Origin of Earth

[Gipper]

I hope your surgery was successful.

Yes, a life well lived is better than one not well lived, certainly it is more enjoyable.

I'll live my life as well as I possibly can, and hope you do the same. When it is over, there either will or won't be a life after death. If I'm right, and there is more than our earthly existence, then I'll look you up to say I told you so. If you're right, and we simply cease to exist, then neither of us will ever know it.

Or you both could end up in Hell.

I certainly hope and pray the Lord forgives us and accepts us into his Kingdom...but according to the Lord, you must believe in him to make it to Heaven. So, I hope and pray you both believe in the Lamb of God as I do, otherwise down you go...

 

[PLC1]

Or you both could end up in Hell.

I certainly hope and pray the Lord forgives us and accepts us into his Kingdom...but according to the Lord, you must believe in him to make it to Heaven. So, I hope and pray you both believe in the Lamb of God as I do, otherwise down you go...

That's a pretty vengeful god you believe in, isn't it? First, he puts us on Earth with no evidence of his existence, then, if we don't believe in something with no evidence, we go to Hell.

I wonder how many people mouth belief in impossible things just so they will go to heaven, and how many can really believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis in the 21st. century? I suppose people will believe anything.

 

[Gipper]

That's a pretty vengeful god you believe in, isn't it? First, he puts us on Earth with no evidence of his existence, then, if we don't believe in something with no evidence, we go to Hell.

I wonder how many people mouth belief in impossible things just so they will go to heaven, and how many can really believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis in the 21st. century? I suppose people will believe anything.

He sent His Son here. Remember that? I know you were not alive then, but you might have read something about Him at some point in your life.

Well you see God's Son fulfilled the prophecy written well before His arrival on Earth. He allowed Himself to be crucified. He died for our sins so that we might have eternal life, but only if we believe in Him.

After His death on the cross, He showed Himself to His apostles proving He defeated death. Those apostles then risked their lives spreading the good news. Ultimately, most of the apostles were also crucified for doing His bidding. Why would they risk their lives like that????

All of this is written in a book. I can send you a copy if you like.

 

[orogenicman]

Or you both could end up in Hell.

I certainly hope and pray the Lord forgives us and accepts us into his Kingdom...but according to the Lord, you must believe in him to make it to Heaven. So, I hope and pray you both believe in the Lamb of God as I do, otherwise down you go...

Like I've always said about Christianity. All you've got to offer is fear and delusion. How sad for you. If you believe that your god gives you free will, but then tells you that you will burn in hell if you don't believe, as a Christian, what choice do your believe you actually have?

 

[orogenicman]

"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is
conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from
grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's
expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man
alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become
a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an
intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain
paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a
concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's
science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such,
man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his
hope to regain lost innocence.

Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he
conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has
been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality
has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily,
what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through
time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's
consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of
subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person
to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time.


Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of
the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of
mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding,
past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient
misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the
earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this
can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large.
Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost
insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost
insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe
(be it cosmos or chaos matters not).


Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not
subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time
and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain
knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God;
submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and
the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after
world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it
is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs
to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual
revelation from God to man.


Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the
highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men
have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very
often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not
conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic
customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been
attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an
introspective creature.


In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy
in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that
of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon
himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of
man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from
indifferent Nature.


These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic
background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite,
revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it
not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature
had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to
operate in perpetuity (if
time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to
the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony,
Chaos never returning to Cosmos."
- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002

 

[Gipper]

Like I've always said about Christianity. All you've got to offer is fear and delusion. How sad for you. If you believe that your god gives you free will, but then tells you that you will burn in hell if you don't believe, as a Christian, what choice do your believe you actually have?

You had better fear God. Because He does not take lightly those who ignore or condemn Him.

All you have to do is believe in Him. Not difficult, when you know of Him.

 

[orogenicman]

You had better fear God. Because He does not take lightly those who ignore or condemn Him.

All you have to do is believe in Him. Not difficult, when you know of Him.

I can't fear what doesn't exist. You don't have to, either. You choose to live in fear and that's your choice. I prefer to live without fear or delusion, and that is my choice.

 

[Gipper]

I can't fear what doesn't exist. You don't have to, either. You choose to live in fear and that's your choice. I prefer to live without fear or delusion, and that is my choice.

I do not live in fear because I am confident where I am going. But, I do fear for you. I hope God forgives you your ignorance and arrogance.

Question...do you have to be a non-believer to be liberal? I would tend to think so.

 

[dahermit]

Or you both could end up in Hell.

I certainly hope and pray the Lord forgives us and accepts us into his Kingdom...but according to the Lord, you must believe in him to make it to Heaven. So, I hope and pray you both believe in the Lamb of God as I do, otherwise down you go...

Which "God"? There are hundreds, all of which the followers claim are the true one. Yours is no different from the rest; a manifestation of fear of the unknown.
What makes yours different (the true one)?

 

[orogenicman]

I do not live in fear because I am confident where I am going. But, I do fear for you. I hope God forgives you your ignorance and arrogance.

Question...do you have to be a non-believer to be liberal? I would tend to think so.

I am confident of where you are going as well, but I suspect it isn't where you'd hoped.

If you believe that only "liberals" are non-believers, I think you are very naive. If you think that you have to be a non-believer to be a liberal, then you understand your faith less than you know. Jesus was the first liberal, dude.

 

[PLC1]

I do not live in fear because I am confident where I am going. But, I do fear for you. I hope God forgives you your ignorance and arrogance.

Question...do you have to be a non-believer to be liberal? I would tend to think so.

I know some Episcopalians and Catholics who are pretty liberal. Do they qualify as believers, or does a true believer have to buy into all of the nonsense of the evangelicals?

It is possible to be a Catholic or an episcopalian, or a faithful member of many other Christian churches and still accept basic science, like the theory of evolution as an example, and even vote (shudder, blanch) Democrat!

 

[Gipper]

Jesus was the first liberal, dude.

You libs say the silliest things...ops did I just call you a lib? I forgot, sorry, you don't like being called that do you?

Lets analyze what you stated.


1. Libs believe in murdering the unborn. Jesus taught murder is a sin.
2. Libs believe in taking property from one person and giving to another. Jesus does not believe in stealing.
3. Libs believe fornicating is cool. Jesus says this is a sin.
4. Libs do not believe in God. Jesus does.
5. Libs idolize themselves and others. Jesus finds this very unacceptable.

So to conclude today's lesson, Jesus was never a lib.

 

[numinus]

Is it possible to use science to support the idea of creation of the universe by an intelligent being?

That is simply out of the scope of the scientific inquiry.

 

[orogenicman]

You libs say the silliest things...ops did I just call you a lib? I forgot, sorry, you don't like being called that do you?

Lets analyze what you stated.


1. Libs believe in murdering the unborn. Jesus taught murder is a sin.
2. Libs believe in taking property from one person and giving to another. Jesus does not believe in stealing.
3. Libs believe fornicating is cool. Jesus says this is a sin.
4. Libs do not believe in God. Jesus does.
5. Libs idolize themselves and others. Jesus finds this very unacceptable.

So to conclude today's lesson, Jesus was never a lib.

1) Strawman argument
2) Strawman argument
3) Dude if people don't fornicate, how are Christians supposed to "be fruitful and multiply"?
4) "libs" don't believe in God? So your argument is that all libs are atheists? I know you are going to provide something to back up that claim, right?
5) Strawman argumet.

This is all you've got?

http://www.right-wing-pseudo-christians.com/jesus-liberal-conservative.htm

Conservative Christians certainly would not think that Jesus would be a liberal, yet -- as with most things -- they are wrong.

We are given some hints in the Bible and the Catholic Church's teachings about whether Jesus would be a liberal or a conservative:

· In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus proclaims that how you treat the hungry, the thirsty, the sick and other "least of these," is how you treat Jesus himself. And if you fail to help the "least of these," Jesus promises, he will send you to Hell.

· Catholic social doctrine holds that the resources of the earth, and the output of man's work, are meant to be shared equitably by all.

· The Catholic Church calls for a "preferential option for the poor."

· An overwhelming concern for the poor and for economic justice permeates the Old Testament.

· There is the redistribution of wealth injunction of the Old Testament Jubilee Year, when slaves were released and land returned to its original owners. [67]

· And last but not least, do I even have to bring up the clarion words of Jesus repeated in virtual identical fashion in three of the Gospels:

Mark 10:25

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. [other translations] [68]

Such a teaching directly out of the mouth of Christ does not indicate a favorable attitude towards the type of unbridled accumulation of wealth celebrated by conservative "right-wing pseudo-Christians". [69]

To hear the conservative pseudo-Christians, the Messiah's real name must have been Jesus “Adam Smith” Christ. Could someone please tell me where Jesus extols the effectiveness – let alone the morality -- of trickle-down economics? Or the genius of the "free market"? Or where Jesus indicates even in the slightest way that the Matthew 25 suffering "least of these" should not be helped?

The average liberal, at least in his or her concern that the world's goods be distributed equitably and that the suffering "least of these" be helped, seems a lot closer to the words of Jesus, the entire Bible, and Church social doctrine than does the blind, idol-level market-worship of conservative pseudo-Christians. [70]

In short, is not "Do unto others…" the essence of liberalism's goal, and the opposite of the operating principle of the conservative Golden Calf, unregulated capitalism?

Liberal vs. Conservative Jesus: The Big Picture
On the overall question of redistribution of wealth and income, having rich people is fine, as long as no one is dying because the rich hoard too much of the wealth. Once everyone is at least minimally taken care of, then the super-greedy can be allowed to have more than their fair share. [71]

The liberal case, however, is that because the rich monopolize such a grotesquely huge share of the income and wealth, there's not enough left for everyone else. [72]

The top 10% of individuals in the United States receive 46% of the income and control 71% of the wealth in this country. Globally, 25% of the people receive 75% of the income, and the richest 20% of the world's population monopolizes 86 per cent of global wealth. [73]

In other words: 80% of humanity must try to survive on a mere 14% of the world's wealth. To look at it in perhaps more comprehensible terms: Dividing up $100 among ten people in the same proportions would produce two people with $4.30 each, and 8 people with 18 cents each. How can anyone doubt that such an inequitable division of the world's resources means that those at the bottom will suffer and die as the very least of "the least of these"? [74]

Bottom line: it really isn't about liberalism, conservatism, or any other -ism. It's only about ensuring the well-being of "the least of these."

The purpose here is not to argue that Jesus would be a "liberal" and not a "conservative" if he were alive today. It is to point out how ludicrous it is for people who profess to be Christians to hyperventilate solely because serious measures to ameliorate economic injustice are proposed.

At the very minimum, Jesus would be for enough regulation of capitalism to accomplish the Matthew 25:31-46 goals, not for the law-of-the-jungle, let-them-suffer-it's-their-own-fault Hobbesianism of conservative philosophy.

 

[nobull]

I thought the comment by that scientist was ironic and even funny, given recent events. But, I don't much care about the debate one way or the other. I learned evolution in school, and it didn't kill me, even though it's as meaningless as anything else, when you get right down to it.

All I care strongly about is the idea that some of you think you know how the universe began. I am a Christian there for I know how it all began....

BUT, that's not the issue for me. It's not about intelligent design vs. evolution; it's about private vs. public schools. I think all public schools should be shut down. I think the federal Dept. of Education should be abolished, and the taxes that pay for it returned to their rightful owners. Then, parents can send their kids to whatever private school they want. That way, the parents get to decide what b.s. their kids will be brainwashed/indoctrinated with, rather than giving that power to the state and to the NEA. Right now, the state/NEA have a virtual monopoly on their social relativist, secular humanist, multicultural, politically correct, "outcome based," self-esteem focused, gender-biased, race-biased, anti-intellectual, Orwellian Newspeak brand of mind-numbing indoctrination.

just sayin
doug