WhAt Do YoU ThInK AbOuT dInOsOuRs?

[wildchild4god78]

What do you think about dinosours. Like, .....What do you beleive about if they were before adam and eve or if they were after or if God even created them and if they were around when humans were around..Im only 14 and im stuck on this subject so please post a reply or email me at [email protected].. Thanks..Luv Me

[Dyrwen]

Dinosaurs existed during the Mesozoic Era, which was from 251 to 65.5 million years ago. Click here for more info. (http://www.palaeos.com/Mesozoic/Mesozoic.htm)

Realistically speaking, dinosaurs aren't likely in a Biblical sense to have existed at the same time as Adam and Eve. Although if you're a creationist, which believe that the Earth is 10,000-6,000 years old, then dinosaurs would've had to exist alongside humans. Unfortunately they also would've had to have died off mighty quickly, then have their fossils we've found appear to actually be millions of years old and disagree with Biblical belief in the age of Earth. In case your'e wondering, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and it took a good 99% of the history of our planet just to get around to creating us, human beings.

The first sign of a human-like creature came about around 3.5 million years, though it is possibly farther back still, ago and it was called Australopithecus afarensis (http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecusafarensis.htm). Since then it has been evolving through time and becoming different types of bipedal mammals until its classification turned to Homo sapien, though I’m being pretty general about what happened in the past 3 million years. If you want to see a nice little presentation on the information on human evolution PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/index.html) has some good flash animations.

Hopefully that cleared up some of your questions, if you have anymore don't hesitate to ask. I'm being kind of general to give a solid base of information, but if you check out most of the links in the post you'll figure it out pretty well.

[baddad]

Wow....great answer Dywer.......and a cool link....

[subterranean]

Realistically speaking, dinosaurs aren't likely in a Biblical sense to have existed at the same time as Adam and Eve. Although if you're a creationist, which believe that the Earth is 10,000-6,000 years old, then dinosaurs would've had to exist alongside humans. Unfortunately they also would've had to have died off mighty quickly, then have their fossils we've found appear to actually be millions of years old and disagree with Biblical belief in the age of Earth. In case your'e wondering, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and it took a good 99% of the history of our planet just to get around to creating us, human beings.

Your answer reminds me of Mark Twain's The Diary Adam and Eve. There's a part in his book where he told about Eve wandering around in the garden with a huge animal. From its description, it's quite obvious that he was telling the readers about a dinasour. Well I know it's only a fiction but IMO it's still interesting to think that man could once lived side by side with those giants.

[Dyrwen]

Yes, though I can't manage to think beyond the idea that: We would've been eaten and have gone extinct because of the roaming 40-foot-tall carnivores. Though considering Twain wrote such interesting material as it is, one can only imagine his interpretation on such subjects would've left out the more obvious problems of living alongside such creatures. ;)

[papayahed]

People, have you forgotten about Land of the Lost ?

[subterranean]

Is that a movie where some people were thrown back to the past, to the time of dinasours and they always tried to go home?

[Jay]

Land of the lost... no idea why but that reminds me of Titan, lol. You know, Titan the Saturn's moon, recently popular cos of the sond thingy.

[papayahed]

Is that a movie where some people were thrown back to the past, to the time of dinasours and they always tried to go home?

Yep, but it was a saturday morning cartoon.... :banana:

http://www.70slivekidvid.com/land/lotlseason3.jpg

[Jay]

I like the little guy :D, he's cute, lol

[Stanislaw]

Dinosaurs and Cadillacs!

http://www.lukaswebs.com/lacueva/caratulas/images/cadillacs_and_dinosaurs_jpg.jpg

[subterranean]

Wow this must be one of those movies during my parent's teenlife :lol:




Yep, but it was a saturday morning cartoon.... :banana:

http://www.70slivekidvid.com/land/lotlseason3.jpg

[Zagalejo]

There have been two different versions of "Land of the Lost," right? I remember watching it on ABC in, like, the mid-90s.

[Stanislaw]

Lost world 1,2 and the tv show?

also, JP1-3?

Seems dino's are a reacuring theme, especially if one goes to the centre of the earth!!

[Sitaram]

I once read that certain fundamentalist preachers speculate that God CREATED fossils "ex nihil" and concealed them in the earth for the purpose of testing the faithful, so that God might know the true believers, unswayed by the theory of evolution, and separated them from the unbelievers, like sheep from goats and wheat from chaff. Of course, since the Book of Samuel in the Old Testament describes God as "the only knower of hearts," one wonders why such a test would be necessary in the first place. In fact, presumably, God would foreknow from before the creation of the world who would be "faithful" and who would be unfaithful. This is called predestination and election.

A Muslim once asked why it was necessary for Allah to create the world and put all the souls in it, since Allah already knew which souls would believe and which were infidels. So why not just create heaven and hell and place all the faithful in heaven and all the infidels in hell. The answer he received (though I cannot remember who or what it was that gave this answer) is as follows: "Allah knew that if he just put all the wicked in hell, without allowing them to be born into the world, they would forever be complaining and saying 'Oh, but if only you had given us a chance to be born into a would, you would have seen that we would be among the faithful.' Therefore, Allah created the world and placed the faithful and wicked in it so that the wicked might prove their wickedness beyond any shadow of a doubt and know in their hearts that they had earned their eternal torment."

[papayahed]

I once read that certain fundamentalist preachers speculate that God CREATED fossils "ex nihil" and concealed them in the earth for the purpose of testing the faithful, so that God might know the true believers, unswayed by the theory of evolution, and separated them from the unbelievers, like sheep from goats and wheat from chaff. Of course, since the Book of Samuel in the Old Testament describes God as "the only knower of hearts," one wonders why such a test would be necessary in the first place. In fact, presumably, God would foreknow from before the creation of the world who would be "faithful" and who would be unfaithful. This is called predestination and election.

A Muslim once asked why it was necessary for Allah to create the world and put all the souls in it, since Allah already knew which souls would believe and which were infidels. So why not just create heaven and hell and place all the faithful in heaven and all the infidels in hell. The answer he received (though I cannot remember who or what it was that gave this answer) is as follows: "Allah knew that if he just put all the wicked in hell, without allowing them to be born into the world, they would forever be complaining and saying 'Oh, but if only you had given us a chance to be born into a would, you would have seen that we would be among the faithful.' Therefore, Allah created the world and placed the faithful and wicked in it so that the wicked might prove their wickedness beyond any shadow of a doubt and know in their hearts that they had earned their eternal torment."

I've always wondered about that: God's Omniscience vs. free will. If God already knows our choices is it free will?

[Sitaram]

I remember where I encountered the statement about Allah, and the souls complaining in Hell about not having had a chance to be faithful. It was a PBS educational television interview with an Islamic scholar who at the time was in Washington D.C. at one of the universities, perhaps Georgetown, cant remember.

The question of God's foreknowledge and human free will is vast and challenging. When I was in college, St. Johns (a secular school despite the name) in Annapolis, in the mid-60's, I was visiting the room of a Jewish student, and I saw a copy of the Talmud (perhaps only excerpts) and opened it to the first page. I vividly remember it saying something like "of course God foreknows the outcome of our free will choices, yet that foreknowledge in no way robs us of our freedom during the moment that we make our choice. Seems like quite a paradox, does it not? Yet consider things in quantum; like Bell's theorem, Schroedinger's cat, light as both a particle and a wave.

The early Greek Christian theologians used to puzzle over the following conundrum: there is one verse in the New Testament which says "God loves all people and desires that all be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth" and yet, in the Old Testament it is written that ten times Moses came to Pharaoh and said "Let my people go" and ten times GOD HARDENED Pharoah's heart. Well, Pharoah was a man, and if God desires that all be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, then why did God HARDEN Pharoah's heart? Why didn't God soften Pharoah's heart and have him follow Moses into the wilderness.

The answer which these early theologians came up with is that God is not simply within time, the temporal, since God created time, nor is God simply within eternity, since God is the creator of all which is eternal; rather God is at some vantage point outside of time and eternity which, for convenience, we may call the pre-eternal vantage point, and from that vantage point God foreknows the outcome of each persons free will choice in any given situation. Hence, God foreknew that if Pharoah were offered the precious gift of faith, that pearl which must not be caste before swine, then Pharoah would have made the free will choice to trample upon it. So it is essentially Pharoah's own nature, forged by the history of his free will choices, which hardens Pharoah's heart,..... just as in the case of gold and clay, the heat of the furnace is the same heat, and yet that same heat causes gold to become liquid and radiant because of gold's inherent nature, while clay becomes hardened and burnt.

In the Judaeo-Christian Old and New Testaments there is a long tradition illustrating the inviolable sanctity of the human free will. In the Book of Esther, the wicket Haman is plotting the genocide of the Jewish people. Queen Esther's uncle, Mordecai, says to her "You have it within your power, if you choose, to help your people. IF you choose not to, then God will arrange for the deliverance to come in some other fashion, but you shall not share in the reward." In the New Testament, the archangel, Gabriel, does NOT come to tell Mary that she is with child, but rather explains to Mary that it is the WILL of the Almighty that she conceive and bear a child through the Holy Spirit. It is ONLY when Mary exercises her free will choice, bows her head, and says "So let it be with Thy handmaid" that the moment of conception takes place.

In the Gospels, Jesus tells Peter "before the rooster crows twice, you shall deny me three times." Assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, that Jesus IS the preeternal God, outside of time, who foreknows the outcome of all of our free will choices before we ever make them,and yet that foreknowledge in no way robs us of our freedom at that moment in time when we choose. Then, Jesus SEES the future moment when Peter makes his free will choice to deny. Now (and here comes the interesting point), IF telling Peter what his future free will choice will be in any way changes Peter's future action, THEN Peter would be robbed of the freedom of his will. But, we see that, when the moment comes, and the rooster crows, Peters memory is clouded (in order to protect his free will), and he makes his choice just as it was foreseen from God's pre-eternal vantage point, and only AFTER Peter has exercised his freedom does he suddenly remember what Jesus foresaw.


Throughout the Bible, whenever an angel appears, people are fearful, and the angel calms them down and basically says, "do not be afraid, be of good cheer." It is in the Qu'ran, when the archangel Gabriel appears to Muhammed in the cave, that we see an entirely different picture. The angle embraces and squeezes Muhammed three times, almost killing him, and COMMANDS, "Proclaim, prophecy!" which seems a clear violation of Muhammed's free will, and finally Muhammad utters the first words of the Qu'ran "Bizmillah al rahman al raheen" ("In the name of Allah, the benificent and merciful.)

Now, as to God creating someone as damned and wicked, with no chance, there is an element, a suggestion of that sort of thing in the epistles of the New Testament, and there is a vivid statement of it in the Qu'ran.

In the epistles, it is stated that if someone is incorrigible and reprobate, that they will be abandoned by God and caste into even deeper wickedness.

The Qu'ran emphatically states that Allah will blind and deafen the unbeliever and lead them into even greater blasphemy, so as to increase their culpability and torment.

If one contrasts all of this Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology with Hindu-Buddhist theology, then one sees in Hinduism and Buddhism the notion that all souls are reborn countless times and karmically purified through suffering until they "get it right." In other words, it is theoretically possible that ALL are saved. The vow of the Bodhisattva is precisely this sort of universal salvation "I vow to never enter Nirvana until every sentient being (including animals and insects) is saved." A protestant preacher once shouted at a Zen master "you must accept Jesus or you will burn in hell." The Zen master calmly replied, "Most willingly would I enter innumerable hells to aid and comfort the beings which suffer therein."


This notion of universal salvation is present in Zoroastrian theology. For the Zoroastrians, and the end of the world, there is a "lake of fire" which is warming and comforting (like a warm milk bath) for the righteous but scalding torment for the wicked. There is an Eastern Orthodox doctrine know as "The River of Fire" which is based on the vision which the prophet Daniel had of the Ancient of Days seated upon a throne, with a firey stream or river of fire issuing from the base of the throne and engulfing all things. In the Bible, God is often described as many things: a light, a burning fire, love.
The river of fire which engulfs all is God's love, which is comforting to the righteous but a torment for the wicked. Look at the parable of the prodigal son, who demands his inheritance from his father and then squanders it in a foreign land. The prodigal son has a brother who never leaves home, but is outwardly obedient to the father. When the prodigal son returns, the father runs to meet him and lavishes upon him love and forgiveness (and mind you, it is the SAME love which the father has for the obedient son who remained.) Yet, we see that the son who remained is burned with jealosy, and stands apart from the feast which the father prepares for the prodigal son (i.e. he excommunicates himself).

[papayahed]

I guess it kind of depends on the type of "God" you believe in, I was taught of the all-forgiving God. So it a weird concept to think to consider:

"The Qu'ran emphatically states that Allah will blind and deafen the unbeliever and lead them into even greater blasphemy, so as to increase their culpability and torment."

Isn't that setting the person up to fail? Is there a chance for the person not to fail? Even then it doesn't sound like free will to me.

[Sitaram]

John Calvin's theology of double predestination is that from before the creation of the worlds, God foreknows all the souls he shall create, and predestines and foreordains those souls which shall be saved and also those souls which shall be damned (hence the term "DOUBLE predestination"). Calvinism bears some resemblance to Islam on this issue. It all boils down to a notion of God's ABSOLUTE sovereignty, namely that if God is not TOTALLY in control, if human free will and cooperation plays ANY role whatsoever, then the sovereignty of God is diminished. Remember, the very word "Islam" means submission or surrender, total surrender to the divine will.

There is an acronym for five point Calvinism which is T.U.L.I.P. (yes it spells out the name of a flower) ...


http://www.mslick.com/tulip.htm


Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints


The "L" portion, Limited Atonement, is of particular interest. Since God predestines all those soul to be saved as well as all the souls to be damned, then the saving effect of Christ's crucifixion is LIMITED to those predestined to salvation.

By the way, it was only a few years ago that the Southern Baptists held a convention, and condemned those elements of Calvinistic predestination which were creeping into their theology, since Baptists believe in proselytizing and winning converts and, well.. why convert, if God as already predestined you to salvation or damnation.

(An interesting historical aside: The Southern Baptists split from the Northern Baptists because the Northern Baptists felt that it was inappropriate for a minister to own slaves while the Southern Baptists felt that it was appropriate.)

If we now turn our attention to the Roman Catholic Latin Tridentine Mass prior to Vatican II in 1965, we see that at the consecration of the bread and wine, the priest would utter the exact words of Jesus at the last supper, "This is my blood which has been shed for MANY." Vatican II, among many changes that it brought about, felt that it would be better to say "This is my blood which has been shed for ALL." One readily sees how the difference in these two statements pertains to the notion of limited atonement. There are many Protestant denominations which vigorously disagree with Calvinist doctrine. The most eloquent argument I ever saw pointed to the time when Moses and his people were in the wilderness and there was a plague of poisonous snakes. God commanded moses to create a bronze snake, place it upon a pole, and ask ALL the people to gaze upon it, in order to be protected from the poisonous snakes. Notice that ALL were invited to gaze. But SOME of their free will chose NOT to gaze upon the bronze serpent, and those people were bitten and died.
In this argument, ALL are invited to do certain things, to believe, be baptized, worship, pray, repent, reform, etc. Those who exercise their free will and COOPERATE with the divine will WORK OUT their salvation.

It all becomes quite complex and interesting theologically. Jaroslav Pelikan (Yale Sterling Professor of History) wrote a five volume paperback work entitled "The History and Development of Christian Doctrine." If one takes the time to read through those five volumes, one gains a foundation in the panorama and spectrum and diversity of Christian doctrine as it changed from Apostolic times, through the Middle Ages, through the Reformation and Enlightment, and up to present times.

Jaroslav Pelikan is very fair and honest and objective in his treatment with no particular hidden agenda or ideological axe to grind. He does hint in one place that he personally favors an Eastern Orthodox outlook.

Anyway, I have quite possibly bored most of you with all of this, but I am just scratching the surface of these issues.

In the sixth century, there was a Greek monk who came to be known as St. John Climacus (John of the Ladder) because he wrote a manual on spirituality for Orthodox monks entitled "The Ladder of Divine Ascent." One of his famous sayings is, "At the judgement you shall know the righteous (who will be saved) because their heads will be hung low and you will hear them say 'We have done nothing worthy' "

Jesus tells a parable about the judgment which substantiates what John Climacus said: "On that day, there shall be those who come to me and say Lord, Lord, we worked miracles in your name, but I shall say to them, 'Get away from me, for I never knew you,' whereas to others I shall say, 'I was hungry and you fed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was in prison and you visited me' and they will say 'BUT Lord, WHEN did we do all these things?' and I shall answer 'When you did such things for the least among your brethern, you did them for me.' "

Well, I paraphrased that passage from memory, but I think you get the drift. Many Protestant denominations will say "I am SAVED! Are you saved?" But for the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox, the judgment of God is a mystery to mankind, and no one can know whether they are saved or damned until the judgment, and, stop and think, why have a judgment if it can be known during ones life that one is saved. One Catholic theologian I know would answer such a question from a Protestant by saying, "We Catholics are not saved, we are redeemed." It is most difficult to understand the subtle difference between salvation and redemption. Imagine that ten men have been arrested and placed in prison. A certain wealthy man takes pity upon the ten prisoners, goes to the jailer, and pays their bail and fines. The jailor opens the ten jail cell doors. But only eight men leave their cells. Two men remain seated even though the door stands open. Now all ten have been redeemed, the price has been paid for their release, and that payment is NECESSARY but not sufficient. What is also necessary is the free will cooperation of each person redeemed to arise and take the steps to leave their cell and be truly free.

One forum member has messaged me to explain that he is incredulous how two prisoners might remain in their cells. "Why would'nt all ten leave once the doors are opened." This is a fair question. Remember, it is very difficult to comprehend the subtle difference between redemption and salvation. The jail analogy is a simple minded real world example of what redemption might possibly be like. I explained in my reply that perhaps somone like a Gandhi or a Mandela or a Martin Luther King might remain in the cell and refuse to leave based on some principle. Many of you have seen the movie "The Shawshank Redemption" and remember the old librarian who panics at the thought of being released from prison. We become accustomed and comfortable in any circumstance after a sufficient length of time. I explained in my private reply "Consider the devout Christian of any denomination, who looks upon that person who does not avail themselves of the Christian invitation to be someone who is comfortable in their prison cell, even though they have been redeemed.

I am reminded of a PBS interview on Charlie Rose with the children of the late Jennifer Lash who wrote "Blood Ties".

http://www.geocities.com/tulsidas_ramayan/page108.htm

One of her daughters read an excerpt from one of her mother's novels (I did not catch the title).

In the passage, some people enter into an abandoned church. A large white owl has become trapped inside the church.

As they watch, it frantically flies back and forth, dashing itself into the walls.

There are holes in the roof which would afford an escape, but the owl is too panicked to find them. The woman in the church who recounts this scene cannot bear to stay and watch the owl destroy itself while they stand by, helpless, watching.

Later in the day, that woman recollects the scene, and thinks to herself,

"Suppose the SOUL is like that owl, trapped in the mind, dashing itself frantically, injuring itself, destroying itself. There are exits, escapes, ways out, but the soul cannot see them. And God watches helplessly (I suppose because of the inviolable sanctity of the soul's free will). What anguish might that be for God, watching?"

[papayahed]

"I explained in my private reply "Consider the devout Christian of any denomination, who looks upon that person who does not avail themselves of the Christian invitation to be someone who is comfortable in their prison cell, even though they have been redeemed."


That then goes back too the question of who's religion is the "right" religion. Which opens another whole can of worms. Does that mean that nonbelievers, who have exercised their free will not to believe aren't saved?

[Sitaram]

I should perhaps reiterate that my personal beliefs are more Hindu and Buddhist, lest anyone think I have some sort of agenda other than discussion.

To answer your question, I shall point to three of the many different kinds of geometries which exist, all of which are adequate to measure space on the surface of our earth: Euclidian geometry in which the three interior angles of a triangle add up to exactly two right angles (180 degrees), hyperbolic geometry, where the interior angles add up to ever so slightly MORE than two right angles, and elliptical geometry, in which the three interior angles of any triangle are SLIGHTLY LESS than two right angles. I shall tell you some interesting history about the famous mathematician, Gauss, and his attempt to measure three mountain peaks triangle to determine which of the three geometries IS THE ONE TRUE geometry of space, and why he failed. Then I shall make an analogy to the question of which religion is the one true religion, and how much more impossible it is to answer that religious question than to answer the geometrical one. But you must be patient with me and let me add to this post during the day, since I am at work.

Gauss was UNABLE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF INSTRUMENTATION ACCURACY, to determine the precise sum of the three interior angles formed by the three mountain peaks!

There has never in the history of the world, to my knowledge, existed a religion which has not split into one or more sectarian divisions in disagreement over dogma, doctrine, liturgics, etc.

Jonathan Swift, in Gulliver's Travels, pokes fun at this phenomenon with the Big-endians who break their egg at the large end, and the little-endians, who break their hard boiled egg at the small end. When Gulliver questioned them, they both pointed to their same holy book to the verse which says "break thy egg where thou wilt."

[papayahed]

Wait, I'm not asking which religion is the "right" religion.

I'm just saying that devout people of most religions as you have said yourself think of nonbelievers as being in a prison. Hypothetically speaking, if there was 1 right religion, when we have a crap ton (that's a little less then 1 ton) of different ones, are the saved only coming from that 1 religion. Can the followers of the noncorrect religion call foul? They were believers, they lead good lives, unfortunaly they got caught up with the wrong crowd so to speak. They were fooled, are they damned for that? What about the leaders, they unwittingly lead all these people into damnation. It doesn't hold up, am I missing something?

I am familiar with the catholic religion, but am a nonpracticer at this time.

[Sitaram]

You raise most excellent questions. I wish I were not at work (its such a distraction). But to respond in dribs and drabs:

The 5th Surah of the Quran, 52 verse (if i remember correctly) says "Do not be friends with Christians and Jews. They have each other to be friends with. He who is friends with them is one of them, and Allah does not help wrong doers."

Similary in the Jewish Psalms, there is a verse which says "The gods of the nations are demons, but God created the heavens and the earth."

If we look at the Book of Mormon, the native americans are called the Lamanites, and it is stated that they rejected the right path, so God turned their skin dark that the righteous peoples might despise them, but one day they shall accept the truth, and be righteous, and then their skins shall become white as snow.

My point is there are no shortage of the "moral majorities" (who are neither moral nor a majority) who are ready to cart blanche write off an entire group of people with no consideration as to how they live and conduct themselves from day to day.

I shall return to this post, and tell you the parable which Jesus told of the ten wise virgins and the ten foolish virgins, which illustrates something very intersting, and pertinent to your questions/comments.

Solomon, in the Book of Proverbs, wrote "There are ways which seemeth good unto a man, but the end thereof is death." We may compare Solomon's statement with Socrates statement that "everyone by nature desires the good" (which includes, obviously, people like Hitler and bin Ladin, and I suppose even Jeffrey Dahmer, the serial killer, a real-life Hannible Lechter).

Jesus told a story of ten wise virgins and ten foolish virgins, invited to a wedding feast, who each brough lamps and oil, to await the arrival of the bridegroom. The foolish virgins did not bring enough oil, and began to panic. They begged the wise virgins for some oil, but the wise virgins said, "No, we have only enough for ourselves." Now here is the zinger, which ancient theologians point out. THEY WERE ALL VIRGINS, they all had the virtue of physical purity, (abstaining from what is bad). But, WHAT DOES OIL REPRESENT. Well, in the Greek of the New Testament, the world for oil and for mercy (compassion) is ALMOST IDENTICAL (elaion, i need to be home to check my greek dictionary.) So the point of the story was,.... neither group did bad things (the were all virgins), but the foolish virgins did not do enough good things involving mercy. (kind of thought provoking... sorry i am at work and this is all so piece-meal).

[papayahed]

So the point of the story was,.... neither group did bad things (the were all virgins), but the foolish virgins did not do enough good things involving mercy. (kind of thought provoking... sorry i am at work and this is all so piece-meal).

So, were the foolish virgins foolish because they didn't do enough merciful things or were they foolish to begin with and didn't realize they hadn't done enough merciful things? In both cases the foolish virgins can't win? Which brings me back to free will, how can the fools exert their free will if they're in this catch -22?

[Sitaram]

So, were the foolish virgins foolish because they didn't do enough merciful things or were they foolish to begin with and didn't realize they hadn't done enough merciful things?

This raises a wonderful question in my mind, when I think of the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee. The Publican, realizing his shortcomings, simply hung his head and said "Have mercy on me a sinner" and Jesus said he went out of the temple justified, whereas the Pharisee was proud and haughty and judgmental and PRESUMED that he had a superabundance of virtue saying "O Lord, I thank thee that THOU HAS MADE ME AS I AM, I fast twice per week, give tithes.... etc... and I am not like that wretched Publican over there in the corner."

Looking at the Publican/Pharisee parable, I would have to answer that the foolish virgins were more foolish in not REALIZING their deficiency.

But again, I am at work... so piece-meal thoughts and answers.... but this is great fun (for me anyway)....

[papayahed]

To reacap:

the foolish virgins didn't do enough merciful things and didn't realize so they're foolish and unsaved.

The publican didn't do enough and realized it - so he was saved?

The pharisee did enough and realized it, but was arrogant so he wasn't saved?

What about the wise virgins? Shouldn't they be unsaved also, because they were wise and knew it?


Perhaps I shouldn't be treating this like a logic puzzle huh?

[Sitaram]

Bit of a stickey wicket... thats why I gave up on Abrahamic religions and became a sort of eclectic (roll your own) Hindu-Buddhist in my personal beliefs.

[Bongitybongbong]

That then goes back too the question of who's religion is the "right" religion. Which opens another whole can of worms. Does that mean that nonbelievers, who have exercised their free will not to believe aren't saved?
I'd have to agree with that.

[papayahed]

Bit of a stickey wicket... thats why I gave up on Abrahamic religions and became a sort of eclectic (roll your own) Hindu-Buddhist in my personal beliefs.


and perhaps that's why I'm non-practicing.

And speaking of Hindu-Buddhist, where do they fit in? If there is a God do they have the possibility of being saved? And if their teachings are correct, where does that leave the big 3? (these can be rhetorical)

[papayahed]

And why were 20 virgins waiting for the bridegroom anyways?

Were some of the virgins men? why is it that when we(or maybe just I) hear the word virgin we/I always assume it's women?

[Sitaram]

You have to kind of get used to the idea of what a parable is meant to be, and what it is not meant to be.

Monastics and celibates and renunciates of many different religions concern themselvs with virginity in the sense of purity of mind as well as physical purity.

There may quite possibly be some "spiritual" significance to the number 10.... there is certainly thought to be a significance to the parable of the women who had ten coins, and lost one coin, and burned a candle worth MORE than the value of the coin, in order to find the lost coin.... there are NINE orders of angels (cherubim, seraphim, archangels, angels, thrones, dominions, powers, principalities, etc) which symbolically accounts for nine of the coins (the ones NOT LOST) but humanity is the tenth lost coin, and the candle which is worth more than that which is lost and is sacrificed to find that which is lost is the crucifixion...

but parables are not intended to undergo gynecological exams or to split hairs...

[Sitaram]

Parables are meant to be thought about in a certain
ways, and are not meant to be thought of, or
analyzed in other ways.

There may well be some great significance to the
number ten, (but not to the number 20).

Certainly there is thought to be a significance to
the number ten in the parable of the woman who had
ten coins and lost ONE. She burned a candle which
was worth MORE than the lost coin in order to find
the coin. There are reckoned to be nine angelic
orders (according to one verse in the Epistles):
seraphim, cherubim, archangels, angels, thrones,
dominions, virtues, powers, principalities).

http://www.sarahsarchangels.com/archangels/9orders.html

So the NINE coins which are NOT lost represent the
nine orders of angels. The tenth coin WHICH IS
LOST is humanity, which has fallen. The candle
with a value GREATER than the lost coin, which is
burned, (sacrificed) in order to find the lost coin
is Christ, the crucifixion.

Parables are not designed for gynecological exams
or hair-splitting.

In every religion which has monasticism, celibates,
renunciates, both men and women are concerned with
physical purity and chastity as well as mental
purity, but this is very difficult to achieve.

Even Jesus said to the Apostles, "Some are born
eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by others, and some
make eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the
kingdom of heaven. Let he who has been given this
ability practice it." (paraphrasing from memory, I
dont have time to look it all up right now.)

There is an old Taoist Chinese saying:

"When the wrong person employs the right means, then the right means yield the wrong results."

We may easily understand this statement if we look at software such as Photoshop, or Pagemaker, or drawing/design programs. They are the "right means" in that they enable anyone who can click a mouse to do what only an artist or technician might do manually. But, often they are used by the wrong person, someone with no artistic sense, lacking the eye of a typsetter or graphic artist. Hence, in the hands of the wrong person, the right means yield the wrong results.

[lhaeber]

My brain hurts...I want to go back to land of the lost...I can't help myself, when Sitaram writes, I read and read and re-read, I haven't touched a book since I got to this site.

[subterranean]

And why were 20 virgins waiting for the bridegroom anyways?

Were some of the virgins men? why is it that when we(or maybe just I) hear the word virgin we/I always assume it's women?


The virgins are considered as women because Jesus is said to be the "husband"..The union between Jesus and his church (the chosen/the wise virgins/). You have to realize that Christianity apply paternalistic poin of view.

[Sitaram]

Yes, the Church is the bride of Christ. But the church is composed of males and females. Yet, in the argument between the Sadducees and Pharisees, regarding the woman who married all 7 brothers, one by one, each in turn passing away, (namely, which would be her husband in the ressurection), Jesus answers that in the ressurection, all will be genderless as the angels, neither marrying nor being given in marriage. The picture which Jesus paints is in stark contrast to the paradise which Muhammed describes, where each male shall have 70 supernatural houri virgins, known neither by human nor by jinn (spirit). Sounds like quite a sexy paradise! No mention seems to be made as to what the women do in this paradise.

[papayahed]

Yes, the Church is the bride of Christ. But the church is composed of males and females. Yet, in the argument between the Sadducees and Pharisees, regarding the woman who married all 7 brothers, one by one, each in turn passing away, (namely, which would be her husband in the ressurection), Jesus answers that in the ressurection, all will be genderless as the angels, neither marrying nor being given in marriage. .

I don't know where I heard this but I remember in school the reason nuns didn't marry was because they were already married to Christ/the church.


The picture which Jesus paints is in stark contrast to the paradise which Muhammed describes, where each male shall have 70 supernatural houri virgins, known neither by human nor by jinn (spirit). Sounds like quite a sexy paradise! No mention seems to be made as to what the women do in this paradise

See, that annoys me. How can someone (women) follow a religion that doesn't mention them, or their eternal well being? Isn't that the whole purpose.

[Sitaram]

Here is a curious factoid for you. The only religious movement ever to be started by a woman is Christian Science, founded by Mary Eddie Baker.

Only two religions have names which denote a quality to be cultivated in the practitioner: Islam (which means submission) and Buddhism (Budh means awake, enlightened).

The oldest CONTINUOUSLY PRACTICED religion is that of the Australian Aborigines, which may be dated back 50,000 years based on religious cave drawings. Next to that, the oldest continuously practiced religion is a toss-up between the Shaivites (who worship Lord Shiva - again based on archeological findings) and the Jains (who are quite similar to Buddhists in many repected but were already well established during the lifetime of Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha.)

The Wold Almanac, under statistics for world religions, indicates that there are 19 million Sikhs in the world (the men wear those turbans), yet only 14 million Jews. At the moment, the entire world population is between 6 and seven billion. There are one billion Chinese in the world (hence one in every six people speak Chinese). There are appx 1.2 billion Muslims. There are appx. 1.7 billion Christians (1 billion Roman Catholic, 200 million Eastern Orthodox, and 500 million "Protestants" divided into hundreds of denominations. There are only 3 million Jains in the world. There are only 600,000 Zoroastrians in the world (partly because conversion to their religion is strictly prohibited, you MUST be born into a Zoroastrian family.)

[papayahed]

Here is a curious factoid for you. The only religious movement ever to be started by a woman is Christian Science, founded by Mary Eddie Baker.



I liked their magazine. Too bad it was discontinued. The newpapers has too much information, I can't handle all that information, day after day....

[baddad]

My brain hurts...I want to go back to land of the lost...I can't help myself, when Sitaram writes, I read and read and re-read, I haven't touched a book since I got to this site.

Yeah I agree......when Sitaram posts I gotta take notes and do research just to follow the postings........but its all good!!!

[Adelheid]

If you are really interested in finding out more about the dinosaurs and about creation, I would refer you to this site: www.answersingenesis.org Search for dinosaurs, and you will find alot of information comparing the views of evolution and creation. Then you can choose the view you like- evolution or creation.

[Adelheid]

Aren't you all getting off the original subject about dinosaurs here? :nod:

You people are probably making wildchild4god78 so confused, here! :confused:

[Dyrwen]

Well, if you're going to suggest answers in genesis, you might enjoy www.answersinscience.org as well. heh. Though on the topic of being off-topic, the "wildchild" hasn't replied to this thread once in the past 16 days, so I doubt she was doing much more than posting for the sake of seeing the brief reaction gained, considering the complete lack of discussion from the original poster.

[Adelheid]

Good idea. Try comparing all the "facts", (from both sides), and THEN make up your mind on which you think contains the most 'evidence'.

[Dyrwen]

Yeah, I'd suggest doing that as well.

Considering one has "facts" from one solitary book written by men and the other has "evidence" which verifies "facts" in physical structures found in the Earth that can be classified and measured appropriately as accurately as possible.

[Adelheid]

Indeed, there is scientific evidence, if you do look. I don't think evolution has any real evidence, if you ask me. They might be frauds like the pitman skull, I think it was.

[Dyrwen]

No real evidence (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) eh? I suppose the link behind me may be a bit too wordy, so perhaps you'd like an up to date (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/) set of pictures from the wild world of paleoanthropology. We're finding new fossils all the time, which are all evidences of further human evolution. Personally I'd prefer this kind of discussion to remain in your newer evolution thread though, so I'll stop there.

As to your Pitdown (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/piltdown2003.html) claim, that was one occurrence in the past 100 years and it was scientists that proved the fossils were forgeries because, guess what, they know what real fossils look like. The fun thing about science is, when one thing is proven false, they just refine the original theory to make it more succint and accurate so as not to make the same mistake twice. Whereas when you're dealing with the "true word" written in a book, the only way to resolve the conflict is interpretation rather than literal analysation.

[Adelheid]

Wellll, I suppose it really begins on whether you believe in the uniformitarianism view, or the catastrophism view. Most scientist start at those 2 hypothesis. Each view or belief has their own set of data to support it. It really comes down to personal belief, and which YOU think has the most concrete evidence.

Catastrophism is the view that most of the earth's geological features are the result of latge-scale catastrophies such as floods, volcanic eruptions, etc.

So this allows for a young world. However, it can also allow for a world which is billions of years old. but....

Uniformitarianism is the view that most of the earth's geological features are the result of slow gradual processes that have been at work for millions or even billions of years.

Thus, uniformitarianism only allows for an "old" world.

As I was saying, scientists start with either one. Then they work, to find more evidence on whichever side they belief is right. Of course, they will find a lot that supports both sides, and a lot which 'disclaims' both sides. So,.... it really is up to you which point you start looking.... :nod:

[Dyrwen]

So this allows for a young world. However, it can also allow for a world which is billions of years old. but....
I fail to see how Catastrophism (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-catastrophism.html) allows for a young world. Yes many events are caused by catastrophy such as the creation of the moon more then 4 billion years ago, the wiping out of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, and most natural disasters. I suppose you're talking about the worldwide flood being something you find as evidence of a young earth catastrophy.

For one (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html), the utter absurdity of an ark, as well as the inherent scientific complications of constantly correct data of the age of the earth when looking for a flood, leaves the idea of a "global flood" as something that hasn't been discovered to have been true. There are many flood stories (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html) from around the world, yes, but no scientific evidence that such a flood occurred.


Thus, uniformitarianism only allows for an "old" world.

As I was saying, scientists start with either one. Then they work, to find more evidence on whichever side they belief is right. Of course, they will find a lot that supports both sides, and a lot which 'disclaims' both sides. So,.... it really is up to you which point you start looking.... :nod:
Actually, most scientists start only with uniformitarianism because of plate tectonics being discovered as being accurate. Plates move slowly over time and aren't just shuffled around without seriously affecting the layers of rock underground that we have recorded and would've discovered by now.

"In recent decades, the theory of uniformitarianism has been modified to reflect the discovery that catastrophic events occur today and have occurred in the Earth's past. The present is still the key to the past, meteorite impacts, giant earthquakes, tsunamis, and explosive volcanism occur today as they have in the past and these events provide punctuations in an over-all gradual process."Quoted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_%28science%29) from here.

I once again fail to see how exactly catastrophism is even a choice here, considering it just details that catastrophies occur and affect history. Yeah, of course they do, but they still occur over time and are recorded as such, through a uniform technique of measurement.

Once again, if you have some evidence that a catastrophic view is anything more than a micro event in the macro uniformitarianism of scientific history, please don't hesitate to share.

[Adelheid]

What I meant when I said Catastrophism allows for a young world was that you CAN possibly have a young earth with this view, as floods and volcanic eruptions may have a role to play in the earth's current geological features. I hope you understand me. :-)

Also regarding the flood stories, let's just take a look at the Grand Canyon, for example. We all know there is little rain in Arizona and a few lakes. How in the world then, did the sedimentary rock in the Grand Canyon get laid down by water? The great Flood would have been one reason. Also, look at the Petrified Forest in Arizona. It is filled with Petrified wood. Arizona is almost like a desert now, and there MUST have been a great deal of water there at one time, for petrifaction to occur.

Petrifaction is the conversion of organic material into stone. How this happens is that a creature's or plant's remains are exposed to mineral rich water. Slowly the organic minerals decompose, and are replaced by the minerals deposited into the remains. Incidentally, this also "coincides" with the Biblical account of the Flood waters receding SLOWLY. Only when the water around the creature or plant remains for long enough to allow the completion of the petrifaction process, then you will have an entire replica of the parts of the creature or plant that is preserved. These are only some examples which I have been able to point out. There are alot more.

P.S. On looking back it seems that from what I wrote, one might argue that there might have been a flood in Arizona. But there is a Petrified remain of a Woolly Mammoth. I really hope I am intelligible enough for you to understand. :-)

[baddad]

Catastrophism is the theory that the geologic features on the earth, as we see it today, were formed all at once roughly 8000 bp (before present) and the forces affecting earth's surface (see below) have been active ever since.

Uniformitarianism is the theory that whatever forces are affecting the surface of the earth today, have been operating along the same lines for billions of years, I.E. erosion, plate tectonics, mountain building, rainfall, ice formation, atmosphere....etc,etc. leading to the geological formations seen on todays earth.

Catastrophism is a faith based belief, built entirely upon a formula created from time-span equations worked out from biblical accounts of the lengths of people's lives. It is this basis upon which the rest of the Catastrpohism theory is aimed to satisfy.
While many scientists can be found that will postulate, propagate, and perpetuate this theory, mainstream science ignores this theory when it can, rolls its eyes when it can't, and generally discards a theory based on faith........as it should.

And while sheer numbers of believers is not proof, the few scientists for Castrophism are truly outweighed by those scientists opting for a more scientific apporach to the realities of the earth's, and indeed the universe's, age.

Me...well.......I have rocks in my DRIVEWAY older than a milliion years.......

[Dyrwen]

Also regarding the flood stories, let's just take a look at the Grand Canyon, for example. We all know there is little rain in Arizona and a few lakes. How in the world then, did the sedimentary rock in the Grand Canyon get laid down by water? The great Flood would have been one reason. Also, look at the Petrified Forest in Arizona. It is filled with Petrified wood. Arizona is almost like a desert now, and there MUST have been a great deal of water there at one time, for petrifaction to occur.
Yes. There was a lot of water and it took millions of years (http://gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm) to carve out that rock. As far as accuracy in determining the age of sedimentary rocks, most are found through their thickness in the sedimentary record to be around 1.6 billion years old (according to tests as far back as 1910), which is much more accurate than the age of 3 million years old (which was done in 1860).

Sedimentation rates average about 0.3 m/1000 years. In the Grand Canyon, the highest point is about 3,962.4 meters above sea level, which if my math is correct, makes the age of the highest point around 13,208,000 years old. And that's using conservative estimates.

Flood or no flood, there is no possible way for those rocks to be anything but millions of years old. Obviously water flowed higher in the canyon once upon a time, seeing as the seas used to be much closer to them before the continental plates moved the way they are now, but it took a long time to carve the rock out and layers of different types of rocks clearly visible show that much is pretty factual. Plate tectonics and paleogeology alone prove enough of what you've stated is false, but I suppose if you really believe there was some huge flood, I'm not one to change your mind.

[Taliesin]

Actually, if Our memory doesn't fail us, there was some kind of little flood near the Mesopotamia about some thousand years B.C.
The water level rose quite a deal there so that quite many lands were flooded. Nothing so serious though as to say that the whole world was flooded or anything like that. Do not remember the explanation about it at the moment.

[Dyrwen]

Yes, there were floods in many parts of the world and of course some were worse than others, so many wrote about them like they were life and death giving. The floods were essential to most nations out near deserts because of their creation of silt and such in the soil to keep the crops going year after year. So of course they were seen as an important event, but when they flooded too far and killed people they told of it like it was legendary in size to warn others of the hazards of this kind of agricultural living.

As far as actual storylines, if you were looking for the age involved, I gave a link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Persian) earlier on about different flood myths. Although scientists have obviously spotted floods in the levels under the earth in the regions, it wasn't anything of a universal type, but I suppose when a group of people think they're already the center of the universe, one flood can seem much more important than it might actually be.

[baddad]

Floods are not neccessarily the answer to sedimentary rock formations in many places. At times, during the last 4.2 billion years of earth's existence, there were many inland seas in existence where dry land is today. Here in Canada the central portion of this entire country, and central U.S. were at some time covered in water....for millions of years........and so it goes.....

[Miss Darcy]

Okay, let's just say, dinosaurs did NOT (scientifically at least, I don't know if there are any dinos in the Bible, haven't read it :D) exist alongside humans. I mean, come on, how could they? Humans would be slaughtered in ten seconds!!!


...But I suppose when a group of people think they're already the center of the universe, one flood can seem much more important than it might actually be.

Ha, too true...puts Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot in mind. That we think ourselves so important. Just a taste...


... Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The dot, by the way, is a picture of the Earth taken by Voyager from some millions of km away...I would paste it in here, but well...I can't really be bothered. :)

So, I wonder, why would a God go and make so much fuss about one speck of dust? It's not like we're all that important. It may seem so, but that's just the illusion of our egos. Yes! Our egos. However small they are, they still make us think we exist (which is not certain) and --

But I guess you've all had enough of my rambling on stuff like that. I could go on for ever and ever and ever, but really, I don't think that's my purpose on this Earth. ;)

Miss Darcy

[Stanislaw]

...So, I wonder, why would a God go and make so much fuss about one speck of dust? It's not like we're all that important. It may seem so, but that's just the illusion of our egos. Yes! Our egos. However small they are, they still make us think we exist (which is not certain) and --
...Miss Darcy

In Genesis, it is stated that man is made in God's image, and that man is placed above the other animals. He is to rule over them.

I am not certain about what you mean, that we don't exist???

I think, therefore I am???

I think there is ample proof to the existance of Humans, and the Bibal offers an explanation as to why God would make such a fuss about one speck of dust.

Also for an interesting aside, check out C.S. Lewis's cosmic trilogy, or at least the first two parts. :nod:

[Adelheid]

Miss Darcy,

You are important to God. He loves you, and He created you to worship HIm, and to have fellowship with Him. However, that fellowship was severed by man's sin. But God in His love for you sent Jesus to die on the cross. Jesus took the punishment of our sin on Himself, and paid it. (The punishment was death, by the way. In the garden of Eden, there was no death, only after Adam and Eve sinned.) He conquered death, and rose from the death on the third day. He is now in Heaven sitting on the right hand of God, interceeding for us. God loves you very much. Even if you were the only person on earth, God would still come to save you. The only thing that remains is for you to accept the gift that God gave to all mankind, to you and me. It is a free gift. You only have to reach out and take it by confessing that Jesus is the Son of God, and by believing in your heart that He died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day. Can anything be simpler than that? (To receive such a free gift, that is.)

I urge you, and everyone else reading this, to do it. You do not know what will happen to you today, or tommorrow. If you do not receive this gift, there is the punishment that still remains- eternal separation from God, in Hell. It is the place of fire and brimestone, where worms will eat you up. The heat of the fire is alot worse than being burnt at the stove. You will really be burnt perpetually. You will feel the pain of it all. I do not wish to frighten you or anyone, but it is true. Oh, call on Jesus while you can, while there is time. Quick! Before it is too late! Only Jesus can save you.

My Grand uncle just died suddenly of an asthma attack- just like that! He was quite young. I don't know whether he was prepared to meet his Creator. But will YOU be ready to meet the Creator, the Saviour of the world, if you were to die NOW? Life is but a vapour and a breath, which passes away quickly. You might meet with a road accident, if so, there will be no time. Accept Jesus NOW! I beg you!

Adelheid

[Miss Darcy]

Dear Adelheid,

Sorry if I get at all carried away in this message, I'll try my very best not to, but if I do, know that I don't mean it in any offence. I also apologise for not capitalizing "he" in reference to God; it annoys me, so I choose to withhold this.

Firstly, if I haven't stated this already, I am an atheist, and think I have the right to be so. This does not mean I deny the soul, or the existence of something metaphysical and not material; this does not mean I am a skeptic or a materialist (quite the contrary, in fact, I'm very open to mysticism and philosophy); this does not mean that I think there is no meaning in life; this does not mean that I am wholly bad, indeed, who is; this merely means I do not believe in the existence of a "God".

Secondly, if God is kind, as every theological book, every reverend, every very Christian will tell you (I'm not wrong?) - then why is there suffering on this Earth. Why are there billions out there, starving, dying terrible deaths, and living miserable lives. If he is kind, how can he look at this? (Assuming he has eyes) How can he stand the sight of the torment of those he created and - loves? If he loved them at all like any human can love another human, he would not be able to stand it, suffering would be abolished. Or can he not abolish it? Then he is not almighty. Or does he have some special purpose unkown to us petty beings...If God is a man (what a very contradiction of terms...but...) then he must surely feel like a man, and cannot be so utterly evil/totally helpless as to leave all this suffering on Earth?

On a similar note, if God is good, and has such power and all, why did he not make all humans believers? Why can he suffer them to go to Hell? "Man is a product of his environment," which I can prove if necessary - why then put men in environments which will make them evil and afterwards make them to Hell? Why is there war, murder, robbery, prostitution, drug-use, and all other forms of wickedness? Those who are "bad", cannot help themselves; it is (or is it not) God who puts them in their environments, who lets them become unkind humans. Similarly, though in ourselves have nothing in common with murderers, corrupt politicians, and black people like that, we are also made by our environment, and are atheists because we have either been brought up to it, or simply decided there is not enough ground for belief in God.


It is the place of fire and brimestone, where worms will eat you up. The heat of the fire is alot worse than being burnt at the stove. You will really be burnt perpetually. You will feel the pain of it all.

Well, pain is merely in the brain, so I can't really see how one can feel it after death but...seriously...again, I can't see how God could permit this, if he is indeed the way they picture him, good, loving, man-like, etc.


Oh, call on Jesus while you can, while there is time. Quick! Before it is too late! Only Jesus can save you.

If you mean to say, convert to Christian - no offence - but I'd rather be hanged. To quote from Lawrence of Arabia, on pain, "the trick is not to mind that it hurts." If I burn eternally, I think in a moderately short time, some few centuries or so, I will get used to it and learn to bear pain very happily. :)

And if Jesus paid for all our sins, then how come we're still sinning? Will there be another Jesus to pay for the next lot?

There I go again, making light of it, I'm sorry. I just want you to think about it, think for yourself, not just blindly believe the accepted doctrines without really having your own opinion.

I'd like you to consider a few questions, just for a start: How do you define God? Where does he live? What does he do? Where is Heaven? What is Heaven? What does Heaven consist of? Is it material, or metaphysical? How do souls get there? Not why, but how? How do they make their passage? And what do they look like - how can they "meet their heavenly father"?

Did God create the whole Universe, or simply our planet? If so, are there other gods? If not, why on this particular planet? Why so much attention? And is he omnipotent? Can he be everywhere at once? Then he, surely, attaches more importance to highly-advanced alien civilisations than to us. Or maybe more to us because we need it more....

More later. Please consider, and think about it.

Miss Darcy.

P.S. I'm sorry about your great uncle. Hope he has less suffering in his next life. If he has been a good man, then chances are he will indeed have less.

[Adelheid]

[QUOTE=Miss Darcy]Secondly, if God is kind, as every theological book, every reverend, every very Christian will tell you (I'm not wrong?) - then why is there suffering on this Earth. Why are there billions out there, starving, dying terrible deaths, and living miserable lives. If he is kind, how can he look at this? (Assuming he has eyes) How can he stand the sight of the torment of those he created and - loves? If he loved them at all like any human can love another human, he would not be able to stand it, suffering would be abolished. Or can he not abolish it? Then he is not almighty. Or does he have some special purpose unkown to us petty beings...If God is a man (what a very contradiction of terms...but...) then he must surely feel like a man, and cannot be so utterly evil/totally helpless as to leave all this suffering on Earth?
QUOTE]

Well, all the suffering on earth is the result of sin. Ever since mankind sinned, the curse of death came into the world. God warned Adam and Eve about the consequences, but Satan tricked them, and they disobeyed God. The Bible says that sin and wickedness will be abolished when this earth has passed away. In heaven, there will be no more tears, no more pain, no more sadness, no more wickedness. That is why all the unbelieving, all the sexually immoral, all those who practice witchcraft, all the disobedient to parents, all the sorcerers will be cast into the laske of Fire. God is holy. There cannot be any sin before Him.

If you've heard the news about the terrorist bombing in Iraq recently, you might be thinking that the terrorist deserves hell. Don't you think? He is a murderer, and the Bible says that murderers go to hell. However, it also says that if you have hated your neighbour, you are a murderer in God's sight. Therefore, you deserve Hell. Sins are sins. There is no such thing as a lesser sin or a bigger sin. Since God is also a just God, (besides being a loving and merciful God) He will have to punish them. But because He is a loving God, He sent a way that we can be reconciled with GOd, and avoid eternal death. That way is Jesus.

God is not a man. He is God. God is trinity. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God the Father sent Jesus into the world. Jesus knows all our feelings. He can sympathize with us. Even if you don't understand all this, it's all right. Most Christians don't in the first place!

[Miss Darcy]

Well, all the suffering on earth is the result of sin. Ever since mankind sinned, the curse of death came into the world.

*Shudders* That is so...wrong. Like, unjust. Totally unjust! I mean, come on, just because these two people some hundred thousand years ago make one mistake, you don't go around torturing all the future generations, 'specially if they weren't the only ones on Earth. Whoop!


God is holy. There cannot be any sin before Him.

Sorry, you're contradicting yourself, though I am sure that it's involuntary. If there can be no sin before God, then why is there sin before God? Why?


In heaven, there will be no more tears, no more pain, no more sadness, no more wickedness.

Pretty sad place, then. You don't know what happiness really is without a balance of sadness and pain; you can't see what goodness really is without an equal amount of wickedness. Sure, all these people in heaven would have found out what it is during their stay here on Earth; and perhaps be able to even look down on Earth through a heavenly window; but without actually experiencing evils at least every hundred years or so, I'm pretty sure you'd soon forget what they really are. You would not be able to value happiness and goodness. All would be a sad circle of the same. Wouldn't you get bored of infinite bliss?


That is why all the unbelieving, all the sexually immoral, all those who practice witchcraft, all the disobedient to parents, all the sorcerers will be cast into the laske of Fire.

All the unbelieving; well I'll have good company in Hell, with the likes of Mark Twain, Thomas Hardy, Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Edison, Abraham Lincoln, Sigmund Freud, George Bernard Shaw, Joseph Conrad, Marie Curie, Pierre Curie, Voltaire, Marcel Proust, Albert Einstein, E.M. Forster, James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, D.H. Lawrence, Arthur Rubenstein, Charlie Chaplin, Aldous Huxley, Charles Darwin, Ernest Hemingway, Walt Disney (apparently), George Orwell, Jean Paul Sartre, Katherine Hepburn, Isaac Asimov, Richard Burton, Carl Sagan, John Lennon, Anaxagoras, Diagoras, Protagoras, Democritus, Epicurus, Cicero, Lucretius, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, among countless others whom I will not add here.

So I certainly won't be bored, I'll have some of my friends as well, and a fair part of my family...nope, won't get bored. Also, as I said, if I burn eternally I'll soon get used to it so will be able to have long philosophical discussions with the philosophers, scientific discussions with the scientists, play charades with the entertainers....*sighs* If only there really were such a place.

And surely you don't believe in witches and sorcerers...*giggles*

As to all that are disobedient to their parents: it's not their fault, the child is determined by its environment. Either its parents have given it a bad upbringing, or it has been influenced by those who have at school, but certainly, there's no question. Each child is born innocent; each adult is a result of their environment. Also, "like father, like son." Besides, what if the parents are asking something wrong or impossible of their children?


However, it also says that if you have hated your neighbour, you are a murderer in God's sight.

Well hating your neighbour certainly will never do anybody any good, and you should try to keep from it. But I don't think the neighbour minds that much, I'm sure it's nothing to being murdered.

And didn't God send everyone into the world?

Miss Darcy :)

[corpse]

despite dinosaurs not being in the old testament, ancient jews adopted the canaanite myth of the sea being a big dragon type creature called something like rahag. but the dragon was killed by one of the angels and now there are no more dragons. :rage:

[Mililalil XXIV]

Not only are certain things described in Job only applicable to dinosaurs, but the Assyrians of old showed together with "normal" examples of fauna, creatures that sure do look like dinosaurs. These they seem to mix in with the other animals without thinking it the least bit odd. Could it be that the dinosaur population did not earlier die right out, but merely became near to extinction?

[Adelheid]

I'm quite sure that the dinosaurs did not totally die out with the flood because a long time after the flood, there have been many descriptions of dinosaurs. The "dragon" King George fought against may well have been a dinosaur, except that it was termed a dragon because the word dinosaur wasn't even coined yet!

With more and more people capturing and killing "dragons" for fame and wealth, it is no wonder that dinosaurs did eventually die out. Who knows? Maybe the komodo dragon is actually a dinosaur!

[Green Lady]

hehe, I read the title of this thread and had to come and post. I had a sunday school teacher that liked to theorize (jokingly) that God made dinosaurs in the beginning, played around with them like a kid would with their toy dinosaurs and then killed them off to start his real creation. So, I'll keep that as my theory until someone comes up with the truth...lol