Has it ever occured to anyone that, over the course of history, humans often come to the conclusion that anything that cannot be explained at the moment is automatically considered to be supernatural? For example, the Greeks. They had a god for just about anything that they could not explain with their means of science or technology at the time. How else could they explain the torrent of fire and molten lava that spwes out of a volcano? By claiming that Hephasteus is simply working in his forge of course.
But fast forward to today. And we know that isn't the case. The advent of computers, automobiles, airplanes, etc etc etc, would simply astound the Ancient Greeks. They would consider us gods. They would be unable to speak out of pure awe.
And since science is never ending in the sense that, with each question answered, more questions are formed... we still do not have a logical explanation for God. That being that supposedly judges us from afar, and moves through us all.
Think about it though... what if we just haven't reached the technological threshold to explain it yet?
It could be possible, that "God" is nothing more than a wave that interacts with our matter. Influencing our decisions with maybe electrical impulses or something similar. Religion is making "god" more important than it really is. With the advent of more powerful technology, we may be able to see what it is that moves through us all. More than likely, it is just another force of nature. It justs exists. It is there, always has been. But it is not a being, it is not something to worship... it is just not something we can understand. YET.
Basically, what I am trying to say is, we humans have proven over time that with the advent of better technology we can understand the ways of nature around us. So what's to stop us from unlocking the secrets of the universe? As well as explaining what "god" really is? We just can't comprehend it yet... but we will in time I think. Just like we did with volcanoes, oceans, telephones, airplanes, etc etc etc.
Religion is powerful in many ways no doubt. It helps certain people get through rough times, and to them, it explains the way things are as well giving them a code of ethics that they can follow. But religion is also on a way ticket to being obsolete. If science can bridge the gap between the two, what now?
Now just so everyone knows, I am not trying to attack anyones beliefs, I am merely wondering outloud if the above could be the case. I would also like to hear what other people have to say. Please be open-minded, and rational.
I will explain in better detail some ideas that I have heard as well some of my own if a great dialogue can be established.
Jafo, GW: ... everything on my screen look ok ... what was meant by "... auto-attributed to Sinperium ..."???
Apparently...for GW the quote he referred to showed 'Sinperium' as the person being quoted....which was wrong...but the comment number was correct.
It'll be a cache issue between Forums/sites....resolves itself given a few minutes.
EG....this quote [above] "should" be BoobzTwo reply 776 - but may not be if immediately viewed from another location....until things catch up with themselves.
The bible is not a fiction. It is a book that used to teach people about Faith. But, it is not a history book or science book either. So, I don't understand why people considered it as a science book that explain about the universe creation or other people who consider that Adam and Eve as historical figures.
But, despite it is not a history book, there are a lot of writing about Israel history. Like the King David, Salomon, and Moses. As the Genesis, it is a book of Jew ancient folk lore. What wrong with folk lore? Every civilization have folk lore.
The problem of christian bible is, that it can go into a never ending interpretation. That's because people assume that the words (and the story) in this book as not as it is in. The other problem is, that the christian consider the bible as a holy book, and the only book that used by them to learn and to communicate with God. That's why the bible become a book with 1001 meaning (well, because we have "Killing the kafir / enemy of faith in the old testament and they can't take that words as it is, don't they? or they will become a religious extremist).
In my personal belief, Bible as a book is a good book that teach me a lot of thing. But don't let you wrong. I'm not a christian nor catholic. I studied christian from my school day. I like christian teaching and philosophy; but I never consider Jesus as a God. For me, he is the son of God and rabbi; as what he said or be called in the bible. Well, son can be a lot of thing, even christian consider themselves as the son of God. I believe that I learn a lot of things from bible, just like I learn from other books that I have read in my life. I like what Jesus teaching; and I'm sure that his teaching has influence the western history a lot (even today).
But honestly, I don't like Church. I know one of church in my town. I consider that this church has not the same vision of christian teaching and philosophy that I believe in. They tell people that as long as they believe that Jesus is a God, go to baptism, and pay 10% of their revenue to church, they will get our God's blessing, and go to heaven (Well, I'm not a holy man, but God as a businessman? As long as you pay, you can go to heaven and get his blessing? Hmm).
Check my edit on the reply in question. I capped Tetleytea to show I'd had to correct the bug. A similar sort of thing seems to have happened way earlier in this thread when Lulapilgrim quoted someone else but my name got tagged by the quote block.
If it's a cache issue, it managed to make it into the 'official record' of a post edit, which makes it bug worth working IMO. Admittedly low priority, but there's something there that exceeds the particle size of things I'm content to see swept under the By Design rug.
It's no different to thinking you've posted an image on the forum only to discover it only shows in your own browser because it's loaded from your clipboard [cache] and not an actual online link that everyone can/will see.
When you have 32 pages of junk thread to load there'll be a delay...meanwhile others already loaded will see different content.
Check the 'recent posts' section of the Forums and you'll find last posts from people listed that do NOT show when you open the thread....until the system catches up.
It's not a 'bug', it's the result of a complex Forum system.
You have one of the best attitudes I have seen in a while and your honest views are pleasant for a change. Don’t let us antagonists interfere with your beliefs … you have most of us beaten by far …
Organized religion is not bad, any more than organization itself is bad. Do we become more charitable if we disband the Salvation Army and Red Cross and let everybody just give individually according to their beliefs? Or what about World Vision? I'm not going to go to Africa to help some starving orphan. In fact, without some organizaton out there to tell me, I wouldn't even know there was a starvation problem in Africa at all. But I have no problem putting $30 to my credit card every month to help out the organization help Africa. And there is a reason our U.S. Constitution specifically had to put in an Amendment protecting our right to assemble: because governments recognized the power in organizing.
So you'd think they'd try it themselves....;0
Yeah. And I readily admit the government doesn't exactly honor the right to assemble, either. The number of incidents of police ordering protesters to disperse is disturbing. Yet it only illustrates the point further.
Leauki posts: You misunderstand the article. Human _development_ begins at conception. Neither life nor human life begin at conception. The uniting cells are already alive and they are already human (as are skin cells, incidentally.)
Human life begins at fertilization. Human development begins at a cellular level and those cells are alive Leauki.
LEAUKI POSTS: You are right, I misspoke. I should have said "human being", not "human life".A fetus is human life, but not a complete human being yet. As such in Judaism aborting a fetus (potential human being) is allowed to save the life of the mother (a complete human being).
Yes, human fetuses are complete human beings.You and I were once in that stage of life. We were full human beings, not potential oneS. We were complete just not fully grown. Kill at any one of these stages, and a human life is killed.
CHECK OUT THIS ARTICLE: iT GOES TO SHOW SCIENCE CONFIRMS BOTH THE BIBLE AND CHURCH TEACHINGS ON LIFE.
BRAINSUCKER POSTS: Quoting Brainsucker, reply 720I'm curious : About the story of Noah Ark, Was it Noah himself who write the story? Or was it a folk Lore that been told from mouth to mouth for generations before it was written?
LEAUKI POSTS: Quoting Leauki, reply 724It was folk lore that was told among descendants of Noah's tribe and finally written down by Moses 3300 years ago. At least that is a version that agrees both with historical facts as we know them and Jewish tradition.
Good response Leauki, but calling the account of Noah's Ark from the ancient Jewish Tradition "folklore" somehow doesn't do it justice.
The underlying structure of the first 11 chapters of Genesis comes to us from two ancient sources ..the Priestly and Yahwistic traditions. Through them it's not difficult to conceive of an assured continuity and preservation of the transmission of oral material.
Most agree that the integration of these traditions was given to Moses and thus we have the truths contained in Genesis 1-11.
.....................................
BRAINSUCKER POSTS: Quoting Brainsucker, reply 720I think it is not relevant for us today to discuss about this story as a historical material, or as a fact, but more of morale teaching that it offer to the readers of the story. Well, I'm sure the writer didn't aim us, modern people who have a lot of materials to deny such story. but, long or short, the story teach the readers to believe in God, and if they believe and obey God's order, they would be save. It was success for thousand of years, and still workable for modern people like us.
Genesis definitely has an historical nature but we can't approach it as we would a modern historical work. Rather, Genesis is a theological interpretation of ancient Israelite history that gives a religious illustration of the Divine plan of salvation.
......................................................
RIDDLEKING Re; your post #703...
Whoever wrote this point of interest from the story of Noah's Ark is mistaken. Genesis tells us that God gave them 120 years to repent. They didn't. Almighty God sent the Flood as a just punishment for previous sins and as a lesson for future generations. God didn't send the Flood to wipe out the gift of free will nor to destroy wickedness or prevent the possibility of future sin.
God saved Noah and his family from the moral flood of sin.
God has always willed that if man did good, man would not be destroyed and that if he does evil he will be destroyed.
Ha, ha, ha, God doesn't make mistakes, but we do plenty.
God has a perfect right to do as He pleases with the work of His own creation. He didn't have to create nor has He any obligation to any of His creatures that He should contiinue to confer existence upon them. What God makes He is free to unmake.
When we make a thing which will not fulfill the purpose for which it was made, we destroy it and set to work again.
All this just goes to show the inability of man to comprehend the full significance of this event.
Genesis 6:6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
One can reasonably argue from the Bible that God has made at least one mistake. Viewing this passage objectively, it appears that God felt at the time that creating mankind was a mistake. One could always start from the premise that God cannot make mistakes and from there interpret this Genesis 6 passage in some way such that He didn't really make a mistake, but I don't think that's entirely objective. The simplest explanation is that God made a mistake and therefore sent a Flood. However, there may be "kinds" of mistakes. Let me explain: say I adopt a kid. And in spite of all my best attempts at parenting, he gets addicted on drugs, steals from the rest of my family, gets arrested, and will probably OD on drugs eventually anyway. I regret that I ever adopted this guy. Did I make a mistake? Well, yes and no. At the end of the day, I can't control the choices he makes. But I think that the idea that an omnipotent God cannot make mistakes is probably not so simple.
lulapilgrim ... again, let's NOT copy/paste slabs of text from elsewhere.
Instead, quote segments ONLY and link to the body/origin.
Plagiarism is an issue whether intentional or not.
I think it's a matter for each person to decide for themselves.
I'm not saying that there should be no morals. I'm not saying people should be able to do whatever they want with no limits.
Society allows people to use tobacco which slowly kills those who use it.
Society allows people to own guns which kill people.
So if these things are allowed why can't a woman decide for herself if she wants to carry through with a pregnancy?
It shouldn't be a matter of religion in society or science or if the government allows it. It's called FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
I appreciate your need to monitor the discussion.
Just to be clear, I haven't plagiarised anything but now I know your rules concerning NOT copying and pasting texts from links and will abide your rules as best I can.
Thank you for leaving the link which gives LifeSiteNews as the source of what I had cut and pasted.
I'm Christian and I lean toward pro-choice myself. Exact reasons as Chasbo just cited. And believe me, on the Christian boards I take flak for it. I've been banned before from the Christians-only section of a board because I support pro-choice (evidently that makes me non-Christian...). The government needs to stay out of family business. And you can't just pick-and-choose when the government steps in and when they don't. Unborn babies are in the jurisdiction of the parents--they're not freakin' government property. If the government should step in at all, it's in giving the father a say-so in the baby's fate.
Note that this does not mean I don't support Pro-Life protesters picketing clinics and distributing education materials. I very much support that. Both parents should be given a choice, and that means making fully-informed choices; and that includes the Pro-Life side of the story (it's called free speech). I just don't support the government ban on a family matter.
CHASBO,
No man is an island. If it were merely a matter of each person deciding for themselves according to their own standard of morality, we'd have chaos, utter, ultimate free fall chaos. (IMO, it's fast coming to that).
That's why we as social beings (society) have standards of morality expressed in our laws. The American Founders understood this. Society, true religion and government are three God-given spheres of authority. That's exactly why it is a matter that true religion, just government and true liberty be intertwined.
Yes, society allows people to use tobacco which slowly kills. It's abuse of the freedom to use tobacco where people harm themselves.
Yes, society allows people to own guns, but it's abuse of the freedom to own guns whereby people are killed.
Freedom of choice ... freedom to choose what?
It's a scientific fact that an unborn child is a human being and we all know it, including the medical community.
So why do people insist that the mother has the freedom to choose the death of her innocent baby trapped in the womb?
Right now, pro-abortionist's morals have deemed that abortion is "legal". But that act is offensive to the baby.
Once a woman is pregnant, another person's life is in the consideration. And truth is we don't have freedom of choice (true liberty) to murder another innocent life which is what abortion is.
The right to life is the true liberty to all other freedoms. Without life we'd have no freedom to choose whatsoever.
Regarding abortion, I lean as does Chasbo--each person has to decide for themself. For myself, it's clear that a child is still a person--even in the womb. That isn't confusing beyond the very earliest stages of pregnancy and we have tons of scientific evidence and research now that supports this.
But I do believe that the woman can ultimately make the decision. I don't think that's "unbiblical" for the same reasons I don't think divorce is unbiblical. Divorce is literally biblical . It was passed down by Moses as "law". What's interesting is what the bible attributes Jesus as having said about it:
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.
But it was not this way from the beginning." Matthew 19:18 NIV
The bible allows for--but does not excuse divorce. I think abortion is the same situation--though I could not conscious it in the latter stages of pregnancy other than to save a mother who's life was in danger. I honestly don't understand how anyone with any medical knowledge can rationalize that and it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.
I'm also not judging any particular woman's circumstance in which she may have chosen an abortion. We all make mistakes and sometimes tragic ones.
That's the thing about free will...we get to chose...right wrong or otherwise.
LEAUKI POSTS:Ararat is the mountains, not the land that was flooded. It doesn't speak of "mountains" that were covered, it speaks of hills. "harim" means both "mountains" and "hills", but there are no mountains in the riverland.You are confusing Ararat (where Noah lands) with the land that was flooded (where Noah started). Ararat wasn't flooded, Mesopotamia was. And Mesopotamia is strictly the land around the rivers, not the surrounding mountains.
Whether or not the Great Flood was world-wide or local will always be debated, however Scripture does tell of mountains that were covered.
I think there are too many Biblical passages and specific words that when put together tell of a world-wide flood.
For one example, Gen.7: 17-24,
17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth, and the waters increased, and lifted up the ark on high from the earth. 18 For they overflowed exceedingly: and filled all on the face of the earth: and the ark was carried upon the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered.
21 And all flesh was destroyed that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beasts, and of all creeping things that creep upon the earth: and all men. 22 And all things wherein there is the breath of life on the earth, died. 23 And he destroyed all the substance that was upon the earth, from man even to beast, and the creeping things and fowls of the air: and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noe only remained, and they that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.
Anyway, as far as Ararat, the mountains, and where the Ark rested...
The Douay Rheims version has Gen. 8:4-5 as, "And the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventh and twentieth day of the month, upon the mountains of Armenia. And the waters were going and decreasing until the tenth month, for in the tenth month, the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared."
Accadian Urartu is the region corresponding to Armenia but extends further to the South. It seems to me the reference here where the ark rested is to the country and not to the mountain called Ararat today.
"Mountain" does seem to be a relative term and varies in its application. Did Noah's Ark rest on top of a hill? I guess we won't know until we find it, and who knows if that will ever happen. Maybe science will once again confirm Scripture!
Yep, this is the bare basics and what life is all about....got to agree with you here.
....................................
Here is where we disagree. Abortion is far different situation from divorce, Biblicaly and every which way.
Abortion was always prohibited by the Fifth Commandment of God. No one has any right before God and in conscience tp abortion. The deliberate and direct destruction of innocent human life is forbidden by the commandment, Thou shalt not kill."
Another Biblical principle is that the end does not justify any morally evil means.
You are correct that divorce was allowed by Moses as pronounced in the OLd Testament (Old Covenant Law). But with Christ, and the New Covenant Law all that changed. Christ raised the marriage contract to the dignity of a Sacrament and the New Testament condemns divorce.
Look lulapilgim that's what I said. Essentially what you said.
As far as when is a person a person is concerned there is no consensus by science on this. You can find various opinions on this from different scientists and doctors. This question will never be decided. Even if a law were passed or a Supreme Court ruling were made, either way,There would be people who wouldn't agree.
For me it all boils down to what the woman who is pregnant decides. I don't like it when men try to get involved. I don't think that even the Father should be able to decide. It's up to each woman. It's their bodies, it's their souls, for those who believe in souls.
Look, I was raised Catholic and all my life, even in the 1950's, I saw hypocrisy in the Catholic church. The whole deal with pedophile priests has been going on for a long long time. Usually in my experience where there's smoke there's fire. I don't listen to or believe what Catholics say about religion. I don't think that following Jesus is the only way to get to heaven. So it follows that I don't listen to what the Church says about science. I listen to scientists if I want to learn about science.
LULA POSTS: Ha, ha, ha, God doesn't make mistakes, but we do plenty.
TETLEYTEA,
Yes, I've got to go with your last statement.
We've got to understand that we are looking at that Biblcal passage from a very human standpoint and in addressing a message to mankind, God spoke in a way which was intelligible to them. But even understanding that because God regretted creating mankind doesn't mean He made a mistake.
Almighty God does not make mistakes.
For more context, let's include verse 5, "And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, 6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
So what are we to take away from this message in the Bible?
That the giving of free will to angels and to mankind was reqired, but it was also a great risk.
That it can't be denied that since all mankind chose to use their free will against God and His commands, it is from a realistic analysis very regretful.
But the big question is whether it all was worth it that God created in the first place.
The answer is yes, because once God began His Creation there was no turning back. He created mankind with free will becasue He wanted a people for Himself and so for the one faithful person in Noah, He salvaged what He could from wickedness.
Well, truth is there is a mountain of scientific and medical consensus and technology on this. Renowned scientists and geneticists have testified before Congress that life begins at conception. It's just that people don't want to know scientific proof exists is the problem. They prefer Planned Parenthood lies that "it's just a blog of tissue".
There are a number of scientific and medical facts that prove life begins at conception, that is from the moment the male sperm unites with a female ovum and a new and unique human life is created. this tiny new, human creature has all of the genetic information that a fully developed person has. No new genetic information will be added throughout the person's lifetime. This is no tissue blog, rather it's an incrediblly complex new individual creation.
Your approach lacks realism and that might be because you've bought into the abortion sophistry. Men ARE involved and should be involved.
Re; the highlighted...
Pregnancy is not only about the woman's body. The mother and the baby each have a distinctive genetic code. Each are unique. Becasue of the unique genetic code we know that the baby in the womb is not merely a part of his mother's body, although the baby resides there and needs the very same essentials to live that a two year old outside the womb needs to reach adulthood, namely, time, air, water and food.
Even if it is granted that the mother has the right to control her own body, she does not have the right to destroy someone else's body in the process. that's what happens in abortion...the question never gets asked, "What about the baby's body"?
I'm completely against abortion other than as a life-saving measure. But you can't kick in the door and force women to deliver a baby,
I'll be perfectly clear--reaching into the womb and shredding a healthy baby with razor sharp instruments or pouring caustic saline in or crowning the scalp and punching a spike into the brain are horrendous acts of violence--no matter how you try to pretty them up.
A women does have control of her body--before she gets pregnant. Performing abortions at the point of significant fetal development to me is incomprehensible.
You can't argue with a black man.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
