Evolution vs. creation

Hi babes, boy have I got news for you?!!!!
There is no hell!
If you read the bible , and the WHOLE bible, as I allways say, you´d see that the hell is another word for death. Even Jesus has been to hell, but after three days he was woken up by his father.
So, you see... Hell is nothing more or nothing less than a state, like sleeping, beeing dead you know...
For an example, Job prayed to go there...to sheol, which is the same as hell. Job 14:13
But the bible also talks about Gehenna which is another kind of death. Eternal death.
Do you all read me?
Now yer loggin. Death is no different then when before one was concieved. Hell = destroyed life.

Your wicked little idea is perverse to say the least, and really makes no sense to me at all.

As far as hell is concerned, I have read about many near-death experiences, and the way that they all describe it is like an earth-bound state following death. It seems that it's this simple...if you believe in God and Jesus and a life after life, you will get it. If all you believe in is this world that we all live in now, then you will never get out of it. For example, Howard Stern's hell would go something like this...he's dead, and he's roaming around on the earth in spirit form with his big hair and all. And he's trying desparately to get attention from us by say making fun of retarded people, or making fun of women with big titties, or saying look at my big hair and nose, aren't I funny, and NOBODY'S LAUGHING! Nobody's laughing cause we can't see him or hear him anymore. Now, wouldn't that be hell for him? I mean, to any of us, wouldn't it be hell to be roaming around this earth, with no purpose whatsoever, can't eat, can't drink, can't socialize, no one knows you're there, no one can hear you or see you, you can't express love or hate or anything because no one really cares cause you're dead. It seems that from the stories, there are different levels of hell as well, depending upon what your focus was while alive. It could get worse and worse if you don't realize what is happening to you. For example, the scientist who rejects God, and is all obsessed by the natural and physical laws, may spend the afterlife in some perpetual lab, furiously conducting experiment after experiment, and proving absolutely nothing whatsoever, while the rest of us believers are having the time of our "existences" with Christ in heaven. That would be a type of hell. I think that hell is what you make it to be for yourself based upon what you believe to be true. I've also heard a story of a man who once he was in hell, and realized where he was (as he was an atheist in life) called out to Jesus to save him. And guess what? Jesus came down and pulled him right outta there! Isn't that great!!! So I guess that's why "faith" is so important, because if you don't believe that Jesus is what He is, then He can't save you. Does that make sense? I would urge anyone to read up on some of the near death experiences that have been published. They are very interesting, that's for sure. Remember though, that the experience when you come back is open to interpretation. I think that some have interpreted things that they saw inaccurately. It seems that each was shown a little "piece of the pie", and instead of focusing on their interpretations of their little piece, I think it's safer to just focus on the descriptions of what was shown, and then make your own interpretations.

God loves you and so do I!

How about that woman who was a true believer, i think she worked for the salvation army. She had been going to church all her life, and had little money, helped the poor, did everything what a true Christian would do.
One day she got hit by a car, she flew 60 feet in the air, before she landed on the asphalt, she then had a Near death experience, and she went to hell, where she found lots of people running around screaming for mercy, being tortured and all.

So i can see where Boris is going with his post. No one knows if that could be true or not, no one can prove if that is right or wrong, and no one can prove if the Christian God is right or wrong.

The point is.. no one knows before we die, it doesnt matter if you accept God or not. She did, but she went to hell..

Just waiting for my peabrain to boot into English :p
Hey Lori.

I don't see any difference between heaven or perpetual lab. Both are equal hell. When you exist *forever*, can *never* die or get hurt -- there's no adventure, there's no excitement. There's only perpetual boredom.
Even if you are surrounded by divine beauty, after a few millennia all that splendor will end up making you puke.

So I'll believe in no afterlife whatsoever, and I sincerely hope that's what I'll get.

I am; therefore I think.
Same thought here, eternity is to long for any conscious being (this includes god himself I'm afraid) to stay sain.
But then if you claim that time doesn't excist for god or the 'life after death' then there really is no difference between that and nothing now is there ? Because no time means no change, means no thought means nothing at all !

we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Your totally right Plato.
When a person dies, there is NOTHING, according to the bible. Got that?
The bible talks about a resurecion (how about my spelling????) for the dead people, sometime in the future, not about life after death. Because God is able to do anything.
Someday in the future when the earth has turned into what it was ment to be, than the people who has died will wake up, and get a fair chans to choose a happy life in a paradise on earth, not in heaven.
And its not gonna get boring. There´s not gonna be any pain or unjusice. Everyones will be young and healthy. Thats how it was ment to be.
This is all very interesting. But i believe that it would be best if you people first defined "God" since you all seem to be talking about somebody you know very well. Any takers?

When you die you are meat for the worms and nothing more. So live your life now, because it isn't going to last forever.

If you knew you were going to live forever, would you be happy or rather dissapointed?


[This message has been edited by MaTTo (edited June 27, 1999).]
I did define God. God=Way, they are one and the same. Is there an everpresent God in the likes of what religions claim, absolutly not. If you consider carfully the claims made as to what God is you'll see that the one describing God is generally describing themself. The overall effect of the prescribed beliefs in religions always revert to the fact that the beliefs keep the religious leaders leading the flock. the overall result is followers, and the following is invaiably people following people. When religious leaders teach God the end result is that god is claimed to be one thing but the leaders are another. And if there are followers, the followers are formed in the likness of the leaders regardless of any leaders claim of God. Think about this- Jesus said, I am the son of God, but he also referes to himself as the son of man, and if man is the image and likness of God, then one must consider "what" image and likness, of what. One must have particulars to understand the "image". But if their are no particulars taught by religions then what is one to believe in. Adam was also made in this image and likness, therefore the image in what Adam was made must also be the same as Jesus. An apostle points out that Christ is the image of God, and we are all made in that same image. That means that if we are made in that same image then we are God, which one can arrive at a solution in which one can understand that God=image. The question then becomes, what image, or, what is this particular image the likness of. If religions cannot discribe this image and likness then it is still not understood, which in turn means they're going nowhere. In order to solve the puzzle they must first find and discribe said "image" and what it is the likness of. So far there is no religion with such a discription or teaching. It is apparent that one must first know or understand this particular image and likness so it can be taught to the masses. One then must conclude that this particular image is something that we already posses but is not understood. One then must also conclude that it's the knowledge of that image that is lacking, because if it weren't we would then be like God as the knowledge would give insights on changes needed in one's person. If Adam was made in that image, and christ "is" the image, and if we still have within our makeup the image, then it stands to reason that all that is needed is to find "what" that image is, or what is it the likness of. Oweing to the fact that everything in the universe has it's opposite then there must be an opposite image, that in turn leads to the conclusion that the world must be endevoring in the opposite image and dosn't understand either one. The image must ultimatly lead to one being of a particular way, and whatever way that is, is God. And if one were to know the way and become it, that person or persons would have to be God. But being that there is an opposite, then the opposite must also be God, or a God. The question then becomes, which one is which, and if no religion has any discription of either of these two there is no way to know which "way" the world is presently under or how to change it. From that then, one must conclude that there is no one that knows for sure if their beliefs can be valid other then through blind belief, and there is nothing in the bible that requires blind belief as faith is of no kin to blindness. Faith must also have something solid to be established on or it is also invalid. An apostle points out that very thing, that faith without fact is of no value. And all fact must lead to, and extend from, that IMAGE.
The Seer:

In my opinion, noone can define God. God is the Unknowable Essence. If the greatest minds were to strive for a million trillion years to try to understand God they would fail miserably. But we can use analogies. similes, metaphors in our attempts to understand that which is not comprehensible in its essence. Therefore, by way of example, we can say that God is the Painter and creation is His painting. Now, can the painting understand its creator, the painter? The painting contains attributes, qualities, which are inherent within the painter. The qualities reflecting in that painting are inifinitismally insignificant in relation to the essence of the qualities that make up the painter. However, the painter had to have those qualities a priori in order for him to have shared these through his painting. So, in existence we see that there is intelligence. So, the creator had to have intelligence. But the intelligence that this creation reflects is in the utmost degree of imperfection relative to the intelligence of He who manifested it in His creation.

Can a stick of bread understand the baker? Can an ant comprehend the infinite subleties of man's mind?

In my opinion, noone can define God. God is the Unknowable Essence. All attempts at trying to comprehend that which is beyond comprehension are doomed to failure.

Nice talking to you


I will not dispute your statement concerning impossibility of defining God.

However, your 'painter' analogy is a circular argument. You start out with an assumption of a creator, use that assumption to posit that the creator's personality is embedded in reality, then alluding to the complexity of reality and thus concluding that the creator had intelligence.

The point is: just as one can't define God, one simply cannot demonstrate the validity of the creationist worldview.

I am; therefore I think.
OK. The first problem is, what does one want for God. What the world is lead to believe in is an external entity other then ones self or others. The reason that one believes that God cannot be explained is, the God that is assumed by the religions presently does not exist. How can something that dosn't exist be explained. God is represented in a very simple fact, "US". Religious leaders always play the same belief games with the people. As long as YOU cannot explain God and THEY can't, they can use this criteria to make anything believable, as long- as you follow them and are willing, or have been led to follow them. What it all reduces down to is that the concept of civilization is everyones religion presently. If all believe in civilization then there is no point in claiming to belong to any religion of any name as the concept of civilization rules regardless. Civilization was the next religion after Adam whereby leaders arose and made themselves God, determining the WAY of all process from then on. Through the centuries this concept has been modified to various forms in the seeking to find a WAY that will work. But no matter the modification the result is always the same, and that is, a few rule over the many and it is these few that are God, and God is anything or anyone that determines the WAY. The present concept of God is only an excuse for the leaders to be excused from the blame of failure. As long as YOU believe that the thoughts of the leaders are directed by an unidentifiable entity, and if that entity remains unexplianable the determinations of the leaders cannot be held in question as the unknown entity is held to blame, and then the entity is falsely determined to be flawless making the determinations of the leaders and the leaders themselves blameless, leaving the people no where to turn but to accept the determinations of the leaders. (a circle of futility) The only place to find God/Way is within yourself as you can prove to yourself that you exist. Leaders cannot prove that their concept of God exists, but they cannot prove that you do not exist, and your very existence proves that a way of being exists from the mere fact that you "are". We are all made up of spiritual characteristics aquired without the permission of the leaders, and as long as YOU accept their authority over you, they are God as it is they that deternime the WAY one is to be. God/Way is nothing other then the way YOU are at any given moment, and if that WAY has been determined by the leaders then THEY are responsible for the world the WAY it is, not the people. When one understands "self" then he can no longer be led by leaders as "ONE" can then compare "Self" with the leaders, and if there is a difference then ONE can determine whether it is the leaders or self that is wrong or on a path of circular futility. Natural spiritual characteristics are inheirent in everyone, and it is the leaders goals to adjust and condition those characterisics to meet the goals of their own will rather then the owners personal will. Leaders adjust the individuals to mainly serve the central ideals of their own preferences which is nothing more than to serve the center, which is mainly their own kind. In central government it is force of law, in what is considered religion it is force of belief. If you look carefully you will see that "both" steer all of the population to serve the same center, and that being the case then both are religion as both must proceed on belief and belief is religion as belief and religion are one and the same. If belief/religion consructs central government then central government is the religion, and religion is what constructs God as God is the item which exerts the main forces in ones life. That leaves that whatever is considered religion but not central government the steering wheel that turns all toward central government and that in turn means that the guiding power and God are nothing more then central government. Adam was before central government which means that civilization is nothing more then a preference of a few to rule the many and to make themselves greater then the masses of their time. When civilization began, the only means to install it could only have been by deception and force as the people of that time had no need for rulers, and when there became rulers then THEY replaced God as the way and installed their own Way and a simple trick to replace the present WAYS of that time with themselves. A system of greaters and lessors was installed and from that time it has been the WAY rather than the way of Adam who was under internal self control of the invisible things of self clearly seen and understood rather then external control by those who set themselves as greaters. In the process the true meaning of "self" became lost and was replaced by external/central government which made all to it's specifications for it's purposes which can be for no other reason but to serve the center and those in it. It can be eaiser to understand if one realizes that God is nothing more then what controls you. Once the leaders made themselves God/Way the meaning of "God" was also changed and it's original meaning became lost.
Way to keep up the argument guys! I can't believe the kind of stuff they're trying to take on against science! lol! This is getting to be ludicrous (but isn't it almost always?)!

Time to lay down some facts...


<u>Science</u> is the cataloging of data and the seeking of understanding of the natural world that surrounds us. It's about answering the questions that everything else fails to explain and it only offers the facts of what is and no more.


<u>Religion</u>, on the other hand, is much harder to define by a simple 2 sentence statement...

Before I really start to get into what Religion is as a whole, it is necessary for me to get into different kinds of the more popular religions all around the globe (don't worry I'll make this as short as possible).


Christianity, the most widespread religion in the world with 840-some million followers. It is the religion based upon the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (God's only son sent to die for our sins). The followers of this religion believe in God, Jesus Christ, and a Holy Spirit. They follow the 10 commandments and the teachings in the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible is made up of The New and Old Testaments. They also believe that God can forgive them for their mistakes (ie "sins"). Ethical teachings are very much like the Jews but not in so much damned details (i.e. you can eat pork if you want). The Holy Bible teaches us the difference of right and wrong and is most popular with 10 laws followers call "The Ten Commandments," that teaches us to follow the Sabbath (Sunday) and keep it holy, and honor your father and mother. It's also against worshipping idols, misusing God's name, murder, adultery, and stealing, false testimony, coveting, and putting other gods before God himself.

Judaism was one of the first religions to establish ethical monotheism (belief of a God that is just and does right). The religion lack's the belief in Christianity's Jesus Christ (which Christians claim they killed). They consider Palestine their religious home and tend to be the most "ethical" about ways of life (i.e. you can't eat pork, even if you want to).

Islam was a faith taught by Mohammed. The word Islam means peace and submission, and is usually taken to mean "peace through submission to God." Muslims believe that Mohammed was God's Prophet (they call God Allah) and follow a book called the Koran, from the Arabic word meaning "the reading," which is made up of teachings by Mohammed, and is the book Moslems follow. Parts of the Koran are known to resemble the Bible, the Apocrypha, and the Jewish Talmud. It has many of the same stories about the prophets that appear in Old Testament and New Testament, and even includes stories about Jesus. The Koran teaches the absolute unity and power of God, the creator of the whole universe. It teaches that God is just and merciful, and wished man to repent and purify himself wile on earth so that he can return to Paradise after death. Like the Bible the Koran forbids lying, stealing, adultery, and murder. Punishment is based on the Old Testament, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." The Koran also teaches the virtues of faith in God and man, patience, kindness, honesty, industry, honor, courage, and generosity. It condemns such evils as mistrust, impatience, and cruelty.

Hinduism is the traditional religion of Indian. Hindus call their God "Brahman," who is the goal of all human life to be united with. But only before you can be united with "Brahman," a man's soul must be reborn again (transmigration of the soul). Hinduism worships three gods which are "Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Preserver), and Siva (the Destroyer). Hinduism teaches that the essence of every living thing is "atman," its spirit or soul, which comes from Brahman. Followers treat animals with great respect and most even vegetarians because they don't believe in killing animals for food.

[A rather funny (and a little ironic) fact with Hinduism is that the followers consider the cow sacred and a symbol of man's identity with all of life! A cow! Moo!]

Buddhism was developed from Hinduism. The word Buddha means "Fully Enlightened" or "Awakened One." Basically followers worship a big statue of a man named Siddhertha Gautama, that has impressivly withstood earthquakes, storms, tidal waves, but however has failed to escape the bird shit (it deserves).

Like Buddhism, Jainism grew out of Hinduism. This religion stresses ethical purity, love, and kindness. It forbids the loss of life to anyone or anything, from man to fly. The followers believe that after the soul has inhabited many bodies, it frees itself and lives happily and peacefully. Both Jainism and Buddhism are more concentrated on the after life topic than how to act and behave.

I consider Confucianism as a system of ethics other than a religion itself, because it instructs individuals how they should live accordingly instead of teaching about anything of a god. (Perhaps a religion everyone could use a good looking at).

Many religions exist among the tribal peoples of Africa, Asia, Australia, North and South America, and the Pacific Islands. Most of these tribal religions center the fertility and health of crops, animals, and people. Tribal peoples do not worship the sun or the rain, but worship images that symbolize spiritual or ethical principles. Tribal religions often express the same truths as the great major religions express on a wider scale.


I could keep going with some less popular beliefs, but I decide to spare the innocent reader who is just looking for some kind of honest answer.

Grant it that religions are very widespread, different, and even opposing they all have one thing in common other than the believe of an after life, which is...

Codes of Conduct

Some religions tell people how to act toward God. Some tell even what to eat. Some tell to pray five times a day. Some forbid the worshiping of idols, and others tell people how to relate to your fellow man.

But they all have one real thing in common, <u>codes of conduct</u>, systems of ethic code which tell us how to live our short meek lives accordingly for an all greater purpose of "meaning" in the world.

All of the great religions agree on most of the ethical matters. All of them condemn murder, theft, adultery, and dishonesty. They teach that selfishness is evil, and love is the goal of human relationships. Also, they all give off some form of the golden rule, "treat others as we would have them treat us."

Religion gives us a moral code to abide by and binds humanity together, and I believe in the moral codes Religion provide for us, and to follow them is one step closer to "perfection." Other values I see in it include people's fear of hell and spiritual punishment, which prevents a whole lot of sin in this world. Another one is the idea of hope; that everyone thinks they're going to live forever. And last but not least; everyone feels "loved" by an omnipotent God and feels like he/she has meaning. These are all good, necessary things.

But that's all the real value I see in Religion. Its explanation for the creation of everything is way outdated and useless. If you really believe that the earth was created in 7 days, given the facts at hand today, you have my pity. One should simply look on religion it as a guide to life.

When it comes to figuring out how things work and why, I turn to science. But then science lacks moral code completely and doesn't exactly bind us like religion does.

I don't really see why both have to be "verses" eachother, when I see science as simply about discovering and religion is about believing and way of life.

I wish there was something that would bring together both factors but I guess things are the way they are. I really can't see humanity prosper without some form of ethics, but then again I really see no way for humanity to prosper at all without science. So, in my eyes, no side really wins the vote for "best," or however you want to put it. If you seek codes of conduct and ways to live your life to a full extent of goodness, I direct you to religion. If you seek truth and the facts, I direct you to science.

"Dare to discover."

[This message has been edited by MaTTo (edited June 28, 1999).]
I can't find conflict between science and God/religion in my understanding of things. It's all a matter of interpretation. For one thing, the bible commonly is read in terms of English literature, but the ancients did not write of express themselves in English terms. Old English/European terms are basicaly what defines the understanding of the bible today. In the ancient bibical times the writers expressed their thoughts more in line with spiritual terms. Even their children were mostly named in spiritual context. English, or European terms are mostly in material terms which is misleading the intent of the original writers or story tellers. Moses initiated the writing of the old testament and he was taught in Egypt as a boy under the tutoring of the Pharoh's daughter. What Moses learned was from the Egyptian archives which were quite extensiv and highly accurate in the records of times before Egypt. Ancient writings and stories were heavy with symbols and metaphors and can be interpreted with such. The evolution and creation debate has no founding in proper reasoning in comparing the two. On the material side evolution seems to be on the right track. It's the creationist that is going to have to do some rethinking. Being that the ancients were more spiritual and symbolic in their endeavors then one needs to look at the bible from their perspective. Bearing in mind that they were closer to the begining then we it seems that they would have different insights and understandings then what the masses are aware of. What has been discovered is that creation in the bible is not the creation of material things at all, but rather an insight of things from a spiritual mentality. What we do know is that the material came first and then the spiritual (according to the apostles)and there's nothing in the bible that states how long the material was and what processes were entailed to bring about any planets or stars, and it is known that these existed before man was made. So, let's look at things from an ancient mans perspective. The ancients at the time of Adam were spiritually mentally enclined so this is what they say. In the begining God/Way created the spirit and the soul, and the soul was without form and void (not formed as man, void of proper being as human) and ignorance was upon the face/image of the mind, and the spiritual stirred upon the images of the mind, /and the spirit said/caused let there be enlightenment and they/people became enlighted, and the enlightenment was seen as Good/God/Way, and there came knowledge of two ways and one way way was called light and the other was called night, and the understanding of these two was the first of the knowledge. Now, what's wrong with that. Might i point out that bibical creation has nothing to do with material, as all 7 days/enlightenments are the 7 spirits of God/the ways of being, that make one human rather then animal, which produces ADAM. Amimal mentality is the darkness, and human mentality is the light. Before creation there was only animal mentality at work and creation takes place by the knowledge of both and electing only one, as all are made by nature containing these two sets of traits and only by one of these can one be human, from the understanding that there are only two possible beings that can universally exist. It must be man or it must be animal and the physical itself cannot possibly be either as man or animal is each it's own state of mind/being. Intelligence is neither man or animal, and is a compulatory process that can be applied to either or both. The application of intelligence to the will to be humane, and the accompishment there-of makes man, not your bod. There is no such thing as a human body as the body cannot be human because the body is not a state of mind, you are, and you are not the body but rather the person within, and that person cannot be anything other then either man or animal. The 7 days of creation is your human side, which is Adam, which is christ, which is Adam the second. He said he was in the begining, the invisible things of creation that can be clearly seen, of which we are all made of on ONE side of our entity, man,Adam. If there are invisible things of creation then creation is of the spiritual not the material, as spiritual things are not matter.
MaTTo, great post!

Basically you are saying that "religion" and science go hand in hand. I read a beautiful analogy not too long ago about the interdependence of religion/science. The author stated that science and religion are like the two wings of a bird; this bird represents humanity. He goes on to say that if the bird flew only with the wing of science, it would go round and round until it would crash into the deepest depths of materialism. On the other hand, if the bird flew only with the wing of religion, it would likewise fly in circles until it would crash into the murk and mire of superstition and baseless beliefs that served absolutely no purpose. However, if this bird flew with both wings and these were balanced, serving each other, as it were, that bird would sore into the heavens of heavens and great things would be accomplished.

I believe it would, perhaps, be interesting to get the definition of "religion" from the posters here. I have my definition but will refrain from posting until a future time. This message is long enough as it is.

Dumaurier, thanks for the reply.

The metaphor for science and religion, like the wings of a bird, are very well written and further the point of the message I was trying to spawn.


Dumaurier, thanks for the reply.

The metaphor for science and religion, like the wings of a bird, are very well written and further the point of the message I was trying to spawn.

But there is a problem within religion that I didn't really talk about in the message, and that was about opposing religions, and war.

The stuff going on in Palistine and the places over there is really starting to scare me. People directing hate on others for stuff their ancestors did over thousands and thousands of years ago. People dying over useless causes and it is all rediculas, and must cease.

It appears as though the only way to stop this non-sense it to elimenate religion, but from what I have pointed it in my postings, a civilization that lacks religion and all the "good things" is in for some trouble.

Where do we go from here?

Thanks again Dumaurier for the meaningful analogy,


You are about at the point where I was some 10 years ago. Here's the final leap:

We don't need religion to tell us how to live!

Science *can*, and *does* specify moral codes -- the particular science I'm talking about is called 'Sociology'. Science can study relationships and behavior, and determine what works best and what makes people happiest. Then, it can generalize those observations and present them as recommendations for conduct in general. So you see, good behavior can be encouraged by pure science -- with personal happiness being the ultimate motivator.

And you're quite right -- once we discard religion (not any particular religion, but the very notion thereof!), then we are likely to have far fewer fanatics in the world -- and far less misery, and far more reason.

I am; therefore I think.
Hmmm...10 years is all, eh Boris? hehehe.

Ok, so some are saying give it a couple generations and see what happens...all the elderly will be gone and we'll have new generations of minds in an age for the future and not the yesterday.

But I don't think it's working the way some of us have hoped. There are still the same amount of dumb people out there (young or old) who just are not getting the idea and still believe in spirituality, creation, and all that bull.

It is a fact that on of the most dangerous elements that make up our world today is the "right" to be ignorant. The system is definatly screwed up and getting more by the day, and how much life span does it the system have? 100 years at best maybe?

Any suggestions how to eliminate religion other than to take up where Hitler left off?