Badmovies.org Forum

I know in my prowlings around the Internet, that I have run into people of every belief system, and many with no beliefs at all.  I know that what we believe is a major shaping force in our own self image.  So let me pose to you the most basic question of all:  How did we get here?  Do you believe that mankind was created, or at least, was planned to be here by some supernatural force - be it the God of the Bible, Plato's elusive Prime Mover, or even Great Cthulhu himself?  This answer doesn't rule out evolutionary development, it just addresses whether or not there was any superintending presence behind it.

Or, did we just happen?  Are we, as Darwin envisioned, just a freak genetic accident, a random series of mutations, with no eternal or cosmological significance whatsoever?

Or does thinking about this stuff make your head hurt?

Not trying to open a grand religious flame war, but I am curious as to what most people will answer.  Did we just happen, or were we placed here for a reason?

Since it's my poll, I'll reply first.  I've never tried to hide my faith on this board - I believe that we were designed.  I don't rule out evolution as a means God used to diversify the life he created, but I believe that humanity is unique and special, and was placed here for a reason.

In an absolute sense, everyone should answer "don't know."  None of us know.

Still, I answered "just happened," as I don't see any evidence for the contrary position (though it can't be absolutely ruled out). 

Oh, and Darwin himself might well have voted "don't know" rather than "just happened."

"I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide."--Charles Darwin, 1873

thanks Rev!  Darwin was a wise soul in many ways . . . . I wonder what he would think of what the world has done with his ideas?

When were dead. we'll know. Personally...I dont wanna live my life again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6GzVCYqoyY
I don' wanna live my life again.
I aint kiding. I wanna just go. Why drag sh!t out?  :question:
I aint scairt!  I am Dam ready!   :smile:

RC, there are days I really wish you hadn't deactivated your karma!

Ya know - I would do it all over again.  For all my occasional complaints, I've really had a blest life.

Peace to all!

Thinking about this stuff is kinda fun.  My instincts tell me that we were not created/designed.  This is despite my heart wanting to have something 'else' out there in the world.  I just figure there's so much we don't know about the world that we cannot have the full picture as of yet to conclusively prove one over the other.  So whilst I'm more on the "happened" side I selected 'don't know.'

I guess most of this stems from my lack of distrust of institutionalised religion; how can you believe when there are so many different inconsistent versions of religion.  That and my dabbling in ancient civilisations and myths etc kinda lead me to the ad hoc conclusion that most religions are well told pseudo-histories rather than actual 100% fact.  

I won't bother going into too much detail, but many ancient pre-christian myths seem to follow a similar structure to some biblical stories, so its kinda like they have been co-opted and adapted to suit, kind of like how the English language has taken bits and pieces from other languages to form its own style; its not the original and true language.  

Plus it seemed that the trend 'back in the day' was to give your particular group/people some semi-religious significance to try and give your power legitimacy, such as Virgil's Aeneid which was commissioned to make Romans feel like they were part of something bigger by linking their lineage to Troy, when it was in fact fiction.

Not that I disagree with religion, or discount the possibility of there being more, but science combined with history seem to make a reasonably good case that a specifically Christian version of creation [or any religion for that matter] is probably less likely than the alternative.


I guess I should ask Indy: Whilst you mention you believe we were 'put here for a reason,' you do leave the door open for a not-so-traditional Christian method of creation that involves a bit of evolution.  Given that, how do you justify being such a fervent follower of a particular faith, when even your own opinion seems to diverge from the 'source text'?  I guess I have a hard time giving one particular religion legitimacy over the other since so many are similar, yet slightly different/interpreted differently to the point that you think its truth has been diluted away.

I'm basing this mainly on those stereotypical religious folk who seem to believe that we only go back about 5000 years or so, which I will go out on a limb and assume is not your specific belief.

I suppose I already know the answer based on previous posts in other threads, so there's no need to justify yourself, its just a curious thought that popped into my head.  Its not as on topic either, the question being were we created [not specified by what] vs happening.  

On a side note, is there anyone here who thinks we were created, by aliens?   :teddyr:

My faith is centered around Jesus Christ, and what I believe to be the undeniable historical reality of His resurrection.  If He truly rose from the dead, then He was truly the Son of God.  If He was truly the Son of God, then the rest of the book is true as well.  That being said, there are about a half dozen ways to reconcile the Biblical account in Genesis with what geology tells about the earth - the most basic of which is this: God was trying to explain an incredibly long and complex process to a person who lived and wrote 1400 years before Christ.  He simplified the narrative to match his audience's ability to understand - kind of like one of us explaining how a carburator works to a 4 year old.

I think we just happened.  I'm an atheist, though I'm certainly not 100% sure I'm right about that, it's just that the evidence for God doesn't convince me.  I'm a firm believer in science.  I don't believe this renders our existence completely insignificant though.  The Big Bang, the expansion of the universe, the various stages of its development, the infinite number of nuclear and chemical reactions that have taken place over billions of years - eventually resulting in us...it's really quite incredible to think about.  Like a living organism of unimaginable size and complexity, always evolving, and we've only taken a few tiny steps towards understanding it.  Calculus, the Theory of Relativity;  that stuff was only invented over the last couple hundred years.  Just imagine what wonders will be discovered a thousand, or ten thousand years from now, as our science evolves.  We'll look back at our current understanding of things and compare it to cavemen trying to build a fire.  

As someone on Babylon 5 once said, we are the universe, trying to figure itself out.

I think if there is a God, it's nothing like the religions think It is.

It would be far to great a concept for anyone to understand. Its why I'm always slighty baffled when I see religious people who claim to how it works. And then they say, "The Lord works in mysterious ways", which is just another way of saying, we don't have a clue.

No-one knows, or ever will know, where the universe came from originally.
The origin of the unvierse and life will alwasy be a mystery. There could well be some greater being, a creature that would permeate through all matter through-out the multi-verse but no living being in the cosmos will ever understand it.

We're all far to small. I also think that if It existed, we would be far too small for It to care about us.

I bet in some galaxies far away, there are some aliens thinking exactly the same thing.

Quote from: dean on December 10, 2010, 02:06:32 AM

I guess most of this stems from my lack of distrust of institutionalised religion; how can you believe when there are so many different inconsistent versions of religion.  That and my dabbling in ancient civilisations and myths etc kinda lead me to the ad hoc conclusion that most religions are well told pseudo-histories rather than actual 100% fact.  

I won't bother going into too much detail, but many ancient pre-christian myths seem to follow a similar structure to some biblical stories, so its kinda like they have been co-opted and adapted to suit, kind of like how the English language has taken bits and pieces from other languages to form its own style; its not the original and true language.  

Plus it seemed that the trend 'back in the day' was to give your particular group/people some semi-religious significance to try and give your power legitimacy, such as Virgil's Aeneid which was commissioned to make Romans feel like they were part of something bigger by linking their lineage to Troy, when it was in fact fiction.

Not that I disagree with religion, or discount the possibility of there being more, but science combined with history seem to make a reasonably good case that a specifically Christian version of creation [or any religion for that matter] is probably less likely than the alternative.


I guess I should ask Indy: Whilst you mention you believe we were 'put here for a reason,' you do leave the door open for a not-so-traditional Christian method of creation that involves a bit of evolution.  Given that, how do you justify being such a fervent follower of a particular faith, when even your own opinion seems to diverge from the 'source text'?  I guess I have a hard time giving one particular religion legitimacy over the other since so many are similar, yet slightly different/interpreted differently to the point that you think its truth has been diluted away.

I'm basing this mainly on those stereotypical religious folk who seem to believe that we only go back about 5000 years or so, which I will go out on a limb and assume is not your specific belief.

I suppose I already know the answer based on previous posts in other threads, so there's no need to justify yourself, its just a curious thought that popped into my head.  Its not as on topic either, the question being were we created [not specified by what] vs happening.  

Indy makes a good point about this. As to the similarity of other cultures' creation legends, one thing to remember is that the first chapters of Genesis are the only ones not written by an eye witness. Moses was raised in the most advanced culture of his day and educated in the royal school of Egypt. When he was assembling/writing the creation story, he had to rely on verbal histories and written fragments. Since he was a Hebrew, it's pretty natural that he "slanted" the creation story to feature the Hebrews' role through history. This, to me, leaves a lot of room for a Creation story that uses whatever means God so chooses to make the universe, be it a straightforward *POOF* or a gradual evolutionary process. If God is capable of creating the universe at all, then He is capable of doing it through multiple means.

As to whether we can be sure, I'd have to agree with Doggett to a large degree. God is far greater than most people allow for. Even with a Judeo-Christian viewpoint, the Bible only accounts for an overview of God's activities. He does much that has never been recorded and is much more complex a being than we can fully fathom. Any believer who thinks he's got a firm handle on the full character of God is mistaken, or in the case of wackos like the Hillsboro Baptist Church folk, completely deluded. I don't think that means we can't know Him to some degree (I'm a Christian), but it does mean that I have to accept that some things are going to happen that I can't begin to explain or understand. I've studied evolutionary theories and Creation theories (can't say I'm a world-class authority, but I have studied), and the case for Creation (likely through a guided evolutionary process) seems most likely to me.

Quote from: Derf on December 10, 2010, 08:42:24 AM

Indy makes a good point about this. As to the similarity of other cultures' creation legends, one thing to remember is that the first chapters of Genesis are the only ones not written by an eye witness. Moses was raised in the most advanced culture of his day and educated in the royal school of Egypt. When he was assembling/writing the creation story, he had to rely on verbal histories and written fragments. Since he was a Hebrew, it's pretty natural that he "slanted" the creation story to feature the Hebrews' role through history. This, to me, leaves a lot of room for a Creation story that uses whatever means God so chooses to make the universe, be it a straightforward *POOF* or a gradual evolutionary process. If God is capable of creating the universe at all, then He is capable of doing it through multiple means.

Whilst an interesting point, and certainly a perfectly adequate and reasonable one, I guess I'm just a pretty straight down the line kind of guy.  If Moses/whoever was writing a creation story/any story and was slanting things a certain way then it makes me question what else was changed, and as such it leaves much too much open to misinterpretation, and inevitably, inaccuracies, which certainly dilutes my faith to enough of a degree to not sign up for a particular branch of faith.  And if I can't pin one down enough to have faith in, well then I won't worry about any of them.

The perfect example is Indy's: if Jesus rose from the dead and we take that as proof of the existence of God, well what if He didn't, and it was just a story that was changed to suit the audience.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time, nor the last time, that somebody embellished the truth for the sake of a good story, no matter how noble the purpose.

Yes believing the story is a matter of faith, and my criticism shouldn't be taken as an attack on anyone here who has it, and this certainly doesn't mean I am without faith, there is much too much in this world that I will never understand, I just don't believe in institutionalised religion for this reason, however ill-thought out it may be. 

Have at it as you will by all means though, I won't stop you!   :cheers:

And yes, my answer is still 'don't know' since unless Science or God decides to step in and solve all the issues for us.

Quote from: Doggett on December 10, 2010, 08:04:48 AM
I think if there is a God, it's nothing like the religions think It is.

It would be far to great a concept for anyone to understand. Its why I'm always slighty baffled when I see religious people who claim to how it works. And then they say, "The Lord works in mysterious ways", which is just another way of saying, we don't have a clue.

I agree with that.  I'm not sure whether there's a God or not, but if there is I'm pretty damn certain that the people who claim to speak for Him are overstepping their authority.

I don't see how this thread could lead to anything other than a religious debate or an attempt by someone to convert or sway, but I'll play along.

I am a deist, at least essentially. I'm not going to go into a big description of what that means. If you're interested in what deism is, you can simply go to deism.com (http://deism.com) and I will assert that my beliefs are in line with about 90% of everything there. Some deists have an intense disdain for religion and revealed faith. I do share that disdain but it tends to be less intense.

Had to vote "don't know." The universe and my own existence make more sense to me if there is some higher intelligence or purpose to things, but I don't think we're capable of understanding it, and our religion should evolve with our understanding, in order to lead us closer to the truth. I consider myself a Christian Agnostic, in that I practice and identify with Christian belief, but I don't necessarily cling to the specifics. I see religion as our best attempt to understand the divine, and most definitely a work in progress.

From that perspective, I find the choice between "created by God" and "happened by accident" to be totally inadequate, and symptomatic of the rigid thinking in both science and religion, and their mutual knee-jerk hostility. The two options aren't even mutually exclusive. Where anybody got the notion that evolution means no God, I have no idea. As far as I'm concerned, a world that is forever changing, adapting and improving itself is far more miraculous than one that was just made as-is, and who's to say it wasn't set in motion by a higher intelligence?

What's more impressive? A machine built to function a certain way under certain conditions, or one that changes to do whatever is needed? The latter is far more difficult, and more befitting an all-powerful God.

And I don't think God needs to be anything like us. To me, created in God's image can easily refer to sentience, free will and a need to create. That we began as lower forms of life is in no way a reflection on God.

And even if you want to say God made us from dust (which is not wrong, we're made of elements from our environment), does it need to be something as simplistic as packing mud together and breathing life into it, or can it be done through a lengthy and complicated process of development and change? Again, which is more impressive?

I just find that the strictest religious beliefs I hear are far less wondrous, miraculous and Godlike than the scientific explanations the same people persist in denying.

This is how I view it . . .

The scientific theory of evolution does NOT rule out God; it is merely an explanation, based on observation and measurable data, of how life on this planet developed and diversified.

The philosophical theory of Darwinism, as practiced by many scientists and atheists, DOES rule out God, quite deliberately.  No God means no accountability, so we can do whatever the heck we want and never answer for it . . . that's the view summed up in that dreadful song "Nothing But Mammals."

A quick response to this comment by Dean:

"The perfect example is Indy's: if Jesus rose from the dead and we take that as proof of the existence of God, well what if He didn't, and it was just a story that was changed to suit the audience.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time, nor the last time, that somebody embellished the truth for the sake of a good story, no matter how noble the purpose."

If Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, then what would have been the purpose in His disciples proclaiming that He did?  And announcing to the world that they had seen Him?  Remember, out of the 11 disciples who had survived the Passion Week, all but one were horribly martyred for preaching the Gospel of the risen Christ.  Men will die for a lie that they believe to be true, but who will die for something they KNOW for a fact to be false?  Paul, writing about 22 years after the crucifixion, said that there were 500 eyewitnesses who saw the risen Christ at one time - and that most of them were still alive at the time he wrote!  How could you make such a freakish, fantastic claim if there wasn't some truth behind it?  Especially when writing to a church that was challenging your authority and doubtless had members who would go check your facts?  Even the members of the Jesus Seminar, who deny about every cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith, grudgingly admitted that the birth of Christianity was inconceivable without a real, sincere belief on the part of the early church that Christ was truly risen.  Where did that belief come from?  There is a gaping hole in the history of the First Century AD that is the exact size and shape of a Resurrection!

Easiest answer for me: Don't Know.

Mainly, I'm not overly religious.  I don't disbelief in the existence of God.  Grew up a Catholic, going to Catholic school, attending church.  While in Catholic school, we were taught BOTH theories of creationism, ie: God created the Earth, mankind, etc, as well as Darwinism.  Talk about being 14 and conflicted as to where you came from.  Either from dirt or from like, apes and fish and the whole like. :teddyr:

Right now, as an adult, I do not attend church, haven't since around 14 or so.  There's a small part that wants to say that I subscribe to that theory.  But the rational part doesn't.  We really CAN'T say anything in terms of that.  We can't communicate with the dead or whatnot, so. 

Maybe a little bit of both?  Maybe we were created by God but his great plan involved the general progression of evolution?  That's my theory. 

For me, we seem more as though we just came along descended from another creature.  I believe the design is something that could be improved.  Human beings physically are imperfect.  There are many systems that could be benefited from separation (breathing and food passage, for instance).  Also, as a visual animal I am surprised we lack the tapetum lucidum.  We lack fur but maintain hair, this seems counterproductive.  I understand some for warmth and some to avoid "chaffing" but why do we lack it?  I will give sweat glands as an obvious answer, however, why do we have hair at all.  I find these things as being relics of an ancestor and don't show design.   That is my opinion at least.   

Not to get in a big debate, but since this covers some in our beliefs.  I'm an Agnostic.  I don't say God doesn't exist, but before I believe I need more proof. 

Science and religion:

Religion says we were created.
Science says we evolved, and God had nothing to do with it.

However, religion says that God created Man "in His own image."  Now whether or not this means Man resembled God's physical image, or that God created Man from his own design, is the burning question.

That said, we all know that it takes someone to create a design, and to create it in a manner they see fit. "In the designer's own image" as it were.

And, naturally a design cannot improve or evolve to suit the long term need to adapt to it's surroundings unless the designer directly intervenes upon it's behalf, OR unless the creator specifically pre-designed it for natural evolution.  Such action demands a fair bit of scientific knowledge in order to achieve the goal.

So that said, I believe we were Created, and with that creation given the natural ability to evolve as our surroundings change.  God was both creator and scientist. After all, scientists design and create too, do they not?

And in that way, science and religion may both have something, but due to their pre-drawn lines in the sand, will never admit to it.  Just a thought.


 

:lookingup:
:drink:
:bouncegiggle:
:bouncegiggle:
:question:  :bouncegiggle:
:twirl:  :drink:

Thank you, AH, for your incisive and eloquent commentary. :lookingup:

I think the most basic, unanswerable question in the universe is "Why is there something, instead of nothing?"

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the universe DOES exist. It's here, we're here. The reality we live in is real, and try and twist interpretations as we might, it's not going to go away if we do. Reality is the ultimate arbiter. As a scientist, and a believer in reality, I think we should do our best to try and figure out what the hell is going on by examining reality itself.

As for the explanations provided by the major religions, I don't buy them. They're nice stories, and I can see the power in believing them, but compared to reality I find them lacking.

I consider myself an agnostic, but one that is as atheistic as you can get without making a declarative statement. The only reason I don't proclaim myself an atheist is because there is no really good way to claim "God does not exist" without making unfalsifiable claims. God is the ultimate unprovable hypothesis. But, hey, if you want to explore the mysteries of faith, that's a central tenet.

indianasmith, I think you're being a bit hasty saying that the scientific process is trying to disprove the existence of God. The basics of Darwinian evolution are easy to understand, and the evidence keeps piling up that its the way things could have happened. The confluence of evidence is continually building. The idea of "proof" is a MacGuffin, but their are reams and reams of it, with not signs of it stopping. But this is not NECESSARILY anti-religion, even if people (like myself) would say it is.

I would use those papers as examples of why I believe what I do, but that's me. I don't think that the idea of speciation by evolution is any sort of good evidence that God doesn't exist. I think it's good evidence that the world-view posited by religion is suspect, but proof that God doesn't exist? Let's go back to that central question: "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

There are plenty of scientists trying to decipher the universe, and many of those don't see a contradiction between their work and their faith.

I would and will argue all those points, but this is the "wax philosophical" thread. I believe in the world as it is, and the central mystery is the awe-inspiring engine that fires it all.

"Why is there something instead of nothing?"

Quote from: indianasmith on December 10, 2010, 06:54:28 PM
If Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, then what would have been the purpose in His disciples proclaiming that He did?  And announcing to the world that they had seen Him?  Remember, out of the 11 disciples who had survived the Passion Week, all but one were horribly martyred for preaching the Gospel of the risen Christ.  Men will die for a lie that they believe to be true, but who will die for something they KNOW for a fact to be false?  Paul, writing about 22 years after the crucifixion, said that there were 500 eyewitnesses who saw the risen Christ at one time - and that most of them were still alive at the time he wrote!  How could you make such a freakish, fantastic claim if there wasn't some truth behind it?  Especially when writing to a church that was challenging your authority and doubtless had members who would go check your facts?  Even the members of the Jesus Seminar, who deny about every cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith, grudgingly admitted that the birth of Christianity was inconceivable without a real, sincere belief on the part of the early church that Christ was truly risen.  Where did that belief come from?  There is a gaping hole in the history of the First Century AD that is the exact size and shape of a Resurrection!

Well I guess you're kind of making my point for me in a way: what reason would Muslims have for saying that Christ wasn't resurrected?  Probably the same reason why Christians would claim that he was; legitimacy. 

I know we're going in circles, and I certainly don't mean to disrespect your views, just outlining mine.

Some truth behind their claims?  Perhaps, but all of it true?  Not so sure.  Again my opinion and just my interpretation of the facts.

It doesn't change the fact that we are probably just as likely to be created than we have just happened with current evidence on hand!


Why is there something, instead of nothing?  Because things are so much more interesting with something to talk about... And I should leave someone else to talk about it for a while I suppose.

Well, I would never make the claim that Jesus rose from the dead or that he did not. However, I revere God through the laws of nature. They are enough. The order that exists in the universe makes it inconceivable to me that it all happened by chance. It is miraculous and needs no further embellishment. One could reasonably argue that the existence of order is easier to observe and prove than the existence of chaos. I believe that, and that is enough for me. I accept God on those terms alone. The laws of nature, and by extension of God, tell me that a man rising from the dead is unreasonable, and so I cannot accept it. Further, within those beliefs, I find it insulting to God to accept such a thing.

As for the argument why would multiple people make up such a thing, the answer is, I don't know. I used to be a Christian, and I witnessed people come together and agree that something happened that I did not see on multiple occasions, so I find it perfectly reasonable that, in a book that has been passed down and translated multiple times, such a thing could easily be either partially or completely false.

Let me touch on two things in those last two replies -
First of all, Muhammad was born 570 years after Christ.  There is no way he would have known if Christ was resurrected or not from personal experience.  He denied the Resurrection because "Allah" told him it did not happen. He denied that Christ was the Son of God for the same reason.  So, like everything else in Islam, it all boils down to one simple question - did God speak to Muhammad or not?  Muhammad offered no evidence, no miracles, no signs except the Quran itself.  He said its matchless purity was proof of its divine inspiration.  (Yes, there are later stories that Muhammad performed miracles, but those "Hadith" were written down well over 100 years after his lifetime, which is plenty of time for legend and myth to replace factual truth.

  Now, as far as the New Testament goes, to answer Flick's comment - while the NT has indeed been passed down for many generations and translated into every language on earth, there are over 6,000 Greek manuscripts that help us verify those translations. Textual scholars whose job is to analyze and compare discrepancies in the text are pretty universal in their assessment - which is that the New Testament has been passed down with a textual purity of 99.5%.  Of that remaining half a percent of the text about which there is still some doubt as to the original wording, there is not a single verse that casts doubt or question on any of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

  Bart Ehrman, a former Christian turned atheist and author of MISQUOTING JESUS, a scathing attack on accuracy of the Gospels, likes to point out that there are over 400,000 errors in the Greek text of the New Testament.  That sounds pretty damning until you break down these errors and analyze them.  For example, if a copyist misspells a word, and later copyists reproduce that misspelling in their transmission of the manuscript to the tune of 40 or 50 copies, he doesn't count that as ONE error - he counts it as 40 or 50!  The fact is, 80% of the errors he catalogs are simple spelling errors by later copyists that are easily corrected and do not affect the meaning of the passage they occur in.  Another 19 percent or so are word reversals - the most common being "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ," or vice versa.  By the time you eliminate all of those easily correctible copyists' errors, you are down to a document that has been passed down with remarkable purity from the First Century AD to today.  So while rejecting the content of the Gospels is always one's personal prerogative, saying that the content has been manipulated, altered, or corrupted is demonstrably untrue.

BTW, I love discussions like this and am not trying to offend anyone.  I appreciate the (largely) well-mannered and intellectual nature of our discussions here.

Quote from: Allhallowsday on December 12, 2010, 12:50:11 AM
:lookingup:
:drink:
:bouncegiggle:
:bouncegiggle:
:question:  :bouncegiggle:
:twirl:  :drink:

Quote from: indianasmith on December 12, 2010, 01:09:25 AM
Thank you, AH, for your incisive and eloquent commentary. :lookingup:

Poor ADHS (oh I'm sorry, that's AHD)

Apparently someone should inform her that cave paintings and symbols are no longer the standard for written human language.  Due to this overwhelming example of intelligence on her part, it's official that she's from Berkeley.

Either that or it's another attempt to bait me until I finally give in and admit that I mistook her for someone else.  Another epic fail on her part. 

Cheers to you, Indy.   :cheers:

Quote from: Umaril The Unfeathered on December 12, 2010, 11:03:59 PM

Apparently someone should inform her that cave paintings and symbols are no longer the standard for written human language. 

Well maybe not standard, but certainly have evolved into an interesting art form:

(http://www.createdinbirmingham.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/hoakser_graffiti.jpg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti)


And while I'm at it:


(http://www.alien-ufo-pictures.com/many-aliens.jpg)



The above is a picture of ancient cave drawings in the Australian outback, possibly dated back 5000 years ago.  Proof that we may have been visited or even created by Aliens?  Maybe?

AH is female  :question: Didn't know that.

As for the topic, no idea why we are here and who or what created us. I'd like to think that aliens had something to do with it though.

Quote from: indianasmith on December 09, 2010, 08:19:45 PM
I know in my prowlings around the Internet, that I have run into people of every belief system, and many with no beliefs at all.  I know that what we believe is a major shaping force in our own self image.  So let me pose to you the most basic question of all:  How did we get here?  Do you believe that mankind was created, or at least, was planned to be here by some supernatural force - be it the God of the Bible, Plato's elusive Prime Mover, or even Great Cthulhu himself?  This answer doesn't rule out evolutionary development, it just addresses whether or not there was any superintending presence behind it.

Or, did we just happen?  Are we, as Darwin envisioned, just a freak genetic accident, a random series of mutations, with no eternal or cosmological significance whatsoever?

Or does thinking about this stuff make your head hurt?

Not trying to open a grand religious flame war, but I am curious as to what most people will answer.  Did we just happen, or were we placed here for a reason?

I believe that I was put on this earth to make people laugh ~ just the mention of my well-used underpants is enough to make people shudder and giggle at the same time.  :wink: I am a child of abuse as people here know but the friends I have who have kids and know my story are quite happy to let me look after those kids as that abuse STOPS WITH ME: it goes no further.

Regarding faith, I admit I have questioned my faith many times in the last thirty or so years and I will go on questioning it day after day as there has been and is too much horror in this world.

QuoteNow, as far as the New Testament goes, to answer Flick's comment - while the NT has indeed been passed down for many generations and translated into every language on earth, there are over 6,000 Greek manuscripts that help us verify those translations. Textual scholars whose job is to analyze and compare discrepancies in the text are pretty universal in their assessment - which is that the New Testament has been passed down with a textual purity of 99.5%.  Of that remaining half a percent of the text about which there is still some doubt as to the original wording, there is not a single verse that casts doubt or question on any of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

Well, okay, you're a historian, and also a Christian. I'll accept your authoritative word to an extent because of the former, but must question the filters through which your research runs via the latter. As for NT, I can accept that there may be a closer relation to the original words of the authors (whoever they may be) than the OT, simply because of a shorter span of time, but 99.5% of the books written by John match what John wrote, with nothing lost to translation? That is essentially what you are claiming. While technically possible, my God-given reason tells me this is highly implausible. And which versions, by the way?

Now the old testament is full of mythological elements, especially in the King James version. Isaiah 13:21 mentions satyrs, mythological creatures. Jeremiah 8:17 mentions cockatrices, another mythological creature. Isaiah 34:7 mentions unicorns. UNICORNS! Now this is from the King James version, the version highly touted by many protestant sects of Christianity as the true "word of God" version.

Here's where it gets interesting. Move over to newer translations such as NIV and NAS and the satyrs and cockatrices and unicorns are replaced with snakes and oxen and goats and such. Well, of course, once the Bible went to mass print and followers were starting to actually read the scriptures in detail, why would we want them reading about creatures from polytheistic religions? That would only cast doubt into the minds of the believers over their faith.

I attribute the same authenticity to things like the Lord bringing fiery serpents down on the people, and Moses turning a staff into a snake and so on. Granted, this is all OT, and NT doesn't have nearly that extent of mythological elements, save that book of fantasy written under duress called Revelation.

Now, I'll speculate that the removal of mythological creatures in newer translations of the Bible, only a small handful of examples I've brought up, is just the tip of the iceberg. I could be wrong, but that would be if I accept this notion that the Bible is 99.5% accurate. If that is the case, I'll make a guess and say you may be referring to the King James version, in which case I'll extrapulate that perhaps you mean that up until then it had been 99.5% accurate and only after that, when the Bible started becoming printed on a much larger scale and more accessible to the people, that such changes started to happen. There is a hint of logic to that argument. While certainly possible, my God-given reason will again interfere and tell me that this seems highly unlikely at best.

No, I don't attribute any more authenticity as the word of God to the Bible than I do to the Quran, with one exception. I believe there was a man, Jesus Christ, who existed, who was an exceptional man and had an immensely profound impact and changed the course of the world, and whom millions have subsequently come to worship as the son of God. I also accept that the entire collection of books is peppered with references to real historical places and sometimes loosely refers to real events, just enough to lend a sense of authenticity. Throw in some choice omissions, such as of satyrs and unicorns which the modern mind free of the shackles of the Dark Ages would reject, and they become that much more palatable to the rational mind. But keep the fiery serpents. We need to ensure that a proper fear of a vengeful God is still deep within the psyche of all people.

I don't claim to know God's mind or will, nor do I dictate what God is to others. The God that the revealed religions of the world believe doesn't make any sense to me. Thomas Paine, the father of deism, was once involved in a debate with a Christian friend who was trying to save him, and who said he must accept the God of the Bible. Here is a portion of his reply by letter:

"You form your opinion of God from the account given of Him in the Bible; and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of creation. The result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard, shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.

"The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive being; making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done, and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done. But the works of God in the creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea - that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness."

One of our founding fathers, ladies and gentlemen.

The issue you're dealing with there is not so much accuracy as translation.  The King James version was translated from the Hebrew in 1611 - and there were some Hebrew words, especially Hebrew terms for animals, that did not have a precise English counterpart (that is what translators always have to look out for - matching words from one language to another is always tricky business).  So the scholars in 1611 used words for exotic beasts that they believed were real.  For example, "satyr" comes from a Hebrew word that simply means "hairy ones".  It could refer to monkeys, bigfoot, or cave-dwelling primitives who rarely shaved.  But, being familiar with mythology, "satyrs" seemed like a good translation at the time.  The point is, now we still have the same Hebrew Masoretic texts used by the King James folks, as well as the Septuagint and the more recently discovered Dead Sea scrolls.
   Now, since the Bible is a book about a supernatural being (God) intervening in history in a supernatural way, some supernatural occurences are to be expected.  Were the fiery serpents the Israelites encountered truly blazing reptiles? (Blazing Reptiles.  Now there is a bad movie title!!! LOL) Or were they bright red and orange in color, like my corn snake?  Or did their bites cause intense, burning pain?
  The text of the Old Testament is a bit more iffy in places than that of the New, but textual critics still give it a very solid rating.  Anyway, as long as we have the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts to work from, we will produce various other translations - some will focus on readability (like the NIV) and others more on accuracy (the NAS), some will be pure paraphrase (the Living Bible).  But they all draw from the same source, a remarkably well-preserved narrative composed in Greek and Hebrew, of which many extant copies are still around.


By the way, this is a very enjoyable discussion to me.  I hope I am not getting too preachy!

Quote from: indianasmith on December 13, 2010, 02:40:07 PM
The issue you're dealing with there is not so much accuracy as translation.  The King James version was translated from the Hebrew in 1611 - and there were some Hebrew words, especially Hebrew terms for animals, that did not have a precise English counterpart (that is what translators always have to look out for - matching words from one language to another is always tricky business).  So the scholars in 1611 used words for exotic beasts that they believed were real.  For example, "satyr" comes from a Hebrew word that simply means "hairy ones".  It could refer to monkeys, bigfoot, or cave-dwelling primitives who rarely shaved.  But, being familiar with mythology, "satyrs" seemed like a good translation at the time.  The point is, now we still have the same Hebrew Masoretic texts used by the King James folks, as well as the Septuagint and the more recently discovered Dead Sea scrolls.
   Now, since the Bible is a book about a supernatural being (God) intervening in history in a supernatural way, some supernatural occurences are to be expected.  Were the fiery serpents the Israelites encountered truly blazing reptiles? (Blazing Reptiles.  Now there is a bad movie title!!! LOL) Or were they bright red and orange in color, like my corn snake?  Or did their bites cause intense, burning pain?
  The text of the Old Testament is a bit more iffy in places than that of the New, but textual critics still give it a very solid rating.  Anyway, as long as we have the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts to work from, we will produce various other translations - some will focus on readability (like the NIV) and others more on accuracy (the NAS), some will be pure paraphrase (the Living Bible).  But they all draw from the same source, a remarkably well-preserved narrative composed in Greek and Hebrew, of which many extant copies are still around.


By the way, this is a very enjoyable discussion to me.  I hope I am not getting too preachy!

Not at all. I have enjoyed the discussion, as at odds as we may be.

Where I'm about to go is where I get hesitant, because I've upset Christian friends and acquaintences in the past to the point of them telling how hot Hell will be when I arrive.

Manuscripts abound, and I took a little time to verify my research, there is a good amount of solidity to most textual criticism of them. Where it gets hazy are the earliest existing manuscripts, in particular the ones that are dated at between 150 AD and 400 AD, the average being somewhere around 225 years after the events represented. Most of these are fragments, with the books of Timothy being the only exception from my understanding. So, the earliest fragmentary documents in existence are a bit too choppy to be terribly reliable. You have to get into the  manuscripts from several centuries later before you have something more complete. So, the validity of the claims of these manuscripts lies on their accuracy to events which they detail.

So far so good, I haven't stoked the fires of Hell too much for myself yet. Here is where it happens.

The book of Mark, from my understanding is the earliest of the gospels, or the earliest surving manuscript at least. In terms of the story of the resurrection, it also contains a couple of holes that have always stood out in dayglo to me. I double-checked both the King James and NAS versions of Chapter 16, and I can't get over what I'm reading.

Allow me to paraphrase a bit and tell me where you think I may be reading too much between the lines. First, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus come to the tomb to anoint him with spices (v. 1-4). They are then amazed to see a man dressed in white sitting in the tomb, who does not say "I am Jesus." No, instead he says "you are looking for Jesus the Nazaren who has been crucified. He is risen. He is not here. Behold here is the place where they laid Him." (v. 5-6) He then tells them that Jesus has gone ahead to Galilee and they will see him there.

Who is the guy in white? It sounds to me like it certainly isn't Jesus, because Jesus is not there and is walking to Galilee. Seriously, I would very much like to know who the guy in white is.

So, Mary Magdalene is shaken and leaves. Next, she tells the apostles, who are in throws of mourning a man whom they had invested so much of their life into believing was the Messiah of the Jewish people, that he is risen and has even appeared to her. When did this happen? She seems to be the only person at this point who has seen him. They of course don't believe her, and who could blame them?

Here's where is gets really good. In verses 12 and 13, he appears in a different form to two of the apostles while they're walking along the countryside. Double-take. In a different form? What form would this be? Is it just me of does this sound an awful lot like some other guy, a living breathing man, claiming to be a risen Jesus? They of course run off and tell the rest of the apostles that they saw Jesus risen. Now the hysteria is starting to kick in. It's Jesus. It doesn't really look like Jesus, but we won't worry ourselves about such details. He said he was Jesus rosen from the dead, and by golly who are we to question it? He is afterall a miracle worker.

Now for the punchline section. Whoever this guy is goes to the rest of them and chastises them for doubting that he is Jesus risen from the dead. And they had best get out there and tell this story pronto, or else they and everyone they talk to will be condemned if they don't believe it.

So, allow me to conjecture a bit. A bunch of guys were duped in to believing this man who said he was the son of God. He is captured and crucified probably more because he was a revolutionary than anything else. Once dead, they are probably grieving and some of them even questioning what the hell they had been a party to, a few maybe even coming to their senses. Along comes Mary Magdalene who sees some strange guy who isn't Jesus sitting in Jesus's tomb (I still want to know who this guy is and is he part of an elaborate hoax?), telling her that Jesus up and walked out. Then some guy who claims to be Jesus risen starts appearing to the disciples. Their rathional minds know something isn't right. Who is this guy? Why is he saying he is Jesus? At the same time they want very much to believe that they had not just made a huge mistake believing Jesus was the son of God. This person claiming to be Jesus has to scream at them and threaten eternal damnation to get them to go spread the word.

I am clearly conjecturing here, but I will warrant that it takes just as much conjecture, if not more, to read these passages and believe they tell the story of a man rising from the dead. Now, if this is God then I am truly screwed, because I just cannot bring myself to buy it.

Quote from: claws on December 13, 2010, 03:41:26 AM
AH is female  :question: Didn't know that.

Well he acts like a little bi*ch every time he tries (and fails) to get my or Indy's goat.  He constantly tries to start a fight with Indy and I, and he started on me this time. He seriously needs to grow up.

Did I say (s)he was trying to get my or Indy's goat? Personally I think AHD is more interested in sheep. Anyways, on the the next line item....

Quote from: claws on December 13, 2010, 03:41:26 AM
As for the topic, no idea why we are here and who or what created us. I'd like to think that aliens had something to do with it though.

Same here-and that is why I tipped my hat to God as a superior being capable of both Design AND Creation.  Whose to say that a divine being dosen't have the power to design and create? Or for that matter, that that Being isn't from another world?

I don't see why religion and science can't agree that there is some great mystery that no matter how much proof they have, or no matter how hard and long they fight over, will never truly be the sole providence either science or religion.

"The chicken or the egg" is no longer the only argument on the block..

There again, if AHD were here to answer to this one, she would probably say that the egg came first, only after the chicken, thus the true indicator of her true intelligence..


Unlike AHD, apparently you, Claws, were listening. Kudos to ya'.  :cheers:

Quote from: dean on December 13, 2010, 03:13:19 AM

Quote from: Umaril The Unfeathered on December 12, 2010, 11:03:59 PM

Apparently someone should inform her that cave paintings and symbols are no longer the standard for written human language. 

Well maybe not standard, but certainly have evolved into an interesting art form:

(http://www.createdinbirmingham.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/hoakser_graffiti.jpg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti)


And while I'm at it:


(http://www.alien-ufo-pictures.com/many-aliens.jpg)



The above is a picture of ancient cave drawings in the Australian outback, possibly dated back 5000 years ago.  Proof that we may have been visited or even created by Aliens?  Maybe?

Agreed with all you say. It's just that AHD has nothing intelligent to say, so he has to resort to laughies and smilies, and as Indy said, was another example of the man's intelliegence.

As to we humans coming from a higher species, (and God's possible role in such as an majestic ruler of an alien race Himself) that is why I nodded to God as both Designer AND Creator.

But like most moral\philosophcal\political debates, only one side wans to be the one whose right.  I can't see why everyhting has to be material in evidence. There have to be unexplained things at play as well as the obvious findings of science.

Flick:
(I am going to ignore Umaril and AHD's ongoing catfight for the moment)

The two earliest COMPLETE manuscripts of the NT are the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (both date to around 350 AD).   Before that, there are numerous fragments and some entire books of the NT preserved in manuscript form, and about 98% of the New Testament text is also reproduced in the writings of the Second and Third Century Christians - men like Justin Martyr and Ignatius and Polycarp - in the form of quotes.  The earliest fragment I know of is the Rylands Papyrus Fragment, which dates to about 120 AD.  It's a fairly small scrap that contains six verses from John 18 - what makes it significant is that John was the last of the Gospels composed, written around AD 90-95.  Which means that the Rylands Papyrus is within less than 30 years of the original! (For the record, the earliest known text of Homer's Odyssey dates to about 500 AD or so - that is a gap of 1300 years after the original composition!)
  Many Bible scholars do believe that Mark was the first Gospel written, because it is the briefest (only 16 chapters) and because over 90% of its material is reproduced more or less verbatim by Matthew and Luke.  Thus, many people think they used Mark as a source in composing their own gospels, and therefore, had no actual memories of Jesus that were their own.  This premise ignores one simple fact - all three of these books were written within roughly a decade of each other by men who knew each other!  John Mark was first a traveling companion of Paul, then an interpreter for none other than Simon Peter.  Matthew was a disciple of Jesus and, of course, knew Peter personally.  Luke also traveled with Paul, and, by his own account, interviewed all those "who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the Word."  If you have time, go back and read the introduction to Luke's Gospel.  These are the words of a conscientious historian who wanted to be sure he got his facts straight!
   However, in your comments above, you did touch on one note worth addressing: the strange end of Mark's gospel.  In the two oldest and most reliable manuscripts, Mark's text cuts off at Chapter 16 verse 8 - after the Angel at the tomb tells the women that Jesus has risen, but before they encounter Him themselves. Some later mauscripts add the "long ending", verses 9 - 20.  This appears to be an abbreviated version of the narratives from Matthew and Luke.  Other texts have a single verse "short ending" which has much less detail, but still describes an appearance by the Risen Christ himself.
The most likely explanation is that, in the original text of Mark's gospel, the ending was lost - perhaps the scroll itself was damaged.  Later copyists tacked on an ending based on Matthew and Luke, in order to fill out the abrupt conclusion.
   At any rate, when you look carefully at all four Gospel accounts, you see four very different perspectives of the same story, but all agree on one account: the man who was crucified appeared again, in a visible and recognizable form.  Luke says he "showed himself alive with many infallible proofs."   But John's account - and remember, he was THERE, and says so ("...this is the disciple who saw these things, and wrote these things . . ." is how his gospel puts it), is perhaps the most conviusive of them all. Thomas, who was not there the first time Jesus appeared, says he will NOT believe until he can "put my hand in the prints of the nails, and where the spear pierced his side." But when he sees the risen Christ, he simply falls to his knees and says "My Lord and My God!"  It is pretty powerful testimony to the remarkable impact the Resurection had on these men.  BTW, there may be some typos in this last paragraph.  A Jack-in-the-box ad is blocking my view of half the screen and won't go away!)

Ok. I kinda ( but not really) joked on this thread earlier. Fact is No one-NO ONE -will will ever know untill we die. We can believe this-we can believe that-but its all speculatative bulls**t. Personally-I follow no religion....because of the simple fact that -Christian-Muslim-whatthef**kism- HATE each other! " IM RIGHT! YOUR WRONG!" f**k it. I think that when I die...I'll know. Why....who cares?  Evoloution? Nah. Dont buy that either. I believe in NOTHING! BUT! I dont deny anything! Who am I to judge? I am happy to be in awe of the univerese....study it...check it out....Ill leave judgements to self important mo mos...I'll just enjoy watching a metor fall...a ghost I seen as a kid...I love life's mystryies. I believe in the mystery....the beauty...of life. I aint gonna argue about it.

I wouldn't think of arguing with you, my friend.
But it is a fun and lively debate. 
Nuttin' but love here, man! :teddyr:

My research matches up with your own in terms of manuscripts. My main issue is that, upon reading the resurrection area of the other three gospels, there is a good deal of variation. Some refer to a man in the tomb (not an Angel, as in Mark), two other refer directly to an angel or angels, and another to two men in the tomb. Another talks about how the Jewish priests were likely to spread a rumor about the disciples stealing the body. In two of the gospels it is said that in risen form he could not even be recognized as Jesus, which is very, very fishy.

My point is that, whatever the level of accuracy of manuscripts to what was originally written by the authors, there are plenty of holes in all of these accounts. A rational mind reading these resurrection passages can easily infer multiple possible explanations, including both miracles and the complete lack of any. Biblical scholars and believers just tend to force all of these accounts into only one possible explanation: Jesus rose from the dead, despite that two of the gospels refer to a man or two men in the tomb, not angels. This is ignored and they are assumed to be angels, mainly because the same biblical scholars say that because the other two refer to angels, then these men must be.

Keep in mind that this a group of people who not only were within a time an culture filled with ritual and religious superstition, but also desperate to prove their claims lest they go down as some of the greatest fools in history. I read all four gospels once, in both NAS and King James versions, without pouring over them in any great detail or doing any extensive research about interpretation, and I was easily able to infer multiple possibilities, using nothing more than my God-given reason. And none of this depends on the level of accuracy of the scriptures.

Flash forward to the mid 80's, when I was a Christian. I was attending a mountain Christian retreat with a large youth group. One night during a particularly emotional prayer and worship session, a young girl that I knew about 15 or 16 at the time started writhing and convulsing and her voice started sounding different than usual. Nothing that a human voice couldn't reproduce, just a different tone than her normal one.

It was assumed that she was possessed by a demon. She was spirited away by the pastors, and we were told they successfully exercised (sic?) this demon, while the rest of us prayed. At the time, and wanting very much to believe that what I was being told and what I was seeing was what I was being told, I refused to acknowledge what I knew to be the truth. Some of my fellow retreat goers were actually embellishing things that I was there and saw that didn't happen, and it bothered immensely.

A few years later I ran into that girl and we talked over lunch. We talked about that event and she admitted to me that she pretended to be possessed. She said she was young and stupid and wanted attention, and had since been very ashamed she had done it.

When I remember that event, and others similar to it but not to that extent, I am reminded that man is a being of imagination, and when placed in an environment where reason and logic are ignored, will believe anything, especially if they are desperate to do so, as the apostles had to have been.

An honest and critical view of any historical text, whether religious or not, is necessary to sift through the untruths communicated to us form the past. The people of history lie to us all the time, because they are never completely truthful in their accounts of what they witnessed, whether spiritual or not, and whether they meant to or not. It's all part of that imagination of which humans are capable. A critical eye to history must always be applied, for the mere reason that just because Mr. So-and-so from the year umpteen-scruntch wrote down on a piece of papyrus that such-and-such happened, doesn't make it so just because he took the time to write it down on papyrus. Why should we analyze the Bible differently?

I once posted in a debate like this here and pointed out this thing, I can't remember who it was


1. God, by definition, if perfect.

2. if something is perfect it must exist.

3. Therefore God  exists.

and people got mad at me.

Let's take a different tack . . . if I interview three eyewitnesses of, oh, say, a traffic accident . . . two guys say that the driver, who fled the scene, was "a soldier in uniform" and the other says "he was a guy in khaki" - is that a glaring discrepancy that throws doubt on their whole account?  Or is it the natural variation in description that is an inherent part of eyewitness testimony, as any trial lawyer can tell you?
   If the Gospel accounts were perfect cookie cutter matches for each other, you would be saying, "Oh, they match too perfectly, it's obviously a concocted story!"

   Why would the disciples be "desperate to prove their claims"?  Jesus was dead. The cowards ran out on him when he was arrested . . . all of them but Peter and John, and Peter, the minute he was confronted, swore repeatedly that he never even KNEW that crazy Nazarene!  Suddenly, just a few days later, they are crowing the streets that he is the Resurrected Lord of all Creation?  What did they have to gain?  None of them grew rich, all of them were persecuted, and all but one died for the new faith.  Martyrdom only works when you truly believe.

  The two disciples who did not recognize Jesus were the ones he met on the road to Emmaus.  It is interesting that they spoke to Him on the road, but did not realize who He was till He blessed the bread as they ate.  Maybe he simply had his headscarf pulled up as they walked, and uncovered his face when they were inside?  Doubting who He was would have been the most natural reaction of all - after all, these "primitives" lived with death on a level that we no longer do, and they above all knew that dead people don't get up and walk around!  If you go to the mall and see the face of a deceased friend in the crowd, your immediate reaction is to think you just made a mistake, not to assume the person is somehow resurrected!  So their doubt and failure to recognize Jesus is natural under the circumstances.  And again, he removed that doubt by SHOWING them who He was . . . these weren't fleeting glimpses they shared, but prolonged conversations over a period of 40 days and nights!
   And what about the opposition?  If the disciples were preaching a risen Christ when His body was still in the tomb, then all the Pharisees had to do was drag the moldering corpse through the streets of Jerusalem, and Christianity would have been strangled in its cradle.

indiana -

I never said that I knew the correct interpretation of the resurrections passages in scripture. What I am saying is that there are some fishy things going on, and not just a little bit.

QuoteWhy would the disciples be "desperate to prove their claims"?  Jesus was dead. The cowards ran out on him when he was arrested . . . all of them but Peter and John, and Peter, the minute he was confronted, swore repeatedly that he never even KNEW that crazy Nazarene!  Suddenly, just a few days later, they are crowing the streets that he is the Resurrected Lord of all Creation?  What did they have to gain?  None of them grew rich, all of them were persecuted, and all but one died for the new faith.  Martyrdom only works when you truly believe.

Why WOULD'T they be? Religious faith, when strong enough, will drive people to martyrdom. These crazies in the middle east that we call terrorists, to their people are martyrs and heros. There are multiple angles at which you can look at this. I'm not claiming mine is correct, I'm saying that it's more plausible given human nature and the laws of nature and reality. No human in recorded history other than religious text is known to have risen from the dead. The burden of proof is on the believers, not on me. These people had already been humiliated to the point of denying Jesus. Let's assume for a moment that Jesus was not the son of God, nor was able to produce miracles. This is perfectly possible. He would not have been the first person of that period of time to have been an imposter and duped people into believing he had done something miraculous. Now, with him dead and no longer under the scrutiny of having to prove himself with miracles, which he was unable to do throughout the crucifixtion, now they can make up whatever they want. He's no longer around. And, being desperate to give their time with Jesus meaning, and desperate to believe it themselves, they are caught up in a lie.

Again, I am conjecturing here. I admit it freely. The point is we simply don't know the real events as they happened. The events of Jesus' life were small news in the scope of the world at the time they were happening. We would barely even know they happened if they word had not been spread. It's not like the Romans siege of Masada. That was big news and there are multiple historic accounts. Unless you can point me to something I don't know about, from my knowledge there is little to no historical accounts of Jesus that can back up the resurrection story aside from scripture. I'm sorry, but that's not enough.

QuoteThe two disciples who did not recognize Jesus were the ones he met on the road to Emmaus.  It is interesting that they spoke to Him on the road, but did not realize who He was till He blessed the bread as they ate.  Maybe he simply had his headscarf pulled up as they walked, and uncovered his face when they were inside?  Doubting who He was would have been the most natural reaction of all - after all, these "primitives" lived with death on a level that we no longer do, and they above all knew that dead people don't get up and walk around!  If you go to the mall and see the face of a deceased friend in the crowd, your immediate reaction is to think you just made a mistake, not to assume the person is somehow resurrected!  So their doubt and failure to recognize Jesus is natural under the circumstances.  And again, he removed that doubt by SHOWING them who He was . . . these weren't fleeting glimpses they shared, but prolonged conversations over a period of 40 days and nights!

Maybe. But maybe it was a different man altogether. I attest that both explanations can easily be infered from the passages. Looking at it from a perspective of the laws of nature and of reason, it's clearly not Jesus. Looking at it from a perspective of unquestioning faith, it is Jesus risen.

QuoteAnd what about the opposition?  If the disciples were preaching a risen Christ when His body was still in the tomb, then all the Pharisees had to do was drag the moldering corpse through the streets of Jerusalem, and Christianity would have been strangled in its cradle.

Exactly. All the more reason why taking the corpse out of the tomb would have been necessary to pull such a thing off. Look, I'm not trying to crack a case open here. I'm just saying that this resurrection story is full of holes. Is the story just as Christians say, that Jesus was the son of the God of the Old Testament and that he rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven? Or did Joseph of Arimathea, a great admirer of Jesus who paid for his burial and tomb so something shady and Mary and the others truly believed in what happened? Or were they all in on a hoax? I've certainly been party to enough of religious people stretching reality to fit their beliefs to know that this is certainly possible.

indiana, I know you are a man of faith. I am as well, but of a different ilk. My faith is in the creation. It is here. I can see it. It is miraculous to me. It is enough. In my deistic beliefs, the laws of nature are the laws of God. It is in direct violation of those laws to try and dictate them into things that they do not do, such as turning staves into snakes, a man rising from the dead, or a man walking on water, or any number of other things that might be claimed in the Quran as well. The beauty of deism to me, and why it has given me more peace than anything I have ever believed in the past, is that it cannot be manipulated. It is not subject to any one person or group of people infering miracles out of ancient texts written in times of rampant religious superstition. It stands on it's own and needs only the real and existing wonders of nature and the universe to demonstrate God's power and glory.

And so if you really want me to wax philosophical, there you go. Ultimately, indiana, I am happy and grateful for this discussion, particularly because we have been able to go so far as we have so respectfully. I honestly expected it to get ugly, as it so often has for me with my beliefs, and it hasn't. I appreciate you for that immensely.

Quote from: indianasmith on December 13, 2010, 09:22:22 PM
Flick:
(I am going to ignore Umaril and AHD's ongoing catfight for the moment)

Uhh, excuse me, Indy.

Aside from my rebuttals at AHD (which you yourself had one aiming at his intellignece and lack of it)  I WAS trying to make a point about God being both Designer AND Creator?

So please read beyond the thing with AHD, and into my other posts (and my support of the thread thru my own individual thoughts on the matter) before relegating everything to a p**sing contest?

And also please realize because my beliefs don't come completely from The Bible, like yours, that I am not rebuking the existence of God in any way shape or form? Thanks...

Umaril - Some of your comments have been very intelligent and meaningful, but when you and he get going, the drama becomes somewhat overwhelming . . . no insult to either of you, because I like you both, I just don't care to wade into that particular waterhole.  I wasn't meaning to insult some of your earlier, enjoyable commentary.  And, at the time I wrote that, I was very anxious to get back to the exchange that I was having with Flick, which is one of the better debates I have ever had.

Quote from: Umaril The Unfeathered on December 13, 2010, 03:42:04 PM

Quote from: claws on December 13, 2010, 03:41:26 AM
AH is female  :question: Didn't know that.

Well he acts like a little bi*ch every time he tries (and fails) to get my or Indy's goat.  He constantly tries to start a fight with Indy and I, and he started on me this time. He seriously needs to grow up.

Didn't get "your goat"?  You can keep it; I know you must get lonely nights.   :wink: :thumbup:
As for Indy, don't lump him in with your ilk.  So you think it's insulting to refer to me by the female gender?  That old forum troll trick has been tried on me before.  I take referring to me in the feminine gender as a compliment.   :smile:

Quote from: indianasmith on December 12, 2010, 11:10:52 AM
Let me touch on two things in those last two replies -
First of all, Muhammad was born 570 years after Christ.  There is no way he would have known if Christ was resurrected or not from personal experience.  He denied the Resurrection because "Allah" told him it did not happen. He denied that Christ was the Son of God for the same reason.  So, like everything else in Islam, it all boils down to one simple question - did God speak to Muhammad or not?  Muhammad offered no evidence, no miracles, no signs except the Quran itself.  He said its matchless purity was proof of its divine inspiration.  (Yes, there are later stories that Muhammad performed miracles, but those "Hadith" were written down well over 100 years after his lifetime, which is plenty of time for legend and myth to replace factual truth.

Isn't it fair then to suppose the same could be true for Christianity?  Even the greatest Christian thinkers have or will advise that the core of Christianity is Faith.  

As for that unfeathered thingy, it is neither honest nor a thinker.  Some of its commentary is close to what I myself believe.  But then we get into God's "scientific knowledge..."  God as "scientist"?  God created what man studies as "science".   Sometimes words are not necessary, Indy.  Principles are more important.  I will defend myself, but I do not blindly attack and fail to take responsibility for my errors.  Y'know, just sliding by hoping nobody notices the vagaries of my useless remarks.  Rise above, Indy, your rep is suffrin'.  :wink: :thumbup:  

Quote from: indianasmith on December 15, 2010, 01:45:19 PM
Umaril - Some of your comments have been very intelligent and meaningful, but when you and he get going, the drama becomes somewhat overwhelming . . . no insult to either of you, because I like you both, I just don't care to wade into that particular waterhole.  I wasn't meaning to insult some of your earlier, enjoyable commentary.  And, at the time I wrote that, I was very anxious to get back to the exchange that I was having with Flick, which is one of the better debates I have ever had.

Oh, and I've posted once before to this thread.  Once.  Wordlessly.  So, don't you lump me in with it either.  

Behave gents, behave.  Lets not resort to name calling and hasty remarks. 

Quote from: indianasmith on December 15, 2010, 01:45:19 PM
Umaril - Some of your comments have been very intelligent and meaningful, but when you and he get going, the drama becomes somewhat overwhelming . . . no insult to either of you, because I like you both, I just don't care to wade into that particular waterhole.  I wasn't meaning to insult some of your earlier, enjoyable commentary.  And, at the time I wrote that, I was very anxious to get back to the exchange that I was having with Flick, which is one of the better debates I have ever had.

Again, nothing against you, Indy. I just want it to be understood that because I never went to Berkeley, or because I don't have a degree in history or religion, that dosen't mean I'm uneducated or below the understanding of the topic at hand.

And yes, intelligent and meaningful (and sometimes angry) commentary is part of who I am. It dosen't make me any less of a person.

And unlike AHD, I don't deliberately try to antagonize and instigate because I can't get my way.  AHD can't get my confession, so he has to act like a baby. You yourself remarked on his actions. 

I say my mind, and I say straight.  I don't say it with symbols because I can't understand the English language...

Resectfully, I think both of you need to chill.  It's evident you don't like each other, and the back and forth between the two of  you becomes more emotional and less substantive the longer it goes on - whether on this thread or on the "clash of cultures" thread.  People are entitled to their opinions, and I think that we should be able to discuss them without veering off into endless personal attacks.

Umaril, while you and I are closer together politically and philosophically, you are a bit too quick to take offense and get personal for my comfort.  It's OK for people to disagree with you, and every single exchange doesn't have to be hashed and rehashed ad nauseum.

AHD, if Umaril bugs you so much, quit responding to him altogether!  You are not going to persuade him of anything, especially if you keep referring to him as "it".


NOW, BACK TO THE FUN STUFF -

Flick - your Deism fascinates me.  Your comments could have been written by the godfather of American deism himself, Thomas Jefferson.  I agree with the idea that God is a creature of order who made the universe to run according to observable, measurable laws.  I believe that mankind is God's child - whatever steps were involved in the creation process, He made us and endowed us with free will and the ability to make moral choices.  That, more than anything, is what the "made in his image" scriptures refer to.
  Here is where we part company.  While God created and sustains natural law, He Himself is above and beyond it.  Picture Him as the author of a story - he creates the characters and their world, organizes the scenario and controls the overall flow.  But he is NOT bound by the rules that control His characters.
  Now, the miracles of the Bible are not random events.  God, as a supernatural being, is capable of working through supernatural events but rarely chooses to do so.  However, like any parent, when His child is in danger, God will throw the rules of physics out the window to act.  There are three great clusters of miracles in Scripture - one accompanying the Exodus, when God rescued His chosen people from slavery in  Egypt and established them as a nation in their own right.  His signs and wonders demonstrated both His covenant love for them and his protective governance of their fate.  The second great outbreak of miracles was during the time of Elijah and Elisha, when the worship of Yahweh was threatened with extinction by a wicked King of Israel and his idolatrous spouse.  God stepped in, in a rather spectacular way, to recall the people to their faith and show the idolaters who was truly God in Israel.  Then the last, of course, was during the ministry of Christ and the establishment of the church.  God had to prove to the world that Jesus of Nazareth was His Son - the "Word made flesh."  Since any man can verbally claim to be a God, having a peerless message was not enough.  God had to show enough evidence through Christ to remove all doubt.  John's account is especially instructive here - he only records seven of Christ's miracles, but each was more impressive than the last, and each was chosen to demostrate that there was only one Person whom Jesus of Nazareth COULD be - the incarnate Creator Himself.

  Your studies have taken you in a different direction from me, and that of course is your right.  But do not accuse me of "blind faith."  My intellect took me to a point where faith was the only logical conclusion.  None of the scenarios you envision - desperate disciples trying to give meaning to the life of a failed and murdered teacher by stealing His body, then proclaiming Him as the Risen Lord?  Voluntarily dying for a faith they KNEW to be based on a lie?  How about the fact that Jesus' own brothers, who rejected His claims and were embarassed by His teachings?  Yet after the Resurrection they emerge as leaders of the Jerusalem church and firm advocates of the Lordship of Jesus.  What would it take for you to believe that your OWN brother, whom you shared a room and bath and toothbrush with, was the Son of God?  Paul nailed it, 22 years after the Resurrection, when he penned these words to the Church at Corinth - "If Christ be not raised, then our faith is in vain . . .  if we have hoped in Christ for this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."

I thank you for a brilliant, insightful, and civil exchange on this topic.  I look forward to your reply.

Looking above, I realized my still somewhat fevered brain had run together some of Lester's posts in the "Clash of Civilizations" thread with some of AHD's replies to Umaril, and I accused him of proloing the confrontation between them needlessly.  I was mistaken.  My apologies, I am going to bed before I get even more confused.

Quote from: indianasmith on December 16, 2010, 12:12:38 AM
AHD, if Umaril bugs you so much, quit responding to him altogether!  You are not going to persuade him of anything, especially if you keep referring to him as "it".

Mr. "FUN STUFF" I'm here to ruin your FUN.   :thumbup: :teddyr: :thumbdown:  But not at all intentionally.   :bluesad:
So, it is cool for me, the lefty to be referred to as "she" and "her" (cool by me) ??  Which is intended to insult.  Hey, so it's all a response, and perfectly fair in the context that I am responding to.  Please stop underestimating me.  

Quote from: indianasmith on December 16, 2010, 12:37:41 AM
Looking above, I realized my still somewhat fevered brain had run together some of Lester's posts in the "Clash of Civilizations" thread with some of AHD's replies to Umaril, and I accused him of prolonging the confrontation between them needlessly.  I was mistaken.  My apologies, I am going to bed before I get even more confused.

What do you mean "some"?  I had two replies.  I'm starting to hate this forum for its tolerance of this kind of crap.   I am entitled to an opinion and all the obscuring commentary won't obscure the record of the posts.  But who gives crap?  Nobody reads 'em, they're too busy writing their own thoughts.  Don't worry, and don't lock any threads, the most loathsome aspect of this forum is the haste to do so.  I'm done with this topic.  

Quote from: indianasmith on December 16, 2010, 12:12:38 AM
AHD, if Umaril bugs you so much, quit responding to him altogether!  You are not going to persuade him of anything, especially if you keep referring to him as "it".

Quote from: Allhallowsday on December 16, 2010, 12:38:15 AM
So, it is cool for me, the lefty to be referred to as "she" and "her" (cool by me) ??  Which is intended to insult.  Hey, so it's all a response, and perfectly fair in the context that I am responding to.  Please stop underestimating me.

AHD, sweetie. You have to accept your own responsibility in this. To be fair, I have apologized to you several times for my initial mistaken identity caper. And you kept bringing it up, and beating me over the head with it. And I asked you to stop. You didn't.

AHD, honey. You made fun of my reply in this thread on page 2, in your own form of instigation. And Indy has told you several times that you were doing so in other threads.. So is HE wrong too?  Is he your enemy now because he's pointed out your own wrongdoing?

Underestimating you? No, you just underestimated ME.  You want me to stop? then YOU stop.  You're a big (boy?) and you should realize that compromise must be effected sometimes in order to bring about the desired result.

Quote from: indianasmith on December 16, 2010, 12:37:41 AM
Looking above, I realized my still somewhat fevered brain had run together some of Lester's posts in the "Clash of Civilizations" thread with some of AHD's replies to Umaril, and I accused him of prolonging the confrontation between them needlessly.  I was mistaken.  My apologies, I am going to bed before I get even more confused.

Quote from: Allhallowsday on December 16, 2010, 12:38:15 AM
What do you mean "some"?   I had two replies.  I'm starting to hate this forum for its tolerance of this kind of crap.   I am entitled to an opinion and all the obscuring commentary won't obscure the record of the posts.

But who gives crap?  Nobody reads 'em, they're too busy writing their own thoughts.  Don't worry, and don't lock any threads, the most loathsome aspect of this forum is the haste to do so.  I'm done with this topic.  

Why hate it? Your crap gets tolerated too...oh I see there's only room for one load of crap, so it has to be yours.

Apparently I'm an itch in your knickers, sweetheart.  Well, let me just harmonize with one of your earlier replies to me on page 2 of this article:

Quote from: Allhallowsday on December 12, 2010, 12:50:11 AM
:lookingup:
:drink:
:bouncegiggle:
:bouncegiggle:
:question:  :bouncegiggle:
:twirl:  :drink:

You like it? No, well neither did I. For all your claims of transparency and responsibility you claim the Right lacks, perhaps you should take some of that yourself.

Don't want it done? Then don't do it to me or anyone else.  You respect me, I respect you, that's the deal, don't add any numbers. respect is a two-way street.   :cheers:

Poor li'l ol' PILE, poor li'l ol' match seller, not no matchgirl, that'd be me, ADHD  :bouncegiggle: that leftee leenin' tower o' terror, abused and neglected, female type cow, whipped.   :bluesad: yeller witch  :thumbdown: :tongueout: That's me!!   :bouncegiggle: He he he he he he he heee.

AllHallowsDay and Umaril, let me make this clear:  your disagreement might well go on, but not in public on this forum.  If you want to debate your views, then that is fine.  Debate the issues.  Do not start throwing insults around.

Umaril, you have been way out of line in this thread.  AllHallowsDay created a post of smileys.  While that may have little in the way of contribution (and seemed dismissive), your responses were personally insulting, extremely rude, and immature.  From what I know you are an adult.  Act like one.

I wish I had noticed this nonsense earlier.