LtCmdrWorf1's tags:

vi·sion·less

vi·sion·less (vĭzhʹən-lĭs) adjective

1.     Lacking the faculty of sight; blind.

2.     Lacking intelligent foresight or imagination; uninspired: visionless bureaucrats.

  

 

My father used to always tell me that there are none so blind as those who will not see.  More and more I’m forced to conclude that he may have been on to something. There are those who say to me “Worf, prove to me the existence of God.”  I can’t.  I can’t do that anymore than I can prove that a person can think (beyond the obvious reasoning that it must be occurring); that there are not visitors from space, alligators in the sewers, or that Bigfoot lives in the forests of the Northwest.  I’ll tell you something else too: if I could prove it to anyone I would not.  People want easy answers on matters of faith and there are those among us who try to deliver those answers by telling by claiming they have the ear of God through Jesus Christ; in other words they believe that God is contained in a book God is too big to be contained in a book. 

 

God gave us mind and the ability to choose what to believe.  Now if you want to believe that science holds all the answers to all the mysteries seen and unseen that’s your prerogative, and no one has the right to tell you differently.  I don’t just believe God exists, I know God exists because I have felt the presence of God.  Sometimes when I talk to God God talks back, and no I’m not psychotic. 

 

I associate with a lot of different people of faith: scientists, scholars, priest, seminarians, doctors, lawyers, indian chiefs, all of them at the top of their game.  None of them are foolish or a taken to wild flights of fancy, but they do have faith in God.  Why?  Because since the beginning of our existence we have felt the presence of something greater than ourselves and we have sought to understand that presence.  People will tell you that eventually science will explain away all the mysteries of the universe, and maybe it will, but that won’t make it any less marvelous, or any less a part of God. 

 

A long, long time ago something wonderful happened and it has lead to our being here in this existence. Knowing something about science myself I can say that nothing in the universe is truly random.  All any of us are aware of is what our senses tell us.  Science seeks understand all that is understandable and that’s an admirable goal, but what people who place all their faith is science seem not to understand is that it has it’s roots in spiritual concepts; energy for one.  We like to think that we are so modern that there is no place for God in our lives because we have the almighty science to prove that it’s not God but just unseen forces that we didn’t know about before, and you would be right to believe that, but in my view you would be wrong to say that God is not there too.

 

Science tells us that in the beginning the universe was no bigger that the head of a pin and that in an instant to small to be measured, except by using scientific notation, the universe exploded and everything that ever will be was created.  I think that’s cool, and I believe that initial explosion was God’s own doing.  I don’t believe that it was random chance that put us here.  We know the universe has been around for billions of years; we know that amino acids form proteins, which are the building blocks of life itself.  Science can explain to me how tings happen, but not why they happen in the order that they do.  Now if you want to believe that it all random chance, I’m fine with that, but don’t ask me to believe it with you.  I believe that science can answer some of the most burning questions on our minds and we learn new things everyday, but for me when you take God out of the equation you get something totally different on the other side of the equal sign.

 

Now, I’ll be the first to tell you that I don’t know everything about anything, especially God.  I don’t why God created us, I don’t know God’s purpose for us, I don’t know that God is present in each and every scientific experiment ever undertaken, but it’s a good bet.  Men developed science to try and understand creation and how it works.  Now people say thanks God we’ll take it from here you are obsolete.  We are all part of the greater human community, and that too is part of God.  You can try and separate yourself from that if you like.  I don’t have a problem with that and as I understand God I believe God would not either, and that’s not attempting to read the mind of God.  I know that when we are ready God will revel more to scientist and increase our knowledge of creation. 

 

Oh, and one more thing, prove to me that you love someone, that you can think, or that you don’t have a soul.  Thermodynamics tells us that energy cannot be created or destroyed only changes. It also tell us that you can only transfer heat and matter not cold, which is the absence of heat, but I digress.  So, prove to me that you love and I don’t mean by showing me pictures of your kids with smiles on their faces.  I want to see love, I want to see a though, and I want to see your absent soul.  When you can do these things we’ll be a little further along in our thinking and understanding of God.  Peace and Long Life

 

Love Worf

 

This may be my lat post for a while. I sense that I’m about to be incredibly busy.  Keep the faith, or not.                     

 

del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • StupidGenius said on Aug 27, 2008....

    Let me start my response by stating something that maybe sounds a little strange coming from an Atheist.

    I do understand why people believe in God. I understand what makes them believe and I understand why it seems like such a simple and self-explanatory theory for our existence. The Earth and the Universe are truly breathtaking and when you really dwell on the big questions you can quite easily despair at just how complex everything is. But like with any other brain achingly problematic and complicated question the best way to work it out is through a logical approach.

    Now I know your going to say well god is not something you can decipher logically but I think that your decision as to whether you believe or not can be. Just like you can logically decide whether or not you believe in Zeus, a tooth fairy or Father Christmas. In fact if I named a few of the hundreds of gods that have been hailed as creator of the universe you at the very least would be agnostic. You could not say with absolute certainty that they didn’t exist and so must concede that you are agnostic when it comes to those "Gods". This then begs the question of why you feel that the god you worship is the one true god, why you have made a decision to believe in him and what has made you live your life based on the belief that he exists.

    We are what we believe. We lead our lives by what we believe and I think that everyone should be able to justify what they say if they make a claim about something. If I make a claim I expect someone in the world to stand up and say "Hold on where is your proof for that statement?".

    It is not good enough to say "I just feel a god exists" or "God loves us all" or "If you don’t believe then you will go to hell" or "The bible is the word of God". When you make such claims you must prove why you make such a claim. If you went to a doctor and he said "I feel you will have a heart attack soon" or before he had even examined you said, "I just know your liver is damaged". You would not sit there and accept what he/she was saying, you would ask for proof.

    So why do the religious not ask for proof when someone tells them that an invisible god exists who watches over us, answers prayers, cures the sick and accepts the loyal into his magical kingdom.

    I know why but ill stop there and wait for other contributions to this topic.

    SG 

  • RollingC said on Aug 27, 2008....
    Marking for later    :^)
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 27, 2008....
    SG,

    Zeus, Jupiter, a slice of pizza, or my great aunt Fanny how you see God is how you see God.  What, do you think that everyone envisions the Roman Catholic Sistine Chapel version of God?  That's not the God of my understanding, nor of anyone I know personally.  All is not reasonable.  We  theorize that  our  logic and reason do not apply on the subatomic level.  So we use mathematics to figure it out what's happening, and you know what?  God is there.  I don't fell God exist, I know it; however, I can't prove that to you and won't try.  If goodness is in your heart that's good enough for me.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf


  • wishyouwerehere said on Aug 27, 2008....
    Once again, another amazing post, Worf.  God and love are one and the same, in essence, and though both can be felt, it would be difficult to scientifically substantiate either. 
  • StupidGenius said on Aug 27, 2008....
    So let me get this right, You woke up one day and suddenly thought... "WOW THERE IS A GOD!"
     
    I dont think so. If the idea of god had not been taught and handed down through the centuries then you would not have even heard of any such thing and hence would not believe in any such thing.
     
    God or a supernatural being in its earliest form was simply something which was used to descibe that which couldnt be explained and essentailly you are still using that logic.
     
    Out of interest why dont you worship Zeus? or better still why not dionysis?
     
    SG
     
  • TheNakedProfessor said on Aug 27, 2008....
    We don't have to fall back on the supernatural to witness things "greater" than ourselves. It's all around us. The trouble starts when someone assigns a name to "it" and then starts telling everyone else what "it" "wants" from us. That's why organized religion is inseparable from politics. Both are subjective choices based on social upbringing. Let's rest assured that the greater universe is our home, we are "natural" within it, and all is fundamentally well, no "worship" or "fear" required.
  • StupidGenius said on Aug 27, 2008....
    Ah Professor Naked. Long time no speak... Hope its been a enjoyable for you as it has been for me lol.
     
    Alot of things in the world seem amazing, complex and beyond explanation. A supernatural being should not be placed in that gap of understanding because eventually when it has been explained you find yourself feeling rather silly that you claimed it as gods domain.
     
    SG
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 27, 2008....
    TNP,

    It's not often that we see eye to eye on anything, but here we are in agreement, somewhat.  After all we have to keep up our adversarial relationship or people will talk : )

    SG,So let me get this right, You woke up one day and suddenly thought... "WOW THERE IS A GOD!   If that's what you believe I won't argue, it is not, however, how my faith in God was manifest.  My posts describe my spiritual  journey.  I will not go try to explain it all again here, now to you.  I will make this comment: you seem to think that others and I use God to explain the unexplainable.  Speaking for me, nothing could be further from the truth.  I see God in all things explained and unexplained.  My point is just because science has proved something it doesn't mean that God is not there too. 

    Wish, It is always good to hear from you. Yes, I would agree with you.  It would be difficult to substantiate love just as it is with God.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf

  • Mamie said on Aug 27, 2008....
    hey Worf, I was enjoying your post, but why oh why do people have to continue to be negative about their POV? Why Not just support your commentary with more commentary? Commentary that actually addresses yout thoughts. You did not end ith with so, please now challenge me. I read; here is where I am coming from and here is what I believe.  Haven't we already witnessed this on truths post?
     
    This person is having AN ARGUMENT with someone that has nothing to do with you or me or the lampost. It is like a stunning arrogance that will get no one any where. why bother?
    ok, so back to your post...there are none so blind as those who will not see.
     
    I think your dad was on to something as well, not because a blind person cannot see, but that they will not see. See?
     
    Likewise in my own life, I have found that sometimes seeking new landscapes is not the answer. when having "new eyes" solves the problem or mystery or whatever it is. Simple like that!
    thanks for sharing. Good luck with staying on point. I have no more energy for the long speeches to self and just cruise right on to the next comment. M
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 27, 2008....
    Mamie,

    Thanks for your insights.  SGs argument is circular, and I'm not the only one who sees that is so.  In any case your thoughts and insights are a welcome change from that, which, I have received today.  Keep the faith Mamie, however you choose to or if you choose to.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf
  • StupidGenius said on Aug 28, 2008....
    If anyone on here has a circular argument it is you worf. Im afraid making a statement like
     
    "you seem to think that others and I use God to explain the unexplainable.  Speaking for me, nothing could be further from the truth.  I see God in all things explained and unexplained."
     
    God is a loose term that the religiouse use to describe everything they dont understand. If I explain quantum theory then you say "God had something to do with that" If I show you a bloack hole in space you say"God did that". The fact is that at some point in your life you have decided to put all your faith in an invisible being.
     
    Just answer this question, Why do you not believe in Dionysis?
     
    SG
  • lfbno7 said on Aug 28, 2008....
    I don't believe in any of the gods that people have named for us. I don't believe in Odin, Zeus, Jupiter, Jehovah, Jesus, Buddha, or the Hindu monkey god. I think they are all just about as real as each other. Then again, Jesus apparently did live, and so did Buddha and the Hindu monkey god, but that doesn't mean that anything written about them is true when it comes to the supernatural. I think that every single time that anyone on earth decided to tell a tale about god it was fiction. Some dude made it up.

    The only one I think has a real chance at being true is the Hindu elephant god. Vishnu, or Cilantro, or Lasagna, or whatever his name is.

    However, there are creators. There is an intelligence behind it all. Someone designed the leaves on the trees. Someone designed the stripes on the tigers. I don't know his or her name, but I do suspect that it was the Hindu elephant god. Someone designed the complex things we see around us. It is self evident that a great deal of thought was put into it. It was quite an accomplishment. Accident? What are you, nuts? Having the great god Accident create a monkey would be more farfetched than having the great god Accident create the Empire State Building. A monkey is more complicated.

    Like if Eric Clapton is asked about the guitar work in Layla and he says hey, the guitar played it itself, nobody wrote it. Clapton doesn't exist. The song just friggin played itself.
  • StupidGenius said on Aug 28, 2008....

    Ifbno7 -

    You sound very confused and I don’t mean that as an insult in any way the earth can be a very confusing place. I completely understand why people see the complexity of life and assume that a designer of some kind is the only sensible reason for the way things are.

    Your assertion that it must have been designed is redundant because you are making an assertion that has already been explained by science. In fact Science explained why no designer is required many years ago. There are mountains of evidence for the evolution of species not the creation of species. It is un-deniable scientific fact that every species that has lived or lives on this planet can be explained.

    I would recommend reading Darwin’s "Origin of Species" and while reading it bare in mind that Darwin was not only a practising Christian but was also alive at a time when religion was accepted as fact. His wife was religious so everything he discovered went against his core beliefs and caused quite allot of problems within his family and his society.

    Just have an open mind, I have been religious, but I realised the truth. You can two. You only have to spend some time looking into the subject.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Aug 28, 2008....
    It's true....there are none so blind as those that will not see.
    Once upon a time I used to believe in God because that was the way I was brought up.  Growing up I saw the injustice, the hipocrasy (?), the greed and the concieted opinions, not to mention the lies, jealousy and back stabbing that human beings (public at large) did to one another and it sorta wore down my belief in God and the Church.  I disliked organized religion for many years.
    For sure let's say I was distant from the Church.  Until one fine day that I had my experience, which brought about a whole new set of turmoil into my life, but it ultimately brought me back to the Church.  And to accept it's weaknesses, faults...present and past...and it's teachings.
     
    Rc
  • StupidGenius said on Aug 28, 2008....
    It is true that the chuch offers a more cuddly support to its followers than science. Logic is cold but that is no reason to accept faith in god. If god appeared to me then I would believe. I would however not be happy that there was a god after all because I dont think we should have to worship anyone or anything. We are the creators of our own destiny.
     
    SG
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 28, 2008....
    SG,
    If anyone on here has a circular argument it is you worf. Im afraid making a statement like
     
    "you seem to think that others and I use God to explain the unexplainable.  Speaking for me, nothing could be further from the truth.  I see God in all things explained and unexplained."  
     
    God is a loose term that the religiouse use to describe everything they dont understand. If I explain quantum theory then you say "God had something to do with that" If I show you a bloack hole in space you say"God did that". The fact is that at some point in your life you have decided to put all your faith in an invisible being.  This is exactly why your argument is circular.  Yes I believe God is there whe I look into a microscope or a telescope, and you say that I am using God to explain everything after I've told you at least 15 times in three different posts that I use science to explain the universe, but I still wonder at the marvel of God's Creation.  You don't hear or see that though.  You're begining to strike me as a "One trick pony."  Your arguments are specious, and you don't seem to have any POV of your own.  You just keep saying over and over that that people like myself who believe in God don't want to see that God has nothing to do with anything.  I keep saying if that's what you want to believe fine.  If you want to call Your god Dionysus that's fine with me My God has no name which is why It's spelled with a capital G not a small g like Dionysus god of pleasure, and you don't seem to see that either. 

    In any case last night I went back to the beginning and dug this up just for you one of the first description that I ever got for what God is: " That than, which , nothing greater can be conceived."  It's kind of like thinking of the biggest number you can and adding one, or zero.  So, you're free to continue chasing your tail around the blogisphere with my blessing and the blessing of Almighty God.  I'm pretty much done unless I see that you have something new to say.  Peace and Long Life SG

    Love Worf      

     
    Just answer this question, Why do you not believe in Dionysis? ^and that's also why I don't believe in Dionysus.
  • Mamie said on Aug 28, 2008....
    I think some people just like to argue. Science is often cuddly to people who like science too. English lit is cuddly too to people who adore reading...
     
    Specifically true narcissists think that every statement of thought is a judgment against them and that the other person is misguided and weak. It is strange to watch but easy to identify when the list of their complaints change over from a sharing of beliefs to a whining of "yea, buts...." The textbook version of that is called "wallowing in self pity" for whatever reason.
     
     I wish you all Peace...with yourself and with your interactions...Respect...in receiving and hoping to understand others points of view...forgiveness, not in accepting anothers point of view as your own...but in allowing the exchange to happen without arrogance. Release of the anger in your heart...against the people or person who put it there, vs those of us who are just sayin;....there is no anger here, only love...and friendship. accept it. for once.
     
    I have found this to be true: the better it gets, the better it gets...I have never helped another person that it didn't bounce back over and warm my own heart. I believe that you attract wha t you believe and if you are a stone at your core, you can only talk about stone...see? so land in Peace...and stop fighting the gentle flow of life...there is no *one* right way. We are fine and today is a good day!
  • StupidGenius said on Aug 28, 2008....

    Worf your argument is that god created evolution, god created natural selection will never stand up to any kind of theoretical test because If you define your god by the words of the bible then why does he not mention evolution, natural selection or the fact that the majority of his creations are far from perfect.

    If you say that god created imperfection and all of this was just one big experiment that went nowhere near to plan then we are getting somewhere.

    Come on worf, answer some of my questions instead of trying to trump them with "I just believe and that’s it" you are an intelligent guy. The evidence is there for you to see, why don’t you see it.

    SG

  • StupidGenius said on Aug 28, 2008....

    Here is an example of 10 body parts that are totaly useless. If god created us then he made mistakes. Can any of you accept a god that makes mistakes when he is effectivly responsible for use during life and after life?


    10. Plica semilunaris
    You may not know it, but you have a third eyelid. Pull open the two more noticeable eyelids and take a look—it's located right in the corner by the tear duct. This small third eyelid is left over from what's known as a "nictitating membrane," which is still present in full form in some animals including chickens, lizards and sharks.

    9. Body hair
    No doubt we were once hairier. Up until about three million years ago, we were covered with body hair. But by the time Homo erectus arrived, the ability to sweat meant we could shed our woolly ways.

    8. Sinuses
    Doctors don't really know much about sinuses—only that we have a lot of them. Possibilities for their function range from insulating our eyes to changing the pitch and tone of our voice.

    7. Adenoids
    Adenoids trap bacteria, but they're also prone to swelling and infection. Just ask any seven-year-old. Luckily, our adenoids shrink with age and are often removed, along with...

    6. Tonsils
    Also prone to swelling and infection. If you still have them when you reach your 30s, it's almost an accomplishment.
     
    5. Coccyx
    More useful as a game-winning Scrabble word than as part of the anatomy, the coccyx or tailbone, is made up of several fused vertebrae left over from the days when we had tails.

    4. Arrector pili
    When we were hairier (see No. 9), the arrector pili made the hairs stand on end when we needed to appear bigger and scarier. Now, it just gives us goose bumps.

    3. Wisdom teeth
    Back in the day, when we ate mammoth meat off the bone and didn't floss afterward, our teeth tended to fall out. Therefore, when those reserve molars, aka "wisdom teeth," came in, they were welcomed. Nowadays, fluoride and dental plans have just made them a huge pain.

    2. Appendix
    Darwin claimed the appendix was useful for digestion during our early plant-eating years; it's dwindled down to little since we started eating more digestible foods.

    1. Male nipples
    Because, why? (dont say women use them for feeding... what about men!)
     
    I will take questions of these points if you have them?
     
    SG
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 28, 2008....
    Ifbno,
    your explanation of the Hindu gods is great.  I can absolutely understand why you would be able to get behind those concepts.  They strike me as harmonious.
    RollingC,  
    My experience is similar to yours.  When I was a teenager I knew everything. in my twenties I found I knew less; In my thirties I think I felt something like StupidGenius; now moving towards the half century mark I find my self searching for the truth.  My faith helps me to do that.  The Ancients knew things when it came to science and wisdom that some of us here today cavalierly toss aside as Irrelevent, inconsequential, or not worth the parchment it is written on.  All of our knowledge is built on what came before.  Some of us need to be reminded of that from time to time. Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf
        
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 28, 2008....
    SG,

    Why did God Create anything at all?  I don't know.  I think you need to ask God.  Peace and Long Life.

    Love Worf
  • StupidGenius said on Aug 28, 2008....

    Our knowledge is built on what came before us because as we become more advanced we are able to re-test theories from older generations and so we are always making new discoveries and realising old theorise were either right or wrong.

    Worf I said I liked you but age does not always mean more wisdom. How can you search for the truth using your faith in god as a guide. That defeats the object of searching for the truth because you have already decided what the truth is.

    SG

  • StupidGenius said on Aug 28, 2008....
     
    "Why did God Create anything at all?  I don't know.  I think you need to ask God.  Peace and Long Life."

     
    Come on worf, answer the question or are you avoiding this one as well? I had hope for you but....
     
    SG
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 28, 2008....

    SG,

    I pulled these comments of yours and mine from one of my other posts. I guess we have hope for each other. As for this: "Here is an example of 10 body parts that are totally useless. If god created us then he made mistakes. Can any of you accept a god that makes mistakes when he is effectivly responsible for use during life and after life?" and this: "Come on worf, answer the question or are you avoiding this one as well? I had hope for you but.."  I'm not fielding question on anatomy today or any other. But...

     

    It's very simple if you find something that you feel is useless don't so it, don't participate in it, have it removed .  Some of these questions you asked are better suited to a biologist of, which I am not one.  your question above asks, "why did God create all these useless body parts?" Well, again we know that at one time they had a use, like certain scriptures did. The post that I copy / pasted here tell me that you are just trying to be an itch.  So if you want to ask me serious question about my faith and how I see the universe I will be happy to answer.  If you just want to continue arguing in circles we're pretty much done here. Peace and long Life


    SG ·  Worf, as I have said in another post, I like you. You are clearly intelligent. I don’t for a second think you are anyone’s fool. To that end I see hope for you. I’m going to try and tone down my argument with you a notch. In answer to your rebut;

    1. True the inquisition was carried out because the church was trying to quell an uprising of what it considered to be Heresy. The issue I have with the 600 years it took to run its course is that the actions of those doing the killing used the bible to justify their actions. They didn’t have to look far to find parts of the bible that backed up their quest and it would not have carried on for so long if it easy to simply point out that the bible did not support what they were saying.

    2. You are right, it is consensual violence. The big difference is that nobody is intending to kill. War, torture and physiological/Physical abuse are very different and can’t be compared to American football. They are clearly wrong.

    3. The bible instructs quite clearly that you should not question gods word. I have read the bible and it clearly says that. There is no room for misinterpretation in any way. So if god instructed you to kill then you must kill or face his anger. So being unable to ask why, would you kill your son if he asked you to?

    Science has proved that there is no reason why we would require a designer for the earth or the universe. The evidence is huge, you can go and look at it and if you research and ask questions like I did when I was religious then you will discover the truth.

    SG

    ·  FlagLtCmdrWorf1 said 23 minutes ago.... delete
    SG,

    What I've been trying to get across to you is that I am on a quest for the truth.  I have no argument with you about what the Bible says exegetically.  We know that many of the things written there were written for another time, for another people.  Now, that's not to say that the Bible is totally irrelevant to anything going on today.  Science and technology have made some of the customs written in the Bible unnecessary for our life today. One of the thing that we have is refrigeration, Which, makes Leviticus 20 unreasonable today. 

    I'm not telling anyone to blindly follow anything.  we each have to make up our own minds.  My faith gives me peace and tranquillity; it keeps me centered. Other people have other ways of achieving this and again that's fine.  I can tell you this particular comment has restored my faith in you.  I no longer can look at you as just another blowhard. Peace and Long Life SG

    Love Worf  

  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 28, 2008....
    And no, my faith does not get in the way of my search for truth or my quest for knowledge.  As I said before God gave me a brain as God did everyone else.  Some of us choose to use our brains though.  Peace and Long Life.

    Love Worf
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 28, 2008....
    SG,

    You know, something just dawned on me.  Do we know each other from someplace or through someone? There's something about your manner that seems familiar to me.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf 
  • StupidGenius said on Aug 28, 2008....

    Maybe, Maybe not. I live a horrible godless place called London. Its in England and full of churches that pretend to worship god when really they worship the devil. Maybe we know each other as you are god and I am the devil?

    SG

  • RollingC said on Aug 28, 2008....
    SG.... Don't tell me that you believe in the devil and not God.
    If you had an experience like the one I had....would that change your mind?
    There's no scientific explanation for what happened to me and I did blog about it in one of my first posts.
    Believe me that I wanted to explain what happened to me but was unable to...and the day I decided to accept...everything got better for me.
    Same problems...same everything...but all was more bearable after I accepted and the peace that I felt then (when I did accept) and now I will never trade for anything.
    Rc
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 28, 2008....
    HAHAHAHA I don't suppose you were at the Lambeth conference?  I Live in Brooklyn, NY I have friends from England and they too challenge me in the most irritating fashion.  I guess it's a British thing ; ) 

    I remember attending a lecture, by the Bishop of York I believe, a long time ago.  I remember him telling us how the pews in the churches of England were almost totally empty. 

    I must say the British have been Christian a lot longer then we have here in the States.  I know that the rhetoric that I hear from from some would totally turn me off If I didn't know better.  I have watched and listed to people use the scripture and religion in general to exclude people, spew hatred, and intolerance all to their own end and that end is power my friend.

    I use my faith as a spiritual tool to guide me through some of the obstacles of life.  In my view many miss the underlying meaning in the words of the Bible and if you have half a brain, which I now know you do and then some, I can see why you would become jaded. 

    Maybe one day you will find something that put you back on a spiritual path, or maybe not. That, however; is a choice that you have to make for yourself.  I would not attemp to make it for you or anyone else. 

    I sense that you are a good person with a good heart and if life is working for you keep doing whatever it is you are doing.  I've long maintained faith is a choice not a requirement.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf    
  • StupidGenius said on Aug 28, 2008....
    If god does exist and he is as great as you say then it makes no difference if i believe or not, he will let me into heaven anyway... only trouble is, all the best looking women are in hell and all the best bands are in hell too!! I might have to turn down his invitation.
     
    SG
  • Knowledge1 said on Aug 28, 2008....

    SG, I have been reading some of your comments on Truthsayer's blog and now here.  I understand your theory of evolution, because evolution is real, but that you don't believe in a Higher Being or Life Force is odd. So my questions to you on evolution are .....How did evolution begin and when did it begin ? You see, there is nothing before us and there will be nothing that will come after us that will not have a beginning, everything has a beginning. What force caused evolution to take place ? God is not imaginary, God is science. What is that force, called gravity, that moves seemingly unmovable planets across space ?

     

     

     

  • travelr712 said on Aug 28, 2008....

    sg - you've not been here that long, and maybe there's a couple things you've not caught on to yet, or not really thinking about. first, even though this site has thousands of members, there are actually less than a hundred who are, shall i say, 'prominant'. the ones that regularly make it to the front page. of those 'prominant' members, 9/10ths of them are women. of those women, over 90% are religious, mostly of the judeo/christian faith.

    i am not trying to put down women in any way, shape or form. i am mearly stating statistics.

    when christians are in a position of having their faith challenged, they have been taught to 'put on the full armor' of god, gird up their loins, and endure the test to win the victory in the end. and so that's what they do.

    you are attempting to argue logically with people who have that mindset. i tried for many months to argue the same points as you have, and still on occasion do. but here's the thing. you are arguing from logic, and these people are not living by logic, they are living by faith. they do not want to live by logic, it does not give them comfort, or assurance, or confidence or security. they want to live a comfortable, assured, confident, secure life. who wouldn't? and living by faith provides those feelings to them. and keep in mind, these are mostly women, who are guided by their emotions, not their intellect as men are.

    so, you will not be able to logically convince a single one of them that their god does not exist, because if you could, they would lose their feeling of comfort and security, etc. you see, to them, it doesn't really matter what the truth is, what matters is how they feel. how else do you think most of them can convince their husbands that they find them attractive?

    so i say to them, 'go ahead and have your god, your comfort, your security,' it's how they want to live their lives, and more power too them. i respect that.

    in fact, i'm so in favor of letting them live their lives, that i'm considering coming up with a really cool scheme to 'sheer the flock' and get rich, like so many others have. but just like i can't be an asshole, i also can't take advantage of other people's beliefs for my own personal gain.

    i guess my point is, stupid, argue religion vs logic with them all you want, if you're getting something out of it. but if your goal is to 'wake people up to see the truth' and get them to denounce their religion, their belief in god, prepare to be disappointed and frustrated.

  • travelr712 said on Aug 28, 2008....

    knowledge1 - god is not science, god is faith. science is a discipline that seeks to catagorically and repeatably reproduce a particular effect, catagorize, and document that process properly. nothing about any god can fit in that human catagory.

    evolution, for our universe and time scheme, started at the moment the first dot of the infinite mass that became the big bang that created the universe appeared, and everything from that moment on has been evolving from one state to another ever since.

    gravity is an elemental force, like magnatism. all matter has gravity, because it impedes or 'presses' into the space/time expanse of the universe, and like a steel ball on a piece of stretched fabric, any other piece of matter that comes close enough falls toward the object through the depression that is made in that fabric.

    you see, your explaination says 'it's a mystery because some super intelligent being is actually behind the scenes doing it'.

    my explaination says that i can create the effects of gravity anytime and anywhere i chose. that makes me the mysterious, super intelligent being behind the scene, so to you, i am god.

    don't try to argue logic knowledge1. stick to faith, you're better at that.

  • StupidGenius said on Aug 28, 2008....

    travelr712 -

    I’ve been on here for a while now off and on and have over that time developed a readership of around 102 or so people so I do kind of understand what people are like on here. You will normally find my comments within a blog where someone has made a statement about god as though it is a fact and they know it to be true.

    In my time I have converted a few people just by speaking of the logic and then suggesting a few books, museums, websites etc for them to look at. I don’t really expect to convert anyone at all but im afraid I do love a heated discussion and that’s my vice I suppose.

    Your observations are not all fair but the majority of what you said I cant deny. We pretty much fall into the same box on this subject.

    Im sure we will see each others posts around, I have subscribed to you now and have already begun reading some of your other posts. First impressions are that they are impressive.

    SG

  • GrapeKoolaid said on Aug 28, 2008....
    Interesting...

    I never miss a post of yours Worf.  I may not comment on them, but I always make it a point to read them and and flag them so that they are in "my conversations" tab.  The topics that you deal with are topics that I find very difficult to discuss, as they are high matters and the language that we use tend to be crude and incomplete for us to discuss the finer points of the matter, you know? 

    However, I will say this on the matter now.  I have to point out that the supporters of science are just as dogmatic and faithful in their beliefs as the most fervent disciple of the Christian faith.  Even atheists, by "turning" away from God, are in conversation with God.  This last particular point is something that tickles me greatly.  It's like the person who closes their eyes, covers their ears and say, "lalalalala...  If I don't see or hear the tiger, then the tiger does not exist".  :)

    The truth of the matter is, that science, once confident of their ability to dispel the darkness of the ages, no longer provide satisfactory explanations of the phenomena they profess to elucidate.  Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the lack(or the impossibility) of the Unified Field theory, Superstring theory are all glaring examples of this. 

    They of course say that this is a limitation of human knowledge, and has nothing to do with God(why not?). 

    The thing that really bespeaks of the limitations of human knowledge to me is the anthropomorphisation of the divine.  To think that God has a human form.  This not only bespeaks of the limitation of human knowledge, but it also speaks of the narcissistic nature of humanity.  I'm guessing if dogs could articulate as such, their gods would take on a shape of a dog, you know what I mean? 

    This is the problem with language.  It limits us into thinking in a certain way. 

    In antiquity, science and religion used to be under the same branch.  It was just two different ways of attacking the same problem.  The problem being existence.  The problem of being, if you will.  At some point in the development of human history, they took on an adversarial role to each other, but they're really the same thing.  It's just a feeble human attempt at making sense of the world around them, and justifying their own existence. 

    In this manner, I draw some parallels to the Judeo-Christian concept of heaven and hell.  One rewards the good and the other punishes evil.  They play for the same team.  It's the good cop, bad cop routine.  Understand?  If they were truly adversarial and polar opposites, one would reward the good and the other reward evil.  Know what I mean? 

    Sorry this comment went a little long.  This is the trouble I have when I'm dealing with such cerebral and spiritual matters.  I get incredibly long winded, get turned around and end up biting my own tail.  Like the worm Ouroboros.  This is the reason why I try to refrain from commenting on posts of this nature. 

    But, as always, a very thought-provoking post.  :)
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 28, 2008....
    Hey Grape,

    You are very insightful in your analysis of God and Religion.  All can say is Amen.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 28, 2008....
    Knowledge 1 and Traveler 712,

    You guys play nice now ya' hear?  Peace and Long life

    Love Worf
  • GrapeKoolaid said on Aug 28, 2008....
    Thanks Worf.  It's a subject that I've given much thought to, but it still comes out in jumbles.  :)

    *correction:  I think it's just a Christian concept of heaven and hell, not Judeo-Christian concept.  I don't think the Jews have a hell, per se.  I'll chalk it up to my affinity for fancy words.  :D 
  • StupidGenius said on Aug 28, 2008....

    Grape - Science is progressive and religion stands still and stagnates. Religion is stuck because as soon as there is a gap in your thinking you fill the big whole with a supernatural being. Your view of science is clearly that because it doesn’t explain everything you just simply say "Oh well science cant explain it so it must be god". Your belief that science is limited is true, but it is only limited to the technology that is used to test theory. We thought the Earth was flat and now we know it is round, we thought the sun orbited the earth but now we know the earth orbits the sun. Without science you wouldn’t know any of this. Without science there would be no medicine, antibiotics or Neurological scanners to discover brain tumours.

    You should give a little more respect to science; it has brought us along way and not been the trigger for any war.

    Worf, a quick question I thought of. What are your thoughts on the 40 year gap between the supposed end of Jesus and the Gospels being written?

    SG

  • GrapeKoolaid said on Aug 28, 2008....
    LOL. 

    Thanks for proving my point.  Your deference to science mirrors that of the masses prostrated around the Kaaba. 

    You and others seem to think that one is necessarily exclusionary of the other, while this is not so.  Your exclusionary approach and labeling those of faith as dim, unenlightened, or in some way less than you(bright and enlightened) is quite similar to the view that many Christians hold as being saved or not(unsaved?  spent?  You make the call). 

    LOL.  What will you do when you are left behind?  LOL.  Sorry.  That's a bad joke. 

    Did you know that Enrico Fermi was a Catholic? 

    Here's a quote by Albert Einstein, your demigod of Science.  He said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". 

    I also disagree with you on the fact that religion is stagnant.  If you look at the history of Christianity, it's filled with permutations and changes.  From the Council of Nicea, the split of Catholicism(Roman Christianity) from the Orthodoxy(Byzantine Christianity) to the reformation to the counter-reformation, many different shapes and hues of Protestantism, even as recent as Vatican II, which took place from 1962-1965, the history of the church is full of its twists, turns and changes. 

    Of course it doesn't change as rapidly as science.  Things that are worth preserving, thousands of years of history and tradition, isn't something to be upturned overnight. 

    I'll have you know that I am not a Christian.  I'm not an atheist, either.  Nor am I a disciple of science.  I'm just a person who's trying to make heads or tails out of the craziness that he sees in front of him.  Some I see shades of truth contained therein, some I see as fallacies, some I see as just plain stupid. 

    I just know that there are more questions than answers, and those that profess to know the answers, I immediately distrust.  Be they a holy man, or a snake-oil salesman. 
  • travelr712 said on Aug 28, 2008....
    sorry worf, it just kinda gets me when someone says 'god is science' or 'god invented science', it's just such an incongruous statement. but i'll be good i promise.
  • StupidGenius said on Aug 28, 2008....

    Grape you have no idea what you are talking about, you have made the normal error of the religious by assuming that by his statement Einstein was a man of God. Here is the quote and source that destroys your claim

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

    Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions".

    Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.

    In the letter, he states: "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 which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

    "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

    You don’t have to be that educated to understand evolution; you don’t have to be that educated to understand Natural Selection. Just go and research it instead of using some lame "How to defeat an Atheist in a religion debate" website for all your points of view.

    Science has proven that an intelligent designer is not required to answer any questions pertaining to our existence. If you have genuine questions on science and its theories regarding existence then pose them and I may be able to help.

    SG

  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 28, 2008....
    Traveler,

    I must tell you I was taken aback by that statement as well.  Grape and I are more or less on the same page.   He has managed to communicate in one posted comment everything that I was trying to get across to SG in all our ramblings about science and God. 

    The bottom line is believe what you want.  I'm always amazed at people who talk about teaching creationism along side of evolution as if it were science, it's not.  You cannot take the Bible literally especially the book of Genesis. 

    Science tells me what I need to know my faith keeps me centered.  For me it as simple as that.  Peace and Long Life.

    Love Worf     
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 28, 2008....
    SG,

    "God does not play dice with the universe."  Albert Einstein was not a fan religious doctrine and neither am I.  In the article that you post that much is apparent, not that he didn't believe in God.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf
  • GrapeKoolaid said on Aug 28, 2008....
    SG:  LOL.  I don't think so.  If any conclusions were drawn, they were drawn by you, not me.  I was merely suggesting that to deny the influence Judeo-Christian tradition has had on the Western civilization is frankly, irresponsible.  You can choose to ignore it, you can choose to pretend it doesn't exist, but the fact of the matter is, by your denial, you're already engaged in dialogue with it.  What I am saying instead, is that the past is a political and psychological treasury from which we draw the reserves that we need to cope with the future. 

    Enrico Fermi really wasn't that religious, either.  I was merely pointing out the fact that he was a Catholic.  But thenagain, who's born in Italy and is not a Catholic, know what I mean?  It's just his background.  It says something about him in terms of foundation of his culture and personal history and what not. 

    Yes, I know about Albert Einstein coining the phrase "childish superstitions".  Goes to show you that even smart people, like Einstein, can change his mind, or say one thing than another. 

    Destroying my claim?  Which was?  That religion and science are two branches of the same tree?  I don't see how your copy and paste job accomplished this task.  I never said that Einstein was a man of God.  What I said was that even he thought that science and religion had a certain connection between the two. 

    And yes, I have no idea what I am talking about.  Like I said, I have more questions than answers. 

    You claim you have answers.  I'll enetertain you.  Here's a question.  It's an easy one.  But one people have been wrestling with throughout all history.  A question that both religion and science have been trying to answer for millennia. 

    Why are we here? 

    Want another question?  An easier one, perhaps?  Howabout this one? 

    What was there before the Big Bang? 

    I eagerly await your (scientific)answers. 

    P.S.  Oh and btw.  I'd like to know the name of this "how to defeat an atheist" website.  I get my information from reading books and thinking about them.  Your way seems much easier. 

    P.P.S.  You still haven't addressed my original point of you being as big of a zealot for science as Joel Osteen is for his self-help Jesus.  (My apologies for such a poor comparison.  My other choice was way worse.  Trust me on that one.)
  • GrapeKoolaid said on Aug 28, 2008....
    Worf:  Damn you!!!  How is it that you can say in such few words something that takes me pages and pages?!!  So succinct, and yet, so clear and to the point... 

    I admire that. 
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 28, 2008....
    Hey Grape,

    Thank you, I hope : ) Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf
  • travelr712 said on Aug 28, 2008....
    i really enjoy the way you relate to people worf. you have a comforting style of writing. i begin to wonder if you're the same in person? that's not an insult. people would perceive me much differently in person than they do from my writing, as i'm sure you're aware.
     
    i agree with you, believe what you want. especially if it helps you in your life. i have a problem with people who pray on the distraught to fill their pews, or bash people over the head with a guilt ridden bible, but you're not one of them. i admire your faith. i don't agree with it, but i admire it :-)
     
    oh, and as to what was before the big bang? from a scientific standpoint, there is no possible way for us to know as long as we are inside this space/time universe. everything the universe was, is and will be started with a point singularity. now, i have a theory that i've put in other posts. we have black holes in our universe. they started when a mass collapsed in on itself and became so dense, that everything coming close to it falls into it and never escapes. but that mass does not grow unless it combines with other black holes of it's same nature. so where does all that mass and energy go? well, at the point of conception, at the moment the mass tips from a huge, heavy, black lump to an actual 'universe drain', a singularity in a different space/time/dimension/whatever is created, a point singularity. this singularity grows until it expands into another universe, and is fed by the matter that is being swallowed up from ours. it's not a complete theory, because we are inside of the expanse that was created, it's not like there was just empty blackness and a black hole started spewing matter into it. it's like the singularity is a baloon and is still expanding, and everything is inside it is expanding with it. however, science has derived the omnidirection that everything is expanding from, so there is a center to the universe. wonder what's there?
  • RollingC said on Aug 28, 2008....
    Excellent post Worf.....   :^)
  • Knowledge1 said on Aug 28, 2008....

    Travelr, I do not argue with you on your definitions or your logic. I asked what caused gravity to exist ? The big bang theory may be true, but what force caused it to take place ? Are you saying before the big bang there was nothing, if so then what caused that infinite mass that you spoke of to exist ? My faith is no different than your faith because you know that these thing had a beginning. That is why the Bible says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. If God was not the beginning of what we have, then what was before God. God was the beginning , Himself. The beginning of Time was made by the beginning of God. We could not calculate time because there was no motion making Time. Time began when  the first motion of an  atom moved in space. That atom moving in space in the beginning was God. People call God different things such as Lord, Jehovah, and Yahweh, all these names mean the self created one or the self existing one. This is why we call God, the Almighty Creator, because all those things that you call logic cannot be proved without some type of unknown force putting them in motion.

     

  • travelr712 said on Aug 28, 2008....
    yes knowledge, some type of unknown force, i agree with you. it is not possible for us as humans, up until now (and probably for a long time to come, if ever), to know what it was that created this universe that we are a part of, we can merely speculate.
     
    to answer your question about what was before the beginning of time in this universe as we know it, look up at my comment to worf just before rollingc's. of course, it is only a theory, like that of the big bang or an intelligent creator, but it's as good as any, i think :-)
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 29, 2008....
    Travelr,

    I never ask people to agree with me so it's ok that you don't.  We all see God in our own way I believe that it's different for all of us.  When someone tries to convince me that we should all believe the same thing the same way we starting down the road to a cult of some kind. 

    I don't believe that a philosophy of unconditional love meets that definition, though I'm sure there are those who would disagree and that's their right. 

    Now about that theory of yours: ) Einstein's great contribution (E=MC^2) tells us where energy in a black hole goes. Look at it this way: as we approach the speed of light (and never get there according to the theory) the more energy that we put in to try and pass light is turned into mass.  More energy=more mass.  So working in reverse If we add more mass we get more energy.  More mass=more energy.

    So, if we want to know what came before Creation we would have to time travel, which is a highly improbable to achieve.. The problem with that though is it creates some interesting paradoxes. One of them being if you went back in time to when nothing existed would you exist.  the other thing we could do would be to travel beyond known expanse of the universe and see what's there, but get out of the way or the expanding universe will hit at relativistic speed. That's how I see it anyway, but you could just as easily be right too.    

    Knoledge1,

    Read St. Augutine's 5 arguments on the existance of God. I think you will find them enlightening.  Aslo what came before you can read what i said to travelr, or you can check out the Kabbala.  The Kabbala says that in the beginning the universe was out of balance and "That which is incomprehensable (God)" did not create until the forces were in balance.  Not that God couldn't, but wouldn't until forces were in balance.  I  always found that interesting.

    Rolling C,
    Thank you.  Peace and Long Life Everyone

    Love Worf     .      
  • Mamie said on Aug 29, 2008....

    Travlr: your words not mine....you are arguing from logic, and these people are not living by logic, they are living by faith. they do not want to live by logic, it does not give them comfort, or assurance, or confidence or security. they want to live a comfortable, assured, confident, secure life. who wouldn't? and living by faith provides those feelings to them. and keep in mind, these are mostly women, who are guided by their emotions, not their intellect as men are....

    Seriously, dude, are you really wondering why you are alone? this arrogance is stunning!

    To Grape: you said--Your exclusionary approach and labeling those of faith as dim, unenlightened, or in some way less than you(bright and enlightened) is quite similar to the view that many Christians hold as being saved or not(unsaved?  spent? 

    thanks for holding the mirror up, they got the microphone and started prancing up and down the aisles instead of reading the telepromptor.

    Worf: cool post, CLEARLY, it uncovers people's paradigms, prejudices, judgements and sexist beliefs. Interesting and all telling....and I bet you thought you were just sayin'??!! Peace to you too, brutha! Mamie

     

  • travelr712 said on Aug 29, 2008....
    that's very astute worf. i would say that it is not possible for us to travel past the point singularity in time, because that is when time began for us, and if we are traveling in it, we cannot go back beyond when it began to exist. i would also say that you had a good theory about our universe catching up with us at relativistic speed, but i would say that because this universe exists in it's own dimension/space/time/magnetic/gravitational/et. al. form, that there is no 'outside' of it. string theory shows that there are multiple universes, so in order to be 'outside' ours, we would have to be 'inside' another, or we would not exist, just as you refered to about going back before time. and if we were 'inside' another, we would need to have technology that could sense other universes and 'look into them', in order to see ours.
     
    mamie - none of that was intended as an insult to women, as i stated in the comment. it was all quoted from psychology and sociology classes i have taken and texts i have read, as well my own experience. quoting established fact is not arrogance. i would say that the emotional reaction you had to my scientifically backed statements just helps to prove my point. just as a further point of clairification, i did not say that women could not be logical nor did i say that men could not be emotional. i said that women react first from their emotions, not from their intellect. to expand, a woman will first think about how she feels about a thing, and then use her intellect to quantify and qualify that thing based on those feelings. a man will qualify it by how he thinks about it first, and then apply emotion second, if any.
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 29, 2008....
    Travelr,

    you're going to get me in trouble.  I have no business writing in this blog when I should be studying.  However, While "String Theory" does attempt explain the mysteries of the universe they have yet to be able to prove it it so.  I'm much more impressed with "Quantum Theory," Which as I'm sure you know deal with subatomic particles and the rule under which they operate.   Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf     
  • travelr712 said on Aug 29, 2008....

    they're intertwined, as far as i've been able to see from the research worf. i'm not an expert on either of course, but string theory more or less grew out of quantum theory. of course, nothing is proven yet, they are just too young in serious study, and there are few, if any, instruments that can detect and analyze them. but mathematically, there is provable consistancy to suggest that they both exist, and since we were discussing theories, i thought you might be interested in that one.

    i just turned in my last assignment tonight, and now i'm done until december :-P get back to studying! (you're good at it!)

  • StupidGenius said on Aug 30, 2008....

    That’s the beauty of science. It’s ever improving. It progresses, it improves. Religion doesn’t do that. Science explains the universe; religion plugs a gap in understanding with a supernatural being until science explains that gap.

    SG

  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 30, 2008....
    SG,

    I've reached a Conclusion.  You don't understand spiritual principles, so you bad moth them, all of the people know embrace both.  We try to understand what God is, and how God fits into our lives.  Almost everybody I know has a foot in the sciences including some of my favorite priests.  One of them is a countryman of yours and he is an astrophysicist.  My early background is engineering.  So don't think that you can sit there and tell me anything about God or science since you obviously don't know much about either.

    Now, I don't know what religion has done to you, but whatever it is I'm sorry that it happened.  Nobody here, whose comments I have read, thinks the way you are accusing them of thinking.  I have read some comments where people have had some unexplained thing happen to them in their live and they attribute these things to God.  This is not a bad thing. 

    Science is beautiful, wit that I have no argument, but so is God.  If you are unable or unwilling to see that, sorry. 

    God is, "That than, which nothing greater can be conceived." Science seeks to explain it all and maybe one day it will; we're making progress. Personally I think you need to conceive something else.  Others and I seek to bring God into the 21st century, which can put some peoples noses seriously out of joint.  My stance is, if we have grown so must have God.  Peace an Long Life

    Love Worf            
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 30, 2008....
    Travelr,

    Everything builds on what came before. I remember back in the late 70s when I first heard of the the Grand unified Theory (GUT). I thought, WOW, wouldn't it be great if they could pull it off, but it seem as thought subatomic particles have a mind of their own.  They just won't obey the laws of physics that govern us here on the macro level.

    I remember when I was a kid I read this book "The Dancing WU LI Masters."  I was just a kid but I was fascinated, by quantum theory. 

    Damn, Look at the time, I Have to Go and do My lay ministry work.  I will talk with you later.  maybe we can pick up where we left off or pick up a mew topic.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf   
  • travelr712 said on Aug 30, 2008....

    sure worf, any topic, any time. i enjoy talking to you. and yeah, the GUT, to my knowledge, was proposed by einstein. it's what he was working on when he mapped out relativity. it was his 'quest for god' as it were.

    i haven't kept up with the study of subatomic particles much, i'm too engrossed in learning 15 new programming languages and IT security. i find it highly interesting how the behavior of quarks are described tho. i think if there is a way to jump from one universe to another, understanding the behavior of quarks is the key, because i believe that they do just that.

    i can't exactly describe why, but things like that excite me, and give me hope for the future. guess i'm just wierd.

  • RollingC said on Aug 30, 2008....
    Worf....  I think you're right in trying to bring God into the 21st Century but I wonder if that's worded the proper way.  I would think that bringing our concept of God into the 21st Century might be more appropriate for God, the Creator of everything, really doesn't need to be brought anywhere.  I would think it's us that need to adjust and apply ourselves to His will and bring it into our lives and existence.
    I'm looking forward to your next topic.   :^)
    Rc 
  • StupidGenius said on Aug 30, 2008....

    Worf, its funny how you suppose intellectual superiority over me even though you know nothing about me other than my Atheistic belief. I don’t mind really. If it helps you to think that god and science can co-exist then that’s cool.

    Science takes God out of any equation due simply to its logic. You say science is beautiful and so is god, that statement is contradictory.

    Spiritual - concerned with or affecting the spirit or soul; "a spiritual approach to life"; "spiritual fulfilment"; "spiritual values"; "unearthly love"

    Your right, I don’t have any spiritual values because I don’t recognise "Spiritual Values" as anything other than illogical fantasy.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Aug 30, 2008....
    Excuse me....what's wrong thinking that God is beautiful and that Science is beautiful?  As long as you don't start a contest and keep your balance as to your faith it's okay to think that.
    I don't see anything wrong with that. 
    Without science we would never have reached the moon.
    Without God we would never have an afterlife.

    What's wrong with that? I don't have a problem with that and I'm sorry if you do.
    :^)
    Rc
  • RollingC said on Aug 30, 2008....
    Oh and for the record....
    I give preference to having an afterlife with God.
    I'd love to have the Moon  inhabited in the future (too bad it's not now) and give people the option of going to the moon for vacation or such. But I'd love more being able to have a life after death with the promises of Jesus fulfilled.
    Rc

  • StupidGenius said on Aug 30, 2008....

    With science we can prove the moon exists. The afterlife is just a huge leap of Blind Faith. I have a big problem with that. If my doctor claimed I had lung cancer without examining me, I would have a big problem with that also. That’s the problem, The religious just make random claims based on "A feeling" or "Blind Faith" and science makes a claim once it has been tested hundreds of times in hundreds of different ways.

    When it comes down to the crunch with an illness etc, it’s the doctors you go to to make you better, not the Church. If the Church could cure cancer we wouldn’t need hospitals.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Aug 30, 2008....
    The church is about curing souls not cancer.  :^)  Rc
  • StupidGenius said on Aug 30, 2008....
    Define Soul
  • RollingC said on Aug 30, 2008....
    Your inner being.    :^)  Rc
  • truthsayer said on Aug 30, 2008....
    Hi traveler.  I have to tell you that I am smiling and shaking my head with some of what you wrote and Mamie's response to you.  : )  

    Okay, you said:

    mamie - none of that was intended as an insult to women, as i stated in the comment. it was all quoted from psychology and sociology classes i have taken and texts i have read, as well my own experience. quoting established fact is not arrogance. i would say that the emotional reaction you had to my scientifically backed statements just helps to prove my point. just as a further point of clairification, i did not say that women could not be logical nor did i say that men could not be emotional. i said that women react first from their emotions, not from their intellect. to expand, a woman will first think about how she feels about a thing, and then use her intellect to quantify and qualify that thing based on those feelings. a man will qualify it by how he thinks about it first, and then apply emotion second, if any.

    Now, I say:

    I am sorry traveler, but I can barely write this because you probably really believe the things you have read in your psychology and sociology books.  You are probably a student...undergrad?  Or Masters?  

    Anyway, there are studies all over the place in academia.  I know, I was there. I still am, in a way.  It made an indelible mark on me; that is certain.  But you absolutely must be careful NOT TO GENERALIZE.  Or you will certainly have a much harder time in life.  Facts change.  They are temporary and usually quite general.

    You have not met Mamie, nor was she a part of any study ; )

    So I have a question for you...and you don't have to expound either.  Be as brief as you like.  One word, if you choose.

    How about truthsayer?  Emotional?  I am sure that you consider most Christians to be illogical.  I too love Einstein. I even identify with his struggles...more than you could possibly understand.  He helped me to survive.  Anyway, I too digress.  

    1. How about truthsayer?  

    2. Can a male Christian be logical?

    Thanks for entertaining my questions traveler.  I am still smiling by the way.  Whoops! Is humor a male or a female trait?  Wait...maybe Mamie isn't a chick after all! ; ) 

    Truth : ) 

    Worf?  I am really enjoying this blog man.  I really appreciate it.  Truth : )

    And Grape???  Wow!  Why don't you talk like this, about these things, MORE OFTEN?  Let it shine man!  Let it shine!  

    Love y'all.

    : ) Truthsayer : ) 
  • truthsayer said on Aug 30, 2008....
    I gotta go check my blog.  But I'll be back.  Someone told me this was really a good blog and I came to check it out.  See you later.  Thanks again Worf!  Truth : )
  • Knowledge1 said on Aug 30, 2008....

    SG... I agree with you about the after life, I don't believe the end is the beginnig. That when we die that is when our life trully begins, if we think that we are living holy. Ecclesiastes 9:3-6 reads...this is the evil in everything that happens  under the sun: the same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of men, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead. Anyone among the living have hope- even a live dog is better off than a dead lion! FOR THE LIVING KNOW THAT  THEY WILL DIE BUT THE DEAD KNOW NOTHING; THEY HAVE NO FURTHER   REWARD AND EVEN THE MEMORY OF THEM IS FORGOTTEN. THEIR LOVE; THEIR HATE AND THEIR JEALOUSY HAVE LONG SINCE BEEN VANISHED; NEVER AGAIN WILL THEY HAVE A PART IN ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS UNDER THE SUN. Heaven ain't a place where you can go sit down, it is an exalted state of living, when you are live in one with the spirit and  true knowledge of God.

     

  • travelr712 said on Aug 30, 2008....

    how about truthsayer? are you asking my personal opinion of you?

    and i did not say that christians can't be logical. i did not say women can't be logical. i said, in fact that women are logical. i also said that they react, or filter things, first through their emotions.

    people will believe what they want to believe, and that becomes their reality. for decades, people believed there were canals on mars, because one amature astronemer had a fuzzy telescope. that is an example of scientists believing something that was not true.

    as to the psychology i was stating, i was using that as a vehicle to show mamie that i was not being arrogant, i was stating established fact.  it was she that became insulting, not me. in other words, just because a person does not like the fact that the moon is not made of green cheese, it is inappropriate for that person to call another an asshole when they state that it is not, no matter how much they may want it to be true.

  • travelr712 said on Aug 30, 2008....

    how about truthsayer? are you asking my personal opinion of you?

    and i did not say that christians can't be logical. i did not say women can't be logical. i said, in fact that women are logical. i also said that they react, or filter things, first through their emotions.

    people will believe what they want to believe, and that becomes their reality. for decades, people believed there were canals on mars, because one amature astronemer had a fuzzy telescope. that is an example of scientists believing something that was not true.

    as to the psychology i was stating, i was using that as a vehicle to show mamie that i was not being arrogant, i was stating established fact.  it was she that became insulting, not me. in other words, just because a person does not like the fact that the moon is not made of green cheese, it is inappropriate for that person to call another an asshole when they state that it is not, no matter how much they may want it to be true.

  • Mamie said on Aug 30, 2008....

    aw, travlr: now you went and took what I said as an insult...what I stated was that you are unclear as to why you ended up alone and from your other blogs you had planned to return to being an ass where you thought you were more respected anyway...yet your comment was a very narrow, sexist and limited view on emotion and logic as if they are exclusive in a particular order based on gender. There is not one study that will stand by that. It is a generalized version of maybe mid 80s psychology....there are many published articles and studies about men and women who cannot see their own paradigms and suffer loss because of it.....you were saying...."as to the psychology i was stating, i was using that as a vehicle to show mamie that i was not being arrogant, i was stating established fact.  it was she that became insulting, not me. in other words, just because a person does not like the fact that the moon is not made of green cheese, it is inappropriate for that person to call another an asshole when they state that it is not, no matter how much they may want it to be true. "

    (oh I wish, how I wish it was made of green cheese, coz I am just a girlie and will hold my breath if you tell me its not....kinda like that?)

    what I had said was:
    Specifically true narcissists think that every statement of thought is a judgment against them and that the other person is misguided and weak. It is strange to watch but easy to identify when the list of their complaints change over from a sharing of beliefs to a whining of "yea, buts...." The textbook version of that is called "wallowing in self pity" for whatever reason.
    (I continued ....)
     I wish you all Peace...with yourself and with your interactions...Respect...in receiving and hoping to understand others points of view...forgiveness, not in accepting anothers point of view as your own...but in allowing the exchange to happen without arrogance. Release of the anger in your heart...against the people or person who put it there, vs those of us who are just sayin;....there is no anger here, only love...and friendship. accept it. for once.
     
    **That was not an insult...but this one is, I will admit that I think you are a fraud. You are on here to manipulate women and establish a co-dependent type relationship with them. You apparently drove a sweet girl away and now you are taking advantage of a young girl WHO COULD BE YOUR DAUGHTER who is emotionally fragile as she faces a very scary time in her life. There is no sincerity in your words, they are thick with need, and your need alone. If you could isolate the women from others, I bet that would make you even happier.
     
    I love how you tell people, my pm is always open to you...and how long before you get them on your web cam? Wake up., Travlr, nobody is fooled by you and I will stop trying to be nice and then having your arrogance send posts way off center. Oh one other thing, you think you are an expert on everything and you are not.
    None of us is. Like Dr. Phil has said: either you get it or you don't. You don't ,I guess and that's cool if that's what works for you, I am not tricked by the words you use, nor am I impressed.
    Peace Out.
     
    apology to worf, sorry for the hijack. I will see you 'round. Peace and long life to you!
  • truthsayer said on Aug 30, 2008....
    Whoa.  I thought she was being humorous.  How did we get here?  Anyway, anything I might have added wouldn't be appropriate now.  Just remember that women can be right brain/left brain integrated.  Saying that they are emotional first, isn't really accounting for anyone that might be "different", you know?  

    Mamie, I gotcha.  I don't know what preceded this, but I know that you aren't quick to draw.  Web cam???  

    Worf, you're not in trouble with anyone.  At least not me : )

    Thanks folks.

    Truth : )
  • RollingC said on Aug 30, 2008....
    Well I'll have you know one and all that the moon is not made out of green cheese, anyone can see that it's yellow cheese...much like the Swiss variety.
    :^)
    Rc
  • travelr712 said on Aug 30, 2008....
    just which girl are you talking about mamie?
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Aug 31, 2008....
    Hello EVeryone,

    I'm Really pressed for time But...
    "i can't exactly describe why, but things like that excite me, and give me hope for the future. guess i'm just wierd." Travelr, I'm weird right along with you. 

    "I think you're right in trying to bring God into the 21st Century but I wonder if that's worded the proper way.  I would think that bringing our concept of God into the 21st Century might be more appropriate for God," RollingC, I'm glad you see my point, and yes, you may be right about the phrasing of the statement.

    "Science takes God out of any equation due simply to its logic. You say science is beautiful and so is god, that statement is contradictory" SG, only to a shallow thinker. You talk about science, have you not ever heard of a paradox?  Better know as a scientific Contradiction? 

    Truthsayer, I reaaly enjoyed your blog as well.  One might say it was part of my inspiration for this one.  Thank you.


    People, this is a vey interesting Conversation.  t's Sunday Morning andI have to get ready for Church, which is a big part of MY life.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf  



  • travelr712 said on Aug 31, 2008....
    enjoy the service worf.
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 01, 2008....

    Why do you guys even bother to quote bible passages? With every year that passes the bible becomes less credible. It is already on its last legs. People pick and choose when it comes to the bible. Some will quite happily accept it is inaccurate, full of historical falsities and not the word of god and some claim it is absolute. The bible is not a reliable source when it comes to Jesus, God, or anything else. As historically significant books go it is one of the best fairy stories ever written but it is laughable to suggest it is accurate in any way shape or form.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 01, 2008....
    Wrong again SG.....
  • travelr712 said on Sep 01, 2008....

    i understand what sg is saying i think. he puts it a bit harshly, as i have in the past. here's how i see it. the bible, the koran, all of those texts that are used as the foundation and proof of a particular religion, are the writings of people trying to describe their perception of the universe, and what they call 'god'. there are many good quotes in those books that i use from time to time, because they describe a particular emotion or situation concisely, and are a common point of reference between myself and the person i am quoting to. in our times, we are attempting to describe our perception of the universe using science. so that does not make these books, or science, inherently right or inherently wrong, they are merely different methods of doing the same thing.

    there is a difference between the two. you cannot use the bible to put men on the moon, but you can use science to do that. you cannot use science to comfort in times of need, but you can use the bible for that.

  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 01, 2008....
    Hello Everyone,

    One thing you have to give SG is that he's consistent.  Consistently wrong, but Consistent nonetheless. While it is true that we find new evidence, almost everyday it seems, that shows that zealots may have screwed thing up over many years. all It soes for some of us is take out thinking in another direction.  It does not tell us there si not God.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf   . 
  • travelr712 said on Sep 01, 2008....

    yes worf, it does not deny the existance of god, anymore than the bible or any other religious writing proves the existance of god. i also keep in mind that we do not have the originals of any of those manuscripts, and the oldest full text copies that we do have were subject to 1000 years of copy and interpretation. also that these books were written in a different time, in a different culture, in a different language. there is actually no way to conclusively prove that the people who their writings are attributed to wrote them, or even existed. all of those elements must be taken on faith.

    let me put it this way.

    there are many texts, movies, et. al. about a man named king arthur. there are many who believe that a king named arthur existed and ruled in england. but there is no corroborating evidence that this man existed or that the events attributed to him actually happened. there seems to be evidence that an early king of england, the son or grandson of a roman general, was the first king of that island, but that the events attributed to him and his contemporaries have been modified, did not take place, or at the very least, are not accurate. so by necessity, this story must be placed in the catagory of fiction.

    there is only circumstantial evidence that alexander the great existed, not conclusive. there are monuments and manuscripts from many cultures throughout the mediterranean, people who were alive at the time he was and witnessed the events themselves, discribing events in the same way. there are originals of the documents written by these people. some of the monuments are still in existance. so that's a way of cross checking that he did exist and that the events did take place. so we can safely put alexander in the catagory of fact.

    we have the body and tomb of tutankhamun. we also have corroborating documents and monuments of his existance and actions. we have physical proof that he existed, was the ruler of egypt, and did certain acts during his period of rule. so we can conclusively put him in the catagory of fact.

    with the bible, there is no corroborating evidance from the period that it was supposedly written. there are no bodies of abraham, moses, christ or paul. there are no grave markers or monuments built for them by the people who lived in the time they were supposed to have lived. all that evidance was created decades later, including the writings of the new testament. and there is not a single sentence in any of those texts that were written by a man named jesus, who as attributed in the book, could and did write. so what you end up with is a collection of translated texts of what men said that other men a thousand years before supposedly said that a man decades before said, and no other evidence that any of it existed. that makes the entire belief system totally based on faith, not fact.

    given that this is the actual state of the bible, it cannot be used as proof of it's own truth, just as any text written about arthur cannot be used as proof of it's own truth. is the story of the sword in the stone truth or fiction? we have no way of knowing. so it must be placed in the catagory of fiction. this is because corroborating evidence is the only way we as humans have of determining fact from fiction. for this reason, those texts must, by logic and centuries of agreement between humans in determining, be placed in the catagory of fiction.

  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 01, 2008....
    Travelr.

    "yes worf, it does not deny the existance of god, anymore than the bible or any other religious writing proves the existance of god. i also keep in mind that we do not have the originals of any of those manuscripts, and the oldest full text copies that we do have were subject to 1000 years of copy and interpretation. also that these books were written in a different time, in a different culture, in a different language. there is actually no way to conclusively prove that the people who their writings are attributed to wrote them, or even existed. all of those elements must be taken on faith."

    I couldn't agree with you more.  I scream this from the roof tops, but nobody hears me.  I love that you said this, but you are preaching to the choir, so to speak.  Read my new Blog.  I'd be interested in your thoughts, and,though I may regret it, those of others. Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf
  • RollingC said on Sep 01, 2008....
    Exactamundo gentlemen......  The Bible was written...inspired by God or not....so long ago that one must take into account not only the language of the time but the linguistic expressions thereof also.
    When one reads in the Bible that ahhh...so and so....(no disrespect intended but can't remember the book or verse at the moment)  lived to be 900yrs and someone else lived to be 400yrs and so on.  
    You have to take into account not only the supposed language and expressions of the time but also the perceptions of the time.  In those days they thought the stars and the sun rotated around the earth so don't you think that may have some influence on how they express themselves?
    Back to the longevity of the people of that time. 
    Since they didn't have any clocks, internet time or any such system in place one has to think what methods they used to perceive time.  Such as the passing of the seasons.  If they expressed the passing of the seasons as a year and then you take the number of years such a person was said to live...divide by 4.....then all of a sudden the number of years start becoming more plausible don't you think?
    I am no expert but although I do believe (and very firmly) in God and the Bible, I also have to take into account that it was written by human hands...no matter how inspired they might have been...and those thoughts were expressed in human thinking terms also.
    My humble opinion....
    Rc  
  • GrapeKoolaid said on Sep 01, 2008....

    I love watching people light the candle at the altar of science, prostrated before the power and the glorious vanity of knowledge.  Not to mention the smug sense of self satisfaction contained therein.  What makes the candle burn, btw?  Phlogiston?  ;)

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are...  IT'S A KILLER ROBOT!!!  RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!  :D

    To say that the Bible is insignificant, or to plainly dismiss it as "archaic" is in my opinion, just plain lazy scholarship.  The impact the Christian faith has had on the Western world, the foundation and formulation of it, the development of it throughout the history, the transference of divine and political power throughout parts of Europe, and the development of art and music in congruence with the faith is undeniable.  It behooves anyone who is a part of the Western world to study their culture, their history, and it's impossible to excise Christianity from it.  The fact of the matter is, religion is a font of politics and if you can't see that, you gotta go get your learn on. 

    You guys get a big frowny face.  :(  

    Of course, that doesn't mean the people that see the Bible as the literal, written word of God get a passing grade, either.  If anything, they get a bonk on the head, and the definition of the word, "Allegory" read aloud to them.  Over and over.  The Bible is rich with lessons in basic human behavior and decency, lessons on the community, harmony, so on and so forth.  There are some pretty wild tales mixed in it too, but isn't that the fun of it?  

    I will say that the twelve tribes have had a disproportionate impact on Western Civilization compared to it's relative square footage. 

    I'm not assigning a value judgement on that statement, btw.  Take it as what it is. 

    truthsayer:  I don't discuss topics of this nature very often because I personally find it a difficult subject to broach.  Call it a limitation of language or what have you, but I have to give words careful consideration before laying them out, but even when I do, I find that most of the times, it doesn't properly convey what I am thinking, or trying to say, even.  See what I mean?  I get incredibly long winded without saying anything substantial. 

    SG:  You sir, are what I call a true believer.  There's no wiggle room for you.  You're just as dogmatic in your beliefs as Fred Phelps is of his church.  Keep your zealotry to yourself.  

    Mamie:  o_O!!!  Remind me never to get on your bad side.  Did it just get a little cold in here?  BRRRRRR!!!  I need a coat!!!  

    Sorry Worf.  I couldn't resist.  I'm heading over to your other post now. 


  • travelr712 said on Sep 01, 2008....

    excellent points rc. add to it the fact that if it was truely a man named moses who wrote those things down (and it is highly doubtful that he did, and even that there was such a man), he wrote those things centuries after they took place, and from oral accounts passed down for those centuries, just as the arthur legends have been. so can we take what he said that someone else said about people who were ancient to him, especially when he is ancient to us, as 'ultimate truth'? being human, we cannot, or we are opening ourselves to a very high potential of being fooled, used, manipulated.

    grape, congrats on you and ginger. i had no idea. i hope you two continue to be as happy together as you both sound like you are.

    i'm not sure if you were directing the first part of your comments at me, and if you weren't, disreguard what follows. but if you were, then i've given the wrong impression. i don't bow down to the alter of science either, as you'll see if you read my comments on worf's next post. i believe the bible and the physics book each have their own uses, and quote from both often. and i agree with you that religion in intertwined with politics. politics is about governing people, about perception turning into action, about focusing what people believe into changing the reality around them, which is also inherent in religion. they cannot be separated from one another.

    as to mamie. i don't mind what she said about me. she doesn't know me. and she was waaaaaay off on what she said. you see, mamie is one of the biggest pm and email gossips on this site. i know, because when i posted that my ex was moving back in with me, she jumped on the opportunity to befriend her in order to extract grist for her gossip mill. what she didn't think about was the fact that my ex's computer sat next to mine, so i could see what they were writing to each other. the information she has posted here came from my ex, word for word. my ex, especially where i am concerned, has a tendancy to misinterpret my actions and like all religious zealots, will firmly stand on her interpretation, even in the face of contradictory evidence. it is one of the main reasons we are no longer together.

    and the comment about a young woman? well, my 24 yr old daughter is happily married to a 42 year old man. they are coming up on their 2nd anniversary. in the arena of romantic relationships, age is never a factor. but for mamie to have made an issue of it in the way she did, using it as evidence that i am some depraved, lecherous old man praying on all the women of soulcast, just shows how narrow minded, judgemental, spiteful and completely wrong she is. you notice she did not come back and answer my question as to which women she was talking about? all accusation, no substantiation. but that's the method of a gossip, isn't it?

    she is not a person that i ever care to get to know in any way, shape or form, because those types of people are just out to aswage their own inner deamons by unnecessarily hurting others around them, just so they can feel superior. not my cuppa, ya know?

    sorry to hijack your blog worf, but somewhere, deep down inside, i don't think you mind? turning it back over to you :-)

  • StupidGenius said on Sep 01, 2008....

    I may sound harsh but we live in the real world. The real world is Harsh. I have the following problems with the Bible;

    Most people are familiar with the "Ten Commandments" that were given to Moses in the book of Exodus (Ex. 20:3-17), but what these people don't realize, is that these are not the Ten Commandments that were placed in the Ark of the Covenant.  God didn't even call the commandments mentioned in Exodus 20, The Ten Commandments.  The actual Ten Commandments were given in Exodus 34:14-26.

    1.  For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

    2.  Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

    3.  The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.

    4.  All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.

    5.  Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

    6.  And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

    7.  Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.

    8.  Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the feast of the Passover be left until the morning.

    9.  The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.

    10.  Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

    This is the only place in the bible where "god" states ten commandments.

    **Morality evolves and existed before Religion. Religion simply wrote the rules down and claimed that they invented them.**

    The Gospels are very inconsistant and unfactual . Here are just a couple of problems,

    Matthew 1:23  Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

    This verse was actually taken from Isaiah 7:14, which is said to be the prophecy of Jesus' birth.  No where in the New Testament is the man that is called Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of the living God ever referred to as Emmanuel.

    Matthew 4:8  Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.

    The devil takes Jesus to the top of an "exceeding" high mountain to show him "all" the kingdoms of the world.  You can't see the whole earth at once; no matter how high the mountain is, because the earth is spherical.  This would only be possible if the author thought the earth was flat.

    Problems I have with the desciption of Jesus;

    Luke 14:26  If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

    Matthew 10:34  Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword.

    I could go on. And I will if you require. Dont tell me "Oh you need to accept Jesus to understand his teaching" or "You have taken them out of context" or It wasnt ment that way..." I know how they are ment. They are clear. The blindness of Faith will make people read what they want to read. Clear your mind for a moment and really read the bible. Dont listen to your religious leaders view on it, read it for yourself.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 01, 2008....
    I always had a problem with accepting the invitation of Jesus to be with the Father and His prayer...Our Father...always was blindly accepted by me until one day it  " dawned " on me that we all are the " adopted " children of God.  Specially if we go through Jesus.
    That day the last nagging thought disappeared and I fully " accepted " Jesus.  It also shed a new light of understanding of his teachings from a very personal p.o.v.
    I " understood all along "  His teachings (most of them anyway) but accepting Him helped a lot. 
    Some people want to stay stubborn and not accept which is fine by me for who am I to  " push " you or anyone through that door.  I think it can be done with lies (like a salesman pushing a product) but that contradicts the very essence of the message of Love that Jesus is giving us.
    All I can do is show the door and maybe even how to open it but walking through it is each person's responsibility and no one else.
    You can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink....and taking him to water again and again if the horse doesn't want to drink doesn't do anything but tire me out.
    Sincerely,
    Rc
  • RollingC said on Sep 01, 2008....
    Travelr.... I've been to Bible study classes where the priest plainly told us that nobody really knows who wrote the Bible and it certainly had more than one author.
    He also stated that although it was even doubtful that the " books " were written by the actual authors they claim to be from,  there is no doubt that it was unaltered through the ages with the minor exception/difference of some translation but that even after ages of writing and re-writing the book was at least 99% the same as the original text.

    I think the only question would be ( if someone wants to nitpick ) is the original interpretation staying the same after a translation into another language.

    Not to mention, of course, the intended messages...... which as we all know are freely interpreted in different ways by different people for different purposes....but that's subject for another topic.

    Rc


  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 01, 2008....
    Rolling C,

    Your Priest was correct.  We know that there were several authors.  We also know that while Mark is the earliest known Gospel. The Gospel of Mathew was probably written by someone else and attributed to Mathew.  This is not an uncommon literary practice.  Even today I can still read novels by Issac Asimov, and Robert Ludlum even though they have been dead for some years now. 

    When you want to get a point across it is sometimes easier to do it using the name of someone people consider an authority.  Does that make it any less valid?  Depends on who you ask.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf  
  • travelr712 said on Sep 01, 2008....

    but that's what i'm talking about rc. we don't know that what we have is 99% accurate, because we do not have the original texts. so to say that we know is incongruous. many believe that's true, and like your priest, state it as 'knowing' it's true. perhaps it is the choice of terms. people will say they 'know' something is true when they only believe it without concrete proof.

    here is the whole crux of the issue as far as i'm concerned. with the extrordinary claims made by the bible, and the high position that it has maintained throughout the cultures of the last 1700 years (before constantine, it did not exist. and today, it is not in the same form in which it was originally compiled), that it is necessary for it to be proven correct. such things as dubious authorship of books, no original text, no corroborating evidence, and many other incongruities, relagates it to the catagory of fiction, no matter how much a person might 'know' (believe, feel, are convinced) it is fact.

    here is why that is important. if people accept on 'faith' that this bible is a book inspired by a creator being full of true accounts, then it can be interpreted and used to cause those people to do things that they otherwise would not. now, in some cases, those are good things. perhaps you help a stranded motorist or give money to a poor person because you read that you would be pleasing this creator being in doing so. sometimes those are bad things. perhaps you would use the armies of your country to invade and attempt genocide on another culture because they claim a different diety, and you did that because you read in the book that infidels should be totally anhailated, along with their cats, dogs, buffalo and teepees. this book has been used in both contexts, good and bad, over and over.

    but in order to claim it as 'the truth', it is necessary for such a text to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that is true. this book has not even been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to live up to the claims made about it. therefore, in order to keep it from being used to cause such great harm as it has in the past, it must be relagated as fiction, allegory, anything but 'truth' for the future of mankind. that classification will not lessen the impact or meaning of the lessons taught in it, just as aesop's fables are still important moral texts. but no one fights wars, enslaves populations, takes money from the masses to build huge structures,  exercises control over societies, or tells another what to believe or not believe and austracises them if they do not agree, in the name of aesop's fables.

    i know it is difficult for people to give up the idea that something they were taught to believe, and have so long believed, is true. but just like we all are now having to accept the fact that there are only 8 planets in our solar system, not nine, and the earth still spins, we must accept that this book cannot be called 'truth', and the sun will continue to rise.
  • Mamie said on Sep 01, 2008....

    hello! Happy Labor Day to all of you! I will leave y'all to your discussion and just want to say to travelr...

    oops! Sorry! I thought you were the web cam guy who molested and manipulated women and had strange relationships with women on this blog site all while pretending you were an average joe....I must have been wrong. I ask your forgiveness.

     It is a funny guess that you think I am an avid pm'er gossip? It is a fun guess in any event and that I befriended your ex wife and that I can quote her word for word...fun guess but WRONG! You don't know who I know in real life but you are right about one thing: I DO NOT know you and therefore, even though I stand by saying that the behavior mentioned is disgusting, I have no reason to use your own words against you.... even if I think it was sexist and blatant. You are free to think and say what you want here as that is the core of this whole site, yes?

    I am sorry if my comment made you feel upset, pissed off, or badly. I again apologize. I know this is a big site and I am sure you will not have to know me in any 'way, shape or form'...please continue to enjoy this conversation.


    Now back to our regular programming. best to all, mamie 

  • travelr712 said on Sep 01, 2008....

    i have concrete evidence to the contrary mamie, but spin things any way you like. you did not upset me. anonymous writers on a blog site do not upset me. i find it interesting tho that you have set yourself up as an expert on what relationships should and should not be by calling mine 'strange'. having not participated in any of them, that is merely you being judgemental. and i have never pretended to be an 'average joe', quite the contrary. i often comment that i am 'different, odd, strange', which to some is appealing, and to others such as yourself, downright scarry. but that is also a method of a gosip. they take bits and pieces of information, process them through their own perception of false reality, and regurgitate that back out to a network of people who trust them on just their word. that makes it easy for them to make something sound true without having to provide any evidence that it is actually true. i have never met a single person from this site, so i could not have molested anyone. i have never intentionally manipulated anyone for my own personal gain. but manipulation is a tricky word. people manipulate each other in normal circumstances every day. my daughter, perhaps, may ask me to go out and get her a glass of water. she has manipulated me, but not in a bad way. however, your use of the term has been applied to malign my character, and as you have stated yourself here, you do not know me, so you have no basis other than your own twisted perception to make such alligations.

    yes, i have used a web cam. mostly with one particular person who i was in a singular, committed relationship with. before that, i did not even own one. the purpose of a web cam in a forum such as this is to be able to establish that someone is who they present themselves to be. you can post a picture and say it is you all day long, but you cannot represent yourself as someone else when there is a live motion camera trained on you. i have only used my web cam on a sparing few occasions since that relationship, and always for the purpose of confirmation of identity. but again, you do not know me, you were not a participant in any of those encounters, so all you have is your twisted perception and baseless alligations that you spread throughout the pm boxes of this site.

    it is you who is the fraud, mamie, trying to appear a fine upstanding individual above the likes of the the depraved me. but in truth, you are the derogatory form of the manipulator.

  • StupidGenius said on Sep 02, 2008....

    Dont worry "god" will save you both.... lol

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 02, 2008....
    Well you may have something there Travelr...as far as the originals....the true originals....are who knows where.  But we at least know that 99% of them have stayed true down thru the ages. 
    :^)
    Rc
  • travelr712 said on Sep 02, 2008....
    but there is just my point rc. without the originals, how can we know that they are 99% accurate? without the originals to compare them to, at best you can say you believe them to be 99% accurate. and with the oldest full text versions we have being a millenium worth of copy and translation, to me, that is a huge leap of faith at best. not to sound harsh, but to me, this is how mythology is propogated. someone says 'the texts are 99% accurate'. but they leave out key elements of evaluation in order to make such claims. but the claims seem to fit with people's desires to believe one way or another, so they accept those claims without asking for answers to those significant questions, and just as with worf's tortoise and runner example, we end up with a paradox. now, that doesn't mean that the texts are not 99% accurate. they may be. but the important point is the difference between may be and are. and when you're dealing with 'ultimate universal spiritual truth', you better be able to say are, and back it up, or as with anything else in this world, the subject must be relegated to fiction.
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 02, 2008....

    Fiction is the key word, If a book is not factual then is it considered Fictional. When you buy a book from a book shop and it says "Based on a true story" it is not placed in the Factual section of Books. It is placed in the Fiction Section.

    The Fiction Section is where the bable belongs. (I ment to spell it Bable by the way!)

    SG

  • Knowledge1 said on Sep 02, 2008....

    Travelr, I agree with you. We all think we know, when in fact we don't know, we have faith in what we believe. There is a truth, but no ones knows it, that is when faith or conspiracy theories step in. That is why churches and scientists argue among themselves about what they believe to be the truth, when all they have is faith. You can't argue the truth because its foundation is secured with facts, but you can argue faith. What is faith? Faith is...the substance of things hoped for, and evidence of things not seen. What a definition!!  No matter what people think we all have faith in some shape, form, or fashion. Whenever we invest money, we have faith that we are going to make more money. The act of investing  money without knowing the outcome is faith. In a sence you are praying to gain, instead of lose. The act of investing is the substance of things hoped for....whether you gain or lose is the evidence of things not seen. This is the same with people in religion. They invest their efforts into things that they hope will get them into heaven.

  • StupidGenius said on Sep 02, 2008....

    Faith can never be called Evidence

    SG

  • Knowledge1 said on Sep 02, 2008....
    HOW
  • Knowledge1 said on Sep 02, 2008....

    The evidence of things not seen...How was man created ?

  • StupidGenius said on Sep 02, 2008....

    Through a slow gradual evolutionary process. The Skulls of early man can be seen in museums and they show the process.

    SG

  • travelr712 said on Sep 02, 2008....

    the simple fact is, knowledge, that if any of these things could be proven, we would not be discussing their validity. it sounds to me from your comment that you understand this. but i'm wondering about your interpretation of paul's quote. you seem to be saying that it is faith that gives substance to hope, and proves evidence of unseen things. but that's not necessarily what paul meant by his statement. i read that as when there is no substance to your hope, you substitute faith, and when there is no evidence to the things you can see, you substitute faith. am i conveying the difference there properly? i'm not so sure i am. let me take it a step further. the 'faith' that he was labeling was faith in god, faith in their religion. so when you have no reason to hope, you can substitute the belief in god for substance of hope. now, that's a nice sentiment, it'll help you get through emotionally difficult times, but it is deffinately not proof of anything. it was meant for a person to internalize, not profess. does that make sense?

    and thus is another difficulty with a text written in another time, in another culture, in another language. the meaning can be interpreted so many different ways, who is to judge which is correct? in the past when i've asked that question, the answer usually has been 'scholars study and crossreference the scriptures to determine the meaning'. and that's true. but these scholars nonetheless are still determining meaning based on their own bias. and for centuries, you could not even read those scriptures unless you were indoctrinated in the 'correct interpretation' by the catholic church, and the texts we now have were interpreted by scribes who were so indoctrinated and approved by the church before they were allowed to be distributed. so those older texts say what the men of that period wanted them to say. we have no idea what the original texts actually said, and even less what the meaning behind them could be.

  • Knowledge1 said on Sep 02, 2008....
    Slow gradual evolutionary process. What did man evolve from ?
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 02, 2008....

    We are all animals, we would have looked similar to an Ape. The sculls discovered show a smaller brain cavity, bones that moved within the facial structure to increase the space for a larger brain and the nose cavity was wider and flatter. We would have had alot more hair also as it aided body warmth.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 02, 2008....

    As far as the Bible is concerned...sure, the true originals have been lost in time but not the re-writing pdi's (pass down information). And it can be verified that those copies have been true for at least a millenium.  

    I personally don't feel the need to go all the way back to the beginning.  We as Christians have been studying ancient manuscripts called the Bible for longer than one millenium and it has stayed consistent all that time.  Anyone that wants more proof will have to go dig it up from the ruins themselves, learn Aramic and ancient Greek or Latin (or all 3) to satisfy his curiosity as far as the translations from previous texts.

    Sure it's an intriguing thought and even fun to nitpick whether this meant that but the real matter is at hand.  Right here and right now.

    What exactly do you believe and where do you want to go with that believe. If you don't believe then you don't but what are you (or anyone for that matter) doing about the real life problems and questions that you run into during the course of your life ?

    Why argue in circles about subjects that WE cannot solve.  Wouldn't it be more beneficial to argue/discuss something that could actually be beneficial to us and others ?

    Sure there's been a lot of negative things concerning the use of religion as a smokescreen to gain personal wealth and position.... but there's been good accomplished also yet nobody cares to discuss that.... why ?

    If we focus on the positive...bypassing the negative....how much more can we accomplish by not wasting energy in unproductive discussions/talk/etc. ?

    Wouldn't it be more productive for everyone to figure out a way to turn the negative things around and express them in positive tones?

    Kinda hard to do I'll admit but it's worth the effort don't you think?


    Rc

  • travelr712 said on Sep 02, 2008....

    that's a perfect example rc. you don't care to go back past 1000 years. you are using your faith as the substance for the things you hope for and the evidence you do not see.

    ok, say you and i were good friends in real life. say i was in california and you were in new york. say you got a letter with my name and address on it, telling you i had been in a terrible accident, and asking you to come to me. would you just run right out and jump on a plane? i'd say not. you would try to contact me, find out more particulars, confirm that what you read was the truth before you took such action. you would want proof. now, you might not characterize your reaction as wanting proof, but in truth, you would want to know that it was really me who wrote the letter, and that you didn't misunderstand the message, that i wasn't just depressed and venting, that sort of thing. you would seek that confirmation before you would take the steps of taking time off your job, spending all the money, and taking such an arduous trip. and you know me, have talked to me, live in my time, can find out what i really meant by the message i sent you.

  • RollingC said on Sep 02, 2008....
    Not necessarily....I'd start making preparations to go while at the same time try to contact you or your relatives.
    When my father died I didn't call anybody else other than the State Dept. to get my passport expedited....and the airline co. trying to get a decent price.
    I'd definitely try to contact you of course but if we were friends you'd think I could recognize your handwriting.  Not even that,  I'd call more concerned about your health and if it was serious/life-threatening I'd do my best to rush there.
    This wouldn't be a good example I think.

    And actually we as a society show a greater amount of faith and trust than anybody gives credit for.....and it's all taken for granted.  
    When you put your garbage out on the corner you know it's going to get picked up and taken away (unless something drastic happened but that's not the norm).
    Doesn't that show a certain amount of trust and faith?

    Gotta go...will check in later tonight.
    Rc
  • andora said on Sep 02, 2008....
    HOLY SHIITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • travelr712 said on Sep 02, 2008....
    until it starts piling up rc, then you start asking around to find out what happened to the garbage man.
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 02, 2008....
    HAHAHAHAHA Travelr, RollingC you guys are too much.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 02, 2008....

    No comments on the Ape explanation then lol.

    SG

  • Knowledge1 said on Sep 03, 2008....
    No SG, Travelr is right. Next I would ask you where did the ape evolve from and so on.  You would give an answer, Then I would ask you, why aren't those things still evolving into man today. Then you would have some type of answer. Eventually you would begin guessing.  Bottom line is that we all believe in the trustworthiness of a idea. I am wise enough to know that know one knows the true origin of life, so are the rest of the guys on this blog, and that is what I want you to understand. Not to prove you wrong, because I can't and neither can you prove me wrong. 
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 03, 2008....

    Evolution doesn’t require guesswork. If you don’t trust me then look for your self.

    If you want an answer to any of the above then let me know.

    SG

     

  • travelr712 said on Sep 03, 2008....

    i disagree sg. there is ample supposition in the theory of evolution, that is why it is still classed as a theory. it is a more reasonable explaination than 'some mysterious unknowable being took a leak in the mud and up popped jessie jackson', but there are many holes. darwin himself said it cannot be proven until the completion of the fosil record, which will never be completed.

    myself, i prefer to view events through the lense of the more reasonable than that of mysterious leaking beings, but that is my choice, and as long as no one austracises me for my beliefs, i'll leave them to theirs.

    i always thought it rather interesting the description of the creation of man in genesis. i don't believe that the translation 'dust of the earth' is accurate. i believe that the writer was trying to convey something more along the lines of what we call 'primordial ooze'. another translator's trick to separate religion from science, imo.

  • StupidGenius said on Sep 03, 2008....

    There is no supposition, point it out to me if you know of one. The mechanisms of evolution are Theory but Evolution is Fact. The data, evidence and information all prove evolution. The mechanism for evolution is classed as theory. I should point out that the mechanism theory is as close to being fact as measuring the distance from New York to Florida to within a hairs breadth using a ruler.

    Look it up and you will see the above can be confirmed.

    SG

  • Knowledge1 said on Sep 03, 2008....
    Come on SG, You know what we are saying. We are talking about creation. You know we know that evolution is real. Diseases and bacteria evolve all the time!! You cannot prove that evolution is the beginning of life on Earth. There is a unknown force that caused evolution to take place. What is that force SG ? I mean, did it just happen ? I don't believe that it happened like the Bible said either, but there is a beginning to life, and every explantion is a theory because no one knows. Now if you know, please let us know. Worf's blog could have ended long ago if you had this knowledge. Why are you keeping it to yourself ? I will be waiting, and it better be good.
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 03, 2008....

    Firstly knowledge1 not everyone believes in Evolution, I have consistently had to explain the process, point to references and advise people go and look at transitional species fossils. Evolution is the Fact that life evolves, the mechanisms of evolution as I have said are within a hairs breadth of being fact but are still considered a theory.

    The question you ask is probably the best question I have ever been asked in a blog of any kind in relation to evolution.

    There are several workable theories including RNA world hypothesis, Cairns-Smith theory or simply starting with organic molecules found in mud puddles or streams created by the fast changing climate of early earth once it had cooled sufficiently. The soon to be activated LHC (Large Hadron Collider) should answer your question as it will re-enact the big bang and therefore recreate the particles present at the beginning (1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang) To say there is conclusive proof of what kick started evolution would be a falsehood, But remember it would only take one self replicating molecule/particle to begin the process.

     

    I don’t see why this would be any indication of a designer because if an infinitely complex being capable of creating life was to decide to create life then im sure he wouldn’t start with a self-replicating molecule. The bible, which claims to be the "Truth" and the "Inspired word of god" claims that we were made in gods image and that the earth is 6,000-7,000 years old. If you theorise that god created the big bang then that supposes that he was either busy evolving like everything else before that point or he was sitting around until he got board and created the universe and then the earth. Not a good theory and one that would never be accepted by any organised religion.

    The point I have been making for the lifetime of this blog as well as others is that Scientists do not claim to have all the answers, if they did then they would all give up their jobs and do something else. Religion claims it is the "truth" so the burden is on religion to provide proof of god. 

    I know there is a lot to take in within this response but please read it in full before commenting; I would hate to have to re-explain anything (as I do frequently)

    SG

  • truthsayer said on Sep 04, 2008....

    Hi y'all.

    Stupidgenius said:

    "The Skulls of early man can be seen in museums and they show the process."

    "Evolution doesn’t require guesswork. If you don’t trust me then look for your self."

    "There is no supposition, point it out to me if you know of one. The mechanisms of evolution are Theory but Evolution is Fact. The data, evidence and information all prove evolution. The mechanism for evolution is classed as theory. I should point out that the mechanism theory is as close to being fact as measuring the distance from New York to Florida to within a hairs breadth using a ruler."

    "To say there is conclusive proof of what kick started evolution would be a falsehood, But remember it would only take one self replicating molecule/particle to begin the process."

    In Response, I say:


    Now, for anyone that wants to take a reasonable look at both sides of the evolution "story"... I am providing a link to help you see this issue in a balanced way.  We have all been schooled in evolution (just like Sg), but few have the courage or intellectual honesty to see and understand the ways in which we were all deceived.  In fact, few even realize the fasehoods in things that have been presented as "evidense" for the Theory of Evolution.

    Just because something has been accepted as "fact" based on certain "evidense", does not make it true.  It means many things...but it does not mean that it is true.  But read on.

    If the members of the scientific community had only told the truth, when the truth became known, I wouldn't be so jaded now.  So you see Sg, there are ways that you and I can relate...if only from completely different sides of the issue. 

    I haven't gone to visit my blog yet today...but I am sure it will read much like this one.  Like our host said, you are nothing Sg, if not consistent.

     

    Here is one link, I can provide many others if anyone is interested:

    http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

    Natural Selection is the only part of the Theory of Evolution that Charles Darwin was responsible for anyway.

    If you don't believe me...look it up ; )

    Love y'all,

    Truth

    P.S.  I knew about Nebraska Man for a long time...being that I was from Nebraska.  Perhaps that lead to more questions from me, than others in here may have had reason to ask of others.  I would have thought, even as a Fifth Grader, that there would have been better "watch-dogs" in science...but it turns out that they are only human men (back then, mostly men) with the same career aspirations, desires to "be known", be "first" and get more funding!!!  : )

  • StupidGenius said on Sep 04, 2008....

    Truth

    You managed to find 5 supposed cons and on that basis are saying that evolution is a lie? One even quoted the following as proof of a hoax

    “Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton who’s withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow.”

    Not sure cutting an arm off would be considered skilled surgery? If it is then sign me up for work as a surgeon, ill skip the 7 years medical training and just chop arms off LOL. Total rubbish.

    http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter8.php - A Muslim website so full of falsehoods it would take me 4 pages to explain why. Full of religious Leaps of faith and crazy claims, talking of evolution and natural selection, I quote

    "There is a heavy price to pay for this great deception. Violent ideologies such as racism, fascism and communism, and many other barbaric world views based on conflict have all drawn strength from this deception."

    what is that crap? Very bad choice. The muslim faith is one of the more barbaric religions to ever exist.

    http://www.omniology.com/OMNIOLOGY-Content.html - Displays reconstruction and artist’s impressions of evolutionary progression and claims it is totally un-factual. Well its an artists impression so its a drawing, no one draws the same way so its not possible that a drawing of an early ancestor of modern day man/woman be precise simply using fossilised evidence unless they draw the actual fossilised remains using real measurements etc. Religion is far more guilty of this in stein glass windows etc do you really think that some people alive during Jesus’ supposed life actually had halos around their heads and walked around glowing with light? 

    Also shows bones that they say scientists claim to be one individual. They claim it is more than 30 individuals. The bones look identical in all pictures, they have no proof of their assertion but it obviously sounded good when they wrote it.

    http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/ape.htm - Accusation about falsely aged skeletal remains. Claims that the people at the museum were involved. No proof of this is available. It then goes on to say that other scientists were able to prove that it was a fake so what’s the point on this then? A forgery was made, and then disproved by other scientists/Historians etc. Do you ever see one vicar proving another Vicar wrong on an inconsistency in the bible? Nope.

    http://digilander.libero.it/avifauna/classificazione/sequence6.htm - Makes a in-depth accusation (That was only reported in "Sports Illustrated") spends along time explaining all the details and then instead of making clear what they are accusing, they ask questions at the end like

    "Were the unreported alterations performed innocently, then accidentally omitted from the write-ups, and accidentally also concealed by the refusal of the authors to release their data?"

    If you don’t know the answer or you have no proof that anything underhanded happened then don’t make an accusation. Get proof and then make the accusation.

    Some of the other links didn’t work. I suggest you find a more reliable list or better sources. These ones are crazy and have no proof, evidence or fact for the claims they make. Unlike the arguments I use which are all backed up by various un-related sources.

    Nice try though

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 04, 2008....
    Gee I hate to say this but I believe in God....I believe He created everything....and I also believe in evolution. 
    It makes sense to me and I don't see a problem with God allowing that to happen and actually being part of His plan.
    Rc
    ps.  what's wrong with the simple approach and not complicating everything?
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 04, 2008....

    God and evolution are not compatible. By saying they are you are saying that god created the big bang and then allowed self-replicating particles to begin the evolutionary process, which along the way has created many many imperfect species. So a perfect god created imperfect species. We are going over old ground again but needless to say evolution and creationism are poles apart. 

    Saying I believe doesn’t make it true. If you are happy to believe a falsehood then that’s your right my friend. Good luck with that.

    SG
  • RollingC said on Sep 04, 2008....
    Who can figure God out?
    Who is like God? (quote straight from the Bible)

    Trying to understand a God...who sends His only Son to get crucified and suffer terribly on the cross... is absolutely beyond me.   And I think it's beyond most everybody to do so if they don't just simply accept.
    Who knows what tomorrow is going to bring. You can live life with the scientific knowledge that everything is some fantastic chance of evolution or you can live life with the knowledge that everything is under some kind of control you don't understand and one day it will be revealed to you after your mission is done here on this planet.
    I choose the latter.
    My choice.   :^)
    Rc
  • truthsayer said on Sep 05, 2008....

    Hi RollingC.  Hi Sg, Trav, Knowledge1, and all other readers and our honored host of this blog, LtCmdrWorf1.  How are all of you this fine day?  I just stopped in for a few minutes as I have other research to do friends.  I cannot stay long.

    I must say Sg, that several of your comments are quite impressive.  One that I noticed is the one where you actually quoted Bible verses that you have a problem with.  I really appreciated that.  Perhaps if I do have a Bible study online...we can discuss them in more depth...together. 

    Now the other one that I noticed is your last one.  Instead of your sweeping generalizations, I can tell that you actually thought about what you were going to say, and that you read through the link I provided.  I was also impressed by the links you provided.

    No one in here said that evolution is totally wrong.  Even the creation scientists that I know say that in the proper context, there are things that are now included in evolution, that they do not have a problem with.

    My problem, is that as long as you and others like you, continue saying that evolution is absolute truth, inerrant, and that since a 1000 monkeys believe it and claim that their belief in it means that it is no longer a theory, but a fact...well, I am afraid that we will never really be able to understand much of anything.

    Sound familiar?

    I think it does.

    I have the integrity to admit that I have accepted that there is a Creator apriori.  Do you have the integrity to admit that you have accepted that there is no Creator, or that you are indeed your own god, apriori?

    That is the major difference in what you are saying and what most of the rest of us are saying.  Knowledge1 is honest about his/her beliefs or understanding.  So are the rest of us.  Are you? 

    I hope you are getting my point Sg, et. al.  Evolution is one theory about our "origins".  Creation-"ism", is another.  Intelligent Design is yet another.  Frankly, they are all similar and I can see overlap in the various theories.  Obviously, I am not the only one.  RollingC and Worf would probably say the same.  Knowledge1 may agree as well.

    Now, this being said...do you think that the fact that I believe in God, and you don't, should mean that we cannot discuss the various theories?  I don't think that should preclude discussions between the various theories Sg.  Natural selection, for example, is accepted by both creation scientists and evolution scientists.  ID scientists would agree as well.  That is something, isn't it?

    Why can't this be a good place to start?  There are myriad branches of each theory as well.  Would you deny that as well? 

    I think God is self-evident.  I believe that animals were each created in their kind however; and this is the real reason that you don't find fossils that are "morphing" into other species.  Did you all notice that RollingC said that he believes in God, creation-"ism", and evolution?  It looked like he said that he believes that God made "man", and that he believes in evolution for animals.

    As Worf, Knowledge1 and others remind us...you cannot prove that there is no Creator, and as long as you dismiss my personal experience, and other's personal experience; we certainly cannot prove to you that there is a Creator.  There were no reporters there, at the exact moment of the Big Bang...all we have are traces to study in nature, and the Word of God.  Oh yeah.  You don't believe that the Bible is a document.  Life for you started sometime after the theory of evolution was penned and released, right?  Everything before that was merely conjecture?  ; )

    Anyway, I posted that link because it gives some basic perspective to the fact that there is GREAT DEBATE over the veracity of evolution beyond anything other than a theory.  The fossil record does NOT prove it out.  There is NO missing link.  Neanderthal has never been proven to exist.  There is no proof at all.

    There is also GREAT DEBATE amongst the creation scientists as well.  They have many different sub-theories within their academic groups as well...just like evolutionists do.  The ones that I, personally, find to be the most interesting, are the ones that were faced with so much evidense in their own personal research, that was contrary to evolution...that they had to admit, to maintain their own INTEGRITY, that evolution, as we understand it today, COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE. 

    I would prefer that people, including scientists, would continue to look at all of the theories, study them, think about them, discuss them and not be ostracized (or have their funding cut off) for disagreeing with evolution (which is, as you say, accepted by the general population as "fact").  But then, I am a stranger and a pilgrim here ; )  In my Homeland, these things would be allowed.  THINKING ENCOURAGED.  That's my sign, you evolutionist redneck brit, you (Sg, I mean ; )

    After all, I am created in the image of the Greatest Thinker.  He thought of me, he thought of you all.  He thinks a lot.  : )

    Love y'all.

    Truthsayer : )

    P.S. I have many more links to scientists that used to be strict evolutionists...if any one is interested.  That one just happened to list the few "bones" from all of the supposed "skeletal remains" that are supposedly "in the museums" and that "prove evolution".  There is geological, biological---especially cellular biology and genetic evidence which simply stated, makes belief in evolution, as it stands at this time:  a greater leap of faith than belief in a flying green spaghetti monster ; )  If you want the links, I've got them!  Truth : ) 

  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Sep 06, 2008....
    Truth,

    That was a logical well thought out comment others and I can appreciate.  It's wasted on SG the Angry little atheist.  Peace and Long Life

    Love Worf
  • travelr712 said on Sep 06, 2008....

    thank you for that assessment of the state of the theory of evolution truth, it's what i wanted to say, but didn't have time enough to put it in such eloquent terms, i'm glad you did. your comment also necessarily puts 'god' in the catagory of a 'theory' as well, and an unprovable one at that.

  • StupidGenius said on Sep 06, 2008....

    To me there is nothing as contradictory as a creationist scientist. The two are not compatible, simple as that.

    I respectfully decline your offer of online bible studies thanks. There is nothing you can tell me about the bible that I don’t already know, (Other than your personal translation) If you would like to discuss the inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies etc then I would be happy to oblige.

    Evolution is Fact; the reason for evolution is theory. Religion is theory only; no fact involved what so ever. I hate to be harsh when you spent so much time on your response truth but its my nature to be honest, to the point and not to suffer fools in any way (Im not saying you are a fool by the way) I don’t think creationists are fools. They are people that make logical decisions most of the time but are happy to be delusional for the rest of it.

    Evolution is not a leap of faith. Look for your self at the evidence, it speaks for itself.

    Worf, you should really grow up. Im surprised that with an intellect like yours you even survived in Vietnam, maybe you were the one hiding. For a man of your age you really do act like a child. Develop a point of view other than “God is real I know because I prayed for a pair of breasts to grow on my hairy chest and when I woke up almighty god had blessed me with a pair of whoppers!!” You really are a Tit.

    If you would like to discuss any problems you think their are with evolution or if you have any other websites you would like me to check then I would be more than happy.

    SG

  • Knowledge1 said on Sep 07, 2008....
    By definition evolution is a part of every day life. I mean, every time a man comes up with a brand new idea, he is evolving. We are not arguing the exixtence of evolution.  The reason for evolution is theory. The force that cauced evolution to take place is TRADITIONALLY CALLED GOD. You can call it what ever you want, I choose to call it God. You can call it the Creator if you like, just acknowledge the force becauce It exists.
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 07, 2008....

    No the force that caused evolution is not traditionally called god! You choose to call it god. I will no more acknowledge the force (god) is real anymore than I will recognise the definition of "the force" in star wars is real. If god created evolution then he created a faulty, imperfect, million-year-old process. He also started the process on an imperfect planet, which is highly susceptible to natural disaster which (as he would have known) would kill his creations by the millions. Did he also set other galaxies intentionally on a collision course with earth that will certainly destroy us? Did he give us a sun that will eventually die and destroy all of mankind in the process? That’s just bad workmanship at best. 

    What was god doing before he created the universe, was he just floating around in nothingness with nothing to do and then had a bright idea? No. It is highly improbable that a god exists. It is highly improbable that he created the world, the universe and us. Its imperfection suggests that it could not be created by a perfect being.

    SG

  • Knowledge1 said on Sep 08, 2008....

    OK SG, I believe, my opinion, that you are fully aware that something happened to cause time to start ( the begining). Your first sentence above lets me know that. What that something is, know one knows. Even you said scientists don't have all the answers, but you uphold their theories as if it is nothing but the truth. Those scientists are men as they were men also who wrote the Bible. If you think that the Creator is not perfect then how could you think that man is. Whether or not I completely believe the Bible has nothing to with my belief in a Creator. So, how can you and I stand by something that we don't know whether it is the truth or not ? Faith!! You can't beIieve in something that you can't prove without faith. I don't believe your beef is with that unknown force that we speak about, I believe it is with religion or the people of religion. In the above, you speak about perfect and imperfect. Those things are opinions. gotta go

  • StupidGenius said on Sep 08, 2008....

    Knowledge1 - The point is that nobody knows what started everything and I don’t think that "not Knowing" is a good enough reason to believe a supernatural being did it. Scientists are fallible and make mistakes. The difference is that if a scientist comes up with a theory, about another 100 scientists will test it independently and find out if it is right or not. Humans are hard wired for religion and ceremony and feel an innate need to be a part of a group and celebrate being a part of that group. That is pure animal instinct. The need is derived from an evolved survival mechanism. Safety in numbers, strength of a single purpose etc.

    All im saying is that Religion claims to be the truth. All religions claim this. They are simply offering a group mentality, which appeals to the fore mentioned instinct. Faith is just a word used to justify belief. A "Faith" or "belief" in a supernatural creator is not logical and not helpful to society on the whole. In fact in many ways it restricts our progress towards understanding the universe. If everyone were agnostic or atheist we would have progressed more than we currently have because "god" would not have been used to fill so many gaps in logic.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 08, 2008....

    I take it SG that you've never had an " experience " with an unknown presence/force ?  
    I don't blame people for not believing as it's impossible to fathom God and real easy to turn away/neglect/ridicule or make fun of.   But yet He exists, whether you like it or not.

    I was borderline atheist myself until I had that experience.  Not expecting you or anybody else to understand but just to let you know that the proof that I have, although meant for me (otherwise I'd have something physical to show for it) can also be given as proof (but only to a believer).

    Rc

  • StupidGenius said on Sep 09, 2008....

    As I have said. Humanity is highly susceptible to religious rhetoric. It would not be unusual for your mind to subconsciously create an "Experience" so that you would turn to religion. It is also quite arrogant to say that god took time out of his busy schedule just to do something for you. Surely there was something much more important he could have been doing ie; saving starving children or curing the terminally ill.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 09, 2008....

     You and every other person I know, including family members, that refuse to accept, or even contemplate, things they don't understand, usually do it out of an subconcious fear of the unknown. 
    I'm not calling you a coward now so don't get uptight.  This distrust of things you cannot grasp is what gets in your way of believing.
    I've heard your argument so many times it's like a broken record.  I don't wish the experience (although indeed awsome) that I had upon you....specially the circumstances that it warned me about 'cause that's what it was, a warning of sad tragic things happening in my life, but you'd be singing a different song if it did happen to you, rest assured.

    Sincerely,
    Rc

  • StupidGenius said on Sep 09, 2008....

    I did read your blog on the event. I dont fear the unknown I welcome the unknow. Thats the real difference. You fear the unknown so you use god as a safety net.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 09, 2008....
    So if that unexplained encounter with a force totally unknown came upon you....what would your reaction be?
    Keep in mind that I tried to ignore it or not think about it for months....and unable to come to a conclusion, then I turned back to God.  And in doing so I found peace.
    Giving up that peace of mind is not an option for me. 
    Like the Good Book says, I've found the well of living water within me and I will not give it up. I will not force it upon you or anyone but I will not ignore it either nor will I deny it.
    So you and everybody else can argue till the cows come home and I'm still going to believe in my God and my experience.

    Peace be with you
    Rc
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 09, 2008....

    I dont care if you believe it or not. I just dont want religion in school, politics or preached in the street. Just keep it personal. Its a leap of blind faith that you choose to make, if others choose to do that then fine but please, dont talk about it as though it is backed up by any fact because it clearly isnt.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 09, 2008....
    Well to me....my Faith....is a fact of life.    :^)       Rc
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 10, 2008....

    Your faith in a god is a fact because you truly believe it. That doesn’t make the actual entity you believe in a fact. So as I said, it is a personal belief and I don’t want it pushed on me or my child or my family or my society or my country or the world I live in because it is not a Fact. Go to church and do what you want but where ever I see any of the above I will challenge it. I always will.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 10, 2008....
    In other words you just stated that anywhere you see a church or people worshiping God  you will challenge it....( heh.)...   Are you a self-proclaimed terrorist of religion?
    Do you believe in people's rights to the pursue of happiness ?  Or do those rights apply just for people like you ( infidel unbelievers ).
    Don't you think the same right you have to challenge the belief of God gives me and anybody else the right to preach the word of God ? I
    I mean really now....
    If you want me to quietly keep my own beliefs to myself then you have to do the same thing about your beliefs.... after all... fair is fair you know.
    Yours Truly....with love,
    May the peace of God be with you.
    Rc
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 11, 2008....

    Rolling don’t be a fool all your life, take a day off now and then.

    "Challenge - A demand for explanation or justification; a calling into question"

    At what point did I claim to be a terrorist. There are no Atheist Terrorists. We value Life and would never find a reason good enough to strap bombs to our chests. Religion is the only brainwashing tool in society to provide a reason for suicide bombing.

    If you preach your religion then I will challenge you, If you push it on people then I will challenge you, If you claim it to be "Truth" then I will challenge you. You can say what you like and do what you like but don’t expect an easy ride. There are allot more Atheist than you realise and they (Like me) are not happy with the arrogance of some bible basher etc.

    This is where you make a mistake;

    "Don't you think the same right you have to challenge the belief of God gives me and anybody else the right to preach the word of God?"

    You can no more prove that you have access to the word of god than I can prove that I have Unicorns grazing at the bottom of my garden. Allow people to make their own minds up, don’t claim it is true when you don’t know that for sure and don’t tell people that they are infidels you absolute idiot.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 11, 2008....
    Yeah but remember..........
    You can no more prove the God doesn't exist to me than I can prove that God does exist to you.
    There is no solid proof that God doesn't exist.
    :^)
    Rc
    Ps.....hey,,,,Just like people say I'll be a fool for love,,,,I'll be a fool for God.
              And I don't know about you but I know " for sure " that God exists.  Too bad He doesn't
              leave a business card...but when you think about it....then it would be too easy to
               believe in Him that made us.
  • RollingC said on Sep 11, 2008....
    Oh and one more thing please.....
     
    When I said I have the same right to talk about God existing as you do about God not existing......isn't that called freedom of speech ?
    Since when does preaching about God is pushing it?  Then preaching about God not existing is also " pushing " it. 

    Have a nice day....   :^)
    Rc
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 11, 2008....

    I hope you don’t consider the fact that there is no proof "god" doesn’t exist as proof that he does. And what makes you so sure that the god you worship is not Thor, Zeus, Mithra, Dionysus etc. The big difference is that we do not claim to know the truth. You do. You claim to know god exists and you don’t. You just make a blind leap because it fits into the gaps of your understanding. We seek to understand the gaps; you just lazily fill those gaps with the supernatural.

    Preaching about god being the "Truth" is different to preaching about facts. We all know freedom of speech has its limits. I guess your happy to preach lies and misconceptions. When was the last time you heard a preacher say, "Bothers and Sisters, god might exist, we don’t know for sure but we think he does. Make up your own mind" NEVER. Religion would not survive unless it made claims that it knew something the rest of the world didn’t know.

    If you are happy to be a part of something like that then have fun. You could be doing something allot more productive than perpetuating a myth.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 11, 2008....
    Suuure....!    :^)

    Smile....God love ya !

    Rc
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 11, 2008....

    Well that’s good I feel so much better now I know a vengeful megalomaniac loves me! Wow that’s a weight off my mind.

    lol

    SG

  • Knowledge1 said on Sep 11, 2008....
    Religion- a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects or a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices. SG...Are you not religious ? By definition you are. The preacher would never say that because just like you, he/she knows that the force exists. Maybe you don't agree with his perception of the force or maybe you don't like the fact that preachers call the force God, but you are aware of it. How do I know you are aware of it ....in your words....No the force that caused evolution is not traditionally called god! You choose to call it god. I will no more acknowledge the force (god) is real anymore than I will recognise the definition of "the force" in star wars is real. Even though you contradicted yourself in that phrase, I know what you meant.
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 12, 2008....
    1. Religion 
    a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
    b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
    2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
    3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
     
     
    SG
  • RollingC said on Sep 12, 2008....
    Hey SG..... What happened to # 4 ?    You forgot to put it up !

    4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

    Maybe that's what Knowledge was talking about !

    :^)

    Rc

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 13, 2008....

    Atheism is not a religion.

    Atheists cant be considered devoted to not believing in god, hence I left number 4 out for a reason. It was not relevant. Sorry, did you think you had caught me out? never mind. We do not pursue Atheism with a devotion.

    de·vo·tion play_w2("D0183200")  (de-vo-tion)

    n.

    1. Ardent, often-selfless affection and dedication, as to a person or principle. See Synonyms at love.

    2. Religious ardor or zeal; piety.

    3.

    a. An act of religious observance or prayer, especially when private. Often used in the plural.

    b. devotions Prayers or religious texts: a book of devotions.

    4. The act of devoting or the state of being devoted.

    Atheists are not devoted to not believing either before you start with that one. We don’t worship "The non existent god" or pray to a "non god" we just don’t believe in one and ask that the religious prove their claims. That, in all the thousands of years religion has been about, has Never happened.

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 13, 2008....
    Hey...the same way atheists ask that religious prove that there is a God then religious can ask for atheists to disprove that there is a God (prove there isn't one).
    Rc
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 14, 2008....

    Thats like me saying, "a fat cigar smoking monkey lives in my garden, prove he dosnt exist!". If I made the claim then I must prove he exists not you. So you must prove he exists not me. You make the claim, you prove it. If you cant then you are basically saying I think he exists but im not sure. You are Agnostic or Atheist about fairies, flying pigs and zeus so why not the christian god also?There is as much proof for Mohammed as there is Jesus... you get my point?

    SG

  • RollingC said on Sep 14, 2008....

    You don't have to prove He exists....you're claiming the opposite....so prove it !

    :^)

    Rc

  • StupidGenius said on Sep 14, 2008....

    Well my evidence for saying he doesn’t exist is that in over 6,000 years there has never been a shred of evidence, proof, a sighting, a clear indication he has done anything in this world or that he has helped or cured or changed the lives of anyone. So in summary my evidence that he doesn’t exist is the lack of evidence to say he does. I can only use the evidence available for the claim that he does exist as a basis for testing the theory. As there is no evidence for his existance I can only conclude that he dosnt until your lot come up with some proof.

    If a scientist claims he has discovered a new particle but has no evidence of it then until he can prove the particle exists, it doesn’t.

    SG

  • lfbno7 said on Sep 14, 2008....
    This showed up on My Conversations. So many comments since I was here last. No time to read them all. I noticed someone asking what was here before the big bang. I don't think there was a "here" before the big bang. Then again, maybe that's not what was asked, but who can find it again in this mammoth post.

    I think there are lots of universes. I think that after we die, we continue to exist. I think that we are involved in the design of species. I think that when it is decided that a new universe is to be created, a big bang is just part of the process. I think Toyotas last one hell of a long time, unlike Fords, which justify their Found On Road Dead reputation, which by the way happened to me with a Taurus that had to be towed.

    Most of all, I think that 17% credit card interest is excessive and should be prohibited. 8% is appropriate. For all the influence that the religious people supposedly have in America, why is it that all religions condemn usury and are completely ignored when it comes to this issue? Business is the religion of America, that's why. And America's business is to screw you out of your money.

    However I seem to have strayed off the topic. Say goodnight, Gracie.
  • RollingC said on Sep 14, 2008....
    Goodnight Gracie.....and yep....Money has become America's religious Icon....more so now than before.

    And....straying off the topic again....has anyone gotten a DVD in the mail (haven't seen it yet) about the Islam hatred for the west ?  I got one addressed to me and in the Sunday paper at work a DVD came with the newspaper.  
    Boy...someone seems to be getting obsessed with getting the message out against Islam.....
    Rc
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 14, 2008....

    Sections of all religions hate others because they believe they know the truth. There will be a religious war on a mass scale very soon, most likely Jews & Christians vs. Muslims. Its already boiling up in the Middle East and it wont take long before all hell brakes loose (I don’t mean that literally).

    SG

  • Knowledge1 said on Sep 16, 2008....
    Now someone needs to create a blog about that.  I agree SG, but isn't it strange, because Jesus is the foundation of the Christian religion, but Jews don't believe in Jesus at all. Muslims believe in Jesus, but don't think that Jesus is God ( don't believe in the trinity). How can true Christians side with a people who don't believe in the one whom their religion is totally based on, unless there is a hidden agenda ?  Humm!!! maybe OIL is the foundation of Christianity, I mean who said this government was Christian. I think if  Muslims ever decide to go to war, it won't be with Christians, it will be against this government.
  • StupidGenius said on Sep 16, 2008....

    Its safe to say the current government of America is Christian when its leader is quoted as saying "God told me to invade Iraq" and it isn’t currently possible to get elected to any high office if you even indicate in the slightest that you don’t believe in god or Jesus. Religion is used to further peoples own agendas and it is also used the way it was intended by its originators which is to go to war with other religions in order for it to spread its "Truth".

    SG

  • Knowledge1 said on Sep 16, 2008....

    I can't argue with that, but know this. You can know a man by his works. If I say I am a mechanic and you bring your car to me for repairs and I can't fix it, I am not a mechanic. This government is not Christian. I don't agree with you about how religion is being used, everyone who says they are Christian are not, but Jews are in high office positions and they don't believe in Jesus.  How can you justify that ?

  • StupidGenius said on Sep 16, 2008....

    Lets put it this way, a poll of the American people showed that Atheists were the least trusted group in America. Below Muslim fundamentalists (the terrorist kind) and many others. This is because the general population feel that believing in something greater than ourselves is better than believing in a scientific explanation. Your constitution uses the word god although it was written by people who were intent on keeping it secular. Your foreign policy is not very different from the reasons behind the crusades and most, if not all, of your government is made up of believers of some kind (mostly Christian Jewish) The Jewish connection is mainly because the Jewish control allot of the money in America as they do in many other countries and this is reflected by Americas support of Israel.

    Believing in god is enough to make you elect able. Non-believers don’t stand a chance.

    SG

  • HowDoILoveYou said on Jan 28, 2009....
    God is my greatest imaginary hero.

    I say that because I am not entirely sure what to believe, but I know the God that I feel has had the greatest impact on me beyond anything else that I have known.

    It isn't to say He is real, but His impact definitely is.

    Am I a soldier for God? for His truth? Does God need soldiers?

    I am a soldier for love, because this is what God is. Will I be angry at those who deny God? Does God look down on these? His children?
  • StupidGenius said on Feb 18, 2009....

    Religion + Delusion = God

    Religion + Delusion = War

    SG

Comment on "GOD: OUR GREATEST IMAGINARY HERO? I THINK NOT."


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

NOW HERE'S A QUESTION...
Kennedy get banned from communion for his stance on abortion......
It's okay if you disagree ... but when leaving a comment, please dont be a childish douche and resort to namecalling and insults....
JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY...
TAKING PRISONERS...