Proof-existence of an intelligent Creator+His Purpose for humankind

[CaramonLS]

There simply shouldn't be an argument about this subject.

It's cool and all to believe god existed but for crying out load CB, don't try to post lies about factual records such as the creation of fossil fuels, carbon dating, great floods and all that crap.

Just accept that these pseudo-science facts don't support your argument and simply believe. Isn't that what faith is all about?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by EDBTZ12

I agree. Just because you believe or don't believe in god doesn't make you right. To be honest the non-believers in this thread seem like the kind of people they are complaining about. The people who knock on your door and ask you to change or commit to a religion.

How is posting an opinion on a message board that all the readers actively seek out even remotely similar to knocking on the door of a stranger who doesn't want to talk to you?

It's a typical strategy. It happens every time. "You are just like those religious people that you dislike so much..."

No, we are not.

I'm not talking to anyone who isn't interested in the conversation. I'm not pestering uninterested strangers or looking for anyone to commit to a religion. So when you say that I am "just like them", you are wrong.

[Calgaryborn]

I think God gets a bad rap concerning the Mosaic law. Some of you people tend to think was that the Mosaic law represented God's idea of a Utopian society; It wasn't. He was dealing with a tribal people just recently were removed from slavery. The treatment of women, the treatment of slaves, and the treatment of strangers were raised by the Mosaic law. Up until then none of these had any legal recourse. Also, making a law and changing the norms of a society are 2 different things. Look at Afghanistan or even Pakistan. Pakistan has had laws forbidding female circumcision for years and yet the society still practices it. Honour killings are taking place even here in Canada. Point is: you can only move a society in small increments. Given the society and time God was working with He moved things quite far.

For you who might think the Israelites would have followed God blindly consider this: The first generation{after slavery} died in the desert because they refused to follow God into the promised land. The second generation crossed the Jordan and after the waters closed up God ordered them all circumcised; Something they were commanded to do in the Mosaic law at 8 days old. Male circumcision was actually commanded as far back as Abraham(about 500 years before Moses). Yet as a group these Israelites had neglected it.

The Mosaic law was enacted without a police force. The judicial system was appointed from the tribes and likely fair but, untrained. The tribes once established were spread out with only 7 annually religious observances in the Capital to link them. Given all that; I would still rather have been found a stranger in their lands than any nation around them at the time. Actually that still holds true today.

[Reggie Dunlop]

...as documented in the Brick Testament

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

He was dealing with a tribal people just recently were removed from slavery.

But He's not anymore.

If the god you worship can send asteroids and plagues our way, read our thoughts and guide everything in the universe, why can't he just change the text in the bible? Why can't the actual bible on my bookshelf just have the words change to reflect modern times and make it obvious how He should be worshipped and how we should behave? A trick like that is nothing compared to simultaneously reading the minds of 6 billion people, and controlling all aspects of our lives.

People that believe strongly in the book kill people who strongly believe in a slightly different interpretation of that same book. I won't bother getting into the ways that it is imperfect, but it obviously is imperfect. It should be perfect. No tricks or riddles, none of this "it was written in a different time". It should be timeless and shouldn't need defending. A book written by an omniscient being for people to follow forever shouldn't go stale when some guy invents a microscope a thousand years later, or when sensible people realize that slavery and rape are wrong.

[FanIn80]

Wait. Is this another one of those crazy "0.9 = 1" things again?

Edit: Holy cow. I only read the first few posts before I posted... and then I saw Page 10. How the heck did this get to 10 pages?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

And that is why I didn't respond to your last post. You like to see your self as the final judge between what is bad and what is good science. Creation science= junk ; Evolutionary science= well resourced and documented. Well just because you can find an article or paper that refutes something I say doesn't mean the assessment is fair or even truthful. Your qualifications doesn't exclude you from being wrong. There are people far more qualified in these areas than you or I who don't agree on much. Sure your side have got the numbers but, your position is also where the money/prestige is.

Sorry that you're getting dogpiled. No fun being painted into a corner. Pulling the Persecution Card is pretty lame, though.

[Thor]

Calgaryborn, a few serious questions.

1. How old is the planet?

2. How do you explain the religions older than Christianity that have the same stories as your own?

3. Do you believe that anyone not accepting Jesus as their lord and savior is going to an eternity of hell?

4. The prophet Muhammed was visited by Arch Angel Michael as the 'Final' word of God and this is what the entirety of Islam believes, so how do you argue your final word is the correct testament to God over Islam?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Sure your side have got the numbers but, your position is also where the money/prestige is.

The real prestige (and money) is there for the person that can properly argue that the theory of evolution is false. That scientist will immediately become the most prestigious scientist in the world. That person will be up there with Newton and Gallileo and Einstein if he can convincingly toss Darwin's theories into the trash.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Okay, this is something that bothers me and I wish people wouldn't do -- and that is to rewrite attributed quotes. It's not the least bit clever. I don't care what side you're on. Don't put words in people's mouths. If you wish to question their argument, do so on their points.

Reggie dude, 3 pages earlier you called me out for mocking a quote, but yet your later posts were mocking like crazy foo.

I'll forgive you though.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Thor

Reggie dude, 3 pages earlier you called me out for mocking a quote, but yet your later posts were mocking like crazy foo.

I'll forgive you though.

No no. I just don't think re-writing quoted material and responding with "fixed" is cool. Work instead with the "found humor."

[Thor]

Well when you debate a wall who refuses to debate facts, its apt.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Thor

Calgaryborn, a few serious questions.

1. How old is the planet?

2. How do you explain the religions older than Christianity that have the same stories as your own?

3. Do you believe that anyone not accepting Jesus as their lord and savior is going to an eternity of hell?

4. The prophet Muhammed was visited by Arch Angel Michael as the 'Final' word of God and this is what the entirety of Islam believes, so how do you argue your final word is the correct testament to God over Islam?

Your not seriously expecting an answer to these are you?

They never answer. Irritating actually.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

Calgaryborn, a few serious questions.

1. How old is the planet?

2. How do you explain the religions older than Christianity that have the same stories as your own?

3. Do you believe that anyone not accepting Jesus as their lord and savior is going to an eternity of hell?

4. The prophet Muhammed was visited by Arch Angel Michael as the 'Final' word of God and this is what the entirety of Islam believes, so how do you argue your final word is the correct testament to God over Islam?

It was actually the archangel Gabriel or Gibreel.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

But He's not anymore.

If the god you worship can send asteroids and plagues our way, read our thoughts and guide everything in the universe, why can't he just change the text in the bible? Why can't the actual bible on my bookshelf just have the words change to reflect modern times and make it obvious how He should be worshipped and how we should behave? A trick like that is nothing compared to simultaneously reading the minds of 6 billion people, and controlling all aspects of our lives.

Why? That would be dishonest and unproductive. If one wants to know God it is there as an accurate history of His interaction with man. You don't need 4 years of seminary to know the Mosaic's law place in history. It is the old covenant. There is now a new covenant. The old covenant was fulfilled and the Jews are under a new covenant; The new covenant has been extended to the rest of man kind.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

People that believe strongly in the book kill people who strongly believe in a slightly different interpretation of that same book. I won't bother getting into the ways that it is imperfect, but it obviously is imperfect. It should be perfect. No tricks or riddles, none of this "it was written in a different time". It should be timeless and shouldn't need defending. A book written by an omniscient being for people to follow forever shouldn't go stale when some guy invents a microscope a thousand years later, or when sensible people realize that slavery and rape are wrong.

People can cherry pick passages to misrepresent the message or even God. You and your friends cherry pick passages to show God in a bad light. Others do so to manipulate those who are easily manipulated. People often tend to fall into the trap of following a leader or a denomination rather than measuring what they hear by what is found in scriptures. Shamefully the average Christian has never even read through their holy book. Of those who have many aren't looking for a comprehensive understanding but, rather confirmation of something they already have concluded to be true.

Jesus was once asked to say what was the greatest commandment. The question was asked by a Jewish religious leader in the hope of trapping him. Jesus' answer was that the greatest commandment was to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Jesus said that on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. All the Jewish religious leader could do was agree. My point is this: You are what? A failed Catholic. Yet you pretend to have enough understanding of scriptures to condemn the old covenant as both irrelevant and cruel. You lack perspective. Your looking at selective trees and missing the forest. You need to read the old testament without an agenda. When Harper or any politician gives a speech you can divide the listeners into 4 groups. One group is listening to see what they can find wrong with the speech; The second group loves the politician and is looking to see what he can find right with the speech; The third guy is just mad that this speech has interfered with his TV programing; Finally there is a small fourth group who is just trying to listen to and understand what is being said. If your looking at scripture as a member of any group other than the third one you are going to find in them exactly what you are looking for.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The real prestige (and money) is there for the person that can properly argue that the theory of evolution is false. That scientist will immediately become the most prestigious scientist in the world. That person will be up there with Newton and Gallileo and Einstein if he can convincingly toss Darwin's theories into the trash.

That's not true. The scientist would be labeled as a Christian scientist and be ignored by the scientific community. This would happen even if he claimed no religious allegiance.

[T@T]

Calgaryborn: why won't you answer Thor's questions?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That's not true. The scientist would be labeled as a Christian scientist and be ignored by the scientific community. This would happen even if he claimed no religious allegiance.

That's how you think it works, but that's not how it works.

If someone was able to disprove evolution with actual science (not just a bunch of rhetoric and nonsense from unqualified people), it would be a remarkable discovery and that person would become famous.

If someone were able to make a discovery like that, they just simply wouldn't be shouted down. Whether you believe it or not, the scientific community is after the truth.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by T@T

Your not seriously expecting an answer to these are you?

They never answer. Irritating actually.

Since I last posted here I've pulled a 13 hour shift, had 4 1/2 hours sleep and dealt with a few of my immediate family's responsibilities. I'll be doing it all over again tonight. I don't have the time or patience to respond to every single post thrown my way. I generally chose a couple based on my interest in the subject matter and my opinion of the initial posters current conduct in this thread. Snide comments like yours certainly does nothing to encourage my engagement.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That's not true. The scientist would be labeled as a Christian scientist and be ignored by the scientific community. This would happen even if he claimed no religious allegiance.

Untrue, and I've given you a specific historic example where something with religious connotations was changed towards the perceived "more religious" theory because of the data.

Creationists have published papers successfully in the past, if they meet the criteria for good science.