Topic awaiting preservation: The Emaculat Revelation

*DISCLAIMER.1.* This thread assumes the existence of God. It is not meant to debate whether or not God exists or not since that question cannot be answered. So please try avoid that question. However whether or not you believe in him if you would like to take the assumption that he does exist you are welcome to post.*
*DISCLAIMER.2.* This statement will make me sound like a chauvinistic pig. I am not (women and men can do all the same things and are completely equal) I am just stating what I believe can be a very well backed up statement.*

Now with that down here is the actual post:

GOD IS A MAN.
By the christian doctrine he must be a man. First off Jesus refers to Him as Him and he refers to Him as father all through the bible. Now that can be argued very well. But this next statement cannot.
The christian doctrine states that Jesus was created throught the emaculate conception between God and Mary. Correct?
If God was a woman than that would be a lesian relationship something the christian doctrine says is unholy and wrong/bad/imperfect.
Well if being a lesbian is all that then God someone the Christian doctrine sars is holu and right/good/perfect cannot be a lesbian therefor he has to be a man. Sorry feminists.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

I cannot find, for the life of me, a coherant point or a logical argument in your post.

You desperately need some serious work on your english (if it's not your first language, forgive me...).

question 1) That aside, tell me what christian 'doctrine' has to do with anything. What specifically constitutes this 'doctrine' that defines homosexuality as wrong?

question 2) what does lesbianism have to do with the conception of a child?

This is a gigantic flaw in your logic. If we are talking immaculate conception, then I must assume that this skips the concept of sexual intercourse altogether.

Add to that the fact that lesbian sex cannot result in conception since there is no sperm present, and that leaves us nowhere.

Why could not god be female, and have simply chosen mary as teh vessel for a son, and simply deemed her to be pregnant? Is this not exactly what is considered the case, disregarding the gender of god?

How do you reconcile these holes in this 'theory' you have?

Finally - isn't it 'god' that determines things, and not christian 'doctrine'?



(Edited by DL-44 on 11-19-2004 03:35)

God is referred to as "him" to reinforce the allegory of God's relationship to mankind, i.e. that of a father-figure in an abstract, not physical, sense. So, for example: in a typical family the male and female have traditionally held "pre-ordained" roles, and the relationship that God has with mankind is most similar to the male's. Therefore: he.

I'd assume that God has no physical form, nor gender.

--------------------------------------------------------
"Abortion clinics are like expressways to heaven."

quote:

---

So please try avoid that question.

---

Thanks for ruining my fun :P

- James
Google Boards | Great Big Blog

quote:

---

I cannot find, for the life of me,

---

Thank you for that.... I was just about to check myself in... =)

Hmmm..., I would chime in but..., I'm too confused as to the purpose of this topic. Normally I would say it was flamebait, but it doesnt even have the level of coherency necessary to rile anyone.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

Ok, I think I know what Sangreal is trying to say here. He is trying to say that God the Father is not God the Mother. He is trying to say the God is a He (masculine qualities) and not a She (as some have grossly misenterpreted). I don't really think Sangreal is refering to God as a human being, just as a He. Does that help?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

What specifically constitutes this 'doctrine' that defines homosexuality as
wrong?

---

I can quote from the Bible about ten verses from Paul (he talks about it in almost all his letters) and several from the Gospels, and many from the books of law. Maybe not doctrine, but God's Words, yes.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

what does lesbianism have to do with the conception of a child?

---

Absolutely nothing, that is his point. Lesbianism does not produce a child, therefore, Lesbianism could not have produced Jesus.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Why could not god be female, and have simply chosen mary as teh vessel
for a
son, and simply deemed her to be pregnant? Is this not exactly what is
considered the case, disregarding the gender of god?

---

Well, two reasons:
1.) Again, as Sangreal pointed out, God is a "Father" and not a "Mother" because Jesus refered to Him as such.
2.) In the Bible it says that the Holy Spirit "came upon" Mary. There was no sexual intercourse since that is a sinful act, but there was an embodiment of God inside of Mary. From that point when the Holy Spirit was in Her until Jesus was born, and then again when Jesus saved her. With God's Spirit actually being inside of her, He actually planted Jesus as a child inside of her. It was probably a very interesting experience.

(I would have loved to have seen Joseph's face when Mary told him that she was pregnant with God's son )

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Absolutely nothing, that is his point. Lesbianism does not produce a child, therefore, Lesbianism could not have produced Jesus.

---

That wasn't his point (or atleast he made no representation of that being his point...). His point was that lesbian sex was 'wrong', and therefore god wouldn't have done it.

Again - are we saying that god is not above the human concept of sexual reproduction?
Because lesbian sex does not produce a child, a female god could not have conceived a child inside whomever she chose?

And why does god even need to be a specific gender? With all the other things that you people assign to god, and justify by simply saying that god's logic and scope of being is beynd our understanding, is it so much of a leap to say that god is not defined by our concept of gender?


Don't get me wrong - I really don't care what gender anyone chooses to assign to their deities..

but the argument just doesn't hold here.

Ok, Gideon, what is your view of homosexuality, then? And what "sex" is your "god"? And please describe how Mary got pregnant. And why is sex a sinful act?

quote:

---

Gideon said:

Paul (he talks about it in almost all his letters)

---

Maybe he should have gotten a hobby, apparently he was obsessed with homosexuality. Do you think he was masking some inner tendencies or fantsies with "judgement"?

And I often wonder what it was like to live in the time when the bible was written. I wonder if any of the authors fancied rye bread. I know keeping food from spoiling was often an issue. And of course we all know what comes from rye mold, right?

So maybe these guys had a few moldy rye sandwiches and decided to write.

I wonder what it would be like to be a maggot on that cheese sandwich, eh?

Oops, maggots dont have eyes...

Oh, I meant a "fly on the wall".

Do flies have ears?

I wonder what people sound like to flies. I guess that ... huh I was gonna say colloquialism but it doesnt really fit. I mean it certainly is informal speech or in this case writing but I am not sure the word was meant to be used that way...

hmmm metaphor?

Oh well, I'm gonna go see if blaise is still toasting on Suho's thing-a-ma-bob...

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote:

---

cfb wrote:

I'd assume that God has no physical form, nor gender.

---

But man was made in God's image.

quote:

---

Gideon wrote:

I can quote from the Bible about ten verses from Paul (he talks about it in almost all his letters)... Maybe not doctrine, but God's Words, yes.

---

No, those are Paul's words.

quote:

---

But man was made in God's image.

---

Again, a problem with interpretation, or a difference of interpretation. "God's image" is such an equivocal phrase. It could mean: God's physical image, God's emotional image, God's intellectual image, God's spiritual image, God's capacity of thought, God's capacity of free will.

But, considering the fact (theory, in reality. We're assuming the existence of God in this thread) that man was constructed, or evolved; it seems logical that man was not created in God's physical image, if God has a physical image.

--------------------------------------------------------
"Abortion clinics are like expressways to heaven."

quote:

---

that man was constructed, or evolved; it seems logical that man was not created in God's physical image,

---

Not at all.

If we're assuming the existence of god, then god having 'created man' could mean any variety of things.

The enrire process of evolution could be summed up as the process of god creating man.

God could very well have created 'man' in his image, and what god would therefore look like would depend on what point in evolution man was considered 'created'.

Perhaps god is nothing more than an amino acid...

Of course, realistically, the story of man being created in god's image is nothing more than some simple self-aggrandizment on the part of humankind.

quote:

---

Gideon said:

1.) Again, as Sangreal pointed out, God is a "Father" and not a "Mother" because
Jesus refered to Him as such.

---

Not to fuck ants here Gideon but the stories from the Bible have been told and re-told, translated and re-translated, and changed and changed again so many times over I don't know how strong of an argument that is.

I don't know how reliable you would consider a story someone told you from a friend of a friend of a friend ... well you get the point. With 2000 years of extreme change in the Bible it seems a bit silly to be inflexible over wording.

That, and the fact that the bible was never meant to be taken 100% literally. I mean, Hinduism's scriptures and Judaism's scriptures were jammed full of metaphors. I don't understand why some Christians have a hard time accepting that their scripture was metaphoric, as well.

quote:

---

Not at all.

If we're assuming the existence of god, then god having 'created man' could mean any variety of things.

The enrire process of evolution could be summed up as the process of god creating man.

---

I agree with this, actually - I "believe" in the process of evolution, and that God's creation of mankind was metaphorical. However, this thread, as Sangreal stated, assumes the existence of God and, from the original post, the theory that man was literally "created" by God.

quote:

---

Of course, realistically, the story of man being created in god's image is nothing more than some simple self-aggrandizment on the part of humankind.

---

Again, agreed.

--------------------------------------------------------
"Abortion clinics are like expressways to heaven."

assuming, assuming

man was created in god's image
god is the real thing, man is just a mirror
. . . shades of flatland

quote:

---

Sorry feminists.

---

i'm not sure if this is an apology or a nose thummin'

quote:

---

from theotherside.org

The creation story begins by affirming that God is neither male nor female, but both. The first chapter of Genesis emphasizes that both male and female are made in the image of the creator God. Both are equally created in the divine image of one supreme Being--who therefore must be understood to encompass both maleness and femaleness and everything in between. According to scholars of Genesis, the original creature was adam, an earth creature who was both male and female. It was only in response to adam's need for companionship that God put adam into a deep sleep to divide the creature into what we now understand as male and female.

Regarding gender inclusion in Scripture, perhaps the best example is that of the eunuch, a term that refers to castrated men or to people who are unable to have children. By modern understanding, the term includes intersexuals and post-operative transsexuals and symbolically includes homosexuals and celibates.
In ancient Israel, eunuchs were excluded from the temple--and thus from the assembly of God's people (Deut. 23:1). But the prophet Isaiah reverses that legislation, proclaiming inclusion and offering to faithful eunuchs "a monument and a name better than sons and daughters" (56:4-5).
Jesus also spoke well of eunuchs in his discourse on marriage and divorce, classifying people who do not marry as either "so from birth," or "made eunuchs by others," or those who "made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:12). This movement toward acceptance is capped by Acts 8:26-40, where a eunuch from Ethiopia is baptized into the new covenant community of Jews who are disciples of Jesus. This eunuch, symbolizing the community of ostracized sexual minorities, is among the first of the outcasts from ancient Israel to be welcomed into Jesus' discipleship of equals.
Jesus, whom Paul refers to as the second adam, also defied gender norms. He didn't marry, although he had the religious obligation to do so at eighteen. He performed acts like cooking or washing the feet of his disciples--acts culturally assigned to wives or slaves, not to a free male, and certainly not to a rabbi.
Contemporary Christians need to embody this same daring biblical inclusiveness toward all people of faith. This would entail simply accepting people's gender presentation at face value, approaching everyone as the human equals they are, and relaxing about gender--our own and everyone else's.

---

quote:

---

outcydr said:

Jesus, whom Paul refers to as the second adam, also defied gender norms. He
didn't marry, although he had the religious obligation to do so at eighteen. He
performed acts like cooking or washing the feet of his disciples--acts
culturally assigned to wives or slaves, not to a free male, and certainly not to
a rabbi.Contemporary Christians need to embody this same daring biblical
inclusiveness toward all people of faith. This would entail simply accepting
people's gender presentation at face value, approaching everyone as the human
equals they are, and relaxing about gender--our own and everyone else's.

---

Blasphemer!

How dare you preach tolerance! Off to the North Tower!

Without your pills!

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

I saw god, she was black...

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?Computer games don?t affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we?d all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.? (Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989.) }-

^

UnknownC:

quote:

---

I wonder if any of the authors fancied rye bread. I know keeping food from spoiling was often an issue. And of course we all know what comes from rye mold, right?

---

I think you've answered everything right there... don't know why I didn't see this before.

quote:

---

what comes from rye mold

---

Ergot!! LSD. ErGO: Religion is nothing but one big-ass halucination! Put'em all in rehab! =)

quote:

---

this thread, as Sangreal stated, assumes the existence of God and, from the original post, the theory that man was literally "created" by God.

---

Nope - just that god exists. the rest was up for debate.

And again - the idea that the process of evolution was god's process of creating man is not a metaphorical one. It's simply a way of stating that what we call evolution is the process god used to create man. Considering the power and longevity attributed to god, what to was an extraordinarily long process could be a simple "day's" work to god...

You know DL...sometimes I really wonder how you keep so calm...hehe.

quote:

---

Jestah said:

quote: Gideon said: 1.) Again, as Sangreal pointed out, God is a "Father" and not a "Mother" because Jesus refered to Him as such. Not to fuck ants here Gideon but the stories from the Bible have been told and re-told, translated and re-translated, and changed and changed again so many times over I don't know how strong of an argument that is. I don't know how reliable you would consider a story someone told you from a friend of a friend of a friend ... well you get the point. With 2000 years of extreme change in the Bible it seems a bit silly to be inflexible over wording.

---

well, the dead sea scrolls are dated from 200 BC to around 60-something AD and there's some other fairly old existing manuscripts as well. considering that there have been some modern translations done from older texts the bible we have is probably more accurate than most give it credit for. if you look at the overall consistency and tone of texts from a few dozen authors over several hundred years its actually pretty surprising. people also tend to quote things out of the bible with no regard to context and talk about it being *fill-in-derogatory-term-here* whereas it actually makes much more sense when read with respect to the audience and purpose.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 11-22-2004 08:12)

quote:

---

the idea that the process of evolution was god's process of creating man is not a metaphorical one. It's simply a way of stating that what we call evolution is the process god used to create man.

---

I'd just like to inject an idea here, though it may not fit entirely within the scope of this thread: Who then says the process is complete? Assuming the above statement is true, isn't it fair to say we have not yet reached our final stage of evolution, and therefore we do not yet reflect the image of God?

Rye for thought ...

[2cents_philosopher_mode]
Emaculate revelation or ejaculate conception, that is the question.
[/2cents_philosopher_mode]

quote:

---

Assuming the above statement is true, isn't it fair to say we have not yet reached our final stage of evolution, and therefore we do not yet reflect the image of God?

---

While in my personal view that is certainly a valid statement, I think in the context of a biblical view of things, the creation of man is stated in the past tense, and therefore would have to be complete at the time of writing.

To clarify, in case it's needed - my initial statement was made in the context of accepting biblical accounts, whereas my personal view is quite different.

Again this will sound chauvinistic, i am not.

quote:

---

Genesis emphasizes that both male and female are made in the image of the creator God.

---

Genesis states that God created Adam in his image. Eve was made from Adam's ribs not in image or duplication of God. Otherwise Eve would have been perfect and would not have tempted Adam to eat the apple.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

I think you take Dan Brown way too seriously.

Sangreal:
One of the preliminary requirements for understanding the Bible is that we learn to read what is written, as it is written, and not assume that it aligns or conforms with what we (or some "teacher") think it says.
adam - ha' adham, mankind, the ethnos, male and female, were created on the sixth day
adam - 'eth-ha' adham, THE (particular) man, through whose bloodline Christ Jesus would come, was created on the eighth day
the scriptural significance attached to the number eight being - new beginnings
i.e. - it was Jesus who brought us the NEW covenant

but, perhaps this is a deeper study than you are ready for.

When there is a discussion on the Bible why dicuss things that are not mentioned?
Unless ofcourse the can be harmonized with outside HOOPLA.

Outcydr,

God "rested" from creation beginning on the 7th day and that day has not ended for several times in scripture persons are invited to "enter God's rest".

If you are interested in knowing more just asked.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

What is your view of homosexuality

---

Same as the Bible's.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

what "sex" is your "god"?

---

He is a Father, I think that might help to explain things.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

describe how Mary got pregnant

---

The Holy Spirit came over her and she was miraculously with child. That is all there is in the Bible. Anything else I would say about it would meerly be pulling hairs out of thin air.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

why is sex a sinful act?

---

Do you want me to say that it is against one of God's commands, or try to explain His reasoning?

quote:

---

UnknownComic said:

Maybe he [Paul] should have gotten a hobby, apparently he was obsessed
with
homosexuality.

---

Not really. He commented on it in many of his letters, but that wasn't his major focus. His major focus was taking the Gospel to the Jews first, then the Gentiles.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

The enrire [sic] process of evolution could be summed up as the process
of god
creating man.

---

Not really. If we are still taking what the Bible as truth and not tuning this into a Creation debate (if you have anything about this topic say it on that thread). The Bible makes it clear that God created man one the sixth of seven days (still this is according to the Bible, so please do not argue this on this thread). Meaning that God did create man in His image. I find it interesting that God didn't create woman in His image. He took woman from a rib in man's side. I wonder if that will shed any light on this thread.

Jestah-about the wording of the Bible. I take them as God's words. You may not, but the fact remains that not all of the Bible was spoken before written. It is actually the opposite. It was written then spoken. Pauls epistles are letters, not telephone calls.

quote:

---

InSiDeR said:

I don't understand why some Christians have a hard time accepting that
their scripture was metaphoric, as well.

---

Jesus' parables are metaphors; Jesus telling us to cut our eyes out if they do bad things is a lesson, but those are when Jesus was talking to the crowd. There are 100% literal parts of the Bible, 100% parables or lessons in the Bible, and there are images in the Bible. I just find it hard to believe that God would want to start the Torah (a book of History and Law) out with a picture of a Creation (History) that is not true, just to point out a few interesting points.

Outcrydr- That was an interesting quote you found. I enjoyed the last part about inclusion. That part hit me good. I agree that we (Christians) need to include people and not look down on them for: gender, skin color, ethnic background, etc. I know it is a hard thing, but God's Kingdom is about love, not division.

About Jesus doing "girl" things: that guy had it kinda mistaken, but if he wants to view things like that then so be it. I personally believe that Jesus did those things to prove a point, not to show that He was a girl too, but whatever.

quote:

---

DmS said:

I saw god, she was black...

---

You know, I saw a special on tv that focused on a church that believed Jesus was black.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

what to was an extraordinarily long process could be a simple "day's" work to
god

---

So God needs billions of years to create things? He is that weak? Hmmmm...
One other thing. If you want to say that the days are long, is the order correct, or is that wrong too? And the fact that using that theory means that each day was a different amount of time and completely unequal (billions of years on one and millions of years on another). That would also mean that God's seventh day hasn't ended yet...

quote:

---

Wes said:

Who then says the process is complete? Assuming the above statement is true,
isn't it fair to say we have not yet reached our final stage of evolution, and
therefore we do not yet reflect the image of God?

---

And that thought leads into Hinduism...

quote:

---

outcydr said:

adam - ha' adham, mankind, the ethnos, male and female, were
created on the sixth dayadam - 'eth-ha' adham, THE (particular) man,
through whose bloodline Christ Jesus would come, was created on the eighth
day

---

So are you saying that the Adam created on the Sixth day is not the same as the one on the Eighth day?

quote:

---

valpal1 said:

God "rested" from creation beginning on the 7th day and that day has not ended
for several times in scripture persons are invited to "enter God's rest".

---

So God is resting right now?

quote:

---

valpal1 said:

If you are interested in knowing more just asked.

---

Please tell.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

in answer:

quote:

---

So are you saying that the Adam created on the Sixth day is not the same as the one on the Eighth day?

---

yes. and if you will, note the words for created and formed. another even deeper word to study would be rib. think - rib - curve- dna. (hope that's not to much of a stretch!)

quote:

---

God "rested" from creation beginning on the 7th day and that day has not ended for several times in scripture persons are invited to "enter God's rest".

---

Hebrews 4: 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. [/quote]
chew on that meat

quote:

---

So God needs billions of years to create things? He is that weak? Hmmmm...
One other thing. If you want to say that the days are long, is the order correct, or is that wrong too? And the fact that using that theory means that each day was a different amount of time and completely unequal (billions of years on one and millions of years on another). That would also mean that God's seventh day hasn't ended yet...

---

Such measures of time are human conventions. How can you presume to say that god devoting such an amount of time (which is only long by our standards, not by "his") to a wonderous creation makes 'him' weak?
Must god make his creations in the blink of an eye for you to deem him powerful?
I don't understand this rationale at all. How can you possibly think to quantify the power of god?

I didn't say anything regarding his day of rest, nor did I about the 'days' being of different length, but I see no reason that either concept should be problematic.

As for the order - how does what I say have anything to do with changing the order of things? All I spoke of was that the 'days' in question need not be what we call a day now.

quote:

---

outcydr said:

(hope that's not to much of a stretch!)

---

Nah, it works for me.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Must god make his creations in the blink of an eye for you to deem him powerful?

---

Of course not. He can take all the time in the world because He has shown me that He is powerful in my own life. The thing is that saying He needs all that time to create something kinda looks like a limiter to me. I don't know what it says to you, but to me it means that God needs all that time to do something that big.

In the same argument, why couldn't He have made a world in one day?Doesn't He have the power to do that too?

As for the order of the days I was wondering if you would have anything to say now about that since God created the sun, moon, and stars after He created light. Even after He created vegitation.

Outcydr-thanks, I will definitly chew on those!

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

UnknownComic said:

Hmmm..., I would chime in but..., I'm too confused as to the purpose of this topic. Normally I would say it was flamebait, but it doesnt even have the level of coherency necessary to rile anyone

---

errr..., nevermind.

I guess one should never underestimate a persons need to be right, and to tell others how it is so...

Oh well..., on another note:
[ASIDE]

Anyone know how to make a drop shadow using css, dhtml, or would javascript be needed. I don't want to make a whole page of it, but maybe one set of letters that needs a little more POP!

If not a drop shadow, can html, css or js make text have an outline?

[/ASIDE]

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote:

---

The thing is that saying He needs all that time to create something kinda looks like a limiter to me. I don't know what it says to you, but to me it means that God needs all that time to do something that big.

---

And who are you to judge the implications of how long god takes to create what seems to be the 'grand finale' of his creations?

And again - just because to our limited human perception, millions of years seems very long, it obviously would not be to a being with the timelessness of 'god'.

A "timeless being" would essentially be everywhere at once (and everywhen), right? So, one day, one million days, they all make no difference, in that sense.

quote:

---

Gideon wrote:

As for the order of the days I was wondering if you would have anything to say now about that since God created the sun, moon, and stars after He created light. Even after He created vegitation.

---

He would have had to create light first. The sun (and moon and stars) would be nothing if light did not yet exist.

As for vegetation, scientists say that plants use sunlight for photosynthesis to grow, but who says they are right? God could make plants grow any way He wants to. And maybe he created photosynthesis after he created the plants.

Now, I don't believe any of this, but if we are going to go by the original premis of this topic, then these arguments are as valid as any other.

OK, ok, here's how it went.

HE breathed in... [then motioned to the angels to watch] ...an absolute vacum of nothingness was created. The whole of creation was within HIM.

The first WORD was more of an explosive belch, kinda like the Big Bang thing. With the breath and HIS WORD was created the material universe in ten dimensions. Thereafter we can only speculate. Most individuals have a hard time putting the fourth dimensional element of time into their world. Sure, they know of moments passing and seasons, but the true nature of space-time eludes even the more clever among us. some visionaries have touched upon it's signifigance. But for the most part, the average human just shrugs and thinks about today or tomorrow.

There may be one or two among the six plus billions here that can understand more than four dimensions... lets be generous and give them a total of six. Even then, fourty percent of reality is unknown to but perhaps a select few.

This leaves the bulk of us plodding along in three dimensions of reality. At best, the moldy rye munching illuminaries of the dark ages, got thirty percent of the reality. This leaves us with not knowing what more than half this world is made of.

This renders the point moot. Meditate, be kind to others, and find GOD within. But let's not really pretend to "KNOW" what is unknowable. And even if one of you have the fortuitous ability to know even a glimmer of what is real, the moment you try to explain it... well... the words have not yet been created with the ability to pass that knowledge on. So, the moment one tries to tell what it is that is the Supreme Reality, that is the moment that begins a false statement.

Ancient Mystics from thousands of years ago and todays researchers are just now starting to agree. One from a macroscopic reality and the other from the quantum. The world exists in a superpositional flux that is changed by the act of observance. Once measured, what was, is no longer... go figure, eh?

It will surely be another millenia or so before any progress is made on knowing the unknowable. Enjoy the mystery and take solace in the words "I don't know". They are the truest words one can speak.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

Actually, it does all matter. Either god used a system to create everything (and it is logically explainable), or he just "did it". In the latter case, any kooky theory applies, because god can "do anything". And I mean ANY theory...like that everything is made of marmelade, for example. God is just causing us to perceive it as something else!

Also in the later case, then nothing matters, because god can "just change/redo things" if they don't turn out right. In that case, the entire human race should just commit suicide and get it over with as soon as possible.

However, if the first case is true, then it must be possible to discover and learn the mechanisms behind it all and how it all works. And Science is a much better tool to do this with.

If one takes genesis literally, then one MUST subscribe to the second case. Because god just "did it all" in 6 days (which is impossible according to what we know).

If one takes is subjectively, then the first case applies.

quote:

---

...like that everything is made of marmelade, for example.

---

Oh, come on! We all know everything is made of green cheese. That is a long standing belief.

Marmelade! How stupid!

Hey DL, want to take this discussion to WS's thread about creation and evolution? I would love to discuss it with you in there.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

UnknownComic-Very nice. I had a good laugh or two when I read that intro.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

...like that everything is made of marmelade, for example.

---

Actually, the same molecules and atoms in marmelade are in us, too.

So, WS, in your former case, does the god in question not have the power to change or redo things?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

In answer to this

quote:

---

So, WS, in your former case, does the god in question not have the power to change or redo things?

---

this

quote:

---

a system to create everything (and it is logically explainable)

---

. I think that it is easy enough to "follow" that, and to reasonably come up with a "yes, just as long as it belongs to the system used to create everything and is logically explainable."

In other words, the system that we call "Nature".

And I didn't say molecules and atoms. I know that molecules and atoms are in us, too. I specifically mentioned "Marmelade", and I meant Marmelade. And Marmelade is only "in" you, if you have recently eaten it.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And I didn't say molecules and atoms. I know that molecules and atoms are in us,
too. I specifically mentioned "Marmelade", and I meant Marmelade. And Marmelade
is only "in" you, if you have recently eaten it.

---

ah

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I think that it is easy enough to "follow" that, and to reasonably come up with
a "yes, just as long as it belongs to the system used to create everything and
is logically explainable."

---

So are you then saying that the god in question can only alter the universe if the alterations stay within the natural laws already discovered? This god cannot change things he/she/it/thing has already made outside of his/her/its/thing's own rules that he/she/it/thing made?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

So are you then saying that the god in question can only alter the universe if the alterations stay within the natural laws already discovered? This god cannot change things he/she/it/thing has already made outside of his/her/its/thing's own rules that he/she/it/thing made?

---

...stay within the natural laws already discovered? No, I am not saying this exactly. It would have to include those, yes, but it could also be that there are natural laws that we do not yet know of. It would have to take all that into account.

If one follows the first example.

Otherwise, nothing has any meaning, because god could just decide tomorrow to end it all, or to give cockroaches a chance at salvation - just as long as they don't eat from the garbage of knowledge.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Otherwise, nothing has any meaning, because god could just decide tomorrow to
end it

---

There is an interesting thought now isn't it?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

or to give cockroaches a chance at salvation

---

I doubt He will do that, but who knows? He is God.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

There is an interesting thought now isn't it?

---

Actually, I don't find it all that interesting.

I found it quite interesting that God knows exactly what day, month, time, year, decade, century, millenia that He will end the world as we know it. I can't wait.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

You sir, are a nut.

Actually, I'd be curious to see how Gideon reconciles the notion of free will with predestination. It would be more of a visceral curiousity, because I'm not all that interested enough to try looking up chapter and verse to support either/neither notion.

quote:

---

Gideon said:

Not really. If we are still taking what the Bible as truth and not tuning this into a Creation debate (if you have anything about this topic say it on that thread). The Bible makes it clear that God created man one the sixth of seven days (still this is according to the Bible, so please do not argue this on this thread). Meaning that God did create man in His image. I find it interesting that God didn't create woman in His image. He took woman from a rib in man's side. I wonder if that will shed any light on this thread.
.
Jestah-about the wording of the Bible. I take them as God's words. You may not, but the fact remains that not all of the Bible was spoken before written. It is actually the opposite. It was written then spoken. Pauls epistles are letters, not telephone calls.

---

Oh, and IMO, you have to read the Bible in the context of the socio-political situation that it was written and not based on the standards of today's climate. Back then, women were still considered chattel on a slightly higher level than donkeys and goats. So having Jesus show up saying God was female would have pretty much guarantee being ignored.

Also, perhaps I'm wrong, but wasn't the history of most cultures back then oral rather than written? Only the select few (priests, scholars, goverenment officials) could read, so everything else was spoken. Literacy was not a priority to farmers and sheep herders worrying about their crops/flocks.

Gideon, how do you get that woman was not created in God's image when Genesis 1:27 says "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them ." Maybe my reading comprehension is off, but that rather sounds like both male and female were created at the same time (from the King James Bible Version). Rebuttal? Or are you going to bring up the second version of the creation story that has Adam's rib being removed to create Eve?

_____________________

coeur de feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

Hmmm...

Genesis 2:7, which took place after God finished resting on the seventh day, says "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,"

and then Genesis 2:22, says "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

So did He maKe us on the sixth day or later?




(Edited by briggl on 12-07-2004 00:57)

Just a brief note on the free will vs. predestination thingy. I will be the first to admit that I don't have all the answers, but I've always understood it as a matter of perspective. Since God is timeless (as WS kindly pointed out above), He sees everything at once. Thus He already knows what we are going to do, so we could say that things have been predestined. From our point of view, though, being unable to see the future, we have free will to do as we please.

That may seem like an attempt at dodging the issue. Just because God knows what will happen in advance, does that mean that those things are predestined? I guess it just depends on how you look at it. A lot of people quite Romans 8:29 as support for predestination, but it is important to read it along with the previous verse:

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the first-botn among many brothers" (rom. 8:28-29, NIV).

The way I see it, this is Paul's explanation of how God has a plan for everyone and how God knows how everything is going to turn out--thus we have nothing to worry about even if bad stuff sometimes happens to us. Simplistic perhaps, maybe not even entirely correct, but that's my take on it. Probably won't satisfy a lot of people, but it works for me.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup | "Hooray for linguistic idiots and yak milk!"

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

You sir, are a nut.

---

Heh, not really. I am a person. A Jesus Freak would probably be a better clasification.

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:

So having Jesus show up saying God was female would have pretty much guarantee
being ignored.

---

So are you saying that Jesus lied in order to be political? Not the Jesus I know.

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:

Also, perhaps I'm wrong, but wasn't the history of most cultures back then oral
rather than written?

---

Yes, and that is why Jesus never wrote anything down. There is no acknowledged Gospel of Jesus (not to my knowledge at least and please don't argue with that point.) But, Jesus wasn't stupid. He called fishermen, tax collecters, doctors, and Paul was a pharisee (he could read and write). Tax collectors could read and write, and I believe that doctors could too.

That was in Jesus' time. If you are refering to the Old Testament, then yes, it was oral, but not the torah. Not the Annals. There are many references in the Bible to other written works. Normal people couldn't read and write, but many Jews could. The Jewish nation held high esteem on the reading of the ancient scriptures, that is why many could read. Not all, but many.

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male
and female created he them ."

---

Yup, He made them both in His image (that is why females don't have extra arms, legs, mouths, etc.). But, He made Adam first, then Eve from Adam. Not the other way around. I think there might also be some sneaky thing going on in the translation of the ancient texts that is a little wierd. When you go from singular to plural, I get suspicious.

quote:

---

briggl said:

So did He maKe us on the sixth day or later?

---

Actually, He made Adam (I think Eve too, but I'm not sure about the timing of that) on the sixth day. Later in Genesis was like a thumbnail of the story. It is like Genesis 1 was the chapter headings, and later in Genesis 2:8 God went back and told us what happened in that chapter.

Works for me too Suho. I like it.

Yeah, about that predestination thing. I view it like this:
We have free will to choose what we do. We have that free will in two major choices: we do what God has planned for us (that is our predestination), or we do it our own way. In each major decision are sub-decisions that we make. In the former we have God the Father watching for us in Heaven; Jesus interceeding (I think that is the right word) for us; and the Holy Spirit guiding us in our own body. In the latter decision, we are all alone.

He has certain tasks set up for us on a path of life if we choose it. If we choose the path of death we are on our own.

That is not to say that God will not try, He will send His sons and daughters to try and help, but it is ultimately your choice. You can choose to live in grace or not. I believe that God doesn't want children who are not obedient to Him. He wants those who cheerfully serve Him. Not those who just say,"oh, okay."

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

About the free will topic. What is it that makes you people believe you have free will?

If we can establish that:
1) Everything in the universe, including minds and thoughts, is an arrangement of matter, and
2) All matter is governed by certain physical laws that dictate how the matter will act.
Then it seems that if we could fully understand the physical laws governing nature, then in theory we could possibly discover how all entities would act (including the chemical processes that make thoughts in the minds of all people) and could therefore know exactally what would happen, given any starting event.

With that said, free will seems out of the question enless you:
a) Believe there are not actually definate physical laws governing matter in our universe. (Unlikely, and no evidence for this belief)
b) Believe in substance-dualism (highly unlikely, and absolutely no evidence at all for this belief)

quote:

---

If we can establish that

---

You would have a problem establishing that thoughts are arrangements of matter, for one thing. Not to mention that other parts of your premis might not be agreed to by all.

Not true, Dan. Quantum Mechanics alone belies your assumptions. It is possible to have randomness on a small level, that resembles order on a larger scale.

Thus, it would be possible to have free will and still have an ordered Universe, with natural laws.

It is true that the prevailing theories about quantum mechanics suggest that the laws may be probabilistic, like atomic decay, and electron excitement (although, not all physicists agree on this point, some feel that the belief is based on technological limitations - or errors in the current theories). But I don't see how even probabilistic laws give free will. If we were to take a probabilistic law (example: an event will occur 50% of the time), this would seemingly take us even further away from having free will, not closer. Because not only would we still not be free to control outcomes, but now outcomes would be randomly decided by the laws, and outcomes would still be predictable (we could say that given A, event B would happen with C certainty - this is not freedom).

A lack of inevitability is essential to have freedom, but is not enough in itself to give us freedom.

(Edited by Dan on 12-08-2004 02:09)

Ok, from a rahter non-scientific basis: yes, things are predictable. Whether talking about quantum mechanics, or human behavior.

But because the choices people make can be categorized and predicted with a degree of accuracy has nothing to do with whether the choice was predetermined or chosen freely.

Of course "freely" is a relative term. But this argument could go on and on ad nauseum with no relevant conclusion...

But where is the proof that thoughts are arrangements of matter?

I addressed it in my first post, an immaterial mind is what I called "substance dualism"

quote:

---

If we were to take a probabilistic law (example: an event will occur 50% of the time), this would seemingly take us even further away from having free will, not closer. Because not only would we still not be free to control outcomes, but now outcomes would be randomly decided by the laws, and outcomes would still be predictable (we could say that given A, event B would happen with C certainty - this is not freedom).

---

No, it would take us closer. We don't have to control the outcome - just influence it. Just because outcomes are predictable doesn't mean that they will happen! And that is all one needs for free will.

I suppose if one could calculate ALL the various influences there are, one might come close to a 99.9999 [ad nauseum] % of a prediciton. But there is always going to be that small percentage of error.

Dan, your arguements seem like all science and no spirit. After all, the science of psychology is a spiritual anomoly in itself, because the mind cannot be explained through scienctific law. Free will and choice, they're both entirely subjective. Subjectivity cannot be explained scietifically.

After a lot of reading there are a few points I wish to address and I apologize if some of them occurred a bit further back in the thread.

Creation
Some food for thought:
I think God created time first.
What if this universe is recreated from each instant to the next. Would we know? Think about omnipotence for a second. If God changes things to they will have always been that way then how could possibly know? Maybe yesterday planck's constant was different.

Predictability

Let's take a look at Langton's Ant. This a closed system with very simple rules. The ant (or whatever you want to call it) lives on a chessboard of infinite length and width. The ant follows 3 simple rules:

1.) If it is on a black square, it makes a left turn.
2.) If it is on a white square, it makes a right turn.
3.) As it moves on to the next square, the one where it was reverses color.

You would think that you could predict the ant's action since you know all the rules but a strange thing happens. The ant's first few thousand moves are completely chaotic. After a while though, it begins to build a diagonal highway off toward the edge of the board. The ant does this whether or not you start with an all white board, or with a finite number of black squares scattered around the board.

There is no way to predict that the ant will build this highway without actually going through all the moves needed to get there.

This is one of the tenets of chaos theory. Even simple systems can produce emergent complex behaviour.

The Bible
You know, it's funny how people who are so adamant about arguing about this usually haven't even seen the original aramaic version. Or even the greek version.

And we're not even going to address the issues of the biblical canon.

quote:

---

I addressed it in my first post, an immaterial mind is what I called "substance dualism"

---

No, in your first post, you said:

quote:

---

If we can establish that:
1) Everything in the universe, including minds and thoughts, is an arrangement of matter

---

That is a big IF.

This has not been established at all. It may have been theorized somewhere, but it would be hard to convince most people that our thoughts are arrangements of matter. Our minds, yes of course. But our thoughts? No. Maybe a result of the chaotic interactions of matter, but not consisting of matter.

^Exactly. No one is denying the possibility of your statements (except maybe Gideon). But the obvious fact here is that it's a proclaimation, and not an establishment.

quote:

---

silence said:

I think God created time first.

---

Well, I think that man created time since he has a need for it. God really doesn't need time. He lives outside of it. That is an interesting theory though isn't it? That is the problem with time travel.

quote:

---

silence said:

You know, it's funny how people who are so adamant about arguing about this
usually haven't even seen the original aramaic version. Or even the greek
version.

---

Possibly because they can't read them too well.

quote:

---

silence said:

And we're not even going to address the issues of the biblical canon.

---

Thank you, because that could go on ad nauseam.

quote:

---

InSiDeR said:

No one is denying the possibility of your statements (except maybe Gideon).

---

I have a question, isn't the universe supposed to be getting more Chaotic, and turing more and more into heat?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

There is a copy of the "original aramaic version" of the bible extant?

I'll believe that when I see it.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

I have a question, isn't the universe supposed to be getting more Chaotic, and turing more and more into heat?

---

Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics

quote:

---

# The degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR chapter states flatly that entropy can never decrease; this is in direct conflict with the most fundamental law of thermodynamics that entropy equals heat flow divided by absolute temperature.

# There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism. Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating to the interaction of heat and work. It does not speculate as to the mechanisms involved. The energy conversion mechanism can not be expressed in terms of mathematical relationships or thermodynamic laws. Although it is reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of thermodynamics. Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics.

# The use and application of thermodynamics is strictly limited by the mathematical treatment of the basic equations of thermodynamics. There is no provision in thermodynamics for any mechanism that would overcome the laws of thermodynamics.

# Thermodynamics does not deal with situations requiring human thought and effort in order to create order from disorder. Thermodynamics is limited by the equations and mathematics of thermodynamics. If it can't be expressed mathematically, it isn't thermodynamics!

---

*sigh*

In your sarcastic tone Etheist, you are right. There is not a perfect copy of the original texts existant today. There are *many* which are close, and if I remember correctly the Catholic Church is to thank for preserving the original texts as long as they have been preserved (granted they are copies, but the errors are miraculously minimal).

The small amount of errors found have been because of the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have not had the pleasure of seeing them in person, but I have had them related to me by my Latin teacher who loves such things.

Thanks for that link WS. I have a book I have been reading that is very intriguing. It has an argument like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then presents both the Creation view and the Evolution view. I like it because many of the Creation theories are well refutted, while many of the Evolution theories are well refutted. I can give you the name if you would like to learn both perspectives on the issue a fresh. I know you have probably learned them many times before, but why not revist that again? It is Creation Vs. Evolution. Good book.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

I know I said I wouldn't but I can't resist.

If there are no original copies left extant, how can you be sure the copies now available are pretty close copies?

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Actually, you shouldn't think that all the originals were copied. At least, the "Q" source hasn't been found yet.

Dead Sea Scrolls Etheist. Those are for the OT. I need to do some research about the NT, but I would expect those to be pretty close to perfect. I doubt that the original letters are extant because of the Roman Persecutions, though.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

The NT seems to be missing the "Q" source, be it that it was in writing, or oral.

Q source?

So far, I have not, in my reading of the Qumran Chronicles, found much to substantiate the bible old or new.

I still maintain if an original were found, compared to the modern-day equivalent it would be almost unrecognizable.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

*sigh*

I posted about this before, I'm sure it's kicking around somewhere here.

Anyway, here it is The Q Source

quote:

---

Q is the name used by scholars to describe a lost source on Jesus' teachings. (The letter is randomly chosen.) It can be reconstructed from the gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are based on two earlier sources: the gospel of Mark and Q. Stated differently, Q is by definition the material that Luke and Matthew have in common that is not dependent on Mark.

---

The main thing is, we don't know what might have been left out! of the Q source, because we have no copy of it (if indeed the original existed as a written source).

Thanks, WS, my apologies for missing the earlier post, I hope it didnt bring too much angst to repeat it.

I am still highly sceptical of any discussion about the bible which uses as it's base referencet point, the bible itself.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

You make it sound as if this Q source is some end all Holy Grail WS. I don't really know if it is or isn't a precurser to Matthew and Luke. They might have gotten ideas from it, it might have gotten ideas from them. A few things that sounded alarms in my head were: no author, no certain date, relation to the gospel of Thomas, and a few nit picky ones. But something that should not be left out:

quote:

---

Summing up: there is only circumstantial evidence to date Q, but the case for an early date is more convincing than the case for a late date. This suggests that the sayings go back to Jesus - but it is nothing more than a suggestion. It is impossible to establish a 'community' in which Q was the authoritative text (no two scholars agree on this subject).

---

Ehtheist, little question. Are you reading the original texts of the Qumran Chronicles, an English version, or a mixture of the two?

Ehtheist, using the Bible to prove the Bible is not a good avenue for talking to people who are skeptical of most or all of the Bible. It is good for some Christians, but not all. So, in less words, you are right.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

^ Your point, Gideon?

Fact is, something is missing from the original documents used to create the NT. And we have no idea, what it is (thus the "Q" source name).

I should think that is somewhat disconcerning, especially in a book like the bible.

The Q source, and the evidence for the Q source is based on statistical analysis of the NT by many biblical scollars. You are able to run the text through a computer and it will spit out a whole lot of line numbers and passages that share common characteristics. It is very similar to the software that teachers use to determine if something you have written plagerises someone elses work.

It is not so much that there is circumstansial evidence, there is mathematical based evidence that go to prove that the unknown source exists. The math done to determine this is probabalistic, but using the statistics and careful observation (i.e. many biblical scholors studying the bible and having forums on the issue) put a whole lot of weight on the existance of the unknow source.

Dan @ Code Town

I honestly don't think it's all that big a deal, personally.

With the number of documents excluded from the bible, the number of known forgeries that are in the bible, the often random ascribing of an identity to documents whose real authorship is unclear, something like this 'q source' which seems to really just be common root for two of the gospels doesn't stand out.

There were a wide variety of gospels in use before the council decided on the four that would comprise the NT. Certainly many of them shared common sources or were half-copied from each other. And certainly most of them were not written by the authors they were attributed to.

It certainly does put the bible in a different light than most christians like to see it, when all these factors are combined.

It shows, among other things, that the selection of the bible texts was very much a political issue, and there were in fact many "parties" with interests at stake in the process.

IT was very far from being one unified christianity with one unified set of texts...



(Edited by DL-44 on 02-18-2005 13:55)

^ And on that I agree.

Amen.

If the mathematics is correct (I will assume it is) then what? It sounds like you are saying that the mathematics proved that there is a correlation between Matthew and Luke, and the unknown source. So? If there is a correlation between beer and ice cream sales does that mean that when people buy beer, they are influenced to buy ice cream (and the other way around)? Not really. There is a confounding factor in that situation. That is one reason why I am a little leary about taking this text as a good copy. Mainly because there is no certain date, it has no known author, and it has not been in the Bible.

The Bible has been around for almost 2000 years, and it has not changed since the canon was decided upon. Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech, however good, however inspired, however close to the Bible's text it is, is not included in the Bible. That is because the Bible is already set. It does not change. If it did, we would probably be having another "Holy Crusade" right now.

It was set a long time ago by the churches. Many scholars got together and decided upon which texts could be allowed in the Bible. There was a strict rubric. Contrary to popular belief, inspired reading is one of the last, not first things that were checked. This gospel probably did not adhere to the rigorous rubric that the other four did pass.

Hey DL, if I wrote an essay about what God wants in my life, and asked for it to be included in all the prints of the Bible, it would probably get excluded. Would that be wrong or smart? As for forgeries, where is that? If you have found some I would love to take a look at them.


There were a wide variety of Gospels, but how many of them were true, and how many of them stacked up to already agreed upon doctrine? That last one is a key in dismissing many Gospels.

If it were a political issue, they did a rather bad job of it, I think. The Jews especially in the OT. But the NT choices would be really bad for many who wanted to do things that were against original doctrine.

Christianity has always and never been unified. All Christians are unified under Christ, but there are as many views on Christian behavior as there are stars in the sky.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

It sounds like you are saying that the mathematics proved that there is a correlation between Matthew and Luke, and the unknown source. So?

---

And that is the real problem with you, Gideon. You just simply ignore (or throw out) anything that doesn't fit into your version of the faith. You ignore it here - but you forget, that this comes from those who have heavily researched and studied the bible! And then you turn around, and accept the word of those who don't have nearly as much credentials concerning Creationism.

And then you lash out at us, for saying that those who have sponsered your belief in Creationism are not serious scientists. Well, well.

I call you for what you are - a hypocrite.

And no amount of apologizing will change that.

You need to take a real, long look at what really is evidence, and what you accept as factual. Not that you will, but you need to.

quote:

---

Hey DL, if I wrote an essay about what God wants in my life, and asked for it to be included in all the prints of the Bible, it would probably get excluded. Would that be wrong or smart?

---

Ok, remember my earlier diagram? Time to refer to that again.
I can't even fathom what you think this has to do with anything whatsoever.

quote:

---

As for forgeries, where is that? If you have found some I would love to take a look at them.

---

I'll have to look around to recall which books in particular, but it is pretty widely accepted by biblical scholars that several books are forgeries. Ok, so some christians like to refer to them as "pseodonymous writing" instead of the real term "forgery", but it all means the same thing in the end.

quote:

---

If it were a political issue, they did a rather bad job of it, I think. The Jews especially in the OT. But the NT choices would be really bad for many who wanted to do things that were against original doctrine.

---

No idea what you're saying here.

It was very clearly a political situation. Each group wanting their version of christianity to come out on top. The ones who managed to do so made the choices as to what was to be considered christianity.

As for "original doctrine" - do you realize what a contradiction this is?

We are talking about the group of people who decided what "original doctrine" would be. They couldn't possibly go against something that didn't exist in any solid form until they themselves made it so....

quote:

---

It was set a long time ago by the churches. Many scholars got together and decided upon which texts could be allowed in the Bible.

---

Yeah...you may recall that I informed you of that before....and you have several times told me that it was not true.

Interesting that you now are somehow trying to use it to show me I am wrong again.....?

I also, once again, fail to see any relevenace to this disucssion. Nobody has suggested that any modern writings should be added. We are talking about the ones that were around at the time which were not included, and of course the ones that were that we now know to be forgeries.

We are talking about the fact that a group of people did in fact sit down and DECIDE the details of what christianity would be.

Something that you have repeatedly denied ever happened. Until just now, where you're all of a sudden telling us that it is what heppened, but ignoring any of the details.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And that is the real problem with you, Gideon. You just simply ignore (or throw
out) anything that doesn't fit into your version of the faith.

---

No Webshaman, I threw that particular idea out because it wasn't mathematically sound. It had nothing to do with my faith.

I understand that it comes from people who pour through the Bible. But any newly found books are just that: newly found books. I am not saying that there could be neat stuff in there. It could be a great, inspired book like the Shepherd of Hermas is supposed to be. But it is not canonical. That is the main point. There was a reason that it was not included in the Bible. Do you know what that reason is? I think that before these people start showing off their new discovery, however neat it is, they should figure out why it was not originally included in the Bible. Maybe that will shed more light on what the book is about.

And Webshaman (Sangreal will love this if he reads it) you need to remember that when you call me a hypocrite and point your finger at me, at least three point right back at you. I would prefer if you could leave name calling and insults out of your posts, since it only makes you look bad.

Webshaman, I have taken a long look at the evidence. I still am. But the day my opinions and ideas and theories stop changing is the day I die. I have come to many conclusions about myself and the world around me and the God above/beside/within (Father/Son/Holy Spirit) me.

DL, it means that even if I write something that is inspired and meets all the credentials for a Biblical Book, even if it only violates one of the standards, it should not be included in the Bible. Even if it passed all the tests, it would be difficult to add that new book to the Bible. It would be possible, just a long and grueling process.

As for the forgeries please find some. I would love to look through them.

The "original doctrine" I was refering to was the Old Testament texts of history, law, and prophecy. Those were the main make or break point of most NT books.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Yeah...you may recall that I informed you of that before....and you have several
times told me that it was not true.

---

Sorry, you are right that was a word slip up. I meant to use agreed.

You said that they decided upon the issue. I have researched that they only agreed with what the already existant church body had decided. It was not a musky, secretive little meeting. It was open (as open as it could be under the Roman Empire), and probably a really big deal for most people. The people brought the books and the scholars looked at them and compared them to the already agreed upon base of Christianity.

The relevance is, DL, that any books found still has to pass all the tests. If it doesn't, then it obviously should not be included in the Bible. All modern writings already fail. You kinda pointed that out. But the point is that like wise many ancient writings fail too. Does that make them bad books? No. It just means that they are not Bible material.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

I have researched that they only agreed with what the already existant church body had decided.

---

But there simply was no "already existant church body".

It was a very splintered, varied collection of sometimes drastically different church bodies. All using very different collections of scripture to promote and affirm their religion.

quote:

---

the scholars looked at them and compared them to the already agreed upon base of Christianity.

---

There was no "already agreed upon base of Christianity".

Simply did not exist.

quote:

---

No. It just means that they are not Bible material.

---

According to the "winning party" anyway. Many of the books that did not make it into the bible, even those delcared heretical, remained in use for long periods of time among various groups of christians. Their were many gospels. Some more widely read than some of those that did make it into the bible.

You need to understand that it was in fact a matter of different groups vying for control. One group acheived it. They decided what was "orthodox" (meaning 'right thinking' more or less).

Their view was *not* an "already agreed upon" view. It was one of many.

And as in the other thread, this is my final word on the subject. I am certain it will be wasted typing, but clarification was needed.

So long.

quote:

---

And Webshaman (Sangreal will love this if he reads it) you need to remember that when you call me a hypocrite and point your finger at me, at least three point right back at you.

---

You are full of shit, boy. I caught you with your pants down (and so has DL for that matter and others here, multiple times).

Find 'em, and post 'em. Show me these three fingers (for everytime I point out one of yours, you need to provide proof of three of mine - now get busy). And I don't mean "take them out of context" - as you can see with Sangreal's quoting of what I said, it was in no way, shape, or form a hypocrisy.

quote:

---

I would prefer if you could leave name calling and insults out of your posts, since it only makes you look bad.

---

As to whether or not it makes me look bad - pointing out the truth here may be painful, but in this case, necessary. As such, it is not name calling or insults - it is the truth here. You have put yourself in a postion that is hypocrical. I pointed that out (with the evidence). You assert that I am three times a hypocrite as you, but provide no evidence of such - just a vague reference to a post from Sangreal, which turned out not to be what he thought (and he was made aware of that). Again, you are the one here that is engaging in name calling and insults, not I. I may choose hard words to explain this, but soft, gentle words have no weight with you, as DL has so eloquently proved, time and again.

quote:

---

No Webshaman, I threw that particular idea out because it wasn't mathematically sound.

---

Oh, I see...the high school student is telling us that Mathematicians who have devouted their life to mathmatics are wrong! Based on...faith?
Where is your evidence? Come, provide us with some mathematical proof that you are right, and that they are wrong.

Oh wait! We already proved and pointed out, that you cannot even add. No wonder that there is no mathematical proof coming from you showing this "mathematical unsoundness".

You see, if you are going to talk the talk, then you damned well better be able to walk the walk.

(Edited by WebShaman on 02-20-2005 12:55)

The Qumran Chronicles (dead sea scrolls to you Gid) appear to show just what DL was stating...that at the time there were warring factions, each one determined to have it's version of the religion take precedence.

So xianity was born in blood and the nastiest, meanest one won. No wonder this faith of "love and understanding" is historically bathed in blood and remains so to this day.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

(Edited by Ehtheist on 02-20-2005 17:03)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

There was no "already agreed upon base of Christianity". Simply did not
exist.

---

Judism. The Jewish books.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

But there simply was no "already existant church body".It was a very
splintered, varied collection of sometimes drastically different church bodies.
All using very different collections of scripture to promote and affirm their
religion.

---

Do you know that you just contradicted yourself?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

According to the "winning party" anyway.

---

IF there were many parties fighting for control, then you would be right.

Wow Webshaman, slow down, deep breath. Shew. That whole pointing thing I was refering to was an idiom that Sangreal's grandmother used to use. I never said that I can find many contradictions in your posts. It was just something I wanted you to keep in mind before ou started spouting off names and insults. Usually the one doing the insulting is the one the is in the worst shape. That is all, sheesh.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

As such, it is not name calling or insults - it is the truth here.

---

So when you insult me in this thread it is not really an insult? It is truth? I am sure that I have been quilty of being a hypocrite many times. I struggle with it every day. But at least this highschool student is man enough to admit his faults. I try and better myself. I am no dead duck.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Again, you are the one here that is engaging in name calling and insults, not
I.

---

If you can please bring to my attention any insults I have made to you I will publically apologize for them. I can even write you a nice little apology letter if you like. But please do bring them to my attention. I don't like waiting in the dark.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Oh wait! We already proved and pointed out, that you cannot even add.

---

1+1=2, 2+2=4, 3+3=6, 4+4=8, 5+5=10, 6+6=12, 7+7=14, 8+8=16, 9+9=18, 10+10=20 ... How much farther need I go?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Where is your evidence? Come, provide us with some mathematical proof that you
are right, and that they are wrong.

---

The mathematics is a statistical interpretation of the data. So far, I have not had the pleasure of seeing the proofs personally, since they were not on the site, but if I did, I might have more reason to believe it one way or the other. Statistically speaking, correlation between two variables does not always point to a definite conclusion. There could be confounding variables in the data.

(Some college statistic classes do come in handy once in a while.)

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Ohh my..hahahaha this is better than Yannah...

at least his grammatical superiority makes posts worth reading.

Gid you are one big nut around here

quote:

---

Judism. The Jewish books.

---

Which has not the slightest thing to do with what we're talking about. What was decided was what would comprise the new testament. Please pay attention...

quote:

---

Do you know that you just contradicted yourself?

---

Uh.......nope. No contradiction there

quote:

---

IF there were many parties fighting for control, then you would be right.

---

Yes, I know. And as there were many groups fighting for control, that would make me "right". Please learn your history.

*shakes head sadly*

DL has not contradicted himself. And he is right.

And this is a big waste of time, conversing with Gideon on this subject. It is like trying to explain color to the blind.

Gid, if you read the dead sea scrolls ( I don't know if they hav a translation in single syllable words), you will find DL's contention about fragmented tribes warring for supremecy substantially upheld.

While insulting is a fine art and can be quite humerous when practiced well...I am reminded of Churchill and I think it was Lady Astor...she commented if he were a gentlman he would not smoke in the presence of a lady. His riposte was "madame, if you were a lady, you would not mention it". She responded "Sir, if you were my hsband, I should poison you". To which he replied 'Madame, if I were your husband, I would take it".

However, as much fun as that is, if one allows the comments of another to be hurtful to them one merely empowers the silly sod who made the comment. This is even more true where no 'insult' was intended, but nevertheless perceived by the beholder.

Others do not insult us, we allow ourselves to feel slighted...some people even make what appears to be a career out of being insulted.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Fascist Fundamentalists

The religious right is a serious source of concern over erosion of personal rights.

We fought long and hard for women to have the right to control their own bodies, a fight the RR have not stopped. Fortunately here in Canada we have the RR pretty much damped down, though they raise their heads out of the primordial ooze from time-to-time, only to get stomped back down.

Now, in the excited states, RR pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control becaue "it offends their religious views".

This, of course, is completely unacceptable.

These people have no right to force their narrow religious views on others, as has been proven many times in the past.

If they don't want to dispense legal medications they should find another line of work. if they refuse to, they should be fired.

This is just one of the most obvious reasons I despise the religious and their "Higher Purpose Persons" and holier-than-thou attitudes.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Aren't pharmacists privately run? (Perhaps in socialist Canada there is no such thing, I really don't know) But why shouldn't pharmacists be able to run their shops as they see fit in this regard? If you have a government run pharmacy then I quite agree they should not withhold legal drugs.

Making birth the birth control pill illegal is an erosion of personal rights but isn't it also true when forcing private pharmacies to carry drugs they don't want to carry?

But isn't this really a struggle between the RR and people with your views? Don't you want your secular world view forced on everyone else just as many in the RR want theirs to be? Are you interested in true pluralism, or having your "correct" view of things prevail?

How are you any different from them other than the obvious fact that you are radically secular and they are radically religious?

What good is it having you ram your narrow views down my throat as opposed to them? Eh?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I believe the issue boils down to the right to choose.

And in many cases both of you are correct.

1) A person can make the choice not to offer someone else birth control. (Party A)
2) A person who wishes to use birth control they are well within their rights to purchase it. (Party B)

However, neither party A or party B has any right to impose their views on the other. In this way, party B has no right to force party A to carry or sell birth control. And, party A has no right to deny party B from taking an alternate means to purchase birth control.

However, a pharmacist is not just a person. They are a gatekeeper, and as such they give up certain rights in order to be allowed their position. One of the rights they lose is the ability to allow moral ideology to affect their decisions within their profession.

Lets look at some other parallels to this situation.

* An ambulance crew decides not to transport an individual because they have an infectious disease.
* A police officer decides not to assist an individual being robbed because of their skin color.
* A firefighter decides not to perform a rescue because of the victims sex.
* A pharmacist decides not to offer birth control because of their religion.

They are all parallel, and they are all equally wrong. These individuals are not afforded the luxury of allowing their personal moral issues to interfere with their job.

Ultimately they can make professional decisions based on their moral ideologies, the ambulance crew can decide not to transport someone, the police officer can deny assistance, the firefighter can choose not to perform a rescue, and the pharmacist can opt to discontinue offering birth control. However, once they decide not to perform the function of their position because of their moral obligations, they have also made the choice to abandon their position, and if they do not resign of their own free will, they must be removed by an outside force.

Those who would can not meet the responsibilities of a given position can not and should not be allowed to carry on in said position.

Dan @ Code Town

(Edited by WarMage on 03-29-2005 19:24)

If the pharmacist is a non government worker then she should be able to choose not to sell certain types of drugs. The other examples you give, Dan, are all government provided services.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Wouldn't a pharmacist generally be an employee of a larger organization, like Wal-Mart, which determines which drugs it will carry? In such a case it is the right of the private establishment to make a choice and very rarely the individual contact's. It would be illegal, however, to carry any product and restrict its sale to any class of citizen not based on medical reasons. For a pharmacy to carry Birth Control X only for Muslims and refuse to sell it to any other individual based solely upon religion is illegal and quite wrong. The only legal way to enforce your beliefs is to boycott the product, not discriminate whilst carrying the product.

(Edited by Nada`King on 03-29-2005 21:51)

quote:

---

They are all parallel, and they are all equally wrong. These individuals are not afforded the luxury of allowing their personal moral issues to interfere with their job.

---

They are *very* far from paralell...to the point of making your statement pretty much absurd.

The first three examples you post are examples where a person who's obligation to citezens is very clear, and aer extreme examples involving the possible immediate loss of someone's life.

Now, there are two possible examples of the problem at hand -

1) the pharmacist in question is an individual working for a company. The company sells birth control pills, but the pharmacist refuses to dispense them.
The employee in question would certainly be subject to diciplanary action based on company policy, and the company could potentially be the subject of litigation based on discrimination. Might not get far, but I'm sure plenty of lawyers would be willing to give it a go.

2) The pharmacy does not carry medications that it considers immoral, including birth control.

I am not familiar enough with the applicable laws to really say, but I don't see any way (or any justification) to force them to carry such things.

The convenience store down the road is not required to sell the brand of soda that I like (or to sell soda at all...).

How is it justifiable to say that the drug store the next block over must carry and dispense whatever medication someone may want?

For any group to force the concept on society, or for legislation to be passed based on these people's views of birth control is plain wrong.

For a government to force their views on a store and make them sell certain things is equally wrong.

The pharmacist is not refusing to serve a customer based on the customer's religion - they are refusing to sell a product that they finid morally wrong.

And that's ok....

http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=About_APhA&CONTENTID=2654&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm

http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=About_APhA&CONTENTID=2410&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm

Nothing here about denying service due to religious groundss. Seems to me each pharmacist who does, violates their professional code of ethics.

If they want to work somewhere where they don;t have to desal with thses issues, then start a xian pharmacy and make it cear at the door that free-thinking realists are not welcome.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/29/earlyshow/health/main683753.shtml

Coming soon to a pharmacy near you, religious bigotry.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Wait a second... are we talking primarily about the so called "morning after pill" here? That's not a contraceptive. Doctors are not compelled to perform abortions and I think the same should apply to pharmacists. And that seems to fall perfectly in line with that code of ethics you linked to, Ehthiest.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Nothing here about denying service due to religious groundss. Seems to me each pharmacist who does, violates their professional code of ethics.

---

Completely ludicrous.

Ever heard the phrase "pick your battles"?

This is not a battle with any purpose other than pushing your own agenda in the same that you are condemning them for doing the same.

(btw - nothing in that code about being forced to sell a product you find morally wrong either...)

Hardly ludicrous at all.

These are professionals (allegedly) and it is their profession to dispense medications in a safe and responsible manner.

It is not part of their professional responsibility to decide who gets it and who doesn't and why.

BTW, in BC the morning-after pill is non-prescription. I believe the only reason it is prescriptive in the US is because of the strong religious lobby.

If I have an agenda at all it is not to deny anyone their religious beliefs, no matter how foolish, but to preserve the rights of the rest of us not to be put upon by these narrow and antiquated views.

In the US, those rights are very much in jeopardy under the current theocracy, IMNSHO.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Bottom line: if I own a business, I can decide not to sell certain products at my sole discretion.

That's the point: they're not (according to your presentation of the story) refusing to sell a product to certain people.

They are refusing to sell a certain product at all.

And they have every right to do so.

Yes, if you run a business that is not a government sponsored position. You may say that a pharmisist is not government sponsored, but if you take a simple peak over the counter you will see a nice license granted to the pharmicist by the state/province granting them the right to dispense medications.

You as a web designer and graphic artist are afforded your right to sell products and not sell certain products, you do not need a license granted to you by the government for your position. You are not a govenment authorized gatekeeper, a pharmicist is.

You might think this is absurd, that is fine and you opinion.

However, I feel that if I am being denied a legal product that I feel will have a positive effect on my life (and have a prescription for) by the only people who are authorized by the government to dispenese it, I find that wrong.

Were a pharmicist to deny a party to purchase their nitro, zoloft or penicillin I do not think we would even have a two sided arguement here. There are groups who feel it is wrong to offer medical treatment to individuals should they be allowed to be the ones in charge of controlling the supply of medications? No, of course not.

As for picking your battles. This might be an important issue to pay attention to, I can't judge from where I stand. Most times you will only learn what was really important were when studying the history of the situation. Furter, we all know that there are many here who get polarized on most discussions, that is ok, our discussions here are far from a battle. If we all stop talking then we have really lost.

Dan @ Code Town

Agreed DL, if you decide not to sell a product that is you business. But, when the pharmacy in which you work as the product available, you as an individual have no right to deny that product to a legitimate purchaser strictly on religious grounds, or colour or gender for that matter.

If the pharmacist has that sort of narrow attitude, they may ask someone else to serve the client. If there is no one else and the product is behind the counter (where it has no business being-should be next to the condoms), then they MUST serve or resign or get fired.

It is really very simple. If you offer a product for sale, you cannot legally refuse to sell it to a legitimate buyer.

Can't handle the reality of life? Then get thee to a nunnery...but take lots of condoms.

BTW, the morning-after pill is not an abortificant. If a woman who is already pregnant takes it, it will not affect the womb or the foetus. It is essentially a super birthcontrol pill which has the same effect as a condom.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

but if you take a simple peak over the counter you will see a nice license granted to the pharmicist by the state/province granting them the right to dispense medications.

---

Restaurants and Bars also have such licenses...but they are still not required to sell a product that they do not wish to sell.

quote:

---

If there is no one else and the product is behind the counter (where it has no business being-should be next to the condoms), then they MUST serve or resign or get fired.

---

That I certaily agree with. It's what I mentioned in my first response.

We had a parallel situation briefly here in BC last year. Certain marriage commissioners refused to perform same-gender marriages.

It was surprising how many found their paycheques held greater authority with them than their "moral/religious" objections.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/01/birth.control.governor.ap/index.html

Good example of why individual opinions don't matter so much. The law still does work from time to time, in spite of knee-jerk reactions stating the opposite

Or, better put:

quote:

---

? Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it ?
? Thomas Jefferson , 1801
First Inaugural Address. March 4, 1801.

---

(Edited by DL-44 on 04-02-2005 05:52)

^Amen to that!

I don't know if this is all a religious battle, bud. I think it is more about the pharmacist not wanting to give death to a not-yet-born-baby. He/She may just not want to be resposible for that. Which in that case I would agree that he/she could resign or what not. But then, some like to be the pillars of justice and go against the grain. They may think: I could have stopped them if I had stayed on the job, I could have saved a life. Then they get the guilt thing again.

BTW, do you know much about Lucretius, or did you just like his quote?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Good article DL, thanks, gives one hope.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

DL-44:

quote:

---

Restaurants and Bars also have such licenses...but they are still not required to sell a product that they do not wish to sell.

---

Yep, but Bar tenders do not make the Hippocratic Oath.

Regarding the article on CNN.com. In France, it works like that. And more, minors can go to a doctor and/or a pharmacists and ask for birth control prescription or a morning-after pill and they can NOT refuse it nor inform the parents ( thanks to the medical secret ).



(Edited by poi on 04-04-2005 04:50)