I'm not sure what that was directed at (same for Theren's post).
Of course not. He just wants his followers to follow him blindly, have absolute faith in him, and follow his every command...
Three Rules of Robotics. Ten Commandmants.
things you have to believe to be a republican today
You're lucky you caught me on a sober day when I'm willing to explain myself. You said:
Which is wrong because:
The "we would be robots omg" argument is predicated on a set of rules that exist in this universe only, not all possible universes. And since God is after all perfect and able to do or create anything he so pleases -- not constrained by the rules of this universe wherein "if you can't choose right from wrong you would be a robot". So your argument is, essentially, horseshit ridiculous. God could easily create a universe wherein people were both free and always chose to do good. If he couldn't do that, then he isn't perfect, isn't infinite and isn't god at all.
Which is wrong because:
The "we would be robots omg" argument is predicated on a set of rules that exist in this universe only, not all possible universes. And since God is after all perfect and able to do or create anything he so pleases -- not constrained by the rules of this universe wherein "if you can't choose right from wrong you would be a robot". So your argument is, essentially, horseshit ridiculous. God could easily create a universe wherein people were both free and always chose to do good. If he couldn't do that, then he isn't perfect, isn't infinite and isn't god at all.
I disagree. Is it free choice when the only choice you have is to choose good?
Granted, God could create such a universe, and I don't know why he didn't (or maybe he did?). Maybe God has created hundreds of similar planets such as Earth, each with different conditions and defining rules? I don't know.
Granted, God could create such a universe, and I don't know why he didn't (or maybe he did?). Maybe God has created hundreds of similar planets such as Earth, each with different conditions and defining rules? I don't know.
Incidentally, Theren, why have you been drunk so often lately? And when do you graduate from collage, are you going for a masters?
...not all possible universes?
Says who? Human fancy?
I thought God was not constrained by human logic.
Again, says who?
As far as I know, what one can find out what "God" can or can't do or can or can't create is what is either stated or inferred in the bible.
Human imagination is another thing.
From the premise of an intelligent creator (as you were talking from), you paint a picture that 'God' is able to make 10 camels stand on the head of a needle. Just because Kas wants to believe in an intelligent designer of life in general does not make his God some magical leprechaun that can move backwards through time riding a buffalo...just because 'he can'.
It's a ridiculous picture. Granted Christendom in general has never been much help in actually painting a balanced and reasonable picture but what religion may or may not say does not necessarily negate the possibility that there is an intelligent mind behind creation.
In any event, I do not see how having an intelligent mind behind say man's creation negates the adaptability and species change of the fruit fly or trees or whatnot. Nor do I see how having the evidence of macro-evolution negate the existence of an intelligent creator.
In my opinion, it is the dogma of both points of view that holds to their and only their view to the exclusion of everything else. If there is evidence of an evolutionary process, an intelligent creator must not exist and if there is evidence of an intelligence creator (which some scientists have held the clock-work order of the universe as evidence of), then the evolutionary process must be bogus.
Says who? Human fancy?
I thought God was not constrained by human logic.
Again, says who?
As far as I know, what one can find out what "God" can or can't do or can or can't create is what is either stated or inferred in the bible.
Human imagination is another thing.
From the premise of an intelligent creator (as you were talking from), you paint a picture that 'God' is able to make 10 camels stand on the head of a needle. Just because Kas wants to believe in an intelligent designer of life in general does not make his God some magical leprechaun that can move backwards through time riding a buffalo...just because 'he can'.
It's a ridiculous picture. Granted Christendom in general has never been much help in actually painting a balanced and reasonable picture but what religion may or may not say does not necessarily negate the possibility that there is an intelligent mind behind creation.
In any event, I do not see how having an intelligent mind behind say man's creation negates the adaptability and species change of the fruit fly or trees or whatnot. Nor do I see how having the evidence of macro-evolution negate the existence of an intelligent creator.
In my opinion, it is the dogma of both points of view that holds to their and only their view to the exclusion of everything else. If there is evidence of an evolutionary process, an intelligent creator must not exist and if there is evidence of an intelligence creator (which some scientists have held the clock-work order of the universe as evidence of), then the evolutionary process must be bogus.
I don't accept the thought process that evolution and God worked together over fifteen billion years because that would contradict several things Jesus said, making Jesus a liar...
That's not exactly what I said but ok.
The evidence that Sam linked, in my opinion, does not negate the possibility of an intelligent creator. It does, however, lend support to the evolutionary process though on a small scale.
It is when that evidence is taken and applied to the "big picture" of man and monkey and everything in between where the both points of view clash.
And even so, if there was a God that created what he created back in the day, it also does not negate the possibility of the evolutionary process (as we have seen evidence of on a small scale). What does the bible say? On the seventh day God rested?
From that point, the life process set into motion would have moved on, no? (whether imperfect or not)
The evidence that Sam linked, in my opinion, does not negate the possibility of an intelligent creator. It does, however, lend support to the evolutionary process though on a small scale.
It is when that evidence is taken and applied to the "big picture" of man and monkey and everything in between where the both points of view clash.
And even so, if there was a God that created what he created back in the day, it also does not negate the possibility of the evolutionary process (as we have seen evidence of on a small scale). What does the bible say? On the seventh day God rested?
From that point, the life process set into motion would have moved on, no? (whether imperfect or not)
I believe the process of DNA degeneration began after the eating of the forbidden fruit. Prior to that everything was perfect, post the first sin things began going downhill. See the quick degeneration of lifespan as recorded by the Bible for one example.
Just thought I'd share this link... I found in interesting, as I've always had archeological leanings...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html
Anyways, that said, I agree with Omnae, which is the exact reason I don't attend, and never have, any church even though I'm a Christian. I believe in God, definitely, and pattern my life as best I can on a good moral and ethical code, but I also believe in evolution and not creationalism. Are both me and my fiancee descendant from one man and one woman? Eww... no I don't believe so. (( Incidently, to keep my life fun, my fiancee IS a Christian who believes in creation...))
To me, the Bible is a book. One, if not the, best books every written, but I can also look at it and realize, rationally, that this book was written by men thousands of years ago and is very colored by their own personal beliefs of how the world should be. In fact, todays version of the Bible is highly censored with large portions removed through out the centuries, just as the Bible was never written all at once but over hundreds of years by differant men.
For example, modern Christianity teaches that Methusala was the oldest man to ever live, by the stories of the Bible. But also, by the stories of the Bible, he wasn't. But you don't learn that today because the books that teach you about the man who actually lived the longest, Enoch, were removed from the Bible a couple hundred years ago. In fact, Enoch never did actually die within the Bible stories, he was taken to Heaven by God before actual death. He was also the father of Methusala, but his mention in the modern Bible is brief at the most, but in the older versions he has a section devoted to him just as long, or longer, than some of the others.
It's just that a couple hundred years ago some men in the church decided that the Book of Enoch was too scandalous for the people to read themselves. So in later printings it was gone. That happened to quite a few sections in the Bible. So to sit and argue that because things that you've been taught, or read yourself, in the Bible are there that they must be true is being very gullible. What you read in the Bible today is exactly what a couple hundred years of some of the greediest nasty popal dictators history has ever recorded decided you should read.... Some of the most horrendous attacks and evil acts commited in the name of God were ordered by the same men who clipped and pruned the works of the Bible into what you see today...
Anyways, that's my opinion. I'm not out to change anyone else's, as a strong faith can help many a person survive things that would destroy someone without any convictions.....
It just annoys me sometimes how people will point at the Bible and say, it's written there, it's true and has to be taken to mean exactly what it says...
Anywho... enough rambling from me... I just found it funny that they named an archeoligical find 'Hobbit' :b
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html
Anyways, that said, I agree with Omnae, which is the exact reason I don't attend, and never have, any church even though I'm a Christian. I believe in God, definitely, and pattern my life as best I can on a good moral and ethical code, but I also believe in evolution and not creationalism. Are both me and my fiancee descendant from one man and one woman? Eww... no I don't believe so. (( Incidently, to keep my life fun, my fiancee IS a Christian who believes in creation...))
To me, the Bible is a book. One, if not the, best books every written, but I can also look at it and realize, rationally, that this book was written by men thousands of years ago and is very colored by their own personal beliefs of how the world should be. In fact, todays version of the Bible is highly censored with large portions removed through out the centuries, just as the Bible was never written all at once but over hundreds of years by differant men.
For example, modern Christianity teaches that Methusala was the oldest man to ever live, by the stories of the Bible. But also, by the stories of the Bible, he wasn't. But you don't learn that today because the books that teach you about the man who actually lived the longest, Enoch, were removed from the Bible a couple hundred years ago. In fact, Enoch never did actually die within the Bible stories, he was taken to Heaven by God before actual death. He was also the father of Methusala, but his mention in the modern Bible is brief at the most, but in the older versions he has a section devoted to him just as long, or longer, than some of the others.
It's just that a couple hundred years ago some men in the church decided that the Book of Enoch was too scandalous for the people to read themselves. So in later printings it was gone. That happened to quite a few sections in the Bible. So to sit and argue that because things that you've been taught, or read yourself, in the Bible are there that they must be true is being very gullible. What you read in the Bible today is exactly what a couple hundred years of some of the greediest nasty popal dictators history has ever recorded decided you should read.... Some of the most horrendous attacks and evil acts commited in the name of God were ordered by the same men who clipped and pruned the works of the Bible into what you see today...
Anyways, that's my opinion. I'm not out to change anyone else's, as a strong faith can help many a person survive things that would destroy someone without any convictions.....
It just annoys me sometimes how people will point at the Bible and say, it's written there, it's true and has to be taken to mean exactly what it says...
Anywho... enough rambling from me... I just found it funny that they named an archeoligical find 'Hobbit' :b