As a developer that develops things to be as database independant as is possible, I always keep things like that in a separate table. If I have a field that would be storing text, a blob, a clob, etc., I just automatically place it in a separate table. I know that it can't hurt performance too much like that and I can likely measure the worst case performance impact anyway.
Check this out for information on the global flood. It was real. Yes there are variations in some of the stories in various cultures pertaining to the flood, but that is do to the progression of the cultures. These stories were passed on as oral stories for many hundreds and thousands of years and would likely have changed at least a little. A simple experiment can be conducted to prove this. Get 20 people in a room, write a story on a piece of paper (keep it to two or three paragraphs), send person 1 and 2 into another room, have person 1 read the story (exactly as it is written) to person 2, have person 1 leave the room and send in person 3, person 2 should tell the story to person 3, person 2 should leave the room and person 4 should enter, the story should be told by person 3 to person 4, etc up to person 19 telling the story to person 20. Have person 3, person 10 and person 20 write the story down and then compare the three stories. There will be differences in the stories. This doesn't mean that one of the stories isn't true and the earliest of them should be the closest to original story. Thus the Biblical version of the flood is likely the closest to the true story as it was written the earliest.
I don't understand you reference to Genesis 30. This is the story of Jacob (Israel), his wifes, and 12 sons. Yes Jacob had 4 wifes (well two wifes and two handmaidens as wifes) and yes the culture of the day allowed a wife to claim the children of her handmaiden as her children, if they were fathered by her husband. This in no way claims that they are genetically related to the wife, she just claimed them as the fathers genetics were of the most important of the time.
Again please read the document referenced above, it make several very valid points concerning the flood being global versus regional. I will highlight one to hopefully interest you, why would Noah have spent 100+ years planning and building an ark for a regional flood? If the flood had been regional and he was being warned, why could he have not just have left the region? A person/family could travel a great distance in 100 years. That is a rather simple example, but well worth thinking about. Please read the document!
Without fail?! LOLOL, that is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. You seem to have conviently forgotten about the geocentric theory, the global flood (see my reasons above for discounting it), evolution (we *have* observed evolution many many times, the only question is how it happens), and the myriad armageddon predictions. The only reason you think no evidence contrary to the bible exists is because you stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" whenever it pops up.
My Bible doesn't mention geocentric theory, that was a scientific theory. The global flood happened whether you believe it or not. As I have stated other places in this thread, there are stories in almost every culture of a great flood and a boat with a surviving family and animals (please explain this away). We have seen adaptation and try to make it look like evolution. And my Bible says that "of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Matthew 24:36). Men can attempt to predict the end of the world, but only God knows when it will come. The only standing prophesy of the Bible is that the world will end and therefore there are no predictions in the Bible that can be proven that haven't already happened.
As for the "finger in your ears" part, the same could be said of scientist. If they uncover something that proves something in the Bible, they immediate start looking for ways to disprove that it really happened or attempt to explain it away in some way. The prophesies of the Old Testament concerning the coming of Christ should be enough to prove scientifically that the Bible is correct. And if you really want to get down to it the Bible proves many scientific things itself. Look at Job 36:27-28 and learn about rain. Now there is question as to when this book was actually written, but it was written before 1000 B.C. and it tells how rain comes from water vapour. There are others but I won't go into all the detail here. Just do a google search.
So what if the original King James Bible had the apocryphal texts, it is only a translation of the Bible. And the Church of England (for which the King James Bible was translated) was a recent spin-off of the Roman Catholic Church (King Henry VIII started it less than 100 years earlier) which includes the apocryphal books in their Bible. Study a little history and you will find that the books that make up the current Bible without the aprocryphal books were all listed and used in the writings of the leaders of the second century church (the first century is when the books were written and the apostles were still alive). By studying the history you can determine which books belong to the true Bible and which were added later.
The Bible was written by men with the guidance of God in the Old Testament and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. The words are not the words of men, but the words of God. It takes some faith to believe, but there is evidence as I have stated in earlier posts. I am truly sorry that you were apparently disappointed in your early religious experience. I do agree that the Bible has no magical powers and cannot fight vampires. But it is the word of God and it can save you from eternal damnation, if you will only believe and follow it.
To each his own though....... I could be wrong.
You do realize that if you are wrong, that you are sentencing yourself to eternal damnation? Is that something that you are willing to live with for eternity? I don't want an answer to this question, I simply want you to think about it and make sure that you have an answer for yourself.
How do you explain Native American tribes (from both North and South America) that have a story of the great flood and placing the animals in a great canoe? According to people that don't believe in the Biblical creation, the Native Americans would have already have been in the Americas by that time. If I remember correctly, there are African tribes that also have stories of a great flood. There are Asian and European stories as well that predate christianity. There are even stories from Australia and other South Pacific islands.
I will agree that it was passed by oral tradition as Moses wrote the book of Genesis many years after the occurence. I also agree that it should appear in religions other than Judaism, after all Judaism is a rather recent religion. The Hebrew religion of the Bible would have appeared most likely around 1200 B.C. and Judaism would have been many years after that when the nation of Israel split and the 10 northern tribes taken into captivity, etc. After all the word Jew comes from the tribal name of Judah which was one of the two surviving tribes. Since the flood occurred before Moses, it would obviously have been before Judaism. It would even have been before the Hebrew nation came into being as the first Hebrews were Abraham, Issac, Jacob (Israel), and then his 12 sons.
And again, when only 8 people survived in the entire world, there would obviously be a common story. You claim that there was a regional flood, because you can see evidence that it happened. I claim that the flood covered the entire earth because I have faith. There is evidence in the stories and evidence in the earth (flood of the Black Sea area, flooded plains of North America, etc), it just needs to be connected with faith.
A bucktoothed, rabbit-like dinosaur related to Tyrannosaurus Rex and other predators lived in China 128 million years ago, researchers report.
This is the first line of the story, and then with the headline on the/. article. But then I didn't see anything in the story about the feathers on this creature that are mentioned in the/. article either. As a matter of fact the story says that it "lacks the bird-like features".
I also would have to assume by your post that you can read ancient Greek? You talk about Aristotle still being correct (which I agree), but he would have written in ancient Greek. If you indeed can read ancient Greek, then you can also find versions of the New Testament written in Greek as well and that would eliminate the translation/modification issue. Even Newton would have written in old English, not modern English and that would likely involve some translation today.
I would agree with the previous poster, that this is some species that didn't make it sometime (such as the flood). I would also question the people that have discovered this, as to how they know what it looks like? Are they sure that it didn't freeze because it lost its feathers in a forest fire, or something similar? I seriously doubt that it was found intact, as it is a fossil (turned to rock).
I have less problems with the creation explaination, than with the explaination of man (who by their own claims are new comers to the earth). If you look into "religions" from around the world, a large number of them have stories of a great flood. Couldn't it be that this is all the same great flood, and that the stories have come down from the 8 people that survived that flood (see the book of Genesis in the Bible), as they would be the starting point of all mankind? This also allows me to believe what I see around me, as I can allow for adaptation of species. It would be impossible for Noah to have carried each and every type of species onto the ark. He could not have possibly have carried beagles, basset hounds, poodles, etc. with him, but he could carry the required number of canines from which these are all decended. It also allows for the fact that man is different than animals, as we have an everlasting soul that will live for eternity.
You don't need new discoveries to support the creation. That book has been written. But there aren't any new discoveries that point to anything else either. This is just some persons idea of what he thinks a group of fossilized bones might have looked in life. This article specifically states that this discovery "up the traditional view of theropod dinosaurs". It doesn't shake up my previous beliefs or views in any way.
Your arguement is no better, you are simply saying that it isn't complete because you don't believe in it. You can give no proof that it isn't complete. People have tried for over 2000 years to disprove the scriptures and haven't succeeded yet, and I doubt that they will any time in the future.
I believe that there are laws that do not apply to the salvation of man that aren't in the scriptures. Those are the laws of physics, mechanics, etc. They do not directly affect the salvation of man, but can be used to aid in it. I don't see anything about the internet in the Bible, but it is a good tool for people like us to make contact. There are many other things that are similar. I also believe that the laws of physic, mechanics, etc point to the existence of God.
God's son is not God, he is Jesus. He is a part of the God-head, but he is not God. He sits on the right hand of God (see Hebrews 8:1-2). Jesus's sacrifice was that he came to earth and lived as a man and then died (like all men will one day). Him rising from the dead was not getting out of the sacrifice, it was overcoming death. Without his resurrection, we would have no promise of resurrection ourselves. As for what kind of a God would demand a sacrifice, well our God for one. He demands sacrifices still to this day, just not blood sacrifices. And are you proposing that you understand being a God and why a God shouldn't demand sacrifices? His mood is changed by obedience whether that includes blood sacrifices or not.
How can you assume that God put us into a predicament that would require our salvation? He never forced anyone to sin. He doesn't remove it from around us. If you call that a racket, I believe that you need to purchase a better dictionary. The good Samaritan doesn't say anything about salvation, it is a story about being a good neighbor and helping others. God cares very much about his children. He provided a simple manner in which we can all spend eternity with him. As a matter of fact, in II Peter 3:9 we are told that "The Lord... not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance".
I am saying that it has religious significance because it is the word of God. I am also saying that if it didn't say it was the word of God, that there is no way that anyone could suspect that it was such.
However, to remove that from the Bible would remove about 90% of the text, thus there is no point in following this discussion. I was simply answering your question. And my answer stands that if you took from the Bible, the claims that it was the word of God, then it would only be a very poor history book of a few pages.
I would personally find it difficult to read the Bible and not see it as the truth. The Bible does contain the absolute truth of God, it is strictly written to point to that. There are no stories that stand alone without pointing to the will and truth of God.
The battles are the work of God. Life and death are determined by following the laws of God. The Old Testament shows us how God dealt with his people in times past and to show us that he meant what he says. The New Testament contains the laws that we are to obey today and give the promise of eternal life or death.
I just don't see how it could be any simpler than it is. I guess it is so simple that many people just overlook it.
Welcome to the club. We are all born without faith. Faith is not something that you are born with, it is something that you adopt. If you were born with faith, then it wouldn't be your choice, would it?
Sure the almighty God could have just said that no matter what you do in life, you can then choose from heaven and hell for eternity, but that isn't what he said. We are to become pure like the little children. Unfortunately for the crack baby, it doesn't get to learn anything in life and never learns the difference in right and wrong. That isn't unfortunate for it in eternity as it is born pure. However, its mother made a choice and will have to answer to that choice on her day of judgement.
We have to study what we are pursuing to make sure that it measures up to the standard. Yes the terrorists probably thought that they were doing something for Allah. If they didn't study on their own to verify that what they were pursuing was the truth, then they will be punished approriately in eternity. We are cautioned to watch for false teachers and we are encouraged to "eat the meat" of the word, not drink the milk (or be spoon fed). The one thing that I tell all young (physically young) christians is that you must develop your own faith, you can't depend upon the faith of your parents faith to carry you through life.
If the Bible didn't say it was the truth, then there wouldn't be an issue would there? If it didn't claim to be anything other than a history book, such as written by Josephus and many others throughout time, then it would have no religious significance.
You are correct in saying that many "religious people" don't hold their beliefs to be absolute truth, but there are also people in this world that think that it is OK to kill others for no reason or steal from others, etc. (our prisons are full of them). If there are no absolute rights and wrongs, then the world would be pure chaos and God is not the author of confusion (I Cor 14:33). And Jesus is that truth (John 14:6).
What are the laws of God? Read the Bible and you will have to complete laws of God. II Timothy 3:16-17 states:
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
In 1st John 2:3-5 we learn of the knowledge of God's law.
And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
One of his commandments is to study, and thus we learn much about him. And thus I do understand certain aspects of the nature of God and from that I know that following his law is a good idea. Please read John 3:16-18
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 14:2-3 tells of God's plan for us. It sure doesn't sound evil to me.
In my Father's house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also.
John 3:16 takes care of answering the question of God caring for us. It would take someone very special for me to let my son die for them.
I am not sure what you mean by your last statement, if you could explain it, I might be able to help you a little better.
You are correct that the lawmakers do not make the laws just. I apologize for that error. The lawmakers only make the laws, the law enforcers are the ones that have to make them just. They have to uniformly and fairly enforce all of the laws.
Now my statement will stand. If the law (in this case God's law), says believe or be punished, then it is up to the law enforcer (in this case God), to enforce that law uniformly. If it is not uniformly enforced, then it is not just.
Notice that there is no supporting reason for assent to a single doctrine. In fact, if you begin with a principle of not hurting people, there is a reason against: it is ethically reprehensible to punish people just because they don't share your religion.
You are confusing people on earth with God in this statement. I (nor anyone else that I know) would condemn anyone to eternal punishment just because they had different religious beliefs. God doesn't have a religion, as belief in God is defined as religion. However, God (the law enforcer) can and should enforce the prescribed punishment on anyone that doesn't obey the law (whatever that law might say). That is the only ethical and just thing that God could do.
An example of this would be, me telling my children that they had to clean their bedrooms in order to watch something on TV. One cleans their bedroom and the other does not, yet I let both watch TV. That is not just, as I made a "law" and did not uniformly enforce it. Now it might not seem fair to some if I didn't let one of my children watch something (maybe it was something really special that they wanted to watch), but to be just I must enforce the "law".
Interesting that you mention the synods and councils, but then you did mention earlier being taught by jesuits and dominicans (Catholics). If you really study the Bible or (more accurately in this case) the history of it, you would discover that in writings of the 2nd century (before the synods and councils to canonize the Bible by the Catholic church) that all the books of the current New Testament are cataloged and quoted. Thus many years before the Holy Roman Catholic Church gave us the canonized Bible, it was already accepted.
Please re-read the section of Larry's comment concerning the mustard seed. And yes there is some desire required to have faith. You can't really expect God to make you believe can you? If God forced us to believe then there would be no free will. And apparently it is that grain of faith that separates you and I.
Yes, men have misused and twisted the text in times past. But most modern translations find their roots in very early transcripts.
You do not have to be a believing Christian to care about the Bible. You must study the Bible to be a believing Christian. In Romans 10:17, Paul wrote
faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God
Now I realize that I am telling you something from a book that you don't care about, but your arguement would be like saying that George Washington never existed because I don't like my history book, or that William Shakespeare never existed because I don't like my literature book.
You are correct in saying that the Bible has been questionably translated several times. People have put their own thoughts into the translations and twisted them from the complete truth. This however doesn't remove the fact that the Bible is the book about God and his love for mankind. But remember that belief also involves you loving God in return.
What is "just" about making assent to a single doctrine the basis of eternal damnation?" An interesting question, and there is only one answer. God commanded it and thus it is that way. You could also ask, "What is just about making the speed limit on interstate highways in the US 70 miles per hour, when everyones care is capable of doing 85 miles per hour?" And the answer to that is because the lawmakers wrote the law that way.
It is simple! But I have always compared this to the story of Naaman in II Kings 5. People don't want something easy that anyone can do. They want to be special. If God's way is too simple let's not do it. In II Kings 5:13 Naaman's servents were talking to him concerning him being a leper and being cleansed. If you need to read the story click here.
And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, [if] the prophet had bid thee [do some] great thing, wouldest thou not have done [it]? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?
He wanted to do something great to be cleansed. God's prophet sent a messenger to him (the prophet himself didn't even see fit to speak to him directly) to tell him to dip in the Jordan river seven times and he would be clean. But Naaman didn't want to do that as it was simple and the river was dirty.
Heaven is a surer bet than the lottery and there are many people that believe that they might win millions of dollars in the lottery that they will go and purchase a ticket. How is it that they can't believe in God enough to follow his simple laws.
So you don't believe in the words of Jesus himself? In Mark 16:16 when Jesus was giving what is called the "great commission", he stated
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
The way I read this is that if you believe you are part way there but if you don't believe you haven't even found the road. I believe that this is consistent with what Larry puposed in his answer. He wanted to help the person asking the question find the right road. But just like driving your car, finding the right road isn't the whole trip. You have to continue down that road to complete the trip.
Now back to your statement, the Bible itself tells us that all will not be saved. In Matthew 7:13-14 we are told
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
But then that would be Bible literalism.
Larry is correct that beliefs are a function of background and environment, but that is why Jesus gave us the "great commission" that I mentioned earlier in this post. In Mark 16:15 we are told
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature
If we don't carry out this command, then we ourselves are condeming others to be lost for eternity. Following along the lines of Larry's answer, I don't have the ability to travel into foreign lands and teach, but I have the ability to do other things that will allow others to do that work. I might not be able to go and teach, but I can do programming work here to make money so that someone else can afford to do the other works. I can't do the work directly but I am supporting them in doing it. That is the product of my beliefs and my faith.
A couple of years ago they would have had money thrown at them just because the have "powered by php" and "powered by MySQL" on their homepage and they're running an Apache webserver. Everyone would have assumed that they were open source friendly and just thrown their money at them. Now people are actually looking at the technology, isn't it wonderful!!!
However, it is cool that they are running open source software for their presence. I wonder if the on-board computers are running Linux or *BSD:-)
Christianity is full of retards and cretins like yourself, incapable of anything approaching enlightenment.
Thank you for stooping to the normal level of the "enlightened" side of this discussion. You simply stoop to name calling and insults. You call my beliefs "superstitions" and call me a "retard and cretin".
By your silly little superstitions, at best all we're doing is explaining a process He used or set in motion.
I agree that God most likely used each creation to build upon for the next. However, this in no way implies that everything evolved. Each species was created in its order and has adapted when necessary.
Wow, a good point, one I hadn't thought about. Scientific theories are proposed to be shot down. Why are you working so hard to support it, when you should be attempting to shoot it down so that it can be refined to better describe the true facts?
However, this also contradicts an arguement made eariler by someone claiming to support the same side of this discussion as you. They stated that "Evolution (along with gravity, relativity, and a spherical earth) is a theory." And by putting your spin on this "No. Nothing is ever 'proven' in science. All we have are theories that haven't been overturned -- yet.", I can not determine that the earth has been proven to be spherical? Quick post it to the/. main page, we have another new scientific discovery!!! And all this time, I thought that the earth was spherical, maybe those pictures from space were really faked (ooops, that would be another arguement).
While I agree that species do adapt over time, that still doesn't show a fact that points to evolution. I must say that I haven't had time to read the document that you pointed out. However, I suspect that it involves hybrids that are not sterile (not really a new species) or outcomes that go in favor sometimes and against sometimes but the in favors get more press coverage. In other words half of them did something that the scientist predicted so he talks about that and not about the half that behaved normally. Not conclusive!
Notice in passing that if someone shows a theory to be wrong, the facts that the theory attempted to explain don't automatically disappear along with the theory.
And you finally got the main point of my arguement. The theory of evolution is not correct! You finally got it! The only fact is adaptation, and people have come up with a theory that goes so far past the facts. I have agreed to the fact of adaptation, but everyone keeps calling that evolution and it isn't. The theory of evolution is attempting to expand the scientific process to explain "facts" that don't exist.
That is not evolution, despite what some try to tell you. That is adaptation and is not a changing from one species to another. No one has shown an example of true evolution. I have retrieved the definition of evolution from dictionary.com (under biology) as
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
I will agree that the development of antibotic resistance is a change. Or that the change in the wing color on the moth is a change (this is cool and it even adapted back to its normal state later). I will not agree that the result was a new species in either case. You have taken a hugh leap from adaptation to evolution. Humans even show similar traits. After all we develop antibodies to kill off bacteria and that changes us as we are no longer vulnerable to those bacteria. And some time in history we developed different skin colors. But we are still all humans.
As to Stephen Jay Gould's statement that you quoted, a theory isn't a fact until it is proven. He might want it to be a fact and he might call it a fact, but no one has presented proof of a new species by evolution yet. Proof by the same scientific rules that are universally accepted for scientific discovery.
God did not create itself. We are told that God is an eternal being.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And in
Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
There are certain things that man does not understand while on this earth. God, being such a different type of being, is one of those things.
John 4:24 God is a spirit and they that worship Him must worship
Him in spirit and in truth.
As to your second point, in Genesis the words "after his kind" would eliminate evolution. You could still adapt, but not change species for your offspring.
So you are saying that you have proof of the three items you mentioned? Would you please post them for our education? But number 2 is not evolution, it is adaptation and that is totally different and can't be used to prove number 1 (see my previous post concerning the wallabys, they are still wallabys). I am not sure that number 3 can be used to prove number 1 either. There are very good arguements against DNA proving evolution. The fossil record could be misintrepreted, just as the length of time in the earth's creation is being misintrepreted. And morphology is simply studying change which is another way of saying adaptation (using big words to hide the truth).
No, I haven't seen a species or a universe being created. But I also don't refer to it as a theory (nor as a law). It is simply fact and has been declared since the beginning. The "theory of creationism" was created by scientist attempting to drag creation down to the same level as evolution.
I don't hear voices in my head, and I have never heard voices in my head. And you called me a very poor troll.
Slashdot Mirror
As a developer that develops things to be as database independant as is possible, I always keep things like that in a separate table. If I have a field that would be storing text, a blob, a clob, etc., I just automatically place it in a separate table. I know that it can't hurt performance too much like that and I can likely measure the worst case performance impact anyway.
Check this out for information on the global flood. It was real. Yes there are variations in some of the stories in various cultures pertaining to the flood, but that is do to the progression of the cultures. These stories were passed on as oral stories for many hundreds and thousands of years and would likely have changed at least a little. A simple experiment can be conducted to prove this. Get 20 people in a room, write a story on a piece of paper (keep it to two or three paragraphs), send person 1 and 2 into another room, have person 1 read the story (exactly as it is written) to person 2, have person 1 leave the room and send in person 3, person 2 should tell the story to person 3, person 2 should leave the room and person 4 should enter, the story should be told by person 3 to person 4, etc up to person 19 telling the story to person 20. Have person 3, person 10 and person 20 write the story down and then compare the three stories. There will be differences in the stories. This doesn't mean that one of the stories isn't true and the earliest of them should be the closest to original story. Thus the Biblical version of the flood is likely the closest to the true story as it was written the earliest.
I don't understand you reference to Genesis 30. This is the story of Jacob (Israel), his wifes, and 12 sons. Yes Jacob had 4 wifes (well two wifes and two handmaidens as wifes) and yes the culture of the day allowed a wife to claim the children of her handmaiden as her children, if they were fathered by her husband. This in no way claims that they are genetically related to the wife, she just claimed them as the fathers genetics were of the most important of the time.
Again please read the document referenced above, it make several very valid points concerning the flood being global versus regional. I will highlight one to hopefully interest you, why would Noah have spent 100+ years planning and building an ark for a regional flood? If the flood had been regional and he was being warned, why could he have not just have left the region? A person/family could travel a great distance in 100 years. That is a rather simple example, but well worth thinking about. Please read the document!
As for the "finger in your ears" part, the same could be said of scientist. If they uncover something that proves something in the Bible, they immediate start looking for ways to disprove that it really happened or attempt to explain it away in some way. The prophesies of the Old Testament concerning the coming of Christ should be enough to prove scientifically that the Bible is correct. And if you really want to get down to it the Bible proves many scientific things itself. Look at Job 36:27-28 and learn about rain. Now there is question as to when this book was actually written, but it was written before 1000 B.C. and it tells how rain comes from water vapour. There are others but I won't go into all the detail here. Just do a google search.
The Bible was written by men with the guidance of God in the Old Testament and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. The words are not the words of men, but the words of God. It takes some faith to believe, but there is evidence as I have stated in earlier posts. I am truly sorry that you were apparently disappointed in your early religious experience. I do agree that the Bible has no magical powers and cannot fight vampires. But it is the word of God and it can save you from eternal damnation, if you will only believe and follow it.
You do realize that if you are wrong, that you are sentencing yourself to eternal damnation? Is that something that you are willing to live with for eternity? I don't want an answer to this question, I simply want you to think about it and make sure that you have an answer for yourself.
How do you explain Native American tribes (from both North and South America) that have a story of the great flood and placing the animals in a great canoe? According to people that don't believe in the Biblical creation, the Native Americans would have already have been in the Americas by that time. If I remember correctly, there are African tribes that also have stories of a great flood. There are Asian and European stories as well that predate christianity. There are even stories from Australia and other South Pacific islands.
I will agree that it was passed by oral tradition as Moses wrote the book of Genesis many years after the occurence. I also agree that it should appear in religions other than Judaism, after all Judaism is a rather recent religion. The Hebrew religion of the Bible would have appeared most likely around 1200 B.C. and Judaism would have been many years after that when the nation of Israel split and the 10 northern tribes taken into captivity, etc. After all the word Jew comes from the tribal name of Judah which was one of the two surviving tribes. Since the flood occurred before Moses, it would obviously have been before Judaism. It would even have been before the Hebrew nation came into being as the first Hebrews were Abraham, Issac, Jacob (Israel), and then his 12 sons.
And again, when only 8 people survived in the entire world, there would obviously be a common story. You claim that there was a regional flood, because you can see evidence that it happened. I claim that the flood covered the entire earth because I have faith. There is evidence in the stories and evidence in the earth (flood of the Black Sea area, flooded plains of North America, etc), it just needs to be connected with faith.
A bucktoothed, rabbit-like dinosaur related to Tyrannosaurus Rex and other predators lived in China 128 million years ago, researchers report.
/. article. But then I didn't see anything in the story about the feathers on this creature that are mentioned in the /. article either. As a matter of fact the story says that it "lacks the bird-like features".
This is the first line of the story, and then with the headline on the
I also would have to assume by your post that you can read ancient Greek? You talk about Aristotle still being correct (which I agree), but he would have written in ancient Greek. If you indeed can read ancient Greek, then you can also find versions of the New Testament written in Greek as well and that would eliminate the translation/modification issue. Even Newton would have written in old English, not modern English and that would likely involve some translation today.
I would agree with the previous poster, that this is some species that didn't make it sometime (such as the flood). I would also question the people that have discovered this, as to how they know what it looks like? Are they sure that it didn't freeze because it lost its feathers in a forest fire, or something similar? I seriously doubt that it was found intact, as it is a fossil (turned to rock).
I have less problems with the creation explaination, than with the explaination of man (who by their own claims are new comers to the earth). If you look into "religions" from around the world, a large number of them have stories of a great flood. Couldn't it be that this is all the same great flood, and that the stories have come down from the 8 people that survived that flood (see the book of Genesis in the Bible), as they would be the starting point of all mankind? This also allows me to believe what I see around me, as I can allow for adaptation of species. It would be impossible for Noah to have carried each and every type of species onto the ark. He could not have possibly have carried beagles, basset hounds, poodles, etc. with him, but he could carry the required number of canines from which these are all decended. It also allows for the fact that man is different than animals, as we have an everlasting soul that will live for eternity.
You don't need new discoveries to support the creation. That book has been written. But there aren't any new discoveries that point to anything else either. This is just some persons idea of what he thinks a group of fossilized bones might have looked in life. This article specifically states that this discovery "up the traditional view of theropod dinosaurs". It doesn't shake up my previous beliefs or views in any way.
By all means, if you get some company big wig from AOL before a firing squad, you should yell "Ready, Point, Fire" :-)
After all, you wouldn't want him to come back from the dead to sue you for using the word AIM.
Your arguement is no better, you are simply saying that it isn't complete because you don't believe in it. You can give no proof that it isn't complete. People have tried for over 2000 years to disprove the scriptures and haven't succeeded yet, and I doubt that they will any time in the future.
... not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance".
I believe that there are laws that do not apply to the salvation of man that aren't in the scriptures. Those are the laws of physics, mechanics, etc. They do not directly affect the salvation of man, but can be used to aid in it. I don't see anything about the internet in the Bible, but it is a good tool for people like us to make contact. There are many other things that are similar. I also believe that the laws of physic, mechanics, etc point to the existence of God.
God's son is not God, he is Jesus. He is a part of the God-head, but he is not God. He sits on the right hand of God (see Hebrews 8:1-2). Jesus's sacrifice was that he came to earth and lived as a man and then died (like all men will one day). Him rising from the dead was not getting out of the sacrifice, it was overcoming death. Without his resurrection, we would have no promise of resurrection ourselves. As for what kind of a God would demand a sacrifice, well our God for one. He demands sacrifices still to this day, just not blood sacrifices. And are you proposing that you understand being a God and why a God shouldn't demand sacrifices? His mood is changed by obedience whether that includes blood sacrifices or not.
How can you assume that God put us into a predicament that would require our salvation? He never forced anyone to sin. He doesn't remove it from around us. If you call that a racket, I believe that you need to purchase a better dictionary. The good Samaritan doesn't say anything about salvation, it is a story about being a good neighbor and helping others. God cares very much about his children. He provided a simple manner in which we can all spend eternity with him. As a matter of fact, in II Peter 3:9 we are told that "The Lord
I am saying that it has religious significance because it is the word of God. I am also saying that if it didn't say it was the word of God, that there is no way that anyone could suspect that it was such.
However, to remove that from the Bible would remove about 90% of the text, thus there is no point in following this discussion. I was simply answering your question. And my answer stands that if you took from the Bible, the claims that it was the word of God, then it would only be a very poor history book of a few pages.
I would personally find it difficult to read the Bible and not see it as the truth. The Bible does contain the absolute truth of God, it is strictly written to point to that. There are no stories that stand alone without pointing to the will and truth of God.
The battles are the work of God. Life and death are determined by following the laws of God. The Old Testament shows us how God dealt with his people in times past and to show us that he meant what he says. The New Testament contains the laws that we are to obey today and give the promise of eternal life or death.
I just don't see how it could be any simpler than it is. I guess it is so simple that many people just overlook it.
Welcome to the club. We are all born without faith. Faith is not something that you are born with, it is something that you adopt. If you were born with faith, then it wouldn't be your choice, would it?
Sure the almighty God could have just said that no matter what you do in life, you can then choose from heaven and hell for eternity, but that isn't what he said. We are to become pure like the little children. Unfortunately for the crack baby, it doesn't get to learn anything in life and never learns the difference in right and wrong. That isn't unfortunate for it in eternity as it is born pure. However, its mother made a choice and will have to answer to that choice on her day of judgement.
We have to study what we are pursuing to make sure that it measures up to the standard. Yes the terrorists probably thought that they were doing something for Allah. If they didn't study on their own to verify that what they were pursuing was the truth, then they will be punished approriately in eternity. We are cautioned to watch for false teachers and we are encouraged to "eat the meat" of the word, not drink the milk (or be spoon fed). The one thing that I tell all young (physically young) christians is that you must develop your own faith, you can't depend upon the faith of your parents faith to carry you through life.
If the Bible didn't say it was the truth, then there wouldn't be an issue would there? If it didn't claim to be anything other than a history book, such as written by Josephus and many others throughout time, then it would have no religious significance.
You are correct in saying that many "religious people" don't hold their beliefs to be absolute truth, but there are also people in this world that think that it is OK to kill others for no reason or steal from others, etc. (our prisons are full of them). If there are no absolute rights and wrongs, then the world would be pure chaos and God is not the author of confusion (I Cor 14:33). And Jesus is that truth (John 14:6).
Oh you might be suprised at how many intelligent people hang out on /.
There are even a few that a scholars at things besides computers and other geek things.
Then there are some of us that wish we had the time to develop that knowledge also.
In 1st John 2:3-5 we learn of the knowledge of God's law.
One of his commandments is to study, and thus we learn much about him. And thus I do understand certain aspects of the nature of God and from that I know that following his law is a good idea. Please read John 3:16-18
John 14:2-3 tells of God's plan for us. It sure doesn't sound evil to me. John 3:16 takes care of answering the question of God caring for us. It would take someone very special for me to let my son die for them.
I am not sure what you mean by your last statement, if you could explain it, I might be able to help you a little better.
Now my statement will stand. If the law (in this case God's law), says believe or be punished, then it is up to the law enforcer (in this case God), to enforce that law uniformly. If it is not uniformly enforced, then it is not just.
You are confusing people on earth with God in this statement. I (nor anyone else that I know) would condemn anyone to eternal punishment just because they had different religious beliefs. God doesn't have a religion, as belief in God is defined as religion. However, God (the law enforcer) can and should enforce the prescribed punishment on anyone that doesn't obey the law (whatever that law might say). That is the only ethical and just thing that God could do.
An example of this would be, me telling my children that they had to clean their bedrooms in order to watch something on TV. One cleans their bedroom and the other does not, yet I let both watch TV. That is not just, as I made a "law" and did not uniformly enforce it. Now it might not seem fair to some if I didn't let one of my children watch something (maybe it was something really special that they wanted to watch), but to be just I must enforce the "law".
Interesting that you mention the synods and councils, but then you did mention earlier being taught by jesuits and dominicans (Catholics). If you really study the Bible or (more accurately in this case) the history of it, you would discover that in writings of the 2nd century (before the synods and councils to canonize the Bible by the Catholic church) that all the books of the current New Testament are cataloged and quoted. Thus many years before the Holy Roman Catholic Church gave us the canonized Bible, it was already accepted.
Please re-read the section of Larry's comment concerning the mustard seed. And yes there is some desire required to have faith. You can't really expect God to make you believe can you? If God forced us to believe then there would be no free will. And apparently it is that grain of faith that separates you and I.
Yes, men have misused and twisted the text in times past. But most modern translations find their roots in very early transcripts.
Now I realize that I am telling you something from a book that you don't care about, but your arguement would be like saying that George Washington never existed because I don't like my history book, or that William Shakespeare never existed because I don't like my literature book.
You are correct in saying that the Bible has been questionably translated several times. People have put their own thoughts into the translations and twisted them from the complete truth. This however doesn't remove the fact that the Bible is the book about God and his love for mankind. But remember that belief also involves you loving God in return.
What is "just" about making assent to a single doctrine the basis of eternal damnation?" An interesting question, and there is only one answer. God commanded it and thus it is that way. You could also ask, "What is just about making the speed limit on interstate highways in the US 70 miles per hour, when everyones care is capable of doing 85 miles per hour?" And the answer to that is because the lawmakers wrote the law that way.
Heaven is a surer bet than the lottery and there are many people that believe that they might win millions of dollars in the lottery that they will go and purchase a ticket. How is it that they can't believe in God enough to follow his simple laws.
The way I read this is that if you believe you are part way there but if you don't believe you haven't even found the road. I believe that this is consistent with what Larry puposed in his answer. He wanted to help the person asking the question find the right road. But just like driving your car, finding the right road isn't the whole trip. You have to continue down that road to complete the trip.
Now back to your statement, the Bible itself tells us that all will not be saved. In Matthew 7:13-14 we are told
But then that would be Bible literalism.
Larry is correct that beliefs are a function of background and environment, but that is why Jesus gave us the "great commission" that I mentioned earlier in this post. In Mark 16:15 we are told
If we don't carry out this command, then we ourselves are condeming others to be lost for eternity. Following along the lines of Larry's answer, I don't have the ability to travel into foreign lands and teach, but I have the ability to do other things that will allow others to do that work. I might not be able to go and teach, but I can do programming work here to make money so that someone else can afford to do the other works. I can't do the work directly but I am supporting them in doing it. That is the product of my beliefs and my faith.
A couple of years ago they would have had money thrown at them just because the have "powered by php" and "powered by MySQL" on their homepage and they're running an Apache webserver. Everyone would have assumed that they were open source friendly and just thrown their money at them. Now people are actually looking at the technology, isn't it wonderful!!!
:-)
However, it is cool that they are running open source software for their presence. I wonder if the on-board computers are running Linux or *BSD
Thank you for stooping to the normal level of the "enlightened" side of this discussion. You simply stoop to name calling and insults. You call my beliefs "superstitions" and call me a "retard and cretin".
I agree that God most likely used each creation to build upon for the next. However, this in no way implies that everything evolved. Each species was created in its order and has adapted when necessary.
Wow, a good point, one I hadn't thought about. Scientific theories are proposed to be shot down. Why are you working so hard to support it, when you should be attempting to shoot it down so that it can be refined to better describe the true facts?
/. main page, we have another new scientific discovery!!! And all this time, I thought that the earth was spherical, maybe those pictures from space were really faked (ooops, that would be another arguement).
However, this also contradicts an arguement made eariler by someone claiming to support the same side of this discussion as you. They stated that "Evolution (along with gravity, relativity, and a spherical earth) is a theory." And by putting your spin on this "No. Nothing is ever 'proven' in science. All we have are theories that haven't been overturned -- yet.", I can not determine that the earth has been proven to be spherical? Quick post it to the
While I agree that species do adapt over time, that still doesn't show a fact that points to evolution. I must say that I haven't had time to read the document that you pointed out. However, I suspect that it involves hybrids that are not sterile (not really a new species) or outcomes that go in favor sometimes and against sometimes but the in favors get more press coverage. In other words half of them did something that the scientist predicted so he talks about that and not about the half that behaved normally. Not conclusive!
As to Stephen Jay Gould's statement that you quoted, a theory isn't a fact until it is proven. He might want it to be a fact and he might call it a fact, but no one has presented proof of a new species by evolution yet. Proof by the same scientific rules that are universally accepted for scientific discovery.
As to your second point, in Genesis the words "after his kind" would eliminate evolution. You could still adapt, but not change species for your offspring.
There used to be a theory of gravity, it is now the law of gravity. It has been proven. It has been observed many times. Gee even the folks in east Tennessee call it Newton's 2nd law. And in Oregon. And in Winnepeg. Or do a Google search.
So you are saying that you have proof of the three items you mentioned? Would you please post them for our education? But number 2 is not evolution, it is adaptation and that is totally different and can't be used to prove number 1 (see my previous post concerning the wallabys, they are still wallabys). I am not sure that number 3 can be used to prove number 1 either. There are very good arguements against DNA proving evolution. The fossil record could be misintrepreted, just as the length of time in the earth's creation is being misintrepreted. And morphology is simply studying change which is another way of saying adaptation (using big words to hide the truth).
No, I haven't seen a species or a universe being created. But I also don't refer to it as a theory (nor as a law). It is simply fact and has been declared since the beginning. The "theory of creationism" was created by scientist attempting to drag creation down to the same level as evolution.
I don't hear voices in my head, and I have never heard voices in my head. And you called me a very poor troll.