Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 303

Thread: The Tangent Topic (Currently: Homosexuality and Religion)

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The Enterprise
    Posts
    2,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    This is relatable to the topic, but I would prefer if we moved it to that sticky called "Tangent Topic" because we actually have something of use to put there. :P
    Here we are XD
    and Something you said earlier:
    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    If I sound like I'm chiding you, I'm not,
    I would just also like to say this.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    I would rather argue morality anyway, because historicity is largely irrelevant besides from the common argument that objective morality arises from Jesus's holy sacrifice on the cross and his recurrence in 3 days, where the proponent claims divinity. Other than that, historical accuracy is a side note.
    Granted, yes morality is mainly the issue. But as I said, once a source can be trusted in other categories (ones that CAN be backed up by outside forces, then trusting it when it cannot be verified becomes less of a challenge).


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Accident implies agent, chance implies nothing. The chances of spontaneous formation of molecular chains with sequences that call for replication is small, but we have a big Earth, and, in fact, a big universe that we can draw these chances down to nearly 100% with. Every planet in the Goldilocks zone, including ours, had this chance.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lligent_design
    The links on the bottom were too hard to copy and paste out, so I linked the wiki instead.
    Ok, I try not to cite works written by religious organizations, but i will. Ignore the preachy stuff and just look at the information provided.
    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010341

    and

    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010230



    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    An alien that created life on Earth could be called James or Ooglock or Hoeisil, but the process of seeding life is called panspermia. Assuming the alien had no physical form, I wouldn't consider him an existing thing unless there was a repeatable effect that could be derived from him to prove his existence.
    Honestly, the idea of having a state of being that is non-physical, or even one of pure energy, crosses the path of Science fiction about as much as mysticism.

    The definition of god(assuming its non-christian):
    2.
    (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
    Your own link links to Talk Origins, which is my personal favorite website for biological evidence of life's properties, formation, and continuation of its cycle. Here you'll see the improbability of abiogenesis is often misattributed to a strawman of the position.
    Fair enough.
    Now, next question. Where did the non-living matter come from?
    Any scientist will tell you that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.
    Now, how did the universe and non-living matter get here?


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    This was the leading scientific and church-espoused belief of the day. It's all interpretation, and if one passage support the idea that the Earth is flat and round, hanging on nothing or bound by gravitational pull, then it isn't worth talking about in the first place.
    The leading scientific espoused belief of the day? Based on your previous stances I would think that you are referring to the earth being flat.
    But regardless, the Bible is accurate in terms of the earth being round and hanging on nothing. Even though that may not have been what they thought then, it doesn't contradict modern science. I rest my case in this matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Sodom and Gomorrah may never have existed, and it is some people's root of homophobia. That's one.
    http://www.s8int.com/sodom-gomorrah.html
    Try again.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Believing they are lower tier, perhaps, lesser people. That they are born into sin, and can only escape through one religion. Convenient fabrication if your goal is to keep the mythology alive as long as possible.
    At this point I would like to insert the various prophesies in the bible, and the fact that there is no way that they could have been fulfilled by mere chance.
    http://www.reasons.org/articles/arti...y-of-the-bible
    Not the best site Iv'e come across seeing as it only lists a few of them, but it
    ll do until I find a better one.

    Why am I bringing this up now?
    Because once again, if it can be proven in other ways, the rest of the "pieces of the puzzle" fall into place.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    The whole narrative is meant to demean humans, to make sin a useful convention. It's to be learned from by the followers, to see how gullible and ill-intentioned human are in comparison to the perfect God.
    Yes, humans are nowhere near god. But I would like to summarize the genesis account.

    God created humans, and put them on earth, he did not expect them to sin, and he actually only gave them the one commandment, "not to eat from the tree of life." and if they ate from it, they would die. Now the Devil (he was actually the first to turn evil, according to the bible, he was an angel of god who turned against him) came and told eve, "You will not die, if you eat from the tree, you will be like god, knowing good and bad." So eve ate from the tree and eventually like god said, she died. But before she died she had children, and because she no longer could live forever on earth, she didn't have that ability to pass on to her offspring. (just a side note. Some people believe that the devil is actually at work in some of the christian religion, as one of the doctrines they teach is hellfire, which if found nowhere in the bible. By believing in this, it is like as the devil said "eve did not die, she is still alive, but in another realm") Now God as a choice, he could destroy the Devil and Adam and eve and start over. But the what would that say to the other angels looking on? they might have wondered
    "Could they have been like god? Would they have known good and bad?" So god, simply, put it this way "I will allow humans to rule themselves for a while, and it will become clear that they cannot end their own problems."

    And, quite frankly, that is what I have observed. Man has had a few good leaders, but even they will eventually die. No one will ever be completely happy on this planet.

    Now, you say that people follow this religion because they are gullible. The gullible ones are the ones who think they can actually change this world.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    If you don't believe in sin and that you are accountable for it, like everyone else in our species, then why acknowledge Christianity as anything but Bronze Age ramblings from delusional followers of a man whose morality was advanced for his time?
    And people wonder about the decrease in morals of this society >.>

    Quote Originally Posted by marioguy View Post

    People can prove that the Bible isn't against homosexuality because Leviticus was written specifically for the ignorant Israelites, the Bible is only against forced homosexuality during pagan rituals, etc.
    No, but whatever.
    #AlphaSapphire
    I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me, take a look at the information in my profile or visit our official website.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    You know, I once spoke to a rather "pleasant" (and by that I mean "annoying beyond belief") person who claimed "he did not know of a single religion who would approve of a gay lifestyle".

    I listed about two dozen that did. They weren't Judeo-Christian religions, but it still contradicted what he said.

    Point I'm making is, we have Freedom of Religion in this country, and we also have Freedom from Religion.

    The Constitution not only has priority to the Bible in our government, the Bible has NO place in our government. None at all.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Shiver Star
    Posts
    2,155

    Default

    Sodom and Gomorrah isn't about homosexuality. It's about rape and inhospitably.
    Jackpot!

    I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

    Werster is without a doubt the Pokémon Master.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ansem the wise View Post

    At this point I would like to insert the various prophesies in the bible, and the fact that there is no way that they could have been fulfilled by mere chance.
    http://www.reasons.org/articles/arti...y-of-the-bible
    Not the best site Iv'e come across seeing as it only lists a few of them, but it
    ll do until I find a better one.

    Why am I bringing this up now?
    Because once again, if it can be proven in other ways, the rest of the "pieces of the puzzle" fall into place.
    I don't really see the validity of this article, show me that the prophecies are 100% original and that there was no tampering with them around the time of there writing or therefore after.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marioguy View Post
    Sodom and Gomorrah isn't about homosexuality. It's about rape and inhospitably.
    And it's also an allegory. A word that the anti-gay crowd who keeps referencing it don't seem to know the definition of.

    Ansem, those prophesies were only accurate in hindsight. As most prophesies tend to be. That means, their accuracy is dependent on interpretation of events that occur after they happen. In other words, a prophecy is often useless for making an actual prediction.

    Much like the ones made by that loudmouth who predicted the Rapture.

    By the way, Ansem, for someone who loves the Bible so much, you sure don't know Genesis too well. The word "Devil" and "Satan" does not appear in the story of Eden at all. The tempter is referred to as "a serpent". (It's not even called a snake) and there is nothing in it that says it's the Devil. (Milton was the first to suggest it was him, in his epic Paradise Lost written centuries later.) You not only know very little about actual religion, but very little about literature. (In fact, Judaism claims it was NOT Satan at all.)

    Here, I'll show you:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_(Bible)

    THAT should clear it up.
    Last edited by Maedar; 7th October 2013 at 7:52 PM.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The Enterprise
    Posts
    2,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    You know, I once spoke to a rather "pleasant" (and by that I mean "annoying beyond belief") person who claimed "he did not know of a single religion who would approve of a gay lifestyle".

    I listed about two dozen that did. They weren't Judeo-Christian religions, but it still contradicted what he said.

    Point I'm making is, we have Freedom of Religion in this country, and we also have Freedom from Religion.

    The Constitution not only has priority to the Bible in our government, the Bible has NO place in our government. None at all.
    Yes, we do have the freedom to chose our religion, even if our religion is the "religion of me" as i have had it heard.
    But that does not mean that all religions are morally correct, and have reasons to back them up.

    Quote Originally Posted by marioguy View Post
    Sodom and Gomorrah isn't about homosexuality. It's about rape and inhospitably.
    Genesis 19: 4, 5:

    4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

    So, technically: Rape, Inhospitably and homosexuality.
    Quote Originally Posted by StarkElf View Post
    I don't really see the validity of this article, show me that the prophecies are 100% original and that there was no tampering with them around the time of there writing or therefore after.
    If you are implying that it was translated from the original texts incorrectly, you can rest assured at in most bible translations, it is not. I have personally seen the dead see scrolls with my own eyes, and they do not appear to have been tampered with, and there is no evidence to suggest that it was. As to the timing of the writing, the Bible rarely gives the exact year that things were written, archaeologists tell us that part, from the dead sea scrolls and others, and it still lines up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    And it's also an allegory. A word that the anti-gay crowd who keeps referencing it don't seem to know the definition of.

    Ansem, those prophesies were only accurate in hindsight. As most prophesies tend to be. That means, their accuracy is dependent on interpretation of events that occur after they happen. In other words, a prophecy is often useless for making an actual prediction.

    Much like the ones made by that loudmouth who predicted the Rapture.
    Actually, that is usually correct. Prophesies usually are untrue, or bent to suit the scenario, but after 10+ years of research I have personally concluded, that this is simply not the case with the vast majority of prophesies contained in the bible.

    And as to the rapture statement. That is the exact thing that is preventing people from even thinking of giving the bible a good look-through, because they have seen so called "prophesies" that everyone expected to be fulfilled and never happened.
    #AlphaSapphire
    I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me, take a look at the information in my profile or visit our official website.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Shiver Star
    Posts
    2,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ansem the wise View Post
    YGenesis 19: 4, 5:

    4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

    So, technically: Rape, Inhospitably and homosexuality.
    It's still rape though. Why does it matter if it's heterosexual or homosexual rape? If someone had sex with a dog, does it matter what sex the dog was? Only the beastiality part matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    By the way, Ansem, for someone who loves the Bible so much, you sure don't know Genesis too well. The word "Devil" and "Satan" does not appear in the story of Eden at all. The tempter is referred to as "a serpent". (It's not even called a snake) and there is nothing in it that says it's the Devil. (Milton was the first to suggest it was him, in his epic Paradise Lost written centuries later.) You not only know very little about actual religion, but very little about literature. (In fact, Judaism claims it was NOT Satan at all.)

    Here, I'll show you:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_(Bible)

    THAT should clear it up.
    How odd that ansem didn't address this in his post. The serpent is the devil in the Qu'ran. Maybe ansem is actually Muslim and just got confused.
    Jackpot!

    I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

    Werster is without a doubt the Pokémon Master.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The Enterprise
    Posts
    2,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marioguy View Post
    How odd that ansem didn't address this in his post. The serpent is the devil in the Qu'ran. Maybe ansem is actually Muslim and just got confused.
    *chuckles* Good one.

    No, I didn't address this in my post. And while the genesis account does not say that it was the devil, other verses indicate that it was, (He most likely possessed the snake) the most notable being in revelation 12:9

    So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.
    Notice it calls him "the original serpent"?
    #AlphaSapphire
    I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me, take a look at the information in my profile or visit our official website.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Shiver Star
    Posts
    2,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ansem the wise View Post
    *chuckles* Good one.

    No, I didn't address this in my post. And while the genesis account does not say that it was the devil, other verses indicate that it was, (He most likely possessed the snake) the most notable being in revelation 12:9

    So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.
    Notice it calls him "the original serpent"?
    I Googled that verse. The other translations say "ancient serpent" and "old serpent," so there's really no reason to think that both serpents are the same.
    Jackpot!

    I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

    Werster is without a doubt the Pokémon Master.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The Enterprise
    Posts
    2,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marioguy View Post
    I Googled that verse. The other translations say "ancient serpent" and "old serpent," so there's really no reason to think that both serpents are the same.
    Now, take a look at psalms 83:18 in those translations. if you do not find the name of god, or the tetragrammaton, then the translation is simply not accurate. The tetragrammaton appears almost 7000 times in the ancient text and yet it can usually only be found at the verse i mentioned. Try numbers 8:3 is it there? 1 Chronicles 15:2? Jeremiah 16:9? I could list all 7000 but i simply don't have the time. And if a translation can screw up on something a simple as that, then I simply don't trust it to be accurate in other places.

    And just an FYI the word used in revelation literally means "Most old" or "Oldest".
    #AlphaSapphire
    I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me, take a look at the information in my profile or visit our official website.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Do you even know where the word "Satan" is derived from?

    It comes from an Ancient Hebrew word that means "adversary", so the word is Jewish in origin, and as I said before, Judaism says, specifically, that the Serpent was NOT Satan.

    Give it up.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The Enterprise
    Posts
    2,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Do you even know where the word "Satan" is derived from?

    It comes from an Ancient Hebrew word that means "adversary", so the word is Jewish in origin, and as I said before, Judaism says, specifically, that the Serpent was NOT Satan.

    Give it up.
    Uh, what?
    Yes the word Satan means "Adversary". And just because that is one persons interpretation of it does not mean its the correct one. And I would also like to point out that I never used the word Satan in my genesis summary, I used the phrase "the devil", which is also mentioned in Revelation along with "Satan" and "Original serpent" referring to the same being.
    #AlphaSapphire
    I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me, take a look at the information in my profile or visit our official website.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Revelation?

    So what in the world does the part in the Bible that talks about the END of the world (which was written hundreds of years after the Old Testament was written) have to do with the part that talks about its creation??

    You're talking nonsense, Ansem, and like all conservatives, you refuse to admit you're wrong. Read my lips, as one of your heroes said, there is no mention of the Devil in The Garden of Eden!

    Where DOES the Bible mention him?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan

    Honestly.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The Enterprise
    Posts
    2,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Revelation?

    So what in the world does the part in the Bible that talks about the END of the world (which was written hundreds of years after the Old Testament was written) have to do with the part that talks about its creation??

    You're talking nonsense, Ansem, and like all conservatives, you refuse to admit you're wrong. Read my lips, as one of your heroes said, there is no mention of the Devil in The Garden of Eden!

    Where DOES the Bible mention him?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan

    Honestly.
    ok, part of the reason I am so stubborn is because I have spent over 10 years researching this subject.

    Talking nonsense? If you say so.

    *chuckles* Take a look at what you linked:
    In traditional Christian understanding of the holy Hebrew scriptures, the Torah, Satan is a synonym for the Devil. For most Christians, he is believed to be an angel who rebelled against God—and also the one who spoke through the serpent and seduced Eve into disobeying God's command. His ultimate goal is to lead people away from the love of God—to lead them to fallacies which God opposes. Satan is also identified as the accuser of Job, the tempter in the Gospels, the secret power of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, and the dragon in the Book of Revelation. Before his insurrection, Satan was among the highest of all angels and the "brightest in the sky". His pride is considered a reason why he would not bow to God as all other angels did, but sought to rule heaven himself. The popularly held beliefs that Satan was once an angel who becomes prideful and eventually rebels against God, however, are not portrayed explicitly in the Bible and are mostly based on inference (e.g., Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14:12–17). In mainstream Christianity he is called "the ruler of the demons" (Matthew 12:24), "the ruler of the world" and "the god of this world". (2 Cor. 4:4). The Book of Revelation describes how Satan will be cast out of Heaven, down to the earth, having "great anger" and waging war against "those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus." Ultimately, Satan is thrown into the "Lake of fire," not as ruler, but as one among many, being tormented day and night forever and ever.[36]

    and

    Satan is traditionally identified as the serpent who tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit; thus, Satan has often been depicted as a serpent. Justin Martyr, who was born around 100 C.E., was the first to postulate this association. According to Kelly, Justin makes this association "casually," without giving an explanation for his reasoning. In Chapters 45 and 79 of Dialogue with Trypho, Justin identifies Satan and the Serpent, asserting that he tempted humankind for "an unspecified sinful reason" and was cursed as a result.[32] However, after Justin, the idea was promulgated by his student Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, and somewhat later by Tertullian.[33]

    He may have been the FIRST to make this association, but many others have looked into this very subject and have concluded that the devil is indeed the one who tempted eve.
    Last edited by Mr. Spock; 7th October 2013 at 10:12 PM.
    #AlphaSapphire
    I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me, take a look at the information in my profile or visit our official website.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    16

    Default

    I'd like someone to give me a reason as to why homosexuality is inherently wrong or immoral.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    That's the whole point, Ansem. You folks are letting your interpretation of this three-thousand-year old book that was written by a culture completely different than ours decide your opinion and how our culture should be run, while ignoring the needs and desires of modern Americans and the law. And that's wrong.

    Scream all you want that "what the Bible says is right". Not here, it isn't. As far as our governing body and the law of this country is concerned, the Bible is no more a legal document than Fifty Shades of Grey.

    You want a theocracy? You live in the wrong place.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The Enterprise
    Posts
    2,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    That's the whole point, Ansem. You folks are letting your interpretation of this three-thousand-year old book that was written by a culture completely different than ours decide your opinion and how our culture should be run, while ignoring the needs and desires of modern Americans and the law. And that's wrong.
    That is simply called an opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Scream all you want that "what the Bible says is right". Not here, it isn't. As far as our governing body and the law of this country is concerned, the Bible is no more a legal document than Fifty Shades of Grey.
    I don't expect it to be used as a legal document in our day, it can't FORCE you to do anything, and that is really the point. We must choose to go that way, because it means (I wont sugarcoat it) LIFE. You can do whatever you want with the information that I give you, but at least I gave it.
    #AlphaSapphire
    I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me, take a look at the information in my profile or visit our official website.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    543

    Default

    In @Ansem's defense he is entitled to his own opinion as we all are.

    I do believe in the supernatural, let me rephrase that, I think that there are forces in the universe that we don't and may never fully comprehend and I don't think that any single religion, grouping of religions, or science for that matter has it right.

    I choose to call myself atheist or agnostic, but that isn't completely right either, I'm somewhere in the realm between.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Opinions are one thing, Ansem, the law is another.

    And the United States Supreme Court has said that the Defense of Marriage Act has got to go, and so does Prop 8. You'll just have to accept it.

    I should note, the prediction of divine retribution that many people like you are making sounds a lot like the one people made when the Court declared that laws outlawing interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Any decade now, right fellahs?

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ansem the wise View Post
    Granted, yes morality is mainly the issue. But as I said, once a source can be trusted in other categories (ones that CAN be backed up by outside forces, then trusting it when it cannot be verified becomes less of a challenge).
    That's fallacious. Establishing a source's trustworthiness in one category does not grant it any credibility in any other category, especially when the other category is of a completely different nature than what we originally established as valid. For perspective, we can trust a biologist to give accurate biological information, but not to perform brain surgery, or, more relatedly, give a accurate accounting of historical Jesus, because credibility in one facet doesn't translate to a field completely unlike it. I am establishing this only to avoid confusion later where anyone insists that historical accuracy in one area translates to a true supernatural account, when the two have different burdens of proof and ways to go about proving each specific claim.

    On abiogenesis: This article assumes abiogenesis espouses the creation of advanced proteins or RNA molecules when this isn't the case at all, as even some laymen might know. Being an aspiring biology major, I do in fact know that abiogenesis calls for the most basic of replicating polymers, not something as advanced as a complete, modern protein or RNA molecule.

    On cellular reproduction and cellular membranes: Disbelief is the reaction they are trying to garner from you here. Basic phospholipid bilayers or even simpler membranes are much easier to accept and fit into the rise of life much more accurately. We don't have to look to modern cells whose advanced bilayer includes receptors for hormones, specific molecules, and identifiers for other cell, among other things. Ancient prokaryotes don't even have what modern prokaryotes have, including advanced cilia, flagellum, methods of phagocytizing smaller cells, etc, because the environment is so different and their creation nearly opposite.

    I'll stop here because it's really long, but the whole document is essentially an enormous uninformed argument from ignorance, assuming things like "DNA must have randomly arisen from its component part wholesale" and "common ancestry is flawed because I don't like the idea that we could have the same ancestors as our goldfish".
    Please choose over your provided evidence so I don't have to choose myself. I don't want to guess what your point was, or what you're arguing, so make it easy for me.

    Honestly, the idea of having a state of being that is non-physical, or even one of pure energy, crosses the path of Science fiction about as much as mysticism.
    I agree. I see such a being as far more likely than a God or god, but nowhere in the realm of remotely possible. I mean, anything is possible, but things like a god or a non-physical alien rank pathetically low. I simply wait for evidence instead of immediately judging on how apparently crazy an idea is.

    The definition of god(assuming its non-christian):
    a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
    I'll accept that, considering I don't have a god standard. Just know there are exceptions to this definition.

    Now, how did the universe and non-living matter get here?
    The preponderance of evidence points to an expansion from a singularity, or rather, a point in space where all the space was. I don't know if I accept this, but it's accepted by the majority of astronomers, so I believe it to be the most likely explanation of reality.

    But regardless, the Bible is accurate in terms of the earth being round and hanging on nothing. Even though that may not have been what they thought then, it doesn't contradict modern science.
    It can be construed to appear accurate. They said it was accurate in the past when the Earth was flat, yeah? If the interpretation can mean both its affirmation and its negation, it isn't worth anything.

    http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Sodom
    The exact location of the cities is uncertain, but archaeological discoveries at Bab edh-Dhra near the Dead Sea indicate that human habitation there may indeed have been disrupted or brought to an end suddenly as a result of earthquakes combined with gaseous emissions and a fire. Another candidate is the site at Numeira. Some theorists believe Sodom and Gomorrah may now be under water, or that they never truly existed.
    If you quote some homemade website, I'll quote the encyclopedia. Show me an accredited historian that asserts Sodom and Gomorrah existed or exist, and I'll drop this.

    At this point I would like to insert the various prophesies in the bible, and the fact that there is no way that they could have been fulfilled by mere chance.
    Oh my FSM. Here we go with this tomfoolery.

    First, I'll link the failed predictions of the Bible that can be proven to have failed today: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies
    Next, I want to establish a simple fact. Even if every prediction was correct, it proves nothing because the ability to predict the future isn't necessarily divine. We have people today who claim to predict the future, we had Nostradamus in the past, but nobody considers hem divine.
    Now, many of the prophesies in the NT are translated from the OT, which the writers drew inspiration from, taking their time fulfilling the prophesies. Think about it, is it really that impressive if writers who already believed the OT to be true wrote that many prophesies came to pass? Isn't it much more likely that they just wanted to fulfill them? Nazareth wasn't even a part of the OT, and if something that vital wasn't prophesized, that's an explicit oddity. Remember how prayer was prophesized to work? Yeah.
    Finally, for a perfect God to reveal a single false prophesy means that either the prophesy is wrong or God is fallible. Why would he reveal so many failed prophesies? Is it more likely that these prophesies were artificially fulfilled and/or fancifully interpreted, or that the writers got God wrong an extremely large number of times, sometimes saying that prophesy isn't of God?

    Yes, humans are nowhere near god. But I would like to summarize the genesis account.
    The Genesis account is especially hilarious because God told human beings that lacked the knowledge of good and evil to distinguish morally between eating a fruit and not eating a fruit. Furthermore, being omnipotent and all-knowing, he necessarily created them with the foreknowledge that they would eat from the tree of knowledge and fall from grace. The irony here is that gaining knowledge was forbidden. Questioning is forbidden. This is an allegory for the whole Bible, in my opinion.

    And, quite frankly, that is what I have observed. Man has had a few good leaders, but even they will eventually die. No one will ever be completely happy on this planet.
    Complete happiness and success as a species are completely different. We are the most successful species to ever inhabit this planet.

    And people wonder about the decrease in morals of this society >.>
    The Bible is possibly the most morally repugnant document ever created by man. Religion is a poison to our species and is slowly killing us. Much immorality today is a derivation of religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by QueenJynx
    I'd like someone to give me a reason as to why homosexuality is inherently wrong or immoral.
    Cuz the Babble says so.
    Last edited by The Federation; 8th October 2013 at 4:54 AM.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    543

    Default

    To take the Bible as absolute fact in this day and age is quite foolish imo

  22. #72
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Take THIS Bible huggers:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/advoca...ru%2Bslider%2B

    THAT is why your opinions will never be taken seriously in modern America. Your ideas cannot be accepted as a hypothesis because they simply don't follow the accepted rules for one.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The Enterprise
    Posts
    2,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    That's fallacious. Establishing a source's trustworthiness in one category does not grant it any credibility in any other category, especially when the other category is of a completely different nature than what we originally established as valid. For perspective, we can trust a biologist to give accurate biological information, but not to perform brain surgery, or, more relatedly, give a accurate accounting of historical Jesus, because credibility in one facet doesn't translate to a field completely unlike it. I am establishing this only to avoid confusion later where anyone insists that historical accuracy in one area translates to a true supernatural account, when the two have different burdens of proof and ways to go about proving each specific claim.
    You're correct, I worded that badly. Historical accuracy backs up the reliability of prophesy. The reliability of prophesy implies assistance from another plane of existence.(While we do not NEED to insert god here at this moment. Why would we not trust this "assistance from another plane of existence" to be what IT says it is.) And assistance from another plane of existence leads into, what does this "assistive force" want from us?


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    On abiogenesis: This article assumes abiogenesis espouses the creation of advanced proteins or RNA molecules when this isn't the case at all, as even some laymen might know. Being an aspiring biology major, I do in fact know that abiogenesis calls for the most basic of replicating polymers, not something as advanced as a complete, modern protein or RNA molecule.

    On cellular reproduction and cellular membranes: Disbelief is the reaction they are trying to garner from you here. Basic phospholipid bilayers or even simpler membranes are much easier to accept and fit into the rise of life much more accurately. We don't have to look to modern cells whose advanced bilayer includes receptors for hormones, specific molecules, and identifiers for other cell, among other things. Ancient prokaryotes don't even have what modern prokaryotes have, including advanced cilia, flagellum, methods of phagocytizing smaller cells, etc, because the environment is so different and their creation nearly opposite.

    I'll stop here because it's really long, but the whole document is essentially an enormous uninformed argument from ignorance, assuming things like "DNA must have randomly arisen from its component part wholesale" and "common ancestry is flawed because I don't like the idea that we could have the same ancestors as our goldfish".
    Please choose over your provided evidence so I don't have to choose myself. I don't want to guess what your point was, or what you're arguing, so make it easy for me.
    Now, while I am not saying that abiogenesis is an complete impossibility, but I still find it highly unlikely. For remember, for this to be what happened this is the progression:
    1) Physical matter will have to exist
    2) This physical matter would have to have not been empty space
    3) There would have had been an abiogenesis of a single celled organism (or protein idk, I'm not a scientist)
    4) This protein would have had to survive long enough to reproduce, assuming that that was possible
    5) The protein would have to have been in an environment that it could have survived in, which is another unlikely possibility
    6) This protein would have had to evolve into a higher species. (be it humans, or another species that put humans here)
    7) All of this had to happen like clockwork all in the course of the age of the universe which is 13 billion years, simply not enough time for this to have happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    I agree. I see such a being as far more likely than a God or god, but nowhere in the realm of remotely possible. I mean, anything is possible, but things like a god or a non-physical alien rank pathetically low. I simply wait for evidence instead of immediately judging on how apparently crazy an idea is.
    To be honest, that is what I believe the god of the bible to be, a being of pure energy who wanted to put us here. Just think of the energy contained in a atom, all that energy had to come from somewhere when that atom was formed, and think of how many atoms exist in the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    The preponderance of evidence points to an expansion from a singularity, or rather, a point in space where all the space was. I don't know if I accept this, but it's accepted by the majority of astronomers, so I believe it to be the most likely explanation of reality.
    Yes, the common belief is that there was a point in time when the universe started. Do you honestly believe that it came about by chance? Notice the link I posted before(this one: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010230) Simply looking at the universe and our place in it is also a statistical improbability.



    http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Sodom

    If you quote some homemade website, I'll quote the encyclopedia. Show me an accredited historian that asserts Sodom and Gomorrah existed or exist, and I'll drop this.

    Archaeology confirms it http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48931527.html and I would like to point out that in the encyclopedia that you quoted, it does not say that it did not exist, but it just said that "some theorists believe...that they never existed" The use of the word "some" implies that its not the majority, and archaeological finds say that those "some" are simply incorrect.

    You may be the biologist, I personally lean to the scholarly aspect of these debates.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Oh my FSM. Here we go with this tomfoolery.

    First, I'll link the failed predictions of the Bible that can be proven to have failed today: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies
    Next, I want to establish a simple fact. Even if every prediction was correct, it proves nothing because the ability to predict the future isn't necessarily divine. We have people today who claim to predict the future, we had Nostradamus in the past, but nobody considers hem divine.
    Now, many of the prophesies in the NT are translated from the OT, which the writers drew inspiration from, taking their time fulfilling the prophesies. Think about it, is it really that impressive if writers who already believed the OT to be true wrote that many prophesies came to pass? Isn't it much more likely that they just wanted to fulfill them? Nazareth wasn't even a part of the OT, and if something that vital wasn't prophesized, that's an explicit oddity. Remember how prayer was prophesized to work? Yeah.
    Finally, for a perfect God to reveal a single false prophesy means that either the prophesy is wrong or God is fallible. Why would he reveal so many failed prophesies? Is it more likely that these prophesies were artificially fulfilled and/or fancifully interpreted, or that the writers got God wrong an extremely large number of times, sometimes saying that prophesy isn't of God?
    Ok, I will have to do some more research into a few of these seeing as verses are not cited in a few (*grumbletheydidthatonpurposegrumble*). But I would like to point out a few things here:
    1) Quite a few of them, (like the one about egypt being desolate for 40 years) simply say that "there is no historical evidence to back this up". Now maybe the biologist cant perform brain surgery, but he knows his own element, so the bible does fill "complete itself" when it comes to historical events that cannot be proven.
    2) Some of them it says they cannot be considered prophesies because they were never meant to be prophesies....That really does nothing to harm the accuracy of other prophesies.
    3) some of them were conditional prophesies, meaning "if you do this, then that will happen. But if you don't do it, it won't happen". You can see where i am going there.

    You are correct, we have fortune tellers etc. But they are never 100% accurate, and even then, they get their information from somewhere. That implies another plane of existence, and why is it so hard to insert there, a being of pure energy that created us?


    I'm sure i did not cover them all, and I will continue this more when I have the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    The Genesis account is especially hilarious because God told human beings that lacked the knowledge of good and evil to distinguish morally between eating a fruit and not eating a fruit. Furthermore, being omnipotent and all-knowing, he necessarily created them with the foreknowledge that they would eat from the tree of knowledge and fall from grace. The irony here is that gaining knowledge was forbidden. Questioning is forbidden. This is an allegory for the whole Bible, in my opinion.
    But you are forgetting something. This was before even the mosaic law, god had not yet established any laws for them except one, not to eat from the tree. They disobeyed. Simple as that.
    And while yes god is omnipotent, other verses in the bible indicate that he only uses it when he wants to.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Complete happiness and success as a species are completely different. We are the most successful species to ever inhabit this planet.
    ...See, that right there is what scares me, it sounds like a line that belongs in Terminator or the Matrix.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    The Bible is possibly the most morally repugnant document ever created by man. Religion is a poison to our species and is slowly killing us. Much immorality today is a derivation of religion.
    Okay....If you take anything away from this debate let it be this.
    Just like the ones who bomb abortion clinics, almost 100% of Christianity twists, misinterprets, and wrongly justifies things using the bible. But that is all they are, a false example. Extremists. Do not turn away from information just because morons use it wrongly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Take THIS Bible huggers:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/advoca...ru%2Bslider%2B

    THAT is why your opinions will never be taken seriously in modern America. Your ideas cannot be accepted as a hypothesis because they simply don't follow the accepted rules for one.
    This doesn't help your side in any way.
    "abiogensis cannot be proven, but I insert it there anyways."

    And one more thing. The "accepted rules" are the rules made by the side who made them to disprove the other side.
    #AlphaSapphire
    I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me, take a look at the information in my profile or visit our official website.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Ansem, seriously. How can you prove God's existence?

    You can't. How can a Christian say to a Muslim, "My God is real, yours isn't?"

    There is no way to prove it, and snake oil salesman who say they can use math to find a way to do so in the Bible and charlatans who claim He "spoke" to them are false prophets.

    People look for complex answers to trying to attempt that God exists, theories like these:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...istence_of_God

    But for all of them, there are people who present theories that seem just as valid that counter the idea, like these:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...istence_of_God

    Surely, you can't say all the theories are valid, even the ones in the same viewpoint, even though they all seem logical. My opinion is, as logical as they seem, they're interesting, but you can't really prove that even one of them is accurate. People are trying to hard, and making it complicated, assigning mortal qualities to something that, by all rights, is not mortal, trying to put in human terms something they claim is above human. Trying to comprehend something that they admit is beyond mortal comprehension.

    Here's the simple truth. If God exists, he is not good, omnipotent, or omniscient, because goodness, power, and knowledge, are human terms, and God is not human. He's on an entirely different level. (My college religious studies teacher told me that, btw.)

    He told me this too: The only way to say for sure that God exists is faith. It's as simple as that.

    Edit: Oh, by the way:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

    Read the section under "historicity". The existence of the two cities is debated, but has never been confirmed.
    Last edited by Maedar; 8th October 2013 at 11:10 PM.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ansem the wise View Post
    You're correct, I worded that badly. Historical accuracy backs up the reliability of prophesy. The reliability of prophesy implies assistance from another plane of existence.(While we do not NEED to insert god here at this moment. Why would we not trust this "assistance from another plane of existence" to be what IT says it is.) And assistance from another plane of existence leads into, what does this "assistive force" want from us?
    Historical accuracy and reliability of prophesy aren't analogous. Prophesy fulfillment and historically viable portions don't support one another. Even if prophesy came true every single time it was said to and was accredited to a God or god, it wouldn't prove the existence of a God. Proof of supernatural acts and proof of a God are different things entirely.

    Now, while I am not saying that abiogenesis is an complete impossibility, but I still find it highly unlikely. For remember, for this to be what happened this is the progression:
    1) Physical matter will have to exist
    2) This physical matter would have to have not been empty space
    3) There would have had been an abiogenesis of a single celled organism (or protein idk, I'm not a scientist)
    4) This protein would have had to survive long enough to reproduce, assuming that that was possible
    5) The protein would have to have been in an environment that it could have survived in, which is another unlikely possibility
    6) This protein would have had to evolve into a higher species. (be it humans, or another species that put humans here)
    7) All of this had to happen like clockwork all in the course of the age of the universe which is 13 billion years, simply not enough time for this to have happen.
    Well, we know physical matter existed, that physical matter by definition isn't "empty space". That the production of a self-replicating polymer is possible, that it could have survived. That evolution is a viable theory, which it absolutely is, and that the timeframe is correct, which it is. 13 billion years is an unbelievably long time, and to say that it isn't enough time without evidence is an argument from ignorance.

    To be honest, that is what I believe the god of the bible to be, a being of pure energy who wanted to put us here. Just think of the energy contained in a atom, all that energy had to come from somewhere when that atom was formed, and think of how many atoms exist in the universe.
    Uhh, if you think he's energy that means he exists within the universe and is incapable of thought. Energy is the ability to do work, to heat things up or move things around. Calling something mysterious "energy" is uninformed. Are you saying that energy had to come from somewhere? Because it didn't. We have a universe where everything breaks down in a singularity. Time doesn't exist, so cause isn't even a concept. We also have quantum possibility, which means we didn't need anything for matter to come from. Finally, if atoms and the universe needed a cause, why wouldn't God?

    Yes, the common belief is that there was a point in time when the universe started. Do you honestly believe that it came about by chance? Notice the link I posted before(this one: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010230) Simply looking at the universe and our place in it is also a statistical improbability.
    Have you ever heard of the anthropic principal? We're looking at things as if they care whether or not we exist. The natural world doesn't care. The chances that a leaf will fall onto a specific spot on the ground are astronomically low, but it will fall, and will land somewhere. It's the same with the universe. It does exist, did have a start and the chances for it to take any course of action are astronomically low, and we only see that as odd because we exist to observe it. That's a bias because if we didn't exist to say how odd it is we exist, it wouldn't be odd at all. That's the anthropic principal.

    Archaeology confirms it http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48931527.html and I would like to point out that in the encyclopedia that you quoted, it does not say that it did not exist, but it just said that "some theorists believe...that they never existed" The use of the word "some" implies that its not the majority, and archaeological finds say that those "some" are simply incorrect.
    Your link doesn't work for me. That, and if your article links to a Rabbi or a Jewish official rather than an archaeologist, it's not valid.

    1) Quite a few of them, (like the one about egypt being desolate for 40 years) simply say that "there is no historical evidence to back this up". Now maybe the biologist cant perform brain surgery, but he knows his own element, so the bible does fill "complete itself" when it comes to historical events that cannot be proven.
    2) Some of them it says they cannot be considered prophesies because they were never meant to be prophesies....That really does nothing to harm the accuracy of other prophesies.
    3) some of them were conditional prophesies, meaning "if you do this, then that will happen. But if you don't do it, it won't happen". You can see where i am going there.
    If it never happened, if there's a lack of historical evidence, we know it's a false prophesy.
    It's easy to pick and choose what you want to be prophetic, to better the accuracy of the prophesies in question.
    Conditional? Specifically which ones from that list were conditional?
    Finally, what about my objection that it is a more rational belief to assume the writers, already immensely biased, simply wrote in after the fact the fulfillment of the prophesies. This was over sixty years after the death of Jesus, after all, and as a martyr it's even easier to see how they might stretch reality. Is it more probable that a human lied, or that divine intervention by a God occurred on a tiny rock in the middle of space to help a bronze age man bring his foul dogma to the world?

    You are correct, we have fortune tellers etc. But they are never 100% accurate, and even then, they get their information from somewhere. That implies another plane of existence, and why is it so hard to insert there, a being of pure energy that created us?
    Fortune tellers can't tell fortunes. They can make generalities and pretend that those generalities represent you and only you, but they cannot predict the future. It's hard to believe that a "being of pure energy" exists in "another plane" the same way it's hard to believe a magical, invisible pink unicorn exists but is completely undetectable in any way, shape, or form. There is no evidence for the existence of a God whatsoever, nor is there evidence for a unicorn. Like I said before, even if a give you every single prophesy in the Bible, that wouldn't prove divine intervention.

    But you are forgetting something. This was before even the mosaic law, god had not yet established any laws for them except one, not to eat from the tree. They disobeyed. Simple as that.
    And while yes god is omnipotent, other verses in the bible indicate that he only uses it when he wants to.
    I'll ask again: if those who had no knowledge of morality (good and evil) were told it's evil to eat from the tree, why should they care? Furthermore, why is a punishment for them and every ancestor they will ever have moral? Omnipotence is theoretically impossible to turn on and off. It's a state of being. If you are capable of knowing what was going to happen, knew that Satan would escape, knew that humanity would fall, and still engineered the situation, are you immoral? He literally created man knowing that he would be sending anyone that failed to accept the dogma he would later create to hell, which is, at the very least, not a very nice place to be. To do something such as that is a moral repugnance.

    ...See, that right there is what scares me, it sounds like a line that belongs in Terminator or the Matrix.
    You said that God allows us to see how we've failed. Yes, we've made mistakes, but we are millions of times better than the bronze age. We are at the industrial peak of our existence.

    Just like the ones who bomb abortion clinics, almost 100% of Christianity twists, misinterprets, and wrongly justifies things using the bible. But that is all they are, a false example. Extremists. Do not turn away from information just because morons use it wrongly.
    If everyone does it, it's not extremism. It's your bible. The bible is a book where the God commissions millions of deaths, and Satan kills about a dozen, some under God's order. Satan is the villain. He's the villain because he caused the fall of man that God necessarily engineered. People worship and praise the God of the bible, who was the biggest murderer in the history of fiction. Then people will say it's a perversion of the doctrine when people use it to justify slavery, misogyny, racial superiority, gay bashing, war, burning of "witches", and murder. I understand that there are good religious people, but that's not caused by their book. It's the person behind the dogma that really matters.

    Before I end with a quote, I ask you, what is your best evidence for the God of the Bible? What is your resolution for the problem of evil? What is your answer to my claim that God has killed or endorsed the killing of more people than any other character in history?

    “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
    ― Steven Weinberg
    Last edited by The Federation; 9th October 2013 at 4:31 AM.

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •