NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Completely Off-Topic => Topic started by: Gently realistic on June 02, 2003, 01:24:29 pm
-
Odd question, maybe...... I just that I honestly couldn't come up with anything. Need to buy me some inspiration.
-
Nicky?
-
Yes. People should believe something. Its healthy. Not saying they should believe in God or gods. But they should believe something about life and death.
---Andrew
-
....hey!
-
Did I miss you?
:(
-
Hey. How are you?
I really havent been able to reply to your e-mail. Im not really all there..you know. I will eventually. : P
-
to a certain degree yes, going extreme....no.
-
Good, your still here.... *smiles* I must say, It's good to see you alive again... What's not all there
-
You know me and how it goes. I take everything slowly. What I mean is, that Im not really all there. I read it all. You are so sweet: )
You just wait, heh. Ill try to reply tonight, just got home from the eye doctor thingy. I feel sick.
-
...had a fun day. Good twists. I thought I had discovered a revolutionary fact: AIM Express... I should have known about this earlier. So, here's me, getting everything sorted out, and at the moment supreme; it won't eat my damn password. The cruelty...
-
eye doctor? I'm all eye.. ears :)
-
BRB
-
religious?
nah ;)
-
*plucks hair, sits calmly*
Lime and Andrew... I agree belief is a thing aboslutely unmissable... I'm just not the person for Christianity. Was curious about your thoughts... thanks....
-
I suppose you can believe in the antichrist :wink:
-
And the good thing is, today's prime antichrist, as chosen by the American people, has something to say...
-
which is Marilyn Manson...... sorry for dragging this thing up:)
-
people should believe whatever they want
as long as they ain't bugging me about it
Hey, Nicky, alles goed met jou?
Waar is de rest van je naam?
;)
-
Everone's etitled to their own opinion. When it comes down to it, your Religion is the most important thing in your life, because . . . after death, what happens? You don't get a new job or start raising a family at this point, so whatever happens to you after deah depends on what you believed while you were alive. I think. Something like that.
-
Hey Si!! De rest wilden ze niet hebben :) was te lang.... lang niet gezien!
Of course, what happens after death? You know, it doesn't really make sense that self-consious beings like us end up in heaven, because they have had the opportunity to think about it, even create theories and religions... while a dog, obliviously, dies... I want to be a dog.
-
I think . . . I think (WOW! She thinks!) I think it's okay to believe whatever you want, as long as you're not so "Wahoduh this is THE Religion." You know, I'm not gonna go up to someone and say "Hey! I'm a Catholic, and you're a Jew! You should be shot for being a Jew," because, well . . . one, it's not right, and two, although the Catholic Church believes that It is The Church, it's just not humane to do that sort of thing. Yeah, that's what I think. You don't have to be so showy about it. It's one thing to be proud of what you believe in, but . . . right.
-
You know, it's all about being tolerant... Like you are. They should teach it at school nowadays..
-
Of course, what happens after death? You know, it doesn't really make sense that self-consious beings like us end up in heaven, because they have had the opportunity to think about it, even create theories and religions... while a dog, obliviously, dies... I want to be a dog.
I believe all animals and humans (who have believed what's right according to (in my opinion) God, (in others' opinions), whoever) go to heaven.
Shit! I should havepaid attention in Religion. Hold on, let me find my notes . . .
-
I believe everyone has the same chances...
-
The only way I can reply is with something to do with Catholicism and said I didn't like when people are like "Wahooduh-luhbigly" about their Religion, and I'd be telling you what to believe, and I shouldn't.
-
The only way I can reply is with something to do with Catholicism and said I didn't like when people are like "Wahooduh-luhbigly" about their Religion, and I'd be telling you what to believe, and I shouldn't.
Bah, that's not true. It's a public forum, it's on topic for the thread. You're not intruding on anyone else's beliefs by stating your own. Go nuts :)
-Kev
-
Though I have my doubts about organized religion
I personally find it hard to imagine not believing in any sort of higher power or not believing in anything at all.
-
I personally find it hard to imagine not believing in any sort of higher power or not believing in anything at all.
I don't. I find it pretty easy.
-
I believe in god...not jesus. I'm jewish yet I don't follow all the jewish beliefs. I.E. the kosher thing. Nope, that just doesn't work for me. And no meat and milk....a cheese burger....nope, that doesn't work with me either. And I don't celebrate all the holidays due to the fact that my school is like a 1 in 50 kids jew rate.I don't believe in going to temple(mommy makes me go sometimes), but I feel as though you are just as close to god praying to him in your room then there.
-
Alright.
I believe in both Jesus and God, and I believe that it's possible God is God and I believe in the story of Adam and Eve (regardless if it's Scientifically impossible). And I believe that, as a Catholic, I'm supposed to go to Mass every Sunday, and it's true, I'm not gonn follow everything exactly like it says, but just because I do one wrong thing doesn't mean you should come up to me and say "Hey, I though you were Catholic. Catholics aren't supposed to be bad." I also believe that calling me Christian is like calling me a Jew. We believe a few of the same things and POOF! We're one. I don't get it. ALSO, I am a Catholic for the Democratic party, but that DOES NOT mean I'm pro-choice. It's pro-life, people. Not all of us will think the same. And if I see one more damn thing on the Catholic Priest Sex-Abuse Scandal, or hear one more thing about it, I, personally, will shoot you or whomever said it.
That's it for, now. I think.
-
sure but not like obsessed religous people who only think of the religion and never stop thinking about it.all gose around the religion to those obsessed ppl and everything more than normal is bad.
-
I believe in the story of Adam and Eve (regardless if it's Scientifically impossible)
It isn't. The biblical creationist's scientific justifications for the account of Adam and Eve have been around, unfelled, for a long time. It's just not presented in schools as an alternative to the naturalistic belief that mankind evolved from ape-like creatures (For which, ironically, a case can be made for scientific impossibility)
-Kev
-
Ah ha! Here we are. Good old fasion creationism vs evolution.
Kev, I would be VERY interested in hearing the scientific justification for Adam and Eve because everything I have studied says its a genetic impossibility. BECAUSE we wouldn't have all of the near infinit variety in our genetic makeup if we all came from only two original humans. Essentially we would just continually reinforce recessive genes and double up on dominant genes and most of us would all look the same, and there would be horrible genetic flaws in mankind because we wouldn't have had the genetic diversity that allowed mankind to survive dramatic changes in the world.
Besides, the bible says that Adam and Even only had two sons. The random "women" just magically appear with no explanation. So thats a major flaw in the idea. Always pissed me off too.
Plus, If I remember correctly, the time line doesn't work out. They couldn't have had as many kids as would have been neccesary in the amount of time humans have existed AND have created as many drastic changes as we see in mankind. Especially if you believe the bibles timeline. I dont remember the full argument here, but I know it was based on examining the differences between caucasians, african's, ahrabs and asians and saying they could not all be from the same two people. I might have my facts wrong on this one, but thats the premise as I remember it.
Also, I have never heard strong evidence to indicate that evolution (or mans evolution from apes) is a scientific impossibility. I have studied up on evolution EXTENSIVELY.
We are missing STEPS in evolution. BIG steps. But there are a LOT of possible explanations for this. And the theory of evolution, atleast on a smaller scale, is not only well studied but its been DEMONSTRATED. So we KNOW animals evolve. The only thing we aren't 100% sure of is if animals can evolve to entirely different species.
So go ahead and present the arguments. Even if you dont know all the details, id be interested in hearing the premise because i've never heard a strong scientifically feasible creationist view.
---Andrew
I believe in the story of Adam and Eve (regardless if it's Scientifically impossible)
It isn't. The biblical creationist's scientific justifications for the account of Adam and Eve have been around, unfelled, for a long. It's just not presented in schools as an alternative to the naturalistic belief that mankind evolved from ape-like creatures (For which, ironically, a case can be made for scientific impossibility)
-Kev
-
but I feel as though you are just as close to god praying to him in your room then there.
Thats sound thinking for a 14 year old. It's amazing that organized religion hasn't picked up on this notion yet.....
...Oh wait. That would put them out of business wouldn't it? :wink:
---Amdrew
-
I'm not gonn follow everything exactly like it says, but just because I do one wrong thing doesn't mean you should come up to me and say "Hey, I though you were Catholic. Catholics aren't supposed to be bad."
You know, i find it ammusing when people say " i am such and such religion EXCEPT I dont believe blah". Because if you disagree with just ONE part of a religion, then you CEASE to be a part of that religion.
Organized Religion is an all or nothing proposition. If the pope says "you cannot use condoms" and you believe that its OK to use condoms, then you are NOT Catholic. Regardless of what you call yourself. Because a Catholic believes that condoms go against the will of God.
And the reason this works this way, is because the pope, scripture and tradition DEFINE exactly what a Catholic IS. And if they redefine it, and you dont match it, then you CEASE to be Catholic.
Most organized religions work this way. One of the exceptions being "Christianity" which accepts anyone who follows Christ REGARDLESS of the details. The Marrionist sects are the same way. As long as you are Christian and revere Marry then you can be a part.
---Andrew
-
-
Andrew, I wasn't talking about protected sex, or anything like that. I'm talking about lying, or using God's Name in vain. Stuff like that, venial sins, methinks. Stuff I do without thinking
AND what I meant by that paragraph is if I kick someone, people are like "Oh, damn! Wht'd you just do?! You're Catholic."
-
My father is a minister and he always says, "try not to be religious, believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved. You can be religious and not be a Christian and will go striaght to hell." I know this is deep for bunch so I will go away. I always try to avoid topics of politics,religion,etc.... No matter what, we always offend someone.
I know it sounds odd but I believe it's the truth.
Works don't get ya to heaven, the Grace of God does. :wink:
-
"try not to be religious, believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved. You can be religious and not be a Christian and will go striaght to hell."
No offense to your Dad or anything, but how does he know that you'll go to hell? And why wouldn't he want you to be religious?
That's something I don't get. People are always saying obey the ten commandments, I'm a Christian, I don't believe I need to be religious and go to Mass every Sunday, but . . .
Catholic : Thou shalt keep thy Sabbath Day holy.
Protestant: Thou shalt keep thy Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Hebrew : Thou shalt kep thy Sabbath Day holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
All I'm saying is three of the most catholic religions in the world believe (or should believe) to worship weekly.
I love Alecs. :)
-
sometimes it's a good thing to beleive in things... so yeah, if thats what people want, sure.
-
what I was saying is that people get all tied up with religious stuff made up by certain people than what the bible says. Yes DUH, I know what everyone is going to to say, "the bible was written by men". That's not the stuff I'm talking about. I'm talking about people freaking out if girls wear pants or cut their hair at all. No Jewelry or you're going to hell. Trust me on this, that was the 1st church my parents were brought up in and my dad realized really quick that whether girls wore pants or not had nothing to do with God. Heck, men wore robes back then anyway. That's what my dad meant by, being a christian or being saved or believing in God was more important than all these silly rules people make up for their "Religion". My dad welcomes anyone and wants people to be able to worship God freely without worrying about the rules of whatever... when People start basically punishing themselves they start being judgemental toward others and that's a sin in itself. Walking around being pridefull because they are following the rules is a sin too.
Colossians 2:21-23 says, "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!" these are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on HUMAN commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an APPEARANCE of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
-
When I was told wha to believe and MADE to believe it I did.
When I realised I can control wha I believe, I'm not at all religious anymore.
-
All i can say about this is believe what you want to believe, and dont question what other people believe.
-
All i can say about this is believe what you want to believe, and dont question what other people believe.
true this.
-
I apologize in advance for the fact that I have a serious problem. I'm completely unable to be brief, despite my best efforts. I'm well aware this is way too long. But it's the minimal response I could construct in light of the density of your challenges. In a vain attempt to remedy this I have changed the font to size 9.
Ah ha! Here we are. Good old fashion creationism vs evolution.
lol. I thought you might have something to say about it. In fact, I hoped that you would :) It is so very much fun to argue (with intelligent people, at least). So here goes
Kev, I would be VERY interested in hearing the scientific justification for Adam and Eve because everything I have studied says its a genetic impossibility. BECAUSE we wouldn't have all of the near infinit variety in our genetic makeup if we all came from only two original humans. Essentially we would just continually reinforce recessive genes and double up on dominant genes and most of us would all look the same, and there would be horrible genetic flaws in mankind because we wouldn't have had the genetic diversity that allowed mankind to survive dramatic changes in the world.
The idea that humans would all end up looking the same, caught in a genetic dead-end, is an idea that stems from a misunderstanding of the creationist position. In short, that position is: Adam & Eve were created with the best possible combination of genes (best meaning the highest information content and so the highest potential for genetic variation in their offspring). Taking skin colour as an example, which is caused by the presence of melanin produced by our skin cells and so controlled by the genes that instruct how much melanin can be produced (of which there are several). Adam and Eve would likely have had mid-brown skin possessing the different genes for producing different amount of melanin. Thus their offspring could possess the entire range of skin colourings, red, yellow, brown, black and white which are all caused by melanin in differing amounts. As another example, if Adam had blood type A and Eve had blood type B the information would be present in their genes to produce offspring with all blood types. The same is true for eye shape, eye colour, hair colour and all other genetic differences we see today (and some that are extinct).
In fact, most evolutionists now believe that all of "modern man" are descended from one woman (A so-called mitochondrial Eve), and did not evolve seperately as previously thought. This is based on the genetic study of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which is only passed down from the mother. They are thus forced to accept a scenario which closely matches the biblical account of Adam and Eve and the dispersion of a small population at Babel. A far cry from genetic impossibility.
Besides, the bible says that Adam and Even only had two sons. The random "women" just magically appear with no explanation. So thats a major flaw in the idea. Always pissed me off too.
This is simply incorrect (Presumably the two sons you are referring to are Cain and Abel). Seth was another son of Adam & Eve (Genesis 4:25) and there were other sons and daughters of Adam & Eve (Gen 5:4).
Plus, If I remember correctly, the time line doesn't work out. They couldn't have had as many kids as would have been necessary in the amount of time humans have existed
Without the details it's hard to construct a counter argument but... in terms of pure population growth rate required from then to now, there is no problem. It does interesting lead to some problems for the evolutionary account history. All is explained within this article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_people.asp) by creationist Dr. Don Batten of Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org). There are better ones containing a lot more calculation, but this is the one I could lay my hands on.
AND have created as many drastic changes as we see in mankind. Especially if you believe the bibles timeline. I don't remember the full argument here, but I know it was based on examining the differences between Caucasians, African's, Arabs and Asians and saying they could not all be from the same two people. I might have my facts wrong on this one, but thats the premise as I remember it.
This part of the argument is pretty much impossible to refute without the details. It sounds like another mis-representation of the creationist position. The information in the genome for all "racial" characteristics was present at creation and through population isolation/natural selection throughout history (Significantly the dispersion at Babel [Genesis 11]) information was lost to certain groups (E.g. Black skin in Caucasian populations). So the "drastic changes" were not created, but were rather already present in information contained in the original human genome.
Also, I have never heard strong evidence to indicate that evolution (or mans evolution from apes) is a scientific impossibility. I have studied up on evolution EXTENSIVELY.
No debate is possible without defining the debated subject. So let me define Evolution as used by myself from here on in. Evolution is the process by which mankind and all other living things came in to existence from a single celled organism in the distant past through the sub-process of reproduction with mutation, shaped by another sub-process, natural selection. That is the very definition of Darwinian evolution. Evolution is used to mean a lot of other things, often just changes in something (usually an organism), but for the purpose of this post Evolution is defined as above.
The biggest problem for evolution comes from the science of information. Evolution starts from a "simple" single celled organism, for which that genome does not contain the genetic information for hair, legs, lungs, brain, retina, nervous system, bones, etc, etc. and to end up via evolution at mankind who's genome does contain the information for all of those things. Therefore, evolution must account for that increase in information. Put bluntly, it can't. Neither DNA mutation, DNA inversion, DNA crossover, plasmid transfer, natural selection or any combination of those processes which are supposedly the driving force behind evolution produce information. There is not, and has never been a single observered case of an evolutionary process that causes an increase in genetic information. Not one, yet the theory demands many. So many, in fact, that given their supposed rate we expect to find some today. But we don't.
Not only must evolution account for the existence of information. It must also account for the existence of the code system that encodes that information. It can't. It isn't surprising that it can't because the laws of nature regarding information state that "it is not possible for chance processes to produce information", "it is not possible for chance processes to produce a code system" and "The only source of both code systems and information is intelligence". Empirical scientific laws that a single counter-example would invalidate but for which no single counter example has been found.
Obviously this is a very brief outline. Two books I'd highly recommend on the subject are "In the Beginning was Information" by Dr. Werner Gitt and "Not By Chance" by Dr. Lee Spetner. There is a wealth of debate material by those two authors, more authors and other stuff available in the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) (http://www.icr.org) archives.
We are missing STEPS in evolution. BIG steps. But there are a LOT of possible explanations for this. And the theory of evolution, atleast on a smaller scale, is not only well studied but its been DEMONSTRATED. So we KNOW animals evolve. The only thing we aren't 100% sure of is if animals can evolve to entirely different species.
What do you mean by small scale evolution? Natural selection does occur and is part of many creationist theories, as does/is mutation. Evolution in this sense (i.e individuals change because of mutation and populations change because of natural selection acting upon mutations) is fact. However that kind of small scale evolution is of no use in explaining molecules to man evolution, which must account for an upward increase in genetic information. Demonstrations of non-information gaining evolution cannot be used as support for the idea that evolution explains the origin of any life especially mankind.
The creationist account fits nicely with science in that genetic information was created by an intelligence (God) and has since decreased as a result of mutation (and crossover, etc.) and natural selection over thousands of years.
So go ahead and present the arguments. Even if you don't know all the details, id be interested in hearing the premise because I've never heard a strong scientifically feasible creationist view.
Well I did as good a job as I could. Even so, I haven't really presented anything above a very brief outline of some creationist positions. If you're really that interested, here are my two main recommendations for a complete understanding of the creationist worldview.
http://www.answersingenesis.org: Answers in Genesis
http://www.icr.org: Institute for Creation Research
http://www.creationresearch.org/: Creation Research Society
Of course, a response is welcome.
-Kev
-
Hey I'm enjoying reading this discussion. It makes a change to see people debating religion in an adult manner (look at http://groups.msn.com/ChristianDebate for some amusingly heated and childish threads).
I've always been bothered by the whole DNA aspect of life. But not as bothered as I am by the concept of some kind of supernatural being that created it. I'm always interested in reading about people's theories on this stuff, but I doubt that written word or argument is ever going to change ones underlying beliefs.
And to be honest, I really hope God doesn't exist, because if he does I'm going straight to hell. :twisted:
-
Catholic : Thou shalt keep thy Sabbath Day holy.
Protestant: Thou shalt keep thy Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Hebrew : Thou shalt kep thy Sabbath Day holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
All I'm saying is three of the most catholic religions in the world believe (or should believe) to worship weekly.
So where in any of those lines does it say anything about WORSHIPING or going to MASS? it just says keep the day Holy and don't work. It says take a frickin holiday.
---Andrew
-
what I was saying is that people get all tied up with religious stuff made up by certain people than what the bible says. Yes DUH, I know what everyone is going to to say, "the bible was written by men". That's not the stuff I'm talking about. I'm talking about people freaking out if girls wear pants or cut their hair at all. No Jewelry or you're going to hell. Trust me on this, that was the 1st church my parents were brought up in and my dad realized really quick that whether girls wore pants or not had nothing to do with God. Heck, men wore robes back then anyway. That's what my dad meant by, being a christian or being saved or believing in God was more important than all these silly rules people make up for their "Religion". My dad welcomes anyone and wants people to be able to worship God freely without worrying about the rules of whatever... when People start basically punishing themselves they start being judgemental toward others and that's a sin in itself. Walking around being pridefull because they are following the rules is a sin too.
Your dad sounds like a smart man.
Word to your father. ;)
---Andrew
-
I get confused easily...and now I don't know what to believe... But the whole God thing never made sense to me :( .
-
I apologize in advance for the fact that I have a serious problem. I'm completely unable to be brief, despite my best efforts. I'm well aware this is way too long. But it's the minimal response I could construct in light of the density of your challenges. In a vain attempt to remedy this I have changed the font to size 9.
Ugh. Tiny font. hurts eyes. I hope you're proud of yourself... you've just killed the remainder of my work day :wink:
Now on to the topic at hand.....
In short, that position is: Adam & Eve were created with the best possible combination of genes (best meaning the highest information content and so the highest potential for genetic variation in their offspring)...Adam and Eve would likely have had mid-brown skin possessing the different genes for producing different amount of melanin. Thus their offspring could possess the entire range of skin colourings, red, yellow, brown, black and white which are all caused by melanin in differing amounts.
Valid. I can't argue with that. Except to say that while this is possible, is it FEASIBLE? Because as well as having the genetic makeup for the complete diversity of mankind they would also have to have the genetic makeup for all of the FLAWS of mankind. Which means all of the genetic defects, diseases etc would become dominant in their children. Even if you assume ONLY Adam had the genetic flaw that can cause diabetes (to use a simple example) then it would still have a high potential to become dominant in many of their children. Given the STAGERING number of genetic flaws we know of in the human population the odds are that each and every one of their children would have had atleast one if not many major genetic flaws. Enough to kill them all likely.
Granted, this can be countered by saying that these genetic flaws resulted from damage done to the genetic material passed down in future generations, but this would be similar to suggesting that nature is "creating" information from chaos which you later argue is impossible.
In fact, most evolutionists now believe that all of "modern man" are descended from one woman (A so-called mitochondrial Eve), and did not evolve seperately as previously thought. This is based on the genetic study of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which is only passed down from the mother. They are thus forced to accept a scenario which closely matches the biblical account of Adam and Eve and the dispersion of a small population at Babel. A far cry from genetic impossibility. [/size]
Personally, this is not the concept i've read. I've always read that mankind was a SLOW evolution that occured seperatly among primates in a localized area. It takes a long time for evolution to kick of a new SPECIES. You get new varieties readily but the new varieties are still capable of breeding with their less brethren. Which means that we didn't have to have a sudden change, it could be gradual. For example, look at lions and house cats. Clearly the same origin, but they are compeltely different species now, not just a different variety. But this change was likely gradual and not sudden.
No idea what mtDNA is.
Granted, arguing this has the MAJOR flaw that we are missing MOST of the steps between ancient apes and modern man. The popular argument here is that there were "catastrophic events" that killed large populations and spawned rapid evolution. We have evidence of this in prehistoric life where we see entire oceans essentially vanish in a short time and the previously aquatic life is forced to adapt to low water conditions quickly. We've seen this level of change so we know its possible.
Entire generations are believed to have been lost this way, which could explain the missing steps in the chain.
This is simply incorrect (Presumably the two sons you are referring to are Cain and Abel). Seth was another son of Adam & Eve (Genesis 4:25) and there were other sons and daughters of Adam & Eve (Gen 5:4).
Eh. This was just my bad memory. I'll take your word for it on this one. The only children I remembered were cain and able and i could have sworn that the next time another person is mentioned in any transaltion is lilith, who just kind of APPEARS out of no where to stir up trouble. But I'm too lazy too look it up :wink:
in terms of pure population growth rate required from then to now, there is no problem.
The problem with some of those sources you give is that they are arguing based on the pretext that all mankind was whiped out in a flooed 4 thousand years ago. There is almost zero evidence to support this. I've even see catholic documentaries trying to dig up evidence for the flood and their evidence was bad.
I agree that mankind could have grown that fast. here are the time based problems as I see them. Geologically, we know that the Earth is older than the bible says. Either that, or we have the Adam and Even Bellybutton argument (which states that God could have created the Earth with the universe with the APPEARANCE of being older than it is).... which i enjoy, but it would indicate that God WANTS to trick us. Which I find hard to believe.
Another problem would seem to be that we have evidence of life forms that existed BEFORE mankind. Unless you take the 7 days to be metaphorical?
I can't argue with the genetic diversity account you are giving cause technically it sounds possible given what I know of genetics. I'd still make the above argument about genetic flaws though.
No debate is possible without defining the debated subject. So let me define Evolution as used by myself from here on in.
Not really how I would define evolution, but it works for the point of our discussion here. Actually, Darwin never used evolution to explain where mankind came from. Only to study where SPECIES came from. Personally, I don't recmond reading Origin of the Species because it is MOSTLY case studies of animals. Which is booooooring.
back to the main topic, if you go all the way back, MODERN evolution can show how life can be created from NON living matter.
In fact, we can do this NOW. We can take non living material and place it in the appropriate conditions for relatively short periods of time and we get amino acid chains.
I'll come back to this in a minute.
The biggest problem for evolution comes from the science of information. Evolution starts from a "simple" single celled organism, for which that genome does not contain the genetic information for hair, legs, lungs, brain, retina, nervous system, bones, etc, etc. and to end up via evolution at mankind who's genome does contain the information for all of those things. Therefore, evolution must account for that increase in information. Put bluntly, it can't.
There we go! Now something i can sink my teeth into. Heres where I get to be long winded.
We DO in fact have evidence that the universe can "create" information out of nothing or out of chaoes. This is actually very simple and I'm surprised you don't already know this.
As mentioned above, science can create amino acid chains out of nonliving matter (I can dig up the case study later; I studied it 3 years ago so I dont remember it off the top of my head). Amino acid chains are what MAKEUP our genetic material. Basically what happens is a bunch of atoms bump into eachother and stick together. These form amino acids and protiens among other things. Now let's say one of these protein chains forms in such a way that it causes OTHER atoms to form around it because they natrually balance the chemical equations. These other atoms HAPPEN to be immune to UV rays. So that when the sun comes up, its not broken apart.
oops! thats the start of the genetic material for skin!
Lets say another one is shaped so that it splits apart easily. So it bumps something, splits in half, and other stuff bumps into it and the two half become whole again. Thats reproduction!
This is how genetic information is formed. Freak accident. Lets say one of these amino acid chains has a light sensative spot on its back and this helps it NOT be destoryed when the sun comes up. Thats the start of an eye.
Eventually these chains get more and more complicated as they constantly split and connect with other chains. Each time they split and recombine they take their genetic material with them. Each time they combine with something new they learn pick up new chains.
Till suddenly you have simple organisms.
This is why the human DNA has so much JUNK in it. It's all the random genetic CRAP we picked up a simple organisms. Litterly, 80% of our DNA consists of organisms that are actually PARASITES. They do nothing but sit there and reproduce with us. They dont HURT us. They are just the remains of amino acid "creatures" that attached to our DNA at some point.
Science CAN show it is POSSIBLE for all life on Earth to have come from nonliving matter spontaneously. I went to a catholic college, and this was NEVER disputed in ANY of my classes by even the most religious teachers.
Now here's the rub.
For everything to have happened this way just PERFECTLY would be the most ridiculously longshot odds EVER. It's possible, but just barely.
It's so implausible that all of the right genetic material came together in just the right way to create life on the one planet in the solarsystem that just happens to be the right distance from the sun and in the right orbit and wasn't hit by a geological disaster, and for us to escape all the right predators, and for the other planets to have just the right velocity to settle into a stable orbit... blah blah blah blah.
The only explanation scientists can give there is that the universe is huge and it had to happen SOMEWHERE.
*shrug* not a GOOD answer, but technically, it works.
What do you mean by small scale evolution? Natural selection does occur and is part of many creationist theories, as does/is mutation. Evolution in this sense (i.e individuals change because of mutation and populations change because of natural selection acting upon mutations) is fact.
This is closer to what evolution REALLY is. It originally refered to changes to a given animal not changing from one type of animal to another. So creationists accept changes within a species? I seem to remember the Pope acknowledging Darwin within the last 20 years or so. No arguments here.
The creationist account fits nicely with science in that genetic information was created by an intelligence (God) and has since decreased as a result of mutation (and crossover, etc.) and natural selection over thousands of years.
Yes, creationism CAN coincide with Evolution. I agree. BUT NOT with Adam and Eve.
One theory that works is that God created the universe with a road map, KNOWING how it would form and how life would evolve. Being God and all, he can get away with this.
To suggest that God just spontaneously created man out of thin air, causes all kinds of problems.
However, like I said... i cannot dispute the idea that God is capable of creating the universe under whatever conditions he wants.
For example, God could have created me 30 seconds ago with the memories and feelings of all the things I believe I have done. And I cannot dispute this other than to say that I don't think God is out to trick me. But then we are getting into Descarte and I dont EVEN want to go THERE.
Ugh. :wink:
---Andrew
-
I apologize in advance for the fact that I have a serious problem. I'm completely unable to be brief, despite my best efforts. I'm well aware this is way too long. But it's the minimal response I could construct in light of the density of your challenges. In a vain attempt to remedy this I have changed the font to size 9.
Ugh. Tiny font. hurts eyes. I hope you're proud of yourself... you've just killed the remainder of my work day :wink:
Now on to the topic at hand.....
In short, that position is: Adam & Eve were created with the best possible combination of genes (best meaning the highest information content and so the highest potential for genetic variation in their offspring)...Adam and Eve would likely have had mid-brown skin possessing the different genes for producing different amount of melanin. Thus their offspring could possess the entire range of skin colourings, red, yellow, brown, black and white which are all caused by melanin in differing amounts.
Valid. I can't argue with that. Except to say that while this is possible, is it FEASIBLE? Because as well as having the genetic makeup for the complete diversity of mankind they would also have to have the genetic makeup for all of the FLAWS of mankind. Which means all of the genetic defects, diseases etc would become dominant in their children. Even if you assume ONLY Adam had the genetic flaw that can cause diabetes (to use a simple example) then it would still have a high potential to become dominant in many of their children. Given the STAGERING number of genetic flaws we know of in the human population the odds are that each and every one of their children would have had atleast one if not many major genetic flaws. Enough to kill them all likely.
Granted, this can be countered by saying that these genetic flaws resulted from damage done to the genetic material passed down in future generations, but this would be similar to suggesting that nature is "creating" information from chaos which you later argue is impossible.
In fact, most evolutionists now believe that all of "modern man" are descended from one woman (A so-called mitochondrial Eve), and did not evolve seperately as previously thought. This is based on the genetic study of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which is only passed down from the mother. They are thus forced to accept a scenario which closely matches the biblical account of Adam and Eve and the dispersion of a small population at Babel. A far cry from genetic impossibility. [/size]
Personally, this is not the concept i've read. I've always read that mankind was a SLOW evolution that occured seperatly among primates in a localized area. It takes a long time for evolution to kick of a new SPECIES. You get new varieties readily but the new varieties are still capable of breeding with their less brethren. Which means that we didn't have to have a sudden change, it could be gradual. For example, look at lions and house cats. Clearly the same origin, but they are compeltely different species now, not just a different variety. But this change was likely gradual and not sudden.
No idea what mtDNA is.
Granted, arguing this has the MAJOR flaw that we are missing MOST of the steps between ancient apes and modern man. The popular argument here is that there were "catastrophic events" that killed large populations and spawned rapid evolution. We have evidence of this in prehistoric life where we see entire oceans essentially vanish in a short time and the previously aquatic life is forced to adapt to low water conditions quickly. We've seen this level of change so we know its possible.
Entire generations are believed to have been lost this way, which could explain the missing steps in the chain.
This is simply incorrect (Presumably the two sons you are referring to are Cain and Abel). Seth was another son of Adam & Eve (Genesis 4:25) and there were other sons and daughters of Adam & Eve (Gen 5:4).
Eh. This was just my bad memory. I'll take your word for it on this one. The only children I remembered were cain and able and i could have sworn that the next time another person is mentioned in any transaltion is lilith, who just kind of APPEARS out of no where to stir up trouble. But I'm too lazy too look it up :wink:
in terms of pure population growth rate required from then to now, there is no problem.
The problem with some of those sources you give is that they are arguing based on the pretext that all mankind was whiped out in a flooed 4 thousand years ago. There is almost zero evidence to support this. I've even see catholic documentaries trying to dig up evidence for the flood and their evidence was bad.
I agree that mankind could have grown that fast. here are the time based problems as I see them. Geologically, we know that the Earth is older than the bible says. Either that, or we have the Adam and Even Bellybutton argument (which states that God could have created the Earth with the universe with the APPEARANCE of being older than it is).... which i enjoy, but it would indicate that God WANTS to trick us. Which I find hard to believe.
Another problem would seem to be that we have evidence of life forms that existed BEFORE mankind. Unless you take the 7 days to be metaphorical?
I can't argue with the genetic diversity account you are giving cause technically it sounds possible given what I know of genetics. I'd still make the above argument about genetic flaws though.
No debate is possible without defining the debated subject. So let me define Evolution as used by myself from here on in.
Not really how I would define evolution, but it works for the point of our discussion here. Actually, Darwin never used evolution to explain where mankind came from. Only to study where SPECIES came from. Personally, I don't recmond reading Origin of the Species because it is MOSTLY case studies of animals. Which is booooooring.
back to the main topic, if you go all the way back, MODERN evolution can show how life can be created from NON living matter.
In fact, we can do this NOW. We can take non living material and place it in the appropriate conditions for relatively short periods of time and we get amino acid chains.
I'll come back to this in a minute.
The biggest problem for evolution comes from the science of information. Evolution starts from a "simple" single celled organism, for which that genome does not contain the genetic information for hair, legs, lungs, brain, retina, nervous system, bones, etc, etc. and to end up via evolution at mankind who's genome does contain the information for all of those things. Therefore, evolution must account for that increase in information. Put bluntly, it can't.
There we go! Now something i can sink my teeth into. Heres where I get to be long winded.
We DO in fact have evidence that the universe can "create" information out of nothing or out of chaoes. This is actually very simple and I'm surprised you don't already know this.
As mentioned above, science can create amino acid chains out of nonliving matter (I can dig up the case study later; I studied it 3 years ago so I dont remember it off the top of my head). Amino acid chains are what MAKEUP our genetic material. Basically what happens is a bunch of atoms bump into eachother and stick together. These form amino acids and protiens among other things. Now let's say one of these protein chains forms in such a way that it causes OTHER atoms to form around it because they natrually balance the chemical equations. These other atoms HAPPEN to be immune to UV rays. So that when the sun comes up, its not broken apart.
oops! thats the start of the genetic material for skin!
Lets say another one is shaped so that it splits apart easily. So it bumps something, splits in half, and other stuff bumps into it and the two half become whole again. Thats reproduction!
This is how genetic information is formed. Freak accident. Lets say one of these amino acid chains has a light sensative spot on its back and this helps it NOT be destoryed when the sun comes up. Thats the start of an eye.
Eventually these chains get more and more complicated as they constantly split and connect with other chains. Each time they split and recombine they take their genetic material with them. Each time they combine with something new they learn pick up new chains.
Till suddenly you have simple organisms.
This is why the human DNA has so much JUNK in it. It's all the random genetic CRAP we picked up a simple organisms. Litterly, 80% of our DNA consists of organisms that are actually PARASITES. They do nothing but sit there and reproduce with us. They dont HURT us. They are just the remains of amino acid "creatures" that attached to our DNA at some point.
Science CAN show it is POSSIBLE for all life on Earth to have come from nonliving matter spontaneously. I went to a catholic college, and this was NEVER disputed in ANY of my classes by even the most religious teachers.
Now here's the rub.
For everything to have happened this way just PERFECTLY would be the most ridiculously longshot odds EVER. It's possible, but just barely.
It's so implausible that all of the right genetic material came together in just the right way to create life on the one planet in the solarsystem that just happens to be the right distance from the sun and in the right orbit and wasn't hit by a geological disaster, and for us to escape all the right predators, and for the other planets to have just the right velocity to settle into a stable orbit... blah blah blah blah.
The only explanation scientists can give there is that the universe is huge and it had to happen SOMEWHERE.
*shrug* not a GOOD answer, but technically, it works.
What do you mean by small scale evolution? Natural selection does occur and is part of many creationist theories, as does/is mutation. Evolution in this sense (i.e individuals change because of mutation and populations change because of natural selection acting upon mutations) is fact.
This is closer to what evolution REALLY is. It originally refered to changes to a given animal not changing from one type of animal to another. So creationists accept changes within a species? I seem to remember the Pope acknowledging Darwin within the last 20 years or so. No arguments here.
The creationist account fits nicely with science in that genetic information was created by an intelligence (God) and has since decreased as a result of mutation (and crossover, etc.) and natural selection over thousands of years.
Yes, creationism CAN coincide with Evolution. I agree. BUT NOT with Adam and Eve.
One theory that works is that God created the universe with a road map, KNOWING how it would form and how life would evolve. Being God and all, he can get away with this.
To suggest that God just spontaneously created man out of thin air, causes all kinds of problems.
However, like I said... i cannot dispute the idea that God is capable of creating the universe under whatever conditions he wants.
For example, God could have created me 30 seconds ago with the memories and feelings of all the things I believe I have done. And I cannot dispute this other than to say that I don't think God is out to trick me. But then we are getting into Descarte and I dont EVEN want to go THERE.
Ugh. :wink:
---Andrew
wow, good thing you used tiny font
*Si's not reading all that, bc she won't get past the first three lines
(simply bc she can't concentrate for that long :) )
LMAO
-
LOL.
Oh come on Si! Read it all! I dare you :wink:
BTW, im really diggin some of these sites Kev linked too...... you guys should check some of them out.
---Andrew
-
uhm
how about..................if I read it in bits?
Like, I'll read the first 50 lines now, and the next 50 ten min. after that and so on...good idea?
LOL
I'll let you know what I think in about four days then
;)
:P
-
Hence the reason i never discuss religion!!! :mrgreen:
damn i feel so much smarter than you essay typing fools now, hehe
-
Hence the reason i never discuss religion!!! :mrgreen:
damn i feel so much smarter than you essay typing fools now, hehe
Trust me Pete, we are both doing an AMAZING job of keeping it short :wink:
I've written 20 page papers on evolution and they were just explaining the Darwinist theories. Not even TOUCHING on religious applications or creationist theories.
---Andrew
-
lol, i still think you're crazy for doing it, hows that for a theory
-
Andrew, the thing you told me about "you've got to believe everything, if th Pope says 'Don't use condoms,' and you do, you're not a Catholic." Yeah, you're supposed to receive the Host, (Body of Christ), atleast once a week - The Sabbath Day. SO, if you don't, then . . . well, you're supposed to go to Confession before you can receive It. Although that's only in the Catholic Church, keeping the Sabbath ay Holy desn't mean take off work and have a party and rest or do whatever. It means kep It holy.
-
Andrew, the thing you told me about "you've got to believe everything, if th Pope says 'Don't use condoms,' and you do, you're not a Catholic." Yeah, you're supposed to receive the Host, (Body of Christ), atleast once a week - The Sabbath Day. SO, if you don't, then . . . well, you're supposed to go to Confession before you can receive It. Although that's only in the Catholic Church, keeping the Sabbath ay Holy desn't mean take off work and have a party and rest or do whatever. It means kep It holy.
Sweetie. No translation of the bible EVER says you have to take communion once a week. Only catholic TRADITION says this.
And SEVERAL translations of the Bible DO say that you are supposed to take the Sabath (whatever day you interpret this as) off of work. Not just off of work though, you aren't supposed to do ANY real work. No heavy lifting, no walking long distances, no big decision making. NOthing.
And yes, if you dont go to church every week then you aren't a Catholic. This is true. But this is part of my argument about why the Catholic church is f'd up. Too many of their practices are based on tradition and not scripture.
---Andrew
-
My 5th great-grandfather, started his own religion....
"The Code of Handsome Lake" or something like that.
-
Oh, okay. I understand now, Andrew.
-
I don't think I'd say the Catholic Church is fucked up, though. I think it's good that we base what we pratice mostly on traditions, otherwise every church, whether it's a Catholic Church, Baptist church, or whatever, they'd all be the same, and that wouldn't be fun. Everyone would be . . . one religion.
-
I don't think I'd say the Catholic Church is fucked up, though. I think it's good that we base what we pratice mostly on traditions, otherwise every church, whether it's a Catholic Church, Baptist church, or whatever, they'd all be the same, and that wouldn't be fun. Everyone would be . . . one religion.
true. Personally, the only form of religion I support is one that says "do what is right" and lets everyone work out the details for themselves.
I am opposed to the idea of another person (and frankly, I believe that's all the pope is, because no where in scripture does it say otherwise) telling me what I have to do to make it to heaven.
Which is the largest reason why im opposed to every organize religion I've ever studied.
---Andrew
-
I've read your more than thoroughly stated story, and agree with you. I find a bit useless to reply in an equally humungous post, so I'll just say I think it's great you've given it this much thought. I'm opposed to any form of organization that sees their opinions and ideologies as being the only right one... I believe tolerance in general is a thing that should be treasured a bit more often. every single person should be granted his/her god, and be respected for whatever choice is made. My god is not the God worshipped by Christians... It's just the idea of having a certain abstract thing to hold on to, that's sufficient for me.
-
true. Personally, the only form of religion I support is one that says "do what is right" and lets everyone work out the details for themselves.
I am opposed to the idea of another person (and frankly, I believe that's all the pope is, because no where in scripture does it say otherwise) telling me what I have to do to make it to heaven.
Which is the largest reason why im opposed to every organize religion I've ever studied.
---Andrew
No where in scripture . . .
No where in scripture . . .
No where in scripture . . .
No where in scripture . . .
And what scripture are we talking about? Weren't there many books that could have become part of the Bible? Yes. I wouldn't venture to say you've read all of them. So who's judement are we trusting by saying that those books you find in your Bible are canon? Another person's? The ones in the canon are said to be insipred by God. How do we know? What if you've been looking in the wrong scripture the whole time?
hmmmmm
-
true. Personally, the only form of religion I support is one that says "do what is right" and lets everyone work out the details for themselves.
I am opposed to the idea of another person (and frankly, I believe that's all the pope is, because no where in scripture does it say otherwise) telling me what I have to do to make it to heaven.
Which is the largest reason why im opposed to every organize religion I've ever studied.
---Andrew
One of the commandments is 'Honor thy Father and thy Mother', which has brought me to believe the reason we, as Catholics, are supposed to listen and obey the Pope is because he is, one of our fathers. The commandment doesn't say 'Honor your biological Father and Mother; The ones who physically created you and brought you to Earth'. See, we refer to our priest as Father, and . . . the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church (who is alive), and he is the head priest, thus he's to be addressed as Father. And we've got to obey him. That's just what I've begun to belive, if you all get what I'm saying.
-
One of the commandments is 'Honor thy Father and thy Mother', which has brought me to believe the reason we, as Catholics, are supposed to listen and obey the Pope is because he is, one of our fathers. The commandment doesn't say 'Honor your biological Father and Mother; The ones who physically created you and brought you to Earth'. See, we refer to our priest as Father, and . . . the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church (who is alive), and he is the head priest, thus he's to be addressed as Father. And we've got to obey him. That's just what I've begun to belive, if you all get what I'm saying.
Well, that is unbiblical tradition rearing it's ugly head again. Where in the Bible does it say religious leaders are your parents? The only person that is refered to in the Bible as father (excepting the normal secular usage) is God himself. They may call themselves "fathers," but such a title has orgins solely in church tradition.
If you read the Bible, the leaders were refered to as "brothers," not "fathers."
There are lots of things like that. Another thing is the worship of Mary as a virgin. I'm not going to get into the "mother of heaven" part because I don't even know where that comes from.
I still don't get why they take the view that Mary was a virgin all her life. Matt 13:55-56 is pretty clear to me. "Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judus? Aren't all his sisters with us?" Could anyone familiar with Catholic doctrine explain what the Catholic church has to say about this verse? I have heard people say that Aramaic, the civil language of the Jews at the time, the word "braw" means both brother and cousin and "beltha" means sister and cousin. That doesn't make sense because Matthew would have known if they were cousins or not and he used the word "adelphos" for brothers and "adelphe" for sisters, rather than "suggenes" which is cousins.
I guess it is possible that the kids were with a concubine and Mary never did lose her virginity. Still doesn't make sense for more than one kid becaude of the visit of the angel to Joseph. He probably wouldn't cheat after that like he would before when Mary got pregant and it couldn't be by him.
Another example of Catholic tradition that I don't get at all is the doctrine of Papal infallability. Have they forgotten the rules of John XII and Stephen VII? What of Rodrigo Borgia (aka Pope Alexander VI)? Those men were not men of God. They were in the office for the political power. I'm sorry, people like them have forever ruined any argument for Papal infallabilty. Borgia held Palpal orgies in the Vatican for crying out loud! I might add that they often included his illegitmate daughter.
Meh... sorry to all you Catholics out there. I don't mean to ridicule your faith or anything, but I seriously don't understand many of the central tenants of the Catholic church. Many of them make absolutely no sense to me.
-
What does it matter if it's tradition? I'm talking about the CATHOLIC CHURCH, and as a sign of respect, we address our priests as Father; They are the ones who are capable of having God, Himself, bless the host, I don't see WHY people have a problem with it. I'm sure The Church has a reason to do the things they do, the councils weren't full of idiots.
The End
-
They are the ones who are capable of having God, Himself, bless the host
Please ignore my Protestant ignorance. What do you mean by that?
-
The Host = The Body of Christ = The Bread we have at Mass (Church)
The only reason with that whole Papal infallibility thing is because then they believed in that divine right bullshit, and random people would say God told them that they should be the ruler. The people of the city (or country) woudn't disagree because they feared that if this guy was telling the truth, they'd go to hell for not believing in what God said. So, if you were a leader, you were Catholic, most of the time. Yeah. And really, no one else could have ruled, because most people were Catholic back in the day (before the Protestant Reformation, and Catholic Counter-Reformation) and you couldn't disagree with the Pope 'cause he was the man. The rulers of these little places (who were rulers STRICTLY because of divine rights), told the Pope what was going on, and from there the Pope ruled. So, technically, the Pope only told the people what to do, he didn't make decisions. He ruled the people who ruled the cities and town and vllages and whatnot, thus, he ruled the cities and towns and villages and whatnot.
Sorry if it doens't make any sense, I can't really put it into words.
-
No where in scripture . . .
No where in scripture . . .
No where in scripture . . .
No where in scripture . . .
And what scripture are we talking about? Weren't there many books that could have become part of the Bible? Yes. I wouldn't venture to say you've read all of them. So who's judement are we trusting by saying that those books you find in your Bible are canon? Another person's? The ones in the canon are said to be insipred by God. How do we know? What if you've been looking in the wrong scripture the whole time?
hmmmmm
I dont know if you were trying to agree with me or not.... but you just did.
I agree, you can't really trust HALF of the "holy" books you read. Because a lot of them were written with political aspirations.
The point I was making is that I don't believe things organized religion tells me. I've read or stuided LOTS of the various scriputres (Bagavad-Ghita, Koran, Torah, Pieces of the Book of Mormon, Old Testament, New Testament etc etc) and I take a little bit from each one but I dont take any of them to be absolute truth.
The point I was making about the Pope is that the ONLY reason we decided that the Pope gets to speak for God is because PEOPLE decided that the Pope would speak for God. God never said it.
There is a line in the new Testament about the Peter's role as the first Pope and no where does it say hes a decision maker in matters of what we should believe.
---Andrew
-
One of the commandments is 'Honor thy Father and thy Mother', which has brought me to believe the reason we, as Catholics, are supposed to listen and obey the Pope is because he is, one of our fathers. The commandment doesn't say 'Honor your biological Father and Mother; The ones who physically created you and brought you to Earth'. See, we refer to our priest as Father, and . . . the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church (who is alive), and he is the head priest, thus he's to be addressed as Father. And we've got to obey him. That's just what I've begun to belive, if you all get what I'm saying.
Oh come on, pibbs. Thats a reach if I ever heard one. If you have to stretch THAT far to justify your religious beliefs then thats depressing.
Also, dont forget that "mother and father" is a translation and who knows if it has the same flexible meaning in hebrew/latin (depending on which translation you are reading).
---Andrew
-
I still don't get why they take the view that Mary was a virgin all her life. Matt 13:55-56 is pretty clear to me. "Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judus? Aren't all his sisters with us?" Could anyone familiar with Catholic doctrine explain what the Catholic church has to say about this verse? I have heard people say that Aramaic, the civil language of the Jews at the time, the word "braw" means both brother and cousin and "beltha" means sister and cousin. That doesn't make sense because Matthew would have known if they were cousins or not and he used the word "adelphos" for brothers and "adelphe" for sisters, rather than "suggenes" which is cousins.
Hey Dumbass. I dont know ANT Catholic PERSON, TRADITION or BELIEF that says Mary DIED a virgin. They just say she was a virgin when she had Jesus. This is you just making bad assumptions. I was always taught in catholic school that Mary had children after Jesus.
Another example of Catholic tradition that I don't get at all is the doctrine of Papal infallability. Have they forgotten the rules of John XII and Stephen VII? What of Rodrigo Borgia (aka Pope Alexander VI)? Those men were not men of God. They were in the office for the political power. I'm sorry, people like them have forever ruined any argument for Papal infallabilty. Borgia held Palpal orgies in the Vatican for crying out loud! I might add that they often included his illegitmate daughter.
Ok well.. I agree on this one. Except to say that Borgia and his like were political figures and one could argue that they broke the chain of true "Popes".
Either way, you're still a dumbass.
---Andrew
-
The Host = The Body of Christ = The Bread we have at Mass (Church)
The only reason with that whole Papal infallibility thing is because then they believed in that divine right bullshit, and random people would say God told them that they should be the ruler. The people of the city (or country) woudn't disagree because they feared that if this guy was telling the truth, they'd go to hell for not believing in what God said. So, if you were a leader, you were Catholic, most of the time. Yeah. And really, no one else could have ruled, because most people were Catholic back in the day (before the Protestant Reformation, and Catholic Counter-Reformation) and you couldn't disagree with the Pope 'cause he was the man. The rulers of these little places (who were rulers STRICTLY because of divine rights), told the Pope what was going on, and from there the Pope ruled. So, technically, the Pope only told the people what to do, he didn't make decisions. He ruled the people who ruled the cities and town and vllages and whatnot, thus, he ruled the cities and towns and villages and whatnot.
quote]
Pibbs..... the Divine Right of Kings and Papal Infalibility are compeltely unrelated. Papal infalibility says that the Pope is the mouthpiece of God and will speak in Gods name from time to time. And when he does this, he will ALWAYS be right and incapable of making a mistake.
Sorry.
---Andrew
-
Mary never died, whoever said that. People have tried to get me to believe it, but she never did. She ascended ino heaven.
Andrew, I'm making a point with the divine right stuff. The kings who did say God chose them as leaders did obey the Pope. And that's how the Pope was a political leader, kings told him what was going on an suggested what to do about it. The Pope wasn't just there as, like, president of Europe; Western Europe after the Reformation.
And how is it ''depressing'' that that's what I think? It's not a stretch at all. Everything's there, what does it matter to anyone if I do or don't believe in the authority of the Pope, anyway?
-
Hey Dumbass. I dont know ANT Catholic PERSON, TRADITION or BELIEF that says Mary DIED a virgin. They just say she was a virgin when she had Jesus. This is you just making bad assumptions. I was always taught in catholic school that Mary had children after Jesus.
I guess that isn't Catholic doctrine then. I've talked to various Catholics and most of them have expressed this view. But then again, many people don't know the beliefs of their own church and this could be another example of this.
Either way, you're still a dumbass.
Me a dumbass? Meh, you caught me. :wink:
-
Mary never died, whoever said that. People have tried to get me to believe it, but she never did. She ascended ino heaven.
True dat. My mistake. Mary never technically died. She ascended.
---Andrew
-
I guess that isn't Catholic doctrine then. I've talked to various Catholics and most of them have expressed this view. But then again, many people don't know the beliefs of their own church and this could be another example of this.
Thats just an example of people not knowing their own religion. Happens a lot.
---Andrew
-
I guess that isn't Catholic doctrine then. I've talked to various Catholics and most of them have expressed this view. But then again, many people don't know the beliefs of their own church and this could be another example of this.
Thats just an example of people not knowing their own religion. Happens a lot.
---Andrew
The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, St. Jerome (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm)
Not that it matters to Andrew 'cause a man said it :wink:
Anyway
-
Ugh. Tiny font. hurts eyes. I hope you're proud of yourself... you've just killed the remainder of my work day :wink:
Haha, I decided to dispence with the small font this time, it hurts my eyes too. Anyway, here's the my latest mammoth attempt to fill up Katia's disk space :twisted:
Valid. I can't argue with that. Except to say that while this is possible, is it FEASIBLE? Because as well as having the genetic makeup for the complete diversity of mankind they would also have to have the genetic makeup for all of the FLAWS of mankind. Which means all of the genetic defects, diseases etc would become dominant in their children. Even if you assume ONLY Adam had the genetic flaw that can cause diabetes (to use a simple example) then it would still have a high potential to become dominant in many of their children. Given the STAGERING number of genetic flaws we know of in the human population the odds are that each and every one of their children would have had atleast one if not many major genetic flaws. Enough to kill them all likely.
Granted, this can be countered by saying that these genetic flaws resulted from damage done to the genetic material passed down in future generations, but this would be similar to suggesting that nature is "creating" information from chaos which you later argue is impossible.
I can't argue with the genetic diversity account you are giving cause technically it sounds possible given what I know of genetics. I'd still make the above argument about genetic flaws though.
Your genetics is perfectly accurate, as is your conclusion. On this point we agree.
Yes, I will counter with the argument that the original human genome was created without genetic flaws (Gen 1:31). Genetic flaws accumulated with the transfer (with error) of getectic information down the generations following the fall/curse (Gen 3).
You pre-empt this counter with the argument that the appearence of these genetic flaws constitutes a creation of new information. Information is not measured by the number of traits (whether beneficial or harmful) but by specified complexity. It is elementary information theory that any change (mutation) that destroys the functionality of a gene is a reduction in specified complexity (i.e. a loss of information). All mutations studied thus far (even beneficial ones) have demonstrated a loss of information or in some cases no change in information content. So, the laws of information are not violated
Personally, this is not the concept i've read. I've always read that mankind was a SLOW evolution that occured seperatly among primates in a localized area.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all evolutionists have abandoned the idea that the different "races" evolved seperately. But most have, based on the mtDNA evidence. They still believe that mankind evolved from primates and they still believed the further evolution of mankind was SLOW, they even still believe that there could have been seperatley evolved humans that became extinct. I only presented the mtDNA evidence to show that evolutionists now accept an idea that has been a prediction of creationist theories forever (that all mankind shares common ancestry through one mother) and parallels creationist theories in other parts. Really, just to make clear that the biblical account should not be rejected out of hand as "crazy".
It takes a long time for evolution to kick of a new SPECIES. You get new varieties readily but the new varieties are still capable of breeding with their less brethren. Which means that we didn't have to have a sudden change, it could be gradual. For example, look at lions and house cats. Clearly the same origin, but they are compeltely different species now, not just a different variety. But this change was likely gradual and not sudden.
Again, I agree with you here. Creationists embrace speciation in a similar way to evolutionists. Both camps agree that lions and cats have the same origin. Creationists say that lions and cats are both decended from an original created cat kind (Gen 1:24-25) containing all the information in it's genome for all types of cat. Speciation occured to produce the many species of cat that exist today and the many varieties within each species. On the other hand, evolutionists say that lions and cats share the same evolutionary ancestor and through the process of evolution (as described by the neo darwinian theory of evolution [NDTE]) all different species of cat (speciation) and all the varieties within these species evolved.
The crucial difference is that the NDTE says that the information for different cat features came into existance via the process of mutation shaped by natural selection and creationists say that the information was created by God and has only reduced during the process of speciation. To which my previous information argument applies (see below also). As a side point, creationists also predict that speciation can occur much more rapidly than evolutionists.
The same thing applies to humans as to cats for both evolutionary and creationist theories.
No idea what mtDNA is.
mtDNA is the DNA contained in the mitochondria (the powerplants) of cells, rather than in the nucleus. Only DNA in the nucleus is transmitted via a sperm cell. So all mtDNA is supplied by the mother (via the egg). It's a lot easier to extract than normal nuclear-DNA.
Granted, arguing this has the MAJOR flaw that we are missing MOST of the steps between ancient apes and modern man. The popular argument here is that there were "catastrophic events" that killed large populations and spawned rapid evolution. We have evidence of this in prehistoric life where we see entire oceans essentially vanish in a short time and the previously aquatic life is forced to adapt to low water conditions quickly. We've seen this level of change so we know its possible.
Entire generations are believed to have been lost this way, which could explain the missing steps in the chain.
If the evidence of these catastrophies and the subsiquent rapid evolution is available in the prehistoric record, why not in the more recent record too? Without such evidence evolutionists maintain nothing more than faith in these ad hoc catastrophic events. Of course, you are perfectly right in suggesting that, if it's true, this would explain the missing steps. This is fine if people are only looking for a reason to believe in evolution. But if evolutionists want to prove their theory, they need the evidence to support their predictions. Expecting to be excused from bringing such proofs because they are not observable does not help their scientific case.
The problem with some of those sources you give is that they are arguing based on the pretext that all mankind was whiped out in a flooed 4 thousand years ago.
They do indeed. Those sources are a defense of the creationist position. In order to defend something you must accept what you are defending as a pretext and see how well that pretext explains what we observe today (in this case, current population). It's the only way to scientifically study any theory that attempts to explain events in the unobserved past. The question is, which pretext makes best sense of the evidence we have today.
There is almost zero evidence to support this. I've even see catholic documentaries trying to dig up evidence for the flood and their evidence was bad.
Well I can't account for those documentaries, there is (unfortunatley) a lot of compromise in all parts of the church these days (Gap theory, Theistic evolution, Day-Age theory) often employing 'local flood' ideas. Perhaps this was the fate of your documentaries.
There is, in fact, a lot of evidence for the global flood. The most notable being the fossil layers (millions of dead things layed down by water). This is exactly what you would expect to find. This is obviously a large point of difference between the naturalistic and creationist standpoints. The naturalist (not the naked kind, lol) starts with the assumptions that there is nothing supernatural and that rates at which the sedimentary layers were layed down has been (for the most part) the same as the observed rates today. The creationist starts with the assumptions that the biblical account in Genesis is true. Both sides have the same evidence, they differ only in their starting presuppositions. The scientific way to determine which presuppositions are better is to determine which one makes best sense of the evidence. Obviously, it is my view that the creationist position does. This is getting really off track now but if you can be bothered to go into it I am happy to keep talking forever :)
I agree that mankind could have grown that fast. here are the time based problems as I see them. Geologically, we know that the Earth is older than the bible says. Either that, or we have the Adam and Even Bellybutton argument (which states that God could have created the Earth with the universe with the APPEARANCE of being older than it is).... which i enjoy, but it would indicate that God WANTS to trick us. Which I find hard to believe.
We agree on another point, I find the bellybutton argument equally hard to beleive. So much so, that I don't consider it a possible explanation for the evidence. It's not in the character of God (the God of the bible anyway).
The geologic column is not evidence in itself that the earth is older than the bible says. As stated above, that is a conclusion drawn only from naturalistic assumptions about how the layers were formed not the creationist position. If by "Geologically" you mean radioisotopic (RI) dating, they are also based on questionable assumptions. There are also scores of other dating methods (non-isotopic) based on the same kind of uniformitarian assumptions that put a maximum age at far less than the dates usually obtained with RI dating. This is getting way off track, but (again) if you can be bothered we can go down this route.
Another problem would seem to be that we have evidence of life forms that existed BEFORE mankind. Unless you take the 7 days to be metaphorical?
Nah, It's my view that Genesis is refering to 7 solar days (24 hour). It's written in literal historical narrative and refered to as such (even by Christ) in the new testament.
Again, the idea that the geologic layers represent ordered periods of time is a conclusion drawn only from naturalistic presuppositions. The creationist position is that these layers were deposited during and after the flood.
Not really how I would define evolution, but it works for the point of our discussion here. Actually, Darwin never used evolution to explain where mankind came from. Only to study where SPECIES came from. Personally, I don't recmond reading Origin of the Species because it is MOSTLY case studies of animals. Which is booooooring.
lol. True, but no creationists or evolutionists book shelf would be complete without it :)
The definition of evolution is important. My argument only applies to the NDTE (large scale evolution). Many changes occur in living things, natural selection is a good observable scientific fact and can lead to new species. These small scale changes are often also refered to as evolution and I have no problem with them. However, these smaller evolutionary changes are not the kind of change that can account for large scale evolution because they add no new information.
back to the main topic, if you go all the way back, MODERN evolution can show how life can be created from NON living matter.
In fact, we can do this NOW. We can take non living material and place it in the appropriate conditions for relatively short periods of time and we get amino acid chains.
Amino acid chains are not life.
As mentioned above, science can create amino acid chains out of nonliving matter (I can dig up the case study later; I studied it 3 years ago so I dont remember it off the top of my head).
Amino acid chains are what MAKEUP our genetic material. Basically what happens is a bunch of atoms bump into eachother and stick together. These form amino acids and protiens among other things. Now let's say one of these protein chains forms in such a way that it causes OTHER atoms to form around it because they natrually balance the chemical equations. These other atoms HAPPEN to be immune to UV rays. So that when the sun comes up, its not broken apart.
oops! thats the start of the genetic material for skin!
Lets say another one is shaped so that it splits apart easily. So it bumps something, splits in half, and other stuff bumps into it and the two half become whole again. Thats reproduction!
This is how genetic information is formed. Freak accident. Lets say one of these amino acid chains has a light sensative spot on its back and this helps it NOT be destoryed when the sun comes up. Thats the start of an eye.
Eventually these chains get more and more complicated as they constantly split and connect with other chains. Each time they split and recombine they take their genetic material with them. Each time they combine with something new they learn pick up new chains.
Till suddenly you have simple organisms.
The process you have described is an impossible process according to the science of information theory. The fact that evolutionists state that this occured does not make it so (or even possible). Yes amino acids (even clumps of amino acids) can form by random processes. But amino acids do not represent information. There is no code system adhered to, no syntax or any conveyed meaning within the molecuels, it's just the bonding forces of atoms at work. The arranging of these amino acids into meaningful information carrying sequences by random processes would be good proof that information by chance (and thus evolution) is possible.
The NDTE requires that nucleotides are formed naturally and arranged in the DNA into information carrying sequences (encoding how to contruct amino acids/proteins). Such a thing has not been demonstrated and science predicts that it will never be. In addition to demonstrating an evolutionary process that can create new information, evolutionary theory fails to explain how the genetic code system used to encode that information became defined in the first place. As it stands, evolutionists can only maintain by faith (in spite of the science) that these things happened naturally. Information and code systems only come from intelligent design.
Science CAN show it is POSSIBLE for all life on Earth to have come from nonliving matter spontaneously.
In light of my above responses, I maintain that it cannot show that it is possible.
I went to a catholic college, and this was NEVER disputed in ANY of my classes by even the most religious teachers.
Did you have any information theorists as teachers? 8)
This is closer to what evolution REALLY is. It originally refered to changes to a given animal not changing from one type of animal to another. So creationists accept changes within a species? I seem to remember the Pope acknowledging Darwin within the last 20 years or so. No arguments here.
See above for my explanation of the importance of the original definition. Yes creationists accept changes within a species and even creation of new species (speciation) but that these changes are always accompanied by a loss in genetic information (or no change in information). Never the upward change required[b/] by the NDTE.
I think you're right, the Pope may have accepted evolution (and the big bang, I think), but he is not the final authority on the matter. Such compromised theistic evolutionary ideas induce huge theological contradictions such as having death and suffering before sin. Also if you're free to interpret Genesis as metaphor at will (in spite of the context), what's to say that the foundational teaching regarding salvation only through Christ's sacrfice and ressurection isn't also a metaphor?
The creationist account fits nicely with science in that genetic information was created by an intelligence (God) and has since decreased as a result of mutation (and crossover, etc.) and natural selection over thousands of years.
Yes, creationism CAN coincide with Evolution. I agree. BUT NOT with Adam and Eve.
Sorry, I never meant to imply that evolution can coincide with biblical creation (it can't in my opinion). By "science" I meant the information theory I had been refering to. The NDTE is not science in the same way that creationism is not science, it's a believe system about the past. Science is the tool used to validate/invalidate these believe systems.
One theory that works is that God created the universe with a road map, KNOWING how it would form and how life would evolve. Being God and all, he can get away with this.
To suggest that God just spontaneously created man out of thin air, causes all kinds of problems.
However, like I said... i cannot dispute the idea that God is capable of creating the universe under whatever conditions he wants.
This is the idea known as theistic evolution (God controlled [or forseen] evolution). I'm not a fan of the idea, for reasons I described above (in regard to the Pope's compromise).
-Kev
P.S. Thanks for the intelligent and respectful responses. It's much more fun than the all-to-often encountered responses which Mart (MartUK) pointed to in his post (from both sides!) 8) Sorry again for the length of the reply.
-
The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, St. Jerome (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm)
Not that it matters to Andrew 'cause a man said it :wink:
Because one saint argued it does NOT make it part of Catholic Dogma.
Augustine said a LOT of things that the Church does not acknowledge as Catholic teaching and hes considered to be the greatest of the Catholic theologists.
Not to mention St Jermoe's arguments are pretty weak.
---Andrew
-
In light of the spiraling length of these posts. I'll make that my last one, unless you have any great desire to continue. So, the last word is yours if you want it :)
-Kev
-
Works don't get ya to heaven, the Grace of God does. :wink:
ahem, hee hee.
*** James 2:14-17 ***
14 Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if a certain one says he has faith but he does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it? 15 If a brother or a sister is in a naked state and lacking the food sufficient for the day, 16 yet a certain one of YOU says to them: "Go in peace, keep warm and well fed," but YOU do not give them the necessities for [their] body, of what benefit is it? 17 Thus, too, faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself
-
I don't think I'd say the Catholic Church is fucked up, though. I think it's good that we base what we pratice mostly on traditions, otherwise every church, whether it's a Catholic Church, Baptist church, or whatever, they'd all be the same, and that wouldn't be fun. Everyone would be . . . one religion.
And what's wrong with that? Didn't someone say how that wouldn't be fun? I didn't think that people are/were religious merely for the "fun" it ensues... but... oh-kay if that's their opinion ya know??
Are all religions acceptable to God?
Judg. 10:6, 7: "The sons of Israel again proceeded to do what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah, and they began to serve the Baals and the Ashtoreth images and the gods of Syria and the gods of Sidon and the gods of Moab and the gods of the sons of Ammon and the gods of the Philistines. So they left Jehovah and did not serve him. At this Jehovah's anger blazed against Israel." (If a person worships any thing or any person other than the true God, the Creator of heaven and earth, it is evident that his form of worship is not acceptable to Jehovah.)
Mark 7:6, 7: "He [Jesus] said to them [the Jewish Pharisees and scribes]: 'Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, "This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach as doctrines commands of men."'" (Regardless of whom a group profess to worship, if they hold to doctrines of men instead of the inspired Word of God, their worship is in vain.)
Rom. 10:2, 3: "I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge; for, because of not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God." (People may have God's written Word but lack accurate knowledge of what it contains, because they have not been taught properly. They may feel that they are zealous for God, but they may not be doing what he requires. Their worship is not going to please God, is it?)
___________________________________________________________
Taken from Reasoning from the Scriptures:
--Is it true that there is good in all religions?
Most religions do teach that a person should not lie or steal, and so forth. But is that sufficient? Would you be happy to drink a glass of poisoned water because someone assured you that most of what you were getting was water?
2 Cor. 11:14, 15: "Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness." (Here we are cautioned that not everything that originates with Satan may appear hideous. One of his chief methods of deceiving mankind has been false religion of all kinds, to some of which he gives a righteous appearance.)
2 Tim. 3:2, 5: "Men will be . . . having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away." (Regardless of their outward professions of love for God, if those with whom you worship do not sincerely apply his Word in their own lives, the Bible urges you to break off such association.)
-
I am opposed to the idea of another person (and frankly, I believe that's all the pope is, because no where in scripture does it say otherwise) telling me what I have to do to make it to heaven.
Which is the largest reason why im opposed to every organize religion I've ever studied.
---Andrew
Is belonging to an organized religion necessary?
Most religious organizations have produced bad fruitage. It is not the fact that groups are organized that is bad. But many have promoted forms of worship that are based on false teachings and are largely ritualistic instead of providing genuine spiritual guidance; they have been misused to control the lives of people for selfish objectives; they have been overly concerned with money collections and ornate houses of worship instead of spiritual values; their members are often hypocritical. Obviously no one who loves righteousness would want to belong to such an organization. But true religion is a refreshing contrast to all of that. Nevertheless, to fulfill the Bible's requirements, it must be organized.
Heb. 10:24, 25: "Let us consider one another to incite to love and fine works, not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you behold the day drawing near." (To carry out this Scriptural command, there must be Christian meetings that we can attend on a consistent basis. Such an arrangement encourages us to express love toward others, not only concern about self.)
1 Cor. 1:10: "Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought." (Such unity would never be achieved if the individuals did not meet together, benefit from the same spiritual feeding program, and respect the agency through which such instruction was provided. See also John 17:20, 21.)
1 Pet. 2:17: "Have love for the whole association of brothers." (Does that include only those who may meet together for worship in a particular private home? Not at all; it is an international brotherhood, as shown by Galatians 2:8, 9 and 1 Corinthians 16:19.)
Matt. 24:14: "This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come." (For all nations to be given the opportunity to hear that good news, the preaching must be carried out in an orderly way, with suitable oversight. Love for God and for one's fellowman has caused people around the earth to unite their efforts to do this work.)
-
who are you talking to??????
-
who are you talking to??????
lol, anyone who reads this later when its not so late, people who are bored at work tomorrow, people who don't sleep, lurkers... And oh yeah, haha, everyone on the last what?, 6, 7 pages of this thread... haha
-
I am opposed to the idea of another person (and frankly, I believe that's all the pope is, because no where in scripture does it say otherwise) telling me what I have to do to make it to heaven.
---Andrew
And for the other half of this that I wanted to touch on. :)
Do all good people go to heaven?
Acts 2:34: "David [whom the Bible refers to as being 'a man agreeable to Jehovah's heart'] did not ascend to the heavens."
Matt. 11:11: "Truly I say to you people, Among those born of women there has not been raised up a greater than John the Baptist; but a person that is a lesser one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is." (So John did not go to heaven when he died.)
Ps. 37:9, 11, 29: "Evildoers themselves will be cut off, but those hoping in Jehovah are the ones that will possess the earth . . . The meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it."
If Adam had not sinned, would he eventually have gone to heaven?
Gen. 1:26: "God went on to say: 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.'" (So, God's purpose for Adam was that he be caretaker of the earth and of the animal life there. Nothing is said about his going to heaven.)
Gen. 2:16, 17: "Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: 'From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.'" (It was not Jehovah's original purpose for man someday to die. God's command here quoted shows that he warned against the course that would lead to death. Death was to be punishment for disobedience, not the doorway to a better life in heaven. Obedience would have been rewarded by continued life, eternal life, in the Paradise that God had given to man. See also Isaiah 45:18.)
What points to this Paradise as being earthly?
The Hebrew Scriptures had never led faithful Jews to expect a reward of heavenly life. Those Scriptures pointed to the restoration of Paradise here on earth. Daniel 7:13, 14 had foretold that when "rulership and dignity and kingdom" would be given to the Messiah, "the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him." Those subjects of the Kingdom would be here on the earth. By what he said to Jesus, the evildoer was evidently expressing the hope that Jesus would remember him when that time came.
How, then, would Jesus be with the evildoer? By raising him from the dead, making provision for his physical needs, and extending to him the opportunity to learn and conform to Jehovah's requirements for eternal life. (John 5:28, 29) Jesus saw in the evildoer's repentant and respectful attitude a basis for including him among the billions who will be resurrected to earthly life and the opportunity to prove their worthiness to live forever in Paradise.
-
And to be honest, I really hope God doesn't exist, because if he does I'm going straight to hell. :twisted:
Boy I am just full of info tonight, ain't I?? haha
Does the Bible indicate whether the dead experience pain?
Eccl. 9:5, 10: "The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol,* the place to which you are going." (If they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain.) (*"Sheol," AS, RS, NE, JB; "the grave," KJ, Kx; "hell," Dy; "the world of the dead," TEV.)
Ps. 146:4: "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts* do perish." (*"Thoughts," KJ, 145:4 in Dy; "schemes," JB; "plans," RS, TEV.)
What is the meaning of the 'eternal torment' referred to in Revelation?
Rev. 14:9-11; 20:10, KJ: "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment [Greek, basa·ni·smou´] ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
What is the 'torment' to which these texts refer? It is noteworthy that at Revelation 11:10 (KJ) reference is made to 'prophets that torment those dwelling on the earth.' Such torment results from humiliating exposure by the messages that these prophets proclaim. At Revelation 14:9-11 (KJ) worshipers of the symbolic "beast and his image" are said to be "tormented with fire and brimstone." This cannot refer to conscious torment after death because "the dead know not any thing." (Eccl. 9:5, KJ) Then, what causes them to experience such torment while they are still alive? It is the proclamation by God's servants that worshipers of the "beast and his image" will experience second death, which is represented by "the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." The smoke, associated with their fiery destruction, ascends forever because the destruction will be eternal and will never be forgotten. When Revelation 20:10 says that the Devil is to experience 'torment forever and ever' in "the lake of fire and brimstone," what does that mean? Revelation 21:8 (KJ) says clearly that "the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone" means "the second death." So the Devil's being "tormented" there forever means that there will be no relief for him; he will be held under restraint forever, actually in eternal death. This use of the word "torment" (from the Greek ba´sa·nos) reminds one of its use at Matthew 18:34, where the same basic Greek word is applied to a 'jailer.'-RS, AT, ED, NW.
-
One of the commandments is 'Honor thy Father and thy Mother', which has brought me to believe the reason we, as Catholics, are supposed to listen and obey the Pope is because he is, one of our fathers. The commandment doesn't say 'Honor your biological Father and Mother; The ones who physically created you and brought you to Earth'. See, we refer to our priest as Father, and . . . the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church (who is alive), and he is the head priest, thus he's to be addressed as Father. And we've got to obey him. That's just what I've begun to belive, if you all get what I'm saying.
Is the rite of reconciliation, including auricular confession (personal confession into the ear of a priest), as taught by the Catholic Church Scriptural?
The manner in which the priest is addressed
The traditional formula, still often used, is: "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. It has been [length of time] since my last Confession."-U.S. Catholic magazine, October 1982, p. 6.
Matt. 23:1, 9, JB: "Jesus said, . . . 'You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.'"
Sins that can be forgiven
"The Church has always taught that every sin, no matter how serious, can be forgiven."-The Catholic Encyclopedia (bearing the nihil obstat and the imprimatur), R. C. Broderick (Nashville, Tenn.; 1976), p. 554.
Heb. 10:26, JB: "If, after we have been given knowledge of the truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, then there is no longer any sacrifice for them."
Mark 3:29, JB: "Let anyone blaspheme against the Holy Spirit and he will never have forgiveness: he is guilty of an eternal sin."
How penance is to be shown
Frequently the confessor directs that the penitent say a specified number of "Our Fathers" and "Hail Marys."
Matt. 6:7, JB: "In your prayers do not babble [that is, utter in a meaninglessly repetitious manner] as the pagans do, for they think that by using many words they will make themselves heard."
Matt. 6:9-12, JB: "You should pray like this: 'Our Father in heaven, . . . forgive us our debts.'" (Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to pray to or through Mary. See Philippians 4:6, also pages 258, 259, under "Mary.")
Rom. 12:9, JB: "Do not let your love be a pretence, but sincerely prefer good to evil."
-
............
-
alrighty, I think I'm done for now... *cracks knuckles* hee hee
Thought this was an interesting thread and I hope it keeps going...
Oh and in case any of you were wondering, if you haven't figured it out yet already, :) , I'm a Jehovah's Witness... Yep, onnah those annoying people who knock on your door at 10:00 in the morning offering you free Watchtowers and Awakes and such. (And no we are not Mormon). Really, considering just how far this thread has gone, maybe slamming the door on our face isn't really all that necassary? hee hee, I know I know...
Its just that everyone thinks that we are trying to make them convert their religion and become a Jehovah's Witness, but really, thats not it at all... Ah well.
-
NWT everywhere! *screams*
*clutches his copy of the critical text*
;)
-
NWT... so what if its the New World Translation? hee hee, Is there something wrong with that?
-
Another thought in general...
*** 8 Matthew 5:3 ***
Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, since the kingdom of the heavens belongs to them.
EDIT: bwah ha ha ha, had to make this long. haha. jk--guess I just couldn't get around it. :)
New World Translation
Definition: A translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern-day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah. These expressed themselves regarding their work as follows: "The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. They also feel a responsibility toward the searching readers who depend upon a translation of the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting salvation." This translation was originally released in sections, from 1950 to 1960. Editions in other languages have been based on the English translation.
On what is the "New World Translation" based?
As a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, editions of 1951-1955, was used. The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited from updating in harmony with the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia of 1977. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted. For the Christian Greek Scriptures, the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numerous early versions in other languages.
Who were the translators?
When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request. The translators were not seeking prominence for themselves but only to honor the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures.
Over the years other translation committees have taken a similar view. For example, the jacket of the Reference Edition (1971) of the New American Standard Bible states: "We have not used any scholar's name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God's Word should stand on its merits."
Is it really a scholarly translation?
Since the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, the question cannot here be answered in terms of their educational background. The translation must be appraised on its own merits.
What kind of translation is this? For one thing, it is an accurate, largely literal translation from the original languages. It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful. As an aid to students, a number of editions provide extensive footnotes showing variant readings where expressions can legitimately be rendered in more than one way, also a listing of the specific ancient manuscripts on which certain renderings are based.
Some verses may not read the same as what a person is accustomed to. Which rendering is right? Readers are invited to examine manuscript support cited in footnotes of the Reference edition of the New World Translation, read explanations given in the appendix, and compare the rendering with a variety of other translations. They will generally find that some other translators have also seen the need to express the matter in a similar manner.
Why is the name Jehovah used in the Christian Greek Scriptures?
It should be noted that the New World Translation is not the only Bible that does this. The divine name appears in translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Hebrew, in passages where quotations are made directly from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. The Emphatic Diaglott (1864) contains the name Jehovah 18 times. Versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures in at least 38 other languages also use a vernacular form of the divine name.
The emphasis that Jesus Christ put on the name of his Father indicates that he personally used it freely. (Matt. 6:9; John 17:6, 26) According to Jerome of the fourth century C.E., the apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew, and that Gospel makes numerous quotations of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that contain the divine name. Others of the Christian Greek Scripture writers quoted from the Greek Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, begun about 280 B.C.E.), early copies of which contained the divine name in Hebrew characters, as shown by actual fragments that have been preserved.
Professor George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: "Since the Tetragram [four Hebrew letters for the divine name] was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text."-Journal of Biblical Literature, March 1977, p. 77.
Why are some verses apparently missing?
Those verses, found in some translations, are not in the oldest available Bible manuscripts. Comparison with other modern translations, such as The New English Bible and the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, shows that other translators have also recognized that the verses in question do not belong in the Bible. In some instances, they were taken from another part of the Bible and added to the text being copied by a scribe.
-
NWT... so what if its the New World Translation? hee hee, Is there something wrong with that?
Quite a bit if you ask an average Protestant.
The whole John 1:1 "kai theos en ho logos" thing has been done to death already, but it is a good example why the NWT is, for the most part, an unfaithful translation of the scriptures ( the OT is very good in some places, while the NT barely resembles the actual text).
John 1:1 ends in the NWT as "and the word was a god." Every other major translation renders this as "and the word was God."
The explanation given for this by the Watchtower is that in Greek, there is only a definite article and no indefinite article. John 1:1 ends "kai theos en ho logos" in the Greek, not "kai ho theos en ho logos." They claim that an indefinte article should be inserted. Well, that could happen. With no context, either reading is technically correct. Context and later reading tells us, however, that it shouldn't be inserted. John 1:13 uses just "theos," not "ho theos" when it says "will of God." Unless you want to translate that as "will of a god." Also, Jesus claims to be God (and the word is Jesus [John 1:14]) in John 8:58.
"'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'"
This is another place where the Bible has been mistranslated in the NWT. They translate "ego emi" here as "I have been." In all fairness, the NLT falls into the same trap here. But, I don't use the NLT :wink:. "Ego emi" is translated everywhere else in the NWT (or, as much as I have read of it) as "I am."
If any doubt exists to this trasnlation, why did the crowd try to stone him immediately afterward? Yet another thing where the truth has been obscured. In the OT, God was refered to in the scriptures as YHWH. No vowels were ever written and it was rarely spoken out of reverence for the name. When the Massorites did their edition and added vowel points, they added the vowel points for Adonai (lord) to remind people to speak Adonai when reading the scriptures, instead of YHWH.
This is where the mistransliteration of "Jehovah" comes from. However, in some ancient texts, the name is transliterated as Yahweh. And that sounds like "he is" in Hebrew. God refers to himself as "I am." (Ex. 3:14, mistranslated yet again in the NWT, too long to explain this one :? )
So, Jesus was claiming to be God. The people knew this and tried to stone him. So, John 1:1 should be translated as "and the word was God," not "the word is a god," even though either of them is technically correct out of context.
Sorry for the long winded post. But there is quite a bit wrong with the NWT. It was written to fit JW doctrine. There is a reason why no other group out there uses it. You will find that most of the people who the Watchtower claims endorse the translation were misquoted, or they are Jehovah's Witnesses. That, or they are Jews who use the Old Testiment.
H. H. Rowley, who the Watchtower said supported the NWT, was furious when they took a quote about it out of context as an endorcement. He said in response, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."
Peace,
William
P.S. There are no reputable scholars today that claim Matthew was orignally written in any other language other than Greek, save the JWs and Assyrian Catholics, who swear Matthew was written in Christian Aramaic. We have already established that nothing counts just because Jerome says so :wink:. Insertion of the Tetragrammaton into the NT, is therefore inappropriate. Besides, they are trying to revise the Bible this way. They delibrately insert "Jehovah" (incorrect anyway) in place of "kurios" in Greek that means "lord." No ifs, ands, or buts.
I had never heard that the Septuagint had YHWH in it. When I read it last, it said "kurios" instead. At any rate, by the time the OT was written, all working copies of the Septuagint translated YHWH as "kurios." That is the whole thing that started the translation of YHWH as "Lord" in English as well. Just following the tradition of the Septuagint. Well, the Septuagint was copying how the scriptures were read... so I guess it goes back further. Meh... too tired. :-\
-
Also, Jesus claims to be God (and the word is Jesus [John 1:14]) in John 8:58.
"'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'"
Do you like to just read one scripture? I know you don't. You take in the others and add context and later reading as you said... So if Jesus claims to be God, then WHY? do these scpritures read as so?
(Proverbs 8:22) "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago.
(John 17:5) So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.
(Philippians 2:6) who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
(Colossians 1:17) Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,
(1 John 2:13) I am writing YOU, fathers, because YOU have come to know him who is from [the] beginning. I am writing YOU, young men, because YOU have conquered the wicked one. I write YOU, young children, because YOU have come to know the Father.
P.S. There are no reputable scholars today that claim Matthew was orignally written in any other language other than Greek, save the JWs and Assyrian Catholics, who swear Matthew was written in Christian Aramaic. We have already established that nothing counts just because Jerome says so :wink:. Insertion of the Tetragrammaton into the NT, is therefore inappropriate. Besides, they are trying to revise the Bible this way. They delibrately insert "Jehovah" (incorrect anyway) in place of "kurios" in Greek that means "lord." No ifs, ands, or buts.
I had never heard that the Septuagint had YHWH in it. When I read it last, it said "kurios" instead. At any rate, by the time the OT was written, all working copies of the Septuagint translated YHWH as "kurios." That is the whole thing that started the translation of YHWH as "Lord" in English as well. Just following the tradition of the Septuagint. Well, the Septuagint was copying how the scriptures were read... so I guess it goes back further. Meh... too tired. :-\
This is gunna be LONG but bare with me...
The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures
"Jehovah." Heb., ???? (YHWH or JHVH)
From App 1A and 1C it is evident that the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters (????) was used in both the Hebrew text and the Greek Septuagint. Therefore, whether Jesus and his disciples read the Scriptures in either Hebrew or Greek, they would come across the divine name. In the synagogue at Nazareth, when Jesus rose and accepted the book of Isaiah and read 61:1, 2 where the Tetragrammaton occurs twice, he pronounced the divine name. This was in accordance with his determination to make Jehovah's name known as can be seen from his prayer to his Father: "I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. . . . I have made your name known to them and will make it known."-Joh 17:6, 26.
There is evidence that Jesus' disciples used the Tetragrammaton in their writings. In his work De viris inlustribus [Concerning Illustrious Men], chapter III, Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote the following: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it." (Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series "Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur," Vol. 14, Leipzig, 1896, pp. 8, 9.)
Matthew made more than a hundred quotations from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. Where these quotations included the divine name he would have been obliged faithfully to include the Tetragrammaton in his Hebrew Gospel account. When the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, the Tetragrammaton was left untranslated within the Greek text according to the practice of that time.
Not only Matthew but all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted verses from the Hebrew text or from the Septuagint where the divine name appears. For example, in Peter's speech in Ac 3:22 a quotation is made from De 18:15 where the Tetragrammaton appears in a papyrus fragment of the Septuagint dated to the first century B.C.E. (See App 1C §1.) As a follower of Christ, Peter used God's name, Jehovah. When Peter's speech was put on record the Tetragrammaton was here used according to the practice during the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E.
Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, "Lord" or The·os´, "God."
Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: "Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God's name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name, ???? (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate ? [abbreviation for Ky´ri·os, "Lord"]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the 'Lord God' and the 'Lord Christ' which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself."
We concur with the above, with this exception: We do not consider this view a "theory," rather, a presentation of the facts of history as to the transmission of Bible manuscripts.
RESTORING THE DIVINE NAME
Throughout the centuries many translations of parts or of all the Christian Greek Scriptures have been made into Hebrew. Such translations, designated in this work by "J" with a superior number, have restored the divine name to the inspired Christian Greek Scriptures in various places. They have restored the divine name not only when coming upon quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures but also in other places where the texts called for such restoration.
To know where the divine name was replaced by the Greek words ?????? and ????, we have determined where the inspired Christian writers have quoted verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures and then we have referred back to the Hebrew text to ascertain whether the divine name appears there. In this way we determined the identity to give Ky´ri·os and The·os´ and the personality with which to clothe them.
To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have been most cautious about rendering the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures as a background. We have looked for agreement from the Hebrew versions to confirm our rendering. Thus, out of the 237 times that we have rendered the divine name in the body of our translation, there is only one instance where we have no agreement from the Hebrew versions. But in this one instance, namely, 1Co 7:17, the context and related texts strongly support rendering the divine name.-See 1Co 7:17 ftn, "Jehovah."
Following is a list of the 237 places where the name "Jehovah" occurs in the main text of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Supporting the rendering are various sources listed by their respective symbols. For an explanation of the symbols ("J" references), see the Introduction under "Textual Symbols."
The following list also indicates the Greek word to be found at these locations in the Westcott and Hort Greek text. Ky´ri·os, "Lord," and its various forms are designated by Ky. Similarly, The´os, "God," and its various forms are designated by Th. An asterisk (*) preceding either of these symbols indicates that the Greek word is accompanied by the definite article in the Greek text. A plus sign (+) following the verse citation indicates that there is additional information to be found in a footnote on that verse.
MATTHEW
1:20+ Ky; J3,4,7-14,16-18,22-24
1:22 Ky; J1-4,7-14,16-18,22-24,26
1:24 Ky; J1-4,7-14,16-18,22-24
2:13 Ky; J1-4,6-14,16-18,22-24
2:15 Ky; J1,3,4,6-14,16-18,22-24
2:19 Ky; J1-4,6-14,16-18,22-24
3:3 Ky; J1-4,7-14,16-18,20,22-24,26
4:4 Th; J1-14,17,18,20,22,23
4:7 Ky; J1-14,16-18,20,22-24
4:10 Ky; J1-14,16-18,20,22-24
5:33 *Ky; J1-4,7-14,16-18,22,23
21:9 Ky; J1-14,16-18,20-24
21:42 Ky; J1-4,7-14,16-18,20-24
22:37 Ky; J1-14,16-18,20-24
22:44 Ky; J1-14,16-18,20-24
23:39 Ky; J1-14,16-18,21-24
27:10 Ky; J1-4,7-14,16,17,22-24
28:2 Ky; J1-4,7-13,16-18,22-24
MARK
1:3 Ky; J7-14,16-18,22-24
5:19 *Ky; J7-10,17,18,22
11:9 Ky; J7,8,10-14,16-18,21-24
12:11 Ky; J7-14,16-18,21-24
12:29 Ky; J7-14,16-18,20-24,27
12:29 Ky; J7-14,16-18,20-24
12:30 Ky; J7-14,16-18,21-24
12:36 Ky; J7-14,16-18,21-24
13:20 Ky; J7,8,10,13,16-18,22-24
LUKE
1:6 *Ky; J7-17,23
1:9 *Ky; J7-18,22,23
1:11 Ky; J7-13,16-18,22-24
1:15 Ky; J7,8,10-18,22,23
1:16 Ky; J7-18,22-24
1:17 Ky; J7-18,22-24
1:25 Ky; J7-18,22,23
1:28 *Ky; J5,7-18,22,23
1:32 Ky; J5-18,22-24
1:38 Ky; J5,7-18,22-24
1:45 Ky; J5-18,22-24
1:46 *Ky; J5-18,22,23
1:58 Ky; J5-18,22-24
1:66 Ky; J5-18,22-24
1:68 Ky; J5-18,22-24
1:76 Ky; J5-18,22-24
2:9 Ky; J5,7-13,16,17,22-24
2:9 Ky; J5,7,8,10-18,22-24
2:15 *Ky; J5,7,8,10-18,22,23
2:22 *Ky; J5-18,22,23
2:23 Ky; J5-18,22-24
2:23 *Ky; J5-18,22,23
2:24 Ky; J5-18,22-24
2:26 Ky; J5-18,22-24
2:39 Ky; J5-18,22-24
3:4 Ky; J7-15,17,18,22-24
4:8 Ky; J7-18,22-24
4:12 Ky; J7-18,22-24
4:18 Ky; J7-15,20,23,24
4:19 Ky; J7-18,20,22-24
5:17 Ky; J7-18,22-24
10:27 Ky; J5-18,21-24
13:35 Ky; J7-18,21-24
19:38 Ky; J7-18,21-24
20:37 Ky; J9,11-18,21-24,27
20:42 Ky; J7-18,21-24
JOHN
1:23 Ky; J5-14,16-19,22-24
6:45 Th; J7,8,10,14,17,19,20,22,23
12:13 Ky; J7-14,16-19,21-24
12:38 Ky; J12-14,16-18,22,23
12:38 Ky; J7-14,16-20,22-24
ACTS
1:24 Ky; J7,8,10,22,23
2:20 Ky; J7,8,10-18,20,22-24
2:21 Ky; J7,8,10-18,20,22-24
2:25 *Ky; J7,8,10-18,20,22,23
2:34 Ky; J7,8,10-18,21-24
2:39 Ky; J7,8,10,17,18,22-24
2:47 *Ky; J7,8,10
3:19 *Ky; J13-18,22,23
3:22+ Ky; J7,8,10-18,20,22-24
4:26 *Ky; J7,8,10-18,20,22,23
4:29 Ky; J7,8,10
5:9 Ky; J7,8,10,13,15-18,22-24
5:19 Ky; J7,8,10,13,15-18,22-24
7:31 Ky; J11-18,22-24
7:33 *Ky; J11-18,22,23
7:49 Ky; J11-18,20,22-24
7:60 Ky; J17,18,22,23
8:22+ *Ky; J18,22,23
8:24+ *Ky; J7,8,10,13,15-18,22,23
8:25+ *Ky; J7,8,10,17,18
8:26 Ky; J7,8,10,13,15-18,22-24
8:39 Ky; J13,15-18,22-24
9:31 *Ky; J7,8,10,13,15,16,18,22
10:33+ *Ky; J17,18,23
11:21 Ky; J7,8,10,13,15-18,22,23
12:7 Ky; J7,8,10,13,15-18,22-24
12:11 *Ky; J7,8,10,13,15,16,18,23
12:17 *Ky; J7,8,10
12:23 Ky; J7,8,10,13,15-18,22-24
12:24+ *Ky; J7,8,10,23
13:2 *Ky; J7,8,10,13,15-18,22,23
13:10 *Ky; J7,8,10,13,15-18,22,23
13:11 Ky; J7,8,10,15-18,22-24
13:12 *Ky; J7,8,10
13:44+ *Th; J17,22
13:47 *Ky; J7,8,10,22,23
13:48+ *Th; J7,8,10,13,15-17,22,23
13:49 *Ky; J7,8,10,13,15-18,22,23
14:3 *Ky; J7,8,10,15-18,23
14:23 *Ky; J7,8,10,13,15,16
15:17 *Ky; J11-18,22,23
15:17 Ky; J7,8,10-18,20,22-24
15:35+ *Ky; J17,18,22,23
15:36+ *Ky; J7,8,10,17,18,22,23
15:40+ *Ky; J17,18,22
16:14 *Ky; J7,8,10,17,18,23
16:15+ *Ky; J7,8,10
16:32+ *Th; J7,8,10,17,18,22,23
18:21 *Th; J17
18:25 *Ky; J7,8,10,13,15,16,24
19:20+ *Ky; J7,8,10,13,15-18,23
21:14 *Ky; J7,8,10,17,18,23
ROMANS
4:3 *Th; J7,8,10,17,20,22
4:8 Ky; J7,8,10-18,20,22-25
9:28 Ky; J7,8,10,13,16,20,25
9:29 Ky; J7,8,10-18,20,22-24
10:13 Ky; J7,8,10,13-18,22-24
10:16 Ky; J7,8,10,13-18,23
11:3 Ky; J7,8,10-18,23,25
11:34 Ky; J7,8,10,13-18,20,22-25
12:11 *Ky; J7,8,10,13,16,18
12:19 Ky; J7,8,10-18,22-24
14:4+ *Ky; J18,23
14:6 Ky; J7,8,10,13,16,18,22,24
14:6 Ky; J7,8,10,13,16,18,22,24
14:6 Ky; J7,8,10,13,16,22,24
14:8 *Ky; J7,8,10,13-16,18
14:8 *Ky; J7,8,10,13-16,18
14:8 *Ky; J7,8,10,13-16,18
14:11 Ky; J7,8,10-18,22-25
15:11 *Ky; J7,8,10-18,20,22,23,25
1 CORINTHIANS
1:31 Ky; J7,8,10-14,16-18,22-24
2:16 Ky; J13,14,16-18,22-24
3:20 Ky; J7,8,10-14,16-18,20,22-24
4:4 Ky; J7,8,10,17,18,23,24
4:19 *Ky; J7,8,10,22,23
7:17+ *Ky;
10:9+ *Ky; J18,22,23
10:21 Ky; J7,8,10,24
10:21 Ky; J7,8,10,24
10:22 *Ky; J7,8,10,14
10:26 *Ky; J7,8,10,11,13,14,16-18,20,22,23
11:32 *Ky; J13,16,18
14:21 Ky; J7,8,10-14,16-18,22-24
16:7 *Ky; J7,8,10,13,14,16-18,22,23
16:10 Ky; J7,8,10,13,14,16-18,24
2 CORINTHIANS
3:16 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16,22,24
3:17 *Ky; J7,8,13,14,16
3:17 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16,22,24
3:18 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16,22,24
3:18 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16,22,24
6:17 Ky; J7,8,11-14,16-18,22-24
6:18 Ky; J7,8,11-14,16-18,22-24
8:21+ Ky; J7,8,24
10:17 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24
10:18 *Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23
GALATIANS
3:6 *Th; J7,8
EPHESIANS
2:21 Ky; J7,8,13,16-18,22-24
5:17+ *Ky; J7,8
5:19 *Ky; J7,8,13,16,23
6:4 Ky; J7,8,22,24
6:7 *Ky; J7,8
6:8 Ky; J22,24
COLOSSIANS
1:10+ *Ky; J7,8
3:13+ *Ky; J23
3:16+ *Th; J7,8,13,14,16,17
3:22+ *Ky; J18,22
3:23 *Ky; J7,8,17,18,22,23
3:24 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24
1 THESSALONIANS
1:8+ *Ky; J7,8,17,18,22,23
4:6 Ky; J7,8,17,18,22-24
4:15 Ky; J7,8,17,18,24
5:2 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24
2 THESSALONIANS
2:2 *Ky; J18,22,23
2:13+ Ky; J13,16,24
3:1 *Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23
2 TIMOTHY
1:18 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24
2:19 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,20,22-24
2:19 Ky; J18,22-24
4:14 *Ky; J7,8,13,16-18,22,23
HEBREWS
2:13 *Th; J3,7,8,17,20,22
7:21 Ky; J3,7,8,11-18,20,22-24
8:2 *Ky; J7,8,13-16,18,22,23
8:8 Ky; J3,7,8,11-18,20,22-24
8:9 Ky; J3,7,8,11-18,20,22-24
8:10 Ky; J3,7,8,11-18,20,22,24
8:11 *Ky; J3,7,8,11-18,20,22,23
10:16 Ky; J3,7,8,11-18,22-24
10:30 Ky; J3,7,8,11-18,20,22-24
12:5 Ky; J7,8,11-18,20,22-24
12:6 Ky; J3,7,8,11-18,20,22-24
13:6 Ky; J3,7,8,11-18,20,22-24
JAMES
1:7 *Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23
1:12+ J7,8,13,16,17
2:23 *Th; J14,17,20,22
2:23 Th; J17
3:9+ *Ky; J18,23
4:10 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23
4:15 *Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23
5:4 Ky; J7,8,11-14,16-18,22-24
5:10 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24
5:11 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16,18,22-24
5:11 *Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24
5:14 *Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22
5:15 *Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23
1 PETER
1:25+ Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,20,22,23
3:12 Ky; J7,8,11-14,16-18,20,22-24
3:12 Ky; J7,8,11-14,16-18,20,22,24
2 PETER
2:9 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24
2:11+ Ky; J7,8,13,16-18,22-24
3:8 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24
3:9 Ky; J7,8,13,16-18,22-24
3:10 Ky; J7,8,13,16-18,22-24
3:12+ *Th; J7,8,17
JUDE
5+ Ky; J7,8,11-14,16-18,22,23
9+ Ky; J7,8,11-14,16-18,22-24
14 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24
REVELATION
1:8 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24
4:8 Ky; J7,8,11-14,16-18,22,24
4:11 *Ky; J7,8,13,14,16,18
11:17 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23
15:3 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23
15:4 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23
16:7 Ky; J13,14,16-18,22,23
18:8+ Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24
19:6 Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22-24
21:22 *Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,23
22:5 Ky; J7,8,11-14,16-18,22-24
22:6 *Ky; J7,8,13,14,16-18,22,24
Following is a list of the 72 places where the name "Jehovah" occurs, not in the main text of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, but only in the footnotes.
Mt 22:32; Mr 11:10; Lu 1:2; 2:11, 29, 38; 4:4, 18; Joh 5:4; Ac 2:30; 7:30, 37; 10:22; 13:43, 50; 14:25; 19:23; 20:25; 22:17; 26:7; Ro 7:6; 10:17; 11:8; 1Co 7:17; 10:28; 11:23; Ga 2:6; 3:20; 5:10, 12; Php 4:1, 4, 5, 10, 18; Col 3:15; 1Th 4:9, 16, 17, 17; 5:27; 1Ti 2:2, 10; 3:16; 4:7, 8; 5:4, 8; 6:2, 3, 6, 11; 2Ti 1:16, 18; 2:14, 22, 24; Tit 2:12; Heb 4:3; 9:20; 10:30; 1Pe 2:13; 3:1, 15; 5:3; 2Pe 1:3; 2Jo 11; Re 11:1, 19; 16:5; 19:1, 2.
"Jah," the shorter form of the divine name, occurs in the Greek expression hal·le·lou·i·a´, a transliteration of the Hebrew ha·lelu-Yah´, "Praise Jah, you people!" Re (4 times) 19:1, 3, 4, 6.-See Ps 104:35 ftns.
-
Jehovah
Definition: The personal name of the only true God. His own self-designation. Jehovah is the Creator and, rightfully, the Sovereign Ruler of the universe. "Jehovah" is translated from the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, ????--(i see that the nh.com or something doesn't recognize these Hebrew symbols... therefore the four question marks), which means "He Causes to Become." These four Hebrew letters are represented in many languages by the letters JHVH or YHWH.
Where is God's name found in Bible translations that are commonly used today?
The New English Bible: The name Jehovah appears at Exodus 3:15; 6:3. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24; Ezekiel 48:35. (But if this and other translations use "Jehovah" in several places, why not be consistent in using it at every place where the Tetragrammaton appears in the Hebrew text?)
Revised Standard Version: A footnote on Exodus 3:15 says: "The word LORD when spelled with capital letters, stands for the divine name, YHWH."
Today's English Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 states: "THE LORD: . . . Where the Hebrew text has Yahweh, traditionally transliterated as Jehovah, this translation employs LORD with capital letters, following a usage which is widespread in English versions."
King James Version: The name Jehovah is found at Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24.
American Standard Version: The name Jehovah is used consistently in the Hebrew Scriptures in this translation, beginning with Genesis 2:4.
Douay Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 says: "My name Adonai. The name, which is in the Hebrew text, is that most proper name of God, which signifieth his eternal, self-existing being, (Exod. 3, 14,) which the Jews out of reverence never pronounce; but, instead of it, whenever it occurs in the Bible, they read Adonai, which signifies the Lord; and, therefore, they put the points or vowels, which belong to the name Adonai, to the four letters of that other ineffable name, Jod, He, Vau, He. Hence some moderns have framed the name of Jehovah, unknown to all the ancients, whether Jews or Christians; for the true pronunciation of the name, which is in the Hebrew text, by long disuse is now quite lost." (It is interesting that The Catholic Encyclopedia [1913, Vol. VIII, p. 329] states: "Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name.")
The Holy Bible translated by Ronald A. Knox: The name Yahweh is found in footnotes at Exodus 3:14 and 6:3.
The New American Bible: A footnote on Exodus 3:14 favors the form "Yahweh," but the name does not appear in the main text of the translation. In the Saint Joseph Edition, see also the appendix Bible Dictionary under "Lord" and "Yahweh."
The Jerusalem Bible: The Tetragrammaton is translated Yahweh, starting with its first occurrence, at Genesis 2:4.
New World Translation: The name Jehovah is used in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures in this translation, appearing 7,210 times.
An American Translation: At Exodus 3:15 and 6:3 the name Yahweh is used, followed by "the LORD" in brackets.
The Bible in Living English, S. T. Byington: The name Jehovah is used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.
The 'Holy Scriptures' translated by J. N. Darby: The name Jehovah appears throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, also in many footnotes on Christian Greek Scripture texts, beginning with Matthew 1:20.
The Emphatic Diaglott, Benjamin Wilson: The name Jehovah is found at Matthew 21:9 and in 17 other places in this translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text-A New Translation, Jewish Publication Society of America, Max Margolis editor-in-chief: At Exodus 6:3 the Hebrew Tetragrammaton appears in the English text.
The Holy Bible translated by Robert Young: The name Jehovah is found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures in this literal translation.
-
Mal,
Every single point you just made in all of those posts suffers from two major flaws.
1. Translations (which I think Will did a good job of establishing)
2. Source
You HEAVILY quote and rely on PEOPLE in the Bible such as Matthew and Mark yet you don't seem to realize. The words of these men, no matter how great they were, are NOT THE WORDS OF GOD. They are the words of MEN interpreting the wishes of God.
Which means they are prone to error. The gospels DIRECTLY contradict eachother on events and interpretations MANY MANY times. This just proves that they are not flawless accounts and are subject to the errors of men.
This is the primary reason I do directly quote scripture in ANY argument I make. Because taken directly, the quotes can have MANY meanings or can be attacked based on the source. They were written by men and are prone to all kinds of mistakes. The point of scripture is not the letter, but the emotion.
As for David not going to heaven, we can argue semantics on what Heaven and Hell are (there are EASILY as many passages to support the Catholic views on this, and i think you realize there are a TON of passages in the new testament that say that ALL GOOD PEOPLE make it o heaven), and we can argue the difference between ascension into heaven and dying to go heaven (and Catholics believe there is a big difference) but the fact of the matter is David was a military leader. He killed. He was known for his ruthlessness. He may have killed for the "favored" people, but he still killed.
To suggest that him not going to heaven is proof that all good men don't go to heaven is silly.
Also, that passage about John could easily be interpreted to say that John as a LIVING man is not as great as a man who has gone to heaven. It does NOT neccesarily say that John's spirit did not go to heaven when he died.
Although, as the Catholics teach, it didn't, because no one who died in between Adam and Jesus went to heaven until AFTER Jesus died and opened the gates.
My close friend's father is a Witness. And he and I use to have MANY discussions on this topic, and the major flaw with ALL Witnesses is that you see your own interpretation as LAW and you conveniently ignore anything which doesn't fit your own views. He even acknowledged this as he got older. JW's have exceptionally narrow vision. Not to say Catholics, protestants, jews and Muslims don't, but that's beyond the point I'm making here.
I have to respond to Kev now, so im not getting drug into a long JW debate....
---Andrew
-
Jehovah
Holy cow. Does anyone here really think it matters what we call God? Seriously. YHWH, Yaweh, God, Jesus, Alah, Paramatman, or whatever. It's the same dude. Arguing over religious semantics doesn't help anyone.
---Andrew
-
You HEAVILY quote and rely on PEOPLE in the Bible such as Matthew and Mark yet you don't seem to realize. The words of these men, no matter how great they were, are NOT THE WORDS OF GOD. They are the words of MEN interpreting the wishes of God.
Which means they are prone to error. The gospels DIRECTLY contradict eachother on events and interpretations MANY MANY times. This just proves that they are not flawless accounts and are subject to the errors of men.
---Andrew
One more thing and then I will step out.
*** 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ***
16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
-
Yes, I will counter with the argument that the original human genome was created without genetic flaws (Gen 1:31). Genetic flaws accumulated with the transfer (with error) of getectic information down the generations following the fall/curse (Gen 3).
Science can't discount this idea to the best of my knowledge, and personally, it fits pretty well with my own beliefs on this subject. So I won't argue with this.
The idea that God created one type of Cat and this cat spawned all others seems valid too. If you start from the notion that you believe in God, and then fit it to the facts, I buy that.
mtDNA is the DNA contained in the mitochondria (the powerplants) of cells, rather than in the nucleus. Only DNA in the nucleus is transmitted via a sperm cell. So all mtDNA is supplied by the mother (via the egg). It's a lot easier to extract than normal nuclear-DNA.
So i'm intrigued by this. I'm gonna do some research on mtDNA when i have time. I am familair with mitochnodria and their role, and I seem to remember there being theories that they were actually their own organism that existed inside the human cell, but I hadn't heard that they had their own DNA.
If the evidence of these catastrophies and the subsiquent rapid evolution is available in the prehistoric record, why not in the more recent record too?
It is available, in a VERY limited way. For example, we have evidence of animals transplanted because of explorers (for example, breeds of rats carried across oceans) adapting VERY rapidly to new environments. Often in a single generation. We have especially seen it in plants carried to new regions. These would be similar to rapid evolutionary changes due to catasrophes.
granted, we have not seen this at the species level, just at the variety level. But we have seen it. Again, it comes down to the species barrier that scientists haven't broken.
Without such evidence evolutionists maintain nothing more than faith in these ad hoc catastrophic events. Of course, you are perfectly right in suggesting that, if it's true, this would explain the missing steps. This is fine if people are only looking for a reason to believe in evolution.
But isn't this just as valid as believing in a God? Like you say, it just depends on the preconcieved notion you start out with. I'm not saying we can PROVE natural evolution is the way it happened (cause we can't), I'm just saying we can't PROVE that it didn't. It's still AS valid an option as believing in God.
Well I can't account for those documentaries, there is (unfortunatley) a lot of compromise in all parts of the church these days (Gap theory, Theistic evolution, Day-Age theory) often employing 'local flood' ideas. Perhaps this was the fate of your documentaries.
Ugh. yeah there is. The Catholic church drives me up a wall with all the compromise and debate and disagreement. Too political IMO.
There is, in fact, a lot of evidence for the global flood. The most notable being the fossil layers (millions of dead things layed down by water). This is exactly what you would expect to find.
I have serious problems with the idea of the flood, but like you said, it's way off topic. However, briefly, it's not feasible that Moses could have collected two of every animal, if he did it's not feasible that he could have gotten them to reproduce afterwards, nor is it feasible he could have then spread them out to the proper geographic region. MANY of them would have died and MANY of them would have been unable to reproduce after they arrived. And even if they DID, we would be starting from scratch on the whole genetic diversity issue. And this time we wouldn't have God there to kick start things in the beggining. Two post-flood black labradors could not have produced the entire black lab population of the world without severe genetic consequences.
Not to MENTION, plants! Jesus! Have you ever tried to grow a flower garden? Do you have any idea how hard it would be to maintain EVERY species of flower on the Earth? YIKES!
The geologic column is not evidence in itself that the earth is older than the bible says. As stated above, that is a conclusion drawn only from naturalistic assumptions about how the layers were formed not the creationist position. If by "Geologically" you mean radioisotopic (RI) dating, they are also based on questionable assumptions. There are also scores of other dating methods (non-isotopic) based on the same kind of uniformitarian assumptions that put a maximum age at far less than the dates usually obtained with RI dating. This is getting way off track, but (again) if you can be bothered we can go down this route.
Normally, I would use stars (the break down of stars), speed of light and background radiation as the primary evidence for the age of the Universe BUT, i just read a very interesting article on one of those sites you linked me too talking about how IF we assume that the Earth is the center of the universe then all of those things are explainable. Because it would mean that if God were expanding the universe the Earth would be the center of a gravity well which would cause our time to run slower. Which is a neat premise. So i need to think about this one a bit more.
Nah, It's my view that Genesis is refering to 7 solar days (24 hour). It's written in literal historical narrative and refered to as such (even by Christ) in the new testament.
This just never made sense to me. God cannot exist within time, because time requires change. Without change, there is no time. If God is PERFECT then God is incapable of change (unless perfection changes, which is a silly notion, there can be only one pinacle). If God is incapable of change then he cannot do different things on different days. That limits God to the constraints of time and makes him less than perfect.
lol. True, but no creationists or evolutionists book shelf would be complete without it :)
Much to my dismay......
Amino acid chains are not life.
But they are the basic building blocks of life.
There is no code system adhered to, no syntax or any conveyed meaning within the molecuels, it's just the bonding forces of atoms at work. The arranging of these amino acids into meaningful information carrying sequences by random processes would be good proof that information by chance (and thus evolution) is possible.
...In addition to demonstrating an evolutionary process that can create new information, evolutionary theory fails to explain how the genetic code system used to encode that information became defined in the first place. As it stands, evolutionists can only maintain by faith (in spite of the science) that these things happened naturally. Information and code systems only come from intelligent design.
The theory here is that the information code occured by RANDOM chance. Things just HAPPENED To fall into play in such a way that the strains formed information.
As I mentioned, the codes structure isn't perfect. It is flawed and inefficient, which to me is not evidence of an intelligent creator. An intelligent creator would have made more efficient code.... unless he was developing in VB, in which case im sure it would have been filled with late binds (ba dum dum ching).
Like I said, no evolutionist ever claimed the ODD's were good for life to have happened, but they are saying it "DID" happen, now can we figure out HOW.
But if we go with the theory that the universe is a recurring event (big bang followed by big crunch).... (which is a notion being challenged by the new theory of anti-gravity which is REALLY depressing cause it says the universe is SPEEDING up its expansion) then EVENTUALLY life would happen. If we have an infinit number of monkies banging on an infinit number of type writters for an infinit period of time, one of them will turn out a script for hamlet :wink:
As of my last round of studying on this subject (circa 2001) the evidence still showed that evolution of life from non-living matter was still possible.
So, i maintain that evolutionary creation of life is possible, but perhaps not plausible. Maybe THAT's the real question.
I think you're right, the Pope may have accepted evolution (and the big bang, I think), but he is not the final authority on the matter. Such compromised theistic evolutionary ideas induce huge theological contradictions such as having death and suffering before sin. Also if you're free to interpret Genesis as metaphor at will (in spite of the context), what's to say that the foundational teaching regarding salvation only through Christ's sacrfice and ressurection isn't also a metaphor?
If you are Catholic then you CANNOT disagree with the pope. If you're not Catholic, then I agree with you :wink:
The creationist account fits nicely with science in that genetic information was created by an intelligence (God) and has since decreased as a result of mutation (and crossover, etc.) and natural selection over thousands of years.
This is the idea known as theistic evolution (God controlled [or forseen] evolution). I'm not a fan of the idea, for reasons I described above (in regard to the Pope's compromise).
Personally, I have yet to see any real issues with Theistic evolution, scientific evolution or creationism BEYOND a personal belief system. I must acknowledge that they are all POSSIBLE. Beyond that, it's all about personal faith.
Which, really, is all I argue. Is that there are a TON of explantions for life and the universe that we cannot discount as IMPOSSIBLE. I think the best reason to believe something is because you it feels right, and because you have "faith" in it.
k, i must get back to work now :wink:
---Andrew
-
godskolere
lees je dit allemaal nog, Nicky?
Ik niet, teveel gezeik!!
Hahahahaha
Sorry.
:P
-
Mal, ok, you don't understand the concept of the Trinity. That's ok, lots of Christians don't understand it either. Jesus claims to be God in some places, and in others he claims his father is God. So, assuming Jesus is divine or from God (something I'm sure we can agree on Mal), Jesus is father and he is God, which are one and the same. This is the concept of the Trinity. JWs tend to ignore the fact that Jesus claimed to be God and focus on when Jesus talks about his father. Which, of course, is only half the story.
Saying I take things out of context is stupid. I have read the NT in the orignal Greek, using the critical text. From Matthew to Revelation. I have also read the entire OT (skipping over unimportant geneologies, of course) in many English translations (unfortunately, Biblical Hebrew is so much harder than Koine Greek). I know what I believe, and I know why I believe it. I take the Bible in the context as a whole. And it says this: Man is imperfect. He struggled for awhile to attain perfection, but it was impossible. God had mercy and made a sacrifice to atone for our sins, and freedom from the consequences of sin is granted by just asking. That is it. The rest is details. That is the message of the Bible, in overall context.
And the quote you gave me about the insertion of the divine name into the NT just basically says, "yeah, we did it."
The idea that the divine name appeared in copies of the LXX in use around the time of Christ is totally baseless. All your quotes tell me is that maybe some early editions just had it in Hebrew letters, although I cannot accertain that fact. There is quite a bit of bad Biblical archeology out there that is, at times, downright fabrication.
It ultimately comes down to the Watchtower "correcting" or "revising" the scriptures because they are "led of God."
I read in an old Watchtower (please don't ask me for a reference, there are too many to keep track of) something along the lines of "if someone read the Bible from cover to cover, they would get the same version of Christianity we have today." The Watchtower believes that it is the sole interpreter of God's law on Earth. Ok, I can understand that. I may disagree with their doctrine, but that is true with many religions.
What gets me all mad is their "intellectual dishonesty," claiming that their Bible accurately reflects the original text. If they want to say that they are "led of God" to "restore" the text, then fine. But they can't do that and simultaneously claim that their "translation" is reflective of the source documents. This is what gets me mad.
As soon as they stop claiming their bible is a translation, but instead a different book, then my problems with the sect ends. It would be like the Book of Mormon, or the Koran. I may not agree with the contents, but it's their book then.
"Intellectual dishonesty." That sums up the NWT.
Peace,
William
-
Okay, I said that was my last post post, and I meant it 8) I think we've given enough information for people to follow up anything they desire and make their own informed decisions. However, I'd like to clear a couple of things up.
Firstly, you misquoted me (accidentally I'm sure). In this quote.
The creationist account fits nicely with science in that genetic information was created by an intelligence (God) and has since decreased as a result of mutation (and crossover, etc.) and natural selection over thousands of years.
This is the idea known as theistic evolution (God controlled [or forseen] evolution). I'm not a fan of the idea, for reasons I described above (in regard to the Pope's compromise).
These were seperate paragraphs about seperate issues. It appears in the way you quoted me that the latter paragraph refers to the idea presented in the first. This is not the case. The first paragraph discusses how the creationist account fits with the science (of information) and the observered science of natural selection/mutation (not evolution as I defined it). The second paragraph was a response to something you said and nothing to do with the former paragraph. Just to be totally clear: I do not believe theistic evolution is a viable worldview. In my eyes, it falls for the same reasons as normal evolution and it also falls in the presense of a language study of Genesis. It's a failed compromise (IMO).
If you are Catholic then you CANNOT disagree with the pope. If you're not Catholic, then I agree with you :wink:
No I'm not Catholic. I don't consider the Pope infallable. I describe myself as a "non-denominational bible believing Christian". A mouthful. but put simply, this is what I believe (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/gospel.asp). Or, more formally, this statement of beliefs (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp) (which I stole from AiG) parellels mine perfectly. I also consider Will's statement above to describe what I believe accuratley.
I know what I believe, and I know why I believe it. I take the Bible in the context as a whole. And it says this: Man is imperfect. He struggled for awhile to attain perfection, but it was impossible. God had mercy and made a sacrifice to atone for our sins, and freedom from the consequences of sin is granted by just asking.
Finally, I cannot resist using the monkey-typewriter quote to summarise the basic argument presented by information theory.
If we have an infinit number of monkies banging on an infinit number of type writters for an infinit period of time, one of them will turn out a script for hamlet :wink:
Infinite mokeys, infinite typewriters, infinite time and the information coding system for the english language. Money's and typewriters evolution has, information code systems it doesn't.
-Kev
P.S. We only touched breifly on the flood issue. Purely FTR, the best (creationist) technical feasibility study I know of on the subject is "NOAH'S ARK: A Feasibility Study" - John Woodmorappe (http://www.icr.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=BNOAR2). Most attacks on the flood account stem from a misunderstanding of what exact went on the ark.
-
*** 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ***
16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
INSPIRED by God. Not that it is the direct quote of God.
Don't you see the flaw in this quote? First of all, just because God inspired the writings doesn't mean that man got them RIGHT. Men misquote Jesus all the time. And even if we take your passage at face value, this still doesn't explain the discrepencies in the Gospels.
NEXT, the quote you threw at me was from TIMOTHY! It's from a HUMAN!
Thats like if I told you the Book of Mormon was all false and you quoted me a passage of the Book of Mormon that says "The Book of Mormon is 100% accurate".
Thats circular logic.
Madness!!!!!
LOL. There's a joke to be made there... but it would make me look like a complete Geek so i'll leave it alone :wink:
---Andrew
-
I have read the NT in the orignal Greek
8O
THAT is dedication.
---Andrew
-
These were seperate paragraphs about seperate issues. It appears in the way you quoted me that the latter paragraph refers to the idea presented in the first. This is not the case. The first paragraph discusses how the creationist account fits with the science (of information) and the observered science of natural selection/mutation (not evolution as I defined it). The second paragraph was a response to something you said and nothing to do with the former paragraph. Just to be totally clear: I do not believe theistic evolution is a viable worldview. In my eyes, it falls for the same reasons as normal evolution and it also falls in the presense of a language study of Genesis. It's a failed compromise (IMO).
My bad. I was just cutting out the middle part to show the beginning and the end of what I was responding to, for the sake of limiting paragraph size.
Infinite mokeys, infinite typewriters, infinite time and the information coding system for the english language. Money's and typewriters evolution has, information code systems it doesn't.
Ok. Offically my last comment as well.
yes, if you don't have ENGLISH you wont understand the manuscript. But the argument here is that we HAVE English, so if we look back at the manuscript we will see shakespere.
Even if we said an infinit number of monkies had an infinit number of pencils and an infinit amount of paper and an infinit amount of time, we would still end up with a manuscript for hamlet. They dont need to have letters to write the manuscript. They just need SOMETHING to make marks on paper with.
Since we HAVE genetics, and we HAVE DNA, looking at the DNA we can deduce where the codes come from. They didn't have to HAPPEN with the intention of forming the code. They could have randomly happened.... this just happened to form the code that we now recognize as DNA.
And i guess this is the only point we disagree on. I see it as possible for a genetic code to have happened by accident and you don't. Anyone else can take what we've said and run with it from there.
Word.
---Andrew
-
Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh *bangs head against monitor*
You say ''Organized Religion'' like it's a bad thing. The Catholic Church, (again), believes that It is THE Church. So that's what I believe, as well. I was baptized a Catholic before I was even a year old, and I figure that's what God wants me to believe, otherwise my parents would have been Jewish and I would have been Jewish as well. Or Baptist. Or Protestant. Or . . . whatever. :\
Go on, all of you. Believe what you will. Envy the Catholic Church and Its population. Try your best to find SOME explanation as to why what The Church teaches is wrong. Have fun.
I don't get WHY yousay The Church is so ''bad, and traditional'' or watever the fuck you're saying. It's not bad. It doesn't JUST go by traditions. Every Religion goes by traditions, anyway.
Protestant Reformation - The Sriptures DON'T say ''alright, this guy named Martin Luther is gonn decide he doesn't agree with The Church so he's gonna nail what he believes on the doors of a Cathedral, and everyone's gonna listen to him. Then the Spaniards are gonnaattempt to bring him and his reformed Religion down.'' No, they don't. That's what happened, and MOST of what Protestants believe ISN'T in the Scriptures. They just believe it 'cause that's wat they think's right.
-
You say ''Organized Religion'' like it's a bad thing. The Catholic Church, (again), believes that It is THE Church. So that's what I believe, as well. I was baptized a Catholic before I was even a year old, and I figure that's what God wants me to believe, otherwise my parents would have been Jewish and I would have been Jewish as well. Or Baptist. Or Protestant. Or . . . whatever. :\
CeCe... you claim to be smart. You claim to be the smartest person in your class. So why do you say stuff that is obviously silly?
So since my friend is atheist, does that mean that god WANTED her to be atheist? And if God WANTED her to be atheist doesn't that make atheism just as valid as Catholicism? Or what about Jews? I mean, Steph was born Jewish, so obviously God WANTED her to be Jewish. Which makes her just as right as you.
Which completely destroys your whole view on religion. Thanks for negating your own argument.
Go on, all of you. Believe what you will. Envy the Catholic Church and Its population. Try your best to find SOME explanation as to why what The Church teaches is wrong. Have fun.
I was Catholic for 17 years. I am quite familiar with its population and its hypocrisy. I don't ENVY anything about the Catholic church.
I don't get WHY yousay The Church is so ''bad, and traditional'' or watever the fuck you're saying. It's not bad. It doesn't JUST go by traditions. Every Religion goes by traditions, anyway.
Duh. Every organized religion goes by tradition. Which is why I dont subscribe to ANY organized religion. Tradition is bad because it encourages people to stick to their past beliefs regardless of how silly or wrong they are. For example, not letting women be priests in the Catholic church. Silly.
and MOST of what Protestants believe ISN'T in the Scriptures. They just believe it 'cause that's wat they think's right.
THAT is absolutly not true. They base their beliefs as much on the Bible as Catholics do.
---Andrew
-
So since my friend is atheist, does that mean that god WANTED her to be atheist? And if God WANTED her to be atheist doesn't that make atheism just as valid as Catholicism?
Your friend, was she born an Atheist? Or did she just start believing in Atheism?
What I'm saying is, if she just became an Atheist, no . . . God didn't want her to be an Atheist. We're all born with the choice of believing in Him, or not believing in Him. And after that, He has no control.
-
Your friend, was she born an Atheist? Or did she just start believing in Atheism?
What I'm saying is, if she just became an Atheist, no . . . God didn't want her to be an Atheist. We're all born with the choice of believing in Him, or not believing in Him. And after that, He has no control.
Lets say she was BORN an Atheist. Or for that matter, lets say she was BORN a Hindu.
Does that make this the "RIGHT" religion for her?
come on CeCe, you're arguing against yourself. Don't you see that?
---Andrew
-
I am contradicting myself, aren't I? Please excuse me, I'm easily cofused.
-
I am conadicting myself, aren't I? Please excuse me, I'm easily cofused.
*pats CeCe on the head*
Smart girl.
I like the song in the sig.
"and theres this burning, like there's always been. I've never been so alone. And I. I've never been so alive."
---Andrew
-
Hehe. Did You end up going to the 7 Mary 3 / Gin Blossoms / Waterproof Bloned / Etc. concert Saturday?
-
Hehe. Did You end up going to the 7 Mary 3 / Gin Blossoms / Waterproof Bloned / Etc. concert Saturday?
No. I'm bummed out cause I wanted to see 7M3 but I got too busy at work, and a friend of mine was in the hospital. Ugh. Thats 2 times ive missed 7M3 in Louisville now.
---Andrew