Religious Sanctuary Thread

The arrogance just floors me. When did I say that I wasn't a religious person? Do you think that only Christians exist in this world?
Oh, and there are people - many, infact... even religious scholars - who dispute whether Christ was a true historical figure (rather than a conglomeration of older myths such as Mithra, Apollonius, etc.) let alone the embodyment of god. Christianity claims nothing new about incarnations or avatars.

By the way, unexplained events ("miracles") in this world aren't exclusive to Christianity. Many other faiths have had their own share of mass "miraculous events". There have been people saved from the brink of death or brought back to life (in my uncle's case) who aren't Christian, and didn't experience anything that suggested the validity of Christian theology.

You ask me to be open-minded about Christianity? I could never devote myself to a religion that believes all others are false.

Maybe you should change this to the "Christian Sanctuary Thread" since you seem to believe it is the only true religion.

 

I feel like jumping in here, albeit briefly, to present my oversimplified view of Creation versus Evolution. For me it all boils down to this:

I regard myself too highly to even begin to think, much less believe, that my species and this world we inhabit was the result of RANDOM CHANCE. My self-esteem is worth nothing if I thought I descended from pond scum/amoeba/monkeys/etc. My pride requires me to acknowledge that I was created in God's image and that He alone spoke our universe into existence, dictated the physical laws that it MUST follow or cease to exist and has a plan for not just my life, but all of mankind. I find it much less stressful to know in my heart where I came from and that He is in control.

I'll probably get POO-POOED by quite a few people for this posting, but I believe what I believe.

 

Darth_Brooks: Ok, aside from proving that you clearly don't understand evolution in more ways than one, I'd suggest you quit while you're behind and don't chastise others for the can of worms you were fool enough to open.

I was taught that something doesn't result from nothing, and that if you see a house you know it has a builder. If you see the design of a spider pattern in a desert you know someone's been there; and when I see the precision of the design innately built into all nature and the universe, I know there is a God.

Paley would be proud. However, houses do not replicate. You may wish to reason that way, but it is not science. So much for believing in the scientific method.

Houses don't grow by the consumption of minerals, vitamins, proteins, carbohydrates and/or hydrocarbons, either. Funny thing, if we were all built like houses, then we'd all be like Commander Data in Star Trek... never growing, never needing to produce energy from carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals and proteins, we would never reproduce... etc. But, based on some of your following analogies... I can see why you might accept that dumbed-down version of life...

I believe that with the onset of the industrial revolution that white moths were eaten by birds being more easily visable, [sic] and their population dwindled. That's a type of genocide, not evolution. I believe that the gray moth's population flourished because they were well camouflaged in the soot. That's due to a bird's poor eye-sight in this example, not evolution.

I'm biting my tongue here, trying not to use the "m" word (rhymes with "boron").... It might be useful to point out some information from, no not a local newspaper, but actually the University of Bristol, Dept. of Biological Sciences, which would like to have a word or two with you:

As well as seeing very well in the ultraviolet, all bird species that have been studied have at least four types of cone. They have four, not three, dimensional colour vision. Recent studies have confirmed tetra-chromacy in some fish and turtles, so perhaps we should not be surprised about this. It is mammals, including humans, that have poor colour vision!

And more recent studies elsewhere are beginning to confirm that birds see in five primary colors... two of which are outside the human spectrum of vision.

It's kind of a haphazard argument you make... when tetrachromatic vision would certainly allow birds to see much more than we can. Their eyesight is arguably more evolved than ours. (By the way, did you know planes, combat aircraft and surveillance systems use ultraviolet and infrared imaging to see energy sources, and through visual obstacles such as clouds and soot?) Birds can, more than likely, see the far more reflective ultraviolet markings of moths, butterflies and birds in much worse conditions than the spectrum of light visible to humans.

All that aside, what you're trying to postulate about the moths, at any rate, is precisely what natural selection is. First to claim that this is not natural selection, and instead genocide, please explain what isn't natural about genocide... After all, genocide is just another environmental factor putting pressure on an organism's chances of survival.

If evolution occured [sic] their should be some equivalently intelligent species accompanying us; cows would have drivers licenses and sun-glasses. Precisely because it is necessary for their survival.

Last time I checked, cows, along with many other mammals, are still alive and kicking... despite their obvious lack of the necessary prehensile thumbs to fashion drivers licenses and sunglasses, much less cars, roads, plastics factories and mining pits and pretty much every human technological advancement since the beginning of the of agro-industrial revolution. They may not have 36" TVs... but they're still alive as a species.

They didn't manipulate fly dna i

 

Arrogant? And your words to me weren't?
You operate on a double standard.


"You ask me to be open-minded about Christianity? I could never devote myself to a religion that believes all others are false."

Regardless of the truth?

Truth is exlusivistic by definition.
They are all exclusivistic aren't they?


So which religion would you adhere to?
Ultimately they are all incompatible according to their own doctrines, so which would you choose?



As for Christ's actuality, even his enemies left records of him.

 

Snow Dog,

Our conversation is at an end.

Next stop, moderator.

Your inflammatory insults are an infraction of the rules of your agreement to post here.

 

Was He God incarnate? Yes.

For that matter, and with as much evidence, so was Krishna. In fact, many Hindus acknowledge that Christ was the 13th avatar (incidentally, this word comes from Sanskrit; the parent language of the Hindus, and about 60-80 percent of the world; avatara... "incarnation of god").

If you want to talk religion... ok, let's talk religion: Krishna, in scripture, preceeded Christ as the eighth avatar. The Hare Krishnas believe, based on historical accounts of his presence in the northern region of Kashmir, that Christ was a disciple of Krishna during the 18 years of his life not documented in the Bible.

Since the Bible skips that part of Christ's life, which would be expected (I don't know how Hebrews would chronicle the part of his life where he was absent from them...). It is said that Jesus traveled, and during these travels Hare Krishnas and other Hindus believe he sat at the feet of Krishna, his divine predecessor... from whom many of Christ's teachings come.

A simple comparison of the Gospels with the Bhagavad Gita will demonstrate very identical beliefs and values between Krishna and Christ.

Furthermore, the two scriptures both refer to god in the same ways: "I am", "I am that", or "that thou art"... both Hindu and Judeo-Christian scripture have essentially the same description of god, from slightly different points of view... as one would expect a person from Frankfurt and one from Paris to describe the position of the sun differently, even when looked at simultaneously.

So, what precisely then is your point about God?

That just because Jesus said he was the son of god, there's never been and never will again be a messenger of god?

What about the global impact of Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi? Are these not the hands of god working through flesh?

Beyond these basic observations, I'm not interested in debating the minutiae... what does god need with a book, when he can just shout out from the heavens who he is?

If nature and evolution aren't examples of god's omnipotence, I don't know what is.

The reason I'm at where I'm at with religion and science, Darth_Brooks, is because all these questions you ask... and issues you raise about both faith and science, I've already asked them many years ago.... starting at about age four or five. I've gained a wealth of knowledge by being open to many religions and sciences, and realized that one can get to Houston many ways... it just depends on where you're coming from. Knowledge, however, is the beginning of wisdom... but experience paves the path to it.

your inflammatory insults are an infraction of the rules of your agreement to post here.

*ahem* I never called you a bigot. I never called you a moron, or an idiot, or a fool... but the proof I need of your reason, or lack thereof, is being provided wholly by your own words and attitude toward others.

Yes, indeed, why don't you rename this the Christian Sanctuary Thread... considering that you obviously have no intention of openly discussing or considering anything other than that which you unilaterally, egocentrically, have decided is somehow the superior path to all others.

I find it rather comical that you insinuate I am a bigot, and that I am inflammatorily insulting... when in fact I have at least given your points counterarguments rooted entirely in science, and not debating an ounce of the validity of the personal belief system from which your opinions emanate... yet you trounce on every other religion every chance you get.... Atheism, Wicca, Hinduism, it doesn't matter... we're all practically savages to you.

Now you're threatening me with mods? Wasn't it the impetus with which you opened this thread that was quickly scorned by the mods for its borderline inflammatory, accusatory stance? I believe LB said something about inciting flame wars, accusing and not providing evidence...

What's that saying Christians are fond of? Oh yeah... "You reap what you sow."

 

I'll tell you what I know, Snow Dog, and that is simply it's taken great restraint to allow your rants.

The one main reason is simply that for far less than you've done, I've been banned previously.

So, you've got me at a disadvantage. I have to play with my hands behind my back.