maadmax

What a crazy thread. I would think the teaching of correct information concerning sex and science would be a good thing. But I can see how a philosophical/spiritual problem could arise if the instructor failed to give a proper moral framework on how to use the biological and scientific information.

Evolution and Intelligent Design are both trying to do the same thing. Make sense out of the incomprehensible reality we find ourselves in. Chance occurrence, the omnipotent force behind evolutionary change, explains alot. But it also has some gaping holes. Intelligent Design is not provable, but is a logical explanation for the gaping holes left by the theory of evolution. Absolute reality, what ever it may be, is more likely a mix of physical and the metaphysical.

… --Are we as a race that desperate for there to be “something else” out there, a after life, a parallel universe.. It is only logical to me that there is a lot more out there than what we see now. If who we are today is the result of what started 13.7 billion years ago, either by chance occurrence or Divine Design, then we could be only the beginning. The Bible says we will become sons of God . ____________________________________ --What evidence do you have to show that they existed??? I have no evidence. So I can not prove if they did or did not exist. Although I have learned some important lessons from their story. ____________________________________ --Ok so lets look at it another way, basic mathematical reasoning, based on generation times and population sizes, tells us that humanity's most recent common female & male ancestress lived well before the biblical Adam & Eve supposedly did, or before the biblical creation. That in sufficient in itself to disprove the biblical tale of Adam and Eve, and thus the myth of the “original sin” I agree with you that the history of our species goes a lot farther back than 6000 years. The genealogy in Matthew is where that time frame is derived. It is one of many areas of the Bible that I don't understand. Some Bible passages were added later by well meaning scribes trying to help God out. This may have been one of those, who knows?

--Utter rubbish, let me “adequately” deal with the issue of sin…"(.................. ............ .......................................................................) " Now since that story is invalid, the idea that Jesus died in order to forgive us for their "Original sin" is laughable, because by all accounts this sin event never took place, and therefore the bible and the fables in it are just that, fables.. _________________________________________ My goodness you must be quite the intellectual! What other things do you think about? Who knows all of the ins and outs of the Adam and Eve story? I don't. I have found the literature produced by genetic anthropologists, mapping the and migration of Homosapien sapiens, very interesting. According to them, tracing the mitochondrial DNA passed by mothers and the Y chromosomal DNA passed by fathers, everyone alive today has descended from one breeding pair of our Homosapien sapien ancestors. As far as the original sin, I have understood the story to be a description of how sin is committed. The initial act is self-deification, from there , the individual grants themselves the rights and privileges of a supreme being, masters of their created reality. In this state they are justified to do or take what ever they want with a clear conscience. These individuals usually act covertly since exposure of their deeds can carry undesirable consequences.

--If that is the measure, sex, alcohol, and skydiving should also be considered religions. ____________________________ Correct again. But we all know how the devotees of those religions turn out, except maybe skydiving.

Specify what you mean by predominant. It was certainly not practiced by the majority. It went thru periods of being tolerate and persecuted, and the persecutions were not over by 312. Even as late as 400, the Empire was made up of some pretty significant chunks of assimilated barbarian hordes, with most of them still pagan. Also, Hellenistic beliefs were still far from being Christianized/eradicated. Not to mention the Jewish communities, which were tolerated even more so and earlier than the Christians. Not only that, but to group them together at that early date is even a bit of a misnomer. The various forms of Christianity were not just splintered, they actually persecuted each other at times. It is only via disintegration of the Roman Empire and the vacumm created that Catholicism became such a powerful force in the shaping of modern Europe. Had the Empire focused more on the northern hordes instead of fixating on the Persians and lands beyond the eastern Mediteranean Basin, the power of the Church would never have acheived the dominance it did. I don't think that Christianity could be called anything like a predominant faith until much closer to the middle of the 1st millenium. ____________________________ Nice history lesson. I was referring to the conversion of Constantine, the Roman Emperor ( 306-337CE), in 312 and his subsequent declaration of Christianity as the official faith of the Roman Empire.

--That can be said of any religion. How does it affect whether Christianity is true? _____________________________________ For the ones who can understand their spiritual need, and experience the fulfillment of the message of Christ; they have no doubt of the truthfulness of Christianity. .

---Objective evidence that Christian theology is accurate - NONE . __________________________________ Correct. But the evidence on how it can meet the personal needs of an individual believer is overwhelming. .....

I don't understand on what you base this assertion w/r/t sin, would you explain further? How do you measure adequately dealing? Thanks. ____________________________________________ "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" Romans 3:23 "While we were helpless, Christ died for the ungodly" Romans 5:6 "The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus." Romans6:23 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son , that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world could be saved through Him. " John 3:16&17 "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Romans 8:1 ....

-- Have you read the Koran? The Vedas and Upanishads? The Guru Granth Sahib? The Sutras? The Avesta . However unless you can say that you have read and studied the texts of every religion in the world then you cannot say that you have 'investigated the evidence' any more than I have, and your argument becomes a hollow hypocritical shell. --So, have you? ________________________________________ Many of us have studied the principles taught in the major and minor faiths that abound around the world. Although very interesting with many common themes, the Christian faith is the only one that adequately deals with the issue of sin. If your personal studies have revealed a teaching that is superior to what Christianity has to offer, please by all means share it with us. .....

-- Yes believing in god AND evolution does NOT work if you apply science. You have to choose either to believe in god and accept everything as the bible says because god created the bible or you choose not to. There can’t be a middle way because you either choose to ignore science or to accept it. You can not choose to just apply science where you like to. And to the whole extremist thing: I completely agree that there are grey zones in things like politics, but there are none in science. In science something is either true or untrue. There is no middle way between those two. You would be correct if the grand unified theory had finally been figured out and everything was known about every thing. I am afraid we are not there yet. All any of us can do at this stage of the game is make our best guess based on what internal and external information we can gather. And who's interpretation of the Bible must we accept for your statement to be true? In case you haven't noticed there are a number of lame preachers out there who have done the Christian faith an egregious disservice. ...

--If mankind evolved from the primordial soup, then wouldn't that contradict the book of Genesis? Do these religious/evolution believers get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to believe? No. But a lot of times it takes more than a casual reading to derive the meaning of a passage. ______________________________________ --Actually, reading Genesis right now, I can see the take for evolution with lines like; "And God said, let the water bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl..." That implies that they arose from the primordial soup. Good for you. ________________________________________ --But then there's that pesky line; "And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God created man... male and female created he them. Genesis is a difficult book to understand . I don't believe it was ever meant to be a science text book. It was re-copied many times, so who knows how our current day versions compare to what was originally written. I feel the passage you quoted above was referring to the creation of what makes us unique, our souls. Our sinless, immortal, free will, self-consciousness was most likely created in the image of God, not our bodies. Our bodies were formed at a later time with materials already present on the earth and combined with the soul.

-- Ok so lets just ignore for a moment the fact Paul didn't know anything about the story of Christ, and explain then why Paul didn't even believe that Christ was human and ever existed on earth I can't see where you came to that conclusion. In Acts 9:20 Saul who later changed his name to Paul was observed telling people that "Jesus was the Son of God." I can't imagine any of his hearers had any question who he was talking about. Acts 13:22&23 Paul says Jesus was born through the line of David. Acts 13: 28-31 Paul teaches Jesus was crucified and resurrected from death.

-So explain that one................. Sorry to disappoint you, but Paul wrote what he thought was important for the spiritual development of his Churches. I, like you, have thought many times why didn't Paul write about more stuff. All I can say is if he did it was lost to history, if he didn't then it wasn't necessary to accomplish his purpose. I would bet that what we have recorded in Paul's letters is not the sum total of all he knew.

--Semantics. And incorrect. Or at the very least, a purported "difference" that in fact - which is to say, in the absence of semantic gymnastics - is no genuine difference at all.People who don't believe in God, don't believe in God because they believe there is no God. Any other characterization is semantic claptrap.Atheism is not a belief; it is simply the absence of a particular form of belief. Not believing in God is atheism. "Believing" there is no God is...atheism. Now here's where people trot out the word "agnosticism". Spare me. Agnosticism doesn't really exist. The word "agnostic", distilled to its essence, is really just a safe harbor some atheists use to label themselves because they're afraid theists will think less of them if they call themselves atheists. You have the condescending, just hate to lower myself to the level of these bottom feeders routine going strong. Does this help you make your points more emphatically? Your statement almost sounds like you understand that belief in something that can't be proven, like there is or is not a God if based on faith. Please correct me if I have misunderstood your comments. ....

-- Jesus is supposed to have live in the first 3 decades of the 1st century; the first gospel written by Mark mentions the destruction of the Jewish temple during the Siege of Jerusalem, which occurred in the year 70. Therefore the gospels where written after this time, which leaves a huge 4 decade gap between the gospels and the alleged life of Christ.. So basically Jesus lived, everyone forgot... and then everyone remembered!!! No, "The Way" as the movement was first called grew by leaps and bounds. It was communicated orally initially, then was written as you say in the later part of the 1st century by those who witnessed the events. By 312 CE it was the predominant faith of the Roman Empire. ________________________________________ --Paul did write about Jesus at around 60 C.E., However If Jesus really had lived as a historical human being, nobody told Paul about it. In all of Paul's epistles, (about 80,000 words), he never mentions a historical Jesus! He never heard of Mary, Joseph, a birth in Bethlehem, King Herod, the miracles, ministry, no trial by Jews, or trial by Pontius Pilate. In other words, the man who invented Cristianity had no idea that Jesus walked the earth. You do know a lot of Biblical facts but on this one you obviously have no idea. Paul wrote about issues he felt were important for the spiritual development of his Churches. And thank God he did. ...

-Did you really mean to imply that if someone else doesn’t agree with you that person is closed minded? No. I mean someone who has their mind made up about something, when they can't possibly have all the facts. And no I don't have all the facts, they are as yet unknown. _______________________________________ - Actually string theory is currently being more hotly contested than anthropogenic climate change, Yes I know but it still is an intriguing theory. ________________________________________ -The nature of the soul is the realm of theologians, mystics, madman … and old lovers who still find desire, bliss, and solace in each other’s arms. I agree, but I couldn't help throwing it in. ____________________________________ -p.s. Andy9o8 – Really enjoyed your posts in this thread . Agreed

Actually, what happens to a person after death is not "anybody's guess"; it's understood pretty well -it shuts down, and unless it's very well preserved in some fashion, its tissues physically degrade. And there's a basic understanding of the correlation of consciousness with neural activity of the brain; and when the brain shuts down and degrades, the neural activity and its electrical impulses eventually cease. The conclusion that there is "nothing beyond that" is not faith, it is an extrapolation from knowledge and evidence. ___________________________________________ You absolutely can not support the " nothing beyond that" conclusion. The cessation of electrical activity in a dead brain could be no different than what occurs to the intellect coming from a cell phone when the power source is disconnected. I have no proof and neither do you, except of course faith and belief. . .

Utter nonsense. That kind of circular, self-enabling argument can be applied to any conceivable fantasy. "How do you know the Dalai Lama is not the reincarnation of Genghis Khan's pet cat? Millions of people believe it, but you say No. Well, you can't support that statement, so it requires pure faith." Once again, the word "faith" is being mis-used by being turned on its head. ______________________________________________ I am in complete agreement with you! The reality atheists have concluded is a faith based circular argument supported by pure faith. I like that, thanks. .

_______________________________________ How can you be so close minded when so little is know about the universe we find ourselves in? 95% of the energy and matter is still yet to be identified. There is the possibility of other dimensions predicted in the string theory. Who knows how the Large Hadron Collider and the Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope , coming on line in 2008, will rewrite physics as some predict. These are just a few examples of the many gaping unknowns in the physical sciences. The essence of life, self consciousness, and the soul are still total mysteries. . .

The evidence for me is the power behind the words in the Bible changed my life. But this is not science..... I was going to say "You're right! It's not science; it's pure faith!" ___________________________________________ What I find interesting is how the atheists among us can use the limited state of scientific knowledge currently available to construct a reality based solely on faith. What lies beyond death is anybodies guess. To say " nothing " is unsupportable and requires pure faith. . Quote

[ I find it rather insulting that you would tie (in a sort of non-committal language) the absence of the former characteristics and presence of the latter to what you are calling "spiritual development." Not insulting as an individual, mind you, but insulting as a member of the human race. ___________________________________________ Interesting, would you care to elaborate?

______________________________________________ Well, for the most part you did a good job repeating exactly what I just said, but in different words. Faith used by scientists to fill in the unknown holes of their theories is not equal to the faith one has in God. If it was God would have said " Believe in science and you shalt be saved." Sorry, but He didn't say that and neither did I. The bottom line is easy, if science is right it produces repeatable results and allows you to predict future results. If a spiritual truth is correct it also produces repeatable results and allows you to predict future consequences of similar actions with a high degree of accuracy. And I don't know about you but I question and examine my faith in science and spiritual matters on a daily basis.

Spiritual enlightenment eh... What exactly is that? _______________________________________________ For starters it is the absence of hate, anger, fear, greed, vindictiveness, dishonesty, lusts, envy, and self deification. If you valued spiritual development then you would know that humility, love, honesty, charity, reverence, peace, transparency, and joy are some of the characteristics manifested by those who do.

Faith has to be the first point of contact for both science and spirituality. In the case of science its faith in a higher order, in the case of spirituality its faith in a higher power. The scientific method will never produce spiritual enlightenment, just as the inward quest necessary for spiritual self awareness will never produce scientific discovery. The reality we create for ourselves requires input from both areas.