Science Vs Religion
- Thread starter SnakeLord
- Start date
MooseKnuckle
Registered Senior Member
TheVisitor-
Was this really necessary? Just dont forget , you are human too, so dont treat snakelord like you have some greater capacity to see the truth. Your working with the same machinery, and if im correct you have attested to understanding God, so what makes you able to grasp the concept with your pitiful "human" mind? Yes we can understand complex concepts, you would be surprised if you would read some hyperspace related books or anything else that showcases the extradiordinary talent of the human mind.
just a question....do you believe in evolution??? I want you to answer this, and if you must think long and hard. This question should answer a good deal about the rationality of your thinking, at least in my opinion.
Was this really necessary? Just dont forget , you are human too, so dont treat snakelord like you have some greater capacity to see the truth. Your working with the same machinery, and if im correct you have attested to understanding God, so what makes you able to grasp the concept with your pitiful "human" mind? Yes we can understand complex concepts, you would be surprised if you would read some hyperspace related books or anything else that showcases the extradiordinary talent of the human mind.
just a question....do you believe in evolution??? I want you to answer this, and if you must think long and hard. This question should answer a good deal about the rationality of your thinking, at least in my opinion.
MooseKnuckle
Registered Senior Member
:m:
Last edited:
Hey, why do you feel the need to curse, your supposed to be logical, reasonable and rational, at least try and act like you are.Originally posted by SnakeLord
Fuck fuck and fuck. I had written a mini-novel and somehow lost it allTime to start again.......
I see what you mean now when you refer to mini novel. I have read that post and am compiling, what I hope will be a good reply. It is a long post, and I want to try and discuss every point you have made, so bear with me, I will reply.
Love
Jan Ardena.
I haven't 'cursed' anything or anyone. I used a word from a dictionary- i fail to see how one word can be seen as instinctively wrong when all it is is a collaboration of letters. I retain my right to freedom of speech and like to use the english language to it's full extent. Ok, i'm just waffling on now but my point is: Do you really want to get into a discussion over the use of the english language? If you do i shall continue, if not why bother worrying about my usage of words?
Using the word 'fuck' in no way shows illogical, unreasonable or irrational behaviour. It's just a word, deal with it. At the time of losing my mini novel i felt the need to say the word fuck several times. No need to get ones knickers in a twist. If it was by free will- then i have used my free will to say what i please. If we dont have free will god made me say it.
Summary: Who gives a fuck?
If the word offends you say so but don't try and claim a guy is not being logical, reasonable or otherwise when he uses any word to express feeling. It aids expression and thus is perfectly logical.
Can we get back on topic now you've finished telling me off?
Last edited:
Just dont forget , you are human too, so dont treat snakelord like you have some greater capacity to see the truth. Your working with the same machinery, and if im correct you have attested to understanding God, so what makes you able to grasp the concept with your pitiful "human" mind?
=========
As pointed out by Alpha, and others quite frequently, I don't have much reasoning powers or debate skills, and will agree with the "pitifull mind" part.
But it's not by my human mind, I know these things...not with "my" powers of reason...
And I wasn't putting snakelord or anyone else down, by saying they couldn't "understand" with the human mind...I couldn't either. I was quoteing Jesus: Unless ye be born of the Spirit, you cannot see the kingdom....see means to understand.....
It's His glory I attest to not mine own.
It's His Word, not my own ideas.....
I could never have come up with the answers to every mystery in the entire scripture or the hidden understanding of truth, from the mind of God that's been "sealed" since the foundation of the world.....
But that revelation is here on earth today.........And , I'm not the only one...this message of Jesus Christ has gone around the world....
It was revealed in America, and as Jesus once said: a prophet is not without honor, except in His own country...so is it America has turned it down already...
She's cursed, and under the judgements of God...
She has been indicted and tried and judged.
She's had 40 years to repent....
I'm not saying this to brag, because it's not me....It's Him
Jesus Christ was the only one worthy to loose the seals and open the book. And He has.
How could I know the mysteries of God...that learned theologians have pondered for centuries...and explain them, not like a history lesson from a text book, but as one that knows...that was there.
Because He is here....Jesus Christ revealing Himself to His people...The revelation of the Son of Man today as promised.
Jesus said God's Word...all the doctrines and mysteries held within that seem to contradict and confuse mankind....and so simple a child could not err therein..
When He was 12, He confounded the teachers and priests at the temple with His revelation of the Word of God......
It's Him again today in His people....Not an organization mixing their words with the Word of God.
It's God in simplicity....all that He is, he poured into Christ,... and all Christ was, He pours into His Bride....
The testimony of the Word should make itself clear.
It's not my wisdom I have shared here, and if you don't want to hear it, then fine.....
There may be someone that does.....
I don't want to believe the door is shut.
God shut the door on the Ark, not Noah remember...
Abraham pleaded with God over Soddom and Gomorah, if there be twenty Lord , if there be Ten....Lord, will you spare the city.....
=========
As pointed out by Alpha, and others quite frequently, I don't have much reasoning powers or debate skills, and will agree with the "pitifull mind" part.
But it's not by my human mind, I know these things...not with "my" powers of reason...
And I wasn't putting snakelord or anyone else down, by saying they couldn't "understand" with the human mind...I couldn't either. I was quoteing Jesus: Unless ye be born of the Spirit, you cannot see the kingdom....see means to understand.....
It's His glory I attest to not mine own.
It's His Word, not my own ideas.....
I could never have come up with the answers to every mystery in the entire scripture or the hidden understanding of truth, from the mind of God that's been "sealed" since the foundation of the world.....
But that revelation is here on earth today.........And , I'm not the only one...this message of Jesus Christ has gone around the world....
It was revealed in America, and as Jesus once said: a prophet is not without honor, except in His own country...so is it America has turned it down already...
She's cursed, and under the judgements of God...
She has been indicted and tried and judged.
She's had 40 years to repent....
I'm not saying this to brag, because it's not me....It's Him
Jesus Christ was the only one worthy to loose the seals and open the book. And He has.
How could I know the mysteries of God...that learned theologians have pondered for centuries...and explain them, not like a history lesson from a text book, but as one that knows...that was there.
Because He is here....Jesus Christ revealing Himself to His people...The revelation of the Son of Man today as promised.
Jesus said God's Word...all the doctrines and mysteries held within that seem to contradict and confuse mankind....and so simple a child could not err therein..
When He was 12, He confounded the teachers and priests at the temple with His revelation of the Word of God......
It's Him again today in His people....Not an organization mixing their words with the Word of God.
It's God in simplicity....all that He is, he poured into Christ,... and all Christ was, He pours into His Bride....
The testimony of the Word should make itself clear.
It's not my wisdom I have shared here, and if you don't want to hear it, then fine.....
There may be someone that does.....
I don't want to believe the door is shut.
God shut the door on the Ark, not Noah remember...
Abraham pleaded with God over Soddom and Gomorah, if there be twenty Lord , if there be Ten....Lord, will you spare the city.....
Last edited:
Visitor,
But that still means you are claiming a special understanding that others do not. You are still setting yourself up as being superior to others.
Yes but only 1/3rd are designated as being Christian. The majority of the world believes something else, many with equal or greater passion than your claimed truth. Why would anyone want to believe your minority view? If it was so good and with so many telling the story then why given 2000 years is it still a minority belief.
There are many people in mental institutions who also claim to be possessed, why are you any different to them?
All it needs is a vivid imagination, as can be seen daily on televangelist TV shows. The Mullahs in Islamic countries preach equally emotionally charged proclamations.
It’s a good story that any competent mythmaker would write.
But the word is riddled with contradictions that anyone can see when it is read objectively.
MooseKnuckle
Registered Senior Member
TheVisitor-
That makes sense. Some people, myself included choose not to blindly accept something on faith. This is where debate comes in. First you need to show that the bible speaks truth, many including myself are extremely skeptical of its validity, and rightly so. Since this has not been done, you should argue some valid points to further your opinion's credibility. Tell us why you think the bible speaks the truth.
Another question....How would you feel if you knew that there was no God? Straight question should bring forth a straight answer. An honest response would be appreciated
That makes sense. Some people, myself included choose not to blindly accept something on faith. This is where debate comes in. First you need to show that the bible speaks truth, many including myself are extremely skeptical of its validity, and rightly so. Since this has not been done, you should argue some valid points to further your opinion's credibility. Tell us why you think the bible speaks the truth.
Another question....How would you feel if you knew that there was no God? Straight question should bring forth a straight answer. An honest response would be appreciated
Lord Snake,
By making childbirth more painful, it allows the woman to become more focused on the task at hand, instead of making dodgy deals, and mischief in general (LOL!), and more apreciative of the process of life. Instead of just being able to will another life, as may have been the case. By cursing the ground, means that Adam can no longer use his will to produce an abundance of produce, now he has to work hard, so he can learn about life from the beginning, instead of being a hen-pecked husband.
Again, if you read the Qur’an, you will understand that Adam was in heaven, before descending to earth, and there are descriptions of some heavenly planets in Qur’an and Bhagavad Gita (not sure if they are in bible). In the Gita, in some heavens, the male and female have sex enjoyment purely for pleasure as often and potent as they like, offspring is produce from the mind, and the offspring are born not as a baby, but as an independent youth. The trees are, called “desire trees”, where you simply get anything you desire. So, it could be said that Adam & Eve, although not remembering their previous lives, were still in the habit of heavenly luxuries, so these curses were a valuable asset, to being human.
Genisis. 4:1 Now the man had marital relations with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, "I have created a man just as the LORD did!"
From the next verse, it could be that she didn’t feel as attached to Abel as she did Cain;
Genisis. 4:2 Then she gave birth to his brother Abel. Abel took care of the flocks, while Cain cultivated the ground.
God obviously knew that Cain was a selfish evil guy, and nothing that came from him could have any goodness thereof, it is also an indication that God is not interested in or attracted by grandeur, as He is the most grand, but is only interested in offerings of love and devotion.
Anywayz, God was correct in His Judgement, because Cain viciously attacked his younger brother, left him for dead, and then stupidly tried to trick God into thinking he hadn’t a clue where he may be.
11:4 Then they said, "Come, let's build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves. Otherwise we will be scattered across the face of the entire earth."
This is demonic activity. They were trying to get to heaven without qualification. If you read the Ramayana, you will notice that a great and powerful demon, by the name of Ravanna, tried the same gig, and got slapped too. You cannot just go to these places unqualified.
Love
Jan Ardena.
That depends on what you regard as love. As has been mentioned here, there are many levels to what love is, but I’m sure we would all agree that love must contain some aspect of giving or sacrifice. Now you say God has not expressed love to any human, I would disagree. He made this whole world, He provided everything, He made sure that the finished article was good before creating us to live in it. I would say that this is an act of love, but you are free to say what you like.
Actually, He was using the most intelligent (God-conscious) people, to bring good progeny. The reason He destroyed the earth was because the current progeny was seriously not good;
Evil intent, is passed on to the offspring, this is why there is now so much conflict between rival tribes and countries. It doesn’t mean that everyone is born evil, but, due to the lineage, and conditioning, evil can be aroused very easily. And at that particular time, evil had got to the point where it was constantly in the minds of all mankind.
In the OT of the bible, I could not find anything to do with angels and jinns, but they are mentioned in the Qur’an, which as you know, is a part of the Abrahamic religion. In the Qur’an, it gives more detail as to who the “our” and “us” are refering to;
By physical, I take it you mean flesh and blood, like ours. If this was the case, He could not be God, because like ours, His body would undergo the physical changes, eventually leading to death. What that verse is saying, is that they heard His voice, and as He is Omnipotent, His voice is non different from Himself, this is what is meant by Omni-potent. The “he” in as he was walking refers to Adam, who hid with his wife.
By cursing the serpent and putting hostility between it and woman, is a good thing, because now women cannot make dodgy deals, with shifty serpents, as did Eve.
By making childbirth more painful, it allows the woman to become more focused on the task at hand, instead of making dodgy deals, and mischief in general (LOL!), and more apreciative of the process of life. Instead of just being able to will another life, as may have been the case. By cursing the ground, means that Adam can no longer use his will to produce an abundance of produce, now he has to work hard, so he can learn about life from the beginning, instead of being a hen-pecked husband.Again, if you read the Qur’an, you will understand that Adam was in heaven, before descending to earth, and there are descriptions of some heavenly planets in Qur’an and Bhagavad Gita (not sure if they are in bible). In the Gita, in some heavens, the male and female have sex enjoyment purely for pleasure as often and potent as they like, offspring is produce from the mind, and the offspring are born not as a baby, but as an independent youth. The trees are, called “desire trees”, where you simply get anything you desire. So, it could be said that Adam & Eve, although not remembering their previous lives, were still in the habit of heavenly luxuries, so these curses were a valuable asset, to being human.
Cain was a evil man, after he was born, his mother boasted how she had created a man, just as God had; She also showed her evil, ignorant intent.
Genisis. 4:1 Now the man had marital relations with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, "I have created a man just as the LORD did!"
From the next verse, it could be that she didn’t feel as attached to Abel as she did Cain;
Genisis. 4:2 Then she gave birth to his brother Abel. Abel took care of the flocks, while Cain cultivated the ground.
God obviously knew that Cain was a selfish evil guy, and nothing that came from him could have any goodness thereof, it is also an indication that God is not interested in or attracted by grandeur, as He is the most grand, but is only interested in offerings of love and devotion.
Anywayz, God was correct in His Judgement, because Cain viciously attacked his younger brother, left him for dead, and then stupidly tried to trick God into thinking he hadn’t a clue where he may be.
This is a wonderful example of The Lords mercy, Cain, the vicious so and so he is, prays to the Lord to protect his body, and he answers His prayers.
And look, we’re all here again, and we didn’t even feel a thing.
Maybe, a pair of sevens.
Nah, this is the law of karma.
You forgot to put the reason why;
11:4 Then they said, "Come, let's build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves. Otherwise we will be scattered across the face of the entire earth."
This is demonic activity. They were trying to get to heaven without qualification. If you read the Ramayana, you will notice that a great and powerful demon, by the name of Ravanna, tried the same gig, and got slapped too. You cannot just go to these places unqualified.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Jan Ardena posted:
"Cain was a evil man, after he was born, his mother boasted how she had created a man, just as God had; She also showed her evil, ignorant intent.
Genisis. 4:1 Now the man had marital relations with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, "I have created a man just as the LORD did!"
From the next verse, it could be that she didn’t feel as attached to Abel as she did Cain;
Genisis. 4:2 Then she gave birth to his brother Abel. Abel took care of the flocks, while Cain cultivated the ground.
God obviously knew that Cain was a selfish evil guy, and nothing that came from him could have any goodness thereof, it is also an indication that God is not interested in or attracted by grandeur, as He is the most grand, but is only interested in offerings of love and devotion. "
=============================
I was very interested in some of your referals to the Quran and Gita, in which Adam you said was in heaven before coming to earth, and he had in the Gita been to different "planets".
Also where Adam could "will" the increase of crops or even reproduce. That's what I believe he had.....as an amature god he could say to this tree "be put over there" and it was, also He was created by the spoken word of God, and should have come to that same ability, to reproduce, have sons and daughters, by the Word.
The root of the word "plantet" is plane, and other planes of existance are exactly what heaven is. There may be many different planes as Paul wrote in his experiance.
There are other planets that we see in our telescopes, in this "plane", of heavens and earth, and also other "planes" of this same heavens and earth we can not see because they are a faster dimension than this.
The bible uses the term "to be quickened" or brought to life.
I believe Adam was first created as a Son of God, in God's image....which God is a spirit, so the first man Adam was created a spirit, or a theophany. Then a body was created from the dust of the earth to "house" this spirit man here on this "plane" called earth. Heaven is "in" you, all around you. There is a dimension of heaven right in the room where you sit now, but it is faster than this one called earth. Thats why we can't see it. Adam had a tie, a connection to this faster realm, untill he fell.....like an invisible umbilical cord attached to his theopany, which was the representation of himself in this other dimension. This was severed when he fell and his flesh was left in this realm of earth to die. A day to God is a thousand years and Adam died at 950.
The very day he sined, Adam died. Just as God had said he would.
This is one example of why there really are no contradictions in the bible only mans lack of understanding it. This also just explained the contradiction of the "two creations" of Adam some critics point out...It's all a carnal (in the human mind) lack of understanding.
The scriptures are written in a "heavenly" language something like hirogliphics or cuneiform, were one word or phrase is a symbol and can mean an entire paragraph or concept. These are the teachings of types and shadows, that when revealed hold the keys to unlocking the scriptures meaning. Some are simple, some are much more complex and require the discernment of a prophet, or son of man to reveal. Jesus was the God of the prophets, and He said when he returned...as the Son of Man, the mystery of God - Rev 10:7, should be completed. The statement by Jesus : you must be "born" again was not just refering to salvation. It meant you must be quickened by the Spirit of God in order to see the kingdom of God, and understand the Logos - or the thoughts in the very mind of God He had when He wrote the scriptures.....they have been sealed untill the "end-time" when He said he would break the seals and reveal the Book.
The Book is Himself. The seven sealed book, the book of redemption, is the Lamb's book which reveals the entire bible, the classes of saved people and lost, and the entire drama as it has unfolded down through time. This was shown in Daniel and was sealed... the book John saw "opened" revealed these things and it "thundered"....
This is what I believe happened during the scene you descibed above....this also reveals and exposes Satan's sceme through history and explains many so-called "contradictions".
------
The bible says "God himself came down in the cool of the evening, and talked with Adam". As he listened to the words God spoke he was partaking (eating ) of the Tree of Life, who is God (In the book of Proverbs it says, "the words of a righteous man are as the fruits of the tree of life")The tree of the knowledge of good and evil , was the serpent , which they were commanded not to eat of least they die. ( a mixed tree containing the truth mixed with lies) The best lie is the one that contains 99% of the truth, and only 1% lie. The Serpent said to Eve, "surely you shall not die, but your eyes shall be opened and you shall be like gods". Adam was created by the spoken Word. Satan can not create something from nothing, he can only pervert something God has already created, so he used the serpent to seduce Eve and thereby create a hybrid race. It's been documented many times that a woman can have sex with two different men within a 24 hour period and conceive by both of them ,giving birth to twins, both of different fathers. The scriptures say "Cain was of his father the wicked one", And after being with the serpent, Eve went to show Adam this that she'd learned, the bible says" Adam knew his wife Eve, and she bore him a son, Cain, and then bare his brother Abel. So there are two sons representing two separate races, The Sons of God, and the Sons of Men.
Abel, being a true Son of God, received revelation from God about what had happened in the garden , that it had been blood (not an apple or something) that had caused the fall and had driven them out, and it would take blood, the blood of an innocent one, to bring them back to an unfallen state. Since the whole human race had fell into sin, he saw it would take a kinsman redeemer (Jesus Christ), God coming down as a man to die for our sins, releasing His Holy Spirit to come back upon humanity as a tutor and guide them back into all truth . In the new testament it says " they who are led by the spirit of God, these are called the Sons of God". Cain received no such revelation, being of the serpent's seed, and offered to God a selection of the grains of the field , which were the fruits of his own labors, and his offering was rejected. After Abel was killed, Adam had another son through Eve and his name was Seth. Through Seth's lineage God's line was restored.
Also where you stated this:
11:4 Then they said, "Come, let's build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves. Otherwise we will be scattered across the face of the entire earth."
This is demonic activity. They were trying to get to heaven without qualification.
I agree, this was not just a "tall" building they were trying to build.
This was demonic activity in and through man....this spirits were trying to get back to heaven, and these same spirits are the ones that were released on Hitler, the Nazi's and others to run the Jews back to there homeland, to finish what they started. They are still trying to get to heaven today, and they are the eclessiastical spirits that will be in the religious persecution coming for earth in the "tribulation"....It's Babylon all over again...see Rev 16.'s reference to babylon's being brought to God's rememberence.
"Cain was a evil man, after he was born, his mother boasted how she had created a man, just as God had; She also showed her evil, ignorant intent.
Genisis. 4:1 Now the man had marital relations with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, "I have created a man just as the LORD did!"
From the next verse, it could be that she didn’t feel as attached to Abel as she did Cain;
Genisis. 4:2 Then she gave birth to his brother Abel. Abel took care of the flocks, while Cain cultivated the ground.
God obviously knew that Cain was a selfish evil guy, and nothing that came from him could have any goodness thereof, it is also an indication that God is not interested in or attracted by grandeur, as He is the most grand, but is only interested in offerings of love and devotion. "
=============================
I was very interested in some of your referals to the Quran and Gita, in which Adam you said was in heaven before coming to earth, and he had in the Gita been to different "planets".
Also where Adam could "will" the increase of crops or even reproduce. That's what I believe he had.....as an amature god he could say to this tree "be put over there" and it was, also He was created by the spoken word of God, and should have come to that same ability, to reproduce, have sons and daughters, by the Word.
The root of the word "plantet" is plane, and other planes of existance are exactly what heaven is. There may be many different planes as Paul wrote in his experiance.
There are other planets that we see in our telescopes, in this "plane", of heavens and earth, and also other "planes" of this same heavens and earth we can not see because they are a faster dimension than this.
The bible uses the term "to be quickened" or brought to life.
I believe Adam was first created as a Son of God, in God's image....which God is a spirit, so the first man Adam was created a spirit, or a theophany. Then a body was created from the dust of the earth to "house" this spirit man here on this "plane" called earth. Heaven is "in" you, all around you. There is a dimension of heaven right in the room where you sit now, but it is faster than this one called earth. Thats why we can't see it. Adam had a tie, a connection to this faster realm, untill he fell.....like an invisible umbilical cord attached to his theopany, which was the representation of himself in this other dimension. This was severed when he fell and his flesh was left in this realm of earth to die. A day to God is a thousand years and Adam died at 950.
The very day he sined, Adam died. Just as God had said he would.
This is one example of why there really are no contradictions in the bible only mans lack of understanding it. This also just explained the contradiction of the "two creations" of Adam some critics point out...It's all a carnal (in the human mind) lack of understanding.
The scriptures are written in a "heavenly" language something like hirogliphics or cuneiform, were one word or phrase is a symbol and can mean an entire paragraph or concept. These are the teachings of types and shadows, that when revealed hold the keys to unlocking the scriptures meaning. Some are simple, some are much more complex and require the discernment of a prophet, or son of man to reveal. Jesus was the God of the prophets, and He said when he returned...as the Son of Man, the mystery of God - Rev 10:7, should be completed. The statement by Jesus : you must be "born" again was not just refering to salvation. It meant you must be quickened by the Spirit of God in order to see the kingdom of God, and understand the Logos - or the thoughts in the very mind of God He had when He wrote the scriptures.....they have been sealed untill the "end-time" when He said he would break the seals and reveal the Book.
The Book is Himself. The seven sealed book, the book of redemption, is the Lamb's book which reveals the entire bible, the classes of saved people and lost, and the entire drama as it has unfolded down through time. This was shown in Daniel and was sealed... the book John saw "opened" revealed these things and it "thundered"....
This is what I believe happened during the scene you descibed above....this also reveals and exposes Satan's sceme through history and explains many so-called "contradictions".
------
The bible says "God himself came down in the cool of the evening, and talked with Adam". As he listened to the words God spoke he was partaking (eating ) of the Tree of Life, who is God (In the book of Proverbs it says, "the words of a righteous man are as the fruits of the tree of life")The tree of the knowledge of good and evil , was the serpent , which they were commanded not to eat of least they die. ( a mixed tree containing the truth mixed with lies) The best lie is the one that contains 99% of the truth, and only 1% lie. The Serpent said to Eve, "surely you shall not die, but your eyes shall be opened and you shall be like gods". Adam was created by the spoken Word. Satan can not create something from nothing, he can only pervert something God has already created, so he used the serpent to seduce Eve and thereby create a hybrid race. It's been documented many times that a woman can have sex with two different men within a 24 hour period and conceive by both of them ,giving birth to twins, both of different fathers. The scriptures say "Cain was of his father the wicked one", And after being with the serpent, Eve went to show Adam this that she'd learned, the bible says" Adam knew his wife Eve, and she bore him a son, Cain, and then bare his brother Abel. So there are two sons representing two separate races, The Sons of God, and the Sons of Men.
Abel, being a true Son of God, received revelation from God about what had happened in the garden , that it had been blood (not an apple or something) that had caused the fall and had driven them out, and it would take blood, the blood of an innocent one, to bring them back to an unfallen state. Since the whole human race had fell into sin, he saw it would take a kinsman redeemer (Jesus Christ), God coming down as a man to die for our sins, releasing His Holy Spirit to come back upon humanity as a tutor and guide them back into all truth . In the new testament it says " they who are led by the spirit of God, these are called the Sons of God". Cain received no such revelation, being of the serpent's seed, and offered to God a selection of the grains of the field , which were the fruits of his own labors, and his offering was rejected. After Abel was killed, Adam had another son through Eve and his name was Seth. Through Seth's lineage God's line was restored.
Also where you stated this:
11:4 Then they said, "Come, let's build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves. Otherwise we will be scattered across the face of the entire earth."
This is demonic activity. They were trying to get to heaven without qualification.
I agree, this was not just a "tall" building they were trying to build.
This was demonic activity in and through man....this spirits were trying to get back to heaven, and these same spirits are the ones that were released on Hitler, the Nazi's and others to run the Jews back to there homeland, to finish what they started. They are still trying to get to heaven today, and they are the eclessiastical spirits that will be in the religious persecution coming for earth in the "tribulation"....It's Babylon all over again...see Rev 16.'s reference to babylon's being brought to God's rememberence.
Last edited:
Ok, this is more like it... real debate. Analysis is so fudamental but people never usually bother with it. This is a lot of what i started this topic about- the whole science vs religion. Science analyses. That's not to say it's right but i do believe it to be of utmost importance if you claim to be looking for truth. religion seems more interested in faith than analysis. Maybe it's just me and my internal coding, given by god, but i do require analytical observation to ever even think a truth can be established.
Amusing, but no need. I do not hold hierarchy to being good. I do not believe one human has importance above another. We are all either worthless humans or grand humans. I do not see any distinguishing features between any of us that make us better and as such would never promote giving 'names' to someone with regard to having higher stature. I only have lord on the end of my name cause i played ultima online and it seems appropriate
I have mentioned that god has shown acts of 'kindness' to many 'individuals' up until this part of the bible. Love and kindness or 'letting off' are completely different things. Do note that in the case of Noah and stories of relevance God 'let off' particular individuals from receiving death/pain etc. Maybe it's just me but i do not regard that as having love. If i had 2 children and let one off and punished one when they'd been bad i would be showing true bias- not neccesarily through love. I speak as a mortal. If you really love i believe you could come to alternatives over killing everyone to accomplish the same means. I do not tell my daughter off or punish her in any way. When she does something wrong i find an alternative and non-violent/aggressive solution to the problem. God being all knowing etc etc could surely do the same. He felt grieved and acted upon it without lengthy thought, or so it would appear. Love can cause us to act in haste but love does not cause us to kill that which we love. It's harder to explain obviously because we're talking of a god vs a human but the entire annihilation of your creation does not signify love, it signifies extreme and violent nature.
God created everything. He put man on the planet and provided for him. This could be seen as love. What we must also see and understand is 'why' god created us. Througout this portion of the bible it is very apparent we were created as nothing more than servents. Servitude is fine if you do not have the human brain. However god created us the way we are and as such should have known the problems with making mankind purely to serve him. Servitude is not in our genes. Imagine you didn't know the difference between good and evil. who would you listen to? God or the devil? How would you distinguish good from bad? The answer is you couldn't. God set up a test knowing instinctively mankind would fail. We are to this day, according to many, being punished for failing the test we could never have passed. Love does not make slaves and love does not make tests we can only fail.
Please tell me what is 'seriously not good progeny' that it requires someone with love in their heart to annihilate an entire species. Mankind annihilates entire species too- it isn't for love of that species, its for love of himself.
There are many craters upon the earth caused by meteorites. the largest of which, and thought to have killed the dinosaurs, is one in the Yucatan Peninsula. Ok, it isnt mentioned in the bible but running along the lines of the bible and the earths creation a few thousand years ago it would only stand to logic to say these meteors hit while man was around. The Yucatan crater is 125 miles in diameter which would have wiped everything off the face of this earth. In our current debate we must assume this is the handy work of god. Can any of us even begin to imagine what we have done that is that bad it requires such direct destruction? Same with the flood, (i just used an example we can see and witness in place of global flooding), what could we have done against an all powerful being that was so bad it required total and utter anihilation? If anyone sits here and says: "God gave mankind free will" then he must understand with that action comes an ability to do as you choose and please without retribution. If men were worshippnig rocks, idols, golden horses or anything else why destroy them? Mankind has done exactly that same thing ever since and not once has god even showed signs of anger. He did promise not to wipe the entire earth but there are in this day and age thousands upon thousands of 'false worships'. That is our free will. I will not sit here and say "You must be christian/muslim etc". If i was in a position to say such a thing i would also accept my responsibility in not giving you the free will to choose otherwise. That is running something through fear- as i mentioned further through my analysis. If that is the way god does things you cannot state the claim to 'love'. Fear and love do not belong in the same sentence.
I suppose its another way of explaining the difference between modern man and caveman. Primal instinct versus society. No matter how many children a wolf has, no matter how many times the kids are tamed in turn giving birth to more dosile creatures the instinctive animal remains within. Through all this time have we suppressed the instinct of cats? We feed them and look after them- through thousands of years we have tamed them to be nothing more than pets. Does your 'pet' cat still hunt birds, still chase mice?
Sumerian explains this well in that when man was created we were not quite 'human' the way adam/eve are depicted. We were there to serve and belong to someone/something. In this scenario the evil would simply be mans evolution, mans progression. It was at this time, in the bible and in older texts that the god/s confused man to stop them, (Tower of Babel). Babel means=confusion. That was when god/s changed peoples language so they couldnt understand each other. It was done specifically to hinder mans progress in both the bible and sumerian literature. Could god have drowned every being because we evolved? Because we started to use the free will that had been given us? Adam and Eve show signs of free will in the very beginning and were punished for it. Mankind showed free will afterwards and was punished time and again for doing so. Of course this is no more than hypothesis. Nowhere does it actually say what mankind did that was so bad it deserved complete destruction. However if we assume we have some freedom of choice, which is apparent with current society, then we could never have deserved entire anihilation. If we have no free will then god should make that clear otherwise i can imagine doomsday happening sooner than you'd think. If we have no free will then man is but a slave born into servitude. If that's the case love has no relevance.
Ok the Qur'an says this, that and the other. Sumerian texts attribute the plural as being aliens. From what has been shown Elohim as translated to meaning 'god' is actually a plural word. This is the problem with using multiple texts. We are still in the same position whereby we have no facts. Looking at the bible itself god is specifically spoken in plural several times. There are, at that time in the bible, no mention of angels etc as you have stated. At the very beginning when god is first creating man- and nothing else exists there is still plural attitude given: "Let us make man in our image, our likeness. The Qur'an attributes it to this, Sumerians attribute it to that... we're still no closer to facts. I would deem this of paramount importance. We sit here and worship one god..... What if he himself has already told us there's many and we deny them? I'd hate to jump into a swimming pool without first knowing how to swim. More important than that first sign is the 'speech':
"And the lord god said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
Like one of us? Say that to yourself meaning 'one' being. Ok, we're only humans and maybe we cannot see it the way god has meant it but to us frail humans it is all we have. God should and could explain himself better if that were the case. This sentence is undoubtedly referring to more than one- those others having the same commonalities as god himself. It implies that there are others with the same ability and position as god. There is no reason to assume or summise that he is talking to angels unless angels have the same authority and power as god, in which case angels are gods aswell. There are several ways to do this:
"The man has now become like me"
"The man has now become like angels"
To say "Us" shows power shared by others. Others that are of the same nature and stature of god. There's nothing to say god wasnt the big overall boss in charge, the captain if you will- but it is evident there was more than one.
Sumerian texts explain about 'boats of heaven' that carried 50 or more of these beings through the cosmos. With this we can understand the sumerians believed in more than one god. If beliving in many gods one of them turned round and said: "i am the only god" could you imagine the confusion wrought upon humankind? By that same token we must appreciate the fragility of the statements provided from the bible in reference to more than one.
There is a distinct flaw with this line of thinking. Let's take a look at the paragraph:
"Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the lord god as he was walking in the garden......"
The correct structure of sentence here would be:
"Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the lord god as they were...."
I would agree it could quite possibly be nothing more than grammatical error but belief has it god does not make mistakes like this. Belief also has it this is the word of god himself. The Visitor would argue we're humans who don't understand but why- when you claim there is love- make it impossible for a human to understand what you're saying? This is before the tower of Babel so there would be no language errors as all spoke exactly the same. The reason i can believe this is grammatical error is for the bibles distinct sexist attitude. That was the way things were in the olden days, hell even recently, but i would not consider god to be a sexist, regardless of whether men are or not. That kind of throws the grammatical debate out of the window. God might be sexist then women must start worrying what kind of 'afterlife' they'll lead when we all get to heaven. Your guess is as good as mine.
Well technically eve didnt do anything 'dodgy'. She wouldn't have known until after she'd eaten the fruit that she was in fact doing something dodgy. It's a vicious circle and one that cannot be ignored. Why not just create women unable to do 'dodgy deals' if that is you ultimate intention?
Well in reality it just causes pain that isn't deserved. Instead of making the woman suffer for doing something she couldn't understand why not just make the woman uncapable in the first place and thus avoiding the need for excessive pain? Would seem like the loving thing to do.
There's nothing wrong with the Qur'an but yet again i will state we are treading into ground unwanted. I can start quoting sumerian again if it helps What i mean by this is that truth should not be spread over different texts created by different religions all jumbled up into one gigantic puzzle. If it is done like that there's nothing to suggest sumerian text isn't real and that alien beings really did create mankind.
As for the curses being valuable asset i can only suggest that god find a better way of achieving a specific goal. he placed the tree, gave them no choice really but to eat from it and cursed everything because of that action that he himself had 'designed' to happen. That is his choice but why go through the farce of caring? Why not just do what you're gonna do and done with it? It's like me ordering my child to throw a stone at a greenhouse then blaming her when the greenhouse shatters. It is bound by its very action to cause serious bad feeling, all lessons aside.
So if you don't want your creation to create why give them the ability to create? I don't want you playing with explosives so why would i hand you dynamite? If you then blew up a building and boasted about it who would be at fault? You for using something new and not really understanding the action it causes or me for giving you the dynamite in the first place?
Furthermore if Eve hadn't have done what she did and in essence gone against god none of us would be here to debate about it. I'm thankful that the woman showed her own free will. She got punished but we all owe her for that.
Where does it suggest Abel was any different from Cain in origin? The whole mention of cain being a 'bad apple' arrives when it comes to offerings to god. Cains fruit is rejected against Abels meat offerings. The problem stems solely from there. Maybe Abel could have taken the rejection from god better, we can only assume anything to that effect because it didnt happen, but the only mention of wrong and sin comes from bad offerings to god.
As stated earlier the only problem came from the offering. Cain offered fruit, Abel offered meat. God rejected cain and started waffling on about sin. As a 'loving' parent i wouldnt have a go at my child if she bought me an apple instead of a hamburger. That's not the way love works, that's how slavery works. If cain was selfish and evil he wouldnt have offered god anything. The bible states otherwise. His offering just wasnt good enough.
Cain attacked Abel thanks to gods rejection of his offering. Jealousy is an integral part of being human. God would know that- he made us.
Ah mercy perhaps. Mercy and love do not belong in the same sentence. He 'let off' a guy who hadn't given him something worthy of attention and who killed his sibling. However the punishment is instinctively evil in itself: God forced him to suffer a life with his guilt. That alone could be worse and more devised evil than just killing the guy and done with it.
And all worshipping idols, false gods, daemons, and exactly the same thing we were probably doing back then. That is how mankind has lived throughout history- each with unique beliefs and faiths. As such why drown everyone in the first place? And what could you ever benefit from killing every creature and bird?
Ummmmmmm........ eh?
It is the ending part i refer to where after saying how man will shed blood of man it suddenly says: "for man was created in the image of god" That implies that man will shed blood because that's what god would do. If that's the case how could we ever find fault with people who kill? For we were made in the image of god.... See the context with which that is written?
However we can skip this bit if you want, it was just a small point.
Demonic? Where's it say that? What it does say is man was worried he'd overpopulate the earth and as such had to build something tall to live in. In sumerian tongue it suggests man had started to devise ways of going out into the cosmos, so the alien beings stopped them. There's many reasons why they wouldn't want mankind flying through space. You ever chop up rats or frogs in biology class? There's the answer. Hiding the truth and stopping our eventual overtaking of the gods who made us. It's inevitable.
Ravanna might have been a daemon/demon, (whichever you prefer), but there's nothing to suggest the attempted architects of the tower of babel were. By suggesting that man was being demonic by trying to get into heaven by building a tower are you suggesting heaven is up? If heaven cannot be reached by building upwards what difference would it make what the men did? The only thing we have currently found that is 'up' is space. Other planets, other galaxies, etc. If heaven has a 'place' it would suggest physical attributes. If we can build something to get there we will inevitably and eventually be able to fly there. It would require a lot more for god and his apparent counterparts to do to prevent us getting there. By going in a plane you would be in fact going 'up' and therefore could also be classed as performing demonic activity. What is there in space god needed to protect so much? If you say heaven we must ask what exactly heaven is, and if by making a large building we can reach it we must ask if inventing planes and spaceships was a wise thing to do.
Amusing, but no need. I do not hold hierarchy to being good. I do not believe one human has importance above another. We are all either worthless humans or grand humans. I do not see any distinguishing features between any of us that make us better and as such would never promote giving 'names' to someone with regard to having higher stature. I only have lord on the end of my name cause i played ultima online and it seems appropriate
I have mentioned that god has shown acts of 'kindness' to many 'individuals' up until this part of the bible. Love and kindness or 'letting off' are completely different things. Do note that in the case of Noah and stories of relevance God 'let off' particular individuals from receiving death/pain etc. Maybe it's just me but i do not regard that as having love. If i had 2 children and let one off and punished one when they'd been bad i would be showing true bias- not neccesarily through love. I speak as a mortal. If you really love i believe you could come to alternatives over killing everyone to accomplish the same means. I do not tell my daughter off or punish her in any way. When she does something wrong i find an alternative and non-violent/aggressive solution to the problem. God being all knowing etc etc could surely do the same. He felt grieved and acted upon it without lengthy thought, or so it would appear. Love can cause us to act in haste but love does not cause us to kill that which we love. It's harder to explain obviously because we're talking of a god vs a human but the entire annihilation of your creation does not signify love, it signifies extreme and violent nature.
God created everything. He put man on the planet and provided for him. This could be seen as love. What we must also see and understand is 'why' god created us. Througout this portion of the bible it is very apparent we were created as nothing more than servents. Servitude is fine if you do not have the human brain. However god created us the way we are and as such should have known the problems with making mankind purely to serve him. Servitude is not in our genes. Imagine you didn't know the difference between good and evil. who would you listen to? God or the devil? How would you distinguish good from bad? The answer is you couldn't. God set up a test knowing instinctively mankind would fail. We are to this day, according to many, being punished for failing the test we could never have passed. Love does not make slaves and love does not make tests we can only fail.
Please tell me what is 'seriously not good progeny' that it requires someone with love in their heart to annihilate an entire species. Mankind annihilates entire species too- it isn't for love of that species, its for love of himself.
There are many craters upon the earth caused by meteorites. the largest of which, and thought to have killed the dinosaurs, is one in the Yucatan Peninsula. Ok, it isnt mentioned in the bible but running along the lines of the bible and the earths creation a few thousand years ago it would only stand to logic to say these meteors hit while man was around. The Yucatan crater is 125 miles in diameter which would have wiped everything off the face of this earth. In our current debate we must assume this is the handy work of god. Can any of us even begin to imagine what we have done that is that bad it requires such direct destruction? Same with the flood, (i just used an example we can see and witness in place of global flooding), what could we have done against an all powerful being that was so bad it required total and utter anihilation? If anyone sits here and says: "God gave mankind free will" then he must understand with that action comes an ability to do as you choose and please without retribution. If men were worshippnig rocks, idols, golden horses or anything else why destroy them? Mankind has done exactly that same thing ever since and not once has god even showed signs of anger. He did promise not to wipe the entire earth but there are in this day and age thousands upon thousands of 'false worships'. That is our free will. I will not sit here and say "You must be christian/muslim etc". If i was in a position to say such a thing i would also accept my responsibility in not giving you the free will to choose otherwise. That is running something through fear- as i mentioned further through my analysis. If that is the way god does things you cannot state the claim to 'love'. Fear and love do not belong in the same sentence.
I suppose its another way of explaining the difference between modern man and caveman. Primal instinct versus society. No matter how many children a wolf has, no matter how many times the kids are tamed in turn giving birth to more dosile creatures the instinctive animal remains within. Through all this time have we suppressed the instinct of cats? We feed them and look after them- through thousands of years we have tamed them to be nothing more than pets. Does your 'pet' cat still hunt birds, still chase mice?
Sumerian explains this well in that when man was created we were not quite 'human' the way adam/eve are depicted. We were there to serve and belong to someone/something. In this scenario the evil would simply be mans evolution, mans progression. It was at this time, in the bible and in older texts that the god/s confused man to stop them, (Tower of Babel). Babel means=confusion. That was when god/s changed peoples language so they couldnt understand each other. It was done specifically to hinder mans progress in both the bible and sumerian literature. Could god have drowned every being because we evolved? Because we started to use the free will that had been given us? Adam and Eve show signs of free will in the very beginning and were punished for it. Mankind showed free will afterwards and was punished time and again for doing so. Of course this is no more than hypothesis. Nowhere does it actually say what mankind did that was so bad it deserved complete destruction. However if we assume we have some freedom of choice, which is apparent with current society, then we could never have deserved entire anihilation. If we have no free will then god should make that clear otherwise i can imagine doomsday happening sooner than you'd think. If we have no free will then man is but a slave born into servitude. If that's the case love has no relevance.
Ok the Qur'an says this, that and the other. Sumerian texts attribute the plural as being aliens. From what has been shown Elohim as translated to meaning 'god' is actually a plural word. This is the problem with using multiple texts. We are still in the same position whereby we have no facts. Looking at the bible itself god is specifically spoken in plural several times. There are, at that time in the bible, no mention of angels etc as you have stated. At the very beginning when god is first creating man- and nothing else exists there is still plural attitude given: "Let us make man in our image, our likeness. The Qur'an attributes it to this, Sumerians attribute it to that... we're still no closer to facts. I would deem this of paramount importance. We sit here and worship one god..... What if he himself has already told us there's many and we deny them? I'd hate to jump into a swimming pool without first knowing how to swim. More important than that first sign is the 'speech':
"And the lord god said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
Like one of us? Say that to yourself meaning 'one' being. Ok, we're only humans and maybe we cannot see it the way god has meant it but to us frail humans it is all we have. God should and could explain himself better if that were the case. This sentence is undoubtedly referring to more than one- those others having the same commonalities as god himself. It implies that there are others with the same ability and position as god. There is no reason to assume or summise that he is talking to angels unless angels have the same authority and power as god, in which case angels are gods aswell. There are several ways to do this:
"The man has now become like me"
"The man has now become like angels"
To say "Us" shows power shared by others. Others that are of the same nature and stature of god. There's nothing to say god wasnt the big overall boss in charge, the captain if you will- but it is evident there was more than one.
Sumerian texts explain about 'boats of heaven' that carried 50 or more of these beings through the cosmos. With this we can understand the sumerians believed in more than one god. If beliving in many gods one of them turned round and said: "i am the only god" could you imagine the confusion wrought upon humankind? By that same token we must appreciate the fragility of the statements provided from the bible in reference to more than one.
There is a distinct flaw with this line of thinking. Let's take a look at the paragraph:
"Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the lord god as he was walking in the garden......"
The correct structure of sentence here would be:
"Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the lord god as they were...."
I would agree it could quite possibly be nothing more than grammatical error but belief has it god does not make mistakes like this. Belief also has it this is the word of god himself. The Visitor would argue we're humans who don't understand but why- when you claim there is love- make it impossible for a human to understand what you're saying? This is before the tower of Babel so there would be no language errors as all spoke exactly the same. The reason i can believe this is grammatical error is for the bibles distinct sexist attitude. That was the way things were in the olden days, hell even recently, but i would not consider god to be a sexist, regardless of whether men are or not. That kind of throws the grammatical debate out of the window. God might be sexist then women must start worrying what kind of 'afterlife' they'll lead when we all get to heaven. Your guess is as good as mine.
Well technically eve didnt do anything 'dodgy'. She wouldn't have known until after she'd eaten the fruit that she was in fact doing something dodgy. It's a vicious circle and one that cannot be ignored. Why not just create women unable to do 'dodgy deals' if that is you ultimate intention?
Well in reality it just causes pain that isn't deserved. Instead of making the woman suffer for doing something she couldn't understand why not just make the woman uncapable in the first place and thus avoiding the need for excessive pain? Would seem like the loving thing to do.
There's nothing wrong with the Qur'an but yet again i will state we are treading into ground unwanted. I can start quoting sumerian again if it helps
What i mean by this is that truth should not be spread over different texts created by different religions all jumbled up into one gigantic puzzle. If it is done like that there's nothing to suggest sumerian text isn't real and that alien beings really did create mankind. As for the curses being valuable asset i can only suggest that god find a better way of achieving a specific goal. he placed the tree, gave them no choice really but to eat from it and cursed everything because of that action that he himself had 'designed' to happen. That is his choice but why go through the farce of caring? Why not just do what you're gonna do and done with it? It's like me ordering my child to throw a stone at a greenhouse then blaming her when the greenhouse shatters. It is bound by its very action to cause serious bad feeling, all lessons aside.
So if you don't want your creation to create why give them the ability to create? I don't want you playing with explosives so why would i hand you dynamite? If you then blew up a building and boasted about it who would be at fault? You for using something new and not really understanding the action it causes or me for giving you the dynamite in the first place?
Furthermore if Eve hadn't have done what she did and in essence gone against god none of us would be here to debate about it. I'm thankful that the woman showed her own free will. She got punished but we all owe her for that.
Where does it suggest Abel was any different from Cain in origin? The whole mention of cain being a 'bad apple' arrives when it comes to offerings to god. Cains fruit is rejected against Abels meat offerings. The problem stems solely from there. Maybe Abel could have taken the rejection from god better, we can only assume anything to that effect because it didnt happen, but the only mention of wrong and sin comes from bad offerings to god.
As stated earlier the only problem came from the offering. Cain offered fruit, Abel offered meat. God rejected cain and started waffling on about sin. As a 'loving' parent i wouldnt have a go at my child if she bought me an apple instead of a hamburger. That's not the way love works, that's how slavery works. If cain was selfish and evil he wouldnt have offered god anything. The bible states otherwise. His offering just wasnt good enough.
Cain attacked Abel thanks to gods rejection of his offering. Jealousy is an integral part of being human. God would know that- he made us.
Ah mercy perhaps. Mercy and love do not belong in the same sentence. He 'let off' a guy who hadn't given him something worthy of attention and who killed his sibling. However the punishment is instinctively evil in itself: God forced him to suffer a life with his guilt. That alone could be worse and more devised evil than just killing the guy and done with it.
And all worshipping idols, false gods, daemons, and exactly the same thing we were probably doing back then. That is how mankind has lived throughout history- each with unique beliefs and faiths. As such why drown everyone in the first place? And what could you ever benefit from killing every creature and bird?
Ummmmmmm........ eh?
It is the ending part i refer to where after saying how man will shed blood of man it suddenly says: "for man was created in the image of god" That implies that man will shed blood because that's what god would do. If that's the case how could we ever find fault with people who kill? For we were made in the image of god.... See the context with which that is written?
However we can skip this bit if you want, it was just a small point.
Demonic? Where's it say that? What it does say is man was worried he'd overpopulate the earth and as such had to build something tall to live in. In sumerian tongue it suggests man had started to devise ways of going out into the cosmos, so the alien beings stopped them. There's many reasons why they wouldn't want mankind flying through space. You ever chop up rats or frogs in biology class? There's the answer. Hiding the truth and stopping our eventual overtaking of the gods who made us. It's inevitable.
Ravanna might have been a daemon/demon, (whichever you prefer), but there's nothing to suggest the attempted architects of the tower of babel were. By suggesting that man was being demonic by trying to get into heaven by building a tower are you suggesting heaven is up? If heaven cannot be reached by building upwards what difference would it make what the men did? The only thing we have currently found that is 'up' is space. Other planets, other galaxies, etc. If heaven has a 'place' it would suggest physical attributes. If we can build something to get there we will inevitably and eventually be able to fly there. It would require a lot more for god and his apparent counterparts to do to prevent us getting there. By going in a plane you would be in fact going 'up' and therefore could also be classed as performing demonic activity. What is there in space god needed to protect so much? If you say heaven we must ask what exactly heaven is, and if by making a large building we can reach it we must ask if inventing planes and spaceships was a wise thing to do.
Last edited:
"If i had 2 children and let one off and punished one when they'd been bad i would be showing true bias"
=========
I don't deny God has bais in some circumstances, Jacob have I loved Esau have I hated.....from before the womb.
But He also has reasons for His choises, and if He has a child as we do, as mortals, He does not just "let off" that child if he has done wrong.......this would teach the child He loves nothing, and reinforce wrong behavior.
Far from it....God is the greatest of all parents and He teaches His children He calls to Himself the lessons of Life, punnishing them for their wrongs so they will learn from their mistakes not just to punish because they broke a "law".....
If you look in the scriptures and take them as a whole, not just one line here or there, you would see as in this instance that God said: Noah was found to be perfect in his generation....so it wasn't prejuduce, Noah met certain things God was looking for in man concerning rightousness or respect for His Word.
Thats what He wanted to survive and reproduce offspring, and He also allowed Ham to come on the ark....
God chastises His sons for corection and reproof, He "lets go" the children of this world who choose to go about there ways in sin and ingnore Him and His words. They are "bastard born'....
in other words, without God as thier father.
Hebrews 12
My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby
=========
I don't deny God has bais in some circumstances, Jacob have I loved Esau have I hated.....from before the womb.
But He also has reasons for His choises, and if He has a child as we do, as mortals, He does not just "let off" that child if he has done wrong.......this would teach the child He loves nothing, and reinforce wrong behavior.
Far from it....God is the greatest of all parents and He teaches His children He calls to Himself the lessons of Life, punnishing them for their wrongs so they will learn from their mistakes not just to punish because they broke a "law".....
If you look in the scriptures and take them as a whole, not just one line here or there, you would see as in this instance that God said: Noah was found to be perfect in his generation....so it wasn't prejuduce, Noah met certain things God was looking for in man concerning rightousness or respect for His Word.
Thats what He wanted to survive and reproduce offspring, and He also allowed Ham to come on the ark....
God chastises His sons for corection and reproof, He "lets go" the children of this world who choose to go about there ways in sin and ingnore Him and His words. They are "bastard born'....
in other words, without God as thier father.
Hebrews 12
My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby
Last edited:
snakelord said:
Demonic? Where's it say that? What it does say is man was worried he'd overpopulate the earth and as such had to build something tall to live in. In sumerian tongue it suggests man had started to devise ways of going out into the cosmos, so the alien beings stopped them.
=========
Demonic? Where's it say that? .The Bible
You'll have to read all of it, and ask God for the wisdom to see Him in it and He will reveal it. But He has a provided way he will not go around, and you will have to be willing to humble yourself to His Word. Otherwise you are just fighting the "air", and Satan is the prince of the power of it.
It is a revelation of Jesus Christ. You can't get the whole story from one sentence, as you are trying to do so you can prove the sumerian texts right. The sumerian texts may have much truth in them, that I won't deny...All religions have much truth.
But it is mixed with "something else" and thats the problem.
This wasn't talking about building a skyscraper, , and ancient man wasn't a bunch of idiots that just "threw around" some "crazy ideas" when they wrote the bible.
They were smarter than man today, they had ten times the lifespan we do, to acumulate knowledge, and wisdom.
Science today is only finding out things that have always been known, and belittleing things they don't understand because of their human "ego" and spirit which is by nature fallen and at war or "emnity" with God.
snakelord said
Please tell me what is 'seriously not good progeny' that it requires someone with love in their heart to annihilate an entire species
There are many craters upon the earth caused by meteorites. the largest of which, and thought to have killed the dinosaurs, is one in the Yucatan Peninsula. Ok, it isnt mentioned in the bible but running along the lines of the bible and the earths creation a few thousand years ago it would only stand to logic to say these meteors hit while man was around. The Yucatan crater is 125 miles in diameter which would have wiped everything off the face of this earth
--------
You think God destoyed the world before the flood.....?
Read again, the whole of the book tells a diferent tale.
God let man destoy himself.
The world was "knocked" off it's axis 23 1/2 degrees.
Thats what caused the seasons we have today, there was no rain and the world was straight up in relation to it's axis and the sun untill then.
What makes you assume that was a comet that made that crater...?
God will let man destoy the world again in this day, but this time it will line her back up straight with the sun.
God works through man, so does the devil.
You chose who you will "yield" your members to, faith or doubt, God or Satan
Satan is the God of this evil age, and science is his tool.
"The tree of knowledge of good and evil" , remember.
Thats man leaning to his own understanding, and human spirit, which is fallen and contaminated by Satan who is this day..the prince of the power of the air.
He has access to the realm of the human mind, for a very short time longer.
He is being cast down from heaven.
He is the "father of lies", and the designer of all religions, just as he designed Eve...
Woman represents church in the scriptures.
Getting back to your cry of injustice.....
Man's science was then as it is today. You have to have the whole picture to see the story.
"As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the coming of the son of man" (today)
They had science then, just as today...as advanced if not more ....could we build the pyramids today even...?..No.
They had some kind of atomic power.
I've heard science's "caveman" explaination that they "rolled the stones on logs"
Those stones were so large, we don't even have helicopters capable of lifting them.
They had science then that could, as developed or more than ours.
Science "hoary" with age.
Used for control, hidden as magic, which they knew then as well.
The world was evil and the thoughts of men were evil continually.
This again happened with your "Sumerian" civilization of Sodom and Gomorah,. They were giants...Abraham saved them once, then twenty years later He pleaded with God not to destroy them , but they had been given over to evil spirits.
The same is happening again today.
I hope you see the pattern here.
"As it was in the days of Lot, so shall it be in the coming of the son of man"
What happened in the days of Lot....just before the "fire" fell..?
A man...God, in human form...Melchesidec, having no mother, no father, no beginning of days or ending of life...God, came to Abraham, and told him: "I will visit you according to the time of life, as I have promised, and you will have a child with Sarah thy wife.".
Sarah in the tent behind Him, in her mind laughed......
He said to her, why did you laugh, within yourself ( thats in her mind only) and she denyed it, then He said ..."but you did"
This man discerned the thoughts that were in her heart....
This is the "sign" of the messiah.
He said the same thing would happen today.
Jesus said to the woman at the well, go get your husband.
She said I have none.
He said" you've spoken well for you've had five and the one you have now is not your own.
Hebrews 4:12
Thats the sign of the son of man.
Thats what has happened, Today..He is here.
Now in Jesus first coming...those with evil spirits said of this sign: He is Beelzebulb, in other words He is the devil, or has a devil.
Jesus said (Matthew 12:26) - And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
Now if you were told this has happened today, where ever your answer comes from is the reward you shall receive.
Choose your words carefully.
This is not a God of history which I speak.
He is here today, alive and ready to do that which He said He would do.
Demonic? Where's it say that? What it does say is man was worried he'd overpopulate the earth and as such had to build something tall to live in. In sumerian tongue it suggests man had started to devise ways of going out into the cosmos, so the alien beings stopped them.
=========
Demonic? Where's it say that? .The Bible
You'll have to read all of it, and ask God for the wisdom to see Him in it and He will reveal it. But He has a provided way he will not go around, and you will have to be willing to humble yourself to His Word. Otherwise you are just fighting the "air", and Satan is the prince of the power of it.
It is a revelation of Jesus Christ. You can't get the whole story from one sentence, as you are trying to do so you can prove the sumerian texts right. The sumerian texts may have much truth in them, that I won't deny...All religions have much truth.
But it is mixed with "something else" and thats the problem.
This wasn't talking about building a skyscraper, , and ancient man wasn't a bunch of idiots that just "threw around" some "crazy ideas" when they wrote the bible.
They were smarter than man today, they had ten times the lifespan we do, to acumulate knowledge, and wisdom.
Science today is only finding out things that have always been known, and belittleing things they don't understand because of their human "ego" and spirit which is by nature fallen and at war or "emnity" with God.
snakelord said
Please tell me what is 'seriously not good progeny' that it requires someone with love in their heart to annihilate an entire species
There are many craters upon the earth caused by meteorites. the largest of which, and thought to have killed the dinosaurs, is one in the Yucatan Peninsula. Ok, it isnt mentioned in the bible but running along the lines of the bible and the earths creation a few thousand years ago it would only stand to logic to say these meteors hit while man was around. The Yucatan crater is 125 miles in diameter which would have wiped everything off the face of this earth
--------
You think God destoyed the world before the flood.....?
Read again, the whole of the book tells a diferent tale.
God let man destoy himself.
The world was "knocked" off it's axis 23 1/2 degrees.
Thats what caused the seasons we have today, there was no rain and the world was straight up in relation to it's axis and the sun untill then.
What makes you assume that was a comet that made that crater...?
God will let man destoy the world again in this day, but this time it will line her back up straight with the sun.
God works through man, so does the devil.
You chose who you will "yield" your members to, faith or doubt, God or Satan
Satan is the God of this evil age, and science is his tool.
"The tree of knowledge of good and evil" , remember.
Thats man leaning to his own understanding, and human spirit, which is fallen and contaminated by Satan who is this day..the prince of the power of the air.
He has access to the realm of the human mind, for a very short time longer.
He is being cast down from heaven.
He is the "father of lies", and the designer of all religions, just as he designed Eve...
Woman represents church in the scriptures.
Getting back to your cry of injustice.....
Man's science was then as it is today. You have to have the whole picture to see the story.
"As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the coming of the son of man" (today)
They had science then, just as today...as advanced if not more ....could we build the pyramids today even...?..No.
They had some kind of atomic power.
I've heard science's "caveman" explaination that they "rolled the stones on logs"
Those stones were so large, we don't even have helicopters capable of lifting them.
They had science then that could, as developed or more than ours.
Science "hoary" with age.
Used for control, hidden as magic, which they knew then as well.
The world was evil and the thoughts of men were evil continually.
This again happened with your "Sumerian" civilization of Sodom and Gomorah,. They were giants...Abraham saved them once, then twenty years later He pleaded with God not to destroy them , but they had been given over to evil spirits.
The same is happening again today.
I hope you see the pattern here.
"As it was in the days of Lot, so shall it be in the coming of the son of man"
What happened in the days of Lot....just before the "fire" fell..?
A man...God, in human form...Melchesidec, having no mother, no father, no beginning of days or ending of life...God, came to Abraham, and told him: "I will visit you according to the time of life, as I have promised, and you will have a child with Sarah thy wife.".
Sarah in the tent behind Him, in her mind laughed......
He said to her, why did you laugh, within yourself ( thats in her mind only) and she denyed it, then He said ..."but you did"
This man discerned the thoughts that were in her heart....
This is the "sign" of the messiah.
He said the same thing would happen today.
Jesus said to the woman at the well, go get your husband.
She said I have none.
He said" you've spoken well for you've had five and the one you have now is not your own.
Hebrews 4:12
Thats the sign of the son of man.
Thats what has happened, Today..He is here.
Now in Jesus first coming...those with evil spirits said of this sign: He is Beelzebulb, in other words He is the devil, or has a devil.
Jesus said (Matthew 12:26) - And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
Now if you were told this has happened today, where ever your answer comes from is the reward you shall receive.
Choose your words carefully.
This is not a God of history which I speak.
He is here today, alive and ready to do that which He said He would do.
Last edited:
You really cannot use these two in the same paragraph. The bias which god has shown multiple times within even the first 24 pages of the bible suggests constant favouritism over things we would regard as petty issues.
The example i like to use is cains offering, as i have already stated. There is no logical reason why a god would show favouritism to one child for offering meat, and show bad attitude to the one who offered fruit. That doesn't signify the perfect parent.
What law was that? At that time there were no commandments and no discernible god written law. He got punished originally for offering fruit. Is that really a sin? That's what god says, so i guess it must be.
I really do not try to use one line from here or there. I study what is written where it is written. I do not, and will not try to use page 524 to point out things on page 3 though. That in itself is taking 'one line from here or there'.
As for Noah, i understand completely what is said. I'm still convinced lessons could have been taught that didn't involve the entire anihilation of everything on the planet. If god wanted all children after to be of purity like Noah then he could have closed all other womens wombs except for Noahs wife. It wouldn't be the first time he has done such a thing. Let's try to consider what mankind, (every person except for Noah), did that was so bad it required such fatal action. There is no mention upto this point of demonic worship, satanic worship or anything else of that sort. I'm pretty sure there's more satan worshippers today than there was then. The serpent had been dealt with by god in the beginning. If it hadn't there's only one thing to blame for that: God. It was his choice, and like i have also mentioned do NOT give mankind free will then anihilate mankind when they use that free will.
He 'lets go' those who choose to ignore him and go about in sin? Then tell me why he anihilated all on earth? Doesn't sound quite like 'letting go', sounds more like 'completely destroying'.
I don't consider hebrews relevant to Noah. At the time of Noah there was no Hebrews chapter and as such nobody would have heard the words written within. Let's not grab paragraphs from here and there, as you stated- let's stick to the current time frame and issue. But if you really must consider hebrews as relevant it says: "Despise not." That stands true... the flood victims had no time to despise.. they were drowned. If they despised god beforehand that surely is their right? After all: god 'lets them go'.
Not at all. The essence of evil in ezekiel for example bears no relevance to Genesis for example. Two completely different sections written so far apart from each other and with no bearing to each other. The point we are up to shows no indication of demonic activity or anything remotely evil. Mankind wanted to build a huge tower as they were worried about filling the earth. God and his cohorts 'confused' mankind so they would fail. To stay in line with his usual methods i would have thought god would just destroy evil people altogether as shown in multitude throughout the bible. Or he could have just 'let them go'. This part of the bible very clearly states god, (and his partners), were worried. What would god have to worry about? "Nothing will be impossible for them...." That's what god said. Nothing? Perhaps we too could become gods? No? Then why say 'nothing will be impossible'. Why even speak? He's alone apparently at this stage so who's he speaking to? If he's speaking to himself he really must be worried. Throughout the bible you can see a distinct behaviour pattern and tone. When mankind worships demons/evil god follows a particular pattern of dealing with it. He doesn' sit down and worry- this scenario is completely different in style.
Well the sumerian texts might be 100% truth and the bible may be 'mixed with something else'. Let's not presume to be right over other texts or religions as none of us can really do so. For the sake of the recent discussions i have looked upon it this way: IF the bible is truth i would like to analyse what it says and see just who/what/how god is. I cannot make debate if your answer is: "This is truth"- you have already got the answer and anything challenged is ultimately worthless. That's not a debate, it's a waste of breath.
The part we are referring to is not a revelation of jesus christ, mohammed, nostradamus or the bogey man. Jesus is a long way off yet. If you continue to use page 785, (example), to make points on page 4, (example), then there's absolutely nothing to stop anyone interpreting the bible any way they deem fit. Let's look at the issue at hand- The tower of babel shows no indication of devil worship or revelations of christ.
It doesn't matter if they were idiots or not. The bible is, apparently, the word of god. Humans didn't just make it up as they went along did they? Whether it was a skyscraper, ufo or whatever it certainly got God worried. God didn't just destroy them which looking at his usual methods signifies it wasn't evil. He spoke with worried tongue, not angry tongue. "..Nothing will be impossible"
You tell me... I wasn't there- i wouldnt know. But there is 'fact' to show many large scale meteorites have hit this planet. It must have happened some time after creation, (obviously), i just wonder when. There is no mention of it.
Read again.... the book clearly states god was in pain and killed everyone. Mankind may have been doing bad things but my earlier 2 points: 1) we must consider what could have been that bad to warrant such action and 2) Dont ever give something free will and then deny the right to use it.
The world was 'knocked'? That doesn't suggest flood, it suggests something 'knocking' the planet- like a very large asteroid for example
As for assuming a comet/meteor/whatever made those craters it's really not an assumption. We've now all witnessed the comets impact on jupiter- and can witness the after effects of that impact. Shoemaker levy 9 did some hell of a lot of damage. Before there's any accusations that im just 'trusting' the media i will state im an amateur astronomer and witnessed it with my own eyes. (ok, not as close up as many others but i did see what happens when big rock hits big planet). I suppose we could argue the dating of the crater. I'm not too clued up on dating processes so we can debate that. They say 65million years or so for the crater in the Yucatan peninsula. For all we know it could be 5000 years. The point is it did happen sometime, and with belief in the bible you would have to say sometime within the last 8000? years. Of course that's just one impact crater of many.
They estimate that every day about 25 tonnes of space rock lands on earth. People have witnessed the landing of meteorites and seen how they act, what kind of crater, (albeit on a much much smaller scale), they would cause and so on. Mercury has been absolutely bombarded by space rock as has our own moon. This is completely testable and can be witnessed by anyone. Im sure you've been lucky enough to see a shooting star or two in your life? That's a space rock falling to earth- now imagine one of those 125 miles in diameter.
Was this relevant anywhere?
Ok, what has the pyramids got to do with satan or god? It's like me saying it was aliens, which actually has more evidence to suggest it. You seem to be aiming to the conclusion that science is evil. Science is knowledge and the search for truth. That's evil? Better to just accept and walk along oblivious and blind to it all?
You seem to be drawing the conclusion that the pyramids somehow prove evil? I have seen the pyramids up close and personal. I will be the first to admit they are awe inspiring beyond comparison.. any assumption that god, satan or aliens were involved is just an assumption.
The rest of your text is about satan and jesus. I hate to say it is of little relevance to any of this. There is not one iota of evidence to suggest either of them were around during the time we are currently talking about. I do see and somewhat understand your fixation on jesus and contempt for satan who you say is ever present but mentioning them every sentence and every forum thread and every discussion you partake of does not supply any answers. If you think it does give the answer then there's little to no point in debating with anyone else. Some foolish humans like myself prefer a debate instead of being told one persons version of the complete truth. By all means debunk and debate any points i raise or question but there's little need to say Jesus and satan every other word.
Science please...
I haven't bothered to read everything that has been posted, but I feel that I have managed to grasp the general feeling of this thread and its participants.
I think that it is quite deceiving to see that some see science as being the opposite of religion and religion the opposite of science. Such a belief is a gross oversimplification of the two institutions.
In fact, the thruth is more like comparing law with morality: althought they sometimes meet, they are different and yet not naturally opposed to one another.
Ex.: It is immoral and illegal to have sex with a minor. However, it is not immoral to drive at 65 km\h in a 50 km\h zone.. it is only illegal. Similarly, it is immoral to lie, but not illegal.
Odd, n'est-ce pas?
Knowledge has a similar relationship with science and religion as of law and morality.
For those of you who actually know science (rather than only know how to apply it) you have certainly heard of scientific theories such as empiricism, rationalism and thinkers such as Popper, Kuhn and Quine. (-- all main stream theorists, they are not your lumberjack uncle talking about science, so if you don't know them, blame your ignorance or your university faculty for not covering them)
Not exclusively referring to these three authors, science has determined her nature in the past 20 years as not one of certainty, but of theories. Theories are systems that gather 'facts' by the means of a pre-conceived hypothesis. 'Facts' are not to be understood as certainties, but as explained truths within the theory.
Of course, we all know that science has many theories, in fact, it has so many that it even has theories that directly oppose others (Newton vs Einstein).
This said, a theory, contrarely to what the media and every 'week-end' scientists claims, is not founded on undeniable facts and thruths. It is much rather a temporal explanation of the observed circumstances.
This can be examplified in the fact that science undergoes paradigm revolutions: Aristotle, Newton, Einstein...
So science is not equivalent to certainty, it is equivalent to verifiable facts in a given arrangment of a theory.
Of course, in theory, all is well. But Kuhn was very explicit on showing that science IS dogmatic.
1- There is no science of one man, there is only science of a community. Thus, a great part of science is bound to the dogma of the majority. (ex.: university approved research, grants, groups of interests)
2- Science relies on the following criteria in order to weight the importance of a theory:
-Precision, Efficientcy, Simplicity, Coherence and Heuristic value
However, all these criterions suffer from the same problem: they are all subjective values that cannot be attributed an objective value.
-------------------------------------------------
(Explanation of this, if not interested, skip to demarkation)
-Indeed, who is to say that Einstein's theory is more 'coherant' than Newton's? Were all the scientists before Einstein incoherent?
-What is the value of Precision or Efficientcy? If we measure time in units of seconds, it is only by a subjective decision. Maybe there is a better way of calculating time.. but we can't know this, because the fondation of science is not objective to the point of grasping that possibility.
(other examples: which is more precise: Protons or quarks? A: depends in which field of knowledge you apply it)
-Simplicity: The acceptance of formulas and thesis in the scientific community are in part dependant of their simplicity. Why would you calculate 'x' in 10 steps rather than 2? And what good would be a theory that only two men understood?
-Heuristic value is the ability for a thesis to merge itself in an already formed theory. You will rarely see scientists searching for a new way of defining gravity or the constituion of water.
Even if some would, they would not be welcomed in the scientific community, they would be seen as heretics and shuned. (pun intended)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This said, science is not all what its hype portrays it to be. Kind of like religion. ooops!
Now lets talk about religion:
Religion is a form of knowledge, like science, it attempts to base its revelations(a.k.a. theories) on -what is of this world-.
This fact cannot be rationnaly refuted. (sorry guys)
Proof:
-When religion thought the world was flat and that the sun revolved around Earth, they were founding themselves on the world at hand. They didn't make it up!! Everyone up to Copernic thought this theory to be correct.
-When religion claims creation, it is aknwoledging the fact that no human was ever born from a rock or sprouted from a tree. This is why it is not at all so "crazy" to claim creation: it is solely founded on observable facts that it takes 1 man and 1 woman to make a human being. From this logic, it is impossible for only one man to exist and equivalently impossible for 1 man and 1 woman to be born from nothing.
Conclusion: Adam and Eve, created by God.
I am ready to admit that the whole 'garden of Eden' story is made up, but I don't believe that it is meant to be taken litterally!. It is designed to theologically explain our world... how? from what we can see and know. (yes empirically!)
I'm not going to call religion a science, but it definetly has a similar method when attempting to explain the world we live in. Instead, I will satisfy myself to merely showing that Religion and Science meet in this attempt to explain the world.
What else is religion? It is an attempt to unify mankind to a transcendantal order. W-t-f do I mean? I mean, that religion tries to do what science has recognized that it cannot accomplish: explain the "Why" of things.
As science is interested in the "how" of things, religion examines the "why" of things. Just like the law concerns itself with "the judicial", morality turns towards "the good".
Now that we kow what we are talking about, we can finally make a judgement on things:
Religion is an attempt to explain Why the world exists. By doing so, it is simultaneously giving man a specific nature or fonction. Science is not interested in that, science can tell you How a man is conceived, grows, cries and dies, but it cannot tell you Why.
This said, is science inherently opposed to explaining the Why of things? No, it has only abandonned the quest, in order to focus on another, more technical dimension.
As for religion, is it inherently against science? No, it represents man's will to find the nature of his existence, a nature that is not held within the realms of the material world nor of science.
The opposition between science and religion is nothing more than make believe, it is a fairy tale that is embodied by the leading protagonists of our modern world.
If Neo-Darwin sicence oppose the Creation, it is not based on the fact that one is religious and the other science, it is founded in a duel between two theories, not two institutions.
Eventhought they may both be dogmatic institutions, like law and morality, they are not necessarily opposed.
Sure things get dirty when the clergy and the scientists both claim exclusive access to knowledge and thruth. But that antagonism is not intrincic to science and religion, it is incarnated by mortals that define themselves as antagonistic to the other institution.
In conclusion, Science is rational, but it cannot be 100% objective for no scientist can be 100% objective, just like the Pope can't be when he is talking about God. On the other hand, religion is also rational, but is obligated to step over the boundaries in order to find a transcendantal meanning.
(meanning that is true to all and explains the Why of this world which cannot be known scientifically)
What is funny is that knowing that no man can know the world entirely as it is and cannot entertain himself completly with God, we have institutions such as Religions and Scientific communities that SAY that they have the correct and unique blueprint of the world.
I trust that the educated, or to the very least the reasonable man, will not be coerced in believing in either extremes.
Eventhought I do not know everything about thermo-dynamics, I can do my daily chores fine. And eventhought I do not possess the sacred rules of the Lord through a blessed cult, I can still manage to find a spiritual meanning to my life.
This said, science and religion are two diffrent kinds of knowledge, that work in different ways towards different goals. However, this does not mean that one is the opposite of the other.
Just like the Why of things is not opposed to the How of things, and the How to the Why.
Thank you,
Prisme
I haven't bothered to read everything that has been posted, but I feel that I have managed to grasp the general feeling of this thread and its participants.
I think that it is quite deceiving to see that some see science as being the opposite of religion and religion the opposite of science. Such a belief is a gross oversimplification of the two institutions.
In fact, the thruth is more like comparing law with morality: althought they sometimes meet, they are different and yet not naturally opposed to one another.
Ex.: It is immoral and illegal to have sex with a minor. However, it is not immoral to drive at 65 km\h in a 50 km\h zone.. it is only illegal. Similarly, it is immoral to lie, but not illegal.
Odd, n'est-ce pas?
Knowledge has a similar relationship with science and religion as of law and morality.
For those of you who actually know science (rather than only know how to apply it) you have certainly heard of scientific theories such as empiricism, rationalism and thinkers such as Popper, Kuhn and Quine. (-- all main stream theorists, they are not your lumberjack uncle talking about science, so if you don't know them, blame your ignorance or your university faculty for not covering them)
Not exclusively referring to these three authors, science has determined her nature in the past 20 years as not one of certainty, but of theories. Theories are systems that gather 'facts' by the means of a pre-conceived hypothesis. 'Facts' are not to be understood as certainties, but as explained truths within the theory.
Of course, we all know that science has many theories, in fact, it has so many that it even has theories that directly oppose others (Newton vs Einstein).
This said, a theory, contrarely to what the media and every 'week-end' scientists claims, is not founded on undeniable facts and thruths. It is much rather a temporal explanation of the observed circumstances.
This can be examplified in the fact that science undergoes paradigm revolutions: Aristotle, Newton, Einstein...
So science is not equivalent to certainty, it is equivalent to verifiable facts in a given arrangment of a theory.
Of course, in theory, all is well. But Kuhn was very explicit on showing that science IS dogmatic.
1- There is no science of one man, there is only science of a community. Thus, a great part of science is bound to the dogma of the majority. (ex.: university approved research, grants, groups of interests)
2- Science relies on the following criteria in order to weight the importance of a theory:
-Precision, Efficientcy, Simplicity, Coherence and Heuristic value
However, all these criterions suffer from the same problem: they are all subjective values that cannot be attributed an objective value.
-------------------------------------------------
(Explanation of this, if not interested, skip to demarkation)
-Indeed, who is to say that Einstein's theory is more 'coherant' than Newton's? Were all the scientists before Einstein incoherent?
-What is the value of Precision or Efficientcy? If we measure time in units of seconds, it is only by a subjective decision. Maybe there is a better way of calculating time.. but we can't know this, because the fondation of science is not objective to the point of grasping that possibility.
(other examples: which is more precise: Protons or quarks? A: depends in which field of knowledge you apply it)
-Simplicity: The acceptance of formulas and thesis in the scientific community are in part dependant of their simplicity. Why would you calculate 'x' in 10 steps rather than 2? And what good would be a theory that only two men understood?
-Heuristic value is the ability for a thesis to merge itself in an already formed theory. You will rarely see scientists searching for a new way of defining gravity or the constituion of water.
Even if some would, they would not be welcomed in the scientific community, they would be seen as heretics and shuned. (pun intended)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This said, science is not all what its hype portrays it to be. Kind of like religion. ooops!
Now lets talk about religion:
Religion is a form of knowledge, like science, it attempts to base its revelations(a.k.a. theories) on -what is of this world-.
This fact cannot be rationnaly refuted. (sorry guys)
Proof:
-When religion thought the world was flat and that the sun revolved around Earth, they were founding themselves on the world at hand. They didn't make it up!! Everyone up to Copernic thought this theory to be correct.
-When religion claims creation, it is aknwoledging the fact that no human was ever born from a rock or sprouted from a tree. This is why it is not at all so "crazy" to claim creation: it is solely founded on observable facts that it takes 1 man and 1 woman to make a human being. From this logic, it is impossible for only one man to exist and equivalently impossible for 1 man and 1 woman to be born from nothing.
Conclusion: Adam and Eve, created by God.
I am ready to admit that the whole 'garden of Eden' story is made up, but I don't believe that it is meant to be taken litterally!. It is designed to theologically explain our world... how? from what we can see and know. (yes empirically!)
I'm not going to call religion a science, but it definetly has a similar method when attempting to explain the world we live in. Instead, I will satisfy myself to merely showing that Religion and Science meet in this attempt to explain the world.
What else is religion? It is an attempt to unify mankind to a transcendantal order. W-t-f do I mean? I mean, that religion tries to do what science has recognized that it cannot accomplish: explain the "Why" of things.
As science is interested in the "how" of things, religion examines the "why" of things. Just like the law concerns itself with "the judicial", morality turns towards "the good".
Now that we kow what we are talking about, we can finally make a judgement on things:
Religion is an attempt to explain Why the world exists. By doing so, it is simultaneously giving man a specific nature or fonction. Science is not interested in that, science can tell you How a man is conceived, grows, cries and dies, but it cannot tell you Why.
This said, is science inherently opposed to explaining the Why of things? No, it has only abandonned the quest, in order to focus on another, more technical dimension.
As for religion, is it inherently against science? No, it represents man's will to find the nature of his existence, a nature that is not held within the realms of the material world nor of science.
The opposition between science and religion is nothing more than make believe, it is a fairy tale that is embodied by the leading protagonists of our modern world.
If Neo-Darwin sicence oppose the Creation, it is not based on the fact that one is religious and the other science, it is founded in a duel between two theories, not two institutions.
Eventhought they may both be dogmatic institutions, like law and morality, they are not necessarily opposed.
Sure things get dirty when the clergy and the scientists both claim exclusive access to knowledge and thruth. But that antagonism is not intrincic to science and religion, it is incarnated by mortals that define themselves as antagonistic to the other institution.
In conclusion, Science is rational, but it cannot be 100% objective for no scientist can be 100% objective, just like the Pope can't be when he is talking about God. On the other hand, religion is also rational, but is obligated to step over the boundaries in order to find a transcendantal meanning.
(meanning that is true to all and explains the Why of this world which cannot be known scientifically)
What is funny is that knowing that no man can know the world entirely as it is and cannot entertain himself completly with God, we have institutions such as Religions and Scientific communities that SAY that they have the correct and unique blueprint of the world.
I trust that the educated, or to the very least the reasonable man, will not be coerced in believing in either extremes.
Eventhought I do not know everything about thermo-dynamics, I can do my daily chores fine. And eventhought I do not possess the sacred rules of the Lord through a blessed cult, I can still manage to find a spiritual meanning to my life.
This said, science and religion are two diffrent kinds of knowledge, that work in different ways towards different goals. However, this does not mean that one is the opposite of the other.
Just like the Why of things is not opposed to the How of things, and the How to the Why.
Thank you,
Prisme
Last edited:
They oppose each other with good reason. Science bends, dogma breaks.
Science gives way to fact and constantly improves. Religion starts with the basic assumption that god exists and works from there. Science does not assume god exists, and has no dogma.
Theories are not systems that gather facts. They are systems for explaining the facts. Facts are certainties, not truths within the theoretical framework. A truth within the framework could be rendered invalid if the theory was shown to be flawed or invalid, but not if it was fact. If it can be rendered invalid by such, then it wasn't a fact. Newton vs Einstein... They don't oppose each other. Actually, Newton's theories were found to be flawed, and Einstein's theories replace them. But they also explain what was explained by Newton's theories. Only better.
Science is not dogmatic.
It is not 'dogma of the majority'. Any person can attempt to disprove what's accepted, or come up with a better theory to explain the facts. In fact, it happens.
Care to explain that last sentence?
They were simply working with flawed theories, as I'm sure we are now. That's why science undergoes a continual process of improvement.
What's the value of precision and efficiency??? Precision: accuracy. Efficiency: Principle of Occam's razor. If your theory is more simple, there's less chance of being wrong. A more complicated theory is less likely to be true, and more likely to have some flaw in it.
Your conception of what science is and what it's about seems to be nearly the opposite of what it actually is, and is about.
Any 'fact' can be rationally disputed if it's invalid/incoherent.
Religion does not actually base it's "theories" on 'what is of this world'. It starts with basic unproven assumptions, with no evidence, not what is of this world.
How is it rational to assume that the first people couldn't have been created from nothing, and figure they must have been created by an allpowerful being that WAS created from nothing?
Echo
Science is not supposed to assume anything, including the non-existence of God.
To say that science, that is led by subjective beings, is completly objective and has no preconceived assumptions and dogmas is nothing more than wishfull thinking.
In addition, for you to say that science has no dogma, I can only conclude that you either din't read Kuhn or you just didn't understand it.
Your ignorance concerning the nature of science is showing. You perceive science as what explains the Why, rather than what is truly does: explain the How. By explaining the How, it is impossible to assert certainty.
(go see on the internet: problem of induction)
I never said that theories 'gathered' facts, I said they explained their role in a given, pre-conceived theory. Since th etheory is pre-conceived, there is no way of verifing the theory, only if the facts can coincide with the theory.
As long as you are not its representative, that statement could be taken seriously by those who know little of the nature of science.
Read: Kuhn
You seem to live in a world where anybody can do anything... how cute. If you want to have any bearing on what is happening on the scientific scene, you must have a doctorate, have the necessayr grant\funds to do your research (grants that come from companies who want results... preferably what they want) and of course, you have to get published, then read and if your lucky accepted by the majority.
If you oppose this I say:
"I have observed my tennis ball float in my kitchen"
Thus the theory of gravity has flaws.
Is this science?
Religion also changes. They have what they call 'theology' and scholars that constantly work in seeking the true faith.
When you will have completed any serious study of what is science, rather than how to apply science, you will know how universities and research truly works.
You seem to hold somekind of pre-conceived notion that science is always ready to re-examine itself periodiacally... trust me, they have agendas and dogmas to maintain like everybody else.
Eveything is so simple in your world is it? You have not answered Kuhn's problem: who is to say what is to be considered more efficient or accurate? Any answer you give is subjective to your ideals, there is nothing objective in the definitions of those notions.
They have the evidence of what they see in the world as proof of their claims. I can accept that theories such as Hell and Heaven are unprooven, but they are notions in the world:
-In that time nobody could fly or go to the center of the Earth, they rationally concluded that their were other worlds with diffrent beings.
Same with science, its called a hypothesis.
Do you actually read what you type man?
1-Tell me the last time you ever saw somebody come to be from nothing
2-Even modern physics say: "Nothing comes from nothing"
-Lavoisier, physicist from the 19th century
I think the definition of all-powerfull is self-explanatory.
Science is not supposed to assume anything, including the non-existence of God.
To say that science, that is led by subjective beings, is completly objective and has no preconceived assumptions and dogmas is nothing more than wishfull thinking.
In addition, for you to say that science has no dogma, I can only conclude that you either din't read Kuhn or you just didn't understand it.
Your ignorance concerning the nature of science is showing. You perceive science as what explains the Why, rather than what is truly does: explain the How. By explaining the How, it is impossible to assert certainty.
(go see on the internet: problem of induction)
I never said that theories 'gathered' facts, I said they explained their role in a given, pre-conceived theory. Since th etheory is pre-conceived, there is no way of verifing the theory, only if the facts can coincide with the theory.
As long as you are not its representative, that statement could be taken seriously by those who know little of the nature of science.
Read: Kuhn
You seem to live in a world where anybody can do anything... how cute. If you want to have any bearing on what is happening on the scientific scene, you must have a doctorate, have the necessayr grant\funds to do your research (grants that come from companies who want results... preferably what they want) and of course, you have to get published, then read and if your lucky accepted by the majority.
If you oppose this I say:
"I have observed my tennis ball float in my kitchen"
Thus the theory of gravity has flaws.
Is this science?
Religion also changes. They have what they call 'theology' and scholars that constantly work in seeking the true faith.
When you will have completed any serious study of what is science, rather than how to apply science, you will know how universities and research truly works.
You seem to hold somekind of pre-conceived notion that science is always ready to re-examine itself periodiacally... trust me, they have agendas and dogmas to maintain like everybody else.
Eveything is so simple in your world is it? You have not answered Kuhn's problem: who is to say what is to be considered more efficient or accurate? Any answer you give is subjective to your ideals, there is nothing objective in the definitions of those notions.
They have the evidence of what they see in the world as proof of their claims. I can accept that theories such as Hell and Heaven are unprooven, but they are notions in the world:
-In that time nobody could fly or go to the center of the Earth, they rationally concluded that their were other worlds with diffrent beings.
(religion)
Same with science, its called a hypothesis.
Do you actually read what you type man?
1-Tell me the last time you ever saw somebody come to be from nothing
2-Even modern physics say: "Nothing comes from nothing"
-Lavoisier, physicist from the 19th century
I think the definition of all-powerfull is self-explanatory.
How is it rational to assume that the first people couldn't have been created from nothing
Tell me the last time you ever saw somebody come to be from nothing
====================
Five times the manifestation of the third pull, or the creative power of spoken word was displayed by a vindicated prophet of God right here in America....in the 1960's.
This was a fore-runner, a "sheath-wave offering" of the effect the fullness of the revealed Word of God would have on the Sons of God as they come to manifestation and adoption into the authority of the kingdom of God..
It is a simple thing today for the Sons of God, to speak the Word of God......and have it happen. I see it all the time.
Jesus said in that day (this day...when He comes to reveal all things to His Bride) ask what you will, believing you receive what you've asked for ...and you shall have that which you've asked.
All of creation has waited for this day....the manifestations of the Sons of God....
This is what Jesus died for, to restore man back across the chasim to what Adam had before he fell.
The power of the Spoken Word.
The days of mortal man on the earth are coming to an end.
The bible has foretold it, and so shall it be.
Tell me the last time you ever saw somebody come to be from nothing
====================
Five times the manifestation of the third pull, or the creative power of spoken word was displayed by a vindicated prophet of God right here in America....in the 1960's.
This was a fore-runner, a "sheath-wave offering" of the effect the fullness of the revealed Word of God would have on the Sons of God as they come to manifestation and adoption into the authority of the kingdom of God..
It is a simple thing today for the Sons of God, to speak the Word of God......and have it happen. I see it all the time.
Jesus said in that day (this day...when He comes to reveal all things to His Bride) ask what you will, believing you receive what you've asked for ...and you shall have that which you've asked.
All of creation has waited for this day....the manifestations of the Sons of God....
This is what Jesus died for, to restore man back across the chasim to what Adam had before he fell.
The power of the Spoken Word.
The days of mortal man on the earth are coming to an end.
The bible has foretold it, and so shall it be.
Last edited:
My conclusion
Visitor you are a freak.
I don't hate religion, I actually believe in God, just not one that is professed by any institution.
We can rationally conclude that man was Created, you don't need a bible to tell us that
As for that experiemtn in the 60's... the cells that consist of the basis of one single protein cell that consitute us never took full form. It was an utter failure.
Science has never created a man from nothing and never will. (although I think you agree with that, sorry your post is unclear to your intentions)
Prisme
Visitor you are a freak.
I don't hate religion, I actually believe in God, just not one that is professed by any institution.
We can rationally conclude that man was Created, you don't need a bible to tell us that
As for that experiemtn in the 60's... the cells that consist of the basis of one single protein cell that consitute us never took full form. It was an utter failure.
Science has never created a man from nothing and never will. (although I think you agree with that, sorry your post is unclear to your intentions)
Prisme