»

[bloodline]

Oliver wrote:

Are you sure about this? I believe he and his supposed virgin mother at least get a mention in the Koran. I don't know what the source would be for the information though.

Very sure. The Koran, by the way, was written 700 years after the Bible... but I hold them in equal esteem...

[bloodline]

Oliver wrote:

I'm pretty sure he wasn't really talking about cats and dogs or intelligence at all; he was talking about logic, and your use of a non sequitur argument. Logic is an interesting discipline in itself, and one which is very often neglected.

Yes Oliver has it right! :-)

[X-ray]

Bloodline says:

"...Before I could comment on the intelligence of a cat or a dog, we would first need to define intelligence.
How is Man higher than animal? You share the same basic planform as a cat, and share identical organs... where the only differences are the respective specialisms of those organs. You have a bigger brain than a cat, but your teeth and claws are essentially useless compared to the cat... You need to wear clothes, the cat has a highly developed fur coat...
By higher I suppose you mean superior?
I would suggest you think about this:
You and a tiger in the jungle... who is the higher organism? (hint- my money is on the tiger)..."
------------------------------------------------------------

Well then you lost your money, as is evident by the fact that tigers don't pick up their kids from school and take them to the zoo to see the humans that they captured in the jungle

[bloodline]

X-ray wrote:
Bloodline says:

"...Before I could comment on the intelligence of a cat or a dog, we would first need to define intelligence.
How is Man higher than animal? You share the same basic planform as a cat, and share identical organs... where the only differences are the respective specialisms of those organs. You have a bigger brain than a cat, but your teeth and claws are essentially useless compared to the cat... You need to wear clothes, the cat has a highly developed fur coat...
By higher I suppose you mean superior?
I would suggest you think about this:
You and a tiger in the jungle... who is the higher organism? (hint- my money is on the tiger)..."
------------------------------------------------------------

Well then you lost your money, as is evident by the fact that tigers don't pick up their kids from school and take them to the zoo to see the humans that they captured in the jungle

[X-ray]

Mind you, judging by some politicians, there is a very sound argument that even the common barnacle attached to a whale's rear end is surely an intelligent creature!

[Speelgoedmannetje]

X-ray wrote:

Well then you lost your money, as is evident by the fact that tigers don't pick up their kids from school and take them to the zoo to see the humans that they captured in the jungle

I think bloodline meant something with omnomnomnom ;-)

[X-ray]

Ja I know.

[Oliver]

bloodline wrote:
The Koran, by the way, was written 700 years after the Bible...

Yeah, I know. That's why I mentioned I wasn't sure of the Koran's source of that information. Obviously, if the source was the Christian Bible, then that is not really any form of confirmation.

edit- This is not something I have really looked into. I had assumed that Jesus would have at least had a mention in some Roman or Jewish records. Although, if my understanding is correct, the following of Jesus wasn't really a factor for Rome until some years after his crucifiction. I had expected that Jesus would have been a disruptive influence amongst the local Jewish temples, at least.

[Oliver]

Wilse wrote:
Even if there were and this God created man to serve and worship it then that is one insecure, slave-driving arsehole of a god.

That's pretty close to my take, too. I don't believe in subservience. I really don't appreciate it being promoted, either. I think this is a bit of a hang over from the old testament, and one of the inconsistencies in the principles of modern Christianity. It does also remind me a little of some of the forms of Chinese filial piety.

[trekiej]

I understand that is good to have evidence to support ones theory. I do believe that there is a case for the New Testament, which points to the Old Testament being valid as well.

I believe that People are intelligent and that they are superior to animals. I do not believe that people are animals, but some people seem to destroy that case.
I understand that animals have a soul but not a spirit that would leave to eternal life in Heaven. I know that having evidence to support this is good for a scientist and other would love to have it too.

I know that God looks like he is an awful God and I do believe that there is a reason why he would allow for the world to go the way it has. I do also believe that it will not go on forever.(He will end it according to scripture)

I do feel that science and religion do not necessarily negate one another. I do feel that each can be applied to different areas of life. Science looks like matter and energy and Religion looks like spirit and beliefs.
A Psychologist listens to our words to analyze our situations that we face. I feel like there are things that cannot be analyzed with science or its instruments.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. It like saying to me that intelligent beings have intelligent offspring.

I feel purpose is an indicator of intelligent design. We all have a purpose or none of us have a purpose.
An intelligent mind would need to come from an intelligent source.

[trekiej]

I feel like people either want to know or do not want to know.
Those who want to know may be of two types. One goes by faith and the other by physical evidence.
I do the believe the bible says, " the just shall walk by faith and not by sight". To me that says, seeing is not always believing.

How many here would believe if the bible could be proven without a doubt?

Some hope it is not real or true.

[the_leander]

trekiej wrote:
I feel like people either want to know or do not want to know.
Those who want to know may be of two types. One goes by faith and the other by physical evidence.
I do the believe the bible says, " the just shall walk by faith and not by sight". To me that says, seeing is not always believing.

Blind faith is dangerous.

trekiej wrote:
How many here would believe if the bible could be proven without a doubt?

Some hope it is not real or true.

Given the inconsistancies within the bible, such as Judas dying in two different ways, for instance, the bible cannot be shown to be true.

And if the abrahamaic god as described in the the old testiment, new testiment and koran are accurate, you're damn right I'd not want to know the bugger - this fiend allegedly wiped out all of human kind on earth bar 1 family! This entity by any standard is guilty of genocide.

Not to mention his silent consent of every bloody action ever taken out in his name... Between the big three you're looking at a body count up there with smallpox. If I were an all powerful diety, I would not want my fanclub butchering my creation for sh!ts and giggles!

And the above is one of the reasons I could never become a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, because to do so is to take that history as part of your own. I do not want to become part of an organisation that has butchered tens of millions over the centuries. (I know, comming from an ex sailor there is some irony in that, but I reserve the right to change my views as new information is thrown my way.)

[Wilse]

trekiej wrote:

I do the believe the bible says, " the just shall walk by faith and not by sight". To me that says, seeing is not always believing.

The bible also says, "All the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.--Zeph.3:8"

How many here would believe if the bible could be proven without a doubt?

What is of far greater concern is that even though it has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that many parts of the bible are nonsense (and blindingly obvious nonsense at that) there some, you being one of them, who appear determined to believe it regardless.

So I suggest you turn that question around, apply it to yourself and tell us who is being irrational, ridiculous absurd and, well, plain silly.

[trekiej]

I have never heard of Judas dying two different ways.
What has been proven to be nonsense and untrue?
I do not think it is blind faith if it is of good conscience.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,...

God does not have to answer to us, God is a perfect judge.
A lot of what happened in the Old Testament is to teach us about God.

[bloodline]

trekiej wrote:
I have never heard of Judas dying two different ways.

One of many contradictions... If you bother to read the whole text, you will find it full of contradiction and inconsistency... If you really want I can prove a list... but to be honest it's bloody tedious, and I'm not going to bother if you aren't interested...

What has been proven to be nonsense and untrue?
I do not think it is blind faith if it is of good conscience.

You could use that argument to justify anything... There is one thing that never fails any test... Carefully reasoned logic.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,...

I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove...It makes little sense, and subject to interpretation... You may as well base your faith on the lyrics of a song...

God does not have to answer to us, God is a perfect judge.
A lot of what happened in the Old Testament is to teach us about God.

Then that is one nasty god... I have you even read the Bible?