Thread: Is God and His works perfect?

Is God and His works perfect?

I was a non believer at one time and enjoyed winning debates with believers using the K J Bible against them. Paradoxically, it was by knowing this Bible and interpreting it my way that lead me to find God.

I had determined that if there was a God at all, then whatever he had created had to be perfect and that that
This perfection would maintain itself over time. Never backsliding to imperfection.

God could never look down on earth and say, oops what the hell happened to my perfect world, it was good and now look at it, imperfect.
His will is supreme and not even a world of humans could collectively thwart His will with theirs.

I began to see this perfection that had to be here even with evils and sins and woes and that is when I found God. I went into the spirit, as the ancients used to say and God showed me the pain and pleasure of knowing that He was actually there.

I am not sure yet if it is the Christian God or not because I see the Bible as a consolidation of the then known religions. A bit from one and a bit from another.

The God I found is one of infinite love for humanity. He does not kill us or otherwise interfere but is there for those who seek.

He does not match the God that literal readers of scripture know.
That literal God, if the old testament is believed as the WORD does not have infinite love for man because He tends to kill them quite often. Sodom, Noah’s flood and many other times and places.

I find it strange that literal readers do not take this scripture literally.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.

They see babies being born as already stained with sin.
If perfect and having a sin nature is part of perfection, and I think it is then well and good. If not then you would have to explain why God would create imperfect souls and natures for us.

Most literal reader though do not see this world as good even though, in Eden, God looked down and saw that the earth was good even with Satan there as the talking serpent.
Why God allowed Satan there is debatable but regardless of this, he was there for literal readers.

Imperfection cannot flow out of perfection. A perfect stream will not give poison water.
Perfection flows from perfection and imperfection flows from imperfection.

I see God’s universe as perfect.
I should give you my definition of perfect now to save some time.
Some people see or use that word to denote a finish and complete product.
I do not and if I may, God does not.
In the beginning God was alone and perfect. He then began to add to His universe. Evolution is change so since the changes He began with, did not cause a lose of perfection, but moved it to a new level, I say that perfection is now perfection in evolution. Always perfect but like the U S constitution uses the term, moving to a more perfect state. I also do not see a schism between Darwin’s evolution and God. God began it and Darwin named it. This shows my thoughts on a six day creation but that too is a different issue.

My question then is,
Do you see God’s universe as perfection in evolution, or,
Do you see God’s initial perfection gone and replaced by imperfection?

Is God still looking down with a smile as His perfection continues to evolve over never ending time as befits a God of perfect works, or
Is God looking down and saying, oops, what happened to my perfect universe and world. It backslid.

You should know that I do not ever expect God to return at some end time because I see His judgment at the beginning of our birth in Genesis as the only judgment that he need render. To have Him return, red faced, to fix a perfect world is beyond my definition of God. He gets things right the first time, every time.

I do not include this for debate here but only to show how strongly I believe that when we left the garden we did so with God being proud of His perfect works and not ashamed that He had started us off on the wrong foot, so to speak, from the beginning of our journey.

Regards
DL

There are numerous contradictions in the Christian bible (this bible is not perfect). If the bible is not perfect, it cannot be a work of the Judeo-Christian god. Therefore, knowledge of the Judeo-Christian god obtained from the bible is discarded since it is not a trusted source.

Is there any other reason to accept the Judeo-Christian god without reliance on biblical mythology? If not, then there is no good reason to accept the Judeo-Christian god.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

There are numerous contradictions in the Christian bible (this bible is not perfect). If the bible is not perfect, it cannot be a work of the Judeo-Christian god. Therefore, knowledge of the Judeo-Christian god obtained from the bible is discarded since it is not a trusted source.

Is there any other reason to accept the Judeo-Christian god without reliance on biblical mythology? If not, then there is no good reason to accept the Judeo-Christian god.

There are no good reasons to follow any God yet the majority do. Strange.

Ever wonder why?

Regards
DL

PROTIP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Now that your responding fallacy is out of the way: I encourage belief in a personal God. It is not my place to argue against a personal God, for such matters of faith are none of my concern; for they do not affect me. I feel it my duty, however, to inform you were you're being illogical. Just because you have a personal God does not mean you must abandon intelligence to follow it.

1) Why assume God made things perfect? Perhaps, rather, he made things imperfect as a way to challenge his creation to rise above it.

2) Why trust your senses? It should be long proved by now that human senses are incredibly prone to self deception. Rather than assume God led you to him, you should trust in your own wisdom. If you were created by such a deity, why would he demand you rely on him for such a thing? Furthermore, why would he use such an error prone mechanism as human feeling? Find your God in thought, not in "spirit".

3) Why did you find God through an emotion that's very deceptive? Love is the most deceptive of all emotions.

4) What is sin?

5) Is it not more believable that God has remained out of human affairs, and current religions are simply attempts to find him (however flawed)? That, and through these attempts, is it not proved that they're all wrong? Christian religion, in particular, has proved bloodthirsty throughout history.

6) Why must there be perfection at all?

7) Why use the bible as a basis for your beliefs? Why not Buddhist texts? Zen? Taoism? You've simply stumbled upon your own shortcoming: The desire to believe in something.

8.) Since you claim you do not wish to debate, are you not suffering the same contradictory nature as other believers? You have clung to your belief, and will refuse to let it improve. Do you think an intelligent deity would like his creation to be bullheaded?

Originally Posted by Darius

PROTIP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Now that your responding fallacy is out of the way: I encourage belief in a personal God. It is not my place to argue against a personal God, for such matters of faith are none of my concern; for they do not affect me. I feel it my duty, however, to inform you were you're being illogical. Just because you have a personal God does not mean you must abandon intelligence to follow it.

1) Why assume God made things perfect? Perhaps, rather, he made things imperfect as a way to challenge his creation to rise above it.

I did not assume perfection from God. I recognized it. In fact my reading and thinking previous to that was that things were definitely not perfect.

He left enough ambiguity here to challenge us. Evil and sin and woes. They can and do fit within perfection.

2) Why trust your senses? It should be long proved by now that human senses are incredibly prone to self deception. Rather than assume God led you to him, you should trust in your own wisdom. If you were created by such a deity, why would he demand you rely on him for such a thing? Furthermore, why would he use such an error prone mechanism as human feeling? Find your God in thought, not in "spirit".

Thoughts are what I used to find God. I used the word challenged above. No feeling of love involved in a challenge. I did not indicate that I believed in a creator God. He does not demand anything of me??? Did you read the above? whare did I indicate demands?

3) Why did you find God through an emotion that's very deceptive? Love is the most deceptive of all emotions.

See above. No love.

4) What is sin?

Who can say. Try anything that you would not want done to you.

5) Is it not more believable that God has remained out of human affairs, and current religions are simply attempts to find him (however flawed)? That, and through these attempts, is it not proved that they're all wrong? Christian religion, in particular, has proved bloodthirsty throughout history.

They have.
Yes , God does not interfere in the affairs of man. He does communicate with those who seek Him. He does not to my knowledge seek us.

6) Why must there be perfection at all?

It is there. Could it be otherwise, I do not know.

7) Why use the bible as a basis for your beliefs? Why not Buddhist texts? Zen? Taoism? You've simply stumbled upon your own shortcoming: The desire to believe in something.

All Bibles are good for thought. It is a matter of chance that I live in the west where Christianity is the norm.

8.) Since you claim you do not wish to debate, are you not suffering the same contradictory nature as other believers? You have clung to your belief, and will refuse to let it improve. Do you think an intelligent deity would like his creation to be bullheaded?

I do not mind debate. I did make a reference that pertained to not particularly wanting to debate the side issue of the end time so as to not detract from the main theme of the OP but if not too busy I will speak to any issue. Perhaps I should have left out that remark.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I did not assume perfection from God. I recognized it. In fact my reading and thinking previous to that was that things were definitely not perfect.

Why feel it? How do you know that feeling is true? Just assuming they are is a fallacy, and dangerous. The line between reality and insanity is what you choose to call "real", and if you pick the wrong thing your grip on reality will slip further and further.

Who can say. Try anything that you would not want done to you.

Yet you list sin as the basis for a number of your assumptions, such as "babies born with sin". If you do not define sin, you cannot say who sins. Also, your "try" definition is highly subjective.

Yes , God does not interfere in the affairs of man. He does communicate with those who seek Him. He does not to my knowledge seek us.

How can you say it's God communicating rather than yourself? Schizophrenics, for example, can believe in a delusion completely.

It is there. Could it be otherwise, I do not know.

Then why say so?

All Bibles are good for thought. It is a matter of chance that I live in the west where Christianity is the norm.

You think God would leave it up to chance? That doesn't sound fair.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

The God I found is one of infinite love for humanity. He does not kill us or otherwise interfere but is there for those who seek.

That must be why he goes out of his way numerous times to kill entire nations of people, sometimes just their infant boys, and commit genocide at least once against all virtually life on the planet. By all appearances he's a monstrosity completely undeserving of one iota of respect, love or worship.

Perhaps we were made in his image: if "god" exist, he's far from perfect.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

The God I found is one of infinite love for humanity. He does not kill us or otherwise interfere but is there for those who seek.

That must be why he goes out of his way numerous times to kill entire nations of people, sometimes just their infant boys, and commit genocide at least once against all virtually life on the planet. By all appearances he's a monstrosity completely undeserving of one iota of respect, love or worship.

Perhaps we were made in his image: if "god" exist, he's far from perfect.

Ok lets unpack this little gem.

Why is it exactly that a god who subjects his dependents to the medium of death be morally reprehensible?

Originally Posted by Darius

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I did not assume perfection from God. I recognized it. In fact my reading and thinking previous to that was that things were definitely not perfect.

Why feel it? How do you know that feeling is true? Just assuming they are is a fallacy, and dangerous. The line between reality and insanity is what you choose to call "real", and if you pick the wrong thing your grip on reality will slip further and further.

Do not put words in my mouth. I did not use the word feel.

Who can say. Try anything that you would not want done to you.

Yet you list sin as the basis for a number of your assumptions, such as "babies born with sin". If you do not define sin, you cannot say who sins. Also, your "try" definition is highly subjective.

The reference to babies was as to what Christians believe. Not what I believe.
I have defined sin. Pay better attention.

Yes , God does not interfere in the affairs of man. He does communicate with those who seek Him. He does not to my knowledge seek us.

How can you say it's God communicating rather than yourself? Schizophrenics, for example, can believe in a delusion completely.

I have had two telepathic experiences. The first with my wife. This confirms the reality of telepathy. I would not believe the second without the first. The second was with a cosmic consciousness. Believe or not.

It is there. Could it be otherwise, I do not know.

Then why say so?

Because I think that the only thing man owes man is truth.

All Bibles are good for thought. It is a matter of chance that I live in the west where Christianity is the norm.

You think God would leave it up to chance? That doesn't sound fair.

Why not. The uncertainty principle says that all is chance.

It is nice in debate to back up such a statement with the reasoning when you make it. Then I do not have to just ask for it and waste both of our time.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

The God I found is one of infinite love for humanity. He does not kill us or otherwise interfere but is there for those who seek.

That must be why he goes out of his way numerous times to kill entire nations of people, sometimes just their infant boys, and commit genocide at least once against all virtually life on the planet. By all appearances he's a monstrosity completely undeserving of one iota of respect, love or worship.

Perhaps we were made in his image: if "god" exist, he's far from perfect.

You are speaking of the Christian God and you are right. He is one S O B.

You might Check the OP again and you will notice that I state that He is not my God.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by punarmusiko

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

The God I found is one of infinite love for humanity. He does not kill us or otherwise interfere but is there for those who seek.

That must be why he goes out of his way numerous times to kill entire nations of people, sometimes just their infant boys, and commit genocide at least once against all virtually life on the planet. By all appearances he's a monstrosity completely undeserving of one iota of respect, love or worship.

Perhaps we were made in his image: if "god" exist, he's far from perfect.

Ok lets unpack this little gem.

Why is it exactly that a god who subjects his dependents to the medium of death be morally reprehensible?

If you had the choice of letting your children live instead of dying, would you not let them live?
I would give them what they want.

Why let your children die while you live forever?

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Do not put words in my mouth. I did not use the word feel.

Then how did you get the "message"? You didn't exactly discern it logically.

The reference to babies was as to what Christians believe. Not what I believe. I have defined sin. Pay better attention.

You defined sin very POORLY (as I mentioned), and very SUBJECTIVELY. I suppose God doesn't mind you killing someone else if you also want to be killed? Also, why mention it at all if you're only saying what others believe?

I have had two telepathic experiences. The first with my wife. This confirms the reality of telepathy. I would not believe the second without the first. The second was with a cosmic consciousness. Believe or not.

Really? Hindsight bias, clustering illusion, pareidolia, and last but not least SUBJECTIVE VALIDATION.

Your experiences are, as they say, unreliable, no?

Because I think that the only thing man owes man is truth.

Who says it's true? You have to prove it so.

Why not. The uncertainty principle says that all is chance.

So God leaves it all up to random chance? Sounds rather malevolent. What were you saying about a loving God earlier? Oh snap.

GIa

I did not read your entire article. So what god are you talking about?

My GOD is NATURE. It is perfect because it created no laws and yet the animals are 10 times more civilized than the 'old testament' derivitives that promotes the 'one god concept ' that has all these other gods waging war with each other to determine who is the one god?

So if this reaches a nuclear confrontation, than you had better be digging a hole in the ground to survive in the future. This is what your present OT gods are liable to do.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Darius

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Do not put words in my mouth. I did not use the word feel.

Then how did you get the "message"? You didn't exactly discern it logically.

You assume much. All information goes into the mind . Minds are logical tools.
The message was think more demographically. Rather a difficult concept to feel.

The reference to babies was as to what Christians believe. Not what I believe. I have defined sin. Pay better attention.

You defined sin very POORLY (as I mentioned), and very SUBJECTIVELY. I suppose God doesn't mind you killing someone else if you also want to be killed? Also, why mention it at all if you're only saying what others believe?

Criticism of my definition without correction is just useless noise. If you tell someone they are on the wrong road, to not point to the right one is just showing that you have no better road to point to.

I have had two telepathic experiences. The first with my wife. This confirms the reality of telepathy. I would not believe the second without the first. The second was with a cosmic consciousness. Believe or not.

Really? Hindsight bias, clustering illusion, pareidolia, and last but not least SUBJECTIVE VALIDATION.

Your experiences are, as they say, unreliable, no?

Confirmation is reliable. Two mind do not share the same illusion.

Because I think that the only thing man owes man is truth.

Who says it's true? You have to prove it so.

I am well aware that I cannot prove the invisible any better than anyone else. That is why I do not push for others to believe. It has to be done by the others before belief can be achieved. Believe or not. No skin off my nose.

Why not. The uncertainty principle says that all is chance.

So God leaves it all up to random chance? Sounds rather malevolent. What were you saying about a loving God earlier? Oh snap.

We live in a natural evolving world. The reality of evolution is chance that favors what is required.
Is evolution malevolent. Not likely.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Cosmo

GIa

I did not read your entire article. So what god are you talking about?

My GOD is NATURE. It is perfect because it created no laws and yet the animals are 10 times more civilized than the 'old testament' derivitives that promotes the 'one god concept ' that has all these other gods waging war with each other to determine who is the one god?

So if this reaches a nuclear confrontation, than you had better be digging a hole in the ground to survive in the future. This is what your present OT gods are liable to do.

Cosmo

If the OT God was in my sights, He would die.
I am with you on this.

My God, check my signature. No miracles and no interference. it does respond to educate though if found. Otherwise, it just is. Our next evolution. No choice.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I was a non believer at one time and enjoyed winning debates with believers using the K J Bible against them. Paradoxically, it was by knowing this Bible and interpreting it my way that lead me to find God.

you've gotta be kidding me... I have a book you may want to read to help you debate your new side, maybe then you can change your beliefs again:

Origin of Species
by Charles Darwin

let me help you get started with a brief preface and a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - On the Origin of Species

Developments before Darwin's theory
Darwin himself traced evolutionary ideas as far back as Aristotle;the text he cited was a summary by Aristotle of the ideas of the earlier Greek philosopher Empedocles. Early Christian Church Fathers and Medieval European scholars held allegorical rather than strictly literal meanings of creation according to Genesis,and organisms were described by their mythological and heraldic significance as much as by their physical form. Nature was widely believed to be unstable and capricious, with monstrous births from union between species, and spontaneous generation of life.

The Protestant Reformation inspired Biblical literalism and concepts of creation which conflicted with the findings of emerging science seeking Cartesian mechanical explanations using the empiricism of the Baconian method. After the turmoil of the English civil war, the Royal Society had to show that science did not threaten religious and political stability, and John Ray developed an influential natural theology of rational order. In his taxonomy, species were static and fixed, their adaptation and complexity designed by God, and varieties showed minor differences caused by local conditions. In God's benevolent design, carnivores caused mercifully swift death, but the suffering caused by parasitism was a puzzling problem. The biological classification introduced by Carolus Linnaeus in 1735 also viewed species as fixed according to the divine plan. In 1766 Georges Buffon suggested that some similar species, such as horses and asses, or lions, tigers, and leopards, might be just well marked varieties descended from a common ancestor. The Ussher chronology of the 1650s had calculated creation at 4004 BC, but by the 1780s geologists assumed a much older world. Wernerians thought strata were deposits from shrinking seas, but James Hutton proposed a self-maintaining infinite cycle, anticipating uniformitarianism.

We've all seen how religion can blossom and evolve into things such as:
the Salem witch hunts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_w...rials#Overview

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Salem witch trials

Giles Corey, an 80-year-old farmer from the southeast end of Salem (called Salem Farms), refused to enter a plea when he came to trial in September. The judges applied an archaic form of punishment called peine forte et dure, in which stones were piled on his chest until he could no longer breathe. (British law had, in reality, abolished this practice twenty years earlier.)[1] After two days of peine fort et dure, Corey died without entering a plea.

if that's not enough, take a look at this and remember, history repeats itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_s...#Ritual_murder

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Human Sacrifice

"ritual killing" such as, mass suicides with doomsday cult background, such as the Peoples Temple, Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, Order of the Solar Temple or Heaven's Gate incidents. Other examples include the "Matamoros killings" attributed to Mexican cult leader Adolfo Constanzo and the "Superior Universal Alignment" killings in 1990s Brazil.

this is the kind of ignorace religion has shown to inspire, I can include countless referrences if I need to, but your so called "saviours" are killing way more people than they are helping, and Giles Corey (noted above) was probably somebody's grandpa, would you want this happening to someone you loved? Well then please, quit trying to "save" everyone. I can only hope these words can "save" you, then there will be one less potential... well you've read above, there's much worse stuff that evolves from religion as well, it's best to call it what it is to avoid confusions that lead to these kind of behaviors; Philosopy.

Originally Posted by deadcat

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I was a non believer at one time and enjoyed winning debates with believers using the K J Bible against them. Paradoxically, it was by knowing this Bible and interpreting it my way that lead me to find God.

you've gotta be kidding me... I have a book you may want to read to help you debate your new side, maybe then you can change your beliefs again:

Origin of Species
by Charles Darwin

let me help you get started with a brief preface and a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - On the Origin of Species

Developments before Darwin's theory
Darwin himself traced evolutionary ideas as far back as Aristotle;the text he cited was a summary by Aristotle of the ideas of the earlier Greek philosopher Empedocles. Early Christian Church Fathers and Medieval European scholars held allegorical rather than strictly literal meanings of creation according to Genesis,and organisms were described by their mythological and heraldic significance as much as by their physical form. Nature was widely believed to be unstable and capricious, with monstrous births from union between species, and spontaneous generation of life.

The Protestant Reformation inspired Biblical literalism and concepts of creation which conflicted with the findings of emerging science seeking Cartesian mechanical explanations using the empiricism of the Baconian method. After the turmoil of the English civil war, the Royal Society had to show that science did not threaten religious and political stability, and John Ray developed an influential natural theology of rational order. In his taxonomy, species were static and fixed, their adaptation and complexity designed by God, and varieties showed minor differences caused by local conditions. In God's benevolent design, carnivores caused mercifully swift death, but the suffering caused by parasitism was a puzzling problem. The biological classification introduced by Carolus Linnaeus in 1735 also viewed species as fixed according to the divine plan. In 1766 Georges Buffon suggested that some similar species, such as horses and asses, or lions, tigers, and leopards, might be just well marked varieties descended from a common ancestor. The Ussher chronology of the 1650s had calculated creation at 4004 BC, but by the 1780s geologists assumed a much older world. Wernerians thought strata were deposits from shrinking seas, but James Hutton proposed a self-maintaining infinite cycle, anticipating uniformitarianism.

We've all seen how religion can blossom and evolve into things such as:
the Salem witch hunts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_w...rials#Overview

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Salem witch trials

Giles Corey, an 80-year-old farmer from the southeast end of Salem (called Salem Farms), refused to enter a plea when he came to trial in September. The judges applied an archaic form of punishment called peine forte et dure, in which stones were piled on his chest until he could no longer breathe. (British law had, in reality, abolished this practice twenty years earlier.)[1] After two days of peine fort et dure, Corey died without entering a plea.

if that's not enough, take a look at this and remember, history repeats itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_s...#Ritual_murder

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Human Sacrifice

"ritual killing" such as, mass suicides with doomsday cult background, such as the Peoples Temple, Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, Order of the Solar Temple or Heaven's Gate incidents. Other examples include the "Matamoros killings" attributed to Mexican cult leader Adolfo Constanzo and the "Superior Universal Alignment" killings in 1990s Brazil.

this is the kind of ignorace religion has shown to inspire, I can include countless referrences if I need to, but your so called "saviours" are killing way more people than they are helping, and Giles Corey (noted above) was probably somebody's grandpa, would you want this happening to someone you loved? Well then please, quit trying to "save" everyone. I can only hope these words can "save" you, then there will be one less potential... well you've read above, there's much worse stuff that evolves from religion as well, it's best to call it what it is to avoid confusions that lead to these kind of behaviors; Philosopy.

People will use anything to further their own twisted desires. You bring forth the Salem Witch Trials and fringe cults, I give you eugenics, the pseudo-science that became massively popular in the industrialized world in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, thanks in part to the Charles Darwin's great book. Eugenics was the idea that a superior breed of humanity could be attained by only allowing the physically and mentally "perfect" members of humanity procreate. It was believed by many great people of the era, including Woodrow Wilson, Nikola Tesla, and sadly, Adolph Hitler. Hitler would incorporate eugenics into his book, Mein Kampf, and the Third Reich is now infamous today for human experimentation, the elimination of "inferior peoples", and starting a war in Europe that would lead to the deaths of tens of millions. Thankfully eugenics was discredited by the National Socialist party, but its just an example of how brilliant concepts, like evolution and religion, will be used by people to spread hate, death, and pain.

and just what is wrong with eugenics? It works. may not be 'moral' but it still works

Originally Posted by deadcat

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I was a non believer at one time and enjoyed winning debates with believers using the K J Bible against them. Paradoxically, it was by knowing this Bible and interpreting it my way that lead me to find God.

you've gotta be kidding me... I have a book you may want to read to help you debate your new side, maybe then you can change your beliefs again:

Origin of Species
by Charles Darwin

let me help you get started with a brief preface and a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - On the Origin of Species

Developments before Darwin's theory
Darwin himself traced evolutionary ideas as far back as Aristotle;the text he cited was a summary by Aristotle of the ideas of the earlier Greek philosopher Empedocles. Early Christian Church Fathers and Medieval European scholars held allegorical rather than strictly literal meanings of creation according to Genesis,and organisms were described by their mythological and heraldic significance as much as by their physical form. Nature was widely believed to be unstable and capricious, with monstrous births from union between species, and spontaneous generation of life.

The Protestant Reformation inspired Biblical literalism and concepts of creation which conflicted with the findings of emerging science seeking Cartesian mechanical explanations using the empiricism of the Baconian method. After the turmoil of the English civil war, the Royal Society had to show that science did not threaten religious and political stability, and John Ray developed an influential natural theology of rational order. In his taxonomy, species were static and fixed, their adaptation and complexity designed by God, and varieties showed minor differences caused by local conditions. In God's benevolent design, carnivores caused mercifully swift death, but the suffering caused by parasitism was a puzzling problem. The biological classification introduced by Carolus Linnaeus in 1735 also viewed species as fixed according to the divine plan. In 1766 Georges Buffon suggested that some similar species, such as horses and asses, or lions, tigers, and leopards, might be just well marked varieties descended from a common ancestor. The Ussher chronology of the 1650s had calculated creation at 4004 BC, but by the 1780s geologists assumed a much older world. Wernerians thought strata were deposits from shrinking seas, but James Hutton proposed a self-maintaining infinite cycle, anticipating uniformitarianism.

We've all seen how religion can blossom and evolve into things such as:
the Salem witch hunts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_w...rials#Overview

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Salem witch trials

Giles Corey, an 80-year-old farmer from the southeast end of Salem (called Salem Farms), refused to enter a plea when he came to trial in September. The judges applied an archaic form of punishment called peine forte et dure, in which stones were piled on his chest until he could no longer breathe. (British law had, in reality, abolished this practice twenty years earlier.)[1] After two days of peine fort et dure, Corey died without entering a plea.

if that's not enough, take a look at this and remember, history repeats itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_s...#Ritual_murder

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Human Sacrifice

"ritual killing" such as, mass suicides with doomsday cult background, such as the Peoples Temple, Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, Order of the Solar Temple or Heaven's Gate incidents. Other examples include the "Matamoros killings" attributed to Mexican cult leader Adolfo Constanzo and the "Superior Universal Alignment" killings in 1990s Brazil.

this is the kind of ignorace religion has shown to inspire, I can include countless referrences if I need to, but your so called "saviours" are killing way more people than they are helping, and Giles Corey (noted above) was probably somebody's grandpa, would you want this happening to someone you loved? Well then please, quit trying to "save" everyone. I can only hope these words can "save" you, then there will be one less potential... well you've read above, there's much worse stuff that evolves from religion as well, it's best to call it what it is to avoid confusions that lead to these kind of behaviors; Philosopy.

I believe in evolution 100%. I see my God as our next evolutionary step. In this we have no choice. There is no heaven or hell. There is just a cosmic consciousness.

I also know that religions, the way they have behaved, should have been outlawed a long time ago.

My God is not their God. Mine does not kill or interfere with man unless found and then all he does is convey information.

Your beef is with the super miracle working absentee God.
In that, we are one.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition

and just what is wrong with eugenics? It works. may not be 'moral' but it still works

And should morality and ethics be dropped by the wayside for scientific advancement? Josef Mengele did such horrific things as chopping off the breasts of a twin to see if her sister would have a bodily reaction, immersing human beings in freezing water for hours at a time to see the effects, among many more brutal experiments. Even if you believe that humanity is merely a biological accident and that our existence is meaningless, we should care for and maintain a universal body of ethics lest we slide into a society that treats people like test animals like Dr. Mengala did. It is alright to snuff morality when its happening to someone else, but when you are judged "inferior", what will you say?

Originally Posted by KomradRed

People will use anything to further their own twisted desires. You bring forth the Salem Witch Trials and fringe cults, I give you eugenics, the pseudo-science that became massively popular in the industrialized world in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, thanks in part to the Charles Darwin's great book. Eugenics was the idea that a superior breed of humanity could be attained by only allowing the physically and mentally "perfect" members of humanity procreate. It was believed by many great people of the era, including Woodrow Wilson, Nikola Tesla, and sadly, Adolph Hitler. Hitler would incorporate eugenics into his book, Mein Kampf, and the Third Reich is now infamous today for human experimentation, the elimination of "inferior peoples", and starting a war in Europe that would lead to the deaths of tens of millions. Thankfully eugenics was discredited by the National Socialist party, but its just an example of how brilliant concepts, like evolution and religion, will be used by people to spread hate, death, and pain.

Pretty much, so we should do our best as people to avoid situations like that. How ever eugenics is far from evolution by "natural selection" as this is aritificial selection. True, there are morons on the side of evolution as well (hitler is a perfect example as you mentioned), I see your point. But I would be just as passionate in an attempt to squash those beliefs led astray as well, as we can see from their repercussions (ie: 6 million jews dead) that this is inhumane. However unlike religion science is an exploration for true meanings not what we would like them to be. And I wouldn't be upset to see the long arm of justice which is science, punish those for trying to spread the ignorance which is religion without making it perfectly clear that it is a philosophy and not to be taken literal. As science has shown us with the bible (ie: Genesis).

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition

and just what is wrong with eugenics? It works. may not be 'moral' but it still works

\

It can be moral, just has to be coordinated correctly, for example: there was a jewish population in new york that had a genetic disorder lurking about their people causing babies to die in their infancy, so they discovered how the disorder is transmitted and created a volunteer program to donate blood, when you and your signifigant other decide you want to have a child, you go to the blood place where your blood is stored and see if your blood is compatible, if so... go for you, if not... most people wouldn't have a child with an extremely high chance of infant death.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

And should morality and ethics be dropped by the wayside for scientific advancement?

if the scientific advancement is greater than the loss of morality then it will because the public will make it happen, just look at stem cell research. Although if done correctly I don't see how morality will be questionable, especially considering the advancements at stake.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I believe in evolution 100%. I see my God as our next evolutionary step. In this we have no choice. There is no heaven or hell. There is just a cosmic consciousness.

I also know that religions, the way they have behaved, should have been outlawed a long time ago.

My God is not their God. Mine does not kill or interfere with man unless found and then all he does is convey information.

Your beef is with the super miracle working absentee God.
In that, we are one.

Regards
DL

I see, that makes a lot more sense. Have you heard about the Gaia hypothesis, I think you'd be pretty interested in it, I wouldn't doubt if it was the case either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Gaia hypothesis

The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis. Originally proposed by James Lovelock as the earth feedback hypothesis,[1] it was named—at the suggestion of his neighbor William Golding—the Gaia Hypothesis, after the Greek supreme goddess of Earth.[2] The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism. Lovelock and other supporters of the idea now regard it as a scientific theory, not merely a hypothesis, since they believe it has passed predictive tests

and come to think of it, I midas well read up some more on that wiki page while I'm there, lol.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition

and just what is wrong with eugenics? It works. may not be 'moral' but it still works

And should morality and ethics be dropped by the wayside for scientific advancement? Josef Mengele did such horrific things as chopping off the breasts of a twin to see if her sister would have a bodily reaction, immersing human beings in freezing water for hours at a time to see the effects, among many more brutal experiments. Even if you believe that humanity is merely a biological accident and that our existence is meaningless, we should care for and maintain a universal body of ethics lest we slide into a society that treats people like test animals like Dr. Mengala did. It is alright to snuff morality when its happening to someone else, but when you are judged "inferior", what will you say?

Get him friend. He is an idiot with 0 morals.

regards
DL

Originally Posted by deadcat

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I believe in evolution 100%. I see my God as our next evolutionary step. In this we have no choice. There is no heaven or hell. There is just a cosmic consciousness.

I also know that religions, the way they have behaved, should have been outlawed a long time ago.

My God is not their God. Mine does not kill or interfere with man unless found and then all he does is convey information.

Your beef is with the super miracle working absentee God.
In that, we are one.

Regards
DL

I see, that makes a lot more sense. Have you heard about the Gaia hypothesis, I think you'd be pretty interested in it, I wouldn't doubt if it was the case either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Gaia hypothesis

The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis. Originally proposed by James Lovelock as the earth feedback hypothesis,[1] it was named—at the suggestion of his neighbor William Golding—the Gaia Hypothesis, after the Greek supreme goddess of Earth.[2] The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism. Lovelock and other supporters of the idea now regard it as a scientific theory, not merely a hypothesis, since they believe it has passed predictive tests

and come to think of it, I midas well read up some more on that wiki page while I'm there, lol.

That system of thought surpasses those that see some miracle working absentee super dude.

I consider the cosmic consciousness, our next evolution, to be part of a natural system that is natures crowning achievement and I am glad that we will all meet there to celebrate that achievement from the top.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition

and just what is wrong with eugenics? It works. may not be 'moral' but it still works

And should morality and ethics be dropped by the wayside for scientific advancement? Josef Mengele did such horrific things as chopping off the breasts of a twin to see if her sister would have a bodily reaction, immersing human beings in freezing water for hours at a time to see the effects, among many more brutal experiments. Even if you believe that humanity is merely a biological accident and that our existence is meaningless, we should care for and maintain a universal body of ethics lest we slide into a society that treats people like test animals like Dr. Mengala did. It is alright to snuff morality when its happening to someone else, but when you are judged "inferior", what will you say?

Get him friend. He is an idiot with 0 morals.

regards
DL

Sarcasm doesn't suit you and I was arguing whether science should be cast aside because the radical few did some terrible things, like religion.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition

and just what is wrong with eugenics? It works. may not be 'moral' but it still works

And should morality and ethics be dropped by the wayside for scientific advancement? Josef Mengele did such horrific things as chopping off the breasts of a twin to see if her sister would have a bodily reaction, immersing human beings in freezing water for hours at a time to see the effects, among many more brutal experiments. Even if you believe that humanity is merely a biological accident and that our existence is meaningless, we should care for and maintain a universal body of ethics lest we slide into a society that treats people like test animals like Dr. Mengala did. It is alright to snuff morality when its happening to someone else, but when you are judged "inferior", what will you say?

Get him friend. He is an idiot with 0 morals.

regards
DL

Sarcasm doesn't suit you and I was arguing whether science should be cast aside because the radical few did some terrible things, like religion.

Actually, it does.
That is what I told my God when I realized my duty. I am the worse to get to declare His reality. I do not suffer idiocy well.

Just thought I would show support, my way.

Regards
DL

Still, I wasn't arguing that he was an idiot with 0 morals, I was asking whether science should be discounted because of what a few horrible people did. Read it again as I do not suffer idiocy well.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Still, I wasn't arguing that he was an idiot with 0 morals, I was asking whether science should be discounted because of what a few horrible people did. Read it again as I do not suffer idiocy well.

Man has two natures. A Political one and a Spiritual one.
Over history, both have been responsible for wars and other novel stupidities.
Hard to say which one is responsible for any of the wars. Usually, both factors are present in some degree.

Regards
DL