Why does God allow suffering?

- 5 year old kids with AIDS in Africa that are so hungry they have to eat rocks to fill their stomaches. (for example)

If God is 'perfect/unconditional' love, how could he allow one of His own creations to suffer for all eternity in hell?

- No matter how many times my dog Jack fucks up, I could never catch him on fire and watch him burn. (weak, but still an example)

Why won't God show Himself to the world instead of making belief in Him an impossible contradiction of logic and faith?





[This message has been edited by Cadabra (edited 03-16-2005).]

God is both loving and spiteful. Satan is an extension of God, but still God.

God is spiteful?

I would agree that the Old Covenant/Testament God would be considered spiteful. But after Jesus it's supposed to be all love and forgiveness, right?

"Turn the other cheek" kinda thing.

The Old Testament sort of displays the spiteful side almost exclusively, whereas the New Testament does the opposite. In the end, it's the same one.

Watch out for a good smiting, God doesn't like people asking questions.

quote:Originally posted by Cadabra:

Why does God allow suffering?

- 5 year old kids with AIDS in Africa that are so hungry they have to eat rocks to fill their stomaches. (for example)



What reason has God got to not allow suffering, The world is no longer faithful(If it ever was) my hypothesis: He has lost interest in a world that has lost interst in him.

quote:Originally posted by Cadabra:

If God is 'perfect/unconditional' love, how could he allow one of His own creations to suffer for all eternity in hell?

- No matter how many times my dog Jack fucks up, I could never catch him on fire and watch him burn. (weak, but still an example)



The 10 Commandments?



quote:Originally posted by Cadabra:

Why won't God show Himself to the world instead of making belief in Him an impossible contradiction of logic and faith?



Do some Bible study, I've picked up a lot of things recently by doing a lot of research I suggest you do the same, It will help you answer most of these questions yourself http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif).

P.S. Remember don’t take it to literally http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif).

"What reason has God got to not allow suffering, The world is no longer faithful(If it ever was) my hypothesis: He has lost interest in a world that has lost interst in him."

Aside from myself, and one other person I know, I've yet to find individuals that are truly happy with atheism...almost every last person I have ever met are interested in deities of some sort, or atleast spirituality. To say this world has lost interest in God is to blind yourself to reality.

"The 10 Commandments?"

That doesn't address his question at all. Of course Christianity carries rules, but his question was related to the cruelty that God displays in carrying out his 'justice'...sending a being with limited judgement skills into a separation from their creator for all eternity due to a short duration of years of mistakes is just fucking cruel.

"Do some Bible study, I've picked up a lot of things recently by doing a lot of research I suggest you do the same, It will help you answer most of these questions yourself ."

I'm sorry, but this is BS. I've researched Christianity, Judaism, and Islam rather extensively, and have yet to find a rational answer to any of his three questions. There are answers, but they require you to shut your brain off to accept them as satisfying the question.

How can God change?

Old testament god = spiteful, like he was trying to prove himself to the world, showing his power to the egyptian gods in exodus etc.

New testament god = is loving and forgiving, so he changed? Or did the whole spiteful god didn't get enough worshippers?

This is were the saying lifes a bitch and then you die comes from.

quote:Originally posted by Fza:

How can God change?

Old testament god = spiteful, like he was trying to prove himself to the world, showing his power to the egyptian gods in exodus etc.

New testament god = is loving and forgiving, so he changed? Or did the whole spiteful god didn't get enough worshippers?



If a God can be triune, He can be contradicting. Maybe you think of it like this : God has a plan for mankind; for this plan to work, people would need to have different characteristics given by different religions. For example the greeks had many gods for every aspect of their life. This made them feel protected whatever way in life they pursued because there was a god special for them. In this diversity the greeks had to invent democracy. The jews on the other hand knew of One God who proclaimed them as the Chosen People. You can guess what characteristics are given to people by their religion and how this has influenced history. So, what if God shows Himself in different forms to different people because of a plan? You could say this presents a "tricky" or deceitful God but that is not so because you have free will. It's your choice to follow whatever religion and this could also explain why God does not show Himself in the literal sense.

Why should God intervene to end a suffering not of His own making? All atrocities on the planet are caused by humans and blaming God is absurd. Maybe He does set the stage as I proposed, but what role you will play, if any, is chosen by you and you are responsible for that choice. In the end, if there really is a divine plan at work, you can be sure that it will end in the punishment of those whose choices brought suffering.

[This message has been edited by elfstone (edited 03-17-2005).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

... or atleast spirituality. To say this world has lost interest in God is to blind yourself to reality.

Many (if not all) Christians, myself included, have consciously and blatently gone against (rebeled) God's commands. Lost of interest in God is really not the question. Placing self Will before God's Will is the continued "reason" why things are the way they are, along with being a finite amount of souls that will/have accepted the Christ's work on the cross.

"The 10 Commandments?"

That doesn't address his question at all. Of course Christianity carries rules, but his question was related to the cruelty that God displays in carrying out his 'justice'...sending a being with limited judgement skills into a separation from their creator for all eternity due to a short duration of years of mistakes is just fucking cruel.

I think what he was saying here is that the rules are commanded from the Sovereign God... as does the punishment. However, the Ten Commandments are really not there for "spiteful" or "vengeful" purpose, but as a "mirror", to see our need for a Savior.

BTW, "short duration of years"? How long do you suppose would be sufficiently long life?

Some people make up their mind what they believe when they are young, while others take a whole life time of searching.

I'm sorry, but this is BS. I've researched Christianity, Judaism, and Islam rather extensively, and have yet to find a rational answer to any of his three questions. There are answers, but they require you to shut your brain off to accept them as satisfying the question.

This is not meant as an insult...My personal opinion is that what you call BS, is BS. And that ignoring these answers (that you speak of) is shutting down ones brain.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

"The 10 Commandments?"

Of course Christianity carries rules, but his question was related to the cruelty that God displays in carrying out his 'justice'...sending a being with limited judgement skills into a separation from their creator for all eternity due to a short duration of years of mistakes is just fucking cruel.

BTW, "short duration of years"? How long do you suppose would be sufficiently long life?

Some people make up their mind what they believe when they are young, while others take a whole life time of searching.

I think that Hex meant that one's life is a "short duration of years" compared to all eternity. If you died at 110 years old and you were on your second millennia in hell (out of all eternity) I think your life would seem like a short duration of years. Wouldn't you?

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:



If a God can be triune, He can be contradicting. Maybe you think of it like this : God has a plan for mankind; for this plan to work, people would need to have different characteristics given by different religions. For example the greeks had many gods for every aspect of their life. This made them feel protected whatever way in life they pursued because there was a god special for them. In this diversity the greeks had to invent democracy. The jews on the other hand knew of One God who proclaimed them as the Chosen People. You can guess what characteristics are given to people by their religion and how this has influenced history. So, what if God shows Himself in different forms to different people because of a plan? You could say this presents a "tricky" or deceitful God but that is not so because you have free will. It's your choice to follow whatever religion and this could also explain why God does not show Himself in the literal sense.

Why should God intervene to end a suffering not of His own making? All atrocities on the planet are caused by humans and blaming God is absurd. Maybe He does set the stage as I proposed, but what role you will play, if any, is chosen by you and you are responsible for that choice. In the end, if there really is a divine plan at work, you can be sure that it will end in the punishment of those whose choices brought suffering.



That's a good point, though I don't completely agree, you say why should God intervene, but he used to intervene all the time (old testament) so why did he stop? And a lot of atrocities we're executed in the name of a god (every religion has it's dark side), shouldn't he atleast intervene in that?

quote:Originally posted by Fza:

That's a good point, though I don't completely agree, you say why should God intervene, but he used to intervene all the time (old testament) so why did he stop? And a lot of atrocities we're executed in the name of a god (every religion has it's dark side), shouldn't he atleast intervene in that?

God's interference in the old testament is just the jewish part of the plan. More accurately, the part of God's plan that "produces" the jews.

Everything done "in the name of God" is not necessarily supported by Him. There was nothing in the New Testament to support the crusades, but men did it anyway. God has no reason to intervene because there isn't anything that links him to the atrocities.

Ugh, not again. Stupid theists.

Atheism is logical.

Why?

Because lack of evidence is not evidence in itself, but is reason to believe that

the inevidenced subject is false.



There is as much proof as for a god as for undetectable purple cows which fly behind

clouds.

Now, by the false logic people use for believeing in a god, we could also believe in

these cows.

Prove the cows don't exist, prove that god doesn't exist. Otherwise, by the logic of

theists, the cows also exist. And by the logic of the agnostics, the cows

might exist.





Anyway, for those who are religious, you cannot debate faith, as, by

definition, it is not debatable.



i.e. If you believe in God because of the lack of evidence AGAINST God, then the

undetectable purple cows which fly behind clouds also exist by the theist 'logic'.

quote:Originally posted by Doey:

I think that Hex meant that one's life is a "short duration of years" compared to all eternity. If you died at 110 years old and you were on your second millennia in hell (out of all eternity) I think your life would seem like a short duration of years. Wouldn't you?

I think either you or i are misunderstanding Hex, but he was talking about the mistakes that are made during that "short duration of years" vs. the eternal punishment being cruel.

So let me rephrase... If someone were able to live (dont judge the math here) half of eterinty, would that make the mistakes go away? And even if it did, would the extra time cause one to change his oppinion of God, and worship Him more? God knows how long of life we need, and He does give us ample evidence and chances. (I know this brings the question of freewill v. omnipotence/ominscience).

Question 1: quote: - 5 year old kids with AIDS in Africa that are so hungry they have to eat rocks to fill their stomaches. (for example)

Answer: Because nobody likes Kenyans.

Question 2: quote:If God is 'perfect/unconditional' love, how could he allow one of His own creations to suffer for all eternity in hell?

- No matter how many times my dog Jack fucks up, I could never catch him on fire and watch him burn. (weak, but still an example)

Answer: Hell, I'd like to see your dog burn. Can't blame god for that.

Question 3: quote:Why won't God show Himself to the world instead of making belief in Him an impossible contradiction of logic and faith?

Answer: Right now he's on a safari hunting Kenyans with the God Cannon. When they get hit, they starve.

quote:Originally posted by The_Reckoning:

Ugh, not again. Stupid theists.

Atheism is logical.

Why?

Because lack of evidence is not evidence in itself, but is reason to believe that

the inevidenced subject is false.



There is as much proof as for a god as for undetectable purple cows which fly behind

clouds.

Now, by the false logic people use for believeing in a god, we could also believe in

these cows.

Prove the cows don't exist, prove that god doesn't exist. Otherwise, by the logic of

theists, the cows also exist. And by the logic of the agnostics, the cows

might exist.





Anyway, for those who are religious, you cannot debate faith, as, by

definition, it is not debatable.



i.e. If you believe in God because of the lack of evidence AGAINST God, then the

undetectable purple cows which fly behind clouds also exist by the theist 'logic'.

Are all atheists are smart and concise as you?

Thank you for opening my eyes. Because of your perfect logic I will cast away any previous notions I had about God. Thank you for letting me see the light. Not I understand that because there is no solid proof theists are wrong, and atheists are right, even though atheists have no proof either. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Quick question; have you ever claimed that God doesn't exist?

"Why does God allow suffering?

- 5 year old kids with AIDS in Africa that are so hungry they have to eat rocks to fill their stomaches. (for example)"

- Supposedly god created the world. We make of the world what we make. If children are starving it's because we made them starve, not god. He put us in an imperfect world on purpose. That way we would need faith and give his existence purpose.

"If God is 'perfect/unconditional' love, how could he allow one of His own creations to suffer for all eternity in hell?

- No matter how many times my dog Jack fucks up, I could never catch him on fire and watch him burn. (weak, but still an example)"

- According to christianity all you have to do is ask and you'll be forgiven. Other than that - I mean, I study religion but I'm no spokesperson for god. The best way that could be put is "god works in mysterious ways".

"Why won't God show Himself to the world instead of making belief in Him an impossible contradiction of logic and faith?"

- If we knew god exists faith would become obsolete. We wouldn't have faith because we'd know. And it would be just like knowing the sky exists. It's just another giant, all encompassing, thing that we are existing in but is vast beyond our comprehension.

Basically, he doesn't show himself because faith is the only thing that gives him purpose.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Doey:

I think that Hex meant that one's life is a "short duration of years" compared to all eternity. If you died at 110 years old and you were on your second millennia in hell (out of all eternity) I think your life would seem like a short duration of years. Wouldn't you?

xtreem5150ahm:

I think either you or i are misunderstanding Hex, but he was talking about the mistakes that are made during that "short duration of years" vs. the eternal punishment being cruel.

So let me rephrase... If someone were able to live (dont judge the math here) half of eterinty, would that make the mistakes go away? And even if it did, would the extra time cause one to change his oppinion of God, and worship Him more? God knows how long of life we need, and He does give us ample evidence and chances. (I know this brings the question of freewill v. omnipotence/ominscience).

You're missing the point, xtreem. A fair punishment should be equal to the action it is given for. Suppose that a non-Christian sins once during his lifetime, and steals a piece of bread from a bakery. Is it really appropriate to send that person to hell to be tortured for all eternity, for that action? That's what would happen under the system most Christians believe in.

The point is: finite sins should not be punished with infinite torment. Salvation is nice for those who know to get saved, but for those who don't (for whatever reasons) it will still be unfair.

The_Reckoning -- Please stop posting that everywhere you go. I'm not a believer myself, but it's getting kinda annoying.

For now, I'll wait and see what everybody can do with LostCause's arguments. Some re-runs are coming on, I have to go watch them.

quote:Originally posted by Cadabra:

Why does God allow suffering?

- 5 year old kids with AIDS in Africa that are so hungry they have to eat rocks to fill their stomaches. (for example)

If God is 'perfect/unconditional' love, how could he allow one of His own creations to suffer for all eternity in hell?

- No matter how many times my dog Jack fucks up, I could never catch him on fire and watch him burn. (weak, but still an example)

Why won't God show Himself to the world instead of making belief in Him an impossible contradiction of logic and faith?







The first question revolves around obediance and disobediance. The result of ones actions determines the outcome of their lives and this also pertains to a large body of people as well. It is an object of exercising our free will. We can choose to do good or to do bad as a person as well as a people. The western culture tries to show compassion to a certain level for the impoverished and we try to take care of them and there is a contrast between the nations.

Africa is predominatly Muslum and third world while the western world is predominatly Christian and modern. God is where love is and where lovelessness prevails God can not be. You see, the heart of a man must change before a kindgom can change and all we have to do is understand what sin is and how it destroys lives before we can understand why corruption prevails in a body of people.

If we see the blessings of a nation can be tied to their spiritual foundation then we can see what is happening behind the scenes and there you will find your answer.

Question 2; It is true that we were all created and he knew us even before the foundation of the earth was laid that doesn't mean we are His hires. You see to be a son of God we must first be born again. That means to be redeemed of the curse of sin and death or, in other words, the the curse of Adam. We are all born as sinners with the burdon of death but through the purification of accepting the payment of the lamb of God for our debts we can are spared from death.

What I am saying is we can not live until we are born and we can not realize the spiritual until we are born into it. The spirit is destined for eternity either with God or without Him. It is his soverign choice of who that will be.

Consider that you wouldn't just let anybody in your home and especially those who do not agree to live by your rules and wishes.

Would you trust a thief and liar to stay in your home? Would you allow a slick toungued adulterer to stay in your home and while you are away he can win over your wife's heart? How about a murder or rapist? All the sudden His conditions to enter heaven seem to make more sense now when we think of it like that. You must be born again!

Third question;

God has showed Himself to the world but the world has rejected Him. We hung Him on a cross. God reveals Himself to us daily but we do not see Him because of our death and sin. Consider that an unsaved person looking for God is no different then trying to make a dead man hear you when you knock on his casket.

How can a dead man hear anything? So if we need eyes and ears of flesh to see and hear things of the world we will also need eyes and ears of spirit to hear and see things of the spiritual. If you have not been born again of the Spirit then how can you hear or see the spiritual? In essence even if God was standing in front of you you still wouldn't be able to hear or see Him. When God picks us up and dusts us off and sets us on a right path in life it really is miraculous.

You see, the evidence of God's existence is only revealed once you accept that it is by Him all things are sustained and you will see His thumbprint on everything. You will only see Him when your eyes are opened and you will only hear Him when your ears are opened and until your a new spirit He will be evasive like chasing after the wind.

If your questions were sincere then I know that 'if' you have a pure heart and a humble spirit God will reveal Himself to you in time.

every time someone asks this question the answer is always the same, god works in mysterious ways. the excuse is always that suffering has its place in gods "divine" plan and that in actual fact its because god cares about us that he does this. personally i'm an atheist because of the fact that no-one can satisfactorily explain why it is god allows suffering because i know what you mean. If god was infinitely caring and infinetly powerful why doesn't he just make everything good? why isn't life one big drug party with free booze and no hangovers? the answer is because a) there is no god or b) because god doesn't really give a crap. if he did i'd have an ounce sitting in front of me, a bottle of bundies in one hand, a cigar in the other and heidi klum betweeen my legs

Sig_Intel: What a load of racistic BS! Your christianic western world is responsible for the suffering in africa and the middle east. Please don't talk of spirituality when your post is full of intolerance and superiority complex.

pot_prince: Don't simplify things like this. If we lived in eternal bliss from the moment we were created, we would be a dumb happy species, no different than chickens with lots of food. God is infinitely caring, but what does this mean for individual humans when one is often set against the other? Is he more infinitely caring for one or the other? The answer is that God cares for humanity as a whole. He cares for each and everyone of us of course and that's why there's Jesus who gave guidelines for a happy life. It's your choice to believe in that and either choice doesn't offend God because it's humanity He's concerned with, not your individual well-being. You have free will to take care of that.

Of course, for all the above to make any kind of sense you need to stop picturing God as an old man with white beard in the sky who can do anything!

First of all, Cadabra is well known butt pirate with a weak mind that he destroyed smoking salvia. I know who he is and he walks around town looking like that one dude on "Bruce Almighty". You know the bum that appears with signs hanging around his neck...real dirty, etc.

Free will, it's a bitch. He gave it to us and we fucked it up. He hasn't turned his back on us, but like a parent, he has allowed us to mess up our own world. He is still there if you need him.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

You're missing the point, xtreem. A fair punishment should be equal to the action it is given for. Suppose that a non-Christian sins once during his lifetime, and steals a piece of bread from a bakery. Is it really appropriate to send that person to hell to be tortured for all eternity, for that action? That's what would happen under the system most Christians believe in.

The point is: finite sins should not be punished with infinite torment. Salvation is nice for those who know to get saved, but for those who don't (for whatever reasons) it will still be unfair.

I'm not missing the point, we were born with sin, we continue to sin. We are guilty, but God gave us a "loophole", all we need to do is "use it".

I agree that it seems unfair for those who do not know that the 'loophole' is there for the taking, but i'm sure God has the answer.

What of those who require evidence? Or atleast a suggestion? People like me CAN'T believe...trust me, I've tried. So long as I see no evidence, and so long as I feel nothing 'supernatural', I have no reason to believe any sort of a god exists. I see more holes in theism than in friggin' Swiss cheese...if a single one of you theists can even give me an inklink of a clue as to how I can have faith, I'm interested. It just doesn't work for me.

So you want people to convince you to have faith?

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

What of those who require evidence? Or atleast a suggestion? People like me CAN'T believe...trust me, I've tried. So long as I see no evidence, and so long as I feel nothing 'supernatural', I have no reason to believe any sort of a god exists. I see more holes in theism than in friggin' Swiss cheese...if a single one of you theists can even give me an inklink of a clue as to how I can have faith, I'm interested. It just doesn't work for me.

Hex, I'm sure that you've "heard" me describe myself as a sower and a serf. Part of the reason is that humans do not have the ability to convince others into belief. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. Some people are allowed Faith as a spiritual 'gift', while others need to ask God (and it's my understanding that in order to ask, they have to already have been convicted by the Holy Spirit).

You said, "trust me, I've tried". This is just my guess, but maybe that IS the problem.

You have used "self" to achieve (belief in) God instead of using God to achieve belief.

I dont like the term that i'm using i.e. "using God", but i cant think of a better way to put my thoughts.

Anyway, listen to this, and see if means anything to you.

http://216.247.64.85/ram/TTT/TTT050318.ram

I've heard everything; doesn't help.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

I've heard everything; doesn't help.

Everything?

So you are the infinite god? If you are the infinite, how can you be athiest?

(sorry i didnt capitalize the G)

Anyway, i am guessing that you didnt listen to it. It is an interview of a professor in England who had been an atheist himself. He recently wrote a book that points out many flaws in the atheist belief. His book has caused a bit of a stir in (i think) British Scholars (i cant spell acedamia).

Check it out, you may find it interesting.

also check out "many infallible proofs" or some of the others in the archieve:

http://www.coralridge.org/BroadcastArchives.asp?cat=TTT&daterange=3/1/2005-3/31/2005

the bad thing is that the archieve doesnt list many, as it stays short and only includes recent programs.

Most of those "infallible proofs" are actually "could be's" that have been stated as fact, based on other "could be's". Not very convincing, to say the least. For example:

"It could be that Christ rose from the grave"

Or it could be that he didn't rise from the grave, or that he never died at the crucifixion, or that he never went to a cross, or that he never lived, etc, etc. All of it is based on the assumption that the scriptures are true, and is used to prove that the scriptures are true. It's a merry-go-round of logical fallacy.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

Most of those "infallible proofs" are actually "could be's" that have been stated as fact, based on other "could be's". Not very convincing, to say the least. For example:

"It could be that Christ rose from the grave"

Or it could be that he didn't rise from the grave, or that he never died at the crucifixion, or that he never went to a cross, or that he never lived, etc, etc. All of it is based on the assumption that the scriptures are true, and is used to prove that the scriptures are true. It's a merry-go-round of logical fallacy.

What you say "could be", but many historians agree with the historicity of Jesus. If the historicity is true, it makes it highly probable that the death as discribed in Scripture is accurate. If the historicity of the life and death are accurate, then there are two questions:



1. why didnt the Jewish officials show that the body was still dead?

OR

if the body had been stolen,

2. why did all of the disciples martyr for a lie? (save one, who was banished)

The is only one assumption of belief of scripture: Genisis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. All the rest of scripture, rests on this basis. This is the reason that it is the most difficult passage. And the more that the belief in billions of years (evolution, big bang, etc.) undermine (or attempt to undermine) God's Word.

You say, "All of it is based on the assumption that the scriptures are true, and is used to prove that the scriptures are true. It's a merry-go-round of logical fallacy."

This is true also of billions of years assumptions. i.e. the assumption that the rocks are billions of years old. Rocks date the fossils. Radiometric dating assumes billions of years, therefore "confirms" that the rocks and fossils are billion of years old.... carousel!

The Bible is just about the only source of information about Jesus. There's a few other historical texts that say that he might have existed, but whether or not those are interpolations into the originals is highly disputed.

quote:What you say "could be", but many historians agree with the historicity of Jesus.

They mostly agree to the extent that he was a real person, but beyond that, only Christian conservatives and a few others agree that the Bible is an accurate portrayal of his life. When you consider that the scripture wasn't written by the disciples, but rather passed down through traditions of various Christian sects, it makes you wonder how accurate they considered scripture in written form. As Papias, a bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor said, speaking of his time spent gathering scripture:

"If ever any man came who had been a follower of the elders, I would inquire about the sayings of the elders. For I did not consider I got so much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice."

I have no doubt that the orthodox church took and used only those books that fit into their idea of what God should be, as this fact is widely proclaimed for everyone to hear. I'm also certain that there was corruption in the texts, but to what degree I'm not sure.

So, I find the Bible itself an unreliable source of history. All those things you just responded to me about assume that the Bible is accurate. Do you understand what I meant by "could be's" based on "could be's"?

Here's something to think about -- why are there no records of the curtain in the Jewish temple splitting? Surely, Josephus, the Jewish historian would have put that down in his writings. How about the Jewish saints rising from their graves at Jesus' resurrection? Hmm? Sure, answer with a "could be" if you feel like it, but remember that there's still the "could be" that it never happened.

Okay, let's take the disciples. Were they real? How many were there? Did they really all accept martyrdom? There's also the history according to the Gnostic-Christians, but I'm not sure what they thought happened to them.

quote:The is only one assumption of belief of scripture: Genisis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. All the rest of scripture, rests on this basis.

No it doesn't. If there was a passage in the Bible that said "everything in the [Catholic/Protestant] canon is true" then yes, all the Bible would be based on that assumption. However, since Genesis 1:1 only says that God created the heavens and the earth, all the other details have to be verified independently. Another question is "how" God created the heavens and the earth. Did he literally create the earth as in Genesis 1? Or is it symbolism for a old-earth creation?

quote:And the more that the belief in billions of years (evolution, big bang, etc.) undermine (or attempt to undermine) God's Word.

Okay, let's assume that Genesis 1 was just inserted for fun into the Bible by some Hebrew priest. Does that mean that it couldn't have happened? Does that mean that God didn't create the heavens and the earth? Nope.

When reading Genesis chapter 1, you have to understand that their scientific understanding was very primitive next to ours. If you know the LITERAL interpretation, you'll see what I mean. (I wrote an essay about this at http://disillusionary.webeve.com/evilution.html ) Now, if they didn't have knowledge of astronomy and geology, does that mean that God didn't create the heavens and the earth? No.

So what if the universe is over 10,000 years old? Hey, God works in mysterious ways, doesn't he? Maybe he decided to create the earth in the same way that the evidence points to -- the long way.

quote:You say, "All of it is based on the assumption that the scriptures are true, and is used to prove that the scriptures are true. It's a merry-go-round of logical fallacy."

This is true also of billions of years assumptions. i.e. the assumption that the rocks are billions of years old. Rocks date the fossils. Radiometric dating assumes billions of years, therefore "confirms" that the rocks and fossils are billion of years old.... carousel!

You really shouldn't try to get your point across by arguing that evolution doesn't work. It's like a flat-earther not comprehending how gravity works and claiming that if the earth was round you'd fall off. Go read about how geology works or something.

Astronomy is a wonderful example of how old the universe is. You should check it out sometime.

Edit: quotes and typos

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 03-20-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Everything?

So you are the infinite god? If you are the infinite, how can you be athiest?

(sorry i didnt capitalize the G)

Anyway, i am guessing that you didnt listen to it. It is an interview of a professor in England who had been an atheist himself. He recently wrote a book that points out many flaws in the atheist belief. His book has caused a bit of a stir in (i think) British Scholars (i cant spell acedamia).

Check it out, you may find it interesting.

No, what I meant was that I've heard everything in that file before. All I can think is 'circular reasoning'. Give me a couple of minutes to use the rest room and I'll get on refuting his critiques of atheism.

Okay, sorry, had to pull the file up again to shoot it down. I'll go through one by one and kick the shit out of the whole file.

1) First, the host blames the USSRs mass murders on atheism. That's a fucked up occasion of targeting the wrong cause: it was politics and paranoia that lead to the genocide in Russia, as it was the cause of the Holocaust, the Crusades, and every other incident of mass murders at the hands of the leadership. Atheism and theism cause NOTHING.

2) The speaker from Oxford says that atheism isn't intellectual, and isn't spiritually inviting. This is one of the few points I agree with him on. It isn't intellectual, it's logical. Of course it's not spiritually inviting either, it's a denial of gods...though the acceptance of gods isn't exactly spiritually inviting either.

3) Okay, then the BS about searchers vs. atheists as an appropriate label. That's like saying I'm an old man right now because I will be in 50 years. You are what you are, not what you will be. That's strike one for toying with definitions.

4) Next, he says atheism is the decision that there is no god; I didn't decide that there was no god...I've never seen a reason to think otherwise...this is my default position. And I have reason to believe that it's that way for roughly everyone...just most people don't need anything more than suggestion for their brain to accept something as truth.

5)Next, he says atheism is a belief system. I'm sorry, but atheism deals with a single belief (one that it lacks), that's the belief in deities, and the only qualifying description of atheism is that it LACKS the belief in deities. I don't believe in gods, I'm an atheist. It is a doubt, not a belief. Sure, many atheists may have other beliefs that are leaps of faith and such, but that has to do with them being morons, not them being atheists.

6)'A lot of people seem to think that atheism is self-evidently right.' And those are the same people who treat atheism dogmatically...in other words, idiots. Nothing is self-evident except for existence. Atheism cannot be proven because it is a negative; anyone who can't see that is retarded...but as the rules of reasoning go, the negative wins over the positive when evidence is lacking. It's the reasonable choice only because the positive has no evidence to satisfy it's burden of proof. Reasonable doesn't mean right...I could be wrong in doubting the existence of gods, so what? Until I find evidence, doubt shall be maintained. It's those who cannot practice skepticism that run into the situation of thinking their doubts and beliefs are self-evident.

7)Okay, his next part about an inner-presence in the Christians around him. I've met very few people with as much love for their life as I have for mine. I have a stronger spark than most I've met, yet I doubt that there is any sort of a god, I doubt that life has meaning, I doubt that there is anything past dying. Atheism and theism are not the cause of people having an inner glow of sorts, it's how they manage the situations they arrive at. I manage my life extremely well, and it's the satisfaction in a life that suits my personality perfectly that gives me my glow...not my doubts and beliefs.

8)He says that atheism is circular: it starts with atheism and concludes with atheism. No no no no. Atheism was arrived at like this: Someone states god exists, I ask for evidence, they have none, so I doubt their claim. It's called reasoning. I do that with any claim...if it can not be evidenced, I don't believe it. It doesn't mean it's untrue, it means there is no reason behind it. That which has no impact has no logical backing in a PHYSICAL world.

9)I'm glad he didn't fully blanket state the next part about atheists assuming that people are enslaved by religion...because I don't think that. People choose their religions...I'm extremely religious; I worship honor and respect, crafting a religion out of those two attributes. Others choose deities to worship. I'm not enslaved by my religion...in fact, I'm empowered by it, and I assume you theists who choose God or whatever as your religion are quite empowered by your religion as well. But I don't think you're empowered by god, merely your religion, which is an extension of your desires within your own mind. You give yourself strength by giving an attribute you think you possess value; if you think a god exists that thinks you're special, of course worshipping it will make you feel empowered without enslaving you to it...I think I possess honor and respect for both myself and others, so revering those aspects of myself empowers me and fulfills me. Religion has nothing to do with theistic doubts and beliefs.

10)His first point on atheisms decline is once again BS due to the blaming of cruelty on atheism: It was politics and paranoia, not a rather meaningless doubt.

11) 'There is more to life than what you see' Of course...I'm one of the most hard ass atheists around, but even I think there's more than what we can see...some discoveries simply take time...but until we make the discoveries, their existence is not impacting at all (hence the lack of discovery as of yet).

Intermission: I have to give my brother a ride home from a friend's house. I'll continue either later tonight or tomorrow. Feel free to argue with what I've said so far...I haven't taken the time yet to formulate my thoughts entirely into words, so all my points are incomplete as of yet, but are close enough that I won't bitch at anyone who attacks them.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

also check out "many infallible proofs" or some of the others in the archieve:

http://www.coralridge.org/BroadcastArchives.asp?cat=TTT&daterange=3/1/2005-3/31/2005

the bad thing is that the archieve doesnt list many, as it stays short and only includes recent programs.

I'm interested in these infallible proofs, but I'm using a new OS and don't have Java just quite yet, could you link to the .ram files?

QUOTE Originally posted by Clarphimous:

You really shouldn't try to get your point across by arguing that evolution doesn't work.

I didn't say that it doesnt work. But it doesnt work the way darwinian evol. or neo-darwinian think it works. Read Not By Chance by Lee Spetner for starters.

It's like a flat-earther not comprehending how gravity works and claiming that if the earth was round you'd fall off.

i like that. That was funny. <<yawn>>

Go read about how geology works or something.

I have read some. Both Christian and secular. Unfortunately, i find most of it boring. However, much of what is taught, already assumes long age.

Allow me alittle quote mining for a moment..

"...the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general precomceptions, not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred."

Dr.David B. Kitts (evolutionist), Paleobiology, 1979, pp 353,354.

"And this poses something of a problem: If we date rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"

Niles Eldridge, Time Frames, 1985, p.52

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"

Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, Vol. 108, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 67.

Now I'll admit, I have not read these for myself. I copied them from someone else... they may not even exist, or they could be taken out of context, or they even could have been thoroughly refuted..who knows and really, who cares. My point is that if there are reputable scientists that disagree with the basis of current scientific thinking, and if they havent been totally ostracized by and from their own profession, then they may have viable arguements. In other words, if the professional scientists can not agree, then the layperson can and should trust the arguements that best fit his own worldview framework (unlike some clergy who have compromised their own faith to fit what science currently states).

Astronomy is a wonderful example of how old the universe is. You should check it out sometime. /QUOTE

I've said this time and again, the distance of the stars v. speed of light is the only tough point of belief in a young creation.

But astronomy does have its tough points to explain also, and uses circular assumptions to do it.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Saturn's ringlets edges sharp; galaxy NGC 4319 and quasar Markarian 205 appear (per differing redshifts) to be very different in speed and distance from us, but some pictures of them show matter apparently bridging betwix..many more but like i said before, it doesnt matter what story the scientists end up deciding on (this year, then they'll change next year), per original topic (reguarding Faith), I'll trust the Eternal Creator.

Oh yah, i almost forgot. You said, "So what if the universe is over 10,000 years old?".

Billions of years for creation would go against God's Word for the simple reason that if evolution were true, that would mean that there would have been death before the fall of man.."by one man, sin entered the world and with it death". Many evolutionsist have realized that it is an either/or situation.

Good night and may the Christ bless you with conviction.

quote:Originally posted by Fza:

How can God change?

Old testament god = spiteful, like he was trying to prove himself to the world, showing his power to the egyptian gods in exodus etc.

New testament god = is loving and forgiving, so he changed? Or did the whole spiteful god didn't get enough worshippers?

gods actually a girl and she was on her rag when she was doin the all that mean spitefull shit :P THATS my theory ne1 wanna argue? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) tis flawless

quote:My point is that if there are reputable scientists that disagree with the basis of current scientific thinking, and if they havent been totally ostracized by and from their own profession, then they may have viable arguements.

The first quote, by the evolutionist, has most likely been taken out of context. I don't know about the other two. But from what I know, the percent of biologists and geologists who believe the earth is 10,000 years old is very slim, even in the U.S. where most creationists are.

To answer the question posed, about circular thinking in determining the age of the earth, I'd have to say that there's several important details that haven't been given. For example, you said earlier that radiometric dating methods assume old ages. However, radiometric dating methods weren't discovered by comparing them with ages of rocks. The half-life of a radioactive isotope is measured in laboratories over periods of several years. They take measurements before the experiment, and after to determine how much has decayed. Thus, the half-life itself is not assumed.

The radioisotope methods themselves require more in-depth study to understand, but the assumptions are minimal, and several of the methods can detect if a sample has been tampered with over those millions of years since its formation. Also, several radioisotope methods (with different half-lives) are often used on the same sample to cross-check results.

Radioisotope methods are called "absolute dating methods" because they are the ones that find the actual dates for rocks. Generally, only igneous rocks are considered reliable for these dating methods because they contain a fresh mixture of the radioactive isotopes and the nonradioactive isotopes of the same element. Sedimentary rocks contain bits and chunks of rocks of various ages, and metamorphic rocks are formed from the other types of rock (I'm not sure, but it may be that metamorphic rocks are acceptable if they were formed straight from igneous ones). So, what does a geologist do if he or she finds two layers of igneous rock which have been dated, and a few layers of sedimentary rock sandwiched between them? Come on, give a guess. Yes, that's right, they are estimated to be somewhere between those two dates for the igneous rock formations. This is called relative dating.

So what about that "dating rocks with fossils" stuff, hmm? The fossils that are spoken of are called "zone fossils." They are common fossils that can be found just about everywhere in the world, and vary in appearance from age to age. If it is difficult to determine the age of a certain region with the previously mentioned relative dating method because of faulting, these zone fossils can be used to help find out what general time period they were formed in. In other words, they are another relative dating method.

As you can see, it is not all based on circular reasoning. Rather, the relative dating methods are based on absolute dating methods.

This is a very complex system, indeed. However, it does not consistently contradict itself, as would be expected if none of the absolute dating methods actually worked. For example, generally you get the youngest rocks near the surface, and the oldest rocks further down. Now, for the main point -- if it didn't work there is no way that geologists around the world could be using such a system, unless they are blatantly lying about every single measurement they make. Remember the cross-checking with multiple isotope methods? They had to have made up the measurements, lied about the consistent dates. The geological strata matching up? Lies. Everything about geology is a lie.

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!

I'm tired of trying to explain stuff for now, so I'm going to go to sleep. Here are some nice links for you to look at. You can click on them too, if you want.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html

http://www.hill.anorak.org.uk/dhtml/glgindex.html

http://talkorigins.org/

edit:fixed URL

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 03-21-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Sig_Intel: What a load of racistic BS! Your christianic western world is responsible for the suffering in africa and the middle east. Please don't talk of spirituality when your post is full of intolerance and superiority complex.

!

Here's a hypothetical question for you - Let's say you have a problem with keeping a job or any meaningful relationships in your life. You've been through it all and you can't figure out what is wrong. However, you have a severe drinking problem that you are unable to identify as a problem. In fact it is a destructive addiction that you keep as a crutch to get through life.

If someone came to you with the obvious solution to your problems, would you also tell them they are an intolerant racist who has a superiority complex?

You have your blinders on friend. I'm just trying to help. The winds in African and middle eastern deserts are not effected by how I drive to work everyday in my country.

Are you trying to say that the problems of the world that have existed long before the the US became a nation rests on the backs of the people of the US today? Is the world really that desperate for a savior in these times?

The bible says it well, "for the wicked will go hungry but the righteous will eat to their hearts content."

I've been to the middle east, Africa and Europe and I've seen with my own eyes the contrasts in each cultures spiritual observance. I have seen the theocracy of these nations that do not produce a good fruit and where there is no harvest are the result of the spiritual lawlessness in them. The outcome of their lives is what will testify to this truth.

They are drunk with their own dillusions to the point that they are unable to see that the answer to their problems has always been right in front of them. This is what afflicts all people in all places. The parched spiritual deserts in the hearts of man can only find mercy from the outpouring of God's love. It is a river that yurns to flow in all hearts in all of mankind and there are no racial boundries.

All things that corrupt the flesh was born first in the spirit and all things that preserve the flesh are also born first in spirit.

Call me what you will but the answer to the original question has everything to do with ones free will and that was the spirit of my response.

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 03-20-2005).]

OK, you can shut the fuck up right now. Don't call me friend, snake. You think you are making a point with your little stupid tales that presume you are right from the beginning?

You are an intolerant racist with superiority complex. Really. Have it checked out. Plus, you don't know shit of what's going to the world. Quit the crap about "spiritual deserts". People who have no food don't care about spirituality. Try living in those conditions and then we'll see if you have any urges to preach. You, who go to your work in your ignorant bliss every day is responsible for their condition. These people were building empires centuries before your ancestors fled from Europe. Empires that thrived and threatened Europe up to the times when your great nation was founded. And now, USA with economy policies and war crimes drinks the blood of these people.

Don't tell me about blinders. I don't have a drinking problem. You, on the other hand, blind yourself to the causes of the suffering of people because otherwise you would see that "driving to work everyday" is not so innocent as you think. It's time to remove your blinders if you are so keen on helping people. Calling them spiritually dead and preaching the bible won't help them.

QUOTE Originally posted by Clarphimous:

Here are some nice links for you to look at. You can click on them too, if you want.

Again, funny <<yawn>>



Anyway, while i was staring at these cute little links, i accidently clicked on this one...

http://www.hill.anorak.org.uk/dhtml/glgindex.html

[/B] /QUOTE]

something i found there was:

Relative dating is simply saying that this bit is older than that bit. This is most useful in a section of rock, where it is clear which rock is at the bottom (and hence is older) and which is the uppermost (and is the youngest). This method cannot be used worldwide, because every country does not have the same rocks at the same time. To get over this we can use things which only exist over a short (geologically speaking) period of time and have a worldwide distribution - fossils, or more precisely a zone fossil. A zone fossil needs to be:

* Common

* Rapidly evolving

* Widespread

* Easily identifiable

Graptolites make good zone fossils. If you find a fossil in one place which existed x million years ago in Scotland and the same fossil exists in America, the rocks are the same age. This is how most of the early dating was done.

now the first problem i have with this is that it says, "If you find a fossil in one place which existed x million years ago in Scotland and the same fossil exists in America, the rocks are the same age."

This is subjective, and it was basically what i was saying earlier.. rocks date fossils that date rocks..(or something like that, i wasnt listening to myself-- see, i can be <<yawn>> funny too)

My second problem with what i quoted from this website is:

"A zone fossil needs to be:

* Common

* Rapidly evolving

* Widespread

* Easily identifiable

"

I'll leave the rapidly evolving V. Easily identifiable alone (for now).

One of the index fossils commonly used are Ostracodes. But there have been findings "...that the fossil is almost identical to a living family of ostracodes, Cylindroleberid, demonstrating remarkable stasis for the supposed 425 million years of evolutionary time"

How can such a creature, which supposedly evolves quickly (given the high diversity), not change for so long?

Time to go, catch ya later dude. If you want to continue to be <<funny--yawn>> that's fine, if it makes you feel better about yourself... go ahead and take it out on me. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Cadabra:

God is spiteful?

I would agree that the Old Covenant/Testament God would be considered spiteful. But after Jesus it's supposed to be all love and forgiveness, right?

"Turn the other cheek" kinda thing.



First off, why would God just change his attitude because his son (Jesus) was killed by Jews (ok maybe this is not true, but he was still killed - he didn't commit the sin of suicide!)? That doesn't even makes sense.

This whole smiting thing is just fear speaking from some of you. Satan probably smited him all the time according to the stories, but he's still around. God can techinically do away with his existence by willing it, but doesn't. So either he doesn't care, or he doesn't hear it. Or, Satan is protected by the 1st Amendment, and thus God can not do anything by law. = )

That's a new one!

[This message has been edited by Aeon (edited 03-20-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Are all atheists are smart and concise as you?

Thank you for opening my eyes. Because of your perfect logic I will cast away any previous notions I had about God. Thank you for letting me see the light. Not I understand that because there is no solid proof theists are wrong, and atheists are right, even though atheists have no proof either. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Quick question; have you ever claimed that God doesn't exist?

I'm not claiming that 'God' doesn't exist, I'm stating that it is illogical to believe it does because of the lack of evidence.

I'm trying to explain that the lack of evidence against something is not a reason to believe in it. Hence the analogy of purple cows.

As far as the definition I'm using goes, I'm an agnostic. I accept the possibility of a god, just like I accept the same possibility of purple cows.

But also, I'm considered an atheist, because I don't believe in a god, because there is no solid evidence.

And as for evolution: I don't accept is at the ultimate, irrefutable dotrine most creationists assume it to be seen as. I accept the theory as science, which is subject to change based upon the evidence.

And that's the reason I believe it over a creationism, it actually has evidence (if little) to back it up.

And a certain Darwinistic P.O.V. completely overrides the lack of 'transition fossils'.

quote:now the first problem i have with this is that it says, "If you find a fossil in one place which existed x million years ago in Scotland and the same fossil exists in America, the rocks are the same age."

This is subjective, and it was basically what i was saying earlier.. rocks date fossils that date rocks..

The reason for using relative dating methods is to give estimations. They are not subjective, they are based on the absolute dates for certain layers of rock. You could think of dating with zone fossils as an estimation based on an estimation based on a known value. That means that there's a large chance of error, but it's not circular reasoning.

quote:One of the index fossils commonly used are Ostracodes. But there have been findings "...that the fossil is almost identical to a living family of ostracodes, Cylindroleberid, demonstrating remarkable stasis for the supposed 425 million years of evolutionary time"

How can such a creature, which supposedly evolves quickly (given the high diversity), not change for so long?

It probably has changed. If you were to compare its genetic sequence with its ancestor, you'd probably see a great difference in a lot of the genes. But because of the way the genetic code works, not all genetic differences result in physical differences. There are certain key genes that usually effect how a lot of the other genes behave. A possible scenario is that any mutations in these key genes did not result in positive outcomes, thus being "stuck" with those genes. But that's just a wild guess.



I'm still wanting to know how you think geologists came up with all those numbers and made them all fit together in their theory without lying. And by that, I'm refering to the absolute dates. How did they get dates from different radioisotope methods to match up? Go on, tell me.

quote:Originally posted by Cadabra:

Why does God allow suffering?

- 5 year old kids with AIDS in Africa that are so hungry they have to eat rocks to fill their stomaches. (for example)

Allows the suffering because they are unbelievers. He doesnt like the fact that they suffer but they have no part in his blessing. And he allows Christians to experience tribulations because he tests and proves them (Read Job)

If God is 'perfect/unconditional' love, how could he allow one of His own creations to suffer for all eternity in hell?

- No matter how many times my dog Jack fucks up, I could never catch him on fire and watch him burn. (weak, but still an example)

Because hell was originally designed for Satan and the members of the pre-time insurrection (demons). Then sin enters the world and God has to punish those that are not in his favor (the salvation system of old testament times) or punish those that reject his current salvation system (Jesus' blood atonement)

Why won't God show Himself to the world instead of making belief in Him an impossible contradiction of logic and faith?



Christ WILL come to the world (that is if the Christian faith, which i am a member of, is true, you cant prove or disproe it so there is always some doubt) again and set p a 1000 year rule. But its like the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man in hell pleaded to be let back on earth just to tell his friends so they wouldnt suffer the same fate. His request was rejected because they wouldnt believe him.

And besides, the Christian faith is based on faith, not the works that can be seen or felt.



Seriously, some people ask the simplest questions http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

And for the old universe dummies, who said that between the time when the universe was created and the time when Adam/Eve sinned billions of years had not passed? Nowhere does it say that there is a conctrete (or even abstract for that matter) date when the universe is created and when the universe was imbalanced (entropic reaction, the universe travaileth to the day Christ returns or something like that in the NT)

quote:Allows the suffering because they are unbelievers. He doesnt like the fact that they suffer but they have no part in his blessing. And he allows Christians to experience tribulations because he tests and proves them (Read Job)

uh...

http://www.adherents.com/adhloc/Wh_2.html

currently, about half the population of Africa is Christian.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

uh...

http://www.adherents.com/adhloc/Wh_2.html

currently, about half the population of Africa is Christian.

And still having plenty of unprotected sex thanks to church mandates. Heaven's going to be a dark place....

Lost,

I just read your post. I've had to accept most of those explanations as the answers to my questions aswell. However, I still think all of it sucks ass. Have you read Conversations With God by Neale Donald Walsh? (I think that's the author but I could be way off.)

-Abra

P.S.- If you haven't read it, you should. Your opinions mesh well with the books philosophy.

-Abra (again)

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

uh...

http://www.adherents.com/adhloc/Wh_2.html

currently, about half the population of Africa is Christian.

catholicism isnt Christianity. They worship Christ but then againthey also worship the Pope and Mary, and Christianity is a monotheistic religion.

No, they don't. No one prays to the pope, and praying to Mary isn't the same as worshipping her. In Mary's case, it means to commune with her.



quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

QUOTE I didn't say that it doesnt work. But it doesnt work the way darwinian evol. or neo-darwinian think it works. Read Not By Chance by Lee Spetner for starters.

If he's so great, then why doesn't he dare to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, instead of throwing it unchallenged directly into a book?

Thats right ArgonPlasma2000 we pray to the fucking pope, we also eat babies, fucking moron.

Well why is mary so revered when the Bible says she is "blessed among women". Ive yet to see a shrine to Mary Magdalene or Martha.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Well why is mary so revered when the Bible says she is "blessed among women". Ive yet to see a shrine to Mary Magdalene or Martha.

Because Mary Magdalene or Martha didn't give birth to the Sone of God! (speaking theologically on behalf of Catholics? What's my problem?) It's just so obvious that I had to say something.

-Abra

Im gonna actually explain it to you, though none of you will believe it, and Im gonna get flamed.

This is gonna be poorly explained because you can't really speak about religion in any inteligable form, as has been perfectly illustrated many times on this site http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I use the tree of life, because its a very convient method of explaining religion, and since all religions other than those of the buddhist root are pretty much the same, also it pisses daggnamit off http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif), christianity is pretty much just the principles contained within repackaged...

Mary can be equated with the third position on the tree of life, Binah, (which is equated with the sea, hence the name mary, from the root mer meaning ocean). Now the third position on the tree of life is understanding or benevolance, and acts as a spokes person between us and kether (or the crown of god- or Metatron if you prefer, or God the Father in the trinity).

Hence Mary acts as a spokes person between us and the ancient of days.

Basically Mary was used to supplant the various pagan goddess' which Christianity replaced.

I've said it before and I'll say it again its all in the Zohar.

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

If he's so great, then why doesn't he dare to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, instead of throwing it unchallenged directly into a book?

I believe he has, but i'm not certain... I'll see if i can find out. But i have seen some rebuttals on the web. One was even an ongoing debate between him and some (evolutionist) genetisist (sp?..too lazy to look it up).

quote:ArgonPlasma2000:

catholicism isnt Christianity. They worship Christ but then againthey also worship the Pope and Mary, and Christianity is a monotheistic religion.

Scroll down further and you'll see the statistics for "Christianity." If you want, you can subtract the percent of Catholics from that to get the percent of True Christians(tm).

quote:Tesseract:

If he's so great, then why doesn't he dare to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, instead of throwing it unchallenged directly into a book?

xtreem5150ahm:

I believe he has, but i'm not certain... I'll see if i can find out. But i have seen some rebuttals on the web. One was even an ongoing debate between him and some (evolutionist) genetisist (sp?..too lazy to look it up).

Well, if he has, it'd be a first. At least as far as I know.

By the way, xtreem, I'm still waiting for your response. Here it is again, in case you're feeling lazy:

quote:I'm still wanting to know how you think geologists came up with all those numbers and made them all fit together in their theory without lying. And by that, I'm refering to the absolute dates. How did they get dates from different radioisotope methods to match up? Go on, tell me.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

By the way, xtreem, I'm still waiting for your response. Here it is again, in case you're feeling lazy:

patience grasshopper. you already knew it would be difficult to answer.

i spent about an hour and a half replying, and i was very dissatisfied with my answer, so i deleted it and went off surfing links, check'n e-mail.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

OK, you can shut the fuck up right now. Don't call me friend, snake. You think you are making a point with your little stupid tales that presume you are right from the beginning?

You are an intolerant racist with superiority complex. Really. Have it checked out. Plus, you don't know shit of what's going to the world. Quit the crap about "spiritual deserts". People who have no food don't care about spirituality. Try living in those conditions and then we'll see if you have any urges to preach. You, who go to your work in your ignorant bliss every day is responsible for their condition. These people were building empires centuries before your ancestors fled from Europe. Empires that thrived and threatened Europe up to the times when your great nation was founded. And now, USA with economy policies and war crimes drinks the blood of these people.

Don't tell me about blinders. I don't have a drinking problem. You, on the other hand, blind yourself to the causes of the suffering of people because otherwise you would see that "driving to work everyday" is not so innocent as you think. It's time to remove your blinders if you are so keen on helping people. Calling them spiritually dead and preaching the bible won't help them.



May God bless you with the pouring out of His mercy and love on your life. Go easy my friend and remember He is with you always.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



May God bless you with the pouring out of His mercy and love on your life. Go easy my friend and remember He is with you always.



Okay, I am rather tolerant of religion and such, but it is quite obvious elfstone doesn't want your blessings, so respect his wish on that and keep quiet. And what makes you think you're high and mighty enough to direct the blessings of the omniscient?

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

No, they don't. No one prays to the pope, and praying to Mary isn't the same as worshipping her. In Mary's case, it means to commune with her.

If he's so great, then why doesn't he dare to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, instead of throwing it unchallenged directly into a book?

Ummm..prayer is worship.

PRAYER:

1. A reverent petition made to God, a god, or another object of worship.

2. An act of communion with God, a god, or another object of worship, such as in devotion, confession, praise, or thanksgiving.

WORSHIP:

1. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.

2. Ardent devotion; adoration.

3. To honor and love as a deity.



These definitions seem pretty clear that PRAYER to something denotes worship. Prayer to Mary is a form of worship, and should be considered nothing else but IDOLATRY !

Even if what you say is true, and praying to her is merely "communing" with her, why would we need to do that, as believers in Christ ?

"..Mary is no more perpetual than any other dead person, including the religious idols commonly referred to as Saints. They are all in the grave, awaiting the return of Christ to be gathered together or resurrected." http://envirosafeshop.com/trumpet/issue1.htm

There is no Biblical teaching that would indicate otherwise.

Mary was in need of a Savior, just as much as the rest of us. She lived, and died, just as the rest of humanity does.

The reason she was chosen to be the mother of Christ is simple: Mary was a believer. She followed the tenets of the faith with devotion.

Luke 1:28 - The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

The angel of the Lord tells her she will become pregnant, and that she must call the child Jesus.

She simply asks how this will happen, since she is a virgin, and the angel explains to her how God plans to do it.

And her response ?

Luke 1:38 - "I am the Lord's servant,” Mary answered. “May it be to me as you have said.”

What kind of faith does THAT take ? She was obviously a woman of great moral character, and followed God's law. She was fearless of the implications of a pregnancy prior to marriage, and the ramifications of such a less-than-desirable situation. God knew her heart, and found her to be suitable for the task.

And that's the extent of it.

She was not "holy". She was BLESSED with the knowledge of God !

Later, when she visits her "relative" Elizabeth (John the Baptist's mother), she says,

Luke 1:46-49 - “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me – holy is his name."

She was in love with God, and eager to do His will.

Nothing in the scripture directs us to give Mary any kind of responsibility over our needs (A.K.A. prayers). We are not called to require her intercession.

She is to be called "blessed", and that is the extent of her importance to us spiritually, as Christians.

I can't see how anything else can be derived from scripture.

It is plain as day.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Okay, I am rather tolerant of religion and such, but it is quite obvious elfstone doesn't want your blessings, so respect his wish on that and keep quiet. And what makes you think you're high and mighty enough to direct the blessings of the omniscient?

What the hell are you blathering on about ?

Since when is Totse about respecting others and keeping quiet ? You deem yourself privileged enough to be some sort of authority on the LACK of existence on God, and blaspheme Him daily (in the eyes of Christians).

THAT'S OK, but wishing blessings on someone is NOT ?

How was what he said in ANY WAY offensive ?

He was wishing Elfstone well, under the provisions of the Christian God.

He wasn't "designating" anything ! (by "high and mighty" you seem to be saying that he finds himself to be worthy enough to be dishing out the well wishes...when in reality what he said was perfectly humble !)

Damn him for doing so ! *laughs*

It is obvious that you are tender about this...perhaps you ought to spend some time reflecting on why it bothers you that people want God to bless others.

Geez.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 03-22-2005).]

By the way, people, you need to learn how to COMPREHEND what you are reading !

Argon stated that the Pope is WORSHIPPED, not PRAYED TO !

Idolatry is worship.

If all the gold-wearin', finger-waggin', scepter-carryin', and finger-kissin' ISN'T idolatry, I don't know what is !!!

These MEN deem themselves to be Vicar's of Christ ?

Anyone here care to take a stab at what that terminology means, in relation to the Church ?

No ? Well, fine...I'll do it for you. *winks*

"Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. He [the Pope] also declares that Christ has given such power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (whom the Pope's believe themselves to be). " http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

Holy Frijoles, Batman ! How could ANYONE claim to be on the same level as CHRIST ?!! I would never dare, and neither should anyone else on this planet.

This is all about ego.

And poor people around this globe fall for it, in a desperate attempt at "earning" their salvation. This kind of worship (to the Pope) and prayer (to Mary) spits in the face of God's intended purpose in Christ's death as atonement for our sins.

There is NO NEED for a Vicar of Christ...God can do all things on His own !

The only "man" that ever deserved this kind of treatment was JESUS.

Not man-appointed POPES.

Ludicrous !

quote: Posted by Clarphimous: I'm still wanting to know how you think geologists came up with all those numbers and made them all fit together in their theory without lying. And by that, I'm refering to the absolute dates. How did they get dates from different radioisotope methods to match up? Go on, tell me.

First, I want to point out that you are making it blatantly obvious that you think you already have the answer to this question. Your rhetoric does nothing to imply that you really want an answer.

Second, I want to ask Xtreem for forgiveness in advance for stepping in to this convo.

I want to ask you, Clar, what exactly are you referring to ? How Christians came to the 6,000 - 10,000 date range for the age of the earth ?

I want to clarify what you are truly asking before I respond.

I know I could just go back through the pages and read it, but I don't wanna. *lol*

Thanks.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

First, I want to point out that you are making it blatantly obvious that you think you already have the answer to this question. Your rhetoric does nothing to imply that you really want an answer.

Second, I want to ask Xtreem for forgiveness in advance for stepping in to this convo.

I want to ask you, Clar, what exactly are you referring to ? How Christians came to the 6,000 - 10,000 date range for the age of the earth ?

I want to clarify what you are truly asking before I respond.

I know I could just go back through the pages and read it, but I don't wanna. *lol*

Thanks.



Thats alright Dig, you are always welcome.

the absolute dates he is talking about are the radiometric dates falling in line with the percieved dates( basically).. i gotta keep this short, if i dont leave for work in about 3 minutes, i'll be late.

Don't argue with the fanatics.

"They'll bring you down to their

level with ignorance, and beat you

with experience."

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



How was what he said in ANY WAY offensive ?

He was wishing Elfstone well, under the provisions of the Christian God.



It was not offensive, simply because it's very hard for me to take offense from someone on the internet. But don't presume it was offensive because of what he said, but because of why he said it. It was a really convenient way to appear superior (thus proving me once again). God's blessing is not determined by anyone's wishes but by one's actions. Sig_Intel probably thinks that wishing good things is more important than doing good things and that was what my argument was about in the first place. I hardly consider such a person's wishes to have any merit with any deity.

No, I'm not offended. I'm indifferent.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Ummm..prayer is worship.

PRAYER:

1. A reverent petition made to God, a god, or another object of worship.

2. An act of communion with God, a god, or another object of worship, such as in devotion, confession, praise, or thanksgiving.

Protestant bias, plain and simple.

I live in Indiana, but I was born in Kentucky. Every once in awhile, someone tries to make fun of me for being from Kentucky. This is funny to me, because they're from Indiana. Understand?

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 03-22-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

"Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. He [the Pope] also declares that Christ has given such power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (whom the Pope's believe themselves to be)." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

Holy Frijoles, Batman ! How could ANYONE claim to be on the same level as CHRIST ?!! I would never dare, and neither should anyone else on this planet.

He clearly doesn't, based on the above quote. Maybe you "need to learn how to COMPREHEND what you are reading".

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

He was wishing Elfstone well, under the provisions of the Christian God.

No he wasn't, he was trying to piss elfstone off under the guise of blessing him. I see it all the time.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What the hell are you blathering on about ?

Since when is Totse about respecting others and keeping quiet ? You deem yourself privileged enough to be some sort of authority on the LACK of existence on God, and blaspheme Him daily (in the eyes of Christians).

THAT'S OK, but wishing blessings on someone is NOT ?

How was what he said in ANY WAY offensive ?

He was wishing Elfstone well, under the provisions of the Christian God.

He wasn't "designating" anything ! (by "high and mighty" you seem to be saying that he finds himself to be worthy enough to be dishing out the well wishes...when in reality what he said was perfectly humble !)

Damn him for doing so ! *laughs*

It is obvious that you are tender about this...perhaps you ought to spend some time reflecting on why it bothers you that people want God to bless others.

Geez.



This is a forum for religous debate; defending my thoughts on atheism is NOT the same as directing a god's blessings to someone who clearly wants nothing to do with it.

And what he did was not a humble act; it was an act of arrogance most likely meant to piss off elfstone.

Also, I know why that angered me: Elfstone made it clear that he doesn't want well-wishing from Sig. People can say 'God bless you' to me however much they want...I don't care. But it was meant to disturb elfstone, not to be a genuine blessing.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

OK, you can shut the fuck up right now. Don't call me friend, snake...

I think this made it clear he didn't want any blessing or any sort of friendly behavior from Sig...Sig could have just left it at that and let elfstone go on his way, but instead he 'blessed' him.

Digital_Savior:

Do you use the bible as your only source of religion?

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Don't argue with the fanatics.

"They'll bring you down to their

level with ignorance, and beat you

with experience."

That's ok, we dont mind argueing with you http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

B By the way, xtreem, I'm still waiting for your response. Here it is again, in case you're feeling lazy:

I'm still wanting to know how you think geologists came up with all those numbers and made them all fit together in their theory without lying. And by that, I'm refering to the absolute dates. How did they get dates from different radioisotope methods to match up? Go on, tell me.

i didnt say they were (nessesarily) lying. But (in keeping with previous posts) how can you be sure that they (the scientists in the 1940's, when radiometric dating started) were unbias (reguarding long or short ages)? Or that the current ones are just as unbias, now that it has been taught that the method "works"?

Ok, those questions were rhetorical, but this one is not: How does one determine for sure, that the dating methods are accurate since no scientist was around millions or billions of years ago (when the rocks were supposedly laid down)? My suggestion, date rocks that we know when they were laid down... oh wait, they have, havent they... and what were some of the dates that were arrived at? Was it creationists distorting the dates or were the tests done by secular scientist, or even by someone that was not bias (ok, that would be tuff to tell)..the point is, when rocks that we know the age of, give ages vastly different, the results say that there must have been contamination. On the other hand, when a rock is assumed to be, say 300 MA, and the results say between .8 MA to 500MA, the scientists pat the dating method on the back, and say, "well done, good and faithful servant, you have served the master of science well" (either that or they "snap into a slim jim" and go back to rearraging the fossils and petrie dishes of the scientist that called in sick that day)

Sorry, not sure where that came from, but i think i'll leave it in.

Back to the matter.. the way i understand, the person that does the dating, is usually not the person who found/submitted the rock, BUT the form that accompanies the rock asks what is the presumed date i.e. what layer it was found in and if there were any zone or index fossils near the samples... in other words, they want to know what dates would mean that the sample is contaminated. This can be misleading because the younger ages could be the more correct ones but if old age is assumed the (possibly correct) young ages would be thrown out due to bias.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Okay, I am rather tolerant of religion and such, but it is quite obvious elfstone doesn't want your blessings, so respect his wish on that and keep quiet. And what makes you think you're high and mighty enough to direct the blessings of the omniscient?

The word was "may" or "May God give His blessing" meaning if it is His will to do so then amen! I hope He does and to you as well. I really hope He fills your heart and mind with the joy and peace of Knowing His great love for us.

Now I will try to reason and rationalize with you - with doubt it will do any good but here goes..

Hate is a precursor to murder in the hearts of men. That means where there is hate for your brother there can be no love...if there were love there would be no starvation, abuse, drug addictions, murder and so in any people. You see the condition of starvation in Africa is due to lovelessness in that country and not by the culture of the people of the US. I'll explain why if you care to read on...

If the warlords that run those nations cared and loved the people they would also cloth and feed them. However, they will use withholding of food from a people as a form of social control. They know that a person will eventually become fanaticaly loyal in order to feed themselves and their family.

The warlords, the governments and the lovelessness of the power hungry and the corruption in the hearts of men are the reason for the starvation in Africa. Don't think that it is God's will for men to do evil to each other and do not think it is God's will for man to starve man.

Don't think that God doesn't want the starvation to stop but be sure that not everyone is obediant to God.

Through His word He gave us all we need and through His prophets He said His word is adequate.

You see, you have a free will to walk your way or to walk God's way and in the end the truth will be told, God's way is much better. But to convince a body of people to this fact would require a miracle from God much like one is needed here for people to understand what I am saying.

How can the work of God be done through disobediant and selfish men? They can not see nor hear anything of what God tells us about the things that will prosper us. We are often deaf and blind to what good we ought to do.

If you also, think the starving is Africa is the fault of the US then why did we even enter Somalia? We went to stop the warlords who were confiscating the food and other assistance that was being given to the people from foreign nations? They were committing genocide on a large scale while tribe fought against tribe in a civil war.

The US were fought off and to this day Somalia doesn't have a central government.

If the blessing of God is going to be bestowed upon the people then they first must walk in His ways and be born again. If they do not turn from their ways their plagues and curses will continue by their own disobediance which is done by their own will. God said to turn away from your wickedness and I will return to the glory of your forefathers.

People say the wrath of God is nothing and is true. The wrath of God is also when He is not near. Where it is said, "one day in His court is better then a thousand elsewhere." is true. God is love and where God is in the hearts of men there also is love. Where there is no God there is no love in the hearts of men and that my friends bleeds out into an entire community.

African problems are African problems, just like your problems are your problems. Do not cast the blame on others and take away the personal responsibility. I have no control over the deeds of a warlord just as much as I have the control over how fast you drive to work in the morning. However, I do have the power to speak up and explain the problem and provide a solution. Which I will do and continue to do.

I'll keep telling everyone to walk in God's ways and stop the hatred. Love one another and encourage and build each other up. This is what Christ taught and by the authority He gave me by the way of the Holy scripture I'll say it here, May God bless you in the name of Jesus so you will see the good outcome of good deeds as well as the bad outcome due to bad deeds..there is no hate in Love and I do love you and that is why I will continue to speak out.

God bless

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

No he wasn't, he was trying to piss elfstone off under the guise of blessing him. I see it all the time.

What I did was to end my part of the discussion with elfstone. There was no obvious good that will come out of continuing the diologue.

I said what I said as a well wishing and to wish him/her a blessed life. If you saw evil intent then there isn't much more I can say.

I'm afraid that you would be more satisfied if I cursed at elfstone and told him/her to go to hell with the same passion elfstone used against me.

I have seen this many times before as well. The cursing and hatred gets the pass and the words of the accuser are tolerated but to the Christian who speaks blessings is condemned and persecuted.

You do not know me but your pre-conceived views of a Christian have judged me in your mind. If you fell in front of me I would help you back up. If you were hungry I would feed you with what I have, if you needed a blanket to keep you warm I would give it to you.

Would you do the same for me?



Back on topic though; If you were in my community I do hope you would also follow the same "love thy neighbor" rules God gave us but I fear if we were neighbors you would extend no love to me because I dared to ask God to bless your family. I hope you see how important it is for us to follow the golden rule of life given to us by God and with the plagues in Africa you will see the eventual outcome of disregarding them.

God bless~



[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 03-23-2005).]

Okay, if you tried that link on asa3.org earlier and couldn't get anything, try again now. It seems that their website was down for a while (at least it was yesterday when I checked it). Here's the link again.

Radiometric dating article (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html)

First, I'm going to point out some things that I'm sure about, then I'll write some stuff that's more speculative.

quote:xtreem5150ahm:

My suggestion, date rocks that we know when they were laid down... oh wait, they have, havent they... and what were some of the dates that were arrived at? Was it creationists distorting the dates or were the tests done by secular scientist, or even by someone that was not bias (ok, that would be tuff to tell)..the point is, when rocks that we know the age of, give ages vastly different, the results say that there must have been contamination.

If you're talking about radiocarbon dating, that's something completely different. I know that they've got some bad dates by dating a moth that had died just a day before, and stuff like that. But with radiocarbon dating, it's dependent on the ratio of carbon-14 and carbon-12 in the atmosphere at the time the thing had been alive, which is why they have to find out that ratio in tree rings (which they know the ages of) so they can compensate for the change in the atmosphere. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work very well for dates since the industrial revolution, because of all the pollution. So in a way, radiocarbon dating is like a thermometer -- it has certain limits below and above which you won't get accurate readings.

If you're talking about radioisotope dating, the reason why newer rocks usually can't be dated is because there isn't enough of the isotope to make an accurate measurement of the decay. However...

quote:from the radioisotope dating article:

It is sometimes possible to date geologically young samples using some of the long-lived methods described above. These methods may work on young samples, for example, if there is a relatively high concentration of the parent isotope in the sample. In that case, sufficient daughter isotope amounts are produced in a relatively short time. As an example, an article in Science magazine (vol. 277, pp. 1279-1280, 1997) reports the agreement between the argon-argon method and the actual known age of lava from the famous eruption of Vesuvius in Italy in 79 A.D.



next...

quote:xtreem5150ahm:

On the other hand, when a rock is assumed to be, say 300 MA, and the results say between .8 MA to 500MA, the scientists pat the dating method on the back...

If you look at any of the dates they get, you'll see that they include the percentage of error within the results they display. It's usually a very small percentage. Check out the chart on the dates for rocks in western Greenland for an example of this. Heck, I'll post it here for you.

code:<pre>

(in billions of years)

Technique Age Range

uranium-lead 3.60±0.05

lead-lead 3.56±0.10

lead-lead 3.74±0.12

lead-lead 3.62±0.13

rubidium-strontium 3.64±0.06

rubidium-strontium 3.62±0.14

rubidium-strontium 3.67±0.09

rubidium-strontium 3.66±0.10

rubidium-strontium 3.61±0.22

rubidium-strontium 3.56±0.14

lutetium-hafnium 3.55±0.22

samarium-neodymium 3.56±0.20

</pre>

quote:xtreem5150ahm:

Back to the matter.. the way i understand, the person that does the dating, is usually not the person who found/submitted the rock, BUT the form that accompanies the rock asks what is the presumed date i.e. what layer it was found in and if there were any zone or index fossils near the samples... in other words, they want to know what dates would mean that the sample is contaminated. This can be misleading because the younger ages could be the more correct ones but if old age is assumed the (possibly correct) young ages would be thrown out due to bias.

They have methods to check for contamination aside from comparing one layer of rock to another. One method used is to use multiple dating methods on a specimen. This is what I was talking about when I said "cross-checking with different methods." You can see this in the chart above.

Now, what I really need to know is how they came up with a chart like that, with limited tries, with different methods (which have different half-lives). To get results like that you'd need thousands of measurements (if the methods really only give random results), and leave only a few in the chart that match up in the end, and also fit in with the geological records you already have. But radiometric dating is not cheap, and you can only afford a few measurements per specimen. They might as well just be making up all the dates.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because most creationists don't seem to understand the great lengths that the scientific community would have to go to in order to come up with all this information. If true, it would probably be one of the greatest conspiracies of all time.

Oh, and Sig_Intel -- may Allah shower his blessings on you, that you may one day understand the Truth of Islam.

edit: ubb code and chart

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 03-23-2005).]

Sig_Intel, I would absolutely do the same for you or pretty much anyone, without hesitation. Though I'm agnostic, I try to follow the golden rule as much as any person can.

If you had cursed at him it would not have satisfied me. The thing is, a hug can serve as well as a slap if given to the wrong person at the wrong time. All too often I see people (christians AND non-christians) taking the high road in a disagreement only in order to make their opponent look bad.

However, if you truly meant no harm, then I apologize.

You bring up an interesting point at the end of your post. Asking God to extend love to my family would not cause me to dislike you. It makes sense to me that you would wish blessings upon mine as you would upon yours, and any blessings would be looked upon by me as the good act it was intended to be. But what about attempts to convert my family? If you would want someone to have tried to convert you from disbelief, then it follows that you would try to convert others.

It is done out of love, but serves only as an irritant to many who believe as I do. Honest question here: when and how do you see it as appropriate to proselytize to others?

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 03-23-2005).]

Why do you persist Sig_Intel? You are so clueless and ignorant that you make both americans and christians look bad. Your talk of warlords shows how near-sighted you are, how black and white you see everything. Drop this facade of goodness because it's not fooling anyone. African problems are not african problems. It's the same saying that the raped and the molested have only themselves to blame. Open your eyes. The world is way past preaches of love. You do have control over the "warlords" deeds, it's time you stopped playing innocent. What were you doing when USA was providing Saddam Hussein weapons? What were you doing when USA was training Osama Bin Laden? Do these two fit your "warlord" criteria? Why don't you search for USA involvement in installing dictators around the world? Maybe before preaching or wishing anything you should protest with your fellow americans who do have a clue or think better before you throw that vote. Stop blaming people's suffering on their "spirituality" and see what's your own part in it. I suggest you read Matthew 25.14-25.30 for a much better symbolic story than those of yours. Do you make extra "money" for your Lord or do you bury it in the sand with useless love preaches?

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

Sig_Intel, I would absolutely do the same for you or pretty much anyone, without hesitation. Though I'm agnostic, I try to follow the golden rule as much as any person can.

If you had cursed at him it would not have satisfied me. The thing is, a hug can serve as well as a slap if given to the wrong person at the wrong time. All too often I see people (christians AND non-christians) taking the high road in a disagreement only in order to make their opponent look bad.

However, if you truly meant no harm, then I apologize.

You bring up an interesting point at the end of your post. Asking God to extend love to my family would not cause me to dislike you. It makes sense to me that you would wish blessings upon mine as you would upon yours, and any blessings would be looked upon by me as the good act it was intended to be. But what about attempts to convert my family? If you would want someone to have tried to convert you from disbelief, then it follows that you would try to convert others.

It is done out of love, but serves only as an irritant to many who believe as I do. Honest question here: when and how do you see it as appropriate to proselytize to others?



Apology accepted, there is no harm done. I understand what you are saying and I agree. Univited confrontations of any kind are annoying. I hate it when the telemarketers call right when we sit down to eat at diner time!

To answer your question;

The appropriate time to proselytize is when the Spirit of God prompts one to do so. There is no other answer to your question.

Despite the discomfort of the messenager or the unwillingness of the recipient the message will be told in one way or the other.

God will confront you in His time and just at the perfect time He will be revealed to you. I can't tell you how many people stood in front of me and told me the "good news" and my spirit of the time was saying something like, " well if Jesus died for our sins, then we don't want Him to die for nothing!" And off I went.

There was a time when I was the perfect little foot soldier of satan doing all kinds of things I shouldn't but I didn't understand what I did. But, when I did, my world was turned upside down and inside out.

I can go on and on about this but the bottom line is I would have never known the way out while I was in the midst of my desperation if someone didn't first tell me about Jesus Christ. They were sowing the seed of salvation.

My short testimony;

I was in the last seconds of my life. While sitting at the edge of my bed, stoned on drugs, contemplating the meaning to it all and dry firing my Glock into my temple. Only did I realize that after a dry fire, I could do it for real. That is when the Love of God enter into my life. That is when I said, "God, I can no longer live my life. I have nothing left to live for&gt; I surrender it all to you and my life is now yours." This is the ultimate challenge to all of us!

You see it wasn't the first time I felt His presence in my life. The time before it was another desperate moment but I recovered and still fell again thinking I could do it on my own. I didn't surrender to Him. I got lost trying to find the joy and purpose of this life and it took a complete surrender to God before I understood it.

I'm not a holy roller and I have lived a sinful life. I am a sinner but by the grace of God I recovered. I have been redeemed and forgiven and baptized into the kingdom of God. I became clean, got married, moved into a new home and now am expecting my first son. I've been to the darkest places and to the brightest and I can testify that in God, through Jeuss, is the only place to be. My life is an example of the parable of lost son in Luke 15:11-31 http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=15&version=31

"He was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found."

The purpose of this life is to get right with God. There is no other.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Why do you persist Sig_Intel? You are so clueless and ignorant that you make both americans and christians look bad. Your talk of warlords shows how near-sighted you are, how black and white you see everything. Drop this facade of goodness because it's not fooling anyone. African problems are not african problems. It's the same saying that the raped and the molested have only themselves to blame. Open your eyes. The world is way past preaches of love. You do have control over the "warlords" deeds, it's time you stopped playing innocent. What were you doing when USA was providing Saddam Hussein weapons? What were you doing when USA was training Osama Bin Laden? Do these two fit your "warlord" criteria? Why don't you search for USA involvement in installing dictators around the world? Maybe before preaching or wishing anything you should protest with your fellow americans who do have a clue or think better before you throw that vote. Stop blaming people's suffering on their "spirituality" and see what's your own part in it. I suggest you read Matthew 25.14-25.30 for a much better symbolic story than those of yours. Do you make extra "money" for your Lord or do you bury it in the sand with useless love preaches?



My friend, when I said I was in the middle east, in Africa and Europe, I did so as a US Marine. I am a Veteran of Operations Desert shield/storm. We also were in Somalia doing non-combatant evacuations in 91 when the whole warlord thing strated in that nation. I was off the coast of Yugoslavia monitoring NATO flights, I was assisting in Turkey when the Kurdish refuges were forced out of Iraq with humanitarian aid. I have stood up and served your global village with my life.

The reason why the US put those people in power was to fight European communists who were spreading across the globe. Don't tell me the problems of the world are due to the US when every single nation that is in desperation today, were first invaded by the communists in the 70's and 80's and it was by the communists that ruined these nations.

Every single nation in question has cold war era soviet made weapons and training. When the USSR failed so did these nations. Why do you think Iraq had to bury it's tanks up to the turret to fight us? Because they didn't friggin work! The communist support was no longer there.

The USA and NATO were fighting a cold war against the communists for decades and that is your history leason and the reason why these countries suffered. It seems facts are not a part of your rhetoric and to blame the US for the problems created by the communists means you do not understand history.

If you still think the US is wrong for fighting against the communist in those times then I have to ask you where your heart is?

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:



It was not offensive, simply because it's very hard for me to take offense from someone on the internet. But don't presume it was offensive because of what he said, but because of why he said it. It was a really convenient way to appear superior (thus proving me once again). God's blessing is not determined by anyone's wishes but by one's actions. Sig_Intel probably thinks that wishing good things is more important than doing good things and that was what my argument was about in the first place. I hardly consider such a person's wishes to have any merit with any deity.

No, I'm not offended. I'm indifferent.

How do YOU know if he was being arrogant, or if he was truly wishing you well or not ?

A true Christian, in the face of persecution and animosity, would STILL wish God's blessing's upon you.

That is what we are here for...

So, again, I ask: how do YOU know ?

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

Protestant bias, plain and simple.

I live in Indiana, but I was born in Kentucky. Every once in awhile, someone tries to make fun of me for being from Kentucky. This is funny to me, because they're from Indiana. Understand?





Sure, I "understand".

Do YOU "understand" that those definitions came from the Dictionary ?

I would really enjoy it if you wrote a letter to the writer's of the Dictionary, telling them that they are biased by their Protestantism.

Please post it here on Totse.

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

He clearly doesn't, based on the above quote. Maybe you "need to learn how to COMPREHEND what you are reading".

To allow yourself to be compared to Christ by other men, to the extent that you should "act in His stead", you are essentially saying that you are like Christ.

How did I not understand the article ?

Please don't try to insinuate that I am stupid, simply because you didn't derive the intended meaning from what I said.

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

No he wasn't, he was trying to piss elfstone off under the guise of blessing him. I see it all the time.

And unbelievers are constantly on the defensive against anyone that is Christian.

If you can assume that we are perpetually judging you, and at the same time condescending, then you can feel justified in your defensive nature.

The bottom line is that this is simply not true.

You have no way of knowing whether he was being honest, or was truly just trying to piss everyone off.

As I have said before, much is lost in the translation over the internet, and that guy didn't give any indication either way what his underlying purpose was.

So, I'd say you should probably take it for face value, until you prove that your perception is right.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

This is a forum for religous debate; defending my thoughts on atheism is NOT the same as directing a god's blessings to someone who clearly wants nothing to do with it.

And what he did was not a humble act; it was an act of arrogance most likely meant to piss off elfstone.

Also, I know why that angered me: Elfstone made it clear that he doesn't want well-wishing from Sig. People can say 'God bless you' to me however much they want...I don't care. But it was meant to disturb elfstone, not to be a genuine blessing.

What evidence do you have to prove that, other than your general disdain for anything relating to Christianity ?

It still shouldn't have made you angry.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Digital_Savior:

Do you use the bible as your only source of religion?

I am not religious.

I am Christian.

And why shouldn't I ? (not saying that I do, but just for the sake of the argument, is God's word not enough ?)

quote:Originally posted by Cadabra:

Why does God allow suffering?

- 5 year old kids with AIDS in Africa that are so hungry they have to eat rocks to fill their stomaches. (for example)

If God is 'perfect/unconditional' love, how could he allow one of His own creations to suffer for all eternity in hell?

- No matter how many times my dog Jack fucks up, I could never catch him on fire and watch him burn. (weak, but still an example)

Why won't God show Himself to the world instead of making belief in Him an impossible contradiction of logic and faith?







SIN causes suffering, not God.

I suggest that you read the Bible...a lot of your questions will be answered. (no, that wasn't a jab, I am being honest.)

God doesn't "allow" us to go to Hell. We choose to, by rejecting Him.

It pains Him to lose us to an eternity of separation from Him. After all, He created us for the purpose of fellowship.

How fulfilling would said fellowship be, if everything was without trial ?

How can you know happiness without pain ?

Is not everything you experience a lesson that makes you smarter ?

quote:Posted by Sig_Intel: The word was "may" or "May God give His blessing" meaning if it is His will to do so then amen! I hope He does and to you as well. I really hope He fills your heart and mind with the joy and peace of Knowing His great love for us.

Yup...this confirms it guys.

He's a MALICIOUS CHRISTIAN !!

quote:It is done out of love, but serves only as an irritant to many who believe as I do. Honest question here: when and how do you see it as appropriate to proselytize to others?

I will never stop loving you, no matter how much you hate me for it. If I am irritating you, then I am doing the right thing.

To put it better, I will not stop letting God's love flow through me, TO you.

It is true that I am too sarcastic, and quick to anger, but it truly serves no purpose for me to be here (day after day) if it were not out of good intentions, and the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

If it weren't for that ONE person that did not give up on me, my soul would be lost as well.

At the time, I could have stabbed her in the eye with a pencil, and laughed about it.

I have done worse things in my lifetime.

As Sig_Intel said, I have been a sinner all my life, and will be until I die. My Christianity does not change that...it only changes the way it affects my final destination after I die.

Anyway, if it hadn't been for that one last person, I have to say that I would have been dead, just as Sig would have.

I didn't have a gun, but I had life. I kicked it in the hoo-hah, and didn't run away.

I was on the road to Nowhere-Fast...

But that's turning into a tangent.

The point is, I don't come here to be ridiculed because I like it. It would be so easy for me to start calling you all names, and the like. I don't, though, and that is ultimately HARDER.

I have to deny my flesh every single time I come in here.

Do I always succeed ? Hardly !

But that shouldn't be a basis for the way you see God.

I do my best, but in the end I will always fail.

However, God promises that through Christ I can do all things, including discipleship, which God also commands me to participate in.

Wow...a US marine preaching about love. What a joke. Even though you are brainwashed beyond hope I'll say what I think for others to read. The only thing you have served with your life is USA economic interests. You think that the embargo against Iraq that murdered thousands of children and later the invasion about the "weapons of mass destruction" had anything to do with communism? Blood for oil... Communism has served USA well as a boogie-man to scare the rest of the world into obedience and now that it has been defeated a convenient new one has appeared : terrorism.

You actually think that your leaders who give the orders for USA armies to be present everywhere in the world are devout christians that care about the wellfare of other people? BULLCRAP! I can't stress this too strongly. You think the people in middle east whose ancestors have built empires need you to rescue them from communism? Who are you to decide what system works for them? People can decide for their own, but apparently this is a concept incomprehensible in "the land of the free". Communism happens to be working great with Islam but if that were allowed to happen it would mean progress and prosperity for the middle east. And no USA access to the oil-rich lands.

I'm afraid that in your christianic black and white view of things you think you see good and evil too clear. Communism-evil, USA-good. It really isn't that simple. Now that communism has been defeated and capitalism reigns supreme what has changed? You could be a good person, but you are tragically misguided. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Maybe read something from Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore. Yeah, I know they're "traitors". They make money by protesting, true. That's capitalism for you. But they got their facts right. And the facts don't make USA look good. It always amazes me that americans are shocked to find out how the world hates them. Noone ever tries to understand why. They attribute it to jealousy, classic sign of superiority complex. 9/11 made noone think. "It must be because some people are just evil that they become terrorists! And they're muslim, they don't know Christ! We have to unite and save the world from the heathen terrorists!" The majority of americans must be thinking like this to have voted for Bush. We are all responsible for what's going in the world, but the americans are more than anybody because of their nation's power. If USA causes suffering to other people, then the americans will be considered guilty. And when you are guilty you should expect to be attacked by those you have wronged. There's no such thing as an attack from "pure evil". Yes, the terrorists are terribly misguided by their religion. But you who have pushed them to terrorism are misguided tenfold. No, you are not on the good side. You are on one side of a conflict that only serves the economic interests of the powerful. They lead luxurious lives while you bleed for their satanically disguised causes. And that is the same for both sides. It's time people woke up. When that happens some "devout christians" will find out that HELL is really here and not in the afterlife they preach about so they can steal the earthly belongings of people.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

How do YOU know if he was being arrogant, or if he was truly wishing you well or not ?

A true Christian, in the face of persecution and animosity, would STILL wish God's blessing's upon you.

That is what we are here for...

So, again, I ask: how do YOU know ?

Please, Digital! I am not naive.

By a true christian, you mean a "perfect" christian. No such person exists. Especially not someone who takes up a weapon and goes to a country where he has no buisness being.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Sure, I "understand".

Do YOU "understand" that those definitions came from the Dictionary ?

I would really enjoy it if you wrote a letter to the writer's of the Dictionary, telling them that they are biased by their Protestantism.

Please post it here on Totse.

Well, I assume you got those definitions from an American english dictionary... I wonder what the strict definition of prayer is in, say, Italian.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

To allow yourself to be compared to Christ by other men, to the extent that you should "act in His stead", you are essentially saying that you are like Christ.

How did I not understand the article ?

Please don't try to insinuate that I am stupid, simply because you didn't derive the intended meaning from what I said.

It seems you are seeing what you want to see. I can say nothing more to you about this.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And unbelievers are constantly on the defensive against anyone that is Christian.

If you can assume that we are perpetually judging you, and at the same time condescending, then you can feel justified in your defensive nature...

You're a little behind. The discussion has already moved past this.

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 03-24-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by pot_prince:

every time someone asks this question the answer is always the same, god works in mysterious ways. the excuse is always that suffering has its place in gods "divine" plan and that in actual fact its because god cares about us that he does this. personally i'm an atheist because of the fact that no-one can satisfactorily explain why it is god allows suffering because i know what you mean. If god was infinitely caring and infinetly powerful why doesn't he just make everything good? why isn't life one big drug party with free booze and no hangovers? the answer is because a) there is no god or b) because god doesn't really give a crap. if he did i'd have an ounce sitting in front of me, a bottle of bundies in one hand, a cigar in the other and heidi klum betweeen my legs

I suppose when/if you have children they'll be allowed to kill and mame whoever they please.

quote:Originally posted by Cadabra:

Why does God allow suffering?

- 5 year old kids with AIDS in Africa that are so hungry they have to eat rocks to fill their stomaches. (for example)

If God is 'perfect/unconditional' love, how could he allow one of His own creations to suffer for all eternity in hell?

- No matter how many times my dog Jack fucks up, I could never catch him on fire and watch him burn. (weak, but still an example)

Why won't God show Himself to the world instead of making belief in Him an impossible contradiction of logic and faith?



1. "My people suffer for lack of knowledge."

God doesn't make the world suffer. If you've read the bible then you know how to walk with God. The christian prayer is to be more like Jesus.

Ex. A man was married with a child, and commiting adultry. He was warned not to because something will happen as a result of his sin. He said, "Oh. I know, I know. I like it though." His son came down with cancer and died. True story.

You leave windows of opportunity open every day, when you know you're sinning and continue to sin, something will happen as a result of your sin. It isn't God's will that you suffer, it's his will that you have life and have it more abundantly.

2. God gives you a choice. That's the difference between us and his angels. He allows us to chose heaven/hell. God/Lucifer. The choice is your own to make.

Ex. If you got drunk and took the risk of driving under intoxication and you wrecked as a result of that. The fault is your own, and no one elses.

3. He will when the time is right. Every knee will bow and every tongue will say, "You are Lord."

"Blessed are you that don't see me and still believe in me." If you knew he existed then you would know there's a Heaven and a Hell. Love isn't the fear of perishing in an eternal flame, but faith. If you love God and haven't seen him, then you truly love him, and have faith in him. If you've seen him then decided to love him because you're afraid of the consequences that come from NOT believeing or accepting him then that is merely fear.



[This message has been edited by HellzShellz (edited 03-25-2005).]

QUOTE Originally posted by Clarphimous:

Okay, if you tried that link on asa3.org earlier and couldn't get anything, try again now. It seems that their website was down for a while (at least it was yesterday when I checked it). Here's the link again.

Radiometric dating article (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html)

Thanks, i did try before and it didnt work. That happens with the web.. even with TOTSE sometimes.. i'll try to check it out alittle later.

They have methods to check for contamination aside from comparing one layer of rock to another. One method used is to use multiple dating methods on a specimen. This is what I was talking about when I said "cross-checking with different methods." You can see this in the chart above.

Thanks, although i was aware of that.. but it is nice of you to point it out incase i wasnt.

Now, what I really need to know is how they came up with a chart like that, with limited tries, with different methods (which have different half-lives).

For now, I am going to have to say that i dont know. I think i did meantion that i find geology very boring. The only two reasons i have read what i've read, was to understand the creationist point, and to understand the subject enough to judge for myself if the creationists point holds water.

(if the methods really only give random results),

I didnt say that they were random (atleast i dont think i did)

The reason I'm bringing this up is because most creationists don't seem to understand the great lengths that the scientific community would have to go to in order to come up with all this information. If true, it would probably be one of the greatest conspiracies of all time.

Remind me one of these days to dig up an article (and type it in, cuz i cant get the scanner to do what i want) that addresses this very thing... but that is a different topic. The point i had been trying to make is that i dont think there is a massive conspiricy (although some do have an agenda). What i think is that (and im going with the nutshell asnwer again) they are starting from bias and throwing out answers that go against that bias.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

This is out of order because the way the quote tags work, only part of your post was included in the reply, so i copy/pasted the complete post..then deleted the parts i havent responded to.. getting lazy again and tired...

If you're talking about radiocarbon dating

No, i wasnt. C14 is only good for organics and only good for (i think) 50,000 yrs. I was refering to rocks.. Mt. St Helen, some place in australia, Vesuvious.. things like that. But even with about 50k years, it is starting from the bias of belief over 12k years... although, as you point out, they have realized some of the problems of C-dating.

But with radiocarbon dating, it's dependent on the ratio of carbon-14 and carbon-12 in the atmosphere at the time the thing had been alive, which is why they have to find out that ratio in tree rings (which they know the ages of) so they can compensate for the change in the atmosphere. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work very well for dates since the industrial revolution, because of all the pollution. So in a way, radiocarbon dating is like a thermometer -- it has certain limits below and above which you won't get accurate readings.

There are similar things that make radiometric dating questionable.. no gain or loss of parent/daughter, constant decay rate, known amounts of daughter present at start.

Another assumption is already assuming that the earth is old.

Time for bed, talk to ya later.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Wow...a US marine preaching about love. What a joke. Even though you are brainwashed beyond hope I'll say what I think for others to read. The only thing you have served with your life is USA economic interests. You think that the embargo against Iraq that murdered thousands of children and later the invasion about the "weapons of mass destruction" had anything to do with communism? Blood for oil... Communism has served USA well as a boogie-man to scare the rest of the world into obedience and now that it has been defeated a convenient new one has appeared : terrorism.

You actually think that your leaders who give the orders for USA armies to be present everywhere in the world are devout christians that care about the wellfare of other people? BULLCRAP! I can't stress this too strongly. You think the people in middle east whose ancestors have built empires need you to rescue them from communism? Who are you to decide what system works for them? People can decide for their own, but apparently this is a concept incomprehensible in "the land of the free". Communism happens to be working great with Islam but if that were allowed to happen it would mean progress and prosperity for the middle east. And no USA access to the oil-rich lands.

I'm afraid that in your christianic black and white view of things you think you see good and evil too clear. Communism-evil, USA-good. It really isn't that simple. Now that communism has been defeated and capitalism reigns supreme what has changed? You could be a good person, but you are tragically misguided. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Maybe read something from Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore. Yeah, I know they're "traitors". They make money by protesting, true. That's capitalism for you. But they got their facts right. And the facts don't make USA look good. It always amazes me that americans are shocked to find out how the world hates them. Noone ever tries to understand why. They attribute it to jealousy, classic sign of superiority complex. 9/11 made noone think. "It must be because some people are just evil that they become terrorists! And they're muslim, they don't know Christ! We have to unite and save the world from the heathen terrorists!" The majority of americans must be thinking like this to have voted for Bush. We are all responsible for what's going in the world, but the americans are more than anybody because of their nation's power. If USA causes suffering to other people, then the americans will be considered guilty. And when you are guilty you should expect to be attacked by those you have wronged. There's no such thing as an attack from "pure evil". Yes, the terrorists are terribly misguided by their religion. But you who have pushed them to terrorism are misguided tenfold. No, you are not on the good side. You are on one side of a conflict that only serves the economic interests of the powerful. They lead luxurious lives while you bleed for their satanically disguised causes. And that is the same for both sides. It's time people woke up. When that happens some "devout christians" will find out that HELL is really here and not in the afterlife they preach about so they can steal the earthly belongings of people.



I should reall go to bed and i'm not interested in politics... but,

WOW

&lt;&lt;get your programs here, someone yells from the background&gt;&gt;

one needs a program to keep up with which brainwashed person is calling which bainwashed person, "brainwashed"

not that i agree or disagree with either one of you about what is going on in the "who's, what's, why's" of world conflict (politically speaking) but i lean toward agreeing with Sig_Intel (Biblically speaking, in reguards to modern politics)...

I was going to go somewhere with this but my head just bounced off the keyboard..

good night.

I don't know why my quote things messed up, but I realized it happened when I tried to edit it earlier. I'll just use bold for now.

Remind me one of these days to dig up an article (and type it in, cuz i cant get the scanner to do what i want) that addresses this very thing... but that is a different topic. The point i had been trying to make is that i dont think there is a massive conspiricy (although some do have an agenda). What i think is that (and im going with the nutshell asnwer again) they are starting from bias and throwing out answers that go against that bias.

I really don't think it can be attributed to bias, but I'll read the article once you find it.

There are similar things that make radiometric dating questionable.. no gain or loss of parent/daughter, constant decay rate, known amounts of daughter present at start.

Another assumption is already assuming that the earth is old.

"constant decay rate" -- The decay rates have been shown not to change under any circumstances naturally encountered on Earth. I'm pretty sure about that one.

"no gain or loss of parent/daughter" -- This is what the cross-checking and self-checking methods are for. I'll explain this later if you want. Or you could read the radiometric dating article. All of this is in the article.

"known amounts of daughter present at start." -- This is accounted for in different ways, depending on the method used. Here's an example:

Potassium-Argon. Potassium is an abundant element in the Earth's crust. One isotope, potassium-40, is radioactive and decays to two different daughter products, calcium-40 and argon-40, by two different decay methods. This is not a problem because the production ratio of these two daughter products is precisely known, and is always constant: 11.2% becomes argon-40 and 88.8% becomes calcium-40. It is possible to date some rocks by the potassium-calcium method, but this is not often done because it is hard to determine how much calcium was initially present. Argon, on the other hand, is a gas. Whenever rock is melted to become magma or lava, the argon tends to escape. Once the molten material hardens, it begins to trap the new argon produced since the hardening took place. In this way the potassium-argon clock is clearly reset when an igneous rock is formed.

"Another assumption is already assuming that the earth is old" -- If the methods work, there would be no need for this to be an assumption; it would be a given. The methods are verified by other things, such as checking for contradictory dates and seeing if it gives a valid explanation.

C14 is only good for organics and only good for (i think) 50,000 yrs. I was refering to rocks.. Mt. St Helen, some place in australia, Vesuvious.. things like that. But even with about 50k years, it is starting from the bias of belief over 12k years...

So if radiocarbon dating gives results that say something is over 12,000 years old, what should the scientist do? It sounds to me like you're the one starting with assumptions, not science.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I am not religious.

I am Christian.

And why shouldn't I ? (not saying that I do, but just for the sake of the argument, is God's word not enough ?)

I was just curious as to whether or not you discussed you faith with other people, and if through those discussions, you expanded beyond what is in the bible.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Wow...a US marine preaching about love. What a joke. Even though you are brainwashed beyond hope I'll say what I think for others to read. The only thing you have served with your life is USA economic interests. You think that the embargo against Iraq that murdered thousands of children and later the invasion about the "weapons of mass destruction" had anything to do with communism? Blood for oil... Communism has served USA well as a boogie-man to scare the rest of the world into obedience and now that it has been defeated a convenient new one has appeared : terrorism.





We served to give you the right to talk smack about people who serve. Isn't that ironic ?

I was in the Navy. My husband was in the Navy. My parents were in the Army, and my grandfather was in the Navy. As a matter of fact, he is a Pearl Harbor survivor.

I like the perfect little world you live in where we have absolutely no need to defend ourselves...and can expect to remain a world power in spite of it.

I am also SICK TO DEATH of hearing people talk about how this war is all about OIL, simply because they watched a movie created by an angsty fat man (A.K.A. Michael Moore). Do you listen to any sort of news, besides what ABC puts out ? Just so you know, there is life outside of the Democrat Perspective.

Can you please explain why oil is so god-awful expensive, if the purpose of this war was to take control over it in Iraq (assuming that they provide a significant amount of our imports, which would then justify this absurd viewpoint that this must prove why we have gone to war with them) ?

Also, do you have any idea how much of our oil actually comes from Iraq ? I would venture to say that you do not, since your ignorant opinion makes it completely obvious that you don't.

So, here ya go:

- Overall, the top suppliers of oil to the United States during 2002 were Canada (1.9 MMBD), Saudi Arabia (1.6 MMBD), Mexico (1.5 MMBD), and Venezuela (1.4 MMBD). http://www.solcomhouse.com/usenergy.htm

Do you see Iraq in there anywhere ? No ? Perhaps it is because the imports coming in to America from Iraq are not worth mentioning. Which means we are not as "beholden" to them as the liberal media would have us believe. Which means Bush may not be the bad guy afer all, and his intentions for this war may have been exactly what he said they were.

- In 2002 Iraq only supplied 3.9% of our imports. http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

You think that is significant enough for us to go to WAR over ?

I don't think so !

Not one president has been supported wholly for any war he has involved America in. And looking back, none of them has destroyed this country. Is war fun for anyone ? CERTAINLY NOT, and none of us wants to go.

So, you'd better try and take a more HONEST look at why we are in Iraq, and stop spewing off your hate-speech, which is totally unfounded.

Communism had to be destroyed, because it threatened our freedom.

Likewise, terrorism has been a problem that hasn't been adequately dealt with in the past, and now it is.

I don't see how that is a preposterous ideology: protect America.

Rome will fall, of that there is no doubt, but I don't think it will happen on Bush's watch, and you should take care to respect that.

I also think it is deplorable the way you talk about out servicemen and women. You haven't served, which makes your opinion on the matter useless.

What have you done for this country to ensure that our way of life isn't destroyed ?

Probably nothing.

Being in the military doesn't have anything to do with quality of faith for a Christian. The fact that you could even correlate the two shows how ignorant you are...both of Christianity, and military service.

Ubelievable.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Please, Digital! I am not naive.

By a true christian, you mean a "perfect" christian. No such person exists. Especially not someone who takes up a weapon and goes to a country where he has no buisness being.

Being nice to people when they are being jerks certainly isn't the hardest tenet of the Christian faith. I do it all the time, and I am as far from perfect as a Christian can get.

That comment had nothing to do with you being naive.

It had everything to do with you making assumptions that had no factual basis. He has proven that he had no ill intentions by saying it...and you continue to blather on about what an asshole he was being.

You also think you have the military all figured out...which you don't.

I guess you think that every job in the military requires that a gun be carried ?

I also derive from your statement that you think we should all sit around under a Weeping Willow, smoking dope, hoping that our country remains prosperous, and that no one tries to take it from us.

If they do, oh well...at least we didn't point a gun at them.

quote: Posted by Tesseract: Well, I assume you got those definitions from an American english dictionary... I wonder what the strict definition of prayer is in, say, Italian.

Funny, I didn't think I was speaking in Italian.

Prayer is prayer, no matter what language you say it in.

It's all the same to God, and if you pray to anything else besides Him, you are taking away from Him what is rightfully His.

This isn't a hard concept.

quote:It seems you are seeing what you want to see. I can say nothing more to you about this.

What "I want to see" ? *LAUGHS*

Well, go ahead and enlighten me, then !

How is it not blasphemy and arrogance to compare oneself to Christ ?

The title in and of itself gives testimony to the fact that this is the intended purpose of such a station.

VICAR OF CHRIST.

This is also not a difficult concept.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I was just curious as to whether or not you discussed you faith with other people, and if through those discussions, you expanded beyond what is in the bible.

Well, sure I do.

And can my personal spiritual experience be considered as part of that expansion beyond what the Bible says ?

If so, yes.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Wow...a US marine preaching about love. What a joke. Even though you are brainwashed beyond hope I'll say what I think for others to read. The only thing you have served with your life is USA economic interests. You think that the embargo against Iraq that murdered thousands of children and later the invasion about the "weapons of mass destruction" had anything to do with communism? Blood for oil... Communism has served USA well as a boogie-man to scare the rest of the world into obedience and now that it has been defeated a convenient new one has appeared : terrorism.

You actually think that your leaders who give the orders for USA armies to be present everywhere in the world are devout christians that care about the wellfare of other people? BULLCRAP! I can't stress this too strongly. You think the people in middle east whose ancestors have built empires need you to rescue them from communism? Who are you to decide what system works for them? People can decide for their own, but apparently this is a concept incomprehensible in "the land of the free". Communism happens to be working great with Islam but if that were allowed to happen it would mean progress and prosperity for the middle east. And no USA access to the oil-rich lands.

I'm afraid that in your christianic black and white view of things you think you see good and evil too clear. Communism-evil, USA-good. It really isn't that simple. Now that communism has been defeated and capitalism reigns supreme what has changed? You could be a good person, but you are tragically misguided. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Maybe read something from Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore. Yeah, I know they're "traitors". They make money by protesting, true. That's capitalism for you. But they got their facts right. And the facts don't make USA look good. It always amazes me that americans are shocked to find out how the world hates them. Noone ever tries to understand why. They attribute it to jealousy, classic sign of superiority complex. 9/11 made noone think. "It must be because some people are just evil that they become terrorists! And they're muslim, they don't know Christ! We have to unite and save the world from the heathen terrorists!" The majority of americans must be thinking like this to have voted for Bush. We are all responsible for what's going in the world, but the americans are more than anybody because of their nation's power. If USA causes suffering to other people, then the americans will be considered guilty. And when you are guilty you should expect to be attacked by those you have wronged. There's no such thing as an attack from "pure evil". Yes, the terrorists are terribly misguided by their religion. But you who have pushed them to terrorism are misguided tenfold. No, you are not on the good side. You are on one side of a conflict that only serves the economic interests of the powerful. They lead luxurious lives while you bleed for their satanically disguised causes. And that is the same for both sides. It's time people woke up. When that happens some "devout christians" will find out that HELL is really here and not in the afterlife they preach about so they can steal the earthly belongings of people.

In the spirit of the original question I can only say your arguments and perspectives only prove what I am saying is true. You have many points of contention but I see that they all still point to the same thing.

The origianl question was; "Why does God allow suffering?"

My response was it is not God that allows this suffering because what is being done is by the hands of men who disobey the commandments of God.

By reading all of your responses you seem to agree with me and also blame the condition in Africa on man. I also agree to this.

I hope you see that I'm not taking a patriotic stance with any of this. The US has it's problems but we are also falable, imperfect men/women who are in the midst of a great spiritual turmoil as well.

But, that doesn't answer the question. Why does God allow man's suffering?

I hope it is becoming clear that God cannot bless those who will not accept it. How can God bless a nation who no longer follow His decree. God will not force man to follow Him or His ways and He allows man to do what man does. God gave us a free will.

Today, I hope you hear it and see it that man is the reason for man's suffering. That man's disobediance to God's commandments results in suffering, death and destruction because this is the result of disobediance.

It's like stepping on someones foot and then blaming God for the pain and suffering. Again, we must begin taking personal responsibilty and stop blaming others for the outcome of our actions.

I'll say it again, God can not be blamed because not everybody obeys God's commandments. If we did what God commanded there would be much less suffering, death, war and hatred and much more of blessing, life, peace and love.

God did not intend sin and death to overcome man. God did not intend for man to suffer but by man's disobediance he is cursed at birth with the sin of Adam. All mankind lives in spiritual darkness from birth but none of this will be clear until that great light of Truth, Love and Hope shines in his or her heart.

Suffering is the condition of man but mercy is the condition of God and it is mercy He desires to pour into your life.

I do, with all I am, ask God to bless your life pour His mercy onto your lap, pressed down, overflowing and in great abundance. I ask, in the name of Jesus, for God to reveal Himself to you so you will also know the great treasures of the kingdom of God. Amen~

May God bless all of you!

God did not make or allow anything. We did. Free will, remember? #1 rule. or lesson.

Baby

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Funny, I didn't think I was speaking in Italian.

Prayer is prayer, no matter what language you say it in.



But what language is being spoken does matter when you're talking about definitions. Which we were. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Whatever, if you don't want to try and see it from a different perspective, no one can make you.

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 03-25-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



We served to give you the right to talk smack about people who serve. Isn't that ironic ?

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly why you served.

quote:Originally posted by Baby Doll:

God did not make or allow anything. We did. Free will, remember? #1 rule. or lesson.

Baby

You have misunderstood. God gave you the breath in your lungs and the heartbeat in your chest. He gave you your mind, body and soul. He gave you your senses to interact with the world. He provided you with clothes, food and shelter. He gave you a chance at life. All things in the universe were created by God even your human right to disobey Him.

The only thing we have created is our circumstance.

It all comes down to a choice. To believe or disbelieve, to obey or disobey. The outcome of our lives will testify to our choice.

God Bless

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

You have misunderstood. God gave you the breath in your lungs and the heartbeat in your chest. He gave you your mind, body and soul. He gave you your senses to interact with the world. He provided you with clothes, food and shelter. He gave you a chance at life. All things in the universe were created by God even your human right to disobey Him.

The only thing we have created is our circumstance.

It all comes down to a choice. To believe or disbelieve, to obey or disobey. The outcome of our lives will testify to our choice.

God Bless



And your outcome is?

How is your life blessed? More than mine? I dont unnerstan why you can talk with such "knowingness"

How can this be and why should I accept it as the truth?

Baby

You haven't seemed to notice, Digital_Savior, so I'll tell you. Elfstone doesn't appear to be from the U.S.

quote:I like the perfect little world you live in where we have absolutely no need to defend ourselves...and can expect to remain a world power in spite of it.

It's ironic that you would say this, as maintaining its world power status is EXACTLY why the U.S. has invaded the Middle East. Iraq is a starting point for its full-scale domination of the Middle East. I guarantee you that the U.S. troops won't be leaving Iraq for quite some time, at least until they establish control over other areas.

quote:Not one president has been supported wholly for any war he has involved America in. And looking back, none of them has destroyed this country. Is war fun for anyone ? CERTAINLY NOT, and none of us wants to go.

You say "none of them has destroyed this country" as if that's a positive thing. Well, sure, it's better than it could be. But our wars with Vietnam and North Korea sure went to the shitter.

quote:So, you'd better try and take a more HONEST look at why we are in Iraq, and stop spewing off your hate-speech, which is totally unfounded.

Hate-speech? Give me a break.

quote:I also think it is deplorable the way you talk about out servicemen and women. You haven't served, which makes your opinion on the matter useless.

You haven't served as a Nazi, digital_savior, so any criticism you make of the Nazi regime is useless... Don't be a dumbass.

quote:What have you done for this country to ensure that our way of life isn't destroyed ?

Probably nothing.

Has it ever occured to you that the threat of terrorism is extremely exaggerated? Are you one of those people who take the yellow/orange/red danger levels seriously? Come on... wake up to reality. Even 9/11 could have easily been prevented. The real danger is over in the Middle East, and that's exactly where the U.S. is putting its troops.

quote:Being in the military doesn't have anything to do with quality of faith for a Christian. The fact that you could even correlate the two shows how ignorant you are...both of Christianity, and military service.

No, I believe the correlation is between Christianity and patriotism. I see it all the time. "God Bless America!"

quote:Funny, I didn't think I was speaking in Italian.

Prayer is prayer, no matter what language you say it in.

It's all the same to God, and if you pray to anything else besides Him, you are taking away from Him what is rightfully His.

This isn't a hard concept.

I believe the point was that a dictionary influenced by Catholicism would not have the same definition of prayer as that influenced by Protestantism. My best way to describe prayer is as a method of communication. When somebody prays to Mary, they say "hey, here's my request, could you pass it on to God for me?" Now, I'll admit it seems stupid to ask somebody to pass on the request for you if God is all-powerful, but it's not even close to worshiping Mary.

As for the Pope thing, I'd have to agree with you. Although a position of respect in the church is understandable, having authority over what everyone should believe isn't.

quote:Originally posted by Baby Doll:

And your outcome is?

How is your life blessed? More than mine? I dont unnerstan why you can talk with such "knowingness"

How can this be and why should I accept it as the truth?

Baby



Hang tight, this is a long one - sorry in advance and please be patient with me. These things are not easy to keep short and sweet but I try-

You said:

"and my outcome is?"

Not to be judged by you or anyone but by God, nor can your outcome be judged be me or anyone but God. You see the outcome is on the pretense of completion. Not until something is completed can you see the outcome.

Life is a long race and it won't be until we stand on judgement day will we know the outcome of it. The thief on the cross next to Jesus is a testimony to this fact. He spent his life apart from God and on the very last moments of His life He accepted Jesus as His savior.

You asked:

"How is your life blessed? More than mine?"



I can not tell you why my life is more blessed then yours or even if it is. As blessing from God isn't a tangable or measurable thing. I don't think it is an idea of "more or less" but more like a "is or isn't".

You see, biblical presedence shows that "God's favor" is the blessing we seek. Job was favored by God because he was upright in his ways but as we read about his life it was far from pleasant. He had everything, then had nothing and then had more then he had in the first place. Most of us would not consider his life as blessed while in the midst of his tribulation.



We read about how some men have been given decendents as many as the stars while some were just given their sight or hearing restored.

I don't know how to answer who is blessed more or less as I don't think it can be thought of that way.

You said:

"I dont unnerstan why you can talk with such "knowingness"

How can this be and why should I accept it as the truth? "

I have been refined, tested and continued to be tested by God&gt; I have challenged God and the reality of life that He created. During my struggle I found there is no other way, no other ideal and no other standard that meshes with reality any better then what He has prepared. This is what God revealed to me so I boast in the Lord.

Joy and love are delicate doves of God. They are light and fleeting and it takes humblness and pure motives to attain them if it is God's will that you do.

The reasons why it is better to just accept it as truth is the pains of realizing it the hard way like I did is way to great.

I was stiff necked and stuborn my whole life and God had to break that down in His way, that is if hardening my heart wasn't His plan in the first place.

When He did finally reach me through my own arrogence and pride I was a broken soul with no hope. Only when I personally was in that state could I see Him and sense Him.

You should accept it as truth because I want to spare you the same journey I went on. However, since I know mankind, I know that answer is not good enough for you.

If it is God's will to elect you as a hire to His kingdom, He will also break you down by allowing you to live your way and by your own hands. One day, like many of us, you also may stare at your own existence in the face and ask the same questions I did. Which was; what is the purpose to any of this that we call life?

When God is your very last option before death, I hope you realize He was with you every step you took in your life waiting for that moment. Maybe then, you will no longer need anybody to tell you about the wonders of God or explain what it is to know Him, because you will know all of this for yourself after He reveals Himself to you. God will remain a mystery to the faithless. Keep seeking and searching is all I have left to say. Like I said before, life is a long race and I'll add that patience is an attribute of true love. Thankyou for reading this far.

God Bless~

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

But what language is being spoken does matter when you're talking about definitions. Which we were. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Whatever, if you don't want to try and see it from a different perspective, no one can make you.





Not really, since God defines prayer.

Prayer is worship. Period.

Still doesn't matter what language you derive your definition from...prayer is still worship.

And you're right...no one can make me, or you, or him, or her see differently, unless they want to.

I don't know why I need to have an open mind about the definition of prayer. It's pretty straightforward...

If it could REASONABLY be perceived to mean something else, I would certainly consider it.

But it can't. So I won't.

My point still stands.

Praying to Mary is wrong, if you believe in the Christian faith.

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly why you served.

"FREEDOM" encompasses every single right an American has, does it not ?

In light of that, we served to allow you the right to run your mouth...even if it is in degredation of said service.

You can't manipulate the truth of that away.

Of course I didn't sign my life away for 4 years to specifically give others the right to ridicule me...

To dissect it that far down is ridiculous, and you know it.

What I did sign that dotted line for was to defend the beliefs of this country, which includes freedom of speech.

How many more times are you going to try to make me look stupid ?

I must tell you that you do so in vain.

quote:Originally posted by Baby Doll:

And your outcome is?

How is your life blessed? More than mine? I dont unnerstan why you can talk with such "knowingness"

How can this be and why should I accept it as the truth?

Baby





I would like to suggest that you read the Bible, if you would like to understand this "knowingness", or knowledge, Sig has.

I am sure that is where he got his from (provided that "he" is a "he").

The "why" behind anyone's decision to have faith in God is personal to THEM alone.

If Sig's "why" for believing had anything to do with "why" YOU should believe, then God wouldn't be righteous in His creation and His judgement.

You have to find your own "why", hon.

quote:Posted by Clarphimous:

You haven't seemed to notice, Digital_Savior, so I'll tell you. Elfstone doesn't appear to be from the U.S.

Actually, I was thinking about that shortly after I posted it.

And you're right...I have serious doubts that he is from the US.

Thanks for pointing that out. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 03-26-2005).]

quote:Posted by Clarphimous:

You say "none of them has destroyed this country" as if that's a positive thing. Well, sure, it's better than it could be. But our wars with Vietnam and North Korea sure went to the shitter.

If self-preservation is to be seen as a positive for ANY country, then yes…I think it applies. And I agree with you about those wars…and I don’t particularly condone ANY war. I am simple pointing out that for a country to remain the way it wants to, it must defend it’s beliefs, no ? We do that. And we are condemned by the world for it. Hell, we are condemned by our own people…ironically, it is usually the same people who haven’t served in the military.

quote:Hate-speech? Give me a break.

“Bush is stupid. He is a bully. He loves oil and money.”

That’s not hate-speech ?

How about, "Bush is a retard !" I heard all of these when I went to support Bush at a Kerry rally here in my town.

It sounds very similar to what I see here on Totse. I am not out in left-field on this one.

quote:You haven't served as a Nazi, digital_savior, so any criticism you make of the Nazi regime is useless... Don't be a dumbass.

Nazi’s, in general, were military-affiliated. I can relate to that, yes. But I do agree to an extent, that until I have walked in their shoes, I cannot know with any kind of certainty why they thought the way they did.

In hindsight, their actions were atrocious, but I have seen many accounts of people who worked closely with Hitler, and they didn’t think they were doing anything wrong until the very end. They had been slowly brainwashed into their way of thinking, and I don’t feel that this would be hard to do in ANY culture. Hitler was just passionate and arrogant enough to pull it off.

So I can “assume” that any criticism I can conjure up about the Nazi party would be valid, though I could never be 100% sure because I have never been one.

Don’t try and make me look like a hypocrite. What applies to ElfStone applies to me !

quote:Has it ever occured to you that the threat of terrorism is extremely exaggerated? Are you one of those people who take the yellow/orange/red danger levels seriously? Come on... wake up to reality. Even 9/11 could have easily been prevented. The real danger is over in the Middle East, and that's exactly where the U.S. is putting its troops.

Has it ever occurred to you that you should try and find out what’s really going on in the world ?

So, in 1998 alone, you don’t think that the US Embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania were enough ?

Ok, then…what about the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, on April 18th, 1983 and the Marine Barracks bombing on October 23rd of the same year ?

Not enough, still ? Alrighty. Let us remember the USS Cole, then ! http://www.cargolaw.com/2000nightmare_cole.html

Or how about the World Trade Center ? It was hit TWICE !

Here is a whole list of other acts of terrorism against the US: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

Attempts have been made all over the world…and because of American Intelligence, some were thwarted.

How many more acts do we have to endure before we decide to take PRE-EMPTIVE measures, instead of reactionary measures ?

Do you presume to have access to the same intelligence briefings that the president does ?

The leaders of our country are not perfect, but I believe that they are doing the best that they can with the resources they have, which are far superior to anything the American public has.

Being in the military, I know that the national color codes for “danger” are BS. They serve their purpose, but they are not meant to be “informative” to the public. Again, stop insinuating that I am stupid, when I am clearly not.

Putting American troops on Middle East soil is pre-emptive, and completely justified. If you think otherwise, you aren’t paying attention.

To summarize, the THREAT of terrorism is certainly not exaggerated. It has been around a long time, and I am glad that our President is doing something about it while he is in office.

quote: No, I believe the correlation is between Christianity and patriotism. I see it all the time. "God Bless America!"

Being a Christian probably DOES produce a heightened level of patriotism in a person…and I don’t see how that is wrong.

However, being in the military bears NO EFFECT on a person’s Christian faith. If you MURDER someone, that is your own personal decision, and has nothing to do with Christianity. So, again…I point out that it was absurd to even say such a thing.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 03-26-2005).]

Hey, Sig...do you use a chat service like AIM or MSN Messenger ?

I would really like to talk with you outside of Totse sometime.

It is rare to meet another Christian of your calibre, and I would like to pick your brain, if you don't mind.

I am sure everyone is going to have a heyday with this post, but I will risk it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Going out on a limb here...my AIM screen name is " desired hush ".

I'll bet there are a few people here on Totse that will get a kick out of that !

Hehehehehe.....

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Hey, Sig...do you use a chat service like AIM or MSN Messenger ?

I would really like to talk with you outside of Totse sometime.

It is rare to meet another Christian of your calibre, and I would like to pick your brain, if you don't mind.

I am sure everyone is going to have a heyday with this post, but I will risk it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Going out on a limb here...my AIM screen name is " desired hush ".

I'll bet there are a few people here on Totse that will get a kick out of that !

Hehehehehe.....

Thanks for your kind words, you make it difficult to remain humble. I don't use AIM but I do use Yahoo messenger at times. My screen name is moto63 and email is moto63@yahoo.com

God bless.

I'll see what I can do...I don't use Yahoo! Messenger...*lol*

You're welcome, though it is God who should be receiving praise for having brought you thus far. *smiles*

Anyway, it's good to have you here. As you can see, we are the minority, and not very well liked.

Fun, ain't it ? *lol*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I'll see what I can do...I don't use Yahoo! Messenger...*lol*

You're welcome, though it is God who should be receiving praise for having brought you thus far. *smiles*

Anyway, it's good to have you here. As you can see, we are the minority, and not very well liked.

Fun, ain't it ? *lol*

All glory is His..I certainly didn't get here on my own. I do have a hard time thinking of myself as someone worthy of anything that you said but, thanks again..

I found my old AIM account. It's warpig8993 (I used to play a lot of online games a while back and that was one of my tags)



I like yahoo messenger because you can send offline IM's and when they login they'll get what was sent to them. I don't know if AIM can do that or not.







[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 03-27-2005).]

Digital, no I am not from the US. I thought that was pretty obvious. People generally ignore the obvious when "objectivity" is an unknown word to them.

Yes, I can see how sick of death you are of the truth when it's against everything you have been led to believe. My opinions have been formed before watching any Michael Moore movies, and it takes more than one source of information before i form an opinion. Btw, I didn't know that body weight is a criteria for objectivity. But I forgot you need to look up "objectivity".

Besides life outside "democrat perspective" there's also life outside of the US, but americans generally fail to acknowledge or respect it.

The fact that USA did not import oil from Iraq proves MY POINT. If you don't see that, then yes, I guess you're stupid. Iraq produces the biggest percentage of the world's oil production. If Saddam traded his oil with USA instead of France/Russia/Germany then there would be no war.

How is communism in a country thousands of miles away threatening your freedom? Is it maybe that you don't feel free unless you control everybody? You are giving up your freedoms as we speak for the war against terrorism. Is it so hard to understand that some people choose to give up their freedoms for a cause? Can you even realize why communism as a political system is very compatible with islam or buddhism? So, quit your speech about freedom when you cannot allow others to make their choices.

And hey, I drink coca-cola, I watch the occasional holywood movie, and lots of american bands are some of my favorites. I'm doing that much for your way of life. I guess everyone that doesn't has to be bombed to accept "democracy".

If you think that "thou shalt not kill" and aiding the military in any way are compatible you are terribly naive. If you voted for Bush, you have blood on your hands. When you have participated in murder I don't see why anyone has to take you seriously as a christian. It's a big joke...

EDIT: As I just read your reply to Clarphimous, I'll write about that as well.

1. Your country is welcome to defend its beliefs within its borders. You are not condemned for "defending beliefs" by the world, but because you are causing the suffering of innocent people. But as Albright has said in the past, defending your beliefs is worth the murder of children. I don't want to know what those beliefs are.

2. Accuse me of hate-speech? Hahaha, I think it's fitting to reply with "Did my back hurt your knife?"

3. You are stupid enough buy into the "pre-emptive" measures against terrorism. Once again, you prove that americans don't even consider to contemplate the reason behind terrorism. No, you're the one not paying attention. You don't WANT to pay attention because you will be horrified with the findings. OK, you can now continue to be glad your President is doing something to perpetuate terrorism. He sure is too christian....

4. OK, you ARE insane. You are saying that you can be a christian and a murderer at the same time. And you are also saying that christianity enhances patriotism! HOW?? And you pretend to be an expert! You cannot be a patriot and a christian. I shouldn't have to explain but you are apparently too stupid so...hear this out. A patriot makes distinctions between people based on their ethnicity. A christian is not allowed to do that. You are supposed to love all people equally. A patriot doesn't do that. Don't try and twist my words here...I'm not taking a position between christian/patriot. I'm just saying they're incompatible properties.

5. Go to http://www.chomsky.info/ and read a couple of articles. I can assure you that the person who wrote them is not fat.

[This message has been edited by elfstone (edited 03-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

In the spirit of the original question I can only say your arguments and perspectives only prove what I am saying is true. You have many points of contention but I see that they all still point to the same thing.

The origianl question was; "Why does God allow suffering?"

My response was it is not God that allows this suffering because what is being done is by the hands of men who disobey the commandments of God.

By reading all of your responses you seem to agree with me and also blame the condition in Africa on man. I also agree to this.

I hope you see that I'm not taking a patriotic stance with any of this. The US has it's problems but we are also falable, imperfect men/women who are in the midst of a great spiritual turmoil as well.

But, that doesn't answer the question. Why does God allow man's suffering?

I hope it is becoming clear that God cannot bless those who will not accept it. How can God bless a nation who no longer follow His decree. God will not force man to follow Him or His ways and He allows man to do what man does. God gave us a free will.

Today, I hope you hear it and see it that man is the reason for man's suffering. That man's disobediance to God's commandments results in suffering, death and destruction because this is the result of disobediance.

It's like stepping on someones foot and then blaming God for the pain and suffering. Again, we must begin taking personal responsibilty and stop blaming others for the outcome of our actions.

I'll say it again, God can not be blamed because not everybody obeys God's commandments. If we did what God commanded there would be much less suffering, death, war and hatred and much more of blessing, life, peace and love.

God did not intend sin and death to overcome man. God did not intend for man to suffer but by man's disobediance he is cursed at birth with the sin of Adam. All mankind lives in spiritual darkness from birth but none of this will be clear until that great light of Truth, Love and Hope shines in his or her heart.

Suffering is the condition of man but mercy is the condition of God and it is mercy He desires to pour into your life.

I do, with all I am, ask God to bless your life pour His mercy onto your lap, pressed down, overflowing and in great abundance. I ask, in the name of Jesus, for God to reveal Himself to you so you will also know the great treasures of the kingdom of God. Amen~

May God bless all of you!

Why do you feel the need for the pompous junk of your last paragraphs? You are so bordering on blasphemy. You resemble the Pharisees (sp?) who make their charity known to everybody, against Jesus's teachings. If you don't claim to be perfect or superior to anyone why would anyone take such words seriously? And finally, enough with asking God for mercy! He's not the cause of our problems. You make Him out to be an enemy to be feared.

Yes, theologically, we agree somewhat. But you fail to realize some very important things and you fall on contradictions. If man is the cause of man's suffering, how can you even begin to blame suffering on someone's lack of faith? I hope you do not presume that every atheist is suffering.

I also hope you realize that we are talking about physical suffering. Torments of spiritual nature do not occur to people who are hungry, cold and in physical pain. They don't have time for that. How can faith be of any importance for such a person's suffering? Don't tell me anything about how the spirit is more important than the body. If that was so, Jesus would not bother performing miracles to feed crowds.

Also, you may not want to appear "patriotic" on this, but your correlation of God's blessing to nations shows otherwise. Do you think God perceives us as generic large masses and not individuals? Your nation of origin doesn't matter to God, only your actions. And God's commandments are not specific to nations, religion, skin color or anything. You can follow them whether you are christian, atheist or whatever.

In your own words, we must assume personal responsibility and stop blaming others for the outcome of our actions. Faith in God is not directly related to suffering. Our actions are though. Whether you believe in God or not, it is irrelevant to whether your actions are guided by God or not. Bush believes in God. The crusaders did too. So, do not assume that faith in God does not result in suffering. Faith in God is something personal that will not fix the world's problems. The lack of faith in Man is what we should be troubled about. When that is fixed, we can finally hope to a healthy relation with God.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Why do you feel the need for the pompous junk of your last paragraphs? You are so bordering on blasphemy. You resemble the Pharisees (sp?) who make their charity known to everybody, against Jesus's teachings. If you don't claim to be perfect or superior to anyone why would anyone take such words seriously? And finally, enough with asking God for mercy! He's not the cause of our problems. You make Him out to be an enemy to be feared.

Yes, theologically, we agree somewhat. But you fail to realize some very important things and you fall on contradictions. If man is the cause of man's suffering, how can you even begin to blame suffering on someone's lack of faith? I hope you do not presume that every atheist is suffering.

I also hope you realize that we are talking about physical suffering. Torments of spiritual nature do not occur to people who are hungry, cold and in physical pain. They don't have time for that. How can faith be of any importance for such a person's suffering? Don't tell me anything about how the spirit is more important than the body. If that was so, Jesus would not bother performing miracles to feed crowds.

Also, you may not want to appear "patriotic" on this, but your correlation of God's blessing to nations shows otherwise. Do you think God perceives us as generic large masses and not individuals? Your nation of origin doesn't matter to God, only your actions. And God's commandments are not specific to nations, religion, skin color or anything. You can follow them whether you are christian, atheist or whatever.

In your own words, we must assume personal responsibility and stop blaming others for the outcome of our actions. Faith in God is not directly related to suffering. Our actions are though. Whether you believe in God or not, it is irrelevant to whether your actions are guided by God or not. Bush believes in God. The crusaders did too. So, do not assume that faith in God does not result in suffering. Faith in God is something personal that will not fix the world's problems. The lack of faith in Man is what we should be troubled about. When that is fixed, we can finally hope to a healthy relation with God.



Prove it

How argumentative. I try to explain everything I am writing, so don't throw a casual "prove it" to me because this shows you haven't read my post. I don't see you write anything besides hollow requests for mercy and light and crap like that.

quote:Anyway, it's good to have you here. As you can see, we are the minority, and not very well liked.

Fun, ain't it ? *lol*[/B]

On the internet, all of us are the minority and ALL of us are severely disliked. The internet...aside from AOL chatrooms, is a bunch of social desparitives trying to form some sense of community...usually one comprised of rather basic emotions (fear and hate to be specific). You happen to be on totse...a site further gone into disarray. I gaurantee you there are just as many people online that individually hate any other group just as much as Christianity. You're just on a US-based site where the big things for stupid little shits to bitch about are the US Gov. and Christianity. Don't worry about it.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Not really, since God defines prayer.

God wrote a dictionary? Or are you talking about something in the bible?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

"FREEDOM" encompasses every single right an American has, does it not ?

In light of that, we served to allow you the right to run your mouth...even if it is in degredation of said service.

You can't manipulate the truth of that away.

Of course I didn't sign my life away for 4 years to specifically give others the right to ridicule me...

To dissect it that far down is ridiculous, and you know it.

Of course, that's very true. But I did no dissection or manipulation. It's would be very easy for someone reading your post to reach the same conclusion I did when you specifically state in the beginning:

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

We served to give you the right to talk smack about people who serve. Isn't that ironic ?

I'm not trying to make you look stupid, I'm trying to make you see anything other than only what you want to see.

I came here to learn and teach. You came here to preach. Perhaps my first mistake was talking to you at all.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



May God bless you with the pouring out of His mercy and love on your life. Go easy my friend and remember He is with you always.



This isn't having a blessing bestowed upon - it's being blessed at.



Oh - never mind. I didnt want to edit anything; it's not relevant.

[This message has been edited by restcure (edited 03-29-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

How argumentative. I try to explain everything I am writing, so don't throw a casual "prove it" to me because this shows you haven't read my post. I don't see you write anything besides hollow requests for mercy and light and crap like that.



I have read and understand what you are saying. I don't agree with much of it. But, beyond your rhetoric and left leaning propanda you aren't saying anything I haven't heard before.

While I'm at it, you may know some about the bible but your many rants of cursing, lovelessness and impatience have testified that you understand very little about it. Draw closer to God is all I can say. Let Him be your way.

God Bless

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



I have read and understand what you are saying. I don't agree with much of it. But, beyond your rhetoric and left leaning propanda you aren't saying anything I haven't heard before.

While I'm at it, you may know some about the bible but your many rants of cursing, lovelessness and impatience have testified that you understand very little about it. Draw closer to God is all I can say. Let Him be your way.

God Bless



I understand the bible better than you think. Understanding it does not equal to following it blindly. And stop assuming you are closer to God than anyone else. This alone shows that you are definitely not!

If you have heard my "left-leaning" propaganda (what a fancy name for EVERYTHING that criticises USA policies) before, why don't you at least respond with an answer that should be available to you after all these times you were exposed to such "propaganda"? I'll tell you why, you CAN'T! There's no fact to back up the black and white vision you have of the world. Keep closing your eyes to the facts if that makes you feel closer to God. Just don't be surprised when a terrorist explosion makes your feeling a reality.

This thread's just funny now. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)