"You can't prove God doesn't exist!"

[darkarcher]

My mistake. I used incorrect terms.

[Fenrir502]

Have you ever heard of something called embryology?

We learned about it in Biology.

It states that during the development of the embryo, during the beginning phases, the ebryos of many animals look remarkably similar. Suggesting a common ancestor and whatnot.

And as for the whole natural selection thing...
How is that not evolution.
One day, a moth was born with with a slightly darker colouration. This allowed it to hide, and so live to reproduction, where the gne would have been passed on. Eventually, you'd find that there would be more dark moths in that particular environment, because they have evolved and adapted to their environs.

[darkarcher]

I really hardly see how embryology proves anything. I've already said how similarities are subjective points.

Common "proofs" of human embryology are "tails" and "gills", which are merely reflections of the spine and skin developing quicly to prepare for the growth of the embryo.

I have already stated that I used the wrong terms when referring to the moths.

[killshot]

It's not as if the species is changing.

Lets look at it this way:

(I'm making this up just to illustrate a point)

A species of horse can eat a type of plant that grows underwater. A mutation causes a horse to be born with greater lung capacity than normal, and this horse can eat the plants that are growing deeper in the water. This horse survives and passes it's genes onto its offspring. Fast forward several generations and the increased lung capacity becomes normal. Then a mutation causes a horse to be born with flattened legs suitable for swimming. This process continues indefinitely until this species of horse has a layer of blubber, a strong tail for swimming, and the ability to hold their breath for several hours. My question is this: Is it still a horse?

I know this a made up example, but studies have shown that whales and horses share a common ancestor. I'm sure it is much more complicated than my example, but you get the idea.

"They must have been commonly designed by a creator."

If we where created, then why where we created with useless body parts? Why would our creator give us an appendix, or junk DNA, or the start of a tail? What purpose do hair and fingernails serve? It seems much more logical to say that these traits are just vestigial hold overs from our mammalian ancestors.

[darkarcher]

As for the horse example, if things happened exactly like you described, then sure, people would consider it a different species. However, there's also a limit to how much a strand of DNA can change before it becomes impotent as genetic code.

As for vestigial parts, I don't claim to have the answers for everything. Hair serves protective purposes, although to a lesser level than animals due to wearing clothing. Fingernails are useful tools. The tailbone is a muscular anchor for many of the deep muscles in the bottom. I don't know about everthing completely, though.

[agrajagthetesty]

Most of my objections have to do with common physics, primarily momentum and gravity, which make the proposed timescale of the universe less-than-physically possible.

I'd like to hear some specific examples, if possible.

This is just natural selection within a species. The moths do not "evolve" to become black. The black moths merely are able to reproduce more and create a larger part of the population. It's not as if the species is changing. It's merely a natural segment of the species that survives longer, but that doesn't mean the species has changed.

Which is another way of putting the "micro-evolution" argument.

Yes, it is as if the species is changing. It is as if the species is changing colour, thus making them better adapted to their environment and increasing their chances of survival. That's what evolution is. Evolution works through natural selection. It is not a separate process. Natural selection is the driving engine. And my point was that these tiny changes build up gradually over huge amounts of time, and eventually lead to the formation of a new species. If the black moths are more successful to the point that the grey moths have no food, mates or territory left for themselves, then the grey moths will die out. Then, it can be said that the entire species has developed to suit their environment.. Alternatively, if the grey moths turn out to be more successful in a different environment nearby, their populations there will increase while the black moths remain in the original habitat. Then over time, the grey moths with greater ability to survive in the new habitat- the ability to eat many different kinds of food there, for example- will become more common, until eventually the moths have developed all kinds of abilities distinct from the original black moths. Then the species can be said to have split into two. It's all a question of timescale.

Some people look at it and say, "They must all have come from the same animal," while others can just as easily say, "They must have been commonly designed by a creator."

Except that in some cases, vestigial bones, organs or DNA remain. That's why humans are occasionally born with tails. And the classic argument- evolution can be observed in the fossil record.



(Please bear in mind that I assembled the last example myself using images found at http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolut...eEvolution.htm, and as such the relative fossils are not to scale with each other.)

[kibafan]

Looks like I'm the only advocate for Catholicism here. I'd just like to list responses to a bunch of things here, since I'm coming into the discussion late.

a. I do not consider Mormons or Jehovah's Witness Christian, however they classify themselves.
b. Catholics, for one, don't condemn the idea of evolution. I myself am part of the "intelligent design" school of thought.
c. on eternity being boring: Many philosophers/theologians think Heaven is like this world except...more so. I'm not quite sure how to describe it.
d. Why do people go to Hell?: Heaven wouldn't be perfect if they let everyone in, no?
e. Purgatory: Contrary to what darkarcher said, we don't believe it's a period of punishment, but rather a cleansing, or purging (hence Purgatory). This cleansing is for people who didn't make the cut for Heaven, but weren't evil enough to be sent to hell. Most people (myself included) would probably go through there before Heaven.

Well that's my two cents for now, respond how you will.

[Zairak]

c. on eternity being boring: Many philosophers/theologians think Heaven is like this world except...more so. I'm not quite sure how to describe it.

I believe the view you are talking about goes like this: Heaven would be the true world. The world we are in would be, in comparison, like looking at Heaven through a fog. It's not nearly as high quality in any regard.

That's how I think the theory goes, anyway. Haven't seen that one in ages.

Edit: Wow, I must be tired. Don't know how I clicked the italics button instead of the quote button...

[Tatterdemalion]

Looks like I'm the only advocate for Catholicism here. I'd just like to list responses to a bunch of things here, since I'm coming into the discussion late.

I think (although I might be wrong) that MrsSallyBakura is Catholic.

a. I do not consider Mormons or Jehovah's Witness Christian, however they classify themselves.

Isn't this sort of the wrong way to go about looking about things? I mean, you may not consider them to be Christians, but they do. They self-identify as Christian. Religion is about self-identification. If they consider themselves to be Christians, does anything beyond that really matter?

c. on eternity being boring: Many philosophers/theologians think Heaven is like this world except...more so. I'm not quite sure how to describe it.

Going by this and what Zairak said, I'm pretty sure that was Plato (then again, the only theologians I know are Aquinas, Luther and Calvin, so I'll probably end up attributing everything to Plato eventually).

Although it's interesting about the whole subject of eternity being boring...are people really in a position to make that assertion? I mean, considering that most people generally live less than 100 years (much less, for some), can people even understand the concept of eternity, not just as an abstraction, but as an actual thing?

And also, even if eternity were boring, is death much more exciting? I mean, even if there's no eternal afterlife, isn't death still eternal?

d. Why do people go to Hell?: Heaven wouldn't be perfect if they let everyone in, no?

What, is it a club now? You can only get in if you're on the list? I'm pretty sure there are a few Sinfest cartoons that deal with this, but for one reason or another I'm not going to dig them up and link to them.

e. Purgatory: Contrary to what darkarcher said, we don't believe it's a period of punishment, but rather a cleansing, or purging (hence Purgatory). This cleansing is for people who didn't make the cut for Heaven, but weren't evil enough to be sent to hell. There are some perfectly nice atheists, and many believers of many religions too, who would probably go through there.

See, this is the one part that gets me in a less than pleasant way, and I mean this respectfully, but sincerely. If you have your own religious beliefs about your deity, and life, and your place in the world, and morality, if there is such a thing, and all that good stuff, I have no problem with that, I think it's great. But aren't you overstepping your boundaries when you start using your religious beliefs to make high fallutin assertions about other people? I mean, isn't that more than a little disrespectful/offensive? At least, I find it offensive...

[Zairak]

And also, even if eternity were boring, is death much more exciting? I mean, even if there's no eternal afterlife, isn't death still eternal?

I dunno, I wouldn't really call death eternal. I'm mostly nitpicking here, but eternal things usually exist. Assuming the lack of an afterlife and therefore the lack of an existence after death, I'd say death is one of the shortest things out there, if it can even really be measured at all. Strictly speaking, death is the end of life, not really anything on its own. Sure, you don't come back from it, but it's still not unending.

Isn't this sort of the wrong way to go about looking about things? I mean, you may not consider them to be Christians, but they do. They self-identify as Christian. Religion is about self-identification. If they consider themselves to be Christians, does anything beyond that really matter?

Self-identification? Not really familiar with that term. I understand this is slightly off topic, but I'd like some clarification before I argue against this. Please and thank you.

[darkarcher]

I think (although I might be wrong) that MrsSallyBakura is Catholic.

I think you're right.

They self-identify as Christian. Religion is about self-identification. If they consider themselves to be Christians, does anything beyond that really matter?

Mormons and Jehovah's Witness are often discounted by "accepted" Christian sects because they alter the message of salvation, the Deity of Christ, or some other core concept of the Christian faith. They may be right or wrong, but it really doesn't matter whether Christianity acknowlegdes them or not. They will go on believing for themselves regardless of whether other people agree or not.

I mean, considering that most people generally live less than 100 years (much less, for some), can people even understand the concept of eternity, not just as an abstraction, but as an actual thing?

This is exactly right. We really don't know for sure.

What, is it a club now? You can only get in if you're on the list? I'm pretty sure there are a few Sinfest cartoons that deal with this, but for one reason or another I'm not going to dig them up and link to them.

I don't quite agree with kibafan's view. Salvation is the entrance to heaven. It's something that a person either has or haven't. People don't go to heaven because they're perfect, they are allowed to go because they have been forgiven of what makes them imperfect.

[Tatterdemalion]

I dunno, I wouldn't really call death eternal. I'm mostly nitpicking here, but eternal things usually exist. Assuming the lack of an afterlife and therefore the lack of an existence after death, I'd say death is one of the shortest things out there, if it can even really be measured at all. Strictly speaking, death is the end of life, not really anything on its own. Sure, you don't come back from it, but it's still not unending.

Hey, it's okay, nitpicking is fun.

Well, think of it this way. Something that is eternal is something that continues without end, right?

Now, you say that for something to be eternal it must exist, which is at least true on the surface. But then again, it's also hard to gauge, because there aren't many things in the world that exist at one point, then cease to exist at another. Now, maybe life is the exception. Then again, life doesn't even really exist as an independent thing istelf either, as it actually describes a state of being. An organism can be either classified as "living" or "non-living," based on its properties...so life itself is really just an abstraction used in relation to an adjective. Life and death aren't actual, tangible things. So I suppose you could say that in the most practical sense of the word, life doesn't "exist" either.

But then there's the matter of existence and eternity. For the sake of argument, let us assume that we exist. Now, what are we? We're a mass of tissues and organs (and a pretty damn cool mass at that), then on a more basic laevel, groupings of cells, and even more basically we're atoms and molecules, and all that good stuff. Now, when we "die," that is, transition from living to not living, this mass that we are doesn't disappear, it continues to exist. Yes, we decompose, and disintegrate, but altogether nothing goes away, it just changes form. So we may change form, but like everything else, all of our component parts continue to exist in some form or another.

So that pretty much settles that. So the idea of a nonexistence after death, the idea that we are something when we are alive that ceases to be when we die, is the idea that there is a part of us that exists distinct from the matter that makes up our bodies, and the energy contained therein...which is essentially to recognize the existence of a philosophical concept known as the soul (it's not even that this implies the existence of a soul, this is the existence of a soul). And while there are plenty of philosophical, spiritual and theological ideas about this concept, there's nothing within the realm of the material world that we can use to come to any conclusions whatsoever. So if we can't even agree on whether or not this "soul" thing exists, then how can we even come close to understanding how things relate to it?

And really, nonexistence itself is eternal.

Self-identification? Not really familiar with that term. I understand this is slightly off topic, but I'd like some clarification before I argue against this. Please and thank you.

Self-identification is (although this may sound obvious) what you view (identify) yourself as being. For example, culture and ethnicity often involve self-identification. If someone lives in America, and has for several generations, yet is of Hungarian ancestry, then they may self-identify as Hungarian, in the sense that they consider themselves to be Hungarian. Now, some may argue about this, citing examples of cultural and national distance (for example, they are not Hungarian citizens, and they don't speak the Hungarian language), however because culture largely centers around how one views themselves, and what groups one chooses to associate with, their self-identification may be enough for them to count as being culturally Hungarian.

It's a similar thing with sexual orientation. There is a great deal of discussion as to the genetic and/or social factors which influence sexual orientation, but ultimately how one identifies oneself, and what sexual orientation one associates with, is the deciding factor.

What i'm saying is that the same thing applies to religion.

[Fenrir502]

I'm Catholic too...
I just believe that you should look at the bible as more of a metaphor, and not as a straight out fact.

I believe I used an example earlier of Adam representing free-will?

Does having my own interperetation make me a bad person?

[JesusRocks]

But consider that God did not design our parts as being purely practical... God's creating us is more like art than practicality... He didn't create us purely to be working machines, but as an artistic expression of His heart... vestigial limbs therefore, whether they are vestigial or not, still have aesthetic and ergonomic purposes... i.e. He thought it would look good, or He thought it looked better that way... etc...

[Zairak]

But then there's the matter of existence and eternity. For the sake of argument, let us assume that we exist. Now, what are we? We're a mass of tissues and organs (and a pretty damn cool mass at that), then on a more basic laevel, groupings of cells, and even more basically we're atoms and molecules, and all that good stuff. Now, when we "die," that is, transition from living to not living, this mass that we are doesn't disappear, it continues to exist. Yes, we decompose, and disintegrate, but altogether nothing goes away, it just changes form. So we may change form, but like everything else, all of our component parts continue to exist in some form or another.

So that pretty much settles that. So the idea of a nonexistence after death, the idea that we are something when we are alive that ceases to be when we die, is the idea that there is a part of us that exists distinct from the matter that makes up our bodies, and the energy contained therein...which is essentially to recognize the existence of a philosophical concept known as the soul (it's not even that this implies the existence of a soul, this is the existence of a soul). And while there are plenty of philosophical, spiritual and theological ideas about this concept, there's nothing within the realm of the material world that we can use to come to any conclusions whatsoever. So if we can't even agree on whether or not this "soul" thing exists, then how can we even come close to understanding how things relate to it?

Well, I certainly don't believe in the concept of a soul, at least not in the conventional manner. For me, the mind is the soul. It is what I am. When I die, the electrical currents and whatever else keeps my brain going will stop and I will cease to be. I definitely do not identify with my body. It's just a tool, really. Not that there's a really blatant distinction between the body and the mind, but...Well, the mind is certainly something more than the body. Almost a parasite, in a way. Anyway, I am starting to digress again.

Because of the above beliefs, I do think your body loses something after death, even if it is only the activity of the brain. So, in light of that, you, as an individual mind and person, do cease to exist.

Now, as for nonexistance not being eternal, I don't believe anything can be eternal if it never had a start. If it never began, it never existed. If it never existed, it never was and thus can't be measured. That is the difference between something never having existed and something existing for eternity. You can't equate the two. I understand I'm probably putting this clumsily, but I'm a bit rusty on this.

Now, you say that for something to be eternal it must exist, which is at least true on the surface. But then again, it's also hard to gauge, because there aren't many things in the world that exist at one point, then cease to exist at another. Now, maybe life is the exception. Then again, life doesn't even really exist as an independent thing istelf either, as it actually describes a state of being. An organism can be either classified as "living" or "non-living," based on its properties...so life itself is really just an abstraction used in relation to an adjective. Life and death aren't actual, tangible things. So I suppose you could say that in the most practical sense of the word, life doesn't "exist" either.

Eh? From my experience, things cease to exist all the time. That's what life is, things coming in and out of existance constantly. That's what change is. For example, if a living person were to be beheaded, that living person would cease to exist and a newly made corpse would come into being. What used to be no longer is and a new thing takes its place. It's just that it happens so constantly that humans tend to not think of it like that because the new thing is, typically, almost identical to the old thing. Say that you died and they later cloned you. Would that be you? No, it would be an entirely new person. It could be exactly identical to you in every way, but you would still be gone. I've actually lately been thinking about whether or not I have, in fact, been dying constantly. I am most certainly not the same person I was a year ago, or even a day ago. I know, it's an odd way of thinking, but there you have it.

Self-identification is (although this may sound obvious) what you view (identify) yourself as being. For example, culture and ethnicity often involve self-identification. If someone lives in America, and has for several generations, yet is of Hungarian ancestry, then they may self-identify as Hungarian, in the sense that they consider themselves to be Hungarian. Now, some may argue about this, citing examples of cultural and national distance (for example, they are not Hungarian citizens, and they don't speak the Hungarian language), however because culture largely centers around how one views themselves, and what groups one chooses to associate with, their self-identification may be enough for them to count as being culturally Hungarian.

Thanks for clarifying that, that's what I thought you meant.

Speaking from purely religious viewpoint, yes, it does matter, with Christianity and the related religions in particular. Their point of view is not a personal philosophy, but the way that everybody should be acting. In their religion, speaking generally, there is a set of laws handed down by a divine being who determined what right and wrong really meant and then told the world through the Bible. The gist of it is that anything that is not Godly is wrong. Anything not of God is of sin and that is all there is. The war in heaven between Satan and God is a prime example of this. After God won, he cast down not only Satan and his followers, but also everybody who did not fight for God. So, you are either good or you are bad. Except, according to the Bible, everybody is a sinner and imperfect in God's eyes from birth, age of accountability notwithstanding. So, it's not your own personal set of morals and identity. You adopt your diety's morals when you become a Christian and strive to be more like him. That's what a Christian is, a follower of Christ. Heck, that's one of the reasons I'm not too keen on the idea of a Christian Heaven. Since a Christian's greatest desire would obviously be to be closer to God and be more like him, what do you think eternal paradise is going to be? But I ramble again. Basically, it's not self identification. It is group identification based on a single set of morals in this case.

[Zairak]

But God created us in his image. Why would God have useless body parts, etc, if he himself is perfect?

[JesusRocks]

¬_¬ Consider what "image" means... We are all made in God's image... how can that be when we all look different? and when God is Spirit? All accounts of visions of God have Him as exceedingly vaguely humanoid, if that at all... but looking nothing like any human... how many human being do you know who have what appear to be something vaguely like the appearance legs made of molten bronze?

- Ezekiel's "detailed" description of God, when you actually look at it, is full of him saying "It sorta looks kinda like something that is vaguely similar to something that has the appearance of [insert apparent body-part here] made of something that looks vaguely like the appearance of [insert similie here]" <-- in other words, Ezekiel doesn't even know how to describe the form of God and he finds that earthly similies are woefully inadequate... because really they look nothing like Him.

Image therefore, is absolutely nothing to do with the physical likeness of God...

[Zairak]

...Wow, I messed that up. Can I try again?

I was meaning to ask why He would give us useless body parts at all. I mean, He knows what would be necessary and what would not. Sure, you say that He didn't design us purely for practicality, but why would he design us any other way? I don't exactly have a Bible handy right now, but I think it made it quite clear that, to God, physical things are always inferior. For that matter, as I said in my previous post, we would all be considered imperfect in God's eyes. God is of the spirit, not the body, as you said. Why bother making this heap of flesh look a certain way if not for practical reasons?

[kibafan]

I'm not trying to be assertive, I'm just trying to put my ideas on the table. As much as I can, I'm saying things like we(the Catholic Church) believe/don't believe. Also Purgatory is (as far as I know) particular to Catholic belief, and it had been mentioned before, so I wanted to clear some things up. I apologize for the statement about the Mormons/Jehovah's, I wrote that at 9 to 10 o'clock and didn't have time to look it back over. So, on to counterpoints.

What, is it a club now? You can only get in if you're on the list?

That's not what I mean. What I do mean is this: If everyone from this world went to Heaven, we would have the same inherent problems and suffering as we would in this world, so it wouldn't be very heavenly, would it?

[Fenrir502]

Consider the human appendix.

God gave it to us, in order for it to serve its original purpose: to aid in the digestion of some plants, like grass. However, after the creation of "Adam", or free will, people decided that grass and other such plants did not taste good, and so stopped eating them. Over time, this structure was no longer needed, and slowly began to dissapear. That is why the appendix of people today is smaller than the appendix of people several thousands of years ago.

In other words, vestigal structures were not always useless, they've just lost their purpose, so SAVE THE APPENDIX, EAT GRASS... FOR 1,000,000 GENERATIONS.

@315: It is impossible for anything to be destroyed or created...
Things may change form, but they do not come in and out of existence.

Consider a chemical equation, HCl+NaOH->NaCl+H20

The substances have changed, but I'm sure you will find that there is nothing new, and nothing gone.

[agrajagthetesty]

God gave it to us, in order for it to serve its original purpose: to aid in the digestion of some plants, like grass. However, after the creation of "Adam", or free will, people decided that grass and other such plants did not taste good, and so stopped eating them. Over time, this structure was no longer needed, and slowly began to dissapear. That is why the appendix of people today is smaller than the appendix of people several thousands of years ago.

...But God is omniscient, and presumably would have known this would happen. Sorry, but the idea of humans adapting over time simply doesn't work with the idea of them being created in an all-knowing god's perfect image.

[Krendall]

I wanted to wait until I read the entire topic before I posted anything, but these bugged me enough I just had to respond.

The bible has a rather warped sense of what love is. According to the bible, God loves us so much that he is willing to subject us to a horrific eternal punishment for breaking one of his ten rules.

No...simply breaking one of the Ten Commandments doesn't send you to Hell. If that were the case no one would be saved. The only unfogivable sin (according to my interpretation of Christianity) is the continued rejection of salvation through Jesus.

I would like for you to honestly answer this question: Would your earthly father be willing to send you to hell, no matter how much you deserved it? If the answer is no, then wouldn't your earthly father be more loving than God?

Well, the answer to the first question is yes. Secondly, we choose to go to Hell by actively rejecting Jesus.

I ask you, does this definition of love correspond with a god that is willing to torture you for eternity?

Allowing someone to go to eternal damnation is very different from actively sending a person there.

If God was all-powerful and loved us so much, he would want to and be able to save us from hell.

He sent His only Son to die with the weight of the world's sins on his shoulders at the time of death after that Son had lead a perfect life. All he asks from us is to believe that this happened and accept that forgiveness of sins. Seems like a pretty sweet deal.

I thought God wasn't vengeful? If he really loves us so much, he wouldn't punish us.

So any time a parent punishes their child it's vengence?

You're saying that since Jesus died no-one goes to hell any more? That's not what I was told at church, and it's not what many evangelists are saying on television.

There are many interpretations for how salvation works. If you read the Bible, though, this statement is true (though misleading). No one has to go to Hell, but they will if they reject being saved. To quote probably the most famous verse of the Bible (John 3:16):
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

Not if [Purgatory] involves a holy book containing the words of God, surely?

There are no definitive verses of the Bible that explain anything like Purgatory. There are some verses that could explain it, so different denominations disagree on this point. I, for one, do not believe in Purgatory.

And are you saying that before Jesus died, even those who loved God would suffer for all eternity?

Sadly, the Bible is unclear on this area. In fact, I don't think it even gets brought up. The usual Christian feeling is that people went into a kind of "waitin area" until Jesus was sacrificed. That or they just died and the souls waited until that moment. I have no idea what the truth is, though. I would be rather shocked if the staple characters of Judeo-Christian history (Noah, Moses, Joseph, etc.) are not in Heaven now.

(At this point I could get defensive about only those who love God being saved... but I won't.)

Think of it as a father who wants to help his son, but the son constantly rejects that help. A loving father would be there and always be willing to help, but he would not force his will upon his son by forcing his son to allow his help. God is the same way. God is always willing to accept us, but if we want nothing to do with Him, He won't stop us. We are warned what the consequences of rejecting God are, but if that's our wish, God will grant it. However, from this moment until our deathbed, God is willing to take us back.

Evangelists take their lessons from the same book, pray in the same way and follow the same values as other Christians. And just what are you saying here? You seem to be arguing that we have all been saved, but also that if we do bad things we will suffer for all eternity. I don't think the two are compatible.

a) Yes. b) No. and c) No. While every Christian has the Bible, many have other books. Lutherans have Luther's Catecism (damn lack of a dictionary handy), Mormons have the Book of Mormon, etc. The view on what prayer is and how it works can be very different between Christians. Similarly, values are different. Some Christians believe we still have to be kosher, for example, while most do not. This is why there are many, many denominations of Christianity (Chatholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.), not to mention demoninations within denominations (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Lutheran Church of America, etc.).

Sadly, many Christians are under the impression, and are taught in a way that adds to that impression, that good deeds are the key to our salvation. This is explicitly contradicted in the Bible where it says we are saved through Grace, not through works. Sadly, I don't remember the exact book, chapter, and verse.

Church of England.

This is an offshoot of the Catholic Chursh, isn't it? I believe it was basically Henry VIII saying, "I'm Pope, now!"

Sorry for the long post and sorry for repeating any points. However, this common misinterpretation on salvation pisses me off so much I just had to say something.

[darkarcher]

...But God is omniscient, and presumably would have known this would happen. Sorry, but the idea of humans adapting over time simply doesn't work with the idea of them being created in an all-knowing god's perfect image.

Because we're not made in God's physical image. We were made with emotions, rationality, and a soul/spirit. As far as adaptability, why would it not make sense for God to make his creation in a way that it could survive under different circumstances?

[Fenrir502]

But people needed it then...
Imagine if people don't need to breathe in a million years, are you saying having lungs now is silly?

[agrajagthetesty]

Because we're not made in God's physical image

All accounts of visions of God have Him as exceedingly vaguely humanoid

Maybe you two could fight this one out.

Sigh... I'm actually getting tired of this now. All you have is assertions without any references or evidence to back them up. Let's face it, everyone interprets their religion differently from everyone else, even if they identify themselves as coming from the same church. This is only natural considering how vague certain parts of the Bible are, and how many different parts seem to contradict each other. How is anyone supposed to find salvation in those conditions? Maybe they've misunderstood a certain chapter, thought that something was only a minor sin when in fact it was a mortal sin, so now they're going to hell. Or maybe they thought that as long as they have faith they'll be forgiven, so haven't followed all of the laws in the Bible word for word, when actually the laws were supposed to be followed strictly and rigidly- so they're going to hell, and they'll be a bit taken aback when they arrive, too. My point being, when dealing with anything with such a wide spectrum of interpretation, some of the interpretations are going to be wrong. And yet nobody considers that possibility.

This is an offshoot of the Catholic Chursh, isn't it? I believe it was basically Henry VIII saying, "I'm Pope, now!"

It was more like Henry VIII saying "To hell with the Pope!", if you'll pardon the vaguely blasphemous tone. As the ruler of England, he considered it his right to lead England in matters of religion as well. Obviously it's changed a bit since then. Also, the church I went to was more Protestant-based than Catholic-based. But yes, it's evolved a lot, and most modern members of the church have at least a vague loyalty to the Pope.

Imagine if people don't need to breathe in a million years, are you saying having lungs now is silly?

No, I'm saying that if we're still improving and adapting, how were we ever God's ultimate creation, and why waste time to begin with making us so that we had a need for an organ that he knew would become superfluous?

[Zairak]

I think we are operating under different ideas here...

I'll try and make an example here. Say my arm gets chopped off. From my perspective, I am now a different person. The me that used to have two arms? That doesn't exist anymore. Similarly, I am not the same person with the same views that I used to be. That me doesn't exist anymore. You kill something and that thing as it was before you killed it doesn't exist anymore. A new changed form exists. Just because the component parts are still there and the newly resulted object or whatever has the same makeup slightly rearranged does not mean that the old thing is still there. The new thing is.

[Krendall]

how were we ever God's ultimate creation, and why waste time to begin with making us so that we had a need for an organ that he knew would become superfluous?

*shrug* I didn't make the human body, and God never really gave a detailed explanation of why we have the organs we do. Maybe at one point those organs actually served a purpose but now they don't.

...But God is omniscient, and presumably would have known this would happen. Sorry, but the idea of humans adapting over time simply doesn't work with the idea of them being created in an all-knowing god's perfect image.

I've always interpretted that "being made in God's image" meant that we were created perfect (that is, sinless) and immortal. Once we sinned we lost both of those qualities ("The wages of sin is death."). Given that the Garden of Eden is theorized to have been in the Middle East (the Bible specifically states that it was by the Euphrates River), God knew that man (as well as the other animals) would eventually spread throughout the planet. It makes sense to me that He would make us able to adapt to the different environments.

You can [have law without consequence] if you're God. Isn't God free to break his own laws as he sees fit?

Yes. He does by the fact that Jesus' sacrifice has erased our sins. Therefore we are judged as flawless despite living a sinful life. However, if you continue to reject or not believe that grace, you will not be forgiven.

[Fenrir502]

If you think about it, then the "Garden of Eden" could be yet another metaphor for a time of plenty, in which it would not be very hard to grow crops. However, after time, without crop rotation, or because of some change in weather patterns, perhaps this would cause a time of famine, symbolizing the ejection.

Actually, just thinking now, The Greeks also had a Garden of apples, guarded by a snake: The Garden of the Hespirades. Even in Norse mythology, Freya's Golden Apples granted immortality to the god's...

If anyone knows what the fascination with apples in religions are, could they shed some light? Because my theory stems from a chinese whispers setting... The same tale was told so many times that it was warped beyond recognition.

[Krendall]

If you think about it, then the "Garden of Eden" could be yet another metaphor for a time of plenty, in which it would not be very hard to grow crops. However, after time, without crop rotation, or because of some change in weather patterns, perhaps this would cause a time of famine, symbolizing the ejection.

According to Genesis, a mist rose from the ground that allowed the crops to grow naturally. After The Fall, one of the three punishments God delivered upon man was that he must now work to grow crops. (The other two were pain during childbirth and our bodies would die, if you were wondering.)

Actually, just thinking now, The Greeks also had a Garden of apples, guarded by a snake: The Garden of the Hespirades. Even in Norse mythology, Freya's Golden Apples granted immortality to the god's...

If anyone knows what the fascination with apples in religions are, could they shed some light? Because my theory stems from a chinese whispers setting... The same tale was told so many times that it was warped beyond recognition.

To be fair, the Bible never states that the forbiddeen fruit was indeed an apple. That's just the usual conception from people for some reason.

Ok, so in short, those who believe and accept God are all saved. Those who don't could be saved or damned, depending on their deeds. Right?

Wrong. All those who don't believe or accept God are damned. There is no such thing as "good enough" with God. We are either flawless or sinners. By God's judgment, every sin is equally bad. Whether you slapped someone or killed him will be judged with the same weight. And, yes, this means it is impossible to lead a flawless life without accepting God's grace. Once again, "The wages of sin is death," only this time it's spiritual death.

[killshot]

Well, the answer to the first question is yes. Secondly, we choose to go to Hell by actively rejecting Jesus.

This is the saddest thing I have heard all day. I truly feel sorry for you.

Allowing someone to go to eternal damnation is very different from actively sending a person there.

What purpose does hell serve? Why is hell necessary in God's eyes? Why create a hell at all? The only conceivable reason for hell to exist is that God doesn't care if we suffer. Every time I hear someone say we make the decision to go to hell ourselves, I picture God as a little kid making a hit list of all the people who don't want to join his club. If God cared at all whether we went to hell or not, he wouldn't make his existence a secret. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has as much evidence backing him up as God. Do you think it would be fair to be sent to hell for not believing in divine pasta?

So any time a parent punishes their child it's vengence?

When parents punish a child, a lesson is learned and it helps the child in the long run. What do you learn from hell? What conceivable reason would a loving God have to torture someone with no chance of escape?

A loving father would be there and always be willing to help, but he would not force his will upon his son by forcing his son to allow his help.

God ALWAYS helps his children? If God's idea of help is sending me to hell, then I can do without.


You seem to be confused about what a choice is. No one chooses to go to hell. God sends them. If I came up to you and put a gun to your head, then told you I would shoot if you didn't obey me, do you really have a choice? When I shoot you, can I just tell the cops that it was your decision? Like I said, no one chooses to go to hell. I don't believe in hell so what makes you think I am choosing to go there?