Evolution? How?

funny how the people (2ndary semetics) who claim to worship a just, kind, loving, merciful god are are ones who have, over centuries, perfected the fine art of genocide, while the un-saved unbelieving worshippers of "false" gods - though dont have a unblemished record, have hardly ever indulged in religious killings.

I would speculate the reason the Biblical God had them killed was they were living on the land God had decided to give the Israelites. For Christians I guess that is as good a reason as any to kill men, women and children.

Someone once told me God had these people killed because they practiced child sacrifice. Of course that made a lot of sense. God was so offended by child sacrifice that he killed all the children.



The same holds true today. So by that logic we should, like the Israelites with God's blessing, kill any non-Christians we choose. Looking at the sordid history of Christianity, that is what they seem to do. Not only do they have a history of killing non-Christians but even their own. The Bible is good at teaching Christians to kill. God leads by example.



That's a poor excuse to kill babies and children. I suppose the thousand plus people killed by Katrina was God's doing for sins committed. So go tell the relatives of those who lost someone to Katrina that God did this to punish someone else that was guilty. With a God that bad I can see why there are atheist in this world.



Read the first four commandments. There is no room for free will here. Believe or die. This is an example of God not measuring up to America's ideals. This country and others in this world respect all religious and non-religious. Another reason why this God in the Bible is bad and false.



Again, your trying to make God like a human. God is nothing like a human. Why should God care what our sexual practices are, or what religion we choose. Men make laws to hold society together, to promote protection and safety its citizens. Or as Plato said; "Because making laws is a way in which rationality is exercised, and rationality is one of the essential properties of man."

What is the purpose of God's laws. Why should it matter to him whether we believe in him or not. Does he have an ego problem; an inferiority complex? Whatever it is, the Biblical God's head isn't screwed on to tight. Having murderous temper flare ups, paranoia over what we believe, homicidal tendencies, shows me a very imperfect deity. If we had humans like him they would be in prison.

You keep bring up this business about sin. Sin is subjective. It's different from one cult or sect to another. It's different from generation to generation. We are the one's who declare what sin is, not God. We are the ones who make God. God hates whatever we hate. God loves whatever we love. That's why there are so many gods and religions. Long past our time there will be new gods and different sins. They will all take their authority from something; the Bible, Koran, visions, or whatever. It's endless. It will be that way as long as we are ignorant about God and God's dimension.

This will be my last post till next weekend. I don't have much time for this during the week; that is until January 3. Then I retire.

Good night all

xingu, You're retiring in January? Good for you! Retirement is much better than any anticipation of it you might have; and you'll wonder why you didn't earlier in your life. Welcome to the freedom set.

Actually, a deity resembling anything like the bible god would be in an insane asylum, because no sane human would allow him running around preaching to kill at will any and all the people who disagrees with him.

The very idea of a 'personal God' is oxymoronic.

How could something which is deific possibly interact with, or think like, mortal creatures who are entrenched in space-time. It makes no sense.

LOL. The wait is over. Here is the proof I offered of God's existence.
-->>> thanks for "revealing" it.


Question: "Is God real? How can I know for sure that God is real?"
Answer: We know that God is real because He has revealed Himself to us in three ways: in creation, in His Word, and in His Son, Jesus Christ.
---> that the world exists is not prof that god exists.

if we dont know he ixists, we cant juct believe someone who claims to have heard "his" word. for all we know its from the nether regions of his (not HIS) head.

gods dont have human sons. humans dont have gods for dads. and moms dont deliver wither intercourse. at least science says so.





The most basic proof of God's existence is simply what He has made. "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that [unbelievers] are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). "The heavens declare the glory of God / And the firmament sheweth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).
If I found a wristwatch in the middle of a field, I would not assume that it just "appeared" out of nowhere or that it had always existed. Based on the watch's design, I would assume it had a designer. But I see far greater design and precision in the world around us. Our measurement of time is not based on wristwatches, but on God's handiwork?-the regular rotation of the earth (and the radioactive properties of the cesium-133 atom). The universe displays great design, and this argues for a Great Designer.
If I found an encoded message, I would seek out a cryptographer to help break the code. My assumption would be that there is an intelligent sender of the message, someone who created the code. How complex is the DNA "code" that we carry in every cell of our bodies? Does not the complexity and purpose of DNA argue for an Intelligent Writer of the code?
Not only has God made an intricate and finely tuned physical world, He has also instilled a sense of eternity in the heart of every person (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Mankind has an innate perception that there is more to life than meets the eye, that there is an existence higher than this earthly routine.

----->> cos a watch exists in a field dont mean god put it there. and again, just cos all those principle exist dont mean its god's handiwork.




Our sense of eternity manifests itself in at least two ways: law-making and worship.
------->> yes the catholic church, which like it or not, is the way the heir of the roman empire, was seriously into lawmaking and getting people to worship - using them as middle men that too.




Every civilization throughout history has valued certain moral laws, which are surprisingly similar from culture to culture.
-----> what civilization existed in arabia???? sumerian? chaldean? mesopotemian? egyptian?? persian??? yes they did. none in arabia though.

and thats where the "laws" come from.

and no they are not similar, though similarities do exist. if i listed 1000 songs i like and so did george bush, stephen hawkins and osama bin laden, we would all find a few similarities here and there.





In the same way, people all over the world, regardless of culture, have always cultivated a system of worship.

----> not true.



The object of worship may vary, but the sense of a "higher power" is an undeniable part of being human. Our propensity to worship accords with the fact that God created us "in His own image" (Genesis 1:27).
------> yes thanks for quoting the enuma elish of the sumerian civilization.




God has also revealed Himself to us through His Word, the Bible.
-----> the koran is not god's word???



Throughout scripture, the existence of God is treated as a self-evident fact (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 3:14).
-------> lots of other scripture exist as well. say that of the mayas and astru - both victims of christian carnage or zorastrianism - a victim of their ideological bloodbrothers.




When Benjamin Franklin wrote his Autobiography, he did not waste time trying to prove his own existence.
-----> thus proving i suppose, once and for all, that god exists??
incidentally when osama brought down the wtc, he did not waste time trying to prove his own existance either. wonder what he managed to prove.



Likewise, God does not spend much time proving His existence in His book.
----->> aahh!! the similarities between god, ben and osama !



The life-changing nature of the Bible,
-----> sure changed the lkives of the saxons, the hellenica, the wicca, the druids, the aztec, the voodo, the mays, the australoids... not only did it sometimes change their lives, it sometimes changed their lives to death as well !!



its integrity,
----------->>> in condoning slavery?? in all the examples Xinohu (sorry if i messed up your moniker) pointed out?



and the miracles which accompanied its writing should be enough to warrant a closer look.
----------->> miracles dont happen in science. if someone writes a bok that involves or proves a point using miracles, then what warrants a closer look is the mental state of the person who wrote it.




The third way in which God revealed Himself is through His Son, Jesus Christ (John 14:6-11). "In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:1, 14). In Jesus Christ "dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9).
-------->> sorry. cloning is as far as science allows. (not immculate conceptions). and till now, no one has managed to clone god.




In Jesus' amazing life, He kept the entire Old Testament law perfectly and fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah (Matthew 5:17).
----------> if i know right, the people of a certain religion refuse to believe jesus was a prophet, simply because his birth was NOT prophecied.



He performed countless acts of compassion and public miracles to authenticate His message and bear witness to His deity (John 21:24-25).
------>> many others have performed acts of compassion.
the public acrts of miracles, are either the imagination of the public or the authors. science dont allow it.



Then, three days after His crucifixion, He rose from the dead, a fact affirmed by hundreds of eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6).
-----> nice, expedient touch that, throwing in the "eye witnesses" - by the author who wrote about this scientifically impossible event.



The historical record abounds with "proof" of who Jesus is. As the Apostle Paul said, "This thing was not done in a corner" (Acts 26:26).
----------->> on the contrary, aside of the bible, there is NO historical record to even suggest that such a person ever existed.
the apostle shoudl have added that the writting of the book was most likely done in some remote corner though, with wise touches (micacles, eye witnesses etc thrown in to add veracity)




We realize that there will always be skeptics who have their own ideas concerning God and will read the evidence accordingly.
---------->> its after we read the evidence that we turn skeptical. for example i read your "proof" with an open mind. but instead of commning up with genuine evidence, you kept alluding to miracles and eyewitness accounts and references from the very book who's veracity (at least as regards the claim that the book was "delivered") is being doubted. (thats called a tautology - you try prove something they may or may not exist using something that may or may not have happened. )

so yes.... now i am more skeptical than ever.



And there will be some whom no amount of proof will convince (Psalm 14:1).
----------->> aah the author(s) was/were wise. he/they realised that not all would buy their story. GBS (i keep alluding to gbs so many times) said something to this effect once - "you can fool all men some of the time, some men all the time but not all men al the time".

call it a miracle if you will, but whosoever wrote the psalm, somehow knew what a certain GBS would have to say a long time after him and therefore wisely included his realisation in his "work".



It all comes down to faith (Hebrews 11:6).
------------->>> precisely.
the faithful will believe anything. including the swimming prowess of dinosaurs and the occurances of intercourseless conceptions - or wait did they know about cloning and test tubes back then??? that does seem to be one miracle they forgot to allude to !!!




(The above, beginning with Question: are from gotquestions.org) and as I said when providing this earlier. This explains it much better than I can.

------------>> well if this is the "better" explaination, the i dont want to know your lesser explaination at all.

Why religion is dangerous:

Chicago Cardinal Adds to Clergy's Criticism of Religious Movement
Associated Press
Sunday, September 25, 2005; A10

CHICAGO, Sept. 24 -- Cardinal Francis George of Chicago is joining other Roman Catholic leaders in criticizing a secretive religious movement, banning the group from meeting in churches or other archdiocesan facilities.

Members say the Love Holy Trinity Blessed Mission, founded 12 years ago, is based on Catholic teachings and is trying to establish itself as a new religious order. It holds weekly prayer meetings in nearly 100 Catholic churches in Illinois, Iowa, Indiana and Wisconsin.

On Friday, George announced that the Rev. Len Kruzel, who had been working full time at the group's headquarters on Chicago's Northwest Side, will be recalled to a pastoral position.

"While they have been functioning here for a number of years, the 'Love Holy Trinity Blessed Mission' has no official approval as a lay movement or as a religious order in the Catholic Church," the cardinal said in a statement.

The cardinal's statement followed a six-month review of the group by priests and church scholars who received few answers to their questions about the group's operations and theology, archdiocesan officials said.

Love Holy Trinity member Dick Vogt said leader Agnes Kyo McDonald is unavailable for a comment "because of the persecution" of her group.

Bishops in Rockford, Ill., and Madison, Wis., have criticized the group in recent months. The strongest statement came Sept. 15 from Archbishop Jerome Hanus of Dubuque, Iowa, after some families in his diocese accused the group of using "cultlike" tactics.

Monsignor James O. Barta, vicar general of the Archdiocese of Dubuque, said the diocese acted because of concern about a young woman, 19, who left home to become a "sister" in the group. Ashley Fahey's mother and stepfather said they have been cut off from her for more than a month.

"I feel so cheated, so lied to," Lora Knott told the Chicago Tribune. "How can they claim to be Catholic? The Catholic Church doesn't tear families apart."

The couple said that when they attempted to enter the Love Holy Trinity offices Friday, they were turned away by a man who reportedly told them: "Your daughter has made her choice. Respect her wishes."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

brahmin,

I am not sure exactly what you mean here. But, He communicated with people. Moses and the burning bush?

I did not mean He does not communicate with us today in any way. He just doesn't do it the way He used to.

I really expected the kind of response you gave me in response to my offer of proof. No surprise there.

Just one thing though, I thought Abraham Lincoln was the one that said you can fool some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time?

And Brahmin, if you do not believe it, then don't worry about it. If you are correct, what do you have to worry about and why concern yourself with it at all?

would that be the original bushism ???

and what technique is used these days?? Apple I-pods?? - "apple" being the catch-word

Are you having a good time making fun of me and what I believe?

It's ok for you to believe what you believe and not ok for me to believe what I believe.

Do I make jokes about what you believe? Do I makes jokes about you?

What religious freedom are you offering me?

Are you having a good time making fun of me and what I believe?
----->
i am making fun of neither.



It's ok for you to believe what you believe and not ok for me to believe what I believe.
------------>
i did not say that did i??
its one thing to believe in a certain theology, and quite another to believe that it came from a bush or an i-pod.


Do I make jokes about what you believe?
--------> no you dont. and neither do i.



Do I makes jokes about you?
-------> you havent yet. me neither.



What religious freedom are you offering me?
--------->
complete.
only i am not buying the mode of communication.




and now answer me.

you said god used to communicate with man back then, and now does it differently.
i asked how.
you said burning bush.


so now try to defend the possibility/probability of the bush actually talking - with scientifically valid arguements - since you so firmly believe that it did actually occur - instead of accusing me of things i have not done or said.



also since you dont quite agree with me that i-pods are too popular, then let me know how the communication goes on these days (you yourself said that back then it was bushes and now different). so how??

brahmin, I really wish you could learn to use the quote feature. It would make it so much easier to follow the posts. C'mon brahmin... don't be so lazy.

Oh, and nobody said that the bush did the speaking!

yes that would be a bit much - a bush with theology to share.

that dont change the fact that voices (doesnt matter who's) dont come out of bushes.

or does it?

If the voices can be in your head, they can be in the bush.

yes.

and in both cases - "voice hearers" - whether they hear voices in their head, or in a bush - have good imagination.

i am sorry, but i just could not fail to see the similarity - so here's an off topic post.

"a voice in the head is worth two in the bush" !

Obviously you don't understand what I wrote.

If the data isn't accurate, how can the conclusions being drawn from the data be accurate?

In the global warming debate, as in the evolution debate, evidence that indicates anything but the preordained conclusion is ignored, or pooh poohed as in your response.

Sorry, that's not my idea of science. True science takes ALL the data, and it's accuracy or lack of it, into consideration, doesn't it?

If you are old enough to remember, way back when I was in school it was GLOBAL COOLING that scientists were verysure was going to happen. And the cause? Uh, well.... we were taught it was the build up of greenhouse gases due to human activity such as industrial manufacture, electrical generation and automobiles. Sound familiar?

This has obvious application to the evolution debate because the aura of infallibility that pervades the scientific priesthood is used to try to shut down dissent in both instances.

After warming comes cooling: Or is it the other way around, after cooling comes warming....

Perhaps it is all the IDers and ECKers who ran out of room on Venus.

Was that you in Tacoma? Or Seacaucus?