G04, Dented, I appreciate your trying, but it still didn't answer the question for me. Why would the death of an animal absolve you of your sins? Why is innocent blood the magical ingredient in some sort of spiritual spell or ritual to gain God's favor? Why not something else besides innocent blood? Why not, you know, apologizing and asking forgiveness. Or self-sacrifice - giving of yourself. I don't understand how slaughtering an innocent could ever be considered a way to earn repentance. God created the earth and the animals. You'd think he would dissaprove of actions like that.
I'm sorry but your not making any sense at all. What does society have to do with how a book has been written? Maybe you're talking about interpretation? I don't really know what point you are trying to make.
I will dig deeper but without a pure life sacrifice its not as meaningful. This is as far as i know at the moment its not that its a magical ingredient but its more like a status maybe? I think that apologizing is only as good at the change of life that you mean to keep to. I think more along the lines that why was a man Killed for the sins of the world? I mean with out the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness... I think there is a verse like that. I have to go dig it up. Basically the Lamb isn't wasted it isn't fully burnt on an offering what you normally think of when you hear about sacrifice. Take the account of the passover with Moses In Exodus(Nitrous check it out I'm talking about Exodus) The passover was about the angel of Death passing over the land of Egypt and killing the first born male. Now there was only one thing that made the Angel of death skip over them. Now this is again both symbolism of god passing over Eternal Death to those who are covered by the Blood; as well taking a Literal you are forgiven by the blood. Now Its a bit gray probably to see but the blood is not just the item given for sacrifice. It was not like you buy a random calf to Sacrifice to the lord It is more of a Perfect lamb. A Lamb with out Defect(check out the test and other requirements in Leviticus) It was having a meal with god, or a spacial set time for focus on god. I think that the Lamb was chosen for as an icon as well an animal know for being very plain and willing to die for its master. i don't know how much you guys know about Lambs but they are not very freaked out being around there own dead...which isnt very true for most animials. But moving on... What does it do god for a man that is already falling into something he can't get out of... Nothing he can do Literally can get him out... It is another risking there life to save him... Take that very much as what the Lamb serves. I know in the new testiments there isn't a need for Sacrfice Due to the temporary solution of A Lamb being Slain was forfilled with a never ending Sacrifice. that was Jesus. A perfect Human laying down his life as a Sacrfice. If you ever had the chance all over the old testiment they hint of the new testiment for a Crist or Masyia (I am tired spelling could be off and my bible is not near me...God for give me..) lol Now Your right in the sence once the Blood is for filled the only thing left is the living Sacrifce. Which isn't really required. Kinda odd isn't it. A god thats has been acused with Forcing people to love him...or do what ever horrible things asks not tell you to do somthing... Shhh i'm getting to a point... The Relationship that was had with EVE and Adam can be bridged back. for most of the old testament people had holy people talk to god and God talk to them. There is a few account like David having a very personal relationship with god so much he was told he had a love after gods own heart. There is other account Of old testaments people having these relationships was rare. Not because they didn't believe in it. But the gap from man and god was so much larger. A sinful man had a harder time talking to god that a righteous man. Would that make sence? Now really getting down to it ... one sin makes you not righteous but more on that later ... Sleep for me first.... Side note in the new Testament (revelation: people will not see death because god will call forth all his believing people from the earth. Its called the Rapture. Its quite interesting your asking for something that god has already planned... Good Night FH.... O yeah maybe next time I can bring up the Holy ghost... that helps explain the missing bridge link with god and us communicating...
OK I have one big question that I just need to get off my chest. Homosexuality is a sin, correct? I'm assuming yes. Is the practice of homosexuality a sin, or being a homosexual a sin? Or both? Just one more. As has been alluded to in earlier posts. Why do you believe science is unnecessary or detrimental to society? Now GO4R hasn't said it directly, I presume he does, however Rusty and dented have shown ignorance of science (that does not mean your stupid). So whats the big deal with the negligence? I mean, why did science take last in your drive to learn? [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The U.S. population seems pretty evenly divided over whether the human species is biologically related to other animals or whether we were “specially-created” as part of a flurry of miracles. Even our collective politicians -seemingly all of them- are wrapped up in this controversy. Yet its hard to find even one of them who knows what its about. Why is it that there is such concern in so many grade schools (K thru 12) about teaching evolution, yet there is still a complete consensus among scientists all over America and the rest of the world -that evolution is the backbone of modern biology, and a demonstrable reality historically as well? [/FONT] I mean, which one sounds saner to you?
Thanks for the Call out. Because that means I can share my point of view, YOU Per Assumed that I think a certain way. Guess what Assuming means?... I'll tell you in Pm if you like.... Moving on to something we can debate. There you Go again Assuming, now you been shown a verse or so. Saying Stone a Man that lays with another man like a woman. I think much of this is not condoning homosexuality. But in the same note I argue Sleeping with a woman before marriage is a sin. As well telling a lie to your mother about stealing the candy is a sin. Let me go into why I understand it to be sin. Thou this is debatable In a different topic all together. Much of what I disagree with Homosexuality Is I haven't meet two people that really close before, Being Guy or Girl. I mean I know they are in a relationship but I haven't heard a wonderful love story or any of it. So Pointing to just that understanding, I can see why God has said Don't do it. Now if you want to debate if its lawful. Now I'm about to toss out my christian views over this. Governments do not have the rights to force you to be happy. Now I am for Gay Rights, though I view it as a sin. It's very similar to Drinking to intoxication is a sin. THOU its lawful It can be a sin. And thou it may Kill you I can not With hold your pursuit of Happiness by any means you search....Kinda odd being your God given right of Free will. Ahh Where we begin to disagree isn't here. Its where Science isn't about Helping Society and where it has gone into a field unrelated to helping people. Like for example My Field of Science. Want to guess what it is? Chemical Engineering. A little field of Science you seem to think I don't care about. Since I accused Carbon dating of being crap, And for good reason but w/e. Now Ranting a bit. Science that goes on and on on Theory and not any fact or physical proof. That is almost as good as random stories. I mean Lets just take the idea that this is possibly this... and possibly this as well. I think Science that improves Life to be quite useful. Science that Proves a man Committed a crime or didn't' commit a crime as quite useful. But to take science past its core ideas and take it to a level where its not proving any thing. Its quite disgraceful in my eyes. I mean WE argue in Science about a light as wave and a particle. Its quite easy to see both are right, but Taking The idea of light and waves to the idea of time travel is a bit far fetched. Its possible maybe. But as I am saying it that is a leap of Technology. The idea of something and the reaching to a goal should be to help not to just prove a debate. What do you gain by Disproving god? Self liberated from sin? All Sin has been labeled as is YOU not doing the right thing when you know you should have. And Lying that you didn't to yourself or to another. Compare that to the 10 commandments or any thing said in the bible. Now Lets Start a debate topic Nitrous Instead of finishing the last one. I think its very annoying to teach Evolution as Hard core facts that's all. Its quite Interesting that though the Bible can be looked at as being historically Accurate at its date recorded. Its value as a back bone in dating object to place other things at its place in time you completely view it as not even a tool. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] O so you mean every thing we Learned before the theory of evolution as A useless point and wasn't as useful to improving our life style? I mean I needed to know what dinosaurs were so much more then the bacteria in my stomach that makes me sick? I mean all the time we have debated Evolution in our minds we could have come up with a better fuel then fossil Fuels. Now i'm not blaming Evolutionists on our economy problems but lets face it What are they spending there time doing? And how does it improve our quantity of life? DNA Researchers can be said finding cures for our future. Physicists Can help us run things better. Evolutionists... prove there isnt' a good and we came from an ape. How does that make things better? [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Have you even looked out side your world? I think only the few scientists that say God doesn't exists have a set view point to not wanting it. Whats your issue? I mean even if there was one guy with one point of view he is still correct to have it..right? Lets just get to a point Just because people think its true it doesn't mean its true.. but there is a chance its true. I mean in faith I give Evolution its weight in water ..how about you about My God? [/FONT]
Truth What exactly do you mean by "your" Field of Science? Do you have a career in this field? Are you taking a chemistry class? In what capacity are you involved in Chemical Engineering? Reading your paragraph below shows me that you have very little understanding or love for science, so I am very curious. Truth. Science is the search for truth. Maybe science will prove there is a god at some distant point in the future. The point of science though, is not to try and prove something one way or the other, but to do unbiased experiments in the pursuit of truth. The idea that the only science that should be done is science that directly affects our needs as humans is against everything science stands for. It may not directly affect us now but science wants to know how many species of ants exist on our planet. Science wants to measure the exact rate of expansion of our universe.......how our moon was formed.........why the sky is blue......why bubbles want to be round......how worms reproduce. The goal of a science is to pursue truth, even if it does not directly benefit your life. I do think it's a shame when people that may be interested in science develop this attitude about it because it conflicts with dogma they were taught as children. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
True. However, science is not an animate being. Science does not study; scientists study. Scientists, as humans, will always have a form of bias, be it negative or positive. RAWR! Assumptions! Stop them! It makes your entire argument faulty when you try to do the "powerful summarizing statement" thing and use assumptions. Science is highly similar to sex and power, as they all were given to us by God to benefit both him and us. Sex, when practiced out of context, leads to broken hearts, children lacking parents, and even children being murdered. The same applies to science. It's a great thing, but it can be abused.
1. Yes, why yes they did. They had everything they could've ever wanted. The only catch was that they couldn't eat from one specific tree. The devil tricked them into eating fruit from it and suddenly they had shame. They covered themselves with leaves and hid from god. Of course god knew they were there and after talking to them about their shame cast them from the garden of Eden. 2.He is not in your closet but he knows what your doing in there.
You can share your point of view anytime you like. You don't have to wait on me I meant nothing by it. If you took offense to it, I am sorry. So homosexuality is a sin. I appreciate the answer but it wasn't to the right question. Is the practice of homosexuality or the state of being a homosexual (but not practicing) a sin. Science helps plenty of people. The computer you use, for example, is a product of science. Even evolution has helped us, via computer program models and such that work well within engineering. What about the theories that don't help us though? What about string theory? How could that help me on my day to day? It doesn't physically help me though it does give me a mental workout. It's about understanding how we came to be and it's about quenching our thirst to understand. I had no idea you wanted to be an chemical engineer, kudos! I wanted to be that Sophomore year but I changed my mind after AP Chemistry (ugh). I'll have to disagree with you on carbon dating. What evidence do you have to present to disprove or disqualify carbon dating? If you don't have any then your just saying stuff to say it. It's funny because you said random stories to insult science but that only applies to religion. I mean no offense by that, please don't take it personally. But do you see the irony? There are three basic types of knowledge in science. Hypothesizes, Laws, and theories. Hypothesizes are the weakest, they are an educated guess about what will happen during and after an experiment. Laws are generally observed phenomena such as gravity. The law of gravity would say something like, "What goes up, must come down." Theory is the final and most powerful of the three. A theory is a collection of facts and data. So not only is theory a fact, but it is multiple facts under one umbrella. The theory of gravity would state, "An object dropped from a height of 32 feet would fall at 9.8 m/s2 hitting the ground in approximately one second." See the difference? *Note - The theory and law of gravity are not verbatim, those were just examples. It's actually a wave, particle duality. Now, time travel isn't the correct word. It would be the stopping of time (if you were traveling at light speed) from your perspective giving the illusion you traveled through time. Physicists do a lot of great work for us, but if they want to write papers like that and someone wants to fund them I have no problem with it. It's cool to think about stuff like that. It molds the imagination and gives mystery to the universe. I get a safer world by disproving god. I don't have to worry about airplanes flying into buildings or people bombing abortion clinics. I don't have to worry about Israeli "Commandos" or Palestinian "Terrorists." I'm not going to sit here and tell you science makes a perfect world, but I think it makes a better one. There is no mysticism or false afterlives so people will be too damn scared to kill themselves for a cause. Should have? What about you? Shouldn't you stone children or anyone for that matter. I work every sabbath, should I be stoned? Will that be one of the sins god reads off to me? Evolution is a hard core fact. The bible is not used when trying to identify something in history. Now we have identified things that are also in the bible, but sometimes the bible either omits some things (understandable) or completely contradicts what actually happened (not understandable). Can you give me an example of when the bible was the only tool to finding something of importance?[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] No, it was not a useless point. However, the comparison between DNA and comparative anatomy wouldn't make any sense unless they had been one species at some point. Evolution comes along and says they were one species so it unifies the field of comparative anatomy and genetics, in that respect. That is all that is meant by "backbone." Of course, evolution came before genetics but whatever Just an example. We could not have created a new alternate energy fuel in the time we spent debating. Those jobs are filled by talented researches and we would most likely impede their progress even if we did have a job with them. While it's important to focus on important matters the nation can't take a 5 year break to begin researching alt. fuels, there is work to be done. However, if all the alt. energy scientists were all like, "*****, evolution is wrong!" and the biologists were all like, "Nuh-huh!" then we would be wasting time. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT] Yes I have. 97% of biologists lack a faith in god (being the highest of scientific areas). 93% of physical scientists lack a faith in god (being the lowest of scientific areas of study). When I say scientific area I don't mean your park ranger, I mean somebody who has a phd and does deep research into their respective field. Is the man correct to have the point of view, yes. Is he correct? No. If two people are debating whether a circle is a circle or a square both are entitled to their opinon, however, one is right and the other wrong. A good atheist will tell you god has the possibility of existing but is not probable. The probaility is even lower when claiming a specific religion's god. For instance my probability would be: 99.99% sure evolution is correct, 0.01% sure a god made the universe. For the judeo-Christian god it would be 99.9999% sure evolution is correct and 0.0001% sure Yahweh is the one true god. It's just easier to say, no I don't believe in god. I believe in god and faires and the loch ness, however, they are highly improbably and most likely don't exist. My question to you is, how many gods do you believe in? All of them?
Blatant picking and choosing going on here, but in an attempt to do so without paraphrasing or being reductive of an argument, there are a couple of points here which have bugged me for a while. This is something that actually interests me quite alot and I echo your question Nitrous, since the verse from Leviticus from which this point of view is so often referenced does specify the act as opposed to the desire May I also point out that it does not say anything about being stoned, this is the case in other such verses in Leviticus, but not this one. A minor point in this case maybe, but it does show how often people assume they know the bible word for word, often to their own argument's detriment. Furthermore, and this may be a tried and tested argument but I've never once heard a decent rebuttal to it, have those of you who base your rejection of homosexuality on this verse actually read all of Leviticus? It also prohibits the eating of pork and rabbit, as well as "round[ing] the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard." (Leviticus 19:27). It also says that it is a sin to uncover the nakedness of your own family which, whilst I can understand the obvious ramifications with regard to incest, also has connotations of seeing your own family naked, something which pretty much everyone does at a very young age etc. I just feel that some people (I am not directly addressing anyone here, but making a point) are too quick to pick and choose the rules they see as relevant without actually investigating the full ramifications of sections like Leviticus This may be a personal opinion, since there is no one who can be called upon to define or give purpose to science as a whole, but I would disagree. I see science as there to help people, not to make people feel better or understand. I agree that understanding is essential, but only in the pursuit of application, however indirect or distant. To use your example of string theory, it may not help you out visibly in your day to day life but investigations into the nature of the universe and, broadly, physics, should have useful applications down the line. Understanding the universe in which we live helps us to utilise it to our advantage, and understanding the nature of the relationship between matter and energy should, one day hopefully, provide us with a much better way of obtaining energy and harnessing it than we have now, as well as possibilities for using the relationship between energy and matter for theoretical applications such as forcefields with a physical resistance, not just a magnetic/electric one (a cliched example, but you get the point). My view is that science is there to aid and help, not to make any one person or group of people more comfortable in life due to a perception of knowledge and understanding. I'm not saying it isn't nice and reassuring to understand how things work, I too take great solace in it, but I don't think it should ever be a percieved aim of science, it misses the point of furthering knowledge to apply and benefit others, otherwise science is hardly the selfless pursuit which it is so often put forward as.
I see your point. I think I'll revise my reason for liking string theory and other "useless" theories to that of your own. Although, having a bit of fun learning and giving me the feeling of accomplishment and understanding will still be one of my reasons for study.
You know that context really make sin? I mean usually you would take it as if your with the band(referring group not an actual band) your most likely to sin, BUT yet again this is a prethough not taking into context. I mean IN truth Loving another man in a terms of what I truly take love isn't Homosexual at all. I mean When to guys hang out... in some tangent form your saying one thing but your misunderstanding it. I mean taking things at a impersonal level is a sin in my eyes almost. Every thing is a special case and should be handled with care. I'm not saying that Homosexuality like the Practice is a sin or not. I'm saying Look at what sin is and what sin isn't Take it as Love not a list of Do nots. Take it down to if you love me you do this, but as stupid as we are human we like a list of what we can't do better than what we should do ...due to the fact we want free will, and creative alternatives. Btw if you think I Love Science, I really do... I am in College Classes and such.. Please take the time to respect that. My point of view is very similar to Pegasi... Now I have commented in the correct debate why I don't like carbon dating and I have left that debate because No one answered it... So plainly Its a dead topic, lets find something other than Carbon dating to argue about. Like for example though its improbable it doesn't mean its ruled out. Thou the date supports it there isn't much of a claim of proof to finish it. Like .9r does not equal 1. My first debate here. So though we have an idea of the direction of something there isn't a finial proof there isn't' a finial proof. Its quite interesting The Great Dercess Said I think so there for I am. And with it came to some very powerful statements. My question would be How can the bible not be true till you have a full proof its false? ... Just because your views are one can't I have mine? I keep saying it. I keep saying you can have yours... thou I do not agree You have said I am Bias Which Isn't it bias to rule out something because its less likely? I mean we don't have many Scientist working on proving God because its highly unlikely from your point of view. And it is quite a common practice for Doctors to treat a patients on there symptoms to what is likely what they have. But Its till Time shows the truth of what they truly have. .... I'm getting to a point. Though we have math and tests... Time is the true test. It is the only single Truth we have. (Side note God is truth as well but I'm trying to show My Science guy at the moment)... GO with it lol. Both sides at this point are true but its a matter of opinion. I mean thou I'm on a side that's supported by an old... I still have the future to prove my truth, and I hope it will come. Every day till then is a debate. But I say again like 1/3 debate. We argue though the data shows its not ending and w/e Its still quite not exactly 0.3r. For those that Don't know about this debate ... can some one bring them up to speed. I know the few older members remember this debate so a lot of this post if for them. PM me if your lost and confused...
Claim: Archaeology supports the accuracy of the Bible. The Bible's historical account has many times been substantiated by new archaeological information. Response: Archaeology supports at most the general background of the Bible and some relatively recent details. It does not support every biblical claim. In particular, archaeology does not support anything about creation, the Flood, or the conquest of the Holy Land. If a few instances of historical accuracy are so significant, then an equal claim for accuracy can be made for the Iliad and Gone with the Wind. Archaeology contradicts significant parts of the Bible: The Bible contains anachronisms. Details attributed to one era actually apply to a much later era. For example, camels, mentioned in Genesis 24:10, were not widely used until after 1000 B.C.E. (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001). The Exodus, which should have been a major event, does not appear in Egyptian records. There are no traces in the Sinai that one would expect from forty years of wandering of more than half a million people. And other archaeological evidence contradicts it, showing instead that the Hebrews were a native people (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Lazare 2002). There is no evidence that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were nearly as powerful as the Bible indicates; they may not have existed at all (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Lazare 2002). Many claims that archaeology supports the Bible, especially earlier ones, were based on the scientists trying to force the evidence to fit their own preconceptions. Links: Lazare, Daniel, 2002. False testament: archaeology refutes the Bible's claim to history. Harper's 304(1822) (Mar.): 39-47. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/1822_304/83553507/p1/article.jhtml?term=bible++!2Barchaeology References: Finkelstein, Israel and Neil A. Silberman, 2001. The Bible Unearthed, New York: Free Press. Lazare, 2002. (see above) Further Reading: Bimson, J. J. and D. Livingstone, 1987. Redating the Exodus. BAR 13(5): 40-53. Finkelstein, Israel and Neil A. Silberman, 2001. The Bible Unearthed, New York: Free Press. Miller, Laura, 2001 (7 Feb.). King David was a nebbish. Salon.com, http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/07/solomon/index.html Moorey, P. R. S., 1991. A Century of Biblical Archaeology. Westminster/John Knox Press. --- Good enough? I'm going to address some of the finer points in your post after I pm you.
I have been popping in and out of this debate, but I am going to finally post. Are you saying that God existence is true unless proven false? If that is so, how can you prove that something doesn't exist, if it leaves no evidence to prove its non-existence. Can you prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist or the Celestial teapot?...btw if I missed your point completely, please ignore this post.
Its fine I'm just pointing it out. That it is Bias to rule out outliers in saying what is true and what is not true. Though its highly unlikely YOU can't rule out the Flying Spaghetti. I mean we can interrupt a few things out of the likely hood of seeing such a creature but Its not impossible. This looking from a scientific stand point... which I'm being called not having. PS peps take your Sigs off... Staff you know better...
The Devil (or Lucifer) was an angel to begin with. He was betrayed or something like that and became a demon. So i guess yes it can be debated upon if he is god or not. He at one point, was apart of Heaven.
Likleyhood I totally agree with this. God is as likely to exist as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's a perfect comparison really. God is as likely as a plate of spaghetti somehow animating itself and then taking flight. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is God: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlxmwvWekZA
Have you looked into my debate about 1/3? Because I was explaining that some times the out liar is correct. Now there isn't a need to mock me ... 1/3 is said to equal .3r but it doesn't really because Mallets debate tried showing an incorrect assumption that it is. Now as far as we know. .3333>to infinity Does not mean you can add 0.0r 1 and get 1/3 ... because the out liars proves its not possible. Its kinda ironic your trying to make something that does not exist positive when Its like science fiction. Now i'm not suggesting my God Is science fiction but can you at least admit there is a possibility that he exists... Out Liars have feelings also ... don't rule them out so quickly ..they have the chance to stab you in the back if you do.
Well Neverless I think I may be able to help you answer this. The answer is that the blood does not absolve any sinner of their sins. Then why would God ask for animal sacrifice? Hmmm, let's dig deeper. God as the infinite being of the universe cannot sin. What sort of emotions do you think God feels when people sin, when people directly disobey God? I'm thinking that it is the most offensive thing we can do because it breaks God's heart. For instance, what if you saw your wife cheating on you? You'd be angry and heartbroken. The key here is that God still loves us enough to give us second chances instead of wiping us off the face of the earth. I mean if I were God and you were breaking my heart, well...I might be inclined to do something about it, but God doesn't because he loves us. So, sin is apalling to God, but he loves us and wants to give us second chances. So why animal sacrifices? I think to convey the same emotions. To be completely honest, you don't feel that bad if you lie, cheat, or steal. What will make you feel the pain that God has felt and remind you not to do it again? Sadly, taking the life of your most precious lamb is the only thing that would get through most of our heads. I wish there was another way, I wish that pricking my finger we convey those same emotions, but they don't. Animal sacrifice illustrates the pain that God feels. But, that can't be the main point behind animal sacrifice, making people feel bad? Why can't God just make us really sick and then we'll repent? Then it wouldn't be as sincere, God wants to see a repentant heart more than just a sacrifice. Okay, then if God is really looking for genuine repentance, I can do that without sacrificing my best lamb. Well, you might have a sincere heart, but the wages of sin is death. Sin comes between us and God, effectively cutting off the relationship. In some aspect, spiritually dying. This is where Jesus comes in, mind you he has always been there. Jesus becomes the ultimate sacrifice, covering all of our sins, all we have to do is accept the sacrifice. God's grace cost him everything, but it costs us nothing. Neverless if you still have questions you can PM me.