Why are Rainbows Gay?

[MikeK]

Let's get this thread back on track.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by M3n2c3

So I guess there are people in the world practicing "Jedi" as a faith/religion these days. . . I have to wonder if, 2000 years from now, it will have its origins lost in time and garner a substantial following

Actually, it'll be Oprahism.

But seriously, this is an important point. The legitimacy of the Bible as the literal word of god really only comes from the generations and generations of people that accept it as such. When all those books were originally written, they were not immediately recognized as the word of god. It took revisions, editing, and even committee meetings of church leaders over 100's of years before some books were canonized and others dropped. The contents of the Bible were selected by man from a wide range of sources. Since the very start, it was man's interpretation of what he though god's word was that got into the Bible, so to me it's not at all a leap to suggest that man should continue to interpret the Bible with modern eyes.

And not to single out the religious folks, but I'm curious as to why you believe the Bible is the word of god. What evidence do you have that it should be taken as god's literal word? Every answer I've ever received to that question has been a circular argument that boils down to "the Bible is the word of god because it says it is in the Bible, which is the word of god, so it has to be true". What convinces you to take the Bible literally when logically it's so much more likely that it's a man made document that attempts to explain the nature of god/morality/etc?

[Dean]

I never did answer the original question. Thanks Mike for reminding me.

I blame the Care Bears.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by sperry

And not to single out the religious folks, but I'm curious as to why you believe the Bible is the word of god. What evidence do you have that it should be taken as god's literal word? Every answer I've ever received to that question has been a circular argument that boils down to "the Bible is the word of god because it says it is in the Bible, which is the word of god, so it has to be true". What convinces you to take the Bible literally when logically it's so much more likely that it's a man made document that attempts to explain the nature of god/morality/etc?

Lets put everyone on the same playing field. I will tell you why I believe in a creator and that the bible is inspired by him if you tell me what you believe in and why you believe it.

[M3n2c3]

Originally Posted by sperry

And not to single out the religious folks, but I'm curious as to why you believe the Bible is the word of god. What evidence do you have that it should be taken as god's literal word? Every answer I've ever received to that question has been a circular argument that boils down to "the Bible is the word of god because it says it is in the Bible, which is the word of god, so it has to be true". What convinces you to take the Bible literally when logically it's so much more likely that it's a man made document that attempts to explain the nature of god/morality/etc?

I think that will depend on the individual. I'm not accusing anyone here of this, but I've seen that for many it's easier than actually thinking for themselves.

I was raised Christian but always had trouble "buying in" to it. Something always seemed a little off. It wasn't until I was living on my own that I finally reached the conclusion that I was agnostic, and the decision to cast off the religious inclinations that had been presented to me as fact since birth was a very challenging one to make. Many people make the mistake of viewing agnosticism as being "indecisive" or "taking the easy way out," when it frequently is exactly the opposite. In my case, I spent about three years "soul searching" and studying before becoming comfortable saying, "based on what I know of religion and man, I believe religion is man-made and false."

So for me, remaining christian would have been the "easy way," as I continued to take it for granted.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

Lets put everyone on the same playing field. I will tell you why I believe in a creator and that the bible is inspired by him if you tell me what you believe in and why you believe it.

I have no problem with that. But are you saying the Bible is inspired by god, or the literal word of god? Because I would be willing to accept the Bible as "inspired" because to me, that doesn't imply a required literal interpretation.

But as far as what I believe, I'd call myself an atheist-leaning agnostic. Basically, I don't believe in a god as described by the major religions. IMO, there is no "man in the clouds" that has a purpose for mankind. If there is a god (i.e. an entity that created the universe), he/it/whatever must exist outside of our universe. Because of this, a) it is impossible for him to interact with the universe without violating the laws that make it operate, and b) as part of our universe, we do not have the capacity to understand god or anything that exists outside our universe.

So, with regards to Christianity... I believe Jesus was a real person, and a great philosopher. I agree with the majority of his teachings, but I believe that some of it is a product of his time and therefor outdated and can be disregarded as such. I do not believe Jesus was the literal son of god, I don't believe that the folks in the Bible that talked to god ever did so literally. Some of them may have been charlatans, but I suspect that the majority of them simply were inspired by prayer/meditation, so they likely believed they were in fact instructed by god. And to me, none of that invalidates the teaching in the Bible... it just means that as a follow of the Bible, people need to interpret the lessons therein and critically apply them to their lives. Blindly following the Bible results in conflict with those that interpret it differently, which IMO is exactly the opposite of what Jesus would have taught.

I believe that morality comes from within each person, but is mostly a concept born out of mankind's nature to form a stable society. IMO, society has evolved as a mechanism of humans to allow us to be more successful than all the other animals that didn't develop a structured system for working together. So most people have an inherent moral compass that allows us to determine whether or not our actions are good for just us, or good for all of us. Those that don't have that compass are reigned in through law, which is why law should reflect our common morality. I don't believe mankind needs guidance from a higher power in order to be able to determine right from wrong, nor do I believe mankind needs some sort of threat of damnation in order to prevent most of us from doing wrong. We just need individuals willing to stand up for what's right and teach others, even at their own personal sacrifice, not unlike what Jesus did when he was martyred.

And most importantly, I don't feel like I'm missing out by not believing in a Christian style god, or the implication that we as humans aren't anything special. IMO, the universe is so amazing on its own, that just being a tiny part of it, with the ability to think and reason and learn about it is already an amazing gift from god/the creator/FSM/whatever. I'm just fine with the idea that if god created the universe, we are probably such a tiny little eddy in the massive currents of time and space that god probably wouldn't even take notice of us, let alone bother to speak to us and guide us personally, even if he could without breaking the laws of physics that allow the universe to operate. Just because we weren't created for a specific reason does not preclude us from finding purpose.

[ScottyS]

Originally Posted by sperry

And not to single out the religious folks, but I'm curious as to why you believe the Bible is the word of god. What evidence do you have that it should be taken as god's literal word? Every answer I've ever received to that question has been a circular argument that boils down to "the Bible is the word of god because it says it is in the Bible, which is the word of god, so it has to be true". What convinces you to take the Bible literally when logically it's so much more likely that it's a man made document that attempts to explain the nature of god/morality/etc?

I'm not getting involved in this, because the simple (and sufficient) answer of faith, evidence, and inherent conviction/recognizance does not play out well on a casual internet forum. No, I am not talking about Global Wa.......I mean.......Anthropogenically-Driven Climate Change......

However, if you are REALLY dying to hear some more educated pro-Christian arguments related to the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of Scripture, then here are some, certainly not exhaustive or maybe even exactly what you are looking for:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=22007185544
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=22007185643
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=22007185826

Rainbows, they are proof of precipitation, not gayness. I know this, because I am in Logan, Utah taking a datalogger programming class right now, and while I can see the rainbows and the rain, the Gaydar screen is 100% clear. No, I'm not shopping for a second wife.

[Kevin M]

In Soviet Utah, second wife shop for YOU!

[ScottyS]

Originally Posted by Kevin M

In Soviet Utah, second wife shop for YOU!

I need to remember that the next time I'm playing BF2 PR mod and get on a Russian map.

[knucklesplitter]

...

[MattR]

Originally Posted by Kevin M

In Soviet Utah, second wife shop for YOU!

OKay, that post just ended it for me...hahaha funny shit.

[knucklesplitter]

...

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by sperry

I have no problem with that. But are you saying the Bible is inspired by god, or the literal word of god? Because I would be willing to accept the Bible as "inspired" because to me, that doesn't imply a required literal interpretation.

Yes, that is what I believe. 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness".



I appreciate that told me your beliefs and I can see that we have the same thinking on many things. The reason I asked you to do this was not so your beliefs could be put under scrutiny but so that I could know where you are coming from. I like to quote scripture when i talk about my belief so that you know what has caused me to come to the conclusions that I have in my own life.

Originally Posted by sperry

we do not have the capacity to understand god or anything that exists outside our universe.

I also believe this. The bible talks about God as being the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, the king of eternity, the first and the last. The human mind can't fathom the thought of something that has always been and as having no beginning.

Originally Posted by sperry

I believe that morality comes from within each person, but is mostly a concept born out of mankind's nature to form a stable society... most people have an inherent moral compass that allows us to determine whether or not our actions are good for just us, or good for all of us.

You are defining what is talked about in the bible as a conscience. The word is translated from the Greek sy‧nei′de‧sis, which is drawn from syn (with) and ei′de‧sis (knowledge) and thus means co-knowledge, or knowledge with oneself. Conscience is a capacity to look at oneself and render judgment about oneself, bear witness to oneself. It also can be trained by the thoughts and acts, convictions and rules that are implanted in a person’s mind by study and experience. Based on these things, it makes a comparison with the course of action being taken or contemplated. Then it sounds a warning when the rules and the course conflict, unless the conscience is “seared,” made unfeeling by continued violations of its warnings. Conscience can be a moral safety device, in that it imparts pleasure and inflicts pain for one’s own good and bad conduct. Romans 2:14,15 says, “For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused.” Thus you can see that many laws of the nations are in harmony with a bible trained conscience, yet such nations and lawmakers may not have been influenced by Christianity at all.

The bible doesn't teach that this is something that has evolved in humans but, it has been there from the beginning. Something that God has built only into humans. Which is why my parents dog doesn't feel remorse for chewing up my kids brand new $35 Buzz Lightyear toy and my sisters cat doesn't feel guilty when it takes a dump in the clean clothes.

Originally Posted by sperry

We just need individuals willing to stand up for what's right and teach others, even at their own personal sacrifice, not unlike what Jesus did when he was martyred.

Couldn't you also argue that we don't need individuals but rather a single individual such as Jesus to take the lead? The bible teaches that Jesus is the King of God's "heavenly Kingdom" or government, that will do away will all of the flawed and ever changing governments of mankind and rule over all the earth. That is what I personally believe to make the most sense.

Originally Posted by sperry

...the implication that we as humans aren't anything special. IMO, the universe is so amazing on its own, that just being a tiny part of it, with the ability to think and reason and learn about it is already an amazing gift from god/the creator/FSM/whatever.

I agree. The human body and the universe are incredible and we will never understand either completely. I find it amazing when you think about things like the complexity of the human eye or how the earth is positioned perfectly from the sun. There is no other creation on this earth that is as amazing as the human being. The bible talks a great deal about God's creations and how beautifully made they are. Genesis 1:27 "God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them." I think being created in God's image is a pretty big honor.

Originally Posted by sperry

I'm just fine with the idea that if god created the universe, we are probably such a tiny little eddy in the massive currents of time and space that god probably wouldn't even take notice of us, let alone bother to speak to us and guide us personally,

The bible teaches that God wants to help us and wants for us to have a relationship with him. Isiah 48:17 says that he is "the One teaching you to benefit [yourself]". James 3:8 says, "Draw close to God, and he will draw close to you."


I find that in actuality; a lot people don't really have a problem so much with what the bibles says. The biggest problem is that few truly understand the bible or have even read it themselves. There are countless religions using the bible to mislead people for their own selfish gain. They have taken things out of the bible, added false information, incorrectly translated it to fit their own bias, and most importantly have misrepresented God as being something unloving, hardhearted, uncaring, faceless, and unknowable.

Many people choose as you said, to blindly follow. I agree that this is wrong and foolish. The bible also agrees. The later part of Acts 17:11 says to be "carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so".
Proverbs 14:15 “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.”
Romans 12:2 "And quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making YOUR mind over, that YOU may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God." You can see by those scriptures that blind faith does not originate with God and the bible but, from man.

Here are some of the reasons I believe the bible and everything that I have mentioned to be true.

The Bible was written over a 1,600-year period. Its writers lived at different times and came from many walks of life. Some were farmers, fishermen, and shepherds. Others were prophets, judges, and kings. The Gospel writer Luke was a doctor. Despite the varied backgrounds of its writers, the Bible is harmonious from beginning to end.

The Bible is scientifically accurate. It even contains information that was far ahead of its time. For example, the book of Leviticus contained laws for ancient Israel on quarantine and hygiene when surrounding nations knew nothing about such matters.

At a time when there were wrong ideas about the shape of the earth, the Bible referred to it as a circle, or sphere. Isaiah 40:22 "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth...". The Bible accurately said that the earth ‘hangs on nothing.’ Job 26:7 "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing". Of course, the Bible is not a science textbook. But when it touches on scientific matters, it is accurate.

The Bible is also historically accurate and reliable. Its accounts are specific. They include not only the names but also the ancestry of individuals. In contrast to secular historians, who often do not mention the defeats of their own people, Bible writers were honest, even recording their own failings and those of their nation. In the Bible book of Numbers, for instance, the writer Moses admits his own serious error for which he was severely reproved.

I could keep going but, I need to get some work done today.

[tysonK]

Juice,

If you grew up in Mormon household do you think you would be following the LDS Church?

[knucklesplitter]

Scientifically and historically accurate? You're kidding, right? Harmonious from beginning to end? You gotta be f-ing kidding? No time to pick that all that nonsense, so I'll let somebody else do it...

Science and history:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

Harmoniousness:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.co...a/by_name.html

And of course... homosexuality:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

[bigrobwoot]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

But when it touches on scientific matters, it is accurate.

Except the part where we were created and didn't evolve, and the part where Earth is the only place in the universe with life on it, and it's accounts of how old the universe is.

I know life hasn't been found yet, but i believe it is just a matter of time. Scientists believe that there could be life just under the surface of Mars that used to be more active a long time ago. A show I was watching on Discovery was basically saying that Mars is our past, and Venus is our future. They were referring to a timeline of millions of years, but they were saying that our orbits are (very slowly) moving in toward the sun. This makes sense conceptually, if you think about it. Although there is no friction in the vacuum of space, there are still particles floating that will eventually slow down the orbit of a planet, causing it to fall in toward the object it is orbiting.

Joel (or anyone, he just seems to be making the majority of the statements on the religious side), do you believe that people and dinosaurs were on the planet at the same time? Do you believe that the earth is only thousands of years old, not billions?

[A1337STI]

just Curious, have you read that entire site KS ?

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

Joel (or anyone, he just seems to be making the majority of the statements on the religious side), do you believe that people and dinosaurs were on the planet at the same time? Do you believe that the earth is only thousands of years old, not billions?

More importantly... since this is a "teh ghey" thread, I wanna know... does God (always "He"... and capitalized) have a penis, testicles, and taint... and if so, why?

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by A1337STI

just Curious, have you read that entire site KS ?

Most of it, years ago. Just googled it it for this thread. I don't agree with it all - seems kinda extreme, but still it it relatively comprehensive. At worst it is food for thought. I personally haven't studied the Bible from a perspective of faith for almost 30 years, so I am pretty rusty (and very jaded) on it.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

Scientifically and historically accurate? You're kidding, right? Harmonious from beginning to end? You gotta be f-ing kidding? No time to pick that all that nonsense, so I'll let somebody else do it...

Science and history:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

Harmoniousness:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.co...a/by_name.html

And of course... homosexuality:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

Most of it, years ago. Just googled it it for this thread. I don't agree with it all - seems kinda extreme, but still it it relatively comprehensive. At worst it is food for thought. I personally haven't studied the Bible from a perspective of faith for almost 30 years, so I am pretty rusty (and very jaded) on it.

Since you and Rob have decided to join in, why don't you guys share your own beliefs. Clearly there is something in the bible that you found that didn't make sense and turned you away 30 years ago. I will continue posting and answering questions about what I believe as long as this thread stays a conversation. Matt, to me it seems that you have already made up your mind and there is nothing that I say to change it. I am very open minded and I will try to answer any direct question that you ask me but I am not going to go down a list on some website of others ideas and interpretations of things in the bible. I am not afraid to research into my own beliefs for the fear I will find out that I am wrong. It would help me out if you would site what contradictions you are talking about or at least the ones you take most issue with. It would be much easier for me to talk about then just dumping some random links for me to crawl through.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Rob, I admire your passion about what you feel but, I don't totally understand your post.

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

Except the part where we were created and didn't evolve

What is your definition of evolve? There are many different views on evolution. Do you believe that man came about by chance from a puddle? If so, where has that been proven as fact? I think they still call this the theory of evolution. Even Darwin himself said this "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Also, if humans are supposed to be an evolutionary improvement over monkeys, why do humans suffer from emotional problems that do not afflict monkeys?

After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.” New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of paleontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”
Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.” Science magazine adds: “The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.”

Just how sparse is the fossil record regarding “ape-men”? Note the following. Newsweek: “‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ said Elwyn Simons of Duke University.” The New York Times: “The known fossil remains of man’s ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years.” Science Digest: “The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! . . . Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.”
Modern-type humans, with the capacity to reason, plan, invent, build on previous knowledge and use complex languages, appear suddenly in the fossil record. Gould, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, notes: “We have no evidence for biological change in brain size or structure since Homo sapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty thousand years ago.” Thus, the book The Universe Within asks: “What caused evolution . . . to produce, as if overnight, modern humankind with its highly special brain?” Evolution is unable to answer.

Another difficulty for evolution is the fact that nowhere in the fossil record are found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various types of flying creatures—birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a fruitless quest.

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

Except the part where ...Earth is the only place in the universe with life on it, and it's accounts of how old the universe is.

How can you say that the Earth is not the only place with life and then say, "I know life hasn't been found yet"? All the other planets that scientists have probed are devoid of life. But Earth teems with life, sustained by very complex systems that provide light, air, heat, water and food, all in exquisite balance. It shows evidence of having been specially built to accommodate living things comfortably. Imagine that you are in a barren desert, devoid of all life. Suddenly you come upon a beautiful house. The house has air conditioning, heating, plumbing and electricity. Its refrigerator and cupboards are filled with food. Its basement contains fuel and other supplies. Now, suppose you asked someone where all of this came from, in such a barren desert. What would you think if that person answered, “It just happened to appear there by chance”? Would you believe that? Or would you take for granted that it had a designer and builder?

Among the many precise conditions vital to life on the earth is the amount of light and heat received from the sun. The earth gets only a small fraction of the sun’s energy. Yet, it is just the right amount required to sustain life. This is because the earth is just the right distance from the sun—an average 93,000,000 miles. If the earth were much closer to the sun or farther away from it, temperatures would be too hot or too cold for life.
As it orbits the sun once a year the earth travels at a speed of about 66,600 miles an hour. That speed is just right to offset the gravitational pull of the sun and keep the earth at the proper distance. If that speed were decreased, the earth would be pulled toward the sun. In time, Earth could become a scorched wasteland like Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. Mercury’s daytime temperature is over 600 degrees Fahrenheit. However, if Earth’s orbital speed were increased, it would move farther away from the sun and could become an icy waste like Pluto, the planet whose orbit reaches farthest from the sun. Pluto’s temperature is about 300 degrees below zero Fahrenheit.
In addition, the earth consistently makes a complete rotation on its axis every 24 hours. This provides regular periods of light and darkness. But what if the earth rotated on its axis, say, only once a year? It would mean that the same side of the earth would be facing the sun all year long. That side would likely become a furnacelike desert, while the side away from the sun would likely become a sub-zero wasteland. Few, if any, living things could exist in those extreme circumstances.
As Earth rotates on its axis, it is tilted 23.5 degrees in relation to the sun. If the earth were not tilted, there would be no change of seasons. Climate would be the same all the time. While this would not make life impossible, it would make it less interesting and would drastically change the present crop cycles in many places. If the earth were tilted much more, there would be extremely hot summers and extremely cold winters

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

Joel, do you believe that people and dinosaurs were on the planet at the same time? Do you believe that the earth is only thousands of years old, not billions?

No. I think you are asking the time period question based on the fact that many people believe that God created the earth in 6 literal 24hr days. The book of Genesis was written in Hebrew. In that language, “day” refers to a period of time. It can be either a lengthy one or a literal day of 24 hours. Even in Genesis all six “days” are spoken of collectively as one lengthy period. The fact is, the Bible reveals that the creative “days,” or ages, encompass thousands of years.
A person can see this from what the Bible says about the seventh “day.” The record of each of the first six “days” ends saying, ‘and there came to be evening and morning, a first day,’ and so on. Yet, you will not find that comment after the record of the seventh “day.” And in the first century C.E., some 4,000 years downstream in history, the Bible referred to the seventh rest “day” as still continuing. (Hebrews 4:4-6) So the seventh “day” was a period spanning thousands of years, and we can logically conclude the same about the first six “days.”

Sir Fred Hoyle explains in The Nature of the Universe: “To avoid the issue of creation it would be necessary for all the material of the Universe to be infinitely old, and this it cannot be. . . . Hydrogen is being steadily converted into helium and the other elements . . . How comes it then that the Universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter were infinitely old this would be quite impossible. So we see that the Universe being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged.”

To answer your question, I personally do not know how old the universe is. With what we as humans know today it would make sense that the universe is at least millions of years old. On a clear night, the light of Andromeda galaxy may be visible to the naked eye. Now, knowing how far away that island universe of stars is from the earth and that light travels at 186,282 miles [299,792 km] a second, scientists have determined that the light you see coming from the Andromeda galaxy is 1.5 million years old.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

More importantly... since this is a "teh ghey" thread, I wanna know... does God (always "He"... and capitalized) have a penis, testicles, and taint... and if so, why?

No. The bible says that God is a spirit. Just as assigning human features to God is not to be understood literally, the use of male gender to describe God should not be taken literally. Gender distinction is unique to physical creatures and is a linguistic device that reflects the limitations of human language to capture fully the essence of God.

The Bible’s use of the designation “Father” helps us to understand that our Creator can be compared to a loving, protective, and caring human father. (Matthew 6:9) This does not mean that we are to view God, or even other spirit creatures in heaven, as being male or female. Gender, in the sense of sex, is not a characteristic of their nature.

[bigrobwoot]

Wow, there's a lot there. I'm going to have to chip away at that tomorrow.

As for my beliefs: I'd say I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist. Even in all of the creationism arguments, there are gaps. Gaps I will address tomorrow. But, to boil down into a hopefully short post my beliefs, I don't believe that there is one all-powerful being. At least not the one from the bible. Maybe something played a role in the creation of the universe, but it doesn't give a shit about us. If it does exist, it has made that abundantly clear. And if it does give a shit about us, then it is not powerful enough to stop all of the horrible things that happens to its followers.

One of my favorite quotes on the subject:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but unable? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

That pretty much sums up my views on God. If he does exist, he is apathetic towards us, and I feel the same.

I don't think that following the bible, or any organized religion or religious text is healthy. Using the bible for an example, there are so many stories of miracles happening to God's followers, yet he couldn't do a damn thing to stop the holocaust. People lived to be 700+ years old, according to the bible, yet all evidence we have says that we are living longer now than we ever have. In fact, people used to die from old age in their 20's and 30's. That site KSTech posted has a lot I had never thought of, but for the sake of this conversation, I'll leave those out of it. I can't think of the many others I had a problem with when I used to go to church as a youngster.

The point is, followers of the bible come up with reasons why these exaggerations are okay, but then other parts of the bible need to be taken literally. It's all just so contradictory.

It's late, I feel like I'm babbling, but if you have anything else you want me to touch on in my personal beliefs, let me know. I'm an open book. Hell, conversations like this make me re-examine what I believe, since I rarely challenge it anymore.

[sperry]

Joel, I'm not going to line by line your massive cut and paste for the same reasons that you're not going to tackle Knucklesplitter's links.

But some quick points of contention:

A scientific "theory" is not the same thing as a layman's theory. A scientific theory is a hypothetical prediction, the strength of which is determined by the evidence gathered via experimentation. A theory can be either very strong or very weak... to write off something as "just a theory" simply because it's called a theory is to totally miss the whole point of the scientific method. In science, everything we know is "just" a theory... and every theory can be improved, modified, thrown out, revised, etc as more evidence is discovered. That's the most useful thing about science... it doesn't get bogged down in absolutes because things can change based on our better and better understanding of reality.

More specifically, the theory of evolution is very strong not because there is only X amount of fossils, but because there is zero conflicting evidence. Every challenge at the core of evolution has only resulted in minor changes to the details of the mechanisms of evolution. Nothing has yet been discovered to suggest that evolution is false. That's not saying that we won't eventually find that evidence, but for now, evolution is a fantastically strong scientific theory.

Regarding Rob's comment about life elsewhere, he did in fact state that it appears likely that there is life within our own solar system besides earth, even if it hasn't been confirmed by direct observation yet. He was not just making an assumption as you suggest.

This comment "It shows evidence of having been specially built to accommodate living things comfortably." is patently false. There is no evidence that the earth was designed to accommodate life comfortably. It would be just as likely to assume life on another planet would fit into that planet's ecosystem even if that ecosystem were violently fatal to the life that developed on earth. Life on earth lives comfortably on earth because it evolved here. Life elsewhere would appear just as comfortable there. Your argument is actually a very good argument explaining why life on earth is a result of evolution.

I'm not sure what your point is about the light from Andromeda... but FYI the Hubble telescope has imaged galaxies around 13B light years away, so the universe is at least 13 billion years old... which fits right in with the current estimates of the age of the universe.



Every spec of light there in that tiny, tiny picture is made up of billions and billions of stars. It's kinda hard to imagine that god made all that just for us fragile humans that are bound to the thin layer of air surrounding a small rock to peak at through our telescope. Not that I can question god's purpose... maybe he's crazy into the details... but it just seems super unlikely that the universe was build as our playground.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

No. The bible says that God is a spirit. Just as assigning human features to God is not to be understood literally, the use of male gender to describe God should not be taken literally. Gender distinction is unique to physical creatures and is a linguistic device that reflects the limitations of human language to capture fully the essence of God.

The Bible’s use of the designation “Father” helps us to understand that our Creator can be compared to a loving, protective, and caring human father. (Matthew 6:9) This does not mean that we are to view God, or even other spirit creatures in heaven, as being male or female. Gender, in the sense of sex, is not a characteristic of their nature.

So we're not literally made in his image then?