How can evolution be true if there are no between-stage fossils? (+ 1 more question)

Originally posted by gene90:I think that sacrificing one's life willingly is the highest expression of valor there is.That's also the belief of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 as well. I rather live. Besides, I had said to sacrifice another's life, not you own.But in war I think that it is sometimes necessary to kill.Only as a last resort of self-defence that is why offenesive wars are immoral. War is a failure, there is no honor, nor glory in having to fight one even if it is sometimes a neccessary evil.You're no agnostic because you're as sure there is no God as I am sure there is a God. That makes you an atheist. Why you won't
'fess up to that is beyond me.In regards to a creator of all I am an agnostic. It is quite clear that the Christian god is a made up being since most Christians do create their god in their own image. You are no different.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-21-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:ROTFLMAO.

​

Like suicidal lemmings, Mormon arranged marriages, Joseph's Smith miraculous resurrection to write a prophecy after the fact, and
the William Shakespeare edition of the KJV?All nothing in comparison to your delusion of a so-called "spirit witness".Where are you getting this? I'm quite sure you don't have enough background in religion to have heard this anywhere else but a thirdhand source, such as....TV? It was what we were taught in Church and Sunday School that Lucifer rebelled against god because god wouldn't let him love a woman he met while on Earth.Maybe the Mormons have a different version? Or else you're just being contrary. If I said it was day you'd just say that it was night.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
I don't think it requires a knowledge of
good and evil to guess that something bad has been
threatened if you do something.

​

---

Yes, it does. They wouldn't have known what bad was without knowing what evil was beforehand as well.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blitz77:
[B]

quote:

---

It was what we were taught in Church and Sunday School that Lucifer rebelled against god because god wouldn't let him love a woman he met while on Earth.

---

Where'd you get that idea? It was because Lucifer wanted to place himself higher than God that God kicked him out. It was because of his pride. [quote]12How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 13You said in your heart, I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. 14I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High. 15But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit (Isa. 14:12—15, NIV).[/b][/quote]That wasn't the bible I was taught out of. And besides this passage only talks about him being cast out not why, or how, he rebelled.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

---

​

"I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness. I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things" (Isaiah 45:7)

​

Which translation is yours from?

---

Does it really matter if it is suppose to be the word of god?

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Don't dodge the point. Back to your argument

quote:

---

It was what we were taught in Church and Sunday School that Lucifer rebelled against god because god wouldn't let him love a woman he met while on Earth.

---

​

saying that Lucifer rebelled because of love for a woman. Cite.

​

---

Revelation 12: 1—12This may be the right passages, all I know is what I was told during mass and at Sunday School. That Lucifer rebelled because he had fallen in love with a woman while he was on Earth got her pregnant and when god found out god took the woman up to heaven and Lucifer try to overthrow god for treating him like this. Some call this pride for daring to oppose god's will.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

Does it really matter if it is suppose to be the word of god?

---

​

We believe that the Bible in its original form is inspired by God. However, humans make errors (as we always do) and in the translation process may misinterpret something.

​

---

If it is truly the inspired word of your god than translation is irrelevant. An al-knowing god would take that into account.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
It just demonstrates the limited nature of language. You ever learnt another language nos482? You should realize that translating a word from one language to another isn't perfect. In the translation, some of the meaning is lost.

---

Irrelevant, as I had said an all-knowing god would take that into account. Afterall it was god who was suppose to have created all of these languages in the first place as a punishment for building the tower of Babel. [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-21-2002]

Originally posted by blitz77:Please read it before you talk about it.Like I had said I wasn't sure if this was the right passages. But this still doesn't change the fact that I was taught what I had said during my youth. All I knew was that it was an interesting story. I've even asked my family and they remember the same thing being told to them as well.Though, this is probably another case of something being taught as being from the bible which actually isn't in the the bible as stated. Since most Christians don't actually read it in any real depth, and aren't bible scholars, they will go mostly by what their clergy tells them. If you can't trust what your clergy says who can you trust? [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-21-2002]

Originally posted by blitz77:Not really. If you mean by sermons by the clergy, sure, they usually aren't in any real depth. But many Christians are in Bible study groups, in which we study each book of the Bible (about 1/2 to 1 term to study one book). In these groups, we discuss and learn about them as a group-we did Revelation last year. Right now we're doing Deuteronomy (which you'd probably agree is one of the harder to understand books).Many such groups may do this, but the vast majority of Christians don't. They completely depend on what their clergy tells them. It has always been like this.Anyway, if you've ever read the Left Behind fiction series (By Tim Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins) about Armageddon, you quite quickly realize how Revelation is applicable. The series has sold >50 million books, so it shouldn't be too hard to find those apocalyptic fiction books (theres about 10 in the series right now). Anyway, even if you don't believe in Christianity, the books are a fun read. (Books #7,8,9,10 have all reached the #1 position on New York Times Bestseller list).I know about this series of books and movies and it is nothing more than fear mongering. They're like that fake news program with Jack Van Impe and his wife where they go through obscure newspapers and magazines looking for whatever they can find which they believe proves that the end of the world is coming.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
The problem with the "Left Behind" series, like the Perretti books a few years ago, is that too many folk read them as theology tomes.

---

Exactly. They think that they are documentaries in disguise as well.

Originally posted by Peter:They didn't need to know that it was 'bad' to eat the fruit from
the tree of knowledge of good and evil ... it is sufficient to
know that god has said you will die if you eat it.Why? What is die? What child knows of death and they were as innocent as children. There was no need or experience for any higher level of understanding.As I had said in order to understand negative consequences one first must know and understand right from wrong and good from bad(evil) and thus would have had no need to eat of the apple.They need to be afraid of death for that to work though,
so that begs the question were Adam and Eve immortal before
the 'fall'?Since there was no death before they ate of the apple than it stands to reason that they were immortal as well.Perhaps they were immortal in the same way that the Norse gods
were ... they could be killed but they would not age and die
of natural causes.Unlikely since there was no death at all.

Originally posted by Peter:You don't need to understand right and wrong to understand
negative consequence.

​

You only need to understand the nature of the consequence, and
that it is undesireable.And how do you know this if you have no concept of pain or suffering either? What is desireabble, or undesireable?The above is the basis of all animal training (although one
cannot proove that other animals do not know right from wrong
current assumptions are that they do not).They know pain and suffering from experience so pain is bad. There was no pain in the garden before they ate of the apple.If I tell my daughter that she must not do something or
I will be cross with her, she does not need to know the
difference between right and wrong, only that she does
not like it when I am cross with her.Because she may have had previous experience when you being angry with her when she did something wrong. Adam and Eve were kicked out the very first time and never had a chance to learn this.I gave an exampele of a three year old who was told not to go out of the yard into the street yet did the very first time the gate was left open. Do you go by your god's example and toss her out on her own because of this?

Originally posted by Peter:The above is more or less my point ... you do not need to know
about good and bad, only about the desirability or otherwise
of the consequence.

​

Not the same thing.Yes, it is the same thing. How does one know what is desireable or not if one doesn't know what is good and what is bad? Desireable (good), undesireable (bad).In your three year old example (which in my experience is
very treu to life) then the child would be scolded, and told
that they would be scolded again for not doing as told.Adam and Eve were not allowed to learn from experience.The god of the bible's reaction is pretty extreme (I agree with
that), but then this is a being who is so self obsessed that
he/she/it created an entire universe whose only purpose was
to worship him.

​

Oh, BTW, in case you hadn't guessed, he's not my god ...
I don't have one.Any parent who acts in this manner doesn't deserve to have any "children". They are totally unfit to have any.

Originally posted by Peter:I agree that in the stroy in the bible god didn't
really give Adam and Eve a chance. I'm not defending
that god's actions.

​

However, good and bad are not (in this context) analagous to
desireable and undesireable.

​

The tree was knowledge of good and evil ... after eating it
they saw that they were naked and covered themselves, for example.

​

It's a social morality thing.

​

It makes little sense unless taken as a parable about the evolution
of socially acceptable behaviours, and as an attempt by some
priesthood or other to justify the imposition of their personal
morality on others.

​

I don't disagree with your opinion of the story, nor of god's
over reaction ... but I think you are wrong to equate
consequence with good/evil judgements.[/QUOTE]They are equated to each other. Bad is synonymous with evil. One can't make any such judgements unless one first understands the difference. They knew no different.