[Atomic Rooster]

I am curious yellow.

For all god believers. What does he do all day? And what is heaven like? Why would some angels say I've had enough, leave and form there own club? Were they tired of god wanting to be constantly worshipped?

I'm serious about this.

[ironknee]

as i see it the adam and eve story has it's problems. ie mrs cain.

but wait, didn't god kill all the people with the noah's ark story?

noah, his wife, his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives were the only people after the flood...so, there still is a ting of inter-family f-ing

oh btw how did noah get all the animals from around the world on the ark?

and of course what about dino? some of you think dinosaurs were on the ark itself!

what did they feed tyrannosaurus? and with what?

where there animals that entered the ark but never made it off alive?

sigh

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Besides, it's pointless to argue with people who believe in talking snakes and talking donkeys.

STFU.

I have seen Shrek, that stuff is real. It's on TV.

-t

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You can't reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution. Besides, it's pointless to argue with people who believe in talking snakes and talking donkeys.

someone has been watching Bill Maher

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Why would some angels say I've had enough, leave and form there own club? Were they tired of god wanting to be constantly worshipped?

That story isn't in the Bible. It's from the non-canonical Book of Enoch. It was very popular during the Second Temple period, and the early Christians probably believed in it.

[design219]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That story isn't in the Bible.

Is there a good book or on-line resource that lists the stories that didn't quite make the Bible cut? I've heard of the Gnostic Verses and I've got a Bible with the apocrypha and I'm sure there are many more. I would like to know more about what was cut, edited or included and why.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Science is not a long succession of presuppositions. Nor is it similar to faith in the respect that you `simply have to believe it.' Science compliments faith -- as Einstein put it `Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' Science deals with theories that are derived from an abundance of facts. You can test predictions of theories experimentally. The closest thing scientists have to dogmas are accepted theories (which naturally come with a range of validity). These do not change easily as they are backed up by evidence (and not faith). Evidence is not `filtered through presupposition.'

I said laypeople filter evidence through presupposition. Even if I were to provide evidence of scientific 'circular-reasoning' or retro-fitting evidence to presuppositions, you'd filter that evidence through the presupposition that science wouldn't dare. In this it seems we're either discussing the inerrancy of Scripture or of science which is not important. I'm merely citing an aspect of human nature not exclusive to proponents of the religious account. I don't dispute the theory of evolution, its predictability, or its affirmation in the scientific community.

It's not a xenophobic remark when I add that outside of America, the Theory of Evolution is generally accepted and pseudo-scientific alternatives are not. I was giving some perspective on this beyond the US.

Why is it important that people "generally accept" the Theory of Evolution? They should certainly avail themselves of data encompassing the subject matter so they have a foundation for discourse. I cringe when I see some of the arguments from casual proponents of ID, but closing one's mind to other alternatives is not necessarily beneficial either. For example, I pop onto this website 'NewScientist' and I find an interesting article entitled confused about evolution

So your brother or mother is a creationist. Let them believe what they want, you might think. After all, it makes family get-togethers a lot easier and no difference to anyone else.

Or does it? Imagine if Mike Huckabee ends up as vice-president of the US – a mere heart attack away from the top job. Would you feel comfortable if the world's biggest superpower was run by a man who rejects evolution, thanks to the support of tens of millions of people who also refuse to accept the truth?

Why is the political bend necessary? A little bit here and there on global warming. A little bit on a (R) politician. Yay, all the basic food groups of leftist shilling in a pop-science rag. I particularly love the part about how this could affect major policy decisions like how to address the bird flu, tuberculosis, and wheat rust, ebola, and how we're altering species and... all the while I'm wondering what an evolutionist would do on all these issues? How they'd handle them any differently. Surely we have an example of this author's party of choice doing something more "educated". Except... I don't see any evidence of that.

How would belief that God created all things be destructive to governing the nation? After all, I'm guessing this author's favorite candidate is Barack Obama, a self-proclaimed Christian who sought the spiritual advisory of a man who claims the US planted HIV to eradicate black people, owned and managed by rich, godless, white people or maybe it's Hillary and we get to listen to the two of them bicker about which one of them is more connected to communists and terrorists. But hey, these are the folks who generally accept the Theory of Evolution, they must be okay to govern.

BS presuppositions permeate this issue. Too often, it has absolutely nothing to do with an interest in science or evidence of any kind. Which of course, was my original point.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by design219 

Is there a good book or on-line resource that lists the stories that didn't quite make the Bible cut? I've heard of the Gnostic Verses and I've got a Bible with the apocrypha and I'm sure there are many more. I would like to know more about what was cut, edited or included and why.

Early Jewish Writings--Tanakh, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and More
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Technically, though, Ezekiel's vision isn't an allegory. Allegories are used to make things clearer, not more obscure.

I've often wondered about those wheels. Most of the depiction is reasonably clear: 4 cherubs supporting God's throne, as opposed to the 2 cherubs being the Mercy Seat of the Ark - hence an epiphany twice as glorious as the one to Moses. But those wheels lack prior biblical reference. I'd say that they are carrying the Throne (much as four men would carry the Ark by its poles), but the description seems to imply the cherubs are moving the wheels, not the other way. Oh well, it's just dancing angels and such...

It does make it more clear, when you understand the context. It's a metaphor for the four elements and the four "worlds" of creation, "wheels" are a reference to cycles that have no end. At times the angels move the "wheels", and at other times the cycles cause the messengers to move. It's a very important lesson, one that explains how physical actions can cause results in the spiritual worlds, and vice-versa.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Wow. Clearly, there's no point in debating with you.

Indeed, you have no desire to discuss religion just for the sake of discussion, like many others on this forum you simply want an excuse to be abusive to those of faith. Such people won't simply abandon their views based on your opinions, you know this and use it as a release for your own frustrations and doubts.

Just because you feel disillusion over your previous beliefs, you were Christian at one time, doesn't mean others feel the same way.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You can't reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution. Besides, it's pointless to argue with people who believe in talking snakes and talking donkeys.

I would give you a detailed, thought-provoking view on this subject, however until you stop the pattern of abuse it would be the same as sowing grain on solid stone.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why is the political bend necessary?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

After all, I'm guessing this author's favorite candidate is Barack Obama, a self-proclaimed Christian who sought the spiritual advisory of a man who claims the US planted HIV to eradicate black people, owned and managed by rich, godless, white people or maybe it's Hillary and we get to listen to the two of them bicker about which one of them is more connected to communists and terrorists. But hey, these are the folks who generally accept the Theory of Evolution, they must be okay to govern.

I think you've answered your own question.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I said laypeople filter evidence through presupposition. Even if I were to provide evidence of scientific 'circular-reasoning' or retro-fitting evidence to presuppositions, you'd filter that evidence through the presupposition that science wouldn't dare.

I still don't think you really know how (natural) sciences work, `retro-fitting evidence', etc. is certainly not part of it. I wouldn't `filter' anything either.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In this it seems we're either discussing the inerrancy of Scripture or of science which is not important.

No, that's not what I'm talking about in the least.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why is it important that people "generally accept" the Theory of Evolution? They should certainly avail themselves of data encompassing the subject matter so they have a foundation for discourse.

I can explain quite well why, because the Theory of Evolution is a great example how science (particularly in the US) is misunderstood. Your post is testimony to that. You speak of `tempering with evidence', `presuppositions' and `inerrancy of scripture or science'. Your post is an example of a failed science education (please don't take this personally). It shows that you don't know how science works and what it is all about. Most of all, it mirrors the sentiment that science and faith are at odds (just switch on Fox News, they refer to proponents of well-established scientific theories as `secular progressives', splitting them off from people of faith). In my opinion the root of this is that it isn't sufficiently taught what science can explain (and how it arrives at conclusions) and what it cannot explain. People feel threatened by science instead of embracing it. Plus, they feel threatened only by some selective Theories whose implications they don't like. You're right that Global Climate Change and Evolution are two of them. But there is not much discussion on other theories, you don't see any warning stickers about the theory of gravity, the theory of quantum mechanics or the theory of atoms. If people knew what a scientific theory really is, much of this discussion could be avoided. If people stop thinking that science consists of a bunch of `presuppositions' that are fought for with religious zeal, but understand how the process of science really works, then they'd let science and religion simply live side-by-side, coexisting in harmony.

All of science should be approached with an open mind, not just some select theories (e. g. Evolution). So why is it important? Why should people, in particular Americans, care about this?

Well, your economy is based on science. And if your science education sucks, then you'll be in trouble rather sooner than later. I was amazed that the percentage of Americans steadily decreased the further up you went in the scientific food chain. This is not some xenophobic, anti-American non-sense, I think it is in your own interest to keep your science education strong.

Although I don't believe in God (I'm a Buddhist), Einstein's attitude is a very good description of mine:

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.

He elaborated on this further, and although he wasn't thinking of Evolution at all when he made the following explanatory remarks, they fit this discussion perfectly.

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse.

Meaning that God wouldn't make it look like the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or that we have common ancestors with the great apes, his God is not a deceptive one. Or that water consists of molecules and so on. That's a philosophical assumption, though, but one that has been discussed by theologists over the centuries as well.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How would belief that God created all things be destructive to governing the nation?

I've stated at least twice that this is not a problem at all -- as long as you don't believe in the literal interpretation, there is no contradiction between faith in Genesis, for instance, and science. If not, you are governed by someone who doesn't really understand the underpinnings of science -- not good for a nation whose economy depends essentially on science.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I would give you a detailed, thought-provoking view on this subject...

Please don't. A link would do fine.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Indeed, you have no desire to discuss religion just for the sake of discussion, like many others on this forum you simply want an excuse to be abusive to those of faith.

Ridiculous notions deserve ridicule. If you tell me the world is flat, I'm gonna make fun of you.

Such people won't simply abandon their views based on your opinions, you know this and use it as a release for your own frustrations and doubts.

Regarding my own values, I have no such frustrations or doubts.

Just because you feel disillusion over your previous beliefs, you were Christian at one time, doesn't mean others feel the same way.

I wouldn't called them "previous beliefs." I grew up in a Catholic home and attended Catholic school, but wasn't devout. At most, I was a kind of Jeffersonian deist, not a Christian.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Please don't. A link would do fine.

I just used the search function and found that I've given this information three times in the last four years, feel free to do the same.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Ridiculous notions deserve ridicule. If you tell me the world is flat, I'm gonna make fun of you.

No doubt, I believe that you're the type to make fun of anyone with a differing opinion in this area.

Regarding my own values, I have no such frustrations or doubts.

Your fervor suggests otherwise.

I wouldn't called them "previous beliefs." I grew up in a Catholic home and attended Catholic school, but wasn't devout. At most, I was a kind of Jeffersonian deist, not a Christian.

I'm not devout