Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Are the nephilim and Jesus related ?
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Are the nephilim and Jesus related ?
Posted: 6/6/2008 8:57:37 PM

The interpretations should not vary, if the B of E is inspiried by the Spirit of God, then the same labguage will be used that the Spirit expresses in all inspired writings. The Spirit will not use a symbol differently with each prophet's words. All prphets will speak the same Spiritual language or they are not inspired by the same Spirit...


Depending on the context. Revelations has examples where "fornication" is used in both the literal and the figurative sense. When the prophet is referring to a kingdom, tribe, church, etc.committing fornication, it is obviously meant in the figurative sense. That doesn't however mean we take every instance of the word fornication as being figurative even when spoken by a prophet. When Jesus through John reprimands Jezebel for not having repented of teaching members of the church to commit fornication, it is fairly safe to assume it is meant in the literal sense. We are to use our God-given common sense and not spiritualize every instance of the word, even if spoken by a prophet.


As we can see, prophecy is not literal, and to give it a literal interpretation is to ignore the instruction of Peter and make up an interpretation that seems to fit into the agenda of the interpretor.


2 Peter 1:20,21 has nothing to do with whether a prophecy is literal or not. There are numerous prophecies throughout the OT that were very literal in their fulfillment. Peter rather speaks here of the origin of a prophecy not being of the prophets private interpretation as verse 21 explains.


and like I have already said, I will get a completely different interpretation than most will get, as I also do with the scriptures.


Uhm, didn't you just say that prophecy is not subject to private interpretation according to your interpretation of Peter.


The bottom line is angelic beings cannot have sex with human women and have natural childbirth thatbrings forth a physical offspring. That is definitely not what I see that Enoch is teaching....the 'fornication' that is used in prophecy will be the same fornication that is used in all inspired prophecy. neither is the usage of 'mountain' to be taken literal in Enoch as these are terms used for spiritual powers...


As I have pointed out already, context is important in discerning whether a prophet is speaking figuratively or literally. In the case of Enoch speaking of the Angels fornicating with women he was speaking of an event that had already happened and it was therefore not a prophetic statement but a historical one.

Angels in their natural state are spiritual beings and therefore you are likely correct that they would not be capable of having sex, however there numerous examples in the bible where angels were able to take on physical forms when the need arose. Unless you have some kind of proof that when they changed their forms they did so without all the normal human equipment, you are indulging in an opinion and attempting to state it is a fact.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny . . . ?
Posted: 6/5/2008 3:59:24 PM

Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny Communion to those supporting candidates who favor abortion rights?


With political candidates it is normally a process of trying to choose the lesser of several evils.


Posted by Jacobus101
Well, maybe. Maybe not. I mean, what about cases where the Catholic clergy take blatantly obvious stands against certain political parties and groups? For example, the German bishops' excommunicating the Nazi Party, or Pope John Paul II's efforts to tear down the Iron Curtain and smash Communism, and several other things that come to mind. Those are the most extreme examples.


If they applied it consistently I would agree but as an example the threatened ex-communication for joining Nazi Party was only effective from 1930-1933 and then was lifted. The only party member to actually be excommunicated was Joseph Goebbel and that was for marrying a protestant, not for crimes against humanity. Sends out a very strong mixed message. Wipe out the jews but don't be marrying the protestants.


Even though church officials believe strongly that they are defending against murder, they need to understand that many do not consider it to be murder. Calling it murder, however repeatedly does not make it so.


Exactly, it creates guilt and remorse for the woman when until 1869 the Church was ok with abortions in the first trimester. In the OT the life of the unborn fetus is not considered the same as that of one who has taken their first breath.

Sometimes it is difficult to discern the difference between a political agenda rather than a spiritual one.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 10 (view)
 
God Delusion
Posted: 6/5/2008 2:48:56 PM

This may come as a surprise to you, but we do know that the seasons & weather etc aren't controlled by some mythical sky fairy...


Considering the track record of weathermen, it is a deluded fool who believes that meteorologists have a clue as to what actually controls weather.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Where in the Bible is this at?
Posted: 6/4/2008 7:51:39 PM
Considering the time period, the law was likely a step up from before when the children were nothing more then property and could be done with as the parents chose. Now they had to present the case to the elders of the city to do away with a child. I'd bet that more children made it into adulthood after that law was instituted.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Are the nephilim and Jesus related ?
Posted: 6/3/2008 8:19:59 AM

I gave you the link to do your own credibility test and you debunk it by trying to continue with these grandiose illusions that have no scriptural backing other than your own private interpretations, which could easily be refuted if I felt it worth the time to expose them for what they are..


We have 4 verses in the OT where the plain reading of the verses point to the "Sons of God" as being angels. 3 more verses in the NT stating the same. Verses in the NT that state certain angels were judged and condemned for their fornification with "strange flesh" ie, "daughters of men". We have the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees both validated by scriptures as being trustworthy and stating that angels and women produced offspring. Jewish traditions further affirms this interpretation as did early christian authors. Add to this the writings and myths from secular sources of gods coming to Earth from sumerians, greeks, canaanites, mayans etc. etc. and it strikes me as pretty a airtight case.

The link you gave me for the "credibility test" did not prove anything and whether the proper word is "present" or "stand", it has no bearing on whether the "sons of God"=angels.
Truth should determine doctrine, not doctrine dermine truth.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 466 (view)
 
Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 6/2/2008 9:42:36 PM

Just as the theory of gravity is highly supported, so is the theory of evolution.


Did you come by that knowledge through your ability to think objectively and rationally or did you accept it on the say-so of a scientist or school textbook?
One who is truly seeking God requires objective and rational thinking even more then those who don't because one is learning about spiritual laws and the nature of the God one believes in. It's not simply a matter of saying "I believe" although some may do so because for them it's a social club but for the serious seeker there is much more to it then that.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Are the nephilim and Jesus related ?
Posted: 6/2/2008 8:56:48 PM

E Kyro I hope that clears it up that I do NOT follow the traditional teaching that sons of God was a human seedline, as seen Cain and Abel were brothers. one was a son of God, one was a son of the devil...absolutely nothing to do with thier biological parents.


Then Gen 6:2 should have said that the Sons of God took daughters of the devil for wives but it doesn't. It says daughters of men. A couple of other verses where "sons of God refer to angels are Job 38:7 which says the sons of God shouted for joy when God laid the foundations of the Earth. Angels are the only entities that fit this designation since man had not been created at that time. Another verse is Daniel 3:25, where king Nebuchadnezzar looks into the fiery furnace and sees four men, "and the form of the fourth is like the son of God." According to your interpretation there should have been four "sons of God.
So there are 4 verses in the OT where "sons of God refers to angels and then in the NT there are 3 verses where after the resurrection the worthy ones are compared to the angels and called children of God, thereby implying that angels are already considered children of God.

A verse that proves that the angels were capable of sexual sin is Jude 1:6-7:
Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The common understanding of Gen 6:2 before the 5th century AD had been that the Sons of God was referring to angels evidenced by the writings of Joseph Flavius, Philo of Alexandria and all the the Early Church Fathers believed the same way. Men like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Ambrose...all adopted this interpretation. In the words of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the angels fell "into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh...Of those lovers of virgins therefore, were begotten those who are called giants." And again, "...the angels transgressed, and were captivated by love of women and begat children."


This theory you believe and share makes out God to be not very impotent at all because you are saying that while He destroyed the world, He failed at His purposes for doing so the first place.


God didn't fail....the angels and man with their God-given free-will, failed. His purposes are still on-going since there were 8 humans that made it through the flood.


I suppose if enough people gree that a race of people do not have a soul then all kinds of evil can be justified in the way these 'soul-less' creatures can be treated...Its a lame excuse for promoting racism imo.


"The Book of Isaiah says that the Nephilim and their descendants will not participate in a resurrection as is the portion of ordinary mortals. Isaiah 26:14 reads: "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise." The original Hebrew word translated "deceased" here is the word "Rephaim." It would have saved a lot of misinterpretation if the translators had left the word as it was in the original. The verse actually reads: "Dead, they shall not live; Rephaim, they shall not rise." The Rephaim are generally understood to be one of the branches of the Nephilim, and God's Word makes it clear that they are to partake in no resurrection. But with humans it is different: all humans will be resurrected either to life or to damnation (John 5:28-29)."
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Are the nephilim and Jesus related ?
Posted: 6/2/2008 12:02:50 PM

But when Enoch contradicts and suggests that others besides Noah and his family were spared, many of the greater spiritual realities become mooted as being greater spiritual realities , when the shadow reality is removed.


It sounds like you subscribe to the traditional church interpretation that the Sons of God were from the lineage of Seth. Thats fine, many still do and you have the majority backing you in this regard. Some of us however realize that there is more to the story and with the Book of Enoch as well as references in the Book of Jubilee, there is a good foundation for the belief that the Sons of God were fallen angels. This would also run parallel with some of the myths of ancient peoples who write of gods that came to Earth in those times. It may also have bearing on future prophecies.

As far`as contradictions to your beliefs is concerned, I wouldn't be too concerned. In the parable of the wheat and tares, we know that there were some who were seeded that were not from the sower of the wheat and therefore not His. When the bible mentions that only Noah and his family survived, it is simply stating that they were the only pure blooded humans who survived.
 e.kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Theosis or Growing in the Image of God.
Posted: 5/31/2008 8:45:55 AM

For who will operate the theosis, if the divine Grace is created and not uncreated energy of the Most Holy Spirit?


Perhaps you're both wrong. Love is the essence of God but without a seperated entity it cannot be translated into grace since grace is involves a transfer of that love to another. Gen 1:3 states that God created the Light which is also energy. This as we know was before He created the sun, moon and stars, so it wasn't that light the verse is referring to. Light also requires a medium to travel through so is this why the energy of the Holy Spirit could not be transferred to the apostles until Jesus went to the Father?

Anyway, I see grace as being made up of 2 components. The love of God and the communication of that love to a willing receptacle. One is the essence of God and the other according to Genesis appears to be created.
 e.kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Are the nephilim and Jesus related ?
Posted: 5/31/2008 7:12:47 AM
Posted bt Jacobus101
The Decretum Gelasianum was never written by Gelasius or any other Pope. It is, to some degree or another, what we might call a forgery.


"There are those who question the authority of the so-called Gelasian decree on historical grounds saying that it is spuriously attributed to Gelasius. However, the Roman Catholic authorities Denzinger, Charles Joseph Hefele, W. A. Jurgens and the New Catholic Encyclopedia all affirm that the decree derives from Pope Gelasius, and Pope Nicholas I in a letter to the bishops of Gaul (c. 865 A.D.) officially quotes from this decree and attributes its authorship to Gelasius. (See Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma (London: Herder,1954), pp. 66-69; W. A.Jurgens, TheFaith of theEarlyFathers, vol. I (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1970), p. 404; New CatholicEncyclopedia, vol. VII (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 434; Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), vol. IV, pp. 43-44). While the Gelasian decree may be questioned by some, the decree of Pope Hormisdas reaffirming the Gelasian decree in the early sixth century has not been questioned.


Your argument makes no sense. If the "dogma determines Scripture", then the Transitus Beatae Mariae would not have been banned, since it would better support the Assumption dogma. But it is still not a part of Scripture, since it was not written in the 1st century by an Apostle or disciple of the Apostles. That's the definition of good and even, I dare say, unbiased historiography.


My argument makes perfect sense in that the early Church condemns as heretical the only book that references the assumption of Mary and then when it suits their purpose they flip-flop on the ruling and quietly remove it from the banned list or call into the question the authenticity of the original decretal to legitimize their new dogma.


Still is. Unam Sanctam is still an applicable document. However, the term EENS is found in the writings of St. Cyprian of Carthage, who died much earlier in 258 A.D. (Letters, lxxii. Ad Jubajanum de haereticis baptizandis). The principle behind it is found in the teaching of Christ.


So then why do you judge Messianic jews for how they view those outside of their sect when your sect has the same viewpoint in writing?


At any rate, these anti-Catholic rantings are without substance or foundation. It's time to put The Da Vinci Code back in its rightful place in the "fiction" section of the bookstore, and tell Jack Chick it's safe to come out, there aren't any Jesuit snipers outside.


Sounds like a persecution complex you have there. It was your choice to come on this thread with an off-topic rant attempting to whitewash the sins of the historical church in spite of evidence to the contrary. Rationalizing and justifying faults are a clear indication of an unwillingness to learn from past and therefore being doomed to repeat the same mistakes in the future. Individually and corporately it is difficult to see oneself in the mirror of truth and it is therefore beneficial at times to have the humility to look at what those outside are seeing instead of hiding behind the mask of a victim or martyr.


Posted by consigliere31
Ok I thought you were using biblical text to determine your conclusions....but Enoch obviously contradicts scripture if this is what it is saying.

However Job is in scripture, and after doing a quick read, it is obvious that these sons of God mentioned, are not being referred to as angelic beings, and as I suspected, Job is indeed one of the sons of God.


The NIV and the NLT versions both translate "Sons of God" as "angels". No need to torture the relevant verses into proving something different.

Job 1:6 states "one" day or "a" day, not "continually" as Job was sacrificing in verse 5.


In Job 1:6 and Job 2:1......it would better read as such.... The day the sons of God made thier offerrings, the sons of God stood before the Lord,

Why did they stand before the Lord? Because their offerrings were accepted. So to say the sons of God stood before the Lord is not suggesting an army-like formation of angels, but is implying that when the day of offerrings came, they stood and did not fall short before the Lord as sons of God, other translations for 'stand and present' are 'withstand'


What translation are you using? I can find nothing that parallels what you're stating here. Since Satan was also was standing before the Lord are you attempting to imply that his offering was accepted too? Sorry consigliere, but your interpretation strikes me as reading into it, something that isn't there.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Are the nephilim and Jesus related ?
Posted: 5/30/2008 11:49:01 PM
Posted by Jacobus101
If I may, I'd like to point out an inaccuracy in the source you quoted from.

This assumes the common, but false, belief that the early Church went ban-happy or trigger-happy with books it didn't like.


Not an assumption Jacobus. It is documented.


2.) Just because a certain book is not in the Biblical canon does not mean it was "banned". The Book of Enoch and many other "candidates for Scriptural canonization", such as the Protoevangelium of James, were still used throughout the Middle Ages as sourcebooks or, if you will, something like our modern-day "fanfiction", LOL. Many of these books are found in the appendices of medieval Bibles. Quite far from the imagined "book burnings".


The books of Enoch were banned at the Council of Laodicea, reaffirmed by Pope Gelasius in 494-496, reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas around AD 520, along with many other apocryphal writings of which he states:


These and the like, what Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also Montanus with his detestable followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the Manichaean, Faustus the African, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Calistus, Donatus, Eustasius, Iovianus, Pelagius, Iulianus of ERclanum, Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius of Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius,Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and the other Peter, of whom one besmirched Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but excluded from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with its authors and the adherents of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever


In his decree Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis, he also banned Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito which was later used as the source for the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, thereby giving credibility to the statement that dogma determines what is considered scripture.


3.) The Council of Laodicea did prohibit Christians from keeping the Sabbath on Saturday (under Canon 29, specifically), because it was a sign of a practice called Judaizing. Essentially, Judaizing was the practice of maintaining certain Hebrew customs of the Old Testament, asserting them to be superior to the common practice of other Christians. It is, if you will, a bit like the way that some Messianic Jews look down upon other Christians as a bunch of "pagans".


Huh, and here I thought keeping the sabbath was the sign of someone following one of God's commandments rather than the RCC's
Watch the hypocrisy Jacobus. Remember that the historical teaching of the Roman Catholic Church was "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" (Outside the church, there is no salvation). That is, for a person to be saved -- and avoid Hell -- it is absolutely necessary that they be subject to the Pope. All Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and followers of other non-Christian religions were destined for Hell. All members of Protestant, Anabaptist, Mormon, and other Christian denominations were headed there as well. Messianic Jews may think it but the RCC states it as doctrine. Where's that`verse about beams, splinters, eyes.....


4.) The statement that "scripture did not determine what dogma was accepted; rather dogma determined what scripture was accepted" serves the purpose of some propagandists, but is not quite true.


But it is somewhat true as has already been pointed out and there are certainly other examples that point out that the RCC has done its utmost to keep the flock tied to the church by its selection of appropriate readings and maintaining that only it's priests are capable of understanding and interpreting it to the flock which is in direct opposition to the words of Jesus when He thanked the Father for hiding His revelations from the wise and learned and revealing them to His little children.


5.) And again, I repeat that just because a book was not accepted for the canon does not mean it was burned or banned. In the treatises of medieval authors, you will find them quoting from many other non-Scriptural books as reference points.


All that says is that the RCC's flip-flop on what is acceptable. Also means that the bans didn't extend to everyone since scholars were allowed to reference them with special permission.


Posted by consigliere31
E Kyro
If you do some reading on this in Genesis and reference quotes of Noah in the New Testament....yo will find that your memory doesn't serve you correctly on this.


My comments weren't based on what is in the bible but in the book of Enoch, Jubilee, etc which are sources for more information on the nephilim. One quick reference for the Og/Noah connection can be seen here: ttp://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1780&letter=A

To understand who the Sons of God were it is necessary to read the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees although Job 1:6 equates the Sons of God to being the angels.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Are the nephilim and Jesus related ?
Posted: 5/29/2008 4:36:01 PM
If memory serves correctly, Og the King of Bashan helped Noah build the ark and as a result was allowed to hang onto the ark to get him through the flood. Others also survived and through Canaan son Ham, again became a force to be reckoned with. The Canaanites were the giants that came as a result. The reason that so many see the OT God as being so violent is that the seed of the giants that survived the flood, was to be eradicated since they were attempting to contaminate the seed of man so as to stop the possibility of a pureblooded Messiah making an appearance. This would have halted the plan of salvation God had/has intended for mankind.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Are the nephilim and Jesus related ?
Posted: 5/28/2008 9:25:04 PM

I read the link you provided but don't consider it to be consistant with the words of Christ.......nor do I consider it to be realistic in saying that angels or spiritual beings can have sexual relations with human beings......seems like some 'equipment' might be missing for the task....


The link was to a wikipedia page to give a little more backround on the Book of Enoch, not the book itself.

As far as the Sons of God having the proper equipment, well the bible clearly states they took the daughters of men for wives which led Jude to state:

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

As Weatherly has already stated, Jesus said they are not given in marriage, not that don't have the parts.


My opinion is that the book of Enoch is either misrepresented and wrongly interpreted, or it is not inspired....


Opinions are great but they are still just opinions. Mine differs based on the fact that inspired scripture references the book and it was itself considered scripture by early christians as well as considered a valuable work by Jews who ultimately rejected it because it prophesied Jesus.


If it was common knowledge that the earth was full of virgin births brought about by spiritual entities reproducing with human beings....the the virgin birth wouldn't be much of a sign, as it would have been done before probably thousands of times if the interpretation of Enoch is actually saying this is the way it was...


I am almost afraid to ask what you think is meant by "virgin birth". The birth of Jesus is not the same as the birth of the Nephilim even if they were the offspring of angels.


maybe not in so many words, but an understanding should be able to be formed regarding the difference of the two.....after all we can't wrestle against them with our physical nature, I don't see how we could possibly roll in the hay with them either...


Jacob fought with an angel physically.
Paul's verse about principalities, powers, etc is referencing the spirits of the nephilim whom God condemned to wander the Earth in the spirit until Judgement day, having the ability to afflict men. This comes from the Book of Enoch.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Are the nephilim and Jesus related ?
Posted: 5/27/2008 11:27:05 AM
To get a better idea of who the nephilim are and their place in the grand scheme of things it would be worthwhile to read Enoch 1 and 2. He deals with them in more depth and although in the present day, Enochs books are not considered scripture, Jude 14 15 references the books and they were considered important back in Jesus's day to the point where some of His sayings come right out of Enoch's writings. A google search will easily locate the books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch
 e.kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 38 (view)
 
Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/24/2008 8:02:50 AM

Just because a 'Miracle' story mystifies doctors, doesnt prove anything, other than doctor still dont understand everything.


And there we have the catchall rebuttal to any proofs brought forward. "We don't understand how it happened, but we know it can't be a miracle or God!!"
So scientific.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 31 (view)
 
Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/23/2008 10:36:39 PM
And that proves...what again? Here, allow the skeptics to kill that argument as quoted from skepdic.com:


Is the rebuttal you posted peer reviewed or simply the opinion of Joe Nickell? The article contains at least one major distortion of the facts and one outright lie by a decidedly biased Joe. Now you "have heard of them distorting scientific results to fit their own needs and purposes" from your own sources. What were you expecting from a carnival promoter and stage magician other than sleight-of -hand explanations?

Ray Rogers says it best however were Nickell is concerned:


Joe did not understand the method or importance of the results of the pyrolysis/mass spectrometry analyses, and I doubt that he understands the fundamental science behind either visible/ultraviolet spectrometry or fluorescence. He certainly does not understand chemical kinetics. If he wants to argue my results, I suggest that we stick to observations, natural laws, and facts. I am a skeptic by nature, but I believe all skeptics should be held to the same ethical and scientific standards we require of others.

Sincerely,
Raymond N. Rogers
Fellow (Retired)
University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM, USA

http://www.csicop.org

ps, where you gonna' shift the goal posts next time?
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 25 (view)
 
Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/23/2008 3:11:02 PM

First of all, that could all depend on which scientist did the testing. They could've simply lied about the results. I've seen creationist scientists personally and have heard of them distorting scientific results to fit their own needs and purposes.


Secular, peer-reviewed, scientific journals since 2003 indicate the shroud could well be 2000 years old. http://www.shroudstory.com/
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 34 (view)
 
depression brought on by Christianity?
Posted: 5/23/2008 10:06:04 AM

Posted by consigliere31
OK you are right, I can only see according to grace, and that is how I know that you do not see according to grace, because if you did, we would be on the same understanding and there would be common ground that we could find agreement. But when our foudation is different, it is impossible to build an agreement.


Grace is not a stagnant quantity but increases as the spiritual journey progresses resulting in a greater ability to see the truth. Differences of opinion are often the result of varying lengths of time spent learning about the spiritual realm.
I well remember times in the earlier years of my journey being introduced to a spiritual concept that I vehemently disagreed with even though the person telling me about it had been on the journey much longer then I had. I even pulled out various scripture verses that seemed to prove my point. A few months and sometimes a few years later as grace increased, I came to see that the other had been right after all.
From that I learned to keep both my mind and my heart open to the truths of God even if I haven't as yet arrived at a point where I can see it.


The best thing about the 10 commandments is the 'catch 22' in the 4 th commandment, this commandment clearly defines who is walking in the Spirit and who is walking in the flesh. But onlly through grace will the 'catch-22' be understood.


Are you referring to the 4th commandment in RCC's version or the protestant version? If you're referring to the Honor thy father and mother command, then yes there is a definite catch 22. The Sabbath command is one that could be a catch-22 depending how one sees the relevant verses regarding it.

Is the commandment question relevant to the discussion or a test for grace?
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 90 (view)
 
Evolution: Highly probable?
Posted: 5/21/2008 4:04:23 PM
I've spent years watching IDers lie and deceive over and over and over, while offering no evidence at all to support their beliefs. IDers have greatly enhanced my understanding of evolution - I analyzed their claims against evolution and learned tons about why it is true, and tons more about how willing IDers are given to lie to push their beliefs.


I have watched evolutionists and creationists posting for years also and have only once maybe twice, seen a creationist/ID'er intentionally push something as true which he knew was false. In fact it often happens that I see creationists who are proven wrong, coming back to the thread they posted in and admitting their error. This is something I have never seen an evolutionist do. When proven wrong they normally slink away to lick their wounds until the next time they see an oppurtunity to come charging out and snap at the heels of some inconsequential point a creationist has posted. There is an Evo poster in this thread in fact who over the few years I have been at this forum, has brought up the same challenges to creationism and the bible he has repeatedly been shown to be in error about and yet he keeps coming back each time there is a new batch of creationists he thinks he can con. Because he has been proven wrong on multiple occasions from multiple sources, is he a liar and a deceiver since he maintains his belief in the correctness of his position in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 32 (view)
 
depression brought on by Christianity?
Posted: 5/20/2008 10:25:07 PM

Posted by consigliere31
If explaining justification by grace and faith was in my power, then everyone would be a christian. But it doesn't work like that. Grace is a revelation of faith and the Spirit is the One who bears witness to us. I can only hope that somehow we hear from the Spirit and the Word produces this faith within us.


It doesn't surprise me that you cannot explain justification by grace through faith since you effectively block the methodology whereby we access it through misinterpretation.


Repentance is nothing more than a change of heart and mind, and this change of mind is concerning turning away from trusting in dead works of the law in order to make oneself justified before God. If you think that the law justifies you and not faith, then you haven't even repented in the first place. Inviting Jesus into your heart was merely lip service with no true understanding or belief that He is actually the Savior who justifies mankind before God. This repentance from dead works, is the elementary stage of christianity, and the principle on which christianity is founded, if a person doesn't have this, then what makes them a christian? The law of Moses....not in the least!


Repentance is not from dead works but lack of works. Lack of justice, mercy, selfless love. Repentance from fear, anger, envy. It is for these things Paul said to King agrippa:

Act 26:20 Instead, I first told the people in Damascus and Jerusalem, then the whole countryside of Judea, and then the gentiles to repent, turn to God, and practice works that are consistent with such repentance.

That verse alone throws out all your arguments. There may have been some in Jerusalem that depended on justification through the Law but with the gentiles it wouldn't have been the case and yet he still preached repentance as well as practicing works consistent with that repentance.


If a person owes someone then they should pay thier debt, or make restitution, however this has nothing to do with christianity, this has to do with common decency as a human being. This has nothing to do with God, or our relationship with Him. We cannot earn salvation through making restitution.


Do you actually read the whole bible or just those verses that support your "dead works" theology? Restitution is a very important concept in the bible. In the OT God commands it and in the NT, Jesus reaffirms it. Salvation is not earned through it but can be blocked by not doing so because the consiounce will not be cleared. Repentance without restitution is like faith without works. Dead.


As far as the 10 commandments, they are all part and parcel of the law and they were never meant for anyone but the children of Israel.


You're kidding me, right? Where do you get this stuff? Even Paul states clearly to the gentiles that:

Rom 3:31 Do we, then, abolish the law by this faith? Of course not! Instead, we uphold the law.

Which is not surprising when we consider that:

Rom 13:8 Do not owe anyone anything-except to love one another. For the one who loves another has b]fulfilled the law.

Rom 13:10 Love never does anything that is harmful to its neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law.

Gal 5:14 For the whole law is summarized in a single statement: "You must love your neighbor as yourself."

To say the Law is only relevant for the Jews and not the Christian, is to say that we are not required to love God or our neighbour since the Law is about how to love and its visible manifestations. Paul also states:

Rom 13:9 For the commandments, "You must not commit adultery; you must not murder; you must not steal; you must not covet," and every other commandment are summed up in this statement: "You must love your neighbor as yourself."

1Co 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of humans and angels but have no love, I have become a reverberating gong or a clashing cymbal.

1Co 16:14 Everything you do should be done in love.

The 10 commandments raise the bar and motivate the believer to higher level of love for his neighbour, then the usual human level.


This is all elementary and I would suggest reading the book of Romans and Galations to get a better understanding. I recommend reading what Paul wrote as he revealed the full revelation of God. Jesus can be difficult to understand as He was only addressing the children of Israel in almost all of His teachings, so unless you are a 1'st century Jew, you probably won't understand what Christ was talking about in His parables.


I agree that Paul had a lot of revelations but with due respect consigliers31, I think you may be missing some of the more important ones. Although Jesus was teaching the children of Israel, His words were important for Christians as a whole, not just the Jewish ones. It is why we are called "Christians" and not Paulians. It is the letters of Paul which are actually referred to by God's inspired Word as being:

2Pe 3:16 This is what he says in all his letters when he writes on the subject. There are some difficult things in his letters which ignorant and unstable people explain falsely, as they do with other passages of the Scriptures. So they bring on their own destruction.

As far as the parables are concerned, Jesus plainly stated that it was the jews that heard them that had trouble understanding their meaning further evidenced by the disciples having to ask him what some of them meant. I have to disagree with your statement as the parables state a pretty clear message. Which leads one to realize that although He was addressing the Jews, His teachings were not meant for them since He was well aware they would reject Him and His gospel.


E Kyro this is a classic case of stumbling over the stumbling stone and not moving forward into faith and grace in Christ.


I notice you only see what you want to see whether it is me or anyone else that disagrees with you. The accusation flies out that we are trying to find justification through a works or law based theology and you cherry-pick verses from Pauls letters in an attempt to prove your point although in reality you only verify the truth of 2Peter 3:16. I pray you open your mind to whether your theology is out of balance.
 e.kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 415 (view)
 
Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/19/2008 8:52:57 PM
Good post Scorpiomover. Many excellent points.
 e.kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 29 (view)
 
depression brought on by Christianity?
Posted: 5/19/2008 7:53:11 PM
Posted by evolving62
Patterns such as the on going bleatings of the Intelligent Design brigade and teaching unsupportable faith based claims to children would be an example of this well thought out statement.


You are confusing "belief" and "faith" it appears. An analogy to explain the difference:

I ask you to recommend a good mechanic in your area and you tell me Joe's Garage can fix anything. On your say-so I go to Joe's with a belief that he can fix my car. He does a great job and even fixes a couple other items that no one else has been able to.
The next time my car breaks down I take it to Joe's with the faith that he can repair it because in past he provided evidence that he is a top notch mechanic. Therefore faith by definition is supportable whereas if it is unsupportable it is only a belief.


Posted by consigliers31
Obviously you and E Kyro are both unaware of what faith is and how faith works at justifying a believer.


Alright, in your own words, enlighten me. I just invite Jesus in my heart, have faith He is there, then can carry on as before all justified?


If a person reads hebrews 11 they will see that the works of faith have nothing to do with the deeds of any law...but have to do with men being obedient to what God as required of them


So just wait until God gives me a clearcut sign of a project to do and for the rest live as I like? No 10 commandments, repentance, restitution, etc. required? Sounds like cheap grace to me but maybe I am misunderstanding what you're trying to communicate here.
 e.kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Advice please
Posted: 5/18/2008 5:26:49 PM
What Fishbill said.

If she doesn't call or start making advances after that, it's time to move on.
 e.kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 24 (view)
 
depression brought on by Christianity?
Posted: 5/18/2008 12:10:20 PM
I agree that religiosity can lead to depression and cause more problems then it solves when it tips over into a religious addiction or hyper-religiosity. It can be prevelant in those who are switching addictions where they attempt to use their faith as a band-aid over a festering psychological wound instead of using spiritual healing to deal with past hurts and unloving behaviours. From a Christian perspective it is often as a result of relying on "by faith alone" rather than on "repent and be baptized".

"By faith alone" is used as a justification for continuing with negative behavior patterns and when life doesn't get any better, depression and other methods of acting out are the result since the believer starts to think they are not good enough to obtain God's blessings.
When one starts to see that it is the dysfunctional behaviors that are the source of the problems and becomes willing to repent from them and become more Christlike, the depression is overcome.
 e.kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 3 (view)
 
forums showing up on profile
Posted: 5/18/2008 11:20:32 AM
Silly me. I was reading all the other Help sections like:

http://www.plentyoffish.com/suggestions.aspx
http://www.plentyoffish.com/faq.aspx

and related spin-off sections.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 2 (view)
 
forums showing up on profile
Posted: 5/18/2008 9:57:10 AM
And yet there are profiles of people who do post on the forums that do not show the last 5 forum posts they made on them.
Are you sure the option isn't available somewhere?
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Einstein theological debate finally comes to an end !
Posted: 5/17/2008 5:35:47 AM

Personally, I could care less what Einstein (or anyone else for that matter) thought about whether there was a deity or not. That might be why it annoys me so to have people continually making this irrelevant appeal to authority in various ways.


This started off as a response to something said in the Youtube presentations by ThunderfOOt in the "Expelled" thread, where he offered his opinion that God or an Intelligent Designer was considered by mainstream scientists to be a psuedo-science. I countered that assertion by listing 50 Nobel Laureates and Founding Fathers whose scientific endeavors led them to conclude that we are not the result of an accident or random chance but rather by a purposeful designer.

I can't help but find it laughable that Evo's often throw the "appeal to authority" charge around and yet they are the ones who rely on it exclusively to assert that their forefathers arose as a result of an electrical storm on pond scum. After all, for most of us it is obvious that humans come from humans, dogs from dogs, flies from flies, etc. Evo's however rely on supposed experts to tell them that this was not always so and actually are often seen around the forums using words, thoughts and ideas from various evolutionary authors, like Dawkins, without crediting their source material.

Where the origins of life are concerned, most if not all knowledge is as a result of various "authorities" since most of us are too busy debating in the forums to actually be studying the issue first hand.
 e.kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Einstein theological debate finally comes to an end !
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:00:52 PM

Posted by AncientMuse
Well folks.... I believe this ridiculous debate over whether or not Einstein believed in a creator has finally come to an end once and for all !

It's about bloody time....


That a fact? Let's take a look:

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. "(The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”

His statement that he believes in Spinoza's God is interesting when one looks at what Spinoza believed:

"How does Natura Naturans do the creating? By necessity, the necessity of God's own nature. Spinoza's God does not make choices, does not really have a will -- which would imply deliberation or alternatives. Spinoza's God is perfect, which means everything is as it must be and cannot be otherwise. God's eternal nature necessitates the things that happen, which happen just as they must and cannot happen otherwise. This all follows from the premise of God's perfection. It is deterministic. Chance or randomness would be an imperfection. Since only God exists, it is also true that God causes everything to happen that does happen."
http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm

This all points out that although Einstein did not believe in a personal God, He did believe that a God had created all of what is created. He causes everything to happen and is therefore an Intelligent designer in Einstein's view.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 68 (view)
 
Evolution: Highly probable?
Posted: 5/15/2008 5:46:37 AM

Who created the creator? If you allow for one, your logic must continue to be applicable ad infinitum. If complexity must beget slightly-less complexity, that analogy must be continued the same way. It's why most ID arguments fall apart: they arbitrarily stop at God.


They stop at the First Cause or Primary Mover which is called by many, God. No ad infinitum required.


The first point above, the endless regression, argues against any deity at all. It offers a "logical" solution which is based on a fallacious assumption, and which doesn't actually provide an answer: the answer is just the question reworded. What creates complexity? Something complex. Gee, thanks, that was helpful.


An endless regression without a First Cause would be an impossibility since it ultimately has to come to a point where something came from nothing.


1) if it's complex it must be designed. The designer must be complex [not necessarily MORE complex, but at least complex enough to be able to design].
2) if the designer is complex, return to 1)


You are implying that complexity and intelligence are the same thing but isn't the reality that two people of comparable biological complexity but one with an IQ of 50 and the other of a 150 have differing abilities to create complexity? Don't we observe in this world that Complexity x Intelligence= Increased Complexity ? And that Complexity- Intelligence= Decreasing Complexity?
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 64 (view)
 
Evolution: Highly probable?
Posted: 5/14/2008 9:08:01 PM

If we explore the possibility that a Designer "created" life.....to its extreme, we could hypothesise that a complex life form, such as homo sapiens may have been designed by some kind of unicellular pond slime.


I just wondered why you stated that a Designer must be more complex then its creation and in what way must that be.
And while you're at it, why must there be an infinite regression of Designers?
What's the rationale behind those musts
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 53 (view)
 
Evolution: Highly probable?
Posted: 5/13/2008 8:46:18 PM

An intelligent designer who/that designs the most sublimely complex things....must itself be more complex than the complex things that it designs.


What's the rationale behind that statement? Technological singularity theory, predicts that as early as 2045AD artificial intelligence will bypass its creators in intelligence. In the same way the possibility exists that a Designer that created life, is less complex then its creation.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 48 (view)
 
Evolution: Highly probable?
Posted: 5/13/2008 3:33:45 PM

How well do you think eyes fossilize?


Well enough to know what type of eyes trilobites had.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 46 (view)
 
Evolution: Highly probable?
Posted: 5/13/2008 7:22:43 AM
Creationism actually refers to a genesis event and as such has not been falsified by evolutionists, since in their own words, they don't deal with it.
The evidence against a young earth falsifies the common reading of Genesis but does nothing for the many that believe in OEC or Gap Theology.
The fossil evidence is interpreted by Evo's to mean common descent but can just as easily be used to support creationism since there are no hard facts that say that fossil A is the ancestor of fossil B. It could just as easily be a different species or a genetic variation. The majority of the theory is based largely on the interpretation of circumstantial evidence.
Intelligent Design is not falsified by any tangible evidence to the contrary since there are no fossil proofs showing an increasing complexity of the eye throughout the ages for any specific species. The supposed falsification is based on nothing more then the fact that the complexity of the eye varies across different species rather than that it became increasingly complex of one species, which would be an actual falsification of irreducible complexity.
 e.kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 32 (view)
 
Evolution: Highly probable?
Posted: 5/11/2008 6:03:32 AM
The path of least resistance.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 4 (view)
 
depression brought on by Christianity?
Posted: 5/10/2008 10:11:01 PM

Do you think my beliefs caused my depression?


What are your beliefs? Do the "personal reasons" you came back home for, indicate that some lifestyle changes are in order?
A couple things I have learned having gone through a similar upbringing, backsliding and eventual return is that "sin" isn't always so black and white as some believe but the realization of what is, is a gradual unfolding of those things that are not beneficial to a deeper relationship with God. What may be a sin for one is fine for another because it doesn't interfere with that relationship.
Some things are a pretty obvious block and if there is still temptations in those areas then instead of trying to curb or control it, give it up to God to take away. Sometimes too there is more focus on the "symptoms" of sin then the sin itself. Alcohol, drugs, overeating, sex, etc. are the symptoms which hide the sins of anger, fear, envy, pride, insecurity, feeling unloved etc. Controlling or quitting the symptoms does nothing for the root of the problem and will result in constant cravings to indulge in the symptoms and condemning oneself for having those thoughts and temptations.

A social life with people one can relate to is important imo, but there is nothing wrong with being selective of those people. If there are no people in the local church, then one can always visit other churches or places where like-minded people go.
 e.kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Evolution: Highly probable?
Posted: 5/10/2008 5:50:17 AM

Once we have trillions of basic, self replicating life forms over millions of generations with billions of DNA 'mistakes',


Where's all the 'mistakes'?
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 63 (view)
 
Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/8/2008 10:25:52 AM

Posted by themadfiddler
If you insist on using the termin0logy, please try to make an effort to understand what it means.


I admit that I am still learning the definitions of the various fallacies used in debate and as such was torn between the "strawman", "red herring" and "irrelevant conclusion" fallacies. Perhaps "irrelevant conclusion" would be closer to the truth in this case since it is irrelevant whether the alien seeders of earth's life forms were evolved or intelligently designed themselves. We're only concerned with how life on Earth came about.


Perhaps your education was lax as regards the Brother's Grimm in my last reference as well...I'm sure many others here got it.


Perhaps your education is lax as regards the minimal nutritional value in straw men. Trolls need "billygoats" for adequate substance.


Posted by rockondon
Of course he admits to the possibility, he's a scientist. Scientists always admit to possibilities, even ones they think are unlikely. That kind of humility helps you find the truth. If his beliefs were sacrosanct, he wouldn't be a very good scientist.


And finding the truth of course requires figuring out ways to test the hypotheses to determine the validity of a logical possibility. A current lack of testing mechanisms does not negate the hypotheses nor relegate it to a psuedo-science.

Wow, only 4 pages to get it sorted out that Dawkins admits to the logical possibility of ID, but doesn't believe in it until proper tests have been done to determine its validity.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 32 (view)
 
Why the indifference?
Posted: 5/8/2008 7:56:05 AM
Many translations use the "love less" interpretation:

Luk 14:26

(CEV) You cannot be my disciple, unless you love me more than you love your father and mother, your wife and children, and your brothers and sisters. You cannot come with me unless you love me more than you love your own life.

(GNB) "Those who come to me cannot be my disciples unless they love me more than they love father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and themselves as well.

(NLV)26 "If any man comes to Me and does not have much more love for Me than for his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be My follower.

(The Message)"Anyone who comes to me but refuses to let go of father, mother, spouse, children, brothers, sisters—yes, even one's own self!—can't be my disciple.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 59 (view)
 
Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/7/2008 10:00:10 PM
Only if you, like Stein, engage in dishonest "quote mining" and take Dawkins out of context and of course ignore the entire corpus of the man's existing work and stated beliefs could you draw such an idiotic - hopelessly idiotic - conclusion. Also you would have to have ignored reading what the man himself said as was quoted in post 7 of this very thread...and I quote:


Dawkins isn't on my top 10 authors list so what he says in his works is irrelevant. He is documented in more then one interview that an alien seeding is a logical possibility, therefore I disagree that I am taking him out of context. If he doesn't think it is a logical possibility, then he needs to stop mentioning it if he doesn't want people to think it is what he actually thinks. Definite signs of thinking too highly of himself if he assumes everyone will understand the correct context. Either that or you are putting words in his mouth.

As to the bolded and quoted text from his letter, it was a straw man when he wrote it and both times you posted it as I explained in msg#22. Whether or not the aliens had evolution on their planet is immaterial in respect to the origins of life on Earth. You and Dawkins are just too paranoid that ID'ers are trying to bring God into the picture.


Now don't you have a bridge to go hide under to wait for some billygoats?


Billygoats would be a little more exciting then these strawmen you keep throwing around, so here's hoping.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 57 (view)
 
Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/7/2008 9:16:12 PM
Lol, there was no manipulation involved other then money. According to Dawkins, the letter received by Professor Paul Meyers was: "We are in production of the documentary film Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion... we are interested in asking you questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between evolution, creationism, and the intelligent design movement."
The name of the movie was changed but that isn't uncommon and in fact has been done by Dawkins himself.

I like what the UK Register had to say about the fiasco in spite of being pro-evo:



Here is a quick media studies lesson: like it or not, journalists don't have to tell you the full scope of an article or documentary they are working on, and will sometimes try to keep the full picture from you if they think you might be hostile to the story you are trying to tell. It might be a little bit naughty, but it happens all the time, even here at El Reg. You're shocked, we know.

Misrepresentation is another thing entirely. But we suspect Dawkins and his mates are upset because their participation in the film makes them look a little foolish. Dawkins, of course, has made programmes himself in which his "opponents" don't come off looking quite so hot, so perhaps this is a object lesson in karma, eh? (Not that this would exist in a completely random Universe)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/28/fundy_dupes/



Posted by rockondon
As for the suggestion that Dawkins believes in ID - its almost shameless that people are foolish enough to believe such a thing. It'd be like me quote mining the pope to make him appear as an atheist, then deluding myself into believing it. If your belief system is so inherently false that you have to rely on such absurd fallacies to support it, you should change your belief system. I can't imagine a god that would expect his/her followers to lie about the world s/he created.


You're in denial rockondon. Just because your hero said that Intelligent Designers...err aliens, may have brought life to Earth, does not mean the world is coming to an end. Just so there is no doubt about what Herr Dawkins said, here is the transcript from the interview:



<div class='quote'>Moderator Ben Stein asks Dawkins how life began:

DAWKINS:Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
BEN STEIN:And what was that?
DAWKINS:It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
BEN STEIN:Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS:I told you, we don't know
...
BEN STEIN:What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution.
DAWKINS:Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Not only does he admit to the possibility, but even goes on to suggest where we might find the evidence. I wonder if he is a "closet" creationist.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Why the indifference?
Posted: 5/7/2008 7:39:53 PM
Choose your own conception of God then. That works for a lot of people I know.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 51 (view)
 
Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/7/2008 6:19:11 AM

. There is nothing but evidence that everything is always made of simpler things, until you come to the beginning where it's as simple as it can get.


I agree with you. It all comes down to a singularity of intelligence from which all else flows.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Believing in the Bible
Posted: 5/7/2008 6:05:40 AM

It's early days yet. I'm confident the time will come, when reason dictates the psychological abuse some of these kids are confronted with, will be legislated against.
After all, how long ago was it acceptable for parents or teachers to give a child a damn good smack on the backside? That has changed well within my lifetime and the time is drawing near when the pushers of childhood ignorance will have a higher power than their imaginary friend to answer to.


That however is a "faith-based" conclusion that is in contradiction to quite a few studies that have been done on adolescents-crime-religion connections. It is also in contradiction to statistics relating to atheism-suicide-drug/alcohol abuse etc.
I do believe you are correct that the pushers of the atheistic religion will someday successfully legislate their tyranny on the masses, as prophesied in the bible, but the result will be that the "love of many will grow cold and lawlessness will increase", not the Utopia that you believe in spite of the statistics to the contrary.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 26 (view)
 
Why the indifference?
Posted: 5/6/2008 8:21:56 PM

Posted by whitegold765
If it was to happen I'd be forced to abandon my rational thought, taking the Creationist views of justification of inaccuracies, and their massive reaching for interpretative differences. I'd have trouble reconciling the God of the Old Testament (Jealousy, Spite, Death, War, Genocide) with the God of the New Testament (Forgiveness, Love, Sacrifice) but would have to swallow the "Jesus made a new covenant" line.


God doesn't force you to take on or do anything you don't want to. One does tend to become more open-minded to hearing or learning His version of events however. Asking Him will often result in the answers being given when the convert is willing to listen with humbleness. Along with answers comes a greater clarity to see reality as it really is rather then what society or the world says it is.


My brain would struggle (but ultimately succeed) to justify the barbarity of books like Numbers along with the inconsistency and outright evil of Genesis, and would somehow justify that it HAD to be done so weird and unfairly.


When you come to realize how loving of a God He really is, then even if the answer isn't given immediately, there will come the realization and faith that whatever the reason was, it was done for a good reason.


I would have to hate my sister, because she's gay and an abomination. I would have to hate my mother, because she's an adulterer and an abomination. I could probably get away with not killing them, because these days you really can't do that, but I would know they deserved it and certainly couldn't have any kind of relationship.


You would hopefully come to realize that those attitudes have nothing to with the type of love Jesus was wanting for us to have towards each other. The more lost one is, the greater both His compassion and love is for that one.
It's difficult to see the truth when one is stuck in the religiousity mindset, I had trouble overcoming it myself but a good friend kept mentioning that isn't so much that God is in the business of making bad people good, as He is in making sick people healthy. That's why the Gospels are so focused on the healings Jesus performed. But of course until one acknowledges they are sick, they will not see their need of a physician and that blindness causes indifference for both believers and non-believers.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 44 (view)
 
Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/6/2008 1:29:29 PM

All this shows is that lawyers lie. Big supprise there.

It states the forensic scientists lie too. Just as some of us suspected.

You're right it doesn't say the science was wrong....just fraudulent, exaggerated and tainted. If science is not valid in the courtrooms, then it follows it isn't valid for anything else either up to and including court cases involving whether it should be taught in schools.

I like this video's take on this whole Dawkins, Evolution and ID affair. The guy makes some excellent points.
http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/show/2008/05/01/darwins-intelligent-design/
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Why the indifference?
Posted: 5/5/2008 10:52:30 AM

In all honesty. We do not need a god to tell us what is right and what is wrong.


That begs the question of whose set of morals are right or wrong then. The only fair thing would be that every man would be a law unto himself. Survival of the fittest sort of thing.

Is that what you're proposing?
 e.kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 154 (view)
 
Is there a god?
Posted: 5/5/2008 6:43:37 AM

Good old argument from ignorance again.


The argument from ignorance is practiced from the atheists side even more so. Religions and gods are about inward realities rather then the outward manifestations the non-believers are looking for. If the atheist is unwilling to accept and follow the way of life proscribed by a particular deity then they will never experience the reality of that god and thereby can never argue from any place other then ignorance.

The deity that has the greater reality can be determined from which one can affect the greatest positive change in the life of an individual follower. If followers of Odin become alcoholic gluttons, then one would have to question the rationale of following him and since I like pasta I would feel like a cannibal if I was a follower of the FSM, although I guess it could be like a eucharist.

The fact that the Abrahamic religions have so many followers and has outlasted all the other deities, is a strong indication as to which one has the greatest impact on the individual believer.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Why the indifference?
Posted: 5/4/2008 8:43:49 PM
Delete....why bother.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 146 (view)
 
Is there a god?
Posted: 5/4/2008 8:20:23 PM
Haven't had any disciples of Odin knocking on my door before to tell me about his forgiveness and grace so that tells me he isn't too good at motivating his followers to spread the word.
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Why the indifference?
Posted: 5/4/2008 8:02:34 PM
There is a huge difference between believing in a god and needing a god. Believing there is a god is a simple intellectual exercise similar to choosing to believe that there are black holes in space. Needing God however will come at a specific point in one's life where the business end of a 12 guage is looking like it has interesting possibilities and you're hoping the invisible sky fairy you've heard so much about can actually get you out of the hole you're in. Then when that prayer is answered and you realize that you need the sky fairy to keep you from falling back into that hole, you are motivated to hold onto Him and belief starts to turn into faith that He will do so when asked. That's when you lose the indifference.
 
Show ALL Forums