no..what happenes to them when they die NOW? They come before God...and God decides whether they go to hell or heaven...what if neither place exists according to their belief? Do you see what I'm trying to say here? I'm absolutely convinced that your belief stems ENTIRELY from your environment. Do you think that our universe is 13.5 billion years old? Or as according to the bible 5,000+ years? <-- This one makes no sense, as there is way too much evidence of the age of our world.
I'm sure God has his own way to deal with them. I have no idea what happens. Of course beliefs are a result of environment, life lessons, upbringing, etc. That doesn't make them wrong. Our beliefs also influence our environment. It goes both ways. A Christian society may be full of Christians because of the influence of them as a whole, on newcomers and children, but their society is Christian in the first place because they sought it out and 'grew' it to be that way (and the same is true of any specific group). Like finds like and they strengthen each other. Yes I think the Bible is right about our timeline. There are arguments regarding the time line but again, I think it's lack of knowledge on our part. The thing about it all is that the Bible wasn't written to be a scientific document. Some people believe the time factors are there symbolically only (I don't, but I'm throwing it out there for you). That God's one day could be a millennium because when you are eternal that's only a day in the scheme of things. Some people also argue the translation was wrong and what was read as a 'day' in Hebrew was actually supposed to be the other meaning of the same word, which is an undetermined amount of time, even millions of years. I don't believe this one either but it would explain the time discrepancy and account for scientific discoveries like dinosaurs. I don't believe we developed from other critters via evolution and I don't believe the earth is older than the Bible claims. Just because resources and geological formations can be developed naturally over thousands of years, doesn't mean it all was. Just because we know it can happen and that it continues to occur on earth as we know it, doesnt mean that's how it began. God could have just as easily created this world aged as he can create something fresh and new.
it seems to me that if you were to use your God given logic...you would see, that at least our world is pretty old...I mean, look at the stars, there are stars that are millions of light years away, their light has reached us over such a long distance..the star may not even exist anymore. How can you be oblivious to that? I know how...because it would undermine your fundamental beliefs..and that is scary, so of course you defend it. I don't like blind faith...anything blind doesn't sound good to me.
I'm not oblivious to it at all. God created the light so it would reach us. It didn't have to travel for millions of years. The 'light stream' from each star that started at the star's core, travelled on to reach us, and beyond, was set in place when the star was made. The light we see now probably never began at the star itself, but in the stream of light attributed to the star. As people we like things to have a start and an end. But how we understand things doesn't necessarily apply when you bring God into it. He has tricks we've never seen. Faith is all about being blind, and at the same time seeing clearly. Nothing can undermine my fundamerntal belief. It is simply 'I believe'. I believe in God, I believe he is omnipresent and I believe that overall he wants the best for us. I also believe in the Holy Trinity. Everything else is open to interpretation, thought, questioning and acceptance or rejection.
OK...please don't get offended here, it is not my intention at all. But do you think our planet is a sphere or a disk with the sun rotating around it? I'm dead serious....because that's what the Church used to say and killed Gallileo for stating otherwise...so what happened then?
I think the earth is as science states it to be. The Bible doesn't refute this. The Church, in the time of the inquisition, was not only involved in religion but also politics. They do not make good bedfellows. Galileo was not killed by the Church at all. He died of medical complications when he was over 70 years old. He was charged with heresy but it was reversed. He published one of his most famous books with the permission and blessing of the Inquistition and the Pope. Later, because of politics, the Pope became scared for his (the popes) well being and switched sides. Galileo was sentenced to house arrest under the supervision of the Pope. Interestingly, he was still allowed to leave for supplies to write, wrote and published books, took visitors, and when he became sick in his advance age, was brought to Florence for medical care. To me it sounds like his house arrest was a facade so the current Pope could save face and the house arrest was more house protection. As for the Church, you are referring specifically to the Roman Catholic Church, not the true Church made up of His people. That's not to say that Roman Catholics are not part of the Church, only that you shouldn't confuse the people with the administration.
You're right, Tessa. Gallileo wasn't burned..I have my facts mixed up...What I mean to say what that the Church burned Giordano Bruno. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
That story attributed to Einstein is absolutely false. That is inaccurate. During that period in time any academic who wanted to publish their work that contradicted the Church and the Bible had to write in a specific format. Permission was required from the Vatican to publish any of these works. Basically you could publish ideas that were unfavorable to the Church, and the Bible, as long as in the end you defended and defeated any opinion that the Vatican didn't support. Galileo attempted to appease the Vatican, but his argument supporting the opinion of the Church and their religious book was extremely weak. The Vatican demanded change and Galileo published his work without much of it. His house arrest was not a facade; he was a prisoner. He was not allowed to publish, but his work was later taken to territories that the Vatican didn't have such control over and published. Anyways, you spend a lot of time defending the book and not the manifestations of Biblical Doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church during the Dark Ages is the result of devout belief in Biblical Doctrine. Luckily the world has slowly moved away from religion. For the most part, individuals considered devout in the 21st century would be considered heathens 800 years ago. Most Christians now view their book in a very fluffy baby panda bears and cute kitties sort of way where they disregard the atrocities, contradictions, and the obvious flaws. There should be no problem with someone doing that; if it enhances their lives in a positive way and doesn't hurt anyone else that's a great thing.
Yeah, like I said, I wasn't sure about Albert Einstein, but that was how the email was sent to me. I doubt it was even from an actual class, but it makes for a cute read anyway. I'm not entirely sure my account is inaccurate although it does have some opinion mixed in with curiosities of mine. Remember in history, it all depends on who is telling the story. Don't mistake me, I'm not really defending the Bible as much as arguing for the sake of it(arguing). The Bible doesn't really need my inadequate defense backing it up. I'm pretty sure God does a good job of keeping it alive without my help. I do believe the Bible is the word of God. That's not to say there is not other gospels or texts that could be His word as well, but I do not know enough to discuss them. I don't believe there are contradictions or flaws to the book, only a lack of understanding by people in general. But then that assumes I know what you are referring to when you say flaws. These days most people prefer to look at the Bible from the view of the New Testament. It's not really a puppy dog and kitten view so much as an understanding in the change in God. In the old testament he is very demanding, a jealous God. Somewhere along the line he seems to realize He made a mistake either in his creation of us or in his way of dealing with us. This results in the more giving, loving God as He changes his tactics. Most Christian faiths tend to also teach from that point of view as well. I do believe it's a good thing that people are moving away from organized religion but I do not believe it is a good thing that more and more believers isolate their belief because of it. The danger of religion is the power it wields and the influence man has upon it. We are too corruptible. The problem with no religion is that we are supposed to join together to support each other in praise and worship, and we have moved away from those actions outside of a religious setting like a mass. I'm not sure where the balance is; maybe with simple Bible study instead of imposed religious doctrine (which is what influenced the RCC in the dark ages, not biblical doctrine - the Church was already poisoned at that point, adding its own thoughts to what is followed today as a doctrine agreed on by all Christians).
‘Let me explain the problem science has with religion.’ The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand ‘You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?’ ’Yes sir,’ the student says. ’So you believe in God’ ’Absolutely.’ ‘Is God good?’ ‘Sure! God’s good.’ ‘Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?’ ‘Yes’ ’Are you good or evil?’ ‘The Bible says I’m evil.’ The professor grins knowingly. ‘Aha! The Bible!’ He considers for a moment. ‘Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?’ ‘Yes sir, I would.’ ‘So you’re good…!’ ‘I wouldn’t say that.’ ‘But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.’ The student does not answer, so the professor continues. ‘He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?’ The student remains silent. ‘No, you can’t, can you?’ the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. ‘Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?’ ‘Er…yes,’ the student says. ‘Is Satan good?’ The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. ‘No.’ ‘Then where does Satan come from?’ The student falters. ‘From God’ ‘That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?’ ‘Yes, sir.’ ‘Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?’ ‘Yes’ ‘So who created evil?’ The professor continued, ‘If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.’ Again, the student has no answer. ‘Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?’ The student squirms on his feet. ‘Yes.’ ‘So who created them?’ The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. ‘Who created them?’ There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. ‘Tell me,’ he continues onto another student. ‘Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?’ The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. ‘Yes, professor, I do.’ The old man stops pacing. ‘Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?’ ‘No sir. I’ve never seen Him.’ ‘Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?’ ‘No, sir, I have not.’ ‘Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?’ ‘No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.’ ‘Yet you still believe in him?’ ‘Yes’ ‘According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?’ ‘Nothing,’ the student replies. ‘I only have my faith.’ ‘Yes, faith,’ the professor repeats. ‘And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.’ The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. ‘Professor, is there such thing as heat?’ ‘And is there such a thing as cold?’ ‘Yes, son, there’s cold too.’ ‘No sir, there isn’t.’ The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. ‘You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.’ ‘Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.’ Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer. ‘What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?’ ‘Yes,’ the professor replies without hesitation. ‘What is night if it isn’t darkness?’ ‘You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word.’ ‘In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?’ The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. ‘So what point are you making, young man?’ ‘Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.’ The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. ‘Flawed? Can you explain how?’ ‘You are working on the premise of duality,’ the student explains. ‘You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.’ ‘Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?’ ‘If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.’ ‘Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?’ The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed. ‘Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?’ The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. ‘To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.’ The student looks around the room. ‘Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?’ The class breaks out into laughter. ‘Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.’ ‘So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?’ Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. ‘I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.’ ‘Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,’ the student continues. ‘Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?’ Now uncertain, the professor responds, ‘Of course, there is. We see it everyday It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.’ To this the student replied, ‘Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.’ The professor sat down. The Student was Albert Einstein.[/quote] Science and religion do not mix. They are from two seperate eras of our existance as a species.
‘Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.’ this shit is bs. the professor's abilities to speak, move..etc, are actions of his brain, thus a confirmation of its presence. we cannot see our measure dark matter, only observe its gravitation affect on the matter around, so we know that its there. The professor fucked up on that one.
I bolded some flaws you yourself pointed out; these are not attributes of an omniscient and omnipotent being. Burning Man and certain music festivals come to mind as an example of individuals gathering en masse as one cohesive unit supporting and praising one another. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by religious doctrine influenced the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages instead of Biblical Doctrine. Biblical Doctrine is a religious doctrine. If you are suggesting that the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages wasn't influenced by the Bible I'm not exactly sure how you are going to make an argument for that. I have a hard time believing that this was an actual discussion within a university classroom. If a philosophy, or science related, professor could not find himself out of that conversation he does not deserve his position within a legitimate academic institution.
Says who? Just because you are 'never ending' doesnt exactly mean you have to be perfect. You can go on the premise that since he is God, anything he does must be right, but if he doesnt believe that himself, should we? Remember, we are made in his image and we are all kinds of fucked up. True but it isn't exactly worship or praise of God. I guess it depends on how far you stretch it (thinking along the lines of anything you do to a stranger, you do unto Jesus, etc). I mean that the doctrine is only as pure as the application of it. The Roman Catholic Church did some horrible things in the name of religion. Anything can be twisted. I don't believe the Biblical doctrine was always followed in the correct context so I'm calling it religious doctrine.
if your not muslim your alright i have a blind hatred to them because i think they wanna kill everyone else and i dont know anyone who is muslim and anytime i met a muslim their black and out fo jail usually already hate people like me not sure what this has to do about what you guys are talking about but my penis is big despite my forum name
How not to Juan Martin Hernandez!I'm supporting Paris while it was on my choice goes a bit more for players from the capital but afut say what is El Mago deserves its nickname ... Otherwise, I find Kelleher impressive since the start of the season ...
hey i read tessa's thing but not all the replies so i hope this is relevant (...a year later, on a forum nobody reads...) the ending took me aback for a moment because i am not a christian and yet everything the "student" said seemed true. that is because it is. however, the student uses "God" as a synonym for "Good" (in that classic sense of good vs. evil) rather than the entity "He" is commonly defined as by the church. kinda killed the wow factor when i figured that out but nonetheless it is an interesting anecdote! also, 99% sure that it wasn't einstein, and you are correct to assume that it was added for an extra kick. just seems a little over the top to me. i dunno about you but nobody is running around recording my anecdotes in case i get famous later
