Melchisedec Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 (edited) [quote]is this really reality......in this realm there is truth and there is lies. Wouldnt reality be a realm in which everything is truth?[/quote] I dont know what you mean by lies? This is the only reality I've known and exist in, and are bound to the natural laws in it. [quote]How do you explain a man named jesus that walked the earth and went around preforming miracles calling himself the son of god?[/quote] I think that jesus was one of the many messiahs found in religion. I believe the supernatural events found in the bible never happened. Such as noahs flood ,genesis and many more. [quote] Wouldnt this be gods ultimate proof of his existence?[/quote] The problem is god left so many religions to choose from. So you have to basicly wager on which religion is correct, and thats when faith comes into play. [quote] Or do you believe it is a phony? If so, please explain.[/quote] I believe its folklore and I have things I take into account. The bible was written by many men, and even more men were responsible for assembling it. Now we must have faith that all of these writers , and people involved in the process were working through god. That is something which cannot be proven. That is something in which you either believe or you dont. I'm not even including what I belive to be a direct borrowing of ancient pagan beleifs. Let me not get started about the injustice I find in it (1 Sam. 15:2) Now we have many religions that exist, and many that contain miracles and messiahs. In Islam, the messiah oversaw (supposedly) the creation of their holy book. I mean, imagine if jesus wrote the bible. Islam claims to be a final fullfillment of all the previous gospels. And we haven't even gotten started with eastern religions. Or modern beliefs like scientology. You ever wonder how people could believe in something conceived by a science fiction author? We have seemingly intelligent people who are devout scientologist. They have faith in the man. You have to decide, if you have the faith. Edited April 15, 2005 by Melchisedec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinitelord1 Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 melchesdec, a lie is the opposite of the truth......if someone were to tell you that 2+2=7 what would you classify this as? you are right.....there are many religions but they are all not of god. Only a few. In no other religions has there been a man who claimed to be the son of god and prooved it through miracles. please let me in on some of those things that say jesus' miracles were folklore. Give me reference too. What is the shroud of turan to you? That is pretty amazing. The blood type.....they angles in which radiation (from jesus) in some sense x rayed his features onto cloth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchisedec Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 (edited) [quote]you are right.....there are many religions but they are all not of god. Only a few. [/quote] What led you to believe that? [quote] In no other religions has there been a man who claimed to be the son of god and prooved it through miracles.[/quote] Thats something you believe out of faith. No other conclusive evidence than the bible itself to support it. [quote]please let me in on some of those things that say jesus' miracles were folklore. Give me reference too.[/quote] [i]Folklore:The traditional beliefs, myths, tales, and practices of a people, transmitted orally.[/i] The bible was initially handed down as an oral tradition. [quote]What is the shroud of turan to you? That is pretty amazing. The blood type.....they angles in which radiation (from jesus) in some sense x rayed his features onto cloth.[/quote] The shroud of turin is a debatable topic indeed. Since recently the carbon dating has been thrown out, I think it should definitely be retested. We don't know how jesus looked so to follow that line of reasoning (it looks like him) is not convincing. Further testing needs to be done before it can be proven one way or the other. For those who believe it was the cloth that was wrapped around christ. No evidence will ever be sufficient to make them disbelieve. I'm skeptical but I will reserve my judgement until more test can be run. I think we should open a new thread if you wish. This thread has gone a stray too much. Edited April 15, 2005 by Melchisedec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinitelord1 Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 sounds good......."do we have enough reason to believe in god?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priscilla Posted April 15, 2005 Author Share Posted April 15, 2005 MELCHISEDEC: Why do you - an atheist - choose a Biblical user name like "Melchisedec"? Just curios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bookwyrm Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 [quote name='Priscilla' date='Apr 14 2005, 05:59 PM'] Probably but I'm new here so its a bit of a shock to discover that Catholics believe in evolution Never mind. I'm sure it doesn't ultimately affect salvation. I'm happy to call it a day if everyone's fed up with it. I didn't know that the Catholic church had "no official stance" on evolution - so I was just asking a question about Catholic beliefs in this area. It's been very interesting. Thanks everyone - sorry if it's all old hat. [/quote] No, I don't mind at all if you all want to talk about it. That's why I said 'Carry on.' It's just that I don't think creationists will ever agree with evolutionists, and most certainly not vice versa. So if this is a debate about whether we should believe in evolution or literal 7-day creation, it's not going to get anywhere, I don't think. However, if you're just trying to scope out what Catholics believe and/or what the Church teaches about evolution, the God bless. Have fun and play nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistfulofsand Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 i am never sure what to think on this topic. i've heard many different things from different people. most have been said in here already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priscilla Posted April 15, 2005 Author Share Posted April 15, 2005 [quote name='bookwyrm' date='Apr 15 2005, 07:35 AM'] No, I don't mind at all if you all want to talk about it. That's why I said 'Carry on.' It's just that I don't think creationists will ever agree with evolutionists, and most certainly not vice versa. So if this is a debate about whether we should believe in evolution or literal 7-day creation, it's not going to get anywhere, I don't think. However, if you're just trying to scope out what Catholics believe and/or what the Church teaches about evolution, the God bless. Have fun and play nice. [/quote] No I doubt whether they will ever agree: both have very fixed mental attitudes (mindsets) toward their beliefs. One is based firmly on Scripture, one is based firmly on so-called scientific "evidence". Just like lots of other doctrines really: it's why the Babtists will never agree with the Catholics over immersion, and why the Sally Army will never agree with theCatholics over Communion and so on and so forth. So all you get in the end is a confederacy. I can never understand why Catholics even bother with the "Churches Together" movement - because it is a false unity and a confederacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priscilla Posted April 16, 2005 Author Share Posted April 16, 2005 So can I just get this straight about all you phatcats out there: You all (with the exception of Brother Adam) believe that man is descended from apes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 (edited) I would hope not. Leaves too much work for me. Especially since scientists now believe we have descended not from apes, but from rats. Edited April 16, 2005 by Brother Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 I am a Creationist as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchisedec Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Apr 16 2005, 03:36 PM'] I would hope not. Leaves too much work for me. Especially since scientists now believe we have descended not from apes, but from rats. [/quote] Well we know women evolved from rib so anything is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 [quote] Well we know women evolved from rib so anything is possible.[/quote] And they've been a pain in my side ever since!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchisedec Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 16 2005, 04:41 PM'] And they've been a pain in my side ever since!! [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 An incredible harmony, order, and intelligence exists within our physiology. It makes evolution seem too farfetched. I encourage people to take physiology...if you go to college, take it! Volumes can be spoken on this but I will address it in a general way. In essence there are what I call factors present in our body. These factors interact with other factors allowing a certain system to work perfectly. For the system to work all factors must be present. If some factors are present and others are still "evolving" the system will not be able to function. This suggests that the system had to come into existence with all its factors present at the same time otherwise it would be useless. Now for a physiological example: the Heart. The heart is composed of unique muscle, Cardiac muscle, that is unique in certain respects: (1) it does not tire because of the huge amounts of mitochondria (the "power house" of the cell) present (2) it's self stimulating, allowing the heart to beat and contract on its own and (3) the added opening of calcium channels extends the action potential. A normal muscle action potential is around 1 to 5 msecs while a cardiac muscle lasts 200 msecs ore more. This is vital because it allows the heart to rest between contractions so the ventricles can refill with blood. Thinking how much more is necessary to write is daunting, I think this much is sufficient to show how the three factors (there are certainly more, some we are not aware of yet) that add to the system. If one of these were not present the heart would not function. Is it reasonable to think that this happened spontaneously? If yes, I am interested in a hypothetical account on how it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now