Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?

by Greatest I am Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:59 pm

First topic message reminder :

Should Governments rescind the noble lie of religions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDNHM84lBA0

These lies were and are given to insure social harmony in an uneducated and gullible population. Our Governments lie and allow liars to lie to us of the supernatural, fantasy and magic.

Governments learned a long ago that religions were a good tool to use for social manipulation and control. Governments allowed and encouraged belief in fantasy, miracles and magic, the opium of the masses, and have lived with the drugged up population and religions.

Governments, with this noble lie, have maintained the current idiocy of immoral teachings within religions and have caused much unjust discrimination and denigration of innocent populations of Gays, women and many others, for just doing what we now see as moral.

Do you think we have matured enough as a people that we can now rescind the laws that protect religions and gives them a tax haven and legitimacy?

Are we intelligent enough to not need these lies anymore?

Can the population take our real reality or is the Government just going to let the flim-flam con game of religions to continue to damage the mental capabilities of the citizens in our country?

Flim-flam and con artists are subject to the law of the land. --- except for religions.

Can the population of take the truth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

by Tosh Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:38 pm

polyglide,

What about all the human fossils over 6000 years old ?

Who planted them and why ?

Is it something to do with Illuminatti lizards or dare I say, butterflies ?

by polyglide Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:39 pm

Firstly I run activities for the disabled every week, I contribute both to a cancer project and to a hospice every month and if everyone did the same in different areas there woulod be no problems.

It is pure selfishness that is the cause of most of the worlds troubles, the I am alright Jack attitude does not help.

by polyglide Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:45 pm

There are numerous bones of all discriptions found in many different areas and from very different ages but none have been identified as having anything to do with modern man.

Just look under proof of creation and you will see every theory put forward has been discredited.

That is if you actually understand all the different stages of science you are so fond of quoting.

by Tosh Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:03 pm

There are numerous bones of all discriptions found in many different areas and from very different ages but none have been identified as having anything to do with modern man. Just look under proof of creation and you will see every theory put forward has been discredited. That is if you actually understand all the different stages of science you are so fond of quoting.

Proof of creation is not a science website, it is a religious website, unfortunately for you evolution is a scientific theory and it does identify transitional fossils from modern humans back to primates.

I require scientific objections not religious objections to a scientific theory.

Try again.

by Tosh Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:09 pm

I got this from your proof of creation website:

Geocentricity has proof; sun revolves around earth
Geocentricity survives the proofs of real science and math; hundreds of years of illusions have been knocked down

This is simply insane, and you are retarded if you believe the Sun revolves around the earth.

by Shirina Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:12 pm

Just look under proof of creation and you will see every theory put forward has been discredited.

Just because some idiot Creationist managed to come up with a harebrained "alternative" theory doesn't mean the real science has been discredited.

by Tosh Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:19 pm

Firstly I run activities for the disabled every week,

Is the clown suit optional ?

by polyglide Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:25 pm

I am beginning to wonder about evolution.

If there is anything that looks more like, or with the intelligence of an ape
than Tosh. then heaven help us.

by polyglide Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:29 pm

It is very funny, all those who prove evolution is nonsense are Christians accordinmg to you, Shirina, but you will find many scientists amongst them.

In my opinion, all those who believe in evolution need brain a transplant.

by Tosh Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:07 pm

In my opinion, all those who believe in evolution need brain a transplant. .

You cannot support your opinion with any scientific objections.

Where are they, I am waiting.

by Shirina Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:12 pm

It is very funny, all those who prove evolution is nonsense are Christians accordinmg to you, Shirina, but you will find many scientists amongst them.

Christian scientists are heavily biased toward their religion. Therefore, their "science" is always suspect. They already "know" the answer to the Big Questions because their religion provided them. Thus they start with the conclusion and desperately look for evidence to prove it true. That's NOT how one conducts scientific investigations.

I think the statistics bear that out. I have said this before, but it's an important bit of knowledge. Outside of America, the number of scientists who believe in Creationism is less than one-tenth of one percent. In America, however, the number of Creationist scientists is around 4.99%. Now, American scientists are not privy to information the rest of the world does not have, so why are there so many more American Creationist scientists than anywhere else in the world?

Oh, gee whiz, could it be because of cultural bias? After all, America is ridiculously religious and superstitious compared to the rest of the industrialized world. In addition, there is always an active push by the religious right to disprove evolution - but it's more than an academic exercise. The zealots in this country also want to attach a label to those who disbelieve in Creationism. You know, the whole "atheists are immoral" and "atheists aren't to be trusted" arguments that fundamental and evangelical religion says every single day. When faced with the possibility of societal exile for not believing in superstition, SOME scientists are likely to conform.

If their beliefs were based on any sort of truth or evidence, then the number of Creationist scientists would be far more equally distributed around the globe. But it's not. This utterly smashes your argument about Creationist scientists having any sort of "leg up" on the real scientists.

by polyglide Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:04 pm

Iam not going to go all through the rigmarole again, all evolutionist scientists are just as biased as any other.

As I have said every evolutioninst's theory has been both disputed and discredited on firmer grounds than the evolutionists grounds.

by Tosh Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:25 pm

Iam not going to go all through the rigmarole again, all evolutionist scientists are just as biased as any other.

Neither the scientific method not the evidence can be biased, you are simply not qualified to comment on scientists or science.

As I have said every evolutioninst's theory has been both disputed and discredited on firmer grounds than the evolutionists grounds.

Still waiting on the evidence to support your unqualified opinion, anytime soon will be fine.

Look you complete cretin, do you not get it, your opinion on scientific conclusions is freakin worthless, how thick can a person be ?

by snowyflake Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:06 pm

1. Slusher, Harold S., The Origin of the Universe, San Diego: Institute for Creation Research (ICR), 1978.

The above is referenced on the Scientific Evidence for Creation website

This is what talk origins says about Harold S. Slusher:

Harold S. Slusher, formerly of the Institute for Creation Research, is best known for his critiques of radiometric dating techniques. He is also known for the rather bizarre suggestion that the universe is much smaller than it appears, because its geometry is Riemannian as opposed to Euclidean.

Slusher claims to hold an honorary D.Sc. from Indiana Christian University and a Ph.D. in geophysics from Columbia Pacific University. Robert Schadewald discovered that Indiana Christian University is a Bible College with only a 1/2 man graduate science department. As for Columbia Pacific, it "exhibits several qualities of a degree mill" [3]. Ronald Numbers describes CPU as an unaccredited correspondence school that recruited students with the lure of a degree "in less than a year." Slusher's dissertation consisted of a manila folder containing copies of five memographed ICR "technical monographs" and a copy of the ICR graduate school catalog, all held together with a rubber band. The supervising professor was his creationist colleague from El Paso and the ICR, [Thomas] Barnes, who himself possessed only an honorary doctorate. [2]

According to Bears' Guide [1], Columbia Pacific was denied its application for state license renewal in early 1996 for undisclosed reasons. The university appealed the decision in late 1996, but the appeal had not been acted upon by the time Bears' Guide went to press.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

This person is no more a scientist than Ronald McDonald. A scientist follows the scientific method in proposing an hypothesis, designing a test, gathering evidence and analysing data. Creation "scientists" and their whacky websites do none of this.

And polyglide, try not to believe everything you read. Part of an educated mind is to critically evaluate what you read. Ask yourself is it likely to be true? Where are the sources and are they credible and are the authors credible, peer reviewed and as unbiased as possible?

by Guest Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:07 am

Snowy,

I had forgotten his name, but I’ve been familiar with his viewpoints for several decades. It is possible for one to doubt macro-evolution independent of one’s acceptance or non-acceptance of creation. Misunderstanding this fact, in my opinion, has been the “fatal flaw” of macro-evolution’s proponents both on and outside this forum.

My doubt was neither initially caused nor ultimately fueled by creationist ideology. Perhaps the universe is 13.7 billion years old, perhaps not; I remain puzzled by the determination that a universe that emanates from a singularity, one point, is 154 billion light years across and 13.7 billion years old simultaneously, and I remain unconvinced by the explanations from premier astro-physicists as to how this can be. Perhaps one day this apparent impossibility will become clear, perhaps not. Meanwhile, the absolute speed limit as posited by Brother Al remains unchallenged, and Brother Al’s predictions as to what should be found and where it should be found continue to prove true. So there you go; data often leads to unfathomed apparent contradictions.

This lesson applies to the study of bones in dated dirt. Perhaps the earth is 4.6 billion years old, perhaps not. Perhaps dirt-dating methodology is reasonably accurate; perhaps not. We do know that there are bones found in the dirt, we do know that the dirt in which the bones have been found has been dated, however accurately or inaccurately, and we do know that the bones indicate appearance and disappearance of a whole boatload of species. None of these things that we know (there are a few more) prove macro-evolution. This lack of proof has nothing whatsoever to do with either creationist ideology o macro-evolution ideology; to assume so assumes that if one is wrong the other is right, and if one is right the other is wrong. Could be both are wrong; could be both are right. None of us possesses audio/video proof of either.

Relinquishment of ideologies and their inviolate tenets is long overdue. Such dogged loyalty to unproven ideology stands in the way of science. The astronomer who “brung home the bacon” verifying Brother Al’s prediction of the sun’s gravity bending light was drummed out of the joint by the Royal Academy of Muckitie-Mucks because his measurements didn’t agree with Sir Ike. Uh huh.

Wonder how they covered their backsides when the same astronomer came back with new measurements produced by instruments whose margins of error were so tiny that the numbers couldn’t be argued away? Perhaps Sir Ike turned over in his grave, but I suspect the great scientist welcomed the advance and was overjoyed that someone finally explained how gravity works.

by polyglide Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:11 pm

You can continue to put forward theory after theory but that is exactly what they are theories.

No one knows how old the universe is, nor it's extent, nor does anyone know the history of the earth from the biginning, because we do not know the beginning.

36 million years is the last I heard put forward but it might just as well be 76 million.

As I have said previously, I believe God created the earth as we know it and I believe it had been used for other purposes prior to God's creation.

Gravity and all other matters that are relative to the life of the earth must have an explanation because nothing comes about by chance.

What is missing that would solve all the problems, is man's opinion that there is nothing geater than man and no power that he cannot explain, when in fact man is a very insignificant part of the universe and there must be intelligence far beyond the understandung of mankind

by Tosh Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:28 pm

You can continue to put forward theory after theory but that is exactly what they are theories.

Its not me dear, its all science's fault, they keep finding all the evidence to support their theories, how is your hypothesis doing, any evidence yet ?

by snowyflake Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:29 pm

Hi Rock

Of course, we don't know absolutely about some things but we can draw reasonable conclusions based on the evidence. And if given the choice between this rock is 2.5 billion years old because the element in it has decayed over time that we can calculate the age of the rock to within a few million years then I would take that over 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. One has evidence, the other is an unfounded statement.

by Tosh Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:37 pm

I remain puzzled by the determination that a universe that emanates from a singularity, one point, is 154 billion light years across and 13.7 billion years old simultaneously, and I remain unconvinced by the explanations from premier astro-physicists as to how this can be.

I really don't think the world's premier astro-physicists really care if the milkman is puzzled and unconvinved by their calculations and explanations.

Why do non-scientists think they are equipped to dismiss scientific theories that qualified scientists accept ?

Is it a mental disorder ?

by Guest Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:48 am

snowyflake wrote:
Hi Rock

Of course, we don't know absolutely about some things but we can draw reasonable conclusions based on the evidence. And if given the choice between this rock is 2.5 billion years old because the element in it has decayed over time that we can calculate the age of the rock to within a few million years then I would take that over 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. One has evidence, the other is an unfounded statement.

Hey Snowy, que pasa?

There is no dichotomy between the rock dated to within a few million years and Genesis 1:1.

First, neither you nor I know for certain that the methodology is as accurate, les accurate, or more accurate than we have concluded. Perhaps we are several billion years off, perhaps we are accurate to within a few million years as you suggest, or perhaps we are accurate to within a few millennia, centuries, or even years. With that type of uncertainty, it’s best to refrain from absolute “loyalty” to a specific degree of accuracy, Insofar as I’m concerned, since the figures are as accurate as current technology allows, I’ll go with them until such time as technology provides something better.

Second, b’r’shythe, paralleling the singularity, possesses neither pre-event time nor pre-event place; in fact, space-time begins at b’r’shythe, the singularity.

Hebrew Bible

The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day and the darkness night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.¹

Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.¹

Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters he called seas, and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”, and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind, and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.¹

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day¹ from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days¹ and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”, and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day,¹ and the lesser light to govern the night; he made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day¹ and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.¹

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.¹

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”, and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind, and God saw that it was good.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the [ap]sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”, and it was so. God saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.¹

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day¹ God completed his work which he had done, and He rested on the seventh day¹ from all his work which he had done. Then God blessed the seventh day¹ and sanctified it, because in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made. This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day¹ that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

Genesis 1:2-31, 2:1-4

יוֹם,‎ yôm, (yome), a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), age, always, chronicles, continually, continuance, daily, each day, today, nowadays, two days, days agone, elder, evening, forever, everlasting, forevermore, full, life, as long as, so long as, now, even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remains, required, season, since, space, then, process of time, as at other times, when, as when, awhile, the while, within a while, full, full year, yearly, whole, whole age.

Third, proceeding through Genesis 1:2 to Genesis 2:4, the word “day” is found multiple times in reference to “when” things occurred. See the referenced quote above, and then you tell me how long “day” might be. As for me, I “don’t touch that”, because I’ve concluded that the Hebrew word “yôm” provides no clue to the duration of “day”, or even if one “day” is of the same duration as another “day.”

A Dream Deferred
Langston Hughes

What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over
like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?

Third and a half, seven signifies complete in Hebrew culture. Genesis 1 is poetry. Genesis 1 is true; A Dream Deferred is true. When Western minds try to dissect Genesis 1:2 and following in the same manner that Western minds dissect masters theses, Western minds miss the reality/truth conveyed by the poetry.

Invictus
William Ernest Henley

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

A fellow whose PhD is/was in English literature criticism or some such nonsense published a book in which he characterized Invictus as poor writing because (as direct a quote as I can remember) “We don’t know where this night, this pit, or these poles might be.”

Uh Huh! I know exactly where the night, the pit, and the poles might be; I met them in all 1967-1969. If you wish details on this two year event, let me know via pm or email, and I’ll email you a detailed explanation.

More importantly to world history, the man who, through strength of character, prevented the inevitable bloodbath in South Africa knows intimately the identities and locations of the night, the pit, and the poles. He posted a copy of Invictus on his cell wall on Robbins Island.

Westerners would do well to take on the mentality of William Ernest Henley and Nelson Mandela when assessing Genesis 1:2 and following. If we did so, perhaps we would understand the significance of the seventh day and the significance of gender inclusive man’s creation on the sixth day. These significances are in the poetry.

Fourth, back to Genesis 1:1, the “who-what-when-where” is identical to Big Bang; in fact, as Genesis 1:1 speaks not at all of “how”. Big Bang’s huge data set regarding “how” serves as an awesome adjunct to Genesis 1:1. As I said, no dichotomy there; conversely, the perfect harmony therein is to me of abiding fascination and interest.

Just a few thoughts. I’ll await your pm or email if you wish to know where I found the night, the pit, and the poles.

by Shirina Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:40 am

Hebrew Bible

Strange how God waited until the fourth day to actually create the sun even though the plants and the terms "day" and "night" were created before the sun. Considering plants require sunlight to live, well ... hmm ...

Though I suppose if people in the Bronze Age had no conception of photosynthesis, I could see how they might screw that up.

Also, the Bible doesn't mention how the earth was warmed for four "days" (however long they were) without a nearby star. A frozen planet isn't very conducive to liquid water or plant life.

by ROB Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:12 pm

Shirina wrote:
Strange how God waited until the fourth day to actually create the sun even though the plants and the terms "day" and "night" were created before the sun.

No it’s not.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Genesis 1 is poetry. Genesis 1 is true; A Dream Deferred is true. When Western minds try to dissect Genesis 1:2 and following in the same manner that Western minds dissect masters theses, Western minds miss the reality/truth conveyed by the poetry.

Westerners would do well to take on the mentality of William Ernest Henley and Nelson Mandela when assessing Genesis 1:2 and following. If we did so, perhaps we would understand the significance of the seventh day and the significance of gender inclusive man’s creation on the sixth day. These significances are in the poetry.

by snowyflake Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:29 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Hi Rock

Can you look at Wikipedia for a minute and see what you make of this in regards to macroevolution. Please follow the links. I think it is convincing evidence for macroevolution. My personal thoughts are that every living being on the planet has DNA and following the DNA path to the past actually confirms that we descended from a common ancestor. We can do this for most species on the planet.

As far as biblical poetry is concerned, to some it might sound beautiful. To me it sounds forced and ugly because it proclaims it as fact when there is no way for the bronze age desert dwellers to know for certain. It boggles my mind that intelligent people take the bible as fact when it is no more historical than the Greek or Roman mythologies. We don't even know for certain that Jesus was a real person and not just a fictional character in a story. There is no evidence for his existence let alone anything else about his life. He might be as real as Hercules. And if that is true, then his whole story is based on a lie no matter how valuable some people view Jesus' teachings. And if any of that is even remotely true it makes a mockery of faith.

Take care of yourself Rock. Smile

by oftenwrong Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:44 pm

http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/s4yp7/the-dark-ages-an-age-of-light--series-1---1-the-clash-of-the-gods

Waldemar Januszczak embarks on a trip around the world to discover if the Dark Ages were actually a time of great artistic achievement, inspired by novel ideas and religion. In the first edition, he discovers how Christianity emerged into the Roman Empire in the third and fourth centuries, and how the absence of a description of Jesus led them to draw on images of ancient Gods for inspiration.

by snowyflake Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:34 pm

Perhaps the universe is 13.7 billion years old, perhaps not; I remain puzzled by the determination that a universe that emanates from a singularity, one point, is 154 billion light years across and 13.7 billion years old simultaneously

I think you have to be a cosmologist to really understand this. The

observable

universe is 13.7 billion years old. Hope this helps. Smile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

by ROB Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:16 am

snowyflake wrote:
As far as biblical poetry is concerned… To me it sounds forced and ugly because it proclaims it as fact when there is no way for the bronze age desert dwellers to know for certain.

Snowy,

Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:4 are separate things which ought to be considered separately; accordingly, I’ll consider them separately.

Genesis 1:1. Either Genesis 1:1 is fact, or the “who-what-when-where” of Big Bang is not fact. Take your pick. Here’s how that works.

If A=C, and if B=C, then A=B. No way over it, around it, under it, or through it; pump the brakes and stop right there.

Since Big Bang = a certain previously stated “who-what-when-where”, and Genesis 1:1 = a certain previously stated “who-what-when-where”, then Big Bang = Genesis 1:1. No way over it, around it, under it, or through it; pump the brakes and stop right there.
Genesis 1:2-2:4. Genesis 1:2 and following (click here to view text in a previous message) is poetry; accordingly, as its truth and its significance reside within its poetry, one must access the poetry to access its truth and its significance.

I asked you how long a Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:4 “day” might be. Can you provide an answer, given the definition of yôm? Can you provide geographic coordinates as to the location of the night, the pit and the poles? I would appreciate an answer in any way you choose to provide it.

How can this poetry be ugly? Were folks who lived during the so-called bronze age of such character that what they wrote was inherently ugly? I don’t like Wordsworth’s Daffodils, or Sitting on a Couch, or whatever that ditty is about a grown man lying on a couch contemplating some silly flower in a field somewhere rather than Gina Lollobrigida smiling at him, but I don’t think his silly poem is ugly just because he’s of a previous age. As a matter of fact, I don’t consider his poem ugly at all; just silly and useless to me.

Canadians are Westerners. Americans USV are Westerners. We’re usually prone to analyze poetry in the same manner as we analyze technical manuals. Were we still in the Bronze Age circa 200-300 AD? I believe that’s about when Westerners assembled in various conferences analyzed Genesis. , including Genesis 1:2 through 2:4, and figured out an exact age of everything. Never mind that yôm can’t be pinpointed; those analytical minds were incapable of seeing the truth in the poetry.

Even if you miss the truth in the poetry, some of that truth applies to you. “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called Sons of God.” These are the words of one whose existence you doubt and who spoke of you before your most distant known ancestors were born.

by Shirina Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:22 am

How far do you go with this, Rock? If we believe in Genesis 1:1, doesn't that mean we have to believe in the claptrap of Adam and Eve, original sin, and serpents losing their feet?

by ROB Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:49 am

Shirina wrote:
How far do you go with this, Rock?

As far as “this” takes me, Shirina. I’ve not reached journey’s end, so with acknowledgment given to Robert Frost, the author of these words: “The woods are lovely, dark, and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep.”

Shirina wrote:
… claptrap…

That is a judgmental word, used by an author for the sole purpose of disrespecting/denigrating/disdaining that which the author so labels; as you are created by your Creator into freedom of choice, you are free to label as “claptrap” anything you so choose. I’ll not accompany you that way; the woods through which I travel lead me down a different road.

Shirina wrote:
If we believe in Genesis 1:1, doesn't that mean we have to believe in… Adam¹ and Eve²…?

No.

Shirina wrote:
… original sin³…?

No.

Shirina wrote:
… serpents losing their feet?⁴

No.

Genesis 1:1 is posted below, in transliterated Hebrew and in common English translation with Elohim left in transliterated Hebrew for clarity.

Hebrew Bible

“B’r’shythe bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets”, Hebrew.

“In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth”, English.

In neither the transliterated Hebrew text nor the common English text of Genesis 1:1 are the four referenced words and phrases about which you’ve asked found; accordingly, you are free to believe Genesis 1:1/Big Bang/that certain “who-what-when-where” without believing in or even knowing of Genesis 2-3, the chapters in which the referenced words about which you’ve asked are found.

by ROB Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:27 am

snowyflake wrote:
Perhaps the universe is 13.7 billion years old, perhaps not; I remain puzzled by the determination that a universe that emanates from a singularity, one point, is 154 billion light years across and 13.7 billion years old simultaneously
I think you have to be a cosmologist to really understand this. The
observable
universe is 13.7 billion years old. Hope this helps.

Snowy,

I’ve partially read the linked article about the extent of the universe. Observable distance a diameter of 78 billion light years 360/360 from whatever observation point throughout the universe at which one might find oneself? I had to take six Tylenols and lay myself down for awhile after that one! I’ll finish that article in bits and pieces.

Here’s something a bit more understandable regarding micro-evolution, specifically natural selection in overdrive rendering a species hardier and more resilient.

Did you know...
From Wikipedia's newest content:

... that Mary Barber discovered that natural selection caused penicillin resistance to increase in Staphylococcus bacteria?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

by Shirina Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:33 pm

That is a judgmental word, used by an author for the sole purpose of disrespecting/denigrating/disdaining that which the author so labels

I do, in fact, disdain it. I think it is one of the most horrible stories ever written, a story that has led billions to believe that they are worthless pond scum and set them on a course of dependency upon religion.

It reminds me, in a way, of when I started getting just a little too old to believe in Santa. I knew rationally that Santa was fictitious. I began gathering evidence almost from the moment I was introduced to the Santa story. Why does my father's and Santa's handwriting match? Why is there a K-Mart price tag on this gift if Santa's elves made it at the North Pole? How can Santa climb down the chimney if my house doesn't have a chimney? If Santa landed on the roof of my house, why is the snow up there undisturbed? Oh the list was quite long.

But here's the catch. Even though my rational mind knew that Santa was a fake, I was so worried that NOT believing in Santa would result in receiving no more presents that I kept believing well after I shouldn't have. Of course, Christmas presents pale in comparison to one's immortal soul, so I can only imagine the tug-of-war that must rage in many people's minds regarding religion. How many thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people know in their minds that these religious stories are hogwash, but are so shackled by their fear of "what if" that they keep forcing themselves to believe? I bet it's a huge number.

When one is told from an early age that you're nothing without God, not worth a bucket of piss all because you inherited the sin of some women who bit into a fruit thousands of years ago, it's no wonder why so many are afraid to let go.

by ROB Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:21 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
That is a judgmental word, used by an author for the sole purpose of disrespecting/denigrating/disdaining that which the author so labels…

Shirina wrote:
I do, in fact, disdain it.

As a member of ha adama created in the image of Elohim on the sixth yôm, you have been created into freedom of choice by your Creator; thus, you are free to disdain whatsoever you choose to disdain. As you travel this particular road of disdain, you do so unaccompanied by me.

Shirina wrote:
I think it is one of the most horrible stories ever written,¹ a story that has led billions to believe that they are worthless pond scum² and set them on a course of dependency upon religion.³

I think that you are wrong (my opinion).
I know that you are wrong (fact).
I know that you are wrong (fact).

If you wish to know why, ask the question; if the question remains unasked by you, the question will remain unanswered by me.

Shirina wrote:
When one is told from an early age that you're nothing without God, not worth a bucket of piss all because you inherited the sin of some women who bit into a fruit thousands of years ago, it's no wonder why so many are afraid to let go.

I was never told that from an early age. If you wish to know what I was told from an early age, ask the question; if the question remains unasked by you, the question will remain unanswered by me.

by snowyflake Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:12 pm

Hi Rock

I don't equate Genesis 1:1 with the Big Bang theory. I know you do. There are thousands of creation myths out there. The words, "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth" is no more revealing than "It was a dark and stormy night". You make the connection but I do not. For me, the bible is nothing more than fiction written by ancient people. None of it is true and the fact that 2000 years has passed and God is still in absentia ought to be a clue.

The fact that we don't understand cosmology, astrophysics, neuroscience, epigenetics and the myriad of other specialised sciences out there doesn't mean we can just discount the evidence out of hand either. I have loyalty to truth but I also know my mental limitations and the limitations of my knowledge and understanding. I'm not particularly smart or educated but I know what makes sense to me. I say "prove it". God cannot in any way be proved or disproved but from the evidence of my own life I can categorically state there is no God. If it turns out I'm wrong, my first question would be "why were you hiding?" My second question would be "what's the point"? My third question would be "what are you for"? And there are dozens of other questions I would ask. But my heart says that belief is delusion and based on wishful thinking and fear of death, the not-being. Our arrogance in our own importance is what I think drives belief. Take that away and you have a human being who is not encumbered with bias, hatred, intolerance, judgement. A person who does not believe in the Abrahamic God can love all people no matter what their race, religion, gender, age or sexual orientation and that's the kind of life I want to live. I have hope in the human spirit. I do not think the world is going to hell in a handbasket like some on this forum. The world is much better than it was even 40 years ago. The Christian cynics on this board are the ones that perpetuate the negativity of the world and base that on biblical 'prophecy'. Forget it! The prophecies have been prophesied for millenia and nothing has happened. Every generation thinks it's heading for Armegeddon.

Anyway, that is just my opinion based on the available evidence. The likelihood of God, to me, is nil.

Take care, Rock.

by polyglide Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:16 am

If you want evidence of the existance of God and the Devil, just look at the state of the world and the difference in the opinions on this site between those who believe in God and those who believe in creation and those who just do not understand what is goning on and believe in the everything came from a little pool os water, theory.

Just consider the life and all that is involved in a bee hive and think, think, think, could this have come about by chance and if so how?

by snowyflake Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:05 pm

If you want evidence of the existance of God and the Devil,

You don't have any. You keep saying it's all man's fault that the world is in the state it's in and then you blame the Devil for it. Which is it? Does God not bear any responsibility for not protecting his creation?

The state of the world is due largely to the defending of the unfounded beliefs of the uneducated masses. You don't see scientists bombing each others laboratories because someone disagreed with them or didn't believe their theory. You don't see atheists running amok burning flags, murdering and rioting in the streets in the name of atheism. Reason and education will save our planet. Not God, Allah, Jesus, Shiva, Buddha, Thor, Zeus, Ashara or any of the other 3000 gods past and present. It will be science that saves us and it will be religion that destroys us if we are not careful.

by oftenwrong Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:40 pm

David Cameron's proposals to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies on Church Property are not apparently supported by everyone concerned.

May we yet see this thread amalgamated with the one entitled "Is this another Tory scandal brewing"?

by bobby Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:13 pm

Why on earth would a pair of queers want to get married in a church that see's their goings on as a mortal sin, its like a Cow wanting to hold a birthday party in an abattoir.

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:03 pm

The full embedding of the 'equalities agenda' clearly has some way to go... Very Happy

by Shirina Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:56 pm

Why on earth would a pair of queers want to get married in a church that see's their goings on as a mortal sin, its like a Cow wanting to hold a birthday party in an abattoir.

Yet an adulterer can freely marry his mistress on church property -- yet adultery and homosexuality are equally sinful given that both carried a death sentence.

What I see is bigotry not morality in play.

by oftenwrong Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:40 pm

Aesops Fable:

A Dog looking for its afternoon nap jumped into the Manger of an Ox and lay there cosily upon the straw. But soon the Ox, returning from its work, came up to the Manger and wanted to eat some of the straw. The Dog in a rage, being awakened from its slumber, stood up and barked at the Ox, and whenever it came near attempted to bite it.
At last the Ox had to give up the hope of getting at the straw, and went away.

by Shirina Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:26 am

A Dog looking for its afternoon nap jumped into the Manger of an Ox and lay there cosily upon the straw.

And the moral of the story is: If you're a dog, never sleep in an ox's manger or else you'll get mange.

by oftenwrong Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:06 am

C'mon you mutt. Walkies!

Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions? - Page 6 Enhanced-buzz-12047-1353036028-0

by Sponsored content