Why did Jesus die for our sins?

March 12, 2006

amino acids

Sure, and with probabilities like that, I'll be a zillionare since I'll win every single lottery draw if the world of probabilities that you are portraying were true.

And to entertain this silly idea for a nano second, where did amino acids come from?

March 12, 2006

And where did the common ancestor come from?

Who says we all came from the same puddle of sperm? Its only a belief not a fact.

To suggest everything that exists is attributable to random chance is just as absurd as anyone winning the lottery every single week. The probability is irrational. An intelligent creator had to create everything that is around.

Probability doesnt differentiate between rational and irrational. If you consider the time scale involved in the development of the universe, you could win lottery regularly if the period was over several billion years.

March 12, 2006

And where did the common ancestor come from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

As time goes on, more complex organisms emerge. How can this be explained except for evolution?

Here is a timeline of the evolution of life on earth. It is based on the scientific method, using the best minds and technology available, with reseachers at prominent universities. If you disagree with anything about the timeline, any scientist. even you, can challenge it by writting a scientific paper and submitting it for peer review. Evolution so far has not received any significant challenge.

Creationisms was made up and written by our ancient ancestors who didn't know what they were taking about. The idea that pandimensional uber being with eyes everwhere decided to one day poofed the universe into existance is...rather unscientific.

To suggest everything that exists is attributable to random chance is just as absurd as anyone winning the lottery every single week. The probability is irrational. An intelligent creator had to create everything that is around.

Haven't you been paying attention to the whole intelligent design debate? ID lost. It is well known that random chance exists, it is less certain that God does. Science does NOT suggesting "everything" is due to random chance. For example, natural selection is a NON-RANDOM, yet mindless, blind, and an exploding-appendix creating, process.

If a everything must be created by something intelligent, then who created God (who surely must be part of the "everything" you are referring to)?

March 12, 2006

Here is a timeline of the evolution of life on earth. It is based on the scientific method, using the best minds and technology available, with reseachers at prominent universities. If you disagree with anything about the timeline, any scientist. even you, can challenge it by writting a scientific paper and submitting it for peer review. Evolution so far has not received any significant challenge.

And here is your wikipedia explanation on the origin of life:

Research into the origin of life is a limited field of research despite its profound impact on biology and human understanding of the natural world. Progress in this field is generally slow and sporadic, though it still draws the attention of many due to the gravity of the question being investigated. A few facts give insight into the conditions in which life may have emerged, but the mechanisms by which non-life became life are still elusive.

There's no need for me, (or anyone else for that matter), to write a scientific paper and submitting to any peer when they openly admit, without hesitation, that even THEY don't know what in the world they're talking about!

If a everything must be created by something intelligent, then who created God (who surely must be part of the "everything" you are referring to)?

This is one of the great mysteries that we can't answer, and our limited minds can't comprehend.

BUT, I promise you, when it's time for you to pass from this life to the next, you will find out!

March 12, 2006

I have only read one of the posts,theres too many anyway.Jesus gave himself up for the world because if he didnt there would not be any good left in the world.And murders and molesters etc. wont go to heaven unless they are genuinly sorry and repent, otherwise they will go to hell because they have turned their backs on god and went the path of satan. on the second coming of jesus he will judge the living and the dead,satan will be destroyed and a new earth free from sin will be made.for sin is satan and a sin is an offence to god. you may be confused about things, but some things we are not able to understand while we are in this life, but all will be explained in when we pass on.So please follow God, i may not know you but you will pay if you dont.Read the bible it will help.

March 13, 2006

And here is your wikipedia explanation on the origin of life:

Research into the origin of life is a limited field of research despite its profound impact on biology and human understanding of the natural world. Progress in this field is generally slow and sporadic, though it still draws the attention of many due to the gravity of the question being investigated. A few facts give insight into the conditions in which life may have emerged, but the mechanisms by which non-life became life are still elusive.

There's no need for me, (or anyone else for that matter), to write a scientific paper and submitting to any peer when they openly admit, without hesitation, that even THEY don't know what in the world they're talking about!

This is one of the great mysteries that we can't answer, and our limited minds can't comprehend.

BUT, I promise you, when it's time for you to pass from this life to the next, you will find out!

It is true that work on the origins of life on this planet is in its infancy. That doesn't mean that they don't know what they are talking about, though. To say that because there is much that we don't know means that we are completely ignorant is fallacious.

We have created self-replicating RNA in a laboratory. It mutates as it replicates, so it is "life". Life on Earth may or may not have begun this way, but such experiments show that as one viable possiblility. And why wouldn't someone admit that they don't understand something? it isn't a crime, or even a bad thing. Science itself is always tentative, an open to further research and evidence. That's what makes it so reliable.

As I have mentioned before, we don't understand gravity. Why is there gravity? What causes gravity? How come mass and gravity aren't necessarily axiomatic--meaning something small can have more gravity than something huge? Why does gravity behave one way for small objects and another for large ones?

We don't know any of that, but we have split the atom, can capture neutrinos, and lots, lots more. But the most fundamental aspects of gravity elude us so far. That doesn't mean that they always will, of course. We learn more every day.

That said, the fact that we don't understand gravity doesn't preclude anyone from believing in it. That also doen't preclude us from operating in a world with gravity very, very well.

Lastly, the origins of life is a seprate field from evolution. Evolution is what happens after life is already here. It is true that they are related fields, but it is not necessary to know how life began to understand what has happened since it did begin. "Species change over time." That is a fact. You can see it for yourself. We have a rock-solid theory that explains how that works, and how those changes accumulate over time.

It is certainly possible that all of this is being directed by a God or Gods, but there is no test for that, so such an assertion is not science.

Science cannot address what gives a person's life meaning, and it never will be able to. The mechanics of religion seem to answer those questions nicely for a great many people, and whatever answers they arrive at are in large part unassailable. There are many who cannot defend their perspective very well--Moose and Thrawn are not among them--but at the same time they may not feel the need to. Since I am not a spiritual person I cannot comment on that.

TO get back to the thread at hand, and what i am curious about, is why God would have to send his Son as a sacrifice? I mean, what scripture points to this necessity? Why not just forgive everyone out of hand? And letting people who are objectively evil (i.e. Dahmer) into Heaven just because they believe seems unjust to me. Where is this explained?

I am actually curious about these answers, and while I am sure that I will have still more questions from those answers, but from here on out I will assume that this is actually what is going on. Is that fair? Most of the Christians I know are Christians in name only, and know little or nothing about the Bible. In fact, I know more than they do. SO I would value any input you'd be kind enough to give me.

March 13, 2006

And where did the common ancestor come from?

Humans can be traced to a monkey ancestor in Africa, so that throws out the "Adam and Eve" theory. ape - caveman - modern man with a lot of transitions in between.

Science cannot address what gives a person's life meaning, and it never will be able to. The mechanics of religion seem to answer those questions nicely for a great many people,

I think philosophy does a much better job addressing life's meaning (or for some philosophers, the lack of it). The difference is that philosophy doesn't promise an afterlife, which people find hard to take in.

March 13, 2006

I think philosophy does a much better job addressing life's meaning (or for some philosophers, the lack of it). The difference is that philosophy doesn't promise an afterlife, which people find hard to take in.

Ditto. Sadly, fewer people read philosophy than read newspapers--and more people watch Wheel of Fortune than both put together.

March 13, 2006

TO get back to the thread at hand, and what i am curious about, is why God would have to send his Son as a sacrifice? I mean, what scripture points to this necessity? Why not just forgive everyone out of hand? And letting people who are objectively evil (i.e. Dahmer) into Heaven just because they believe seems unjust to me. Where is this explained?

God gave us free will.

During the times of the Old Testament, in order to have a relationship with Him, He commanded sacrifices, and a set of rules to follow to the letter.

God is all knowing. So He knew that soon there would be a time where it would be literally impossible to follow His commandments to the letter, and to offer sacrifices.

The only answer was to send His Son, to pay for our sins, past present and future. So that any of us, (using our free will), who believe on Him will be able to have that relationship with God.

As far as these evil people who, "claim", to believe in Christ, only God can see their heart. If they truely did confess, and accept the free gift from God, they will not be denied eternal life. Now, the quality of that eternal life is still up for debate.

How can all of this be? Why would God give, EVERYONE, a chance to reconcile with Him?

Have you ever wanted a relationship with someone that you knew you could never have? What would it be like, if you forced this person into a relationship against their own will? Do you think that this person would ever love you in the capacity you so craved?

God desires us to love Him willingly. This is why He gave us this opportunity to accept His free gift. Do so with the right heart attitude, and He will grant you all that is good, all the joy, peace, longsuffering, patience.....and even wealth.

And most importantly......peace.

March 13, 2006

God gave us free will.

But what was the point if it is limited free will w/ strings attached? "If you don't do xyz or do abc or fg but not k etc...then I will punish you." He only gave animals, not humans, free will.

God desires us to love Him willingly. This is why He gave us this opportunity to accept His free gift. Do so with the right heart attitude, and He will grant you all that is good, all the joy, peace, longsuffering, patience.....and even wealth.

That side of the coin sounds so sweet and loving, but how could anyone with a heart and a conscience, willingly "accept" someone who if you don't accept, has the brutality to condemn you to hell for all eternity? I think you have to have an evil streak to worship such evilness...I'm trying to "get" that dark side of him. What is your view about that? That's like a Jeffrey Dalmer who says "worship me so I don't eat you or burn you. If you worship me, I will be the nicest person and reward you for it with wealth, joy and peace." (how sweet right?) Yet for every 1 he rewards, he burns 10. I'm not about to devote my life trying to gain his favor. What if God is really the devil, created religion to cause hatred, wars and division among people and at the end of the day everyone will burn in hell? It's not like he's going to say "hey, I'm really the devil, but still follow what I say. You can trust me." Where's God you might wonder? Either held captive or we don't know yet.

Back to the Jesus dying for our sins...how could God if he is loving, send his son to be killed so gruesomely? Would you want that on your own son? I'm trying to understand his ways of thinking. When he sent Abraham to kill his only son, he stopped him before the deed, he was only testing him and knew how horrible it is, so why does he turn around and do it to his own son?

March 13, 2006

I'll take ur word he wasn't a Christian. but what about the Christians who killed all the Native American Indians, Bosnians, Algerians, Vietnamese, Rwandans....the Crusaders...the list goes on as you know. So instead of putting a face to it, just in general to simplify things as I've tried, going down to the basics - one who kills going to heaven, one who doesn't going to hell...why is this justified. I am ok with an elementary explanation...i can't dumb down my question any further

Sorry I have been gone so long, but I have been sick, and had alot going on.

as for your question.

but what about the Christians who....

A Christian is told not to kill, and to turn the other cheek., so therefore the people who committed the murders, you speak of were in fact NOT Christian.

Jesus repeatedly speaks of people who claim to represent him coming in the future, who in fact are not Christians at all.

I would liken the arguement to say the KKK.

according to the arguement, that many people make about those alleged christian groups above.

the KKK was comprosed, of White men, so therefore, all white men are members of the klan?

Charletan, impostor, fake, those are words I would use to describe both groups above.

I mean look at the profiling done during ww2, and after 911, were all japanese decended people, responcible for pear harbor?, or all arab decent, responcible for the world trade center? or was it specific groups of individuals(or nations)?

March 13, 2006

It is true that work on the origins of life on this planet is in its infancy. That doesn't mean that they don't know what they are talking about, though. To say that because there is much that we don't know means that we are completely ignorant is fallacious.

Alright how about an extremely inflated view of the miniscule about of knowledge, and the interpretation of that knowledge.

We have created self-replicating RNA in a laboratory. It mutates as it replicates, so it is "life".

Weren't you debating earlier saying that mankinds technology was too limited to do such things?

Again, lack of science education rears its ugly head. There is no such thing as a made-made virus. The ability to manufacture a virus is far, far beyond our technological level at this point.

man does manipulate viruses, maby not constructing one from the ground up, but subverting it.

Life on Earth may or may not have begun this way, but such experiments show that as one viable possiblility.

while I dont nessesarily agree with moose or admiral, in their doctrinal views, or methods, and I admit, the post was too long to fully read after being away for so long, I am under the impression, that the point they are attempting to make with you is that. The gathering and collection, of "evidence" does not in of itself constitute fact. I have heard many scientist who deride creation science, as unscientific, in that it comes from the basis of attempting to prove the bible as true, using the scientific method. And that, since the creationist comes in with the belief that the bible is true, that it somehow influences their conclusions. It is little different, than a so called "true" scientist, who has either been indoctrinated(, and yes much of science is doctrine) with a preconcieved theory, or notion, as to the outcome, or a praticular theory or hypothesis, that they are attempting to themselves prove. Einsteins theories went against neutonian physics, and many of Hawkings theories go against einsteins. And at the times they were presented, once enough SELECTIVE, and subjective evidence was gathered, to support or disprove their respective hypothesese they were presumed "fact", until the next big theory came along. I read someone posting about quantom physics in an earlier post, and I have heard Michio Kaku, and many other "respected" physicist, refer to string theory, as philosophy. See I personally disagree with both creation science, as well as traditional, in that they are based on philosophies. And try as you might to demonstrate, the "wonderful benefits of science" I look at both sides of the scale, and see that it has caused just as much, harm, if not more than good. pollution, anyone? Nukes. Science has all these questions, and makes attempts at anwsers, but rarely do you ever see the question should I anwsered with restraint. you speak of the benefit, of geneticly modified corn, yet dismiss how that very same corn, has destroyed, many natural ecosystems, by being leaked out. I don't recall the exact specifics, but I remember a news article where modified corn was "accidentaly" dropped out in nature(nature being a corn farmers field in mexico if i recall) where it proceded to interbreed at an alarming rate with the pure breeds pf corn, that had been cultivated over thousands of years, thus destroying the line. now if the combination, had produced a benefit, "scientist" would call it "evolution", however, it did not, and it was not evolution, but rather selective breeding.

And why wouldn't someone admit that they don't understand something? it isn't a crime, or even a bad thing. Science itself is always tentative, an open to further research and evidence.

tentative A adjective

1 probationary, provisional, provisionary, tentative

under terms not final or fully worked out or agreed upon; "probationary employees"; "a provisional government"; "just a tentative schedule"

2 doubtful, tentative

unsettled in mind or opinion; "drew a few tentative conclusions"

the definition doesnt quite line up with your following statement

That's what makes it so reliable.

Reliable is hardly a word that could be considered synonomous with "tenative"

science proclaims itself to possess great knowledge, yet it in fact has little wisdom.

As I have mentioned before, we don't understand gravity. Why is there gravity? What causes gravity? How come mass and gravity aren't necessarily axiomatic--meaning something small can have more gravity than something huge? Why does gravity behave one way for small objects and another for large ones?

We don't know any of that,

This sort of arguement reminds me of how children try and throw blame and attention away from themselves, onto another sibling by pointing out faults, and then proclaiming all their benefits

but we have split the atom, can capture neutrinos, and lots, lots more. But the most fundamental aspects of gravity elude us so far. That doesn't mean that they always will, of course. We learn more every day.

observe more sure, learn might be stretching it, or at the least an interpretation of your observation.

That said, the fact that we don't understand gravity doesn't preclude anyone from believing in it. That also doen't preclude us from operating in a world with gravity very, very well.

though no where near as well as the very creatures God created to operate within it. our operations are mostly mimicry, of animals, and their functions.

Lastly, the origins of life is a seprate field from evolution. Evolution is what happens after life is already here. It is true that they are related fields, but it is not necessary to know how life began to understand what has happened since it did begin. "Species change over time." That is a fact. You can see it for yourself. We have a rock-solid theory that explains how that works, and how those changes accumulate over time.

that is another issue I personally have with evolutionist, is they divorce themselves from the origin of life completely. the problem is if they really were in fact seeking the truth, and not merely attempting to "prove" that evolution were true, then they would realize that origins are absolutely vital to their arguement, (which they may in fact recognize, and therefore that might be an explanation as to their aversion to the origin of life itself) The whole of evolution is based on the presumption of an existing system, and the variables functioning within that system. In a life origin "theory" a single "life like, spark" is alone, and singular, and therefore does not fit within any evolutionary model (at least that I have heard of) and therefore is omitted, and dismissed by most , even though it is the most vital question, if their belief had any basis in fact, rather than conjecture.

It is certainly possible that all of this is being directed by a God or Gods, but there is no test for that, so such an assertion is not science.

and the reason their is no test, is the prevailing presumption that God is not real, based on a distain for religion. since if science were truely "open minded" then it would not eliminate the possibility of God, without its so called "holy grail" evidence

Science cannot address what gives a person's life meaning, and it never will be able to. The mechanics of religion seem to answer those questions nicely for a great many people, and whatever answers they arrive at are in large part unassailable. There are many who cannot defend their perspective very well--Moose and Thrawn are not among them--but at the same time they may not feel the need to. Since I am not a spiritual person I cannot comment on that.

Ah but you are Spiritual, you seek after what you love, and you obviously love science. (and no I am not following the traditional definition of spiritual) look at the function. you see us as "foolish" Christians, for believing the bible, and how it gives us purpose and meaning, but look at what it is that provides you with the very same thing, only an empty vacuous, imitation of it. In that it will never sustain you, in that you will never be able to aquire all the anwsers, in that once a new "anwser" is provided, all previous beliefs, must be re examined, and re interpreted. so as to "fit" that world view. It is not that far removed from a "fictional" story, and universe. where the rules and systems are assumed defined, until the writers choose to redefine the nature of that system.

TO get back to the thread at hand, and what i am curious about, is why God would have to send his Son as a sacrifice? I mean, what scripture points to this necessity? Why not just forgive everyone out of hand? And letting people who are objectively evil (i.e. Dahmer) into Heaven just because they believe seems unjust to me. Where is this explained?

I will have to get back to you about specific scriptural verses. But I would like to suggest, that in the mean time. You think about where you aquired your notions of what constitutes entrance into heaven or hell.

I say this because I used to believe many things that you do. And I had somewhere Aquired the notion of how heaven and hell were operated. I assume from popular concepts. But My old belief, before I became a Christian, was that Heaven and hell Didn't really matter, that much, because I was basically a good person, and I believed that most people were basically Good. I guess it was out of sight out of mind. I presumed (incorrectly) that heaven was just the final destiantion of everyone who didn't commit some horrific crime.

But see that was the problem My entire belief system was based on hearsay, and my own minds attempt to reconcile differing notions with what I did know. (or thought I knew) I was dumbfounded, and honestly irritated, at how what I had assumed my whole life ,about God, and heaven and hell, had little basis in the bible. (and I wont even get into my research into other religions, which I now realize are in fact false, and therefore satanic, {opposing God})

I have seen several people post notions about how they dont "deserve" hell, But the problem is , that they assume thats how things work, the bible clearly shows it isn't.

I guess you could liken it to Santa Clause, many people propagate that myth, because "everyone else does it" When I researched it myself after beginning to believe that Christianity was true, and that their were reasons for everything that it says. I was disturbed to find the pagan origin, of santa, the tree, mistletoe, etc. and how they bastardized the truth of the Bible. I then Told my daughter that santa was made up, along with the easter (Ishtar) bunny, and tooth farie. I told her this because I believe the Bible, and I did not want to diminish from it, by basically lying to my child about a bunch of pagan abominations, because it was what everyone else does.

I am actually curious about these answers, and while I am sure that I will have still more questions from those answers, but from here on out I will assume that this is actually what is going on. Is that fair? Most of the Christians I know are Christians in name only, and know little or nothing about the Bible. In fact, I know more than they do. SO I would value any input you'd be kind enough to give me.

I assume you were, christian, at one time? and decided you didnt believe it ? I dont know about you, but when I began to research itmyself, it was with the intent of proving how the scriptures had been corrupted over time (another NOTION that I had in my Ignorance of what the bible actualy said.)

I suggest to you to try what I ended up doing.

When I began to believe that parts of the bible were completely true, I had the thought to procede to presume that all of it were true, and to seek out demonstrating how a particular verse I had in the past thought was corrupted was actually true.

For example I used to be a big proponent, of womens Lib, and Equality. A notion I no longer Believe.

Now before You flame me, look at the function of womens lib and equality, and what the Bible says about the roles of men and women.

I am not saying women are not just as valuable, to God, I am saying the Equality, and womens lib movements, are subversive to the roles God has assigned us. look at military chain of command. and ABSOLUTELY look at the bible for yourself, if you don't believe me.

I need to get some sleep, so I will continue this later.

March 13, 2006

Back to the Jesus dying for our sins...how could God if he is loving, send his son to be killed so gruesomely? Would you want that on your own son? I'm trying to understand his ways of thinking. When he sent Abraham to kill his only son, he stopped him before the deed, he was only testing him and knew how horrible it is, so why does he turn around and do it to his own son?

The idea is that Jesus stood proxy to the sinner on the cross, and the sinner is judged for their sins on that cross. So, picturing Jesus on the cross, the image of Jesus changes actually to your own image and back to His again if that offers any conceptual clarity. Every sin that you have committed is judged on that cross when this happens.

This was planned from the beginning. The animal sacrifices instituted in Leviticus and throughout the OT indicates that without the shedding of blood there is no atonement or reconciliation for sin. So, you need to understand the background in the Old Testament, the failure of the Israelites to keep the law and constant need of sacrifices to account for their failure, to fully appreciate all of this. This is not something that was pulled out of a hat as may be portrayed here. This is part of over 4000 BC of history with God's dealings with Israel.

Abraham's son Isaac was a type of Christ, but Isaac was not Christ. Nowhere in the Bible is Human Sacrifice condoned, it is prohibited. There were religions around Israel that sacrificied their children to false gods, like molech, and when Israel apostasied into those religions, they were punished for it. Only Jesus Christ was sacrificed in the Bible, as atonement for sins, to reconcile humanity back to God. Animals were sacrificied prior to that to signfiy a 'type' of Christ, and to provide insights into the true Lamb of God.

March 13, 2006

Alright how about an extremely inflated view of the miniscule about of knowledge, and the interpretation of that knowledge.

I don't inderstand your point here.

Weren't you debating earlier saying that mankinds technology was too limited to do such things?

No. RNA is not a virus. We cannot create viri in the lab.

man does manipulate viruses, maby not constructing one from the ground up, but subverting it.

Really? That is news to me. Do you have a website that explains how this is done, or features a list of viruses that have been "subverted"? I am very curious, as I love to read about that stuff. But I have never heard of that.

while I dont nessesarily agree with moose or admiral, in their doctrinal views, or methods, and I admit, the post was too long to fully read after being away for so long, I am under the impression, that the point they are attempting to make with you is that. The gathering and collection, of "evidence" does not in of itself constitute fact.

Actually, yes it does. We can see species change over time. That is a fact. All known data, from argon in our atmosphere to potassium isochron dating shows that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. When theamount of evidence for something becomes so overwhelming that it would be silly to deny it, such things become facts.

I have heard many scientist who deride creation science, as unscientific, in that it comes from the basis of attempting to prove the bible as true, using the scientific method. And that, since the creationist comes in with the belief that the bible is true, that it somehow influences their conclusions. It is little different, than a so called "true" scientist, who has either been indoctrinated(, and yes much of science is doctrine) with a preconcieved theory, or notion, as to the outcome, or a praticular theory or hypothesis, that they are attempting to themselves prove.

They do not use the scientific method at all, ever. It's impossible. Please point me to an experiment that canshow God doing something, and if the results do not come out as expected would falsify God's existence.

Einsteins theories went against neutonian physics, and many of Hawkings theories go against einsteins. And at the times they were presented, once enough SELECTIVE, and subjective evidence was gathered, to support or disprove their respective hypothesese they were presumed "fact", until the next big theory came along. I read someone posting about quantom physics in an earlier post, and I have heard Michio Kaku, and many other "respected" physicist, refer to string theory, as philosophy.

Yep. And when Einstein published his Theory of Relativity, every other physicist on the planet checked his math to try to prove him wrong. When they couldn't, his ideas became accepted. You see, relativity is real, Einstein's theory explains it. I amnot aware of any work hawking has done that challenges Einstein's work on relativity, but I haven't read everything hes written. It is certainly possible. And yes, most scientists refer to string theory as a religious position, as there is no evidence for it. There is some interesting math, but that's about it.

See I personally disagree with both creation science, as well as traditional, in that they are based on philosophies. And try as you might to demonstrate, the "wonderful benefits of science" I look at both sides of the scale, and see that it has caused just as much, harm, if not more than good. pollution, anyone? Nukes. Science has all these questions, and makes attempts at anwsers, but rarely do you ever see the question should I anwsered with restraint. you speak of the benefit, of geneticly modified corn, yet dismiss how that very same corn, has destroyed, many natural ecosystems, by being leaked out.

Untrue. Genetically modified corn is sterile, and cannot reproduce, to prevent just such an eventuality. HUmans do knock wild plants down to grow corn, though. I would, too, if I were hungry.

Yes, pollution is a problem, but becoming less of one almost daily. The planet is less polluted now than it was fifteen years ago. Science did that. Nuclear weapons, while frightening, may have actually prevented a war the scale of which we have never--thankfully--seen. It seems that you suggest that because the things man does have an impact on his enviropnment makes them bad, and I disagree. In fact, slash/burn agriculture is far more damaging than modern farming techniques--techniques developed by science.

I don't recall the exact specifics, but I remember a news article where modified corn was "accidentaly" dropped out in nature(nature being a corn farmers field in mexico if i recall) where it proceded to interbreed at an alarming rate with the pure breeds pf corn, that had been cultivated over thousands of years, thus destroying the line. now if the combination, had produced a benefit, "scientist" would call it "evolution", however, it did not, and it was not evolution, but rather selective breeding.

If the corn could do that (which it can't), it would be a huge benefit to the people living there. The corn is modified to emit a chemical that kills parasites, thereby increassing the amount of food produced per acre. That's it. We have been using this corn since the 50's, and of course imporved it since then.

tentative A adjective
1 probationary, provisional, provisionary, tentative
under terms not final or fully worked out or agreed upon; "probationary employees"; "a provisional government"; "just a tentative schedule"
2 doubtful, tentative
unsettled in mind or opinion; "drew a few tentative conclusions"
the definition doesnt quite line up with your following statement
Reliable is hardly a word that could be considered synonomous with "tenative"
science proclaims itself to possess great knowledge, yet it in fact has little wisdom.

Science is a tool. Yes, men can use it unwisely. And yes, there is much in science that is hotly debated--which is the whole point of science inthe first place. There is no argument about whether evolution is a fact, or whether or not quarks exist, or many, many other things. Now, how all these things work is another matter. Science is tentative because it is not dogmatic. While you may see that asa weakness, it is actually a strength.

This sort of arguement reminds me of how children try and throw blame and attention away from themselves, onto another sibling by pointing out faults, and then proclaiming all their benefits
observe more sure, learn might be stretching it, or at the least an interpretation of your observation.

I am not sure what you are saying here.

though no where near as well as the very creatures God created to operate within it. our operations are mostly mimicry, of animals, and their functions.

We do many things lots better than the animals we are mimicing, in the cases where that is so. We can fly faster than any bird (and leave the Earth's atmosphere), we can sail completely under the polar ice cap, etc. We can also understand the world around us and manipulate it like no other animal on Earth. Human beings are amazing creatures.

that is another issue I personally have with evolutionist, is they divorce themselves from the origin of life completely.

That is like saying you hate physicists because they divorce themselves from geology completely. The study of origins is a speperate field from the study of evolution--though they are closely related.

the problem is if they really were in fact seeking the truth, and not merely attempting to "prove" that evolution were true, then they would realize that origins are absolutely vital to their arguement, (which they may in fact recognize, and therefore that might be an explanation as to their aversion to the origin of life itself)

Again, we know evolution is true, scientists are trying to explain how it works. I fail to see how knowing how life began is central to knowing what life does once it arises. There are great many scientists working on the problem of origins even as I write this. They publish constantly.

The whole of evolution is based on the presumption of an existing system, and the variables functioning within that system. In a life origin "theory" a single "life like, spark" is alone, and singular, and therefore does not fit within any evolutionary model (at least that I have heard of) and therefore is omitted, and dismissed by most , even though it is the most vital question, if their belief had any basis in fact, rather than conjecture.

So far there are a few hypotheses about how life began. The idea inthe lead is abiogenesis. Hence creating the self-replicating RNA. There is only one evolutionary model, and origins are not addressed because evolution is what happens after life arises. Nobody is shunning anything. But, if you see it that way, knock yourself out.

and the reason their is no test, is the prevailing presumption that God is not real, based on a distain for religion. since if science were truely "open minded" then it would not eliminate the possibility of God, without its so called "holy grail" evidence

Science is inherently atheistic. "God did it" is not a scientific explanation, and such an explanation kills all inquiry. Science does operate on the "assumption" that everything has a natural explanation. That doesn't mean god isn't doing all of this (I don't think there is one), but there is no test for it and so god is not postulated. Science does not eliminate the possibility of God, it just can't be used to test for God or prove God one way or the other.

Ah but you are Spiritual, you seek after what you love, and you obviously love science. (and no I am not following the traditional definition of spiritual) look at the function. you see us as "foolish" Christians, for believing the bible, and how it gives us purpose and meaning, but look at what it is that provides you with the very same thing, only an empty vacuous, imitation of it.

Ok. If you want to use a new definition of spiritual so you can say I am, go for it. Meaning is determined by the individual--even you. It is you who decided to give relevance to the Bible, for example.

In that it will never sustain you, in that you will never be able to aquire all the anwsers, in that once a new "anwser" is provided, all previous beliefs, must be re examined, and re interpreted. so as to "fit" that world view.

Yep. I think that's cool. The area we have to adjust our world view most is in particle physics right now. Funny, but the more evidence we get, the more solid evoltuionary theory becomes. And when we adjust our view, the facts stay the same, our explanation changes. For example, it was once thought that humours made people sick. Now we know it is viruses and bacteria--germs. Our knowledge of how people get sick changed, but people get sick the same way they always have. We now know that the progess of evolution doesn't look like a tree, it is more like a bush. We now know that you can know where an atom is, or what it is doing, but not both simultaneously. I could go on and on.

It is not that far removed from a "fictional" story, and universe. where the rules and systems are assumed defined, until the writers choose to redefine the nature of that system.

Yes, it is, because if your story doesn't work (I assume you are subsituting that word for theory) it is rejected. That is how science works. WE observe a phenomenon, make up a tory that explains that phenomenon, and then test the story. If the story fits--and has predictability, that's key--that is what we go with. Using that story, we come across other stories that sometimes cause us to modify the original story somewhat, and so on and so on.

I will have to get back to you about specific scriptural verses. But I would like to suggest, that in the mean time. You think about where you aquired your notions of what constitutes entrance into heaven or hell.

My father was a Baptist minister, and I watch TBN on occaision. I have also read the Bible, and have taken Formation of Christian Doctrine I and II and The Reformation.

I say this because I used to believe many things that you do. And I had somewhere Aquired the notion of how heaven and hell were operated.

I have no idea how Heaven and Hell operate. It seems to me that there are way too many contradicitions, or things that fly inthe face of common sense and decency. I am all ears for a cohesive explanation, though.

I assume from popular concepts. But My old belief, before I became a Christian, was that Heaven and hell Didn't really matter, that much, because I was basically a good person, and I believed that most people were basically Good. I guess it was out of sight out of mind. I presumed (incorrectly) that heaven was just the final destiantion of everyone who didn't commit some horrific crime.
But see that was the problem My entire belief system was based on hearsay, and my own minds attempt to reconcile differing notions with what I did know. (or thought I knew) I was dumbfounded, and honestly irritated, at how what I had assumed my whole life ,about God, and heaven and hell, had little basis in the bible. (and I wont even get into my research into other religions, which I now realize are in fact false, and therefore satanic, {opposing God})

You have said above that you don't agree with Moose and Thrawn about their interpretations. Does that mean you think they are Satanic? I do not ask that sarcastically, I am curious.

I have seen several people post notions about how they dont "deserve" hell, But the problem is , that they assume thats how things work, the bible clearly shows it isn't.

I know. Weird, huh?

I guess you could liken it to Santa Clause, many people propagate that myth, because "everyone else does it" When I researched it myself after beginning to believe that Christianity was true, and that their were reasons for everything that it says. I was disturbed to find the pagan origin, of santa, the tree, mistletoe, etc. and how they bastardized the truth of the Bible.

Actually, it is the other way around. Everything you mention predates Christianity. Christianity came in and the previous pagan rites were modified and absorbed into the Christian mythos. Even Easter.

I then Told my daughter that santa was made up, along with the easter (Ishtar) bunny, and tooth farie. I told her this because I believe the Bible, and I did not want to diminish from it, by basically lying to my child about a bunch of pagan abominations, because it was what everyone else does.

My father is the exact same way. Eventually he included Christianity in what he rejected, but that was much later.

I assume you were, christian, at one time? and decided you didnt believe it ? I dont know about you, but when I began to research itmyself, it was with the intent of proving how the scriptures had been corrupted over time (another NOTION that I had in my Ignorance of what the bible actualy said.)

Yep. How did you come to the conclusion that the scriptures have been corrupted? Are you Mormon, by any chance? Most devout Mormons I have met say the same thing, that's why I ask.

I suggest to you to try what I ended up doing.
When I began to believe that parts of the bible were completely true, I had the thought to procede to presume that all of it were true, and to seek out demonstrating how a particular verse I had in the past thought was corrupted was actually true.

I did. I read the Bible from cover to cover (and have done so many times since) and that is what led me to reject it totally. It had the opposite effect of what you suggest. Also, one of the things that spurned me on to do so was Creationism. I read about what was happening in Kansas (this was years ago) and I was intruiged. I thought the whole thing was settled years before, but if the Creationists were still arround there must be something to it. As I read more, I began to see what liars they are, and that their position is nonsensical. I then decided to read the Bible for myself, and I am now an atheist. So, at least in one instance, Creationists pushed one person away from God, not toward Him. I should thank them, actually. I am happier since.

For example I used to be a big proponent, of womens Lib, and Equality. A notion I no longer Believe.
Now before You flame me, look at the function of womens lib and equality, and what the Bible says about the roles of men and women.
I am not saying women are not just as valuable, to God, I am saying the Equality, and womens lib movements, are subversive to the roles God has assigned us. look at military chain of command. and ABSOLUTELY look at the bible for yourself, if you don't believe me.
I need to get some sleep, so I will continue this later.

I haven't read the term "women's lib" in a while. And I am not going to flame you for rejecting the women's movement. I think that women voting is a good thing, and that they should be paid equally for equal work, but that's about all I care about with regards to feminism. But you are correct, the Bible is a very misogynistic book. no two ways about that.

March 13, 2006

The idea is that Jesus stood proxy to the sinner on the cross, and the sinner is judged for their sins on that cross. So, picturing Jesus on the cross, the image of Jesus changes actually to your own image and back to His again if that offers any conceptual clarity. Every sin that you have committed is judged on that cross when this happens.

As you might expect, I have some questions. Let me say up front I am not asking sarcastically or anything of that nature. I am just trying to see what you think.

Ok, but humans have decided that proxy justice is immoral. Is that an idea we should reinsitute to have our justice be more godly?

This was planned from the beginning. The animal sacrifices instituted in Leviticus and throughout the OT indicates that without the shedding of blood there is no atonement or reconciliation for sin. So, you need to understand the background in the Old Testament, the failure of the Israelites to keep the law and constant need of sacrifices to account for their failure, to fully appreciate all of this. This is not something that was pulled out of a hat as may be portrayed here. This is part of over 4000 BC of history with God's dealings with Israel.

I have heard this before. Do you think that by no longer sacrificing animals the Jews are not keeping God's covenant? And, do you think that the smell of burnt offerings is still pleasing to god?

Abraham's son Isaac was a type of Christ, but Isaac was not Christ. Nowhere in the Bible is Human Sacrifice condoned, it is prohibited. There were religions around Israel that sacrificied their children to false gods, like molech, and when Israel apostasied into those religions, they were punished for it. Only Jesus Christ was sacrificed in the Bible, as atonement for sins, to reconcile humanity back to God. Animals were sacrificied prior to that to signfiy a 'type' of Christ, and to provide insights into the true Lamb of God.

Hmm. I have a thought: It just occurred to me that Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and to forgive those who trespass against you, etc. But God doesn't do that. I mean, if I don't believe in God, I am trespassing against Him, or at least doing something objectionable to Him, shouldn't He follow His own rules and turn the other cheek and ignore it?

March 13, 2006

I have only read one of the posts,theres too many anyway.Jesus gave himself up for the world because if he didnt there would not be any good left in the world.

There is just as much good in the world now as there was before, I think. HUmans haven't changed any. I recall that the Flood happened because God wanted to wipe out evil and corrutpion. Ask yourself if that worked.

And murders and molesters etc. wont go to heaven unless they are genuinly sorry and repent, otherwise they will go to hell because they have turned their backs on god and went the path of satan.

But people who have never done anything remotely that horrible will go to Hell, too. I stole a candy bar from the store, and yet I get the same punishment as a genocidal maniac. Doesn't seem fair.

on the second coming of jesus he will judge the living and the dead,satan will be destroyed and a new earth free from sin will be made.for sin is satan and a sin is an offence to god. you may be confused about things, but some things we are not able to understand while we are in this life, but all will be explained in when we pass on.So please follow God, i may not know you but you will pay if you dont.Read the bible it will help.

You raise an interesting point. While it is true that we will never know everything about the physical world (thereby insuring that professors inthe sciences have job security!), and that there is much we don't know, I do not find that thought disquieting at all. Just knowing that there is an explanation, even if we don't know what that explanation is, is fine with me.

That kind of not knowing is very different from the kind of not knowing the Bible addresses. Also, every theological point of view I have come across reaches a point where it is contradictory, and therefore nonsensical to me. So, I wouldn't say that I am confused, I understand it prefectly I just reject it.

I have read the Bible. Doing so helped push me over the edge from agnositicism to outright atheism. Well, whether or not there is a God is essentially unknowable, but themore I learn the more I think that there probably isn't, and I got tired of sitting on the fence thinking about it. So, I decided there isn't and moved on.

I appreciate and thank you for your concern, if in fact the above was in any way directed toward me. I hope that you are well, and you and your family remain so.

March 13, 2006

I have a question for you Moai.....

What is your take on the dead sea scrolls?

Proof that the scriptures remained intact over 2000 years?

How about other archaeologic facts that SUPPORT the Bible:

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

These are all scientific studies that use the methods you speak about. The only difference is, it points AWAY from evolution.

I'm just curious what your thoughts are on this?

Oh, and also on prophesy, the fact the Bible has acurately predicted the future many, MANY times.....

I'm not trying to start anything, I'm just curious.....

March 13, 2006

I have a question for you Moai.....

What is your take on the dead sea scrolls?

I don't know much about the Dead Sea Scrolls, as far as what they say. I do know that they are as old as is claimed.

Proof that the scriptures remained intact over 2000 years?

That doesn't surprise me. I am not suggesting that you are doing this, but the same dating method used to determine the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls is the same used to date everything believed to be 50,000 years old and younger, and some accept it is correct in this instance and not in others. THat always boggles me.

How about other archaeologic facts that SUPPORT the Bible:

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

There is no doubt that there are accuracies in the Bible. There was a place called Canaan, there was a place called Jerusalem (still is) and a place called Egypt. And Jericho. In fact, most archaeologists studying the region use the Bible as a sort of map. The Smithsonian uses it as such. As a side note, they don't use the book of Mormon AT ALL, which I find hilarious.

It is also to be expected that the Bible somewhat repeats or "mirrors" other writings found from the same time, in the same region.

Some things being accurate doesn't make it all accurate. I could write a book that happens here in my hometown that is all made up, but in 5,000 someone could read the book, and dig here and find remanants of this town. That wouldn't make the book true, would it?

These are all scientific studies that use the methods you speak about. The only difference is, it points AWAY from evolution.

None of the archaeological events mentioned on that particular page points away from evolution. I have read their Creation section before, and have perused it again a few moments ago, and I can specifically address every single thing that they bring up. I'd be happy to at some point, if you'd like, but this isn't the place for it, I realize.

I'm just curious what your thoughts are on this?

Oh, and also on prophesy, the fact the Bible has acurately predicted the future many, MANY times.....

And there are just as many that are inaccurate.

I'm not trying to start anything, I'm just curious.....

Totally cool.

March 13, 2006

And there are just as many that are inaccurate.

Can I convince you to point me to some inaccuracies?

March 13, 2006

As you might expect, I have some questions. Let me say up front I am not asking sarcastically or anything of that nature. I am just trying to see what you think.

Ok, but humans have decided that proxy justice is immoral. Is that an idea we should reinsitute to have our justice be more godly?

Proxy injustice is immoral in the sence of wrongful convictions. However, if someone, in their right mind, out of love, volunteers to take a penalty for someone else on capital cases, I guess that would be debatable. The person's whose life and freedom is spared would owe a debt of gratitude to the volunteer.

Personally, I believe that people should be held accountable for their own actions. In the Bible, everyone is accountable for their own actions, as there are judgements for people, whether they have accepted Christ or not, where they have to answer to God for everything in their life. You cant avoid judgement - but judgement can be good as well as bad, and 100% personal and accurate.

So, there is no indication anywhere in the Bible that people are not held accountable for their actions in some way, shape or form. The idea of receiving Jesus is not just some abstract judicial concept, but it is also results in a changed and sanctified life which would be reflected from being born-again in the Spirit. That means, an alcoholic will stop drinking alcohol. A drug addict is going to be cured. People's lives are going to change supernaturally - because they have the supernatural blood of Jesus inside their system now, they are now belong to God. But this change is all premised on Jesus Christ crucified on the cross.

I have heard this before. Do you think that by no longer sacrificing animals the Jews are not keeping God's covenant? And, do you think that the smell of burnt offerings is still pleasing to god?

The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD after Jesus was crucified, because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice and animal sacrifices were unnecessary. People seem to underscore this element of history, particular Jews and Muslims, about the Divine identity of Jesus, when it is right infront of their nose.

Animal sacrifices were phased out after Jesus' ultimate and final sacrifice on the cross.

Hmm. I have a thought: It just occurred to me that Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and to forgive those who trespass against you, etc. But God doesn't do that. I mean, if I don't believe in God, I am trespassing against Him, or at least doing something objectionable to Him, shouldn't He follow His own rules and turn the other cheek and ignore it?

Well, you have made a choice to live away from God, then God will respect that choice. In the afterlife, hell is really a place where one can live away from God forever. Otherwise, why would you want to be with God for eternity if you dont want Him?

March 13, 2006

Humans can be traced to a monkey ancestor in Africa, so that throws out the "Adam and Eve" theory. ape - caveman - modern man with a lot of transitions in between.

Other than the monkey part, it is speculated that the Garden of Eden may have been somewhere in Africa, so that does not contradict the creation account in the Bible. However, people were created in a 'dirt-statue' form first, and were then animated by the 'breath of life', and kept alive immortally by the Tree of Life. After Adam and Eve were created, people reproduced by sex, sperm and egg. After Adam and Eve sinned, the Tree of Life was taken away, and they had a limited lifespan, as we all do now.

March 14, 2006

Can I convince you to point me to some inaccuracies?

Certainly. In Isaiah 13:19-20 God says that after an upcoming battle, nobody will live in Babylon ever again. But people live there now. And have since then.

In Matthew 16:28 Jesus says that He will return before the people He is speaking to die, and they are all dead and He still isn't back.

There's more, too.

March 14, 2006

Certainly. In Isaiah 13:19-20 God says that after an upcoming battle, nobody will live in Babylon ever again. But people live there now. And have since then.

That battle hasn't taken place. The day of the Lord hasn't arrived yet. So this isn't a good enough contradiction.

In Matthew 16:28 Jesus says that He will return before the people He is speaking to die, and they are all dead and He still isn't back.

Several suggestions have been made as to the referent for the phrase, "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom": (1) the transfiguration itself, which immediately follows in the narrative; (2) Jesus’ resurrection and ascension; (3) the coming of the Spirit; (4) Christ’s role in the Church.

So I guess what I'm saying is that these aren't good enough examples to convince me that there are condtradictions in the Scritpures.

If you don't mind, you mentioned there are more. Care to share them with me?

March 14, 2006

That battle hasn't taken place. The day of the Lord hasn't arrived yet. So this isn't a good enough contradiction.Several suggestions have been made as to the referent for the phrase, "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom": (1) the transfiguration itself, which immediately follows in the narrative; (2) Jesus’ resurrection and ascension; (3) the coming of the Spirit; (4) Christ’s role in the Church.

So I guess what I'm saying is that these aren't good enough examples to convince me that there are condtradictions in the Scritpures.

If you don't mind, you mentioned there are more. Care to share them with me?

According to the text, the battle was imminent. If it hasn't happened yet, and over 2,000 years is still "imminent" than so be it.

Look at Mark 9:1. It is clear that Jesus is talking to people standing right infron of Him, and He says that He'll be back before they die--and they are all dead.

March 14, 2006

Certainly. In Isaiah 13:19-20 God says that after an upcoming battle, nobody will live in Babylon ever again. But people live there now. And have since then.

This is brilliant. You've illustrated one of the most elaborate devices in the Bible - which I find very dramatic and fascinating.

The Bible will jump from literal object to symbolic objects to illustrate spiritual truths, prophetic points, or some other interesting point, especially in the book of Isaiah.

For example, the king of Tyre in Isiaiah 23 - refers to the literal Tyre, and could also refer to a truth pertaining to the Anti-christ and it's kingdom and final demise. There are many other examples, where the prophecies switches from a literal point, to a ultimate futuristic time-frame.

The common spiritual truths is about Jesus Christ the Messiah, who will incarnate and die for the sins of everyone, and Jesus Christ the King, who will rule the world from Jerusalem, and conquer the evil Anti-Christ and destroy the evil world system once and for all. The Abrahamic covenant will be fullly realised when Jesus Christ is accepted by the Jews after delivering them from the Anti-Christ, and Jerusalem becomes the central government of the future Millenium Kingdom.

In your particular reference, Babylon here 'jumps' to the Babylon in the Bible, the account of it's ultimate destruction is found in Revelation 18, and also alluded to in Revelation 17 (ie vs 13 'Mystery Babylon'). Babylon really becomes a 'symbol' of something that goes BEYOND a literal interpretation of the ancient Babylon empire. The OT is rich with symbolism. You should really appreciate it with an open mind because you'll be amazed of what is in there.

Those 'twists' for me make for a very exciting type of read, because you are always kept guessing. The Bible is not a boring book, but one where you can dig for symbolism and put pieces of a puzzle together to get a coherent whole.

In Matthew 16:28 Jesus says that He will return before the people He is speaking to die, and they are all dead and He still isn't back.

There's more, too.

That's not a contradiction, because He did have a 'transfiguration' account in Luke 9:28-36, which already happened. This was fulfilled.

Sign In

Why did Jesus die for our sins?

Recommended Posts

Admiral Thrawn

Bogun

converse02

Moose

DC DUO 1st

Moai

HotCaliGirl

Moai

Moose

HotCaliGirl

Chris777

Chris777

Admiral Thrawn

Moai

Moai

Moai

Moose

Moai

Moose

Admiral Thrawn

Admiral Thrawn

Moai

Moose

Moai

Admiral Thrawn

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...