fishbelt wrote on 2/15/2006, 11:23 AM
Energy is timeless changing from one form or another. So the energy that goes towards the human boby take the form of humans. We evolve from birth to death, simple proof of evolution. Death bring the release of energy, or the spirit, simple proof of after life. Everything follows some order in order to surive. Sex is in here some were lo. God brings religion to us as some way to have order with oursleves. Humans tend to use it in abuse, instead of using it as intended, to get along. There is a starting point, thus has to be an ending point. Which has to start again. Birth rebirth. Energy changes to matter and matter gives life. Matter decas and release energy. All most all of us has had some expience at one time or another another realm if we choose to believe it or not. Which means there is something more at work here then we know. That could be God. Or another name evolution, or even string theorie etc. Most likely all of it. It maybe hard to reson these things, until as humans we accept the fact we are part of this world and accept the fact we are responsible for it. We are not above the other animals that live here. We need them to surive. Or it will stop our own evolution for sure. But Vegas rocks so have some fun.
Coursedesign wrote on 2/15/2006, 1:11 PM
It's difficult to prove something we cannot demonstrate.

I haven't seen anybody demonstrate God directly, but there are definitely millions (probably hundreds of millions) who have had quite special direct personal experiences that cannot be explained at our current level of knowledge about existence. These experiences may or may not be of God the Creator of All.

For example I can't believe that the burning bush that talked to Moses was "God". The description given is a much better fit for angels, before the early Christian church decided about 1,000 years ago to depict them with wings as a way to explain to common people how they could go anywhere

Angels and demons seem to exist in all religions, with remarkably similar descriptions. In the Vedas, they were referred to as Devas which is often translated as "Gods", which is a misunderstanding that's led to much grief (they were mono-theistic, and the numerous "Gods" often heard about are just seen as aspects of the one God.

The devas were at different levels depending on how close they were to the Creator, just like in the Bible (archangels, etc.), and they were battling demons.

The words "demon" and "divine" both come from the Sanskrit word root "div", meaning 'to shine". This referred to their luminous bodies, made of a totally tangible material that has different physical properties from our own flesh and blood (although it is related).

The depiction of demons/devils as having hooves, horns, and coarse animal fur comes from the observation that the outermost layer of their luminous bodies had a very coarse quality, like that of some animals.

This coarseness is caused by them being very self-centered (me! me! me!) in a way that is generally recognized as the cause of much everyday evil. It can also be observed in the auras of ordinary people who are very focused on only the most physical, and over time this "concentration" (which ultimately comes from fear) changes also the ordinary physical tissue.

(Our "auras" [western concept] are just the outer layer of our "subtle bodies" that are the blueprint for our physical ["hard"] bodies. The subtle body is also physical in nature, it can be sensed by feel with a moderate amount of training, and it is affected by many physical phenomena such as gravitation, electrostatic fields, and more.)

The Vedas (an encyclopedic collection of knowledge ["veda" in Sanskrit]) contain a comprehensive description of how everything works in Creation. In the end, this is of absolutely no value though if it makes us forget what's the goal of human existence. Many have walked into that trap...

winrockpost wrote on 2/15/2006, 1:17 PM
I won't take my religion from any man who never works except with his mouth.
Carl Sandburg
Coursedesign wrote on 2/15/2006, 1:36 PM
Nobody should take their religion on hearsay.

If after giving it reasonable time, you don't find it helpful, get another one. There are plenty of them, and many serious religious thinkers have suggested that any one of them would do for a person who is truly serious (i.e. not somebody who "would read the Bible like the Devil reads the Bible").

It has to come from the heart, which in this context has nothing to do with the blood pump that happens to be co-located with our "heart center", where our capacity for unselfish love resides. This is the center that "hurts" when we are in love, and it is also the key to further spiritual development, as it is the bridge between our lower and higher aspects (the meaning of this is a deep subject, but entirely practical).
B.Verlik wrote on 2/15/2006, 4:38 PM
Unfortunately, religion was forced on most countries, whether they wanted it or not. 1st they send in the conquerors, then they send in the 'Brainwashers", er, I mean 'teachers'. Control was/is the real objective. Hypnosis is the best way to get control, especially if you do it to yourself. Religion is the best way to accomplish the act of getting people into psychological self-hypnosis.
Biggest reason why churches are tax free. The govenment needs churches to do their dirty work (keep the sheep good and brainwashed). You have to have a very serious "relationship" to keep the government from cashing in on anything they possibly can. If the government is willing to forgo Jillions of dollars for these services, there must be a very good reason behind it all. But that tax money sure could help our deficit. Religion and Government work hand in hand, for themselves. The benefits you get, don't cost them a thing, but they're raking in the dough and keeping you under enough control to keep the money rotating. (The real goal behind it all.)
Serena wrote on 2/15/2006, 5:19 PM
Fascinating. This is a topic of great philosophical interest and can be debated as such. The issue presently is not about the existence or irrelevance of God but whether people can accept that belief and the form of that is a personal matter. People can couch in ignorance their belief or disbelief, but when they insist that I must share their opinions then it's time to make a stand.
Rigor isn't something welcome to such discussions, but let's have some definitions.
Hypothesis: supposition made as a basis for reasoning, without assumption of its truth, or as a starting point for further investigation from known facts.
Theory (scientific): a model that causually relates behaviour to observable facts. Examples: theory of gravitation, theory of elastic behaviour.
Theories usually begin as a hypothesis concerning observations. Such observations are made in the field (eg Darwin's observations on the Galapagos Island) and in the laboratory. The test of the usefullness of any theory is that it provides understanding of past and future behaviour, and the scientific method seeks to disprove the model. The scientist undertakes investigations that are designed to disprove and any theory that withstands all such attempts is pretty solid.
Now you can argue all you like about whether the observations of naturalists and geneticists adequately test the "theory of evolution" but most public debate proceeds in glorious ignorance of science, the matter debated, its principles or evidence for and against it.
It's exactly the same as arguing the capabilities of Vegas on the basis of a passing glance at a freeware DOS editing program. And then go and instruct people on that basis.

PS: there is no "law of gravitation". Congress hasn't been involved in that one; yet. There is a model that works really quite nicely for predicting behaviour under gravitational forces, although many astronomical observations require a hypothesis of "dark matter" and "dark energy" to maintain the behaviour predicted, on the galactic scale, by the model . Gravitation isn't understood, only the behaviour of bodies under its influence.
TShaw wrote on 2/15/2006, 9:57 PM
I'm glad I have an education and a brain that works!

MH_Stevens wrote on 2/15/2006, 9:57 PM
A great philosophical tome by people who don't even know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis! Evolution can be seen any day under the microscope - it's happening all around us. Last week our President said, when talking of bird flu, that it had "...mutated into a more virulent form" - that's evolution.

God also exists - but God is a chosen existence. You may choose Jesus Christ, or you may choose Jehovah, or Ala (he's the one with all the virgins waiting for the suicide bombers) or you can choose from a whole host of Indian and Roman Gods not to mention a bunch of Greeks one too. There's even some nice ones out there who don't believe in killing the other Gods.

The REAL God is too big and the mysteries of the universe to remote for anyone to presume they have a monopoly on truth. I believe in God but I know I don't know his nature. If you personalise a God as a few do here then you open the doors to the possibility that God might not be human-like (IE the us in his image ego) but maybe he is an ant, or a rock. What I do know is that if God is the energy that made all things including me and Jay, then he made evolution too. And as my daughter always says - "live with it!"


jaydeeee wrote on 2/16/2006, 2:04 PM

There are three Gods - the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - who, though separate in personality, are united as one in purpose, in plan, and in all the attributes of perfection.

By definition, God (generally meaning the Father) is the one supreme and absolute Being. He is the ultimate ... blah-blah SNIPPING <<<<

Good grief.

Okay, some people NEED to believe things like this to exist. Fine, a long as they don't harm anybody in any way, fine.

But a slight on darwinism?...then followed up by THIS? Whoa.

How about Darth Vader, Jenna Jameson, and Mario Van Peebles being the holy trinity then? I's just as plausible when we''re talking about things that can't be proven false nor true.
Talk about tripping the light fantastic.

We are no different or better than the primates we evolved from (in many cases - much worse).

But hey, wahtever makes your boat float...more power to ya, take care.

jaydeeee wrote on 2/16/2006, 2:12 PM
>>No, He stated Himself that man was created in His image. Nowhere in all of scripture does God mention<<<

and we're reading on (no matter how painful it is to witness).

"No"? Did you just speak for your "God" in replying "No" in reply to someone?
Isn't he gonna smite sumpin soon? Look, let's say there is a God. I'm sure he has a firm grasp on the internet and all forums on it. Reading some of your posts here, you might want to "edit" some things. That "God" has a pretty easy-trigger finger on smiteing (so i've heard).

Why hasn't anybody done a documentary on the secretaries of God? You would think they would've been a good source to hit up for info back then.

jaydeeee wrote on 2/16/2006, 2:28 PM
>>>Anyhow, I see the entire issue as a fight over fighting. The two sides square off because they refuse to consider a mutually possible explanation. Both want a belief that forces the other side to be absolutely wrong. Both views are often held in amanner that is unjustifiably mutually exclusive.<<<

I don't agree - not at all. Overall, people who don't necessarily believe in religeon/god/etc (in the way devote believers do) RARELY arethe cause of any problem. They usually aren't the ones to FORCE any belief in the theory of evolution (a more plausible theory at that) - on anybody.
They're just living life like all of us and doing the best they can while enjoying life...why do they NEED "God" at that point?

No, I don't agree it's taking of sides thing. There are those who think it's cute/nice but don't REALLY believe in a man above, checking his rulebooks and doling out condos in the clouds for the "deserving ones".

Now...having been raised catholic most of my life, going to private catholic schools it's the religeous folk who are more agressive - near frightening - towards those who don't follow their beliefs.
They either pass away bitter people in the end after realizing that most of their real friends left in fear....or become republicans, YMMV.

I've never seen an atheist come to my door to "hard sell me" nor tell me "I'm doomed - I must be saved". I mean, what's the most the atheist would say?...
"Hi, I'm....uh, I'm here to say...well....uh, keep on keepin on I guess. Nice lawn!"
alfredsvideo wrote on 2/16/2006, 2:32 PM
So it was God, then, who told us to invade Iraq, and not George Bush. I've been blaming poor old George all this time.
Coursedesign wrote on 2/16/2006, 3:12 PM
Let's relax a bit, I don't think God needs to outsource the smiting.

My preference is judging people by their behavior (if there is indeed any need for judgment, I think we are all doing the best we can, if somewhat by definition).

If I had to vote for the most Christian person I know, many people would think I was nuts.

Why? Because my vote would go to a long time friend of mine who happens to be an atheist. He is a double orphan (lost two sets of parents), and because of that he reasons that there can't be a God, because no God would have done that to him.

I can't convince him otherwise, and he is not complaining about his lot in life, he's just a really hardworking guy who is in fact a Christian in his actions.

I hold that high above all the people who are Christian in name only.

When I was down to my Jockeys a few years ago, he was the one who helped me when all the much wealthier Christians in name I knew disappeared like cockroaches when the light's turned on.

To the extent there will be any judging in the future, he will be judged by his actions, not by his beliefs, and the manufacturer will not try to transfer the liability to his product.

My atheist friend will be sitting with the sheep, while many Christians who go to church to meet customers are directed to the other aisle on Judgment Day. "I came as a pauper and you didn't feed me...." I forgot the exact wording, but I'm sure those who are serious can recognize that from the New Testament.

[I mention the "customer" part above, because a friend of mine from a long time ago told me this was his reason for going to church, and I was absolutely shocked.

It was 30 years ago, and I'm still shocked. That was really living a lie.

Today our politicians are all playing the same game, but for voters instead, and it makes no difference which party the politicians belong to.)

Serena wrote on 2/16/2006, 3:37 PM
Coursedesign, I like that -- agree all the way. Well, I'm not sure about the sheep, even though they're generally friendly critters.
apit34356 wrote on 2/16/2006, 3:54 PM
Coursedesign, a very nice summary.
JJKizak wrote on 2/16/2006, 4:37 PM
While I am not a practicing Christian I am fastenated by the theory of strings, and also who cares how much time it took to construct and create life on Earth. The constant modification of the DNA chains will probably result in the most complex quad binary computer program ever conceived. I would like to see it in a block diagram in a Vegas veg file. Then combine the veg file with another and see what it comes up with. Boy or Girl.

MH_Stevens wrote on 2/16/2006, 10:24 PM
And just imagine for one moment how much beauty there would be to behold if all the money and effort the religious folk have spent on killing each other had been spent on research of string theory, which ironically is a hypothesis.

Now don't confuse "religious people" with those who believe in a God. People who believe in a God know he made everything and so all things have equal meaning. Religious people think "their" God is better than "your" God and openly show their lack of humility and love which is Gods gift to anyone who wants it.


PossibilityX wrote on 2/17/2006, 2:31 AM
It's lots more fun inventing your own religion, like the guys at the Church of the Sub-Genius did.

("Eternal salvation or TRIPLE your money back!")

Praise Bob!
Timpolo wrote on 2/17/2006, 4:25 AM
Awesome string. Much response. I was told as a kid there are 2 things you DO NOT discuss "politics" and "religion", but i see this is one topic that get's people to eloaborate and delve into; it's obvious by the response.

Dan Sherman wrote on 2/17/2006, 7:57 AM
The following, "The Apsostles' Creed" lays out the things people who call themselves Christian believe.

"I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, Who was conceived by
the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell; the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God
the Father Almighty, from thence He shall come
to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy catholic church,
the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen."

Jesus Christ is the the focul point of the Christianity.
It is not Creationanity.

B.Verlik wrote on 2/17/2006, 10:48 AM

Mmmm. That sounds like the dinner bell.
Coursedesign wrote on 2/17/2006, 11:26 AM
I'm guessing that's the Catholic version of what I was brought up with.

Why would Jesus have "descended into Hell"? Anyone know?

I've also been wondering since I was a child why Jesus had to be an "only Son," and what the support is for this, if any, in the earliest scriptures.

I think it's reasonable to have a concern that this was added later in the 4th C. - 7th C. when many early church fathers tried to take charge.

As a child I also never understood why the mother of Jesus had to be a virgin (and this was not part of my church). I'm guessing that it was an attempt to explain to ordinary people how one person could be so vastly different from everyone else over a long time span.

In Asia they went one step further, fearful that even a virgin-born would come out the usual way, so they said [this other Son of God] was born out of his mother's side.

Sherman, I really like the thought that Jesus Christ should be the focal point of Christianity, and I wish that more Christians come to agree with this.

From what I see today, only a minority of Christians put the teachings of Jesus Christ first. The rest instead choose the teachings Jesus spoke out against, yet still refer to themselves as Christians. Difficult to understand, but at least we can agree not to stone them for it.

Dan Sherman wrote on 2/17/2006, 12:29 PM

The word "catholic" (small "c") refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ, which includes the RC church.

My understanding is that the reference to the descent into Hades (or Hell, or Sheol) makes it clear that the death of Jesus was not just a swoon or a coma, but death in every sense of the word.
deusx wrote on 2/17/2006, 2:20 PM
>>>>>What if we believers in GOD are right? We have GOD's Promise of eternal life. (a lot to gain).

What if you unbelievers are wrong, you have a whole lot to lose. The lake of fire is the reward.<<<<<

Nothing really. If there is god and eternal life, non believers will get it too. God ( if there is one ) will understand why non believers do not believe, or at why they reserve judgement.
If he doesn't and reward is as you say lake of fire, then he's obviously not god, just another retarded militant form of life, So no need to worry.

There is a big difference between god, and somebody's religion and interpretation of god. Actually one has nothing to do with the other.

Vegas 6, 6a, 6b, 6c and now 6d.
If that isn't proof of evolution , what is?