jnabors

I would agree with you and have found these discussions to be very beneficial. Again, I agree that I don't "owe" anyone anything and your posts do not instill a sense of obligation, at least I wouldn't consider it in that way. For me, it's more a show of respect or just simple kindness. If I felt obligated, this would be too much like work and I wouldn't be participating. I would disagree with you on this point. They are not competing claims, but rather sequential claims. If I posted on Tuesday that I'd just spoken to Bob, and posted on Friday that I just got back from Bob's funeral, those seem like contradictory statements, but I think most anyone could determine that Bob most likely died sometime between Tuesday when I spoke to him and that Friday. In the same way, I said that I have picked apart religion and Christianity many times. If you refer to some previous posts, I freely admitted to Agnosticism, but honestly looking back, it was probably more like apathy. The Conservative Christian statement refers to the current time. If you recall my first post, I said that I was a Christian, but was not religious; In a subsequent post, I explained the difference as Christianity = being like Jesus, following his example, etc.... While religion comprised all of the man-made rules, the guilt, and often hypocrisy. What you are describing is religion. Jesus didn't make you feel threatened for not obeying, someone taught you that. Somewhere, in some church, you learned to feel that way. The church needs people to feel guilty, and ashamed, and unworthy. That keeps the seats and the coffers full. Don't get me wrong, some very good people go to church and some very good preachers lead churches. But overall, I reject organized religion. A good observation and hopefully one that I can easily remedy. I hate to admit it, but the honest answer is when I typed the bit about Revelations, I was attempting to inject some levity into the conversation. I'm new here, and was trying to lighten things up a little. I've you've ever read Revelations, you'd understand. To be fair, Revelations is much different than the other books of the Bible. Yes, it is not only possible, but we have the different denominations and doctrines as proof of this. I don't know if there are literally millions, but certainly there are many. That isn't even bringing up Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons which also use the Bible, but aren't Christian. I'm not falling for this one. By agreeing that the Bible is the "most" credible source, then a single example would negate my assertion. Also, one would have to consider the audience. I am assuming that most of you are Atheists and predisposed against the Bible, so for you I would say the Bible probably holds little value outside of minor curiosity. I would say that the Bible is a tool, and how much you get out of it depends in large part on how much you put into it. After all, an unread book doesn't serve any purpose.

Ah!, my new friend.... Weep not for me, this path I walk is of my own choosing. Reasoning draws a conclusion, but does not make the conclusion certain, unless the mind discovers it by the path of experience.

I think I see what is going on here. I've just had another "duh" moment! It's not so much that there is an interest in Christianity, my thoughts on religion, or any particular faith, it's the thrill and enjoyment of the logical argument (for lack of a better term). I haven't really been trying to prove or disprove anything or convince anyone that i'm right, i've just been sharing information. Even with my points about Evolution, I wasn't debating the issue as much as I was just adding to the conversation. It seems obvious now, but when I first posted, I couldn't figure out why it seemed I was being "attacked". Even stranger, I'd post a long section and the response might be that someone took issue with the word "everyone", while the real information was largely ignored. I see now that It wasn't an "attack", it's just a group of skilled debaters pointing out logical fallacies in what I had posted. I'm slow on the uptake, but it's all part of getting the feel of the boards and what is expected in the posts. So.... I will need to reevaluate my approach to posting. I can't possibly respond to each post and debate every point. The more I write the further behind I get. At present I owe: @dsayers, 3 posts from several days ago @powder, 1 from yesterday @Torero, 1 from today @dsayers, 8 from the above post.... So i'm asking for some advice on how to address these without leaving anyone out and addressing as many arguments as possible. I feel that if you take the time to respond, likewise, I should take the time to answer. I doubt i'm skilled enough to seriously "debate", but i'm willing to learn / try. Bear with me as I put on my new "debating shoes" and try to get in a more logic based mindset. Stupid arguments are likely at first, but i'm sure that you guys will catch them! I do want to respond to one post before I put on my debating shoes though... jnabors, on 22 Oct 2015 - 10:09 AM, said: I think you are looking at this the wrong way, Hell is not punishment for disobedience of God's word. Hell was created as a place for Satan and the other fallen Angels. It's very straightforward, if you accept God and his gift of salvation, you are welcome in his kingdom. If you reject God, heaven is not open to you, much in the same way you probably don't invite people over to your house that hate you (not a great analogy, but "people that don't believe you exist" just didn't work). Are you punishing those people? No. Neither is God. The thief that was crucified on the cross next to Jesus didn't obey God at any point in his entire life. Among his last words were "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." His expression of faith alone was all that was required. He never followed God's laws, he deserved Hell. God gave him Heaven. I would ask; if you reject God, why would you want or expect to spend eternity with him? If you don't even believe God exists, then the whole Heaven/Hell argument seems unnecessary. It's really amazing, when I read some of your (meaning everyone) responses. I remember having some of the exact same thoughts and issues. I've been on that side and I know exactly what you are talking about. I have also logically picked apart religion and christianity many times, using many of the same arguments. It's enlightening to be on this side of the argument. As always, thank you to everyone that took their time to answer my posts. Please give me some thoughts on how I can be more efficient on here. I hope that if I lighten up on the content, but concentrate more on the logic, it may not be as overwhelming. I need to read a good article on debate.... More later..

@powder: I have some responses to your post, I will get to them after I finish responding to @dsayer. @dsayers: I noticed when I went to post this response, that I missed one. I'll reply to that one next. You posed some excellent questions, In reading them, it looks like there are potentially 3 separate lines of thought. Let me take each one individually and attempt to answer. jnabors, on 19 Oct 2015 - 10:33 AM, said: Based on the section of my post that you quoted, I’m not sure what the triangle reference is referring to. As a general comment, I didn’t attempt to establish existence in our universe. The universe has a beginning, this is scientifically proven. God had to exist prior to that if he was the Creator in the same way I existed prior to my children, as I created them. Therefore God exists in some other place than we do. I’m not certain if the correct term is universe, dimension, or something else entirely. The bible was written in a way that is understandable by everyone (except perhaps Revelations, that book makes no sense to me). It seems, based on the portion of my post you quoted, that the confusion is that the bible says the Earth was created in 6 days and science proves otherwise. The Bible begins with the statement “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth”. Out of nothing, in an instant, God created the heavens and the Earth. This is the definitive, starting point of our Universe, what scientists refer to as the Big Bang. The next sentence says the Earth was “without form and void, and darkness over it.” The rest of the Chapter goes on to describe God further developing his Creation: the Earth’s atmosphere, the Sun and the stars, separating the water from the land, creating plant, animal, and sea life, and finally, humanity. Admittedly, Genesis does read as though the heavens and the Earth were finished on the sixth day: “Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” While it says “sixth day”, remember Genesis was written in Hebrew. The Hebrew language uses fewer words than English, bringing greater ambiguity. For example, in Hebrew, “Earth” can mean land, ground, region, or country. The word “day” (“yom” in Hebrew) can mean a 24-hour day, daytime, today, forever, continually, or an undetermined amount of time. So, the “sixth day” is actually an unknown length of time. There is nothing that requires us to read it as six 24-hour periods. Ambiguous time is found throughout the Bible and is a result of the limitation of the language spoken at the time. For example, Kings’ empires were often referred to as “In the days of King Josiah….” History shows their reign lasted for many years, not just days. The bigger picture though it it makes little sense fixating on the length of time (when the Hebrew language is going to remain ambiguous) instead of focusing on the far more important message of what was actually happening. If you won the lottery, would it matter to you which day you bought the ticket or how long you waited in line to purchase it? Actually, I believe quite the opposite is true. The Bible isn’t like God’s version of Apple’s “Terms and Conditions” Agreement where failure to one clause in the middle of page 87 will cause a breach of contract and thus banishment from God’s grace. The Bible, I believe, is more like a narrative that reorders our imaginations and holds for us an alternate way of seeing reality, with God at the heart of it rather than ourselves. Certainly there are some concrete rules that require no interpretation. “Thou shalt not kill”, not much room for interpretation there, aside from determining the accurate meaning of the word “kill” in the original Hebrew. “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, very straight forward. These absolute and accepted by most faiths, even non-Christian ones. Other rules and teachings are dependent on interpretation. The bible is ancient and obscure in parts which allows, even demands, readers to interpret the Bible in legitimately different ways. This has been happening among Jews and Christians for over 2000 years. Given multiple interpretation, we have the many different doctrines observed by different denominations. It is through discussions and debate with those of differing beliefs that deeper faith is found. The Bible doesn’t answer many of our questions, even some of the most pressing questions we face daily, aren’t answered in the Bible. The Bible isn’t a sourcebook for fighting culture wars, a club used to gain political power, or a way of forcing secular culture to obey our rules. The Bible isn’t an answer book, but a story of how Jesus answers for us the biggest question of all: what God is like. Most importantly, the Bible isn’t the center of faith, God is – or, for Christians, what God has done for us, though Jesus. Finally, I don’t think the Bible is a standard of what people ought to think and do. God gave us free will and a logical mind to decide for ourselves how to behave and what to believe. Certainly the Bible can be an excellent moral compass, but far too often I see the Bible being used as a means to force an agenda or require specific behavior. For this reason I reject religion, but I follow Christ. I hope this addresses another of your responses. Thank you again for your interest in my post. I didn't intend on bring up Religion outside of my introduction, but I have enjoyed the challenge of expressing my thoughts on the topic. Apologies to the community as I believe I have hijacked the original topic. Just chalk it up to being new here and not knowing the rules yet. Regards, Jay

Ok, @dsayers, I am working on a response to your post. I must admit I am a bit overwhelmed with some of the issues you've brought forward, but I do look forward to attempting to address each one. Aside from some Medical Ethics classes I’ve not studied much Philosophy and I’ve never done any formal debating, this is a learning experience for me as much as it is trying to support the community. I look forward to putting my thoughts to paper and really do appreciate that you are interested enough in something I posted to respond. You commented on 5 sections of my original post. I’ll most likely respond to them into separate posts due to time constraints today. jnabors, on 19 Oct 2015 - 10:33 AM, said: You bring up some interesting perspectives that I didn’t consider when posting. My intent was just an introduction and some background about myself. I felt it necessary to include my faith, as that can influence opinions and thought processes, but more importantly I hoped to demonstrate that Conservative Christians were capable of critical thought and reasoning. I’m not sure that worked out very well, but that’s a different topic. Also, I’m not on the boards to convince anyone that God exists; there isn’t anything I could say to convince the skeptics and any believers don’t require my input. I offered my personal beliefs about Deity not as an argument for or against the existence of God, but simply as a way for members to get to know me. Therefore, my assertion that “I believe in God” is valid in that it is a true statement and it served its intended purpose. Your response was well thought out, logical, and there is little I can disagree with. Truth and Falsehoods exist and Truth is the preferable of the two. However, I wasn’t asserting a truth, in fact I carefully worded my post to indicate that I was offering my opinion only, so I’m not sure what you mean by stating “I'm not sure how you've concluded that opinion enters into it.” Entered into what? My opinion is certainly valid if used to describe myself and my background; it’s only come up in my introduction and then in response to any questions that arose from there. I agree that opinions and beliefs have no place in an empirical discussion, but unless my wording is much worse than I thought, I haven’t used faith or the existence of Deity as justification of any position I’ve posted; So far the only thing I’ve argued for or against is short term Evolution vs. Darwin’s Theory. I hope that addresses at least the first portion of your response. The second is significantly harder, and outside of what I expected in response to my posts. I have had much more experience arguing the Agnostic position, so this will be quite a challenge for me, but one I look forward to. I'm working on it and hope to have it posted later today (i'm also working on a database design, so apologies in advance for the delay). Again, I do appreciate your interest. More soon....

@dsayers, please remember i'm new here and i may not be posting as timely as needed. The quote you used above was my response to the discussion between @Will and @Torero and was aimed only at the Evolution portion (gradual change vs. immediate change) of my original post. I also saw your reply this morning but realized it would take longer to answer, so I decided to try and further the Evolution portion and respond to your post after giving it some thought. I don't have a routine yet and am just trying to get involved and active on the boards. Also, I've found that if I don't take some time with my responses, they don't come off as I intend. Being new, I didn't want to get off on the wrong foot with anyone or sound arrogant, uninformed, or disrespectful. Even taking some extra time with my response, I've not made as spectacular an introduction as I had hoped; mentioning my faith seems to have labeled me as a Religious nut and you believe I am ignoring your post. Oh well, bumpy at first, but i'll catch up. No one has been anything but polite and respectful and if I've offended anyone, that wasn't my intent. The truth is you posed some good questions and I didn't want to give you a poorly thought out response. One thing I have learned... It looks like you guys use quotes from other posts fairly regularly to indicate who / what you are responding to. This is my "duh" moment, but I should have included quotes in my last post to avoid any misunderstanding. I'm sorry for the confusion and I will respond.

Just to clarify, my beliefs on Evolution don't rely on, and aren't based on, influence from any Deity. When I said I believe in Creation + Evolution, I simply meant that God started the process, the rest is found in the scientific record. My post was more of a God vs. Big Bang argument than anything to do with Evolution. My original point was that Darwin postulated Evolution as a slow, gradual process based on genetic mutations. Many sources are available that indicate that he, himself, doubted his own theory. In his book, Origin of the Species (p. 162), Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (p. 158). Therefore, Darwin's Theory falls short in explaining Evolution in it's entirety. In his book Darwin's Black Box, Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10e-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." In light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Additionally, we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed in Origin of the Species (p. 155) , "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Therefore, reasons for rejecting or minimizing Darwin's proposal are many, the main argument being that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous. The more widely accepted view of Evolution is one that takes place as a result of drastic changes to environment or climate. Organisms that don't adapt to the new conditions perish while those that remain survive to pass on their genes to successive generations. Louis Agassiz summarizes it well in Contributions to Natural History - Essay on Classification (p. 51) "Between two successive geological periods, changes have taken place among plants and animals. But none of those primordial forms of life which naturalists call species, are known to have changed during any of these periods. It cannot be denied that the species of different successive periods are supposed by some naturalists to derive their distinguishing features from changes which have taken place in those of preceding ages, but this is a mere supposition, supported neither by physiological nor by geological evidence; and the assumption that animals and plants may change in a similar manner during one and the same manner is equally gratuitous." No one is arguing the validity of Evolution or Natural Selection, but rather Darwin's proposal of the mechanism by which Natural Selection occurred.

I would have to say I believe in the Creation + Evolution view. God started things in motion and the Evolution took over. The phrase "I have no reason to believe in Evolution, or anything else". Was an attempt to explain my thoughts on a purely Evolution stance. I completely support Evolution,with the exception that Darwinian Evolution has been proven to be incorrect in some ways. Overall though, I have no issue with Evolution, genetics, selective breeding, etc.... Most everything I have read on the subject indicates that Evolution typically takes place over very short periods of time in response to sudden and dramatic changes in environment as opposed to Darwin's theory where Evolution takes place over long periods of time in response to genetic mutations. Both probably occur, but the first much more so than the second. I have been Agnostic, but now I identify as Christian; but Christian as I defined in my post above. Not the Christians you see on TV refusing to issue marriage licenses or in huge Churches asking for donations.

OK, back from our camping trip, Kids loved it! So let me try again to post a proper response to the two posts above. I’m going to write in the Word this time and Paste it into the web interface so I don’t lose anything this time. So, first let me give you some background about myself. Hopefully this will serve as a means of introduction and give you an idea of the thought processes behind my opinions. Background: My School / Church background is fairly similar to @dsayers. I grew up in a small conservative, southern town, attended government schools, and went to Church with my family every Sunday. I wasn’t a fan of Church and at some point my parents decided I was old enough to decide for myself, so I stopped going. High-school was mainly college prep-stuff, w/ concentration in Science and Math. I have a BS in Microbiology (pre-med) with minors in Physics and Chemistry and a MS in Biomedical Engineering. I also served in the Military (Army) for many years after college. Career started with a 5 year position in Pharmaceutical Research and then approximately 25 years in IT (mostly technical positions from hands-on development to the Director level). Let me now try to answer the two questions. Since both deal with religion, this can be a sensitive topic for many. All I ask is that everyone respect my opinion as I will, in turn, respect theirs. I’m not asking anyone to agree with me, nor am I claiming that my belief is the only “true” belief. It’s simply what I believe. I don’t pretend that my opinions are absolute, nor do I try and force them on anyone else. I didn’t grow up with any real “faith” or “Religion” outside of a general belief in deity. I mainly identified as an Agnostic Deist; some intelligent external power created everything, wasn’t involved in running or monitoring anything, and there was no proof, or any way to prove, who/what this this external entity was or what it was up to. Evolution v. Intelligent Design: In Genesis, if you interpret the story of creation as God creating the universe in 168 hours split in 7 equal parts, more knowledgeable people than I have calculated the age of the Earth to be around 6000 years. This is clearly disproven in fossil records, Carbon dating, Astronomical observations, etc…. If you immediately dismiss the Bible, it’s very easy to side with Evolution; although Darwinian Evolution has flaws. Since there were no witnesses, by definition, to Creation, no one can say with any certainty what happened. The same is also true with the “Big Bang theory”. All we have are scientific evidence and stories passed down through the ages. My belief is that when the Bible describes a “day”, it doesn’t translate to the 24-hour period that we recognize today. A “day”, for the divine, may have been more like a week, a month, years, or centuries. Human logic and definitions cannot be applied. So, on the 5th day, when God created all the creatures in the oceans, he may have painstakingly created each specific species exactly as they appear today, or he may have created a “basic” life form(s) and it(they) evolved over some timeframe. The latter would align with Evolution. There isn’t any scientific evidence supporting Creation, It is a matter of faith. The more I learned about the complexity of our universe, how intricately ordered and efficient everything is, the more it seems unlikely this is all just a result of random chance. Suppose the universe was created by an explosion roughly 13 billion years ago, there was no intelligent design, and no creative mind was involved; it logically follows that nobody designed our brains for the purpose of thinking. It is merely when atoms, electrical signals, and chemicals inside our skull arrange themselves in certain ways that we get a sensation that we call thought. If this is true, how can we trust that our thoughts are true? It’s not much different than dropping a number of containers of paint and expecting the way they splash will result in a picture of the Mona Lisa. If I can’t be certain of my thoughts leading to Evolution, I have no reason to believe in Evolution, or anything else. Christianity v. Religion: This one, hopefully, is easier. To sum it up, Christianity is Belief in Jesus, Religion comprises all the rules, prejudices, and judgments that mankind imposes on people that don’t believe the same way they do. As an example, let’s take Homosexuality. I’m don’t mean to offend anyone and I hope any homosexual reading this will understand the point I am trying to express. If asked, I would have to save that Homosexuality is a sin; the Bible says it and I believe the Bible. Now, not to isolate or single out any group of people, the Bible also says the Sex outside of marriage is a sin, Sex with anyone other than your spouse is a sin, simply thinking about sex (lust) is a sin. I won’t disclose any details, but I believe I’ve broken at least 8 of the 10 commandments; I am a sinner, as are all Christians. So, with all that in mind, it is misleading to say “Homosexuals are sinners”. It’s much more accurate to say we all are sinners and no sin is any better or worse than any other. Additionally, it’s not my job to point out or try to correct anyone else’s sins, I have plenty to deal with of my own to deal with. Nowhere in the bible does Jesus instruct his followers to go out into the world and criticize or judge people with different beliefs than our own. His most frequent directive to us was “do not fear”, the second was “Love each other”. All people were created in the image of God, therefore to mistreat or discriminate against someone is to dishonor something that God created. Are there Evil people in the world? Yes. We all have free-will to choose our own path; that was God’s intention. So if I try to force my thoughts or beliefs on anyone else, am I not at the minimum influencing their free-will? If a government forces ideologies on someone, certainly they are going against God’s intention. This is what I call Christianity; living as Christ instructed and demonstrated. Religion, on the other hand, is all the other crap that we are told. It serves mostly to divide people, to force one group’s morality on others, and increase the power/wealth/influence of the Church and its leaders. In the bible, the people the Jesus had the most issues with were the religious and ultimately it was the religious that had tortured and put to death. I hope this clarifies both topics. I welcome any feedback on either.

This being my first post, I worked on a good response introducing myself, explaining my belief on evolution, and the way I view Christianity and Religion. I had almost finished and the post disappeared, embarrassing for an IT manager! I'm taking the family camping this weekend, just one night as it will be the kids first time to go. We're taking off early in the morning and just got the truck packed. I didn't want to post and not respond at all, but I also want to devote some time to providing a good response. I'll post Sunday once we get back. @Will, thank you for the video. I'll give it a look this weekend.

Darwinism Evolution is based on gradual changes over long periods of time. Selection of a particular trait over generations of offsorng. IMO, a more compelling Theory of Evolution would be quite the opposite. Abrupt adaptations to immediate and substantial environmental changes where those with certain traits survived, others perished. The fossil record bears this out. I don't see intelligent design at odds with either version of evolution and admittedly I am a conservative Christian, with strong libertarian leanings. Don't label me please, I'm not religious, I'm Christian, there is a difference. By the way, I'm new to the site. I just found FDR and am very interested in participating and learning.