I personally like both, dinosaurs and the bible. In fact, I’d be willing to convert them, had the darn things not had to go and die out so long ago. Well, if they had any interest beside rendering my warm mammalian flesh.
[quote]kroby wrote:
I wonder if the Brothers Grimm had the same PR, we’d believe in dragons and such like we do “prophets.”[/quote]
Dragons are real.
The proof is in all of those old maps. “Here be dragons.” It’s written right there in black and white.
[quote]electric_eales wrote:
I am interested those of you who do believe in god do you believe there is also an infinite number of gods before your god?
[/quote]
If we did we would be Gnostic.
well done Gkhan, well are you?
[quote]rsg wrote:
Evolution has also been proven in amoebas, go look it up.[/quote]
Whoah! I haven’t read the whole thread but this statement stood out.
Its called the THEORY of evolution.
It has not been proven.
It is still a theory. A theory which has helped explain many observed pheonomen but still a theory none-the-less.
I personally beleive in said theory.
[quote]electric_eales wrote:
well done Gkhan, well are you?[/quote]
No, Genghis worships the sky-god, Tengri, who laughs at Crom hiding in his cave.
By the way, Genghis, did you know that a recent DNA analysis has suggested that the original Genghis Khan has about 16 million living descendants?
Apparently territory wasn’t the only thing he was good at conquering, if ya catch my drift.
[quote]Spry wrote:
rsg wrote:
Evolution has also been proven in amoebas, go look it up.
Whoah! I haven’t read the whole thread but this statement stood out.
Its called the THEORY of evolution.
It has not been proven.
It is still a theory. A theory which has helped explain many observed pheonomen but still a theory none-the-less.
I personally beleive in said theory.[/quote]
This has been gone over many times before.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory which attempts to explain the mechanics of the evolutionary process. Evolution is an observable phenomenon. That it occurs is evident. Evolution itself is, therefore a fact. The theory of evolution is like the theory of relativity: it’s not a law, like the laws of thermodynamics or gravity, but it’s the best explanation we have of the phenomena involved, and in any case, it has never been disproven.
[quote]Spry wrote:
rsg wrote:
Evolution has also been proven in amoebas, go look it up.
Whoah! I haven’t read the whole thread but this statement stood out.
Its called the THEORY of evolution.
It has not been proven.
It is still a theory. A theory which has helped explain many observed pheonomen but still a theory none-the-less.
I personally beleive in said theory.[/quote]
Oh hell, no!
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Spry wrote:
rsg wrote:
Evolution has also been proven in amoebas, go look it up.
Whoah! I haven’t read the whole thread but this statement stood out.
Its called the THEORY of evolution.
It has not been proven.
It is still a theory. A theory which has helped explain many observed pheonomen but still a theory none-the-less.
I personally beleive in said theory.
This has been gone over many times before.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory which attempts to explain the mechanics of the evolutionary process. Evolution is an observable phenomenon. That it occurs is evident. Evolution itself is, therefore a fact. The theory of evolution is like the theory of relativity: it’s not a law, like the laws of thermodynamics or gravity, but it’s the best explanation we have of the phenomena involved, and in any case, it has never been disproven.
[/quote]
Plus those “laws” are only “theories” as well.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio086.htm
A hypothesis is a formal generalization, or tentative explanation
for a set of data, or a group of observations. A hypothesis allows scientists
to design specific, do able experiments to test whether the tentative
explanation will work on a new set of observations on the same subject. A
theory is a hypothesis that has been extensively tested to the point of being
generally accepted as true. Sometimes we use the term “law” for a very
extensively tested theory, especially one that has an equation, or
quantitative rule used to predict the outcome in a certain situation, e.g.,
the Law of Gravity. It is a common error to assume that when a scientist uses
the term “theory” that he or she means something which is still not yet
believed or accepted. This is not true. The word is used for almost all
principles because we do not really understand anything completely. We speak
of the theory of evolution, for example, even though virtually every reputable
biologist in the world believes that evolution is a proven law. However, some
very important details are still being debated and tested, so the word theory
is used. Scientists are always testing.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
well done Gkhan, well are you?
No, Genghis worships the sky-god, Tengri, who laughs at Crom hiding in his cave.
By the way, Genghis, did you know that a recent DNA analysis has suggested that the original Genghis Khan has about 16 million living descendants?
Apparently territory wasn’t the only thing he was good at conquering, if ya catch my drift.[/quote]
To crush the enemy…
Khan was THE man.
I read about his harem, or better, his harem ministry (I kid you not). It’s magistrates visited all villages from practically the whole world and thanks to the mongols’ superb logistics and it’s special harem branch, the most beautiful women from every corner could travel to the man. The subjects beauty was evaluated and compared many times before she was finally deemed presentable.
There was also a vast QA department, countless maids and doctors who worked fulltime to check on the potential candidates.
At night, two or three of those gals would go to the Khan and if his appetite was unsated, he would call for seconds.
To understand this, you have to know that the mongols absorbed certain aspects of the chinese culture pretty quickand that sexual prowess was of utmost importance and expected from an emperor. He was considered the epitome of Yang, the divine alpha, the vigourous dragon. E.g. A ruler had to fuck like crazy if his mandate from heaven was legit.
This was also expected from an empress, by the way (but that’s a different story).
It never ceases to amuse me how many still talk arily about the mongol empire’s downfall. Probably never again in history will a warrior nation imprint their DNA so forcefully upon the collectice gene pool.
From a reproductive viewpoint, the “Operation Genghis Khan” was a arousing success.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Spry wrote:
rsg wrote:
Evolution has also been proven in amoebas, go look it up.
Whoah! I haven’t read the whole thread but this statement stood out.
Its called the THEORY of evolution.
It has not been proven.
It is still a theory. A theory which has helped explain many observed pheonomen but still a theory none-the-less.
I personally beleive in said theory.
This has been gone over many times before.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory which attempts to explain the mechanics of the evolutionary process. Evolution is an observable phenomenon. That it occurs is evident. Evolution itself is, therefore a fact. The theory of evolution is like the theory of relativity: it’s not a law, like the laws of thermodynamics or gravity, but it’s the best explanation we have of the phenomena involved, and in any case, it has never been disproven.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html[/quote]
Exactly.
The theory of “x” is just called that in scientific terms, doesn’t actually mean it’s a theory a lot of the time.
This is a concept many people find hard to grasp, and hence the so called “arguments” against something that is fact.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Of course this is all predicated on the belief that the Bible is in fact true,and historically accurate to boot.[/quote]
I used to ask that very question. Here is some information which may help you:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Most would renounce the truth in order to save their lives
Galileo didn’t. [/quote]
A man amongst men!
And he did so because he was aware of the truth. There is something about knowing the truth that gives a man the conviction that he needs to stay the course.
And as I said, even then it is difficult not to just say what they want you to say under the penalty of death.
[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Most would renounce the truth in order to save their lives, but the Apostles did not.
Tell me why?
How does this argument show the truth of anything?
A lot of religions have devout adherents who have died for their beliefs.
None of their deaths made any difference in establishing the objective truth of their beliefs.
It only shows that they truly and honestly believed what they believed; that it was true for them.
That in no way verifies the objective truth of it.
Even in modern times, you have people strapping on bombs and “martyring” (their term) themselves because they truly believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife.
Do they convince you that you should convert to Islam? If not, why would making the same argument be valid for you?
[/quote]
I agree that mad men will go to their death with bombs strapped to their chest. But those are not the sorts who Christ picked.
These were not men of violence. Nor did they even have a hint of lunacy. On the contrary most were very common hardworking men. Today we would classify most of them as good honest hard working class people. Each plucked from their daily work lives by Jesus Christ himself.
Those who are aware of the teachings and writings of Paul, for example know that he was far from being out of his mind. He had an incredible intellect. And ironically he helped persecute Christians BEFORE he had his revelation from Jesus Christ. As you know he then left that life behind. He then devoted his remaining years to spreading the the message that Jesus Christ is God!
[quote]pookie wrote:
How about just being nice to people for the sake of being nice and not because there’s a big lollipop waiting for you at the end?
[/quote]
Certainly being nice for the sake of being nice is a very good philosophy and one that I hope all atheists adhere to.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
orion wrote:
ZEB wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Hey I reckon there was a carpenter called Jesus that lived in the middle east 2000 years ago, I believe he had a bunch of buddies that were all extremely talented story tellers, I also believe that these people got togehter and wrote the majotity of what is the bible.
Where is the logic?
If they were making up stories then how come they purposely died for these stories when they could have recanted and lived?
How many times in the past have we ever seen large groups of people die purposely for a lie?
Think about it.
A few hundred million in the 20th century alone?
One can die for what they believe to be true, but is in fact false. However, many who knew Christ best died horrible deaths when they could have avoided it by renouncing him. They knew the truth and would not back away from it. That takes courage of conviction.
How strong would either of us be under similar conditions, even if we were telling the truth?
Most would renounce the truth in order to save their lives, but the Apostles did not.
Tell me why?
I’m sure many of Jim Jones followers had faith in him also.
Just because the apostles believed what they were saying that does not make it true.
[/quote]
I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. First of all Jim Jones followers were tricked, intimidated and held against their wishes.
Secondly, I agree that one cannot prove Gods existence in a scientific fashion. That’s why they call it faith in God. Unrelated to this my question was why would average men, Fishermen, Carpenters etc. men who walked with Jesus Christ, not change their story under the penalty of torture and death?
Most would lie to save their lives, they all stood fast to the truth.
Why?
What is it that they saw and experienced which would give them such strong convictions? And this is long after Jesus Christ had been put to the cross.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Yes, I absolutely believe in God.
What I don’t believe is that God would send someone to a fiery pit of hell to burn for an eternity. To believe so is very contradictory to the concept that God loves us for forever and always forgives.
How do you know that this is true? How did you come to believe this?
[/quote]
First, lets start with the concept of a god. All knowing, all seeing, omnipresent; he is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I mean, c’mon, we are talking about a GOD here right? The creator of everything right? Good. That means then, that he has created everyone with a plan to serve him. If God has a plan for everyone, which I wholeheartedly believe he does, then it would be foolish to believe that a mortal man could veer from the path that God has set us on.
God works in mysterious ways we’re told, and everything fits together in a grand mysterious plan that we as humans will never fully understand. So, with that understanding, we come to the conclusion that we are all here to serve him according to his plan, and that all things happen for a reason, even the shitty things. In holding this concept, I don’t believe that there is a such thing as “sin”. Just doesn’t make sense to me. If there cannot be sin, then there can be no “hell”, at least not the hell we have commonly come to accept as a fiery pit of eternal damnation.
So, this is, in a very brief nutshell, how I’ve come to believe what I do. I believe in an all loving god that is interested in helping my spirit grow, and is not interested in tossing me into eternal fiery damnation to burn forever, simply for not holding to a set of rules that one religion has set forth.
Anyways, I could go on and on, but I won’t ;-] I just don’t believe in hell or sin.
[quote]pookie wrote:
I’m sure Zeb has done his homework and will be able to provide ample corroborating evidence.
[/quote]
Actually there are some accounts in the Bible, as you have already pointed out. The others do come from early Church historical writings. If you are interested you can take a look at Foxes “Christian Martyrs of the World”
Anyway here is as complete a list as I could find in one of my searches.
"Andrew- crucified
Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Patras, Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers, they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. When he was led toward the cross, Andrew said: “I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it.” He continued to preach to those torturing him for two days until he died.
�?� Bartholomew- beaten then crucified
�?� James (son of Alphaeus)- stoned to death
He was thrown over a hundred feet down from the church in Jerusalem when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. When they discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat James to death with a fuller’s club. This was the same pinnacle where Satan had taken Jesus during the temptation.
�?� James (son of Zebebedee)- beheaded
The Roman officer who guarded James watched amazed as James defended his faith at his trial. Later, the officer walked beside James to the place of execution. Overcome by conviction, he declared his new faith to the judge and knelt beside James to accept beheading as a Christian
�?� John- exiled for his faith, died of old age
John faced martyrdom when he was boiled in a huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome. He was miraculously delivered from death. He was then sentenced to the mines on the prison island of Patmos where he wrote the Book of Revelation. He was later freed and returned to serve as Bishop of Edessa in modern Turkey.
�?� Judas (not Iscariot)- stoned to death
�?� Matthew- speared to death
�?� Peter- crucified upside down
�?� Phillip- crucified
�?� Simon- crucified
�?� Thomas- speared to death
�?� Matthias- stoned to death
�?� Paul- Beheaded
Tortured and then beheaded by the evil emperor Nero at Rome in A.D. 67"
Here is what another search produced:
"Here is an account of early Christian persecution, as compiled from numerous sources outside the Bible, the most-famous of which is Foxes�?? Christian Martyrs of the World:
Around 34 A.D., one year after the crucifixion of Jesus, Stephen was thrown out of Jerusalem and stoned to death. Approximately 2,000 Christians suffered martyrdom in Jerusalem during this period. About 10 years later, James, the son of Zebedee and the elder brother of John, was killed when Herod Agrippa arrived as governor of Judea. Agrippa detested the Christian sect of Jews, and many early disciples were martyred under his rule, including Timon and Parmenas. Around 54 A.D., Philip, a disciple from Bethsaida, in Galilee, suffered martyrdom at Heliopolis, in Phrygia. He was scourged, thrown into prison, and afterwards crucified. About six years later, Matthew, the tax-collector from Nazareth who wrote his gospel in Hebrew, was preaching in Ethiopia when he suffered martyrdom by the sword. James, the brother of Jesus, administered the early church in Jerusalem and was the author of an Epistle by his name. At age 94, he was beat and stoned, and finally had his brains bashed out with a fuller’s club. Matthias was the apostle who filled the vacant place of Judas. He was stoned at Jerusalem and then beheaded. Andrew was the brother of Peter who preached the gospel throughout Asia. On his arrival at Edessa, he was arrested and crucified on a cross, the two ends of which were fixed transversely in the ground (this is where we get the term, St. Andrew’s Cross). Mark was converted to Christianity by Peter, and then transcribed Peter�??s account of Jesus in his Gospel. Mark was dragged to pieces by the people of Alexandria in front of Serapis, their pagan idol. It appears Peter was condemned to death and crucified at Rome. Jerome holds that Peter was crucified upside down, at his own request, because he said he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord. Paul suffered in the first persecution under Nero. Paul�??s faith was so dramatic in the face of martyrdom, that the authorities removed him to a private place for execution by the sword.
In about 72 A.D., Jude, the brother of James who was commonly called Thaddeus, was crucified at Edessa. Bartholomew preached in several countries and translated the Gospel of Matthew into the language of India. He was cruelly beaten and then crucified by idolaters there. Thomas, called Didymus, preached the Gospel in Parthia and India, where exciting the rage of the pagan priests, he was martyred by being thrust through with a spear. Luke was the author of the Gospel under his name. He traveled with Paul through various countries and is supposed to have been hanged on an olive tree by idolatrous priests in Greece. Barnabas, of Cyprus, was killed without many known facts in about 73 A.D. Simon, surnamed Zelotes, preached the Gospel in Mauritania, Africa, and even in Britain, where he was crucified in about 74 A.D. John, the “beloved disciple,” was the brother of James. From Ephesus he was ordered to Rome, where it is affirmed he was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil. He escaped by miracle, without injury. Domitian afterwards banished him to the Isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Book of Revelation. He was the only apostle who escaped a violent death."
Here’s one more web site which seems detailed:
http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/fox101.htm
If you’re interested in making a purchase of Foxes “Christian Martyrs” here’s the Amazon link:
Actually, I might just pick up a copy myself.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
ZEB wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Yes, I absolutely believe in God.
What I don’t believe is that God would send someone to a fiery pit of hell to burn for an eternity. To believe so is very contradictory to the concept that God loves us for forever and always forgives.
How do you know that this is true? How did you come to believe this?
First, lets start with the concept of a god. All knowing, all seeing, omnipresent; he is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I mean, c’mon, we are talking about a GOD here right? The creator of everything right? Good. That means then, that he has created everyone with a plan to serve him. If God has a plan for everyone, which I wholeheartedly believe he does, then it would be foolish to believe that a mortal man could veer from the path that God has set us on.
God works in mysterious ways we’re told, and everything fits together in a grand mysterious plan that we as humans will never fully understand. So, with that understanding, we come to the conclusion that we are all here to serve him according to his plan, and that all things happen for a reason, even the shitty things. In holding this concept, I don’t believe that there is a such thing as “sin”. Just doesn’t make sense to me. If there cannot be sin, then there can be no “hell”, at least not the hell we have commonly come to accept as a fiery pit of eternal damnation.
So, this is, in a very brief nutshell, how I’ve come to believe what I do. I believe in an all loving god that is interested in helping my spirit grow, and is not interested in tossing me into eternal fiery damnation to burn forever, simply for not holding to a set of rules that one religion has set forth.
Anyways, I could go on and on, but I won’t ;-] I just don’t believe in hell or sin.
[/quote]
I’m not trying to irritate you, but you never really answered my question.
You’ve given me a good mix of your theories and I think I understand what you’ve written. But, I wonder how you came to believe what you have currently believe. Are they all just personal judgements based on your years of experience?
Are there any particular works that you’ve read?
Any philosophical doctrines that you’ve embraced that lead you to your various theories? And have you changed your mind over the years, or have you pretty much stuck to what you believe in currently. And, what would it take to change your mind about your various theories.
Thanks for responding.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m not trying to irritate you, but you never really answered my question.
You’ve given me a good mix of your theories and I think I understand what you’ve written. But, I wonder how you came to believe what you have currently believe. Are they all just personal judgements based on your years of experience?
Are there any particular works that you’ve read?
Any philosophical doctrines that you’ve embraced that lead you to your various theories? And have you changed your mind over the years, or have you pretty much stuck to what you believe in currently. And, what would it take to change your mind about your various theories.
Thanks for responding.[/quote]
You’re right, I didn’t. Well, I’d have to say that it’s come from very mixed sourcing and personal self discovery. I come from a Catholic home, with a very Catholic mother, so that has indeed had an impression on me. However after years of studying Buddhism and zen, I feel very close to those teachings. I would have to admit that I feel as close to Buddhism now as I do to Catholicim and Christianity, even though I have never stepped inside of a temple. Perhaps that day will come. “Living Buddha, Living Christ” was a very good book indeed by Tich Nat Hahn(sp?)
Much of what I believe, I have come to believe in moments by myself contemplating such things and trying to put it all together. I have felt much closer to god in the outdoors, on the banks of the river I trout fish on, than I ever have inside a church. I talk with many people, of many different faiths, backgrounds, etc., about these things, and have always been stunned by the truths that can be revealed in casual moments/conversations. Even Threads on T-Nation, with even the likes of Lixy ;-]
I hope this has answered your question.