Religion, evolution, & low-carb?!?!?!

[cori]

I'm having a great amount of trouble talking myself back onto a low-carb diet. So I came here for some back up. Does somebody have my back???

Anyhow.... when it comes to major diet plans, I am familiar and have read (if not tried) most of them.

Alot of the argument for LC comes from an evolutionary viewpoint. Don't get me wrong, I'm a smart, educated woman, but I don't exactly believe in evolution. Let's just say I believe in intelligent design. I mean, I believe humans and other creatures have evolved, but I don't buy into the we all came from goo theory. I believe God designed us, put us here.

If you read biblical accounts, man ate everthing. Meat, fruits, vegetables, bread. Granted it wasn't the refined s**t that we call food today, but it was inclusive.

I was just reading the post about low-carb not being sustainable for the "world at large". And it's true. Scientifically speaking, producing meat depletes the earth and it's resources. Not to mention the horrors of pollution and the meat markets.

So I feel all in flux. Science vs. religion??? I have trouble reconciling the stuff in my head. I truly believe that we can choose a diet that will bless our bodies and the earth. But I know the diet that blesses my body (low-carb) doesn't bless the earth. And the diet that truly blesses the earth (vegetarian) does not bless my body. And although I know some of you do it, I have not been able to eat vegetarian low-carb.

This is long and windy. Any input?

[Iowagirl]

Two words...food chain. The grass grows, the herbivores eat it, the carnivores and omnivores eat them. Granted, we have scewed the ratios somewhat, however I happen to believe human lives take a far greater toll on the natural world than cows.

I also happen to believe evolution and religion need not be incompatible.

[Zuleikaa]

Cori
I'm not going to debate evolution with you. But here's some food for thought. No, humans did not eat everything when they were first here. What you ate, what your diet was like depended on where you lived, i.e. Maoris--meat, milk and blood; Eskimos--meat and blubber; Amazon natives--meat and native foods. None of these were big fruit and veggie eaters and none had grain. In fact, grain is a very recent introduction and processed foods an invention of the late nineteenth century. So your reasoning is based on a fallacy.

Also, the vegetables you're thnking of as man's natural diet, a lot of them don't exist in other parts of the world and never did. The vegetables we eat today, for the most part, are very Western culture and new world. There was a study that the varied diet that earlier man ate has shrunk by about 60-70%. In this more varied diet man ate not only more naturally but according to the seasons and what foods were available. A bounty of foods and rich ones were available only on special days. During the middle ages, European man ate mostly meat and unprocessed grains and the grains were sparing.

So pick your spot and you will find that human's natural diet, in that spot, varied greatly from place to place and region to region. That's why I like the Metabolic Typing diet. It explains that humans are one of three metabolic types, carbo, protein and mixed. How well you do on any eating program or diet is determined by which type you are. It also illustrates what moving from their native diets, however spare and leaning toward protein or carbs, to the so called "healthy" diet of the industrial world does to these peoples' health.

I agree that agribusiness as it exists now is not sustainable. However there are other ways to have sustainable agriculture and meat production. It is a nice idealistic stance to take that we should all become vegetarians. However, as it would improve tremendously the health of those of us who are meant to eat that way, it would only deter the health of those who are not.

[Shellyf34]

I am not Christian and therefore have no input as to whether we were "placed here" by someone. I am not even going to get into how many times the Bible was rewritten and translated and rewritten and translated, etc. (by men I might add). Who's to say what was actually in "the first edition?"

But I believe that we need to care for our mother (earth) and I try to buy only organic sustainable produce, dairy, eggs and meat. There is plenty available in my area and although it is a bit more expensive (at least the meat is) I feel like I am at least trying to do my part.

If I am correct, didn't Atkins say in NDR that if you can, try and buy organic meats anyway?

[Paleoanth]

Hey Cori-

Actually in the Garden of Eden-God tells Adam and Eve they are to be stewards of the animals. Not to eat them willy nilly. In Deuteronomy, God specifically tells people not to eat pork. There are lots of conflicting eating messages in the Bible-depending on which quote you choose-that seem to support carnivore eating or vegetarian eating. I am not aure how you would reconcile all that.

I am a vegetarian low carber, but I don't have a problem with other people eating meat. I just choose not to do it. I would think that going free range, hormone free would be the best bet for both you and the earth, though. The more that we all buy those products, the cheaper they will become. Soy is another alternative that can replace meat in a meal even if you don't want to become a vegetarian.

As far as evolution is concerned-I am not going to get into a debate with you about that either-since human evolution is what I do for a living, obviously I accept it. I will say this though, science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. Actually, science has nothing whatsoever to say about God-he is an untestable hypothesis. We cannot measure him or take his blood or test him-so therefore he is beyond scientific knowledge. Science can only gather knowledge about the world at hand that we can feel and touch and test.

[Iowagirl]

And eat.

[Lisa N]

While it's true that the Biblical accounts of diet did include fruits, grains, vegetables and meat it says nothing about the proportions in which those foods were eaten. Was it equal portions of each, heavy on the meat, heavy on the fruits and veggies or heavy on the grains? I'd also like to point out that the "Biblical" diet isn't necessarily a guarantee of good health. Obesity was not unknown even then (take Eli the priest, for example). When mummies from Egypt are examined from that time period, they found evidence of obesity and heart disease and those folks weren't exactly eating Twinkies and Ding Dongs, either. With the exception of grains that could be stored, the fruits and vegetables that were eaten were dependent on what was in season and on what you could grow yourself or afford.
What we do know is that even though all the food groups were eaten, those that ate them also lived a very strenous lifestyle. The average person worked hard from morning to night at physically demanding tasks. They walked pretty much everywhere they went unless you were wealthy enough to own a donkey. Today, most of us don't live those kinds of lifestyles, so it's difficult to apply that type of eating pattern to a culture that is much more sedentary. I could probably get away with eating a lot more carbs than I do if I were to get a job that involved heavy physical exertion for 10-12 hours a day and walked everywhere I went too.

[cc48510]

IMHO, grain (with the exception of the Exodus)...was not the main food in the biblical diet. My belief is that fish dominated the biblical diet. In one passage god tells the people to eat bread in the morning and fish in the evening.

He is telling them to load up on carbs before they start working. But, he's also telling them to avoid carbs at night (when they are more likely to store them). The amount of bread they probably ate in the morning was probably burned off by Dinner time.

It is my opinion that grain was a one meal a day thing...not the 6-11 servings the USDA is trying to pass off on us. In addition, the fruits and vegetables found in that region (olives, etc...) of the world are very healthy and contain good fats. It is clear, at least in my mind that while the biblical diet was higher than Atkins in carbs, that is was still relatively high in fat and protein and low in carbs compared to the diet the USDA is pushing on us.

[alaskaman]

Glad to see everything has remained civil here. I sometimes feel bad that the diet which is so good for me relies on cows and pigs living short miserable lives. As a Christian, I believe that knowledge is part of the Fall of humanity - knowledge of good and evil, life and death. A cat or a wolf just eats, doesn't reflect. We do. Just this evening my sort-of-vegetarian wife was reading some item about how awful commercial meat farming is. We agreed that getting organic, free range stuff, bison, etc. would be so much more responsible. But hey, I'm already spending big bucks on my healhty lc lifestyle, so going to free-range stuff would be a still greater hit to the not very thick wallet. Also, don't forget that a huge area of land cannot raise grains and stuff but can raise beef ( or goats or bison) so the argument for ecological vegetarianism can be disputed.

[gotbeer]

Without a HUGE amount of doublethink (hypocrisy), religion and science are completely at odds with each other.

They both claim to inform us as to the nature of reality but their claims are contradictory. For example, science has well-established the age of the universe as being in the billions of years, but religion puts that age at about 6000. It cannot be both.

Former Secretary of the Interior James Watt said that we had to hurry up and use up all our natural resources, because Jesus was returning soon, and He'd be pissed if we wasted any by not exploiting them fully. Ludicrous, of course, but also perfectly in line with a non-hypocritical reading of Scripture. A Christian who accepts scientific findings must make a mind-boggling number of cheats and compromises in what she thinks and believes - it is not surprising that an honest Christian, struggling with this knowledge, finds her head spinning.

A Christian geologist, for another example, would be utterly helpless in finding oil deposits without information derived from Physics, Evolutionary Biology, and a host of other disciplines at odds with religious teachings. Prayer won't help you find oil, but Darwin will. Hell, you can't even draw a circle without disproving the scriptures that set the value of Pi as 3.

Jesus may love prostitutes, tax-collectors, and you, but he HATES hypocrisy and hypocrites, and on that last bit we agree.

On the day when the thousands of competing, mutually-exclusive religions unite and reach agreement on teachings that do not contradict the facts of the real physical world, then they will be worthy of scientific consideration. Until then, they have the same value as fairy tales: good for comforting the fears of children, and not much else.

[cc48510]

For example, science has well-established the age of the universe as being in the billions of years, but religion puts that age at about 6000. It cannot be both.

Religous scholars, not religion, directly stated the earth was 6,000 years old. This is based on a literal interpretation of scripture. You cannot always read scripture literally. I find no reason why the earth cannot have been both created by God and be billions of years old.

If the Bible left out years of Jesus' (God's son's) life...why is it so hard to fathom that it is possible that it may also have left out alot more. In addition, the 6,000 year figure was based on modern science. Think about that for a second. Without the modern sciences of Astronomy and Physiology...they could never have put a date on creation. The days/years listed in the Bible were assumed to be Earth years/day...which draws on Astronomy and our understanding of what constitutes a year/day. Could the Biblical day/year be different than our own ???

Former Secretary of the Interior James Watt said that we had to hurry up and use up all our natural resources, because Jesus was returning soon, and He'd be pissed if we wasted any by not exploiting them fully. Ludicrous, of course, but also perfectly in line with a non-hypocritical reading of Scripture.

Nothing ludicrous about it. Our earth was designed to give us everything we need. Science says resource A will be used up in a Billion years. But, science never said the world won't end before then. Both could very well be right. That resource could dry up in a Billion years and the world could very well come to an end long before then.

A Christian geologist, for another example, would be utterly helpless in finding oil deposits without information derived from Physics, Evolutionary Biology, and a host of other disciplines at odds with religious teachings. Prayer won't help you find oil, but Darwin will.

Physics is not at odds with religion. Physics is how God designed the world to work. It is his method. Where in the Bible does it say that Newton was wrong or that there is no gravity ??? Evolution is the only science at odds with religion.

Scripture is not literal. When God says he made B from A, who knows that there may not have been something in between that was left out of the scripture. Just because the Bible/Torah/Nevi'im/Koran doesn't say it happened, doesn't mean it didn't. Even if we believe in science, who is to say that God/Jesus did not simply violate the laws of science when he performed some act mentioned in the Bible.

[gotbeer]

So, are you saying that god breaks his own laws capriciously? Do as I say, not as I do? Doesn't that call all "divine" laws into question? Is such an immoral deity worthy of anything but scorn? Ambrose Bierce once defined “prayer” as “a request that the laws of the physical universe be temporarily annulled on behalf of the petitioner, admittedly unworthy.”

One cannot allow religious myths to be tested scientifically if one is unwilling to accept a negative result. Such a challenge to religious authority either ends with damage to the scientist (Galileo, for example) or to the religion (your own denial of the literal truth of scripture, for example, a stance for which the dozens of Southern Baptists I work with would deny you any standing at all in the Xian community).

Physics is completely at odds with religion - according to physics, the earth is NOT the center of creation, it is not flat, it has no corners, atoms can be destroyed, and god's hand was unnecessary at creation, lightning is electriclty (not god's punishment), rainbows are caused by the refraction of light, the Grand Canyon was NOT caused by the Great Flood...

Physics has completely displaced the religious superstitions as an explanation for existence.

[cc48510]

Physics is completely at odds with religion -

Nope

according to physics, the earth is NOT the center of creation,

I'll grant you that one.

it is not flat, it has no corners,

Again, this is the literal interpretation part. For example, it says that God stopped the Sun. Some purists claimed that proved the Sun revolved around the Earth. But, you cannot read it literally. When it says the Sun stopped, it means that the Sun appeared to stand still. Whether that was the result of God stopping the Earth or some other means...doesn't matter. You cannot read it literally. If not sure whether there is a passage that would indicate the Earth is flat. But, if there is...it is one of those things that is not literal.

atoms can be destroyed,

Where did God say atoms can't be destroyed. I don't think they even knew what an atom was back then.

and god's hand was unnecessary at creation,

The Bible says God created the Earth, etc...It doesn't say specifically how he did it. When I want to make something...I don't snap my fingers and its done. Though, God could...he likely has his own methods of doing things. Those methods are the laws of science. But, as always...God can set aside the laws of science and do what he wants. That is what a miracle is.

lightning is electriclty (not god's punishment),

Who says electrictity hitting you from the air isn't a punishment. It may seem random to us humans. But, who knows for sure that God doesn't play a hand in where storms go, and who gets struck ???

rainbows are caused by the refraction of light,

Again, who says God didn't cause that refraction of light. Science is God's methods.

the Grand Canyon was NOT caused by the Great Flood...

That is not in the Bible/Torah/Koran. They didn't even know that Arizona existed in Biblican times. They didn't even know it much later in Koranic times. It seems most of your stuff comes from local myths, not the Bible/Torah/Koran. Alot of Ancient myths (Greek, Roman, Nordic, Japaneese, etc...) are so explicit that they are at odds. The Bible/Torah is not so specific that it is completely at odds with science.

Saying that God created the Earth, etc...is alot less specific (and thus less at odds with science) than saying Isanagi stuck his scepter into the Ocean, pulled it out, and the brine formed the Islands of Japan...and that he then populated it with lesser Gods called Kami.

[gotbeer]

Who says electrictity hitting you from the air isn't a punishment. It may seem random to us humans. But, who knows for sure that God doesn't play a hand in where storms go, and who gets struck ???

Sorry, dude. God doesn't control lightning - but the lightning rod does. You are over 200 years behind the times if this is the level of science you are touting. The following article would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.

Franklin's Unholy Lightning Rod

Written by Al Seckel and John Edwards, 1984

link to article (http://www.evolvefish.com/freewrite/franklgt.htm)

It is well-known that the Catholic and Protestant churches opposed the scientific theories of Galileo and Copernicus, but did you know they also opposed Benjamin Franklin's lightning rod?

Biblical Meteorology

For centuries, Protestant and Catholic churches, basing their teachings on various texts in the Bible, taught that the air was filled with devils, demons and witches. The great Christian scholar St. Augustine held this belief to be beyond controversy.

St. Thomas Aquinas stated in his Summa Theologica, "Rain and winds, and whatsoever occurs by local impulse alone, can be caused by demons. It is a dogma of faith that the demons can produce winds, storms, and rain of fire from heaven."

Martin Luther asserted that the winds themselves are good or evil spirits. He declared that a stone thrown into a certain pond in his native city would cause a dreadful storm because of the devils kept prisoners there.

Christian churches tried to ward off the damaging effects of storms and lightning by saying prayers, consecrating church bells, sprinkling holy water and burning witches. Lengthy rites were said for the consecration of bells, and priests prayed that their sound might "temper the destruction of hail and cyclones and the force of tempests and lightning; check hostile thunders and great winds; and cast down the spirits of storms and the powers of the air."

Unfortunately, these efforts were to no avail. The priest ought to have prayed for the bell ringer, who was frequently electrocuted while ringing the blessed bells. The church tower, usually the highest structure in the village or town, was the building most often hit, while the brothels and gambling houses next door were left untouched.

One eyewitness to the damaging effects of lightning recorded, "Little by little we took in what happened. A bolt of lightning had struck the tower, partly melting the bell and electrocuting the priest; afterwards, continuing, it had shattered a great part of the ceiling, had passed behind the mistress, whom it deprived of sensibility, and after destroying a picture of the Savior hanging upon the wall, had disappeared through the floor . . ."

Peter Ahlwardts, the author of Reasonable and Theological Considerations about Thunder and Lightning (1745), accordingly advised his readers to seek refuge from storms anywhere except in or around a church. Had not lightning struck only the churches ringing bells during the terrific storm in lower Brittany on Good Friday, 1718?

In 1786, the Parliament of Paris finally signed an edict "to make the custom of ringing church bells during storms illegal on account of the many deaths it caused to those pulling the ropes."

The Heretical Rod

The first major blow against these biblical superstitions about storms and lightning was struck in 1752 when Benjamin Franklin made his famous electrical experiments with a kite. The second and fatal blow was struck later in the same year when he invented the lightning rod. With Franklin's scientific explanations of lightning, the question that had so long taxed the minds of the world's leading theologians-"Why should the Almighty strike his own consecrated temples, or suffer Satan to strike them"-could finally be answered rationally.

Thunder and lightning were considered tokens of God's displeasure. It was considered impious to prevent their doing damage. This was despite the fact that in Germany, within a span of 33 years, nearly 400 towers were damaged and 120 bell ringers were killed.

In Switzerland, France and Italy, popular prejudice against the lightning rod was ignited and fueled by the churches and resulted in the tearing down of lightning rods from many homes and buildings, including one from the Institute of Bologna, the leading scientific institution in Italy. The Swiss chemist, M. de Saussure, removed a rod he had erected on his house in Geneva in 1771 when it caused his neighbors so much anxiety that he feared a riot.

In 1780-1784, a lawsuit about lightning rods gave M. de St. Omer the right to have a lightning rod on top of his house despite the religious objections of his neighbors. This victory established the fame of the lawyer in the case, young Robespierre.

In America, Rev. Thomas Prince, pastor of Old South Church, blamed Franklin's invention of the lightning rod for causing the Massachusetts earthquake of 1755.

In Prince's sermon on the topic, he expressed the opinion that the frequency of earthquakes may be due to the erection of "points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin." He goes on to argue that "in Boston more are erected than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! There is no getting out of the mighty hand of God."

It took many years for scientists to convince the priests to attach a lightning rod to the spire of St. Bride's Church in London, even though it had been destroyed by lightning several times.

The priests' refusals prompted the following letter from the president of Harvard University to Franklin: "How astonishing is the force of prejudice even in an age of so much knowledge and free inquiry. It is amazing to me, that after the full demonstration you have given . . . they should even think of repairing that steeple without such conductors."

In Austria, the Church of Rosenburg was struck so frequently and with such loss of life that the peasants feared to attend services. Several times the spire had to be rebuilt. It was not until 1778, 26 years after Franklin's discovery, that church authorities finally permitted a rod to be attached. Then all trouble ceased.

A typical case was the tower of St. Mark's in Venice. In spite of the angel at its summit, the bells consecrated to ward off devils and witches in the air, the holy relics in the church below, and the Processions in the adjacent square, the tower was frequently damaged or destroyed by lightning. It was not until 1766 that a lightning rod was placed upon it-and the tower has never been struck since.

Had the ecclesiastics of the Church of San Nazaro in Brecia given in to repeated urgings to install a lightning rod, they might have averted a terrible catastrophe. The Republic of Venice had stored in the vaults of this church several thousand pounds of gunpowder. In 1767, 17 years after Franklin's discovery, no rod having been placed on the church, it was struck by lightning and the gunpowder exploded. One-sixth of the city was destroyed and over 3,000 lives were lost because the priests refused to install the "heretical rod."

The Rod Spared

Such examples as these, in all parts of Europe, had their effect. The ecclesiastical formulas for preventing storms and consecrating bells to protect against lightning and tempests were still practiced in the Churches, but the lightning rod carried the day. Christian Churches were finally obliged to confess its practicality. The few theologians who stuck to the old theories and fumed against Franklin's attempts to "control the artillery of heaven" were finally silenced, like the lightning, by Franklin's lighting rod and the supremacy of the scientific method.

[dannysk]

According to quantum physics, whenever we see A going around B, we must also say that B goes around A. (Otherwise the world doesn't work). So in fact science has proven, finally, that the sun does go around the earth.

danny

[cc48510]

gotbeer, you are quoting a very old myth. Demons in the sky is not in the Bible/Torah/Koran. It was a myth made up by priests hundreds of years ago. The only foundations for Christianity (with some exceptions) are found in the Bible. Same with most other religions and their holy books. If its not in the Bible, then it isn't a foundation of Christianity...but, simply something claimed by a priest/minister/etc...

As for Lightning Rod vs. God, it is possible that God set in motion lightning and controls indirectly where it goes...Or, he may take a hands-off approach and let it go where it may.

There are scientific explantations for alot of stuff. But, if you follow it back, it leads back to something unexplainable. For example, the Big Bang. They claim there was a supercompressed mass that exploded. Ok, where did the supercompressed mass come from ??? Care to explain that one ??? Since time has no beginning and end it is inconceivable that a supercompressed mass could simply have existed without being created.

[rainne]

Cori,

I thought your opening post was thoughtful. Thank you for sharing your feelings.

While I'm not a Christian in any fundamentalist way, I do struggle with the same issues, and for me, they are also spiritual and ethical. How do I reconcile eating in a way that harms the earth - in a way which ultimately threatens my children's future... yet which my body sp clearly responds to in a positive way.

It isn't an easy question.

[rainne]

Oh, I should add. I eat meat, cheese and eggs everyday. I've been low carbing since about mid-may, and am experiencing the health benefits of doing so. The quetion is not getting easier.

[Lisa N]

There are scientific explantations for alot of stuff. But, if you follow it back, it leads back to something unexplainable. For example, the Big Bang. They claim there was a supercompressed mass that exploded. Ok, where did the supercompressed mass come from ??? Care to explain that one ??? Since time has no beginning and end it is inconceivable that a supercompressed mass could simply have existed without being created.

To take that concept one step further, unless of course you are one that maintains that matter and energy have always existed which is inconsistent with what has been observed scientifically (ie the universe and the matter contained within it have a measurable age) it could not have created itself. For something to create itself, it must both exist and not exist at the same time which is not logically possible. Furthermore, whatever did create the universe, whether it be the matter from which it was formed or the individual bodies themselves, had to be outside of it and independent from it, not to mention terribly powerful.
But all this is straying far from the original post of how to reconcile using limited resources in a world that is already short on resources with what seems to be best for yourself. I don't believe that low carb is necessarily at odds with being wise stewards of what we have available to us, nor is it necessarily at odds with eating a wide variety of foods in the correct proportions. We as individuals can do much to contribute to not wasting resources starting at home. How many of us leave leftovers in the refrigerator until they begin to resemble some warped science experiment and then find their way into the trash uneaten instead of eating the leftovers or freezing them so that they don't spoil before they can be eaten? How many of us make a conscious effort to recycle materials that can be recycled instead of sending them off to the local landfill? If consuming protein sources that you feel are harmful to the earth in the way that they are produced bothers you, you can choose protein sources that don't such as tofu and fish. If you are a Christian, the Bible is clear that we are to be wise stewards of what God has provided for us, not abusers and wasters of it and you don't have to subscribe to any religious belief to see the wisdom in that.

[gotbeer]

So, god can exist w/o being created, but nothing else can? Silly, silly, silly.

Actually, a tiny, random fluctuation in the quantum foam is more than enough to explain and account for the Big Bang without invoking any sort of deity, powerful or not.

Adding a god to the equation is no more explanatory, and hence, unnecessary to our understanding.

[Lisa N]

So, god can exist w/o being created, but nothing else can? Silly, silly, silly.


Is it? Consider that you are comparing that which is physical to that which is not. All physical things have a point at which they began to exist, but can you apply that same criteria to that which is not physical, ie that which is spirit? I don't honestly believe that you can.

Actually, a tiny, random fluctuation in the quantum foam is more than enough to explain and account for the Big Bang without invoking any sort of deity, powerful or not.

While this sounds impressive, it still does nothing to explain where the matter dispersed by the "big bang" came from originally. Matter doesn't just appear from out of nowhere, at least not in the reality that I live in, so where did it come from?

[gotbeer]

Our concept of "Spirit" comes from our observations about air, which is as physical as any matter.

So SPIRIT can come from nothing, but nothing else can? Silly, silly, silly, silly.

[Lisa N]

Our concept of "Spirit" comes from our observations about air, which is as physical as any matter.


No offense, but that may be where your concept of spirit comes from, but not necessarily mine. Also, if a concept arises from observations of one thing, that does necessarily make it indentical in properties or the same thing as that which was observed in forming the concept.
My concept of the nature of God is that He is a self-sustaining spiritual being and as such has no need of a creator, nor does he have a beginning as He is not a physical being or an end for the same reason. In other words, He is eternal. And while you may not agree with my belief, you cannot disprove it. While we're on the topic of beliefs, it would be helpful, if not just plain polite, if the topic could be discussed in something other than a condescending or demeaning tone even if you don't agree with what others believe.
I'm also noting that the issue of where matter originated from isn't being addressed. ;)

[gotbeer]

I'm also noting that the issue of where matter originated from isn't being addressed.

Yes it is, in a roundabout sort of way.

I could claim, like you, that there is some thing that is self-sustaining and hence, uncreated.

Unlike you, however, I could claim that uncreated thing is "matter", not "god".

There is MUCH more evidence to prove that matter exists than there is evidence that some imaginary god exists. (You are typing on a part of that proof). We know that new matter cannot be created, and that existing matter cannot be destroyed - sounds self-sustaining to me. ("Matter" and "energy" being different forms of the same thing, of course.)

Positing an invisible, undetectible god with the same properties gets us nowhere - an uncreated god explains the same thing as uncreated matter, but unlike my matter, this god cannot be proved - it is an unnecessary premise, and Occam's Razor says such premises are to be discarded. You don't need to worry about the dragon if the dragon doesn't exist in the physical world - or for that matter, the ghost.

People believe in god because they fear death and the unknown, and crave a comforting mental crutch when confronted by the cold fact that they are both alive and will someday die.

Believing in god is the surrender of reason to fear. It says, like cc48510, that "we don't care anymore what the point of lightning really is - we give up" - it must be from that god-thing, whatever THAT is. It says "we don't care anymore where the earth really came from - the math is just too hard" - it must be from that god-thing, whatever THAT is. It starts wars because that's what the god-thing wants. It ignores child-molestation because that's what the god-thing wants.

I say, don't surrender to the fear of the unknown and the fatigue of the search. Carry on with courage to discover the real beauty of the world.

***

The Greek word for spirit is "pneuma", which also translates as "air" or "breath". When one is born, one begins to cry with the first breath. When one dies, the breath departs. This is the root and foundation of all Xian understanding of Spirit-uality, even if you believe that YOU, on the contrary, were in-Spir-ed by some non-corporeal (in other words, non-existing) ghostly spirit.

The Greek physician Galen was renowned by early Xians for his teachings on this breath-spirit. Here's a link (http://hsc.virginia.edu/hs-library/historical/antiqua/galen.htm) if you'd like to learn a bit more.

[Shellyf34]

Very very interesting, Gotbeer! Have you ever read Robert Tillech and The Courage to Be? Sounds a lot like his theories... I had to read that for my Philosophy of Religion class in college...

EERRR, needless to say I am a pagan and believe more in a universal higher power then in any "He." I do enjoy studying different the belief systems stemming from different cultures. Fascinating stuff. I especially enjoy "The Relationship of Psychotherapy to Sacred Tradition," by A.C. Robin Skynner. ;)

[Lisa N]

There is MUCH more evidence to prove that matter exists than there is evidence that some imaginary god exists. (You are typing on a part of that proof). We know that new matter cannot be created, and that existing matter cannot be destroyed - sounds self-sustaining to me. ("Matter" and "energy" being different forms of the same thing, of course.)

First of all, nowhere has anyone here stated that matter does not currently exist. The problem inherent in this theory is that it seems to imply that matter has always existed which is inconsistent with what science so confidently affirms when they state that the earth and the universe (along with the matter from which they are composed) are X number of years old and in fact did have a beginning point. In order for something to have a measurable age, it must have had a point at which it began to exist which science indeed states that it does. It's also at odds with the observable natural progression within the universe to proceed from order to disorder, not the other way around. Physical objects degrade and decay into their basic components; they don't naturally combine from their basic components into something more complex without some type of outside force arranging them in that manner. For example, I have yet to see clay form itself into a pot or metal spontaneously form itself into a sword, although I have seen pots crumble and become dirt again and metal become rust.
Matter and energy are different forms of the same thing? While I can think of examples of matter becoming energy, although not without some residual residue, I'd be interested in an example of the opposite occurring (pure energy spontaneously becoming matter) without some form of outside manipulation and even then I can't think of one.


Believing in god is the surrender of reason to fear. It says, like cc48510, that "we don't care anymore what the point of lightning really is - we give up" - it must be from that god-thing, whatever THAT is. It says "we don't care anymore where the earth really came from - the math is just too hard" - it must be from that god-thing, whatever THAT is. It starts wars because that's what the god-thing wants. It ignores child-molestation because that's what the god-thing wants.

It seems to me that most of your objections are based on how humans interpret God's wishes and what they decide to do or not do and then blame on God than you do with the possible existence of God himself. In other words, your objections are more based on human behavior than anything else. Lack of human understanding and their general bad behavior is hardly sufficient reason to discount the existence of God. Neither is the evil that humans do and then blame on God. Surrender reason for fear? I'm hardly fearful and I have yet to surrender my reason. I can well see where you may come to the conclusion that faith in a higher power is based on fear given what you've already said, but that is far from the main message of the Bible, nor does faith demand that you give up your reason. You may believe that my faith in a supreme being that I call God is unreasonable, but that does not prove it to be so; it's a matter of your opinion and I probably come up with as many reasons to believe that a higher power exists as you can to discount them, the question of where matter came from being just one of them.

[cartmanis]

Matter and energy are different forms of the same thing? While I can think of examples of matter becoming energy, although not without some residual residue, I'd be interested in an example of the opposite occurring (pure energy spontaneously becoming matter) without some form of outside manipulation and even then I can't think of one.

No input on the religion part of this thread, but for interest sake

E = m c^2

Any time we add energy to an object, as kinetic energy or potential energy (eg by compressing a spring), it gains mass. Usually the extra mass is very small compared to the total mass, given the ratio from the equation.

I'm guessing it depends on your definition of outside manipulation, which can also be applied to matter converting to energy for stable matter, given both of your examples are not changing the matter, simply arranging it differently.

Measurable examples appear at the atomic level where energy to mass ratio's favor energy. For example, High energy collisions in accelerators often convert energy into matter, resulting in equal numbers of particles and anti-particles.

[cori]

Ok you crazy people. I'm sorry I started this thread :lol:

And Kevin, stop being so smart. It's too enticing.

[Lisa N]

E = m c^2
Any time we add energy to an object, as kinetic energy or potential energy (eg by compressing a spring), it gains mass. Usually the extra mass is very small compared to the total mass, given the ratio from the equation.


Yes, but inherent in this formula is the assumption that there is mass/matter from which the energy can be extracted (you get energy from mass x velocity squared..the energy comes from the mass and velocity of the matter, not the other way around) which brings us back to the original question of where that mass (matter) came from. Unless, of course, we wish to begin asserting that there was a collision of sufficient amounts of energy as in your accelerator example (randomly, of course) to form all the matter that is within the known universe. Even within accelerators, there is matter already there.


The Greek word for spirit is "pneuma", which also translates as "air" or "breath".

Actually, the word Pneuma is used in the Bible 384 times. Of those 384 times, its translation in context was "spirit" 375 times (from the context used, a part of the person separate and distinct from the body and mind), breath 3 times, wind twice and spiritual once. The Greeks had more specific words that they used when referring to wind (anemos) and breath (pnoe or pneo) when that was the meaning that they wished to convey. The word, even used in context is more descriptive than definitive and so does not necessarily mean that they believed that spirit and wind were the same thing, especially given that they had distinct words for both but that some of its properties might be similar. As I said before, observing one thing while forming the concept of another does not make them equivalent in nature or properties.

[dannysk]

First of all if e=mc^2 than mc^2 = e and mass could have come from energy.

Secondly Trying to disprove God by disscussing Xianity assumes that Xianity is the one true religon, But if there is no God then there is no one true religon.
You really have to discuss each and every belief system that there is.danny

[cartmanis]

Yes, but inherent in this formula is the assumption that there is mass/matter from which the energy can be extracted (you get energy from mass x velocity squared..the energy comes from the mass and velocity of the matter, not the other way around) which brings us back to the original question of where that mass (matter) came from. Unless, of course, we wish to begin asserting that there was a collision of sufficient amounts of energy as in your accelerator example (randomly, of course) to form all the matter that is within the known universe. Even within accelerators, there is matter already there.

Wow, I thought I was providing an example of energy to mass, not explaining the universe :) LOL

[gotbeer]

QUOTE from Lisa: While I can think of examples of matter becoming energy, although not without some residual residue, I'd be interested in an example of the opposite occurring (pure energy spontaneously becoming matter) without some form of outside manipulation and even then I can't think of one.

Have you ever seen lead or gold?

Fusion reactions (like those that power the sun and H-bombs) up to iron are exothermic – they release energy. Elements higher on the periodic table can only be created in endothermic fusions – those that consume energy. Supernova explosions drive the creation of those elements, mainly.

Also, high-energy photons (energy) can and do decay spontaneously into electron-positron pairs (matter). Such pairs of particles are randomly created and destroyed all the time by the so-called zero-point energy - the potential energy in the very fabric of vacuum space. This is the "quantum foam" I referred to earlier. A big-enough random fluctuation of this foam could create an endless number of universes without the mind of any deity driving the process.

QUOTE from Lisa: It seems to me that most of your objections are based on how humans interpret God's wishes and what they decide to do or not do and then blame on God than you do with the possible existence of God himself.

Well, indeed, I’d like to study the god-thingy directly, but that is apparently not possible, given that the god-thingy doesn’t exist in the physical world in any measurable way. Because I don’t have direct access to the god-thingy, I am forced to scavenge clues about the god-thingy from other sources that I will call “books”.


The first “book” is the Book of Scripture – in the case of the xian god-thingy, the bible. It is so riddled with contradictions (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra.html), unlikelihoods and impossibilities that it has little scientific value to one honestly seeking to understand the god-thingy. I could go into great, long and exquisite detail here but unless someone asks for it I’ll avoid that for now, as many would find that too painful and faith-shattering to bear. The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/) is a good place to start, if one is interested in more.

In addition to the logic problems, the actual text of the bible paints a picture of a god-thingy that hates families (for example, see Luke 14:26, “If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” – Jesus - and I know of at least 2 dozen other examples of familial hatred in the Gospels alone, all from Jesus himself, with no real counter-examples), hates homosexuals, hates women, and hates people like me who doubt that this fine fellow is worthy of my obedience (Luke 19:27 – “But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.” - Jesus)


As the second “book” of the god-thingy, I look to the Book of the Actions and Thoughts of those who profess to believe in the god-thingy. Again, great detail is possible here, but after all the accounts of misbehaving priests, religious wars, and religious groups trying to deny health care to AIDS patients, let us just say that I am unconvinced that a human belief in the god-thingy is a positive thing for humanity.

The thing that gets me the most, though, is not the very public misdeeds of xians, but rather the day-to-day actions of the xians around me – which seem to bear no relation at all to the actual teachings of their faith. Two conservative xian women I know have hobbies of banging married men, but both say they would NEVER date an Atheist, because “it just wouldn’t work.” One conservative xian man refuses to give to charity, because “being poor is God’s punishment for sin.” Despite their shining examples, I doubt that the xian faith is right for me, or anyone, for that matter.


As the third “book” of the god-thingy, I look to the Book of Nature. Nature seems to do just fine without the god-thingy, and adding the god-thingy explains nothing more about Nature than Nature without the god-thingy. Nothing in Nature needs the god-thingy to continue, and the god-thingy never interacts with Nature in any measurable way.


As the fourth “book” of the god-thingy, I look to the Book of Human Progress. Islamic science was the flower and envy of humanity until about the 14th century, when an Imam declared that the learning the Koran was superior to any and all science (which he declared unimportant). Western religions put up a long and losing war of attrition against scientific progress, which has driven the purview of the god-thingy from a daily superstition to the very edges of the observable universe, where still the god-thingy is irrelevant.


As the fifth book of the god-thingy, I’ll Consult the God-Thingy Itself: “Hello there, god-thingy – is it Mr. god-thingy or Ms? Anyway, just wanted to let you know, you are welcome to visit me or even just show me a minor miracle whenever or wherever it may be most convenient for you, and I’ll be HAPPY to change my stance on your non-existence. Anything? ANYTHING?? Come on, god-thingy, it can’t be that tough for an all-powerful being to annul a physical law or two, can it? ANYTHING? ANYTHING?? My toe is tapping, god-thingy. Come on, come on. I’ll write about it, I promise I will. ANYTHING? Nope? Oh, well, you never did make that much difference anyway.”

QUOTE from Lisa: Lack of human understanding and their general bad behavior is hardly sufficient reason to discount the existence of God.

I’d have to disagree – if the belief in, and worship of, a god-thingy leads to evil things, then what sane, moral person could condone it? If the god-thingy says through his loyal followers that killing and raping children is a good thing, then that god-thingy deserves only contempt, not worship. Until the god-thingy shows his ugly mug and accounts for these crimes, we have only the acts of his followers to judge his moral character by.

QUOTE from DannySK: Trying to disprove God by discussing Xianity assumes that Xianity is the one true religon, But if there is no God then there is no one true religon.

Just so. If there were one (or any) god-thingy active in the world now or ever, then there should one and only one religion – why would we have or need any other than the one true one? Yet, there are thousands of distinct religions, most of which are mutually exclusive – and this chaos is exactly what one would expect if there was no uniting divine power behind human religion. Fear leads to chaos, after all.

Shellyf34 – Nope, I haven’t read “The Courage to Be”, but I’ll keep an eye out for it.

[Samuel]

I'm personally a catholic. I like to go to church every sunday. I like to give money to the church. However, I keep this at only one corner in my mind. I keep sience at another corner.

I think about religion when I like to be good to others and I think about sience when I like to analyse things around me. I don't use the Bible to know how good or bad low carbohydrate diet is!

[gotbeer]

Samuel -

I tried hard to partition my thinking like you have, and found I could not - my doubts kept tearing at me until the only way I could be true to my honest self was to abandon religion.

I live in the bible-belt, so this decision was not an easy one. I lost family, friends, lovers, and jobs because of it.

Yet, I would not change my decision. I could not face myself in the mirror in the morning if I had kept up the lie that religion made good sense to me.

I hope you worship and give money in some place where the bishops have been vigilent in policing the behavior of their priests.

[Samuel]

Well, If you give me your e-mail address, I maybe able to solve this problem for you. I don't think this website allows us to discuss topics beyond Low Carb dieting.

[Rosebud]

Hi Samuel,

This site asks you to please not post email addresses. Therefore asking for email addresses is also not permitted. Once you have 25 posts, you and Gotbeer are welcome to continue this discussion by private message, or you are welcome to start another thread in the "Everything Else" forum. :)

:rose:Rosebud:rose:

[Samuel]

Then we better close this subject. I don't like to discuss this subject further in public. Religion teachs us morality and we cannot live without it. Meanwhile, when someone analyse something with science, We should not complicate things with him.

[gotbeer]

I don’t think we’ve left the low-carb discussion at all.

The original question was, since low carb diets draw scientific support from the theory of evolution, can a creationist be comfortable with this WOE?

That leads naturally to a discussion of scientific authority vs. religious authority. That naturally leads to a discussion of the presence (or lack thereof) of some god in the real world. Samuel has extended the discussion further, adding a claim of moral authority (and hence, actual utility of religion), which relates back directly to original question.

We don’t always have to focus the minutiae of low-carbing; the larger moral and societal issues related to low-carbing matter as well.

Samuel, the light of reason shines best when discussions are open.

[cori]

Ok Gotbeer! You get major points for knowing what the original question was. :lol: Not that the discussion isn't interesting, it's just gotten way over my head with the physics and stuff.

I guess I just don't have the luxury of separating things the way some folks do. Sometimes I wish I could.

[MsJinx]

Geez Cori, looks like your thread was hijacked by some gasbaggers!!

Wouldn't ya just love to go out to dinner with these folk??? :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

I adore a thinking person but thinking also, hopefully, means you remember to include THE PERSON WHO STARTED THE FREAKING THREAD ;)

Sheeseh!
Jink

[gotbeer]

include THE PERSON WHO STARTED THE FREAKING THREAD

Gosh, I guess I'm lucky I did!

[gotbeer]

In a way, Cori, you and I are facing the same dilemma: dealing mentally with the contradictions between science and religion.

Because we are rigorously honest with ourselves, we realize that we cannot abide both. In my case, I computed the value of science and the value of religion, and decided to side with science. Your evaluation was different from mine, and hence, you wound up supporting religion. That different people might have different values is not a bad thing - we don't have to think alike to love alike.

Others appear to be able to make mental accommodations that allow both perspectives to co-exist. Those accommodations appear to be fundamentally dishonest to me. They seem to fall below the radar of critical review – “hypocritical”, in other words.

Both science and religion hinge on effective critical reviews: science tests and retests theories; religion, at its best, has us focus on our own sins, the logs in our own eyes.

Someone who lacks this facility – critical review of either data or self – will excel at neither science nor religion.

The long held "scientific" view that eating lots of carbs is good survived only as long as people resisted efforts to review it critically. Once honest scientific studies began to report results, it started to crumble like a stale cracker - and the red-faced hypocrites that had bought into it are choking on the truth.

[MsJinx]

I love you GotBeer. Will you have my baby?
Jinx

[gotbeer]

You know, the day may come when men can carry babies. Non-uterine pregnancies via the abdominal wall are not unheard of.

The transplantation of fetuses from women to men will transform many of the social issue debates that burn so brightly today.

I hope I live to see that day come to pass.

[cori]

Yep gotbeer - that's my dilemna! (why do they spell that word with an n?) Anyhow, I digress.

I can't bring myself to believe wholly in the purely scientific theories of evolution. But I can't reconcile my faith with the things I see to be true. That's not an eating issue, that's just a personal faith issue.

I actually had a "religious" man tell me that the empirical evidences (dinosaur bones, other fossils, much of science) were just fabrications by old lucifer himself. That I definitely can't swallow.

My biggest problem with allowing science to override faith is my sincere belief that most of the basic tenets of Christianity are things that make the world a better place. Unfortunately religion has twisted everything so badly that the truth is rarely seen or spoken.

[MsJinx]

You know, the day may come when men can carry babies. Non-uterine pregnancies via the abdominal wall are not unheard of.

The transplantation of fetuses from women to men will transform many of the social issue debates that burn so brightly today.

I hope I live to see that day come to pass.


Why say in one word what can be said in 100? My feelings exactly!
Jinx

[dannysk]

The original question was, since low carb diets draw scientific support from the theory of evolution, can a creationist be comfortable
with this WOE?

O.K. You want an answer to the original question. The world was created AS IF it had evolved. Nobody believes that Adam was created as a baby. If you had asked a scientist how old Adam was 2 minutes after he was created he would have given you an answer based on science and measurements and come up with ?? years old. If you had cut down the trees that God created would they have had rings to prove that they are years old ? Why couldn't the entire universe have been created in the same manner.
God's plan included gold, oil, and the other elements. Science will tell you how long it takes to produce these things, but they can't tell you how long it actually took.
In short there is no conflict between evolution theory and creationist belief. It is just the question of what was created, and that is not covered in the good book.

danny

[luddybell]

woohoo! Cori you opened a can of worms girl :) ... hehe .. but i agree with you ... its hard... i myself am a christian also.. and to get the concept of the way we're eating is strange ...

Kevin - HIDE YOUR BRAIN youre gonna make me and Cori all bothered LOL

[gotbeer]

The world was created AS IF it had evolved.

First, there is neither scientific nor scriptural support for this assertion. This is a perfect example of the untenable mental compromises one makes when one attempts to harmonize religion and science. One might as well argue that the universe was created two seconds ago and our "memories of the past" were divinely implanted. Cute theory, but untestable and hence, meaningless.

Second, if this proposition were true, then the creationist position is destroyed: evolution would (still) be all one would need to explain nature, regardless of the details of creation.

Third, non-Scriptural creationism is as bad for religion as Evolution, because it must deny the scriptural account of creation to harmonize with established physical facts.

Cori's angst would thus continue.

[JimR-OCDS]

Cori,
I read your original post on this issue, and some of the other replies.

One statement you made jumped out at me, because it is myth more than fact.

You said that meat consumption depletes the planet of resources and pollutes the environment. This myth was generated by vegetarians and many people even though not vegetarian, have caught on to it.

Here is a link that will provide you with facts and debunk these myths.


http://www.westonaprice.org/myths_truths/myths_truths_vegetarianism.html

[JimR-OCDS]

The Biblical story of creation is mostly allegorical. In fact, the first 5 chapters of the book of Genesis, were not written until 500 years after the remaining books of the Pentateuch were written. In other words, the author had committed to memory, the major portions of the Pentateuch before he started writing the creation story.

Does this mean God did not create everything? No it does not. The Bible wasn't intended to be a scientific text book and it shouldn’t be treated as such. It is the story of the relationship between God and man, and how man damaged that relationship. It is the story of how God in his infinite mercy, restores that relationship with man and draws man back to himself. Through Scripture, we learn in the 10 commandments, how to avoid those things which enslave us. We learn that the key to being one with God, is to love our neighbor.

Any belief system that is not rooted in love of God and neighbor, is a false religious system. Run fast and far from it.

[gotbeer]

The Biblical story of creation is mostly allegorical…. The Bible wasn't intended to be a scientific text book…

The tendency to diminish the authority of certain scriptures is part of the so-called “cafeteria” style of some believers – just take what you want from scripture, and ignore those parts that are difficult to stomach. It would like doing the Atkins Diet without, say, counting the carbs in beer. I’d LOVE to be able to do that, but unfortunately, it wouldn’t work. It would be an untenable compromise to the diet.

The problem Cori and I have is that such accommodations seem dishonest to us. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, virtually the same as God itself. Does it say anywhere, "oh, by the way, this book is just an allegory"?

As a non-believer, I have little trouble with a God that is a metaphor for the highest and best aspirations of humankind, but the old guy raining down lightning bolts from the platinum throne is a bit much.

the key to being one with God, is to love our neighbor.

Especially if that neighbor has a well-armed, jealous spouse – one might get to be “one with God” much sooner than one might hope.

Run fast and far from it.

...and use a serpentine path and body armor - those bullets can be deadly.

[Shellyf34]

You, JimR, frighten me. I guess "loving thy neighbor" includes burning my ancestors at the stake??? Interesting form of mercy... the bible might be the "word of God" in your eyes, but it is the mind and voice of MAN that twists and manipulates it into a tool to control others. Always has, always will. HHHMMMM, what if God is a woman? :rolleyes:

As the saying goes "the mind is like an umbrella, it only works when open."

Blessed Be,

Shelly

[JimR-OCDS]

>The problem Cori and I have is that such accommodations seem >dishonest to us. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, virtually the >same as God itself. [/COLOR] "Inspired Word of God," not virtually the >same as God himself.

Many claim that it is "The" direct word from God," but Judaism and mainstream Christianity have always considered it the "inspired" word of God.

Muslims consider the Koran as "The" word of God, meaning directly from God himself and must be interpreted as such. We see the problems with this thinking.

[JimR-OCDS]

Shelly,
>You, JimR, frighten me. I guess "loving thy neighbor" includes burning >my ancestors at the stake???

Where did I ever say that?

[minnat3]

Any belief system that is not rooted in love of God and neighbor, is a false religious system. (JimR)

Well said, JimR.

minnat3

[cori]

Children! Play nice!

But really folks. Jim - I read your article. I don't agree. The "commune" farm idea is great, but those sorts of farms are few and far between. The factory farms deplete our agricultural resources and leave us with lakes of manure instead.

Shelly - Have you ever seen the movie Dogma? There's a line in there - something to the effect of how Christ hates all the horrible things that are carried out in his name. Me too.

Hi Gotbeer! Hi Luddy! :wave:

***and Cori again runs away from the mess she has made***

[JimR-OCDS]

Cori,
you said;
>Scientifically speaking, producing meat depletes the earth and it's >resources. Not to mention the horrors of pollution and the meat >markets.

Even if this is true, it has to do with bad farming practices and not a reason why humans shouldn't be eating meat. The solution is to improve farming practices.

[cori]

I have very little control over farming practices. I have every bit of control over what I put into my mouth.

[gotbeer]

Many claim that it is "The" direct word from God," but Judaism and mainstream Christianity have always considered it the "inspired" word of God.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The xians I know see little or no distinction between God and God's word. They feel that to betray or doubt one is equivalent to betraying or doubting the other.

They would urge you to flee from any belief system that does not exalt the Word, regardless of how nice it was to God and neighbor.

"inspired" in the context you used can mean two very different things: 1) "Loosely based on an idea by", or 2), "Filled with divine spirit". You appear to support the former = a looser relationship of scripture to reality, one that would allow for any convenient interpretation needed. The other explanation is not yet "mainstream", but given the changing demographics of xianity, it soon will be: fundamentalism is growing at rapid rates while your more liberal school is wasting away.

As for Jewish thought on the bible...see this link. (http://www.msnbc.com/news/937287.asp?cp1=1)

Where did I ever say that? [Burning at the stake.]

Touting "love thy neighbor" while ignoring the rather unloving behavior of believers is the source of our anxiety over xian hypocrisy. Pat Robertson is leading an aptly-named "prayer offensive" to unseat SCOTUS Justices by calling disease down upon them. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/15/robertson.ap/index.html) Just can't see that as loving, sorry. Even though I know such prayers are empty efforts god-wise, in the human world they might "inspire" zealots toward violent measures.

[Shellyf34]

Thank you GotBeer, you are my hero! :D

I don't have to worship you, do I? ;)

PS Have you read The DaVinci Code? Very very interesting theological discussions...

[xxovereasy]

You want to really freak out.Get a copy of "the mushroom and the holy cross" written by John allegory. Who was he? He was the lead british scientist on the task of analyzing the dead sea scrolls. He was known as the foremost authority on ancient languages. Well when he was through translating the old/new testament based on sumerian language ( 1st written lang) then he got a different answer. He was promptly incommunicated by the church. This book was written in the 70's and is half filled with references in 7 other languages that back up his definition. Its a tough read. but fascinating...eg jesus was first written in sumeria 3000 yrs before christ! and it meant son of god even then.otherwise have a nice day....

[JimR-OCDS]

Gotbeer

>John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with >God, and the Word was God.

>The xians I know see little or no distinction between God and God's >word. They feel that to betray or doubt one is equivalent to betraying >or doubting the other.

Well fundamentalist Christians generally don't interpret the Bible according to the way credible Scripture Scholars do. Perhaps, you shouldn't paint with such a broad bursh.

The above verse, is the inspired word "about" God, not direct words from God. The inspired word is divinely inspired, so it is the true word of God in it's meaning and can only be interpreted through the people and events which they are part of, i.e., the above verse was speaking about Jesus, being the "Word." Jesus did in fact, became flesh and testified to his divine origin. "Before Abraham was, I AM."


>Touting "love thy neighbor" while ignoring the rather unloving behavior >of believers is the source of our anxiety over xian hypocrisy.

Unloving behavior of others down in past history, was not in my original post, it was pointed out as a means of attack, from what I can see. Hence, no point in debating it, the person has her own agenda she is following which open dialog isn't part of.

Of course there are those who did not follow the gospel as Jesus taught it. Jesus himself was condemned to death by those who were suppose to know the Scriptures and to be people of God. Does this make what Jesus and the rest of the Scriptures false?

If it does, then the Declaration of Independence is also false document, as well as the US Constitution, because some of the framers like Jefferson, owned slaves and the US Government has not always lived according to those documents.

However, we know the words of the Declaration of Independence are true. We also know the words of the Gospel are true, and despite the fact there are those who did not live by it. However, there were many who did, including people who lived in our own time, such as Mother Teresa.

You have a problem with fundamentalist Christians. Don't put me in the same box with them, we are different.

[b-ready]

The majority of the people here are on a diet. That means that you cant eat a normal diet and loose weight. You are going to have to restrict something. So no matter what the bible says.. no matter how they did eat. You are going to have to eat to loose weight. you are either going to restrict your calories, your types of food, or take some supplements or something. also, reading and understanding the bible takes spiritual insight. God has closed the understanding of it to the unsaved. anyone who is not a christian and trying to understand the bible is spinning their wheels. also, no matter what type of language the bible was written in, it doesnt make it untrue. it just makes it another reason for people who want to be lost to stay lost.

[lburnikell]

eh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[b-ready]

what im trying to say.. is obviously "we" that are trying to loose weight cant eat what we have been eating in the past.. maybe in smaller portions but definetly not the same.. that is why i dont understand why people try to compare it to ONE scripture that doesnt apply to their situation.. reading the bible out of context...

[gotbeer]

From Shelly:

Thank you GotBeer, you are my hero!

I don't have to worship you, do I?

PS Have you read The DaVinci Code? Very very interesting theological discussions...

Why, you are welcome, Shelly. Pagans are indeed a loving folk – I’ve really enjoyed my experiences with them even though my naturalistic perspective is not always in sync. Pagans rock. (http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/193/living/Goddess_movement_looks_to_Stonehenge_s_feminine_side+.shtml)

Your admiration makes me :blush:. Your worship would make my head explode.

Davinci Gourmet (http://davincigourmet.com) yes, DaVinci Code, no.


From Jim:

Unloving behavior of others down in past history, was not in my original post, it was pointed out as a means of attack, from what I can see. Hence, no point in debating it, the person has her own agenda she is following which open dialog isn't part of.

Ah, but the moral utility of religion is one justification for it. I believe it is not only the intent of the religion, but the results that matter. If religion leads to evil, we ought to flee from it, even if it had the best of (misguided) intentions. Low-fat/high carb diets are a great example – they had the high-minded intention of controlling our weight, but the results were a public health disaster that we all are fighting our way out of.

If you can’t defend the obvious evils of religion, then yes, there is no point in debating it because the debate is over, and religion loses. (Maybe you could make the “host” out of bacon, instead – just a thought.)

From Jim:

You have a problem with fundamentalist Christians. Don't put me in the same box with them, we are different.

Well, then I suggest you folks get your act together – the endless schisms are getting annoying. These amazing levels of disagreement between co-religionists do not inspire my confidence that any of you have any of it right. Contrast that with science, where 99% of the knowledge base is well-settled, and the working process is to resolve the open issues with hard evidence.

From Beth:

God has closed the understanding of it to the unsaved. anyone who is not a christian and trying to understand the bible is spinning their wheels.

Hmmm. One wonders then how any of the “unsaved” could become “saved” if that saving knowledge were closed to them. The existence of just one saved person (you, Beth) pretty much hammers that one into little greasy bits.

Actually, what you are saying is that I have to accept the lies and errors of the bible as true in order to get salvation – check your devil-given brain at the door to the altar. I’d rather roast in hell than surrender my logical mind – thanks, honey, but no thanks. :devil:

[Lisa N]

If religion leads to evil, we ought to flee from it, even if it had the best of (misguided) intentions.

This might be a valid objection if all people of faith committed evil acts but they don't. For every person you can name who has done something bad in the name of their faith or while professing a certain faith, there are many more who have not and live up to the tenets of their belief. Keep in mind also that people can profess anything they wish, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Calling myself a Christian and going into a church once in a while doesn't make me one any more than calling myself a horse and going into a barn once in a while makes me one of those, either. Jesus himself said, "They will know that you are my followers by the love that you have one for another." In other words...it's not what you say that matters, even to God...it's what you do. I could also use this same argument to show that lack of faith is bad since those who lack faith commit evil acts...if lack of faith leads people to commit evil acts, it must therefore be a bad thing. Further...if religion leads to evil, what excuse do those who don't believe in a god or have any particular faith who commit evil have? What causes them to behave that way?

One wonders then how any of the “unsaved” could become “saved” if that saving knowledge were closed to them.

She didn't say that "saving knowledge" was closed to the unsaved, but rather understanding of the deeper meanings of scripture. The number of scriptures that I've seen quoted out of context so far seems to bear that out. It doesn't take divine revelation to understand the words, "For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotton Son so that whosoever believes in Him might have eternal life."

Interesting to see that this debate has gone from "God doesn't exist" to "I don't like what those who claim to follow Him do."

[b-ready]

please dont overly scrutinize my words everyone..
i -in no way claim to be perfect. i just know that when i was lost, i couldnt understand the bible.. then when i gave God a try.. it all opened up to me.. none of us here has studied the word of God enough to make any judgements to whether it is wholly right or wrong. Gotbeer, it is very interesting that you would say that you would rather go to hell than not use your logical mind... hmm .. i hope you (logical thinker) :rolleyes: are right because it is your eternal soul that you have to loose..if you are wrong..logic is totally seperate from the spirit..

furthermore..

logic would tell me not to eat a meat full of fat..
but in fact, you can do that and still loose weight..
Do you see how logical thinking can sometimes get you into trouble :)

[gotbeer]

From Lisa: This might be a valid objection if all people of faith committed evil acts but they don't....

Whatever happened to "for all are sinners..." - a passage I'm reading wrong? Don't you xians have to get re-forgiven periodically for your ongoing sinful natures?

Actually, one evil act can negate a million good ones - one nuke can level every cool store at the Galleria. If I save one life, and murder another, that doesn't balance the scales - I'm still a murderer.

From Lisa: Interesting to see that this debate has gone from "God doesn't exist" to "I don't like what those who claim to follow Him do."

Indeed - would the ongoing evil acts of religion be tolerated by a God who actually exists and cares? Of course not - yet, they continue unabated.

From Lisa: She didn't say that "saving knowledge" was closed to the unsaved, but rather understanding of the deeper meanings of scripture. The number of scriptures that I've seen quoted out of context so far seems to bear that out.

Ah, the old "quoted out of context" canard - Lisa, I gave you more credit than that. That is just another way of saying that the plain language of the bible can only be interpreted by those who have turned a blind eye to what it actually says - much like the wails of those who cling to their low-fat/high carb dogma despite all the carnage it causes. Dump your brains out, folks, they'll just hinder you in the pews.

From Beth: logic would tell me not to eat a meat full of fat..

LOGIC and scientific evidence validate the Atkins WOE. Beth's thinking that meat-eating is illogical appears to confuse "logic" with "years of government-sponsored misinformation." It is thus not surprising that years of religious indoctrination also appear to have substituted for rational thought.

From Beth: Gotbeer, it is very interesting that you would say that you would rather go to hell than not use your logical mind...

The mind, or soul, or self, or whatever else one calls it, cannot exist apart from the body. Me, without my logical mind, is NOT ME. When my body dies, I will cease to be completely - I won't go to heaven or hell or even Michigan, and that suits me just fine. Heaven sounds like a horrific, wretched place - endless bad hymn-singing, bunnies, angels, rainbows, and executed (though penitent) murderers - yuck. As I understand it, hell is full of slot machines, playing cards, beer, loose women, rock-n-roll greats, and more fun folks of the sort I like to party with - you know, people with functional genitalia. So, even if I am wrong, I'll still be in great shape - feel free to visit me there whenever the hymns grow tiresome - I'll go and prepare a place for you. Jesus found it quite a refreshing three-day weekend after a really bad Friday - though how he squeezed 3 days into the mere 36 hours between his death (Friday PM) and resurrection (Sunday AM) is just another bible thingy I must be reading wrong.

[Lisa N]

Whatever happened to "for all are sinners..."

The scripture is "If any man claims he is without sin, he is a liar and the truth is not in him" and I believe that this is true. We all have within us the innate desire to commit sin. However, you didn't clearly define what you consider evil, so I take it now that by evil you mean even the slightest infraction of God's law, whether it involves another person or not? So we can agree that a sinful nature is not limited to only those with faith and instead applies to all humans and is therfore not "caused" by having faith? But wait...how can one have sin if there is no God since sin is defined as rebellion against or the breaking of God's laws and decrees? If God doesn't exist, then neither does sin and evil is subjective since what one might consider evil another may not.


Indeed - would the ongoing evil acts of religion be tolerated by a God who actually exists and cares?

Who says that they are? Actually, "religion" doesn't commit any evil acts since it is a collection of rules and ideas regarding the nature God and how we should behave; people commit evil acts. Does the fact that the penalty does not immediately follow the infraction (although there are examples in the Bible when it did) mean that the sinner will "get off the hook" indefinitely? Do we really want that [immediate punishment] to be the case since the Bible also states that "The wages [payment/penalty] of sin is death"? The Bible makes it pretty clear that we will all be called to give an account for our actions both good and bad. There are also more immediate penalties called "natural consequences for our actions" that God does allow us to experience. Personally, I appreciate the grace that allows me the time to recognize that I've sinned and ask for forgiveness.
Your statement above also implies that you believe that if God really existed and cared, He'd step in and stop someone every time that they were about to commit a sin. Again...do you really want that since it would mean the removal of any and all free will and instead make you a puppet without choice?

Ah, the old "quoted out of context" canard - Lisa, I gave you more credit than that. That is just another way of saying that the plain language of the bible can only be interpreted by those who have turned a blind eye to what it actually says

No..it means what it says. Scripture has been quoted out of context to suit the purposes of the poster in this thread and I'd be more than happy to supply examples and explain why they are out of context and don't have the meaning that the poster implied if you wish me to.

[Shellyf34]

AH, but what about evil acts carried out by the Church???

Excerpt from "The Davinci Code," by Dan Brown:
____________________________________________________
The Catholic Inquisition published a book that arguably could be called the most blood-soaked publication in human history. Malleus Maleficarum --or The Witches Hammer -- indoctrinated the world to "the dangers of free-thinking women" and instructed the clergy how to locate, torture, and destroy them. Those deemed "witches" by the Church included all female scholars, priestesses, gypsies, mystics, nature-lovers, herb gatherers, and any women "suspiciously tuned to the natural world." Midwives were killed for their heretical practice of using medical knowledge to ease the pain of childbirth -- a suffereing, the Church claimed, that was God's rightful punishment for Eve's partaking of the Apple of Knowledge, thus giving birth to the idea of Original Sin. During three hundred years of witch hunts, the Church burned at the stake an astounding five million women.
_______________________________________________________

Three Hundred Years...FIVE MILLION INNOCENT WOMEN...All in the name of God.

Makes me sick just thinking about it, and probably Jesus too.

I am a spiritual person, but I do not, DO NOT, support or believe in organised religion. It is like saying, " Well, yeah, Hilter was a naughty boy, but look at all the great lessons to be learned in Mein Kampf." Sorry, no can do.

~From a woman that would have definitely been burned at the stake...

[Lisa N]

Makes me sick just thinking about it, and probably Jesus too.

On that we can agree. I won't deny the fact that some pretty horrible things have been done in the name of religion and that scripture has been used (incorrectly and out of context, I might add) to justify it, but it still leads me to question if this is design flaw or operator error.
MY Bible teaches me that it is not my place to judge (as in condemn) another ("Judge not lest you be judged for the same measure that you use is that which shall be used against you."), that it is ultimately God's place to punish sin ("Vengeance is mine. I will repay, says the Lord"), that what I claim to be isn't as important as what I show myself to be ("Show me your faith by your words and I will show you my faith by my actions...for if you say to your brother who is hungry and cold, 'go, be warmed and well fed' and do nothing about it, what good does it do him?") and that we are to treat others as we ourselves wish to be treated ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." and "Love one another as I have loved you."). It teaches me about forgiveness, compassion, grace and mercy as well as showing me that I am no less in need of redemption, forgiveness, grace and mercy than anyone else.

the Church burned at the stake an astounding five million women

I've never seen a church (as in a physical building) purposely cause anyone harm, but I've seen plenty of people do so. To say that God sanctioned such actions doesn't mean that He did or does. I'd also like to point out that hundreds of thousands of Christians have received the same treatment (being burned at the stake, turned into human torches, cut in half, disemboweled, torn apart by lions and other wild animals for entertainment, crucified and brutally tortured) by those who feared "organized" religion as well and that it still happens today.

[JimR-OCDS]

Funny how someone would post a quote from The Davinci Code, which is a Literature Fiction book.

Many of the myths being presented by anti-Catholic groups today are just that, myths. Much of their information comes from what is know by historians as the "Black Legends." The Black Legends were various books and articles written after the reformation by anti-Catholic states, throughout Europe. Much of the information is known to be exaggerated or outright lies about the Catholic Church. 5 million women being murdered by the Church is probably one of them.

Even the so called, "Burning Times," are attributed to the Catholic Church, however, the persecution of so called witches was done mostly in England between the 1500 and 1700's, under the Church of England which was controlled by the King. During that time, 3/4 of the Catholic clergy were put to death for refusing to denounce Rome and join the Kings religion.

[b-ready]

That is why I need a savior.. (but you have to read the bible to know all that)
Once again..
That is exactly why I need salvation because I KNOW i am not perfect... we need a savior.. and if you seriously think that your mind/soul/spirit will not go on..
once again..
I SURE-hope-you-are-right....
If it werent for your soul.. your body wouldnt move
if someone stabs my flesh.. they cannot stab my spirit.. how can you kill the unseen?
I love everyone.. even you... its just hard for me sometimes to understand how one can look at nature and say that it was all -just here.. that no one created it.. somebody started this.. even if it was a big bang.. somebody caused that big bang..
something.. somewhere.. this is an intelligent earth.. why are there no mistakes in creation.. the trees are perfect.. the animals are just the way God wanted them.. they are even numbered sequentially.. have you ever heard of the Fibonacci sequence?
People choose to not believe because it feels better...
I know because I was once the same person as you..

[xxovereasy]

I believe in a creator,however i don't believe in naming it as in property.I am What i am. not man not woman just creator. I thank him always for creating the world.I try to emulate the creator by being good to others, ineed no book to tell me that.and i sure don't need the sunday(comics) preachers on tv , who KNOW what god wants. I have the confidence if i sin i will feel guilt, and try not to repeat it.etc etc.As for my soul? where will it go after the body is gone? I don't know, but if i dealt fairly while on earth,then i expect fairness in return. Eg. if mother teresa was a buddist and still led the life she did,should go to a good place if there is one.if not then shame shame on your belief.have a nice day....

[b-ready]

LOGIC and scientific evidence validate the Atkins WOE. Beth's thinking that meat-eating is illogical appears to confuse "logic" with "years of government-sponsored misinformation." It is thus not surprising that years of religious indoctrination also appear to have substituted for rational thought.

I was talking about the American Heart Association.. not me..
I dont think it to be illogical.. but they do.. sorry if I stated that incorrectly... but do you see how easy it is to get the wrong understanding about something?

[Shellyf34]

JIMR, I KNOW the book is fictional, but, and I QUOTE:

"All descriptions of artwork, architecture, DOCUMENTS. and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."

That is why I included the excerpt. :rolleyes:

[gotbeer]

QUOTE from Lisa: Your statement above also implies that you believe that if God really existed and cared, He'd step in and stop someone every time that they were about to commit a sin. Again...do you really want that since it would mean the removal of any and all free will and instead make you a puppet without choice?

Stopping an evil act does not remove “any and all free will”. How ludicrous.

Consider an example: Let’s say that God made a minor twist to our brains so that planning to kill a child would cause one to stop breathing. A single new neural pathway with a couple of dozen cells would be all that would be needed. You could still think or do everything else you can do now, but thinking of doing this crime would cease your breathing until you abandoned the thought. I’ve personally never even considered such a heinous plan, so the curtailment of my actual personal free will would be zero – I’d be as free as I am now. I doubt that you would regret losing the ability to murder a child as well.

Same essential free will, with less evil in the world. If he were shy, God could even make this new brain feature it look like an evolutionary artifact – not murdering their own children would contribute to a population’s odds of survival.

An all-powerful, all-benevolent God should have designed us that way in the first place – but no, somehow he missed it. A reasonable conclusion is that either God doesn’t exist, or, he didn’t design us, or, he is a lousy designer, or, that he is not so powerful, or, that he is not so benevolent. Pick your favorite – and the underpinnings of xianity are demolished.

QUOTE from Lisa: No..it means what it says. Scripture has been quoted out of context to suit the purposes of the poster in this thread and I'd be more than happy to supply examples and explain why they are out of context and don't have the meaning that the poster implied if you wish me to.

Oh, yummy – better than bacon - I can’t WAIT to see what convolutions and permutations you devise to bend the plain language of scripture to your will. Have at it!

Quote from Lisa: To say that God sanctioned such actions [millions of deaths] doesn't mean that He did or does.

Honey, the point is that the utility of religion is nil if it leads to such evils. A murderer who saves a life in an unrelated act is still a murderer. I’d love to engage God directly (if he existed) but he only shows his imaginary self through the acts of his followers. Speaking of which…here’s another fun one:

In the 14th century, the religious in Europe began systematically exterminating cats, which were thought to be in league with witches and the devil – an infallible Pope even ordered it, I've heard. The lack of cats allowed rats to spread across Europe, carrying fleas that spread the Bubonic plague. The ensuing “Black Death” killed perhaps half the population of Europe – another 25 Million people dead due to the ignorance of religion and the uncaring hand of an unproven god.

Out of time now, but more later, assuming I can dodge the lightning bolts on the way home.

[b-ready]

To live is Christ to die is gain...(scripture)
that means that when someone dies there is a better life waiting.. if you read near death experiences.. most people dont want to come back.. since neither you or I have ever interviewed any of the dead jews and people who have died in these evil plagues.. how do we know that they want to come back? everything has a cause and effect.. sometimes a child dying by a bullet stops more gang members from killing anyone else..
my mother died and had a NDE.. she said that she did not want to come back.. and that in fact.. there is an afterlife..and it is very real.. and she is far from crazy..

[gotbeer]

So, we should let Susan Smith and others of her child-murdering ilk off the hook because those murders MIGHT do some good? If such evil leads to good in god's goofy plan, then why stop ANY evil?

"Christian says murdering children leads to greater good" - I can see the headline now.

Horrors!

[b-ready]

once again you have used my words the wrong way.. you insult my intelligence by saying that I think someone murdering is good.. what im saying is that good will always rule.. there is a devil as well as a God.. so evil things will happen.. but as the bible says (again you gotta read it to know the story)
"All things work together for the good of those who love the Lord .."
:) :cool: :lol: :p

[happyhat]

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The xians I know see little or no distinction between God and God's word. They feel that to betray or doubt one is equivalent to betraying or doubting the other.

They would urge you to flee from any belief system that does not exalt the Word, regardless of how nice it was to God and neighbor.

"inspired" in the context you used can mean two very different things: 1) "Loosely based on an idea by", or 2), "Filled with divine spirit". You appear to support the former = a looser relationship of scripture to reality, one that would allow for any convenient interpretation needed. The other explanation is not yet "mainstream", but given the changing demographics of xianity, it soon will be: fundamentalism is growing at rapid rates while your more liberal school is wasting away.

It is clear even though you are very educated, that you have no real understanding of spiritual things. The verse above is talking about Jesus.
The word in this context is Jesus. Below are a couple of verses that clarify.

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called The Word of God.

And I have one more verse for you gotbeer:

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth,
that shall he also reap.

God bless,
happyhat

[Lisa N]

Consider an example: Let’s say that God made a minor twist to our brains so that planning to kill a child would cause one to stop breathing.

Wow. I'm glad you're not God because we'd all either be puppets or dead. So...God should have designed us so that we suffered the threat of immediate death whenever we thought of sinning? Or was it just this particular sin that would bring about the cessation of breathing? If not, which particular sins would cause this uncomfortable result and which would not? How about thinking of taking a paper clip from work? Thinkig of committing adultery or having sex outside of marriage? Heck...how about simply looking at a woman or man who is not your married partner with lust? Thinking unkind thoughts about your neighbor? Who gets to choose which thoughts of sin would bring about the penalty and which would not? My point here is that if God programmed us so that we could only do good and were incapable of choosing to not do good or even to think about it for that matter without some immediate dire consequence, that effectively removes our free will. It also would put us in the position of only being able to choose to obey God and choose to follow him, since doing otherwise is rebellion which is sin and would bring about that nasty cessation of breathing result until we changed our minds again. Now who's being ludicrous here? Coercion is fine as long as there are good motives behind it and it prevents something worse? God wants us to love and choose to obey him freely and of our own choice, not because we cannot do otherwise. Love that is coerced is not love and in order to allow us that choice, we must also be allowed to choose the opposite.


I can’t WAIT to see what convolutions and permutations you devise to bend the plain language of scripture to your will. Have at it!

Alrighty then....
In addition to the logic problems, the actual text of the bible paints a picture of a god-thingy that hates families (for example, see Luke 14:26, “If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” – Jesus -

Yes, Jesus did say this, but you neglected to look up the word "hate" in this passage. It's Miseo which means "to love less than". God's word makes it clear that we are to love Him above all others "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your strength and with all your mind", but this does not mean we do not love our families at al or that God is commanding us here to hate them.

(Luke 19:27 – “But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.” - Jesus)

Yup. Jesus said that too, but it should be noted that it was within the context of quoting someone else while telling a parable. A parable, for those that are unfamiliar with the term, is a comparison or a short story that illustrates a moral attitude or religious principle. I'd also like to note that here you use this passage as evidence that God is hateful because He speaks of the ruler in the story punishing those that rebelled, and yet above you suggest that he made a mistake by not programming us to do anything but obey without cessation of breathing. You can't have it both ways.


Honey, the point is that the utility of religion is nil if it leads to such evils.

You have yet to establish that it does. In fact, it seems that our converstion thus far has established that committing sin is not a behavior unique to those who profess a certain faith and thus no causality between sin and having faith has been shown since people sin whether they profess a certain faith or not. People also do foolish things whether they have faith or not. Your example of Catholics killing cats because of a mistaken belief (which you will find nowhere in the Bible, I might add) at the suggestion of another human being who is also not infallible and therefore prone to misconception and error still does not show a direct link between Christianity and evil. Okay....the Pope believed a ridiculous idea and people followed it without question and that indirectly contributed to the spread of bubonic plague. It wasn't faith (as in belief in God) that caused this. It was believing that a human being could be infallible and without error (also contradicted by the Bible). Once again, it seems that you have more of a problem with human fallibility and behavior than you do with God himself.

[gotbeer]

From Lisa: God wants us to love and choose to obey him freely and of our own choice, not because we cannot do otherwise. Love that is coerced is not love and in order to allow us that choice, we must also be allowed to choose the opposite.

If that were even REMOTELY true, then EVERYONE would go to Heaven. What sort of uncoerced "free will" do we have if eternal punishment is the answer to some choices? Talk about coersion - that is outright abusive.

So...God should have designed us so that we suffered the threat of immediate death whenever we thought of sinning? Or was it just this particular sin that would bring about the cessation of breathing? If not, which particular sins would cause this uncomfortable result and which would not?

Just undo this particular evil - it is not always a "sin", at least according to the OT, where one may slay a disobedient child at will (Deuteronomy 21:18-21 -If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.) - a rule that to my knowledge was NOT repealed in the NT. Make ONE SIMPLE CHANGE that lessens evil, saves children, and hardly hurts our free will at all. Indeed, many xians would love a similar anti-abortion law that saves unborn children at the expense of a much harsher free-will erosion for the unwilling childbearers.

Physical laws already restrict my free will - I can't flap my arms and fly, for example. Likewise, I wouldn't mind a physical law or biological restriction on child-murder. Convicted child-killer Susan Smith loved the free-will to kill her own kids, but I am surprised you like it, too.

It also would put us in the position of only being able to choose to obey God and choose to follow him,

:yay: Great idea - now evil is abolished, and all get into heaven!! THERE'S a god I could like - one who actually does what he says!! What a concept! A win-win for everyone!

You can continue to exalt the existence and necessity of evil, Lisa, but I'd rather go with the good and honest. Evil is not a thing worth saving - I'm surprised that I have to explain to a Christian that evil is not good. The only downside I can see is that all those folks who love to waste time proselytizing for a non-existent god would have no one to left to proselytize. What a shame.

Now, if free-will is such a great thing, why would god set any rules at all? He could say: "make your own rules, if you like, or none at all", and then sort us out by those of us who do good vs those who do evil - and WE get to decide what is good and evil and put that into civil and criminal law - sort of like we have, since the nonexistent god is so lame at enforcing his own decrees.

Yes, Jesus did say this, but you neglected to look up the word "hate" in this passage. It's Miseo which means "to love less than". God's word makes it clear that we are to love Him above all others "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your strength and with all your mind", but this does not mean we do not love our families at al or that God is commanding us here to hate them.

The intention is clear from the context of the entire set of gospels - Jesus' treatment of his mother is shabby (numerous references); a follower who asks permission to bury his dead father is called unworthy (Matthew 9:59-62); and Jesus says his mission is to turn family members against each other: Luke 12:51-53 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Furthermore, Jesus rewards those (men) who abandon their families: Matthew 10:29-30 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

God bless,
happyhat

Thanks for the thought, but no, thanks!

[Lisa N]

If that were even REMOTELY true, then EVERYONE would go to Heaven. What sort of uncoerced "free will" do we have if eternal punishment is the answer to some choices? Talk about coersion - that is outright abusive.

I see. So better to have no choice or free will than to have it and have to suffer the consequences of your free choice? Just because you don't happen to like the consequences of a choice and you know ahead of time what they will be doesn't take away the fact that it was your choice to make in the first place. Coming from somone who stated, "I’d rather roast in hell than surrender my logical mind", it's odd that you would be so quick to surrender your ability to think something contrary to what God wants or your ability to choose what you do and don't want to do or would you exempt yourself from such restrictions? Again...love and obedience cannot be freely given unless you also have the ability to chose the opposite.

Now, if free-will is such a great thing, why would god set any rules at all? He could say: "make your own rules, if you like, or none at all", and then sort us out by those of us who do good vs those who do evil

For the most part, this is exactly what He has done. He's given us the rules for living and treating others, but leaves us the choice whether we will choose the best way or try to make our own and that is precisely what we have done. When you leave it up to the individual to decide what is good and what is not, evil becomes purely subjective for what constitutes will differ from one culture to another and from even one person to another. Should someone else change their concept of evil because it doesn't agree with yours? Why and how do you resolve it when you can't agree? Goodness...we as humans can't agree on the best form of government or even on the best way to eat, let alone on what is universally right and wrong. All you have to do is watch a few minutes of the evening news to see how well that's worked for us so far.

Just undo this particular evil

I see...we can leave all the rest because they offend your sensibilities less and people can do whatever else they wish as long as it's not this particular sin? Theft, adultery, spouse abuse...all fine for the choosing but not that one thing. That doesn't answer the question of where you draw the line in preventing sin and when that begins encroaching on our free will. As an adult who was an abused child, I can tell you that I place the responsibility and the blame for what was done to me squarely on the person who did it. Noone forced them to do what they did to me; it was their choice just as it could have been their choice not to. Even if I could go back and prevent it from happening to me by your proposal to remove their ability to choose those actions, I would be unwilling to do so if it meant that I also would have to give up my ability to choose my own actions, thoughts and feelings. Was it a bad situation? Absolutely. Would I be willing to give up my free will to prevent them having theirs? No way.

Convicted child-killer Susan Smith loved the free-will to kill her own kids, but I am surprised you like it, too.

There is a difference between appreciating having free will and condoning what others choose to do because they also have that same freedom. Much like the argument of favor of allowing people to own guns; just because some choose to kill others with their guns should we abolish all guns entirely? Because some use their free will to commit evil acts, we should remove that free will entirely?

[gotbeer]

First you object to my proposal to stop child killing as coersion - THEN, when I point out that the threat of eternal punishment is the ULTIMATE in abusive coersion, suddenly coersion is divinely blessed.

In my proposal, no one is coerced not to kill any more than we are coerced not to be able to flap our wings and fly - it would merely become a physical fact - we can't breathe under water, and we can't breathe when we are planning to kill children. Same free will, with a slightly more effective punishment/deterent for making the BAD choice.

Other sins? Maybe, maybe not - the point is, if I can devise a slightly improved human design, then I have beaten the imaginary designer at his own imagined game. And, I have, easily - I have curtailed child-murder while preserving our free will to sin like raving drunken harlots whenever our free will so chooses. I could still freely love, or not, I just wouldn't be able to kill kids. The two are independent.

Yet, you are so fond of your sins - or even, just your POTENTIAL to sin - that you are willing to embrace potential child murdering in order to keep an odious, evil choice.

If that makes you worthy of your god, then I'm happy for both of you, but I want no part of such obvious evil.

Why and how do you resolve it when you can't agree? Goodness...we as humans can't agree on the best form of government or even on the best way to eat, let alone on what is universally right and wrong. All you have to do is watch a few minutes of the evening news to see how well that's worked for us so far.

We seem to muddle through, though, despite an utterly silent god whose real-world rule enforcement sucks pretty badly. Punishments, even eternal ones, have no deterent effect unless they are clearly visible. Your god is a vacant god, and the returned mail is stacking up.

Ironically, the evening news is reporting that the murder rate is at a 30-year low.

Coming from somone who stated, "I’d rather roast in hell than surrender my logical mind", it's odd that you would be so quick to surrender your ability to think something contrary to what God wants or your ability to choose what you do and don't want to do or would you exempt yourself from such restrictions?

Hey, if I can keep my logical mind, yet lose the ability to kill children - hell, yes, SIGN ME UP. That is a great trade - I could love god yet still be logical and question the bible. Better that than buy into the child-killing, logic-killing requirements of xianity, any day, any year, any universe.

As an adult who was an abused child, I can tell you that I place the responsibility and the blame for what was done to me squarely on the person who did it. Noone forced them to do what they did to me; it was their choice...

...and if god exists, wasn't it also god's choice to stand idly by and tolerate what was done to you? If it were me, and I believed in that beasty and met him in the afterlife, I would grab his beard, pull him off his blood-stained throne, and teach him the importance of designing a world where even your free-will child abuse resulted in dire, painful, and immediate countermeasures (for making the BAD choice with his/her free-will).