A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

clark · 2004-04-19 09:28:45

The premise that your belief is based upon a single book which informs the context and content of your faith is largely suspect.

I believe in Santa Claus becuase I read the Christmas Carol, and every year, without explanation, He leaves me presents under the Christmas tree. Of course, when I am bad, he leaves a lump of coal in my stocking.

I believe in Christ becuase I read the bible, and every day, without explanation, He is watching me. He knows when I've been bad or good, He knows when I'm awake... well, you get the idea.

Maybe there is a god, maybe there isn't. Maybe your god is the god, or maybe it ain't. You have a book. An old book. A good book, but a book, written by men, many many years after the death of the principal figure, based on the recollections of the principals teachings.

Perhaps the universe is only 6,000 years old, and perhaps the sky is pink. Yet when all is said and done, many others look to all the other counter evidence that suggest that book upon which you base your assessment is incorrect in concluding that creation is only a few millenia old.

As for me, I'll just wait for Santa Claus, you wait for the Second Coming. [shrug]

Bill White · 2004-04-19 09:45:07

Its the Biblical chronoliges added up, of course theres no evidence for anyone before Abraham mentioned in the Bible to be real person.
Yes, a famous bible scholar added up the dates and came up with 4004 BC as the year in which the world was created. Actually, determining the creation year according to the bible is not all that hard because a large portion of Genesis is just a list of how old people were before they had their first son, so you just add up those numbers.
I have to warn New Mars, ikester is known for spreading false information, propaganda, spamming, flaming, and resistance to *gasp* learning!
If he acts like that he can be dealt with. But he deserves a chance to show he can act reasonably before you start flaming him.

A fellow who once was Bishop of Usher claims to have calculated the exact day. I found it on google a few months ago but cannot now find the link.

Anyway, supposedly, the first day of the world was in October.

Let me find it again and if anyone wants to come to Chicago next fall, I will host a party.

clark · 2004-04-19 10:11:36

A little help from our friends...

[http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/ussher/errors.html]http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/ussher/errors.html

According to 17th-century bishop James Ussher, the exact date of Creation could be determined by calculating the lifespans of Old Testament patriarchs. Ussher's conclusion that the earth began on October 23, 4004 B.C. was accepted throughout Christendom for centuries.

An expert in Semitic languages, Archbishop Ussher also studied Chaldean history and the astronomical canon to reach his conclusions.

Others have gone on since then to calculate the exact time of creation, i.e. 9:00 AM. (Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge in the 19th century refined the calculations and arrived at 4004-OCT-23 BCE, at 9 AM. )

Oh yeah, the world is flat, and the sun and stars revolve around the Earth.

Mundaka · 2004-04-19 13:51:26

Bill White · 2004-04-19 14:18:35

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at scienceand concluded, “This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said; grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed”? A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth the reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.
CARL SAGAN,
Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space, 1994

Whenever a fundie (whether a theistic fundie or an atheistic fundie) demands that we choose: God or Darwin, and says it can't be both, I am bewildered by their lack of faith.

IMHO if indeed we humans are the descendants of slime mold, lungfish and apes, and God Almighty loves us anyways, well doesn't that make God even more glorious than we had thought before?

Why would God be diminished in any way even if Darwin and Hawking being 100% correct about evolution and cosmology? Are they 100% correct? Of course not, but why does it matter?

A terrific book on this subject is titled [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de … ce&s=books]God's Funeral by A.N. Wilson. It recounts the struggles in the late 19th century and early 20th century concerning science and religion and is titled after an awesome poem by a poet named Hardy.

Link to the Thomas Hardy poem is [http://www.absolutelypoetry.com/cgi-bin … .pl?001082]here. Warning, pop-ups with the free text.

clark · 2004-04-19 14:30:38

Blindmen looking for rainbows, all of us.

Bill White · 2004-04-19 14:36:18

Blindmen looking for rainbows, all of us.

Ya' pays your money and makes your choice. . .

clark · 2004-04-19 15:32:17

Buddhism then. Your first spin isn't necessarily your last...

Mundaka · 2004-04-19 16:51:27

clark · 2004-04-19 17:01:34

I salute you Mundaka. When I close my eyes, I sometimes see it, but it vanishes before I am ever sure.

That's just me though. Enlightenment is funny that way.

Alt2War · 2004-04-19 17:11:28

Somewhere in the Bible -- now where is that passage again? -- its made plain that a day for God is not what it is for man, which makes sense to me, and answers your last question.

You are no longer being literal, but interpritive.

I have no argument against interpritive approaches to genisis at this time. Those who seek spiritual truths from Genisis through interpritive means require nobodys permission.

It is the literal interpritation that I see as folly, for it only hides the spiritual truth.

To express the literal interpritation of a poorly translated text, where the origional was written in perhaps the most vaguest and mutable languages on earth as knowledge, is reprehensible.

Perhaps I could use the Bible to explain why

The Second Commandment is No Graven Images.

Now why would God place Graven Images in his Number 2 spot, above murder, theft and porking your nrighbors wife?

Well, god cant be afraid of a few little wooden carvings can he? How could that hurt him?

Well, we see right now that very problem before us, and it's consequences.

Most religions have mediums for spiritual exploration, be it a place, a thing, a book, a symbol, or a song. Through these medium those seeking it may find a spark of wisdom or extacy.

The Wisdom or Extacy comes from within us, and the mediums serve as totems or mantras to help us find them.

The danger is that when in the process of using spiritual mediums the user may, out of ignorance, see not themselves (or divine depending on flavor, same difference) as the origin of the experience or insight, but the Medium.

When the Medium is given precidence over the spark that was once channeled through it, it becomes tainted.

These christians need to stop worshiping the bible, treating the paper and binding and ink as holy, and instead follow the second commandment and place more value on the wisdom and experiences that can be gained though them.

When you take the bible literally, you stop it from being a vehicle of insight and turn it into a roadmap to ignornace.

Blaphemous I'd say

Whew.. no more bible stuff for me for a while.

ikester7579 · 2004-04-20 00:52:24

Obviously there is no room for debate as you are completely closed minded.
Perhaps you could clear somthing up for me, As the sun was not created until the 4th day... How was a Day defined?
Without a sun, how can one have a day?
Did step 1-3 of creation take exactly 24 hours each?
Or is the term "Day" used by god metiphoricly as a representation of a arbitrary amount of time?

No not closed minded, just tried of the same old arguements that end up with the same answers and the same bias. In a sense, nothing about creation and God's word will ever be accepted by science. And if you don't think so, then name one theory that mentions God, or supports God.

ikester7579 · 2004-04-20 01:05:42

Also, does a one day need the sun? Time was created before the sun existed. And light was created before any object that produced light (such as the sun and moon). And since God is light, the light mentioned came from Him until the objects that produced light where created. And since anything that comes from God directly is not objected to a time and distance barrier as we know it (because God is eternal), The whole universe would have been lit up by the light that came from God. All the way to the end and back. When applying how something happened in creation. You have to remember that God was not hindered in anyway by time. And because we know nothing about the realm of eternity that He lives in, as far as how we precieve time, It can only be presumed that God being eternal, in his realm, gave God enough time, in our realm, to do what was needed to create everything in 6 days our time as we precieve it.
And if you don't think so. Then answer this question. How is time calculated in the eternal (if that is possible)? And if you can't answer that question, then the scientific answer for 6 day creation cannot be answered by science until such is testable. And to presume as much as science has already, without the knowlege of eternity, means it all could be wrong and God could be right.
Because to say something is wrong when it's not testable, is to only guess at what is observable. Which is how science came up with all that it has already.
But what if all of a sudden, we could test eternity? Some theories, I think, would have to be rewritten.

ikester7579 · 2004-04-20 01:16:46

Obviously there is no room for debate as you are completely closed minded.
Perhaps you could clear somthing up for me, As the sun was not created until the 4th day... How was a Day defined?
Without a sun, how can one have a day?
Did step 1-3 of creation take exactly 24 hours each?
Or is the term "Day" used by god metiphoricly as a representation of a arbitrary amount of time?
Well Alt, on this one I both agree and disagree with you: on the one hand, I was willing to defend YAC because they didn't seem to be here to defend themselves and because the comments made about them were snide, unsolicited and superior -- bullyish.
But now we have a YAC rep who appears not only to be defending himself, but to be worming his way onto this board in order to turn it into his own recruiting tool -- NOT the intent of the board. Whether or not I'm wrong will be shown by their actions, and whether or not they attempt to spread their faith here. I'm willing to defend Fundies as long as they don't take advantage of my actions. (Not that witnessing is bad, just don't do it in an underhanded manner. Whether or not they are, well, we'll see.)
On the other hand this is freechat, so If you want to nip this in the bud, rather than attacking another point of view for simply being here I would suggest bailing on the thread -- I won't be back (way too much interesting stuff elsewhere on this board anyway.) Simple.
This would be a much better solution than for a bunch of close minded people to bash each other in public -- is anything this person says going to change your point of view or vice versa? -- with all the attendant bad juju of a flame war. (No insult intended there Alt: I admit to being somewhat close minded myself.) At any rate Dicktice might want to try bailing and be saved a serious rise in blood pressure.
About the Genesis question, lemmie have some fun and play Devil's advocate before I make a somewhat less than graceful exit: :;):
Somewhere in the Bible -- now where is that passage again? -- its made plain that a day for God is not what it is for man, which makes sense to me, and answers your last question. (I'm pretty sure a day on a planet in another solar system is not going to be of the same length as good old planet Earth, and even Mars is off by about a half hour -- and when man walked on the Moon was their day 24 hours or two weeks?)
So, by my way of thinking, nobody's ideology is threatened unless you blindly stick to dogma -- and I don't think God wants robots, but rather people who sin and repent, and struggle with issues of faith and truth, and come out ahead anyway, like Jacob did during a certain wrestling match.
I really don't see how God's glory has been diminished by science, especially astronomy, because every discovery has only shown what we always suspected to be true: the reality of the Universe is far beyond anything we could have imagined. Think of all the 16th, and 18th -- and 20th! -- century Catholics who were thrown into a state of doubt because their church insisted the the Sun went around the Earth. Does the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun lessen God? No. It lessens us, and a little humility is a good thing now and then -- in fact it may be the whole point.
As long as YAC is going to start preaching on this thread then they should consider this from one who defended you till now: your insistance on dogmatic religiosity -- and pride in your mastery of it -- rather than simple appreciation of and gratitude for the works and beauty of a God who far surpasses our imaginations, threatens the very faith -- and faithful -- you seek to defend. It damn near destroyed mine.

lol, It's YEC not YAC. And I did not worm my way here. You did not read how I got here on an earlier post I made. I suggest you read it

ikester7579 · 2004-04-20 01:33:28

I know what the next question is, so I'll go ahead and answer it. How does things date so old if the earth is so young?
Since we do not know all the things that happened for creation, I've come up with this answer.
What we test as old (millions or billions of years) is actually a by-product of quick creation.

Example: There are somethings that you can add radiation to and make it look and test older. Japan has come up with a way to make diamonds in about a week. Something that in nature takes years.

Just because something tests old, does not always mean it is old. During creation, God had the power to actually speak something into existence. Knowing this, would He have to wait millions or billions of years for a certain element to be at a state he needed for His creation right now?

Example: Imagine that you have the power to speak things into existence. What would be your limitations? Anything you wanted you could have, right? Now, what would be God's limitations to create in 6 days while having the power to speak anything into existence? Knowing that this power has no limitations, I see no problem with everything being created in 6 days.

Bill White · 2004-04-20 07:24:13

How many stars are there in the cosmos? Billions OF billions, correct?

How many descendants has Abraham been promised, by God, in the Book of Genesis?

How many human beings have been born since the time of Abraham?

Unless we spread human life beyond our one planet, its going to be a long, long, long, long time before Abraham will have been given sufficient descendants for God to have kept his promise.

= = =

Worry less about where we came from. 6,000 years or 12 billion years? Why does it matter? If science says 12 billion years, okay fine, so whats the big deal?

Worry more about where we are going.

Alt2War · 2004-04-20 07:39:31

Also, does a one day need the sun? Time was created before the sun existed. And light was created before any object that produced light (such as the sun and moon). And since God is light, the light mentioned came from Him until the objects that produced light where created. And since anything that comes from God directly is not objected to a time and distance barrier as we know it (because God is eternal), The whole universe would have been lit up by the light that came from God. All the way to the end and back. When applying how something happened in creation. You have to remember that God was not hindered in anyway by time. And because we know nothing about the realm of eternity that He lives in, as far as how we precieve time, It can only be presumed that God being eternal, in his realm, gave God enough time, in our realm, to do what was needed to create everything in 6 days our time as we precieve it.
And if you don't think so. Then answer this question. How is time calculated in the eternal (if that is possible)? And if you can't answer that question, then the scientific answer for 6 day creation cannot be answered by science until such is testable. And to presume as much as science has already, without the knowlege of eternity, means it all could be wrong and God could be right.
Because to say something is wrong when it's not testable, is to only guess at what is observable. Which is how science came up with all that it has already.
But what if all of a sudden, we could test eternity? Some theories, I think, would have to be rewritten.

Those look like a whole lot of interpritations inferred from, but not literally stated in, the bible.

looks like your not following your own creed.

God said, according to you, 6 days. Now literally a day is a day. Your interpriting a day in a context other than the literal meaning stated.

Where in Genisis does it say "On the 5th day (in the context of some sort of mumbo-jumbo about of eturnity, not actually a DAY per say) god created"

Nowhere.

You yourself are placing your own biases on the words of Genisis. You are not taking it literally, but figuratively.

Alt2War · 2004-04-20 07:41:03

How many stars are there in the cosmos? Billions OF billions, correct?
How many descendants has Abraham been promised, by God, in the Book of Genesis?
How many human beings have been born since the time of Abraham?
Unless we spread human life beyond our one planet, its going to be a long, long, long, long time before Abraham will have been given sufficient descendants for God to have kept his promise.
= = =
Worry less about where we came from. 6,000 years or 12 billion years? Why does it matter? If science says 12 billion years, okay fine, so whats the big deal?
Worry more about where we are going.

Perhaps it was cloudy that night.

Alt2War · 2004-04-20 07:42:34

I know what the next question is, so I'll go ahead and answer it. How does things date so old if the earth is so young?
Since we do not know all the things that happened for creation, I've come up with this answer.
What we test as old (millions or billions of years) is actually a by-product of quick creation.
Example: There are somethings that you can add radiation to and make it look and test older. Japan has come up with a way to make diamonds in about a week. Something that in nature takes years.
Just because something tests old, does not always mean it is old. During creation, God had the power to actually speak something into existence. Knowing this, would He have to wait millions or billions of years for a certain element to be at a state he needed for His creation right now?
Example: Imagine that you have the power to speak things into existence. What would be your limitations? Anything you wanted you could have, right? Now, what would be God's limitations to create in 6 days while having the power to speak anything into existence? Knowing that this power has no limitations, I see no problem with everything being created in 6 days.

Occum's Razor is coming for you.

clark · 2004-04-20 08:06:12

Ah, carbon dating... :laugh:

Here is, perhaps, a simple way to settle the issue of the age of the universe. If not, then at least we might understand that the universe is older than 6,000 years.

What is the speed of light?

How long does it take for light to travel from the sun to Earth?

Now, based on these two observable, and measurable events, can we not assume that light travels at a near constant speed over distance?

So, I ask you, and all others, if we know those bright and dim points of light that hang upon the black sky of night are distant suns; did all the stars in all the heavens only need 6,000 years for their light to reach, and be observed here on Earth by Man?

We know the speed of light. We know that for many of the stars that we see in our night sky, it has taken millions upon millions of years for their light to travel to reach us.

Seriously, you're entitled to believe what you want, but to claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old, because you think your ONE book tells you so, is pushing the limits of faith, if not good sense.

God gave you eyes, use them.

Alt2War · 2004-04-20 08:26:12

Ah, carbon dating... :laugh:
Here is, perhaps, a simple way to settle the issue of the age of the universe. If not, then at least we might understand that the universe is older than 6,000 years.
What is the speed of light?
How long does it take for light to travel from the sun to Earth?
Now, based on these two observable, and measurable events, can we not assume that light travels at a near constant speed over distance?
So, I ask you, and all others, if we know those bright and dim points of light that hang upon the black sky of night are distant suns; did all the stars in all the heavens only need 6,000 years for their light to reach, and be observed here on Earth by Man?
We know the speed of light. We know that for many of the stars that we see in our night sky, it has taken millions upon millions of years for their light to travel to reach us.
Seriously, you're entitled to believe what you want, but to claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old, because you think your ONE book tells you so, is pushing the limits of faith, if not good sense.
God gave you eyes, use them.

Dont you get it? God's tricking you to test your faith!

God created Dinosaur Bones, Carbon Isotopes, and light in motion for appearantly millions of years in the hopes of FOOLING you.

You see, the universe is not so beautiful at all, it's actually full of lies and tricks so that god could test you.

God prefers that we take a poorly translated book, JAM PACKED with double meanings and metaphors, and believe it as literal.

Sure it saps the beauty out of the universe, and we must infer that a large part of gods time and effort in creating the universe was spent in creating bullshit to fool the scientitsts and sceptics, but whos to question god, right?

bolbuyk · 2004-04-20 09:54:09

I KNEW you were going to insinuate this sort of biblical guff into your posts. You're obviously just making this up as you go along. Who needs your vapourings? For God's sake, cut the crap!

What is your problem with this? Every post is my own opinion, even as every post of you is your own opinion. I just explain what I think and defend what I believe. That's all. When somebody like it to make some comments on a web-page explaining creationism, then I just tell you what I think about it. That's a consequence of starting such topics.

BTW Maybe you where heavily surprised such Phyllis-like ghosts even were interested in Mars :laugh:

Bill White · 2004-04-20 10:10:09

How many stars are there in the cosmos? Billions OF billions, correct?
How many descendants has Abraham been promised, by God, in the Book of Genesis?
How many human beings have been born since the time of Abraham?
Unless we spread human life beyond our one planet, its going to be a long, long, long, long time before Abraham will have been given sufficient descendants for God to have kept his promise.
= = =
Worry less about where we came from. 6,000 years or 12 billion years? Why does it matter? If science says 12 billion years, okay fine, so whats the big deal?
Worry more about where we are going.
Perhaps it was cloudy that night.

13:16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.

and this

15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

Do clouds matter? Taken together this seems to say (literally) that Abraham will have as many descendants as there are stars in the sky (whether or not he can count them).

So much for Left Behind, no?

ikester7579 · 2004-04-20 15:12:50

I can see where this thread is going and your attitude about it. All the things you accuse me of doing in interpatations of God's word, you do yourself. The bias shows. You are saying: My interpatation is better than yours and none of what you say I'll never accept. That's fine with me. My views are here for all to read and to accept or not. But your views you push and push as the "only way, the only truth etc..." Sorry we all don't think like you.

Just like God gave all choices to choose whatever. I choose not to participate in this thread anymore. O I know you'll come up with something witty to say to get the last word. As a show to your friends here that you are superior lol. But, when the time comes, there will be someone that no one can out do. And when He judges us all, there will be no excuse for not believing what is written. It is what you call faith. And faith is not what you have. And for that, I'm truly sorry.

clark · 2004-04-20 15:16:35

I have faith in the Almighty, and I faith that you are sincerly wrong.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-04-19 09:28:45

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#52 2004-04-19 09:45:07

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#53 2004-04-19 10:11:36

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#54 2004-04-19 13:51:26

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#55 2004-04-19 14:18:35

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#56 2004-04-19 14:30:38

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#57 2004-04-19 14:36:18

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#58 2004-04-19 15:32:17

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#59 2004-04-19 16:51:27

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#60 2004-04-19 17:01:34

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#61 2004-04-19 17:11:28

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#62 2004-04-20 00:52:24

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#63 2004-04-20 01:05:42

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#64 2004-04-20 01:16:46

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#65 2004-04-20 01:33:28

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#66 2004-04-20 07:24:13

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#67 2004-04-20 07:39:31

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#68 2004-04-20 07:41:03

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#69 2004-04-20 07:42:34

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#70 2004-04-20 08:06:12

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#71 2004-04-20 08:26:12

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#72 2004-04-20 09:54:09

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#73 2004-04-20 10:10:09

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#74 2004-04-20 15:12:50

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#75 2004-04-20 15:16:35

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

Board footer