 1:26 reveals that there was more than one creator: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...".

A number of passages tell us our creators had physical bodies and enjoyed physical pleasures. One example, Genesis 6:1-4 states, "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughers of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Or how about Exodus 33:9-11, which tells us, "And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses. And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door. And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle."

There are hundreds of important clues in the Bible, but seldom do I find anyone who's actually read them.

tiassa -
You obviously took some sort of offense at one of my previous posts. I know you saw the question in a different perspective; that is why I told you it wasn't what I was looking for. Either way, your latest post is even more irrelevant. I'm looking for a discussion of the causes of creation, not blindingly obvious psychological suggestions. You should read my posts with a more objective view point, and consider that you are interpreting hostility where there is none.
By the way, you may note that the one thing you said pertaining to my question in your first post was in accordance with my own beliefs.

truestory -
I would define "to know" in this case, as such a strong feeling of confidence and surety in your belief that you would stake your life on it and tell others about it. I do not *know* a creator was involved. I can accept it as a possibility. I do not *know* that the universe started with the big bang. However, I accept it as a greater possibility because there is observable evidence that man had no hand in. I am trying to find out if others of opposite views have "why"'s and if so, what are they.

Searcher -
Thank you for the response. May I ask what caused you to make that conclusion?

Regards,
FyreStar

FyreStar,

I assume you are asking me how I came to the concusion that God is the energy that permeates the universe and holds it together? It's difficult to explain, but the more I studied physics, the more I felt I was studying about God. I saw many correlations between what I read in my physics books and what I read in the Bible. I suppose what set me on this path was when I learned the energy conservation principle: "Energy is neither created nor destroyed but only changed into other forms". In other words, the same amount of energy that has existed in the universe since the "beginning" exists now and forever.

For me, that was a very mind-boggling and profound idea. From there, I pondered the force causes electrons to orbit the nucleus of an atom, and one atom to combine with another to form a molecule, and how molecules combine to form a seemingly separate, tangible substance, and how many of these make up the earth, which is but one planet that orbits our sun, which is but one sun amonst millions in our galaxy, which is but one galaxy amonst millions in our universe, and so on. I found that one could go either inward or outward indefinitely, and never quite grasp the whole of it. Within our own galaxy, stars are formed and stars die in the way of all things, and yet the energy that keeps it all going like clockwork is forever the same.

Searcher,

The only problem is, the energy in the universe is constantly being "downgraded" from useful energy into waste heat. Ever-increasing entropy in your framework would roughly imply an aging and weakening God, I suppose. It would also imply that God will eventually "die" -- become totally useless and powerless, dissipating into nothingness.

Btw, Tiassa, this applies to you as well (your perception that reality == God).

P.S., Energy or physical nature exhibit no intelligence; they merely obey preset laws in a very predictable fashion. Hardly what I would call a creative force...

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited October 09, 1999).]

Boris,

It would seem to me that the energy in a system is being continuously recycled. One star dies, giving up its heat - and another is born. I believe this constant and eternal cycle of renewal is what is being explained in Ecclesiastes 1:4-11:

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to its circuits.

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

Boris,

Energy or physical nature exhibit no intelligence; they merely obey preset laws in a very predictable fashion. Hardly what I would call a creative force...

Preset by whom? To me, it is the orderliness of the universe that points to an intelligent force operating behind the curtain, so to speak. Whether or not we can accurately observe or comprehend that force is beside the point. I suppose the opposite of predictability would be chaos - would this seem to be more "creative" in your eyes?

I might also point out that what we "know" about our universe is ever-changing. For example, it was once thought that the movement of particles in liquid was completely at random (Brownian law, 1824). But since the advent of computers, we have discovered that particles in liquid actually have a "long-lived memory in motion". The initial speed and direction of a particle's movement is "remembered" collectively by those molecules which collide with the particle. So as the particle continues to bump into the same molecules again and again it is reminded of its initial velocity. Brownian law remained unchallenged for so long, because of the difficulty of observation. What changed is not God, but only the means of observation available to us.

Searcher -
Thank you again for your response; One more question; After the creation of the universe, did your god take an active role in the creation of humanity, or was that a natural occurance of the initial laws?

FyreStar

FyreStar,

I'm not sure whether you are referring to humanity on this earth, or "humanity" wherever it originally began in the universe? I must make clear that I think man was "created" or, more to the point, cloned from other beings who originally came from another planet. I also believe that evolution had already begun on this planet, which made it a suitable habitat for them to carry out their "experiment", if you will. Whether or not they had given evolution a helping hand is another question - I suspect they may very well have done so.

Although it is difficult to be certain of what happened on the "mother" planet, due to lack of evidence, I would tend to believe that those beings had evolved naturally over millions of years.

FyreStar--

I just think that for a question with such broad implications, you are insisting on far too narrow an "answer" to accomplish anything but reinforcing your own notions of what God is or isn't. And yes, I did notice that we agree about a thing or two. That doesn't change the fact that your casual dismissal of people's answers is laughable.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 09, 1999).]

Searcher,

First of all, you seem to not understand the third law of thermodynamics. Nothing gets completely recycled; with every single interaction energy is converted into unusable forms -- it's radiated away as heat. It is this law of thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) that ensures that if the universe does not collapse back upon itself, it will die a cold death.

Secondly, I would hardly call mechanistic behavior of matter and energy indicative of an underlying intelligence. What we observe is essentially a machine at work. Machines typically do not require, nor indeed exhibit, intelligence. Chaos, on the other hand, would indeed indicate an intervening creative force -- because such interventions would be totally unpredictable from our limited viewpoint. As long as we can explain every single observed process in terms of mere physical interactions, we have absolutely no evidence of a creative force.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Hey there, Boris. Once again, your science doesn't explain why, only how. If you ask yourself why, and seek the answer to that question, you WILL find God. I promise. So when is it that you will attempt to answer that question? How many times do I have to ask exactly?

Tiassa,

It really bugs me that you said that people who believe in God have some license to be rude. What a bunch of BS. (oh my, was I being rude?) People are rude regardless of their beliefs, which I think that you have proven in your posts. So, since you are also rude, the inverse would have to be true, and you would have to believe in God, right? Everyone sins, that's the whole flippin' point.

Also, I'd like to add to the discussion of energy, that sin=death. Does that help with the math? I think it does.

Also, truestory, be careful about what you're thinking regarding being clones or hybrids from another planet's species. I myself know that we've been genetically f'd around with. It definately says that in the Bible (your quotes from Genesis). But honey, these were the "bad angels", and the same thing is happening today. Let's not forget that God created us from THIS earth, only after that were we cross-bred with demons. The men of renown were renown, but not necessarily good. In other words, they were not renown in the eyes of God, but in the eyes of humans, just like the Antichrist will be.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

Boris,

I think you might be referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics: it is impossible to move heat, by a cyclical process, from something at lower temperature to something at higher temperature unless work is added to the system. Since any two things at different temperatures brought together will come to equilibrium at the same temperature, with increased entropy for the spontaneous change, to force the heat to move in the opposite direction requires some external source of energy (work) to make up for the change in entropy.

Since you seem to be the expert in the subject, perhaps you could explain how new stars are being formed in our universe all the time?

Lori,

Also, truestory, be careful about what you're thinking regarding being clones or hybrids from another planet's species. I myself know that we've been genetically f'd around with. It definately says that in the Bible (your quotes from Genesis). But honey, these were the "bad angels", and the same thing is happening today. Let's not forget that God created us from THIS earth, only after that were we cross-bred with demons. The men of renown were renown, but not necessarily good. In other words, they were not renown in the eyes of God, but in the eyes of humans, just like the Antichrist will be.

I believe you intended this comment for me, not Truestory. That is kind of what I was hinting at when I said that evolution had begun on this planet before the aliens put us here, and they gave evolution a helping hand. I believe evolution is the way God brings life into being (from the dust of the earth), but I think that beings who are already in existence and have evolved to a certain level, are capable of messing with that - thereby speeding up the process. I think it explains the missing link.

Lori, I agree with you on a lot of things, but I don't necessarily agree with your ideas of who is "good" and who is "bad". God (the real one) created all. It is by our own limited experiences and perspectives that we judge that creation to be good or bad.

For me, que sera, sera. The length of our lives here on this earth is but the twinkling of an eye in the space of eternity, whether we live 1 year or 120 years. Our physical bodies come from dust, as you say, and they will return to dust. I believe that our spiritual beings are but a tiny portion of the energy that exists throughout the universe, and it is there we will return.

Searcher -
This may seem off topic, but bear with me; have you ever played a very old statistics based game called "The game of life"?
(This does have a point :)

tiassa -
I am as uninterested in your opinions of me as I am in your off topic ramblings. I am attempting to discover other people's views on this specific topic. I will not achieve understanding by asking broad based unspecific question. If you have a problem with that, just don't respond. It is that simple. If you want to drop the attitude and respond in context, that would be great. As it is, I'm not going to waste any more of people's time responding to your insolent postsin this topic. So, if you wish to continue with the hostile claptrap, fire away, I shall not rebut.

Regards,
FyreStar

FyreStar,

I don't believe I've heard of it. Please enlighten me.

Lori--

The first draft of this was pages long. Okay, I'd rather it be simpler.

I'm sorry if it bugs you when I say religious people have a license to be rude. If a person's faith compels them to find a certain practice distasteful, it becomes "God's will" that the practice should not be. There's a great scene in the movie "At Play in the Fields of the Lord" in which Kathy Bates tries to put bras on South American tribal girls. Who cares if this culture is running around topless? But it's offensive, and it's "God's will" that they should be dressed.

Something a little more real? While living in Oregon, I heard a woman arguing before a school board that a book should be banned from the high school library because it had a character named "Demon" in it. Never mind what the author is doing. It's God who says demons are evil and God is always right and it's God's will that this book should not be in the public schools. It was, apparently, a violation of the mother's First Amendment rights that her children should go to school in a district that carried a book she found sacriligious.

Why is this woman wasting our time? Because it's God's will, and that's her best excuse.

Or the woman who was researching the addresses of topless dancers around Salem, Oregon? She found the clubs offensive, so she published the names and addresses of the dancers on community access cable and in newsletters in order to invite harassment upon these women. All because it was the Christian thing to do.

So many times when two ideas come into conflict, one side might say "I understand why you think this, but ...." However, if that other side is compelled by religious faith, it has no need to be sympathetic ... it has God on its side.

I find unyielding, unsympathetic persecution of ideas to be rude. And strangely, it seems that certain churches seem to think they have license to persecute ideas. Ergo, a license to be rude.

It's up to the people of the churches to demand better conduct from those who represent them publicly. Elsewise, silence=approval.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

FyreStar--

I owe you a big fat apology.

I'm quite sorry that I could not scale my answer down to a neat little box the way you would like.

I'm sorry if I offended you when I said your reading comprehension stopped after the first paragraph. However, I can't help the fact that it did. If you read your own October 8 post, you might see that you're simply banging your head against a wall. After you tell me I'm irrelevant, you go on to state a situation that A) yes, we agree on, and B) cannot be resolved because of the nature of the question (which is the point you call irrelevant). Faith will stop answering you and start looping over. Period. That's it. That's all I was getting at. I'm sorry if it's irrelevant to you that nobody can give you the answer you're after. Because it's a valid, proper question. But there is NO answer that "creation theory" can give that will not cycle out with its faith.

I'm so sorry I can't see how that's not relevant.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 10, 1999).]

tiassa -
I apologize for responding once more, but I may have found focal point of this misunderstanding; I do not desire the true answer to this question.. I am well aware that nobody can give me that. I am attempting to collect data on people's opinions. I simply want to know what people of opposing viewpoint think. Not a debate, but an inquiry. I also apologize for whatever confusion this may have caused.

FyreStar


[This message has been edited by FyreStar (edited October 10, 1999).]

Sooooooo Tiassa,

You're saying that because "religious" people sin, that the religion is worthless? Excuse me, but as I said before, that is the whole flippin' point of the religion. Don't blame Jesus just because some don't get it. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater??? Believe me...YOU ARE TOTALLY MISSING THE ENTIRE POINT. I mean, how do those people stack up when confronted with the teaching that we are in no position to judge? Oh my, that happens to be a Christian staple teaching that many, many, many tend to ignore for their own ego's sake. Oh well, that must be because we are ALL sinners. Get it?????? Yea, even Christians....duh??

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

Lori,

I believe Searcher is correct because I do not hold the views about cloning and hybrids which you attributed to me.

I would truly appreciate it if you would not address me with terms such as "honey," regardles of whether I am a poster who you think you agree with or not.

do u mind if i call u monkee?

cos im gonna :)

Lori--

I don't blame Jesus because some alleged Christians don't get it. I blame Christians because some Christians don't get it. If the "good Christians"--the ones we never hear from in the public eye--never reel in their soapbox brethren, then what am I, or anyone else, supposed to think?

And it isn't so much a matter of one person sinning within a group. However, since Christians, as a whole, attempt to define "sin", and since their object is to overcome it, it seems odd that so many individual "good Christians" (I'm separating them from the Falwells, Tiltons, &c. of our society) seem complacent while the image of their glorious gift goes prostituted for personal gain.

I recall a recent press circus here in Seattle when a pastor of a large church was arrested and cited for public indecency. That sin didn't even faze me. What bugged me most was the aggressive response of church elders, who slandered the arresting officer and the public officials of the county in which the incident allegedly took place. After claiming false arrest and slander by the authorities, the church elders eventually released a statement that the pastor was dealing with his own demons and had the full support of the church body. End of story. Hmmm ... okay, I can get past the masturbation in a public restroom. But what I can't get past is this vanguard of "holy men" who offer and perpetuate lies to salvage a weakening reputation.

I expect politicians to lie; I would prefer proper politicians, but it's up to the American people as a whole to elect proper leaders. I do not, however, expect the vanguard of godly-enforced "truth" to lie. I find it disturbing.

If I hang out with coke dealers and pimps, should I expect forthrightness? If I am around pious persons, such as clergy or elders, should I expect deceit and calculated manipulation?

I can't change the Christian perspective--I'm not part of it. However, anyone who chooses to take part in the process of Christ does have the power to change the Christian modus operandi.

If I stand in a bar and watch while three men attack a woman, am I guilty in any way? If you stand by while your preacher lies, cheats, or steals to accomplish a "godly" goal, are you guilty in any way?

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

FyreStar--

I'm cool with that. I'll just let it go and make sure not to waste any more of your time.

-Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

TS,

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me.

Tiassa,

I totally agree with everything you wrote in your last post. Totally, word for word. As a matter of fact, that type of behavior is what keeps most Bible-believing Christians away from organized religion. That's why I took the long road, and I'm glad I did. When I was little, I'd go to church with my grandparents, and the preacher drove a Mercedes. Preached about tithes and offerrings like oh 50% of the time spent. I can't tell you how that shit infuriates me. Since then, they've built some absolutely huge "sancutary" to replace the old church, which was huge to begin with, and it's all done in imported marble that I'm sure costs a fortune. Some preachers are really good though. I mean at preaching the word of God. Everyone makes mistakes, but I agree that blatently using the word of God to perpetuate greed and sin is blasphemy. Don't worry, they will get theirs. I can't understand why you would suggest that I involve myself with this type of behavior. You're never gonna catch me praying for a Mercedes and a new Liz suit. That's insane. I watch church on TBN every Sunday. I like Dr. James Kennedy in Ft. Lauderdale (Coral Ridge Presbyterian), and I like to listen to Joyce Meyer "Life in the Word". She's funny. She's a bitch like me. :) I can't stand overly charasmatic preaching. I don't mind enthusiasm, but used appropriately. I read the Bible, and I read other interpretive books. I pray for the truth; guidance from the Holy Spirit. He sent me here of all places. :) My point to you is that the fact that Christians sin, and there are some who only profess to be Christians, but do not surrender their lives to Christ, does not denounce the teachings of the Word. It just takes some praying, some reading, and some common sense. It makes sense. And also, the Word teaches of a personal relationship with Christ. Worship can be done in a closet. Fellowship is very helpful to the spirit, but the less pure it is, the more it drains your strength in spirit, which is actually achieving the opposite effect of what true fellowship is supposed to do, which is fill and strengthen and nuture the spirit. That exists in this world, it's just that the lady with the big-ass hair, and a bottle of mascara on each eyelash gets all the attention. Ugh.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited October 11, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited October 15, 1999).]

Hey all,
I am new here and this will be one of few comments I make, so I am going to try and put as much in here as possible.

First off, I am a Christian and a creationist. I believe that God (with a CAPITAL G) gave a vision to a human a long time ago, and he, in his best words described creation.

Take a look if you don't believe me. He says waters, but think, in space doesn't gas in a neblua have a liquid look to it. So let's say that the nebular theory is correct. That explains much of creation in the first chapter. The light before the sun, the desert in chpt. 2 and waters in chpt. 1. I am not a scientist, but this works! Also, everyone always says there are 2 creation stories, but if I am not mistaken, in Chapter 2, the animals and the garden HAD been created. Does the use of the past tense of that verb strike anyone else?

Let's see, so now we are to my favorite part: Human Creation! How did God do it? I have no idea!! and I love it! Gives me a reason to get to heaven. Were there literal hands? Again I don't know, but I do know that God had a part in it

(OH! As a side note, any Christian who tells you that they have a license to be rude is dead wrong! We are called to love everyone even if they do the worst thing possible and refuse Christ.)

Now where was I? oh yes, as for aliens and clones, I don't know of any scripture that proves or disproves that directly, so I will wait ask God when I see him.

Finally, just in case anyone out there thinks we are all just a fluke. I present the second law of Thermodynamics. It in general states that everything works toward entropy or everything gets worse and worse as time goes on so how do organisms form and get better and better without help from a creator. Any light you can shed on this will be greatly appreciated.

Now while I have been blunt I hope I have not made anyone mad. If I have I apologize. Lastly, I want to share my opinion on Christianity. I hear it constantly referred to as a religion, but in religions acts and deeds are part of what gets you to the reward. Christianity asks nothing but that you believe. So it is therefore not a religion, but a lifestyle. I hope this clarifies some of the issues put forth on this board. I will be interested in hearing your replies.

Yours in Christ,
plain_insane for the Lord!

Hello la monkee, im new to this board today aswell

I hope to do some shamblin in some posts with ya :)

------------------
Im a shambles, but Im Gods shambles!!

Searcher,

Pardon about the number, but Second Law it is. And stars form because the universe has far from exhausted its reservoirs of available energy. However, when most of the hydrogen is fused into heavier elements, when most of matter either radioactively decays or ends up inside black holes, when the last rays of reddened gasps of anscient stars travel lonely through the cosmos, the universe will indeed face a slow and chilling death.

It's nice while the fire is still burning; however, the fuel is bound to eventually run out. It's not really all that hard to see.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Welcome Plain_Insane and thank you. Christianity is a lifestyle and not a religion... very good explanation for those Christians who do not belong to an "organized" religion.

Nice to meet you.

Hi, Tiassa

In answer to your questions:

"If I stand in a bar and watch while three men attack a woman, am I guilty in any way? If you stand by while your preacher lies, cheats, or steals to accomplish a "godly" goal, are you guilty in any way?"

I opine YES, in both situations.

Truestory--

Exactly. Well, I think.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

"If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great architect, then I consent to be called a fool."

-- Voltaire

quote (some day I'll figure how to do it right)

"If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great architect, then I consent to be called a fool."

-- Voltaire

This is a loaded quote. You see, a watch does NOT prove the existence of a watch maker, it is simply common knowledge that watchs are made by watchmakers. Further, this is an OBSERVED process. I don't think any human has observed the making of a universe. I think Voltaire was right to consent to being called a fool.

plain_insane, regarding entropy versus improvement of the species, there are two reasons why these are different topics. One, the role of a living organism is generally to fight entropy (by one difinition). Two, it can also be a question of timescale. The universe is extremely old relative to the amount of time life has been on earth. The proposed entropic death of the universe is also way down the road, making life on Earth seem like less than a blink of an eye. Therefore, I think that there is no point of comparison.



------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain

Pookums,
Great response! I am glad to hear how you feel, but I think you missed the heart of what I said.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not just concern the entropic death of the universe. It also explains why mechanical parts of a machine wear out. The timescale can be small or large. So if things wear down or wear out, how does that imply, not improvements, but literally creation of life.

Also if the role of a living organism is to fight entropy, life had to have had a way to be created without the effects of entropy in the first place or else entropy would never allow non-living things to become living. It would wear out the non-living parts before living organisms which fight entropy could be formed.

Plain_insane

Pookums,

Considering the uniqueness and the age of the universe, common sense tells you that its creation could not possibly be "observed" by modern man.

There are many watches in existence today. Although there are some who have observed a watch being made, there are others who have not. Take someone who has never observed a watch being made, they see a watch, and they believe it was made by a watchmaker because others have told them that that is how watches come into being.

As far as "creation" is concerned, it is not a repeatedly observable process because it is not a "common" event. Therein lies the problem for some of us common people who need to "see" in order to believe. Yet, God has given us the knowledge that we need to understand how the universe came to be. The majority of people on this earth understand, through the Word of God and through observation of God's great works in their everyday lives, that God created the universe... Therefore, it could be considered common knowledge that the world was created by God.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 13, 1999).]

Truestory,

Your logic is not sound in that you are comparing something that is easily empirically provable with something that is based on concept and theory. If someone has not observed a watch being made, this problem is relatively easy to remedy. If someone accepts as a fact that a watch is made by a watchmaker because they were told, at least this is an observed event.

On the other side of the coin, we have the universe. As I said (and you agree) that any process of creation of this universe is not an observed event by humans. Therefore, all ideas on how/whether it was created are based on conjecture. Therefore, 'common' man is free to make up their own mind on how/whether it was formed. The idea that a god has given us the knowledge is based on the assumption that there is a god to give such information. 'Deus in machina' is a difficult pill for me to swallow.

quote:
"Therefore, it could be considered common knowledge that the world was created by God."

Gee, I guess I'm uncommon. A belief, without data-no matter HOW MANY people believe it, does not make it true, but makes it a belief. Voltaire put the cart before the horse, as you seem to do also.

Plain_insane,

Thanks for the reply. Your question is sound, but may well also be answered with the time-frame question. Entropy is a prolonged event, while life is extremely short in a relative sense.

I'm not a pro at this, but let me give it a shot. First, one of the accepted goals of a life-form is to perpetuate self. Lets say that in the primordial soup, molecules were formed and dissolved based random events; the 2nd law would say that these events would tend to remain random and chaotic. Let's say that random events lead to formation of a molecule (e.g. amino acids) that is able to withstand the environment and actually perpetuate itself. This molecule would do so and rapidly and become a dominant force. Further, improvements upon this new stable molecule might also increase the survival of these new forms. If this seems as if it is an unreasonable assumption, there are modern examples of such a thing (prions).

Granted, hypotheses such as the above are also strongly based on conjecture. My only point is that the 'benevolent creator' idea is not the only idea out there and the other hypotheses are not only reasonable, but often have scientific precidence, where the creationist idea does not and cannot.


------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain

Pookums,

If you are firm in your belief of empiricism and you totally deny the existence of non-empirical knowledge, then yes, I can see how you would not understand.

However, I do not believe "empirical" to be a condition of "common knowledge". Common empirical knowledge?

You might want to consider this, though... We have been told by God, who was the unique observer of the creation of the universe...


[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 15, 1999).]

truestory-- If God didn't create us, what is your theory?

ts,

I never said that I didn't understand; I said that I didn't AGREE. There is a big difference. Sure you can call me what you wish and if it makes you feel better to think that I am someone who insists on empirical evidence, fine. However, since a large number of your posts consist of actually quotes from others, I could call you a dogmatic tape recorder doing little thinking for themselves...but I won't. ; )

I never said that empiricism is neccesary for 'common knowledge', I said that a 'common belief' does not make it a fact. Giving it a thought though, I will say it now...the difference between common knowledge and a common belief IS empircism. By definition, without proof, it MUST be a belief.

Lastly, please refrain from putting words in my mouth; I resent it. It is rare that I post anything regarding my personal beleifs, I simply am stating the fact that there are alternatives that do not require a creator.

Bye the way, which god(s) do you mean? A number of them throughout the years have stated how the universe was created.

------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain

Oooooooh, Pookums... Them there sound like fightin' words to me...???

1. If you look back at my previous posts, then you will find that I did not "call" you anything.

2. I did not say that you did not understand. I used an "IF, THEN" statement.

3. Whether or not you insist on empirical evidence has no bearing on my feelings.

4. Your attempt to ridicule me didn't work.

5. I didn't say that you said that empiricism is necessary for 'common knowledge' - I said that I believed it wasn't and indicated by a question mark (?) that I was asking what you believed because, at the time, I thought it would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

6. As you can see, I put no words into your mouth. If I had, then I would be able to somewhat understand the level of your resentment.

7. If, as you say, you were "simply stating the fact that there are alternatives that do not require a creator," then I do not think that this thread would have deteriorated to the level of "fightin' words."

8. To answer your question, I mean God, the Father. This was also verified through the testimony of the son, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. They are actually one in the same.