Slashdot Mirror

God gave us the freedom to make our own choices in life and some people make very poor ones, including the choice to use religion for their own purposes or try and force others to believe as they do.

Actually, God didn't give man any freedom.

You see, god knows all, knows what your going to do, etc. So that means you have no free choice, seeing as God, who created all, and knows everything, already has your life planned out.

http://www.equip.org/perspectives/omniscience-does-god-know-all-things

There's some scriptures to backup what I am saying.

Just so you understand, you can NOT have something that knows everything that has and will happen, that created everything, then say man has free choice. How can we have free choice? If god already knows what I've done in my life, I'm not choosing anything, I'm living life how he has me do it.

And you do realize what this implies?

There isn't a god, man has once again used the stupidity of mankind to control others. And not only that, did such a poor job on the subject material it used as to leave big clues, yet people seem to gloss over them.

You do have a choice. It's to either accept that your on your own, or to keep believing in fantasy. either way, it changes nothing in your life, since beliefs in god, or not believing in god, has really nothing to do with living life.

When science and religion don't agree, you have bad science, or bad theology. The two agree, they don't oppose.

Remember the Pope, throwing a Copernicus into home-arrest for suggesting we're on just one of the planets circling the sun, we're NOT the center of the universe?

Bad theology.

Remember Darwin saying every animal started from the splitting of one elemental animal, over and over, until changes made them the diverse collection they are? Then someone finds a trilobite (compound eyes, vertebrae, complete digestion system) and it's the oldest animal in the fossil records, other than the "carpet mold" of the pre-Cambrian era?

Bad science.

Guys, I know what the media tells you. But consider this:

1. Greeks: The Earth is on Atlas' shoulders.
2. Bhuddists: it's on the back of a fish.
3. Indian: An elephant floats on it's back in a sea of milk, with the earth balanced on it's trunk, under a ceiling of stars.
4. Judeo/Christian: "The Earth is suspended from nothing".

There's your datapoint, late in Genesis. How would mankind KNOW this?

Hypothesis:
The Bible CAN'T be true, yet THIS IS. Prove the rest wrong, too.

Isn't that what scientists _DO_?

Here's help:
http://equip.org/ Simplified, accurate docs.
http://doesgodexist.com/ Videos from a geologist who did this.

We're never going to agree... But it still is a fun discussion.

It sure is. I'm not trying to metaphorically 'clone' myself, but I'd like to shine light on paths you might have thought ill-considered.

I think many people in our culture are aware of it, and probably have tried religion, if they weren't raised into it. I, myself, was raised Catholic, but left around the age of reason (15-16), it didn't fit what I saw in the world. At the time I saw all this evil, that you speak of, and couldn't rectify a loving God with it, especially when paired with the idiotic Cold War rhetoric of "God is on our side". How can God be on anyones side when the goal is to nuke innocents if you have a chance? Read the same for any war, if God picked a side, He isn't worthy of worship.

Well this explains much; there are some serious differences between the Roman Catholic Church and reality/the_Bible. Remember this is the organization that maintained monks to translate the Bible, but almost always into Latin, the language of the scholars, as it wasn't meant for the man on the street. The organization that, though these monks once penned by hand every word in the Bible, they overlook some important passages like Christ saying "[When you pray to me] Don't recite." and "Confess only to me- no one else can help you. And don't pray for the dead for they cannot hear you.

It didn't hold the answers, and hopes that you, yourself, found. It left me with the proverbial "hole", since I knew there were answers to the questions that religion didn't answer for me. (there are full philosophy texts on these questions)

I've heard so many times the very argument from RC parishioners. Want the truth? Want answers? See http://equip.org./ Hank Hannegraff has set up the Christian Resource Institute to answer all questions, do research to get the answers and clearly explain the answers. He's ruffling some feathers...he reading of Revelation (for example) doesn't include room for action figures. :>

Dispensationalism came from a priest named Darby back in the 1800's if I remember correctly. Before then, everyone [Luther, for example] saw in the text only ONE rapture. Not one for Hebrews seven years after the gentiles were gone. Hank's pointed out the fallacy of these ideas, and gives good detail. He also has a radio show here-n-there called Bible Answer Man. Lots of good truths in there.

Are ya really gonna try to keep it under your hat, even if it doesn't fill your life with joy?

I'm truly conflicted here, and this almost made me not reply. I LIKE people being happy, for whatever (nondestructive) reason, and thus I don't want to tarnish that. And I do understand the religious drive to preaching by converts, it is a wholly humanitarian, and benign act. If I found a useful truth I would do the same. I'm conflicted, since I don't want to hear it anymore, though. I'm constantly preached at, I am aware of God, Jesus, etc... I won't convert, though, unless, as you probably know, there is some internal reason that makes this version of truth self-evident and useful. So far there isn't, and even points to the contrary.

I don't blame ya; preaching (like, the 'fire and brimstone, some thing's-wrong-with-YOU!' kinda thing is awful. I like to consider it sharing, instead. Know how I know you're a sinner? You're a human with a heartbeat; so what? The exact sin doesn't matter, it's the heartfelt desire to comply that's important.

Hollywood's not kind to Christians. Either they show a cult following rules that have been outdated for 2 millinia, or Roman Catholics who confess their sins but don't feel their lives are improved by going to mass. It's pretty sad, but there's lotsa room in the middle.

Yes, Sartre wasn't the glorious optimist I painted him as, but nor was he as bleak as you have. He realized that there is no meaning, and we just have to accept it, which, on close reading, is empowering. I don't

I'm a Christian; not the "Earth can only by 6,000 years old" type (Young Earther) and I really have no problem with God, as he does with all living things, mutating a humanoid into Adam and Eve. I don't scream at Trick-or-Treaters, and I'm open to learning more about the Bible, and science.

I'm not the guy that goes along with the crowd to church, mindlessly accepting whatever pastor is within driving distance from my house; I've made contact with the actual being. And I know, that's like trying to prove sighting of a unicorn or something, but proof denies faith, and we all have to actually exert an effort to find Him.

What you're citing as 'Religion' is actually errant Christians. Putting Copurnicous on house arrest for his last 8 years of his life, because the Pope didn't like his idea....that was both malicious and stupid. But, a lot of things are like that in the Roman Catholic church.

Just like it's wrong for a Korean to suggest he's cloned a cat doesn't make science a useless endeavor, just because a sect of Christianity is in error doesn't make religion worthless, either.

It's taken me a long, long time and healthy skepticism, but I'm quickly reaching the point where I'm claiming the Bible has no contradictions. You won't get there sniping at Christians on Slashdot, but if you tune into Hank Hanegraff at http://equip.org/ and get his podcast, you'll see just how many of these have actual reasons.

It's not a document of fairy tales. It's not been translated over and over into error. Every translation comes from the original document. Perhaps a million people have studied this for many centuries...this is a document with more structure, more layers, and more detail than the entire works of Shakespeare. And every once in a while, despite all the claims, the Bible's right, anyway.

Like the Hittites; for centuries people claimed they were a figment of the auther's imagination. Then last century someone found the capital city. It was similarly correct when it talked about two leaders of Babylon, despite "known fact" suggested otherwise for a long time.

Now, there are a lot of true sealots out there; we've all met them. But they're the ones that get all the loudest press. (Much, I'm sure the way scientists feel about Frankenstein, Medela and other very-wrong scientists, real or imaginary).

Just don't write off the Book; don't just take your friend's feelings about it as your own decision, think for yourself. The worst think it could do for you is improve your life. Christ doesn't want mindless robots; he wants people who believe for good reason, aren't prone to branching off like the Davidians, (pardon the pun) or worse yet *killing* anyone in his name.

Just look for yourself; Hank is all about resolving issues of faith, not just from the non-believers, but of the church itself. Give'im a listen!

The Bible is pretty silent about things like this. Not because they aren't cool challenges for people to understand, not because they aren't dangerous to our existence (at some VERY late date) but just because they don't matter.

The Bible is a message from God, written in the hand of obedient men. Things like this just aren't that important to the reason we're here. And to be honest, I'm not sure what the specifics of this work are; people will go to years of training and mind-busting classes to get to this level of effort, yet when posed with a single document, they write it off as fairy tales. Or suggest the translations multiply, but they don't. Each one comes from the million-or-so originals. They're based on scientifically-proven understandings, and the Bible has provided several surprises.

So look to the stars; enjoy God's majesty. But don't be tricked into thinking the Bible is anything but scientific proof and cross-checked. Sure, lots of 'contradictions' are bandied about by people who haven't taken the time to research it, but I'm finding none. And the more I'm learning, the more consistent the message is.

A good place to start to get past the cruft of human-influnce (AKA church misunderstandings like the 6,000 year thing) would be http://equip.org./ Hank Hanegraff answers every question you can give'im. He's a good guy, and NOT one of those starry-eyed, programmed-robot types.

No, God's pretty much holding his own...but since people are *human*, there's room for misinterpretations, misunderstandings and some people being downright rude in His name. And even more have taken up a personal vendetta to ensure the Word is mocked and discredited.

If you were to do an actual, in-depth study of the various "Bibles", you'd find only one that has consistent credibility. It's based on something like a million documents, about 5,000 covering just the New Testament alone. Sure, the autogrypha (originals) are gone...they were probably lost with those who *died*insisting*Christ's*existance*. (Who would die for a lie?) The multitude of documents, from different places on the globe have errors, sure- but the essence is always the same, even in the Dead Sea Scrolls which were 1,000 years before the copies we had before. Study of these documents, and cross-checking them gives us a scientific basis for credibility.

Some of the New Testament copies are from the early first century, and there's no translation-loss. There have been literally thousands of people checking and cross-checking these documents for centuries. Do you really believe so many people would dedicate their lives to quests for the truth, if it were all just made up?

And let's not forget that in Christ's time the Hebrews were in Roman Slavery...they couldn't POSSIBLY care less about Christ, yet their journalists reported the crucifixion and the resurrection. One of them was named Juvenile (which is probably where we get that word.)

It's been only recently that science has turned on religion; many of the names-we-know in the old days were men of God, trying to understand Him. They were paid with church money to advance. But these days it's hip to think this entire scene, as rare as it is in the universe, just *happened* to come out livable, just happened to get the myriad features right for us to live, and for so long on this planet. I'm sorry, I just don't have that kinda faith.

For centuries church detractors chided the Bible for talking about the Hittites, believing they never existed. Then a few decades ago someone turns over a shovel in the middle east and BAM! Hittite capital. See Wikipedia for details. Similarly detractors chided the Bible for "getting the Babylonian leaders wrong", yet science has turned up that the link in the chain had TWO leaders at one time, one in the battlefield, one in the government. And the Bible called _that_ one, too.

Other religions talked about the Earth on the back of a fish, which, when it jumps out of the water, the floods came. Still others discuss a long stream, covered in a ceiling of stars, but the Bible says it's suspended from nothing...and suggests it's north pole points to the center of the galaxy (in not so few words).

I'm here to ask you to believe something I'm just coming to terms with: The Bible has no errors. OH, I know...everyone has a favorite chestnut, but when you study them in context, you see they're not errors at all. But of course, you _have_to_ actually decide to look.

The Bible had the proportions for the first sea-going vessel; Noah's ark. (And, no, it *didn't* carry 16,000,000,000 species- the document's writing could be satisfied with the space of a rowboat.) It describes surgery as being 'OK' while men of the time thought it witchcraft. It has so many levels and such a delicate tapestry of prophecy and fulfillment so as to humble even Shakespeare. And when you mess with the code, trying to make it say something else, a wave of contradictions appear. It's an incredible book.

There are a *lot* of such surprises waiting for you in the Bible. There's a lot of fury and chaff coming from many churches, but if you want the actual, stated, only-using-the-Bible understanding of the Bible, that'd be Hank Hanegraff. http://equip.org./ He has all the answers, not from attitude, not from style, but from actual scientific proof: cross-checking the Bible's many source documents. His "Bible

Sure, a lot of that goes on. But understand that reading the Bible with the intent to find fault will find one every time. Anyone can make a half-assed attempt at understanding something (sendmail, for example) and call it crap.

So on that basis the Bible (and sendmail) are crap?

The revelation of which I speak comes from Hank Hannigraff; he has the entire Bible, not to mention the books of Mormon, Jehova's Witnesses, and about a dozen other books not accepted into the canon in his _head_. For him, answering any question takes only the time to say the response- he's an expert on the subject.

And, unlike so many people before him, rather than giving a summary of the apocalyptic writings, he gives you the tools to read and understand what you're reading to make your *own* decisions. This is a very important point.

Check out some of his things- his site is http://equip.org/ and his book is The Apocalypse Code in bookstores, now.

He also does a lot of over-the-radio stuff; it's *amazing* to hear callers with questions, and with no keyclicks and no page-turning, he explains the text, with how it relates to the other books and passages.

He's a very humble guy...and only wants to get to the truth. He's a big fan of comparing scripture-to-scripture. He doesn't like mentally filling in gaps with ideas.

If you really want to know what I know, to understand it legitimately for yourself, this guy can help you. He has a "Bible AnswerMan vol 1 & 2" that you can scan at the bookstore; see if you don't think he's as fairminded about this stuff as people can be. I've been listening to him for about 2 years now.

http://www.equip.org/free/JAE230.pdf

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,

I am happy to see other creationists, open-minded agnostics, or at least cynics of Darwinian evolution posting at /.. I personally hadn't thought much about the importance (or validity) of a literal, Biblical Genesis until a group at church (a non-denom church in Georgia at that) started watching Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis videos recently.

Since then, I've done some other research (Darwin's Black Box, Tornado in a Junkyard, articles from the Christian Research Institute, and so on.

Before the tired tirade of "fundamentalist / Christian wacko / moron / anti-science" begins, it is important to note that Christians can be scientists too, and visa versa. It seems to me that more and more credible, scientific evidence has scraped and scratched its way to the surface that calls out many of the theories that the secular world has taken for granted regarding the origins of the world, life, and intelligence. Without arguing nitty-gritty details, it is interesting enough to look at the questions of biochemical processes, discrepencies in geological and fossil records, the fundamental flaws in carbon dating, and the political motivations of secularists

This is obviously a poor attempt at a thoughtful statement, but I just wanted to throw a couple things out. I would encourage anyone with similar questions about discrepencies in carbon dating, fossilization, speciation, etc... would at least consider the scientific rebuttals to Darwin and other secularists.