Jesus

[saucy]

I have the same worry for people like you Lottie!

The problem I have with this "proof" idea is that no one is willing to look at both sides of the spectrum. They think the only "proof" we have concerning God is the bible and that simply isn't true at all. I have many books in my possession now, which are increasing by the number, by scientists and evolutionists turned Christian because they researched both sides and saw all the evidence. I recommend the book I'm reading now "The Battle for the Beginning: Creation, Evolution and the Bible" by John MacArthur. He has a ton of proof in his book about creation being true. If you don't want to read up on creation, then nobody can truly sit here and ethically debate with us on what's right and what's wrong. Another good book is "The Case for Faith." I'm not really sure the name of the author. Unless you've become a Christian yourself and I'm sure Trublvr can vouch for this, you don't understand what it's like. Some might say they were made to go to church as a child and hated every second and didn't experience anything. Well, if you go as an adult, not because someone is making you, you'll experience a change. You'll gain a loving feeling inside yourself you cannot explain. So many people, including myself has felt this. Many people start to talk tongues and cry unexpectedly. Tongues is speaking a language you've never learned before. It's God's love language, the language of the Holy Spirit. To cry as I said it isn't of fear or pain, but because you feel the tremendous love circulate in your body, unlike anything you've ever felt. Those are unmistakable feelings. There's so much common sense evidence out there that evolution is bunk. I would write out some of the evidence from the book I'm reading now, but that wouldn't be right. Don't just look at one side of the story or say all we have is a bible to back up our religion. If there wasn't much else to our religion, if something truly didn't happen thousands of years ago, if God didn't back up his word, which he's done but no one bothers to look at the evidence, then no one would believe. This is the last such post I will make on religion-type topics for now because they are pointless when no one bothers to pick up a book. They only rely on what they were taught in school, which is wrong and unfounded.

[Falco Rex]

I blame Paul for all this confusion. Christianity would have remained a sect of Judaism if he hadn't taken Christian beliefs off on a wild tangent after his conversion. He started out Jewish Orthodox who persecuted Christians, then turned around and persecuted Jews after his own conversion..Now there's a guy you want to trust... Had Christianity remained as a subsect of Judaism I have no doubt the life of Jesus would have been well chronicled, as Jewish scholars love to debate and write about important figures in their Religion. They probably would have considered him a learned Rabbi and not the Messiah, but at least you could prove his existence beyond doubt.

But hindsight is always 20/20. If you can't prove he existed beyond all doubt to everyone, who cares? If that is what you believe then that's fine with me. But why not just say You believe he existed and leave it at that? Faith doesn't require proof, that's why it's called Faith in the first place. An endless series of Straw Man arguments doesn't help your cause any.

Believers will believe regardless of historical proof and disbelievers will disbelieve regardless of what evidence you present them with.

I guess what I'm saying is, go with whatever Religion feels right to you(even if it's none) and don't sweat the details. Most of them are about a belief in a higher power and a moral and ethical code, not facts and figures..

[Guest Lottie]

I went to a convent school run by nuns. I was baptised a Roman Catholic. My family are from Scotland and deeply religious AND Believe me I have seen both sides! And I have had the dribble spoon fed to me for years until and still don't and never did believe it.

I have many books in my possession now, which are increasing by the number, by scientists and evolutionists turned Christian because they researched both sides and saw all the evidence.

Okay so where is this evidence?? I do not see it splattered around the news or the tabloid newspapers. Never have done. Its not a proven fact therefore as I have said before I cannot justify any so called evidence. Hard facts is what I want.

You'll gain a loving feeling inside yourself you cannot explain.  So many people, including myself has felt this.  Many people start to talk tongues and cry unexpectedly.  Tongues is speaking a language you've never learned before

You know when I went to church the only feeling I had was this stomach clenching nausea in knowing that I was in a room full of people being preached to and believing in something that does not exist in the scientific world. Well not at the moment.

And I get the under currents as I have done over the other posts of this preachiness. my stomach has that same feeling all over again and you know what I would say to these tongues but I won't...

If something truly didn't happen thousands of years ago, if God didn't back up his word, which he's done but no one bothers to look at the evidence,

And what word would that be that God backed up? Proof please. I am not on here to damn you all. I think that if thats what you want to believe in then thats great. What I am saying as I said before that without proof and I do not mean from some philosophical book, there is nothing.

Edited May 8, 2004 by Lottie

[Seraphina]

There's so much common sense evidence out there that evolution is bunk

No, no there isn't Evolution is the theory that's so widely accepted because it makes good sense. It's based on factors that we have actually observed in nature.

We know natural selection takes place.

We know characteristics are passed on from parent to child.

We know characteristics will be more and more expressed throughout generations if the environment expresses favouritism towards them.

Evolution is a logical, fact based arguement There's certainly more common sense and logic in it that there is in relgion....a great deal more. At the end of the day, every arguement that makes claim to be "evidence" for creationism has already been widely rebuked. Creationists have yet to come up with even a speck of evidence that cannot be otherwise explained while they themselves, being incapable of explaining our evidence, dance around and hide from it.

if God didn't back up his word, which he's done but no one bothers to look at the evidence, then no one would believe

WHEN!?...I'm getting rather tired and frustrated with this endless dribble too. I've heard so many claims of "proof" of God's existance and his divine will, yet not once have I seen anything offered. He's still a character in a book.

Why don't you produce some of this startling evidence of God "backing up his word"? Why don't you tell us when he made it clear to everyone, one and all, that he exists? Why don't you explain to us where he is now, as he seemed to suddenly disappear about the same time human beings found out enough about the world that they didn't think lightning, forest fires and earthquakes were the work of a divine being being angry.

I've tried to understand your arguement...really I have...but I still stand absolutely amazed that you're so utterly convinced by the testimony of people who could only explain the weather let alone their existance by creating fictional deities, as the truth over what modern wisdom and investigation is teaching us. If anyone's not bothing to look at the evidence, it's certainly not us

[Guest Lottie]

I recommend the book I'm reading now "The Battle for the Beginning: Creation, Evolution and the Bible" by John MacArthur.  He has a ton of proof in his book about creation being true.

I did a quick search on this man, I came up with this:

John came to Grace Community Church in 1969, after graduating with honors from Talbot Theological Seminary.  The emphasis of his pulpit ministry is the careful study and verse-by-verse exposition of the Bible, with special attention devoted to the historical and grammatical background behind each passage.

It does not say anywhere on his Bio that he studied science or is a scientist of any sorts. He studied Theology. I say good for him for taking the time to carefully study 'verse by verse exposition of the bible.' However why would you recommend me reading this book knowing that I coming from a scientific background? No disrespect to you but for me I do not want to read a book that is an attempt to piece together a story with no actual facts to date.

[saucy]

You want proof, but you're not going to find it from the science side either. Look at all the species on the planet. Each one of them has a special characteristic that makes them unique, including their DNA. Science has never and will never observe the evolution of one species into another. It is scientifically impossible. It is genetically impossible. Every living creature has a complex genetic code, stored in its DNA that determines its fundamental characterisics. DNA enables the organism to reproduce, preserve and repair itself. The genetic structure of every living organism limits that organism to what it is-no more and no less. There is no genetic information that can enable an organism to transform itself into something it's not. That's what science has to say about genetics and it's a fairly recent science, not something that's outdated. The length of a giraffe's neck is determined by its individual genetic code, not changes in the environment. Similarily, breeders have cut the tails off cocker spaniels at birth for generations. The practice will never result in puppies being born without tails. The current evolutionary theory is that the millions, even billions of species in the world today have adapted through their environment through a series of random and accidental genetic mutations. Evolutionists believe that the giraffe's long neck, sea cucumbers abiliity to generate new internal organs, pelicans ability to dive for food from sixty feet in the air, the woodpeckers shock-absorbing head and a hermit crabs ability to live in other creatures cast shell are all extremely fortuitous accidents. Multiply that by the countless millions of other biological species that are perfectly suited for their environments, and you begin to get an idea of the huge leap of faith-or rather gullibility-that is required to believe in evolution. The more science discovers about genetics, the more of a problem it poses for the doctrine of evolution. Consider some of the "facts" of genetics. DNA is an impressive code. There are more than three-thousand million nucleotides in each molecule of human DNA. The code contains all information necessary for every human trait. That amount of detailed information contained in so small of a structure is remarkable. The number and arrangement of nucleotides is unique for each living creature. That means each living organism has been programmed differently and the genetic program is what determines the appearance, composition, size and function not only of the creature itself, but of every organ and even every individual cell. Where does this genetic information come from?We know that genes sometimes mutate. Changes occur in the DNA structure that cause changes in the appearance of creatures. Could a series of random mutations explain how one species evolves into another? Certainly not. Mutations can alter or destory existing information, but cannot add new information. You wanted proof, undeniably proof, there it is, in genetics. I have proven scientifically that evolution cannot happen and why so many scientists are turning Christian. I have more proof if you want me to write it.

Edited May 8, 2004 by saucy

[crosswarrior]

Ok listen Whoever it was who started this whole creationism vs. evolution gambit up again. Jesus' life and ministry is not dependant upon how everything was created, basically what is more important is whither or not He truley was God. Now that can be argued endlessly till the 6 horsemen or the 9 dark riders, or whatever come home; but I am simply going to look at what Jesus said about himself. He said he was God. Now a man can not be simply a good teacher, and say heis God; for then he is a liar on par with the devil in Hell. Or he is a total lunitic who should be locked up. Or He is in fact God. But he did not leave us with the option of him being a good teacher; he never intended to.

Edited May 8, 2004 by crosswarrior

[Seraphina]

Science has never and will never observe the evolution of one species into another.

I can't really be bothered reposting them...but if you read through the creation vs Evolution thread, you'll find rather a few examples of speciation Who, exactly, are you to claim it's "scientifically impossible", when evolution is the very theory that scientific investigation and thought has promoted?

If speciation was not viable, then I don't think it would be so widely accepted by the scientific community Creationists can claim otherwise, but since they are neither scientists, nor researchers, I'll take their opinions on the matter with a pinch of salf; much of the creationist arguement actually demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the principles of evolution.

There is no genetic information that can enable an organism to transform itself into something it's not.

Being a biology student, currenty studying genetics, I beg to differ Have you never even heard of a mutation? It is the natural variation within our genes that gives rise to natural selection, and there are any number of chance processes that can occur not only during the forming of a zygote cell, but also in mitosis, that can lead to gigantic differences in the cell make up that the origonal coding did not allow for.

The length of a giraffe's neck is determined by its individual genetic code, not changes in the environment. Similarily, breeders have cut the tails off cocker spaniels at birth for generations. The practice will never result in puppies being born without tails.

On the giraffes - many millions of years ago, the creature that would eventualyl spawn giraffe's were horse like, grazing animals. However, as the variety of mammalian species on the planet greatly increased over the course of a few hundred thousand years, competition for food began to grow somewhat fierce. Ground level vegetation didn't last very long, as every animal in the region could easily reach them...so, our horse like creature turned to the higher foliage.

Obviously, this would benefit those among them with longer necks...the longer your neck, the higher you could reach, and the less you had to compete with not only other species, but your own as well. Therefore, over the course of generations, these specimens with long necks were able to reach their food, and those with shorter necks were likely to starve and, obviously, not survive to reproduce.

So what does this mean?

It means that the creature's with longer necks survived, and passed on the very genes that gave them this characteristic to the next generation; and in the next generation, even longer necks would be advantagous, as the entire species was seeing an overall increase with all the short necked versions leaving no offspring.

You can see, I trust, where this is going? Nature selected for the animal's necks to get longer as a means of eliminating competition. Those that were able to cope with the changing niche survived to pass on their genes (thus leading to greater expression of the characteristic in the next generation), and those that did not were not able to survive to pass on their less suitable genes.

The giraffe is a classic example, that just about everyone knows

On the tails - this comment demonstrates nothing but your absolute ignorance of either evolution, or genetics. Of course puppies aren't born without tails....what you're thinking of is the theory before evolution, that went along the lines that the giraffe, in an effort to reach higher food, consciously stretched its neck, and for some miraculous reason, its offspring would have longer necks....this has nothing to do with genetics, and it's actually the theory that evolution proved wrong and replaced. They are far from the same thing.

If you're going to try and argue against something, I suggest you learn what it is. Maybe you should "pick up a book"

Multiply that by the countless millions of other biological species that are perfectly suited for their environments, and you begin to get an idea of the huge leap of faith-or rather gullibility-that is required to believe in evolution.

Rubbish. It actually makes very sound and logical sense that organisms would evolve with characteristics that allowed them to survive in their environmental niche. As a niche changes, characteristics that allow an organism to survive there are expressed, as those without the characteristic do not survive to pass on their genes....there is no "leap of faith", it's a very simple concept to grasp, and I fear for you that you're unable to understand it.

Mutations can alter or destory existing information, but cannot add new information.

This doesn't even make sense, and I'm wondering if you're even thinking about your arguement anymore. ANY change in an organism is new information The fact that my eyes are a different colour from the first homo sapiens means a mutation caused new information. The fact that Darwin's finches, though sharing a common ancestor, have vast differences in shape and size in accordance to what food was available on the islands in which they settled shows that new information was added to account for these changes.

Do you even understand the concept of a "change" in the genetic information? If the information is changing, then by definitation it is changing into something new. And it's evolution you accuse of having no common sense, really

You wanted proof, undeniably proof, there it is, in genetics. I have proven scientifically that evolution cannot happen and why so many scientists are turning Christian.

All that you've proven is that you have an amazing lack of understanding of what you're talking about

[trublvr]

The originator of this name, Christ, was sentenced to torture by Procurator Pontius Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius, but although checked for a moment, the deadly cult erupted again, not just in Judaea, the source of its evil, but even in Rome, where all the sins and scandals of the world gather and are glorified. (15.44.3)

well heres the excerpt from Tacitus, hardly evidence of Christ.

Tacitus' mention of Christ here is not proof? Sure, he's referencing Jesus in the midst of talking about Christians, but so what? He places Jesus and his movement in a specific time period and place. If this is not a reference to Jesus in history, I don't know what is. It compels me to ask: What kind of evidence would you accept?

I blame Paul for all this confusion. Christianity would have remained a sect of Judaism if he hadn't taken Christian beliefs off on a wild tangent after his conversion. He started out Jewish Orthodox who persecuted Christians, then turned around and persecuted Jews after his own conversion..Now there's a guy you want to trust...

Please show me in history, with the use of any historical document you can muster, when Paul persecuted the Jewish people. And the fact that Paul once persecuted Christians and then converted to Christianity (knowing that such a move would cause him to be persecuted) does cause us to ask: Why did he convert to begin with? The Damascus road event does explain it very well. And how did Paul take Christianity on a "wild tangent"?

[saucy]

You probably skipped over parts of my reply. I said that mutation destroys embedded codes, it does not add on to it, this cannot explain evolution. If giraffes needed longer necks in order to survive, then that means they had to of waited millions of years before their necks grew longer and essentially, intelligence and common sense would say that the giraffes would've died off before they grew necks. If they could essentially reach the trees, then there would be no need for the longer necks. Your and science's theory basically says that giraffes woke-up one day with a longer neck.

[Seraphina]

intelligence and common sense would say that the giraffes would've died off before they grew necks.

The eventual length reached was a result of competition between each other, as well as other species Even if they reached a height whereby they could eliminate competition from other mammals, that would still leave specimins with a shorter neck in a situation of competition with longer necked specimens; they would still die out, and the gene would continue to be increasingly expressed; effectivly, the species DID die out, to be replaced by modern giraffes, which were far more suited for the environment that the original.

You probably skipped over parts of my reply.

And you just skipped over my whole post You're reaching now, please stop it.

[Falco Rex]

When did Paul go off on a tangent? I believe it was almost immediately. The message I've taken from the gospels is that Jesus stressed a personal relationship with God and not dependance on an organized religion. The fact that there were debates held among Paul and the Apostles about what people could be Christians, what they could wear and eat, whether or not people could keep their local customs,etc...already hints that a Religion was being organized. Things like this seem unimportant to the message Jesus was trying to convey. As soon as Paul started travelling the world and organizing churches it only got farther off the mark. Not to mention his efforts led to the formation of the Catholic church, which seems to have done much over the years to damage peoples' credibility for Christian belief.

Having said that, all this is just my interpretation of events. There's no need for anyone to take it personally. I believe in God myself, I just see how badly organized religion has harmed the world over the years so I want nothing to do with it.

[saucy]

So basically what you're saying is that they were fighting for longer necks, right? If all the forage was becomming hard to reach, then every other animal should've evolved to reach it or all the animals should've died out. It would've taken time for them to evolve in a longer-necked species. Being a student of biology and genetics, you should know that a creature holds only the codes it needs to be a giraffe, not a horse or something else. Humans can only be humans, nothing else. If we only hold to codes in our DNA to support our life as it is, there is no room for us to "perfect" ourself. Evolution is accepted by the scientific community because those who dig for bones aren't genetic experts and the other way around. By the same thoughts, why is creation excepted by more people than evolution is?

[bathory]

Tacitus' mention of Christ here is not proof? Sure, he's referencing Jesus in the midst of talking about Christians, but so what? He places Jesus and his movement in a specific time period and place. If this is not a reference to Jesus in history, I don't know what is. It compels me to ask: What kind of evidence would you accept?

you aren't reading it in its context, he isn't recording the existence of Jesus, he is recording what Christians believe in. He is simply describing Christianity. I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, i'm simply saying that there is still a question of doubt over his existence.

[saucy]

Hey, it's funny how when in the evolution post we started talking about Jesus and while we're in the Jesus post we're talking about evolution. We've been all over the spectum here Seraphina. I'm not saying this to end the discussion with me to have the last word, you can reply and have the last word if you wish, but we called a truce and neither one of us went by our word. I said the few posts before would be my last word, but I found compelling evidence. Let's just agree the the world was started by a race of superintelligent aliens that were neither created nor evolved and Jesus was one of them who claimed to be God because he was one of them. That's what we'll say, a neutral perhaps that neither of us believe. I'm done with religious talks here at this sight. I'm starting up my own website with my own forum about religion since the creators of this site won't create a religious thread. I've been named a debate organiser so I'll spend a lot of my time organizing debates and such. We'd love to have you as a debater Seraphina if you're willing to join! Just go to the debates thread and you'll see how things work. PM me and let me know and i'll have you added to the debaters list. Thank-you all for the interesting religious debates. It's been fun.

[Seraphina]

If all the forage was becomming hard to reach, then every other animal should've evolved to reach it or all the animals should've died out.

Oh this is getting tedious....

The point isn't that foliage was "hard to reach", it's that having access to higher up the tree eliminated competition. Most mammals are rather small...giraffes, horses and the like are unusually large, and need a far larger diet than a shew or something the size of a cat or dog (I trust, of course, you're not going to dispute this point?)

For small animals, resources are comparitavely plentiful, and they feel the effects of inter species competition far less...large animals, however, need a plentiful supply per individual, and competition with smaller, faster breeding animals, eating the very same food sources, would lead to the ultimate conclusion of competative exclusion.

Going to higher ground, so to speak, wasn't the option nature selected for because it was the only food available It was selected for because the specimens that were large enough to reach it, and thus not have to compete with other herbivores, were the ones that survived to pass on the genes that allowed them to do so.

It's not a matter of "oh, the species would die out before they had long necks"...this, again, demonstrates your lack of understanding of evolution. This characteristic would eliminate competition from other species very quickly...their only competition at this stage would be other members of their kind and, again, those with longer necks would be at the advantage, and would continue to eat, and breed, while those with shorter necks starved.

It's an amazingly simply concept. Please keep up.

Being a student of biology and genetics, you should know that a creature holds only the codes it needs to be a giraffe, not a horse or something else.

But I also know that the more and more a creature's phenotype adapts to its surroundings, the further and further it will be removed from the origonal specimen. After several million years of diverging over and over into many different niches, the gradual expression of different characteristics would lead to say...something that started out as a cat, having vast genetic differences to something that started out as the same creature, but adapted to a different niche; the moment two animals are no longer genetically capable of breeding together to create fertile offspring, they are no longer the same species.

Millions of years of different mutations to make an organism more suitable to an environment make this possibility quite feasible indeed.

Evolution is accepted by the scientific community because those who dig for bones aren't genetic experts and the other way around. By the same thoughts, why is creation excepted by more people than evolution is?

And you, dare I say, are neither The longer you go on, the more and more you emphasise your lack of understanding of evolution. We've discovered transition species, we've discovered the gradual progression of one species into the next, according to their specialised niche...we've seen all of this.

If it was genetically impossible, don't you think geneticists would say: "oh, you know that evolution thing? It's not possible" instead of supporting it!? I'm getting fed up arguing with you...you're just making one mute point after another, and I'm losing patience...after nearly a year of this, I'm fed up seeing the same poorly thought out and researched arguement over, and over, and over.

I suggest you read up on both genetics, and evolution....seriously...you don't seem to have even a rudementary grasp of either.

[trublvr]

I cannot believe that this man Jesus performed miracles, even in this day and age there is no scientific evidence to support that anyone can do this.

Actually, there is evidence of miracles, but people play a strange game when confronted with them. I saw a program once where a man diagnosed with terminal cancer had his cancer totally disappear. This was a secular program, not a religious one. In any event, his doctor was a cancer specialist, and he said that his diagnosis of this guy was definitely on the money. The doctor could not explain this total disappearance of the guy's cancer, which occured in between doctor visits. When the man was asked about how all this came about, he referred to prayer to the Judeo-Christian God. He believed he had been miraculously healed.

They brought in other doctors to analyze the original diagnosis and look at all available evidence, and they couldn't explain this. Now, none of the doctors became believers or anything. However, they were humble enough to admit that this was something they could not explain.

When I tell folk who demand "scientific proof" of things like this, their reactions are quite telling. Usually, they say something to the effect of, "I just can't believe stuff like that!" But wait: That statement and posture have nothing to do with science or the scientific enterprise. That has to do with a philosophical presupposition that miracles cannot happen. Such a stance is also concerned with personal epistemology, what I can or cannot believe. Again, I think such things are valuable, but they are not about the hard-edged, scientifc inquiry.

Another reaction is to cast scathing doubt on the people involved. "Oh, well the doctor might have been a Christian, so maybe they're in on some scam together..." or "This was something the network cooked up to boost their ratings!" So because it CAN'T happen, someone must be lying.

The final reaction I've encountered to this and other claims of the miraculous is as follows: "Well, the man's inexplicable remission of cancer could just be an anomaly that can entirely be explained by scientific inquiry, but we just can't do so as yet. Give us time, and we'll figure out what REALLY happened." This, actually, is the reaction I've encountered the most. And this is also very telling.

Many folks (especially in the West) operate under the delusion that everything they believe in and commend to others is rooted in hardcore, rationalistic empiricism. They think that they believe things solely because they have been proven through the scientific enterprise. I'm not saying that this isn't true for some things; however it is not true for all. What I've encountered from such rationalists when discussing the miraculous phenomenon is actually philosophical objections masquerading as scientific ones.

The first problem is that the rationalist believes him/herself to be a pure seeker of empirical evidence. In their minds, if they were confronted with the evidence they demand, they will immediately acquiesce and give in to it, no matter what conclusions it leads to. However, when presented with the miraculous, rationalists simply accept (with no investigation) a scientific explanation. Interestingly, their blind acceptance of this mirrors the blind faith that religious folks can be guilty of at times: Because data confirms a pre-existing worldview, then it is deemed to be true. Rationalists tend to discount their own personal and philosophical predispositions for and against certain things. And we ALL have these. But rationalists do not readily admit to them. For example, evolution didn't first catch on in Darwin's world simply because it satisified our longings for empiricism. Evolution in large part caught on because it's theory of natural selection gave a scientific rationale to why some people did better in Victorian society than did others (i.e., poor people). This is by no means the entirety of how and why evolution caught on; however, these sentiments did play a major role.

Many rationalists, when confronted with sound testimony and evidence for the miraculous, will appeal to the anamolous event: That whatever happened is not miraculous at all--just something entirely natural that we haven't learned to quantify, dissect, and measure yet. Again, this only works when one assumes that the miraculous cannot occur. If we operate under this assumption, then we have to--on blind faith--accept a naturalistic explanation and then with equal blindness assume that the scientific community with prove the naturalistic explanation one day.

I do not endorse the current scientism of our time because it fails to account for the worldviews that humans bring to the table, even when they are engaged in the scientific process. Furthermore, it perpetuates the Baconian split between the realm of facts and the realm of values, which is dehumanizing because we simply don't work that way. Also, scientism tends to promote a scandalously false view of the relationship between science and religion. As I've said before in other posts, the science vs. religion stuff was invented by 19th century atheists. I'm not trying to paint some idealistic picture of the relationship between the two, but said relationship is not NEARLY so anti-thetical as many would have one believe. If you read up on the history of the scientific enterprise, you find that the Church (yeah, those Catholics did do some things right!) funded many scientific enterprises (like those of Copernicus and Galileo!). As averse as so many seem to be to myth, it is ironic that they swallow the science vs. religion myth without any of evidence and with a disregard of the historical record.

Lastly, religion, for many years, fueled the scientific enterprise because religion (not just Christianity) usually carries with it the sense of the ideal. Scientific inquiry and invention tends to flourish when the ideal is in view. This is why so many scientists have been religious (and many of them Christian!). Their religion was not just something they did on Sundays; it fueled the scientific enterprise. What is scary now is that much of the scientific enterprise is fueled by money and militarism. Good, useful things can come from this (like the myriad inventions brought about by WWII), but at the expense of loss of life b/c of warfare, the subjugation of values and ethics to what is profitable, and the confusion of pragmatism with healthy idealism.

I need to say that I am not pointing back to some "good old days" that we need to return to. However, I am saying that folks who practice the religion of scientism (yes, it is religion) need to get a more firm grip on the history of science.

[Seraphina]

However, I am saying that folks who practice the religion of scientism (yes, it is religion) need to get a more firm grip on the history of science.

Absolute rubbish.

Science is a mode whereby conclusions are drawn based on presented evidence, and known fact. Science is a system through which theory can only be excepted if it has some founding in both logic, and existing data to show it as a possibility.

"Scientism" as you call it, is the only system of believe where an actual effort is made to establish, and even disprove its own beliefs, to ensure that they are the truth. It is the only system whereby "faith" accounts to absolutely nothing, as nothing can be accepted as truth unless it is able to establish itself as such through presentation of evidence.

These are not things religions do.

I'm sick of being trying to belittle science by calling it a religion You don't need "faith" to believe in science, you simply need to look at the facts, and apply logic to them. You simply need to accept which is the stronger case, based on the evidence at hand...science is a system of facts and figures, not of blind faith and religious zealotry.

Edited May 8, 2004 by Seraphina

[saucy]

Sorry, but all I know is what I read. You're studying genetics and biology and i'm studying theology and we can't expect each other to agree so that's the whole idea behind the truce. I promise never to throw you into a religious debate if you join the list of debaters. I'm not much for science. I failed biology in high school and I don't know nearly as much as you on the topic. I'm just meerly trying to defend my religion against those to completely dismiss it. You just dismiss God completely, not even going as far as saying God was the mind behind evolution and genetics and DNA. Nature and DNA seem to be intelligently designed perfectly to suit a living creature in their environment. But, you don't believe in God, you believe in natural selection, there's nobody here who will ever change your mind and as unintelligent as everyone has been telling me I am lately, i'll never throw down my religion. If I die and it turns out there is no heaven or God, then fine, I won't know any difference because I'll be sleeping forever and ever. I just don't see human life being without purpose. That's what it will be without a God, without purpose. If it turns out that there is a God and heaven, then I'll be there to welcome you in Seraphina. You're a good and smart person, as far as I know and despite what pastors and preachers say, good people get into heaven and they were sometimes thrown into circumstance. You might not like me very much because I like Bush and I'm a Christian, but oh well. I'll just add you to the list. It doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong because what everyone has been saying is that there will be NO WAY TO PROVE IT EITHER WAY! Science is just as much as a faith-based belief system as Christianity because it can't be proven right just the same as God. Please...accept the truce, let's bury the hatchet, can't we all get along, let's end this thread of religious debates and move on. It's the same thing over and over and over again.

[trublvr]

The message I've taken from the gospels is that Jesus stressed a personal relationship with God and not dependance on an organized religion.

Jesus didn't mean for his movement to be organized?

* He had a hierarchy of disciples: about 72 in general, 12 in particular, 3 intimate ones (Peter, James, and John), and one who seemed to be the closest (Peter)

* In Jesus' very Jewish mindset having a personal relationship with God automatically spilled over into one's relationship with his/her fellow person. Jesus did mean for disciples to "organize". He organized them. He emphasized community so much that he told them "Wherever two or three of you are gathered in my name, there shall I be among you" (Matt. ch 18). Also, he said the principal way the world would know that they were his disciples was by their love for each other! Implicit in this statement is a closeness that requires organization of some sort.

The fact that there were debates held among Paul and the Apostles about what people could be Christians, what they could wear and eat, whether or not people could keep their local customs,etc...already hints that a Religion was being organized.

If you look at them, these instances are much, much deeper than mere dress codes for the faithful. A lot of what you are mentioning concerns how the early church was trying to deal with the fact that so many people of so many cultures were interacting with one another intimately for the first time. The kind of intimacy that believers in Jesus are supposed to share brings people-groups that have never been in touch with each other together. So there are definite issues to work out. Acts 15 and Romans 14 are great examples of issues of eating that are about maintianing Christian unity while allowing for marvelous diversity among brothers and sisters. 1 Corinthians 8 and 9 are also about eating foods, but Paul takes a petty dispute among believers and turns it into a treatise on how the stronger people should subordinate their rights/privileges to the weaker out of love for Jesus Christ. Yes, it's organized, but necessary when dealing with people across cultures. This never comes up with Jesus b/c all of his disciples were Jewish! There were no cross-cultural issues to work through.

Look, I share some of your angst over what perverted people have done in the name of Jesus. However, the "organized church" has also done some great things in history, many of which couldn't have been accomplished without some kind of organization. We need to have a balanced view here.

As soon as Paul started travelling the world and organizing churches it only got farther off the mark. Not to mention his efforts led to the formation of the Catholic church, which seems to have done much over the years to damage peoples' credibility for Christian belief.

Jesus gave the mandate for the disciples (not just Paul) to tell the good news all over the world. I'm not trying to beat up on you or to be offensive here, but how else was Paul supposed to live out this message? Not to mention that the other apostles did the same thing. And I don't think that we can fault/credit Paul with starting the Roman Catholic church. Also, I'm a protestant (yeah, I've got my own baggage here), but I acknowledge that there are great Catholics out there who are truly Christian. Their efforts are undercut by all the weird and evil popes and priests.

Edited May 8, 2004 by trublvr

[Falco Rex]

OK, that was well put, and I hadn't considered a lot of it before now.

Thanks Trublvyr.

[trublvr]

You da man, Falco Rex!

[Stellar]

Evolution is a logical, fact based arguement There's certainly more common sense and logic in it that there is in relgion....a great deal more. At the end of the day, every arguement that makes claim to be "evidence" for creationism has already been widely rebuked. Creationists have yet to come up with even a speck of evidence that cannot be otherwise explained while they themselves, being incapable of explaining our evidence, dance around and hide from it.

Thats when they say "You gotta have faith!"

Anyone else notice how these religious people tend to imply that the open minded people who tried/researched both sides are the religious/turned religious people and the ones who either were religious and became atheistic or the ones that were atheistic from the beginning are the wrong, closed minded people who havent researched anything?

[Stellar]

Oh and people, please, PLEASE seperate believing in god from being christian. Believing in god doesnt make anyone christian.

[Potholer]

Doesn't religion rest on the fact (slightly inappropriate word?) that you have faith in whatever deity?

but faith is

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. "

(definition found from definition of faith)

therefore, if a believer supplies solid proof is no longer religion?

Um, not sure if that whole link actually works but meh