 |
|
|
|
|
August 29th, 2014
04:47 PM ET
Italian paper: ISIS targeting Pope FrancisItalian newspaper Il Tempo reports that Pope Francis is a target ISIS has "in the crosshairs." CNN's John Allen reports.
Next entry »In Venezuela, a 'sacrilegious' Lord's Prayer
« Previous entryWhat God is screaming in Ferguson, Missouri
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
| Part of 
Please let the Pope know what has transpired!
I was there in Venezuela and I saw Hugo Chavez rise up out of his grave and ascend to heaven!
IT'S A MIRACLE!!! IT'S A MIRACLE!!!
I said that I witnessed it and it has been written down so it MUST be the truth!
The Pope will be glad that it was a South American that ended up joining the HOLY QUAD GOD: The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit and Hugo Chavez.
Oh praise our loving HOLY QUAD GOD.
Robert Brown said;
"Paradox is an accurate description of things like freewill and predestination. There some things we just don't understand about these concepts."
"I'm thinking the omnibenevelance of God was demonstrated by his son. Our responsibility is to seek. He takes care of the rest."
This is the essence of a lazy religious mind. THIS is what is wrong with most christians.
Even when you are shown that the bible has a flaw you cannot refute, you stop thinking and blame yourself for not understanding.
You turn all responsibility and accountability over to your god. You ignore the facts and procees in a gleeful bliss of ignorance. You are sheep who need to be told what to think.
I carried a turtle off of a busy street to my car, drove it to a nearby golf course where there are plenty of ponds and a bayou, and turned it loose. It has no idea that it was rescued, what it was rescued from , or how it was rescued, and it really has no clue about me. Christians are often satisfied to that degree. They become confused and disturbed when asked about the details of their salvation, or their God.
They become confused and disturbed when asked about the details of their salvation, or their God.
-----------–
There are certainly some mysteries, but what "details" about our salvation are you referring to?
If it was foreordained that you would believe and that you are God's, were you saved at all, Theo?
If it was foreordained that you would believe and that you are God's, were you saved at all, Theo?
-------------------
Yes.
A.W. Pink puts it this way:
“The Doctrine of Reprobation does not mean that God proposed to take innocent creatures, make them wicked, and then damn them. Scripture says “Gad made man upright, but they have sought out many devices” (Ecclesiastes 7:29). God has not created sinful creatures in order to destroy them, for God is not to be charged with the sin of His creatures, rather, the responsibility and the criminality is man’s.
God’s decree of reprobation contemplated Adam’s race as fallen, sinful, corrupt, guilty. From it, God proposed to save a few as the monuments of His sovereign grace, the others He determined to destroy as the exemplification of His justice and severity.
In determining to destroy these others, God did them no wrong, they had already fallen in Adam, their legal representative. They are therefore born with a sinful nature, and in their sins, He leaves them. Nor can they complain, this is as they wish as they have no desire for holiness – “they love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.” Where then is there any injustice if God “gives them up to their own heart’s lusts?” (Psalms 81:12)
“God is the creator of the wicked – not their wickedness. He is the author of their being, but not the infuser of their sin. God does not compel the wicked to sin, but rather “leaves them alone” (Matthew 15:14). He needs only to slacken the reigns of providential restraint and withhold the influence of saving grace, and apostate man will only too soon, and will surely of his own accord fall by his iniquities. Thus the decree of reprobation neither interferes with the bent of man’s own fallen nature, nor serves to render him the less inexcusable.”
“The Sovereignty of God” – A.W. Pink
Look at it this way, Theo: you came into this world with a guarantee that you would come out of it alive and safe. That's not salvation.
Look at it this way, Theo: you came into this world with a guarantee that you would come out of it alive and safe. That's not salvation.
-----------
Yes it is.
It is not as though God sat in eternity past and determined that certain people will go to heaven and certain people will go to hell – that’s called double election, and is not taught in Scripture. Rather, due to man’s sinful nature, we are all doomed to hell, and God determined certain people to go to heaven based solely on His grace, and not the works of man.
How is that not salvation?
The Canons of Dordrecht, First Head (Chapter 1) Article 15 says this:
"Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God's eternal election– those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of His entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display His justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin, but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.”
And THAT'S why you have to be over 18 to post in here.........
"Rather, due to man’s sinful nature, we are all doomed to hell, and God determined certain people to go to heaven based solely on His grace, and not the works of man. "
So according to Theo at some point in human history God took a sweet juicy piece of fruit and set it beside a starving ancestor and said "Don't you dare eat it!" but when our ancestor ate of it we all became "sinful" and deserve horrible torment and death because of it, and only by the grace of the guy who put the fruit there in the first place might we not be tortured and if we are lucky enough to be one of those few we should be ever thankful. I really ought to start up my own religion, the religious are really gullible...
There are certainly some mysteries
-----------------
THIS is exactly what I'm saying. You know there are things that do not make sense, but you ignore that and go on as if there were no problems. BhaaaaaD reasoning skills at work.
You know there are things that do not make sense, but you ignore that and go on as if there were no problems...
--------------
I don't have to understand how to mathmatically describe gravity to know that when I drop a piece of chalk, it will drop to the floor.
Just because something may be a mystery to me, doesn't mean 1)that is can't be understood, OR 2)that it is automatically false just because I don't fully understand it.
If that WERE the case, then based on the understanding of most toddlers, everything is false.
Why are my assertions more childish than yours?
--------------------
Because of eye witnesses who can call you out.
Truth converges on the life of Jesus. The mountains of work done by textual critics verifies that the Bible that we have today accurately reflects the words of the original authors.
Considering the context in which the original authors wrote, the stories that they told could be corroborated with literally thousands of contemporary eye witnesses, including eye witnesses to the many miracles and signs that authenticated them as coming from God.
No lie could have possibly survived with so many witnesses that could have controverted them.
Theo
Paradox is an accurate description of things like freewill and predestination.
It isn't that a toddler doesn't understand, it is that two things the bible claims are a paradox. It is not possible for the bible to be correct.
And still you use double talk and take words out of context so you don't have to admit that to yourself.
It is not possible for the bible to be correct
------------
Define "free will." For that is the crux of the matter.
You continue to prove my point Theo
Go ahead and find a definition of 'free will' that you can inappropriately apply in a different context. You can do the same thing with 'Generation' and all the other contradictions in your bible. It will not bring your god into existence.
"Hmm, I have freewill, therefore, the Hebrew God is real and so is heaven and heII and that means i'm a very sinful bad boy who needs forgiveness! Dear God forgive me!"...
is as rational as...
"Hmm, I have freewill, therefore I can wear green pants which means leprechauns are real and i'm going to get married on St. Patty's day to a gay albino martian with three legs and two penises..."
You continue to prove my point Theo
Go ahead and find a definition of 'free will' that you can inappropriately apply in a different context. You can do the same thing with 'Generation' and all the other contradictions in your bible. It will not bring your god into existence.
-------------–
There is one and only one way to understand the Bible, and that is through the author's intent.
It would seem that you are of a mindset that it can mean whatever the reader intends it to mean. I gather that because there is no way that you will allow me to correct your thinking on the Bible. By defining "free will" in terms of what the Bible intends based on taking the Bible in context as a whole, rather than any whim of the reader, we can only then understand what is meant.
But you don't care for a proper understanding. So, go your way. Think what you will about the Bible. I have tried, but you are unwilling. So be it.
Theo
If "There is one and only one way to understand the Bible" then why are there over 41,000 sects of Christianity?
You write a pretty sentence but at the very core of it all you are a fraud.
"and that is through the author's intent. "
Which author? Or was it the committee's intent that scotch taped it together?
But you don't care for a proper understanding. So, go your way. Think what you will about the Bible. I have tried, but you are unwilling. So be it.
-----------------
Once again, the pot has called the kettle black.
You are opperating on the idea that the bible is right, and you will continue to seek out interpretations based on that premise.
You confuse faith with the cognitive capacity of a turtle. Faith is not knowing the physical properties of cars and streets but the assurance God has prepared a pond and a way for me to get there. God can and does use even non believers to deliver us.
Tom didn't require the turtle to believe anything before he saved it.
Blessed are the Cheesemaker
Neither does God. We are saved by grace alone and nothing of our doing.
There is no IQ minimum for faith.
Good to know fred,
As a non-believer I can be 'saved' without ever having to believe.
Blessed are the Cheesemaker
Just be careful as in my case I saw in retrospect the gentle ways God was attempting to get my attention but it took a big 2X4 to wake me up. God also allowed an entire generation if Hebrew to wander lost in the desert until they died doing it their way but then one rose up that said we will enter the promised land. Faith is a hope in the promises of God not necessarily all the anthropomorphic physical stuff.
I find it strange not even the Hebrews had enough faith to enter the promised land when they had a burning cloud of supernatural magic apparently hovering above their tabernacle. They took one look at the Philistines and said "Yeah, that magic cloud is nice and all but it hasn't given us muscles yet, so were not following it..."
fred,
What is there to be careful about? You said belief is not required.
Blessed are the Cheesemaker
Christ said it is finished and he gave up his spirit. Forgiveness is complete and offered as a gift to all who would accept. You can reject forgiveness but I really cannot see what good can come from it. It's not like God is going to hold you feet to the fire to get you to love him.
Oh Fred. Again with the asinine claims that ANYONE actually knows one word uttered by your bronze age book's "jesus" character.
All words and actions attributed to jesus were written down 40 to 100 years after he was supposed to have been crucified and what's more, written by people who weren't even there!!!
NO ONE actually knows one word uttered by your jesus character. NO ONE! These words you quote are words imagined by some "holy" man sitting in a monastery by candlelight long, long ago and imagining these words because they fit his idea of the story he was inventing.
fred,
I can't reject something I don't believe. So now we are back to belief being required...which you said wasn't. Which is it fred? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.
Dyslexic doG
On a personal note I followed those words and what was promised in this life has been fulfilled personally. The same happened with several hundred others over the years. The vast majority of encounters with the words of Jesus are identical. There is power in the very words of Jesus. In the old days when the enemies of Israel attacked they did not fear God because they did not know God but they feared Israel because God was with them. The power is in the word not Luke, Matthew or some holy man with plot and this I think we could agree upon.
The source of that power could be God, the power of belief, the power of faith, the power of mans spirit etc. or a combination. The effect of that power is a dominate world view. That source is not physical in nature.
Compared with atheism their word is without power and is physical in nature and insignificant. In this case identity of the author is most important.
Blessed are the Cheesemaker
"I can't reject something I don't believe."
=>good, keep it that way because you are not held accountable for what you were not given. I am certain you have stumbled across the many times in the Bible where God blinded someone to the truth or opened their eyes to the truth.
=>I did not believe until a sudden conversion. Prior to that I rejected the nonsense of someone walking on water, raising the dead, answering prayer. It was like a light switch going off for me but that switch only went off after I was convicted of sin. I believe it was God who opened my eyes so I could see the sin.
Fred
I am glad that following those words has given you something. All we can hope for in this life is love and joy and peace.
Unfortunately, they are just the words of men. Not of jesus or of your other two gods. There is some consistency only because later writers referred to earlier writers and because there has been much editing over the years for the sake of credibility. There is also much inconsistency, which is not surprising since the writers all had their own agendas.
Get what you will from the words but please don't claim that they are really the words of your jesus character.
Dyslexic doG
It is not so much the words themselves in the Bible which bring about deep reflection but something internal / spiritual that is triggered by them. That is what I see as the "Word of God", that which speaks into the heart or if one does not believe in soul it simply triggers an emotive response. Thought combined with emotion can be in itself very overpowering.
The Bible offers a hope in the promises of God that cannot fail, something better down the road, love trumps hate, focus on blessings in hardship, goodness, serving others not self, it is better to give then receive.......
You bring up the reality of Jesus words and I agree that I could not explain the form and substance of God but Jesus as human we can understand. Fully man I get it yet fully God was again a form and substance not known. It was the glory of God the full radiance of God that was upon Jesus. There is no downside to that glory it is all very good.
Why wouldn't that reality be preferable to a reality that is void of this hope?
For your turtle story to be relevant here, there would have to be a god.
You seem to have completely missed what I thought was obvious.
My comment was on what believers are satisfied with knowing (or not knowing). Your comment was about how believers turn responsibility and accountability over to something I see they are satisfied with even though they don't know much about it.
My point was even when the have to acknowledge that their faith doesn't make sense they still cling to it.
How many of them come out to the challenge, Alias? They are many. They are complacent. Most won't bother to address an argument that can only come from the evil one. They'll never know or care their thinking is inconsistent.
I think they do know.
Most christians have questoins at some point, but they retreat back to what is comfortable.
That is a huge divisive issue in Christianity†.
I speak for myself and out of conviction:
I believe that God, out of His Sovereignty, created everything and man, God, out of His Sovereignty, revealed the truth to and gave man "Free Will" to choose right from wrong, and God, out of His Sovereignty, honors the "Free Will" he gave to man.
I believe that God draws man into believing in Him through Natural Revelation—creation, Special Revelation—Scripture, and personal encounters, and man, out of his "Free Will," believes or not. In other words, God throws the ball to man, and it's up to man to run with it or not.
I believe God preordained whom He draws into Him on a personal level based on His foreknowledge of that person's heart and what that person will choose; however, God does not force that person what to choose.
† The early Church Fathers did not subscribe to the Doctrine of Predestination, and that's a complete opposite of John Calvin. I myself do not subscribe to the Doctrine of Predestination, rather, I believe John 3:16,17 & Romans 10:9 say it all.
Is God the cause of you, Vic?
Thank you for supporting my point of view.
Alias,
Do you know everything about anything? I’m guessing probably not. You think it lazy to admit a lack of understanding about something? I was simply being honest. It isn’t that I don’t consider these things and what they mean, it simply means I can’t claim to completely understand. If I thought I could, I would express it to you as clearly as possible.
Allow me to explain it to you Robert:
It is a paradox.
It is not possible.
The book that says this is wrong.
You do not understand because it does not make sense.
Stop blaming yourself, start blaming the flawed book.
All right, Theo (or anyone who wants to try). Put out the axiomatic basis for your belief in God's existence. Theo did invoke Gödel, who, it turns out, did have a go at this (did you know that, Theo?).
Put out the axiomatic basis for your belief in God's existence.
------------
God exists because Jesus said He does.
That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen you say.
For one thing, you do not even know for certain Jesus existed, you do not know what he said as you only have hearsay, so everything related to Jesus is properly stated "Jesus allegedly said", and just because he said it, does not make it true.
God exists because Jesus said He does.
Actually, the axiom would be more accurate to say:
"We know that God exists because Jesus said He does."
Theo,
That statement is as axiomatic as it gets. The request was to step out of the axiomatic basis and consider things. If you don't want to do that, why throw it in his face?
that is a lie theo.
You believe god exists, because you believe Jesus said he does, and you believe what Jesus allegedly said, because you choose to, blindly, with no evidence anywhere.
Like I said, your statement is simply stupid.
Your axioms would have to start further back than that. You need for people to believe that Jesus existed, that you know what Jesus said about God, that what Jesus said about God is currently true etc.
So Allah must exist because Mohammad said he does.
And Zues also exists because Hercules said does.
My mistake, I read the OP to mean eliminate the axiomatic basis, sorry Theo.
My mistake, I read the OP to mean eliminate the axiomatic basis, sorry Theo.
-----------–
No problem. I knew that saying what I did was going to make some people's heads explode. But I think that IGAFTR would negate anything I said just because I said it...
"But I think that IGAFTR would negate anything I said just because I said it.."
Wrong again theo. I refute what youi say because what you say is wrong.
For example you do NOT know any gods exist...you believe...HUGE difference.
You do not know what if anything Jesus said, so you do not know god exists because Jesus said it, you believe god exists because you believe Jesus when he allegedly said god exists.
Use English properly, and don't state bold lies, and I will not refute it.
I don't refute it simply because it is coming from you, but you certainly give a lot to refute..
Theo; "God exists because Jesus said He does."
Don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you make a ridiculous statement like that.
Wrong again theo.
----------–
See? Told you so.
theo
Seriously????
Grow up.
God exists because evolution and abiogenesis are complete and utter nonsense that only fools believe. A creator is much more logical than the stupid crap these liars would have us believe. But hey, let them have their Godless belief and foolish religion, the dust on my shoes has been shaken off long ago.
nonsense scot...simply nonsense. You do not know what logic is, you have proven that daily.
The illogic is with conceited atheists like yourself who foolishly believe they can actually turn someone away from God. In fact i want to thank you now for strengthening my faith in God. Bravo and well done sir!
scot
I am not trying to turn anyone away from "god", since I do not believe any exist, and there is no evidence of any such thing. I am trying to get you to accept reality, not imagination.
Why are you continually trying to convince people reality is not real?
What color is the sky in your world?
Right .. through the eyes of your all to apparent conceit, we're all just good little toadstools down here in the dark. Oh please do toss down some more feces that we may feast o potentate sir.
Do you really think God ceases to exist merely because some ignorant atheist denies Him? The wicked are but chaff on the threshing room floor to Him so come back to reality and don't think you really are that much.
You are the one throwing feces around...and you claim you didn't evolve from ape-like ancestors.
Why are you trying to convince people reality isn't real scot?
"Do you really think God ceases to exist merely because some ignorant atheist denies Him"
No, I don't think any god has ever existed.
Do you really think god exists because men can imagine it? No one has ever shown any gods to be anything more than imaginary.
"Do you really think god exists because men can imagine it? No one has ever shown any gods to be anything more than imaginary."
– much like evolution eh? imaginary. I have prima facie evidence of my Creator, that being His creation all around me. You have nothing but your belief. Nothing but fossilized remains of extinct animals and a foolish belief that somehow an air-breathing mammal morphed into a whale. Odds are better that i'm right and you're wrong. IF i'm wrong, but i'm not, i've not lost anything. You won't be able to say the same thing.
"You are the one throwing feces around...and you claim you didn't evolve from ape-like ancestors."
– Claiming we evolved from an ape-like ancestor is a belief, not a conclusive scientific fact. You nor anyone else was around then and thus this belief cannot be substantiated. Furthermore, it hasn't been proven by fossil evidence that we evolved from an "ape-like" ancestor, there's not one shred of evidence that this has occurred. Similarities in DNA don't prove anything either just as there are similarities in all DNA. But for all of the hype evolution has never been proven and remains a load of crap.
actually ... evolution HAS been proven over and over and over and over again.
Your refusal to acknowledge the facts speaks more to your gullibility than to your bronze age story book's authenticity!
"actually ... evolution HAS been proven over and over and over and over again"
– oh please do, go on with your story ...
– another ignorant dupe takes the bait, hook, line, and sinker.
And even if evolution wasn't true that wouldn't mean that the Christian god is real.
Job 12:24
"He deprives of intelligence the chiefs of the earth's people And makes them wander in a pathless waste.
"Claiming we evolved from an ape-like ancestor is a belief, not a conclusive scientific fact."
Yes , it is a scientific fact. Your DNA is only one of the things that have proved it.
If we are evolved monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Therefore dirt, clay, rib clones and GOD.
Check and mate, atheists.
"Yes , it is a scientific fact. Your DNA is only one of the things that have proved it."
– I'm sorry you are so ignorant about the facts of science. Our DNA is different than that of an ape. No other creature has the same DNA as humans. Not a scientific fact. You have been duped.
Theo Phileo
"God exists because Jesus said He does."
And you trust Jesus because he said he was God, so that's a rather circular argument, isn't it?
Allah exists because Mohammad says He does.
The archangel Moroni exists because Joseph Smith says he does.
Odin exists because Thor says he does.
Gilgamesh exists because Enkidu says he does.
Brahman exists because Vishnu says He does.
Batman exists because Bruce Wayne says he does.
Xenu exists because L Ron Hubbard says he does
blah blah blah – ad infinitum
I thought Batman existed because Bob Cane said that he created that character?
Jesus also said the World would end within a generation of his ministry. That was 100% wrong.
And here come the doublespeak rationalizations about how a generation can mean any length of time at all – cuz, you know, God is magic and stuff.
Yes, a "generation" actually means the entire Jewish race is what you usually get.
Actually, Colin, the "this generation" that Jesus is speaking of in Matthew 24 is the generation that sees the "Abomination of Desolation" spoken of by Daniel (In the 70 Weeks Prophecy of Daniel 9) during the tribulation to come. It doesn't mean the generation of the apostles. Just back up a few verses and it will be made plain to you.
@Ausphor
There can be only one.
*cue Queen music*
Godel's ontological argument is a good one. He was a great thinker and a devout believer. I wonder what he would think today.
Causation must be external to Planck epoch given singularity was the effect. The position of causation in space time at this point mathematically is outside post big bang eternal inflation where past trajectories or any tensor for that matter can be infinite without boundary. Therefore causation has eternal attributes with capacity and substance to bring about all observable effect known to man.
Now, you may choose because of the hardness of your heart to see only the affect and effects of causation in terms of relative states of matter and energy but you cannot deny causation. You cannot deny the fact causation is unknown absent creation itself. The Bible opens with the revelation of these facts and attributes of causation. In the beginning God are the first four words. God is eternal, God is "creator" (capacity and substance to create), God is unknown absent creation and God is not objectively observable in the present space time. God and causation are interchangeable with the only variable being the hardness of your heart.
Hello fred, let me refer you to the Great Picard Theorem (unfortunate name, that).
I thought it sounded familiar but if you simply believe you will live well and prosper.
"US will follow ISIS to the gates of Hell" – Joe Biden, and "Because hell is where they will reside" Oh boy, gearing up for Iraq War II already. It would appear that some Americans have an unquenchable thirst for blood and conflict.
Wouldn't that be Iraq War III ?
I hope not. The US did such a stellar job last time of destabilizing the region; such a good job that they helped give birth to ISIS.
The first was called Gulf War.
If you want to get super technical, it was Operation Desert Shield / Storm in '91, followed by Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.
The second time around, the US helped install a government more open to foreign, corporatist exploitation of their national resources.
As of last month, the US was openly critisizing the Iraqi PM as being too chummy with Iran and/or incompetent and have pressured him into stepping down.
But that's nothing new, right? The only difference between the tactics now and the tactics from the 1980's is that the US has pretty well given up on trying to keep things clandestine (thanks Ollie North!).
1980 – Iraq invades Iran with tacit U.S. support, starting a bloody eight-year war. The U.S. supports both sides in the war providing arms to Iran and money, intelligence and political support to Iraq
1985 – The U.S. secretly ships weapons to Iran, including 1,000 TOW anti-tank missiles, Hawk missile parts, and Hawk radars.
1987- The U.S. Navy is dispatched to the Persian Gulf to prevent Iran from cutting off Iraq's oil shipments.
1988- The Iraqi regime launches mass poison-gas attacks on Kurds, killing thousands. The U.S. responds by increasing its support for the Iraqi regime.
Even though he was a brutal despot, Sadaam Hussein was a close ally to the US right up until the moment he threatened American oil interests by trying to invade Kuwait.
The oil must flow
Adrian Cronauer as Gomer Pyle: Well, we ask people, 'Are you the enemy? And whoever says yes, we shoot them. [Pause] It's very difficult to find a Vietnamese man named Charlie. They're all named Nyugen or Doh or things like that. It's very difficult for me....
Cronauer said they took a LOT of liberties with GMV.
In any case, RIP Robin Williams.
But yes, technically it would be Iraq War III
technically, you are an idiot.
Deep dowm you really are hoping a war starts over religion, aren't you?
You are one sick puppy.
BTW – this would be supporting the Iraqi government, not anothe invasion. Complteely different scenario.
When you went about making your God omni-everything you ran afoul of things like predestination, foreknowledge, and the way they conflict with the beneficent will of God (omnibenevolent). You also made God perfect, but not unchangeable. Male but without genitalia. Did you actually sit down and think out this God or did it just sort of happen?
I'm thinking the omnibenevelance of God was demonstrated by his son. Our responsibility is to seek. He takes care of the rest.
I was inspired by your discussion with Theo, Robert. When I was a Jesuit (oops- only joking) there was a lot of discussion on predestination vs double-predestination (Calvinists, for example). The problem is that many of God' s properties are attributed to God by theologians. No theologian knows better than any other human what the attributes of God are. The only gods anyone can believe in are imaginary. That said, predestinationists would insist that hell, a creation of God, was never meant for humans. So humans can't be predestined for hell, only for being with God, which is what God intended. But does that mean the God does not get exactly what God wants – which is that none should perish?
I don't mind admitting that I can't reconcile election, predestination, and freewill. As far as I can tell God is compassionate to the point of not wanting anyone to perish by providing the way and sending his spirit to convict the hearts of those who seek him. However, he won't in all cases provide those who don't seek with a Damascus road type experience, hence limited freewill. I think he may even provide situations to cause people to seek.
Your God neglected entire continents full of would-be believers for centuries after providing Christ to the world.
I hope and trust in the perfect mercy and justice of God. I don't know what happened to them, but with knowledge comes responsibility.
One fact that has caused many a theologian to lose his hair is the fact that the Bible teaches both the Sovereignty of God in all things, and it also teaches the volition of man, and it never attempts to reconcile the two ideas.
We may dive deep into the Bible to try to understand how precisely this mystery works, and we may come close to being able to explain it, but in the end we must just trust God that even though we may never fully understand how God can be Sovereign and yet at the same time allow man to have a will, we must admit that there are some things that our finite minds will never be able to fully wrap around in this life.
"but in the end we must just trust God that even though we may never fully understand how God can be Sovereign and yet at the same time allow man to have a will"
Translation: Don't think too hard – just believe.
If something about God and/or The Bible seems impossible, contradictory, or runs counter to substantiated theories of physics/geology/biology/history – it it simply a mystery of God that must be taken on faith.
With strong enough faith, you don't need reason.
You hypocrits. When in a scientific setting and discussing the origins of the universe, it is aggreeable to say "I don't know." But when the topic turns to theology, if there is something that we say that we "don't know" then that statement automatically nullifies the whole lot?
@Theo
"I don't know – but we're formulating and testing hypotheses" is different from "I don't know so I'll take it on faith".
Many things are unknown, but nothing is ultimately unknowable.
Many things are unknown, but nothing is ultimately unknowable.
---------
How do you know?
Theo
Many times has something been claimed to be beyond science's ability to understand, and many times this claim has been proven wrong. The real question is how you can be so certain that science will never be able to answer something? Are you claiming omniscience for yourself?
Are you claiming omniscience for yourself?
--------------–
Of course not, I just claim the omniscience of God, and God has told us what is truth. Therefore any idea that opposes that truth is false.
Doc Vestibule
Many things are unknown, but nothing is ultimately unknowable.
-----------------------------
Actually, as Godel's incompleteness theorem shows, this is false
Godel's Theorem is about what can be formally proven, not what is knowable. In fact, it came about because he could find statements that were observably true but couldn't be proven. Those statements could then be added to the list of axioms if desired.
If there is anything that is unknowable is unknown (beautiful irony). We can't say that nothing is unknowable. There are classes of knowability. Is a thing knowable by a human? Humans can't know the future, we are bound by brains that perceive the world in a timeline. Can any being know the future? Is a thing knowable by a finite intelligence? Is there anything unknowable by an infinite intelligence? What kind of infinity? Etc.
trans
"Actually, as Godel's incompleteness theorem shows, this is false"
By all means, explain...considering the fact that his theorem deals with mathematical equations, not what can or cannot be known.
Theo
the difference between science and your bible is that your bible is logically impossible.
the difference between science and your bible is that your bible is logically impossible.
-------------–
You're right. Man could never have invented the Bible! What insight!
"You're right. Man could never have invented the Bible! What insight!"
*facepalm*
What nonsense. Man continually writes flawed stories, just as the MEN who created the bible. It is the stories in the bible that are illogical and impossible, not the bible itself.
Theo,
Does that mean that Marvel Comics are divinely written?
igaftr
By all means, explain...considering the fact that his theorem deals with mathematical equations, not what can or cannot be known.
--------------------
This theorem deals with general logic, not only math. It shows that no logical system can be complete and consistent, ie some things can't be proven using other things form within the system. If something can't be proven means be don't know the logical value (true or false). That means that some things will be unknown.
@Bostonola
The Marvel Universe's omniscient Watcher, Uatu is dead now.
Transframer,
Your assertion that unprovable is unknowable is not right. The statement is not provable true or false, so it can be defined and become part of the axiomatic system.
Doc, what's one God more or less?
Going back to 'nothing is unknowable', take the statement literally. 'Nothing', the absence of any quant!ty or quality, is that knowable by humans? Some Christians like to say something can't come from nothing, but can we really even know what nothing is? Has nothing ever existed? Not if there's a God. I hope we can agree that if there is a God, it is something. I have a hard time with the concept that there could be true nothing.
bostontola
Transframer,
Your assertion that unprovable is unknowable is not right. The statement is not provable true or false, so it can be defined and become part of the axiomatic system.
---------------------
We may need to define knowable/unknowable, which is likely less technical and more subjective than provable/unprovable.
To me knowable is knowing every property of something. If one of them can't be known then that something is unknowable.
An axiom is something that we assume we know not something that we really know
Trans,
We're down to philosophy. I would say axioms are things we agree on as starting points for a logical/mathematical system and are thus known. This is true in physics as well. F=ma is defined! we agree on the terms! it is known. New students learn the definition of force and they then know it.
Sorry for the exclamation points, I have no idea what the spell check was thinking.
Theo Phileo
You may believe in God's omniscience, but that's only based on faith, correct? It would require you're also having omniscience to know that God also shares this quality. If I'm wrong then please tell me how you happen to know that God is omniscient? Because the Bible says it's so?
Doc
Galactus, I believe, was the only being from the previous universe to survive the Big Bang into ours. I can't remember if that makes him more eternal than the Watchers, or not.
Robert
"If a person asks you for something, then give it to him. Don't refuse to give to a person that wants to borrow from you." Matthew 5:42
Kinda like how Flanders can never refuse Homer "borrowing" his stuff, eh?
Flanders is the best example of what Christians say their religion teaches them to be like. Too bad that he's a fictional character.
Time for the Great Kibosh: ( off topic as are most commentaries the last few days)
Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.
• There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.
• There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.
• There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.
• Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.
• Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.
• A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached and belief that various beings (angels?, tinkerbells? etc) exist that we, as mortals, cannot comprehend makes for a no on Sikhism.
Added details available upon written request.
A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.
e.g. Taoism
"The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.
Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother's womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. "
Why not Reality, anything is possible in make believe land.....
ok everyone HUDDLE UP.
Need your expert opinions
youtube Foley Sister
youtube Foley Mother
Katie Foley wasn't Adam Lanza's friend.
Stay off conspiracy sites.
Your mind will be healthier.
Conspiracy theories are a lot like religious beliefs: Both require faith more than any real evidence.
You're just saying that because the reptilian Illuminati have lulled you into complacency.
A good foil-lined fedora will block their psychic waves.
Great! Now I've got Weird Al's Foil caught in my head.
May the Lorde forgive his blasphemy!
Interacting with the scot-bot hasn't been entirely a waste of time, he reveals an interesting irony and perhaps paradox regarding free will.
People who take their religion to the literal, dogmatic extreme cease being thinking humans, including free will. Like a robot, they view a situation, generate an address in the computer (bible verse) and read out the answer. No thinking, will, or anything else required. I guess it must be comforting to simplify the world this way for some people.
It also brings up another interesting contrast. The Pascal Wager. There is a converse. What if this life is the only existence we get and you squander it by living as a robot. Some, me included, find that as terrible as an eternity in the wrong place.
boston
I have often wondered where or why we do not seem to get any or only a very few of the mainstream Christians that have left the Dark Ages and administer most of the higher education inst!tutes in this country. We are stuck with creationist fundies and outright asinine trolls. It would be so much more rewarding to exchange opinions with people that believe evolution is proven and what the purpose of a belief in god/s is in the 21st century.
ausphor,
People in the middle seem more likely to be less vocal. I work with dozens of Christians that are scientists and engineers. Not one of them has the slightest doubt about evolution. They are mostly delightful to converse with on about any topic.
boston
Try and get them to join the belief blog, well OK that is probably delusional on my part.
NE 38 Mia 17, Brady 4 TD passes. I hope, belief is too strong in this case.
ausphor,
From your lips to God's ear.
: )
Go on the biologos blog and invite them ausphor.
RB
Are they not part of your Christian network? Are you like Theo and Topher that deny other cults the handle "Christian" because they disagree on some aspects of the dogma? Why do we only get the fringe types on this blog, including you?
Ausphor,
We are here to bless you into submission.
You will be assimilated, Robert.
I have and continue to learn.
That is good Robert learning with facts is good.
Paradox is an accurate description of things like freewill and predestination. There some things we just don't understand about these concepts.
I agree Robert.
RB
There are some things we do not understand about a personal god that keeps track of all humanity and which of the gods is the really real one, WE just don't know. Saying that you do is just delusional faith, carry on.
And that's one of the reasons Jesus exists: God in a human body so we can all see and know.
"And that's one of the reasons Jesus exists: God in a human body so we can all see and know."
If you lived in the middle east about 2k years ago. For the rest of us, we are asked to believe the word of other humans. Humans we are told up front aren't reliable on the whole...
More like a complete and total opposites Robert. You can have one or the other, but both is impossible.
Taken to absolutes they are. This is just opinion, everyone is predestined to be saved, but we can choose to reject Gods offer.
A.W. Pink wrote in his book "The Sovereignty of God:"
"God’s decrees are not the necessitating cause of the sins of men, but the fore determined and prescribed bounding and directing of men’s sinful acts. God does not take up a good man, instill an evil desire into his heart, and thereby force him to perform the terrible deed in order to execute His decree. Instead, God decreed the act, and then selected the one who was to perform the act, but He did not “make him evil” in order that he should perform the deed. On the contrary, when we look at the life of Judas, the betrayer of Jesus, he was “a devil” at the time the Lord Jesus chose him as one of the twelve. (John 6:70) And in the manifestation and exercise of his own devilry, God simply directed Judas’ actions – actions that were perfectly agreeable to his own vile heart, and performed with the most wicked of intentions. By this way, man is still accountable to God for his sins."
I don't really care what he said. Nothing will convince me that they are complete and total opposites. The best you could get me to agree to is that Christians have the illusion of free will.
Should have said are not.
Theo,
But it seems all human hearts are already evil to some degree and it takes God to make the change in the heart of man. Judas rejected the son of God and God let him.
Nothing will convince me that they are complete and total opposites.
-----------------
You need to define what you mean by "free will."
By the term: ‘Free Will,’ we men that man’s will is not coerced. Man is not forced by some external force greater than himself to do something he does not want to do. Man is free to do what he wants to do within the limits of his ability… The Bible consistently teaches that 1) that man is free to do good or evil, that he is at liberty to do either, but 2) that he is able to do only evil because of his fallen condition. (Deuteronomy 30:19, John 6:44)
“If we mean by ‘free will’ that fallen man has the ability to choose what he wants, then of course fallen man has free will. If we mean by ‘free will’ that man in his fallen state has the moral power and ability to choose righteousness, then ‘free will’ is far too grandiose a term to apply to fallen man.” – John Calvin
IN order to have free will you need to be able to make a choice that god was completely unaware of. Short of that you don't have free will.
Joey,
That is what I meant by absolutes. Our freewill is limited.
IN order to have free will you need to be able to make a choice that god was completely unaware of.
--------------------
The Westminster Confession of Faith rightly divides scripture by stating that "God ordains whatsoever comes to pass..."
“…God foreknows nothing by contingency (what is predictable as being possible), but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt, “free-will” is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces. Those who would assert “free-will” must therefore deny that God is sovereign.”
-Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will
That is the paradox and the mystery, at least to me. Everyone is predistined to be saved, who are saved. Our freewill is limited by the will of God and yet, some perish.
That is the paradox and the mystery, at least to me. Everyone is predistined to be saved, who are saved. Our freewill is limited by the will of God and yet, some perish...
----------------
This is why we see the Atonement as being limited in it's scope – that is, that Christ died for the elect only.
For, to say otherwise would say that His atonement was potential rather than actual; that His death was for everyone in general, but no one in particular – this is called an Unlimited Atonement. This thinking has two conclusions:
1)That Christ died for many people who would not be saved – so hell is full of people whose salvation was purchased, whose sins were paid for. This means that those in heaven (whose sins were paid for in the same way as those in hell) are there simply because they did something that those in hell did not, they accepted God’s sacrifice. Therefore, they are in heaven based upon their works.
2)Another conclusion would be that since Christ paid the sin debt for the whole world, then everyone who ever lived is in heaven. This is an abhorrent theology at best.
The Westminster Larger Catechism says:
"All the elect, and they only, are effectually called (Acts 13:48): although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word (Matthew 22:14), and have some common operations of the Spirit (Matthew 7:22, Hebrews 6:4-6); who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ (John 12:38-40, Acts 28:25-27, John 6:64-65, Psalm 81:11-12).”
Ok Theo, I'll study on what you posted, but consider this, it isn't his will that any perish.
Theo
On another approach, any God who interferes with the decision-making of people by, say, selectively sending "signs", performing "miracles", or otherwise exposing himself to only a select few is messing with free will, right?
Theo,
I researched your scripture references and it is still a mystery to me. I understand if you are saved, you are elected and predestined. I understand salvation is not of works. I understand everyone has the freewill to seek or reject. I believe God knows who will and who won't.
"Judas rejected the son of God and God let him."
That's one version of the story. I still contend he had very little choice in the matter.
Martin Luther wrote a GREAT book on this called "The Bondage of the Will." Jonathan Edwards wrote a great (but a bit heavy) book too called "The Freedom of the Will."
Martin Luther also wrote a GREAT book called "One Jews And Their Lies." [/sarcasm]
La Bella
Theo of course is a bigot, the jews deserve any misery inflicted upon them, and just carpet bomb the middle east, the innocent along with the guilty. Is that not what his god would do?
Yep, he sure did. I could go into why, but let's just say that he was wrong there. But we don't automatically throw out everything he ever wrote.
Theo of course is a bigot, the jews deserve any misery inflicted upon them, and just carpet bomb the middle east, the innocent along with the guilty. Is that not what his god would do?
-----------------
Now you're taking me out of context.
So would you be so passive that you do nothing to stop the evil in this world?
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
*On Jews [...]
Sorry.
If one book isn't credible, it throws the others in question, also.
But I am unsurprised that you wouldn't see this because you agree with Luther's writing fundamentally.
If you want to swallow the written words of rampant bigots, that's fine by me, Theo. But I don't read books by people that denigrate other faiths on order to bolster their own. Ever.
Theo
Are you being disingenuous (god forbid someone would catch you lying) IMHO you would have made a great Nazi; it is written in the book and I, Theo, was just following orders. You wouldn't happen to be a Grand Dragon at the present time; it would not surprise anyone.
If one book isn't credible, it throws the others in question, also
------------
EXACTLY! Which is why we take one book at a time and examine it under its own merits and compare it to the canon of scripture.
You know that Adolph Hitler was a lover of art, right? He even was a somewhat accomplished painter. Now, let's say that we were in a museum of art, and we were examining one of his paintings, but had no idea that he painted it, and we came to the conclusion that we actually liked the painting. If, after discovering who the artist was, would we instantly say that now we hate the painting?
He.
Was.
A.
Bigot.
And.
He.
Was.
A.
Bigot.
For.
GOD.
If painter painted a rampantly bigoted picture of a black person being lynched by grinning Christians in full KKK regalia, his next picture of a kitten playing with a duckling is unlikely to be seen by me. But by all means, keep reading and judging based on a bigoted man's words. And keep viewing ugliness with the hope that the next painting might be better
Theo Phileo
Newton firmly believed in alchemy, but the difference is that he wasn't able to prove any of it like he did his work in physics.
What did Luther ever prove?
What did Luther ever prove?
-------------
That salvation comes by Faith Alone.
He proved he was a bigot...
He proved he was a bigot...
---------------
All men are sinners. No suprise there.
In the ministry of Apostle Paul, we have an example of how we are to approach any teaching.
During his second missionary journey, Paul established a church in the Greek city of Thessalonica. Some of the Jews believed, along with many Gentiles, but Paul was driven out of the city by the unbelieving Jews, who refused to hear his message. In verse 11, Luke describes the Jews in the synagogue of Berea as "more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)
To the Bereans, it didn't really matter who the messenger was; they wanted to find out if the things being said were true according to God's Word. For that, they are given the t.itle of "noble." When we read Martin Luther's writings or sing his hymns, we ought to be "checking the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
If they are true to the Word, then we rejoice and accept them. If not, we are to set them aside and cling to the truth.
"When we read Martin Luther's writings or sing his hymns, we ought to be "checking the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
"Scripture" meant something different to the those Jews and Paul than it did to Martin.
Theo Phileo
Luther didn't prove salvation comes by Faith Alone any more than L. Ron Hubbard proved that overcoming your Thetan soul infestation will cure all your ills. Where's your data supporting the claim that "saved" Christians actually end up in heaven?
Where's your data supporting the claim that "saved" Christians actually end up in heaven?
---------------–
Firstly, if you're not Protestant or Catholic, why do you concern yourself with theology?
Next, Jesus was God. Therefore we can believe what He said. And in John 14, He told us: "In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also."
Theo Phileo
What did Luther ever prove?
-----
That salvation comes by Faith alone.
No, he didn't. He wrote an opinion on it.
No, he didn't. He wrote an opinion on it.
------------–
No, he didn't write an opinion about salvation.
He merely read what the Bible said: "The just shall live by faith..." And that changed his life because it flew into the face of Catholic dogma. Catholic dogma that was not taken from scripture, and was therefore false. He sparked the reformation, where the church began a process or removing errors that had been introduced since 325AD... "Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei."
Theo, he wrote his opinion. His interpretation. You agree with that interpretation, and that's fine. But, they are still opinions.
Theo, he wrote his opinion. His interpretation. You agree with that interpretation, and that's fine. But, they are still opinions.
----------------–
Do me a favor, look at the following passages and tell me how a man can be justified by works.
"By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Galatians 3:11 – Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."
Habakkuk 2:4 – “The righteous shall live by faith”
These are the passages that moved Luther to write against the synergistic salvation taught by the Catholic theologians of his day. It's not opinion. It's called reading.
Sure, Theo. It moved him to write his opinion on what they mean to him. And you agree, so it's what they mean to you. A
He disagreed with what the RC had written up to the time, so he wrote his own theology, which you agree with. And those, of course, are interpretations, which men have been arguing about since they argued about which books should be included in the Bible in the first place.
But at the end of the day, it comes down to interpretation and opinion. You just chose the one you agree with. And again, as I said, that's fine.
But the original statement by you was that Luther proved that salvation is by faith alone. And he didn't prove that. He merely wrote his opinion on that; as he wrote his opinion in On Jews And Their Lies.
LaBella, I'll give you the Reader's Digest Version. You're wrong.
And again, your opinion.
Theo,
And there are a great many Catholics that will quote chapter and verse to say you are wrong...and yet neither side can demonstrate they are right...hence opinion.
And it is my opinion that basing rewards and punishments on faith and belief is absolutely absurd and unethical. Your god is no different than a mob boss.
And there are a great many Catholics that will quote chapter and verse to say you are wrong...
---------–
Actually, the last time that I spoke to a Catholic about the difference between monergistic and synergistic salvation, and asked them to quote scripture in support of a synergistic salvation, they told me "I don't read the Bible, my priest does that for me!" I won't say that's the case with ALL Catholics, but I can say that in order to support a synergistic salvation, one MUST go to extra-biblical sources, since the totality of the Bible states that salvation is NOT by works. Catholicism uses bad hermeneutics and a reliance on traditions that are steeped in anything BUT the Bible in order to "prove" their position.
Trust me, I know from experience. Once again, I'm not speaking for ALL, just the ones whom I have spoken to, and there were many. If a Catholic is saved, it is not because of his Catholicism, it is in spite of it. We must hold that "the scriptures alone give wisdom to salvation."
Sola scriptura is one of the five solae, Theo. Are you Lutheran, by chance?
Sola scriptura is one of the five solae, Theo. Are you Lutheran, by chance?
----------
Nope, not Lutheran. Just a plain old born again Bible-believer.
Theo,
The idea that because the Catholic YOU talked to couldn't biblically justify the Catholic theological position in no way means Catholic theology is not able to support the postion from scripture. That has to be one of the weakest retorts you have come up with. I was raised Catholic...moved to Lutheranism and have argued with both sides with people educated in each theology and it is quite obvious both sides are based on opinion...nothing more.
The idea that because the Catholic YOU talked to couldn't biblically justify the Catholic theological position in no way means Catholic theology is not able to support the postion from scripture.
-------------------
No, but I am well aquainted with Catholic theology, and I know that there is no way to support the idea Biblically. (Because it isn't Biblical) OK, you said that you grew up Catholic, so, how can you Biblically support that salvation is synergistic? (Hint, it isn't in James 2)
"OK, you said that you grew up Catholic, so, how can you Biblically support that salvation is synergistic?"
Go talk to a Preist if you want the Catholic position...that isn't my point. My point is the bible can support countless postions. There are plenty of Christians that disagree with you AND Catholics on this and many other issues...they are all opinions, including yours.
My point is the bible can support countless postions.
-----------------–
No it can't. Unless you think that the book M.o.b.y D i c k was written to describe the construction of buildings in NYC.
There are plenty of Christians that disagree with you AND Catholics on this and many other issues...they are all opinions, including yours.
-------------
The Bible means one and only one thing, and that is auth.orial intent. No one gets to apply meaning to the Bible. In a larger sense, we do not get to create truth, no one creates their own truth. Truth just is, and it is up to us to FIND it, not CREATE it. And that is exactly what folks do when they form opinions about what the Bible says.
Theo, the point you are missing is that showing the bible says something is not the same as proving something. In order to show that what the bible says about salvation is true you will need to use something other than the bible.
"Unless you think that the book M.o.b.y D i c k was written to describe the construction of buildings in NYC."
You are being ridiculous Theo,
Moby Dick didn't have 40 plus authors that contradicted each other and was edited by commitee. Your analogy is asinine.
Theo Phileo
Not that I'm either, but there are other Christians besides protestants and Catholics.
I concern myself with theology out of interest, just as I'm interested in why people believe in reincarnation, alien abduction, or ghosts, for example. This particular theology has been used to disparage my character as a nonbeliever, so I find discussing it's complete illogic rather gratifying.
Concerning John 14, do you believe that Jesus' "father" keeps the dungeons for people like me also in his house, or is that at one of his other properties? I can almost appreciate the analogy to fire that destroys "souls" such as mine like so much garbage, but what kind of sadist would ever want to torture forever what they simply do not want? Surely this analogy was meant to describe the continued process of quickly ending unwanted souls and not the eternal torment of such. A quick end may not be what a "loving" God would do to people who simply don't believe in him, but it's what any god who isn't also evil would do, right?
Now, do I have to ask for your data again, or shall I just assume that your silence means that you're making baseless assertions again?
Moby Dick didn't have 40 plus authors that contradicted each other and was edited by commitee
-----------------
Neither was the Bible.
The Bible is 66 books written by over 40 authors that was never edited... ever... Tell me, what makes you think that it has been edited? To say that you must not have studied much about Church history. If you've studied, then you'd know that the apostles themselves dictated what books were scripture. No committee or church council ever added to the list created by the apostles.
If you think differently, then pray tell WHAT books were added to the list of books given by the apostles?
"The Bible is 66 books written by over 40 authors that was never edited... ever"
Flat out lie again theo. Since the bible has been translated to so many languages, for each language translation, there MUST be an edit. Also, leaving things out is editing.
Considering the fatc that there are many versions of the bible out there on top of that, how could you possibly say it was not ever edited?
Theo,
It was edited by the committee that determined which books to include and which ones to reject. You are just being dishonest now.
Theo, you write a pretty sentence but at the core of it all you really are a fraud.
Clement of Rome mentionedeight New Testament books.
Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged seven books.
Polyca.rp recognized 15 books
Irenaeus mentioned 21 books
Hippolytus recognized 22 books
The The Muratorian Canon, circa 180CE, has only 22 books in the New Testament – om.it.ting 5 that were later canonized, including James and 2 Peter.
An Israeli team of programmers has actually developed sof.tware that analyzes scripture to identify delineations between authors. When applied to the Pentateuch, it matched up with traditional scholars' assessments 90% of the time.
There are many different stylistic threads in the Biblical texts, sometime within the same books – which is obviously ind.icative of multiple authors.
The soft.ware was developed by religious Jews – most of whom believe that the Torah was dictated to Moses directly by God Himself.
When asked to reconcile what they found with what they believe, they gave a nice non-answer:
" there's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices."
Theo
For example, the earliest complete manuscripts of Mark all end at 16:8. It's believed by the majority of biblical scholars that verses 9-20 were added as late as the 2nd century. The style of this addition is too different from the original to have likely been from the same author. Somebody seems to have felt that Mark's original ending wasn't satisfactory enough.
"He won't look at Rae, or me. Maybe he sees you."
–Keith A. Walker & Cored Blechman from Free Willy
Robert Brown
"Paradox is an accurate description of things like freewill and predestination. There some things we just don't understand about these concepts."
Like how we don't understand how alchemy turns lead into gold?
Maybe not robots, but willing soldiers, just following commands.
There is a point, however, when we expect soldiers to disobey unlawful and immoral commands, and we may even hold them accountable for acts considered war crimes.
I think that we may all agree that there's plenty of things in the Bible that would be considered inexcusable now. Genocide and infant slaughter, for example. Just because God ordered it before doesn't mean that you can do it nowadays, no matter what the voices in your head are telling you, right?
Here's an interesting article on ISIS:
"Middle East Time Bomb: The Real Aim of ISIS Is to Replace the Saud Family as the New Emirs of Arabia"
by Alastair Crooke
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-aim-saudi-arabia_b_5748744.html
Crooke is a British diplomat, the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum, an organisation that advocates for engagement between political Islam and the West. Previously he was a ranking figure in both British intelligence (MI6) and European Union diplomacy.
These systems, caliphates, empires, and the like, involve power concentrating in one person. Who would ISIS use for that?
I don't know, Tom. But ISIS is Sunni, and the Sunni branch of Islam stipulates that as a head of state, a caliph should be elected by Muslims or their representatives. [Followers of Shia Islam, however, believe a caliph should be an Imam chosen by God (Allah) from the Ahl al-Bayt (the "Family of the House", Muhammad's direct descendents)].
from that article:
"We should understand that there is really almost nothing that the West can now do about it but sit and watch."
"In political and financial terms, the Saud-Philby strategy has been an astonishing success. But it was always rooted in British and American intellectual obtuseness: the refusal to see the dangerous 'gene' within the Wahhabist project, its latent potential to mutate, at any time, back into its original a bloody, puritan strain. In any event, this has just happened: ISISis it."
"The key political question is whether the simple fact of ISIS' successes, and the full manifestation (flowering) of all the original pieties and vanguardism of the archetypal impulse, will stimulate and activate the dissenter 'gene' - within the Saudi kingdom. If it does, and Saudi Arabia is engulfed by the ISIS fervor, the Gulf will never be the same again. Saudi Arabia will deconstruct and the Middle East will be unrecognizable."
ok going totally off topic on this one, thanks to the complete and utter ignorant responce i got from THEO on another blog.
theo asked to show an effect without a cause and he would then admit defeat; accepting his challege i believe following supports his request; tell me what you think.
----------------------
zhilla1980wasp
theo: "I would be willing to concede to that if you could show me an effect without a cause."
ok so if i can show you an effect with no cause, you will concede that i have proven your god doesn't exist; correct?
--
now let's look at what sort of thing would have an effect, yet no apparent cause; the only logical thought would be that it would be both.
it is a causal/effect, in otherwords it acts as both, yet neither.
––
example: energy.
now the first rule of thermal dynamics states that " energy can not be CREATED nor DESTROYED."
ok let's think about what this truly means;
1) that energy has no beginning and no end....... eternal
2) that energy is both a cause and an effect.
----
question 1) this one is simple to understand however i will elaborate. what this applies to isn't fossils fuels or even our finite star we orbit. what this applies to are the particules that comprise everything in the known universe.
the very basis of everything can not be destroyed, nor created. it will always be here in one form or another.
question 2) now this on takes a bit of explaining; seeing that it has always been here and will always be here.......then in itself it kicked off everything we know.
yet how can a effect, be here before a cause could.....well cause it?
simple it's eternal, immortal, etc etc etc for things that defy human consepts of finite.
something that is infinite would have the ability to both cause something and effect itself.
--–
i hope i was able to explain that an infinite is both cause and effect unto itself; which means no gods were ever requried to "cause" an "effect" to even begin in the first place
---------–
if you want a laugh at how ignorat and dodgy theo is, look at his reply on the "LIBERALS ARE MORE FRIENDLY TO ATHEISTS"
the latest page. it will have you rolling with laughter.
Awesome zhilla, God is energy.
god is imaginary.
Except God, no substance can be or be conceived. – Spinoza
@Robert
Do you mean that in a pantheistic sense?
Not really Doc. At times, like this one, I read a post and just reply with the first thought that comes to mind. Energy, eternal, and infinite are things that I think of when I think of God. So, no I don't think God is just energy. He is all powerful and the source of all energy, in my humble opinion.
Thanks for the respectful clarification.
My own views are closer to the "all that Groks is god" philosophy, a la Spinoza...
Robert Brown
"God is energy."
How many Joules does he have?
And can prayer charge my phone?
Tal, that would be very handy indeed.
You could pray that the new iPhone will have a better battery life, but I remain skeptical.
Theo should learn that there are events. Events are sometimes causes, sometimes effects, sometimes neither. We did have a conversation on infinite, and finite but circular, sequences of causes. Didn't really go anywhere. Thought about going into relata in general, but Theo was losing interest by then.
Cute, but not new.
Theo has been told many times that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
He either uses a vaguely related law of physics as a dodge, or just goes away.
Do you suppose there's some way I could use God to reduce my cooling bill, Robert?
Yes, wind like the spirit is free.
The wind sometimes carries a foul odor with it, also like the Spirit.
It's also unreliable.
As I said in the other blog...
The Laws of Thermodynamics are NOT statements on origins, but rather deal with closed systems involving energy that already exists...
Considering the entire Universe as a system necessitates that it be a closed system. (The Christian denies this because he maintains that the universe IS acted on by an outside force, namely – God) The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that although energy in a closed system is constant (First Law of Thermodynamics), that energy is transforming into less usable forms of energy (i.e., the Universe is “running down”). This process is irreversible. If the Universe has always existed (i.e., it is eternal), but there is a finite amount of usable energy because there is no energy input into a closed system, then all usable energy already should have been expended, yet, usable energy still exists. So, the Universe cannot have existed forever. It had to have a beginning.
The eternality of matter and energy would be the equivalent of a system with an energy input and 100% usable energy output. It would be the equivalent of describing the Universe as a perpetual motion machine—a design that attempts to violate either the First or Second Law of Thermodynamics by, for instance, running forever without an energy input. No such machine has ever been designed, since such a machine would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Philip Yam, writing in Scientific American said, “Claims for perpetual-motion machines and other free-energy devices still persist, of course, even though they inevitably turn out to violate at least one law of thermodynamics."
Exactly what form of energy is not usable?
If the universe is eternal, and if the universe is a closed system, then in order for there to be any order now, entropy must decrease. This is impossible.
That didn't answer the question.
You referred to 'usable energy'. I'm asking what other form of energy there could be.
Let's think of a simple Universe, Theo. It consists of a bell. The bell is struck (by someone, or perhaps only the wind) . Events (vibrations) proceed in the bell and eventually taper off. The bell is eternal. Events in it are not.
"If the universe is eternal, and if the universe is a closed system, then in order for there to be any order now, entropy must decrease. This is impossible."
So you completely disregard the concept of local entropy vs entropy of the entire system? You can absolutely have pockets of lower entropy – like our planet for instance. The infusion of energy from our Sun allows our planet to experience extremely low entropy, but the overall entropy of the system (i.e. the universe) is still increasing. It may be that there sources of energy we are not aware of, even those from outside of the system – but that is as much an assumption as assuming that the universe is a closed system.
Alias,
Entropy – a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder...
Theo
In thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of the number of specific ways in which a thermodynamic system may be arranged, commonly understood as a measure of disorder. According to the second law of thermodynamics the entropy of an isolated system never decreases; such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the configuration with maximum entropy.
You still haven't answered the question, but I knew you wouldn't.
The conservation of matter and energy only applies to the already existing universe to describe its current state. It is not and never was intended to be a statement about the origins of the universe. That’s why cosmologists do not believe that the Law of Conservation and Energy is violated at the “Big Bang… “ The law in fact applies to all matter and energy IN the universe, but says nothing about the origins of that matter and energy.
I believe the universe is a closed system, it's just we can only see about 25% of it, the rest exists in a form we don't yet understand, but it's there, hiding in plain sight. And if the edge of this universe is somehow elastic or the universe itself has some sort of liquid elasticity where the universe fluxuates between two prime states of existence, one of which we experience, the other of which we are just starting to explore with dark matter or dark energy. I believe a perpetual-motion machine will be invented by man when mankind has a better grasp on dark energy and quantum physics.
theo: go into the corner and put on your dunce hat......again.
" but says nothing about the origins of that matter and energy."
-------
the first law of thermal dynamics covers the origin of energy; it was always here.
einsteins famous equation proved that energy created matter and matter can be returned to an energy state.
so you fail on both.
yet nice try.
einsteins famous equation proved that energy created matter and matter can be returned to an energy state.
---------------
If energy is eternal, and entropy only increases, then there is no way that there would now be any order in the universe.
"If energy is eternal, and entropy only increases, then there is no way that there would now be any order in the universe"
False. Where did you study physics theo, some theology college?
Considering the fact that there are many forms of energy, and the natrual attraction of mass, there are MANY reasons that there would be order in the universe.
If I have a small pool of water, and I sprinkle pepper on the surface, it randomly distributes...entropy, but then I add another energy, create a whirlpool...INCREASING the apparent entropy, what happens to the pepper....it converges in the center, correct?....order from entropy... and we see examples of it everywhere.
Still, no matter what limitations you attempt to apply to existance or whatever special properties you attempt to imagine your god has, you must also apply to the other, for one possibility is that the universe itself is "god", and it just might be sentient, though it may not know it, or not sentient at all...it might be that life is simply another form of energy, light electricity or heat.
You really like to chase your tail with your ridiculous attempts to justify belief in imaginary things.
but then I add another energy
---------------–
So the universe is not a closed system then? Pray tell what is the outside force that "adds energy" to our universe?
no theo, obviously missing the point once again.
WHen I say I added another energy ( in this case kinetic), I did not simply create an energy, I converted some type of energy into kinetic energy.
The point being, adding( or rather accounting for existing energy, that has changed energy types) an energy that is entropic, yet the result of that entropy is order. THAT is the point.
I converted some type of energy into kinetic energy.
-------------------
Uh huh, but objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force. You still have to account for that outside force.
I converted some beans that I ate into another type of energy.
I converted some beans that I ate into another type of energy.
----------–
But did you light them on fire?
theo
you still clearly do not understand.
Leave the physics to those of us who comprehend more than how to misunderstand the principles involved.
If you understood medical principles as much as you do physics, you would know just enough to kill people, rather than help them.
Theo – As I said – Local pockets of order can be created with enough available energy.
Theo Phileo
"but objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force. You still have to account for that outside force."
Not every rock that ever rolled off a cliff was pushed over by somebody. They fall all the time due to gravity alone, so why couldn't this force be just as natural?
Theo – As I said – Local pockets of order can be created with enough available energy.
--------------------–
Some have said that the Big Bang doesn’t violate the law of entropy because the universe is expanding. By so doing, the system keeps getting shifted out of equilibrium, and in the drive to reach a new equilibrium state, there can be pockets of order occurring without violating the second law, because the maximum allowable entropy also keeps increasing.
Although the maximum allowable entropy increases with an increase in the area that the energy must diffuse into, that amount of energy is still finite, and if we are increasing the space into which that finite amount of energy must diffuse into, then, although we can say that the equilibrium state is certainly changing, that finite energy becomes less and less usable, and we are only seeing an acceleration in the degradation of usable energy into an inert state...
Think of it like this, let’s say that we have 1cc of fuel that we place into a lawn mower. When the fuel is ignited, the piston moves and produces work. If we take that same 1cc of fuel and place it into a motor that is 100 times larger than the lawn mower and ignite the fuel, there is not enough energy to move the piston, or do any work. Hence, increasing the area into which a given amount of energy must be diffused into may change the entropic equilibrium, but it increases the rate at which a given amount of energy ceases to be useful energy.
And if the universe is eternal, then all useful energy would have already been rendered inert. (Pockets of order or not, they would also would have been rendered inert given the inevitability of entropy in closed systems)
"And if the universe is eternal, then all useful energy would have already been rendered inert."
"Eternal" seems to be the sticking point here. Eternal is a measure of time, and time is property of space/time. For our perspective, the universe had it's beginning at the Big Bang – but that's all we can say – because we cannot experience what may have occurred "before" the event. So it's possible the universe is eternal but cyclical and all we can experience is the current cycle.
For our perspective, the universe had it's beginning at the Big Bang – but that's all we can say – because we cannot experience what may have occurred "before" the event. So it's possible the universe is eternal but cyclical and all we can experience is the current cycle.
--------------------–
If the universe is eternal under any circ.umstances, then entropy would have to be able to increase. Or at least all natural laws would have to be eradicated in order to permit an eternal, cyclical existence. Either way, it demands a supernatural explanation.
then entropy would have to be able to increase
---------
Sorry, entropy would have to DECREASE...
"Sorry, entropy would have to DECREASE."
No worries – I knew what you meant. Again – we cannot make such assumptions because we are not aware of/if the universe existed in some form "before" the big bang. I agree the Laws of Thermodynamics do not truly speak to origins, but there is nothing that would violate them to have to have what they are saying be true. There is nothing that necessitates there being a "supernatural" origin.
There is nothing that necessitates there being a "supernatural" origin.
---------------–
But which of our natural laws would allow our universe to be cyclical? Wouldn't that mean that entropy would have to reverse? That is, that the universe would reach a state of equillibrium, then somehow return to a beginning state of non-entropy? Like releasing a jar of helium into a room, and once it dissipates throughout the room, it somehow all returns to the jar?
"But which of our natural laws would allow our universe to be cyclical? Wouldn't that mean that entropy would have to reverse? "
No – but depending on your perspective, it could appear to (much like it appears to in our local area). There are negative energies in the universe that tip the equilibrium (gravity for example). Would it be enough? We're not sure, we don't have an accurate enough model of the universe and it's contents to know for certain. But again, there's nothing to necessitate a supernatural cause.
Do you subscribe to the "heat death" theory? It seems to align with your thinking, so I was just curious.
We're not sure, we don't have an accurate enough model of the universe and it's contents to know for certain. But again, there's nothing to necessitate a supernatural cause.
---------------
If you say that we're not sure, then how can you totally discount a supernatural cause? Whether that "supernatural" means "God" or just means that it is a violation of the natural laws. After all, Uniformitarianism is the as.sumption that the natural laws operate now the way that they always have, and that they operate everywhere in the same way, and this cannot be proven.
Do you subscribe to the "heat death" theory? It seems to align with your thinking, so I was just curious.
-----------------–
I haven't got a clue... I think I've already said more than I know in this discussion on physics...
OK, I just looked that up. I think that given the laws of physics, and looking at the universe as a closed system, then it would seem that if the universe were left as a closed system, then heat death would be inevitable. And if inevitable, then if the universe is eternal, then it should have already occurred.
“If you say that we're not sure, then how can you totally discount a supernatural cause?”
I didn't – I said it doesn't necessitate a supernatural cause.
“And if inevitable, then if the universe is eternal, then it should have already occurred.”
Again, we seem to be having trouble around “eternal”. We know that what we experience as the universe began at the big bang – but we do not know if anything existed “before” that event. As we are temporal and exist on this side of the event, we cannot know for certain (like sand passing through the hourglass, we cannot “experience” the top bulb anymore). So the universe isn't “eternal” from our perspective, but could very well be “eternal” in the truest meaning of the world (always has, always will exist).
Heat death – if all of our current models are correct, this could very well be. But we are already aware that there are forces/factors in our universe that we aren't able to properly account for (ex. dark energy/matter). So the long and the short – what the others were proposing don't violate the Laws of Thermodynamics and a supernatural cause isn't necessary. Is it possible? Yes – but in my experience, the supernatural is always a lower probability than the natural. So until better evidence can be presented to lower that probability, I'll favor the natural ones.
So until better evidence can be presented to lower that probability, I'll favor the natural ones.
--------------
Is there any evidence for anything before the "Big Bang?"
"Is there any evidence for anything before the "Big Bang?"
LOL... now we're getting outside of my comfort zone. As I said, we cannot experience anything 'before" the big bang, so we can only infer from what we observe today. If everything is expanding, it's reasonable to presume that if you back far enough, all of the observed universe expanded from a single point – a singularity. Containing all of the energy/space/time that composes our current universe. Quantum theory is giving us some insights into the possible nature of that singularity, but like the pinch in an hourglass, I don't believe we can access the other side of the bulb.
LOL... now we're getting outside of my comfort zone. As I said, we cannot experience anything 'before" the big bang, so we can only infer from what we observe today.
----------------
On that, I wholeheartedly agree. Well, I'm off to get lunch. Later!
theo: "that energy is transforming into less usable forms of energy (i.e., the Universe is “running down”). This process is irreversible. "
this is what proves you are completely ignorant to physics.
------------
the universe is 100% energy regardless.
now if you want to understand i would suggest reading a very well known equation that cover matter/energy->energy/matter conversion.
a little german guy by the name of einstein. E=MC2
energy doesn't go anywhere nor does it "run down" it's simply changes from one form to another and back again. the universe is a "closed system" for a lack of a better term, now the question is exactly how large is the container?
Zhilla
theo just said "The Christian denies this because he maintains that the universe IS acted on by an outside force, namely – God"
You can bang your head against this brick wall as long as you want, but you will never convince Theo of anything he doesn't want to believe.
Facts and the observable laws of nature do not matter to him.
zhilla
This quote from Frank Schaeffer applies to Theo.....
"If you want to be sure you have "the truth" about yourself and our universe prepare to go mad, or prepare to turn off your brain and cling to some form or other of fundamentalism whether religious or secular."
Theo has done both gone mad while pursuing his fundamentalist beliefs, sad.
God (the only substance) can create something from nothing?
The universe did not come from nothing, but there was a time when the universe was nothing. When God created, He did so having only Himself as the beginning substance.
theo: "The universe did not come from nothing, but there was a time when the universe was nothing. When God created, "
you just contridicted yourself right there.
"The universe did not come from nothing,"
" when the universe was nothing"
------------–
so yes according to religion there wasn't anything at all in the unvierse and "god" created everything from nothing.
atleast science said, hey we don't know but we have evidence pointing toward that something existed that ;ead to everything else; i lean toward the thing that can't be created nor destroyed, seeing it would always be there.
Do you see how pointless this is yet zhilla?
He doesn't even have the basic physics right.
Zhilla,
There is no contradiction. There is a difference between creation "out of nothing" and "from nothing."
The universe is from God, but was not a mere rearranging of parts, for other than God, there was nothing else from which the universe was created, therefore it was out of nothing, but from God.
Do you intend to prove that nothing exists, Theo? Or that nothing can exist?
Do you intend to prove that nothing exists, Theo? Or that nothing can exist?
--------------–
"Absolutely nothing" doesn't exist, because God is the only eternal infinite. Every physical enti.ty is contingent. To say that something can be eternal (the universe) while it is made up of a totality of parts that are not eternal is to create an impossibility such as a married bachelor...
An eternal whole made up of a series of finite parts is to beg an infinite causal chain which has no basis in reality.
I mentioned a simple Universe that consists of a bell – certainly finite. I should have added (did I?) that the bell is eternal. Whenever it is struck there are events (not eternal – the vibrations fade away). Let's add that it is struck at random points throughout eternity. That the sequence of bell strikes is without beginning or end. Maybe this resembles our Universe, Theo.
Let's add that it is struck at random points throughout eternity
---------------–
But now you, like IGAFTR are adding energy from an outside source. If we are looking at our universe, then what is this outside force that is acting on our universe to add energy?
Theo
How do you know that there is an "eternal infinite", and that God is the only one?
Even if God exists, how would he know that he's the only one? Omniscience? Have you ever asked yourself how anyone could ever be sure that they know everything there is to know? If there's something that God doesn't know he could still be under the impression that he knows everything, right?
If he exists, God could just be blissfully ignorant of his own origin and limitations, all while claiming to be larger than the universe.
If he exists, God could just be blissfully ignorant of his own origin and limitations, all while claiming to be larger than the universe.
--------------–
But what you are describing there is not God.
Yes, maybe God is not the God people imagine him to be. That would at least explain how something too illogical to actually exist is believed to.
theo:
In recent years, in chemistry textbooks there has been a shift away from using the terms "order" and "disorder" to that of the concept of energy dispersion to describe entropy, among other theories. In the 2002 encyclopedia Encarta, for example, entropy is defined as a thermodynamic property which serves as a measure of how close a system is to equilibrium, as well as a measure of the disorder in the system. [2] In the context of entropy, "perfect internal disorder" is synonymous with "equilibrium", but since that definition is so far different from the usual definition implied in normal speech, the use of the term in science has caused a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding."
------
yes energy will disperse to fill a container; just like water and air do.
that was the point i was making about we don't know how large of a "container" this energy is even "in" to be capable of creating a functional equation on how much the energy would disperse.
---
Well thought out response Godzilla, but the believers will never let go of their god-myth.
Space aliens could come here and show us how everything works, without any imagined god(s), yet people like R Brown will keep right on believing in the fairy tale.
We should be thankful they are not burning us non believers at the stake anymore, at least not yet.
Although they would love to, just to show how much they love their "merciful" god(s).
thanks nik, i was merely wanting the view of others on here to make certain i wasn't totally insane.
plus theo did give me a good laugh; however he proved himself a liar as normal.
saying show him effect without cause; it's a play on words becasue he suppose one must preceed the other, when both are possible under certain situations.
oh and not forgetting the part where he said he would concede, yet they never concede anything. little liars.
----
thanks again nik
he proved himself a liar as normal.
---------------
As normal? I'm calling you out – quote me as EVER having told a lie. I never conceded to you because you failed to produce an effect without a cause. You attempted to deny that words have meanings in order to prove your point.
Theo pulls out the righteous indignation card, take a pill already. Theo it is okay to lie now and again to mot hurt anothers feelings, therefore I totally agree with you that you have never told a falsehood in your entire life. :>) LOL
Theo pulls out the righteous indignation card, take a pill already.
---------------
No, I merely don't appreciate being called a liar when I haven't.
Theo it is okay to lie now and again to not hurt anothers feelings,
---------------------
Really? What verse is that? No, it isn't OK to lie under any cir.cu.mstances.
therefore I totally agree with you that you have never told a falsehood in your entire life. :>) LOL
----------------------
I realize this was said in jest, but no one is innocent of lying.
yes, everyone lies, including your god. Or are you not familiar with the famous story where god lies outright.
Or are you not familiar with the famous story where god lies outright.
-----------------
God is incapable of lying. But because you do not know the scriptures, you are probably taking something out of context in order to "proof-text" your preconceived belief.
Theo
Couldn't find a passage about the evils of lying in the book of silly, didn't try very hard to find one, but I am sure a genius and rational thinker like you, Theo, can come up with something. Oh dear, I did it again, can compulsive lying be treated? Probably just some satanic force, exorcism, hmmmm. LOL
Theo
In this exchange :
"
September 3, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
Theo Phileo
You are aware that ISIS considers the US evil, also?
-----–
So you think that what they are doing is not only NOT evil, but it's NOT even wrong. You personally might not like it, but it's not wrong. Is that what you believe?"
What you did was misrepresent what someone said and accuse them of having sadi something that is CLEARLY NOT what they meant. Where I come from, that qualifies as a lie.
You do this a lot. That makes you a liar.
You do this a lot. That makes you a liar.
-------------
Tell me, since you are so good at discerning the thoughts and intentions of men's hearts, what was the point of saying that ISIS considers the US evil?
Was it to make a statement about the US, in that we are evil?
Or was it to put the US on the same playing field as ISIS, and therefore to justify their actions?
Was it to call into question the definition of evil? Or to call into question even the existence of evil?
If evil doesn't exist, then anyone can do anything for any reason, because nothing is evil – what is punished by a society is merely the result of the opinions of the majority of the people. Therefore "right" and "wrong" are subject to whims, and therefore are robbed of any real meaning...
Liar Theo said, "since you are so good at discerning the thoughts and intentions of men's hearts, what was the point of saying that ISIS considers the US evil? "
I never said I was anything about men's hearts.
If you want to know what the point of saying something was, try asking the person who said it..
What you did was reach an unjustiifable conclusion and proceed to argue as if it were fact. That is not being honest.
Here is my full quote that Theo cherry picked from:
Theo,
You are aware that ISIS considers the US evil, also? Would you think their reasons for a US strike to excise "evil from this land" to be perfectly fine, too? If not, why not? It's what you espouse for them.
It's easy to be dismissive when it's not your country's and countrymen being shattered, isn't it?
The problem you are refusing to address is that this is in reply to your desire to level that area into molten glass, and a direct response to this quote of yours: "Sometimes the only way to restrain evil is to eliminate those who habitually practice it."
ISIS sees it the same way, and I have no wish to see the stateside US attacked because of religious zealots, whether it be ISIS or people like you, Theo.
Do you get it yet, Theo? How can you possibly not see the insanity you espouse for other regions, but will directly cause the same kind of conflict here??
Do you get it yet, Theo? How can you possibly not see the insanity you espouse for other regions, but will directly cause the same kind of conflict here??
--------------–
And my comments were within the context of a temper tantrum because I have loved ones in the military in harm's way as we speak. That temper tantrum was not based in reality, but was out of a desire to inflict capital punishment for the guilty of capital crimes in order that evil may be eradicated.
Along the same lines as "I wish all r.a.p.i.s.t.s. would be behind bars." Not realistic because it will never happen, but an understandable reaction to pain.
Incidentally, we find this kind of att.itude in the imprecatory psalms where the psalmist desires the justice of God on those who are in habitual and unrepentant hatred of Him.
I don't care if you were in a tantrum or not. You said it. You misrepresented what I said in return, and now you're going to put it down to you being over emotional instead of just saying, "yeah, I misrepresented what you said."
We've ALL had people die over there. I don't want it to happen HERE. Understand?
And stop taking my posts out of context, since you are so fond of rebuking others who do it to you.
And, Theo, if you cannot see that your desire to level that portion of the ME wouldn't affect your loved ones, you're blind. They'd most likely be killed as well. Tantrum or no, open your eyes.
LaBella,
If I misunderstood your meaning in that you intended to draw similarities between ISIS and the United States over the issue of the definition of "evil," then I apologize.
I still wish for the eradication of evil. And no, that does not mean capital punishment for ALL evildoers, only those for capital crimes. And NOT innocents. And not capital punishment for anything less than capital crimes. And if I am not mistaken, that is the very definition of justice.
" ...that does not mean capital punishment for ALL evildoers, only those for capital crimes. And NOT innocents. ..."
How exactly does one achieve this selectivity with an entire region turned into "molten glass" ?
How exactly does one achieve this selectivity with an entire region turned into "molten glass" ?
-------------
Would you people get over this??? The intent of that comment (if anyone actually read it) was to eradicate only those evildoers. I said "find out where ISIS is... and bomb it." Furthermore, I had said that this was just a wish to destroy the guilty, very similar to saying something like "I wish all r.a.p.i.s.t.s. were in prison." It's not going to happen, but it's an understandable statement in reaction to pain.
I'm done with this. If people wish to continually take my comments out of context, then they are guilty of what LeBella has accused me of – LYING.
" f people wish to continually take my comments out of context, ..."
The point, dear Theo, is that this is exactly what you do here on a consistent basis – but when the shoe is on the other foot, you become indignant. Your faux outrage is duly noted.
is that this is exactly what you do here on a consistent basis –
--------------
No, what I do is usually twofold. 1) I show how atheists consistently take the Bible out of context by showing it IN context, and 2) I argue from the lesser to the greater in order to show the futility of certain lines of thought.
theo
God lies. Look at the story of Abraham and Sarah, when god tells them they will have a son. You can claim he did not lie, but the way I read it, is god LIES...I know you will try to water it down, or give your interpretation, but to me it is quite clear...god LIED outright.
That is famous, I'm surprised you do not know that old one, but most likely someone found a way to read that so it makes it that god didn't lie, but there is no mistake, it is quite obvious. Sure , it is a little white lie, but still a lie.
You may have missed....
"If you want to be sure you have "the truth" about yourself and our universe prepare to go mad, or prepare to turn off your brain and cling to some form of fundamentalism, whether religious or secular."
----------------
No, I read it, but I didn't comment on it because it is just one man's opinion, and he's wrong. After all, he sounds just like Obama when he's talking about people who "cling to their guns and their religion." The idea is that both Schaeffer and Obama were attempting to make it seem as though all of those people who subscribe to a theological viewpoint on life are somehow cracked. Both men are sorely mistaken. But, it's a typical tactic – that is, to insult those whom you disagree with in order to bolster your own beliefs.
We CAN know that we have the truth though. After all, John wrote: "I write these things that you may KNOW..."
God lies. Look at the story of Abraham and Sarah, when god tells them they will have a son.
-------------–
How is that a lie? They had a son at the appointed time, and named him Isaac.
That wasn't the lie theo...read it again, it should be obvious for you to see when god lies.
I'm really surprised you don't know this one...it has always generated a lively debate as to why god lied.
igaftr,
OK, help me out on this, I don't want to guess... Quote for me the verse where you say that God lied. Be specific.
Don't waste your time igaftr. The religiously deluded will either say;
A) You're taking that out of context
or
B) This means that
In simple terms:
All physical matter is finite, hence non-eternal, and originated at the beginning of this physical realm of existence. There MUST be an UNCAUSED "First Cause" that is Self-existent, Infinite/Eternal in generation, and outside of the beginning, realm and time of this physical existence, hence Metaphysical and Supernatural†.
Regarding the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Conservation of Energy is true in the sense of this "already created/finished product" finite physical realm where energy is a thermodynamic entity that is in a certain form and is quantifiable, hence physical and finite, and it has the ability to change from one form to another while being conserved, but that has nothing to do with its "Origin."
According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Entropy —irreversible increasing disorder, simply put— is increasing and is inversely proportional to the total usable energy available. The universe is winding down to a state of equilibrium where Entropy is at its maximum and the total usable energy is at zero, hence death.
An illustrative example:
Think of the universe as a bubble-wrap and the total available usable energy in the universe as the bubbles, the more bubbles you pop, the less available usable bubbles until all the bubbles are popped, hence, the bubble-wrap is dead.
Regarding E=MC^2, which is the main postulate of Albert Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, it has nothing to do with the amount of usable energy in the universe.
No one can prove the non-existence of [a] Creator without knowing the "Origin" of matter and life.
† Energy of this realm of existence is natural, physical and finite, whereas Energy of the Supernatural Realm Is Supernatural, Metaphysical and Infinite/Eternal in generation.
"All physical matter is finite"
And how do you know this?
Problem with your bubble wrap analogy is that the air/energy would have no place to escape to. Press on one of these bubbles and it it would merely move somewhere else, creating another "bubble".
I'm a believer in anticipating and nipping in the bud. ISIS is formulating a recipe that deserves attention, disruption, and eradication.
It's like the radar problem in engineering. There are 2 types of errors, false alarms and false dismissals, with asymmetric consequences. A false alarm is annoying, a false dismissal is death. Because of that, radar early warning systems are biased to have many more false alarms than false dismissals. A false dismissals must be almost impossible.
The ISIS recipe is gang like brutality combined with state like control of territory. That is a dangerous combination. Once they stabilize control over the territory, they can mass produce and export the brutality. If this is a false alarm, not big deal, but if we dismiss them and they export this brutality, we will pay a big price.
To me, it is completely rational to act quickly and forcefully in this matter. If anything, we are late to act.
Should we restrain ourselves according to international conventions, or should we use any means necessary?
That's a how question vs an if question (i.e. Tactics vs strategy). I would stick to agreements (conventions).
Any means necessary.
We are dealing with sa.va.ges who use their nasty book to subjugate and loot and steal and kill.
They cannot be reasoned with.
No believer can be reasoned with, but at least the other myths don't have a "Thow shalt kill non believers" command in them like that barbaric myth has.
ISIS started in the chaos of Syria...we watched them grow, but did nothing since it would appear we are helping Assad.They gathered strength, we continued to watch, and decided to only do something if our resources were directly affected, they continued to grow, and we kept watching...now they are a significant threat, and we still watch them, only acting in defensive and humanitarian ways...you cannot win a defensive/humanitarion war.
This requires an international community effort, but it really needs to be led by muslim countries...and that will never happen.
I agree completely that we waited too long. I'm not sure ISIS started the chaos though. They exploited the chaos. The chaos started with the Arab spring and is the release of tension started many years ago in the post colonial structure imposed on the region.
No Isis did not start the chaos, that was fallout from the other nations people taking their own power, but it failed in Syria, and now is complete civil war. ISIS is simply taking advantage of the power vacuum.
the thing that sickens me most, is all of the people coming from other countires to join ISIS...I simply don't understand the midset of anyone who wants to kill with impunity.
Fortunately they do not represent all muslims, but far too many muslims are quiet.
We need the muslim nations to step up and lead the fight against ISIS. Then we need all muslim friendly countries to follow and support. Without that, the muslim nations will appear to endorse them...sure they can claim they condemn the actions, but when they take no action to stop it, you can see how they really feel.
How many in Iran are hoping ISIS gets WMD's...and if they were to use one in Isreal...that would spark a celebration in Iran the likes of which would be legend.
igaftr,
You realize that ISIL is fundamentally Sunni and that they have been attacking Sheites in eastern Iraq and that Sheite controlled Iran would really not be too happy about ISIL having that kind of control.
Kevin,
They have killed almost a thousand Muslims already, some are Sunnis that don't worship properly. These are extreme extremists.
yeah, I realize that, but considering that ISIL sees Isreal and the US as Satan incarnate, anything we do unilaterally will be seen as agression by satan. That is why we need a coalition led by muslims, regardless of which sect.
It is ridiculous, I know, but a purely military action will ultimately fail, just as we have failed against Al Queda...we have had many victories against them, yet they are still going, still operational, still disruptive. It is the mind-set that needs to change, and since it is a mindset based on warped Islamic teachings, it will need to be the voice of muslims that need to change that mind-set. Using nothing but violence to combat violence only creates martyrs and avengers.
Yeah bostonola, I get that which is why I mentioned why that Iran is not too thrilled about ISIL and what they have been doing, and although igaftr points out the notion of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, that only goes if the enemy of my enemy is also not your enemy as well and does not attack you, and frankly with ISIL's track record, I really don't think that Iran is not keeping a weary eye on ISIL.
Atheist reactionary manifests itself in you.
And what would the scot-bot do?
Misrepresent quotes by scientists? That'll show ISIS!
Lol.
What is your supposed justification? WMD's? LOL. Atheists are every bit the warmongers as capitalist crusaders.
I explained my motivation in the OP, the scot-bot has reading comprehension problems.
I'll take your answer to the question, what would you do?, to mean that you would do nothing. I'm glad you aren't a leader.
Interesting use of the word 'crusader' by a proclaimed christian.
and I'm glad you aren't Bush 3.
Who says a WMD can't be a well-trained, fanatical, expansionist militia, awanderingdolt?
Ever looked at a globe or a map of the world Doris?
I'm glad I'm not Bush 3.
ISIS is at war with 2 sovereign countries and is threatening others (including mine), and you want to do nothing. The appeasement strategy failed miserably in WWII. The scot-bot doesn't learn from science or history and is thus doomed to repeat errors.
This is all unimportant to extreme armageddonists (the Islamists have them as well), they welcome the end of the world so they can be reunited with their God. They think they are special and this will happen in their lifetime. These are the most dangerous people on the planet.
Hardly a day goes by that I don't use a map, scotty – what's your point? How is that supposed to answer the question I posed?
ISIS is not Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin. There are numerous well funded sovereign nations in the region who field modern armies capable of halting any future "expansion" of these jihadists. Didn't YOU learn anything from the conflict in Iraq? Atheists like not to admit it but they fall into the same imperialist warmongering mindset that has bloodied this country's nose much too often in recent past. Knock kneed and fearful little cowards who think they need to be a cop on every corner in the world.
ISIS is not Hitler or Stalin, duh. Learning is about recognizing patterns and applying them to new situations. Your dogmatic worldview has extinguished your ability to do this, i.e. you do no longer learn. Of course there are countries that have even more at stake than we do, that was true in WWII also, remember? We allied with them. That is what we are doing here, allying with Kurds. I'm sure we will ally with other regional groups as well. You have a soda straw view of the world and history. Religion has poisoned your mind and relegated you to robot status.
"Learning is about recognizing patterns and applying them to new situations"
– You've learned absolutely nothing from the Iraq and Afghan wars. Goad them some more. Send more young Americans to die. Sad part of it is, you've probably never served yourself which would account for your extremely limited worldview.
Who said to send Americans? You assume a lot for a bot.
So answer the question already, Scot, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
And please understand that I am firmly against sending US troops into another war over there. You haven't come up with any solutions yourself, unless you think silly snarky comments are going to make ISIS realize the error of their ways.
The Arab League isn't doing anything. So again, Scot, that's obviously not the answer because they're not stepping up, are they?
As i thought, never served himself yet willing to hold the jacket of the one doing the fighting. Why are you so shrill Labella?
You have no idea of my service record and it is irrelevant. The depth of your twisted lack of logic is bottomless.
Shrill? Lol. Exasperated with your tedious tap dancing around the question, Scot. And your obvious refusal to answer. Why so cowardly? Answer it.
It might impress other armageddonist groups if one such group became extinct and the world moved on without them.
There have been many (I found over 100 on Wikipedia). Suggestible people are easy to fool.
Nothing should be done without international consensus and coalition. Now is not the time for the U.S. to cowboy alone into another war.
Let's see what can be done remotely, first.
Absolutely. Now is not the time for knee-jerk reaction.
We are not at risk of knee jerk reaction. We have sat back and watched ISIS get resources and land. They are much more powerful than just a year ago, and it will cost much more to thwart that power now.
Personally I love drones and other methods of remote destruction. They're the best way to " the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."
Tom,
My picture is that we are a piece in an alliance. We bring air cover, resources, and intelligence, others bring troops.
Which recent war did we cowboy alone?
UK Gov't Bans Teaching of Creationism as Scientifically Valid in Academies, Public Schools
from the Christian Post
Secular groups in the U.K. are rejoicing after the government clarified that creationism, supported by biblical literalists, is not allowed to be taught as a scientifically valid theory at academies and public-funded schools.
The Department of Education's funding agreement, under the "Church of England and Catholic single academy model supplemental agreement" published earlier in June, states that creationism "does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory."
Hurray for the UK. Unfortunately the US has its Constitution – damn it to hell.
lol.
For US....
http://www.nea.org/home/stem.html
Outstanding!!!
*yawn*
Don't fall asleep now.
ISIS has killed American citizens just for being Americans.
The politicians are getting ready for another campaign season.
Neither party will want to be seen as weak.
I fully expect many bombs to start dropping any minute now.
Obama is a very smart man. Too smart to do something for the purpose of not seeming weak. Too smart to refrain from doing something because not doing it might make him look like he is not doing it for the purpose of not seeming weak.
In mathematics there is Gauss's theorem that suggest we should put a boundary around Obama and evaluate him by what we see him do at the boundary, and not try to figure out he is thinking inside the boundary. If, in the end, his actions were those of a weak man, then that's what he is.
What the flux
Maybe every politician should be kept in a net or large sack.
Are you suggesting that he is not influenced by the people around him, or that politics do not play a role in military actions?
Events will unfold. Obama will either be an effective and positive part of them, or he will fail. You'll never really know what motivated him either way. He'll be judged, properly, by what we see.
Tom Tom
We will never know everything that went on behind the scenes, so we will never really know what role he played. Obama will be judged harshly by Fox news, and softly by MSNBC.
This is my personal opinion... And I'm gonna step out of character a bit here, but because I've got good friends and many family in active duty military, in all branches, I say that we need to turn to WW2 tactics. Find out where ISIS is, then mass firebomb the whole area until it is nothing but a molten pool of glass.
Sometimes the only way to restrain evil is to eliminate those who habitually practice it.
On behalf of my dad – Semper Fi
So theo, the thousands of innocents that would die to kill a few hundred militants is acceptible to you?Oh right...as long as they aren't christians, right, just turn all of it into a parking lot, right theo?
Why would we use WWII tactics and weapons when we now have precision laser guided and GPS guided weapons? Should we also drop our satellite communications in favor of Morse code?
Theo Phileo
Aren't those "Vietnam Tactics", instead of WWII ones?
@Theo
You can't swat the ISIS fly with a sledgehammer.
They are not a nation-state with stationary, easily identified targets like a centralized command base.
They are surprisingly well organized and have become more of a militia than a terrorist group like Al Qaeda – but it's not like they've got a city that can be firebombed.
When we were fighting Germany, the whole country was an enemy. The head of state utilized national resources in wars of conquest. The Nazi forces were comprised of German people fighting for Germany.
ISIS fighters don't claim a single nationality – they're fighting to establish a caliphate – to be the authority for all Muslims everywhere regardless of geography or nationalism.
"Sometimes the only way to restrain evil is to eliminate those who habitually practice it."
Like the gays? I'm not suggesting you are, but your line of thinking has been used as an excuse for atrocities. The problem is "evil" and who gets to define it.
You can't swat the ISIS fly with a sledgehammer.
---------------
I know, I know... But I'm reminded of Benjamin Franklin when he said:
"Moderation in the face of evil is no virtue, and extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."
Once again, stepping out of myself to throw a little temper tantrum here – I feel that our leadership has irreversably lost all traces of testicular forti.tude and need to grow a pair... Instead of "using a sledgehammer to swat a fly" they need to use a bloody cement truck.
Theo,
That's not WWII tactics...that is Old Testament tactics, I can see why you approve.
Theo
"Once again, stepping out of myself to throw a little temper tantrum here"
The denial is strong with this one. You are not stepping out, you are letting the real you show.
You are not the person you are trying to show everyone else that you are.
Professional help is available.
theo
Everything you have said reminds me of the old saying "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it"
And you are leading the charge to repeat it.
Though I am not happy that we have failed to significantly act against this threat, I am glad that they are trying to not repeat past mistakes.
So, what does the liberal mind dictate that we do? Threaten them with sanctions? Give weapons to inept armies who, for lack of training, lose entire military installations to the enemy? Do we negotiate? Do we tell them that we are very angry at what they are doing, but never give our words any teeth?
Yes, we do whatever we can to protect innocents, but that doesn't mean that we settle into a passivism that only lets evil grow.
"Yes, we do whatever we can to protect innocents, but that doesn't mean that we settle into a passivism that only lets evil grow."
But weren't you the one suggesting we carpet-bomb the region?
Theo,
Like Bush wore Cheney's pair?
Surely you can see that the stupid reasons we invaded Iraq is one of the precise reasons ISIS is prevalent today? And you want to repeat that measure because it's the "manly" thing to do? Seriously?
President Obama has nothing to gain by allowing polls to influence his actions. As he is in his second term, he has the luxury of doing what is needed rather than what will get him reelected. The potential candidates are also free to make all the noise and threats they wish because they know that they don't have any real say in what form retaliation takes. Hopefully a wise, well-considered decision will come from this. The knee-jerk reactions of the Bush Administration certainly had a part in creating this mess to begin with.
But weren't you the one suggesting we carpet-bomb the region?
--------------–
Just the area where ISIS is... I never said it had any bearing in reality, just that I wish there were a way to permanently and in one swift stroke remove evil from the land. As I said, it was a temper tantrum, and those are rarely rational. If all of ISIS would be so kind as to move to an otherwise uninhabited island in the middle of the ocean, and let the affected armies of the world use it for target practice.
Who knows, maybe after all that carpet boming, the island would prove Hank Johnson correct by tipping over and sinking.
Theo,
You are aware that ISIS considers the US evil, also? Would you think their reasons for a US strike to excise "evil from this land" to be perfectly fine, too? If not, why not? It's what you espouse for them.
It's easy to be dismissive when it's not your country's and countrymen being shattered, isn't it?
"Threaten them with sanctions?"
ISIS is not a nation state. Sanctions aren't possible.
"Give weapons to inept armies who, for lack of training, lose entire military installations to the enemy?"
The Peshmerga are anything but inept. They are far better qualified to fight an enemy like ISIS than is the United States. If you haven't noticed, while the United States excels at conflicts that demand the application of overwhelming force, they're not terribly good at guerilla warfare.
"Do we negotiate?"
You can't negotiate with religious zealots – especially ones who lack a distinct, public leadership let alone diplomats.
"Do we tell them that we are very angry at what they are doing, but never give our words any teeth?"
Would you use those teeth to bite off your nose to spite your face?
Would you raze the entire city of Detroit to deal with the gang problems there?
You are aware that ISIS considers the US evil, also?
-----------------
So you think that what they are doing is not only NOT evil, but it's NOT even wrong. You personally might not like it, but it's not wrong. Is that what you believe?
Doc,
So what would you propose that America do about her citizens being slaughtered?
So you think that what they are doing is not only NOT evil, but it's NOT even wrong. You personally might not like it, but it's not wrong. Is that what you believe?
Do you lack reading comprehension?
No, and I didn't say anything remotely near that, Theo. You have an irritating habit of putting words in other people's mouths, and then arguing against when what you're addressing wasn't what was said in the first place.
Get some debate honesty, please.
No, and I didn't say anything remotely near that, Theo.
--------------–
So if you agree that ISIS is evil, then the only reason that I can see that you would say that "they consider the US to be evil" is to somehow put both ISIS and the US on an equal playing field. If we are justified in using violence against evil, is ISIS equally justified in using violence against US citizens?
Theo,
The label evil is not what matters. We shouldn't be the world police and attack evil wherever it pops up. ISIS is a mounting threat to our allies and there is a clear line to a threat to us. That is why we should act (with others).
@Theo
And what would you propose the Afghans and Iraqis do about their citizens being slaughtered in their own countries by Americans?
ISIS are trying to goad the western world into a violent reaction – and if recent history is any indication, that reaction would be one of overwhelming force with high levels of civilian casualties. That would do nothing but feed the ISIS rhetoric about how we're all imperialist heathen dogs with no respect for other countries.
One has to carefully examine potential outcomes – you can't just burn down the barn to get rid of the rats.
And besides – "Kill 'em all" isn't exactly in synch with the Christian ethic, is it?
Theo
Just because someone considers something to be 'evil', that does not necessarily justify using violence. Of course people are going to see their enemy as evil when they claim a religious cause. That does not mean every different religious group needs to try to kill each other all the time, does it?
So if you agree that ISIS is evil, then the only reason that I can see that you would say that "they consider the US to be evil" is to somehow put both ISIS and the US on an equal playing field. If we are justified in using violence against evil, is ISIS equally justified in using violence against US citizens?
Still deflecting.
Read what I actually freaking wrote, and answer the bloody questions instead of trying to ping pong it back to me as some sort of cowardly way to examine your own bloodthirsty belief that what you desire is "then mass firebomb the whole area until it is nothing but a molten pool of glass."
" Still deflecting. "
And you are surprised by this ?
And besides – "Kill 'em all" isn't exactly in synch with the Christian ethic, is it?
--------------–
Indescriminant killing? No. But that's not what I said. The question is over what justifies a war or what justifies a capital punishment – which is indeed what a justifyable war is.
Although God alone has the power and the right to either pardon sins or to deliver ultimate justice, man, through government, is given the responsibility under the sun to restrain evil and to protect its citizens from it (Romans 13).
As a part of that, although we see in scripture that capital punishment it is not given as a punishment in every instance IF the one guilty of the crime will repent (such as with David), where capital punishment is deemed necessary to the unregenerate and unrepentant, it should never be taken lightly as it is a severe, graphic, and sober means to deter evil.
The death of one who has committed a capital crime is not to be carried out by an individual’s act of revenge – this is forbidden. Rather, this duty has been given over to and is a part of the authority of the government alone (Romans 13).
Though the worst of government may disappoint us or even persecute us, without government we would slaughter one another. This inst.itution of government, this ruler, this one who wields the authority of the government is the minister of God and He is avenging by bringing wrath on the one who practices evil. Capital punishment is the will of God and the executioner is the servant of God.
Theo Phileo
"extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."
Unfortunately, many groups like ISIS view their extremism as defence of their particular brand of "liberty", yes?
I meant to add this.... Capital punishment is only given as a punishment in the NT for capital crimes. Nothing else.
Not really, midwest rail.
Unfortunately, many groups like ISIS view their extremism as defence of their particular brand of "liberty", yes?
--------------
True. But that is why it is important to have a set definition of "evil." If there isn't a set definition, then anything is permissible for any reason.
theo
"it is important to have a set definition of "evil.""
Do you even hear yourself? A set definition for a subjective concept.
I would submit to you that all organized religion is evil.
"it is important to have a set definition of "evil.""
Do you even hear yourself? A set definition for a subjective concept.
---------------------
So you can look at a r.a.p.e victim and tell her to her face that the man who did this thing to her was not committing an evil act? If you have no definition for evil then the BEST that you can say is that although you personally do not agree with what he did, what he did was not actually wrong.
You're doing it again, Theo. Addressing what was't said instead of what actually was.
theo
It is YOUR BIBLE that teaches that the victim is stained for not being pure, so she is the one who carries the evil, and the perp only has to give 50 sheckles of silver to her father and marry her, otherwise it is HER SHAME TO BEAR.
SO I would point out that the bible is perpetuating evil, since it is the work of men who did not have only good in their heart.
Using the term "evil" is extremely subjective. ISIS thinks they are doing gods work and you, as a sort of christian, is the evil one...see the problem...of course you don't, you think christianity is not evil.
Do you all really not see how pontless it is to debate with Theo?
Someone suggests that both sides in the conflice think they are fighting evil, and theo jumps in and claims R,A,P,E is okay. How stupid does this have to get before we stop feeding this troll?
It's a relevant point, and probably the main point. If there is no set standard for right and wrong, then anyone can do anything for any reason without fear of retaliation. Whether it is the evil of r.a.p.e., the evils committed by ISIS, or the evil of unbelief, there must be a standard, and truth is not relative.
Theo
Your god gave the commad "thou shalt not kill',
Yet here you are advocating the killing of ISIS.
@Theo
Would you at least concede that here in the corporeal realm, replete with different worldviews, religions, governments etc. – that a widely accepted standard of right and wrong must be predicated on tangible reality and not ancient supernatural edicts?
Or are you looking for a global Christian ethical authority – in the same way that ISIS wants a global Muslim authority?
"Evils of unbelief" – unbelief in what, specifically? For example, I don't think there is anything inherently evil about dismissing unprovable supernatural propositions.
Would you at least concede that here in the corporeal realm, replete with different worldviews, religions, governments etc. – that a widely accepted standard of right and wrong must be predicated on tangible reality and not ancient supernatural edicts?
----------------------
Oh, sure. Governments act (hopefully) for the benefit of ALL the people. That means that laws are usually based on ideas of not hurting one another.
Or are you looking for a global Christian ethical authority – in the same way that ISIS wants a global Muslim authority?
-----------------–
Well, although we may wish that the whole world would live under the Lordship of Christ, we know that in this present age, that's not going to happen. That's why we pray "Maranatha!"
"Evils of unbelief" – unbelief in what, specifically? For example, I don't think there is anything inherently evil about dismissing unprovable supernatural propositions.
------------------
Well, about being "unprovable" I remain dubious. But as defined by the Bible, a failure to submit to the Lordship of Christ in all things in one's life is an evil because it elevates something (anything) above God, and therefore makes an idol out of that thing.
Your god gave the commad "thou shalt not kill',
-----------------–
Take the Bible in context. Exodus is using the Hebrew word for "murder." How else could you reconcile that with passages like "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed..."
All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.
"Should we also drop our satellite communications in favor of Morse code?"
HEY Boston! you watch that dig on Morse code!! Didn't you see Independence Day??
(coming from an old ham radio operator) (grin)
Theo Phileo
"But that is why it is important to have a set definition of "evil." "
But who gets to set the definition? After all, they see us being just as evil as we see them. The world isn't actually like some kid's comic book where you can tell the good guys from the bad simply by looking at the colour of their hats, right?
Theo
"Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed..."
Why wouldn't that also apply to acts of war, or capital punishment? One man usually killed or condemned another in both instances, right?
For those who believe that the pope is the antichrist doesn't this make ISIS part of God's army, ... as they claim to be?
Hmm... I can't wait for Pat Robertson to chime in.
I understand that Westboro intends to picket ISIS...a blessing in disguise perhaps?
I am prepared to donate to the travel expences so WBC can fly to Syria and protest ISIS face to face.
So are we...can we throw in a few others who share the opinion of WBC??
One set of radicalized religious nuts going off to face another set of radicalized religious nuts.
Sounds like a Pay-Per-View event.
So Germany, along with the US and France, is providing some fairly heavy artillery to the Kurdish Peshmerga to enable them to better fight ISIS. They're pretty much the only remaining soldiers out there with any organizational efficiency.
The Kurds have had their own vision of an Islamic state for a loooong time now and they're not going to let these Mohammad Come Latelies succeed.
How do the Belief Blog denizens feel about arming one group of religious nutbars in order to fight another more aggressive group of religious nutbars?
In hindsight, it was the correct decision to stop Hitler. He used religion to unite the people.
I am all in favor of stopping ISIS, and it will be alot easier than winning WWII.
As long as it stays in their little section of the world... Win Win!
We don't know the Kurds, and we don't know their way.
You may not know the kurds, but they have been around for a while and the military has been talking to them for a few decades now.
We actually do know a fair bit about them and their motivations.
In the century or so of their existence, they've aided the west a number of times – most notably in the last decade or so when they've fought side by side with coalition forces in the Middle East.
It was their capture of Hassan Ghul in 2004 that directly led to the capture and execution of Bin Laden.
We also know that like a whole lotta Muslims in the MIddle East, they are extremely anti-semitic.
During the first Gulf War, the Kurdish people were driven out of Iraq and into the mountains bordering Turkey.
Coalition forces setup Operation Provide Comfort to assist the refugees as they were dying in droves due to exposure, malnutrition and dehydration.
A lot of American companies provided supplies for them, including the Levi Strauss company who shipped up tons of clothing to help them survive the cold mountain climate.
But the Kurds refused to wear the denim because "Levi" is a Jewish sounding name.
Instead they took the clothes and tried to re-sell them to the coalition soldiers.
There are actually a substantial number of Kurds living in Israel, maybe 200,000 or more. Not all Kurds are Sunni Muslim either.
@Scot
Those are Kurdish Jews, not Muslims.
They were pushed out of Iraq with the rest of the Jewish population in the mid 20th century.
Though there are no official relations between Iraqi Kurdistan and Israel, Muslim states like Iran and Syria have pointed accusatory fingers at the Kurds for deigning to deal with the Jewish state.
It was a pun....Little Miss Muffet...
*whoooosh* was the sound of your pun going over my head.
lol
"We don't know their whey"
Lol...
iga,
Great pun!
Do we hope that the Kurds can tough it out?!
Some people enjoy dog fighting. Arming and encouraging religious people to fight religious wars is on par with that.
We have been arming one nutbar to fight other nutbars for a long time...heck I think it is official policy, not sure it is a good one though.
In my experience, the problem with that tactic is we usually end up having to fight those we armed/trained previously – Taliban, Al Qaeda, Saddam and now ISIS.
Doc – the global spread.....
http://www.f35.com/global
you know this does get boring after awhile.
we have our dedicated trolls on both sides of the fence that say anything to stir the pot; then
we have the actual people on here to debate the topics precented by cnn.
eventually after going back and forth for days, if not weeks the debaters finally return to the exact points they started from....opposing sides of the fence.
now anyone that truly thinks that they can convince the opposing side to convert or de-convert are just deluding themselves.
the theists thump their religious texts and proclaim they know it all to be truth........yet no one truly does.
atheists, most of which de-converted years ago; start with the simple premise of prove it.........funny part is we know they have no proof, because that is the basis of "faith".
speaking only for myself; i get on here knowing nothing will change; always expecting and recieveing the exact same "points" argued in every blog i've been in on cnn for years.
hmp, what can i say i get bored and poking a religious person with " a stick" gets me some laughs, a times they truly say things that make me think.......yet very, very rarely.
----------------------
so bringing the debate back to the topic at hand; why should we care that isis is targeting the pope?
it's not like they can truly get to the guy; he is one of the most observed and protected people on earth.
now in the minut chance they did take out the pope..........i don't see things ending well for the middle east.
catholics are still the largest religion by shear numbers, so if they did take out the pope.......well let's say it would be a very short battle if the catholics became angry enough to invade that region.
I don't expect anyone to completely change their minds. If people from all sides think a bit deeper about the issues it is a win for everyone.
I am content to be a part of the opposition to an issue that has been allowed to have carte blanche in our culture and the market place of ideas for far to long. I would rather have a contentious discussion than just throw barbs which is why I usually don't respond to people like scot or Solero...they are far too shallow for anything thought provoking.
____________
As to the issue, I think there is far more media produced smoke than fire.
I do think some of the religious trolls are actually losing their faith, and very insecure. Their brains are starting to question parts of the bible and/or what is being preached to them. They are fighting internally with their insecurities. There is hope for them and these forums allow them an anonymous way to explore other options.
Blogs such as these and arguments that we have here are important. Why? Not because you are going to convince a vic or a scot or a topher to change their beliefs. No they are lost causes. However, last night a bright 12 year old boy was sitting in his Kentucky trailer reading the news on his laptop while his fundamentalist parents watched the 700 Club and the Real Housewives of Some Dumb place. As he educated himself, he also paid attention to the comments sections of the religion blog. He noticed the irrational posts of many believers. He contrasted those posts to the well written posts of Doc or Colin. Unlike those of us who de-converted prior to the internet and didn't know others like ourselves existed, this little boy has the opportunity to see he is not alone. He has the ability to see others share his skepticism of magic and the supernatural. The posts give him hope and let him know that maybe he doesn't need to fear a mythological satan because of his "blasphemous" thoughts. That little boy is why this blog is important.
And......
Published on Apr 16, 2012
Cardinal Pell, the highest figure in the Catholic Church in Australia, admits that the idea of Adam & Eve is a mythological one. Richard Dawkins, quite rightly, asks 'If there is no Adam & Eve then where does Original Sin come from?" No Adam & Eve, no Original Sin, no basis for Christianity ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlKbDnHDlJc
It is rare for facts to get in the way of theology...it happens, but not enough.
Facts work best.
As usual Dawkins questions are not original at all but rooted in sin.
Simple cause and effect. Sin was the cause and the effect was separation from God. If you wish to remove God from the equation the principle remains. Purity is the absence of anything impure (sin) and once a person allows any impurity they cannot rid themselves of the taste. Kinda like being a virgin more than once.
In terms of Adam and Eve it does not matter if they are physical beings, physical first Hebrews or just a general representative of a man and women. One can be in the presence of God by simple choice to do what is right before God. The choice to reject God is made when we choose the deception. After a thousand generations we no longer comprehend absolute purity and evil (opposite of good for those opposed to Bible sounding ideas) is a part of who we are.
Original sin was passed onto the children as observed in Cain and Able. Cain could have listened to Gods warning but did not just as Adam and Eve did not listen to the warning. It is original and it is in us. Deny all you want but then just look around you and then take a good look in the mirror before posting indoctrination by Dawkins 101 class material.
Believers are into cause and effect, that's pretty clear. What caused the first sin, fred?
TomTom the other one
God is. When they asked Moses whom shall I say sent me God replied "tell them I AM sent you". This is your closed system as God has presence or capacity for presence infinitely in all conceivable directions. God simply is. That being the case God is the cause of sin or in simple view God created all that is.
The order of creation was darkness then light shattered the darkness. Darkness was the absence of creation and absence of Creator. Jesus said who is good but God and we have the opening of the Bible "in the beginning God". God created and called it very good. In the image of God he created them. The image of God, since God simply is, has capacity of presence in light/darkness good/evil and as such man as created has capacity for presence in good and evil. God warned man not to exercise capacity for evil "do not even touch it or you will die". Death is being in the presence of evil and out of the presence of God. Nothing has changed in this godly law of thermodynamics (hell i.e. tensors without boundary or location, hell is where self awareness is not tethered to God or an eternal locator but tethered to the currently assumed known physical which will degenerate losing its fixed position in space time).
Sin is not without virtue as it is the recognition of sin that brings us back into the presence of God. Denial of sin or failure to acknowledge sin in our lives prevents us from entering the presence of God. The serpent at the tree was deceptive and as noted in the anti theists that deception is complete. Anti theists mock Jesus, mock the serpent and mock sin or deny its existence. The serpent served its purpose in its day as the culture understood the symbol. In the day of Jesus that bloody pulp on the cross being mocked, spit upon tortured to death was symbolic of what sin looks like on man. The cause of his sin was now in the dogs that surrounded the cross as evil dumped all it could muster upon an innocent man, the image of God we know as Jesus. God absorbed the darkness or put another way pure love knows no evil and desires no evil.
The graphics are crystal clear to audience of those days and these days and the deception just as strong.
"Darkness was the absence of creation and absence of Creator"
So, you claim your creator has always existed but what existed before was darkness in the absence of creation and absence of the creator, so where was he for eternity before he lit up the dark?
neverbeenhappieratheist
I find myself in the same position as ancient man where we simply don't know what we don't know. Our observable existence is larger in scope due to new information but, at the boundary of the known something escapes our cognitive capacity beyond that point. Based on 10,000 years of recorded thought mankind tends to fill that unknowable with something known. Even the atheist and agnostic fill that unknowable with something known. The notion I don't know but someday science will know is simply a disguise for a hope in naturalism. Abraham put his hope in the promises of God as did many key players in the Bible.
That said I put my hope in the promises of God not my ideas of eternal or the eternal nature of God. My idea is that we accept the speed of light as constant because that is what we know within our observable horizon. We have built an entire field of physics not to mention other fields of science that depend upon this assumption. It is taken for granted, it simply is constant. In the same way given my observable horizon as to God, God simply is and there are no observable boundaries that contain God. Unlike our universe where there appears an observable boundary in space and time there remains the fact there cannot be nothing outside that boundary. Extending infinitely from my observable horizon is our space time continuing into something that may or may not have space time properties. Even at that I cannot conceive the eternal or eternity because it can only be conceived from an eternal position. Mithani and Vilenkin have an excellent proof that the universe cannot be eternal (Cornel University Library go to: http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658) simply because past trajectories cannot be infinite given eternal inflation.
Now, I believe as did Abraham that God is creator and hang my hat on the first words of the Bible "in the beginning God". God existed before there was anything created (in our case the universe). Causation (I believe God) must be external to Planck epoch given singularity was the effect. The position of God at this point mathematically is outside post big bang eternal inflation and past trajectories or any tensor for that matter can be infinite without boundary. Therefore God is eternal.
God is eternal the darkness was relative to our existence in time and space. Sorry for that long winded explanation of where God was before the big bang.
Well fred first of all DNA says otherwise – but you are like Scalia you both believe the devil is real – go figure ?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/03/scalia-once-called-lethal-injection-enviable-for-death-row-inmate–by-dna-evidence/
But fred it is......
Creationism – RationalWiki
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Creationism
Aug 7, 2014 – Creationism refers to the belief that the universe and everything in it were specially created by God through magic, rather than naturalistic ...
And fred you says we co-existed with the dinosaur – really fred ?
On the Origin of Life’s Most Crucial Isotope
http://www.nscl.msu.edu/general-public/news/2012/origin-life%E2%80%99s-most-crucial-isotope
science works
Your post has nothing to do with a catholic view of original sin or cause of evil.
Good morning fred do you address it with a magical rib bone ?
Or look into (google) public nuisance catholic church for how evil works ?
I have the sense you are attempting to make a point.
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:5
And the talking snake nd the se-x thingy – point noted fred.
Your mom and dad did it fred no devil needed.
*and
Science Works
From a naturalistic point of view we have capacity for love and hate passed down genetically which is further selected for or against by our environment whereupon we are who we are. Seems cold and dry like a fossil until life is breathed into it and we have Jurassic Park. The Bible presents the Jurassic Park version of organic matter reacting to chemical stimuli. The Bible answers why Cain killed while Able loved. You are missing a large part of the life experience when limited by physical constraints. There is no downside to what Jesus made clear.
Gosh fred are you related ?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/04/pat-robertson-to-80-year-old-who-cant-pay-bills-keep-t-ithing-get-a-job-sell-your-stuff-on-ebay/
Science Works
Pat is right. There is much this 80 year old can do, a ton others could do for her if she cannot and God can be in the process in many ways. Each of us is presented with opportunity in this life and we make a choice as to how we respond. I hope Pat does what we do which is not to leave a person hanging. We send real help after the prayer request arrives.
Hello fred – thanks for showing what you know .
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/03/pat-robertson-buying-stuff-by-computer-is-the-mark-of-the-beast/
Really Amazing stuff here fred .
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/04/world/americas/dreadnoughtus-huge-dinosaur/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
I take no part in uncivilized exchanges that I see quite often here, they are mind boggling to me. It is clear common sense not to elect for such discourse, yet many commenters chose to do otherwise. I try my best to stick to the subject matter, with a few valid exceptions of course, and I always elect for objective and civilized discourse—it is very disheartening that some commenters here have no compassion whatsoever for the victims of the perpetrators and choose to completely ignore the subject!
Regarding the subject matter, I completely underestimated this Blog post that I decided to skip it. Then yesterday, with the news about Steven Sotloff, I was completely baffled by the recent history of this threat. I posted two links at the top of the previous page.
You, who copy-and-pastes the same "Jesus is Lord" post in pretty much every tread, often multiple times, is saying this? Oy!!!
Vic
You have that very Christian trait that allows you to run away and hide or claim an ad hominem attack so you can wallow in your holier than thou delusion. Frigging coward.
Yes, many fail to realize that it's only an ad hominem fallacy when it isn't also attached to a sound counterargument. I don't see why it's necessary to actually call someone "stupid" after showing that their arguments are, however.
Evolution does not offer eternal life. In fact, it depends on pretty much the opposite.
Evolution does not offer a relationship with a god of any kind.
Evolution does not love you.
Evolution does not hear prayers.
Evolution is not good or evil.
Evolution does not offer mercy or comfort.
Evolution does not feel pity.
Evolution will not tell you what to kill or die for.
Evolution does not need for anyone to say it's true.
Use your imagination if you need any of those things.
Religion does not offer eternal life. In fact, it depends on pretty much the opposite.
Religion does not offer a relationship with a god of any kind.
Religion does not love you.
Religion does not hear prayers.
Religion is not good or evil.
Religion does not offer mercy or comfort.
Religion does not feel pity.
--------------
i thought this was wayyyyy funnier. lmao
given i had to remove the last two because religion does tell you whom to remove from this planet, and it does say that it's true, even though it has no accepted proof.
Religions are replete with instructions on who should be killed- infidels, heretics, adulteresses, gay people, Amelikites etc. They encourage martyrs too.
Yup! Life is cheap to YHWH.
Life cheap?
Please, it's not like they claim he ever wiped out the whole planet or anything.
Or killed off the firstborn of an entire nation just to make a point.
Again, somewhat off topic:
Many of the books listed at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html will help you heal as you escape the Christian brainwashing that most of us were bred and born into. The authors of these books have thoroughly evaluated the gospels, epistles and associated docu-ments written in the mid first century to early third century CE and have done an excellent job in separating truth (e.g. the crucifixion) from fiction (e.g. the resurrection) and embellishment ( e.g. the Last Supper).
Many of these docu-ments are on-line. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ for your own perusal.
And for those commenting on evolution, please finish the free on-line course at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01 before making any more comments.
“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy”. (Charles Darwin, ‘Life and Letters’, 1887, Volume 2, Page 229).
scot-bot
Scotty has dedicated his life to trolling. This is why people will remember Darwin's contributions, but scotty won't even be a blip on history's radar.
Because natural selection can produce amazing adaptations, it's tempting to think of it as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress — but this is not what natural selection is like at all.
First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.
Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.
Formula for natural selection
Evolution does not work this way
Evolution does not work this way.
This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.
At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32
'Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.'
– The problem of assigning natural selection to an 'evolution process' but it's really not. It is a strengthening process for and not a creative process. Never has natural selection been proven to change one species to another. In reality, a species not adapting risks extinction and the fossil evidence proves it.
– Evolution is complete and utter nonsense and delusional people embrace it.
Where is your scientifically backed evidence for creationism?
An education outside of your dugout under your Mommy's trailer would be beneficial to you...you'll see how wrong you are about Evolution and maybe start to think on an adult level instead of a 5 year old level.
As usual, once one gets beyond the senseless babbletalk surrounding evolution, the myth cannot be logically defended. Godless unregenerates run away and hide their heads in the sand because they know they are accountable to God. They are spoiled defiant unrepentant children who foolishly believe that if they keep denying God, it will be in their favor one day and they can claim ignorance. It won't help them.
That didn't answer the question of where your scientifically backed evidence for creationism is...it merely shows your hatred of facts...now be a good troll and back up your claims.
There is zero evidence to support your gods existence, so there is no need for repentance or fear of it.
It is you who is the fool for believing on faith. An education is a wonderful thing and something you should seriously consider getting.
wanderingdoofus
You have been given dozens of references to evolution sites that provide all sorts of text books that could educate you that YOU chose to ignore. The inst!tutes of higher education, many of them affiliated to a religion, around the world teach evolution as a proven theory. You as always provide no proof of creationism, for once provide a list of universities or colleges that teach creationism/intelligent design. I assume you use your fingers and toes to help with your counting abilities in this case you will probably be able to count the universities/colleges on one hand.
Trolling, trolling, trolling, keep your keyboard trolling, YEE HAW.
Where is the empirical evidence for evolution that science demands? Your helpless blathering doesn't answer the question. Name just one example of observable evidence
We've presented you with numerous links and yet you refuse to read them or pay attention.
Lack of intellectual ability on your behalf does not constitute a further need to attempt to educate you on ours.
Here this link was found after a search for 'Evolution For Dummies'...it will explain to your uneducated mind about how Evolution works and show why you are seriously flawed in your irrational support of the incest creation story of the bible. At least try to use an open-mind and join the 21st century:
http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.ca/2007/10/evolution-for-dummies.html
Ok, so you cannot provide just ONE example of observable evidence of evolution. I understand now just how weak your faith in evolution is.
Oh my, can you provide one piece of observable evidence of creationism? We are evidence of Evolution, sharing approximately 98% of our DNA with Chimps. I'm guessing you didn't bother going to the link provided to help clear up your misconceptions of Evolution, although I'm not surprised-you being a lover on incest stories and all those silly immoral things from your bible.
"Where is the empirical evidence for evolution that science demands?"
In every living thing on the planet, including you.
Why do you keep asking the same question over and over, but never acknowledge the information was given?
Where is your evidence for your creation hypothesis?
Scot is waiting on a crocoduck fossil.
Lol.
"We are evidence of Evolution, sharing approximately 98% of our DNA with Chimps."
– This is not science and not proof of evolution. It is a belief. It's like saying an airplane is related to an automobile because they both have an engine. Logic fail.
It is proven via science and not just a belief. You need to learn the difference between belief and actual evidence.
scot
That is absurd. Your DNA proves you have the EXACT same DNA...
98.4% of your DNA is EXACTLY the same as Banobos.
If you claim otherwise, you are claiming you are not human.
Is awanderingdolt human? I'd like to think our species doesn't have anyone that dumb amongst us.
You could be right...I don't know how much DNA humans share with trolls.....
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001%
"98% of our DNA"
– Do you actually think about what you are saying or do you just parrot the evolution groupthink. 2% of genetic information is huge! Cars, trucks, buses, and tractors all use similar parts; but they are not the same. Humans are not apes and apes are not human. You'll have to do better. Give just ONE example of observable evidence, not your belief.
Awanderingdolt: Intellectual dishonesty is what you're about. Science has proven that we share a common ancestor with apes and that we share 98% on our DNA with Chimps...I know that bothers you because to believe that and accept that it Is true would be to tear apart your world and make you start questioning the rest of your holy book.
It's no longer worth pointing you to anything because you only care about ensuring your favorite incest story is right.
However, could you please attempt with some honesty to explain why it is that Creationism can't be taught in schools but yet Evolution can be?
We're still waiting for your evidence for creationism and I'm guessing we'll never see it.
"Give just ONE example of observable evidence, not your belief.'
Asked and answered many times.
The FACT that you share that much DNA with chimps, bonobos is solid evidence that you evolved from common ancestors.
Other parts of your dna traces back much farther than that.
Humans ARE apes...h0m0 sapiens literally translates to wise ape.
If you are not an ape, then you must be a troll, since all humans are apes, no question about it.
All living organisms have one thing in common and that is DNA. Having DNA does not prove evolution at all no matter how much you wish it could. It is your belief and not science. The evolution myth is not science. You'll need observable and testable evidence and not theory and conjecture.
DNA alone is enough. You've proven yourself ignorant of science, so nothing you say on the topic can be taken seriously.
However, maybe just maybe some young questioning mind will read this stuff and be open-minded to check out the links that us open-minded people post...so here is one more against your ignorance: http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution
Do you care to make an honest attempt at answering my other question about why creationism can't be taught in public schools but evolution can? I'm curious as to what conspiracy theory crap you'll pull out of your bible for this.
thanks scot
for providing one of the stupidest things anyone has ever said. Congrats.
And this is what is wrong with your country...they allow people like this to wander the streets freely. I can envision him and Austin claiming a revelation of jeebus coming and putting on their toga gear, marching down the streets, shouting it.
You gave us back Bieber, these two are all yours...fair is fair. :–)
There is absolutely nothing in scientific literature proving ANYONE has ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection. I would challenge any evolutionist to produce observable evidence of this. It can't be done. Good luck.
Keep dodging...cowards way of admitting they are wrong!
scot
There is absolutely nothing in scientific literature proving ANYONE has ever observed the origin of a new species by creation. I would challenge any creationist to produce observable evidence of this. It can't be done. Good luck.
"There is absolutely nothing in scientific literature proving ANYONE has ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection."
I think you meant... "There is absolutely nothing in scientific literature that I find worth reading as I have already made up my mind as to universal origins. Why would I want to read something that challenges my faith?"
wandering
Where is the empirical evidence for creationism that science demands?
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are c0cksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." Bertrand Russell
"I've been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding"...Harvey Danger
"The cretins cloning and feeding
And I don't even own a TV"
I love 'Flagpole Sitta'. One of my favorite songs.
It must pain good Muslims to see their religion at the center of this barbarity. Most Muslims probably view their religion as one teaching love. ISIS kills prisoners that can't threaten them in any way in the name of that same religion, interpreting the same sacred text to justify these acts.
The history of other religions are stained with similar barbarity (many at much larger scale) justified by the interpretation of sacred texts. To believe these barbaric acts are justified, the perpetrator must have a high degree of certainty. That certainty is taught in many sects of the religions. This is an unfortunate product of that certainty.
ya but don't get played .
America took 1,000,000 lives.
ISIS is about 250,000, 190,000 from Syria.
we are being manipulated and if we let ourselves do so, we will take up the deceit seductive spirits that encu.mber our flesh. And we are being tempted.
I prefer to nip things in the bud, they get much more expensive later. This likely could have been extinguished earlier at even lower cost. We are paying the cost of the European colonial adventures a century ago. They don't get resolved easily, especially when religion is the fuel.
We should drop the dollar and the federal, world bank system .
And use what ? Bibles for currency. You are a nut case, Austin. A real live looney toon.
i'm not worried about what currency could be used, I am worried about what the petro dollar is doing to compete.
at what point do you admit , that the greatest threat to the human population is not ISIS, and that the most potent evil, is going to kill 1/3 of the population.
I personally don't want to be a part of it, or end up benefiting from it.
Who said or even implied ISIS is the biggest threat? Putin just reminded the world that his country is a nuclear threat. You may want to reread the OP, that wasn't the point.
If you don't want to be part of the 'evil' you could do the world a favor and sign yourself in for the mental health help you so desperately need. You sound more like a 5 year old with every crazy comment you make.
Do you get some cheap thrill out of knowing people think you're crazy? Does that fuel your delusions?
Austin desperately wants a worl wide event that causes massinve devistatoin so he can have real proof that his god exists.
He doesn't seem to be botherd by the 2 billion lives that would be lost.
Shall we go to bartering? Are you old enough to know what bartering is?
I'll give you a chicken if you tell me.
http://www.newsweek.com/maajid-nawaz-repentant-radical-65445