Paul G. Allen wrote:
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 15:00 -0700, DJA wrote:
(Paul, please don't snip the part about who wrote what. Better to leave
too many of these than not. Without going back to the previous message,
I don't know who wrote this next part.)
(Or maybe it was your brother who snipped that reference? I cannot tell
here.)
It makes me
wonder how many have any understanding of Islam, Judaism, or any other
religions that are not practice by those talking about them. This points
to one cause of religious and other conflicts - they often arise from a
complete misunderstanding of the other side.
My observation is that most self-proclaimed Christians _I've_ met
(including in my own family - obviously) don't even have a basic
understanding of their own beliefs, let alone the accuracies of the
tenets of their own religion.
I happen to know what mine are. Mom happens to know what hers are.
Including an _accurate_ knowledge of its
history, based on empirical, verifiable data and research.
There's lots of that. Trouble is, many people are so bent upon
disproving it (Christianity, God, and anything to do with either or both
in this case), they tend to ignore the data or twist it around and
around in order to further their view. (Yes, the same could be said for
some on the other side of the coin, so let's not go there and start that
argument.)
Someone mentioned evolution in another post. Well, evolution is still a
theory, was NOT penned by Darwin, and has yet to be proven. (Note: I'm
not referring to evolution within a species or sub-species here. I'm
referring to the general term that people speak of when they want to
convey the progression of life from a single cell organism all the way
to what we as homo sapien sapiens are today). There is no scientific
proof of it, though it is taught in schools as fact and provable. There
is proof of natural selection (Darwin's discovery), evolution within a
species, and other such things that *may be* a part of evolution.
Evolution is used as a scientific truth to disprove one belief of
Christianity, and therefore that God exists at all.
Just one example of data and research being twisted to support an end.
Paul, it may interest you to know (and perhaps you already do know) that
the religion called evolution is as old as any pagan religion. The
concept of evolution arose (at the latest) shortly after the Flood of
Noah, at the same time as did pagan religions (which may even have had
their *roots* from before the flood). That evolutionary concept has
been radically modernized, but the basic thrust of it is still the same.
And, by the way, the "evolution within a species" to which you refer, I
believe is known as natural selection. I think the term "natural
selection" is better in at least one sense, in that it makes it clear
that you are not talking about the rest of evolution which is pure
speculation, STILL!
In fact, it's
my considerable opinion that the basis of most religions extent today
(orthodox and otherwise) is just plain made up nonsense which has been,
as a result of centuries of both inadvertent and malicious corruption of
things written and said hundreds and thousands of years ago, become so
inconsistent and impractical (as in unpracticable) as to be a primary
cause, rather than a primary solution, to the Human specie's problems.
Given that virtually none of the original sources for any of these
teachings has existed for at least a thousand years, it's no wonder it's
easier and easier to espouse some personal belief and attribute it to
the god of choice. IOW, just make the shit up and say god said so.
In every belief system, there are fringes on both ends of the norm
(think politics with the left, moderate, right, center, etc.) Most of
what I've seen discussed in this thread regarding Christianity, God, The
Bible, etc. are results of views of the fringes of the basic
religion(s).
PGA
(Ah, now I know who wrote that level of quoting.)
If there were only right, center, and left that would be refreshing.
You forgot the etc. part. :P
However, it's not nearly that simple. There are literally thousands of
differentiations of belief systems in Christianity alone. Which one do I
choose? Each thinks the other is wrong, or at least not quite right. How
do I know? Of course, they all will say "It's in the Bible, read it for
yourself". But again, which Bible? And when I do read it, I find that it
doesn't contain what god said,
When referring to the God of The Bible, it is correct to print God, not
god, as that is a name (personal pronoun), whether you believe in God or
not.
It's like writing paul, instead of Paul. (Also, its "The Bible" not the
Bible, as the correct title of the book is "The Bible".)
You got the "title" part right, but the "name" part wrong. God is a
title, not a name. He has many names, but God is not one of them.
I probably have mistakenly wrote "the Bible", and may continue to do
so. It is a significant distinction however, and I will try to take
better care of that detail.
but rather what someone
thought/claimed/believed/hallucinated god said. Even worse it's really
what someone thinks someone thought someone else thought someone said
they heard someone say god said. And they're ALL DEAD!
In any case, no one of that particular religious persuasion really wants
to know what _I_ think or believe. Because what I think didn't come from
their bible, and if if I say _I_ talked to god and it said what I said
was true, I'm some kind of nut case.
This is what science is for. To prove (or disprove) things that are not
otherwise proven or disproven. So, show me some science, and I'll show
you some.
What I have seen from science thus far, in its attempts to disprove the
existence of God (or any creator), is more proof that God exists than
proof that He doesn't. Believe me, I have doubted, and questions, and
thought about it many times. Our parents did not raise a couple of
idiots and we were taught to question and research. My questions and
research has always led me to the same conclusion, God exists, Christ is
His son.
Whether or not the universe was created in 7 days or a million years is
not a key issue when it comes to the basic beliefs of Christianity. The
same is true for some other things. Some things are of more importance.
You are right about the importance of the age of the universe to a small
extent. Ultimately, one's salvation is unaffected by his belief about
that. But that age can greatly interfere with a person's ability to
believe in the first place. The Bible says that sin came into the world
through Adam and that death came as a result of sin. If the world is
millions of years old (which, it's not) and creatures with the breath of
life were dieing before Adam's sin, then the Bible is wrong about this,
and if about this, then what else? The beginning of the gospel is that
death entered the world through one man's sin, and salvation through the
death of the only completely obedient man.
And before I get responses that say that this is why we Christians
(mostly) are so desperate to have a young age for the earth, just look
at the opposite position, a desperation by non-Christians (mostly) (in
not wanting to admit that they are subject to this God) to believe how
it could have come about without God, thereby needing very *VERY* long
ages to allow for this evolutionary belief, and furthermore a
desperation to somehow call this evolutionary belief "proven" even
though it cannot be proven. (What they don't seem to realize is that
now that they are starting to believe that evolution happened by leaps
instead of gradual changes, they no longer need the framework of
billions of years. Shhhh, don't tell them.)
If a person is able to believe the gospel without even touching the
subject of creation/evolution, great! But sometimes it is necessary to
be able to point out how (although they *claim* to have proven it)
evolutionists have actually put on a really convincing magician's show,
not showing you how they make things appear to be something they are
not. And while I know this is making some people's blood start to boil,
I will further state that there are some Creationists who actually
believe that science has proven Creation to be true. Science can favor
one model over another, but it's almost always the exceptions that are
the most telling (which is where evolutionary models fail the most).
But ultimately, science cannot prove nor disprove the unobservable.
That is why calling angels "fictitious beings" is *very* unscientific.
At one time, atoms were vehemently denied existence in the scientific
community until they were very well proven. Then their components were
vehemently denied. The "theory" of tectonic plates was ridiculed. But
now, even though it is still only a theory, it is fairly well accepted
as truth.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
