Do you ever wonder ... well, why?

I'm not willing to right off the Roman Catholic Organization as not responsible for the current state of affairs. The blood guilt they've caused and commited is HEAVY. Even today these soliders go to war with God in mind, not knowing God will have nothing to do with this indiscriminate and righteous blood shed for who KNOWS what real reason the Americans are in Iraq.

In accordance to the 1st century the are responsible as a congregation of the direction their guidance takes that congregation and also in accordance to what "fruitage" is being produce, and noone objectively looking in sees the hypocrisy and lack of anything good coming out of the church. In order for their to peace on this planet...That organization will have to topple and only way to do that is through exposure.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Bible: Written by man, inspired by God

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Insularity

Nor will I write off the Catholic church, but aside from an echo effect, it's hard to blame them for what's going on in American religion today. Things were bad enough centuries ago, but the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the early 20th century heralded further decline. And that confluence of religious ideas is largely—mostly—Protestant.

Toppling Christianity would be especially hard in the United States. There will come a day when Christians have a hard time getting jobs, or admitted to universities, and in the end I hope it is not because of the fact of their Christianity, but rather the fact of the produce. Like the whole "intelligent design" thing. It's not a science. Period. It has no testable hypothesis. It's not because it's a "God thing", but because it has no scientific merit. Certainly, creationism has merit in other fields, but that's another question.

The better outcome would be for fellow Christians to help one another figure out exactly how far they've fallen. When I was in high school, I had a devout science teacher that saw no conflict between his faith in God and the outcomes of science. That perspective, essentially that science explains how God's universe works, is almost completely absent from the public discourse today. And that lack is significant.

Perhaps some others will question how to connect the issue of Christianity vs. science to the notion that a murderer ought to be spared prison time because he confessed fourteen years after the fact. The connection is the insularity of the Christian perspective. The infamous phrase "divorced from reality" creeps ever closer to the human condition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Intelligent Design must be cultivated and researched like everything else should. It is sound as a theory but need much more and it's proponets have left it hanging because of the disarray the trial was conducted under and the revelation of the defendents invovle have subversive agendas. I find the ruling unforntuant but fair. If ID was as it appears a resurfacing of Creationist thinking and motives then the ultimate end was dealed logically in a court of law. The incumbants defenses were neglent of exposing evolution's lacking as a theory. They also did not delve deeply into the necessary reserach. Intrinsicly I find nothing wrong with ID as it is on the same level as evolution. Unproven and doctrinal, accepted in other words. Why either has not tested ID in bacterial generations is an astonishing show of stupidity on both sides.

So I guess we're set to disagree on that subject.
However, even the best case scenario is likely to leave a large number still suspetible to remaining inflences. No, I'm afraid catastrophich upheaveal is set to topple the catholic church and with it every religion indiscriminate of it's behavior...I'm sure world events are heading to this direction because there must be a breaking point. Such a large amount of people can't continue to be subjected to such falsehoods for much longer. And once the exposure is complete it will be viral spreading across the planet because of the easy of todays communications. The Church has already fallen from it's position of power and as it's partioners leave or fall away soon there will be little left...but that one event...It may lead to the next holocaust of the twentieth century.

This is why I tell people don't be in quite a hurry to get rid of religion because when (not if) it goes it's going to take a lot of people with it. You see what happens in Israel, what's happened just between sports riots, religion is far bigger and the fall is going to be bloody and grusome.

 

I find that outlook rather deceptive.

How can testing bacterial generations show the existence of an intelligent designer?

Religion will never actually disappear. That's the best reason to not hurry to get rid of it. In the meantime, the dominant religions of our era will eventually pass from favor, and one of the best reasons to not be hasty about that is that we'll find something even worse to replace them with.

One thing I've found religionists don't generally like to give serious consideration to is what religion does. Of course, anti-religionists don't give much serious consideration to the question, either.

Without addressing the anthropological function of religion, we certainly will see much harm before we finally get it right.

 

the bible teaches, and jesus teaches of a personal relationship with god, not about some glorified institution. as a matter of fact, think about what jesus thought about, and had to say to, the pharisees back in his day? i have said personal relationship with god, and i take no credit for what he has taught to me, accept for the fact that i asked to be taught with humility and sincerety.

because i know god personally, i know what he is, and what he is not, about.

 

Personally huh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't know...
I'm not a biologist. I do remember that the judge asked both sides this question during the trial why either had not preformed a test which would validate Inteligent design and neither side had an answer.
It might have been a pivotable point in the trial if either had.

I believe that religion as we know it will change given a sufficent relational "detonation" in the world of politics.


Without addressing the anthropological function of religion, we certainly will see much harm before we finally get it right.[/QUOTE]

For give the term...but I think that requires an AMEN.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Even in the "official" canon that finally got agreed upon some 300 years after Jesus supposedly walked on water, Jesus does not expand the Hebrew's God, YHWH's "love" to the rest of us until fairly late on in his life. Even then my take is, well religion is power and why not spread it- more powerful - perhaps he even had a little hint of genius in the back of his mind that re-spinning an ancient superstition, might take on pretty good with some of the weak minded Romans. This is if he existed.

It's not like it all suddenly popped up with "Jesus", we are talking all the way back to before the Hebrews ripped off the mythology of the Babylonians, Egyptians and they in fact ripped their stuff off from Akkadian-Sumerians and nile dwellers before.

Ever play that game where you whisper a story in someone's ear and they do the same to the person next to them and it goes around in a circle until the other person next to you blurts out the final version(which grows or shrinks in each telling). It always sounds ridiculous to the original teller.

I find it amazing people believe such garbage.

 

Divine creation as a science?

Divine creation is an integral part of human mythology. I've a book on my shelf that is nothing but creation myths (Primal Myths, by Barbara Sproul.) Where I've come to tangle with the Judeo-Christian myth is a matter of how people have wanted it included in the curriculum. This is much like the argument over the Bible when I was a kid. I would accept it as a reference and give it its place in a survey of World History. The Christians at that time wanted it to be the foundation of society and history, and taught as such. Creationism? It has its place in social studies. But they wanted it to be a science. Same thing with ID. The problem with ID as a science is that it eventually must show the designer. And, well, that's a bit problematic.

Can you give us any reference on the trial? It would be fascinating to read through the decision at least, or maybe even get hold of the courtroom transcript. But I wouldn't know where to start looking.

 

Bart Ehrman, author of God's Problem recently gave an interesting interview on NPR that deals with aspects of what many believers have considerable trouble understanding about atheists.

 

Goes to the other extreme as well. Some Christians do hardly anything and are outcasts from their Churches. Christians are just people, and people aren't perfect. If someone like the guy you gave as an example confesses to a murder, its good that he confessed, but that doesn't mean its good that he murdered. You have to keep it balanced.

 

I understand this. There is a sense of invasion by religion upon educational planes. And knowing the fanatics of the past have corrupted the search for truth a fear of what the future might bring is reasonable and the reaction is guarded. ID as science doesn't bother me one way or the other. I don't care what the majority teaches. I just have to be sure of the logic and reason I'm going to pass down to my family. I'm unintrested in forcing others into the same class room of thought. I truely feel if everyone had such a perspective there might be much less contention. Information should be free. That is my credo, so to speak. But variety makes the world intresting.

I previously have typed in the words "ID on trial transcript" and got the Wiki which had full transcripts...PBS also had a special and provides full transcripts but I haven't looked for theirs.

But the WIKI has everyone's statement isolated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents

Now I'm not sure if these are court transcripts or just statements...but I believe either or they were used in trial for both sides.
It is VERY Intresting read. I learned alot.

 

yes, it's the most fundamental and overriding concept in the bible. and yes, it happens. it happened to me, as it has many others, and can to you too.

 

i can't leave this one alone. this is a very convenient thing for you to say, in not knowing a thing about me or my life, and simply because i do not believe in your institutions. listen god's been a big part of my life for a long time now and has counseled me on many things, and one of the things he's focused on the most has been this topic of religion. and let me tell you that from what i know of him, he is not a big fan of institutions. god is a big fan of individuals and individual accountability, which is undermined by the very concept of an institution. let me ask you...do you really think that what god is after is this weekly routine of us getting dressed up in our suits and hats, and going to a particular building, where we sit our fat asses on very comfortable pews, and try in vain to clap our hands to some song that has no discernable rhythm or beat, then swallow down a couple of spoonfuls of artificially sweetened baby food, for the low, low price of just 10% of your income? really? REALLY? is that right? for real, you really think that's what it's all about? well then let's look at what it says in the bible shall we, since that's the doctrine that most of you drones attest to follow. let's look first at the lives of the people in it. were they going through this weekly/biweekly exercise? is that what it says about them? is that what the parables are about? was noah involved in his local institutionalized religious organization? was elijah, moses, johah, esther, abraham? how about the disciples? their learning wasn't done once a week in some particular place, they LIVED IT. they were with Jesus 24/7. he was their master. all of these people in the bible HEARD THE VOICE OF GOD, and it turned their lives upside down. they did NOT fit in with the rest of society, and it was not a comfortable or routine exercise. they were outcasts. they were outside the norm. that is an understatement! now what is the norm in our society? a church on every street corner, and one in between. what do you think is meant when the scripture says "it's a narrow path?" i think that it means that IT'S A NARROW PATH! NOT THE NORM! and that the majority of people who are sitting in those pews every sunday are not on it! what do you think the scripture means that says people begged "lord, we worshipped in the temple. we cast out demons and healed the sick in your name." then he says to them, "I NEVER KNEW YOU." what it means is that so many of his so called people are way too busy throwing his name around in vain to serve their own purpose that they never take the time to actually get to know him.

 

yes indeed, it's actually a very simple concept that's been reiterated through every age of history again and again, and people are still too stupid to get it.

 

The bible is man-made as well..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It became simple - "one" god. Originally there were many. People are generally too stupid(ok well frankly even back then there were strong individuals whom understood it was all crowd-control bullshit and found it a hassel to keep track of all the different "sacrifices") to keep track of them all. One God is simple. Actually the Hebrews didn't even invent that...

 

The evidence available in the Bible exemplifies the knowledge in the Bible exceedes the knowledge of man, thus God inspired.

 

where?