danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Because all "nations" should try to convert others to their faith?

No, because one God should equal one faith.

But also perhaps only one true expression of it, with the others being dangerous heresy to be avoided lest it sully ones own soul.

Wrong thinking. It has nothing to do with the sullying of individuals. Well, not ultimately. Let me illustrate:

(Lev. 10:1-3) Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. 2 And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. 3 Then Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the LORD has said: 'Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.'" And Aaron held his peace.

About 3,000 years ago, Judaism represented huge progress by developing the concept of monotheism.

That's only if you don't believe the Bible. If you believe it, there was always monotheism. It was when that was discarded that polytheism "evolved." (It's one of the flaws in Sid Meier's Civ games)

That it is based more on established world history and research than it is on a religious text?

That's only if you accept that true history is not represented in the Bible.

My understanding is that this is at the heart of the split between Judaism and Christianity.

Well, not exactly. Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah. They also have devolved into a works-salvation program. Based on today's understandings of Judaism, there should have been no redemption for Samson, for example. Christianity is based on this: that Jesus is God, lived a perfectly obedient life that none of us can live, died sacrificially as an offering to atone for the sins of all who would ever believe, and rose from the dead on the third day.

Fascinating. Why use the word "devolved" which suggests a negative regressive step? Judaism was always largely about practice (hence the ceremonies of the Temple, the repeated observations of prophets such as Elijah on the sins of Israel being as much about action/inaction as pure faith).

Pleasing God has always been a matter of the heart and not external actions. That's not to say actions are immaterial, but they must be done from the heart or they are fraudulent.

I'm ok with what people believe privately that no has public impact. But of course it has always has a public impact--it can't just stay private because religions denigrate other religions, they insist on their version of morality being reflected in laws, they insist on their practice of religion even if it negatively affects the rights of others to enjoy public space . Once religion touches the public sphere all I would ask is one thing: proof. If you can't prove the tenets of your religion to a more probable than not standard then why does the rest of society have to adjust for your admittedly unproven beliefs? And, no, the Bible is not stipulated to be proven.

So I am totally fine with Judaism. Wish all religions were like that--not trying to convert, emphasizing good works, education, community. What a concept--actually promote being good on earth as opposed to belief and having one's sins washed away no matter the past. That is why Huckabee pardoned so many people as governor of Arkansas--what does the past matter, once you believe your sins are washed away , right? What did it matter Bush II's wasted life in his 20s and 30s he was redeemed once he was born-again...

The past matters. Everything you do in life matters. The value of your life is the good you've done as compared to the harm you have done . You don't get a do-over, or completely new start, but you can try to make-up for it.

Fate quoting the Bible:

(Lev. 10:1-3) Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. 2 And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. 3 Then Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the LORD has said: 'Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.'" And Aaron held his peace.

It's always interesting to me when learned Christians quote passages that I've discussed in synagogue. What does this all mean to you? From a modern day perspective, G-d is quite harsh here. Insurrection (against Moses in the desert) is punished with death.

freeman3 wrote:I'm ok with what people believe privately that no has public impact. But of course it has always has a public impact--it can't just stay private because religions denigrate other religions, they insist on their version of morality being reflected in laws, they insist on their practice of religion even if it negatively affects the rights of others to enjoy public space . Once religion touches the public sphere all I would ask is one thing: proof.

If we hold the same standard for liberal dogma, like that a person feeling black makes him/her "black," then I'm fine with your stance. Otherwise, you're simply demanding for yourself and your belief system what you will not grant others. I think there's a word for that: hypocrisy.

The past matters. Everything you do in life matters. The value of your life is the good you've done as compared to the harm you have done . You don't get a do-over, or completely new start, but you can try to make-up for it.

We have crossed into the metaphysical. I will only say that if you set the standard for God, then the Apostle Paul was a hopeless case. If you set the standard, there is no such thing as redemption. I'm glad you don't, with all respect.

Ray Jay wrote:Fate quoting the Bible:

(Lev. 10:1-3) Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. 2 And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. 3 Then Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the LORD has said: 'Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.'" And Aaron held his peace.

It's always interesting to me when learned Christians quote passages that I've discussed in synagogue. What does this all mean to you? From a modern day perspective, G-d is quite harsh here. Insurrection (against Moses in the desert) is punished with death.

It's not insurrection against Moses, but against God. Nadab and Abihu determined to do their own thing rather than what God proscribed. They profaned God and received justice. Thankfully, He does not treat everyone (instantly) as their sins deserve. Here's a similar situation in the NT (to demonstrate the oft-said falsehood of "The NT God is love while the OT God is all about vengeance and justice"):

(Acts 5:1-10) But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property,
2 and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?
4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God."
5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it.
6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.
8 And Peter said to her, "Tell me whether you sold the land for so much." And she said, "Yes, for so much."
9 But Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out."
10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

I see no problem with holding all beliefs subject to the same standard of proof. That would weed out beliefs based on myth, superstition and received dogma. But of course that won't happen because the proof of religion is sorely lacking. Look, I am not religious and you are and I have no wish to even attempt to dissuade you from your beliefs. It just bothered me a tad that you appeared to be putting down Judaism a little bit. After all, your beliefs may or may not be correct but they're not proven to any level of certainty.

freeman3 wrote:I see no problem with holding all beliefs subject to the same standard of proof. That would weed out beliefs based on myth, superstition and received dogma. But of course that won't happen because the proof of religion is sorely lacking. Look, I am not religious and you are and I have no wish to even attempt to dissuade you from your beliefs.

There is no "proof" for evolution either. If "proof" means video evidence, well, there isn't one. I don't attempt to prove the Bible because a mountain of evidence won't convince a skeptic. If you believe life on Earth is the product of random chance, you need to calculate how random that chance is, then explain why the conditions randomly continue to support life, then explain why there are rules of physics and biology at all. Observing there are rules is not the same as explaining why, in a chaotic and random universe, all we see is . . . order and conformity. Weird.

It just bothered me a tad that you appeared to be putting down Judaism a little bit. After all, your beliefs may or may not be correct but they're not proven to any level of certainty.

I did not put down Judaism. I think it is sad that Jews would be content to watch others wallow in darkness. After all, if Jesus is not the Light to the Gentiles, who is? The God of the OT certainly puts in a claim of exclusivity:

(Isa. 43:9-12) All the nations gather together, and the peoples assemble. Who among them can declare this, and show us the former things? Let them bring their witnesses to prove them right, and let them hear and say, It is true.
10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.
11 I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.
12 I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange god among you; and you are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and I am God.

I am more sympathetic to the existence of a Spinozan God/Nature than an anthropomorphic god interested in human affairs. It is hubristic to think we are so special. We live, we die-that is the way of all things. Now, I can't wrap my head around how DNA could have evolved with its combination of 4 proteins and mutated over hundreds of millions of years to have created all life. I don't have a problem with randomness but the results of the mutations seem incredibly unlikely. Why would some combination of these 4 proteins have resulted in complex structure like eyes, or hearts or of course brains? Well, because it is just Nature's laws. And you can say God did that but the fact, as yet, we have not been able to find evidence of life anywhere else gives some sense of the improbabilities involved. If there is a God concerned with us he sure created an awfully big universe for us to inhabit.

Hegel talked about the Absolute reveals itself in finite things. We reason and come up with explanations, contradictions arise, and then we have to come up with a further synthesis to resolve the contradictions. And the Absolute is progressively revealed. You can reasonably argue that it was necessary that an intelligent being distinct from Nature was necessary to write the "program" that gave rise to the improbability of life but is it necessary? Occam's Razor would indicate that it is not necessary. God is the program. Is it coincidental that religion tends to give us what we want (e.g. rain, everlasting life)? Why would a Supreme Being be concerned with that?

If there is a God I think we would expect that he be beyond our comprehension, beyond time, beyond causality. Our attempts to explain him are clearly anthropomorphic models tied to human concerns.

fate

There is no "proof" for evolution either. If "proof" means video evidence, well, there isn't one

Happily "proof: doesn't mean video evidence. It does mean:

1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.

2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another..

3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.

4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.

5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

But if it is video alone that can convince you:
Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates
http://evolutionfaq.com/videos/transitional-fossils

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

freeman

If there is a God I think we would expect that he be beyond our comprehension

As demonstrated by mankind every day in our myriad ways of explaining our existence and why it should matter. Because without the crutch of religion making the incomprehensible into a simplistic belief system how would many sentient beings cope?

freeman3 wrote:I am more sympathetic to the existence of a Spinozan God/Nature than an anthropomorphic god interested in human affairs. It is hubristic to think we are so special. We live, we die-that is the way of all things.

And yet, in both good and "bad" senses, Man is unlike anything else. Oh, some animals may be similar in a few ways, but the overall complexity of Man is unlike any other creature.

Now, I can't wrap my head around how DNA could have evolved with its combination of 4 proteins and mutated over hundreds of millions of years to have created all life. I don't have a problem with randomness but the results of the mutations seem incredibly unlikely. Why would some combination of these 4 proteins have resulted in complex structure like eyes, or hearts or of course brains? Well, because it is just Nature's laws. And you can say God did that but the fact, as yet, we have not been able to find evidence of life anywhere else gives some sense of the improbabilities involved.

Some years ago, a noted atheist proclaimed there were many planets with intelligent life. Over the years as science learned more, he pared that number down, eventually concluding life on other planets was unlikely.

I suggest that the lack of sentient life elsewhere makes us either ridiculously, win the lottery four times in a day lucky, or the objects of design. If the objects of design, then we are left with two choices: a Deistic creator who doesn't care or a Biblical Creator who does.

If there is a God concerned with us he sure created an awfully big universe for us to inhabit.

Because He was hoping for endless Star Trek spinoffs?

Hegel. Spinoza. Hawking.

Finite men trying to explain the infinite.

Is it coincidental that religion tends to give us what we want (e.g. rain, everlasting life)? Why would a Supreme Being be concerned with that?

But, it doesn't.

We all die.

We all suffer.

We all fail in some endeavor or another.

If there is a God I think we would expect that he be beyond our comprehension, beyond time, beyond causality.

You have described the God of the Bible.

Our attempts to explain him are clearly anthropomorphic models tied to human concerns.

I would disagree. The God of Scripture pretty much condemns the human authors of Scripture. Why would they create such a God?

The Jews in the OT consistently fall into idolatry. Who in their right mind would record their faithlessness to their God--over and over again?

Abraham fails.

Peter fails Christ.

Paul persecutes the Church before his conversion.

The list of human failures in the Bible is very long. Only God does not fail.

The Bible details why we suffer, why we treat each other as we do, why we are prone to rebel against Him, what God will do about it one day, and how He offers forgiveness full and free to those who believe in His Son.

rickyp wrote:

There is no "proof" for evolution either. If "proof" means video evidence, well, there isn't one

Happily "proof: doesn't mean video evidence. It does mean:

1. The universal genetic code. . . .

Note well: I would not argue against microevolution. Things change over time. The question is macroevolution--the changing of one species into another. That is so improbable as to be nearly impossible--and the fossil record is filled with . . . holes.

In any event, if you want to engage in a posting war, I can find just as many Creationist lists to post as you can Evolutionist lists.

Won't that be fun?

fate

Some years ago, a noted atheist proclaimed there were many planets with intelligent life. Over the years as science learned more, he pared that number down, eventually concluding life on other planets was unlikely.

Who is this atheist? Why is he "noted"?
Because science has not learned what you say he learned.
.
Thanks to the Kepler Space Telescope, we now know that there's an absolute plethora of exoplanets out there. What’s more, they come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, they orbit a diverse array of stars, and they reside in solar systems that scarcely resemble our own. Our sense of the galaxy is changing dramatically with each new discovery — as is our sense of its potential to harbor life.
And we expect to see far more when the James Webb telescope is launched in 2018.

http://io9.com/what-a-brand-new-equatio ... -531575395

fate

In any event, if you want to engage in a posting war, I can find just as many Creationist lists to post as you can Evolutionist lists

Since you equate Scientific evidence with "creationist" nonsense .... you are probably right. that the exchange would be futile.However...

fate

[quote]That is so improbable as to be nearly impossible--and the fossil record is filled with . . . holes[quote]
It used to be a somewhat effective argument to proclaim the fossil record as incomplete and unsatisfactory. However science has evolved as well. The discovery of DNA and the leaps made in analyzing DNA have told us much.

The most interesting work on the evolution of our species involves using the fossils we find ... holes or not. Because they contain DNA which has unlocked much of the history of our species. (And of other humanoids)
For instance, where once the fossil record suggested that Neanderthals were a preceding version of modern man tha were a step in our evolution. Now we now they were a competing species derived from a common ancestor. (With some minimal cross breeding when the species encountered each other in the last centuries of the Neanderthal's existence)
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html

The most up to date state of evolutionary knowledge regarding our species can be found here...
we learn every day. Your scriptures haven't changed though have they? (Well, other than the significant editing and random changes through error that occurred over time. Ironic that.)

rickyp wrote:fate

Some years ago, a noted atheist proclaimed there were many planets with intelligent life. Over the years as science learned more, he pared that number down, eventually concluding life on other planets was unlikely.

Who is this atheist? Why is he "noted"?
Because science has not learned what you say he learned.
.
Thanks to the Kepler Space Telescope, we now know that there's an absolute plethora of exoplanets out there. What’s more, they come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, they orbit a diverse array of stars, and they reside in solar systems that scarcely resemble our own. Our sense of the galaxy is changing dramatically with each new discovery — as is our sense of its potential to harbor life.
And we expect to see far more when the James Webb telescope is launched in 2018.

http://io9.com/what-a-brand-new-equatio ... -531575395

Let me know when we find intelligent life. I'll be waiting.

rickyp wrote:fate

In any event, if you want to engage in a posting war, I can find just as many Creationist lists to post as you can Evolutionist lists

Since you equate Scientific evidence with "creationist" nonsense .... you are probably right. that the exchange would be futile.However...

fate

That is so improbable as to be nearly impossible--and the fossil record is filled with . . . holes

It used to be a somewhat effective argument to proclaim the fossil record as incomplete and unsatisfactory. However science has evolved as well. The discovery of DNA and the leaps made in analyzing DNA have told us much.

The most interesting work on the evolution of our species involves using the fossils we find ... holes or not. Because they contain DNA which has unlocked much of the history of our species. (And of other humanoids)
For instance, where once the fossil record suggested that Neanderthals were a preceding version of modern man tha were a step in our evolution. Now we now they were a competing species derived from a common ancestor. (With some minimal cross breeding when the species encountered each other in the last centuries of the Neanderthal's existence)
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html

The most up to date state of evolutionary knowledge regarding our species can be found here...
we learn every day. Your scriptures haven't changed though have they? (Well, other than the significant editing and random changes through error that occurred over time. Ironic that.)

I should just end this. I have a friend who has a PhD from Harvard in Biology. If I invited him here to twist you into knots, would that "win" anything?

No.

So, have a nice cup. I'm not responding to any more of this--it's a political forum.