| Welcome to Cloud x Aerith forums! We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Is There A God? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 25 2005, 01:09 AM (5,977 Views) | |
| Rufus ShinRa | Oct 16 2005, 02:56 AM Post #121 |
![]()
Member
|
I kinda hope there is a after life, but not christians one so when I die, and when all my friends and family dies...I can ha. told you so ![]() where is Jesus.. No, I dont have a god, because of all the bad things that happen, that would be stupid of me if it was true XD I dont have one, because it all dont added up.. you just think there is one, because thats what you was raised on.. you was brain wrashed...like how ppl kill other ppl, thinking there go to heaven, and have lots of girls... XD sorry, but if you look at it right, the bible says one thing, and do the other ![]() sorry if I made anyone mad.. |
![]() |
|
| Carmencita | Oct 20 2005, 01:16 AM Post #122 |
|
The Rag Doll
|
Well, for me, the Bible can tell you anything and everything. Usually people only read what they want to hear. And then people end up disagreeing. Thus, conflicts about religion arise. That's what makes believing so hard, I suppose. I've come to think that so far, the best thing to do is to let other people find God on their own, or whatever entity there is out there. Just let them do their own soul-searching, let them find whatever gives them comfort and not interfere. It's their life to journey, not ours. I just hope you guys find God. :) Or be happy with your life and whatever you choose to believe. (Haha! My reply's a bit off. Hope it's alright.) |
![]() |
|
| Nevi | Oct 20 2005, 04:10 AM Post #123 |
|
let us be lovers.
|
Man, I wish you guys could talk to Van Taner. Boy would he free you up! :lol: *ahem* Anyway. In regards to the bible I think too many people take it for granted. Too many people forgot what happened and how many people died to make the bible available for the common folk to read. And nowadays people have forgotten that anyone ever died to give them hope. My ultra-religious grandmother thinks that the king james version was the first version of the bible. And saying that I want to say this, when Jesus came out of the wilderness he opened up the scripture and read aloud a verse from... I forget where but it was a verse of good news and hope. People weren't ready for the good news so they got mad and killed him. In that same fashion I think many people today aren't ready for the good news so they're spiritually attacking others. I know that sound weird but life is more than one level. There's the spiritual and the physical. Most people can't see beyond the physical. |
![]() |
|
| Raist | Oct 20 2005, 08:22 AM Post #124 |
![]()
The Bringer of the Black Funeral
|
Nevi There's the spiritual and the physical. Most people can't see beyond the physical. Seeing beyong the physical and accepting a spiritual reality within our existence does not imply, in any absolute form, the existence of the Christian god or of any god. I would just like to clear that point up. Nevi, I have a few questions for you. 1. Do you believe that the ages mentioned in the bible of certain persons are legitimate? 2. How old do you believe the Earth is? That is all. Zhakeena Zhakeena, your post entails almost exactly what I wish Nevi to realise. Religion should not be shoved down people's throats. |
![]() |
|
| Nevi | Oct 23 2005, 04:13 AM Post #125 |
|
let us be lovers.
|
First off Raist, I don't think you and I are thinking about the same God. I think that you are thinking about the imperfect boxed in God that 85% of most christians believe in. I think I know of the God you speak of, the one that most people I know serve. The one of religion. But I know they aren't serving my God. My God is the perfect creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The loving God. The one true God. The God of the bible. And when you know God, you know him. Once you truly understand there is no way on this blue earth you could deny him. If you "go beyond the veil" you know without a doubt that God is real. So many people put God in a box. They say that God can't move unless you do this or that. I want to ask them, "What God are you serving?" Cause I know, if my God wants to move, he's gonna move. And yes, I do think the ages are true. In the beginning of time when DNA was more pure people lived longer, grew taller and were much stronger. And I think that the age of the earth is somewhere between 10,000 and 6,000 years. And I'm not trying to shove religion down your throat. I just like to debate. I don't care for religion much, anyway. I like relationship better. I don't think that people have to work to get God's attention. He's always looking at us and wants to have a relationship with us. |
![]() |
|
| Raist | Oct 24 2005, 05:08 AM Post #126 |
![]()
The Bringer of the Black Funeral
|
Nevi First off Raist, I don't think you and I are thinking about the same God. I think that you are thinking about the imperfect boxed in God that 85% of most christians believe in. I think I know of the God you speak of, the one that most people I know serve. The one of religion. But I know they aren't serving my God. My God is the perfect creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Here's my first problem. Seeker and I have not yet agreed that the God of which you speak (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is indeed perfect. He has seemingly created the possibility for imperfection (if not in fact imperfection itself) which may necessitate that He is in fact imperfect. When you further consider that God has changed his ways from the vengeful acts of the Old Testament, from Genocide and death, to something of more compassion and love then God has seemingly changed his methods. His tact has taken a new route. A perfect God (by principle) would not need to change, and it seems that the God of which you speak is not perfect. This doesn't mean He is not far greater or more magnificent than I. Just that He is not perfect. So many people put God in a box. They say that God can't move unless you do this or that. I want to ask them, "What God are you serving?" Cause I know, if my God wants to move, he's gonna move. Several events occur in the Bible where God punishes and destroys to meet his ends. He creates pain. A perfect God who can move when he wishes to move as you say would not need to create pain to fulfill his actions. It once again suggests that your God is not perfect. However I have never said God cannot move unless we do this or that. And when you know God, you know him. Once you truly understand there is no way on this blue earth you could deny him. If you "go beyond the veil" you know without a doubt that God is real. That is an example of faith and something impossible for me to argue against. However you have to realise that I believe with similar convictions in my values and princples. But that faith you there express also represents a tendency to be close minded. And I'm not trying to shove religion down your throat. But can you understand that that is the impression you give? That we feel as though you are? That perhaps a change of tact would better serve to change our opinion? Perhaps a little empathy is required on your part. And yes, I do think the ages are true. In the beginning of time when DNA was more pure people lived longer, grew taller and were much stronger. DNA is neither pure, nor impure. It simply is. Do you base that belief solely upon the words of the bible? Then how do you explain your comment of DNA? How do you deny scientific evidence that suggests the opposite - that we were shorter, weaker and lived shorter lives. And I think that the age of the earth is somewhere between 10,000 and 6,000 years. So you completely deny the overwhelming evidence of carbon dating? Of dinosaur fossils and the like? |
![]() |
|
| Nevi | Oct 24 2005, 05:54 AM Post #127 |
|
let us be lovers.
|
I didn't say you. I said "many people." (eg. 99% of my family.)
DNA can be pure and impure. That is why there is inbreeding. Brothers and sisters can't have children together because it's morally wrong but that over the years DNA has become impure. There is written evidence of men and women who were brothers and sisters having children together and the children being just fine. You should check out the "Annals Of Time."
Carbon dating isn't 100% accurate. Carbon dating works when sometimes nitrogen 14 changes into carbon 14 high in the atmosphere. Over time, however, the carbon 14 decays back into nitrogen 14. Since plants "breath" carbon dioxide, their leaves, stems and seeds contain some carbon 14 in their structures along with the more common isotope, carbon 12. Once a plant dies, they stop taking in new carbon 14 and the unstable carbon 14 already begins to decay back into nitrogen 14, while the stable carbon 12 remains. By measuring the amount of carbon 14 left sometime after the plant dies, you can calculate (in theory) how long ago the plant died. Since animals eat plants, their deaths can be dated the same way. From measurements, we know this rate of decay. It decays fast enough that all of it would be gone in about 50,000 years or so. But in reality, because carbon 14 decays so rapidly, it is not very useful for dating things more than a few thousand years old. Beyond that, no one trust it because such tiny amounts are left, and accuracy problems are so numerous. Even for dates within the last 3,000 years, archaeologists like to have some known historical date to check it with. For things older than that, they seldom trust it at all. [See, The Geology Book by Dr. John D. Morris] |
![]() |
|
| Raist | Oct 24 2005, 02:34 PM Post #128 |
![]()
The Bringer of the Black Funeral
|
Nevi I didn't say you. I said "many people." (eg. 99% of my family.) Fair enough, I'm sorry for misreading that, I apologise once again. But you've conveniently skipped the rest of my post. DNA can be pure and impure. That is why there is inbreeding. Brothers and sisters can't have children together because it's morally wrong but that over the years DNA has become impure. There is written evidence of men and women who were brothers and sisters having children together and the children being just fine. You should check out the "Annals Of Time." DNA is not pure or impure. That presumes that DNA can somehow be tainted. Yes there are cases of family members having healthy children, but the cases are so rare that it is not worth the risk. To have a child born from the same family members and not contain any repeating chromosomes is an absolute miracle and freak of nature. That still does not prove or even reasonably suggest that humans were ever able to live that long. It is only thanks to technnology and better understanding of our environment that we are able to live so long today. There are many elements within the human body that could not remain in correct quantities for a human body to live that long, until perhaps the inventions of the future. Carbon dating isn't 100% accurate. That is correct. It is not 100% accurate after approximately 50,000 years. The half life of carbon - 14 (the time taken for half of the substance to decompose) is 5730 years. In 50000 years not all of it will be gone. That will take far, far longer, but it will be decomposing so slowly that it cannot be told apart from other radiation and becomes completely inaccurate. So your explanation of carbon dating is both incorrect an obviously biased. I say this not only from the perspective of carbon dating but of Rubidium - Strontium dating. The half life of this ion is approximately 50 billion years (with an error ratio of about 30 - 50 million years per sample). So even if we assume that Carbon dating is too inaccurate to prove the existence of the earth beyond 5000 years, Strontium dating can quite easily do this. The earth is far older than 5000 years. Oh and Nevi, that's yet another creationist source. |
![]() |
|
| EnglishRose | Oct 25 2005, 01:08 PM Post #129 |
|
Unregistered
|
What, that the Earth is older than 5,000 years? Well yes, because I think it's about 6,000. ![]()
Live so long today? I'm sorry, but I think that's bit of a contradiction. We understood our planet long ago, but man's arrogance, and not being proper stewards of the planet has made it degenerate. In the Bible, people lived longer, because of the absence of technology that is around today, such as cars, factories, nuclear testing, the list goes on. In some ways, we are understanding what we can see on the Earth, but the solutions to the problems we created ourselves take alot longer. Isn't it possible to make mistakes before to find the answer? You try again until it's right. Unfortunately, until we find the right answer, the wrong solutions creat other problems. If we were right with God in the first place, man wouldn't trash the place and treat it like a garbage dump. Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but my wrath has built up so much, and I'm being calm as possible. -_- |
|
|
| Hyper-Ballad | Oct 26 2005, 03:16 AM Post #130 |
|
Heroine addict since 1997
|
What or who is Raist contradicting, exactly? I also find it extremely difficult to believe that people lived longer in Biblical times - there are records from the time of the Egyptians, the Greeks and Romans which provide a lot of information about human life expectancy from those periods, and which shows that life expectancy to be significantly lower than it is today. And do you have any proof of how we understood our planet? Is this before or after the founding of civilisation? While I agree with you that our irresponsible use of technology is certainly the cause of environmental damage, our technological advancements have increased our life expectancy very much. Medical adavancements are a prime example of that. Cars and factories may be responsible for loss of life, but they're also responsible for sustaining it (what some of these factories produce, providing greater employment, a car can speed you away from danger or towards a hosptical, etc). It's something of a double-edged sword, but the odds are very much in favour of greater life expectancy as a result of their place in modern society. And as Raist said, better understanding of our environment has made a huge contribution towards this too. And cars, factories and nuclear weapons are far more of a fixture in life than they were 50 years ago...and yet, our life expectancy has increased in those 50 years, not the opposite. -_- |
![]() |
|
| Raist | Oct 26 2005, 06:09 AM Post #131 |
![]()
The Bringer of the Black Funeral
|
AerithR What, that the Earth is older than 5,000 years? Well yes, because I think it's about 6,000. happy.gif If you'd read my post you would have realised two things: 1. The use of the adjective "far" in my above post suggests that the Earth is not slightly older than 5000 years but much much older. 2. Strontium dating proves that the Earth is over a billion years old (most likely far more again). So no, the Earth is not 6000 years old. Live so long today? I'm sorry, but I think that's bit of a contradiction. As Hyper-Ballad has already said, what am I contradicting? In the Bible, people lived longer, because of the absence of technology that is around today, such as cars, factories, nuclear testing, the list goes on. I could reply to this...but I feel Hyper-Ballad has said all that needs to be said on this issue. Please refer to the post below... Isn't it possible to make mistakes before to find the answer? You try again until it's right. Unfortunately, until we find the right answer, the wrong solutions creat other problems. Yes. We make mistakes before we come to the right conclusion. This is certainly still happening on today's world and we are constantly frustrated with wrong answers and conclusions. But we are constantly heading towards right answers and sustainable societies. The mistakes we have made are being negated as quickly as possible and the study and research that goes into scientific research today stops many more disastrous mistakes from happening today. That is the way of the world, but we are improving. If we were right with God in the first place, man wouldn't trash the place and treat it like a garbage dump. That is a statement made entirely on faith. There is no empirical proof behind that comment. |
![]() |
|
| Nevi | Oct 26 2005, 10:13 PM Post #132 |
|
let us be lovers.
|
I didn't feel like I needed to answer. K?
Oh, I say round a couple of thousand years ago DNA was pure enough that it was more common for siblings to have children together. And looking through historical documents you can find in different places where humans lived much longer than present day ones do. As I stated before you should check out the book "The Annals Of Time."
Yes, it is a creationist source. If I am using creationism as my stand why should I use an evolutionist resource. |
![]() |
|
| Raist | Oct 27 2005, 02:29 AM Post #133 |
![]()
The Bringer of the Black Funeral
|
Nevi I didn't feel like I needed to answer. K? That is ok only on one condition. That you have accepted my post as correct and that I have affected a change upon your opinion. This is a debate, you can't simply ignore statements unless you concede to them. Oh, I say round a couple of thousand years ago DNA was pure enough that it was more common for siblings to have children together. And looking through historical documents you can find in different places where humans lived much longer than present day ones do. As I stated before you should check out the book "The Annals Of Time." I'll say it again. DNA is neither pure or impure, it simply is. The likelihood of family members having healthy children at any point in history is essentially exactly the same as at any other point. The reason family members have disabled children is because of a lack in variety of chromosomes between the two parents. This factor of human DNA has never changed. It is still the same as it was from when time began. The chromosomes themselves are different and in very different combinations but the issue of inbreeding is identical. Now I've attempted to google the Annals of Time and have been unable to find what I think it is you're recommending - mainly due to this phrase becoming an incredible cliche - but I may not have to read it to understand what you're discussing anyway. I presume 'The Annals of Time" is a religous document or at the least a historical document entailing supposed facts about certain people living long, long lives. Show me some empirical evidence of this found by civilisation. The only evidence you have for this statement are the documents and words of the religous. You have nothing that has been observed or deduced scientifically and I will say again that there is a plethora of scientific evidence suggesting that we currently have life spans far longer than any other civilisation in our history, as will the next generation and the one beyond that. You'll notice that society does not recognise, and hasnot recognised for many many years, the existance of these people. The oldest people in history are documented and their bodies or dates of cremation can be found in their respective country's historical data. None come close to the ages presented in the bible. The Bible is to be taken more symbolically and metaphorically then literally and all the reasonable Christians I know believe that. Most of the "facts" of the Bible, the ones that you so vehemently suggest, are to be found in the Old Testament. I think you need to look at the context of the times in which this document was written, then look at the context of the New Testament. The differences in rule and society are also shown in the writing and meaning of the Bible. The New Testament can be taken far more literally than the old. Yes, it is a creationist source. If I am using creationism as my stand why should I use an evolutionist resource. What I gave you had absolutely nothing to do with evolution. At the most dating of certain elements has been used as a tool to discover come important elements in the theory of evolution. So there are no evolutionist sources on Carbon and Strontium dating. There are creationist, or I should say more appropriately Young Earth Creationist sources, on carbon and strontium dating. There is a distinct difference between the two that makes creationist sources on dating materials unreliable and not satisfactory for debate. That creationist source already has their conclusion. They are twisting the facts according to their conclusion and thus give a completely unreliable source of evidence. The scientific sources of the information have no conclusion. They are simply trying to answer their own questions, rather than setting the facts to run in-line with a conslusion, they are making a conclusion from the facts. Carbon dating is reliable for 50000 years. That is a scientific fact. Strontium dating has a half life of over a billion years. That is scientific fact. The world is not 6000 years old. Your creationist source is unreliable. |
![]() |
|
| Nevi | Nov 1 2005, 04:36 AM Post #134 |
|
let us be lovers.
|
I do not agree with your points but I respect them, fair enough?
In Egypt during the times of the "forgotten pharaohs" as my sister says, it was in truth more common for half brothers and sisters to be married and have perfectly fine children. Even such is displayed in the bible. Such as Abraham and Sarah.
Oops! My bad! It isn't the Annals of time but the "Annals of The world." It's been out of publishing for at least 500 years, I think it was. It a compilation of many historical dates from the beginning of time until... I don't remember until when! :lol: It shows events that were present in the bible, greece, Egypt along with other places, I believe. Sorry about the typo!
Most people forget what the bible is. The oldest surviving historical document on the planet.
You know, the same could be said for evolutionists. Evolution was not Darwin's thought but is really apart of Greek mythology. I'll explain more later. |
![]() |
|
| Raist | Nov 2 2005, 11:26 AM Post #135 |
![]()
The Bringer of the Black Funeral
|
Nevi I do not agree with your points but I respect them, fair enough? Nevi, you don't seem to get it. You can't simply shake off an argument and say your respect them but disagree with them in a debate. If you do that you've accepted that you've lost. You have to present why you disagree with it. This is a debate for crying out loud. In Egypt during the times of the "forgotten pharaohs" as my sister says, it was in truth more common for half brothers and sisters to be married and have perfectly fine children. Even such is displayed in the bible. Such as Abraham and Sarah. *sigh* 1. There will be a much, much, higher ratio of success between half brothers and sisters due to significantly different gene pools. The two children have three wholly different gene pools to draw from when they have their children and it is obviously far more likely for their children to be fine. In fact (don't quote me on this, it's all speculation) they may be 3 times more likely to have healthy children than actual sisters and brothers having children. In that situation there is only one pool to draw from and as I've said before the chances of a healthy child in this situation at any point in history is incredibly small. It can happen, but not often. 2. The document has not been proven as a valid historical document. There are certainly elements of truth within it (particularly in the New Testament, which I'll admit is near entirely true), but the Old Testament is also filled with many events that are sure not to have happened, or did not happen to the extent to which they are written. The flood for example. The Bible was not the first document to show a great flood plaging the lands. But it did not cover the whole Earth. The Epic of Gilgamesh wrote about the Flood long before the Bible did. So you can see that the example of Abraham and Sarah is woefully unreliable, particularly in consideration that it is a part of Genesis. The section speaking of humans who were older than any human has lived and the direct speech with God and the allowing of Sarah to get pregnant also speak of myth, as I have mentioned before. Oops! My bad! It isn't the Annals of time but the "Annals of The world." It's been out of publishing for at least 500 years, I think it was. It a compilation of many historical dates from the beginning of time until... I don't remember until when! laugh.gif It shows events that were present in the bible, greece, Egypt along with other places, I believe. Sorry about the typo! Ok, I just took a quick look at a few synopses of the "Annals of the World" and I am not at all convinced. Ussher certainly seems to be a brilliant scholar but his work is based upon conclusions once again. I don't doubt that his dates are impeccable. I do believe that his document of history and of time are, if not correct, very near so but as I said above, they do not prove that any of the events he speaks of happened. They only suggest a time pattern for them, or some of them at least. The world is over a billion years old, so his mention of the time of creation is incorrect. He makes some claims about the Bible's occurences and puts them in place of time, but that in no way proves they happened. Ussher wasn't out to prove these events - he already believed - he was creating a time scale for them. So no Nevi, the "Annals of the World" does not prove that any of the events in the Bible occurred. Most people forget what the bible is. The oldest surviving historical document on the planet. You may be right, though I seem to recall something stemming from China and/or Egypt before this. Not to mention the Epic of Gilgamesh, which I'll admit is not entirely historical, was certainly written before the Bible. You know, the same could be said for evolutionists. Evolution was not Darwin's thought but is really apart of Greek mythology. I'll explain more later. WTF? That is quite seriously about all I have to say. WTF? Natural selection was Darwin's theory. Evolution is the now constantly evolving theory of the Earth's passage of life. The two now have little in common. So firstly you're attacking the wrong person and the wrong document. Evolution is now concerned with the facts and not the conclusion and can't be said to be in the same vain as creationist sources, so no, you are wrong. Secondly, even Darwin's work is less biased by circular reasoning than creationist information, so that's also negated. And lastly, just because I know everyone who is reading this post is thinking it, Greek Mythology? WTF?You have to explain that one. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Lifestream · Next Topic » |









2:08 PM Jul 11