Everyone's Views

[slivers55]

I don't really believe in god. I think theres all kinds of flaws with the bible and the whole idea that the good will be rewarded and the bad will be punished. The earth isn't 4000 years old, dinosaurs existed as did many lifeforms before them, and the world is definitely not flat. So whether there is a god or not, the bible as an authority on the matter should be in question.

As for the morality thing well part of me wants to believe it, another part of me doesn't understand how it could be true. Being good or bad doesn't seem to determine how long you live or how successful or happy your life is. Additionally if you look at the animal kingdom the only real principle thats in effect there is survival of the fittest, so whats to say that its not the same way for our own lives? That the only thing that matters is who is the most effective, and morality is completely irrelevant? Thats what my brain tells me, but my heart tells me that there is value in morality. Maybe its just how I was raised, but I'd rather be poor or middle class then a rich guy with no values whatsoever.

Oh and about the Hadron collider, supposedly that kind of particle collision happens all the time from cosmic rays slamming into our planet. So theres not supposed to be anything to worry about.

[Kachiko]

Whatr flaws do you refer to?
It doesn't state that the earth is flat, so not sure what you are to referring to there either.
Just because you don't want to believe there might be consequences for ones actions, you would rather just not believe it and hope for the best?

[cwd56]

Man finds all kinds of flaws to criticize in the Bible. But what alot of people take to heart and rarely question is what they are taught growing up about evolution. The evolution theory has more flaws in it than the Bible has by far. To me just the idea of evolution is silly. I am not saying things have never changed, but a certain species of animal has never produced a different species. They have produced an adaptation, but it's still the same species of animal.

Do a little research into what you were taught growing up about evolution and alot of what we are/were taught are based on blatant known lies, but it's inconvenient for man to accept it, so it stays in the text books.

Man has always tried to destroy the idea of God because that means we can't do what we want, when we want without consequences.


Cwd56

[slivers55]

You didn't read everything I said did you? Haha arguing on the internet is so fucking stupid sometimes. At least in real life people don't skip over parts of what you say because its to long or whatever. Here let me help you out with those bible verses


Flat earth

Isaiah 11:12: "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

The "dome" (the atmosphere), the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat (which it is), a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”

The bible also supports incest.

Genesis 19
Lot and His Daughters
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."

33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

Hmm book written by fallible men or people receiving instruction directly from god? You be the judge.

I'm sorry if the view that religion=morality applies to you and you need to be religious to know what is right in world, but don't try and apply that to me. You should understand that the two are not necessarily synonymous.

[cwd56]

That does not imply that the world is flat, it's the way that you interpret it.

And as far as incest goes, The Bible teaches that mankind was created perfect, without flaws. It was only after man's disobedience that imperfection entered God's creation. Thus mankind, as originally created, would not have had the myriad of genetic mistakes now present in our DNA. In opposition of what evolution teaches, mutations or mistakes on our DNA, do not lead to better and improved humans. These mistakes cause hundreds of debilitating illnesses and birth defects. The reason all of us are not born with enormous numbers of medical problems is because our genes are a combination of the characteristics of our parents. Only when both parents have the same mistake in their genes do their children manifest the resulting genetic problem.

There were no moral laws against children intermarrying until after the time of Moses.

Cwd56

[necroman]

and the incest part you are talking about was not sexual. Lot had no heirs and so his daughters got him drunk so that they may become pregnant. it was not in any way a sexual thing. strictly a way to keep the Lot bloodline going. what they did was a selfless act. all of lots possession would have gone to some step kid or somethign i cant remeber who but it would have been bad. the daughters were to old to marry because lot never found them a husband. it was not an ideal situation but it was not incest like we think of incest.

[Kachiko]

Hehe, you sound like you took those from the skeptics annotated Bible.
They are infamous for taking things out of context to make it look like it is saying something else.
I did read everything you wrote. I was just baiting you to list some specifics for me to tackle easier instead of blurring too many ideas together.
I know exactly how it is going to go. Like so many others, it is an old favorite pasttime to argue something using a misunderstanding as their reasons, rather than find out what it really means.

Lets start with the old famous "foundations" one.

As a minor background, the "flat earth" was never a church belief. It was however a belief of people outside the church. The flat earth theory was spread by non-biblical supporters, but as early as Homer (700-800 bC), it was evident that it wasn't.
The only real church conflict was that they didn't believe people could exist on the other side of the world, because of what science had declared to be an uncrossable barrier called the "torrid clime". Since it became established fact, men who had descended from a single source could not have sailed to the other side.

The Isaiah reference uses hyperbole that is used even to this day. The "four corners of the earth" is still used to describe the furthest reaches. The Bible is full of many literary styles, just as any other writing. And each author in it uses their own blend, using words and phrases that their audience would understand, and in the same way Revelation uses prophetic visionary imagery. Same with the Daniel references. They were clips from dreams and visions taken out of context.

The "foundations" verse is another taken out of context to support whatever silly idea is being argued. Everyone trying to use it has their own interpretation. Evidently yours is to say it's an immovable flat foundation?
It comes partially from taking it out of context, and largely from not understanding what it meant.
Literally translated, psalm 104:5 would be closer to something like "He had founded earth on its bases, It is not moved/removed to the age and for ever."
Without going into too much drawn out detail on Hebrew sentence structure(which most would fall asleep to), Hebrew only uses present perfect and past perfect. It also uses words that represent phrases or general ideas, that can't be translated exactly word for word, no matter what the translation you read decides to put in.
Key words (with quicky translation) would be
"yasad" (fix, laid, established, ordained) ,
"makon"(established foundation-of earth or throne/place/site/habitation) , and "mot" (slip, totter, stagger, brought down, continually shaken, caused to fall, caused to move, out of course)

The verse itself was taken from someone praising God's creation. This one in particular is more along the lines of basically saying "this is how you made it, this is how it is and will be".
Not "you made the earth flat".

The incest one is easy and I'll spare the long-winded detail (unless someone wants to hear it)
Incest is not "supported" or "endorsed" by the Bible. It is even formally outlawed by the time of Moses. The section quoted claiming "support" for it was simply writing what happened. Like any historical document. It didn't say "do this" or "this is what God wants". It just says "this happened".
Now, I don't understand alot about the genetic aspects, but the idea is generally that at that time, bloodlines hadn't been corrupted enough yet to cause genetic defects, so incest hadn't had the stigma associated with it that it now does.


What else do you have?
I can go into the dinosaur thing if you like. Or can break down some more verses for you.

[slivers55]

All I'm really getting out of all of that is your interpretation, anyone can interpret things to suit their own beliefs if they are determined enough.
I could refute all three of your arguments and keep this conversation going but to be honest I know its probably going to be a waste of time. The internet has an infinite number of people I could get into meaningless long winded arguments with, and I don't see why I should make any exception here.The last time I decided to go down that road I ended up with a few 10-15 page threads that only me and one other person cared about, and at the end neither of us changed our minds we just realized the futility of it and quit posting. If you want to interpret that something wasn't incest because "its not the incest we think of as incest", or that the "four corners of the earth" doesn't lead to the belief that the earth was flat, fine, be my guest.

The bottom line is that you don't know what the situation was because you weren't there, you can only speculate. Your interpretation is no better then anyone elses. As for me well I don't need any fear of god to do what I think is right. I will act in such a manner it solely because I believe its the right way to act and no other reason.

[thez]

Unfortunately, Mori, your thread took a turn for the worse last night. Your ability to get off the hook may be slipping away! And yeah, I'm sorry in advance for how long this post is going to get. I do hope that most of it will be pretty rational, though...

Before I wade into these new posts, I'd like to express my opinion on the Bible. The Bible, as I see it, is a series of parables written in order to convey a certain set of beliefs. The stories within describe Good and Evil in specific ways, and list the punishments and rewards in store for each. In this way, it has succeeded beyond anyone's possible dreams, because it has become the foundation upon which countless civilizations were built. That said, those stories should not be taken literally. That fact does not in any way take away from the purpose of the Bible, however.

Now...let's dig into the meat of some of these arguments.

Just because you don't want to believe there might be consequences for ones actions, you would rather just not believe it and hope for the best?

To echo your own words back at you, this is the argument that the religious many times hope to use to break those who dislike the idea of God. In response, I ask: why do you need consequences to make moral choices? Why do you need the threat of eternal damnation in order to make the right choices? I have always felt that God represents, to some people, a big stick held over their heads, warning them to be good...or else.

On the other hand, for those of us that do not choose to acknowledge God, we have no righteous force pushing to choose one way or the other. There is no threat of damnation or salvation. There is only the internal belief that one choice is wrong, and one choice is right. My morality is derived from within myself, and thus I always know what is "right" for me.

God's ideas of Good and Evil leave no room for cheating, to make an example. And yet here you are. Cheating. Or, at least, consorting with cheaters, paying to have access to the works of cheaters. For myself, however, I understand that this is only a game, and thus cheating here is no more or less than having fun with the game in a different manner. I do, on the other hand, think that cheating in any form that can hurt another player's experience is wrong.

The evolution theory has more flaws in it than the Bible has by far.

I'm not particularly interested in getting into arguing specific quotes in the Bible, but I'd like that quote explained, if you will. I've not only taken a whole lot of biology and studied evolution theory in depth, I've done many experiments where you can watch bacteria evolving right before your eyes. While it is irreverent, I've always felt that this Doonesbury summed up my arguments for evolution:

In opposition of what evolution teaches, mutations or mistakes on our DNA, do not lead to better and improved humans.

That's not what evolution teaches at all. Or, if you were taught that it is, then you were taught a mangled version of the theory. True evolution theory is centered around "Survival of the fittest". The details revolve around the fact that during the mating process, mutations can occur in the DNA when it splits to form the gametes. Gametes are cells that have only half of the required DNA (one strand of the helix, as opposed to two). These gametes (aka sperm and ova) meet during sexual intercourse, and form a single cell that has DNA formed of an amalgamation of the DNA of the father and mother. The mutations that occur during the formation of gametes isn't "out there" science -- it's cold, hard fact, and *anyone* with a microscope can watch it happening. It's rather cool, actually.

Now...mutations can affect this new cell in several ways.

--They can be lethal, in which case the DNA required for the cell to grow into a new being has been corrupted by the mutation. An example you might better understand is when a random file "mutation" causes a system file on your computer to be corrupted, and it causes Windows to crash to the point where you must reinstall the OS.

--They can also be crippling. These are the sorts of mutations that don't kill the embryo outright, but lead to developmental defects like hemophilia, Down Syndrome, etc.

--They can be harmless. These sorts are likely present in just about everyone, and they don't really do much. Our DNA code has a whole lot of so-called "junk DNA" which isn't used for anything, and mutations here don't affect anything.

--They can be beneficial in some way. These don't necessarily have to be things like an extra finger, or something that in some way makes us "more than human". These mutations can be as simple as a different hair color.

Evolution theory states that parents pass on genetic traits to their children, and that beneficial mutations can, sometimes, cause some members of a species to have a better chance of getting a mate. Be it a slightly different bird song, a different coloration, whatever -- the trait would then be passed down to offspring who would likely have the trait. If it were to continue to be beneficial, then the offspring would then continue to have an increased chance of finding a mate, and thus passing the trait on. The same is true in reverse for the harmful traits.

Now...with all of that said, the truth is that I don't think that evolution theory applies to the human race any more. Because of our ability to create medicines, or treat things like (for example) bad vision with bits of technology, traits that might have originally been bred out over time will not. That is because our species has moved beyond "Survival of the fittest" in the jungle sense. We are a technologically based species, and thus the "fittest" now are those with the ability to create or utilize technology in the best ways. We no longer select for physical traits like strength, or speed, or ability to defend our proverbial nest. Rather, survival has become, for most people, a matter of whether they are able to keep up with the evolution of technology.

[Excellent1]

Thez- While I appreciate your previous post, I think it is only fair to point out the disingenuous nature of the Doonesbury comic. It is yet another stereotype to suggest that one cannot believe that the world as we know it was created by a divine being, without also being unable to rationally understand basic scientific principles. Believing in creation does not preclude acknowledging (and indeed even appreciating) the underlying systems at work around us.

I was never a biology nut, but I was very much into chemistry (yes, my nickname was Avogadro ><). The fact is that, as I've mentioned previously, there is a fairly vicious stereotype that exists that if you believe in God or any subset thereof (be it creation, intelligent design, etc) you're the equivalent of some hillbilly living on the back of sawmill holler with hay in your hair and not a clue in the world. Fortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. While we are all aware that extremes exist in any demographic, the fact is that the majority of believers I know do not see science and God as mutually exclusive. Again, it is my belief in God that enables me to appreciate the discoveries and advances in science all the more.

With regards to evolution, that is a topic that has been used like a hammer to smash those for and against believers. Most of the individuals of faith that I know are able to recognize and accept that species do change and "evolve" over time and that's well documented. Do I think man evolved from some single cell amoeba floating around in the ocean? Not really. However, if that was the case, does it preclude God as being the reason that single cell amoeba took that journey to begin with? No. So, at the end of the day, whatever the means man came by his existence, I attribute that to God by faith, not by empirical data. When God said, let their be light, who's to say that wasn't when He snapped His fingers and suddenly there was a rather loud...bang?

Point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't have to be either/or. If scientists prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the world is 300 zillion years old tomorrow, that won't faze me at all. It would simply explain to me why God rested on that 7th day--it'd been a really long week.

On a serious note, Thez, I do want to address one of your comments to give you a different perspective on why the "religious" might be doing what they do. The times I've shared my beliefs with someone else were never to make them feel inferior or to try to frighten them into my beliefs. Rather, every time I do, I agonize over it because I know that 99 times out of 100 someone is going to take something that I hold near and dear to my heart and basically crap all over it. However, try to put yourself in my position for a moment in such a conversation. If you knew something that could provide them with a source of eternal love and peace and assurance instead of an eternity spent in agony, would you NOT tell them?

I know that the mind instantly rebels and shies away from that thought because no one really wants to believe that there might be eternal consequences for our decisions. So, I'm not asking you to change your mind but to see it from my standpoint. If I knew something like that and didn't say anything, then either A) I don't actually believe it, or B) I'm incredibly evil by not sharing it and letting the other person go their way without respectfully telling them when/if an opportunity presents itself.

I'm no different or better than anyone and I respect all the views presented, but I think it's important for all of us to realize that a lot of what we tend to believe with regards to those different from us are nothing but stereotypes and broad generalities. They hinder us from judging one another on individual merit and keep us from respecting our differences without resorting to personal attacks.

Anyway, sorry for another novel length post. I had a very good friend that was killed earlier this year and I will never forget the lesson that was burned into my mind forever: we're not promised tomorrow and those people in your life, whether it be your family, friends, or people on an internet forum should never be taken for granted.

Peace all.