Topic awaiting preservation: Satan... (Page 2 of 3)

Bugs, I'm no master of verse. Please help me.
What is your take on Matthew 17:3 "Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus." or Mark 9:4 "And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus."

I'm not saying I believe one can talk with spirits, the dead or anything else. I'm not clear on that yet. You did, however, say that speaking with the dead is prohibited in your religion. I believe there is verse to support that, but there are also these two verses.

Luke 9:33 simply speaks of 'two men' while Peter (who did not know what he was saying) offers to build three shelters.
It seems John avoids the story completely.
Hmmm...

Your thoughts, please.

**************************************************
"speaking to the dead is prohibited"
**************************************************

Even in Chatrooms and Forums? Please say it ain't so.........

[Emp edit: Just shortening the stars as it is creating the HSBoD for those on low resolutions]

[This message has been edited by Emperor (edited 05-16-2003).]

norm:

quote:

---

*********************************************
"speaking to the dead is prohibited"
****************************************************

Even in Chatrooms and Forums? Please say it ain't so.........

---

I'm afraid you have confused the dead with the brain dead.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Jade - I am split on the issue of whether communication with the dead is possible. I tend to think not, as I tend to think there is nothing coherent left of a person when they die.

No, 'Ghost' had no effect on my opinion of the matter

But, either way, I'm unsure how my post spawned that question

the dead know nothing

did you consider that whoever or whatever you are (or think you are) communicating with is very much alive?

Jade- I don't believe in Satan. But that is not why I don't believe that particular spirit manifests itself in the Ouija board. Now granted, I don't know what question you asked the board that prompted such a response. I played around with the Ouija Board when I was younger myself. My friend and I asked it all manner of questions. Some were silly, some were profound. The answers we got we felt were honest... but that was because deep down, we already knew the answers to the questions we were asking. Then you also have to take into account the other person touching the board... Are they giving it just that little extra nudge? How do you know that pull you feel is from their fingers or not? I'm sure they wouldn't own up to it. I know I didn't...

As for this...

quote:

---

. I remember my friend recently told me, her teens were playing with the board on the front porch and it freaked them out, so they went and put it in a dumpster down the corner of the street to rid of it. When they woke up the next morning the game board was on the front porch in front of the door. This put the spooks in them.

---

Well, that could be explained by any number of things, most of them hardly supernatural. Very likely one of the other players put it on their front porch to incite that very "spooked" reaction.
I guess it also kinda concerns me a little that pop culture movies, like "Ghost" and "The Exorcist" have such an influence on your thinking. Remember, Hollywood sensationalizes and very rarely ever gets its facts straight.

And for those of you who are interested, I found this little blurb of an article with a brief history of the Ouija Board. It seems in synch with a book I read a while ago on the topic while I was researching various divination techniques.

If a Ouija board had been proven to actually have the capability of summoning spirits, evil or not, do you really think that Milton Bradley would have been able to market it as a board game? Unless you also harbor the opinion that Milton Bradley is an agent of the devil...

Don't be silly.

In most of the studies involving supernatural activity, the Ouija board has not been proven to work at all in that manner. All movements have been atributed to minute movements in the hands of the people using the board. Now, you could say that some "spirit" coerced a player to move the trivet in that direction - but that's not proveable either. The concept of a Ouija board has been around for a long time. It was a big part of Victorian seances. Along with table tipping and tea leaf readings... Victorian era people really enjoyed playing with those things, though most of those activities were pretty obviously faked.

A related aside: Harry Houdini was always searching for a way to contact his mother after her death. He debunked literally hundreds of mediums across the world. He was never able to successfully contact her. He also set up a code with his wife that after his death, if she could contact him through a medium successfully, the message would direct her to a specific passage in a specific book. The message was never successfully delivered.

I suppose there are some of you who believe that James van Praagh is actually speaking to people's dead relatives? You've heard of him, right? He's been on television and on tours around the US, at least, setting up seminars at which he "randomly" picks people out of the audience and contacts their dead relatives through his mental "powers".

BTW: Bugs - Would you please cite where it says in the Bible that speaking with the dead is prohibited... I've never heard that before. I'm curious.

edit - MD, I should have read your link first! DOH!
Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 05-15-2003).]

I guess a good thing to do would be to have the people using it close their eyes, with someone watching and recording what happens.

quote:

---

No matter what I say it doesn't really matter, would it actually change your mind?

---

GN, it most certainly could. I really do listen to everyone hear and consider their points of view. I have changed my position on several issues so far in my life and every one because of good arguments presented by people I respect. If learning from each other wasn?t possible around here, then it would be a very sad state of affairs. People come to this place to learn all sorts of awesome technical stuff? there is no reason we can?t do the same with philosophy and silliness

I will tell you the truth that I do not know who or what people contact during these efforts to speak with the dead. I am not even sure they are actually speaking to anything. I simply don?t have enough data to make that determination and so I?m open to hearing more about it.

The fact that I believe conjuring spirits is a sin doesn?t speak to whether or not it is really possible to do. IOW, it may in fact be possible but just not a good idea.

Your description is not the kind of speaking I was imagining. I was thinking more about audible voices that could be witnessed by a group of people in a room like in a séance.

quote:

---

"speaking to the dead is prohibited" Where in the bible does it say that? I think the bible says the opposite.

---

Jade, I need to correct what I said. I should say that seeking information from the dead via spiritism is prohibited. You make very valid remarks about intercessory prayer. We most certainly should ask others to pray for us, the more the better. I understand the arguments for praying to saints for intercessory prayer and I have come to the conclusion that while it is never mentioned in the bible, that it can't hurt as long as it's not abused or substituted for prayer to the Father through the Son.

On a practical matter, I think Catholics go entirely too far with praying to saints. I understand that the theology as taught by your church on this subject is ok. But the way it is practiced by a large number of the flock is far from ok. Just as with the Mother of God, far too many Catholics cross the boundary from veneration to worship. Big problem, that.

But back to the topic of conjuring the dead or spirits. That is definitely prohibited as I will go on to show.

quote:

---

Bugs, I'm no master of verse. Please help me.
What is your take on Matthew 17:3 "Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus."...
Your thoughts, please.

---

mobrul, the transfiguration is described in the "synoptic" gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called that because they basically recount much of the same occurrences in Jesus' life in the "same view" which is what synoptic means. John was written much later and to a different audience and therefore covers things from a slightly different view point.

My take on the Transfiguration as it relates to talking with the dead is that Jesus Christ had access to the "other side" throughout His time here on earth. If you feel inclined to believe the devil, even he said as much when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness. I am saying this was a special case. It was special because it was done by the Son of God and it does not apply to why we shouldn't conjure up the dead.

Now I want to lay out why I say it's prohibited from a reading of the biblical text. In the OT, we have an account of the last days of King Saul. Samuel has already died and God had abandoned Saul so he turned to other means. Keep in mind this was the king of Israel at the time.

quote:

---

.
1 Samuel 28 (full chapter)

...He inquired of the LORD , but the LORD did not answer him by dreams or Urim or prophets. Saul then said to his attendants, "Find me a woman who is a medium, so I may go and inquire of her...

... Then the woman asked, "Whom shall I bring up for you?"
"Bring up Samuel," he said....

... Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"
"I am in great distress," Saul said. "The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has turned away from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do."

---

quote:

---

So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the LORD, because of the word of the LORD which he did not keep; and also (2) because he asked counsel of a medium, making inquiry of it,...
--1 Chronicles 10

---

quote:

---

When they say to you, "Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter," should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living?
--Isaiah 8

---

The Mosaic law most definitely prohibited the practice. Leviticus spells out page after page of rules and regulations. Here's one that directly addressed this issue:

quote:

---

'Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God.
--Leviticus 19:31

---

And if you didn't get enough of the Law the first time it was spelled out by Moses, we have the book of Deuteronomy that actually means "second law":

quote:

---

"There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.
"For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you.
--Deuteronomy 18

---

Bottom line: I don't know for sure whether it is possible but even if it is, Xians should not be doing it. God is wholly sufficient when it comes to anything we may or may not be able to get from conjuring up the dead.

One question Bugs - since the men who wrote those passages were inspired by God (if I understand that correctly), then God is saying that we (Mankind) shouldn't attempt talking to the dead. Isn't that proof enough, that it is possible? Otherwise, why make a law (or laws) against it?

Or is this a way of contacting Satan?

In any event, I'm curious...

Excellent question! I would say, no. I have thought about this before and it certainly could mean it's possible or it could mean that you are not talking to who you think you are on the other end. outcydr already mentioned that and there are a lot of people who think you are really conversing with evil spirits and not dead humans at all.

But here is another spin that I would like you to consider. What is your opinion of John Edwards... you know the guy on the SciFi channel who talks to dead relatives? I consider him a complete fraud and a very hurtful person for taking advantage of people longing to speak with dead loved ones. I believe he is lying to them, or himself, so much that it is borderline criminal behavior. I think it is very possible that the writers of the Law were just as aware of this as we are and that is why it was banned.

WebShaman, consider this:

quote:

---

then God is saying that we (Mankind) shouldn't attempt talking to the dead. Isn't that proof enough, that it is possible? Otherwise, why make a law (or laws) against it?

---

No, it's not. I'd agree with Bugs on this one, but I have something to add. Suppose that a large number of people started drinking "substance X" because they thought that it would make them fly. Now, substance X can't make you fly, all it can do is slowly destroy synapses in your brain. If a large number of people bought Substance X and drank it, it would come to someones attention and either (a) Substance X would be prohibited or (b) your would get jail time and a fine for drinking Substance X.

IMHO, it's kinda like that.

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 05-16-2003).]

Hmmm...

Well, I can see the point of prohibiting it, because of fraud, certainly. But it wouldn't have be a Law coming from God, to do that...and why would God really care if it really wasn't possible? Now, re-reading many of those passages that were quoted, it specifically mentions that this information is coming from God...that He doesn't want Mankind doing this. However, it doesn't really give a reason (or reasons) why...which is pretty typical for most of God's Laws, come to think of it...so what? We are left to debate over the why? *sigh* All I wanted was a straight answer...according to the Bible, is it possible to contact and speak with the dead? If so, wouldn't that be evidence that there might, indeed, be either an afterlife, or the existence of beings that we cannot see...on a 'spiritual' level, so to speak. I find it rather strange, that God would prohibit such research...why is He always trying to hold us back? Imagine, we could have both sides of the fence working on this one (science and creation) were it not for this stupid 'law' and the fact that the subject is not taken seriously (or seen as taboo). That tends to irritate me...from this type of research, we could maybe make some huge breakthroughs...in fact, there are many things like this that irritate me about God, and the Bible...it seems, time and again, we get held back by these 'laws'...why would God do this? I get the feeling, that it is not God at all, but Man doing this...in the name of God. That tends to bother me. Sorry for the small rant, but it is something that I can make no real sense of.

As for the guy on TV...heh. Do I think he can really talk to the spirits? Nope. Most of those that I know, who can (or believe that they can), would never make a public spectacle of this...among my people, this is a very serious topic, and sacred. I believe that this guy is doing a huge disfavor to any one that takes the subject seriously...or wishes to be taken seriously. It's crackpots like this, that gives the subject a bad name...and stifles the seriousness of anyone trying to research it. Just try to get funding to research this topic, or be taken seriously...and people like this guy are not helping matters...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 05-16-2003).]

would one of the madsci's fix this forum.. monitor wide sentences are impossible
to read
tia

[edit - thanks emps, the thread is liquid again ]

[This message has been edited by velvetrose (edited 05-18-2003).]

Ummm...monitor wide sentences? I don't see any...

Just to clarify - I personally, don't think that James van Praagh can do what he claims, and I have pretty good reasons for not believing it. I was mostly just curious to see if there was anyone who did believe he could do it. Considering that the conversation was turning to whether something like the Ouija board actually worked...

I thought it appropriate in the sense that you (in general) believe that the Ouija board can contact the spirit world - how 'bout this guy who says he can reach your dead grandmother?

Thanks for the verses, Bugs - I remember our OT discussions about that now... been a few years though. That memory almost went *poof*!

Bodhi - Cell 617

quote:

---

GN, it most certainly could. I really do listen to everyone hear and consider their points of view.

---

Sorry Bugs...

And there has been proof of people actually hearing the voices (audible) of dead spirits. I can't remember where I was reading, but the thing I was reading was talking about a young girl who talked to this spirit by a barn on her land. Several people witnessed this and even some people from a newspaper. I think it was in the mid-1940's. I am sort of busy, but will see if I can find a link. Or if you maybe search for 'girl, barn, voices, spirit' or something, you could find it.

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 05-16-2003).]

I'm a little baffled at what you consider "proof".

Some people heard a girl by a barn talking to a voice....so that's proof we can comminicate with the dead

Based on that kind of evidence, I can prove to you that I'm super man...

You are superman, DL...at least in my eyes [sigh]

And Bugs, thank you for your response to my question.

double post

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 05-17-2003).]

quote:

---

PARANORMAL VOICES - There are many similar poltergeist incidents. One of them took place in Canada in 1889 and was researched by Percy Woodcock for the Brockville Recorder and Times. A family in Clarendon had adopted an 11-year old orphan. Not long after her arrival at the farm all sorts of puzzling events occurred. The reporter took the girl to a barn behind the house. She said: "Are you there, Sir?". To his amazement he heard a gruffy voice answer at a distance of five feet. Woodcock thoroughly searched the barn but could not find an explanation. Thereupon he asked the girl to fill her mouth with water. Yet, the voice came again. He took the girl to the parlour of the farm where about twenty neighbours had gathered. They all heard the voice in her vicinity uttering foul language for quite some time.

---

So, Superman...I heard that Lex Luthar is planning on destroying Chicago with a new machine he created that makes tornados the size of the Mount Everest...What are we to do?

There's also this...

quote:

---

PARANORMAL VOICES - Impressive was the direct voice phenomenon of the late Leslie Flint, see photo (1911-1994). This British medium has been tested many times. The voices manifesting in space in his vicinity could be heard by everyone present and were recorded on tape by some of them.

---

.quotes.

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 05-17-2003).]

Jade, I thought what you said was very interesting.

Wnen I was 19 and begining to develope spritual leanings I read a book on demonism that kinda spooked me. The beliefs I had suggested that this kind of material was reather unhealty reading, so in a effert to purge myself I removed all things that conflicted with my beliefs. I took the book outside and put it right in the bottom of the garbage can under all the other trash at the end of the drive. I actually watched the garbage truck arrive (at 7am) and take all the trash away. Good I thought. Evening came and I went to bed. In the morning I came downstairs and what do I see? The book was laying on the kitchen table. I was alone at home for those few days so nobody could have brought it back in. The second time I tore it into little peices, put it in the trash can again.. watched the garbage man take it away... this time it did not return. I have had numerous experiences like this over the years. These things are not a matter of belief or faith, they actually happen. Whether I believe or not is irrelevant, they actually happen in the indesputable physical world. i can't argue with it any more, it's real. It happens too often.


Ecclesiastes chapter 9 says:

[4] For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
[5] For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
[6] Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

So if the dead are dead and gone and 'have no portion in anything', when those spirit mediums and whoever claim to contact the dead who or what are they actually contacting?

A major feature of spritism is claimed communication with the dead. Since the dead " are conscious of nothing at all," communication with such dead persons is actually impossible (Ec 9:5) God's law to Israel forbade anyone inquiring of the dead and made the practice of spritism a capital offence. (Le 19:31; 20:6,27; De 18:9-12; compare Isa 8:19) And in Christian Greek Scriptures the statement is made that those who practice such things "will not inherit God's kingdom" (Ga 5:20.21; Rev 21:8) It therefore logically follows that any claimed communication, must be from an evil source that stands in opposition to God. The bible clearly indicates that wicked sprirts, demons are this eveil source. A case in point is "a certain servant girl" in the city of Philippi. She used to furnish her masters with much gain by practicing "the art of prediction", one of those things related to spiritism.(De 18:11) The account plainly says that the source of her predictions was not God, but "a demon devination," a wicked spirit. Hence when the apostle Paul expelled the wicked spirit, this girl lost her power of prediction (Atcs 16:16-19) Regarding the Greek expresion pneu'-ma py-the-na, here renddered "a demon of divination," Vines Expository of Old and New Testament Words (Vol 1, p.328) says: "Py-thon, in Greek mythology was a name of the Pythian serpent or dragon, dwelling in Pytho, at the foot of mount Parnassus, guarding the oracle of Delphi, and slain by Apollo. Thence the name was transferred to Apollo himself. Later the word was applied to deviners or soothsayres, regarding as inspiring idolatry, 1 Cor, 10:20, the young woman in Acts 16:16 was possesed by a ddemon instigating the cult of Apollo, and thus had a spirit od divination.


[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 05-17-2003).]

X, I have had several people recount similar stories to me. I have never witnessed any such thing but so many of the people I respect claim these things happen. It's hard to dismiss.

Gilbert - I'm still waiting for the "proof" part of that

Those are stories that relate that at some point, some people somewhere heard voices.
Which first of all, may not be true at all (remember the salem witch trials, and all of their false testimony?). Which second of all, even if it *was* proven that voices were there, still does not prove by *any* stretch that they are the voices of the dead.

As for that tornado attack - yeah, I took care of it. Lex is imprisoned in the center of the earth right now. ( <-- proof!).

DL - Yea, I know its not concrete or anything, but its pretty interesting. How exactly could you get concrete proof of a voice from a dead person talking?What kind of concrete proof? A formula, a chart, a mathmatical equation, a sample of the speciment? I don't really know how they could get any concrete proof, even if there was a tape recorder and a camera, or some news crew. The only concrete proof would have to be you witnessing it itself, right? So, how can 'you' then; prove that it doesn't exist?

Xpirex - If you look at the bible from a distance. I mean, try and imagine reading the bible from an analytical, outside force with no spiritaul attachment. Ok now think this thought....imagine that there were a bunch of super-tough humans a long time ago who could see into the future, use their minds to heal themselves, talk to their dead ancestors for help in solving problems and figuring things out, could walk on water, move things with their mind, you know, all the cool things that are claimed to be possible by various healers and psychic. Now, imagine that all that stuff was real, and that all humans could do it. Imagine you were an outside source, even more powerful than humans and you were this outside powerful race of people coming to this planet who likes to rule and control other planets. Now this race of people would most likely come to the conclusion that to control them, they should do it by spiritual means. Hence, they created a whole idea structure with them as the Gods. They thought to themselves...what if these people could later become super powerful, and destroy us and our powerful rule...We must make a book...yes, several books for each continent, each language. And we will teach these people that it is bad to use their gifts, that their ancestors are really talking demons....that we are the only true God....that if they disobey our ideas, they will go to hell....and everything else that is in the old testament. Now of course, this is maybe not true, but just as much a possiblity as anything else.

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 05-19-2003).]

Testamonials in themselves are not sufficient proof that spirits exist and can communicate with the living. Controlled experiments need to be set up in order to eliminate all other factors before communication with spirits can actually be said to be proven.

For some people, a recording or testimonial is enough. For the scientific community, it is not.

With the consumer level availability of high tech digital A/V equipment, there is more investigation than ever of these types of events. At some point, the scientific community is going to have to make some changes to their stance on it, I'm sure. They're not all hoaxes.

After watching some ghost hunting special on TLC or Discovery or something, I formulated my own theory about it. I think that hauntings are echoes. Not of current events - but from the past. I think energy can be trapped in a temporal location, and can be re-experienced by sensitive people. It's just speculation - I've never had the opportunity to check it out, and I'm not certain that it could be checked out... it sure would be an interesting study though.

Bodhi - Cell 617

Could it be that the more spiritually open minded are contacted because they are more receptive?

I had an encounter when I was 22. My husband & were asleep one night & I remember I was dreaming, and I could hear someone calling and I remember I didn't want to wake up from this good dream but the voice kept getting louder and louder. When I finally woke, I looked toward to where the voice was coming from and saw a small boy around 7yrs old dressed in white standing at the edge of the door. I remember he was wearing a suit, but his pants where short and his hair was black combed to the side. He was just looking at me intently not saying a word. I thought I must be seeing things and rubbed by eyes to see clearer. He was still there. At this point I became afraid and woke up my husband to look at this boy, but he was gone. Afterwards, I edged closer to my husband and cried myself to sleep out of fear. As I am now older I regret never asking the boy who he was or what he wanted. I do not know if this was of good or bad. I would like to believe it was of good, because I believe that the evil spirits can also trick you. I never asked for this contact. It just came to me. So sometimes I think we have no control over the spirit, be it good or bad to get in touch with us.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 05-19-2003).]

GN - getting concrete proof would require an awful lot of documentation under the proper circumstances. The fact that we have never gotten such documentation under such circumstances leaves me pretty skeptical. What exactly would suffice as proof? I'm not sure i can really answer that.

But there's a *huge* leap from "some people said this girl heard a voice 150 years ago" to "this is proof we can speak with the dead".

As I said, by using that as "proof" of any sort - or even as any realistic indication of the event really happening - you open the door for absolutely anything to enter the picture as a credible resource, and you eliminate any possibility of discovering what is true.

Thats weird Jade, but I've heard of it before, but never a first-hand experiences.

I guess that I have a "first hand" experience to share here as well, which is justification enough to me that their is some type of spirit world:

When I was about 5, maybe 6, I forgot exatcly when, my parents were having some maritial trouble, and were fighting a lot. In any case, my Dad was in my room, and I told him that something was on the wall. He looked back and nothing was there. I said it again, and still nothing. Then he said that he got a more or less (crazy, out of the blue) notion that maybe he should pray about it. After doing so, it was gone, and the tension between him and my Mom let up significantly. He is certain that too this day it was some type of (negative) spirit or demon, or whatever you want to call them.

In any case, I only vaguelt remember it, but it seems logical that it might of been a spirit or demon that was somehow working to break the marriage. Don't laugh, but I beleive that it is true.

In responce to what Bohdi has to say, about setting up controls and limiting variables for testing, I really don't
(beleive)
think that God works that way, most of the time. I have heard the
(urban legend)
story about the school teacher that dropped the pen, after saying: If God exists, he'll prevent this pen from falling to the floor," and instead of the pen falling, it rolled down his shirt sleeve, down his pants and finally stopped on his shoe. But, then again, thats just a story that has been twisted and distorted by the internet. But, in general, I don't think that God presents himself to people that are seeking him, or seeking truth, either conventinally or though other means.

Other "proof" that I have comes from Mike Warnke's "The Satan Seller." I know that it's not "proof," but I more or less beleive the story. In it, he is talking to a cab driver about his practicies and involvment in Satanism, and the cab driver says: prove it. So, he gets out of the car, and summons a demon, intent on making it destroy a gas station. Evidently, according to the book (and if I remember correnctly, I read it about two yeras ago), it either caught fire several hours later or within a period of minutes.

Do spirits have to be from God? As I recall, even the Bible mentions spirits that exist apart from God... whether you relegate them to Heaven or Hell, I think is debatable depending on the situation at hand.

The question of proof came up in discussion about speaking with the dead. That would not necessarily be God revealing himself to anyone... Just spirits chatting with the living. In order for "proof" to be considered by the scientific community, it has to have been obtained using scientific method. If not - it's not considered scientific.

Surely, God reveals himself to those who seek him - and sometimes to those who do not know they are seeking him... But in the context of the current discussion - it's not relevant.

My point was merely that to consider evidence in a supernatural situation, certain controls must be set up in order to eliminate certain variables. It's how you perform a scientific experiment... An experiment must prove one hypothesis, while at the same time disproving another hypothesis...

Bodhi - Cell 617

quote:

---

The question of proof came up in discussion about speaking with the dead. That would not necessarily be God revealing himself to anyone... Just spirits chatting with the living. In order for "proof" to be considered by the scientific community, it has to have been obtained using scientific method. If not - it's not considered scientific.

---

Ok, sorry to go around digging up the dead here, but how about evolution. I don't know if you beleive it or not (and personally, it makes no diffrence), but he fact is that the scientific community has embraced that, and yet. in a controlled enviorment, they haven't created life.

Oh...Sorry. For any of you who don't know what I'm talking about. A few months ago, around last summer, there were a lot of threads about evolution vs. creation.

Ok....so please, explain to me what scientists creating life in a laboratory would have to do with evolution?

And how either concept applies to the current discussion...?

You're trying to compare something that has a boatload of scientific evidence behind to a story that appeared in a newspaper a humdred years ago as it was told by people who heard a girl talk to a voice behind a barn...?

~general confusion~



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 05-21-2003).]

jade:

quote:

---

I had an encounter when I was 22. My husband & were asleep one night & I remember I was dreaming, and I could hear someone calling and I remember I didn't want to wake up from this good dream but the voice kept getting louder and louder. When I finally woke, I looked toward to where the voice was coming from and saw a small boy around 7yrs old dressed in white standing at the edge of the door.........

---

Thats very interesting - we had a discussion about Night Terrors/The Hag and that fits in with that kind of thing - you can clearly see the continuity between these kind of waking dreams and stories of alien abduction, demonic/angelic visitations, etc.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well, I'm saying that neither can be reproduced in a labratory, yet one is accepted and one isn't. I know that their's more to it, but that's pretty much how it seems to me.

Evolution has been re-created in a lab...many times, on a microscopic scale...but you know that.

But long-scale evolution is kinda hard to re-create in a lab - it takes hundreds of thousands of years....and until life expectancies go way up, is unlikely to occur...

Yes, I know that it has, but evolution, where (a) species change into a diffrent species has never been proven. Mutations have occured, and the Bible backs it up (indirectly). Look at Noahs Ark, if the story is true, and we take a creature like the dog, then two of them would of had to breed and mutate into the various forms of dog today. See, mutations occur, micro-evolution occurs, but macro-evolution, and the change from one species to another (the infamous missing link) has never been proven. I'm not saying, either, that evolution isn't possible. I just beleive that it isn't.

If it were possible, though..

...But this is off the subject. Sorry. Continue on, and it was a bad example.

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 05-21-2003).]

The 'infamous' missing link, has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, again, and again, and again (how about those fossils of a 4 winged lizard/bird?) How about the fossil remains of Whales, that walked on land? And on, and on, and on...

There are even examples alive today...mammals, that are cold-blooded, the Platypus (mammal that lays eggs, the Galapagos Iguanas (have adapted to Sea Water) etc...

Cfb, Evolution has been proven...it's the process itself that is still being refined, and identified...i.e. how and why this occurs...

This is not a question of belief...as Creationism is.

It's obvious that Noah's Ark could not have re-populated the Earth with animals...first of all, there would have to have been mutations on a scale never witnessed before...to get the present diversity. Second, where are the Dinosaurs, then? Third, how did the predator population survive? For them to survive, it would then have meant the extincition of large groups of other animals...just doesn't work.

I know this is kinda off the subject. But there is a possibility the story of Noahs Ark might not have really happened the way we read it. Just like other stories of the bible that really didn't happen they way they did. For instance was Jonah really in the whale for 3 days? Or did Adam & Eve really share an apple? To me these were stories the writers used to make it easier to get the point across. And wants more important the story or the message it conveys. Like a campfire story being handed down thur the ages because for a time nothing was written about it. It was just an oral story. This being said, I read the story of Noahs Ark is symoblic. If there are other Christians out there who know more about this, let us know. But the story is about a people who turned away from God in their journey in life and were cast into darkness, but the family who lived right with God thru baptism(water of flood representing baptism as a new birth of the soul) will be have eternal life thur the Ark(Ark wood which symoblzes the cross of Jesus) which will carry them to the eternal peace with God(dove is symbol of peace) to a land (which represents heaven).
There is more to his view as far as detail but I don't remember like the raining for 40 days/nites also symbolic. And also giving the message of the coming of the Jesus the savior. But Adam & Eve, Cain and Abel, Job and Jonah are all basically written for the same purpose. And all inspired to convey who God is thru his actions. So this maybe might have nothing to do with creationism or evolution.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 05-21-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 05-21-2003).]

Something I found on Evolution for WebShamens 'facts...'

"As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the essentially " religious" character of evolutionism. Even though they themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that they believe it! "Science", however, is not supposed to be something one "believes". Science is knowledge?that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only be believed.

For example, two leading evolutionary biologists have described modern neo-Darwinism as "part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training". 1 A prominent British biologist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, in the Introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, said that "belief in the theory of evolution" was "exactly parallel to belief in special creation", with evolution merely "a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature". 2 G.W. Harper calls it a "metaphysical belief". 3

Ernst Mayr, the outstanding Harvard evolutionary biologist, calls evolution "man's world view today". 4 Sir Julian Huxley, probably the outstanding evolutionist of the twentieth century saw "evolution as a universal and all-pervading process"5 and, in fact, nothing less than "the whole of reality". 6 A leading evolutionary geneticist of the present day, writing an obituary for Theodosius Dobzhansky, who himself was probably the nation's leading evolutionist at the time of his death in 1975, says that Dobzhansky's view of evolution followed that of the notorious Jesuit priest, de Chardin.

The place of biological evolution in human thought was, according to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: '(Evolution) is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.? 7
The British physicist, H.S. Lipson, has reached the following conclusion.

In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it. 8
The man whom Dobzhansky called "France's leading zoologist", although himself an evolutionist, said that scientists should "destroy the myth of evolution" as a simple phenomenon which is "unfolding before us". 9 Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge", saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth". 10 In another address he called evolution "story-telling". 11 All of the above-cited authorities are (or were) among the world's foremost authorities on evolutionism. Note again the terms which they use in describing evolution.

Evolutionary dogma A scientific religion
A satisfactory faith The myth of evolution
Man's world view Anti-knowledge
All-pervading process Revealed truth
The whole of reality An illuminating light
Metaphysical belief Story-telling

Charles Darwin himself called evolution "this grand view of life". Now such grandiloquent terms as these are not scientific terms! One does not call the law of gravity, for example, "a satisfactory faith", nor speak of the laws of thermodynamics as "dogma". Evolution is, indeed, a grand world view, but it is not science. Its very comprehensiveness makes it impossible even to test scientifically. As Ehrlich and Birch have said: "Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it.?No one can think of ways in which to test it". 12

Seems you have more faith then you would have us all believe...

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 05-22-2003).]