[mathyoomay]

Originally Posted by leelover

Oh yeah, leave it up to a man of "reality" to say something emotionally charged like that!

That's emotionally charged? I guess, i was crying when i said it.

Reality is too much for me leelover, I let my wife make my decisions for me, and I read comic books all day.

I don't care to put down anyone who is of faith, but when people make it an emotional issue get personal and try and push their beliefs on others is when it bugs me. Otherwise more power to you. and hey, at least you voice your opinion instead of being a follower, without asking questions.

[steingar]

I have not yet had anyone explain to me convincingly why someone who rejects Paleantology, Astrology, Cosmology, Geology, Genetics, Evolution, Physicis, and most of modern Western intellectual thought for a 6k year old book in which animals talk should be taken seriously.

[gt702]

What is a day?

A couple definitions:

day (dā) http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif
n.

1. The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset.
2. 1. The 24-hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis.
   2. The period during which a celestial body makes a similar rotation.
3. (Abbr. D) One of the numbered 24-hour periods into which a week, month, or year is divided.
4. The portion of a 24-hour period that is devoted to work, school, or business: an eight-hour day; a sale that lasted for three days.
5. A 24-hour period or a portion of it that is reserved for a certain activity: a day of rest.
6. 1. A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime: In Grandmother's day, skirts were long.
   2. A period of opportunity or prominence: Every defendant is entitled to a day in court. That child will have her day.
7. A period of time in history; an era: We studied the tactics used in Napoleon's day. The day of computer science is well upon us.
8. days Period of life or activity: The sick cat's days will soon be over.

The word used in the original Bible was one of "era" as in item 7. But if you use the first definition, you must ask yourself from what perspective.

A day on this earth is 24 hours. If my memory still holds, a day on the moon is 28 earth days (same side always facing us). A day in the solar system may not be complete yet ... as far as we know.


So, before you take things "literally", be sure you know your frame of reference.

[Quick 26]

[MACI4LIFE]

Anyone ever watch the documentary " the god who wasn't there"?

pretty interesting.

[gt702]

Originally Posted by MACI4LIFE

Anyone ever watch the documentary " the god who wasn't there"?

pretty interesting.

But God is everywhere

[onevcs]

Crazy man #1: I am the King because that's God's will.
Crazy man #2: You are not the king. And don't presume to know what I want.


I am agnostic. I am my own god until shown otherwise if ever. My wife is my best friend.

[Custom900]

Originally Posted by mathyoomay

Leave it up to a man of "Fear" not in front of my face to say something emotionally charged like that. People of religion often take things to an emotional level with stupid ramblings to back-up what they say. Assholes who are too afraid to face reality often turn to a book to escape the real world.

Archaeology proves nothing and are only artifacts that were found because some "follower" left their crap where it could be found instead of disposing of it properly. Just like people thousands of years from now are going to find things that were once in a church or something and magically say that, "Archaeology proves time and again....". Just because somebody says something is true doesn't make it so.

Occassionally Matt you're an OK guy. Most of the time though you're just a moron.
I have no fear when it comes to any person.

The emotionally charged comments come from you by the way. I was making a joke. You took it the wrong way and decdided to become aggressive. Not me, I'm no more than amused by you.

[onevcs]

There's a group of non-religious people that calls themselves "The Brights". I don't have anything for nor against them but doesn't that sound a bit arrogant? I know about the "iluminati" and it might be a traditional name but still... feels arrogant in this day and age. I could mostly agree with a lot of their views but to call one-self bright kinda implies that other are, well, no so bright... and I just don't like to be confrontational.
I have no faith, but if you want to have it, well, have it.

[mathyoomay]

Originally Posted by Custom900

Occassionally Matt you're an OK guy. Most of the time though you're just a moron.
I have no fear when it comes to any person.

The emotionally charged comments come from you by the way. I was making a joke. You took it the wrong way and decdided to become aggressive. Not me, I'm no more than amused by you.

Custom you're OK too, I guess. I can't help being a moron, I spend all day listening to fools like you. I love you though.

I don't know how you think I became aggressive, and it wasn't emotionally charged either, but you, i see you took it personally and brought emotion into it, in your words, "Most of the time you're just a moron". And you don't even know me.

Oh yeah and just because you fear no person doesn't mean you aren't afraid and have "fear."
and by saying you're OK, I meant that you're a moron all of the time, but I love you anyway. (I might as well get emotional like you think I was.)

I'm kidding by the way. I, unlike you, don't want to be disrespectful, I do joke a lot and if you are taking any of it personally or think i'm dissing your God then sorry pal.

Let's just agree to disagree and let all else be settled on the track or by rock, paper, scissors.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by mathyoomay

That's emotionally charged? I guess, i was crying when i said it.

Reality is too much for me leelover, I let my wife make my decisions for me, and I read comic books all day.

I don't care to put down anyone who is of faith, but when people make it an emotional issue get personal and try and push their beliefs on others is when it bugs me. Otherwise more power to you. and hey, at least you voice your opinion instead of being a follower, without asking questions.

Math, I was being sarcastic because I thought your response to Custom's teasing was a bit strong. I figure if you dish it out you oughta be able to take it.
People claim to have no faith (which is hypocritical, btw), seem to think that to be a "follower" of Christ you must switch off your brain and "just believe".
There is nothing wrong with asking questions, I believe anyone who doesn't do this is a moron. There is something wrong if offense is taken at your question.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by steingar

I have not yet had anyone explain to me convincingly why someone who rejects Paleantology, Astrology, Cosmology, Geology, Genetics, Evolution, Physicis, and most of modern Western intellectual thought for a 6k year old book in which animals talk should be taken seriously.

Who is rejecting these studies? What are these people rejecting specifically?
Are you trying to say that these studies "prove" a particular point?
I am not in the same league as you are, but it seems to me none of these "sciences" conclusively prove that the Bible is false or irrelevant.
If "God" exists as the Bible describes Him, would you expect even the most intelligent and highly educated human to be able to explain all His ways?
Are any of you under the impression that faith does not play apart in your life?

[mathyoomay]

I agree lee, maybe I was a bit taken aback by what he said, but I take it well, especially from guys on this site.
I didn't want it to seem like i was getting emotional at all, but I guess it came out that way.

I don't necessarily not have faith, and I just get annoyed with people who "follow" and not ask question and have doubts, i agree with you on that, they are morons.

and no, I'm not saying anyone here is one of those morons either.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by mathyoomay

and no, I'm not saying anyone here is one of those morons either.

Yeah, but they are! But being morons, they just don't realize it!
I keeed, I keeed!

[mathyoomay]

Aye dios mio!!!!

[phobiaphobe]

Here you go Leelover:

more from our friend Nathaniel Branden... and this is from the 20-something Branden, not today's Branden. You won't find this stuff on his website, I had to type it all out. It was precisely these types of "absolutes" and "extremes" that he began to question, (and later renounced) and that led to his "separation" from Rand. But boy did he speak with conviction. This was some seriously controversial **** in the 60s.

Of course even today I know it will fire some people up.

Faith is the commitment of one's consciousness to beliefs for which one has no sensory evidence or rational proof.
When a man rejects reason as his standard of judgement, only one alternative remains to him: his feelings. A mystic man is a man who treats his feelings as tools of cognition. Faith is the equation of "feeling" with "knowledge".
To practice the "virtue" of faith, one must be willing to suspend one's sight and one's judgement; one must be willing to live with the unintelligible, with that which cannot be conceptualized or integrated into the rest of one's knowledge, and to induce a trancelike illusion of understanding. One must be willing to repress one's critical faculty and hold it as one's guilt; one must be willing to drown any questions that rise in protest - to strangle any trust of reason convulsively seeking to protect its proper function as the protector of one's life and cognitive integrity.

...
...
There is no greater self delusion than to imagine that one can render unto reason that which is reason's and render unto faith that which is faith's. Faith cannot be circumscribed or delimited; to surrender one's consciousness an inch is to surrender one's consciousness in total. Either reason is an absolute to a mind or it is not - and if it is not, there is no place to draw the line, no principle by which to draw it, no barrier faith cannot cross, no part of one's life faith cannot invade: one remains rational until and unless one's feelings decree otherwise.

Faith is a malignancy that no system can tolerate without impunity; and the man who succumbs to it, will call on it in precisely those issues where he needs his reason most. When one turns from reason to faith, one rejects the absolutism of reality, one undercuts the absolutism of one's consciousness - and one's mind becomes an organ one cannot trust any longer. It becomes what the mystics claim it to be: a tool of distortion.

Man's need of self-esteem entails the need for a sense of control over reality - but no control is possible in a universe which, by one's own concession, contains the supernatural, the miraculous and the causeless, a universe where one is at the mercy of ghosts and demons, in which one must deal not with the unknown, but the unknowable; no control is possible if man proposes, but a ghost disposes; no control is possible if the universe is a haunted house.

His life and self-esteem require that the object and concern of man's consciousness be reality and this earth - but morality, men are taught, consists of scorning this earth and the world available to sensory perception, and of contemplating, instead, a "different" and "higher" reality, a realm inaccessable to reason and incommunicable in language, but attainable by relevation, by special dialectical processes, by that superior state of intellectual lucidity known to Zen Buddhists as "No Mind" or by death.

There is only one reality - the reality knowable to reason. And if man does not choose to perceive it, there is nothing else for him to perceive; if it is not of this world that he is conscious, then he is not conscious at all.

The sole result of the mystic projection of "another" reality, is that it incapacitates man for this one. It was not by contemplating the transcendental, the ineffable, the undefinable - it was not by contemplating the non-existent - that man lifted himself from the cave and transformed the material world to make human existence possible on this earth.

[Zeeman]

Originally Posted by gt702

What is a day?

A couple definitions:


The word used in the original Bible was one of "era" as in item 7. But if you use the first definition, you must ask yourself from what perspective.

A day on this earth is 24 hours. If my memory still holds, a day on the moon is 28 earth days (same side always facing us). A day in the solar system may not be complete yet ... as far as we know.


So, before you take things "literally", be sure you know your frame of reference.

My point exactly. I see no reason why science and religion need to be "enemies". If just about everything else is metaphorical (or whatever-cal)why should the days taken to create the Earth be any different? I'm pretty sure most would agree the Earth is pretty obviously older than 6000 years and 7 days...

Each to their own, ask questions, confirm your point of view to yourself, but don't make the mistake of believing either sides bullshit without checking facts for yourself.

Z..

[Zeeman]

Speaking of questions... this should fire a few people up. At least get people thinking...

Do a google on the origins of Christmas. It should be there to see as the first result. I'm sure those of you who know your Bibles will be able to find a few scriptures telling you why you should not be celebrating Christmas...

I also challenge anyone to find me a scripture that does ask us to celebrate Christmas...

Z...

[mathyoomay]

Originally Posted by Zeeman

Speaking of questions... this should fire a few people up. At least get people thinking...

Do a google on the origins of Christmas. It should be there to see as the first result. I'm sure those of you who know your Bibles will be able to find a few scriptures telling you why you should not be celebrating Christmas...

I also challenge anyone to find me a scripture that does ask us to celebrate Christmas...

Z...

I agree.

[gt702]

Originally Posted by Zeeman

Do a google on the origins of Christmas. It should be there to see as the first result. I'm sure those of you who know your Bibles will be able to find a few scriptures telling you why you should not be celebrating Christmas...

I also challenge anyone to find me a scripture that does ask us to celebrate Christmas...

Z...

I'm not sure what you mean about scriptures telling us not to celebrate Christmas.

I do know (and I'm sure the links would make it clear, but don't have the time now ... maybe not to check my words or spelling either ) that what we celebrate today as Christmas was added on to some pagan celebrations ... and don't forget the wedding march which was developed for the sacrificing virgins to some pagan god. But it has become accepted as the one time in the year that we, as Christians, do take some time to remember the birth of Christ, and the coming of salvation into this world because none of us is great enough to save ourselves from our sins. So I'll leave it at that.


Science and Faith(creation) can and do go together. This is well demonstrated throughout time. Hubble won't prove otherwise. People are what claim otherwise. For some reason, humans tend to want things to be black and white, not gray. This "scientific view", as some would call it, means that so many possibilities and answers get rejected, and the discussion becomes so polarized.

[leelover]

Phobiaphobe, Thanks for posting Nathaniel Branden's work, I do appreciate the work involved!
Here is what I think of what he said.
I think his statements about "faith" are pompous and hypocritical. I guess that sounds pretty harsh, but come on, did/does he believe he will find the "answer" to all things by reason? Has he/we only looked THAT far? Nobody else sees that what we can see, prove, and reason out, is ultimately limited, or incomplete?
My premise here is that no matter how strong your sense of reason, no matter how brilliant the scientist, no matter how convincing the heart felt plea for opening your mind and understanding, there comes a point where you rely on FAITH. YOU CAN NOT PROVE what you believe! Whether it's a theory, hypothesis, study, whatever you call it, it eventually breaks down to faith, believing. Is this wrong? Can you PROVE it?
The views that he exposes were pretty much what I held to be true years ago. I think if you look at the larger picture they don't really work, and I don't think they are revolutionary. That kind of thinking and acting has been around forever.
I do think that faith, particularly in God as the Bible describes, goes BEYOND ANY philosophy. I think VERY few people really take time to understand WHAT IT SAYS. I guess it's better, or at least easier to grab an idea out of context and run. You know, I would think people are better than that. Especially a lot of you on here. In the debates I have read you (very intelligent, btw) guys will make good points and back them up with copious links and quotes, etc. Except when it comes to the Bible!!!! Instead you throw out stuff from commentaries, or from the beliefs of varying "religious" sects, without going to the source. What does it SAY? Is anyone perceptive enough to understand it? Is anyone willing to put forth the effort? Or is it better to find a "better" way, one that doesn't offend you natural mind, and ultimately makes no difference? Ok, I again!
Faith, as the Bible describes it does not mean " close your eyes and hope". It means look at all there is and realize God goes BEYOND the little bit you understand.
How about this? IF there Is a God (humor me a sec), and he did do what the Bible says, would any human mind be able to fully comprehend or explain Him?

[phobiaphobe]

Originally Posted by leelover

How about this? IF there Is a God (humor me a sec), and he did do what the Bible says, would any human mind be able to fully comprehend or explain Him?

Certainly not.

And if there is not a God, and we couldn't explain or comprehend the origin of the Universe, could the human mind create God?

[steingar]

Originally Posted by leelover

Who is rejecting these studies? What are these people rejecting specifically?

By claiming the age of the Earth at 6K years, Christian Fundamentalists are rejected over 10K years of written history in Asia (hell, the Jews wrote the old testament and are in the 57th century, for Gosshakes).

While they're at it, they're rejecting Geology, which shows that many geological strata are far more than thousands of years old. You also reject continental drift, despite the fact that it has gobs of data supporting it and causes earthquakes in some places.

Those who belive in a literal interpretation of the bible also reject Paleantology, which shows us a world of extinct phyla for which there is no human (or biblical) record. Moreover, the simpleminded and nearly moronic argument "that they were wiped out in the flood" ma