|
Post by Dragon Spirit on Feb 27, 2009 20:21:00 GMT -5
Though I'm somewhat hesitant to make this topic after the dispute in Social/Guess the next poster thread (for anyone involved in that, please read my post there before posting in this thread), but I am intrigued.
For the purpose of this thread, first state your religion or lack thereof. I was born and raised as a Catholic in an extremely conservative Catholic community by not-so-conservative parents. I now do not profess belief in any religion, really. I have some strange personal beliefs, but those are more like feelings anyway, and I won't go into them. However, I would argue that as per the fact that I have received Catholic teaching since birth and am currently going to a Catholic school that I know quite a bit about Christianity (or at least Catholicism).
And so, getting on to what I wanted to bring up. I am truly intrigued by what Dragonelle had to say about her (or, if you are reading this, that your) beliefs on how old the world is. As I take it, it seems like you have a very fundamentalist view, that being that the world was only created a couple thousand of years ago as per interpreting the Bible literally. Living in the sheltered community that I do, I have never met anyone who has this belief, and would thus love to have the opportunity to discuss with you. (or, at least, I've never met anyone with that belief as far as I know). I would like to ask a couple of questions and discuss this, if you don't mind. For example, do you believe that all the facts (well, what I call facts, though perhaps you wouldn't) concerning the world being millions of years old are simply all mistaken?
Also, I would like to remind everyone that there are to be no disrespectful comments towards someone and their beliefs, whether they are Christian or Hindu or Atheist or anything. And this topic isn't just concerning how old the earth is - any subject of religion can be discussed here.
|
|
|
Post by Dragonelle on Mar 4, 2009 14:38:21 GMT -5
Ok, well first I am a Christian. Technically I am a Baptist. I have been raised in a Christian home my whole life, and gone to church all my life as well. To answer your questions, first I got this from a class I took a few years back where we went through the Bible, and figured out the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. I no longer have that book, however I found a site that states very well what I believe. The site is www.mikerimmey.com/minisrty.htm and it says: First: The age of the Earth. It is impossible for our minds to fully grasp the concept of eternity, and almost as impossible to grasp 6 billion years. That is what we are told; the earth is 6 billion years old. Our children are taught this in school (one of the reasons we home school), we are taught this practically every time we turn on the TV. It is very believable. Even tiny changes could amount to quite a lot over millions and millions of years. Darwinian evolution becomes much easier to swallow, if you consider tiny changes in species were made over billions of years. The problem is the earth is not 6 billion years old. There are many scientific facts that point to a “young Earth” (rate of erosion of the earth’s continents, the rate of decay of the earth’s magnetic field, the number of people on earth, low number of type II supernovas, lack of helium in the atmosphere, and many more). Many Christian believe in an “old Earth” interpreting the six days of creation in Genesis as day “ages”. I believe the Earth is 6000-10,000 years old (you should see the look on most peoples faces when I say this). Second: The misconception that scientists are always right about science. The “experts” on the Discovery Channel and National Geographic state evolutionary concepts as hard facts. Biology text books teach evolutionary dreams as reality. But since these notions come to us from the “experts” it is hard for most of us to dispute. There are several notable findings that have recently begun cause scientists to re-think there “facts”. In the 1980’s, in Bernifal cave in France, a carving was found of a dinosaur. Yes, man and dinosaur did at one time walk the Earth together. (The French government has closed the cave and vigorously arrests trespassers.) Remember the several of the so-called missing links? Neanderthal, Homo habilus, Peking Man, and Piltdown Man have been shown to have been hoaxes. You probably didn’t hear much about that on the evening news. (Satan has a way of covering his tracks) Many of the skull fossils were based on a tiny fragment of jaw bone and the rest sculpted from clay at the imagination of the sculptor. There is also an explanation for the legitimate skull fossils: The sloping forehead, the pronounced brow ridge, the protruding jaw… This is what man would have looked like in the days when man was living 800-900 years. The bible tells us long life spans were common. Several years ago a dinosaur fossil was uncovered that still had soft tissue. Even the pro-evolution archeologists that studied the fossil said it could not be more that 10,000 – 15,000 years old. We have always been told that dinosaurs went extinct 70 million years ago. Fossils of shell-bearing sea creatures have been found on mountain tops (from the flood). My point is this, don’t take it lightly. Life on this planet didn’t come about by accident through time and chance. It was created by the one and only Almighty Triune God. It is exactly as it is described in the Bible. Common traits don’t necessarily point to common ancestor, they point to common designer. You may have heard that the DNA in humans is 98% similar to the DNA in chimps. True. Does this point to common ancestors? No. It points to a common designer. The Lord God. When you see a painting hanging on the wall you know that it had a painter. Paint didn’t just accidentally splash on the canvas and form a beautiful painting by chance. In the same way we can look at creation and know that there was a creator. The Bible says, “The Heavens declare the glory of God, and the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech, and night after night they display knowledge.” (Psalm 19: 1,2). Creation is self-explanatory, it is way too complex to have arranged itself. I hope this answers your questions Spirit, and I don't take any offence to your questions, I quite enjoy talking about my beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Spirit on Mar 4, 2009 23:31:46 GMT -5
Thanks for your point of view! I think we'll probably have to end up agreeing to disagree on this, but I liked hearing your point of view. Some things I would like to say on it - One - I'm slightly skeptical of a site that misspells 'ministry' in the web address. I suppose it doesn't mean anything about the validity of the actual site, though it does make me think that perhaps someone could have been more careful when making it. (I don't mean to be too harsh here, I just wanted to point it out.) Moving on to bernifal cave - I looked it up on google. Here is an image and, personally, I must say that I don't even see a drawing, let alone a dinosaur. www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient2/ancient2.htm Also, I was having a lot of trouble finding a single credible reference on this subject that wasn't Christian. While I know you're arguing that media is trying to keep all of this covered up, I highly doubt it would be this concealed with the power of google at my fingertips. However, there could be a site out there that I missed - if you happen to find one, please let me know. Another problem I have - I don't see what advantage so many scientists could have by lying to the world about this. I would say that a good majority of scientists try to find knowledge for the sake of knowledge, and I don't think they would try and conceal a blatant fact and make lies about how old the world is. Perhaps a couple, but not all the thousands of scientists that live and have lived. I will admit that evolution is just a theory. Not every part of it is proven. However, the fact that it is a theory means that it has been shown to occur repeatedly throughout nature, and that it accurately explains the world as per the facts that we do have. Though you'll have to trust those thousands of scientists on that one. Also, I've never heard of any proof supporting that the neanderthals and other such early 'humans' are hoaxes. I'm kinda tired right now, and if you wanted to continue arguing this point, then I would be glad to look at a good site with some details on this. I did a bit of searching, and while (of course) there have been many proven hoaxes, there are many more that (according to my knowledge) are not hoaxes. Finally, here's what the Catholic school system tells me on this issue. Mainly, you don't have to believe in evolution, but nor must you disbelieve it. However, if you do believe in it, you must keep in mind - 1. God is responsible for all those mutations that led up to humans. In other words, it wasn't just random. 2. God is the one who created everything in the first place, be it living or nonliving. 3. We may have evolved from apes, but there had to be a specific moment when he infused a soul into a male and a female of that species, creating something uniquely different. Hope I haven't been harsh at all. I'm just trying to present my point of view on the issue. As I said before, I personally believe in evolution. A movie that I really liked that we had to watch in class called Inherit the Wind actually covers this topic, portraying the 'Scopes Monkey Trial' of the 1930s (I think it was 1930s, at least). It very closely mirrors the actual trial, though it does portray the fundamentalist view of creation in a rather unappealing light. However, it touches on other issues, too (actually, in my opinion, it really has more to do with what happens when religion is brought too directly in to law, with it just using evolution vs. creationism as an example). Also, despite the fact that I am (at the moment) faithless, I do admire how much faith you have in your beliefs. I'd imagine it would be hard, with popular consensus of the modern day and age being not-too-caring towards such ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Dragonelle on Mar 7, 2009 16:49:26 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I see where you're coming from, however I do not agree. So, all that's going to happen, is you'll say your point of view, and then I will say mine, and it may end up in an argument, which I really don't want. However, I enjoyed this thread, and the fact I got to say my side.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Spirit on Mar 8, 2009 8:17:09 GMT -5
Okay. I enjoyed talking about it as well. I liked hearing your opinion.
So anyway, do you know how Baptists differ from other religions? (mainly how it differs from Catholicism) I know that a lot of the time, the main difference between Catholicism and other religions is the belief in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Is that different from the Baptist faith?
|
|
|
Post by Dragonelle on Mar 8, 2009 14:17:02 GMT -5
Well, I had to look up the word Eucharist. From what I got of it, it means communion. If I am wrong, please tell me. But, we do have communion. However, I think we do it differently than you. The Pastor gives out plates with first the bread (crackers) to our deacons. Then the deacons pass out the plates one to each pew. You take the plate, grab a cracker, and give it to the person beside you, and the deacons take it back at the end. After the Pastor recites where Jesus says "This is my body, broken for you, this do in rememberance of me" we eat the cracker. We do the same for the juice. To answer your question, if I understand you correctly, we do in rememberance of Jesus, not thinking we actually are eating His body, and drinking His blood. I would like to know how Catholicism takes communion, and what you believe about it.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Spirit on Mar 9, 2009 21:43:44 GMT -5
With Catholics, we all walk out of our pews to go receive the Eucharist (aka the Host - it's a small, circular piece of unleavened bread. Though it really doesn't look like bread to me). The priest distributes the Eucharist himself, though other people who have been certified may also do it depending on the size of the church (this could include Deacons, but it could just be a regular person).
However, it is the priest and only the priest who 'consecrates' the Host - as in, he speaks the same words 'this is my body... this is my blood... do this in memory of me'. However, Catholicism believes that Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharist, and that at each Mass he sacrifices himself again for our sins (though it's more of a joyful sacrifice, I think). If you want to get into the Catholic school explanation of what happens, the matter - that is, the actual unleavened bread and wine - stays the same. However, the substance - what something truly is (I take this in a spiritual sense, and often say that substance is the very essence of what something is) changes completely from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
We also can't substitute crackers and juice for bread and wine (though I guess crackers are technically unleavened bread... but it is different).
So I think that belief of substance is the main difference between Catholicism and most other religions. Also, concerning your religion, I'm fairly sure that a unique thing about it is the process of baptism (well, I suppose that's obvious - it is called the Baptist faith after all). But I'm not sure exactly. Don't you do full immersion baptism, where you have to go completely underwater? And when do you get baptized?
|
|
|
Post by Dragonelle on Mar 10, 2009 13:30:24 GMT -5
Ahh, I see. That is quite different from our communion. I have gone to a Baptist church where you do get out of your pew, and go to a table. Then you break off a piece of bread, and dip it in the juice, then eat it. That was all new to me, and the only time I've ever seen that being done.
About being baptized, yes we do have full immersion baptism. When we get baptized is after we have been saved, and asked Jesus into our heart. Only after that are we baptized, and the baptism itself is not what saves us. We get baptized to further our faith, since Jesus himself was baptized. It's more of a physical way of showing how we are buried in Christ, and raised in Christ in spirit. How and when do you get baptized?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Spirit on Mar 10, 2009 20:56:57 GMT -5
Catholics are baptized as babies. Or supposed to be. Every now and then, someone who is Catholic isn't necessarily baptized (though it needs to be done as soon as possible), or if someone was never baptized before converting to Catholicism, then they're baptized soon after converting and taking some Catholic teachings classes. Baptism alone doesn't save us, and I don't think it's entirely necessary in order to get to Heaven (I'm not entirely sure on that, though). It takes away original sin and the baptism day is their 'birthday' into the life of Christ. You can also be baptized by desire - you truly wanted in your heart to get baptized and you were doing all you could to do so, but you die before it actually happens. And Catholicism doesn't involve the full immersion. They use 'triple pouring' - the holy water is poured over the person three times as the priest is saying the 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' part of the process.
Do Baptists have Sacraments? Catholicism does, with both the Holy Eucharist/communion and Baptism being one. I mean, you obviously have baptism and communion, but are they called Sacraments? And if so, do you have 7 Sacraments, like the Catholic faith?
|
|
|
Post by khaos54321 on Jul 30, 2009 16:03:11 GMT -5
Well, since I'm here and have a belief, I think I'll go next.
I, too, am Catholic, but I have since stripped away from certain beliefs and renewed a different system where I look at Christianity differently, as I seeing the prominent figures in my religion in a different light and combined the scientific endeavors, theories, and discoveries into my faith.
Many of the greatest minds of our times still kept one thing true; that God was in fact an existing entity to our reality, and that the world is too beautiful, the equations for solving the physics of our world too simplistic, to have been a random occuring event. Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Stephen Hawkins, and Dr. Michio Kaku, have professed the existance of God as truthe due to the structure of our reality.
As we continue to move forward, we find many ideas held true from religions. Eating the meat of pig is punishable with death by God? Not likely from God, but pig meat has been proven to be the most vile and unhealthy of all the meat, whether conventional or organic. All of the religions' beliefs of multiple planes? Try multiple dimensions, multiple kinds of matter, and extrodinary of all, the multiverse. A story of Jesus claims that he was able to cure a man of his blindness by rubbing clay onto his eyes, and was then able to see. Such a miracle is found everyday now, as it was discovered that the clay Jesus had rubbed on the blind man's eyes was a free radical absorber, and is now used in many cleansing supplements.
One major belief that I have, however, is that religion and science can no longer be divided. If we are to ever to advance as a civilization, we must set aside the differences from both sides and understand that both sides are beneficial to each other. The world's smartest man still needs morals, and the world's most cleansed man still needs to advance.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Spirit on Jul 31, 2009 9:42:21 GMT -5
Well, as I said in my first post, I don't really consider myself Catholic. In all truth, I don't really know what I believe at the moment. I wouldn't call myself an atheist, but then again, I think I'm closer to that than really believing in God at the moment.
But anyway, you've got quite a few good points there. Especially what you said last, about both morality and advancement being needed. Even from an atheistic perspective that makes a lot of sense. I mean, society as we know it would very likely fall into chaos without some sense of morality to guide us.
Now I'm going to let my Catholic education show through a bit here and question that second to last paragraph. You see, one of my teachers warned us against attempting to explain events like miracles too literally. Taking that clay thing for example: do you think the clay itself cured the man's blindness? Or do you think that Jesus' miracle simply reflected and emphasized the medicinal quality of the clay?
And as for the paragraph before that, I'm going to throw out a sort of counter-argument to that, if you'd like to discuss. Concerning the perfectness of our universe, I did read in a scientific magazine (science news, I think it was called) with an article that hypothesized that the perfectness of the universe is not just some randomly-occurring accident. Rather, it went on to explain a whole theory that the universes (should it really be the case that there are universes) are continually splitting off into new universes. In other words, our universe could have been the one out of millions of universes where all the conditions lined up correctly for life to establish. Sort of like a natural trial-and-error problem. (there is evidence for this possibility, one of the reasons dealing with Einstein's model of the space-time continuum, where a new universe may bubble off of the somewhat funnel-like plane that represents our kind of universe. Sorry, that's the best explanation I can give for it.)
[hehe... sorry, I tend to debate just for the sake of debating. I'm not trying to convince anyone my way... I just like to argue ^_^]
|
|
|
Post by khaos54321 on Jul 31, 2009 17:44:17 GMT -5
Well, it's actually no problem to me. I enjoy having spirited debates with others.
I guess I'll address what you have said about trial and error within physical bodies, even many scientists believe that we are very lucky seeing how we are the only intelligent life light-years beyond our planet. However, when I say that the universe is too simplistic, too beautiful to be just a random event is because I talk within the level of mathematics. One plus one will always equal two, if you divide the mass of an object by its volume, you will always get its density. It is these rock hard and impenitrable physics that dictate everything around us. If it was truly at random, then one plus one can be any number we think of, multiplying distance and time will give you multiple kinds of rates, and anything can be nothing or another thing. That's why many physicists believe that their was more likely a law giver to all of this math.
And I do remember that you metioned how we may have rooted from another universe. That's quite an exceptional topic you address for Dr. Michio Kaku explains this many of times, especially when discussing the LHC in Geneva, Switzerland. Yes, it is quite possible that we came from another universe, but simple mathematics can explain that phenomena, and as I said before, mathematics within physics are the laws that dictate our entire reality, and that still leaves the possibility that there is a law giver that set everything up.
Now, you also provide an arguement towards Jesus's miracle of curing the blind man. You do have me stumped there, I'll admit that. I don't know how I can explain the origin, but I can say that, yes, the clay was what cured the blind man and Jesus was simply using it as a tool to rid the man of the free radicals. However, how I take from it is that Jesus had to have some kind of broader insight to help the man. Think about it; in that time, to put mud on another man's eyes, but was able to cure him of his blindness? How can a carpenter with no medical background whatsoever be able to know that the clay would cure the man of blindness? We can all theorize, but it may take time before we can truly come up with an answer. So to answer your question, it was the clay that cured the man, but it was miraculous that a man living in such an unadvance, Type -1 civilization, would be able to have knowledge of such a cure.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Spirit on Aug 5, 2009 19:05:45 GMT -5
With math and measurements, I see those all as human-made things, not laws that had to be 'given' by some being. I'm not really sure how to explain it, but I'll try. Explaining it in terms of the measurements is easiest - while it's true that you will always get density when divide mass by volume, that's because that's the very definition of density. Same thing goes for other equations, both science-related and purely mathematical. And even when you get to the most basic measurements - be they distance, light, or even plain numbers - I see those all as an interpretation of the world around us. Something that our species came up with or evolved with in order to help organize and make sense of the world around us. The laws of physics themselves are simply reflections of absolute truths of how the universe works. I don't see any god or god-like figure as having created these laws to give order to the universe.
Now, of course, you could go on to argue that this doesn't explain why there are absolute truths to the universe. I don't think there has to be a 'why' behind it; it simply is. However, this is hardly a satisfactory argument for many, and thus my position sort of runs out of steam here when being put up against a belief in some sort of omnipotent creator of the universe.
And moving on to the topic of Jesus' miracles, do you believe that they all were like that? Or just some?
|
|
|
Post by khaos54321 on Aug 6, 2009 16:59:11 GMT -5
Well, you say that math is "man-made", but then why is it incomplete? I don't believe that man created math, I believe man stumbled upon math and discovered that these relations were constants and would produce the same result every time tested. Wo continue to discover more relations and equations that revolutionize technology. Let's go with Einstein's E=MC^2 formula. This formula means that energy is equal to relative mass by the squared speed of light. But, before Einstein discovered that equation, does that mean that energy could equal mass times the speed of light without squaring it, or that energy was in fact the squared speed of light? Einstein may have created the formula of the energy, mass, and lightspeed relation, but that relation was around before the world even existed. Now, the very existence of God is simply a theory, and will be until we have hard, visible evidence of a God. However, many scientists believe, as I mentioned Sir Isaac Newton, Prof. Stephen Hawking, even Albert Einstein himself, that if the universe was in fact a random event, such laws wouldn't exist. Mathematics would actually become a system of anarchy where equations can yield any answer presented. And as I said in the beginning of this post is that algebra is an incomplete system. There have been technologies like perpetual motion machines and the use of premonition (the ability to see the future) that are impossible by today's known laws of physics, but get back to me in perhaps 4 or 5 billion years. We may stumble upon a world where those technologies are household appliances and every algebraic expression will have been discovered.
Now as for Jesus's miracles, I guess I should continue on with more of my beliefs. First, let's just start with someone bigger; God. You see, Einstein was asked many times if he was a believer in God. He, being the smartest man in the world, was asked such a hard hitting question, and he simply answered that there are two ways of looking at God. The first was the God that smited the infidels, answered your prayers, and reality was that which God willed. Truly a God of chaos and would explain a random system of mathematical equations. However, he believed in God with a different eye. He believed there was a God of order, simplicity, and beauty. That God was a God that would explain why the world is constant, everything is balanced, and order exists. As for Jesus, I believe that all his miracles were believed to be impossible at his time, but by today's standards is simple to execute. I also believe in two different kinds of Jesus's. My interpretation of Jesus was that he was a man that challenged the powers that be during his time and showed people the path of freedom and showed Pontius Pilot as a murderous dictator that did not, but should have, served the people he govern. The crucifixtion story is what I believe was not an act of dying for our sins, but died to show the true evil of the world; men that are corrupted by power and those that followed him practiced morals, and that freedom should be that people should be allowed to live a life in accordance to their perception without the infringement of other's freedoms. And that is why I am a Christian, because I believe what Jesus taught; that one must live by Jesus's sacrifice which was a belief of freedom against the true evils of humanity.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Spirit on Aug 12, 2009 14:33:35 GMT -5
I see what you're saying, and you're right - energy always has and always will equal mass times the speed of light squared, and all other such equations are always just as true. However, I think that's because there is no other way the universe could work, and the only reason equations like this work is because our interpretation is based on the universal laws of nature.
Although I hadn't really thought about just how perfect all those equations are... or, at least, how perfect the theory of relativity is, as well as a couple other equations. I have to think about that more, though I could argue that the reason it's so perfect is like what I was saying with density earlier. That the reason it's so perfect is because the very definition of energy is mass times the speed of light squared, making it no more logical than saying that sodium and chlorine make salt when chemically combined. Plus, most equations aren't perfect - that's why we have strange numbers like pi, Avogodro's number, and a mole.
And as long as we're talking about the existence of God, I personally avoid calling it a 'theory'. A theory implies that the concept is based on scientific evidence, while I would argue that there is no concrete evidence pointing towards a god of any kind (unless you count what you've been saying, that the universe is too perfect for there not to be a supreme being). Just out of curiosity, do you believe that God's existence can be proven?
And as far as your position on your belief in Jesus, I would argue that that strips away the Divine aspect of him, which is a core tenet of Catholicism. If Jesus didn't perform any miracles that were truly out of the realm of reality, then he becomes nothing more than an extraordinary human, not someone who is both fully divine and fully human.
Also, as far as my education goes (which, admittedly, is somewhat fuzzy on this subject), Pontius Pilot was not the murderous dictator that you model him as. For one, he didn't want to kill Jesus - the only reason he did it was because he thought that crucifixion was the only way he could please his citizens, which sort of throws off the dictator aspect. Perhaps he was somewhat corrupted by power, since he wouldn't stand up for Jesus against his citizens. Then again, if I were put in the same position, I would want to avoid the uprising that the high priests would have stirred up had Jesus not been crucified, since such an uprising could very well result in my own death. If there is an argument for your 'show the true evil of the world' argument, then I would say that the high priests (who didn't like being shown up by Jesus) are the best representatives of evil.
|
|