Evolution Evidence/Findings/Proof Discussion

[FlyingPika]

Hi guys, i didnt want to hi-jack another thread so im starting this.
I would like to discuss evidence that leads to the logical conclusion that evolution is true. As you know i am Christian, but i would like to see what in your eyes are the biggest findings/proof for evolution.

Bonus points for macro evolution findings rather than micro...
Note: this is not about the variance coded in the gene pool.

[BCO]

How about you prove that God did it, rather?

[ghoti]

"We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance. "

Source: http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

Once you have dealt with this I have a couple more thousand for you to work through :)

[Claymore]

Hi guys, i didnt want to hi-jack another thread so im starting this.
I would like to discuss evidence that leads to the logical conclusion that evolution is true. As you know i am Christian, but i would like to see what in your eyes are the biggest findings/proof for evolution.

Bonus points for macro evolution findings rather than micro...
Note: this is not about the variance coded in the gene pool.

I think that the Wikipedia entry provides a pretty good entry point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

It covers the basic concepts, plus exactly how we know evolution happens, and where the supporting evidence comes from.

I'm also fond of the entry on Speciation, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation, which discusses the divergence of species, and evidence for it.

If you're prepared to track down books, my particular favourite is Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale". The book takes you back from humans, back along all the evolutionary roots we came from. Dawkins provides a really nice introduction to fossils and molecular genetics, showing how we know the things we do, and explaining the limitation.

And, for something practical: I don't know where you live, but if you're in the JHB area, toddle along to the Rosebank flea market, and find the gemstones stalls. There you may be able to buy one of the cheap trilobite fossils, and you can hold in your hand the fossilised remains of a creature that lived 300 or 400 million years ago, long before the dinosaurs.

[FlyingPika]

How about you prove that God did it, rather?
I just wanna see where you guys are coming from so i can better understand your point of view.

[FlyingPika]

"We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

His opening/opinion, nothing to discuss



The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

I think every1 knows life comes from life. And he speaks truth about the origin of life, for more info see this: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/1016/1016_01.asp



The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

I am severely sleep deprived, so maybe im slow, but no matter how many times i read that i cant understand his point, can some1 please explain it to me? Thank you



The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Ok here we start hitting some science. It would be nice if you could post the findings/evidence, rather than the conclusions from evolutionists. Some meat please! I would like to read up on this stuff though.



Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

more discussion.



To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance. "

Source: http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

Once you have dealt with this I have a couple more thousand for you to work through :)
more discussion.

[h4ppyfish]

And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution

There is also a lot of evidence ("major scientific truth" in my opinion) against evolution. However, the evolutionist refuse to accept this just as much as the non-evolutionists are prepared to accept the evolutionist viewpoint.

Evolution = God did not create life on our planet = God does not exist?

My theory is that this is why so many people want to believe in evolution. Its not about "Where we came from" but rather "Lets prove God didn't create life on earth".

Why are there people who desperately don't want to believe in God? No God = no accountability (perceived freedom) - not to mention no hell or heaven.

So, my question is. How many of you feel that evolution disproves God's existence?

(evolution: all life evolved from the first randomly spawned organism)

PS


The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

I don't get this either FlyingPika. This seems to rather support that evolution is a farce. And "Pop", they had vertebrae!

[FlyingPika]

I think that the Wikipedia entry provides a pretty good entry point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

It covers the basic concepts, plus exactly how we know evolution happens, and where the supporting evidence comes from.

I'm also fond of the entry on Speciation, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation, which discusses the divergence of species, and evidence for it.

If you're prepared to track down books, my particular favourite is Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale". The book takes you back from humans, back along all the evolutionary roots we came from. Dawkins provides a really nice introduction to fossils and molecular genetics, showing how we know the things we do, and explaining the limitation.

And, for something practical: I don't know where you live, but if you're in the JHB area, toddle along to the Rosebank flea market, and find the gemstones stalls. There you may be able to buy one of the cheap trilobite fossils, and you can hold in your hand the fossilised remains of a creature that lived 300 or 400 million years ago, long before the dinosaurs.

Thanks for the direction, i shall read all of that. Damn that book is not short! 688 pages. I was gonna order it until i saw the length. Are there certain chapters you recommend, or does one have to read the whole thing to get the picture?
Thank you.

[Nanfeishen]

Evolution has many holes, and anomolies that cannot be properly explained.
They can be hypothesised upon, or debated, but they cannot be proved conclusively, and until such time, evolution will remain simply a theory.
There are many documented and recorded anomalies, that dont fit the picture:


Nearly all domesticated plants are believed to have appeared between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago, with different groups coming to different parts of the world at different times. Initially, in the so-called “Fertile Crescent” of modern Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon came wheat, barley, and legumes, among others. Later on, in the Far East, came wheat, millet, rice, and yams. Later still, in the New World, came maize (corn), peppers, beans, squash, tomatoes and potatoes. Many have “wild” predecessors that were apparently a starting point for the domesticated variety, but others—like many common vegetables— have no obvious precursors. But for those that do, such as wild grasses, grains, and cereals, how they turned into wheat, barley, millet, rice, etc., is a profound mystery.

No botanist can conclusively explain how wild plants gave rise to domesticated ones. The emphasis there is on “conclusively.” Botanists have no trouble hypothesizing elaborate scenarios in which Neolithic (New Stone Age) farmers somehow figured out how to hybridize wild grasses and grains and cereals, not unlike Gregor Mendel when he cross-bred pea plants to figure out the mechanics of genetic inheritance. It all sounds so simple and so logical, almost no one outside scientific circles ever examines it closely.


Gregor Mendel never bred his pea plants to be anything other than pea plants. He created short ones, tall ones, and different colored ones, but they were always pea plants that produced peas. (Pea plants are a domesticated species, too, but that is irrelevant to the point to be made here.) On the other hand, those Stone Age farmers who were fresh out of their caves and only just beginning to turn soil for the first time (as the “official” scenario goes), somehow managed to transform the wild grasses, grains, and cereals growing around them into their domesticated “cousins.” Is that possible? Only through a course in miracles.

Actually, it requires countless miracles within two large categories of miracles. The first was that the wild grasses and grains and cereals were useless to humans. The seeds and grains were maddeningly small, like pepper flakes or salt crystals, which put them beyond the grasping and handling capacity of human fingers. They were also hard, like tiny nutshells, making it impossible to convert them to anything edible. Lastly, their chemistry was suited to nourishing animals, not humans. So wild varieties were entirely too small, entirely too tough, and nutritionally inappropriate for humans. They needed to be greatly expanded in size, greatly softened in texture, and overhauled at the molecular level, which would be an imposing challenge for modern botanists, much less Neolithic farmers.

Despite the seeming impossibility of meeting those daunting objectives, modern botanists are confident the first sodbusters had all they needed to do it: time and patience. Over hundreds of generations of selective crossbreeding, they consciously directed the genetic transformation of the few dozen that would turn out to be most useful to humans. And how did they do it? By the astounding feat of doubling, tripling, and quadrupling the number of chromosomes in the wild varieties! In a few cases they did better than that. Domestic wheat and oats were elevated from an ancestor with 7 chromosomes to their current 42, expansion by a factor of six. Sugar cane expanded from a 10-chromosome ancestor to the 80-chromosome monster it is today, a factor of eight. The chromosomes of others, like bananas and apples, only multiplied by factors of two or three, while peanuts, potatoes, tobacco and cotton, among others, expanded by factors of four.

This is not as astounding as it sounds because many wild flowering plants and trees have multiple chromosome sets. But that brings up what Charles Darwin himself called the “abominable mystery” of flowering plants. The first ones appear in the fossil record between 150 and 130 million years ago, primed to multiply into over 200,000 known species. But no one can explain their presence because there is no connective link to any form of plants that preceded them. It is as if….dare I say it?….they were brought to Earth by something akin to You-Know-What. If so, then it could well be they were delivered with a built-in capacity to develop multiple chromosome sets, and somehow our Neolithic forebears cracked the codes for the ones most advantageous to humans.

However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of genetic material in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them to grow much larger than their wild ancestors. As they grew, their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen, picked up, and manipulated by human fingers. Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree where they could be milled, cooked, and consumed. And at the same time, their cellular chemistry was altered enough to begin providing nourishment to humans who ate them. The only word that remotely equates with that achievement is: miracle.

Of course, “miracle” implies there was actually a chance that such complex manipulations of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen in eight geographical areas over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because in each case in each area someone had to actually look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would become. Then they had to somehow insure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling, and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some remotely distant future.

It is difficult to try to concoct a more unlikely—even absurd—scenario, yet to modern-day botanists it is a gospel they believe with a fervor that puts many “six day” Creationists to shame. Why? Because to confront its towering absurdity would force them to turn to You-Know-What for a more logical and plausible explanation.

To domesticate a wild plant without using artificial (i.e. genetic) manipulation, it must be modified by directed crossbreeding, which is only possible through the efforts of humans. So the equation is simple. First, wild ancestors for many (but not all) domestic plants do seem apparent. Second, most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. Third, the humans alive at that time were primitive barbarians. Fourth, in the past 5,000 years no plants have been domesticated that are nearly as valuable as the dozens that were “created” by the earliest farmers all around the world. Put an equal sign after those four factors and it definitely does not add up to any kind of Darwinian model.

Botanists know they have a serious problem here, but all they can suggest is that it simply had to have occurred by natural means because no other intervention—by God or You-Know-What—can be considered under any circumstances. That unwavering stance is maintained by all scientists, not just botanists, to exclude overwhelming evidence such as the fact that in 1837 the Botanical Garden BIN RAS in St. Petersburg, Russia, began concerted attempts to cultivate wild rye into a new form of domestication. They are still trying because their rye has lost none of its wild traits, especially the fragility of its stalk and its small grain. Therein lies the most embarrassing conundrum botanists face.

http://www.suppressedscience.net/archeology.html

[nthdimension]

Evolution = God did not create life on our planet
Not true.


No God = no accountability
Not true.


evolution: all life evolved from the first randomly spawned organism
Incorrect.

Domesticated plants. Breeding. We've done it with animals.

People who believe in God make assumptions about the nature of this god. Especially since even Judaism and Christianity cannot agree on the nature of a God they supposedly share.

[nthdimension]

Were the domestic grains in all areas identical? Two people can independently come up with calculus. Are we saying humans are so stupid they wouldn't get similar ideas about breeding plants in multiple locations?

[h4ppyfish]

@nthdimension


This quoted from the third post:


By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle.


The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent.

Please explain why you then say that what I understand to be the definition of evolution in the context of w1zard's post is incorrect. (evolution: all life ("not at all like them") evolved from the first ("all living creatures must have a living parent") randomly spawned organism)

"Evolution = God did not create life on our planet.". I don't believe this either. The point I was trying to make was that a lot of people do believe that and that to better understand the viewpoints / seperate fact from prejudice of the various camps we need to see evolution debates in the milieu of what evolution means to the party from a religious perspective.

No God = No Accountability. Saying this is not true is saying there exists accountability outside of God. To what / whom do you hold yourself accountable then?

You also said that the God of Abraham (Judaism and Christianity) does not exibit the same nature in both. I don't agree with that. I don't know how much you know about either Christianity or Judaism, but I'll warrant a guess that that statement comes from a very limited perspective.

@FlyingPika: I realise this is off topic - sorry!

[Nanfeishen]

Were the domestic grains in all areas identical? Two people can independently come up with calculus. Are we saying humans are so stupid they wouldn't get similar ideas about breeding plants in multiple locations?

Somewhat strangely, there were six areas of population scattered across the globe that almost out of nowhere, and starting 10,000 years ago, suddenly erupted into developed civilization. They went, almost overnight historically speaking, from being hunter/gatherers to sophisticated farmers. They sowed crops, the crops we still grow today, which seemed to appear from nowhere and whose original wild variants we have still not identified. They started reading, writing, mathematics, astronomy and science. They built cities and those strange pointy pyramids, edifices that modern man still does not understand or comprehend as to how they were built. Quarrying, cutting and lifting 400 ton of solid rock would still be an immense challenge to us today, yet somehow that lot managed it. They also managed, despite being thousands of miles apart on different continents, to build these things with a connecting synchronicity of alignment and astronomical meaning. How could these under developed, mud hut dwelling dudes manage all this? Who taught them all this nonsense?

Humans are basically rather stupid, but thats another issue, but there are still unanswered facts:


If you think that our modern geneticists and plant scientists know the answers and can point to the evidence showing how our primitive Stone Age ancestors domesticated wild plants, you are a victim of a scientific shell game. That is what you are supposed to assume. However, the history of plant domestication is fuzzy, full of ‘missing links’ and logical inconsistencies though the public is given the impression that the history of agriculture holds no real mysteries.

We are told in our history and anthropological textbooks that our fist civilizations were spawned on the heels of the ‘agricultural revolution, which occurred in major river valleys. What the textbooks fail to tell us is that our Stone Age predecessors did not harvest and eat the seeds of wild grasses during their long sojourn through the Paleolithic era. They were hunter-gathers who subsisted on leafy greens and lean muscle meats. How come they suddenly figured out how to domesticate and turn into major food sources circa 5,000 BC?

This raises some obvious and very sticky questions concerning the period of trial and error experimentation and development that must have gone into domesticating wild wheat into bread wheat and wild corn into the domesticated variety.

Let us begin with the enigma of the modern corn plant. The humble origin of corn remains mysterious because the ancestral wild plant has never been located. It is an established, scientific fact that corn is a cultigen, a plant engineered by humans. This means that it has become so altered by humans that it cannot reproduce naturally and is entirely dependent upon man’s continued cultivation. In short, it is now a manmade plant and has been for some time. Scientists have not been able to trace the lineage of corn to the ancestral wild plant. How can this be if the ‘agricultural revolution’ only occurred 7-8,000 years ago?

Corn is a form of wild grass, as are the majority of the other major crop plants, there is no good reason for the ancestral variety to have vanished and/or become extinct. 10,000 years may seem like a long time in human terms yet it is a very short time in terms of the evolution and life span of a plant species. There are ancient plants that have existed continuously for hundreds of millions of years.

If you believe that our ancestors domesticated crop plants, you have to start by assuming that people without any agricultural experience were brilliant enough to select and breed the best wild seed candidates to turn into major cereal crops. It is a historical fact that in spite of 5,000 years of continuous agricultural development we have not genetically bred a new major crop from a wild species. Just how ingenious were out Stone Age predecessors who performed this agronomic feat without any agricultural or genetic knowledge?

Basing the agricultural revolution on the notion that people who lacked any understanding of the scientific basis of plant breeding created seems a very shaky premise. Skepticism is warranted due to the fact that, if it actually occurred, this was the riskiest of gambles, since it represented a complete departure from the only way of life and only food sources that Stone Age people knew.

But first let’s step back to an earlier point and ask how we know that 100,000 generations of Stone Age humans did not eat wild grass seeds. Our guts are still not adapted to digest uncooked grains. After all we are not birds. In addition, our Paleolithic ancestors lacked the technology to harvest, thresh, process and cook wild grass seeds. The seeds of wild species are miniscule and they are attached to the seed heads making them difficult to harvest and hardly worth the effort.

These are little known facts that raise deeper issues. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors mainly subsisted on leafy greens and lean muscle meats. If they lacked an extended experience with wild grasses how did they know which ones to select to turn into wheat, rye, corn, barely and rice? In other words these are still the principal food crops that our civilizations are based upon. After at least 5,000 years of continuous agriculture we do not seem to have improved upon the first selections of our ‘scientifically ignorant’ ancestors. That hardly seems logical.

This amazingly prescient selection of wild seeds seems not only more than a little surprising it looks to border on being a minor miracle. There are an estimated 195,000 flowering plants that they could have turned into food sources and primitive man chose less than .01 to base agriculture upon. This happened at a point in time when people had no concept of domesticating plants or animals, which means no experience with artificial selection.

To further appreciate the paradox that this situation imposes upon us we have to understand, domesticated crop plants are nothing like their wild ancestors. Farmers have long known this fact. The differences are so great that most of the specific ancestral locations of our cereal crops remain a mystery. We must ponder what this really means. What are the implications of our scientists not being able to trace the specific wild ancestors of modern corn, wheat, rye, barely and rice?

When we look at the problem of how our ancestors, lacking in both tools and knowledge, domesticated wild plants it is really tantamount to pondering how the Great Pyramid was conceived, designed, engineered and constructed with stone tools and primitive methods. There is something out of focus in the picture we have of the history of civilization on this planet, how and when agriculture and precision-engineered architecture were developed and by whom.

How were these quantum leaps made and where is the evidence to support the orthodox theory that humans engineered them?

[ghoti]

His opening/opinion, nothing to discuss

Wrong, his opening is talking about the difference between evolution the theory and evolution the fact, and which one the author of the essay will be addressing.



I am severely sleep deprived, so maybe im slow, but no matter how many times i read that i cant understand his point, can some1 please explain it to me? Thank you

Seems pretty clear to me... what don't you understand?



Ok here we start hitting some science. It would be nice if you could post the findings/evidence, rather than the conclusions from evolutionists. Some meat please! I would like to read up on this stuff though.

What findings would you like? PS, there is no such current term as an "evolutionist", please stop banding the word around from the 1800`s as though it means something. People who study this type of thing for a living are called b i o l o g i s t s, and if they specialise in it, the perhaps an evolution/genome biologist. If by "evolutionists" you refer to the majority of people who believe in evolution ... we we call that normal, we call the people who don't believe in it fundamentalists.

"Evolutionist...this term is used by opponents of the theory to bolster their claim that evolution theory is a belief, or ideology (compared with other ideological "isms"), rather than a scientific theory. The term is rarely used in the scientific community, as evolution is overwhelmingly accepted there."


more discussion.

No its the conclusion to the whole point of the essay.

You didn't address a single one of the points in there or the whole essay in context.

Please try debate logically and address the main point this essay makes.

Here is some more info to work on while we are on the topic:


It is possible to find out how a particular group of organisms evolved by arranging its fossil records in a chronological sequence. Such a sequence can be determined because fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed by layers of silt or mud on top of each other; thus, the resulting rock contains a series of horizontal layers, or strata. Each layer contains fossils which are typical for a specific time period during which they were made. The lowest strata contain the oldest rock and the earliest fossils, while the highest strata contain the youngest rock and more recent fossils.

A succession of animals and plants can also be seen from fossil records. Fossil evidence supports the theory that organisms tend to progressively increase in complexity. By studying the number and complexity of different fossils at different stratigraphic levels, it has been shown that older fossil-bearing rocks contain fewer types of fossilized organisms, and they all have a simpler structure, whereas younger rocks contain a greater variety of fossils, often with increasingly complex structures.

In the past, geologists could only roughly estimate the ages of various strata and the fossils found. They did so, for instance, by estimating the time for the formation of sedimentary rock layer by layer. Today, by measuring the proportions of radioactive and stable elements in a given rock, the ages of fossils can be more precisely dated by scientists. This technique is known as radiometric dating.

Throughout the fossil record, many species that appear at an early stratigraphic level disappear at a later level. This is interpreted in evolutionary terms as indicating the times at which species originated and became extinct. Geographical regions and climatic conditions have varied throughout the Earth's history. Since organisms are adapted to particular environments, the constantly changing conditions favoured species which adapted to new environments through the mechanism of natural selection.

[Beancounter]

No God = No Accountability. Saying this is not true is saying there exists accountability outside of God. To what / whom do you hold yourself accountable then?

Apologies for being rude and answering a question asked of someone else but my 2 cents worth:

I am accountable to my fellow human beings who I must treat with fairness and respect in the same way as I would expect them to treat me. I do this, not in the hope of achieving everlasting life, but in the hope that my deeds will lead others to treat me in the same way and that, by treating people fairly the quality of their life will be improved.

It is my belief that being accountable to tangible beings that interact with you is a far sounder basis for one's actions than being accountable to a god that nobody has ever seen and for which no empirical evidence exists. In addition, given the plethora of god's that mankind worships, being accountable to other homo sapiens gives man a far more stable basis of behaviour.

Back to evolution.

[nthdimension]

Somewhat strangely, there were six areas of population scattered across the globe that almost out of nowhere, and starting 10,000 years ago, suddenly erupted into developed civilization. They went, almost overnight historically speaking, from being hunter/gatherers to sophisticated farmers. They sowed crops, the crops we still grow today, which seemed to appear from nowhere and whose original wild variants we have still not identified. They started reading, writing, mathematics, astronomy and science. They built cities
Isn't that what has happened many times, even recently. Think about where we were before we developed radio. Imagine there were no records of what was happening at the time and before. Suddenly we have radio, and in a short time we're travelling into space. It came out of nowhere so it must be God or aliens.

Imagine a hunter-gatherer tribe discovers some plants that work for them, so they think to themselves lets be lazy and stay here where the plants are good. They figure out how to grow the plants themselves. To posit an outside force we need some evidence of the outside force. Not knowing how something might have happened is not adequate. It is also to assume that ancient humans were morons.

Wheat is an example of one where, from what I've read, we do have a good idea what came before. In fact genetic research is likely to give us further insight into likely precursor plants.

The writing, mathematics, etc. were very rudimentary and developed over time. Hardly surprising such things would develop. Cities are a natural result of people settling in a single location.


How were these quantum leaps made and where is the evidence to support the orthodox theory that humans engineered them?
The so-called orthodox theory acknowledges the ingenuity of humans. The aliens theory is fundamentally based on the idea that humans are too stupid to have gotten ideas on their own.

[nthdimension]

"Evolution = God did not create life on our planet.". I don't believe this either. The point I was trying to make was that a lot of people do believe that and that to better understand the viewpoints / seperate fact from prejudice of the various camps we need to see evolution debates in the milieu of what evolution means to the party from a religious perspective.
No we don't, because to scientists it is irrelevant. Evolution happens. How it started is of some academic interest, but not important to the study of evolution. Scientists are not out to prove God does not exist by demonstrating evolution is true.


You also said that the God of Abraham (Judaism and Christianity) does not exibit the same nature in both. I don't agree with that. I don't know how much you know about either Christianity or Judaism, but I'll warrant a guess that that statement comes from a very limited perspective.
You probably need to spend some time talking to Rabbis. They'll set you straight on the misconceptions Christians have about the God of the Jews, heaven, hell, good, evil and even God's assistant, satan.

[BCO]

The Jewish god's a lot more of a mean vindictive dude than the Christian god (who's more of a petty, sulky god).

[Claymore]

There is also a lot of evidence ("major scientific truth" in my opinion) against evolution.

Where has this "evidence" been presented? Which scientific journals?


Evolution = God did not create life on our planet = God does not exist?

No. Evolution does not necessarily say anything about the origin of life of Earth (that's abiogenesis), but rather about how lifeforms have changed over time. There are many religious people who have no issue wih evolution (e.g. the Vatican), and many biologists who have no prblem with religious belief.


Why are there people who desperately don't want to believe in God? No God = no accountability (perceived freedom) - not to mention no hell or heaven.

Definitely not! I am accountable to many things, not least of those being my own conscience.


So, my question is. How many of you feel that evolution disproves God's existence?

Evolution makes no statement on God's existence, except to say that evolution does not require a god to work.

[Claymore]

Thanks for the direction, i shall read all of that. Damn that book is not short! 688 pages. I was gonna order it until i saw the length. Are there certain chapters you recommend, or does one have to read the whole thing to get the picture?
Thank you.

The chapters are done ancestor by ancestor, which makes it very easy reading - you can read a chapter at a time, and pick it up again later. I can't remember specific chapters, but the beginning of the book was an introduction to the concepts, and after that it was ancestor by ancestor, some more interesting than others.

[nthdimension]

The Jewish god's a lot more of a mean vindictive dude than the Christian god (who's more of a petty, sulky god).
True, and not true. To the Jews God encompasses both good and evil because he created everything. They also do not believe in eternal damnation. If you have not lived up to requirements you go to a place that could be called hell, but you only go there so you can become cleansed. Ultimately everyone goes to heaven. They believe this because they believe that God would not want to cast out any of the souls he has created, but he does want them to be pure. This is similar to the ideas found in Hinduism and Buddhism. Even more interesting is that Judaism contains the possibility that this cleansing can be carried out by returning to earth, i.e. reincarnation. For a long time I neglected to find out much about what Jews believed bacause I had been duped into believing they had fundamentally the same ideas on these things.

If you think about it the Christian god is the more vindictive and meaner one.

You can think of it this way, since people like to use the God as parent analogy - the Christian god is like a parent that, when their child does not live up to expectations, murders the child and burns its body, whereas the Jewish god is like a parent that requires the child to make amends and improve itself.

[Claymore]

Evolution has many holes, and anomolies that cannot be properly explained.

Like? Like most scientific theories, there will be areas that are less well understood - that's no surprise in an field that goes back several hundred million years. But the more evidence that is found, the better explained things are. For example, Charles Darwin himself 150 years ago only had fossils (and a very limited number) and living animal species to base his theory on. A few decades ago, when molecular genetics provided an additional means of tracing lineages of species, that supported Darwin's work. So have developments in genetics, in geology and geological dating, and other fields.

[ghoti]

There is also a lot of evidence ("major scientific truth" in my opinion) against evolution.

Please show me the lots of "evidence against evolution" This is a lie.


However, the evolutionist refuse to accept this just as much as the non-evolutionists are prepared to accept the evolutionist viewpoint.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN EVOLUTIONIST. EVOLUTION IS NOT AN "ist or an ism". PLEASE LEARN ENGLISH, THE TERM "EVOLUTIONIST" HAS NOT BEEN USED SINCE THE 1800`s


Evolution = God did not create life on our planet = God does not exist?

How the ***** did you come to that conclusion?


My theory is that this is why so many people want to believe in evolution. Its not about "Where we came from" but rather "Lets prove God didn't create life on earth".

Evolution is about the variation in life, not its origins per say.


Why are there people who desperately don't want to believe in God?

Because they think God is a bit of a tosser for being so round about and invisible.



No God = no accountability (perceived freedom) - not to mention no hell or heaven.

Mah gawd you talk through your a$$. Why does no God = No accountability? The Tibetan monks are peaceful Buddhists who do not believe in been evil or hurting or killing people, yet they arnt Christian. This is a complete and utter lie. Wake up.

I also find it strange that you have such low morals that you need "God" to tell you how to behave... the rest of us do that without fear of Jesus with a caning rod.



So, my question is. How many of you feel that evolution disproves God's existence?

It doesnt, its not about God its about his creations.


(evolution: all life evolved from the first randomly spawned organism)



No, that's abiogenesis and not Evolution, you are mixing your stuff up there.



I don't get this either FlyingPika. This seems to rather support that evolution is a farce. And "Pop", they had vertebrae!

Dodo, please stop using sock puppets to bring up the same old lies time after time. Its getting to much now.

[icyrus]

No God = no accountability (perceived freedom) - not to mention no hell or heaven.

So the only reason you don't rape, pillage and murder is because you are scared of the retribution you will receive from god? Interesting.

Edit: Fixed quote

[fivelza]

So the only reason you don't rape, pillage and murder is because you are scared of the retribution you will receive from god? Interesting.

icyrus, I can't see how you got there from the quote you listed :(

[icyrus]

icyrus, I can't see how you got there from the quote you listed :(

His supposition is that people want to believe in evolution so as to disprove god, so as to be free from accountability. So god is the only form of accountability and hence the only reason for good behavior and therefore the only reason to not behave like a psycho is that you are afraid of god's punishment.

Did I miss something?

[BCO]

I think Icyrus meant to quote this:


No God = no accountability (perceived freedom) - not to mention no hell or heaven.

[TheBossMan]

Hi guys, i didnt want to hi-jack another thread so im starting this.
I would like to discuss evidence that leads to the logical conclusion that evolution is true. As you know i am Christian, but i would like to see what in your eyes are the biggest findings/proof for evolution.

Bonus points for macro evolution findings rather than micro...
Note: this is not about the variance coded in the gene pool.


As my Title says.. Evolution is BullSH.T!!!

[Claymore]

I think every1 knows life comes from life. And he speaks truth about the origin of life, for more info see this: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/1016/1016_01.asp


I'd be very wary of quoting anything from Jack Chick, except for humorous purposes; the guy is a raving lunatic. Read his comics...

[icyrus]

I think Icyrus meant to quote this:

Yeah, you are right, I did. Thanks

[fivelza]

As my Title says.. Evolution is BullSH.T!!!

OMW..leading with your chin....



Yeah, you are right, I did. Thanks

OK, confusion cleared up.

[icyrus]

As my Title says.. Evolution is BullSH.T!!!

Well thanks for your well-thought out and well-reasoned point of view. I hadn't realised, before this moment, that you were the authority on such matters.

[PostmanPot]

Please show me the lots of "evidence against evolution" This is a lie.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN EVOLUTIONIST. EVOLUTION IS NOT AN "ist or an ism". PLEASE LEARN ENGLISH, THE TERM "EVOLUTIONIST" HAS NOT BEEN USED SINCE THE 1800`s

How the ***** did you come to that conclusion?

Evolution is about the variation in life, not its origins per say.

Because they think God is a bit of a tosser for being so round about and invisible.

Mah gawd you talk through your a$$. Why does no God = No accountability? The Tibetan monks are peaceful Buddhists who do not believe in been evil or hurting or killing people, yet they arnt Christian. This is a complete and utter lie. Wake up.

I also find it strange that you have such low morals that you need "God" to tell you how to behave... the rest of us do that without fear of Jesus with a caning rod.

It doesnt, its not about God its about his creations.

No, that's abiogenesis and not Evolution, you are mixing your stuff up there.

Dodo, please stop using sock puppets to bring up the same old lies time after time. Its getting to much now.

Good post, h4ppyfish was also getting to me ;)

[Claymore]

Nearly all domesticated plants are believed to have appeared between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago, with different groups coming to different parts of the world at different times. Initially, in the so-called “Fertile Crescent” of modern Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon came wheat, barley, and legumes, among others. Later on, in the Far East, came wheat, millet, rice, and yams. Later still, in the New World, came maize (corn), peppers, beans, squash, tomatoes and potatoes. Many have “wild” predecessors that were apparently a starting point for the domesticated variety, but others—like many common vegetables— have no obvious precursors. But for those that do, such as wild grasses, grains, and cereals, how they turned into wheat, barley, millet, rice, etc., is a profound mystery.

Various of Jared Diamond's books cover this sort of thing rather well; "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee" are ones I can mention offhand. Both fascinating reading, and easy to get through.

[ghoti]

PLEASE NOTE, THIS DEBATE IS NOT PHILOSOPHICAL AND IS IN THE WRONG SECTION

[ghoti]

As my Title says.. Evolution is BullSH.T!!!

:(

[redarrow]

Hmm... it was my intention to stay out of these threads for good... but yea.. :o

This is one issue I'd like to look at as I think the athiest lot aren't getting the point...



Mah gawd you talk through your a$$. Why does no God = No accountability? The Tibetan monks are peaceful Buddhists who do not believe in been evil or hurting or killing people, yet they arnt Christian. This is a complete and utter lie. Wake up.

I also find it strange that you have such low morals that you need "God" to tell you how to behave... the rest of us do that without fear of Jesus with a caning rod.


A person is accountable to:
1) Someone/something to whom he/she choses to make themselves accountable to.
2) Someone/something with enough power to enforce accountability upon them.

In other words you are only accountable to your fellow humans if you choose to be or if they are simply smarter than you.. i.e.: A criminal is only "accountable" if he gets caught.
There is no "natural law" that enforces accountability to other humans.

Where am I going with this?
A person who believes in God believes that he will one day be held accountable for all his deeds.. totally inescapably accountable - he believes he will one day have to answer for all his wrong doings.

A person who does not believe in God does not have that belief in an "inescapable accountablity" .. he may well choose to make himself accountable to fellow humans and agree to abide by civil laws, but that is only by his own choice - and choice is always subject to change.

Let's put it like this: From the "God does not exist" point of view who was Hitler held accountable to? Answer: No one.. because he never chose to answer to anyone and no one was able to catch him.



PLEASE LEARN ENGLISH
Seeing as you brought that up, I'd like to suggest you apply it as well.. :p

For a start look up the word "lie" you seem very fond of this word..
Lieing is not so much about true and false as it is about intention:



Lie \Lie\ (l[imac]), n. [AS. lyge; akin to D. leugen, OHG. lugi,
G. l["u]ge, lug, Icel. lygi, Dan. & Sw. l["o]gn, Goth. liugn.
See {Lie} to utter a falsehood.]
1. A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception;
an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with
the intention to deceive.
[1913 Webster]

The proper notion of a lie is an endeavoring to
deceive another by signifying that to him as true,
which we ourselves think not to be so. --S. Clarke.
[1913 Webster]
...

The quote attributed to "S. Clarke" is of particular interest...

Accusing someone of lieing is a bold statement.. what they are saying might be untrue but that does not mean you can go around calling them liers - they might simply be uninformed.

I do not think h4ppyfish was trying to decieve anyone.

Finally you may want to head over to: http://www.cusscontrol.com/swearing.html :p

[Nick333]

A person is accountable to:
1) Someone/something to whom he/she choses to make themselves accountable to.
2) Someone/something with enough power to enforce accountability upon them.

In other words you are only accountable to your fellow humans if you choose to be or if they are simply smarter than you.. i.e.: A criminal is only "accountable" if he gets caught.
There is no "natural law" that enforces accountability to other humans.

Where am I going with this?
A person who believes in God believes that he will one day be held accountable for all his deeds.. totally inescapably accountable - he believes he will one day have to answer for all his wrong doings.

A person who does not believe in God does not have that belief in an "inescapable accountablity" .. he may well choose to make himself accountable to fellow humans and agree to abide by civil laws, but that is only by his own choice - and choice is always subject to change.

Pretty good post all in all.

Clearly a belief in inescapable accountability doesn't stop people from committing crimes of every description (assuming you don't believe that prisons are filled with atheists).



Let's put it like this: From the "God does not exist" point of view who was Hitler held accountable to? Answer: No one.. because he never chose to answer to anyone and no one was able to catch him.


Sorry, but how do you know? I've read plenty on this subject and as far as I can tell there is far more evidence to suggest that Hitler was a theist than there is to suggest he was an atheist. It is highly likely that Hitler believed that he was doing gods will by exterminating "undesirables".

[ghoti]

Hmm... it was my intention to stay out of these threads for good... but yea.. :o

This is one issue I'd like to look at as I think the athiest lot aren't getting the point...



A person is accountable to:
1) Someone/something to whom he/she choses to make themselves accountable to.
2) Someone/something with enough power to enforce accountability upon them.

In other words you are only accountable to your fellow humans if you choose to be or if they are simply smarter than you.. i.e.: A criminal is only "accountable" if he gets caught.
There is no "natural law" that enforces accountability to other humans.

Where am I going with this?
A person who believes in God believes that he will one day be held accountable for all his deeds.. totally inescapably accountable - he believes he will one day have to answer for all his wrong doings.

A person who does not believe in God does not have that belief in an "inescapable accountablity" .. he may well choose to make himself accountable to fellow humans and agree to abide by civil laws, but that is only by his own choice - and choice is always subject to change.

Let's put it like this: From the "God does not exist" point of view who was Hitler held accountable to? Answer: No one.. because he never chose to answer to anyone and no one was able to catch him.



Seeing as you brought that up, I'd like to suggest you apply it as well.. :p

For a start look up the word "lie" you seem very fond of this word..
Lieing is not so much about true and false as it is about intention:


The quote attributed to "S. Clarke" is of particular interest...

Accusing someone of lieing is a bold statement.. what they are saying might be untrue but that does not mean you can go around calling them liers - they might simply be uninformed.

I do not think h4ppyfish was trying to decieve anyone.

Finally you may want to head over to: http://www.cusscontrol.com/swearing.html :p

There was not a single useful comment in there. Thanks anyways. I dont think you know dodo well enough if you think he is not lying. I also dont think you know enough about the topic in hand.

I find it extremely ...umm.... weak.. that some people are unable to moderate themselves and need the almighty fear of God to make them good people. I guess some people arnt made out of the right stuff and need to think the alpha-male sun god will keep them in line. Extremely strange. What makes it stranger is the percentage of religious people in jail... makes one think.

[noxibox]

A person who believes in God believes that he will one day be held accountable for all his deeds.. totally inescapably accountable - he believes he will one day have to answer for all his wrong doings.
In other words children.


A person who does not believe in God does not have that belief in an "inescapable accountablity" .. he may well choose to make himself accountable to fellow humans and agree to abide by civil laws, but that is only by his own choice - and choice is always subject to change.
And adults.

[noxibox]

Your accountability idea does not work because the religion allows for forgiveness for wrongs. That means I can play the odds, rape, murder, pillage, steal, and afterwards repent, so I will still get to heaven. Not really much different to playing the odds with civil authority. You'd have to change the rules so that one transgression means being doomed. But that doesn't really promote the gaining of more followers for the religion.

[noxibox]

The part on irreducible complexity is very interesting.

Testing Darwin (http://discovermagazine.com/2005/feb/cover)

You can get the Avida software here (http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/)

[redarrow]

Pretty good post all in all.

Clearly a belief in inescapable accountability doesn't stop people from committing crimes of every description (assuming you don't believe that prisons are filled with atheists).

No unfortunately it doesn't... but I do not know what the level of belief is that criminals who call themselves religious have.. A lot of people for example call themselves Christians but do not appear to hold to many Christian values...

That said someone who really truly does believe in an "inescapable accountability" will logically have a harder time justifying wrong doings...



Sorry, but how do you know? I've read plenty on this subject and as far as I can tell there is far more evidence to suggest that Hitler was a theist than there is to suggest he was an atheist. It is highly likely that Hitler believed that he was doing gods will by exterminating "undesirables".
Hmm, I was not referring to Hitlers personal stance.. rather an outsiders opinion - a person who does not believe in God can surely not be satisfied that Hitler was held accountable for his deeds? I mean someone who might have been affected by him.

Like you said: Believing in God does not always stop people from committing crimes, however I believe that it stops more people than what it encourages them. :)


There was not a single useful comment in there. Thanks anyways.
Well if that's your opinion then you are already decided on the matter and I can say nothing more. :(



I dont think you know dodo well enough if you think he is not lying. I also dont think you know enough about the topic in hand.

You make a lot of assumptions.. I perhaps do not know douwdouw very well.. do you know him well enough to know whether he is a lier or just uninformed? I doubt it.
Apart from that this was h4ppyfish's reply we were talking about.. What makes you so sure that h4ppyfish and douwdouw are the same person? :confused:

Sorry I was unaware that I didn't know enough about the topic to discuss it...
When you're done with it could I please have my knowledge base back... I'd prefer if I knew in advance what I know about and not... that way I won't make this foolish mistake again. :eek: :rolleyes:



I find it extremely ...umm.... weak.. that some people are unable to moderate themselves and need the almighty fear of God to make them good people. I guess some people arnt made out of the right stuff and need to think the alpha-male sun god will keep them in line. Extremely strange. What makes it stranger is the percentage of religious people in jail... makes one think.
No this is not the only thing that makes them aspire to be "good people" it just helps... upbringing and many other factors help as well. If I came across the ultimate car (i.e., a Lamborgini Murcielago :D ) parked with the doors open and the keys in the ignition the fear of "hellfire" would not be the first nor the only thing to prevent me from taking it. - I also want to live at peace with fellow humans. :)

As to more "religious people in jail"... Well I would say:
a) Correctly speaking there are more people who claim to be religious in jail.
b) Last I checked the percentage of religious people in the world outweighed the non religious. (once again it's just people claiming to be religious)


In other words children.

I fail to see how believing in God's justice make you a child?


Your accountability idea does not work because the religion allows for forgiveness for wrongs. That means I can play the odds, rape, murder, pillage, steal, and afterwards repent, so I will still get to heaven. Not really much different to playing the odds with civil authority. You'd have to change the rules so that one transgression means being doomed. But that doesn't really promote the gaining of more followers for the religion.
No.. I speak for Catholism in what I say here:
You cannot just do what you want then ask for forgiveness and go to heaven. This is not what Catholics believe... You have to be "really" sorry (it's called "true contrition"). It's very easy to say "sorry" but you have to mean it. Even then Catholism does not teach that you then soar straight to heaven. Ever heard of purgatory?

So yes I cannot speak for other religions, but mine does not teach that one can do what he wants and still get to heaven just by saying "sorry".

[noxibox]

I do not know what the level of belief is that criminals who call themselves religious have.
They're as entitled as anyone else to claim they are believers.


a person who does not believe in God can surely not be satisfied that Hitler was held accountable for his deeds? I mean someone who might have been affected by him.
We could have imprisoned or executed him. Even your religion has no suitable punishment for someone like Hitler.


I fail to see how believing in God's justice make you a child?
You're not talking about justice, you're talking about a need to have a god to which to be accountable.


You cannot just do what you want then ask for forgiveness and go to heaven. This is not what Catholics believe... You have to be "really" sorry (it's called "true contrition"). It's very easy to say "sorry" but you have to mean it. Even then Catholism does not teach that you then soar straight to heaven. Ever heard of purgatory?

So yes I cannot speak for other religions, but mine does not teach that one can do what he wants and still get to heaven just by saying "sorry".
Did I use the word sorry? My statement is correct and applies particularly to Catholicism.

[ghoti]

No this is not the only thing that makes them aspire to be "good people" it just helps... upbringing and many other factors help as well. If I came across the ultimate car (i.e., a Lamborgini Murcielago :D ) parked with the doors open and the keys in the ignition the fear of "hellfire" would not be the first nor the only thing to prevent me from taking it. - I also want to live at peace with fellow humans. :)

As to more "religious people in jail"... Well I would say:
a) Correctly speaking there are more people who claim to be religious in jail.
b) Last I checked the percentage of religious people in the world outweighed the non religious. (once again it's just people claiming to be religious)


I fail to see how believing in God's justice make you a child?


No.. I speak for Catholism in what I say here:
You cannot just do what you want then ask for forgiveness and go to heaven. This is not what Catholics believe... You have to be "really" sorry (it's called "true contrition"). It's very easy to say "sorry" but you have to mean it. Even then Catholism does not teach that you then soar straight to heaven. Ever heard of purgatory?

So yes I cannot speak for other religions, but mine does not teach that one can do what he wants and still get to heaven just by saying "sorry".

No, as a Catholic you can pay a Priest for a mass, that way you get around your alpha-male sky god's rules. You can slaughter millions (*cough hitler *cough*... Yes, Hitler was a Confirmed Catholic... and it would also have helped if Pope Pius XII had not supported the Nazi regime), but as long as you see your Priest for a Confession, all is good. If Confession is not about forgiveness can you please tell me why as a kid my dad took me to the Catholic priest to Confession. What is the point of Confession?

[redarrow]

They're as entitled as anyone else to claim they are believers.

Yes of course... I can also call myself an athiest (even though I'm not).
What people are entitled to claim has nothing to do with it.



We could have imprisoned or executed him. Even your religion has no suitable punishment for someone like Hitler.

Could have, could have.. the point is they didn't. So in essentials (from a non-believer point of view) he got away with it.



You're not talking about justice, you're talking about a need to have a god to which to be accountable.

Sorry I lost my train of thought there.. :o
Point taken.
But by appointing yourself the highest authority how can you accurately decide where/when something becomes wrong and right? Athiests do not agree on all moral issues. Each one has his own idea of whats wrong and right - clearly they cannot all be correct.



Did I use the word sorry? My statement is correct and applies particularly to Catholicism.
No. No it doesn't. You need to learn more about Catholism if that's what you think.
I know you never used the word "sorry" but your implication was that absolution of guilt was just a request away.


No, as a Catholic you can pay a Priest for a mass, that way you get around your alpha-male sky god's rules. You can slaughter millions (*cough hitler *cough*... Yes, Hitler was a Confirmed Catholic... and it would also have helped if Pope Pius XII had not supported the Nazi regime), but as long as you see your Priest for a Confession, all is good. If Confession is not about forgiveness can you please tell me why as a kid my dad took me to the Catholic priest to Confession. What is the point of Confession?
No, no ,no.
Having a Mass said for yourself/someone else does not instantly absolve you/them of anything.
Hitler was born a Catholic yes, but he denounced it, and never went back. Even wikipedia will tell you that.
Pope Pius XII supporting Nazi's? :confused:
Confession still requires a person to have a real intention. You cannot just go and think it's OK. It's not a magical spell.
Second point, confession absolves one of the sin but not of punishment.
It's like if you wreck something belonging to a friend, you apologise and he "forgives" you... this doesn't mean it's all la de da - correctly you should still make retribution (i.e., replacing whatever it was you broke).

[ghoti]

No, no ,no.
Having a Mass said for yourself/someone else does not instantly absolve you/them of anything.
Hitler was born a Catholic yes, but he denounced it, and never went back. Even wikipedia will tell you that.
Pope Pius XII supporting Nazi's? :confused:
Confession still requires a person to have a real intention. You cannot just go and think it's OK. It's not a magical spell.
Second point, confession absolves one of the sin but not of punishment.
It's like if you wreck something belonging to a friend, you apologise and he "forgives" you... this doesn't mean it's all la de da - correctly you should still make retribution (i.e., replacing whatever it was you broke).

Yup, you are kinda right, though he didnt "reject" Catholicism or religion as you put it, in fact wiki has this to say about it:


At one point he described his religious status: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."[7] Hitler never formally ended his church membership, but according to Albert Speer, "he had no real attachment to it."[8]

Like any good leader (Ie Napoleon) he figured out it would be a useful took to control the masses:


In public statements, especially at the beginning of his rule, Hitler frequently spoke positively about the Christian heritage of German culture and his belief in the "Aryan" Christ. In doing so, he used his "ability to simulate, even to potentially critical Church leaders, an image of a leader keen to uphold and protect Christianity," according to Ian Kershaw.

Regards :)

[nthdimension]

Could have, could have.. the point is they didn't. So in essentials (from a non-believer point of view) he got away with it.
He's dead. Criminals don't generally consider ending up dead as getting away with it.

According to Jewish belief Hitler would eventually end up in Heaven after a long period of cleansing. According to the new testament he would be destroyed. According to non-belief he was destroyed. In Jewish tradition he comes closest to "getting away with it". In the other two the end result is destruction for being evil.

[nthdimension]

But by appointing yourself the highest authority how can you accurately decide where/when something becomes wrong and right? Athiests do not agree on all moral issues. Each one has his own idea of whats wrong and right - clearly they cannot all be correct.
Exactly the same thing applies to gods. Religions cannot agree on moral principles so whose god is correct? They can't all be right.

People who think they've spoken to their god could be speaking to another god pretending to be their god. If they can make universes I'm sure they can lie effectively too. There is absolutely no way for any mortal to determine with certainty that they are not being deceived when they are interacting with a deity.


No. No it doesn't. You need to learn more about Catholism if that's what you think.
I know you never used the word "sorry" but your implication was that absolution of guilt was just a request away.
You are mistaken and misstating the core of that to which you are repsonding.

Here is what was really said (emphasis is mine):

because the religion allows for forgiveness for wrongs.

and afterwards repent

Now are you seriously claiming the Catholic church disallows repentance for sins, any sins, no matter how extreme? That if someone repents the church will turn them away? That in Christianity there is no concept of forgiveness?

It seems to me the church has no problem whatsoever with people, after a life of total evil, stepping into the box of secrets, telling all, repenting and getting their ticket to heaven.

[redarrow]

Yup, you are kinda right, though he didnt "reject" Catholicism or religion as you put it, in fact wiki has this to say about it:

hmm, I didn't mean to imply that he rejected religion.. only that he didn't practice the Catholic religion... well if he did consider himself one then he certainly wasn't acting on Catholic principles..

I can't find your quotes on wiki by the way :confused:
I'm looking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler ... Is there another section on him?


He's dead. Criminals don't generally consider ending up dead as getting away with it.

According to Jewish belief Hitler would eventually end up in Heaven after a long period of cleansing. According to the new testament he would be destroyed. According to non-belief he was destroyed. In Jewish tradition he comes closest to "getting away with it". In the other two the end result is destruction for being evil.
But in a non-believers opinion everyone ends up being destructed.. thus death can't really be seen as a result of being evil.. ?


Exactly the same thing applies to gods. Religions cannot agree on moral principles so whose god is correct? They can't all be right.

Agreed.. but at least all the people within a religion can agree with each other.. Well they should anyway.
Yes, they can't all be correct.. the first point though is to decide whether you believe in a creator before attempting to decipher which religion has the truth.. :)



People who think they've spoken to their god could be speaking to another god pretending to be their god. If they can make universes I'm sure they can lie effectively too. There is absolutely no way for any mortal to determine with certainty that they are not being deceived when they are interacting with a deity.

I can't think why a God would choose to do this.. hypothetically speaking I suppose it is possible but as you say we would not know.. so I cannot really debate the point. :o



You are mistaken and misstating the core of that to which you are repsonding.

Here is what was really said (emphasis is mine):

Now are you seriously claiming the Catholic church disallows repentance for sins, any sins, no matter how extreme? That if someone repents the church will turn them away? That in Christianity there is no concept of forgiveness?

No.. that's not what I'm saying.. those who truly repent shall be forgiven.. :)



It seems to me the church has no problem whatsoever with people, after a life of total evil, stepping into the box of secrets, telling all, repenting and getting their ticket to heaven.
This is the part that you are getting wrong.. first off a person who leads such a life normally wouldn't repent at the very end anyway.. (those who live by the sword die by the sword) .. secondly and more importantly you are disregarding the Catholic teaching of purgatory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory). (i.e., like I stated earlier, even though you are forgiven you still need to make retribution.)

[noxibox]

hmm, I didn't mean to imply that he rejected religion.. only that he didn't practice the Catholic religion... well if he did consider himself one then he certainly wasn't acting on Catholic principles.
When it comes to the Jews I'd say he was carrying the church's anti-semitism to its logical conclusion.


No.. that's not what I'm saying.. those who truly repent shall be forgiven.. :)
So why are you arguing my point?

[nthdimension]

But in a non-believers opinion everyone ends up being destructed.. thus death can't really be seen as a result of being evil.. ?
You miss the point. He did not get to live out his life and enjoy his empire. The most we would have done to Hitler is destroy him. We effectively achieved that. We crushed his empire, crippled his country and he killed himself.


Agreed.. but at least all the people within a religion can agree with each other.. Well they should anyway.
Yes, they can't all be correct.. the first point though is to decide whether you believe in a creator before attempting to decipher which religion has the truth.
There is no known way, other than dying to ascertain if any religion is correct.

Atheists do not each have their own belief about what is right and wrong. There is as much consensus on what is right and wrong as there is within any one religion or between religions.


No.. that's not what I'm saying.. those who truly repent shall be forgiven.
Then I have no idea what you're arguing about.


first off a person who leads such a life normally wouldn't repent at the very end anyway.
Likelihood was not a factor.


secondly and more importantly you are disregarding the Catholic teaching of purgatory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory). (i.e., like I stated earlier, even though you are forgiven you still need to make retribution.)
I'm not ignoring it. The person who repents still gets to go to heaven.

Purgatory is an aspect of Catholicism that brings this form of Christianity closer to the beliefs of Judaism with respect to the afterlife.

[redarrow]

When it comes to the Jews I'd say he was carrying the church's anti-semitism to its logical conclusion.

The RCC does not hate the Jews.. :confused:
Some persons within the RCC may possibly through various times and ages have harboured ill feelings to them, but it has never been within the teachings of the Church.
Jesus and his twelve apostles and most of the early Christians were Jews by the way...


You miss the point. He did not get to live out his life and enjoy his empire. The most we would have done to Hitler is destroy him. We effectively achieved that. We crushed his empire, crippled his country and he killed himself.

True that.. but he still did enjoy a few years of power... A good man could just as easily die young.. (like many of the people who died most likely due to his whims)



There is no known way, other than dying to ascertain if any religion is correct.

I disagree.
What happend to trusting your gut instinct? For example someone who says that any religion is as likely as another would happily agree that a "flying spagetti monster" is as likely as the Christian God.. but I disagree, because frankly a "flying spagetti monster" just sounds silly. - And no I won't expand on that nor will I debate it, I trust my intuition in some things. :)



Atheists do not each have their own belief about what is right and wrong. There is as much consensus on what is right and wrong as there is within any one religion or between religions.

They generally agree on certain points yes.. like murder is wrong.. but many other points they cannot agree on.. Some athiests think that communision is the ideal economic system for example. Now Catholics may have some disagreements amongst themselves, but if they are true to their faith they will trust the teachings of the Church. :)




So why are you arguing my point?



Then I have no idea what you're arguing about.


Likelihood was not a factor.


I'm not ignoring it. The person who repents still gets to go to heaven.

Purgatory is an aspect of Catholicism that brings this form of Christianity closer to the beliefs of Judaism with respect to the afterlife.
OK, I'm confused now. :confused:

I argued the point at first because it appeared to me that you guys were insinuating that the RCC taught that one could get away scott free with crimes.. I do not consider a finite punishment followed by heaven to be getting away scott free..

So we agree that the RCC's teachings are:
Those who repent will be forgiven, but all must make restituition for their sins by form of purgatory.. i.e., a finite punishment before entering heaven.

Now I don't get your problems? Are you disagreeing with this? How would you have it if you could write the rules?
Are you suggesting that after a certain amount of crimes a person should become "unforgivable"?

If the RCC taught that would you then not come here and declare that Catholics have a cold unmercifull vengeful God?

[nthdimension]

The RCC does not hate the Jews.. :confused:
Some persons within the RCC may possibly through various times and ages have harboured ill feelings to them, but it has never been within the teachings of the Church.
Standard modern revisionism, denying the reality of the anti-semitism of the church.


Jesus and his twelve apostles and most of the early Christians were Jews by the way...
So? The party line is that the Jews murdered Jesus.


True that.. but he still did enjoy a few years of power...
Exactly his fate if there were a God. See Bible for description of fate of sinners.


What happend to trusting your gut instinct? For example someone who says that any religion is as likely as another would happily agree that a "flying spagetti monster" is as likely as the Christian God.. but I disagree, because frankly a "flying spagetti monster" just sounds silly.
The gods of other religions are all likely enough. Gut instinct tells me there are no gods. But gut instinct is not enough, there must also be facts. To date no facts have come to light to even hint at the existence of any gods.


Some athiests think that communision is the ideal economic system for example.
There is nothing inherently atheist about the economic ideas of communism. Those ideas not inherently for or opposed to religion, it is merely an economic system. Read up on Christian communism.


I do not consider a finite punishment followed by heaven to be getting away scott free.
Nothing that stops anyone from living a life of evil and getting to heaven. This is however consistent with Jewish belief - everyone eventually gets to heaven.

[redarrow]

Standard modern revisionism, denying the reality of the anti-semitism of the church.

I could just echo back that this is the standard athiest attempt at besmirching the Church.
The Church has never taught any form of "anti-semitism".. Like I said before, that some persons within the Church may have practiced such things has nothing to do with the Church's teachings.



So? The party line is that the Jews murdered Jesus.

Physically yes, but the Church's teaching (not just RCC but any Christian denomination) is that it was due to our sins.
This is no reason why the RCC would hate Jews.



Exactly his fate if there were a God. See Bible for description of fate of sinners.

They go to hell?



The gods of other religions are all likely enough. Gut instinct tells me there are no gods. But gut instinct is not enough, there must also be facts. To date no facts have come to light to even hint at the existence of any gods.

I disagree. It's also a question of what you will accept as evidence, personally I have seen much more evidence that God exists than that he doesn't. If your idea of evidence is that reported by "qualified" scientists working in restrictricted labs.. well then I'm not suprised if you don't see any.



There is nothing inherently atheist about the economic ideas of communism. Those ideas not inherently for or opposed to religion, it is merely an economic system. Read up on Christian communism.

I did not insinuate that it was. I was giving a good example of very differing opinions amongst athiests.
The RCC for example does not teach communism. A Catholic leader who tries to implement it is going against the teachings of his own religion - therefore he will not be able to "harmonise" the two.. either he'll have to drop one of them or he'll be breaking rules.. Yes of course he may try to justify his actions to himself but his religion will not support him.
Now with an athiest.. well there's nothing preventing him.. except himself.



Nothing that stops anyone from living a life of evil and getting to heaven. This is however consistent with Jewish belief - everyone eventually gets to heaven.

Obviously you still don't understand.. :rolleyes: Catholic teachings are most certainly not that everyone eventually gets to heaven. Those in hell stay there. :eek:

[nthdimension]

The Church has never taught any form of "anti-semitism".. Like I said before, that some persons within the Church may have practiced such things has nothing to do with the Church's teachings.
Try supercessionism and transfer of sin.


Physically yes, but the Church's teaching (not just RCC but any Christian denomination) is that it was due to our sins.
This is no reason why the RCC would hate Jews.
See supercessionism and transfer of sin.


They go to hell?
They are destroyed permanently. There is no eternal damnation according to the Bible. Jesus' teachings at least.


I have seen much more evidence that God exists than that he doesn't.
Members of competing religions will say the same, therefore all gods are equally likely.


A Catholic leader who tries to implement it is going against the teachings of his own religion
I am sure you can then quote us the Bible verses where it says Thou Shalt Not Be Communist.


I was giving a good example of very differing opinions amongst athiests.
You seem to suffer from the delusion that all religions are in near agreement on all things.

Atheists are free to make decisions based on information and reason. Religion says you should do things just because.

I agree with a challenge given elsewhere - show us a single Christian anywhere that comes even close to following the Bible. Nothing may be left out. Anyone who does will of course either be in jail or wanted by the police for crimes that might include murder of their children or neighbours.


Catholic teachings are most certainly not that everyone eventually gets to heaven. Those in hell stay there.
You'll have to go back and read what I actually said.

Those who do not go to heaven are destroyed, according to Jesus.

[redarrow]

Try supercessionism and transfer of sin.


See supercessionism and transfer of sin.

You mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism ?
I don't see anything about hating Jews there.. Of course the RCC's position is that Jews are in the wrong.. duh. :rolleyes: If this is what you are reffering to.. It's logical to conclude that any religion that says any other religion is OK cannot be correct.

I don't know what you mean by "transfer of sin"?



They are destroyed permanently. There is no eternal damnation according to the Bible. Jesus' teachings at least.

Where does it say that? You can interpret the Bible in a thousand ways if you want.



Members of competing religions will say the same, therefore all gods are equally likely.

Some religions way out number others..
Some have much more evidince than others. What I said is that you will simply choose not to believe it.



I am sure you can then quote us the Bible verses where it says Thou Shalt Not Be Communist.

:rolleyes: Shows how much you really know about Catholism.
"whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."



You seem to suffer from the delusion that all religions are in near agreement on all things.

No. You are not reading. I said that all people within a particullar religion are (mostly) in agreement.



Atheists are free to make decisions based on information and reason. Religion says you should do things just because.

So is communision cool then? Or do you have information telling you that it's not?



I agree with a challenge given elsewhere - show us a single Christian anywhere that comes even close to following the Bible. Nothing may be left out. Anyone who does will of course either be in jail or wanted by the police for crimes that might include murder of their children or neighbours.

And of course you make the common mistake here of referring to the old testament. Most specifically the law of Moses probably.
Find such a command in the new testament.



You'll have to go back and read what I actually said.

Those who do not go to heaven are destroyed, according to Jesus.
This is not what the RCC teaches. You cannot interpret the Bible in your own way and assume that this is the position of the RCC.

[ghoti]

Redarrow: You do know that Christians have been persecuting jews up until the last 100 years or so? (excluding the nazi regime and the mild anti-semitism coming from the current christian community) During the crusades, the muslim was considered a "good opponent", but the Jews...of which whom the Royal crowns were borrowing money from were extremely persecuted (treated worse than a dog) by Christians. I believe the belief started because some Christian blame the Jews for having a hand in killing Jesus.

A read of the book Ivanhoe will put what I say into perspective.

[icyrus]

And of course you make the common mistake here of referring to the old testament. Most specifically the law of Moses probably.
Find such a command in the new testament.

So is it no longer valid then?

Oh and by the way could you please post a quick 5 point list of what you consider to be proof/evidence of god. Super!

[ghoti]

Could you also show us where it is irrelevant? Because dodo and Prom argue that the old testament is not irrelevant.

[noxibox]

Some religions way out number others.
So whoever has the most followers is right? Isn't Islam becoming right faster than Christianity?


"whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
It doesn't make reference to communism. It doesn't seem to endorse or oppose any particular economic system. Democracy isn't a Christian invention either. Christianity seemed quite happy with the feudal system. Maybe that is why certain wealthy Christians want to change the law so they can effectively bring it back.


And of course you make the common mistake here of referring to the old testament. Most specifically the law of Moses probably.
Excellent. Out with that pesky ten commandments. There are so many stupid rules in the Old Testament.

[nthdimension]

Redarrow: You do know that Christians have been persecuting jews up until the last 100 years or so? (excluding the nazi regime and the mild anti-semitism coming from the current christian community) During the crusades, the muslim was considered a "good opponent", but the Jews...of which whom the Royal crowns were borrowing money from were extremely persecuted (treated worse than a dog) by Christians. I believe the belief started because some Christian blame the Jews for having a hand in killing Jesus.
I think modern Catholics are in denial about the way the church viewed the Jews and the anti-semitism it promoted. Possibly the younger members of the religion more so.

This is the same church that covered up child abuse until very recently. I'm glad to say there are at least some honest Catholics that acknowledge this.

[redarrow]

Redarrow: You do know that Christians have been persecuting jews up until the last 100 years or so? (excluding the nazi regime and the mild anti-semitism coming from the current christian community) During the crusades, the muslim was considered a "good opponent", but the Jews...of which whom the Royal crowns were borrowing money from were extremely persecuted (treated worse than a dog) by Christians. I believe the belief started because some Christian blame the Jews for having a hand in killing Jesus.

A read of the book Ivanhoe will put what I say into perspective.
Yes I am aware that such things do/have happen(ed). I do not deny this.
What I do deny is that these things were done under the authority of the Church.


So is it no longer valid then?

I didn't say it's no longer valid per se, the old laws are valid in so far as the New Testament declares them to be. For example, in the Old Testament the law of Moses allowed divorce, in the New Testament this was changed.



Oh and by the way could you please post a quick 5 point list of what you consider to be proof/evidence of god. Super!
Funny that you should ask for 5 points.. this is exactly the amount that St. Thomas Aquinas proposed.. see http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#3

For myself apart from those reasons above, I have some personal reasons that I need not tell you - You will probably not believe me and I cannot prove them to you anyway.

How about you provide me with a 5 point list of reasons to doubt His existince.


Could you also show us where it is irrelevant? Because dodo and Prom argue that the old testament is not irrelevant.
See my answer to icyrus.. I did not say that it's irrelevant.
It's more of a history than a set of laws.

[redarrow]

So whoever has the most followers is right? Isn't Islam becoming right faster than Christianity?

No, but it adds weight to have more followers.
I agree the point though, it doesn't always mean much.

Let's put it like this though: If 50, 000 000 adults around the world, including many reasonable and intelligent ones that you know held an absolute firm belief in the easter bunny... what would that mean to you?
Do you know a single person who you consider of reasonalbe intelligence who believes in the easter bunny?
What about God?



It doesn't make reference to communism. It doesn't seem to endorse or oppose any particular economic system. Democracy isn't a Christian invention either. Christianity seemed quite happy with the feudal system. Maybe that is why certain wealthy Christians want to change the law so they can effectively bring it back.

It's the bit where Christ passed power to Peter and he in turn passed it on to his successor.



Excellent. Out with that pesky ten commandments. There are so many stupid rules in the Old Testament.
The ten commandments were upheld by Christ.

[Claymore]

Funny that you should ask for 5 points.. this is exactly the amount that St. Thomas Aquinas proposed.. see http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#3


Hmmm. St. Thomas's "proof" is not proof at all; it consists of philosophical arguments based on certain assumptions, and drawing conclusions thought to be self-evident, like "and this everyone understands to be God."

Not only are some of those assumptions not necessarily correct, they lead to conclusions that do not necessarily agree with the God as described in the Bible (or at least, could be interpreted as any arbitrary force, like the Big Bang, without showing why that is the same as the Yahweh descibed in the Old Testament).

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO REDARROW:

Read the conclusions drawn on the allowing of a divorce letter. You will actually notice that God did not approve of divorce, it was only allowed under certain circuimstances because God is a forgiving God...

In the N/T the rules are very much the same...

[Neo]

The ten commandments were upheld by Christ.

Not just the Ten Commandments. Jesus himself said all the 'Old Laws' are to be upheld. More than once. He was quite clear on this.

Any human (including Paul, Mr TB, dodo, prom, etc.) who tries to argue that the OT laws don't count anymore is calling Jesus a liar. As simple as that.

I've asked numerous times to be shown where Jesus himself said which OT laws are not valid anymore, but of course never had a reply.

So please show me where Jesus, the Son of God, one of the Holy Trinity, who died for our sins, told us which laws to ignore?

I, on the other hand, can show you where Jesus told us to UPHOLD all the 'Old Laws' (his words).

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO NOXIBOX:

Christianity is not a political system or an economic system... Christianity is about the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal saviour...

Once you have done that we can look at the promises and the conditions set for this promises to come to pass... as written in the bible...

Read what Paul say about the Roman goverment. Obey the goverment! as long as they don't contradict God!
No one has any power on this earth but by God allowing it.
On judgementday you be hold accountable for what you did with such empowerment... Hitler,Amin,Mugabe,Stalin,Pot-Pol will stand in front of the most fair Judge and explain their actions... we will listen on.

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO NEO:

Welcome back !
"I, on the other hand, can show you where Jesus told us to UPHOLD all the 'Old Laws' (his words)."

I question the fact that I ever said Jesus told us not to uphold the, the law is summarised in two verses in duet and when He mentioned it the scribe was quite impressed with Him. Do you know them? Jesus indeed fulfilled the law something mankind find impossible to do.

In doing so He gave mankind a new law "THE LAW OF GRACE", in this law mankind are justified by faith in Jesus Christ. In that way through justification mankind are able to keep the "LAW OF MOSES" if you wish to call it that way.

[ghoti]

See my answer to icyrus.. I did not say that it's irrelevant.
It's more of a history than a set of laws.

I am sorry, that is not sufficently answered. For instance the bible will tell you anything you want it to tell you. Its starts off with a though shalt not kill then God goes on one of the biggest slaughter fests in history (he kills over 2 million people in the bible (and those are just the ones that can be counted. Satan kills 10). I see rules in there to stone woman to death for the most stupid of reasons (though not the man as often... apparently God is a sexist).

[Neo]

IN RESPONSE TO NEO:

Welcome back !
"I, on the other hand, can show you where Jesus told us to UPHOLD all the 'Old Laws' (his words)."

I question the fact that I ever said Jesus told us not to uphold the, the law is summarised in two verses in duet and when He mentioned it the scribe was quite impressed with Him. Do you know them? Jesus indeed fulfilled the law something mankind find impossible to do.

In doing so He gave mankind a new law "THE LAW OF GRACE", in this law mankind are justified by faith in Jesus Christ. In that way through justification mankind are able to keep the "LAW OF MOSES" if you wish to call it that way.

Please show where this new law "THE LAW OF GRACE" is written in the New Testament.

[noxibox]

Can we please have a complete list of which old laws are to be obeyed and which are to be discarded?

Who is going to fight for my God-given right to stone my rebellious child to death? What are Christian leaders doing to fix the law? Bringing back stoning of children will solve all these modern discipline problems.

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO NOXIBOX:

May be you should take the law of Moses . if you want to call it that way and read it carefully. Take into account God has the last word, not you (you have no rights once you have given your life to Jesus..., you gave up all your so-called god given rights once you are committed to Jesus...)

He gave up all his rights to save you when he was hanging on that cross 2000yrs ago... You will just have to suck your pride and give up yours otherwise you are missing the bus big time cleverboy.

[Neo]

IN RESPONSE TO NOXIBOX:

May be you should take the law of Moses . if you want to call it that way and read it carefully. Take into account God has the last word, not you (you have no rights once you have given your life to Jesus..., you gave up all your so-called god given rights once you are committed to Jesus...)

He gave up all his rights to save you when he was hanging on that cross 2000yrs ago... You will just have to suck your pride and give up yours otherwise you are missing the bus big time cleverboy.

Dodo, stop waffling and just answer the question:

Where is the new set of laws published and/or where does Jesus explicitly state which OT laws are now redundant.

Just post the book, chapter and verse.

If you can't, then we'll accept your apology for once again lying.

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO NEO:

Stop referring to me as a liar or you will leave me with no other option but to refer you to the moderators I am now getting sick and tyred of your insulting comments.

Please show me where I explicity state that Jesus by voice gave the LAW?
If you cannot I will indeed accept your apology for insulting me in public.

[Neo]

IN RESPONSE TO NEO:

Stop referring to me as a liar or you will leave me with no other option but to refer you to the moderators I am now getting sick and tyred of your insulting comments.

Please show me where I explicity state that Jesus by voice gave the LAW?
If you cannot I will indeed accept your apology for insulting me in public.

Stop making up stuff and then try and claim it as the truth. It's called lying.

You said there is a new set of laws that Jesus gave us, "THE LAW OF GRACE". Now we all know the only place where the words of Jesus was written up was in the New Testament. Nowhere else.

So, either show us where it is written or admit you made it up, i.e. you lied.

[Mr TB]

Stop making up stuff and then try and claim it as the truth. It's called lying.

You said there is a new set of laws that Jesus gave us, "THE LAW OF GRACE". Now we all know the only place where the words of Jesus was written up was in the New Testament. Nowhere else.

So, either show us where it is written or admit you made it up, i.e. you lied.

"Now we all know the only place where the words of Jesus was written up was in the New Testament. Nowhere else."

Oh really?... what about the gospels of Judas , Thomas, Philip, etc... you indulge in? The only N/T I know is the one in the Bible, the one you are disputing... I understand what I read with the help of the Holy Spirit, not human beings that are not trustworthy...

[Mr TB]

I am sorry, that is not sufficently answered. For instance the bible will tell you anything you want it to tell you. Its starts off with a though shalt not kill then God goes on one of the biggest slaughter fests in history (he kills over 2 million people in the bible (and those are just the ones that can be counted. Satan kills 10). I see rules in there to stone woman to death for the most stupid of reasons (though not the man as often... apparently God is a sexist).

The Bible is not written to exalt satan in the first place. One of the 10 is Jesus , a priceless killing, how many killings is His life worth? All the lives that are saved due to His sacrifice.

The ones killed had wrongdoing in them, there not a single wrong in Jesus.
Satan killed someone without any wrong in Him. He is a murder.

If you want to put it another way. God punished people for their wrongs. Satan killed an innocent man, you can't get past that. Satan killed an innocent man! Just as Sheldean was innocent when she was killed by that man...

I see stupid rules in our law system to protect the innocent so please!
The rules are set to protect not to harm, what is wrong with you .
If there are no rules there are anargy, look at your own community!
When are you going to wake up? When it is to late?

Oh yes, the non-religious killed 100 million people in the last century so your references to murder are boring me lately...

[ToxicBunny]

Satan didn't kill Jesus, the Romans did, or are the Romans now being used in the same vein as Satan?

What about the millions that God killed, what was their wrong?

Who is Sheldean and why are they pertinent to this debate?

Where do you get this figure that the non-religious killed 100million in the last century, a link to this would be greatly appreciated.

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO TOXICBUNNY:

You stated God killed 2 miillion people, verify the figure please.
So you don't read the newspaper, that is the reason you are not up to date with the crime situation in this country...
The 100 million, oh in the same reading areas fuming about the inquisition etc...

[ToxicBunny]

Well you stated 100 million were killed so I figured I'd make up a number as well.. except of course God's atrocities against humanity are well documented in his own lil book....

I am very up to date with the crime situation in this country Mr TB, I still don't see how it makes it pertinent to this debate in any way shape or form.

Actually, please, provide a link to your research about this 100 million... it would be appreciated otherwise again, we will just assume you are making rubbish up and ignore it as the rantings of a deranged individual

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO TOXICBUNNY:

"I am very up to date with the crime situation in this country Mr TB, I still don't see how it makes it pertinent to this debate in any way shape or form."

Your are pushing murder, you are pushing it in an abstract environment, my example is just more realistic more practical. If you were indeed so up to date with crime, why are you arguing rules that could prevent killing of people 3000 yrs ago? instead of arguing the implementation of rules that could prevent crime now? The deranged individual is certainly not me...

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO TOXIBUNNY

" except of course God's atrocities against humanity are well documented in his own lil book...."

Wait you must have it wrong, it is mankind's antrocities against God, remember mankind were empowered by God , mankind acted outside their empowerment and were hold accountable for these actions...

Please note it works the same way in society a company empowers you, you act outside such empowerment you are fired or even go to jail...

No man your stinking arguments trying to make God a murderer is quite feeble...

[ToxicBunny]

*blink*... speak english man.. its monday, i haven't gotten to the point of being able to decipher gibberish....

My arguments aren't trying to make God a murderer.. he clearly instructs his followers to go and murder innocent ppl...

[Tux]

*blink*... speak english man.. its monday, i haven't gotten to the point of being able to decipher gibberish....

My arguments aren't trying to make God a murderer.. he clearly instructs his followers to go and murder innocent ppl...

Now why do the Nurenberg trials spring to mind? And most of the Nazi defence of "I was only following orders..."?

[ToxicBunny]

Oh but the Nazi's were evil and satan's spawn Gru.... its differnet alllllll together :)

[Tux]

Oh but the Nazi's were evil and satan's spawn Gru.... its differnet alllllll together :)

Depends on who you ask. History being written by the victors an all...

[Mr TB]

"he clearly instructs his followers to go and murder innocent ppl..."

Yeah,... and I am getting tired explaining a language that I am not fully competent with to those to who hold themselves as being fully competent in such language.

Or now I have it!, You can speak it but not really read it...that's why the Bible is such a hassle is it not?!

[Tux]

"he clearly instructs his followers to go and murder innocent ppl..."

Yeah,... and I am getting tired explaining a language that I am not fully competent with to those to who hold themselves as being fully competent in such language.

Or now I have it!, You can speak it but not really read it...that's why the Bible is such a hassle is it not?!

Por que?

[bk.ru]

Details about how many people God kills in the Bible can be found here: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html all 2 million of the recorded victims (this does not include people massacared by God in the floods of Noah or the fall of Sodom.)

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO GRU:

Irratic?, yes I agree but empowerment and accountability goes hand in hand don't you agree?

Iniquity is clearly mentioned, and how TOXIBUNNY decide the people were innocent, was he present? He is making an assumption!

Not once can be proved that innocent people were killed, show the evidence.
If you to call on murder of children, you can not you are allowing the same in the form of abortion etc. Ultimately you have not got any case...

[bk.ru]

"he clearly instructs his followers to go and murder innocent ppl..."

Yeah,... and I am getting tired explaining a language that I am not fully competent with to those to who hold themselves as being fully competent in such language.

Or now I have it!, You can speak it but not really read it...that's why the Bible is such a hassle is it not?!

No, you are really stupid and its really hard to read what you write.

[Mr TB]

Details about how many people God kills in the Bible can be found here: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html all 2 million of the recorded victims (this does not include people massacared by God in the floods of Noah or the fall of Sodom.)

You missed the point concerning accountability...

Like usual you do not want to accept accountability for your deeds, but expect from someone like George Bush to do that.

Double standards double standards double standards nothing more.....

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO bk.ru

Calling someone stupid is also just an easy cop-out...

[fivelza]

You missed the point concerning accountability...

Like usual you do not want to accept accountability for your deeds, but expect from someone like George Bush to do that.

Double standards double standards double standards nothing more.....

TB, we are all (I may be the only one) trying to follow your train of thought, but most of the time you make no sense AT ALL. What has George Bush got to do with anything :confused:

[bk.ru]

IN RESPONSE TO bk.ru

Calling someone stupid is also just an easy cop-out...

Easier than trying to understand what you are trying to type. If for instance you were able to type like a 7 yr old, then we would be able to understand you, but you type worse than that so its hard for the other forumites to understand your scribbles.

[ToxicBunny]

Actually Mr TB,

I do what any normal sane, ethical and moral person would do. I assume people are innocent until proven guilty, so you have to provide the proof that all 2 million people were guilty, until such time as you can prove that, God murdered 2 million innocent people...

[fivelza]

Actually Mr TB,

I do what any normal sane, ethical and moral person would do. I assume people are innocent until proven guilty, so you have to provide the proof that all 2 million people were guilty, until such time as you can prove that, God murdered 2 million innocent people...

Toxic, I guess your definition of innocent becomes important here. For example, God commanded Lot's wife not to look back and she did, hence the punishment.

[bk.ru]

Toxic, I guess your definition of innocent becomes important here. For example, God commanded Lot's wife not to look back and she did, hence the punishment.

God also killed the eldest son of each egyptian family to try get his message across to one paroh. Is that fair? Does that sound like God? Surely God could have just "appeared" and solved the whole problem by himself. No... he has to be obscure and kill thousands of innocents to get his message across. He mascared those kids.

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO bk.ru

"READ YOUR BIBLE PLEASE"
The skeptics commenting, may I call it that way... Are they fully Hebrew literate. Do they understand the meaning of the hebrew text properly from which the verses were translated etc...

Or are they trying to create doubt... because doubt is all satan need to accomplish his task...

[bk.ru]

IN RESPONSE TO bk.ru

"READ YOUR BIBLE PLEASE"
The skeptics commenting, may I call it that way... Are they fully Hebrew literate. Do they understand the meaning of the hebrew text properly from which the verses were translated etc...

Or are they trying to create doubt... because doubt is all satan need to accomplish his task...

Well you see our simple little troll. :) :) Complain to the people who create the bible, they didnt offer to do translations, they took a bible (already translated and accepted by millions of christians) that you believe in and pointed out all the stupdity in it.

[Nick333]

TB, we are all (I may be the only one) trying to follow your train of thought, but most of the time you make no sense AT ALL. What has George Bush got to do with anything :confused:

Don't know if you've watched Jesus Camp fivel, but GWB is a deity to the Evangelicals. They exhort their kids to worship and pray to his (cardboard cut-out) image. Honestly.

That doesn't explain Dodos bringing Bush up in that post perhaps, though, in his fevered mind he confuses him a bit with JC and by extension God.

You may think I'm making fun but I'm not really. I realize that most Christians are sane people but some of them should be sedated.

[Nick333]

Toxic, I guess your definition of innocent becomes important here. For example, God commanded Lot's wife not to look back and she did, hence the punishment.

A bit harsh of Him don't you think?

[fivelza]

God also killed the eldest son of each egyptian family to try get his message across to one paroh. Is that fair? Does that sound like God? Surely God could have just "appeared" and solved the whole problem by himself. No... he has to be obscure and kill thousands of innocents to get his message across. He mascared those kids.

Where do you read that God was always fair in the Old Testament? He was a God of wrath and revenge, Christians cannot hide that, or deny that, it is written in the Bible. You want to impose what you deem as fair on God now thousands of years after it happened.

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO bk.ru

"Surely God could have just "appeared" and solved the whole problem by himself"

So you want it to be like the calender with the 3 monkeys, the last one folding his arms over his eyes and the whole problem is away...

Quite autocratic also I think, just push Pharaoh of his place,... it is mine now.

Ok Israel go... That is interfering in the goverment of Egypt is it not?, Everyone wants to say George Bush for interfering in Iraq, or do you aprove of that?

[fivelza]

Don't know if you've watched Jesus Camp fivel, but GWB is a deity to the Evangelicals. They exhort their kids to worship and pray to his (cardboard cut-out) image. Honestly.

That doesn't explain Dodos bringing Bush up in that post perhaps, though, in his fevered mind he confuses him a bit with JC and by extension God.

You may think I'm making fun but I'm not really. I realize that most Christians are sane people but some of them should be sedated.

Agreed, the extremists in any camp will always make the rest look like idiots, accepted.


A bit harsh of Him don't you think?

Agreed it was harsh :o

[ToxicBunny]

Fivel : I would think Gods definition of guilt is more important than my definition of innocence, since I'm a mean spirited old fool... :)

[fivelza]

Fivel : I would think Gods definition of guilt is more important than my definition of innocence, since I'm a mean spirited old fool... :)

I don't think there was a need for a definition of guilt in the OT, it was pretty much God said this and if you didn't obey you got sorted out.

[ToxicBunny]

Ahhh ok, well there I have a problem with that concept.... I need flexible boundaries and stuff... I'm not good with authority like that.....

[icyrus]

I don't think there was a need for a definition of guilt in the OT, it was pretty much God said this and if you didn't obey you got sorted out.

Does that not sound like tyranny? And yet people still believe...

[Mr TB]

IN REACTION TO bk.ru

That is it!... Yes man you can not what the skeptics do if you don't understand the language and the difficulties of translation.

Name-calling...well that I expect of the non-religious...
Come you certainly can do better than that...

[fivelza]

Ahhh ok, well there I have a problem with that concept.... I need flexible boundaries and stuff... I'm not good with authority like that.....

I am not sure who is good with authority like that, would not be many Christians around nowadays if it was so.


Does that not sound like tyranny? And yet people still believe...

The New Testament came with a slightly different message though.

[ToxicBunny]

But now the NT changing things is in itself problematic.. Why did god say one thing and then change his mind later?.. he is all-knowing and blah blah blah.... his message should have been one thing and stayed that way.

[icyrus]

The New Testament came with a slightly different message though.

So NT: god's extreme makeover?

[Nick333]

But now the NT changing things is in itself problematic.. Why did god say one thing and then change his mind later?.. he is all-knowing and blah blah blah.... his message should have been one thing and stayed that way.

I think the answer to this is that the early Christians were Jewish Gnostics who were making a total break from Judaic tradition. The literalist Christians who essentially took Christian teachings er...um...literally :D had to force those teachings back into a Judaic context (i.e. Jesus being the prophesied Messiah) for them to make any sort of sense.

In other words the original teachings of Christianity was that the God of the OT was basically the devil and that Chr1st came to show the path to escaping from his world of delusion. Christians who saw the analogous stories of Chr1sts death and resurrection as actual physical events were forced to adopt ambiguous images of God the wrathful and God the loving creator.

[ToxicBunny]

Could bring this debate back to the bible issue....

So basically the bible is a propaganda tool to make people believe and it was written by people?

[Tux]

Could you all stop posting for a few hours?
Trying to decipher dodo's verbal wossnames and keeping up is proving impossible. Might have to ignore everybody to catch up

[ToxicBunny]

*refuses to stop posting*

I'm having to much fun just blithely assuming his ramblings mean something

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO FIVELZA

My train of thought , I believe, is not really that difficult to follow. There are many remarks inbetween breaking up the logical thought pattern as either forumites, honestly do not understand, or try to make a fool of you in your argument, or are just plain to lazy to think though what was typed. This derails my explanation and most times I don't get it on track again....

Why will I refer to George Bush. George Bush interfered in the goverment of Iraq and I want you and the other forumites to examine the response of the remainder of the world to that interference. Blatant interference in the government of Iraq. Blatant misuse of power...

Please explain the response of the remainder of the world if Pharaoh the king of Egypt, the country in which the Jewish people were in slavery, if God just stepped in pushed Pharaoh to the side and told the Jews ok of you go... Blatant interference in the government of Egypt. Blatant misuse of power...

The situations will be so similar and I can only see the reaction of the people... If you query the way God went about releasing the Jews in the Bible out of Egypt... You speak with a forked tongue...

[Beancounter]

Where do you read that God was always fair in the Old Testament? He was a God of wrath and revenge, Christians cannot hide that, or deny that, it is written in the Bible. You want to impose what you deem as fair on God now thousands of years after it happened.

Why should the definition of "fair" have changed over the intervening period? Assuming you regard God as the ultimate benchmark of what is fair and what is not (apologies if I am being presumptious), why should he have changed his view given his omnipotence?

Apologies, I see this was posted a bit earlier - jumped the gun but I would still be interested in Fivelza's view.

[Nick333]

IN RESPONSE TO FIVELZA

My train of thought , I believe, is not really that difficult to follow. There are many remarks inbetween breaking up the logical thought pattern as either forumites, honestly do not understand, or try to make a fool of you in your argument, or are just plain to lazy to think though what was typed. This derails my explanation and most times I don't get it on track again....

Why will I refer to George Bush. George Bush interfered in the goverment of Iraq and I want you and the other forumites to examine the response of the remainder of the world to that interference. Blatant interference in the government of Iraq. Blatant misuse of power...

Please explain the response of the remainder of the world if Pharaoh the king of Egypt, the country in which the Jewish people were in slavery, if God just stepped in pushed Pharaoh to the side and told the Jews ok of you go... Blatant interference in the government of Egypt. Blatant misuse of power...

The situations will be so similar and I can only see the reaction of the people... If you query the way God went about releasing the Jews in the Bible out of Egypt... You speak with a forked tongue...

So killing children and plagues and all that stuff wasn't God interfering?

[Mr TB]

Originally Posted by icyrus
"Does that not sound like tyranny? And yet people still believe..."

Tyranny?... I will be a person's slave if I know all he wants for me is good. That's an excellent choice I believe... I can however not entrust my life to another human being in that way...

[bk.ru]

Originally Posted by icyrus
"Does that not sound like tyranny? And yet people still believe..."

Tyranny?... I will be a person's slave if I know all he wants for me is good. That's an excellent choice I believe... I can however not entrust my life to another human being in that way...

Some people are born slaves, others are born freeman. At least we know where you belong.

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO NICK333

He had a choice did he not?... he responsible not God...

[Nick333]

IN RESPONSE TO NICK333

He had a choice did he not?... he responsible not God...

:) "Do what I say or I'll kill your kids." Yup, stupid of him really.

[fivelza]

Why should the definition of "fair" have changed over the intervening period? Assuming you regard God as the ultimate benchmark of what is fair and what is not (apologies if I am being presumptious), why should he have changed his view given his omnipotence?

Apologies, I see this was posted a bit earlier - jumped the gun but I would still be interested in Fivelza's view.

My point BeanCounter, was that one should be looking at the particular circumstances when something took place. I was trying to make the point that fairness had nothing to do with it, which was a follow-up to something I think Toxic had posted.

[fivelza]

IN RESPONSE TO FIVELZA

My train of thought , I believe, is not really that difficult to follow. There are many remarks inbetween breaking up the logical thought pattern as either forumites, honestly do not understand, or try to make a fool of you in your argument, or are just plain to lazy to think though what was typed. This derails my explanation and most times I don't get it on track again....

No worries TB, if you cannot be bothered to indulge others in explaining what you mean...then I guess it doesn't really matter.


Why will I refer to George Bush. George Bush interfered in the goverment of Iraq and I want you and the other forumites to examine the response of the remainder of the world to that interference. Blatant interference in the government of Iraq. Blatant misuse of power...

Please explain the response of the remainder of the world if Pharaoh the king of Egypt, the country in which the Jewish people were in slavery, if God just stepped in pushed Pharaoh to the side and told the Jews ok of you go... Blatant interference in the government of Egypt. Blatant misuse of power...

The situations will be so similar and I can only see the reaction of the people... If you query the way God went about releasing the Jews in the Bible out of Egypt... You speak with a forked tongue...

I don't query the way God dealt with the situation, I am trying to understand your analogy.

[BCO]

Hey Fivel, I'm BC.... Beancounter's an imposter!!!!

[fivelza]

Hey Fivel, I'm BC.... Beancounter's an imposter!!!!

LOL, my bad...post has been edited to avoid confusion :D

[BCO]

Thank you very much :D

[Neo]

"Now we all know the only place where the words of Jesus was written up was in the New Testament. Nowhere else."

Oh really?... what about the gospels of Judas , Thomas, Philip, etc... you indulge in? The only N/T I know is the one in the Bible, the one you are disputing... I understand what I read with the help of the Holy Spirit, not human beings that are not trustworthy...

Well then show us where it's written or admit you made it up. I would assume that you, as a Christian, only believe in the books taken up in the Bible, but if it's written in one of the others, please share it with us.

Otherwise you made it up and tried to pass it off as fact, an action commonly known as lying.

[Mr TB]

RESPONDING TO THIS QUOTE:

"I am accountable to my fellow human beings who I must treat with fairness and respect in the same way as I would expect them to treat me. "

I accept your explanation for accountability, but man you still fail to show acceptance of the consequences of yor deeds...

Empowerment-responsibility-accountability-consequences...

The words follow on each other... we protect the rights of a killer in the constitution... I have nothing against it but please double standards does not make sense.

[ToxicBunny]

Who is that quote from?.. where is it from? please link to the original post.

[bk.ru]

Beancounter here: http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=922690&highlight=accountable+fellow+human+beings#post9226 90

[bk.ru]

The words follow on each other

Words normally follow each other.

[ToxicBunny]

Actually Mr TB,

Those words only follow each other in your post, they do not have to follow each other in the real world as is evidenced in this country..

[Neo]

As much as I despise George W Bush, illegally invading another country, lying in the process to win support, he’s not a patch on God and what he did to the Pharaoh and the Egyptians.

If we had to equate God’s actions in this case, GWB would first have to brainwash Saddam to refuse to negotiate, then attack him for not co-operating. I.e. setting Saddam up for a beating.

This is exactly what God did. He first hardened Pharaoh’s heart so he (Pharaoh) would not give in to the Israelites’ demands to be let free. Then he brought all the plagues, including killing all the innocent children, not just to teach the Pharaoh a lesson but so the Israelites could tell everyone else how powerful their ‘God’ is.

More egotistic, selfish, cruel and petty you won’t get. Using your power as a God, so you can demonstrate how powerful you are in the first place. By killing innocent children. And God openly admits to this in the Old Testament.

But dodo knows all of this. When he first realised this (that god interferes with man's free will) he agreed God must be 'responsible for all murders and rapes'. (Dodo's own words)

[Mr TB]

IN RESPONSE TO NEO:

"But dodo knows all of this. When he first realised this (that god interferes with man's free will) he agreed God must be 'responsible for all murders and rapes'. (Dodo's own words)"

Oh the meatball that became disconsolate when it seems there is not any way to conclude God did not interfere with the Pharao's empowerment?

Empowerpowerment he received from God anyway and he was misusing it oppressing the Israelites keeping them in slavery?

There is however one or even two instances that God wil indeed intervene on planet earth, the meatball explained it,all NEO did was to call the meatball a liar not accepting the explanation.

But why will he? He was flabergasted. To him God is a murderer...he refuse to look at the facts and be reasonable...

[Mr TB]

Words normally follow each other.

Your constitution still protect the rights of killers of unborn children...

[Mr TB]

As much as I despise George W Bush, illegally invading another country, lying in the process to win support, he’s not a patch on God and what he did to the Pharaoh and the Egyptians.


More egotistic, selfish, cruel and petty you won’t get. Using your power as a God, so you can demonstrate how powerful you are in the first place. By killing innocent children. And God openly admits to this in the Old Testament.



What was warfare about in ancient days in any case? Do you know?

In ancient days every nation had gods, when they went to war it was the gods fighting each other.

So loosing the battle will mean your god are stronger than our god...

So when the Fillistines took on the Israelites it was basically dagon fighting the living god... that was their viewpoint...

You do not understand the humiliation that was accepted by the Living God letting other nation invade Israel and destroy it in ancient days...

He accept humiliation although by speaking one word He could destroy the warriors of any other nation. You have no idea what idols are about, warfare in ancient days or the almighty GOD.

Even the Emperor of Japan thought he was a god until 1945 when God allowed the USA to drop the atom bombs on Nagasaki anf Hirosjima.
Only then did the Emperor step down,realising he isn't a god...

[Neo]

IN RESPONSE TO NEO:

"But dodo knows all of this. When he first realised this (that god interferes with man's free will) he agreed God must be 'responsible for all murders and rapes'. (Dodo's own words)"

Oh the meatball that became disconsolate when it seems there is not any way to conclude God did not interfere with the Pharao's empowerment?

Empowerpowerment he received from God anyway and he was misusing it oppressing the Israelites keeping them in slavery?

There is however one or even two instances that God wil indeed intervene on planet earth, the meatball explained it,all NEO did was to call the meatball a liar not accepting the explanation.

But why will he? He was flabergasted. To him God is a murderer...he refuse to look at the facts and be reasonable...

Actually the meatball said God will NEVER interfere and was devastated when he realised his God is so petty, he will use his godly powers to set a mere mortal up so he can even further demonstrate his godly power. By killing children.

[Neo]

What was warfare about in ancient days in any case? Do you know?

In ancient days every nation had gods, when they went to war it was the gods fighting each other.

So loosing the battle will mean your god are stronger than our god...

So when the Fillistines took on the Israelites it was basically dagon fighting the living god... that was their viewpoint...

You do not understand the humiliation that was accepted by the Living God letting other nation invade Israel and destroy it in ancient days...

He accept humiliation although by speaking one word He could destroy the warriors of any other nation. You have no idea what idols are about, warfare in ancient days or the almighty GOD.

Even the Emperor of Japan thought he was a god until 1945 when God allowed the USA to drop the atom bombs on Nagasaki anf Hirosjima.
Only then did the Emperor step down,realising he isn't a god...

Stop talking cr@p and trying to dodge the topic.

Your God killed innocent children to prove a point. Fact.