Religion: Did you know?

[Buru Dragon]

Why are those things wrong?  Adultery/Incest/Rape - why is that wrong?

It would seem to me that the story of Adam & Eve, if accepted literally, would've meant that man was originally created through multiple incestuous relationships.

[Amishism]

It would seem to me that the story of Adam & Eve, if accepted literally, would've meant that man was originally created through multiple incestuous relationships.

That is from another thread. You are off topic.

It was perfectly normal and acceptable practice with no harmed offspring as there would be today after the genetic damage we've had.

[Buru Dragon]

That is from another thread. You are off topic.

No, I was responding to grneyelady's post where she mentioned incest being wrong.  Now you’re saying that it wasn’t wrong.  I always thought that God’s laws were unchanging?

[Amishism]

yeah 2 people is one hell of a small gene pool. so their kids (brothers and sisters) had sex with each other and we are all the product of original inbreeding.

what a load of horse shit.

and that sodom sulfur stuff? doesnt look like a city to me, looks like a hunk of rock.

as for "why do we have morals" its called society. monkeys have morals to.
 UM NO! f*cking your sisters and brothers is not "perfectly normal practice" in any decent folks book, no matter the genetic wishful thinking you apply.

what about that story in the bible of the 2 daughters getting their dad drunk and having sex with him "to keep the bloodlines pure". DISGUSTING OLD DIRTY SHEEP ROOTING STORYS OF DIRTY OLD SHEPARDS.

Of coarse it is not acceptable or normal today and the Bible later outlaws the practice when it is no longer needed or safe. But it shows truthfulness in scripture, the behavior having been outlawed during the time the scriptures were written down. There is no way Moses could have known what happened in the beginning.

Evolutionary models and your molecular clock show all common ancestors back to a couple, too. Amazing how science can't deny some given history.

The story of Lot and his daughters is told not telling it to be good behavior, just as something that happened and may have been sin, they were just coming out of the wicked city. Definetely immoral actions on all parts. It is up to God to judge them.

[Buru Dragon]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokebushbible.htm

On her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, she views homosexuality as an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot condone it under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D.
Professor Emeritus, University of Virginia

[Amishism]

I've covered this atheist phd teaching scripture at least once before. You guys really need to get your lessons in scripture from a Christian not a nonbeliever.

First, the OT Mosaic laws no longer apply having been nailed to the cross.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D.
Professor Emeritus, University of Virginia:
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

Lev.1:4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

The wages of sin is death. Sin is transgression of the Law. God's Law is there for a reason, morality, and are not difficult to keep ie:don't kill, steal, covet your neighbour's property or wife, keep the Sabbath of God-not the Pope.

The OT sacrifice was a substitute for actual death of the sinner. Christ paid the final price for those that will accept, going into eternity with our Father, those that do not will see the second death of fire.

At creation in the Garden of Eden, thru free will sin was chosen. We wern't suppose to be fighting to be left for heaven. If Adam and Eve had not chose sin they would have stayed in the garden eating from the tree of life and lived forever. What we are left with is seperating evil from good to remake heaven on a future earth where the saints will live forever as was intended.

Now, can you make someone love you? No. Neither can God or at least He didn't, not even the angels, Satan was cast out of God's presence. In the end Satan and all evil will be gone.

Rev.21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away.......4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

Maidservant is what the Bible says,but we will look at slavery.
Slavery was the result of wars, at that time, as oppose to mass-murder, genocide and holocaust. Slavery was an accepable practice just over 100 years ago here in the USA and many other parts of the world. We are owned in a different form of slavery today;birth certificates, property deeds. We don't even own our property. You will find the owners of all these certificates is ROME.

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

This immoral pagan is not referring to his wife.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

Why can't I own Canadians?

44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

 45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Owning the heathen would be so much easier. In the OT wages of sin was death, conversions of problem tribes were the norm, for the safety and building a moral society. NT covenant requires Christians to preach the gospel to all the world, it is up to them to accept or not. We have no authority to enslave and force change upon people, today.

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

The Sabbath is one of the Big Ten that is in the new covenant, We are commanded to keep the law, for Jesus said "if you love me keep my Commandments". If you don't make your very best effort to keep the law (including the Sabbath), with ernest repentance, Jesus does not know you and the wages of sin will be death.

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

The Book of Rev. mentions both of these will be abomination in the times of Judgement. The endtime remnant will keep a clean diet.

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Lev.21:18For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

 19Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

 20Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

 21No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

 22He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

 23Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

 24And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.

Looks as tho the blemished persons have been so due to sin. Need to research that more. Were they a true holy man they would not be damaged, OT.

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

Mosaic law nailed to the cross.

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?


10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Mosaic law.

[dogmadestroyer]

Still waiting for my question to be addressed....

In the meantime:

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

"any other NON ZEALOTS getting pm'd telling them to not argue with these trolls?"



the answer is no. think about that.

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

i have checked kregeners last 40 posts and found 0 swearing or insults. i will not be sending him a pm.

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

find a post of mine attacking a forum member who was not thought to be a troll.

thought of a troll by whom? you?

"i have checked kregeners last 40 posts and found 0 swearing or insults. i will not be sending him a pm."

proof positive that the mods are being bias and protecting these scum. this forum is starting to look like nothing more than a money making operation for alex jones and ron paul. both of whom i support, but these methods i think are rediculous. its not truth when your backing liars up just to make a buck.
[/quote]

how so? i deleted kregeners one post, and have not heard a peep from him, as he probably understands. it was also a very rare instance. you on the other hand regularly call people names and swear at them.

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

"fine. im wrong, your right.

i swear and bully. im evil. im a satanic pagan nwo shill.

god is coming to throw me in a lake of fire with the devil and your all going to heaven to sing songs of praise to him for ever."

did i say any of that?

for the last time, i dont believe in the bible, but even if i did, it wouldnt change anything, id still be warning you about swearing and insults.

i have to go now, but im fairly certain you understand my point, it has nothing to do with religion.

let me repeat that,

the action as a moderator that i have taken has nothing to do with religion, it is specifically about swearing and insults.

[PatriotX]

Seems you are wasting your life Notashill being so angry and spewing garbage and filth.  Let them have their myths if that is your take.  I always find it fascinating how the people who contend with the thumpers so earnestly are almost always the one's using the majority of the profanity and making insults on a continual basis.  If your truth is SO evident, let it stand on its own merits.

"have him come to australia and meet me a train station, me the boys can jump on his face some then i'll piss the word wanker across his wrecked body."  -  notashill


Seems there ought to be a lesson here about where the maturity truly lies....

Patriot X

(such eloquence.)

[LarryInColumbus]

Ah, on the note of dumb zealots. Where is that allegedly correct translation where the bible doesn't clearly say the earth is flat???

Isa 40:22  [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

In the original Hebrew: chuwg - a circle, sphere
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H02329&Version=kjv

It is a myth that the people in Columbus's day believed that the Earth was flat.  About 250BC the Athenians measured the angle of the north star in various locations.  Consequently, they determined the diameter of the earth within a few miles.  The ancient Egyptians took records of the lunar eclipses and documented an arc in every orientation of the earth.  Consequently, they determined that the earth must be a sphere.  Ancient mariners understood that the earth was a sphere otherwise they would have been unable to navigate.  Their primary navigation points were the North Star and the Southern Cross.

The confusion is principly around the Pope condemning Galileo for saying that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that everything revolved around the earth.  At that point the Pope did not dictate that the earth was flat but he dictated that he was God.

[Amishism]

ZEALOT FUNDI = Bible believing Protestant
Catholics (most are very atheist Catholics) use this term because they actually consider themselves the only lawful christian Church, not recognizing Protestants as Christian. They don't believe in the bible which gets in the way of their form of government, papal/caesar dictatorship.


They will never acknowledge the bible no matter the evidence, just as they won't acknowledge evolution is factless, often fabricating evidence. Why would evolutionist fabricate evidence not caring about scientific truth? Because of their global world order church/state dictatorship.

[Joe(WI)]

I reiterate my arguements in "And It Just Happens?"

I had rather wanted anyone to show reproducible evidence of ANYTHING, or claim by FAITH.

I need CREATIONISTS to do me this favor-call into existance a new universe with all the usual junk, or claim it was done, by belief.

I need EVOLUTIONISTS to do me a favor also-create a new universe with another Big Bang, show when life begins in it, and show the mutation sequences well documented, or else claim it also was done, by belief.

I NEED facts people, not just a bunch of dead things. I need to see your "homework". Show me that living thing from nothing. Show me creation from non-closed system. Stop calling things Science if you can't do those things. Both sides.

Is there ANYTHING you can show me besides belief based arguements?

At LEAST implicate WHY someone needs to believe something other than what you do. This is not a debate where best debater is found correct despite flaws, I don't need "The dog(God?) ate my homework!"

[dogmadestroyer]

ZEALOT FUNDI = Bible believing Protestant
Catholics (most are very atheist Catholics) use this term because they actually consider themselves the only lawful christian Church, not recognizing Protestants as Christian. They don't believe in the bible which gets in the way of their form of government, papal/caesar dictatorship.


They will never acknowledge the bible no matter the evidence, just as they won't acknowledge evolution is factless, often fabricating evidence. Why would evolutionist fabricate evidence not caring about scientific truth? Because of their global world order church/state dictatorship.

Ah yes, more rambling about catholics. Apparently because I say batshit fundie from time to time... news to me that I'm a catholic. Being as I was brought up with an atheist father and a presbyterian mother who brought us to church and bible school every sunday that makes me very catholic.... I can acknowledge that going on the bible catholicism is ridiculous (aside from the normal ridiculousness inherent in christianity)

Anyway, we're yet brought again to you rambling in a thread about catholics when nothing prompts it... the typical off topic trolling continues.

[White Rose Sophie]

Um....didn't "notashill' create this thread about, er, religion?

And now he/she's upset because there are posters who are defending their belief systems?  (with arguably less profanity, apparently)

And strange, how 'notashill' refuses to discuss my rhetorical questions, and instead launches into tirades against those who disagree with his/her opinions?

I think someone has watched "Zeitgeist" way too many times.

Man does not believe in "GOD" or a supreme being because Man does not WANT to believe in GOD/Supreme Being.  Quite simple, really.

What is really humorous is that people believe (and are programmed from early childhood) to regard evolution as the explanation of life... a theory developed by a man who had exactly 2 years of medical school at Edinburgh University before he dropped out...his only 'scientific' study.....Charles Darwin.   

A man who obviously knew nothing about the practicalities of genetics when he married his first cousin..The resulting children -One daughter died at birth, another at 10, his oldest had a prolonged breakdown at 15, 3 of his six sons became semi-invalids, his last son born mentally retarded and died at 19 months old.

Rather sad, really.

"Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered". (Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1860, p 178.quoted from Harvard Classics, 1909 ed. Vol II)

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy" (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol 2, p 229)

And we really don't want to get into how much Adolf and Josef, Mao and Benito valued evolutionary theory....... While there has also has been ample examples of tyrannical and bloodthirsty "Christian" leaders, their actions are in direct contrast to what they claim to believe....(ie, what Jesus of Nazareth preached) whereas those who deny the existence of a Supreme Being and believe that man has just evolved from lower animal forms are acting in complete concert with that belief system when they start wars, commit genocide, etc. 

As Darwin emphasized competitive survival as the key to advancement, so communism focused on the value of LABOR rather than the LABORER. Karl Marx wrote Darwin and asked if he could dedicate his new book (Das Kapital) to him, but Darwin wisely declined.  Another devotee wrote "Mein Kampf"....(My Struggle)..another Darwinian expression. (The struggle to survive...to overcome)

Hey, with advocates like those - no wonder people believe it!

[Sub-X]

Um....didn't "notashill' create this thread about, er, religion?

And now he/she's upset because there are posters who are defending their belief systems?  (with arguably less profanity, apparently)

And strange, how 'notashill' refuses to discuss my rhetorical questions, and instead launches into tirades against those who disagree with his/her opinions?

I think someone has watched "Zeitgeist" way too many times.

Man does not believe in "GOD" or a supreme being because Man does not WANT to believe in GOD/Supreme Being.  Quite simple, really.

What is really humorous is that people believe (and are programmed from early childhood) to regard evolution as the explanation of life... a theory developed by a man who had exactly 2 years of medical school at Edinburgh University before he dropped out...his only 'scientific' study.....Charles Darwin.  

A man who obviously knew nothing about the practicalities of genetics when he married his first cousin..The resulting children -One daughter died at birth, another at 10, his oldest had a prolonged breakdown at 15, 3 of his six sons became semi-invalids, his last son born mentally retarded and died at 19 months old.

See this is the problem i have with the Bible,if you find my question about Adam and Eve in the below link there lays a major contradiction here,inbreeding and incest was OK until the Bible outlawed it,I'm just paraphrasing the answer i got back.
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=12469.msg60855#msg60855

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

I reiterate my arguements in "And It Just Happens?"

I had rather wanted anyone to show reproducible evidence of ANYTHING, or claim by FAITH.

I need CREATIONISTS to do me this favor-call into existance a new universe with all the usual junk, or claim it was done, by belief.

I need EVOLUTIONISTS to do me a favor also-create a new universe with another Big Bang, show when life begins in it, and show the mutation sequences well documented, or else claim it also was done, by belief.

I NEED facts people, not just a bunch of dead things. I need to see your "homework". Show me that living thing from nothing. Show me creation from non-closed system. Stop calling things Science if you can't do those things. Both sides.

Is there ANYTHING you can show me besides belief based arguements?

At LEAST implicate WHY someone needs to believe something other than what you do. This is not a debate where best debater is found correct despite flaws, I don't need "The dog(God?) ate my homework!"

couldnt agree more Joe, if one knows something to be true, then one does not need to embellish it to make it apparent to another. you dont need to exaggerate, you dont need to attack the other side. look at AJ, he never exaggerates, he just tells it as plainly and as clearly as he can muster, knowing thats the best anyone can do.

just put your cards on the table in other words.

[dogmadestroyer]

I reiterate my arguements in "And It Just Happens?"

I had rather wanted anyone to show reproducible evidence of ANYTHING, or claim by FAITH.

I need CREATIONISTS to do me this favor-call into existance a new universe with all the usual junk, or claim it was done, by belief.

I need EVOLUTIONISTS to do me a favor also-create a new universe with another Big Bang, show when life begins in it, and show the mutation sequences well documented, or else claim it also was done, by belief.

I NEED facts people, not just a bunch of dead things. I need to see your "homework". Show me that living thing from nothing. Show me creation from non-closed system. Stop calling things Science if you can't do those things. Both sides.

Is there ANYTHING you can show me besides belief based arguements?

At LEAST implicate WHY someone needs to believe something other than what you do. This is not a debate where best debater is found correct despite flaws, I don't need "The dog(God?) ate my homework!"

Definitely!! That was the point I was trying to make earlier in this thread... or was it another thread? They all look the same. Anyway, This ridiculous adherence to a platform for their view of the universe has to stop and be replaced by logic and research!!

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

This ridiculous adherence to a platform for their view of the universe has to stop and be replaced by logic and research!!

what on earth are you talking about? you want to tell people want they can or can not think??

it may be ridiculous to you, but where do you get the right to tell another person what they are allowed to think?

ridiculous indeed.

[LarryInColumbus]

See this is the problem i have with the Bible,if you find my question about Adam and Eve in the below link there lays a major contradiction here,inbreeding and incest was OK until the Bible outlawed it,I'm just paraphrasing the answer i got back.

Unfortunately, Evolutionism has the same issue to deal with.  95% of all Genecists believe that the human came from one woman.  Per my previous post.

Reference:
“Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events.”
“...Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.  For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"‑‑the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people‑‑lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old…” 
Gibbons, Ann, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock”, Science, Vol 279, No. 5347, Jan 1998, pp. 28 ‑ 29.(Not a religious publication)

Also, Evoluton believes that man came from the dust of the earth.  Evolutionists belive that it happened by chance and the bible belivers believe that it happened by devine intervention.

[White Rose Sophie]

I reiterate my arguements in "And It Just Happens?"

I had rather wanted anyone to show reproducible evidence of ANYTHING, or claim by FAITH.

I need CREATIONISTS to do me this favor-call into existance a new universe with all the usual junk, or claim it was done, by belief.


Is there ANYTHING you can show me besides belief based arguements?

At LEAST implicate WHY someone needs to believe something other than what you do. This is not a debate where best debater is found correct despite flaws, I don't need "The dog(God?) ate my homework!"

Am I correct in thinking that because I believe in "Divine Creation", that I am then supposed to 'call into existance a new universe" to 'prove' my belief? If I am not divine myself, how then am I supposed to do so? By my belief, I am not stating that "I AM GOD" and therefore I created the world, I am simply stating that I believe that there is a GOD who did.

Both theories are technically unprovable because both cannot be replicated by MAN. 

I believe in a divine creation because to me it's the more logical explanation. Why? I am certainly not a seminary-trained theologian, and maybe this is pure blonde ramblings, but the chair that I sit in did not 'spontaneously' spring into existance, or the computer I am typing this on....they were first designed and 'created'. As was the car I drive, the house I live in, etc.

It seems to me that one of the biggest stumbling blocks people have in believing in a Supreme Being is that they are looking at things from a 'human' viewpoint. If there is a Supreme Being who created this world (and I believe there is) why on earth would HE be limited into only working within 'understood' human laws? By the very nature of being 'supreme' to humanity....that would not be necessary.

It's like the man who says "There is no GOD".  How does 'he' know, being a mere mortal human?

I can list many other reasons why I believe in 'creation' as opposed to 'evolution', as well as many reasons I believe the Bible to be divinely inspired (note, I said 'inspired')...but that would make this reply WAY TOO LONG. 

But let me know if you want just a few.   

[Dig]

I guess notashill could not live up to her name.

[White Rose Sophie]

I guess notashill could not live up to her name.

 

I guess when one starts a provocative thread - one must be willing to endure the responses.   

[Sub-X]

Unfortunately, Evolutionism has the same issue to deal with.  95% of all Genecists believe that the human came from one woman.  Per my previous post.

Reference:
“Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events.”
“...Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.  For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"‑‑the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people‑‑lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old…” 
Gibbons, Ann, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock”, Science, Vol 279, No. 5347, Jan 1998, pp. 28 ‑ 29.(Not a religious publication)

Also, Evoluton believes that man came from the dust of the earth.  Evolutionists belive that it happened by chance and the bible belivers believe that it happened by devine intervention.

Thanks Larry that was my point,too many people take the Bible as gospel(excuse the pun)the one truth and its riddled with inconsistances and is also a means of dismissing Evolution.My over all point is both are flawed and cant not be accepted as fact.

A man who obviously knew nothing about the practicalities of genetics when he married his first cousin..The resulting children -One daughter died at birth, another at 10, his oldest had a prolonged breakdown at 15, 3 of his six sons became semi-invalids, his last son born mentally retarded and died at 19 months old.

[LarryInColumbus]

Thanks Larry that was my point,too many people take the Bible as gospel(excuse the pun)the one truth and its riddled with inconsistances and is also a means of dismissing Evolution.My over all point is both are flawed and cant not be accepted as fact.

I think that the central issue of this debate is flawed.  It falls into a phony paradigm, the thought that if one is wrong then the other must be right.  It is possible that both are wrong.  This is a result of the public school Pavlovian training methods, aka: multiple choice questioning.  This is the polar opposite of critical thought.  Most people cannot even get it in their head that there can be another possibility.

I do believe that the bible was written by the creator of the universe.  But hey, I could be wrong.  We have a short time here to figure things out for ourselves.  Unfortunately, not enough time to get the job done.  It is just amazing to me that people are so stuck in their own dogma that their thought process closes down and they attack other people.  It is simply amazing.  The Bible says "prove all things".  That is good advice even for those who do not believe the bible.

[Sub-X]

Anything is possible and i agree pretty much with your point,as i said its just some people can hold the Bible and say this is the word of God past on to man,and yet nobody considers the possible of Chinese whispers,or the interpretation could be wrong,or the inconsistencies that don't stand up,my point is you cant dismiss certain aspects of the Bible as true and ignore the things that don't make sense.Grneyelady made a point below that completely contradicts what another Christian told him in a previous post,so the supporters of the same faith cant even agree with which other on certain aspects and this is the problem.I'm not trying to have a go,I'm trying to understand and explain these contradictions and inconsistencies are the reason i don't take the Bible serious.

[White Rose Sophie]

Anything is possible and i agree pretty much with your point,as i said its just some people can hold the Bible and say this is the word of God past on to man,and yet nobody considers the possible of Chinese whispers,or the interpretation could be wrong,or the inconsistencies that don't stand up,my point is you cant dismiss certain aspects of the Bible as true and ignore the things that don't make sense.Grneyelady made a point below that completely contradicts what another Christian told him in a previous post,so the supporters of the same faith cant even agree with which other on certain aspects and this is the problem.I'm not trying to have a go,I'm trying to understand and explain these contradictions and inconsistencies are the reason i don't take the Bible serious.

LOL.  Grneyelady is a lady. 

Please, don't make me read through this whole thing again - post the inconsistencies and I will do my 'layman' best to respond to them.  And you are right - many Christians don't agree on many things in the Bible....it is a matter of interpretation in most cases, and I tend to prefer going back to the original Hebrew (in the case of the Old Testament) and Greek (for New Testament) words to try and figure out what was meant.  And a lot of people take scripture totally out of context to further their own viewpoint too. 

[Sub-X]

Um....didn't "notashill' create this thread about, er, religion?

And now he/she's upset because there are posters who are defending their belief systems?  (with arguably less profanity, apparently)

And strange, how 'notashill' refuses to discuss my rhetorical questions, and instead launches into tirades against those who disagree with his/her opinions?

I think someone has watched "Zeitgeist" way too many times.

Man does not believe in "GOD" or a supreme being because Man does not WANT to believe in GOD/Supreme Being.  Quite simple, really.

What is really humorous is that people believe (and are programmed from early childhood) to regard evolution as the explanation of life... a theory developed by a man who had exactly 2 years of medical school at Edinburgh University before he dropped out...his only 'scientific' study.....Charles Darwin.   

A man who obviously knew nothing about the practicalities of genetics when he married his first cousin..The resulting children -One daughter died at birth, another at 10, his oldest had a prolonged breakdown at 15, 3 of his six sons became semi-invalids, his last son born mentally retarded and died at 19 months old.

Apologies if you think I'm having ago,i would agree with your above statement totally,but it contradicts what was said to me on the subject of Adam and Eve in which i was told that inbreeding was OK at one stage but the Bible outlawed it.If people would say well i interpert the Bible to be the truth as i believe it rather than saying it is the truth outright,when in fact it is how you interpert so some people maybe have it all wrong.

Link to the question i asked :  http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=12469.msg60855#msg60855

[LarryInColumbus]

Apologies if you think I'm having ago,i would agree with your above statement totally,but it contradicts what was said to me on the subject of Adam and Eve in which i was told that inbreeding was OK at one stage but the Bible outlawed it.If people would say well i interpert the Bible to be the truth as i believe it rather than saying it is the truth outright,when in fact it is how you interpert so some people maybe have it all wrong.

Link to the question i asked :http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=12469.msg60855#msg60855

Geneticists are almost in complete agreement the "human species" originated with one man and one woman.  I have pointed this out previously in the female side of the by the mitochondrial DNA.  According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the law of entropy)  Everything in nature tends from order to disorder.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
This law is observed in all sciences except evolutionary biology.  In Genetics this is clearly understood because the gene pool is decaying.  This is very obvious in the cheetah population.  Geneticists are in a race to save the cheetahs because their gene pool is thinning so deeply that if nothing is done then they will become extinct within the next 100 years.  Consequently, Geneticists are in agreement that the human race cannot continue another 5,000 years. 

The gene pool is decaying at a known rate scientifically.  On the front end of this, the two first humans had to have had a very rich gene pool.  The bible is full of occasions when someone took their blood relative as their "breeding mate" in early times.  If this were to happen  today, the consequences would be devastating.  Religious people today have a very difficult time with this today but that is because they are ignorant and usually dogmatic.

You are correct that the bible did outlaw inbreeding in the Mosaic law.  Prior to that time, it was acceptable. 
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Lev/Lev018.html#6

Lev 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover [their] nakedness: I [am] the LORD.  (7) The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she [is] thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.  (      The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it [is] thy father's nakedness.  (9)   The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, [whether she be] born at home, or born abroad, [even] their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.  (10)  The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, [even] their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs [is] thine own nakedness.

It goes on but you get the idea 

[Sub-X]

Thanks for taken the time Larry to point this out to me,that makes alittle more sense and is alot more logical,rather than its Gods will or he works in mysterious ways,could also be an explanation to the whole concept of been born with "Original Sin",though i still believe this is unfair when it is completely out of any of our hands.
Again i appreciate the time you took to explain this,thanks 

[LarryInColumbus]

Thanks for taken the time Larry to point this out to me,that makes alittle more sense and is alot more logical,rather than its Gods will or he works in mysterious ways,could also be an explanation to the whole concept of been born with "Original Sin",though i still believe this is unfair when it is completely out of any of our hands.
Again i appreciate the time you took to explain this,thanks 

My pleasure.

The whole thing with "being fair" is really an "Utopian Ideal".  Things are never fair and thy never will be.  If you had two people living in isolation, then they each would think that they were doing more for the other and that it was unfair.  Then again they may believe that it was unfair that God did not provide more friends.

I was kinda poking fun at "Not a Shill".  I believe what the bible says about not casting your pearls before the swine but it looks like he was banned.  I would like to see his non-profane comments remain to demonstrate his glaring hypocrisies.

[White Rose Sophie]

My pleasure.

The whole thing with "being fair" is really an "Utopian Ideal".  Things are never fair and thy never will be.  If you had two people living in isolation, then they each would think that they were doing more for the other and that it was unfair.  Then again they may believe that it was unfair that God did not provide more friends.

I was kinda poking fun at "Not a Shill".  I believe what the bible says about not casting your pearls before the swine but it looks like he was banned.  I would like to see his non-profane comments remain to demonstrate his glaring hypocrisies.

Me too. I was having fun.   

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

LarryInColumbus, thats intriguing stuff there a few posts back, do you have any links to understand gene pools etc, or just some more links on that?

i, like many people i spose, can see that there is something more to life than just accident, or more that there are things larger than us, but are skeptical of the bible, and in particular, of any attempt at orginisation or dogma, for obvious reasons hopefully (even if you dont agree).

the way i have rationalised life through my eyes, is based on a principle that i learnt through the bible, which is do unto others, so i can hardly disregard religion or creationism. i also believe that principle if you like, applies to more than just social behaviour, but thats another story...

its interesting what was said about there being more than just either-or.



nb. notashill has not been banned, but is on vacation till he/she understands that they cannot repeatedly swear and insult members of this forum. opinions are fine, even strong ones, but excessive swearing and insulting is not tolerated, no matter what topic it happens in.

[LarryInColumbus]

aLLyOuRbAsE,
Thanks for your kind words.  Years ago I listened to Kent Hovind's seven part series and I was amazed at his research.  There is very little doubt in my mind why they railroaded him.  He is a Southern Baptist and he wants to get you saved.  He does not hide it and he tells you right up front.  I listened to his series and then I listened to it again and took notes.  I started searching the net and found his research to be solid.  He is really incredible if you can put aside his Southern Baptist ideology.  I also watched a few of his debates with professors of evolutionary biology and it is unbelievable to see them unable to defend evolution.  Kent Hovind sticks to the science and they want to argue religion.

I regularly listen to George Gordon who used to be on GCN.  He just did a GREAT series called "Dead Men's Secrets" in which he details ancient technologies.  http://db.georgegordon.com  It unreal the amount of ancient technology that has been found and Academia has buried.  The amount of evidence that ancient man flew, used electricity, had advanced metallurgy and construction techniques (just to name a few) is overwhelming.  Many of which we are unable to duplicate today.  I lean strongly towards George Gordon's ideology.  He practices the Mosaic law which is in the old testament.  This is not using genetically modified or hybridized food, not using Federal Reserve notes or Social Security, not eating unclean foods such as pork or shell fish, not using pharmaceuticals, not signing contracts with the government, not using credit and remaining private.  If we all did this, there would be no "New World Order", there couldn't be.

The one thing that really blows me away is Albert Einstein's writings on the "original event".  This is part of his "theory of relativity" in which he states that Time, Space and Matter are mutually exclusive.  None can exist without the other two.  You cannot have something without a time or place to put in.  In the "original event" all three came into existence simultaneously.  Before then, time did not exist nor did anything else.  Since he postulated this, many physicists have been trying to figure out what this "original event" was.  The "Big Bang" was one of the first but was soon proven to be wrong.

That said, consider the first line in the bible, Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."  You have all three elements: time = beginning, heaven = space, earth = matter.  It is hard to rationalize that a few thousand years ago, a man in the desert came up with this.  Even for the atheist, it is too much to believe that King James figured this out 500 years ago.

[Weasel]

Someone said something about "why would you care about fighting NWO if it wasnt for the bible and its morals". Dont bullshit yourself by claiming you are not here for the sole selfish reason "i dont want to die or be enslaved myslef", and as fish, zebras, ants etc you find strength in numbers. Morals are hidden selfishness. You dont kill cause you dont want to be killed yourself, you dont steal cause you dont want to be stolen from yourself etc. So dont bullshit yourself by caliming a "higher purpose" with it.

[Cruise4]

Initially that reply appears very insightful Weasel, but there are people that lay down their life for others, and that alone suggests your 'cover-all' theory isn't an absolute. Some of us have already faced the fact that we may die doing this and selfishness would mean we stop doing it according to your statement. Usually... you are right. But the very future of both humanity and the planet are 'at risk' here and I do see that as a 'higher purpose'.

[Weasel]

some people jump in parachutes, some drink too much, some lay their life out for others. Whatever makes _you happy_. Its pure selfishness at the bottom. Its not a bad thing, though your morals wants it to be. And yes, just like in any war or battle, the soldiers basicly joins cause they dont want to live in an enslaved world or whatever in that genre. If bush told the army before invading Iraq, "Yes CIA and my minions put saddam in power and sold him his now out of date chemical weapons, we just want the oilpipe and make some money for halliburton", you bet your ass very few would enlist to not-serve their country.

[Cruise4]

This goes to the heart of the Service to Others (STO) and Service to Self (STS) argument. Which path do you choose. The former requires the complete lack of any personal gain otherwise it is as you suggest. You could well be right that no-one in this world can achieve such a state at present. But thats the quest for enlightenment and spirituality. We can but try.