Creation Museum

[BaseJester 1]

They were not the ones predicting His birth. They merely arrived for it.

I'll concede the distinction you are making.Nevertheless, the wise men purportedly knew when and where the Messiah was born through supernatural means, and when they arrived they were not greeted by a crowd of Jews with their copies of Isiah. Not that any of this matters, really. The Old Testament prophesies are irrelevant for both people who believe the New Testament by faith and those that don't.

[BaseJester 1]

So He just said some things, and some guys decided to create a religion out of Him.

Like I said, I don't think that's likely. Without the miracles, it would take an extremely credulous audience to believe those claims. Since I don't believe the miracles happened, I think it's much more likely that the guys who decided to create a religion out of Him invented both the claims and the miracles.

[brvheart 1,752]

I was never talking about the wise men. And who said they found out with supernatural means?

[vbnautilus 48]

So He just said some things, and some guys decided to create a religion out of Him. A religion that left them all poor, persecuted by their former religion, persecuted by the ruling authorities, and eventually resulted in their deaths, never admitting it was all a plot.And the next 20 generations of church leaders were culpable,or some later guy decided he would made changes and additions to the Bible to fool scholars who would have tools they never could imagine including sonar and X-Rays that are used on manuscripts to determine ink type and composition.Well one thing is sure, they sure thought out their plan.

Isn't that pretty much what you think happened with Mohammed?

[vbnautilus 48]

Question for non-believers: Assuming that Jesus did exist but was not actually the son of god, what do you think was his angle? Let's also assume that he was killed for his beliefs, but did not rise from the dead, that was made up by a few of his followers to keep it all going. I feel like there are only a few options...he was legitimately insane, he really felt like he was doing the world a service, or he was a con artist after religious power. Are there other options I'm missing?Random comment: I'm glad Tebow won today. I may find him to be a bit ridiculous, but the guy is interesting for sure, and the NFL needs good storylines to keep everything interesting.

I don't think there is even any question about this? He was a wise-man type who was venerated after his death, at which time the stories of his life became exaggerated and supernaturalized. This happens all the time.A less supernaturlized account of jesus is available in the Thomas gospel.

[Tactical Bear 3]

I was talking to a former Marine today -- a man we shall call Barry, a man who plays in my poker room, a man I know well, and a man who respects me -- and we were talking about gays in the military. He claimed that, in a country where "In God We Trust" is written on every piece of currency, allowing homosexuals into the Marines is absurd and dangerous.I'm not trying to set anyone up, and I'm not giving you much information, but I'd like to hear what Brv and BG have to say on the issue, as well as anyone who's served in the military.(Barry and I actually talked for 45 minutes, so I'll probably throw more of his stuff at y'all. It was an interesting conversation for me, and I'm simply curious as to what Brv and BG [in my head that sounds like "berv and beej"] think about the issue. I put some words in Christians' mouths while talking to Barry, and a few times I thought both, "Brv would say..." and "God, I feel like Brv never would have said that." I was, for the most part, proud of myself. I tried not to rely on rhetoric or cleverness, but rather to actually have an honest discussion, not trying to win the discussion, but simply to have it. I respect Barry; he's a fucking Marine. I like him, too, but we're different as fuuuuuuck. He's got ten years on me, an ex-wife, two daughters, a wildly successful business, and no idea how to use a computer*. By the end of the conversation, he knew I was an Atheist and an Irresponsible Liberal, but we parted on good terms.)*- He has 200+ accounts and something like 400K in revenue, and he tracks it ALL BY HAND ON PAPER

[BaseJester 1]

I was never talking about the wise men.

wtf. I brought up the wise men. I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to do that.

And who said they found out with supernatural means?

The bible, I thought.

7 Then Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, so that I too may come and worship Him.” 9 After hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. 11 After coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him.

Are you suggesting that this is the natural trajectory of the star? And the magi determined by mathematical proof that the King of the Jews would be under it? Why doesn't Herod just use the text of Isiah or Micah himself to find the King of the Jews?

[BaseJester 1]

A less supernaturlized account of jesus is available in the Thomas gospel.

Or, in several respects, The Gospel of Mark.

[speedz99 145]

There is a very good argument to make that Jesus said things that do not allow you to say He was a nice guy but everyone misunderstood Him or are putting words into His mouth.

Is that argument just too long and involved for you to want to make here?

The question is would a crazy person say and do the things He said?

Well, yes, but that doesn't mean he was a crazy person.

Story

I think it's important for people to see the distinction between hating him because of his faith and hating him because he's kind of obnoxious about his faith. Let's put it another way...if there was a QB in his position who was a very outspoken atheist, he wouldn't just be disliked, he would be getting all kinds of death threats.

Really? I feel just the opposite has happened. The OT said the savior would be born in Bethlehem from the line of David and on and on. Then people like yourself say, "Oh yeah, well of course a descendent of David would be born in that city eventually that would change the world as we know it. It's just a coincidence that I base my entire daily/yearly calendar on His life. I saw that coming... it wasn't a "prediction" so much as luck."

I actually think that is pretty likely to happen eventually. The "change the world as we know it" part would be greatly assisted by pointing at the OT prediction to get people on board.

I think that's an extremely unlikely scenario, really. I think it's much more likely that Jesus acquired all of his superpowers posthumously and didn't make the claims attributed to him.

I suppose that's true. I wouldn't put it past a group of dudes sitting around, deciding how to keep their new religion going once the leader was dead, and going with a resurrection tale that, realistically, nobody would be in a position to deny.

So He just said some things, and some guys decided to create a religion out of Him. A religion that left them all poor, persecuted by their former religion, persecuted by the ruling authorities, and eventually resulted in their deaths, never admitting it was all a plot.

"A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."Also, this is when I say, "Do you think this is less likely than the son of the ruler of our universe coming to earth, performing magic, and coming back from the dead?"

And the next 20 generations of church leaders were culpable,or some later guy decided he would made changes and additions to the Bible to fool scholars who would have tools they never could imagine including sonar and X-Rays that are used on manuscripts to determine ink type and composition.

Well, certainly church corruption back then is out of the question.

Like I said, I don't think that's likely. Without the miracles, it would take an extremely credulous audience to believe those claims.

I feel like audiences two thousand years ago were probably pretty credulous. There weren't a lot of skeptics around.

Isn't that pretty much what you think happened with Mohammed?

Hm.

[Balloon guy 158]

Isn't that pretty much what you think happened with Mohammed?

Yes and no. 1st Islam was already in control of whole countries, they took the truthfulness of Abraham and the OT and twisted a new version.The mormons did this also, exactly.The difference I assume is that in most cases like the above two, the leaders of the new religion usually get to sleep with a bunch of women, and get lots of money. In other words, they create a religion that they exploit. How do the Early Christians gain anything since they all were killed for their faith, penniless and persecuted?

I don't think there is even any question about this? He was a wise-man type who was venerated after his death, at which time the stories of his life became exaggerated and supernaturalized. This happens all the time.A less supernaturlized account of jesus is available in the Thomas gospel.

There are people who hold different viewpoints on evolution ( Stephen Gould for example ) Does their differing views add or subtract anything to the validity of evolution?

I was talking to a former Marine today -- a man we shall call Barry, a man who plays in my poker room, a man I know well, and a man who respects me -- and we were talking about gays in the military. He claimed that, in a country where "In God We Trust" is written on every piece of currency, allowing homosexuals into the Marines is absurd and dangerous.I'm not trying to set anyone up, and I'm not giving you much information, but I'd like to hear what Brv and BG have to say on the issue, as well as anyone who's served in the military.(Barry and I actually talked for 45 minutes, so I'll probably throw more of his stuff at y'all. It was an interesting conversation for me, and I'm simply curious as to what Brv and BG [in my head that sounds like "berv and beej"] think about the issue. I put some words in Christians' mouths while talking to Barry, and a few times I thought both, "Brv would say..." and "God, I feel like Brv never would have said that." I was, for the most part, proud of myself. I tried not to rely on rhetoric or cleverness, but rather to actually have an honest discussion, not trying to win the discussion, but simply to have it. I respect Barry; he's a fucking Marine. I like him, too, but we're different as fuuuuuuck. He's got ten years on me, an ex-wife, two daughters, a wildly successful business, and no idea how to use a computer*. By the end of the conversation, he knew I was an Atheist and an Irresponsible Liberal, but we parted on good terms.)*- He has 200+ accounts and something like 400K in revenue, and he tracks it ALL BY HAND ON PAPER

I have heard a few things about this subject. That the recent 'study' finding a majority of the military wouldn't care was extremely faulty. Etc.From a Christian standpoint its more this, the Bible clearly says in the OT and the NT that homosexual sex is a sin. So is lying, and adultery and a bunch of other stuff.The only real reason homosexuality is 'focused on' is that adulterers aren't out there demanding they be allowed to adult and be granted special rules to change social contracts to justify their actions.But I don't view homosexuals as being more sinful or anything. I live in Palm Springs, we have a huge gay population. I am in the party decoration business, an even more gay population. Some of my best friends know homosexuals.I kind of lean Goldwater, you don't need to be straight to shoot straight. but I also go towards the study that pointed out why women in combat troops is bad. The end of the day, I don't think any American should be denied basic freedoms because of the choices they make that don't hurt people. But I also believe State's rights and the right of the people to vote that they want Marriage to be between one man and one woman ( funny that they are putting the word one in there to head off the future polygamy problems.I guess what bothers me is that you can't get higher in my eye than saying "I am a Marine" To want to change that to "I am a gay Marine " is counter productive.

[speedz99 145]

My problem with this marine and what I consider to be his hypocrisy is that I'm assuming there are many "sins" that he wouldn't consider to be grounds for being banned from serving in the military.

The only real reason homosexuality is 'focused on' is that adulterers aren't out there demanding they be allowed to adult and be granted special rules to change social contracts to justify their actions.

Yeah, christians sure do have a history of leaving homosexuals alone when they're not actively pressing for equal rights.

Some of my best friends know homosexuals.

Heh.

The end of the day, I don't think any American should be denied basic freedoms because of the choices they make that don't hurt people. But I also believe State's rights and the right of the people to vote that they want Marriage to be between one man and one woman ( funny that they are putting the word one in there to head off the future polygamy problems.

What bothers me about this is that you want the government to legislate marriage based on your religious view of what it should be.

[brvheart 1,752]

I was talking to a former Marine today -- a man we shall call Barry, a man who plays in my poker room, a man I know well, and a man who respects me -- and we were talking about gays in the military. He claimed that, in a country where "In God We Trust" is written on every piece of currency, allowing homosexuals into the Marines is absurd and dangerous.I'm not trying to set anyone up, and I'm not giving you much information, but I'd like to hear what Brv and BG have to say on the issue, as well as anyone who's served in the military.(Barry and I actually talked for 45 minutes, so I'll probably throw more of his stuff at y'all. It was an interesting conversation for me, and I'm simply curious as to what Brv and BG [in my head that sounds like "berv and beej"] think about the issue. I put some words in Christians' mouths while talking to Barry, and a few times I thought both, "Brv would say..." and "God, I feel like Brv never would have said that." I was, for the most part, proud of myself. I tried not to rely on rhetoric or cleverness, but rather to actually have an honest discussion, not trying to win the discussion, but simply to have it. I respect Barry; he's a fucking Marine. I like him, too, but we're different as fuuuuuuck. He's got ten years on me, an ex-wife, two daughters, a wildly successful business, and no idea how to use a computer*. By the end of the conversation, he knew I was an Atheist and an Irresponsible Liberal, but we parted on good terms.)*- He has 200+ accounts and something like 400K in revenue, and he tracks it ALL BY HAND ON PAPER

I don't care about the issue from an individual moral standpoint. So I would just defer the decision to the military.I don't view gays any differently than any other non-Christian. The only time gayness would even matter to me, is in the context of a Christian church. For instance, if my church hired someone that was gay, I would find a new church. Just like if my church hired someone who was living with a woman without being married to her. I have absolutely ZERO ill-feelings towards Speedz for living with his girlfriend. (yes you do) But I would be forced to find a new church if Speedz was hired as a youth pastor or something.This has nothing to do with the actual sin... like living a gay lifestyle, etc.... but it's the fact that it's happening in the face of the Bible saying it's wrong. However, in the real world, why should non-Christians be subjected to my beliefs? That's not me. It's many Christians... but not me.

wtf. I brought up the wise men. I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to do that.The bible, I thought.

Even in your version of events, the people who correctly predicted the birth of Christ weren't Jews with the bible; they were foreign astrologers.

You brought up the wise men in response to my suggesting that prophesies occurred. The wise men had nothing to do with any prophesies.

Are you suggesting that this is the natural trajectory of the star? And the magi determined by mathematical proof that the King of the Jews would be under it? Why doesn't Herod just use the text of Isiah or Micah himself to find the King of the Jews?

The star wasn't just there for the wise men, but of course that was supernatural. We were talking about prophesies, not any supernatural action.

Some of my best friends know homosexuals.

haha

[Dread Aidan 8]

I skipped the last two pages; anything in there directed at me?

What bothers me about this is that you want the government to legislate marriage based on your religious view of what it should be.

I don't have a problem with wanting legislation based on your religious views, but I do want you to be able to back that up with reasons beyond "God says so." Why does God say so? It's because of A, B, and C. Now we can debate whether A, B, and C are valid reasons.What are those reasons anyway? I assume it's because a child is better served with both a father and a mother? I know religion is against divorce too; why don't they try to change the law to only allow divorce in cases of infidelity or abuse?

[brvheart 1,752]

My problem with this marine and what I consider to be his hypocrisy is that I'm assuming there are many "sins" that he wouldn't consider to be grounds for being banned from serving in the military.

Which is why Christians shouldn't be getting involved. Let the military decide.

What bothers me about this is that you want the government to legislate marriage based on your religious view of what it should be.

We can all agree that this is a state issue right? Any 10th amendment fans out there?

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

I assume it's because a child is better served with both a father and a mother?

this one always bothers. as if two loving, caring gay men couldnt raise a healthy adjusted child. or two women. as if any time a man and woman raise a child things go swimmingly and the child gets all the love and attention it needs. raising a child has nothing to do with the gender of the parents and everything to do with the way those parents support and interact with the child.you said you dont mind people using religion to legislate so long as they provide reasons beyond "god said so." but isnt the point of religion: the "god said so" part. if religion says that murder is wrong becuase god said so, does that make it true? or is murder wrong for obvious reasons that go beyond a magical sky man saying so (even though god says many times to stone people to death, but that doesnt count even though a perfect god said it)?

[brvheart 1,752]

People should be able to legislate however they want. That's what democracy is. I don't care what their reasons are. Three sentences, all ending awkwardly. **** you, Grammar.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

People should be able to legislate however they want. That's what democracy is. I don't care what their reasons are.

even still, i want those people to know how to think. i dont want their minds being controlled by the idea that if they dont do what a certain book/pastor/pope/etc. says is right they wont get to sit on a cloud with great grandpa for all eternity. i want a logical analysis of the circumstances. relgion and logic do not go together. they're enemies. they hate each other.

[Dread Aidan 8]

I wasn't actually trying to give reasons for the anti-gay marriage side, just wondering what the reasons might be.

you said you dont mind people using religion to legislate so long as they provide reasons beyond "god said so." but isnt the point of religion: the "god said so" part. if religion says that murder is wrong becuase god said so, does that make it true? or is murder wrong for obvious reasons that go beyond a magical sky man saying so (even though god says many times to stone people to death, but that doesnt count even though a perfect god said it)?

No, I don't think that's it. I don't think the sermon is ever "God said do things this way, so do it." It's more like "God said do things this way; why does he tell us this?" And then there is talk about why these things would serve you better.I think you can argue that the "God said so" part leads people to try to find answers that will back their side up rather than just honestly looking for the "right" answers. I think you can also argue that there are plenty of Christians who choose the lazy way and don't care what the reasons are beyond "God said so." I think if you're being honest with yourself, you should try to back up any of your religious views with real world data.

[speedz99 145]

(yes you do)

This is the only thing in your post I have any issue with. I swear, we only even sleep at each other's places about 4 times a week, though that's only because the other 3 we have to study late and can't deal with distractions.

What are those reasons anyway? I assume it's because a child is better served with both a father and a mother?

I don't think the bible gives any reasons.

We can all agree that this is a state issue right? Any 10th amendment fans out there?

Me! Although I do believe there are times when states need a kick in the ass.

this one always bothers. as if two loving, caring gay men couldnt raise a healthy adjusted child. or two women. as if any time a man and woman raise a child things go swimmingly and the child gets all the love and attention it needs.

Yeah, I was walking down a street with my mother, who has been a teacher for 30 years, this summer, and we saw a gay couple with what we assumed was their kid.Mom: That poor kid.Me: What?Mom: He just doesn't have much of a chance to be normal.Me: Have you had the kids of gay parents in your classes?Mom: Yes.Me: Have they seemed any worse off than kids of straight parents?Mom: No, but...Me: Ok.And that's from a fairly liberal, caring person. It's interesting how people have trouble really thinking through their beliefs. She very quickly saw that she was being totally unfair and basing her assumptions on...well, assumptions.

People should be able to legislate however they want. That's what democracy is. I don't care what their reasons are.

People can vote for whomever they want for whatever reasons they want. Legislators most certainly cannot legislate however they want based on whatever criteria they want.

[vbnautilus 48]

I don't have a problem with wanting legislation based on your religious views, but I do want you to be able to back that up with reasons beyond "God says so." Why does God say so? It's because of A, B, and C. Now we can debate whether A, B, and C are valid reasons.What are those reasons anyway? I assume it's because a child is better served with both a father and a mother? I know religion is against divorce too; why don't they try to change the law to only allow divorce in cases of infidelity or abuse?

I'm sure many religious people would want that law, but given that half of them want to get divorced its not exactly a majority opinion.

raising a child has nothing to do with the gender of the parents and everything to do with the way those parents support and interact with the child.

I agree with the general sentiment about what's more important, but I think its way too early for us to know what the effects of having gay parents are. Our early interactions with our parents greatly shape our subconscious archetypes of male and female and what they are supposed to be. You also have to remember that from the religious perspective, they have an interest in not normalizing homosexual relationships; I would guess this is the biggest negative thing that gay marriage does in the mind of a christian.

[brvheart 1,752]

I don't think the bible gives any reasons.

The Bible doesn't talk about it, since families have been one man and one woman for quite some time. It's just assumed and stuff. Also, I would think that there has been actual studies on it, but in the case of studies, you always have to follow the money. If the study was paid for my a religious group or a gay group, the findings can be quickly dismissed.

People can vote for whomever they want for whatever reasons they want. Legislators most certainly cannot legislate however they want based on whatever criteria they want.

Disagree. I vote for someone to represent me. If the KKK had a stronghold in a district in Alabama, and voted in David Duke, I would fully expect David Duke to represent the KKK.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

I wasn't actually trying to give reasons for the anti-gay marriage side, just wondering what the reasons might be.

i know, i just find the "child better off with man AND woman only" argument to be laughably pathetic.

No, I don't think that's it. I don't think the sermon is ever "God said do things this way, so do it."

i was there in sunday school. when i asked questions i was told "because god said so." i sat there in church with my parents and heard them say things were wrong becasue god said so. do this because god said so.

I think you can argue that the "God said so" part leads people to try to find answers that will back their side up rather than just honestly looking for the "right" answers.

yes exactly. they dont care what information they use to confirm what god said, they just know they need something.

I think if you're being honest with yourself, you should try to back up any of your religious views with real world data.

honest inquiry isnt the hallmark of religion though. seems to me to be the exact opposite.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

I agree with the general sentiment about what's more important, but I think its way too early for us to know what the effects of having gay parents are. Our early interactions with our parents greatly shape our subconscious archetypes of male and female and what they are supposed to be.

what would you say could be the negative results? i'm unaware of how important subconscious arcetypes of gender roles are for proper development.

[speedz99 145]

The Bible doesn't talk about it, since families have been one man and one woman for quite some time. It's just assumed and stuff.

I meant just on the whole "being gay" thing. But, of course, it doesn't say why thou shalt not kill either.

Disagree. I vote for someone to represent me. If the KKK had a stronghold in a district in Alabama, and voted in David Duke, I would fully expect David Duke to represent the KKK.

I suppose. Although a legislator can be guided by beliefs while some...I can't phrase this well. Never mind, you're right.

[speedz99 145]

what would you say could be the negative results? i'm unaware of how important subconscious arcetypes of gender roles are for proper development.

It depends, do you count the emotional trauma from being made fun of by asshole kids whose parents have taught them that being gay isn't ok, whether or not they've said it directly?