mohammed teddy bear *edit* poll added

[PinkPunch]

I gotta go home now, c ya tomorrow

 

[Lou]

I gotta go home now, c ya tomorrow

Oh!!!! see ya tomorrow x

 

[glitzyglamgirl]

But it makes perfect sense....Paganism was around for centuries, thousands of years even before christianity.

lol but the world wasn't here before God created it, the idea of paganism wasn't even there and neither were we.

[quote:se42maf9]Thats not a theory, thats proven fact. They built stonehenge

Oh well.. if you had facts that proved Pagans were on the earth before Christianity itself, you should have told me that days ago and we wouldn't have needed to chat about all this

Adam walked with God, theres your first Christian. No pagans were around in the gardan of Eden. God IS creation, he IS christanity itself because hes the Christ. Nothing was before him and his angels. You can't possibly be saying that pagans came first because they put some stones together and gave it a name..[/quote:se42maf9]

No, theres much more evidence than stonehenge, infact its only in recent years we are understanding the purpose of stonehenge, so its not evidence as such, just an imprint. The evidence is in the history books, and pagan history and christian history are very finely interwoven.

Its not just me that has facts that prove pagans were here before christianity (and not just pagans), its all of academia. Its the scholars, the historians, the archaeologists and theologists, there is no doubt that pagans were here first.

The world was here a long long long time before humans let alone the idea of God, its as simple as that.

How do you explain the proven fact that we are approx 98% identical genetically to chimps? Or why the human brain has been found to have layers....the middle layer being the most ancient and identical to a primate brain? How do you explain the skeletal remains found that are proven to be 100's of thousands of years old that are human? How do you explain the stars in the sky that are millions of years old?

I understand you have faith and I totally respect that, so please dont take offence, but I feel as passionately at getting this across to you as you do about getting your message across to us

 

[Squiglet]

Sleep well Pink Punch...

I'll just continue without you besides, I've got a room to paint tomorrow so might not be on much.. I say might...

Obivously Adam wouldn't have said "Im a Christian" but I use that term nowadays and we all know what it means.

In this sense then does that not make all people who are decendents of Jacob... who believe in the same God... does that not make Jews in essence Christian?... What I am trying to say is that it seems there is one rule for one and another for someone else. While Adam becomes Christian because he accepts God but didn't accept Christ, other biblical figures... such as Moses don't have the same privilege because they didn't accept Christ, even though Christ didn't exist... (ok did that make any sense)... because they are Jews.

I think my issue with the whole thing of Christ is God etc... and as long as you accept "Christ" not God... you get into heaven. Thats the rule. So although God is Christ and Christ is God, in the next instance they are considered entirely separate... because you cannot accept God and get into heaven but can if you accept Christ.

Many people believe in God and accept him as their saviour (in whatever form that may be)... there are many people who are true and good, yet because of their inability to accept "Christ" as their saviour (for whatever reason this may be) they don't go to heaven.

Its this inconsistency that troubles me.. I have made several references to people who the world consider evil but Christian non the less... yet no one has been able to confirm to me whether they get to live in heaven? It's been avoided, because at the end of the day, if that one evil person is not permitted to heaven, despite how truly devil like they are, then it turns the theory of "accept Christ - fee pass to heaven" on it's head... and in turn undermines the constancy of the argument... Also if it is accepted that evil people goes to heaven, again it turns the whole nature of the bible on its head because it means you don't need to be good, and live life correctly... and undermines the Christian religion as a whole.

The question is can a truly evil people get into heaven, even if they repent... yet good people (and I mean really good ones... ones that change the world for the better, save lives etc)... go to hell. I think its this reason I left Christianity... I could not understand how a God that was forgiving and loving and caring as the bible protests him to be (New Testament) could possibly allow such injustice and evil to prevail in his own house... and in turn destroys the validity of the words he supposedly lays down in the book Christians use to back this argument up.

No Christian I have ever met has been able to answer this without being contradictory in some way... and that therefore denies the validity of all arguments and the bible.

(I say this as a personal point of view not attacking etc... )

 

[Lou]

There really is no middle ground here is there? thats what I find so interesting

 

[Freya]

Squiglet ,
some good points as usual. I think (but no expert) that a truly good person goes to heaven regardless of their belief.

The really evil person I have a problem with - I think if you are truly sorry when you repent then you are absolved of your sins and go to heaven and of course god knows if you are truly sorry or not - so no good saying sorry if you don't mean it kind of thing.

The one thing I can't bear is pious people - my friends mum who claims to be a good catholic has the most warped view of the world I have ever heard and I am sure that it is people like her that put others of from becoming catholic and give religion a bad name.

 

[HappyAlice]

Can I just say...

...this thread is great. I don't want it to end, I find it so interesting reading all your views, I have never witnessed such a discussion in my life and it's nice to debate things.
It's not something people really just talk about much. People usually get angry.
Can I just say thanks to Pink Punch for remaining so patient, I have enjoyed reading your views, it's such an eye opener.

I think... that many people have been brain washed into certain religions by their parents (and their parents before them and so on) since they were, well, born. Maybe if we all started out and had religion-free childhoods and then discussed it like this in adulthood and then decided what to believe, then the world would be a better place.

Life and death is just one big mystery. I do hope we go somewhere after death. Maybe see loved ones again. I want to see my dear Nana again. But other than hoping, I cannot dedicate myself to any kind of religion - because I believe it's all just too simple - for our own benefit, to stop us going nuts about the prospect of dying etc.

I, like GGG believe in Karma, reincarnation, angels, ghosts/spirits. I believe I met my guardian angel in a dream, she was beautiful, she told me her name - and that is the closest I have ever been to anything outside of this life.

I guess I just don't understand how so many people, like PP, can be 100% sure of everything - can't we all just say 'let's wait and see' instead of claiming to know all the answers?

 

[Sammystar]

Can I just say...

...this thread is great. I don't want it to end, I find it so interesting reading all your views, I have never witnessed such a discussion in my life and it's nice to debate things.
It's not something people really just talk about much. People usually get angry.
Can I just say thanks to Pink Punch for remaining so patient, I have enjoyed reading your views, it's such an eye opener.

I think... that many people have been brain washed into certain religions by their parents (and their parents before them and so on) since they were, well, born. Maybe if we all started out and had religion-free childhoods and then discussed it like this in adulthood and then decided what to believe, then the world would be a better place.

Life and death is just one big mystery. I do hope we go some
where after death. Maybe see loved ones again. I want to see my dear Nana again. But other than hoping, I cannot dedicate myself to any kind of religion - because I believe it's all just too simple - for our own benefit, to stop us going nuts about the prospect of dying etc.

I, like GGG believe in Karma, reincarnation, angels, ghosts/spirits. I believe I met my guardian angel in a dream, she was beautiful, she told me her name - and that is the closest I have ever been to anything outside of this life.

I guess I just don't understand how so many people, like PP, can be 100% sure of everything - can't we all just say 'let's wait and see' instead of claiming to know all the answers?

You took the words right out of my mouth HappyAlice!

A very interesting debate, it's so interesting to hear other peoples views and opinons, even when they differ from my own.

PP, I totally admire your conviction, perhaps if more people in the world could share in your beliefs, it would be a better place.

I believe in the forces of good and evil, I have faith, although I follow no religion. For me it's not necessary. I'm a good person, and I have no doubts that (as long as I continue on this path) I'll end up in a good place.

I can't get away from the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports Darwin, and as GGG so rightly pointed out, man existed long before the bible says he did. These are things that are proven (as far as I'm concerned) But to me, they don't make the Bible stories any less compelling, and the story of Jesus an less inspiring.

You'll never be able to convince me that Jesus was born of a virgin either

I think at the end of the day, most of us are singing from the same hymn sheet (pardon the dreadful pun ) in that we all agree that there is much more to life and death than can be explained by us mere mortals, and that we should all strive to live our lives free of conflict, respect one another's views, and accept that there are things which we still need to learn.......

 

[Squiglet]

PP, I totally admire your conviction, perhaps if more people in the world could share in your beliefs, it would be a better place.

I admire PP's conviction too.. but also her way of conveying the views without getting angry about it... I think it's why I've stayed here and debated so much...

 

[Urchin]

I've found it really interesting too

....and some people think we don't "allow" debates on here!

 

[Lou]

I was thinking about this thread last night and trying to imagine what it would be like to have faith and be religious. The trouble is I can imagine a world without religion but I can't imagine my life with religion. Neither can I honestly see where religion brings anything positive to the world. I can only see it as being a bad thing in the world. Maybe I have the wrong attitude towards religion but I can only see it as a bad thing, ie 911, 7/7, suicide bombers, the Taliban, Honour killings, the troubles in Northern Ireland, beheadings etc

Other than having a personal god / jesus to guide me and answer my prayers and bring me comfort and give me some sort of meaning to life, which incidently I don't feel I need but can appreciate why some people do, what good does religion bring to the world as a whole?

I can't help thinkin that religion was something that evolved a long long time ago as a clever way of keeping people in line and making people behave while controlling them and installing fear into people who dared go against religious morals.

 

[glitzyglamgirl]

Agree with all the comments about how great this thread is, I have to say ive never been able to have such a calm and mature debate about religion before, PP is fab

The fact that this thread has people reading with interest and then going away and thinking about it shows what mature and patient debate can achieve, and probably what the ancient philosophers had in mind 8)

 

[glitzyglamgirl]

I can't help thinkin that religion was something that evolved a long long time ago as a clever way of keeping people in line and making people behave while controlling them and installing fear into people who dared go against religious morals.

Thats what I think too...I think it started out when we crossed from primitive to modern man and was born of our awe at the sun and moon, and how they seemed to control the seasons, mating and migration of our prey, tides, and then when we settled as farmers, whether we had a good or bad crop. The sun and the moon have so many ancient gods and goddesses associated with them because thats how it started. Then as man matured and developed civilisations, needed more laws to control much larger societies, it was handy to have gods to appease and be good for, which evolved eventually into the all powerful religions we have today.

Its not just a theory I came up with though, its a theory that is accepted among most theologists and as soon as I read it I thought yes...that makes perfect sense!

 

[Lou]

I surprised myself yesterday because for the first time in my life probably I could actually see where a religious person (pp) was coming from! I still have my own thoughts and feelings about religion as you can see from my last post.

 

[Squiglet]

I can't help thinkin that religion was something that evolved a long long time ago as a clever way of keeping people in line and making people behave while controlling them and installing fear into people who dared go against religious morals.

It was.... It always has been... Take a look at the Spanish Inquisition, the Witch trials... It was all aimed at instilling fear in a population in order to get them to abide by the will of the church... The fear of hell and eternal torment was also used in order to get people to listen to their ministers and follow the words in the bible.. (think about it... most countries still have many of 10 commandments as their laws, and most people think that to do something that the commandments council us not to, is wrong... Like having affairs, or not being respectful to your parents. )

And in times of great trouble you see radicals interpreting the bible in their own way, later to be condemned as Heretics/Pagans/devil worshippers by the church at a later date so as to reduce their followers. In the Plague in 1259, Large groups of monks started gathering in public to flog themselves for their own sins and the sins of the world. Soon they were joined by laymen who stripped to the waist and marched in processions, sometimes numbering ten thousand penitents. At first the practice was tolerated but by 1261 religious authorities realized they had to do something, so they publicly opposed the movement by making it heresy.

But this is the difference between faith and religion. Religion is the church. Faith is something that individuals have based on their own experiences, knowledge and understanding. While you may not be religious, you will always be faithful... even if its having faith that the sun will rise tomorrow and the next day.

In fact recent discoveries of the Gnostic gosples implies that there should be no church or religion.. and what Jesus really mean was that we were to look inside ourselves for spirituality, god and guidance. I think it's important to point out the Gospel of Mary... I think any women should study this bible because we all know that there have been times when we have not been listened to because a man doesn't feel we have any value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary

Unfortunately the text is not complete... but she obviously had a completely different experience concerning the teachings of Jesus and I think it's important to note, that the Bible which was written by men at a time when women were brought and sold like cattle, maybe just maybe she spoke some truth... and maybe just maybe Jesus knew this and is why she was his most beloved disciple. After all do we not speak the truth And how many times has your OH said he can't remember something, when you clearly remember the conversation... kinda sheds some light on a text solely written by a man when we know men can't even remember a conversation from three days before..

 

[Lou]

@ squig!

I understand now the difference between faith and religion and if I was really honest I suppose I do have faith to a certain extent!

 

[Lou]

Lou AKA thread killer

 

[Squiglet]

Lou AKA thread killer

Bad Lou Back away from the thread

 

[PinkPunch]

Aww thanks for your encouraging posts I wasn't on yesterday cos I had a tummy bug

Your all a great bunch!!

Right, I'll go through all these posts now...

 

[PinkPunch]

Its not just me that has facts that prove pagans were here before christianity (and not just pagans), its all of academia. Its the scholars, the historians, the archaeologists and theologists, there is no doubt that pagans were here first.

No Im not disagreeing with that but as I said on another thread, Christ/God made the world from the beginning so I can't accept that paganism was before God.

I know what your saying, people were not called Christians until later on:

26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

But thats just because their group name became "Christians" were as before they were called believers or followers. God has always been here, nothing came before him. The word Christian wasn't used until later on but as I said, Adam was a follower of God because he actually walked and talked with him.

How do you explain the proven fact that we are approx 98% identical genetically to chimps?

Please don't tell me you think we come from chimps based on that sentence? This does NOT prove that we have evolved at all. Im no DNA expert by any means but it makes perfect sense that we are similiar to all living things because God made us all - we have the same designer! eg. our organs are 99% similiar to pigs.. 80% the same as a banana.. 93% with a cauliflour.

Not my words:

Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air–cooled, flat, horizontally–opposed, 4–cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:18–23).

If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!

We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans,1 so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.

Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.

What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are ‘read’ by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. Chimp DNA has not been anywhere near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (using a lot of computer time to do it—imagine comparing two sets of 1000 large books, sentence by sentence, for similarities and differences!).

Where did the ‘97% similarity’ come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re–form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA.2 However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology).3 Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the ‘melting’ curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data ‘on faith’. Sarich et al.4 obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies.5 Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error—averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size.6 If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.7

Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:

There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

Or why the human brain has been found to have layers....the middle layer being the most ancient and identical to a primate brain?

GG.. the middle layer of our brains is for our emotions, identity and values. That sentence you quoted has absolutely no factual info in it at all, its only a theory.

How do you explain the skeletal remains found that are proven to be 100's of thousands of years old that are human?

Thats a bit general isn't it Which skeleton exactly are you talking about?

How do you explain the stars in the sky that are millions of years old?

Yeah I've read alot of theories on that but im not sure about it to be honest. I don't think it has been explored enough from a Christian point of view. But from what I have looked at regarding the planets is that saturns rings and the earths magnetic fields are decaying so quickly, they couldn't have been millions of years old.

I think its fair to say, that neither of us are experts and to be honest, we can only believe these people to a degree. I don't want to get into a copying / pasting war with these random "points"