Slashdot Mirror

Well, the forensicists wanted to explain how the moon was formed, so I thought it would be a good idea to provide the Christian explanation of that phenomenon, so that it could be seen alongside the secular explanation.

What I hoped to accomplish was to inform those people who might never have heard the Christian view, and yet wanted or needed to hear it, for whatever reason might be.

The time and place seemed particularly relevant, given that the forensic explanation was not very likely to mention the LORD, who, I believe, deserves full credit for creating the Earth's moon.

What's more, even for those who insist on naysaying, or crying "myth" in a crowded church, the verse, itself, is an interesting and fun read.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&cha pter=1&version=9

001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

001:027 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

you forgot my favourite...

have children ripped apart by bears for laughing at your bald head

remember nobody is to stone anyone until I say so - even if someone does say Jehova!

It goes back just a little further - it's Biblical. Deuteronomy 15:1-6

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuter onomy%2015:1-6,12-18;%20Nehemiah%2010:31/

Matthew 7:12

In full context:
  9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

In other words, the call is for Christians to follow the example of God, who treats people well.

From Matthew 5, King James version. Pay special attention to verse 39.

  38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
  39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
  40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
  41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
  42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
  43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
  44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
  45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
  46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
  47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
  48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&ch apter=5&version=9

I disagree. Anti-evolutionists have all the documentation they need to discredit carbon dating.

Yah. Perhaps the best solution is to discredit ALL religions. Seriously. Maybe sensible people need to start taking the fight to the intolerant, and opposing all religiions that preach intolerance. When I tell Christians that their religions specifically states that non-christians are condemned to hell, they don't believe me. When I show them John 3:18, they say "well that's not what I beleive." But when I tell them by saying they are Xtians, that they are supporting intolerance, they don't understand what I mean.

A few years back I was in Alabama when they were trying to pass a lottery. One of the anti-lottery signs said, "What Would Jesus Do?" I found this sign rather telling, but also somewhat on the humorous side to an outside observer who could easily say, "He would hang there and watch."

This is where you are suppose to laugh...

For example, it was not only prophesied that Christ would be a descendant of Abraham, (Gen.12:1-3), but that He would be from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10) and the house of David (Ps. 110:1); that He would be born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2), born of a virgin (Isa. 7:1 4), betrayed for thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12f.), and also that His hands and feet would be pierced (Ps. 22:16). It is noteworthy that this last prediction was made long before crucifixion was invented as a form of capital punishment by the Persians and a thousand years before it was made common by the Romans.

It was also prophesied that Christ would be crucified with transgressors (Isa. 53:9, 12); that none of His bones would be broken (Ex. 12:46; Ps. 34:20); and that He would cry out from the cross, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" (Ps. 22:1). Moreover, Christ's resurrection (Ps. 16:8-11), His ascension (Ps. 68:1 8)

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

  But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead,

Please, tell me!

I'd really love to see it in black and white.

I've seen G-d address many many things in the Bible. I've seen it written that clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp are 'abominations' seen G-d discuss in explict detail the care and cleaning of cum-stains, and chuckled helplessly as G-d explained the reason why latrines are a good idea. (HINT: no one wants to step in it.) I have sat open mouthed at the explict sexual violence depicted in the allegory of Ezekiel 23 and grinned at the biblical account of G-d's plan to 'moon' his chosen people in the 'day of their calamity' and stood there perplexed as I read how G-d commanded a man to knowingly marry a whore.

On the other hand, I've also read where Lot gets drunk, has incest with both of his daughters on alternate evenings and for this he is considered a 'righeteous man'? Oh my bad...that'd be in the New Testament and by your choice of spelling G-d you are apparently Jewish. Well, let's press on shall we? Moses in the book of Numbers declares genocide against captives of war and tells the army to kill all the men and women, excepting only the young virginal girls . Later in Deuteronomy more explicit instructions are given, where G-d makes it clear he sees nothing wrong with making whores out of the captives of war and discarding them when bored of them.

An interesting thing to note about these two instances of scripture is the words used in describing these virgins relates to their way of walking... the way they 'toddle' making a clear age distinction here. This is what so many Muslims are referring to when they say Judiasm supports Paedophilia, as well as their pointing to various clarifications of these rules in the Talmud where the age is spelled out as three years old(!) Then there's the erotic descriptions of the Song of Solomon, where a love affair begins between an older man and a younger girl, evidenced by the way the girl's brothers comment: "We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts[...]" Should I also add that in the book of Judges Samson's father-in-law gives away his first wife to a friend and offers him the younger daughter, because she's nicer looking?

Those few bits aside there is no explict mention of Paedophilia in the Bible. At ALL. In fact you could even say the combination of the passage n Numbers and the passage in Deuteronomy work out towards an endorsement of Nepiophilia... But there is seemingly no mention of this modern scourage that is classified as the 'worst possible sin' in the Bible. This horrid evil thing that kills souls gets no mention, and yet G-d makes the time to talk about how much he hates shellfish and shrimp. G-d manages to find time to explain how to clean the cum-stains off your clothes in the event of a wet dream, manages to explain he doesn't like stepping in shit, and tell dirty stories about whoring sisters and their hung like a horse johns, yet he somehow fails to take the time out to talk about Paedophilia???

Sorry, I'm

Please, tell me!

I'd really love to see it in black and white.

I've seen G-d address many many things in the Bible. I've seen it written that clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp are 'abominations' seen G-d discuss in explict detail the care and cleaning of cum-stains, and chuckled helplessly as G-d explained the reason why latrines are a good idea. (HINT: no one wants to step in it.) I have sat open mouthed at the explict sexual violence depicted in the allegory of Ezekiel 23 and grinned at the biblical account of G-d's plan to 'moon' his chosen people in the 'day of their calamity' and stood there perplexed as I read how G-d commanded a man to knowingly marry a whore.

On the other hand, I've also read where Lot gets drunk, has incest with both of his daughters on alternate evenings and for this he is considered a 'righeteous man'? Oh my bad...that'd be in the New Testament and by your choice of spelling G-d you are apparently Jewish. Well, let's press on shall we? Moses in the book of Numbers declares genocide against captives of war and tells the army to kill all the men and women, excepting only the young virginal girls . Later in Deuteronomy more explicit instructions are given, where G-d makes it clear he sees nothing wrong with making whores out of the captives of war and discarding them when bored of them.

An interesting thing to note about these two instances of scripture is the words used in describing these virgins relates to their way of walking... the way they 'toddle' making a clear age distinction here. This is what so many Muslims are referring to when they say Judiasm supports Paedophilia, as well as their pointing to various clarifications of these rules in the Talmud where the age is spelled out as three years old(!) Then there's the erotic descriptions of the Song of Solomon, where a love affair begins between an older man and a younger girl, evidenced by the way the girl's brothers comment: "We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts[...]" Should I also add that in the book of Judges Samson's father-in-law gives away his first wife to a friend and offers him the younger daughter, because she's nicer looking?

Those few bits aside there is no explict mention of Paedophilia in the Bible. At ALL. In fact you could even say the combination of the passage n Numbers and the passage in Deuteronomy work out towards an endorsement of Nepiophilia... But there is seemingly no mention of this modern scourage that is classified as the 'worst possible sin' in the Bible. This horrid evil thing that kills souls gets no mention, and yet G-d makes the time to talk about how much he hates shellfish and shrimp. G-d manages to find time to explain how to clean the cum-stains off your clothes in the event of a wet dream, manages to explain he doesn't like stepping in shit, and tell dirty stories about whoring sisters and their hung like a horse johns, yet he somehow fails to take the time out to talk about Paedophilia???

Sorry, I'm

Just to simplify, here's the link to the first chapter of Matthew. Feel free to skip the genealogy and start at verse 18. The genealogy does not add much of merit to the rest of the contents.

For someone without religion, how can they devote enough time to objectively measure each in their ability to improve lives and disseminate truth?

Easy. Analyze the lives of the teachers. Analyze the cultural conditions that resulted in the formation of the religion. Analyze the teachings of the teachers. Compared to the vastness of scientific knowledge, knowledge about most religious teachers is quite limited. Finally, you can look in the lives of those who adhere to particular worldviews. Although this is subjective, you can learn a lot by seeing the ways in which religions and individuals interact.

Though my assertions of truth may not hold much authority, I make them nonetheless. Of all the religions I have studied, Christianity is the truest, and Christian faith does indeed do wonderful things.

I still cannot reconcile myself with the faith requirements that Christianity claims God has made.

Faith should not be viewed as a requirement. Faith is a comforting, strengthening element that adds significant meaning to religion. It is something that is intentionally built over time through walking with God. To determine whose faith is most blessed, compare Christian stories of faith with Islamic, Jewish, or any other religion. The end result of this search led to Christianity, although the relative availability does vary.

I think that acknowledgement of Christ's teaching and merely admitting the possibility that He may have been divine may be enough, as I've elaborated on before. Acts 2:21 records Peter (who Christ referred to as the rock on which the foundation of the church will be built): "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Mother Theresa once said "When He calls you, you will know it." I believe that by keeping an open mind about religion and acknowledging all possibilities, eventually you will find a sign, if you actively search for them. It worked for me.

There are two schools of thought about the random events of life. One is that the universe is impartial and obeys statistical laws. The other is that each choice and each situation is something new and novel, and that God works His plan in your life by directly influencing the outcome of each event. Like I explained before, if God's will and yours synchronize, He will do great things in your life. Where God's will contradicts yours, there are generally two possibilities: He is strengthening you, or He is teaching you. I admit that I've also incurred His punishment on occasion, though this is generally the result of repeated, habitual sin. By eliminating sin, your will is brought into alignment with God's, and you begin to live the life that He intended, which is absolutely optimal.

I propose an experiment that should be quick: Assume God exists for a moment. Pray, and ask God for wisdom, clarity, and understanding in your pursuit of truth. Then sit down and critically analyze the Gospels as deeply as you wish. Even concerted skimming may be sufficient. They are quite short, relatively. Biblegateway.com offers many translations, so pick the one that you're most comfortable with (they're roughly ordered by usefulness), and give it at least one pass through. Every time I've told a non-Christian to do this, they've been quite surprised by the picture that is painted of Jesus in the Gospels, and the responses tend to be quite unique.

I believe that is the single most valid method of evaluating Christianity that exists. Both the Old Testament and the remainder of the New Testament are reflected clearly in those four short books. If you still doubt, then just let it be. Accept your understanding and interpretation of the Gospel for what it is, and continue your process of knowledge gathering. You're not going to get any closer to understanding other religions without study in them as well! :) I do not mean to impose, I'm m

Did anyone check to make sure that Mother Nature didn't get a patent on all that IP? I mean, imagine the damages that such a suit might incur.

OTOH, one might say that God already granted the rights to use His work, so there could be a bit of a legal battle about who owns what...

It seems as if you singled out passages that I only included for context, and took them as if they were the main points. You overlooked the most important passages:

"Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:"

"Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven."

That doesn't mean literally tally it up, it means ALWAYS forgive.

The parable which follows that, regarding the King, the debt, and his servants, tells you exactly how the LORD wants us to forgive. In the parable, the King (by analogy, the LORD) forgives his servant's (=worshipper's) debt (=sin) and then the servant goes out and DOES NOT FORGIVE the debt (=trespasses) of his debtor. Then the King (=LORD) HEARS that the servant did not forgive his own servant's debt (=trespass), and so the King (=LORD) tells him that HE MUST THEN REPAY ALL THE DEBT (=sin) HE EVER OWED.

That means forgiveness is all or nothing. We must forgive everything to be forgiven of everything. If you fail to forgive trespasses, your own trespasses/sin will not be forgiven. That's what Jesus said. If you DO forgive trespasses, debt, etc, your own will be forgiven. Therefore, always forgive, and LOVE your enemy.

1 Peter 3:8-19 specifies that we are not to return evil with evil. Rather return evil with kindness, prayer and blessings: "Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing;"

1 John 2 says if you're not following Jesus' teachings, then you're not on board. Basically it says if a person does not do what Jesus told us to do then they are not actually following Jesus. Since Jesus said LOVE YOUR ENEMY, ALWAYS FORGIVE and TURN THE OTHER CHEEK, I'm saying IF A PERSON DOES NOT LOVE THEIR ENEMY, DOES NOT ALWAYS FORGIVE, and DOES NOT TURN THE OTHER CHEEK, then THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWING JESUS. (Tell that to GW "WWJD" Bush, too, please.)

"For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing." That means it is better to suffer for righteousness' sake than to succeed at the expense of righteousness.

And I don't know how I overlooked this one when I was choosing verses to cite, but it sums it all up:

Matthew 5 (King James Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&ch apter=5&version=9
  38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
  39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
  40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
  41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
  42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
  43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
  44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
  45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Regardless, say someone followed in the footsteps of Jesus, helped the poor, shed material desire, accepted the rejected and so on, but rejected His claims of deity. I think a just God wouldn't damn such a person for their disbelief because in the context of the rest of their life, they did much good according to Christian guidelines.

Here, you grossly misunderstand Christian dogma. All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) Only through Jesus' blood is it possible to gain redemption in God's eyes. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) If you have not accepted Christ as your personal saviour, you are damned. Through Christ we are given our only opportunity to reconcile with God. He said "I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) No other has made a case as convincingly either for Godhood or for morality, and no other claims to be the only source to God's salvation. Here is Paul's explanation of this theology in its proper context.

Indeed, Christ is very much the example of God. Some people argue (somewhat convincingly) that Jesus did not exist, although the weight of the evidence falls heavily on the side of His existence. If nothing else, it is possible to twist facts enough to deny Him. The only record we have of Him is through those who loved Him, and everything that has come into contact with His influence has been altered.

It is not by deeds that we are saved, as it is not possible to live up to God's perfect standard and achieve salvation by works. Our only hope is redemption, which is brought about by God the Father, through the sacrifice of God the Son (who was sacrificed to show the depth of His love), and revealed to us through God the Holy Spirit. We conceptualize these elements of God's nature as individuals to better explain the ways in which He works, and this is the essence of Trinity doctrine. This doctrine of redemption is the only doctrine that can make sense. If we are all His creation, it is obvious from experience that some are created more capable of performing good deeds than others. What sense does works-based salvation have, then? God would be creating people unequally, and essentially condemning some at their very creation. Christ was the great equalizer, and indeed, He teaches that all qualify for salvation, no matter how low a social rank one has, no matter how sinful one's past life was, no matter how short a time one has left, and no matter how capable of ethical conduct one is. I have personally found faith invaluable in increasing my own ethical conduct, and God promises the same to you. You need only to hear the good news of Christ's life and accept it.

Whether the Bible is or is not entirely accurate is irrelevant. It succeeds in communicating the fundamentals of Jesus' life and the path for reconciliation with God. It is left to you to accept it, and it is indeed that simple. Believe that Christ was God sent to redeem mankind and turn from unethical conduct and you are a Christian! Christ makes it simple; even if you hold to only the Golden Rule you are in agreement with most of Christ's teaching. However, Christ's teaching is without flaw, insofar as it is accurately reproduced by the authors of the four Gospels. The Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament require some interpretation to understand accurately.

If I can convince you to read just one book of the Bible (and I've read it in about an hour before), then I recommend the Gospel of John. It is both deep and direct, and holds up to even the most intensive (internal) analysis. There is one confusing element: The author refers to himself as "the beloved disciple"; the person referred to as "John" is John the Baptist, who is a different person. Nonetheless, it is an excellent exposition of Christ's life, teaching, and deeds.

Regardless, say someone followed in the footsteps of Jesus, helped the poor, shed material desire, accepted the rejected and so on, but rejected His claims of deity. I think a just God wouldn't damn such a person for their disbelief because in the context of the rest of their life, they did much good according to Christian guidelines.

Here, you grossly misunderstand Christian dogma. All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) Only through Jesus' blood is it possible to gain redemption in God's eyes. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) If you have not accepted Christ as your personal saviour, you are damned. Through Christ we are given our only opportunity to reconcile with God. He said "I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) No other has made a case as convincingly either for Godhood or for morality, and no other claims to be the only source to God's salvation. Here is Paul's explanation of this theology in its proper context.

Indeed, Christ is very much the example of God. Some people argue (somewhat convincingly) that Jesus did not exist, although the weight of the evidence falls heavily on the side of His existence. If nothing else, it is possible to twist facts enough to deny Him. The only record we have of Him is through those who loved Him, and everything that has come into contact with His influence has been altered.

It is not by deeds that we are saved, as it is not possible to live up to God's perfect standard and achieve salvation by works. Our only hope is redemption, which is brought about by God the Father, through the sacrifice of God the Son (who was sacrificed to show the depth of His love), and revealed to us through God the Holy Spirit. We conceptualize these elements of God's nature as individuals to better explain the ways in which He works, and this is the essence of Trinity doctrine. This doctrine of redemption is the only doctrine that can make sense. If we are all His creation, it is obvious from experience that some are created more capable of performing good deeds than others. What sense does works-based salvation have, then? God would be creating people unequally, and essentially condemning some at their very creation. Christ was the great equalizer, and indeed, He teaches that all qualify for salvation, no matter how low a social rank one has, no matter how sinful one's past life was, no matter how short a time one has left, and no matter how capable of ethical conduct one is. I have personally found faith invaluable in increasing my own ethical conduct, and God promises the same to you. You need only to hear the good news of Christ's life and accept it.

Whether the Bible is or is not entirely accurate is irrelevant. It succeeds in communicating the fundamentals of Jesus' life and the path for reconciliation with God. It is left to you to accept it, and it is indeed that simple. Believe that Christ was God sent to redeem mankind and turn from unethical conduct and you are a Christian! Christ makes it simple; even if you hold to only the Golden Rule you are in agreement with most of Christ's teaching. However, Christ's teaching is without flaw, insofar as it is accurately reproduced by the authors of the four Gospels. The Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament require some interpretation to understand accurately.

If I can convince you to read just one book of the Bible (and I've read it in about an hour before), then I recommend the Gospel of John. It is both deep and direct, and holds up to even the most intensive (internal) analysis. There is one confusing element: The author refers to himself as "the beloved disciple"; the person referred to as "John" is John the Baptist, who is a different person. Nonetheless, it is an excellent exposition of Christ's life, teaching, and deeds.

Want to really get to the Christian far right? Refer them to this Chapter

• Breeding + examining the "results" = (still just) breeding, like it has been done for thousands of years (and for the religiously inclined, with the blessing of our Lord: Gen 1:28)
  How should using a genetic test for a known gene (i.e. the obvious step to take, instead of looking e.g. at the color of the fur, or in this case, making their evaluation the Worst Job Ever for someone with an allergy) be able to impart any inventiveness, and hence patent-worthiness, on the process or "product"?
• Many patents laws stipulate that at least on legal action by the patent owner, infringing products be destroyed.
  Now consider this rule applied to "products" that reproduce, i.e. who have it in their nature (bio-engineered or not) to generate "infringing" offspring. While this is bad enough for plants on a planet where people are starving, the implications with respect to (or probably rather: in utter disrespect of) animals as fellow creatures are staggering.

As a side-note, the Bible might have the first description of genetic engineering, when Jacob selectively crossbred sheep to achieve a desired phenotype. Good thing to know, when people are on about how genetic engineering is against God's Will.

the order did not change in chapter 2... it says the animals had already been created. Its the same order in chapter 1 and chapter 2. read it yourself http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%20 2:18-23;&version=31;

Genesis chapter 1 tells the story of the whole creation, from day 1 to day 6, in very general terms. Genesis chapter 2 retells the story of day 6 and forward in greater detail. It's very clear that Adam was created first, and Eve was created from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:18-23).

Genesis chapter 1 tells the story of the whole creation, from day 1 to day 6, in very general terms. Genesis chapter 2 retells the story of day 6 and forward in greater detail. It's very clear that Adam was created first, and Eve was created from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:18-23).

"The name combines the first human name found in the Bible, Eve, with the 'r' in robot."
Well, unless you meant to say the first *female* name in the bible, you're wrong. Adam is the first human name mentioned in the bible. Not to pick at straws, but just thought you should know.
(Well, I guess since it's a "female" android, it wouldn't make sense to call it "adam". But still!)

"Ever-1 can move its upper body and "express" happiness, anger, sadness and pleasure."
Hmm... Sounds promising ;)

"But the robot is still incapable of moving its lower half"
Damn. :( It looks like no $1,000,000 mechanical whores for now.

Me: "....Ah, then what is Death? Why do we say die?"

I know we're veering off topic here, so I'll stick to a link: Genesis 3.

"seeing is believing" comes from the bible?"

Sorta.

24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
            But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
  26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

John 20:24-27, NIV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2 020;&version=31;

But I agree, if it came from there, it's long gone as the agreed source.

When your diet is dictated by your religion, there's no reason for two religions to follow the same diets.

Many new religions copy things from older religions. Christmas trees and easter bunnies have nothing to do with the new testament.

there are plenty of foods available in the area that pose no health risk, yet Jews are not allowed to eat them anyway. It's rather arbitrary at times... outside of religious context, of course: they consider their reasons "good").

Non-kosher foods aren't prohibited due to a health risk (kosher hamburger with e.coli can kill you just the same as non-kosher hamburger, and you can get food poisoning from vegetables). They are prohibited because Jews believe that God said so.

Arbitrary? Absolutely, but so are most other religious requirements. Why do some Christian denominations have confessions, and others don't? It's arbitrary.

Tokyo Cabs to Try RFID Payments

http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2004/10/19/tokyo_ cabs_to_t.html

Revelation 13:16 - 17
He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&ch apter=13&verse=15&end_verse=17&version=31&context= context

Just combining...

> > Nope. Most theologians correctly pair faith and reason together as inextricably tied.
>
> Uh-huh. So... based on that line of reasoning, we can trust in theology to
> be a reliable source of logic and reason?

He's not saying that faith is the same as reason. He is saying that faith is compatible with reason. His point about "blind faith" being unbiblical is correct: Kierkegaard notwithstanding, the colloquial word "faith" has always been encrusted with many meanings, one of which is "irrational, blind, unquestioning faith." But the faith spoken of in the Bible derives from a Greek word meaning "to be persuaded."

Part of the problem is that you seem to have an incorrect and perhaps vague idea of what faith is. Much of your post, and previous posts, seems to rebel against the idea that faith should replace reason and investigation.

Well, no one in this discussion is saying that.

Yes, engineers should deal in confidence intervals and rigorous measurement and exhaustive testing. Yes, every assumption in every situation should be questioned and questioned again. The "faith" that so bothers you is not what we are talking about. So let us arrive at a clear definition, then.

There is a common idea that "faith" is a repulsive, backwards, outdated concept. After all, a "rational" person should never believe in anything until it's proven, right? But it turns out that rational people believe in plenty of things that are not proven, foremost being Reason itself. After all, there's no formally valid way to logically establish the correctness of logic, or to empirically establish the correctness of empiricism. Anyone who engages in debate or discussion or science holds such axioms as true, without proof.

Another truth that most of us accept is the existence of the universe itself. Does that sound silly? Let me rephrase it: the belief that we aren't living in the Matrix. Again, we take this belief as an axiom, without proof. It is impossible by definition to even conceive of an experiment to detect the Matrix; it is rigorously unknowable. Yet, no one would call you irrational for believing the universe is real. Here then is an example of reasonable faith in the absence of evidence. In other words:

Faith is relying on your axioms.

This is the "inextricable tie" that the GP was speaking of. Reason does depend on faith, because you cannot prove that reason works. This is (loosely) an a priori relationship. Yet, faith does depend on reason, because a good axiom should work well and a bad axiom should work poorly. This is an a posteriori relationship.

As it happens, the common notion of a "rational," "intelligent," "educated" person is of one who accepts the axioms of Reason and the axiom that the universe is real, and so on, but rejects the axiom that God exists. This is an arbitrary cultural distinction, and has nothing to do with being rational, intelligent, or educated.

You may argue that God is a poor axiom. You are welcome to do so, and I may respond with my arguments for its being a good and quite indispensible axiom. In such a discussion, the above formulation of "faith" can be reworded thus:

Faith is the choice between two plausible alternatives.

Wasn't it theologians who maintained that the world was flat, the sun revolved around the Earth, and that the Moon is a perfectly smooth sphere?-- all conclusions based entirely on their reasoning?

We've already established that no one (here) is proposing that faith substitute for investigation. But a historical aside: the geocentric theory that was held by the Church organization in the Western world -- few people today know about the equally large Eastern Church, seeing as they were slaughtered quite thoroughly -- was not based on Biblical theology but upon Ptolemaic cosmology, which was considered to be the state of the

Okay, I'll attempt this one. Anyone can feel free to disagree with me, I'm hardly an expert.

First, my source: BibleGateway - New International Version.

Reading this, it states that no plants of the field had yet sprung up when humans were created. This does not mean there were NO plants, it means there were no CULTIVATED plants. Trees aren't "plants of the field".

It continues to describe the creation of Adam and Eve. This also does not contradict Genesis 1. It is a more detailed account of that creation. Saying "God created Man and Woman" in no way contradicts "God created Adam then Eve".

In this translation, it states "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." This would seem to indicate that the animals had been formed before Adam was, and they were presented to him later for naming.

Three data points on the subject of amputees being healed.

St. Anthony of Padua healed a boy who had had his foot amputated

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01556a.htm

Michael Juan Pellicer Blasco had his leg amputated, prayed, and awoke to find that it had spontaneously regenerated. His amputation was witnessed by two doctors and an assistant, attested to by the local government, and confirmed as a miracle by the Catholic Church.

http://www.spiritdaily.org/Our%20Lady%20Apparition s/saragossa.htm

Luke 22:49-51: Jesus heals Malcus ear

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2 022;&version=31;

Now, logically speaking, if we assume that any one of the above stories is true, then Marshall Brain's argument is done for. If even one amputee was healed, ever, than his argument collapses.

Now, you may feel that the stories listed above are a pack of lies told to credulous, pre-scientific peasants. And you may be right. But, if you're really honest with yourself you might see that your feelings about the stories listed above are probably a product of a pre-existing agreement with Marshall Brain's conclusion (God doesn't exist) rather than an absolute agreement with his premise (God never heals amputees).

Just to add to that, the Christian position is that God answers your prayers but not necessarily in the way you expect. There is an old joke: I prayed for patience and God gave me people who needed patience. Or if you want an actual reference:

7To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."

2 Corinthians 12:7-10

Paul asks for God to remove the thorn (probably some physical issue), and God answers his prayer by teaching Paul to depend on him. God does not remove the thorn.

These studies are a waste of time from a Christian perspective.

I can see where you're coming from with the New Testament having a lot more single heroes than the Old Testament, but remember two things: first, Christianity accepts both Old and New Testaments as one Gospel. One is not more important than the other. Without one, the other would be meaningless, so to divide them isn't really fair. Second, the teachings in the New Testament are important, and they most definitely include and encourage marriage.

The passage I believe you refer to is Matthew 19:11-12 - "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." Note that in the context of the passage (you might read the passage if you want specifics) Jesus is replying to his disciples' comment that God's standards for marriage were high - so high that maybe it wasn't worth getting married. He wasn't saying that they shouldn't get married, only that marriage is a responsibility, and it's okay not to get married. Being single isn't superior to being married, or vice versa.

I've been waiting for a Microsoft OS with less holes for 24 years.

At this point one may reasonably ask whether to wait longer or look elsewhere.

You could argue that "the earth was without form" is a "flat earth".

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesi s%201%20;&version=9;

Could you be more precise about the cordionates in the Bible for this claim? I don't see anything about the Earth being a flat piece of rock.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&cha pter=1&version=31

here Man I'm not even of the faith and I know how to do a Bible search, and in fact own one paper edition. I can't believe it when I see the ball go back and forth 30 times over whether or not something's written in there...it's OK, back down, I'm laughing with you, not at you. (-:

Nobody is bribing the soldiers with political money. And there isn't enough money to corrupt them all. In particular, the grunts who would be ordered to do the shooting are the most common (?and least paid?) type of soldier in the armed forces. They are mostly good, normal people, and untainted by the things that ?could? motivate some of the "higher-ups."

I spoke with a Vietnam vet just yesterday, and he quoted me Psalm 23 from the Bible. I believe the majority of the U.S. soldiers didn't check their conscience at the door when they took up their rifles.

I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you
(Genesis 12)

When Abram reaches his 80s and is still childless, his wife, Sarai, decides that Abram should conceive with her maidservant, Hagar, so that they can finally begin their family (necessitated by the Lord's promise to make Abram a great nation). Abram and Hagar conceive and Hagar gives birth to Ishmael of whom it is prophesied:

"You are now with child
and you will have a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the LORD has heard of your misery.

He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."
(Genesis 16)

Then Abram turns 99:

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless. I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers."

Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."

Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner--those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."

Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?" And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"

Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will m

I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you
(Genesis 12)

When Abram reaches his 80s and is still childless, his wife, Sarai, decides that Abram should conceive with her maidservant, Hagar, so that they can finally begin their family (necessitated by the Lord's promise to make Abram a great nation). Abram and Hagar conceive and Hagar gives birth to Ishmael of whom it is prophesied:

"You are now with child
and you will have a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the LORD has heard of your misery.

He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."
(Genesis 16)

Then Abram turns 99:

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless. I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers."

Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."

Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner--those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."

Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?" And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"

Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will m

Better yet, read the story for yourself starting in Genesis 11.

Sex? Not that much explicitly that I can remember

Try the Song of Solomon.

Okay genius. And King of Kings?

The Christian use of this comes from Semitic languages. Further info, also noting similar phrases in other languages and traditions; use of the phrase in the pre-Christian Talmud here, here, and here (apologies that these citations all come from a Christian edition, but the text is basically the same).

The tradition of the Pope placing the crown on a King?

Comes from the Talmud. Link.

How about the fact that it is no longer 3rd century BC ... The origin has nothing to do with ...

This is true. However, you were making historical claims about the past, not about the present.

And reaching a limit of irritation is not close minded hatred.

This is more debatable, but I disagree: I think that is precisely what close minded hatred is. One way of putting the attitude of religious extremists in the Near East to the USA would be to say that they have reached a limit of irritation. That doesn't excuse them, even though it's completely accurate.

Basically if you want to fight the hordes of ignorant religious fanatics, make sure you get your facts right. Then I'll support you wholeheartedly. If you say that religion is a depraved abuse of intellect and harmful to society, I'll agree with your principles; but if you go making factual claims, get them right.

Okay genius. And King of Kings?

The Christian use of this comes from Semitic languages. Further info, also noting similar phrases in other languages and traditions; use of the phrase in the pre-Christian Talmud here, here, and here (apologies that these citations all come from a Christian edition, but the text is basically the same).

The tradition of the Pope placing the crown on a King?

Comes from the Talmud. Link.

How about the fact that it is no longer 3rd century BC ... The origin has nothing to do with ...

This is true. However, you were making historical claims about the past, not about the present.

And reaching a limit of irritation is not close minded hatred.

This is more debatable, but I disagree: I think that is precisely what close minded hatred is. One way of putting the attitude of religious extremists in the Near East to the USA would be to say that they have reached a limit of irritation. That doesn't excuse them, even though it's completely accurate.

Basically if you want to fight the hordes of ignorant religious fanatics, make sure you get your facts right. Then I'll support you wholeheartedly. If you say that religion is a depraved abuse of intellect and harmful to society, I'll agree with your principles; but if you go making factual claims, get them right.

Okay genius. And King of Kings?

The Christian use of this comes from Semitic languages. Further info, also noting similar phrases in other languages and traditions; use of the phrase in the pre-Christian Talmud here, here, and here (apologies that these citations all come from a Christian edition, but the text is basically the same).

The tradition of the Pope placing the crown on a King?

Comes from the Talmud. Link.

How about the fact that it is no longer 3rd century BC ... The origin has nothing to do with ...

This is true. However, you were making historical claims about the past, not about the present.

And reaching a limit of irritation is not close minded hatred.

This is more debatable, but I disagree: I think that is precisely what close minded hatred is. One way of putting the attitude of religious extremists in the Near East to the USA would be to say that they have reached a limit of irritation. That doesn't excuse them, even though it's completely accurate.

Basically if you want to fight the hordes of ignorant religious fanatics, make sure you get your facts right. Then I'll support you wholeheartedly. If you say that religion is a depraved abuse of intellect and harmful to society, I'll agree with your principles; but if you go making factual claims, get them right.

Okay genius. And King of Kings?

The Christian use of this comes from Semitic languages. Further info, also noting similar phrases in other languages and traditions; use of the phrase in the pre-Christian Talmud here, here, and here (apologies that these citations all come from a Christian edition, but the text is basically the same).

The tradition of the Pope placing the crown on a King?

Comes from the Talmud. Link.

How about the fact that it is no longer 3rd century BC ... The origin has nothing to do with ...

This is true. However, you were making historical claims about the past, not about the present.

And reaching a limit of irritation is not close minded hatred.

This is more debatable, but I disagree: I think that is precisely what close minded hatred is. One way of putting the attitude of religious extremists in the Near East to the USA would be to say that they have reached a limit of irritation. That doesn't excuse them, even though it's completely accurate.

Basically if you want to fight the hordes of ignorant religious fanatics, make sure you get your facts right. Then I'll support you wholeheartedly. If you say that religion is a depraved abuse of intellect and harmful to society, I'll agree with your principles; but if you go making factual claims, get them right.

This is why I think it is symbolic. In the process of Transubstantiation, I believe, that God lets it be a reminder of what the original Supper was about. I do not think that Transubstantiation is some scientific anomaly, but just the process of a small miracle happening that will spiritually strenghten those who take the Communion. I Corinthians 11:23-25, talks about a new covenant during Transubstantiation, not a scientific process.

Don't tell that to the people who still believe that stem cells are people, although a link to the passage would be nice. How about this one? Speaking of passages, this one seems a little confusing to me. Must we practice cannibalism now?

Soylent green, on the other hand...

Don't tell that to the people who still believe that stem cells are people, although a link to the passage would be nice. How about this one? Speaking of passages, this one seems a little confusing to me. Must we practice cannibalism now?

Soylent green, on the other hand...