Quote from: wulfgar;250262Not at all Bill.  No offence taken in the slightest.

Good. It is difficult to discuss this sort of thing without sounding like one is trying to demand acknowledgment from the other. I will endeavor to keep my language and approach reasonable.

Quote from: wulfgar;250262Speaking at least from a Catholic Christian perspective, pretty much all of what you decribe is different then what I believe:

This is not my experience. I will expand below.

Quote from: wulfgar;250262-I belive God has shown Himself to us in a multitude of ways and continues to do so.

In what ways? Please be as specific as possible. I mean this not as a "gotcha" kind of thing but more in understanding. I can look at a tree and understand it developed from smaller plants during the coniferous period. Are you saying yo look at a tree and see the hand of God? Or is it a case that you believe in miracles? The former is purely a rationale (and I mean that in the dictionary sense not the insult sense) for God in everything. In this sense, there can be no "right" or "wrong" since it is your chosen means of seeing an object. In the later, I merely question the validity of any report.

Quote from: wulfgar;250262-I believe God does a great deal for those who are suffering

Again, in what way do you mean? I have heard it expressed that:
a) God helps those that help themselves
b) God helps the suffering through others (other people)
c) God grants solace through your faith

In the case of "a" I would say this is merely a mode of motivating yourself. Not to be dismissed as bad in itself but not to be granted merit to a deity. You did it after all. It is like when i hold my son's hand when he is going to jump off a rock. He can do it but he needs that assurance even though I do not help him.

In "b" I would just say that is the goodwill of human beings. Where it comes from does not concern me beyond saying that it is in the person to start with. Noe deity need be involved, IMO.

Finally, "c" is a variation of "a". That is to say, mind over matter, surrogate confidence, whatever you wish to call it.

A side note, please understand, I have no issue with faith. Faith can be powerful tool, it can ease a persons life, help deal with hard and good times. I have issue with most external morality, organized religions and abdication of personal responsibility in the face of a "greater" power.

Quote from: wulfgar;250262-I think the world is older than 10,000 years and nothing in my religion's teachings tells me I have to think otherwise.  Could I be wrong, and the world reall is 10,000 years old? Sure.  I think the evidence supports a much, much older earth, but it wouldn't blow my mind or destroy my faith if new evidence showed the earth younger or older then what I think it is.

So, your religion should tell you it only took 7 days right? That in fact it was the universe that took 7 days to create? There are many versions of the bible but I think that is in most of them. If this is the case, the point stands. There are many theories on planet formation but I do not think any of them say 1 day for the earth and 5 for the universe.

Now, I have heard the argument that this is "God Days" or the scale is not important or variations on Intelligent Design. I find this to again be a case of fitting your views to what you see. The same could be argued for anything and by definition, God made everything. Therefore, the argument is one of your perception, you chosen perception and no more. Again, this is not wrong, it is just not empirically correct. That is to say, it is not a fact, it is your opinion (and the opinion of many Christians).

Quote from: wulfgar;250262I hope I don't come across as "you must believe as I believe" either.

Likewise.

Bill

Quote from: Patriarch917;250268I would argue more this way:

- Belief in a supernatural deity that frequently has revealed Himself, has infinite power, infinite good, and is willing to relieve the suffering of his creations by taking their sufferings upon himself. About 6,000 years ago, he whipped up the universe in 6 days (and rested on the seventh).

Really? Cause I see a heck of a lot of diehard, dedicated Christians suffering a lot. I don't mean, can't pay the mortgage, but being raped by Priests, the guardians of the flock, the representatives of their God. There are many more versions but that is a good start.

So, where did the Dinosaurs go? What are the Neanderthal and Cromagnon skeletons? Tests of our faith by God or is it the Devil?

Quote from: Patriarch917;250268- Belief in unprovable speculation that cannot be reproduced by experiments and has no basis in archaeological evidence.

You mean like the fossil record?

Quote from: Patriarch917;250268No verifiable method to date things beyond 10000 years. Evolutionary principles that either are bland enough to fit within a creationist model (some people have red hair), or absurdly inexplicable (bat wings evolved from webbed fingers), and that make almost no contribution to industry and progress (which are driven by intelligent designs).

Dude, you went so far off the reservation I cannot even see you. Take a stupid simple example of evolution, selective breeding. Dogs are specialized to tasks because we picked traits and bred for them. That is the weakest version of evolution in industry.

Quote from: Patriarch917;250268An explanation that is empty at it's core (origin of universe, origin of life), and must ask it's adherents to accept as happening by chance events that are either apparently impossible (an environment suitable to create the components of a cell is unsuitable to sustain a living cell) or, under the best of circumstance, so improbable as to militate against their happening by chance (the universe is, by the most popular theories, neither big enough nor old enough to give a pool of probability large enough to expect life to occur by chance, and to survive).

Fantastical and weak sauce at that.

Yes, your argument is fantastical and weak sauce. Maybe a troll.

Bill

Quote from: Engine;250252I'm sorry; nothing to say to what?

If i have to tell you, then we have nothing left to talk about.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250283Really? Cause I see a heck of a lot of diehard, dedicated Christians suffering a lot. I don't mean, can't pay the mortgage, but being raped by Priests, the guardians of the flock, the representatives of their God. There are many more versions but that is a good start.

You said He "does nothing for the suffering of his creations."  I said that He has done something.  I didn't say that suffering doesn't exist.  As long as sin exists, suffering will follow.  However, God has provided the means for doing away with sin, and thus with suffering.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250283So, where did the Dinosaurs go? What are the Neanderthal and Cromagnon skeletons? Tests of our faith by God or is it the Devil?

Dinosaurs went extinct.  Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon skeletons are the skeletons of dead humans.  Neither.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250283You mean like the fossil record?

The theory of evolution was not based on the fossil record, but on speculation extrapolating from observation of variations within living animals. It was proposed that the fossil record might show links, but has never yielded anything seriously supporting the proposition that all forms of life came from common ancestors.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250283Dude, you went so far off the reservation I cannot even see you. Take a stupid simple example of evolution, selective breeding. Dogs are specialized to tasks because we picked traits and bred for them. That is the weakest version of evolution in industry.

You've got it backwards on all counts.  First, the theory of Evolution didn't give rise to the idea of breeding dogs, it was the other way around. Second, that's a clear example of intelligent design contributing to industry and process.

Quote from: Patriarch917;250288You said He "does nothing for the suffering of his creations."  I said that He has done something.  I didn't say that suffering doesn't exist.  As long as sin exists, suffering will follow.  However, God has provided the means for doing away with sin, and thus with suffering.

But didn't Christ die for our sins?

Beyond that, this all powerful god then allows his creations to suffer when he could prevent it. Damn, cruel if you ask me.

Quote from: Patriarch917;250288Dinosaurs went extinct.  Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon skeletons are the skeletons of dead humans.  Neither.

What, last week? It kind of screws with the 6K marker a bit.

Quote from: Patriarch917;250288The theory of evolution was not based on the fossil record, but on speculation extrapolating from observation of variations within living animals. It was proposed that the fossil record might show links, but has never yielded anything seriously supporting the proposition that all forms of life came from common ancestors.

No, it wasn't and I did not say it was. However, it is a record that kind of screws with your time line again.

Quote from: Patriarch917;250288You've got it backwards on all counts.  First, the theory of Evolution didn't give rise to the idea of breeding dogs, it was the other way around. Second, that's a clear example of intelligent design contributing to industry and process.

I did not say originally that it was how the theory of evolution was developed. I said it was an example of it in industry and in use by man.

You know, I really think you are a troll.

Bill

I think I need brain bleach after reading Pat917's posts.
 
Hmmmm, who do I believe, multiple geniuses trying to piece together the puzle of existence, or do I believe some bible thumping lunatic that relies on the ignorance of the past to convey their "reality"?
 
Alex, I'll take Science for 500.

Quote from: Patriarch917;250288The theory of evolution was not based on the fossil record, but on speculation extrapolating from observation of variations within living animals. It was proposed that the fossil record might show links, but has never yielded anything seriously supporting the proposition that all forms of life came from common ancestors.

Someone really needs to make a website slide show that shows all of the different links that idiots like this claim don't exist.

Oh wait, someone did.

Well, wulfgar, Ikrast and Patriarch917, I've had a good night's sleep and I'm still unconvinced by any of your arguments. They seem to rely heavily on petitio principii.

double post

Alllright, whose sockpuppet is 917? CavScout? Jackalope doing something really, really elaborate?

Maybe TonyLB got drunk... but the typing's too consistent, even down to the deliberately misused it's. Does anyone know if he's experimenting with crack cocaine?

Welp. Whoever it is, thanks for ruining it... the thread was good while it lasted. I hope you're happy whoever you are.

QuoteSo, your religion should tell you it only took 7 days right? That in fact it was the universe that took 7 days to create? There are many versions of the bible but I think that is in most of them. If this is the case, the point stands. There are many theories on planet formation but I do not think any of them say 1 day for the earth and 5 for the universe.

Now, I have heard the argument that this is "God Days" or the scale is not important or variations on Intelligent Design. I find this to again be a case of fitting your views to what you see. The same could be argued for anything and by definition, God made everything. Therefore, the argument is one of your perception, you chosen perception and no more. Again, this is not wrong, it is just not empirically correct. That is to say, it is not a fact, it is your opinion (and the opinion of many Christians).

Again, I can offer what I think, not what I know, because I really don't know for sure how the universe was created.  That being said:

1. I believe the Earth was not made in 6, 24 hour days.
2. There is no article in my faith (Catholicism) that tells me I must believe otherwise.
3. The Bible was not created as a single book.  It's a collection of a bunch of books.  Of these books some are historical records, some are poems, some are allegorical, etc.  While they all contained Truth, they are not all to be read as historical records.  As an example of what I mean, let's look at the book Animal Farm.  It contains some powerful truths- power corrupts being the big one.  Yet, it wasn't written to tell the reader about a real farm with walking, talking animals who set up a political process, wage war, and do all sorts of other stuff.  This issue is often a bone of contention between Catholics and Protestant Christians.  The Catholic believes divine revelation is contained in two sources: Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the teaching authority of the Church- that's the short short explanation for Tradition with a capital T).  Tradition guides the interpretation of scripture.  For the Protestant, they see Sacred Scripture as the sole source of Divine Revelation.  This leads to a widely divergent range of views.  Some Protestants believe everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.  Some understand that various literary forms are used, but the determination of what is literal and what is allegorical falls onto the individual.  This is part of why Protestantism continues to fracture into more and more denominations.

In any case, if you'd like to dig more deeply into this I'd be happy to, but to get back on point, I don't think the earth was made in 6 24 hour days and this is not a case of me bucking the precepts of my faith.

QuoteIn what ways? Please be as specific as possible. I mean this not as a "gotcha" kind of thing but more in understanding. I can look at a tree and understand it developed from smaller plants during the coniferous period. Are you saying yo look at a tree and see the hand of God? Or is it a case that you believe in miracles? The former is purely a rationale (and I mean that in the dictionary sense not the insult sense) for God in everything. In this sense, there can be no "right" or "wrong" since it is your chosen means of seeing an object. In the later, I merely question the validity of any report.

God has maintained a close relationship with humanity since the beginning of time.  A few highlights along the way:
-Establishing his covenant with Abraham
-leading the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land.
-The life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ

Like I said, that's the short-short version.  The way that God is active in the world today that most immediately jumps to mind is through the Sacraments.  These would be:
-Baptism
-Confirmation
-Holy Communion (aka the Eucharist)
-Confession (aka Reconcilliation)
-Annointing of the Sick (the Sacrament formerly known as Last Rites )
-Marriage
-Holy Orders

The most central of these to God's relationship with Man is Holy Communion/Eucharist.  I don't expect a discussion thread on an rpg site to persuade you of the truth of this.  When I sit back and think about what is going on in the Eucharist, it blows my mind.  So I can very easily see how it sounds completely crazy to someone who is not too familiar (don't mean to speak out of turn, perhaps you are familiar).  So what happens in the Eucharist?  Basically, I consume the body and blood of Jesus Christ.  Not a reanactment or symbolic representation of his body and blood.  Not even his blood spilled again.  I participate in the same flesh and blood that he sacrificed on the cross about 2000 years ago.  So you'd be kinda sorta correct to say that I participate in a time travelling, cannibalistic ritual every Sunday, and some weekdays when I can make it to daily mass.  Like I said, sounds crazy.

QuoteAgain, in what way do you mean? I have heard it expressed that:
a) God helps those that help themselves
b) God helps the suffering through others (other people)
c) God grants solace through your faith

All of the above and more.  God answers prayers (not always the way we would have liked, but always in the best way possible).  God provides a plan for our lives.  God offers healing and forgiveness through the sacraments I listed above.  God offers an eternity of paradise in heaven to those who love and follow Him.  That last bit is very key.  The atheist looks at life and sees man born, lives, dies.  The Christian, getting back to the original question of this thread, sees that every man is an eternal being- with that soul thingamabob.  Everyone will exist forever.  Ultimately either in heaven or hell.  So yes, while there is suffering in this world, and as a Christian one should expect and welcome suffering it's all rather worth it if you can put up with suffering for say 80 years or so, for an eternity of paradise don't you think?  Eternity is a pretty long time

QuoteTake a stupid simple example of evolution, selective breeding. Dogs are specialized to tasks because we picked traits and bred for them. That is the weakest version of evolution in industry.

I see a number of issues with this:

1. The dogs didn't selectively breed themselves.  Man did it.  So there was a guiding intelligence or a designer.  While I'm quite open to the idea that evolution can operate in this way, as a tool used by a designer (God), that does not seem to be the stance you are advocating.  So how is this an example of unguided evolution rather than "intelligent design" assuming you had an intelligent dog breeder of course?

2. Every breed of dog is still a dog.  They can still mate with one another.  Non of them became a cat or a bird or a fish or a man.  None of them even became a space-age uber dog of the future.  So this does little to support the idea that evolution allows one species to evolve into another species.  

To be fair, you categorized this as a weak example yourself.  Do you have a "stronger" from industry, one that addresses either of these points- evolution acting in an unguided manner and evolution creating new species?

QuoteSo, your religion should tell you it only took 7 days right? That in fact it was the universe that took 7 days to create? There are many versions of the bible but I think that is in most of them. If this is the case, the point stands. There are many theories on planet formation but I do not think any of them say 1 day for the earth and 5 for the universe.

Now, I have heard the argument that this is "God Days" or the scale is not important or variations on Intelligent Design. I find this to again be a case of fitting your views to what you see. The same could be argued for anything and by definition, God made everything. Therefore, the argument is one of your perception, you chosen perception and no more. Again, this is not wrong, it is just not empirically correct. That is to say, it is not a fact, it is your opinion (and the opinion of many Christians).

Again, I can offer what I think, not what I know, because I really don't know for sure how the universe was created.  That being said:

1. I believe the Earth was not made in 6, 24 hour days.
2. There is no article in my faith (Catholicism) that tells me I must believe otherwise.
3. The Bible was not created as a single book.  It's a collection of a bunch of books.  Of these books some are historical records, some are poems, some are allegorical, etc.  While they all contained Truth, they are not all to be read as historical records.  As an example of what I mean, let's look at the book Animal Farm.  It contains some powerful truths- power corrupts being the big one.  Yet, it wasn't written to tell the reader about a real farm with walking, talking animals who set up a political process, wage war, and do all sorts of other stuff.  This issue is often a bone of contention between Catholics and Protestant Christians.  The Catholic believes divine revelation is contained in two sources: Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the teaching authority of the Church- that's the short short explanation for Tradition with a capital T).  Tradition guides the interpretation of scripture.  For the Protestant, they see Sacred Scripture as the sole source of Divine Revelation.  This leads to a widely divergent range of views.  Some Protestants believe everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.  Some understand that various literary forms are used, but the determination of what is literal and what is allegorical falls onto the individual.  This is part of why Protestantism continues to fracture into more and more denominations.

In any case, if you'd like to dig more deeply into this I'd be happy to, but to get back on point, I don't think the earth was made in 6 24 hour days and this is not a case of me bucking the precepts of my faith.

QuoteIn what ways? Please be as specific as possible. I mean this not as a "gotcha" kind of thing but more in understanding. I can look at a tree and understand it developed from smaller plants during the coniferous period. Are you saying yo look at a tree and see the hand of God? Or is it a case that you believe in miracles? The former is purely a rationale (and I mean that in the dictionary sense not the insult sense) for God in everything. In this sense, there can be no "right" or "wrong" since it is your chosen means of seeing an object. In the later, I merely question the validity of any report.

God has maintained a close relationship with humanity since the beginning of time.  A few highlights along the way:
-Establishing his covenant with Abraham
-leading the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land.
-The life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ

Like I said, that's the short-short version.  The way that God is active in the world today that most immediately jumps to mind is through the Sacraments.  These would be:
-Baptism
-Confirmation
-Holy Communion (aka the Eucharist)
-Confession (aka Reconcilliation)
-Annointing of the Sick (the Sacrament formerly known as Last Rites )
-Marriage
-Holy Orders

The most central of these to God's relationship with Man is Holy Communion/Eucharist.  I don't expect a discussion thread on an rpg site to persuade you of the truth of this.  When I sit back and think about what is going on in the Eucharist, it blows my mind.  So I can very easily see how it sounds completely crazy to someone who is not too familiar (don't mean to speak out of turn, perhaps you are familiar).  So what happens in the Eucharist?  Basically, I consume the body and blood of Jesus Christ.  Not a reanactment or symbolic representation of his body and blood.  Not even his blood spilled again.  I participate in the same flesh and blood that he sacrificed on the cross about 2000 years ago.  So you'd be kinda sorta correct to say that I participate in a time travelling, cannibalistic ritual every Sunday, and some weekdays when I can make it to daily mass.  Like I said, sounds crazy.

QuoteAgain, in what way do you mean? I have heard it expressed that:
a) God helps those that help themselves
b) God helps the suffering through others (other people)
c) God grants solace through your faith

All of the above and more.  God answers prayers (not always the way we would have liked, but always in the best way possible).  God provides a plan for our lives.  God offers healing and forgiveness through the sacraments I listed above.  God offers an eternity of paradise in heaven to those who love and follow Him.  That last bit is very key.  The atheist looks at life and sees man born, lives, dies.  The Christian, getting back to the original question of this thread, sees that every man is an eternal being- with that soul thingamabob.  Everyone will exist forever.  Ultimately either in heaven or hell.  So yes, while there is suffering in this world, and as a Christian one should expect and welcome suffering it's all rather worth it if you can put up with suffering for say 80 years or so, for an eternity of paradise don't you think?  Eternity is a pretty long time

QuoteTake a stupid simple example of evolution, selective breeding. Dogs are specialized to tasks because we picked traits and bred for them. That is the weakest version of evolution in industry.

I see a number of issues with this:

1. The dogs didn't selectively breed themselves.  Man did it.  So there was a guiding intelligence or a designer.  While I'm quite open to the idea that evolution can operate in this way, as a tool used by a designer (God), that does not seem to be the stance you are advocating.  So how is this an example of unguided evolution rather than "intelligent design" assuming you had an intelligent dog breeder of course?

2. Every breed of dog is still a dog.  They can still mate with one another.  Non of them became a cat or a bird or a fish or a man.  None of them even became a space-age uber dog of the future.  So this does little to support the idea that evolution allows one species to evolve into another species.  

To be fair, you categorized this as a weak example yourself.  Do you have a "stronger" from industry, one that addresses either of these points- evolution acting in an unguided manner and evolution creating new species?

As an aside, it's interesting that the basic science used in your example of breeding dogs for specific traits, while understood at various practical levels by very primitive man, was first explored in a more analytical way by Gregor Mendel, "the father of genetics" and a Catholic Priest.

QuoteNon of them became a cat or a bird or a fish or a man. None of them even became a space-age uber dog of the future.

We wouldn't expect this - if this did happen, it would probably refute evolution because going from dog to cat within human history would require steps so huge that your chances of getting the entire succession of intermediate forms in such quantum leaps each generation would be effectively zero.

I don't have the time to summarize, so I'll just link to the TalkOrigins thingy that talks about speciation. Now keep in mind these are all observations made in a span of less than 200 years, so yes the cichlid species are still cichlids - as it should be, for the same reason we don't expect a 20-foot stalagmite to grow from flat cave floor within a year, however much water you added to the system, or children this September to be learning a form of the English language at school that would be completely unintelligible to the people who taught us English.

Patriarch917: I think both bible theory (if you accept existence of omnipotent god) and so called scientific views are actually compatible. God is omnipotent, so there is no reason why god could not create universe, that looks and technicaly is 18 billions years old in six days about 6000 years ago. The next question is, if god can look into closed box without looking into it, create square circles and create rock so big, even omnipotent being cannot lift it.

Quote from: wulfgar;250404Again, I can offer what I think, not what I know, because I really don't know for sure how the universe was created.  That being said:

1. I believe the Earth was not made in 6, 24 hour days.

This violates the Dogma of your primary manual.

Quote from: wulfgar;2504042. There is no article in my faith (Catholicism) that tells me I must believe otherwise.

Your primary manual.

Quote from: wulfgar;2504043. The Bible was not created as a single book.  It's a collection of a bunch of books.  Of these books some are historical records, some are poems, some are allegorical, etc.  While they all contained Truth, they are not all to be read as historical records.  As an example of what I mean, let's look at the book Animal Farm.  It contains some powerful truths- power corrupts being the big one.  Yet, it wasn't written to tell the reader about a real farm with walking, talking animals who set up a political process, wage war, and do all sorts of other stuff.  This issue is often a bone of contention between Catholics and Protestant Christians.  The Catholic believes divine revelation is contained in two sources: Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the teaching authority of the Church- that's the short short explanation for Tradition with a capital T).  Tradition guides the interpretation of scripture.  For the Protestant, they see Sacred Scripture as the sole source of Divine Revelation.  This leads to a widely divergent range of views.  Some Protestants believe everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.  Some understand that various literary forms are used, but the determination of what is literal and what is allegorical falls onto the individual.  This is part of why Protestantism continues to fracture into more and more denominations.

Hmm. See, this is why it is not science. My primary point here, Wulfgar, and maybe it has been lost as we have gone along, is not to say your religion is wrong, but to take exception at your direct comparison of religion to science. I am a scientist and far more important, an engineer by training, profession and preference. Science, in the practical, is precise. Even in what it outlines as questionable (fact->theory->hypothesis). Not you, but most people who take the stance that science takes faith are usually not educated in science or engineering and really does not understand how it works. Scientists are just as happy to be proven wrong as right, reverse old stances on new evidence. Religion, not so much. If God was found to be a figment of the collective imagination of man, religion would be finished.

To the point above, it is even worse. The Bible is an assembled work for the purpose of fitting the political and theological agenda of a small subset of Christians in the third century AD. It is little more than propaganda in my opinion but it is your Holy Book. This seems to be the reason many Christians say "Meh, it is not SUPPOSED to be read literally." Simply, it can't be without warping the values they come to have int he modern world.

Quote from: wulfgar;250404God has maintained a close relationship with humanity since the beginning of time.  A few highlights along the way:
-Establishing his covenant with Abraham
-leading the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land.
-The life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ

How do you know these things? From the aforementioned "book of poetry, allegories and stories"? Seriously, you are saying you need to read through this book and just know which ones are history and which are parable. Abraham may have been waxing poetic about his imagined contacts. He may have been a killer of children looking to rationalize killing his own son but chickened out. Or worse yet, had to give himself a reason not to kill his own son. As to Jesus, his "miracles" were regularly performed by con men of the time. He had  message of peace that he himself did not follow. In general, he was one of many "messiahs" of the time.

Quote from: wulfgar;250404Like I said, that's the short-short version.  The way that God is active in the world today that most immediately jumps to mind is through the Sacraments.  These would be:
-Baptism
-Confirmation
-Holy Communion (aka the Eucharist)
-Confession (aka Reconcilliation)
-Annointing of the Sick (the Sacrament formerly known as Last Rites )
-Marriage
-Holy Orders

All earthly man-made ceremonies. This is not the hand of god, it does not heal people, it does not keep priests from raping innocents, it did not keep the Catholic Church from killing jews and moors to take their wealth. If you are going to say God is in those ceremonies then you must say God is in the vile side of the equation as well. He moves the priest to bugger a child. He moves a Pope to declare the Inquisition. Inspires war along with peace, hate along with love. This would make a neutral God, not a benevolent one.

Quote from: wulfgar;250404The most central of these to God's relationship with Man is Holy Communion/Eucharist.  I don't expect a discussion thread on an rpg site to persuade you of the truth of this.  When I sit back and think about what is going on in the Eucharist, it blows my mind.  So I can very easily see how it sounds completely crazy to someone who is not too familiar (don't mean to speak out of turn, perhaps you are familiar).  So what happens in the Eucharist?  Basically, I consume the body and blood of Jesus Christ.  Not a reanactment or symbolic representation of his body and blood.  Not even his blood spilled again.  I participate in the same flesh and blood that he sacrificed on the cross about 2000 years ago.  So you'd be kinda sorta correct to say that I participate in a time travelling, cannibalistic ritual every Sunday, and some weekdays when I can make it to daily mass.  Like I said, sounds crazy.

No, it sounds very familiar. It sounds like when people talk about "the space ship is coming" and "are moved" to mutilate themselves and eventually kill themselves. It sounds like the desire to believe, belong to something larger than yourself. You wish to believe that is a Holy Sacrament. That a special person who stands up before you can wash away the sins (bad things) you have done. It makes a person feel, they can deal with bad things they have done. I prefer taking responsibility for my actions. If I go to Hell, it would be because I did bad things, more bad things than good, and not because I "believe Jesus was the Son of God".

So, no, it does not sound crazy. It sounds all too common today. It is the root of my issue with religion. On the opposite side, it is also an expression of what I praise in a spiritual person, faith. Strong faith can do amazing things. However, Faith is not Religion.

Quote from: wulfgar;250404All of the above and more.  God answers prayers (not always the way we would have liked, but always in the best way possible).  God provides a plan for our lives.  God offers healing and forgiveness through the sacraments I listed above.  God offers an eternity of paradise in heaven to those who love and follow Him.  That last bit is very key.  The atheist looks at life and sees man born, lives, dies.  The Christian, getting back to the original question of this thread, sees that every man is an eternal being- with that soul thingamabob.  Everyone will exist forever.  Ultimately either in heaven or hell.  So yes, while there is suffering in this world, and as a Christian one should expect and welcome suffering it's all rather worth it if you can put up with suffering for say 80 years or so, for an eternity of paradise don't you think?  Eternity is a pretty long time

See, a big thing I also have a problem with is the general intolerance built into your religion. I am going to hell. This cannot be argued. Many Christians have told me so. Funny story:
"You know Bill, there are no Bhuddists in Hell!"
"Good. I don't want to go to Hell."
"No, you don't understand...there are no Bhuddists in hell!"
"Good. I don't want to go to hell and I do not want Bhuddists to go to hell either."
"But..."

I participated in that discussion in college. My point is, if I do not believe in your faith, why is it necessary that you:
a) attempt to convert me
b) tell me I will be punished under your rules
If you "do not know the will of god"?

Quote from: wulfgar;250404I see a number of issues with this:

1. The dogs didn't selectively breed themselves.  Man did it.  So there was a guiding intelligence or a designer.  While I'm quite open to the idea that evolution can operate in this way, as a tool used by a designer (God), that does not seem to be the stance you are advocating.  So how is this an example of unguided evolution rather than "intelligent design" assuming you had an intelligent dog breeder of course?

hmm, you take that in your own bias. It is an example of evolution on a fast track. That is to say, perhaps you could use it as an example of intelligent design if you do not know anything about dog breeding. Perhaps I used a poor example.

In the general sense of evolution, natural selection would be the deciding factor. If this was "intelligent" you would always have viables. Nothing would die off. Remember, we are talking "All-knowing" intelligent designer. In dog breeding, you either euthanize or sterilize animals with undesirable traits, thus taking them out of the pool. This simulates evolutionary dead ends.

Quote from: wulfgar;2504042. Every breed of dog is still a dog.  They can still mate with one another.  Non of them became a cat or a bird or a fish or a man.  None of them even became a space-age uber dog of the future.  So this does little to support the idea that evolution allows one species to evolve into another species.  

Do you know what evolution is? Seriously, I am not being snarky but you seem to be using a definition that I am not aware of.

Quoteev·o·lu·tion –noun
1.   any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2.   a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3.   Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4.   a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5.   a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6.   a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.
7.   an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
8.   Mathematics. the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution (def. .
9.   a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.
10.   any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.

Quote from: wulfgar;250404To be fair, you categorized this as a weak example yourself.  Do you have a "stronger" from industry, one that addresses either of these points- evolution acting in an unguided manner and evolution creating new species?

Neither of those are prerequisites for evolution. Unguided: Anti-biotic resistant bacteria, plastics eating bacteria are two that come to mind. Used by industry is of course going to be "guided" since they are bred. As to "into a new species", you are joking right? That is a requirement of evolution to you. I do not see it. I have given three examples here of observable evolution and/or natural selection. Evolution exists. Given enough time, a breed could develop traits of other speicies, see definition above. I am not a geneticist so I may not be able to do a great job explaining genetic drift or mutation but that is where you would get reptiles->avians. I assume that is what you were trying for with the new species?

Quote from: wulfgar;250404As an aside, it's interesting that the basic science used in your example of breeding dogs for specific traits, while understood at various practical levels by very primitive man, was first explored in a more analytical way by Gregor Mendel, "the father of genetics" and a Catholic Priest.

I am not saying you cannot be religious and scientific. I reject your premise that religion and science take equal amounts of faith.

Bill