I feel like a majority of this thread shouldn't be in Bean Rua simply because the people who are discussing this topic(very intensely it looks like) are missing out on quite a bit of post count and gold.
*Slaps*
GIMME ALL YO GOLDZ WOMAN! It is your job to obey me, a man, anyway.
[SIZE="1"]/jkjk ilulots<3[/SIZE]:cheer:
Ah well, all the information is interesting to me at least.
That's fine, I could agree with this for non-living matter. After all, spontaneous transmutation of elements already currently occurs in space. Of course, this is all assumption. But my question is, What do you mean by life? and Where did this life come from? Let's focus on just Earth since it has not being around for an infinite scale. It's been around for approximate 4.5 billion years.
If morals is something we grow to understand and work out, then the majority of people would not be able reach the same moral conclusion. Furthermore, how can you be able to distinguish between right and wrong if there was no right or wrong to begin with?There is no right or wrong to begin with. As humans we decide what is right or wrong-- the reason we come to similar moral conclusions is that we're influenced often by other people who have already decided on their morals. If we were to take a group at infancy and isolate them from all living contact, their morals would revolve entirely around basic survival of the group.
Furthermore, if God constantly intervened in our world, we wouldn't have the need to believe in a god. It sounds a bit morbid, but if you think about it, it makes sense. Of course, I'm not God so I can't say that's the reason why. I think God does intervene from time to time, it's just that you may not be able to notice.Rather than rehash my argument against this train of thought again, I'll simply provide a picture.
Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant since I'm discussing a bible verse you quoted, so for right now, Assume that I'm correct.Can you preform an exorcism? Can you, in fact, go to Korea and spread the word?
Now, let me discuss each sign or gift.
They will drive out demons: Simple enough. It's called an Exorcism. Christians believe in the Devil after all. Although, I will admit a necessary Exorcism is very rare in our day and age.
They will speak in new tongues: New tongues just means new languages. So if God deems it necessary, a Christian could be able to communicate with someone even if they didn't know their language. Early Christians were able to spread the Gospel across the world because of this.
They will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all: This doesn't mean that Christians can just drink and get bitten by whatever they please. Its just the assurance that God will take care of them through whatever trials they may face. Your not supposed to test God, either. So don't go picking up snakes >.<
They will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well: It's a known fact that everyone will get sick and die. God can sometimes heal people of their afflictions, of course it could also refer to spiritual well-being.
So in the end, it really doesn't matter since we'll all be dead by then? Great.The black hole does not create, but it does not destroy either. It compresses matter into a single point. When the black hole collapses from being, in essence, overstuffed, that matter expands very rapidly and explosively. For a small-scale example, grab a sponge and compress it, then let go. Now imagine instead that the sponge is all the matter in the universe and your hand is the gravitational forces involved in a black hole.
So then, Gravity explains the contraction. But what about the expansion after the contraction?
Is it just an explosion? Sorry if you already stated it before.
I knew you talked about a black hole, but I never heard of a black hole creating something.
@Lilith: Probably, but anywhere else we'd get adminowned for this discussion. Besides, who cares much about gold? Reps and good discussions are both more important imo, and we can get both in the Bean.
I'm not saying Earth has been around forever-- but you have to understand, the ridiculously tiny chance encompasses the entire universe for the perfect conditions to be met for life. In an infinite time span, what might be considered "flukes" will happen. The chances are infinitesimal-- it just so happened that Earth x billion years ago just so happened to be one of the points on that infinite scale where life formed.
There is no right or wrong to begin with. As humans we decide what is right or wrong-- the reason we come to similar moral conclusions is that we're influenced often by other people who have already decided on their morals. If we were to take a group at infancy and isolate them from all living contact, their morals would revolve entirely around basic survival of the group.
As we grew more educated, we moved from being a pack to being a society, and gradually grew to decide on things that were socially unacceptable.
Rather than rehash my argument against this train of thought again, I'll simply provide a picture
PROPOSED IMAGE OF GOD
The lack of proof for the sake of faith isn't an argument to support religion, it simply implies that you follow blindly. For the "proof" religion has we may as well be totally convinced of the existence of Harry Potter, the Nautilus, Moby Dick, etc. A book that says so and "faith" are no substitute for proof.
Can you preform an exorcism? Can you, in fact, go to Korea and spread the word?
And to be honest I'm going to have to go against your interpretation on the poison one-- "when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" is pretty damn specific.
The black hole does not create, but it does not destroy either. It compresses matter into a single point. When the black hole collapses from being, in essence, overstuffed, that matter expands very rapidly and explosively. For a small-scale example, grab a sponge and compress it, then let go. Now imagine instead that the sponge is all the matter in the universe and your hand is the gravitational forces involved in a black hole.
I understand what you mean now. Personally, that's a bit too much of a stretch for me.
Whether you'd like to admit it or not, by believing in that you are placing a great deal of faith in a coincidence. Or as you called it, a "fluke." But, just my opinion.
No right or wrong? So you believe human beings decided what was socially acceptable. Therefore, do you believe that everything that deals with morals is relative?
If faith was able to be proven 100%, It wouldn't be called faith. There is a portion of Christianity that is faith based. Not everything about our Universe was revealed. And why so? Why should God had us everything on a silver platter? Human discovery is what caused society to grow and develop.
But that book's historicity (The Bible if I may assume) has been confirmed by biology, geology, and astronomy.
And although the Bible may not always agree with naturalistic hypotheses, it is not in conflict with any true, established scientific facts.
You can't compare the Bible with Harry Potter or Moby Dick either. Lives have been changed by the Bible.
If it were some fairy tale, it wouldn't currently be in existence nor would it be able to change lives.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but the Bible contains sixty-six books that have forty different authors from different walks of life, written in three different languages and taking nearly sixteen centuries to complete. And yet, here it is in our time translated into many languages and most of its original manuscripts preserved.
Those gifts were more necessary during the early AD era, where times were more dangerous to the early Christian's health. That's why the whole snakes and deadly poison is present.
The sponge analogy was helpful. So is the squeezed "liquid" the "creation" of the new universe?
Yes. Objective morality does not exist by the very nature of morality itself.
And discovery has pointed entirely away from god. When the only support for a premise is the conviction of the many, it's not a particularly good premise at all.
Of course, the earth is the pancake-flat center of the universe and everyone is most certainly descended from Adam and Adam's rib. Apart from major recorded events which are otherwise historically verifiable, tell me exactly what in the original pages was actually correct. You know, before large sections were cut and/or modified to suit the church's needs.
I heartily disagree. The Noah's Ark tale? The creation of the Earth?
Actually I can. Many people have had their lives changed by various books, in many varied ways. The bible is no special case among other works of fiction.
Sure it would. Stories have been passed down from Ancient times by oral tradition and written word alike. Fairy tales from thousands of years ago aren't particularly uncommon.
You have a very liberal definition of the word "most". Also, the same could be said of pretty much any extensive collection of literary works.
Ancient times may have been more dangerous to the health of Christians, but it's modern times, I guarantee you, that are significantly more dangerous to the religion itself. Like many large religions in the modern age, it is dying.
Nonono, there's no liquid in the mix. When you compress a sponge, that is the contraction. The gravity of the singularity (your hand) compresses all matter and energy in existence (the sponge) into a single point (the tiny ball your sponge will become when you squeeze it).
When you let go (the black hole collapsing) all matter and energy in the universe expands rapidly, causing it to spread explosively (the sponge returning to its original size) and the process repeats.
Well. Good morning again.
G'morning. Too tired to separate now, still waking up...
Umm ... okay then. So, not only there is no right or wrong - there's no objective morals that anyone can adhere to? Then, doesn't that just pretty much means that everything is and can be relative?
Correct. Right and wrong are a human perception, and thus can only be subjective. The universe does not care what you do, other humans do.
Are you able to say that for certain? I find it saddening that you believe that the only thing that binds Christianity (or any belief for that matter) is mere blind conviction.
What binds religion is faith, the very definition of which is belief without (and sometimes in spite of) proof.
You cannot say for certain that human discovery has not pointed away from God completely, for there are still observations about science and our world that can be attributed to a divine power. Until every single one of these are explained away with scientific laws, people with still believe in a God.
There are still phenomena that can be attributed to the whims of an omnipotent being, true-- but every single scientific advancement removes more things that "could have been done by god." So yes, every discovery leads us from theistic religion.
No where in the Bible does it say the Earth is flat nor the center of the universe.
Those views were both stated by the Roman Catholic Church ... More on that further down.
Fairly sure it is, somewhere, but I'll hunt that down later, I'm going back to sleep once I'm done replying x.x
Adam's rib was something to form Eve, the first woman. The Hebrew word for Woman sounds like Man. It's a sort of pun. The rib has no further significance.
Done.
I rephrase then: The entire human race is most certainly descended from no more than 2 people. Can you say "incest"?
How does that make any sense!? The original Bible was written by the early Christians and Jews, they wouldn't need to cut/modify anything. Take for example the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Any unbiased person would agree that the Bible has been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were shocked to see how similar they were to other ancient copies of the Old Testament, even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were hundreds of years older than anything previously discovered.
When I say editing, I don't mean modifying the original material, I mean liberal picking-and-choosing which parts of the original material stayed in the book.
Now then, I suppose I should explain about the cut and modified sections of the Bible that you speak of. When you talk about ancient manuscripts of the Bible there are two types of them, Syrian and Alexandrean. The Syrian manuscripts were complied at around 60 AD and were written by the early Christians living around Sryia. Now then, there were copies of the Syrian manuscripts that where brought to Alexandria, Egypt. To put it bluntly and short, the philosophers there interpreted scripture both philosophically and allegorically. So, whatever they didn't approve of the Bible, they cut out or modified. These Alexandrian manuscripts contain missing words and even verses that coincidentally enough omit about major aspects of Christianity, such as baptism, the nature of God, divinity of Jesus, and how heaven is achieved. Most modern translations of the Bible use these Alexandrian manuscripts. The Kings James and New Kings James Version for reference use the Syrian Manuscripts. The differences are easily recognizable. So, whenever I refer to the original Bible, I refer to the Syrian manuscripts.
The one question I have, then; Do the bibles written from the Syrian manuscripts include the passages written by Mary? By which I mean have they, too, been bastardized from the original message of Christ to suit the Church's desires?
What about Noah's Ark? It was a world-wide flood, entirely plausible considering the universe talk we've been spewing out.
With regards to the creation of the Earth, there scientific theories regarding its creation.
Just like Creationism is a theory, the scientific possibility of the Earth's existence are also theories.
World-wide flood, yes. A vast selection of creatures carrying their species through it by pairing up and hitching a ride on a gigantic boat in which, somehow, none of them seem to have eaten one another? Not so much. As for theories-- Our reality being, in and of itself, real, is just a theory. We have to go with the most sensible theory we have with the most evidence and, in lack of evidence, logical proofs, until it can be proven wrong.
I'm talking about something like the Law of Gravity. Gravity exists, we know that because we can experiment and verify it. If the Bible said that gravity didn't exist, then it would be in conflict with an established scientific fact.
Well that would be pretty silly, as there's no reason at all for it to deny basic forces that even the earliest of people could witness.
Alright, I can agree with you there. I was just talking about if the Bible was just random nonsense, it wouldn't be able to affect people.
Except it could. Look, for instance, to the legends of the Greek Gods-- to us they seem like silly fairy tails, but the ancient Greeks lived their lives by them. Unless you consider your religion to have, somehow, more weight to it than other religions, you're kinda forced to look at that comparison.
Yes, however there are civilizations that we know existed but their manuscripts are lost.
You also can't compare a story to something like the Bible which is a collection of varies books.
The amount of volume is simply too different.
Not necessarily. I'll explain more on this later when I have time to hunt down the collection I'm referring to, but again, too tired just now. If I wake before you reply I'll try to edit.
The Dead Sea Scrolls again pop up in my mind. Therefore, I can only postulate that these extensive collections of literary works are still present because they are important, right? :awesome:
Not necessarily. They are important to people, because people associate them with their religion, which many people take very seriously. Especially in the earlier ages of human history, religion was very important to people, and so anything concerning it was seen as important.
However, it's not objectively important. Personally, apart from a few insights into ancient culture we hadn't yet gleaned, they're not particularly important to me.
I think that's rather opinionated statement, I on the other hand believe Christianity is not dieing. Well, true Christianity that is. It's supported itself for over 2000 years, whereas you don't see Greek or Roman mythology being practiced large scaled anymore.
Longevity does not mean immortality. The numbers speak for themselves.
Okay ... If only we could see some evidence of that in action. Of course if we did, we'd probably all be dead by then. :oops:
Very, very dead.
So tired...
Correct. Right and wrong are a human perception, and thus can only be subjective. The universe does not care what you do, other humans do.
What binds religion is faith, the very definition of which is belief without (and sometimes in spite of) proof.
There are still phenomena that can be attributed to the whims of an omnipotent being, true-- but every single scientific advancement removes more things that "could have been done by god." So yes, every discovery leads us from theistic religion.
Fairly sure it is, somewhere, but I'll hunt that down later, I'm going back to sleep once I'm done replying x.x
I rephrase then: The entire human race is most certainly descended from no more than 2 people. Can you say "incest"?
When I say editing, I don't mean modifying the original material, I mean liberal picking-and-choosing which parts of the original material stayed in the book.
The one question I have, then; Do the bibles written from the Syrian manuscripts include the passages written by Mary? By which I mean have they, too, been bastardized from the original message of Christ to suit the Church's desires?
World-wide flood, yes. A vast selection of creatures carrying their species through it by pairing up and hitching a ride on a gigantic boat in which, somehow, none of them seem to have eaten one another? Not so much. As for theories-- Our reality being, in and of itself, real, is just a theory. We have to go with the most sensible theory we have with the most evidence and, in lack of evidence, logical proofs, until it can be proven wrong.
Well that would be pretty silly, as there's no reason at all for it to deny basic forces that even the earliest of people could witness.
Except it could. Look, for instance, to the legends of the Greek Gods-- to us they seem like silly fairy tails, but the ancient Greeks lived their lives by them. Unless you consider your religion to have, somehow, more weight to it than other religions, you're kinda forced to look at that comparison.
Not necessarily. They are important to people, because people associate them with their religion, which many people take very seriously. Especially in the earlier ages of human history, religion was very important to people, and so anything concerning it was seen as important.
However, it's not objectively important. Personally, apart from a few insights into ancient culture we hadn't yet gleaned, they're not particularly important to me.
Longevity does not mean immortality. The numbers speak for themselves.
Oh ok, don't strain yourself. I'll wait patiently O_O
The universe does not care for the decisions of humanity, that I can agree upon.
But humor me for a second.
The claim that "Right and wrong are a human perception and therefore can only be subjective."
Is that claim subjective or objective?
Yes, faith is an integral part of religion. But, to believe that something is true when it has already been proved false is a bit ... well, you know. When there is irrefutable proof against all of Christianity, then we can start talking.
I think this is due to people just attributing God to everything they don't fully understand, than an actual divergence from God. As a result, when science to reveals to the world "This is how this process or organism works.", it seems that we are moving away from God. But in the beginning we just slapped on "God" for everything. After all, science is humanity's understand of our world.
It changes and develops. God, I feel just gave the world a big push in the right direction. After that, since we have free will, its up to humanity to decide where to go from there.
I'm sure as well. Though if you find anything, post it and I'll try taking a look a it.
What is wrong with incest? Hmmm ... Let me rephrase that question.
Why is incest bad or looked down upon?
No they do not. In accordance the KJV Bible does not contain anything written by Mary. Besides, I don't recall Mary writing any gospels.
...
Oh! Are you referring to the "Gospel" of Mary Magdalene?
If so, that wasn't included in the Bible because ... it was not written by Mary Magdalene or any other Mary of the Bible. Simple as that. There was a large heresy in early Christianity called the Gnostics. They use a variety of early heretical writings known as the Gnostic gospels, a collection of forgeries claiming to be “lost books of the Bible.†The early church fathers were nearly unanimous in recognizing these Gnostic scrolls as fraudulent forgeries that stated false doctrines about Jesus Christ, salvation, God, and every other crucial Christian truth. There are countless contradictions between the Gnostic “gospels†and the Bible. For a historical contradiction, The Gnostic teachings found in the gospel of Mary date it to the late 2nd century A.D. at the earliest. That would have been more than 150 years after the crucifiction of Christ (around 30 AD), no Mary of the Bible would have been alive by then.
Haha. Pretty funny. As for the creatures going into the Ark, they were lead there by God. It was to avoid their extinction. Of course, some died off because the Earth's conditions were different.
As for food ... I can't recall. Some animals had more than two of them, but I think Noah must have stockpiled a bunch of food. It was a huge Ark after all.
As for theories, even the most sensible and widespread theories were later proven wrong. Some were adapted and changed, while others completely discarded. My point is that unless there is sufficient evidence to discard a theory, it remains a valid theory.
Why yes it would be silly, but there are some religions out there that claim stuff like that.
Yes the appears to be silly because it was crafted by humans. Religions were made by humans in an attempt to explain world phenomenon. The Greeks wrote stories about how man got fire or why the seasons changed. They turned out to be false because they weren't true. That sounds obvious, but a God would not tell humanity how something works and later on we find out it to be false. That would mean that God lied, a contradiction with a god's nature.
But that's a relative personal opinion :chin:
Of course nothing material in our world will last forever. But you have to admit, It's lasted for a long time considering the length of human history.
What numbers are you talking about? O_O
Why the long fa-post? Its all TL;DR you realize right? :oops:
Why the long fa-post? Its all TL;DR you realize right? :oops:
You think that's long? :lol: