Religion and the greatest story ever told..

[shepherdboy]

So you believe gravity is hypothetical? You think medicine is hypothetical? Where do you draw the line between your delusional religious fantasies and reality?

Where does all this negativity for God come from?

You will never comprehend or understand The Word of God until He blesses His Grace upon you. Trying to converse with you is pointless. I had a niece who ones thought as you. I told her like I will tell you. If it is God's will for you to become one of His elect, you will submit. God is Sovereign. We who are God's children in Christ Jesus were and still are to some degree rebellious sinners. Although we act out in the flesh in sin, our souls have been transformed into pure righteousness. Until then Helios, I will pray for you.

 

[Helios]

Where does all this negativity for God come from?

You will never comprehend or understand The Word of God until He blesses His Grace upon you. Trying to converse with you is pointless. I had a niece who ones thought as you. I told her like I will tell you. If it is God's will for you to become one of His elect, you will submit. God is Sovereign. We who are God's children in Christ Jesus were and still are to some degree rebellious sinners. Although we act out in the flesh in sin, our souls have been transformed into pure righteousness. Until then Helios, I will pray for you.

You didn't answer my simple, simple questions. Could it be you are afraid to face the reality of your beliefs? IF you are such a strong believer in "god," proceed by answering my questions.


By the way genius, how are you judging me to be a sinner? Since when are you deciding who is guilty? Isn't there something in the Bible about "dont tell your neighbor he has a splinter in his eye before you remove the log in yours"?

 

[Diuretic]

I am not so sure they got there by legitimate votes at all.

Me either but I recently made myself abide by a newly self-imposed rule about commenting on US domestic policy so I ain't sayin' nuffink

 

[jillian]

Me either but I recently made myself abide by a newly self-imposed rule about commenting on US domestic policy so I ain't sayin' nuffink

Why would you do that?!?!?!?

 

[Gunny]

Ok. We can clone pigs. We can kill pigs. Thus we have the power to create and destroy pig life. Are we gods to pigs? No, of course not, that's totally illogical. I don't deny the POSSIBILITY of a incomprehensible lifeform floating around somewhere in the universe, but how is this the most rational explanation for creation? Yes, in the beginning there was nothing. Not even a single particle of matter or energy. In order for "god" to create the universe, he would have to exist. How does something exist in nothingness? Does "god" surpass all measurable reality? If so, doesn't that seem rather convenient for believers? Scientists have been beaten over the head with "you cant prove there's no god" for as long as scientists have been around. The real issue is never addressed. You cant PROVE he exists either, so how is assuming something completely illogical the FIRST assumption? You might as well assume that there is a huge ball of cotton candy in the center of the universe, and it has magical powers. It can create galaxies and everything was created by it.

Cloning a pig is REPORDUCING an existent life form, not creating one.

You're mixing apples-n-oranges. Science says there was "nothing." You can't guest-star God in your scientific argument to suit you. Is it or is it not a rule of physical law that something cannot be created from nothing? Nothing is an absolute. The Big Bang requires energy and matter. Looks like a dilemna to me. And far more illogical than a creator, IMO.

You also have your issues backwards. Science worshippers' favorite line is "prove God exists." For the purposes of responding to MY post, I have never demanded nor even requested science prove God doesn't exist.

I really don't have a problem with science for what science is. I have a problem with people using it to try and disprove God, contrary to your statement, and I have a problem with those same people claiming theory is proven fact.

Believe what you want dude, and power to you.

 

[Diuretic]

Why would you do that?!?!?!?

I had an ephip...an ehipp....a brainwave...

Nothing I can say (seriously, this is how I see it) will be constructive any longer. I railed against Bush/Cheney and now I see their former supporters turning on them. One thing I won't do is "nyah-nyah".

I also won't comment on domestic policy on economics (eg tax cuts) because it's none of my business, I'm not affected by it and in any case I have my "no nyah-nyah" rule.

I'll stay out of the current discussions on the primaries as well, again, primarily domestic (sorry for the pun) and therefore none of my business.

Besides, if a Dem becomes president I'll have to attack them for trying to take our markets away from us (as is about to happen with our beef in S. Korea) and I wouldn't want any of my erstwhile discussion partners here dragging up my banging on about supporting Obama or Clinton!

 

[Diuretic]

On the creator/universe discussion.

Doesn't anyone else find it fascinating that we're starting to work out what may have happened? It never ceases to induce a sense of awe in me when I try to think about how it all came about. I could say, "God did it" and sit on my arse, intellectually speaking, but I don't want to. I like to read about what we know and what we think may have happened and how we can search for evidence of how the universe was created. Problem for me is that it's totally beyond my comprehension. Try to think of the concept of "nothing" and I get dizzy. "Nothing." Amazing. But of course being a human, like everyone else here, I'm totally limited (as an individual) to what i can sense and so my cognitive abilities to really envisage "nothing" are about zero.

The creator idea is too glib for me. Anyway it falls down when I ask, "so who created the Creator?" All I get back is another glib response, "the Creator was always there." Rubbish, that's not a response, that's a dodge and a closed-minded one at that.

That's another difference between religion and science. Religion requires a closed-minded faith, science requires an open-minded scepticism. If you want intellectual progress you have to rely on science.

 

[jillian]

I had an ephip...an ehipp....a brainwave...

Nothing I can say (seriously, this is how I see it) will be constructive any longer. I railed against Bush/Cheney and now I see their former supporters turning on them. One thing I won't do is "nyah-nyah".

I also won't comment on domestic policy on economics (eg tax cuts) because it's none of my business, I'm not affected by it and in any case I have my "no nyah-nyah" rule.

I'll stay out of the current discussions on the primaries as well, again, primarily domestic (sorry for the pun) and therefore none of my business.

Besides, if a Dem becomes president I'll have to attack them for trying to take our markets away from us (as is about to happen with our beef in S. Korea) and I wouldn't want any of my erstwhile discussion partners here dragging up my banging on about supporting Obama or Clinton!

lol... well, I suppose those are as good reasons as any.

What fun is posting with a no nyah nyah rule? heh... I think all but the most avid cheerleaders for the admin have know for quite a while that he's made a mess of things. It's just that they're starting to admit it.

And will be interesting discussing markets after the election.

 

[Helios]

On the creator/universe discussion.

Doesn't anyone else find it fascinating that we're starting to work out what may have happened? It never ceases to induce a sense of awe in me when I try to think about how it all came about. I could say, "God did it" and sit on my arse, intellectually speaking, but I don't want to. I like to read about what we know and what we think may have happened and how we can search for evidence of how the universe was created. Problem for me is that it's totally beyond my comprehension. Try to think of the concept of "nothing" and I get dizzy. "Nothing." Amazing. But of course being a human, like everyone else here, I'm totally limited (as an individual) to what i can sense and so my cognitive abilities to really envisage "nothing" are about zero.

The creator idea is too glib for me. Anyway it falls down when I ask, "so who created the Creator?" All I get back is another glib response, "the Creator was always there." Rubbish, that's not a response, that's a dodge and a closed-minded one at that.

That's another difference between religion and science. Religion requires a closed-minded faith, science requires an open-minded scepticism. If you want intellectual progress you have to rely on science.

You're my hero.

 

[Gunny]

On the creator/universe discussion.

Doesn't anyone else find it fascinating that we're starting to work out what may have happened? It never ceases to induce a sense of awe in me when I try to think about how it all came about. I could say, "God did it" and sit on my arse, intellectually speaking, but I don't want to. I like to read about what we know and what we think may have happened and how we can search for evidence of how the universe was created. Problem for me is that it's totally beyond my comprehension. Try to think of the concept of "nothing" and I get dizzy. "Nothing." Amazing. But of course being a human, like everyone else here, I'm totally limited (as an individual) to what i can sense and so my cognitive abilities to really envisage "nothing" are about zero.

The creator idea is too glib for me. Anyway it falls down when I ask, "so who created the Creator?" All I get back is another glib response, "the Creator was always there." Rubbish, that's not a response, that's a dodge and a closed-minded one at that.

That's another difference between religion and science. Religion requires a closed-minded faith, science requires an open-minded scepticism. If you want intellectual progress you have to rely on science.

The thing is, one does not preclude the other. All scientific theory might be figuring out is how God did it ... right? I have no problem with reading about or watching shows on science and its theories. I find them interesting.

Who says the Creator has to be created? Perhaps a Creator has always been. Then again, perhaps it is just another life form beyond our intellectual capability, because that's all that's really required.

Maybe the "Big Bang" created the Creator from some happenstance theory of just the right amount of energy matter and water coming together in just the right place at just the right time.

 

[Helios]

Cloning a pig is REPORDUCING an existent life form, not creating one.

True, but in a sense we are giving life to something by human power alone, the pigs had nothing to do with cloning.

You're mixing apples-n-oranges. Science says there was "nothing." You can't guest-star God in your scientific argument to suit you. Is it or is it not a rule of physical law that something cannot be created from nothing? Nothing is an absolute. The Big Bang requires energy and matter. Looks like a dilemna to me. And far more illogical than a creator, IMO.

Since when do you care about physical laws? Besides, I don't deny the POSSIBILITY of the existence of "god," I just don't think relying on an outdated and utopian belief to explain creation and evolution is logical. Sure, there might be a "god" out there, that's no reason to deny scientific evidence to the contrary.

Religion destroys the beauty contained in discovering the origin of our species, and the vast conceptualization required to get even a glimpse of the truth. I am unable to deeply understand the majority of conceptual scientific theories, or the principles they are based upon. This is the "mystery of creation." The intellectual discovery of fundamental human truths. IMO, of course.

You also have your issues backwards. Science worshippers' favorite line is "prove God exists." For the purposes of responding to MY post, I have never demanded nor even requested science prove God doesn't exist.

Nor did I say you did... I was making a point.

I really don't have a problem with science for what science is. I have a problem with people using it to try and disprove God, contrary to your statement, and I have a problem with those same people claiming theory is proven fact.

I'm not trying to disprove God. I'm trying to prove the irrationality of jumping to theology to answer questions that should be left to science.

Believe what you want dude, and power to you.

Same to you.

 

[Helios]

The thing is, one does not preclude the other. All scientific theory might be figuring out is how God did it ... right? I have no problem with reading about or watching shows on science and its theories. I find them interesting.

Who says the Creator has to be created? Perhaps a Creator has always been. Then again, perhaps it is just another life form beyond our intellectual capability, because that's all that's really required.

Like.... an alien with supernatural powers? That's more believable than "god."

Maybe the "Big Bang" created the Creator from some happenstance theory of just the right amount of energy matter and water coming together in just the right place at just the right time.

You are basically saying "god" didn't create the world. Why the sudden change of heart?

 

[Diuretic]

You're my hero.

Aw shucks

 

[Diuretic]

The thing is, one does not preclude the other. All scientific theory might be figuring out is how God did it ... right? I have no problem with reading about or watching shows on science and its theories. I find them interesting.

Who says the Creator has to be created? Perhaps a Creator has always been. Then again, perhaps it is just another life form beyond our intellectual capability, because that's all that's really required.

Maybe the "Big Bang" created the Creator from some happenstance theory of just the right amount of energy matter and water coming together in just the right place at just the right time.

If scientific theory is figuring out "how God did it" then it's misguided. That would mean convergent thinking instead of the wonder of divergent thinking. In a sense it illustrates the differences between science and religion better even than I could.

You can't defeat the conundrum Gunny. I've indicated we humans have very limited abilities (just as well or we'd all want to be gods) and we simply aren't equipped to think beyond the limits of our senses. That's why the odd brilliant mind is so valuable to us, people like Einstein, if only for a short while, are able to think in ways that the rest of us can't - and I don't mean empty hypothesising. If something or someone caused the big bang then how did they (the causer) get there?

 

[Taomon]

Me either but I recently made myself abide by a newly self-imposed rule about commenting on US domestic policy so I ain't sayin' nuffink

Hooogan!

 

[Diuretic]

Hooogan!

Typing error - you meant Hooo(lig)an!

 

[Taomon]

Typing error - you meant Hooo(lig)an!

No, I was referring to Col Klink.

 

[Shogun]

.... you're saying I'm right. I don't deny the fact that Christianity is a cult... as well as any of that other stuff. I was merely establishing that mainstream Christians believe Jehovahs to be a cult. That's all.

But you were insinuating that believer population and time does not turn a cult into an accepted religion. I'm stating that christianity was also once a cult that grew into a major religion just like Jahovas Witness and Mormonism have the potential to become.

 

[Shogun]

That movie was based on the Tibetian Book of the Dead.

another piece of fiction.

what is your point?

 

[mattskramer]

But you were insinuating that believer population and time does not turn a cult into an accepted religion. I'm stating that christianity was also once a cult that grew into a major religion just like Jahovas Witness and Mormonism have the potential to become.

Hmmm. Would it be fair to say that “mainstream” religions are not cults and that less popular religions are cults? Such a statement seems to be self-serving for people in the more popular religions. I just don’t know.