Do u beleave in God

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Both are flawed interpretations of each belief.

That's why I was waiting for an answer :)
As you know, modern genetic researchers have confirmed that according to human genes we did NOT have a single ancestor, and therefore the Noah concept failed right here.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[badenhop 0]

Quote

let's see it in a different way

George, you are starting to come around.
Perhaps, if you're willing to follow your own advice,
then your own overall understanding of God will improve.

==================================

I've got all I need, Jesus and gravity. Dolly Parton

http://www.AveryBadenhop.com

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

George, you are starting to come around.
Perhaps, if you're willing to follow your own advice,
then your own overall understanding of God will improve.

Excuse me, but I have asked you a question, and the question was completely unrelated to me, my understanding of God, or the color of my socks. Could you please answer it without discussing things which are not related?

I can even repeat: you claimed that "there are still a lot of gaps in man's understanding of God". The question is related to the word "still", and asked whether your understanding of God has been improved in any way? choosed "your" instead of "man's", as it might be hard for you to speak for others, but if you're ok with this, let's answer it.

And I'm still waiting for a "a ton of evidence that He lived, and was crucified" - or there is no chance for me to see any? Then why you ever mentioned it?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[philh 0]

Steve Im sure you know because I have posted them b4 that many of those who defended slavery in the 19th century did so (correctly or incorectly) on the basis of chrsitian theology. So to selectively pick Wilberforce as anti slavery Christian when there were so many pro slavery Christians is either ignorant or dishonest.
I wil repost an example to remind you:

"Such were the nature and extent of slavery in the world, when our Saviour appeared, to proclaim "peace on earth, and good will to men"--to preach the glad tidings of salvation to a ruined world--to redeem us from sin and everlasting death, and to "open the kingdom of Heaven to all believers." And how did he regard it? What had he to say of this institution, as he found it existing among the people he came to save? Did he condemn it as anti-scriptural and unjust? Did he enjoin on his disciples an immediate emancipation of their slaves? Did he so much as caution his followers against purchasing them in the future? Not a word, disapproving the practice, ever fell from his lips. "A.E. Miller, Printer to The Protestant Episcopal Society for the Advancement of Christianity in South-Carolina, 1837):

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Both are flawed interpretations of each belief.

That's why I was waiting for an answer :)
As you know, modern genetic researchers have confirmed that according to human genes we did NOT have a single ancestor, and therefore the Noah concept failed right here.

You just need to look at your family tree branching backwards to understand this. We truly are vehicles for our genes.

Modern research has also just found evidence that even AFTER we separated from our common ape-like ancestors, there was cross-breeding between the genetically different populations for millions of years.

Of course the only reason they know this is the genetic material from the perverted monkey sex is actually present in our own genetic makeup today.

It explains a lot really.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Steve Im sure you know because I have posted them b4 that many of those who defended slavery in the 19th century did so (correctly or incorectly) on the basis of chrsitian theology. So to selectively pick Wilberforce as anti slavery Christian when there were so many pro slavery Christians is either ignorant or dishonest.
I wil repost an example to remind you:

"Such were the nature and extent of slavery in the world, when our Saviour appeared, to proclaim "peace on earth, and good will to men"--to preach the glad tidings of salvation to a ruined world--to redeem us from sin and everlasting death, and to "open the kingdom of Heaven to all believers." And how did he regard it? What had he to say of this institution, as he found it existing among the people he came to save? Did he condemn it as anti-scriptural and unjust? Did he enjoin on his disciples an immediate emancipation of their slaves? Did he so much as caution his followers against purchasing them in the future? Not a word, disapproving the practice, ever fell from his lips. "A.E. Miller, Printer to The Protestant Episcopal Society for the Advancement of Christianity in South-Carolina, 1837):

Two can play that way. Christ didn't say anything against pedophylia either. Do you think he approved? Nonsense! The fact that a minister, christian or anyone thought slavery was right because Christ was silent on the issue was clueless. I'll stick to my point. The poster wanted people's religous convictions kept out of politics. My point is we are often driven by a purpose higher than our own. If one's religous convictions compels us to right a wrong we have a duty to stand up and speak. Especially for those who have no voice of their own.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Would you have preferred William Wilburforce had kept his religous convictions to himself and not influence politics with it?

Yes, I would if everyone else was also doing this (kept his religous convictions to himself and not influence politics with it).
Generally it would do more good than bad.

Very telling.

steveOrino

[BIGUN 1,069]

And so my question for years has been - "If God is all knowing and all-seeing, then that includes the future, right?" I mean He did create the future. If that's the case, then didn't He know who would believe in Him and who wouldn't? Which begs the question, does He care if any one individual believes in Him or does He believe in the individual whether or not they believe in Him?

You say you wish there were less "pseudo-christians," but isn't being a "pseudo-christian" one step closer to Christ than being agnostic or aethistic? A "pseudo-Christian" may not feel with their heart, but at least on an intellectual level believes in God. And, who decides the true believers from the psuedo-christians? Exactly how is that defined?

I believe in God, I believe there was a Christ, but I do not believe that Christ was the son of God or God himself as much as I believe that he was _a_ son of God and an educator. I believe he was teaching us that we are all children of God. The sons and daughters of God. Each and all related just as it's defined in Genesis.

Let's say as time goes on, we find out that Jesus truly was a man that had a family, who was buried and we find his and his families remains - traditional Christianity would be shattered. But, if Christ was an educator who believed in God, then believing in Christ will simply mean believing in one who showed us the way.

And, if the Ten Commandments tells us, "You shall have no Gods before me" and Christ wasn't God, are all those worshipping Christ as their savior breaking the commandment?

Let's take it a step further... wouldn't "any graven image, or any likeness..," if interpreted literally seem to forbid a wide range of objects, including a statue in a church, a cross, a crucifix, etc.

I was a real PITA in Catholic School. I never understood why I got so many whippings for asking questions of those who asked me to seek.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Let's take it a step further... wouldn't "any graven image, or any likeness..," if interpreted literally seem to forbid a wide range of objects, including a statue in a church, a cross, a crucifix, etc.
.

I'll answer the easy one first.

Few Christians are "worshipping" the crucifix, icons etc. Some have taken it that far, such as JWs, but I certainly don't see a cross on a church as an object to worship anymore than I see the ichthys was by early Christians.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

Christ spooke about the issues he thought were important. its entirely possible he didnt speakk about peadophiles becuase it wasnt very prevalent then. After all witht eh avergae life expectancy of the population being roughyl half what it is now its not unreasonable to think people were reproducing much younger and as a result paedophilia just wasnt an issue. If jesus had divine knowledge he would be able to see the future and maybe speak about issues such as paedophilia and slavery that became issues in the future(for people of the time that is). the fact he didnt speak on such issues is much more consistent with the idea that if he existed he was a normal human unable to see the future, rather than some kind of all knowing god concerened with more than the his issues at his time. In fact from my memory(please correct me if am wrong) the bible condemms home sexual sex acts but not sex acts for minors, implying that god prefers paedophilia to homsexuality.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

You say you wish there were less "pseudo-christians," but isn't being a "pseudo-christian" one step closer to Christ than being agnostic or aethistic? A "pseudo-Christian" may not feel with their heart, but at least on an intellectual level believes in God. And, who decides the true believers from the psuedo-christians? Exactly how is that defined?

Keith, I don't think they are closer, in fact I think they are a lot farther away than the doubter. They think they have arrived by either being a member of a church, or being a minister, by being baptised, by paying a tithe, by being a "good" person. The tenent of my personal belief that I wish there were no "pseudo christians" is based on what JC said, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth." Rev 3: 15-16

steveOrino

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Populations evolve, before we had populations we do not know if there was a single ancestor, self replicating chemicals in some primordeal soup would have been subject so similar evolutionary forces and populations of complex chemicals would likely have existed and competed for millenia. You have a continuum of creatures including overlapping exchange of information through reproduction, and mutual influence on the environment from chemical soup to us, and I don't think you necessarily have instances of a single ancestor.

I was thinking along the same lines of your post, but since you can always find a single common ancestor I figure thats good enough.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Christ spooke about the issues he thought were important. its entirely possible he didnt speakk about peadophiles becuase it wasnt very prevalent then. After all witht eh avergae life expectancy of the population being roughyl half what it is now its not unreasonable to think people were reproducing much younger and as a result paedophilia just wasnt an issue. If jesus had divine knowledge he would be able to see the future and maybe speak about issues such as paedophilia and slavery that became issues in the future(for people of the time that is). the fact he didnt speak on such issues is much more consistent with the idea that if he existed he was a normal human unable to see the future, rather than some kind of all knowing god concerened with more than the his issues at his time. .

Christ said he came for a purpose. It wasn't to quantify every sin known to man past, present and future, but to teach us how to live with each other and redeem our souls.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

In fact from my memory(please correct me if am wrong) the bible condemms home sexual sex acts but not sex acts for minors, implying that god prefers paedophilia to homsexuality.

The bible (Paul) speaks against both

steveOrino

[shortyj 0]

so if everything came from a single celled organism where did that single celled organism come from?

Playtime is essential.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

I believe in God, I believe there was a Christ, but I do not believe that Christ was the son of God or God himself as much as I believe that he was _a_ son of God and an educator. I believe he was teaching us that we are all children of God. The sons and daughters of God. Each and all related just as it's defined in Genesis.

He did teach that. His parable about the Good Samaritan showed us that we are all neighbors. The lines we use to divide us are not divine (from a Christian point of view) regardless of what some Christians teach or believe

Quote

Let's say as time goes on, we find out that Jesus truly was a man that had a family, who was buried and we find his and his families remains - traditional Christianity would be shattered. But, if Christ was an educator who believed in God, then believing in Christ will simply mean believing in one who showed us the way.

Personally, I don't think a good teacher claims divinity and the ability to forgive sins. Was he just messing with the paralytic when he said he forgave his sins?

Quote

And, if the Ten Commandments tells us, "You shall have no Gods before me" and Christ wasn't God, are all those worshipping Christ as their savior breaking the commandment?

That is precisley why Jews don't worhsip JC. If they are right and Christians are wrong, we're screwed. I'm hedging my bet on what Christ said. Everyone, including you and me, live with the choices we make.

steveOrino

[penniless 0]

Quote

so if everything came from a single celled organism where did that single celled organism come from?

Chemistry.

[philh 0]

Last time I looked Paul is not god. god outlaws homsexuality , where does he do the same with peadophilia?

[Tonto 1]

Quote

or Budda , or any other God for that matter.

Sigh.. Buddha was not a god.

At no point in the teachings of Buddha does he say he is, or even may be a god. People look up to him because he was really good at what he was good at, and some people admire that, and will work hard to try to be like that. A bit like the PD team article on the front page of this website actually - without the "Don't try this at home."

Buddha was a mortal who tried to teach people that if they were nice to each other, they would feel better more of the time, but basically there is no escaping the fact that life is pain. He did this 600 years before Jesus taught people that if they were nice to each other they would feel better more of the time, but added "or else" and "I am the way."

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[shortyj 0]

not good enough. where did it come from did it just appear?

Playtime is essential.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Let's take it a step further... wouldn't "any graven image, or any likeness..," if interpreted literally seem to forbid a wide range of objects, including a statue in a church, a cross, a crucifix, etc.
.

I'll answer the easy one first.

Few Christians are "worshipping" the crucifix, icons etc. Some have taken it that far, such as JWs, but I certainly don't see a cross on a church as an object to worship anymore than I see the ichthys was by early Christians.

JWs?? ARe you referring to Jehovah's Witnesses?

If so they don't worship any images at all. In fact you will never find a cross in any of there Kingdom Hall's. Another fact is that they don't believe that Jesus was crucified. They think that he was killed on a stake.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

so if everything came from a single celled organism where did that single celled organism come from?

The original organisms arose from self replicating chemicals that formed from reaction processes in the primordeal soup of organic chemicals, amino acids etc.

Where did God come from?

He is a lot more complex than you , I or an amino acid soup and should require significant explanation.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

not good enough. where did it come from did it just appear?

Did God just appear?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...you are likely insulting those who are polytheistic by asking which ONE god they worship.

Ahhhh...God by committee...I wonder if the vote by democratic process.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm wondering: does putting or , etc. at the end of an obtuse post make the post any less obtuse? Just asking.

Ahem,

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2697699;#2697699

Probably not as obtuse as making the body of your post an emoticon.

Smartass.
Anyhow, in that instance, it was perfect, in that it was designed to say everything, rather than obscure it.









Oh, I almost forgot: