-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
Science marches on
- Thread starter vetusvates
- Start date
sfaoldguy
New member
That is a lot of questions.
Answer to first question (A1): The entire point of not naming names was so that those who have a conscience that was pricked by the statement would reveal themselves or at least introspect. That way I do not have to assume intentions. The quotes I pointed out are the ones that could be interpreted as prickish. The fact that it was those who leaned toward science should be self-explanatory.
(A2) This is actually to answer the statement after your first question. You make a distinction between using the word "prick" and just in general being rude and offensive; I don't. I believe both should be equally disdained. As such, I apologize for the use of the term.
(A3) Yes, I was offended at the joking about religion. Religion is a very personal thing just as our sexual preferences. In the same way someone should not joke about homosexuals or their lifestyles, they should not joke about religious people or their beliefs. It is our joking that furthers bigotry in the cloak of humor.
(A4) Yes, I am a religious person and a scientist.
(A5) You said that I am still calling people out. Look back at the posts and you will see my numerous attempts to get back on topic. I had a point to make, and I made it. The repeated desire from posters was for me to give examples so I did. How can you say that I am "still" calling people out when I simply responded to other posters? Could the issue be with them?
(A6) Using rude remarks is not being a reasonable adult. I don't mind you calling me out for using the term "prick", but please don't close your eyes to the actions of others just because they are your "friends".
(A7) I do not agree with his post either. He may have posted that out of anger towards all of those who had been rude prior; I don't know. I already clarified that my comment was strictly concerning the treatment of Russell, but won't hold that against you because this is a really long thread and don't expect you to read everything.
(A8) You may not have thrown a hissy fit, but can you honestly say that others didn't? If they did, why are they not listed here as well? Honestly, I feel that albinoscooby got what his post deserved. That is why this was about those who attacked Russell, not albinoscooby.
I sure hope this clarifies things for everyone that still has questions.
I think there's an impression with some people that it's impolite to question someone's religious beliefs. If someone says 'I saw a UFO' it's ok to ask questions about it and kind of hold them to back up their story a little. But it's not the same with religion. When people make claims about religion that's supposed to get a nod and a pass. I don't agree with that, so it's no doubt I'd be found prickly, lol. I don't think that person should be called names or insulted, but I won't politely refrain from commenting at all. Or say that's as logical and valid a point of view as any other, if I think it's not.
tsst
Deuce is watching!
Who pray tell did I offend? Tell me and I will apologize. Before you do think about this ...
Here is my joke ...
Was I offending about -
1 god being too busy
2 fake monkey bones
3 Tina Turner's nails (sorry vetusvates)
4 paleontology
5 Christianity
6 that vetusvates is the last know Tina fan in existence(though I did not know that at the time)
let me clear the mud ... I apologize to everyone!
(on a serious note: I do apologize if someone was offended by my joking with vetusvates)
ArpeggioAngel
Around Here Somewhere....
However, as Russell stated - he was fine with the discussion as it was. He did not take anything personally. As the posts that you seem to think were rude and disrespectful were aimed at him - and yet he took no offense or insult from them - shouldn't that tell you something? That this was an honest and open discussion with no hard feelings on either side? Until you decided to make it about some people being "pricks" which apparently (and forgive me Russell if I am overstepping my bounds) Russell did not think so? So why do you feel the need to jump in and accuse those of something that apparently the person "attacked" did not feel?
And amongst friends - joking is not taken so seriously. I know we have a number of homosexual people on this site - they have taken joking in stride and even made jokes at their own expense from time to time. I do not see why religion should be so different. I may not be gay or religious, but I am fat...and whereas it may not be as serious a topic, I can certainly take a joke about it if presented with one. Certainly, as with anything, there are certain comments/jokes that should not be made, but I did not see anything nearly that offensive to warrant your responses in this thread (not that I haven't seen them elsewhere on this site from time to time). That being said, if we cannot laugh at life and at ourselves sometimes, then we are poorer for it.
And amongst friends - joking is not taken so seriously. I know we have a number of homosexual people on this site - they have taken joking in stride and even made jokes at their own expense from time to time. I do not see why religion should be so different. I may not be gay or religious, but I am fat...and whereas it may not be as serious a topic, I can certainly take a joke about it if presented with one. Certainly, as with anything, there are certain comments/jokes that should not be made, but I did not see anything nearly that offensive to warrant your responses in this thread (not that I haven't seen them elsewhere on this site from time to time). That being said, if we cannot laugh at life and at ourselves sometimes, then we are poorer for it.
snakewispera snr
The Devils Advocate
Several Old Testament passages describe the eternal fire of hell in a way which clearly demonstrates the Jewish view that hell is a place of everlasting burning, not a place of annihilation:
"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. ... And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'" (Mark 9:43-48)
The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Walvoord and Zuck, Dallas Theological Seminary, p.147) explains this passage by saying that the Greek word geena ("Gehenna," often translated into English as "hell") refers to a site near Jerusalem that "became Jerusalem's refuse dump where fires burned continually to consume regular deposits of worm-infested garbage. In Jewish thought the imagery of fire and worms vividly portrayed the place of future eternal punishment for the wicked. ... The worm (internal torment) and the unquenchable fire (external torment) ... vividly portray the unending, conscious punishment that awaits all who refuse God's salvation. The essence of hell is unending torment and eternal exclusion from His presence." The reason the worm does not die and the fire does not go out is because sinners are never annihilated. They continue to exist forever, and therefore the worm has "food" to eat forever and the fire has fuel to consume forever..
.
.
.My Dad is a Theologist, so I had to get this answer from him.... LOL
Hypancistrus
New member
You haven't seen some of my high school classes... evolution hasn't quite caught up with all of us. :grin01:
Susan
Go Ahead, Make My Day!
I have basically only glanced at this thread as I really do not have time at the moment to read it. I just want those that believe in evolution to seriously think about one thing...mammary glands. What went into evolving those things...how long, and why, did non-mammals spend vital resources in having those things around before they were actually of any use? Think about it. Mammary glands are very complex things and not something that would suddenly emerge and become useful over-night.
We can see that in mammals like the echidnas and the platypus. Do you know they actually secrete milk from modified sweat glands on their bellies? There is no nipple the young just lick it off their skin. So early style mammals that are halfway between mammary glands and no mammary glands are still with us today.
As far as the chemistry of milk and how it adapted, you'll have to read this.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/breast_beginnings.php
snakewispera snr
The Devils Advocate
No flaming me, I'm answering your question from a Christian point of view... LOL
Jews didn't acknowledge Christ as the saviour, you stop reading at the Old Testament and don't read the New Testament....
The belief is....
When the Rapture/second coming etc. Comes all the Righteous are taken away.
The sinners are damned, the born again go to sit with the Lord in Heaven, and the Jews are returned to Earth after it is cleansed.
The Jews are the chosen ones, but as a punishment for turning their backs will never sit with God....
Like I said no flaming, I'm repeating what is taught...
Perhaps heaven and Hell are vague as you don't get to go......
On the other hand
Jewish teachings on the subject is.
Sheol: An Underground Abyss
The subject of death is treated inconsistently in the Bible, though most often it suggests that physical death is the end of life. This is the case with such central figures as Abraham, Moses, and Miriam.
There are, however, several biblical references to a place called Sheol (cf. Numbers 30, 33). It is described as a region "dark and deep," "the Pit," and "the Land of Forgetfulness," where human beings descend after death. The suggestion is that in the netherworld of Sheol, the deceased, although cut off from God and humankind, live on in some shadowy state of existence.
While this vision of Sheol is rather bleak (setting precedents for later Jewish and Christian ideas of an underground hell) there is generally no concept of judgment or reward and punishment attached to it. In fact, the more pessimistic books of the Bible, such as Ecclesiastes and Job, insist that all of the dead go down to Sheol, whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave or free man (Job 3:11-19).
Afterlife and the World to Come
The development of the concept of life after death is related to the development of eschatology (speculation about the "end of days") in Judaism. Beginning in the period following the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem (586 BCE), several of the classical Israelite prophets (Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah) began forecasting a better future for their people.
However, with repeated military defeats and episodes of exile and dislocation culminating in the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Jewish thinkers began to lose hope in any immediate change, instead investing greater expectations in a messianic future and in life after death. This was coupled with the introduction into Judaism of Hellenistic notions of the division of the material, perishable body and the spiritual, eternal soul.
The catastrophe of 70 CE caused a theological crisis. How could it be that the God of Israel would simply allow His sanctuary to be destroyed and His people to be vanquished at the hands of the Roman Empire? While the rabbis often claimed that it was the Israelites' sinfulness that led God to allow it to be defeated (mi-p'nei hataeinu, "because of our sins"), it was more difficult to explain why good and decent individual Jews were made to suffer.
This led to the development of another theological claim: "Rabbi Ya'akov taught: This world is compared to an ante-chamber that leads to Olam Ha-Ba, (the World-to-Come)" (Pirkei Avot 4:21). That is, while a righteous person might suffer in this lifetime, he or she will certainly be rewarded in the next world, and that reward will be much greater. In fact, in some cases, the rabbis claim that the righteous are made to suffer in this world so that their reward will be that much greater in the next (Leviticus Rabbah 27:1).
The Garden of Eden: A Jewish Heaven
What the next world is, however, is far from clear. The rabbis use the term Olam Ha-Ba to refer to a heaven-like afterlife as well as to the messianic era or the age of resurrection, and it is often difficult to know which one is being referred to. When the Talmud does speak of Olam Ha-Ba in connection to the afterlife, it often uses it interchangeably with the term Gan Eden ("the Garden of Eden"), referring to a heavenly realm where souls reside after physical death.
The use of the term Gan Eden to describe "heaven" suggests that the rabbis conceived of the afterlife as a return to the blissful existence of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden before the "fall." It is generally believed that in Gan Eden the human soul exists in a disembodied state until the time of bodily resurrection in the days of the Messiah.
One interesting talmudic story, in which the World to Come almost certainly refers to a heavenly afterlife, tells of Rabbi Joseph the son of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, who dies and returns back to life, "his father asked him, 'What did you see?' He replied, 'I beheld a world the reverse of this one; those who are on top here were below there, and vice versa.' He [Joshua ben Levi] said to him, 'My son, you have seen a corrected world.'"
In the kabbalistic (Jewish mystical) tradition, there is much discussion about the voyages of the human soul to the Garden of Eden and other heavenly realms during one's life on earth. In the Zohar, the greatest of the medieval mystical works, there are many stories about the soul-ascents of various members of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai's mystical brotherhood. Most often, these journeys take place at night, while the body is at rest (see, for example, Zohar I: Parashat Vayehi, 217b-218b).
Gehinnom: A Jewish Hell
Only truly righteous souls ascend directly to Gan Eden, say the sages. The average person descends to a place of punishment and/or purification, generally referred to as Gehinnom.
The name is taken from a valley (Gei Hinnom) just south of Jerusalem, once used for child sacrifice by the pagan nations of Canaan (II Kings 23:10). Some view Gehinnom as a place of torture and punishment, fire and brimstone. Others imagine it less harshly, as a place where one reviews the actions of his/her life and repents for past misdeeds.
The soul's sentence in Gehinnom is usually limited to a twelve-month period of purgation before it takes its place in Olam Ha-Ba (Mishnah Eduyot 2:9, Shabbat 33a). This twelve-month limit is reflected in the yearlong mourning cycle and the recitation of the Kaddish (the memorial prayer for the dead).
Only the utterly wicked do not ascend to Gan Eden at the end of this year. Sources differ on what happens to these souls at the end of their initial time of purgation. Some say that the wicked are utterly destroyed and cease to exist, while others believe in eternal damnation (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Law of Repentance, 3:5-6).
Last edited:
Kokopelli
Resident Boa Fanatic
Personally, I honestly think that the truth, as it is in many things- isn't black or white. Or in this case, science of religion- but rather, a harmony of both.
There are several things in the bible that we are wrong- for instance, snakes are described to lay eggs only after a term of 7 years.
But terms of time, in my humble opinion, were simply different when the bible was written. God created the world in 7 days, alright- but who is to say that those days consisted of 24 hours each?
In truth, we have used terms from the bible to describe our world- but we do not know for a fact that the meaning we gave the terms, and the true meaning that existed at the time match.
But beyond that, as far as I am concerned there's a very solid proof that there is a God. Out of the endless possibilities of infinity- why is it that the guiding force of everything is balance- and thanks to that, life can develop?
If you put liquids of different concentrations- over time the two will become even. The same goes even with solid substances- it simply takes a lot more time to occur.
All life forms are dependent on Homeostasis, and the world as it is today, seeks to maintain exactly that.
Everything moves in cycles, and even though we may be bringing about our own end- life will persevere and a new balance will be created. We won't be a part of it most likely, if things continue on their designated path... but these things have happened eons ago, followed by a time of ice ages et cetera, and then new life again, emerged.
I think everyone's right, it's all a matter of being able to accept that both science and religion do not by any means oppose one another, if anything, they complete one another- if there's something which doesn't fit, it's usually a matter of terminology....
There are several things in the bible that we are wrong- for instance, snakes are described to lay eggs only after a term of 7 years.
But terms of time, in my humble opinion, were simply different when the bible was written. God created the world in 7 days, alright- but who is to say that those days consisted of 24 hours each?
In truth, we have used terms from the bible to describe our world- but we do not know for a fact that the meaning we gave the terms, and the true meaning that existed at the time match.
But beyond that, as far as I am concerned there's a very solid proof that there is a God. Out of the endless possibilities of infinity- why is it that the guiding force of everything is balance- and thanks to that, life can develop?
If you put liquids of different concentrations- over time the two will become even. The same goes even with solid substances- it simply takes a lot more time to occur.
All life forms are dependent on Homeostasis, and the world as it is today, seeks to maintain exactly that.
Everything moves in cycles, and even though we may be bringing about our own end- life will persevere and a new balance will be created. We won't be a part of it most likely, if things continue on their designated path... but these things have happened eons ago, followed by a time of ice ages et cetera, and then new life again, emerged.
I think everyone's right, it's all a matter of being able to accept that both science and religion do not by any means oppose one another, if anything, they complete one another- if there's something which doesn't fit, it's usually a matter of terminology....
TrpnBils
22 is not enough snakes
I think that the argument between "it's religion" or "it's science" is hilarious, and I'm not sure I want to get involved in this thread because these types of arguments anger me easily. It's perfectly acceptable to believe in both, which is why in my (Catholic) school, I teach evolution. I don't tell the students my opinions about it, so it's a nice balance between their science and religion classes and they can form their own opinion. I just thought I'd paste this link in here though: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961
The Pope seems to think it's OK to believe in both and that science and religion don't have to be independent of one another. He seems like he might be a good person to listen to.
I'm out.
The Pope seems to think it's OK to believe in both and that science and religion don't have to be independent of one another. He seems like he might be a good person to listen to.
I'm out.
wade
Save The Humans
Great point Susan. I have spent most of my adult life thinking about mammary glands. I had something else I wanted to say but I have lost my train of thought.
You'll be happy to know than Wade (and I just found out myself) that milk isn't just for mammals either!
http://www.idiocentrism.com/milk.htm
http://www.idiocentrism.com/milk.htm
snakewispera snr
The Devils Advocate
Wow. Thats news to me....Thanks for the link Tom....
Thats bound to come in handy for trivial pursuit type quiz's.... LOL
JoannaD
Formerly known as jodu
WOW! No flaming definitely and none was ever intended. I truly wanted to know if there were places in the old testament that spoke of hell, the afterlife etc. in what I have always thought of in a very Christian way. I actually think you answered the question in a very Jewish way. You quoted books that quote Rabbis and the Talmud that interpret what the old testament says. I still don't see passages that clearly speak the "Christian" thoughts on hell and the afterlife. I think in fact you supported, extremely well, what I remember being taught. It's all very vague!
And as to the Christian's thoughts on my going to hell, I knew it already. I am probably going to hell, but not for the reasons the Christians think I am.
wade
Save The Humans
WOW--This is way off topic, if there is still a topic, but that was really interesting. Great link Tom. I have hand raised pigeons and knew about their crop milk but didn't understand the extent of it.
Nanci you need to see this link too.
Pigeon Crop Milk Recipe