Re: Alternative to sibling marriage Your comments reveal a need for instruction on the Truths of Revelation and Scriptural exegesis. You should read the ancient commentators: God allowed for Adam and Eve to procreate, without guilt of incest, because the natural Law was allowed suspension under these conditions, so that Mankind could populate the Earth. Cain knew that his parents would live long, as long as 9oo years, and their descendents would be many, he was looking ahead in expectation of being hunted down. In the Antediluvian era, God allowed early men to have many wives (polygamy), in order that the Earth, which he created for the good of Man, be populated and thus glorify God in His image. Later, the indulgence for polygamy was cancelled, just as the indulgence for divorce (that Moses had given) was later cancelled by Christ Our Lord, who forbade divorce, having opened up the dispensation of Grace. Take care to speak of Adam and Eve, mother of the human race with respect, since they are your great grandparents. The ancient Egyptians, also descendants of Adam, fell into the sin of polytheism and worshipped false gods. Yet they were not without Wisdom and God's guidance, tho they had lost the original content of TRUE MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION. Reformers like Akhenaton Pharoah did not have the grace to bring them back to the Truth. Those pagans were wise enough, however, to see the true Faith when it was revealled to them by the Apostles. They threw down their false gods of wood and stone and became some of the greatest Christians the world has ever known, developing early monasticism. Modern Man on the otherhand, in his Hubris, searches for other gods, being unsatisfied with the Christ. To this end he shall merit his condemnation unless he turns toward GOD and BELIEVES.
hey all but society nurtures greater knoledge and security than that of a cheekturning person? or is cheek turning a missunderstanding? i dont understand why god would allow the such festering of evil on such a grande scale ? it makes no sence to believe he has the power to change this! thoughts?
Like with like ... <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> <i>Originally posted by Lawdog:</i> God allowed for Adam and Eve to procreate, without guilt of incest, because the natural Law was allowed suspension under these conditions, so that Mankind could populate the Earth. <hr> </blockquote> God, what an amazingly contradictory deity, eh? Prior to spewing forth Thou shalt's and Thou shalt not's, He makes sure he <i>bypasses</i> those next-generation commandments as long as He is able. Incest is bad? That's okay, because it's not technically bad until God says it is. In fact, it's rather fun and a great way to make sure that mothers and daughters and sons and fathers can <i>c</i>opulate the planet--just until God says, "You know that thing you've been doing, that I permitted? You know, where your son was boinking your wife, who just so happens to be his mother? Yeah, that. Well, no more. It had its function in its day, but since there's enough of you, try to stay monogamous, okay?" <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> In the Antediluvian era, God allowed early men to have many wives (polygamy), in order that the Earth, which he created for the good of Man, be populated and thus glorify God in His image. <hr> </blockquote> Hmm, do you think God also allowed women the practice of polyandry (more than one husband)? Probably not. Perfectly justifiable for men to have multiple wives so they could <i>spread</i> their seed over a wider field, so to speak. So, God was basically saying, "Men go to town; Women, let them." My, what a nice, non-favoritism type of God. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> Take care to speak of Adam and Eve, mother of the human race with respect, since they are your great grandparents. <hr> </blockquote> If, by Adam and Eve, you mean those first hominids that were the original stock from which this planet has been populated then, yes, I will take care to speak of them. There seems to be a discrepancy between what others seem worthy to insult. Atheists and agnostics are not showing proper respect when they insult the belief system of religionists. But, are religionists showing respect for non-believers when they spout such claims, which are surely against what atheists and agnostics <i>believe</i>? Guess what, Lawdog? I'll show your belief systems the <b>exact</b> respect you show mine. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> The ancient Egyptians, also descendants of Adam, fell into the sin of polytheism and worshipped false gods. Yet they were not without Wisdom and God's guidance, tho they had lost the original content of TRUE MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION. <hr> </blockquote> So, wait a second. God the Father is a God, correct? Yeah, in agreeance on that, I see. But what about Christ? Even if he isn't a God right now, does that necessarily mean that he won't be in the future? But, hey, that can't be, because that would be akin to the ancient Egyptians and their polytheistic world view. So many Gods, so little time ... (try telling that to Hindus). <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> Those pagans were wise enough, however, to see the true Faith when it was revealled to them by the Apostles. They threw down their false gods of wood and stone and became some of the greatest Christians the world has ever known, developing early monasticism. <hr> </blockquote> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said <b>masogynism</b>. Silly me. Ever read some of those epistles? Sounds like quite a bit of male-dominated (female-subservient) attitudes, don't you think? But, then, that's what God is right? I mean, could the Christian God be a female? Heavens no. God gives the good guys out there a bad rep. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> Modern Man on the otherhand, in his Hubris, searches for other gods, being unsatisfied with the Christ. To this end he shall merit his condemnation unless he turns toward GOD and BELIEVES. <hr> </blockquote> The Christ. Such a great example to us all. Literally. Follow his example and turn away from Pharisaic rituals (Christianity), throw out the money-changers (Christians), think differently and tread your own path. Say, you know what? I BELIEVE I'll follow Christ's example and <b>NOT</b> turn towards God.
Re: Like with like ... God, what an amazingly contradictory deity, eh? Prior to spewing forth Thou shalt's and Thou shalt not's, He makes sure he <i>bypasses</i> those next-generation commandments as long as He is able. Incest is bad? That's okay, because it's not technically bad until God says it is. In fact, it's rather fun and a great way to make sure that mothers and daughters and sons and fathers can <i>c</i>opulate the planet--just until God says, "You know that thing you've been doing, that I permitted? You know, where your son was boinking your wife, who just so happens to be his mother? Yeah, that. Well, no more. It had its function in its day, but since there's enough of you, try to stay monogamous, okay?" RESPONSE: Man's intellect, with all its capacity, is unable to comprehend the vast purposes of God. In comparison Man's intellect, being finite, is infinitely greater. Perhaps you could compare a grasshopper "mind' to a Man's mind, yet this does not suffice. Thus when you speak of the great Mystery of the relationship between Man and Woman, and do so as if the limitations of each did not exist, or that God did not establish the order that Holy Tradition confirms, you speak contrary to the Natural Order, and enter into the danger of clouding your intellect in false doctrine, and even worse. perverse conclusions. What God has seen fit to ordain among the first humans may not be readily grasped by our minds, weakened as they are by Original Sin. Nevertheless, although you are not required to accept the explanation I have given for primordial procreation and repopulation, it is necessary that you contemplate how you will accept the Revealed Truth of our original two parents. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> In the Antediluvian era, God allowed early men to have many wives (polygamy), in order that the Earth, which he created for the good of Man, be populated and thus glorify God in His image. <hr> </blockquote> Hmm, do you think God also allowed women the practice of polyandry (more than one husband)? Probably not. Perfectly justifiable for men to have multiple wives so they could <i>spread</i> their seed over a wider field, so to speak. So, God was basically saying, "Men go to town; Women, let them." My, what a nice, non-favoritism type of God. RESPONSE: What often seems unfair to Man is in reality the mysterious Justice and Mercy of God. The Mind of God is as far above Man's as the Heavens are above the Earth. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> Take care to speak of Adam and Eve, mother of the human race with respect, since they are your great grandparents. <hr> </blockquote> If, by Adam and Eve, you mean those first hominids that were the original stock from which this planet has been populated then, yes, I will take care to speak of them. There seems to be a discrepancy between what others seem worthy to insult. Atheists and agnostics are not showing proper respect when they insult the belief system of religionists. But, are religionists showing respect for non-believers when they spout such claims, which are surely against what atheists and agnostics RESPONSE: It is not our right to speak with respect about the false doctrines of unbelievers,which is contrary to our Faith, in fact we are obligated to scorn such opinions, especially those who deny the very existance of Our Lord. Although we are obligated to respect them (as persons). So, wait a second. God the Father is a God, RESP: God the Father is GOD, the Only TRUE GOD. correct? Yeah, in agreeance on that, I see. But what about Christ? Even if he isn't a God right now, does that necessarily mean that he won't be in the future? But, hey, that can't be, because that would be akin to the ancient Egyptians and their polytheistic world view. So many Gods, so little time ... (try telling that to Hindus). RESP: THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT,that is the Trinity, ONE GOD, Three persons. A Holy Mystery. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said <b>masogynism</b>. Silly me. Ever read some of those epistles? Sounds like quite a bit of male-dominated (female-subservient) attitudes, don't you think? But, then, that's what God is right? I mean, could the Christian God be a female? Heavens no. God gives the good guys out there a bad rep. RESP: The distortions concerning the relations between male/female which you entertain is from ignorance of the Natural Law established by God, as well as misconceptions about ancient Hebrew custom. We do not hold that God himself is male or female, but He Tradition affirms that He wishes to be spoken of as male, as well we know the Our Lord was a Man. The Christ. Such a great example to us all. Literally. Follow his example and turn away from Pharisaic rituals (Christianity), throw out the money-changers (Christians), think differently and tread your own path. Say, you know what? I BELIEVE I'll follow Christ's example and <b>NOT</b> turn towards God. [/B][/QUOTE] RESP: He who believes and does the will of God shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned.... -Christ
hey all Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! pragmathen you raise some very important points! why is it that most religons hold the male in dominance of the female? to follow this "doctrine" is to take what you want! so hence rape is not possible! maybe we were wrong to give women the vote? lawdog..... ^ your thoughts? and one more question re>diff between men and women are men mentaly superior? are women too ficle-hence fasion-hence make-up-hence materialism? are men the anti / control when in a dominent position? does a real man take what he wants? thoughts?????? groove on all Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
shovelicious Wow, Lawdog ... that's uh ... well, a load of horsepucky. I mean, wow. Wow. Creation ex nihlo Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4000 Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam New York: Knopf, 1994. (pp. 100-101) A couple of notes: The "turbulent events" of the fourth century, at least, included a political fight between Athanasius and Arius that resulted in the formation of the Trinity and the inclusion of the Holy Spirit--nearly as a device to quell one side of the debate--in last line the Nicene Creed. Furthermore, though Armstrong contrasts Origen and Clement (ca. 3rd century) against the ninth century, we see the rise of Tony1's hated Catholocism in the Council at Nicaea: "Athanasius managed to impose his theology on the delegates and, with the emperor breathing down their necks, only Arius and two of his brave companions refused to sign his Creed. This made creation ex nihilo an official Christian doctrine for the first time, insisting that Christ was no mere creature or aeon. The Creator and Redeemer were one." (Armstrong, 110) Furthermore, Armstrong note (p. 107) that the debate started with Arius, presbyter of Alexandria, asking, how could Jesus Christ have been God in the same way as God the Father? Arius did not deny Christ's divinity (consider here that to assert that Christ was not fully human would, eventually, become a heresy called docetism); rather, the presbyter argued that it was blasphemous to think that Jesus was divine by nature: Jesus had specifically said that the Father was greater than he. Armstrong's account further notes that while "Today Arius' name is a byword for heresy, but when the conflict broke out there was no officially orthodox position and it was by no means certain why or even whether Arius was wrong." (p. 108) Arius constructed powerful arguments using accepted Biblical interpretations to demonstrate his case. Athanasius' response was largely political and not intellectual: Footnotes on the above: [9] Athanasius, Against the Heathen, 41. [10] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 54. (These footnotes are to be found on p. 414 of Armstrong's book.) You will note that Athanasius is said to have argued a concept which would, eventually, become a heresy. Arius made the Biblical argument, and politics won out, as the Church adopted a doctrinal policy built upon justifications that, when expressed independently of this argument, would be called heretical by that same church body. Docetism asserts that Christ was not fully human, and that he was of divine nature; the objection to this is apparently that such a state would reduce Christ's suffering, and illegitimize the passion, death, and subsequent resurrection. And the lot of that is just there to point out the notion that ex nihilo derived from necessary questions about the relationship 'twixt God and Jesus. Arius was, in fact, accepting of the ex nihilo construction. Armstrong notes amid this theological comedy (p. 108) that though Arius, Athanasius, and others of the time believed that scripture justified this idea, Genesis does not claim creation from nothing, but rather primordial chaos. "[The] notion that God had summoned the whole universe from an absolute vacuum was entirely new." Ex nihilo "emphasized this view of the cosmos as quintessentially frail and utterly dependent upon God for being and life ....There was no longer a great chain of being emanating eternally from God; there was no longer an intermediate world of spiritual beings who transmitted the divine mana to the world. Men and women could no longer ascend the chain of being to God by their own efforts. Only the God who had drawn them from nothingness in the first place and kept them perpetually in being could ensure their eternal salvation." (p. 108) Thus we see the importance of Athanasius' need for the Redeemer to be divine. For in no way was it acceptable to him that Jesus should be a frail human of mortal device. Thus we see the employment of the Docetist heresy (http://newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm) by Athanasius to justify the first doctrinal assertion of creation ex nihilo. It seems that ex nihilo is a misconception at best, a calculated political slight perhaps. Emanation would, should God be demonstrated and proven, conform more to how the Universe of God's Creation seems to work. (Put a piece of ice on a saucer and watch it; at its center is frozen water--ice; on its surface is liquid water; about it in the air is the vapor of that liquid water. This is much like emanation from the divine center down the Tree until one reaches the mortal kingdom.) Just for the sake of diversity, though, I offer a link discussing the problems of ex nihilo that comes from a perspective quite removed from mine: http://www.angelfire.com/ga/kevgram3/Xnihilo.html Philosophically one can justify that an Inquisition, Purge, genocide, plantation, reservation, tyranny, or prison is an act of holy love. Theologically, one can can demonstrate that the Devil is a holy servant of God in good standing. I would love to hear the impossibility of Evolution that doesn't start with a mess of unobservable, untestable assumptions. Frankly, I don't understand how most holy texts seem to crumble under a scrutiny that many faithful would resent the subjection of their perfect God to. Perhaps most amusing is that often, religions with the potential to be useful fail to do so because the faithful will not scrutinize in themselves what they will imagine in those they hate. Like, say, the Flood? It's plagiarized. Not colored or influenced: ripped off. As a cultural tradition, this is fine. As authoritative information, it's balderdash. Robert J Wenke, a University of Washington professor, includes in the third edition of his text, Patterns in Prehistory: Humankind's First Three-Million Years (New York/Oxford: Oxford Press, 1990) a few similarities 'twixt the Biblical flood and a Babylonian cuneiform predating the Old Testament by "thousands of years." (p. 354) * Babylonian: 1) The gods decide to make a flood; 2) The God Ea warns Artahasis to build a ship; 3) He is to take his family and animals aboard; 4) The flood turns mankind into clay; 5) The ship grounds on Mount Nisir; 6) Ataharsis learns when the waters have subsided by sending out a dove, a swallow, and a raven; 7) He offers sacrifice to the gods; 8) The gods smell the sweet savor; 9) The god Enlil blesses Artarhasis and his wife. * Genesis: 1) The Lord decides to destroy wicked mankind; 2) The Lord warns Noah to build an ark; 3) Noah is to take his family and animals aboard; 4) The flood destroys all flesh; 5) The ark comes to rest on the Ararat Mountains; 6) Noah learns when the waters have subsided by sending out a dove, a swallow, and a raven; 7) He offers sacrifice to the Lord; 8) The Lord smells the pleasing odor; 9) God blesses Noah and his sons. An interesting bit on Jesus, and I have accented with boldface: The legends surrounding the lives of all Avatars are similar. All of them have a symbolical meaning and should be so interpreted. As Jesus was an Avatar, it is natural that the legends with which we are all familiar should correspond in every way with those of his predecessors. This is to be found at: http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting/jesustwo.html Sayings, life events, archetype ... Well, that's an article of faith. Some of that "history" predates the Jews specifically. Abraham? Hello? Given Judaism developed, among its sects and before the time of Christ, at least three tales of the fall of a devil from heaven. For what reason did the Jews "stop" recording the works of God, anyway? Or, rather, did God stop performing for the Jewish record? Oh, that's right ... God has taken his covenant back from the Jews and given it to Jesus' worshippers. I highly recommend Elaine Pagels' The Origin of Satan, which offers quite a bit for such a trim volume, includes some regarding pre-Christian apocalyptic Judaism, and undertakes the relationship of Judaism, Christianity, and notions of the Devil for its primary theme. The result of Dr Pagels' book, though, speaks much against literal interpretation of the Bible. From the sixth edition of the Columbia Encyclopedia http://www.bartleby.com/65/ju/Judaism.html Or it could be that it's mythical and allegorical in its historical representation. Throw me a bone here, because I've never heard this factoid: Who the heck wrote the Book of Genesis in order for it to be accurate? Really! God, Adam, Eve ... whence comes the author? So that's where Torquemada got it! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Truly, though, such idiocies occasionally come up in other religions, too. I generally find this to be one of the most damaging aspects of religion throughout human history. How literally are we reading the Bible? * http://www.2think.org/hii/flood.shtml ... did I mention that the story of Noah's Ark is a plagiarism? I like this note, though: That's why Sophia is Wisdom. * Was the flood global or local? I have heard a number of tales of the Ark found, yet the evidence supports only a local flood around a given area, and hardly the genocidal deluge intended by God; these could be anybody's boats, but it's a boat and it's an archaeological find: it must, therefore, according to certain Christians, be Noah's Ark. * I wanted to read the page at TrusttheBible.com ( http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/origins/canopy.txt ) that discusses the problems of the water canopy around the earth, and also a page of difficulties found in establishing a global flood. ( http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/origins/faq-noahs-ark.txt ) At present, I am being refused access to these links by their server: "Forbidden." Once again, Christians seem not to want to state their scientific "rationality"; it creates a problem for the literalists--who require a global flood, and those who recognize that their god gave them a brain for a reason and accept local floods of this or that river, sea, or otherwise. And I haven't even touched yet on "all powerful and all good", which creates a massive paradox. I would ask you, Lawdog, as an advocate of Christianity, your official perspective of the Devil/Antichrist/Satan/Lucifer being that confues so much Christian theology yet still plagues the consciences of so many people of Christian faith who have no idea of the significance of such a character. Let me say that if God is all powerful, whence comes the Devil's authority? Does this imply that there are regions of the Universe outside God's authority? Hardly, according to the faithful. Does this imply that God directly wills the Devil's actions, and therefore evil? Though it would seem so, this also is something which the faithful consider inappropriate. If God is all good, then how can God be directly responsible for evil? Perhaps evil is a relative, human-borne standard? What, of course, does this say about God's authority, then? All powerful and all good is a massive paradox for anything operating in creation. While all things are allegedly possible with God, the Holy Most High cannot do things which are by definition, impossible: the classic arguments are whether God can make a stone too heavy for Him to lift, and also the idea that God cannot make a square circle. Both of these require rearrangements of definitions: a square and circle cannot be one and the same; God, for whom nothing is impossible, cannot create a condition whereby something becomes impossible. Yet Good and Evil are definitions which seem to derive from God, and therefore are not, by Christian faith, human standards. The theology requires certain things of God, and that's why Christianity has never resolved its Devil, its notions of moral propriety, nor its alleged simplicity of acceptance and comprehension. It is, in short, why Christians can live their entire lives working toward sinful results, and believe themselves utterly in the Lord's good Will. Sure. Of a Babylonian event predating the rise of the Hebrews, and thus predating that Biblical history which you have asserted cannot be corrupt based solely on your observations of human nature. Specifically, when are Christians called to be cruel, immoral, or hateful? Rather, that appears so ... well, wrong according to Jesus ... that I must be reading it wrong. The two sentences joining those words in the paragraph provide little illumination, except for your assertion that one is self-centered unless they believe they're being nice for God's benefit. And that .... well, again, I'm pretty sure I'm reading a different meaning than you intended. Right. I must disagree here, and will base my objections on a separation of perception 'twixt you and I. When Christians send missionaries forth to blanche other cultures with the Word of God, they are assuming superiority, both intellectual and moral: the missionary assumes that he carries a greater truth and a greater intellect, and is morally obliged to educate others in this superior way. This is a superiority complex. It couldn't be any more direct or naked. One of the nice things about not believing in the Christian version of god is that I can make the human institution the focus of my attention. Given the track record of society under the Christian vanguard, we might wonder at the authority established by God and what it creates in humankind. The first order of life is survival; as a species we must continue to regard our perpetuity in nature. Hither have we arrived, and that track record indicates that much of Christian belief bears serious functional disagreements with the present state of the human race. The human race will continue to address its needs, through whatever psychoses we wish to inflict upon ourselves in order to get the job done. Often, this involves things objectionable to people of Christian faith: needle exchanges, condom availabity to and sex education for youth, deeper thought on abortion, and a taming of notions of moral grandeur which inspire so many to evangelize to people to tell them they're stupid, wrong, or immoral. We the people of the human race will get by, and whether Christianity accompanies us along this adventure is entirely up to Christians. If faith creates a great enough detriment to human progress, that faith will disappear by proxy of "evolution", specifically the social evolution that determines the merit of societal aspects based upon their functional harmony with species perpetuity. Right now, the idiosyncracies of the Christian deity require too many assumptions before establishing divine creation. There are definitions of the word god whereby I will concede a sense of "creation", though this should surprise none familiar with the declaration that God is greater than that which can be conceived. However, once we recognize the word god as containing every thing in the Universe and all of "creation" then we see that God is simply everything there is, and we can sack the divisive religions that attempt to reduce God to affinity. If God is, therefore, everything there is, then fine, his greatest miracle is this Universe whence we humans have evolved. Evolution is a scientific theory based on observations. Evolution only comes in conflict with theology when religionists assert that humans cannot have evolved. Consider that the deductive reasoning upon which evolutionism concludes human evolution (regardless of its physical evidence and the complaints of a lack thereof) is the same deductive process upon which Christian theology is built; there is the Bible itself, the long work of the Catholics, and the agreements and disagreements therein cited by the Protestant reformation. It all starts with assumptions gleaned from a book; even modern-day anti-Catholic sentiment--such as that found among portions of Seventh-Day Adventism, or to be found within Chick Ministries (read the note below before you visit this site http://www.chick.com ), a ministry based on cowardice and surrpetitious distribution of the Word of the Lord whose pamphlets I can't seem to escape in this world--relies on certain post-Biblical derivations incorporated into the Catholic structure (e.g. The Didache, which has the temerity to correct Jesus Christ). Theistic assumptions are mostly beyond demonstration; scientific assumptions are just that: a declaration of purpose--it is unacceptable for science to sit on its haunches and accept any principle; have all the bone-diggers gone home? Important note on Chick Ministries: I might also here note that the current Chick comic The Promise blames mideast violence on Abraham ... http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5004/5004_01.asp ... and contains sharp criticisms of the patriarch's faith in God. This started as a parenthetic note to add Judaism to the list of Abramic religions which Chick Ministries propagandizes against, in addition to Catholocism. However, there are additional reasons why I have made this an important note. As I navigated the website I had an amusing moment whereby and advert box popped up offering me bikini-TV. Believe me, that made me grin. But as I continued to navigate through the page, my browser continued launching advertisements; two blank pop-up windows provided me a new user experience: they refused to come to the top layer to be closed, and I eventually just killed the entire browser and reopened the application. (Anyone know how to write these things, or what they're for? Their lack of data for display and their curious behavior and resistance to being closed--after you close all other browser windows and leave this one as the top layer, the close window square actually launches another of these obnoxious window--intrigues me.) End-all, it's just odd and frustrating. Back to matters at hand: Theology was a great proving ground for certain logical formulae; however, theology has never evolved in its own right and resolved the fester of a priori from which it has arisen. Many Christian philosophers have done great work regarding the nature of that which we call God; their underlying fault is that by attributing to this thing called God a set of specific characteristics, they have limited not only the scope of argument, but also the God itself. Theology still has certain potentials, but the opportunity to exploit those potentials to the benefit of the human race is dwindling. By and large, though, theology is detrimental to the natural sciences, of which the evolution in question is a part. Okay, Lawdog. Whatever. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, I seem to recall the bit about the Ark. Seriously, read around some ... try authors like Elaine Pagels or Karen Armstrong, whose first purpose is not to simply reaffirm your faith, but rather to tell you what we know of the history of that faith. Here's a place to start: * http://www.pe.net/~bidstrup/bible.htm is the source. Maybe the dinosaurs were environmentalists. Quite obviously, those things that remain are preserved according to a natural but statistically unusual process. The natural course of the planet is to consume what we give back to it as best it can. It would slay me to think that creationists believe the biodegradable plastic bag is a hallmark of society; nothing lasts forever on this planet, and even stars die. What is ascientific about making a conclusion and verifying it and then applying it until it fails to operate correctly? That is, I believe, the process. How would you suggest they correct this error you've identified? Okay ... hold on, hold on .... What?! Where the heck to the humanoid giants fit into it? I mean... yeah. Um .... Damn. Okay, I'm going to stop on that because I'm far enough behind the posts. But there must be a pony in here somewhere. Wow. That is the whole of my editorial comment: Wow. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
hey all well tiassa you show one, and all, 'the reasons' of the flawed concept of religouse doctrine to discorage women from being equal. your too much competition Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and the fragile male ego is tarnished more so if it were to strike you down Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! where frontal fluiditiy falls short Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! you sound like you are about 343 years old Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! if only all could read as much with eyes open and prejudices bottled and returned to parents and teachers from whence their axe was fashionedPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! may we all look without the rose/ruby colour of fear groove on all Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Um ... Rip? So, uh ... when's the novel coming out? You are not allowed to keep a quote like that reserved to this page. Go to your room, young Rip, and don't come out until you've written 100 pages. Or something like that. Good heavens, nobody writes that, which is too bad. And now you do, which is good. And you didn't even resort to a set meter (which is so-so, depending on whom you ask; I prefer resorting to meter in prose only as a manipulative tool--watch writers dig out of holes with nothing-words and Iambic pentameter ... they're dreaming of sentences like the one you wrote.) But there's smoke coming off my monitor after that one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Re: Fred... You really are a funny guy. Incase your not joking, just misguided, I will explain something. You said 'God is scientificly real', bad statement as most of your evidence is from whats writen in the bible, and you haven't yet pointed to real-world phyiscal evidence of god. Your method for identifying real evidence is by matching it with something similar said in the bible, which in no way proves anything nor constitutes any kind of evidence. It is linking, not proving. The earths atmosphere sheilds almost all X-Rays from reaching the ground. A big concrete building is suficient to sheild people from enviromental x-rays, but plants and animals don't grow magically faster inside do they? This hydrosphere, would have to be kilometres thick as it rained for 40 days and 40 nights up to 6km deep of water - enough to cover the highest mountains (thats a volume of water the size of a small moon). Where did it go? How was that water suspended? Wouldn't that kind of torrential rain (about half a metre per minute of rainfall) strip all valueable topsoil off the earths surface down to bare rock, and dilute the salinity of the worlds oceans such that all marine life would die in hours?
Re: Alternative to sibling marriage AMEN BROTHER!!!! I think in 1000 years time we will be worshiping Princess Di, Queen of Hearts, who died for our freedom and peace. God will be female Atheists will be arguing with people ranting Princess Di is our queen!!!! My dim view of humanity sees us regressing back to the savanah and a hunter gather lifestyle because its the only time mankind was functional, and we geneticly little different now than those times......
Fossil Record Re:Lawdog "Even Darwin himself noted the serious deficiency in fossil evidence." Let us note the very serious deficiency in archaeological evidence of Jesus having existed: There are no birth records, no tax records, no trial records and no records of an execution of a carpenter from Nazareth. There is no wood from The Cross; we do not have The Chalice from the Last Supper; there is no documentation of the provenance of the Shroud of Turin. One would reasonably expect that the resurrection of Lazarus would have at least gotten some local press; the expulsion of the moneychangers from the temple is not noted in Judaic writings. I'm not offering this short list to argue against Jesus being an actual person; rather, I'm pointing out that the scarcity of fossils from millions of years ago does not support your point against Evolution. The reality is that there is more convincing evidence of Evolution than there is of God Incarnate walking the Earth, only 2,000 years ago. Of course you are less likely to believe my viewpoint than I am to believe yours, because you arbitrarily accept the literal meanings of Bible passages, even though there are Sanskrit writings that are much older. To me, the evidence of the life of Christ is the difference He makes in MY life. I am agnostic; I don't believe a human can know the actual nature of God; I'm not sure God exists as a separate entity. I do know that the idea that I can be loved, in spite of my very human failings, gives me hope during my bouts of anxiety and guilt feelings. I do believe that the concept of God the Father means all humans are siblings, and that if all humans accept that idea, there can be no more wars and genocides. Even if a prayer in Christ's Name is only a key to unlock the powers of my unconcious, I am thankful for that key. Who told the Creation from formless void story to the earliest humans? From Genesis we can take it that no human witnessed the event; how could even God explain to a shepherd how the Universe was formed from plasma, several billions of years ago. Let the Genesis stories be the myths they are, and recognize that the human race has much greater understanding now (although we have a long way to go in the wisdom department.) tiassa: I really appreciate your careful responses, references and insight. I read all postings, and am glad for the exchange of ideas, even ones I consider flawed.
Re: Fossil Record There is more evidence of the existance of Christ than there is of Julius Caesar. Not only is Christ mentioned in the Antiquities of The Jewish Historian Josephus, who lived contemporaneously with Christ, but there is also the testimony of the movement itself in the first century. Even from the lifetime of the Apostles there are Roman records blaming the fire at Rome on the Christians. St Peter himself, the pontiff who succeeded Christ, was thrown into a Roman prison and later crucified upside down by Nero. considering all the martyrs like St Stephan who died being stoned by angry Jews for the blasphemy of believing in the incarnate God, do you think they would have died for a fabricated literary figure? Perhaps, but consider also that the Apostles hid in the upper room for fear of the Jews shortly after his crucifixion, afraid to go out on the street. Nor did they believe in the ressurection when they first heard from the women. i am not ruling out evolution, but there is much to prove on the theological side: How, for example, can matter in a lower state of organization go to a higher state without God's help. This is only one of many unanswered questions. The best birth record is found in Luke, who points to the reign of the Caesar and the local officials when Christ was concieved, including the geneologies of the family. To make up such things was blasphemy. Archeological evidence? We have plenty, including the relics of the True Cross excavated by St Helena, found in churches throughout the world. We have pieces of his robe, and thornes from the crown, as well as the veil of St Veronica. Study of the Gospel reveals that the trial which Jesus had was done in correct Roman fashion in the case of Pontius Pilate, whereas it was a total illegal mis-trial in the case of the Jews. To me, the evidence of the life of Christ is the difference He makes in MY life. I am agnostic; I don't believe a human can know the actual nature of God; YOU CANNOT BE an agnostic and also be a christian, by saying that Christ is God you imply the doctrine of the Trinity, one God, three persons, which is claiming to know a revealed Truth about God. ""Even if a prayer in Christ's Name is only a key to unlock the powers of my unconcious, I am thankful for that key."" --Although God may speak to your unconscious,He is separate from your unconscious. He is an absolute Reality. ""Who told the Creation from formless void story to the earliest humans?"" ---In Genesis we read that the Lord walked with Adam in the cool of the evening. Adam told what he learned from God to his descendants. Its obvious to me that you have not read and studied scripture, let alone the Holy Catholic Church. We do not require a literal meaning be attatched to scripture save in the case of Adam and Eve and a few other essentials (ie God created the Heavan and Earth, the Fall, etc..) My question to all of you scientists is this: Why do you dare to suggest that you can make pronouncements on History, Theology, and the Church without having studied it in detail? I dont go around pretending to be an expert on physics or what not,making statements on atoms that are way out. Why then do you presume to think that the Church is not specialized and reliable in its knowledge of God? A Church which itself gave rise to scientific method and speculation because of its holy monks and scholastics the universities of medieval Europe. So quickly have you forgotten all that you owe the Church and her preservation of Knowledge, and so quick you are to kick the mother that gave you suck. It would be better if you continued on with your science and respected the wishes of the Church in questions like cloning, in vitro, etc. For there is a science to the unseen as well as the seen. Perhaps if you respected her, God would grant you scientific benefits rather than curses like the A-bomb. Like Pascal you would die with a great name and scientific gift to humanity, holding a rosary in your hand like he did, in the bosom of God. Yet you cleave to whatever doctrine your itching ears WANT to hear.
I'll leave the rest for rlpete2 Perhaps because its method begins with a priori assumptions of what is true, and not observable realities. *http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/conclusion.html --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
God is scientifically Real Tiassa and others: Hi there! (Colossians 2:8) "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." Apostle Paul to the 'Thessalonians: (1 Thessalonians 2:3-6) "For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts. (6) We were not looking for praise from men, not from you or anyone else." Is the same for me and others in Christ!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
hey all Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! if god was scientifically real...? then god would not be a god because we would be able to copy as does science! and-one more little odd thought!-was jesus a man? did he have male sexual organs? did he think like a man? i dont think he did think like man so on that point we can say no but the others are unable to be discoverd Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! how old was he when he died and did he ever have a girl friend? sorry if i sound disrespectfull but it just seems like a relavant questions to me Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! since we are discussing the science of god Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! just a thought Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! groove on all Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Loone ... good ... now ...? Loone-- Good. Thank you. You have exactly described the problem Christianity has suffered for the most part, if not all of my life, and for quite a while before that if history is any indicator. Now, what are y'all going to do about it? --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Reply to Lawdog Now isn't that just a little overblown? I'm sure you're aware that the nearly unanimous verdict of modern scholarship is that the two references to Christ in Flavius Josephus' work are, more likely than not, later Christian interpolation. Josephus' writings have been passed to us through the centuries by generations upon generations of Christian copyists; since writing materials weren't that permanent, the originals are long since lost. If this is news, you can always catch up on the latest buzz at, for instance: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/josephus.html In view of the above, isn't it just a bit unsettling that Josephus is the best -- and only -- non-Christian 'witness' you can produce from the first century? Seneca, Pliny the Elder and contemporaries are astonishingly silent on the alleged greatest event in history, while reporting plenty of fact and hearsay of far less importance; the silence is deafening. Oh, and Tacitus' remarks (ca 115 CE) about the fire of Rome only show that he was familiar with a cult calling themselves 'Christians'. I thought we were trying to establish historical evidence of Christ himself? Yeah, and what a lineage it is, when even Luke and Matthew can't agree on it. As to the historicity of the Nativity stories, well, doesn't it seem overly difficult to find any real records of them: historians do not mention the city of Betlehem, the great census under Augustus, nor a bright star lighting up the sky. Herod's cruel slaughter of a great number of innocent children also goes fully unrecorded by historians of the time. Relics of the "True Cross" as archaeological evidence? Somebody once figured out that if all those relics were real, the cross would have had to weigh about 3,000 kilograms. And I guess St Veronica wiped many a brow: at least three dozen cloths have been identified as her veil over the years; which one of these do you happen to regard as authentic? Arto
You may have missinterpeted this passage! Tiassa, you have misunderstood the message. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Colossians 2:8, warns against people like you with there vain philosophy of life and the discounting of the word of truth! To confuse one of the truth of God's Word. Calling that which is evil 'good', and to call that which is good and holy 'bad', (evil) which is abominable to GOD and what is now more and more widely accepted in this culture as facts, but is GRAVE ERROR and damnable HERESIES the lies and deceptions, are of the unregenerate heart of men, and the lies of the Devil! Truth will ultimately triumph, and you, the people that believe a lie will be destroyed, if one will not come unto repentance and to Jesus for forgiveness! Thessalonians, We do this for the Glory of GOD, not for our selves or men, to let the Truth be known before a lost and dying World full of hatred, lies, and deceivers! Science is good, and have and will continue to show that the Holy Word of GOD is 100%+ True, in history and our Faith is valued and true the bringing up a generation that has more repect for all life and for them selves and others!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually, Loone, Colossians is about people like you who make a fool of God. Paul was much more worried about improper faith in God. Much of his writings focus on what he thinks is wrong with other Christians. I'm surprised you didn't recognize the theme. http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/colossians/intro.htm Heck, it's a place to start. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
