Organized Religion

[Guest SP-1]

Brush:

 

The Bible does mention great lizards and beasts. It's entirely concievable that the Dinosaurs were around during some of the earlier biblical accounts. Remember that the belief that a meteor impact wiped them out is still theory and has not been out and out proven. There are many theories about what happened to the Dinos, and scientists don't have it nailed down. Neither do we. Christianity has accepted they were there, and knows about as much as what happened and who else was around as science does. One doesn't discount the other in any capacity.

 

With the Flood, the world was at a point where God could find only one Righteous man's family: Moses. The rest of the world was literally just down and out, wallowing in it's sin. So, God, sticking with the covenant he had made earlier, carried out the punishment that sin carries with it. He didn't sentence the innocent, however, and delivered his judgement fairly. Remember, Christ hadn't done his thing yet so, temporally, God was sticking to the covenant he had made. He called Noah, and Noah agreed to do what God asked. God didn't have to ask Noah, but God recognized Noah's righteousness and saved him from the catastrophe to follow, and had Noah save enough animals to be able to procreate and keep their species alive. One common misconception is that Noah had two of EVERY animal on the Earth. Not true. Noah merely needed two of each of the animals that couldn't survive a flood like that. Sea animals could, and many animals with flight could as well.

 

As for my own experience, I had a prior experience before with demonic agents. They operate differently, and appear under a different guise. For starters, I was a Christian at the time. Since the Holy Spirit lives inside of me, I'm armed with the ability to discern between the good and the bad, spiritually. Second, an earlier encounter with a demon gave me the experience needed to further recognize it. Third, I was praying in Christ to God when it happened and the circumstances were in the middle of recieving a gift. He revealed himself in acknowledgement of bestowing a spiritual gift upon me. His face wasn't the white Jesus or the Black Jesus that people stupidly fight over. His build was more middle-eastern, and my soul was shaken with the power that was in his smile. My eyes clenched shut and my brow quaked and my tears ran hot for a moment.

 

I didn't just dream about some surfer Jesus or some Brotha Jesus. I experienced Jesus Christ as I prayed, he touched my heart and soul and it's something that I'll never forget. You can laugh, you can say what you will. You don't have to believe it for myself or the person I was praying with to know it to be true. It was a direct and, I believe, blatant mirror of an earlier experience with the devil when I was in my "spirit guide" phase, designed to show me how different and powerful God truly is when he contacts you. How do I know I wasn't decieved? Because I was decieved similarly before. And it was nothing like the grandeur and power of Jesus Christ when he really shows up.

[Guest Lord of The Curry]

*Marks for the idea of J-Christ duking it out with a T-Rex*

Edited June 22, 2003 by Lord of The Curry

[Guest Cancer Marney]

One common misconception is that Noah had two of EVERY animal on the Earth. Not true. Noah merely needed two of each of the animals that couldn't survive a flood like that. Sea animals could, and many animals with flight could as well.

Sleep with the Fishes

 

Now, the seas are teeming with all forms of sea life. We know the oceans are salty, and rainfall is fresh water. This isn't anything new, next time it rains, go outside and taste some rainwater. Go ahead. Taste some. It's fresh! 5.5 miles of fresh water and the water in the ocean would mix into a brackish mess, effectively killing all sea animals, both fresh water and salt. Let's also consider the immense pressure the sudden addition of that much water would be subjected to all sea life.

 

Seriously, are you illiterate or just stupid? There's no way "sea animals" would have survived. Fish can drown too. NOTHING could have survived a flood like that. Even the Bible says so.

 

And with that much water coming down, do you really think that birds could FLY? Do you know how much feathers weigh when they're wet? More. Much more. Over 300% more, in fact. And given that the rain lasted for days, do you think that the birds could've been flying the ENTIRE time? How about insects? Hell, one of every insect in the world would fill up the entire ark - but not for long. Some insects die in less than a day. So was the ark a giant entomological orgy as well?

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

SP, do you take Noah's Ark literally, as in it actually happened?

[Guest SP-1]

Yes, Spicy, I do. I take the Bible literally. It's the inspired Word of God and nothing less.

 

Marney, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'll look through it. No, I'm neither illiterate or stupid, but thanks for asking. Neither am I a doctor in geological studies or marine life. I did phrase that badly as it's more of an idea than a proven fact, and I'll be more careful how I phrase things in the future. Why I phrased it in that way, I don't have a clue.

[Guest SP-1]

Spicy, to expand:

 

I believe in the Bible as the literal history of creation and the bloodline leading to David and thus Jesus Christ, and as a prophetic work pointing to the end of the world as we know it and Christ establishing the New Kingdom, etc.

 

I believe that everything in the Bible has a base, unchanging truth of some kind, the application of which differs from time to time to person to person depending on the circumstances they are in when they read it, what the Spirit reveals to them in those circumstances, and when in their life they are in that process. The truth of something can be applied differently. But the truth is still there.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

A couple things about the global flood...

 

One, species change and become extinct every day. We couldn't really judge what animals were on the ark and what they were like with modern biology. And then, the Bible is off about a few things regarding animals... it says bats are birds, for example, and that locusts have four legs. This is in the time of Moses, by the way, well after the flood.

 

There's plenty of scientific evidence that there was no global flood, but here's a bit of more practical reverence: the Egyptians have records dating back to more than a thousand years before this flood supposedly happened, by the 6000 year old earth timeline, and they have no reference to any global flood at all. They were already using irrigation and calculating the annual flooding of the Nile at that time as well, so they were well in tune with floods and their effects.

 

For the record, I don't believe in the flood as described in the Bible, I just think it's something interesting to converse about.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

One common misconception is that Noah had two of EVERY animal on the Earth.  Not true.  Noah merely needed two of each of the animals that couldn't survive a flood like that.  Sea animals could, and many animals with flight could as well.

Sleep with the Fishes

 

Now, the seas are teeming with all forms of sea life. We know the oceans are salty, and rainfall is fresh water. This isn't anything new, next time it rains, go outside and taste some rainwater. Go ahead. Taste some. It's fresh! 5.5 miles of fresh water and the water in the ocean would mix into a brackish mess, effectively killing all sea animals, both fresh water and salt. Let's also consider the immense pressure the sudden addition of that much water would be subjected to all sea life.

 

Seriously, are you illiterate or just stupid? There's no way "sea animals" would have survived. Fish can drown too. NOTHING could have survived a flood like that. Even the Bible says so.

 

And with that much water coming down, do you really think that birds could FLY? Do you know how much feathers weigh when they're wet? More. Much more. Over 300% more, in fact. And given that the rain lasted for days, do you think that the birds could've been flying the ENTIRE time? How about insects? Hell, one of every insect in the world would fill up the entire ark - but not for long. Some insects die in less than a day. So was the ark a giant entomological orgy as well?

I know this has been put to bed, but from my palaeontological background I can say that the flood, as described in the bible, would not nesecarily have caused the extinction of birds and insects. The flood would have caused a vast amount of driftwood, etc, causing small islands for birds and insects to settle on. The carcasses of land animals would have been enough for them to survive on for 40 days.

Also, the massive influx of fresh water would not neccesarily cause all sea life to die. Sea water is layered in its salinity, i.e different depths have different salinities. I think it becomes more saline with depth, but I might be wrong.Over a period of time, which for obvious reasons it impossible to calculate, different saline levels would re-emerge, and as a result it would be possible for animals to live in a different saline level. In addition the rainfall would cause the mixing of sea waters from different depths causing saline-rich brines to be released into the surface water.

The real question is whether animals would be able to rapidly adapt to these cataclysmically new conditions for such a short period of time. But thats a question for a zoologist. Any takers.

 

P.S., I am aware of the irony of a palaeontologist argueing for the possibility of Noah's flood.

[chaosrage 0]

sorry, that's not the case.  god is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," and even though nothing could possibly be greater than him by definition, certain things ARE neccesary and unavoidable.  to say that NOTHING is impossible to god is to assume this same "supralogical" god about whom it makes no sense to talk, in response to JotW's post. 

 

I'm not the one who said "With God, all things are possible". That's from the bible. If they meant something else, then they should have said something else.

 

there are limits on his power.  some are logical limits: god can't make 2,2=5, he can't destroy himself or make another being as powerful as he is, etc.  some are limits by his very nature: he can't make himself NOT know any true fact about the world, because that goes against his omniscience; by the same token, he can't go against his omnibenevolence. 

 

Omnipotence means limitless power. If God can't make 2+2 = 5 or make squared circles, then he isn't omnipotent. Is it impossible? You bet. Just like making someone rise from the dead like a zombie, or being human and not human at the same time, or creating the universe out of nothing is impossible.

 

Even if you were to just say God is mostly powerful, you're still not going to make me believe he can create the universe and can't make food fall from the sky to feed starving countries. Why doesn't he?

 

it SHOULD affect your belief in him, because if you believe in a "god" that is evil, you're not believing in god, because it just doesn't fit the definition that people use. that's like saying, "i believe a car exists that has no engine, no wheels, no seats, no frame, and is not used for transportation"--you're not talking about a car anymore, because you're taking away the qualities that make it a car. in the same way, if you talk about an evil judeo-christian god, you're not talking about god anymore because you're taking away an essential quality that makes him god.

 

If most people in the world called the Big Show a good wrestler, and you said he wasn't, that wouldn't mean you're not talking about the same person, would it? It would mean that they're wrong and you're right, or they're right and you're wrong. Just because someone can read about God killing people in the flood or sending plagues down to kill every first-born child and somehow get love out of it doesn't mean that's the way it is or that's the way it's even supposed to be read.

 

as i understand it, you're pointing to various violent acts of terrible suffering that seem to serve no greater good whatsoever (gratuitous evil) and saying that if god existed, he would prevent these acts. if i'm misunderstanding you, then please correct me, but this is essentially the form of every "problem of evil" argument i've read and it seems to fit what you're saying.

 

While I did say that too, this was about various violent acts of terrible suffering that God himself committed in the bible. The bible was written in a barbaric time and it reflects on it, like any other literature from the era.

 

if you can't see any greater good coming out of this suffering, and no one can illustrate any greater good coming from it, then you have a perfectly rational basis for not believing in god.

however, this will not win an argument over the theist, and for this reason:

our minds are very limited, and we know very little. god knows EVERYTHING. there's an insurmountable gap between what greater good WE can think of from a terrible act, and what greater good GOD can think of from a terrible act. taking this into account, the fact that WE can't explain some evils in the world doesn't really prove a thing, because there's an infinite amount of explanations we haven't thought of; and just because we haven't thought of them, doesn't mean they're not there (and hence, known by god, since god knows all).

 

The main problem I have is if God is ALL-powerful, and ALL-good, then everything in the universe must also be ALL-good. But it's not. If he was perfect, everything in the universe that happens must be the way he obviously intended for it to happen. With suffering and evil and HHH and everything. Not only that, but it says he created evil. I don't understand the contradictions people have with it either. If you take out all bad from the world, how can that possibly be... bad? Does not compute. What about eternal suffering? Wouldn't it more merciful just to wink people out of existance?

 

that's why i said the results of the problem of evil have always been inconclusive, it ends in a stalemate. the atheist is perfectly rational in not believing in god, since the theist can't provide an explanation; and the theist is perfectly rational in continuing to believe, since he doesn't HAVE to provide an explanation.

 

Again though, that's kind of like saying, at least to me, that Hitler IS good because he MAY have had reasons to kill millions that we don't know about. You can believe that and have faith in it if you want, but come on, that's not in any way rational. Even when I was a christian, I never thought it was anything close to that.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

How about feeding 2 of every animal in 40 days? Where do you store that much food? How would the birds survive 40 days w/o food?

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

Even if you were to just say God is mostly powerful, you're still not going to make me believe he can create the universe and can't make food fall from the sky to feed starving countries. Why doesn't he?

 

Not to sound insensitive, but think of the can of worms that would open. He gives food to them and think of all the stuck up, self centered idiots that would be all "what about me? Give me food"

 

Pretty soon we won't do anything for ourselves cause we'll expect God to do everything for us. Soon the whole world will fall into Laziness.

 

I think God is waiting for us to start bringing food to the hungry. After all he asked us to do it. It would be more accepted if we did it as opposed to God singling them out for food delivery.

 

God asked "us" to bring food to the hungry. We're the ones who are falling down on the job.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

But God created us. So really, isn't he ultimately failing?

[Guest JudasSault]

I ain't touching this thread with a ten foot barge pole.

[chaosrage 0]

Even if you were to just say God is mostly powerful, you're still not going to make me believe he can create the universe and can't make food fall from the sky to feed starving countries. Why doesn't he?

 

Not to sound insensitive, but think of the can of worms that would open. He gives food to them and think of all the stuck up, self centered idiots that would be all "what about me? Give me food"

 

Pretty soon we won't do anything for ourselves cause we'll expect God to do everything for us. Soon the whole world will fall into Laziness.

 

I think God is waiting for us to start bringing food to the hungry. After all he asked us to do it. It would be more accepted if we did it as opposed to God singling them out for food delivery.

 

God asked "us" to bring food to the hungry. We're the ones who are falling down on the job.

You wouldn't let your kids starve to death just so they wouldn't be lazy though. So why would he? He knows what's going to happen before he even "asks us" and we try to help. Even if he didn't, it'd still be pretty idiotic to use the same plan after hundreds and thousands of years of failure. Change it already.

[Guest SP-1]

God does send food to the hungry. Through his people and their missions work. It may not make the six o'clock news every night, but right now there are Christians all over the world risking their lives to help aid the sick, hungry, and dying. With the Holy Spirit in us, we are the way God deals with those things. He once rained Manna down from the sky to feed the Jews wandering in the desert. Today, Christians are at work to bring spiritual and physical nourishment to people all over the world. Don't hold God responsible for governments that mishandle their resources and oppress their people into being poor, or for war-torn countries torn apart by our petty battles.

 

It's all too easy to find something to point a finger at God about. But the real question is why aren't you looking for a way to help these people? Donate time to charities, or soup kitchens. Join a team to travel to a third world country and help people get back on their feet. And while you're there, look around at the success that the Christian groups that came before left in their wake, and the blessings God is giving people through their present work.

 

Don't expect someone else to feed you. If you're child is hungry, yes you feed it. God will provide you the food. But you have to feed the child.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

So if God sends food through his missionaries, does that mean he sends death as well?

 

"Golly Gee No, God does only good, it only works one way, no no no, he doesn't do bad at all."

[Guest SP-1]

Sends death, how?

 

If you mean Missionaries getting killed in other countries? Yeah, it happens. Death isn't a fear for the Christian, though, so it's more of a secondary concern, really. If you're saying that Missionaries go over and kill people or something, I've not heard of it happening under thebanner of a bible-believing Christian movement. Fanatics and non-Christian cults, perhaps, but I've not heard of Missionaries opening fire somewhere in the name of Christ.

[chaosrage 0]

God does send food to the hungry.  Through his people and their missions work.  It may not make the six o'clock news every night, but right now there are Christians all over the world risking their lives to help aid the sick, hungry, and dying. 

 

We send food to the hungry. Some of them claim they're doing it for God. God himself does nothing, he just sits on his ass and watches.

 

With the Holy Spirit in us, we are the way God deals with those things. 

 

I know you think that. The point is it's not solving the problem. Tens of thousands of people still die from starvation each year. Saying that God tries to help but can't just makes him look incompetent. Never mind that god being omniscient KNEW beforehand that billions of people would starve, but he still set things up this way anyway.

 

He once rained Manna down from the sky to feed the Jews wandering in the desert. 

 

Is there any particular reason why he can't do this now?

 

Today, Christians are at work to bring spiritual and physical nourishment to people all over the world.  Don't hold God responsible for governments that mishandle their resources and oppress their people into being poor, or for war-torn countries torn apart by our petty battles.

 

I don't believe in God of course, so I'm not holding anyone responsible. But if there is a god that created everybody and designed them from scratch and those people do bad things, well you figure it out. Mishandle their resources? Some countries don't have many resources to mishandle. Whose fault is that?

 

It's all too easy to find something to point a finger at God about.  But the real question is why aren't you looking for a way to help these people?  Donate time to charities, or soup kitchens.  Join a team to travel to a third world country and help people get back on their feet.  And while you're there, look around at the success that the Christian groups that came before left in their wake, and the blessings God is giving people through their present work.

 

Wow. Not only isn't that the question, it's about as far as you can get from the question. It's doesn't matter what I do or don't do, it's irrelevant, how would you know anyway? People are attempting to solve the problem (and have been since the beginning of time) but it's simply beyond our scope. And the people who do nothing aren't behaving any differently than god. Some hoard billions, but that's because God created greed. You can't lay the blame on humans and not God as well. That wouldn't make the slightest bit of sense.

 

Don't expect someone else to feed you.  If you're child is hungry, yes you feed it.  God will provide you the food.  But you have to feed the child.

 

If I was omnipotent, I would be able to feed everyone, but I'm not. God is. I don't have control over anyone but myself.

[Guest SP-1]

I wasn't pointing the finger at you specifically, sorry if you took it that way. It was a wide ranging question. God's always done things using the resources and people here on earth, unless it was something requiring divine intervention or else. In the case of Manna, the Jews were wandering in the desert for somewhere around 40 years, IIRC. No food, little water, mostly sand.

 

With most countries today, there are two extremes. Wealthy. And dirt poor. The resources are there, we live in a world connected more or less completely with the advent of wireless communications and speedy worldwide travel. The larger, wealthy countries (including the United States), are more than capable of helping keep the poorer countries around them at least afloat as far as the food situation. War, petty political squabbles, and oftentimes just flat out greed keep it from happening. It's the way of the world.

 

God's people, Christians, the Ambassadors of Christ, do hold a responsibility to try and work towards spreading what wealth we can to these places. We are the way God works in the world, for the most part. God's also not the only force at work in the world these days, and there are many places the Devil has a strong grip on in the absence of Christianity. God's working towards getting His people everywhere, taking the gospel to all nations, and bringing the kind of medical aid needed, including food.

 

There have been poor and starving people well before now and it's not a new problem. God just didn't decide to stop blessing one day. He's always at work. There's more aid going out than you would think. There's going to be some problem somewhere. It's the nature of the human world, fallen and jaded by sin. Hunger is a problem. So is rape. Crime in general. God doesn't usually come down and smack around a rapist or a terrorist directly. But he handles justice in His way and time, using the earthly resources and people available.

[Guest The Metal Maniac]

He didn't sentence the innocent, however

 

Oh? There wasn't a single infant child on the entire planet at this time, nor a single pregnant woman? Interesting.

 

(Yes, I realize I'm being anal and picky, so you needn't point that out.)

[chaosrage 0]

He didn't sentence the innocent, however

 

Oh? There wasn't a single infant child on the entire planet at this time, nor a single pregnant woman? Interesting.

 

(Yes, I realize I'm being anal and picky, so you needn't point that out.)

You're not being picky. If you believe the flood, he killed all children, infants, and animals. Damn them for not pleasing God!

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

God of the Old Testament was a hardcore motherfucker. Killing babies wouldn't be so out of character for him. And let's not forget Noah getting drunk and exposing himself, or even Lot offering his virgin daughters to be raped, the same daughters who later got him drunk so he would kock them up. These are the people God wanted to save.

[chaosrage 0]

I wasn't pointing the finger at you specifically, sorry if you took it that way.  It was a wide ranging question.  God's always done things using the resources and people here on earth, unless it was something requiring divine intervention or else.  In the case of Manna, the Jews were wandering in the desert for somewhere around 40 years, IIRC.  No food, little water, mostly sand. 

 

But it's still irrelevant. Whether or not humans can solve this problem doesn't really matter. We AREN'T solving the problem. God's solution is NO solution. It isn't working and it never has. Can't he think of something that will work? As for Manna, you didn't answer me if there was any reason why he can't or shouldn't do it now to prevent people from dying or not. I know I can't think of any. What's the downside?

 

With most countries today, there are two extremes.  Wealthy.  And dirt poor.  The resources are there, we live in a world connected more or less completely with the advent of wireless communications and speedy worldwide travel.  The larger, wealthy countries (including the United States), are more than capable of helping keep the poorer countries around them at least afloat as far as the food situation.  War, petty political squabbles, and oftentimes just flat out greed keep it from happening.  It's the way of the world.

 

I'm not saying that's not true. I'm saying he created this way of the world. He created greed. He made his creations have to eat each other for energy, so they must cause suffering and pain in order to live. He made people have to fight each other over a limited amount of resources since the beginning of time. "That's the way of the world" is an evolutionist point of view, because nature is cruel. Natural selection kills off the weak and evolution favors self-preservation. Let's not even get into why God would need to create natural disasters and diseases.

 

God's people, Christians, the Ambassadors of Christ, do hold a responsibility to try and work towards spreading what wealth we can to these places.  We are the way God works in the world, for the most part.  God's also not the only force at work in the world these days, and there are many places the Devil has a strong grip on in the absence of Christianity.  God's working towards getting His people everywhere, taking the gospel to all nations, and bringing the kind of medical aid needed, including food.

 

Well if it is our job to feed the world and we're not doing it, a caring god would find an alternate way to feed these people. If he gave a shit about them at all I mean.

 

There have been poor and starving people well before now and it's not a new problem.  God just didn't decide to stop blessing one day.  He's always at work.  There's more aid going out than you would think.  There's going to be some problem somewhere.  It's the nature of the human world, fallen and jaded by sin.  Hunger is a problem.  So is rape.  Crime in general.  God doesn't usually come down and smack around a rapist or a terrorist directly.  But he handles justice in His way and time, using the earthly resources and people available.

 

Again, why doesn't he? If you watch a murderer kill someone and don't do anything, is it okay if I watch you stand by and not do anything because you're capable of stopping it? His way of handling justice sucks. It lets innocent people get killed while he has the power to instantly stop it and decides not to.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

chaos,

How do you know your definition of evil is the same as God's? You continually cite innocent people dying as proof of God's lack of benevolence. How do you know that really is the worst thing that could happen?

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

You're being selective SP: How come it is only when something good is done in the name of god is it "truly" from God? Yet anything bad is shrugged off as "fanaticsm" or "non-Christian".

[Guest SP-1]

RRR, I've seen you mockingly say that, "God never does evil, nonono," so don't expect me to sit and quarrel with you. Why do I believe evil doesn't come from God? Because it doesn't. He may allow something to happen to achieve a greater good down the road as a result but evil actions are the work of sin, and the devil. not God. In the book of Job, it opens with a dialogue between God and the Devil where the devil goes before God and schemes about Job, a righteous man. God says he'll allow Satan to do some things in Job's life. God did this to prove a point to the Devil (and to the biblical reader), that God is in control but he's not making evil itself. Job, in the end, prospered greatly and was well blessed for withstanding the malicious assault.

 

People are so quick to point the finger at God and forget about the devil. Which, honestly, is exactly what the devil wants.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

And who created the Devil? Satan is and always has been a servant of God.

[Guest SP-1]

Is? No.

 

There was a time when Lucifer was serving God. He is a created being, an angel (not an opposite and equal God, not by ANY means). Somewhere along the way, he got prideful and pursuaded around a third of the angels to try and help him make war on Heaven. God wasn't having it, though, so He swiftly kicked them out. Lucifer, now hating God, prowls around trying to drag God's beloved mankind down with him. The incident is described in Revelations, along with the birth of Christ, in a non-linear, eternal perspective of it all kind of happening at once in Heaven. On Earth, it manifested in the beginning when Lucifer decieved Adam and Eve and the Fall happened. Eternally, the birth of Christ to bring salvation was already in motion. Something that I love about God and the way things work in our linear, earthly realm.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Same tired old bullshit as always. Do you even know what the word "satan" means?

[Guest SP-1]

There was a time when Lucifer was serving God. He is a created being, an angel (not an opposite and equal God, not by ANY means). Somewhere along the way, he got prideful and pursuaded around a third of the angels to try and help him make war on Heaven. God wasn't having it, though, so He swiftly kicked them out. Lucifer, now hating God, prowls around trying to drag God's beloved mankind down with him. The incident is described in Revelations, along with the birth of Christ, in a non-linear, eternal perspective of it all kind of happening at once in Heaven. On Earth, it manifested in the beginning when Lucifer decieved Adam and Eve and the Fall happened. Eternally, the birth of Christ to bring salvation was already in motion. Something that I love about God and the way things work in our linear, earthly realm.

 

When getting biblical, I usually use his name or call him simple, the devil. But yes. 'Satan' is a hebrew word meaning 'an enemy'.