Religion

[DonkeyCheeseGrater]

Originally posted by whitey@Jul 27 2004, 03:32 PM
If there is a god would it's ego be so large that it would want/need to be worshipped ?
 

Firstly you need to know something more about God, who he is. If he is a god who just looks to recieve worship without return then you would have a god with a huge ego (infact you would have the picture portrayed  in the scriptures of the devil).  However if you consider God in the light of the Christian scriptures, you will find they say He is a God of Love (infact the scriptures say God IS Love).  To truly love that love must be shared, given wholly and recieved wholly hence we were created to be in relationship with God, to share love with him.  We worship God because of who He is. If we truly meet with him where He reveals who He is to us(as in experience by the Holy Spirit of His presence) and we have the knowledge of our salvation which comes by believing in Jesus sacrifice for us, recieving His forgiveness and surrendering ourselves to Him, there is no other reaction.  The first time you experience the peace of being forgiven, of freedom, of unbounded joy no matter the circumstances you are in, of freedom from fear, well your reaction is to worship.  Yes God recieves of our worship however He has given us free will so that we choose whether we do so or not.  If it was forced it would not be true worship.  As for the 12 years in church, if you never experienced the power of God moving you were in the wrong church. There are plenty of churches out there where it is difficult to tell if they bury the bodies outside in the cemetary or if they just stuffed the bodys on the pews! There are plenty of churches out there where even if you were to spend your whole life there all you would experience is hyperthermia or piles.  But believe me they are not all like that.  Ok you still have to have faith to recieve salvation but getting to know God for the rest of your life after that is a serious blast.  

[Dr Sadako]

Originally posted by DonkeyCheeseGrater+Jul 27 2004, 06:03 PM-->

[Dr Sadako]

Originally posted by DonkeyCheeseGrater@Jul 27 2004, 05:20 PM
Scientists do not know whether the Carbon 14 decay rate has remained constant or whether the amount in the atmosphere has also remained constant.
Supposedly present testing reveals that the levels in the atmosphere have been increasing since the 1950s when it was first measured.

Nice try. You can with ease prove that carbon dating works at least 4000 years back just by reasoning and basic experiments. You can easily measure C14 in plants conserved from 1800 a.d. or leaves from the 1400 century. You can take books or scrolls that we know was written at certain years and measure the C14 levels in those. Paper is made from pulp and in the beginning trees that take up C14. By doing this (and it has been done) you can plot the C14 content vs the year it is from and you can see the decay. You can do this very far back with egyptian scrolls etc. Then you have accurate data 5000 years back with ease.

Here is one example:


The accuracy of C14 dating i 5730±40 years. The radiocarbon dating method remains arguably the most dependable and widely applied dating technique.

If you want to know more about C14 read here http://www.c14dating.com/

[smilodon]

Originally posted by Sadako@Jul 27 2004, 05:53 PM
Don't get me started on the Flood. If the earth was covered by 2000-3000 meters of water (as it must if the ark has stranded on mount Ararat) where and how did that volume of water disappear? The sun shone as much then as now. It is physically impossible.

It would explain why all fish are evil.......... and ducks.

[DonkeyCheeseGrater]

Some interesting quotes on Radio Carbon dating:

lower leg of the Fairbanks mammoth had a Radio Carbon age of 15,380 RCY while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY
Harold L Anthony â€" NATURES DEEP FREEZE natural history    1949.

Living mollusc shells were carbon dated as being 2,300 years old.
Science vol. 141     1963

A freshly culled seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago.
Antarctic journal Vol. 6 Sept-Oct  1971  p221

"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." [Professor Brew, quoted by T. Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology" in Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1970 p:35; (see also Diggings, August, 1990 p:]

Thirty eight laboratories worldwide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. [Nature, September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10]

In Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating", it states: "Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact provide true ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendar ages". [Diggings, August, 1990 p:8]

A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat. [New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466]

"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ... The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"." [Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9]

Living penguins have been dated a being 8,000 years old

Material from layers where dinosaurs are found were carbon dated as being 34,000 years old.
R Daley Earths most challenging mysteries 1972 p280

Hugh Millar, Columbus, OH had 4 dinosaur bone samples carbon dated at 20,000 years old.  The samples were not identified as dinosaur in advance.

[Dr Sadako]

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

By saying this you basically say that anything that isn't depicted in the Bible isn't true. Talk about dogma.

[DonkeyCheeseGrater]

Originally posted by Sadako@Jul 27 2004, 05:15 PM
Why a he and not a she?

I will talk about the flood tomorrow if i get a chance, but to just answer this question, the scriptures say that God is Spirit so He would not likely be physically male in the sense of man with male sexual organs etc.  For instance it is written that Man and Woman were both created in the image of God.  So why is He seen as male?  That has more to do with His self revelation to us.  He talks of Himself as male so that is how He is proclaimed.  He proclaims Himself as He and as Father.

[DonkeyCheeseGrater]

Originally posted by Sadako@Jul 27 2004, 06:09 PM

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

By saying this you basically say that anything that isn't depicted in the Bible isn't true. Talk about dogma. [/b]

No I think you will find that quote says that anything that contradicts the bible isnt true.

Until tomorrow.    Isnt this fun    

[Niel]

Show me your God............or any actual proof that he exists/has ever existed.

I have as much proof that the "Jolly Green Frog of Pluto" exists.......worship him !!!

[smilodon]

Religion isn't based on proof it's based on faith. You either have faith or you don't.  No one is ever going to prove the existence of God, it's actually one of the cornerstones of the Christian Faith. With all the will in the world a Christian believer is never going to prove to anyone that God exists, and I don't think they would want to either. Helping someone to come to believe (or have faith) in God is however something Christians hope to achieve.

It's the distinction between proof and belief that's important. Theological arguements, while interesting aren't going to be won or lost.

[suicidal_monkey]

Originally posted by DonkeyCheeseGrater+Jul 27 2004, 10:01 PM-->

[suicidal_monkey]

Originally posted by DonkeyCheeseGrater@Jul 27 2004, 09:57 PM
That has more to do with His self revelation to us.  He talks of Himself as male so that is how He is proclaimed.  He proclaims Himself as He and as Father.

When has "He" ever talked about "Himself" and to who? I thought we locked up those crazies who hear voices...

[Dr Sadako]

Originally posted by DonkeyCheeseGrater@Jul 27 2004, 02:01 PM
6000 years ago and yep Adam and Eve started it all

The inbreeding must be fenomenal if we start off with 2 people populating the entire earth. How many kids did Adam and Eve have? 20? 10 boys and 10 girls? Then they should mate with each other. Maybe mom and dad helped out and shagged their own kids as well. Sick thought but that is how it was done if you use that starting point..

We know how genetics work and how quickly inbreeding becomes an issue.

[TeaLeaf]

Is this the point to bring up the Hicthhikers Guide to the Galaxy argument?  The one where the existence of the babel fish (a curious creature that acts as a universal translator if you stick it in your ear) is used to construct a proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says man, "the bable fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of it like that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Paradoxical, logic defying and all wrapped up in several layers of satirical vine leaf.  Priceless.

RIP Douglas Adams,  you are sorely missed.

TL.

[Dr Sadako]

Originally posted by DonkeyCheeseGrater@Jul 27 2004, 11:01 PM
No I think you will find that quote says that anything that contradicts the bible isnt true.

 

You can justify anything with that and it all depends on how you interpret the bible. You can wave off anything if it doesn't suit your on purposes. This is equally fundamentalist as suicide bombers validating their actions. Just because something contradicts the bible doesn't mean it isn't true.

Example: Inmarriage/inbreeding is valid as Adam and Eves kids must have done it to keep the generations going. It doesn't contradict the bible hence it is true.