100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > PreciousLife
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
On the original point of science and religion, I believe that they go hand in hand. On a simplictic topic of creationism or evolution; science proves without a doubt that evolution exists, yet GOD is the creator. OKC Chef Science has proven no such thing. Its assumed by most people that science has proven it. However it is a theory based on extrapolation with room for much error. I don't see the relevance, once we believe that the initial creation was by G-d, whether He then put evolution into existence or He simply created us fully formed. It doesn't change anything either way. But I have examined evolution closely and I really don't see how anyone can say its proven. At best its an elegant theory that requires much more study before we can jump to conclusions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
Since Christians see sex outside of marriage as sinful, Christians are encouraged to marry and have an active sexual relationship with their partner, if they feel they do not have the self control to be celebate. I believe that the purpose of celibacy in Catholocism is so that priests, monks and nuns can dedicate all of their energy to God and other people, rather than focusing so much on one other person. Spider, Let me see if I understand you, and again, please clarify if I misunderstood. It seems from what you are saying that mankind would be better off without sexuality. You implied this by saying that having a sexual relationship within marriage is good IF you do not have self control to be celibate. Which implies that celibacy is the highest value. Which implies that sexuality is not a positive thing but rather a default "if one doesn't have self control". Doesn't that imply that there is something inherently sinful or wrong about sexuality? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
Fact #1 - The vast majority of people - probably in the upper 90% - do not have pre-marital sex with the intent to marry the person they are having sex with. They may have positive feelings or be in love but most likley there is no commitment to marriage. That may well be true. But I’m not concerned with what most people do. I’m only concerned with what my intentions were. I’m trying to justify the religion with respect to my experience in life not with respect to the experience of other people. I didn’t live their lives, so that’s outside of the scope of what applies to me. Fact #2 - The vast majority of people who have pre-marital sex end up NOT getting married. (The average American male sleeps with quite a number of women before he settles down with one. Which means that if he slept with ten women (on the conservative side) and married one, then only 10% of his pre-marital sex ended in marriage. Again, you’re talking about what the vast majority of people do. I couldn’t care less what the vast majority of people do. I’m only concerned with how this stupid religion applies to my life’s experience. If it doesn’t apply to me then clearly is has nothing to offer me. Fact #3 - The vast majority of individuals (much higher percentage by women) are hurt terribly when a sexual relationship ends without marriage/long term commitment. Again, you’re talking about the vast majority of people which is totally irrelevant. I think we can conclude that in MOST situation pre-marital sex is harmful and not a good thing (certainly not a kind, loving G-dly act.) I think most pre-marital relationships ended with emotional pain whether sex was involved or not. In fact, in America supposedly 50% of marriages end in divorce, and we know for a fact that many that do not end in divorce are quite painful even within the marriage. Therefore MOST marriage results in terrible hurt. So how does this apply to pre-marital sex? Clearly ALL RELATIONSHIPS of any kind have the potential to end in extreme hurt. Marriage obviously doesn’t prevent hurt in any way. So I’m totally at a loss to see what you point might be???? You seem to be trying to suggest that pre-marital sex has a higher risk of causing emotional pain, but I don’t see it. Marriages have resulted in extremely emotional pain, not only to the couple involved but to their CHILDREN as well!! Taking the emotional damage to Children into accounted then failed marriages reign supreme in causing extreme hurt and pain. Not only after the divorce, but even during the lengthy time the marriage slowly becomes ugly. Marriage can prolong the emotional pain!!! Abra, I am confused. Are you saying that you would for sure marry anyone you had pre-marital sex with? If not, regardless of your intentions you ended up hurting the person. I also don't understand your comparison to marriage. Based on what your saying it seems like your thought process is - that since many marriages end up very hurtful so it must be okay to hurt people before we are married? Its just as much a terrible thing to marry someone and then hurt them terribly. Its not marriage that makes something good or bad - its your personal growth in being careful to not marry the wrong person for the wrong reasons or to be unable to be kind and loving to the right person that is the problem. The goal of all religion is to become a kind, loving, thoughtful, and insightful person. The goal of a person like that is to make a lifetime commitment to cherish and love their soulmate. When things don't work out before or after a marriage - its because of personal failure in some area. Not because we are bad people but because we may not know any better. In either event its something that we can and must rectify. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
Christianity is based on the belief that humans can live sinless lives by willpuwer and dedication. Nobody but Jesus has ever been able to do that their entire life, everybody slips up. Eventually, our willpower and dedication wain. Therefore we need a savior, someone who can save us from our sins and take our judgement upon himself. You are perfectly correct. This is the premise of Christianity. It’s an ideology that I feel is extremely misguided. It is this focus on Sin and Salvation that causes Christians to become judgmental of others. This is what causes young Christians to feel unnecessary guilt and shame for their natural innate desires. It’s an extremely emotionally negative religion. Abra, One of the major differences between Judaism and Christianity is their approach to sexuality. Christianity, (Spider, please correct me if I am wrong) believes that sex is shameful and sinful - that is why by Catholics a holy person (priest and nuns) are celibate. I believe its based on the concept of original sin. Again I am no expert here and Spider can probably better articulate it. Judaism believes that sex is a holy act that brings one ultimately closer to G-d because it is the highest form of love between two people. That is why even the holiest Rabbis have sex with their wives. In Judaism there is nothing shameful or disgraceful about sex. However it is a sacred act - an act with the potential to create life - so not to be taken lightly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
Its funny I recently responded to another thread titled:
"HI PLEASE TELL ME WHY MEN ARE SO INTO BREAKING MY HEART" and the woman who created the thread wrote: "TELL ME IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH ME " I responded: There is a great incentive for a man not to try and figure out quickly whether or not he is compatible with you. A man knows that he can have sexual pleasure so why should he rush to figure out if the two of you are compatible? Once he gets tired of the novelty of sleeping with a new woman he then has motivation to figure out if you two are compatible. If you are not then you are left with a broken heart. If you took sex off the table ALL guys would have no other incentive to hang out with you ONLY if they really liked you and thought there might be a real future. You will have a much higher percentage of success and much less odds of a broken heart. Try it! ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
...The ONLY girls that I was interested in having sexual relationships with were the girls that I was genuinely interested in, and cared for. I was not interested in having sex with any girl that I wouldn’t also be willing to marry and spend the rest of my life with. That was my conscious and Free Will CHOICE. However, because I had been taught that all pre-marital sex was a sin, I was even hesitant to engage in sex with the girls I was genuinely in LOVE WITH! A THAT is the huge mistake that I made in life!!! Had I not been ‘religiously inhibited’ in thinking that pre-marital sex was a sin, I wouldn’t have HESITATED to have made love to those girls that I genuinely loved!!! In fact, it probably only would have taken the first one and I probably would have married her and been monogamous ever-after. So the religious beliefs that I was taught when I was young basically RUINED my life. Because it prevented me from acting on the natural instinct of LOVE. The girls that I loved, obviously weren’t interested in waiting and so they found other men who had lesser morals. (or a differnet understanding of their religious views) Actually though, most of the girls I was emotionally attracted to ended up with some serious scum bags. Abra, I know this is a tough topic because it brings up painful times in your past. I will try and step gingerly, but please see my response from a philosophical perspective rather then a personal one. Fact #1 - The vast majority of people - probably in the upper 90% - do not have pre-marital sex with the intent to marry the person they are having sex with. They may have positive feelings or be in love but most likley there is no commitment to marriage. Fact #2 - The vast majority of people who have pre-marital sex end up NOT getting married. (The average American male sleeps with quite a number of women before he settles down with one. Which means that if he slept with ten women (on the conservative side) and married one, then only 10% of his pre-marital sex ended in marriage. Fact #3 - The vast majority of individuals (much higher percentage by women) are hurt terribly when a sexual relationship ends without marriage/long term commitment. I think we can conclude that in MOST situation pre-marital sex is harmful and not a good thing (certainly not a kind, loving G-dly act.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
In other words,... would pre-marital sex (based on love, not lust) be a sin? Abra, Why not ask that question from a philosophical point of view? Spider can tell you the Christian view based on the new testament and I can tell you based on the Original (old) testament. Philosophically it is perfectly fine to ask that question and ponder it ourselves and come to different conclusions how WE feel about it and our personal experience with it. Also I am detecting a recurring theme that we use words that different people are defining differently so in many cases we are not even talking about the same thing. Let's clearly define terms when we can. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
One would draw that conclusion based on one's own bias. And the only way to get beyond personnal biases (we all have biases), is to share all the 'bias' information from both sides, and let people decide freely. Voileazur, Its okay to disagree, but its important to maintain a logical integrity to a conversation. Honestly, do you feel, for example, that because Napoleon in 1798 estimated that Egypt had 3 million people that its fair to say that 3000 years earlier its not possible that Egypt had 10 million people? Wikipedia uses that logic as one of their "proofs". Its simply not a logical argument and that bothers me. Will you acknowledge that? (As well as their point about 3 million people must take up 340 miles?) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
This is fun! ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus Recent archaeological research has found no evidence that the Sinai desert ever hosted millions of people, nor of a massive population increase in Canaan, estimated to have had a population of between 50,000 and 100,000, at the end of the march. “nor of a massive population increase in Canaan, estimated to have had a population of between 50,000 and 100,000, at the end of the march.” First of all I don’t have exact number of how many Hebrews entered Canaan but many Hebrews (over tens of thousands) died in the desert because of sins they committed. Secondly, in 1948 there were 650,000 Jews in the Israel. Today there are 5-6 million. I don’t see why it would be such a big deal to have major population growth. As far as evidence, lets remember that no land in history has been destroyed and conquered as many times as Israel has. That place has been built and razed hundreds of times. So it’s really not surprising that we don’t have evidence of a population surge over 3,000 years ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus Recent archaeological research has found no evidence that the Sinai desert ever hosted millions of people, nor of a massive population increase in Canaan, estimated to have had a population of between 50,000 and 100,000, at the end of the march. “Recent archaeological research has found no evidence that the Sinai desert ever hosted millions of people,” I love how they try to prove something with a LACK of evidence. Let’s see if I can follow the logic. They don’t have evidence of a nation who were constantly on the move in the desert (ergo, no permanent structures) who spent very little time in one particular place. This took place in a desert where sandstorms and shifting sands could have easily eradicated any trace from a temporary journey THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO! If I can’t find evidence somehow that is proof that it didn’t happen??? If they want to say they don’t have proof either way, if it did or did not happen, that is legitimate. But to prove a negative because lack of evidence – doesn’t sound very scientific to me. It makes perfect sense why there wouldn’t be any evidence 3000 years later. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus The logistics of the Exodus also present problems. A simple calculation shows that a group of 3 million walking 10 abreast with 6 ft between rows would extend for around 340 miles (3,000,000 / 10 * 6 = 1,800,000 ft. = 340 mi). The "very many cattle, both flocks and herds" which accompanied the fleeing Hebrews, plus straggling children and the elderly, would have increased this distance. Math is not my strong suit but let’s see if this makes any kind of sense. When they had a million man march in Washington D.C a few years ago are you telling me that they used up 120 miles to do so??? Manhattan has a population of 8 million and it’s about 8 miles long!?!?!? So how does it make any sense that you need 340 miles for 3 million people?!?!! Honestly I am shocked at wikipedia for this type of shoddy research and reporting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
And since you seem to enjoy perusing the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus Numbers involved in the Exodus Exodus 12:37 refers to 600,000 adult Hebrew men leaving Egypt with Moses, plus an unspecified but apparently large number of non-Hebrews ("A mixed multitude also went up with them" - Exodus 12:38); allowing for women and children, the total number involved may have been two million or more.[1] Egypt at the time might have supported a total population of around 3-4 million, maybe even up to 6 million,[2] although Napoleon estimated only 3 million when he invaded in 1798; in any event, the numbers given in Exodus 12:37 seem to represent something between half and almost the entire probable population of Egypt. “Exodus 12:37 refers to 600,000 adult Hebrew men leaving Egypt with Moses, plus an unspecified but apparently large number of non-Hebrews ("A mixed multitude also went up with them" - Exodus 12:38); allowing for women and children, the total number involved may have been two million or more.[1]” I was going to mention earlier when we got locked out of this thread that there were many converts as well who joined the Hebrews. “Egypt at the time might have supported a total population of around 3-4 million, maybe even up to 6 million,[2] although Napoleon estimated only 3 million when he invaded in 1798; in any event, the numbers given in Exodus 12:37 seem to represent something between half and almost the entire probable population of Egypt.” They base the number that Egypt had 6 million people on this author “Robert Feather, The Copper Scroll Decoded” I haven’t read the book, but I would love to see his evidence. I would love to know how they have a count, 3000 years ago, based on science. I also wonder if they are basing this after the entire Egyptian army was killed at sea as well as all the deaths of the first born and those that died during the ten plagues. Even more interesting is the reliance on Napoleon’s estimate in 1798. How in the world does that represent how many people lived in Egypt 3000 years earlier??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
Abra,
The Bible is a complex book. If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense that G-d gave us something that has deeper levels of understanding and won't be a simplistic kindergarten book. The Bible speaks to all people even if they are very different levels of personal development and understanding of life. Real people have different levels of sophistication. What is really amazing is that the Bible can be understood even at various levels. The two main keepers and studiers of the Bible are the Jews and the Christians. I think Spider and I are good examples. We may respectfully differ on a number of key issues but we agree on the vast majority of issues within the Bible. I greatly respect Spiders views and he has an honest and open approach to his beliefs. (Great thread question, by the way Spider.) So yes there is nuance and enlightened understanding within the text. Two crucial points to remember. 1. The vast majority agree on most things that are very direct and open in the Bible. 2. The Bible was designed to connect to you on the level you are. You are very quick to dismiss the conversation when you ask a question. For example, you state that there are different interpretations to the Bible so therefore you can dismiss the Bible as a book written by G-d. (You have done this in many previous discussions as well.) I would respectfully ask you to ask questions and then ponder or wait for a response before repeatedly coming to a conclusion. Can you imagine investigating anything with this method? Each time you have a question, don't immediately come to a conclusion. Otherwise you can't really investigate anything. Questions are great! Quick conclusions are not. Fair enough? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a great incentive for a man not to try and figure out quickly whether or not he is compatible with you. A man knows that he can have sexual pleasure so why should he rush to figure out if the two of you are compatible?
Once he gets tired of the novelty of sleeping with a new woman he then has motivation to figure out if you two are compatible. If you are not then you are left with a broken heart. If you took sex off the table ALL guys would have no other incentive to hang out with you ONLY if they really liked you and thought there might be a real future. You will have a much higher percentage of success and much less odds of a broken heart. Try it! ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
Where's the line??? Jesus said (and therefore Christians believe) that the line is lust. For a Jew, there is no such line, two unpromised people can do as they will. Abra  someone is not telling you the truth here. I have yet to meet a jewish person who will vouch for this concept written here. Dragoness, Lets be very clear what I said: As far as pre-marital sex there is no Biblical prohibition (if both parties are not married). However there is the issue of not being selfish to the detriment of another's emotional and physical well being. Only focusing on our own pleasure and disregarding the effect it will have on others is a Biblical sin of love your neighbor as you love yourself. The vast majority of people who are not married and sleep together end up deeply hurt when they break up. I can site numerous studies and statistics how this has left many women feeling jaded and used. Heck, ask some of the women here. Just because someone gets married doesn't mean they won't hurt their partner. If you cheat on your spouse or do other things to harm him or her - that's even worse. To sum up - Pre-marital sex is not a Biblical prohibition but it most likely will lead to hurting others which is a Biblical prohibition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
Abra & S1owhand, It states directly in the Bible that the whole nation (Between 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 people at that point) heard G-d speaking. How to calculate Exponential Growth Rates: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/V1003/lectures/population/example.html Jacob enters Egypt 1711 BC Exodus from Egypt 1496 BC 215 years T = 215 years N(t) = 3,000,000 N(o) = 70 ln(3,000,000)=ln(70)+r*215 14.91 = 4.24 + 215r 10.67 = 215r r=.0496 OR 4.96% per year Does 5% growth per year seem so strange? Thank you Spider that was very enlightening and helpful! ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
Abra, check my math! No need to. It doesn’t matter what the numbers were. The story makes no sense whether there were only 200 people or 2 million. It doesn’t matter. The number of people involved doesn’t change a thing because we don’t have signed affidavits from those people. Abra, This is a bit tiresome. If you want to have a real conversation please lets focus on one issue at a time. You say that you were taught and it says in the Bible that Moses alone witnessed the giving of the Bible. I responded with a direct quote from the Bible that is not an interpretation, its a direct quote that clearly states that it was given before the whole nation and not just a single person. You then respond, "well the whole Bible is just made up anyway so it doesn't matter." Its impossible to discuss specific points when I show you what I am basing it on and then you change the subject. I understand you have a whole litany of issues. The only way to resolve them is to take them point by point. When I resolve a point, please acknowledge that the specific point is no longer an issue for you. Then we can move on to the next point. If you list 10 things and I respond to one and your response is well the other nine are still there so its all a joke. Then if I tackle issue #2 & #3, you say its still a joke because there are seven other issues. Please take one or two issues that have always bothered you and we will try to resolve those one or two WITHOUT proving the whole shebang based on those one or two issues. What it accomplishes is that those two issues are no longer an obstacle for you. I am a truth seeker and if you are as well then you would be excited to tackle each issue and study them on their merits. This line of thought started with your proclamation that the Bible is inconsistent and incongruent with your inner sense of truth about G-d. So lets tackle the issues one by one about things that bother you in the Bible. Is that fair? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
He’s getting off on the wrong foot with the following though. It may be something I never heard before, but it makes no sense because it’s not what I read nor was I taught this from the Bible!!! If you scroll up you will see that I explicitly stated this was based on the original (old) testament - which is the only testament given directly by G-d (to Moses in front of over 2,000,000 people who witnessed it). Where do you get off saying that 2,000,000 people witnessed this???? The way I read the story is that Moses when up into the mountain ALONE and was gone from the people for quite some time (I thought it might have been a whole month but I don’t remember exactly). Then he came back with his stone tablets. No one but Moses witnessed the burning bush or the carving of the tablets. We don’t know what actually happened (assuming the story is even true to begin with!) . For all we know, it could have been a completely made up parable. We just don’t know. We weren’t there! But even the story doesn't say that the people witnessed this, on the contary it says that they didn't! Abra & S1owhand, It states directly in the Bible that the whole nation (Between 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 people at that point) heard G-d speaking. Deuteronomy 5:19-25 These words the Lord spoke to your entire congregation on the mountain, from the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick cloud – a great voice, never to be repeated – and He inscribed them on two stone Tablets and gave them to me. It happened that when you heard the voice from the midst of the darkness and the mountain was burning in fire, that all the heads of your tribes and your elders approached me. They said, “Behold! the Lord, our G-d, has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice from the midst of the fire; this day we saw that the Lord will speak to a person and he can live. But now, why should we die when this great fire consumes us? If we continue to hear the voice of the Lord, our G-d, any longer, we will die! For is there any human that has heard the voice of the Living G-d speaking from the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? You should approach and hear whatever the Lord, our G-d, will say, and you should speak to us whatever the Lord, our G-d, will speak to you – then we shall hear and we shall so.” Just a suggestion. If you really want to have a truth seeking conversation, rather then ridiculing something I say - ask me where I am basing the info on. Just because you are not familiar with something doesn't mean its not true. Abra, it seems like your education was faulty. I challenge you to find anyone who claims that pre-marital sex is a Biblical (Original old testament) prohibition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A "scientific" question
|
|
PreciousLife, Let’s pretend for a moment that the Bible is true. Let’s also pretend for a moment that I’ve satisfied all the laws of God. Now let’s ask the following questions,…. Does it matter whether I believe the Bible is True? Does it matter whether I believe that Jesus died for my sins? I say that the answer has to be, no, it’s doesn’t matter one iota. Abra, G-d loves truth. Truth is one of the highest values in the Bible and for mankind. Worshiping idols is a falsehood. Bowing down and believing that a stone or a cow has some type of power is foolishness. G-d wants us to grow as humans. We can only do that if we are in tune with the truth. The vast majority of laws in the Bible deal with the concept of truth. G-d gave humans the Bible so believing that is true is a truth and can help us understand ourselves and the world better. Ergo G-d does want you to believe that the Bible is true. (All my current and future references to the Bible are referring to the Original (old) testament.) It does not say anywhere in the Bible that one must believe that Jesus died for your sins or that it’s okay to worship a human. In fact as I have pointed out before G-d requires very little from you. Believing in Monotheism and not worshiping Idols is one requirement. As I have posted before in response to you: There really isn't a "wrong" religion. Most religions encompass the seven Noahide laws which are incumbent upon every human being. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah They are as follows: 1 Prohibition against idolatry 2 Prohibition against blasphemy 3 Prohibition against murder 4 Prohibition against theft 5 Prohibition against sexual immorality 6 Prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal 7 Establish courts of justice I don't think that you would have a problem with these Abra. That's all G-d asks of you regardless which religion, if any, that you follow. The more you work on yourself to elevate yourself by doing kindness and loving others while improving your character is really all you have to do. This is still your interpretation of a very ambiguous book or books written by men of old. I have read the bible cover to cover and it is stories/parables of old placed in a book, given form of instruction by the converters of the information ie King James for the most popular. Dragoness, Actually its not my interpretation. The Bible is very explicit about the seven Noahide laws. Which one of the seven would you say is ambiguous? (Abra asked about sexual immorality. The Bible lists which types of sexual relationships are forbidden. If you like I can look up the list but its pretty standard, adultery, incest, etc.) Obviously the Bible contains incredible wisdom and the more we delve into it the deeper our understanding of life and G-d becomes. But the basics are pretty explicit for all to understand. On what are you basing the notion that the original (old) testament was written by men? |
|
|
|
|
Previous
