Christianity vs. Judaism vs. Islam

Bingo Thunder!!!

Here is a story. In William Steigs “Yellow and Pink”, a whimsical picture book for children, two wooden figures wake up to find themselves lying on an old newspaper in the hot sun. One figure is painted yellow and the other pink.
Suddenly, Yellow sits up and asks, “Do you know what we are doing here?”
“No” replies Pink. “I dont’ even remember getting here”.
So begins a debate between the two marionettes over the origin of their existence.
Pink surveys their well formed features and concludes, “Someone must have made us.”
Yellow disagrees. " I say we are an accident," and he outlines a hypothetical scenario of how it might have happened. A branch might have broken off a tree and fallen on a sharp rock, splitting one end of the branch into two legs. Then the wind might have sent it tumbling down a hill until it was chipped and shaped. Perhaps a flash of lightening struck in such a way as to splinter the wood into arms and fingers. Eyes might have been formed by woodpeckers boring in the wood.
“With enough time, a thousand, a million, maybe two and a half million years, lots of unusual things could happen,” says Yellow. “Why not us?”
The two figures argue back and forth.
In the end, the discussion is cut off by the appearance of a man coming out of a nearby house. He strolls over to the marionettes, picks them up, and checks their paint. “Nice and dry,” he comments, and tucking them under his arm, he heads back to the house.
Peering out from under the man’s arm, Yellow whispers in Pink’s ear, “Who is this guy?”

cool…simple but thought provoking story

I see the light!!

Wow that’s the clincher, please Lord forgive me…

Creed,

"So if I look at a puddle it must have been created? By a creator.

It couldn’t be the result of physics perhaps? A puddle is formed when rain falls and collects in a depression. The physical properties of water, its very high surface tension due to extensive hydrogen bonding allow the formation of a puddle.

The rain is created when water particles that surround salt crystals and dust particles thicken and form rain drops. So, the drops, which become heavier than air, depart from the clouds, and start to fall on the ground as rain.

I believe my logic to be consistent in this case. As a man of science I have a hard time believing in a ‘Creator’. The more we begin to understand of our world the less we need for the belief of a creator. "

I’m not trying to change you or flame you or anything. I’m just curious is all.

As a man of science (what does that mean by the way?), aren’t you amazed at the organization you see in science? I’m not sure what kind of scientist (discipline) you are, but I know from my own study in school (college), that I saw/see so much organization that it is hard for me to believe that there isn’t a creator.

I happen to build houses for a living and when I get done and stand back and think of every nail I drove, peice of lumber I used, the design I followed, etc, etc., and then look at other homes and the craftsmanship, I would never think (nor would anyone) that that home just happened. Why would I look at the universe, earth, animals, my loved ones; everything around me and assume that it happened by chance or some process I don’t understand apart from a creator? I just can’t reconcile what I see with the belief that there is NO creator.

That’s just me, though, and I appreciate you having your own belief. In that case, why post on a thread about religion?

What I appreciate (I am a Christian and I do go and knock on doors. In fact I did this morning) about religion, is that when you get to the core, it teaches good things. Since I am a Christian, I’ll speak about what I know.

My upbringing (Christian) has taught me a respect for authority on all levels. It has given me a defined set of ethics and morals. Made me a better husband than I probably would have been. I feel good for my belief in a God and I feel I am doing what is right. There are a lot of good consequences from worshipping God the way He wants me to.

Now, I know, you can teach your children pretty much everything I mentioned above. My point is this: without a higher power (God) defining a set of morals and laws (physical and moral),then you, me, everyone on this thread, everyone of every different faith, belief system, etc., can define rules, laws, morals, ethics, right & wrong, however they want. You and I would be helpless and we would not have the right to impose our beliefs on anyone. That would include mass murderers, pedophiles, dictators, etc. There would be anarchy.

Since I see order and design in nature, and I see that man cannot rule himself successfully and he never has (if history is a judge of the future then uh-oh(, it makes sense to me that a creator exists and He created us to live by His rules and that He designed them for our benefit.

I do appreciate your right to disagree. I hope I presented myself well ( or at least ok :-)). You and I can disagree and that is ok. You are entitled to your beliefs. I was just hoping for some reasonable dialogue.

I am curious about what discipline in science you are a part of or interested in. Right now, I’d like to learn more about math. Sounds boring, but it’s fun to me. I also like light reading involving physics.

glad you liked it cree…

Tim…you make some excellent points here.
Our freedoms in this country for example…as our constitution states…come from our Creator. If rights…which are a function of morals… came from men…we would be hapless and helpless victims of “the state”…aka…Soviet Union…Communist China…These are examples where the Creator is eliminated and “the state” decides what is right and wrong and what your rights are going to be. Its a simple historical/political fact. When you leave it up to men and take out the creator…you have allegiance and all authority given to “the state”.
Now, morals are pretty clear to us…even if we do not live by them…we are always aware of them…ESPECIALLY IF SOMEONE WRONGS US!!! When that happens…we all recognize and acknowledge morality. Be it murder…robbery…deciet…etc…
If morals were as ambivolent as man’s behavior…remember…in a naturalistic worldview…whatever “feels good” is ok; there be no set rules of right and wrong and we would have anarchy in society. One’s defense in that scenario would be that…“well…robbery and violence may be wrong to you…but there ok with me…YOUR truth is NOT MY truth”…
Obviously morals come from somewhere. They are not matters of random chance or some kind of evolution. (micro evolution/adaptions in a few animals and plants is scant…but is the ONLY real evolution…the fossil record bears this out)
Some kind of “mind” brought them into being. Somekind of “consciousness”…somekind of “being” with a purpose and self awareness.
Man has NOT “invented” or “evolved” any NEW morals since God gave us “The Law” in the Old Testament.

Tim…would you consider Einstein a “ok” scientist?
Einstein started out not believing in a Creator. However…the more he learned in his later years about physics and science…he came to BELIEVE IN A CREATOR!
Im not sure about you…but I will take ol Albert for his word…He has just a “wee” bit of crediblity in science wouldn’t you say???

Ptrdr,

You know to be honest, I don’t really care what list shows intelligent people believe in God any more than one showing disbelief. All that happens is each side makes a list. Then what? Nothing is solved or proved.

The thing is, is that Jesus said that people wouldn’t believe. The nation of Israel as a whole rejected him and according to God’s word, then God rejected Israel. That is obvious in the bible. Paul wrote extensively about that.

All,

I can completely understand why many have stated in rather “colorful” terms that religion is the cause of all problems.

Take Christianity for instance. There was one Jesus, why so many different types of Christians? In the first century, in the years immediately after Christ’s death, there was one belief system among those who followed the teachings of Christ.

Now you have some who believe in the trinity, some don’t. Some carry crosses, some argue that Jesus died on a stake, not a cross. Some believe that a gay bishop is ok, other’s read the words in the scriptures and say no that is wrong. Catholics say birthcontrol is wrong, other’s can’t find that in the scriptures and say it’s ok. Some Christian religions pay certain ones to preach, in another every member preaches. Etc., Etc.

Through the centuries men have twisted the scripture to serve their own purposes. Get a book on the Popes and you will be amazed at what “men of God” do that isn’t moral.

None of the above is any real basis for rejecting the bible, any more than the 911 attacks justify a hatred of Islam. What an individual, you, me, everyone, needs to do is make an honest examination of themselves, the world around them, what the future looks like, etc. If a person then decides to make an investigation of any faith, that is his/her right and we show our intolerance and stupidity to make fun of that right.

I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I do go door to door and offer a message that I feel is right and gives hope. If someone rejects that message, no matter how vehemently, I ALWAYS respect his/her right to say no or yell or pull a gun (has happened :-).

I do not feel it is proper to preach on message boards such as this, and I have tried very hard not to preach. I do like to discuss and understand the difference between myself, other Christians, Jews, Atheists, Agnostics, etc. I believe that is a good thing. Discussion, when conducted properly, always results in better understanding and growth.

Tim

I am a chemist but I also studied biology for my degree. But currently I work as chemical engineer.

Why am I posting on a thread about religion when i am not the least bit religious? Well it doesn’t mean I am not interested in religion or have an opinion about it. (BTW I was brought up as a Roman Catholic)

Yes the organisation in the apparently chaotic world we live never ceases to amaze me. But what we have to remember is that even though things seem to be random and chaotic they are not in the truest sense. Everything is constrained by laws and rules. It is these which govern the form anything living or inanimate can exist in, be it a tree or a house both are governed by gravity for instance. You cannot build a house from the top down and a tree always grows from the bottom up thus the form they can take is constrained.

All the way up from subatomic particles (neutrons, protons, and electrons) we can describe the physical structure of anything we like and how it was formed with science. The incredibly complex structures of life may not be fully described in our life time but it is inevitable that we will eventually. 50 or so years ago it was probably inconcievable that we would ever be able to map the human genome. 140 years ago most people laughed at Darwin’s propesterous theory of evolution. (Some still don’t accept it today, mostly religious types but i digress).

I am happy that religion has made you a better person. I consider myself to have strong ethical values which i have formed of my own free will, no doubt influenced by society and my experiences. To say that we need a higher power to dictate the moral values that we should live by is something that i cannot agree with. Humans are a complex social animal, that have evolved to work together to ensure a better chance of survival. Morals and ethics are a formal way of describing these ‘rules’ of cooperation. We agree not to murder one another but work together to achieve a common goal within that community. As you say if we did not have morals then society would degenerate into anarchy. Other social animals have demonstrated cooperative behaviour which you could argue are governed by codes of conduct which could be termed as morals, such as chimps. I wouldn’t think there are many Christian chimps but I could be wrong.

In most democratic countries we have laws to make sure that we abide by the rules of society. For the most part these work and have done for centuries. Those who do not abide by these rules are removed from society so they cannot do further damage. These laws are, in democratic countries, dictated by society (or at least they would be in an ideal world). They do not come from God but from people. Even if you argue that God communicated this to a chosen few to pass on to the rest of man-kind what is to have stopped the ‘chosen’ from misintrepreting or changing these to their own ends? (Which I believe has occurred since the dawn)

Excuse me for paraphasing you ‘Without a higher power defining a set of morals and laws…You and I would be helpless and we would not have the right to impose our beliefs on anyone.’

Well I don’t think anyone has the RIGHT to impose their beliefs on anyone!! We can however impose law and order to prevent people from hurting society or individuals. The higher power that defines these laws is not God but society.

‘I see that man cannot rule himself successfully and he never has (if history is a judge of the future then uh-oh(, it makes sense to me that a creator exists and He created us to live by His rules and that He designed them for our benefit.’

I believe you contradict yourself with this statement. If man has never been able to rule himself sucessfully then why hasn’t God stepped in to ensure that we live by ‘His’ rules? When will he step in?

I personally I don’t think we are doing too bad considering we are still here after 3 million years.

hey ptr, since i have a little time to spare, i just wanna answer what you said earlier… what bluff? you think i am lying to you? i don’t believe in god PERIOD. i am a very happy person. i have many things going for me. i live a life more comfortable than those of over 5 billion people on this planet. belief in god has nothing to do with it. believe me i am very happy without god!!! and it has nothing to do with satan or some other bullshit.

regarding einstein… i have a link for you: Einstein on God

I’ve always refused to argue/discuss religion as it’s the one thing in the world that many people believe strongly in but can’t actually show any conclusive evidence to back up their claims/beliefs/convictions. As far as the violence in Islam issue, it is my understanding (and my knowledge of Islam is not great) that Islam is a peaceful religion but does condone violence to protect it’s people, land, and religion. Does that mean Islam is more violent than other religions. Hell no. Remember the Crusades?

Ptr,

You’re clearly not a “man of science”. Take that back, it embarrasses those of us who are. And while you’re at it, learn something about complex systems…

You’re also victim of those who quote selectively. Try actually reading him instead of regurgitating crap from those who share your patently “unscientific” views.

Actually, strike that…

Just reread what Creed wrote.

thats interesting bangs…seeing as how I had to take (and ace…) Microbiology…Organic Chem…Anatomy and Physiology just to name a few.

I appreciate your spirited attack on me…but try to be more open minded and non prejudice about people before you konw the facts.

Creed,

"I wouldn’t think there are many Christian chimps but I could be wrong. "

That’s a great statement. I like that one a lot.

You misunderstood my comment “My point is this: without a higher power (God) defining a set of morals and laws (physical and moral),then you, me, everyone on this thread, everyone of every different faith, belief system, etc., can define rules, laws, morals, ethics, right & wrong, however they want. You and I would be helpless and we would not have the right to impose our beliefs on anyone. That would include mass murderers, pedophiles, dictators, etc. There would be anarchy.”

What that means is that you and I cannot say whether something is right or wrong if there is no defined belief system or rule structure that governs humans of any nationality, ethnicity, education level, gender. As another post pointed out, we would not be able to judge communism as wrong, or democracy as right.

“Everything is constrained by laws and rules. It is these which govern the form anything living or inanimate can exist in, be it a tree or a house both are governed by gravity for instance. You cannot build a house from the top down and a tree always grows from the bottom up thus the form they can take is constrained.”

That is exactly what I’m saying. Someone or Something created those rules, constraints and laws that “govern the form anything living or inanimate can exist in”.

Here is what get’s me regarding the theory of evolution; there isn’t overwhelmingly clear evidence that proves the theory. If there was, then wouldn’t every scientist who abides by the scientific method believe? Since that isn’t the case, what you are suggesting by believing in the theory of evolution, is nothing more than faith!

Can you see the catch 22? Many scientists, yourself included, make statements like “140 years ago most people laughed at Darwin’s propesterous theory of evolution. (Some still don’t accept it today, mostly religious types but i digress)” and that sounds like "well religious people are superstitous or aren’t “thinking” people. Why? Because religious people examine evidence and proclaim faith or acknowledge the existence of a higher power? Well, that is what some scientists do when they insist that evolution is responsible for the world we live in today? They are showing faith and making this theory, or ultimately this belief that there is no higher power, their “religion”. Science then becomes God.

Hi Danh…Ok…I get your point.
If you don’t believe in God…at least I have got you thinking and talking about Him!

Take care…

Laterrr…

Creed,

I forgot one part of your post I wanted to reply to.

"‘I see that man cannot rule himself successfully and he never has (if history is a judge of the future then uh-oh(, it makes sense to me that a creator exists and He created us to live by His rules and that He designed them for our benefit.’

I believe you contradict yourself with this statement. If man has never been able to rule himself sucessfully then why hasn’t God stepped in to ensure that we live by ‘His’ rules? When will he step in? "

To be honest, if you wanted to email back and forth, I’d go into this. But I do not want to preach on this forum, or write anything that someone would label preaching. I can answer that and the answer makes sense within the umbrella of belief in God, and is surprisingly simple although many other Christians may debate that. I’ll say this and that is all: There is a theme to the bible. If one understands what that theme is, then one would be able to understand that question.

I hope you or anyone else, do not view my posts as preaching. This isn’t the appropriate place for that. I don’t feel that my posts were anymore “preachy” than any of yours.

Big Willie:
Actually I believe one of the guiding tenets of the Islamic faith is “convert or die”. That doesn’t sound very peace-loving to me. Maybe if their “prophet” had been a sandal-wearing hippie like Jesus instead of a bloodthirsty conqueror, things would be different. Ooo! Flame me, somebody!

Yes I agree Tim but who says that these rules or beliefs must come from religion? And there are many different religions with vastly different beliefs, so what one might say is wrong another may say is right.

I still do not agree that the laws of physics needed to be created by any omnipotent being. Gravity ‘is’ because everything in this universe has a ‘mass’. Larger bodies attract smaller bodies. Will we ever discover how the universe was created? I believe so, and then what will people say about the existance of a God. As somebody mentioned it is no coincidence that as science advances religion declines.

You are quite right when you say that the theory of evolution is not universally accepted within the scientific community. However you will always find people to dispute theories because implicit in the scientific method is the belief that nothing is absolutely proven for all time. We must always be prepared for some future experiment or investigation that will prove that an existing theory is invalid. Creation scientists have developed many indicators that have convinced them that evolution never happened. (One source estimates that 0.15% of scientists in the biological and earth science fields believe in creation science; the rest accept that evolution of living species has taken place in the past, and is still in progress). Some are based on misunderstandings of physics. All can be easily rebutted.

However most biological and earth scientists believe that evolution is more than a theory; it is an established fact; the earth’s structures have changed and its life forms have evolved over billions of years. Species of animals have been recently observed as continuing to evolve, both in the lab and field. It is fair to say that some of the precise mechanisms by which it happened are still being debated.

In 1966 H.J. Muller, arranged to have 177 leading American biologists sign a manifesto which stated that the organic evolution of all living species is a fact of science that is a well established as the earth is round.

But what is to say that we need religion to define our beliefs or rules? There are many different religion in this world with many different beliefs. How do this help people decide what is right or wrong when one religion contradicts another?

Why do the laws of physics have to have been created by a creator? I believe they simply exist. To a point we can explain where these laws come from but when you get down to basics such as gravity we admittedly have much left to discover/explain.

While i agree that the theory of evolution is not universally accepted within the scientific community, one source estimates that 0.15% of scientists in the biological and earth science fields believe in creation science; the rest accept that evolution of living species has taken place in the past, and is still in progress. Creation scientists have developed many indicators that have convinced them that evolution never happened. Some are based on misunderstandings of physics. All can be easily rebutted.

In 1966 H.J. Muller, arranged to have 177 leading American biologists sign a manifesto which stated that the organic evolution of all living species is a fact of science that is a well established as the earth is round.

Most biological and earth scientists believe that evolution is more than a theory; it is an established fact; the earth’s structures have changed and its life forms have evolved over billions of years. Species of animals have been recently observed as continuing to evolve, both in the lab and field. (Though some of the precise mechanisms by which it happened are still being debated).

“The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” T.H. Huxley

Creed,

All you did with your post is commit the Ad Populum argument fallacy. Since all the intelligent, well-educated believe, then I will believe. I could turn around and say that since the far majority of humans on earth believe in a creator of some sort, then I should believe. Since every culture on earth at one time or another had some sort of religion, then I should just accept there is a creator. Does that sound reasonable to you? It doesn’t to me either.

You and I have both written reasonable posts, or at least I hope I have. Your posts have been very well presented.

While I mention the idea of reasonableness, notice this:

“A typical protein has about one hundred amino acids and contains many thousands of atoms. In its life processes a living cell uses some 200,000 proteins. Two thousand of them are enzymes, special proteins without which the cell cannot survive. What are the chances of these enzymes forming at random in the soup, if you had the soup? One chance in 1040,000. This is 1 followed by 40,000 zeros. Written out in full, it would fill 14 pages of this magazine. Or, stated differently, the chance is the same as rolling dice and getting 50,000 sixes in a row. And that is for only 2,000 of the 200,000 needed for a living cell. So to get them all, roll 5,000,000 more sixes in a row!” (The Intelligent Universe, by Fred Hoyle, 1983, pp. 12-17)

The fact is, that the fossil record does NOT show evidence of evolution. Carl Sagan wrote: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”(New York, 1980), p. 29.

Combine the lack of evidence, true hard evidence in the theory of evolution and you have faith, or rather credulity.

Every animate object that you and I are familar with, came from animate life. Everything we see, going back one generation, came from something animate. For instance, you were a baby and had a mother, your mother had a mother, your grandmother had one too. This is identical for every human on earth. Tell me why we should believe that that wasn’t always true?

Many of us here on this forum have stop watches. They can track many laps, tell you the shortest lap and the longest lap, they can tell you the avg, and they can tell time and the date. When it tells time, it is telling you what part of the rotation of the earth we are in, when it tells you the date, it tells you what part of the revolution the earth makes with the sun is. We both accept that those watches were designed by someone or some group. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to then assume that the very events they are keeping track of were also designed?

This country has sent humans to the moon. It could be calculated with an extreme degree of accuracy at any given moment where that spacecraft was given certain data such as speed, mass, gravity, etc. With that kind of precision, with the constants we can see in the universe, is it reasonable to assume or believe that it happened by chance and is working correctly?

There are no animals today that show signs of evolution. The fact is, that we never worry when a family member gets pregnant, that she will give birth to anything other than a human. In fact, we can trace DNA back and tell whether or not someone is related to Thomas Jefferson!

Creation by an intelligent being is reasonable. Blind faith or credulity is never reasonable.

I do appreciate your posts. I choose now not reply to your post (if you choose to post). I feel I have made a point, and you will make yours. We won’t change each other, but you made me think, and for that I thank you. It isn’t often that when it comes to religion or anything else, a reasonable discussion ensues. I do that you for that. I respect your intellgence and your right to disagree, and I feel that you have shown me the same.