We came from where?

[abejaruco]

then the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were "righteous and good".

So, were not "righteous and good" (mutatis mutandis  :evil:) the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition?

It´s easy to criticise the hard old times actions from our modern point of view.

As you can see actually, all the empires have to be care with the black propaganda made by the envious countries.

[Hopeful]

Actually, Brian, the Mormons hold to several of those doctrines I listed. Seems they have finally grown tired of the cult label themselves. Truth be told, I am doctrinally somewhere between a messianic Jew and a Seventh-day Adventist, and there are thousands who share the same beliefs, but are not a denomination. I believe the Bible and study its message outside of traditional influence. Having said that, I do believe that the 1st and early  2nd century views are applicable , since they at least knew directly what their predessessors taught and how they defined their terms. The church's  sense of self-authority really did not begin until the latter 2nd century. By the 4th century, it was unbearable. There was a lot of politics involved by then, and those holding to the original Christian/messianic religion (Waldnses, Albigenses, etc.) eventually went into hiding in the mountains, away from ecclesiastical oppression.

>>>>>So, were not "righteous and good" (mutatis mutandis) the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition?

It´s easy to criticise the hard old times actions from our modern point of view.<<<<

 God preserved His people and His oracles by war sometimes, but the Roman Church was imperialistic and ruthless and felt, as Islam did, that "conversion by threat of death" was a legitimate means of proslytizing. Jesus taught liberty and conversion by love, grace, tolerance and truth. Maybe Jesus had a "modern" point of view?

[abejaruco]

God preserved His people and His oracles by war sometimes

Yes, the Bible is plenty of unjust wars, where Egyptians are always the "eggs" that crash against the "stone" (Jews). :roll:

but the Roman Church was imperialistic and ruthless and felt, as Islam did, that "conversion by threat of death" was a legitimate means of proslytizing

Going out from the dark times = when Roman Empire was invaded by Barbarians, men have a mentality that we can´t understand. (What will think people in the future when they study the money your country has spent fighting the communism, or the Iraq bankruptcy? Any of them will say that was necesary because somebody had to do the work, and other people will say that it was an unjust interference in foreing affairs, where any few businessmen would earn any billions.
You speak about the Roman Church, but it was a general behavior. Islam, Calvinist (Calvine the pyromaniac :-X) Proselitize was not necessary when citizens were servants -quius regio, eius religio-
Freedom conquest, and our modern point of view, was a long way till we found the top: "among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Yes, that´s a treasure.

Maybe Jesus had a "modern" point of view?

Dios es Amor, now and always. :)

[JP]

Just my two cents, the Roman catholic church has their own set of rules, rituals, that are man made, to benefit the catholic church. Heck, they even have their own version of the bible. To me, too much greed (money and power) and man made rituals (sit down, stand up, kneel, ok) is the recipe for a religion. God does not like religion. My God as Abe says is love, now and always. I definitely think Jesus was a modern thinker, He was practical and His message was always an unselfish one, He put others first, walked the walk and talked the talk. Regardless of what denomination someone claims to be, Jesus would be a good model to follow if you want favor with people and God. We should be judged by our walk not our associations to any particular sect. I don't care what you profess to be, show me by your actions that you care and love those like you would have them love you and we are both walking down the same path, and we are truly brothers and sisters. I am non-denominational, because I am with and for all. God is the God of all, there are no peoples more important or less important in God's eye, if they walk in love. Jesus's message in a nutshell was that love is the way, nuff said.


...JP

[Hopeful]

Awesome post, JP. I would add that God is love, but is also an actual person who can literally love us and guide us.


 

[JP]

Awesome post, JP. I would add that God is love, but is also an actual person who can literally love us and guide us.


 

The bible says that when we accept God in our hearts that we receive the holy spirit that guides us.

...JP

[Brian D. Bray]

Well, I am a Mormon and believe a little differently than the mainstream Mormon.  A visit to the otherside (provided you return or were contactedby a resident) quickly teaches that the most important qestion that will be used asked the judgement is "How have your treated your fellow man?"  That's why is have the tag line about life being a school on my posts.

If I could boil any religious doctrine down to 4 letters it would be LOVE, as in love one another.

BTW, Websters defines a Religious Sect as a group of people who adhere to a gospel doctrine.  By the definition being a Mormon is equal to being Catholic, Hindu, Islam, Shinto, any of the Protestent groups or any other organized religion.  It has been the Catholics with the aid of other denominations that have tried to turn the word Sect into a bad connotation.  If you don't like, or are afraid of it, make fun or ridicule it.  Definately not Jesus's teaching. 

Jesus is the Universal man, for all times and all creeds.

[abejaruco]

Life is a school.  What have you learned?

I think I will have to repeat, a year at least. ;)

[Hopeful]

Yes, Brian, it is interesting that in the book of Acts, the Christian church of that day was called a sect, a cult. They were not ashamed of this. I am not either. For me, it is the Bible and the Bible only. Jesus prayed to His Father "Sanctify them by your truth, your word is truth". I feel that if a religion is not making loving and caring people who hunger for righteousness and are becoming more like Jesus, then that truth is being wasted. Either that, or they do not have the truth. Debate does not change hearts, the presence of God and the realization of His love does.

I have yet to hear of a person whose wretched and painful life was changed 100% for the better by science or anything worldly.

[Understudy]

While wonderful in it sentiment, none of this shows that evolution is false.

I think we do a disservice to god when he gives us the proof and we reject because we can't get past what's in the bible.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

[JP]

While wonderful in it sentiment, none of this shows that evolution is false.

I think we do a disservice to god when he gives us the proof and we reject because we can't get past what's in the bible.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

Let's just say for argument sake that there is no bible or theory of evolution. If we walk in love, we all win.

...JP

[Understudy]

While wonderful in it sentiment, none of this shows that evolution is false.

I think we do a disservice to god when he gives us the proof and we reject because we can't get past what's in the bible.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

Let's just say for argument sake that there is no bible or theory of evolution. If we walk in love, we all win.

...JP

And that complete evades the original question Jerrymac asked. Sorry but mental enlightenment should not be put off by religious sentiment.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

[JP]

While wonderful in it sentiment, none of this shows that evolution is false.

I think we do a disservice to god when he gives us the proof and we reject because we can't get past what's in the bible.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

Let's just say for argument sake that there is no bible or theory of evolution. If we walk in love, we all win.

...JP

And that complete evades the original question Jerrymac asked. Sorry but mental enlightenment should not be put off by religious sentiment.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

Evading what? Just going with the flow of this 7 page post.

...JP

[Understudy]

And the discussion thread went from origin of life to messiah teachings.

Since it has been shown that the earth is not the center of the universe and that is is more than 10,000 years old. Just look at a piece of marble that is several million years old. The amount of time heat and pressure it takes to turn coal into a diamond doesn't happen in the earth overnight. The half life of radioactive substances isn't in question. The methods used to date items isn't in question. The percentage of accuracy may not be as precise as others would like it. But there is no doubt that if something is over a million years old that it is off by 990,000 years old.

Until religious people realize that their faith isn't compromised by science they will continue to fight the truth tooth and nail.

But maybe we should all go back to believing the earth is the center of the universe. Because religion is never wrong.

At least science is willing to look at the evidence.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

[JP]

And the discussion thread went from origin of life to messiah teachings.

Since it has been shown that the earth is not the center of the universe and that is is more than 10,000 years old. Just look at a piece of marble that is several million years old. The amount of time heat and pressure it takes to turn coal into a diamond doesn't happen in the earth overnight. The half life of radioactive substances isn't in question. The methods used to date items isn't in question. The percentage of accuracy may not be as precise as others would like it. But there is no doubt that if something is over a million years old that it is off by 990,000 years old.

Until religious people realize that their faith isn't compromised by science they will continue to fight the truth tooth and nail.

But maybe we should all go back to believing the earth is the center of the universe. Because religion is never wrong.

At least science is willing to look at the evidence.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

Hey Brendhan, I try and look at everything, and its in our nature that we must try and prove everything, but some things just can't be proven, but accepted, perhaps with a grain of salt. Never tried looking at a piece of marble that was over a million yrs old. Does it look odd? Or just like any other marble?

...JP

[Understudy]

The general age on marble is several hundred million years old. Depending on where it is quarried from the age differences can vary over a hundred million years. In some cases fossils are found in marble. 


http://www.mineralszone.com/stones/marble.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/ocoee/
http://www.ugs.state.ut.us/teacher/tc/tc0198.htm

Sincerely,
Brendhan

[JP]

The general age on marble is several hundred million years old. Depending on where it is quarried from the age differences can vary over a hundred million years. In some cases fossils are found in marble. 


http://www.mineralszone.com/stones/marble.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/ocoee/
http://www.ugs.state.ut.us/teacher/tc/tc0198.htm

Sincerely,
Brendhan

Cool sites Dude.

...JP

[Hopeful]

Brendhan,

My rejection of the macro-evolution model has nothing to do with the Bible. In fact, some believe that the Bible leaves room for evolution. I reject it because it is false science, and has never been reproduced or observed. I rejected evolution long before I ever became a Christian. As I mentioned earlier, genetics has disproven evolution conclusively. It may take  while for the rest of "science" to catch up to this. But those at the highest levels already admit it. My own father in-law,the late Dr. Willard Centerwall,  was a top genetics scientist and this was his conclusion as well. Evolutionists always make the false claim that evolution is only resisted on religious grounds. But that is another red-herring. The truth is, evolution is held onto on (quasi) religious grounds, and is every bit as much faith-based as creationism. Go back a few pages and look at some of the reasoning. Or perhaps if you can find some proof that macro-evolution has ever been actually observed or reproduced, please submit it for my perusal.

I personally feel that even Darwin would have given up by now. :)

[Hopeful]

The bottom line, Brendhan, is that when someone in the government or at a college tells you that a piece of marble is 1 million years old, you believe them and do not question. How is that any different from the fundamentalist Christian who asks his pastor and believes without question? When some says that a diamond takes millions of years to develop, you believe them in spite of the fact that it has never been observed, but only theorized. When someone says that stalactites take many thousands of years to form you believe that as well, and take it as fact. The truth is that we have stalactites ten feet long that hang from public water pipes that are only 50 years old. I had a piece of actual rock with a tire track it taken from a lake that was dug out only 35 years ago, people have found 100 year old hammers imbedded in coal that was dated to be over a million years old ( that's an old hammer!), there are footprints of humans found along side dinosaur tracks in Texas, which National Geographic refused to look at when offered a tour.The Icca stones in Peru, which are only a few hundred years old, have fully developed and fleshed dinosaurs drawn on them.


We are fully willing to look at the evidence,Brendhan,  but we are also fully willing to question it and ask the finders "How far was the apeman's head found from the apeman's leg? And wait to hear the answer, which in some cases would "5 miles".

[Jerrymac]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080315/sc_livescience/grannysayslifeevolvedbetweenthemicasheets

 Granny Says Life Evolved Between the Mica Sheets

Theories and Hypotheses

Why do I call my idea a 'Hypothesis'? People use words in many ways, but one of the strengths of science is that it tries to use words in precisely defined ways. Theories are much stronger than Hypotheses. A Hypothesis is a starting point in the scientific method, while a Theory is the result of much research and testing. Once there were also scientific Laws, but now we know that even Newton's Laws are not totally correct. Therefore, newer scientists such as Charles Darwin call their well-tested ideas 'Theories' instead of 'Laws'. My idea is only a Hypothesis, ready for testing, by me and hopefully by many others in the scientific community.