The World Against God...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

David Bandel wrote:

>> Matt,

>>

>> please read to the end before going wild.

>>

Naturally and likewise.

>>

>

>>>> It's not sense, reason, and intellect which is from Satan.

>>>> Unfortunately, he seems very adept at corrupting something good

>>>> with a very small twist. Sense, reason, and intellect are gifts

>>>> which can be good, and can be distorted. Ever hear of the term

>>>> "garbage in, garbage out"? When reason loses all foundation in

>>>> anything greater than that of our own observation and guesswork

>>>> (see "circular reasoning"), problems result. The conflict is not

>>>> "faith" versus "thought", but "God-based" or "Human-based"

>>>> religion. Christianity is an example of a God-based religion (or

>>>> belief system). Humanism (covers much of the "scientific"

>>>> community) is the primary human-based religion (or belief

>>>> system).

>

>>

>>

>> Wow. Talk about twisting. Your arguments argue against themselves.

>> Garbage in-garbage out is what follows. please keep reading.

I'm afraid that doesn't make sense without some details. Please avoid

vague generalizations.

>>

>

>>>> Each requires a significant amount of faith. Christianity

>>>> requires faith that God exists, is good, and loves His creation

>>>> more than any of us could imagine... so much so that even in our

>>>> willful disregard for the good of others or Him, which separates

>>>> us from fellowship with God, He sent Jesus to endure suffering,

>>>> death, and hell in our stead. Love and care for others,

>>>> selflessness, self-control, with acknowledgement and thanks to

>>>> God. These are the basic tenets of the Bible, which is the

>>>> foundation of truth for this religion. As such, they believe

>>>> that God created the earth, as detailed in Genesis chapters 1 and

>>>> 2. They believe that all mankind is sinful (Romans

>

>>

>>

>> READ, them REREAD those two chapters carefully. They are mutually

>> exclusive accounts of two separate creations. The first is true

>> and supports what you say is incorrect, the second is a wild

>> fantasy that flies in the face of what is known to be true (but

>> does support your speculative theology).

I have, many times. I suggest you do the same. Consider the context

of the writing. You will find two different accounts of the same

story which do not conflict, but augment. One from a chronological

standpoint, one from a more story-telling approach, where chronology

is not the main point. If you have a faulty Bible, I can provide you

excerpts from mine since it's OSS.

>>

>

>>>> 3:23) and that a price must be paid for that sin, to allow us to

>>>> commune with God, and the cost is our life (Romans 6:23). They

>>>> also believe that Jesus came, taught us how to live though a

>>>> sinless life, and then paid the price for our sin with His life,

>>>> proving victory over death by raising to life again (Matthew,

>>>> Mark, Luke, John... pick one and look near the end). They also

>>>> believe that Jesus will come again to separate His followers from

>>>> those who are "jaundiced" and unbelieving, destination: Heaven

>>>> or Lake of Fire, respectively. Regardless of who has failed these

>>>> tenets in the name of God, the principles remain the same. Some

>>>> examples of people who have done attrocious things in the name

>>>> of God: Hitler, Crusaders, Usama, etc....

>>>>

>>>> Humanism requires faith in the scientific community. While

>>>> humanists will tell you otherwise, this is a significant step of

>>>> faith. Particularly true since there exists a history of biased,

>>>> directed research, sometimes with incomplete, incorrect, or even

>>>> falsified data to prove the hypothesis set out. While there are

>>>> many reputable, and even Christian members of the scientific

>>>> community, some (or much) of this research has among its

>>>> hypothesis that God cannot exist. Evolution and the big bang

>>>> theories, both currently taught as fact in public education, are

>>>> examples of this research. They portray an alternative to

>>>> creationism which presupposes the non-existence of a diety,

>>>> regardless of missing data, data suggesting the opposite, and the

>>>> question "where did the explosive matter come from?" While

>>>> there are many scientists with integrity, seeking truth, it

>>>> appears the majority has been lead to believe that there can be

>>>> no diety in science. Unfortunately, since there are so many to

>>>> choose from, one

>

>>

>>

>> Simply a wild, uninformed theory. The bible supports scientists

>> and vice versa.

>>

>> If you believe Genesis Chapter 1, then it basically supports these

>> "big-bang" theories (which Chapter 2 doesn't, so pick which is the

>> basis of your belief). What is beyond the universe? Just because

>> you can't fathom it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

In a perfect sense, the Bible supports science and scientists...

scientists do not always support the Bible. It isn't a matter of God

not being able to use a "big bang" to set our universe in motion, but

the fact that the "big bang" is used as a way for the world to exist

without the presence of a creator. Evolution? why not. Oh, other

than the fact that there are many required pieces of evidence which

simply do not exist. Like the picture in many science texts of the

evolutionary skeletons from the Smithsonian. At the Smithsonian there

is a plaque next to the exhibit stating that many of the skeletons do

not exist in the fossil record, but are artist's renditions of what

they should look like. Anything in the textbooks? Nada.

Again, read chapter 2, maybe just once, and understand the Hebrew

culture a little and you'll find that Chapter 2 is consistent with the

story-based culture and oral tradition of the old testament, recapping

before driving the important points home. The Hebrew culture is such

that important things are repeated, not always verbatim.

I agree that one cannot know more than one knows at any given point.

There is no reason to summarily dismiss the unknown... neither is

there reason to accept and teach it as fact. Move back to the states

and hang out in science class. I believe our school systems would be

much better for your presence.

>>

>

>>>> simply needs to find research which supports what one wants to

>>>> believe. - From the idea that we come from apes, humanists are

>>>> able to trivialize the lives of those who are inconvenient, like

>>>> unborn children, aging, and mentally or physically handicapped

>>>> people (see Terri Shiavo). They will also trivialize this

>>>> description since it doesn't show them in a good light, and Right

>>>> is determined differently for everyone, according to humanism,

>>>> because we are what's important.

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>>>>>> No, I suspect it has more to do with whatever diety's disciples

>>>>>> have done for themselves and to the rest of the world, and the

>>>>>> courts have become as jaundiced as many of us "non-believers".

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>

>>>>

>>>> Jaundiced in understandable, considering some of the misguided

>>>> people who somewhat miss the point. That is still, however, your

>>>> choice. We are all responsible for our choices, which is the

>>>> flip-side to free-will.

>>>>

>>

>>>>>> Every religion I've had contact with has always preached:

>>>>>> tolerance, love, servitude.

>>

>>>>

>>>> I know of no Christian church which teaches "tolerance".

>>>> Tolerance is not a tenet of the Bible. Love is the closest

>>>> thing, as is described below. Tolerance in its popular

>>>> definition is more "acceptance", both of a person and their

>>>> behavior. The Christian church teaches "Love the Sinner, Hate

>>>> the Sin" which is not good enough for modern-day "tolerance"

>>>> preachers.

>

>>

>>

>> Please read your Bible again. Jesus does teach tolerance. "Let he

>> who is without sin cast the first stone." Not sure how else you'd

>> classify that. He didn't ask you to love the person, just not

>> "cast the first stone" (which sounds an awful lot like the

>> definition of tolerance to me): The endurance of the presence or

>> actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive

>> opinions; toleration. [1913 Webster]

As I said, Tolerance in America simply does not mean what Webster

indicates. You and I are on the same page here. Tolerance today is

used to promote the condemnation of Christians simply because we

believe that living a homosexual or promiscuous lifestyle is wrong.

To even say that is borderline "hate crime" these days. It ain't

about clubbing sinners to death, it's about caring for them. I

believe that my friends living these lifestyles are suffering very

real present and future damage to themselves, both in their

relationships with God and with other people, not to mention

emotionally. I haven't killed them, abused them, or otherwise hurt

our friendship, except to make it clear that I disagree with their

choices. So far not many have told me to go @#$% myself, so we

continue being friends.

Jesus certainly told us to love other people. The two greatest

commandments from Matthew 22:39:

36 ?Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law??

37 Jesus said to him, ??You shall love the Lord your God with all

your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.? 38 This

is the first and great commandment. 39 A second likewise is this, ?You

shall love your neighbor as yourself.? 40 The whole law and the

prophets depend on these two commandments.?

By loving my neighbor as myself, I ache for my friends' lack of

relationship with God, I don't hate them for it.

>>>>>> Every religious fanatic that invokes the name of a diety,

>>>>>> however, tends to display intolerance (because how could you

>>>>>> _not_ believe as they do), hate (historically, the most

>>>>>> protracted wars, the heinous actions were all in the name of a

>>>>>> diety), and they expect you to serve them (vice their diety).

>>

>>>>

>>>> It's one thing to identy that which is wrong. It something else

>>>> to know how to respond to it. It is yet something quite

>>>> different to justify awful, hateful acts under the guise of

>>>> religion. The guilt of all mankind is selfishness. Left

>>>> unchecked, it leads to greed, pride, and everything they become

>>>> or produce.

>>>>

>>

>>>>>> No, I expect little of hateful, close-minded, hypocritical

>>>>>> folks. And once the name of a diety has been invoked, you can

>>>>>> forget using reason.

>

>>

>>

>> [huge snip of religious demagoguery]

>>

>> While I could waste days ripping each of your arguments apart (easy

>> since they have no real substance and end up falling back on "well

>> you just have to believe".), I don't have time. We can revisit

>> each of your arguments in the near future one by one if you like,

>> but going through all the above is too much all at once.

So far, you have ripped exactly zero apart, and your arguments have

included as much substance as you suggest mine to have. The simple

attempts sound like a uneducated, misunderstanding proffered by those

who choose not to understand, in a sad effort to dismiss the Bible's

relevance.

Meanwhile, I'm interested in just what you do believe. You obviously

feel attacked in some way.

>>

>> Meanwhile, just start with Genesis Chapter 1. When you get to the

>> last verses (about 5 verses from the end), start questioning every

>> verse. Does it agree or disagree with what came before. Remember

>> that the Bible is full of parables that can easily be taken out of

>> context.

In the process, about 7/8 through. Although the questioning I do is

probably different than your own. I ponder what the value and meaning

is, based on what I already have read, since each book is based on

others but written by different authors. I do not look for ways to

misconstrue it in order to rant at Christians. So far I have gained a

lot better understanding if God's nature, His rules, our lives, and

the troubles we as a world face today.

I would recommend trying the same with scientific "fact" which is

experimented, collected, and interpreted by someone other than

yourself. For example, if it appears to disprove Genesis 1's one-week

model, or Romans 1's homosexuality disclosure, do your own research.

Investigate the involved "science" and you will find that studies are

inconclusive or the evidence is trusted when it should not be. For

example, carbon dating of "billions" of years when can only prove the

measurement data from the last century or less. Even with that data,

we proved that a living cat was several thousands of years old. We

can study Galileo's and Newton's laws on our own. That's what I love

about physics, and why I aced it in high school and college. But we

can only prove them now. We can't even prove they were the same 5

thousand years ago. We just don't know and can't prove anything

scientifically about them. This is why so much of controversial

science is a belief, seldom fact.

>> Ask yourself if what your're reading agrees with what we know of as

>> physical reality or flies in the face of even common sense (and

>> previous chapters and verses).

I have, and they do not. I'm more than happy to discuss those which

you may have difficulty understanding. I don't have all the answers,

but I'm interested in the discussion.

>> Play "devil's advocate" to every phrase, remembering that these

>> phrases also need to be kept in context and not isolated (as even I

>> did above).

I attempt not to be the devil's advocate, but do weigh the words

against what came before, and after.

>> When you've reexamined everything and decided not to "just

>> believe", you'll be able to see the holes in your own arguments,

>> and perhaps strengthen your own faith at the same time.

Studying the Word does indeed strengthen my faith and my beliefs. I

do not "just believe". I understand what I believe and why. Although

I find it intriguing and amusing that you would think I do. There are

some things which I am still chewing on, like Matthew 22:21-22, or

Mark 16:17-18. But if you are interested in my seeing holes in my

arguments, feel free to enlighten me, since obviously your previous

suggestion hasn't worked.

>> I am _very_ comfortable in my belief system and welcome someone

>> pointing out the holes.

Please share your belief's and any faith you may have. I may not

agree, but I don't necessarily think that we are on totally different

pages. You seem to feel that I have attacked your beliefs, but I

still do not even know what they are... just what you described as

"jaundiced and unbelieving".

>> What I don't like is someone screaming at me that I just have to

>> believe the way they do (argument for it or not).

I'm sorry that someone has screamed at you, I assure you that is not

my typical method of discussing spiritual things. I also would not

tell you that you have to believe as I do. I do not believe exactly

the same as most common denominations of Christianity; I believe the

Bible is God's Word.

Even if I said that you *do* have to believe as I do, what difference

does it make? Are you not a grown man, and able to make up your own

mind? Do my words have such great impact in your life? If so, I am

most honored. Truth is, I have a lot of respect for you, regardless

of your temper and general irritated bedside manner.

>> I also feel obliged to play devil's advocate when I see what I

>> believe is demagoguery.

I, too, like to toy with idiots (please correct me if I misinterpreted

your last comment).

>> Keep believing as you want, but telling others if they don't agree

>> with you they're wrong just doesn't cut it with me.

I don't recall telling anyone that they were wrong. If my arguments

convicted you to that belief, feel free to reconsider you beliefs and

stance.

>>

>> And we're back to tolerance again.

>>

David, honestly, I care a great deal for you. I am writing this

because it is important to me, and in my beliefs, it is important to

you and everyone else in the world. I am perfectly willing to

tolerate you and others I may disagree with. Tolerance does not

preclude one party from being wrong. This is probably not what you

want to hear, but I strive to love you even if it is unidirectional.

That is not only my commandment from Jesus, but it is the way of my

heart. I sometimes like to get involved in heated debate, but I'm

currently writing about what matters. Tolerance is not enough.

Tolerance ends. Irritation levels tolerance. Love is what is

required. Obviously that can be misconstrued so please refer to the

previous definition from I Corinthians 13:4-8.

I will continue to tell others when what they say and do does not

match up with the Bible's teaching, and welcome others to do the same

to me. Mine is journey and I am not perfect.

It is my belief that those who fail to acknowledge God and give thanks

to Him are indeed wrong, to name but one example. But it is every

man's right to be wrong. Heck, I take full advantage of that right

quite frequently. :) In this case, however, there are consequences

for being wrong, over which none of us has any control.

It would seem that people who cannot handle being told they are wrong

are either immature in their beliefs or have a "god" complex and

cannot be wrong.

I could be wrong right now. Heck, don't take my word for it. Prove

me wrong. I've shared some of my beliefs, and provided the basis for

my evidence, the Bible, which I and a good many other intelligent

people believe to be God's Word. Show me your evidence, and provide

the reasons for your faith in the sources.

Matthew 15:12-13

- --

Matthew Carpenter

matt@eisgr.com http://www.eisgr.com/

Enterprise Information Systems

* Network Server Appliances

* Security Consulting, Incident Handling & Forensics

* Network Consulting, Integration & Support

* Web Integration and E-Business

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCVm+Pso9lqh4MragRAqgvAJ4j+1w4O1OfmZPgmPY6ZpbCGMRY6gCfdl1B

UoVQVz11wnry5pKO+075zKQ=

=fL6p

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----