|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Conflict of interests | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, religion is also about effective conveyance of cultural mores to large numbers of people, as well as being about very effective control of the behavior of large numbers of people. quote: Right. And, most cultures through all of recorded history, through to the present, have used religion to convey their mores and control the behavior of their citizens. That is not to say that religion is the only means used, but it is the oldest, and many would say, the most effective.
It's a very effective self-perpetuating social control institution, and that's the biggest reason it has lasted as long as it has. quote: All of them are equally valid? Even the defunct ones?
If religion isn't about living a better life, what is it for? quote: But if you are seeking "enlightenment" through having a relationship with God, then isn't that about having a better life? Isn't is "better" to one's life to be enlightened rather than not?
quote: This is not the kind of thing the vast, vast majority of religious people do when they choose to follow a faith, though. If it was made clear to every single Christian, from childhood, that every Christian will definitely be called to be martyred for the faith, how many people do you think would be lining up to convert, and how popular would the religion be? I contend that people follow a faith or religious system because it makes them happy/content, etc. ...which brings me back to my original point, that non-religious folks are just as well-adjusted, happy, content, etc (or not) as believers.
quote: How do you know that God wants people to believe in it/him/her and have a relationship with it/him/her? Why should I accept that God exists when there is no evidence for the supernatural? Why would God blame me for following what my God-given senses tell me and for not going beyond that into what is quite likely a culturally-influenced mass delusion? (no insult intended here)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
Arachnophilia your post is way to long to reply to. I did read it and i still stand by my post. Anyway ill try to answer as much as i can.
quote: Evolution is not fact. Every animal does not turn into every animal. fish do not turn into amphibians, nor do fish turn into people. This is what we observe in the present. Yet the ToE expects us to swallow that everything turned into everything.
quote: Which verse in Genesis 2 are you talking about exactly?
quote: Genesis marks the absolute beginning of the temporal and material world. Ex Nihilo. It does not mean natural proceses over billions of years.
quote: It is a miraculous event. As it happens on the 7th day. Not over millions of years through premeval homosapiens.
quote: The Bible comes from the mind of God. It implies that God does exist, therefore any form of humanistic/athiestic philosophy is wrong.
quote: The doesnt make sense. The one that does make sense is the plural pronouns "us" and "our" in verse 26 (genesis) taking singular verbs in expressing the tri-unity of God.
quote: It wasnt until men like James Hutton (1795) & Charles Lyell proposing that geologic changes occured slowly in the past, and therefore enormous time periods were required to form strata, mountains & canyons, that doubt was cast. In other words, they excluded any consideration of castastrophism (the belief that massive upheavels as the global flood along with earthquakes,volcanic activity, and tidal waves that accompany it would have been instrumental in forming the geological features of the earth). Evolutionists Stephen Jay Ghould in his book Ever Since Darwin described how Lyell used 'True Bits of cunning' & ' imposed his imagination upon the evidence' in order to get his dogmatic, slow and gradual philosophy accepted as 'the only true geology'. Once people could be made to doubt Gods word, it was much easier to bring them to a point of total unbelief, which is what Lyell wanted. So enough doubt had been created about biblical events such as divine creation and noahs flood. By the advent of Darwins book in 1859, many people were completely prepared to reject the entire gospel in favour of a totally mechanistic, materialistic philosophy. This radically new belief system gradually replaced the Christian foundation, which continued to erode due doubt on its foundation. Genesis. As genesis was cleverly undermined the whole structure above it began to collapse. History shows that an old earth is the recent aberration
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Is the notion that germs or brain chemistry, contrary to evil spirits and the Devil as it says in the Bible, cause disease and mental illness a "recent aberration? It the notion of the Earth as a sphere, as opposed to a flat disc as it says in the Bible, a "recent aberration"? Is the notion of the Earth as the third planet in orbit around the Sun, in a solar system on the edge of the Milky Way galaxy, in contrat to the Bible which says that the Earth is the center of the Solar System and universe, a "recent aberration"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I've just spent the last couple of minutes reading several short bios of Lyell and I'll be darned if I can find anything about him having a mission to spread athiesm through his work in Geology. Even several Creationist sites mentioned him but failed to mention this about him. Perhaps you can post some citations or in-context quotes which support your view that Lyell wanted to bring people to the "point to total unbelief"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
almeyda writes: History shows that an old earth is the recent aberration almeyda, that has got to be the single worst argument I have ever seen against evolution (and I've seen a few). To think that somebody actually expended time putting that list together as "evidence" in their' favour, is truly staggering. PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
Dont talk to me about it. Hes the one that argued it. I just simply gave him what history has belived.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
can't see a name before 600 BC on the list
PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
quote: Evolution is not fact. Every animal does not turn into every animal. fish do not turn into amphibians, nor do fish turn into people. This is what we observe in the present. Yet the ToE expects us to swallow that everything turned into everything. thus demonstrating my point: you have a fundamental reading problem. i said, IGNORING scientific facts and reality (arguments about whether evolution happens etc), that your view does not stand up to literary analysis. replying about evolution (in an obviously misinterpretted way) does not help your point. i'm not talking about evolution, i'm talking about the bible, what it says, how it's structured and composed, who wrote it, where why and when, and how it's been revised, editted and translated.
quote: Which verse in Genesis 2 are you talking about exactly? from about the second half of verse 4 onward for a few verses. it says that god made adam before anything else. read the parenthetical aside: it says that no grasses or plants were made. then, when god notices that adam is lonely, he makes animals. and when no suitable mate could be found for adam, he makes eve. seriously, have you read genesis 2?
Genesis marks the absolute beginning of the temporal and material world. Ex Nihilo. It does not mean natural proceses over billions of years. it says water existed before creation.
It is a miraculous event. As it happens on the 7th day. Not over millions of years through premeval homosapiens. 6th day. god rests on the 7th. and homo sapiens (two words) were not "premeval" they were, and are relatively recent. and genesis two is not a miraculous event, except for when god breathes life into adam. god simply forms a man from clay.
The Bible comes from the mind of God. It implies that God does exist, therefore any form of humanistic/athiestic philosophy is wrong. no, the bible STATES that god does exist. no implication. it's not like "hey, maybe there's some invisible man in the sky." it says things like god talked to moses on mt horeb. and please, PLEASE read the bible some more. there is no possible way that it came from the mind of god. it was written over thousands of years, in different places, by different people. it has many inconsistencies, oversights, factual errors and distortions, and agenda-driven text. you can't just say that it was written by god and expect those of us who've actually read the book to agree.
The doesnt make sense. The one that does make sense is the plural pronouns "us" and "our" in verse 26 (genesis) taking singular verbs in expressing the tri-unity of God. i do not disagree, i'm just saying that the qabalistic trinity works better than the christian one for the example of genesis. that idea says that god is male, female, and neither. it would explain why when god creates humans in his image, he creates them with two genders.
It wasnt until men like James Hutton (1795) & Charles Lyell proposing that geologic changes occured slowly in the past, and therefore enormous time periods were required to form strata, mountains & canyons, that doubt was cast. In other words, they excluded any consideration of castastrophism (the belief that massive upheavels as the global flood along with earthquakes,volcanic activity, and tidal waves that accompany it would have been instrumental in forming the geological features of the earth). Evolutionists Stephen Jay Ghould in his book Ever Since Darwin described how Lyell used 'True Bits of cunning' & ' imposed his imagination upon the evidence' in order to get his dogmatic, slow and gradual philosophy accepted as 'the only true geology'. and it wasn't until the 1500's that we thought the earth went arond the sun and not vice versa. models are changed, revised, and often completely scrapped because they don't fit the data. creationism doesn't fit the data. and although i can't find you the context of the gould quotemine, i assure that stephen jay gould has not doubt in his mind as to what model is true. and it's not the flood.
Once people could be made to doubt Gods word have you read the book? so tell me, according to god's word, who's the earthly grandfather of jesus, joseph's father? is matthew right, or luke? one has to be wrong. doesn't that inspire some doubt in your mind?
it was much easier to bring them to a point of total unbelief, which is what Lyell wanted. you have proof of neither point. in fact, i'm disproof of the first. i don't care about the accuracy of the bible -- but jesu try and shake my faith in god.
So enough doubt had been created about biblical events such as divine creation and noahs flood. By the advent of Darwins book in 1859, many people were completely prepared to reject the entire gospel in favour of a totally mechanistic, materialistic philosophy. This radically new belief system gradually replaced the Christian foundation, which continued to erode due doubt on its foundation. darwin was a christian. evolution is part of the study of (divine) creation. just because it collides with your faith somehow does not mean it collides with everyones'. take a poll of evolutionary biologists, i'll bet that yu find a fair number are christians, and the christian faith is no danger whatsoever.
Genesis. As genesis was cleverly undermined the whole structure above it began to collapse. genesis is not the foundation of christianity. in fact, many of christ's teachings were contrary to genesis. genesis promoted the idea of revenge. jacob's sons respond to dinah's rape by tricking every male in the city into becoming circumcised (god's holy covenant) and then killing them all when they were still weakened. sound like something christ would preach?
History shows that an old earth is the recent aberration recent does not equal wrong. but old often does, especially in things like science which get revised when problems are found. and actually, i'll see if i can find the source for you, but apparently old-earth RELIGIOUS arguments and existed since about the time of christ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
the earliest possible date for the authorship of genesis is around 600 bc. the creation myth in question (genesis 1:1-2:4) and the story of the flood are babylonian in origin, and thusly could not have been written before the babylonian captivity.
i suspect portions of genesis to be much older, but have no literary evidence for this. in my opinion, genesis 2:4-4:26 is the older of the two myths, and the more important. but the whole 7-day thing, in terms of biblical history, is rather new. sameul and kings are probably older.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
A reply to messages #63 and #64 when you are able, please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Almeyda, the writing style, punctuation, spelling, and vocabulary of the following passage is very different from what you usually write.
Tell me, who wrote the following?:
It wasnt until men like James Hutton (1795) & Charles Lyell proposing that geologic changes occured slowly in the past, and therefore enormous time periods were required to form strata, mountains & canyons, that doubt was cast. In other words, they excluded any consideration of castastrophism (the belief that massive upheavels as the global flood along with earthquakes,volcanic activity, and tidal waves that accompany it would have been instrumental in forming the geological features of the earth). Evolutionists Stephen Jay Ghould in his book Ever Since Darwin described how Lyell used 'True Bits of cunning' & ' imposed his imagination upon the evidence' in order to get his dogmatic, slow and gradual philosophy accepted as 'the only true geology'. Once people could be made to doubt Gods word, it was much easier to bring them to a point of total unbelief, which is what Lyell wanted. So enough doubt had been created about biblical events such as divine creation and noahs flood. By the advent of Darwins book in 1859, many people were completely prepared to reject the entire gospel in favour of a totally mechanistic, materialistic philosophy. This radically new belief system gradually replaced the Christian foundation, which continued to erode due doubt on its foundation. Genesis. As genesis was cleverly undermined the whole structure above it began to collapse. History shows that an old earth is the recent aberration This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-10-2004 12:00 PM "[Saddam] had a lot of intent. He didn't have capabilities. Intent without capabilities is not an imminent threat." -ex-chief US arms inspector David Kay
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024