Religion

[ParanoiaDragon]

I deffinitly don't believe the Bible is totally litteral, there's just no way IMO.  There's alot of poetic & figurative language involved.  For instance, there's alot of mythical type "beasts" thruout the Bible.  I don't believe a single one of them is real.  Some of them(I think in Daniel) are clearly labled as representing certain kingdoms, such as Babylon, Rome & Greece.  Other's  you have to figure out what they represent based on their attributes & features.  Also, seems like alot of people believe the so called Anti Christ is real.  One lady I do work for believe that "he" is a human son of the Devil & is walking the earth, causing problems whereever "he" goes.  If that's what she wants to believe, that's up to her, but, I believe the Anti Christ is figurative along with other things, like Gehenna/the lake of fire.  I believe that is symbolic of destruction, not torture or whatever.

I think that if God exists, alot of the miracles in the bible, are God using natural laws.  For instance, I believe it says that God caused ridiculously strong winds to hold up the Red Sea, rather then him just, making it stand up with no explanation whatsoever.  I believe most of the 10 plague's were also stated as being stuff like God causing something to effect something else....rather then just....it happened, if that makes any sense?  Another example, is when the Israelites wanted more food to eat, & I think it says God caused an east wind to bring quail into the camp of Israel, rather then just...quail appeared magically before them.

I agree, that atleast for some, it's a coping mechanisim. They want to think that everythings going to be alright in the end, & that they'll go to heaven, & boo-yah, life is sweet!  I don't feel like that's why I believe in creation.  A being of some kind as I described above(multi-chrono singularity or maybe it's omin-chrono?) is what seems most logical to me.  And I find that logic differ's from person to person, so what I believe, isn't always going to be logical to the next person.  And yeah, there's deffinitly the sense of community. I think there are deffinitly people that are worse with religion, as, there's been so much done in the name of God or god's that has hurt people over the centuries. 

There's alot of people that use it as an excuse to hurt or take advantage of people.  TV evangelists are that first that come to mind, but also cult's.  There are so many little grouple that believe in some human leader that will lead them to so called salvation, but I believe most, if not all of those leaders are just taking advantage of the people, & in alot of case(if not all) are living off the fat of the land that their followers provide for them!   It's hard to have faith in any kind of organized religion thanks to all those bastards that have led people like sheep to the slaughter.  However, it does sound to me that the first century Christians were an organized group, based on there congregating together & the preaching work as well.

Personally, I've always been more of a rebel & underdog type person(probably the reason I was a TG man rather then SNES or Genesis).  I tend to hate fads & trends & popular opinion.  I try to think more about what I'm into or getting into, rather then just going along with the crowd.  I try to reason on things, rather then just taking a blind leap of faith like alot of Christians to do.

I was raised around both creation & evolution, & while I deffinitly believe in creation, you could say I partially believe in evolution.  All creatures deffinitly evolve & adapt & make new kinds of the same creature, there's just no way I can believe that every type of each creature had to be created.  This is why we not only have so many different types of dogs, birds, & cats, but also humans.  Who knows what type of races of humans we'll have in another couple of years.  However, I do personally believe that with each generation, we are gradually dying, & that our dna is corrupted, & if not for modern science as well as just plain cleanliness, our life spans would be shorter then they generally are in comparison to hundreds of years ago, when you could be 35 & an old man!

I don't believe that everything came from nothing however, & I believe there is a limit or plateu to evolution, & that everything stays within this limit.  I believe it's possible that we don't actually have vestigial organs, but that the one's that are considered vestigial(I think most people accept that the appendix is linked to the immune system IIRC?), are either just not understood yet, or are even faulty.  As I said, I believe that to some degree we are degrading, rather then upgrading.  And unlike alot of people, I don't believe we'll eventually evolve into pure light.

I think the story of the flood is a good example of evolution.  If it's true, & only 2 of every kind of animal was on the so called "ark", then they over time would've evolved into new types of that creature.  For instance, I'm inclined to believe that there was maybe some kind of wolf like creature on the ark, that eventually led to not only wolves, but foxes, hyeanas(sp?) & all the differe types of domestic dog's.  Same with cat's, there was probably 1 or 2 types of cats, that eventually evolved into both the bigger & smaller cats. 

And the same goes with the 8 people that allegedly survived the flood.  I believe that they all gradually made up new races of humans.  I do believe in the lineage of man from Adam & Eve, which also makes me think that there some types of humans that no longer exist, if they were killed in the flood.  It might explain the different types of primitive humans that have been discovered

I do believe that with the male & female, that it makes it harder to procreate, & wonder why we divided into two specific seperate creatures that have to mate with eachother, rather then being some kind of creature that can just split off to procreate, or some kind of hermaphrodites like some creatures are.  What made me think about this is an episode of Star Trek Enterprise, where it's mentioned that the Andorian's require 5 to procreate.  With male & female, from what I understand, they would've had to evolve at the exact same time & be fully compatible with eachother for them to make a child.  And if their parts weren't fully compatible, that would make those part vestigial, & they would be discarded.

I personally havn't come up with my own thoughts on why God would've used full blown evolution, it seems like, from my point of view, that it would make more sense to just create the different animals & allow them to broaden out within those types.  But, just because I don't believe in evolving from one creature to the next, doesn't make me right.  It's just what seems most logical to me.

For me, belief in God doesn't mean he'll just go around granted me wishes or protecting me.  The Bible says that he makes it rain upon the good & the wicked, & sun shine upon the good & wicked, & I think Jesus said that we are all victim's of time & unforeseen circumstance.  So, just because I believe God is there, doesn't mean I have a magic bubble around mean, deffinitly not.  We all have to go thru good times & bad, no doubt. 

Ofcoarse, some believe in an imortal soul that goes to heaven or hell, but I don't believe in that.  I don't believe that Bible teaches that.  Infact Jesus said that death is like sleep, & that there's no knowledge, nor wisdom, nor devising, etc. in sheol(the grave), & the dead are concious of nothing at all.  They're not being burned in fiery torment(quite a few old religions teach that or something similar, & it did get adopted into most Christian churches), nor are they in limbo twiddling their thumbs, & along with that, I don't believe that anyone is sitting on a cloud strumming a harp.  The words Sheol(Hebrew) & Hades(Greek), usually get translated into the word hell, but, IIRC it actually litteraly means "the common man's grave".  That's it, we die, we're done.  The soul that is sinning, it itself shall die.  I believe we all sin/imperfect, & that a person "is" a soul, rather then "has" a soul, & then we die & aren't aware of anything at all.

In regards to Adam & Eve's children mating with eachother(brother & sister), my thoughts are that it goes back to our dna degrading.  I think at one time, we were in much better shape(might explain the longgggggg life spans earlier in the Bible), but that once Adam ate the fruit(the Bible doesn't actually say what kind of fruit it was), that he passed on corruption, so to speak.  I believe that corrution is passed on from the male, & that if he were to not have eaten, he could've still mated with Eve, & they would've had perfect children.  And that might explain why Jesus was to be born of a virgin.  With no male involved, the "sin gene" would not be inherited.  So, if that's true, then God didn't do it, just to be some kind of miracle, but, also because he had to, based on the laws he had already set in place. So, then theoretically I think their children would be, for lack of a better term, closer to perfection, allowing humans to mate with someone related closer to them, then what we are physically capable of today....nor socially accepted(thankfully) in most area's of the world.  When someone does commit incest, our corruption would be increased 10-fold, resulting in entire town's in the backwoods  

As for the tree of good & bad(which I think is also where the Greek Ambrosia comes from), I don't know if it was something in the fruit that actually started breaking down Adam's genes, or if somehow, the act of willfully sinning(since they were "perfect" they would've had to sin totally on purpose I would guess ) corrupted his body.  Apparently though, some Christians believe that the forbidden fruit was sex itself...but, that makes no sense, how the heck are we supposed to have children & enjoy eachothers bodies if Adam & Eve weren't allowed to have sex?!?

None of this makes me right though, it's just what I believe based on what I've been able to gather in my lifetime thus far.  Who knows what I will discover, or what humans in general will discover in the next 5, 10, 20 years, etc. 

[nodtveidt]

Interesting stuff... a couple of points though:

Evolution isn't a ramp to which an "ultimate form" can be accomplished, therefore there is no "ceiling". It's a process where organisms change to survive better in their environment. Just because something is evolved, that doesn't mean it's advanced. Even amoeba has evolved over the millenia. It's not something you "believe", it's something you "understand". Oh, and the appendix's function is already known... it's meant to aid in the digestion of wood. Since we don't eat wood anymore, it currently serves no function. It's a throwback from our ancestral species; earlier species ate plants exclusively.

The story of Adam and Eve is nonsense. The Jewish version is also nonsense. They're based on previous creation stories from a time when mankind didn't have a clue as to the nature of abiogenesis. We know better now.

The flood story is also total nonsense. This too is based on previous stories. Portions of The Epic Of Gilgamesh is where most of the Bible's flood story comes from.

Keep in mind that these stories were written thousands of years ago by people who believed that the earth was flat, that the sun was drawn by chariots, that diseases were caused by demons, and that two of every kind of animal lived within walking distance of Noah's house.

[Joe Redifer]

But Noah's Ark has already been discovered!

Funnily, they used carbon dating to determine that the remains are about 4,800 years old.  It works for Noah's Ark but NOT for dinosaurs.

[ParanoiaDragon]

I was kidding about the evolving in to balls of light or whatever, was thinking of the Q continuim from Star Trek on that  It's all about what it takes to survive, I'm not counting on anyone turning into a guy with bones claws & regenerative powers that will be needed to survive.  Yeah, I'm sure amoeba has evolved, everything does.  Actually, the thing about our ancestors being exclusive plant eaters makes alot of sense.  After the flood, they were instructed to eat meat to survive, maybe because of the lack of vegatation is one of my first guesses.  But, if there was a global flood like how it's described, it could maybe even change the environment, maybe the carbon changed drastically from such a catastrophic event.  

Kind of off topic, but, after visiting Stone Henge, my wife & I were thinking it might be possible for it to be pre-flood & have survived.  There's no seismic activity in the area, the stones are sunken in the ground by 1/3 IIRC, & I think they date back to sometime around when the flood was supposed to have happened, somewhere around I think 4500 years ago or something like that, which seems to go along with those remains of Noah's ark....if they're real.  I don't know that if it exists, that it would be intact.  Ofcoarse, most people believe the ark was a boat with Noah hanging out with the animals doing some rain bathing.  However, that's not how the Bible describes it.  Based on cubits, it sounds like some sort of giant rectangle, which makes more sense to me, seems like a boat would get absolutely destroyed in that kind of situation.  And ofcoarse, that so called discovery says it has a stern.....so, yeah, I'm not buying it being Noah's ark.

Actually, atleast in the Bible, it says the earth is a sphere that hangs upon nothing, even though everyone else at the time believe it was maybe held up by 4 elephants on a turtles back, etc.  It also seems to indicate that disease was spread atleast partially from filth.  The Israelites were absolutely required to take a dump outside the camp, & I think not only that, but not anywhere near a source of water....unlike the Thames of more recent centuries

Ive thought about the dinosaurs, & havn't personally thought of a reason for them dying off, though, some Christians don't believe in them at all!  I deffinitly believe alot of the similar stories from other cultures are related, like what I mentioned about ambrosia(not that I have any proof though) as well as Hercules(half human son of a god) being linked to maybe the nephilim(half human sons of spirits/gods).  I think it may be possible that the Bible's version of various linked stories just weren't starting to be written down until Moses time(later then Gilgamesh, etc.).  And if God exists, that he inspired the various writers to have the correct details, rather then just relying on passed down word of mouth.  If it was word of mouth, then I would think there's bound to be things that changed, like the telephone game.  Noah built the ark & purple monkey dishwashers.

As for the animals, if God exists, I think the Bible does say that the animals were guided to the ark by him.  Even if not, that's what I personally think, that even if Noah was to just gather up the animals, I would still think that God was involved somehow.  Plus, I forget how long the ark took to make...40 years maybe?  Might've been longer.  I would think there would be plenty of time for animals to make a trek to his area.  Plus, it seems like alot of the ancestors of the animals we have today were around the area of the garden of eve.  From there, they could've evolved into what we have now.  Animals like penguins that survive in a cold climate couldve been totally different then, & have since evolved to thriving in that type of climate, if that makes any sense?  Even then, I don't know if maybe there was a certain type of bird that we have now that was on the ark that evolved into different types of birds.  I would think, with birds, there was probably many kinds on the ark, & those all evolved into what we have today.

[nodtveidt]

There was no flood within the time of modern humans. Period. The story is hogwash. Even if the time period was 40 years, there's way too much to consider in terms of logistics. This video will sum it up:


Our ancestral species ate plants exclusively... not our species. Many other members of the homo genus ate plants and nothing else. Homo neanderthalensis was also omnivorous, but they were "outbred", so to speak, about 130 thousand years ago. The homo genus goes back about two and a half million years, but our kind is only about two hundred thousand years old. Our primary rival subspecies, idaltu, was vanquished about 160 thousand years ago, leaving only us, homo sapiens sapiens, as the sole survivor of the homo genus. Eventually, homo will either have another subspecies evolution or will be eliminated entirely.

[ParanoiaDragon]

My understanding of the ark is that it was a giant retangle box.  The example of the ark in the video is not like the ark described in the Bible, if they were trying to be accurate from how I understand the measurements.  But, I'm no mathmetician, so, I'm the wrong person to go to for what cubits translates to into feet, etc.  And I'm inclinded to believe that all animals back then may have been herbavores, but that's only based on the commandment that Noah & his family eat meat after the flood, & later in Revelation where it speaks of the lion eating straw like the bull, which may be just figurative & not literal.

I deffinitly don't believe it was all magic, but that's just my own thoughts.  I think God did use alot of the natural laws in regards to alleged miracles, rather then stuff just appearing.  But, ofcoarse God guiding the animals that would be on the ark, could still be considered magic.  I actually believe that the flood created ice ages, so, that all makes sense to me.  IIRC they believe that the ice age started suddenly, with mammoth's etc. still having edible food in their mouths.

I have no problem with the figures stated of how much food was needed, etc.  The ark was friggin' huge, I don't recall specifically, wasn't it like the size of 3 football fields or something riciculous like that, once again, comes down to cubits.  I recall cubits being something along the lines of the basic mearsurement from a man's fingers with an open palm down to the elbow?  So, in looking at my arm, roughly 18 inches was a cubit if I'm recalling right.  Though, I suppose it's possible that no one has the cubit figured out right?  Assumingly, it would've had atleast 8 people working on it over however many years it took to build it with the various wood(was it some kind of cedar??) & tar & I think even had primitive nails  IIRC.  Honestly, with things like the pyramids, etc. I believe ancient man was alot smarter & capable then most people give them credit for.

But I also am inclined to believe in the flood based on the various cultures found around the world, including Native Americans that have the story.  I was talking to one Native American from south eastern Canada IIRC, he said their tradition was something, like a squid or octopus got stuck in a hole in a lake, & plugged it up & it filled the whole world.  Somethign like that.  While I don't believe that's what happened, nor do I think it's any kind of proof, I still find it interesting none the less.  There's no way that I know of to prove that a global flood happened during the life & times of the homo sapien, but.  And honestly, maybe animals & humans can evolve quicker then we currently understand.  Maybe there will be some new discovery someday, we're always discovering something new about not only the universe itself, but the planet that we live on.

Once again though, just because I believe or understand something one way, doesn't mean I'm right.  While I believe there could be aliens, I personally don't think there are.  But I could be totally wrong, no doubt.

[sunteam_paul]

I have a few observations. I've tried to word these so they are not misconstrued as a personal attack (which they are not), but I know belief is a touchy subject.

I deffinitly don't believe the Bible is totally litteral, there's just no way IMO... I don't believe a single one of them is real.  Other's  you have to figure out what they represent based on their attributes & features. 

I think a lot of Christians have a similar outlook on the Bible. The question to be asked is waht is the criteria for determining which parts are literal and which are not? You state later that you believe in Adam and Eve, yet not in the Antichrist. Why not? Are you just picking and choosing which bits of the Bible you like and discarding those that you don't? If so, what basis do you have to believe any of its claims?

I think that if God exists, alot of the miracles in the bible, are God using natural laws.  For instance, I believe it says that God caused ridiculously strong winds to hold up the Red Sea, rather then him just, making it stand up with no explanation whatsoever. 

So if all these 'miracles' happened by purely natural mechanisms, why jump to the conclusion that 'Godditit.'? Hey, I saw a double rainbow the other day, so Godditit even though it's explainable by natural means. So if these miracles were not supernatural (as you imply) then there is nothing to distinguish the world with God from the world without God, and the God hypothesis is not only redundant, but really stretching credibility.

A being of some kind as I described above... is what seems most logical to me. And I find that logic differ's from person to person, so what I believe, isn't always going to be logical to the next person. 

A supernatural being seems most logical? Despite all we know of the way the universe works, the logical conclusion is some sort of invisible magic entity? Really? Logic does not differ from person to person. At least the rules of logic are objective. It's the conclusions that are drawn that tend to differ, but I get your point.

There are so many little grouple that believe in some human leader that will lead them to so called salvation, but I believe most, if not all of those leaders are just taking advantage of the people

There was this guy called Jesus...

I try to think more about what I'm into or getting into, rather then just going along with the crowd.  I try to reason on things, rather then just taking a blind leap of faith like alot of Christians to do.

Yet you can't deny that some of your beliefs still require a blind leap of faith, often completely at odds with the evidence.

I was raised around both creation & evolution, & while I deffinitly believe in creation, you could say I partially believe in evolution. 

Common misconception. Creation and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive. They each have absolutely nothing to do with each other. You are mistaking evolution with abiogenesis.

However, I do personally believe that with each generation, we are gradually dying, & that our dna is corrupted,

Evidence?

& if not for modern science as well as just plain cleanliness, our life spans would be shorter then they generally are in comparison to hundreds of years ago, when you could be 35 & an old man ,

People weren't actually 'old men' back then in terms of rapid ageing. They just died younger due to disease and other factors. I guess you meant that, just wanted to clarify.

I don't believe that everything came from nothing however

To the best of our knowledge, the universe came from a singularity. I don't think we have a way to know if this came from nothing or something. If it came from something, where did that something come from? It's one of those questions which is probably impossible to answer.

I believe there is a limit or plateu to evolution, & that everything stays within this limit. 

There is no artificial ceiling to the process of evolution, and no evidence to suggest that there is. Of course, we cannot evolve in a supernatural way physically impossible, and the only limit to evolution is the environment in which the process of natural selection takes place.

I believe it's possible that we don't actually have vestigial organs, but that the one's that are considered vestigial(I think most people accept that the appendix is linked to the immune system IIRC?), are either just not understood yet, or are even faulty.

I'm sure biologists would be very interested if you can refute the mounds of evidence to the contrary. You'd probably win the Nobel Prize.

I think the story of the flood is a good example of evolution.  If it's true,

It isn't.

only 2 of every kind of animal was on the so called "ark",

The Bible states that 2 of each unclean beast was taken. Clean beasts were taken in sevens.

For instance, I'm inclined to believe that there was maybe some kind of wolf like creature on the ark, that eventually led to not only wolves, but foxes, hyeanas(sp?) & all the differe types of domestic dog's.  Same with cat's, there was probably 1 or 2 types of cats, that eventually evolved into both the bigger & smaller cats. 

However, the timescales involved in the Bible are not nearly sufficient to see such rapid evolution take place. I can highly recommend the book The Greatest Show on Earth by Rickard Dawkins. It's a wonderful explanation of the evolutionary process.

And the same goes with the 8 people that allegedly survived the flood.  I believe that they all gradually made up new races of humans.  I do believe in the lineage of man from Adam & Eve, which also makes me think that there some types of humans that no longer exist, if they were killed in the flood.  It might explain the different types of primitive humans that have been discovered.

No. What explains the different types of primitive humans is the process of evolution via natural selection. In fact, it explains it so perfectly that no other hypothesis (particularly one relying on magic) is required. By your reasoning, what did Adam and Eve look like? Homo habilis? Nakalipithecus? How far do you go back?

I do believe that with the male & female, that it makes it harder to procreate, & wonder why we divided into two specific seperate creatures that have to mate with eachother, rather then being some kind of creature that can just split off to procreate

This is likely due to the genetic benefits and survivability that comes from sharing genetic information. I'm really no biologist, but there are plenty of places to get a start on the ideas about this.

And if their parts weren't fully compatible, that would make those part vestigial, & they would be discarded.

Not necessarily. Vestigial does not mean useless.

I personally havn't come up with my own thoughts on why God would've used full blown evolution, it seems like, from my point of view, that it would make more sense to just create the different animals & allow them to broaden out within those types.

It's probably because every God is a non-existant man-made being.

  But, just because I don't believe in evolving from one creature to the next, doesn't make me right.

Very true. But you need to ask yourself why you don't accept the evidence. Perhaps you need to understand evolution better; many people only have a vague grasp on evolution based on things they've mostly forgotten from school and disinfomation from religious organisations.

For me, belief in God doesn't mean he'll just go around granted me wishes or protecting me.  The Bible says that he makes it rain upon the good & the wicked, & sun shine upon the good & wicked, & I think Jesus said that we are all victim's of time & unforeseen circumstance.  So, just because I believe God is there, doesn't mean I have a magic bubble around mean, deffinitly not.  We all have to go thru good times & bad, no doubt.   

The Bible says a lot of things. Many of them contradict each other or are so vague as to be completely useless. So you can pretty much make the Bible say what you want it to say. All your wishes granted? Check. Not all your wishes granted? Check.

Ofcoarse, some believe in an imortal soul that goes to heaven or hell, but I don't believe in that.

Agreed.

I don't believe that Bible teaches that.  Infact Jesus said that death is like sleep, & that there's no knowledge, nor wisdom, nor devising, etc. in sheol(the grave), & the dead are concious of nothing at all.  They're not being burned in fiery torment(quite a few old religions teach that or something similar, & it did get adopted into most Christian churches), nor are they in limbo twiddling their thumbs, & along with that, I don't believe that anyone is sitting on a cloud strumming a harp.  The words Sheol(Hebrew) & Hades(Greek), usually get translated into the word hell, but, IIRC it actually litteraly means "the common man's grave".  That's it, we die, we're done.  The soul that is sinning, it itself shall die.  I believe we all sin/imperfect, & that a person "is" a soul, rather then "has" a soul, & then we die & aren't aware of anything at all.

There are so many conflicting views, even within Christian circles about fiery torment, hell etc. Some believe hell is just being disconnected from God. I think you'd find more than a few Christians who would disagree that the Bible doesn't teach about our souls going to heaven or hell though.

In regards to Adam & Eve's children mating with eachother(brother & sister), my thoughts are that it goes back to our dna degrading.  I think at one time, we were in much better shape(might explain the longgggggg life spans earlier in the Bible), but that once Adam ate the fruit(the Bible doesn't actually say what kind of fruit it was), that he passed on corruption, so to speak.  I believe that corrution is passed on from the male, & that if he were to not have eaten, he could've still mated with Eve, & they would've had perfect children.

Or it might be just a story and you made all of that up based on nothing.

And that might explain why Jesus was to be born of a virgin. 

Originally a mistranslation of the word almah, which means 'young woman'.

With no male involved...{snip}...how the heck are we supposed to have children & enjoy eachothers bodies if Adam & Eve weren't allowed to have sex?!?

While an interesting mental exercise (like filling in the blanks in movies with lots of plot holes), this really has no bearing on actual fact.

None of this makes me right though, it's just what I believe based on what I've been able to gather in my lifetime thus far.  Who knows what I will discover, or what humans in general will discover in the next 5, 10, 20 years, etc. 

I admit it's fun to pick apart stories and come up with clever mental gymnastics to explain away things you don't understand, but if you actually, truthfully, believe all this, I would suggest you do further research, particularly in biology, the history of the Bible (and all religions) and the counter arguments.

[ParanoiaDragon]

Cool, I don't want to feel awkward around friends.  

I don't think I would say that I pick & choose what to believe is literal & what is figurative.  It's more about context.  Sometimes some things in scripture are ridiculously obvious that they're literal(though, I'm sure some would argue otherwise) or figurative.  It seems to me like literal things are in groups(for lack of a better term), as are figurative.  It doesn't seem like alot of figurative stuff is lumped right in the middle of literal stuff, not sure how else to word it, but, I could be wrong.  I believe that Adam & Eve were real based on the lineage traced from Adam to Jesus in a couple of the books, including David & Solomon in the lineage, & also I recall a time or 2 when Jesus spoke of them as if they were real people, rather then just a story.  So that's what inclines me to believe they existed in general.  

As for miracles, I didn't mean to give the impression that they were all based on natural law.  Just that, I think in many cases, God used natural laws, like with the Red Sea, & atleast some of the 10 plagues, & the delivering of quail into Israel, etc.  However, there's other things I just don't think were using natural laws, unless there's still some natural law's we still don't understand today, I suppose that's possible.  But, for instance, I can't think of any way Jesus could've kept supplying continuous fish & bread, using natural laws. Assuming it actually happened, it does indeed sound like magic.  Same goes for alot or all of the healings in the Bible, not that I'm a scientist, but, I have no idea how they'd be done, without God breaking the natural laws.

The anti-christ seems more like a mythical beast so to speak, & earlier it was stated that in the first century, there are already many anti-christs.  I don't believe that the anti-christ is a mythical magical superhuman or anything.  I'm more inclined to believe that it maybe refers to a group of people with no magical powers or anything.  More like a group that doesn't even know they are the so called anti-christ, & they could even consider themselves christian, but teach ideas that seem contrary to the Bible, like hellfire, limbo, the trinity, that Mary's image will appear in grilled cheese sandwhiches, etc.  That's probably the easiest way to explain it.  Once again though, what sounds literal to one, sounds figurative to another.  I won't say I can prove one way over another, just because I believe a certain way.

My idea about God being some kind of multi or omni-chrono singularity is ofcoarse, nothing more then an idea, no proof, I doubt there ever would be.  It's just me thinking about things.  Probably my ocd kicking in gear, I tend to just think about random stuff, especially stuff based on what we know so far about the universe & natural laws.  Though, I do think we'll probably know alot more in another 100 years.  The stuff we keep discovering is amazing, The Fibonacci sequence is something that impresses me & I think is quite cool, though I'm no mathmetician.  I saw watched a documentray or 2 on it, & I personally find it intruiging, & to me seems like design, rather then chance.  I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me, it's just one of those things that really seems to make sense to me.

Yeah, most Christians worship Jesus, though, they think he IS God, so, if he's God, then he's technically not a human, just was for a short period of time.  Either way, I don't believe he is God, but rather God's son.  I don't believe that God is a 3 headed ogre of some sort.  That's one interesting thing.  I can't figure out how people can believe the Trinity, & they can't figure out how I don't.  To them, the Bible is riddled with scriptures that support the Trinity.  To me, just the opposite.  Yes, Jesus talked about being one with the Father....but, he also said that a husband & wife should be one!  Is that literal..or figurative?  Are my wife & I supposed to litteraly join our bodies together based on scripture?  He also said let his disciples be one, just as he & God are one.  Once again, are they supposed to be some sort of literal multi headed hermaphrodite or something??  I don't believe it, it sounds figurative of being unified in love, joy peace, etc. etc.

Oh yeah, faith is deffinitly involved, & I personally feel I lack alot of faith, & I pray to have faith where I lack it.  In no way, shape or form can I see or show anyone, God.  What I call evidence to me, is certainly not evidence to someone else.  I've always been taugh though, not to have just faith, but to examine & think about things, rather then just blindly believe every last thing without any seeming proof.  ?And the Bible itself says that anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps, & encourage using the power of reason...of which I tend to think alot of Christians don't do, but end up literally blindly believing in stuff, but I can't say for sure, I'm no mind reader

Yeah, I know nothing about abiogenesis, so, that's something to learn about, no doubt.  There's always plenty for me to learn about, though, I'm honestly no book worm, even though I am a thinker.  I'll be learning till I'm old & grey.

As for us gradually dying(so to speak), I have no evidence, it's just another one of my thoughts, & nothing more.  To my knowledge, no religion I know of teaches it, & I don't necessarily believe it, but to me it might make sense only based on lifespans allegedly getting shorter in the Bible.  Maybe there's still more at play in regards to aging & dna, etc. that we still haven't discovered?  I have no idea.

And yeah, I didn't literally mean old men, just relatively speaking.  

I tend to think that the big bang sounds logical for starting things.  I think I stated earlier, that I believe the planets & universe itself were started before the 6 creative days, which could've been random lengths of time, thousand or millions or billions, what is time to a being that I think may be outside of time as we understand time currently?  In any case, yeah, I have no idea if anyone can ever answer that one way or the other.  Maybe someday someone would find an answer, but later it's found they didn't fit in a certain calculation?  Who knows.

Nobel Prize, hear I come  No, but seriously, it's just my own thoughts, & nothing more.  I don't aspire to be anyone great that has some awesome discovery, though it'd be cool if I did discover something, no doubt.

Yeah, I know about the 2 for unclean & 7 for clean.  Seems like most people just focus on the 2 unclean, so I just didn't bother to include them.

Adam & Eve's appearance?  No idea.  Once again, just a thought of mine in regards to ancient man.  I'm inclined at the least to think they were dark skinned.  Even now we do have a bit of variation in the different races, probably have alot more we're capable of for all I know.  And in the same general location there's groups like the hutu's, tutsi's & twa's. If nothing else, it's just interesting in general to see diversity. My dad made a comment to me(he tends to be a thinker as well) about to him that it seems like maybe having male & female would introduce more variety into the genepool, rather then amoeba or hermaphrodite type breeding, where it would seem like that would be more like just straight cloning.

Actually, in regards to God or god's, I've had a couple of thoughts on what they could be composed of.  I think the most obvious idea for someone to come up with, is that they exist in a different dimension, one that we havn't figured out yet.  And that they are not material, infact, not male nor female.  Even though biblicaly they take the form of a male, doesn't necessarily mean they have a sex.  I'm inclined to belive they sexless & don't procreate, other then God making others.  I have no proof though, just me musing.  Another is that maybe God is composed of the elements we havent' discovered yet?

I'm still learning about how evolution works, & will continue to do so.  And yeah, any book that uses figurative language can be taken in a millions different ways, so then it's, who has it figured out?  Is my belief's the truth?  Just because I believe it is, doesn't make it so.  It seems like most the Christians I run into still believe in hellfire, though, in this day & age, I'm sure there's more churches teaching it dfferently...thankfully.  I know my grandmothers church taught that if a baby doesn't get baptized, & it dies, then it'll burn in hell forever.  That was always something that to her seemed to conflict with other teachings in the Bible, & it truly disgusted her, & she eventually left when she found a group that, to her, reasoned with the scriptures, instead of just saying, that's the way it is, & didn't believe in seemingly contradicting ideas.

In regards to heaven or hell though, to me, it's more about, what did the original translation of hell mean, especially when it even spoke of good people going to hell/sheol/hades.  And as strange as it sounds, at this time, I still believe that a small number of people will go to heaven to rule as king's & priests, but I am not one of them, & don't wish to be.  I wish to live on earth along with the great crowd of other sheep spoken of that would live on earth, though, this is probably getting a bit wierd sounding, so I'll move on.

Yeah, like I said, it's just more thinking on my part(in regards to Adam & Eve & their children, etc.).  To my knowledge, it's not a teaching of any religion, just PD pondering  

That thing about the mistranslation of almah sounds familiar.  I have no proof in front of me, but feel like I read an article on that very thing, & that there was another word used in the hebrew scriptures(or was almah the hebrew word?) that also referred to the vigrin conception & did mean virgin, or maybe that it was that almah translated to young woman literally, but back in those times meant a virgin?  I honestly don't know, but it does sound familiar.  And yeah, I always have continuing research to do...I'd say, life is research, atleast in my case



  

[nodtveidt]

What I wanna know is... if you don't actually believe the Bible... why bother calling yourself "Christian"?

[Joe Redifer]

I would think that "Christian" defines those who believe that Jesus was the son of god.

[nodtveidt]

Not necessarily. The word means "Christ-like", indicating that those who call themselves "Christian" strive to be like their religious figurehead. Of course, this alone eliminates over 99% of self-proclaimed "Christians".

[Joe Redifer]

Well I doubt Jesus ever read the Bible, so they're just like Christ!

It's funny, because I know a few Christians who insist that Catholics aren't Christians.

[nodtveidt]

A lot of Protestants claim that Catholics aren't Christians, which is kind of like claiming that the PC Engine isn't a game console.

[Gogan]

Jus saw this thread, Here's what I believe:

1. Do the right thing, and 2. treat people good.

Idk what religion that is, but man, if everyone followed that....

[Joe Redifer]

Agreed.  Nobody needs religion to do good.  Well, some people use it as their crutch, saying you can't do good without religion.  Those people would be idiots no matter if they were religious or not.