# OT - Pope has died



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

*Pope John Paul II dies at 84*










The 84-year-old head of the Roman Catholic Church, who struggled to overcome the effects of his advanced age and Parkinson's disease, died Saturday after suffering "septic shock and a cardio-circulatory collapse."

VATICAN CITY


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I don't want to sound insensitive to Cathlics, but he is just another person who has died to me. I just don't get it. What's the big deal with the pope?


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

MAS RipCity said:


> I don't want to sound insensitive to Cathlics, but he is just another person who has died to me. I just don't get it. What's the big deal with the pope?


Well, alot of people would ream you for this comment, but the Pope himself expressed that dying has to happen, and that he is just another person and when he dies, he's just going to die like any other man. So what you said is a valid point, but people usually get upset when their spiritual leader passes away.


----------



## white360 (Apr 24, 2004)

Rip


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Well, he won't play tonight, he's on the injured list, but he's not dead. 

I'm not sure why anyone cares anyway. He was averaging only 3 minutes/game.
I think Kenyon Martin is a bigger story than Mark Pope, apparently KMart is questionable for tonight.

barfo


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

barfo said:


> Well, he won't play tonight, he's on the injured list, but he's not dead.
> 
> I'm not sure why anyone cares anyway. He was averaging only 3 minutes/game.
> I think Kenyon Martin is a bigger story than Mark Pope, apparently KMart is questionable for tonight.
> ...


euheuheuehuehe


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

MAS RipCity said:


> I don't want to sound insensitive to Cathlics, but he is just another person who has died to me. I just don't get it. What's the big deal with the pope?


Ignore the religious aspect of it for a moment... this is a man who is looked up to, admired, and followed by hundreds of millions of people on a global basis.

Popes don't die every day, and even those of us who don't follow his faith should acknowledge the historical importance of the event IMO.

Ed O.


----------



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Ignore the religious aspect of it for a moment... this is a man who is looked up to, admired, and followed by hundreds of millions of people on a global basis.
> 
> Popes don't die every day, and even those of us who don't follow his faith should acknowledge the historical importance of the event IMO.
> 
> Ed O.


why? you didn't explain why we need to, just said to do it like everybody else says to do. I didn't know him, and he never did anything that effected my life, so i could care less if he were alive or dead. just another person put up there for us to respect, when we have no idea why we should respect him.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

tradetheo said:


> why? you didn't explain why we need to, just said to do it like everybody else says to do. I didn't know him, and he never did anything that effected my life, so i could care less if he were alive or dead. just another person put up there for us to respect, when we have no idea why we should respect him.


I think you missed Ed's point. His point was not that you should respect him, but that it is an interesting event because so many other people respect him.

That doesn't mean you should care - you don't have to. But it is a reason why one might care, even though one's own life isn't affected.

barfo


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

one might also wonder if hotwheels ever made a "pope mobile"...


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

tradetheo said:


> why? you didn't explain why we need to, just said to do it like everybody else says to do. I didn't know him, and he never did anything that effected my life, so i could care less if he were alive or dead. just another person put up there for us to respect, when we have no idea why we should respect him.


If he's just another person to you, then why would you even bother to comment on his death? Just ignore it. The pope matters a lot to some people, so why can't you just let those people have their moment without injecting your own lame-*** commentary?

BTW, if you had any sort of reading comprehension skills, you'd have noticed that Ed. O didn't say you should 'respect' the pope, only that you should acknowledge that this does have some historical significance.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

ummm... i did say "popemobile"!


----------



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

fork,  please talk like an adult and be respectful. you sure care about the pope huh?


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

tradetheo said:


> why? you didn't explain why we need to, just said to do it like everybody else says to do. I didn't know him, and he never did anything that effected my life, so i could care less if he were alive or dead. just another person put up there for us to respect, when we have no idea why we should respect him.


I think you have missed the point of the thread. I know you have missed the points that Ed O had laid out and no where does he say *"YOU"* should respect the Pope, so you post is kinda moot.

You said you didn't know him and he never did anything at effected *"YOUR"* life.......well that maybe all true, but this Pope was involved in many things that shaped the world that *you* and I live in.



> Pope John Paul II was remembered Saturday as a "champion of human freedom," a "tireless advocate of peace" and a man with a "wonderful sense of humor." He died Saturday aged 84 after a long battle with Parkinson's disease and crippling arthritis. "We will always remember the humble, wise and fearless priest who became one of history's great moral leaders," President Bush said.


I would like to think that a man that is loved by hundreds of millions would gather a little respect from people that don't know him. I myself am not Catholic, but I respect what John Paul II did with his life, but then again, it doesn't mean you need too.

My question for you is, who do you respect? I think that your statements about this event speak volumes about how you see the world and how people should be respected in it. :whatever:


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

tradetheo said:


> why? you didn't explain why we need to, just said to do it like everybody else says to do. I didn't know him, and he never did anything that effected my life.


Then let me enlighten you. The Pope was a linchpin in the fight against communism, and the end of the Cold War. Together with Reagan, he succeeded in the first substantive rolling-back of the iron curtain, in Poland. 

Thanks in part to Pope John Paul, you live in a world which is not threatened at any moment by Armageddon.

So he did lots which affected your life. And now you know it!



For more info in this direction, see http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006504

iWatas


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Iwatas said:


> Then let me enlighten you. The Pope was a linchpin in the fight against communism, and the end of the Cold War.


Jeez. And all this time I thought it ended because true communism has failed financially at every turn and the country known as the Soviet Union fell apart. 



> Thanks in part to Pope John Paul, you live in a world which is not threatened at any moment by Armageddon.


I'm glad he's stopped those angry guys in the middle east. 

Yeah, right. We're more likely to experience a nuclear holocaust NOW than ever we were during the Cold War. The "Cold War" was a facade to pump money. The capital machine, baby.

Of course, this post is not meant in any way to show disrespect to the deceased. I'm not a catholic, and I don't see the Pope as a spiritual guide for myself. But, I respect what he's done and inspired in others.

Although, maybe we can get some stem cell research done, now that his opinion isn't being asked by our president. (By the way, isn't that just fundamentally wrong?) :biggrin: 

Play.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

tradetheo said:


> fork,  please talk like an adult and be respectful. you sure care about the pope huh?


Actually, I'm an athiest. 

But I don't mindlessly thrash dead people because I don't agree with them.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> Then let me enlighten you. The Pope was a linchpin in the fight against communism


Well, as the bbb.net commie pinko, I guess I've finally defeated my old nemesis, Popeman. Hah hah, Popeman, you have no defense against my old-age ray!

barfo


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

over 1 billion catholics worldwide

enough said


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> over 1 billion catholics worldwide
> 
> enough said


Wow. Now there's a great statistic ... 

follow the herd.

I mean, we all know McDonald's food is good for you because they've served "billions and billions".

Play.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Iwatas said:


> Then let me enlighten you. The Pope was a linchpin in the fight against communism, and the end of the Cold War. Together with Reagan, he succeeded in the first substantive rolling-back of the iron curtain, in Poland.


No, like Reagan, the Pope is only notable (as regards the USSR) in happening to be around when the USSR systematically failed and collapsed from within. Nice accident of timing. I was presiding as class president of my sixth grade class when the USSR fell. So, really, it was Reagan, the Pope and myself that ended the Cold War.

That said, it's a shame that the Pope died and he was worth respecting for his intelligence (he spoke some absurd number of languages and often gaves masses in the native languages of countries he visited) and his seemingly sincere valuation of life.

I'm not a Catholic, and he was not a spiritual guide for me, but he was for many.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

He once spoke of Gahndi as a idealogical mentor and like you said was very influential in the politics of eastern europe. He reached out to the Jews as no other Pope had.

I won't knock his accomplishments but I've always thought he came up short in calling upon the leaders of the muslim faith to denounce the people that kill others in the name of Islam. Of course they may have dismissed him as an Infidel but IMO that would point out the digression of the muslim leadership as a religion of peace.


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> Thanks in part to Pope John Paul, you live in a world which is not threatened at any moment by Armageddon.



I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this. The Pope has absolutely nothing to do with the coming war of Armageddon. Nothing at all.

As far as his death is concerned, I'm sorry that another person is dead, and I feel empathy for all Catholics who are grieving at this time. It must be hard to lose the figurehead of your religion.

Although I am not Catholic, and I absolutely despise the Vatican, I can't help but feel bad for the millions of people who are going to be so distraught for weeks.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

A world leader is a world leader. The people that followed The pope as a spiritual lead are present in all corners of the world. 

I don't grieve for his passing as I am not a Catholic. But I do see the significance in world history. His passing is much like the passing of Mother Theresa and that of Ghandi. We will see ti again one day when the Dhali Lama passes. People who devote their lives to the well being of mankind are always missed in my book. 

He will be replaced.

BTW on an interesting note according to Nostradomas the next Pope will be the pope that sits in Vatican at the end of the world. So based on those Prophecies we're in that timefream as soon as a new pope is apponted. ANd No I don't put any stock in it.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> A world leader is a world leader. The people that followed The pope as a spiritual lead are present in all corners of the world.
> 
> I don't grieve for his passing as I am not a Catholic. But I do see the significance in world history. His passing is much like the passing of Mother Theresa and that of Ghandi. We will see ti again one day when the Dhali Lama passes. People who devote their lives to the well being of mankind are always missed in my book.
> 
> ...


....and with that said I am sure you'll all sleep great tonight, thanks Schilly! :biggrin:


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> No, like Reagan, the Pope is only notable (as regards the USSR) in happening to be around when the USSR systematically failed and collapsed from within. Nice accident of timing. I was presiding as class president of my sixth grade class when the USSR fell. So, really, it was Reagan, the Pope and myself that ended the Cold War.


Sure. And history is inevitable. No great leaders ever come or go. And everyone in 1980 said that Communism was doomed. And I am a strawberry shortcake.

Communism did not fail solely because of economics. The USSR had a lousy economy for decades, and it did NOT systematically fail. What pushed Communism over the edge was a combination of factors, but a MAJOR one was that people's perceptions changed. They began to see and inescapably recognize that America had a better system. They began to see that Communism's spread was not inevitable. And they began to realize that people cared about freedom, and were willing to risk their lives in its pursuit.

The pope, wrt Poland in the early 1980s, created the first major crack in the world's (and the Soviet people's) confidence that Communism was going to be an inevitable success.

iWatas


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

barfo said:


> Well, as the bbb.net commie pinko, I guess I've finally defeated my old nemesis, Popeman. Hah hah, Popeman, you have no defense against my old-age ray!
> 
> barfo


Do you ever bring anything meaningful to a discussion?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> over 1 billion catholics worldwide
> 
> enough said


And I'm one of them.....it's great you can do whatever you want as long as you go to confession and confess to it.....


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Since when were religous threads allowed? Does this mean that we can bring back the political threads too?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Do you ever bring anything meaningful to a discussion?


No, do you think I should?

barfo


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Tince said:


> Since when were religous threads allowed? Does this mean that we can bring back the political threads too?


It all depends on whether the moderators are interested in the topic or not.....


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

barfo said:


> No, do you think I should?
> 
> barfo


Yea give us some enlightening commentary, rather than your pop in derisive comments....


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Yea give us some enlightening commentary, rather than your pop in derisive comments....


It is said that the derisive noise known as a raspberry came to be called that via Cockney rhyming slang: fart rhymes with raspberry tart.

barfo


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

Tince said:


> Since when were religous threads allowed? Does this mean that we can bring back the political threads too?



I've read a lot of your posts so I'm sure you're intelligent enough to see the difference in this but just in case..

This isn't a thread advocating or discussing the merits of a specific religion. This is a thread talking about the passing of a pretty influential historical figure.

On a different note, I am Catholic but I thought Play's response to whoever said something about a billion Catholics was pretty damned funny. Nice.


----------



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

Iwatas said:


> Then let me enlighten you. The Pope was a linchpin in the fight against communism, and the end of the Cold War. Together with Reagan, he succeeded in the first substantive rolling-back of the iron curtain, in Poland.
> 
> Thanks in part to Pope John Paul, you live in a world which is not threatened at any moment by Armageddon.
> 
> ...


i think armegeddon happened for some people on sept 11th, 2001. we were alot closer during the bay of pigs to coming to nuclear war, then we ever were during the 80's. im not saying he didn't do anything, but I think alot of these people are made out to be more then they really are, and people make a big thing about their death when they didn't even know the person. kinda like elvis fans, who cry like babies thinking of him dying, when he didn't know them. just seems kinda odd, or a sign this person hasn't seen anything in their life or they wouldn't be worried about a 84 year old pope half the world away.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

tradetheo said:


> i think armegeddon happened for some people on sept 11th, 2001. we were alot closer during the bay of pigs to coming to nuclear war, then we ever were during the 80's. im not saying he didn't do anything, but I think alot of these people are made out to be more then they really are, and people make a big thing about their death when they didn't even know the person. kinda like elvis fans, who cry like babies thinking of him dying, when he didn't know them. just seems kinda odd, or a sign this person hasn't seen anything in their life or they wouldn't be worried about a 84 year old pope half the world away.


So when a posters "love one", a World Leader, or even Michael Jordan passes your saying "big deal" because you didn't know them personally? You’re also saying that the "Pope" is made out to be more than he really is? Even if your not Catholic this is a historic event that affects the world in which we all live, be you Catholic, Muslim, or Atheist.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm jumping in this thread late, but I'll still put in my two cents.....

Even though I am not Catholic, I highly respected Pope John Paul II for his strong stance on the sanctity of human life. He was a unwavering proponent for the unborn and for the disabled.......taking the side of human life even in his last days.

Rest in peace.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> Even though I am not Catholic, I highly respected Pope John Paul II for his strong stance on the sanctity of human life. He was a unwavering proponent for the unborn and for the disabled.......taking the side of human life even in his last days.


Way to bring the taboo subject of abortion up...

As the used to say in Connect-4:
_"Pretty sneaky, sis"_

I'm all for helping the disabled - but when it comes to the collection of cells known as a fetus ... I'm going to have to go on more than biased agendas, feelings and would ove to have some hard evidence.

Play.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

Hard evidence of what, Play?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> Hard evidence of what, Play?


That a fetus is little more than a cluster of cells - no more and no less alive (in the cognizant term) than the sperm that fertilized the egg.

Play.


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

I was suprised that he was only 85. I thought he was about 102. For the last 13 years or so, he's looked like he was about ready to roll over and die any minute. 

I was tired of seeing "Pope Health Updates" everyday. It was time for him to go. He's body looked anemic, like he never got any excercise. 

The next Pope should be a fitness nut, not someone who looks like his head is going to fall off his shoulders any minute.


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> That a fetus is little more than a cluster of cells - no more and no less alive (in the cognizant term) than the sperm that fertilized the egg.
> 
> Play.


That's selective reasoning. The embryo and blastocyst are cell clusters, but very soon into the pregnancy, the cells begin to differentiate, and there is a beating heart and brain activity pretty early on in the pregnancy, abortions do occur many times at these stages. Just stating the facts of the situation.


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

> This isn't a thread advocating or discussing the merits of a specific religion. This is a thread talking about the passing of a pretty influential historical figure.


Exactly! 

I am not Catholic or particularly religous, but the Pope (especially one in power 25+ years who traveled the world as he did) is arguably the most recognized person on this planet. Whether you knew him or not, whether you respect him or not, wherether you care about him at all or not, he was a major historic figure and his passing is big news.

Least we can do is have a respectful OT thread about it without digressing into a debate on religion or abortion.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

CelticPagan said:


> That's selective reasoning. The embryo and blastocyst are cell clusters, but very soon into the pregnancy, the cells begin to differentiate, and there is a beating heart and brain activity pretty early on in the pregnancy, abortions do occur many times at these stages. Just stating the facts of the situation.


It is no more selective in reasoning as as advocating that sparkles of brain activity and a beating heart constitute life. 

It's a matter of semantics.

I can't be pro-abortion or anti-abortion unless I am fully apprised of all facts available. There are no facts that can prove or disprove cognizant life at this point in development.

Besides, if the body can spontaneously abort and kill a fetus at this point - then isn't it the same thing? Somehow I doubt that an all-powerful God of the Christian Bible would allow a fetus's eternity be based upon a few weeks of non-functioning life. And if he does - then we should abort all fetuses ... as that would ensure that they go to heaven and don't have a chance to screw up their "grace".

Personally, I just can't abide by a "faith" based reason to force children into this world and to mother's that don't want them and can't afford them. Sure, adoption exists, but the system is flawed and most of the children spend extensive time in it. 

Forcing a child into an existence that is almost guaranteeing them a high probability of failure or pain is pretty selfish to me. Especially when it isn't YOU making the decision and you don't have proof of any "spiritual life" inside the child other than your own biased opinion.

Now, if someone can prove to me that there is a connection and that doing this is terminating something other than a conglomeration of cells that are subdiving amonst themselves ... then I'll change my stance. Otherwise, I think advocating a position of "anti-abortion" is agenda based and completely selfish.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

NBAGOD said:


> Exactly!
> I am not Catholic or particularly religous, but the Pope (especially one in power 25+ years who traveled the world as he did) is arguably the most recognized person on this planet.


I'm still going with MJ and Ali on that one.



> Least we can do is have a respectful OT thread about it without digressing into a debate on religion or abortion.


I think that he has died. It's over. We've said our peace and if we discuss, within the scope of respectful human beings, the things he felt were dear we are celebrating his life more than any discussion of his passing could.

We are continuing to discuss his legacy. We are giving purpose to his life outside of his own personal achievements. 

I think, as long as the discussion is kept respectful, talking about his views is the ultimate celebration of his existence.

So, while you see the topic "digressing", I think it is "progressing".


Play.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I agree with Play. That's the last post I'll make on that particular subject.

As far as the Pope goes...he seems like he was a good guy. Happy Trails dude. Too bad you practiced a mis-guided religion.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> This isn't a thread advocating or discussing the merits of a specific religion. This is a thread talking about the passing of a pretty influential historical figure.


Therin lies the significance of his death, irregardless of what he had done during his life here. The leader of the Catholic Church, which has over 1 billion members is a signifcant individual, thus his passing is definitely newsworthy.



> Wow. Now there's a great statistic ...
> 
> follow the herd.
> 
> I mean, we all know McDonald's food is good for you because they've served "billions and billions".


Yeah...Just like McDonald's  Or like accusing catholics of following the "herd"....

Whatever...


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> Therin lies the significance of his death, irregardless of what he had done during his life here. The leader of the Catholic Church, which has over 1 billion followers is a signifcant individual, thus his passing is definitely newsworthy.


Did you just say irregardless?

Wouldn't "regardless" suit your purposes?

:biggrin:


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

What has happened to _TOLERANCE_ of different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, viewpoints??

Some of you state opinions so strongly as to keep all other thought or ideas - repressed. Some of you sound really _angry_ at ideas that cause you to look at something in a new light.

It's kind of like being a fan of the Blazers......some of us have _FAITH_(not proof) they will get better in the future. Some also have _FAITH_ (not proof) that there is a GOD, who created us in his image, and forgives what we do against others, when we admit and confess it.

Why is that mis-guided?

John Paul II was a great leader of the Catholic/Christian faith. He lived what he preached. I encourage others to take this time to learn more about his life and work. You might find something to have _FAITH_ about.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> What has happened to _TOLERANCE_ of different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, viewpoints??
> 
> Some of you state opinions so strongly as to keep all other thought or ideas - repressed. Some of you sound really _angry_ at ideas that cause you to look at something in a new light.
> 
> ...



It is Catholicism that is mis-guided. More death and suppression of knowledge has occurred in the name of that particular religion than any other


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> Yeah...Just like McDonald's  Or like accusing catholics of following the "herd"....
> 
> Whatever...


*ALL YOUR BASE BELONG TO US!*   

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I wasn't "accusing" them of doing anything, anymore than saying 1BILLION people actually states something within and of itself.

The statement "1 Billion followers, that's all I have to say" is pretty illconceived.

It's like Pascal's wager. It's flawed in its inception, thus any rhetoric created from it is equally flawed.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> What has happened to _TOLERANCE_ of different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, viewpoints??


I've often asked this question.

When it comes to religion, I've never quite understood the fear of acceptance of others.



> Some of you state opinions so strongly as to keep all other thought or ideas - repressed. Some of you sound really _angry_ at ideas that cause you to look at something in a new light.


For me, I find that most organized religion is oppressive and counter-intuitive.

But, that's me. But, I also think each person has to find their own path to enlightenment, and if Catholisicm helps one do that - then awesome.

I just know, for me, it would not work. 



> It's kind of like being a fan of the Blazers......some of us have _FAITH_(not proof) they will get better in the future. Some also have _FAITH_ (not proof) that there is a GOD, who created us in his image, and forgives what we do against others, when we admit and confess it.


I hope you aren't referring to me, as I have no qualms with what another feels they need to do.



> You might find something to have _FAITH_ about.


Don't take this as an attack, I am just stating how I believe:
I find faith to be a weak excuse for not trying to understand. I find it to be a crutch. Faith allows one to "not think" and "not question". It allows one not to work for truth.

Does that mean everyone does this? Of course not. It just allows one to and using an age old quote: "an object at rest tends to remain at rest". 

What I do find offensive though is your assumption that if one looks into the life of the Pope and his teachings that they might find something to have faith about. Thus, it would inevitably mean that they currently lack faith in anything. I think this is probably an incorrect assumption for the most part.

Play.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

tlong said:


> It is Catholicism that is mis-guided. More death and suppression of knowledge has occurred in the name of that particular religion than any other


I agree with you that some Catholics *WERE/ARE* awful, ruthless, power-mongering, people, who did/do not follow what the religion stated. Yes, Pope's and Catholics did/do bad things against others. 

It's not the RELIGION that is flawed - but the PEOPLE who are. Please don't lump everyone in the same basket. It's like saying all Blazers are pot-smokin, ref-swearing, coach tirading, overweight athletes.

A few give all a bad name.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

tlong said:


> It is Catholicism that is mis-guided. More death and suppression of knowledge has occurred in the name of that particular religion than any other


Easy on the blunt attacks. 

It's that type of phrasing that depreciates the conversation.

I agree, to an extent, that Catholicism if fundamentally flawed. But, that is my personal viewpoint, as I believe the Christian Bible is fundamentally flawed. Thus, all beliefs derived solely from its texts (especially when the facts are taken as a literal translation) would be flawed.

But, that isn't to say my view isn't incorrect and that the flaws I see are actually flaws. 

As for the death and supression, I agree the church has been at the heart of a lot of it. It's easy to corrupt when you have access to power. I wouldn't blame the religion, inasmuch as I would the human leaders behind it. But, I would take this argument a step further and say that religion in general has caused more supression, strife, suffering and death than any other man-made creation.

Play.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Here's my two cents.

Faith is an amazing thing. It comforts many in a time of need. It helps some people cope with grief and confusion. Your own personal relationship with whatever belief you have is a very powerful and meaningful thing.

Religion, on the other hand, is divisive and a cause for much of the world's problems. Too many people have died because of it, when it really should be one's own personal relationship with his or her faith.

I'm not religious. I've not attended one church session. Christians scare me, because they tend to have this sense of righteousness, where nobody else could possibly be right. They are very unaccepting. They say they will accept you, but only if you believe what they believe. Like Ghandi said, "Christianity is one of the most beautiful, accepting religions I've ever studied. Unfortunately, I've never met a Christian."

I don't know. I guess I just don't get why religion is outwardly such a big deal to so many people. Just believe in your own faith. Embrace that. Go to sleep at night knowing that you have something that nobody else in the world has. Or that everyone else in the world has. But know that your personal feelings about what's right and moral and how people should live their lives is YOUR definition of a solid and good lifestyle. Accepting the fact that others have extremely different, but equally important definitions is when people will truly be able to live in religious harmony.

Until then, shut the hell up, read your bible or Koran or whatever, and keep me out of it.

-Pop


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Easy on the blunt attacks.
> 
> It's that type of phrasing that depreciates the conversation.
> 
> ...



We agree. Thanks for the softer words.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> .....I'm not religious......Accepting the fact that others have extremely different, but equally important definitions is when people will truly be able to live in religious harmony.......Until then, shut the hell up, read your bible or Koran or whatever, and keep me out of it.
> 
> -Pop


You're funny.

But you are religious.........."one who is relating or devoted to that which is held to be of ultimate importance"........your religion is BLAZERS.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

Did I start this? If so, I sincerely apologize.

As best as I can tell, life cannot be quantified. It can't be seen under a microscope......although evidences of it can be observed. At _some_ point from conception until death, life is somehow mystically infused into a person. I don't know how else to describe it. It isn't something people can do artificially. It is supernatural. It is God doing it. It only makes sense to me that this infusion of life occurs at conception. Otherwise, where would it logically be done???? Seems to me that all other stages where people might argue that life begins are arbitrary or would differ from case to case. The only one that really makes objective sense is that life is there from the very beginning.

Play, you evidently disagree, but the questions you raise and your arguments don't make any sense to me. It's no problem to me if you are good with those arguments, but they mean nothing to me.

Again, I apologize if I am responsible for hijacking this thread. I have an idea, however, that the pope would be glad the issues of human life were addressed.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> At _some_ point from conception until death, life is somehow mystically infused into a person. I don't know how else to describe it. It isn't something people can do artificially. It is supernatural. It is God doing it.


Just because humans can't do something doesn't mean it's supernatural. Humans can't currently do nuclear fusion, as it require massive temperatures; it happens in stars. That doesn't make it supernatural, the fact that humans can't artificially reproduce it. Humans have limitations even in regards to perfectly natural things that don't require God to explain.



> It only makes sense to me that this infusion of life occurs at conception. Otherwise, where would it logically be done????


Why must there be a logical "infusion point" of life? When you turn on a light using a dimmer switch, when is the light "on?" After you've moved the dial slightly but before you can see any evidence of light? When you see the first ray of light? When the light is fully on? Some processes aren't on/off but take place gradually. That makes it impossible to draw a strict line and fuels all these arguments.

My stance has always been: In the first trimester, the fetus has no cognitive functions that anyone considers "human" (scattered activity over differentiating neurons is not human cognitive ability; it's lower level than what cows and chickens have). In the third trimester, the fetus is clearly alive and many would say resembles a human, in function and appearance. So, the change-over happens sometime in the second trimester (though there's no precise point in that three-month period that once can say "now"). So, it makes sense to me to allow abortion in the first trimester and only after the first trimester to save the life of the mother.

The key is, really, when is it _human_ life? "Life" is too vague; the sperm has life prior to insemination. Do we need to preserve sperm? Eggs, too.

And I agree with you...I see no disprespect in discussing these types of issues in a thread about a man who was passionate about such issues. This is his legacy.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> Did I start this? If so, I sincerely apologize.


No need to apologize.

It give us something to talk about.



> As best as I can tell, life cannot be quantified. It can't be seen under a microscope......although evidences of it can be observed.


The eternal question must then be posed:

What is life?

If one can qualify life, then one can probably discuss wherein it begins.



> At _some_ point from conception until death, life is somehow mystically infused into a person. I don't know how else to describe it.


Is it?

Let me ask you - are you "you" or are you simply a being that is acting out chemical balances and imbalances? 

The argument can be made that you are little more than a reactionary creature with little to no mind of their own. For, what is free will when even the slightest change in your body chemisty can alter your perception of that which you call real?

You can be brought to murder your mother if the chemical levels imbalance enough or enough programming is done to you.

So - I pose the question to you: Are you truly who you think you are? Are you real or just storing data like a computer, processing and then reacting? Is your personality truly yours or just the chemicals that make you up?



> It isn't something people can do artificially.


Ah. But there is little doubt that we will. (and to an extent, I believe we have)

What will this do to your perceptions?

If man can create life, then what does that mean?



> It is supernatural. It is God doing it.


At one point in our "not-so-distant-past" we believed that the sun mystically rose on our horizon and sank mystically. All done by mystical beings that determined our fates.

We believed the world was flat and you could reach the end of the world.

Only a year ago we believed that the speed of light was constant.

All things we think we "know" we don't. We only have a "current understanding" of it. 

At this point in our development, we don't understand why the cells do what they do or what life really is. Are you ready to sit on a high throne and say that we will never understand this mystery?



> It only makes sense to me that this infusion of life occurs at conception.


Ah-ha! There it is!

What is it that I am talking about?

You stated YOUR purpose and your agenda. You have no proof, you just stated the only thing that makes sense to you. Which is hardly reason enough to dictate something as law or fact.



> Otherwise, where would it logically be done????


Are you truly asking for my interpretation or is this rhetorical?

I can provide you what I understand to be true.



> Seems to me that all other stages where people might argue that life begins are arbitrary or would differ from case to case.


Do you not see your definition as equally arbitrary? 

Is it any more correct than any other guesstimate? Is it more accurate than any other theory? It is all opinion and experience based.

Again, I have my own theory, is it more or less correct than yours? I can tell you that it is FAR more correct than yours - to me. Therein lies the understanding - it's all perception.



> The only one that really makes objective sense is that life is there from the very beginning.


Why? Why does this make sense to you as the only one that is objective?

I'll pose it a different way:
"Who says that life is ever created or lost?"



> Play, you evidently disagree, but the questions you raise and your arguments don't make any sense to me.


Do they not? What part do not make sense? Address them and I can unconfuse you.

Play.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> In the context of the numerous and violent attacks against human life today, especially when it is weakest and most defenseless, statistical data point to a veritable "slaughter of the innocents" on a worldwide scale. A source of particular concern, however, is the fact that people's moral conscience appears frighteningly confused and they find it increasingly difficult to perceive the clear and definite distinction between good and evil in matters concerning the fundamental value of human life.
> ~Pope John Paul II on abortion and euthanasia May 19, 1991


Tell me Play...what's a life worth?


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> What part do not make sense? Address them and I can unconfuse you.
> 
> Play.


Definitely top 10 in a list of quotes of the day.

-Pop


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Target said:


> Tell me Play...what's a life worth?


I have no clue as to what the quote has to do with the question. 

There seems to be a disconnect.

But, you asked the question - thus I will answer it in it's entirety.

The first fundamental flaw that you have with your question is that you are asking the question from the stance (and thusly making the assumption) that the fetus is a "human life". Since this is not my viewpoint, how can I answer the question in the manner it was posed? 

I don't make the assumption, and it is little more than an assumption, that the human fetus is a human life. So, I'd ask you to rephrase your question into a question from an objective biewpoint.

The metaphysical answer, and thusly, the greater more all-encompassing answer is simple. 

_There is no value that can be attached to that which cannot be taken or given._

Play.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Target said:


> Tell me Play...what's a life worth?


www.humanforsale.com

-Pop


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I don't make the assumption, and it is little more than an assumption, that the human fetus is a human life.
> Play.


Little more than an assumption? How damn arrogant of you. When does a fetus turn into a human? Only when you can hear it scream? 

In less than one percent of the average life span a fertilized egg becomes a human being. How many times and how fast has your body changed since you were born? Have you not matured? It is only logical to assume life begins at conception. It is completely illogical and self serving to think otherwise.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> www.humanforsale.com
> 
> -Pop


I'm worth:
$2,945,122.00

WOOHOO!


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Target said:


> Little more than an assumption?


Yes. Little more than an assumption.

Just as it is an assumption to think otherwise.



> How damn arrogant of you.


It is arrogant of me to state a simple fact. You have no proof to the contrary other than opinion and "facts" created through your opinions.

Yet, I can claim I do no more than assume myself - yet I am the arrogant one.

There is a story about a pot and a kettle. You should read it.



> When does a fetus turn into a human? Only when you can hear it scream?


Possibly. Who are you to deny it?

Perhaps I don't even believe you are alive? Perhaps I think this is all just THE dream state. 

Perhaps I believe human life is little more than an illusion.

But, I guess in answer to your question - when does a fetus turn into a human - it would depend on what you consider a human being.

Since the most concise definition of "human" is something that has the form of the species **** sapian - I would guess somewhere between the 3rd Trimester and after birth. 



> In less than one percent of the average life span of a fertilized egg becomes a human being. How many times and how fast has your body changed since you were born.


I don't know. I don't have a ruler.



> Have you not matured since you were born?


Sure. I also have a number two pencil that has matured since I've owned it - I certainly wouldn't define it as a living human being.

Maturation is hardly concrete grounds for proving your argument. What, in your existence, does not mature and change? The real mindblower is that perhaps NOTHING changes or matures, only the way in which you choose to experience it does.



> It is only logical to assume life begins at conception.


Why? What makes this the most "logical" assumption?

I think it is the most ILLOGICAL.

Logic denotes thought and since it is unknown when human life is actually "attained", there is almost an infinite number of known and unknown points and variables that could denote it. To assume one is more or less correct is the antithesis of logic.



> It is completely illogical and self serving to think otherwise.


What service am I being granted by believing otherwise?

If I have a self-serving opinion, I must be being served at some point. I fail to see where I am being served. Please point this out, since you chose to define it as such.

What you've failed to do is create any logical connection in your argument other than "this is what i believe, therefore it is logical". Stating something is logical is a far cry from proving it to be logical.

It's called "circular reasoning". Kind of like when you tried to "prove" your religion to me. 

Again, I can tell you how I believe and why I believe it and why I find that it is the most correct stance for me to hold - then you can try to poke holes in my understanding. Perhaps that would help you out. 

Play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

is this starting to go political? because um..it's like, bad m'kay?

keep it clean folks (tho it doesn't seem to be going there, we have had cases were it gets dirty real quick. Keep it nice and civil and I'll let it stay open till it runs it's own course.)


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Hap said:


> is this starting to go political? because um..it's like, bad m'kay?
> 
> keep it clean folks (tho it doesn't seem to be going there, we have had cases were it gets dirty real quick. Keep it nice and civil and I'll let it stay open till it runs it's own course.)


I'm proud of us Blazer fans. (and one lone Reef fan)

We're holding a REALLY volatile conversation without getting nasty.

It's like the days of yore, before the board became completely polluted.

Play.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Whatever Play. 

I'm sure you could fill fifty pages with your diatribe on reality and perception but it adds absolutely squat to your argument in my eyes. Like so many of your beliefs I find them to be selfish and self flattering at the utmost.

I don't have religion. I do believe in a God but I am not reverent at all. I can't say it's the Christian god or the Jewish/Muslim god or even Buddha.

I do believe in human life and find people that assume that life begins at birth to be rationalizers. They can justify the abortional taking of life for selfish reasons as less than what it is. That is where the value of life question comes in. Isn't the life worth responsibility for the indescretional act of sex?

To abort a healthy fetus is to deny it life no matter where it begins.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

First off.....I am not trying to debate or convince. Maybe I didn't mention that in my first post. To be honest, I'll be out-debated _every_ time.....particularly faced with the likes of Min and Play! 

I'll try to address a few issues, but truth be told, I know we won't come to any consensus. I believe in God. I believe the Bible is true. That is my starting point. That is my bias. If there is disagreement on those two points......and I think there is......then there will necessarily be disagreement on these other topics that are in discussion today because my POV on issues of life come directly from my belief in God and the Bible. 

We will have to agree to disagree, because not only am I unable to dissuade you from your opinion, I am totally unwilling. Nonetheless, I respect you.



> _Originally posted by Minstrel_
> 
> Just because humans can't do something doesn't mean it's supernatural.


Totally agree and I never said anything to the contrary. But, nonetheless, if something _is_ supernatural than it is logically out of the realm of the natural.....and not possible by human (natural) means. The initiation of life is such.



> Why must there be a logical "infusion point" of life?


Because if we agree that life is eventually in that mass of cells, it must get in there somehow and at some point. If you want to say it gradually gets in there.....that's fine. But at some instant in time there is _some_ tiny spark of life in there. Life has begun.



> My stance has always been: In the first trimester, the fetus has no cognitive functions that anyone considers "human" (scattered activity over differentiating neurons is not human cognitive ability; it's lower level than what cows and chickens have). In the third trimester, the fetus is clearly alive and many would say resembles a human, in function and appearance. So, the change-over happens sometime in the second trimester (though there's no precise point in that three-month period that once can say "now"). So, it makes sense to me to allow abortion in the first trimester and only after the first trimester to save the life of the mother.


I'm quite aware of your stance, as we have discussed this in times past. 
We differ here, because my definition of human life doesn't require any congnitive ability. Yours does. Fundamental difference which precludes consensus. 



> The key is, really, when is it _human_ life? "Life" is too vague; the sperm has life prior to insemination. Do we need to preserve sperm? Eggs, too.


Doesn't seem so, since conception hasn't occured. That question has never made sense to me. 

Do we need to save all our squamous epi cells that get scraped off the inside of our cheeks when we brush our teeth? Neither sperm or eggs alone, or squamous epi cells are capable by themselves of developing into a human being, yet they are living.



> And I agree with you...I see no disprespect in discussing these types of issues in a thread about a man who was passionate about such issues. This is his legacy.


Finally, something we agree on!


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

With most of this thread moving into an un-winnable debate with religious beliefs, I'll try and stay on topic. Regarding the Pope's death, may he rest in piece, but to me, it's not a big issue. He lived a long and prosperous life and everyone knew his days were numbered so this is no surprise. I'm not catholic, but maybe now they can get a younger pope who won't put up with all the hiding of the sexual abuse cases. IMO, they shouldn't keep a pope in charge until his last breath. They just can't do a good job when they get that old and are going down hill fast.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> Do we need to save all our squamous epi cells that get scraped off the inside of our cheeks when we brush our teeth? Neither sperm or eggs alone, or squamous epi cells are capable by themselves of developing into a human being, yet they are living.


Sperm and egg alone cannot be enough to create life.

But, cheek cells or any cell for that matter, are quickly becoming a source to replicate a life.

To me - and I don't believe this contradicts your religious beliefs:

Life cannot be created nor destroyed. I think that was the final message of the one you consider to be the "son of God". It was to demonstrate that life is the illusion, you cannot destroy life.

Play.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Scout226 said:


> With most of this thread moving into an un-winnable debate with religious beliefs, I'll try and stay on topic.


MAY YOU BURN IN HELL!!!! (trying to sound like Adam Sandler)


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Target said:


> Whatever Play.


Powerful statement that sums up most of your arguments quite succintly.

You cannot prove your points, so therefore you throw your hands up. 

"Whatever", indeed.



> I'm sure you could fill fifty pages with your diatribe on reality and perception but it adds absolutely squat to your argument in my eyes.


That is because you are unwilling, and perhaps unable, to look at things you can't comprehend. That's fine and perfectly understandable.

Truth is garnered when one is willing to accept it, not a moment before. Not to say that my truth is the ultimate truth, but I am open to anyone and anything that has a conviction that can be explained logically and rationally. A well-thought out argument can be persuasive, and even if I don't adopt the ideal as my own, I might find how it does apply to me.

You, on the other hand, seem unable to do so.



> Like so many of your beliefs I find them to be selfish and self flattering at the utmost.


Again, your opinion seems to be clouding your ability to make an arguement.

Explain to me what is selfish and flattering about what I believe? 

I'd also like to know who else holds my beliefs. It would be interesting to meet the people that came to the same conclusions I did through independent study.



> I don't have religion. I do believe in a God but I am not reverent at all. I can't say it's the Christian god or the Jewish/Muslim god or even Buddha.


Okay. 



> I do believe in human life


What does this statement mean? 

I believe in margaritas. I don't understand what you mean. What are you driving at with this statement?



> find people that assume that life begins at birth to be rationalizers.


Yes, rationalizers they are.

A rationalizer is often defined as someone who:
_"devises self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior"_



> They can justify the abortional taking of life for selfish reasons as less than what it is.


Yet, forcing someone to have an unwanted child is "unselfish"?

Forcing a child into a life wherein the parent neglects and blames the child is this morally absolute "unselfish" act of kindness?

Please remove yourself from the saddle of "holier than thou".

You refuse to see the two sides. I can understand and comprehend the argument about life - yet, no one can prove that it is little more than cells that are still dividing. If someone could prove more than that, I might change my stance. 

Yet, you refuse to see your own selfish views. I don't see you asking to take care of the children that don't have parents that want them. I don't see these children getting the attention they need to survive and thrive. What I see is a bunch of unwanted birth that gets the *** end of the horse.

Thanks, but I wouldn't have wanted that life ... that's for sure.



> That is where the value of life question comes in. Isn't the life worth responsibility for the indescretional act of sex?


Who are you to pass moral judgements? What makes the act "indescretional"? You don't think married couples get abortions? You don't think two people deeply involved might get an abortion?

Please step off the train and join reality.

Again, though, you have yet to prove that life begins at conception. You have to concede that. You cannot prove it any more than I can prove it does not. Thus, how can you force your views on anyone?



> To abort a healthy fetus is to deny it life no matter where it begins.


The human body naturally aborts a lot of pregnancies. By a lot, I would guesstimate about 20-40% of all pregnancies are naturally terminated before the woman even realizes she is pregnant.

So, by your definition - God has inherently made the woman's body a baby slaughter machine. 

Go God!

Again, you come to this argument and never provide much support for your stance and quite often refuse to acknowledge the points made by others. Normally because they are much more solidly thought out than your own.

Try again, Target. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Scout226 said:


> With most of this thread moving into an un-winnable debate with religious beliefs, I'll try and stay on topic.


I don't think it is about winning or losing.

I think it is about the free exchange of ideas and the chance to think and solidify your own understanding. Perhaps in the dialogue and exchange, you learn something new. 

This is how true learning is achieved. 

Play.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Playmaker0017_
> The eternal question must then be posed:
> What is life?
> If one can qualify life, then one can probably discuss wherein it begins.


Similarly, if we can't agree on what life actually is, then we can't agree on when it begins. 



> You can be brought to murder your mother if the chemical levels imbalance enough or enough programming is done to you.


Well, actually, I can't....since my mother is already dead. But, go on.....



> So - I pose the question to you: Are you truly who you think you are? Are you real or just storing data like a computer, processing and then reacting? Is your personality truly yours or just the chemicals that make you up?


You are getting off the subject a bit, perhaps, but again it goes back to what is life?....Or more specifically what is human life? We do not use the same definition, so we will not come to the same conclusions.



> Ah. But there is little doubt that we will.


Really? How much doubt qualifies as "little doubt"? There is a lot of doubt in my mind, that humans will ever be able to infuse life artificially into non-living human tissue and create a living being. No more death and dying!!! Wow!!! Move over Dr. Frankenstein....



> At this point in our development, we don't understand why the cells do what they do or what life really is. Are you ready to sit on a high throne and say that we will never understand this mystery?


Saying what makes logical sense to me is not sitting on any high throne. If it doesn't make sense to you, I don't have a problem with that. Why do you?



> Ah-ha! There it is! What is it that I am talking about? You stated YOUR purpose and your agenda.


My only purpose and agenda is to state what I believe to be true. Is this some kind of big revelation to you????



> You have no proof, you just stated the only thing that makes sense to you. Which is hardly reason enough to dictate something as law or fact.


I stated exactly what I believe to make logical sense. When did I dictate something as law or fact???????????



> Are you truly asking for my interpretation or is this rhetorical?
> I can provide you what I understand to be true.


I've given my opinion on what seems logical to me. Minstrel and Target also have. If you would like to add your two cents, go ahead. It is up to you.



> Do they not? What part do not make sense? Address them and I can unconfuse you.


LOL.....I very much doubt you can! 

Our starting points are different. Our assumptions are different. Our conclusions are different. My conclusions evidently don't make any more sense to you than yours do to me.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Explain to me what is selfish and flattering about what I believe?


Your endless wordsmithing is as diahrea to your arguments. All it stands up to is knowing where the keys are that make the letters appear on your keyboard. Of course you might argue that none of it matters because it's been proven through independant study of like minded thinkers that reality is only a concept right?

riiiiiight. 



> What does this statement mean? I believe in margaritas. I don't understand what you mean. What are you driving at with this statement?


This statement means that I don't have to debate philosophical perception and bring up off the wall subjects to know that humans are alive. 



> Yet, forcing someone to have an unwanted child is "unselfish"?
> 
> Forcing a child into a life wherein the parent neglects and blames the child is this morally absolute "unselfish" act of kindness?
> 
> ...


My point exactly Play. 

Yet your stance supports people that find it easier to destroy the fetus than to deny themselves a sexual experience. That is the selfish behaviour I'm talking about right there buddy. IMO recreational sex is irresponsible. Sex can be at least as addictive and destructive as any narcotic.

If you are old enough to play you should be responsible enough to accept the consequences. Abortion is often no more than a ticket to ride. 



> The human body naturally aborts a lot of pregnancies. By a lot, I would guesstimate about 20-40% of all pregnancies are naturally terminated before the woman even realizes she is pregnant.
> 
> So, by your definition - God has inherently made the woman's body a baby slaughter machine.


Apparently you chose to ignore the point I was making to add some sort of mental mastubatory dramatic element to your argument so I'll repeat it and underline the important part you missed.

<b>To abort a <u>healthy</u> fetus is to deny a human being life no matter where life begins.</b>

Oops...sudden rePlay


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I don't think it is about winning or losing.
> 
> I think it is about the free exchange of ideas and the chance to think and solidify your own understanding. Perhaps in the dialogue and exchange, you learn something new.
> 
> ...


True, I agree with that. I just thought the same ideas were going back and forth. Nothing new. Or just the standard talking points of each side.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Scout226 said:


> True, I agree with that. I just thought the same ideas were going back and forth. Nothing new. Or just the standard talking points of each side.


Nah..I have to disagree Scout.

I've never heard anyone say they believe in Margaritas during a debate on abortion. Play is on the leading edge here. IHOM!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> First off.....I am not trying to debate or convince. Maybe I didn't mention that in my first post. To be honest, I'll be out-debated _every_ time.....particularly faced with the likes of Min and Play!


Well, there's nothing competitive about this! I'm never interested in "winning" debates like these; I'm much more pleased when accord can be reached, though that's rare, unfortunately.



> Totally agree and I never said anything to the contrary. But, nonetheless, if something _is_ supernatural than it is logically out of the realm of the natural.....and not possible by human (natural) means. The initiation of life is such.


I understand that you work from the starting point of belief in God. However, what if you are wrong that life is the sole province of God? How would you know, if you simply _define_ life as initiated by God, rather than reason it as such? It does seem possible, for example, that humans may one day initiate life...amazing progress has been made in genetics, cloning, etc.



> Because if we agree that life is eventually in that mass of cells, it must get in there somehow and at some point. If you want to say it gradually gets in there.....that's fine. But at some instant in time there is _some_ tiny spark of life in there. Life has begun.


But, as I said, there may be no such single moment. Here's a different example: If you are driving somewhere, when is the _exact moment_ that you've gotten "there?" As you approach the city? When you cross the city limits? When you reach the parking lot? Etc. We can all agree that you eventually did get there...but isn't it impossible to mark a single point as the moment when you "got there?" The reason for that, at least in part, is because "getting there" is a vague concept, as is "human life." There is no precise definition for it, we each go by "we know it when we see it" types of evaluations. Such phenomena can never be said to have an exact moment of becoming.



> Doesn't seem so, since conception hasn't occured. That question has never made sense to me.
> 
> Do we need to save all our squamous epi cells that get scraped off the inside of our cheeks when we brush our teeth? Neither sperm or eggs alone, or squamous epi cells are capable by themselves of developing into a human being, yet they are living.


Yes, they are living. So if all we are concerned about is "life," we really should care more about sperm, eggs and squamous epi cells. But we aren't; we're concerned with "human life." So, yes, a fertilized egg is "life"...but it is far from obvious that it is "human life" already.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> Similarly, if we can't agree on what life actually is, then we can't agree on when it begins.


Yet, you have not defined what you believe human life is.

Hence, how can we truly disagree. I don't know what it is you believe. 



> Well, actually, I can't....since my mother is already dead. But, go on.....


My apologies, it was not meant in a derogatory manner.



> You are getting off the subject a bit


I don't believe I was. It all centers around the same basic principle. If you cannot define life in and of iteself, then how can you ever define where it begins or ends.



> Really? How much doubt qualifies as "little doubt"?


Good question.

I feel there is no doubt that given an unlimited timespan that mankind would develop this ability.



> There is a lot of doubt in my mind, that humans will ever be able to infuse life artificially into non-living human tissue and create a living being. No more death and dying!!! Wow!!! Move over Dr. Frankenstein....


They used to say the same things about reaching the moon.

Is life any more a "miracle" than any other thing that happens on a day to day existence? I think not. 



> Saying what makes logical sense to me is not sitting on any high throne.


Sure it is. If you state there is no way for this advancement to happen - it is a lofty statement. Just as it was lofty when the scientists of the day said all discoveries that can be made have been made. Interesting they say this before the information age, where our understanding has grown exponentially more.



> If it doesn't make sense to you, I don't have a problem with that. Why do you?


I don't. You assume it does.



> My only purpose and agenda is to state what I believe to be true. Is this some kind of big revelation to you????


Yes.



> I've given my opinion on what seems logical to me. Minstrel and Target also have. If you would like to add your two cents, go ahead. It is up to you.


I am not under the impression Target has said much of anything.

What I believe deals with the nature of life and existence itself. I've kind of lost the moment, and since you really don't seem receptive, I'm not going to waste the energy. Unless you truly wish to know. In that case, I would gladly share it with you.



> Our starting points are different. Our assumptions are different. Our conclusions are different. My conclusions evidently don't make any more sense to you than yours do to me.


Don't assume I don't understand your position. 

I believe that on a humanistic level, it makes perfect sense. It is when I extrapolate it out to a universal level that it seems to lose it's power. 

Play.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I don't think it is about winning or losing.
> 
> I think it is about the free exchange of ideas and the chance to think and solidify your own understanding. Perhaps in the dialogue and exchange, you learn something new.
> 
> This is how true learning is achieved.


Heh, nicely said...I agree completely. I said much the same thing before I got down to this post.


----------



## Focus (Feb 13, 2004)

I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about Pope John Paul II, but I know he respect other religious around the world. This alone desire my full respect. May he rest in peace.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Target said:


> Your endless wordsmithing is as diahrea to your arguments.


That almost makes sense.

Thanks for sharing.



> All it stands up to is knowing where the keys are that make the letters appear on your keyboard.


Yet, everything I say is completely and utterly thought out. Everything I believe has a purpose and is joined to the next concept. I consider what I believe to be a "unifing" theory. The is no discord among my thoughts. One opinion doesn't invalidate another and one construct doesn't destroy the other.

So, while you may not be able to comprehend what I say and what I profess, it doesn't make it any less thought out. 



> Of course you might argue that none of it matters because it's been proven through independant study of like minded thinkers that reality is only a concept right?


No, I'd ask you to define reality. 

Is reality the computer in front of you? Or is reality happening elsewhere? Is your perception reality the same as someone else's? 

If I can prove to you, and yes it can be done, that the computer in front of you doesn't exist then you have to wonder what does?

The one universal concept, to me at least, is that God is. Nothing exist outside of this. Nothing is created or destroyed, nothing exists that is not God and nothing doesn't exist that is not of God.

Can I define God? No. I don't believe the human mind is capable of grasping it. It would be like trying to grasp a fleck of dirt in the bathtub. Everytime you try to close in and get it, it eludes you. The harder you try the further it gets away.



> riiiiiight.


You are a victim of the illusion and the beauty of physicality. That's okay. 

I could be very wrong, and I may be far from understanding anything. I'm willing to admit to my own fallibility. 



> This statement means that I don't have to debate philosophical perception and bring up off the wall subjects to know that humans are alive.


Nor do I. 

I choose to. 

I choose to do so, because your arguments are lacking. I can simply say silly things, and this silliness is enough to destroy any foundation you've laid. 

The question of whether humans are alive is a base one. It inevitably leads to greater questions. Such as: What is life? What is death? 

I don't believe in beginnings or endings. I believe in God. I believe in the infinite. I believe beginnings, endings and such trivial things are very human concepts, formed to explain the universe from our little pin***** view of it all.

I'm sure I've told you the story of the three blindmen that stumble upon an elephant. 



> Yet your stance supports people that find it easier to destroy the fetus than to deny themselves a sexual experience.


This is bad, why?

I feel that experience, both humanly defined as "good" or "bad" is the prime reason for existence. 

See, you and I differ, because you come from the sexually repressed side of things. I don't think that sex is "naughty" nor something that should be abstained from. I think it is a beautiful thing that should be shared.



> That is the selfish behaviour I'm talking about right there buddy. IMO recreational sex is irresponsible.


Recreational, eh? Define this.

I'm sorry you have a very bland sex life and that you are repressed. This saddens me, but the rest of the world should not revert so that you can sleep comfortably.



> If you are old enough to play you should be responsible enough to accept the consequences.


Exactly. 

If you are old enough to play, you SHOULD be old enough to be responsible. Responsibility often entails making tough decisions. I don't think the majority of people take abortion or child rearing or adoption lightly. 

Getting an abortion *IS* dealing with the consequences. 



> Apparently you chose to ignore the point I was making to add some sort of mental mastubatory dramatic element to your argument so I'll repeat it and underline the important part you missed.


Underline away.



> <b>To abort a <u>healthy</u> fetus is to deny a human being life no matter where life begins.</b>


That is waht you felt the need to underline. Did you feel this would lend creedence to your views? I regret to inform you that you are incorrect.

It's obvious that your understanding of medicine is equivalent to the level of sexual repression you wish to force upon others. 

A woman often aborts completely healthy fetii (or would it be fetuses). This is due to the fact that a woman's body is not always capable of sustaining life for any number of reasons ranging from timing to stress. But, more often than not, the fertalized egg (usually weeks old) will be expunged from the woman's system just like any other menstral cycle period.

In truth, more healthy fetuses are expunged than "unhealthy". Furthermore, a woman's body will abort a child at any point during the pregnancy to save the mother. 



> Oops...sudden rePlay


Was this supposed to be insulting after you erroneously thought you made some point?

Play.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Hmmm...I think this thread is getting away from the topic which simply was a statement that a Man had died. A famous man and a leader of masses. 

Instead of people just saying their RIP's or ignoring for some reason people feel the need to be disrespectful and turn it into a theological debate, which it shouldn't be.

An old man has passed and thats it. If he is important to you then I extend my condolences. If it's not important to you, you have the right to continue not having it important, rather than feeling that his death is a license for you to take shots at the man and/or the religion.

Since this is a baketball forum, that allows OT topics to announce world/local events that are noteworthy, there is nothing wrong with stating that the Pope has died. It's really no different to saying that MLK died, or Princess Diana, or anyone else who had an impact on the world we live in. 
Unfortuantely some people have to prove that they are calous people devoid of seeing that it does impact a pretty good share of people on this noard and throughout the world.

I'm not catholic, but I'm also not ignorant enough to aknolwedge that the Popes death is a significant event in the world.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> That is waht you felt the need to underline. Did you feel this would lend creedence to your views? I regret to inform you that you are incorrect.
> 
> It's obvious that your understanding of medicine is equivalent to the level of sexual repression you wish to force upon others.
> 
> ...


Again you ignore the substance of the statement.

It doesn't matter where life begins. 

A <u>medical procedure</u> commonly called an abortion denies a fetus a chance to develop into a human regardless of any other factor that Play can think up.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

And BTW since we are now delving into the Theological/ethical aspects of topics like creationa nd abortion....Thread closed.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Target said:


> Again you ignore the substance of the statement.


I didn't ignore anything.

I pointed out that a female's body will naturally abort a "healthy" fetus. This actually happens more often than not, as most pregnancies aren't carried full term. In fact, most pregnancies are terminated within the first three weeks.

Therefore, a woman's body is a baby murdering machine.



> It doesn't matter where life begins.


I don't believe it ever begins, nor does it end. It just becomes cognizant of this current form. But, okay.



> A <u>medical procedure</u> commonly called an abortion denies a fetus a chance to develop into a human regardless of any other factor that Play can think up.


A procedure called mastrabation denies the chance for billions of sperm cells a chance to develop into a human.

What I pose as a question though is - what is sacrosanct about allowing a fetus, that is unwanted and unloved, to develop into a child that is equally unwanted and unloved?

Play.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Hmmm...I think this thread is getting away from the topic which simply was a statement that a Man had died. A famous man and a leader of masses.
> 
> Instead of people just saying their RIP's or ignoring for some reason people feel the need to be disrespectful and turn it into a theological debate, which it shouldn't be.
> 
> ...



As long as people are not being disrespectful to the Pope, I don't think there is any reason to take exception. This is a message board and the discussions tend to evolve in mysterious ways. I don't think a theological debate is disrespectful to the Pope, as long as the discussion is civil and posters are respectful of each other's opinions. 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

LOL

C'mon Play you are grasping at straws. Comparing masturbation to abortion?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Target said:


> C'mon Play you are grasping at straws.


I'm really not. You just refuse to look at an argument and actually comment on it.



> Comparing masturbation to abortion?


I agree - it's equally as inane as saying that abortion is killing the fetuses chance at life. 

Play.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

Well....I don't have near as much time today to devote to this discussion as I did yesterday, but it so happens that I was in the middle of a post replying to Minstrel when this thread got shut down. I sent the post to Min as a PM, but I will go ahead and post it here:

~~~~~~~~~~~~



> _Originally posted by Minstrel_
> I understand that you work from the starting point of belief in God. However, what if you are wrong that life is the sole province of God? How would you know, if you simply _define_ life as initiated by God, rather than reason it as such?


But you see, Min, to me it is reasonable that life is the sole province of God. To you it might not be. So maybe I am right. Maybe you are right. Maybe neither of us is right. Still, to me it is reasonable. So my definition works perfectly for me.



> It does seem possible, for example, that humans may one day initiate life...amazing progress has been made in genetics, cloning, etc.


I see a huge difference in cloning and "creating" life. So to me, I don't see the mystical infusion of life into tissues as something at all in the realm of human possibility. I have done plant and invertebrate tissue culturing in research laboratories. Did I observe the growth and even differentiation of living tissues? Yep. Did I observe the creation of new life? Nope.



> But, as I said, there may be no such single moment.


And, as I said, I think there may well be such a single moment.



> The reason for that, at least in part, is because "getting there" is a vague concept, as is "human life." There is no precise definition for it, we each go by "we know it when we see it" types of evaluations.


Do you mean that there is no "single" definition, instead of no "precise" definition. I think I have quite a precise definition for when life begins......although how far does the sperm have to penetrate the egg for conception to occur?.....Maybe it is not precise to the microsecond, but I think most would consider it quite precise. 

I agree that there are "many" definitions. I just happen to think mine makes the most sense.



> Such phenomena can never be said to have an exact moment of becoming.


Sure they can. Just define it that way. We do this all the time.

By definition we accept 3.1416 for the value of pi. Actually, that isn't quite right but it is a good approximation for most purposes. Is it precise? Not really. Does it work most of the time? Yep. Do we usually need to know the value out to 100,000,000,000,000 places???? I don't. In fact, 3.14 is almost always good enough. It isn't exactly right. But it works. Does it bother me that I don't have the exact value for pi? Not a bit.

My definition of life beginning at conception is an approximation that works perfectly for me. Knowing down to the microsecond doesn't concern me. If that definition doesn't work for you. That's fine with me.



> Yes, they are living. So if all we are concerned about is "life," we really should care more about sperm, eggs and squamous epi cells. But we aren't; we're concerned with "human life." So, yes, a fertilized egg is "life"...but it is far from obvious that it is "human life" already.


Microscopically, it doesn't appear to be human, but to me it is only logical that it must be.........having human DNA and all. But again, there is this difference between a living squamous epi cell and a fertilized egg. Something living doesn't necessarily have a "human life" in it. The English language has few words that distinguish between living and containing something like a living soul or spirit. But what I am trying to say is that an epithelial cell can be alive without having this living spirit in it. (Now I foresee a problem because we may have different starting points on even the existence of living spirits.  )


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Why is there such a preoccupation with "human" life anyway? The presumption seems to be that there is something mystical, or divine regarding the creation of human life and I don't get it. I wonder what kind of controversy will be created when extra-terrestrial life is finally discovered? It is only a matter of time before this happens. The universe is far too large and there are far too many inhabitable worlds to conclude that the earth is the only place where life exists. In my opinion this theory, if proven true, completely debunks all christian religious teachings.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

tlong said:


> Why is there such a preoccupation with "human" life anyway? The presumption seems to be that there is something mystical, or divine regarding the creation of human life and I don't get it. I wonder what kind of controversy will be created when extra-terrestrial life is finally discovered? It is only a matter of time before this happens. The universe is far too large and there are far too many inhabitable worlds to conclude that the earth is the only place where life exists. In my opinion this theory, if proven true, completely debunks all christian religious teachings.


How tall are the alien beings?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

tlong said:


> Why is there such a preoccupation with "human" life anyway? The presumption seems to be that there is something mystical, or divine regarding the creation of human life and I don't get it.


It's simple - because that's what we are. Humans.

It's kind of like if you bought a BMW. You'd identify with other BMW drivers. 

We are humans, so it is natural for us to think we are the center of all mysteries. We are the only species worth a grain of salt. 

Think about it - only several hundred years ago - the Earth was the center of the universe and it all rotated around US. Talk about ego.



> I wonder what kind of controversy will be created when extra-terrestrial life is finally discovered? It is only a matter of time before this happens. The universe is far too large and there are far too many inhabitable worlds to conclude that the earth is the only place where life exists.


Wow. That's opening a whole other bag of chips. 

It could also be said that the universe is far too small.

It all depends on what you consider life. Inside our own body entire populations live and trive. They live, breathe, eat, die. Just like anything else. To an extent, they even have free will.



> In my opinion this theory, if proven true, completely debunks all christian religious teachings.


To me, aAlmost everything contradicts and debunks the Christian mythos. The problem is that most Christians can't accept it, so they rely on a simple phrase to cover their hides: "Faith".

I see this as a very ingenius way of putting one's head in the sand and refusing to think outside the box. To discover truth for themselves. 

Play.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Fork said:


> How tall are the alien beings?


At least 6'.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

> _Originally posted by tlong_
> Why is there such a preoccupation with "human" life anyway? The presumption seems to be that there is something mystical, or divine regarding the creation of human life and I don't get it.


Again, coming from the presupposition that God exists and that the Bible is true, the preoccupation with human life being special is based on mankind being made in the image of God......which I think probably means we are self-aware, have a consciousness of right and wrong, the free will to choose whether to do the right thing or the wrong thing, and we have an eternal soul. These things set us apart from the animals and other living organisms.



> I wonder what kind of controversy will be created when extra-terrestrial life is finally discovered? It is only a matter of time before this happens. The universe is far too large and there are far too many inhabitable worlds to conclude that the earth is the only place where life exists. In my opinion this theory, if proven true, completely debunks all christian religious teachings.


How would that debunk all Christian religious teachings?


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> Again, coming from the presupposition that God exists and that the Bible is true, the preoccupation with human life being special is based on mankind being made in the image of God......which I think probably means we are self-aware, have a consciousness of right and wrong, the free will to choose whether to do the right thing or the wrong thing, and we have an eternal soul. These things set us apart from the animals and other living organisms.
> 
> 
> 
> How would that debunk all Christian religious teachings?



Mankind being made in the image of God would not make sense any more. If other intelligent life exists, what about them?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> Again, coming from the presupposition that God exists and that the Bible is true, the preoccupation with human life being special is based on mankind being made in the image of God......which I think probably means we are self-aware, have a consciousness of right and wrong, the free will to choose whether to do the right thing or the wrong thing, and we have an eternal soul. These things set us apart from the animals and other living organisms.


I've always thought that was a strange idea...man being created in God's image. 

Why would god give us an appendix? Why would god be constructed so inefficiently. The human shoulder is a disaster, it's constantly on the verge of coming out of socket. The hip is the same...really poorly engineered. I've read that in a few hundred thousand years, we'll have four toes per foot...the small toe will have evolved off our body. 

Why would god have such blatant design flaws? What's the point of that?


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

tlong said:


> Mankind being made in the image of God would not make sense any more. If other intelligent life exists, what about them?


Well, first of all, I don't think life evolved here on earth. God created it here. If there is life on other planets, God created it there, too. I think it unlikely that He would have created what we usually think of "intelligent" life in both places, since the God's plan of salvation was set forth before the foundation of the world to take place on this planet. 

As far as other life forms, though, I don't know why He might not have plants or animals elsewhere. Maybe not....but, maybe. We really don't know. The Bible says nothing about the existence of any kind of ET life like that, but I don't think it precludes it, either. But it doesn't make sense, from a Biblical perspective, that there would be intelligent, self-aware beings with living souls anyplace else.

Now, on a bit of different twist to this subject, there do seem to be an increasing number of cases of what might be termed extra-terrestrial sightings, be they weird abduction stories or just "flying saucer" appearances. I don't know how to explain these, but it seems like there are just too many accounts from otherwise reliable sources for a wholesale dismissal of them. Some of these people must be seeing _something_! Whether there is a logical explanation for them all or not, I don't know. I think they are usually seen by people who are expecting to see them. I personally haven't ever seen one......although in North Central Idaho, who can tell who is an alien and who isn't!  Maybe some "flying saucers" are secret military missions......or just normal aircraft.....or any of a million other things. Who knows?

There is a book I want to read that was written by a Christian author who talks about UFOs and aliens. His thesis seems to be that there truly are aliens, but they are what people might call demons. I have only read reviews about the book, so don't ask me much about it until I get the book. I am not a big one into angels and demons and that sort of thing, but I am interested to see what he says about this. I will withhold judgment until then. I only mention this as a possible explanation for intelligent ET life.

Done rambling for now................


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Of course there is always the theory that UFOs arent mentioned specifically in the Bible as they weren't deemed as somehting mankind had to know about when the Bible was written.

And there is the theory that many of the phenomina described in the bible were in fact alien encounters. 

There are many theories, the bible doens't mention basketball either, but I'm pretty sure it exists.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

Fork said:


> I've always thought that was a strange idea...man being created in God's image.
> 
> Why would god give us an appendix? Why would god be constructed so inefficiently. The human shoulder is a disaster, it's constantly on the verge of coming out of socket. The hip is the same...really poorly engineered. I've read that in a few hundred thousand years, we'll have four toes per foot...the small toe will have evolved off our body.
> 
> Why would god have such blatant design flaws? What's the point of that?


Since God is spirit, I don't think sharing physical features is what is meant by 
being made in the image of God. 

As for the design flaws, I have an idea that our flawed bodies are "cheap imitations" of the perfect ones God created in the first place that were designed to live forever. Biblically, we see that when sin and death entered the world, physical bodies began to age and die. Again, after Noah's flood which cataclysmically changed the earth and its atmosphere, more damaging effects were leveled on earth's inhabitants. 

The design apparently was perfect in the beginning, but is not anymore. This seems to be due at least partly to copying errors and mutations. Just as copying a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy leads to a poorer quality document, our DNA has been copied for millennia. And when you think about it, even with this flawed copy of a body that we each have, it still most of the time works amazingly well!


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Oh my god. I'm floored. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm completely shellshocked after reading this post. I will comment to the best of my ability.



Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> Well, first of all, I don't think life evolved here on earth. God created it here.


Wait - God has the power to create life, but does not have the power to create a system as perfect as evolution? 

God can create life but cannot create life through evolution? Nor can he create the process of evolution?

How limited your God is.

Everything else in this world, that we deem as reality, is structured and has a purpose. A causes B. B causes C. Yet, God's creation couldn't evolve?

Get to the end of this whole post, and I will have some questions that I would like answered. I would like to know how your God functions.



> If there is life on other planets, God created it there, too. I think it unlikely that He would have created what we usually think of "intelligent" life in both places, since the God's plan of salvation was set forth before the foundation of the world to take place on this planet.


God's plan of salvation has something to do with one planet upon millions to potentially limitless numbers of planets? I don't remember any part of the Bible that expressly stated that there is life only here and that experience here on this Earth is the only experience in the universe.

Does that mean if we build a space station or a base on Mars - and have a newborn - we won't go to Heaven, because we aren't experiencing life on this planet? Is this a cosmic loophole? Can I commit sin when I am outside the atmosphere of planet Earth with no repercussions? Where does Earth end and space begin?



> As far as other life forms, though, I don't know why He might not have plants or animals elsewhere. Maybe not....but, maybe. We really don't know.


Perhaps they aren't plants and animals at all.

Perhaps the crystals hanging from a cave are the sentient beings of the planet. Perhaps other planar/dimension beings that we can't see or interact with are another form of being. 

Planet Earth and our knowledge of it cover about the size of a pinhead, I'm sure.



> The Bible says nothing about the existence of any kind of ET life like that, but I don't think it precludes it, either.


No, but the Bible failed to mention this conversation, yet we are having it. It failed to mention who will win the world series, but I'm sure a team will. 

The Bible was written by people, even if divinely inspired, it was written by people. People with agendas. People with imperfect filters. So, while the words may have been pure - the being receiving it was receiving it in the manner in which they could cognitively understand it. Therefore, an imperfect copy.



> But it doesn't make sense, from a Biblical perspective, that there would be intelligent, self-aware beings with living souls anyplace else.


How does it not? 

Look - here are those questions:

Is the God you "know" to be true:
* Omnipresent?
* Omniscient?
* All-powerful?
* Infinite?

When I have your answers I can continue.

Play.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)




----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> Since God is spirit, I don't think sharing physical features is what is meant by being made in the image of God.


Nor do I.

But, I don't think we were created in an "image". I think it was a poor illustration as to what we are.



> As for the design flaws, I have an idea that our flawed bodies are "cheap imitations" of the perfect ones God created in the first place that were designed to live forever. Biblically, we see that when sin and death entered the world, physical bodies began to age and die. Again, after Noah's flood which cataclysmically changed the earth and its atmosphere, more damaging effects were leveled on earth's inhabitants.


So, God is imperfect? 

God must be imperfect if he is able to create imperfections. 

One cannot create or be that which they are not or do noit have a profound understanding of - therefore you are saying that God himself is imperfect. 



> This seems to be due at least partly to copying errors and mutations. Just as copying a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy leads to a poorer quality document, our DNA has been copied for millennia. And when you think about it, even with this flawed copy of a body that we each have, it still most of the time works amazingly well!


Ah. The old Xerox line. I've heard this before. The whole "sins of the fathers" passed down from generation to generation, thus degrading the original signal.

Except - on the humanistic side of things (as on the spiritual side, I believe we are perfect beings) - we are a much more finely tuned machine than our ancestors. So, the copy seems to be getting more and more refined. 

We're smarter (not educationally - but brainpower-wise), we're stronger, we're bigger and we're faster. We live longer - even without medicine. 

We're a more perfect "copy" than what was available 300 years ago. I can only imagine 6000 years ago (the biblical "startpoint").

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


>


Thanks for the addition. I'm sure we couldn't continue having a profound and generally thought-provoking topic without that.

Please, refrain from adding things like this in the future. 

This board is making a giant leap back to what it once was, and little wise-*** things like that were what helped bring it down.

You don't need to respond, except in PM. 

Play.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Oh my god. I'm floored. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm completely shellshocked after reading this post.


Really? Is it because you have you never met anyone who actually believes in a literal 6-day creation of the world as the Bible says? 

Or maybe I am such a poor representative of my views that you are floored.

BTW......I don't think you are being rude. 



> Wait - God has the power to create life, but does not have the power to create a system as perfect as evolution?


What is perfect about evolution? I don't see evolution as a perfect system at all. Even Darwin himself said his theory didn't really answer the questions of how the life forms he saw in his day came about. He assumed with enough time, intermediate forms would be discovered. There are only a few forms that have been discovered even nowdays that would remotely qualify as being termed "intermediate"........and those are considered questionable even among the secular scientific community.



> God can create life but cannot create life through evolution? Nor can he create the process of evolution?


Did I say that? It's true that I don't think He used evolution. But you are the one who said that He is incapable of it, not I.



> How limited your God is.


Really? How so?



> Everything else in this world, that we deem as reality, is structured and has a purpose. A causes B. B causes C. Yet, God's creation couldn't evolve?


Again.....your words......not mine. Although, it is true that I don't think God's creation evolved.



> Get to the end of this whole post, and I will have some questions that I would like answered. I would like to know how your God functions.


I am ready and waiting. 



> God's plan of salvation has something to do with one planet upon millions to potentially limitless numbers of planets? I don't remember any part of the Bible that expressly stated that there is life only here and that experience here on this Earth is the only experience in the universe.
> 
> Does that mean if we build a space station or a base on Mars - and have a newborn - we won't go to Heaven, because we aren't experiencing life on this planet? Is this a cosmic loophole? Can I commit sin when I am outside the atmosphere of planet Earth with no repercussions? Where does Earth end and space begin?


It's hard for me to believe you are asking this question seriously, Play, but I am going to answer you seriously, out of respect.

Salvation is for mankind....shall I say, humankind. The Bible says that there is no place that we can be out of God's sight. Mankind happens to be based on planet earth, so logically I refer to earth and the people on it as being the target for God's plan of salvation.



> Perhaps they aren't plants and animals at all.
> 
> Perhaps the crystals hanging from a cave are the sentient beings of the planet. Perhaps other planar/dimension beings that we can't see or interact with are another form of being.


Perhaps. So? Does this change anything?



> Planet Earth and our knowledge of it cover about the size of a pinhead, I'm sure.


Precisely. That's part of what makes it so fun to theorize and speculate. 



> The Bible was written by people, even if divinely inspired, it was written by people. People with agendas. People with imperfect filters. So, while the words may have been pure - the being receiving it was receiving it in the manner in which they could cognitively understand it. Therefore, an imperfect copy.


It would seem so if it weren't the inspired word of God, who is able to preserve it for His intended purposes. 

Are there copying errors? We don't have any original manuscripts, but we have some pretty old ones, and.....yes, there are some copying errors.

Is there an incredible amount of consistency from the oldest scripts available to the translations we use today? Yes.

There is more documentation to support the Bible, internally and externally, than there is for any other document of its age and yet we don't wonder and question whether we have Plato's words correct or not.



> How does it not?


It doesn't make sense Biblically for there to be intelligent, self-aware beings with living souls anyplace else, because there is only one suitable sacrifice for sins.....the perfect sinless only Son of God, Jesus Christ. He became one of us, not one of a cave crystal creature who hangs on a wall on some distant planet.



> Look - here are those questions:
> 
> Is the God you "know" to be true:
> * Omnipresent?
> ...


He is each of those things within the limitations that He has placed on Himself........and it appears that He has chosen to limit Himself in some ways that are not consistent with his nature.



> When I have your answers I can continue.


Okay.....please proceed.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> So, God is imperfect?
> God must be imperfect if he is able to create imperfections.
> One cannot create or be that which they are not or do noit have a profound understanding of - therefore you are saying that God himself is imperfect.


Not sure how you logically come to this conclusion when I already said that His creation was perfect and designed to last forever.



> Ah. The old Xerox line. I've heard this before. The whole "sins of the fathers" passed down from generation to generation, thus degrading the original signal.


I said nothing about "sins of the fathers". That has nothing to do with DNA copying errors.....at least not that I am aware of.



> Except - on the humanistic side of things (as on the spiritual side, I believe we are perfect beings) - we are a much more finely tuned machine than our ancestors. So, the copy seems to be getting more and more refined.
> 
> We're smarter (not educationally - but brainpower-wise), we're stronger, we're bigger and we're faster. We live longer - even without medicine.
> 
> We're a more perfect "copy" than what was available 300 years ago.


Are we? It doesn't seem so to me.

How are we smarter? 
How are we stronger?
How are we bigger?
How are we faster?
How are we living longer?

Not from 300 years ago, but say, for example, from when the Incas were engineering their incredibly advanced civilization.......They were somehow moving masses of stone back then that even today we lack the technology to move around. The stones were so precisely cut and the buildings so precisely engineered that even today you can't slip a piece of paper between them. We have many theories of how that was done, but cannot duplicate it ourselves. To me, it seems there is abundant evidence that ancient man was incredibly advanced.

Since I believe the Bible, it is hard to convince me that we live longer than they did back in Noah's day.

Surely we have technology that they didn't have yet back then, but most of our technology has developed over the last 50-100 years. Are you saying that evolution of the human is happening at that fast of a rate?



> I can only imagine 6000 years ago (the biblical "startpoint").


Same here. They must have been an amazing pair!!!


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I'm really not. You just refuse to look at an argument and actually comment on it..


Play... your denial of the potential a fetus represents is IMO an extreme disregard for the potential of humankind. 

To be honest I find your semantic game rather boring and mundane.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

I will gloss over most of this stuff as it is really just sparring point-counter point stuff. Not really meaty-juicy. 

I'll try to come to the heart quickly.



Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> Really? Is it because you have you never met anyone who actually believes in a literal 6-day creation of the world as the Bible says?


I have. 

After long discussions, I showed them a world outside of the Bible and its views. I showed them spirituality without limits. They were persuaded to look elsewhere and shed what they described as "chains" that bound them to their religion. They explored what they felt to be true. 

They didn't come to the exact conclusions I made, but they did look outside their limited world. I call the Bible limited, because most Christians are taught that to look elsewhere is sinful. To question God's word is sinful. It isn't an insult (well, it is in my eyes, but it isn't meant as an insult). 



> Or maybe I am such a poor representative of my views that you are floored.


No. I don't think you are a poor representative.



> What is perfect about evolution?


Evolution is perfect because adaption and change is perfect. 

To not evolve is to ensure a slow and painful death. 



> It's true that I don't think He used evolution.
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that we don't evolve?
> ...


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I will gloss over most of this stuff as it is really just sparring point-counter point stuff. Not really meaty-juicy.
> 
> I'll try to come to the heart quickly.
> 
> ...



Excellent post. 

And yes, Reef is painful to watch today.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> Not sure how you logically come to this conclusion when I already said that His creation was perfect and designed to last forever.


But, error was initiated into the system. To create fallibility is to know fallibility. To create error is to be erroneous. 



> I said nothing about "sins of the fathers". That has nothing to do with DNA copying errors.....at least not that I am aware of.


The people I talked to before that brought up the Xerox thing mentioned sins of the father. Sorry.



> Are we? It doesn't seem so to me.


Then you are denying evidence.



> How are we smarter?


IQs have gone up substantially since the introduction of the IQ test. Each successive generation smarter than the last. 



> How are we stronger?


100 years ago the average man was little more than 5' nothing. The average height has increased each year. Along with this height, we are packing on denser muscle. 



> How are we bigger?


Showed that above. Each generation is taller than the one before. Go to Boston and walk through a door to see an example of this.



> How are we faster?


The average speed in the 40 has consistantly decreased since it was used as a standard in the NFL. At one point 4.7 was quick. Now the slowest, biggest guys run in 4.8 while the guys that dwarf the largest men of yesteryear run it in under 4.6.



> How are we living longer?


Again, the life span of the average person has increased each decade.



> To me, it seems there is abundant evidence that ancient man was incredibly advanced.


Or they had an incredible amount of help. 

But, my argument isn't technologically based.



> Are you saying that evolution of the human is happening at that fast of a rate?


Technologically, yes. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Fork said:


> Excellent post.


Thank you. If there is anything I feel I can claim as my own, I claim my spirituality. I spent a lot of time thinking about it and drawing conclusions on my study. 

I came to it on my own terms and am very comfortable with it.



> And yes, Reef is painful to watch today.


I think he wants the season to be over. But - in his defense - he has been triple covered most of the night. 

Play.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Thank you. If there is anything I feel I can claim as my own, I claim my spirituality. I spent a lot of time thinking about it and drawing conclusions on my study.
> 
> I came to it on my own terms and am very comfortable with it.


I feel the same way. I wish that everyone (Christian, Muslim, Athiest, Buddhist, etc) had the same attitude. If you've ACTUALLY stidied and done a lot of though, I can respect that. Sticking to what your parents taught you is for the birds. 



Playmaker0017 said:


> I think he wants the season to be over.
> 
> Play.


Clearly. I can't blame him.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

I enjoy Purple Rain, will I go to heaven?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Sambonius said:


> I enjoy Purple Rain, will I go to heaven?


Thank you for this insight into the world of "spam".

Please refrain from posting nonsensical items and tidbits if you have nothing constructive to add.

It cheapens the discussion being had. People are spending time and thought discussing a subject that can boil emotions over, and we are doing a good job of keeping the subject fresh and not letting tempers flair. 

Your comment does nothing but cheapen that.

I'd appreciate it if you did not do this in the future. 

If you feel you have something more to add, please do so in a PM.

Play.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Thank you for this insight into the world of "spam".
> 
> Please refrain from posting nonsensical items and tidbits if you have nothing constructive to add.
> 
> ...



Self employed moderator.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Thank you for this insight into the world of "spam".
> 
> Please refrain from posting nonsensical items and tidbits if you have nothing constructive to add.
> 
> ...


LMAO Chill out Play. Have a drink and relax. This thread is as far as it should have gone. Take care brother.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I have.
> 
> After long discussions, I showed them a world outside of the Bible and its views. I showed them spirituality without limits. They were persuaded to look elsewhere and shed what they described as "chains" that bound them to their religion. They explored what they felt to be true.
> 
> They didn't come to the exact conclusions I made, but they did look outside their limited world. I call the Bible limited, because most Christians are taught that to look elsewhere is sinful. To question God's word is sinful. It isn't an insult (well, it is in my eyes, but it isn't meant as an insult).


I guess everyone has their journey and their story to tell. My "chains" fell off when I discovered that I didn't have to believe a flawed theory of evolution anymore and that I instead could believe the entire Bible as the true and living Word of God.

I had questioned and speculated and looked many places. The world outside the Bible that I experienced was fraught with logical problems that bothered me greatly. Majoring in Biology didn't exactly aid me in my quest to find God. I was a dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist.

It is said that those who are most convinced are the ones that needed convincing the most. I might not have nearly as strong of a belief in creation as stated in the Bible if I hadn't believed otherwise so strongly for so long.



> Evolution is perfect because adaption and change is perfect.


You lost me on that one, Play. How is adaptation and change perfect? The theory of evolution purports all these changes to be completely random. One might say that for every "beneficial" change (if there are any) there must have been countless numbers of failed "tries". That hardly seems perfect to me.



> To not evolve is to ensure a slow and painful death.


Seems to me the failed tries that evolution requires would likely cause quite a number of slow, painful deaths in itself. 



> Are you saying that we don't evolve?


The word "evolve" has a number of meanings. Which are you meaning?



> I've often wondered about the Christian God. He impregnates women without permission and forces people to write his words.
> 
> This isn't very loving.


Really? Which women did He impregnate without permission? Whom did He force to write His words?



> Because Plato didn't proclaim his word to be inerrant. He didn't claim to be any more than what he is.


And neither did God claim to be any more than He is.



> What support are you referring to? The stories of the OT were mostly tradition laden stories of important Jewish leaders and stolen mythologies from Egyptians and other tribes of the areas.


The support I refer to doesn't have to do with the Bible stories, as you seem to be referring to. I am talking about how the prophecies and accounts, written over a period of hundreds of years and over geographic spans that were for that day uncrossable, agree with each other. Externally, people, places and events mentioned in the Bible whose existence for centuries were doubted, were found to be accurately recorded upon recent archeological discoveries.



> Support is easy to create, when you are the ones creating the documentation.


And when the facts are truly there! 



> He became the sacrificial lamb ... yaddayadda.


I will overlook this affront to my faith.



> How do you know his journey ended here?


Because as Jesus died, He said "It is finished." That indicates finality. Jesus died once as the only sacrifice needed for the sins of the whole world.



> Wait. Hold on. God limits himself?


Certainly. He limited Himself when he took the form of a man, in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus was hardly omnipresent while in that body. Jesus also at one point asked who had touched him, evidently because He didn't know. The Bible tells us that even the Son doesn't know the day or the hour of the Lord's return. 

God also limits himself in that He cannot lie, He is unchanging, He cannot be unjust, He cannot be unrighteous.



> Okay, I'm going to proceed, but I don't understand this limiting factor.


I agree that it is quite a difficult concept. I don't suppose any of us can truly understand an infinite God who stepped down to be a mere man.....or that limited Himself in any of these other ways.



> Let's first dispel that, because it is the same argument.
> 
> Let's start with the concept of the "infinite". An infinite, by definition, is everything. There is nothing that is outside of the infinite. It is impossible. It cannot. Anything that exists outside of the infinite, cannot exist.


It's an interesting definition of infinite, but not really the one that I believe the Bible uses to describe God. But, go on......



> Everything from this conversation to the grandest of moments to the universe to the nothing in-between IS that infinite. Everything that can happen, has and everything that will happen - has. Nothing exists that is not part of the infinite and nothing does not exist that is not part of the infinite.
> 
> Not time, not space, not anything. A simple expression of this principle is to divide infinity by 2. Divide it by 100. Divide it by 1,000,000. Your answer is always "infinity". Why? You cannot subdivide infinity.
> 
> ...


I do, too, but not in that sense. God is infinite in his power, his majesty, his sovereignty, his knowledge, his love, his holiness. He is a spirit so he doesn't physically take up space as it seems you are implying. Yet he can be everywhere at the same time, but that is far from saying he IS everything.......and that everything IS God.



> I believe that through this, we are all God's children. We are "created in his image", because there is only one image to take ... the infinite image of perfection.


We are God's children, if you will, because He created us. We are God's also if we have accepted the redemption he offers through Christ, because He bought us.



> So, why does this whole existence take place? Nearest I can tell, or that I have assumed in my study, is that God wants to know what God is.


What? If He is infinite, doesn't He know what God is???? 

Sorry, your jump here lost me completely.



> God cannot take a step away from itself to examine what it is, so, in order to do that, God has to be what he is not. He has to be limited. He has to be finite.


Weren't you just questioning my assertion that an infinite God limits Himself?



> To do that, we choose to experience this existence. It isn't real. It is a giant illusion, akin to the matrix.
> 
> What are we? We are God experiencing ourselves through our existence. We are the observers. We are the spirit of God, getting to know what God is. Every act, every thought, every notion is you demonstrating the image of yourself and God gets to know what that is. What's even more amazing is that we are in complete control of the drive. God cannot give you what you do not want or need. He doesn't know how.


This is an "infinite" God you are talking about here?



> Ask and you shall receive. The problem is that we get so acclimated to thinking we are pawns in our existence that we don't create and manifest our realities in their highest form. If you truly believed you could walk on water, you would. If, in every fiber of your being you knew you could walk on water, you would. With the power of God, mountains will move. And they would.


Sorry, but I don't go for the "Name it and Claim it" kind of thing. No matter how much I believe that I can suddenly find myself transported to Lithuania to chat with Sabonis, it ain't gonna happen. When Christ talks about moving mountains, He is talking about asking anything in accordance with the will of God.........not just about asking ANYTHING.



> See, Jesus once talked about how the mustard seed is larger than the kingdom of heaven.


He did???? Where? 

I remember Jesus saying the Kingdom of Heaven is "like" a mustard seed and is greater than the herbs. And I remember about having faith as a mustard seed. 

Don't remember the one you are talking about.



> And it is. As when you hold that mustard seed, you hold the kingdom of heaven. It is all connected. It is all one.


Hmmmm......an interesting proposition, but I don't see anything like that in the Bible.



> Jesus said to find the kingdom inside, not outside. The kingdom of God doesn't exist outside of us, it is within us. It is us. We are it.


Saying the Kingdom of heaven is _within_ us and saying it _is_ us are two very different things. 



> All this is why I say that you cannot give or take life. To do so is to say you can actually harm God. The most arrogant of things to assume.


The Bible seems to indicate it is possible to take life, or there wouldn't be warnings and penalties against the taking of innocent blood. I don't think those warnings are to protect God from being injured.



> The second most arrogant thing is create God in OUR image. To limit God with our qualities - like anger, punishment, revenge, jealousy.


God attributes these to Himself. Agreeing with what God says about Himself is hardly creating God in our image. I have to agree, though, that it is quite arrogant to attempt to create God in our image, or in any image, for that matter.



> So -going back to evolution and creation - I don't think either exists. I think it just is. Always was and always will be. There is no time and there is no universe. There is only God. Every experience and every possible variation already exists and is happening simultaneously.


Wow....



> As it says in your Bible - a thousand years is as a day and a day is as a thousand years. Time is of no consequence.


Actually it says that "to God" a thousand years is as a day, etc. The Bible is quite clear that time is of the essence for us. Although God himself transcends time, we don't......at least not while we are in these bodies. Our eternal soul does, but its destiny is determined by the choices we make while we are still in our physical body. 



> We are choosing to experience this existence.


Seems illogical. Choice indicates a consciousness that there are options to choose and that one has the ability to exercise that choice. Do you have that option?



> Therefore, I ask - how did it take 6 days to create the Earth, when a day is measured by the time it takes for the Earth to move around a gravitational field of the sun ... which was nonexistant before that?


Actually, a day is measured by the time required for the earth to spin on its own axis. Technically, no sun required.  

God created the earth and apparently had an alternate light source for daytime, since the sun, moon, and stars weren't created until the fourth day. The Bible doesn't mention what that light source was.



> So -when this shell named Gordon Typer experiences death ... Gordon will cease to exist. While "Gordon" is saddened by this and is scared of this - my infinite self knows the truth. It looks forward to the glorious day that I remember that which I truly am. My true self is not constrained by the limitations of Gordon Typer.
> 
> There is more, but I am trying to watch Reef (and that is painful today). I'll let you read this, digest it and pose questions. Trust me, you won't hurt my feelings by being confused or angered or asking questions. In fact, I appreciate questions as it helps me solidify my understanding.
> 
> Play.


Play, nothing you have said has angered me in the least. Though I must say I occasionally have been confused by your jumps in logic and your reference to Jesus' words. 

IMO, we are having a great discussion, even if it is only you and I that are reading this!


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> But, error was initiated into the system. To create fallibility is to know fallibility. To create error is to be erroneous.


Sin and death entered this world as a consequence of the actions of Adam and Eve. God didn't create any error, here.



> Then you are denying evidence.


I don't think so. 

As I said before, I am not talking over a few decades or centuries. I am talking millennia.

How can we quantify the IQs of men living 4000 years ago? 
How can we eliminate the variables of diet and environment to correct for the true height of men during the ice age after Noah's flood?
How fast did David have to run to kill that lion?
Lifespans since Noah's day have decreased dramatically and only slowly increased to what we enjoy today.



> Technologically, yes.


Is technological evolution what you have been talking about all along? If so, how do IQs and running speeds relate?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> I guess everyone has their journey and their story to tell. My "chains" fell off when I discovered that I didn't have to believe a flawed theory of evolution anymore and that I instead could believe the entire Bible as the true and living Word of God.


I don't know what is "flawed" about evolution.

I do know what is "flawed" with creationism. It doesn't fit in with what we understand about our own planet. 

I don't have issue with us "poof"-ing into existence. I really don't. If that is how it happened then so be it.

Me - personally - don't think it ever happened. I don't believe in the concept of time. This is a human creation to explain our experiences in a logical manner, so that they will make sense in our small paradigm. 

Like I've said - all variations of all possibilities are concurrently happening. Not in a linear sequence, but at a single point. We just happen to be examine certain points. 



> It is said that those who are most convinced are the ones that needed convincing the most. I might not have nearly as strong of a belief in creation as stated in the Bible if I hadn't believed otherwise so strongly for so long.


Anything that asks me to believe blindly is asking it in vain. 

Biblical word, whether it is incorrect or not (or infallible or not, and I have found it to be QUITE fallible), cannot be used to support Biblical certaincy. It's circular reasoning. A says that A is unerringle true, therefore A must be true. Well, A has an agenda. 



> You lost me on that one, Play. How is adaptation and change perfect?


The threory of evolution is hardly chance or randomness. 

The theory is of adaption to the environment. For instance, if the human race were swept into an uncureable plague - those that were immune would survive and pass on the genetic code to their offspring to survive this strife. Therefore, eradicating this plague from our existence. 



> Seems to me the failed tries that evolution requires would likely cause quite a number of slow, painful deaths in itself.


I think we are referring to two completely different lines of thought. 



> Really? Which women did He impregnate without permission? Whom did He force to write His words?


Last I checked he didn't ask Mary if she wanted to "knock the boots", as it were. He just came on down, spread his holy seed and said: "Yo, get in the kitchen and cook me some dinner". 

All silliness aside, this is rape.

As for the forcing of penmanship, again if word was divinely inspired then it has to reach the person writing. In order to do this, it has to pass through their personal filter. God, either turned off the filter or dictated it to them. 



> And neither did God claim to be any more than He is.


I don't believe God ever purported to be anything. I think an intelligent man wrote some words in order to create law with his people. I think further successive people continued to add to this story with their own. 



> The support I refer to doesn't have to do with the Bible stories, as you seem to be referring to. I am talking about how the prophecies and accounts, written over a period of hundreds of years and over geographic spans that were for that day uncrossable, agree with each other. Externally, people, places and events mentioned in the Bible whose existence for centuries were doubted, were found to be accurately recorded upon recent archeological discoveries.


Again, this does nothing except prove that someone wrote the book using current events as a backdrop. It doesn't mean that the Bible was any more or less divinely inspired than Doonesbury.

It means that it was a historical retelling of history, with their slant on it. I'm sure they sprinkled it with a little of thier God, and viola. Good stories for everyone.

We're talking about people who made blood sacrifices and had to be told not to commit incestual acts. We aren't talking about the top of the heap here.



> I will overlook this affront to my faith.


It wasn't meant as an affront. I was just saying I knew the whole thing ... yadda yadda... Basically, I'm not really saying anything here ... move along... that's all. I apologize for the miscommunication.



> Because as Jesus died, He said "It is finished." That indicates finality. Jesus died once as the only sacrifice needed for the sins of the whole world.


I might play a game of chess and after a couple hours say, "I'm done." Which really means, I am done with what I am doing right now. I doesn't mean that I'll never play chess again.

Perhaps it wasn't integral to his ministry to explain to people that he was about to embark on a spiritual quest to planet QuarkQuark. Perhaps when the Gospels were written so many years after his death that he might not have said any such thing.

Perhaps he meant - this work here on Earth is done.

I think Jesus died for a whole different reason. He died to prove the illusion. To prove that we can conquer death. There is no death. Well, that is - if Jesus even existed or was anything more than a rebel leader. 



> Certainly. He limited Himself when he took the form of a man, in the person of Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> > So, while God was off galavanting around as a man .... no one watched over the cosmos? That's refreshing.
> ...


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> Sin and death entered this world as a consequence of the actions of Adam and Eve. God didn't create any error, here.


Wait - so something outside of God created error? 

It is his plan, his system, his design - yet something else created the degredation and internal error in the system?

Nope. Not buying what you are selling here.



> As I said before, I am not talking over a few decades or centuries. I am talking millennia.


I could use two generations as a sample and remain statistically significant, if what you say is true - Error entered into the system and has consistantly depreciated our entire genetic makeup since the original sin.

If that were true, there would be no spikes or changes. It would be a slow, gradual and consistant slope. 

Instead, what you see is that over the past 100 years, people are becoming stronger, faster, smarter ... all in all better in a physical sense. (spiritual ... eh, I don't know)



> How can we quantify the IQs of men living 4000 years ago?
> How can we eliminate the variables of diet and environment to correct for the true height of men during the ice age after Noah's flood?
> How fast did David have to run to kill that lion?
> Lifespans since Noah's day have decreased dramatically and only slowly increased to what we enjoy today.


Unfortunately, you cannot (assuming any of those myths are true).

So, you must extrapolate using the data you have readily available.

Using this data - you can see the reverse is holding true. We are getting better rather than degrading.



> Is technological evolution what you have been talking about all along? If so, how do IQs and running speeds relate?


No, that was the point in saying technologically. I made it a point to discuss IQ and not advancements.

Play.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I don't know what is "flawed" about evolution.


I do. At no time has anyone ever observed life naturalistically arising from something that is without life......in fact, spontaneous generation was discounted long ago and then reappeared with evolutionary theory. Also, no one has ever been able to see conclusively that one kind of organism has mutated into an entirely different kind of organism. These two things are the heart and soul of evolution and have never been observed.



> I do know what is "flawed" with creationism. It doesn't fit in with what we understand about our own planet.


Who is we? It fits in perfectly with what I understand about our planet. 



> Anything that asks me to believe blindly is asking it in vain.


And yet it certainly appears to me that you believe blindly that all is an illusion. You have no logical proof. But on matters of this sort, proof isn't available. You have faith in your belief system and I have faith in mine. The difference is that my faith is based on the word of God who is infallible. Yours is based on what you have thought out.



> Biblical word, whether it is incorrect or not (or infallible or not, and I have found it to be QUITE fallible), cannot be used to support Biblical certaincy. It's circular reasoning. A says that A is unerringle true, therefore A must be true. Well, A has an agenda.


Except the difference is that what we know of God is what He has revealed to us. God has declared that he cannot lie and so I can believe the Bible is true. He is the only one who was there at the beginning. I'd rather take an eyewitness's account of origins rather than one I have logically tried to think out on my own. If you like yours better......go for it. I don't think it is correct, but that is your choice.



> The threory of evolution is hardly chance or randomness.
> The theory is of adaption to the environment. For instance, if the human race were swept into an uncureable plague - those that were immune would survive and pass on the genetic code to their offspring to survive this strife. Therefore, eradicating this plague from our existence.


My friend, perhaps you are unaware of the true theory behind evolution. Evolutionary theory is based totally on undirected random mutations that accidentally cause an organism to be more suited to its environment and thus survive when other non-mutated organisms fail to survive.

Any of your plague survivors would have had some pre-existing mutation that allowed them to survive. This original mutation would have happened randomly along with countless other mutations that weren't useful in this scenario.



> Last I checked he didn't ask Mary if she wanted to "knock the boots", as it were. He just came on down, spread his holy seed and said: "Yo, get in the kitchen and cook me some dinner".
> 
> All silliness aside, this is rape.


Then you need to check the scriptures, again. Check out Luke 1:26-38.



> As for the forcing of penmanship, again if word was divinely inspired then it has to reach the person writing. In order to do this, it has to pass through their personal filter. God, either turned off the filter or dictated it to them.


Or these were men who were willing to be used of God to write the holy scriptures. I don't see any evidence that force was used or that any of these men were unwilling.



> I don't believe God ever purported to be anything. I think an intelligent man wrote some words in order to create law with his people. I think further successive people continued to add to this story with their own.


And I don't think that.



> Again, this does nothing except prove that someone wrote the book using current events as a backdrop. It doesn't mean that the Bible was any more or less divinely inspired than Doonesbury.
> 
> It means that it was a historical retelling of history, with their slant on it. I'm sure they sprinkled it with a little of thier God, and viola. Good stories for everyone.
> 
> ...


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Could you guys shorten your posts please? There is *no way * I'm going to read all of that!

I can't believe someone here does not believe in evolution. There is so much evidence to support the theory that I can't see how you can refute it.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

I'll address the rest later. I typed it up and hit the wrong key - which redirected me backwards in my browser. So, it erased all my work. 

I don't have the inclination or time to redo it yet.



> And yet it certainly appears to me that you believe blindly that all is an illusion. You have no logical proof. But on matters of this sort, proof isn't available.


Actually, you are incorrect. I do not blindly believe anything. Faith is not central to my understandings. I don't have faith. I have understanding. With faith you can place no ownership, with understanding - you can. 

I also have logical proof. Modern science is starting to prove that reality is not based the way that we've come to accept it as. It is coming to the conclusions that matter doesn't actually "exist" as we know it. 

If matter doesn't exist, then what else could it be?

Let me explain it this way (and this is quite an errant definition, due to its simplicity):

All matter can be broken down and broken down and eventually brought to its basic point - energy. It is all comprised of the SAME exact substance. This substance is energy. Further, every thought and emotion is made of this same substance. If we are all made of the same thing in different states, then how can you say that any of this is something else? How can you say that you are not me? 

(My original post on this was a better explaination, this is second hand, warmed over thoughts ... I hate that I lost my original post)



> You have faith in your belief system and I have faith in mine. The difference is that my faith is based on the word of God who is infallible. Yours is based on what you have thought out.


Again, I don't rely on faith in the least. I do not believe it to be a concept needed to explain my purpose or what i am experiencing. 

To me, faith is a crutch. It is a word used in place of understanding and reason. It is used to fill in gaps and logical fallibility. Just like an apostrophe, it joins two things that are not alike. 

Faith. Faith is a word that, to me, ring synonymous with "control". When you are asked to NOT think and NOT reason and NOT question - but to have faith ... you are denying the one thing that you can truly call your own ... your own free thought. 



> God created _ex nihilo_. Out of nothing. Not out of himself. Not lessening himself by creating. Not making part of himself into something else. When God created, all of a sudden there was more than there had been before. And this new thing isn't part of God.


Then God is not infinite. Period.



> I don't think you can reduce God down to mathematics. Lots of things about God don't seem to "add up" with our understanding of mathematics.


Like what?

It isn't just mathematics though. It is simple principles. 

An infinite thing occupies everything. By DEFINITION there can be nothing else. Unless you have a flawed view of infinite, then you cannot have one thing that is infinite and another thing that is not.



> But not the definition of infinite that is taught in the Bible about God.


Then the Bible has an errant definition of inifinity.



> I think saying that this is all an illusion is extremely limiting. But saying that the Bible is true and that an infinite God made absolutely everything we see out of absolutely nothing is quite unlimiting to an infinite God.


How is it limiting? Please explain this to me. 

I am saying that all things, all possibilities, everything that is and is not - is GOD. This is somehow limiting? There is no bound or limit to this. Hence, again, the unflawed definition of infinity. No bounds.

As for the Bible being true and an infinite God creating something out of nothing is VERY limiting and extremely flawed. 

First, let's discuss the flaw - you have a misguided and incorrect understanding of infinite principles. If one thing is infinite, then "nothing" cannot exist. There is no such thing as "nothing", for everything is of the infinite property. Nothing exists outside of this infinite potential. It, by definition, cannot. So, there was never "nothing" to create "something" into. This "something" must be of the infinite thing itself. It, by definition cannot be made of anything that is not the infinite. There is nothing else that exists, if there is an overriding infinite thing. To take it a step further, the "something" that is "created" was never "created", it always was and always will be. All possibilities already exist and are constantly happening in all variations. This is the concept of infinite. 

Now, let's discuss why it is limiting. You are saying that something exists that is NOT God. You are saying that God only has "power" over this thing. God presides over it like a ruler. I say that God not only has the "power" over it - I say that it cannot exist outside of God. In your view, God could cease to exist and reality would continue, I say they are inseparable. 



> Nor do I think that. A superiority "complex" implies that it is a false belief. God is superior.


I don't think that to be true at all. God is. How can God be superior to God? 

Thus we are all created equal. We are equal. We are all the same thing. 



> Then I sense that our discussion is drawing to a close.......because I definitely do not grasp this.


Okay - let's look at it like this:

If you are infinite, you are all possibilities. You cannot KNOW what you are without *experiencing* what you are not. The only way to determine this is to experience yourself. You cannot step outside yourself, as you are all that is. You cannot *be* that which you are not. It is impossible. 

You don't comprehend infinite principles, so you are having problems with this concept. 

You have to understand one thing, to make the step to the next. 

Again - an infinite thing means that nothing exists outside it. There is nothing that can exist that is not of it. There isn't open space, there isn't occupied space, there isn't smoke .... it never ends and it never begins. God IS. There is nothing that is not of this infinite source. Once you understand that, then you can step to the next point. Until you do away with your flawed interpretation of infinite, you cannot understand these things that I say to you.



> Again.....it appears we are finally reaching the conclusion of our discussion. Your truth doesn't work logically in my mind.


Then you just aren't logical enough. Yes, it sounds offensive, but it is not meant that way.

You just aren't ready or able to understand these things yet. 

I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, you just are unable to understand them yet.



> Temporary amnesia. Illusions. Sorry, pal. This is too weird for me. I prefer to believe that what I see actually exists as it appears.


It does come down to preference. Most people prefer to think of life as something OUT OF THEIR CONTROL. They like to think of themselves as puppets and not have to think or evolve spiritually. It's easy. "An object at rest, tends to stay at rest".

Whether or not you wish to accept that which you see, which is all part of the game, it is not. Science is proving this, Eastern philosophies have been teaching it since well before Jesus the Christ.

It's hard to imagine that this really doesn't exist, because we are so darn caught up in the illusion. It's the illusion that creates separation from God. The more you root yourself IN the illusion, the further you get from knowing God.



> Doesn't make sense, then, that there would be so much hate and greed in the world, if everything is God.


Why? 

The illusion seems real. We have chosen to experience it this way, as this is the only way that God can know himself. Through experience. If each of us knew from birth, that which we are, we wouldn't ever really find out what we are. We'd always know. So, the goals are never reached.

Belief in reality is central to this game.



> Why would anyone choose to be born disabled or be killed before they are born?


Why not? 

Perhaps this experience will help the soul on it's path to remembering that which it is. Perhaps this experience will help another remember that which they are. All experiences, no matter how heinous and gruesome or loving and kind, are all God demonstrating himself. 

At the end of the day, none of it matters. If nothing you can do can truly effect God , destroy God, or harm God ... then why not? It's experience.



> God and I are not the same thing. If we are one, it is because I have submitted myself to his will in my life.


It is this believe, in my eyes, that will keep you separated from him.

He is the infinite. You have no choice but to be him and him you. 

If you take a glass of water from the ocean, does it lose the properties of the ocean? Or is it still ocean?



> I'm well aware that my body only "embodies" my true self. But my true self is certainly NOT God, in any way, shape or form. I am much too self-serving to be God.


No, you aren't. Perhaps this physical manifestation, that is living - deeply rooted - in this "reality" is very self-serving ... but your true self is perfection personified.



> Doesn't seem like it should matter if it is all an illusion, anyway.


It doesn't matter. See, you just aren't getting it. 

It doesn't matter how "long" or how much experience it takes for you to come to know yourself for who you truly are and demonstrate the highest image of that self. 

There are just things that are condusive to this goal, if that is YOUR current goal - and things that aren't. 



> We disagree here. The Bible is God's word.


I believe YOU are God's word. I believe we all are God's word. 



> Analogies and figures of speech are definitely part of that eastern writing style. But they are there to help us understand.


Or quite often, as it is in the Bible, to misunderstand completely.



> My belief system doesn't cave in with one speckle of doubt.


Nor does mine. It is just implicit in mine that unless you KNOW that which you truly are, you will not demonstrate it. If you have doubt, then you don't KNOW. It doesn't make the path any less real.



> Likewise.


Actually, the Christian myth is very easy to comprehend. I've read the Bible. A couple times. I found, what I understand to be truth. Lots of truth. It's hidden, and often times, hard to grasp. I have also found, what I believe to be, a lot of untruth. I find this is true of all RELIGIONS, as religions are usually a great idea, but then the concept is replaced with tradition. Tradition leads to unthinking behavior patterns.

This is not good for anyone.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

tlong said:


> Could you guys shorten your posts please? There is *no way * I'm going to read all of that!


I would say yes, but it is VERY hard to discuss these things in a succinct manner. Especially when you are covering topics as broad as the infinite.

Play.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I would say yes, but it is VERY hard to discuss these things in a succinct manner. Especially when you are covering topics as broad as the infinite.
> 
> Play.


well, then just pare down the infinite a little, why don't you? 

I haven't contributed anything to this thread except the above sentence, which means I haven't contributed anything meaningful. but I've enjoyed reading it. 

I think I'm going to get the little part of God in me a beer.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

Well, Play, I have thoroughly enjoyed this dialogue. I think we each have had fun expressing our thoughts and beliefs.......I know I have. 

My husband and son got home just a few minutes ago from their out of town trip, so I won't have more time to devote to this thread. 

You believe one thing. I believe another. Others believe other things. The only reason it matters what anyone believes is if there are consequences for not believing the right thing. I think consequences exist.

Okay.....I am done with this.

Thanks for a terrific discussion! :yes:


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I can't believe someone here does not believe in evolution. There is so much evidence to support the theory that I can't see how you can refute it.


You said it yourself. It's a "theory." It's an educated guess. 

Evolution is actually very easy to refute. For starters, where are the billions of half-men/half-apes that should be buried all over the globe? If we slowly evolved from apes over millions and millions of years, there had to be many, many generations of our "ancestors" who lived and died on this earth, but no one has ever discovered one of them in an archeological dig. Not a single one.

Odd, eh?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Crazy Fan From Idaho said:


> The only reason it matters what anyone believes is if there are consequences for not believing the right thing.


I don't believe in consequences in a negative sense. 

It does not matter if you believe or don't believe what I am saying. It won't matter. 



> I think consequences exist.


Natural consequences, in this reality, most certainly exist. We expect them to. It is how our brain operates.



> Thanks for a terrific discussion! :yes:


Same to you. 

Enjoy your husband and child.

Play.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> For starters, where are the billions of half-men/half-apes


There's one living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenu...

ah, nevermind.

-Pop


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Evolution is actually very easy to refute. For starters, where are the billions of half-men/half-apes that should be buried all over the globe? If we slowly evolved from apes over millions and millions of years, there had to be many, many generations of our "ancestors" who lived and died on this earth, but no one has ever discovered one of them in an archeological dig. Not a single one.
> 
> Odd, eh?


No doubt.

I never really bought into the whole aliens dropping us off on this planet as an experiment, but your explaination really has me thinking.

Or wait - maybe you mean we are alien colonizers, but we slowly forgot over time.

One explaination is equally as relevant as God "poof"-ing us into existence.

Play.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> You said it yourself. It's a "theory." It's an educated guess.
> 
> Evolution is actually very easy to refute. For starters, where are the billions of half-men/half-apes that should be buried all over the globe? If we slowly evolved from apes over millions and millions of years, there had to be many, many generations of our "ancestors" who lived and died on this earth, but no one has ever discovered one of them in an archeological dig. Not a single one.
> 
> Odd, eh?



There have many links between humans and apes that have been dug up over the years. Australopithecus, **** Erectus, Neanderthal, etc..


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

tlong said:


> There have many links between humans and apes that have been dug up over the years. Australopithecus, **** Erectus, Neanderthal, etc..


Those new hobbit type people too. Of course, they don't exist, because the bible doesn't mention them.

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> There's one living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenu...


No, he got booted out. He was big and red-nosed, and he had sex with 20-year-old interns in the Oval Office, just like you'd expect from a primitive man.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

tlong said:


> There have many links between humans and apes that have been dug up over the years. Australopithecus, **** Erectus, Neanderthal, etc..


Not to dumb down this engaging and interesting conversation, but could there be a worse name for a species than "**** Erectus"???

-Pop


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> No, he got booted out. He was big and red-nosed, and he had sex with 20-year-old interns in the Oval Office, just like you'd expect from a primitive man.


Easy you two, don't get too political and vicious.

We'll get locked down.

Keep it civil.

Play.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Those new hobbit type people too. Of course, they don't exist, because the bible doesn't mention them.
> 
> Play.


Ah yes...**** Floresiensis. One of the most fascinating archaelogical finds of our time. Actually another excellent example of evolution. The find supports the evolutionary thoery of the dwarfing of mammals that are confined to islands.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> There have many links between humans and apes that have been dug up over the years. Australopithecus, **** Erectus, Neanderthal, etc..


Nope. Evolutionists have claimed to find these "transitional" forms, but they are always shown to be either frauds or errors. 

The fact is, no one has ever seen evolution happen. Scientists agree that there should be many transitional forms that we could observe among the fossils, but they simply don't exist. Not even in the lower life forms. For example, in the modern world we can see lots of dogs and cats and bears, and in the fossil record, we also see dogs and cats and bears, but not any in-between forms. Evolution is not happening now and there are no indications that it ever has happened.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Evolution is not happening now and there are no indications that it ever has happened.


Right.

More evidence to support my flying saucer crash landing! 

Of course, I am partial to the experiment concept. Maybe aliens wanted to see us live out the course of our existence. They stop by and check us out from time to time. 

To say evolution isn't happening now is purely biased argument and one that is a blatant disregard of facts. Is it happening to an n_th degree, I don't know, but to say that it DOESN'T happen is idiocy. Especially when we can force evolution inside a laboratory.

Play.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

To say evolution is nonexistant is falacy. If that were the case no creatures would esxist, period. All things adapt to their surroundings.

An excellent example is the Mudskipper. Which is technically a fish but has developed the abbility to retain water in it's moth and around it's gils so that it can "skip" from one muddy puddle to the next in dry times of the year. In addition it's pectoral fins have "evolved" to work asomewhat as legs to aid them. ALso their belly's are more flat like a lizard or a frog, but they are neither, they are a fish.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Nope. Evolutionists have claimed to find these "transitional" forms, but they are always shown to be either frauds or errors.
> 
> The fact is, no one has ever seen evolution happen. Scientists agree that there should be many transitional forms that we could observe among the fossils, but they simply don't exist. Not even in the lower life forms. For example, in the modern world we can see lots of dogs and cats and bears, and in the fossil record, we also see dogs and cats and bears, but not any in-between forms. Evolution is not happening now and there are no indications that it ever has happened.



I'm not sure what you're talking about here Talkhard. The various species of hominids that I've mentioned are all in between the ape and the modern human. They are neither frauds nor errors. Fossil records have shown the development of many species of animals as well. The reason it cannot be directly observed is because it happens over thousands of years.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> An excellent example is the Mudskipper. Which is technically a fish but has developed the abbility to retain water in it's moth and around it's gils so that it can "skip" from one muddy puddle to the next in dry times of the year. In addition it's pectoral fins have "evolved" to work asomewhat as legs to aid them. ALso their belly's are more flat like a lizard or a frog, but they are neither, they are a fish.


What proof do you have that "evolution" caused these features? Couldn't the Mudskipper have had these features all along? 

To take another example, what about the horse? Did it originally begin as a creature without legs, and then "develop" them because it needed to walk or run? Or was it always a horse as we know it?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Nope. Evolutionists have claimed to find these "transitional" forms, but they are always shown to be either frauds or errors.
> 
> The fact is, no one has ever seen evolution happen. Scientists agree that there should be many transitional forms that we could observe among the fossils, but they simply don't exist. Not even in the lower life forms. For example, in the modern world we can see lots of dogs and cats and bears, and in the fossil record, we also see dogs and cats and bears, but not any in-between forms. Evolution is not happening now and there are no indications that it ever has happened.


So, let me get this straight.

God creates the earth. He creates dinosaurs, wipes them out and puts them in the fossil record. He then goes on to create proto-human species like **** Erectus (hehehe) Austrolapithicus Aferensus, Africanus and Robustus and **** Sapiens Neanderthalus. These 'humanlike apes' are sort of in gods image, but not quite. Then, finally about 120-140,000 years ago, god creates **** Sapiens Sapiens. What gives with that? 

You saying that there are dogs, cats and bears but no inbetween forms. Are you kidding? There are tons of 'in between' forms of each in the fossil record. Ever heard tell of Eohippus? Miohippus? Pliohippus? Are you calling them a fake? I know many Christians have attempted to debunk the Eohippus, but they're wrong and desperate. And those are just in the fossil record. 

The donkey, zebra and horse. Can you honestly claim that they are not very closely related?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

indeed, I think TalkHard is right. after all, Scientific American finally apologized for this enormous fraud known as "evolution": 

"In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence."
...
"Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong."

http://www.seeq.com/popupwrapper.jsp?referrer=&domain=scientificamerica.com

so there.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)




----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/TECH/science/02/12/coolsc.thickskulls/vert.****.erectus1.jpg

**** Erectus doesn't look ANYTHING like a species inbetween chimpanzee and human, does he?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

No. No. No.

You all are wrong.

Facts, schmacts. 

Evolution is not real, because the Bible says it isn't. It says he created life and poof there it was. All these, "so-called" facts you have are simply created by the devil to TRICK you into believing that you evolved. 

Because ... ummm... the devil gains something when you believe this. It makes him happy. So, there.

I'm right because the Bible tells me so. Since this truth is incontraversial, I will rest my case. You cannot prove otherwise, because I have faith and I have the inerrant word of God!

Play.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Fork said:


> http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/TECH/science/02/12/coolsc.thickskulls/vert.****.erectus1.jpg
> 
> **** Erectus doesn't look ANYTHING like a species inbetween chimpanzee and human, does he?


Actually he looks like my 9th grade P.E. teacher.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ok the tone is starting to turn disrespectful to others beliefs and faiths...I think you can all see that. 

Please clean it up.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

tlong said:


> Actually he looks like my 9th grade P.E. teacher.


He looks like everybody's PE teacher.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I think a simple exchange of numbers would have saved you two from future carpal tunnel surgery....


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Thanks, CFFI and Play, for a fun and interesting discussion. 
To the moderators, thanks for allowing it. My viewpoint on these sorts of things is that they greatly enhance Blazer-related discussions. I find I care much more about posters opinions of the Blazers if I have some sense of the posters as people, and it would be more difficult to get that if conversational topics were restricted to Blazer related issues.

barfo


----------

