If christianity is true than god is a hyprocrit

[Moose]

Not at all. I was just curious as to what led you to trust the men who edited the Bible--seeing as how you could never have met them and their understanding of the world was much less advanced than your own

The same could be said with the history books in our own Schools, yes?

Since the things I listed have witnesses, people who believe in those things do not have blind faith either, then.

What's the difference from a little over 2000 thousand years ago?

No, I didn't. I was merely pointing out that "witnesses" have little to do with the veracity of a claim. Separating "blind" faith from the kind of faith that has "witnesses" is essentially meaningless.

So the above is null and void, and then so should be all history books?

That isn't what I was asking you at all. I was simply pointing out that many people have all sorts of visions about success, love, family, etc. that don't come true. These, of course, are not kept track of. This is fallacious thinking referred to as "selective thinking." That's it. My question had nothing to do with you speculating about dreams coming true.

I totally agree with this statement, and you'll get no arguement from me.

Easy. Probability.

I don't subscribe to that thinking. Simply because I've been witness to far greater than, "probability".

[Moose]

In your mind, what exactly would such a skeleton look like?

 

We have hundreds of transitional fossils, but somehow I think you believe evolution turns a dog into a cat in one jump.

I couldn't even visualize such a thing. And neither can you, or any of the greatest, "scientists" alive. But until you, (or the scientists), can produce that, "jump" without provocation, you have just as much of a leg to stand on as my belief in God.

 

I refuse to believe that man came from goo to you by way of the zoo......

[Moose]

Actually, Buddhism offers a very tangible, logical, simple Truth, and one that nobody on this board has actually ever been able to deny, negate, contradict, argue against or counter-act.

 

And no, I am certainly not bitter. Amused, yes....Bitter no....

 

 

But maybe I'm just being picky!!

Well, I'll just say that I haven't said anything because you've respected my beliefs. I'll give that to you even though I don't agree with your path.

 

And I think that'll even be good with you and, "buddah"?

[FleshNBones]

• We see religion putting earth at the center of the universe = wrong

• We see the church condemning the scientists for discovering we are not alone in the universe = wrong

• We see the church condemning these scientist for their heretical positions = wrong

• We see religion claiming the earth is only a few thousand years old = wrong

......................and the list goes on.

 

How many more wrongs do you need to see before you even consider other possibilities?

I haven't seen anyone here make those claims.

 

• The universe doesn't have a center.

• I don't remember any scientists discovering life on another world.

• The Church accepted the Big Bang theory before most scientists did.

• Which Church is that?

[Rooster_DAR]

Some people will just never open their eyes...

 

Sad

[Rooster_DAR]

I haven't seen anyone here make those claims.

• The universe doesn't have a center.

• I don't remember any scientists discovering life on another world.

• The Church accepted the Big Bang theory before most scientists did.

• Which Church is that?

 

You obviously have not done a lot of research into this subject.

[Moose]

Some people will just never open their eyes...

 

Sad

Why do you post this without expanding?

 

If you have such wisdom, don't hog it, edify us would you??

[Enema]

I couldn't even visualize such a thing. And neither can you, or any of the greatest, "scientists" alive.

 

We don't need to visualize them... as I mentioned, we already have hundreds of them in the fossil record:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

(I don't generally approve of wikipedia, however the information is well sourced:)

 

I refuse to believe that man came from goo to you by way of the zoo......

 

This sounds like something Kent Hovind would say.. and displays the same sort of ignorance about evolution that his videos do.

 

You don't need to "believe" anything with evolution. We have mountains of evidence and the ToE is accepted as fact by any biologist.

[FleshNBones]

You obviously have not done a lot of research into this subject.

Where is the center of the universe?

What alien lifeforms have the scientists discovered?

 

Have you read anything by Stephen Hawking?

[FleshNBones]

You don't need to "believe" anything with evolution. We have mountains of evidence and the ToE is accepted as fact by any biologist.

It's all plagiarized from the same source.

[Moose]

We don't need to visualize them... as I mentioned, we already have hundreds of them in the fossil record:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

(I don't generally approve of wikipedia, however the information is well sourced:)

 

 

 

This sounds like something Kent Hovind would say.. and displays the same sort of ignorance about evolution that his videos do.

 

You don't need to "believe" anything with evolution. We have mountains of evidence and the ToE is accepted as fact by any biologist.

Yeah, and I'll give that about a decade at the most to be valid compared to thousands of years where God's words will still hold True......tick tock buddy...

[Enema]

Yeah, and I'll give that about a decade at the most to be valid compared to thousands of years where God's words will still hold True......tick tock buddy...

 

Could you please rephrase this? I can't make sense of it.

 

I do however, note that you are again shut down by real evidence and forced to hand-wave to divert attention.

 

I'll leave this thread now unless you can manage to contribute something of substance.

[Moose]

See ya then....since you can't do the same.....

[Moose]

Could you please rephrase this? I can't make sense of it.

What do you mean? Is it not obvious by now that man can not, and will not know it all?

I do however, note that you are again shut down by real evidence and forced to hand-wave to divert attention.

Again, evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

[JamesM]

We don't need to visualize them... as I mentioned, we already have hundreds of them in the fossil record:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

(I don't generally approve of wikipedia, however the information is well sourced:)

 

Actually, you may want to find a better source. Many so called transitional fossils are speculations based on a few bones. The theory of evolution (or ToE) needs these as transitional, so they become transitional. The horse transitions have been debunked as incorrect a long time ago. Many other supposed transitional forms from the past have been debunked. I am sure even more will be debunked. Many of your so called transitional forms on wiki have been shown not to be so transitional.

 

This sounds like something Kent Hovind would say.. and displays the same sort of ignorance about evolution that his videos do.

 

And when I read Dawkins, I see his many remarks that shows his ignorance of theology. In fact, he feels it isn't even necessary to study theology...yet he loves to deride it. Many of the phrases used by atheists here...I have seen in his books. But neither of these is relevant. Who cares? Is it ignorance to use catch phrases...especially when they may be accurate?

 

The fact remains that between abiogenesis (special spontaneous generation...or special life from nothing) and evolution (complex life developed from random adaptations with no goal)...it can be simplified as molecules to man or whatever phrase.

 

You don't need to "believe" anything with evolution. We have mountains of evidence and the ToE is accepted as fact by any biologist.

 

The biggest fact is that there is much speculation based on the belief that the world began without a God. Because one explanation can be used partially to explain something does not make it right. If one looks at evidence with the idea that the world must be old to make evolution right, then that is what will be seen. If I "know" that evolution happened, then anything that seems out of whack will be taken as an error...simply because I "know" that evolution happened. So to say that only a creationist has presupposed beliefs would be incorrect.

 

And no, many many biologists do NOT accept the ToE as fact. Mountains of evidence is interpreted based on the accepted theory. While this evidence allegedly supports the theory, this does not somehow transform the theory into a fact.

[Moose]

The biggest fact is that there is much speculation based on the belief that the world began without a God.

The simple truth in the eyes of scientists is that there must be a cause for anything that exists.

 

The problem is that they/we cannot define the FIRST cause, (and will not in my opinion), define the, FIRST cause that enabled any and all, "causes" to happen.

 

If we subscribe to most scientists, we must adhere to the cause and effect. Energy exhausts fuel. If the earth is, "billions and billions, and billions" in years.....how come we're still here? Where's that fuel coming from?

 

I don't mean to get off on a rabbit trail.....but I just feel that most anti-christains don't have the whole picture in mind....

 

I just want people to know that even I don't have that vision, but I want to get there, and I hope that we all can get a better grip on things in general....

[Moose]

The problem is that they/we cannot define the FIRST cause

In terms that us mere humans can understand.

[Geishawhelk]

Well, I'll just say that I haven't said anything because you've respected my beliefs. I'll give that to you even though I don't agree with your path.

 

And I think that'll even be good with you and, "buddah"?

 

 

Absolutely Moose.

peace and love be with you, this Christmas and always.

metta my friend.

[Geishawhelk]

And I will add this:

I was a practising Roman Catholic, for 40-odd years before I took a different calling. Bible study and Church every Sunday, education in a convent and daily reminder....

 

The sincerity, seriousness and intention I had as a RC, and my subsequent change of tack to Buddhism, are my business, and mine alone.

 

Nobody has a right to judge, criticise or condemn me for that, although of course, they are entitled to their own opinion or view. But there's a difference between an opinion/view and a criticism or judgement.

 

There is no need to vilify, insult or belittle the Faith of anyone - ANYONE - or even the lack of it.

There are ways of having theological discussions without resorting to insult or name-calling, sarcasm or prejudice.

If you re-examine the interview text I posted earlier on, with regard to the Interview between HH the Dalai Lama and Robert Thurman, not once does the Dalai Lama condemn or criticise any deistic religion.

In fact, he exhorts anyone following a religion to bear an open and ready Mind. Not for it to be changed, but simply to permit and accept that other points of View exist.

For goodness' sake! Buddhism is the biggest 'No God' religion on the planet - perhaps the only one! If we, as Buddhists, can be open, accepting and loving towards those who clearly contradict what we as Buddhists adhere to - isn't this option open to atheists and agnostics too?

The Dalai Lama has regular and close links with many Religious fractions. He holds dialogue and meetings with them regularly, and seeks to unite people under one common banner - Humanity - rather than seek divisive means of assessing that one religion is better than any other.... It's a meeting of Minds and Hearts, rather than a discussion on right and wrong....

 

Granted, there are some World/Religious leaders who choose to distance themselves from such philosophy. But in my opinion this speaks volumes about where their hearts are, rather than whether the Dalai Lama is misguided or not....

It saddens me that in this day and age, when the literal fear of God is being put into Nations by the Deistic unrest wrapping itself around the globe by extremists and fanatics, that we, as simple folk on an impermanent forum, can choose to touch each other's lives through discord and argument.

 

God or no God - It's Christmas. And no matter what that means to the individual, or how you choose (or not) to 'celebrate' it - Be Nice. Be kind. Be Considerate and have the Humanity (worth cultivating 365 days of the year) to treat others with Dignity, Kindness and respect.

Temper your words, and make them 'wise', not hasty. Make them well thought out, not hurtful.

Forget the "Well, I will if he does"....

 

Just do it.

 

Is it really so hard?

Is it really such a difficult thing to do?

 

Love and metta to one and all.

 

Ok, I'm done.

[Moose]

I didn't qoute your post, to save server space. But I must say that your post, (to me), was very pleasent. Thank you. (speechless at this point)....

[DutchGuy]

We're still a great civilization, we've reached greatness, we just haven't reached "perfection" yet.

 

I think that some people need to be reminded that christ is one of the big reasons so many people are doing so much charity today. He's our inspiration to do good for the world and for the people who live among it. Starving people in africa are, in large part by religious parties such as Christianity, receiving food and supplies because we we're inspired to do so, as well as told to do so. Without God in our lives, im sure there would be MUCH less people working their azzez off on the other side of the world, in our own country, and in other countries trying to make this world a better place for everyone.

 

I realize that it's not the only reason, but im stating again that it's one of the big reasons.

 

Wrong wrong wrong.

 

First of all, if you do good only because of jezus or god, you're not a good person but a hypocrit. Just like if you're gay and you don't act on it because you're religious, you're still gay.

 

Then the whole 'charity is a christian phenomenon' attitude: the biggest givers in the world are actually the countries with the most atheists.

Also, the poorest countries in the world are crammed full with religious people.

 

 

Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands: all known for their secularity and percentage of atheists.

And look how much US-'one nation under god'-A and Italy give...

but I'm sure they'll all go to heaven, let them atheists burn, yeah!

[lindya]

Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands: all known for their secularity. And look how much US-'one nation under god'-A and Italy give... but I'm sure they'll all go to heaven, let them atheists burn, yeah!

 

Those are wealthy countries with a strong emphasis on education and egalitarianism. A strongly religious person might watch a documentary about children starving in Africa and think "it's God's will". They might dish out some money because God enjoys seeing charity being dispensed....but the key word is very much "charity".

 

Someone who's driven by the sense that there isn't a God to ensure justice and that people must take responsibility for promoting it (if justice matters to them) is perhaps more likely to take a proactive approach towards helping others. Less emphasis on "charity" more on promoting justice and opportunity for people to exercise the same rights that we enjoy in the Western world (at the most basic level, the right to life).

[lonelybird]

Well, only God's power can change people's heart, and give them a new heart rather than stone heart hardened over years. People can try to be better by themselves, but there are always limitations. more often people cannot see own mistakes and weakness, it's like a selfish and cruel people won't think himself/herself is selfish and cruel. but to leave room for God to change them, can break that limitation, also a humble gesture and humble start. A full cup cannot be filled in with anything, but an empty cup can be. Holy Spirit will reveal truth to them, which is leading to liberate and learn and grow

[Moose]

First of all, if you do good only because of jezus or god, you're not a good person but a hypocrit.

Just so you know......it's hypocrite. Secondly, there is no Jesus or God. They are One and the Same. Anyway, a true Christian does good as a result of having God in their lives, not just because God exists.

Just like if you're gay and you don't act on it because you're religious, you're still gay.

If homosexuality is what homosexuals, "say" it is.....religion isn't going to stop them from acting upon it.....

the biggest givers in the world are actually the countries with the most atheists.

I'd like to know where you got this information. Anyway, maybe they're trying to, "buy" their ticket to self-righteousness?

Also, the poorest countries in the world are crammed full with religious people.

Again, where do you get such information? Define wealth? To me, these poor countries that are crammed full with, "religous" people are probably a heckuva lot wealthier than you or even I.

A strongly religious person might watch a documentary about children starving in Africa and think "it's God's will".

I am a strongly religious person.....and no I don't think it's God's will that ANYONE would/should suffer.

They might dish out some money because God enjoys seeing charity being dispensed....

I understand where you're coming from, but to be truthful, if they do for the reason you've just described, they're idiots. Giving isn't for show. It should be an automatic response regardless if God enjoys or not....

[Geishawhelk]

......Secondly, there is no Jesus or God. They are One and the Same. Anyway, a true Christian does good as a result of having God in their lives, not just because God exists.

 

And a Good Christian does good because they wish to continue having God in their lives. Motives are always difficult to separate...

When a Good person does good to accumulate merit, in order to be blessed by what they practise - then its inevitable that at one point they'll think - "oh no! I'm being vain about it! That means I might have ulterior motives!" The big question is how to do Good, be pleased one has done Good, rejoice in the result of the Good - but not be vain about the Good one has done. This is a tricky one for me, personally. How to draw the fine line, and distinguish between doing good altruistically, and prevent it from bordering on the Good egotistically...

 

If I might proffer a solution, the trick I have found that works for me, is to focus entirely - entirely - on visualising or witnessing the pleasure one brings to those who will benefit from your Good. Just think, truly, on what good your words and actions can do. Shift your focus from 'here' to 'there'...see the act spread, like a smile, propelled by the first impulse of your Kindness.

When the hapiness of another is your Motivation, you cannot thus dwell upon your Motive.

 

I don't know whether this adds to or takes away from the discussion. But I just thought I'd comment for interest....