We’re diverging away from science again. Maybe someone should start a thread in the Religion section of the forum called “Evangelism” then one can have his pulpit.
You say you are a Xian and yet you said “shitter”.They were called Christian's first in Antioch, Jesus never taught anyone to call themselves a Christian. He didn't even call himself Christ.
What I find most difficult about your attempt to control my language is that the AV itself uses the vernacular, and the implication is that it is somehow more acceptable to translate into latin. Ironically however I have not been using the AV word.
In my youth, people sought to defend free speech. Now it seems that “tolerance” is preached but intolerance is practiced. I have also noticed a double standard between what is allowed in conversation and what seems to be fair game to play on the radio or in the cinema.
And this goes back to my point about the constitution I may have made in another thread. When you put any system of rules between you and God then it is doomed to failure.
My mother and grandparents (my grandfather was a Church of God Assistant Minister) were Fundamngelical and to them that is a sin, so if my grandparents were still alive they’d be having you go to their alter to turn your life over to God and confessing your sin. That just goes to show how different Xian faiths are.I wouldn't be surprised if their views on monogamy were closer to mine than the attitude of the church today.
This then brings us back to the question are our views defined by some absolute truth or by our culture.
It seems to me that the whole biblical story can be seen as pursuit of truth as receiving a commandment from God to leave where we are and set off across the wilderness. Although we could simply accept and obey it, that will not happen until we actually receive an understanding of what that truth is. We make many mistakes and blunder around for 40 years, but learning as we go. Then we follow the commandments into the promised land, a place where goodness and truth is practiced, and we drive out the mistakes of those who occupied the land before us. However, whatever error we fail to dive out will come back to bite us. (This is not a particularly well-formed thought, but, I imagine something the JP fans might make something of.)
CREATIONIST HAVE NEVER ACTED IN GOOD FAITH – THEY ARE DEPENDENT ON MISREPRESENTING EVIDENCE AND IGNORING TONS MORE.This is a generalisation that isn't necessarily true about everyone who teaches creation. There are some creationists which I see a lot of atheists "debunk". And I think some of them are rather soft targets. What actually matters though is whether creation is true, not whether creationists are accurate is their representations.
It is possible to gather a lot of information from scientific papers, even if the methodology and analysis is flawed. This is one this I found fascinating about Linus Pauling; he would read papers for the results, not the conclusions.
CC: "CREATIONIST HAVE NEVER ACTED IN GOOD FAITH – THEY ARE DEPENDENT ON MISREPRESENTING EVIDENCE AND IGNORING TONS MORE."log: “This is a generalisation that isn’t necessarily true about everyone who teaches creation.”
It isn’t?
With no examples to counter it, I think it’s a fairly accurate statement. (Citing yourself or some other person ignorant of the topic of evolution, does not qualify as an example.)
And this goes back to my point about the constitution I may have made in another thread. When you put any system of rules between you and God then it is doomed to failure. – LOG
If you want to argue with God, go somewhere else. If you want to argue with the moderators, use the “Issues and Complaints” section.
(6) Users may express their disagreements with the decisions or actions of Moderators, but disagreements, criticisms and the like may be discussed in the Issues & Complaints Forum ONLY. (You must read the instructions at the top of that Forum before making complaints there). Any such discussions not taking place within the I & C Forum are considered off-topic, and as such are subject to moving, locking or deletion, at the discretion of Moderators.
We have not figured out cheek slapping yet (Matthew 5: 39-40) and you are moving on to loving enemies. Ok, let’s do it.What you are proposing is a strategy well-practiced by our astute politicians in Congress and it’s about political survival: if your enemy is the enemy of your enemy, then he is your friend. And trusting God to judge seems like a cop out, an abdication on personal responsibility to do the right thing: rejecting enemies (i.e. corrupt friends).
I suggest you review the verses below and try again. This is a real tough one and I don’t think Jesus meant “enemy” in the literal sense.
Matthew 5 Verses 43 to 47
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
My enemies are the ones that hate me. My work is to speak the truth, as Jesus spoke the truth to me. Jesus didn’t go round being polite, he confronted those who confronted him, not with violence but with the truth.
Right within what Jesus called the second command in the law is a definition of what hatred is:
Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
If we just want people to like us then we my be tolerant of their views even if we think they are wrong, and give some inanity like well that’s your belief or let’s agree to disagree. If we love them, we tell them the truth. Whether they accept it or not is up to them, but Jesus also teaches us to agree with our adversaries. When I engage like this, beyond the pomposity of thinking I know best, I seek a greater understanding between all of us with a view to coming into agreement. This isn’t pushing dogma, but sharing what I have gleaned from my short existence, that may be useful to others, while at the same time trying to understand others and using that to recognise and repent of my own faults. Jesus seems to teach that worship is not accepted before agreement is reached.
If you had made as many and serious mistakes in your life as I had and had overcome them through the glorious truths one sees through scripture, you would want to help others who still make the mistakes that you made even if they seek to destroy you.
Jesus also said:
Matthew 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
But going back to not resisting enemies, this may also be partially understood through game theory. Optimal solutions for the prisoner’s dilemma include “tit for tat with forgiveness”. This is also talked about in evolutionary biology. This is mentioned in this lecture on Behavioral Evolution, I make special reference to “signalling error”. However, when God provides everything you need, there is no longer the need to gain from anyone else, and no titting for people’s tats is necessary. Competitive or selfish gain is not needed for life or survival. So then one considers how to do the best one can in the pursuit of helping others as if they were you.
Yeah and the time the Jews wandered the dessert is the length of the average gestation. 3 days is the time the Sun goes below the Crux around the time of the winter soltice and then returns OR 6 am the son is born noon is middle age, 6 pm is old age with him dying and rising again. Oh and let’s not forget the Octoad, which is what Jesus actually was. The octoad is perfect and infinite. There is also a thing with the fish and bread too, but I have to look it and refresh my memory on it, but basically Numerology is another one of those mythical philosophies, but some of us have been down that rabbit hole too.Octoad?
Did you catch the rabbit?
Competitive or selfish gain is not needed for life or survival. So then one considers how to do the best one can in the pursuit of helping others as if they were you.LOG, you have come to this conclusion through your particular life journey and your particular interpretation of your religious ideas. I like it.
I think there are other roads to the same conclusion. Whereas, your road, I think is one less taken, even amongst most of those who are considered devout Christians.
@lauston
Re: Jonathan Wells.
Every one of his points have been responded to.So what?
In the interests of forthrightness, one point must be conceded straight out: Haeckel's embryo drawings have no place in textbooks except as an example of how erroneous ideas can get tacked onto important truths and perpetuated even after being debunked (Haeckel's inaccurate drawings have actually been 'exposed' multiple times since the 1800's, the Richardson et al. (1997) article that Wells cites being only the most recent example). However, Wells as usual exaggerates the implications of this for evolution.Are we not able to accept learning more about the subject might stand one's beliefs and arguments on a firmer footing? It strikes me that some people are pointlessly contentious.
Re: KJV.
I have one my mother gave me. Her grandmother gave it to her. Pretty common for atheists to be well versed in the Bible.I am not sure whether I have already expressed this, but this discussion is a lot more meaningful than most I have.
God appears to commend this attitude more than say-you-believism.
Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
They were called Christian’s first in Antioch, Jesus never taught anyone to call themselves a Christian. He didn’t even call himself Christ.
Yet Paul spoke of Christ and the book you so love the KJV also calls Jesus, Christ. Actually, if you look at the Greek, it’s more like the Cristos, but that’s actually the Latin and not the Greek. Greek is more like χριστός meaning the anointed one, the messiah, Christ.
Octoad?
Sorry, I spelled it the way I hear it. It’s ogdoad. Ogdoad (Gnosticism) - Wikipedia
IÊSOUS = 888 the ogdoad.
I didn’t say anything about a code in the sentence prior to your comment. There was no code in this statement I made: “Children are not gifts from any deity and this is where I bring the topic back to science, both hard and soft. They are created or should be created out of love between two people.” Therefore, your comment makes no sense, unless you mean genetic code.Yes, I was referring to genetic code. If something I say can be interpreted in a way that makes sense, it is not always an accident.
If that’s the code you are referring too, it wasn’t written by a deity, but rather 24 DNA meeting from two people (12 each), which humans, called scientists, labeled with AUGC.Code does not write code. You have a bootstrapping problem.
Are you misremembering the number of chromosomes? Human chromosomes are numbered 1-22 and then there are the X and Y sex determining chromosomes. And as you rightly say we take 22 from our parents plus X from our mother and X or Y from our father. So we have 22 numbered pairs of chromosomes, or 23 pairs including the sex chromosomes. An easy way to remember this is looking at:Genesis
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
And if you have trouble finding these verses simply remember they are the middle two verses of the first two Genesis accounts: Genesis 1-4.
But seeing you are adept at numerology you can simply look at the start of Genesis:
Genes is 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
In=I+N=9+14=23. and then see the 1:1 as representing a pair of chromosomes, which times 23 =46.
It might be simpler to count the letters.
No god wrote it though, because it relates to cell division. On the other hand, if god did create that DNA, then that would be cool because he created Bonobos 98% genetically like us. That is way cool that they are 98% genetically like us. Don’t know what the other 2% that makes them slightly different though, but it’s awesome they are like us genetically. Love my chimps and I also love Koko the gorilla too.Are Bonobos 98% similar? That sounds like an exaggeration. However a 2% difference is 60 million bp. How dense do you think our DNA is in beneficial mutations? What do you think the search space is?
Do you think Microsoft Word evolved into Microsoft Excel because they share the same code? How many times have accidental mutations of computer code produced a better working program?
People have spent years using irradiation to speed up evolution in fruit flies. No superflies emerged. Where are all the beneficial mutations?
But you don’t need simply one beneficial mutation you need a sequence each of which is an improvement. Any half formed wing, tail, metabolic pathway would be a disadvantage until it gains some function. But every metabolic pathway involves the interaction of many genes and promoters.
What Darwin didn’t know is that the variations in finch beak shape and size come not about through mutation but the selection and switching of pre-existing genetic code. That’s why you can breed a faster racehorse, but the limit is that which is coded in the genes. How much money do you think is spent on breeding racehorses. Selection gets you so far, but you quickly need to back-breed to prevent accumulated errors. Racehorses vary in speed, but there is not an upward trend.
The errors do not help; they make things worse. The variation already exists within the code. It’s the job of the spliceosome to convert the conditional code into something the ribosome can interpret. Each gene has these conditional parts which is where the variation comes from.
Mutations even if beneficial cannot perform the structural changes necessary to turn chimp dna to human dna, you would need to posit some mechanism that made radical changes.
Deny and reject science much? I hate to say it, but Evolution is true and has been for a long time. I don’t see how anyone can deny we are related to chimps or gorillas when even a child (myself) could see that they look just like us only with more fur.I noticed that too. But telegraph poles look a bit like lampposts, it doesn't mean they evolved from each other. No doubt there are commonalities, that could be commonality of design. I think Darwin made a reasonable conjecture and analysis, but I do not think this bears scrutiny.
There are many common design features common between different animals which no-one explains by descent, so why does commonality ever demand descent?
Those who reject it seem to me to not only reject science, but believe humans are superior to all life on earth, when they are not. In fact, I’d dare say we are actually inferior and for many in intelligence even. I see no lie concerning Evolution, but the one thing that is true and personally, I am glad we are related to other animals and what our bodies are comprised of can be found in the universe, which makes us part of the universe too.Genetic matter is likely found on comets, if it is found on them at all, because they were ejected from the earth.
blacks are more primitive than other humans PLEASE! ROFLMAO! If I thought that, then my first husband would not have been black and I would not have had his babies, raising them into adulthood, still calling them my babies. Is this what you believe people who accept Evolution believe?Many yes. It might not what you believe, but it is what the Columbine shooters believed. It's what many rapists and murderers believe. It what Hitler believed. It's not the whole of a fascist ideology, but it is a building block. If you are confused why some policemen have a hatred of black people, this is a part of it. Whether we examine biology or the bible, the accuracy with which we interpret it has implications.
And if you have studied psychology, I am surprised you do not understand that telling children they are animals, and even less deserving of life than animals, and that people are the problem, then this affects their behavior how they value the lives of other people, consciously or unconsciously.
You do not understand evolution if you believe that is what it is about. You thinking is really messed up and you have no idea about Evolution. What you are talking about is what others took from science and corrupted it to justify their ignorant racism. Evolution is not a religion either.That is a moot point.
Sadly, you show your ignorance in favour of science denial. I have found that people who chose to deny science are not only a danger to the human species survival, but also need to marginalized, because their ignorance drive all life on the planet to extinction.That is a fascist ideology. I expect pretty soon, you will be happy to see them rounded up and incarcerated. But in some ways this is encouraging because I see it in prophecy:
John 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.I think we are pretty close, because they have already shut the synagogues.
They are also the same people who disgustingly think PETA (not a member) means “People Eating Tasty Animals” and the worst when it comes barbarism and cannibalism.What's your opinion on forced medication? Vaccines for example? Does this hold if the vaccines contain animal products? Animal cells? Human cells?
Who are you to say where Jews derive their culture? The Tanakh or Torah or OT, whatever you call it, or later traditions?Because I can read my OT, and observe the concept simply isn't in there, which means it derives from elsewhere. I quoted portions that evidenced the opposite thinking. I also checked that all the modern versions use children for the twins in Rebekah's womb.
But I think I made a mistake, because I do not think it is even in their talmud, and is even against traditional Rabbinical thinking. I do not know for sure.
But I do know my OT and that it is not in there.
@loveofgod Do you read Hebrew or do you just read the KJV? You aren’t going to find where the Jews derive their culture in the KJV. The Tanakh is the sacred Hebrew text. The first four or five books are the books of Moses or Torah and despite that being in the Bible, it is not in Classical/Biblical Hebrew and as I said before the KJV is the worst translation. There is the Talmud, the Law, and is the centerpiece of Jewish culture. Of course you can find this in the O.T., but again, if you are reading the KJV you have a terrible translation. There is also midrash, which is a moral story or lesson by the Rabbi derived from Hebrew text. Some of the Hebrew text is even considered midrash. If you really want to understand what you are reading, concerning your own religion, first get a better translation, one accepted by scholars and second, learn about Judaism, especially the Talmud and midrash. It also helps to learn about the religions prior and during the time the Torah, the books of Moses, was written, because those religions were also very influential. All this will help you get a far better grasp of your own than what you do have.
http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/texts
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm
LOG, just too much confusion here. You need to read some science. I can’t teach you if you n don’t want to learn
So the Bible is a medical text too? :-0You trying out to do stand up comic or something? That’s precious. Oh yeah, and if you don’t feed your body you die, Physical Reality is so harsh dude.
This is a serious point. A lot of health has to do with how we feed ourselves and surgeons used to spread a lot more disease before they learned to wash there hands in running water as instructed in the bible.
If everyone viewed food as a bunch of calories, or thought processed food is as good as whole food. Or that pharmacy was a good way to cure disease, you would end up with a lot of sick people.
Well, taking counting letters by their position in the alphabet, by all means; Ιησούς, ኢየሱስ, Jezi, Yesu, Jesu, Isuthi, Ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ, Исус, Jeesus, Jézus, Jisu, เยซู – “Yesu”, Yesu (இயேசு), Исо, Ježiš, ජේසුස් වහන්සේ, Gesù, Иисус, Iisus (I think this one must rhyme with Illusion )Well I cannot vouch for any of those names, have I not said already that I do not trust modern versions. One of their very problems is they change the names and words of God which means the numbers do not work any more. And I do not know most of those scripts, but weirdly Исус=10+19+21+19=69=3x23, same as JEHOVAH=(I AM)x3. Where does Исус come from?
The internet seems to think that Иисус is a 15th century innovation, supplanting the earlier Исус.
Ιησούς is of course greek, and I have not looked far into greek numerology, by letter position Ιησούς=10+8+20+16+22+20=96=12x8, and in units tens, and hundreds, Ιησούς=10+8+200+70+400+200=888=12x74. And 74=J+E+S+U+S. I do not see how this works if you change the letters.
If the J wasn’t important, Jesus would probably not explicitly mention the Jot and the tittle. The tittle makes it a J.
Guess it’s a good thing for you that God was an Amerikan.
Rather, the disciples were fishermen, and English is the language of the fishermen.
@loveofgod Oh and again, any real scholar will tell you that the KJV and NKJV are the worst translations, but yet you keep referring to the KJV.So who decides who the "real" scholars are? And how does that stop them being wrong? That's not how truth works. The majority or experts can be wrong. This is how people end up following false ways by following their leaders. Can the blind lead the blind?
Matthew 27:20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
How is it different today?
The record of how the church was taken over is recorded in the bible. These persecutions started with Saul of Tarsus, and he went on to dominate the church.
Religion works by having a priesthood of “real” believers, and marginalizing those who disagree with them.
Your argument from authority carries no weight with me. If you know what your “real scholars” say to be true, present the arguments, I already know their conclusions.
But one thing you have missed, is they are starting from entirely different manuscripts such as the vaticanus. This is a roman counterfit.
One way the King James is argued to be a bad translation, is that it doesn’t draw on the LXX. But the LXX is the problem. This is the book of the 70 elders. It doesn’t include Genesis. Which is why they teach Paul and not creation and not Jesus of Nazareth.
Also consider that LXX is counted history by secular scholarship.
So who decides who the “real” scholars are? And how does that stop them being wrong? That’s not how truth works. The majority or experts can be wrong. This is how people end up following false ways by following their leaders. Can the blind lead the blind?
And there’s the willful ignorance and refusal to learn again. You aren’t here to learn anything and you don’t want your bubble busted. You only want to impose your ignorant and close minded views and propaganda on others. You’re here to troll/Evangelize and that’s not what this forum is about. This isn’t an insult, because admit it- you came here to evangelize and “convert souls for the glory of God”. That’s a form of trolling.
So who decides who the “real” scholars are? And how does that stop them being wrong?That is a really good question LOG. I'm just not sure you are honestly asking it. It seems like you have decided that truth cannot be determined by examination of facts and applications of logic. Try this website:
https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766