Umbobo

Registered bored user

cjeffblanchr wrote:
I think is time for Apple to die.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
semichisam01   What I mean is that the majority of scientists interpret the data a certain way.  As an example, lets take evolution.  Most take the theory of evolution to be the absolute truth.  They have arrived at this conclusion because of how they interpreted the data, often with preconceived notions acquired simply because that's what they're told.  People for the most part are sheep, not shepherds, and they go along with the mainstream.  The problem with this is that because of the need to have their researched funded, they pretty much have to go along with that mainstream ideology.  But science is not properly advanced because of this.  There are those with agendas out there, who dictate how the data should be interpreted.  If researchers don't go along with it, they are pretty much out of jobs.  No one's going to pay people who don't advance their agenda.  This hurts true science.

See, data can be interpreted in different ways.  Science does not tell us anything at all--scientists do.  And scientists go into their jobs with preconceived ideas of what they hold to be true.  An atheist and a Christian scientist look at the same data and arrive at different conclusions, or interpret it differently.  You might say that a real scientist doesn't do that.  They look only at the data.  But it is impossible for one not to apply discoveries according to what they already believe to be true.

Just as a simple example of what I'm talking about...  data shows common traits between two different species of animals.  The atheistic scientist will see this as evidence of evolution (since there is no God, one of them must have come from the other).  But the Christian scientist will look at exactly the same data and see the beauty in them both as different, separate beings, created with similar traits, because they serve the same function. 

Now, if universities are paying scientists, and those universities tend to have a leftward leaning slant toward atheism--and we all know that for the most part they do--then of course they are only going to fund research that promotes their own ideas.  But this doesn't make them right.  This is what creates the mainstream scientific community.  It's all about the money and agendas.

 
cjeffblanchr wrote:
holygod holygod The funny thing about my situation with my ex--now that I can look back at it without the bitterness, is that I can see the good that came out of it.  If not for all that happened, I never would have been in such a situation that led me to finding the best companion I could have ever hoped for--my dog.  And when I look at him, and consider this, I can't really regret anything.  I don't attribute this to God; only to circumstance.  But good has come out of the bad.  That's another thing I've learned--that things tend to have a way of working themselves out over time.  Maybe this is God, maybe just chance, or maybe some unknown natural law.  I don't know and it doesn't matter.

Now, the problem of evil in the world is a question that neither I nor anyone else can definitively answer.  There just is no way to really understand it.  Of your points (about how God could have made us without sin, or cause a rapist to have a heart attack, and so on), I think the most valid is how he could have made humanity without such inclinations.  And I think there is some truth to it.  But when I consider it, I am reminded of a certain passage in the Bible that says that people invent ways of doing evil.  Yes, God surely would have seen all the potential evils that we were capable of, and maybe could have stopped them.  But then we run into the problem of which evils does he decide to intervene in?  If he's going to intervene and erase one from existence, why not all of them?  So then we run into the problem of him simply making evil not a possibility, when thereby removes the choice to commit evil, and we are all just robots, bent to his will.

You used the phrase "he could have made" some do or not do something.  Again, a violation of free will.  

I don't have children, so I can't equate all of that the same as you, but I can consider my dog.  I absolutely would not let him do anything that I know would lead to his suffering, so of course it is probably only magnified when discussing a person's kids.  But that is also looking at it from a human perspective, where we are left with only seeing the immediate results.  From an ultimate perspective, how do we know that good does not result?  See, from someone who doesn't believe in an afterlife or eternal existence, i think it would be impossible to conceive that ultimately that suffering is nothing but suffering, cruel, brutal and unjust.  But what if there is an eternity out there waiting, and our suffering leads us toward it?

  "...Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope..." (Romans 5:3-4)

We do not agree on this, of course.  But that's why we discuss it.  This is the perspective that I try to look at all things with.  
cjeffblanchr wrote:
holygod heh, I always get roped into these discussions with you.  I like it.  As usual, I'm going to offer an alternative explanation for you that you might not have had reason to consider before.

Lets assume for a moment that God is rational, and as you said you just can't find the rationale, and that this is his fault for not explaining it, or making it plain to him.  I get this position, but I just look at it from a different angle.  There are many, many things that I wish God would make clearer to me, understanding that I'd like to have.  I don't view this lack of understanding as a test, as many might.  I think of it more as information that is available, but I have to seek it if I want it.  God's not going to force anything into us, especially if we're not really seeking it.

Just as one example of what I'm talking about, my ex-wife really screwed me over.  Everything she told me was a lie, pretty much from the start.  She left me with more debt than I'll ever be able to pay off.  She got pregnant while we were still together, and it wasn't mine.  The list goes on.  I was extremely angry and bitter about it for quite a few years.  I wondered why God would have let all of this happen to me.  Once I was able to get over being pissed off at God, I was able to start seeking peace of mind.  Finally I realized that God didn't let it happen to me, first of all (I let it happen to myself).  And I learned I had to forgive--not because she deserved it by any means, but I had to forgive her for my own sake.  Being bitter didn't hurt her at all, only me.  When I could look at it all from outside that box, I realized that I was part of the problem.  The way I am led me to make the decisions that I made.

Does this mean that I'm not at fault, because God made me the way I am?  Does it mean he's at fault?  To me, neither is true.  Existence is laid out in such a way that... well, to put it bluntly, shit just happens.  Saving us from it would be a violation of free will.  

If this is true, then would you really want to have your free will taken from you, just so you can avoid unpleasant things?  I wouldn't.  So, I don't view it as if God looks at us like we're an ant farm, just wanting to see what we will do.  He loves us, in my opinion, and doesn't like bad things to happen to us.  Likewise, he knows what is best for us, and morality is simply his way of letting us know what is ultimately best for us individually and as a society.

People can always seek deeper understanding of things, but we're not going to find it unless we are willing to let go of the presumptions or presuppositions that are holding us back.  Throughout my life I have disagreed with God on many, many matters, but it doesn't matter what we think.  He has a way of showing us when we're wrong.  I can say from personal experience that arguing against God's ways is always allowed by him, but it is never truly beneficial.  

As far as you, when you die, having repercussions.... I don't know.  I certainly don't think that everyone is just doomed to hell because they never received the proper "enlightenment".  
cjeffblanchr wrote:
Gerry1of1 Yeah, I get satire.  The problem is that when you interject it into an actual conversation, it just doesn't do anything but make you seem like a militant atheist who just wants to insult Christians.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
LordJim Oh, well you can be assured that I am now very assured.  Thanks for the insight.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
Gerry1of1 Well, yeah.  Its pretty obvious that you're an atheist.  Poke fun all you want, but misrepresenting it only shows ignorance in a real discussion.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
LordJim This statement doesn't even make any sense.  Of course religious beliefs are linked with evidence.  People don't just decide (generally) to believe something on a whim.  There are reasons one chooses to believe--experiences, physical interactions, logical conclusions, reason, morality, science.  The existence of everything serves as evidence.  Now some people interpret all of these things only through the lens of science, while others interpret it through religion.  We all have the same evidence, we just apply it differently.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
holygod Obviously there is no answer to that.  I do not know the mind of God.  I can only do my best to understand the intent behind the things that are said to have happened.  I don't need to question every tiny detail as a reason to believe.


cjeffblanchr wrote:
LordJim Well, your guess is only part right.  My interest lies in the simple and quite reasonable ideas that "Dragon" is a much older term that was used to describe real things in a time before the word Dinosaur was invented.  Likewise, it is simple FACT that if you do a bit of research into older definition of words (like in a time when the KJV would have been translated, the word unicorn is clearly referring to the one horned rhinoceros.  

I'm not your pal.  You can try to paint pictures of people who can see past the atheistic lies as someone who is childish all you want.  It doesn't change that fact that you are simply being ignorant of facts, as I have discussed.  

Not really sure what your issue is with the term "Mainstream science community".  That's exactly what it is... the majority (but definitely not all) of scientists interpret scientific information according to a certain, accepted agenda.  Some people--like myself--view these ideas as nothing short of one interpretation, or possibility, of many.  Others choose to bow down to it like its a religion. 
cjeffblanchr wrote:
Gerry1of1 see my reply above to holygod.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
tholygod You're playing with words here.  The likely reason that it adds "before me" is because the jews lived amongst idolaters, which seeped into their culture.  Although God would likely have preferred that the people did not regard idols as gods, the main intent was that the people understand that there is only one true god above them all, himself.  Idolatry was so ingrained within cultures of this time, that the most important part was to keep himself seaparated and above the false gods in the minds of the people.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
LordJim So I'm guessing that mainstream science is something you consider to be gospel, so to speak.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
Gerry1of1 You can't be that ignorant.  If it says dragons then it means what the writers regarded as dragons, not what we regard as dragons now.  Same with unicorns.  You can't just ignore the evolution of language and translation.  If you think you can, then you really have no place in any kind of intelligent discussion.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
I can't speak for the author of this video, but for me, it is not so much that these discoveries prove the absolute truth of the Bible, but it certainly does add credence to it.  Most myths were written a very long time after the actual events they describe, and thus, misconceptions and mistakes happen.  So every time something is confirmed, it is a small bit of evidence that these events happened.  For the believer, it adds credibility to the whole of it, while the unbeliever will dismiss it, saying that it just proves it is a mixture of fact and fiction.  Regardless, it does add likelihood to the possibility that the writing of these ancient documents was much closer to the actual events than is going to be seen in a myth.

Also, a proper understanding of how the Jews regarded "word of mouth", copying documents, and translating, is pretty important.  It is absolutely not at all like many of you would have people believe.  It is not like the game where you say one thing to the first person in a line and they whisper it to the next and so on until the last person has completely changed the original.  There were many safeguards against this.  Scribes devoted their entire lives to making sure that they copied or translated accurately.  Additionally there were other methods of preserving the original.  Take this for example...  Say you take a book and have someone copy it by hand, then someone else copy it by hand, and so on.  Mistakes are of course going to creep into the texts, and it would be easy to say that it had changed over time.  But this is not the case with Biblical texts.  It is more as though you took four copies of that book, gave them to different people, and had each of them written/copied many times.  Using this method, one could get a far more accurate recreation of what the original said.  This is because if you look at the descendant copies of each of the four lines of translations, and a particular section in one differs from the other three, you can identify which one was inaccurately translated.  If the other three agree, then it is pretty certain that only the one was changed.  That is simplifying it of course, but it has been shown through the research of people far smarter than any of us that the significant changes from original texts are very minimal, and that in pretty much all of them, the changes are very minor.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
Gerry1of1 A moderate amount of research will actually answer all three of those.  Most interesting is the unicorn.  Find an old dictionary from say the 1800's and look up unicorn and see what it's talking about.  The unicorn was NOT defined as a horse with a horn. You cannot interpret ancient writings according to modern definitions and expect to get an accurate understanding.  As for dragons, look up when the word dinosaur was actually invented.  It becomes pretty clear that "dragon" could easily have been a word used to describe fossils that were seen.  You can't expect that a relatively modern word should appear in an ancient text and since it doesn't it just has it all wrong.  Giants are a bit of a tougher one, as trying to support the idea of actual giants would border on conspiracy theory.  But there is evidence out there--not necessarily in the mainstream science community--that there were very large human-like beings in ancient times.  Modern science doesn't accept this because it would contradict the agenda based interpretation of evolution.  

So, Giants... yeah question that all you want and I won't argue, as it is not definitive evidence.  But with "dragons" and "Unicorns"  there are very reasonable ways to understand what was being talked about, and it is dishonest to try to use the fact that these words were used in the Bible prove it is mythical, just because you don't understand how language works.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
Gerry1of1 Not really.  It is simply a command forbidding the people from worshiping what they considered to be gods, or idols.  That is not the same as an admission that other supernatural beings exist.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
Buffy was good.  Angel was better.  
cjeffblanchr wrote:
I've never watched any of them because I don't give a crap, but I've talked to numerous gay people who said Brokeback Mountain was just a horrible movie. Nothing to do with the gayness going on, but it was just a boring, piss-poor production.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
lockner01 That's a very discriminatory statement.  Not everyone identifies as a 'human'.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
melcervini Nice.  I'd love to build a good, modern pc.  I've gotten away from IT work in the last 10 years and don't really use my PC for much other than a little writing and internet.  Hard to justify anying more than a basic model.  
cjeffblanchr wrote:
melcervini Sounds about right.  My first was in 95 or 96.  Pentium 166 with 2gb HD and I think 16 mb Ram.  It was nearly top of the line at the time.  $2000.  A couple years after that I was studying for a certification and and bought a really old computer at a thrift store, just to try to get it working.  I don't even remember what it was, but the thing worked fine without any fixing.  But it was pre-windows, with I believe a 7MB hard drive.  Like I said, it worked fine, but there was absolutely nothing practical that I could even do with it.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
LordJim Yeah, if by 'childish' you mean 'mostly realistic'.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
Django And what's wrong with basing an opinion and a worldview on personal experience?
cjeffblanchr wrote:
DuckBoy87 What kind of Christians have you been talking to?  I've never seen any that I woul describe as an 'outrage mob'.  Yeah, there's some that go overboard, of course, but I've seen FAR fewer of them than the militant atheists and liberals.