Please tell me there are more Atheists out there...

Remove all ads!

Susipaisti:
Religion qualifies as a questionable theory in your mind because you're an agnostic. Well, that depends on what you mean by religion and questionable, but I think that responded to your general gist.
The Judges text doesn't say anything about human sacrifices, they were just told to kill people as part of an act of war, there was no 'sacrifice' involved.
You mean the book of Numbers for your other citation. These also aren't sacrificed. Setting something asside for the Lord is not the same as killing it. The entire tribe of the Levites was set aside for the Lord, but they obviously weren't sacrificed.
As for homosexuals,

What Darwin obsereved is now called micro-evolutioion and is generally accepted, but macro-evolution is different. Wolves and Chihuahuas are still the same species, and its been more than a few generations.
As for Genesis, oh boy, I have been wanting to bring it up for some time, but never found the right place. Here goes:
The hebrew word used for day in Genesis can refer to either a 24 hour period or, more commonly but mor lately, from sunrise to sunset. This is consistent and undebatable, but irrelevent because:
If you actually bothered to study Hebrew enough to read Genesis in it, you will quickly realize that the Genesis 1 list is not a chronological list at all, it is categorical. This means that the order, and even the groupings, of Genesis 1 have no impact on what order they occured in at all. The entire 'long-day'/'short-day'/'six day' debate is meaningless and void! THE BIBLE DOES NOT CONTRADICT EVOLUTION, NOR DOES EVOLUTION CHALLENGE THE BIBLE! [Unless you include the complete omission of God from the creation process, but evolution is a scientific theory and should not point at any driving spiritual or religious force. Science is about how, not why.]
Whew, that was fun.
Sarevok:
Great, glad to know. Care to specify as to why?

 

NOG:

My Bible is in my language, a 1992 edition, and I'll translate the passage in question to English here: "All men and those women who have lain with a man must be declared as a tithe/sacrifice to the Lord and be slain." It refers to the people of Gilead Jabes, who hadn't participated in the vengeance on the tribe of Benjamin. Sure, it speaks nothing of an altar or such, but a sacrifice nonetheless.

I'm curious as to those who are "set aside for the Lord." Yes, the text does not specifically mention them getting killed, but what exactly is being done to them? And if you have an explanation, I'd like to know how you came by it.

Also it should be noted that the Corinthians quote is not the word of Christ, but a disciple's.

I'm well aware that dogs and wolves still are the same species. But isn't macro-evolution essentially the same thing as micro, just on a larger scale? The idea being that when two bloodlines of the species drift far enough apart genetically, they can no longer be categorized as the same species?

I probably shouldn't get into macro-evolution and fossil findings too much, 'cos it's a bit off topic already.

 

Someone asked where the atheists went, and guess what? I'm back! I tried to stay out of the homosexuality argument, because not only is it offtopic, but it pisses me off that people call it an illness, etc.

I thought that the Bible says that God created everything in 7 days, and that he made humans exactly as they are now. How does that not contradict the theory of evolution and the theory that the world is 5 billion years old? If you explain, perhaps it will make more sense...

Thank you, Fel. Perfectly stated. Abnormal does not mean wrong! Are short statured people wrong, or bad, or broken? No, they are simply different that average height people. They are still people.

 

No, I believe that Darwin also refered to Macro-Evolution as well - although not by name of course. I believe he wrote a book about the origins of the human speices, although I can't remember its' exact name. Prehaps it was just a paper he wrote...

The most facinating thing about the whole evolution debate is that we see it happening right before our very eyes. We even have recorded texts of it. The quote above reminded me of a newspaper article I read about 1/2 year back - "The Evolution of Religions" I believed it was titled. I've regretted using that paper to light the fire place with ever since, but it was a cold night, so who can blame me. Anyway, it really got me thinking. Religions have undergone more rapid evolution than most speices have ever seen - and I'm talking both Macro- and Micro-Evolution. We've seen them progress from worshipping nature and animals, to multi-pathogens, to the current popular mono-pathogen. And even on a smaller scale things are evolving. 50 years ago you'd be very hard pressed to see any religous person say what was said in the quote above, and now it's a common belief. Who knows, in another 50 years prehaps they'll be saying that the Big Bang and Macro-Evolution are true, and that those before them just mis-interpreted the bible

The above paragraph isnt' meant to be insulting in any shape, manner or form. Infact, the evolution of religons is exactly what I was talking about in my first post here, a few pages back. This constant process of questioning and changing is exactly what has kept religion alive to the present day.

[Edit]

There are many different interpretations of what these 'days' are. Many people beleive the day is just a metiphoric term, and that they are actaully great expanses of time. Some others claim that we are still in the 7th day, and that the evolution that we are seeing is really god just finishing the fine touches on his creations.

Yes, and I know I said I'd stay out of this topic. I obviously failed my will save, didn't I

 

That's part of why we keep seeing it in these threads, but again, we don't want it monopolizing the thread either.

Judges 21:11 talks of execution of Prisoners of War, who were considered sinners under the Law.

The 32 set aside, I didn't look further to see what was done with them. I have to get up again in about four hours, so I don't have time to look at that...

While I don't have reference to eating pork outside the Doctrine and Covenents (LDS specific scripture), the reference to Homosexuality requires some logic.

1: Jesus said: Thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thy heart, mind and Strength. (Matthew 22:37)

2: Jesus said: If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)

3: God forbids Homosexuality (Leviticus 18: 22)

4: If we love God, we must not engage in homosexual acts (2 and 3)

5: Jesus forbid homosexuality (1 and 4)

Actually, the reference to stoning was a commandment from God for sins. Perhaps without the Higher priesthood, there was no ability to minister unto the sinners that they may repent of more grievous sins, therefore it was better that they die rather than continue in dangerous and forbidden paths.

All it says is that God created the Heavens and the Earth. It does not say that the earth is the centre of the universe.

I do not address more practical theories, like electricity, the internal combustion engine and the like. I'm talking about the more complex stuff like evolution, sub atomic patricles and the like. What use does the average person have with particles smaller than electrons? Likewise, is there anything really important to the everyday life of the average person on the street contained in the Theory of evolution?

It just seems that people who are anti church seem to use these theories as ammuntion against religion.

For the most part, it succeeds, but Evolution doesn't seem to be satisfactorily explained...

I think that's what he observed, but it does not follow that man evolved from some primitive primate that wouldn't class as human...

Okay, I have the king James version where the term sacrifice is not used. Simply a command to execute them. Sacrifice is a completely different thing. I would be skeptial of any further quotes from that translation of the Bible if such a drastic change in meaning is implied...

Correct, it is that Apostle Paul. However after Christ's ascention, the apostles were given the authority to speak on His behalf, and their words were law.

The term I have heard when creation is discussed in my religion is "creative periods". the actual length of these creative periods is not specified, and may also vary.

The Lord did not forbid using your left hand to write or eat or whatever (as long as whatever isn't forbidden in the first place). Homosexuality is expressly forbidden.

Well, people wouldn't accept that it was a choice, therefore it must be an illness.

In fact, the paragraph that you wrote would likely explain the wide differecnes between varied branches of the same basic faith. some believe that baptism is by immersion, others think that just sprinkling with Holy water is sufficient. some require those in authority to remain celebate, other require them to be married. While it has made an attempt to keep the Almighty God relevent to today's people, it also may discredit Him to those that will not believe. Perhaps it would be better if the old teachings were still taught (the wisdom of Proverbs, the commandments and the like), and look at the application of the wisdom of the Holy scriptures...

 

I dug up an older version from the seventies and that doesn't speak of a sacrifice either, merely killing.

However the newer edition is the official translation that the Lutherian church in Finland uses. It is said to be more accurate, translated from older transcriptions than the formerly used copies-of-copies-of-copies-of-copies.

For the record, the text doesn't suggest the people were sacrificed on an altar through a ceremony. It says the act of killing them was a sacrifice to Lord.

By the same logic Christians must not eat pork unless someone presents us a quote of Jesus specifically saying it's okay. Like so:

1: Jesus said: Thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thy heart, mind and Strength. (Matthew 22:37)
2: Jesus said: If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)
3: God forbids eating pigs (Leviticus 11: 1-8)
4: If we love God, we must not eat pigs (2 and 3)
5: Jesus forbid eating pigs (1 and 4)

Circumcision is another such issue. To my knowledge Jesus never disputes the necessity of circumcision. Yet plenty of Christians leave their sons' weeners alone.

Likewise, what use does the common man have for the knowledge of bacteria smaller than the eye can see? Couldn't they just be told to avoid sick people, carcasses etc., and swallow a shiny magic bead the medicine man gives them?

Forgive the sarcasm there, but how would *not* knowing something be beneficial? Of course an information overload is not beneficial, but that can be achieved by just spending a lot of time on the internet and by the telly, without receiving any *useful* information at all. Education does not mean filling one's head with useless trivia.

Not educating people on the findings of science only leads to having a horde of ignorant people. If the inner workings of microwave ovens or combustion engines had never been explained to people, we'd all just think it's magic or divine intervention.

If the information that contradicts religion was just kept under wraps, just think of the uproar that would occur when the theories would all be complete and brought out all at once. If one day it could be conclusively proven that God can't exist, and people would have to realize they've all been living a lie for thousands of years, and that information suggesting it had been around for a long time already but kept from them...things would get pretty apocalyptic right then and there.

Isn't it better to make the findings public as we go along, let people know what's going on?

 

That's what I am addressing. People get a theory like Evolution, then make assumptions that they are not entitled to, and make asses of themselves provoking religious folk by saying their beliefs are false. The majority of us don't really need the details of how a microwave over works, simply an owner's manual to tell you how long to put stuff in for and how to care for it will suffice. Someone making or repairing them does need that information, but most of us don't. As for bacteria, doesn't that which is necessary to protect and preserve health take a higher priority over the little details over what bacteria are and what they look like under a microscope? Sure this information ought to be available to the curious from reputable sources, but in most cases, the details aren't important. Likewise, how God created the Earth is not as important as how we live while we're on it.

Also, I remember hearing something about how Jesus lifted the requirement of Circumcision and the prohibitiuon of pork in the new testament. This however did not lift prohibitions on fornication, adultery, homosexuality, beastiality and incest. I recall some of the feelings he expressed for children, and I don't thik he'll go easy on an unrepentant pedophile either...

 

The theory of Evolution has always been just that, a theory. The reason that it is commonly taught, is because it is the currently accepted theory by the sceintific world - mainly because no one has been able to, using sceintific means, disprove the theory, unlike all the other theories on the origins of different speices and the diversity we see today.

As the subject of evolution has been raised a few times, I'll address that first. Now, there are a few key things that must be realised when discussing evolution. First and most importantly I have mentioned above. Evolution is a sceintific theory - where as religion is not. Why isn't it? I'm glad you've asked! The reason that religion is not a scinetific theory is because it fails to have a way to prove or more importantly disprove it - or to put it another way, it is covered by the "us mortals cannot understand it completely" clause. Until religion is able to produce solid proof, or present a way that the theory can be disproved/proved, it should never be taught in schools - or anywhere else for that matter - as a theory.

Which brings me onto my next point. Why teach things like evolution and how microwaves work to the youth? Well, the simple answer there would be "why not?" The more knowledge people are supplied with on a variety of areas, the better it enables them to make their own educated judgements on the matter. If the Christians version of how life was formed was the only thing that people were taught, then they'd have nothing else to go by. By teaching accepted theories like evolution, it allows people to make informed choices as to what they believe is true.

Similar thing applies with teaching more complex things, like how microwaves work, how bacteria reproduces and lives, or even how to do triganometry. Although this knowledge/skills may not be directly useful in our everyday lives, it does help us think. The more knowledge one has, even if it does not directly relate to the subject, allows them to make more informed descisions, even if it is just to help them understand how complex some things are. But I think I'm repeating myself now - that's the problem with having a 2 hour gap inbetween writting the first half and the second half.

You are never told by any scientist, if you don't believe in evolution you'll spend eternity in constant pain and suffering.

 

um, just for the record (not that i'm really taking a side here), i just thought i'd add that in science, a theory is as high as it gets. There is no such thing as a 'fact' in science. A theory is the closest thing you can get to proof. So, when people say scientific theory it doesn't mean some haphazard guess, it means it's pretty much as close as science can come (at the time).
For example: the theory of gravity. While most people don't deny it's reality, it is still a theory in science.

I'm pretty sure i'm right about this, almost positive... but if i'm not, please correct me.

edit: w00t i got a new gem!!!

 

I do distinctively remember Jesus condemning empty rituals. I'll try to find a reference to pork (or any "unpure" food) sometime, but I won't believe it until I find it. If anybody has a specific quote, please pitch in.

Rotku, you did it again! What more can I say?

This sounds a bit like a question of semantics, really. The word "theory" can be used for a haphazard guess as well as a widely accepted and satisfyingly proven theory. Such are still called theories probably because science accepts the possibility that former findings and conclusions *can* be questioned in the light of new evidence.

But there are "facts" in science. Just look at mathematics. For example, any formula for determining how large something is. They're conclusively proven.

 

Until someone disproves them. That's the whole point in science. Everything is under constant revision.

But they are not. I know that most people mix it up, but the scientific term for 'guess' is 'hypothesis' or 'idea': Something that needs to be proven.

Phone Tools is right. In science, there is nothing higher than a theory.

 

Woah. I don't choose to breathe, but that doesn't mean I'm sick, does it? I don't choose to be hungry, does that mean I'm sick? It is the same feeling that heterosexuals feel, just directed to a different target.


And there are facts in science. It is a fact that in an airless tube, everything falls at the same rate (9.8 m/s, i think?). A fact is definite, a theory is more than highly likely.

 

Ditto that statement. In science things cannot be proved - to a certain extent - only disproved. You can find more backing for things, re-inforcing the fact that it may be right, but it is never considered a fact, as such. Even the airless tube example isn't a fact - it's just a widely accepted theory throughout the science world. And until it gets disproven, or another 'superior' theory is put in place, that's what it shall remain.

 

Trying to steer this back to the topic at hand...

I suppose one could argue that nothing at all can be proven conclusively. Religion is no different; it's just a belief, an idea, of the "why" of things. It can't be proven to be right.

Getting all philosophical now, was it Descartes with the "I think therefore I am" -thing? That one's own self awareness and therefore existence (in at least *some* form) is the only thing one can be certain of.

For all we know, the whole universe might just be a little marble for some "greater" being (call it a god if you like), and that being and its universe might be insignificant as an ant compared to the next level of greater beings, and so on and so forth. But what's the point in building one's whole life on worshipping those "greater beings" we know nothing about, that we don't even know are really there?

As much as there *could* be something grand out there, I'd rather build my life using the information gathered by my senses - questionable as that too may be, I'll rather trust that than the unknown.

 

Then could there be a "spiritual" sense? That spiritual sence is what tells us of our faith. It is nothing that can be verified by any means other than spiritual. If your own spiritual sense doesn't register this, then you will not likely believe. It is the same thing as you putting a painting in front of me, and I am looking elsewhere, I won't be able to describe the painting. Likewise, you have to be able to spiritually sense the presence of the Holy Ghost. Without that spiritual sense, you won't receive that convincing feeling that God is real.

 

i believe that there's an afterlife. i guess after having it drummed into me as a child it's hard to shake it off. i guess i beleive it because it's easier than believing that good guys don't get rewarded and bad guys don't get punished in the end. i guess i believe in a god or, rather, an omnipotent/omnipresent force.

but i don't believe in all the bureacracy (religions, etc.) I'm not saying that religions are bad. I just cant be bothered with them. I believe God can hear me wherever I am, so I don't want to have to waste an hour on Sunday listening to a boring old sermon. I guess I'd have a better view of religion if people didn't act so ****ing stupid about it. all the religious wars and such that have occurred throughout history, but that's people. people are flawed, so their creation - religion - is flawed as well. i still believe in god and an afterlifre though.

im not sure if this constitutes an "informed opinion" or whether it's irrational, but that's how i feel.

 

Yes, there could be one. I haven't registered anything like that, but I'm not refusing it with absolute certainty.

I remember reading about an interesting phenomenon. Apparently there's a specific section in the frontal lobe of the brain, that among other things controls some god-related feelings. It has happened that a tumor close to that part of the brain has applied pressure to it, triggering religious visions. Removing the tumor has stopped further visions from coming. This makes me wonder about prophets.

 

Considering the advances in Science, I believe that can be ruled out in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If one of our leaders had such a tumor, it would be made public so that the members could pray for them.

But this spiritual sense is something that must be awakened in a person. Those of you that don't believe just haven't had such experience. My own such sense was dulled for several years, only re-awakened after a death in the family...

 

Bear in mind that medical science can't find a tumor without medical examination. But they are rare as it is, and doubly so with the vision-causing variety. They usually also have other symptoms, such as persistent headaches.

However only a couple of hundred years ago such things were completely unheard of, and that's why I wouldn't rule out the possibility that some of the ancient prophets might have suffered from such an affliction.

Just as a playful thought, one could also argue it is God who puts the tumor there to begin with, for the specific purpose of triggering visions.

I still haven't got off my rear to study the Bible further, I really ought to do that sometime. I'd hate so see this thread die out completely.