Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Tell Us About Your Beliefs/religions
Fullmetal Alchemist Discussion Board > General Discussions > Open Talk
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Popogeejo
What does being a teenager have to do with Fate existing?
Sharingan Serpent
No idea...****** sugars at it again....let's drop it...I also believe in Destiny for another reeason...
Popogeejo
I had a similar debate on another forum

I have problems with the idea of everything being preditermind.If I just sat down and died it must have been pre-decided and therefore I was never importan.Conversly if I did something great it had alrady been decided so there for no that special.
Le Monkey
QUOTE
Portions of DNA — termed "junk" DNA — that do not appear to serve any purpose

This is most likely to be imcomplete viruses, viruses that never activated (This is also something that could scare you if you think about it, XD. We all might have this same inactive virus in us, what hppens if it activate eh?) or old/bad genes that were results of in complete mutations.

I hate the idea of "Fate" or "Destiny".
Soley on the idea that, I can choose weather to get up in the morning, weather to jump off a cliff or not, EVERYTHING we do is full of choises wich can and will shape our life in coming years.
If it is predetermined why would it be so hard to make a desision?

And it also degrades the people who die in accidents as Obbviously they weernt important enough to live on, and I hate this idea..
Also the way people try to pass the buck of mistakes to "Fate". Im sorry I ran over your son, It was fate.. dry.gif
ἀρχή
QUOTE(popogeejo @ Apr 12 2006, 10:20 AM) [snapback]379068[/snapback]

That was joke you know?
God is an impossible concept that breaks the laws of physics.
I think people who refuse to admit God may just be a load of Bull Shit are letting their emotions cloud their ratoinality.
God gives them a misguided hope and without god they lose hope.Idiots.

I'm replying in this thread as it's more appropriate here.

Anyway, I'm too tired to actually say anything properly meaningfully and will probably not write this well, but I do think that you are too closed minded about the issues when it comes to God. This is what clouds your thinking and does make your reasoning flawed. In a sense it's the same thing that bacon does. You both often ascribe to God actions of those who believe in God, which do not necessarily represent what God is (assuming the possiblity of God's existence). Criticize the actual issue, for instance, the sub-culture of those who believe in God and their actions and how those actions ascribe to God certain predicates that you do not see as justifiable. Criticizing this does not give proof of the inability to believe in God but rather only criticizes the individuals irrational ascriptions to God. If you wish to push for the disbelief and irrationality of belief in God, remember to do so based on the raw concept of God that is universal and not conditional upon sub-culture predicates.

I am never really concerned with debate for debate sake, but rather discussion. A discussion that is willing to see what is not normal for you. I try my best to think through issues as if God may not exist in order to be fair. I do in fact believe in God, however, I am not certain of what I ascribe to God are actually correct. I try to isolate my thinking about issues (especially about God) in a way that does not depend on what certain individuals or groups believe about God or ascribe to God.

It is in this way that I think you may need to learn to open your mind up more and be willing to accept what you naturally may think is irrational. It is also in this way that I think you are potentially "emotional" about the subject. Of course I prefer your conversation to one who is blinded by their religion. I make this suggestion/comment to you because I think that with this in mind, you can be more effective in your thinking and more credible to those who are very well read in these debates (I unfortunately am not nearly well read enough). I probably wrote more than I needed to, but I'm tired and need to get ready to go to sleep because of the long day I've had.
Popogeejo
QUOTE

If it is predetermined why would it be so hard to make a desision?


I knew you were going to say that.
I 102% agree with what you said.Desitney just screws people.
Le Monkey
QUOTE(popogeejo @ Apr 12 2006, 06:44 PM) [snapback]379683[/snapback]

QUOTE

If it is predetermined why would it be so hard to make a desision?


I knew you were going to say that.
I 102% agree with what you said.Desitney just screws people.


A mind reader too? ohmy.gif
and a wonderfull mathmetician it seems.. XD

Well for the examples I have pre-mentioned desiny is not to my liking so I do not want to belive in it, if it can be proven to me, I am all for belining in something, but I dont think it is a realistic theory if EVERYTHING is pre determined.

@Arche: Most of the points you have made are quite valid, and I can see where you are coming from, but some of them are a little off. But in all the fact still remains that, as you said god must be taken as the idea, not the sect of god, is a very good point, I will try to remember to use this idea rather than the normall I dea of Christian god as I have done in th epast. Thanks for pointing it out, ^^
Much Appreciated.
Popogeejo
Could I just point out (sorry if this has been said before) but in the poll options:
it's Hindu not Hinduist,
the Poll is missing Jewish,Muslim and Islamic,
Christian and Born again Christian is the same religion,
what about being Agnostic?
Le Monkey
QUOTE(popogeejo @ Apr 12 2006, 08:10 PM) [snapback]379756[/snapback]
Christian and Born again Christian is the same religion,


Yes they are the same religion, but there is a mogor differnce between the two.
asunder
QUOTE(Le Monkey @ Apr 12 2006, 08:15 PM) [snapback]379760[/snapback]

QUOTE(popogeejo @ Apr 12 2006, 08:10 PM) [snapback]379756[/snapback]
Christian and Born again Christian is the same religion,


Yes they are the same religion, but there is a mogor differnce between the two.


Seriously is that really considered a religion? Born again Christian?
popo is right btw ...it's Hindu ...I've never heard of Hinduist.
FullMetal Shrimp
According to my Church, Christian is a Born Again Christian, else he would not be a Christian. To be a Christian means to be "Christ Like" and I do think you'd have to become saved to be a Christian.
Popogeejo
Who made this thread?how can someone be so stupid to leave off 3 major relligions,out two of the smae religon and misspell another.

Also shouldn't Satanism be up there.It is a religon after all.Scientology doesn't count.
Le Monkey
hmm, well I have always come into contact with peple who are christian by upbringing, EG parents are, so you go with it, and born again who have found god out for themselves, and its not a different religion, just a different depth of christian if you know what I mean..

Im tired.. sorry for bad logic and spelling.. XD
Lone Wolf
I am a Christian, not by religion, nor because I go to church, but because Jesus Christ died to save me, and I accepted him as my Savior.

I believe:
-God made the universe in which we live.
-His only Son, Jesus, died a painful death on the cross to save the world and me from our sins. Then, after three days, he rose again, overcoming death and giving people the opportunity for eternal life through him. (In other words, Jesus is the only path to heaven. Not doing good things, not going to church, not your parents being Christians, etc...) Jesus then returned to heaven, but he will come again to judge the quick, the dead, and those still living. Only those that believed and do believe in him and have accepted him as their Savior will be allowed to enter heaven and live forever with him.
-One must die to themself to live again. (I have given up my "sinful nature"-death to achieve eternal life through Christ.)
-I am loved by Jesus and that Jesus loves everyone, regardless of what they've done or who they are.
-The Bible is the written Word of God, and that it alone carries the Truth.

I could go on and on, but I think I'll stop there.

"I believe what I believe. It's what makes me what I am. I did not make it; it is making me. It is the very Truth of God, and not the invention of any man." -Rich Mullins
Popogeejo
Seeing as this is a debate I'm gonna debate your Belifes.

How can we know:
1)Jesus was the Son of God and not just a Capenter looking for an easier life?
2)that it was people saw and not a Christ alike,
3)the Bibles version of events are even vaugly accurate.

Also if Christianity is right then what about:
1)Catholics,Mormons,lutherans and all the other varitan versions of the same rlligion
2)The Jews belife that the Messiah has yet to arrive.Jews have just as much faith in their belifes as you so how can both be right?
3)The other relligions who have totaly diffrent views.They are all firmly set that their way is right and the others are mistaken.

Maybe among the web of confusion there is a strand of truth somewhere within all the religons that gives one simple Idea of God.One "True" religion.

Basicly:
How can you be so sure you have the right religion?
How can you even be sure religion has the right answers?
Carnal Malefactor
...and how are you any better than the UFO cults?
Toby-Chan
QUOTE(popogeejo @ Apr 12 2006, 08:10 PM) [snapback]379756[/snapback]
the Poll is missing Jewish,Muslim and Islamic,



Muslim and Islamic are the same thing. mellow.gif

We're missing Zoroastranism. ohmy.gif!


My beliefs... I have my own and I don't adhere to any single rigid mold religion. I'm still at a place of indecision for what I believe with everything, but I grow much more confident in my own philosophies day by day.

I can't deny, though, it still would give me comfort to be able to retain the belief of a singular omnipotent loving God who has a plan for all of us. There's a large part of my consciousness that still identifies with predominantly Christian beliefs. It's hard to let that go. Faith is a soft place to fall, and it's difficult not to have that comfort zone as well as a stronghold to feel belonging with others of the same philosophy.
Popogeejo
QUOTE
Muslim and Islamic are the same thing


Sorry,I thought they were diffrent Like Christianity and Catholism.Technicly the same with little diffrences.
MonsterEnvy
The difference is in Sunni and Shi'ite muslims. They're sort of like Catholics and protestants.

I'm technically an agnostic, but I have to go under an 'atheist' because we don't have the option, and it's close enough.

I don't really believe in religion, because, far from providing good moral values and examples, they often cause more religious hatred and more wars than if they never even tried to be role models for the common people.

However, the masses do need their opiate, to paraphrase Marx's famous quote. Most people require a higher power to give their lives meaning. Often, when they aspire to something, it seems that people become less religious in pursuit of a goal.

Meh, I don't know. If anyone thinks that religion is useful and attractive for a different reason, I'd love to hear it.

I also really agree with Toby. It's often hard to really let go of Christian beliefs, or beliefs of whatever religion that you were raised in. It's also comforting to believe in a higher power, and i also find myself indecisive and use philosophy instead of true religion in everyday life- therefore, an agnostic.
Carnal Malefactor
QUOTE(MonsterEnvy @ Apr 14 2006, 10:16 PM) [snapback]380782[/snapback]

The difference is in Sunni and Shi'ite muslims. They're sort of like Catholics and protestants.

Actually, it's not even remotely analogous to that.
MonsterEnvy
It is a bit analagous to that. It mainly had to do with the question of the leader of the Church- in the case of Catholics and Protestants, the Catholics believed that Jesus had placed his power in the Pope, and the Pope was to be his full representative. The protestants believed that Jesus did no such thing, and the Bible should be the ultimate authority.

In the Muslim case, the Shi'ites believed that Muhammad's successor should be his blood relative, whereas the Sunnis believed that he should be someone in the community who elected or suchlike. They both arise from basic struggles as to who or what should be the authority of the church.

In any case, my point was that there is a similar schism and mutual enmity between Sunnis and Shi'ites as there is between Catholics and Protestants.
Carnal Malefactor
Except that in Christianity, the schism came after hundreds of years of corrupt rule by the Catholic church, whereas in Islam, the split occurred immediately after Mohammed's death.
Toby-Chan
Okay; that's where the difference lies, but the point he was making was that regardless of the time change, those are what the different sects in Islam are, similar to the different sects in Christianity.

It's good to know all these things, though.
Envy's lil' miniskirt
QUOTE(MonsterEnvy @ Apr 14 2006, 05:16 PM) [snapback]380782[/snapback]

I also really agree with Toby. It's often hard to really let go of Christian beliefs, or beliefs of whatever religion that you were raised in. It's also comforting to believe in a higher power, and i also find myself indecisive and use philosophy instead of true religion in everyday life- therefore, an agnostic.

I also agree with you and Toby. I was raised in a Christian family and was a Christian for about seven years before I chucked it altogether. I was an agnostic (for lack of better words) for a while but now I pratice buddhism. However, I still can't get past the concept of an omnipotent god who watches over us.

Perhaps I'll always believe in some little way that there's a guy sitting amongst the clouds watching me do my gorcery shopping.
Toby-Chan
QUOTE(Envy's lil' miniskirt @ Apr 14 2006, 07:47 PM) [snapback]380794[/snapback]
Perhaps I'll always believe in some little way that there's a guy sitting amongst the clouds watching me do my gorcery shopping.


I think that sentence sums it up perfectly.

Perhaps that's just a little human error of insecurity that we need to keep with ourselves for a level of comfort. I've always had a feeling of a higher consciousness always being present with me; thinking it was "God", and even now at this moment, I do feel like I am not alone; that there is another existence that is constantly accompanying me, or at least riding along in my mind as I make my way through life; not necessarily scolding or interfering, but being a good little observer, nodding his head as I make progress in my most important struggles, as if to say "Told ya you could figure it all out."


From minimal studies, and recent personal revelations, it seems like the conclusions I've come to myself most closely mirror Buddhism, and upon closer study, I've found I can relate to it a lot as a philosophy. (I really ought to study all world religions more intensely) However, I certainly wouldn't be comfortable identifying myself as a Buddhist, and probably won't in the near future, but one never knows. I believe in it because many of its principles follow my primarily scientific based theories on life. As for the more religious aspects of it, not so much.


And while I feel like a part of me still clings to the tales of the bible, I probably knew for myself a long time ago that most of them aren't likely to be true. They're still something that gives me a sense of comfort, though, and I absolutely love studying back on christianity, and learning new things about it. Like today, I was watching some specials on the Discovery channel about Christ's ancestry. It intrigued me, but the familiarity of the story; the way it feels so second nature reminds me that whether or not these stories had truth in any dimension, I still can relate to them in some sort of abstract sense. I still admire the virtue of faith for positive purposes.


However, I'm not all too keen on voicing that standpoint, because I know from experience how offended christians tend to get when someone minimalizes their belief with "I think Jesus was a great guy, but I don't think he was the son of God." When their whole system is built predominantly on 'Faith first- the details later.' And I especially don't feel like taking up that sort of point that needs to be defended when a part of me still wants to believe Christ was the son of God.

I'm still searching, but in the mean time, it still dosen't bother me in the least to attend church, or take part in some sort of christian based lesson that's useful. Studying and knowing ones' religion still beats the heck out of ignorant materialism.
Carnal Malefactor
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary for us to invent him." - Voltaire
Toby-Chan
"Because [people are] too insecure to realise that other people having different beliefs doesn't make their own belief any less valid, so they need to stamp out all differences in order to validate themselves. It's pathetic." -- From a philosophical debate on Deviantart.

(As long as we're pulling out relevant quotes here...)
Lone Wolf
QUOTE(popogeejo @ Apr 14 2006, 07:14 PM) [snapback]380759[/snapback]

Seeing as this is a debate I'm gonna debate your Belifes.

How can we know:
1)Jesus was the Son of God and not just a Capenter looking for an easier life?
2)that it was people saw and not a Christ alike,
3)the Bibles version of events are even vaugly accurate.

Also if Christianity is right then what about:
1)Catholics,Mormons,lutherans and all the other varitan versions of the same rlligion
2)The Jews belife that the Messiah has yet to arrive.Jews have just as much faith in their belifes as you so how can both be right?
3)The other relligions who have totaly diffrent views.They are all firmly set that their way is right and the others are mistaken.

Maybe among the web of confusion there is a strand of truth somewhere within all the religons that gives one simple Idea of God.One "True" religion.

Basicly:
How can you be so sure you have the right religion?
How can you even be sure religion has the right answers?

First of all, why would a carpenter want to claim that he was the Son of God? Just so he could be killed by the pharisees? For anyone to have claimed that they were God's Son back in that age, they wouldn't have been wishing for an easier life, they would have had a death wish. Also, if you would read the Old Testament, you would find many prophecies on Christ's coming to earth. (Mind you, these prophecies were written hundreds of years before Jesus was to be born.) Then, throughout the course of his lifetime, Jesus fulfilled all of those prophecies. The chances of any normal person achieving even one of those prophecies (bringing someone back to life) would be very slim. So, Jesus' claims to be the Son of God were justified.

For your question on the Bible's accounts being accurate, go to the evolution/creation debate, and go back a few (or maybe several... unsure.gif ) pages, I have a whole post on the accuracy of the Bible. (I'm not going to re-post it here, because it'd take up way too much room...)

As for Catholicism and other denominations, they were invented by humans, but they were based off of Christianity. Personally, I don't belong to any denomination, church, or religion. I belong to Jesus. As I told you before, just accepting that Jesus is the Savior is enough, not practicing anything that man invented.

Religions are based off of a series of beliefs; then made by man to follow these beliefs in some organized fashion. In order to determine which one is "right", one must probe for the truth themself. I don't mean go try every religion there is out there; I mean go look into the beliefs of all of the religions.

Jesus is not a religion. He is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life." I don't believe that there is one "true" religion. I believe in One, True, Loving God and his Son, Jesus Christ. He has all the right answers, not me, and not any religion either.

Now I have a question for you: Have you read the entire Bible?
Popogeejo
QUOTE
First of all, why would a carpenter want to claim that he was the Son of God? Just so he could be killed by the pharisees? For anyone to have claimed that they were God's Son back in that age, they wouldn't have been wishing for an easier life, they would have had a death wish.


People take risks all the time if the reward is high enough.
I mean if they were going to kill anyone who tried to claim to be the son of God then why did Jesus not get killed when he made his decleration?He kickd about for quite some tmie before he got Crucified.

QUOTE
I belong to Jesus.


That just sounds wrong.you belong to someone who you can't even be sure is who he claimed to be.

QUOTE
Now I have a question for you: Have you read the entire Bible?


Yeah,awhile back.Could have used some Vampires.It really didn't hold any water with me.A flood that drowned the world my arse,a Tower to heaven and God nukeing cities then saying not to kill.
Carnal Malefactor
That part where Jesus used a +3 Resurrect spell on that one dude was just tits!
Lone Wolf
@popogeejo: What reward would Jesus have gotten? Also, if you would recall what you read in the Bible, you would know that many of the people loved Jesus, and the pharisees knew this. So killing Jesus early would have been bad for the pharisees.

I'm sure that Jesus exists and that he is the Son of God. It may not make sense to you, but I can feel it in my soul that he's there. Sure, my faith may be blind to you, but then again, faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see...

I guess when you read the Bible, you weren't digging deep enough into it. It's more than just "stories" as people without Truth like to say... I suggest that you read the Bible again, but this time, I ask you to just read it and think on the words. There are many underlying "themes" (to use literary terms). Maybe this time you'll get more out of it, but it all depends on how you read and interpret it...
Carnal Malefactor
2 questions that always bugged me

1) We all know the stories about Jesus' birth, and the last 3 or so years of his life... what about all the stuff in between? I know of virtually no accounts, biblical or otherwise, with any credibility that go into detail about the majority of his life.
And also, what happened to the three Magi, who knew he was the son of God?

2) If we are to believe that a: God created only Adam & Eve, and b: all humans are descended from them, why are there at least 4 distinct race lines in existence, if the theory of evolution [which is the only reasonable explanation of divergent racial traits that I know of] is a load of crap, like you've suggested in the past?
Popogeejo
QUOTE
What reward would Jesus have gotten?


People offering him free stuff.A free night at a hotel or a free meal.People would hav eoffered Jesus a bunch of crap to earn his favour be it in vain or not.

QUOTE
Also, if you would recall what you read in the Bible, you would know that many of the people loved Jesus, and the pharisees knew this. So killing Jesus early would have been bad for the pharisees.


The people loved Jesus so he was allowed to live,eh?I'm pretty sure the pharisees would be more worried about a potential threat fom Jesus than looking bad.

QUOTE
I guess when you read the Bible, you weren't digging deep enough into it. It's more than just "stories" as people without Truth like to say... I suggest that you read the Bible again, but this time, I ask you to just read it and think on the words. There are many underlying "themes" (to use literary terms). Maybe this time you'll get more out of it, but it all depends on how you read and interpret it...


So you want me to read it untill I see your point.
I've said somewhere that I'm a lapsed Christian.I used to belive that crap and try and convince my friends it was real.Around 9 years old I started to become Jaded but stuck with it hoping that I was right.By 12 I gave up.There were to many flaws and weaknesses and intolerance.jesus loves you but has no problems with you going to hell if you don't give yourself over to him.

I found science to have a more convincing argument and although I remain a bit sceptical about some claims I belive it makes a hell of alot more sense than God,Jesus and the Bible.

QUOTE("Void")
what about all the stuff in between?


Jesus was oing a Prince Harry.Lots of Booze and womanising. wink.gif
Lone Wolf
QUOTE(Void @ Apr 15 2006, 12:58 PM) [snapback]381185[/snapback]

2 questions that always bugged me

1) We all know the stories about Jesus' birth, and the last 3 or so years of his life... what about all the stuff in between? I know of virtually no accounts, biblical or otherwise, with any credibility that go into detail about the majority of his life.

2) If we are to believe that a: God created only Adam & Eve, and b: all humans are descended from them, why are there at least 4 distinct race lines in existence, if the theory of evolution [which is the only reasonable explanation of divergent racial traits that I know of] is a load of crap, like you've suggested in the past?

That's very true, I myself have asked that question. To be honest I don't really know. Jesus had to grow up, just like the rest of us, so perhaps that's what goes on. I'll look this up, thanks for bringing it up.

First of all, I never suggested that the theory of evolution was crap. I've only asked questions. Second, how do any of us know if Adam and Eve were of the same color or race? God might have made them with entirely different traits.

I'm sorry if I couldn't answer your questions completely, but I don't have all the answers.
FullMetal Shrimp
QUOTE(popogeejo @ Apr 14 2006, 06:14 PM) [snapback]380759[/snapback]

Basicly:
How can you be so sure you have the right religion?
How can you even be sure religion has the right answers?


I haven't posted in a while about religous beliefs, mostly because of my father's birthday but I'm looking forward to yet another argument on religion, and I'll try to be more thorough of what I say. And I'll try to help Lonewolf so she won't be outnumbered...

Yeah, there are so many religions, but I'll tell you why I think Christianity it so great. The way the Bible describes things in detial are amazingly accurate. My father has a tape of a guy talking about the Bible from about 20-30 years ago when people were afraid of China and Russia, but the guy on this tape was amazing. He said that the Bible did not say anything about those countries, that those are the countries not to fear or have concern towards, but countries of the middle-east in Asia. And guess what? It's happened! China and Russia were not to fear, but you can see things happening in the middle-eastern areas, Iraq, Iran, and all those countries. And the Bible talks about Israel, and how countries will want to destroy Israel, and it's happening! And all this and much more is in the Bible, which was written thousands of years ago. And all the scientific things that can be brought up against the Bible the Bible has an answer for. I look for the religion with the fewest holes in it, and it has no big holes, and you can argue about something that the Bible says but there's still an answer for it, but whether or not events in the Bible happened is up to you to believe in. And, if it has little holes, and the prophecies come true, then what the book contains is more than likely to be true! Which is why I believe in Jesus and all of that. But, I don't believe in religions like Catholic and such because (no offense to any Catholics) they make stuff up that is not in the Bible. They talk about things like Mary being the mother of God, but the Bible never says that! I believe in the Bible and what it contains, and that is what true Christianity believes in. I don't think it to be a book full of fairytales. And of course, you guys will probably believe it's still just a bunch of crap...

The Bible has many things dealing with Science in it.

The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens. Here are two examples.

Genesis 22:17
Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.

Jeremiah 33:22
“As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.”

Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 10^21 stars—which is a lot of stars. (The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 10^25. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?)

The Bible also says that each star is unique.

1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

All stars look alike to the naked eye.* Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others. (*Note: We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)

The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe.

Jeremiah 31:35,36
Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The LORD of hosts is His name):
“If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the LORD,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”

The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space.

Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.

Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.

The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.

Job 28:25
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.
The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.

The book of Leviticus (written prior to 1400 BC) describes the value of blood.

Leviticus 17:11
‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’
The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life—confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier.

The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.

Genesis 1:11,12
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.

The Bible describes the chemical nature of flesh.

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.

It is a proven fact that a person’s mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health. The Bible revealed this to us with these statements (and others) written by King Solomon about 950 BC.


Proverbs 12:4
An excellent wife is the crown of her husband,
But she who causes shame is like rottenness in his bones.

Proverbs 14:30
A sound heart is life to the body,
But envy is rottenness to the bones.

Proverbs 15:30
The light of the eyes rejoices the heart,
And a good report makes the bones healthy.

Proverbs 16:24
Pleasant words are like a honeycomb,
Sweetness to the soul and health to the bones.

Proverbs 17:22
A merry heart does good, like medicine,
But a broken spirit dries the bones.

We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men.

Job 30:5,6
They were driven out from among men,
They shouted at them as at a thief.
They had to live in the clefts of the valleys,
In caves of the earth and the rocks.

Note that these were not ape-men, but descendants of those who scattered from Babel. They were driven from the community by those tribes who competed successfully for the more desirable regions of the earth. Then for some reason they deteriorated mentally, physically, and spiritually.

The bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle.

Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.

Jeremiah 10:13
When He utters His voice,
There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
“And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
He makes lightning for the rain,
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.”
In these verses you can see several phases of the hydrologic cycle—the worldwide processes of evaporation, translation aloft by atmospheric circulation, condensation with electrical discharges, and precipitation.

Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?
This simple verse has remarkable scientific insight. The drops of water which eventually pour down as rain first become vapor and then condense to tiny liquid water droplets in the clouds. These finally coalesce into drops large enough to overcome the updrafts that suspend them in the air.

The Bible describes the recirculation of water.

Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.

Isaiah 55:10
For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there,
But water the earth,
And make it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower
And bread to the eater,

The Bible refers to the surprising amount of water that can be held as condensation in clouds.

Job 26:8
He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it.

Job 37:11
Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
He scatters His bright clouds.

Hydrothermal vents are described in two books of the Bible written before 1400BC—more than 3,000 years before their discovery by science.

Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Job 38:16
Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?

The Bible describes the Earth’s crust (along with a comment on astronomy).

Jeremiah 31:37
Thus says the LORD:
“If heaven above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
For all that they have done, says the LORD.”
Although some scientists claim that they have now measured the size of the universe, it is interesting to note that every human attempt to drill through the earth’s crust to the plastic mantle beneath has, thus far, ended in failure.

The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens.

This brings up an important historical note related to this topic. Many people are aware of the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Pope, Paul V. After publishing A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he was forced to renounce his findings. (At that time, “theologians” of the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe, and to assert otherwise was deemed heretical.)

We could not find any place in the Bible that claims that the Earth is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. History shows that this conflict, which took place at the time of the Inquisition, was part of a power struggle. As a result, scientific and biblical knowledge became casualties—an effect we still feel to this day.

I have more I can post up later, until then post your complaints and stuff about how this is BS and why. happy.gif
Popogeejo
QUOTE
(The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 1025. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match


ok,I'm still reading your post but I gotta call you on this.
1025 grains of sand in the world?theres 10 times that ammount in a pound of sand.You may want to add a few zeros to your number.
FullMetal Shrimp
Yeah, what I meant was 10 to the 25th power, and it's been fixed along with the numbers of stars with the ^ mark. 10^25, and I did that mark because that's what it shows on my calculator when you want to add a power... XD
Lone Wolf
*laughs* Good grief, Shrimp, give everyone a chance to breath! laugh.gif

He's right, though, there are plenty of explanations for the events in this universe that can be found in the Bible.

Eh... I'm loggin off for now. I've spent waaay too much time on the net this morning/afternoon. I'll be back t'night.
Carnal Malefactor
QUOTE(Lone Wolf @ Apr 15 2006, 03:11 PM) [snapback]381193[/snapback]

First of all, I never suggested that the theory of evolution was crap. I've only asked questions. Second, how do any of us know if Adam and Eve were of the same color or race? God might have made them with entirely different traits.

I'm sorry if I couldn't answer your questions completely, but I don't have all the answers.

Even if they were of different races, that does not account for a minimum of 4 different race lines that exist in the human species. If it stands to reason that all of humanity descended from the same two people [which it absolutely does not, knowing what we do about genetics, and what happens when people inbreed], then there would still not be more than two distinct race lines, unless humans developed these varying traits through evolution.

And then there's the idea of a great flood, which is absolutely ludicrous for many reasons.

If we're to believe that only Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their respective wives, who were all directly descended from Adam and Eve were saved from the flood, then we must also believe that only people of Hebrew blood were around to repopulate the earth after the flood. This flood took place no more than 4200 years ago, if we're to go by the Hebrew calendar, which means that it took significantly less time than that for not only all the great migrations of people to the different continents, which are separated by vast oceans to take place, but also develop the traits we see in the various races today, AND develop all the divergent cultures that were found in the ancient world, even though there have been artifacts discovered in places like Japan and Mexico which have been proven to date back 5000-6000 years or more.

QUOTE(FullMetal Shrimp @ Apr 15 2006, 03:19 PM) [snapback]381196[/snapback]


I have more I can post up later, until then post your complaints and stuff about how this is BS and why. happy.gif

It's not BS, but it doesn't sway me to believe that the bible has any more truth to it than any other piece of 'realistic' fiction.

The bible is hardly the only religious tome to contain reasonably accurate scientific information. The Qu'ran, which has a far different interpretation of monotheistic belief also contains similarly mathematically and scientifically accurate data. The Mayan calendar, written by pagans who had no contact with any monotheistic civilization, has shown to be 100% accurate in predicting the motion of stars across the sky, geological events, and planting/harvesting cycles, among other things. The Mayans had a COMPLETELY different set of religious beliefs than Christians, Jews and Muslims.
So with all this known to us, why are we to believe that the Christian bible is the only 'truth' simply on the basis of its accuracy when it comes to simple scientific principles, many of which were established well before it was written? Most of what you described is easily observable phenomena anyway. The measurements provided by the Mayans are far more advanced, and more accurate. So what should that tell us? That we should all start performing human sacrifices to appease Ixchel?

QUOTE(FullMetal Shrimp @ Apr 15 2006, 03:19 PM) [snapback]381196[/snapback]

Yeah, there are so many religions, but I'll tell you why I think Christianity it so great. The way the Bible describes things in detial are amazingly accurate. My father has a tape of a guy talking about the Bible from about 20-30 years ago when people were afraid of China and Russia, but the guy on this tape was amazing. He said that the Bible did not say anything about those countries, that those are the countries not to fear or have concern towards, but countries of the middle-east in Asia. And guess what? It's happened! China and Russia were not to fear, but you can see things happening in the middle-eastern areas, Iraq, Iran, and all those countries. And the Bible talks about Israel, and how countries will want to destroy Israel, and it's happening!

I'm gonna call BS on this until you show me proof that the bible points directly to these events. And they have to be specific. You can't quote a couple of lines vaguely and connect them to specific events, like people do with Nostradamus.
Le Monkey
Firsttly: Posting such a long list of quotes is just annoying..
Secondly: Its all to general, like fortunes, it could mean what you want it to depending on how you look at it..
asunder
When I have time, I'll dispute each and every quote you have put up FMS.

In the meantime though, my views are actually pretty unique(for this forum anyway). You can tell because my incorrectly named category on the poll has 1 vote (which was mine!).
Envy's lil' miniskirt
Wow!
We have a Hinduist on the forum now! laugh.gif

..........It looks like I can't edit the polls or else I would fix that.

Popogeejo
Darn,I wanted you to change Protastant to Satanist rolleyes.gif

I still don't see how the Bible having scientific facts init makes it right.
the HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy has some facts but I somehow doubt it's true in every point...
Envy's lil' miniskirt
I wanted to change that to agnostic actually.

EDIT:
Who fixed it and how did you do it? huh.gif
Carnal Malefactor
...just do a full edit on the initial post...
Envy's lil' miniskirt
Durr...

Thanks Bacon. happy.gif





Sharingan Serpent
Well I'm a Prod...

But I really don't listen very much to that kind of thing...
FullMetal Shrimp
Because I am no longer able to post in the Evolution vs. Creation topic, I'll post this here.

This is an article done by Prophetic Observer, and copyrighted 2006 by Southwest Radio Church, and this article is completely theirs, in which this article is titled Laughing at Evolution, which I hope that you may find somewhat interesting at the least. (Note: I am not trying to offend any evolutionist.) This was handed out on church today, which I believe not to be by a mere coincidence.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prophetic Observer


Laughing at Evolution


Dr. Edward F. Blick- Emeritus Professor of Engineering, University of Oklahoma

Dr. Edward Blick has been Professor of Aerodynamics, Nuclear Engineering, Geological Engineering, and other subject for more than thiry years at the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Blick worked on Project Mercury at NASA, as well as the F4 fighter. He has written over 150 scientific papers, and he rejects the possiblilty of an old Earth or the process of evolution occuring withing either plant or animal life.

We all lover to laugh, it's good medicine. We laughed at the Queen in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland who said "I sometimes believe in six impossible things for breakfast." The Darwinists are even more hilarious-they not only believe, but also teach more than six possible fairy tales in their biology classes. The history of their pathetic attempt to pump life into the Lenin-like corpse of evolution is full of laugh.

Charles Darwin was born into wealth. He spent two years in medical school, dropping out after spending too much time in bars. He had some divinity training but failed to make in as an Anglican minister. He was never a scientist but took a position as a naturalist on a ship and later wrote his racist books The Origin of Species and the Preservation of Favored Races and Descent of Man. He was ignorant of genetics. He married his first cousin. All seven children either died young or had mental or physical disorders.

Without any facts, he conjured up his pangnesis theory. He assumed that species changed to other species because all cells are produced gemmules. Gemmules supposedly arose by some kind of reaction to the environment. Each of these gemmules entered the sex cells of the sperm or egg (it must have been crowded in there), which later were transmitted to the offspring. Big problem! No one could find Darwin's imaginary gemmules and pangnesis died shortly after birth!

In 1870, Adam Sedgewick, leading geologist of England, wrote Darwin "I read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts, I laughed at till my sides were sore; others I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false-you deserted the true method of induction." Induction is reasoning from facts to theory. Darwin reasoned from theory to facts! His writings were conjecture piled upon conjecture. "Maybe" and "perhaps" form the basis of his books!

Darwin's writings were not science but philosophical musings. But something had to be done to keep the world believing Darwinism. Prof. Ernest Haeckel tried by faking drawings of embryoes (which he claimed repeated "fish to reptile to mammal" evolution), but fellow embryologists in his trial at Jena University discovered his fakes. Believe it or not, Haeckel's fakes are used as proofs of evolution in biology books today. His forgeries are like gonorrhea, a gift that keeps on giving!

The next attempt to resurrect Darwinism came in 1872. The British ship HMS Challenger had dredged ocean sediments for four years looking for half-formed fossils. None were found. Since none had ever been found on land, the evolutionary fairy tale of the gradual production of billions of fossils in sedimentary strata was quietly set aside. The Challenger did provide a momentary hope when it dredged up some blob from the ocean floor. It was a live microbe, some kind of a missing link! They named it Bathybuis Haeckeli after the old king of biological fakery, Ernest Haeckel. In 1875, however, it was discovered to be not a life form, but a chemical precipitate of sulfate of lime. True to form, the discovery was carefully swept under the rug and hidden from the public.

In the meantime Darwin had returned to Lamark's previously discarded idea, that giraffes developed long necks by stretching out to reach those leaves on top of the trees. This theory died again in 1883 when German biologist Leopold Weisman cut off the tails of white mice in 19 successive generations and the tails always reappeared. Similarly, after 4,000 years of circumcision, Jewish men still had foreskins. More bad news for poor old Saint Darwin!

Who can rescue Darwinism? In 1930 Austin H. Clark tried to plug the gap with a new theory, "zoogenesis." Clark was a well-respected Darwinist at the Smithsonian Institute. He had written books and 600 articles in five languages. However, to his dismay, he could never find any evidence of macroevolution in animals or plants. In his 1930 book The New Evolution: Zoogenesis he cited fact after fact proving macroevolution could not have occured. He concluded, therefore, that plants and animals must have sprung fully formed from dirt and water! The evolutionary world was stunned into silence. Clark was the Carl Sagan of his day. He supposedly knew all the answers. Quickly they buried Clark's theory.

The next "batter up" was world-famous geneticist Richard Goldschmidt, who tried to come to the rescue of the embarassed Darwinians by attempting to prove macroevolution was caused by mutations. For 25 years he was the godfather to millions of generations of gypsy moths. He zapped them with x-rays and chemicals. He found mutations produced nothing but deformities. No new species! He concluded rats were still rats and rabbits were still rabbits. In his 1940 book The Material Basis for Evolution, Goldschmidt exploded for ammunition box of evolutionary theory. He literally tore the theory to pieces. He was an honest atheist who faced the facts. But not wanting to acknowledge God, he proposed a new mechanism of evolution called the "Hopeful Monster Mechanism." One day an alligator laid an egg and a turkey hatched out! You've got to remember, boys and girls, this is science!

The discover in the 1950s of DNA by Francis Crick and James Watson crushed the hopes of biological evolutionists. It provided clear evidence that every species is locked into its own coding pattern. Only variation within a kind (microevolution) can occur. Mathematicians showed the odds against forming DNA by chance were "quad-zillions and quad-zillions to one." Evolution by chance was impossible! But the atheist Crick was not ready to believe in God. He dreamed up a new theory: some unknown "space alien" sprinkled sperm in our solar system and eventually creatures evolved on some planet (Krypton?). These "evolved space creatures" then built a "Noah's Ark" rocket ship and, after a long journey, came down to the earth to unload their zoo. Crink names his new theory "Panspermia." This, boys and girls, is called science or! Now NASA's "Life in Space Program" is spending billions of our tak dollards shooting probes into our solar system looking for this "sperm donor!"

There you have it-the skeletons in evolution's closet, The kooky theories of pangnesis, gemmules, Lamarkism, zoogenesis, puntuated equilibrium, quantam speciation, and panspermia are all just guesses. None were proven. They make good fodder for fairy tale writers. They are a hassel of laughs!

How can supposedly reasonable men believe this weird stuff and then try to pass it off as science? They've emptied out the stables and dumped it on the gullible public. Most Americans believe people with Ph.D.'s in science are unbiased, honest, and seek the truth. But they are fallen creatures like the rest of humanity. They can have biases, be dishonest, and seek only to further their own goals, honorable or dishonorable.

The Darwinists have a well-oiled propaganda machine to keep their true goals hidden from the taxpayers, two-thirds of whom believe in creation. Darwinists have Web sites set up to deflect criticism of evolution and to further their legislative and judicial goals, which are to kill God and elevate humanism to His throne.

Darwinists try to hide their atheist religion from the majority of Americans who believe in God. One of the Darwinist Web sites has enlisted Jimmy Carter to proselyte Christians and baptize them into "The Church of Darwin" (in the name of the unholy trinity, Darwin, Haeckel and Nietzsche?) These new converts are called theistic evolutionists. At the 1959 Darwinian Centennial Celebration, Julian Huxley's keynote address focused on the total repudiation of God. Huxley was asked why the world, 100 years ago, leaped at Darwin's book. He answered it freed us from God's sexual mores! Evolution is a religion of no God!

Darwinists have given up the public debates because they lost hundreds of them in the 1970s and '80s. Why did they lose? As a participant in two of them, I will tell you. They lost because they had no proof. Amazing! No proof! They usually tried old debate tricks of personal attacks on their opponents, i.e. "You can't be a scientist because you believe the Bible," etc. But they lost because audiences were shocked-shocked that the Darwinists had no proof! And they have none today!

In editorials and letters to the editor, the Darwinists produce no proofs. They commonly try to bluff us with pompous statements like, "Evolution has been proved as much as gravity and it is believe by all scientists." Get real-sure, and the moon is made of green cheese! It's all bluff, designed to shut up critics and convert us to their atheistic religion. Hitler and his propaganda chief Jospeh Goebbels would have been proud. You tell a lie long enough and loud enough and people will believe it! Unfortunately, a lot of Americans have swallowed the lie, uncluding about half of our college graduates. Our courts and media are full of Darwinists. Their bulldog, the ACLU, is working overtime to wipe God from all public life. Humanism over all is their goal!

Tragically the Darwinists are wrecking western civilization. In the first half of the twentieth century, Darwinism hijacked the militant policies of Germany. The religion of Darwin, Nietzsche, and Haeckal became the religion of Hitler and his Nazi gang. The result was 11 million dead in their attempt to produce the Aryan ruper race and a victorious Germany. World War II was the most violent form of evolutionismt ever seen.

In the last half century, evolution has softly hijacked the American educational system and inflicted a great defeat on American culture. Crime has skyrocketed; homosexuality and gay marriage have been mainstreamed; and our morals have submerged into a cesspool. Why? Kids brainwashed with this kooky nonsense, are taught that they evolved from apes, so they act like apes. If it feels good, do it.

Not only are the Darwinians scrambling to deflect attacks from the creationists, but also they are arguing with each other over their different theories. "So heated is the debate that one Darwinian says there are times when he thinks about going into a field with more intellectual honesty, the used car business" (Newsweek, April 8, 1985, p.80).

"I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology.... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked as the greated deceit in the history of science"
(Soren Lovtrup, The Refutation of a Myth, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I typed this all up from the article, so I apologize for any typos or words that don't make sense.

Whenever the words such as us and our are used, they refer to other Christian believers, in which this article was meant for other believers. You can not ignore all of the things in this article, though, and much of it is true.

Hope that this may have at least thought about your theory of evolution, if that is what you believe in. And, I apologize for the amazingly long post.

I tried to put this up word for word in the article, nothing was left out or added. Some things are going a little towards the extreme side, such World War II, Hitler, and Evolution.

I also know that some of this is old Evolution, and I'll try to find accurate things of more updated ones sometime soon. (This article was printed on this month, 2006 though.)
MonsterEnvy
QUOTE(Void @ Apr 15 2006, 03:13 PM) [snapback]381185[/snapback]

2 questions that always bugged me

1) We all know the stories about Jesus' birth, and the last 3 or so years of his life... what about all the stuff in between? I know of virtually no accounts, biblical or otherwise, with any credibility that go into detail about the majority of his life.
And also, what happened to the three Magi, who knew he was the son of God?

2) If we are to believe that a: God created only Adam & Eve, and b: all humans are descended from them, why are there at least 4 distinct race lines in existence, if the theory of evolution [which is the only reasonable explanation of divergent racial traits that I know of] is a load of crap, like you've suggested in the past?

Incidentally (i haven't been on this thread for a while, but i thought i could answer these)

First: All the stuff in between... A long, long time ago, when I went to church, and a Christian one, the ministress (is that the word?) had a sermon about Jesus's early life. Apparently, he killed a lot of people. When everyone freaked out, he was always like, what? I sent him to a better place. And then all the other people are always like OMGWTFBBQ and Jesus goes, ya, w/e, resurrect +3.

He had a confused childhood.

Second: There was a common ancestor for all of the human race at one point. However, it's WAAAAY before Adam and Eve were supposed to be alive, and there are a lot of other people mixed in too, it's just that that one person/gene line happens to be related to everyone. He's sort of the bridge between European and Asian races.

Fullmetal Shrimp: Please, summarize. None of us have the time to waste to actually read through those replies. It's silly. Remember, you were banned from the E/C for a reason...

Having read through but a little of your long boring post, I must mention that, though Darwin used gemmules to explain his theory, it was solely because he had nothing better. He also did not formulate the theory of pangenesis from nothing, but instead from the observation that species share common characteristics, more organisms are produced in a population than can survive, and various others. (I have a great example of a theory which actually did arise from no evidence! Guess what it is! Guess!)
If Darwin had read Mendel's paper on genetics, he definitely would have used it to explain heritable variation. As is, Darwin's gemmules fullfil much the same function as did Mendel's genes. They're just a bit more wrong, though on the right track.
Lone Wolf
*cocks eyebrow* ...What sermon were you listening to, MonsterEnvy? dry.gif

@FullMetalShrimp: I have to agree with MonsterEnvy, though. You shouldn't post something that long in a forum... More than likely no one will read it, or they might read some of it...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.