People have watered down the Lord's message, and as a result you have a generation of youth comprised of an unproportionate number of pinko's and godless athiests. They don't understand the consequences of their actions.


The Lord's Gospel doesn't need to be delivered with kidgloves, it needs to be respected for its awesome power.

4/11/2008 2:43:49 PM

Credit scores
Prison bars

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:47 PM. Reason : message or book homes?]

4/11/2008 2:47:18 PM

^^

Quote :

"But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so."

James 3

Respect the power of His word. Don't deliver it's message casually in one thread while cursing people in another.

4/11/2008 3:04:49 PM

Quote :

"The Lord's Gospel doesn't need to be delivered with kidgloves, it needs to be respected for its awesome power. "

mhum, that sounds familiar. isn't there another major religion out there that Christians denounce when its members spread their faith by the edge of a sword?
Forget that the Bible has nearly the exact same message for its followers......

4/11/2008 3:26:58 PM

^ We must have different translations.

4/11/2008 3:35:51 PM

^ i doubt it. give Deuteronomy 20:12-18 a shot

New International Version
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2013&version=31

Quote :

"12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 None of those condemned things shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, 18 because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes."

KJV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2013;&version=9;

Quote :

" 12If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, 13Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; 14Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; 15Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. 16And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. 17And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; 18When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God."

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 3:45 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 3:45:13 PM

Picking and choosing individual lines from the Old Testament as a means to nullify the overall message of the gospel isn't new my friend. It's also not particularly interesting.

The book is meant to be taken in its entirety. Something can be learned from every line, but if you're going to be lazy and ignore the historical context of those verses, as well as who they're being spoken to...

Suit yourself.

4/11/2008 3:55:03 PM

isn't picking and choosing lines from them entire bible pretty much what the whole of Christianity is based on?
For me, I fail to see how destroying an entire town (something which happens several times throughout the old testament for various infractions - non-christians living there, homosexuality, whatever) has anything to do with historical context.

4/11/2008 4:02:06 PM

agentlion are you an athiest or do you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior?

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 4:06 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 4:03:57 PM

jesus christ, are you serious?

4/11/2008 4:07:18 PM

You seem to be trying to attack the Bible, you should be ashamed of yourself

4/11/2008 4:08:24 PM

if I don't believe in the bible is anything other than an old work of fiction, why should I be ashamed in "attacking" it?
Would you be ashamed of yourself if you found and pointed out problems with the Koran, Aesop's Tales, or Grimm's Fairy Tales?

4/11/2008 4:13:06 PM

You are a sick sick man and I hope you find it within yourself to repent for your trespasses against the Lord. To call the Bible a work of fiction is nothing short of blasphemy, may God help you.

4/11/2008 4:17:55 PM

Quote :

"I fail to see how destroying an entire town ... has anything to do with historical context."

I'm sorry, I'll try to breakdown where context comes into this equation (for me personally)

The Old Testament was an agreement between the nation of Israel and God.
Jesus came in the New Testament (approximately 400 years after the last writing of the Old Testament) as a fulfillment of prophecies given by God in the Old Testament.

The New Testament applies in its entirety to Christians. Every word Jesus spoke, all the teachings, all apply. The Old Testament is kept as both context for Jesus' coming, as well as the many applicable teachings for current believers.

Example: The Ten commandments, apply to all people for all time. (Pretty universal stuff, you know like not killing one another)

Not all Old testament directives, or teachings apply directly and literally to modern day Christians. Example: Mosaic law, sacrifices etc. (These were specific to the Jewish people and have never applied to gentiles) (One example of the importance of context)

However, lessons can be learned from every story in the Bible. Example: The Israelites held captive in Egypt being freed by God (using Moses along the way) The Israelites here can be viewed as a type (or symbol if you prefer) of the modern day Christian and Egypt can be viewed as a type of sin. (Here's another)

Make sense?

4/11/2008 4:24:39 PM

yeah, it makes sense, but i still think it's cherry picking on your part. I don't see how you can put your entire life's faith into a book that is claimed to be the word of God, but still contains such cruelty and violence towards man.

Quote :

"Example: The Ten commandments, apply to all people for all time. (Pretty universal stuff, you know like not killing one another)"

yeah, sure - the 10 commandments apply to "all people for all time". "Don't kill people", it says [Exodus 20:13]. But mere sentences later, an entire chapter on how to treat your Hebrew Slaves [Exodus 21] is only relevant in a historical context? come on..... if that's not the definition of cherry picking, i don't know what is

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 4:49 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 4:48:17 PM

I'm glad you brought that up, of all things. I had a hard time with this one (as well as crazy stuff like Leviticus for a long time) If you look at Exodus, check it out:

Chapter 1: General Description of Israel's condition under bondage
Chapter 2-4: Moses background and selection by God as prophet to Israel
Chapter 5-12: The plagues and Israel's exodus out of Egypt
Chapter 13-18: Israel's travels (Red Sea, wilderness, etc)

Here we arrive in 19 with Israel at Mount Sinai, and Moses goes up to speak with God (At which point he gives some general conditions for the people before chapter 20. (Celibacy for a number of days, washing themselves etc)

Chapter 20: 1-21 The 10 Commandments, they're given audibly, directly to all the people of Israel by the very voice of God himself.

From this point on the rest of the Mosaic law is given to Moses for him to relay as appropriate for the rules concerning property, sacrifices, and yes slaves. (I don't think this amounts to the bible condoning slavery, again, because of the context of the laws given here. Interestingly enough, you'll note that even the slaves had some rights here.)

The Mosaic law continues from 21 all the way to 31, and from there we get to the epic Moses comes down the mount with the tablets. Golden Calf happens, and the story goes on from there.

I'm not intending to turn this into a bible study or anything, but I go through that to say this: There is a lot of bad teaching out there, but the words themselves are quite consistent if you take the time yourself to go through them.

4/11/2008 5:10:56 PM

Well this thread continues to surprise me every time I come back to it...

In response to my question,

Quote :

"1.) how does one calculate the probability of life from nonlife? Genuine question."

agentlion said,

Quote :

"ask a Christian. Scientists have no need or use for such foolish calculations. As far a science is concerned, the probability that life has can can form from non-life is 1"

and then Gamecat tag-teamed it,

Quote :

"Two steps: 1) Look in a mirror, 2) If the answer doesn't immediately STRIKE YOU IN THE FACE, meditate on it. Hint: The probability is always 1. "

It fascinates me that both of you are apparently uninterested in this question. I mean I've heard this claim that once we found extra-solar planets then surely there must exist life elsewhere in the cosmos. It's only natural to ask if this is going to happen in each planet with earth-like conditions etc... To restate the question,

1.) What is the probability for the spontaneous generation of life from non-life on a different planet. (pick a random planet with no connection to earth)

How can you two not have a need for this calculation? What point is there in debating if there is life close enough if you can't even get some idea if there really is a chance life is anywhere else in the cosmos?

I believe Feynman and a few other physicists came to the conclusion (circa 1945) that there is no alien life because it is so unlikely for evolution to get started... or something to that effect. It's not like Feynman is some creationist rube who was unable to fathom the enormity of the cosmos. Of course, those same physicists may well have changed their opinion as the enormity of the universe became more and more apparent with the discovery of higher and higher redshifted objects... My point in mentioning this is to point you to the fact that your response to my question was sad. I hope it was trolling.

I gather from later posts you actually do worry about just how life came from non life in the first place (panspermia etc...).

4/11/2008 10:12:21 PM

Yeah, I think it's a valid and interesting question.

I even enjoyed James Gardner's book.

http://www.amazon.com/Biocosm-Scientific-Evolution-Intelligent-Architect/dp/1930722222

4/11/2008 10:25:53 PM

The real question is, will you know when you're dead?

4/11/2008 10:30:01 PM

Gamecat added,

Quote :

"Jung would go all out here explaining the parallels between Angels and Aliens. I've read extensively on this, but have yet to see a critical mass "holy SHIT they really were aliens!" point on anything I've come across. The Nephilim are suggestive. Ezekiels' wheels, too. Drawing scientific conclusions from that data is an incredibly risky business, though, if it's even possible at all."

I don't think I've read Jung. I read about the Nephilim before, I think the idea is that demons (fallen angles) mated with humans resulting in giant offspring. I think that Goliath was supposed to be the last of these giants. I thought cool. But then I read another book which logically debunked that theory. Sadly I cannot recall either source at the present time, but I know what you are talking about at least a little. Personally, as I've mentioned from time to time I think that angles are aliens. I don't think that angels are the greens or the greys or the shape shifters that I hear "experts" speak at length on in the coast to coast AM show, I suspect most if not all of that is pure fiction.

Shifting gears a bit, 392 said,

Quote :

"so if we defenestrate the whole literal adam and eve thing, and view creationism as evolutionary, then where in the transition from "soulless animal" to human was "god's divinity" involved? and where you draw the line? at primates? mammals? dinosaurs? sea sponges? why stop there? since it's so easy to accept the possibility, if not the likelihood, of extraterrestrial life, couldn't god(s) or aliens be responsible for some sort of directed panspermia? or some other form of exogenesis? or, on a different note, wouldn't it be possible for a sufficiently advanced alien or aliens to, in essence, be god(s)?"

You have hit precisely the point that I cannot understand in the evolutionary framework. When does life become human life? Or better yet, when is a person a person capable of free will, choice etc...
In Genesis it was Adam and Eve who sinned individually. As I understand it, we are all sinners ultimately as a consequence of their original sin. Adam is spoke of in the New Testament as an single individual who existed historically. If there was no individual "Adam", if instead a whole community of organisms gradually evolved a soul, then how am I to understand sin? How am I to understand the depravity of mankind?

I asked this before a while ago, I never got an answer that was not some kind of Christianity-bashing flame-bait.

Moreover, if God used evolution to create life then why does Genesis link death and sin? Death is a necessary component of the evolutionary storyline. I believe that we live in a "fallen creation", do you as a Christian who believes in evolutionary creation have a similar concept? If you are such a person I would be interested in your response.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 10:50 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 10:48:05 PM

Quote :

" 1.) What is the probability for the spontaneous generation of life from non-life on a different planet. (pick a random planet with no connection to earth) How can you two not have a need for this calculation? What point is there in debating if there is life close enough if you can't even get some idea if there really is a chance life is anywhere else in the cosmos?"

well, there are two questions there.
1) what is the probability life formed from non-life on Earth. The answer to that is 1
2) what is the probability that life will form on any random earth-like body. That, i don't know. All i can say to that (be careful, i'm about to get very scientific here) is that it's a very, very big number * a very small number, which equals somewhere between 0 and 1.

the conversation about panspermia was tangential to the main point. Also, as I now understand panspermia, it's not necessarily the process of seeding life from one place to another (i.e. dropping life bacteria from an asteroid to the earth where it evolves into all other animals), but the process of combing elements from various places which eventually can form life (i.e. combining amino acid A from asteroid A with amino acid B from Earth into Protein C)

but I wouldn't say we "worry" about how life formed. There's no need to "worry" about it, because we know it happened. That's not to say anyone has a good grasp on how it happened. That's why we have science to begin with - to attempt to answer these questions through naturalistic investigation. If there were no questions, there would be no need for science (kind of like how the ID'ers are attempting to stifle evolution education because they believe the subject needs to further investigation, because the entire field can be replaced with 3 sentences from Genesis)

4/11/2008 10:54:50 PM

Quote :

"If there was no individual "Adam", if instead a whole community of organisms gradually evolved a soul, then how am I to understand sin? How am I to understand the depravity of mankind?"

the problem is, you're mixing two fields that are not meant to be mixed. Science is unconcerned with "original sin" or your depravity or whatever. That's not science's problem. If you feel the need for original sin, then turn to religion, like you obviously have. But unless you're coming from a religious or Christian point-of-view to begin with, sin, and certainly original sin, are simply societal mechanisms.

Not to mention, in a purely materialistic view of science, there is no soul anyways - there's just the body and the brain. Any soul that you feel is just a construct created by physical connections in your brain. So it's a false premise to ask how the should was evolved.

4/11/2008 11:00:25 PM

^^do elementary school children "investigate" evolution? I think they are taught evolution. Its much easier to teach kids in absolutes then let them in on the secret that most things we "know" we actually just suspect or worst yet speculate wildly.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 11:05 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 11:04:43 PM

what wild speculation are we teaching kids?

4/11/2008 11:06:23 PM

^^^ yes I realize for you strict materialist folks all these silly religious ideas have no bearing on your "science". I was addressing the question to Christians specifically.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 11:07 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 11:07:30 PM

Quote :

"what wild speculation are we teaching kids?"

I'd guess pretty much everything about early human evolution is wrong for example. I mean unless they got books recently.

4/11/2008 11:09:48 PM

well to be honest, i actually don't even remember being taught evolution in elementary school or high school (I went the AP Physics route, not the Biology route). I've done all of my evolution education post-school through my own reading and listening.

but as far as I know, the origins of life are still very much up for debate and there are plenty of competing theories out there (one I heard recently was about how the very thin spaces between the layers of mica seem to be very good locations for organizing molecules). I seriously doubt that the origins of life are being taught to primary or secondary students as confirmed or known fact. I think even middle school kids are fully able to grasp the concept of competing theories or ambiguity in science.

However, the fossil and (especially the) molecular evidence for the later stages of evolution, post-origin, are sufficient to form facts, which when put together with the "whys" and "hows" of all the facts form the full theory of evolution, which is as solid as theories come.

4/12/2008 12:02:52 AM

Not having the flu really saps the TWW time. I hate having so little to devote to the thread...

Quote :

"mathman: It fascinates me that both of you are apparently uninterested in this question."

WTF.

You say I'm uninterested.

I say, I've answered your question.

I'll spell it out for you. You can tell the probability is one because you exist to conceive of the probability. You came from somewhere. Follow the vine far enough and it leads to inanimate chemicals. (We'll confine our speculation to empiricism for argument's sake.)

Since (i) you are alive and on Earth, and (ii) at some point within Earth's history, the record gives us no evidence of life on Earth, and given (iii) the Earth is in the Universe; then the probability that life must have arisen from inanimate matter must be one. For it to be otherwise would invalidate the reality of you existing to conceive of the question.

"Look in a mirror" was my way of saying that you can calculate this probability by simply recognizing the fact that you are alive.

Quote :

"mathman: How can you two not have a need for this calculation?"

Are you on drugs?

I can't speak for agentlion or anyone else, but I have a need for that calculation. It's not as though estimates are hard to find. The Internet's a pretty big place.

Quote :

"mathman: What point is there in debating if there is life close enough if you can't even get some idea if there really is a chance life is anywhere else in the cosmos?"

What Scientific models suggest that our own petri dish is so rare in the Universe that Earth was the only one made suitable to generate life, bub?

It's a valid theory given currently accepted evidence, sure, but I want to know what models justify building a model out of the idea that only one planet in one galaxy in a Universe of unimaginable size could develop life from nonlife.

I've posted links to Panspermia. Read them.

Also note that the assumptions implicit in your question--that Earth's situation is unique--are not supported by the data. I'm always amused when frustrated conventionalists start playing the "what's the point" card.

[Edited on April 12, 2008 at 8:19 PM. Reason : ...]

4/12/2008 8:17:44 PM

^ The idea is often that our universe, rather than our planet, is remarked suited for life. If certain physical processes had gone sightly differently, the universe might instead have been a hostile void.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

4/12/2008 8:54:41 PM

^ I really don't understand this post. Seems like "ifs and buts." We've ended up in a Universe that supports life by extension.

?

4/13/2008 1:48:04 AM

very cool ideas here guys. good read, keep it up.

my view:

if i am to understand god and what he (it) is... i have to step back and think what if -I were god- himself.. what would i do? what would i be like?

i think the collective of humanity should sit down and answer these questions.. the worst that could come out of it is mankinds destiny and his longterm goals

such as interstellar travel and expanding throughout the universe while attempting to preserve this earth as a relic perhaps...

i think the idea was conceived by humans b/c they have great potential and it assumes different forms of religions and viewpoints. either way we are capable of universal domination if we really put our minds to it.

i think the original creators (gods) of life of this planet, planted the seeds of our conscience with this thought to provoke us to become gods ourselves.

i sure hope so at least. or one day life on this green blue ball will one day be gone and no record of us will exist.

4/14/2008 9:05:20 PM

I'm fascinated by the Godhead/Godhood philosophies as well.

Quote :

"^^do elementary school children "investigate" evolution? I think they are taught evolution. Its much easier to teach kids in absolutes then let them in on the secret that most things we "know" we actually just suspect or worst yet speculate wildly."

Why don't they investigate evolution?

They (and we) would learn more.

While it's often easier to teach absolutes, they retard the ability of the pupil to understand that knowledge isn't a static entity. It progresses. Knowledge evolves. Knowledge, in parlance especially, exists on a continuum of probabilities.

[Edited on April 15, 2008 at 2:25 AM. Reason : .]

4/15/2008 2:24:31 AM

Why does life need to evolve on a planet?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/04/cassini-mission.html

In fact, what the hell is a "planet" anyway? Isn't the Earth just a "large moon" orbiting the Sun, which itself has a "large asteroid" orbiting it?

4/17/2008 3:45:05 PM

Quote :

"I really don't understand this post. Seems like "ifs and buts." We've ended up in a Universe that supports life by extension."

Here's an article by James Gardner that details the concept:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=1%23647

Gardner insists that merely observing we exist and ascribing it random chance isn't informative or scientific. He claims it violates the principle of mediocrity. I don't necessarily agree with Gardner's thesis, but I find it intriguing.

4/17/2008 3:57:52 PM

all I ask from my God is that he gives me infinite blessings and that he smites my enemies

4/17/2008 3:59:38 PM

OH WE BACK

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90KSE100&show_article=1

Quote :

"Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens VATICAN CITY (AP) - The Vatican's chief astronomer says that believing in aliens does not contradict faith in God. The Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, says that the vastness of the universe means it is possible there could be other forms of life outside Earth, even intelligent ones. In an interview published Tuesday by Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, Funes says that such a notion "doesn't contradict our faith" because aliens would still be God's creatures. The interview was headlined "The extraterrestrial is my brother." Funes said that ruling out the existence of aliens would be like "putting limits" on God's creative freedom."

5/13/2008 2:13:24 PM

Quote :

"ruling out the existence of aliens would be like "putting limits" on God's creative freedom.""

I've made this argument for a while. What reason would an almighty higher being have to tell us about his other creations, if it has no bearing on his message?

5/13/2008 3:07:09 PM

^lol

wow, they just now figured that out? ha.

5/13/2008 4:02:43 PM

Why does life need to evolve entirely on a planet?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080613/sc_afp/spacesciencebiochemistrybiology_080613180404

Quote :

"PARIS (AFP) - Genetic material from outer space found in a meteorite in Australia may well have played a key role in the origin of life on Earth, according to a study to be published Sunday. European and US scientists have proved for the first time that two bits of genetic coding, called nucleobases, contained in the meteor fragment, are truly extraterrestrial."

6/14/2008 3:05:02 PM