Fellow blogger Weighed in the Balance has undertaken the ambitious and highly risky task of writing a book which as he terms it “is a comparative analysis of the Bible and the Qur’an, and it assumes that both books are correct. If God is the principal author of each book, as Christians and Muslims claim, then a comparative analysis should reveal harmony between the principal teachings of both. This is what I have found. Hence, Christians and Muslims have been kept apart by their religious leaders who have taught their adherents that God has rejected the other group.” The topic matter was thought to be so contentious that he originally penned his book using a pseudonym.
Phillip’s book is titled Brothers Kept Apart and can be purchased on Amazon.com at a reasonable price. Some members of the BU family have already demonstrated that they are students of the religions. Brother Phillips advises that the book represents 30 years of research and 7 years of critical review and he stands ready to defend his thesis.
It is no secret that the BU household has demonstrated a keen interest in the religions or what some people disparagingly refer to as dogmas. It is a fascinating subject and one which is shrouded in mystery, allegories, parables, fables and some theology Religion has been used through the ages to edify and destroy man’s existence. Of interest to all through the ages has been the cooption of religion to pit Islam versus Christianity, East versus West by geo-political motivated groups.
For a synopsis of the book the BU family is welcomed to visit Phillips’s blog. We look forward to a fascinating discussion and take the opportunity to wish him every success.
What he has attempted demonstrates courage of conviction, a characteristic in scarce supply.
.
1,121 responses so far ↓
Not Saved // April 23, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Oh there is harmony alright;
do as we say or burn…
kill the unbeliever…..
yes that is harmony alright
Not Saved // April 23, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Interesting,
the solution to people believing in different fables and fairy tales is for everyone to believe in the same fable and fairy tale.
These religions cant even agree on their own version let alone someone else’s fable….
Good luck with this.
I have another solution.
How about we all stop believing in silly fables and fairy tales…?
Just a suggestion.
David // April 23, 2009 at 7:31 PM
We have launched a new feature rolled out by WordPress today. We have activated the ‘comments-by-email’ feature. Commenters can now post a comment to BU from inside their mailbox. To get comments in your mailbox you need to activate the “notify” option (tick the box under comment) when making a comment.
Grenville // April 23, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Hi Not Saved:
The study found harmony between the principal teachings of the Bible and the Qur’an, but conflict between Christian and Islamic religious traditions.
Regarding not believing in fairy tales, I agree with you. How do we determine whether a claim is a fairy tale? We subject it to rigorous scrutiny. We should never be afraid to critically examine claims of truth, for truth should be able to withstand rigorous scrutiny.
Regards,
Grenville
Pat // April 23, 2009 at 9:53 PM
huh?
Right now I am going through my Hindu phase, excluding the caste theory of course. There is something to seeing God in a rat, an elephant, cow, snake, etc. My favourite is Hanuman, the monkey God. Why? In the temples he is painted black like me.
Whenever I am invited to a puja at the temple, I say a pray to Hanuman.
Hopi // April 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM
“Hence, Christians and Muslims have been kept apart by their religious leaders who have taught their adherents that God has rejected the other group.” Yet the assumption is that both books are correct, but for whom? And since these two religious figure heads heard directly from “God” their opposing ideology should be thoroughly examined. Maybe they are hearing from two different “Gods.”
Around 639 CE Ancient Egyptians leaders invited General El As to come to Egypt to help them drive out the Romans and since then Islam has never left. Those who rejected Islam were abused, tortured, enslaved and lost their lands. This is the same crap that was and is still being meted out under the Europeans.
Christianity, Muslim and Judaism are the Trinity that has reduced a once Mighty People to the state of beggars and laughing stock of the world today. These are the tools that decimated Blacks and we need to step away from this enslavement. There is no brotherhood in these idelogies for Black People. They have all conspired against us. The Black Man preceded these ideologies. They have all stolen from Ancient Egypt.The head of these religious ideologies are the POPE.
Not Saved // April 24, 2009 at 12:56 AM
Grenville,
I agree.
How do religions (particularly islam) react to “scrutiny”?
Not well, I think most would agree.
livinginbarbados // April 24, 2009 at 6:35 AM
@David,
I have found that the notify option only worked before with Internet Explorer, not other browsers such as Firefox or Safari.
Credit to the author for doing this daunting task, though it is not new.
Grenville // April 24, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Hi Hopi:
You wrote: “Those who rejected Islam were abused, tortured, enslaved and lost their lands. This is the same crap that was and is still being meted out under the Europeans.”
I am not an apologist for the many crimes that were, and continue to be carried out, under the banner of Islam. Muslims who support such acts justify them by referring to explicit passages in the Qur’an, which they have simply misinterpreted. As already explained, of all the books in the world that have ever been written, the Qur’an is perhaps the easiest of them all to misinterpret. I trust that the study can bring some clarity to its interpretation.
Hi Not Saved:
Muslims do not react well to scrutiny. However, they may be convinced by what is in the Qur’an. Since I have assumed that the Qur’an is correct, then we have a starting point for our discussions. A discussion on the authenticity of the Qur’an is simply an academic exercise that will result in nothing but conflict.
Hi Living in Barbados:
I would be interested in reviewing any similar research. When I started, one had to wait for years until the Vatican library, or other such source would give permission to review such historical documents. It is only recently that much of the relevant historical documents have been more accessible.
Regards,
Grenville
ROK // April 24, 2009 at 9:46 AM
@Not Saved
“the solution to people believing in different fables and fairy tales is for everyone to believe in the same fable and fairy tale.”
That was the purpose of the Council of Nicea.
ROK // April 24, 2009 at 9:52 AM
@ Grenville
“We should never be afraid to critically examine claims of truth, for truth should be able to withstand rigorous scrutiny.”
All roads that lead to the truth are solidly build. However, megaton trucks heavily laden with baggage avoid them because these roads never lead in their destination. The drivers would prefer to get stuck in a back road to their destination which they never get to.
Hopi // April 24, 2009 at 10:08 AM
@Grenville……I have not studied the Qur’an nor the Bible. But if these writings were directly from God’s Mouth to the Prophets’ Ears for the guidance of the people, why is it that they (or as you say the Qur’an) can be so easily misinterpreted. Was this the original intention of “God” to have the people all confused?
ROK // April 24, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Grenville
“Since I have assumed that the Qur’an is correct, then we have a starting point for our discussions.”
I sincerely hope that you don’t turn out to be another GP.
You see, this is my exact point. You begin by believe a story which has no relationship to the historical record and then turn around and assume it to be true.
How in the name of the Creator can you do that? I posit that you can’t believe and then assume it to be true and this is the basis of the friction between Christians and non-christians and now, Muslims and non-muslims.
Belief and truth are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Where truth and belief meets we can have knowledge, but where belief does not meet truth, you have lies and at best, a probability.
But I will take you further, the potency of the probability is in the evidence. Where there is no evidence my friend, the probability tends from zero to infinity.
I am not putting aside the miracle, but what you have is a chronicle of events that were so miraculous that nobody in the entire world paid attention when they were happening?
Furthermore sir, how do you account for the clear comparison between the Ancient accounts of the Sumerians and the Egyptians that existed long before any of the two of your religions?
A dearly departed friend once told me. Religion is here because someday there will be no more religion. It will be wiped out and we will have only men of knowledge and wisdom living in harmony. Utopia!
Scream and come again, Sir.
ROK // April 24, 2009 at 10:33 AM
David,
I am not seeing a link to e-mail and if I hit the reply button that donotreply address is in the ‘to’ box?
me // April 24, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Bullocks
Grenville // April 24, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Hi me:
It takes no intellectual effort whatsoever to simply dismiss 30 years of research.
Grenville // April 24, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Hi Hopi:
Please read ‘The Audacity of Hope’ article again. I explained that the authorized version of the Qur’an was compiled non-chronologically 24 years after Mohammed’s death. The unverified assumptions that resulted are also described.
Regards,
Grenville
Rohan // April 24, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Belief and truth are at the opposite ends of the spectrum.
***
Truer words have never been spoken. Who needs belief when we have understanding backed by verifiable, testable evidence? We no longer have to believe that the SUN is a God, we now know it’s one of billions of stars.
Anything that is presented without evidence should be dismissed the way we dismiss Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, Zeus, Odin, Shiva, and the thousands of Gods man has made up. Yes, that includes your particular God, whoever he/she may be.
Grenville // April 24, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Hi ROK:
1. Since the Nicaea documents are available for all to see, we can determine whether the process and the outcome had any integrity.
2. The evidence in the historical record supports the major information in the Qur’an. What historical source documents are you reading?
3. The comparisons with the Sumerian and Egyptian documents is another discussion, which I would be happy to have on another discussion thread.
4. Perhaps you are correct about the absence of religion. You are actually describing heaven, when there will be no more religion, just a relationship with God.
Regards,
Grenville
Rohan // April 24, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Where is heaven? Grenville, you are hilarious. There is no more evidence for the God of the bible, versus the God of the Qu’aran, versus the Gods of Greek mythology, versus the Gods of Indian religions, versus the God-dragon that lives in my basement.
God, didn’t create all these other Gods. So who created them? Man. And if man is in the business of creating Gods, then what makes you think he didn’t create yours too?
Not Saved // April 24, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Grenville,
Which bible?
Which manuscript?
which canon?
which version of christianity?
the hundreds that developed after rome or the hundreds that existed before the roman church?
Hopi // April 24, 2009 at 4:05 PM
@Grenville…… What is the verification that Mohammed received revelation from an angel?
Since these teachings have kept them apart, caused so much bloodshed, shouldn’t they just get rid of both of them?
And where does the Torah/Talmud fit in here? Did “God” speak to George Bushes both Sr & Jr and told them to go and kill over 1mil Iraqis. Did “God” speak to Sharon & Olmert and all the other blood-soaked zionists and told them to go and kill the Palestinians? Did “God” speak with the christian invaders and tell them to go kill the Africans? Is God speaking to Obama now telling him to drop drones in Pakistan and kill the innocent, to continue the blood-letting in Iraq and Afghanistan? Would this be the same God that spoke to the angel that spoke to the prophet Mohammed?
ROK // April 24, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Hopi,
I would suggest that the God that spoke to the two in the Bush and Sharon is also the God of Mohammed and the Bible.
This God has a MO of divide and rule. I am yet to get to the bottom of why? I would also suggest that it is the same God of all the religions on earth. It’s a monopoly that fetches a different price according to the gullibility of the particular people.
ROK // April 24, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Grenville
You say: “2. The evidence in the historical record supports the major information in the Qur’an.”
Then you say: “3. The comparisons with the Sumerian and Egyptian documents is another discussion, which I would be happy to have on another discussion thread.”
It is I that then must ask you, what are you considering to be the historical records?
Christopher Halsall // April 24, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Hmmm…
The link “Brothers Kept Apart” in the opening Blog (read: “http://bajan.wordpress.com/Walter Phillips”) results in a 404 server error (read: “Page not found”).
@BU.David: What says you?
Zoe // April 24, 2009 at 5:22 PM
@ Grenville, you seem to be an intelligent man, who appears to approach your research with proper principles of objective, cogent, coherent, logical methods, leading to rational conclusions; which is the only way to approach such a discussion a this.
Well, my friend, if you are not aware of the likes of Rok and Hopi, Not Saved et al, you are in for a whole (hole) lot of incoherent, incongrous, inconsequent, incommunicado, from these experts, who know everything, about nothing!
I am, however, lookingfoward to your analysis of these two very diametrically opposed documents, the Quran, and the Bible, both claiming to be divinely inspired.
Grenville, as you know, ‘Two competing ‘truth’ claims cannot be both right at the same time and place; they can both be wrong, but they cannot both be right.” (The Law of Non-contradiction in Logic).
Secondly, “A proposition is true, (valid) when reality is the way it is represented to be.” ( The Law of Identity in Logic).
Thirdly, “If A is true, then -A is a falsity” (Law of Excluded Middle in Logic)
The structure of justification, when defending any propositional truth claim, rest solely on ‘Coherence’ which is our criterion for Truth!
These sound principles of logic, have universal application to all men, every where, ALL of the time, for there are not bound by any culture, class, nor creed; and, they do not change; truth, especially Divine truth, is absolute, unchangeable, as mankind does not invent truth; for truth is discovered, when it is seeked after with an objective mind.
As Simon Greenleaf, a father of the theory of evidence, in his famous 1874 work, “Testimony of the Evangelists…rule of municiple law, wrote:
“A proposition of fact is proved when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.”
Carry on my friend!
Grenville // April 24, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Hi Rohan:
I will happily discuss the existence of God, and how that God is the only Creator, and the God worshipped by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. However, let us do that on another thread.
Hi Not Saved:
Any recognized Bible will do. I have already explained that Islamic and Christian traditions are incompatible. Therefore, there is no need to provide a Christian denomination.
Hi Hopi:
Again, you are entering into ‘religious tradition’. Harmony was found between the principal teachings in the Bible and the Qur’an. Regarding verifying that an angel spoke with Mohammed, I explained that I was starting with the assumption that both books were correct.
Hi ROK:
The historical record I am referring to are authenticated historical documents from the time of Jesus to the time of Mohammed. You are well aware that the Sumerian and Egyptian documents predate these for thousands of years.
Regards,
Grenville
ROK // April 24, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Zoe,
Where do you get off with your patronising rhetoric? You who don’t understand the difference between an assumption and the truth or belief and truth?
You who demonstrates your warp sense of logic and really know nothing about the dynamics of logic.
Look you now come with mote in your eyes to see how much more mote you could spread. How could a claim be a truth? They have to be two competing claims because two competing truths are all truth; like darkness and light.
Furthermore, you cannot discover truth, it is always there and you may happen upon it; talk about logic?
Really, what is reality except what you make it to be? Each and every man according to his thoughts. Can you see that you are a slave? Your reality is that you are a free man. My reality is that you are a slave with few options for success and which very few of my colour have achieved.
@ Zoe
““If A is true, then -A is a falsity” (Law of Excluded Middle in Logic)”.
My Lord! What logic! They actually fooled you with that one; huh! Like “changing the goal post” rule! Anything to help you stay on top. They set you up good. You can’t even think for yourself. You swallow everything hook, line and sinker.
Your quote: “A proposition of fact is proved when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.”
What is competent and satisfactory to you is certainly not competent and satisfactory. There is no universal application here. That statement is about subjectivity and emotionalism; nothing objective, and it is grounded in belief, not fact; so where is the logic? An academic exercise?
Grenville // April 24, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Hi Zoe:
Excellent post. Please follow this logic.
A: Christians claim that the words of the God of Abraham are recorded in the Bible.
B: Muslims claim that the God of Abraham is the author of the Qur’an.
If both A and B are true, then there should be harmony between the principal teachings of the Bible and the Qur’an.
If there is not harmony between the principal teachings of A and B, then a common Author s unlikely.
If there is harmony, then it is possible that these brothers can be reconciled.
If there is disharmony, then the chances of reconciliation are unlikely.
I have found that there is harmony. Hence, they can either both be right or both wrong. That is the topic of another thread.
Regards,
Grenville
ROK // April 24, 2009 at 6:19 PM
@Grenville
“The historical record I am referring to are authenticated historical documents from the time of Jesus to the time of Mohammed.”
You are telling me that you have a historic record outside of the holy books that authenticates the bible stories?
Man I would love to see that.
ROK // April 24, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Grenville
“Muslims claim that the God of Abraham is the author of the Qur’an.”
I have to admit that your logic does seem to out-shine Zoe. This is interesting. Need to take a ringside seat on this one…. ah listening.
Christopher Halsall // April 24, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Nemesia Grenville…
However, let me please observe, as an independent and free thinker, that no formalized religion is required for one to be comfortable where one finds oneself…
I, personally, mostly resonate with the believes of the Buddhist and the Hindu. They, in my humble opinion, most seriously consider the obvious reality of the empirical quantum uncertainty…
Seriously….
CENTIPEDE // April 24, 2009 at 8:05 PM
You people who cant think for yourselves, who have been brainwashed as children and remain that way, will spend the rest of your lives living on a flat earth.
Better be careful driving your car, that you go over the rim and get lost in space….
Who is this “God” you talk about? Is this ‘God’ the Christians adore, the same one the Muslims fall on their knees for? That the Jews ‘pray’ to? That the Hindus worship? And the Buddhists?
Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions and check the several hundres religions of the world… is this ‘God’ the same God at the head of these religions?
If not, then – how many are there?
Maybe they are Brothers ??? (we know they couldn’t be sisters…..)
Well, you people have believed more crazy ideas… shall I provide a list for you?
Christopher Halsall // April 24, 2009 at 8:21 PM
@CENTIPEDE…
I abhor parasites…
Buddhists pray to no god(s).
Buddhists kneel to, and only for, the Universe….
Hopi // April 24, 2009 at 8:52 PM
@ROK……I swear that, that “God” is the “God” of DEATH. Do you see how that ” christian zealot” Zoe has already stepped in here with his ardent opposition….. “I am, however, looking foward to your analysis of these two very diametrically opposed documents, the Quran, and the Bible, both claiming to be divinely inspired.” You see how he doesn’t even believe that his bible has been divinely inspired, yet he tried so hard to defend it. He said that they CLAIMED to be. Ain’t that something?
@GRENVILLE
“I have found that there is harmony. Hence, they can either both be right or both wrong. That is the topic of another thread.” There’s no need for another thread because this is all relative. The harmonization lies in the fact that these religions were birthed in invasion, slaughter & bloodshed and eventual damnation if you don’t concede.
ROK // April 24, 2009 at 9:11 PM
Hopi,
That is good spotting. I taking it a bit further than you though. I would tell them that if they are birthed by the same god, then they both have to be compatible and there has to be convergence.
However, it is like humanity for everybody to have their own kingdom, so much so that even when the two are birthed from the same womb, they would want to divide it into two wombs and keep them divided in order to exercise power and authority.
Each religious denomination is like a Lucifer; cast out, but allowed to live.
CENTIPEDE // April 24, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Thanks for that Christopher Halsall – however there are several ‘varieties’ of Buddhism.
Grenville // April 24, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Hi ROK:
Regarding extra-Biblical sources to verify the Biblical events, let me recommend “The Bible in the British Museum” published by The British Museum Press. Let me further recommend that you visit this museum and the British Library when next you are in the UK and examine the evidence for your self. In the interim, you can read the book, Brothers Kept Apart, where I have quoted and referenced various relevant authenticated historical documents.
Hi Christopher:
I believe that you are correct in stating that no formalized religion is necessary for the individual. However, in order to pass on the beliefs to the next generation, history has shown that a religious tradition is quite effective.
I have not studied the Hindu Vedas, or Buddha’s writings sufficiently to comment on them. However, the Jews, Christians, and Muslims claim that there is only One God, who is the only Creator. They also claim that we can cultivate a personal relationship with this Creator. I am still waiting for someone to provide a rational reason for rejecting such an offer.
Hi Centipede:
Apparently you have chosen to spurn the offer to cultivate a relationship with your Creator. Do you have a rational reason for doing so?
Hi Hopi:
You are mistaken. You need to critically review the source of your information.
Regards,
Grenville
Not Saved // April 24, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Grenville,
You wrote:
“They [religions] also claim that we can cultivate a personal relationship with this Creator. I am still waiting for someone to provide a rational reason for rejecting such an offer.”
To reject the offer you must accept the claim the offer exists.
Why accept the claim?
Can you cite an example of “authenticated historical documents” which support the main claims of the christian religion?
At least give us an example because I am still at a loss as to exactly what you mean.
Christopher Halsall // April 24, 2009 at 10:30 PM
@CENTIPEDE: “…however there are several ‘varieties’ of Buddhism.
True.
However, please name one which worships a particular God.
Christopher Halsall // April 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM
@Grenville: “However, in order to pass on the beliefs to the next generation, history has shown that a religious tradition is quite effective.
Unfortunately, religious tradition is also quite effective for many other purposes….
Grenville // April 24, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Hi Not Saved:
The options that are clearly open to all of us is to either accept the offer to cultivate a relationship with our Creator, or to reject it. Those who have not accepted the offer are essentially rejecting it until death robs them of the opportunity. You must be honest with yourself. While you ponder and analyze the authenticity of the offer, are you essentially trying to justify your reasons for rejecting it?
You asked for an example of a historical document. How about the highly respected Roman historian, Tacitus, who wrote:
“But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities.”
“Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius:” (Tacitus, Annals 15.44)
Please read Brothers Kept Apart for the remainder.
Regards,
Grenville
ROK // April 25, 2009 at 12:15 AM
Grenville
“You asked for an example of a historical document. How about the highly respected Roman historian, Tacitus, who wrote…”
Man you guys trip up yourselves before you start. Why don’t you come with something that is not in dispute?
The dates are out of sync. The word Christus is in dispute because the scribe wrote something else which was changed to Christians; the physical evidence reveals the change.
Persecution under NERO did not happen in the time of Christ and if there was a man called Pontius Pilate under Nero, he certainly was after Christ.
Furthermore, the issue with Nero and the religious fanatics was the burning of the City. It never happened in the Bible. That was not the stated reason for the crucifixion.
Please give me something that is not in dispute. One thing!
Not Saved // April 25, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Grenville,
I wish I had a dollar every time a christian quoted tacitus.
what next ? josephus? pliny?
Tacitus is writing in 115CE about 85 years after Jesus.
The existence of christians in the period is not in doubt and his death at the hands of pilate is a claim from the gospels. This is not a contemporaneous account.
Lets look at Greek and Roman contemporaneous sources (around 30CE till the end of the century) and see what they say about Jesus.
What do they say? Nothing !
He is never discussed or even maligned or talked about in any way in any surviving pagan source of the period.
His name is never mentioned in any secular roman/greek document, not even once.
We have a LOT of greek and roman sources from the period; religious scholars, historians, philosophers, poets, scientists. We even have thousands of letters from the period.
In no first century greek or roman secular source of any kind is jesus mentioned.
If we look at certain claims in the bible they also fall short for example the alleged census requiring joseph home. There is no record.
Looking at Jewish sources there is only one, Josephus around 90CE. josephus was a considered a traitor and his work was copied by christian scribes, his most famous reference to jesus ( one of two brief paragraphs in 20 volumes) was likely inserted and this is common ground among scholars of the period.
If you search all secular greek and roman references to jesus for 100 years after his death, all you find is tacitus and pliny the younger.
Thats it.
The authenticity of the tacitus reference is even in doubt since he refers to pilate as a procurator and not a prefect and tacitus would be aware the significant historical difference.
The gospels (for which all of or knowledge of jesus comes) are not contemporaneous accounts, they are not written by eyewitnesses, they are not written by the apostles (or companions), the names were attributed to the anonymous gospels in the 2nd century.
So again I ask, where are the “authenticated historical documents” to which you refer?
Not Saved // April 25, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Here is the quote from tacitus, which you seem to have rather edited :
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [or Chrestians; see below] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”
Not Saved // April 25, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Grenville,
You wrote :
“The options that are clearly open to all of us is to either accept the offer to cultivate a relationship with our Creator, or to reject it. Those who have not accepted the offer are essentially rejecting it until death robs them of the opportunity.”
Clearly open? to whom?
10 million children under 5 will die in the next year, the vast majority due to preventable disease.
is the offer open to them?
Most will have been under nourished leading to increased risk of the disease that kills them. They lead short miserable disease ridden lives.
You continued …….
“You must be honest with yourself. While you ponder and analyze the authenticity of the offer, are you essentially trying to justify your reasons for rejecting it?”
It did not take long for the patronising christian to raise his head.
Not Saved // April 25, 2009 at 1:03 AM
You presume a creator, presume “an offer to cultivate a relationship” and then admonish people because “reject it”
Typical christian arrogance.
me // April 25, 2009 at 6:26 AM
religion brings societies down… blah blah blah
Micro Mock Engineer // April 25, 2009 at 7:03 AM
Qur’an (Shakir Translation) Sura 112 –
“Say: He, Allah, is One. Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is like Him.”
Bible (American Standard Version) John 3:16 –
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
… and never the twain shall meet.
Grenville // April 25, 2009 at 8:15 AM
Dear ROC:
ROC, you have managed to dismiss the most respected Roman historian. I only provided that evidence after directing you to all of the physical and documented evidence in the British Museum. Have you rejected all of that evidence as well? I suppose that if an Angel of God appeared to you, that you would try to rationalize the experience as a result of something you ingested.
Jesus gave an example of a rich man who lived comfortably on the earth, while a poor man sat at his gate in misery. In time they both died, and the rich man, being in torment, requested Abraham to send the poor man to comfort him. Abraham explained that such was impossible.
The rich man then requested that the poor man be sent back to warn his brothers lest they meet the same fate. Abraham explained that there was sufficient evidence in the scriptures. The rich man, knowing his brothers, explained that they would not believe such evidence, but would believe if one came back from the dead. Abraham confirmed that if they will not accept the evidence already provided, then they would not believe one that was sent back from the dead.
The point of Jesus’ example is to show that for some people, no amount of evidence is sufficient.
Regards,
Grenville
Grenville // April 25, 2009 at 8:16 AM
Dear Not Saved:
It is not arrogance. Please note that I had explained that a debate on the existence of God should be for another thread. However, since you insist. Please be advised that it is very difficult for someone to convince you that God is read and that He loves you. Jesus did many miracles, including raising Lazarus from the dead, yet there were some who saw these miracles and still refused to believe Him.
Knowing God is something that you have to experience for yourself. It is analogous to trying to prove the existence of colour to those who have spent their entire lives with their eyes shut. All I can do is to explain to you that I have opened my eyes, and that colour is wonderful. You can spend your life debating the matter or you can simply open your eyes and be convinced immediately. God Himself asked you to try Him. Others have put it this way: “O taste and see that the Lord is good.”
Some, because of their excitement with colour, may have come across as offensive or pushy as they tried to encourage all with whom they came into contact to experience what they had experienced. Let me suggest that their motives were honourable. They have simply opened their eyes, and are perhaps kicking themselves that they did not do so earlier, and do not want others to delay as they had.
I can only encourage you, and guarantee that you will see colour if you would but open your eyes. What is there to lose? If you do not see colour, then you are free to simply close them once again. You do not have to pay a fee, or walk 1,000 km, or climb Mt Everest, you just have to open your eyes. How simple is that?
You must be aware that even the physically blind, who have never seen color, and cannot conceptualize nor sense it, still believe that it exists. What excuse will you give God at the end of the age?
Regards,
Grenville
Not Saved // April 25, 2009 at 8:21 AM
Grenville writes :
‘You can spend your life debating the matter or you can simply open your eyes and be convinced immediately.”
There is that patronising attitude again…
By the way, which god should I see? yours right?
Grenville // April 25, 2009 at 8:22 AM
Hi MME:
Thank you for your on-topic comment. I trust that you read The Audacity of Hope article which explained the challenges of properly interpreting the Qur’an.
Mohammed was reacting to the teaching of the time of gods compounding through sexual intercourse. The Bible also rejects this.
Regards,
Grenville
Nietzche? // April 25, 2009 at 8:23 AM
Grenville wrote “they also claim that we can cultivate a personal relationship with this Creator. I am still waiting for someone to provide a rational reason for rejecting such an offer.”
Maybe there is no primary evidence that meets even the lowest standard of modern scientific inquiry that such an offer exists. Is there evidence that Zeus (or whoever) throws (or doesn’t throw) thunderbolts ?
I would expect any religions/philosophies that have arisen in the same geographical region, among people of close interaction, to have many similarities. It is the traditions that build up over time that are important in distinguishing the viewpoints. The religious traditions are the issue of importance. To distance oneself from the traditions is the response of either a conman or a puerile intellect.
Not Saved // April 25, 2009 at 8:25 AM
Grenville writes :
“The point of Jesus’ example is to show that for some people, no amount of evidence is sufficient.”
Thats right.
And no amount of “evidence” from “scripture” will convince you of the existence of any god(s) other than your own.
Not Saved // April 25, 2009 at 8:37 AM
Here are some excerpts from world hunger.org that I posted on an earlier thread….
“No one really knows how many people are malnourished. The statistic most frequently cited is that of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which measures ‘undernutrition’. The most recent estimate (2006) of the FAO says that 854 million people worldwide are undernourished. This is 12.6 percent of the estimated world population of 6.6 billion.”
“Children are the most visible victims of undernutrition. Children who are poorly nourished suffer up to 160 days of illness each year. Poor nutrition plays a role in at least half of the 10.9 million child deaths each year–five million deaths.”
“Under-nutrition among pregnant women in developing countries leads to 1 out of 6 infants born with low birth weight. This is not only a risk factor for neonatal deaths, but also causes learning disabilities, mental, retardation, poor health, blindness and premature death.”
some design
some designer
eye opening anyone?
Not Saved // April 25, 2009 at 8:46 AM
Grenville writes :
“Jesus did many miracles, including raising Lazarus from the dead”
Yipee !
What about the things jesus did not do.
Think about that.
Heal the sick did he?, but why not eradicate disease? a disease? any disease? hunger?
Condemn slavery? err no.
Teach about anti biotics? even crude ones would have saved lives, made life less miserable.
You keeping telling me of all the really exciting incredible things he did, I think I have a big list of what he did not do.
Grenville // April 25, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Hi Not Saved:
You are introducing additional factors which I would happily discuss with you on another thread, but can we get back on-topic and keep this one for the Bible and the Qur’an?
Regards,
Grenville
Not Saved // April 25, 2009 at 9:15 AM
which bible?
ROK // April 25, 2009 at 9:20 AM
Grenville
“ROC, you have managed to dismiss the most respected Roman historian. I only provided that evidence after directing you to all of the physical and documented evidence in the British Museum.”
Now why would I want to see anything in the British Museum when you can’t even establish the fact that there was indeed a Christ?
How could a man about whom so little is known could be held up as the most respected Roman historian. Too much of his work is missing. Wunna was able to slip in Josephus but somehow, I think wunna get caught red handed and that is why nearly all of Tacitus (the Traitor) work is missing. Wunna could not get them back in circulation so they had to stay buried.
Scream and come again!
ROK // April 25, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Grenville
You obviously think that this thing is about a lot of information but it is not. You creeping from one book and the Christians using the other as a crutch and there is nothing more.
You better get to Ancient Egypt and the Sumerians before them. All of it comes from there. No need for any further threads as seen with the bible and christians on this Blog; each thread was really a continuation of the other and went down virtually the same way. We don’t need to make the same mistake with you.
tikkun olam // April 25, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Sadly many posters want to dispute the theory that religions on this planet can try and achieve reconciliation. Which could tend to make for a very defensive and non-productive discussion.
Why decry? Are we so insecure that we do not wish others to be productive?
After the author of the book and thread I would be honoured to participate in trying to accomplish peace and acceptance with anyone who cares to.
Zoe // April 25, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Grenville, you see how the scoffing experts, Rok, Not Saved et al, simply cannot engage in any meaningful discussion without throwing in ‘Strawmen’ and Redherrings’ to distract from the central theme of this exercise!
Getting back to the central focus of this blog.
The Key to Islam:
It is very difficult for those in Western culture to comprehend and understand that Islam is a form of ‘Cultural Imperialism, in which the religion and culture of 7th century Arabia are raised to divine law.
Islam is not a personal religious preference in Islamic societies, as there is no secular realm in Islamic countries.
Islam is the “deification” of 7th century Arabian culture; in a very real sense, Islam is more cultural than it is religious; this is why all the textbooks and the encyclopedias of Islam begin with the historical context of Muhammad and the importance of 7th century Arabian culture.
Actually, what disturbs Middle East scholars is that Arabs have taken 7th Century Arabian culture, and turned it into a religion.
No Secular Realm.
To the Muslim, there is no ’secular’ realm, where he is free from Islam. To the devout Muslim, Islam is all of life; there is no ’separation’ of Mosque and State, that compares to the separation of church and state, in western culture.
Muhammad took the Arab culture around him with all of its secular and sacred custims and made it into the religion of Islam.
Arab Racism.
Therefore, Islam is fueled by a subtle form of racism in which 7th century Arabian culture in its political expressions, family affairs, dietary laws, clothing, religious rites, languages, etc., are imposed on all other cultures.
The Cult of the Moon-God.
Muhammad did not invent the concept of ‘Allah’ nor was it revealed for the first time in the Quran.
A well known Middle Eastern scholar, H. Gibb, pointed out that the reason that Muhammad never had to explain who ‘Allah’ was in the Quran was that his listeners had already heard about Allah long before Muhammad was ever born.
Dr. Arthur Jeffery, who was one of the foremost Western Islamic scholars in modern times and Professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at Columbia University, points out that,
“The name Allah, as the Quran itseld is witness, was well known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed, both it and its feminine form ‘Allat’ are found not infrequently among the theophorous names in inscriptions from North Africa.”
The word ‘Allah’ comes from a compound Arabic word, ‘al-ilah.’ the ‘al’ is the definite article ‘the’ and the word ‘ilah’ is an Arabic word for “god.” It is NOT a foriegn word. It was not even the Syriac word for god. It is pure Arabic. Neither is ‘Allah’ a Hebrew or Greek word for God as found in the Bible. Allah is an Arabic term used in reference to an Arabian deity.
Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states:
“Allah is a proper name, applicable only to their (i.e., Arab) peculiar god.”
According to the Encyclopedia of Religion:
“Allah is a pre-Islamic name…corresponding to the Babylonian Bel.”
Due to past experiences with recalcitrant students who found it hard to believe that “Allah” was a pagan name for a peculiar pagan Arabian deity in pre-Islamic times, the following citations are given.
“Allah is found…in Arabic inscriptions prior to Islam.” (Ency Britannica).
“The arabs, before the time of Mohammad, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god callad Allah.” ( The Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Houtsma).
“Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities.” (Ency of Islam, ed, Gibb).
“The name Allah goes back before Muhammad.” (Ency. of World Mythology And Legend).
“The origin of this (Allah) goes back to pre-Muslim times. Allah is not a common name meaning “God” (or a ‘god’), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity. ( Ency Of Religion and Ethics).
Caesar Farah in his book on Islam concludes his discussion of the pre-Islamic meaning of Allah by saying:
“There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews.”
According to Middle East scholar E.M. Wherry, whose translation of the Quran is still used today, in pre-Islamic times, Allah-worship, as well as Baal-worship, were both astral religions in that they involved the worship of the sun, moon and the stars.
Astral Religions.
In Arabia, the sun god was viewed as a female goddess and the moon as the male god. As has been pointed out by many scholars such as Alfred Guilluame, the moon god was called by various names, one of which was Allah.
The name Allah was used as the personal name of the moon god versus other titles that could be given to him.
Allah, the moon god, was married to the sun-goddess. Together they produced three goddesses who were called “the daughters of Allah.” These three goddesses were called ‘Al-Lat’ ‘Al-Uzza’ and ‘ManatThe ‘daughters of Allah, along with Allah and the sun-goddesses were viewed as being at the top of the pantheon of Arabian deities. Along with Allah, however, they worshipped a host of lesser gods and ‘daughters’ of Allah.
(Islam Unveiled, The True Desert Storm).
Certainly sound strickingly similar to the paganistic gods of the ancient Egyptians and Canaanite religions!
ROK // April 25, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Grenville,
Let me get to the bottom line with you. I believe that a Creator made me and every living creature and thing on this earth, but that Creator is also an intrinsic part of me. To make it clearer, I am but a minute part of the manifestation of the Creator.
That is quite different from saying that my father and mother made me, which I can also say. Now let us take a scientist who alters the DNA of a cow or produces a clone, can you say that the scientist made something?
The most you can say is that the scientist juggled the DNA, tampered with or altered the design. The other thing of note is that the scientist has to work with the tools and materials given by the Creator.
If we say that matter cannot be created or destroyed, all the above has to be true. I think that is a more reasonable position or even belief.
There is no difference between the Creator and the Creation. Your God is said to have created man from the dust of the earth and then created Eve from the rib of the man; using materials given by the Creator.
The question of making the heavens does not hold water considering the calculated age of the earth and the time-line cited for the beginning of the world by your God.
Next thing you have to do is decide whether of not your god wrote the scriptures, or men did. I sincerely believe that they were by your God who made up the story based on the Ancient writings but doctored them to suit Himself and carefully placed them in a way that they would be found by man after lay wasting Egypt in an attempt to destroy knowledge and plunge mankind into the dark.
Then He used the Christians to destroy more knowledge and plunge man further down into darkness, so much so that a man got his head cut off for saying that the earth is round, when in truth and fact, the Ancients knew the Earth was round; such is the ignorance of Christianity.
Burning witches at the stake; another ignoramus, and then set up people like you, GP and Zoe to continue spreading the ignorance in the face of reality and the compelling evidence that nothing in the bible ever happened.
There is no way that the story of Christ, if it happened, would have been absent from the historical record of the Romans. Somewhere it would have been documented: the trial of jesus; the crucifixion; the resurrection; the parting of the red sea; the plagues of Egypt; Joseph in Pharaoh’s Court; Moses in Pharaoh’s court; the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah; etc., etc.
You are telling me that these major events slipped all the historians, and it comes down to a mention of a word or two for you to place your whole belief on a lie.
I state it again, The Creator need not walk about saying, I am the Creator and worship me, because the Creator would obviously have created what was in the control of the Creator to Create. What then would be the point?
It would be more logical to believe that through the Creation the Creator is trying to get to a destination and will get there as the Creation grows and evolves. The will of the Creator WILL be done, whether you are conscious of it or not.
Everything is therefore a manisfestation of the Creator, as we say, naturally designed. All considered, it would be very illogical for anyone that is a manifestion of the Creation to claim that he/she/it is the Creator of the entire Creation.
Therefore Sir, I start with the premise that any person, creature or thing that claims to be the Creator is a charlatan and whatever HE puts forward as evidence of this, puts forward lies and at best, half truths; making it all a lie.
You think you strong enough to deal with that? All you have to do is point me to any of the evidence and I will humbly submit. Waste of time asking me to believe what is not so obvious.
ROK // April 25, 2009 at 11:15 AM
@Zoe
“It is very difficult for those in Western culture to comprehend and understand that Islam is a form of ‘Cultural Imperialism…”
Yes Zoe, I can discuss the “isms” too. You as a kettle calling the pot black? What greater imperialism can be found than in Christianity? It teaches the people to get rid of their riches; their money, which is gobbled up by an elite few.
The Muslims on the other hand, teaches self reliance although, there is a focus on supporting the community and pooling wealth. Not so with the Christians and that is what makes you slaves in the highest order.
You are therefore easy prey for the capitalists and moreso the imperialists. They dazzle you with the glitter and the glamour and you fall in hook, line and sinker. They use you to gather wealth and then they do what they will with it; keep dazzling you with it. They can go to the stars.
They give out pieces of paper with a value and got you worshiping it as the river of life. They make you work, plough your ground and then hustle it to market; take all your tangible wealth for these pieces of paper falselessly made valuable. Without it you don’t eat. A man can starve to death in Barbados, if he don’t have anybody… but if he becomes shameless he will eat out of the garbage; of course; as the Creator deems fit.
ROK // April 25, 2009 at 11:17 AM
@Zoe
There is good reason why the congregations are referred to as the FLOCK.
Nietzsche? // April 25, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Zoe
what is the central focus of this blog? I suggest that this central focus is that there is common ground between Islam and Christianity. Your posts seek to refute this assertion. More pointedly you imply that the authorship of the Bible and Koran cannot be the same.
However the author of “Brothers kept apart” claiming 30 years of research infers a proposed dualism suggesting that Islam and Christianity are two sides of the same coin! Furthermore he ignores the religious traditions in attempting to whitewash the actions of believers.
I hypothesize that this book is the work of either a conman or a puerile intellect.
Your opinion of your fellow Christian Grenville is thus solicited as to which he is.
ROK // April 25, 2009 at 11:42 AM
tikkun olam
“Sadly many posters want to dispute the theory that religions on this planet can try and achieve reconciliation.”
The design is to divide and rule; what reconciliation what? The best mechanisms for keeping the population down is massacring people through waging war and bio-warfare, which we have seen launched with efficiency by the imperialists; Palestine, Central Africa and HIV/AIDS are prime examples.
Not to mention the drugs they selling us and all the asthma and chronic sicknesses in young people that happening for no apparent reason, except the chemically saturated foods we are now eating. So much so that young people will tell you they don’t like yam and eddoes.
If man is to live in harmony on this earth; then religion must go. Respect for people must be established. The right to believe whatever, without suffering abuse from those of another faith, or be stigmatised by the society.
Grenville // April 25, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Hi Zoe:
You provided a lot of information which is also covered in the book, much of which can be read on Amazon.com’s search inside feature. I will respond to each concern.
Islamic religious tradition is varied depending on the devoutness of their adherents and the interpretations of the Qur’an. This is reflected in Arab culture.
The origin of the word Allah remains an unconfirmed mystery. What none of the academics whom you mentioned have done, to my knowledge, is to take the Qur’an at face value and investigate the likely source of the word.
The Qur’an identifies God as the God worshipped by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Daniel, David, and the Old Testament prophets. He is identified as the God of the Jews and Christians.
Let us assume that this is correct. Where then could Mohammed have learnt about Allah. Well, Mohammed and those in his community were descendents of the Ishmaelites. Ishmael was the first born son of Abraham. There is nothing recorded in the Bible of Abraham ever referring to God as Allah. However, Ishmael’s Egyptian mother did address the Angel of God as a variant of the word ‘Allah’ after they were sent away. This is the likely source of the word. Please read the research for the details.
Regards,
Grenville
Grenville // April 25, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Hi Nietzsche:
Please note that the religious traditions are not being ignored, for they are necessary for properly interpreting the Bible and the Qur’an. What I have explained is that while harmony was found between the principal teachings of the Bible and the Qur’an, there is conflict between Christian and Islamic religious traditions.
ROK, you are off-topic again. I will happily respond to you on another thread.
Regards,
Grenville
Hopi // April 25, 2009 at 1:29 PM
@Grenville……Show me where I’m mistaken.
If there is harmony between the principle teachings of these two, what/who is behind the conflict between the two traditions?
@Zoe…..Can you explain how it is that someone/s are CLAIMING that the Bible is divinely inspired. (Your words not mine). Is it or isn’t it?
You just couldn’t hide your hatred for the teachings of Islam, couldn’t you? Didn’t your bible teach you something about REMOVING THE MOTE fr your brother’s eye and not seeing the BEAM that’s blinding you? Here you are connecting Islam to “paganistic gods of Kmt as if your Christos Serapis didn’t come out of Kmt as well. Take the beam out ya damn eye first. But I’ll be back.
Grenville // April 25, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Hi Hopi:
Good question. We can only speculate. I believe that had Mohammed been meeting with Christians who were willing to listen to what he had to say at face-value, rather than be so critical, then who knows what would have happened.
A cynical view is that it is simply a matter of controlling people.
Regards,
Grenville
Zoe // April 25, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Hopi, I used the word’s ‘…are CLAIMING…’ meaning for the Christians as well as the Muslims, that each one is making a contention or assertion, a thing claimed, as that is the only proper way to have worded the combination of the two truth claims.
But, I firmly believe with a deep, abiding conviction, not blind faith, as you et al already know, that the Bible IS God’s Word, confirmed by the most preponderance of Historical evidence, second to none, literally in a class by itself when stacked against all other religious claims, that simply CANNOT be refuted with any sound, coherent arguments.
You, Rok et all, can continue throwing all kinds of strawmen and Redherrings into the fray, IT WON’T WORK, as you CAN’T out the FIRE of God’s Revelation, with STRAW, or wood, it will just continue to BURN even brighter, and brighter, Glory to God, the One true and Omnipotent God!
Technician // April 25, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Zoe is an ass……plain and simple!!
Zoe // April 25, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Grenville, you say; “The Quran identifies God as the God worshipped by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Daniel, David, and the Old Testament prophets. He is identified as the God of the Jews and Christians.”
While this acknowledgement given in the Quran is correct; this most certainly does not make the ‘Allah’ of Islam the same god as the God of the Old Testament prophets.
The Roman Catholics also acknowledge exactly what the Quran acknowledged, even the New Testament accounts of Christ, His Crucifixion, and Resurrection, etc. BUT, the ‘Christ’ of Catholicism IS NOT the Christ of the Bible, the ’spirit’ of Catholicism IS NOT the Spirit of Christ, and the gospel of Catholicism IS NOT the Gospel of the Bible, just like the ‘Allah’ of the Quran IS NOT the God of Historic divine revelation as revealed in the Old Testament.
Acknowledgement of a Historic fact, does not necessarily mean, you are dealing with the same God!
To be very blunt, Granville, I firmly, and resolutely believe that the ‘Allah’ of Islam is Satan, masquerading as God!
Rohan // April 25, 2009 at 4:46 PM
NOTSAVED WROTE:
Grenville writes :
‘You can spend your life debating the matter or you can simply open your eyes and be convinced immediately.”
There is that patronising attitude again…
By the way, which god should I see? yours right?
****************
ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!
David // April 25, 2009 at 6:31 PM
@Chris
Thanks…link fixed!
@livinginbarbados
As asked before if you know of similar works please cite sources.
Hopi // April 25, 2009 at 8:30 PM
@Zoe…..How is Islam more culturally imperialistic than Christianity? Of these two which one has bathed the earth in more blood on the behalf of their God. A. Egypt was the grandest prize of all. A country built by Blacks and ruled by Blacks. A country more advanced and civilised than any country you would find on earth today. And they both fought over it and hence we have modern-day Egypt being ruled by a stinking corrupt arab known as Mubarak. No other nation on this earth has had a civilization spanning the time period that Kemet has. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism…..they all came from Kemet. You here trying to decipher Allah, but you need to go find out where your Christ came from, because they were many that preceded him and he is the last one on the scene. And whether or not you like Islam, doesn’t negate the fact that these men have more balls, more guts, more fortitude than you weak-knees christians whose mouths are filled with nothing but LIES and DEATH. Who is pillaging the world today? Who’s desecrating human life today? And all you dumb-ass christians (esp. if you re black) can do is stay on your knees and pray to the god of the slavemaster when you should be kicking his ass. You run up in your church like mice and pray for your christ to return. All you do to comfort your sorry arses is repeat the big shit that it has all been prophesied while being accomplices to your own demise.
“Twenty centuries is a long while in the life-time of a lie, but a brief span in the eternity of TRUTH. The fiction is sure to be found out and the lie will fall At last! At last! At last.”
Pat // April 25, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Zoe // April 25, 2009 at 4:38 pm
To be very blunt, Granville, I firmly, and resolutely believe that the ‘Allah’ of Islam is Satan, masquerading as God!
********************************
Strange Zoe, but that is how many of us see the God of the Bible – Satan, the cast out princely one, gog!
Read you Bible again and come back!
Grenville // April 25, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Hi Rohan:
Since the Jews, Christians, and Muslims declare that there is only One God, who is the only Creator, and that there is none besides Him. Then, I think that the very least that you can do is to invite Him to reveal Himself to you.
Regards,
Grenville
Rohan // April 25, 2009 at 9:50 PM
Grenville,
So what makes the Jews, Christians, and muslims’ God any more viable than the other hundreds of Gods out there?
Oh, and I invited God, Santa Claus, the tooth Fairy, and the jolly green giant to reveal themselves and guess what happened.
Nothing!
Looks like invisible and non-existent entities share a lot in common.
Wake up man!
Micro Mock Engineer // April 25, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Grenville,
“Mohammed was reacting to the teaching of the time of gods compounding through sexual intercourse.”
That is one interpretation, but for me, an unlikely one. The evidence suggests that Mohammed was speaking not only to the pagans of his day, but also to the followers of Jesus.
The Arabic words used for ‘beget’ and ‘begotten’ in that verse were ‘yalid’ and ‘yuulad’, and the verse literally means God does not give birth nor is He given birth to. I acknowledge that the Greek word for ‘beget’ is genderless whereas in Arabic there is both a male form (‘yalid’)’ and female form (‘teled’) of the verb… however, it is incorrect to assume that the use of the male form of the verb necessarily connotes sexual conception.
Mohammed repeats the message several times in the Qur’an, and the following verses leave little doubt as to which religious group he is referring:
Sura 5:17 “Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely, Allah– He is the Messiah, son of Marium”
Sura 5:72 “Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium”
Sura 5:73 – “Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three”
Sura 5:75 – “The Messiah, son of Marium is but a messenger; messengers before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food.”
Sura 9:30 – “And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”
Not Saved // April 25, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Rohan,
Yes they look remarkably alike !
Micro Mock Engineer // April 25, 2009 at 10:10 PM
@ Grenville… apart from the issue relating to the ‘deity’ of Jesus, I agree with your general position that there are no contradictions of significance between the Qur’an and the Bible.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 25, 2009 at 10:28 PM
@ David, Grenville
Mark Deli Siljander, the republican the US recently indicted for funneling money to an Afghan warlord, has lectured and written similar work. Google “A Deadly Misunderstanding” and “Overcoming the Muslim Western Divide”.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 25, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Rohan & Not Saved… It is clear you believe both books are wrong about the existence of God, but do you believe there is harmony between the principal teachings of the Qur’an and the Bible?
Zoe // April 25, 2009 at 11:04 PM
No Lie or any kind of ‘deception’ especially ’spiritual deception, is more subtle and dangerous, than when it is COUCHED, VENEERED, and presented in some degree of ‘truth’ exactly what Mohammad, under the influence of Satan, masquerading as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has done.
Isn’t it interesting that all major Cults, who use the Bible, apart from their own spurious extra biblical sources; invariably ATTACK and malign the central core doctrine of Historic, Apostolic, Orthodox, Christianity, the DEITY of Christ, exactly what you find in the Quran.
It makes no difference ‘…that there are no contradictions of significance between the Quran and the Bible.” As the Father of all Lies, always includes much truth, up front, in all of his LIES, and no deception, can gain any momentum unless it gets a ‘piggy-back’ ride on truth!
ROK // April 25, 2009 at 11:39 PM
@Zoe
“No Lie or any kind of ‘deception’ especially ’spiritual deception, is more subtle and dangerous, than when it is COUCHED, VENEERED, and presented in some degree of ‘truth’ exactly what Mohammad, under the influence of Satan, masquerading as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has done.”
That is your fanaticism coming out. You and whomever else thinking like you are truly disturbed.
Rohan // April 26, 2009 at 2:19 AM
Micro Mock Engineer, to answer your question: sure there is harmony between the teachings of the bible and the Qur’an.
Both books endorse slavery, the dehumanization of women, mass killing, child sacrifice, and other musings of a bloodthirsty, vengeance-seeking God.
If you doubt anything I’ve said here, look it up. If you can’t find it, I’ll be happy to post the text.
victor // April 26, 2009 at 4:08 AM
Zoe, yes there are MusIim countries which have secuIar govt. eg. Turkey pop 80 miIIion, where majority of women wear normaI cIothes etc. and in fact the veiI is iIIegaI though Wahabism is creeping in there too. ROK, the pIagues, parting of the red sea etc. in the oId testament aII have a basis in fact and naturaI phenomena but took on a spirituaI significance at the time, as the Jews tended to use adversity and Ioss as a unifying force, a way of proving to themseIves that they had not been foIIowing their beIiefs properIy . The oId is far more accurate than the new testament, as archaeoIogy and contemporaneous sources have proved. The story of Jesus is intriguing, considering we have as you say no factuaI, contemporaneous evidence at aII. Did one man inspire the foIIowers? It is strange we know so IittIe about it. Women, sIaves, the poor and crippIed fIocked to earIy Christianity because it was far more appeaIing than Roman reIigion where the gods frowned upon the weak. Christianity had Heaven, a big draw, and a cIear structure about how to get there. St PauI is pretty hard on women I often wonder if he was in fact gay. That’s one character we know existed for sure from his epistIe to the Ephesians etc. but he never actuaIIy met Jesus. Jesus, however is pretty cooI in his treatment of women, prostitutes, sIaves and the poor, sick, bIind and even the dead. It’s aII about second chances. He’s hard on the rich, cameIs and needIes iIIustrating this and not keen on money in generaI, Iending it in particuIar. However, as far as I am concerned, aII the monotheistic reIigions have one probIem and that is it’s aII about MEN. How can it be right to have a reIigion with just 2 guys and a bird representing creation? At Ieast the Sumerians, BabyIonians and Egyptians gave equaI rights to maIe and femaIe and animaIs aIso get to be in it. There’s a respect for nature Iacking in monotheism and a fear of women. Get from this terribIe earth, we peopIe faIIen from grace, and get to heaven. The big guiIt trip. Sinners! oh dear, even a tiny baby is in a state of “originaI sin”. This reaches its peak with the AIbgensians of France who decided to not have any babies at aII as humans were so dreadfuI and Iife on earth so awfuI. To them Iife on earth WAS heII. I’m not sure I wouId caII Ancient Egypt “bIack”. You can see from the many paintings adorning tombs that they had a cIear idea about ethnic differences in coIour and appearance, using hairstyIes, cIothes, physicaI characteristics etc. to differentiate between the races. As far as gods are concerned, the further back you go, into Nubia for exampIe, the cIoser the gods bear a resembIance to the gods of aII pantheistic reIigions. So if we aII want to Iive in harmony, better go back to the gods and goddesses perhaps! The Romans, for instance, were endIessIy adopting deities from here and there, eg the cuIts of Isis or CybeIe, adopting the Greek pantheon, etc. I feeI the root of the probIem Iies where you hear the words “I am the onIy God and you can onIy taIk to me through a priest”.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 26, 2009 at 7:07 AM
Rohan,
Is it the belief in a God you find offensive, or the description of that God offered by these religions? (You forgot to mention ‘incest’ and ‘rape’ in your list by the way) :-)
Zoe // April 26, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Islamists have a clearly outlined World Wide agenda, since Communism failed in its attempt to take over the world, another vicious totalist ideology; Islamism has now taken over, which seeks to force ’sharia’ (Islamic law) on all the inhabitants of the earth, one way or the other, either by willful submission to ‘Allah’ or by force.
It is no surpise that Islamism is an outgrowth of fascism and communism; as it was the Nazis who helped create Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, a pioneering Islamic extremist group founded in 1928. The Nazis hoped to use the organization as a weapon against the British in the Middle East; these radical Islamists see violent Jihad as a necessity to achieve World Wide Islamic Law, a death cult, a totalitarian concept.
Islamists believe that human beings who hold different beliefs represent a lower species and defile not only Muslim lands, but the entire earth.
These rules are directly founded on mandates of the Prophet Muhammad, who on his deathbed, said:
“Let there not be two religions in Arabia.” Muhammad also stated, “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims.”
According to the Quran and the hadiths (recorded teachings of Muhammad), Jihad MUST be waged against unbelievers until they are DEFEATED, SUBJUGATED, and forced to submit to Islamic law.
Myriad Quranic verses emphasize the importance of fighting unbelievers. The famous Verse of the Sword (Sura 9:5) for instance, which is considered the Quran’s final word on Jihad and nullifies all contrary teachings, instructs Muslims to attack and KILL non-Muslims as a means of achieving world hegemony under Islam.
Muhammad himself was a living example in this regard, making frequent war against unbelievers. By the end of Muhammad’s life, Islam dominated Arabia, and Muslim armies were set to expand outward to battle the Byzantine and Persian empires. After Muhammad’s death, Muslims engagede in ferocious attacks on their non-Muslim neighbors, and the Islamic empire grew quickly, extending into Syria, Egypt, and eventually all of the Middle East and North Africa.
Those who were conquered were given three choices; converting to Islam, living as second-class citizens and paying a poll tax (the jizya), or being sold into slavery or KILLED.
These Islamic policies of Jihad and dhimmitude have NEVER been renounced, and their barbarities are abundantly present in the modern era. In the twentieth century, exposure to the totlitarian ideological virus only strengthened the DEATH cult that had been part of Islam from the very beginning.
Grenville and MME, and you say, there is harmony between the principle teachings of the Quran and the Bible!
Trying to in some way equate the teachings of the Quran as been in harmony with the Bible, is like trying to equate Roman Catholicism with the true Church of Jesus Christ; analagous to equating the Costra Nostra, the Mafia with the Salvation Army!
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 9:53 AM
MME,
‘harmony’ is not the word I would immediately use.
As religions with common objectives, they have much in common, some of which has been alluded to by rohan. (and good stuff too)
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Zoe,
what is the “true church” of jesus christ?
were jesus and his disciples observant jews? did they keep the law?
Nietzche? // April 26, 2009 at 10:33 AM
I hope that Bajans should see by now that ALL religions are human inventions. These are mostly very divisive, destructive and hence harmful phenomena. The only way that any society can be peaceful, healthy and truly ethical is to aggressively moderate the religious imperative. This can best be done by promoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, promoting rational thinking vis-a-vis the scientific method in its schools and removing religious instruction from public schooling and promoting a secular republican form of governance.
ROK // April 26, 2009 at 10:35 AM
victor
“ROK, the pIagues, parting of the red sea etc. in the oId testament aII have a basis in fact and naturaI phenomena…”
That is by you saying so? Well I can also say that anything is possible, except that the subject matter is reported as events that took place at a particular time and space. This is not about probabilities or possibilities.
BTW, where in history other than reported in the bible that waters were similarly parted by natural phenomena? no Tsunami can do that because tsunami is about ebb and flow.
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM
ROK,
victor is correct, the story of the plagues (but somewhat less so the parting of the red sea) has a possible basis in natural phenomena.
Of course, it was normal in that time to attribute natural phenomena to the work of god(s)
(apparently still true today for a few of the extreme)
The stories are also greatly enhanced for dramatic effect, a possible bloom of red algae taken for blood for example.
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Grenville,
What is the punishment for apostasy in islam?
ROK // April 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM
victor
“The oId is far more accurate than the new testament, as archaeoIogy and contemporaneous sources have proved…”
You are bringing new knowledge to the table? Let me ask you a question, what archeological artifacts exist that prove anything in the bible? You can’t find the holy graille nor the ark of the covenant… but there is a supposedly shawl on which the so-called Christ laid upon being buried.
You can’t even find the cross he was crucified on. Do you know the location of the tomb in which he was buried? Can you verify that it belonged to a Joseph of Arimathea?
Can you find any record of joseph in the Pharaoh’s Court? What about the Ark which Noah built? Such a large vessel and not a trace?
I heard some time ago that radiation was still coming from Mount Sinai and that was supposed to be proof that some kind of nuclear craft/machinery was once there, since Mt. Sinai has no radiation materials within it.
You want to put me in a blue room with yellow spectacles on and tell me that I in a green room, right?
ROK // April 26, 2009 at 11:52 AM
victor
“I’m not sure I wouId caII Ancient Egypt “bIack”.”
You were tricked too? See what I mean about a blue room with yellow shades? If you would not call it black what would you call it? Certainly not white?
ROK // April 26, 2009 at 12:11 PM
@ Zoe
“It is no surpise that Islamism is an outgrowth of fascism and communism…”
You are pathetic. Still calling the kettle black?
Well the outgrowth of Christianity is imperialism, capitalism, slavery and racism.
Did you see how many more African slaves were killed at the hands of racism than jews at the hands of facism?
Micro Mock Engineer // April 26, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Rohan & Not Saved,
Do you believe religion and belief in the supernatural are unproductive and dangerous, or positive evolutionary traits formed through natural selection?
ROK // April 26, 2009 at 12:16 PM
MME
You always do make a good point. The responses will be interesting.
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Micro Mock Engineer,
Good questions.
Belief in the supernatural is unproductive and dangerous. If there were no such belief, no one could be convinced that the killing of infidels would be rewarded with 72 virgins in the afterlife.
A more rational stance would be:
Believe only in things for which there is compelling evidence.
Given that there is ZERO evidence for an after-life, ZERO evidence for the existence of any of the thousands of Gods we have come to know, and ZERO evidence for the existence of DRAGONS, we can assume that NONE of these things exist.
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 12:45 PM
I’ll also add this quote:
—
One who can be convinced of irrational things can be convinced to take irrational actions.
—
It gets no more dangerous than this. I’m sure you can think of many current and ancient examples of this.
ROK // April 26, 2009 at 12:57 PM
@rohan
Like the beheading of a man for saying that the earth is round; LOL!
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM
ROK,
Well there are several such examples.
When Galileo said that the earth was not the center of the universe, and actually revolved around the sun, the Catholic church condemned this as “false and contrary to Scripture” and he was put under house-arrest for the rest of his life.
This was in the 1600’s.
When did the church finally recant and apologize for this?
1992.
Oh, and just this year, the pope went to Africa and basically told a continent ravaged by Aids not to use condoms.
Remember this when folks argue that religion causes no harm.
Nietzche? // April 26, 2009 at 1:21 PM
I know the question wasn’t addressed to me but what the hell I gwine throw my 1 cent in:
There does appear to be evidence that having religious beliefs may be an evolutionary trait. Whether it is positive or not must be assessed in the context of fitness for survival in a given environment. In the very distant hunter gatherer past, having religious beliefs may have been a positive trait. I would argue in today’s environment however religious beliefs are irrational, unproductive and dangerous especially if a believer has his finger on the button to launch a nuclear weapon.
Zoe // April 26, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Allah and the God of the Bible.
Most people assume that the God of the Bible and Allah of the Quran are one and the same God, just under different names.
When we seriously compare the attributes of God as found in the Bible with attributes of Allah found in the Quran, it becomes patently obvious that these two are NOT the same God.
The historical background on the origin and meaning of the Arabian “Allah” clearly reveal that Allah cannot be the God of the biblical Patriarchs, the Jews, or the Christians. Allah is merely a revamped and magnified Arabian moon deity.
Here are a few of the historic differences that have been pointed out again and again between the God of the Bible and the Allah of the Quran. These points of conflict have been noted in scholarly works for over a thousand years.
Knowable vs Unknowable.
1] According to the Bible, God is knowable. Jesus Christ came into this world that we might know God (John. 17:3).
But in the Quran, Allah is so transcendent and exalted that NO man can ever personally know him.
Therefore, while in the Bible, man can come into a personal relationship with God, the Allah of the Quran is so distant, so far off, so abstract, that NO one can know him.
Personal vs Non-personal.
2] The God of the Bible is spoken of as a personal being, with intellect, emotion, and will.
This is in contrast to Allah who is NOT to be understood as a person. This would lower him to the level of a man, according to Muslim theology.
Spiritual vs Non-spiritual.
3] To the Muslim, the idea that Allah is a person or a spirit is blasphemous, because this would demean the exalted one.
But, that “God is a spirit” in one of the cornerstones of the biblical nature of God (John 4:24).
Love Of God vs No Love Of God.
4] The love of God is the chief attribute of the biblical God, as revealed in such places as John 3:16. God has feelings for His creatures, especially man.
But, when we turn to the Quran, we do not find the love of Allah presented as his chief attribute. Instead, the transcendence of Allah is his chief attribute.
Neither does Allah “have feelings” toward man. The love of Allah is foreign to Islamic teachings.
Active in History vs Non-active.
5] According to Islamic theology, Allah does NOT personally enter human history, he always deals with the world through his word, prophets and angels,
How different this is from the God of the Bible, who entered our world, became Incarnate Deity, to bring about man’s salvation.
Attributes vs No Attributes.
6] The Quran never tells us in a positive sense what Allah is in terms of his nature or essence. The so-called ‘ninety nine attributes’ of Allah are all negative in form, signifying what Allah is not, but never telling us what he is.
The Bible, on the other hand gives us numerous accounts of both the postive and negative attributes of God.
Grace vs Works
7] The Bible speaks much about the Grace of God in providing a free salvation for all of mankind, through a Saviour, Jesus Christ, who is our intecessor between God and man (I tim. 2:5).
Yet, in the Quran, there is NO concept of the ‘grace’ of Allah, no saviour.
When you examine the attributes of Almighty God, who has revealed Himself in the Bible to the Allah who is described in the Quran, there is such a vast difference between the two, it is simply not possible to believe that they are one and the same God.
What many fail to understand, is that monotheism in and of itself, belief in one God, does NOT tell us anything about the identity of the one God who is to be worshipped. In other words, it is not enough to say there is only One God, if you have the wrong God.
If someone said, that Ra, Isis, or Osiris was the one true God, this does not mean that Christianity and Egyptians deities are one and the same.
Someone could have taught that Baal or Molech was the one true God. Or again, the Greeks could have argued that Zeus or Jupiter was the one true living God. But, merely arguing that there is one God does not automatically mean that the one God you choose to worship, happens to be the right one.
Therefore, in this case, the God of the Bible has clearly revealed Himself in such a way that His nature and His names, cannot be confused with the nature and names of the surrounding pagan deities.
The cult of the moon god which worshipped Allah was transformed by Muhammad into a monotheistic faith. The obvious problem with this, is that because Muhammad started with a pagan god, it is no surprise that he ended up with a pagan god. As German scholar Johannes Hauri pointed out”
“Mohammad’s monotheism was just as much a departure from true monotheism, a the polytheistic ideas…Mohammad’s idea of God is out and out deistic.”
(Islam Unveiled, The True Desert Storm).
ROK // April 26, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Nietzche?
That is a good one.
Nietzche? // April 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Thanks ROK.
@Zoe, so the author of “Brothers kept apart” is a conman?
David, common entrance is about one week away and you done fail!! That apostrophe “s” in the title should not be there!!!
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 2:31 PM
MME,
funny you should ask if I “believe”
I prefer to not simply “believe” something but rather to try to understand.
belief in the supernatural in itself is not harmful
or put another way, belief in the supernatural is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to cause harm to an individual.
Trouble seems to arise when some of us claim to know the mind of god
I dont know enough about evolutionary biology to confidently answer the latter part of your question. I am aware this is a subject of much research.
do you believe the christian bible is the work of a god?
do you believe the qur’an is the work of a god? same god?
Micro Mock Engineer // April 26, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Rohan,
“Given that there is ZERO evidence…. We can assume that NONE of these things exist”.
Are you suggesting that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? This does not sound rational to me.
I do not agree that belief in the supernatural is unproductive and dangerous. Our environment selects traits and behaviours that confer reproductive advantage and evolutionary success. As a species, if belief in the supernatural was destructive this trait would have been ‘selected’ against.
Science and reason are superior to religion when it comes to questions that can be answered empirically. But there are some questions that cannot be answered empirically, for example, was the universe created? It is natural for a conscious species to contemplate this question (after all, we are doing it right now on BU). It is also part of our species’ natural instinct to try to close the gap between the way things are (imperfect and unjust) and the way we would like them to be (perfect and just).
Here is another quote to add to your collection Rohan :-)
“Without the ultrarational hopes and passions of religion no society will ever have the courage to conquer despair and attempt the impossible; for the vision of a just society is an impossible one, which can only be approximated by those who do not regard it as impossible.” – Reinhold Niebuhr
ROK // April 26, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Nietzche?
Hit the submit button too fast but MME also spoke about the “positive evolutionary traits formed through natural selection?”
This is an important question and to my mind relates to what we call, the art of the possible. Olympic records, for example are still being broken. Mohammed Ali brought a new art to boxing.
Many first become commonplace after that, we are evolving with great influence from the mind; the art of the possible; we say that necessity is the mother of invention but this really reflects the fact that when mankind is forced to think, miracles happen.
confused // April 26, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Nietzche et al
Please cite the evidence or source that there is evidence that having religious beliefs may be an evolutionary trait. How can religion and belief be positive evolutionary traits formed through natural selection?
Explain the molecular and cellular biology that would cause having religious belief to become an evolutionary trait- either positive or negative.
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 3:22 PM
**
Are you suggesting that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? This does not sound rational to me.
**
MME here is what I’m saying: Say you have two competing hypotheses.
A) Santa Claus holds the sun up in the sky by his magic beard.
B) The sun is held up in the sky due to gravitational forces and its orbit around the center of our solar system.
For hypothesis A there is absolutely zero evidence but ancient scribblings about Santa Claus’ magic beard and its holy whiteness.
For hypothesis B there is MOUNTAINS of overwhelming testable evidence of every sort. Video, pictures, charts, you name it.
With a lack of evidence (and the outward stupidity of the claim), the Santa Claus theory would be laughed off the table.
Sure, a lack of evidence for the Santa Claus theory, doesn’t mean it’s not viable, but thinking people would dismiss it until evidence is provided.
So, think!
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 3:31 PM
MME wrote:
“It is also part of our species’ natural instinct to try to close the gap between the way things are (imperfect and unjust) and the way we would like them to be (perfect and just).”
———————-
so true !
look at the early teachings attributed to jesus (not quite the same as much of the churches today) and you can see the appeal of the religion.
remember the socio-economic class of the early followers.
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 3:37 PM
MME wrote:
As a species, if belief in the supernatural was destructive this trait would have been ‘selected’ against.
*****
Sorry, not true. There is an exhaustive list of tested cognitive biases that have evolved in the human brain. Biases, that while they often lead to inaccurate conclusions, they help us make decisions faster or help us to cope with the world around us.
These traits were not “selected against” even though they can be obviously harmful but helped in another way.
Here are a few that may apply to religious belief:
Bandwagon effect — the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same
Conservatism bias — the tendency to ignore the consequence of new evidence.
Mere exposure effect — the tendency for people to express undue liking for things merely because they are familiar with them.
Wishful thinking — the formation of beliefs and the making of decisions according to what is pleasing to imagine instead of by appeal to evidence or rationality.
And, the list goes on…..
Micro Mock Engineer // April 26, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Confused,
A good place to start might be the “Journal of Cognition and Culture” or the “Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation”. You can also find several scientific papers online e.g. Google “Is Religion an Evolutionary Adaptation” or “Ritual, Emotion, and Sacred Symbols: The Evolution of Religion as an Adaptive Complex”.
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 3:46 PM
MME wrote:
“But there are some questions that cannot be answered empirically, for example, was the universe created? It is natural for a conscious species to contemplate this question”
——————
Again true !
But man has often (always?) attempted to answer the questions that he does not understand with the supernatural
Man has a tremendous propensity to invent gods (even a believer must admit to invented gods, everyone does not believe in hundreds of gods) and possibly this is driven by his need for answers to the questions he contemplates.
Man has improved his knowledge of the natural world and slowly but slowly we have replaced numerous supernatural explanations with natural ones.
You are probably right that there may be some questions that we cannot answer but this must surely because we cant find the evidence.
The origin of life on earth is notoriously difficult because the evidence is so hard to find. It has largely been destroyed.
In any case, even if there are some questions that do not have a naturalistic explanation (something I personally doubt), it seems unwise to inject the supernatural to everything we cannot explain (particularly given the track record of this strategy).
It seems to me to offer the weakest solution to the unanswered question.
Having said all of that, the problem never seems to be simply proposing a supernatural explanation, but rather when we make the gigantic leap to say we know the mind of the god(s) and thus do as we say, there is no room for contrary evidence.
confused // April 26, 2009 at 3:47 PM
MME
and you are saying that these “scientific” articles will explain the molecular and cellular biology that these religious traits are inherited>
so you are saying that there are genes for religious traits?
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 3:57 PM
But there are some questions that cannot be answered empirically, for example, was the universe created?
***
Again, False. Lol, sorry “Not Saved”.
There are only questions that we have not answered empirically yet. And for those questions for which there are gaps, there is no reason to fill those gaps with Magical bearded Father figures. That was how it was done in the past with things like “invisible chariots pulling the sun across the sky”. Since those ages we’ve figured a lot of things out, and we’ll continue working on them.
Continue to fill the gaps with God all you want xtians. The rest of us will continue to work on the answers that we haven’t figured out.
Yet.
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Rohan,
I did not say they (the questions) could not be answered in principle, more precisely because the evidence we need may not exist any more.
In any case, we agree filling unanswered questions with supernatural ones is no explanation at all.
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Not Saved,
Just re-read your last post. Great points.
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Not saved,
Yup, I realized we were saying the same thing.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 26, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Rohan,
Your concluding statement in your post of 12:38 pm i.e. “Given that there is ZERO evidence… …we can assume that NONE of these things exist” was irrational and unscientific, don’t you agree?
In response to your post at 3:22 pm, my belief that a supreme being designed and created this universe and all the laws/forces therein, in no way conflicts with the scientific discovery of nature’s laws. From a personal perspective, my belief in the Creator has in no way hampered my rigorous pursuit of scientific discovery. Incidentally, that gravitational law to which you refer was introduced by a scientist who had very strong beliefs in the supernatural.
You begin your last post with the statement “Sorry. Not true”. Surely you mean you don’t believe it to be true, for there is ongoing debate on this issue in the scientific community. Every cognitive bias you have listed serves (or served) a very important purpose without which our species would have been either less successful or unsuccessful. If, in the balance, these were destructive traits (i.e. harmful to our survival as a species) they would have been ’selected’ against.
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Thought I would repost this:
MME here is what I’m saying: Say you have two competing hypotheses.
A) Santa Claus holds the sun up in the sky by his magic beard.
B) The sun is held up in the sky due to gravitational forces and its orbit around the center of our solar system.
For hypothesis A there is absolutely zero evidence but ancient scribblings about Santa Claus’ magic beard and its holy whiteness.
For hypothesis B there is MOUNTAINS of overwhelming testable evidence of every sort. Video, pictures, charts, you name it.
With a lack of evidence (and the outward stupidity of the claim), the Santa Claus theory would be laughed off the table.
Sure, a lack of evidence for the Santa Claus theory, doesn’t mean it’s not viable, but thinking people would dismiss it until evidence is provided.
ROK // April 26, 2009 at 4:29 PM
@Zoe
Where you really come from? You said:
“Therefore, while in the Bible, man can come into a personal relationship with God, the Allah of the Quran is so distant, so far off, so abstract, that NO one can know him…”
Christian profess to have a personal relationship with Christ, not God. God is as far removed from Christians as Muslims are from Allah. Mohammed and Christ are the same in principle.
Again you said: “The God of the Bible is spoken of as a personal being, with intellect, emotion, and will. This is in contrast to Allah who is NOT to be understood as a person. This would lower him to the level of a man, according to Muslim theology.”
Did not Christ profess to be the embodiment of God? This is the problem that I have with Christianity, you think that God is as a man? You cannot recognise that a man could not have made this world but this world made man. How can the Creator be a man, when Christianity itself teaches that god is so vast and diverse as not to be understood or imagined by man? Yet you want to scale the Creator down to a man…
but if you talking about you God, I will agree that he had the same emotions, etc. as man and was similarly disposed mentally, but of a different technology. You only have to check the story of the Golden Calf where Moses the man rebuked your God and caused your god to “repent”… Shameful. A God? The Creator of this earth and universe had to struggle with a Pharaoh to let his people go?
The story of Lot, when those angels had to smite the men with blindness in order to escape? It shows you they were flesh and blood and had no wings and could not go through walls of evaporate into thin air; as you say, appear and disappear. Had not for their superior technology, their asses would have been grasses.
Where you people really come from though? You trying to impose your imagination here or what? And in doing so you trying to re-define terms? If you are omniscient it should not take more than 24 hrs for you to know that a golden calf was built; you should have know when it was in the planning stages.
You can’t claim to be omnipotent and then struggle against a Pharaoh?? What you really talking about?
Furthermore, why your god claim to make everything and then choosing favourites? The Chosen people?
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Your concluding statement in your post of 12:38 pm i.e. “Given that there is ZERO evidence… …we can assume that NONE of these things exist” was irrational and unscientific, don’t you agree?
***
I do not agree.
As a principle:
Things for which there is no evidence can be dismissed until evidence is found. Sure you can keep looking for evidence, but it borders on stupidity to base your entire life on a belief-system with zero basis but the scribblings of folks claiming faith in a magical bearded father figure.
Wouldn’t you agree?
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Furthermore, why your god claim to make everything and then choosing favourites? The Chosen people?
***
Rok, great point! A loving, fair God, who has made all humans, chose a race of those humans as his favorite people, setting the stage for years of war, suffering? This would be the first case of mass discrimination.
Makes no sense.
Unless, ofcourse, we acknowledge the interesting coincidence that those who wrote the bible and created God, just happen to be the ones who God loves more!
It’s one never-ending bout of hilarity.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 26, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Confused,
There are some in the scientific community that believe there is a genetic predisposition to religion. The earliest scientific account I have come across is in 70’s from the founder of sociobiology Edward Wilson. More recently, geneticist Dean Hammer has put forward similar theories, identifying the gene VMAT2 as the ’suspect’. The evidence for genetic bias is not very strong, and to me unconvincing. I believe the strongest evidence can be found in the field of behavioural ecology (for example research on comparisons between social organisation and ecology in species). I cannot take a dogmatic position, as Rohan has done, but there is strong evidence that natural selection will produce behaviours which are ‘optimal’ in evolutionary time.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 26, 2009 at 5:02 PM
“Wouldn’t you agree?”
No Rohan I don’t agree. The fact that there is ZERO evidence for parallel universes and string theory does not stop me from relentlessly pursuing the search for evidence that might validate these in the future. I will not say that parallel universes do not exist simply because there is no evidence. A rational person must at least accept that it is a possibility until we find a better theory or evidence to the contrary.
Rohan… you are beginning to sound even more fundamentalist than Zoe.
David // April 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM
@Rohan
A Google of Wikipedia supports a basis for using the apostrophe in the word Qur’an:
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 5:09 PM
MME,
Sorry my position isn’t dogmatic. I do not deny that there is an argument for a genetic disposition to religion. As a matter of facts I posted a list of cognitive biases that would even support this.
Cognitive biases i.e Cognitive Errors!
My point is that your argument that “if this disposition was destructive it would have been selected against” is not a sound claim since there are a list of evolutionary mental dispositions that are both A) destructive and B) were NOT selected against.
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 5:21 PM
MME wrote:
The fact that there is ZERO evidence for parallel universes and string theory does not stop me from relentlessly pursuing the search for evidence that might validate these in the future.
***
I agree with this MME. Note how it works:
1) A relentless pursuit for evidence
2) Gathering and testing the evidence
3) Using the evidence as a basis of your belief structure.
Here’s how it works if you’re to believe in the magic bearded Santa Claus:
1) …
2)…
3) Read the story and believe.
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 5:22 PM
MME,
I understand you believe there is a creator.
I too would not say something does not exist because there is no evidence be it parallel universes or supernatural gods.
However, the gods of the various books make many very specific claims which can be evaluated and one can reasonably come to the conclusion that the god(s) so described, based on the evidence, do not exist.
Could there be some other kind of creator god? possibly?
But to be clear I dont find this explanation particularly appealing because it is not a parsimonious one and so I dont “believe it”.
Suggesting the incredibly complex universe is the product of an even more complex creator is not parsimonious. It could be correct but its counter intuitive, at least for me anyway.
But back to my question to you, you believe in a creator, but is it the creator of the christian faith?
do you claim to know the mind of this creator god?
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 5:25 PM
MME you seem to be avoiding this, so I’ll post it again.
You either
1) Have some evidence of the existence of the invisible bearded Santa Claus God that no one else has
2) Have no evidence at all but still believe.
So which is it?
Say you have two competing hypotheses.
A) Santa Claus holds the sun up in the sky by his magic beard.
B) The sun is held up in the sky due to gravitational forces and its orbit around the center of our solar system.
For hypothesis A there is absolutely zero evidence but ancient scribblings about Santa Claus’ magic beard and its holy whiteness.
For hypothesis B there is MOUNTAINS of overwhelming testable evidence of every sort. Video, pictures, charts, you name it.
With a lack of evidence (and the outward stupidity of the claim), the Santa Claus theory would be laughed off the table.
Sure, a lack of evidence for the Santa Claus theory, doesn’t mean it’s not viable, but thinking people would dismiss it until evidence is provided.
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Lest you pounce on me, I understand one’s intuition can mislead, but in the absence of evidence either way, its all I have.
Hence I make no claims to a supernatural creator.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 26, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Rohan… cognitive biases produce net gains. They are not destructive in the evolutionary sense, or they would have been ’selected’ against. They are evolved mental behaviour. Belief in a supernatural being is also evolved mental behaviour… and similarly, had it been destructive it would have been ’selected’ against.
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 5:33 PM
MME,
The overwhelming evidence of such propensity of man to believe in gods is certainly strong evidence that it may be an evolutionary advantage.
Certainly something worthy of the ongoing research.
Evolutionary advantage would say nothing about the truth of such gods since the advantage is apparently not discriminatory to any one god.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 26, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Rohan,
You have now repeated yourself in that post at 5:25 pm three times. You like you is Zoe evil twin yuh. LOL
I answered that in the second paragraph of my 4:16 pm post. ROFL
Micro Mock Engineer // April 26, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Not Saved… even though I disagree with you, you mekkin sense to me. Wha really going on wid Rohan doh? He like he is a born again scientist. :-)
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 5:36 PM
MME and Not saved, I agree with this to a degree:
I too would not say something does not exist because there is no evidence be it parallel universes or supernatural gods.
***
But we can talk in probabilities if you like.
Claim:
There is no evidence of a pink and blue polkadot Lion that can read minds living in Madagascar. None whatsoever.
Given what we know about the world, we can say that the possibility of such a mind-reading pink and blue lion is so small, we can dismiss it as being non-existent. This is how our world deals with issues such as this.
Now if I were to say, “well that doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist” for all intents and purposes I would be correct. But as a practical matter I wouldn’t be surprised if you guys told me I needed serious mental help.
But the religious even take this one step further: Not only do they claim the mind-reading polkadot lion for which we have no evidence exists, they then use their invisible Lion friend to dictate their entire worldview.
Call me crazy….
Micro Mock Engineer // April 26, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Rohan,
1) A relentless pursuit for evidence
2) Gathering and testing the evidence
3) Using the evidence as a basis of your belief structure.
These are also the steps Newton took in developing the theories of motion and the gravitational law you reference in your Option B. How did his strong belief in a supernatural being influence his scientific work? Indeed, like many other scientists throughout the ages, his relentless search for answers were rooted in a desire to understand God’s design.
Lets see what the author of your Option B had to say:
“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being… This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called ‘Lord God’ or ‘Universal Ruler’… The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect. Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.”
I agree with Newton on that score.
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 6:03 PM
MME,
Thanks !
It is no crime to have different opinions but we should ALL at least try to “make sense”
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM
MME, you’re obviously a smart person. I think, rather than my arguments not making sense, I think they are not making you comfortable. :-)
If you re-read the posts, you will see that there is little daylight between my arguments and Not Saved’s.
I just have a lot less patience.
Seriously, this conversation really boils down to me saying, “hey, you’ve been lied to, Santa claus doesn’t exist”, and you saying, “whatever, look at those gifts under my tree, who else could have bought me those?”
victor // April 26, 2009 at 6:17 PM
ROK, As I said it is oId testament detaiIs, not new that have been verified. e.g waIIs of Jericho, SoIomon’s paIace – which is in fact just a smaII settIement. GraiIs and covenants are exampIes of ideas and incidents which have been magnified and mysticised. The MiddIe East is a smaII area and the Judeans were a smaII tribe but they wrote everything down, putting great store by the “word” and it’s power of coherence as the tribe moved voIuntariIy or invoIuntariIy around their worId. MeanwhiIe there’s pIenty of contemporaneous evidence of their movements so archeoIogists are progressiveIy pinpointing the tribe’s progress. The oId testament has pIenty of exaggeration but is a fairIy accurate picture of their movements, Ieaving out ideas Iike MethuseIa’s age, etc. and the fact that the time scaIe is exaggerated. As far as Jesus is concerned, there is no info. or evidence, as I said. I agree with you and that’s why the issue of the cross etc. is irreIevant. The fact that is strange is that the story is so convincing to so many! Why? In the case of Noah, many variations of the story exist in BabyIonian and Sumerian mythoIogy. It’s generaIIy agreed there was a Iot of fIooding after the Iast ice age ended 10,000 years ago as water was reIeased when gIaciers retreated due to cIimate change over severaI miIIenia, evaporation causing bouts of massive rainfaII. Someone buiIt a boat, saving peopIe and Iivestock from a fIood and the incident became a metaphor for survivaI, carried through generations of various beIief systems. The concept of ignoring God’s Iaws, triaI, retribution and saIvation by obeying God’s Iaws is typicaI of Judaism viz pIagues etc.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 26, 2009 at 6:50 PM
LOL Rohan… good one.
But doesn’t the conversation really boil down to me asking “who put those presents under the tree?” and you responding “no one… I just heard a Big Bang and when I looked around they were there”? :-)
Wouldn’t a more reasonable response be “I don’t know” if you don’t know, or if you think you know, maybe a sentence beginning with “I believe…”?
But an even more profound question, why does victor use capital I’s instead of common l’s in his posts? Did he spill coffee on his keyboard? :-)
Micro Mock Engineer // April 26, 2009 at 6:53 PM
…maybe that pink and blue polkadot Lion from Madagascar stole the “L” from victor’s keyboard.
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 7:51 PM
LOL @ Victor’s common i’s, never noticed.
MME,
Sure, I think a reasonable response would be “I don’t know”. Just like a reasonable response to the blue-polkadot-mind-reading lion could be “I don’t know”.
But if we’re honest with ourselves, the further along you get on the absurdity spectrum, the more one could change that “I don’t know” to “I seriously doubt it” to “Only a crazy person would believe that!”
The question then becomes, “Where does the following lie on the absurdity spectrum?
“There is a creature in the sky that watches everything you do, can read everyone’s mind, has a set of rules that you must follow, and if you don’t follow them, will ressurrect you when you die just to set you on fire for all eternity…oh and he loves you!”
You already know where I think this lies on the absurdity spectrum ;)
Nietzche // April 26, 2009 at 8:18 PM
David
I wrote earlier about the apostrophe ’s’ in the title, to wit; Brother’s (??!!) kept apart. This is grammatically wrong.
Very interesting debate between Rohan, Not saved and MME. I wish to point out that there is much evidence that it can be unproductive and harmful (to the point of being genocidal) where two or more groups of people who believe in different supernatural beings happen to reside in close proximity to each other. So the implied question remains as to how can a society be organised so that its citizens may pursue their personal beliefs without disadvantage or nuisance to their neighbours? In other words, that a debate/book about harmony or disharmony between Christianity and Islam (or any other religion of choice) is of academic interest only.
I have already suggested the model I prefer: i.e by promoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, promoting rational thinking vis-a-vis the scientific method in schools and removing religious instruction from public schooling and promoting a secular republican form of governance.
Grenville // April 26, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Hi Everyone:
Some of you really know how to contaminate a thread. Could you not have asked David to start a thread on “Is God Real?” or “Evidence for the Existence of God?” which comprise about 70% of the posts. To respond to the on-topic questions/comments.
Hi MME:
I agree that Mohammed was including Jesus in his rejection of God having any offspring. However, the evidence suggests that he was not referring to Son of God concept in the Bible, but rather the sexual reproduction. Note Qur’an 6:101 “How can He have a son when He hath no consort?”
Regarding the issue of Jesus’ deity, there is harmony between the Bible and the Qur’an on that issue as well.
Regarding Mark Siljander’s work, he attempts to find harmony be re-translating the Bible and the Qur’an. I did no such thing. I assumed that the current translations are correct, and then found harmony.
Hi Zoe:
I have already explained that Christian and Islamic religious traditions are incompatible.
Hi Not Saved:
Apostasy requires some explanation. It depends on what you are turning to. If you are referring to leaving Islam bracing a similar belief system, like Christianity, then since there is harmony between the principal teachings of the Bible and the Qur’an, then there should be no consequences.
Those who believe (in the Qur’an), those who follow the Jews, and the Sabians and the Christians,-any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness,-on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (5: 69)
Regards,
Grenville
victor // April 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Yes I admit it! I is Iost!
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Grenville,
I dont agree we have contaminated the thread.
If the question is look to harmony, I still think questioning the veracity of the claims is fair game. False claims in harmony are still false.
It is frankly amusing to me that you find harmony in the treatment of jesus in the (KJV?) bible and the qur’an.
Apart from the usual objections you will find from christians (and muslims), you should have a look at early christianity (say first 300 years of it) and you will see that WITHIN christianity itself the deity of jesus was a far from harmonious conjecture.
More to the point, the canon of your bible today was selected (over a very long period of time) to present a particular theological view amongst many views and the bible you know has also been changed by scribes over the years to be more consistent with the view that became dominant.
Thousands of christians over hundreds of years lived and died with a completely different view of the deity of jesus than christians of today.
Many theological doctrines of christianity today were developed long after the death of jesus and were not taught by jesus himself.
If you find harmony in the treatment of jesus in today’s bible and the qur’an, frankly, so what? todays bible is one many different perspectives held by christians in the apostolic era and immediately beyond until the dominance of the roman church.
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Grenville,
You wrote :
“since there is harmony between the principal teachings of the Bible and the Qur’an, then there should be no consequences.”
…………….
Indeed !
But are they?
ROK // April 26, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Not Saved
I don’t see why you bothering about Grenville talking about different threads and sticking to topic. That is what they do when they want to steer the discussion their way. They move the goal post.
I don’t know why he thinks there must be four or five threads to the same conversation? Maybe he can’t keep track, but I would like to let him know that we not in school and this can’t be a linear conversation.
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Nietzche,
We should teach ABOUT religion in schools.
religion has had a overwhelming impact on our society and culture, good and bad.
it needs to be understood.
ROK // April 26, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Not Saved
“More to the point, the canon of your bible today was selected (over a very long period of time) to present a particular theological view amongst many views and the bible you know has also been changed by scribes over the years to be more consistent with the view that became dominant.”
It still happening today. Check Zoe and see that he coming with a new twist to justify this warped story.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 26, 2009 at 9:09 PM
“evidence suggests that he was not referring to Son of God concept in the Bible”
————–
Grenville,
I agree that Sura 6:101 is not referring to the Bible Son of God concept, but in these verses it is clear that he is referring to the ‘Christian’ Son of God concept: Sura 5:17, 5:72, 5:73, 5:75 and 9:30… in fact, in Sura 9:30 he explicitly states this.
This does not mean that your thesis is wrong, but for it to hold at least one of the following must be true:
1. Mohammed misunderstood the Bible Son of God concept, or
2. He believed the Christians of his time misunderstood the Bible Son of God concept.
Hopi // April 26, 2009 at 9:16 PM
@Grenville……Behind the conflict of these two traditions as well as all the other major conflicts and squirmishes in the world today is an unseen hand and this hand also uses the dogma of reLIEgion. This reliegious dogma tends to give some degree of security and the illusion of power as well as the ability to maintain that power. It employs the tools of fear and guilt to divide, conquer and control. As I mentioned before all these religions came out of Kemet in one form or another but the problem we have for more than 2k yrs (with christianity) has been the literal interpretation of Ancient Egyptian mythology into a bible. This bible is allegorical in nature and has been made to run on all 4s for simple people to ride. An example of this allegory is the transliteration of the Adam, Eve and the Serpent story. Adam’s nakedness really denotes the purity of the inner man and its state of innocence while the serpent on its belly represents the grovelling of the sensual self seeking after corporeal things. And poor Eve has been paying a heavy
price by having to remain silent in church while being subjugated to her husband. What these two groups should do is remove the cause/s of this obstruction which has wrought nothing but horrible ignorance and not helplessly look forward to their being burnt out of the human soul by that eternal hell fire because the fire of hell is now about burnt out.
In about 5 days many people world wide will be celebrating May 1st as int’l workers day, when in actuality they are celebrating the birth of the modern-day day illuminati which was founded in Bavaria on May 1st 1776 by Adam Weishapt. Just another illusion. Today it is this same swine-infested illuminati sitting at their round table still controlling these major reliegions, the financial markets, destabilising nations & economies, spreading diseases like the swine-flu that’s getting to ravish Mexico now, implementing terrorism and on and on and on. These beings have convinced most of us in more ways than one thru all of their “cloaked institutions” to surrender our power to their control. They thrive on our ignorance and chaos. So this difference between Islam and Christianity is also manufactured.
@Victor……”I’m not sure I wouId caII Ancient Egypt “bIack”. This is the same thing that the Europeans were saying when they saw with their own eyes the height of “civilization” that these people had achieved. The “jews” once taught their children that when they were held captive in Egypt that they were the once who built the pyramids. But they could NOT prove it. These damned liars were soon found out and dismissed so they had to put that lie to rest. The word Kmt means the land of the Blacks.
This is what one white man Count Volney said after his trip to Kemet.
“Just to think that a race of Black men, today our slave and object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences and even our speech! Just imagine that it is in the midst of people who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery and questioned whether black men have the same kind of intellect as white!”
So Victor maybe you should do a little research before you assume.
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 9:17 PM
victor surely you mean L is lost
Nietzsche? // April 26, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Teaching about religions and philosophies in general is one thing, religious instruction along with prayer, singing of hymns and Bible readings is another. The Barbados education act makes it mandatory that religious instruction be done in schools.
No Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jew, Jehovah Witness etc would be appointed a principal of a public (Gov’t) school in Barbados. They would have to hide their religious beliefs or agree to only promote Christian i.e Protestant beliefs.
I fear one of the mistakes of the past Gov’t was allowing the Closed Bretheren and the Muslims to establish schools.
Grenville // April 26, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Hi MME:
I believe that option 2 is true.
There are over 20,000 pages of early Church documents which describe the development of Christian religious tradition from Jesus to Mohammed. The documents are summarised and referenced in the Book. Mohammed was responding to a specific tradition.
To ensure that he was not misunderstood (at the time), Mohammed referred his hearers to the Gospel.
Regards.
Nietzsche? // April 26, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Not Saved
How long will the teacher who tells children about the “bad” things associated with religion last? Some years ago a resource book on the teaching of human values was prepared for Barbadian schools. The book was rejected by the ministry of education solely because the authors did not come from a Christian group. The book was heavily criticized because it had the temerity to suggest that human values such as honesty, patriotism, care for fellow citizens etc were not exclusively christian traits.
The best thing is for religion to be left out altogether from the curriculum. Let Parents send the children to the religious centre of their choice after school.
Zoe // April 26, 2009 at 9:49 PM
Atheism, is philosophically and logically untenable, that is why a number of atheist have come down a peg, and now say, ‘I’m an agnostic’ realizing the absurdity of Atheism.
Even though it is not possible to prove God’s existence by rigorous scientific demonstration, it is even more impossible (if there were such a category) to prove His nonexistence! One cannot prove a ‘universal negative.” To prove that there is no God anywhere in the universe or at any time in the universe, would require Omniscience and Omnipresence as well, which are themselves attributes of deity. That is, one would have to be God, in order to prove there is no God. Therefore, dogmatic atheism, is self-contradictory foolishness!
Christian Founders of Key Scientific Disciplines.
Isaac Newton, founder of Dynamics; Johann Kelper, founder of Astronomy; Robert Boyle, founder of Chemistry; Lord Kelvin, founder of Thermo-Dynamics; Louis Pasteur, founder of Bacteriology; Matthew Maury, founder of Ocean Ography; Michael Faraday, founder of Electro-Magnetics; Clerk Maxwell, founder of Electro Dynamics; John Ray, founder of Biology; and Carolus linnaeus, founder of Taxonomy.
The humanistic claim that scientists cannot believe the Bible, is refuted by the fact that many of the great scientists of the past were Bible-believing creationist Christians.
The once revered definition of science or by anyone else until recently, was a follows:
‘Science,’ n. (Fr. from L. scientio, from scio, to know). 1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of ‘truth’ or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect. Thus, science, as orginally defined and intended, meant “truth” or “facts” or “knowledge.” The essence of the time-hallowed scientific method has heretofore been claimed to be observation, falsifiability, repeatability. But, modern evolutionists have prostituted it to mean, “naturalism” or “materalism” or even, in effect, “atheism.” Such a definition, of course, is a convenient dodge to get away from having to consider creationism. (The Biblical Basis for Modern Science).
victor // April 26, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Not Saved, yes, I wouId say that but I dont have one of them!
Micro Mock Engineer // April 26, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Grenville,
“I believe that option 2 is true.”
————–
… then your theory is entirely plausible.
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 9:58 PM
atheism is disbelief in theistic gods, it is far from absurd.
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Zoe,
if atheism was absurd, you are absurd because you dont believe in any of theistic gods I dont believe in, bar one.
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Grenville,
How do you support your contention that christians did not understand the “bible son of god” concept.
what was their understanding?
ROK // April 26, 2009 at 11:34 PM
@Zoe
“To prove that there is no God anywhere in the universe or at any time in the universe, would require Omniscience and Omnipresence as well, which are themselves attributes of deity.”
You actually believe that god is omniscient and omnipresent? You should be the last to talk about logic.
How can you believe that god has these attributes and want to turn HIM into flesh and blood?
Tell me truly. Think about it. How could omniscience and omnipresence be achieved?
confused // April 26, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Nietzsche?
I fear one of the mistakes of the past Gov’t was allowing the Closed Bretheren and the Muslims to establish schools.
What wrongs have the Closed Bretheren done to Bajans?
Where are/were the Closed Bretheren schools in Barbados?
Do you know that what you call the Closed Bretheren are really the dying very exclusive wing of the Plymouth brethren, and one of three Plymouth brethren groups in Barbados.
Do you know that one of the recent principals of HC was/a member of one of the leading Plymouth brethren churches in Barbados; i.e Dayrell’s Rd Gospel Hall?
Do you anything at all about the teachings of the Closed Bretheren?
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Rok,
I know, a Xtian talking about logic and then invoking omniscience, omnipresence, and a touch omnipotence.
If you believe in this stuff, after thinking it through, then you deserved to be laughed at. I’m sorry!
rohan // April 26, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Zoe,
You worship a god that is fanatical about
Not eating shrimp, not touching pig skins, not working on sundays, and not wearing multi-blend fabrics.
But is A-Okay with
selling your daughter into slavery, beating your slaves with a rod even if they die, raping women captured in war, and murdering babies.
You happily follow this crazy creature and worship him as your god then have the nerve to even utter the word “logic”?
The fact that you’re so comfortable with this god says more about you than anything else.
Not Saved // April 26, 2009 at 11:56 PM
confused,
are you saying it is ok for the closed bretheren to have their own schools?
is it ok for the muslims as well?
rohan // April 27, 2009 at 12:00 AM
More logic:
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
***
Yup, makes perfect sense…
Nietzsche? // April 27, 2009 at 12:36 AM
Concerned
I know very little about the Closed Brethren (or about Muslims for that matter). I have no particular ill feeling towards either group. My concern is with the fracturing of the society along religious/ethnic lines. When I went to school many years ago members of both groups sat beside me and others in class. We played the same games and got up to the same mischief that young boys would be expected to do. Why do the children from these groups now need to be separated from the rest? Once the state has extended the privilege of separation to one group then I fear that others will follow. I am told that there is an increase in requests by evangelical Christians for home schooling.
I am not sure you are accurate about a recent HC principal being a Closed Brethren. There are two different groups in Barbados. The Closed Brethren and the Open Brethren. It would be most surprising if a member of the former group worked in a non Closed Brethren institution.
Nietzsche? // April 27, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Confused
My error. On re-reading your post, I note that you did not say the principal was a member of the Closed Brethren branch but a member of the Plymouth Brethren group with which the Closed Brethren (according to you) is associated.
Not Saved // April 27, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Dr Robert Belgrave was a member of the gospel hall that was referred to by confused.
Is that closed bretheren?
confused // April 27, 2009 at 10:33 AM
There are 13 Gospel Halls in Barbados; these are not Closed Brethren, but they are Plymouth Brethren.These are one of the two groups of Open Brethren in Barbados.This group has meetings at Ellerton, St George; Kirtons, St Philip, Fitz Village, Crumpton St, Speighstown, Fairfield Rd, Airy Hill St Joseph, Melvins Hill St Joseph, St Elizabeth Village, Belleplaine, Dayrells Rd, Stream, St Lawrence & Cherry Grove, St John
Another One Open Brethren group has assemblies at Welches Ch Ch, Whitehall St Michael, in the City, in St Thomas at Chapmans etc
This is all well documented in a book called 100 Years of the Brethren in Barbados. Though focussing most on the Gospel Halls, it discusses the origins of the three Brethren groups- all coming from the followers of John Darby.
The closed or exclusive brethren have almost completely died out. There used to be assemblies in Oistins and Rendezvous Rd for example in the 60’s which have disappeared.
Zoe // April 27, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Grenville, to suggest, as you are doing that ‘Regarding the issue of Jesus’ deity, there is harmony between the Bible and the Quran on that issue as well.”
The idea of ‘harmony’ carries with it, ‘accord, conformity, compatibility, congruity, oneness, togetherness, unity, meeting of minds.
Logically, this is tantamount to ‘logical equivalence’ when in truth and fact, these two systems are in diametric opposition as to Who Jesus Christ is.
To split hairs over whether,
1. ‘Mohammed misunderstood the Bible Son of God concept’, or 2. ‘He believed the Christians if his time misunderstood the Son of God concept’ is, irrelevant, not applicable or pertinent, as in the final analysis, Islam
vehemently and dogmatically DENY the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Only Son of God, as the Only Saviour of all mankind, there is no way around this, it is either/or, it cannot be both/and, which you are attempting to do.
Muhammed was a false prophet, plain and simple, and no matter how much you want to split/hairs in extracting from certain surah in the Quran, implying this or that, the bottom line is
this:
“Beloved, DO NOT believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many FALSE PROPHETS have gone out into the world. By this you KNOW the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ HAS COME in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that DOES NOT confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (Incarnation) IS NOT OF GOD. And this is the spirit of the ANTICHRIST, which you have heard was coming, and IS now already in the world. We are of God. He who KNOWS God hears us; he who is NOT of God does NOT hear us. By this we KNOW the spirit of TRUTH, and the spirit of ERROR.” (I John 4;1,2,3, 5,6) emphasis added.
The crux of the test is a spirit’s acknowledgement or rejection of Jesus Christ as the ‘incarnate’ Son of God. A confession of Jesus involves more than an admission of His identity (see Matt. 8:28, 29; Mark. 1:24; 3:11). It is a profession of faith in Him and submission to His sovereignty. The Holy Spirit testifies to and glorifies Jesus (see John 15:26; 16:14; I Cor. 12:3). Therefore, a confession proclaiming the truth that Jesus IS the incarnate Christ IS OF GOD testifies to both His full humanity as our Saviour-Redeemer, and His full Deity as Lord and Sovereign King.
On the other hand, a denial of the truth concerning Jesus, reveals that any claim of ‘divine inspiration’ is FALSE and that the true origin IS the spirit of the Antichrist.
Therefore, Genville, your premise, that, “I have found that there is harmony. Hence, they (the Bible and Quran) can either both be RIGHT or both WRONG.” Is a non sequitur, it simply is not Scriptural or logical!
Christopher Halsall // April 27, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Zoe… My Son…
Why do you become so emotional when others disagree with you?
Why do you presume to know that you (and only you (and yours)) are Right?
What is your proof? Beyond your (untestable) Believes?
Are Beliefs not, by definition, untestable. And, thus, unprovable?
And thus, that your Believes are no better than anyone eases?
Have we not taught you to be better than this?
Did Christ die in vain?
ROK // April 27, 2009 at 5:24 PM
@Zoe
“Muhammed was a false prophet..”
All prophets are false, so don’t get smug. You keep calling the kettle black, but you is the pot.
Not Saved // April 27, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Grenville,
The deity of jesus is an important part of christian doctrine. It is more that “christian tradition”.
Based on your posts with MME, I believe a little more clarity is warranted.
What is the christian position on deity of jesus as set out in the christian bible?
Is your answer your view? or widely accepted christian doctrine?
What is the position of the qur’an on the deity of jesus ?
Is your answer your view or widely held islamic doctrine?
Exactly how (your answers) can they be reconciled?
Are these theological positions widely held among christians and muslims?
Why does “god” leave such basic elements of doctrine open to “misinterpretation” (your word not mine)
Why has “god” seemingly ignored the tragic consequences of “misinterpretation”? Is “he” a capricious god?
Grenville // April 27, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Hi Not saved:
As explained, I have detailed the development of Christian religious tradition from the time of Jesus to Mohammed. There were several competing ideas by the time of Mohammed; however, the relevant ideas for this discussion are the ones that Mohammed would have likely been exposed to. They include the views promoted by the Roman and the Assyrian Churches, which differed in their understanding of the concept ‘Son of God’.
Regards,
Grenville
Grenville // April 27, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Hi Zoe:
You stated “Islam vehemently and dogmatically …”. I have already explained that Islamic religious tradition is completely incompatible with Christian religious tradition. If Islam were to restrict their teachings to what is supported by the Qur’an and Christianity were to restrict their teachings to what is supported by the Bible, then there would be harmony between Christianity and Islam.
Perhaps you need to review the evidence provided in ‘Brothers Kept Apart’ and then identify the evidence which you would have interpreted differently. The book is available from Pages.
Regards,
Grenville
Not Saved // April 27, 2009 at 6:19 PM
There were several competing ideas before it was even settled by the roman church.
You have still not answered my question.
What are the views today?
Are they in harmony?
If the holy books are divinely inspired why after nearly 700 hundred years of christianity are there “competing ideas”?
Does that not sound more like a very human book?
Not Saved // April 27, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Grenville,
You wrote:
“……Christianity were to restrict their teachings to what is supported by the Bible………”
what are the teachings of christianity not supported by the bible?
any examples?
rohan // April 27, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Grenville wrote:
If Islam were to restrict their teachings to what is supported by the Qur’an and Christianity were to restrict their teachings to what is supported by the Bible, then there would be harmony between Christianity and Islam.
****
Grenville, If Christians were to restrict their teachings to what is in the bible, America would be killing all the men in Iraq and capturing and keeping the women for themselves. Just like your loving christian God tells you to do.
rohan // April 27, 2009 at 7:21 PM
In the Old Testament Moses encourages his men to use captured virgins for their own sexual pleasure, i.e. to rape them. After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins he says:
“But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31: 18).
***
So Christians, is this the God you follow or not?
ROK // April 27, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Grenville
I see that you are here promoting your book by trying to get people to read it. How many times have you written in this thread asking contributors to read the book.
From the outset, let me say that I would hardly read this book and you see from my position that for me it makes absolutely no sense reading the book. Thirty years ago I may have read it, but having found that all religion is false, the details make little difference.
However, your book may have some merit only from the point of view that religion is a system of creating division among people; at least the Christians, Muslims and all the other religions which are based on these scriptures in particular.
One of my observations about these religions in particular is their focus on wealth. Indeed, even the main characters in the Bible were men of means or of talent. Moses for example came up in the Pharaoh’s court and supposedly had experience leading battles. Abraham was a man from a wealthy family.
Now while the church professes that it is for the poor, you are expected to make a donation every time you go to church; nothing to do with the tithes they collect. If you ever went to St. Joseph Parish Church to a funeral, you would have heard the Rev. Errington Massiah say from the pulpit, nothing less than a $5 bill.
Now, what you are coming here with, seems to be in concert with the mindset that one must pay. Of course, it is my opinion that you come to this blog under the pretense of generating discussion, but really you are here for one reason alone and that is to sell your book.
Personally, I believe that you observed the heightened interest in religion on this blog and somehow you were able to convince David that you could generate discussion with a contribution.
So your whole ploy is to generate discussion based on your book, but in order for there to be meaningful discussion, one would have to read the book. I submit to you that is the sole purpose of you being here. That is why you telling people they are off topic so they would run and read your book.
Now I have no problem with you selling books, I have a problem when those here have come to share and learn, but you come for profit.
When I think about it, it is all about exploitation of people, by manipulating their fears and beliefs, rather than confronting them with the truth about religion. As far as I am concerned, you are playing people along because I believe that with such insight and research, you know better.
For those who have eyes to see, let them see; and ears to hear let them hear. Religion is the downfall of man. It keeps mankind belligerent and this world full of wickedness.
It is the cause of lingering ignorance and folly which mankind can’t get the rid of, because the proponents of religion keep feeding people who would ordinarily be intelligent, with a fundamentalist view, that has no place in modern society.
The stigma and discrimination generated by religion fuels crime and violence. Pit men against their brothers, parents against their children and friends against friends.
There is nothing about studying religion (bible or Koran) that brings light and genuine knowledge to the people. It makes man less spiritual and less able to keep the peace, because we walking around defending what we know nothing about and what is not relevant to our lives. It simply keeps people ignorant.
rohan // April 27, 2009 at 8:28 PM
ROK,
*Applause*
David // April 27, 2009 at 8:34 PM
To be fair to Brother Grenville he has posted on BU before.
ROK // April 27, 2009 at 8:48 PM
David,
I would be the first to admit that he posted and I expect that he posted before. That is not a contention because I posited that he observed the interest in religion on this blog and sought to exploit it.
Zoe // April 27, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Grenville, what is the core teaching (doctrine) of the Quran? What is the core doctrine of the Bible?
Can you kindly explain what exactly it is that you mean by, “Christian religious tradition.”
Thanks!
Halsall, Sir, The Duppy already say to YOU, BOO!! BOO!! BOO!!
ROK // April 27, 2009 at 9:39 PM
@ Zoe
You are a child or what? You mocking somebody and don’t expect to get mocked back at? It will hurt you more than who mock you ’cause who will mock you don’t care about your god. You will feel it in your sleep. You really don’t know what you playing with fella.
Grenville // April 27, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Hi Not Saved:
My responses to your queries follow.
Q1. What is the christian position on deity of jesus as set out in the christian bible?
A1. The current Christian doctrinal position is that Jesus is part of the Godhead.
Q2. Is your answer your view? or widely accepted christian doctrine?
A2. This is the widely accepted doctrine.
Q3. What is the position of the qur’an on the deity of jesus?
A3. The Qur’an does not respond to the Biblical concept of Jesus being the Son of God, but rather the developed Christian tradition that he was exposed to at the time. The Qur’an instructs both Muslims and Christians to believe the Biblical concept.
Q4. Is your answer your view or widely held islamic doctrine?
A4. This is the Quranic view. It is not taught within Islam.
Q5. Exactly how (your answers) can they be reconciled?
A5. They can be reconciled if Christians follow the explicit teachings of the Bible and if Muslims follow the explicit teachings of the Qur’an.
Q6. Are these theological positions widely held among christians and muslims?
A6. Yes. The position that religious tradition should be supported by the principal religious text is generally accepted. Hence, it is a starting point for discussions of this nature.
Q7. Why does “god” leave such basic elements of doctrine open to “misinterpretation” (your word not mine) Why has “god” seemingly ignored the tragic consequences of “misinterpretation”? Is “he” a capricious god?
A7. God has done everything to make it as easy as possible for His creation to be reconciled to Him. However, as you are well aware, some people simply choose to reject Him regardless of what He does. You can read the Article ‘The Audacity of Hope’ for further information on why the Qur’an is so easy to misinterpret.
Regarding teachings not supported by the Bible, well there are several. One being the Baptism of infants.
Regards,
Grenville
Grenville // April 27, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Hi Rohan:
You simply do not understand the Bible. If you had read it even once in its entirety, then you would know that you have gravely misunderstood it. Let me suggest that you read it before making such a misleading post.
Hi ROK:
The book should be available at the library. Therefore, there is no need to purchase it. Your accusations are completely false.
Hi Zoe:
The core teaching of the Bible is that a personal relationship with God is possible, and that our basic responsibilities are to cultivate this relationship with our Creator and to treat each other as we want to be treated. The core message of the Qur’an is identical.
The Bible provides details about the atoning sacrifice of the Messiah, Jesus, since our good deeds can never atone for our wrongs. Therefore, forgiveness is by God’s grace. The Qur’an describes forgiveness in a similar fashion, identifying Jesus as the Messiah and referring the reader to the Gospel for the details.
Regards,
Grenville
ROK // April 27, 2009 at 10:15 PM
@ Grenville
I am glad to hear that. You carry on smartly.
Not Saved // April 27, 2009 at 10:57 PM
A3
If the qur’an only responded to the christian tradition that mohammed was exposed to, then how can you say it was divinely inspired?
Please clarify what “tradition” was mohammed exposed to?
You may claim the qur’an directed followers to read the gospels, but which ones? there was no official canon at the time and there are more theological writings in existence in his time than the 27 books on the NT canon
A4
I wish I had a $ for every believer who claimed another believer had it wrong.
A5
ditto
You take exception at people dismissing your research (justifiably in some cases) but look at how you denigrate your fellow christians and not to mention a few mullahs !
A6
Nice dodge
Sorry muslims dont accept the view to which I referred (and not the one to which you chose to answer)
A7
Amusing to see you turn a question on why god makes it hard for his diligent believers to “interpret” his word to berating non believers for “rejecting him”
Leave non believers out of this question.
Tell me why the most faithful by your own admission get it so wrong.
I am well aware the qur’an is easy to misinterpret, you seem to have forgotten it is YOU who says it was written by a god !!!
Not Saved // April 27, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Grenville wrote to Rohan:
“You simply do not understand the Bible”
——————–
Of course !
It was written by a perfect, all powerful, all knowing, benevolent creator, why should just ANYONE understand it?
Silly Rohan !
Micro Mock Engineer // April 27, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Self-promotion is another one of those ‘products’ of natural selection. Indeed, evolution at its most basic level is driven by genetic self-promotion.
Everyone who uses his or her real name on BU, whether selling their ideas (books) or giving them away freely, is guilty of shameless self-promotion (or self-preservation in the case of those who come here to defend their name).
Its natural… if it weren’t I would have used the word ‘shameful’ :-)
Not Saved // April 27, 2009 at 11:28 PM
So let me see if I get this right……..
There is one god of jews/christians/muslims
“He” sent some cryptic writings to the jews (and only to the jews) a few thousand years ago.
He sent a few more cryptic writings to a remote part of the world (jews among pagans) about 2,000 years ago.
(and it took about 300 years to almost decide which books were really divine and which were heretical but then only really official another 12oo years later )
In the interim while we were still figuring out those writings (not what they mean, but simply what was gospel and waht was not) , another set was revealed to an illiterate in an even more obscure part of the world.
These 3 different sets of writings, although read by the most devoted, the most faithful, the absolute believers were sadly “misinterpreted” and still to this day “misinterpreted”
So this meant that for about 2,000 years we had some of the most virulent anti semitism (read about it) between christian and jew and for about 1300 years the most dreadful and violent bloodshed between christian and muslim (crusades anyone ?) and between jew and muslim (to this day !!)
Hideous violence beyond all comprehension.
All to “misinterpretation”
By devoted followers.
(forget Rohan and me, of course WE dont understand, we are “blind” after all and “proper idiots” according to the other christian here)
All this while, “god” stood idly by, waiting for us to get it right….
Oh, and all this time, “he loves us”.
My simple question is why?
Now after you give me the inevitable convoluted answer, just remember (that is all I ask), there is another answer, a really really simple one.
Maybe you can guess it.
I hope everyone can.
Zoe // April 28, 2009 at 12:13 AM
ROK, I ain’t playing no games, KING, it is YOU who don’t know who you playing with, King’s have fallen like ‘bats’ for blaspheming His Name, Beware, KING! Beware!
rohan // April 28, 2009 at 12:58 AM
I posted this:
In the Old Testament Moses encourages his men to use captured virgins for their own sexual pleasure, i.e. to rape them. After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins and
KEEP THE VIRGINS FOR THEMSELVES!
And posted the verse:
(Numbers 31: 18).
And here’s Grenville’s response:
“You simply do not understand the Bible. If you had read it even once in its entirety, then you would know that you have gravely misunderstood it. Let me suggest that you read it before making such a misleading post.”
****
See how slickly he ignored the verse. Know why? There is no way to defend such barbarity, so he had to completely ignore the issue and argue that i don’t somehow understand the bible. As if he has some level of critical thinking that is unattainable by us regular folks.
By the way, I have read the bible. Cover to cover. That’s how I know it’s bull!
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 1:45 AM
Rohan,
thats right, we are “blind” according to one christian and “proper proper idiots” according to another.
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 1:48 AM
MME,
You are seeing natural selection everywhere !
LOL
ROK // April 28, 2009 at 2:16 AM
@Zoe
Beware of what? Your rambling mind? Your god could not even deal with Pharaoh. Could not deal with Caesar. Which Kings fell at the hands of your god?
For the sake of the sanity of readers, I will not deal with you here but you will get deal with. You are a “shameless” member of the Christian species. You see Errington Massiah on the news tonight talking about wunna so, who are not grounded in Christianity. He was scolding Codrington College for accepting people like you in a Saturday class at Codrington College.
People like you don’t have the first clue about the faith. He said that the greatest enemy to Christianity are people like you and he predicted that that Saturday class in going to be the downfall of Christianity.
The way that you carry on, you live in a dream world. You do not know where you stand and you feel that your God has no limitations and that gives you a license to abuse people because you think or believe that you right, but let me tell you that you are wrong as anybody could ever get. You don’t even conform to your belief.
You ain’t answer my question yet though, because you don’t have the capacity to answer… but i am going to pose it again.
How can omniscience and omnipresence be achieved?
ROK // April 28, 2009 at 2:41 AM
MME
I agree with you… while others may come to sell ideas and books, my motive is to show people that they can stand up rather than buckle & kneel. Natural selection of the fittest rather than the weakest. LOL!
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 4:14 AM
But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not … come near to a menstruous woman…. Ezekiel 18:5
They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times…. Quran 2:222
Harmony……………
Micro Mock Engineer // April 28, 2009 at 8:23 AM
“You are seeing natural selection everywhere!”
———————-
Yes Not Saved… it is a scientific belief that helps me answer the question of “how” nature works (until a better theory comes along). My spiritual belief answers the question “who” made these rules and “why” they were made. :-)
Micro Mock Engineer // April 28, 2009 at 8:25 AM
Not Saved… re your post at 4:14 am (you doan sleep? you kill a priest or wha?)… what point were you trying to make?
Zoe // April 28, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Rocky Boy, King-Kong professor of imbecility, “How can Omniscience and Omnipresence be achieved?”
Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence IS!!!
“To say of what IS that it IS, or of what it is NOT, that it is NOT, is TRUE.”
(Aristotle)
King-Kong, you wouldn’t know, you would never know, or understand!
BAFBFP // April 28, 2009 at 10:12 AM
I am so proud of Rohan and Not Saved. Rok, Hopi and Pat could sit back now and watch the fireworks.
Rohan // April 28, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Zoe,
Omnipotence is a flawed concept that 30 seconds of thinking would lead an honest person to dismiss.
Omnipotence: The ability to do ANYTHING!
So If I were to show that there was ONE single thing that God could NOT do, then here after he could not be considered Omnipotent.
Here we go:
“Can God build a house that is so large, he himself would not be able to lift it?”
Think about that for a second and then recognize how illogical the concept of omnipotence is.
Pat // April 28, 2009 at 10:48 AM
BAFBFP // April 28, 2009 at 10:12 am
I am so proud of Rohan and Not Saved. Rok, Hopi and Pat could sit back now and watch the fireworks.
******************************
@BAFBFP
I have been doing just that. But that Zoe has to be a nut case. lol!
Zoe reminds me of two posters on the Nation Forum call Bimlady and Bridgman. Brainwashed and unenlightened. Living in ignorance.
Pat // April 28, 2009 at 10:50 AM
BAFBFP // April 28, 2009 at 10:12 am
I am so proud of Rohan and Not Saved. Rok, Hopi and Pat could sit back now and watch the fireworks.
******************************
@BAFBFP
I have been doing just that. But that Zoe has to be a nut case. lol!
Zoe reminds me of two posters on the Nation Forum call Bimlady and Bridgman. Brainwashed and unenlightened. Living in ignorance.
Hopi // April 28, 2009 at 11:11 AM
@Grenville…..Did you have a relationship with Muslims prior to 9/11? And as a Christian did you pass judgment on them as well believing that it was them who carried out that dastardly deed? Why didn’t you look to the Torah or the Talmud? Why did you have to reach for the Qu’ran? Couldn’t you find evidence or history in your bible that could have convinced you that such a deed could have been done by christians as well?
Hopi // April 28, 2009 at 11:19 AM
@Grenville…..Did you have any relationship with Muslims prior to 9/11. As a christian did you too pass judgment on them as being the culprits behind that dastardly deed? Why did you not reach for the Torah or the Talmud? Didn’t you think that you could find history or evidence in your bible that would support the “belief” that christians were behind this deed? I hope that’s not too big a leap of faith for you?
Hotep.
Rohan // April 28, 2009 at 11:27 AM
BAFBFP..
Haha, thanks. But really, this stuff is so absurd, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM
MME,
my post at 4:14 is to show the harmony in the ignorance of these two books
I see you are from the school of NOMA,
how do you find the answers to the spiritual questions?
Can better ones come along, as in science?
Micro Mock Engineer // April 28, 2009 at 12:32 PM
LOL Rohan… Aquinas answered that question 784 years ago. Essentially it boils down to this “Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God.” Google “Disputatae De Potentia Dei” for more information.
You cannot construct an illogical definition for ‘omnipotence’ and then seek to apply it to God. Circular logic is a distinctly human flaw… but don’t worry, we will overcome these flaws and imperfections (necessary for growing Souls) after Phase 1.
Incidentally, the Bible quite clearly points out that there are some things God can’t do e.g. He cant lie or deny Himself (Hebrews 6:18; 2 Timothy 2:13; Titus 1:2).
Some further research I recommend is to search the Bible for the word ‘omnipotence’. Maybe you can return and enlighten us on how many times you found it, and if found, the context in which it is used, the original Greek word and its etymology.
For me, God is all-ruling, absolute, everything at once… a little bit like your concept of parallel universes.
David // April 28, 2009 at 12:44 PM
@ROK
Whatever the motive of Brother Grenville we are more concerned with BU’s. We take comfort that our motive for highlighting Brothers Kept Apart is pure. Grenville is one of the few Barbadian professionals who has been willing to posit his views not only on his blog but through other media. Like you ROK he has been doing his part to help the PEOPLE.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 28, 2009 at 12:46 PM
“I see you are from the school of NOMA”
———————
LOL Not Saved… do you mean the National Organisation for Minority Architects or Non-Overlapping Magesteria? :-)
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM
LOL,
the latter !
Context MME, Context !
Rohan // April 28, 2009 at 1:06 PM
MME,.
Let’s argue for a second that God IS Indeed omnipotent and all-powerful.
What’s to celebrate about that if he stands and watches as humanity suffers and does nothing?
Say God is powerful enough to turn sand into water or food. He does this, and collects millions of Gallons of water and millions of pounds of food.
Then he stands there and watch 30,000 people die of starvation per day (Actual numbers).
Do we then celebrate his water and food collection abilities and praise his omnipotence?
Or should we wonder what loving creature would stand there and watch his own children suffer.
Stand there, have the ability to help, and do NOTHING!
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 1:15 PM
He might be omnipotent, but his writing skills need improvement
Rohan // April 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM
MME,
You’re a smart guy, so thanks for the interesting debate. Be honest here if you can:
THE PAST
God has murdered innocent babies.
God has endorsed slavery.
God has endorsed maltreatment of slaves, up to and including death.
God has instructed his “chosen people” to conduct war against their neighbors and keep and rape the women of those nations.
In God’s law, if a man rapes a woman, he must marry her. (What woman wants to marry her rapist?)
THE PRESENT
God Stands by today and watches a host of tragic events take place and does nothing.
THE FUTURE
God will torture everyone who doesn’t side with him for all eternity by burning them in FIRE.
Everything here is FACT if you believe the bible. So either:
A) You didn’t know these things about this person you worship.
Or
B) You know these things but you are willing to disregard all of them.
So which it? You shouldn’t need a long post to answer a very simple question. And posting a bible verse would be the same circular logic you rail against ;)
So help me out. Thanks
Micro Mock Engineer // April 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM
“What’s to celebrate about that if he stands and watches as humanity suffers and does nothing?”
Rohan,
cuh dear… that link on Aquinas would have helped you with that question too. I touched on it in my last post… its all about growing Souls.
Your question was famously answered by Keats, who distinguished between the common view of the world as “a vale of tears” and what he considered a better description “a vale of Soul-making”. It has also been (less famously) answered by Bush Tea of BU :-)
Keats, like all MMEs had his flaws and inconsistencies, but I think he struck gold in that letter to his brother and sister in 1816.
Look, it is just one of those other laws of nature, like gravity…. call it the “Shit Happens Law” if you like. You can’t grow a Soul in a Skinner box. :-)
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Keats the gnostic?
MME you heretic you !
Micro Mock Engineer // April 28, 2009 at 2:14 PM
“He might be omnipotent, but his writing skills need improvement”
——–
LOL Not Saved… no, it is human language and communication that is imperfect.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 28, 2009 at 2:28 PM
“Keats the gnostic? MME you heretic you !”
———
As I said… “Keats, like all MMEs had his flaws and inconsistencies…”
There is that spark of the divine in all of us, atheist and theist alike. What we choose to do with it is our individual choice.
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 2:32 PM
True,
But how hard is it to say……..
“slavery is wrong”
“child rape is wrong”
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Maybe mohammed was hard of hearing and blundered big time…
Rohan // April 28, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Okay MME, last question on this topic. Since I don’t want to accuse you of dodging, it will an easy one-word answer (No need to quote Kant on this one)
So, simple, yes or no question:
So we know these things about God.
THE PAST
God has murdered innocent babies.
God has endorsed slavery.
God has endorsed maltreatment of slaves, up to and including death.
God has instructed his “chosen people” to conduct war against their neighbors and keep and rape the women of those nations.
In God’s law, if a man rapes a woman, he must marry her. (What woman wants to marry her rapist?)
THE PRESENT
God Stands by today and watches a host of tragic events take place and does nothing.
THE FUTURE
God will torture everyone who doesn’t side with him for all eternity by burning them in FIRE.
Now for the easy question:
If this were a human being would you be comfortable having him as your neighbor?
Yes. Or. No.
ROK // April 28, 2009 at 2:43 PM
@Zoe
“Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence IS!!!”
I do not think there was any dispute about that and as a matter of fact it is assumed. However, considering that you assume omniscience and omnipresence, the question is how do you see these being achieved? How can omniscience and omnipresence be achieved by God?
Bush Tea // April 28, 2009 at 2:47 PM
@ MME
I see Rohan and Not Saved ‘double teaming’ pon yuh today….
…you best look for a hole, cause those two don’t ease up….
Micro Mock Engineer // April 28, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Kant… man Rohan, I reading and paying attention to everything you write but you like you not returning the favour. I have not quoted Kant anywhere LOL. But I like your ‘Zoe-istic’ zeal, so I will continue… :-)
If you read my post at 1:46 pm, I think you will find that I have addressed your concern. You will also find the recommended reading helpful.
But if a one-word answer to your last question is all you will allow me, it is “No”.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 28, 2009 at 3:08 PM
man BT… dey like Invader #1 and #2… you remember dem wrestlers?
To mek maters worse, de referee (David) just standing up dey watching me tek blow after blow an wun even step in. LOL
Rohan // April 28, 2009 at 3:08 PM
LOL, Bush Tea, I’m not double teaming MME. I like the guy.
You can answer the question yourself too, it’s open to all believers. A simple Yes or No would suffice.
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 3:08 PM
LOL
he is safe now, his trusty friend BT is here !
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 3:08 PM
David?
BAFBFP // April 28, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Rohan the only time that I have witnessed MME dodge was when I asked him how it was possible to find a passport a week after the collapse of the WTC buildings in the debris and claim it came from one of the accused Hijackers.
ROK // April 28, 2009 at 3:27 PM
David,
I see you come to the aid of Grenville and clarify BU’s position on the matter the same time. I suppose Grenville did not take the time to respond, which he could have, but when he hit me with the one in the library, I kept asking myself how many copies would each branch of the library have.
Anyhow Bro. Grenville, we need to deal with the truth and certainly you must see that this religion has kept our brothers apart? I urge you to throw the bible in its own face: “Ye shall know them by their fruit”. What is the fruit of religion? So why waste time trying to get Muslims and Christians together when there will be a natural coming together if both Muslim and christian religion went through the door?
OK, the bottom line is what we can call spiritual understanding. In so-called secular language this is termed manipulation of your environment where environment includes the living, the inanimate or dead.
For example, when the christian say the Lord’s prayer or when the Muslim say his prayer, it is the same feeling that comes upon a person who knows nothing about these gods, but sit in a corner and meditate; reflect on their life; their actions; the effects of their actions; and pray within self for betterment and call upon the very force that drives him to make him better in this life.
So why give the credit to some god when the same effect prevails without? As a matter of fact, the man who is praying to the force in himself or whatever you want to call it, will be more sincere in his prayer than somebody reciting the Lord’s Prayer.
All prayers are designed to effect a certain behaviour and to reinforce a status quo. The man who prays from the heart is likely to get more results out of his environment. The man who understand the power of thought to make things happen, is in command of his environment and in concert with his creator.
Under the circumstances, I would concede that we must start from somewhere to overcome this divisionary politics in which the church and denominations of religions have been engaged.
There is no doubt that the twain will never meet. They are designed not to meet. They are designed to keep the division deep and you would not have been the first to try bridging the gap.
My point is that there is no easy path out. I fear we may be too late because the time is at hand. I had a very good friend who made the observation that it seems that every so often, something would happen on earth to virtually wipe out man and man has to re-build all over again.
He delved into the study and research of ancient peoples and religions. I would recommend to you the book called, “How Music Came to the Ainchan People” by my late friend Timothy Callender; as well as another one called, “The Elements of Art”. You may really have to go to the library to see these. I am sure they are out of print.
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 3:36 PM
sounds like my friend MME is a gnostic.
what books outside the NT canon do you accept as “scripture”?
Rohan // April 28, 2009 at 4:40 PM
MME, you are correct. You did say Keats and not Kant. Looking it up now. Sorry bout that.
And thanks for your honesty on the last question :-)
Zoe // April 28, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Roky man, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, etc, are all Eternal, Everlasting, attributes of Almighty God, from Eternity to Eternity, no beginning, no end, for He is the Great, ‘I AM, that I AM!’
If HE moves His little finger, the Universe trembles, as Jesus holds the Sun, in the palm of His hand like an Atom!
BTW, the terms ‘finger’ and ‘hand’ are used in an Anthropomorphic sense, for our frame of referrence, a description of God in human terms or with lhysical characteristics.
BAFBFP // April 28, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Pat
By the way ignore Zoe, these guys have taken this discourse to the stratosphere. Look who has been carrying the side, the one true heavy weight, MME. No Carlos, no GP, no Scoute. This is the good stuff…! Ignore the light weights.
Where have these two NS and Rohan (assuming they are not one and the same, like a Duality…LOL) been hiding?
David // April 28, 2009 at 6:23 PM
@MME
In keeping with the wrestling theme BU has long since declared this a Cage Match :-)
Like the response about growing souls though, that was hard.
Rohan // April 28, 2009 at 7:15 PM
This has been one crazy long thread…glad I could contribute.
MME, I checked out your man Keats. I had never heard of him, probably why my mind went straight to Kant, who I studied extensively in college.
Either way, interesting stuff.
Not persuasive in my opinion, but good writing ;)
Bush Tea // April 28, 2009 at 7:39 PM
@ Rohan
I don’t mind having a go at your question, but unlike MME, I am long past the age where I can handle a ‘cage bout’ as David have classified this match. LOL.
The first problem with your question is that it is too simplistic. We will need to agree on some definitions and terminologies first – otherwise we will be arguing at cross purposes.
From your question-
1) -IMHO, you have no idea who or what God is.
2) You are unaware of the purpose of life on this earth
3) You are a fair-minded, caring human being and concerned about the pain and suffering around us.
4) Unlike most people, you recognize the illogic and folly of the religions of this world.
IMHO, that puts you in the category of ‘one who knows not, and who knows that he knows not’…. (a rare breed.)
Now for your question_
***********************************
If this were a human being would you be comfortable having him as your neighbor?
Yes. Or. No.”
*************************************
No – although if he did not have a loud stereo like my current neighbor I would consider changing…
So what is the point of the question?
Point 1.
There is no comparison at all between God and humans. One will need to adopt two completely DIFFERENT perspectives in order to properly discuss the concepts that you have raised.
From the human perspective, you are generally correct in your analysis. We have a mess!!! we have hunger, war, suffering, pain, …. it is BAD out there.
Why does God allow this? why does he not use his ‘power’ to correct all these wrongs?
….this is where the other perspective is needed in order to understand.
The FACT is that the conditions that exists on this earth (including all the ills) are CRITICAL to the (spiritual) all-encompassing purpose that is being worked as we speak.
MME called it ‘growing souls’. I prefer to see it as a crucible designed to mold and cultivate RIGHTEOUS CHARACTER. ….. and it is a critical component of a brilliant project being executed by the Big Boss Engineers that we commonly refer to as God.
This ‘OTHER PERSPECTIVE’ is that of the beings who actually initiated the reality that we know as life on earth.
….from this ‘other perspective’ your neighbor question becomes a bit …well petty doesn’t it?
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 8:17 PM
@BT,
and you have come to this analysis, how?
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 8:17 PM
@BT,
a “holy book” by any chance?
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 8:20 PM
@BT,
righteous character but unbelief, what then?
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Here is a very interesting account of anthropologist and former evangelical christian, Dan Everett and the Piraha tribe,
****
“Everett came to see his religion as fundamentally coercive. His academic studies were ultimately designed to help him translate the Bible into Pirahã. When they heard the word of God, his evangelic mission believed, they would be converted. Everett translated the Book of Luke, read it to the Pirahã and they were utterly unmoved. By 1985, he had privately lost his faith.
“It’s wrong to try and convert tribal societies,” he says. “What should the empirical evidence for religion be? It should produce peaceful, strong, secure people who are right with God and right with the world. I don’t see that evidence very often. So then I find myself with the Pirahã. They have all these qualities that I am trying to tell them they could have. They are the ones who are living life the way I’m saying it ought to be lived, they just don’t fear heaven and hell.”
***
His loss of faith lead to his divorce from his wife who was also a christian missionary….
***
“She believes that if the Pirahãs reject the gospel it’s because it hasn’t been communicated clearly. I believe it has been communicated clearly and they reject it because it’s utterly irrelevant.”
***
If the purpose of life is “growing souls” , what is the relevance of religion?
Straight talk // April 28, 2009 at 8:46 PM
To call a halt this “mauling” by these unbelievers BT is it true that the King James’ Bible is inconsequential to your analysis of existential purpose?
You have really perceived a higher dimension ( true character ) rather than Zoe’s evangelical bigotry?
Are you a property developer? ……LOL
Bush Tea // April 28, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Actually ST, I am fascinated by the fervency of Not Saved’s persistence in doubting that there could be a logical, engineered purpose behind the experience that we call life.
Normal ‘non -believers’ just go away quietly and do something important – like play solitaire or hearts. LOL.
NS and Rohan are special people.
@ Not Saved.
I am a difficult believer to argue with for the following reasons.
1 – I do not care if you believe me or not
2- I do not defend any religion – because I find them all flawed.
3 – I do not read all of those exotic books like MME and GP. (to busy with solitaire LOL).
4 My position was arrived at by decades of persistent scientific research and PRAYERS.
5 – Finally, I have a special gift.
…I guess that means that I don’t give two hoots about Everett or the Pirahã.
What Everett what?!!
But I can tell you what BBE is up to and I do understand why things are as they are….
…and if you ask me any really hard questions, I will just pass them on to MME… LOL
Straight talk // April 28, 2009 at 9:30 PM
Even though you never give a straight answer,BT, your level of profundity is underwhelming.
Over to you MME…pass the Doorly’s dear.
Gear Box // April 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Viagra gone up tah $40.00 a pop…! My GOD
AAAAAAAAAAAAAghhhhhhhhhhhh
Bush Tea // April 28, 2009 at 9:42 PM
@ ST
If you want simple answers then I recommend CNN or BBC.
Most advanced subjects are addressed by complex answers -often needing ground work such as definitions, references and sources to be agreed up front.
….Do you really think that Bush Tea can walk up to a stranger and in short, simple sound bites explain the purpose of life?
….not even MME…
Straight talk // April 28, 2009 at 9:44 PM
Gear Box….Save money are you manual?
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 10:10 PM
BT says……
“But I can tell you what BBE is up to and I do understand why things are as they are….”
——
Now we are in agreement,that truly is a special gift .
Rohan // April 28, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Bush Tea,
I saw some compliments in your writings, so let me thank you for them before I complete dissect what you said :-)
Haha, nah, just messing.
What I will say though is that you conveniently focused on the things God “allows” to happen and ignored the horrific things that God actually did.
How do you reconcile those things I listed? The rape, the murder, the slavery. Didn’t God know these things were wrong at the time?
Like MME said, he wouldn’t live next to a human being who did those things? How could folks then feel comfortable praising a God who did those same things?
Shouldn’t God know better? Shouldn’t he be held to higher standards than you hold human beings?
Micro Mock Engineer // April 28, 2009 at 10:18 PM
“sounds like my friend MME is a gnostic. what books outside the NT canon do you accept as “scripture”?”
——————
LOL Not Saved.
You like you trying to get me burnt at the stake… and BAFBFP there on the sidelines handing out matches and gasoline. BAFBFP… doan fool yuhself, GP is the undisputed Scriptural heavyweight here.
I am not a Gnostic. I have only read some of the apocryphal books. Some of the teachings I agree with and others conflict with my beliefs, but for me none of these books (so far) add any value to those already in the Bible.
I generally accept the 27 books of the New Testament, but have challenges with two in particular… James and Revelation. I am more comfortable with James after reading some Bible notes by Dr. Constable that GP referred me to, but I have my doubts about the value of Revelation… it just seems a bit ‘off-base’. Actually, I find it bares closer resemblance to the gnostic works than the rest of the New Testament canon.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 28, 2009 at 10:25 PM
@Rohan,
You never heard of Keats?!?… man I now starting to understand the problem. You spending too much time on the sciences… you need to set aside some time for the arts… Keats, Tennyson, Frost, Milton… and another of my favorites… Edna St. Vincent Millay…
Cut if you will, with Sleep’s dull knife,
Each day to half its length, my friend;
The years that Time take off my life,
He’ll take from off the other end!
(Not Saved seems to have taken that one to heart judging from those 4:00 am posts)
Google some of these poets… their work is freely available online. Trust me you won’t regret it.
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Well Revelation was likely only included in the canon because it thought to have been written by the apostle john.
It may have been written by a ‘john’
but it was surely not written by john, son of Zebedee
Micro Mock Engineer // April 28, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Actually Rohan… you should start with Milton’s Paradise Lost.
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 10:29 PM
MME,
Well you doubt one book, 26 to go !
LOL
Bush Tea // April 28, 2009 at 10:54 PM
@ Rohan
I realize that you feel strongly about this issue of things that you are saying that ‘God did’- things that would make for bad neighbors.
…however, let us look at that ‘other perspective..’
Suppose you developed a farm, with a variety of animals. You set rules and regulations and various restrictions for your animals. An example – the dogs must not attack and kill the sheep…. rules which you enforce.
Does it sound natural to you for one of your bitches to hold you – the owner, and maker of animal rules, to these same rules and complain when you slaughter a sheep for your Sunday lunch?
…and would that make you a bad dog neighbor?
…Or would you agree that you, as farmer had a much more complex plan and reason in mind that supersedes the day to day ‘animal rules’?
…just asking…
Not Saved // April 28, 2009 at 11:05 PM
@BT,
You certainly have a special gift..
Micro Mock Engineer // April 28, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Bush Tea… you trying to shut down BU or whu?
Nobody goes to a wrestling match to see a wrestler take out his opponent in the first round. :-)
Bush Tea // April 28, 2009 at 11:12 PM
We all do NS.
I just appreciate mine a lot that’s all
Rohan // April 28, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Bush Tea…
Haha, that was actually great!
To answer your question though:
There is no plan or reason that you could convince me off that could justify raping a woman or enslaving another human being. There are things that civilized humans recognize are inherently wrong.
Interesting analogy though, I’ll give you that, but it breaks down when you consider the severity of the atrocities the farmer commited AND PROMISES to commit against his sheep. We’re not talking swift mercy killings here, we are talking atrocities of the worst kind.
Rohan // April 28, 2009 at 11:22 PM
LOL MME,
You thought Bush Tea’s analogy was a seriously compelling argument?
Seriously? So we are God’s creation, thus we can’t think for ourselves and question him when he does things we know to be wrong?
Are there things that are just wrong? Inherently wrong?
Here I’ll help you: Raping a woman is an immoral act! If you give up your right to say so because God is the one ordering the action, then I really don’t now what to say.
Bush Tea // April 28, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Rohan my friend,
…..believe me when I tell you that the plan and reason behind BBE’s project is such, that if you could really understand the value, would be worthy of the total cruel destruction of everything that currently exists on this earth.
…and that is not to say that life is not valuable and desirable – just to outline the unbelievable reality of the REAL goal of our existence.
Bush Tea // April 28, 2009 at 11:36 PM
….and Rohan, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with questioning and doubting.
I like your attitude – …so much like mine many years ago….
Grenville // April 28, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Hi Rohan:
I did not sidestep the verse, I simply told you to read the Bible so that you would not misinterpret it. You have quoted a verse, but you have completely ignored its context.
As you are well aware, God is very patient with nations. The Amorites and other nations that Israel displaced behaved wickedly, including sacrificing their children to idols. God waited until that generation had died and waited for their children to behave responsibly. When they did not, then God waited for the grand children, and then the great grand-children and so on. God waited for approximately 500 years, until their wickedness became full and triggered judgement.
There are specific instructions that Moses gave for executing this judgement. Where the culture of wickedness was too influential so that it would destroy other nations, then the judgment is that every thing that breathes should die. Where the culture was not that influential, then after the men had died on the battlefield, then the women could be looked after by becoming wives of the Israelite men. There is specific behaviour to ensure that such women were not mistreated or unfaired in such circumstances.
Rohan, you claimed to know all of this. Why then would you intentionally try to mislead other readers?
Regards,
Grenville
Deng Xiaping // April 28, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Bush tea likes dis farmer analogy thing too much. The farmer sets up rules like “dogs must not attack and kill sheep” but then sends his dogs to attack and kill sheep on the farm next door while proclaiming his concern for the well being for all sheep.
Grenville // April 28, 2009 at 11:39 PM
Hi Not Saved:
I am unaware of anyone who has actually read the research who then disagreed with it. I am concerned that persons would simply dismiss it without reading it, and then make conclusive statements about what they have refused to read.
You asked about the Gospel that Mohammed instructed his followers to read, and believe. The likely candidate is the Diatessaron of Tatian, which was commonly available in Syria about 100 years before Mohammed.
Regards,
Grenville
Deng Xiaping // April 28, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Pity the Amorites couldn’t give their side of the story. Does this explain the Israeli approach to the Palestinians?
Bush Tea // April 28, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Bush Tea like all kinds of analogies Deng.
…I do not understand your confusion.
If I am the farmer and owner of everything on the farm, who, but me should decide what rules to apply where and when it suited my purpose?
…One would have to be quite simple to expect to judge the farmer by using rules designed for a set of animals on the farm.
The real challenge, it would appear to me, is to try to understand the overall intent and tactical objective of the farmer.
Now If we can understand the farmer’s overall plan – THEN we could make sense of his seemingly contradictory actions…..
….but to continue to base your arguments on ’sheep rules’ and seek to extrapolate them to apply to the farmer is beyond simple…
….it seems to me…
Deng Xiaping // April 29, 2009 at 12:07 AM
BT, I was trying to follow your analogy.
I am going to bow out of this thread because quite frankly none of this making any sense to me so I going to play solitaire!
Micro Mock Engineer // April 29, 2009 at 12:33 AM
David… my attempt at humour at 11:47 pm was insensitive and inappropriate… please delete it.
ROK // April 29, 2009 at 3:30 AM
@BT
I think the fullness of your farmer analogy is not being picked up. I think that it is being lost because you did not explain that the farmer did not create the sheep, nor did he create himself; although the way he behaved the animals would think so. (God) the farmer is an exploiter. This explains: why fair and unfair does not matter; the motive of (God) the farmer for creating rules; and the fact that there is no concern for the well-being of all sheep, only his.
Actually this is the perfect analogy. Sheep are killed when (God) the farmer has to make money and put food on the table. He can’t have the dog killing sheep because there is no profit in that.
Killings are therefore planned and engineered and from the animals perspective, it would leave them bewildered because they are taught to preserve life, and hence (God) the farmer killing the sheep would be seen as a sense less act by the dogs, who could be sentenced to death for killing sheep.
Of course, the dogs can always explain the senseless killing by saying God (the farmer) knows best. We however know that the farmer, even though designated as God is not the Creator. The farmer is only God because he has the technology and natural intelligence to control everything on the farm.
One other thing. The dogs would be sentenced to immediate death for attacking the farmer too.
Finally, you notice how dread the farmer has to be in order to stay in control. Much like the God of the Bible. Note also that with all the dreadness, God (the farmer) will still send his angels (farm workers) to tend the population and make sure that all the sheep are properly fed, watered and happy, i.e. until God (the Farmer) is ready for them. An angel could be thrown off the farm for harming sheep too.
This analogy has great potential.
BTW, thanks to all the pioneers and fore-runners for their compliments.
ROK // April 29, 2009 at 3:35 AM
@ Deng Xiaping // April 29, 2009 at 12:07 am
“BT, I was trying to follow your analogy.
I am going to bow out of this thread because quite frankly none of this making any sense to me so I going to play solitaire!”
The last man that retired to play solitaire was caught masturbating.
ROK // April 29, 2009 at 3:56 AM
@Grenville
“I am concerned that persons would simply dismiss it without reading it, and then make conclusive statements about what they have refused to read.”
Do you think you would have to read new research on “Reasons to believe in Santa Claus” when you already know that Santa Claus is a myth?
I have probably done as much or more research than you for over 35 years, only thing I did not write a book… but given all the research materials available, I think I came to more realistic conclusions than you did and can put all religion in perspective… and can help you explain them too; even those I have never heard about.
I do not think I can put my 35+ years of research aside just so and i think you should take that into consideration before passing judgment.
I want you to know that your god is here, have you seen his “chariots”? Well I have been seeing them for more than 29 years; probably longer than you were doing research.
Bush Tea // April 29, 2009 at 5:37 AM
@ ROK
Man why you don’t get your own analogy nuh? you going come here and mash up Bush Tea’s good little thing?
How you get my simple little farmer mixed up with “…chariots that you have been seeing for more that 29 years?” LOL
…and how you mean my farmer did not create the farm? He did!! …and the reason that he appears to be dread is that he is focused on his strategic objective for the farm.
When Rohan complains then that the farmer ‘killed off a whole field of sheep with fire and brimstone’ this could have been done to control the spread of a deadly disease that threatened the whole farm. (what does a farmer do when threatened by foot and mouth?)
…..of course to a watching cow in a nearby field, this must appear to be a dread and dastardly action…..
Micro Mock Engineer // April 29, 2009 at 6:10 AM
“Animal Farm Part II: The Cage Fight”
…I sitting out round 2 bo. :-)
BAFBFP // April 29, 2009 at 6:39 AM
The Farmer clearly ain’ got nah plan for and nah cause to show any concern fah Black sheep. No Black sheep as far as I know never write nuttin’ in none ah the Holy books. None ah the poets and scholars refered to by MME soun’ Black nider. So if this farmer thing is good sense, this Black sheep got every reason not tah give a shit..!
BAFBFP // April 29, 2009 at 8:39 AM
Bushman,
If in fact there was a farmer of some sort, how dare there be a sheep that believes it has the wherewithal to assess or apply sheep reasoning to the existence of the farmer? As a Black sheep, for me the farmer is only good for creating cage matches such as these…! This is entertainment. Somebody get Donald Trump on the phone.
Georgie Porgie // April 29, 2009 at 9:01 AM
MME
Here are my DO’s & DON’Ts FROM THE BOOK OF JAMES
I wrote this paraphrase in 1998 in memory of my first son’s first sermon on James, entitled JUST DO IT.
The main difference between James and the other epistles is that it is nearly all practical; there is little doctrine.
Hope these thoughts help you in your mastery of James.
Chapter 1
Do count it joy when ye are tested because testing worketh patience.[2 &3].
Do let patience have her perfect work so that you may be perfectly complete and lacking nothing [4]
Do you lack wisdom?—ask God in faith consistently without wavering because a wavering prayer has his prayer requests tossed and lossed![5-7]
Don’t be double minded –it results in total instability.[8]
Do endure your periods of testings and trials—the crown of life promised by the Lord is the result [12]
Don’t say that God tempts you to do evil—he never does that [13]
Do understand that temptation results from our lust which on conception produces sin which has eternal death for its wages or sentence[ 14 &15]
Do not err [ stray or wander] my beloved brethren [16].
Do appreciate that all good and perfect gifts originate with our immutable Father [17] who begat us with the word of truth that we should be firstfruits of all creatures.[18]
Do let all the brethren be swift to hear, and slow to speak and to wrath for the wrath of God worketh not the righteousness of God[19 & 20].
Do lay apart all filthiness and super fluity of naughtiness and receive with meekness the engrafted soul saving word [21].
Do the word and don’t fool yourself by only hearing it.[22].
Do look into and continue in the perfect law of liberty;if you are a doer of the work rather than a forgetful hearer you will be blessed [25]
Don’t demonstrate a vain and pious religion based on an unbridled tongue and a deceitful heart[26]
Do visit orphans and widows and remain unspotted from the world; this is pure and undefiled religion before God. [27].
Chapter 2
Don’t be a respector of persons; favoring the rich over the poor because the rich blaspheme the Lord’s name Furthermore such a practice is sin. [1-9].
Don’t offend in one point of the law or you are guilty of the whole law [10&11]
Do what you say and say what you do [12]
Do be merciful and receive judgement without mercy [13]
Do understand that faith without works is unprofitable and powerless to save [14].
Do be practical as you demonstrate that a faith that is not manifested by works is dead and unprofitable[15-17].
Do demonstrate a workless faith and I will demonstrate a faith that manifests itself by works[18].
Do revise the truth that faith that is not accompanied by appropriate action is useless[20].
Do grasp that both Abraham & Rahab demonstrated their faith and became justified by the action that they took [21-25]
Do appreciate that a spiritless body is as dead as a workless faith[26].
Chapter 3
Don’t serve many masters, because you will receive greater judgement [1].
Don’t offend in Word and you will be considered perfect and can exercise self control [2].
Don’t gossip [3-12].
Do be wise and endued with knowledge and demonstrate this wisdom by your lifestyle [13]
Do you have bitter envying and strife in your hearts? —well glory not.,nor lie against the truth, because envying and strife is associated with confusionand every evil work.[14 &16].
Do note that the wisdom which is from below is earthly, sensual & devilish [15].
Do note that the wisdom from above is pure , peacable, gentle, easily entreated, full of mercy and good fruits without partiality or hypocrisy[17 &18].
Chapter 4
Don’t war and fight and lust and kill—just ask properly [1,2].
Don’t ask amiss just to consume it on your own lusts [3 ].
Don’t be friends with the world —that’s enmity with God [9] (c.f. 1Jn 2: 15-17).
Do you want God’s grace and exaltation ?– well humble yourself in his sight and submit to him [6,7, 10].
Draw nigh to God and He will draw nigh to you [8]
Do you want the devil to flee from you ?– well resist him [7].
Don’t be double minded [8].
Don’t boast– its evil [13, 16].
Do the Lord’s will, because Life is short [ 14 15].
Do what you know you ought to do; if you don’t, its Sin [17].
Chapter 5
Don’t trust in heaping up riches by corrupt means and the position it brings—it will bring you misery.[1-6] Do be patient until the Lord comes with the same anticipation that a farmer exhibits [ 7].
Do be patient and stablish your heart for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh [ 8 ]
Don’t grudge one against another , lest ye be condemned [9].
Do be an example of suffering affliction and of patience[10].
Do endure and be patient like Job[ 10].
Don’t swear –just keep your word [12].
Do confess your faults and pray for one another for the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much [16].
Do pray like Elijah but don’t err from the truth [17-18] .
Do convert sinners from their error and thus hide a multitude of sins[19-20].
DON’T TALK IT, JUST DO IT !!
With respect to Revelation, you must see it as a big river into which the streams and tributaries of all prophecy flow. It is best understood if you have a good understanding of the OT prophetic scriptures, and when you understand the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24, where Jesus gives the key to understand all prophecy.
I will post an outline later that I got from M R DeHaan’s booklets that has helped me immeasurably in mastering the Doctrine of the Second Coming, even without Dwight Pentecost’s great book THINGS TO COME.
BAFBFP // April 29, 2009 at 9:06 AM
MME gone and call the Calvary. Oh no..!
Georgie Porgie // April 29, 2009 at 9:10 AM
MME
This first part is Dr DeHaans outline, which I have been playing with since 1982. It is my broad working outline of the second coming.
1.The Rapture of the Church, (Ist. Phase of second coming) followed by the judgement Seat of Christ (bema) and the marriage of the lamb.
2.The Revelation of Antichrist.
3. The Rigors of The Great Tribulation.
4. The Resounding Victory of Christ at the Battle of Armageddon.
5. The Return of Christ in Glory (2nd. phase of second coming)
6.The Renegade Satan is bound.
7.The Rule of Christ in the Millennial Kingdom.
8. The Rebellion of Satan for the last time.
9. The Rejection of unbelievers at the last judgement.
10.The Retirement of the saints to the new heaven and the new earth.
The outlines below are an attempt to flesh out the above, from one’s reading of the prophetic scriptures in the OT as well as those NT predictions of this coming event.
Even among those who hold a pre-millenial view of the end times, there are differences about the order of these events, but almost all think of these events as occurring during the end times.
Hope you can follow and improve on my notes below.
EVENTS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE SEVEN-YEAR TRINULATION PERIOD
1. The Church raptured: John 14:1-3, 1 Cor. 15:51,52; 1 Thess. 4:16-18; Rev.3:10.
2. The Restrainer removed: 2 Thess. 2:7.
3. The Judgment Seat of Christ (in heaven): 1 Cor. 3:12-15; 2 Cor. 5:10.
We can associate these three events with the RAPTURE.
4. The anti-Christ rises to power over the Roman confederacy: Dan. 7:20, 24.
EVENT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD
1. The anti Christ (the coming “ruler”) makes a covenant with Israel: Dan. 9:26,27.
EVENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD
1. Israel living in peace in the land: Ezek. 38:8.
2. Temple sacrifices re-instituted: Rev. 11:1,2.
3. World church dominates religion and the anti-Christ: Rev. 17.
EVENTS JUST BEFORE THE MIDDLE OF THE SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD
1. Gog and his allies invade Palestine from the north: Eze. 38:2-6,22
2. Gog and his allies destroyed by God: Eze. 38:17-23.
We can associate all of these last seven listed events with the REVELATION OF ANTICHRIST
EVENTS AT THE MIDDLE OF THE SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD
1. Satan cast down from heaven and energizes the anti-Christ: Rev. 12:12-17.
2. The anti-Christ breaks his covenant with Israel, causing her sacrifices to cease: Dan. 9:27.
3. The ten kings under the anti-Christ destroy the world church: Rev. 17:16-18.
4. The 144,000 Israelites saved and sealed: Rev. 7:1-8.
EVENTS OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE SEVEN YEAR PERIOD
These 3 1/2 years are called “the great tribulation (Rev. 7:14), “great distress” (Matt. 24:21); “time of distress” (Dan. 12:1), and a “time of trouble for Jacob” (Jer. 30:7).
1. Rebellion (apostasy) against the truth in the professing church: Matt. 24:12; 2 Thess. 2:3.
2. the anti-Christ becomes a world ruler (first seal, Rev. 6:1,2), with support of the Western confederacy: Rev. 13:5-7; 17:12,13.
3. The anti-Christ is revealed as “the man of lawlessness” or “the lawless one”: 2 Thess. 2:3,8,9.
4. War, famine, and death (2nd, 3rd, and 4th seals): Rev. 6:3-8.
5. Converted multitudes from every nation are martyred (5th seal): Rev. 6:9-11; 7:9-14; Matt. 24:9.
6. Natural disturbances and worldwide fear of divine wrath (6th seal): Rev. 6:12-17.
7. The anti-Christ’s image (an “abomination”) is set up for worship: Dan. 9:27; Matt. 24:15; 2 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 13:14,15.
8. Two witnesses begin their ministry: Rev. 11:3.
9. The false prophet promotes the anti-Christ, who is worshipped by nations and unbelieving Israel: Matt. 24:11,12; 2 Thess. 2:11; Rev. 13:14,11-15.
10. The mark of the Beast is used to promote worship of the anti-Christ: Rev. 13:16-18.
11. Israel scattered because of the anger of Satan (Rev. 12:6, 13-17) and because of the “abomination” (the anti-Christ’s image) in the temple (Matt. 24:15-26).
12. Jerusalem overrun by Gentiles: Luke 21:24; Rev. 11:2.
13. The anti-Christ and false prophets deceive many people: Matt. 24:11; 2 Thess. 2:9-11.
14. The gospel of the Kingdom is proclaimed: Matt. 24:14.
15. Israel persecuted by the anti-Christ: Jer. 30:5-7; Dan. 12:1; Zech. 13:8; Matt. 24:21,22.
16. Trumpet judgments (Rev. 8 and 9) and bowl judgments (Rev. 16) are poured out by God on the anti-Christ’s empire.
17. Blasphemy increases as the judgments intensify: Rev. 16:8-11.
EVENTS CONCLUDING THE SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD
1. Two witnesses slain by the anti-Christ: Rev. 11:7.
2. Two witnesses resurrected: Rev. 11:11,12.
3. The king of the South and the king of the North fight against the anti-Christ: Dan. 11:40.
4. The anti-Christ enters Palestine and defeats Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia: Dan. 11:40-43.
5. Armies from the East and the North move toward Palestine: Dan. 11:44; Rev. 16:12.
6. Jerusalem is ravaged: Zech. 14:1-4.
7. Commercial Babylon is destroyed: Rev. 16:19; 18:1-3, 21-24.
8. Signs appear in the earth and sky: Isa. 13:10; Joel 2:10,30,31; 3:15; Matt. 24:29.
9. Christ returns with the armies of Heaven: Matt. 24:27-31; Rev. 19:11-16.
10. Jews flee Jerusalem, facilitated by topographical changes: Zech. 14:5.
11. Armies unite at Armageddon against Christ and the armies of Heaven: Joel 3:9-11; Rev. 16;16; 19:17-19.
12. Armies are destroyed by Christ: Rev. 19:19,21.
13. The “beast” (anti-Christ) and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire: Rev. 19:20.
The above events above constitute the occurences in the RIGORS OF THE GREAT TRIBULATION
EVENTS FOLLOWING THE SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD
1. Final regathering of Israel: Isa. 11:11,12; Jer. 30:3; Eze. 36:24; 37:1-14; Amos 9:14,15; Micah 4:6,7; Matt. 24:31.
2. A remnant of Israelies turn to the Lord and are forgiven and cleansed: Hosea 14:1-5; Zech. 12:10; 13:1.
3. National deliverance of Israel from the anti-Christ: Dan. 12:1; Zech. 12:10; 13:1; Rom. 11:26,27.
Georgie Porgie // April 29, 2009 at 9:13 AM
BAFBFP
Re MME gone and call the Cavallry. Oh no..!
Dont worry Sir. I have posted the above for MME. You guys can carry on with your discussions.
BAFBFP // April 29, 2009 at 10:23 AM
But GP
I am reading your posts too you know. I you want to talk to MME email him nah (mme@onesmartengineer.com LOL). Once you publish, I, as an atheist, am obligated to read. I may dismiss the God phenomena but will not dismiss you, Sir.
BAFBFP // April 29, 2009 at 10:23 AM
But GP
I am reading your posts too you know. I you want to talk to MME email him nah (mme@onesmartengineer.com LOL). Once you publish, I, as an atheist, am obligated to read. I may dismiss the God phenomena but will not dismiss you, Sir.
Grenville // April 29, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Dear ROC:
If you said that you had produced a 30-year research work that had undergone a rigorous pre-publication critical review, and that the results of that research had challenged a 1,400 year old assumption, then I would have had several options of response, including the following.
1. If I was interested in the subject, then I could do you the courtesy of critically reviewing your work and then discussing it with you.
2. I could engage you in discussion, without actually reading it, so that I can learn more about it.
3. I could simply dismiss it without reading it, but assume what it contains and criticize it none-the-less.
4. I could declare that the subject does not interest me and attempt to frustrate all discussion on the work.
5. I could declare that the subject does not interest me and let those who are interested discuss the work without my interruptions.
ROC, I would have respectfully chosen the first or the last listed option.
Regards,
Grenville
Rohan // April 29, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Grenvillle,
So basically the choices are
1) Read the book and discuss
2) If you don’t read the book, get out of the way and let other’s discuss.
Earth to Grenville! Your book seeks to bridge the gap between two fairy tales that claim some ownership of some supreme being. We know that man likes the idea of a supreme beings and that’s evident by the hundreds of Gods he has created in his mind.
Now all these hundreds of Gods man has created have two things in common.
A) They all come with some ridiculously absurd back story
B) They are all invisible.
So what does Grenville do? Pick arguably the two most popular absurd stories and wrote a book on how they have a lot in common.
You think? They were both conceived by human beings living in the same general area of the world.
Now, if your book were on Buddhism vs Hinduism, I could say the same thing.
Maybe if your book was on the harmonies between Christianity and Hinduism, then you might have a story.
Either way it would just be a story on fairy tales.
You could have just as easily, and probably more interestingly, write a book on the harmonies between Santa Claus and the God of the bible.
This could be the outline:
A) Both Santa and God are omnipresent
B) Both know if you’re right or wrong (omniscient)
C) Both have white beards
D) Both are invisible
E) Both punish you if you’re bad
It’s almost like God is Santa Claus for adults!
So let me know Grenville, do you want to read my book and discuss it? Otherwise get out the way and let those who read it discuss without interruption. See how that works?
Christopher Halsall // April 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM
@BU Family…
I have found that there is little upside to debating religion here in Barbados. Those who Believe will not even consider counter arguments, no matter the empirical.
We *are* a Christian society, after all…
But…
This morning, in my In-Box, I found the most recent issue of the Skeptic.com newsletter.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-04-29.html
Might you please consider reading?
BAFBFP // April 29, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Sheep cannot think for or reason like a shepherd …
BAFBFP 2009
Not Saved // April 29, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Grenville writes:
“I am unaware of anyone who has actually read the research who then disagreed with it”
—-
What exactly is your point?
Is your work irrefutable?
Who has read it? Scholars?
You seem to take umbrage at anyone who wants to discuss the subject without reading your book.
Why did you come here then?
What questions were you looking for ? where to find the book or what is the price?
You have researched the subject for 30 years , so what? you think you are the only one briefed on the subject.
Are you a recognised scholar so that I should rush to read your book?
What university are you attached to? who are your peers? What articles in peer reviewed journals have you published? Anyone can say “I did research”
You wrote a book. So what? lots of people write books. I can find books on any position on any subject. Einstein was wrong dont you know?
You want your book to be treated as scholarly work (why? because it has references?) Sorry it does not work like that.
Publish your thesis in recognised peer reviwed journals, that would be the FIRST step in getting in recognised as scholarly work and worth anyone’s time.
After your scholarly recognition, bring your thesis to a wider audience in a book by all means. That is how real scholarship is done.
Until then, directing people to read your book is just advertising.
Until then, prepare to be challenged in the forum in the same way whether you wrote a book or not. You are no better than anyone else here.
You make a brazen claim, there christian teachings are not in the bible, I challenge, and you respond……”infant baptism”
You being serious or facetious?
That is top of your list?
Not Saved // April 29, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Harmony?
I call it plagiarism
Grenville // April 29, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Hi Not Saved:
My comment was simply in response to your previous comment. That is the only point.
By the way, which of the 5 listed responses would you have chosen?
Regards,
Grenville
Christopher Halsall // April 29, 2009 at 5:04 PM
If anyone cares… I’m currently reading:
“A History of God” by Karen Armstrong
“The Audacity of Hope” by Barack Obama
“Shadows of the Mind” by Roger Penrose
“Soul Music” by Terry Pratchett
I’m finding the first most like what I expect our Brother Grenville likely wrote.
I’m finding the last the most enjoyable…
(Pratchett Rocks!!!)
Not Saved // April 29, 2009 at 5:14 PM
The christians plagiarised the OT and the muslims plagiarised the OT and the NT.
There were reasons for this.
It gave credibility, religions needed to be seen as having roots in antiquity.
Finding harmony is completely expected
Not Saved // April 29, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Grenville,
Frankly your post at 11:37pm yesterday was disturbing
Not Saved // April 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM
option 2, option 1 needs to be earned
Deng Xiaping // April 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM
Not Saved
I am surprised that you have only now commented on Grenville’s post at 11:37 yesterday. As I posted earlier, it is a pity we don’t have the Amorites’ side of the story. What Grenville’s post does reveal however is that chilling mindset of “erudite righteousness” found in mass murderers like Pol Pot or Hitler. It is instructive that others have justified the slaughter of people as the will of God simply beyond our human reason. We could ask for no clearer example of the destructive force of religion.
(and yes Communism has all the trappings of theistic religion!)
Not Saved // April 29, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Deng,
Yes sorry, I think it rendered me ’speechless’ and so I took time to respond.
Seriously disturbing reply.
No wonder the religious can fly planes into buildings.
It seems rather to me that WITH god, anything is permitted.
David // April 29, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Has anyone noticed that the religious conversation is starting to inundate the call ins? Never thought we would hear a moderator talk about the Council of Nicea!
Not Saved // April 29, 2009 at 8:01 PM
I dont listen, tell me more David, is it referencing this blog?
BAFBFP // April 29, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Not Saved
“No wonder the religious can fly planes into buildings.”
Now here is where we part company..!
Not Saved // April 29, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Deng,
I think Grenville has his slaughters mixed up.
Rohan was referring to the slaughter of the Midianites in Numbers
While Grenville was defending the slaughter of the Amorites in Joshua
So many slaughters, an easy mistake to make.
Or have I got it wrong?
Not Saved // April 29, 2009 at 8:20 PM
BAFBFP
Oh yes sorry I forgot you dont think that happened.
Anyway the point still stands. We have enough suicide bombers to prove it
ROK // April 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM
@Grenville
I would want you to know that everything that lies outside the domain of the privacy of the citizen and happens in Barbados is my business. I feel that as a Bajan, I should exercise some sense of ownership in this country in order to call it mine.
For you to be spreading fairy tales without a counter view of reality and then tell me that if I am not interested I should stay out, ain’t saying a pang.
That is the problem with Barbados. I suppose that when the Government made the necessary legislation to allow our lands to be bought off by aliens, that was none of our business either and we should stay out and allow the politicians pockets to me lined at the expense of our children not being housed or pushed off the island because of the price of land here???
I will support you in any national initiative to end poverty, discrimination, stigmatisation and deprivation in Barbados but not to continue fooling the people and satisfying them with an untrue story that then leads to them being submissive and passive enough to allow politicians to fatten their pockets.
Do you understand that religion in Barbados is like a battering ram that allows people to passively sit by and allow the corruption. It is not simply a matter of you propagating scriptures, it has deep ingrained effects. Religion numbs the masses; it is the opium of the people.
Furthermore, you should not expect to do this exercise without some others giving an opposing view. Why would you expect that?
In these days of fighting legal and illegal drugs, there is no way that the opium of the masses will be left untouched. It has to be challenged; although not persecuted; as Christians and other denominations of the same base seek to do to “non-believers” and carry along non-believers in the worse way; mocking and scoffing.
That is ignorance in the highest yet, they seek to call non-believers ignorant and foolish and all the degrading adjectives they could find. Then they walk about saying that people mock them and scoff at them when they are the chief culprits.
Religion leaves its victims with deeply held moral positions and stances that creates metal blockages to reasonable positions and alternative ideas. Modern science has had to fight this in cases of birth control, spread of diseases, use of condoms, blood transfusions, etc.
These mental blockages are responsible for keeping people in poverty; help them to sustain a lifetime of sacrifices, allows the rich to take advantage; cause us to see ourselves as ugly and in servitude; and generally prevent self development.
In today’s world, religion is a disease which we need to cut out; an epidemic of enormous proportions; and an opium culture which needs immediate eradication.
One thing I would hand to the Ancient People, when they said God, they knew exactly who they were referring to. We don’t and that is one of the reasons the Christians were persecuted, because they dared to immortalise mortals and turn them into a fictional creator.
Our Ancient People knew that a war happened among the Gods; that the Gods fought in the heavens and one side won and one side lost. Jahwe and Lucifer.
While it seems like Lucifer lost, it seems even more plausible that Lucifer was an invader and sought to invade Nibiru now known as Planet X. Lucifer also seemed to have stayed around with his troops for some time, managing to cause some damage to the rulers of this solar system, including interfering here on earth.
Anyone reading the Forgotten Books of Eden will get a better picture of Lucifer and the vastly similar powers of Lucifer and Jahwe. Jah would have had the upperhand only because Lucifer may have been travelling with a small amount of troops, but there is no doubt that Lucifer was very powerful and was definitely not afraid of Jah either.
All of this knowledge was destroyed by the Christians; although I understand that the Vatican has what is left of this knowledge in its dungeons; only accessible by the Pope.
Is it really that hard to see that religion is a divider to allow an elite few to rule?
BAFBFP // April 29, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Chinee,
I hear dey ban religion in China years ago. How come you know sa much..?
Zoe // April 29, 2009 at 9:55 PM
It really is absolutely true:
Ignorance does have something to be said for it; it gives rise to about 9/10th of the world’s conversational output!!
As SIN and its manifestation, and consequences, are probably the most emperically variable thing that the Bible, God’s Word deals with shortly after the ‘Beginning’ and has unfolded, and continues to unfold daily, exactly as He said it would; absolutely amazing that a Santa Clause type God would be able to Inspire ordinary, backward men of antiquity to know with such accuracy, and literal fulfillment over thousands of years!
Carry on smartly, you scholars of know-it-all; you sure you all are not some of these gods, like the ancient deities, like Apes the Bull god?
Micro Mock Engineer // April 29, 2009 at 9:57 PM
@GP… thanks for the info.
As far as Revelation goes, what are your views on the scenes described in Revelation 20:12 & 13… how do you reconcile this with Ephesians 2:8 & 9?
Not Saved // April 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM
The only person here who claims to ‘know it all’ is you…..Zoe
Not Saved // April 29, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Zoe writes :
“……..continues to unfold daily, exactly as He said it would….”
—————
Yes the bible is just remarkable at predicting the future
Absolutely brilliant.
Just so unfortunate we have to wait for the future to actually happen to see how it was actually predicted.
Bit of a catch that.
Not Saved // April 29, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Speaking of Harmony…….
The Qur’an also have that remarkable predictive power !
But unfortunately, same catch.
Now THAT is harmony !
Georgie Porgie // April 29, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Revelation 20:12 & 13 describes the great white throne judgement, at which unbelievers are judged because of the fact that they have not accepted Christ.
Their names have been erased from the book of life. Those whose names are not found in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire.
Note that there are two sets of books in verse 12. The book of life and the books that record the deeds of those who appear at the great white throne judgement. These folk are judged out of these books. Their works, whether they be good or evil are unavailing, because they have rejected Christ.
Revelation 20:12 & 13 has nothing to do with believers, who were raised during the first resurrection, and were judged at the bema or judgement seat of Christ to determine whether their should receive any rewards. (See I Corinthians 3 & 2 Cor 5:10). The believers are not judged for their sins, because their sins were erased by Christ (see Colossians 2:14 especially inter alia.
The argument in Ephesians 2:8-9 states that the believer’s salvation is not due to his works but by God’s unmerited favor. The believer is saved by grace through faith in Christ. No one can work for their salvation.
Two other relevant corroborative texts are Romans 4:4-5 & Titus 3: 4-7. In Titus 2:14 & 3:14, Ephesians 2:10, Philippians 2:12 you will see that the believer’s works FOLLOWS his salvation. He works OUT his salvation; not FOR it.
Ephesians 2:8-9 has no relationship with Revelation 20:12 & 13 as the believer, who is in view in Ephesians has been both raised and judged at the bema at least 1000 years before the great white throne judgement occurs.
Note that the great white throne judgement occurs after the millennium or 1000 year reign of Christ.
Thats why I like De Haan’s simple outline. It allows one to slot the passages you figure out into 1 of 10 boxes. Later one gets to try to organize the contents of the boxes.
Not Saved // April 29, 2009 at 10:43 PM
MME,
Sounds like the lake for me.
Christopher Halsall // April 29, 2009 at 11:09 PM
@Georgie Porgie…
So, to quote you:
Those who have “have not accepted Christ” get “cast into the lake of fire”.
“These folk are judged out of these books. Their works, whether they be good or evil are unavailing, because they have rejected Christ
“The believers are not judged for their sins, because their sins were erased by Christ (see Colossians 2:14 especially inter alia.
So, let me get this straight…
Those who do not Believe are doomed to a lake of fire, no matter how Good their life work(s) have been.
Those that do Believe get to do whatever they want, and have no exposure because Christ died for them.
Is this actually what you’re telling us is the Christian Belief?
Surely I’ve misinterpreted you here.
Please correct me.
Not Saved // April 30, 2009 at 1:19 AM
Grenville,
The “comforter” in John 16, mohammed or holy spirit?
what say you?
BAFBFP // April 30, 2009 at 7:07 AM
Give me the lake. I would be in good company. The alternative sounds so much worse… Eternal life with a bunch of hypocrites … hell no!
Georgie Porgie // April 30, 2009 at 8:41 AM
CH
So, let me get this straight…
Those who do not Believe are doomed to a lake of fire, no matter how Good their life work(s) have been.
Those that do Believe get to do whatever they want, and have no exposure because Christ died for them.
Is this actually what you’re telling us is the Christian Belief?
Surely I’ve misinterpreted you here.
===========================
You have not misinterpreted me; and I don’t think I have misinterpreted what is written in the Word. Exclusion from the lake of fire is not based on ones good works because the NT teaches over and over, that you can not work for your salvation. Exclusion from the lake of fire is based.on having one’s name in the book of life. Exclusion from the lake of fire is based.on one accepting the good work done by Christ on the cross.
Those that do Believe do not get to do whatever they want to do in this life, as you think. Ask anyone who is seeking to live the Christian life, and they will tell you. However, believers are said in John 5:29 to have passed from death unto life.
And yes, this is actually what I am telling you is the Christian Belief, and what is taught in the Bible. I don’t see a problem; one can take it or leave it. You can chose to jump in the careenage and drown if you cant swim, or you can jump off Hackleton’s Cliff if you wish. You do have a choice. One can chose life or death; to accept or believe.
Since you don’t believe the Bible anyway, why would you care if this is the Christian Belief?
BAFBFP // April 30, 2009 at 9:26 AM
What a pity that such a super fantastic brain like GP could be stuck in this bible thingy. At least GP you literally save people in other relevant ways..!
Man why you don’ cross over. nah.? We are the good guys.
Georgie Porgie // April 30, 2009 at 10:01 AM
BAFBFP
Man I too old to change now. Ya cant teach an old dog new tricks, and my old brain cant tek on too much new stuff now.
Zoe // April 30, 2009 at 10:17 AM
For those bright, well-informed Atheists, who believe in ‘nothing’ evolutionary, materialisatic beginnings, no God, no creator, no designer, Dr. Hugh Ross (conservatively) estimates that the probability of a planet like earth forming by ‘chance’ is approximately 1 in 10- 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Once again, this is a ridiculously absurd probability. It’s like the improbability of finding a ‘needle’ in a haystack? If you were to cover the entire earth with hay and stack it all the way to the moon, you would still be more likely to reach once into that haystack and pull out the needle than the earth to have been formed by chance? Clearly, then, the isea that the eath could simply exist as a result of ‘blind’ chance is ludicrous in the highest degree.
Another aspect of our creation, not chance ‘nothingness’ is the incredible thing about our DNA, is that this single molecule contains ALL the information necessary to build and maintain its living organism. Thus, the DNA that is present in a fish contains all the information necessary to make and maintain that fish. The DNA that exist in every cell of our bodies holds all the secrets of how we were created, what you need to eat, how long we need to sleep, and what our bodies need to do to repair itself in case of damage. All of this information is stored in ‘one’ single molecule. To put this on some kind of perspective, human beings are ‘incapable’ of making a computer that can hold even a small fraction of information that is contained in DNA!!
Chemists have discovered that the enzymes which are manufactured by living organisms according to the information stored in their DNA, are, in fact, more efficient than any catalysts that human scientists can design. If after 3,000 years of human science and engineering, we still cannot make a computer that comes close to the information capacity of DNA, and neither can we design enzymes that do their jobs as well as these enzymes that DNA helps produce, how can we believe that DNA simply appeared by chance?
Not Saved // April 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM
what is the probability that god appeared by chance?
BAFBFP // April 30, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Zoe you gun be dead in less than a 50 years..! Enjoy yah life nah..
Zoe // April 30, 2009 at 12:06 PM
As one non-believer said:
“Sound like the lake (of Fire) for me.”
You et al, obviously don’t, or can’t grasp what ‘coherence’ is, or means, do you? Or, maybe, just dowright intellectual denial of thousands of years of ‘factual’ fulfillment of prophetic declaration!
Yes, absolutely yes, Yahweh’s IMPRINT rest througout the history of mankind, in Judgement, Mercy, Grace, and Love, unmistakably evident, exactly as He said it would occur through His Prophets, right up to this present time.
Show me any remotely parallel document of antiquity, that even comes close to such ‘coherent’ predictive accuracy, with such literal fulfillment as contained in God’s Word, the Bible?
Exactly where did this plagiarism come from? If that is the case, then, what was plagiarized was entirely accurate, logical and consistent, in fulfillment, amazing congruence!!
Yes, the Lake of Fire, will be the eternal state for those who wilfully chose to reject the truth, and have embraced the lie, everlasting torment, in conscious misery, the opposite of Eternal Life, in Everlasting Joy, Peace, and Glory, with our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, which cannot be earned by any good works whatsoever, for it IS a Gift from Almighty God, appropriated solely by Grace through Faith, in Christ Jesus, (Eph. 2:8-9), no one excluded, who comes humbly in sincere repentence, so that NO ONE can boast, the playing field us level, ‘For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God’ (Rom. 3:23), ‘For the wages (penalty) of sin is death, but the Gift of God IS eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom 6:23).
As a former antheist once said, after his acceptance of Christ into his heart and life, and the unspeakable transformation that took place in his life, ‘How anyone could refuse and reject such an offer, already paid for by Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection, can only be explained by willful pride and and arrogance, compounded by denial of the reality of such an awesome testimony over thousands of years, by multitudes across the world.
Georgie Porgie // April 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Not Saved
You are a very naughty boy ( I call you so without talking down to you OK). But you are supposed to know that students are NOT to ask any HARD questions that teacher cant answer! LOL!
That essentially and effectively means that you cannot come to class! LOL. So stay home with BAFBFP who also has a sense of humor, and some sense!
Georgie Porgie // April 30, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Not Saved
With respect to your question “what is the probability that god appeared by chance?
For a believer, no chance.
As Zoe said the faithfulness of DNA and its workings in individuals is a thing full of wonder. I think that you are smart enough to understand the complexity of DNA replication, transcription and translation and most of all the numerous enzmes needed to achieve these processes.
I think that you are smart enough to appreciate that the order and complexity of these processes, and the fact that the several types of mutations discovered makes creation the most likely senario.
I think that you are smart enough to appreciate that someone is responsible for keeping this going for so long. I know that you know better.
Christopher Halsall // April 30, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Sigh…
May I please, once again, raise the secular explanation of the “Anthropic Principle” for our existence.
Yes, life (and sentience) are extremely unlikely. However, they’re not impossible, even in godless, but vast, Universes (the plural is intentional, and considered).
If we weren’t so unlikely, and so lucky, to have manifested, then there simply wouldn’t have been any of us to ask the question “why are we?”.
Not Saved // April 30, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Georgie,
I have always taken your calling me a naughty boy in the good spirit in which I believe it is clearly intended.
In fact I take it as a compliment as it means you have seen the humorous side of my comment.
In respect of complexity, complexity grows with time and evolution and not the other way around.
As I have explained before, as complex as replicating DNA may be, it is not parsimonious to explain this complexity by invoking a more complex “designer” for that is no explanation at all.
More to the point, DNA replication is somewhat less than perfect and it seems disingenuous to attribute it a perfect god.
Rohan // April 30, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Okay, so the chances of all of this happening without a creator are tiny.
Let me concede that.
But answer this: If we assume there must have been a creator what evidence is there that it’s the God of the bible?
I’ll ask the question again:
WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE CREATED THE EARTH AND NOT THE GODS OF THESE WRITINGS?
Pyramid text of ancient Egypt
The Gilgamesh
The Hindu Rigveda
The Diamond Sutra
The Guru Granth Sahib (Sikhism)
And so on?
Matter of fact what evidence is there that the God of the bible did all of this and not Santa Claus?
let me know. I’m all ears. Of course you can’t use the bible as evidence because all the other religions could use their holy books as evidence. It’s circular reasoning that ends in a stalemate.
So what evidence do you have?
Here’s my guess on what evidence you have: NONE!
<<>>
BAFBFP // April 30, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Ah boy MME get double teamed and now de powerhouse GP step up to side wid Zoe. Look out..! MME duck and gone… I selling tickets. Ha ha
Grenville // April 30, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Hi ROK:
You wrote: “For you to be spreading fairy tales without a counter view of reality and then tell me that if I am not interested I should stay out …”
Clearly you need to reread my post.
Hi Not Saved:
As far as I am aware, the comforter is the Holy Spirit.
Regards,
Grenville
Georgie Porgie // April 30, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Re the Comforter
In the reference quoted the comforter is the Holy Spirit.
However, he is called by Jesus “another comforter” [allos paracletos] and the greek word for another is “allos” meaning that he is a comforter of the same kind. So Jesus is also a comforter.
In 2 Corinthians 1:4 God the Father is called the God of all comfort. It thus seems that comforting is an attribute of the Godhead.
The Holy Spirit is also called a paraclete in Romans 8: 25 or26 and the Lord Jesus is called paracletos in 1 John 2:2 (translated Advocae in the KJV).
Georgie Porgie // April 30, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Not Saved
Re In respect of complexity, complexity grows with time and evolution and not the other way around.
You behaving bad again here by trying to bowl a googly man! What complexity grows with time and evolution what! Man if a giraffe was not born with the valves in his veins, he would not be able to take the first drink!
Re More to the point, DNA replication is somewhat less than perfect and it seems disingenuous to attribute it a perfect god.
I would say that DNA replication is perfect enough when you take the level of complexity involved into consideration. After all the majority of mutations end in disease or in the garbage dump man.
Rohan
Man you are more man than most. At least you concede that the chances of all of this happening without a creator are tiny. I think that we believe by faith that the Creator of the earth is the God of the Bible rather than any of the other gods you cite, but. I don’t think that I can produce the evidence that you seek.
Georgie Porgie // April 30, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Not Saved
Tell me what you think about these videos…
Evolution Vs Creation Videos
Check out this unbelievable video clip of a Giraffe. Is there a logical explanation for how evolution could explain this incredible creature? What do experts think about this?
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/creation-vs-evolution-n-video.htm
Watch this incredible video clip of the Lampsillis Mussle. Is there a logical explanation for how evolution could explain the creation of this mussle? What do experts think about this?
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evolution-vs-creation-video.htm
What are the phases of evolution in naturalistic history? Are there interrelated stages in the evolution timeline? Check this short video out!
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/evolution-timeline-video.htm
You have to see this incredible video clip on origins. Are you a creationist or an evolutionist? How does what you believe about this impact your other beliefs?
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/origin-of-the-universe-video.htm
What is the greatest scientific discovery ever? What do we know about the digital code inherent in all living things? Watch this incredible video clip now!
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/dna-and-computers-video.htm
What does all the order and design inherent in nature mean? Is life a miracle? View this short video now!
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/complexity-of-life-video.htm
BAFBFP // April 30, 2009 at 5:54 PM
GP
You can’t teach an old dog new tricks nah…but you is a consultant like mos’ ah we here and you gotta keep up to date with de new stuff coming on stream. You might t’ink yah ol’. Man come on over to de other side.
Georgie Porgie // April 30, 2009 at 6:02 PM
BAFBFP
You got enough people over there already, plus I dont know how to present your message. I might start talking a load of bovine ecrement like you know who………..and actually be serious about doing so, just as he does.LOL
Bush Tea // April 30, 2009 at 7:23 PM
@ Rohan
“Okay, so the chances of all of this happening without a creator are tiny.
Let me concede that”
****************************************
Rohan, if you accept the above statement then you have scaled a major hurdle in joining the ranks of those who know and know that they know.
Your biggest obstacle now remains your intense preoccupation with challenging the nonsense that parades itself as religion.
Why not forget the various dogmas and let us start from the point that you have established…
i.e.
1 – Assume that there is some being or force or reality out there that has been responsible for our existence.
2 – Assume that this ‘entity’ must be at least as intelligent as you (and even MME LOL)
… and let us move on from that point…
What say you?
Georgie Porgie // April 30, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Not Saved
I should have written ….Man if a giraffe was not born with the valves in his CAROTID ARTERIES, he would not be able to take the first drink! Sorry about that.
BAFBFP // April 30, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Bushman
I BAFBFP “knows that I BAFBFP knows not” and that will never change because I BAFBFP operate with mere human intelligence/intellect. No major hurdles for me. I will entertain knowledge that is finite. My human brain was designed for that. I am not even prepared to claim that mathematics is a universal language. No egotism here my friend.
Georgie Porgie // April 30, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Fellas
Check out this unbelievable video clip of a Giraffe. Is there a logical explanation for how evolution could explain this incredible creature? What do experts think about this?
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/creation-vs-evolution-n-video.htm
Christopher Halsall // April 30, 2009 at 8:05 PM
@GP… Sigh…
Quoting your “expert” in the first video, exactly 60 seconds in “…of course, we know, dead creatures don’t evolve…”
Of course we know dead creatures don’t evolve…
BUT, we do know that those creatures who *don’t* die benefit from those of the same lineage that *do*, be it because of stupid behaviour, or bad design.
@GP… Is this *really* the best you can provide?
Georgie Porgie // April 30, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Halsall
It is clear to me that giraffes were particularly designed for thier existence. No giraffe could survive if he was not made correctly! Even you can understand that. There is no other animal that has veins in its carotid arteries!
Christopher Halsall // April 30, 2009 at 8:18 PM
@GP: “Check out this unbelievable video clip of a Giraffe. Is there a logical explanation for how evolution could explain this incredible creature?
Duhhh… Let’s see…
After several million years, a group of creatures finds themselves herbivores, competing with other herbivores for plant material.
Said creatures find themselves spending a lot of their time stretching upwards to eat the leaves of trees, who have themselves evolved to grow upwards in order to reach the sunlight before other plants.
Said creatures, over several million years, finds that their offspring have an advantage if their necks are longer than others.
There is of course engineering issues to deal with when you have a longer neck. Some of the offspring find that they’re born with the systems to manage this.
Others don’t…
Those that don’t tend to die off (or are killed) more frequently than those that do have such systems.
Thus, those who are so advantaged are more likely to survive to the point of procreation.
Iterate a few hundred thousand generations, over a few million years, and behold! Said creatures find that they’re called Giraffes.
I fail to understand the difficulty….
Zoe // April 30, 2009 at 8:22 PM
Scientists decide that the more experimental evidence that ’stacks up’ in favour of a given theory, the easier it is to believe. Despite the fact that the validity of the Christian world view can never be proven scientifically, when one begins stacking up the facts, it is hard not to believe in Christianity, and its Creator.
To keep it as simple as possible, dealing with the logic of ‘coherence’ in every aspect of scientific inquiry, the very building blocks of justification in order to validate a propositional true claim; evolutionary naturalism, virsus Creation by intelligent design, which of these two competing ‘truth’ claims stand the test of coherence of evidence?
Beginning with the evolutionary theory, natural energy sources through billions of years of ‘blind chance’ eventually some of these chemicals collided in just the RIGHT way to produce the chemicals that eventually led to life; a very simple single -celled creature, we all know the fairy tale that comes out of this utterly absurd theory.
Using this irrational theory, evolutionary scientists would like us to believe that the apparent, marvelous, design that we see in our world is really just a product of random chance, guided by natural selection. Several authors have written in detail concerning this subject, and they demonstrate that there is very little empirical evidence supporting the natural selection argument.
On the contrary, the preponderance of scientific evidence thus far, overwhelmingly support and confirm the Genesis account of creation, to the disgust of evolutionary scientists.
A very pertinant point to remember, is, that contrary to what scientists used to think, we now know that there IS NO such thing as a ‘Simple life form.’ Since natural selection can only operate on living systems, it CANNOT explain the all-important leap from non-living chemicals to living systems.
Life cannot simply occur out of nothing, without an Omnipotent Creator, as, in order to form life from non-life, several very complex systems MUST come together and work in concert, in order to ‘cohere’ scientifically, to produce life!
Thus, natural selection CANNOT explain the very complex arrangements we see in the simplest life forms here on earth, nor can it explain why earth is so perfectly suited to support this life, an utterly vast, very complex set of systems must ALL come together, in just the RIGHT way, in order for LIFE to come into existence; this is a scientific fact.
The single-celled creature, is so complex, that this in itself is a marvel to behold and look at scientifically.
But, let us back up for a moment, and look at a few of the incedible things required for planet earth to be able to support life forms. Ozone is just one of the extremely complex things required for earth to support life.
Ozone, a molecule composed of three oxygen atoms, makes up this amazing filter. It turns out that ozone is a molecule which breaks down in the presence of untraviolet light. The ultraviolet light has just enough energy to breal apart one of the bonds that holds the oxygen atoms together. In other words, when ultraviolet light encounters an ozone molecule, it uses its energy to destroy the ozone molecule instead of destroying living tissue. One truly amazing thing about this wonderful filter is that ozone cannot be broken down by visible or infrared light, so those types of light are allowed to hit the surface of the earth, where they are needed by plants and animals!
All of this, just happened by ‘chance’ all coming together, just SO, absurd nonsense!
The earth orbits around the sun in a nearly circular pattern, thus, it stays at an almost constant distance away from the sun. If that distance were to change by as little as 2% there would be disastrous consequences. In order for life as we know it to exist, the water on the planet must be stable in its liquid phase ( as opposed to its solid phase, ice, or its gaseous phase, vapor). If earth we 2% farther away from or closer to the sun, there would be not enough liquid water on the planrt to support ANY KIND OF LIFE!!
All of this happened just by CHANCE, an utterly irrational, stupid theory!
Atoms are incredibly small, and are needed in even the ’simplest’ life form on earth. In fact, there are roughly 100,000,000,000, 000, 000, 000, atoms contained in the head of a pin. Despite the fact that atoms are so small, they make up ALL of the things we see in the world around us. From a lump of iron to a Corvette sports car, all things are composed of atoms.
Marvelously enough, these tiny atoms are composed of even smaller things called protons, neutrons, and electrons; all came together by ‘chance’ without an Omnipotent designer? Hardly, a chance!!! Improbable to ignorance, not a chance!!
Georgie Porgie // April 30, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Some of the offspring find that they’re born with the systems to manage this.
Just so! Yeah right! I find it much easier to believe that giraffes were designed as they are.
It used to be said that giraffes evolved to have long necks because only the taller giraffes could get food. Until it was shown that male giraffes have necks that are 3-4 feet longer than female giraffes. This would mean that only the males would survive.
Georgie Porgie // April 30, 2009 at 8:31 PM
The single-celled creature, is so complex, that this in itself is a marvel to behold and look at scientifically.
What about the Biochemistry that runs the single celled creature? I wont even start to consider higher life forms with tissues and organs and organ systems.
Christopher Halsall // April 30, 2009 at 8:32 PM
@GP… Sigh…
Human males also tend to be bigger and stronger (although often not as intelligent) as human females…
Why? Because the males need the females to procreate. And therefore, the males need to fight others for the said right. Therefore, they need more food in order to be bigger (and dumber…)
@GP… You go ahead and believe what you want to. I reserve the right to believe what I do….
Rohan // April 30, 2009 at 8:58 PM
Bush Tea, Georgie…
I think you guys really ran with it when I said:
“Okay, so the chances of all of this happening without a creator are tiny.
Let me concede that. ”
I was able to say that because I am honest.
Now if only the religious folks could be so honest.
To be clear, the chances that there is some magic person in the sky is an infitessimally SMALLER probability.
****
Think:
1) The probability of flipping a coin and getting heads 10 times in a row is about 1 in 512. It’s a small possibility but it’s in the realm of something that could happen based on the way we know the world works.
2) Now what’s the probability that when you flip a coin it will hang in middair and defy the laws of gravity?
***
The second test is more in line with the possibility of their being God.
You have to find the probability of a creature that can
A) Read minds
B) Make things happen with telepathy
C) Be every where at once
D) Know everything
E) Can see into the future
And on and on and on. Each one of these possiblities ridiculous tiny. Then, you have to multiply each one of these possiblities by each other, and they get smaller each time!
**
So let’s be honest christians. What do you think the possibility of the God of the bible actually existing?
Rohan // April 30, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Seriously, there’s no debate. You guys believe in a fairy tale. The same fairy tale that your parents believed in nonetheless.
It’s not even like did any critical study, and researched the other 1000 gods before settling on one.
You just lazily believe what everyone around you believed like a sheep.
Yup, a sheep.
So when the bible says the earth is 6,000 years old, when we know it to be BILLIONS of years old, you find some way to get around that.
When the bible says that man was made before the animals when we know that dinosaurs living millions of years before man, you find some way to get around that.
Shoot, when the bible doesn’t even mention dinosaurs (not like the men who wrote the book knew about them), you find some way to get around that.
When the men who wrote the bible gave God decidedly human traits and have him murdering babies, condoning rape, promoting slavery, racial discrimination, etc. you find some way around that.
It’s one big fairy tale with a million holes. But the well brain-washed are always ready and willing to step up with another bandage.
What a joke.
Bush Tea // April 30, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Sorry Rohan,
I thought that you were a grown up person…. my bad.
…when you move pass your sixth form style debate format you will learn quite a lot my friend.
…till then, my guess is that you will continue thumping your chest and wasting that obvious intellect with which you have been blessed…
Zoe // April 30, 2009 at 9:27 PM
The amazing little ‘bombardier bettle’ is a marval of design creation, this relatively small creature has one of the most effective and beautiful defense mechanisms in all of creation; a fully-equipped chemical weapon.
This weapon begins with storage vessels that contain a mixture of two chemicals; hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide. Under normal conditions, these chemicals would react, but, while stored in the bombardier beetle’s vessels, they are kept from reacting by the presence of a third chemical which inhibits the reaction. When the bombardier beetle feels threatened, however, it fills an empty reaction chamber in its body with the chemicals. Two other chemicals, catalase and peroxidase, are then added. These chemicals cause the hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone to react violently. The violent reaction produces a great amount of heat and pressure in the reaction vessel. The beetle then points its tail in the direction of trouble, and opens a valve that exist between the reaction vessel and the tail. A jet of steam which has a temperature of roughly 200 degrees F, shoots out the tail in the direction of danger. Any potential predator is immediately burned and frightened away. The bombardier beetle can perform this feat up to twenty times per day!
This is a fully-functional chemical weapon. Human beings, with all of our technological knowledge and research genius were only able to develop effective chemical weapons during World War I, but the simple bombdardier beetle has had such a device since day one. Does it make any sense at all to believe that something which took centuries of human research and development, could have simply appeared by chance in the body of a beetle?
Oh, and this nonsense about millions and billions of years of evolutionary naturalism, another pseudo scientific fallacy, is more or less, put to silence by the FACT, that the millions of fossils found everywhere, so far, resoundingly confirm and establish the Genesis account of Creation, as Almighty God said He did it.
In the millions of fossil finds, every time they are found, they APPEAR abruptly, that is FULLY formed, exactly as they were Created. The Metazoa, we are told by these free thinkers of evolution, evolved from one or more of these single-celled organisms; just how that occurred and what intermediates were invloved is viewed as one of the great, as yet unsolved mysteries of evolution.
Metazoans, that is, highly complex multi-cellular creatures with specialized organs abruptly appear, fully-formed in the fossil record. There are NO intermediates available from the fossil record that link single-celled organisms to the complex invertebrates that supposedly arose from them.
The sudden appearance of complex invertebrates of the Precambruan mist, without ANY trace of ancestors or transitional forms IS still as baffling and embarrassing to evolutionists today, just as it was to Darwin, because 135 years after Darwin evolutionists are no nearer to a solution of the ‘mystery’ than Darwin. Bengtson tells us that “If any event in life’s history resembles man’s creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life.”
And again, we say, yes, indeed! The explosion of complex living organisms found in the fossil record is precisely what is and must be predicted on the basis of Creation. The myth IS NOT creation; the MYTH is the theory of evolution, a myth invented to explain our origin with out God.
Again, there IS NO coherence in the fossil record, to give any credence to evolution. BUT, there IS abundance of ‘coherence’ coming forth from the fossil record, speaking in eloquent silence, ‘…As you see, when ever you find US, we are ALL fully formed, exactle as we were CREATED!!!
Christopher Halsall // April 30, 2009 at 9:52 PM
@Zoe… A serious question…
What was the last book by Stephen Jay Gould that you’ve read?
What did you think of it?
Rohan // April 30, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Bush Tea,
I am grown up. That’s why I don’t have any imaginary friends.
Seriously though Bush Tea, I don’t see why I should have any respect for absurdities. If the bible was filled with cute little loving stories that was a nice way to pass the time, I could give you that.
But it’s fill with such barbaric behavior, such callous treatment of human life, it should be called for what it is.
If I told you I had a 100 lb diamond buried in my backyard that I workshipped you would call me crazy.
Now think about what you believe.
Sorry man, just got to call it like I see it.
Bush Tea // April 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Rohan,
Being grown up is much more than about giving up imaginary friends.
One of the common traits of ‘grown ups’ is the realization that many things are much more complex than at first appears.
Another is that the more you know, the more you recognize how much you don’t know…so
Your disdainful dismissal of things that you clearly do not understand because they ‘do not make sense’ to you, is disappointing; as is the lack of any position from you that seeks to outline what YOU see as the origin, purpose and objective of this life experience.
..actually if you told me that you had the 100 lb diamond in your yard which you workshiped – it would explain quite a lot…… ha ha ha
BAFBFP // April 30, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Chris,
Man these women always tell you that size does not matter. That is a bold face lie. Human males have got the mostest of all primates because to the human females over all these millennia, “size mattered”; particularly for Black female species with all that derrière to negotiate. Ah hah, and now with the internet and women freely going to male strip clubs, their expectations will even be higher (or bigger). Oh no, this natural selection thing will quickly see the demise of the likes of me..!
Sir Bentwood Dick // May 1, 2009 at 5:30 AM
So, if one bakes a cake, forgets in on the counter for two weeks, it morphs into something quite different, bacteria growth et al, is that creation or evolution?
;-)
Sir Bentwood Dick // May 1, 2009 at 5:37 AM
I believe, in much.
Does it matter?
Only to me, why to you?
Some things are only explainable by believing.
That is fact, my fact.
Does it matter?
Only to me, why to you?
What is, is.
Accept this, accept life.
Belief to me, is personal.
I do not deride, others belief.
Nor should others, deride mine, nor pillory me for mine.
The only reason to persecute another for that one’s belief, could be out of insecurity, in one’s own.
Belief, is real.
One of the few things in modern life that really is, real.
More real than stocks, bonds.
More real than political programs.
More real than corporate culture.
More real than dogma.
I believe in much.
Peace
Artful Dodger // May 1, 2009 at 6:38 AM
Bush Tea: Being condescending towards those who do not shre your views is not very grown up. Rohan has, on many occasions, given a full accounting of why he does not place his “faith” in religion or the many books written by those whose motives are to promote the opiate/religion to the masses. One is really grasping at straws to refer to someone as childish because they disagree with you. I have no idea how old Rohan is but he clearly has a considerable intellect.
BAFBFP // May 1, 2009 at 7:46 AM
Sir Bentwood
I suspect that your sub-species is doomed to the same fate as mine…!
Bush Tea // May 1, 2009 at 7:51 AM
Artful Dodger
If you plan to upbraid Bush Tea it would be helpful if you understood the issues.
1. No one questioned Rohan’s intelligence. Indeed quite the opposite in Bush Tea’s case.
2. Accusing Rohan of sixth form style debating tactics does not translate into ‘childish’ It is a tactical approach that works very well with traditional Christians – but not with Bush Tea.
3. I explained what I meant by ‘grown up’ in terms of appreciating how complex many things are rather than being purely black and white issues.
4. I happen to share many of Rohan’s positions. This is why I have chosen to engage him as I have.
5. I have no doubt that Rohan has the required intellect and interest to get to the bottom of this mystery and perhaps guide us all to a proper understanding – should he be inclined to so do.
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that position Artful Dodger.
Anonymous // May 1, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Artful Dodger
Don’t take Bush tea too seriously. He is one of the great comedians regularly posting on BU. He has a special gift in being able to maintain a “straight face” while humouring posters as they expound on their ‘theories”. One of Bush tea’s recent classic jokes is that he knows what the Gods are up to. Bush tea is probably even more agnostic than Rohan just that he can laugh at himself a bit.
ROK // May 1, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Sir Bentwood Dick
Many, many, moons ago I would have taken your “limber*rick” seriously. I may have even considered much of it as true.
What you have done is open my eyes to the level of ignorance that exists in this society masquerading as wisdom. Out of all your ramblings, I want to focus on one:
“Some things are only explainable by believing.”
What rubbish! Nothing is explainable by believing, only by fact and truth. What I would say is that a level of ignorance can be satisfied by believing.
What I would agree with is that to the extent none of us has all the facts, we should be open to ideas. Our real problem is that some idiot who wants to masquerade as God of the universe has sought to confuse the facts in HIS favour.
This brings to mind a scenario where as a teenager, I sought to control the behaviour of my brothers only because I was the eldest and looked up to by them as having more knowledge.
I was playing selfish with a tonic manufactured by one “Blakies” or “Blackies” which my father bought for me. To me it was all a joke but they took it seriously.
I came home from school and found that somebody had used some of the tonic, so I set out to prevent further consumption of my precious tonic. I asked, who drank my tonic? Nobody owned up.
So using my supposedly superior knowledge and quick thinking I started to tell them that this was a potent thing and as I came to the end of my quite ridiculous scolding of them, I noticed an acronym on the back of the bottle “BPC”.
So I asked them, do you know what BPC stands for? All of them nodded their heads and I said, “Blackies Poison Children”. At this, the culprit ran to the bathroom and tried to vomit up what he drank.
Talk about ignorance?
BAFBFP // May 1, 2009 at 9:49 AM
ROK
Fellow Lodge Rat,
I would want to start a radical chapter of Atheists International or Atheist Alliance International in BIM. The goal is to act as a buffer or counter to all these established media houses and public personalities/politicians who seek to keep this religion thing infront of the same people they seek to exploit. Wha’ you say.. you good at organising.
Rohan // May 1, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Thanks Artful Dodger, it’s a-okay though. Bush Tea and I are cool.
We’re going to get together and lay out all the world’s beers and try to match them up with all the world’s Gods.
These are questions that have been bothering me for some time:
Would Asian Gods drink Asian beer? Seriously, would Buddha drink that Nepalese stuff or would he prefer a Banks beer?
Would Native American Gods prefer the stuff they make on the reserves or would they like Guiness?
I mean, you never know.
So many Gods, so many beers. And they all reflect the taste of the local people.
Makes you wonder where both the beers and the Gods came from.
Anyhow, whenever you’re ready Bush Tea, we could discuss over a Heineken . My personal fave! : – )
Sir Bentwood Dick // May 1, 2009 at 10:19 AM
ROK,
But some things are intrinsically completely unexplainable by current ‘knowledge’.
So, to pretend that they will be ‘explainable’ by knowledge, either now or at some time in the future, is in itself either a cop-out denying one’s own ignorance, or a ‘faith’ i.e. blind belief in some aspect or definition of ’science’ that one ascribes to.
Thus, your ‘explanations’ are no more no less valid than anyone else’s, despite your proclamations otherwise i.e. you yourself that total ‘faith’ in your own version of fact, that is itself flawed by your own parameters of ‘knowledge’.
Knowledge is not absolute, surely!
Sir Bentwood Dick // May 1, 2009 at 10:24 AM
By the way, I reiterate, that some things are only explainable by believing, there is no current ‘fact or truth’ that can explain some things, if you do not know what I talk of, then we are certainly on different levels of thought completely and it makes no sense to continue trying to continue, but merely to ‘agree to disagree’.
Which was my main point in any case, every viewpoint is personal, none more true than another.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 1, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Here is the opinion of the Father of the Modern Scientific Method, Sir Francis Bacon:
“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.”
Here is the opinion of the Father of Science, Galileo, who despite his persecution by the Roman Catholic Church remained steadfast in his faith and belief in God:
“…the Holy Scriptures cannot err and the decrees therein contained are absolutely true and inviolable. I should have added that, though scripture cannot err its expounders and interpreters are liable to err in many ways …when they base themselves always on literal meaning of the words.”
“Holy Scripture and nature, are both emanations from the divine word: the former dictated by the Holy Spirit, the latter the observant executrix of God’s commands.”
“…no truth discovered in Nature could contradict the deep truth of the Holy Writ.”
… in his final days he wrote “To the Lord; whom I worship and thank; That governs the heavens with His eyelid; To Him I return tired, but full of living.”
Rohan, Not Saved and BAFBFP… the intellectual road to Divine discovery always runs through atheism territory… keep questioning and you will eventually find your way through the fog.
BAFBFP // May 1, 2009 at 12:33 PM
If Sir Francis Bacon was born in 1961 instead of 1561, with all the new information and technologies and so on, I say to you MME, with confidence, that he would be singing a far different tune. Genius sometimes is over taken by ego.
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 12:33 PM
MME writes:
“the intellectual road to Divine discovery always runs through atheism territory”
—–
yes, but it does not always have the same destination
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 12:36 PM
MME,
What would have happened to Galilieo had he said otherwise?
ROK // May 1, 2009 at 12:40 PM
@Sir Bentwood Dick
Sometimes challenges like yours helps one to extract knowledge they never knew they had. I suppose that it is a question of application; mostly logic (if a+b=c, then a=c-b.)
The first factor would be a definition of knowledge. If your definition means everything that man knows rather than everything that can be known, you are starting from different bases. Knowledge assumes some accuracy or measure of expertise, but we should be able to agree that knowledge is not truth.
From my point of view, knowledge can be acquired and is acquired. Hence, knowledge is there to be had but stems from “truth”(what exists) and “knowledge” (what we know about what exists). Of course, we can also add in “belief” (what we believe about what exists).
Truth is certainly absolute. Knowledge however may be skewed (rather than inaccurate); or should I say the use and application of knowledge can be skewed by belief? Belief is like wading in muddy waters; you see not where you step and anything can be down there.
Therefore, for any person seeking truth, belief is an enemy and actually, belief is the real cop-out and explanation based on belief rather than truth, is the real ignorance. Belief is an assumption that you know all.
We should be able to leave a void where there is no knowledge or be conscious enough to realise when you are assuming to fill the void. That way you will always be on the lookout for truth, i.e. knowledge.
Bush Tea // May 1, 2009 at 12:43 PM
@ BAFBFP
…but BAFBFP, MME was probably born around 1961, and I put it to you that as a scientist, MME is at least 1000 times more knowledgeable that Bacon ever was….
…and that the reasoning is even more so today than in 1561.
BTW, Have you ever watch the National Geographic series on ‘The incredible Human Machine”?
Zoe // May 1, 2009 at 12:55 PM
On the Creation v Evolutionary naturalism, if evolution is true, then there should be a vast amount of evidence in the fossil deposits, without any doubt whatsoever, confirming the various intermediate and transitional forms. BUT, this is not what the evidence of millions of fossils reveal; rather the fossil evidence point unmistakably to Creation, exactly as revealed by Almighty God in His Genesis account of creation.
However, the evolutionary scientists, for which they are famous, then resort to fabricating all kinds of pseudo-scientific terms, in order to get around what simply cannot be refuted, that the FOSSIL record, continues to validate overwhelmingly, that Supernatural Creation by an Omnipotent God, is how it all started.
These evolutionists then invoke what they call ‘Parallel Evolution’ when they assume that a feature evolved independently in closely related species; according to evolutionists, this is a common occurrence in evolution. Another common phenomenon in evolution to evolutionists is what is called ‘Convergent Evolution’, it is assumed that distantly related species have independently evolved similar structures or features.
It is amazing how these free-wheeling thinkers, create anything in the immense amount finagling with data in order to deny what is so glaringly obvious, Creation!!
There is no length or depth, to which evolutionists will go to twist the hard facts of the fossil record; as they seek to interpret such data, they then fabricate terms like “punctuated equilibrium” or if this wish, “quantum speciation” anything to remain in denial of the evidence.
The point to always bear in mind, is that these evolutionists started out with the idea of millions of years that this theory needed in order to allow gradual evolution to occur, then it went to billions of years, which would give them enough time to discover intermediate and transitional forms, a very logical and coherent result should be the case, IF evolution is true.
BUT, quite the opposite is in fact the case, as the millions upon millions of fossils so far discovered, are ALL fully formed, Created so from the very beginning.
What many ordinary people do not realize, is, that many of these highly intelligent men, have woven the fabric of evolution theory in an ingenious fashion. They have combined this evolution theory with humanistic, ‘Godless’ philosophy, and have clothed the whole with the term, “science”, the product, a nontheistic ‘religion’ with evolutionary philosophy as it creed under the guise of “science” which is being taught in most public schools, colleges, and universities of the United States. It has become the unofficial state-sanctioned religion.
Unless we see and recognize this utter distortion of true science, which is really a philosophical agenda, of rampant, rabid, rancid, ‘atheism’ an utter hatred for Almighty God, and His Created Order, masquerading under the guise of science, many more of our young students, will be decieved by this vehement LIE! Instead of coming out of our universities believing in something factual and true, they will imbued with belief in ‘anything’ which is tantamount to believing in NOTHING!
BAFBFP // May 1, 2009 at 12:55 PM
BT
MME as brilliant as he is, as with all supremely talented people out there (including the Bushman), much of what is expressed has a great dose of egotism attached. Why don’t great people just accept their calling (oh no, bad choice of word) and not try to explain it away as being part of something greater? Ego, that all.. and that’s human nature.
Technician // May 1, 2009 at 1:11 PM
How is this for some ironic ego…..
Unless we see and recognize this utter distortion of true science, which is really a philosophical agenda, of rampant, rabid, rancid, ‘atheism’ an utter hatred for Almighty God, and His Created Order, masquerading under the guise of science, many more of our young students, will be deceived by this vehement LIE! Instead of coming out of our universities believing in something factual and true, they will imbued with belief in ‘anything’ which is tantamount to believing in NOTHING!
I would say this is a HUGE dose of it!!
Bovine excrement comes glaringly to mind.
One can argue the same for Christianity….just change university students to theology students and you have the same thing….talk about paralleled arguments.
Rohan // May 1, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Therefore, for any person seeking truth, belief is an enemy and actually, belief is the real cop-out and explanation based on belief rather than truth, is the real ignorance.
****
Great point Rok
Zoe // May 1, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Rok, has finally admitted, that:
“Truth is certainly absolute.”
Months ago on another thread, when I stated that fact, that, ‘Truth, by definition is absolute, exclusive” it was dismissed by Rok, as nonsense, if he has now come around to accepting that Absolute premise, then, maybe there is hope, after all for him!
Truth is based on understanding, knowledge, and intellect’s assent to truth.
Thus, truth is grounded in intentionality; therefore, correspondence is a two-placed relation between a ‘proposition’ and the state of affairs that is its intentional object.
Therefore, a propositional ‘truth’ claim, is validated when reality is the way it is represented to be.
But, what we have today, is ‘cultural’ and ‘moral’ relativism, the emasculation of ‘absolute’ truth, anything goes, ‘…your opinion is no more right than mine…’
If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then there is no way to determine what is truth!
The relativist says, ‘There is no absolute truth.” Well, that statement is an ‘absolute’ truth claim, therefore, the relativist starts out refuting his very premise, entirely self-refuting, contradictory!
This is why no matter what anyone says, we CANNOT get around the law of Non-Contradiction in logic,
‘That two competing truth claim, CANNOT be both right at the same time and place.’
It is a fact, that all knowledge rest on foundations, epistemology is the study of knowledge, therefore an epistemic chain, i.e., P, Q, and R are three beliefs accepted by some person, that P is justified on the basis of Q, and Q is justified on the basis of R, this is called an epistemic chain.
This is why, when these and many other philosophical disciplines are properly used, the Judeo/Christian world view, using also, the principle of systematic consistency, has no parallel religious world view that even comes close to its validity.
But, in this modern age of religious relativism, anything goes, all absolute truth is dead, they say! That’s the primary reason mankind is in such a mess, morally, spiritually, and ethically!
Zoe // May 1, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Rok, Do you ‘believe’ that anything is true, (truth?)
Is your ‘belief’ that you had a great, great, great, great, great grandfather, not based on some kind of evidence, documented proof, that he actually lived?
Is your ‘belief’ that you had an actual family tree, not based on ‘knowledge?’
How do we know that B’dos was founded in 1627, I think it is? Do we not concide to these ‘beliefs’ based on valid historic facts and evidence?
How else can we make choices to ‘believe’ anything, without valid, coherent evidence and knowledge?
Bush Tea // May 1, 2009 at 2:15 PM
@ BAFBFP
You lost me on two counts.
1 – How you get ego into an equation where brilliant persons (like MME and Bacon) can come to the conclusion that some super -natural being must have been responsible for the incredible design and order that we see all around us? Is that not a HUMBLING conclusion?
2 How you can get a Bushman into such esteem company? LOL
It seems to me that the problem with ROK, Rohan Not Saved etc is that they are so focused on the (obvious) folly of established religion that they REFUSE to consider that somewhere out there, there MUST be an independent, absolute truth which may well be worth exploring – without being sidetracked by established dogma.
…no ego there folks, just putting two and two together.
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 2:40 PM
BT writes:
“they REFUSE to consider that somewhere out there, there MUST be an independent, absolute truth which may well be worth exploring”
—-
I refuse no such thing.
But you (apparently) refuse to consider that there may be not such “independent, absolute truth”, as you say it “MUST’ be the case.
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Georgie,
You have resorted to finding god in the necks of giraffes and the asses of beetles.
Come on, dont be so disrespectful of your fellow scientist, evolutionary theory is so widely accepted you might as well be telling me the earth is flat.
BAFBFP // May 1, 2009 at 2:52 PM
BT
I am not a particularly humble individual; frankly I find humility a façade.
Believers do not just believe they KNOW; they know because in my view they see themselves as very special entities in this Universe and they need to KNOW that they are being singled out as by some higher authority. They are humble yes, humble to a being that cannot be challenged by a rival.
MME, GP, BT, Sir Bacon and Sir Dick (sorry Zoe you ain’ dey yet) are great and disciplined minds, very special people just by being alive. This is an observation that I as a casual observer can make. But when these guys harness this wealth of talent in an attempt to explain away concepts and phenomena for which there is or can be no proof one way or another, I believe is an exercise in ego tripping. To use your analogy, if there is a farmer, how likely is it that a sheep could know what this farmer can do or has done or plans to do?
BAFBFP // May 1, 2009 at 2:56 PM
the speed of light is constant
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Not Saved
Re You have resorted to finding god in the necks of giraffes and the asses of beetles.
Come on, dont be so disrespectful of your fellow scientist, evolutionary theory is so widely accepted you might as well be telling me the earth is flat.
It seems that you want me to put some serious licks in you, but I will continue to be patient with both you, Rohan and BAFBFP, because I sincerely believe that you guys are potentially good boys that are just playing the fool!
Actually the science presented in the necks of giraffes and the asses of beetles is good evidence in favor of creationism. These are very unique phenomenon that can not be explained by natural selection. The likelihood that the blood circulation of the giraffe’s neck evolved is as likely as the Central Bank appearing over night complete with officers at their desks.
I for one don’t accept evolutionary theory, and I am sure that you know that many scientists don’t either, and that some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in God and creation and the God of the Bible. I am sure that you know these things.
The silly story of the evolution of the length of the giraffes neck presented in an early post ( and around since the late 60’s) has long been debunked. In the scenario presented, nearly all of the other herbivorous animals would most certainly have beeen eliminated by the time that giraffes were surviving only because of their lengthy necks. In addition since female giraffes are considerably shorter than male giraffes, there would be NO female giraffes around to bare future generations to continue the species. Apparently there is a need to have female giraffes around to bare future generations to continue the species.
I am sure if you look into the necks of giraffes and the asses of beetles, and the life histories of numerous members of both the flora and the fauna, that you will find an abundance of evidence to support the relationship between DNA and the concept of “after its kind” as stated nine times in Genesis 1.
I am sure also that you know that the various types of mutations discovered since the discovery of DNA, and long after Darwin’s experiments on natural selection, are usually deleterious and often cause diseases including cancers. But I have dealt with this on another thread already (Obama etc)
I respect that you have your views and beliefs, and that they will not necessarily coincide with mine, but at least give me credit for understanding a little bit of Science too.
Bush Tea // May 1, 2009 at 3:39 PM
@BAFBFP
I follow you. (BTW the speed of light is constant -to the best of our knowledge)
Back to my farmer.
…agreed that the chances of a sheep knowing the farmer’s plan are next to zero.
However, what if the sheep had been designed in the farmer’s image and given a ‘farmer-like’ mind unlike any other creature?
What if the farmer then made special arrangements that certain sheep could come to know his plan?
..of course to all the other sheep this would all be bare moo LOL
I know for sure that Rohan will pass some sheep wee wee on that analogy LOL
ROK // May 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM
@BAFBFP
Man my problem is with the label “Atheism”. I have no problem helping you set up the organisation but I would have serious problems being part of it.
From the use of the term, atheism, we would be setting up an organisation directly opposed to Christianity. They bastardised the word, we would either have to re-define it (which would be a lot of work) or find a new term that reflects people that do not believe in the God of the Bible but have an alternative view and belief.
Furthermore, we have more problems with the use of the word “god”. The Christians have been able to brainwash people into thinking that when you use the term God, you are speaking of the God of the Bible; like they have a monopoly on the term. Therefore, the slightest talk about God and you will be hearing them talk about False God as if theirs ain’t false too.
There can be no argument that even the atheist believes in something. In the same way that the christian considers the bible to be true, it is the same way that the atheist will look at his evidence and consider it to be true, though based on a different paradigm.
Hence this definition of God to be the God of the Bible and that any other is false, is very dangerous. This in itself has the scoffing and stigmatising effect on atheist and to my mind, atheism is not addressing the central core of that belief, but exists as a defense against christianity; not even as an alternative view but in direct apposition.
This is not a healthy posture. Atheist need to define themselves rather than let others define them. We also have to be careful that by using the term atheism as a convenience, we do not pigeon hole ourselves.
Maybe Atheist International has a specific agenda to oppose the church and catholicism. Is that what you would want to do or is it that we would be on a search to establish truth? Are we in the right pigeon hole?
We need to say to people that we believe in something; even if it is believing that belief is a lie. Or you can say that not to believe is still to believe in something. Maybe we can speak of the Creator. It needs to be defined and must have a language identifiable with its followers.
Therefore, we never speak of gods because gods are mortal, we speak of the Creator. Secondly, you can’t refer to the Creator as He or She. You would have to settle on nomenclature that would reflect that the Creator is “He, She and It” in one. I have always argued that this is part of where the trinity comes from but is also inclusive of solid, liquid and gas. The Creator created the Gods too but I believe that the Gods deeply understand the importance of three as the material source of life and how it is replicated throughout the universe.
But BAFBFP, I realise that I am here answering you earnestly, when in truth and in fact you may have thrown out a red herring. Well, let we see if the cats snap.
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 3:57 PM
BAFBFP
You say that “I am not a particularly humble individual; frankly I find humility a façade.”
I was taught in church as a teen that if you were humble, that you would not even know that you were.
I don’t think that believers do not think that they can be challenged. Rather believers defend their positions zealously because of the teaching of 1 Peter 3:15. I expect that you will tell me why you believe what you do, or why you don’t believe. You should expect me to defend my position as well. I am not here to win a contest, but to witness concerning my profession of faith, of which I am not at all ashamed. I know the Bible fairly well, and will share what I know at the drop of a hat. Similarly, I will relate the Science I have learned to the Bible, and do so in an honest way.
I do not perceive ego tripping in either MME or BT. They come over to me as men who have searched, and found out that in which they believe, and they proclaim it simply, though sometime nebulously or in parables (in my view.)
Zoe is clearly a Baptist Preacher, who presents the Truth of the Word with a greater degree of zeal. I think we should appreciate that. I dont think he is a criminal because of the way he presents himself.He presents good material that is found in the relevant literature, and from sources that I have frequently seen touted in the bibliographies of well respected authors on the subject matter.
Many of his critics on this forum do not present any information of substance, nor do they demonstrate any evidence of any scholarship on the issues.
ROK // May 1, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Sir Bentwood Dick
“By the way, I reiterate, that some things are only explainable by believing…”
Talk about B.E. You can explain nothing by believing. What is wrong with saying, I don’t know? Anytime you seek to explain based on belief, you perpetrate a lie according to how somebody sees it and not how it really is but is purporting it to be so. That makes it misleading and barely short of dishonest minus the “mens rea”, because for the most part, Christians know not what they do.
Here is where there should be a standard of professional conduct from all quarters that demands professionals to indicate their assumptions up-front rather than try to explain away something that they know nothing about.
Christians are very irresponsible and Christianity and religion in general are institutionalised enemies of the truth. Well that is to put it mildly; more like tyrannical terror-mongers. In all this I must admit that the established church do not take the same position as these wayside preachers and actually recognise that theirs is solely based on belief. Hence they would not get into this argument at all, they just not going down that road about proof either because they know there is no proof outside the bible.
These people like GP and Zoe who would seek to use the bible as proof of anything don’t have the first clue about their own faith and more and more i am tending to agree with Errington Massiah that these people are the greatest enemy of Christianity.
The Massiah spoke eloquently! well BAFBFP, he is an old Lodge dog, LOL!
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Now BAFBFP, as I said before, note that in the form of a parable BT in his last post has, in my view gone in to the very deep truths of John 1o which I will post below- As you read,
give special consideration to words like SHEEP VOICE ONE SHEPHERD DOOR SHHEPFOLD
1 VERILY, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
Perhaps BT has heard the VOICE of the SHEPHERD and KNOW HIM.What do you think?
ROK // May 1, 2009 at 4:13 PM
BAFBFP,
Don’t worry with GP. When it comes to truth, belief is nothing to defend.
ROK // May 1, 2009 at 4:18 PM
@Zoe
” Zoe // May 1, 2009 at 1:45 pm. Rok, has finally admitted, that: “Truth is certainly absolute.””
You see Zoe, what you don’t understand is that you don’t have the truth, and what you claiming to be absolute is not truth.
Yes the truth is absolute and what you spout is what you believe to be absolute and not what is absolute.
Shall I repeat again?
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Georgie,
I certainly do give you a credit of understanding a little science.
With this understanding you can respect your fellow scientists who you must admit some of which know a little more ev0-biology that you or I.
So rather than rehash the silly canards of the creationist movement, be honest and recognise that you cannot name a single university biology department in any major university anywhere in the world that does not accept the basic premise of common descent and natural selection being one of the key underlying processes driving change.
And these departments are full of believers of every persuasion and unbelievers too. This would make Zoe’s claim of bias look rather stupid.
And by the way, natural selection of giraffe necks is also thought to involve “necking”, a form of fighting between males, thereby explaining the observed difference in height between males and females. But I digress and I am not an expert on giraffe evolution so I suggest you speak to leading zoologist on the matter rather than take anything I say as authority.
Georgie if you disbelieve evolution, as you say you are entitled to your view, but rather than use your reputation as a scientist to cite more canards please cite the relevant published journals from recognised peer reviewed journals which support your contention.
You know this is how science is done !
ROK // May 1, 2009 at 4:23 PM
@BT
This piece below from GP is why your farm analogy is perfect:
” Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Now BAFBFP, as I said before, note that in the form of a parable BT in his last post has, in my view gone in to the very deep truths of John 1o which I will post below- As you read,
give special consideration to words like SHEEP VOICE ONE SHEPHERD DOOR SHHEPFOLD”
……………………………………………
We are being farmed or herded! We are sheep and God is the Shepherd.
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Not Saved
Re “the relevant published journals from recognised peer reviewed journals ”
You know as I do that a lot of published articles in so called recognised peer reviewed journals is cows wallop, because in many universities men must publish our lose tenure.
You know also that so called scientists dont present truths that will discount thier views of evolution. I have seen it more than once on tv programs.
I dont think that you can discount the circulation in the giraffe’s neck. In my view on the basis of the physiology that I was taught, it is too unique to have evolved!
I think that we ought to be able to see sense in things that our opponents say with out declaring them stupid,or trying to discredit them as often happens here.
BAFBFP // May 1, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Man ROK
You dissect this plan to a point where I feel that as an Atheist I should keep my mout’ shut..! Ha hA. If the atheists over and away were set up in opposition to the Roman Catholics or even just Christian dogma well I’m good with that. But what I think you might be saying is that if you are found to be a member of this new institution you might have to prepare yourself for a life of being kept under surveillance and having your home strip searched. The members will be pigeon holed whether they like it or not. I don’t think the cats have to snap at this one.
GP
I am glad for the Bushman and yourself. You are comfortable being high level sheep, or should I say, egotistical high level sheep and that is fine. BTW Bushman the speed of light is in fact constant only under certain conditions – I trap yah Hah, and this we know to be true FOR THE TIME BEING.
Doc I will say this to you, if I ever experience hearing the voice of the shepherd of which you speak I would be lucky to be close to your facility because I am damned sure that this mini giraffe-heart of mine would not survive the experience. I am not making light of anything that you said, I am just not designed or cut out like you I suppose.
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 4:58 PM
And when scientists publish “cows wallop”, fellow scientists revel in tearing it down
(yes men must publish, but reviewers need not accept)
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Psalm 100:3 states
Know that the LORD, He is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; We are His people and the sheep of His pasture.
We all know or have heard Psalm 23
We all went to secondary school and did something called English Language, and were taught about metaphors, didnt we?
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 5:08 PM
BT/BAFBFP,
Light, behaving as a wave, has a speed which depends on the medium in which it is traveling.
So light travels at different speeds in space, in the air, through glass and in water.
I suspect you are getting confused with a concept known as lightspeed invariance. (part of special and general relativity)
Maybe MME can explain better than I
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 5:08 PM
I agree with what you said Not saved, but you know what I mean. We cant depend on these peer review stuff that you like to talk about man. We too have brains man! I know that you dont accept everything you read…….cause you contending with me.LOL and all the time! Is a good thinh I know what I believe, and what I dont believe.
I dont accept everything the so called scientists say either. There is much that can not be explained on both sides of the issue, or else we would not be dabating.
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Back on topic.
Muslims say jesus was not crucified:
4:157 That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God”; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not.
4:158 Nay, God raised him up unto Himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise.
4:159 And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them.
Grenville, what say you?
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM
BAFBFP
I don’t know if the Bushman is a high level sheep, but I am just a simple sheep trying to follow the voice of the Shepherd, as revealed in his Word.
I can assure you that hearing the voice of the Shepherd wont make you crazy. By the way, I am not one of those folk who you will meet that will tell you the Lord tell me this to tell you etc. Perhaps I don’t hear as well as they. So you can see I am just a plain simple sheep.
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Georgie writes :
“I dont accept everything the so called scientists say either. ”
—-
Neither do other scientists.
The core of the method is to challenge and demonstrate; and the by product is the knowledge we do ultimately acquire.
But simply choosing what you accept from scientific enquiry based on whether it conflicts with ancient bronze age writings (rather than the science itself) is your prerogative but it is a approach that I cannot accept.
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM
NS
Could you tell us what you think about the issues that were raised with respect to the physiology of the necks of giraffes and the asses of beetles, as you call it.
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Neither observation are inconsistent with the theory of evolution.
Neither are inconsistent with common descent
Neither are inconsistent with common descent with modification partially driven by natural selection.
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 5:54 PM
For the beetle I will defer to a well known source, complete with references
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
It is notable that creationist Gish, so loved and quoted by Zoe is completely discredited by the article.
ROK // May 1, 2009 at 5:56 PM
@GP
“You know as I do that a lot of published articles in so called recognised peer reviewed journals is cows wallop…”
You were singing a different tune when we were talking about vaccinations.
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Let me quote talk origins:
“Evolution only contradicts a man-made God that operates under man-made constraints.”
——-
So my main point is rather than discredit almost universally accepted scientific understanding (rather disrespecting your fellow scientists I think) on the basis of your own self imposed theological constraints (taking a literal interpretation of bronze age authors), a more rational approach would be to adjust your understanding of the theology.
There is no more debate in the scientific world about the basic claims of evolutionary theory than there is debate about a flat earth.
Comment MME ?
ROK // May 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM
BAFBPF
“if you are found to be a member of this new institution you might have to prepare yourself for a life of being kept under surveillance and having your home strip searched…”
Man you got the wrong impression. You know that strip-search and surveillance could never bother me. I mean that I would have problems being a member because my thing is about truth not about being anti-christian because we are all human and my fight is not against my people but against the entrapment.
I would therefore be hardpressed to go against people (like how the Christians behave with their brimstone and fire and like the Israelis killing Palestinians). I would not be any better than the christian who wage hol(e)y wars.
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 6:17 PM
I am not an atheist because of evolutionary theory.
I am an atheist because I dont accept the positive claims of christian theology (or any other theology for that matter)
I dont understand why some christians fear this one aspect of science (more than any other). It usually leads them to look less credible than otherwise.
Evo Theory is (to borrow from Newton) one drop of knowledge in the ocean of truth.
It fills a tiny (but important) gap in our understanding of the world but my approach to the remaining gaps remains the same, I cannot fill it with what is to me nothing more than superstition.
Rohan // May 1, 2009 at 6:21 PM
There are some great minds on this blog.
On both sides of the fence.
No question.
How some of those minds could believe in talking bushes, talking snakes, a 6,000 year old earth, man walking the earth with dinosaurs, and a whole set of other patently ridiculous concepts can only be explained by systematic brainwashing from an early age.
Brainwashing that leads you to believe everything you read in a book that is full of obvious errors and inconsistencies.
Brainwashing does 3 things to Xtians:
1) Make them believe ridiculous claims
2) Make them look the other way when they are presented with text in the bible that shows obvious inconsistencies, errors, and things that we KNOW to be wrong.
3) Makes then find excuses for immoral acts including murder, rape, and slavery.
Rohan // May 1, 2009 at 6:26 PM
And the Christians on this board have clearly exhibited all three behaviors with zeal.
Funny thing, the brainwashing has set so deep that black christians would find a way to defend God when he endorsed slavery.
Black people, a people that have suffered the ravages of slavery, and continue to do so. Yet Christians are so blinded, they would even seek to find a way to explain or justify God instructing his people to take slaves, and instruct them on how to beat them!!
That would be like trying to convince jews that the Holocaust was okay cause God said it was.
Am I the only one that sees this????
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 6:34 PM
Rohan,
I agree.
The lack of any unequivocal condemnation of slavery in the bible is very strong evidence of human authorship.
More to the point, jesus, the jewish apocalyptic prophet was a great moral teacher for his time, but he to failed to condemn slavery, in my opinion demonstrating his very human condition.
BAFBFP // May 1, 2009 at 6:38 PM
ROK
Pity, we are the same side but we have different agendas. I am following this NS link of Bettles’ asses and I’ll get back to you bro.
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Not Saved
You will of course disagree with me.
I fail to see how the lack of any unequivocal condemnation of slavery in the bible is very strong evidence of human authorship. I fail to see how also why the fact that Jesus failed to condemn slavery as you say, demonstrates his very human condition. You did of course say, in your opinion.
The purpose of the Bible is clearly not to discuss slavery as you see it. It does, however, trace God’s desire to redeem men from the slave market of sin, and explains how Jesus did so.
In John 8, Jesus’ opponents declared that they were not then in bondage to anyone nor had never been in bondage. This was at a time when they were subjugated by the Romans, and despite the fact that they had been in bondage in Egypt, had been afflicted throughout the period of the judges, and some of the kings and had been deported by the Assyrians and Babylonians. Jesus’ response was if the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed.
The question to me is one of focus. You guys like the incidentals, believers focus on the essentials of what the Word teaches. I don’t think we are stupid because we don’t harp on slavery.
Everyone is enslaved by something. Certainly mankind is enslaved by sin, whether it is the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes or the pride of life.
BAFBFP // May 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Frankley MME,
I have the greatest respect for individuals who have been on this Earth longer than I have and still chose to think and comment on fundamental issues that affect us all. GP has never tried to force his opinion down my throat, but has only defended his position time and time again with quote after quote. The Bushman who has never been wrong since 1976 will continue not being wrong. But MME I must take exception to this:“the intellectual road to Divine discovery always runs through atheism territory… keep questioning and you will eventually find your way through the fog” If I in fact do find a way through the fog it would only be because I chose to take a short cut.
You must look at tbat link provided by NS on beetles’ asses.
Life is short.
ROK
The Christian lobby in Barbados needs a counter.
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 7:30 PM
BAFBFP
MME’s position that :“the intellectual road to Divine discovery always runs through atheism territory… keep questioning and you will eventually find your way through the fog” is not an unreasonable one when you consider that there are many reports of folk who were once avowed atheists who eventually were converted after having their questions answered following contact with the Word of God.
It is true that for some atheists that when the seed of the Word is sown by the Sower that it falls on stony ground (or bed rock) and does not take root……….
By your remark “The Christian lobby in Barbados needs a counter” are you saying that NS and Rohan are no mach for Zoe, BT & MME? LOL
ROK // May 1, 2009 at 7:30 PM
@GP
“I fail to see how also why the fact that Jesus failed to condemn slavery as you say, demonstrates his very human condition…”
Jesus supported slavery in your bible when he said, give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.
Clearly that is what we are speaking of. It was a set up. Let the white man keep on doing what he likes and let the sheep follow God so that the white man gets what he wants, because those things are secular.
Meanwhile the white man plundering and living large off we and we suffering and dying hoping for riches in the after life. What a conspiracy. Of course Imperialism in Barbados is represented by the white man but it is the imperialists that the bible helps out. The white man in Barbados is a contributor tho the imperialists and he gets the money from we.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 1, 2009 at 7:32 PM
OK BAFBFP… I am going to check out the beetles’ asses now and will get back to you :-)
@Not Saved… you want my comment on evolutionary theory? LOL… you know my view on that one already… you trying to set up a fight between me an GP? You is Don King or wha? :-)
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Georgie,
Once again, you show you are an excellent scholar of christian apologetics
(and I trust you know I am making a compliment to you)
Rohan // May 1, 2009 at 7:36 PM
GP wrote:
Everyone is enslaved by something. Certainly mankind is enslaved by sin, whether it is the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes or the pride of life.
***
Yup, here is the justification I just said black descendants of slaves come up with.
And it’s more than a lack of condemnation of slavery. God INSTRUCTED his people to enslave other people, and to keep women that were captured in war if they were virgins.
Again, Your God instructed his people to Rape and enslave the people around them.
Are you for or against that?
Twist words, slick talk, and justify all you want, but this simple truth remains:
If you are for the rape and enslavement of your fellow human beings you yourself share in that immorality.
So black people, are you for or against rape and slavery?
victor // May 1, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Does anybody know which was the first country in human history to make sIavery iIIegaI?
ROK // May 1, 2009 at 7:55 PM
BAFBFP
“The Christian lobby in Barbados needs a counter…”
I know you don’t mean a secretariat… However, I agree with you, but I am always mindful of how women’s issues got caught up in the feminists struggle. Actually the feminists movement swallowed up women’s issue to the point that women’s issues are still not clarified; even now.
This is a case where genuine women’s issues got caught up in men bashing and women trying to push over men, etc. That overshadowed any work we could have done towards healing family relations. It turned out in an all out war and who got hurt and still getting hurt? The children.
We fight a white women’s war for them by endorsing their solutions to their imperialists husbands and put it on our poor men. There is no balanced approach to gender issues. When you hear gender you know they mean women.
That is why I would caution about falling into a European oriented atheist agenda if we are to save our people from the grasp of the imperialists. We have to define our path and clearly state what we set out to achieve.
This is where common sense prevails and rather than an attack on people, use educational techniques to get the message of empowerment across. This would bring people to the realisation that they are under slavery and help them find a path out.
We should approach this not as anti Christian but anti-religion, designed to raise awareness of one’s self, environment and history.
Take it from me, trying to persuade a Christian away from their faith is like taking them to a bottomless pit, lowering them in and threatening to release. Can you think of anything more terrifying? Well then you have the picture.
Rohan // May 1, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Victor no, I don’t know. Looks like Portugal was the first European country though.
But can I put you down for being against rape and slavery?
Thanks
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Not Saved
Thanks for your compliment, but my response was the way I see it.
In a Bible reading (a Bible study in which several men participate) on the relevant books, the issues that you and Rohan raise would be discussed within its context, but the overall focus of that book, or the BOOK as a whole is stressed. The issues Rohan keep on harping on are definitely none of the major themes or sub themes of the Bible. They may be so very important to him, but Bible scholars and theologians don’t rant and rave about these things, nor do I.
Rohan
You say that I twist words and use slick talk to justify God, while you simultaneously and deliberately quote the texts out of their context thereby making them into a pretext. I do not have to defend anything that God said or did. He can, and will defend him self at the great white throne judgement.
Can you cite the texts where God instructed some one to rape women. I do not rape or enslave anyone.
Is God instructing black men to rape black women today? Is God instructing black men to enslave other black men today?
Micro Mock Engineer // May 1, 2009 at 8:03 PM
BAFBFP… just finished reading that article on talkorigins. Two observations:
“The theory says that surviving organisms have developed strategies that succeed; those which acquired failing strategies aren’t around any more.”
- belief in the Divine is a strategy that succeeds.
The author begins his concluding remarks with this statement “Do bombardier beetles look designed? Yes; they look like they were designed by evolution.”
- LOL… that’s like saying “do houses look like they were designed? Yes; they look like they were designed by AutoCad.”
Lets not confuse design tools with Designers.
Rohan // May 1, 2009 at 8:09 PM
GP wrote:
You say that I twist words and use slick talk to justify God, while you simultaneously and deliberately quote the texts out of their context.
****
Here is another sweet christian technique. When faced with damning text from the bible, they raise the objection that the quote is taken out of context.
So GP, In what context does an order to enslave someone work?
In what context does the endorsement of “keeping virgin women for yourself” work? Is’nt that enslavement and rape?
Here are your texts that you ask for:
******
Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil?
1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT).
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin.” Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, “How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God’s curse.”
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, “Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, ‘Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn’t find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.’” So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.
Rohan // May 1, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; YOU MAY KEEP THEM FOR YOURSELVES.
Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins.
Rohan // May 1, 2009 at 8:13 PM
More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will SERVE YOU IN FORCED LABOR. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may KEEP FOR YOURSELF ALL THE WOMEN, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?
Rohan // May 1, 2009 at 8:14 PM
IS that enough GP? Or do you want more rape, pillage, and murder?
Want me post where God says that if you beat a slave and he doesn’t die the same day it’s okay?
If you beat your slave and he manages to live one day, even if he dies the next day, it’s okay cause it’s your property!
Let me know if you need more?
Rohan // May 1, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.
Rohan // May 1, 2009 at 8:18 PM
Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”
Once again God approves of forcible rape.
Rohan // May 1, 2009 at 8:20 PM
This is the sick, SICK creature you worship.
Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Sir Bentwood Dick // May 1, 2009 at 8:21 PM
ROK, ”You can explain nothing by believing”
Ah, but you are trying to ‘explain’,according to some formula or comfortable notation that makes you happy, which in itself is a limitation by parameters.
With some things, the explanation is the event itself!
As I said, it seems that we are on different planes completely and I have no problem with that.
But, do not call it BE, because your ‘expalanations’ are unverifiable also, they simply cannot be verifiable in totality, it is impossible.
NO ONE can have any ‘claim’ to know what the truth is, neither ‘Christians who support a biblical history and lifestyle as per their understanding’ nor ’scientists’ who oppose such views.
Neither has any greater claim on ‘truth’ than the other.
I have noted the hilarious defense of science recently, that scientists themselves know that their ‘theories’ may be tested and disagreed to.
This is hilarious because most in the past have put their theories forward as ‘gospel’, until disproved, which is in itself a lie, disguised with explanations under current knowledge.
I say, that none of you, no one out there, can tell anyone else what is truth, or not.
Full stop.
If you disagree, then no problem.
Straight talk // May 1, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Respect SIR,
I was at one time identifying you as Lowdown, but after your last two comments I think you deserve the accolade of Big Up.
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Rohan
I think the best person for you to take up your peeve in these matters is with God himself. You will get to see him at the great white throne judgement.
I have never had any problem with these passages. And these same things happen today all over the world without God telling folk to do them.
Rohan // May 1, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Georgie Porgie wrote:
I have never had any problem with these passages. And these same things happen today all over the world without God telling folk to do them.
*******
Thanks for proving my premise in this one callous statement. You, sir are a despicable human being.
ROK // May 1, 2009 at 8:57 PM
@Sir Bentwood Dick
“Ah, but you are trying to ‘explain’,according to some formula or comfortable notation that makes you happy, which in itself is a limitation by parameters.”
Come on Sir Bentwood, you were so comfortable doing it yourself that you don’t recognise the difference. What mote are you trying to point out? Is there a beam in your eye?
You are picking up on the formula itself without realising that I was simply using the formula as an analogy to explain “application and use” of knowledge. In that example if you know two, you can calculate the third factor. I was referring to the creative use of knowledge, not that the formula is a universal approach to gaining knowledge.
There are several ways to gain knowledge. One way of rejecting knowledge though is having a deep and strong belief that is contrary to or in conflict with the truth, so that the truth becomes unrecognisable.
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 9:12 PM
“This is hilarious because most in the past have put their theories forward as ‘gospel’, until disproved”
—-
Nice straw man, hope you had fun with it
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 9:14 PM
MME,
On the contrary, I was hoping you would ‘comfort’ GP on how one could be a believer and accept evolutionary theory.
ROK // May 1, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Rohan,
You have to understand that GP does not think there is anything wrong no matter what you say. He will tell you that you can’t fly in the face of God and that you can’t know god’s will; a cop-out.
so if you say anything against the Israelis killing the Palestinians, they will support the Israelis. He, Carlos and one Dictionary defended the Israelis to the bone, talking about prophecies that have to be fulfilled.
That is how dangerous christianity is. It will allow the destruction of people under the guise of doing god’s work. So if GP et al found themselves in Palestine today they would feel committed to taking up arms against defenseless people in order to be a proud part of the prophesy.
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Georgie writes:
“The issues Rohan keep on harping on are definitely none of the major themes or sub themes of the Bible.”
—–
I understand what you mean.
I too would agree they are not a major theme and that is not the point I would make about them.
It is the absence of condemnation of practices acceptable in the 1st century that points strongly to 1st century authorship rather than divine authorship.
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 9:22 PM
ROK writes :
“That is how dangerous christianity is. It will allow the destruction of people under the guise of doing god’s work.”
—-
We have a lot of examples of this.
Belief is not dangerous.
It is those who claim to know the mind of god who can be very dangerous.
BAFBFP // May 1, 2009 at 9:28 PM
GP
Yah got me cracking up!
MME
If one claims that something is designed then you insinuate that there is a purpose. How can you possibly prove or know the purpose? You cannot speak of a design without knowledge of a reason.. Anyone who can speak to this reason is tripping. “claiming to know the mind of God is a form of hubris. The Bible makes it clear (for example, Job 37:5, Eccl. 11:5, Is. 55:8) that we can’t understand God’s ways.”
Rohan // May 1, 2009 at 9:31 PM
ROK,
I think you’re right. The next time someone tells me that christianity does no harm, I will point them to this thread.
I mean I just posted, text after text of the most vile actions imaginable and our loving, caring, christian has “no problem with those passages”.
I mean what more can I say?
Straight talk // May 1, 2009 at 9:42 PM
No need to say any more Rohan.
Plato had all these power mongers sussed.
“The people have always some champion
whom they set over them and nurse into greatness…
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs,
when he first appears he is a protector.”
ROK // May 1, 2009 at 9:48 PM
@ Sir Bentwood
“I say, that none of you, no one out there, can tell anyone else what is truth, or not. Full stop.”
That is the exact point. Therefore, don’t let belief cloud any opportunity to get closer to the truth. Note that I make a clear distinction in ontological terms between belief and assumption.
While both may seem the same, belief in this sense is more about holding a permanent unshakable position, while assumption acknowledges that there is temporary status which can be shaken at any time.
Grenville // May 1, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Hi Not Saved:
The subject of the verses that you quoted was the Jews’ poor behaviour. It was a response about the Jews’ boast about killing Jesus. The verse notes that they (the Jews) neither crucified nor killed Him. However, it may have appeared so to them since they delivered Him to the Romans who did the deed. The Qur’an then states that God raised Him. This interpretation is in harmony with the Biblical account and the rest of the Qur’an.
Regards,
Grenville
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 10:03 PM
No, I dont think the ‘doubt’ referred to here means doubt about who did it but rather doubt that he was killed at all.
In any case, you can reconcile of course if you take your view, a view different to muslim scholars, but that is now your task to convince them.
Good luck.
ROK // May 1, 2009 at 10:24 PM
@Not Saved
“Belief is not dangerous….”
I hope you understand that I was not talking about belief per se but Christianity in particular.
@BAFBFP
“The Bible makes it clear (for example, Job 37:5, Eccl. 11:5, Is. 55:8) that we can’t understand God’s ways.””
Yet Christians would want to put human face and emotion to god. This is a serious contradiction. I don’t think they understand that putting a human expression to god, defeats their own beliefs and places more authenticity in the observation that their god is a mortal being; an astronaut.
Even with such damning evidence and their clear utterances which clearly renders their god as mortals, they are too blind to see; right up under their noses. They will give you an explanation too as to why they could do that.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 1, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Christianity is at the very foundation of modern Western values.
There was a time, when all of the world’s civilizations tolerated slavery and bonded labour… from the ancient civilizations of Sumer and continuing in some cultures to this very day.
We can find lots of cultures and religions to blame… they were all guilty of this crime at some point in time. But the FIRST organised movement in ALL of recorded human history to call for the abolishment of human slavery was Christianity (Google the Quakers, William Wilberforce, Pius II’s “magnum scelus”). The moral repugnance we experience when we read those verses Rohan presented, is distinctly Christian in origin.
Indeed, modern science, democratic governance and western moral values are all products of Christianity.
Rohan, you can’t have your cake and eat it too… you see that moral compass you are using as your guide? Whether you like it or not, it is a product of the Christian movement… without which your arguments would be baseless and you would be dispiritedly lost. :-)
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Rohan
I know that I am despicable. OK.
But I think I put the emphasis on the more important passages when I study. I am sure you dont like the passages that I prefer.
I will quote one that I memorized as a teen and that I love.
I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
This is what is relevant to me.
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 10:44 PM
David, a post is seemingly stuck (must be a god after all)
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Not Saved
The issues to which Rohan refers from the OT occurred well over 1000 years BC. The OT canon was completed and the Hebrew Bible was available in Greek & Latin before Jesus came to earth.
So I am a bit confused about your statement below :-
It is the absence of condemnation of practices acceptable in the 1st century that points strongly to 1st century authorship rather than divine authorship.
BAFBFP
Who am I to argue with God, when he determined how the Canaanites should be judged?
God judged Adam & Eve.
He judged the people of Noah’s day.
He judged the folk at Babel.
He judged Egypt at the Sea of Reeds, He judged the Canaanites as promised in Genesis 15. It is noteworthy, that Rahab, the harlot chose not to be a part of this judgement.
God judged His own people by sending into exile in Assyria & Babylon as predicted in Deuteronomy. At this time, his people were treated no different to that as recorded in the passages that Rohan quotes repeatedly in righteous indignation.
God judged the Jews again in AD 70 and sent them to wander as predicted, for thier unbelief. They are still being judged, and have suffered all kinds of atrocities. God will continue to judge the Jews right up until the Battle of Armageddon. Preparations for this battle is being made relentlessly even now.
God will judge the believers at the bema or judgement seat of Christ.
God will judge the unbelievers at the great white throne judgement at the end of the millenial reign of Christ.
This is what the Scriptures declare, and this is what I believe, and teach, and seek to explain. I do not stop anyone from believing what they wish to believe, nor do I scoff at any one for thier beliefs.
Dont I deserve the right to voice my opinion? Am I not rightly dividing the Word of truth as required in 2 Tim 2:15, and seeking to obey 1 Peter 3:15?
Micro Mock Engineer // May 1, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Straight talk… LOL, man a simple Wikipedia search on Plato will help you to put that quotation in context. He was speaking about humans not the Divine.
Plato believed in the Divine… in fact, in his ‘Laws’ he held that mankind needed three things for successful survival:
1. Belief in the Divine
2. Care for the world
3. Be incorruptible by men’s gifts or prayers.
Plato’s concept of the Divine (or what his student Aristotle referred to as the ‘First Cause’ or the ‘One’) he considered to be unknowable and ineffable… in ‘Republic’ he describes it as “a Form of the Good that is beyond being in power and dignity”.
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Georgie,
I only meant that bible has books written as late as 1st century without condemnation of these practices.
Of course I am aware that the OT is much older than the 1st century CE
Not Saved // May 1, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Georgie writes of the jews :
“They are still being judged, and have suffered all kinds of atrocities”
—–
It seems incredible that a perfect god could be so immoral as to “judge” the innocent generations of a “crime” of their ancestors.
More precisely though, at whose hands have the jews suffered these atrocities?
Christian writing has been the source of hideous anti-semitism for two thousand years !
Micro Mock Engineer // May 1, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Yes BAFBFP, the Bible does make it clear that we can’t understand God’s ways… but it also makes it abundantly clear what His purpose for us is (Ephesians 1:3-14)
Not Saved // May 2, 2009 at 12:40 AM
MME writes :
“Indeed, modern science, democratic governance and western moral values are all products of Christianity.”
—–
That is such a gross overstatement that I dont know where to start.
Not Saved // May 2, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Christianity certainly takes its time to produce…….
Micro Mock Engineer // May 2, 2009 at 1:10 AM
“That is such a gross overstatement that I dont know where to start.”
———–
LOL… understandable. I suspect, had you known where to start, you would have cited various influences from other cultures and ages, but, as much as you may wish it otherwise, Christianity is the crucible from which modern science, modern democracy and the western moral value system have emerged.
As far as the slavery issue goes, Christianity was the FIRST movement (or moral value system) in human history to denounce slavery as immoral and unacceptable under ALL circumstances.
Not Saved, are these statements True or False? :-)
Not Saved // May 2, 2009 at 1:29 AM
“Christianity is the crucible from which modern science, modern democracy and the western moral value system have emerged.”
—-
True.
But christianity was with us for about 1600 years before a little something known as the enlightenment came along and that was an enormous influence on science, democracy and moral values.
Within the movement we should not discount the contribution of many non christians such as Paine, Hume, Adam Smith, Spinoza to name only a few that come to mind.
“Christianity was the FIRST movement (or moral value system) in human history to denounce slavery as immoral”
Partly true.
It cannot be discounted the value of enlightenment thinking (which had christians and non christians as its members) on christianity itself.
Christianity alone is not an adequate explanation for the very recent growth in these areas.
It is more complex that that.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 2, 2009 at 1:30 AM
“Christianity certainly takes its time to produce…….”
————-
Yes Not Saved… that is how evolution works… over time or ‘ages’… or what GP and Zoe duz call ‘dispensations’.
Not Saved // May 2, 2009 at 1:50 AM
It cannot also be discounted how many christians were on the wrong side of slavery.
And to what did they owe their certainty? a little inerrant book they call the bible.
ROK // May 2, 2009 at 2:07 AM
@MME
“that is how evolution works… over time or ‘ages’… or what GP and Zoe duz call ‘dispensations’.”
No MME. Two different things. Dispensations are periods of rule As the Godhead changes hands. Much like we change Prime Ministers. I believe that Jahweh was the first god in the encounter. By the time of Christ, the Godhead had changed several times. Each dispensation is marked by the character and leadership style of the god in power.
Deng Xiaping // May 2, 2009 at 3:02 AM
Someone wrote that “Indeed, modern science, democratic governance and western moral values are all products of Christianity.”
Really? This is an intellectual sleight of hand. I note that while these ideas were developed in Christian societies, their roots lie in other societies as well. The work of Islamic scientists and mathematicians underpin many of our scientific ideas.
* These ideas were vigorously opposed by the proponents of the prevailing Christian doctrines, (the stories of Galileo, Paine, Wilberforce, Darwin are of interest)
* Their development caused the practices of Christianity to change in the main,
*and a have led to a questioning of the claims of Christianity itself.
Further there are fundamentalists (represented by some posters on this site) who are fighting a rear guard action to reverse these advances.
All this points to Christianity being very human in origin and direction.
It may be more accurate to say that the Christianity we see today is the product of modern science, democratic governance and western moral values.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 2, 2009 at 8:09 AM
Not Saved,
Lets examine those examples from the ‘Enlightenment’…
Paine = Desist… he believed in the existence of a God on the basis of reason. Deists reject organized religion, but ironically, their value system is inherited from religion i.e. God gave men reason, God created and governs the universe, God wants humans to behave morally, humans have souls that survive death. He was the son of a Quaker and an Anglican, and some historical accounts indicate that he preached as a Methodist at one point in his life.
Hume = Agnostic? Don’t know for certain (debated by scholars), but seemed to lean toward the views of his character Philo in ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’. He was raised and educated in a Scottish Presbyterian environment.
Smith = Deist, like Paine. Studied moral philosophy at Oxford university.
Spinoza = Pantheist… he believed in a living natural ‘God’. For him God was an ‘infinite substance’… this was Einstein’s view also. He grew up in the orthodix Jewish tradition but his family was forcibly converted to Roman Catholicism during the inquisition.
They may all have despised the religious ‘trappings’ of Christianity, but ironically their philosophies were significantly influenced by the moral and ethical principles embedded in the Judeo-Christian education they received. Those principles were the foundation of their ‘enlightened’ philosophies.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 2, 2009 at 8:11 AM
To clarify my comment on ‘dispensations’… and I know this will bring attacks from the other side… what I meant was that GP uses dispensationalism to explain what in my opinion represents the evolution of a religion.
BAFBFP // May 2, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Well done anonamous
Micro Mock Engineer // May 2, 2009 at 8:32 AM
Someone wrote “These ideas were vigorously opposed by the proponents of the prevailing Christian doctrines, (the stories of Galileo, Paine, Wilberforce, Darwin are of interest)”
LOL… Resistance to change is a natural human trait and can be found in EVERY human society regardless of creed or race. This is not unique to Christian religions… new ideas, particularly if they challenge conventional thinking are always resisted.
But I agree with Anonymous, Christians should be held up to a higher standard. :-)
As for the comment regarding the work of Muslim scientists and mathematicians… LOL… I know you have joined this thread late, but I encourage you to read the subject of the thread… your observation is hardly surprising, considering that the principle teachings of the Bible and the Koran are essentially the same.
Although, it is worthy of note that the reformation and enlightenment phases experienced by Christian-based societies has been noticeably absent from Islamic societies and other religions/cultures.
What is it, so uniquely different about the Western value system that would have facilitated an age of enlightenment and why is this absent from other religions/cultures.
BAFBFP // May 2, 2009 at 8:39 AM
Anonymous
So many countries could claim to have done better under Ottoman rule with the establishment of Universities etc. then to have fallen into the hands of Christians and the prejudices and subjugation that came with it.
By the Way MME
Little steps please. About the “beetles designer ass” can you speak of God’s purpose for the way it works? ROK waiting in the wings.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 2, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Here is one from Emily Dickinson for you Rohan… :-)
God made no act without a cause,
Nor heart without an aim,
Our inference is premature,
Our premises to blame.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 2, 2009 at 8:46 AM
man BAFBFP… I have to take issue with these assignments you giving me. If you had assigned me a different subject to study, like Alison Hinds, I would understand… but your preoccupation with beetles is unsettling.
BAFBFP // May 2, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Emily Dickinson is indeed the Artful Dodger
Deng Xiaping // May 2, 2009 at 9:22 AM
“moral and ethical principles embedded in the Judeo-Christian” – MME
It would not be a surprise if the majority of the posters on this site had a “Christian” or some other religious upbringing. What is more instructive and interesting are the questions we raise and the conclusions we come to. To suggest the conclusions are somehow Christian ONLY because we started from a Christian experience is worthy only of a believer. Also it is clear to any reasonable observer that most of the fundamental moral and ethical principles are similar and ubiquitous among people regardless of time, geography or religion.
What was probably unique about the Western world at the time of the Enlightenment (and I am going out on a limb here) was that confluence of scientific development, political upheaval, economic change and expansion, intense competition within and between nation states of relatively equal size and strength and colonial expansion which allowed these ideas to take root and ultimately spread. I think that it was serendipitous for Christianity that this occurred where and when it did as its adherents can now falsely claim ownership of the outputs even though these may contradict past Christian doctrines.
The crucible out of which these ideas of scientific methodology, liberal democracy and “western” moral values was not just Christianity but the particular social, political, economic and geographic circumstances of 16 th and 17 th century Europe.
confused // May 2, 2009 at 9:36 AM
@Micro Mock Engineer
man BAFBFP… I have to take issue with these assignments you giving me. If you had assigned me a different subject to study, like Alison Hinds, I would understand… but your preoccupation with beetles is unsettling.
———————————————
I assume that you are talking about asses here,eh? You want to observe the oscillations that accompany their ambulations and oscillations.
Do you think that they can be described by the particle in the three dimensional box with translational movement vibrational movement and rotational movement? What sayest thou MME?
Deng Xiaping // May 2, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Actually I am the author of the last 2 anonymous posts.(i.e @3:02 and @9:22).
re: “considering that the principle teachings of the Bible and the Koran are essentially the same.” – you aint fraid Zoe and GP?
btw MME are you in Bdos?
David // May 2, 2009 at 9:48 AM
A BU family member wants to inject the following video for discussion into the debate. There has been much debate about whether Islam has been outpacing Christianity and why. While it is a little digression we hope Brother Grenville appreciates that the amorphous nature of the dogmas makes it important that we discuss religion in its holistic form. We have previously posed the question of the ongoing translation of the dead sea scrolls and the possible impact on religions including Christianity and Islam.
ROK // May 2, 2009 at 9:54 AM
MME
“GP uses dispensationalism to explain what in my opinion represents the evolution of a religion.”
Sorry MME, I really could not resist pointing out what the dispensations are. You are correct in your analogy. My apologies for using your post so calculatedly.
Rohan // May 2, 2009 at 10:06 AM
MME worte:
As far as the slavery issue goes, Christianity was the FIRST movement (or moral value system) in human history to denounce slavery as immoral and unacceptable under ALL circumstances
******
Wow, we have a christian saying that slavery is immoral and unacceptable under ALL circumstances!
So Christians answer this please:
Why didn’t God know this? How could something so blatantly immoral be actively promoted and endorsed by a creature that loves all his “creation”?
So has God now changed his mind on slavery?
What if he still endorses slavery? He never came out and said he changed his mind so your saying that slavery is immoral may be the antithesis of his thought on this matter.
And if he did change his mind? Does a perfect God, with perfect foresight, make such a huge mistake as this?
Contradiction after contradiction, unless of course the bible was written by men.
BAFBFP // May 2, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Chinee
You have said a mouthful. Christians have a way of taking credit for the good things and events. Man William Wilberforce and the rest had to fight Christians for them to see the light and thankfully they did something, however small, to show some movement just before he died.
I wonder, how much of this Western thingy that they speak of was in fact borrowed from the East (compliments the likes of Marco Polo) and the South and the Ottomans?
MME
You are indeed the Artful Dodger. Please do not answer Chinee’s question.
BAFBFP // May 2, 2009 at 10:41 AM
David
Well the shoe is now on the other foot. Wonder what the Aboriginal population of the world would think of this video?
Now we see a sinister fundamental reason for the framing of the Muslim face in this so called “War on Terror”. My God what propaganda..!
ROK // May 2, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Hi David,
I hope that people will not see this as any doom or gloom. Indeed there was a time when Christianity soared to take over the world as the Muslims are said to be doing now.
This is entirely expected. If it was not Muslim it may have been another religion mostly because the paradigm under which Christianity thrived is unjust. Not that Islam may be any more just, but may be seen as a less unjust alternative to Christianity.
Remember the posts of the African Queen (can’t remember her exact title) in several threads on BU, who kept saying that we need to learn our history? This is certainly an indication that Christianity left not only a void, but demonised Africans, stripping them of their identity and rendering them as lost. How long do you think that would survive.
I remember speaking to a young Muslim lady who assured me that she would never revert to Christianity. She said that women had more status under Islam.
Most unjust is that Christianity delvers the wealth to what we term the imperialists and leave the masses of the population in poverty and suffering. Of course it is like changing Governments. It is not a question of getting the best representation as it is merely choosing an alternative to what exist in the hope that performance will be better; the lesser of the evils for the time.
It would certainly be interesting to see how the Muslims perform, but you can be sure that the world will become dissatisfied with them in the long run too, as they are doing with Christianity. That is because religion in itself is designed to deliver injustice and allow a few to eat off the heads of the most.
MME now has further data to add to his evolution of religion. Maybe the title could be changed to “The Promise and Performance” of religions.
In the end, religion will not continue to fool the masses. It is all politics and that is why we can talk about the “Promise and Performance” of religion. Just all politics! Corned beef and biscuits!
Not Saved // May 2, 2009 at 10:52 AM
MME,
As I said they were all non christians, believers and non believers alike but the enlightenment movement was given a huge contribution by non christians.
You may want to credit their enlightenment thinking to “christian values” but it is a tenuous claim and the cold fact remains that christianity needed the enlightenment, christianity alone was not enough.
Can you tell me what moral values are unique and exclusive to the christian religion?
Not Saved // May 2, 2009 at 11:02 AM
MME wrote :
“Those [christian] principles were the foundation of their ‘enlightened’ philosophies.”
—–
Yes and those “christian” principles were around for about 1600 hundred years before suddenly they were enlightening to those who held them.
It is always amusing to christianity try take credit for any and everything good. (and no blame or anything bad)
golden rule – christian !
thou shall not kill – christian !
morals – christian !
democracy – christian !
modern science – christian !
earthquake kills hundreds of thousands but one child survives – Miracle !
skilled glider pilot lands crippled plane in river – Miracle !
Not Saved // May 2, 2009 at 11:08 AM
MME,
Dont get me wrong.
It is instructive that the enlightenment was able to flourish under Judeo/christianity and has or cannot under Islam.
If your point is that somehow this makes judaism/christianity “superior”, in some sense, you have a point.
A religion that allows freethinking to flourish must necessarily, to a non believer to me, be ’superior’ to one that is suppressive.
However, none of this makes it true.
It just makes one less oppressive than the other.
BAFBFP // May 2, 2009 at 11:20 AM
NS
Enlightenment flourished “after” the separation of Church and State. Please do not give credit when none is due.
Not Saved // May 2, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Enlightenment thinking drove the separation
There is no hard starting point of the enlightenment but the French revolution is a pivotal date
Georgie Porgie // May 2, 2009 at 11:40 AM
All hell will brek loose now, but I will say this nevertheless with respect to the video that David has posted.
Serious students of the doctrine of the second coming of Christ (Eschatology) believe on the basis of the teachings in Ezekiel and Revelation 19, that Jesus will return visibly at the Epiphany or Glorious Appearing to defeat the enemies of the Jews at the Battle of Armageddon.
Currently, there is much annimosity against Israel in the world and at the UN. However, their immediate enemies do not yet seem capable of obliterating them as they seek to do.
The Ezekiel prophecies call fo armies to descend on Jerusalem from the North, South, East & West. I find it very interesting that there is a greater increase in the population of Muslims in all of these directions relative to the location of Israel, and see this relative rise in population as a major precursor in the preparation of forces that is come against Israel according to the relevant prophecies.
Of course you all can now debunk my deductions as you wish; but this is what the information in this video means to me. I sit back now in the hope of enjoying some ranting and raving. Please do not dissapoint!
Georgie Porgie // May 2, 2009 at 11:42 AM
NS
I thought that separation of Church & State begun in 313 Ad with Constantine, who was definitely not a believer, but a politician.
Barracuda // May 2, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Rohan wrote: “So when the bible SAYS the earth is 6,000 years old, when we KNOW it to be BILLIONS of years old, you find some way to get around that” [emphasis mine].
Ah, Rohan, chapter and verse please! Where does the Bible say that the earth is 6000 years old? Which chapter, which verse? Thought so! It DOESN’T! NOWHERE!
“We know it to be BILLIONS of years old.” WE do, do WE? How do WE know that? Fossil records? Carbon dating? Empirical science? Or maybe you’re just a parrot, repeating a theory you heard from someone else?
The Athenians had a word for someone like you. A “babbler.”
Technician // May 2, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Slick move GP…….10 points!!
One question though(and I am no Bible scholar) ….is the Israel in the Bible, the same as this one in the Middle East.
This may sound silly but I am working my way up to a few questions.
ROK // May 2, 2009 at 11:47 AM
BAFBFP
“Now we see a sinister fundamental reason for the framing of the Muslim face in this so called “War on Terror”. My God what propaganda..!”
You thought that the beneficiaries of christianity would have rolled over and play dead? This is a threat to shift the destination of the wealth away from them.
ROK // May 2, 2009 at 11:53 AM
@GP
“Currently, there is much annimosity against Israel in the world and at the UN. However, their immediate enemies do not yet seem capable of obliterating them as they seek to do.”
Warped thinking. Not that Israel is any enemy to anybody, it is that Israel is seeing everybody as its enemy and belligerently so.
ROK // May 2, 2009 at 12:01 PM
@Georgie Porgie // May 2, 2009 at 11:42 am
“NS
“I thought that separation of Church & State begun in 313 Ad with Constantine, who was definitely not a believer, but a politician.”
Well! Well! Well! GP, now I know how warped your thinking is. The Council of Nicea was about the marriage between the Church and the State. That is why Constantine did not allow them to leave Nicea without the creed and its annexes. Everybody had to say, “I do”.
I now have to wonder what else you were so wrong about as to be at the opposite end of the spectrum… but I am not going to go back through your posts just for that; one is enough. Sir, you are the worst on religion. You should stick to medicine.
ROK // May 2, 2009 at 12:11 PM
@GP
“All hell will brek loose now…”
@David
I hope that from the above all would realise who are the real war mongers. It’s always on their mind. They will do anything to defeat their opponents.
Yes GP, all hell has already broken loose as BAFBFP pointed out, the war is against the Muslims; first labelling them as terrorists… but the Muslims were smart, they used your own methods against you and nipped the profiling of Muslims at the bud; other wise Muslims would be under open persecution now.
Next thing, your God or Christ is here already and by 2012, his plan to drastically reduce earth’s large population will be done.
As to Swine flu, it is one in a series of planned drastic steps to drain the world’s wealth in a short time. The budget for the execution of 2012 is large and they must collect it. The prophesies must be fulfilled.
BAFBFP // May 2, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Now now ROK
Pull back man. He from Kolij tek it easy.
Georgie Porgie // May 2, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Technician
I don’t mean to be slick at all. Those of us that take the Bible seriously find that prophesy becomes very clear when it is fulfilled. For example, we can plainly appreciate the fulfilled prophesies that pertain to the first advent of Christ. We can clearly see that most of the facets of Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzer’s vision with respect to Babylon, the Medes and Persians, the Greeks and the Romans have come to pass.
We now anticipate that possibly the Euro nations refer to the ten toes of this vision, although the exact nations involved is not clear. Since the Europeans previously were very sympathetic to Israel (probably because of their once strong Judeo-Christian background) the involvement of the West seemed to be unlikely. Perhaps an influx of Muslims or anti-Semetics in these nations such that this ethnic group assumes greater or ultimate political significance answers the question that students interested in this aspect of Eschatology have been asking.
The issue here is not terrorism or anything of the sort. The scriptures clearly stares that there will be a military campaign culminating in Armageddon, and clearly points out the direction from whence the participants will advance on Israel. Only an ignorance or total rejection of the Word of God will posit otherwise.
Your question as to if the Israel in the Bible is the same as the contemporary one in the Middle East is not at all silly. The answer is YES.
Recall from Deuteronomy that the prophet Moses predicted that there would be two dispersals of the people of Israel from the land that God promised them in Genesis 15 as part of the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant. We know from Joshua that Israel never fully occupied all the land promised them in Genesis 15. We know too that Israel was displaced to Assyria and also to Babylon, before a remnant estimated to be about 20% of post exhilic Jews, returned to the land under Ezra, Zerrubbabel and Nehemiah. We know too that these Jews were displaced again as predicted by Moses by the Romans under Titus in AD 70 as a fulfillment also of Hosea 3:4, which states….
For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:
We know too, that there are several prophecies in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Obadiah and even Hosea 3:5 which predicts a miraculous return to the land. viz
Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.
You will recall that even Jesus referred to this return to the land in his most important prophesy in the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24. He called it the budding of the fig tree. Believers accept that this occurred in May 1948.
Hope this answers your question.
ROK // May 2, 2009 at 12:26 PM
BAFBFP
You getting soft in your old age or what? The boys that used to break cane for lunch used to devastate them.
Georgie Porgie // May 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Please note that when I said that All hell will brek loose now, I was referring to the BU fraternity responding to my post. I have merely expressed my opinion on contemporary events as it relates to the prophetic scriptures.
I expect that there will continue to be wars and rumors of wars, and that this will escalate as set out in the Olivet discourse; just as we are observing in recent times. I myself dont plan to start any wars, here or anywhere else.
Georgie Porgie // May 2, 2009 at 12:45 PM
BAFBFP
Re Well the shoe is now on the other foot. Wonder what the Aboriginal population of the world would think of this video? Now we see a sinister fundamental reason for the framing of the Muslim face in this so called “War on Terror”. My God what propaganda..!
================
This need not be propaganda at all, but mere statistics. We know that in some countries, females are killed, and that there is a restriction on the numbers of children allowed per family, BY LAW!
We know also that the use of “birth control” and abortions are rampant in the so called developed world as families grapple with thieir economic situations, and as women see child bearing an uneccesary impediment to thier social and economic development etc
Long gone are the days when families had several children to help on the farm or whatever.
Is it too hard to see that perhaps the Muslims see things differently ……….whatever thier agenda or purpose or motives are.
David // May 2, 2009 at 12:47 PM
The BU household is interested very much so in how religion, the Church and public policy needs to relate for the optimal benefit of the PEOPLE. While we accept that Barbados is not a Theocracy it is a country built on values firmly rooted in Christianity (religion), MME can support us on this know?
The pragmatists that we are we continue to be haunted by the question, how can we in a country (Barbados) which is becoming more and more pluralistic exist for the good of all? As always we try to relate the debates to how we can improve our environment.
BAFBFP // May 2, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Man the Catholics that I know don’t “believe” in the use of birth control. Why not complain ’bout them too GP? Facts are facts it is how they are presented that I find worrisome. In any event GP, I do not see this as a call to Christians in the world, no siree. This is a call for White people to act. Earth to Hopi come in please, Earth to Pat …!
Man ROK
I get hol’ by Reece so I ain’ part ah dat campaign na more… lol
Georgie Porgie // May 2, 2009 at 1:43 PM
BAFBFP
Man the Catholics that I know don’t “believe” in the use of birth control. Why not complain ’bout them too GP?
Man I aint complaining bout nuh body. I just telling ya as it is. But ya right bout the Catholics. I have heard stories coming out of Ireland of women having 8 Caesarean sections yuh!
Re Facts are facts it is how they are presented that I find worrisome.
Man look at the figures as statistics first. Then ask if they are reliable. Then wonder the likely consequences. I gave you my eschatological view based on my study of this doctrine. Tek it or lef it man. Ya tink you in de Kensingtom stand in the 60’s at inter school sports in a Lodge/Kolij war man? By the way, Christians will only be spectators in the battle of Armageddon.
Why you calling Hopi in fuh she to get lick up by Zoe fuh nuh man. Left the girls alone.
ROK // May 2, 2009 at 2:10 PM
@GP
“This need not be propaganda at all, but mere statistics…”
Man GP, you getting less credible by the minute.
ROK // May 2, 2009 at 2:12 PM
BAFBFP
u have to get hol’ three times not to be part of the campaign; it is not the trinity but the trilogy.
BAFBFP // May 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Murder wanna killin’ mah..! HA ha ha
Rohan // May 2, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Barracuda wrote:
Ah, Rohan, chapter and verse please! Where does the Bible say that the earth is 6000 years old? Which chapter, which verse? Thought so! It DOESN’T! NOWHERE!
“We know it to be BILLIONS of years old.” WE do, do WE? How do WE know that? Fossil records? Carbon dating? Empirical science? Or maybe you’re just a parrot, repeating a theory you heard from someone else?
The Athenians had a word for someone like you. A “babbler.”
****
Barracuda, this type of ignorance does not even warrant a response.
Zoe // May 2, 2009 at 2:47 PM
GP, as usual, continues to relate the prophetic Word of God to the realities that have, and are continuing to unfold throughout the world, this is ‘coherence’ which establishes the ‘Truth’ of the propositional proclamation of the Bible.
Of course, there will always be those scoffers, just like those in first century Christianity, and since, who mocked and derided the Word of God.
“And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of TRUTH will be BLASPHEMED. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words, for a long time their JUDGMENT has been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.” (2 Peter 2:2,3).
Doom of False Teachers.
“For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and who did NOT spare the ANCIENT world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an EXAMPLE to those who would afterward live ungodly; and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppresed by the filthy conduct of the wicked…then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment.” ( 2 Peter 2:4-7, 9).
Depravity of False Teachers.
“But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, SPEAK EVIL of the things they DO NOT UNDERSTAND, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime…they have forsaken the RIGHT WAY and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness. But he was rebuked for his iniquity; a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet. These are wells without water, clouds carried by a temptest, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.” (2 Peter 2: 12-17).
Deception of False Teachers.
“For when they speak great swelling words of EMPTINESS, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the one who have actually escaped from those who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are SLAVES of corruption, for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage.” ( 2 Peter 2: 18,19).
The judgment in verse 4, is that of the Last Days, the season, era, we are now living in. The fact of a Last-Day setting for the warning against false teachers (see 2: 1-3) is strenghtened in light of Luke 17: 26-29, where Noah and the flood, and the deliverance of Lot out of Sodom and Gomorrah, are models of End-Time deliverance and judgment.
The rescue of Noah and Lot demonstrates the fact that God will preserve committed believers in the midst of evil circumstances, while destruction of evildoers demonstrates His punishment, to be pronounced in finality in the day of judgment.
Naturally, many on BU will laugh, mock, and scoff at God’s Word, and those of us who are trying to warn you about what is coming soon, but we are also comforted by Him who saved us:
“If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part (the scoffers) He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified.” ( I Peter 4: 14).
Georgie Porgie // May 2, 2009 at 3:00 PM
@ David
The BU household is interested very much so in how religion, the Church and public policy needs to relate for the optimal benefit of the PEOPLE. While we accept that Barbados is not a Theocracy it is a country built on values firmly rooted in Christianity (religion), MME can support us on this know?
The pragmatists that we are we continue to be haunted by the question, how can we in a country (Barbados) which is becoming more and more pluralistic exist for the good of all? As always we try to relate the debates to how we can improve our environment.
To be blunt David, we would have to return in some ways to what worked in the past. But this is very difficult. All around us people are becoming more selfish as described in 2 Timothy 3: 3-7. In our youth, our exposure at school, church and the home instilled in us values that did our nation well. We have departed from these principles, just as peoples in other parts of the world have done.
@ Rohan
Since Barracuda’s post is the type of ignorance that does not even warrant a response, why respond? It is, however, true that nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth is 6000 years old; though I have heard some teachers say so. I have often wondered what is the basis of the age often cited for the age of the world.
Now you and NS often interject with posts very much like what Barracuda has done, that are probably as irritating to others as Barracuda’s post is to you. You are an ex-Harrisonian, man. Come on man, show the Lodge boys on this forum how to behave man. LOL.
(BAFBFP dah fuh lick yuh man!)
@ Zoe
As usual, sound doctrine that can not be condemned (Titus 2:8)
Zoe // May 2, 2009 at 3:07 PM
BTW, this evolutionary nonsense of earth being billions of years old, cannot stand the test of the real facts of physics and cosmogony, the straightforward Biblical record of cosmic creation can be accepted in its most natural and litersal sense, in full confidence that that all the speculations of evolutionary cosmogony are unproved and unprovable. The real facts of physics and astronomy are all perfectly consistent with the Biblical revelation of special, recent, fiat, complete creation of the Universe, as stated by Almighty God, in Genesis.
Technician // May 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM
@ Zoe and GP
By your Christian account…..how old is the earth?
Zoe // May 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM
@ David, while I do appreciate your concern for our society, as GP said, we would have to revert to our past traditional ways of thinking and living, the essential Christian way.
BUT, this is simply not possible, as God’s Word tells us, things will continue to get worst and worst, exactly as the Bible warns it will happen, no nation is exempt from this literal unfolding of the End-Times.
David, no pragmatic approach can solve this utter mess we are in, sorry, NO political, philosophical, economic, or other man-made concoctions are going to work either; the ONLY answer for the individual, family, parish, and the Nation, is sincere REPENTENCE for all of our arrogant, humanistic, materialistic idolatry, for Almighty God in the face of Jesus Christ, IS the ONLY answer; for we are looking to, and in the wrong places for our survival; so is America and the rest of mankind, CANNOT work!
BTW, I’m not in anyway shouting at you when I use bold print, its just for emphasis!
Georgie Porgie // May 2, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Technician
I dont know, and I honestly dont care. The age of the earth does not affect my salvation, now or in the future.
I view arguements about the age of the earth within Paul’s admonitions in 1 Tim. 1:4 which states……
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
I try to keep the main thing in focus.I try to keep the main thing , the main thing.
Georgie Porgie // May 2, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Zoe
I like your outline of false teachers in 2 Peter 2. Starting with my outlines below I wrote a treatise on this subject from 2 Peter 2 and merged it with Jude, but lost this beautiful work in a computer crash three years ago.
Here goes….hope you like it and can use these outlines
SOME TRUTHS ABOUT FALSE TEACHERS ( 2 Peter 2: 1-3)
Verse I- FalseTeachers are deceitful, secretive and subtle (“privily”)
False teachers teach damnable heresies (similar but not the same)
False Teachers deny the Lord that bought them
False Teachers will be destroyed surely and swiftly
Verse 2- False Teachers will be successful (many)
False Teachers are seductive (follow)
False Teachers are sinful (pernicious)
False Teachers are swerving (their ways are erroneous and erratic)
False Teachers are slanderous (way of truth evil spoken of).
Verse3- False Teachers are motivated by covetousness
False Teachers make merchandise of unlearned believers with feigned words.
False Teachers’ meeting with God; their sentence or Judgement is sure and swift.
False Teachers are self destructing
CHARACTERISTICS OF FALSE TEACHERS IN JUDE
V.4 False teachers are SUBTLE (crept in unawares)
SINFUL
DERANGE the grace of our God
DENY the Lord that bought them
V.8 False teachers are DREAMERS
DEFILE THE FLESH
DESPISE DOMINION
DISRESPECT DIGNITARIES
v.10 False teachers do not COMPREHEND, but are CORRUPT
v.11 False teachers are DENOUNCED BY GOD, because God denounces religion that
REJECTS the blood of Christ
REVILES the law of Christ
REBELS against the authority of Christ
v.12 False teachers MAKE SHIPWRECK OF FAITH ( spots in your feast of charity)
MAKE THE SHEEP STARVE (selfishly feeding themselves)
MAKE THE SHEEP FRUSTRATED (clouds without water)
ARE UNSTABLE (carried about by winds)
BARE NO FRUIT
ARE DEAD SPIRITUALLY (twice dead)
v.13 False teachers are ENTIRELY SHAMELESS (that’s BAD)
are ESSENTIALLY AIMLESS wandering stars ( that’s SAD)
are ETERNALLY CHRISTLESS ( that’s MAD)
v.18 False teachers are SCOFFERS [mockers] c.f 2 Peter 3:
SATISFY their own passionate desires
v.19False teachers are SCHISMATIC –they cause division by separating themselves, they are
SENSUAL
SPIRITLESS -they don’t have the Holy Spirit
Georgie Porgie // May 2, 2009 at 3:53 PM
@ MME
I was thinking a while a go about our brief conversation about your rambling in Revelations, if you please.
Recall I posited that I see Revelation as a big river into which the tributaries of prophetic scriptures flow.
My approach that has worked for me is basically to read the prophetic scriptures, and make two determinations. Either the prophesy has already been fulfilled or it is yet to be fulfilled.
If it has not been yet fulfilled, I try to see where it fits into DeHaan’s 10 point classification.
e.g Book of Jonah; this is not a prophesy per se, but a story about a prophet. Its relation to the end times relates principally to what Jesus said about it in Matthew 12, where Jesus contrasts the response of the hearers of God’s word by the Ninevites to the hearers of God’s word at His return.
Obadiah: vs 15 the day of the Lord is mentioned; a big topic in prophesy.
it seems the first half follows the law of double mention, and the second half refers to the regathering of Israel after Armageddon.
Georgie Porgie // May 2, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Rohan
While you honing on rape and pillage, I am excited by JESUS’ PROMISE TO BE BACK – John14:1-3
Jesus promised that he would come back for the believer He always keeps His promises. Here is his promise…..for those who are looking for him (Hebrews 9:28).
I………………………………. the PERSON
I WILL…………………………….. the POWER
I will COME……………………… the PROMISE
I will come AGAIN……………… the PROSPECT
And receive YOU unto myself……. the PEOPLE
That WHERE I AM………….. the PLACE
There you MAY BE ALSO…………the PURPOSE
AND SO SHALL WE EVER BE WITH THE LORD.[ 1 Thes 4:17], because God intends to be with His people.
The cry of our hearts must therefore be …… Even so come Lord Jesus.
Zoe // May 2, 2009 at 3:59 PM
In answer to the question, …how old is the earth?”
This is not to be answered by some Christian belief, yes, that is also important, BUT, it is based on solid scientific principles, that are consistent with the Biblical account of creation; I’ll just give a brief look at why this is so.
The clear Biblical testimony of special, fiat, completed and conserved creation of the cosmos is, of course, explicitly supported by the TWO great laws of thermodynamics, the most secure generalization about the universe that exist in science. NO exception to either of them has ever been found.
The first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation, and the second, also known as Time’s Arrow, is the universal law of ‘deterioation’.
Both these laws, individually and jointly, clearly contradict the ‘evolutionist’ cosmogony.
Evolutionism purports to describe a cosmos in which all things come into existence and build themselves up into higher, more complex levels of existence, by purely natural processes in a universe that is self-contained and self-suffcient. That is, evolution is a universal principle of ‘innovation and integration’, functioning in a close-system universe. The laws of thermodynamics, on the other hand, describe a universe principle of ‘conservation and disintegration’ functioning in a universe that must, at least in its beginning, have been an open-system universe, created and energized by a Creator/Energizer transcendent to it. That is, the two universal laws of science yield exactly the same conclusion stated in Genesia 1:1: ‘In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.”
(The Biblical Basis for Modern Science).
More on this later!
Georgie Porgie // May 2, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Rohan
While you are seeing all the attrocities in the Pentateuch, I have been meditating on the following issues in Philippians
Paul’s & The Christians desire in Philippians
To know Christ (3:10)
To win Christ (3:8)
Conformed to Christ (3:10)
Magnify Christ (1:20)
Found in Christ (3:9)
Rejoice in Christ (2:16)
To be with Christ (1:23)
3 positions of the believer in Philippians 3
Found in Christ (v.9)- His place
Fellowship with Christ (v.10)- His privilege
Fashioned like Christ (v.21)- His prospect
THE WORK OF CHRIST IN PHILIPPIANS (The perfect work of a perfect Savior.)
Commencement- he hath begun a good work in you Phil 1:6
Continuation – it is God which worketh in you Phil 2:13
Completion – who shall change our vile body etc Phil 3 21
Christ is all as seen in Phiippians
Cross of Christ (3 :18)
Work of Christ (2:30)
Gospel of Christ (1:27)
Faith of Christ (3: 9)
Day of Christ (1:10)
4 R’s in Philippians 4: 3-9
Registered v 3
Rejoicing v 4
Restful v 7
Rewarded v 9
Zoe // May 2, 2009 at 4:08 PM
GP, your outline of false teachers from 2 Peter 2, is great, dead ON!
Georgie Porgie // May 2, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Rohan while you were distilling your view of the God of the Bible, I was seeking to unravel the facinating truths of Romans.
Here are some notes I found from about 10 years ago from a Homiletics assignment. They might not resonate with you at all, but ………so what? It excited me.
Here goes
Many run from the book of Romans and say that it is difficult to study. However, we can see that if we would spend the time to study several outlines and introductions of this very important doctrinal book of the Bible, that we can set up some pillars or a strong foundation for further study and appreciation of the book. Today, as we tried to give a few thoughts on chapters 6-8, we developed gradually the structure of the book as well as the logical progression of Paul’s arguments in Romans, as he deals with man as Sinner and then Saint.
We first laid down our ground rule for the right division of the Word of Truth. Again, we stress never let us forget–. A text must always be discussed in its context. For there is no other way in which we can rightly divide the Word of Truth. In setting chapters 6-8 in their context we noted that The Epistle to the Romans is a progressively constructed treatise, arranged in three main parts, which follows a brief introduction. We discovered that the first eight chapters are throughout doctrinal, expounding the basic doctrines of the Gospel. There is no doubt as to the subject matter in Part I (chapters 1-8). The key words in this section seem to be …….THE GOSPEL – POWER OF GOD – SALVATION – EVERYONE – BELIEVETH – RIGHTEOUSNESS.
The next three chapters (9-11) are national, in the sense that they answer questions as to the relationship of the Gospel to Israel. Here, Paul has passed from his general application of the Gospel to a particular consideration of its relation to the nation Israel.
The remaining chapters (12-16) are practical, inasmuch as they apply the doctrines of the Gospel to individual conduct. We noticed that there are three main movements of Romans. In the first we have exposition; in the second, explanation; in the third, application. The first part is racial; the second, national or Israelite; the third, individual. The first part deals with the sin-problem; the second, with the Jew-problem; the third, with the life-problem.
We pointed that our topic MAN THE SINNER & SAINT centered around is discussed by Paul in chapters 6-8 means that we are in part one of this great exciting letter we are in the DOCTRINAL Or FAITH section, CHAPTERS 1-8, which deals with how the Gospel saves the sinner and makes him into a saint. This section certainly deals with man as Saint and Sinner. In the eight chapters of this section Paul explains how a man can advance from being a hopeless sinner to a happy saint.
We taught that the three opening chapter of The Epistle to the Romans develops the concept of MAN THE SINNER, as Paul Romans teaches the total depravity of man, and that man is irrevocably and hopelessly lost and must have the righteousness of God since he has none of his own.
We agreed that Paul shows why, and how MAN THE SINNER, was justified, in Chapters 1:1 – 5:11, and that in Chapters5:12 – 8:39 , Paul reveals God’s plan to make MAN THE SINNER, A SAINT in the process of practical sanctification.
We then pointed out in chapter 1 that Paul showed that the gentiles sinned .He showed that the gentiles demonstrated that they were MAN THE SINNER despite the Natural Revelation of God in creation Chapters 1: 18-32, and that they did this by
Sub-natural Response of Man (Revision), Verses 21-23
Un-natural Retrogression of Man (Perversion), Verses 24-27
Super-natural Requittal of God (Inversion), Verses 28-32
We discussed too, how in Romans Chapter two, Paul reveals that the Jews showed that they were MAN THE SINNER by
Revelation of the Sin of Good People, Chapter 2:1-16
Revelation of the Sin of Israel Under Law, Chapters 2:17 – 3:8
In other words respectable people need righteousness as well. Consequently, Paul comes to the reasonable conclusion in Romans 3:23 that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
This is seen in the.Revelation of the Universality of Sin, Chapter 3:9-20
Paul then points out
1.God’s Verdict of Guilt against mankind, Verses 9-12- Man cannot remove this guilt.
2.Great Physician’s Diagnosis of Mankind, Verses 13-18 -Man cannot change his nature. He has incurable disease
3.Purpose of the Law, Verses 19-20- Law reveals sin, not salvation.
Paul then sets out to show in Chapters 3:21 – 5:11 how God would by justification- also called positional sanctification, change men from condemned SINNERS to SAINTS who are no longer under condemnation (Romans 8:1), but set up a way to convert them to be SAINTS WHO WOULD EVENTUALLY BECOME PERFCETLY HOLY. Thus it is that Romans 1-8 teaches the concept of MAN SINNER & SAINT.
To accomplish this feat, Paul shows what God has done to solve the sin problem by providing His Perfect Righteous for man in and through Christ and by defining the righteousness of God in Romans 3:24.
Paul also explains Justification by Faith Chapters 3:21-31, as the act of God that declares a sinner righteous by faith on the merit of Christ’s sacrifice. It is the addition of the righteousness of Christ as well as the subtraction of sins).
Paul reminds us that the verdict on all counts for all sinners regardless to their level of sophistication is GUILTY (3:9,19), and that the sentence delivered in chapter 6:23 as physical and spiritual death. Chapter 3:25-26 reveals that Justification through the righteousness of Christ is the only solution.
Paul then goes on in Chapter 4:1-25 to further explain what Justification by Faith is really all about. And he gave illustrations to demonstrate how both Abraham and David exhibited faith in God and thus became justified. He explains that Abraham was justified apart from circumcision before the era of the Mosaic law, and that David was justified apart from the law, even though he lived in the dispensation of the law. Paul is thus negating the two major appeals the religious Jews were making in contradistinction to the principle that justification is through the righteousness of Christ only.
In Chapter 5:1-11 Paul describes seven benefits or results bestowed upon MAN THE SINNER when he is justified by faith and thus changed into MAN THE SAINT.
1.Peace – verses 1
2.Access – verse 2
3.Hope – verse 2
4.Patience-Fruit of Tribulation – verse 3
5.Love – verse 5
6.Deliverance from Great Tribulation – verse 9
7.Joy – verse 11
We see in this chapter too, that Justification by faith is an act of God which is permanent and that God changes the relationship between Himself and man from enmity to friendship. It must be stressed that God alone does the reconciliation.
In the next three chapters 6-8, Paul expands and goes into greater detail as to how a sinner becomes a saint. We saw in Chapters 6:1-10, that Paul speaks of our Positional Sanctification, and teaches that UNION with Christ in His death and resurrection is the basis of our deliverance from sin.
In Chapter, 6:11-23 Paul teaches about our Practical Sanctification, and proves that OBEDIENCE to God leads to the experience of deliverance from sin.
One of the major truths taught in chapter six is found in verses 6:12-14 where Paul gives a few instructions to SINNERS WHO HAVE BECOME SAINTS . He tells us that
• Sin is not to reign in our bodies during the rest of our mortal lives, nor are we to be in obedience to it’s lusts.
• We are not to yield our members as instruments of sin or wickedness, but rather
• Yield our selves to God as would be expected of those who are truly arisen and now alive from the dead as discussed in verses 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11 above.
• We are not to yield our members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
• We are to ensure that sin does not have dominion over us.
The concept to grasp here is that we can either set our minds on the flesh or on the Spirit, we can chose to yield our members as instruments of sin or wickedness or we can chose to yield our members as instruments of righteousness unto God. We can chose to allow sin and self to have dominion over us. Paul advises to make the correct choice and allow God (in the person of the blessed Holy Spirit) to dominate our lives. Paul teaches that we are to give up our own way, and let the Spirit of the Lord take over completely.
In 6:15-19 Paul uses the image of a slave who has been transferred from an evil master to teach us that God our new master longs to see us grow into perfection. Then he reminds us in 6:20-23 that when we lived in the flesh we had no allegiance to the Spirit; we were free from the principles of righteousness (20). He then stresses by way of a rhetorical question that we never got any benefit whatever from that previous master, since the only thing that a life devoted to sin has to really offer is spiritual death. He goes on in verse 23 to state explicitly that the wages or reward or benefits for sin is spiritual death, before advising us to become sincere devoted servants of God, produce fruit unto holiness that exhibits the newness of life empowered by the Spirit through faith in Christ as described in verse 4, and benefit from everlasting life at the end, which is the result of genuinely living for God. (6:22, 23; as in 5:21).
In Romans 7:1-13, Paul discusses the law, as a background to a more detailed study of the life lived in the power of the Spirit . In the first six verses in Romans 7, he present the first of three confrontations in this chapter between man and the Law. Here we see the relationship of the SPIRITUAL MAN and the Law . and the relationship of the of the SPIRITUAL MAN and the Savior. We note in these six verses that the SPIRITUAL MAN IS DELIVERED FROM THE LAW.
In Romans 7:7-13, he discusses the confrontation between the NATURAL MAN and the LAW. We see the law and God and the law and sin. We see that the NATURAL MAN is DOOMED BY THE LAW!
Finally, in Romans 7:14-25 we see the CARNAL MAN and the LAW. We see that any attempt to keep the law will lead to carnality, and that no attempt to keep the law can lead to spirituality. Paul makes it very clear in these seven verses that THE CARNAL MAN IS DEFEATED BY THE LAW. because one cant keep the law unless they have the indwelling Spirit.
We turn now briefly to Romans 8, one of the best loved passages in the Bible, where we saw that
The believer now has A NEW POSITION. (1-8)
The believer now has A NEW GUEST (9-13)
The believer now has A NEW ADOPTION (14-17)
The believer now has A NEW HOPE (18-25)
The believer now has A NEW PRAYER HELPER (26-27)
The believer now has A NEW GOAL (29-39)
Not only do we have no condemnation, we now have also the assurance and the prospect of no separation from God.
ROK // May 2, 2009 at 4:29 PM
@GP
“I dont know, and I honestly dont care. The age of the earth does not affect my salvation, now or in the future.”
For a scientist to say this, it is quite evident that you have a hidden agenda. Rather than correct your colleague at arms, you allow him to babble away nonesense and then try to justify it.
Well Zoe, take it from me, you do not have a friend in GP at all. He knows better but would prefer to support ignorance to try to prove a silly point that has no merit in today’s enlightenment.
I only have this to say, the fossils of the dinosaurs attests to their presence on earth. At what point in time during the last 6000 years were dinosaurs on earth? Furthermore, if dinosaurs were a fact, why is there no mention of them in the bible?
Straight talk // May 2, 2009 at 4:37 PM
How come, if your “god” sent his only begotten son to save the tribe of Israel, after 30+years of miraculous deeds he only ends up with 12 disciples and a rag bag of hangers on.
Even Rihanna outperforms this meagre performance.
At least her target audience don’t vote for crucifixion.
Forgive them father, I’ve garbled the message and they want to kill me, what now?
Some God, some message.
MME;
So you are wiser than Plato! Amazing.
His Divine ( probably Zeus ) was selected from a multiplicity of Gods around at that time, including the God of the Jews.
He rejected your God, as you reject his.
Your agnosticism towards his choice must be equally valid for anyone questioning your pick off the top shelf.
Georgie Porgie // May 2, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Knowing the age of the earth was not necessary for me to be competent as a physician, or teaching medical students, or the Bible.
It didnt stop me from enjoying cricket or Bible readings. I am a simple despicable fella. Went to school, to church, then to UWI, to work to the beach and cricket. I focuused on a few things I like and am interested in
I remember well Bro Winston J Massiah in the 70’s on Rediffusion on Sunday afternoon saying I SPEAK WHERE THE BIBLE SPEAKS AND I AM SILENT WHERE THE BIBLE IS SILENT. I agreed with him then, and still do now. It keeps things simple for me.
I not too interested in dinosaurs either, for the reason above. I believe the Bible is silent on dinosaurs. I certainly have never took the time to study about them. They dont excite me. Said that on BFP last year and was scoffed at by the same Not Saved (I think, with a different name) Rohan and others.
ROK // May 2, 2009 at 4:57 PM
The bible is the most inert piece of literature anybody could ever read, like Treasure Island. Yet a supposedly highly intelligent man is willing to put aside his scientific knowledge in favour of a fairy tale.
Does it matter? The battle has already been lost. Very tragic. I want Christians to know that they have perpetrated an unforgivable error on the human race and that when the time comes, it will rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Forget that you serve your God, that will be immaterial when your God carries out his plan.
Next thing, in the same way you were the chosen people then, another set that looks more promising could be come the chosen people and armageddon may very well be the massacre of the Christians in favour of the Muslims and the giving of the bible to the Muslims as a great transformation takes place. Maybe a completely different and harmonised bible though.
ROK // May 2, 2009 at 5:00 PM
@GP, Zoe
What happen, your bellies hurting? You need to take something for the diarhhea.
ROK // May 2, 2009 at 5:02 PM
“I SPEAK WHERE THE BIBLE SPEAKS AND I AM SILENT WHERE THE BIBLE IS SILENT”
what a cop-out? very self righteous!
ROK // May 2, 2009 at 5:05 PM
@GP
“Knowing the age of the earth was not necessary for me to be competent as a physician…”
Good argument. Very competent indeed.
ROK // May 2, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Straight Talk
If Christ was real, I would call him the best politician that ever walked the earth. Think about it carefully, who else do you know could have campaigned like him, during and after life that has been able to capture the imaginations of so many sheep?
If Christ had to appear tomorrow, he would win every election in nearly every country from the North to the South pole. His only resistance would be the Asians and Muslims.
His manifesto has survived thousands of years and he set up a self generating campaign among his sheep. He is therefore the absentee landlord of world Government. Obviously more powerful than anything on earth and powerful enough to disarm all earth governments…
but we are powerful enough to annihilate all the animals and insects on earth, but I think we know better; so does your god and while he will not make man extinct, he will definitely plunge him in darkness again. Only way to control it.
BAFBFP // May 2, 2009 at 5:51 PM
I dun fah now. Tah much info
victor // May 2, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Yes,rok, as you know, I am in totaI agreement with you but WHO inspired the Beautitudes? Somewhere out there are words of wisdom which heIp us to Iive our Iives. It might be the DaIai Iama or the phiIosophy of the Sioux tribes. I have found great inspiration from aII of these.
Straight talk // May 2, 2009 at 7:09 PM
ROK:
Cometh the hour, cometh the man.
I really struggle, but persist, in organising my life around Christian beliefs,
I do so because if universally accepted everything would be sooo coool.
Unfortunately reality invades my la-la land every single day.
Do I Condemn these disturbers to the lake of fire, or merely give them a strong sod-off.
Not christian, I admit, more like Jahweh, but how come the son comes with such a different message than his dad has been promulgating since the dawn of time?
Kill ‘em or love ‘em.
Are we supposed to follow the omniscient father or the immaculate son.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Grenville // May 2, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Hi David:
That was an informative video. The statistics quoted should be relatively easy to verify. If you have not already done so, I can make the attempt.
Regards,
Grenville
Hopi // May 2, 2009 at 7:30 PM
@BAFBFP………Didn’t mean to return to this thread. Too much mental masturbation and pseudo-sophism going on for me.
Anyhow, please know that those that are called ABORIGINAL people on this planet are in fact the ORIGINAL people, the first people. That word is a white man’s construct and I’d say that he is the only aboriginal here. Check the word itself…the prefix ab – means away from and the word abhor means to hate. That’s like calling Black and Brown people minorities. Bullocks!
Catholics don’t believe in the use of birth control but they practise it and its called cold hard Warfare with weapons of mass destruction. In this way you take out millions more.
That video is intended to make everyone islamaphobic but those who put it out there wouldn’t tell you that they are the ones behind the world sabotage that we’re facing today. The ones behind this “terrorism” scam. Look at a few of these name… Greenspan, Bernanke,Gates, Rothschilds, Rockefellers….They will always come across as philanthropists or as working in the best interest of the people. Pure hogwash! These are some of the master manipulators working for the puppet master.
BTW, the Black man is the only man who has the ability /’balls’ to screw every other man off this planet with the help of his Black woman. That’s why there’s a master plan to continually subjugate and decimate the Black man.
Oh I didn’t mean to go there. pls forgive me!
@ROK…..Keep up the good fight brother!
David // May 2, 2009 at 8:01 PM
@Grenville
Feel free to verify, appreciate it.
Christopher Halsall // May 2, 2009 at 9:52 PM
@GP… “The silly story of the evolution of the length of the giraffes neck presented in an early post ( and around since the late 60’s) has long been debunked.
Really. Please provide the references.
@GP: “In the scenario presented, nearly all of the other herbivorous animals would most certainly have beeen [sic] eliminated by the time that giraffes were surviving only because of their lengthy necks.
Um, no… An advantage because of evolution does not ensure that all other competitors will be eliminated. It *might* give them advantage in the (then) current situation. But the situation might change…
It’s a numbers game…
@GP: “In addition since female giraffes are considerably shorter than male giraffes, there would be NO female giraffes around to bare future generations to continue the species. Apparently there is a need to have female giraffes around to bare future generations to continue the species.
*EXACTLY*. Therefore, while the males are able to consume foliage (from trees (which are themselves a fouling of the “commons”)) well above the females, and have the ability to consume below, they choose not to because they need the females.
Really, GP, I find this debate a bit like autogratification.
But without the euphoria…
Evolution? // May 2, 2009 at 9:56 PM
How can any one with a brain actually believe in the therory of Evolution?
Doesn’t the message from the Bible make more sense?
Eddie
Not Saved // May 2, 2009 at 10:03 PM
“How can any one with a brain actually believe in the therory of Evolution?”
———–
maybe by using it
just a thought
Christopher Halsall // May 2, 2009 at 10:09 PM
Just for reference…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giraffe
“The evolution of the long necks of giraffes has been the subject of much debate…
“This theory notes that giraffes frequently feed from relatively low-lying shrubs, and that the necks of males are significantly longer than those of females.[9]
“However, this theory is not universally accepted, and some of the data supporting it has recently been challenged, lending support to the original proposal that neck length is related to browsing habits.[10]
9. ^ Simmons, R. E. & Scheepers, L. (1996). “Winning by a Neck: Sexual Selection in the Evolution of Giraffe”. The American Naturalist 148 (5): 771–786. http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182/Giraffe/WinningByANeck.pdf.
10. ^ Cameron, E. Z. & du Toit, J. T. (2007). “Winning by a Neck: Tall Giraffes Avoid Competing with Shorter Browsers”. American Naturalist 169 (1): 130–135. doi:10.1086/509940.
Georgie Porgie // May 2, 2009 at 10:14 PM
NS
Eddie just put that ball in the slot for you to nudge it through the covers in your particular style.
You are the master of retort and reparti! LOl
I off course agree with him though. LOL
Not Saved // May 2, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Why thank you, Georgie.
Rohan // May 2, 2009 at 11:57 PM
It is, however, true that nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth is 6000 years old; though I have heard some teachers say so. I have often wondered what is the basis of the age often cited for the age of the world.
********
So Georgie, if you’ve often wondered what the basis often cited for the bible’s account of the age of the world, then why did you not look it up?
That’s what someone who is curious would do. It amazes me how little christians know about the bible.
Didn’t you just ask “show me where God instructs people to rape women”.
Anyhow thought I would help you. Here’s what to do next time you have a pressing question
http://tinyurl.com/dyv8dl
ROK // May 3, 2009 at 3:19 AM
@GP
“Please note that when I said that All hell will brek loose now, I was referring to the BU fraternity responding to my post…”
How come all hell ain’t break loose? You twisting your mouth. You are just plain belligerent like all Christians and believers in the bible.
ROK // May 3, 2009 at 3:21 AM
@Zoe
SOME TRUTHS ABOUT FALSE TEACHERS ( 2 Peter 2: 1-3)
Verse I- FalseTeachers are deceitful, secretive and subtle (“privily”)
False teachers teach damnable heresies (similar but not the same)
False Teachers deny the Lord that bought them
False Teachers will be destroyed surely and swiftly Verse 2- False Teachers will be successful (many)
False Teachers are seductive (follow)
False Teachers are sinful (pernicious)
False Teachers are swerving (their ways are erroneous and erratic)
False Teachers are slanderous (way of truth evil spoken of).
Verse3- False Teachers are motivated by covetousness
False Teachers make merchandise of unlearned believers with feigned words.
False Teachers’ meeting with God; their sentence or Judgement is sure and swift.
False Teachers are self destructing
………………………………………….
You describe yourself and GP so well here.
ROK // May 3, 2009 at 3:26 AM
@Zoe
“In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.”
You are an insult to the intelligence of mankind. The problem with your God who so claimed to have created the world is that he left out so much that he even got his dates wrong. Put it down to senility?
The USA Created the State of Israel too.
ROK // May 3, 2009 at 3:44 AM
@David
They did it to Africa and black people all over the world, now they have done it with Mexico.
This is pathetic. What did Mexico do to deserve this. Imagine this coming to Barbados:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8028169.stm
Rohan // May 3, 2009 at 10:14 AM
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2706/spaceb.jpg
After you click, click on the image to enlarge it. It shows how tiny the earth and how insignificant it is in the whole scheme of things.
We’re one tiny planet, among billions of stars, in one galaxy among trillions of galaxies..
But you’ll have me believe that some creature is somewhere out there, directing what happens in this tiny slither of land we call earth?
And he loves us all and can’t get things to work on this tiny little place?
Seriously, click to get an idea of the scales I’m talking about:
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2706/spaceb.jpg
BAFBFP // May 3, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Ah Boy
Hopi returns
Gotcha on the use of term Aboriginal
Zoe look out..!
ROK
Got a passage from “A Natural History of the Senses“by Daine Ackerman. Got to type it up first!
Zoe // May 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Evolutionary scientists have a lot of ‘faith’ believing untestable propositions, as Mark Twain said, “faith is believing things you know are not true” yes, especially when scientific inquiry depends upon the premise that there is order in the universe. If this premise were not true, science would be meaningless. Implicit in this premise is the corollary that our experience bears a true relationship to the orderliness of the universe. The order premise and its corollary, however, require a leap of faith which science cannot avoid making. Without this act of faith, science as an activity cannot be done as a body of knowledge cannot exist.
“But,” someone may say, “I thought science was grounded in empirical facts so solidly that it would never have appeal to faith.”
Science is forced to assume that there is order in the universe. Scientists must believe (or act as if they believe) that this premise is profoundly true, or they cannot do any sort of scientific investigation, and science itself cannot exist.
Where did this ‘order’ in the universe come from, pure random chance selection, out of no where, just so?
A theologian might enter at this point, and say, “Yes, than God, there is.”
Is there no logical basis for the order premise? Is there no rational basis for the claim that there is order in the universe, an order so amazingly and so vastly complex, that it even leaves the scientists in awe, struggling to unravel its utterly majestic beauty and ‘Order’ and they say, all of this just happened by random chance, no designer, no creator, no God!
This is why our Almighty Creator, said:
“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord” (Isa. 1:18a). Or why would David have said, :O taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psa. 34:8a)? Or why would John have written in the Revelation: “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (22:17)?
Clearly, then, if the Lord had meant for men to take a leap into darkness, blind faith, surely He would not have spoken of “reason.” If he had intended for us to sack up our brains and leave them at the university library, He would not have recommended the act of “tasting” ( a cognate of the word “testing”) and “seeing.” If the Lord had not intended to engage the intellect of man, He would not have spoken to us in words that we can comprehend, nor would He have referred to the believer generically as “him that heareth.”
Besides all that, for what is man “athirst” if not for understanding? What does man long for, if not resolution of the mystery of his own existence? Jesus said:
“And ye shall KNOW the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free” (John 8:32). He did not say, “And ye shall take a leap into darkness by faith and in the void you shall never know anything for sure.” Jesus did not agree with Mark Twain. Faith is NOT believing what you know is not true. On the contrary, faith, if it is faith, is believing in what is true.
On the other hand, what if one believes what is not true? Can it be said that such a person is full of faith? If faith is placed in anything other than truth, it is no longer faith. It becomes foolishness, deception, conceit, or something else.
Yet, the common man in each of us believes, for the most part, that the order premise of science has some justification. We know, without need of further evidence, that science has some solid basis. If that basis cannot be found in the reason of philosophy, or in the facts of experience, where can it be found?
To the believer, we say again: “Thank God it can be found in His revelation.
The order premise of the universe, speaks loudly in its absolutely eloquent, yet, silent majestic awesomeness, as it displays His handiwork, when all the heavens shout and sing His glory in a language beyond human expression, a language which no human language can deny (Psa. 19), and when science depends on the very espression of intelligence which is found in none other than the God of the Bible, where shall anyone hide if he tries to remain in unbelief? How will they justify their skepticism?
Evolutionary humanism, masquering as science, is often held out as a ’scientific’ stronghold in which man can take refuge, but Almighty God assessed it and found it wanting long ago:
“Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with Hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made LIES our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves;
Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: He that believeth shall not make haste ( Isa. 28: 15-16).
But, some may contend, “I’m looking for literature that will relate the teachings of the Bible in a ‘coherent’ manner to the findings of empirical science.”
There is much literature out there, written by a number of very competent, bright, well trained scientists, who are not willing to leave their brains behind when they enter the hallowed halls of theological discussion, intelligent men, who are unwilling to take a leap of “scientific’ faith into darkness. It is those men and women who are willing to examine the Bible and science critically, thoughtfully, and intelligently, literature that is loaded with empirical evidences showing the veracity of the Bible, coherently linking the order premise of the universe, with the Creation account of Genesis, as outlined in His Word, the Bible.
As Legal jurists have said, any one with a willing mind, opened to consider the ‘evidence’ simply, cannot without, being intellectually dishonest, refute the facts of sound science.
ROK // May 3, 2009 at 10:51 AM
It is no accident that we have a day which we call SUN-DAY originally dedicated to the Sun God and which is set aside for Christians.
rohan // May 3, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Rok,
and they celebrate christmas day on Dec 25th, which “ever so coincidentally of course” is the same day used to celebrate the winter solstice when the Sun is at its largest angular distance from an observer.
This was traditionally used to celebrate the rebirth of Sun Gods and Dec 25th is also the Romans day to celebrate their Sun Gods.
But wait….now it’s Jesus’s birthday! LMAO, how ridiculous.
BAFBFP // May 3, 2009 at 12:32 PM
What does LMAO mean?
ROK // May 3, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Rohan,
Don’t forget Easter and it is no accident that they have taken over all the dates of the so-called Pagans; what hypocrisy!
ROK // May 3, 2009 at 1:19 PM
BAFBFP
Looka my a** old. LOL! Can’t help you. Ask Chris, he is the master.
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Zoe writes :
“Science is forced to assume that there is order in the universe. ”
—-
Actually no.
Anon // May 3, 2009 at 1:34 PM
LMAO = laughing my ass off
Sir Bentwood Dick // May 3, 2009 at 1:48 PM
My karma ate my dogma, the little people told me so…..
Sir Bentwood Dick // May 3, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Sorry, I am in a mischievous mood…
but then again, maybe its ‘my truckma ate my catma’…?….
Barracuda // May 3, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Rohan, you’ve done it again! “…the bible’s account of the age of the world.”
The only “account” in the Bible of the age of the world is in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
FYI, the 6000 year-old earth age that skeptics like yourself and ROK, Mr. BANGOman, are so fond of quoting, originally came from a theory of the so-called Anglican divine, Archbishop James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate [talk about making a monkey of onesself] of All Ireland who, making broad assumptions from the geneaologies in the Genesis account, as to their years and completeness, came up with a date of Creation of Sunday October 23rd, 4oo4 B.C. Beyond that the good Archbishop did not care to commit himself.
See the link: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm
This, dear Rohan, is where the 6000 year-old earth theory came from, not from the Bible. It came from a fallible human being like me and, dare I say it, you. So let’s have no more of your “eisegesis ” that the Bible account says this and that. It does not. End of Story!
Surely, in the interest of intellectual honesty, you would have researched this yourself before accusing me and many others of ignorance, and continuing to parrot the line that Christians believe in a 6000 year old earth. But vilification is much easier than research, isn’t it?
Maybe it’s a case, as Sir Bentwood Dick so eloquently and amusingly put it, of “My Karma ran over my Dogma.”
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 3:03 PM
The bible may not say it, but many christians say it [the earth is 6,000 years old] and moreover the very same claim the bible for their authority.
Is there anything else the christians disagree on from the bible?
Rohan // May 3, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Barracuda,
Do you know how many christians believe in the 6,000 year old earth? There’s an entire subset of christians here in the U.S that do.
Yes, your idiots in arms.
Oh and God is infallible?
The same God that created this world, saw his creation mess up, so he had to destroy them all in some huge flood and start over.
Then even when he started over it’s still all jacked up.
So he went on a rage of destruction, murder, pillage, slavery, rape, and all other types of atrocities (cause he’s a jealous god of course).
The same infallible, perfect god who created the animals and 90% of all species that walked the earth are now extinct.
That perfect God? Is there anything about this world that shows it was done by a perfect creature?
You couldn’t have messed this world up more if you tried.
Now, you’re waiting for his return, the same return that was supposed to take place “before this generation is over!”
Shouldn’t you be somewhere talking to your imaginary friend? Tell him there are 30,000 people who will die of starvation today. See if he’ll help.
Barracuda // May 3, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Wow, such aggression, such outrage! “Idiots in arms!” And such railing against an entity that’s not supposed to exist! Talk about imaginary friends! Rohan, you are proof positive of the adage that, “Just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get ya! But, then again, seeing from your post that you live in the USA, I’m not surprised at your paranoia!
Perhaps if you had used just a little bit of your highly-evolved intellect, you could have discerned from my post that I am not one of those sub-set of Christians that believe in a 6000 year-old earth. Christian yes! 6000 year-old earth, no!
One last question Rohan, speaking of the 30,000 people who you claim will die of starvation today, I contributed to the food-bank for the needy at our church this morning. What did YOU DO?
Technician // May 3, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Pompous, condescending, arrogant, beating of one’s chest…….Barracuda, new to this blog but sounding so familiar…..must be the way Christians behave.
Rohan // May 3, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Barracuda,
I didn’t care to discern from your post what aspect of your fairy tale you believed in or not.
Think I care if you believe Santa starts delivering his gifts in Japan or starts in Puerto Rico? Makes no difference, it’s still an absurd fairy tale.
As for you donating money to your church this morning. Kudos. But wouldn’t it have worked better to pray for God to send some more Manna?
ROK // May 3, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Barracuda
Like Technician said, pompous, arrogant and new to the thread… but you only have to check back the said Bible from the time Adam & Eve left the garden, check the generations down to Noah and then to Abraham.
Having done that check for the date of the flood and the most important thing is to understand that the first written Hebrew recorded was around 1500BC.
Calculate how long it would take for a people to develop writing skills and remember that the Egyptians were writing long before 1500BC, so they had a structure to copy from. Even if they had nothing to copy from, they could have begun with drawings like the Egyptians. It certainly could not have been much more than a thousand years before they started to write.
The Sumerians and the civilisations before them existed some 40,000 years ago and it could not have taken the Hebrews that long as a race to develop a language.
Remember also that when Adam & Eve left the garden they went into a civilisation; not sure where that civilisation came from according to you. If God made man, then Adam and Eve should have been the only people on Earth. How old could Adam have been? 500 yrs? Maybe you would want to tell me 40,000 years old.
So if you think that the world of science is depending on some insignificant Archbishop of old to determine the age of the Bible and its contents you are so wrong.
Finally, what the church decrees is what you are supposed to believe in and not what you think. Christianity all over the world recognises that according to the evidence from the Bible, the world; the entire universe is not billions far less millions of years old. Don’t even reach a million.
God made all the animals and Adam named them, are dinosaurs among the animals he named? What does the fossil evidence say?
You so much want to believe in the bible that you would strain at a knat to prove the whole world wrong… but how Mr. BANGO get in. That is another one of your Christian dirty moves, to try to ridicule and pull down. Stick to the argument. All the BANGO don’t make a difference and you ain’t saying anything nobody don’t know.
But you hide behind a pseudonym, trying to insult somebody? Show your face or let me find out who you are and then we can trade insults. I want you to know that your computer has an IP address, so really you ain’t so anonymous and that IP address can be traced to a street address and down to a building where the internet service is being used. So don’t feel too comfortable.
I don’t have to go to the telephone company to do that. I can do it from right here on my laptop. We will see who have skeletons in their closets.
ROK // May 3, 2009 at 5:12 PM
@Barracuda
“contributed to the food-bank for the needy at our church this morning. What did YOU DO?”
What you got to do is stop trying to use your money contributions to save yourself the bother. You should go and hand out the food or cook it and share it to make sure it ain’t going into the Pastor’s pantry.
I would also risk to bet that it was some tin of food that the stuffings get lick out before it get in the tin. Is that food? That is poison. Poor people need wholesome food. You really don’t care, do you? You doing the minimum in the hope of going to heaven, but heaven is anything and everything including the earth. If you lived on Mars, Earth would be in the heavens for you skipper.
Rohan // May 3, 2009 at 6:23 PM
In the first creation story (Genesis 1)
God created animals first and then Adam.
In the second creation story (Genesis 2), God created Adam first and then the animals.
So a perfect God, writing his perfect book, couldn’t get the facts right from one chapter til the next.
Before the bible even got past the first few pages there is an inconsistency, and it just gets crazier from there.
How do christians reconcile obvious errors like this?
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 6:33 PM
“How do christians reconcile obvious errors like this?”
—-
Pretty much the same way they do on the remainder that follow
Rohan // May 3, 2009 at 7:01 PM
LOL @ Not Saved…
The reconciliation process goes something like this:
Well you see, what God meant in the first chapter, was blah blah blah blah, and he thus when he said 5th day, he meant the 5th 1000 years, since 1000 years is a day, and thus after day 999, day 1000 happened, which technically is the following day, which reconciles based on blah blahblah blah, and then yadadyadda!
See? So when God said he made men first and then animals, and then a few pages later say that he made animals first and then man…it all makes perfect sense.
You just need some UNDERSTANDING!
sheesh! haha
ROK // May 3, 2009 at 7:23 PM
@ Barracuda,
“you could have discerned from my post that I am not one of those sub-set of Christians that believe in a 6000 year-old earth. Christian yes! 6000 year-old earth, no!”
Can’t have it both ways fella. You either a christian or not. You can’t be a christian with your personal beliefs, otherwise you ain’t christian. As a christian you are duty bound to believe the bible without question. You can’t just come and change it just so…
but that is the exact point that Rohan making; the inconsistencies and contradictions are too many. So you need to accept and argue that it is 6000 years or slide away from christianity; or don’t you get it? If you come back here with any contradictions or trying to interpret it how you feel like, I will cease to recognise you as a christian and call you a renegade with christian sympathies… but all of you would not be christian. So make up your mind.
Technician // May 3, 2009 at 7:55 PM
lol…….a renegade with christian sympathies.
Go Rok!!
Santa // May 3, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Rohan said ‘Think I care if you believe Santa starts delivering his gifts in Japan or starts in Puerto Rico? Makes no difference, it’s still an absurd fairy tale.’
You ent getting nutting from me next Xmas!
Santa // May 3, 2009 at 8:00 PM
‘Specially when you keep writing me about that blue bicycle youn ent get when you wuz ten, then come on here an talk foolishness!
Rohan // May 3, 2009 at 8:32 PM
LOL,
My bad Santa, I was just trying to make a point. So make that a silver bmx please.
thanks :-)
ROK // May 3, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Santa
Man you more omniscient that the christian god. Only had to call your name once and you appear…
Zoe // May 3, 2009 at 9:14 PM
In God’s Genesis account, the History of Creation, it would have taken volumes alone to name every living creature; instead He gives us:
“Then God said, ‘Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens. So God created great sea creatures and EVERY LIVING THING that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their ‘kind’ and every winged bird according to its ‘kind’. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said. ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its ‘kind’: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind’, and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its ‘kind’ cattle according to its ‘kind’ and everything that creeps on the earth according to its ‘kind’. And God saw that it was good.” ( Genesis 1:20-21; 24-25).
To the ‘Pinhead’ who keeps harping that Dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible, neither are the vast array of other creatures, by name, that is, only a few are mentioned by name, as it is not significant to do you.
However, in the Biblical record two strange animals are mentioned that may well refer to two kinds of Dinosaurs, these are ‘Behemoth’ and ‘Leviathan’ described in Job 40 and 41 respectively. While some commentators have commonly identified the behemoth with either the elephant or hippopotamus, and the leviathan with the crocodile, it is obvious from the descriptions (in Job 40:15-24 and Job 41: 1-34) that these animals in no way qualify for such indentification.
The description of ‘behemoth’ more accurately fit what we know about such a land ‘dinosaur’ as ‘brontosaurus, for example, and leviathan fits what we know about some marine dinosaurs, such as the ‘plesiosaur’ or ‘ichthyosaur’ for example.
In the context, Job and his three friends are philosophizing about life and its meaning, going back and forth, and apparently getting nowhere, just as people do today! Then God comes down and speaks to them directly, telling them in effect, that their basic problem is an inadequate perspective on the greatness and uniqueness of His creation.
“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding” (Job 38:4). then, for the next two chapters (Jop 38, 39), God ask a series of rhetorical questions concerning different facts of His creation, all indicating a fully accurate scientific perspective, and even suggesting a number of scientific facts millennia before their recognition by modern scientists.
Finally, God comes to the climax of His discourse, describing the two greatest animals He had created, the mighty ‘behemoth’ (the greatest land animal), and the fearsome ‘leviathan’ (the greatest sea animal). As one reads these descriptions carefully, it quickly becomes obvious that these animals are not the elephant and the crocodile!
Note the description of behemoth in Job 40: 15-24, and observe how impossible it is to apply these words to either the elephant or the hippopotamus:
“Behold now behemoth.” The very word means a uniquely gigantic and powerful beast. An ordinary beast is called ‘behema’ in the Hebrew, but, this is a special beast, “the chief of the ways of God.” No man could trap this animal: “his nose pierceth through snares.” “His strength is in his loins, and his force in in the navel [ that is, probably 'cord' or 'sinwes'] of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar.” One should try to visualize the tail of an elephant or a hippopotamus as he reads this! And one should also visualize the mighty ‘brontosaurus’ or ‘tyrannosaurus’ or some other great terrestrial dinosaur, as, no other animal we are aware of, living or extinct, fits the bill.
The same is true of the ‘leviathan’ described in detail throughout Job 41.
Two other references to the leviathan in Scripture also suggest the great size and ferocity of this great sea monster, (Psa. 74: 13-14; Psa. 104:25-26).
In addition to the Biblical and ethnological evidences, there is also some good geological evidence of the coexistence of men and dinosaurs. Numerous footprints of various kinds of dinosaurs are well preserved in a Cretaceous limestone formation near Glen Rose, Texas, and the area has actually been set aside as a dinosaur park by the state of Texas. In the same formation many human footprints have been reported over the years, of various sizes, some wearing sandles, and some barefoot. Naturally, evolutionists have rejected this evidence, of course arguing that some tracks are now missing, and some give evidence of unknown reptilian origin!
There are many other lines of evidence as well, though these also have been ignored or rejected by evolutionists.
Dinosaur pictographs made by early tribal artists have been found in Arizona, Siberia, Zimbabwe, and elsewhere.
Back to basics though, even if we take the geological ages at face value, all the way from the Cambrian period of the Palezoic era to the Pleistocene epoch of the Cenozoic era, the remarkable FACT, is, that there IS still NOT the slightest evidence for evolution in the fossile record. That is, out of ALL the billions of fossils known and documented in the rocks of the earth’s crust, fossils in tremendous variety, representing both extinct and living kinds, there IS NOT a single true transitional evolutionary form that has yet been excavated ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.
Even Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, a while ago, as one of the leading representatives of this modern school of paleontologists, made the following admission at that time.
“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms, transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
Of course, Gould and his colleahue Niles Eldredge, then created the concept of what they call ‘punctuated equilibrium’ in order to get around the glaring evidence of the fossile record, which lends no support for the ‘theory’ of evolution, BUT, speak loudly in favour of, and good scientific evidence in support of Creation, exactly as God in Genesis states.
They, the evolutionists, continue to fabricate all kinds of pseudo-scientific terms, to get around the true scientifc facts of the fossil evidence, that Creation is the truth.
This is a remarkable state of affairs. Evolution is supposed to deal with ‘change’ in organisms, and yet, another pseudo term ’stasis’ which means ‘no change’ is pulled out of the magic hat!
As already noted and documented, there have been, and are NO true evolutionary transitional forms ANYWHERE either in the living world, or the fossil world.
The evidence from the fossil record, expresses the kind of evidence one would expect to find on the basis of the Genesis record of creation. Ten times in the very first chapter of the Bible, the phrase “after its kind” is used, implying a firm genetric basis for the reproduction process that would preclude evolutionary transmutations from one kind into a different kind. The ‘kind’ (Hebrew min) may not be equivalent to what modern systematists mean by ’species,’ but, it does mean some category beyond which variation IS NOT permitted. And the fact is, both genetically and paleontologically, that there IS still NO unequivocal scientific evidence that “microevolution” (that is, ‘variation’) ever transgresses even the species boundary!
No wonder there are NO transitional forms ever found in the fossils, because they NEVER existed! When Almighty God progammed creatures to reproduce only according to their own kinds, He intended for this program to be carried out. He is both Omniscient and Omnipotent. He was able to design creatures the way, He, in His Omniscience, knew they should be designed, and He was able, in His Omnipotence, to build them that way. Therefore, He will see to it that, as long as they exist, they will stay the way He designed and created them.
Since all the evidence, both Biblical and scientific, precisely fits special creation, the big question is, why people believe in evolution at all. But, that is a theological question, not a scientific question!
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Thank you Zoe for a superb example of “quoting mining”, a tool of the intellectually dishonest.
You quoted Stephen Jay Gould as follows :
“The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt”
From the wiki:
The context that immediately follows demonstrates that this view is articulated only in order to reject it:
“Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question.[12]”
Gould was scathing on such misleading quotations:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.[13]
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM
According to Zoe :
“there IS NOT a single true transitional evolutionary form that has yet been excavated ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
From the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 9:46 PM
“Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.”
[Francis Collins, Geneticist and believing Christian]
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 9:52 PM
“We have an enormous amount of information as to what life was like in the past. That information tells us that life changed, that it changed in a particular pattern, and that the history of change is complete, with one example after another of descent with modification, an ancestor-descendant relationship between organisms. And in a few lucky cases, we can trace almost step by step the evolution of key organisms in the history of life”
[Ken Miller, Prof of Biology and practicing Roman Catholic]
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 9:53 PM
From NOVA,
“In 2004, a field crew digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed the fossil remains of a half-fish, half-amphibian that would all but confirm paleontologists’ theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including us) evolved from their fish ancestors. The animal was a so-called lobe-finned fish that lived about 375 million years ago. Named Tiktaalik rosae by its discoverers, it is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges the evolutionary gap between two quite different types of animal. “
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM
And what did Zoe say….
“there IS NOT a single true transitional evolutionary form that has yet been excavated ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD”
———
Now that is just simply dishonest.
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 9:59 PM
And to repeat Harvard professor, Stephen Jay Gould…….
“it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms”
———-
Zoe, which is it in your case ?
dishonest design or just plain stupidity?
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Zoe writes:
“Finally, God comes to the climax of His discourse, describing the two greatest animals He had created”
—-
And then apparently, he made them extinct.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 3, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Technician,
This is what the evidence suggests:
Universe – 13.5 billion years
Earth – 4.5 billion years
Prokaryotes – 4.0 billion years
Eukaryotes – 2.5 billion years
Eve eats apple (Eukaryotes ingest mitochondria – endosymbiosis) – ? years :-)
Hominids – 0.006 billion years
Homo Sapien – 0.00015 billion years
Micro Mock Engineer // May 3, 2009 at 10:39 PM
I should have added…
Bush Tea – 0.000000001 billion years
Eddie, // May 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Am I to believe that “perfect order” as found in –
The Solar system
The animal kingdom
Planet Earth
The oceanic system……all came about by evolving over time?
Please, credit me with at least a little intelect.
What is the next phase of evolvement for man; the animals; the insects; every living thing?
The theory of Evolution sounds like wisdom from the Greeks; but it is just a theory… and a theory full of holes.
ROK // May 3, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Zoe
If I am a pinhead and that is meant to be an insult, then you must certainly be happy with your clout head. Give thanks.
But for a man with a clout head I find it hard to believe that you don’t have the necessary knowledge to understand what is after its kind.
I am told by others with a normal head but above average exercise of the brain that tell me that all the primates are family by DNA construct except Man, who has all the other characteristics of a primate.
The missing links in the “present thinking” of science is the evolution of mankind from being on four legs, to being on two, to Homo Sapiens, present man. While all the other primates have 48 chromosomes man has 46. Therein lies the clue to creating improving intelligence and consciousness through genetic engineering.
Now man is different and really has no family on earth. A naive mind like yours would want to use this as evidence that God made man… and yes your god did; just like those scientists made cows for meat and cows for milk through breeding.
Yes, studies of the cow, for example, has been able to produce a cow for meat and a cow for milk. It is true that this natural selection does exist and the genetic materials already exist; I leave you to MME on that.
Adam was produced after the likeness of God; image and likeness. (again we must come to this matter of after their own kind). Not every genetic mixture will produce useless freaks. Many of our ancestors rode mules. Take the clue:
Genesis 1-26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
It would be good if you could examine this sentence closely. First, “Let us make man in our image…” Is it possible that God was referring to something that already existed? “Let us make man” a “known creature” in our image, “let us mess with his genes” and give him intelligence, i.e. let “them” have dominion… over all the earth.
Again “them”; referring to something that already existed and probably at the evolutionary stage (maybe) just beyond the next most intelligent creature on earth. Or maybe it was man’s structure and build that made him a better candidate than the monkey or the ape.
Your god engineered homo sapiens using their superior knowledge of genetic construction, which is where we have reached in modern science today and if we are reaching that stage now, after 3500 years you would know that your god’s knowledge would have advanced even further. God also knew that man would not remain static and even turned man out of the garden for fear that he was learning too fast and that turning man out of the garden was the only way to retard his knowledge and life span. He then had to come up with a plan, right?
Understand the implications if the average life span of man was 500 years. If you understand the importance of continuity as it relates to efficiency and informed decision making, then you understand why man could not be allowed to live long. Man would become a threat to the Gods and possibly take over the earth and all its heavenly domain.
Man was made to serve, which is what christians do. they serve by allowing the elite to own the world, including them. So we go to work everyday and produce a value which is taxed and then, for example, your tax dollars will go towards stockpiling medication for swine flu, which is not returnable whether or not used by expiry date.
Consider this money snatched from us because we never planned for it and we got to give it to the drug companies because we fear swine flu, which was probably manufactured and planted by the same drug manufacturers, in order to secure sales for the drugs and the kits. Anybody understand what this phobia has done? The illuminati must be smiling and patting themselves on their backs.
They had it set up all along. They even had the drug manufactured and ready for distribution to meet the stockpiling demand caused by the phobia; billions of dollars; but that is the subject of discussion in another thread. Wow! Thank God for America! Who you think you fooling?
Now they realise that they mashing up the pig farmers, they want us to stop calling it swine flu. Dog already dead; time for damage control.
However, more damaging is the fact that Eve came from Adam’s rib. Again that reference to genetic materials… but god had to make a female of the species in order for the species to survive; did he not?
The other reference to genetic interference was when the the sons of the gods came to earth and saw that the daughters of man were fair and took unto them wives… and there were giants in the land.
The Sons of God? They were flesh and blood? They had sex? they had children who were might men?…
I don’t think you will enjoy part 2, Zoe.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 3, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Not Saved… here is a shortlist of famous Christian scientists… Google them… can you imagine what modern science would be without these guys?
Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descartes, Boyle Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Curvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Volta, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Shrodinger, Vesalius, von Neumann, Brahe, Fleming, Fermi, Euler, Huygens, Gauss, Marconi, Heisenberg, Mendel, Lemaitre etc.
Many were clergymen, some were priests… virtually all were devout Christians who credited their Christian beliefs for their scientific interests and acumen. The last two make for particularly interesting reading… Mendel (a Roman Catholic priest) the father of modern genetics, and Lemaitre (a Roman Catholic priest) the father of the ‘Big Bang’ theory originally known as the ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’.
I am not suggesting that other religions and ideologies didn’t make important contributions (I am sure you can come up with your own list LOL)… but reinforcing the fact that Christianity has had a significant and profound impact on modern science… more so than ANY other religious doctrine or secular world view.
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Eddie writes :
“Am I to believe that “perfect order” as found in -
The Solar system
The animal kingdom
Planet Earth
The oceanic system……all came about by evolving over time?”
——
No you do not.
There is not “perfect order” in anything you listed.
Yes it is just a theory.
Zoe // May 3, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Rohan, “Before the Bible even got past the first few pages there is an inconsistency. How do Christians reconcile obvious errors like this?”
Rohan, there is no inconsistency or ‘…obvious error like this’ between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, or to put your question another way. “Doesn’t Genesis 2 present a different creation order than Genesis 1?
The answer is no! The second chapter of Genesis describes in greater detail certain of the events of the sixth day of creation, especially the formation of the first man, Adam, and the woman, Eve.
It does not in any respect contradict the account in the first chapter, but, instead is complementary to it. How is this so?
Well, Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all, but, presupposes the completion work of creation as set forth in chapter 1. The first three verses of Genesis 2, simply carry the narrative of chapter 1 to its final and logical conclusion, using the same vocabulary and style as employed in the previous chapter. It sets forth the completion of the whole primal work of creation and the special sanctity conferred on the seventh day as a symbol and memorial of God’s creative work. Verse 4 then sums up the whole sequence that has just been surveyed by saying. “These are the generations of heaven and earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made heaven and earth.
Having finished the overall survey of the subject, the author then develops in detail one important feature that has already been mentioned, the creation of man. As Kenneth Kitchen points out:
“Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2, man is the center of interest, and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism.” (Ancient Orient, p.117).
It is therefore quite obvious that Genesis I is the only creation account to be found in the Hebrew Scripture, and it is already presupposed as the background of Genesis 2.
The structure of Genesis 2 stands in clear contrast to every creation account known to comparative literature. It was never intended to be a creation account at all, except insofar as it related the circumstances of man’s creation as a child of God, fashioned in His image, infused with His breath of life, and brought into an intimate personal relationship with the Lord Himself. Quite clearly, then, chapter 2 is built on the foundation of chapter I, and represents no different tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of the order of creation.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 3, 2009 at 10:52 PM
… putting contributions to modern science aside for a moment, a list of the first organized movements and people to agitate for the universal abolishment of slavery would similarly read like roll-call at confirmation class… (send us a Google search for that Rohan LOL). The world view/moral position of EVERY documented culture/doctrine that preceded this ‘moral enlightenment’ was that slavery was acceptable under certain circumstances. It is intellectually dishonest to single out any single culture or belief system for something that ALL (without exception) were guilty of. The fact is, the sparks of light that would eventually lead to the moral position most of us hold today in relation to slavery originated within Christian denominations.
Beneath all of the rhetoric and red-herrings injected into this debate (by both sides I might add LOL) lies an inescapable (inconvenient?) truth… Judeo-Christian philosophy is the main pillar on which our Western moral value system, ‘enlightenment’ and scientific revolution rests.
I end with a quote from the ‘dark side’… from one of the most notorious and influential atheists of all time, Frederick Nietzsche…
“… you will have grasped where I am headed – namely, that our faith in science still rests upon a metaphysical faith; that even we knowers of today, we godless ones and anti-metaphysicians, still take even our fire from the flame first lit by a faith thousands of years old, that faith of Christians which was also the faith of Plato, that God is truth, that truth is divine.”
… a rare glimpse of intellectual honesty seldom found among atheists… excluding those found here on BU of course :-)
rohan // May 3, 2009 at 11:09 PM
LOL,
Not Saved,
Thanks for saving us from the blatant intellectual dishonesty. Only the dishonest or the ignorant still make that “there have been no transitional fossils found” argument when countless have been found and documented.
Either way, even if there were zero evidence to support evolutionary theory, that would do NOTHING to prove that the God of the Bible or the God of any other book for that matter, had anything to do with life on earth.
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 11:09 PM
MME writes,
“It is intellectually dishonest to single out any single culture or belief system for something that ALL (without exception) were guilty of.”
—-
But I did no such thing.
Quite the opposite.
I only suggested that since the bible does not condemn slavery that this is very persuasive of its very human authorship.
Christians fell on both sides of this issue for many years, true or false?
If it was rooted in christian principle why:
-was opposition not universal?
-why did it take about 1800 years?
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 11:12 PM
MME writes :
“Judeo-Christian philosophy is the main pillar on which our Western moral value system, ‘enlightenment’ and scientific revolution rests.”
—-
And this has bearing on its supernatural claims?
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 11:19 PM
“Faith means not wanting to know what is true.”
[Friedrich Nietzsche]
Micro Mock Engineer // May 3, 2009 at 11:23 PM
@Eddie
“What is the next phase of evolvement for man”
We are fortunate enough to be getting a glimpse of our next evolutionary phase Eddie… the merger of biology and technology. Provided, that is, these atheists don’t destroy the very framework that has allowed our successful evolution to date… AND also provided that the eschatological anxiety of the religious right doesn’t foster “apathetic acceptance of defeat” (to borrow a quote from Will Durant).
ROK // May 3, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Zoe
GENESIS 6:
“1: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
“2: That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
“3: And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
“4: There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
Well! Well! Well! We start to get a picture of who is God. God had children who were flesh and blood and in some way compatible in genetic structure with man. ; because they took wives as they choose. Well after all, man was made in the image and likeness of god.
Imagine that you have your daughters and all of a sudden aliens come and take your girl children for their wives and you can’t do anything about it?
I trying to let people understand who we dealing with. We are not dealing here with any justice but a set of mortals who are more powerful than us, technology wise, and it may be a case of touch one, touch all. We as mankind do the same thing. If a dog kills a man or taste human blood, what do we do with that dog?
So, one alien comes into town. Picks up your daughters and you kill him. Whole town dead for killing one of god’s children and that will serve as a lesson to the rest of towns not to touch an alien no matter what they do. THE WHITE MAN DID IT TO WE. Whatever the white man did, we could not touch him during slavery; he had total dominion, and if he tell his slaves to lie, they lie or get beaten unmercifully or lynched.
Before 2012, we will get a taste, don’t fear. The problem is that we ain’t prepared for it and we will be in for a rude awakening; or pray for another Moses.
Of course that Moses is probably the USA or more likely, the illuminati, who is saying to your God, don’t kill them off at random with weapons of mass destruction, they will say that God is unjust and plus, we now fight a war against weapons of mass destruction.
Let us instead plant some HIV/AIDS and swine flues and when they die off, god would not get the blame.
Furthermore, we have a perfect system here. If you show yourself as god to the earth people, then we would have lost the control that is required to contain men and keep them as slaves; the illuminati may have already negotiated.
So like Moses the illuminati said to this world, all who on my side stand behind me and they armed them with swords and ordered them to go among their brothers all throughout the earth and kill them… and apart from waging war we will throw in some:
SWINE FLU!
Zoe boy, I not going any further on this with you. I leaving you in the darkness if you still there, I think I had enough; but I would encourage all people, to take up the bible and read it as a literal work and not a figurative work.
Zoe // May 3, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Not Saved, you don’t even understand the quotations you made, man, you must be a ‘Tiktaalik Rosae’ fuh sure!
I’ll deal with your evolutionary fairy tails lies tomorrow!!!
Micro Mock Engineer // May 3, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Not Saved… no need to get defensive… you are one of the honest atheists I referred to :-)
The examples I gave have no bearing on Christianity’s “supernatural claims”, it was a response to the other accusations relating to its value.
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 11:45 PM
ok MME, I will desist.
“honest atheist” – LOL
some would say that is an oxymoron ! LOL
Not Saved // May 3, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Zoe writes :
“Not Saved, you don’t even understand the quotations you made, man, you must be a ‘Tiktaalik Rosae’ fuh sure!”
—-
I did not make them, I just cited them.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 3, 2009 at 11:47 PM
“Faith means not wanting to know what is true.”
… yes, if like Nietzche, you subscribe to the philosophy of moral nihilism i.e. nothing is moral or immoral, or alternatively, no action, regardless of its motivation, is inherently right or wrong.
Do you subscribe to that world view Not Saved?
ROK // May 3, 2009 at 11:52 PM
@ Rohan
MME said: ““It is intellectually dishonest to single out any single culture or belief system for something that ALL (without exception) were guilty of.””
Not need to retreat Rohan. God put us here to serve him and to serve means being a slave. In the absence of god, there must always be a slave master from among us and no race will escape. Some may be more humane than others and that is all. There is now a slave master of the earth that dictates to all sub-level slave masters; or should I call them overseers?
MME Said, “… a rare glimpse of intellectual honesty seldom found among atheists… excluding those found here on BU of course :-)”
Well I don’t consider myself to be an atheist but in an earlier contribution on this thread, I spoke about this matter of atheist having faith in something and belief in something because to believe that there is no god is an entire belief in itself that starts with the fact of creation by mere presence. Question is, who really created?
Micro Mock Engineer // May 3, 2009 at 11:52 PM
ROFL… now reading higher up the thread… ‘Ab origine’ is a latin phrase which literally translates ‘From beginning’.
rohan // May 4, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Atheism is no more of a belief system, than not believing in the tooth fairy is a belief system.
Frankly I don’t like the term atheist. Why should there even be a term?
What’s the term for someone who doesn’t believe in unicorns?
There is none.
The god of the bible has shown himself to be no more valid than the existence of unicorns or countless other fables that we dismiss forthright.
If you think about it, christians are atheists too. They are atheists when it comes to Zeus, Odin, and the other trillion Gods out there.
I just believe in ONE less God than they do.
Deng Xiaping // May 4, 2009 at 12:09 AM
Shrodinger?!! Model Christian? Come on MME the man had two wives (one was even married to another man).
And von Neumann, born Jewish, lived mostly as an Agnostic, asks a Roman Catholic priest for counsel as he dies from cancer.
Not Saved // May 4, 2009 at 12:16 AM
MME,
No, I am not a nihilist
and neither was Nietzsche, not at least by your definition.
Not Saved // May 4, 2009 at 12:32 AM
MME,
Just looked and saw your list of christian scientists.
Not really sure the point.
Lots of great non christian scientists too.
I would not like to have done without any of them.
And I am not sure your list is fully accurate but that is irrelevant anyway.
“toting up” good and bad christians and good and bad aspects of christian societies seems to me a futile exercise to my main question, which is the validity of the supernatural claims of the religion.
You stated :
“Christianity has had a significant and profound impact on modern science… more so than ANY other religious doctrine or secular world view.”
but that does that make it true?
Since great scientific contributions came from believers and non believers alike why should we anything more into about believers?
Deng Xiaping // May 4, 2009 at 12:35 AM
If a list of outstanding scientists who were agnostic was drawn up, would that give agnosticism validity?
As to this “western value system”, to what do you refer? The one with or without the ideas of people like Darwin, Dewey,Marx, Keynes or the existentialists (Nietzsche, Sartre, Heidegger) or the Postmodernists (Foucault or Derrida)?
Micro Mock Engineer // May 4, 2009 at 12:38 AM
Deng… I didn’t say they were all model Christians. Take out the ones that make you uncomfortable :-)
ROK // May 4, 2009 at 1:29 AM
Not Saved, Rohan
I am not sure of your position on this but I see Zoe carrying on about evolution.
However, evolution is not on trial here and the question of whether or not there is acceptance of evolution is immaterial.
It is not automatic that if you don’t believe in god you believe in evolution. One can believe in Creation without believing that the God of the bible is the Creator. All evidence leads to creation and it is only after creation that evolution can take place as it is still taking place.
Christianity and its wickedness will not force me into apposition and they have no monopoly on Creation. Their monopoly is on their version of the Creation which is totally warped. Do not let anybody tell you what your beliefs are or who the Creator is. One thing for sure, the creator is not the God of the Bible.
ROK // May 4, 2009 at 1:39 AM
Rohan
“If you think about it, christians are atheists too. ”
I think we need to put things in perspective. The Creator is the Creator; a god is a god, a king is a king and a lord is a lord. There is no question of believing there are Lords, kings or gods because these are all titles of ownership and exercise of power; like government.
The Creator however is a different matter. Atheism is a non-word because there being a god, does not require belief, it is a fact… and to say it again, no god is The Creator. No King is The Creator or no Lord is The Creator. Anything after The Creator or Creation is mortal.
Eddie // May 4, 2009 at 1:48 AM
Not Saved,
I think you are mistaken on the position of “order in the universe”; I shall explain:
-A person walks, talks, sleeps, eats rythymically.
-One can see that the composition of the body was not done by chance
- The blowing of the air, formation of clouds, the aquatic world of the sea -Intelligent Design.
W
ROK // May 4, 2009 at 1:50 AM
“Christianity has had a significant and profound impact on modern science…”
Yes it did. It set back modern science by about 2000 years by the unwarranted destruction of knowledge. Anything it may have done to repair the damage could only be atonement, but certainly cannot make up for what was lost.
If I destroy something and then build it back, what did I do? What credit do I deserve for the reconstruction; especially knowing that in the reconstruction, I will not get it back to what it was because I destroyed the footprint which I now have to guess at?
Eddie // May 4, 2009 at 1:52 AM
Not Saved,
I think you are mistaken on the position of “order in the universe”; I shall explain:
-A person walks, talks, sleeps, eats rythymically.
-One can see that the composition of the body was not done by chance
- The blowing of the air, formation of clouds, the aquatic world of the sea -Intelligent Design.
We can go on and on.
We do not live in a “perfect world”, but the universe screams “Intelligent Design”
One would have to deliberately close his or her mind not to acknowledge
Not Saved // May 4, 2009 at 1:53 AM
Getting slightly back on topic,
Grenville, any news of the stats in the video?
It seemed like right wing propaganda to me.
If the core teachings of islam and christianity are the same should we fear becoming islamic?
Not Saved // May 4, 2009 at 2:01 AM
Eddie writes:
“One can see that the composition of the body was not done by chance”
—-
I was not aware anyone made such a claim
“The blowing of the air, formation of clouds”
—-
No, we have very sound naturalistic explanations for these phenomena
“the aquatic world of the sea -Intelligent Design.”
—–
seems less than intelligent if you cant swim.
“We do not live in a “perfect world”, but the universe screams “Intelligent Design” ”
——
non sequitur
Not Saved // May 4, 2009 at 2:03 AM
Eddie wrote:
“One would have to deliberately close his or her mind not to acknowledge”
–
Actually no.
One would have to close your mind to not search for natural explanations to natural phenomena
Not Saved // May 4, 2009 at 2:05 AM
Eddie claims :
“A person walks, talks, sleeps, eats rythymically.”
—
considering you posted that at 1:48 am I can be sure that claim is even valid about you.
Not Saved // May 4, 2009 at 2:06 AM
cannot be sure…..
ROK // May 4, 2009 at 2:11 AM
@ Edddie
“Am I to believe that “perfect order”… all came about by evolving over time?
Can it evolve if it is not there? Can it evolve if it was not created? Even if you describe the Big Bang as the theory of evolution, there could be no big bang without creation.
If you think about an egg that is fertilised and the embryo grows matures and bursts out of the egg and then keeps growing or expanding, is that not the big bang theory?
As that living thing keeps growing, constantly changing until maturity and even after maturity, is that not comparable to what we are calling evolution. Is evolution not about maturity, i.e. getting better and more equipped to survive in, cope with and maintain ones environment?
It is my firm belief that everything is true but needs perspective and intellectual application. What is the fight up about? Designed to create disharmony?
Christianity and any religion that holds up a god is folly. It may very well turn out that what they trying to label as atheism, is the only principle that acknowledges the true Creator. How ironic!
ROK // May 4, 2009 at 2:35 AM
Eddie
“We do not live in a “perfect world”, but the universe screams “Intelligent Design”. One would have to deliberately close his or her mind not to acknowledge”.
That is exactly what I mean by maturing. It is not yet perfect, so what is there to acknowledge? That you and I are the creation and that you should seek the Creator within the Creation? I am the Creation and any part of the Creation that seeks dominance over me cannot be the Creator.
Anything that can speak to me as I speak to others, or is as material as me as I am material to others; that can have children that can come down to earth and have sex with human females and have children, cannot be The Creator.
So the next thing you have to tell me about is the immaculate conception, because if that is so, many cows have immaculate conceptions. Tell me about surrogate motherhood. Mary was “filled” with the spirit. Was it insemination or the implant of an egg?
Ask yourself the question, why do we feel that we should not ask these questions? What is so blasphemous about these questions? What is the secret?
Answer: Could only be to establish dominion over Man by mystifying the truth.
ROK // May 4, 2009 at 2:39 AM
By the way, many parents try to control their children by mystifying the truth. It is part of the character of the ownership and use of intelligence.
Bush Tea // May 4, 2009 at 2:44 AM
One can easily understand the persistence of the Christians in pushing their beliefs as they think that they are mandated to ‘preach the gospel….’.
However the zeal and tenacity of the doubters has confounded the Bushman.
Why do you folks care….? Why does it bother you that Grenville, GP and Zoe believe in a ‘God’ who you know to be non-existent?
@ Rohan
Is it not about time that we are told exactly what you DO believe?
So far we know that since you have determined that most Christians have silly beliefs, then God must be an idiot.
We also know that since you, (a mere sheep on my farmers farm,) fail to understand the farmer’s master plan then the farmer must be a jackass. (…but then again you are an American sheep .. and traditionally that matters)
I happen to agree with your contempt for many of the religious doctrines, but at least they put something out there…
…so will we learn what you do believe Rohan?
@ ROK
Man ROK, you real hard to follow. I believe that you read too much. (don’t mind MME) ….. If you believe that there was a ‘CREATOR’ then why would this entity not be the ‘God’ referred to by the various religions? Mind you, they may not get it right, but why have you determined that their INTENT is otherwise?
@ Not Saved
I strongly suspect that your dedication to this cause is related to your secretly wanting to BE SAVED….LOL
@ All
Went to bed too early and now fully awake – your bad luck…ROTFL
ROK // May 4, 2009 at 3:53 AM
@BT
“If you believe that there was a ‘CREATOR’ then why would this entity not be the ‘God’ referred to by the various religions? Mind you, they may not get it right, but why have you determined that their INTENT is otherwise?”
Not sure i understand the last part but certainly, the Creator is about everything and not simply about the manipulation of material. It is the difference between the carpenter who makes and even creates things and who made the Carpenter and the tree.
So the carpenter is able to use the tree to make things, but the Carpenter does not make the tree. He can grow the tree but knows nothing about how to make the tree come alive save feeding it.
It is blaringly evident that the God of the bible is about control of mankind. As I said in my last post, the mystifying of the many things which are not to be questioned is terribly suspect in itself. Who has what to hide?
When we put it all together and especially considering the Sumerian and Egyptian experience, there can be no doubt that there is a falsity about the bible. If there is a falsity about it, why would you believe in it?
ROK // May 4, 2009 at 4:38 AM
@BT
“Why have you determined that their INTENT is otherwise?”
“Intent” is a good word… and while intent speaks to credibility, it is quite different from the reality. So while my intent may be good, the result may be bad if my knowledge of what I am doing is faulty.
Under the circumstances, the bible is faulty and because of their strong belief in this fairy tale, christians do not know what they do. That makes them an enemy of the truth.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 4, 2009 at 6:23 AM
“If a list of outstanding scientists who were agnostic was drawn up, would that give agnosticism validity?”
————
Validity Deng? As I indicated to Not Saved further up the thread, I was responding to the accusations made about the value of the Judeo-Christian philosophy/belief system to the development of human beings. You can argue with GP and Zoe over validity. :-)
By the way Deng… in your list of influential extentialists, I note with interest your omission of the person widely regarded as the father of the exentialism… the highly religious (but highly critical of the ‘empty formalities of the church’) Soren Kierkegaard.
Here is some of his work…
“What the age needs is not a genius—it has had geniuses enough, but a martyr, who in order to teach men to obey would himself be obedient unto death. What the age needs is awakening. And therefore someday, not only my writings but my whole life, all the intriguing mystery of the machine will be studied and studied. I never forget how God helps me and it is therefore my last wish that everything may be to his honour.”
Micro Mock Engineer // May 4, 2009 at 6:43 AM
‘existentialism’… LOL… trying to type too fast.
Deng Xiaping // May 4, 2009 at 7:42 AM
OK MME
I hope you got my suggestion that all of the “western value system” today may not be compatible with Judeo-Christian precepts (which is why Kierkegaard is not in my list).
ROK // May 4, 2009 at 10:10 AM
MME
“that everything may be to his honour.”
Now this is the problem christians have. They accredit everything good that happens to them to a god without realising that the hand of the real Creator dwells in them; is part of them; and that they are part of the Creator.
There is therefore, no need to worship an external god that is of the same image and likeness. They believe in a god that dwells outside them and that god is a HE (male). I am very careful to distinguish between a god and The Creator because that god was also created by The Creator.
It is no more than how Black people have come to worship the White man and that anything white is good and anything black is bad. This is the same approach that christians take to their god.
Nothing should be to the honour of the external when a whole universe exist in you. It is you that have the power, even the same bible tells you so. For example the woman that touched Christ garment and the soldier who did not want him to go to his house.
In the story, he told her that it was her faith that healed her and in the case of the soldier he told his audience that if any had the faith as much as a grain of mustard seed, they could move mountains. These are not the only examples.
These were enlightening moments because all the while christ is saying that to the father is through him, here he unwittingly comes back to show that the true power lies in the self.
Remember also, he said god helps those who helps themselves. Again showing where true power lies.
Another slip up is the verse, “ye shall know them by their fruit”. Just look at the fruit of christianity; a belligerent lot. How are we living as a people under christianity? At each others throats; it supported brutal slavery; it is the root of stigma and discrimination; etc.
Dark Knight // May 4, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Let us raise the standard of this debate to reflect Barbados’ development needs:
When people borrow money, is it ethical and moral for the lender to charge interest?
Should this continue, especially in light of the fact that interest rates have been cut – thereby suggesting that interest is an moral wron and causes problems.
Zoe // May 4, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Not Saved, man, unlike most evolutionists who have swallowed this dastardly lie, you have the hook-line, and sincker, stuck in your throat, choaking on this ‘transitional’ nonsense!
This ‘…so-called lobe-finned fish that lived 375 million years ago, (Hogwash!) is a classic example of a transitional form, (LIE! LIE! LIE!) that bridges the evolutionary gap, (pseudo-science!) between two quite different types of animals.”
Just another vicious BIG LIE, as was the supposed Reptile-Bird Transition, the ‘Archaeopteryx’ was almost always cited by evolutionists as the best example of an evolutionary transition; this was clearly a ‘mosaic’ creature, since it had no transitional structures, just like the ‘Tiktaalik Rosae’ another evolutionary ‘HOAX’ can’t work, as you all evolutionists/atheist, have your feet, ‘Firmly Planted in Mid-Air’ nothing to stand on, grabbing on to any little thing, that would give your postulations, some ‘wing’, or ‘leg’ to either fly or walk on! Each time you attempt this folly, your pseudo-science is further revealed for what it IS, an utter falsity, which comes crashing down in the swamp of the most gross intellectual dishonesty, ever presented and witnessed by humanity from so-called scientists, what a shame you all are to true science!!
And you have the gall to ask me about ‘dishonest design, or just plain stupidity’ man, you and your evolutionists are the living, empirical varification, of such ‘dishonest design AND plain stupidity, on planet earth!!
Evolution, the fossils, STILL say NO, NO, NO!!!
rohan // May 4, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Bush Tea,
You asked what I believed. I don’t think I could have made it clearer that I consider biblical stories and all other accounts of the supernatural as fairy tales. To answer your question, I believe in what can be observed, tested for, or examined. Things that we can use to make predictive statements about, then test those predictions, and have our results confirmed.
This is how we examine the reality among us.
And yes, this can include things that we can’t see. We know gravity is there, we’ve calculated it’s pull on the objects on earth, and we can test our prediction about this. I’m not asking you to jump out the nearest window, but if you did so unaided…we are pretty confident about what would happen. And if you jumped out that window 100 times, then we know what would happen all 100 times.
Sure you could flap your hands and start to fly on the 99th time, but until that happens, we assume that the theory of gravity is confirmed and that we are subject to that law.
Until you can present me with ONE single case where a person jumped out a window and flapped their arms and flew away, it would not be something I could believe in. This is how thinking people approach things.
Christians, don’t need this evidence. Their parents/pastors/teachers told them that someone could flap their hands and fly, then showed them a book where someone flapped their hands and flew, and they automatically believe it happened.
That’s the difference. So, If you that’s the way you do it, good luck. If you believe ridiculous things, you’ve earned your ridicule.
Zoe // May 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Regarding the invaluable, immense, contribution the historic Judeo/Christian world view has made to mankind, and western civilization in particular, which many do not still understand nor recognize; I’ll post again, some of what I’ve already done on a previous thread, as a reminder.
The central focus is from the Reformation, Christianity, and Modern Man.
The Reformation of the sixteenth century, is, next to the birth of Christianity (the Church) first century A.D. the greatest event in history.
It markes the end of the Middle Ages, and the beginning of modern man.
The Reformation gave directly or indirectly, a mighty impulse to every forward movement, and made Protestantism the chief propelling force in the history of modern civilization; a fact still not recognized by many.
The age of the Reformation bears a strong resemblance to the first century. Both are rich beyond any other period in the ‘transforming’ power of the Resurrected, ascended Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ; working IN and through the indwelling Holy Spirit, in the hearts and lives of those yeilded to Him.
Literally, the turning points in the history of mankind; which are felt to this very day, and will be felt until His Glorious second advent, as the season, generation to which He alluded, appears to be at hand.
The Reformation refashioned the world from the innermost depths of the human soul, parched from the Mediaeval Period (A.D. 590-1294), which also encompassed ‘The Dark Ages’ (A.D. 1049-1294), from Gregory VII, to Boniface VIII; the decline of the PAPACY and the preparation for ‘Modern Christianity’ from Boniface VIII, to Martin Luther (A.D. 1294-1517).
The way for Christianity was prepared by Moses and the Prophets, the dispersion of the Jews, the conquest of Alexander the Great, the language and literature of Greece, the arms and laws of Rome, the decay of idolatry, the spread of skepticism, the aspirations after a new revelation, the hopes of a coming Messiah, The Lord Jesus Christ.
The Reformation was therefore preceded and NECESSITATED by the corruption of the Papacy, the decline of monasticism and scholastic theology; the growth of mysticism, the revival of letters, the Greek and Roman classics, the inventing of the printing press, the discovery of the new world, the publication of the Greek New Testament, the general spirit of enquiry, the striving for independance and personal freedom. In both centuries (A.D. 33-100) and the sixteenth century, we hear the sovereign voice of Almighty God, calling LIGHT out of DARKNESS.
The sixteenth century IS the age of the renaissance, rebirth of Apostolic Christianity, Almighty God, in the face of The Lord Jesus Christ, who alone can set mankind free from any bondage.
As Luther wrote in 1522: “If you read all the annals of the past, you will find NO century like this since the birth of Christ.”
Catholicism is legal Christianity, which served to the Barbarian nations of the Middle Ages, as a necessary school of discipline; whereas, Protestantism is Evangelical Christianity which answers the age of Independent Manhood. Catholicism is stepped in hierarchical, ritualistic, unscriptural bondage; Protestantism in Biblical, democratic, spiritual, and progressive. Catholicism is ruled by the principle of authority, Protestantism is ruled by the Biblical imperative of freedom..
Necessity of a Reformation.
The corruption and abuses of the Latin church had long been the complaint of the best men, and even general councils.
The Papacy was secularized, and became a selfish tyrannical yoke, that got more and more unbearable. The Priests’ chief duty was to perform his magic words, the miracle of Transubstantiation, and to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, for the living and the dead, in a foreign language, Latin!
Good works were measured by the quantity, rather than the quality, and vitiated by the principle of meritoriousness, which appealed to the selfish motive of reward. Remission of sin could be bought with money; a shameful traffic in Indulgences was carried on under the Pope’s sanction for fulthy lucre, as well as the building of St.Peter’s Dome, and caused the outburst of moral indignation which was the beginning of the Reformation and fearful judgment on the Church of Rome.
But, the Roman church in the critical moment in the sixteenth century, resisted reform with all its might, and forced the issue: either NO Reformation at all, or a reformation in opposition to Rome.
Much is due, no doubt, to the extravagance of the Protestant opposition, but still more to the intolerance and stubbornness of Roman resistance. The Papal court used against the Reformation for a long time only carnal weapons of political influence, diplomatic intrigue, secular wealth, haughty persecution. It in effect, repeated the course of the Jewish hierarchy, which crucified the Lord Jesus Christ, and cast His Apostles out of the synagogue.
For, it was evidently the design of the sovereign Hand of Almight God in providence, to rekindle, reinvigorate, reinstate, reinforce, rejuvenate, the FIRE of the Holy Spirit, that came upon the early first century Church, and this could only be done by the Reformation fire, burning in the heart of Martin Luther.
The Reformation went back to the first principles of Historic, Apostolic, first century Christianity, in order to go forward; based entirely on the Word of God, the Bible, forever sealed in Heaven.
No greater movement in history , except Christianity itself, was so widely and throughly prepared as the Protestant Reformation.
The spirit and aim of evangelical Protestantism is best expressed by Paul in his anti-Judaistic Epistle to the Galatians:
“Knowing that a man IS NOT justified by the works of the law, but by faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and NOT by the works of the law, for by the works of the law, shall NO flesh be justified.” (Gal. 2:16).
Christian freedom is so awesome a blessing, that no amount of abuse can justify a relapse into the state of spititual despotism and slavery. But, only those who have enjoyed its liberty, peace, and joy, can properly appreciate it.
The Reformation removed the sacramental, sacerdotal, priestcraft obstruction which the Papal church had interposed between Christ and believers. It once again, opened the door to direct access and union with Jesus Christ, the Only Mediator between God and man, and made the Gospel accessible to every reader without permission of a priest.
Not a few Popes, such as Ergius III., Benedict IX., John XXIII., and Alexander VI., were guilty of the darkest crimes of depraved human nature; and yet called themselves successors of Peter, and vicars of Christ. How will defend the Papal crusades against the Albigenses and the Waldenses, the horrors of the Inquisition, the Papal jubilee over the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, and all those bloody persecutions of innocent people for no other crime but that of opposing the tyranny of Rome, and dissenting from her dogma and so-called tradition?
But, the church of Rome in her official capacity has never repudiated the principle of persecution by which its practice was justified. On the contrary, Pope Gregory XVI, declared liberty of conscience and worship an insanity (deliramentum), and Pius IX, in his “Syllabus” of 1864 denounced it among the pernicious and pestilential errors of modern times.
Who will stand up for the bull of excommunication against Luther, with its threats of burning him and his books and refusing the consolations of religion to every house or community which should take him or any of his followers? If that bull be Christian, then we must close our eyes against the plain teaching of Christ and the Gospels.
What Did the Proptestant Reformation Secure For Modern Man?
It secured freedom in religion, and as a legitimate consequence, also intellectual, political, and civil freedom. It made the Word of God with its instructions and comfort accessible to all. This is its triumphant vindication.
Consider the teeming Protestant literature in every department of learning, science and art, etc, etc, universities, charitable institutions and missionary stations scatered all over the world. Surely, the Reformation can stand the test.
But, just like the Roman Catholic church, who tyrannized so many over its despotic rule, masquerading as Christians, so too did the Anglican church, masquerading as Christians enforce the capture of Africans for the transatlantic slave trade, and right here in B’dos and other Caribbean colonies, all the while posing as the ‘Church’ of Jesus Christ, likwise, brought ‘hell’ to bear on the African slaves.
I say this, that NO one claiming to be a Christian, could ever have done what the Popes did, neither what the Anglican church did to black slaves, and say, that Jesus Christ is their Saviour! NO, NO, NO, these so-called priest of Catholicism and the Church of England, were FALSE prophets, and brought terrible disservice, to say the very least, to the cause of Christ, and His Church.
But, that is another story in itself!
ROK // May 4, 2009 at 5:51 PM
@Zoe
“I say this, that NO one claiming to be a Christian, could ever have done what the Popes did, neither what the Anglican church did to black slaves, and say, that Jesus Christ is their Saviour! NO, NO, NO, these so-called priest of Catholicism and the Church of England, were FALSE prophets, and brought terrible disservice, to say the very least, to the cause of Christ, and His Church.”
……………………………………………
I think you better check yourself. You obviously don’t know what you are saying. I question whether you are truly a Christian because you, like us, are condemning christianity.
Christianity is not what you get in a corner and decide. It has a culture and it has a practice and it has a purpose and the sooner you realise that the better.
All the so-called denominations have strayed from the original church and are no longer part of the flock. You have to make up your mind who you are and you certainly cannot claim to be a christian if you bashing your leaders like that. Maybe now you will start to get an understanding of what we are saying.
Do not think that you can separate yourself from them and remain a christian, you would be something other than a christian. It will only be a matter of time that you will look back at the bible and start condemning the atrocities that occurred in the bible the same way you are condemning the original church leaders.
In any case, what is the difference between the atrocities in the bible and the ones you identified by the Popes? Ask yourself the question Zoe. I know you have eyes to see that if you continue to prop up christianity in any form you are condoning the actions of those popes as well as the Church of England. Remember that your Bible is the King James Version.
Anonymous // May 4, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Who is “Christian”? Maybe Ted Haggard or Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker or Jippy Doyle or T. Wayne Bishop…check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals
What about Bob Jones University and its racial segregation of students?
The American pentecostal evangelical branch of Christianity seems to be headed by many very sleazy, corrupt, money hungry and sexually immoral set of people.
People in glass houses!
Not Saved // May 4, 2009 at 8:01 PM
Zoe, I can quote Martin Luther too…
Here he is on the Jews…….
First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, ……………
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. …………..
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them…………………
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ………………
Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. ……………….
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God’s blessing in a good and worthy cause.
Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.
Bush Tea // May 4, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Rohan, Rohan…. oh dear!!
According to your post today (rohan // May 4, 2009 at 1:55 pm) you believe in nothing.
1 – You think that ‘reality’ is a commodity that is best measured using our human senses.
2 – (you lost me with the bit about flapping one’s hands to attempt to fly)
3 – you revert to your familiar tactic of accusing Christians of naivety (they believe things that they have not seen)
Rohan, I suggest to you that if there was a pecking order of philosophical positions, then those at the bottom of the ladder would be those who believe in nothing.
Our world is much too complex a place for any serious thinking person to believe in NOTHING.
Wiser persons constantly question their current beliefs and seek to achieve a higher level of understanding and conformity. In this regard, there may be still hope for the Christians…..
… but to believe in nothing beyond the obvious …??? …. well let me put it this way, … that is what animals do….
You should think carefully about my farm analogy again….. especially about a particular sheep coming to conclusions about the farmer’s overall intent and objectives based mainly on what other sheep -most of them just as clueless as he is- says and does….
How would you rate the probability that this sheep’s assessment of the farmer is close to reality?
…finally, would you not advise such a sheep to conduct his OWN search for answers – independent of the protestations of other misguided sheep- before coming to conclusions about the farmer’s strategic plan???
….just asking.
rohan // May 4, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Bush Tea,
“Would I advise such sheep to conduct his own search for answers?”
You haven’t searched for anything. You simply believe what your parents, pastor, and teacher told you.
If you searched for anything, tell me on what basis you made the decision to go with the God of the bible versus all the others?
WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR YOUR DECISION?
After You thoroughly examing all the other Gods, you DECIDED on Jesus right? And it was just a coincidence that Jesus was the same God that everyone around you worshipped right?
Seriously, you wouldn’t like that sheep analogy so much unless you were a sheep.
As for me believing in nothing? I would rather believe in nothing, than believe and blindly follow the murderous, rape promoting, slavery loving creature that you bow down to.
Peace.
Zoe // May 4, 2009 at 9:43 PM
@ Not Saved, Luther was not the Reformation, he was just one of a number of men God used to bring about the Reformation, which was, and still is larger and greater than any one man.
Secondly, Luther can only be judged by the very historical, cultural, ethnic, and religious system he was then been delivered from, of that era, for it is only against this very background that we can then, maybe, understand is disdain for the Jewish people, which was very much a part of Roman Catholicism’s attitude toward the Jews at that time.
Conversion, not Justification, as in Luther’s case, or for that matter any one, is a process, not a single event, as he still had a number of issues theologically, that he needed to sort out, some of which he probably never did before he died.
Also, there has always been, and will be up until Christ returns, rogues, false prophets, money hungry evangelists, etc, etc, within the church, mixed up with the genuine believers of the ‘Body of Christ’ masquerading as sheep in wolves clothings. See Matthew 13: 24-30, ‘The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares’ where Jesus teaches on the ‘tares’ false deceptive so-called believers, and the true, genuine believers.
Genuine, true, Christians, look to Jesus Christ, not men, as men/women, will always fail us, no matter how many Pastors, Evangelists may fail from time to time, my relationship is with the Lord Jesus Christ, not any man! For He will do the sorting out and ultimate judging when He comes!
Bush Tea // May 4, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Why so hasty rohan? ..don’t pre judge me.
What do you know about my beliefs or how I arrived at them?
I already told you that Bush tea does not fit your known stereotypes.
Have you considered instead of focusing on what others around you are doing, or what they believe, looking at the bigger picture?
One approach, if you can agree with ROK (and all thinking persons) that all the available evidence points to some ‘Creator’ or designer (my personal label is BBE – Big Boss Engineers).,,,, is to start from that position and work forward.
i.e as a sheep, you look around the farm and conclude – based on the barns, fences, water points and buildings that there has to be a ‘farmer designer’ behind the operation.
Your mission (should you accept it) is to work out the intent and plan of the farmer for his farm – and thus how you as a sheep could maximize your existence on the farm…
…..and PLEASE rohan, if it appears that the farmer does a number of cruel or illogical things, (like kill sheep , or shear them) it is FAR more likely that the interpreting sheep is misguided than that the farmer is …. OK?
so no more of your sheep logic….
Not Saved // May 4, 2009 at 10:37 PM
BT wrote:
“all the available evidence points to some ‘Creator’ or designer ”
—
really?
all?
Can you point to any?
Not Saved // May 4, 2009 at 10:41 PM
BT writes:
“Your mission (should you accept it) is to work out the intent and plan of the farmer for his farm”
—
and how should we do that?
- make it up?
- guess?
- pick from different sets of ancient writings of those who claim to already know?
which do you recommend?
rohan // May 4, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Bush Tea,
I’m not being hasty, that’s why I asked.
I’ll ask again:
WHAT WAS YOUR BASIS FOR CHOOSING JESUS OVER ALL THE OTHER GODS?
I doubt you have one, but I’m willing to listen.
As far as All evidence pointing to a creator. Please name ONE example of such evidence.
Thanks
Bush Tea // May 5, 2009 at 12:14 AM
@ Not Saved & rohan
I keep telling you folks than I am not like regular Christians, I could not care less if you believe or not.
It is not therefore my intent to tell you what is the truth….
…in any case, you two must at least know that what works for Bush Tea may well not work for you – it is your business to work out your own salvation as required for your situation.
…for example, Bush Tea is a highly trained scientist. There are very few concepts that the Bushman cannot dissect.
…so Not Saved, when I speak of the clear pointers to an overall designer it is against that backdrop.
I have a friend who is just barely aware that water is wet, yet he is also convinced about an overall designer – based on the impact of the awesome night sky on him.
…so Not Saved,
If you need exotic proof that this experience that we call life on earth was engineered somewhere , then IMHO, you are not smart enough to work out something as complex a the creators intent anyway – so just resign yourself to being ‘not saved’. LOL
…and rohan, if you are waiting for Bush Tea to tell you who is the REAL and only God, then you are barking up the wrong tree too…
…if however either one of you HONESTLY decides to find answers for yourself… now THAT is a different ball game….
Not Saved // May 5, 2009 at 1:08 AM
BT writes:
“you are not smart enough to work out something as complex a the creators intent ”
—–
funny, you sound like a regular christian to me.
By the way, what is the difference between “proof” and “exotic proof”?
As you are a scientist, when I asked for evidence you would know that did not mean I asked for proof.
ROK // May 5, 2009 at 2:08 AM
Rohan, NS,
Let me say that it was myself and Bush Tea who asked David to start a thread which turned out to be the longest thread on this blog, over 1000 contributions.
I was entitled, “The purpose of our Existence” and could probably be considered the first real challenge to christianity on this blog, so don’t let BT fool you. Check it at:
http://bajan.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/what-is-the-purpose-of-mans-existence/
Bush Tea // May 5, 2009 at 5:53 AM
@ ROK
man ROK, these are two bright articulate bloggers. You do not need to defend them from BT. LOL
…and ROK, it is not the Bushman’s role to defend Christianity. Nor should it be the intent of any serious truth seeker.
The greatest barrier to solving any complex problem comes from starting your quest with a convenient answer.
What Christianity what?!?
Bushman defends TRUTH, LOGIC and common sense.
…..these two fellows are excellent candidates to find the truth …. if only they can overcome the distraction of their abhorrence of traditional Christianity.
…while most Christians will never find the truth, unless they can overcome their commitment to the dogma of their faith…… what a pity.
….and NS, one needs to include ‘if statements’ in quotations for accuracy.
Bush Tea said that ….IF you are unable to link the reality and complexity of life to a designer, THEN you probably are not smart enough to work out a Creator’s plan.
…boolean algebra could also present a bit of a challenge in such circumstances.
Rohan // May 5, 2009 at 7:29 AM
Bush Tea,
Thanks for basically admitting that you had no basis for choosing your Jesus over all the other Gods. Like I thought, you went the way of the sheep and followed the shepherd that all your family and friends followed. If you were born in India you most probably be Hindu and we would be having a much different discussion right now.
Rohan // May 5, 2009 at 7:39 AM
Bush Tea wrote:
“IF you are unable to link the reality and complexity of LIFE to a designer, THEN you probably are not smart enough to work out a Creator’s plan.”
****
Let me fix that for you Bush Tea:
IF you are unable to link the reality and complexity of God to a designer, THEN you probably are not smart enough to work out the creature that made God’s plan.”
See how that works?
So something must have made God, a creature that would have to be infinitely more complex than the Universe to create it.
Creationists have a huge problem believing that our universe and all its complexities could have come about without a designer.
However, you have no problem believing that a God, who would have to be infinitely more complex than the universe he created could exist without a designer.
IF COMPLEXITY IS PROOF OF DESIGN YOU WOULD END UP WITH AN INFINITE REGRESSION OF DESIGNERS.
You would have figured this out if you applied logic to your thinking, but no one ever accused a Christian of being logical. Thanks for confirming this.
Simple Enough // May 5, 2009 at 9:43 AM
I have been carefully watching and reading the comments on this thread, I’ve also gone back to previous threads on this topic of God, creation against evolution and so on, and what appears to me, is that there are two distinct kinds of people here, (I) those who make contributions based on good scientific evidence in support of Creation, and the God of the Bible, their arguments are reasonable, rational, and very logical, the other group of people, like Rok, Not Saved, Rohan, and even Bush Tea, are all over the place, not making any sense at all, jumping from one thing to another; whereas, those like GP, Zoe and MME, all present senseable arguments, that you can reason through and understand.
It really is true, that “Ignorance, when voluntary, is criminal” also, that, “There is no more terrible sight, than ignorance in action” when you simply don’t know, say so, but to argue against sound evidence, as some of these people are doing, is something else.
Do like Mark Twain who said, “I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did, I said I didn’t know.”
rohan // May 5, 2009 at 10:11 AM
“Those who make contributions based on good scientific evidence in support of Creation”
****
SIMPLE ENOUGH, I’ll keep it simple enough.
Name One example of good scientific evidence. Just one.
Give me
ROK // May 5, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Simple Enough
You could have made it simple enough by saying you support the arguments of the christians as opposed to the non christians because what you don’t understand is that Christianity does not have a monopoly on the word creation. Yes the world was created but not by the God of the bible. He was created just like us.
If you really did follow the argument you would see that the problem is not creation vs evolution or big bang, but it is question of who is the Creator; which your god certainly is not.
So your little contribution is not only biased but very deceptive and in true christian style. Where is the scientific evidence produced by the likes of GP and Zoe? They denied the scientific evidence in favour of the fairy tale.
So you are the one that should be honest rather than try to come here with any side-winding summaries. Christians cannot even be honest, but all that happen to wunna is that wunna get so brainwashed you are blind to reality.
Furthermore, where the bible is contradicts itself and scientific evidence, it is you who should do like Mark Twain. We already said that where there is no evidence we prefer to say that we don’t know. They on the other hand profess to know and don’t know. How could you be so topsy-turvy? You walk on your hands?
Not Saved // May 5, 2009 at 12:09 PM
@BT,
Since it was already agreed by both parties that the IF conditional was true, the THEN statement followed logically.
To leave out the “IF” part of the quote did not in any way whatsoever make my representation of your claim, misleading.
Not Saved // May 5, 2009 at 12:53 PM
A litte amusing recap…………
Zoe claimed…..
“there IS NOT a single true transitional evolutionary form that has yet been excavated ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD”
I responded, citing my source NOVA about a recent important fossil find in 2004…….
“Named Tiktaalik rosae by its discoverers, it is a classic example of a transitional form”
A priceless response from Zoe followed…….
“Just another vicious BIG LIE”
Simple Enough commented………
“Not Saved,………all over the place, not making any sense at all………..whereas, those like……. Zoe………….present senseable arguments”.
Simply Put
Enough Said.
rohan // May 5, 2009 at 1:52 PM
$100 OFFER!
Okay, a long but interesting discussion.
I have a friendly offer. I will forward by paypal (or other convenient means) $100 USD to anyone who can provide any scientific evidence for the existence of God.
I post under my name both here and at Barbados Free Press. My reputation (as measely as it is) is more important to me than $100. So to get the money, simply:
1) Post any evidence for the existence of God
2) The “complexity of the earth does not qualify” because this no more proves God than it does Santa Claus. Also per earlier discussion, if complexity proved a creator, then the existence of that complex creator would require a creator, and so on and so on ad infinitum. Useless.
3)Arguments AGAINST evolution are not arguments FOR God. Saying one thing doesn’t work, does not mean that another thing works. Makes no sense.
So with those three simple caveats, $100 USD to anyone who can provide any evidence for the existence of God (Makes no difference which one).
Thanks
Rohan
Not Saved // May 5, 2009 at 2:22 PM
(with a little help from Euler)
Sir, (a+b^n)/n = x;
hence God exists,
answer please!
Rohan, $100 please
(actually this famous anecdote between Euler and Diderot never happened but it is a great story anyway)
Christopher Halsall // May 5, 2009 at 4:27 PM
@Rohan…
My personal favourite proof that the Universe is infinitely complex, and thus, *everything* which is not impossible must be true, somewhere:
Z = Z^2 + C, as iterated on the complex plane.
Even within the rarefied domain of mathematics, we simple (stupid) humans find that we cannot *know*.
Also, please note that chaos in mathematical systems came out of the attempts to predict weather. The Butterfly Effect…
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set for more details.
@Rohan… I understand and respect what you’re trying to do. But we do not *know* (and can never know) that any particular god does, or does not, exist.
We each, individually, takes a leap of faith. Even the agnostics.
I personally believe that all gods exist, for those that believe in them. Actually, I believe that they all do.
My issue is when any believer(s) of a particular set of god(s) try to tell others that only they are correct, and that everyone else is wrong.
IMHO, *this* is the fundamental problem we, here and now, face.
Christopher Halsall // May 5, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Sorry… Two errors in my above…
Replace “takes a leap” with “take a leap”.
Replace “agnostic” with “atheist”.
Not Saved // May 5, 2009 at 4:47 PM
“But we do not *know* (and can never know) that any particular god does, or does not, exist.”
—–
did anyone claim otherwise?
Not Saved // May 5, 2009 at 5:17 PM
semantics, Halsall, you always get lost in the semantics
Christopher Halsall // May 5, 2009 at 5:33 PM
@NS: “you always get lost in the semantics”. Yeah, I know…
I hope you, and the BU Family, will forgive me for this trait. I’m autistic. (Seriously.)
This is one of the reasons I can read legal language so well. I notice things others don’t….
Not Saved // May 5, 2009 at 7:03 PM
modest too
Not Saved // May 5, 2009 at 7:14 PM
somewhat back on topic…
Grenville,
If the principal teachings are the same, and your thesis is accepted, then we should move towards some form of harmonised religious practice.
In this case, what “christian traditions” will be lost?
What “islamic traditions” will be imported to a christian society like ours?
In essence what will the new harmonised religious practice look like?
will it be identical to current christian tradition? or muslim tradition?
if not, what changes can we expect?
Christopher Halsall // May 5, 2009 at 7:41 PM
@NS et al… This is meant as humour…
You might consider capitalizing the first word of each sentence, as is the accepted proper form.
You’ve made three errors in your immediate above.
(LOL…)
Not Saved // May 5, 2009 at 8:26 PM
If it is not capitalised then it was not the start of a new sentence.
Not Saved // May 5, 2009 at 8:27 PM
as is the case with this one……..
Zoe // May 5, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Rohan, I don’t need your US$100.00, but, I do feel there is at least ‘one’ good scientific composite set of evidence that overwhelmingly support creation.
The Fossil Record!
Christopher Halsall // May 5, 2009 at 9:19 PM
Oh… Actually, I made a mistake…
@NS… You made four (4) errors in capitalisation in your immediate above.
(ROTFL… (FTR, I am laughing at myself.))
Christopher Halsall // May 5, 2009 at 9:23 PM
@Zoe… Sigh…
I asked you a while ago what was the last book by Stephen Jay Gould that you read.
You never answered.
Pray might you?
ROK // May 5, 2009 at 9:31 PM
@ Zoe
“Rohan, I don’t need your US$100.00, but, I do feel there is at least ‘one’ good scientific composite set of evidence that overwhelmingly support creation.”
You still don’t get it, do you. Please point out who on this blog or thread is disputing Creation?
The point of contention is the source of the Creation, exactly who is the Creator? Is it your God of the bible? No!
You don’t have any trademark in the word Creation. It is not exclusive to christianity as Jahwe is. You don’t have to be a christian to believe in the Creation but you have to be a christian to believe in jahwe.
You cannot define me as I cannot define you. You can say who you are and i will say who I am.
Christopher Halsall // May 5, 2009 at 9:46 PM
@NS: “If it is not capitalised then it was not the start of a new sentence.
But… The start of a new paragraph (which you have done above) demands capitalization…
@NS:” as is the case with this one……..
And yet, one might reasonably assume, that if one starts an individual message “not capitalised” then perhaps the writer does not understand “proper form”.
The proper form would be: “…[language]“.
Just putting that out there, for pedantic consideration….
(ROTFL.)
rohan // May 5, 2009 at 9:49 PM
Rohan, I don’t need your US$100.00, but, I do feel there is at least ‘one’ good scientific composite set of evidence that overwhelmingly support creation.
The Fossil Record!
***
How does the fossit record support creation? You’re joking right?
Seriously man, is everything okay with your brain?
Not Saved // May 6, 2009 at 12:18 AM
“And yet, one might reasonably assume, that if one starts an individual message “not capitalised” then perhaps the writer does not understand “proper form”.”
———–
no i dont
teach me
Grenville // May 6, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Hi David:
The fertility rates appear to be consistent with the UN population data, with rates in the developed countries mentioned being significantly lower than those in countries with significant Muslim populations. I could not verify the immigration statistics by religion; however, that is only because I limited my data to the UN statistics. I do not have the time to investigate the national statistics presently.
Why the big difference in fertility rates? Perhaps the obvious answer is the 1 Billion babies aborted over the past 30 years. The Qur’an forbids abortion, and many Muslims do not engage in the practice. Therefore, in Europe, the fertility rates for Muslims would likely be higher than the non-Muslim population.
Grenville // May 6, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Hi Not Saved:
You wrote: “If the principal teachings are the same, and your thesis is accepted, then we should move towards some form of harmonised religious practice.”
I do not believe that a new harmonised religion is necessary. The diverse rituals in each tradition can be useful tools in transferring cultural values to successive generations. However, each side should ensure that none of their principal teachings violate their religious texts.
Not Saved // May 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Grenville,
You throw out big claims but dodge like no other.
You have stated the “traditions” of each religion are at odds.
You have further stated that current practice of both religions “violates” the teachings of the texts.
So it must logically follow that if the teachings are the same, and the adherents are to follow the teachings then practices MUST change.
I refer to these revised practices which should now be the same as a “harmonised” religion
What are these changes that must come?
Are the “diverse rituals” to remain the same as “useful tools” to transfer “cultural values” or, are they to change to be consistent with the holy texts?
Which is it?
Who decides what stays (cultural values) and what goes (violations of the text)?
ROK // May 6, 2009 at 2:10 PM
NS
Good observation. In terms of a solution the holy text takes precedence. In some cases you tweak the texts and in other cases you tweak the culture… but most certainly the text are holy and therefore the culture must be explained with the context of the holy texts; that s the next approach to the solution.
Validation by explanation.
Not Saved // May 6, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Grenville,
You claimed “infant baptism” was a christian practice not taught by the bible.
Does this go (for violating the text) or does it stay (cultural value)?
Not Saved // May 6, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Deuteronomy 17
17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
—————
Will anyone be at risk for being stoned by a christian (following the text) or will I be safe (cultural values) ?
Not Saved // May 6, 2009 at 5:53 PM
In many islamic countries one can be put to death because of apostasy.
Assuming you can point out that this is in “violation” of qu’ranic teachings, will this “ritual” still continue in order to preserve “cultural values”?
Grenville // May 6, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Dear Not Saved:
The issue is not being dodged. There is no new harmonised religion required. As previously stated, each side simply needs to follow the teachings in their religious texts.
Each side has traditions. Many of them are supported by their text, and many are not. Just because it is unsupported is not the problem. Many of these fall into the category of “diverse rituals”. The problem arises when one or more of these unsupported teachings actually conflict with the principal text.
Therefore, those religious traditions that are in conflict with the religious text need to be re-examined and hopefully changed. Any religious leader who is willing to examine the issue honestly, as opposed to simply trying to defend their religious tradition, should already know which teachings are in conflict with the principal text.
Regarding infant baptism; my suggestion is that it be honestly examined by Christian religious leaders.
You quoted a passage from Deuteronomy. You need to carefully read the Bible in its entirety to avoid misinterpreting it. Jesus clearly explained “you have heard it said to those of old …” This is the Old Testament teaching. Jesus then continued “But I say unto you …” I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with Jesus’ requirements.
Not Saved // May 6, 2009 at 11:21 PM
“You quoted a passage from Deuteronomy. You need to carefully read the Bible in its entirety to avoid misinterpreting it.”
——-
No actually I dont.
Since I am well capable of deciding whether of not to stone anyone without the need to “read it carefully” lest I “misinterpret” it.
———
“Therefore, those religious traditions that are in conflict with the religious text need to be re-examined and hopefully changed.”
such gentle understatement.
Not Saved // May 6, 2009 at 11:41 PM
“You need to carefully read the Bible in its entirety to avoid misinterpreting it. ”
—–
Yes, I think that is the only thing is universally agreed by everyone.
That the bible is in fact misinterpreted.
Not Saved // May 7, 2009 at 12:00 AM
“I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with Jesus’ requirements.”
Perhaps………….
From the book of Matthew……
5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
————–
recommended?
Not Saved // May 7, 2009 at 12:09 AM
Romans.
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them
——–
Are gays, “worthy of death”?
Or shall we continue to spare them? (cultural tradition)
Bush Tea // May 7, 2009 at 8:27 PM
@ rohan /Not saved
*************************************
rohan said”
So something must have made God, a creature that would have to be infinitely more complex than the Universe to create it.
Creationists have a huge problem believing that our universe and all its complexities could have come about without a designer.
However, you have no problem believing that a God, who would have to be infinitely more complex than the universe he created could exist without a designer.
************************************
You two are hopeless (LOL)… and Grenville is not helping. ….neither will Bush Tea I suspect, however, for the benefit of interested readers, I will respond to another of your alleged strong point above which you seem to like to flaunt.
One needs to understand the big picture here rohan, so follow me a bit….
The word ‘create’ has a distinct time component. It suggest that at some point in time, something that at a previous point in time did not exist, is brought into existence.
The components and design that constitutes our world would therefore have been ‘created’ at some time- if we agree that previous to that point in time it did not exist.
Extrapolating your logic by suggesting that ’something must have created God’ is flawed since (as I have explained previously) God is not constrained by time.
Time is one of the main concepts that differentiate spiritual and physical realities. In the spiritual realm, there is no such thing as yesterday or tomorrow or 1000000 years ago etc.
Time is a constraint that was designed to deliberately limit the scope of the project called ‘life on earth’.
The idea of the ‘creation’ of God is therefore a quite ridiculous one, even if it seems logical from a ’sheep perspective’.
The ‘Creator’ just is!!!
@ Not Saved, I suggest that you desist from reading the bible. You will not be able to make any sense of it – trust me.
The scriptures that you quoted above were speaking about the kind of character that a human will need to have cultivated in order to be deemed worthy of ‘advancement’…
It uses the language and realities of the period to make the points
…to someone whose whole perspective is limited to the here and now, it will understandably seem like a whole lot of foolishness to be told for example, that the prize at stake is so worthwhile that it would make complete sense to cut off your very hand and burn it – if that hand could be the cause of your failing to complete the race…
NS /rohan….take Bush Tea’s foolish advise fellows. Forget the whole thing. Eat, drink and be merry and try to enjoy the few months left on your farm
Rohan // May 7, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Bush Tea, congratulations on reaching the highest level of brainwashing attainable.
You have officially suspended all disbelief, rational thought, reasoning, and applied logic.
Anything that you can’t explain, then automatically becomes: “Just is”!
Congrats again.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 7, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Rohan / Not Saved,
Do you believe in miracles?
Bush Tea // May 7, 2009 at 9:45 PM
@Rohan
Why are you so touchy?
‘Just is’ means the same as ‘independent of time’…… or no ‘beginning’ or ‘end’, because time does not apply in that dimension…
…take it easy Rohan. Feel free to write the Bushman off as just another lunatic. Don’t let my rantings distract you from your convictions… or grazing…LOL
Not Saved // May 7, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Bush Tea wrote:
“Extrapolating your logic by suggesting that ’something must have created God’ is flawed”
—–
but dear BT, this is YOUR logic not mine (nor I doubt Rohan)
It is YOU that says, complexity, ergo design. I say no such thing !
0000000000000000000
“The idea of the ‘creation’ of God is therefore a quite ridiculous one”
—-
Yes I agree.
Yet we have “created” thousands of them.
ooooooooooooooooooooo
“I suggest that you desist from reading the bible. You will not be able to make any sense of it – trust me.”
———
I could not agree with you more.
00000000000000
“It uses the language and realities of the period to make the points”
———
Yes it certainly does.
Perhaps it was written by people of the period?
0000000000000
“…to someone whose whole perspective is limited to the here and now”
—–
a little christian condescension, so irresistible
000000000000000000
“Forget the whole thing. Eat, drink and be merry and try to enjoy the few months left on your farm”
———–
Trust me BT, I am way ahead on this. It is the unbeliever who surely believes time on the farm is as good as it gets !
Not Saved // May 7, 2009 at 10:21 PM
MME,
define miracle?
suspect my answer will be no.
Not Saved // May 7, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Grenville,
getting anything out of you is like pulling teeth.
Ok, lets accept your thesis.
God revealed himself to Moses and the inspired the prophets, then sent down Jesus recorded in some writings and inspired more writings in the first and second century.
Then an absence of a few hundred years a few more revelations to mohammed.
All the same god.
(there are very good historical reasons for the harmony of bible and qur’an but I am proceeding on your thesis).
Two questions:
What new was revealed for christians to mohammed?
What was the purpose of this particular yet significant and rare divine intervention?
(contrast with what jesus brought to judaism)
Secondly,
If the book of mormon is also in harmony with the bible (which I suspect a few million morons, oops mormons will attest), following your logic, is this not another revelation?
Anonymous // May 7, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Micro Mock Engineer
Do YOU believe in miracles? More interestingly, have you witnessed/experienced first hand a miracle?
JC // May 7, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Wow!
Micro Mock Engineer // May 8, 2009 at 6:16 AM
Not Saved,
I am happy with Hume’s definition…
A miracle is a violation of the known laws of nature.
… or to tie it down further, an event that is not governed by any laws of nature or physics (known or unknown).
ROK // May 8, 2009 at 7:36 AM
MME
“I am happy with Hume’s definition… A miracle is a violation of the known laws of nature.”
You see, according to the christian definition, only god can perform miracles… but I put it to them that miracles happen everyday and in places where they don’t believe in their god.
To take this to another level of reasoning, can we consider this to be a human capacity to manipulate the environment and even people? Is it a subconscious communication with things and people? Is it a level of energy?
The final question is, would it be all the above?
The other consideration arising from Hume’s definition is that a set of this happen (whether or not coincidentally or accidentally) to cause a specific outcome that was not intended or was not to happen?
I think that the “known Laws of Nature” has its limitations and that miracles may not be a violation of the “Laws of Nature”; just that they are not yet known.
While I understand BT in saying come out of the bible, there are some things in the bible which amounts to knowledge from a greater intelligence about the powers of man.
For example, “Seek and ye shall find” and “Knock and it shall be opened”. I am trying to pursue the theory that man can manipulate his environment not only with his hands but with his mind.
ROK // May 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM
“The other consideration arising from Hume’s definition is that a set of this happen (whether or not coincidentally or accidentally)”
That should read: The other consideration arising from Hume’s definition is that a set of events happens (whether or not coincidentally or accidentally)
Not Saved // May 8, 2009 at 1:40 PM
MME,
Your narrow version is quite different to Hume.
On the latter narrower version, the answer would have to be no, in the sense you seem to ask if I believe that something that cannot happen, could in fact happen.
I am not sure where you are going with this question, let me make a guess.
If a god does exist, it would seem it must necessarily exist outside our known space and time (or our natural scientific inquiry would reveal it) and this begs the question does the god intervene in our space and time.
To a theologian the answer is obvious. To others less so but obvious in the negative.
It then still invites the further inquiry; whether intervention is via natural constraints (know and unknown) or perhaps what you ask, via something that cannot happen, that now can happen (miracle?!)
Not Saved // May 8, 2009 at 1:42 PM
(insert)
…..more obvious in the negative
Grenville // May 8, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Hi Not Saved:
Thank you for your questions. In response:
1. The Qur’an teaches Christians to simply follow what God has already revealed to them in the Bible. That is it. Just to clarify – the Qur’an does not require Christians to read the Qur’an.
2. I have not read the book of Mormon. Therefore, my speculative opinion would have a relatively low value.
Regards,
Grenville
Micro Mock Engineer // May 9, 2009 at 8:35 AM
Not Saved,
This is where I was going…
I like many other scientists believe that time, matter and the laws of nature (or physics) were created with the Big Bang (at t=0 or the singularity) out of nothing. This is also the view of many Judeo-Christian based faiths… creation ex nihilo. It establishes a common ground if you like, between many scientists and Christians.… and, even though the concept is still debated in both groups, it is noteworthy that no other non-Judeo-Christian religious world-view, ancient or modern, (as far as I am aware) supports this concept. It is also noteworthy that, as I mentioned previously, the Big Bang theory itself was the brainchild of a Christian priest/scientist (Lemaitre).
So I believe the universe, time, matter and the laws of nature had a beginning at t=0, and I believe that these had a cause which by deduction could not be governed by the very laws it created… further, that cause would also have to be non-material (or spiritual) since it created matter.
Getting back to my latter definition of miracles, yes, I do believe they are possible.
Not Saved // May 9, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Yes I know christians who think this way.
Hopefully one day we will learn more about t=0
It is one thing to believe in a cause (why not quantum fluctuation?) but then its a long long road to believing a collection of 1st and 2nd century writing (the NT) is the work of the same prime mover.
Not Saved // May 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM
I believe the muslims also claim the qur’an describes the big bang :
From the wiki:
“The Qur’an referenced the heavens and earth as originally being an integrated mass before God split them “Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them” [21:30], which has been interpreted by some as being “nothing short of a condensed version of the Big bang theory”.[1]“
Not Saved // May 9, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Grenville,
You dodge questions better than Ali dodged punches.
What was the point of this rare revelation by god to mohammed?
Why not let christians continue to spread the christian gospel without this intervention (which seems to rather been a major blunder)
A revelation to tell christians to read the bible? what is the point?
And my second question.
I did not need you to read the book of mormon. I asked, IF harmony with the bible is found can we apply YOUR logic to conclude that it is another revelation from god.
If not, why not.
Why can we can apply the logic to the qur’an and not to the book of mormon?
rohan // May 9, 2009 at 1:10 PM
MME,
Per your question about believing in miracles… I either accept or not accept a theory based on evidence or lack of evidence.
So to answer your question, unless you have some evidence for a SINGLE CASE of any supernatural event, then I will say “No” I do not “believe” in miracles. But I’m willing to re-visit this if you have any evidence MME.
Thanks bro
ROK // May 9, 2009 at 2:42 PM
MME
“I like many other scientists believe that time, matter and the laws of nature (or physics) were created with the Big Bang (at t=0 or the singularity) out of nothing.”
I have a big problem here. Maybe you can assist me. When I think of the big bang theory, I am reminded of an egg which is fertilized; an embryo grows and then burst through its shell. Maybe the big bang started when the sperm hit its target.
A being is born and keeps expanding to maturity, however, the being could not have been said to be born out of nothing. It takes in from its environment and expands.
You say that you believe that matter was created at the time of the big bang. If I were to take my scenario to its logical conclusion, it would mean that the matter which started the big bang was already created and came from an environment where there is a high probability that other big bangs took place and are still taking place.
What would be the difficulty in assuming that the matter was already created at the time of big bang in the form of a ball of energy or compressed matter and it merely unfolded? Could there have been a big bang without matter causing it? Maybe it even takes in from its external environment as it grows/expands?
Straight talk // May 9, 2009 at 4:55 PM
ROK:
That’s a scenario which has always intrigued me.
Is it human arrogance or simply “island mentality” that makes us believe this universe is unique?
If one big bang, why not two?
And taking it further why not an infinite number of separate universes co-existing millimetres apart?
Brane theory likens these to infinitely long streamers, rippling in the ether.
Others see us bubbles in an ocean of foam.
It’s also proposed that the big bangs occur when two of these universes touch, and matter is transferred between them.
Quantum Electro-Dynamics has perversely made the theory of everything massively more difficult to understand in it’s quest to simplify.
Check out BBC’s Parallel Universes on Google Video.
ROK // May 9, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Straight Talk
“And taking it further why not an infinite number of separate universes co-existing millimetres apart?”
This universe as we call it may very well be an entity living in an environment with other entities as we live in an environment with other entities (maybe a tree).
I am not sticking to millimetres apart, the space apart may be infinite too because I will assume that the entity does not live in overpopulated conditions.
The most fascinating thing is the amount of communication going on within the body which is coordinated by the brain; fighting unwanted diseases, healing, the senses, and all kinds of intelligence going on over which we have no control or very little control but are the beneficiaries.
Maybe the brain is the God lording over the rest of the body? It tells the rest of the body to obey it blindly? But then the God gets defeated and was created.
Maybe we should stick to reasoning about the nature of the universe.
Anon // May 9, 2009 at 5:40 PM
When I read the majority of the posts on this thread I am reminded of the truths of of 2 Timothy 4:3-4, which states
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
In these verses Paul predicted that there would come a time when people would not tolerate the truth of God’s word, but would only listen to speakers who told them what they wanted to hear (false doctrine, entertainment, etc.). In other words, they would make themselves the measure of who should teach them and what teaching is acceptable. In addition, they would choose to believe myths rather than the truth (e.g., evolution, humanism, reincarnation, etc.; cf. 1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; Titus 1:14).
It is so very clear that that time has come.
ROK // May 9, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Anon
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”
This aptly describes Christians and the Bible.
Anon // May 9, 2009 at 7:12 PM
Some of those who have posted here show a great ognorance of what the Bible teaches about the Lord Jesus Christ – the hero of the Bible.
Here are a few thoughts from 2 TIMOTHY alone.
In 2 Timothy 1:1 the Lord Jesus Christ is OUR PROMISE OF LIFE. This verse reads
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus.
How do you accept a promise? You do it by faith. That is the only way you can obtain eternal life. He offers it to you as a gift. You accept a gift because you believe the giver. You receive eternal life by believing in the Giver. The Lord Jesus gives you eternal life when you trust Him as Savior because He paid the penalty of your sin. He today can offer you heaven on the basis of your faith and trust in Him. When you believe Him and come His way, you honor Him. Therefore “the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus” makes it clear that through Christ is the only way you can get eternal life, my friend.
The apostle said his calling as an apostle was “according to” (i.e., “because of,” or
“in harmony with,” or both) “the promise of life in Christ Jesus” (v. 1).
This promise is part of the gospel message. Paul considered ‘life’ (eternal) as something yet to be fully obtained—thus the reference to a promise (compare 1 Tim 6:19) Paul was counting on God being faithful and providing what He had promised, namely, eternal life in Christ. God had called him to proclaim this promise as an apostle.
In 2 Timothy 1:2 Paul emphasizes the lordship of Jesus Christ when he writes “To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
He also teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ is the source of grace, mercy and truth.
In 2 Timothy 1:9 Paul stresses that the Lord Jesus Christ is our Savior when he writes “ Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.
He points out that Christ saved us, and called us with an holy calling”—not because of who we are or what we have done—“not according to our works.”
But —“According to his own purpose and grace.” God’s wonderful purpose in the gospel was hidden in ages past but is now revealed through Paul. It had been a mystery in the Old Testament, an unrevealed secret, but is now revealed in the New Testament. All along God had this planned for us. In other words God was not caught napping when our forefathers sinned in the garden of Eden. Before the world began he had planned that Jesus would be the redeemer and Savior of fallen sinful men.
In 2 Timothy 1:10 we have the truth of Jesus’ incarnation in the words “But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
We also have the truth that Christ “hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
The phrase “Who hath abolished death” is literally since He has made of none effect death. Death means something altogether different to the child of God—Christ made it of no effect. Now, God did not eliminate death. Paul is not talking about physical death. He means spiritual death, eternal death, which is separation from God. Christ has indeed abolished spiritual death so that no sinner need go to a place where he’ll be eternally separated from God.
2 Timothy 2:7-8 Teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ is to be remembered. 2 Timothy 2:7-8 reads…. Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel
In this verse Paul enjoins us to “Remember Jesus Christ.” the word that is not in the original but was supplied by the translators. What are we to remember about Him? We are first to remember that He’s of the seed of David. That means He’s going to sit on David’s throne down here. Secondly, we are to remember that He was raised from the dead, “according to the gospel” as taught by Paul in I Corinthians 15.
“The perfect tense of the participle for ‘raised’ suggests that Paul was stressing the result of Christ’s resurrection, the demonstration of his lordship (Rom 1:4), rather than the
fact of the resurrection. . . .
“Second, the mention that Christ ‘descended from David’ shows that Christ has messianic qualifications and is the heir to the glorious promises of God for David. . . .
“The memory of Christ cloaked with resurrection power and messianic dignity is an inspiration for Christian service.”
“The Davidic Messiah who suffered and was raised from the dead is the very essence of Paul’s gospel.”
2 Timothy 4:1 Teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ is coming again to judge both the quick and the dead and set up His kingdom.
2 Timothy 4:1 reads thus I charge thee therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.
In this verse Paul reminds Timothy, and us, that on his return at the rapture Jesus Christ will judge Christians at the judgment seat of Christ and then appear again at the Second Coming (cf. 1:10) and set up His millennial kingdom on the earth; after which the dead will be judged at the Great White Throne Judgement.
Bearing this in mind, Timothy should prepare to meet Him by carrying out the terms of the great commission by heralding the Word of God (v. 2) and faithfully carry out the ministry that God had given him (v. 5).
Paul is pointing out to Timothy that in the same way that when, in his day, the Emperor was due to visit any place, that everything was put in perfect order and the streets were swept and garnished and all work was up-to-date, so too Timothy, and we, as we expect the epiphaneia of Jesus Christ, our work should be done in such a way
that all things will be ready whenever He appears..
Who shall judge the quick and the dead” the living and the dead.
“At his appearing and his kingdom.” Christ’s appearing and His kingdom are not the same thing. His appearing is the epiphany, the Rapture of the church. His kingdom refers to the revelation of Christ when He returns to earth to establish His kingdom. Twice He will do some judging. He will judge His own when He takes them out of the world. Also, He will judge those who turn to God in the Great Tribulation. All of us who are believers will come before Him for judgment at one time or another. Our lives are going to be tested to see if we are to receive a reward or not.
ROK // May 9, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Anon
“How do you accept a promise? You do it by faith. That is the only way you can obtain eternal life. He offers it to you as a gift.”
Utter tripe! How can a mortal offer a gift of life? That kind of thinking is very typical of politicians, the same mentality. Some one offers you money and you believe that you can get away with it you take it and give them what they want. A mere promise; the tools of a politician.
You blindly accept some illogical promise and then go on to say, “You receive eternal life by believing in the Giver.” What proof do you have. You cannot say that Jesus gives you eternal life. For you to tell me that you would have to be a fibber. YOU DO NOT KNOW. YOU HAVE NO PROOF.
So believe if you like but don’t tell me no foolishness about Jesus giving eternal life; tell me that is what you believe. It is not a fact known to man and certainly not known to you.
ROK // May 9, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Anon
“All of us who are believers will come before Him for judgment at one time or another.
YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THAT TELL ME THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT.
“He will judge His own when He takes them out of the world.”
YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THAT TELL ME THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT.
“Also, He will judge those who turn to God in the Great Tribulation.”
YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THAT TELL ME THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT.
““Second, the mention that Christ ‘descended from David’ shows that Christ has messianic qualifications and is the heir to the glorious promises of God for David. . . .”
WHAT IS THIS? THE ONLY THING THAT PROVES IS THAT CHRIST WAS A MORTAL AS DAVID (THE MAN) WAS. NOTHING MESSIANIC ABOUT THAT; ONLY IF MESSIANIC MEANS ROYAL.
You sound just like GP, Carlos, Simple Enough, Dictionary and the host of them that GP make up. What happen, you run out of names?
rohan // May 9, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Anon, you can take that long post full of quotes from the death cult manual that is the bible and replace it with this quote:
“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” – Mark Twain
Micro Mock Engineer // May 9, 2009 at 7:46 PM
“I believe the muslims also claim the qur’an describes the big bang” – Not Saved
Of course they do… perhaps I should have used the term Judeo-Christo-Islamic or simply Abrahamic religion instead.
“why not quantum fluctuation?” – Not Saved
“This universe as we call it may very well be an entity living in an environment with other entities as we live in an environment with other entities (maybe a tree)” – ROK
“And taking it further why not an infinite number of separate universes co-existing millimetres apart?” – Straight Talk
LOL… fellas… I don’t have that much faith, but I admire yours. As far as untested scientific hypotheses go though, to me the most compelling and elegant is the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary condition… brane cosmology and chaotic inflation are equally interesting, but for me, require a bit more faith :-)
“its a long long road to believing a collection of 1st and 2nd century writing (the NT) is the work of the same prime mover.” – Not Saved
Come on Not Saved… one issue at a time… are we in agreement on the existence of a non-material cause of the universe?
On an earlier question… can anyone identify any non-Abrahmaic religions / world views that support the view that the universe had a beginning (i.e. it has a finite age) and was created out of nothing?
ROK // May 9, 2009 at 8:12 PM
MME
What makes the existence of a non-material cause of the universe so plausible? Have you been able to work out how matter can be created?
I may be coming from an archaic scientific perspective but I am going on the notion that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Is that a myth?
Zoe // May 9, 2009 at 8:54 PM
On the question of ‘miracles’ do they happen? Most certainly yes! From the very Apostolic era, right down to this very day!
Miracles have occurred right here in B’dos, absolutely nothing for Almighty God, in Christ Jesus to do; why He does not perform them more frequently, that’s His absolutle soveriegnty, to do, or not to do! As He said;
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts. Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa. 55: 8-9).
I have seen on a number of occasions, on TV, a big, strong, Black Haitian Christian giving his testimony. His family were Christians, very poor, his Father went out fishing and hunting for food for a number of days, and this man, when he was a little boy, became very ill, he died, when the father returned, he saw this little coffin where his little boy lay dead, and decomposing. The father said ‘NO, when he was in his mothers womb, the Lord told him, that son in your wife’s womb, will be a great evangelist’ So the father by ‘Faith’ in God promise to him, put his hands on the coffin, and prayed in Jesus Name, miraculously, the little dead body, came alive, and today, is a living testimony the Almighty God’s power to raise the dead.
I personally a few years ago, here in B’dos, met a Medical Doctor from one of the South American countries, a specialist in MS, he gave his testimony at church one Sunday morning. He went on a fishing trip in a jungle area, drank some extremely contaminated water from a river, which destroyed both of his kidneys; when his medical colleagues did all of the test, they said to him, you are as good as dead. He discharged himself from the hospital to be alone, He said to Jesus,I’ve only heard about you, if you are real, manifest yourself to me, and I’ll give you my life and follow you; he said, the Lord appeared in his room, he felt warm hands touch his lower back, instantly all the pain left his body, he passed perfectly clear water, and was completely healed by Jesus Christ.
When his colleagues at the Hospital saw him nextr day, they were absolutely amazed, text revealed he had two perfect kidneys, today that many a former Hindu travels the world preaching the Gospel of Christ, winning many to faith in Jesus.
Only a few weeks ago I listened to another amazing testimony, a relatively young married woman in the States, wanted children, but could not get pregnant, her Gyno actually said that her reproductive organs were in a mess, and had to be removed, a radical hysterectomy was done. As a Christian, she allowed an anointed man of God to pray for her; she felt a strange sensation in her female area, but thought nothing of it. Many weeks after she went to her Gyno for a check up, to see how she was doing after her surgery. The Gyno, in utter amazement, said, ‘I removed your womb, overies, etc, weeks ago, BUT now, I examine you, you have a complete new womb with everything working perfectly…and you are ALSO six weeks pregnant…”
These types of miracles happen all the time, BUT, the secular media are not interested in them.
Many Hindu’s and Muslims are being healed in their countries, at crusades conducted by Christians, none of them are ever healed in Allah or Muhammed’s name, only in Jesus Name; for, HE, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and FOREVER.”
(Heb. 13: 8).
Naturally, the non-believers will scoff at this, that’s their choice, as no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise!
Bush Tea // May 9, 2009 at 8:55 PM
come on ROK.
Everyone knows that there is a direct interchangeability between matter and energy.
…one does not have to be an Einstein…
Zoe // May 9, 2009 at 9:11 PM
Reality is synonymous with Truth; and Truth is unyielding. One can choose to ignore it, scorn and scoof at it, even curse it, BUT, all to no avail; in the end, Truth impassively stands its ground in the face of the most overpowering emotional, verbal, and rediculous onslaughts.
Further, Truth can be especially brutal to those who insist on worshipping at the Altar of theory and ignorance. This is because Truth has a way of frustrating theory, folly, and ignorance, and, much like a mongoose circling a snake, ultimately wearing it down and devouring it.
Pat // May 9, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Zoe // May 9, 2009 at 8:54 pm
This whole post is nonsense. Where is the evidence? Where are the verified reports in the medical journals? Seems like scams by Christians to me.
I never read any of this in the Lancet nor Science. cheupse. You have to be cuckoo to believe this crap.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 9, 2009 at 9:19 PM
“Everyone knows that there is a direct interchangeability between matter and energy.”
————–
LOL BT… almost everyone.
ROK… like many scientists, I believe that matter (and antimatter) as well as the laws of physics (including the one about matter not being created or destroyed) and time itself were created in the Big Bang.
In the beginning (t=0), equal quantities of matter and antimatter were created from ‘pure’ energy… lets call them B mesons and anti-B mesons. When these B mesons and anti-B mesons meet, they annihilate creating high energy photons (gamma rays). The universe is ‘matter-biased’ i.e. we have more matter than anti-matter in the universe, because the latter has a faster decay rate.
Unfortunately there is no observational capability beyond the Big Bang, so all scientific and philosophical debates/positions on pre-Big Bang events will always be faith based… but some positions (like those of Not Saved and Straight Talk) require more faith than others… and some people (like Rohan) choose not to have any position at all. LOL
Technician // May 9, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Zoe is such a blasted LIAR……you really think you can bring this shit to BU and get away with it??
Where is this documented?
Technician // May 9, 2009 at 9:34 PM
A decomposing body brought back to life…..WTF !!
I want proof!!
ROK // May 9, 2009 at 9:39 PM
Zoe
I see you like nuff fishing.
ROK // May 9, 2009 at 9:42 PM
BT
I am not in disagreement. I am trying to find out where MME is coming from. I am proposing that at the point of big bang, nothing was created. It was all there already.
ROK // May 9, 2009 at 9:46 PM
Zoe
“Reality is synonymous with Truth; and Truth is unyielding.”
I agree. So wake up! You in a dreamland. Reality flying past you hard.
Deng Xiaping // May 9, 2009 at 10:01 PM
A provocative discussion going. Hope posters can examine MME’s argument (i.e. the universe has a starting point and so there must be a non material force that put every thing in motion). ROK and Straight talk have suggested alternative models. So some questions:
Is it a “fact” that the universe had a starting point? Is this just a speculative view given the observations/knowledge we have at present? I have read about multiple universes (see Hugh Everett) but I admit not understanding much of what is postulated!!
Is it possible that the Big Bang “theory” and Abrahamic religions concur on this issue because these are both western viewpoints? If say India had been in the position of power and influence instead of Europe would we be arguing about a model of the universe more in tune with Hindu beliefs?
ROK // May 9, 2009 at 10:13 PM
MME
“On an earlier question… can anyone identify any non-Abrahmaic religions / world views that support the view that the universe had a beginning (i.e. it has a finite age) and was created out of nothing?”
Now hold on there. There are two components here:
1. The universe had a beginning;
2. It was created out of nothing.
These are two separate questions. I prefer to ask the question, “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” I contend that a beginning, if started with big bang could have been with matter already created.
I put it to you that the notion of no-matter prior to the creation of the universe is an assumption. I also put it to you that at the point of the big bang explosion, t=0 has nothing to do with matter.
Actually, t=0 is a mere convenient value designating the start of this process and it may be assumed that there was a time when t=-1, just as the 1stCentury AD (0-100) assumes that there was a last Century BC (100-0) and while BC may be assigned a negative value for convenience, 100BC to zero BC was still 100 years; no negative there.
Hence what we are doing is assigning an arbitrary start to the universe, regardless of the time that events started that led to the bang or caused the bang? What existed to cause the bang? “something” exploded, otherwise we would have to say that “nothing” exploded; in which case, the universe should not be here.
Give me your reasoning.
ROK // May 9, 2009 at 10:53 PM
MME
I got your post in my inbox before I see it here on the blog. I still ain’t see it yet. Anyhow, you wrote:
“In the beginning (t=0), equal quantities of matter and antimatter were created from ‘pure’ energy… lets call them B mesons and anti-B mesons. When these B mesons and anti-B mesons meet, they annihilate creating high energy photons (gamma rays). The universe is ‘matter-biased’ i.e. we have more matter than anti-matter in the universe, because the latter has a faster decay rate.”
Am I to believe that B-mesons and Anti-B-mesons are assumptions? I also want to put it to you that anti-matter is also an assumption. Is there proof that anti-matter exists? How is this defined?
If however, you agree that matter and anti-matter were transformed from energy, then are you not admitting that what created the universe was there before the bang and that it is out of this existence that the bang became a reality; with a starting point, t=o?
Micro Mock Engineer // May 10, 2009 at 12:01 AM
“I also want to put it to you that anti-matter is also an assumption. Is there proof that anti-matter exists? How is this defined?”
——
Of course antimatter exists… how else would those aliens you believe in propel their starships? LOL… but seriously, google “antimatter”… we have been observing it since 1955… also google “Segrè and Chamberlain”.
The notion of no matter at t=0 is an assumption, but it is a necessary assumption if you support the Big Bang theory… in fact, based on the theory, it can be deduced that matter came into existence at around t=10^-6 seconds (and a temperature of around 10^13 K).
Matter cannot exist at the energy level and temperature implicit in the Big Bang theory (lookup the grand unification epoch and note the times and temperatures… also lookup the binding energy of quarks).
When this knowledge is combined with the second law of thermodynamics, it supports the view of a beginning comprised of pure ‘useful’ energy at t=0 which has been steadily degrading to ‘useless’ energy (or entropy) ever since.
Anyone find examples of non-Abrahamic religions that posit an absolute beginning to the universe?
Micro Mock Engineer // May 10, 2009 at 12:04 AM
“Is it possible that the Big Bang “theory” and Abrahamic religions concur on this issue because these are both western viewpoints?”
——
Yes Deng… further, modern science is fundamentally a product of Abrahamic religions. :-)
Micro Mock Engineer // May 10, 2009 at 12:19 AM
Scientists who deride Abrahmic religions for their monotheistic faith are like dogs who bite the hands that feed them. :-)
Bush Tea // May 10, 2009 at 12:20 AM
@ROK
You are a difficult man to argue with – mainly because you create your own rules, which you then apply to others without their consent …and sometimes even their knowledge…ROTFL
You therefore should define terms that you plan to use so that we can all speak the same language….
Case in point:
What do you understand by ‘CREATE’?
Would you agree for example that I just CREATED a blog post?
If there was no universe, and then somehow a source of great power caused a ‘big bang’ which converted huge amounts of energy into matter (and anti-matter), why would you have a problem agreeing that this would represent the creation of a physical universe?
I think that you sometimes place to much import on such semantics …
….speaking of which, could you please (sometime) tell us exactly who is the ‘God of the bible?’ of whom you regularly speak?
Deng Xiaping // May 10, 2009 at 12:54 AM
Modern science is a product INITIALLY of mainly western scientists whose religious traditions were Abrahamic. I would expect that as they pondered various problems, their initial model/hypothesis would be drawn from the philosophies in which they brought up. What I would be interested in learning about would be the extent to which current scientific viewpoints deviate from those starting points. e.g the Ptolemaic view: sun and the stars go around the earth; modern view: everything in motion (earth orbiting the sun etc).
Is their universal consensus in the scientific community that there was a “Big Bang” and hence a starting point? I think not and furthermore we may be in a time of new explanations in cosmology. I may be wrong given that I am not versed in this field (ok in any field…LOL).
Deng Xiaping // May 10, 2009 at 12:57 AM
Is THERE universal consensus … sheesh must be tired!
ROK // May 10, 2009 at 1:13 AM
BT
“If there was no universe, and then somehow a source of great power caused a ‘big bang’ which converted huge amounts of energy into matter (and anti-matter), why would you have a problem agreeing that this would represent the creation of a physical universe?”
Man you too far off. I don’t know where you coming from, but I don’t have a problem agreeing with that. All I am saying is that the point of the creation of this universe, if we starting from Big Bang, is not the point at which matter (including energy) came into existence.
When we say that matter is not created or destroyed, are we not including energy in the equation? Changing from one state to another. My point is, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Matter vs energy?
I am not sure how semantics get in and why that is so hard to follow.
Deng Xiaping // May 10, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Also aren’t we forgetting the contribution of ancient Greeks, Egyptians, North Africans, Babylonians and Indians to the development of Mathematics without which this scientific development could not have taken place? (e.g the Hindu-Arabic numeral system which we use today).
Democritus (460 – 370 BC) presented a distinctly modern view of the nature of the universe consisting of atoms in constant motion and traveling in a void.
At the time of Democritus it was believed that the void was a property of matter. He actually argued against this view but what is of interest is that this idea reappears in Einstein’s relativistic physics!
ROK // May 10, 2009 at 1:25 AM
MME
“The notion of no matter at t=0 is an assumption…”
THANK YOU.
However necessary you may think this assumption to be, the point is, it is an assumption.
Next thing: “in fact, based on the theory, it can be deduced that matter came into existence at around t=10^-6 seconds (and a temperature of around 10^13 K).”
Question: based on the theory, where did the energy come from?
So, you use an assumption to calculate the point at which matter came into existence? Really and truly, you know this is an unknown. Admission that it is an assumption, means that it is an unknown, not so?
I am not familiar with the advances in what is known in anti-matter, will google it as you suggest. However, I hope that this is not a way of explaining the unknown within the boundaries of what is known to science. You know that is dangerous. According to scientist of yesterday, any man exceeding the speed of 30 mph would burn alive.
ROK // May 10, 2009 at 1:48 AM
MME
I think that Deng Xiaping may have a point. I am seeing science almost behaving like Christians when it gets to the unknown; you make assumptions and posit them as the truth, because the equation works out as you would want it, but why else is there dependence on an assumption except for that purpose; rather than the truth?
I do not believe that it is necessary to assume that there was no matter before big bang for big bang to be the accepted explanation for the beginning of the universe. Like the Christians you want to unlink the linkable and chain it to something else for convenience?
ROK // May 10, 2009 at 2:48 AM
BT
“you create your own rules, which you then apply to others without their consent …and sometimes even their knowledge…”
You have to understand that I ain’t just come town, I have been living with this information fo0r more than 30 years, it is part of who I am not just some figment of my imagination.
I think you got the cart before the horse. When a Christian says to me “Creator” and he means his god, he has assumed a truth that is incorrect. He has invaded me because when I say Creator, I don’t mean his god, but the kidnap and own the word.
Second, They have determined a meaning for atheism which means a person that does not believe in God. However, the problem is that atheist do not believe in the Christian God. They seek to use the word Atheist as a weapon to stigmatise whoever don’t believe in their god. They care nothing about the science that the atheist employs.
Third: is the definition of god. Over the years I am beginning to see the word “god” as a title; like king; but not anybody with supernatural powers and certainly not the Creator.
There are more, but these are all meanings imposed on the subconscious mind; designed to support and propagate Christianity to make it universal in its application by association with language. So you lose your argument before you can articulate or reason and then you get tied up because of all these connotations and innuendos attached to words.
So we speaking the same words but with different meanings and then as GP say, all hell brek loose. Is like the tower of Babel; different tongues; can’t understand one another because the language is so loaded.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 10, 2009 at 8:14 AM
Deng,
The Ptolemaic view of the universe was not a Christian creation, it was created by Greek pagan astronomer Ptolemy. Christians (like everyone else at the time) accepted it for a period because it seemed to make sense… in fact it still makes a little sense today… how else would you explain the weather woman coming on my TV every night talking about sunrise and sunset times. Sun rise indeed! LOL
Christians, like everyone else resist change, but how many other religions occasionally admit that their interpretation of their scripture may have been incorrect? As an example of the type of self-examination that takes place within Christianity, here is what Pope Urban VIII said at the time about Galileo’s theory…
“if there were a real proof…that the sun does not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true.”
… any wonder then why science and the age of enlightenment flourished in the Western world?
Rok // May 10, 2009 at 8:24 AM
Looks like the discussion is veering into an interesting scientific discussion.
Just a reminder christians, you can’t fill the gaps in our scientific understanding with a God who is full of gaps him/herself.
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 8:25 AM
Oh shoot..lol that last post was by me, but I typed Rok’s name in by mistake.
Looks like the discussion is veering into an interesting scientific discussion.
“Just a reminder christians, you can’t fill the gaps in our scientific understanding with a God who is full of gaps him/herself.”
Micro Mock Engineer // May 10, 2009 at 8:30 AM
“I am seeing science almost behaving like Christians when it gets to the unknown; you make assumptions and posit them as the truth, because the equation works out as you would want it”
—————–
LOL Rok… posit them as truth?
Sorry if you got that impression. Everything I posit here is nothing more than an opinion and theory… as far as scientists behaving like Christians… good observation. :-)
Your knowledge and grasp of science is obviously superior to mine. All I have done is reviewed some of the current theories (or assumptions) and selected a few that I think are best supported by the evidence… in my opinion. As far as where the energy came from at t=0, my opinion is that (just like time, matter, laws of physics etc.) it came from the Big Boss.
I have already pointed out that theories/philosophies about events before the Big Bang (presuming you subscribe to the Big Bang theory that is) are not observable or testable, and therefore will always be matters of faith or assumption. If you believe the evidence for alien invasions, Niburu and a universe without beginning is compelling, then ignore my rants. :-)
You should fully develop your theory and publish it… Hopi could write the foreword. Who knows… you might even sell more books than Grenville LOL
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 8:33 AM
Christians, this is what ZOE just wrote:
“This woman couldn’t get pregnant and had her womb removed. Then her womb miraculous came back after prayer, and she found out she was 6 weeks pregnant.”
Zoe you are either a liar (to make this story up) or a Fool (for believing it).
Here you go Christians, I present to you Zoe: a perfect example of how brainwashed your followers are.
So Zoe’s fellow christians, do you believe this story? And why would somebody recite this ridiculous story as fact unless they were thoroughly brainwashed?
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 8:45 AM
Seriously, brainwashed christians, as far as prayer goes, is there any evidence that prayer works?
Of course not, and to the contrary you have the largest study on the power of prayer where prayer did nothing to help people who were recovering from surgery.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/
Seriously brainwashed christians, didn’t Jesus say “If you have the faith of a mustard seed, you can say to that mountain, MOVE, and it will move.”
Well, I would give my life-savings to any one of you who could pray to have a PENCIL move. Yup, a pencil.
So you haven’t been able to pray to make a pencil move all your life, but you think that you can pray for something much bigger like getting a job.
Then when you do happen to get a job you say, “See, prayer works!”
Seriously, if you guys would take 30 seconds to think you would see how laughable this stuff is.
Utterly laughable!
David // May 10, 2009 at 8:52 AM
Of relevance is the most recent statement (yesterday) by the Pope on his visit to Jordan regarding the manipulation of the world’s two largest religions.
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Let’s break it down a little more:
Per Jesus, if you have the faith of a mustard seed, you can move mountains.
Evidence:
No one on earth has ever moved a mountain through prayer (argue this point if you want dummies)
Conclusions. So,Either
A) Prayer doesn’t work, or
B) No one on earth has the faith of a mustard seed.
So, which one is it christians? A or B?
Bush Tea // May 10, 2009 at 8:58 AM
LOL @ Rohan, ROK got me so confused that I feel like typing in his name too -ROTFL…
Man ROK, step back a minute: you must realize that you are way ahead of most of us…
…this thing started out with the suggestion that our world (the physical universe) came into existence at a point in time which MME has tagged as T=0.
..you seem to have introduced the argument that it was NOT really ‘created’ , since before the big bang, the matter that became the universe already existed -as energy.
..trust me ROK, that is semantics – around the definition of ‘create’.
…and it appears to suggest that you will only accept ‘create’ to mean to “change from absolutely NOTHING, into something….”
…Obviously Bush Tea is misinterpreting you – but it IS confusing.
WRT the God of the bible, I cannot understand how you, Rohan and Not Saved can continue to base your beliefs on arbitrary positions developed by arbitrary groups of Christians, Muslins, Hindus, and Pygmies… You really disappoint me..
For the purpose of our discussions, why can we not define a ‘CREATOR’ as those Big Boss Engineers responsible for the initiation of the big bang… and then develop our discussions around that given?
…surely it is not helpful to have the situation where in the middle of a useful exchange someone refers to some ridiculous belief of some misguided group and concludes that God must therefore be an idiot…
Is this an unreasonable proposal?
Sir Bentwood Dick // May 10, 2009 at 9:07 AM
Big Bang?….I hear’d bout a few a dem…
;-)
Sir Bentwood Dick // May 10, 2009 at 9:08 AM
BTW, usually after dem, one does thank the Almighty for what one hath gotten..!
Deng Xiaping // May 10, 2009 at 9:16 AM
MME wrote
“The Ptolemaic view of the universe was not a Christian creation, it was created by Greek pagan astronomer Ptolemy. Christians (like everyone else at the time) accepted it for a period..” .
First thanks for your reply. Now, I knew that Ptolemy was NOT Christian but that was the point. His view was supported by Christians for over 1200 years and more importantly,Galileo had hell to pay at the hands of the Roman Church for, inter alia, supporting a contrary view. As I understand it the Bible appears to support Ptolemy not Galileo.
I remain of the opinion that it was the particular situation of Europe that allowed the Enlightenment to flourish and hence science IN SPITE of the prevailing Christian dogma.
As I have mentioned previously, we cannot discount the ideas of pre-Christian thinkers like Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Aristotle which continue to underpin western thought today.
Also it should be noted there was a flowering of scholarship and scientific enquiry in the Islamic world at one time (750 – 1258). However with economic, military and social decay so did the Islamic world enter its own dark ages.
Sir Bentwood Dick // May 10, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Seen somewhere :
Consider the following: The ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic was built by professionals.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 10, 2009 at 9:42 AM
“Galileo had hell to pay at the hands of the Roman Church for, inter alia, supporting a contrary view”
————
Deng… I am sure you know that it had far more to do with the “inter alia” than “supporting a contrary view”. You are a clever debater. :-)
Micro Mock Engineer // May 10, 2009 at 9:53 AM
… the Bible does not support Ptolemy. Everyone, including Christians, at the time thought it made sense and therefore supported it. The people who read the weather news support it to this very day. LOL
That’s how science works… we subscribe to one theory until a better one comes along. Incidentally, it was Copernicus who 100 years before Galileo first formulated heliocentric cosmology.
“Ptolemy created a universe that lasted a thousand years. Copernicus created a universe that lasted four hundred years. Einstein has created a universe, and I can’t tell you how long it will last.” – George Bernard Shaw
Micro Mock Engineer // May 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Deng… do you believe that “the ideas of pre-Christian thinkers like Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Aristotle” would have taken root and flourished in non-Abrahamic religions?
Are you more comfortable with the idea that Abrahamic religions took root and flourished in a society built around “the ideas of pre-Christian thinkers like Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Aristotle”?
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 10:21 AM
BT says…
“You really disappoint me..”
—
more condescension……
thanks, appreciate it.
Deng Xiaping // May 10, 2009 at 10:38 AM
From Wikipedia:
Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that “And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place” .
Readers are encouraged to read the Wikipedia entry on Galileo particularly the section titled “Church controversy”. I find the reported comments of Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) fascinating to wit the “verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.” Further it was in 1992 (350 years after Galileo’s death) that the Roman Church officially conceded that the Earth is not stationary!!!!
It is serendipitous that I should mention Benedict at this time. In keeping with original topic of this thread, Benedict two days ago expressed respect for Islam and suggested that religion was a force for good and that Christianity and Islam could work together. However, as Muslims point out this is the same Benedict who in 2006 quoted a medieval scholar that called Islam violent and irrational. What do bloggers think?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8041421.stm
Bush Tea // May 10, 2009 at 10:46 AM
WRONG Not saved,
Honest disappointment, not condescension….. serious.
Deng Xiaping // May 10, 2009 at 10:47 AM
MME
I will not be dogmatic but I prefer your second construct re Abrahamic religions and Greek philosophers. I will admit your argument re if agreement on a starting point of the Universe thus a “starter” must be evident to be delightfully provocative.
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 10:57 AM
BT
LOL
does not matter how “honest” or “serious”, it is still condescension…
no problem, I will recover
by the way I have absolutely no idea what you were referring to, something about my beliefs and pygmies???
and MME has me having “faith” in some “position” about the big bang that I was unaware I possessed…
so I am very puzzled this sunday morning, maybe a quiet day is in order.
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 11:23 AM
LOL @ Bush Tea…
Haha, honest disapointment?
Of course you’re disappointed in the fact that we reserve the right to think for ourselves instead of sacrificing that right to a pastor, priest, or some white bearded fairy that lives somewhere in the sky.
Matter of fact, where does he live? In which Galaxy Bush Tea? Where did Jesus go when he levitated up into the sky in physical form?
I would be disapointed too if I were gullible enough to believe in something with zero evidence in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.
And yes Bush Tea, that IS condescending :-)
Anonymous // May 10, 2009 at 12:10 PM
I wrote this article about ten years ago.
Today is mothers day,and so I post it here today in honor of our women and mothers.
WOMEN ON THE BATTLE FIELD
I —: WOMEN ON THE BATTLE FIELD AS MOTHERS!!
JOCHEBED WAS PERHAPS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL OF ALL MOTHERS
Though very little is recorded about her[ Ex I, 2;1-11 ,6:20 Numbers 26 ;59 Hebrews 11;23, she gave birth to three children, each of whom became renowned in their own sphere [Numbers26:59]. Just as the mighty oak has its roots around the rock, the children of Jochebed had their roots around their godly mother.
Moses became one of the greatest national leaders and legislators the world has ever known.
Aaron became Israel’s first high priest and the founder of the aaronic priesthood. Miriam, the gifted poetess and musician, was intimately associated with her two brothers in the history of Israel.
Jochebed’s courage and trust in the act which preserved her sons life in defiance to the king’s order and its far reaching consequences secured her a place among the heroines of faith in Hebrews 11;23.Although she probably did not live to see how famous her children would become, she had lived her life as unto God, and her children lit their torches at her flame. She was the chief influence unto God in their preparation for the great tasks they were to accomplish in leading his people out of the Egyptian bondage.
IN OUR DAY –one in which ABORTION IS THE NORM ,WE LOOK BACK AT A TRUE WOMAN WHO SOUGHT TO PRESERVE THE LIFE OF HER SON —–LOOK HOW GOD BLESSED HER MEMORY BY THE EXPLOITS OF HER CHILDREN. THIS SHOULD MOTIVATE ALL WOMEN TODAY TO BE CAREFUL WITH THE CHILDREN THAT GOD PUTS UNDER THIER CARE AND INFLUENCE WHETHER AS MOTHERS, TEACHERS, SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHERS ETC GOD WANTS WOMEN TO HELP SHAPE THESE LIVES FOR HIM !!
ZERUIAH [2SAM17 25 & I CHRON 2 ;16 was the sister of David and mother of three boys—Abishai, Joab and Asahel, who are always referred to as the sons of Zeruiah. The fact that her name appears 25 times besides that of her sons is sufficient proof that she was a mother of distinction who had a marked influence over the lives of her sons AND SHOULD IMPRESS WOMEN TODAY IN AN AGE WHERE WOMEN ARE INVOLVED IN EVERY SPHERE OF LIFE EXCEPT THAT ORDAINED BY GOD -----THE GODLY INFLUENCE OF HER CHILDREN –SPECIALLY THAT OF HER SONS .
It is still true that the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world. David’s cousins were mighty warriors and military leaders in Israel.
JOCHEBED & ZERUIAH WERE CERTAINLY WOMEN ON THE BATTLEFIELD FOR THE LORD as mothers !! [AS MANY OTHERS IN THE BIBLE] WITH RESPECT TO THE PRODUCTION OF GODLY CHILDREN WHOM GOD COULD USE AS HIS SERVANTS.
The value of proper Christian training in the home is also seen in the life of Timothy who was properly prepared for God’s work by the indoctrination of the word in his heart by both his mother and grandmother.
2 WOMEN ON THE BATTLEFIELD BY THE EXALTATION OF MODESTY!!
In a day where to sell a cigarette or any mundane product there is a need for the display of the almost nude bodies of women in the most profane way there is a need for women like—-
VASHTI –THE WOMAN WHO EXALTED MODESTY
Although the story of this queen covers only a few paragraphs in the book of Esther, this woman was the real true ruler in the drunken court from which she was expelled. Here was a princess by birth married to a king who reigned from India even unto Ethiopia” over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces[ a realm far greater than that of our own country] but yet her self respect and high character meant more to her than her husband’s vast realm.
Rather than cater to the vanity and sensuality of drunkards , she courageously sacrificed a kingdom. Rather than lower the banner of womanly modesty she accepted shame and disgrace—she refused to exhibit herself even at the king’s command.
THE WHOLE WORLD NEEDS WOMEN LIKE VASHTI TODAY—WOMEN ON THE BATTLEFIELD TO PRESERVE MODESTY AND THE HIGH STANDARDS THAT GOD REQUIRES THAT THE WOMAN’S BODY SHOULD NOT BE ON DISPLAY AS THOUGH IT WERE MEAT IN A BUTCHER SHOP FOR THE GAZE OF DROOLING DRUNKING MEN FULL OF LUST—THAT WAS NOT the purpose for which GOD INTENDED the woman’s body.
3 WOMEN ON THE BATTLE FIELD AS PRAY WARRIORS !
insert notes on Hannah here !!
4 WOMEN ON THE BATTLEFIELD WHO LOVINGLY OBEYING AND SUPPORTING THEIR HUSBANDS LIKE SARAH
The life of many a Christian man has been shipwrecked, and many a Christian home wrecked because of an unloving , disobedient so called christian woman —-oh yes we know that most often the fault lies with a womanising selfish husband, but in many a so called Christian home the WOMAN IS TO BLAME !!
In 1 Peter 3;5-7 Sarah is distinguished for obedience to her husband, thereby becoming a model of wives in subjection to her husband.
Beautiful,strongwilled and determined and though losing her temper on two oscccasions she never disobeyed her husband. From the time they left Ur of the Chaldees. And so in exhorting women to be obedient Peter holds up Sarah as the model in this rerspect. All through her wanderings in desert places there ran the golden thread of a beautiful and loving submission to her husband’s interests and in this respect she is a pattern for holy women to copy. Godly men can scarce exist without Godly women —it is nigh impossible !! Sarah and Abraham were two lives fused into one as God wants it to be, with Sarah inconspicuous in sacrificial submission
As Longfellow wrote
As unto the bow the cord is
So unto the man is the woman
Though she bends him, she obeys him
Though she draws him yet she follows
Useless each without the other
This association of two Christians in secular and sacred service is best exemplified in the lives of Acquilla and Priscilla- a woman who was foremost in the service of the Lord in the early church [ Acts 18: 2, 28, 26 Romans 16: 3 etc
This couple were
ONE IN MARITAL BLISS
ONE IN THE LORD
ONE IN SECULAR OCCUPATION
ONE IN THEIR FRIENDSHIP FOR PAUL
ONE IN THEIR DEEP KNOWKLEDGE OF SCRIPTIURE
ONE IN THE SERVICE OF THE CHURCH
The lives of these couples are to be models for us.WOMEN MUST BE ON THE BATTLEFIELD SIMULTANEOUSLY SERVING WITH THEIR HUSbANDS!!
5 WOMAN ON THE BATTLEFIELD AS SERVANTS IN THE CHURCH
LOOK AT DORCAS
A Christian philanthropist, who became known for the acts of charity which she did ---she did not only think of them she did them she demonstrated that faith and love were to be acted out she understood what James meant by “ faith without works is dead” Just as God was able to use the rod in Moses ‘s hand , so was he able to the needle in Dorcas’ hand .She used her needle and she stitched for God .Dear woman of God what simple tool or implement can you put to work for God today or in the week ahead ---man may not notice you but God certainly will!!
Would you be missed from your community or workplace or church if you died today ? Would they miss you as they missed Dorcas?
LOOK AT PHOEBE
SHE WAS A SISTER i.e she knew the Lord as her Saviour
SHE WAS A SERVANT OF THE CHURCH ie not only was she a church member, she was a deaconess as the word used for servant implies…it is diakonos from which we get deacon. She was therefore a teacher of the females inquirers of faith and also active in the relief of the temporal needs of the poor among the flock, her role was the forerunner of the vast number of women who have rendered such loyal service to Christ and His Church
SHE WAS A SUCCOURER OF MANY--- this means one who stands by in case of need. It is a term describing a trainer in the olympic games who stood by the athletes to see that they were properly trained and rightly girded when they lined up for the signal.
She was the unselfish liberal helper or patroness of the saints conspicuous for her works of charity and also hospitality
Note the other christian female helpers here like Claudia,Tryphena and Tryphosa [Romans 16; 2] as well as the un-named ones mentioned in Phil 4 :3
6 WOMEN ON THE BATTLEFIELD AS SOULWINNERS!!
PUAH & SHIPHRAH[ Exodus 1:15 were the two midwives who risked their lives by disobeying the Pharoah in saving the male babies of the Hebrew women. Not only are these women the forerunner of the multitude of women who have chosen this vocation to bring children into the world and bestow suc loving care on them in early infancy but they REMIND US OF OUR TASK ON THE BATTLEFIELD OF BRINGING OTHER SPIRITUAL CHILDREN INTO THE SPHERE OF GODS SALVATION.
The other woman who comes to mind in this regard is one whom society would frown on today .But our Blessed Lord went out of the way to speak to her and she went out to tell her whole village about the saviour …the obvious change in her life was so convincing that we are told in john 4 that many believed on HIS NAME!!Of course we are talking about the Samaritan women who had five previous husbands and was currently living in sin, when the Lord met her.
CHRISTIAN WOMEN OF ALL WALKS OF LFE ARE TO BE ON THE BATTLEFIELD not only SERVING IN THE CHURCH but also in LEADING OTHERS TO CHRIST.
WOMEN ON THE BATTLEFIELD IN THEIR NATIONAL INFLUENCE!!
HULDAH [2 KINGS 22 & 2 CHRON 34 ]
Here is a woman whose standing and reputation are attested to by the fact that she as consulted rather than Jeremiah when the lost book of the law was found and that her word was accepted by all as the divinely revealed one. When Hilkiah, the priest found the lost book in the temple, Josiah the king, sent for this woman who attested to the genuineness of the scroll and then prophesied national ruin because of the people’s disobedience.
GOD NEEDS WOMEN WHO CAN INFLUENCE THE NATION OR THEIR STATE OR THEIR SURROUNDINGS BECAUSE THEy ARE KNOWN TO BE GODLY!!
A FEW NOTES ON RUTH!!1
RUTH must be to all Christians— male and female a special example- because she reminds of whence we have all come as believers as WE READ Ephesians 2 ;12 which we will read together ‘here we are told we were GODLESS CHRISTLESS AND HOPELESS
THIS GIRL IS PRESENTED TO US FIRST AS A YOUNG WIDOW robbed by death of her husband and left without material resources of support to face the e hard and bitter lot of biting poverty as many widows do when the breadwinner is taken. Though a heathen she did not seek for self pity nor manifest the grief that gripped the heart of her mother in law she seemed to have accepted the divine will and could feel that The Lord gave The Lord have taken away Blessed be the name of the lord
NEXT WE SEE HER AS A FAITHFUL DAUGHTER IN LAW
THEN AS A DETERMINED CONVERT
THEN A HUMBLE GLEANER
AND FINALLY SHE BECAME AN HONOURED MOTHER
What a story of a rise from rags to riches from poverty to plenty and she became via her union with Boaz an ancestor of David and eventually of our Lord as we read in Matthew chapter one
From Ruth’s outstanding qualities of unselfishness and loyalty we learn that such virtues are the only foundation upon which true happiness can be built. Without them abiding friendship is impossible, home ties are loose and the social structure weak
Ruth also teaches us that attractive graciousness is worth cultivating and that racial hatred and bigotry can be solved by a right relationship to him who made of one blood all nation
Zoe // May 10, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Regarding ‘…any examples of non-Abrahamic religion that posit an absolute beginning to the universe.”
Apparently not, it is significant, and not too surprising despite the common claim that creationism is religion, while evolution is sceience, that most of the world’s religions are based on evolution rather than creation. This is true not only of atheism and humanism, which are certainly religious systems rather than science, but also of the various ethnic religions such as Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and others. None of these religions involve belief in a personal Creator God.
They and all the other ethnic religions, all maintain that their religions are ’scientific’ because they harmonize so well with modern evolutionism.
In fact, the only world religions that assume a primeval special creation of all things, including that of the universe itself, are those based on the Bible, and thus, ultimately on the first chapter of the Bible, namely, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. And, even these are now mostly ‘liberalized,’ with large segments of each faith now promoting theistic evolution rather than real creation.
The real author of this vast religious complex, this world religion of Pantheistic, Polytheistic, Demonistic, Astrological, Occultistic, Humanistic evolutionism, can be none other than the one who is called in the Bible, the “god of this world” (II Cor. 4:4), the one “which deceiveth the whole world” (Rev. 12:9). The Lord Jesus Christ called him “a liar, and the father of it” (John 8:44). He is “the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan” (Rev. 20:2).
True science is fully consistent with Christian theology in general, and creationism in particular, certain modern scientists to the contrary notwithstanding. Indeed, modern science had its origin in the creationist world view of Biblical Christianity. Whereas, modern scientism, on the other hand, is based on arbitrary incorporation of eternity-to-eternity naturalism into the establishment definition of science.
The Law of Cause and Effect.
If we go back to basics in true science, probably the most universal and certain of all scientific principles, is the principle of causality, the law of ’cause’ and ‘effect.’ There is no question of its universal acceptance in the world of experimental science, as well as in ordinary personal experience.
Yes, the subtle refinements of philosophical argumentation relative to causality require such specialized educational background, that non-specialists in philosophy find them extremely tedious either to appreciate or evaluate. So, let us leave that aside, and stick to some basis scientific truth.
In ordinary daily experiences, we all know intuitively that nothing happens in isolation. Every event can be traced to one or more events which preceded it, and which, in fact, caused it. We may raise such questions about it as:
“How did this happen?” “What caused this?” “Where did this come from?” “When did it start?” Or, even more incisively, “Why did this happen?”
A scientific experiment specifically tries to relate effects to causes, in the form of quantitative equations if possible.
A good definition of a ’cause’ formulated by the great nineteenth-century apologist, C.A. Row, could hardly be improved on.
“A cause is a thing previously existing, which has not only the power to bring into existence something not previously existing, but which has actually produced it.”
The philosophy of scientific determinism has been invoked to disprove the Biblical miracles, while missing the point. The occurrence of a miracle does not contravine causality at all, but, merely invokes a higher cause, a cause quite adequate to produce the miracle.
Rather than discrediting the possibilty of the supernatural, the law of causation offers strong testimony to the existence of a personal, omnipotent God. The law leads inevitably to a choice between two alternatives: (1) an infinate chain of nonprimary causes; or (2) and uncaused primary Cause of all causes!
And the only adequate First Cause is the God of the Bible! That is, the First Cause must be infinite, eternal, and omnipotent ( as required by the effects of boundless space, endless time, and the array of various phenomena of energy and matter occurring everywhere through space and always through time.) The First Cause must also be living, conscious, volitional, and omniscient, in view of the phenomenal effects of life, consciousness, will, and intelligibility in the universe.
Similarly, the First Cause of the concept of righteousness, and the universal conviction that righteousness is ‘better’ than unrighteousness, must be a moral Cause. The First Cause of the concepts of beauty, of justice, of spirituality, of love, and other such qualities (all of which, though abstract, are nonetheless, real effects in this universe) must, by the principle of causation, be an esthetic, just, spiritual, loving Cause!
Finally, the inexorable conclusion to which we are driven by the scientific law of cause and effect, the foundational principle upon which all true science is built, and which all human experience confirms, is, that this universe was brought into existence by a great uncaused, self-existing, First Cause.
Principle of Cause and Effect.
And effect can never be greater, and, in fact, will always be less than its cause. This is a chain of effects and their causes must eventually trace back to an essential infinite First Cause.
Therefore;
The First Cause of limitless space must be infinite.
The Firstr Cause of endless time must be eternal.
The First Cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent.
The First Cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient.
The First Cause of Love must be Loving.
The First Cause of Life must be Living.
Thus, the First Cause of the Universe, must be an Infinite, Eternal, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Volitional, Holy, Loving, Living Being!
Pat // May 10, 2009 at 12:35 PM
@GP aka Anonymous and Zoe:
Long posts are not read. Try breaking them in readable chunks like NS. Thanks.
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Zoe, I think you have to post such long messages to hide the crap you post.
Anonymous, interesting post on women since it’s mother’s day, here’s what you left out:
1) God values women less than men:
Here’s a table of values as given by God to Moses:
Ages 20 years – 60 years: Male = $50; Female = $30
2) According to Leviticus 19:20-22, if a man rapes his female slave… the woman gets punished and the man’s sins are forgiven.
3) In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 it says that if a man rapes a virgin, he must marry her and also pay her father 50 shekels for humbling her.
4) 1 Samuel 18:25-27 Saul sells his daughter to David. But he didn’t want money,he wanted 100 foreskins from Philistine men.
WONDER WHAT WOMEN WOUL THINK ABOUT BEING SOLD FOR PIECES OF SEVERED PENISES?
5) 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
WOMEN CANNOT TALK IN CHURCH:
Women are to remain silent, and if they have any questions they are to ask their husbands at home after church.
***
So there you go women? This is what God thinks of you. Happy Mother’s Day.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 10, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Deng,
On Galileo… here are a few questions that might help the inquisitive to paint a fuller picture of the events which transpired at the time…
Where was Galileo housed during his Inquisition hearing?
What was he actually charged and convicted of?
Why was his sentence commuted to house arrest?
Where and with whom did he spend this initial house arrest?
What evidence did Galileo present to support heliocentrism?
Who invented the “E pur si muove” myth and why?
When was the ban on Galileo’s works lifted and by whom?
Why did Pope Urban VIII switch from one of Galileo’s biggest ‘fans’ (even acknowledging the possibility of heliocentirism) to an opponent?
By the way Deng, you do realize that basic premise of heliocentrism (like Ptolemaic cosmology) has been proven wrong? The sun is not the centre of the universe.
Deng Xiaping // May 10, 2009 at 1:05 PM
oh MME please!!!
I have NEVER written that the Sun was the centre of the universe. I did write that the “modern view: everything in motion (earth orbiting the sun etc)”!!
Zoe // May 10, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Another revelation of the Triune nature of God, who created the universe, is that the physical universe is an amazing trinity of trinities. The only adequate cause to account for this remarkable effect is, that it was created to reflect the triune nature of God who created it.
Space:
1) Identified in First Dimension.
2) Seen in Second Dimension.
3) Experienced in Third Dimension.
Existing in Tri-Universe.
Manifested in Matter.
1. Generated in Energy.
2. Seen through Motion.
3. Experienced by Phenomena.
Understood through Time.
1. Source in Future.
2. Manifested in Present.
3. Experienced in Past.
Therefore, in a most remarkable way, the universe is a tri-universe, (not three universes’), but, the universe as a whole is a space-matter (or energy)-time continuum. Space is length, breadth, and depth, a trinity of aspects. Time is future, present, and past, a trinity of time. And matter, in the broadest sense, is cause, event, and consequence, or (energy, motion, and phenomenom).
Throughout the universe we see this recurring relationship of source, manifestation, and meaning. The relationships are so basic and obvious, that we find it difficult to even wonder about them. They seem axiomatic, part of the necessary structure of things, that are almost too ‘clearly seen.’
There must be a cause for every effect, and the physical universe has somehow been caused to be a magnificant trinity of trinities! Certainly, a highly adequate and appropriate Cause for such a remarkable effect, would be that its Creator designed it in His own likeness!
Thus, the basic laws of nature, and the triune dimensionality of natural processes, rather than discrediting God and His primeval creation, emphatically witness to the fact of creation and the nature of the Creator, wonderfully, and marvelously reflected in His Creation!
Deng Xiaping // May 10, 2009 at 1:09 PM
It is to be noted that the Roman church has only officially accepted the idea that the earth is not stationary since 1992!
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Deng, 1992 is when the Pope came out and apologized for what they did to Galileo.
What a joke. I mean, seriously….
Deng Xiaping // May 10, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Rohan note that according to Benedict (in 1990 when known as Cardinal Ratzinger) he said that the “verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.”
Straight talk // May 10, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Zoe;
Another rather twee example of your creator’s omniscience.
Trinity of trinities eh! … perfectly designed dimensions in his own image except physicists are already working assuming eleven dimensions as they attempt to match Feynman’s accepted formula to predict QED with the reason why it is so.
A mistake by the Master of the Universe, surely not.
More likely yet another fairy story disproved by knowledge.
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Deng,
yeah, I just saw that. Then On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.
***
I mean, this would be downright hilarious if the Catholic church, and the child abusing imbeciles than ran it weren’t so powerful.
They had to conduct a study to figure out that the sun was not the center of the universe…after the rest of the world has known this for centuries…
There’s religion for ya!
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Next up, the Catholic church will conduct a study to determine why things fall to the ground when we drop them.
Maybe it will take them another 100 years to recognize that gravity isn’t caused by God’s angels flapping their wings.
Georgie Porgie // May 10, 2009 at 1:39 PM
@ Pat
I am neither Zoe or Anonymous. Thank you.
Hopi // May 10, 2009 at 1:58 PM
And if I should quote Massey, this is exactly how Hopi’s foreword would go:
“Your science grasps with its transforming hand;
Makes real half the tales of fairy land;
It turns the deathliest fetor to perfume
It gives decay new life and rosy bloom
It changes filthy rags to virgin white
Makes pure in spirit what was foul to sight.”
And I’d guarantee you that ROK’s theory would sell more books than Grenville’s, who decided that on seeing the death of over K3000 beings in NYC on that fateful day, decided that instead of looking right in his bible or the talmud, he got on the bandwagon and followed the BIG lie that the Muslims did it, when the bloodhound trail actually led right back to his bible and their talmud. Those who are responsible for all the wars, bloodshed, starvation, disease and suffering on this planet.Dishonest, dishonest. Seems to be a”moral” christian trait.
To all mothers and those who are contemplating motherhood of the BU family, Hotep!
Bonny Peppa, how you doing? Pat,JC,J and (Staright Talk…not sure if I should include you there, but with you being worried about keeping your powder dry, just thought I should give you a shout out too).
And to all mothers don’t let your children grow up to be christian. That’s child abuse!
And to all you here jiving about Plato and Pythagoreas and all the other “great” Greeks, just remember that they studied at the feet of the greatest of the great i.e. the Black Ones! The Original Ones!
Amun Ra!
BTW…..The Pope is and has always been a two-faced LIAR.
Bush Tea // May 10, 2009 at 2:04 PM
@ Rohan,
Wait skipper!! you in a very acid mood today!! … man ease up off the pope and his followers nuh…. cuh dear….
….with respect to my condescending attitude, I guess that we will have to go with how it was taken…. and so I apologize to you and Not Saved (me and ROK good .LOL)
…but Rohan, when you finish rapping all those various Christians, church goers etc and when you have scorned and laughed at their beliefs (somewhat like the Bushman does) we still will not have made much headway in determining what REALLY is the truth out there… nor would we have established what it is that these misguided souls (your’s and Bushman’s opinion) should REALLY be believing and following.
Do we not owe it to ourselves -and to the misguided souls to explore this?
(..as I said previously, Bushman does not care if others believe or not, just wondering if you feel that we have a duty to explore what REALLY is truth?…or if you are contented to just criticize the attempts of others to find truth…)
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Bush,
Good questions.
I do believe that we have a duty to explore the truth and this extends to pointing out where that truth is NOT found. Trust me, it’s not in the bible.
A) Truth in the bible: Slavery is a good thing.
The Truth: It’s an immoral act.
B) Truth in the bible: Rape is okay.
The Truth: It’s an immoral act.
I didn’t rely on the bible to tell me those things were wrong because it the bible advocated those things.
So, the quest for truth starts with letting go of dogmatic crap and thinking for yourself.
***
As for “criticizing others attempts to find truth”, I do no such thing. I want you to find truth, I’m just saying you need to stop looking in a book that is obviously full of lies.
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Oh and Bush Tea, I’m always acid when it comes to religion. It’s not personal…but I can’t think of an institution that has caused more harm in the world.
Article on today’s cnn:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/10/saudi.court.wife.slapping/index.html
Did you not see those things I posted above about God’s take on women?
I have a mother and sisters.
If those things don’t get you “acid” then I don’t know what to say.
Bush Tea // May 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Excuse me Rohan, should you not be at lunch with your mother now? … naughty!!!
….I cannot seem to get through to you. FORGET THE BIBLE!!
FORGET THE MISGUIDED!!
..you said-
“…we have a duty to explore the truth and this extends to pointing out where that truth is NOT found.”
LOL Rohan, this is the most inefficient way to find anything (imagine trying to find New York by checking all the other cities and demonstrating that they are NOT NY!! ROTFL…
My proposal is that we start with what we can agree.
…we then use our collective minds (and MME as our research assistant) to map out a route to the most logical ‘truth’.
We take nothing for granted and we do not even speak about any existing religions…
We should be able to come up with a version of the ‘truth’ that is at least logical, consistent and possible – since we can see all the weaknesses of existing dogma…
…you game?
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 3:59 PM
I’m game…and good point on NYC haha I’ll give you that.
ROK // May 10, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Hopi!
“And I’d guarantee you that ROK’s theory would sell more books than Grenville’s…”
You setting me up or what? LOL! Something like that would take all of us to put together. It is a lot of work and research and would probably take about four years. We may be able to do it in 2 yrs, especially if we decide to write a “trilogy”. The first one would finish in about two years and the other two would come out a year after each other. Still four years.
We don’t have that time. Maybe we should do a handbook… Or release a chapter at a time. Jahwe will get us. You ready for a life in the underground?
ROK // May 10, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Deng
“Now, I knew that Ptolemy was NOT Christian but that was the point. His view was supported by Christians for over 1200 years and more importantly,Galileo had hell to pay at the hands of the Roman Church for, inter alia, supporting a contrary view.”
You have demonstrated the very point I was trying to explain to BT. I have difficulty ascribing credit to religion and especially Christianity, for any advances in knowledge.
Religion is just not designed for that. It is inflexible. Laying down law and dogma to explain everything holistically and therefore has no room for doubt, only belief. So when advances in science starts to explain things differently, they have been known to have met hostility and sneering from the Church.
Like the Pope, religion will hang onto its dogma until the time comes that to hang on becomes ridiculous; to its discredit. Of course the Church “cannot” be discredited because the mad house would start to fill up.
Yet with all this, some christians here would want to claim how much christianity did for modern technology and would try to own it. Same way they take over the vocabulary.
Christianity is a total deception.
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 5:19 PM
@BT,
Thanks man, we good, not that we were ever not good.
Zoe // May 10, 2009 at 5:59 PM
We now got a trilogy of competent ‘Pinheads’ here on BU, about to attempt re-writing the established, fundamental laws of Logic, good, sound scientific principles, and solid, objective, cogent, congruent premises, on which the Historic, Biblical revelation of Creation is based, and cannot be refuted, denied, yes, but not refuted!!!
Trying to forget the Bible, is like trying to forget that we need oxygen to breath and live; that’s expressly why you all, are gasping for air in your spirits, as you are spiritually dead!
The reservoirs of power in the Created universe are so vast as to be completely incomprehensible in their fullness.
Back to basics in good science, not the freewheeling fantasy of pseudo-science as expounded by evolutionary atheistic scientists, who believe in a one-end stick!
The two great principles of ‘Thermodynamics’ which describe the basic ways physical power in the universe is manifested, and these very two all-embracing laws of science affirm that none of this power in now coming into existence, even though its form is continually changing and is, in fact, continually being degraded into less useful and available forms.
The principles of conservation and decay are common to everyday experience, and likewise substantiated by the most precise scientific measurements.
The universe is therefore, gradually becoming more and more disordered as its entropy inexorably increases, which is supported by what the Bible indicates will happen as a result of ‘SIN’ which brought a curse upon it from its Creator, both to the natural order, and specifically on mankind.
Implications of the Two Laws of Thermodynamics, Governing All Natural Processes.
The first law of thermodynamics, states (in accordance with Genesis 2: 1-3) that none of the tremendous energy (or “power”) of the universe is now being created, so that the universe could NOT have created itself.
The second law (in accordance with Rom 8:20-22, as well as Genesis 3: 17-19) states that the available energy of the universe is decreasing, indicating that sometime in the past all the energy (including matter) was available and perfectly organized, like a clock that had just been wound up. This shows that the universe must have been created, even though it could not create itself.
These two laws point inexorably back to Genesis 1:1. whether you like it, or lump it, it remains true, for that is good science!
The beginning of the universe was outside of ‘time’ and its possible renewal must likewise be outside of time. It cannot be “temporal” power. It is therefore, Eternal power. And all of these “things that are made” continually give witness to Almighty God’s Eternal Power, exactly as the Scripture, God’s Word, the Bible state.
Every process the scientist studies and every system designed by the technologist continually bear witness that the ultimate power source driving the process or the system comes from the Creator of power, the Omnipotent One!!!
ROK // May 10, 2009 at 6:41 PM
Democracy is great. It allows you to have diarrhea in public.
Bush Tea // May 10, 2009 at 7:28 PM
@ Zoe
****************************************
We now got a trilogy of competent ‘Pinheads’ here on BU, about to attempt re-writing the established, fundamental laws of Logic, good, sound scientific principles, and solid, objective, cogent, congruent premises, on which the Historic, Biblical revelation of Creation is based, and cannot be refuted, denied, yes, but not refuted!!!
*************************************
Cheese on bread!! Man just tek it easy nuh!! Why Christians have to be so easily offended?
…you mean to say that you upset now because three pinheads trying to conduct an independent search for the truth? What are you worried about? You want to make it four pinheads? LOL
….you are welcome to join in – BUT WITH BRIEF INTERJECTIONS – those long scholastic essays of yours are to high for lowly pinheads LOL.
Straight talk // May 10, 2009 at 7:30 PM
ZOE:
You are so(le) well versed in God’s perfect world, please explain to we more sceptical mortals why the world is so f#cked up by the interpretation of his agenda.
Should he not be yelling to his converts *Whoa, this is not what I had mapped out for you”.
I really wanted the watered down Bush Tea version; you know like pretty-pretty potential may lead to actual experience if enough intellectual vigour is supplied thus leading to enlightenment.
Your two weeks of argument leaves me underwhelmed.
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 7:42 PM
MME,
I know you have many intelligent people including very clever scientists on your “side”.
But then again, you also have Zoe……
LOL
Bush Tea // May 10, 2009 at 7:52 PM
OK Rohan.
I propose that as a first step we establish some common ground. (emphasis on common – so we do NOT need to argue LOL)
Based on the significant occurrences of interdependencies of species, commonality of basic design, and pure complexity of of the design, are you prepared to accept that some superhuman entity would VERY LIKELY have been responsible for the ‘creation’ of the universe as we know it?
…if not, where are you willing to start in explaining the reality of our universe?
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Bush, interdependencies, commonality,and complexity are all perfectly explained by a natural phenomenon that has been tested for, documented, and confirmed.
There is no need to insert superhuman explanations for things we can explain scientifically.
For a starting place, what about this?
1) There are 100’s of Gods in existence
2) These Gods align closely with the cultures that worship them
3) there are diverse creation stories
Based on this (and given that only of these Gods could be the true one) are you prepared to accept that there are hundreds of Gods out there that VERY LIKELY have been created by man’s imagination?
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 8:41 PM
@BT,
It is much more reasonable to say it is very likely the big bang (an effect) has a cause (outside the space/time ‘created’ by big bang) as I believe MME does, than to postulate a creator because of the complexity of the world today.
The development of this complexity from simple origins is relatively quite well understood.
We dont need a creator to explain complexity and as I have been tirelessly saying before using a creator to explain complexity is not much of an explanation at all.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 10, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Hopi… excellent foreword. Your choice of poets is most appropriate. You like you should be writing the book yuh.
“With labors infinite your Science seeks,
Footing on inaccessible cloud peaks.
Yet must the climbers know that there are things,
Only attainable at last with wings.”
:-)
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 9:17 PM
To clarify,
what I am saying is that complexity in of itself is not evidence of creation.
it is better to search for a god to “explain the reality of our universe” at the origin.
If there is no god there, the rest follows naturally. No god is needed after.
If there is a god there, you still have a theological question as to what role it plays in the natural processes that follow.
A god at the origin may be a philosophical question rather than a scientific one (lack of the existence of evidence and the fact that science concerns itself with our space/time) but it is a valid question nevertheless.
As I said before (at risk again of admonishment from MME) it is still a long long road, billions of years and billions of miles from a god or ‘prime mover’ at the origin, to a jewish apocalyptic preacher or for that matter a cave dwelling illiterate in the desert or a con-man from ohio.
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 9:20 PM
It is the claims of the latter three (and others of their ilk), irrespective of the answer(s) to the former philosophical question, that for me anyway, have no basis in truth whatsoever.
Technician // May 10, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Straight talk // May 10, 2009 at 7:30 pm
ZOE:
You are so(le) well versed in God’s perfect world, please explain to we more sceptical mortals why the world is so f#cked up by the interpretation of his agenda.
As only a straight talker can ask…..cant wait for the reply.
Bush Tea // May 10, 2009 at 9:24 PM
You both sound like intelligent people (not that Bush tea can hear all that well… LOL) and you probably understand the laws of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy.
You guys know full well that the tendency in nature is from order to disorder. I suspect that you are therefore being deliberately disruptive by your casual suggestion that, to quote NT, …”The development of this complexity from simple origins is relatively quite well understood.”
Is IT? by whom? Where in real life (apart from evolutionary theory) do you see such a principle of order naturally evolving from disorder?
…I suppose that, based on your logic, if we waited long enough, we could at some point expect a ball of Sh## to evolve into a man?
If you guys are not serious about this project we can quit at any time, but please- let us be honest.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 10, 2009 at 9:27 PM
LOL Not Saved… you don’t always get to choose your team… sometimes you just gotta play your best game with the team you got.
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 9:28 PM
@BT,
You wrote:
“You guys know full well that the tendency in nature is from order to disorder.”
——-
In a closed system, BT, the second law relates to a closed system.
Micro Mock Engineer // May 10, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Not Saved… is the universe a closed or open system?
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 9:40 PM
@BT,
You wrote:
“…if not, where are you willing to start in explaining the reality of our universe?”
—-
I took you up on the “if not” and responded where I was “willing to start”
But then you threw the toys out of the pram and told me that I am “deliberately disruptive” and “not serious”
????
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 9:42 PM
MME,
Good question !
More relevant to the evolutionary models of the universe is the fact that there are no truly closed (ie isolated ) systems within the universe
Zoe // May 10, 2009 at 9:42 PM
The two universal laws of thermodynamics, yield exactly the same conclusion stated in Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.”
A fact of science, that the evolutionary atheist cannot get around, plain and simple!
The first law states, in effect, that the universe could NOT have created itself. The second law states, in effect, that it must have been created, or else, it would already have completely disintegrated. The Arrow of Time points downward and, if these present laws continue to operate, the universe will eventually “die” with the sun and all its reservoirs of useful energy completely depleted.
By the evolutionary presupposition, there is no external agent available to rejuvenate it. It is a closed system, operating all by itself. But, by the second law, a closed system must proceed toward disintegration; it CANNOT organize itself into higher levels. Therefore, the two most certain laws of science flatly and explicitly contradict the evolutionary cosmogony.
The only way the evolutionary cosmogony could be valid, would be at some time or place where the laws of science were not valid.
The cosmos is a continuum of space and time, and the laws of thermodynamics apply to all systems of mass and energy that have ever been observed and measured in space and time, with no known exceptions.
Of course, these haters of God, and His Created universe, will go to any extent in sheer metaphysical speculation, in order to continue denying the application of sound science, which points emphatically to the special creation of the cosmos; whereas, an evolutionary cosmogony can be held only at the cost of repudiating true science, which they are not too found of engaging!
Trinidad. Adventist. Gay?! // May 10, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Islam is 900 years younger than Christianity as far as I can remember.
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 9:50 PM
In any case the big bang model has the universe starting with zero entropy and and highly ordered and becoming more disordered and entropy increasing over time.
The evolution of the universe is not inconsistent with a movement from “order to disorder”
It (the model) is consistent with the second law and it being a closed system.
But you knew this anyway, Im sure.
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Zoe wrote:
“it CANNOT organize itself into higher levels. ”
—-
and it has not done so either.
the universe is more disordered now that it was at the origin
Bush Tea // May 10, 2009 at 9:54 PM
@NS
you said”
*************************************
To clarify,
what I am saying is that complexity in of itself is not evidence of creation.
it is better to search for a god to “explain the reality of our universe” at the origin.
*************************************
Gentlemen, based on known natural laws, complexity should naturally result from the entropy of higher complexity.
As MME suggested then, it would seem to have required the intervention of some unnatural force at some stage to initiate the original level of complexity so that the effects of entropy after T=0 could proceed according to the known laws of nature.
…this does not support your assertions
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 9:58 PM
@BT
“Gentlemen, based on known natural laws, complexity should naturally result from the entropy of higher complexity.”
—-
Only in a closed system. The universe is less complex now than at the origin.
The earth is more ordered but is not a closed system.
++++++++++
“As MME suggested then, it would seem to have required the intervention of some unnatural force at some stage to initiate the original level of complexity so that the effects of entropy after T=0 could proceed according to the known laws of nature.”
—-
This is not inconsistent with any of my assertions
————
Bush Tea // May 10, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Strong point Zoe, ….brief too. THANKS.
What happen Not Saved?
….don’t be so sensitive. This is likely to be a robust exchange. Surely you expect to be challenged vigorously? LOL
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Bush Tea, I know that christians have a way of ignoring points that are uncomfortable. I wouldn’t want to accuse you of that though, so I thought I would re-post this, thanks.
****
For a starting place, what about this?
1) There are 100’s of Gods in existence
2) These Gods align closely with the cultures that worship them
3) There are diverse creation stories
Based on this (and given that only One of these Gods could be the true one) are you prepared to accept that there are hundreds of Gods out there that VERY LIKELY have been created by man’s imagination?
Zoe // May 10, 2009 at 10:04 PM
@ Technician, the most empirically varifiable fact of ‘SIN’ as God’s Word the Bible is constantly dealing with, from Genesis to Revelation, IS the REASON we as a human race are so terribly MESSED UP!
No other religious document speak to this utter reality as does the Bible! Interesting, isn’t it! Yet, it is suppose to be a fable, and a pack of lies; my, my, what amazing Truth is found in these lies!!
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 10:13 PM
@BT,
Let me see if I can make it more clear:
At the origin of the universe, it is highly ordered, with zero entropy
Over time it moves from order to disorder becoming more and more disordered. Entropy is increasing.
It will keep getting more disordered until “equilibrium” and entropy will stop increasing (but it will never decrease)
This is consistent with the second law, the universe is treated as a closed system.
If entropy decreased (more order) that would violate the second law
+++
Now on earth, a different matter.
We are a ultra ultra tiny part of the universe, next to a star.
Here life evolved.
Why does this not violate the second law? because the earth is NOT a closed system.
The second law applies to closed systems only.
Why did formation of the earth not violate the second law, again simple, the earth is not isolated from its environment (gravity, energy etc)
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 10:15 PM
@Zoe,
Then your god is a capricious god.
Bush Tea // May 10, 2009 at 10:35 PM
@ Rohan
I did ignore those points indeed Rohan. I was trying to be decent.
We are starting at the point of the earth coming into existence. At the point of the big bang or equivalent event….
..pray tell how various beliefs of different subsequent cultures of human beings can be relevant in this quest?
Not only am I “prepared to accept that there are hundreds of Gods out there that VERY LIKELY have been created by man’s imagination?”
I fully concur!
But it is not relevant to the current quest.
@Not Saved
We can debate if the universe is an open or closed system. If you wish to argue that it is open then you are agreeing that there exists an extra- material reality that is capable of interacting with our universe.
What in your opinion is that reality?
If you agree that the universe is a closed system then your evolution theory goes up in smoke….
Which?
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 10:39 PM
BushTea wrote:
“I suppose that, based on your logic, if we waited long enough, we could at some point expect a ball of Sh## to evolve into a man?
***
Bush Tea,
Let’s be honest? You’re regurgitating, unintelligent arguments that are long-held creationist hogwash.
“The second law states that in any thermodynamic process that proceeds from one state of equilibrium to another, the entropy of the system, plus its environment, remains unchanged or increases.”
“Entropy may decrease on Earth as long as its environment,WHICH INCLUDES THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE, increases by an equal or greater amount. This happens all the time! When a seed sprouts, its entropy is reduced at the expense of the increasing entropy of its environment. None of this violates the second law of thermodynamics!”
****
Then you end your little rant with “If you guys are not serious about this project we can quit at any time, but please- let us be honest.”
So, unless we buy your weak, and totally inaccurate arguments, we can’t be serious about the project.
Bush Tea, we’re not fools. You’re not going to get any lazy arguments past us.
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Bush Tea,
First you say:
We are starting at the point of the earth coming into existence. At the point of the big bang or equivalent event!
Then you go on to say in the same post:
If you agree that the universe is a closed system then your evolution theory goes up in smoke.
****
Note to Bush Tea: Evolution has NOTHING to do with the start of universe.
Also, please re-read Not Saved’s post on closed vs Open systems. You either totally mis-read what he said, or totally dismissed it.
Let me try to help:
1) THE UNIVERSE IS A CLOSED SYSTEM
2) EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. Obviously.
You should be able to deduce the rest from there and see the obvious failings of your argument.
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 10:53 PM
@BT,
“If you wish to argue that it is open…….”
“If you agree that the universe is a closed system then your evolution theory goes up in smoke….”
———
I suspect you have not read all of my posts, they were delayed.
I did not argue the universe was open. In the big bang model the universe is closed .
No, this does not make evolutionary theory “go up in smoke”
The earth is not a closed system.
In fact within the universe its pretty hard to find a truly isolated (closed) system.
Evolutionary theory does not violate the second law. It would have no place in science if it did.
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 10:58 PM
MME,
Where are you?
Micro Mock Engineer // May 10, 2009 at 11:04 PM
here Not Saved…
… just blown away by the fact that BT appears to have found common ground between you, Rohan, Zoe and himself.
All of you believe that the universe is a closed system.
… not saying I disagree with you, but out of interest, what evidence are you using to support his?
Micro Mock Engineer // May 10, 2009 at 11:05 PM
… that should have been “… to support this?”
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 11:10 PM
I think the evidence is consistent with the big bang model rather than directly supporting.
Would you concur?
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 11:11 PM
common ground?
we do?
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 11:13 PM
well i suppose you could say on the universe being closed but we seem to diverge from there
LOL
Bush Tea // May 10, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Sounds pretty Rohan, but let us analyze exactly what you are saying.
Entropy is a measure of spent energy… (somewhat like a machine, where every time you perform a function, say you get 90% energy conversion – loosing 10% in the process)
Basically the law says that it is impossible to have a perpetual machine unless energy is injected from external sources.
…so are you saying that evolution occurred on earth with successive system changes becoming increasingly complex and with reduced entropy? ….and that this was compensated for by appropriate degradation somewhere else in the universe?
ROTFLMAO..
…far fetched Rohan, FAARRRRR
You said”So, unless we buy your weak, and totally inaccurate arguments, we can’t be serious about the project”
What is this weak inaccurate argument? that EVERYTHING else that we can observe around us suggest that far from evolve to more advanced states, things naturally tend to DEGRADE towards chaos?
That evolution is therefore diametrically opposite to natural entropy?
Think on these things over a good night’s sleep fellows and see if a clearer picture does not present itself to you tomorrow…..
….hasta manana
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 11:25 PM
@BT,
“…so are you saying that evolution occurred on earth with successive system changes becoming increasingly complex and with reduced entropy? ….and that this was compensated for by appropriate degradation somewhere else in the universe?
ROTFLMAO..”
—-
This is basic science.
MME please help BT.
Rohan // May 10, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Bush Tea,
Again, you are regurgitation, old, worn, creationist arguments. You said you wanted to discuss the beginning of the universe, yet all you do is discuss evolution…two things that have NOTHING to do with each other.
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Maybe BT will trust a wiki entry:
” Evidence indicates that biological systems and evolution of those systems conform to the second law, since although biological systems may become more ordered, the net change in entropy for the entire universe is still positive as a result of evolution.[16] Additionally, the process of natural selection responsible for such local increase in order may be mathematically derived from the expression of the second law equation for non-equilibrium connected open systems,[17] arguably making the Theory of Evolution itself an expression of the Second Law.”
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 11:33 PM
The wiki continued…
“Furthermore, the second law is only true of closed systems. It is easy to decrease entropy, with an energy source.”
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 11:35 PM
From talk origins..
“However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?”
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 11:44 PM
David, I am stuck again
Not Saved // May 10, 2009 at 11:46 PM
BT writes:
“EVERYTHING else that we can observe around us suggest that far from evolve to more advanced states”
—–
everything?
really?
see my earlier posts.
hurricane anyone?
(hint, earth is not a closed system)
rohan // May 11, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Not Saved, You summed it up well with this one phrase:
“This is basic science.”
From another WiKI:
Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[15][16]
The following quotation from H. J. Muller, “One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough” explains the point.
There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[3]
The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:
Scientists most often use the word “fact” to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact.
Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong