You maybe right about that but a part of me still has a lingering hope that people just need to be informed and they will evolve <pun intended>. Truth is people never change what they think or believe until what they think or believe does not provide them with what they want or need. Still truth can wait, its got all of eternity to wait on people and is there regardless of what we may think or believe...just a thought...

So you are unwilling or unable to answer such questions on this thread as i suspected right? Seriously if your going to preach the message of salvation you need to be able to answer these questions.

Question still not answered......
What of those who never hear or have never heard?
They still go to hell? Who not what said this was a requirement and what makes them right?
We're talking about intelligent reasoning here not bible verses...

I am a Taoist-Christain, so don't freak out becuase of the following. If you intend to win the hearts and minds of people, lets dicuss a few of these points with the questions of non-believers.

Point # 1: Who not what says we should conform to believing in your specfic diety? There are many faith claiming to be the "light and the "truth" and the "way".

Point#2
How can all men be seperated from God? Isn't the tale of adam and eve similar to tales from various other religions. In fact some say it is almost an exact copy of the bablyionian tale of Gigamesh? How are we to trust the bible, a text written by men and whose version decended from the bible which was assembled by men at the council of Nicae around 300 a.d. nearly 300 years after christ. There are many texts which were added or left out over the centuries that followed, so is to say that the bible(whichever version you read) is genuine let alone the "word of God"?

Point #3
Why just Jesus? There have been many men who preformed miracles and brought light and wisdom to the world. Are we not all children of "God"? Why pick just one person to be the route to eternal salvation. Why just one way?
Point #4
Agian who not what says there is just one way. What about all those who lived before christ or even perhaps those who have never heard your message? Are you saying those poor souls are condemned to hell? What makes these individual/s who said there is only one way back to God right? Are they not men and also subject to sin as you have suggested and therefore making their "holy" knowledge questionable?
Point#5
Who not what said proof was required of someones faith? Do not my actions and choices speak of my faith themselves? Again what makes individuals who say such things right? Is not my personal relationship with Christ and God enough?

I find it very disturbing the number of christians who can not actually answer such questions without constantly repeating verses which mean nothing to the none believer and ultimately are questionable to them as well as the number of questions that go unanswered as a result of such "salvation" tactics. It is my personal belief if one is to trully claim to be a member of a particular faith then must research it, study it, not just the texts but the history,languages and cultural backgrounds and ties. Quoting bible verses may win you a few followers but i believe you'll find that 2/3 of them will fall away from the "flock" when they start asking these questions. Most christians won't answer them or they believe quoting verses resolves such questions. They are horribly mistaken. Remeber all "truths" are subject to questioning and if you can not provide a intelligent and resonable answer or explaination then it your faith that is in question not the non-believer's. Just something to think about...

Frankly i think we should be more concerned about our choices, habits, actions, words and thoughts prior to death and how we live our lives then with death itself. If there is a almighty being we have to answer to then i would hope they would be loving and compassionate enough to work out any confusion and suffering that was a result of life. A supreme being that punishes becuase of confusion and simple misunderstandings is not a compassionate or loving one so i could not devote myself to them. The universe wastes nothing and everything is eventually transformed into something else. So in a sense one's soul or essence is immortal. I don't believe in predestination nor do i choose to believe in a supreme being that would punish confused and suffering spirits over simple misunderstandings rather then evil deeds. If this does occur though I am content in the understanding that i was either confused about the matter or lacked the knowledge nesscary to accept such things. just a thought...

I try not to personify that which imo can not be personified. Attaching titles, number, sexual orientation or mentality to something that is beyond such designations if pointless. As a Taoist I believe that such a power/source/energy exists but can not be defined in words adequately. Many people are no going to say so what is it you believe or worship. My answer is rather simple, I believe in the Tao, that which can not be confined and or identified with words. It is that which embodies all things and nothing itself. It resides in absolute truth and yet does not need a truth to exist. I could go on and on but Lao-tzu said it best. "I call it the Tao becuase i do not know what to call it. Those know the Tao do not say and those who say do not know."
So there is nothing i can say to help anyone understand or comprehend, it has to be realized and experienced to even begin to get close to such reasoning. I would suggest starting with the Tao Te Ching, and once you have confused yourself with your first reading then you can start researching Taoism and discover other texts and canons which will help clear that confusion up. I would suggest the authors Thomas Cleary and Eva Wong as good starts. Hope that helps....

Choice determines the fate of the individual. Choice is everything. The chioce of the parents, society, and people who were around when the individual came into the world. Their choices and the choices the individual make decides the fate of the individual. Things in the universe that lack the ability to choose events and actions are subject to the laws of the universe and the laws of physics, which some might argue were the decision of a higher power but that is left to speculation. In choas there is order and in order there is choas. Something happens becuase of nothing and Nothing happens because of something. Fate is the embodiment of every decision made up to now and in the future till there are no more choices that can be made. Nature is the control and choice defines the boundaries and limits....imo. Just a thought on it.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you actually did some research you would have found out that Carbon dating is far more accurate today then it was ten years ago. Might i suggest some reading to illustrate the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
[edit] Radiocarbon half-life

[edit] Libby vs Cambridge values
Carbon dating was developed by a team led by Willard Libby. He worked out a carbon-14 half-life of 5568±30 years, the Libby half-life. Later a more accurate figure of 5730±40 years was determined, which is known as the Cambridge half-life. This is, however, not relevant for radiocarbon dating. If calibration is applied, the half-life cancels out, as long as the same value is used throughout the calculations. Laboratories continue to use the Libby figure to avoid inconsistencies with previous publications.


[edit] Carbon exchange reservoir
Libby's original exchange reservoir hypothesis assumes that the exchange reservoir is constant all over the world. The calibration method also assumes that the temporal variation in 14C level is global, such that a small number of samples from a specific year are sufficient for calibration.[12] However, since Libby's early work was published (1950 to 1958), latitudinal and continental variations in the carbon exchange reservoir have been observed by Hessel de Vries (1958; as reviewed by Lerman et al., 1959, 1960). Subsequently, methods have been developed that allow the correction of these so-called reservoir effects, including:

When CO2 is transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans, it initially shares the 14C concentration of the atmosphere. However, turnaround times of CO2 in the ocean are similar to the half-life of 14C (making 14C also a dating tool for ocean water[13]. Marine organisms feed on this "old" carbon, and thus their radiocarbon age reflects the time of CO2 uptake by the ocean rather than the time of death of the organism. This marine reservoir effect is partly handled by a special marine calibration curve [14], but local deviation of several 100 years exist.
Erosion and immersion of carbonate rocks (which are generally older than 80,000 years and so shouldn't contain measurable 14C) causes an increase in 12C and 13C in the exchange reservoir, which depends on local weather conditions and can vary the ratio of carbon that living organisms incorporate. This is believed negligible for the atmosphere and atmosphere-derived carbon since most erosion will flow into the sea.[15] The atmospheric 14C concentration may differ substantially from the concentration in local water reservoirs. Eroded from CaCO3 or organic deposits, old carbon may be assimilated easily and provide diluted 14C carbon into trophic chains. So the method is less reliable for such materials as well as for samples derived from animals with such plants in their food chain.
Volcanic eruptions eject large amount of carbonate into the air, causing an increase in 12C and 13C in the exchange reservoir and can vary the exchange ratio locally. This explains the often irregular dating achieved in volcanic areas.[15]
The earth is not affected evenly by cosmic radiation, the magnitude of the radiation depends on land altitude and earth's magnetic field strength at any given location, causing minor variation in the local 14C production. This is accounted for by having calibration curves for different locations of the globe. However this could not always be performed, as tree rings for calibration were only recoverable from certain locations in 1958.[16] The rebuttals by Münnich et al.[17] and by Barker[18] both maintain that while variations of carbon-14 exist, they are about an order of magnitude smaller than those implied by Crowe's calculations.
These effects were first confirmed when samples of wood from around the world, which all had the same age (based on tree ring analysis), showed deviations from the dendrochronological age. Calibration techniques based on tree-ring samples have contributed to increase the accuracy since 1962, when they were accurate to 700 years at worst.[19]


[edit] Speleothem studies extend 14C calibration
Relatively recent (2001) evidence has allowed scientists to refine the knowledge of one of the underlying assumptions. A peak in the amount of carbon-14 was discovered by scientists studying speleothems in caves in the Bahamas. Stalagmites are calcium carbonate deposits left behind when seepage water, containing dissolved carbon dioxide, evaporates. Carbon-14 levels were found to be twice as high as modern levels.[20] These discoveries improved the calibration for the radiocarbon technique and extended its usefulness to 45,000 years into the past.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
Modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.5 billion years (4.5 × 109 years).[1] This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material[2] and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.[3] The oldest such minerals analysed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old.[4] Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to the multitudes of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Ca-Al-rich inclusions (inclusions rich in calcium and aluminium) – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old,[5] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth. It is hypothesised that the accretion of Earth began soon after the formation of the Ca-Al-rich inclusions and the meteorites. Because the exact accretion time of Earth is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine. It is also difficult to determine the exact age of the oldest rocks on Earth, exposed at the surface, as they are aggregates of minerals of possibly different ages.

So sorry Earth not six thousand year old....lol

The real question should be why continue to believe this despite scientific evidence.
Here's a article that address that.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14datc.htm

CARBON-14 DATING (C-14)
BELIEFS OF NEW-EARTH CREATIONISTS


Sponsored link.






Quotations:
"There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not the objective evidence for an old earth that many claim, and that the world is really only thousands of years old. We don't have all the answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world." Christian Answers web site, referring to the book of Genesis in the Bible. 1
"The radiocarbon dating method remains arguably the most dependable and widely applied dating technique for the late Pleistocene and Holocene periods." Radiocarbon Web-info web site. 2



Beliefs of new-earth creationists about origins:
Most individual creation scientists and creation science organizations are called new-earth creationists. They believe in a literal interpretation of the creation story/stories in Genesis which is the first book in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). From internal biblical information, they have concluded that the earth, its life forms, and the rest of the universe were created by God, less than 10,000 years ago; i.e. sometime after 8000 BCE. Many believe in the creation estimate of 4004 BCE by Bishop James Ussher, a 17th century Irish archbishop from Armagh, Ireland. They further believe that only very minor changes within various biological species have happened since creation. No new species have evolved or been created since. Another of their important beliefs is that the flood of Noah happened circa 2349 BCE as described in the Bible. 3 It covered the entire earth and created many of the geological features that we see today. The new-earth creation belief system is mainly promoted by people who believe that the Bible authors were inspired by God to write text that is inerrant -- free of error. Most of them believe that creation took only six days or 144 hours.



Rejection of the C-14 dating method:
New-earth creationists obviously cannot accept the accuracy of the C-14 dating method. For example:

Scientists have dated a female figurine commonly called the Venus of Willendorf or the Woman of Willendorf to 24,000 to 22,000 BCE. They were unable to date the object directly since it is made from oolitic limestone. However, they were able to date many objects found with the object in the same archaeological layer of the Willendorf deposit. 4
They have dated wooden residue from the remains of bonfires at up to the limit of the C-14 dating method, which is about 50,000 BCE.

Creation scientists cannot accept these dates as accurate since they believe that the world was created sometime between 4000 and 8000 BCE. Since the accuracy of the Bible cannot be questioned, C-14 dating must contain massive errors -- by as much as a factor of five. Similarly, other radiometric measurements which do not use carbon, have dated rocks in northern Quebec, Canada, at almost four billion years old. 5 They must be in error by a factor of at least 400,000 times. More details.



Reasons for rejection of C-14 dating, with rebuttals:
It is our policy to accurately portray both (or all) sides to each belief whenever multiple viewpoints exist. If you feel that we are not fairly describing one side, please use the "Send an E-mail" button at the bottom of this page to send us a complaint. Please be sure to include the name of this file (c14datc.htm)

Some direct criticisms of the C-14 dating technique are:
ChristianAnswers.net states: "Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible."

This was true back in the 1950s. A team of researchers, headed by Willard F. Libby calibrated the C-14 measuring technique by comparing the measured age of samples from ancient Egypt with their known date. For example, they tested a piece of wood from Pharaoh Zoser's tomb with the known tomb date, which was known to be circa 2700 to 2600 BCE. The agreement was excellent. Since then, extended calibration checks have been made using U.S. bristlecone pine, German and Irish oak, and other species of trees. That work pushed the calibration back well beyond recorded history to 10,000 BP (years before the present.) Other correlations have extended that to 26,000 years BP. It may eventually go back as far as 45,000 years. 6
The Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing. This will increase the level of cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, generate more C-14, and upset the C-14 dating process.

The earths magnetic field is cyclical in nature. Any affect on the C-14 dating method is corrected by the calibration procedure.
The flood of Noah, as described in Genesis, Chapter 6 to 8, would have upset the carbon balance on earth by burying large amounts of carbon containing plants which became coal, and gas. This would lower the total C-12 in the atmosphere at that time and upset the C-14 dating process.

The Genesis flood is described in Genesis as occurring circa 2349 BCE. Samples from before, during and after the flood whose dates are known through archaeology have been C-14 tested without any difficulty. Either the worldwide flood of Noah did not happen, or it did not create any significant disturbance in the C-12/C-14 balance at the time.
Volcanoes emit a great deal of carbon dioxide which contains very little C-14. Since a massive degree of volcanism occurred during the the flood of Noah, objects which died shortly after the flood would give inaccurate C-14 dating results.

Again, C-14 dating results on objects before, during and after the flood were found to be accurate when the data was compared with dates derived from archaeological evidence. If there was a great deal of volcanism in the 23rd century BCE, it does not show up in the C-14 data.
Radiocarbon dating laboratories often ask what is the expected age of the samples submitted to them. If C-14 dating is really precise, such information would not be needed. ChristianAnswers.net comments: "Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a "good" date."

Lab personnel often ask for the approximate age of a specimen in advance of testing, so they can tune their instruments in order to increase the accuracy of the results. They do not ask in order to "cook" the results.

Now lets be serious here. If you are one who totes the creationist banner, that's fine i have no problem with your personal beliefs, again they are your choice, remeber choices are not always fact though. Therefore i can not stand for something which as no scientific basis or support being taught as a fact to students in a science class. Like it or not evolution is still a theory,not a law and therefore a part of science. A science which is still developing i'll give you but that is why when they teach about evolution, it is taught with this emphasis that it is just a theory. Intelligent Design is a religous ideology with no scientific basis or emphasis. Choosing to ignore the fact that we have written records from as far back as 10,000 B.C. and choosing to believe that the earth is only 6 thousand years old is your choice. Granted not a very wise one imo but it is still your choice and nothing you had to learn at school. Please don't cuss or use fowl language, it is unbecoming of your faith and i will have to report you.

I think true happiness is more about teaching yourself to satisfied and content with what you have, need and learn in life imo. People are not happy mainly due to a lack of these i think.

QUOTE:
… it is not the individual that is in question here. Rather it is the body of the organization,its actions and views that will test the quality of the religion.

I’m not sure how you would evaluate the “actions and views” of an organization other than through the “actions and views” of the individual members.

Although I guess you could evaluate the “views” part based solely on the writings and ignore the expressed views of the members.

In which case, the writings that I have read seem to indicate a highly workable and ethical approach to the betterment of man.

I should probably clarify a little better. The deeds of of body of the church or its members can affect how the preception of the religion is developed. So rather it is the actions of the body of the church that result in how the religion is precieved by those outside of it. It's books and virtues may be ideal but the actions of the members of the body of the religion may speak differently of those virtues and beliefs. I believe one can take donations for sharing said beliefs,knowledge, and books. All knowledge should be free and charging someone for lack of knowledge and trying to justify it by saying well it costs me something for you to learn it so i need to charge you something. That is like saying a mother should charge her infant before she teaches them to potty train, speak, or eat. Knowledge belongs to all not to just some is all i am saying.

I agree with you Skyhook, especially when it comes to protecting those basic rights. I myself am just of the opinion now that there should be more accountability in non-profit organizations for what they do with their donations. There is also the issue of such organizations selling products and merchandise to increase their funds. I tend to think that would fall under the heading of a business and not something which non-profit. Many of the people in these non-profit organizations are even taking an income from such donations. To me that constitutes a profit being made. I understand tax write offs for charitable services but to me the above activities constitutes fraud and tax evasion. I isolated religous non-profit organizations for this reason, not saying other organizations don't also abuse it, it has just been my experience that religious ones are some of the worst. If they offered things for free (charity) instead of selling them and took donations for the items then i would view it differently. A priest, minister, or preacher should not be earning a income for being a connection to the divine. In fact i know many honest ministers who have done their charitable religious work without said income and also had regular jobs. It is time to live up to some standards is all i am saying.

I would have to say Bush is a case of the decider who acts without analyzing and questioning things. If he thinks he did i wonder if now having to look at the consquences our country has indured becuase of such decisions that maybe he doesn't think he should thought things through more. just a thought...

Your right "religion" would have been a better word then "faith" by definition that is. As for profiting from one's religion. I am a big believer that all knowledge belongs to every human being not just those with fat pockets, that is simply eliteism. If someone goes to a remote region and sells a religious text to a person or persons. Those people are paying to learn something they may eventually believe. Those selling are profiting from those individuals lack of knowledge. So yes they are paying to be allowed to believe things.

What ones says or writes comes from the heart. All words are to be held in account. Words represent intent and therefore represent action. Should we not be as responsible for our words as we are for our actions?

You do have to chip out cash in order to advance in rank and position in the church. It is even said that certain "special" knowledge is with held to only those who attain such ranks. Sounds like a form of marketing called "incentiveness".


Don't get me wrong i am no way accusing Scientology of anything. I am merely posing the same questions i pose to any religion or belief system. I am constantly questioning and re-evaluating what i think,choose to believe and do, bringing the same questions to the table. I am sorry if some of my statements have upset you. I am simply just trying question everything as i believe i should

If its members live by that code, i have nothing against it. Sadly most people tend to be hypocrites when it comes to upholding said codes, values, intentions and virtues. So their words and deeds must be called into question at all times. An individual can be a shining example to all but it is not the individual that is in question here. Rather it is the body of the organization,its actions and views that will test the quality of the religion. And in this I fear all organized religion fails.

Organized religions tend to just be forms of controls for the masses, not to mention handy money gathering operations. Next to currupt governments, organized religious institutions tend to follow suit. I tend to believe in being more philosophical and spiritual then being tied to a religious institution. Unlike those tied to religions i am willing to accept the fact that i don't know everything and that i should probably question everything. So am i "special". No certainly not and nor would i dare to presume i know better or am better than anyone else. Frankly i quite content being simple old me besides the smarter or wiser people think you are the more trouble you get into.

Let's get back on topic..... The real question still remains should a religious ideology such Intelligent Design be taught in a classroom based on science. My answer is no. Intelligent Design has nothing to do with any form of science. Science is about creating a hypothesis or theory and then through research and testing providing facts and evidence to support or disprove such hypothesis or theory. Intelligent Design is just the christian ideological belief that the entire universe was created by a deity in seven days. Last i checked there has been no evidence or scientific proof to support such a theory and therefore it has no place in science class. We have rocks that are carbon dated over 4 billion years old. The genetic diversity in humanity is enough to suggest that over time a species adapts, changes, modifies and evolves to survive changes in the natural conditions of its environment. My question is why is it so hard for christians to consider that it was part of "God's" plan that we evolved from something else? One can still keep their faith and at the same time adapt it to current knowledge and understanding. Remeber people ignorance is something we choose not something we should believe. Imo...just a thought

With all the chemicals and growth hormones we're putting in our food now and the open use of sex in advertising should we really be shocked by kids behaving this way? Proper education of such active youths is the first step to preventing any future problems that might arise from such behavior. When a society preaches morality yet through its actions and behaviors confuses its youth what should it expect....

Still paying money to advance in ones "faith" a "faith" that is supposedly "non-profit" and rides all the benefits of such claims by being tax exempt. I find such comments by any "faiths" founder to draw the entire institution into question. Last i checked i didn't have to chip out thousands of dollars to advance as a christian, jew, islamic, hindu, buddhist, or pagan of any kind for that matter. Everything should be questioned, faith, reasoning, practices, motives and intentions. Especially when it comes to making a decision on what one believes..imo, just saying is all..