Fahrenheit 9/11

[ExCyber]

Not to mention the fact that a small child can hardly be expected to abstain from the pledge of her own volition.

Especially if they're never told that they have that option. Children are conditioned to consider teachers to be authority figures, and even if they are just expected to do something and not actively forced it is still effectively coercion, because they know that the teacher has the power to punish them for failing to meet expectations.

Actually, I thought he was extremely eloquent. He may be a bit eccentric, but you almost have to be to bring this type of case to the Supreme Court. I felt he actually out-argued the Court on many points; it's too bad his case was dismissed on a technicality (although valid).

Actually, I agree completely. I was talking about the public reaction to the case, which is rather heavily flavored by Newdow's eccentricities.

All I can say is I have no idea how a universe so complex and it's living beings could be created by chance.

Chance is only one factor in evolution. Evolutionists generally believe in natural laws too - that it is something more concrete than chance that leads to carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen atoms sticking together in certain ways, or to the fact that passing an electrical current through some of these compounds can convert them into organic compounds. Some people believe that these laws embody the hand of God...

Because he's God and is beyond our feeble minds.

Believing that we as humans understand everyhing is fairly arogant.

This is precisely why I put little stock in earthly religious doctrines regarding the nature and desires of God.

 

[racketboy]

Originally posted by ExCyber@Jul 1, 2004 @ 05:16 PM



This is precisely why I put little stock in earthly religious doctrines regarding the nature and desires of God.

why? not following you

 

[it290]

Because he's God and is beyond our feeble minds.

Believing that we as humans understand everyhing is fairly arogant.

And BTW, I mentioned the concept of time before -- for God, there is eternity -- no beginning or end. It's beyond our comprehension as I'm sure there are many other concept beyond our comprehension that we aren't even aware of.

But why? If man was created in the image of God, why would our concept of time be completely different? Wouldn't it be at least somewhat parallel? And don't you think it's arrogant to create a God that is personified as a human male?

 

[racketboy]

Originally posted by it290@Jul 1, 2004 @ 05:31 PM



But why? If man was created in the image of God, why would our concept of time be completely different? Wouldn't it be at least somewhat parallel? And don't you think it's arrogant to create a God that is personified as a human male?

We might be created in His image, but that doesn't mean we have the same knowledge and understandings as Him. I would imagine he is conscience of our timeline, but it's not really a concern.

As for the male personification, yeah I would agree with you, but it's probably just been that way because it's just an easy way for us to envision him. What he actually looks like is probably beyond our imaginations as well.

An actual description of what God looks like is not in the Bible. There are some visions and such in Revelation and other places that say He is like "such and such" but nothing concrete and nothing that says he is like a human male exactly.

 

[it290]

Well, there have been many Christian philosophers who have argued that part of mankind's consciousness is at least connected to the divine. It's been one of the main arguments for logic over the years, actually. Kant would be a good example. Spinoza and Liebniz make similar points at times. How do you feel about that concept?

 

[racketboy]

Never heard of that or those people.

Not quite sure what it means either.

What do you mean by "consciousness" and "connected"?

 

[it290]

Well, to put it in terms of Kant, you could say that free will is only able to exist on the basis of an eternal soul, and the judgement of that soul. So a person who exercises their will in a moral manner is behaving in a way dictated by and akin to God. That's an extreme oversimplification, but I think you get the point. Spinoza puts it more directly by nearly stating that the consciousness of God is literally inside of every part of the Universe; he was pretty much excommunicated for his statements (not for that alone.. also, he wasn't Christian, but Jewish).

 

[racketboy]

So basically saying that deep down inside everyone they are aware that there is a God, but whether they choose to accept it or not is another thing? I guess I've heard that. And I suppose that could be true to a certain extent. Not that big of a deal IMO though.

 

[it290]

Yes, but also taking it to the next level and saying that deep down inside everyone is the very essence of God, and that this essence is expressed within Man's logical nature- the very part of our nature that deals with time. Some would say that this is what gives Man a soul, and not animals (not that I agree with any of that).

 

[racketboy]

eeeh -- that seems a little strange.

never seen anything in the Bible like that.

If it's not in the Bible, then its not much good to me.

 

[it290]

Perhaps, but a great number of things that are taught in churches these days have nothing at all to do with the Bible.

 

[racketboy]

Well I can tell there are a lot of churches that are off base.

That's one thing I'm dreading about moving is finding a new church. There are some good ones, but the process of finding them is a pain. Either they are too legalistic or way too progressive (if that's the correct term).

The one I'm in right now is probably the best I've been to (Been to about 5 since I was a kid).

There's some weird stuff out there too

 

[Lyzel]

Wow! Talk about going waaaaayyyy oofffff ttttoooooppppiiiiiccccc!

 

[racketboy]

you think?

 

[Curtis]

In the interests of off-topicness I've got a question for you racketboy. Does the concept that the Bible may contain a number of inaccuracies ever bother you? For example, we know that most of it was not written at the time the events occured. IIRC, some parts were rewritten some several hundered years after to make more sense (like the second comming of Christ, for example). Is it possible that it contains errors?

 

[racketboy]

The Bible itself (I believe) does not contain errors. Translations might possibly have slight errors in them, but not the original writings. Now some people might take a few different verses and say that they contradict or don't make scense or something like that, but usually in those cases, the verses are taken out of context.

It's hard for me to address it completely without having some actual verses to reference.

I am well aware that many books were written well after the events happen. These books were written by everyday people (famous ones, but still) like Moses, Paul, John, etc. Others were written by kings such as David and Solomon. Anyway, even though they were written by men, they were inspired by God (according to normal Christian beliefs). To put it simply, God was there and sees everything and basicially inspired the writers in what to say.

Now I've heard that some people claim that there are some flaws in the Kings James translation and all that and probably in some other translations as well. But you have to remember they are translations.

When studying the Bible seriously, it helps to a commentary or, if you know how look at the original Greek and Hebrew yourself. The good commentaries and such are written by experts the do know Greek and Hebrew and, and have of course studied a lot of the Bible and its history.

And just to let you know, in Chrisitan Colleges, Greek and Hebrew classes are quite common.

 

[mal]

I'm not trying to be a troll by asking this, but why do you think god doesn't talk to "ordinary people" anymore like he used to?

If he still does, why don't new works get added to the bible? I know there's the book of Mormon, but not everyone acknowledges that.

How do you know that god (as part of his ineffable plan) didn't plant the idea of evolution into Darwin's* mind? Maybe by then he thought humans could begin to grasp some of his concepts.

* I know he wasn't the first to propose evolution, but I can't remember who was...

 

[racketboy]

Didn't Darwin deny his theories shortly before his death?

I don't know exactly why God doesn't talk audibly to people anymore, but my guess is that it's because we have his written word, the Bible.

 

[Supergrom]

i dont want to troll either, but are you mormon mal?

edit: i just realized that this was the farenheit 9/11 thread, haha :spam

 

[mal]

No, I'm not a mormon - not that there's anything wrong with that.

I just mentioned the Book of Mormon because that is a modern addition to the bible.

I don't know exactly what I'd say if asked what I "believe in". Maybe if there's ever a thread exploring that question I'd give it a go...

racket - Admittedly I wasn't there, but Darwin's "death bed" renunciation has been refuted.