|
Post by Golan Klinger on Mar 10, 2007 13:23:31 GMT -5
Sadly the government said no chance dont be silly. A thoroughly enlightened response. I seem to recall the emergence of a new belief system about 2000 years ago in what is now Israel. The government of the day was based in Rome and at first, their response to the upstart religion was eerily similar. The belief system started to spread and the government had to resort to stronger methods to repress it which, contrary to expectations, really increased the popularity of that belief system. All religions can be described as silly and governments shouldn't be poking their noses into people's silly business.
|
|
|
Post by thurstan on Mar 12, 2007 6:40:57 GMT -5
big difference being that silly religion from 2000 years ago was a real religion with practicing followers, not a bunch of people who think its cool to be a jedi!
|
|
|
Post by Golan Klinger on Mar 12, 2007 8:53:19 GMT -5
big difference being that silly religion from 2000 years ago was a real religion with practicing followers, not a bunch of people who think its cool to be a jedi! What defines a "real" religion? Surely not the number of followers/practitioners or how silly or disruptive the governing power of the day considers the belief set? Perhaps Christ's followers did so because they thought doing so was "cool". My point (which I think was lost) was that there is a parallel between the way the Roman government regarded the followers of Christ some 2000 odd years ago and the way the British government regarded those who claimed to be Jedis, jokingly or not, a few years ago. Given time, all ethos becomes dogma. What I'm trying to convey is that it isn't the government's place to decide what is and what isn't a real or valid religion. They've no more business in one's house of worship than they do in one's bedroom. Of course, those in power in Britain have a long and well documented history of ignorance and intolerance towards belief sets that differ from their own. If you look into the history of the United States of America you'll find that one of the more important motivating factors behind the forming of the American republic was the desire to create a place where a person would be free to practice their religion, whatever that religion may be.
|
|
|
Post by David Murray on Mar 12, 2007 11:20:25 GMT -5
Being that you are Canadian, I'm surprised you know that little-known fact. Do they teach U.S. history in schools in Canada? i know I never learned squat about Canada in school here. What little I do know I learned from talking with Canadians.
|
|
|
Post by Golan Klinger on Mar 12, 2007 13:00:49 GMT -5
Being that you are Canadian, I'm surprised you know that little-known fact. I have the benefit of a classical education. I don't know anything about the current curriculum. One can always educate themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Colquhoun on Mar 12, 2007 15:24:39 GMT -5
Do they teach U.S. history in schools in Canada? Yes they do. I don't know whether it is mandatory, but when I went through high school 15 years ago American History was a very popular option course. If I recall correctly though, history class leading up to the high school years was certainly focused on Canada, but did contain important events south of the border as well. I lived in Phoenix, Arizona for 18 months and while I was there I began to realize how little the average American knows about their neighbours to the north - historically speaking and currently. Shockingly little in fact. I'm no U.S.A. expert, but I know who the current president and vice president are.
|
|
|
Post by thurstan on Mar 12, 2007 18:34:36 GMT -5
My point was nobody practices Jedi-ism. There are maybe a few people who live what they think is the jedi code/dogma and truly believe etc, compared to the millions of star wars fans who want to do something for a laugh and play with the voting system.
i'm sure the whole "have enough people stating jedi as their religion and it becomes an official religion" is an urban myth anyway!
|
|
murple
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by murple on Mar 14, 2007 23:52:47 GMT -5
I can't vote both Atheist and Buddhist?!? WTF... guess I'll go with Buddhist and an implied atheist. Also, vi is better than emacs. Linux is better than Windows or Mac. And, as I'm sure all here will agree, Commodore is better than Apple or Atari.
|
|
|
Post by brotherbryce on Mar 17, 2007 2:42:36 GMT -5
The problem with most people's beliefs is,
most people.
The issue of "...I just can't believe that because..." doesn't make sense. Do you think that the great creator of the universe's existence depends on what you believe? I dare say not. The fact that more than 70% of Americans believe that there is no such thing as absolute truth should tell you how illogical people are. Essentially, you believe something, and that makes it so. Everyone lives in their very own truth. Whether you believe you are a donkey, a bicycle or a rhino beetle doesn't make it so, no matter how much you meditate on it. Oh yes, and more than 50% of so-called Christians also believe there is no absolute truth.
There IS an absolute truth. Nothing else makes any sense. If the world were founded and created by chaos, every living creature could have their own truth and all of existence would rip into shreds because nothing had any rules. If every carpenter had his own idea of what an inch was, we'd never have a straight house on the block. If dogs suddenly decided they lived in the trees instead of on the ground, leashes would be replaced by reels of kite string. If everyone could make up their own body temperature, you'd be able to make yourself a popsicle just by blowing on your soda pop.
God set into place a set of boundaries. He said for the earth and the heavens to be separated, and for the sea to stay in its place. Thus far, we still have continents of land that are above water, and we still have a sky over our heads, so I'd have to say what he said has stuck pretty good. He says it, and thus, it is.
People need to realize that God doesn't need for you to believe in Him in order to exist. He's just fine, and not really stressed. A person down here simply saying "there is no God" doesn't have any effect on the fact that he's still there. I do believe, and because God is merciful and gracious to me, I am blessed by Him. A person's lack of faith does nothing to interfere with God or His plan. It simply denies that person the blessings that are promised to those who trust in Him.
-BrotherBryce
|
|
|
Post by MadModder on Mar 17, 2007 8:16:31 GMT -5
What makes it so obvious God is a male? What would you do if you discovered that there is no God and everything was just a fairytale? What would I do if I found out that there really is a God? What if all this is a dream, and you are hooked up in 'The Matrix'? Not very likely, but as I see it, it's not very different from a world where a God is the great commander. It's placebo. If you're ill and believe in a white sugar pill, you can get better. If you pray to God, you can get better. It's the belief itself that makes it happen if it ever will, not that the thing you believe in makes something to/for you. That's my belief
|
|
|
Post by brotherbryce on Mar 18, 2007 19:24:54 GMT -5
So you'd rather believe the science of the day which teaches us: #1. The earth is millions (or billions) of years old (and there is no evidence to support this, since carbon-dating doesn't allow or account for the leaching of ore into specimens which constantly occurs, so it is wildly inaccurate) #2. We evolved first from proteins, and then from monkeys (again, not a single fossil of a hybrid of two species exists, no evidence) #3. Gravity has yet to be explained by science, however God's Word has a clear explanation for it. So if I follow the idea of a placebo-theism, I can believe I am a Chinese Pug, and thusly I will be one, right? I should start buying my clothes a few sizes smaller from now on. What makes God a male? He says it over and over in His word. Even the Holy Spirit is referred to in the male gender throughout the scriptures. What would happen if I suddenly discovered there was no God? God has revealed Himself to me, so he'd have to un-reveal himself. Assuming that were possible, I'd be sad, but in the end, I'd cease to exist, and nothing I ever did would matter, so I guess the answer is, I'd be insignificant. What would you do if you found out there WAS a God. Well, either now, or later, you'd call him Lord. Better now than later. -BrotherBryce
|
|
|
Post by gmoon on Mar 18, 2007 20:28:29 GMT -5
Bryce, from what I can see no here has attacked or insulted your faith.
Rather, it looks to me like you cast the first stone....
|
|
|
Post by Golan Klinger on Mar 18, 2007 20:52:50 GMT -5
What makes God a male? He says it over and over in His word. Even the Holy Spirit is referred to in the male gender throughout the scriptures. What word? Are you suggesting that God wrote the Bible? If so, what language did he write it in?
|
|
|
Post by David Murray on Mar 18, 2007 20:57:45 GMT -5
So you'd rather believe the science of the day which teaches us: #1. The earth is millions (or billions) of years old (and there is no evidence to support this, since carbon-dating doesn't allow or account for the leaching of ore into specimens which constantly occurs, so it is wildly inaccurate) #2. We evolved first from proteins, and then from monkeys (again, not a single fossil of a hybrid of two species exists, no evidence) #3. Gravity has yet to be explained by science, however God's Word has a clear explanation for it. Bryce, I've spent many years examining all the arguments on both sides of this debate and trying to decide what I believe. In order to maintain objectivity, I never use the Bible as a tool to enforce a scientific belief. Rather I look at the science and ask myself if it adequetly explains everything or suggests a supreme designer. I have concluded there is a supreme designer completely seperately from looking at the Bible. However, here is the biggest problem I have with people on BOTH sides of this argument. Instead of searching for the truth, they always make specific assumptions which causes their science to be wrong. For example, Christians always start with the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old. If there were no Bible to examine, there would be absolutly no reason any geologist or scientist in general would come to a number like that. Rather Christians assume this number to be true, and try to bend everything else to make it fit. Atheists have the same problem. They start with the assumption that there is no God, and try to bend all the facts around that assumption (for example, abiogenesis) As for your argument #1 about there being no evidence to support this.. I hate this argument.. I hear it from fellow Christians all the time and have to step in, for the name of science. Carbon dating is not the only method for telling the age of the earth. For example, look at the grand canyon. It doesn't take a genious to calculate how long it takes water to erode through solid rock, and then figure out how deep the canyon is and use simple alegbra to get your answer. That doesn't tell us how old the earth is, but it tells us how old the canyon is and it is a lot older than 6,000 years. There are hundreds of such examples of things like this around the planet that can be used to determine age. Quite honestly, the 6,000 year argument is really setting Christian science behind. If they'd ever conceede this one, then the rest of their science would start to fill in the truth. For your #2 argument about evolution. I agree with it mostly. I definatly to not believe that life could have evolved from non-life. Evolution seems to be a true mechanism and I have no doubt it played an important part of our history. However, as you say, there are some very large gaps in the fossil record. Evolution is supposed to take millions of years to progress from one species to another, yet often there are no fossils of these creatures and scientists suggest it happened too fast to leave any. Kind of contradicting, if you ask me. I suspect evolution was guided by God. For your #3 argument.. It is true that science can't completely explain the force of gravity. However, I do not see the Bible explaining it either. I suspect gravity is one of those fundamental forces that were defined by the creator. One last thing. I started this poll with more interest in seeing the actual numbers, not neccessarily to have arguments with each other. I'm sure Jeff has been hovering over the delete button for a while here. It is expected we will all have different opinions on this matter, but as long as the posts remain non-hostile, I'm sure there will be no problems.
|
|
|
Post by brotherbryce on Mar 18, 2007 22:51:34 GMT -5
Firstly, let me say that I am neither insulted, nor insulting. I intend not to fling stones at anyone. If anyone takes it that way, I urge you to open your mind to honest debate.
Secondly, I make no apologies for speaking God's truth, as He's stated it in the Bible. That's what I'm supposed to do.
About the Grand Canyon. I strongly suspect that you weren't there with a stopwatch when it was carved out of the earth during the Flood.
About evolution. God created Adam, and Adam named every creature on Earth, and what Adam called it, God backed him up (from Gen 2:19-20). Adam didn't name a monkey, and then afterward come from a monkey. God did not see a need to improve upon the perfect creature he'd made and given earthly dominion to. The only thing I might speculate about is that our teeth might have changed after the flood, since before that we, and all the animals, were vegetarians (Gen 1:30). But after the flood, God gave Noah animals to eat. (Gen 9:2-3)
About gravity, Genesis Chapter 1 verse 6 through 10 describe the creation of the basic foundational elements of the earth's structure. Since gravity was one of the forces necessary to use in order for this to work, gravity is best explained as the manifestation of God's command. All the science that we have here on earth seems to indicate that due to centrifugal force, we should all be soaring off into space at incredible speed, however, God's command made for an environment a tad more friendly for us.
Humbly yours,
-BrotherBryce
|
|