PDA

View Full Version : First look: 'Terra' has twist as Earthlings attack aliens



WilliamVaughan
06-22-2007, 06:39 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-06-20-terra-cover_N.htm

oobievision
06-22-2007, 06:53 AM
looks cool

Puguglybonehead
06-22-2007, 05:30 PM
Sad that the forum commentaries underneath the article seem to continually focus on the 'politics' of the film. It's a fracking cartoon, people! Ahh, the 21st century is turning out to be a real drag at times....

Does look like a really neat movie. Definitely want to see this one.

jin choung
06-23-2007, 01:41 AM
WOW! what a brilliant premise! i can't believe it hasn't been done before!

hahaha... really cool! geez, the moment i heard the premise, it just lit up my brain with ideas that are just so obvious in light of it!

heck, the u.s. was basically founded by invasion by what is normally considered the "protagonists"....

and if all the doomsayers speak truth, the earth may become pretty inhospitable....

boom - we have met the invaders and we are it!

jin

LW3D
06-23-2007, 04:41 AM
short from Aristmenis Tsirbas's "Terra" movie.

http://content.foxsearchlight.com/searchlab/node/602

Sarford
06-23-2007, 01:55 PM
I remembered another film with the same concept but couldn't remember where I'd seen it. Luckely, someone on that forum knew it too. It's:

www.ilion.com

Its under feature. It's not the first time different people get the same idea at the same time :).

It is just too bad (in my own european opinion) that american animation films are always filled to the rimms with moral, so much that it totaly ruins the movie. It's like american kids are not alowed to just enjoy themselves, they always have to be 'lectured'. I'm a bit afraid that these two films will have the same problems.

Stooch
06-23-2007, 03:03 PM
yeah looks cool. ill have to check it out ;)

jin choung
06-23-2007, 03:05 PM
yah,

2 men in skirts movies (braveheart, rob roy [both good])
2 volcano movies (volcano and dante's peak [both suck])
2 columbus movies (columbus and 1492 [surprisingly both suck, including scott's 1492])
2 insect movies (bug's life and antz ]oh wait, antz is an out and out rip off])
everybody and their mother making penguin movies

as for morals... there's a difference i think between having a moral and theme (basically, a larger reason d'etre) and moralizing preachiness.

granted, most american productions are pretty heavy handed and end up in the latter but stories that are devoid of morals is not only sterile but hard to come by.

jin

toby
06-24-2007, 10:45 PM
I remembered another film with the same concept but couldn't remember where I'd seen it. Luckely, someone on that forum knew it too. It's:

www.ilion.com

Its under feature. It's not the first time different people get the same idea at the same time :).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invaders_%28The_Twilight_Zone%29

Saw this when I was a kid - even remembered the actress' name - if only I could remember where I put my car keys -


It is just too bad (in my own european opinion) that american animation films are always filled to the rimms with moral, so much that it totaly ruins the movie. It's like american kids are not alowed to just enjoy themselves, they always have to be 'lectured'. I'm a bit afraid that these two films will have the same problems. I should let you know that the creator is Canadian...
But what you're saying could be true because so many people over here are pro-war. The rest of us just sound like preachers when we try to open their eyes.

byte_fx
07-03-2007, 12:03 AM
Looks like Planet One is a late comer.

Menithings planted the seed for his with the Terra short animation from several years ago.

byte_fx

toby
07-03-2007, 12:37 AM
so many people over here are pro-war. The rest of us just sound like preachers when we try to open their eyes.
jeez I just looked at this, and my avatar, at the same time :screwy:

:king:

archiea
07-03-2007, 01:53 PM
It is just too bad (in my own european opinion) that american animation films are always filled to the rimms with moral, so much that it totaly ruins the movie. It's like american kids are not alowed to just enjoy themselves, they always have to be 'lectured'. I'm a bit afraid that these two films will have the same problems.


Yeah I agree, with the messages being smacked onto people's head. I kind of miss the physical fun of the old warner bros. cartoons when it was OK for a character to have a gun, even when its not hunting season!!!

I think there are too much of a sitcom approach to animated movies today, where they talk too much. I think Dreamworks "the Bee Movie" is such an example. there's nothing really clever about it: Its the usual satiracal view of everyday life in some creature's world: First it was underwater, then in a sewar, now its in a bee hive. Then a bee goes into the real human world and starts talking to humans... why? because Seinfield wishes it. Then its just a template of that neurotic humor about nothing that works in a seindfield sitcom, but not necessarily in an animated movie.

I mean look at pixar with films like a Bugs life, toy story, finding nemo and recently ratatolle (sp?). These guys are storytellers, while their characters may talk, they are much better "actors" than the ones in other films. The actual characterizations semed grounded for the world that they are in, with amazing animation to complete the acting, as well as cinematography and lighting. And charm...tons of tons of charm without burp and fart jokes.

Stooch
07-03-2007, 02:49 PM
im a shreck fan myself. love the fart and burp jokes.

hyperfx
07-04-2007, 02:16 AM
I like the idea. As mentioned above, I can't believe there's not already a movie or tv series about humans invading an alien nation.

AbnRanger
07-04-2007, 09:05 PM
The thing is, that when you try to wax political like this...in an ENTERTAINMENT venue, it's like a fish out of water. It doesn't belong. How many times do you hear liberals bemoaning that they don't want people "preaching" morals to them.
Well, when you blatantly slap people in the face with your "America is an Imperialist Nation" crap...how are you any better? The flag with hundreds of stars in it says it all...and it's downright offensive. The theater is no place for a freakin politcal rally....take that mess somewhere else.

And, for the record, I am a combat veteran of the Persian Gulf War; and I REMEMBER vividly how Sadam threatened to fill the desert with our blood (mine included)...and with the threat of chemical weapons (NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, heh, Toby?) looming over our head the entire time. I had to take a pill that I STILL don't what it was.
Once we crossed into IRAQ we had chemical gear on, and it was like wearing a bear suit. The first objective we took, I remember thinking that if a bullet doesn't get me this suit eventually will (from heat stroke). Don't give me this crap that the guy was trustworthy enough to give up the weapons on his own. He never gave us a reason to take his word. War was an option he had EVERY opportunity to avoid. Comply with Inspectors and he could have put the issue to rest. But Noooooo...our president has to be the villan here. Whether he had stockpiles or not (9/11 showed him that a few men with deadly contagens could create a catastrophe...it's KNOW-HOW, TRAINING, and FINANCING that presented the real threat...not some stupid short range missiles). WE COULD NOT RISK TRUSTING HIM any longer...after 9/11. It's just that simple.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but this ridiculous "Bush is an Imperialist" garbage is just that.

In this tirade....uh,hum...I mean movie, why did he have to incorporate America as the invader...instead of humankind in general (which I still would've seen it as a political statement...just not as blatant)?

2BitSculptor
07-05-2007, 12:14 AM
I like the idea. As mentioned above, I can't believe there's not already a movie or tv series about humans invading an alien nation.

-Enemy Mine
-Space: Above and Beyond
-The Martian Chronicles

bluerider
07-05-2007, 11:22 AM
Starship Troopers?

geothefaust
07-05-2007, 07:48 PM
Alien Nation? Albeit a different kind of invasion. More of a cultural one, and unintentional at that.

toby
07-05-2007, 08:19 PM
The thing is, that when you try to wax political like this...in an ENTERTAINMENT venue, it's like a fish out of water. It doesn't belong. How many times do you hear liberals bemoaning that they don't want people "preaching" morals to them.
Well, when you blatantly slap people in the face with your "America is an Imperialist Nation" crap...how are you any better? The flag with hundreds of stars in it says it all...and it's downright offensive.
Well it used to have 13 stars, now it has 50. He merely extrapolated into the future. We also invaded a country half-way around the world, that had no possible way to invade us, killing tens of thousands (at the very least) of innocent civilians, just because he *might* plot to kill some of our people? Are you *that* surprised that people see us as invaders?



And, for the record, I am a combat veteran of the Persian Gulf War; and I REMEMBER vividly how Sadam threatened to fill the desert with our blood (mine included)...and with the threat of chemical weapons (NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, heh, Toby?) looming over our head the entire time. No one is saying he didn't have them in 1991, that's not the issue. You can't invade a country because of something they had ten years prior. Or because you despise it's leader.

I had to take a pill that I STILL don't what it was.
Once we crossed into IRAQ we had chemical gear on, and it was like wearing a bear suit. The first objective we took, I remember thinking that if a bullet doesn't get me this suit eventually will (from heat stroke).
That sucks, I've read about the conditions over there, no showers, 100 degree temperatures and no cold water to drink, stuff like that - it sounds really brutal. But that doesn't mean we did the right thing.

Don't give me this crap that the guy was trustworthy enough to give up the weapons on his own. He never gave us a reason to take his word. War was an option he had EVERY opportunity to avoid. Comply with Inspectors and he could have put the issue to rest.
Clearly it's not about trust, inspectors found no wmd's and still we invaded. So we *confirmed*, and still acted as if it was not confirmed.


But Noooooo...our president has to be the villan here. Whether he had stockpiles or not (9/11 showed him that a few men with deadly contagens could create a catastrophe...it's KNOW-HOW, TRAINING, and FINANCING that presented the real threat...not some stupid short range missiles). WE COULD NOT RISK TRUSTING HIM any longer...after 9/11. It's just that simple.
With logic like that, we can invade dozens of different countries. And the more civilians we wipe out, in the process of "protecting our way of life" (getting richer, driving suv's), the more countries will resist us and hate us, giving us more targets.

Americans are succumbing to the age-old instinct to conquer, and believing excuses is a part of it. If it weren't an instinct to conquer, we'd spend a Billion dollars a week on tightening our border security, instead of spending it on getting people killed.


Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but this ridiculous "Bush is an Imperialist" garbage is just that.
How do you characterize a President who always, always sides with big money campaign contributors and against the citizens he's supposed to represent, including the troops, for the entire time he's been in office?

Iraq war, budget cuts for veterans and troops serving, Katrina, Dubai ports, massive tax cuts for oil producers while they gouge us at the pump, immigration;
On all of these issues he made decisions that would 'coincidentally' make or save money for big business, at the expense of you and me.

But wait there's more!

Illegal wiretapping
$40 million victory parties while our troops have no armour
Taking no action to find a National security leak in his own administration, then when someone get sentenced to jail for Obstruction of Justice in that investigation, Bush commutes his sentence. Talk about 'soft on crime'.

His decisions on these issues were bad for the citizens of this country, and only good for either billionares or his cronies. The only argument I've heard is that "he protected us against terrorism", but aside from invading Iraq I don't see how he did anything different



In this tirade....uh,hum...I mean movie, why did he have to incorporate America as the invader...instead of humankind in general (which I still would've seen it as a political statement...just not as blatant)?
I agree that it has the subtlety of a Spice Girls concert, but he made this right around the time the U.S. invaded Iraq. The topic saturated everything back then.

toby
07-05-2007, 08:21 PM
I think Alien Nation was alien refugees coiming to earth, wasn't it?
And Starship Troopers was more like defense of earth.

Stooch
07-05-2007, 08:35 PM
ive been really tempted to answer abns post as well but i really really dont want to turn this post into a debate like that. i think that alot of the comments here are completely out of context (afterall there isnt much info available for you to form an opinion is there?) and the movie isnt about bashing the US. thats all i can say as far as nda allows me. also that flag with all the stars was in the short film, i dont think it will be in the full feature. i think the movie transcended itself as it got more fleshed out. like the producer (keith) said in the interview, this movie is about compromise. its not "anti" anything.

jin choung
07-05-2007, 11:30 PM
well,

i guess in starship troopers, we take the fight to them but yah, it was a retaliatory, defensive move... not all out imperialism.

i like the idea of the movie where human beings are the blood thirsty expansionists who've burned out their homeworld and are seeking to take over other lands.

very difficult for anyone to see themselves as the villains and it's a cool, unique take.

jin

p.s. i LOOOOOoooooooooooooved the millions of stars on the flag! what an eloquent way of stating an idea... in one simple image. if that's not in the final movie, i will be sorely disappointed.

AbnRanger
07-07-2007, 06:45 PM
Toby, for one thing...the distinction in this case is that we were NOT trying to invade a country for conquest as you liberals constantly and falsely assert (even when your liberal leaders voted to authorize force), but to remove a REGIME that posed a real and significant threat, in the post 9/11 environment...not a threat to invade us, silly, but to get chemical or biological contagens (by more subtle and covert means...not stockpiles of missiles) into the hands of a Jihadist group...ANY Jihadist group...connections or none.
Saddam had a "Get out of Jail Free" card. HE decided not to use it! And what a lie you spoke of, regarding the Inspectors. They didn't CONFIRM anything! Saddam continued to thwart their efforts to conduct inspections unabated (a demand of the UN Security Council). The UN agreed to a resolution condemning His regime for this, and he thumbed his nose at it. If he had simply complied and allowed them do their job, he could have, in effect, made the U.S. look like stooges...that's IF he had nothing to hide. Wouldn't you agree with that, Toby? So, why didn't he jump at the chance to make us look stupid, and end international sanctions in the process? It would've been a win-win situation for him.

What I find ironic about all of this is...the Jihadists want to kill or subject YOU (as a Liberal) more fervantly than me (a Christian whose morals are far closer and acceptable to their own), because of the debauched lifestyle Liberalism promotes. You better be glad you have a NEO-CON or WARHAWK between them and you. They didn't come after us on 9/11 because Bush became President and simply disagreed with the "Administration's Policies," as your Liberal leaders would have you believe. No. They planned 9/11 years in advance. When would that be?...hhhmmm. I wonder.

No doubt your hero, Bill Clinton, and his little "escapades" was a finger in their eye. They came because of the morally decaying, porno-crazed influence our culture is on their society. Funny how Liberals don't ever mention that! Why would they? After all, that's the core of their constituency, isn't that right Toby? Sure, Jihadists despise the fact that we support Israel (on both sides of the isle), but that takes a back seat to their utter hate for Western Liberal culture. Let that one sink in for a moment...

Back on the topic of Iraq...we made a very tough decision to PRE(meaning BEFORE...hello?)VENT such CONNECTIONS with Jihadist's from happening. Your own Liberal politicians harped on the threat SADDAM posed. Did you catch that?...not just Jihadists. But that really doesn't matter if THEY say it, now does it, Toby? It only matters if a CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN states it, right?
Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Bill and Hillary Clinton...Holy smokes, even the godfather of Liberals...TED KENNEDY ranted about the threat Saddam posed, well before the war began! It'll take some real spin and mental gynastics to worm your way out of that one. But you haven't allowed facts get in your way thus far. Why stop now, when you're on a roll?

It's really about political expediency, isn't it Toby? Just oppose whatever Bush does, and you're automatically in the right. Doesn't matter if you wake up in bed with Communists in the morning...you're still a Bush/Christian Hater...and that's all that really matters, right?

Now, tell me...what President should be against big business? Ever thought about that? Regarding the Oil industry...I'm chaffed about that myself, but all political conspiracies aside; it's more a matter of an Industry doing what it wants to do despite what any president does or says. Think about it for a second...if Bush had any say in the matter and was in bed with them, don't you think he'd tell them "Hey, ease up a little, guys!...you're making it hard for me to plead your case." They could care less what he or any president thinks. They listen to $$$. Bottom line. The price of oil is essentailly driven upward by more and more investors (liberal or conservative) wanting to jump on the "Get-Rich-Quick" train as they see it picking up steam. That's the real culprit...not some ridiculous political conspiracy. I don't have any problem with any company turning a profit...nor should you. But gouging people, just because you can legally, is crossing the line. I wish the Democrat Congress would put their money where there mouth is an do something concrete, instead of offering lip service.

I'm just a little guy, myself. However, economically, I have more advantages under this administration than I've EVER had. Your complaints ring hollow here. I have bigger tax returns at the end of the year now. Who's against me again, you say? Bush..OK, got it.:thumbsdow You want to take more tax money from me to give it to bigger government "Entitlement" programs. Easy to be generous with someone ELSE'S money, isn't it Toby?
I'm a veteran, and if I need medical care in the event I'm without healthcare coverage, I can still go to a VA hospital. GI Bill/College Fund benefits are higher than ever. It's funny how slowing the RATE OF GROWTH in spending, is twisted around as CUTS to veteran's benefits (when you don't give a flip about veterans...heck, you liberals try to ban recruiters from your campuses). Don't try to use me and other veterans as one of your trump cards. If you are sincere, then care to wager if VA cuts EVER occured under a Demobrat President? Didn't think so.

Since you brought up the issue of "Looking out for the Little Guy," what about the most little guy of all?...you know the one in the mother's womb during the most CRITICAL, and most VULNERABLE stage of human development? The one you say isn't REALLY a person (funny...isn't that what was said about slaves too?), but part of a woman's body.
Oh, really? Want to prove that arguement with a DNA test? I didn't think so. You know what the outcome would be, don't you?...yet you go right on saying "IT" (instead of THEY) is a woman's body to do with as she pleases. But again, facts don't really matter now, do they?

You, yourself, plead the cause of BIG BUSINESSES with the likes of NARAL and PLANNED PARENTHOOD (how can you PARENT what you PLAN to kill...wrap your brain around that one...what an Oxymoron, if there ever was one) who receive multiple millions of tax $$$ in subsidies annually to SELL THEIR SERVICES to scared women (abortions aren't free...did you know that?) which is not a WOMEN'S HEALTHCARE clinic (as they claim), but a WHACK JOB on the LITTLEST GUY OF ALL...they will accept NO limitations whatsoever.
As Slavery was a Big Business, so too is the Abortion Industry....hhhmmm. No wonder it's those BIG BUSINESSES who vehimently oppose ANY abortion restriction...in the very same manner Abolishionists were opposed by the Slave trading Industry. Now, real slow like, so you can understand:
Slavery (Oppression of the voiceless)+Big Business=EVIL:devil:
Abortion (Oppression of the voiceless)+Big Business=EVIL:devil:
Who's REALLY looking out for the LITTLE GUY? Tell me. I'm eager to hear it. YO' MAMA, Toby...
....chose Life!!! Aren't you glad she thought you were more than an inconvenience or a cyst, to be disposed of?

Getting back to Iraq.The reality is that Sadam hated America as much as Bin Laden does. Do you HONESTLY (let's be real here) think he would be upstaged by some terrorist hiding in a cave?
He was an ego-maniac as well as a psycopath. 9/11 showed him HOW to strike at the US...with just a few suicide bombers. He didn't have to be best of Pal's with Terrorist groups as long as they share a common objective...which they did.
And as to your signature...it's absolutely FALSE:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

"...The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.

He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.
"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.
...Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.

"This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.

Don't let the facts hit you in the rear on the way out.

toby
07-07-2007, 08:41 PM
No reason to get fired up dude. Guess we'll have to take this offline, much as I'd love people to see another pro-war argument crumble. I'll send you a pm

AbnRanger
07-07-2007, 10:04 PM
No reason to get fired up dude. Guess we'll have to take this offline, much as I'd love people to see another pro-war argument crumble. I'll send you a pmI wish to retract the last quip...which was unnecessary. Stinking 5min rule thingy :D

jin choung
07-08-2007, 01:10 AM
abnranger,

you are a card carrying fundamentalist conservative republican.

got it. good luck with that.

now take your sermon elsewhere. i'm getting bored.

jin

AbnRanger
07-08-2007, 01:32 AM
abnranger,

you are a card carrying fundamentalist conservative republican.

got it. good luck with that.

now take your sermon elsewhere. i'm getting bored.

jinI'm sorry. Wasn't giving a sermon, nor was I under the impression that I am here to entertain you. The issue here, is a discussion about this movie/short...which is a political rant. You think it's a GOOD idea. I state why I think it's a BAD idea. Fair enough?

Apart from that, I addressed some statements Toby made addressed to me.
As liberal like yourself often say...if you don't like what you're watching, why don't you change the channel?

AbnRanger
07-08-2007, 01:45 AM
By the way...since you brought it up...you, like many liberals, choose to use the word "Fundamentalist " like it's derrogatory adjective.
The root word meaning "Basic." You would hope that a Pilot flying an aircraft you're riding on would adhere to FUNDAMENTAL or BASIC principles of Aerodynamics (learned in flight school), right?
So, how is that a degrading word?

jin choung
07-08-2007, 01:57 AM
your all encompassing clusterbomb of a rant/sermon would be so much more palatable if it were entertaining. c'mon, give us a chuckle. it's simple courtesy eh?

the difference is that the movie/short conveys its idea TRULY economically/eloquently without mentioning abortion once. how novel.

at the very least endeavor not to take up so much space. i can't middle mouse scroll that fast.

jin

jin choung
07-08-2007, 02:05 AM
ummmm.... degrading?

i don't understand.

oh, you mean like how you guys use the word "liberal" (as in free) to be a bad thing?

in any case, you might as well be asking me why i used the word conservative or republican.

no one word of the three i used was emphasized any differently than the others.

i'm not mistaken am i? so without jest, i really don't understand your objection. in any way... whatsoever.

jin

AbnRanger
07-08-2007, 02:40 AM
ummmm.... degrading?

i don't understand.

oh, you mean like how you guys use the word "liberal" (as in free) to be a bad thing?

in any case, you might as well be asking me why i used the word conservative or republican.

no one word of the three i used was emphasized any differently than the others.

i'm not mistaken am i? so without jest, i really don't understand your objection. in any way... whatsoever.

jinI was just curious as to why the word fundamentalist is even used. I always wondered "Do they really know what they are saying?"
Anyhow, before 9/11 I didn't really care to follow politics at all, and didn't know what a "Liberal" was...honestly.
Then, as soon as we started bombing the Taliban in Afganistan, I remember hearing all the shrill remarks from Democrats about us doing so. At some point, I looked up the word in the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary...
and saw a definition:
3 :lacking moral restraint : licentious
4 : not literal or strict : loose 〈a liberal translation〉
5 : broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
Inc Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary., Includes index., 10th ed. (Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.: Merriam-Webster, 1996, c1993).

jin choung
07-08-2007, 02:50 AM
hahaha...

indeed. "do they really what they are saying...."

oh mercy.

and you cite the dictionary definition why?

jin

jin choung
07-08-2007, 02:51 AM
and fyi, the word fundamentalist was used, just as i used conservative and republican because it it TRUE. and it is accurate.

is it not?

jin

jin choung
07-08-2007, 02:55 AM
but hey, since we're tossing around definitions...

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>

AbnRanger
07-08-2007, 03:54 AM
but hey, since we're tossing around definitions...

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>...meaning Liberal theologians would conversely be characterized by cherry-picking which Biblical principles suit their tastes and rejecting those that do not.
So, adhering to the most elementary tenets of one's faith...like Do Not Steal, Do Not Commit Adultery, Do Not Murder, etc....that's a BAD thing, you're saying?

jin choung
07-08-2007, 04:22 AM
?

i'm certainly not saying anything about liberal or conservative theology... where in the world did that come from?

when we were discussing "liberal" it was in regards to politics.

there are other points of comparison y'know, not just fundamentalist vs. liberal theology.

fundamentalism vs. pluralism.

fundamentalism vs. science.

fundamentalism vs. people who really, really, really enjoy their pornography.

fundamentalism vs. people living the way they please without having something jammed down their throat.

fundamentalism vs. freedom (of thought)

jin

archijam
07-08-2007, 05:49 AM
fundamentalism vs. people who really, really, really enjoy their pornography.

Such fundamentalists exist? That's sick.

j.

AbnRanger
07-08-2007, 05:52 AM
fundamentalism vs. people living the way they please without having something jammed down their throat.

fundamentalism vs. freedom (of thought)

jinAh..I see. You mean the way Evolution is JAMMED down the throats of impressionable school kids...who don't get to decide for themselves in the classroom by weighing the evidence for BOTH sides, but are legally forced to be taught that this theory, exclusively is FACT...and pure SCIENCE (even though the largest premise, that one species evolved into another, i.e Macro-evolution, is still unproven...embarrasingly so with NO credible fossil evidence to support it).
You mean the Faculty has the Freedom to tell your kids and mine, that what they were taught in Church, and by their parents is just a bunch of fairy tales? Is that the same freedom you are talking about?
That kids are legally barred from weighing ANY evidence offered by evolution theory critics, due to some spurious "Separation of Church and State" law (which doesn't exist...anywhere in ANY federal legal document, much less the Constitution) which mandates that no references to faith are allowed, but Athiests are rather given free license to "secularize" them into Darwinian drones?
That's the freedom you're referring to, right? The same freedom teachers have to teach our kids that sex at their pre-adolescent age is healthy for them?

Thanks for clearing that up for me! :D

IgnusFast
07-08-2007, 11:27 AM
Ah..I see. You mean the way Evolution is JAMMED down the throats of impressionable school kids...who don't get to decide for themselves in the classroom by weighing the evidence for BOTH sides, but are legally forced to be taught that this theory, exclusively is FACT...and pure SCIENCE (even though the largest premise, that one species evolved into another, i.e Macro-evolution, is still unproven...embarrasingly so with NO credible fossil evidence to support it).
You mean the Faculty has the Freedom to tell your kids and mine, that what they were taught in Church, and by their parents is just a bunch of fairy tales? Is that the same freedom you are talking about?
That kids are legally barred from weighing ANY evidence offered by evolution theory critics, due to some spurious "Separation of Church and State" law (which doesn't exist...anywhere in ANY federal legal document, much less the Constitution) which mandates that no references to faith are allowed, but Athiests are rather given free license to "secularize" them into Darwinian drones?
That's the freedom you're referring to, right? The same freedom teachers have to teach our kids that sex at their pre-adolescent age is healthy for them?

Thanks for clearing that up for me! :D

When churches start teaching evolution as an alternative to the God theory, then I'll be all for public schools teaching religion as an alternative to the Poop Happens theory.

archijam
07-08-2007, 11:45 AM
When churches start teaching evolution as an alternative to the God theory, then I'll be all for public schools teaching religion as an alternative to the Poop Happens theory.

:)

jin choung
07-08-2007, 03:05 PM
When churches start teaching evolution as an alternative to the God theory, then I'll be all for public schools teaching religion as an alternative to the Poop Happens theory.

hey! now there's a solution!

also, we will then be mandated to teach not only the origin story from the big three monotheistic religions but all the religions of human history from the aztecs to zoarastrianism.

cuz we ARE aware that there are other religions right? and that they have rights JUST AS STRONG as any of the big 3... right?

so yah, let's teach all of that during our science classes.

excellent solution ranger.

jin

2BitSculptor
07-08-2007, 05:03 PM
Creationists don't have any tolerance for those who believe in intelligent design.... same as for any other liberal. theistic evolution is the 'missing link' between creationism and evolution.

It was Bishop Unger that calculated the earth to be only 6000 y old... it's not in any religous text, that I know of.

2BitSculptor
07-08-2007, 05:44 PM
It was Bishop Unger that calculated the earth to be only 6000 y old... it's not in any religous text, that I know of.

sometime in the late 10th century... when the world was still flat.

jin choung
07-08-2007, 05:56 PM
he may have been the first to do the calculation but if the bible is literal truth, then there is a lineage traced from the 6th day to recorded history.

it is taken to be an unbroken lineage trace.

so it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or a bishop) to start adding up generations and then add 5 days to come up with a number.

so according to many fundys (that's a fun way to address them btw), the universe is 6k-10k years old.

jin

2BitSculptor
07-08-2007, 06:16 PM
But the genealogies don't take into account family members who were deliberately left out because they fell out of favor, or were poor representatives of the family name, or did nothing notable to be remembered.

I'm sticking to really incredibly older than we can calculate on two hands, and feet.

Plate tectonics was poo-poo'd by creationists a few years ago... until they could come up with their own theories on how it could have happened faster than what is in the geological record. (the hydro-lubrication theory is one of my favorites)

geothefaust
07-08-2007, 09:53 PM
Megalodon and Jin... You guys are saying what I'm thinking.

Ranger, I really feel bad for you. It's too bad you can't use that brain that is contained within the confines of your skull. The kind of crap you're currently spouting is complete and utter NONSENSE.

Darwinism, the theory of evolution, is solid. We may not know exactly everything about every minute detail of life, but hey, at least it's based on something that is REAL and is PROVABLE. On the other hand, creationism is some of the most unrealistic bull crap I've ever heard. I really don't even need to mention much more, as it would only retard me even further then reading ranger's rubbish.

And let us talk about shoving religion and politics down people's throats, shall we? I've had so many christians berate (from verbal right down to physical assaults) me and people I know because we don't believe in god, or even a different god, as you do. Well too effing bad. Get over it, yeah? It's funny, christianity used to be touted (sort of..) as a tolerant religion. Surely it can not be said these days.

Back on topic, or of sorts...

I really think the movie looks interesting. I'd like to touch on the American flag that is on the ship. It's funny that ranger went off on it. When I say this, I mean to say that, at the current rate that the U.S. is "assimilating" other countries with our way of "democracy", the world will quite literally be a One World Government. Like it or not, U.S. foreign policy is at the utmost worst it has been since the cold war. At least then we were communicating with the Soviet Union.

As for the character design and look of the film, I dig it. It looks like something we could teach in science class.

DOH!

:twak:

Stooch
07-08-2007, 10:15 PM
Ah..I see. You mean the way Evolution is JAMMED down the throats of impressionable school kids...who don't get to decide for themselves in the classroom by weighing the evidence for BOTH sides, but are legally forced to be taught that this theory, exclusively is FACT.

there is no evidence for the contrary argument on evolution. never has been. while evolution evidence is right there staring you in the face.

jin choung
07-08-2007, 10:48 PM
But the genealogies don't take into account family members who were deliberately left out because they fell out of favor, or were poor representatives of the family name, or did nothing notable to be remembered.

I'm sticking to really incredibly older than we can calculate on two hands, and feet.

Plate tectonics was poo-poo'd by creationists a few years ago... until they could come up with their own theories on how it could have happened faster than what is in the geological record. (the hydro-lubrication theory is one of my favorites)

doesn't matter if miscellaneous siblings are left out.

x begat y is an unbroken chain into recorded history. hence, you can count generations and add 5 days. don't ask me.... ask the literalists.

anyhoo, let us endeavor to keep this from becoming an all out gangbang... too easy and also we don't want to feed a persecution complex.

jin

faulknermano
07-09-2007, 12:57 AM
WOW! what a brilliant premise! i can't believe it hasn't been done before!


i know a reason: because i was too busy at work!

actually, i know i risk sounding like a fart, but the concept, at least in my mind, isnt new, because it was one of those concepts me and my wife would come up with during our midnight coffee/snack times and something we should have acted upon, if not for certain circumstances.

our mindset, especially mine, which has always recoiled at the extreme and unabated humanism that is at a place higher than it ever has before. we live it, we breathe it, we accept it and we love it. well, not me. because of this it was not far away that i could come up with premise that humans were the bad guys. in fact, many of my concepts prove to be like that. but i've taken it a bit further. humans attacking aliens is, to me, a little too outright. for certain cases it would be fine and great. but i prefer a little more subtlety. of course, i wont be divulging my great ideas to any of you, lest someone beats me to it. :D

ps: i thought it funny that it the thread would turn to religion... but realising the nature of the implications (or suspected implications), i guess it's understandable.

jin choung
07-09-2007, 01:19 AM
yep... unfortunately.

"liberal america bashing"

begat

"conservative america worship"

begat (for some reason)

"fundamentalist judgment on the unwashed masses and their wicked wicked ways"

begat

"unwashed masses rallying under the banner of don't tread on me"

...

alas. understandable. and perhaps inevitable.

actually, recently i've been playing dawn of war (warhammer 40k universe) and there's some elements of this in it but i was thinking of a sci fi scenario where basically, all the different hardcore religions/secularists take off to colonize chunks of space for themselves and eventually, it becomes a holy war extended into the stars.

as they say, there is nothing new under the sun... or under ceti alpha prime... for that matter.

jin

toby
07-09-2007, 01:43 AM
it was one of those concepts me and my wife would come up with during our midnight coffee/snack times and something we should have acted upon, if not for certain circumstances.
"certain circumstances"... you must have a lot of kids now!

Oh! Sorry! That was innappropriate! My bad!

faulknermano
07-09-2007, 02:02 AM
one of the the main problem of today's world is "categorism".. no such word.. though there might as well be one. i think for every known thing there is a category, and the antithesis of such a category. this severely limits understanding of the true nature of things. it limits thought. it pushes people into boxes that they never occupied in the first place. and eventually, because of this categorisation, they start filling in the boxes, presupposing things they would otherwise not be inclined to suppose. i'm a "liberal" in some aspects, but "conservative" in others. where does that leave me? in cg-speak, we're all 32-bit float maps but we get converted to 1-bit sometimes.

as for evolution and all those arguments people love to throw back and forth: i prefer to see, observe, and realise just what is in it for us about these arguments? why do people need to disbelieve in evolution theory? or why the need to disbelieve in the creation theory? (note i use "disbelieve" not believe). for me, i believe those two things are not necessarily exclusive of one another. i find it interesting that pro-evolution people find more satisfaction in religion-bashing than actual science. i find it equally interesting that pro-creation-theory people are threatened by evolution. for me, to strengthen the cause for evolution is immaterial. it does, however, increase my wonder for the world and its Creator. it is another example of being a 32-bit guy.

true: nothing new under the sun. but when revelation comes it's great. to some, the movie's premise is new and refreshing. and that's great.

faulknermano
07-09-2007, 02:02 AM
"certain circumstances"... you must have a lot of kids now!

Oh! Sorry! That was innappropriate! My bad!

hehe.. good one. :thumbsup:

AbnRanger
07-09-2007, 02:10 AM
When churches start teaching evolution as an alternative to the God theory, then I'll be all for public schools teaching religion as an alternative to the Poop Happens theory.It's not the Churches role to do that...it's a voluntary meeting of like-minded individuals...just like an association of atheists in their scheduled meetings. Public School IS NOT voluntary.
It's mandated by law, with the only options being private schools or home schooling. Private schools are far too expensive for most parents to consider and the NEA ardently opposes school vouchers so that tax dollars that would be used toward a child's education can be used in a private school of the parent's choice(funny how people who harp about freedom to choose abortion don't do the same about school choice), and home schooling is not an option for families where both parents work.

You guys want to joke about this, while in the same token talk about freedom of thought. It's not a joke, and it's certainly not a FREE exchange of ideas. If a school cannot offer an objective text that gives an overview of the evidence presented by the major differing theories of human origin, then it shouldn't be teaching it at all.

After all, we are talking about EVIDENCE, right. Does a jury panel accept only the Prosecution's evidence in a given case, while barring the Defense's? A court's sole purpose is to lay out the evidence, from both sides, and let the jury deliberate over it before they render a verdict.

How many of you comedians actually knew that most every branch of Modern Science was FOUNDED by Creationist? Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Galileo, Michael Faraday Samuel Morse, George Washington Carver, Gregor Mendel, and Louis Pasteur, just to name a few. NOT REAL SCIENCE, aye?

OK, Stooch...what was it you were telling me about not commenting on Maya without experience in it. So, just what are you doing scoffing about evidence when you haven't offered a morsel. None of you have.
BRING IT....DON'T SING IT!
Clever, are you gents, trying to gang up on me? I ain't skeered! Come with your best shot. Don't be lazy either, do a little research before you step into the ring.

You first, Stooch, Mr. Experience... what is Irreducible Complexity? Explain the Anthropic Principle.
Explain the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
Afterward explain how you can reconcile this law with Evolution's tree of Life...going from primitive life to more highly complex and intelligent life.
Mageledon, you're next...explain how Macro-Evolution can be considered FACT and an observable process (science) without fossil evidence to support it. Darwin anticipated it, and his enire theory rests upon it. Tell me...where is it?
I'm quite anxious to hear your response, gents.

http://www.leestrobel.com
A good link for those of you who are a little lazy:
http://www.leestrobel.com/Creator.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/answersmedia/searchProcess.aspx
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

jin choung
07-09-2007, 03:57 AM
fine, let's teach buddhist cosmology, along with mayan, along with etc etc.... why do creationists arguing from one text get preferential treatment.

according to your argument, going to school is not a choice for these others as well.

yeah. let's fill the entire school day with comparative religion and what they have to say about the natural world.

also, newton turns out to be pretty heretical.

and all these other notable christians adhered to science... trying to explain nature by natural means.

do you have any idea how far we would have progressed if THAT was not the scientific imperative? if we, at every turn, deferred to scripture?

seriously, if the attitude that some apply toward the universe and evolution were applied to gravity, we would have (according to the onion) the theory of INTELLIGENT FALLING instead of gravity.

in EVERY other scientific subject, they could have stopped at "because God made it so".

they didn't. and we are enlightened.

no matter what problems you may have with evolution, what sense does it make on insisting on stopping at "because God made it so" instead of further seeking natural explanations?

jin

jin choung
07-09-2007, 04:04 AM
also,

apologetics ends up being a pretty slippery slope.

wanna know why so many people believe in their own religion? no matter how kooky, nutty or heretical you may think it is?

because, as it says in scripture, "seek and you will find". but i think that it may be a statement of fact rather than a promise.

if you are looking for something, you are likely to find it. qui gon jin said, "your focus determines your reality".

ever had the experience that you never noticed honda civics in your world but then you buy a honda civic and all of a sudden, you start seeing honda civics everywhere?

this cognitive trick and trap of the mind goes a GREAT way of explaining why people believe in all kinds of things.

jin

jin choung
07-09-2007, 04:08 AM
2nd law of thermodynamics... entropy. everything, left to itself, goes from order to disorder.

BUT

the key here is "left to itself". a puzzle will not spontaneously assemble itself but it will if you have a person put it together. an ORDERING AGENT.

this is why your argument about 2nd law and evolution falls apart imo. DNA.

DNA is the ordering agent.

once you have DNA, 2nd law is nullified.

jin

p.s. there's stuff about how you can have pockets of "ordering" if it is offset with pockets of greater disorder... ya familiar?

jin choung
07-09-2007, 04:16 AM
actually, one thing that you fundys should latch on too is abiogenesis.

as i said, once you have DNA, the 2nd law thing is out the window.

but where did dna come from? how do you go from non-life to life?

NO SCIENTIST KNOWS THE ANSWER TO THIS. nobody. it's completely shocking but true.

sure, they have "organic compounds" and such but nobody really has any clue how you go from non-life to life, even at the most fundamental level.

and certainly, no one can recreate non-life to life in a test tube.

although you lose the evolution argument, abiogenesis is much more friendlier to your cause.

but if history of science is any precedent, perhaps not for long....

jin

jin choung
07-09-2007, 04:22 AM
internet makes this so easy these days....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

not exactly homerun stuff here.... i've read some strobel and man he's got some fluffy stuff. definitely not your hero of choice imo.

jin

faulknermano
07-09-2007, 05:28 AM
but i think that it may be a statement of fact rather than a promise.

it may be one and the same thing. ;)


actually, one thing that you fundys should latch on too is abiogenesis.

"fundys". hehe..... now now jin, that sounds derogatory. :D


also, newton turns out to be pretty heretical.

the word "heretical" is problematic because you have to assume a particular doctrine to be heretical against. just exactly what belief system is up here? another problem of categorisation. galileo judged was heretical, for example. but today he is not. that is because religion has changed, and will continue to do so. the God of the Christian religion has not changed, rather our understanding of him has.

however, the use of the word "heretical" is meaningless to one who uses it without understanding religion. how many of the people here ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND Christianity in its very root and doctrine and practice? it is amazing to speak to people (not on these forums obviously) who rage against Christianity but have nothing substantial to say about it. it's always sex scandal this, and hypocrisy that (as if Christianity, in modern practice, had such a monopoly). i see an irony of how judgemental people get with people who is/was notorious for being judgemental.

it's hard to understand many things in this world. i'd like to read up on all these links and these authors but i only have so much things on my mind that need attention. that's why i admit my ignorance on certain things and just leave it at that, and dont argue about things i dont understand. and i would like to endorse that to the people who talk rot about Christianity but know little about it. there's really more to it than meets the eye.

if one wants to be specific about a particular brand of Christianity, then categorise it properly. (hehe). i reckon that if i ever got an understanding closest to what a "fundy" actually is (as a definition and as a character), i probably would not fit in 100%. again, 32-bit person, and i will not be clipped!


edit: you have to really give a hand to NewTek! i'm looking at it right now, and it's downright amazing they allow this kind of stuff here... hoping i wont eat my words somewhere down the line in this thread. hehe.

AbnRanger
07-09-2007, 05:34 AM
in EVERY other scientific subject, they could have stopped at "because God made it so".

they didn't. and we are enlightened.

no matter what problems you may have with evolution, what sense does it make on insisting on stopping at "because God made it so" instead of further seeking natural explanations?

jinHonestly....what the heck are you saying? If the evidence honestly leads to chance...so be it. If it leads to a Creator...you STILL have a problem with that, and decide you'll just stick with chance?...just because. How juvenile?

AbnRanger
07-09-2007, 05:42 AM
internet makes this so easy these days....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

not exactly homerun stuff here.... i've read some strobel and man he's got some fluffy stuff. definitely not your hero of choice imo.

jinSee...you're being lazy. And it's always a cop out, resorting to ridicule without answering the question.
I didn't ask you to look up a link. YOU keep stating that there's NO evidence. I stuck it right under your nose....and your answer is..."Not your best hero."
Tell me Jin, how can you call a THEORY real science, when it by nature is nothing more than a Hypothesis? Darwin expected that in the future there would be found fossils of transitional life forms. How long ago was that Jin? How many have been found since then, to support this hyposthesis? Come on. Tell me.
Stop it with the kindergarten antics of trying to ridicule your way out of a jam. I you can't answer, then just close it.

AbnRanger
07-09-2007, 06:03 AM
Ranger, I really feel bad for you. It's too bad you can't use that brain that is contained within the confines of your skull. The kind of crap you're currently spouting is complete and utter NONSENSE.

Darwinism, the theory of evolution, is solid. Why, thank you for caring...but honestly I'd feel better if you could just explain to me how the "Pilt Down Man" is REAL science. I'm feeling kinda lazy right now, like some of you guys who try throw jabs at me with nothing behind it. Could you just give me what you know? Maybe it'll help my brain to start functioning a little better.

anieves
07-09-2007, 07:00 AM
I think this thread has gone waaaay off topic... LOL

2BitSculptor
07-09-2007, 07:19 AM
piltdown man....
:ohmy:

Why bring it up? Everyone knows that was a hoax by an imbalanced amateur whanna-be geologist who tried to make a name for himself and produce a grand trophy for queen and country while all the 'true' finds were being discovered elsewhere in Europe. It wasn't science at all.

SBowie
07-09-2007, 08:19 AM
interesting how quickly the injection of a passing comment that is even remotely controversial leads inexorably to a hairball. Clearly, intolerance and extreme views are not the sole preserve of any camp.

It's clear any hypothetical aliens are very safe from human invasion. Given sufficient time to develop the technology to pose an intergalactic threat, we'd long since have wiped each other out.

achrystie
07-09-2007, 08:41 AM
You first, Stooch, Mr. Experience... what is Irreducible Complexity? Explain the Anthropic Principle.
Explain the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
Afterward explain how you can reconcile this law with Evolution's tree of Life...going from primitive life to more highly complex and intelligent life.
Mageledon, you're next...explain how Macro-Evolution can be considered FACT and an observable process (science) without fossil evidence to support it. Darwin anticipated it, and his enire theory rests upon it. Tell me...where is it?
I'm quite anxious to hear your response, gents.


I finally decided to reply, I'm somewhat new here, so I've been treading lightly.
First, a little about myself.
I have a degree in mechanical engineering, but I'm a career switcher and now teach High School Physics and Chemistry in a public school, a Title 1 school in fact.
I have a 13 year old daughter, which, coincidentally, we have sent to a private catholic school for the last two years, and will next year too.
I do 3D modeling and animation as a hobby/independent filmmaker.

That said, these arguments relating to creationism taught in a science classroom as an alternative to evolution are quite lacking. First of all, none of your arguments "against" evolution necessarily lead to creationism (although they "could"). The problem with teaching creationism, is that it is currently not backed up by an "science", which is the class being taught, not religion. Also, there are so many other non-christian religious based theories of creation, who are you to say that ALL students should be taught your "version" of creationism at all, let alone in a science classroom?
Also, your entire argument against evolution so far, and in fact many of the other arguments "for" evolution, are so weak and lacking in the understanding of what SCIENCE IS, that it's both shocking while at the same time sadly understandable given the current state of american education for which we are all to blame.
SCIENCE, is the teaching of observation skills, and the support of various laws and theories that are backed up by LOADS of collected data. That said, ANY law or theory in any science discipline is ALWAYS open for debate, that debate always requiring more experimentation, modeling, and/or observation to come to a resolution, which can inevitably be challenged again. Presenting evolution is merely presenting the most likely possibility based on the data that HAS been gathered, you are free to believe if it is true or not, just as any student is, and should be. This whole idea of "cramming evolution down the throats of students", paraphrasing your words, is not a statement of the fact that evolution is or is not valid, nor that any creation theory is or is not, it's a statement of bad teaching by any individual science teacher. Any science teacher that sees evolution as FACT rather than LIKELIHOOD, is a piss poor scientist and teacher and you should address that with the individual.

That said, with regards to teaching creationism. Most teachers I know would be happy to teach any SCIENCE theory out there, the key word being SCIENCE, which means, if you want it taught as science in a public school, you better get out there and get some scientific data, and a scientific argument to support it, which, and show it to me if I'm incorrect, does not currently exist. The people that should really be doing this are the fundamental institutions of each religion, such as the Vatican, but they prefer to continuously approach everything from the standpoint of "belief" (possibly as religion should), rather than science, which means it's never going to end up in a "science" curriculum. What's sad, is that my daughter, who goes to a catholic school, is not taught evolution, and yet they call the curriculum "science". But, rather than ***** about it, as the rest of the education they offer is far more rigorous than the public schools she was previously in, I just take it upon myself as a good parent to teach it to her myself. It's not hard, just read a book or two and spend some time with my kid.

By the way, we DO teach creationism in our PUBLIC school, it's a high school elective called, world religions, of course, we teach ALL religions in that course, and I'm not sure that's what you're talking about. It's currently a history department course, but, if at any point someone starts using some science to "support" creationism, I'd be more than happy to teach it in SCIENCE as well.

My biggest problem with arguments like yours Abnranger, is that your "beliefs" and the way that you present them, and the policy and laws you would have enacted based on those beliefs, REQUIRES that I and many others believe, or at least adhere to, what YOU believe, whereas, my beliefs do not require you to do the same. What's also interesting to me, and you said this yourself, is that you went to war to kill people with oppressive beliefs similar to yours to defend a bunch of "liberals" (as you call them), that you don't seem to like very much, most likely in the name of "freedom" which none of your arguments seem to support. These are all scary contradictions to me.

Some more notes on me.
The principal in my school is a retired army colonel, we get along famously, he's jewish though, so maybe doesn't fit into your "vision" of America, but then again, I'm reminded of the phrase "all shapes and sizes".

Also, from a personal standpoint, I am in favor of things like legalized marijauna or gay marriage, even though I don't smoke pot and I'm not gay, but I'm staunchly against the current welfare system in our state and many states and generally for smaller government. Am I conservative or liberal?

I'm sure you'll be the judge, that's the "fundamental" premise of your arguments, you get to be the "judge". Unfortunately, by sitting down and "thinking", rather than just believing, and weighing all arguments, and analyzing data, I'm not the judge but merely the observer that presents the data and the "likelihood". Of course, if there is a god, he has given me the ability to observe my surroundings and analyze this data. He's made it a part of my very nature.

However:
Matthew:
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

ABC

ben martin
07-09-2007, 10:00 AM
My God! This is insane!

Aristomenis is a CG artist that was able to co-produce his dream.
What he chooses to portrait/plot in TERRA film can be seen/interpreted in many ways!
It can be a lesson that fits to the American people but it's also a human kind alert!

All this is pathetic!
People are so ego-centric looking to theirs own little bellies that they usually forget that we all born in this planet, we all share the same genome and when we screw the Earth we are screwing it not only for ourselves but to the next generations to come as well!!

There are species disappearing each day caused by simple human greed!
There are people dying in numbers of thousands due to bad nutrition and that phenomenon all alone turns the almost 5000 lost lives in the twin towers an inexpressive number!

Yes, I strongly condemn the 9/11 coward attack and I'm sorry for the almost 5000 lives lost (NOTE: NOT ONLY Native Americans) but the way America is using it as justification enough to perform all kind of invasion acts (that surly were planned long ago) makes me sick.

Sometimes I wonder why the 9/11 is serving America plans so well!?
In fact it turned a flag that legitimates all the crap the US is doing in other countries (like the ones we see each day in TV), instead of a bad thing that happen to innocent civilians!

Jezz, how can we ever explore (one day) our solar system and establish new colonies if we can not keep our house clean and in peace?

Just remember this, great big empires born but ultimately they all fall in disgrace!
I'm a Portuguese citizen.
500 years ago my country was one of the biggest empires on Europe.
We were the firsts sailing to India and Cristovão Columbus offered his services to the Portuguese kings.
At that time my country was so turned to India new oceanic explorations that they refused Cristovão, that was why he turned to Spain.
Nevertheless Portugal conquered Brazil, Africa, Asia and look at us now!!!
We are a small miserable pathetic country with not much expression in Europe.
Same happened to others in the past and it will happen again in the future.

America is a very young nation (200 years of history) and should learn with other nation's mistakes… but seems that if you don't live it, you won't learn it!

Resuming:
We are all human beings sharing the same blue sphere that we claim ours but all that can end in a flash and there are so many ways for that to happen.
We spend the days fighting each other based on the illusion that tomorrow is granted and we go to wars to defend our way of life for tomorrow! Poor souls, who told you that tomorrow, will came?
To who can interest… this kind of issues is a waist of time and energy!

Aristomenis have done a long way to achieve this "Terra" movie and the struggle "by it self" granted him the liberty to tell the story he wishes to tell!
A little respect for that is the minimum required for intelligent people!

Many thanks for reading!

jnddepew
07-09-2007, 11:35 AM
This is quite an amusing thread
after a few posts it went downhill
I think the admins should change its title to:

:::CAUTION:::
FLAME WAR IN PROGRESS
ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK

:D

jnddepew
07-09-2007, 12:05 PM
I wasn't really interested in this thread and wanted to leave it alone. But I simply can't resist saying that this is one of the single most stupid things I've ever read on this board. It's not really surprising the world is knee deep in crap, when these kinds of religious views are held by so many.

"You mean the Faculty has the Freedom to tell your kids and mine, that what they were taught in Church, and by their parents is just a bunch of fairy tales?"

YES! Because it is! Really, anyone believing in that horrible religious, creationist crap is no better than the schizos and psychos that society deems fit to lock up.

How come that religion is the only major mental abnormality that you don't get locked away for having? :D

God is a hoax! I can't believe how this simple form of mass population control could make it this far in to the pages of history. Please don't pass this mental illness on to your poor, innocent children! Just please don't! Stop the lunacy!

I'm so happy, I live in a country where religious freaks are such a minority that they only have a very minor impact on society in general. One could say insignificant.

calm down phew!

Stooch
07-09-2007, 05:01 PM
again. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CREATIONISM. sorry for yelling.

but there is none. you keep on talking about it but all you have to show for it are some writings by ignorant people from back in the day when the world was flat. evolution is all around you. its in your DNA, its in the fossils, its in the species and subspecies that are all over the world. I am all for religion being taught in schools IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE.

when you have evidence, you are teaching. when you dont, you are preaching.

your attempt to attack me by using the maya thread just shows everyone how desperate you are. you are grasping for straws man.


It's not the Churches role to do that...it's a voluntary meeting of like-minded individuals...just like an association of atheists in their scheduled meetings. Public School IS NOT voluntary.
It's mandated by law, with the only options being private schools or home schooling. Private schools are far too expensive for most parents to consider and the NEA ardently opposes school vouchers so that tax dollars that would be used toward a child's education can be used in a private school of the parent's choice(funny how people who harp about freedom to choose abortion don't do the same about school choice), and home schooling is not an option for families where both parents work.

You guys want to joke about this, while in the same token talk about freedom of thought. It's not a joke, and it's certainly not a FREE exchange of ideas. If a school cannot offer an objective text that gives an overview of the evidence presented by the major differing theories of human origin, then it shouldn't be teaching it at all.

After all, we are talking about EVIDENCE, right. Does a jury panel accept only the Prosecution's evidence in a given case, while barring the Defense's? A court's sole purpose is to lay out the evidence, from both sides, and let the jury deliberate over it before they render a verdict.

How many of you comedians actually knew that most every branch of Modern Science was FOUNDED by Creationist? Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Galileo, Michael Faraday Samuel Morse, George Washington Carver, Gregor Mendel, and Louis Pasteur, just to name a few. NOT REAL SCIENCE, aye?

OK, Stooch...what was it you were telling me about not commenting on Maya without experience in it. So, just what are you doing scoffing about evidence when you haven't offered a morsel. None of you have.
BRING IT....DON'T SING IT!
Clever, are you gents, trying to gang up on me? I ain't skeered! Come with your best shot. Don't be lazy either, do a little research before you step into the ring.

You first, Stooch, Mr. Experience... what is Irreducible Complexity? Explain the Anthropic Principle.
Explain the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
Afterward explain how you can reconcile this law with Evolution's tree of Life...going from primitive life to more highly complex and intelligent life.
Mageledon, you're next...explain how Macro-Evolution can be considered FACT and an observable process (science) without fossil evidence to support it. Darwin anticipated it, and his enire theory rests upon it. Tell me...where is it?
I'm quite anxious to hear your response, gents.

http://www.leestrobel.com
A good link for those of you who are a little lazy:
http://www.leestrobel.com/Creator.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/answersmedia/searchProcess.aspx
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Stooch
07-09-2007, 05:11 PM
evolution is the "creator" basically.

you cant seem to grasp the fact that its not some entity but a process that is plainly observable. all of your arguments seem to be centered around semantics and other peoples incorrect interpretation of scientific principles.

all of the scientists you listed may have CONTRIBUTED to science, however they are "mere mortals" and are prone to mistakes like everyone else. Your mistake is just like theirs, and that is the assumption that there is evidence that supports a god. people like you are able to argue about this issue because they tend to be experts on word play. a staple of religion it seems.

another thing, people like galileo had no choice but pretend they are religious or they will be burned at the stake for "witchcraft".

i suppose you can provide me with evidence of witches too right? of course you also think that i will burn in hell for my beliefs. another despicable fear mongering attitude that i have 0 respect for and that has led to much misery in this world. hopefully as evolution runs its course, our species will overcome this mental crutch through education. the middle east is sorely in need of that. and this is an observable fact with plenty of evidence to back that up.

Stooch
07-09-2007, 05:49 PM
and i want to emphasize how much i hate it where this thread went. and how ridiculously presumptuous some of the views are in regards to the movie. just see it for yourself abn, you WILL find yourself looking like an idiot when all is said and done.

Stooch
07-09-2007, 06:24 PM
I think that the key to understanding god - is understanding how the human brain works.

My belief is that the first one is the product of the latter. If humanity does self destruct, I suspect that religion will be at the root of it.

faulknermano
07-09-2007, 10:09 PM
No one has been able to explain this - except by saying that "we don't understand Gods' ways." Which of course I feel is a simple cop out. But then... that's me.
:)

it's understandable that you think it's a cop out. it has alot to do with your inability to accept the idea that God, the God from the Bible, is not humanly predictable, that God must fit into some logic that we can comprehend. that kind of "human" God becomes predictable, and predictably "made up". if you come into terms with the idea that although, biblically-speaking, we share certain "traits" with God, we are not quite the same with him. for example: sense of justice. we have that, and the Christian God is believed to be perfectly just. but it is also believed that he is more just than us. and yet we oftentimes doubt it, because many things we believe need to be punished go unpunished. maybe we will never see the justice we want in our lifetime. what does that say? you cannot figure out any humanly-conceivable reason why. so you dont believe in a difficult-to-know God, but will accept something easier to figure out.

Stooch
07-09-2007, 10:15 PM
"god" is an idea.

ideas are the product of man.

so here is something to ponder. if man never evolved to think, would god still exist?

think about that long and hard.

chicken and the egg question basically. (which by the way is another question that can only be explained by evolution)

faulknermano
07-09-2007, 10:17 PM
The real problem is people "knowing" Gods will and trying to force others to believe that way.


that is inaccurate, a very partial statement. any belief, whether it be related to the divine or the material, to logic or catharsis, can be used to force others. but even that is not the "real" problem. people like to give examples of the Inquisition, or other religion-inspired terror. but the whole picture is that you dont need religion to jam ideology down anyone's throat. you just need, well, and ideology. and maybe a personal agenda to make things more worth your while.




If humanity does self destruct, I suspect that religion will be at the root of it.


i'm sorry to observe you thinking religion is the biggset problem. you got the world falling apart and everyone's got people thinking it's something other than themselves that's the problem. is anyone self-effacing anymore?

Stooch
07-09-2007, 10:20 PM
yes. people are the problem. more specifically. their religious ideologies. so yes i do blame religion for alot of our problems. thats my ideology that i am not going to force upon you, just consider its validity given the historical evidence.

also i want to put my use of religion into perspective. i consider any ideology that is not based on tangible proof as a religion. by my definition, science cannot be considered a religion as such.

faulknermano
07-09-2007, 10:21 PM
"god" is an idea.

ideas are the product of man.



yes. many things are ideas. ideas are like capsules that make things more congruent for us. it makes things neater so we dont blow our brains trying to figure out how everything can be interconnected.

so yes, God is an idea, just like the idea of nationalism, for example, or religion, or something seemingly trivial such as HDR images. ideas point to something. it is trying to make the best of the understanding of the idea that makes it worth thinking about.

Stooch
07-09-2007, 10:27 PM
you didnt answer my question to a logical conclusion. try again ;)

faulknermano
07-09-2007, 10:28 PM
yes. people are the problem. more specifically. their religious ideologies.

well, personally i see many problems day in and day out where i am, and religious ideologies only make up less than 1 percent of my observation of these "problems." i certainly think that compared to vices, selfishness, hatred, pride, and others, "religious ideologies" arent really a big factor in the accumulating mess.

i think you may be too entangled with "concepts" or history books and not carefully seen the present from the point of view of a man living in the present. at least, to me, "religious ideologies" is an obsolete scapegoat. there are more obvious factors that can be observed more clearly than that.

Stooch
07-09-2007, 10:31 PM
religious ideologies is the most often used enabler for genocide and mass murder. to me this is a very prevalent problem throughout the world and accounts to much more than 1% of our worlds problems TODAY.

Greed is an extension of our instinct for self preservation. while it is a problem, it is not a baseless ideology.

yes hatred is a problem for our species. and interestingly enough, religion often finds itself as a conduit for this hatred, just like a gun or any other weapons. infact, i think that religion is more dangerous than any weapon because it can be used as a catalyst to unleash the weapons in the first place. i think that education is our salvation.

faulknermano
07-09-2007, 10:32 PM
you didnt answer my question to a logical conclusion. try again ;)

sorry, i thought when you said to ponder, i didnt think it to mean you wanted me to actually answer you.

of course, the question seems rather rhetorical.. obviously, where there is no thinker, there is no thought, and therefore nothing "thoughful" is relevant to the would-be-thinker.

if man never evolved to think, would he ever have discovered the idea of gravity?

faulknermano
07-09-2007, 10:40 PM
religious ideologies is the most often used enabler for genocide and mass murder.

Greed is an extension of our instinct for self preservation. while it is a problem, it is not a baseless ideology.

africa's famine, for example, is rooted in greed. whether it is "baseless" or not, it is quite atrocious (literally).

as for enabling genocides, you are looking at it from such a narrow point of view. you figured that religious ideologies, per se - in of itself without extenuating factors, is the most major enabler. for if you included other factors you would drag everything non-religious about it: social and familial upbringing, catastrophes, tragedy, psychology, etc. it seems to me little wonder why you stress "God" as an "idea." your statement reflects extreme compartamentalisation. it does not reflect one who is searching for truth, rather one who seeks to blame.

Stooch
07-09-2007, 10:44 PM
sorry, i thought when you said to ponder, i didnt think it to mean you wanted me to actually answer you.

of course, the question seems rather rhetorical.. obviously, where there is no thinker, there is no thought, and therefore nothing "thoughful" is relevant to the would-be-thinker.

if man never evolved to think, would he ever have discovered the idea of gravity?

gravity is not merely an idea. gravity is a scientific law that is grounded on scientific observation and backed with tangible proof.

Religious genocide and conflict is not a an IDEA it is a fact that is backed with tangible proof. please refer to my statement where i tjhink that religions is much more then 1% of our worlds problems. i am not blaming everything on religion.

compartmentalization is an extremely important cognitive function that can be used in search of truth. the problem with religion is that often the truth is imagined before it is actually found and validated as truth.

faulknermano
07-09-2007, 10:45 PM
ah, but if you did not THINK, you wouldnt know that.

faulknermano
07-09-2007, 10:48 PM
the point i am trying to make is this: ideas point to something. gravity is an encapsulation of the concept of a "force". even gravity is tied to magnetism. so we have an idea for that relationship.

there are many things we do not understand in this world. it does not mean those that are not understood do not exist. or if they do, then at one point in time, "gravity" did not exist, at least where men did not stand.

Stooch
07-09-2007, 10:49 PM
yes. but again. where is your tangible proof of god.

faulknermano
07-09-2007, 10:53 PM
Religious genocide and conflict is not a an IDEA it is a fact that is backed with tangible proof. please refer to my statement where i tjhink that religions is much more then 1% of our worlds problems. i am not blaming everything on religion.


certainly. butat least from your current line, you are not blaming any thing more than religion.

however, extrapolating religious ideologies causing genocide from history is calling forth the aspect of its "big picture". but the little picture, where we all are right now, even as we write, where do we fit in? even mass killers were kids at one point in their life. how about that aspect? not many books or sources are/were written to deal with that aspect.

faulknermano
07-09-2007, 10:57 PM
yes. but again. where is your tangible proof of god.

nowhere you'd be satisfied with. ;)

otoh, it's like that folkish tale of newton and the apple. i see the falling, but i cant explain why. maybe one day God can be explained. but i wonder, if have trouble understanding the cosmos, indeed, even our own bodies, would God ever be explained.

i think, partly, that's why i believe in the Creator: i cant explain him. i know that's not enough for most people here. but that's okay. it's no loss to me.
:thumbsup:

jin choung
07-09-2007, 10:58 PM
anyhoo,

nobody here is an expert on either religion, thermodynamics, evolution, geology, cosmology or quantum physics.

so i myself will stop arguing such points.

essentially, most people who believe in anything, whether it is science or religion do it with EXTREMELY LIMITED INFORMATION.

if you're a christian, i guarantee that you did not get there by first giving EVERY OTHER RELIGION IN THE WORLD a shot first. you didn't study everything else until out of the fullness of knowledge, you came to your faith.

for us science swayed folk, we are likely not phds in every relevant field that we purport to believe.

SO:

LIVE AND LET LIVE.

if you will pray, pray. if you will consume vast amounts of truly high quality, high defintion pornography, so be it.

either that or kill everyone who disagrees with you.

jin

Stooch
07-09-2007, 10:58 PM
ah the science of human psychology. it is so much easier to say that a serial killer is posessed by demons than search for the truth scientifically. god is such a convenient and easy answer to any question, that is why god is also very convenient to blame for any problem. it is the inherent tendency of religion to be the answer to all of our problems that puts it squarely in the sights of people who want to make it a scapegoat. a terminal flaw in my eyes :)

anyawy its a nice debate, i dont sense any animousity. whack and let whack! let this be food for thought.

faulknermano
07-09-2007, 11:14 PM
anyhoo,


if you're a christian, i guarantee that you did not get there by first giving EVERY OTHER RELIGION IN THE WORLD a shot first. you didn't study everything else until out of the fullness of knowledge, you came to your faith.


open your mind, jin. i myself was a catholic when i was born, became an atheist (no wonder there), turned "agnostic", soaked up buddhism like a sponge searching for my oriental roots, but became different because of Christ.

sure, i didnt go past "every other religion in the world", but i'm no baby about it. i didnt go for quantity, i went for quality. what i understood about all of it was, again, the tendency to label things as if they determined its nature. when i read something from zen or confucian texts it seems things crisscross more often than not with themselves and the bible. but i dont mix and match things. i dont mix principles of Christianity with Buddhism, or with "logic" (the religious kind). it's not about mixing enumerated beliefs and such. it is about understanding God and his personality.

faulknermano
07-09-2007, 11:21 PM
one thing that bugs me: why is it that we measure evil by how many gets killed?


that is why god is also very convenient to blame for any problem

God, TV, Grand Theft Auto, legal system, etc etc etc. the only one not being blamed is each individual selves. where there is no personal acknowledgement of wrong, no moral progress can be made.

jin choung
07-09-2007, 11:59 PM
open your mind, jin. it is about understanding God and his personality.

please don't condescend. my mind is more open than you can imagine and i am more familiar with christianity than you can believe.

in any case, you seem to keep missing the point:

"understanding God and his personality"... well by your admission, you didn't study all the religions.

that means that maybe islam is actually the right one and you just didn't get to it so you settled on something else.

MY POINT

MY POINT

MY POINT

(since you seem to miss it)

is that you are NO EXPERT on religion or for that matter, God.

my point is that people believe what they believe on limited information. and they are NOT QUALIFIED to judge the merits or faults of it authoritatively.

YOU - ARE - NO - EXPERT.

I - AM - NO - EXPERT.

WE-ARE-NOT-QUALIFIED-TO JUDGE-WHAT WE PURPORT TO BELIEVE.

BECAUSE

WE-ARE-NOT-EXPERTS.

and so we're a bunch of idiots saying why the other idiot is believing an idiotic thing.

that is my point.

and if you are NOT an expert. if you did NOT exhaustively research every other religion in the world to see if they are actually the truth. then you cannot disagree.

jin

jin choung
07-10-2007, 12:01 AM
oh, you also missed the point about "seek and you will find".

i cited that to speak of how gullible and prone to illusion we are.

jin

jin choung
07-10-2007, 12:03 AM
oh, and "deep, not wide" is not really a virtue if you are deeply wrong and the truth was somewhere else... in which case you are just digging a deeper hole into delusion.

jin

faulknermano
07-10-2007, 12:27 AM
sorry if i appeared condescending. believe me, if i was talking to you it wouldnt come out that way because i dont believe i meant it that way at all.

however: being an "expert" is totally irrelevant because by definition or an intangible God and the knowing of his personality is not always achieved by scholarly work (although it helps, i believe), no one can be an expert. you can be an expert in doctrines, but that is only a part of it.

whether you know much about Christianity remains to be seen, at least by my eyes. if indeed you have expressed implicitly, somehow, in your other posts displaying your knowledge in Christianity, then it is highly probable that it is not the Christianity that i know of. that comes at no surprise to me.


if you did NOT exhaustively research every other religion in the world to see if they are actually the truth.

that statement, per se, presupposes that one of those other religions of the world as exclusive right to the truth.

well, for me, i continually seek new ideas. from other religions, if they happen to pass me by, from science, from philosophy, from movies, from fiction, from autobiographies, etc etc. i dont need to be an expert, and there is no such thing in this matter. you cant shut people up as ineffectual and not credible by such demands to be experts first. it's that attitude that makes learning all the more difficult. if you're an "expert" your cup is full and cant be filled any longer.


my point is that people believe what they believe on limited information. and they are NOT QUALIFIED to judge the merits or faults of it authoritatively.

tell me something in this world that isnt based on "limited information". we all work what we are given. "authoritatively"? authority changes ALL the time. all you got is your brain, your conscience, your heart, or whatever you can admit. you have never read every religious or philosphical book out there, or practiced all of them. and yet you make your own decisions in life, you are your own authority. you may not see it, but your statement makes you a living contradiction.

i believe it is far simpler and better to keep learning and sincerely seek for truth.


and so we're a bunch of idiots saying why the other idiot is believing an idiotic thing.

but that somehow applies to you especially in the post (e.g. being an expert first before believing anything to be truth). no needs to berate someone an idiot. i dont believe i do myself. it's just about the search.

your point: no one is an expert.

my point: no one is an expert, but it is largely immaterial who is.

jin choung
07-10-2007, 01:07 AM
we seem to keep missing each other in the joust! :)

my point is not that it is somehow critically important to be an expert before you believe.

i am saying that all of us DO.

what i AM saying is that it is stupid to argue with one another on the basis of THERMODYNAMICS because we don't know crap all about it.

i'm saying idiots shouldn't ARGUE based on facts they have no real grasp of/access to.

is that any clearer?

re: christianity - it's not that tough. quiz me if you will. essentially, one group of people get to go to heaven. everybody else goes to hell. i've read the bible cover to cover, even the boring parts about begatting and cubits. favorite book is ecclesiastes. any questions?

re: isaac newton - heretical in relation to abn ranger and his group affiliation of fundys. forgot specifics but he may have been unitarian or something. and heresy's not that tough either. lots of CANONS from nicene on and it's pretty dead easy to identify heresy. basically, if she floats, she's a witch. :)

re: "fundy" i'm being flippant and playful and not derogatory. and whatever antagonism i have is aimed only at ranger because of his judgment on those who do not live according to what he believes. even though these other people in society at large have NOT willingly taken up the yoke themselves.

toby
07-10-2007, 01:11 AM
you dont need religion to jam ideology down anyone's throat. you just need, well, and ideology.
Or fear, fear works. It helped the most powerful country in history kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians on the other side of the planet, because of a 'possible' threat to a few of it's citizens.

faulknermano
07-10-2007, 01:50 AM
we seem to keep missing each other in the joust! :)

i'm saying idiots shouldn't ARGUE based on facts they have no real grasp of/access to.

is that any clearer?


i have no problem with that. it's just that your application of that to religion did not seem proper, because while science (e.g. thermodynamics) indeed have experts, religion's counterpart - scholars - are not necessarily in the same position. there is an aspect of religion that is not covered by scholarly work. thus, only speaking of religion, it is difficult to make out an "expert".


re: christianity - it's not that tough. quiz me if you will. essentially, one group of people get to go to heaven. everybody else goes to hell. i've read the bible cover to cover, even the boring parts about begatting and cubits. favorite book is ecclesiastes. any questions?

:)

i wont quiz you: i dont believe Christianity is a test about doctrines, or how correctly you believe it. at least, that's how i live my religion.

however, your summary of Christianity is, quite frankly, appalling. LOL! :D i do know about heaven, and about hell. what they are actually, and how they are going to be expressed is something i can only imagine. but the main thrust of Christianity, as far as i am concerned, has always been the conditions by which one was "saved." that condition was faith in Christ: faith in his ability to save, which presupposes that he is actually God. of course, one problem is "being saved". no one feels the need to be "saved" for varying reasons. and this is where the "repent for the kingdom of God is at hand" comes in. but somehow that doesnt seem to jive with folks nowadays. another problem is it is hard to believe any human can be God. as C.S. Lewis once said, you can regard Christ as a lunatic or God, but never patronise him to be simply a good teacher. there are many problems that besets the "coming into faith in God." and it isnt about knowing the beatitudes or the almost-mathematical formulas people think up to believe God will reward them if they do this or that. i truly regret that it's been often presented / practiced that way. but all i can offer is to say it isnt like that AT ALL. though heaven and hell are pillars of the Christian doctrine, they are not the only pillars. frankly, i end up being more concerned with "taking up the cross" (or make failure to do so) in my daily life. i am concerned about my own walk and salvation, actually, than anyone else's ("work out your salvation" and "get away from me, i never knew you"). for me, that's my Christianity.

faulknermano
07-10-2007, 02:01 AM
What do you see as the biggest problem?

i'm not sure, actually. but i do think if we had cleaned up after ourselves, concerned ourselves with our own shortcomings, from an individual standpoint, individually we will be different. but if we think there is a "bigger" problem than our own shortcomings, they will be our focus, and individually we would be rot.



We are supposed to follow Him and yet He makes no sense. As God is explained in the Bible - and soooo many Christians LOVE to quote Bible verses to support their beliefs - He makes no sense.

yes, sometimes he doesnt, sometimes he does. mostly i'm not quite sure. i'm regretful of how it comes across to you (because it comes across to me the same way).



To fall back on the "we just don't understand" when the Bible was written for humans is... a cop out.

well, you yourself can strive to understand. "i dont understand, but i will try".

faulknermano
07-10-2007, 02:09 AM
Now perhaps if the vast majority of voting Christians felt this way, maybe things wouldn't be quite as polarizing.

perhaps so, but perhaps not. as a Christian, i dont believe in changing the world system. to me, at least conceptually, it is not relevant to my faith. though i care, i know the world is going to hell in a handbasket, with or without the help of religious people. the situation does not need changing, rather our minds need "renewing".

Stooch
07-10-2007, 02:33 AM
and if you are NOT an expert. if you did NOT exhaustively research every other religion in the world to see if they are actually the truth. then you cannot disagree.

jin

jin. while you do make some good points, i take issue with this particular point of view because you imply that as individuals, we cannot think for ourselves. That we need an authority to think for us and decide what is correct and what is not. For me this goes against freedom of thought and interpretation. its anti individualistic. I will never subscribe to a belief where i am forced to accept the interpretations of others as facts, without a convincing show of evidence. To me, this is no different then listening to a preacher.

I believe that we all should be qualified to form our own convictions. To me this is the essence of the scientific principle. Everything is open for debate, and everything must have a tangible and proven basis. A scientific law is nothing more than a consensus, while organize religion is more akin to outright dictatorship. It is dangerous to entrust this kind of control to a single person or to a group of "qualified" individuals. I think that with education, people will get more qualified as a whole and realize that you don't need religion in order to have morals. I think that some of the crazy religious BS that is going on in the USA is a direct result of sub par education and the contamination of our education system with dogma.

I posed a very difficult question. would god exist without man. It is a difficult question because it forces one to question his beliefs. when i ask this question, the typical response from a devout person is a careful dance around the painfully logical answer. and the answer is NO. your god, lives and affects YOUR WORLD and ONLY your world.

the world that is in your head.

gods influence has never manifested itself outside of our physical abilities. because in the grand scheme of things, if we were not around, neither would the concept of god. But the earth would still be round. it will still be rotating around the sun which will still burn along with the rest of the universe, all tugging and tearing at itself with gravitational forces and other phenomena we have yet to have proven (including a god if there is one). Need proof? just look up, those stars were there before our earth, before us and before our gods.

the notion of heaven and hell, good and bad are all humanistic. they simply have no relevance on the cosmos at large. To me, they are also a form of mental conditioning in order to establish psychological control over its followers. What will it be? positive reinforcement (heaven) or negative reinforcement? (hell)

consider your cpu before you replace it with an upgraded model. consider that just moments before, the still warm cilicone had energy surging through it. executing seemingly cognitive tasks, performing what would seem miraculous just a century ago. Your brain is an electrical storm in a massively parallel processing system with its own networking, memory storage, distributed processing, image/sound recognition and communication protocols. Running on top of a low level operating kernel that maintains vital functions. Biological software, stored via chemical memory arrays, in a machine that was created through evolution.

we do not understand fully how all of this works and it seems miraculous to us even today. the same way the cpu you just replaced will seem miraculous to our ancestors. The fact is that we need an explanation for this miracle, someone had to have made us the same way we made that CPU. So we invent a god.

What will happen once we have all the answers?

I think that the ability to question rather then relying on the interpretations of others is what makes us individuals. i think that religion is a manifestation of herd mentality (animal instinct). we are programmed from birth to integrate into the social collective. We need to feel as part of a group the same way a group of monkeys or grazing beasts do - for mutual protection. The problem is that sometimes a herd is known to kill itself en masse by running off a cliff.

religion is a set of boundaries, shackles on our consciousness that serves a purpose while limiting us at the same time. i think that humanity has distanced itself from animalistic instincts but it is still somewhere in our subconsciousness and regularly manifests itself without being taken for what it is.

When i hear people argue and throw around the terms like neocon, liberal, conservative, republican, Christian, jew, Muslim, etc. These are all herds as far as im concerned. People are eager to segregate themselves and others into herds because our brain functions by categorizing information. its too easy to assign an evil label to any particular category and dehumanize anything that does not belong in your herd.

education is the key to separating us further from our animalistic instincts, IT IS a critical element of evolution. Religion to me, is an obstacle to scientific education, as evidenced by our current situation in America and abroad. Im sure people here are aware what is going on in mosques around the world. education is a thin disguise for outright indoctrination, setting us back as a species.

anyway, my main point is that religion. ALL religion, has to stay out of schools at all costs. Hopefully the internet serves as a conduit to accelerate this process so that we don't have to rely on a few "experts" who control our information. People need to wake up and stop voting because of religious convictions alone, which ultimately affects us far greater than 1%.

jin choung
07-10-2007, 02:34 AM
i have no problem with that. it's just that your application of that to religion did not seem proper, because while science (e.g. thermodynamics) indeed have experts, religion's counterpart - scholars - are not necessarily in the same position. there is an aspect of religion that is not covered by scholarly work. thus, only speaking of religion, it is difficult to make out an "expert".



:)

i wont quiz you: i dont believe Christianity is a test about doctrines, or how correctly you believe it. at least, that's how i live my religion.

however, your summary of Christianity is, quite frankly, appalling. LOL! :D i do know about heaven, and about hell. what they are actually, and how they are going to be expressed is something i can only imagine. but the main thrust of Christianity, as far as i am concerned, has always been the conditions by which one was "saved." that condition was faith in Christ: faith in his ability to save, which presupposes that he is actually God. of course, one problem is "being saved". no one feels the need to be "saved" for varying reasons. and this is where the "repent for the kingdom of God is at hand" comes in. but somehow that doesnt seem to jive with folks nowadays. another problem is it is hard to believe any human can be God. as C.S. Lewis once said, you can regard Christ as a lunatic or God, but never patronise him to be simply a good teacher. there are many problems that besets the "coming into faith in God." and it isnt about knowing the beatitudes or the almost-mathematical formulas people think up to believe God will reward them if they do this or that. i truly regret that it's been often presented / practiced that way. but all i can offer is to say it isnt like that AT ALL. though heaven and hell are pillars of the Christian doctrine, they are not the only pillars. frankly, i end up being more concerned with "taking up the cross" (or make failure to do so) in my daily life. i am concerned about my own walk and salvation, actually, than anyone else's ("work out your salvation" and "get away from me, i never knew you"). for me, that's my Christianity.

i've read c.s. lewis too... liked screwtape, didn't like mere christianity much. dry.

yah, i know all about faith, saved by grace not by works, the whole nine yards...

but make no mistake "if it's for this life only that we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."

it's all about heaven and hell and placing your bets.

so... heaven for some, hell for the rest. apalling? maybe but that's the essence of it.

saved go to heaven. everybody else gets the hell train. very simple and apalling or not, am i mistaken in the doctrine?

if ONLY, everyone merely concerned themselves with their own salvation. then people wouldn't make such nuisances of themselves.

but alas... we have "the great comission" eh? and so we get peppered with pamphlets and people shouting on street corners, sandwich boards and such.

MY ARGUMENT IS VALID (!!!) because he's not talking about RELIGION... he's talking about EVOLUTION, THERMODYNAMICS, etc. in which HE IS NOT AN EXPERT nor can he properly argue or comprehend at an expert level. and this applies to US ALL. including the MOST UNIMPRESSIVE LEE STROBEL.

nobody here has a phd in physics, geology, paleontology, cosmology, ancient history, archaeology, comparative religion, theology, hermeneutics, latin, attic/phileo greek, aramaic, ancient hebrew or biology.

AND THESE ARE THE RELEVANT TOPICS TO TALK ABOUT THE V*A*L*I*D*I*T*Y OF THINGS LIKE EVOLUTION or any given religion.

IT IS IN THAT CONTEXT - that i am saying, we idiots should not be arguing about how idiotic the others are because... WE'RE ALL IDIOTS! we've all got a finger on different parts of maybe not even the same elephant.

SOOooooooooooo...

you are not qualified to argue. i am not qualified to argue. believe what you want.

i am saying, simply, LIVE AND LET LIVE and stop telling people that their filthy media and raunchy tv programming and video games is a problem.

jin

jin choung
07-10-2007, 02:52 AM
stooch,

regarding all religion out of school, i agree.

OR,

if we bring one in, we bring them ALL... :)

i think i'm being misunderstood because i keep tossing around the word "idiot" as verbal shorthand.

but simply, what i have been saying, is that there are many eager to enter into a DEBATE about whether X THEORY is right or wrong, accurate or what....

i am simply saying, WE ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO BE ARGUING! discussion? SURE! chat? WHY NOT? but not ARGUMENT cuz no side is qualified to win!

it's like kindergartners (or US!) trying to talk about macroeconomics or automotive repair.... sure, they might namedrop or throw in something they might have heard... but it is essentially POINTLESS.

i am NOT saying that we are so idiotic that we cannot pursue truth for ourselves. and i am NOT advocating relying on authorities. i am AALLLLLLLLL ABOUT PERSONAL, CRITICAL THOUGHT.

but to argue to convince, YOU MUST KNOW WHEREOF YOU SPEAK. and more, you audience must be knowledgeable to know whether you're full of crap or whether they lost!

but until we reach a level or authority, our arguments and our understanding of the subjects being spoken of is so slim as to be a waste of everybody's time.

jin

jin choung
07-10-2007, 02:59 AM
For me this goes against freedom of thought and interpretation.

right, but thought about and interpretation of what?

you can only process the information that you have been exposed to. my point is that none of us are exposed to nearly enough to make a qualified decision about MOST THINGS.

most of the facts that we know, we have simply taken by another's authority.

george washington was the first president of the united states. now how much personal research did i really do to verify that?

personally speaking, VERY VERY LITTLE. certainly not going back to original sources.

so while your sentiment about personal, critical thought is ideal, as i said, most facts that we accept as true are taken exactly based merely on the authority of another.

but on the other hand, most facts are of very little personal consequence to our lives.

alas, there are some things that many of us accept with very little study or knowledge but affect the scope, aspect and nature of lives profoundly.

jin

jin choung
07-10-2007, 03:04 AM
perhaps so, but perhaps not. as a Christian, i dont believe in changing the world system. to me, at least conceptually, it is not relevant to my faith. though i care, i know the world is going to hell in a handbasket, with or without the help of religious people. the situation does not need changing, rather our minds need "renewing".

see, this imo, is the proper view.

the idea that this world is not the religious right's world to make right.

this world is going to hell in a hand basket and christians are PILGRIMS.

so what in the world are these political yahoos trying to do? utopia?! that's not what they're supposed to be doing. PILGRIMS. in the world but not of it. why? cuz the world is not theirs. at least not before "all heck breaks loose".

conversion and proselityzing is one thng. legislating mere morality is utter ludicrousity.

jin

jin choung
07-10-2007, 03:12 AM
education is the key to separating us further from our animalistic instincts, IT IS a critical element of evolution.

y'know, i used to believe this... that we are meant to somehow transcend... but evolution ever only produces animals.

i think we are always gonna be nothing more than dressed up animals driven by the impulses that have ever driven us.

everything about humanity and civilization is probably reducible to a few key impulses including as you say herd mentality, also the powerful drive to attract a mate and survival. and this includes scientific enlightenment, art, etc etc.

and i can almost hear the fundy rush to proclaim "see?! see what evolution does to thought?!".... :)

jin

ben martin
07-10-2007, 07:39 AM
Religion = The men search to find God. Men to God relation/connection seek.
Man will never find God based on its own efforts but God can revel Himself to men!

Dear Lightwaver friends, I read this thread since the beginning and despite my early intervention I would like to let you with this idea.

I'm 40 years old and like many others I have my part of search not only to understand God but also the Universe surrounding us.

I spent some long years reading and studying the bible (with proper theology complements).
I also read Carl Sagan, Hubert Reeves, Stephen Hawing and some others because I'm a science lover.
In fact, recently I saw an excellent video documentary that raises new (old) possibilities.
At a point they talk (based on scientific observations) that matter vibrates and seems to disappear in the time-line to reappear again (vibrating).

To explain better picture this:
A bicycle wheel horizontally mounted in a support with a white mark in the black tire.
If you spin the wheel fast enough the white mark seems to be in front of you all the time… now gather other observers around it and don't be surprised if they also claim to see the white mark permanently in front of them, like you do!
This simple exercise explains theoretic ideas about how the matter (represented by the white mark on the tire) can be (co-exist) in multiple places at "same" time (not exactly same time… of course).

To some of you the important issue is to find clear prove/evidence that God exists.
To me, this is not possible, not at this time anyway but there are certain signals in the Human history that shouldn't be ignored (but I won't refer to them right now because it would extend this to pages).

The fact is that the human race has this deep need to believe in something bigger that can give meaning to all the hopes. There are several justifications to the spirit energy life form and to the unseen.
Anyway, some things I know, my vision only allow me to see a small range from the light specter; my ears a small part of the frequencies range and all my other senses a small part of what exists.
It's a fact that much more exists up and down those scales and just because we can't see/sense/feel them it does not mean they are not there.

(This is only for question proposes not a statement!)
And if the universe is a living and omniscient being?
The universe can be God (the same one that inspired men religions).
Like minuscule cells we can be part of God and have a job to do.
We are indeed minuscule particles of dust compared to the universe.
What we achieved so far trying to understand it is glorious simply because the universe surpasses us billions of times in many ways, but this leads us to the next question:

How can we, finite, mortal beings desire to understand something that claims to be infinite and eternal?
Can the dust of sand understand the universe or is the dust sand simply part of it?
We believe (till now) that we are beginning to understand the universe but are we really doing so?? How do the physic laws behave in a black hole??
Can we truly claim that we know the answer to this or are we simply using our observations to make conclusions based on the laws we believe we discover so far?
And if those laws are not absolutely right and have lacunas?
What other results would we understand and reach?

Someone once told me:
When a man touches something new it's unavoidable that he changes all of it feet its desires!

Maybe he are doing exactly this with God idea, we simple are trying to submit God to our image and laws!

I don't know if God exists but this I know;
I try to do what I believe is right and share with others to understand what they believe in so we can mutual enriching ourselves.
I know I feel much better in the end of the day doing good things to people because without them this world would be void and senseless!

Isn't precisely this what all religions claim to teach?

One day when my time comes I don't know if something else is expecting somewhere out there but I prefer to observe what is right hopping for eternity and be remembered as a decent person, than do what is wrong and create anarchy and empty feelings in people hearts!
This brings a bonus attached, I feel good this way and in peace with myself and again when my day comes I hope to feel that my job was done and if there is a God and an eternal live somewhere I'm sure I've done everything I could to deserve it!
Dear Lightwave friends, isn't what really matters in the end?

Much genocide, bad things all have been and still are done in God's name but is "He" really present and approving such things or are they simply men desires?
The plagues, the floods described in the old scriptures; Its so easy to forget the good things and claim about those bad ones but remember, nobody doubts that men wrote all the "so claimed holly" books and when man touches something new (even if, somehow, God inspired it)… its unavoidable that men turn things to feet its needs!

Take care, be an open mind person and do not judge what you don't fully understand - like I won't!!

God (or whatever you like) bless you!

ben martin
07-10-2007, 07:54 AM
Errata:

Someone once told me:
When a man touches something new it's unavoidable that he changes all of it feet its desires!


It should be:
When a man touches something new it's unavoidable that he changes all of it TO FIT its desires!

)… its unavoidable that men turn things to feet its needs!

It should be:
)… it's unavoidable that men turn things to FIT its needs!


I only noticed these errors (and i know that there are much more) 5 minutes after posting it… unfortunately the administrator only gives 5 min to edit.

Again, many thanks!

2BitSculptor
07-10-2007, 12:48 PM
If the first wave of Jesus followers had in fact lived according to his teachings, Christianity would never have evolved into what it is today.And most likely would have disappeared in just a couple generations.

SBowie
07-10-2007, 01:28 PM
My sister tells me this. My brother-in-law who has been a theology student for 20 years or more tells me this.Both quite wrong, of course - at least as far any claim that such a view has a biblical basis. Doubtless the theology student knows this ... they're usually more knowledgeable (and a lot more skeptical) than you'd give them credit for -- but you'd have to ask specific questions to get a straight answer.

Scholars of many stripes are well aware that what passes for Christianity and the original thing as evidenced by either the pages of history or the bible are two very different things. Ask him what the Bible itself actually says about hell, rather than what dross accumulated over the centuries from outside and ecclesiastical sources. You can find reasonably decent coverage of the subject from just about any standard reference, even Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_in_Christian_beliefs#Words_in_the_Bible_trans lated_as_.22hell.22).


This is a prime example of why I don't believe in this particular version of God. It's... insane.Indeed. Here's a more detailed treatise on the subject that came up near the top of a very cursory Google search. I only glanced through it quickly, have no idea on the bona fides of the author, but overall it seems consistent with countless widely respected authorities on the subject. Even if he's a loony, his sources are well known and respected (you'll find much the same admissions in countless scholarly works):

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/TheBibleHell.html#TheBibleHell

As I said, theologians have know (and mostly admitted) for a very long time that these notions are insupportable - but they are deeply entrenched, and many religions grant equal validity to ecclesiastical sources over scriptural and historical ones. So, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on how you define "Christian." Even Ghandi recognized that, stating "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Smart fellow ...

SBowie
07-10-2007, 01:31 PM
If the first wave of Jesus followers had in fact lived according to his teachings, Christianity would never have evolved into what it is today.And most likely would have disappeared in just a couple generations.Actually, within the limits of human foibles, for a hundred years or so they didn't do too badly ... but before much more time went by the corruption predicted before the turn of the first century had kicked in, gathered support by the wealthy and powerful, and has prospered virulently ever since.

jameswillmott
07-10-2007, 05:31 PM
actually, one thing that you fundys should latch on too is abiogenesis.

as i said, once you have DNA, the 2nd law thing is out the window.

but where did dna come from? how do you go from non-life to life?

NO SCIENTIST KNOWS THE ANSWER TO THIS. nobody. it's completely shocking but true.

sure, they have "organic compounds" and such but nobody really has any clue how you go from non-life to life, even at the most fundamental level.

and certainly, no one can recreate non-life to life in a test tube.

although you lose the evolution argument, abiogenesis is much more friendlier to your cause.

but if history of science is any precedent, perhaps not for long....

jin

Evolution doesn't disprove God, I don't understand why people think the two are mutually exclusive...

SBowie
07-10-2007, 09:02 PM
(Aren't we just a smidgen OT here?)

I wouldn't like to be that harsh about someone's convictions ... whether I agree with them or not; but here's another way to look at it:

Genesis 1:1, 2 describes the creation of the stars, galaxies, and solar system. Now pay close attention -- according to this account, these events precede the beginning of the first "day." Only at verse 3 and onward does the reader encounter the beginning and passage of the first temporal unit recorded as a "day" of creation.

(Btw, as in English, the words for "day" used throughout the Bible frequently cover periods far longer than 24 hours. As a matter of fact, the end of the seventh "day" of Genesis is not recorded, leading many - including the apostle Paul, among other notables - to conclude that it continues on, despite the undeniable passing of many thousands of years until now.) Regardless, verses 1 and 2 describe things already accomplished earlier ... so the earth could really be 4 billion years old, or the universe many times that, without any conflict as far as that takes us.

Ain't this fun?

jin choung
07-10-2007, 09:03 PM
james,

evidently, it perturbs ranger's sensibilities. never claimed that it did disprove.

heck, it is IMPOSSIBLE to disprove God.

but some fundys believe six days + "begats" = 10k cosmos and no evoltion mentioned.

-------------------------------------------------

meg,

i understand your objection but i also understand the logic behind salvation through faith through Christ tenet.

God is PERFECT. every single human, no matter how noble or good or philanthropic is sinful.

God cannot abide by sin. not even the tiniest amount. He cannot ACCEPT IT.

so the only way to be accepted by God is to have your sins completely eradicated. and the Christian message says that the established mechanism for this is Christ.

rail at it as you will... but to me, it is at least logical.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

what is NOT logical is the whole idea of FAITH. simple belief, they say, is not enough.

so WHY NOT make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that there indeed DOES EXIST a God and the nature of our God is such and so and we can choose to FOLLOW OR REJECT.

why must the matter of simple existence and nature be in doubt?!

many of the faithful may think that the answer is clear but those who jump to an easy answer don't understand the objection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

a thought i've had about fundys and abortion:

do unborn babies go to heaven or hell? some theologians believe in the "age of accountability", that before a certain age, everyone goes to heaven because they were not cognizant enough about sin to have made a meaninful choice.

(of course, that doesn't cover original sin but advocates for "age of accountability" says that God basically lets it slide)

anyhoo, even IF a fetus is a human being, if they are guaranteed heaven and an eternity of bliss vs. being born and perhaps turning away and risking hell... geez, i really don't see what the issue would be.

jin

jin choung
07-10-2007, 09:06 PM
we are profoundly off topic.

but others have brought it up and most people seem to be earnest and polite so a college night style bull session is not without its pleasures....

jin

faulknermano
07-10-2007, 10:20 PM
Both quite wrong, of course - at least as far any claim that such a view has a biblical basis.

i think you and megalodon are missing an important aspect of this, or not asking why it is so.

isnt the reason why you are "saved by faith" is because of the Christian belief that no one can be good enough to be "saved by works"? - the seemingly insane law of God - insane because no one is capable of obeying it, and yet it is there.

i agree with Megalodon's exclamations of how insane it all sounds. however, i subscribe to the Christ's offer for salvation because i acknowledge in myself that i cannot be good enough for a perfect God. i am being controversial when i say this, but human goodness and not always equal to goodness in God's eyes. it may be at some times, but usually not always. "goodness" as we often define it, doesnt automatically account for anything in God's eyes. so, a less-than-stellar Christian (like me, for instance) in humanistic moral judgment might be bad, but God may see me differently (i would like the hope so). how would anyone know what goes on in my mind? according to Christ, for example: do you not murder if you even hate your brother? meaning hate is like murder. to us men, it may seem distant, and more of an analogy. to God, it is more likely it is not just an analogy, but something more real to him than it is to us. maybe because if you saw through men and their thoughts (like God), you would see things differently, and you maybe you would regard hate truly as murder. but as men, we cant. so we judge based outward behavior, which is understandable so as long as we know that there is a bigger picture, and we cant fully grasp it. but it also tells us not to hate, and to regard hate as murder, just as God sees it. though we do not have the faculties of determining other people's thoughts, we at least have the ability to check ourselves. hence the emphasis on "judge not that you may not be judged".

Christ's words about hate is murder tells me a bit of something about God, which is the emphasis not on simply observable behavior, but the innerworkings of our minds or hearts. that is why i dont care about ghandi saying christians are unlike Christ. as a christian, i believe i will be judged by God by his standards not by humanistic (or human) standards of "goodness".

edit: so if i will be judged by his standards, dont go and argue in human grounds and tell me i will fail because i am not "perfect". obviously no one has a hold of this, especially one who believes in his own righteousness. that is partly why, on these points, i acknowledge Christ as my God, and of course, my Savior. truly, i need saving. (and if ever you meet me personally, you'd understand why. :D)

faulknermano
07-10-2007, 10:44 PM
what is NOT logical is the whole idea of FAITH. simple belief, they say, is not enough.

i dont see it as a problem of logic because you would have to first establish some facts before you can make logical process.

much of the questions of faith is based on accepting certain things first, like do you believe in a historical Jesus who lived 2000years ago? do you believe he preached what the bible said he preached? do you believe that he was put to death and all that?

then here's the harder and trickier part: do you believe in the resurrection? do you believe the Jesus Christ was actually God AS HE CLAIMED HE WAS SO? do you believe that what he said about saving men from sins and from hell was the truth, as if that really happened in the background, somehow invisibly? (just like i'd tell you that i jogged the other day - would you believe i'm telling you the truth, even if you're thousands of miles away?)

the first questions simply ask if you believe in so-far-known history about Christ. and second questions direct his significance from the point of view of "taking up your cross" (or not). in other words, do you think Christ was telling the truth about himself?

jin choung
07-10-2007, 11:11 PM
right, the proper decision is to take up and follow

or NOT.

it is about following and accepting.

WHY IS THE FACT IN QUESTION? why is it necessary that WHAT YOU ARE FOLLOWING is not a certainty?

as i predicted, you don't get the crux of my objection.

why isn't the fact of God and His identity as plain as the sky so that only a crazy person would argue it?

jin

ben martin
07-11-2007, 04:32 AM
Again, I simply don't trust the veracity of the Bible.

I believe I can help you with this:

The Bible (God message) is truly simple:

I am the Lord thy God.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol.
Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God.
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
Honor thy Mother and Father.
Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.

Because no men could/can ever comply these commandments to reach the grace of salvation by himself, God in his wisdom created an alternative plan:
He will become a man and comply the Ten Commandments himself and decided to take all men guilty (the ones that ask him to do so)!

That's why Jesus came and followed the commandments.
More:
When people complain to him about the impossibilities to reach salvation following the 10 commandments he replied:

"THE FIRST OF ALL THE COMMANDMENTS IS, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt LOVE THE LORD THY GOD with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And THE SECOND is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." Mark 12:29- 31

How can this be wrong and bad to the human kind??

Dear Lightwaver friends, Jesus commandments are in fact the resume of the previous ten!
With a bonus, Jesus paid the price for all men that believe in THE plan.

All the rest (the Bible) can be questionable and not clear, men wrote it after all (inspired by God or not) and everything can be questionable!

Evolution is a fact that science knows. We can observe species new adaptations due to our pollution actions. For instance some frogs are now hermaphrodite in some areas due to the pesticides we are launching in the water. Isn't this evolution or genetic adaptation? So it exists and it's real but evolution does not contradict in any manner a global act of creation like the big-bang (or any other theory).

Bible words:
To God 1 day is like a 1000 years and 1000 years like a day!

So if the Bible states this… then the creation seven days can in fact be seven periods of time!
Keep in mind that nothing is textual and there are not such thing as an absolute true, not even to the law, God (himself) found a solution to save men from the Ten Commandments (law) impossibilities!
So what we believe is true today can change radically if some new data is added or removed from it, we are in constant movement like our concepts and perception of things!

Many thanks for reading.

Matt Buxton
07-11-2007, 05:15 AM
Easy Tiger,

This thread has been hijacked i say

oh and on a literal proving or disproving things note, you cannot use content to prove the veracity of the whole, i mean cmon look at this with a shred of logic
someone says, for example Book A is a bit fanciful,

only a moron (no offence) would say "ah but in Book A it says this"

the other obvious point is that of course if you're the kind of person who believes the content you will never doubt the veracity of the whole thing...read into that what you like

well i think the best course of action is to agree to disagree because you will be banging your head against a wall otherwise

oh and this thread should be closed its strayed too far

SBowie
07-11-2007, 06:42 AM
i think you and megalodon are missing an important aspect of this, or not asking why it is so.It's true I didn't address the subject you raise, but with respect - that's not quite the same as 'missing' it. I limited my remark to a single topic raised in a preceding post. Honestly, your post contains nothing related to that subject; you're on a separate topic. So forgive me for being pedantic, but I didn't really miss the point you address - I wasn't addressing it (nor an infinite number of other topics.)

(That said, obviously discussions of this sort tend to turn into giant hairballs, threads shooting off in all directions .... so I understand why someone might run things together mentally a bit. No biggie ....)

Stooch
07-11-2007, 04:47 PM
y'know, i used to believe this... that we are meant to somehow transcend... but evolution ever only produces animals.
jin

and that is precisely what we are. animals. the only thing that we have over other animals - is our ability to retain and reuse information, instead of learning it from scratch every time. instincts got the rest of the animal kingdom only so far, thats why i stress education so much.

we are obviously not going to evolve much physically wise. other then becoming more frail and fat from not having to do so much physical labor (on average). our only evolutionary path is all about the mind and how well we can use it in todays environment. i believe that the most intelligent examples of this species are the ones that will be the dominant contributor to the genetic pool.

hopefully.

faulknermano
07-12-2007, 05:50 AM
one more from me:




why isn't the fact of God and His identity as plain as the sky so that only a crazy person would argue it?

jin


you mean like glowing stuff, halos, lightning, thunder, ethereal horses and spirits moving about?

i mean even philosophically, i dont see how God can be any more "plain" as the sky. if he was, i'm sure you'd believe in his existence, as you believe in the sky's. but could you really worship him? i doubt it. part of faith is indeed, as it was written, is believing in things not seen. but i doubt it is the reason that God, to many, is so hard to believe.

it reminds me of the bible story of the teachers of the law asking Jesus for a sign after he fed four thousand. if God did a "miracle" today (as i believe he does), it's often explained away by "science". like a "miraculous" healing of a cancer suddenly explained by medicine, as if that invalidated God's work. it puzzles me. throughout time we are shown people who "claim" God's work in their lives and we invalidate them by calling them nuts, or that "God" is merely a chemical in the brain (which, btw, is not a bad idea: but does not in anyway conflict with my belief). naturally, if God shows up as some sort of spectacular phenomenon it'll be explained away and attributed to "natural causes".

so, your question has always been nonsensical. not because it cannot be answered, but the answer is always disqualified.



Again, I simply don't trust the veracity of the Bible. I've seen too much information concerning its construction and there are simply too many items which are questionable.

that's fine. but if you're going to look at Christ, there is no other document in the world thats more respected and authoritative than the Bible. *reasonably*, the Bible is the best reference, SO FAR, for the teachings of Christ and his life, if you're interested in learning Christ. Remember that we all form some sort of personal threshold for reasonable doubt or belief. there are older documents apart from Bible that we, sometimes without questioning, accept as solid, too.

i, too, have my own conflicts with the Bible, especially those that concern cultural differences of a particular time within the bible and modern culture (since the bible is a compilation of writings spanning many centuries). but that does not, for me, invalidate the other fundamental ideas contained inside.

AbnRanger
07-12-2007, 12:01 PM
what i AM saying is that it is stupid to argue with one another on the basis of THERMODYNAMICS because we don't know crap all about it.

i'm saying idiots shouldn't ARGUE based on facts they have no real grasp of/access to.

is that any clearer?You just made my case about Intellectual laziness. If you don't KNOW (because you have thoroughly gone over the evidence PRESENTED ON BOTH SIDES), how can you be in ANY position to make dogmatic claims about Evolution's credibility?

That's my question to Stooch, in regard to this topic...Stooch, you don't know jack...you're afraid to address the questions I asked you. You are just a Parrot...mindlessly repeating the ridicule you heard in the classroom and in the Liberal Media. That's the extent of your knowledge. You know that "Evolution is FACT" like I know every tool in Maya.

AbnRanger
07-12-2007, 12:12 PM
religious ideologies is the most often used enabler for genocide and mass murder. to me this is a very prevalent problem throughout the world and accounts to much more than 1% of our worlds problems TODAY.

Greed is an extension of our instinct for self preservation. while it is a problem, it is not a baseless ideology.

yes hatred is a problem for our species. and interestingly enough, religion often finds itself as a conduit for this hatred, just like a gun or any other weapons. infact, i think that religion is more dangerous than any weapon because it can be used as a catalyst to unleash the weapons in the first place. i think that education is our salvation.
Once again,...you keep showing how little information resides inside that "titanium cranium" of yours.

Get your stinking facts straight before you rant! It is Atheistic and/or Secular Humanistic regimes such as Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. of the 20th Century that have accounted for the greatest amount of genocide and carnage in ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY!!!
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm

Keep opening your mouth...you and Neverko. You make yourself look more and more foolish after confronted with the simple facts.

AbnRanger
07-12-2007, 12:24 PM
again. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CREATIONISM. sorry for yelling.

but there is none. you keep on talking about it but all you have to show for it are some writings by ignorant people from back in the day when the world was flat. evolution is all around you. its in your DNA, its in the fossils, its in the species and subspecies that are all over the world. I am all for religion being taught in schools IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE.

when you have evidence, you are teaching. when you dont, you are preaching.

your attempt to attack me by using the maya thread just shows everyone how desperate you are. you are grasping for straws man.No evidence? Once again...

Did You Know .... that most branches of modern science were founded by Creationist Scientists? Here's just a few...[cough, cough]...um...Illiterates.
Physics—Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
Chemistry—Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology—Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology—Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics—Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler
For a list of some current and very distinguished ....uh, hum Illiterates I mean, uh...Scientists, who favor Creation: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Hom...ios/default.asp

Did You Know...that the Fossil Record is an embarrassment to Evolutionists?
Colin Patterson-Doctrinaire Evolutionist and Senior Paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History (which houses the world's largest Fossil collection-over 60 million specimens) candidly confessed, " If I knew of any Evolutionary transitions—fossil or living—I would have certainly included them in my book, Evolution
.... For 20yrs I thought I was working on Evolution, but there is not one thing I KNEW about it. So for the last few weeks, I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. The question is: 'Can you tell me anything you know about Evolution...any ONE thing that is true? I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History...and the only answer I got...was Silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago (a very prestigious body of Evolutionists) and all I got was Silence...for a long time, and eventually one person who said,"Yes, I do know ONE thing...IT OUGHT NOT TO BE TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL."—Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws (2003) http://www.equip.org/hanksays/evolutionwars.asp

Did You Know....that Evolution is rabidly Racist. In the "Desent of Man," Darwin specualted "At some future period—not very distant, as measured by centuries—the CIVILIZED RACES of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the SAVAGE RACES throughout the world." He also subtitled his Magnum Opus with the words,"The preservation of FAVORED RACES."
Thomas Huxely (the man most responsible for advancing Darwinian Doctrine) argued that, "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal—still less, the superior—of the White man. It is simply incredible to think that he will be able to compete successfully, with his bigger brain than his smaller-jawed rival in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts, and not by bites." It's important to note that some of the Crusaders and others who used force to further their creeds, did so in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ. But Racism is fully compatible with Darwinism's survival of the fittest dogma.

Think About This: Within your own body lies a massive Galaxy—as it were—trillions, of Intelligent Organisms (cells), and within these Intelligent Organisms lies a blueprint (DNA) of an even Greater Intelligent Organism than themselves—You. These organisms cannot perceive your existence with their natural faculties (yet you transcend them all)...does that then mean YOU don't exist?
Imagine some of those cells obstinately sneering,"Huh, where's ______ (your name)? I can't see 'em anywhere, so we're free to do 'our own thing.' To heck with those FUNDAMENTALIST instructions stored in DNA. We're going by our own rules!...DNA is for Idiots!" After all, if he REALLY existed, he wouldn't let bad things happen, right? (don't we inflict pain on our bodies whenever we exercise, have surgery, undergo chemotherapy, to either strengthen or prevent further loss?) There are indeed cells like that within your own body...right now...they are called "Free Radicals"... the early beginnings of Cancer Cells.

Within you also lies vast organizational structures of Communication (Nervous System), Transportion (Circulatory System), Logistics/Sustenance (Digestive System), and Defenses (Lymphatic and Immune System). These mirror similar stuctures in our world today. How then can we plausibly exclude the possibility that there's more to our existence than what can be perceived with our physical senses.

When riding in a Lexus, I admire the level of craft and engineering design involved in producing refined machine of this level. If I ask my friend where he got his, imagine the absurdity if he were to tell me..."Uh, it took several years, but somehow, it just transformed itself out of nothing in my back yard....and the next thing I knew....I had a new Lexus; chrome wheels and all!"
The Human Body is a million times more intricate, and amazing. So why, then, do skeptics instinctively know the automobile was designed and crafted, but think the Human Body is a result of a mathematically IMPOSSIBLE (Law of Statistics/Probability) accident? Do a little research on the subject of the Anthropic Principle, and Irreducible Complexity (Darwin even stated that if such life forms were found that had no possiblity of gradual modifications over time..i.e. Evolving, that it would destroy his theory) and give your most convincing arguement before everyone here as to why it's irrelevant and how Darwinian Evolution can account for this...IF YOU DARE.
Most of you just simply presumptuously dismiss any scientific arguement contrary to Darwinian Evolution outright...without ever OBJECTIVELY examining the contents therein. This is both intellectually lazy and dishonest. Creation's strongest defenders are former atheists who, unlike yourselves, ventured to research the matter carefully...usually in an attempt to thoroughly discredit Creationists claims.
Lee Strobel was an investigative reporter, and former legal editor at the Chicago Tribune, and this is exactly what he set out to do, before succumbing to the strong evidence for a Creator .
Josh McDowell, author of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" was another case in point.
You've been wrong more than once in your life. So have I. In light of that, if I am wrong...I suffer no greater consequences. However, if you are wrong...the consequences are ENORMOUS! Therefore, you had better make sure you have investigated these matters more thoroughly and carefully than you have to date.

AbnRanger
07-12-2007, 01:06 PM
Actually...I apologize to you Stooch, Neverko, Toby, Jin, and anyone else I may have taken personal shots at.

That's not proper for a Christian to do. It's the deception I'm after, not you personally. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish the person from the ideals they project.

If I can address the issue about not seeing blatantly visible manifestations of GOD today:
Throughout Biblical history, GOD has visibly revealed himself at various times...most notably in the person of Jesus Christ, who is indisputably a Historical person, and performed paramount miracles (including raising 3 people from the dead on separate occasions). Even his blood-enemies acknowledged this (they just didn't believe he was the Messiah they were looking for), in the Talmud.
The evidence for this is overwhelming and would stand any standard of jurisprudence.
However, we have "clues" why we don't see his manifest presence 24/7...
Deuteronomy 8:2-"Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands."

And in John 14:21, Jesus states: "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

I have seen to be true, personally...and have a powerful testimony, but that's a matter to dicuss via PM probably.