Preserved Topic: Dinosaur Adventure Land! (or, how the Creationists explain the Dinosaurs) (Page 4 of 9)

quote:

---

The Satanist would gain emotional satisfaction from destroying an adversary, and wouldn't think that there would be an "effect" from this "cause".

---

I must apologuise, because I feel that 'gaining satisfaction' from the 'pain' of another human being is a sadistic contribution to the downfall of humanity.

Well, I was assuming that you meant someone had already inflicted pain upon the Satanist. To me thats just someone getting what they deserve.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Who are you to judge if a man deserves to suffer?

Well, who was he to hit you? He should have been concious of the possible consequences of his actions.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Who he was to hit you doesn't matter, that's completely irrelevant. If he does something that you disagree with (such as hit you) and you do the exact thing back in retaliation, you've reduced yourself to their level, you're a hypocrite.

I'm beginning to think that we are not going to be able to continue this conversation.

quote:

---

You can substitute Pagan for the term "Wiccan" you know.

---

Yeah,...and......??

I am at a loss as to what your point is. You claim that "paganism" and "satanism" have existed since before christianity, but these terms are used so loosely and apply so vaguely that it is totally meaningless to try and make any sort of point from that.

I understand very well that the term satanism is being tossed around very loosely these days, and is being used by a great variety of people/groups to mean what they want it to mean. But using the term that way doesn't change anything.

Ruski, it took a while to respond to your question about Galileo, Kepler, and Newton being religious but here's some support. I read an excellent book a few years back entitled, The Galileo Connection by Charles Hummel. I don't have the book here and I wanted to quote from it but I found an excerpt on the web about Kepler:

quote:

---

"On November 2, 1630, Kepler rode his horse across the cold Danube River into Regensburg where he stayed with a friend. Soon he came down with a fever that grew steadily worse with occasional delirium. Although several clergymen visited him, they did not offer the Communion he had been denied so many years. Yet Kepler was not bitter. When someone asked him in a lucid moment where he thought his salvation lay, he answered confidently, "Only and alone on the services of Jesus Christ." In Christ the astronomer found his refuge and solace."

From here: http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1989/89feb4.html

---

It's really not unusual at all for scientists to have religious faith and there are many other examples if you look for them.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-21-2004 07:13)

Actually, the oldest, unbroken religion recorded is the Aborigine belief in the Dreamtime - it's more than 250,000+ years old...and still going, albeit a bit slower, now.

And Bugs...you never really did answer that which was posed - how is un-belief viewed by the Christians? As following (knowingly or unknowingly) Satan, right?

So...anything that is not Christian, is linked to the Devil, correct? Black and White, Good and Evil. You kind of "dance around the issue", so to speak...by saying either follow Christ or don't follow Christ...so for one that doesn't follow Christ, what then? What does that then mean? As I was a Christian, I was taught that anything that didn't believe in the Christian God, and in Christ, was going to Hell, without exception (unless one changed their belief, that is, to Christianity).

Are you saying that has changed?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Peter and John put it like this:

quote:

---

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." --Acts 4:12

---

I don't mean to dance around anything, you either are in Christ or you are not. The end result is as you say, believers will live with Christ forever in the places he has prepared for them in heaven and unbelievers will not share in that.

What exactly did I say that would make you think it did change?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

It's really not unusual at all for scientists to have religious faith and there are many other examples if you look for them.

---

Absolutely. Galileo was certainly a religious man, and he was never out to prove chistianity wrong, or any of that kind of nonsense. He was out to find the truth about our universe. He brought his findings to the church because he was naive enough to think they would want to know, and would be sure to present the truth.

Instead he was persecuted and denounced severely.

Go figure...

Many figures who are made out in hindsight to be 'anti-christian' or 'anti-pope' really were not. Martin Luther desired that cathlics simply be better catholics. Galileo simply wanted better eduacted catholics.

Well

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If someone is not christian is he/she supposed to be concidered satanist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would not use that term, no. But perhaps the point Sanzen if referring to is that you are either part of the solution or you're not. There is no middle ground when it comes to following Christ, you either follow him or you don't.

---

I just wanted a better explaination from you on this point, that was all. Thanks.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-24-2004 19:20)

An interjection... with all the flinging about of the word "pagan", I thought we should all be aware of where the term comes from:

Pagan is from the Latin pagani which means 'farmer'.

The term 'Heathen' derives from the name given to people who lived in the country, "one who lives on the heath".

The reason they have been twisted to refer to someone as non-Christian is due to the fact that during the rising years of Christianity, the people who were the most difficult to convert were those who lived in the rural areas and had little contact with "civilized" people. Their beliefs could not be controlled by the Church because of lack of contact.

That's all I wanted to say - I now return you to your regularly scheduled argu... no... debate!

To believe that the only reason a life is formed, nurtured, educated and sent on its merry way to experience and explore so it can become what its is on this planet for no particular reason seems awfully hard to swallow. To come into existence just to treat humanity nice, believe your a nice person and that you accomplished good things in your lifetime so your co-earthlings and family survivors can think good of you when your six feet under seems pointless in the big picture of things.

Besides, look at the beauty of this planet. The sunset, a beautiful clear day, the snow capped moutains, beatuiful landscapes, all the worlds vacations breathtaking spots. Just to look at the earth from pictures that come from outers space cameras are so breathtaking beautiful against the other planets. Its so majestic and grand and I am in awe of those pictures just like some of you are too,I am sure. How can we think that this earth is not from the handiwork of a GOD. And if there is a possiblity that GOD is responsibe for creating this planet that took millions of years of his handiwork and still is ongoing in process, what more does he have stored for us? I can only wonder.

I feel that Charles Darwin was chosen to write "Origin of the Species". This was no accident. Why did he in his time come to those conclusions and no one else. How gifted we are that he studied and came to these findings. I can only feel that we are going to be presented with many more findings that might seem contrary to scripture, but are not because we in our limited understanding cannot fathom what God really is in all his glory. And I believe creationism and evolution are of one. Because God is one in all. God comes to all in different packages to many people and the ability to see God in all is a gift freely given.

Why are Christians even today still being persecuted for being Christian?

If no one on this planet can reason or prove Christ is not God, why not give Christ a try just in case Jesus is God. The mere fact that Christianity has grown into what it has from the oral teachings of twelve humans who lived 2000 years ago should speak for itself.

(Edited by jade on 05-24-2004 20:34)

I would normally use the term "satanist" for someone who fits the dictionary definition more closely:

quote:

---

Main Entry: sa·tan·ism
Pronunciation: 'sA-t&n-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
1 : innate wickedness : DIABOLISM
2 : obsession with or affinity for evil; specifically : the worship of Satan marked by the travesty of Christian rites
- sa·tan·ist /-ist/ noun, often capitalized

---

I think calling all non-Christians "satanists" would only serve to confuse the issue beyond any sense. The theological specifics about it being "all or nothing" is not widely known and it is not reflected in the common usage of the term "satanist". I hope that clears things up a bit.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

If no one on this planet can reason or prove Christ is not God, why not give Christ a try just in case Jesus is God. The mere fact that Christianity has grown into what it has from the oral teachings of twelve humans who lived 2000 years ago should speak for itself.

---

If you can't prove that Christ IS God, why should I believe in him. And what's the point of believing in something just becuase it COULD be right. What about all the thousands of other religions; why shouldn't you believe in them just because? That's sort of a retarded reason to believe in anything.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Retarted?

OK Sanzan. Give me some reasons that might make you a believer? How or what would Jesus have to prove to you to have you believe in him as being the son of the living God?

We know he walked on water. There were eye witnesses.

Weknow he cast out evil spirits from possessed persons. There were eye witnesses to this.

We know he brought the dead back to life. There were eye witnesses.

We know he healed the sick from fatal or incurable diseases. There were eye witnesses.

And we know he feed thousands of people from a small basket of bread & fish becausee there were witnesses to this too.

What else does Jesus have to do to prove he is God.

(Edited by jade on 05-24-2004 22:04)

Sanzen, I think that was probably stated in the spirit of Pascal's Wager. I would prefer that people would want to give Christianity a try on its own merits. It it doesn't stand on its own, then it deserves to fail. I firmly believe it does stand on its own and that is one of the reasons I follow it and advocate everyone else doing the same.

[edit] I didn't see jade's reply until after I hit reply. jade makes very valid points and I might just add that raising oneself from the dead was what really got my attention

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-24-2004 22:06)

quote:

---

We know he walked on water. There were eye witnesses.

Weknow he cast out evil spirits from possessed persons. There were eye witnesses to this.

We know he brought the dead back to life. There were eye witnesses.

We know he healed the sick from fatal or incurable diseases. There were eye witnesses.

And we know he feed thousands of people from a small basket of bread & fish becausee there were witnesses to this too.

---

We don't know any of this.

We have it written down that these things happened, by a group of people dedicated to making people beleive that Jesus was divine.

Big whoop - I have a superman comic or two with some *really* impressive stuff written in them.

=)

quote:

---

We know he walked on water. There were eye witnesses

---

"Eyewitnesses" from 2000 years ago would highly lack credibility in my opinion.

quote:

---

Weknow he cast out evil spirits from possessed persons. There were eye witnesses to this.

---

Assuming I believe that "evil spirits" exist.

quote:

---

We know he healed the sick from fatal or incurable diseases. There were eye witnesses.

---

There are also people who are eye witness to placebo healing, in 3rd world countries there are plenty of scam doctors that operate on people with deathly illnesses with no medical procedure at all - who just use slight of hand, yet the "patient" claims to feel better.

quote:

---

And we know he feed thousands of people from a small basket of bread & fish becausee there were witnesses to this too.

---

Again, I bet we can trust stories from wine-drunk partybois of Jesus'

quote:

---

What else does Jesus have to do to prove he is God.

---

Jesus has to come down from heaven, tap me on the shoulder, and with his aura and choir of angels singing in the background say to me, "Yea, child, I am Jesus; and I am God." And then he would have to ascend magically in to heaven, to prove to me that Jesus is God.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

Who he was to hit you doesn't matter, that's completely irrelevant. If he does something that you disagree with (such as hit you) and you do the exact thing back in retaliation, you've reduced yourself to their level, you're a hypocrite.

---

Beg to differ.
There is a difference between initiating force and self-defense.

quote:

---

Jesus has to come down from heaven, tap me on the shoulder, and with his aura and choir of angels singing in the background say to me, "Yea, child, I am Jesus; and I am God." And then he would have to ascend magically in to heaven, to prove to me that Jesus is God.

---

I've heard this answer before and I honestly don't think that you would accept this either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you be more inclined to explain that whoever it was that did all that was probably just a highly advanced alien? This is not as goofy as it sounds because this has been offered as a possible explanation for the resurrection before. In fact, there was an excellent TNG episode that had some alien chick running around impersonating gods different cultures and basically doing a scifi con job on them. She was quite attractive as I recall as well... I really liked that episode

bodhi23, I missed your post up there the last time I replied. Thank you for pointing that out, I recall that as the origin of those words as well. In fact, there were some missionaries that dedicated their lives to reaching those out in the countrysides and the missionaries were often persecuted by the churches in the cities for associating with all those unclean types. It was that same mentality of the church turning in on itself and shutting out those who were "not worthy" of salvation. I've got news for them... umm... actually by now they may have already got the news from a higher source.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

I've heard this answer before and I honestly don't think that you would accept this either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you be more inclined to explain that whoever it was that did all that was probably just a highly advanced alien? This is not as goofy as it sounds because this has been offered as a possible explanation for the resurrection before. In fact, there was an excellent TNG episode that had some alien chick running around impersonating gods different cultures and basically doing a scifi con job on them. She was quite attractive as I recall as well... I really liked that episode

---

I'd be skeptical, but definately more inclined to believe.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

wouldn't you be more inclined to explain that whoever it was that did all that was probably just a highly advanced alien?

---

And who's to say that's not what "god" is/was?

I personally find it far more beleiveable that aliens visited the earth thousands of years ago and inspired stories of gods. They would not have had to have been 'highly advanced' at that point, simply being at our current technological level would inspire tales of magic and super-human power.

I also don't find it hard to beleive that mankind simply invented these deities to explain what they could not explain. People still do it today...

I agree with DL, for once.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

I think you're proving the point that the alien theory is alive and well And I'm not even saying it is completely out of line to consider it. I have considered it as it relates to the resurrection of Jesus and have found it lacking.

It's not that an alien could not have simulated the death of someone and made it appear that the person came back to life that is problematic in my mind. It's the teachings, theology, and history of the Jews and Christians that has been woven into thousands of years of history that I find very hard to believe was a grand hoax. Virtually all of that the theology found in the bible would have to have been scripted before hand for someone to have manufactured it that way. And then even if you could go with that, you would then have to discuss motivations which just adds another layer of complexity.

To me, that seems far more of a stretch to believe than going with the claims as written.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

You're over thinking it.

Who says it had to be a hoax? Why not a simple misunderstanding? We get a visit from what appears - to our limited understanding - to be some sort of god. Nothing in particular even has to happen....maybe one or two people get zapped, and from that we deduce that god didn't like the way our neighbor behaved, and we make sure that people don't behave that way anymore.

From there the superstition and imagination takes control. Then the realization that control is there to be had takes control.

Then you have a variety of "prophets" along the way, some who want to cash in, some who want to make things better, some who don't even know what they want. Their stories - like the stories of so many other people and things - become twisted and exagerated with each telling, until you have this guy who walked on water, healed the sick, turned water into wine, and eventually even rose from the dead.

Now, I'm certainly not going to go so far as to say "gee bugs, this shows that you shouldn't beleive what you do" but you can't deny that such a premise is commonplace among the civilizations of the world. What was hercules but an outstanding warrior who's legend outgrew his reality? And so on with the countless heros of out mythologies.

To me, it really is that simple. The legend outgrew the man. And the Romans made it a very economical enterprise

We have eyewitnesses of these things that Jesus did? Well we have eyewitnesses of the actions of Zeus, Hercules, Thor, Ra, and countless other deities and heros.

i love how these sorts of debates are so all-encompassing.

one can just jump on any facet of the argument, and go for broke:

• the authenticity of the bible (especially compared to other ancient texts)
• the mutual exclusivity of church/state/science
• the existence of god/God/gods
• the exclusivity of some religions (especially Xianity)
• the existence / deity of Jesus (assuming the accuracy of the bible)
• establishing the difference between the faith and its institutions (that is, which problems are those with a group of believers, and their conduct, and which are points of contention with the basic faith itself)

Bugs, i must commend you again, not only for your solid discussion in defence of 'xianity', but also for maintaining a civil environment for discussion (an environment to which DL also contributed). It's quite interesting to read the thread from the start, and observe how sanzen was almost forced to calm down, argue reasonably, and back up his statements properly.

Highly interesting reading, please continue!

reitsma

(Edited by reitsma on 05-25-2004 07:11)

We don't know any of this.
We have it written down that these things happened, by a group of people dedicated to making people beleive that Jesus was divine.


Then what about lots of other history that happened before Christ and since then, why should you believe it.
So all you have read about history in books, if you weren't there to see it happen, might not really be historical fact. Just made up nonsense by some overzealous writers to make one believe it really happend to further their cause. We know it is fact that a man named Jesus really lived and died on the cross 2000 yrs ago. We have historical proof of that.

And Jesus being an alien. Thats a new one to me.
Where are the historical findings that makes one apt to believe more in aliens beings, since there are no aliens walking around today claiming Jesus/alien was God. And why would an alien claim to be God and have to die for humanity to save itself.

We don't know any of this.
We have it written down that these things happened, by a group of people dedicated to making people beleive that Jesus was divine.


Then what about lots of other history that happened before Christ and since then, why should you believe it.
So all you have read about history in books, if you weren't there to see it happen, might not really be historical fact. Just made up nonsense by some overzealous writers to make one believe it really happend to further their cause. We know it is fact that a man named Jesus really lived and died on the cross 2000 yrs ago. We have historical proof of that.

And Jesus being an alien. Thats a new one to me.
Where are the historical findings that makes one apt to believe more in aliens beings, since there are no aliens walking around today claiming Jesus/alien was God. And why would an alien claim to be God and have to die for humanity to save itself.

Jade

quote:

---

We know it is fact that a man named Jesus really lived and died on the cross 2000 yrs ago. We have historical proof of that.

---

Could you perhaps show me this evidence, please? You state it is a fact. Therefore, there must be solid evidence supporting it. I would very much like to see this historical proof of yours.

and

quote:

---

Then what about lots of other history that happened before Christ and since then, why should you believe it.

---

That is pretty general...could you be a bit more specific, or give examples of what you mean, please?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

quote:

---

We know it is fact that a man named Jesus really lived and died on the cross 2000 yrs ago. We have historical proof of that.

---

nope we do not...

and even if we did have a solid evidence, it has nothing to do with him being god.

ohh and I have no doubt that person named Joseph was crusified 2000 years ago...no wait, I bet there were at least thousands crucified people by the name Joseph 2000 years ago. And I also bet there were alot of innocent people crucified and burned and beheaded and castrated throughout the history without commiting a single crime.

quote:

---

Then what about lots of other history that happened before Christ and since then, why should you believe it.
So all you have read about history in books, if you weren't there to see it happen, might not really be historical fact. Just made up nonsense by some overzealous writers to make one believe it really happend to further their cause.

---

I beg to differ, but I do not "believe" in it, history is not based on faith. As long there is a physical evidence to support a historical record I have no problem accepting it.
But when you include magical people, dragons, fairies, gods and goddess...it's just not rational anymore.

-----------

Let's also not forget that statue of zeus became one of the seven wonders of the world.

=)

(Edited by Ruski on 05-25-2004 17:05)

Aww, come on Ruski... Don't tell me you dont believe in dragons, wizards and fairies either. hahaha.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

there have actually been a number of books written that deal with historical data regarding christ, the most well-known being 'evidence that demands a verdict' by josh mcdowell (a guy who set out to prove christ didn't exist and changed his mind). of course, no matter what evidence is presented there will be someone else who doesn't agree and writes another book, then someone who writes a book to disprove that book, etc.

one thing i think people forget is that it takes faith to believe in either side.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

So all you have read about history in books, if you weren't there to see it happen, might not really be historical fact.

---

Bingo. Now you're getting the picture!

What you have to do is find credible sources. That is difficult. When you have multiple unrelated sources saying the same thing, you can be fairly sure you've got the right info.
History is like a giant puzzle, with no picutre to go by. There is very little in the way of absolute fact.

Why do I beleive a great many of the things I've learned about world history, but not the writings about god?

A variety of reasons

1) multiple sources of information, including physical archeological findings, writings from a variety of sources, etc

2) most writings about god/jesus are pushing an agenda. they are very biased and very apt to stretch the truth to get their message across.

3) I don't base life on the idea that what I know of history is absolute fact and that if I don't behve according to what is written I'll go to hell.

Ruski - I disagree. There is most certainly a degree of "faith" when dealing with history. But again, I'm not staking my soul on that faith. I'm simply accepting what is reasonably well supported by evidence, and taking it with the acceptance that it could be wrong, and that as more is learned about a subject, my understanding of history will liekly change.

As far as Jesus having been an alein, no - I don't buy that. I beleive very much that Jesus lived, and was a man. There is much evidence to support this. There is no real evidence to support any of the legends that grew around him. What I referred to was the possibility of the origin of "god" having been a result of alien visitation. I don't put this out as my theory of what happened, but simply as something that could have potentially happened, and something I'd be more apt to beleive than biblical accounts of god, were I to have to choose between the two ideas.

(Edited by DL-44 on 05-25-2004 18:26)

^Bingo! Well said, DL!

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

To be more likely to believe in alien abductions than Christ's ressurection. Thats interesting to believe in the legends of aliens and not the legend of Christ 500 years from now.

And what would be the alien agenda? For us to know they exist. What would be their purpose, you figure. In the billions of years of life on the planet where is the proof aliens existed. Whereas you have documents, gospels & writings on the ministry of Jesus Christ when he walked the planet. I wonder why your more apt to go against the teachings of a very profound unique person and believe in ETs.

You're not listening.

I beleive in Jesus. I just don't beleive he is what religion has turned him into.

I also said nothing about alien abductuions, or about beleiving any legends about aliens.

No idea what you mean about "500 years from now".

I also said very clearly that there need not have been any aganda, if the alien scenario happened to be true. Their mere presence could easily spawn an unlimited expanse of imaginative and superstitious speculation in the primitive human mind.

I have very little problem with the teachings of Jesus. I have huge problems with the teachings of the human institutions that twist his teachings to further their own aganda.

Once again - I do not dispute the existence of Jesus. I have very often supported the fact that Jesus did exist. But his existence is a far cry from what the catholic church decided 300 years later he was.

I also never said that I believe that aliens even exist. But I do find that more probable than the idea of god.

quote:

---

To be more likely to believe in alien abductions than Christ's ressurection

---

Anyone who doesn't believe aliens exist, to me is someone completely out of touch with reality. Whether they abduct people or not is a different story altogether. That statement angered me so.

quote:

---

In the billions of years of life on the planet where is the proof aliens existed.

---

The difference is, any tangible evidence of aliens would be quickly COVERED UP instead of 'documented' and released to the public. Whereas any "evidence" of jesus christ is quickly exploited and blown up by the media. There is absolutely NO difference in the assertion of UFO sightings/abductions and that of Jesus.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

I saw the program on history channel couple of weeks ago, about how people tried to discover an inteligent life form somewhere in the universe.
They used a bunch of methods especially something to do with detecting radio or whatever kind of waves that might be produced by whatever means possible...

after many years of research and such, they calculated the ratio of possibility and it was so low, that pretty much you could tell there is almost no possibility...

The mistake we, as humans, make is to assume that the only possibility of another intelligent lifeform would be one that is carbon based, or of similar molecular composition. We may lack the technology to even be able to detect, see, or comprehend them... very much less communicate. And anyways, it could be nearly impossible to find any kind of wave, if it's faint enough, or if it's garbled up by the background radiation in the universe; or in reality the simple reason that we don't know what we're looking for, scientists can only survey certain parts of the sky - in limited frequencies and distances. There are too many factors to explain why it would be impossible for us to detect life elsewhere when we can't even imagine how much of a universe there actually is. To me, and this is honestly just my opinion - but one based on my limited quantum physics research and knowledge - it is naive to assume that we're the only intelligent life form in the universe, when we're only one planet in one galaxy that is astonishingly similar to other known galaxies (from what other information we can gather). The things that make up these galaxies would be similar to ours, to assume that nothing could evolve like us (or even evolve in a different manner) is just rediculous.

What I dont get is how this thread got to this topic, but it's interesting nonetheless.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com