Athiesm vs Christianity

[Legacy Fan]

It isn't the flood waters that create the fossils, but the resulting sediment. You've seen flood water. It's disgusting, very muddy from all the churned up soil. Imagine a flood on a biblical scale. If the flood was powerful enough to carve out the grand canyon, it disturbed a lot of sediment, which buries the dead organisms. That gives you the anaerobic environment that is ideal for fossil formation.

 

One of the reasons it is so hard to find fossils on the humans is that hominoids evolved in the miocene forests. The tropical forests have acidic soil, as well as a host of bacteria and other organisms that decompose the body quickly. Unlike the ancestors of the modern apes, our ancestors were able to leave the miocene forests. We have found a large number of fossils in the great rift valley, where there is a lot of volcanic activity, which can bury remains in ash.

 

And there are some species that we have the entire fossil record for. The pig is one example, and we have used the pig dates from K40-Ar dating, as well as biostratigraphy to collaborate butchered bones with A. Garhi about 2.5 million years ago, which is the first evidence of tool use. Garhi was probably on our lineage. Pretty cool.

In an acidic environment/solution (doesn't have to be liquid to be considered a soln), mineral salts that comprise bone etc., dissociate into ions and the cations are able to diffuse across electrical/chemical gradients which is why the bone "disappears" into the sediment surrounding it, yet still maintaining the shape.

I think the latest on Garhi is that he is not part of our lineage. The dental findings (and the only real reason I recalled this, then re-confirmed quickly via wiki)indicate that there would have been a hyper-evolutionary phase of the maxillary arch in an inadequate amount of time. Dental forsenics have always been pretty solid.

 

 

The necessity is determined by the environment, the driving force behind natural selection. If I had a mutation for no gills, and was born underwater then it is definitely unfavorable. If I was born on land, then it would be favorable.

 

As I stated above, the driving force for the goal, or more aptly what is a desirable trait, is the environment.

Environment is a definition. Internal, external. The body, the universe all fall in the spectrum of acceptable use.

Again, I'm not talking about necessity being about growing gills because you need them underwater, I'm talking about the mechanisms that determine you need an apparatus (whether it be gills or lungs) to process and oxygenate your serum. Why that particular necessity exists. That's where my belief in design originates.

 

------

Yes it is, and I'm really diggin' it.

Same here. It's been fun & thanks.

[PB&J]

In an acidic environment/solution (doesn't have to be liquid to be considered a soln), mineral salts that comprise bone etc., dissociate into ions and the cations are able to diffuse across electrical/chemical gradients which is why the bone "disappears" into the sediment surrounding it, yet still maintaining the shape.

Without bothering with the technical side of fossilization, the miocene isn't a very good place to go looking for fossils based on a bunch of different factors.

 

I think the latest on Garhi is that he is not part of our lineage. The dental findings (and the only real reason I recalled this, then re-confirmed quickly via wiki)indicate that there would have been a hyper-evolutionary phase of the maxillary arch in an inadequate amount of time. Dental forsenics have always been pretty solid.

Cool, I haven't been staying up to date on my australipithecines. What does their bench look like? Who filled in for Garhi?

 

Environment is a definition. Internal, external. The body, the universe all fall in the spectrum of acceptable use.

Again, I'm not talking about necessity being about growing gills because you need them underwater, I'm talking about the mechanisms that determine you need an apparatus (whether it be gills or lungs) to process and oxygenate your serum. Why that particular necessity exists. That's where my belief in design originates.

 

There isn't a mechanism for determining what is needed. "Hmm, how shall I mutate today? But if in fact life began with painfully simple organisms 3.5 billion years ago, it was all up from them. Something allowed them to survive and that kept being passed down. If there was a mutation, it either stuck or they died. Given billions of years, with thousands and thousands and thousands of generations eventually those structures came about, and when they presented an advantage for the environment, they stuck and became more and more common.

 

It is like when I was first learning how to improvise on the trumpet. I wanted to sound like Lee Morgan, and when I took a chorus I would start playing notes. It would be okay, and then I would hit a note outside of the chord. It sounded completely wrong, so I learned that in C7(+9) you don't play an F# unless you have a damn good idea in your head. Starting out I played a ton of notes that didn't fit the chords, and those solos were horrible. As I got better, and my playing evolved, I stopped playing "wrong" notes and was able to play passable solos. Still don't sound like Lee Morgan though...

 

[PB&J]

There isn't a mechanism for determining what is needed. "Hmm, how shall I mutate today? But if in fact life began with painfully simple organisms 3.5 billion years ago, it was all up from them. Something allowed them to survive and that kept being passed down. If there was a mutation, it either stuck or they died. Given billions of years, with thousands and thousands and thousands of generations eventually those structures came about, and when they presented an advantage for the environment, they stuck and became more and more common.

 

 

 

I just found this video, at around 5:20 really shows this well. It also goes really well through common misconceptions, much more organized than my rantings.

 

 

[Mr. T]

I just found this video, at around 5:20 really shows this well. It also goes really well through common misconceptions, much more organized than my rantings.

 

 

 

 

Yeah the opening statement of this video speaks for itself "Not Concerned With" the narator might as well say "Its a Theory".

 

definition of theory

 

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2: abstract thought : speculation

3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

[PB&J]

A scientific theory is a lot different than the everyday use of theory, T. A scientific theory takes a collection of facts about the world and forms a hypothesis on how/what/why a certain aspect of our world is that way. Then that hypothesis is tested, using the scientific method to determine its validity. Evolution isn't just a theory, it is a theory.

 

 

Pfft. Gravity. It is just a theory.

[Mr. T]

I understand that but it is still just an observation of facts that are related to make up a conclusion.

 

In the short video, the narrator states that they are not interested about the concerns or the origins of when life first began.... Might that be do to the fact they dont know.

 

We just gotta have some Faith then.

[Mr. T]

Well of course they aren't concerned with that, it would be a waste of time to chase after scientifically an answer to a question that science no matter how advanced will never be able to answer. Unless of course we develop time travel capabilities.

 

 

 

you're right, this is where the evolution junkies lose the battle if they did go back in time.

 

I will re post it below.

 

Lets go back to the origin of the first cell

 

There are three leading hypotheses for the source of small molecules that would make up life in an early Earth. One is that they came from meteorites.

 

Another is that they were created at deep-sea vents.

 

A third is that they were synthesized by lightning in a reducing atmosphere; although it is not sure Earth had such an atmosphere.

 

There is essentially no experimental data to tell what the first self-replicate forms were.

 

RNA is generally assumed to be the earliest self-replicating molecule, as it is capable of both storing genetic information and catalyze chemical reactions. But some other entity with the potential to self-replicate could have preceded RNA, like clay or peptide nucleic acid.

 

Now lets go to

 

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

and in

 

Deuteronomy 4:32 For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it?

 

Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

 

I believe these scriptures were written before darwin came along.

[osusev]

you're right, this is where the evolution junkies lose the battle if they did go back in time.

 

I will re post it below.

 

 

 

Now lets go to

 

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

and in

 

Deuteronomy 4:32 For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it?

 

Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

 

I believe these scriptures were written before darwin came along.

 

 

I believe that there are religions older than any jewish writings that basically told the same exact story...... Sumerians and the Egyptians...... wait lets not forget classic Greek Mythology..... to spout some verses from writings not really that old or original in thought does not invalidate any Scientific theory.

 

T if you want to argue Scientific theory dont start referring the Old testament it is a poor platform to argue from.

[Guest mz.]

you're right, this is where the evolution junkies lose the battle if they did go back in time.

 

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

and in

 

Deuteronomy 4:32 For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it?

 

Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

 

I believe these scriptures were written before darwin came along.

 

This is your argument against evolution?

 

To me, the Bible, the thoughts of some "higher power" and religion as a whole, was a stopgap answer created when human beings weren't advanced enough scientifically to answer these questions in any other way.

 

[Guest mz.]

however science still hasn't answered that "BIG" question. It never will.

 

What's the "big question" we have yet to answer?

 

I'm not being a dick here...

 

[osusev]

Inspecta to state that Science will NEVER answer the "big question" is a bit premature. Religous types have used the word "never" and science in phrases just a hundred years ago.

 

The same types of stories repeating has been theorized by Psychologists and social anthropoligists. Case studies of Papa New guinea tribes and other geographically isolated groups have confirmed a lot of envirement to psychological reasoning links. Fear of the unknown and self preservation motives are very powerful when combined with lack of understanding and education.

 

There is consistent data between education/technology levels of given societies versus the percentage of those influenced by religion. I dont think we have cielings of where and what we can understand and explore. I think to predefine what our limits are is what religion hopes to do to stay relevant. The more we understand the less we need the Religions to explain the "mysteries" and use terms like "faith" to define anything they dont understand.

[osusev]

Inspecta the "whoever was first" was not the reason why Christian writings were not credible. Plageurism is well COPYING someones elses work, it is not original.

 

The basic logic of Christianity is flawed to me on so many fundamental concepts.

 

1. ASIA....... so all of us Asians from countless regions and cultures who were NEVER exposed to any form of christianity is well doomed according to new testament scripture. What about the South americans and North americans with the millions who also were never exposed......

 

So this "god" being let them develop other systems of belief therefore all future generations who only knew that were doomed also.... sure makes sense.

 

This "bible" of accumulated stories from all unknown authors even the names of the books supposably written in the new testament no one knows who wrote these stories all were cobbled togeather and forced by Constatines council in Nicea is based on what?

 

Just a bunch of bishops opinions nothing more. Its all so flimsy and honestly some of the whole communion thing you know representing blood and flesh YUK! and the robes and headdress things some of these priests wear along with their staffs etc are well MAGIC rituals.. like these "prayers" which are equivelent to spell casting along with the incense... Baptism itself is another ritual like other primitive religions... Speaking in tongues is my favorite thing to watch it reminds me of the trances Ive seen by some voodoo practitioners.

 

From an outsiders perspective if you matched up practices of christians with practices of well Wiccans they would be pretty similar.....

[Mr. T]

I believe that there are religions older than any jewish writings that basically told the same exact story...... Sumerians and the Egyptians...... wait lets not forget classic Greek Mythology..... to spout some verses from writings not really that old or original in thought does not invalidate any Scientific theory.

 

T if you want to argue Scientific theory dont start referring the Old testament it is a poor platform to argue from.

 

 

This whole thread sounds as if your trying to justify your beliefs, dont bring down others and ridicule them for following the Bible.

 

I hope that you have a change of heart.

 

Science is good, if we didn't study science we would not have all these luxuries. But maybe if you ask yourself, Why has it taken so long for man to grasp hold of all that has been discovered in the past 100 years?

 

If you cant tell I am a christian, that does not make me perfect in anyway, but it does mean that I have been forgiven. Thats a nice feeling to have.

 

2 thessolonian 2: 3-4, 7-10

 

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

 

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

 

7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

 

8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

 

9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

 

10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

 

Sorry sev you can take it any way you want, I dont feel that darwin was correct, but i do feel that the bible was written by inspired men of God.

 

Why wont those scienctist who study evolution go to the beginning of the first cell created? does the RNA kill the theory?

 

---------------------------------

 

 

[Guest mz.]

my wife inspired me to write poetry for her. (forget about all the gay jokes here)

 

Well, it depends. Did you write them with the sole purpose of getting laid by presenting them or were they written post-beginning of the "serious relationship?"

 

Though the line is quite fine, there is a difference.

 

[damajuki]

I read this thread with great interest after being off-board for a while. Kudos to all for an interesting and respectful dialogue.

 

What struck me after reading it is that through all this discussion about religion, faith, God or no God, etc. there was one word that was strikingly missing:

 

LOVE.

 

The key to all religion but most especially to Christianity is love. So, sev, I hope to engage in a further discussion as time permits but to your original post of:

 

One of my favorite debate topics is my Anti-religous stances and how it applies toward our world/government/society.

 

I am a proud Athiest that really dislike the Institute of christianity (not the people I like most of them).

 

Any particular subject relating to how Christianity affects our society I will like to debate on.

 

I would say that the #1 most important effect of Christianity in general is that, despite all its flaws and problems, it preaches love above all else.

 

Whatever or whoever Jesus called the Christ was, it is clear that he inspired his followers to change the world. And the vehicle through which they changed and continue to change it is LOVE.

 

What an incredibly mind-blowing concept that is anti every animal instinct! LOVE one another, LOVE your enemy, give up your life for your friends...THIS is the legacy of Christianity that has transformed the world!

 

I went to (Catholic) church today and today's readings (copied below) touched on this very topic. I can't lie to you, I thought of this discussion immediately because I thought "HERE is the answer! There is no clearer answer than this!"

 

The first reading addresses your point about which people's can be saved, sev. (Short answer: anyone.) The second is the most succinct and beautiful argument/definition for God perhaps ever written. And the third is perhaps the most powerful gospel passage, Jesus' message wrapped up as neatly and clearly as it could be.

 

Sev, putting aside for a moment whatever issues you may have with the "institution" of Christianity, I would love to hear what you could find wrong with these three passages? Because I submit these passages as the best possible argument for the MEANING and PURPOSE of Christianity as there could ever be.

 

Respectfully,

 

Juki

 

--

Reading 1

Acts 10:25-26, 34-35, 44-48

 

When Peter entered, Cornelius met him

and, falling at his feet, paid him homage.

Peter, however, raised him up, saying,

"Get up. I myself am also a human being."

 

Then Peter proceeded to speak and said,

"In truth, I see that God shows no partiality.

Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly

is acceptable to him."

 

While Peter was still speaking these things,

the Holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word.

The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter

were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit

should have been poured out on the Gentiles also,

for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God.

Then Peter responded,

"Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people,

who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?"

He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

Reading II

1 Jn 4:7-10

 

Beloved, let us love one another,

because love is of God;

everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God.

Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love.

In this way the love of God was revealed to us:

God sent his only Son into the world

so that we might have life through him.

In this is love:

not that we have loved God, but that he loved us

and sent his Son as expiation for our sins.

 

 

Gospel

Jn 15:9-17

 

Jesus said to his disciples:

"As the Father loves me, so I also love you.

Remain in my love.

If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love,

just as I have kept my Father's commandments

and remain in his love.

 

"I have told you this so that my joy may be in you

and your joy might be complete.

This is my commandment: love one another as I love you.

No one has greater love than this,

to lay down one's life for one's friends.

You are my friends if you do what I command you.

I no longer call you slaves,

because a slave does not know what his master is doing.

I have called you friends,

because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father.

It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you

and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain,

so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you.

This I command you: love one another."

[PB&J]

Love is a key concept when talking about Christianity. But can there be true Christians nowadays, with no man such as Jesus there to bring such an overwhelming sense of love to a person? Jesus was the kind of guy that just by talking to him you felt great. I am not so sure that there are any actual Christians now, especially with the shift towards faith being stressed so much over works and love.

[Legacy Fan]

There isn't a mechanism for determining what is needed. "Hmm, how shall I mutate today? But if in fact life began with painfully simple organisms 3.5 billion years ago, it was all up from them. Something allowed them to survive and that kept being passed down. If there was a mutation, it either stuck or they died. Given billions of years, with thousands and thousands and thousands of generations eventually those structures came about, and when they presented an advantage for the environment, they stuck and became more and more common.

 

It is like when I was first learning how to improvise on the trumpet. I wanted to sound like Lee Morgan, and when I took a chorus I would start playing notes. It would be okay, and then I would hit a note outside of the chord. It sounded completely wrong, so I learned that in C7(+9) you don't play an F# unless you have a damn good idea in your head. Starting out I played a ton of notes that didn't fit the chords, and those solos were horrible. As I got better, and my playing evolved, I stopped playing "wrong" notes and was able to play passable solos. Still don't sound like Lee Morgan though...

 

Sorry it's taken so long to get back - but:

 

There is absolutely mechanisms for determining what is needed. And it's not along the lines of "how should I mutate?" What I was concerned with is what determines that organisms need organs that can participate in O2/CO2 gas exchange? The answer is not "well that's because what this particular environment (Earth) presented to them. Because if that was the case, there would be plenty of documented life on other planets as they all share the same age as earth (if we are to assume that origin is correct). Their gas exchange organs would just use different gases or processes. This is my reason for why I believe there is a design behind all of this; because strict evolution relies way to heavily on probability (to quote above, "If there was a mutation, it either stuck or they died."). When taking into account the 2nd law of thermodynamics, probability as a starting point/basis for evolutionary theory doesn't advance very far (as evidenced by no clear advanced life forms on other planets).

[Legacy Fan]

Love is a key concept when talking about Christianity. But can there be true Christians nowadays, with no man such as Jesus there to bring such an overwhelming sense of love to a person? Jesus was the kind of guy that just by talking to him you felt great. I am not so sure that there are any actual Christians now, especially with the shift towards faith being stressed so much over works and love.

 

 

I think that Jesus is necessary because the love is born out of salvation. Unconditional love doesn't begin to do justice to what Jesus gave. People can't achieve that kind of sacrifice nor level of love, but giving it the old college try can't be so bad, can it?

[osusev]

Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly

is acceptable to him."

 

That honestly seems odd to me.

 

If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love,

You are my friends if you do what I command you.

I no longer call you slaves,

 

So IF you do specifically as "he" commands than he "loves" you?

 

Honestly my concept of Love does not mirror love that is referred to in those passages. The concept of obey/demands/ownership = return of love is not my idea of love.

 

Kindness and politeness are constructive social values that keeps groups of people working togeather more effectively. Those beneficial group concepts were developed in tribal/family groups.

 

I dont have a problem with "love" as a binding agent for a group of axioms. You will find similar concepts tied into tons of other religions well predating judaism or well out of geographic influence of jews/christians.

 

That basic ideal does not in any way seperate Christianity in fact it further ties similar conceptual ideas of all the other religions I have stated before.

 

Like I said before, I dont care really who or what follows socially beneficial concepts. My bigger problem with Chrisitan groups in the U.S. is the constant push by its fundamentalist groups that are backed financially by more moderate christians attempting to influence Government toward forcing the rest of us to abide by their beliefs.

[Kosar_For_President]

If you cant tell I am a christian, that does not make me perfect in anyway, but it does mean that I have been forgiven. Thats a nice feeling to have.

 

I am not a religious man at all T. But I really like that statement. Puts things in perspective.

 

If more Christians thought like this, they might get more people into church.

 

I think whatever gets the person from point A to point B in life, that makes them happy, then more power to them. I grew up Catholic, went to Catholic schools all over the US and in England and that was all I needed to see. Getting hit by priests puts a bit of a damper of your religious belief system. When you see the hypocrisy called the Catholic church for the first 16 years of your life, you find others ways to speak to God.

 

[Legacy Fan]

Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly

is acceptable to him."

 

That honestly seems odd to me.

 

If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love,

You are my friends if you do what I command you.

I no longer call you slaves,

 

So IF you do specifically as "he" commands than he "loves" you?

 

Honestly my concept of Love does not mirror love that is referred to in those passages. The concept of obey/demands/ownership = return of love is not my idea of love.

 

Kindness and politeness are constructive social values that keeps groups of people working togeather more effectively. Those beneficial group concepts were developed in tribal/family groups.

 

I dont have a problem with "love" as a binding agent for a group of axioms. You will find similar concepts tied into tons of other religions well predating judaism or well out of geographic influence of jews/christians.

 

That basic ideal does not in any way seperate Christianity in fact it further ties similar conceptual ideas of all the other religions I have stated before.

 

Like I said before, I dont care really who or what follows socially beneficial concepts. My bigger problem with Chrisitan groups in the U.S. is the constant push by its fundamentalist groups that are backed financially by more moderate christians attempting to influence Government toward forcing the rest of us to abide by their beliefs.

Sev, Christianity, and Christian "love" is about a relationship. Think about your marriage for a second. How well does the marriage work if you try to impose your will on your wife, and/or visa versa. Not too well, I'd gather. But if you communicate (prayer) and establish how you both would like the relationship to mature/develop, then both of your will's are set on achieving a common goal, and you kind of stop keeping score. That's how I look at it.

[osusev]

Legacy and Inspecta I think how you two percieve and understand the Bible is very logical and reasonable. I appreciate your responses, I may disagree with the institutions and the formation of the bible/religion but I dont really disagree with most of the beneficial guidelines it represents.

 

Honestly I wish there were more practitioners like you guys but I dont find that the case most of the time.

 

I dont want to go into a tit for tat sort of debate or verse by verse and this topic has been enlightening to me from the contributions of your faction. This went better than I thought.

 

If any of you would like to challenge any of my athiest/Agnostic leanings I am really receptive and would enjoy that.

[osusev]

that was pretty funny inspecta and I can definately see your point

[damajuki]

Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly

is acceptable to him."

 

That honestly seems odd to me.

 

If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love,

You are my friends if you do what I command you.

I no longer call you slaves,

 

So IF you do specifically as "he" commands than he "loves" you?

 

Honestly my concept of Love does not mirror love that is referred to in those passages. The concept of obey/demands/ownership = return of love is not my idea of love.

 

Kindness and politeness are constructive social values that keeps groups of people working togeather more effectively. Those beneficial group concepts were developed in tribal/family groups.

 

I dont have a problem with "love" as a binding agent for a group of axioms. You will find similar concepts tied into tons of other religions well predating judaism or well out of geographic influence of jews/christians.

 

That basic ideal does not in any way seperate Christianity in fact it further ties similar conceptual ideas of all the other religions I have stated before.

 

Like I said before, I dont care really who or what follows socially beneficial concepts. My bigger problem with Chrisitan groups in the U.S. is the constant push by its fundamentalist groups that are backed financially by more moderate christians attempting to influence Government toward forcing the rest of us to abide by their beliefs.

Sev, this is kind of a disappointing response, especially because you went crazy out-of-context with those quotes.

 

You took the first line from Peter, who is obviously talking to others about how to get closer to God. You highlighted "fear" as a negative, but it's often used this way in translations to mean "respect" not "be afraid of", i.e., "respect the Lord and act uprightly". Not odd at all.

 

The second one you COMPLETELY took out of context and insinuated Jesus was referring to some kind of quid pro quo. Here's the full text again, because it's an incredibly important point you glossed over:

 

Jesus said to his disciples:

"As the Father loves me, so I also love you.

Remain in my love.

If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love,

just as I have kept my Father's commandments

and remain in his love.

 

"I have told you this so that my joy may be in you

and your joy might be complete.

This is my commandment: love one another as I love you.

No one has greater love than this,

to lay down one's life for one's friends.

You are my friends if you do what I command you.

I no longer call you slaves,

because a slave does not know what his master is doing.

I have called you friends,

because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father.

It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you

and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain,

so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you.

This I command you: love one another."

 

Far from being a "do this or I don't love you", Jesus is saying to his disciples -- and to us all -- "love one another as I love you." He then repeats it for effect: "This I command you: love one another."

 

He clearly does not say "do what I command or else". Nor does he say "love me or else". He says LOVE EACH OTHER.

 

You ask for challenges to your atheistic/agnostic beliefs. I offer you this very simple statement:

 

LOVE ONE ANOTHER.

 

You attempt in your post to gloss over this notion as if it's an obvious and quaint notion, simply "being nice".

 

Quite the opposite, it's a COMMAND to be quite literally SUPER HUMAN, to put aside our base tendencies towards selfish animalistic behavior and achieve a higher level of humanness.

 

You ask for evidence of a God? I think the best evidence of God is that humans can rise above their animal tendencies and achieve that higher state of being.

[ballpeen]

Solid stuff juk.

[osusev]

god has nothing to do with communal or group beneficial social behavior. Lions/elephants/tons of animals exhibit the same behavior as human "love". We as a species dont own the concept or the attribute or treating each other in a beneficial group binding behavior. It is prevalent everywhere because well IT WORKS COMPETITIVELY against other loner species.

 

Species who group togeather in cohesive units out compete or protect themselves more effectively than those who do not.

 

As for human rising above their animal nature well how information is processed in our own nervous system and brain says otherwise. Information is processed FIRST to your more "primitive" centers of control than processed logically afterwards.

 

As for those versus I did not post them I just responded to them EXACTLY as they were posted. Its not my fault they were written that way by some unknown author. Quoting the bible for context is a slippery slope and the God in the old testament is well interesting to say the least.

 

The obey/fear themes seem awfully prevalent just like the term Faith to shut down any sort or further qualification. I have always thought it was odd and funny that "knowledge" is the great evil in the garden of eden. Pursueing knowledge is somehow villified which is well odd.

[damajuki]

god has nothing to do with communal or group beneficial social behavior. Lions/elephants/tons of animals exhibit the same behavior as human "love". We as a species dont own the concept or the attribute or treating each other in a beneficial group binding behavior. It is prevalent everywhere because well IT WORKS COMPETITIVELY against other loner species.

 

Species who group togeather in cohesive units out compete or protect themselves more effectively than those who do not.

 

As for human rising above their animal nature well how information is processed in our own nervous system and brain says otherwise. Information is processed FIRST to your more "primitive" centers of control than processed logically afterwards.

 

As for those versus I did not post them I just responded to them EXACTLY as they were posted. Its not my fault they were written that way by some unknown author. Quoting the bible for context is a slippery slope and the God in the old testament is well interesting to say the least.

 

The obey/fear themes seem awfully prevalent just like the term Faith to shut down any sort or further qualification. I have always thought it was odd and funny that "knowledge" is the great evil in the garden of eden. Pursueing knowledge is somehow villified which is well odd.

Sev, you ask for a discussion but you ignore information presented and repeat your same point in a different way.

 

You keep intimating that Jesus' commandment to "love one another as I have loved you" is equivalent to a "beneficial group binding behavior".

 

It's not at all.

 

It's clearly a call to go ABOVE AND BEYOND what is simply beneficial to me. To give up my own life for someone else is not beneficial to me, nor does it help bind me to anyone because I'm, well, dead. Sure, it may help the group, but what concern is that to me if I'm simply acting out of self interest? The group's interest can never be more valuable than my life, since by definition that's the most important thing I control.

 

Yet Christ calls us to not to "love others just enough to make them feel good about you and so that you benefit from your acts of love" but rather to "love one another as I have loved you."

 

Again, you gloss over this ESSENTIAL point. Christ's love is God's love and thus the commandment is to love each other as GOD loves us: completely, totally, selflessly.

 

It's an absurdly, incredibly difficult task for such a simple sentence yet you choose to ignore its meaning AGAIN. Why is that? I thought you wanted your beliefs challenged?

 

Finally, you didn't post them EXACTLY as they were posted, you pulled three sentences from three places completely out of their immediate context in those passages and then went into some Bible bashing thing about the Old Testament.

 

But we aren't talking about the Old Testament here. I brought up three VERY SPECIFIC PASSAGES, and put forward for your consideration these passages as being perhaps the best possible explanation for Christianity, the bedrock commandment of Jesus Christ.

 

Yet you evade the point. So let me simplify and ask one question:

 

What do you think about the concept of love as explained by Jesus in this passage?