Posts by Qcmbr

270

Are you an atheist?

by hibiscusfire in

jw
friends

why are we here?

what is the purpose of life?

an atheist has many questions but no answers.. .

Qcmbr

Hib - what religion are you? and/or are you winding us all up and are we expecting a post along the lines of haha fooled you all...

43

Why are there four gospels?

by jaffacake in

jw
friends

for believers, if god uses the bible to communicate factual information, then why four gospels?

and why are they not in harmony with each other?

why not send down one record of the life of jesus as it really happened?

Gumby I can't criticise your dislike of lds land but I wasn't actually referring to my belief in a modern day prophet- its just if the bible is your guide you are effectively listening to the words of individual prophets (my original point) as opposed to a book put together by a church. What is interesting is that often the prophets had particular guidance from God that was for the people at that time and not for us now (hence most christians don't sacrifice animals on altars to the best of my knowledge) If you believe the bible you've got to believe God speaks to us via prophets when he is revealing stuff for the masses (wasn't promoting mormon ville honest.) Amos 3:7.

34

If you could bring back one thing from the past, what would it be?

by dh in

jw
friends

.

anything, be it an object, a species of animal, a piece of forgotten information, translation of an unknown language, type of culture, anything.

any takers?

Qcmbr

My youth :(

19

What do creationsts have to offer?

by Pole in

there were a few interesting threads recently on evolution/creationism.

some posters seem to have argued it would be fair to have creationism taught at schools.

(see abadon's thread).

Qcmbr

In the search for truth it is wise to consider all possible options. I will repeat this again and kill this horse some more.

Mankind is a creator - the technology is in daily use now. We are already experimenting on the creation of environments in isolated bubbles and the day will come when we may be able to prepare other planets for colonisation. Looking at how that can be done is viable science. Looking at how it may have been done here is viable science. I have listed loads of scientific things that could be looked for. I don't see why scientists must adhere to one strict dogma (and many on this board seem to suggest quite strongly that evolution points clearly to NO intelligent design when it says nothing of the sort - it explains mechanistic processes) - current evolutionary theory is making just as many stories - hypothetical scenarios - and looking for evidence for them as creationists are accused of doing. One scenario that evolution actually suggests (universe has existed for billions of years and life could just as easily have evolved on other planets long before we got it, that intelligence could well have superceded our 'evolutionary' state and could well have done work on this planet) is that we are not alone. Scientific thought does best when it can freely look at all scenarios and stop sorting them by dogma - creationism does not require the God of any particular religion (that part can be kept for RE and Church) but it can recognise the existence of intellignece other than our own.

I find closed thinking 'brain garbage'

67

Explain you religion/beliefs in a nutshell

by devinsmom in

jw
friends

lately i have been pondering my lack of a belief system.

i think that being a jw really turned me off to believing in anything since it was all crammed down my throat.. i have been feeling a need to believe in something.

i think i believe that something created us but not sure if it was one god or many.

Qcmbr

God, my family, me, my country, friends, Sunderland FC, chocolate

43

Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!

by Qcmbr in

i've been doing my homework having been stung by the vehemence of the evolutionary believers - i've got some interesting things that maybe science in the classroom could approach.

some premises - .

evolution is only a theory - its not a fact any more than newtonian physics was a fact.

Qcmbr

You mean we don't use letters and words to convey meaning -- ahhh no wonder its so hard to communicate :)

No the analogy stands. Its perfectly good. I can use computing language if its easier - I do that all day at work:(

really Right to am off bed I

43

Why are there four gospels?

by jaffacake in

jw
friends

for believers, if god uses the bible to communicate factual information, then why four gospels?

and why are they not in harmony with each other?

why not send down one record of the life of jesus as it really happened?

Qcmbr

The bible was put together by the Roman church. There was no plan to write a 'bible' by those who recorded events in the NT. The OT is actually better planned in terms of showing a progression of time as opposed to multiple views of the same event. God doesn't use the bible to communicate truth - religions do. God uses prophets to communicate truth - if prophets record what they are told it is acceptable as part of the canon but doesn't replace the one to one communication pattern between God and people (ie you can have a relationship with God without the bible.)

43

Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!

by Qcmbr in

i've been doing my homework having been stung by the vehemence of the evolutionary believers - i've got some interesting things that maybe science in the classroom could approach.

some premises - .

evolution is only a theory - its not a fact any more than newtonian physics was a fact.

Qcmbr

Creationists would expect to find that:

1/. Within the boundaries of a lifeform there should be sufficient genetic material to cope with changes to its environment. It shouldn't need to adapt a new mutation to cope with things around it. If the environment is sufficiently stressful either the organism will move, die or use some current genetic ability. Staying put and becoming a new species should be unseen. However, there should be tremendous variety within a species as their should be lots of different uses of the same pool of genetic material (ie lots of different variations on a theme but no new theme emerging.)

2/ Using simple breeding (ie not getting deep and dirty with genetic material) should produce many breeds but no new species. It must be shown to be impossible to breed a new species (ie creation expects deck shuffling but not the appearance of new cards in the deck.) As a side note these bred animals should revert back to the original stock they were derived from if left alone in the wild with access to other variations.

3/ Current genetic propagation mechanism would be expected to be the least efficient means to propagate mutations. Creation would expect to find that mutation is not a viable means of expressing change and would study the following to see evidence of design:
a) Mutations occuring in one single organism must be passed on - clearly this is very likely in single celled creatures / species that can propgate without interaction but highly unlikely in complex animals especially those that use an admixture of genetic material.
b) They would expect to see large scale efforts by organisms to repair mutation damage or to destroy such mutations. They would expect to see garbage cleaning on a genetic level to reduce and eradicate genetic mutations.
c) They would expect to see proteins that are radically different between species with no viable transitional stages. Changes at the genetic level should render the use of available proteins impossible or extremely injurious. Protein reliant cellular activity would be expected to be limited in its ability to mutate by requiring mutated proteins to be available that can immediately be used.
d) Cellular mutations would be expected to be eradicated rapidly by cell renewal and where a single cell were able to replicate itself beyond the lifecycle of other cells it should be found to normally destroy the whole organism rather than inducing a positive benefit.

4/ Creationists would expect to see many traits that do not enhance viability or propagation of genetic material (altruism, protection of the weak, fidelity, consciousness, play, spirituality, will, artistic ability and appreciation etc..)

5/ A very elegant, simple code to life that could express extremelly complex ideas very simply but very precisely (any mistakes should destroy that code.) This code would bear the marks of intelligence (structure order, purpose, grammar, syntax) and should be readable as any other language. It should show the same traits as a language - gibberish if not compiled along strict rules and yet within the boundaries of those rules should be capable of expressing vast amounts of information.

Side point - shared evidences between competing theories are sometimes expected because they are trying to explain the same observed information. Creation / Evolution / ID do not sit demarked by lines on every single point. Its perfectly acceptable to use the same information in multiple arguements.

PS for anyone wishing their sports enjoyment spoiled by outrageous posters - sorry I haven't been watching any sport:) Sorry 'bout last night! - right I'm off to bed before the eggs start flying!

43

Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!

by Qcmbr in

i've been doing my homework having been stung by the vehemence of the evolutionary believers - i've got some interesting things that maybe science in the classroom could approach.

some premises - .

evolution is only a theory - its not a fact any more than newtonian physics was a fact.

Qcmbr

To avoid this thread degenerating into a religious discussion about my lds beliefs (which I expressely suggested it shouldn't! - if you want to discuss those you are welcome to start another thread :) Just a reminder that I was looking for what creationists would expect to see - in fact only Old Soul has tried this while it seems to me that some people took it as an attack on evolution. Its not.

9

Buddhist / Taoist / Christian Hybrid

by EvilForce in

so when i have to explain what i believe to people and how it can coinside with one another i must mention the jesus sutras.

they're a group of teachings that go back centuries.

a group of christian monks left persia to enter china in the year 635, and established a small christian community inside china.

Qcmbr

Yes. Thanks EF I'll look up these writings - are they online?

I've always loved reading and thinking about buddhist and taoist teachings. There are so many concepts that enrich and enlighten the other thinking - when I read these these ideas its like little lights going on inside and I see myself reappraising christian teachings.

When I read the NT I tread a difficult path when I try and tease nuggets of meaning from verses of scripture written by a culture two thousand years removed from me and then translated through to my english culture and the english culture of medieval to modern day. Add to that my personality and sometimes I think my understanding is a million miles away from the original. Finding new approaches to the same philosophical and practical problems - ideas such as karma really illustrate the ideas well.

I read a book on eastern thinking and western scientific thinking - it was brilliant (chaos and vishnu section was an eye opener.)