"Love the LORD." "Love your neighbor as yourself." "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." "Love your enemy." "Never retaliate. Turn the other cheek." "Always forgive." "Return kindness in exchange for evil." "Pray for your enemy." "Don't judge one another." "Don't condemn one another." "Don't love money. Don't be a servant of money. A rich man cannot enter heaven." "Help the poor." "Be a good samaritan. Help those in need." "Give to everyone who asks of you." "Do not resist evil. Do not resist lawsuits." "Keep the 10 Commandments." "Refrain from incest." "Refrain from homosexual conduct." "Be honest in your business." "The LORD helps those who pray." "Faith can move mountains." "Jesus raised the dead, healed the blind, healed leppers, fed thousands." "Salvation and everlasting life come from accepting the sacrifice that the LORD made of His Son, Jesus Christ, on our behalf, on the cross, and that is confirmed by Christ's Ressurection and Ascention into Heaven."
Muslims also keep the 10 Commandemnts, or at least they are suppose to. Christians, Muslims and Jews account for 2/3's of the world's population.
There is much more to the Christian faith than keeping the 10 Commandments. They are central to the faith, however, and I think it would be a better world if everyone were keeping them.
These are quoted from memory, and might not be perfect, but they are identical, in meaning. That doesn't mean I never sin, but it means I try not to sin:
(1) Have no other god than the LORD. (2) Don't make any graven image or likeness of anything in the heavens above, in the earth beneath, or in the water beneath the earth. Don't worship them and don't serve them, for the LORD thy God is a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of those who break His Commandments unto three or four generations, but showing mercy unto thousands, those who keep His Commandments. [Some churches have been routinely breaking this commandment for over a thousand years. The commandment forbits making, worshipping OR serving drawings OR carvings of things such as crucifixes, angels, the LORD (see cistine chapel), devils, or any other thing that groups into that category of "in heaven" "in the earth beneath" or "in the water under the earth".] (3) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it Holy. In six days, do your work, and do all of it, but let the 7th day be a day of rest. For the LORD thy God created the heaven and the earth and everything that is in them in six days, but on the seventh day, the LORD rested, whereupon the seventh day is blessed and hallowed. Neither you, nor your wife, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor the stranger within your gates shall do any work on the sabbath day. [The sabbath is from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday. It never changed, it is the same for Christians, Muslims and Jews. See exodus 16, exodus 20 You are right that it is odd that the Church changed the day of worship from the sabbath to another day, but that doesn't change the sabbath, and it doesn't change the commandment.] (4) Do not take the LORD's name in vain. [Not in anger, profanity, or as conversational emphasis]
(5) Don't kill. (6) Don't steal. (7) Don't bear false witness against your neighbor. [i.e. don't give false testimony] (8) Don't commit adultery. (9) Honor your father and your mother, so your days will be long on the land which the LORD giveth thee. (10) Do not covet your neighbor's wife, his house, his servants, his ox or his ass, or any other thing that is your neighbor's.
Why should you worship the LORD? There's only one LORD, and you're either with Him or you're not. There are places where demon worship is accepted. Demons are really nasty things. If you want to worship demons instead of the LORD, I can't stop you; the LORD will reckon with you.
According to some of the in-flight audio, it didn't sound as though the hijackers believed they'd be flying into buildings.
Do you have any good links?
Logic and analysis dictate that they were chumps being used by a darker agency, (Mossad & American Shadow Gov't).
I wouldn't rule it out, that's for sure, but I'll refrain from building it up when I don't know more than whispers of rumors. I'd like to download the recorded audio.
Jesus never said he was the Father. He once said "I and the Father are one." but there are at least 5 or 6 other verses where that claim is contradicted by other events. The LORD never said he was Jesus. The verse, Zechariah 12:10, looks surprisingly accurate, but honestly it accomplishes with allusion what I would have preferred it did with definitive statements.
I've seen enough of "Satan's light show" not to follow on tangents that result in sin (if I can help it). The First Commandment is the most important of them all, and, therefore, to worship Jesus when there's no solid claim that he was the LORD (except by the apostles who had followed him) seems to be a mistake (as long as I'm not sure).
According to some conspiracy theories, 911 was done by remote control. Of course that doesn't explain how or why the relatives were then calling from planes that were remote control hijacked.
Would it not more accurate to say that the process you describe well and succinctly discovers certain facts about our physical existence?
A process does nothing at all. Rather, it can either be applied or not applied.
The application of the scientific method to help organize the effort of making sense of [some elements of] the physical world is, I believe, rewarding and fruitful, but it is not sufficient for a "total grasp of it all".
Digging in the earth we do find fossils. Astronomers measure starlight and discover the red-shift. These are then interpreted through the world view of either there is or there is not a Creator.
In fact, I have found fossils without even digging. (In Pease Park, Austin TX). And, in fact, I don't think they were dumped there by devils. Haha. But there was another slashdot article, today, that claimed the speed of light had been increased by 300x, under lab conditions. The entire field of astronomy is likely to be refactoring some things, or at least figuring out whether it is necessary to refactor things (such as the distance of stars).
Science never commits to a fixed answer. What was the result of today's experiment could always be overturned tomorrow by a more accurate or informative one.
Anyone who admits a Creator then is faced with the uncomfortable prospect of being accountable to such a Creator. That is where our human sin problem comes in. Because we are sinners, we feel very uneasy, yes plagued by guilt in the light of His perfection and demand for justice.
Abraham wasn't troubled with that, and I don't see any reason that I should be, either. Although I have sinned many times over, I think it is fruitless to go around calling myself a "sinner". I do believe that Christ's role as the sacrifice did successfully atone for the sins of all mankind, but I don't think the people who decline from accepting that are doomed. The Jews are a perfect example. (see below) Just for starters, though, Jesus was a Jew.
Only God Himself could fix that and He did. He became fully human, in Jesus Christ, and took care of our sin by becoming our sin bearer so we would not have to bear that sin ourselves forever.
Actually there is no place in the scripture where the LORD says He was going to come to earth as Jesus Christ, and there is also no place in the scripture where Jesus Christ said he was the LORD. Personally, I try to keep the 10 Commandments, and in particular the first of those 10, which specifies that we are not to worship anyone other than the LORD. Therefore, I do not pray to Jesus, I pray to the LORD. I am receptive to the possibility that Jesus was in fact the same as the LORD, but I'm not going to risk praying to him, insofar as I'm not sure.
God made the entire universe by simply speaking into existence, but He had to do hard work and suffer the cross in order to redeem us humans from sin.
Well, the LORD sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to accomplish that. I don't think it is appropriate to say the Father and the Son are literally the same being.
Salvation is free to us, but was very costly to God.
It was Jesus who died on the cross, and if he was the same being as the LORD, then it's still true that neither he nor the LORD ever said as much. But it seems to me that Jesus is the one who really paid the price for us. The LORD made it possible, but Jesus accomplished it with His help.
Anyone who spurns this gift through unbelief will get perfect justice rather than mercy. I, and I believe you too have chosen the mercy route. I certainly hope and pray that some our fellow readers on this forum will do so also.
According to the logic of your claim, Moses, Isaac, Joshua, Daniel, David, Elijah, Ab
People have all kinds of built-in psychological biases, like the strong bias towards self-preservation. A person's ability and decision to override that particular bias can serve evil, in the case of suicide, or good, in the case of risking one's life to save others.
I will make a distintion, here, for the sake if differentiating a physical bias, and intellectual bias and a spiritual bias, there could be personal or emotional bias. There are probably other forms, as well. Of course, the distinction might not be perfect. There could be gray areas where those domains and biases overlap.
Naturally, there could be cases where biases conflict. For example, if we're talking about the physical bias to eat food, that could come into conflict with a spiritual bias to eat only kosher food.
The importance of that distinction might vary, but in this particular case it is important, since the argument of the geneticists is that there is a gene-based spiritual bias. But the human soul is not a slave to matter. Idolatry advocates might tell you otherwise, but it is not.
It [_A bias to address physical needs_] doesn't obviate free will although it [_that bias_] certainly influences it, just as any of a hundred other [...] tendencies we come equipped with. It is no small facet of Christian belief [_"conventional Christian doctrine" probably works better here_] that one must overcome all kinds of natural tendencies to live a moral life, and yet there is recognition that some instincts and inclinations are beneficial.
A minor re-edit to strengthen your point. [_inserts_]
That this has been expressed in terms of science does not, in my opinion, come into conflict with a belief in God or the moral obligations that this belief implies.
Well, this is specifically where we have disagreement, since I'm saying that indeed, yes, it does.
Stop and consider Daniel, Shadrak, Mishak and Abednigo, who were thrown into the furnace because the King's jealous advisors had provoked him to anger. Leave it to the genes, and there's no telling what those four would have done. A Godless, evolutionistic prediction of their behavior might have them cowering before the King, telling him they were sorry and eating the un-Kosher food, but they held their ground, and stood for their religion, and for the LORD, while they were in the King's court. So the LORD protected them while they were in the furnace.
That there is a difference between basing your understanding of human behavior on the soul & spirit, vs. basing that understanding of human behavior on purely physical grounds is clear. Those who hold themselves to the higher standard are rewarded, insofar as Jesus made this claim "blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they will be filled."
I think you misunderstood. We, unlike computers are not programmed deterministically, we do have a choice.
Well, I certainly didn't misunderstand it, since you didn't say it. If we have a choice then we aren't really programmed at all, are we? Perhaps we are educated, trained or conditioned, etc, but we are not programmed. =D
The FACTS of science and the Bible text as originally written never disagree. It is in the interpretation of both the facts and the text that differences arise. No fact of science disagrees with scripture. Evolution is faith in lots and lots of time. It basically substitutes billions and millions of years for the creative power of God. The evolutionist's God is time, lots of time. Without all that supposed time, evolution is a dead farce, pure belief, masquerading as science. Let me give you some examples to show that your faith is grounded in truth:
There are no facts of science. Science is a process. It is a method of drawing conclusions and making predictions based on emprical analysis. The process of science involves (1) making an observation (2) forming a question about what was seen (3) studying the facts surrounding the question, and framing it as well as possible. (4) forming one or more hypotheses to explain the phenomenon (5) devising an incisive, well measured, repeatable experiment (that also include control groups, and hopefully a "double blind" study) in order to test the hypotheses (6) conducting the experiment(s) (7) study the results and draw conclusions (8) if an hypothesis survives enough experiments, it might be upgraded to "theory."
Darwin's "theory" of evolution has never been tested. It should honestly be called the "hypothesis of evolution." That is because there was never a single experiment conducted which could have confirmed or denied it. It is investigative forensics that resulted in Darwin's Hypothesis taking a believable form. Forensics are not the same thing as science, however.
Many of the forensic conclusions which have been drawn from scientific realms are completely at odds with the scripture. The Hypothesis of Evolution is an example of that. The LORD created the Heaven and the Eart in 6 days, and he rested on the 7th. That is why the sabbath day is hallowed, and we are not supposed to work on it.
If you were telling me that the LORD really lied in teh scripture, adn he took billions of years to accomplish what he said only took him 6 days, well then it would be about a billion years until the first sabbath day, right? But that's not how the sabbath is timed. The sabbath is once a week. Every 7 days, there's another one.
That's an example of a forensic conclusion at odds with the scripture.
There are forms of dating (for instance) that place terrestrial things as if they were older than the Bible says the earth is. That is a second example of scientifically founded forensics being at odds with the Bible.
In order for Jonah's whale to travel to Nineveh, it had to travel over 10,000 miles in 3 days, and part of that was swimming up a river (either the tigris or euphrates, which had dericks).
Fish don't swim that fast.
Scientific hypothises and theories are often at odds with the Bible. So are conclusions that have been reached by means of forensics. Since the scientific method is a process, however, the process is not, and cannot, be at odds with the Bible [no more than the process of performing addition or division]. The scientific method can either be applied or not applied, but the conclusions drawn from its used can be accepted or not; the process [the scientific method] is not a sin.
"A... tendency towards belief does not equal belief."
A good point, actually.
"We are all capable of believing things that contradict experience or common sense..."
Perhaps, perhaps not, according to the geneticists, right? That is within the domain they were exploring. My argument is simply this: their argument took aim at human spirituality and (in an iconoclastic way) attempted to boil it all down to physical matter. According to the level on which they have been arguing, even if the genes didn't account for the person's beliefs, other material phenomena would be taken up to account for the remaining free will. Their argument [that material circumstance accounts for matters of the God and Spirit] is spiritually dead.
The LORD has dominion over all of it, and genetics are the wrong instrument, when it comes to matters of God and Spirit. I've seen things (supernatural things) that genetics will never explain. When they bend their [potentially fruitful] field of study to the end of making it look as if religiosity were the cheap result of material events, it is 100% clear to me that Satan works through them, and they're probably in for a rude awakening.
"I think you are grossly overstating the effect of a tendency..."
The "effect of a tendency?" Is that akin to the "length of a string?"
"...when you suggest that it trumps free will and the exercise of intellect."
I didn't suggest that anything trumped free will. If anything, it's the geneticists who suggested that genes trumped free will. And if they didn't give the whole show to genetics, they carved it part and parcel for physics to take the rest, in the epiphenominal claim that consciousness and free will are just physical by-products of material events. But they are dead wrong, and the "best" they can achieve in their line of analysis is to spiritually mislead people.
Just stop and consider how a new speed of light might affect the field of astronomy, where they've carefully mapped everything out in terms of how long it would have taken the light to reach the earth at 300 times slower than it's new maximum known speed.
Depending on whether those lab conditions are ever met in the wild, there might be some serious refactoring to be done.
BTW, on a theological note, I know that there are those in the Church who seem to claim that Jesus and God are one and the same,
That would be ALL of them.
No, not all of them, since I am a Christian, and I do not believe Christ is the LORD. Jesus never stood up and said it himself; therefore, in keeping with the first commandment, I won't say it either. I believe he is the savior and the SON of God. That is all he ever claimed to be. His apostles started saying Jesus was the LORD after he ascended into heaven; I believe they were probably breaking the first commandment when they did so.
There are several verses that reinforce that belief:
When the Jews were about to stone Jesus for blasphemy his response was "why would you stone me for claiming to be the SON of God, when it is written in your own scripture 'ye are gods'". Now stop and consider the fact that Jesus could have just said "sure, I'm God", but he didn't.
Then there's when Jesus was in the garden before he was arrested, and he prayed and asked the LORD to excuse him from the burden of being crucified. He asked the LORD; he didn't ask himself.
When Jesus was on the cross being crucified, he asked "Father, why have you forsaken me?" He did NOT ask "why have I forsaken myself?"
When Jesus was in the desert, and satan had been tempting him to do wrong things, and Jesus resisted, afterwards, angels came and preached to Jesus. Be clear about the order of things: The LORD made (and taught?) the angels. Not the other way around.
The first of the 10 Commandments says "Have no other gods before the LORD." I'm saying that to worship Jesus might very well break that commandment.
I sustain the possibility that Jesus was the same being as the LORD, but scripturally it is not established.
but if you read the Bible it is clear that Jesus carefully avoided claiming he was God, AND he PRAYED to God, and since he wasn't praying to himself, it is probably a mistake (on the order of breaking the first of the 10 Commadments) to worship Jesus (although I do believe he is the savior, and he was sent from Heaven).
"Before Abraham was, I am." Pilate asked, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You have said it." (this colloquialism equates to "you said it" or "you are correct" in modern English)
If somebody were trying to put words into your mouth, what would you respond?
"You have said it." [and not me]
Now, perhaps you could tell me what Jesus would have said, if he really intended to say what he's quoted as having said. He might have intended to convey that it was Pilate, and not Jesus' own self, who had made [or reiterated] the claim.
On the other hand, Jesus said that his kingdom was "not of this earth". However, that could mean Jesus was a servant of the LORD, [i.e. he was of the LORD's Kingdom] and yet not the LORD Himself.
Abraham was alive in 2100 B.C. However, at that same time, there were living angels in heaven, as well as whatever else the LORD has in Heaven. Consider the fact that angels guided Lot and his family to safety (from Sodom and Gomorra). That was in the same time period as Abraham. Therefore, Jesus being that old does not establish that he was the LORD.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, but through me." (makes no sense unless he is God, because it is also written that "there is no one righteous; no, not one.")
Well, of course nobody reaches the Father, but through him, if Jesus is the Father. But I don't believe Jesus went around saying truisms. The claim actually specifically shows that Jesus considered God the Father to be a seperate entity entirely.
That is what your argument suggests: That we are subject to Heaven or Hell without choice or free will.
But the LORD loves us enough that He chose to give us free will, and the LORD helps people with miracles. The cold empirical facts fall way short of that. Seek and yea shall find. Ask and you will receive. Faith can move mountains. That means: Look for miracles and the silliness of the cold genetic explanation becomes clear.
The LORD trumps all of science. Wordly things are only as deterministic as He allows them to be.
I would be deeply surprised if the experimenters had taken the time (or given the consideration) to examine the DNA of people BEFORE and AFTER they had converted from atheist to religious (or vice versa).
Do you think it would be better to say that any change that occurs - whatever it's attributed to (God/Jesus, the person having newfound motivation, etc.) - is due to psychological experiences rather than genetics?
Well, the term "psychological experiences" is really a very broad blanket. What it defines isn't exactly clear. Within the field of psychology, there are physical psychologists, who explore the relationship between physiological and psychological phenomena. There are behavioral psychologists, who study behavior (but not necessarily why that behavior happens). There are psychoanalists, who study symbolism, dreams, the subconscience, and that sort of thing. There are hypnotists. There are other branches, too, and I probably don't know the half of it, but I guess I'm saying I don't know what it means when you ask whether it is "better" to explain things in terms of psychological events. Psychology is a very broad field (that covers many interesting topics, actually).
I guess that might be a tangent, though, since I'd be much more inclined to say that spiritual/religious experiences are religious/spiritual experiences, and I would not give any field of empirical study dominion over them. In my own life, there was a time when I lived as an agnostic. (15 years) During that time, I had seen NO evidence of God, and I'd given up on faith. But when I finally saw the light, there was no turning back. During that first 15 years, it was empirical science and philosophy that kept me as an agnostic. Since I saw the light, however, no amount of empirical, scientific or psychological speculation could diminish my faith.
Isn't the purpose of this article to say that the whole general concept of religion (just the very fact that it exists) has origins in "evolution or some neurological accident?" I don't think it was proposing that life changes have been due to shift in genetics.
You have successfully isolated the essence my objection. The summary of the article makes the bold faced assertion that "religiosity" comes from science. Basically it makes a big "ven diagram" and says "empirical science & forensics are bigger than God, and bigger than believers in God."
What I, a believer, am saying is that "their conclusions are wrong, and their method of analysis [probably] failed to account for people who have changed their faith." (as I have, since I was once an atheist, then an agnostic, and now am a Christian). What's more, they probably failed to look for patterns such as family heritage [of atheists begetting kids and raising new atheists, for example]. Since the genes follow from the parents to the kids who receive some teaching and conditioning from the parents, it would not be surprising if there were some correlation.
BTW, on a theological note, I know that there are those in the Church who seem to claim that Jesus and God are one and the same, but if you read the Bible it is clear that Jesus carefully avoided claiming he was God, AND he PRAYED to God, and since he wasn't praying to himself, it is probably a mistake (on the order of breaking the first of the 10 Commadments) to worship Jesus (although I do believe he is the savior, and he was sent from Heaven).
Enforcement of the First Amendment guarantees that we have a right to freedom of speech. They cannot charge us money to exercise that right. If I make a band, and I release my music as public domain, it can be played on internet radio stations.
There is plenty of public domain music, and [internet] radio stations have a right to play it, specifically, due to the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
No contracts would have to be signed, for such a thing, and to block First Amendment rights would be unconstitutional.
Miranda vs. Arizona Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 p.491. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
hubris/hyubrs, hu-/ Pronunciation[hyoo-bris, hoo-] -noun excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.
example: "Eventually the geneticist's hubris became evident."
it would make sense for God to give us a innate tendency to believe in Him
You're right, it WOULD. But that does not explain why he would leave the remaining 8% in the cold. Nor does it account for people who switch from atheist to religious, or vice versa. It also fails to explain why some religions are mutually exclusive. (A person who keeps the 10 Commandments, for instance, cannot be a hindu or a buddist, since the first commandment rules out worshipping any other gods, and those religions are polytheistic.)
Back to the argument about atheists who convert, are they claiming that the very genes of such people have changed?
To carry the examination further, the hypothesis does not explain why the LORD would predetermine the absence of faith, and then punish those who were deprived of the "faith gene".
I think it is flawed to claim that human free will, in particular where matters of the spirit are concerned, is 100% subject to material constraints. (i.e. protein, tissue and DNA) Perhaps the material (the DNA) is subject to SPIRITUAL constraints. That would really get some people thinking, now, wouldn't it.
I would be deeply surprised if the experimenters had taken the time (or given the consideration) to examine the DNA of people BEFORE and AFTER they had converted from atheist to religious (or vice versa).
To claim that religion/non-religion boils down to genetics merely makes excuses for those who don't believe, and it also makes excuses for those who don't help the ones who don't believe.
The sins of atheists are still sins, and the silence of believers is still silence. If you know there's a person who goes every day without prayer, and rather than saying "it's in their genes, forget about it", it is better to say "there are atheists who have converted; I will talk to them; I will pray for them."
In the wild west those beaurocrats would be swinging from a gallows. They really had some things figured out, back then, in the wild west.
My claim is not that they were asking for much, in terms of modifying the cards, although that is also questionable. My claim is that the sanctions [with which they threaten] are unconstitutional. What's more, it is indeed deeply disturbing that the federal government would adopt a policy designed to force U.S. citizens to choose between their privacy and their liberty. The government should be an ally to both of those interests.
From the article: "States must submit a plan of how they'll comply with the Real ID Act by October 7, 2007. If they don't, their residents will not be able to use IDs to board planes or enter federal buildings starting on May 11, 2008."
It means that the right of U.S. citizens to enter U.S. federal buildings [and to board airplanes] would be revoked, unless they are from states that complied with the "Real ID" act.
That would violate the Bill of Rights. (1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments) The right to enter federal buildings, in some cases, corresponds directly to the ability to petition the government.
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In many cases, that includes poling centers, AND it almost certainly includes the famous Washington lobbies (where corporations and special interests have so infamously gotten their way with our government).
The sanctions of the policy are therefore unconstitutional, based on the miranda ruling.
Miranda vs. Arizona Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 p.491. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Marbury vs Madison Marbury vs. Madison 5 U.S. 137, 174, 176. (1803) states: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
Miranda vs. Arizona Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 p.491. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
This will, of course, be considered child abuse when it is first done. In a century or two it will be considered abuse NOT to have it done for your kid.
I doubt both claims, and I think it's a grave mistake, building pessimism into your expectations of people.
If a blind child can see again, nobody's likely to claim it was child abuse that led there. (unless the chip posed some health risk, but they must have tested in on animals first, right?)
On the other hand, if sony develops a new graphics chip in 20 years and it's all the rave, there won't be any reason to blame the people who opt for good old fashioned God-given human-sense-based reality.
As for two HUNDRED years from now... well, I don't presume to know what will be happening so far into the future.
It's amazing stuff, though. It reminds me of System Shock I. I guess they've finally for-real bridged the gap between man and machine.
Slashdot Mirror
There's really nothing offensive about it:
"Love the LORD."
"Love your neighbor as yourself."
"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."
"Love your enemy."
"Never retaliate. Turn the other cheek."
"Always forgive."
"Return kindness in exchange for evil."
"Pray for your enemy."
"Don't judge one another."
"Don't condemn one another."
"Don't love money. Don't be a servant of money. A rich man cannot enter heaven."
"Help the poor."
"Be a good samaritan. Help those in need."
"Give to everyone who asks of you."
"Do not resist evil. Do not resist lawsuits."
"Keep the 10 Commandments."
"Refrain from incest."
"Refrain from homosexual conduct."
"Be honest in your business."
"The LORD helps those who pray."
"Faith can move mountains."
"Jesus raised the dead, healed the blind, healed leppers, fed thousands."
"Salvation and everlasting life come from accepting the sacrifice that the LORD made of His Son, Jesus Christ, on our behalf, on the cross, and that is confirmed by Christ's Ressurection and Ascention into Heaven."
Muslims also keep the 10 Commandemnts, or at least they are suppose to. Christians, Muslims and Jews account for 2/3's of the world's population.
There is much more to the Christian faith than keeping the 10 Commandments.
They are central to the faith, however, and I think it would be a better world if everyone were keeping them.
These are quoted from memory, and might not be perfect, but they are identical, in meaning. That doesn't mean I never sin, but it means I try not to sin:
(1) Have no other god than the LORD.
(2) Don't make any graven image or likeness of anything in the heavens above, in the earth beneath, or in the water beneath the earth. Don't worship them and don't serve them, for the LORD thy God is a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of those who break His Commandments unto three or four generations, but showing mercy unto thousands, those who keep His Commandments.
[Some churches have been routinely breaking this commandment for over a thousand years. The commandment forbits making, worshipping OR serving drawings OR carvings of things such as crucifixes, angels, the LORD (see cistine chapel), devils, or any other thing that groups into that category of "in heaven" "in the earth beneath" or "in the water under the earth".]
(3) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it Holy. In six days, do your work, and do all of it, but let the 7th day be a day of rest. For the LORD thy God created the heaven and the earth and everything that is in them in six days, but on the seventh day, the LORD rested, whereupon the seventh day is blessed and hallowed. Neither you, nor your wife, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor the stranger within your gates shall do any work on the sabbath day.
[The sabbath is from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday. It never changed, it is the same for Christians, Muslims and Jews. See exodus 16, exodus 20 You are right that it is odd that the Church changed the day of worship from the sabbath to another day, but that doesn't change the sabbath, and it doesn't change the commandment.]
(4) Do not take the LORD's name in vain.
[Not in anger, profanity, or as conversational emphasis]
(5) Don't kill.
(6) Don't steal.
(7) Don't bear false witness against your neighbor.
[i.e. don't give false testimony]
(8) Don't commit adultery.
(9) Honor your father and your mother, so your days will be long on the land which the LORD giveth thee.
(10) Do not covet your neighbor's wife, his house, his servants, his ox or his ass, or any other thing that is your neighbor's.
Why should you worship the LORD? There's only one LORD, and you're either with Him or you're not. There are places where demon worship is accepted. Demons are really nasty things. If you want to worship demons instead of the LORD, I can't stop you; the LORD will reckon with you.
It sounds to me as if the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution almost certainly overrules the Connecticut bill.
And if he isn't, he isn't.
Saying "I am" a bunch of times doesn't change this, that, or the other.
Unless something really important changes, I intend to keep the 10 Commandments as long as I'm able. Especially the first one.
Your water example is prime: If you need a glass of water, the same amount of vapor won't do you any good.
Do you have any good links?
I wouldn't rule it out, that's for sure, but I'll refrain from building it up when I don't know more than whispers of rumors. I'd like to download the recorded audio.
Jesus never said he was the Father. He once said "I and the Father are one." but there are at least 5 or 6 other verses where that claim is contradicted by other events. The LORD never said he was Jesus. The verse, Zechariah 12:10, looks surprisingly accurate, but honestly it accomplishes with allusion what I would have preferred it did with definitive statements.
I've seen enough of "Satan's light show" not to follow on tangents that result in sin (if I can help it). The First Commandment is the most important of them all, and, therefore, to worship Jesus when there's no solid claim that he was the LORD (except by the apostles who had followed him) seems to be a mistake (as long as I'm not sure).
Yet?! That's silly. We have First Amendment rights.
The real "yet" is: "Yet people haven't been streaming free audio as much as the could have. Not yet."
According to some conspiracy theories, 911 was done by remote control. Of course that doesn't explain how or why the relatives were then calling from planes that were remote control hijacked.
A process does nothing at all. Rather, it can either be applied or not applied.
The application of the scientific method to help organize the effort of making sense of [some elements of] the physical world is, I believe, rewarding and fruitful, but it is not sufficient for a "total grasp of it all".
In fact, I have found fossils without even digging. (In Pease Park, Austin TX). And, in fact, I don't think they were dumped there by devils. Haha. But there was another slashdot article, today, that claimed the speed of light had been increased by 300x, under lab conditions. The entire field of astronomy is likely to be refactoring some things, or at least figuring out whether it is necessary to refactor things (such as the distance of stars).
Science never commits to a fixed answer. What was the result of today's experiment could always be overturned tomorrow by a more accurate or informative one.
Abraham wasn't troubled with that, and I don't see any reason that I should be, either. Although I have sinned many times over, I think it is fruitless to go around calling myself a "sinner". I do believe that Christ's role as the sacrifice did successfully atone for the sins of all mankind, but I don't think the people who decline from accepting that are doomed. The Jews are a perfect example. (see below) Just for starters, though, Jesus was a Jew.
Actually there is no place in the scripture where the LORD says He was going to come to earth as Jesus Christ, and there is also no place in the scripture where Jesus Christ said he was the LORD. Personally, I try to keep the 10 Commandments, and in particular the first of those 10, which specifies that we are not to worship anyone other than the LORD. Therefore, I do not pray to Jesus, I pray to the LORD. I am receptive to the possibility that Jesus was in fact the same as the LORD, but I'm not going to risk praying to him, insofar as I'm not sure.
Well, the LORD sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to accomplish that. I don't think it is appropriate to say the Father and the Son are literally the same being.
It was Jesus who died on the cross, and if he was the same being as the LORD, then it's still true that neither he nor the LORD ever said as much. But it seems to me that Jesus is the one who really paid the price for us. The LORD made it possible, but Jesus accomplished it with His help.
According to the logic of your claim, Moses, Isaac, Joshua, Daniel, David, Elijah, Ab
I will make a distintion, here, for the sake if differentiating a physical bias, and intellectual bias and a spiritual bias, there could be personal or emotional bias. There are probably other forms, as well. Of course, the distinction might not be perfect. There could be gray areas where those domains and biases overlap.
Naturally, there could be cases where biases conflict. For example, if we're talking about the physical bias to eat food, that could come into conflict with a spiritual bias to eat only kosher food.
The importance of that distinction might vary, but in this particular case it is important, since the argument of the geneticists is that there is a gene-based spiritual bias. But the human soul is not a slave to matter. Idolatry advocates might tell you otherwise, but it is not.
A minor re-edit to strengthen your point. [_inserts_]
Well, this is specifically where we have disagreement, since I'm saying that indeed, yes, it does.
Stop and consider Daniel, Shadrak, Mishak and Abednigo, who were thrown into the furnace because the King's jealous advisors had provoked him to anger. Leave it to the genes, and there's no telling what those four would have done. A Godless, evolutionistic prediction of their behavior might have them cowering before the King, telling him they were sorry and eating the un-Kosher food, but they held their ground, and stood for their religion, and for the LORD, while they were in the King's court. So the LORD protected them while they were in the furnace.
That there is a difference between basing your understanding of human behavior on the soul & spirit, vs. basing that understanding of human behavior on purely physical grounds is clear. Those who hold themselves to the higher standard are rewarded, insofar as Jesus made this claim "blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they will be filled."
Well, I certainly didn't misunderstand it, since you didn't say it. If we have a choice then we aren't really programmed at all, are we? Perhaps we are educated, trained or conditioned, etc, but we are not programmed. =D
There are no facts of science. Science is a process. It is a method of drawing conclusions and making predictions based on emprical analysis. The process of science involves
(1) making an observation
(2) forming a question about what was seen
(3) studying the facts surrounding the question, and framing it as well as possible.
(4) forming one or more hypotheses to explain the phenomenon
(5) devising an incisive, well measured, repeatable experiment (that also include control groups, and hopefully a "double blind" study) in order to test the hypotheses
(6) conducting the experiment(s)
(7) study the results and draw conclusions
(8) if an hypothesis survives enough experiments, it might be upgraded to "theory."
Darwin's "theory" of evolution has never been tested. It should honestly be called the "hypothesis of evolution." That is because there was never a single experiment conducted which could have confirmed or denied it. It is investigative forensics that resulted in Darwin's Hypothesis taking a believable form. Forensics are not the same thing as science, however.
Many of the forensic conclusions which have been drawn from scientific realms are completely at odds with the scripture. The Hypothesis of Evolution is an example of that. The LORD created the Heaven and the Eart in 6 days, and he rested on the 7th. That is why the sabbath day is hallowed, and we are not supposed to work on it.
If you were telling me that the LORD really lied in teh scripture, adn he took billions of years to accomplish what he said only took him 6 days, well then it would be about a billion years until the first sabbath day, right? But that's not how the sabbath is timed. The sabbath is once a week. Every 7 days, there's another one.
That's an example of a forensic conclusion at odds with the scripture.
There are forms of dating (for instance) that place terrestrial things as if they were older than the Bible says the earth is. That is a second example of scientifically founded forensics being at odds with the Bible.
In order for Jonah's whale to travel to Nineveh, it had to travel over 10,000 miles in 3 days, and part of that was swimming up a river (either the tigris or euphrates, which had dericks).
Fish don't swim that fast.
Scientific hypothises and theories are often at odds with the Bible. So are conclusions that have been reached by means of forensics. Since the scientific method is a process, however, the process is not, and cannot, be at odds with the Bible [no more than the process of performing addition or division]. The scientific method can either be applied or not applied, but the conclusions drawn from its used can be accepted or not; the process [the scientific method] is not a sin.
There. I hope that helps.
A good point, actually.
Perhaps, perhaps not, according to the geneticists, right? That is within the domain they were exploring. My argument is simply this: their argument took aim at human spirituality and (in an iconoclastic way) attempted to boil it all down to physical matter. According to the level on which they have been arguing, even if the genes didn't account for the person's beliefs, other material phenomena would be taken up to account for the remaining free will. Their argument [that material circumstance accounts for matters of the God and Spirit] is spiritually dead.
The LORD has dominion over all of it, and genetics are the wrong instrument, when it comes to matters of God and Spirit. I've seen things (supernatural things) that genetics will never explain. When they bend their [potentially fruitful] field of study to the end of making it look as if religiosity were the cheap result of material events, it is 100% clear to me that Satan works through them, and they're probably in for a rude awakening.
The "effect of a tendency?" Is that akin to the "length of a string?"
I didn't suggest that anything trumped free will. If anything, it's the geneticists who suggested that genes trumped free will. And if they didn't give the whole show to genetics, they carved it part and parcel for physics to take the rest, in the epiphenominal claim that consciousness and free will are just physical by-products of material events. But they are dead wrong, and the "best" they can achieve in their line of analysis is to spiritually mislead people.
Just stop and consider how a new speed of light might affect the field of astronomy, where they've carefully mapped everything out in terms of how long it would have taken the light to reach the earth at 300 times slower than it's new maximum known speed.
Depending on whether those lab conditions are ever met in the wild, there might be some serious refactoring to be done.
No, not all of them, since I am a Christian, and I do not believe Christ is the LORD. Jesus never stood up and said it himself; therefore, in keeping with the first commandment, I won't say it either. I believe he is the savior and the SON of God. That is all he ever claimed to be. His apostles started saying Jesus was the LORD after he ascended into heaven; I believe they were probably breaking the first commandment when they did so.
There are several verses that reinforce that belief:
When the Jews were about to stone Jesus for blasphemy his response was "why would you stone me for claiming to be the SON of God, when it is written in your own scripture 'ye are gods'". Now stop and consider the fact that Jesus could have just said "sure, I'm God", but he didn't.
Then there's when Jesus was in the garden before he was arrested, and he prayed and asked the LORD to excuse him from the burden of being crucified. He asked the LORD; he didn't ask himself.
When Jesus was on the cross being crucified, he asked "Father, why have you forsaken me?" He did NOT ask "why have I forsaken myself?"
When Jesus was in the desert, and satan had been tempting him to do wrong things, and Jesus resisted, afterwards, angels came and preached to Jesus. Be clear about the order of things: The LORD made (and taught?) the angels. Not the other way around.
The first of the 10 Commandments says "Have no other gods before the LORD." I'm saying that to worship Jesus might very well break that commandment.
I sustain the possibility that Jesus was the same being as the LORD, but scripturally it is not established.
If somebody were trying to put words into your mouth, what would you respond?
"You have said it." [and not me]
Now, perhaps you could tell me what Jesus would have said, if he really intended to say what he's quoted as having said. He might have intended to convey that it was Pilate, and not Jesus' own self, who had made [or reiterated] the claim.
On the other hand, Jesus said that his kingdom was "not of this earth". However, that could mean Jesus was a servant of the LORD, [i.e. he was of the LORD's Kingdom] and yet not the LORD Himself.
Abraham was alive in 2100 B.C. However, at that same time, there were living angels in heaven, as well as whatever else the LORD has in Heaven. Consider the fact that angels guided Lot and his family to safety (from Sodom and Gomorra). That was in the same time period as Abraham. Therefore, Jesus being that old does not establish that he was the LORD.
Well, of course nobody reaches the Father, but through him, if Jesus is the Father. But I don't believe Jesus went around saying truisms. The claim actually specifically shows that Jesus considered God the Father to be a seperate entity entirely.
What
Tibetan Buddism is specifically what I had in mind.
http://www.wanderings.net/notebook/Main/SoYouWant
"In some cases, the teachings of Buddha have become intertwined with local polytheistic traditions, as in Tibetan Buddhism."
Sure, no problem, I'll make a note to send you a detailed email probably tomorrow.
That is what your argument suggests: That we are subject to Heaven or Hell without choice or free will.
But the LORD loves us enough that He chose to give us free will, and the LORD helps people with miracles. The cold empirical facts fall way short of that. Seek and yea shall find. Ask and you will receive. Faith can move mountains. That means: Look for miracles and the silliness of the cold genetic explanation becomes clear.
The LORD trumps all of science. Wordly things are only as deterministic as He allows them to be.
Well, the term "psychological experiences" is really a very broad blanket. What it defines isn't exactly clear. Within the field of psychology, there are physical psychologists, who explore the relationship between physiological and psychological phenomena. There are behavioral psychologists, who study behavior (but not necessarily why that behavior happens). There are psychoanalists, who study symbolism, dreams, the subconscience, and that sort of thing. There are hypnotists. There are other branches, too, and I probably don't know the half of it, but I guess I'm saying I don't know what it means when you ask whether it is "better" to explain things in terms of psychological events. Psychology is a very broad field (that covers many interesting topics, actually).
I guess that might be a tangent, though, since I'd be much more inclined to say that spiritual/religious experiences are religious/spiritual experiences, and I would not give any field of empirical study dominion over them. In my own life, there was a time when I lived as an agnostic. (15 years) During that time, I had seen NO evidence of God, and I'd given up on faith. But when I finally saw the light, there was no turning back. During that first 15 years, it was empirical science and philosophy that kept me as an agnostic. Since I saw the light, however, no amount of empirical, scientific or psychological speculation could diminish my faith.
You have successfully isolated the essence my objection. The summary of the article makes the bold faced assertion that "religiosity" comes from science. Basically it makes a big "ven diagram" and says "empirical science & forensics are bigger than God, and bigger than believers in God."
What I, a believer, am saying is that "their conclusions are wrong, and their method of analysis [probably] failed to account for people who have changed their faith." (as I have, since I was once an atheist, then an agnostic, and now am a Christian). What's more, they probably failed to look for patterns such as family heritage [of atheists begetting kids and raising new atheists, for example]. Since the genes follow from the parents to the kids who receive some teaching and conditioning from the parents, it would not be surprising if there were some correlation.
BTW, on a theological note, I know that there are those in the Church who seem to claim that Jesus and God are one and the same, but if you read the Bible it is clear that Jesus carefully avoided claiming he was God, AND he PRAYED to God, and since he wasn't praying to himself, it is probably a mistake (on the order of breaking the first of the 10 Commadments) to worship Jesus (although I do believe he is the savior, and he was sent from Heaven).
Enforcement of the First Amendment guarantees that we have a right to freedom of speech. They cannot charge us money to exercise that right. If I make a band, and I release my music as public domain, it can be played on internet radio stations.
There is plenty of public domain music, and [internet] radio stations have a right to play it, specifically, due to the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
No contracts would have to be signed, for such a thing, and to block First Amendment rights would be unconstitutional.
Miranda vs. Arizona
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 p.491. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Pronunciation[hyoo-bris, hoo-]
-noun excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.
example:
"Eventually the geneticist's hubris became evident."
You're right, it WOULD. But that does not explain why he would leave the remaining 8% in the cold. Nor does it account for people who switch from atheist to religious, or vice versa. It also fails to explain why some religions are mutually exclusive. (A person who keeps the 10 Commandments, for instance, cannot be a hindu or a buddist, since the first commandment rules out worshipping any other gods, and those religions are polytheistic.)
Back to the argument about atheists who convert, are they claiming that the very genes of such people have changed?
To carry the examination further, the hypothesis does not explain why the LORD would predetermine the absence of faith, and then punish those who were deprived of the "faith gene".
I think it is flawed to claim that human free will, in particular where matters of the spirit are concerned, is 100% subject to material constraints. (i.e. protein, tissue and DNA) Perhaps the material (the DNA) is subject to SPIRITUAL constraints. That would really get some people thinking, now, wouldn't it.
I would be deeply surprised if the experimenters had taken the time (or given the consideration) to examine the DNA of people BEFORE and AFTER they had converted from atheist to religious (or vice versa).
To claim that religion/non-religion boils down to genetics merely makes excuses for those who don't believe, and it also makes excuses for those who don't help the ones who don't believe.
The sins of atheists are still sins, and the silence of believers is still silence. If you know there's a person who goes every day without prayer, and rather than saying "it's in their genes, forget about it", it is better to say "there are atheists who have converted; I will talk to them; I will pray for them."
In the wild west those beaurocrats would be swinging from a gallows. They really had some things figured out, back then, in the wild west.
My claim is not that they were asking for much, in terms of modifying the cards, although that is also questionable. My claim is that the sanctions [with which they threaten] are unconstitutional. What's more, it is indeed deeply disturbing that the federal government would adopt a policy designed to force U.S. citizens to choose between their privacy and their liberty. The government should be an ally to both of those interests.
From the article: "States must submit a plan of how they'll comply with the Real ID Act by October 7, 2007. If they don't, their residents will not be able to use IDs to board planes or enter federal buildings starting on May 11, 2008."
It means that the right of U.S. citizens to enter U.S. federal buildings [and to board airplanes] would be revoked, unless they are from states that complied with the "Real ID" act.
That would violate the Bill of Rights. (1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments) The right to enter federal buildings, in some cases, corresponds directly to the ability to petition the government.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In many cases, that includes poling centers, AND it almost certainly includes the famous Washington lobbies (where corporations and special interests have so infamously gotten their way with our government).
The sanctions of the policy are therefore unconstitutional, based on the miranda ruling.
Miranda vs. Arizona
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 p.491. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Right?
Streaming audio isn't a crime.
Amendment IV
n ce/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experie
Marbury vs Madison
Marbury vs. Madison 5 U.S. 137, 174, 176. (1803) states: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
Miranda vs. Arizona
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 p.491. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Sorry, but your comparison is just plain wrong. The electronics kits really do provide a fun and useful way to learn about circuitry.
I doubt both claims, and I think it's a grave mistake, building pessimism into your expectations of people.
If a blind child can see again, nobody's likely to claim it was child abuse that led there. (unless the chip posed some health risk, but they must have tested in on animals first, right?)
On the other hand, if sony develops a new graphics chip in 20 years and it's all the rave, there won't be any reason to blame the people who opt for good old fashioned God-given human-sense-based reality.
As for two HUNDRED years from now... well, I don't presume to know what will be happening so far into the future.
It's amazing stuff, though. It reminds me of System Shock I. I guess they've finally for-real bridged the gap between man and machine.
Does this mean they finally caught him? And he's running for president? Sure, I guess, *anything* to be rid of Bush...