Awesome. I don't understand those who think we could be the only intelligent life in the galaxy, or even the universe.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I have a friend who goes to school at a Bible college which promotes Young Earth Creationism. There was a guy who did a presentation similar to this, showing the incredible vastness and variety of the universe.
And his conclusion was that since Mankind is the only life in the universe, God created all that just to show His Own Majesty.
So God's an arrogant dick I guess...
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Your friend seems to want to limit God's power, while thinking he knows God's plan, and place human kind on a pedestal of some biblical sort.
For those that believe in God that would be a narrow minded thing to do. To bad religion seems to be a cause of, and not a cure for, narrow minded people.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Which was what I was *trying* to say Incidentally my friend isn't a YEC herself, which got her into a shouting match with one of her professors. However it's pretty easy to see that YEC is based on fear. A little cozy cosmology with order and safety and a comprehensible divine being who is rather like a stern father figure. It's a bit puke-ish to me.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
First link doesn't work. Tracked down the moved blog but the pictures don't work.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Does anyone have that last pic in wallpaper size?
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Here yeh go. Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Dude, you rule.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
No prob...I knew what the image was called (the Hubble Ultra Deep Field) so google was my friend.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I saw a cool documentary (an adaptation of a book) called "Privileged Planet". While pointing out the vastness and wonder of the universe, it makes some really neat observations about the Earth's location and other aspects of its construction that make it ideal for observing the rest of the universe from its surface. Almost like someone wanted the people living here to be able to learn about everything else. It's actually a really cool documentary whether you belive in a divine being or not.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Looks like someone's drunk the Cool-Aid...
Actually I remember seeing somewhere that it's good that our solar system has gas giants. Not only do they look cool, they also indirectly protect Earth from asteroids as their gravitation pull makes them more susceptible to asteroid collisions than our little blue planet.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Doesn't every system have gas giants? Certainly everything we've discovered so far. Also I don't see how Earth is particularly special in observing the universe....I mean it's finite but unbounded, the universe that is, so anywhere you stand you can see everywhere else.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
And an airless planet would be better for observing the universe. Less light scatter during the day and less atmosphere shimmer at night. The best observing we've been able to do so far has been from a telescope we've put in space -- i.e. off the frikkin' planet.
--Jonah
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
One point I would like to make is that the assumption seems to always be made that there are much older civilizations in the Universe and we are relative newcomers. It would seem highly improbable that you would have multiple civilizations beginning virtually simultaneously throughout the cosmos. That means that there should be a single civilization that is "The First Ones".
So why is it automatically assumed that we are NOT the first ones? I mean, it IS a possibility. Sure it is a small chance, but is possible.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
True. Possible. Our sun is estimated to be a third-generation star in our galaxy. This might be how long is required to accumulate enough organic molecules to eventually develop into us. We may be one of the older civililzations in our galaxy. And I have no doubt there are both younger and older galaxies out there. Maybe a bigger galaxy would accumulate heavier elements faster because there are more suns blowing up.
Man it would be lonely to be the first. On the flipside, think of all the unclaimed territory out there...
--Jonah
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: And an airless planet would be better for observing the universe.
Yes, but somewhat less conducive to anyone being there to observe anything.
And one of the points they discuss is the fact that all locations in the galaxy are not equal in terms of observing the cosmos. IIRC, in some locations the stars in our own galaxy would block our ability to see anything outside of the Milky Way.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: Awesome. I don't understand those who think we could be the only intelligent life in the galaxy, or even the universe.
Just like I don't understand those who think all of this could have happened by accident or chance and not by an intelligent designer.
quote:I have a friend who goes to school at a Bible college which promotes Young Earth Creationism...
Shudders... so often Christendom's churches and universities try to scientifically explain Creation and all they end up doing is muddying the waters and making a mockery of things.
The Bible is not a scientific textbook. Yet, when it does touch on science and the physical universe, it is completely accurate. Sadly most of the churches don't understand or fail to present it as such.
I believe in God. I believe we were created by God. However, the teaching that God made the Earth in 6 literal days and that the planet is only a few thousand years old is inaccurate and misleading. That's not what the Bible says.
quote:Your friend seems to want to limit God's power, while thinking he knows God's plan, and place human kind on a pedestal of some biblical sort.
I got the impression it was the guy Daniel's friend was shouting at/with that had this conclusion.
quote:So why is it automatically assumed that we are NOT the first ones?
LOL! I've said the same thing. It's become quite a SciFi stereotype that there are "Old Ones" out there and Humanity ISN'T it.
quote:Man it would be lonely to be the first. On the flipside, think of all the unclaimed territory out there...
Would these "Old Ones" have these same arguments? From their standpoint the universe would still be vast and capable of supporting other civilizations. Would they be arguing that "there's got to be other, older life out there"?
After all, someone has to be first.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I think the idea that we're probably not the first one is born out of the fact that there seams to be much older stars and galaxies out there than are own and by extension older planets that may or may not have gotten life started billions of years before our sun was even born. Sure someone had to be first, but odds are it probably wasn't us.
Just take our own planet's history for example, if it weren't for the Chicxulub impact, it's possible some Cretaceous species could have beaten us to the sapient punch by tens of millions of years...who knows, maybe some did and we just don't know it. Indeed (if memory serves) it's debatable whether the Neanderthal pre-date us or not, or even at which point dose a species become truly "intelligent" or sapient.
My main problem with people trying to use the Bible as the basis for the origin of all creation is that it's not a book, it's a collection of disparate texts that have been edited, translated several time and even their inclusion voted on by politically motivated church members. Even then, most of those texts were written by people (ie humans, not God) who spent allot of time out in the desert eating mushrooms an cactus juice...not the most reliable combination.
At best it's metaphor and allegory.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Well, no. At best, it's an inspired collection of writings. At worst it was written by cactus-juiced nomads.
Here's the thing though... most of what creation accounts in the Bible say are probably consistent with what people who don't believe the Bible is reliable think about the creation of the universe.
1. The physical universe had a start. 2. That start took ALOT of energy. 3. The universe and the earth itself has been around for a looooong time.
Various accounts also touch on things like the Earth's orbit and the differing sizes of stars.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Can someone provide a link that works for the first link?
This is what I see when I click the link:
quote:Forbidden You don't have permission to access /watts/2007/05/galactic_perspective.html on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Just take our own planet's history for example, if it weren't for the Chicxulub impact, it's possible some Cretaceous species could have beaten us to the sapient punch by tens of millions of years...
So then Earth would be home to the Mon Calimari? Oh, wait, you said Cretaceous, not crustacean.
Nevermind...
Posted by HopefulNebula (Member # 1933) on :
And it's also just as presumptuous to assume that we'll be able to recognize life as intelligent, or even alive; their form or methods of communication might be totally different from what we expect.
Who knows? There could be a hyper-intelligent shade or twelve of the color blue out there.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: Well, no. At best, it's an inspired collection of writings. At worst it was written by cactus-juiced nomads.
Sorry, I meant in the context of a document of the universe as a physical reality, not the spiritual aspects. I should have been more precise.
Not that this or other works of creation myth are totally without merit. As I recall the ancient Greek creation myth read as being surprisingly close to some of the early universe/big bang type theories. If you can put the anthropomorphising aspects out of your mind. Though to me it just lends credence to the idea that some ancient civilisations were more advances in terms of astronomy and mathematics than we might think and fragments of that lost knowledge was passed on through stories and myth, though not always in the original context. Not that I'd apply that to Genesis as a verbatim interpretation of something that actually happened, as it's a story that's as much about why women are flawed, untrustworthy and inferior to men as it is about how the world was created.
quote:Originally posted by HopefulNebula: And it's also just as presumptuous to assume that we'll be able to recognize life as intelligent, or even alive; their form or methods of communication might be totally different from what we expect.
Who knows? There could be a hyper-intelligent shade or twelve of the color blue out there.
To paraphrase Arthur C. Clark, it's hard enough finding intelligent life on Earth.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I agree with Hopeful. Like I said, there could be life made of things we can't even directly perceive. Or even if there is life made of matter like us, they could be intelligent nebulae, stars, or the like. There could be beings made of energy - not in the Trek glowing ball sense, but in the sense of somehow intelligent patterns of movement or heat in massive objects. Even supposing there was life just like us, a la most of sci fi, if it's more advanced than we are it could still go undetected, and if it's not, then it's no wonder they haven't visited us yet.
Also, assuming the life of the universe is finite, it's going to last a *very* long time anyway, and even if there were a trillion species achieving sentience before us, we're *still* one of the oldest. The universe has still been around less than 20 billion years after all. In another hundred trillion that's going to seem like the beginning of time.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
As far as the time thing for Creation, for some odd reason a question popped into my head one night concerning time and gravity. IIRC, the basic theory is that approaching the event horizon of a black hole results in a dilation of time as we know it. Given that the theory is that all matter in the universe existed in one compacted sphere, this would seem to equate not only to infinite mass, but infinite gravity as well. If something the size of a black hole can alter time being of infinitesimally less mass than the Original Ball, what then would be the temporal affect on the OB? The sheer forces required to cause the mass expulsion would be unimaginably enormous, However as the expansion occurred there would still be significant gravitational distortion of time due to the relative amounts of mass within each small sector. Until the galaxies themselves had sufficient separation and had then spun out the individual solar systems with sufficient separation, time itself would not be in operation as we now understand it. Would time be virtually non-existent through the first centillion miles each galactic mass traveled from the OB? As the galactic cores which would have far more mass than a black hole began to coalesce and fling out solar systems would that be when time would start to approach what we know?
Yes, I believe in God, in Jesus Christ and the Bible. If you think that makes me a moron, well, its a semi-free internet and you are entitled to your opinion. Do I think that everything was created in six days? I think it is along the same parameters as being the "First Ones".
It IS a possibility.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
While I consider myself an atheist, or at least a non-believer, I have no problem accepting most of what is in the holy bible. It has been documented that Jesus WAS a real person, and when you think of it, the bible is pretty much the only venue people of the time had to record history to be delivered to the masses, besides oral history, which can become distorted. Actually, what I have just said kind of makes me question my stance on the whole thing. I have no problem agreeing with Christian beliefs, but I just dont believe in a god, and the deadly sins ( of which I have commited probably a great deal). But as one of my friends pointed out the other day, I do believe in myself, and my friends, the strength of my reltionships, and for the most part, I have faith in humanity.
Damn, this is confusing.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Wiz: Kind of sounds like an explanation for inflation.
Sean, I don't think the "deadly sins" are in the bible. That was something some monk came up with, I think. Like a lot of Catholic doctrine.
I believe life is a rather enjoyable illusion. To explain more fully would take about 25 pages. I might actually do that some day...
Also, it gives me great pleasure to know that no matter how diverse our beliefs, there is one thing we can all agree upon.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I wouldn't call myself an atheist, that would presume I knew enough to make an intelligent judgement as to religion (any and all) being entierly wrong. Agnostic is usually the answer I give as I don't believe I'll even know enough to be sure...at least until I croak, perhaps not even then.
As far as Scientology goes, sounds like your average embryonic religion to me; they always seam to start out weird and out there, perhaps even misunderstood. If that statement seams at odds with the previous one, know that my problem with organised religion isn't with people who are religious or have faith, it's with the "organised" part. Which usually amounts to allot of hypocritical bastards using people's faith and/or fear to control them and tell them what they can and can't think...to a point.
As to the existence of Christ; having a real person around the time with that name leading a splinter group of Jewish religious (and probably political) radicals who later gained a huge following is a long way from having the "son" of God walking around and doing miracles. Given that most of what was written about him was centuries after the fact, I think it's safe to say that the element of the "divine" in those accounts was probably a case of generous PR and your garden variety cult of personality.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Well Dan, I wouldn't know. I slept through church most times. Now, my family is fearful that they will be hit by lightning if I go anywhere near a church. They must think my head will light aflame. I personally think that a tiny little candle flame will pop out of my head in a commical fashion. Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Or Morgan Freeman will show up and give you a "Special" job for a day.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Mmmm... If only...
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Reverend: Uh...you do realize that these people believe alien souls that were frozen, taken to earth on DC-10s with rocket engines, thrown into volcanoes, and forced to watch violent movies until they were confused and lost their identity...are the reason for all of the problems in the world? And that that was all made up by a science fiction author who once said the real way to make money was to start your own religion? I mean that's not "out there" and "misunerstood," that's frakkin' insane.
Hey, what stuff written about him centuries later? I was only aware of the one account, what was his name, ehhh, a Greek historian who wrote about him like 50 years after he died. If there's more I'd be interested in reading it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I think you're thinking of Josephus. Who was Jewish, not Greek.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I would have more respect for Scientology if they didn't basically charge people for worshiping. Also, although I know other religions have wrought suffering and death upon people, Scientology is a modern religion which seems to miss the age old lesson that if you want to save people it's best not to kill them.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Or leave them to be eaten by roaches in a dark room.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: Reverend: Uh...you do realize that these people believe alien souls that were frozen, taken to earth on DC-10s with rocket engines, thrown into volcanoes, and forced to watch violent movies until they were confused and lost their identity...are the reason for all of the problems in the world? And that that was all made up by a science fiction author who once said the real way to make money was to start your own religion? I mean that's not "out there" and "misunerstood," that's frakkin' insane.
Honestly, no, I didn't know that's what they believe but to be honest, from my perspective it's just as valid as most religious myths, from Hindu, to Christianity, Oglala Sioux to Shinto. They all have some weird ideas. With Scientology we know it was made up because it was done within living memory. The old religions have just been around so long we can comfortably call most of the weird stuff metaphor.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Most of the New Testament accounts were written within several decades of Jesus' death. The last of the Gospels was written about 80 years after died. Likewise, all of the letters were written within the first century C.E.
I'm sure there are tons of writings about early Christianity from various sources that were written "centuries" after Jesus died. But nothing from the Bible canon was written that late.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Really? I was under the impression that they had trouble finding any original manuscripts that date from that time, most of the one's claiming to be from Christ's lifetime were either copies or translations of copies. I do have a vague memory of someone thinking they've proven at least one of the dead sea scrolls was written before or just after the crucifixion. Perhaps I'm just misremembering. Either way I don't deny the existence or the intentions of the historical Jesus (or whatever his real name was exactly) I just don't trust the motivations of the church that built itself around him.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
The best lie is the one closest to the truth. The church was never intended to be the "Organization" that it has been made into. That is the machinations of man. The church was to be the collective body of believers that were to come together in their faith for worship, fellowship, and meeting each others needs. To say the least, this has been corrupted by men who sought control and power but clothed themselves with the trappings of false righteousness rather than the jack-boot approach.
The book of James says: Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. Doesn't seem to be the emphasis today does it?
[ April 11, 2008, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: WizArtist II ]
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Nope. But doesn't that raise the sticky question of why God would allow his church to become so corrupted?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Q: Why dose God allow [INSERT EVIL HERE] to happen? A: Free will.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
More like Yahweh is a big DICK.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
This has confused me for some time;
Is Jesus God? I know he was the son of mary who was impregnated by God, but is he God?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
That depends if you believe in the idea of mortal guise & divinity of personage.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: This has confused me for some time;
Is Jesus God? I know he was the son of mary who was impregnated by God, but is he God?
Depends who you ask. Ask a Jewish or Islamic person and they'll say he was a very wise man, perhaps even a prophet. Ask a Christian and they'll tell you he was the son of God, King of the Jews, the Messiah and saviour of all mankind...but then of course they're a tad biassed. Personally, I think he was probably a personality of the Ghandi type persuasion. All about non-violence and being generally cool and un-heavy. Believe it or not, this guy wasn't the only Messiah knocking around at the time. I forget his name, but there was this other guy who was reported to heal the sick, cure the blind, all that jazz. He even drove the Romans out of Israel for a while. Of course the reason why this guy (or any of the others I suppose) didn't end up being deified probably have something to do with the Romans wiping them all out, followers and all. Since Jesus thought it'd be fun to hang out in the garden of Gethsemane a little longer only he got nailed up and his followers presumably scarpered to the hills.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
As far as Catholicism goes, Jesus and God are considered one and the same, yet Jesus is also considered fully human and the Son of God. It's contradictory, but that's the belief. The Divine Mystery is I what I recall this concept being called from my Catholic school days.
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
Mormon belief, which is considered so different from mainstream Christianity that some Christians refuse to refer to Mormonism as a Christian religion, is that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate beings with a single purpose. Mormon doctrine is that God the Father created Jesus and and the rest of His children (i.e., us) spiritually prior to the creation of the earth.
Another aspect of this belief, which Mike Huckabee presumably brought up during the Republican primaries to make Mitt Romney look bad, is that Lucifer (i.e., Satan) was also one of God's children, which would make Satan and Jesus brothers.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
According to the book of Job, the spirit creature refered to as Satan at one time had access to the heavenly court just like the rest of the angels. Revelation describes a war in heaven where he and other rebels were cast out.
Again in Job, the angels are said to have cried out joyfully at the founding of the Earth, which would indicate they were created before the physical universe, or at least parts of it.
As to the God = Jesus question, Jesus himself never claimed to be God, at least not in the Biblical record. He claimed to be the son of God, the Messiah, the representation of his father. Most scriptures often used to suggest a trinity are noticably lacking reference to the holy spirit. And Colossians calls him the first born of all creation as opposed to God who is said to have had no beginning.
Of course, this is one interpretation, but one that I find quite sensible and satisfying.
To the topic of the thread, I've always thought 1 Corinthians 15:41 was cool: "The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact star differs from star in glory." Looking at the comparison between Sol and some of the other enormous stars in that graphic, it's just unbelievable how big things are out there.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
Oh, sure, try to get us back on topic...
Back off topic!
According to This website dating for some of the Dead Sea Scrolls goes back to between 300 and 100 BC. Granted, this is the scroll of the Book of Isaiah, which was written before Jesus lived.
In regards the four Gospels - While it's true that we don't have any scrolls dating to the decades right after Christ's death, there is enough evidence to help point out they were written between 8 and 65 (or so) years after his death. By the 2nd Century the scrolls were in wide circulation and in a number of catalogs and other notations on the scrolls indicated when some were written.
quote:Not that this or other works of creation myth are totally without merit. As I recall the ancient Greek creation myth read as being surprisingly close to some of the early universe/big bang type theories. If you can put the anthropomorphising aspects out of your mind.
In contrast with that, the Bible has been very clear right from the start.
Shape/suspension of Planet Earth: Isa. 40:22: �There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.�
Job describes God as �stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing.� (Job 26:7)
So, while the Ancients were anthropomorphizing and the and talking about a flat Earth being towed by a giant turtle, Bible writers were stating plain scientific facts.
In regards Scientology: A guy I worked with told me a story once. A science fiction convention was held and there was a panel discussion about religion. All the big names were present - Clark, Asimov, Hubbard, etc... Someone postulated that it would be difficult to start a religion. Hubbard said "no it wouldn't..." And shortly thereafter Scientology was formed. Don't know if this is true or not but it fits with the comments above.
No,the 7 Deadly Sins are not in the Bible.
Actually, God and the Bible encourage organization. James did say the above about looking after orphans and widows, but he also said to not forsake the gathering of oneselves together at meetings. The book of Acts shows an organizational arrangement. Letters were written by a governing body and traveling representatives went out and checked on the flock. The ancient Hebrews were organized into an entire nation with laws, priests, etc...
It's been imperfect, power-hungry men that have corrupted the organization to their own ends.
The Bible even said this would happen.
The Trinity is really a sticky wicket. Most no one understands it. Many have their own idea as to what it is. You can talk to 10 Catholics and probably get 10 versions of what they think it is.
This concept is not taught in the Bible. The word doesn't even appear in the Bible. Instead of being able to explain it, people chalk it up to a "mystery."
Again, goes back to oppressing people. "Don't read the Bible or we'll burn you at the stake. You're too stupid to understand the Bible so we'll tell you what it says. This or that doctrine is a mystery beyond your understanding but you must accept it or you'll burn in Hell forever..."
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I guess that sorta straightens things out? I asked because when a friend would pray to god, they would some how include jesus's name. So if there is God, and then there is Jesus, who as the son of god is also considered a God, and the holy ghost/ spirit, wouldn't that make Christianity a polythesitic religion?
That, or Jesus is/was schizophrenic.
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
It's unfortunate that abuses and atrocities perpetrated in the name of Christ have turned off so many to Christianity specifically and organized religion in general. Since people seem naturally to respond strongly to religion, evil people have used religion to gain and hold power. According to the Bible, this was not unexpected. In Matthew 7: 15-16 Jesus is quoted as saying, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep�s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." In other words, if they bring corruption, death, and misery, they are not truly serving God.
As for prayer, many Christian religions pray in the name of Jesus since the Bible states that Jesus is mankind's advocate with the Father. In other words, man's imperfections make him unworthy of speaking to God the Father except through Jesus Christ. Mormons pray to God but in the name of Jesus. I have heard some evangelical Christians pray directly to Jesus, although that's probably because evangelicals believe that God and Jesus are one in the same.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
You know, I recall reading somewhere that the prophecies in the Old Testament about the Messiah weren't all fulfilled by Jesus. That many of the things that Christians say will occur after his Second Coming were actually supposed to occur during the first (and only) time the Messiah, who was supposed to be "a man of the earth," was born - and I don't *think* there's anything about an immaculate conception in the Old Testament either (although I'm basing that on my own memories and it's been 9 years since I read the Old Testament through).
For me, religion is personal. My problem with Christianity is that it claims to be right where others are wrong. I vehemently oppose that. I don't think it's even close to possible for a human being or anything like a human being to ever understand the universe or what is in it, let alone what may or may not have created it/transcends it. Anything we worship, any *way* we worship, is our own poor and muddled attempts to personify and connect with whatever is out there. And that's fine - faith gives strength, hope, and a reason for living. However, I think because of that, it needs to be something that resonates deep within you, not a doctrine that you believe is objectively "correct." Religion is so far removed from science and empirical fact that I don't think words like 'right' or 'wrong' (in the factual, not moral, senses of the words) could even apply to it. It's a realm without logic, which isn't bad, but, you know, don't try to apply logic to the illogical Use your heart, not year head, iow.
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: My problem with Christianity is that it claims to be right where others are wrong. I vehemently oppose that. I don't think it's even close to possible for a human being or anything like a human being to ever understand the universe or what is in it, let alone what may or may not have created it/transcends it. Anything we worship, any *way* we worship, is our own poor and muddled attempts to personify and connect with whatever is out there.
The reason why Christianity believes that it's right where others are wrong is that it is a "revealed" religion. That is, either Jesus told the truth and he is the Son of God and humanity may only come to God through him, or Jesus (or his followers) were liars and following him is no better than following anyone else. The heart of Christianity is that Christ is the only source of salvation. Christianity is utterly hollow and meaningless if that doctrine is soft pedaled. Paul said in 1st Corinthians 15: 19, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." In other words, if faith in Christ is merely a comfort in this life and has no effect beyond death, then Christians are the most miserable of men, having placed their faith in a lie.
I know few Christians who claim to understand the complexity of the Universe. However, they do believe that a loving Creator would give us a sufficient level of knowledge to at least know which way to go. Now, does believing that you have the truth (or at least the most important essentials of the truth) mean that you should persecute, forcibly convert, or kill those who don't believe it? Unfortunately, many have believed that through the ages, but it's not an idea that was ever taught by Jesus or his apostles.
You can believe that someone's religion (or lack thereof) is in error without attempting to take away their free will. Civilized individuals must 'agree to disagree', which is the philosophy reflected by the 1st Amendment's right to freedom of religion.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Your blanketing a lot of sects in with Christians. Each believing that their doctrine is the one, which is no different than all the sects of any other religion I suppose, but covering them all like that, as if their were only one doctrine just doesn't any better then what they do.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Every religion believes it is right and all others are wrong. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a religion. It would just be an hypothesis or, at best, a theory.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean:
That, or Jesus is/was schizophrenic.
One of the reasoning points about the Trinity doctrine. If a human displays the qualities of a multiple personality we call it a disorder and get that individual help. Yet God, in whose image we're made, is supposed to be three personalities in one?
There's a difference in praying "through" Jesus and praying "to" Jesus. One of Jesus roles now is to act as a mediator between God and man. He delivers the prayers to God. It's a simple chain of command - Man's head is Christ and Christ's head is God. Much the same way any corporation has a chain of command - you talk to your manager or supervisor and he delivers the message to his supervisor.
quote:You know, I recall reading somewhere that the prophecies in the Old Testament about the Messiah weren't all fulfilled by Jesus.
That's interesting Daniel. I'd like to see that reference. What I read was the exact opposite. Of the hundreds of Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, all of them were fulfilled by Jesus. I've read this in connection to the accusation that Jesus was a con-artist who read the prophecies and then arranged events so that he'd fulfill them. It simply doesn't work. There are many prophecies that were beyond his control that he couldn't influence yet did fulfill.
quote:My problem with Christianity is that it claims to be right where others are wrong. I vehemently oppose that.
A lot of people feel this way. If you take the Bible as being true, however, you'll notice that this is exactly how God operated all through the past. If you want to survive the flood you had to get on Noah's ark. If you wanted to worship him the way he approved, you had to reject Baal and the other Pagan gods. If you want Salvation you have to accept and follow Jesus.
But when you look at the distortions we see today between religions that both claim to follow Jesus, it does make you wonder.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:I know few Christians who claim to understand the complexity of the Universe. However, they do believe that a loving Creator would give us a sufficient level of knowledge to at least know which way to go. Now, does believing that you have the truth (or at least the most important essentials of the truth) mean that you should persecute, forcibly convert, or kill those who don't believe it? Unfortunately, many have believed that through the ages, but it's not an idea that was ever taught by Jesus or his apostles.
So what does the Bible say about teaching creationism in schools and banning actual science? I'm curious because I know in the US there seams to be a growing movement (again) to ban Darwin from the classroom. A few year back I think some school governors over here in the UK (who just happened to be member of the local church group) tried something similar and were rather quickly told to bugger off.
This sort of thing smacks to me thought control (or at least thought restriction) and quite worrying when it's happening in what is supposedly the greatest free nation on Earth.
I remember back in school we used to get one assembly a week from the local Padre and he used to say something that sums it up pretty well. Anyone who reads the bible literally, needs their head examined. He said he was quoting some bishop, but I can't back that up.
Part of why I don't trust the Bible as a document for settling arguments is that, as you can see in some of the above posts you can usually find a quote to support almost any argument. Moses had the right idea when he rendered it all down to just two tablets.
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: So what does the Bible say about teaching creationism in schools and banning actual science?
Well, I mentioned the essential truth. I think it's pretty obvious that the New Testament cannot be read in such a way as to make Christ merely a wise man and still have any meaning. I think Paul's statement in 1st Corinthians makes that fairly clear.
As for teaching Creationism in schools; you'll find a divergence of opinions on that. The largest Christian religion, Catholicism, declared that the basic theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity. Now, you can debate how that statement might complicate beliefs on either side, but that's what John Paul II said. I personally attended Brigham Young University (which is of course the Mormon university). At BYU, the biology department teaches a thoroughly orthodox version of the theory of evolution. Surveys of Mormon scientists show that most believe that evolution and Mormon beliefs are not necessarily incompatible (that's where I fall in). However, if you leave that pool, you'll find that most Mormons believe that evolution is a doctrine of the Devil. It has been repeated several times by Church authorities that there is no doctrine either in support of nor against the theory.
In the case of the schools, I believe that creationism shouldn't be taught in biology classes. Not only can it not be categorized as acceptable science, but you would find disagreements about whether or not it should be taught even among Christians. At most I suppose you could mention to students that not everybody agrees with the theory, but it would probably cause less problems if you simply informed the parents of what their children are going to be taught and leave it up to them teach their children as they see fit.
I'm reminded of what my anthropology professor at BYU told us. He said that when he started his professorship thirty years ago he was interviewed by a high ranking authority of the Mormon Church. The authority told him that he didn't agree with my professor's views on evolution, but that my professor had been hired to "teach [his] science" and not any particular religious views. He has been doing that ever since.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
The Bible is silent when it comes to what to teach in school. The entire school system isn't mentioned.... LOL. It does say for parents to train their children however.
I believe in creation but I'm not a Creationist. Creationism does tend to ignore scientific findings. These findings don't contradict the Bible but they do contradict Creationism's interpretation.
Consider the age of the Earth. The Bible states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Then a few verses later the creation account begins with Day 1. Reading this straight through you see that the Earth, the big ball of rock and cooling magma was in existence BEFORE the start of Day 1. How long before? The Bible doesn't say.
In regards the creative days - No indication is given how long each creative day was. It definitely was much longer than a 24 hour period. The Bible lists each creative day as a separate epoch of Creation. Then about the third or fourth day it mentions the creation of Day and Night. So now the Bible is using the word "Day" to indicate an even smaller portion of time in comparison to the creative "Day." Then at the end of the creation account the Bible refers to the entire span of time as one "Day."
So, how long was it? Was it 6 days or 1 day? Other passages in the Bible indicate that from God's standpoint 1 Day is comparable to several thousands of years from man's point of view.
We can see that the term "Day" can mean more than just a 24-hour period. We even use the term in everyday speech. "Back in my day..." or "Back in the day..." doesn't refer to just one day but some period of time in our past that was months or even years in length.
Yes, you can twist the Bible so that it appears to support whatever idea you want. However, if you twist part of anything to fit what you want, the rest of the object will be out of whack. The Bible is the same way. Twist one part to fit this or that and something else doesn't fit. The Bible does not contradict itself so any apparent contradiction may be the result of twisting or misapplication.
So, if one part of the Bible doesn't fit with another, it's time to go back and look at your original assumption or doctrine. Is it in harmony with the Bible or is it a tradition of man? Was the Bible using literal phrasing, poetry, symbolism, metaphor, illustration or what?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
The point of science backing up the bible is a notable one. A lot of the thumpers I have know were all too pleased when a city mentioned in the bible was possibly found, but very dismissive of any fact that may have caused doubt with their young earth theory.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by HerbShrump: In regards the creative days - No indication is given how long each creative day was. It definitely was much longer than a 24 hour period.
One of my favorite lines from Oh, God!:
"Well...what about the Earth? Did you really create everything in 7 days?" "Well, you have to remember that one of my days isn't exactly the same as one of yours." "What do you mean?" "When I woke up this morning, Sigmund Freud was still in medical school."
And then of course, there's the idea put forth in Robert Heinlein's Job: A Comedy Of Justice, where the fervently religious protagonist is told that the earth is indeed 4.4 billion years old...AND 4004 years old, that it was "deliberately created old."
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Of the hundreds of Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, all of them were fulfilled by Jesus. I've read this in connection to the accusation that Jesus was a con-artist who read the prophecies and then arranged events so that he'd fulfill them. It simply doesn't work. There are many prophecies that were beyond his control that he couldn't influence yet did fulfill."
They may have been out of his control, but they weren't out of the control of the people who wrote the gospels. He didn't fulfill the prophecies because he knew them ahead of time. He fulfilled the prophecies because, after he died, other people said he'd fulfilled the prophecies.
"The Bible does not contradict itself so any apparent contradiction may be the result of twisting or misapplication. "So, if one part of the Bible doesn't fit with another, it's time to go back and look at your original assumption or doctrine. Is it in harmony with the Bible or is it a tradition of man? Was the Bible using literal phrasing, poetry, symbolism, metaphor, illustration or what?"
Are you joking? You warn against "twisting" the words of the bible, but then, if someone finds a contradiction, you say "oh, just assume this bit here is a metaphor ; yay, it all works out now!"
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
I remember being taught darwinism in 8th grade bio. One of the kids refused to listen and respectfully asked to leave the room when we talked about it. Maybe the kid would have felt differently if the teacher had been alowed to touch on creationism, other than mentioning that it existed. She said that it was against school policies to talk about religion in any other class than history, or culture classes, and even then, they couldn't delve too deep into personal beliefs, only the facts of the religion.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Well, if Jesus was a con artist, he was a pretty dumb one. Usually con artists are out to get something. All Jesus got was a rigged trial, a massage with a cat o' nine tails, and slow death in the sun. Messianic prophecy indicated that the Messiah would be despised, tortured and killed. So either Jesus was the Messiah written about, or he at least believed that he was.
Another thing people often don't realize about the Bible is that it's quite limited in its focus as regards "universalness". After "God created the heavens and the Earth", the focus of the Bible is on the Earth. Even the creative days are described from the point of view of someone on the Earth's surface. And the rest of the books all focus on the outworking of God's plans for the Earth and humanity. As Fox Mulder said, it doesn't really go into any "side projects".
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Are you joking? You warn against "twisting" the words of the bible, but then, if someone finds a contradiction, you say "oh, just assume this bit here is a metaphor ; yay, it all works out now!"
Some Christians are of the mind that the Bible effectively fell from the lips of God and that it is flawless. Others, the Mormons in particular, believe that the Bible was subject to numerous translations and, occasionally, deliberate manipulation, omissions, and inclusions (see the Song of Solomon for an example of the latter). We know that the actual compilation of the current Bible occurred years after the individual books were written. And there are a number of books that early Christians seem to have used (e.g., the Book of Enoch) that were declared heretical years later.
Mormons believe that the Bible indeed contains many important truths (the most important being that Jesus is the Son of God and the only source of salvation) but that many details and doctrines have been muddled. Needless to say, this has not gained the Mormons many friends in mainstream Christianity, particularly among the evangelical Christians.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I don't know if I was entirely clear about what I was saying earlier. Someone mentioned "it's unfortunate that people have been turned off Christianity by violence" or something along those lines. When I said "my problem with Christianity is" I didn't mean "ONLY Christianity has this problem" but rather "Christianity has this problem." In my view every religion has that problem, at least among the laity. For example, there's a passage attributed the Buddha that basically boils down to "never believe you're right and everything else is wrong - just have a conviction that you're right and be open minded." I don't *know* any lay Buddhists so I can't make any arguments, but I would imagine most lay Buddhists would probably not follow that statement, because it's human nature, it seems, to believe your religion is correct. But that causes more problems than it solves. You can go on about "agreeing to disagree" (which is indeed what I promote) but someone who really believes everyone else is wrong won't ever agree to disagree in their heart. It's divisive. It makes you think of Us and Them instead of humanity as a whole species and family together in the same boat.
Also, while I really don't make it a point to argue against other people's beliefs, I don't think it's accurate to say the Bible never contradicts itself. Here is at least one, which I noticed when I was a kid being raised a protestant:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11) "For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34) "The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9) "God is love." (1 John 4:16)
So...which is he, ferocious and destructive, or merciful and forgiving? I mean, the Old Testament God and the New Testament God (without trying to sound too Gnostic here) sort of seem a bit different in personality.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
Never ever use quote when directly replying to the post above yours. Was it here that I was told that? LOL
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
Also, while I really don't make it a point to argue against other people's beliefs, I don't think it's accurate to say the Bible never contradicts itself. Here is at least one, which I noticed when I was a kid being raised a protestant:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11) "For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34) "The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9) "God is love." (1 John 4:16)
So...which is he, ferocious and destructive, or merciful and forgiving? I mean, the Old Testament God and the New Testament God (without trying to sound too Gnostic here) sort of seem a bit different in personality.
Actually, the do harmonize. People just tend to ignore the vindictive and destructive portions of the New Testament.
God's judgments and wrath have always been tempered by his love and mercy. Yes, there have been times when peoples and nations have been destroyed, such as the siting you made above (I think those are from two separate scriptures, btw). For example he sent Jonah to warn the people of Ninevah of their impending destruction. The Ninevites repented and God spared them.
God's wrath has always been proceeded by a warning and people have been given ample opportunity to make amends.
In the case of the Amalakites you mentioned, they were, in effect, relatives of the Israelites. Both nations were descendants of Abraham. As a result they should have had brotherly affection for the Israelites. Instead they were the first nation to launch an unprovoked attack against God's people. Because of their continued hostility, God called them to account and instructed Israel to strike them down.
It was either that or watch the Amalkites wipe out the nation of Israel.
The same thought is carried throughout the New Testament.
quote:2 Thess 1:6-10 6God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power 10on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.
2 Peter 3:9,10 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
Romans 12:19 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[a]says the Lord.
Pretty much all of Revelation
Sounds harsh, doesn't it? How can a God of Love do these things? Well, don't we humans have similar laws? Which is more loving - to allow someone free reign to abuse, molest and mistreat other individuals or to remove the offending individual after they refuse to change their ways? God's love for his children, all of humanity, moves him to remove the wicked ones instead of allowing them to wipe out the good.
quote:Are you joking? You warn against "twisting" the words of the bible, but then, if someone finds a contradiction, you say "oh, just assume this bit here is a metaphor ; yay, it all works out now!"
No, I'm saying that if you find a contradiction, ask someone and get the answer. Then check if that answer is in harmony with the rest of the Bible.
Twisting the Scriptures to fit our own ideas can result in lasting harm. Two things can help us to understand the Bible correctly. First, consider the context (surrounding verses) of any statement. Next, compare texts with other statements in the Bible that deal with the same subject. In that way we are letting God�s own Word guide our thinking, and the interpretation is not ours but his.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Zefram: I'd have to go look this up to get my dates and references just right, but as to the timeline of the compilation of the books: The Hebrew Scriptures were mostly compliled by Ezra (according to Jewish tradition) after the resettlement in Judah. Only a couple of the books hadn't been written yet. The canon of Christian scriptures seems to have been closed shortly after the first century. We see all kinds of quotes from various letters and writings popping up in the second century.
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: I don't know if I was entirely clear about what I was saying earlier. Someone mentioned "it's unfortunate that people have been turned off Christianity by violence" or something along those lines. When I said "my problem with Christianity is" I didn't mean "ONLY Christianity has this problem" but rather "Christianity has this problem."
Oh, I understood what you were saying, I just happened to use Christianity as an example of a revealed religion since I'm even less qualified to speak for other religions. Islam and Judaism would also fall into the same category as Christianity since all these religions believe that God has spoken to their prophets or leaders and given them direct commandments and guidance. Such religions, by definition, cannot have the attitude that all beliefs are equally correct. Either God talked to them and gave them specific instructions or he didn't. If they believe that God has told them that something is right or something is wrong, they can't very well say that any contrary belief is equally valid; that would be contrary to God's command.
Now a religion like Buddhism (which I admittedly know very little about) seeks truth through meditation and personal searching; it doesn't claim to have directly received divine truths and thus has no reason to dogmatically cling to any particular set of beliefs.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zefram: Oh, I understood what you were saying, I just happened to use Christianity as an example of a revealed religion since I'm even less qualified to speak for other religions.
Much more qualified, however, to talk about Warp theory and first contact with Vulcans.
I kid, I kid...
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
About Buddhism, it really depends what you mean by "divine revelation" and which school you belong to. The more mystical schools borrow a lot from Hindu cosmology, for example, and Tibetan Buddhism took the Tibetan pantheon of gods into itself. In one Buddhist tradition, there have been 28 Buddhas, including Gautama, and there will be yet one more, Matreiya(sp?). The Buddhas lived in a different samsaric realm before being born into this one. So, stretching "divine" a bit, you could argue some Buddhist school as 'revealed religions.' It's just that part of what was revealed was never to believe something was unequivocally correct.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Twisting the Scriptures to fit our own ideas can result in lasting harm."
Does that include twisting them to fit the idea that they don't contradict themselves?
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by HerbShrump:
In regards the creative days - No indication is given how long each creative day was. It definitely was much longer than a 24 hour period. The Bible lists each creative day as a separate epoch of Creation. Then about the third or fourth day it mentions the creation of Day and Night. So now the Bible is using the word "Day" to indicate an even smaller portion of time in comparison to the creative "Day." Then at the end of the creation account the Bible refers to the entire span of time as one "Day."
So, how long was it? Was it 6 days or 1 day? Other passages in the Bible indicate that from God's standpoint 1 Day is comparable to several thousands of years from man's point of view.
We can see that the term "Day" can mean more than just a 24-hour period. We even use the term in everyday speech. "Back in my day..." or "Back in the day..." doesn't refer to just one day but some period of time in our past that was months or even years in length.
This was one of the points I posted about earlier. Given the theory that time slows as you near the event horizon of a black hole, how much more so would time have been affected by the original ball containing the total mass of the universe? If a single black hole can alter time, then it follows that time itself would come to a halt around the OB. When the "Big Bang" happened all that mass was still in close proximity as it began to expand. The total mass of entire galaxies would still be in relatively small areas for light years away from the epicenter of the blast. As these galaxies began to spin out solar systems, they would still have incredible mass far beyond a black hole that would have temporal effects. "Normal" time as we know it would not have existed until the masses of galaxies and their solar systems had sufficient separation to cross the threshold or "event horizon" of the temporal effects caused by the local mass. It just seems to me that current theory just does not account for this particular variable. Our galaxy could have been a hundred trillion billion lightyears from the point of the OB before its mass began to separate into the different solar systems. So how much "time" actually passed?
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"Twisting the Scriptures to fit our own ideas can result in lasting harm."
Does that include twisting them to fit the idea that they don't contradict themselves?
As I mentioned above you can twist anything to fit a certain point of view. However, if you twist one portion then another portion will be out of whack and won't fit. True understanding of the scriptures comes when the scripture in question fits in with the rest of the Bible as a whole.
I personally have not found any scriptures to be in contradiction. I've seen scriptures that some feel to be contradictory but those contradictions have been cleared up when examined in the light of the rest of the Bible.
The point being that the Bible is harmonious within itself. Some people may disagree with the Bible's teaching and some churches may teach doctrine or tradition that are not in harmony with the Bible, but that doesn't mean the Bible's contradictory. It means that man is contradicting the Bible.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Herb, how can an incomplete book be harmonious with itself?
The Vatican choose which books to include and exclude, running on a Pope's time line for maintaining power. Such as absorbing the pagan beliefs of the time in order to increase the size of the Church.
While the original written works could well have been divinely inspired I can not give that weight to any translations or compilations of those works. Mankind has got free will, which leaves everything done by a human subject to interpretation, and, worst of all, change.
Take the Hebrew word for kill and murder for the Big 10. How can God in one section say you Shall not kill, then direct his people to do just that? Thou shall not murder, on the other hand, makes more sense by far. Yet people cling to the word kill.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"If a single black hole can alter time, then it follows that time itself would come to a halt around the OB. When the 'Big Bang' happened all that mass was still in close proximity as it began to expand. The total mass of entire galaxies would still be in relatively small areas for light years away from the epicenter of the blast. As these galaxies began to spin out solar systems, they would still have incredible mass far beyond a black hole that would have temporal effects. 'Normal' time as we know it would not have existed until the masses of galaxies and their solar systems had sufficient separation to cross the threshold or 'event horizon' of the temporal effects caused by the local mass."
Show your math.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Another addition to the Divine Mystery:
quote: JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
About the "day" thing. The Hebrew word used there has got a sense of "an undetermined amount of time." In fact, later in Genesis it says God created Day and Night - so how could he have taken some few days up to that point if he hadn't even invented days yet? This fits in with what Ritten just said - translations are very imperfect.
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
The difference between the Father and the Son has been the source of controversy for a long time. The Nicene Creed from the 300's A.D. decided that they were one in the same personage.
However, to me that doesn't quite explain this: John 17: 20-21: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
Here Jesus is praying for his disciples, asking the Father that they may one as he and the Father are one. Now, unless he wanted his followers to become some sort of great amalgamated being, the scripture seems to indicate that they are indeed two separate individuals.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Show your math.
I have not professed to be a mathematical wizard or astrophysicist. Nor was I claiming that this phenomena would explain "One Day".
The Photon Sphere is that point where gravitational forces bend light photons at an equal distance around the center of the star core. According to Dr. Robert Nemiroff, Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Pennsylvania & Michigan Technical University, at the photon sphere �...you can see the back of your head.� The Photon Sphere in a non-rotational core is 3/2 times the event horizon radius. A core 10 times our sun is a 10 solar mass black hole with a Schwarzschild radius of 30 km and a Photon Sphere of 45 km.
While I have NOT tried the math myself, it would seem quite reasonable that the gravitational forces present at Creation had significant temporal effects on the universe as a whole. It is a matter of solving the equations.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Time is just a dimension like space anyway. I don't think God would see a thousand years as a day. I think the question would be meaningless to him. He'd see a day more like a mile. Time wouldn't "pass" for him, he'd just go whenever and wherever he wanted to. If he was omnipresent then talking about time and space in relation to God would be as meaningless as talking about the flavor of blue.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
You've never tasted blue? Dude, you don't know what you're missing.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Not as good as smelling sound...
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Hey, do we actually have any synesthetes at Flare?
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zefram: The difference between the Father and the Son has been the source of controversy for a long time. The Nicene Creed from the 300's A.D. decided that they were one in the same personage.
However, to me that doesn't quite explain this: John 17: 20-21: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
Here Jesus is praying for his disciples, asking the Father that they may one as he and the Father are one. Now, unless he wanted his followers to become some sort of great amalgamated being, the scripture seems to indicate that they are indeed two separate individuals.
One in thought. One in purpose. One in agreement. Just like the scripture you pointed out above. Not one as in the same being.
Again, Zefram, you illustrated the point well. It was the Nicene Creed and Constantine that set the Catholic Church down the path toward the Trinity. Traditions of man overruling the Bible.
quote:Ritten said Herb, how can an incomplete book be harmonious with itself?
The Vatican choose which books to include and exclude, running on a Pope's time line for maintaining power. Such as absorbing the pagan beliefs of the time in order to increase the size of the Church.
Ritten, you're also illustrating my point. Accepting the traditions of Man as doctrine. What we accept as the entire Bible was complete roughly 200 years before the Council of Nicea. Since then man has been meddling in attempt to fit the Bible into their mold.
How can an "incomplete" book be harmonious? It can be harmonious within itself.
Let's break it down. Before Jesus was born there was just the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures. That testament was complete up to that time. It was harmonious in that nothing within those scriptures was out of harmony with anything else.
Then came the New Testament or Christian Greek Scriptures (since the majority of it was written in Greek). The question to ask if are these scriptures in harmony with what is already established (the Old Testament)?
quote:Take the Hebrew word for kill and murder for the Big 10. How can God in one section say you Shall not kill, then direct his people to do just that? Thou shall not murder, on the other hand, makes more sense by far. Yet people cling to the word kill.
Don't governments today do the same thing? Most nations have laws preventing murder, yet many countries choose to enforce the death penalty. Now, this is definitely a delicate political issue and even members on this board either agree or disagree with this. Regardless of where you or I stand on the issue of the Death Penalty, it doesn't nullify the fact that such a law exists despite the fact that individuals of the same nation are told not to kill.
quote:While the original written works could well have been divinely inspired I can not give that weight to any translations or compilations of those works.
Another good point. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. We all can't be language scholars and be fluent in these languages so we need translations. How though do we know the translation we're reading is accurate?
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
You must read it in the original Klingon.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
THere could have been expressions that requierd other english words in order to make sense, or even whole sentences. And it was translated into Ye Odle Tyme Eenglish, right? So there must be differences that and a modern english translation.
Speaking of bibles, I would love to see a Guttenburg(berg) Bible. It think they have part of one of the originals around here, in a church museum. I believe that was either in German or Latin.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
quote:Originally posted by HerbShrump: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Zefram: [qb]One in thought. One in purpose. One in agreement. Just like the scripture you pointed out above. Not one as in the same being.
I think some translations even render "one" as "in unity".
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I've seen a replica of a Gutenberg Bible...damn Gothic Latin alphabet, I could hardly make out a single letter. Picket fencing.
Anyway, about Christians being the most miserable men in case they're wrong. What if you're right and the rest of us are wrong? That seemed to be the reason why many of the Christians I knew growing up stuck to what their parents taught them about religion. But then again, I have a Catholic friend in Spain who tells me he's always been taught that you don't really have to believe in Jesus to go to heaven, but rather embody the virtues he espoused - forgiveness, righteousness, faith (in whatever you choose to have faith in). So it all seems to me like a big murky mud puddle, and I'm led back to my original belief that Man hasn't the first clue what God wants.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"If a single black hole can alter time, then it follows that time itself would come to a halt around the OB. When the 'Big Bang' happened all that mass was still in close proximity as it began to expand. The total mass of entire galaxies would still be in relatively small areas for light years away from the epicenter of the blast. As these galaxies began to spin out solar systems, they would still have incredible mass far beyond a black hole that would have temporal effects. 'Normal' time as we know it would not have existed until the masses of galaxies and their solar systems had sufficient separation to cross the threshold or 'event horizon' of the temporal effects caused by the local mass."
Show your math.
There is a theroy out there that says that the universe expanded drasticley before the elements settled into what we see now. I don't recall what I was watching when they were talking about it.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
The various "inflation" hypotheses. For example, the provocatively named "hyperinflation."
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Incidentally my friend isn't a YEC herself, which got her into a shouting match with one of her professors. However it's pretty easy to see that YEC is based on fear. A little cozy cosmology with order and safety and a comprehensible divine being who is rather like a stern father figure. It's a bit puke-ish to me.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Use your heart, not year head, iow.