http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/11..._medium=twitter

I believe the biblical term is, "apostacy"...

Look it up.


--Mac

I hope this doesn't degenerate into what it could, and I probably should address this in a PM, but Mac, I don't see how this fits the definition. Remember Jesus' first miracle.

I knew you'd be along soon here, brother Richard, and you did not disappoint.

And I would reference you to Proverbs, among other chapters, regarding the admonitions against the drinking of wine, beer and "strong drink". I recall something about wine being a mocker and beer being a brawler, for one thing.

Some biblical historians and archeologists have made the case that the ancient Hebrew wedding wines were more like a mildly alcoholic grape juice than strong wine, but I do take into account what the wedding guests had to say regarding Jesus' first miracle as well.

But to me the bottom line is that this miracle took place at a wedding reception and not in the temple, eh?

It is interesting to me that there are so many complaining about deaths due to war, violence, guns, diseases, yet the same sources of complaint are remarkably silent as concerns death and disease due to alcohol abuse. Which, incidentally, statistically dwarfs ALL gun violence combined. Just sayin'...


--Mac

All points well taken, Mac, as well as the admonition not to do "what would cause your brother to stumble." However, the OP's story is not new. Before they were thrown out of England by Henry VIII, Catholics used to celebrate "church ales"--on Saturdays.

As for me, I'd have a bit of a problem trying to stay on the narrow path,with a few pints, but That's just me.
A lot of churches seem to thing that the simple Salvation through Christ is boring and old school needing a facelift.
Ask my Boss, He'll tell you what works for Him.
Wyndham

I see that they have a 2 cup limit.

I prefer the "new wine (Ac, 2:13)."

Don S.

It would take more than 2 beers to get me listen to a preacher!

Now if they would remove the 2 beer limit, eliminate the preacher, add hot wings and strippers, … then I’d gladly go to church at the beer joint. 

I'm crushed.

Don S.

Bob chimed in a bit late by my reckoning, but I did know we'd be hearing from him here for some reason.

I hear tell that brother Bob's two favorite brands are Free and Free Lite...



--Mac

That's cause you're psychic Mac. I'm surprised you forgot that my brand is Bud Select since we talked about it on the phone just a week or two ago!

I couldn’t resist the joke. I actually don’t have a problem with adults practicing whatever their chosen brand of mythology/religion happens to be.

What I do have a problem with is fundamentalists who insist on taking their religious texts literally and reject any type of science that may differ from their narrow minded views.

It’s nothing new. Religion has always considered science and any other type of knowledge to be an enemy to their views since science/knowledge encourages people to think instead of listening solely to the preacher/priest. Galileo got to enjoy house arrest for life because he had the audacity to say that the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe.



What’s really sad today is that fundamentalists would still rather have their children grow up in fear and ignorance just so the parents can perpetuate their mythology. Who knows how many generations of would be scientists, biologists, geologists, physicists, etc. have been lost to a fear of knowledge and chosen to listen to the dogma because they were taught to fear a jealous and vengeful god who would punish them for thinking and asking questions.

It’s not a coincidence that the forbidden fruit was on the “Tree of Knowledge”!

"It is not good to eat much honey;" (Proverbs 25:27)

Not to stir the pot or anything... but, by sheer coincidence, I was finishing up a mix on a song about this very thing when this thread was posted.

Hey! I wonder if I gave them the idea! HA!

It is posted in the Showcase if anyone is interested...

Narrow minded views are not limited to just that particular subset, my friend. Matter of fact, it could be said that your viewpoint emanates from the same place, if you are willing to think fairly about it.



Always the Galileo citing comes up. ONE example, perpetrated by the Pope of the era, Roman Catholic, not exactly the same doctrine as that of the Protestant Fundamentalist, but let's not get mired down with facts when pursuing an agenda, eh?

Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Outside of Galileo, history gives us Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck and Albert Einstein, all of them expressed their belief in the judeo-christian God in writing, all of them certainly known as scientists, all of them contributed in no uncertain terms to the body of scientific knowledge. source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

I search for Truth. Nothing more, nothing less.


--Mac

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them. --- Albert Einstein

To believe means to recognize as a truth, and the knowledge of nature, continually advancing on incontestably safe tracks, has made it utterly impossible for a person possessing some training in natural science to recognize as founded on truth the many reports of extraordinary contradicting the laws of nature, of miracles which are still commonly regarded as essential supports and confirmations of religious doctrines, and which formerly used to be accepted as facts pure and simple, without doubt or criticism. The belief in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish completely. -- M Planck

Although I have always been deeply religious, I do not believe in a personal God let alone a Christian God. -- M Planck (approximately 5 months before his death)

I wish you'd cite your sources, Keith.


--Mac

Mac,

When I used the term “narrow minded” to describe fundamentalists, I wasn’t saying it as an insult. I was being descriptive of their belief system.

In short, the only way is their way with biblical inerrancy and literal interpretation, … or its eternal damnation, fiery torment, weeping and gnashing of your teeth while the worms eat your flesh. After all, … god is love!

As you well know, many Christian groups embrace faith and science. All it takes is a willingness to accept a metaphorical interpretation of scripture. Even Pat Robertson came out last Nov. in support of evolution and scientific views of the creation of the universe.

Personally, I’m agnostic with strong atheistic leanings. If there is a god, then I believe that he/she/it won’t even vaguely resemble the god portrayed by ANY religion. I obviously could be very wrong about that, but that’s what I believe.

When my son was ready to start kindergarten I started asking around for recommendations on private schools because I wanted to protect him from all of the drugs, sex in a broom closet and gangs that are so prevalent in public schools. Two schools kept coming up, one Protestant and one Catholic. Since I was Protestant at the time, I focused my inquiries on that one. I asked people who were sending their kids to this school about the science program and I was assured it was based on science and not creationism.

I went in to meet with the preacher/dean and asked him specifically about the science program and he looked me in the eye and assured me it was based on science. I believed the lying sack of sh*t. Unfortunately, I didn’t discover that he was a lying sack of sh*t until my son was a freshman in high school.

I was out of town for work 4 days a week and was only home on the weekends. They didn’t give homework on the weekends so I never got to help my son with homework or I would have discovered they were using the Bible as a science book.

My son came to me during his freshman year and begged me to get him out of there. He told me in detail about all the BS they’d been feeding him and I was stunned and furious. I felt betrayed by the school and the preacher. I was angry with myself for allowing my son to be subjected to this ludicrous indoctrination. I asked him why he didn’t tell me sooner and he said he thought I knew and that I wanted him to be taught creationism.

I started to go to the school to see the preacher but I knew if did, the preacher would have ended up in the hospital and I would have ended up in jail.

First moral of the tale, … don’t believe anything a preacher says. (I have lots of reasons for this besides the dean at the school).

Second moral of the tale, … don’t send your child to a Christian school unless you want them to become atheists.

My son became one a few years before I did.

In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."

Calaprice, Alice (2000). The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 217. Einstein Archives 59-797

----------------

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

James Randerson (13 May 2008). "Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear". The Guardian.
"What he wrote". The Guardian. 13 May 2008.
"Einstein letter calls Bible ‘pretty childish’". NBCNews. Associated Press. 13 May 2008.
"Einstein Letter: Belief In God "Childish," Jews Not Chosen People". The Huffington Post. 21 May 2008.
Calaprice, Alice (2011). The Ultimate Quotable Einstein. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 342.

"First moral of the tale, … don’t believe anything a preacher says. (I have lots of reasons for this besides the dean at the school)."

So, if one preacher lied to you, they all do? Aren't you being a bit irrational, Bob?

Don S.

scientists must work within the constraints placed upon them. so if you live in a culture that believes some women are witches and must be burned at the stake you'd be well advised not to push too hard on the status quo.

also, not to pick nits but the source you cited is heavily biased toward judeo-christian religious views. as already shown in the Einstein quotes, these sources are great for supporting one's opinion but not so great for getting to the truth of the matter!

The Einstein quote is from his famous "god letter" to Eric Gundkind on January 3, 1954. You can google "complete text of Einstein God letter" for numerous links.

Wikipedia has numerous quotes from other letters by Einstein in which he says that people lie about him by saying that he believes in a personal God, and he very clearly states that he does not believe in an afterlife. He repeatedly refers to all religions as superstitions.

I'll deal with Max Planck's quotes in a separate post.

Don,

I was using hyperbole to make a point. I don't actually believe all preachers are liars. I just don't assume someone is honest just because they're a preacher.

Unfortunately, when I was in the ministry years ago and associated with a lot of other preachers, I got exposed to the ugly under belly that exists in any organization and it jaded me.

As a side note, I am impressed with the new Pope. He seems like a decent guy all around, ... for a preacher.

Both Max Planck quotes can be found on page 198 of J. L. Heilbron (1986). The Dilemmas of an Upright Man: Max Planck and the Fortunes of German Science. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674004399.

The thing that I'm enjoying about Pope Francis is that he is causing the powers behind the throne a lot of discomfort. What makes it fun is he is challenging his handlers and because of what his office has been set up to be, no one can say he is wrong.

I can empathize. I was very supportive of the church and extremely religious until I began to study for the ministry. The end result was somewhat like getting to see how sausage is made.

So when *you* throw an insult, its not an insult?

Right.

No Mac. When *I* throw an insult, it will be intentional, not descriptive.

If I say a one lane road is narrow, ...I'm not insulting the road. I'm just describing it.

And in one fell stroke you attempt to throw Sir Francis Bacon's historic and revolutionary treatise describing the scientific method out the window?

Your given example is illogical.



And the other side's sources cited are not biased?

huffington post?





I listed 12 other great scientists besides Einstein, what about them?

Doesn't matter.

Someone else once said, "I am the way, the truth and the life."


--Mac

Not at all. My point, as I am sure you understood, is people, even scientists, live within their society and must, to some degree, conform to the norms of their day in order to make any progress at all.


I gave you several sources, none of which have a stated and obvious bias toward one religion or another. Your single source is obviously and admittedly heavily biased. Even at HuffPost you will find writers and journalists with opposing viewpoints.



I certainly feel you should believe whatever you want. But you mentioned "truth" and religion has never been fact-based, rather, it is faith-based. The rules and regulations are dictated (you would say by god...I would say by men from the middle ages) and then expected to be followed, not questioned. That is not how science works. In science you are encouraged, no, required to be able to present a fact-based argument for what you believe and legions of other scientists are standing by to put your ideas to the test!

I really like the motto of the Science channel.

"Question everything!"

All religions and all of their gods don't like to be questioned.

They just want you to bow down in compliance.

I'd drink a brew at church, just saying.

Later,

love and share that motto!

I gladly accept the moniker of " narrow minded, fundamentalist , as I believe in and glory in the Deity of Jesus the Christ.
If Christ is not what he said he is, then I'll be dust for eternity, but if He is God,as I accept, then I have waiting for me, as well as others, glory with Him for eternity.
Anyone can write an opinion about God but ,IMHO, the creation can not create the creator.
As I make my living as a potter, my pottery that I make,did not make me.
The finite can not contain the infinite. People make religion. What Eisenstein or others say about God doesn't change who God is.
I'm not upset or bothered in any way by those here that don't believe in God and consider my beliefs simple or naive. Grace is a simple gift that is true.
Wyndham

Amen!

Don S.

matthew 7:13-14 "13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

fallacy #1 is to accept an idea as being true just because the majority accepts it.

fallacy #2
you can't prove or disprove anything by the testimony of other men's opinions




paraphrased:
Are the words and promises of God untrue because men don't believe them? Absolutely Not! If you want to stand in the day of judgement, believe God even if it means you have to dismiss the wisdom of every man.

Think quickly all who have posted in this thread:

To those considering themselves Athiests - have you ever convinced a believer in any religion by asynchronous communication of any of your tenets?

To those who consider themselves to be believers in something that is unfathomable to the human thought process - have you ever convinced a non-believer in this type of asynchronous communication in any of your tenets?

I simply don't think this is a fruitful or meaningful way to have this 'conversation'.

It's my opinion that quoting scripture to those who don't trust it is rather pointless.

It's also my opinion that quoting men of scientific fame on what they have stated on this matter also is rather pointless.

Matters of belief in a God or even the rejection of such ideas are, in my opinion, both matters of faith - the only difference is in what/which/whom the individual places their belief and faith. I'm using this particular definition of faith in Merriam Webster: "strong belief or trust in someone or something"

-Scott

I've always found it interesting that in the gospels, the pharisees interpreted the bible differently than Jesus because their literal viewpoint gave equal authority to the writings of men... to the point that they no longer knew what the scriptures said. When faced with a disingenuous question that was intended to trap him into a lose-lose answer based on the literal interpretation of the day:


In my opinion, this continues to be the case in discussions with people who are either unfamiliar with scripture, or whose training in scripture has been received at one of the many schools that pushes a humanismanistic interpretation of scripture. Or, for that matter, with people whose instruction in scripture was flawless, but they simply decided not to believe it.

Scott,
I agree that this is not the way to make a convincing argument.

However, we live at a time when it is more and more true that one point of view is promoted everywhere, while the other point of view is being silenced wherever possible. We're not far away from the time when the option of presenting an alternative point of view is no longer allowed.

As long as it is still allowed, I think its worth taking time to plant seeds. Its really all we can do.

Scott,
are you rationalizing here? If what you just said is correct then the apostle Paul was a fool who wasted the last half of his life and died for nothing.

Scripture has at least a chance of making people step back and reconsider... my opinion (or yours) is no more than an opinion.
Opinions are easily dismissed. But there's always that enormous "WHAT IF.." regarding scripture, which makes it less dismissable.

Its a distinction worth acknowledging

Hi Scott,

Please consider that the apostle John considered the words that he wrote concerning Jesus, to be life giving, to those who accepted them.

John 20:31 - But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Don S.

I see you included the logical qualifier, "religion" in that assessment, which is an automatic preclude in an attempt to sidestep the fact that a source that has a stated bias towards no religion at all still in fact is under the influence of a bias.

Their bias is also a bias.

Just because they are not biased towards religion does not eliminate them from being biased against it.


--Mac

Scott,



I would never WANT to convince a believer to become an atheist. It’s one thing for me to take a chance with my own soul, but it’s another thing entirely to be responsible for someone else’s.

The only thing I would want to convince a believer of is that it is possible to have faith and believe in science at the same time. All it takes is not insisting on a literal interpretation of Biblical stories. Here’s just a handful of churches that officially support evolution and old Earth theories:

Catholic
http://catholicism.about.com/b/2007/08/04/evolution-and-catholicism-compatible-pope-says.htm

Episcopalian
http://ncse.com/news/2006/06/episcopal-church-reaffirms-evolution-education-00949

Methodist
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/conte...121&notoc=1

Many people are turning away from Christianity because they are being told by the fundamentalists that unless they believe in Creationism and a young Earth, then they’re going to Hell. This view that was taught to my son in Christian school was the primary reason he lost his faith. He saw insurmountable physical evidence to the contrary and he’d been told he was going to Hell if he believed it, so he chose to give up on all of Christianity and any other religion.

I was still a Christian when he made his decision so I tried to convince him he could have faith and knowledge, but it was too late at that point. It was only later that I became an Agnostic/atheist.

The only reason I even care about the issue is that I think it’s child abuse to teach Creationism to a child and then threaten them with Hell if they don’t believe you. So rather than trying to convert believers to my views, I’m just pointing out a way to have faith and enjoy the wonders of science.



Amen brother. You might as well be quoting the phone book.

Pat,



I agree completely if you’re talking to a person who simply hasn’t become a Christian. Scripture could potentially sway that person to convert.

But if you’re talking to an agnostic or atheist, quoting scripture is counterproductive, IMHO. The “what if” factor doesn’t exist.

What you have described is man-made religion. One of the biggest problems is people creating God in their image or God in a box.
Yes God(Christ) created everything, this I believe.
Unless someone teaches the salvation through Grace(Christ atoning for ALL sin on the cross and Resurrection), they are not teaching Salvation.
The fundamental truth is that Christ paid for all our sin with his literal blood which God accepted to cover our sin. If we don't accept this free gift then we must answer to God why we refused so great a gift.

I don't understand it, I just believe it.

Wyndham

this is just silly now! the sources I quoted include the actual writings of the man himself! not some biased source's interpretation! and like someone else said, it does not matter whether Einstein believed or not. believe whatever you want! just expect to get called on it when your biased sources try to spin it as though he was a believer!

Pat,

Paul was also well-versed in the culture of wherever he was VISITING. Paul didn't just send out letters. He had his missionary journeys, and he wrote back to many of the places he had VISITED - live and in person. These are the letters that we have in scripture. His quotations were always to people who likely knew the references by heart in the first place. His quotations also included poets that would be familiar to the audience when the audience would have no idea what hebrew scripture he would have quoted.

His quotations had meaning to his audiences because of their context in his physical presence and observations about the local culture which he was in. This is nearly impossible to do over the internet, asynchronously, without body language, without someone's physical presence.

To use scripture as a basis for a statement to someone without a few things: 1. Their acceptance of it's authority, and/or 2. Your physical presence and interaction in their life - is a rather pointless matter. That's been my experience and it remains my opinion; largely based upon Paul's example.

Oh, I get it, its "silly" when actual quotes from the same man are posted on the religious site, but not when other actual quotes from him are quoted on sites which you approve of.

Got it.


--Mac

I figure I'd better throw in my 2¢ concerning the original post before this tread dissappears.

It looks to me that history may be repeating itself...

Isaiah 56:9-12

Who knew that having a beer at an outreach service could have such an impact!!!

I think I'll go lasso a unicorn.

Hehe.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends." - Albert Einstein

spin that however you want...I thought he spoke pretty clearly there! just sayin'!

"Stuff Einstein said, Vol 36..."

Great minds have been prolific in their sayings and writings over a lifetime. The historian of such can prove just about anything they wish through the selective process, sometimes by simply ignoring the fact that great minds are not static at all, at different points in a man's lifetime he may believe in one way, then as time passes, those beliefs can and should be subject to change of heart, change of mind, discovery, or just plain insight.

I believe that a great man's writings and sayings should be studied as a whole, investigated as to the when and where of each saying as it emanated and developed along the course of the lifetime and then and only then should we attempt to derive what their position on a subject could possibly be.

Just part of that Search for Truth thing.


--Mac

agreed! kinda like King James in the early 1600's! did ya ever play the game called Telephone?

Mac,



So let’s focus on a couple of points of Truth.

Evolution really isn’t even debatable at this point. It’s a simple fact based on ALL scientific and physical evidence. That’s not my opinion. It’s the opinion of 99.9999% of scientists across the world.

Old Earth also isn’t debatable. It’s a fact. The only question is how old. Most scientists say the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old and the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.

Could they be off by a billion or so years one way or the other? Yep.

Does it fit with Creationism? Nope.

Do you accept these Truths? If not, then you’re not searching for Truth.

Maybe I HAVE done the required homework, and have found out some things.

Polonium Halos embedded in granite found around the world. Look it up.

Is the Speed of Light Constant?

The "Little Grand Canyon" at Mount St. Helens

Coalified Trees in the vertical, reaching between what your "science" claims to be stratified layers that they also claim must be billions of years old.

That's enough for now, the real question is if YOU dare to compare.


--Mac

If you're asking if I'm willing to set here and accumulate tons of research that's already been done and agreed upon by the scientific community, ... then the answer is no.

It's already been done.

Since I happen to know that you're a very intelligent person, I can only question your motives in asking me to document what I honestly believe you already know.

My only motive is indeed the truth.

It is your logic here that is rather circular in nature.

If indeed I am so damn intelligent, if indeed I am an honest man, and believe you me I try to be, that should at least pique your interest if indeed you are searching for what is true as well.

Your quick answer tells me that you are not.


--Mac

No my friend. My quick answer means you totally ignored my question.

That is because YOU asked the two questions and YOU also took the liberty to answer them for me...


--Mac

I didn't realize I answered them for you. Scuze me!

Evolution, yes or no?

Old Earth, yes or no?

My answers are already up there.

Evolution --> Mt. St. Helens represented a realtime laboratory for the formation of strata, vertical tree emplacement and fossilization in time measured in months and years, not millenia.

Old Earth --> The Speed of Light has been proven NOT to be constant and the implications of that are stunning.

Also, those pesky Polonium Halos.

At least look it up, I'm not about to try to type everything concerning full scientific and geologic investigations that have already been published in the scientific communities' peer reviewed journals.

There is plenty more hard evidence, Bob, I did not want to swamp you here. For example, the much touted Carbon Dating may not be what many believe it is in the way of accuracy, and again, noted scientific investigations have brought this to light.


--Mac

You could've fooled me.

If you're suggesting there's unanswered questions, I agree. There will ALWAYS be unanswered questions.

Just like my original questions that I still don't know your answer to.

Mac,

I completed the homework assignment you gave me in response to my 2 simple yes or no questions. As I’m sure you already know, there are lengthy refutations of the topics you mentioned.

Apologetics have always jumped through hoops and grasped at straws to try come up with something to justify their beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. They are the only ones that actually believe their so called “proof” in each of the apologetic categories.

What it all boils down to is that the existence of God is a matter of faith and the truth about the nature of the Earth and the universe itself is a matter of science.

Since you’ve said you’re on a search for Truth I would think you’d look for spiritual truths in scripture and physical truths in actual science, … not the pseudoscience of apologetics.

As I’ve said repeatedly, a belief in evolution and old Earth doesn’t negate faith in a supreme being.

If God used the set of tools we call evolution to create life and the universe, who are we to argue?

The universe is not self-created. Nothing can be a cause unto itself.

Bob since you like yes or no answers.

1 Do you believe that Christ died on the Cross for all our sins and was resurrected on the 3rd day.

2. If you do, do you accept Him as your Lord & Savior.

Everything else is irrelevant.

Wyndham

this is such a good point! if I were a religious person I'd latch onto evolution as part of the plan so fast! if you assume there indeed was a creator then why is it a stretch to also assume he used tools like evolution to craft his world? and, in fact, many religious people have accepted this real science along with their faith.

furthermore, this has been going on pretty much since the first humans invented myths and stories as to why the fireball travels across the sky each day (and every other natural phenomena.)

and the progression seems to always be about the same. initially someone makes up a story to explain the fireball and assert that their knowledge is divine and not to be questioned. and it provides comfort to the masses. later on someone comes up with a more accurate explanation for the fireball (fireball is found to truly be a fireball but the earth is not at the center of solar system or galaxy or universe!) and challenges the status quo, often at great risk to themselves!

over time, more and more people come to accept the new information. but even as they do the old guard resists and accuses them of abandoning the faith. even in my relatively short life I have seen this firsthand several times. and how many folks still believe the earth is flat or that the fireball actually revolves around it?

religions like to declare that they have THE TRUTH and they are very reluctant to accept new information because to do so exposes that they were wrong and that is not very good for business! so they reject science until it is so overwhelmingly proven as to truly be yesterday's news.

if I were to start a religion I would base it on science and reason and critical thinking and encourage the evaluation of new ideas. but, I guess it would not be a religion then!

Wyndham,

Wow! I’ve heard a lot of alter calls in my time but this is the first time I’ve seen one on a music forum.

You did catch the part before where I said that I’m agnostic/atheist? But I will give you the courtesy of answering your yes/no questions. No on both questions.

But Romans 10:9 is supposed to be the ONLY qualifier to be a Christian. Not the endless list of do’s and don’ts that all churches insist on placing on their followers. I especially don’t like the fundamentalist approach of demanding ignorance and blind faith from its members.

It’s no surprise that fundamentalists are the “problem children” of EVERY religion.

Hi John,

A couple of tips for if and when you start your new religion.

1. Announce your own incarnation in flesh in the face and person of your son, 700 years or so before the fact.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


2. Also predict His crucifixion and resurrection.

Isaiah 53:4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Isaiah 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Don S.

Don,

The key to starting a religion would be to piggyback it on a very old and respected religion, and then to declare your religion as a fulfillment of the prophesies in the previous religion.

Sound familiar?

Hi Don!

or, you could just make up your story, write it in a book and convince people it was predicted. that trick has worked many times!

oh, and have I told you about the word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? He boiled for your sins! you can read all about it here, http://www.venganza.org/

and it is all true (because I say it is!)

The advantages would be an instant history spanning thousands of years, existing holy texts that you could incorporate as your own and an existing fan base of potential followers.

The downside would be that some of the adherents of the old religion are likely to get very pissed and may even do something drastic, … they may even crucify you!

3 Johns,

I sincerely look forward to reading your book.

Later,

Bob, you also might want to change the dates on some of your sacred events so they better align with the already existing holidays of your target audience!

Bob,

You've already stated that you are gambling with your eternal destiny, so I'll have no more to add. I just trust that you don't offend that "Boogieman in the sky," as you called Him.

I'm sure you know that those who decided to start this new religion claimed to have been eyewitnesses of His resurrection and ascension. Ya, that could have been part of their big deception, except that they went to the ends of the earth to proclaim it and were martyred as a result. Personally, I'd find a different line of work.

Also I'm glad that you recognize those sacred texts. For the sake of those who don't know: The Old Testament which contains the book of Isaiah was translated into Greek circa 200 B.C. and found to be largely intact in the Dead Sea scrolls in 1947.

So, say on my friend.

Don S.

Don,



The reason I mentioned risking my own soul was because I don’t have the audacity to proclaim that I KNOW the truth. I don’t. Neither do you. We only know what we believe.

Maybe there is a god, or maybe there isn’t.

You can’t manufacture faith. If I were to hedge my bets and proclaim a faith that I don’t have, wouldn’t a supreme being realize that I was doing so just to play it safe?

If you haven’t noticed, my main point throughout the discussion has been to make room for faith and science. Not the actual existence of god.



I think the Bible has TONS of worthwhile portions that are excellent advice for living a good, prosperous and happy life. My Bible is sitting within arm’s reach as I type. It would be a good idea for everyone to read it. I have read it cover to cover dozens of times. I can still quote portions of it even with CRS setting in.

Proverbs has always been my favorite book. Romans is my second favorite. I just don’t think that EVERYTHING that mankind needs to know can be found within its pages.

If there is a god, I’d bet that he would want us to use our brains to discover the world around us.

I would not equate a willingness to die as evidence that the early practitioners of the faith actually witnessed anything. First of all, one of the things that Christianity represents is the partial fulfillment of Alexander the Great's goal of hellenization of the world. Christianity grafted Greek ideas onto the Jewish religion and then used the Greek language and Roman roads to spread. The Christians started off not as a Religion but as as a sect within the Jewish religion that was largely lead by Jews who spoke and wrote Greek. Christianity was very much a way of challenging not only the pharisaical law and control of everyday life, but also Roman law and control, and freedom is certainly worth dying for. People are killed not so much for what they believe, but because the believer can not be controlled by the powers that be. The more a believer recruits in opposition to the social order, the more likely that he will forfeit his life.

Even Richard Dawkins leaves some room for future new information. He has as scale from 1 to 7 in which 1 is an unshakable belief in god and 7 is total disbelief. Dawkins places himself at 6.

I can't remember who it was that was asked where he placed himself on Dawkins scale and he answered "8".

From 7:30PM to 5:30AM the following day?

Even if you had stayed up all night doing nothing but reading the scientific published papers on those subjects, you would not have had enough time to cover the subjects once, much less actually get a handle on understanding the implications involved.

whatever


--Mac

If you had really looked into the implications of Barry Setterfield's proven findings concerning the speed of light, or even just viewed his extrapolation curve towards he reverae, you would have known something real about that situation, which is actually a fundamentalist Christian who is a Physicist who is in agreement on that.


--Mac

Wow! Here I thought you were giving me a homework assignment and now I find out you're giving a 4 year college curriculum!

I can only read so much bullshit before taking time to rinse and spit!

All I asked you to do was answer 2 yes or no questions.

Never mind.

I believed it to be exactly that way at one time myself.

It was not until my continuous love of reading about all findings scientific, from the annals of the accepted peer reviewed journals, that evidences as I cited above for Bob to
investigate have turned up that have changed the theory via empirical and proofed works.

What is the half life of Polonium?

Is the Speed of Light a Constant, or has it been changing over time?

What proof can we have that experiments performed today will show that the same experiment performed thousands of years ago would yield the identical result?

These are only the beginnings.

There's more.

Lots more.

But the way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time...


--Mac

I am 62 years old and have NEVER met anyone who believes that.

Even natives in Nigeria knew about our Apollo moon flights.

I call false flag. Leading into a kind of straw man.


--Mac

Mac,



Are you suggesting that the only way people are worthy of having a discussion with you is with them studying to show themselves competent to receive your wisdom?

Here you and I are absolutely in agreement.

I do not practice any religion. By definition.

I am, however a Christian because I have accepted Christ.

Matter of fact, a good and thorough understanding of what the bible is all about and what Christ taught underscores that in no uncertain terms. The letters to the seven churches in the book that is the Revelation of Jesus Christ (not "revelations" plural as many mistake it to be) makes that very plain.



Such has already been established.

Today's Secular Science camp meets - and exceeds - all definitions of the word, "religion" in no uncertain terms.

The so-called Scientists are the Priests and there are followers blindly accepting whatever tales these Priests feed them, just as we can see some doing in this thread. They have never actually investigated the situation for themselves and, as we can also see in this thread, will not actually do so.

With feet planted firmly in midair, the followers of this Relative Truth taunt me to give them a push.


---Max

Mac,



Maybe they should taunt you to place your feet back on the ground and realize that you aren't the oracle of god!

Does not sound familiar to me at all.

And the reason is that you must also first prophecy at least600 years in advance of an actual event that actually comes to fruition, you must also have other people besides yourself make these prophecies, for obvious reasons, and each and every prophecy made MUST happen right down to the minute kind of detail expressed in the OT about Christ.

Several or more of those prophecies must also include some kind of miracles that are prophesied and actually happen.

Virgin Birth, no, that's out, already been done.

Resurrection of Life, ditto.

Raising the dead? oops, can't use that 'un either.

How about Healing the Sick?

Don't forget thousands of witnesses, including historians who were NOT followers.

Well, your work's cut out for ya, better get started.


--Mac

Mac's on a roll!

Everybody BACK UP! Hehe.

Barry Setterfield is not by any stretch of the imagination a mainstream scientist. He is a creationist astronomer who claims the speed of light has decayed and that this can be "proof" of a young earth.

from Wikipedia...(and if you object to this source there are a multitude of others)

I object to *any* sources that do not come from the mainstream scientific journals. For good reason.

wickedpedia? seriously. Well, I'm serious, not sure about you at this point.

Keep placing your faith in your lying priests.

Your chosen religion takes MUCH more faith in mortals than my faith in Christ needs.

I'm a different sort of Christian than you may have encountered, see, I don't really give a bleep if you don't care about your mortal soul.

What I do defend is when you guys insist on saying that I must be less intelligent, or stupid, or a fool, this in the face of the numerous examples I have presented here over the years that I really am tested and proven to be in the 99th percentile IQ-wise.

The Internet Atheist typically must resort to ridicule rather than argument as a gentleman. That's another clue to me that the devil you types invariably will say you do not believe in actually exists. Lucifer does not care about nor demand that you believe in him, only that you serve his interests.

The funniest Internet Atheists are the ones who rant on about how they don't believe there is a God - because they are angry with Him.


--Mac

the main failing in your arguments is you base your opinions on "facts" that you have never witnessed nor do you have even a single credible source for a single one of them. show me a single modern virgin birth or a resurrection. none happen because these things cannot happen. they violate all of the laws that govern the universe. and you are not entitled to your own facts unless you can prove them!

you are of course free to believe they happened. but you can never prove they happened. I can take you into a lab and prove gravity or genetics or the temperature at which water boils. and you can duplicate my proof anywhere, any time. and legions of other logical, rational people can do the same. that, my friend, is science!

and just because there are a tiny number of "scientists" who claim to have proof the earth is 6000 years old or the speed of light is decaying does not make their contentions true. science is a very logical process that must be followed to the letter. it is certainly possible to falsify scientific claims but these are discovered rapidly because the claim can be tested independently. it is also possible to make mistakes in science but again these mistakes are caught and acknowledged quickly. and finally, science cannot prove that god does not exist. a true scientist will not say "god does not exist" instead he would say "there is currently insufficient evidence to support the existence of god".

like it or not, faith and science are different. I can believe there truly is a Flying Spaghetti Monster but I cannot scientifically prove that.

you won't find Barry Setterfield's claims supported in mainstream scientific journals. and you know this if you are being sincere. I'm not saying that definitely proves he is wrong but let's at least be honest...he is certainly not mainstream!

I could waste my time citing credible sources from all of history, but experience with the Internet Atheist has informed me that such is always to no avail, for you all instantly discredit any sources that don't toe your party line anyway. As you've already done in this thread previously.

That is a failing in your argument.




Which is precisely the point. God asked a man to ask him for a sign. When that man refused to come up with a request, God told him that the virgin shall conceive.

The historical proofs are many, actually, I doubt if you'll really look into this, but a fellow named Josh McDowell is a good starting point, his book, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict is an excellent source, citations provided there.



I am a free man in a free nation and I let no mere mortal, especially and not even you, inform me of what my entitlements are. You just gotta put up with me.



You just contradicted yourself from the previous sentence...



All you have proven here is that you are the one who does not know that history is not a science and any history can never be empirically proven via experiment.

Also, as far as I can tell, I am under no obligation to prove anything at all to you or anyone else.



Don't know what this has to do with anything.

If there were many historical reports of people having seen your monster, including historical accounts entered into the history by those who did not prescribe to the notion, as is the case with Christ, it is considered by intelligent historians to be a historical proof. Again, the proper historian is not a scientist and never allows for preposterous notions of empirical proof. You are mixed up about this.

Love yer rants though.


--Mac

Mac,



Have you gotten your feet out of midair yet? Have your followers "taunted" you to place your feet back on the ground?

Do you feel good enough about your IQ score that you'll allow yourself to speak to mere mortals?

Or do you just want to rant a bunch of nonsense?

To my bookshelves:

Barry teamed up with Trevor Norman of Flinders University in Adelaide, and in 1987 Flinders itself published their paper, "Atomic Constants, Light, and Time." Their math department had checked it and approved it and it was published with the Stanford Research Institute logo as well.

One simply cannot get more "mainstream" than the Stanford Research Institute!


Scientific American 267:6 (1992), p. 19;. J. Gribbin, New Scientist 9 July (1994) pp17

R. Matthews, Science 271 (1996), pp759

http://www.wnd.com/2004/07/25852/


There are plenty more "mainstream" papers available where other scientists, even and especially the secular scientists, have studied Barry's work and came to the conclusion that, while his work creates a dilemma for them, it is nonetheless a good work and a scientific finding.

I'm sitting here recalling a convention of same where one of the mainstream secular scientists up on the dias, whose name I can't remember now, stated that he reviewed and understood Barry's work, found it to be actual and real, but, stated that he just "did not want it to be so!" At least this one was honest about it.


--Mac

I must ask your forgiveness for believing that you could restrain yourself from the ad hominem attack in this discussion.

I do understand that it is all you got, though.


--Mac

no credible sources!


this one is a scientific issue as well as an historical one. unless you are deluding yourself you would admit there can be absolutely no scientific proof of this virgin birth. you can take it on faith but you can never prove it!


nope. my point is there are things that are provable through science and there are things you simply must take on faith (if you claim to believe them).


I covered this quite well when I acknowledged science always has mistakes and the goal is to test and correct them. unlike religion where you decide what you want to believe ahead of time and them scramble trying to find facts to support it!


thanks! I enjoy your mental wanderings as well!

Mac,



Whoa Mac. You're talking totally out of character. That's the lowest I've seen you sink.

I realize now that you have delusions of grandeur, but I didn't realize you were trying to unseat Pope Francis.

I didn't bring up your IQ. You did.

I didn't place my feet in midair. You did.

I didn't say people were taunting me from my place in midair to give them a push. You did.

again, he is certainly NOT mainstream. in fact, his views on creationist science are very much fringe. now you can single him out in all of science and decide you are convinced that this odd man out has the truth but if you are being honest with yourself you must acknowledge that his motivations (to prove his religious views have scientific validity) at least make him suspect.

OK. I see we have hit page 10 and we have not resolved this issue yet! So I'm gonna get off the merry-go-round right here. But before I go...

Mac, I can see you are a very intelligent guy and obviously I have great respect for your music skills and you are a dang good resource here in the forum. We'll just have to disagree on the whole religion and science thing! I did enjoy the conversation and I just want to be sure and say, although it was spirited, I hope I did not offend you as that was never my intention!

So g'nite!

I think I'll check out too.

and the last man standing is Mac! Pronounced winner by attrition. Of course, that is the only way to win such a debate. The guys who are on the losing side bow out.

Mac just has more non-productive time on his hands. Some of us have to work and don't have the luxury of spending hours upon hours typing on a forum.