God?

[bluenova]

I don't understand the problem, I think the one true God was opposing the roman gods which is a completely different kettle of fish. I have no problems with Muslims, Jews or any other religion that loosely follows the same path and hold similar values. Why can't it be the same God? My view of God as in my previous post is quite radical but that doesn't stop me being a Christian and following the teaching of Jesus.

[Sent from mobile]

 

[EarlyMon]

I don't understand the problem, I think the one true God was opposing the roman gods which is a completely different kettle of fish. I have no problems with Muslims, Jews or any other religion that loosely follows the same path and hold similar values. Why can't it be the same God? My view of God as in my previous post is quite radical but that doesn't stop me being a Christian and following the teaching of Jesus.

Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the same God.

The Christian and Jews did have issues with the Roman gods, that as I recall, were re-treads of Greek and Estrucan gods. (And Alexander The Great did much to add to the Greek pantheon by adopting gods from conquered regions - politically, a thunderstroke for its day, as previous (and subsequent) conquerors in history had a tendency to try to wipe out competing faiths.)

None of which goes further than the Near Middle East. (Alexander did make it as far as India, but no god past Persia made into his collective - India was Alexander's Waterloo.)

Looking further eastward, you find rather elaborate belief systems based upon multiple gods that are very well-developed and not at all representative of the hedonistic beliefs fostered by a pantheon as assembled by a conquering tribe with an inferiority complex (read: Romans).

To followers of those belief systems, the very idea of a one true god is sacrilegious and disrespectful to the known way of the universe, per their beliefs and faith.

edit - If I'm not mistaken, I believe that some Muslims would believe that some practices of the Christian faith are sacrilegious, and I believe that some Jews would find Christian customs not kosher and therefore not keeping the laws of the one true God.

So - the problem is that even when trying to being respectful, it's entirely possible to be disrespectful to the faiths of others and never know it.

Believe me, if I knew all of the rules on this, I'd tell - but I don't, either.


We like to say that quantum physics is not only stranger than you imagine, it's stranger than you _can_ imagine - but I'll take that attempt over trying to reconcile people's faiths any day of the week.



PPS - fun fact: Consider the famous statue of celebrating the legend of Romulus and Remus being suckled by a she-wolf; Romulus beat Remus and went on to found Rome.

Look again - the baby boys are clearly of Roman design in statuary - but the wolf is not at all. Nowhere in Roman art do you see animal hair depicted as it is there, nor human eyes on an animal.

After not being able to deal with the generosity of an Estruscan general who defeated Rome and fed them when they were starving, the Romans went on to defeat him, demonize him, and then attempted to hide their jealousy.

The she-wolf was a piece of captured Etruscan booty. The boys were added later as part of an artistic cover-up, making it politically ok to like the original statue - as stolen as their gods.

 

[zildj]

"People often think of Christian morality as a kind of bargain in which God says, 'If you keep a lot of rules I'll reward you, and if you don't I'll do the other thing.' I do not think that is the best way of looking at it. I would much rather say that every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before. And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing either into a heavenly creature or into a hellish creature: either into a creature that is in harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into one that is in a state of war and hatred with God, and with its fellow-creatures, and with itself. To be the one kind of creature is heaven: that is, it is joy and peace and knowledge and power. To be the other means madness, horror, idiocy, rage, impotence, and eternal loneliness. Each of us at each moment is progressing to the one state or the other."

from Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis)

 

[zildj]

Believe me, if I knew all of the rules on this, I'd tell - but I don't, either.

You will never know, none of us wont. Our minds are very limited and cannot come even close to Gods wisdom. Whatever I think, I believe, thats not because of Human wisdom but by the wisdom from the spirit.

This will be my last post in this thread. Have a great life ya'all. Remember, everytime you wake up, God gives you another chance to open your door for Him. It takes time. Just like getting to know a new friend. You dont tell all your secrets and bring them to your house right away.

Don't expect your problems to go away just because you have God. He never said it would be easy, He just promised you will never do this alone.

peaceout!

 

[Outlaw71]

...there's a reason why the Theory of Evolution has NEVER been disproven. I hope it's not too hard to know why. There are an "infinite" amount of evidence all over the world for evolution, yet... where's the evidence against it?

I wasn't sure if I was going to break this out or not, but I came up with a theory way back in high school that allows those who believe in creation to continue to believe in creation, and those who believe in evolution to believe in evolution, and they are actually the exact same thing. My theory is based on one very simple thing... 'Intelligent Design' and 'Evolution' can be one in the same if God looks like this...

Spoiler

Yes that's right. If we die, go to heaven, and discover that God is an amoeba, then both sides were right.

God made man in his own image? Sure, he made Adam an amoeba just like himself. But man was lonely, so God took one of Adams ribs and created Eve. This works perfectly since amoebas multiply by breaking off a piece of themselves to make another amoeba, right?

So after placing Adam the amoeba on earth he evolved into what we are today. There ya go, BAM, 'Intelligent Design' and 'Evolution' wrapped up all into the same thing. No more fighting.

I think the only reason people don't want to believe this to be the case is because nobody want's to have to hang a picture of an amoeba up in their living room.

 

[EarlyMon]

Not believing in evolution is like not believing in nuclear chemistry - and that's not a metaphor, it's a simile.

And Intelligent Design is neither fish nor fowl.

It attempts to bypass creationism by invoking creationism.

At least creationists are intellectually honest - even if I disagree with the story as anything more than a saga developed by ancient shepherds to teach a principle, I gotta give that to creationists.

Intelligent Design I have no tolerance for, but that's just my feelings on the subject.

PS to Outlaw71 - why an amoeba?

Why not a quark?

 

[Outlaw71]

PS to Outlaw71 - why an amoeba?

Why not a quark?

Because I couldn't find a picture of a quark with a face on it.

 

[EarlyMon]

Now, that is the best post so far here, in my opinion - no disrespect intended to anyone else.

And if it's not the best post, it's certainly going down as the top answer I'll remember.

Yep - going for trilogy:

 

[bluenova]

lol, fantastic Outlaw, gotta remember that one. Though I have to say I've met literally 1000s of Christians having done some long term volunteer work at a Christian retreat centre and the percentage of people that took the Old Testament stories at face value rather than seeking the meaning behind the stories was very small, infinitesimal even.

 

[Frisco]

Not believing in evolution is like not believing in nuclear chemistry - and that's not a metaphor, it's a simile.

And Intelligent Design is neither fish nor fowl.

It attempts to bypass creationism by invoking creationism.

At least creationists are intellectually honest - even if I disagree with the story as anything more than a saga developed by ancient shepherds to teach a principle, I gotta give that to creationists.

Intelligent Design I have no tolerance for, but that's just my feelings on the subject.

PS to Outlaw71 - why an amoeba?

Why not a quark?

Very nice post.

I have disagreement as to how/why what's called, "creationism" came along, and persists, but the framework around those notions you express seems solid.

 

[EarlyMon]

bluenova - Wait until you confront a group insisting to your school board that creationism be taught alongside evolution in the science classes.

Then you'll see their numbers.

 

[Frisco]

Wait until you confront a group insisting to your school board that creationism be taught alongside evolution in the science classes.

Then you'll see their numbers.

I have yet to hear a well-grounded argument against so-called "creationism" being taught in schools. All I hear is "tax payer money shouldn't support religion," etc.

"Creationism" is not religion anymore than philosophy is, and yet we see that discipline taught in public high schools (and public funded colleges, too of course).

Religion is religion. The history and beliefs of Islam, Christianity, etc. All of which should be taught in public schools along with other social anthropology matters.

"Creationism" is just one belief system in some of those religions, along with evolution, as the Catholic Church has even come around to in recent decades, calling evolution "God's tools."

Why the fear of all that? It's just information. They touch on Communism and Nazi-ism in the social science classes, are they trying to indoctrinate our kids in that? No, they're teaching it as it developed and how it affected certain societies.

 

[EarlyMon]

I support it being taught in classes encouraging appreciation of ethics, tolerance, philosophy, sociology, and the like.

I'm dead set against it being taught as biology.

 

[Frisco]

I support it being taught in classes encouraging appreciation of ethics, tolerance, philosophy, sociology, and the like.

I'm dead set against it being taught as biology.

Well it isn't biology.

What the debate really is has to do with how "creationism" is taught, not if it should be taught.

What's interesting is that the template is already in place, and has been for ages in American and European education: When studying the history of Greece, for example, the city states and their belief systems are taught along with the wars and military tactics and social infrastructure and so on. Kids have to learn about their gods and who they were, where they were and what their roles were in Greek society.

As an aside, I dislike that term both sides of the debate use, "creationism." To me it is more, "causation theory," for the reason that "creationism" implies something out of nothing. I'm a strong believer in strings of prior events moving along, causing what's next.

 

[EarlyMon]

^Agree in part. I was taught it in school, but not in biology. When anyone in one class objected that it conflicted with the other class, taught by the same teacher in my case, the answer was short and sweet: "That was then, this is now, now you're going to learn this."

We're constantly fighting to keep it out of the biology curriculum. Only in those battles, the other side doesn't call it creationsim - they call it creation science and claim it's stronger than man's theory, it's God's word - and insist that units be included for all evolution studies that include a disclaimer that evolution is only a theory and that truth is revealed in creation science. I am not making that up.

So, in the case before many school boards, it's really about where it should be taught.

I simply adopted the word used by political opponents - a rose by any name would stink up the biology classroom as well.

I suspect the word creationism came about because of politics - most meaningless words seem to come from art and politics, in my quick estimation.

 

[Frisco]

I see no need for that fight. If a biology class has a syllabus containing "creation theory" along with "not created" theory, so what?

Kids can spot b.s. a mile away, and by the time they're past about the 5th grade they know how to separate out teacher beliefs from "just another class" and its cold hard facts.

Our high school wrestling coach prays with the athletes all the time. And yet only a few of those kids have those beliefs, the rest put up with it as another bonding opportunity at the moment and then go about their day with their own belief systems or lack thereof unfettered and intact.

Fear of theism or atheism spawns polarization, far more damaging than having it all out in the open and taught.

 

[EarlyMon]

I see no need for that fight. If a biology class has a syllabus containing "creation theory" along with "not created" theory, so what?

The so what is that it's dishonest and shortchanges kids into thinking they can skip required material or make up their own minds on science.

We have a saying - there is no democracy in physics, we don't vote on whose beliefs are correct - we go by proofs.

Classroom time is short, life sciences are complex, there's no need to waste time discussing a religious philosophy in a class on mechanics.

As for kids spotting BS a mile away - totally agree. Also - they're kids, so their job is to question authority and ask and ridicule. Encouraging the idea that anyone with a political majority can circumvent the curriculum and waste time will likely encourage them to try the same in other classes.

I've even seen a kid approach a college teaching staff to have the language requirement removed from his degree requirements because - and I quote - "If the English language was good enough for Jesus Christ, it should be good enough for my degree." When asked how he arrived at that astounding statement, he replied and was shown to be dead serious upon examination that, "What are you people? Stupid? The Bible is in English and the Bible is God's word."

Ivy League school - hard to get into.

That's what comes of letting students decide what's BS and diluting the curriculum.

There are plenty of curricula paths not requiring classes teaching evolution, and if really necessary, children can be excused from those units and assigned other work if it interferes with religious beliefs.

We don't teach football in biology - Biblical creation stories are as unrelated to evolution as football is.

When a lawyer uses the word theory, it means one thing. When a scientist uses the word theory, it means something completely different in its entirety.

To say that created and not-created are equal because they're both theories is an abuse of the multiplicity of definitions of the word theory.

 

[iPhail]

Why is it that thousands of years ago if you heard God speak to you, you got your very own book in the bible. But now a days if you hear God speak to you, you get your very own straight-jacket and a padded room?

Evolution

 

[byteware]

Intelligent Design is a bunch of bull. Thank god it failed in court. Made purely to try to teach creationism in public schools. Again, there's a reason why the Theory of Evolution has NEVER been disproven. I hope it's not too hard to know why. There are an "infinite" amount of evidence all over the world for evolution, yet... where's the evidence against it?

Wasn't there a person or institution that offered $1 million dollars to whomever can disprove evolution? I thought I read something about it a few years ago but not sure if it was just a joke.

It's funny how we envision Adam and Eve to be two perfect white homo-sapiens. According to the fossil record of the first humans, they would've looked hideous to us... and definitely not of European descent.

You are aware that I am not supporting Intelligent Design as science... right?








That being said, I personally believe in Intelligent Design (not as science). I believe that Evolution is the HOW, and God is the WHY.

Religion is not science, and no attempts should be made to force the round peg into the square hole.

There is nothing about evolution that would mean God doesn't exist, or the Biblical creation story was wrong.



I came to peace with the creation story and evolution by imagining how I would explain computers to Moses.

I would tell him that it is a box.

It uses Lightning, Sand, and Metal to reason without thinking.

This is the best short explanation you can come up with.

It sounds all mystical and amazing... but it's just a computer.

Could God have explained Evolution to Moses in a way that he could possibly hope to understand?

 

[EarlyMon]

byteware, I don't understand your position. ID specifically attempts to remove the identity of God as the intelligent designer. You seem to have the courage of your convictions to openly state your belief in God - why veil what you perceive to the working of his will behind ID?

I believe that Evolution is the HOW, and God is the WHY.

That's crystal-clear and straightforward.

There is nothing about evolution that would mean God doesn't exist, or the Biblical creation story was wrong.

That's crystal-clear and straightforward.

The Discovery Institute - the source of the whole ID theory and movement - do not agree with you at all that evolution is the how. They insist they have a new way of doing science, where mysticism is substituted so that they can reject science and circularly prove that God exists.

Please forgive me if my questions seem attacking in any way - I am VERY confused by your ideas and am not attacking you personally.


You start with positions of crystal-clarity that are internally self-consistent, then - so far as I just understood what you wrote - took a left turn into muddy waters.

Please help me understand.

 

[dfreeman]

In my view, We are god, most of us are in the illusion of an individual/ego, we're all one, the goal is to wake up from the illusion,

 

[byteware]

byteware, I don't understand your position. ID specifically attempts to remove the identity of God as the intelligent designer. You seem to have the courage of your convictions to openly state your belief in God - why veil what you perceive to the working of his will behind ID?

ID is an attempt to inject creationism into evolution. It isn't science, and it removes the identity of God on the surface only.

No one really believes that Christians pushing ID believe that an entity other than God guided evolution.

I believe in ID as we all know it is, and not as ID proponents claim it to be.1

The Discovery Institute - the source of the whole ID theory and movement - do not agree with you at all that evolution is the how. They insist they have a new way of doing science, where mysticism is substituted so that they can reject science and circularly prove that God exists.

Intelligent design doesn't rule out Evolution, and I've never heard it explained without using Evolution as the How.

Please forgive me if my questions seem attacking in any way - I am VERY confused by your ideas and am not attacking you personally.

I have never seen you post anything that I would construe as attacking anyone. Ever.

 

[EarlyMon]

ID is an attempt to inject creationism into evolution. It isn't science, and it removes the identity of God on the surface only.

And I hate that dissembling, but that's me personally.

No one really believes that Christians pushing ID believe that an entity other than God guided evolution.

Agreed.

I believe in ID as we all know it is, and not as ID proponents claim it to be.

That then is the source of my confusion. I only know ID from its proponents - why associate terms with them if you don't associate beliefs?

Intelligent design doesn't rule out Evolution, and I've never heard it explained without using Evolution as the How.

As defined by the Discovery Institute, it does. I recall one of their members or associates responding to our science club by going so far as to suggest that man was planted here from outer space and we were designed elsewhere.

I have never seen you post anything that I would construe as attacking anyone. Ever.

Then my efforts at self-rehabilitation were successful - I've had my bad days, I'm not proud to admit.

 

[byteware]

That then is the source of my confusion. I only know ID from its proponents - why associate terms with them if you don't associate beliefs?

I do associate beliefs. What they claim... isn't what they believe. And everyone knows it.

As defined by the Discovery Institute, it does. I recall one of their members or associates responding to our science club by going so far as to suggest that man was planted here from outer space and we were designed elsewhere.

Wow... if that's the case, then maybe I SHOULD stop using ID as a reference...

 

[EarlyMon]

I do associate beliefs. What they claim... isn't what they believe. And everyone knows it.

Wow... if that's the case, then maybe I SHOULD stop using ID as a reference...

To be honest, in my case all I know of what they believe is what they present and so far as I can tell, they'll say anything to push a political agenda.

In my opinion, it's always good to distance oneself from the words of a political agenda that one doesn't share.

As I said - I know people who believe in the story of Genesis literally and I know those that believe as you have expressed yourself and I have respect for both - good, old, solid Yankee-Doodle respect, because I can understand the other person is being honest and straightforward in their beliefs.

Anyone associating with ID I associate with the dissembling and mendacity of the Discovery Institute and I have no respect for that.

Appreciate your engaging with me on this.