Not everything in the Bible is true...

[city]

ah no sir. me and *city will not crash. he is the only reason why I'm staying on this thread. I was hoping that I can convince him to return to God as a Christian, I should try.

d'ba sir *city? I still believe you can be saved for the very reason that you're just angry with God.

thanks for trying...and let me clarify...how can i be angry to something i don't believe in? A lot of people think atheists are just angry with god...nope. Those who claim they are are not real atheists...maybe agnostics. Once you know "by heart" that something isn't real, it's really hard to rewire the brain and pretend it's there.

[city]

to atheists: which are you ba talaga open-minded or skeptics?


I just cant reconcile how non-believers can claim that they are open-minded and skeptical at the same time.

you're talking about agnostics. atheists are not skepticals.

[Psalm136:2]

How do you know which one god-breathed?

Again, thank you sir for your question. Simple lang naman, walang ginusto ang Diyos kundi ang ikabubuti ng tao. That's why He gave us the Bible as our guide for our everyday living kagaya na rin ng sinabi ng ilan dito, whether atheist, believer or skeptic. Ngayon kung ang isang gospel ay makakasama o makakapagbigay ng kalituhan sa buhay ng tao, then this is not God-breathed. the writer may have been "affected by current events of that time", as what Sir Pekto said. Makes sense po ba?

[Psalm136:2]

I'm certainly no expert in Bible lore. But, I do remember reading somewhere that the early Christian Church decided what went in and what stayed out of the Bible. So, in a way, there had been "editing" that went on a long time ago.

This maybe the reason why some people are saying that the Bible was "revised", "edited", "altered", etc. by the church lots of times before, that's why the Bibles today are somewhat confusing and irelevant.

This may be true, but in my own personal opinion, isa lang po ang masasabi ko; please read 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Not all gospels are God-breathed. Therefore not all gospels, especially the new found ones are beneficial for us.

As for reading the Bible..... I'm not an avid reader. I do read selections on impulse. I mean, my wife has to drag me kicking and screaming to church every Sunday. I suppose I could do better.....

Reading it from time to time is good enough for Him. He doesn't require you to be an avid reader. Konting time lang ang hiling Nya satin.

[mazdamazda]

ah no sir. me and *city will not crash. he is the only reason why I'm staying on this thread. I was hoping that I can convince him to return to God as a Christian, I should try.

d'ba sir *city? I still believe you can be saved for the very reason that you're just angry with God.

LAST WARNING.

STAY ON THE TOPIC.

Try to convince someone to return to God through this forum is futile.

Fundamental Atheistm is also a religion by itself... Closing the doors to other possibilities and disrespecting existing religion is just the same as believing in one.

In this sense, City and Old Blue are in the 2 boats of the same ocean heading a different direction, and will just eventually crash again hehe.

I agree on this.

===

AGAIN PEOPLE - STAY ON THE TOPIC.

[Kamui]

I finally found a transcript of the CNN interview I saw in America months ago where a religious fanatic tries to explain the book of genesis in a more modern way that includes things that were not in the bible to begin with. Its quite long. Enjoy!

___________________

INSIGHT

Creationism and Evolution

Aired December 1, 2005 - 23:00:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JONATHAN MANN, CNN HOST (voice-over): In the beginning, there was the battle. Activists in the United States are attacking the theory of evolution in a campaign for what they call intelligent design. How intelligent is it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The argument is not that Darwinian evolution doesn't explain anything. It's that it doesn't explain everything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MANN: Hello and welcome.

There are a few theories and a few theorists that have shaped the modern world. The years have been kinder to some than others. Einstein is still a towering figure, Freud a very influential one, Marx has fallen on hard times. You can probably put Darwin among the immortals, except lately in the United States.

A movement to challenge his theory of evolution is gaining ground, pushing to be taken seriously and pushing as well to be taught in a growing number of schools. It has different names and it incorporates slightly different perspectives, but it's broadly known as creationism or intelligent design. It has turned a relatively mundane chapter in the biology textbook into a battleground and signaled a much broader struggle over control of U.S. education and culture.

On our program today, design, Darwin and survival of the fittest.

Our Delia Gallagher has this look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DELIA GALLAGHER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He's an unlikely rebel, a tweedy biology professor who's found himself at the center of one of the year's most ferocious debates.

Michael Behe is a major player behind intelligent design, the movement that's trying to bring the supernatural into science. Behe was a chief witness in a federal trial over a Pennsylvania high school wanting to include intelligent design, or ID, in biology classes.

MICHAEL BEHE, LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: A lot of people apply a caricature to intelligent design that I think is inaccurate.

GALLAGHER: To get some answers I went to Lehigh University, where Behe has taught for 20 years. What I found was an academic uprising.

(on camera): Is he doing a disservice to science?

TAMRA MENDELSON, LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: In my view, yes.

GALLAGHER (voice-over): Tamra Mendelson teaches evolutionary biology, and like every other member of the Lehigh biology faculty has rejected intelligent design as unscientific, and helped turn Michael Behe into a campus outcast.

(on camera): How long have you been at this university?

BEHE: I came here in 1985.

GALLAGHER (voice-over): Back then, he was an ordinary scientist and Lehigh gave him tenure. That was before he started questioning whether Darwin's theory of evolution fully explained life on earth.

BEHE: When I started to realize that scientifically, it just didn't explain what it claimed to explain, that's when I started to, you know, have doubts.

Science has progressed and at each stage, people have been astonished by the details in life.

GALLAGHER: Behe says you only have to look at the details to realize they were conceived and arranged by a supernatural power.

BEHE: You can tell that something has been arranged when we see a number of different parts that are put together to do something.

GALLAGHER: Take the flagella, that tiny little tail that bacteria use to move around.

BEHE: And it literally is the propeller. It's turned around and around.

GALLAGHER: It looks simple but it's not.

BEHE: If you didn't have a hook, the propeller would fall off. If you didn't have the drive shaft, the motor couldn't transmit any force. If you didn't have any one of dozens of different pieces here, it wouldn't work. It would have to have all these pieces all together before it worked at all. And in order to do something like that, that's beyond random mutation and natural selection. You need an intelligence to do that.

GALLAGHER: A more user-friendly example, the eye. Too complicated, Behe says, to be a biological accident that evolved over time.

Behe published his findings in a book, "Darwin's Black Box." Like most intelligent design writing, it doesn't speculate about who the designer is. But Behe has his own guess.

BEHE: I think the designer is God. I'm a Roman Catholic. You know, heck, you know, God has to be considered a major candidate for the role of the designer.

GALLAGHER: Other intelligent design advocates have other ideas.

BEHE: It's been suggested that maybe space aliens could be the designer, maybe time travelers. You know, maybe some human from the future comes back to the past. And, you know, certainly that's got some sort of difficulties there, but some physicists have suggested that time travel is possible.

GALLAGHER: Talk like that doesn't sit well with Tamra Mendelson.

MENDELSON: Science is restricted to the material world, and has been for 900 years. And it works really well that way. And, so, to propose a supernatural explanation just isn't scientific.

GALLAGHER: Behe doesn't actually teach intelligent design at Lehigh. Still, his colleagues say just his being there is bad for the university's reputation.

MENDELSON: Parents approach us and ask, what's going on? What's going on in your science department? And they are hesitant to send their children here, because they think their children won't get a good education.

GALLAGHER: Lehigh's biology department has even posted a statement on its Web site distancing itself from Behe's research on intelligent design. His colleagues have taped anti-I.D. articles on their doors.

And though university president Gregory Farrington says he can't fire Behe, he won't say he's glad to have him on staff.

GREGORY FARRINGTON, PRESIDENT, LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: He's allowed, as a tenured member, to take positions that are controversial, and he's doing that. And, so, whether I'm happy or not really isn't relevant.

GALLAGHER (on camera): Do you feel ostracized?

BEHE: Sure. Yes. That's OK. You know, c'est la vie. You know, what good is it in arguing for an idea that everybody accepts already?

GALLAGHER (voice-over): A question a lot of scientists throughout the centuries have faced, whether their theories have panned out or not.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MANN: That trial that Delia Gallagher made quick reference to is the first time that intelligent design has actually been brought before the U.S. courts. Arguments in the case are over now and the judge is expected to rule in the weeks to come.

We take a break. When we come back, we'll introduce you to a new concept called biblical correctness.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANN (voice-over): The battle over evolution is being fought in classrooms, courtrooms and even museums.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fossils are boring. They're piles of dead things, right?

MANN: A new kind of tour guide is putting a creationist spin on our prehistoric past.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Welcome back.

Scientific testing has determined that the oldest dinosaur fossils are hundreds of millions of years old. Creationists believe otherwise. According to their literal interpretation of the Bible, everything in the world, including dinosaurs, came into being about 6,000 years ago.

Creationists are using zoos and museums to make their point.

Again, here's Delia Gallagher

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GALLAGHER (voice-over): The Fryberger family drove three hours this morning to get a day-long lesson in creationism.

RUSTY CARTER, B.C. TOURS: OK, B.C. Tours, let's go on and get started.

GALLAGHER: The Frybergers and about a dozen other families are on a very unconventional tour.

CARTER: So B.C. stands for biblically correct, as opposed to being politically correct, right? So, we're B.C., not P.C.

GALLAGHER: Rusty Carter runs a flooring business. And on weekends, he plays tour guide. Today, the Denver Zoo is a classroom. The lesson? Straight from the Bible.

CARTER: What is creation? What do you mean by creation?

MIRIAM FRYBERGER, TOURIST: Creation is when God chose to make the world and he did it specifically, and he put thought into it, and designed it all so that it would work just right together.

GALLAGHER: Here, a glimpse into the Garden of Eden.

CARTER: Oh, here we go guys, a cheetah.

GALLAGHER: And what Adam and Eve saw there, we see right here, at the zoo.

CARTER: It's very simple. We think that the hippos were designed always to be a hippo, and hippos have always been hippos, and elephants have always been elephants. So there's been no change from one animal to a different animal.

GALLAGHER: Rusty admits there was one major change. When God cast Adam and Eve out of the garden, the peaceful creatures became, well, not so peaceful.

CARTER: The aggressiveness and the fighting and the death is a result of sin whereas the evolutionists would say that's survival of the fittest.

CHARISSA FRYBERGER, TOURIST: There's a lot of evidence if you look at the way animals are.

GALLAGHER: As Christian homeschoolers, the Frybergers really aren't learning anything new.

C. FRYBERGER: There's lot of evidence that he could be going through that I don't see him doing.

GALLAGHER: But it is enough for Linda Haskins.

[GlennSter]

i will have to reiterate the importance of what m2 posted..please stay on topic...

[Kamui]

continuation of the interview...

LINDA HASKINS, TOURIST: My kids are in public school and they hear a lot about evolution. And I wanted them to know more because we teach creation and we want them to see what God has done.

GALLAGHER: At mid-day, the group pauses for a prayer of thanks.

CARTER: Father, our Lord, thank you so much for the animals that You've created. Help us to glorify You in Your precious name. Amen.

GALLAGHER: And then the families are off to the next stop on this creationism tour, the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.

TYSON THORNE, B.C. TOURS: Does everybody who wears a white lab coat, are they a scientist? Depends on what you believe.

GALLAGHER: Here, B.C. guides Bill Jack and Tyson Thorne take over.

JACK: It is not the evidence that is in question. It is what? The interpretation of the evidence. Fossils are -- boring. They're piles of dead things, right?

GALLAGHER: In the background, silent, fuming, the museum's vice president. Richard Stuckey's been a chief curator for nearly 20 years.

JACK: Are you going to tag along with us?

RICHARD STUCKEY, VICE PRESIDENT, MUSEUM OF NATURE AND SCIENCE: If that's all right with you.

JACK: That's fine and dandy.

GALLAGHER: Bill and Tyson spend the next two hours trying to dismantle Darwin's theory of evolution.

THORNE: According to evolution, millions of years ago, there were dinosaurs and lizards. And millions of years later, they turned into things like turtles, and iguanas, and ostriches, and polar bears, and chimpanzees.

And right here is all of the evidence for what they believe. What's here? Nothing.

GALLAGHER: The museum's displays, mere fiction, just artwork.

JACK: This exhibit is called, how old is the earth. How old is the earth?

GALLAGHER: Billions of years, says science. Not so, says B.C. Tours.

THORNE: We can look at the genealogy that's contained both in Genesis and in Matthew. We can piece enough history together with enough families to trace our heritage all the way back to Adam and Eve. And from the time of the fall on forward, roughly 6,000 years has passed.

GALLAGHER: Most scientists will tell you that's nowhere near the time needed for evolution.

JACK: Because evolution is not good science. It's a pseudoscience, but it does one thing well. It gets rid of the need for God.

GALLAGHER: By this point, Richard Stuckey is fed up. He's too polite to interrupt the tour, but he can't hide his dismay.

STUCKEY: I was offended in a sense that he was talking to very young children, and saying to the young children something that is absolutely false.

GALLAGHER: He takes us behind the scenes, to the big bone room where Charles Darwin keeps watch over dinosaur fossils millions of years old.

STUCKEY: These are authentic bones. They still have some of the original organic material preserved in them. This isn't art, this is real. This is authentic stuff.

GALLAGHER: But in this debate, one man's fact is another man's fraud.

JACK: It comes down to a question of, whom are you going to trust on this issue? It's what it really is. Is it going to be man's word or God's word? That's what you've got to ask. Whom are you going to trust?

GALLAGHER: At the end of the day, that's the fundamental question. How ordinary people view the universe in which they were born.

(END VIDEOTAPE)
MANN: The tyrannosaurus rex lies down with the lamb at a museum being built in the state of Kentucky. The T-Rexs there also talk and proclaim they were made on the same day as Adam.

The Creation Museum is the brainchild of a group called Answers in Genesis. Jonathan Rugman has a look there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JONATHAN RUGMAN, ITV NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Amid the rolling hills of Kentucky the silhouettes of two stegosauruses mark the beginning of an extraordinary journey back to the dawn of time. A time when Adam and Eve walked in the Garden and dinosaurs were their friends.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You've got flesh-eating, man-eating dinosaurs basically interacting with children, they're playing with other animals.

RUGMAN: Welcome to the Creation Museum, the history of the world which turns the theory of evolution on its head. This scene, heresy to scientists, but not to the museum's cofounder, who believes dinosaurs were in the Garden of Eden just 6,000 years ago.

(on camera): These dinosaurs, they almost look like pets because they're so close to the girl.

MIKE ZOWATH, CREATION MUSEUM: The Bible says that man was created on day six. The animals were created on day six, so logic -- if the Bible is true, logically they would both be interacting together until the dinosaurs died out.

RUGMAN (voice-over): The Bible doesn't actually mention dinosaurs and scientists say they died out long before man, but this place is full of them.

The Evangelical Answers in Genesis movement raising $25 million to build a museum with one basic message: that God created the world within one very busy week.

ANNOUNCER: It's time to take up the sword of God's word.

RUGMAN (on camera): To its critics, this place is nothing more than a Hollywood theme park. But to its many supporters, it's a museum devoted to historical truth, the latest frontline in America's culture war between scientific theory and religious belief.

(voice-over): In the museum's fossil room, Mr. Zowath shows me a dinosaur specimen commonly dated as 450 million years old.

(on camera): I mean, the scientific establishment would say that dinosaur is millions of years old.

ZOWATH: Correct.

RUGMAN: What do you say?

ZOWATH: That dinosaur is 6,000 years old based on what the Bible says about dinosaurs and when they were created.

RUGMAN (voice-over): This time scale based on Biblical genealogy, going all the way back to what will eventually be the museum's star attraction, the Garden of Eden itself.

ZOWATH: So we're walking into a Garden of Eden look.

RUGMAN: A plastic reptile previously seen in the film "Crocodile Dundee" now guarding the birthplace of mankind.

ZOWATH: And God creates Eve and brings Eve to Adam and that will be replicated somewhere around here, somewhere in this general area.

RUGMAN: And inside what they call their war room, this museum's designers are not some freakish minority. A poll last year suggesting that only about 1/4 of Americans believe in evolution, almost half espousing the view that man, created in God's image, does not share any common ancestry with monkeys at all.

HENRY BRINTON, PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER: I think creationists feel very threatened by the advances of science.

RUGMAN: Clergyman Henry Brinton, a trained biologist as well as priest, now so worried by the rise of Biblical fundamentalism that he's teaching Darwin in Sunday school to counter the creationist message.

BRINTON: I would not want my children taken to that museum by a science teacher and exposed to that material as a scientific approach to understanding the world because it is not. The scientific record, the geologic record, does not support a 6,000 year old earth.

RUGMAN: The word made flesh here in Kentucky and already a major tourist draw, religious Americans flocking here over a year before the museum is due to open.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And it affirms what we believe.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What we believe, right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That God created the world.

RUGMAN: The Reichs (ph) from Illinois, delighted with a natural history museum which contradicts every other.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Even my college degree from the University of Michigan, which has a wonderful natural history department, tried to teach me that evolution was correct, and I said no, I'm not going to believe you.

RUGMAN: School children lured no doubt by these impressive animatronics and a 40-foot high tyrannosaurus rex, which we're told boarded Noah's Ark two by two despite its carnivorous grin.

(on camera): If Noah took the T-Rex, wouldn't he have eaten the other animals?

ZOWATH: Well, no. The fear of man wasn't put into animals until after the animals came off the ark, after the flood, according to Genesis 6-9.

RUGMAN: But you might come across a book that explains evolution or scientific theory in such a way that makes you think, well, maybe the Bible isn't the be all and end all.

ZOWATH: And the answer is, that really isn't going to happen. The Bible is the be all and end all, it's our authority.

RUGMAN (voice-over): Jonathan Rugman, Channel 4 News, Petersburg, Kentucky.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MANN: We take another break. When we come back, why some Americans simply don't believe modern biology.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANN (voice-over): Church and state are separate in U.S. law, up to a point. President Bush recently tried to nominate a candidate to the U.S. Supreme Court at least in part, he said, because of her religion.

GEORGE W. BUSH, U.S. PRESIDENT: People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions.

Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[Kamui]

continued...

MANN: Welcome back.

Even many religious people were offended by the president's use of faith to further the campaign for his nominee. She eventually backed out but there is an ongoing tension in U.S. politics between the secular state and an activist religious minority. Is it spreading to science now?

Joining us now to talk about that is Krista Tippet, a journalist who examines issues of religion and ethics on the American Public Radio program "Speaking of Faith."

Thanks so much for being with us.

What is going on? People around the world are going to look at this and wonder if Americans have simply lost their senses. Is there an attack in this country on science?

KRISTA TIPPET, "SPEAKING OF FAITH": Well, I think there is a well- publicized attack on science that is really in its -- it's a very small part of the larger story, of what is happening, of in fact a new conversation that's growing between science and religious thinkers.

And, you know, I think it's important not to take the kinds of stories and the kinds of voices that we just heard and generalize and say that that is where all Americans are. I think that modern science is very complicated, it's exciting, it can be frightening, and perhaps this is a backlash that has to do with people wanting to understand and perhaps being somewhat afraid, but that's not, again, the whole story.

MANN: Well, it would be unfair to pick a small minority of people with extreme ideas and pretend that those people represent a large group of Americans, but it would seem that in public opinion polling more Americans believe that people were created by God than descended from primates and in fact these people seem to be speaking for a growing group of Americans who are coming forward and demanding the right to have their own convictions about the origin of human life, the origins of all life, more and more Americans are demanding the right to have their views represented in the public school system and one presumes eventually in the universities as well.

TIPPET: Right. And, you know, when I hear those statistics that you and I both just heard, I want to know how those questions were posed. And I think that when people are given what seems a stark choice between do you believe in God and do you believe in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which none of us can fully wrap our minds around, I mean, it's well- documented in science across the ages. I think then people, many Americans, who are very religious, might say I choose God, I believe in God.

But many scientists aren't presenting the choice that way. I think, you know, one of the most interesting conversations I've had recently was actually with an evangelical teacher at Fuller Evangelical Seminary, which is nationally and internationally a very influential place, and she said that what she thinks has changed is that for generations in this country religious Americans, Christian Americans, were taught evolution in school and they were taught to love God and read their Bibles in church, and intuitively they were able to imagine that reality and life and the world can make room for both of those kinds of truths.

What's happening now is that you do have this very well-organized movement and well-funded movement to teach something different, something that in fact goes against many of our instincts, and I think that's what's changed.

MANN: Is this movement essentially made up of evangelicals who are a denomination, after all, that believes very strongly in the literal truth of every word of the Bible? Or are there people of other religious backgrounds or no religious backgrounds who are supporting intelligent design as well?

TIPPET: Well, you know, this clash between religious and scientific ideas is I think more centered in Christianity and more in conservative Christianity. I do always point out that evangelical Christianity in this country, you're talking about 40 percent of the population. Within evangelicalism, there is huge breadths and diversity and, as I said, you know, there are very intellectual teachers within evangelicalism who also revere the knowledge of science.

What I think I also want to say that's very important is that many, many religious people, including if you look at the history of science, I mean, I actually interviewed an Australian astrobiologist recently for a program we're doing on the religious sensibility of Albert Einstein, and he says that theology was the midwife of science. And he points out that in Western culture, and even names that we now wrongly think of as being opposed to religion, Galileo, Newton, even Darwin himself, and into the 20th century somebody like Albert Einstein, you know, especially Darwin and Newton and Galileo, they felt that what they were doing with science was understanding God better. They went from the premise that -- you know, the Americans you just heard a moment ago hold that God created the world, but they believed that nature, that the created world is the works of God and that in understanding nature and the world as it is, they could understand the mind of God.

And that is an impulse that even today is continent with the way many scientists approach their work, whether they're kind of traditionally religious or not, and that's being lost in the way science is being set up as an enemy to religion. And you asked, it really is located in Christianity. There is not this automatic clash in Judaism or in Buddhism or many of the world's other religions.

MANN: On that note, Krista Tippet of "Speaking of Faith," thank you so much for talking with us.

TIPPET: Thanks so much for having me, Jonathan.

MANN: That's INSIGHT. The news continues.

END

[niky]

to atheists: which are you ba talaga open-minded or skeptics?


I just cant reconcile how non-believers can claim that they are open-minded and skeptical at the same time.

Just as a reaction to your post a few pages backL

You stated, correctly, that fundamentalism is not only in religion, but also among atheists. Which points to what I was trying to tell you for the past week: Not all atheists are fundamentalistically atheist.

Like I've said, and others are saying, there are atheists who are perfectly willing not to pass judgement on the Bible or religious peoples. They simply are unwilling to believe. There are the agnostics and pantheists who do not believe in any of the old-world or even new-age religions, yet still believe in a deity.

Open-mindedness and skepticism are not equal, but they are similar. Open-mindedness means an openness to new ideas. Skepticism tells us to not believe anything that cannot be proven... but it doesn't tell us to believe in nothing.

This is different from close-mindedness which cannot accept any new idea, even in the presence of proof. Fundamentalism has an aspect of this. Fundamentalism is the belief in the literal interpretation of scripture, or, in more modern terms, the strict adherence and belief in certain principles. In other words, no new ideas or principles can be applied onto this.

Science cannot be fundamentalist, by nature, as the scientific method asks for one to prove a theorem or principle before it can be considered true.

And science accepts that there can be no absolute proof for many things. That's why they call the Theory of Evolution a "theory", because, despite the many proofs they have collected, they cannot say that it is 100% representative. Even if they have 99.99% of the proof they need, they will keep an open mind for new theories, and will test these theories as they come.

That is why Religion and Science clash. Because fundamentalists cannot accept that the Bible is spiritual in nature and not physical, and dispute scientific studies into the physical nature of the universe. The Church long ago resolved the conflict internally, stating that certain scientific theories, such as evolution, do not run counter to the Bible. And many scientists are content to lead a spiritual life in their faith (be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etcetera) yet to turn to science to explore the physical world.

The religious fundamentalists can't accept the dichotomy of the physical and the spiritual, and insist that religion and only religion should be followed to describe the world... and the atheistic fundamentalists can't accept that there may be a spiritual plane which they cannot see, and continually attack scriptures. Which is about the only reason the argument exists in the first place.

-----

*Psalm:

Good posts.

RE: Revelations: so, the permanence of scripture was mandated by a single prophet?

[oldblue]

LAST WARNING.

STAY ON THE TOPIC.

Try to convince someone to return to God through this forum is futile.

yes sir. no prob.

I agree on this.

===

I dont agree with what *sir theveed said sir. how can a Fundamental Atheist become a religion? it's nowhere related to religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power esp, a personal god or Gods. or the new age definition: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. in other words, money, material things, consumerism can now be worshipped.

if a Fundamental atheist worships money/things over god then it can be a religion. but however, a fundamentalist atheist is suppose to be the most righteous of all the atheist and thinks they are higher thinkers than common atheists. worshipping money/material things is like an insult to them. so therefore, it's not a religion.

[oldblue]

Just as a reaction to your post a few pages backL

You stated, correctly, that fundamentalism is not only in religion, but also among atheists. Which points to what I was trying to tell you for the past week: Not all atheists are fundamentalistically atheist.

much as I would like to believe that there are 3 types of Christians: Christian Fundamentalists, true Christians and Evil Christians to support now this new idea/distinction that there are Fundamental atheists, true Atheists and evil atheists. kumbaga what's true to the levels of Christian belief is also true to Atheists: there are also levels of beliefs.

this is getting really confusing. tell me sir, I thought one reason why Atheists became atheists is bec. they didnt like the divisions that the Bible is imposing on believers. then here comes atheists who acknowledge that there are also divisions/differences within their belief.
so what's consistent with atheists, so admirable that they are the first to acknowledge that the Bible is inconsistent or some not true.

Like I've said, and others are saying, there are atheists who are perfectly willing not to pass judgement on the Bible or religious peoples. They simply are unwilling to believe. There are the agnostics and pantheists who do not believe in any of the old-world or even new-age religions, yet still believe in a deity.

Open-mindedness and skepticism are not equal, but they are similar. Open-mindedness means an openness to new ideas. Skepticism tells us to not believe anything that cannot be proven... but it doesn't tell us to believe in nothing.

sir the definition of a the state of open-mindedness is: open to new ideas without prejudice. the definition of atheism that you quoted here is that atheism is skepticism: a person who doubts, who are not inclined to believe, who denies the possibilities etc etc ...

so again where is the consistency among atheists?

[Psalm136:2]

Good posts.

RE: Revelations: so, the permanence of scripture was mandated by a single prophet?

Thanks. I just don't want to enter into a debate because we'll just have to end in nothing. That's why I'm trying to explain my side in a more informative way, para walang gulo.

The book of Revelation was not entirely written by one prophet (John). In fact, based on the different strokes of handwriting and way of presenting the message, scientists are convinced that it was written by more than 3 persons. Now these prophets, doctors, ordinary people, etc. did not mandate the permanence of the Bible, it's God. Remember, these people don't know each other, they lived hundreds of years apart.

[niky]

There is no consistency amongst anyone. Like I said, the world is not black and white only. For me, it's thus:

Fundamentalist religious - hold religion over everything else, and may go to the extremes of not valuing human life or worth due to this.

Moderate religious - live a spiritual life guided by religion, but tempered in their interactions with other men, may accept that there are other religions and beliefs, and can interact with them normally, yet their ethical values are still set by their religion.

Loosely religious - are religious in name only. May commit acts proscribed or prohibited by their religion because their moral compass is not well-set.

Atheistic Fundamentalists - Believe that there is no God, and that it is impossible for there to be a God. May become just as preachy as Religious Fundamentalists.

Moderate Atheists - Believe there is no God, but still constantly search for proof of his existence or non-existence. These are the skeptics.

Loosely Atheistic / Agnostic / Pantheistic - Do not believe in traditional religion. Believe there may be a God or that there is a God, but we do not know his exact nature.

Morality amongst the Atheists is a mixed bag. Existentialists / Communists may be counted as fundamentalist Atheist. They are fundamental in the sense that they hold their philosophy over all other things, despite proof to the contrary... I've talked to activists/communists here in the Philippines, and while some are sensible, others are impossible to talk to.

But many prominent Humanists are also atheistic, and they value, instead, human life, worth and brotherhood. Of course, like I said before, morality is not the same across different religions, either.

----

Skepticism is not denial. It is to request proof and look for facts, first and foremost. A skepticist does not deny possibilities, but looks for facts.

But, like I said, some atheists are completely closed to the possibility of a God, but this is because they don't accept any of the profferred proofs for his existence as sufficient evidence.

Many scientists fall between moderate religious to moderately atheistic. Darwin was moderately religious. Einstein was pantheistic/agnostic. It is only amongst some philosophers and potical theorists (Nietzsche and Marx, for example) that you find the truly and utterly anti-God thinkers.

[niky]

Thanks. I just don't want to enter into a debate because we'll just have to end in nothing. That's why I'm trying to explain my side in a more informative way, para walang gulo.

The book of Revelation was not entirely written by one prophet (John). In fact, based on the different strokes of handwriting and way of presenting the message, scientists are convinced that it was written by more than 3 persons. Now these prophets, doctors, ordinary people, etc. did not mandate the permanence of the Bible, it's God. Remember, these people don't know each other, they lived hundreds of years apart.

:tup: Oks lang, I find this stuff very informative.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Book of Revelations is in different parts, too, right? The last part being the Apocalyptic part, another major bone of contention amongst different theologians, I think, as many people across the years have come to interpret it as apocalypse happening in their own time, while the author probably meant his own time.

The sad part is, it's one of the most quoted books by unscrupulous people who try to use the Bible and religion to further their own personal and selfish goals.

[Bogeyman]

how can a Fundamental Atheist become a religion?

I suppose I could give this one a shot.

Religion can be defined as:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

You might say that atheism is a religion in itself, especially in the context of the first sentence (a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe). An atheist believes that there is no supreme deity or deities, and this belief certainly concerns the creation and business of the universe.

The second definition is:

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

Now, atheists agree on the belief that there is no God. Well, granted that they're not exactly organized in this sense to be considered a sect, but as long as it is a common consensus among them....

Religion can also be taken to mean:

personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

Atheists live their lives in the conviction that there is no God, and so base their values and attitudes based on this conviction. But the absence of their belief in a deity or deities does not necessarily mean the absence of compassion for their fellowmen.

I also found this interesting bit:

Although atheism is often accompanied by a total lack of spiritual beliefs, this is not an aspect, or even a necessary consequence, of atheism. Indeed, some atheists do believe in a spiritual realm and may or may not belong to any religious group.

[Psalm136:2]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Book of Revelations is in different parts, too, right? The last part being the Apocalyptic part, another major bone of contention amongst different theologians, I think, as many people across the years have come to interpret it as apocalypse happening in their own time, while the author probably meant his own time.

The sad part is, it's one of the most quoted books by unscrupulous people who try to use the Bible and religion to further their own personal and selfish goals.

The book of Revelation is the most difficult part of the Bible to study and to tackle. Yes, there are several parts. And I can also say yes to your observations of the above subject. The Apocalyptic part seems to be the most famous one dahil nga as you've said, dito minsan nagkakatalo mga ibat-ibang sects of Christendom. Marami kasing pwedeng approach dito e. It can be perceived as a warning, as an encouragement or even rebuke.

In my own personal opinion, if one tries or need to study this part of Revelation or the whole book for that matter; first, the foundation of his faith is as solid and as firm as it should be. Second, time. One must devote a lot of time and sacrifice. Third, the balance between head knowledge and emotion. Dito kadalasan pumapalya ang isang Christian.

[empy]

ah no sir. me and *city will not crash. he is the only reason why I'm staying on this thread. I was hoping that I can convince him to return to God as a Christian, I should try.

d'ba sir *city? I still believe you can be saved for the very reason that you're just angry with God.

i don't agree with this either. both of you need to stop trying to make other people believe what you do, or what you want them to.

so much of the conflicts and problems in the world are caused by people trying to tell other people what's best for them. this is ESPECIALLY true with Christianity.

LAST WARNING.

STAY ON THE TOPIC.

Try to convince someone to return to God through this forum is futile.

thank you.

[oldblue]

The book of Revelation is the most difficult part of the Bible to study and to tackle. Yes, there are several parts. And I can also say yes to your observations of the above subject. The Apocalyptic part seems to be the most famous one dahil nga as you've said, dito minsan nagkakatalo mga ibat-ibang sects of Christendom. Marami kasing pwedeng approach dito e. It can be perceived as a warning, as an encouragement or even rebuke.

In my own personal opinion, if one tries or need to study this part of Revelation or the whole book for that matter; first, the foundation of his faith is as solid and as firm as it should be. Second, time. One must devote a lot of time and sacrifice. Third, the balance between head knowledge and emotion. Dito kadalasan pumapalya ang isang Christian.

The problem with most Christians or to be specific disgruntled christians is they care too much about the future.

live your life in day tight compartments (san ko ba nabasa 'to hehehe)

kumbaga dont think too much, live today, make mistakes, sin, learn from your mistakes, confess, make mistakes again, sin, learn, confess again.

masyado inintindi yun salvation, revelation, punishment, hell. relax. why subject yourselves with these scenarios

or maybe some Christian turned atheists didnt like the idea of heaven.
our souls running around in an ultra-white environment, white robes, white shoes, white flowers, white everything, with white pillars like that of Greek architecture.

so happy, so peaceful, so free ... but wait? free? free ba talaga tayo sa heaven with a bearded man sitting behind those white pillars watching over us while we are as polite and equally annoying/plasticky as the inhabitants of the city in the movie Demolition Man

if that's the idea of heaven, tapos padadaanin pa tayo sa sobrang strict ng screening procedure here sa mundo, parang di worth d' ba?

parang mas ok kung ang heaven ay isa kang hotshot GQ-type suave-dressing bachelor personality with 3 large SUV's, 3 supercars, a very large mansion with heavily-armed guards in armani suits, and a jacuzzi outside filled with 3-5 Playboy girls bathing in bikini. yan ang heaven to the max! all the money, power, control, babes in the world!!!

teka nawala na point ko bec. of the previous paragraph ... masyado ko na-imagine. tom na lang.

[Flagg]

I agree with you at some point. In the Old Testament though, God ordered kings and leaders to conquer (annihilate) tribes, as what Niky said. But this is not to convert them, but mostly to punish them for their ungodly practices.

On the other hand, Jesus also said when he came to live with men; "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." Kaya di rin nating pwedeng balewalain ang OT.

Actually, the words were to the effect of: "...I have delivered them and all their lands to you..."

What is the significance?

In that long ago time of strife, it's pretty easy to see that these "Words of God" were written by some long ago scribe with the full intention of rallying the troops to victory by instilling in them the belief that God was with them, hence victory was both assured and justified. We must remember that the Jews of that time were a very warlike people.

This idea could be seen as recently as the 1400s where Joan of Arc was burnt at the stake as a witch because the English needed their troops to believe that God was on their side so they would fight on... at that time the English soldiers' belief was shaken because of Joan's stunning, seemingly miraculous victories at Orleans and elsewhere.

However, the Bible is written not only by men but also by God. So why has an ancient propaganda exercise for some long-forgotten war survived for so long with that particularly strange turn of phrase...

This is where we see the revelatory nature of God. How foolishly man has interpreted His Word so long ago...

It could've been so easily said: "Conquer them cuz I, your God, said so..." or a more godly "Go forth and subdue them, I, your God, will give you victory..." But it wasn't said that way.

Was God saying something else at that time? Something which in our more peaceful time can be understood simply as: preach the Word here, and these people here will join you.

I still believe that there is no other command of God to go forth and conquer escept for that one command in Genesis so directly and simply said that there can be no interpretation: "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Here He establishes man's primacy over the Earth. There is no other command to go out and conquer.

Think of God's Word and what it could really mean for us in comparison to Pavlov's dog. You couldn't tell the dog what the ringing bell means even if you shout yourself hoarse while doing the Hustle. It is only eventually that the dog finally gets it that a ringing bell means food.