The Two Wolves – A Cherokee Parable
Posted by dorian on August 24, 2009
The Two Wolves
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people.
He said: ‘My son, the battle is between ‘two wolves’ inside us all. One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.’
The grandson thought about it for a minute, and then asked his grandfather: ‘Which wolf wins?’
The old Cherokee simply replied: ‘The one you feed.’
A Different Kind of Blog 
obama the antichrist said
i like that. that is a great lesson 😀 good one dorian
LikeLike
dorian said
i thought i’d share this…got it from my very republican friend. good has no political parties!
LikeLike
Hors Service said
It’s a bit manichean to me, but still a very good story! Thanks for sharing it.
Broadly, I have an pesonal affection for all the virtues that can also be sins: curiosity, humility, ambition, self-esteem… Shows that everything can be good or bad.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I liked this also. But I have a couple of problems with it. First, I noticed no mention of hypocrisy and ignorance on the “evil” side and “honesty” was conspicuously missing from the “good” side.
And also, the human condition is far too complex to be either one wolf or the other. If anyone thinks they are the “good” wolf they are fooling themselves and feeding their “bad wolf” ego.
I’m going to guess that this was written by a liberal.
LikeLike
dorian said
there is a lot of spiritual wisdom in the native american indian tradition. they are generally pacifists. these people have been victim to all kinds of discrimination and injustice and you don’t see too many groups from the indian population rising up in arms!
hors, i like those two-sided virtues you mentioned, except ambition. i have none of that. i’m lazy.
LikeLike
Hors Service said
Naughty liberals, there was even some centuries ago! Rotting the core of the Christian Values, one could suppose 🙂
Aren’t the liberals supposed to be moral relativists? To say that good or bad depends from the point of view?
Do I see a bit of contradiction here?
I agree with your view on human condition, though. We’re not good or bad, as it says “My son, the battle is between ‘two wolves’ inside us all.” So, I would guess, this story is moderately manichean.
Have you seen “Little Big Man”, dorian? It’s a very good movie on this subject. I think that knowing about the story of the native americans is a good thing, it puts things into perspective…
*Those immigrants shall learn the national language, english! When you want lo live somewhere, you learn the language they speak there!*
*Osio Sarah dawado*
*What was that?!*
*Cherokee.*
(Not from me, but still fun^^)
LikeLike
dorian said
i think my non-ambition is bad because it has to do with my being lazy.
the meaning of good and bad is simple to me: good is doing things that benefit the well-being of all living things, and bad is just the opposite.
i just follow “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” this is from luke 6:31. one good thing i learned from the bible.
i saw ‘little big man’ a long time ago. i wouldn’t mind seeing that again.
i like the american indian culture. i go to powwows everywhere. these are indian festivals where they have drumming and dancing contests. fun.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
NOT SO FAST KAY!
“honesty” was conspicuously missing from the “good” side.
So you want to tell me what about that statement is different from any other day?
LikeLike
dorian said
kay, this parable was given to me by a conservative republican. she suggested i share it on our blog. if this was given to you and you posted it, i don’t think i’d say “a conservative must have written this”. unless you know something about the cherokees that i don’t??
LikeLike
kay~ms said
P, I’m not sure what you’re saying… that honesty is missing from the conservatives?
What I was saying was that honesty is a primary requirement in order to be truly good. Without it the “bad” wolf is winning. And it was missing from the good list. Just like I feel that it is missing here when I am having debates with liberals. I have made so many valid points here and no one will acknowledge them… they just go silently away or try to change the subject. Honesty would be to acknowledge these points. So I couldn’t help but notice that it was missing from that list and that is precisely why I said it must have been written by a liberal. I’m just basing my views on what I’ve observed here.
Dorian, I know you said that it was given to you buy a republican but I still feel that it was written by a liberal as a critisism of conservatives. And I’m pretty sure that is was directed towards me here. So that is why I also noticed the absence of hypocrisy and ignorance on the “bad” side.
It is not wrong to disagree and it shouldn’t be wrong to point out the faults of others if it’s done in a constructive way (which I acknowledge that I need to work on). So many of those characteristics on the bad side are just misinterpretations of when someone is just disagreeing and expressing their own view.
Really, just look at what happened to me when all I did was question Obama’s agenda and motivations on the snl blog… I was accused of many of those things on that list. And you wont find where I (or Bill) used any derogatory words or names or unfounded accusations. Questions and points were presented and that was it. And immediately the liberals came out and made all sorts of accusations against me… which led to me writing my Reverse Ignorance article…
Which by the way, no one ever acknowledged the valid points in that with the exception of EE. I feel that he has been the most honest person on this blog.
I’m just frustrated that no one wants to find the truth… everyone just wants to win the debate to preserve their pride and egos it seems.
LikeLike
dorian said
that’s just it, though. truth is relative. there is no “THE TRUTH”. i can read and see others’ truths, but they are not necessarily the same as mine. so it’s all relative.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Dorian, for example.. do you think there is a truth when it comes to Obama’s health care bill?
Will there be death panels?
Will we end up with rationed health care?
Is this statement true?…. we COULD end up with rationed health care.
There are truths. The idea that there is no truth.. that there is “your truth and my truth” is a common erroneous liberal belief. It’s dangerous and harmful to our society.
LikeLike
dorian said
there are so many links shared with you re. the bill that describes the erroneous speculation of death panels. if not satisfied, then ask the private insurance companies that do have what would come closest to ‘death panels’
anyway, we’re on the subject of cherokee parables here.
“There are truths. The idea that there is no truth.. that there is “your truth and my truth” is a common erroneous liberal belief. It’s dangerous and harmful to our society.”
– i think what you just described there is tolerance. that is good. what is dangerous is when you attribute a negative interpretation to the word. if tolerance is a liberal belief, then that’s what we should all be striving for. Jesus taught tolerance. i am always striving to be tolerant and liberal. it’s a very difficult endeavor these days when we are inundated with negative news from all around the world.
that is why things like this old cherokee parable is good to see and take in. it’s a reminder for all of us.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Well, that didn’t exactly answer my questions. The Truth is that there are REAL truths and they are not “yours and mine” and what’s his name’s down the street.
I’ve posted even more and better links that prove there is legitimate cause for concern over death panels. No one gave a rebuttle so I’m assuming that they are legitimate concerns… it would have been nice, no, astonishing at this point, to get an acknowledgment.
What would be a “negative interpretation” of truth? That doesn’t make any sense.
How did we get from truth to tolerance? These are two COMPLETELY separate things. You are supporting exactly what I’m saying… the liberal belief that to disagree is to be intolerant. To say that there is ONE truth, that there IS right and wrong is intolerant. It’s absurd, silly, illogical, and unrealistic.
Tolerance is not believing that everyone’s truth is “the truth”. That’s a liberal misconception. Tolerance is accepting another person’s RIGHT to believe that their truth is “the truth”.
Now please Dorian, just say it with me…. tolerance is accepting another person’s RIGHT to believe that their truth is “the truth”. Just say it over and over for awhile… I just don’t know what else to suggest. I am nearly ready to just give up.
And maybe this will help…
truth (trth)
n. pl. truths (trz, trths)
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
a. Reality; actuality.
And yes, Jesus taught tolerance. But did He ever say to the pharsees… “your truth is the truth to you and that is ok”? No he didn’t. Their “truth” was that Jesus was a liar. Jesus said He was the truth, the way and the life. That “no one comes to the Father except thru me”.
Yes, the parable is good, and EVERYONE should to take it in. But just make sure to add “honesty” to it. I find it so poignant that that was left out. And also hypocrisy and ignorance on the other side.
LikeLike
dorian said
well sorry we can’t make that suggestion to rewrite the parable because it has been handed down to who knows how many generations of cherokees. just consider your suggestion received in spirit. maybe we can burn sage and send in up in smoke. why in God’s name do you see hypocrisy and ignorance anywhere and why are you so angry? the good christian that told me to share her nice parable here will be hurt to see where you’ve taken it.
‘You are supporting exactly what I’m saying… the liberal belief that to disagree is to be intolerant. To say that there is ONE truth, that there IS right and wrong is intolerant. It’s absurd, silly, illogical, and unrealistic.’
↑ ↑ ↑
?!? i’m sorry but you lost me there. i’m not gonna say there’s contradiction there, maybe it’s just the way you worded it.
+ i don’t recall anybody on this blog ever saying that it is wrong to disagree. in fact this was written back in november by tothewire and lawman, adding princess and betty’s names later on:
“We may not all agree on everything (Tothewire, Dorian, E_E, Kayms, OTA, Lawman2, Centered2, Princess, or Betty) but we all do agree that it is ok and acceptable for us to disagree.”
but, it really bugs you when anyone disagrees with you and you get very angry. i know this much is true.
LikeLike
dorian said
kay you don’t seem to believe “the two wolves” wasn’t written by a liberal.
here are a few native american websites with the parable:
http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Legends/TwoWolves-Cherokee.html
http://www.aaanativearts.com/article658.html
http://www.mantlerock.org/blog/post/2008/11/The-Legend-of-the-Two-Wolves.aspx
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
kay, i can see how you felt the parable about the 2 wolves was meant for you.
because it was meant for all of us.
i think you are taking things too personal also.
don’t be mad.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
ok, well here we go again, I’m going to try to pin you down and ask you to explain exactly what you meant when you brought tolerance into our debate about truth, what you wrote was confusing which will make it even harder to pinpoint your insinuation (conveniently) but anyway, this is what was said…
Me..“There are truths. The idea that there is no truth.. that there is “your truth and my truth” is a common erroneous liberal belief. It’s dangerous and harmful to our society.”
you…– i think what you just described there is tolerance. that is good. what is dangerous is when you attribute a negative interpretation to the word.
first, what?? And again, how do you get to intolerance when the subject was truth? What you are implying is that if we don’t all sit in a happy “pow wow” and say your truth is the truth and my truth is also the truth… then we are being intolerant. Right?? In other words…. to disagree is to be intolerant. If that is not the case… could you please explain then, what you meant??? And how everyone’s truth can be THE truth? by the way.. did you read the definition of truth?
YOu said: + i don’t recall anybody on this blog ever saying that it is wrong to disagree.
Well, you just did here and have many times in the past. You have always equated disagreeing with intolerance.
This is yet another attempt to get you to answer my point directly and I fully expect you to circumvent it.
And ps… I’m not mad… I AM frustrated!!!! And I already explained why… I’m sick of the complete lack of honesty here that seems to be exclusive to the liberals. I succesfully make my point over and over and no one acknowledges them and subsequently makes an HONEST effort to adjust their views OR counter with why they believe that my point is invalid.
What I’m describing is the full and GOOD concept of debating… finding the truth. Not “your truth” and “my truth” the liberal LIE which by the way, the word lie is the OPPOSITE of truth.
REally, I’m starting to believe that liberalism = living in the land of make believe. ” let’s make believe that yours is the truth and mine is the truth too!!”
“lets make believe that if it doesn’t say it in the bill.. then it won’t happen!”
” that if Mormonism doesn’t claim that they are worshiping satan then they must not be!”
“That there is no such thing as deception and evil!”
Gee, I’d like to live in that world too.
LikeLike
Hors Service said
Huhu Kay, you’re cute when you’re angry^^
To me and to what I’ve read (but of course I’m biaised, as Dorian has been more on my side than yours…), Dorian has been pretty equitable, more open-minded and peacefull than me and than a lot of people, making songs and poestry and naughty remarks. A good admin if I ever see one.
And you don’t make any honest effort to recognize that we sometimes do acknolewdge your points (At least, I do, just look up the commentaries of this post), but most of the times, not, and we are giving some arguments back when your propositions are plausible.
And I believe that if something is not obvious for everyone, then this mean that the something isn’t obvious.
As is “God exists”.
And you’re “frustrated that no one wants to find the truth”? Of course, as long as you consider your views as The Truth, we won’t agree with them… (Don’t answer me “But it’s The Truth! My views are true!”)
Of course there are Truths. Like this morning I’ve eaten two apples, the Earth revolves around the sun, there has been wars between Germany and France.
But when it comes to opinion, morality, there’s no Truths.
Example: it’s bad to kill, sure. But if someone really agressive is going to murder you, and you only have the choice between killing him or not, what do you do?
And “that if Mormonism doesn’t claim that they are worshiping satan then they must not be!” Well, if nothing in their liturgy says that they must worship Satan, I don’t see why they should worship him.
Are there any Mormon who claims to worship Satan? I would be very interested in such a person.
Strange that no ex-Mormon ever said that this Church is, in fact, worshipping Satan.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Hors, you’re such a good diplomat!
You said: “To me and to what I’ve read (but of course I’m biaised, as Dorian has been more on my side than yours…), Dorian has been pretty equitable, more open-minded and peacefull than me and than a lot of people, making songs and poestry and naughty remarks. A good admin if I ever see one.”
Yes, I know what Dorian is doing… “CLEARLY” I’m the “bad guy” here. Because I’m commiting the horrible liberal sin of disagreeing and demanding honesty. Got it. Just as a reminder… I’m interested in finding the truth, and again, not “your” truth and “my” truth… THE truth. What you and Dorian are talking about is beliefs. Beliefs and truths are two different things. look them up if you’re not sure. I’m talking about truth.
If there is an issue up for debate that isn’t obvious or can’t be proven to be true, we can debate that also and reason as to which view is closer to the truth. But apparently not the liberals, they just run away when they are out of arguments. Ignorance intact.
You and Dorian are advocating not trying to find what might be more reasonable or true. How are we going to grow in knowledge and understanding that way?… instead liberals say “there’s your truth and my truth! Yay!.. now lets go find a drum circle!
If everyone had that view in this country, we would be eaten up by the rest of the world (just as one example). Another example of why liberalism is dangerous. Living in the land of make believe sounds nice but it’s not practical and makes us vulnerable to agressive people / countries.. that do exist!
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
kay, hors is right. and i’m not just ganging up on you.
dorian is about as nice as they come, of course that won’t get him in to heaven, but it’s a nice try. haha.
looking for the “truth”, hmmmmm. well, there is nothing more debatable than the truth.
i reread this whole post and what i gather from the story of 2 wolves, well, ….
as it is written, one is evil and it does say “lies’
and the other is good and it does say “truth”.
so, get out your kibble & bits and feed that truthy dog.
and ignorance, well that is not really good or evil.
ignorance is just a requirement to be the former gov of alaska.
kay, i just have a hard time believing some of the things you say, because i’m not sure if it is coming from you or glenn beck or bk. and i don’t trust either of those last 2, because i know it is the ‘truth’ that they both ‘lie’.
so everybody, let’s smooch and makeup.
LikeLike
bettyslocombe said
Kay, why is it that you think that everyone apart from you and your sources are secretly planning to do awful things, or worship Satan etc etc?
The latter goes way back to the earliest era of Christianity, and it has always been a stick to beat people with: the Templars for example, or the Cathars, and so on. Anyway that’s between you and the Mormons: the rest of us DON’T CARE because there is no Devil, and any religion is as valid or absurd as any other. Why is at any more sensible for a bloke to go up a mountain and come back down with a lot of stone tablets than for another bloke to dig up a box with a lot of gold tablets in it?
LikeLike
bettyslocombe said
Or indeed sail around on a yacht dressed up as a Captain surrounded by bikini clad hotties?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
P, what I say comes from me for the most part. There are times when I’ve read Bill’s devotionals and think that he’s been reading my comments here! I admit there have been times when I have sounded like his parrot and it’s only because I can’t resist the temptation to stir you guys up. I have learned a lot from Bill and I agree with his views for the most part… I never knew the truth about Mormonism before I started watching his show. And I get just as riled as he does when thinking about how they lie and deceive. Bill is good at explaining the situation as it really is… A perfect example is the vidoe where he explains the truth about Mormons, what the mormons believe and what they lie about. And all of the things that he says can be backed up. It’s not necessary to take his word for any of it! And to partially answer Betty’s and Hors questions… Mormons have no one, or nothing (no golden tablets) to back up anything that Joseph Smith claimed. Bill Keller uses the Bible, that has many authors, so it’s the word of many, not just one man, like Joseph Smith. Liberals just need to reason and they will find that they will come to the same conclusions in most cases. They need to not make instant judgements before doing their research.
P, you’re right, there is the mention of truth but “truth” and “honesty” are not the same thing.
hon·es·ty (n-st)
n. pl. hon·es·ties
1. The quality or condition of being honest; integrity.
2. Truthfulness; sincerity: in all honesty.
3. Archaic Chastity.
hon·est (nst)
adj.
1. Marked by or displaying integrity; upright: an honest lawyer.
2. Not deceptive or fraudulent; genuine: honest weight.
3. Equitable; fair: honest wages for an honest day’s work.
4.
a. Characterized by truth; not false: honest reporting.
b. Sincere; frank: an honest critique.
5.
a. Of good repute; respectable.
b. Without affectation; plain: honest folk.
6. Virtuous; chaste.
truth (trth)
n. pl. truths (trz, trths)
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
a. Reality; actuality.
b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
You said: “and ignorance, well that is not really good or evil.
ignorance is just a requirement to be the former gov of alaska.”
good one and good point. I just had to get that word in there. Really though, purposeful ignorance, as in purposefully ignoring the truth ( as in, for example, not admitting that late term abortions are wrong and subsequently supporting/ defending it) is evil.
And, yes, of course Dorian is nice..most of the time… but, and I’m sure you guys aren’t as naive as you’re trying to make yourselves out to be…Dorian goes on the offensive too, she just makes an effort to disguise it … like, say, posting a parable about the “bad” wolf and the “good” wolf.
But if I ask her to be more specific when she makes these hidden accusations, she just denies it or ignores my questions…
See, this tactic is dishonest. And this is what I am so frustrated about. And then to see Dorian post this parable which did not have the word honesty in it, it was just so fitting to the situation. And I don’t want to pick on just Dorian… most of the people here (liberals and conservatives) are guilty of this. It’s so sad to see such a lack of integrity. Especially from people who claim to love God and want to please Him. They are putting themselves first. And several people I personaly know are the worst! They are Christians and go to church every sunday and will still blatantly lie in order to spare their pride and ego.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Betty, you said: “Kay, why is it that you think that everyone apart from you and your sources are secretly planning to do awful things, or worship Satan etc etc?”
Me: What?? Really, the right way to ask that would be… why do I choose to side with God and righteousness?
Now, I want to ask you why you choose to make such an inaccurate assumption about me instead of acknowledging the truth that there is such a thing as cults. I’m sure you know what cults are and how evil they are. And I’m sure you know that there are people who worship satan.
So my next question would be, Once you’ve gotten both sides on Mormonism (which I hope you have, otherwise you’re making unjust accusations) how could you come to the conclusion that Mormonism is not a cult that worships satan?
No, it doesn’t say in their books that they worship satan but I’ll remind you again that just because it doesn’t say it doesn’t mean it isn’t true (outside of the Land of Make Believe of course). When there are legitimate accusations, it requires investigation and then reasoning to decide. If anyone has done honest and unbiased investigating they will find that Mormonism is a cult. And in no way is it the same as Christianity.
News flash to liberals…. cults do exist! They ruin peoples lives! And even a lot worse sometimes. When a mormon goes thru a temple ceremony they make physical gestures showing how they will be killed if they reveal any of the secret “sacred” ceremony. Bill keller gets serious death threats from mormons on a regular basis! Yet the liberal dogma is again, to retreat into their make believe world, and make that silly claim that their truth is the truth to them.. all is good..now let’s have some world peace ice cream! And it will all go away.
You should care about cults that are ruining peoples lives. But obviously, the Liberal dogma is to just look the other way… while peoples lives are being ruined, babies are being murdered, socialism is threatining, terrorism is threatening, our country is being run by someone who is not even a citizen! And who may be more loyal to our enemies than us! But they’re not worried because in the land of make believe there is always a happy ending!
LikeLike
kay~ms said
And also.. this liberal dogma, that everyone’s truth is the truth.. to each his own.. let them be. Does this also hold true for the white supremists or radical islamists? No? So liberals get to decide who is entitled to their “truth” and who isn’t? Liberals just somehow know which groups are evil and which aren’t? Don’t dare say something negative about Mormons but it’s okay to warn people about white supremists or radical islamists? Please… This liberal dogma is extremely faulty, it’s hypocritical, ignorant and arrogant.
LikeLike
William said
Dear Kay:
1) Mormon’s worship Satan? Where in the world did that come from? I am a Mormon, I’ve lived around Mormons my whole life. We don’t worship Satan. It’s amusing to me when people feel that it is their calling to tell me what I believe, especially when what they say I believe is so far removed from what I actually believe. Excuse me, but I don’t need anyone else to tell me what I believe and whom I worship.
2) Accusations like yours such as “cult” and “Satan worshiper” actually put Mormon’s in pretty good company. Jesus was often accused of being in league with Satan and the early
Christian church, in its day, was also considered a dangerous cult. (See Matthew 12:22-28 for an example of the Pharisees accusing Jesus of being in league with the devil, and His masterful response.)
3) For anyone reading this post, if you want to know what Mormons really believe, ask a Mormon, not someone who clearly has an anti-Mormon agenda. They just don’t get it. Here is a great site to learn about Mormons from Mormons: http://www.MormonBlog.com.
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
Thanks William for your input. I will check out your site.
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
and kay, keller does not receive death threats from mormons, just another keller lie.
and if you can prove that it isn’t a lie, i would like to see proof, for example police reports.
but until then, it’s a lie, because that is what bk does best, lie, although he isn’t very good at that either.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
William, I’m glad you found this site and I’m glad to be able to debate my views directly with a Mormon. Just to make things clear up front. I don’t believe that Mormons are “bad” people. And I don’t believe that most are knowingly worshiping satan. But after doing some research, I do believe that the Mormon “religion” is against God. I believe that it is based on lies. This is the honest conclusion that I’ve come to. I would love it if you could change my mind… I welcome your input here.
Can I ask, are you a temple Mormon?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Gee, Hors is awfully quiet on the subject after I suggested he view Bill’s videos on Mormonism.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Princess, do you actually, honestly believe that Bill has never gotten death theats from Mormons? Do you really think that is a practical belief? Bill wore their magical SACRED and SECRET underwear on tv! Of course he got death threats. Did you watch Bill’s show with Ed Decker? As an ex Mormon, he went thru a lot of physical abuse over the years while proclaiming the truth about Mormonism.
LikeLike
Hors Service said
Hors is making up the end of the answer to “A debate page”, but he got agressive on the “Scots are debatives”, so he thought that he should calm down and think a bit before personal attacks and hainous generalisations.
And he’s looking for informations about Mormon cult also 😉
LikeLike
princessxxx said
kay, if mormons were going to kill bill, he would already be dead.
too bad he is not.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
William said: “For anyone reading this post, if you want to know what Mormons really believe, ask a Mormon, ”
Okay William here goes…
Do you (Mormons) believe that good works are also required in order for our souls to be saved? That Jesus’ death on the cross is not enough?
Do you (Mormons) believe that Jesus is the brother of Lucifer?
Do you (Mormons) believe that you will someday become a god equal with God?
Do you beleive that God was once a man like you?
Thank you in advance for your answers here.
LikeLike
William said
Dear Friend (Kay):
Thank you for your words of explanation. I’m glad that you don’t think I’m a bad person. I hope that we can be friends. I would love to have some positive discussions about faith and religion with you. However, I will do so only with the following ground rules (I think the other contributors and readers will back me up on these rules).
1) I am happy to have a discussion with you. But I will not debate. Matters of religion are very personal, even sacred. As you have mentioned elsewhere on this forum “souls are at stake.” These matters are to be carefully, and respectrully discussed, not debated. The goal here is mutual understanding and respect.
2) Which brings up my second ground rule: I respect you and your beliefs, and you respect me and mine. I will not tolerate inflamatory language, name calling, put downs, or derogatory labels of any kind. For example, phrases like “Mormon cult” and “warped and fantastic theology” and “magic underwear” and “deep dark Satanic beliefs” are cheap mudslinging techniques designed to insite negative emotions without having to back them up by a shread of evidence. (Like using the N-word to an African-American individual). In the examples above, the appropriate phrases are: “Mormon Church” (or “LDS Church”), “Momon doctrine”, “temple garments”, and “Mormon beliefs”. One more thing, the name of our church founder is Joseph Smith, it is not “murdering, pedophile, and racist Joey Smith.” If we are going to have a discussion, you will have to be good and use more respectful, acceptable language. As I have reviewed previous posts of yours, you often hold yourself up as a Christian. From now on, I expect you to act like one. I am not talking about tolerance, I am talking about kindness, and patience, and love. (1 Corintians 13:4-5)
3) I believe that there are things that are too sacred and personal to be discussed in a public forum like this. Before you work yourself up into a tizzy and accuse me of being “dishonest” or “avoiding issues” let me explain. Imagine that you were having a family wedding. You contact your preacher, purchase flowers, and start making a guest list. As your planning progresses, you find out that there is a neighborhood gang which disapproves of church wedddings, so they plan to attend the ceremony, stand on the sidelines, and sling mud at the participants and guests. Would you make it a private ceremony? Of course you would. Does the fact that it is private mean you were doing something “dark” or “evil?” Of course not. It is personal and private and sacred. I am happy to discuss the core doctrines of our church with you, but I will not discuss things which I believe are too sacred to expose to public debate. If you think my example of slinging mud at a wedding is extreme, you are sorely mistaken. Look at the example of Bill Keller mocking Mormon temple garments on national TV. To me, it is tantamount to stealing holy relics from the Vatican, taking them on TV and smashing them with a sludgehammer. This was nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt at the expence of a religious group. I will not be a party to subjecting holy things to public ridicule. Most things I will gladly discuss with you, a few I will not. Please respect that.
My friend, I look forward to our discussions. As I am writing this, I see that you have already written some questions for me. Please agree to these ground rules before we begin our discussions. Then, I will be happy to discuss all of the questions on your list.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
Kay?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
William, I am so greatful to have this opportunity to discuss Mormonism with you. And I really appreciate your willingness to do so ( and also your friendly tone). I will admit that I was sure you would not be back here. So for that reason alone, I have respect for you. And I do have respect for the sincere devotion that Mormons have. I apologize for any disprespect I have shown on this blog. I will try to be more carefull with my terminology and accusations.
You say that you will have a discussion but you will not debate. I’m not sure where that leaves us. I guess we’ll see. As I stated earlier, after gathering information, I have come to the honest conclusion that Mormonism is against God. If you are going to just re-afirm Mormon beliefs, that I am already aware of, I don’t know how this is going to change my views.
I will have many questions, some of which will pertain to why Mormons feel that Mormonism is correct and mainstream Christianity is not… basically why do we need Joseph Smith to be saved?
I really do hope that we will be able to discuss these issues.
And my only ground rule would be the requirement of honesty. When there is a lack of honesty that is when my “disrespectful” side tends to come out. Some consider it disrespecful, I just see it as confronting the dishonesty. But I will do my best to withhold my judgements of dishonesty when I don’t have more than speculation to back it up.
Thank you again for your willingness to discuss this.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
which, I do want to add, what I’ve wanted to mention for awhile to all of the bloggers here… dishonesty is where the TRUE disrespectfullness lies.
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
yes, kay, dishonesty is wrong, you should mention that to keller and keep it in mind yourself.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
P, where did I lie? I’m not saying I’m perfect but I know I’ve never intentionally lied or been unwilling to admit when someone else is right.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
kay, i didn’t actually say that you lied, i just wanted to make sure that you realize keller is a liar and i don’t want you to fall into that very same trap. that would be awful?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Oh good… I was starting to worry that if by chance I had lied (unintentionally of course), you would definitely find it!
I’m not making excuses… yes Bill does exagerate sometimes. But I don’t think they are intentional, blatant lies. I have seen many examples where he has been noticably careful to not misrepresent the truth.
LikeLike
Hors Service said
In fact, I think you’re pretty honest Kay, it’s something I admit easily.
I don’t think we could classify *Categorizing everything and everyone between Liberal and Conservative* and *Chronical manicheism* under dishonesty.
I believe that’s rather a consequence of ignorance and desinformation. (with all my respects. It’s the first time I mention that I think you’re a bit uninformed, and I do think it will be the only one. Besides, being ignorant doesn’t mean being false.) I don’t think you’re rotten by pride.
But I think, considering what he has said, that Bill Keller is a liar. Although that he maybe doing this with good intent. If you want to debate on that, feel free to finish your answer on “What’s YOU excuse”, so I can give counter-arguments;)
You could also answer the posts on “A caveman View on abortion” or “A debate page”, just in order to show you’re not answering like a liberal (meaning: answering with silence^^)
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Hors, I didn’t know that you had answered on the Debate page…sorry. And I meant to let you know that I had answered you on “A Caveman’s view on abortion”.. AND I forgot about finishing “What’s your excuse?”. I will get on those.
But first,
YOu said: “I don’t think we could classify *Categorizing everything and everyone between Liberal and Conservative* and *Chronical manicheism* under dishonesty.”
I’m not sure what you meant here but I if it’s that I am accusing every liberal of being dishonest, I’m not. What I meant was that many here don’t acknowledge when I’ve made a valid point (with clear reasoning). And I feel that that is not being honest to the spirit of debating or to me. I do feel that you are an exception for the most part and I should have pointed that out.. I meant to…you have acknowledge some of my points and presented reasons for disagreeing with me on other points (most of them). BUT, I do feel that sometimes, you are just stubbornly disagreeing with me even though you know I am right… I now that this sounds arrogant and ignorant and I know you don’t agree with this but I’m just being honest about my observations. Pride does prevent people from being honest ( admitting that they might be wrong) and as a believer in God, I do also believe that pride is the problem with most in their claims to not believe. In other words, I believe that most people who claim to not believe in God are being dishonest with themselves and others.
LikeLike
Hors Service said
It’s no problem, I was just teasing you;) Oh, sorry, I haven’t seen the answer on “A caveman view on abortion”… I’m gonna read it promptly.
“I’m not sure what you meant here but I if it’s that I am accusing every liberal of being dishonest, I’m not.”
I meant that you honestly classify people between Liberals (to be opposed) and Conservatives (to side with). Well, you talked about “liberal poison”, and that liberals must ignore a lot of things, etc… It’s not really accusing them of general dishonesty, but very near.
Another revealing sentence is “Come on liberals… tell me why this man shouldn’t be executed!” (I will adress the subject later, by the way), like all the liberals were against Death Penalty, and every conservative in favor thereof.
“What I meant was that many here don’t acknowledge when I’ve made a valid point (with clear reasoning).”
Well, I haven’t seen a lot of them… Each time, I’ve seen people just disagreeing with you, and getting bored^^
“I do feel that you are an exception for the most part and I should have pointed that out.. I meant to…you have acknowledge some of my points and presented reasons for disagreeing with me on other points (most of them).”
Thank you. But it’s normal: I’m not a liberal. Just a liberal for you^^
“BUT, I do feel that sometimes, you are just stubbornly disagreeing with me even though you know I am right… I now that this sounds arrogant and ignorant and I know you don’t agree with this but I’m just being honest about my observations.”
Ok, when, on what points? I’ve perhaps forgotten something.
But if you’re talking about “obvious abortion is killing babies”, “obvious God exists and it makes more sense”, “obvious Obama is obeying to Middle-East interests and not even born in America”, then I’m sorry but I will go on stubbornly disagreeing.
“Pride does prevent people from being honest ( admitting that they might be wrong)”
I agree.
“and as a believer in God, I do also believe that pride is the problem with most in their claims to not believe. In other words, I believe that most people who claim to not believe in God are being dishonest with themselves and others”.
I disagree. To me, believing to be the center of the Creation, made by and to look like an anthropomorphic Supreme Being, and that Satan is responsible for temptations, is the worst example of pride that has ever existed.
But I think this is more for the “A Debate Page”.
LikeLike
chris whitewolf pope said
i am unega wayha of the cherokee wolf clan.I am honored that this parable was told.But i do not understand why everything that is said on this site is catogorized as conservitive or liberal or republican.The one good god does not care about politics it is mans.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Hors, I think you are overly sensitive to my critisisms of liberals. I do understand that not ALL liberals are the same. And that all conservatives are not the same. But GENERALLY liberals do think one way and conservative think another way. For example, MOST liberals are pro choice and MOST conservatives are pro life and MOST liberals are against the death penalty and MOST conservatives are not. when I use the term liberal I am speaking of the conventional views of liberals.
My accusations of dishonesty (with themselves as well as others) apply to people who are pro choice and also people who are atheists (as two examples). People in both of these categories tend to be liberals. But if they do claim to be conservatives I will still make the same accusation towards them (of dishonesty).
I hope you understand this now… It’s not particularly liberals that I am having a problem with … it’s these specific views. It just happens that most of the time these views are held by liberals. Like say, 99% of the time. And that is why I just direct my remarks to liberals (or I’ll use the term “liberaly minded people” sometimes because liberals seem to take offense when I call them liberals.
I said: ““What I meant was that many here don’t acknowledge when I’ve made a valid point (with clear reasoning).”
You said: “Well, I haven’t seen a lot of them… Each time, I’ve seen people just disagreeing with you, and getting bored^^”
Yes, I can see where people would get bored with a debate when they realize that they aren’t going to win. But again, I think it would go along way as far as integrity goes if they would just acknowledge that they no longer have an argument and that maybe they can see my point.
You said (and most everyone else here): I’m not a liberal. Just a liberal for you^^
Well, here is the definition of liberal in the Webster dictionary:
liberal
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways
See, this another thing that you guys are not honest with yourselves about.
I said: ““BUT, I do feel that sometimes, you are just stubbornly disagreeing with me even though you know I am right… I now that this sounds arrogant and ignorant and I know you don’t agree with this but I’m just being honest about my observations.”
You said: “Ok, when, on what points? I’ve perhaps forgotten something.
But if you’re talking about “obvious abortion is killing babies”, “obvious God exists and it makes more sense”, “obvious Obama is obeying to Middle-East interests and not even born in America”, then I’m sorry but I will go on stubbornly disagreeing.”
What points you ask? Honestly, every point. I can’t think of one point that we’ve debated where I felt that you were right. You have made some good arguments on a lot of issues but I honestly can’t think of one time where my arguments weren’t better.
I know someone who is sitting in jail right now, a childhood friend who has never really grown up unfortunately. He NEVER takes responsibility for anything that goes wrong in his life. He always needs to blame someone else and always does. And he’s also very vindictive. While most people, when they have time to think, will figure out what they’ve done wrong. He spends that time CONVINCING himself (“reasoning” in his warped way) of the fault of others for his predicament. It is actually amazing how he manages to do it and will even convince others (including myself sometimes) that it isn’t his fault, it is the other person’s fault. His main problem? Pride and ego. And narcisism. He puts himself on a pedestal and when anyone in his life doesn’t support that pedestal he becomes vindictive towards them. That is how it always starts and usually ends up with one of the people in jail. In this case it was him. But many times in the past he has intentionally gotten his “friends” arrested to get back at them. I say “friends” because narcisists really don’t have friends, the other people in their lives are “relation objects” that either support or “shake” their pedestal. And they “like” them accordingly. And the ones who don’t stroke the narcisist’s ego (support their pedestal), the best thing they can do is get as far away from that person as possible.
But the reason I brought this up was because he is so good at convincing himself and others of what he NEEDS to believe is the truth. That it is ALWAYS the fault of the other person, not him.
And in the same way, I feel that you NEED to convince yourself that there is no God. That abortion isn’t wrong. That you are not wrong. And you’ve gotten really good at doing that.
I said: “and as a believer in God, I do also believe that pride is the problem with most in their claims to not believe. In other words, I believe that most people who claim to not believe in God are being dishonest with themselves and others”.
You said: “I disagree. To me, believing to be the center of the Creation, made by and to look like an anthropomorphic Supreme Being, and that Satan is responsible for temptations, is the worst example of pride that has ever existed.
But I think this is more for the “A Debate Page”.
And this is what gets me the most… this is the most ridiculous reason to not believe in God. Hors, I’m sorry but this is RIDICULOUS!!
This is a PERFECT example of someon who has had time to “think”, to “reason” a view that he NEEDS to believe is the truth but is so far from it.
I sensed a while back that I was not the first person who accused you of being prideful for not believing in God. And clearly after thinking about what you were accused of, this is the “reasoning” that you HAD to come up with. And again, it’s absurd and here’s why…
First, You have really twisted the views of others in their beliefs of a Supreme Being. How is acknowledging that there is a Supreme Being, someone greater than us, that we must obey “prideful”? This is humility, the opposite of pride.
And yes, the Bible says that God loves us very much, we are the center of His creation, that is why He sent His Son to die for us. Why is it prideful to believe this? Wouldn’t your child be the center of your world? Of all the things that you created? You might have created many things but wouldn’t your child be the most important? And you’re saying that if your child believes that you consider him the center of your world, that you love him that much, that makes him prideful? That he shouldn’t believe that? He should believe that and we should also believe that, and be humbled by it… not prideful. You have badly twisted this Hors.
2nd, when have you ever seen, in nature, where something was created that didn’t look like it’s creator? Yet you think it’s prideful to believe that we resemble our Creator? I’m not getting that at all.
And 3rd, yes, it is true that satan is always there to tempt us but we are always in control, if we sin it is our fault. Only someone who is egotistical and full of pride would blame satan (or someone else) for their sin or mistake.
“the worst example of pride that has ever existed.” ?
Truthfully, not being able to humble yourself is the worst example of pride that has ever existed.
LikeLike
dorian said
unega wayha, thank you for visiting our site and posting a comment. your parable was posted here by me as a reminder to look towards the good that is in us all. each individual, by instinct, either see a half full or half empty glass and give their own meaning to things. seeing how the parable was taken to different directions proves how different people’s perspectives are. you are right, good and God should not be given political category.
please feel free to view our other posts – not everything is political; it’s just that many of us here like to debate. the blog was founded on a political and religious debate premise.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Hi Chris, categorizing just helps to distinguish how someone thinks about political issues. God doesn’t care about politics in general but many of the political issues are very important to God. Abortion is one good example. Taking care of our fellow man is another.
I like the parable very much. I just think that the way it was used is what is causing the problems / disagreements here.
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
the way it was used? the way it was used? i’m not getting it kay. i think what you got out of the story is that you are completely paranoid.
why do you keep hammering away that somehow the parable was about you. you so vain?
seriously
LikeLike
dorian said
here’s kay’s song. now i’ll think of kay when i hear this song, p.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
haha, that’s exactly what i was thinking.
kay, you go girl.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
ha ha funny :O)
Ok confession time… the reason that I believe that the parable was directed at me is because before that, I had made a subtle critical comment that was directed at Dorian. That’s how I know. And yes, that makes me dishonest in that instance because I wasn’t forthcoming with that information. And SEE! I can admit it! But I will also say that these subtle personal back and forth critisisms started in a not so subtle way when I was critisized on the SNL blog for my Obama post… that I will point out again, just asked questions!!
LikeLike
dorian said
kay, i don’t even know what that subtle critical comment of yours was. you were too subtle, maybe. i just posted what my friend sent me, just following directions. it wasn’t for you. sing the song again, carly!! when i post something that’s meant for you, i’ll wrap it up nicely and it’ll have your name on it. you never told us what your sign was, kay. did we miss your birthday? princess’ birthday coming up next month, also betty. what about hors and ota, when are your birthdays?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
” sing the song again, carly!! ”
Not so fast Carly… Dorian..I explained that I did make a subtle comment (critique) so that should exonerate me. It’s very reasonable to believe that you were critisizing me in retaliation….right?
But anyway… speaking of friends, how are our friends? Have you heard from them? If you do hear from them ( or they are reading )…please let them know that I’m still praying and thinking about them both.
LikeLike
dorian said
i wanted carly to sing ‘you’re so vain’ again because i was teasing you about being vain. you know i love ya, kay, in spite of our different views and in spite of you whipping me around sometimes!
sadly, no word from our friends since the last time they went on the blog. they’re probably reading still. yes, prayers are good, let’s keep that up. i know our prayers are heard.
here is something for everyone. take the test, and let me know which superhero you are, okay?
http://www.thesuperheroquiz.com
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
Your results:You are Hulk
Hulk
100%
Green Lantern
100%
Spider-Man
90%
Catwoman
90%
Wonder Woman
70%
The Flash
65%
Batman
60%
Supergirl
50%
Robin
50%
Iron Man
50%
Superman
20%
You are a wanderer withamazing strength.
Click here to take the “Which Superhero am I?” quiz…
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
well, i totally agree with that. i get really angry.
who were you dorian? supergirl?
LikeLike
dorian said
haha. here’s mine:
Your results:
You are Green Lantern
Green Lantern 90%
Spider-Man 70%
The Flash 70%
Robin 65%
Iron Man 65%
Superman 60%
Hulk 60%
Wonder Woman 50%
Supergirl 45%
Catwoman 35%
Batman 20%
Hot-headed. You have strong
will power and a good imagination.
Click here to take the “Which Superhero am I?” quiz…
LikeLike
dorian said
p – 90% catwoman, eh? that explains the claws!
hey, you’re also green lantern. i hope you look good in green.
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
yes, i’m even more green lantern than you, this quiz is pretty right on.
i look good wrapped in hundred dollar bills.
LikeLike
Hors Service said
Hey, what about heroes from The 99, or Vendôme, or the Alpha Team? There’s heroes not only in America^^
LikeLike
dorian said
okay hors – you can be a french superhero. but you can also take the test to see which american superhero you would be!
ooh p, i bet! – like demi moore in indecent proposal? uh-oh now i feel like hitting the tables again
LikeLike
Hors Service said
I like Batman. Yes, I know, it’s pretty common, but he’s making such marvellous things without even having superpowers…
“Hors, I think you are overly sensitive to my critisisms of liberals. I do understand that not ALL liberals are the same. And that all conservatives are not the same. But GENERALLY liberals do think one way and conservative think another way. For example, MOST liberals are pro choice and MOST conservatives are pro life and MOST liberals are against the death penalty and MOST conservatives are not. when I use the term liberal I am speaking of the conventional views of liberals.”
As long as we are individuals on this blog, you can’t tell to someone that he’s a liberal or a conservative. It’s a very bad way of attacking arguments. Most white religious zealots are also racists (at least in France), and I don’t make all this fuss when I meet one.
“My accusations of dishonesty (with themselves as well as others) apply to people who are pro choice and also people who are atheists (as two examples). People in both of these categories tend to be liberals. But if they do claim to be conservatives I will still make the same accusation towards them (of dishonesty).”
I don’t call believers dishonest, nor do I call pro-life dishonest. Some of their arguments are, though.
One can honestly believe in a lie, and put all his heart into doing something wrong.
“I hope you understand this now… It’s not particularly liberals that I am having a problem with … it’s these specific views. It just happens that most of the time these views are held by liberals. Like say, 99% of the time. And that is why I just direct my remarks to liberals (or I’ll use the term “liberaly minded people” sometimes because liberals seem to take offense when I call them liberals.”
I think they rather take offense of “poisonous”, “dishonest” or “greedy”, terms that you associate regularly with “liberals”.
“Yes, I can see where people would get bored with a debate when they realize that they aren’t going to win.”
Or are facing a wall. Sometimes, I think it will need a sledgehammer to make a dent in your certainties.
“But again, I think it would go along way as far as integrity goes if they would just acknowledge that they no longer have an argument and that maybe they can see my point.”
There’s as much egocentrical and self-righteous liberals as conservative, of course. But you could maybe also ask if they’re just to tired to go on answering, and just disagree. You know, the time when every argument of each side failed to convince the opponent, and they’re left on the same point.
“You said (and most everyone else here): I’m not a liberal. Just a liberal for you^^
Well, here is the definition of liberal in the Webster dictionary:
liberal
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways
See, this another thing that you guys are not honest with yourselves about.”
For my friends, with my traditional political opinions and my unwilling to try exotic sexual postures, I’m a conservative.
So it’s kind of nice of you to call me a liberal. I’ve nothing against being a liberal, as I have nothing against having scottish blood, but I have something against being called one for no reason, or being associated with dishonesty.
By the way, segregation was traditional. You’re not in favor of it. Therefore, you’re a liberal.
Sexual freedom used to be very widespread, also, in the medieval times. Why breaking such a nice tradition?
And the protestants are a kind of liberals for catholics, according to your definition.
“What points you ask? Honestly, every point. I can’t think of one point that we’ve debated where I felt that you were right. You have made some good arguments on a lot of issues but I honestly can’t think of one time where my arguments weren’t better.”
And I honestly think mine are better. That’s why we go on debating. I want to understand. Find the truth. Take my retorts as as much questions for which I look for the answers, and I still haven’t found them.
“But the reason I brought this up was because he is so good at convincing himself and others of what he NEEDS to believe is the truth. That it is ALWAYS the fault of the other person, not him.
And in the same way, I feel that you NEED to convince yourself that there is no God. That abortion isn’t wrong. That you are not wrong. And you’ve gotten really good at doing that.”
Ok, I’m going to put in some personal stuff. Everyone, please excuse me.
You see, I’m what is usually called a “disappointed believer”. I believed strongly until the age of 8-9 (I can’t remember precisely, but it’s the idea). I even had deep conversations with God and Satan in my dreams. But then, I began to see all the holes in the stories people and the Bible were telling, I thinked a lot about it (I was young, so I made mistakes and had a bit of twisted logic, but at that time I felt intelligent. I’ve since changed my mind about myself.), and I concluded that the God I’ve been told about wasn’t existing.
Of course, I was very egocentric at that time.
Since then, I’ve tried to understand the other faiths, to understand why people were believing so deeply in something there was no evidence of.
Because, deep in my soul, I envy believers (real believers). I envy their certainty, their lack of remorse, their belief in life after death, their calm certitude that, at the end, everything will be OK. I miss the time when a prayer could wash my guilt and when I felt the world was caring for me.
Having a conscience is pretty difficult sometimes. I have to say to me that everything that’s happening to me is my fault, that I must do things because I won’t get a chance in the afterlife, and I have to decide what is good by myself, I can’t rely on someone else to do the thinking for me.
I would like to believe. I just don’t. And it’s no problem that YOU believe, the problem is when you use false arguments to do so.
And for the abortion thing: I’m a man, and I use a condom. What use do I have in defending something that is concerning pregnant women? I could be as self-righteous as you and oppose abortion. Then I wouldn’t be honest with myself.
“And this is what gets me the most… this is the most ridiculous reason to not believe in God. Hors, I’m sorry but this is RIDICULOUS!!
This is a PERFECT example of someon who has had time to “think”, to “reason” a view that he NEEDS to believe is the truth but is so far from it.”
Gee, I’ve reasoned, what a terrible sin I’m making.
“I sensed a while back that I was not the first person who accused you of being prideful for not believing in God.”
I think that, in fact, you are the first. Some of other believers thought I was of bad faith, but it wasn’t on this subject. I think I came up with the whole “anthropomorphism” stuff some years ago, when I was thinking about why people were believing.
“First, You have really twisted the views of others in their beliefs of a Supreme Being. How is acknowledging that there is a Supreme Being, someone greater than us, that we must obey “prideful”? This is humility, the opposite of pride.
And yes, the Bible says that God loves us very much, we are the center of His creation, that is why He sent His Son to die for us. Why is it prideful to believe this? Wouldn’t your child be the center of your world? Of all the things that you created? You might have created many things but wouldn’t your child be the most important?”
*We are the children of God.* Seems a bit pridefull to me, even if you have to obey God.
“And you’re saying that if your child believes that you consider him the center of your world, that you love him that much, that makes him prideful? That he shouldn’t believe that? He should believe that and we should also believe that, and be humbled by it… not prideful. You have badly twisted this Hors.”
You have a Supreme Being that fills all what there is unexplained in nature, and you are the children thereof.
God created a whole universe, but we’re the only ones in it. It’s everything for us, as He told us.
My apologies, but I see it as false modesty.
Thank you for your congratulations on the twisting of words. I’ve learned everything from you.^^
“2nd, when have you ever seen, in nature, where something was created that didn’t look like it’s creator? Yet you think it’s prideful to believe that we resemble our Creator? I’m not getting that at all.”
We makes cars. I’ve build a computer once, and I’m not rectangular, nevertheless I admit i have some spots. We makes bottles. In fact, the only things we makes that look like us are robots and pictures.
Nevertheless, it’s true that one can feel the creator in the essence of the things (like the size of the car gives indications on our body), but not on the look of the things.
As long as we’re not born from God, i’m inclined to think that we don’t reasonably looks like him.
“And 3rd, yes, it is true that satan is always there to tempt us but we are always in control, if we sin it is our fault. Only someone who is egotistical and full of pride would blame satan (or someone else) for their sin or mistake.”
If Satan is tempting us, it’s in the same way God is acting in our lives: I’ve never seen a demon offering a pact to anyone, and I’m pretty sure, knowing the human nature, that someone would try to catch Satan on a video, or study him scientifically.
“the worst example of pride that has ever existed.” ?
“Truthfully, not being able to humble yourself is the worst example of pride that has ever existed.”
To me, believing as you do is not being able to humble yourself.
LikeLike
nneka chapman said
i thought that was cute.kinda makes me wonder how come my grandfather keep calling me a wolf. hope its a good thing
LikeLike
William said
Dear Friend (Kay):
Thanks for your kind remarks and for your apology about past comments. They are forgotten. (See #38 above) Just some quick comments on “honesty” and “truth” and “scriptures” before we get started.
I agree, honesty is critical. Let me just point out, that we all have our own unique backgrounds and points of view. And this comes across in our speech and writing. In the political world, they call it “spin.” No matter how objective we both think we are being, our point of view will be revealed in our comments. So, please don’t accuse me of being dishonest when I describe things from my point of view rather than how you might understand them. Describing things as I understand them (politely, of course) is the most honest, genuine thing I can do.
I have also been interested in your previous discussions on Truth. Like you, I happen to believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth (we can talk more about this later if you like.) But, there is a difference between absolute truth and a person’s personal beliefs. Truth is truth, whether anyone believes in it or not. And, just because something is believed by millions (I’m including my faith in this as well as yours) doesn’t necessarily make it true. (Just ask Galileo who spent his last 8 years under house arrest because he declared that the earth was not the center of the universe.) So, as we discuss our ideas of what truth is, let’s not confuse beliefs with truth.
When I refer to “scriptures,” I include LDS scriptures, such as the Book of Mormon, along with the Bible in this term. I’m sure you know that we believe in additional scriptures, and the words of the Prophets, as authoritative sources for doctrine. I know that you don’t agree and perhaps we’ll discuss this more at some future point. In the mean time, please don’t be offended when I use LDS scriptures to demonstrate our beliefs. I am simply trying to accurately answer your question and help you understand our point of view.
As you can see, rather than simply dash off answers, I put a lot of thought into my replies to you. So, it may take some time before you see my replies posted. Please be patient and just know that I am carefully, and prayerfully, considering your questions so that I can give you the most accurate, clear answers that I can.
Having said that, let’s start. I think it would be best to address one question at a time, so here’s your first one. It is a great question and a good starting place for our discussion…
LikeLike
William said
Kay: Do you (Mormons) believe that good works are also required in order for our souls to be saved? That Jesus’ death on the cross is not enough?
William: No, Mormon’s do not believe that good works will save us, or that Jesus’ death on the cross is insufficient. Your question implies that we somehow believe that Christ will only get us so far and that we must “earn” the rest of our way to heaven. This is not what we believe.
The Infinite Atonement of Jesus Christ
We believe that Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane and His agony and death on the cross produced infinite power to save all men and women. In Mormon theology, we refer to Christ’s sacrifice, his death and resurrection, and the gift of salvation to those that believe, as the Atonement of Christ. We agree with Paul (Romans 3:10) and John (1 John 1:8) that no person is without sin, and that no individual, no matter how many good works they do, can earn their own salvation. “All mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all . . . are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement.” (Book of Mormon: Alma 34:8-10) Christ alone has power to save. This infinite power of salvation is a gift of God to all who will receive it. (John 3:16)
So, with the infinite, saving power of the Atonement available, what do we have to do to receive the gift and be saved? The answer: “Believe on the Lord, Jesus Christ.” These are the words of Paul (Acts 16:31), but they are echoed over and over throughout the Bible and the Book of Mormon. (See Book of Mormon: Alma 34:15)
Faith is a Principle of Action
So, what is faith? What does it mean to believe? This, I think, is where our opinions will diverge. Mormons feel that to believe and have faith constitutes more than simply saying “I believe.” For Mormons, if you have faith, you take action. Faith is more than simply believing IN Him, it is BELIEVING HIM — blieving what Christ says we must do. Jesus Himself described this principle best when he said, “Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21) We demonstrate our faith by our actions. Frankly I think that most mainstream Christians would agree with this statement. People who truly have faith in Christ will attempt to change their lives and follow him.
The Apostle James also agreed when he said,
“Even so, faith, if it hath not works is dead, being alone. Yea a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works . . . For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (James 2:18, 26 – see verses 14-26).
As always, the perfect example of teaching this principle comes from the life of Jesus Christ himself. In the scripture record, whenever someone approaches Christ, or has a conversation with Him, Jesus always tells them to do something–He tells them to do works. For example, when the rich young man came to Jesus and asked what “good thing” he should do to inherit Eternal Life, Jesus did not say that no good works were necessary for salvation. On the contrary, He said, “if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matthew 19:16-21). The young man replied, “all these things have I kept from my youth up, what lack I yet?” Again, Jesus replied with an action: “go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me.” The gospel of Jesus Christ is not passive; it is a gospel of action. In order to receive the power of the atonement in our lives, we must turn to him “with full purpose of heart,” which means to do our very best to follow and obey Him. (Book of Mormon: 3 Nephi 10:6)
As a result, Mormon’s put a great deal of attention on good works–not because we think they will save us, but because they are a manifestation of our faith in Christ and they are necessary to establish a covenant relationship with Him and apply the power of the atonement in our lives. These necessary actions include: repenting of our sins, receiving ordinances such as baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and striving throughout our lives to keep His commandments. Further, we work to keep the commandments because doing so brings us joy in this life and qualifies us for the love of God and the companionship of the comforter, the Holy Ghost. (See John 14:23-27)
Kay, at this point, you might be saying, “wait a minute, William. Wait just a doggone minute! If you say that all of these things are necessary, aren’t you actually admitting that Mormons believe works are required for salvation?” Well, if you count faith, repentance, baptism and obedience as works, then I suppose we do. But, these are not “works” in the sense that Paul was talking about when he said, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9, See also Romans 3:28) Paul was talking to former Jews who had converted to Christianity, but had retained their Jewish obsession with the rules of “the law” and who believed that they could save themselves through good works. Paul is not saying that no action is required to become a Christian. He is simply rejecting the notion that we can save ourselves through the works of the Law of Moses, without Christ. The Book of Mormon sheds additional light on this issue. 150 years before Christ, an ancient American prophet said, “Salvation doth not come by the law alone: and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, . . . they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses.” (Book of Mormon: Mosiah 13:28, see also 2 Nephi 25:24-30)
This question of faith vs. works (or Paul vs. James) has been around a long time and was debated by Christians long before Joseph Smith and the Mormons. Some groups, including our Catholic friends, have maintained that ordinances (or sacraments) coupled with good works are required for salvation. Others, notably Martin Luther and John Calvin, have argued that salvation is by grace alone, without works, and that God unilaterally chooses those on whom he bestows the gifts of faith and grace. Christian apologist, C. S. Lewis once wrote that this dispute “does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary.” (Mere Christianity p. 115) Mormons take a balanced approach between faith and works, which we believe is a restoration of the original Gospel of Jesus Christ. For Mormons, our faith results in actions which establish a covenant relationship with Christ wherein we do all we can to follow and obey him, and He saves us.
Actions are Necessary to Apply the Atonement
These actions such as repentance and keeping the commandments, along with ordinances such as baptism, are not supplements to Christ’s saving power (as implied in your question) they are actions that connect us with Christ and apply His unlimited power to our lives. These actions would be empty and meaningless without Christ. (To use the example of electricity: these actions are not the electricity. They are simply the actions necessary to plug into the electricity. The electricity itself is free; we just need to take action to plug into it.) Mormons, believe that salvation is in Christ alone. Our actions (faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and striving to keep the commandments) are necessary to establish a covenant relationship with Christ so that he can save us.
Baptism is an ordinance which initiates this covenant with Christ. It is a formal agreement with God, in which we promise to do the best we can to follow Him and keep His commandments; and for His part, Christ applies the infinite atonement to remove the effects of our sins. We believe that Christ commanded all who would follow him to be baptized. (John 3:5) Mormons consider baptism as the beginning of this covenant relationship: it is the gate to the road to salvation.
“For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost. And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; . . . after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save. Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure unto the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.” (Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 31:17-20)
When this covenant relationship with Christ is established, we receive an instant remission of our sins and stand justified before God. And, so long as we maintain this covenant relationship with Christ, we retain a remission of our sins. (Alma 4:14)
Suppose a young woman believes in Christ, gets baptized and works tirelessly all of her long life to do good works as a manifestation of her faith in Christ. She dies an old woman having accomplished much good. By comparison, imagine a man who lives a life filled with sin, but who, in the final year of his long life learns about the gospel, develops faith in Christ, sincerely repents, receives baptism and tries for a few short weeks to do his best to keep God’s commandments before dying. In Mormon theology, both are saved. It doesn’t matter that the one did more good works than the other. Although the woman undoubtedly developed more Christ-like attributes and had a happier life than the man did, in regards to salvation, what matters is that they both met the requirements to accept Christ and the power of His atonement in their lives.
In the Mormon view, our deeds are not like a balance scale where good works can offset sins. It is more like two scales: one for good works, and the other for sins. No amount of good works can compensate for a single sinful deed. And, since “no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom,” (Book of Mormon: 3 Nephi 27:19) we are all doomed without Christ. If we will accept His infinite atonement, Christ pays the price for our sins. Then, once our sins are remitted through Christ, the deeds on the other scale, our good deeds, do contribute to our reward in heaven. Christ indicated that there would be many different rewards in heaven. He said, “in my Father’s house are many mansions . . . I go to prepare a place for you.” (John 14:2, See also Book of Mormon: Enos 1:27) Those who strive to do good and to improve themselves in knowledge, charity, patience, and all godly virtues, “will have so much the advantage in the world to come.” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:19, see also Matthew 19:29) So, in the example above, even though the man and the woman are both saved and enter into their exaltation, we believe that the woman may have progressed further on the path toward perfection than the man. We believe that in the next life, saved beings continue to act and progress and grow. The Lord Jesus commanded, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Without Christ, no one achieves this goal in mortality. But, we believe that those who are saved by Christ and inherit Eternal Life will continue to grow and progress in knowledge and Christ-like attributes, until they eventually become perfect like God.
The Parable of the Scholarship
Here is another way to look at it. (Please forgive me for using every day examples to illustrate holy things. I intend no disrespect. But, it does help us to wrap our mortal minds around religious concepts. I’m encouraged by the fact that Jesus also used everyday examples in his parables.)
Imagine if you will, a poor student wanting to attend an expensive University. With no savings, connections, or rich relatives, it is impossible for her to earn enough money to pay for college in advance. But a kind donor has established a scholarship for people in this situation. This full-ride scholarship pays for tuition, room and board, books, and even includes some spending money for incidentals. Everything is paid, 100%. But, in order to receive the scholarship, some things are required. First the student must find out about the scholarship and learn what requirements have to be met in order to apply. These normally include things such as a certain grade point average, a minimum grade on college entrance exams, demonstration of need, etc. Once the student has met these requirements, she applies for the scholarship. When the scholarship is awarded, the student signs an agreement in which she formally accepts the scholarship and agrees to the terms of the scholarship. These terms would normally include some minimum requirements to keep the scholarship in force. If the student was to quit attending school for no reason, and failed her classes, the scholarship could be discontinued. But as long as the student meets the minimum requirements to demonstrate that she is applying her best efforts, the scholarship remains in force and pays the entire amount.
This example could be compared to the atonement of Jesus Christ. Just like the scholarship, the gift of the atonement is free and pays for our sins 100%. But, as in the example, there are some requirements that must be met in order to apply the atonement. The requirements to get the scholarship, such as a certain grade point average, don’t actually pay for any of the tuition. These actions are required to demonstrate that the student qualifies for the scholarship, which then pays the full amount. Likewise, our actions, such as repentance and turning to good works, don’t pay for our sins or contribute toward our salvation. Rather, they are required to demonstrate our sincerity and our desire to follow Christ. The signing of the scholarship agreement is like baptism, a formal agreement which establishes the covenant with Christ. Maintaining the scholarship is comparable to maintaining our covenant relationship with Christ so that we can retain a remission of our sins. (See Book of Mormon: Mosiah 4:11-12, 26). Mormons believe that we must continue to strive to keep the commandments and live a Christ-like life in order to keep this covenant in force. Finally, just as the college student who diligently studies and applies herself will have more of an advantage after graduation, so we, to the extent that we work and apply ourselves to become more like Christ, will have an advantage in the world to come.
Saved through the Atonement of Christ
One of our articles of faith states, “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.” Please don’t misunderstand this statement, which has been used by some to imply that Mormons rely on works to be saved. Note the comma after saved. We are not saved by obedience; we are saved “through the Atonement of Christ.” The “by obedience” refers to the way that we apply the power of Atonement in our lives. The qualifying words “may be saved” indicate that proactive steps are involved in accepting the gift of the Atonement and applying it to our souls. Ours is not a passive religion. We believe the Lord expects us to take action.
We are Free to Accept or Reject Christ
Here is one more point that will help you to understand our beliefs in this area. In Mormon theology, we believe that the atonement of Christ redeems all mankind from original sin (the transgression of Adam). So, we believe that children are born innocent and that each individual is responsible only for his or her own sins. Each soul is free, therefore, to choose to believe and follow Christ, or not. We do not believe that individuals are “predestined” for salvation or damnation. In Mormon doctrine, salvation is available to all who will choose to accept him. “Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves–to choose the way of everlasting death, or the way of eternal life.” (Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 10:23, see also 2 Nephi 2:26-28)
Conclusion
So, in summary, Mormons believe that Christ has all power to save. Faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, striving to keep the commandments and doing good works demonstrate our faith in him and establish a covenant relationship with Him, thereby applying the atonement in our lives. Mormon beliefs about faith and works are beautifully summed up in this quote from the Book of Mormon, “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God . . . and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.” (Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 10:24, see also 2 Nephi 25:23)
LikeLike
dorian said
william, the practical examples you cited here gives me a better understanding of the mormon faith and practices. salvation through “christ-like” action makes sense to me. i do have questions of my own regarding lds doctrines but i will wait after your discussion with kay.
this is like a lesson in comparative religion. very interesting!
LikeLike
kay~ms said
William, thank you very much for your thoughtful reply, I do appreciate it and sorry it took so long to reply back. I understand the point you are making here. But I don’t see how it is compatible with your initial answer:
I asked: Do you (Mormons) believe that good works are also required in order for our souls to be saved? That Jesus’ death on the cross is not enough?
William: No, Mormon’s do not believe that good works will save us, or that Jesus’ death on the cross is insufficient. Your question implies that we somehow believe that Christ will only get us so far and that we must “earn” the rest of our way to heaven. This is not what we believe.
After reading your entire reply I am still left asking the same question. And this time I want to put the emphasis on the word “required”.
You say “Mormon’s do not believe that good works will save us,”
(please forgive me) but technically, that is not the question that I asked…
So let me ask again… Are good works REQUIRED in order to be saved? Yes or no?
Or, to put it another way… can we enter Heaven without doing good works?
There are two issues here that I think are the crux of the differences between our two faiths on this particular aspect of salvation.
First, the understandig of the word “requirement”.
And 2nd, a timing issue.
I don’t dispute that good works are important.
It seems that Mormons require good works before receiving God’s grace and
Mainstream Christians believe that good works come FROM receiving God’s grace (gift of salvation).
This is also another verse from the BOM (that I’m sure you’re aware of) that mainstream Christians have trouble with concerning salvation…
“…for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, AFTER all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23, pg. 100)
So, I’ll just leave it here with these two questions…
Are good works REQUIRED in order to be saved? Yes or no?
Is it possible to enter Heaven without doing good works?
And I also wanted to ask… is this quote / passage true?
“I have more to boast of than any man had. I am the only man that has been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” ( History of the Church”, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409. 1884).
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a response for William awaiting moderation.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
And this is something else that I don’t understand…
First, you stated this earlier: “We believe that Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane and His agony and death on the cross produced infinite power to save all men and women.”
It is my understanding that Mormon doctrine says that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 separate gods. That Mormons do not believe in the one God, in 3 persons.
And also that Mormons believe that believers ( those that believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet) can/will also become gods.
My question is: Then what was so special about Jesus that his sacrifice produced infinite power to save all if we can all become gods equal with Him and the Father?
What is the source of this power? So much power to be able to redeem all of man?
LikeLike
William said
Hi Kay:
Thanks for your response (#70). I think perhaps the reason for the confusion is the way the question was phrased. So, thank you for clarifying what you are trying to ask.
First, let’s define “good works.” Perhaps you have a different definition in mind, but for now, I’ll define good works as: faith, repentance, baptism, and striving to keep the commandments of God.
Now, let’s consider the question. You asked “Do you (Mormons) believe that good works are also required in order for our souls to be saved? That Jesus’ death on the cross is not enough?” The first part of the question does not mention the Grace of Christ, but the word “also” in this sentence implies that the works are independent from Grace. The second part further implies that the Grace of Christ get’s us only so far and that the “works” referred to in the first sentence are supplemental to Christ’s grace. Since this is not what we believe, I answered: no. We believe that Grace (the Atonement of Christ) pays for all of our sins 100%, and that there is no salvation without Christ no matter how many good works we do.
It is very important to be clear on this point because some have misrepresented our beliefs to imply that “Mormons don’t rely on the Savior as other Christians do, or that we think we must earn part of our way to heaven through works, or that our belief in the importance of works makes Christ’s sacrifice only secondary.” These statements are false. They are a misrepresentation of our faith either because of misunderstanding, or a desire to mislead. So, I want to make sure you clearly understand our beliefs in this area.
This is why I used the example of the college scholarship. The requirements to receive the scholarship don’t actually pay for any school. The scholarship pays the cost of school 100%. The requirements to receive the scholarship demonstrate our worthiness to receive it. In the Mormon view, works (as defined above) are required to receive the Grace of God and apply the atoning power of Christ to our lives. But the works don’t actually save us. It is Christ that saves us 100%.
After reading your comments above, it appears that your real question is, “Do you (Mormons) believe that good works (as defined above) are REQUIRED for the Grace of God to apply to our sins so that we can be saved.” My answer to this question is: yes, we do. Or to answer your alternate question, “Is it possible to enter Heaven without doing good works?” My answer is: since it is not possible to enter Heaven without Christ, and since works (as defined above) are required for Christ’s Atonement to apply to us, my answer must be: no, it is not possible.
Now, having answered these questions with “yes or no” as you requested, let me qualify these answers by saying that this is only true of those of us who are accountable before God for our actions. Children who do not live to reach the age of accountability (8 years old) are saved unconditionally, as are those who are not capable of being held accountable for sins, such as those with severe mental incapacity. But, for the rest of us, faith, repentance, baptism, and striving to keep the commandments are required to establish the covenant with Christ which applies His Grace to our lives. Baptism establishes this covenant and when we are baptized by proper priesthood authority, we receive an instant remission of our sins. After baptism, we are required to continue to strive to keep the commandments and do good works. This keeps the covenant with Christ in force and we retain a remission of our sins. (As you requested, I have tried to focus on the word “required,” and used it twice in this paragraph so that you clearly understand our beliefs.)
For Mormons, the Grace of God is not a free ride to do whatever, or to purposefully pursue a sinful life. In our view, that would be a mockery of the glorious gift of God. If nothing more was required to apply the power of Grace to our lives than saying “I believe,” then why go to church, or study the Bible, or do anything else that is expected of a Christian? Good question. I have asked this question to members of numerous Christian churches. Their response is normally something to the effect that if someone is not trying to follow Christ, they really never accepted him in the first place, or their commitment (faith) to accept Christ is not very strong. So, it appears to me that most Christians agree that good words are a manifestation of our acceptance of and faith in Christ. As you indicated, I think there is a difference in timing here. Does faith require works to really be faith? Or, does faith come first and then works follow as a result of the faith?
To me, this is where our beliefs differ. To Mormons, faith is works, and works are faith–they are inseparable. (Pardon my grammar there, but I think you get the point.) Or, as James more pointedly put it, “faith without works is dead,” (James 2:26) which to me means, if you don’t have works you really didn’t have faith. Mormons believe that faith and works must both happen to qualify for the atonement. So, the scripture that you have quoted “…it is by grace that we are saved AFTER all we can do,” (2 Nephi 25:23, emphasis added) and the one that I quoted, “…AFTER ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.” (2 Nephi 10:24, emphasis added) both mean the same thing. We must have faith and works first, which qualifies us for the gift of the Atonement. “After” we have done that, it is only through Grace that we are saved.
Frankly, Kay, I think you have summed it up quite eloquently when you said, “it seems that Mormons require good works before receiving God’s grace and mainstream Christians believe that good works come FROM receiving God’s grace (gift of salvation).” To me it is a very slight difference, but it IS a difference. I think, at least, we understand and respect each other’s positions. For, now, let’s leave it at that and agree to disagree on this point.
One final comment, now that you clearly understand our beliefs, I trust that you will not be guilty of twisting this difference into something that it is not. If you hear people falsely state that Mormon’s don’t rely on or value the gift of salvation as much as other Christians do, or that Mormons believe they must earn part of the way to heaven, or that Mormons believe that Grace is secondary to works, I hope you will be honest and set the record straight.
LikeLike
William said
Kay, in addition to discussing these religions topics with you here on this blog, I am also posting my answers to your questions on http://www.MormonBlog.com so that others who might be interested in these topics can benefit from our conversations. May I have your permission to copy your responses to my comments there too, so that readers can have a context for my responses?
LikeLike
dorian said
william: “We believe that Grace (the Atonement of Christ) pays for all of our sins 100%, and that there is no salvation without Christ no matter how many good works we do.”
william, the above statement makes it clear to me that the lds has the same core beliefs as christians regarding salvation.
can you tell me, in your opinion, what the core differences are between the two religions?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Hi William, yes it is ok to post my comments as long as it is kept in the right context (as I wrote it) and there are no changes made to my comments. Which I trust that you already understand (I don’t feel that you would do so) but just wanted to address it anyway.
I’ve seen where you have posted my question and your answer but I would like to say here that if you do not include my follow up question and your direct yes & no answers that my question is not fully being answered (answered properly, with complete truth).
ok.. William you said..
“One final comment, now that you clearly understand our beliefs, I trust that you will not be guilty of twisting this difference into something that it is not. If you hear people falsely state that Mormon’s don’t rely on or value the gift of salvation as much as other Christians do, or that Mormons believe they must earn part of the way to heaven, or that Mormons believe that Grace is secondary to works, I hope you will be honest and set the record straight.”
If I am honest here, I have to say that I am having problems with this comment.
You haven’t even given me a chance to respond to your admittance that works are required and made a GIANT leap that I do understand your position and that I’ve changed my position!! And that I should make this new understanding clear to anyone I discuss this with in the future! If only we lived in a world where things were that easy! Right?
William! I kind of want to say.. shame on you! I feel like we should stop right here and that we both should address this before going any further.
I am fully prepared to agree to disagree with any differences we have but I first want to be able to express my opposing views! The reasons that I don’t understand or don’t agree.
Is that not fair?
Let me address this point first…
I did say that you acknowledged that works are required. And I realize that you may have a problem with that because I didn’t include…”for the Grace of God to apply to our sins so that we can be saved”.
So here we go…
first, lets deal in facts… is it a FACT that Mormon theology says that good works are required for us to receive salvation? Clearly the answer is yes.
I understand your explanation as to why but it doesn’t change this fact.
And mainsteam Christians see this as a tremendously faulty theology.
You said: “Frankly, Kay, I think you have summed it up quite eloquently when you said, “it seems that Mormons require good works before receiving God’s grace and mainstream Christians believe that good works come FROM receiving God’s grace (gift of salvation).” To me it is a very slight difference, but it IS a difference.”
William, this is not a “slight” difference! This is one of the MAJOR problems between our two faiths!
I’m going to try to explain this and I may take more than one attempt / way to do so because I want to make sure I get this point across…
continued….
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Cont.
If good works are required that means that all of the credit cannot be given to Christ for our salvation. One can say, “yes, Jesus saved me but I did this and this and this and that got me into heaven also…if I hadn’t done this and this and this… I wouldn’t have gotten in”.
How is that not taking credit for part of their salvation?
It lessens the VALUE of the grace bestowed on us.. we can also take credit for our salvation.
It IS saying that Christ’s sacrifice is not enough. It is saying that Christ CANNOT get us into heaven on His own by what He did, our good works are also neccessary.
This is a very harmful theology, it is damaging to the value of Christ’s sacrifice.. why would you consider supporting a theology that might even hint at doing this?? WHY IS THIS NECCESSARY!!! What is the harm in giving ALL of the credit to Jesus for His sacrifice?? Is it that possibly then we might not do the good works that God desires? That we will no longer feel the need to do so? Which then implies that that is why we would do the good works according to Mormon theology… because if we don’t, we won’t receive His grace. What is in our hearts.. isn’t that what God cares about? Do we do good works for what we will receive in return? Or do we do good works out of love for God and what He has done for us? That saying that “timing is everything” is proven true here especially. But at the basis… it is what is in our hearts that God cares about…. He wants genuine love from us, if our good works are not done out of love for Him and each other it is valueless. If our good works are for ourselves and what we will receive instead of out of our love for Him then it is without value as far as God is concerned. This Mormon theology takes people down the wrong path… they will find themselves doing good works OR ELSE THEY WON’T GET INTO HEAVEN as opposed to doing good works to show our gratitude for His gift.. out of love for Him in response to His love for us.
NOw, I’m not saying here that all Mormons are doing good works only for themselves, that it is not for God… but the MESSAGE is there… and it is an extremely harmful message. The message that someone’s actions are instrumental in getting them into Heaven, 100% dependence on Christ is not necessary. I don’t know.. 20% us 80% Christ? How much would you say?
Now if you wonder why some people say Mormonism is a satanic cult… taking ANYTHING away from what Christ did on the cross… that is why… this would be satan’s ultimate goal.. to devalue, take away from, what Christ did… wouldn’t you agree on that point?
Again, what is the harm in giving ALL of the credit to Christ? Is it that it goes against Joseph Smith? Mormons would rather take the chance of devaluing Christ’s work than go against Joseph Smith? And I must say here.. that is a sign of a cult… putting the importance of anyone before the importance of God.
Now, let me try it this way…
You said this…
“For Mormons, the Grace of God is not a free ride to do whatever, or to purposefully pursue a sinful life. In our view, that would be a mockery of the glorious gift of God. If nothing more was required to apply the power of Grace to our lives than saying “I believe,” then why go to church, or study the Bible, or do anything else that is expected of a Christian? Good question.”
William, I bring up this point again.. which do you think is most important to God; the good works we do or WHY we do those good works…(what is in our hearts).
Now, saying “I believe” does NOT get us saved according to fundamentalist Christian theology. They are NOT some magic words that saves us.. I think you know that.
If someone ignored God and rejected Christ’s gift, lived his own way thru out his life and then on his deathbed by some HONEST revelation became TRULY remorseful, and TRULY believed in what Jesus did for him, .. finally REALIZED the truth and accepted Jesus’ gift… why shouldn’t he be saved???
Because he didn’t pay his “dues”? That would mean that Christ is not forgiving.
Mormon theology says that even though this man had a sincere change of heart, now truly loves God and knows and accepts His gift with all the gratitude he can possibly have… he cannot be saved.. right? And why? well he didn’t do the good works REQUIRED. Christ is not forgiving ( under certain circumstances) and it also means that God does not have the soveriegn right to let this man enter Heaven…
Can’t you see the problems with this theology??
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Yes I see problems with Mormon theology. I see problems with mainstream Christian theology too though. A symbolic interpretation of Christ’s sacrifice is possible, whether or not Jesus was a historical personage and whether or not he was a divine incarnation.
The “I am” referred to by Jesus is within each of us, and as Jesus said, nobody can get to the Father (union with divine consciousness) except through me (the divine self within each of us, what the Buddhists call “Big Mind”).
I have always wondered why Mormons have Jesus Christ as part of the name of their church when they seem so far off in doctrine from most of the other churches that claim to be Christian. It isn’t just them though. There are many splinter groups in any religion that claim their way is the only “correct” way, and oftentimes their criticism towards more closely-related groups is greater than for groups that aren’t as close.
What I liked about the South Park episode of Mormons was the ending. The little Mormon kid told the others so what if Joseph Smith made it all up, his family has good values and are tolerant of others (I haven’t watched it for a while so I might not be entirely correct in what he said, but I seem to recall that was the gist of it). He then said fudge you or something similar, and the other kids then thought he was cool after all.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
And William.. this statement of yours…
” If nothing more was required to apply the power of Grace to our lives than saying “I believe,” then why go to church, or study the Bible, or do anything else that is expected of a Christian? Good question.”
This statement proves my point… you are acknowledging here that the reason that you go to church, study the Bible or do anything else… is to EARN His Grace… SEE!.. even you have mistakenly gone down the wrong path by following Joseph Smith’s theology! As I stated earlier…
“This Mormon theology takes people down the wrong path… they will find themselves doing good works OR ELSE THEY WON’T GET INTO HEAVEN as opposed to doing good works to show our gratitude for His gift.. out of love for Him in response to His love for us.”
William.. why do we do these things??? Out of our LOVE for God! This should always be our motivation!! This is how God intended for it to be/ wants it to be… NOT Joseph Smith’s way.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Alan Watts pointed out that it is actually impossible for anyone to truly be selfless or perform selfless acts as long as they believe they are a separate ego self. To try to be selfless from such a viewpoint results in a double bind, a logically contradictory paradoxical situation.
Most if not all spiritual teachings instruct us to let go our ego, let go and let God, etc.
LikeLike
William said
Hi Kay:
Mormons DO give all of the credit to Christ, we believe the works are simply fulfilling God’s requirements that He has put in place in order to receive the gift. It does not take away from the sovereignty of God if He set the requirements in the first place. We are not dictating to God whom he can and cannot save. Our belief is that God requires faith, repentance, baptism, and doing our best to keep the commandments before Grace applies in our lives. In our view, it is not Mormonism or Joseph Smith that requires these works, It is God.
Thank you for agreeing to disagree, agreeably. I think this is the mark of an intelligent and respectful conversation.
Now, to your comments about my challenge at the end of my last comment.
You said, “You haven’t even given me a chance to respond to your admittance that works are required and made a GIANT leap that I do understand your position and that I’ve changed my position!! And that I should make this new understanding clear to anyone I discuss this with in the future! If only we lived in a world where things were that easy! Right?:”
Actually, you misunderstand my point. I was not saying that you had changed your mind and that you agreed with the Mormon position. I was simply saying that now that you understand what the Mormon position is, and the way that we express our beliefs, if you hear others say that Mormons believe something different from what I have described, you should correct them. I will do the same for you. I fully expected you to respond with your description of your beliefs on this issue of works, which you have done.
I appreciate very much your explanation above, which is designed to help me understand what you believe. I see now that for traditional Christians, it is the state of the heart that matters and that if the state of our heart is right before God, we receive Grace which then results in good works. Did I get that right? So, from now on, I will be able to be much more accurate in my understanding and descriptions of what traditional Christians believe. I promise to extend the same courtesy to you that I asked for in my challenge. I will correct anyone who implies that you believe something different from what you have described, such as saying that Christians believe they are saved by just saying, “I believe.” I understand that this is false.
Kay, we should stop our discussions if they MUST end in one of us giving up our beliefs in favor of the other’s points of view. I thought we had agreed at the beginning that this was an exercise in understanding and mutual respect, not one of judging the other person’s beliefs or trying to win the other person over. It is one thing to respectfully compare and contrast our views, but quite another to make judgments about the other’s beliefs. So, we can do without the judgmental comments such as “Mormon theology takes people down the wrong path” and “this is a very harmful theology” and “that is a sign of a cult” and “can’t you see the problems with this theology?”
The answer to the last question is, “no, I can’t.” To me, our beliefs are very logical and plain—probably because I am seeing them through the eyes of the entire Mormon way of thinking. And, I’m sure that to you, your beliefs are also very logical and plain—again, probably because you are seeing them through the eyes of the traditional Christian philosophy. Please don’t tell me that we believe. And I will not tell you what you believe. Let’s have no more comments like, “it is a FACT that Mormon theology says …” Kay, if we don’t see it that way, then you have no right to make the accusation. Do you see that it would likewise be unfair for me to say, “it is a FACT that traditional Christians believe that they are saved by simply saying ‘I believe’ or ‘I accept Jesus as my Savior.’” You must accept that I am being honest in my statements about what we believe, and I must accept that you are being honest about what you believe. Otherwise we don’t have a discussion.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
William makes good points about how important it is to remain civil here. Even when I don’t agree with someone who is preaching to me, I appreciate that in some cases it is because of their genuine concern for me.
LikeLike
William said
Hi Bicycling Guitarist:
It’s nice to have you join our discussions. I appreciate your comment about civility and having genuine concern for people. I hope that we can all follow those two points in our discussions.
You may not be aware of it, but your comment about having “divine self within” is similar to Mormon doctrine. Kay has asked me a question about it and I will be posting more information at some point (when I get some more time).
LikeLike
William said
Hi Kay:
You threw in another question about a quote from Joseph Smith at the end of your response #70. Please, in the future, let’s keep to one topic at a time, or at least one topic per comment, so that people can follow what we are discussing. If you jump from topic to topic, or throw out too many questions at once, it makes me feel as if you are simply flinging out accusations, rather than trying to get at the truth about what we believe. (And, Kay, I believe you really do want to understand the truth about Mormons.) So, please let’s deal with the issues one at a time.
Just as a side note, to be honest, as I was reading some of your previous posts, and noticed you throwing out unrelated comments and accusations about Mormons, I thought I would find that you were rather shallow and that rather than thinking for yourself, you were simply repeating things that you had heard others say. But, on the contrary, so far in our discussions, I have found you to be quite intelligent and engaging. So, this has been a pleasant surprise.
Now to answer your question about the quote from Joseph Smith:
You said: “And I also wanted to ask… is this quote / passage true?
“I have more to boast of than any man had. I am the only man that has been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” (History of the Church”, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409. 1884).
My response: I had never heard of this quote so I looked it up. It is not an exact copy of the passage as it appears in the History of the Church book, the content is substantially the same. However, it is certainly taken out of context. It appears to me that someone has extracted this quote out of context in an effort to discredit Joseph Smith by somehow trying to prove that Joseph Smith is saying he is greater than the previous apostles or prophets, or even the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. This is not what Joseph Smith is saying here.
The quote is taken from a report of an address that Joseph Smith made on May 26, 1884. It does not purport to be a verbatim account of Joseph Smith’s talk; rather this rendition is taken from notes which were kept by a Mr. Thomas Bullock. So, we actually have no way of knowing whether or not Joseph actually used these words, or whether Mr. Bullock was simply writing his impression of what Joseph said. However, having established that the report may not be entirely accurate, let’s assume for the sake of our discussion that it is correct.
Here is the context for the quote. Joseph Smith is talking about the persecutions that he was constantly suffering at the hands of those whose desire it was to attack and discredit him. Just to give you an idea of the scope of the persecutions, at one point, the governor of the state of Missouri, based upon incorrect information which he had received, issued an “extermination order” which indicated that Mormons were to be driven from the state, by force if necessary. The saints’ personal property was either destroyed or confiscated. Men, women and children were turned out of their homes in the dead of winter and forced to flee for their lives. Among these were Joseph’s wife and children. At the time Joseph Smith was illegally imprisoned in the basement of the Liberty Jail. (He was never convicted of a crime and later released) In fact, during his life, Joseph Smith was summoned to court over 200 times on all kinds of trumped-up charges. He was never convicted.
In this particular speech, Joseph is talking about some recent legal allegations that had been brought against him. Joseph says, “I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did. I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions.”
When Joseph says, “Paul boasted,” he may be referring to Paul’s comments such as these:
“Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.” (2 Corinthians 12:10)
“For if I have boasted any thing to him of you, I am not ashamed; but as we spake all things to you in truth, even so our boasting, which I made before Titus, is found a truth.” (2 Corinthians 7:14)
Jesus also said, “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.” (Matthew 5:11-12)
And so, just as these scriptures indicate, we observe Joseph Smith in this talk “rejoicing” and “taking pleasure in” persecutions. He says, “When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last . . . In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil–all corruption. Come on! Ye prosecutors! Ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! For I will come out on top at last.”
Then, speaking of these malicious legal attacks, and turning his attention to his followers, the members of the church, Joseph makes the point that the members are his best character witness. For they live among him and know him personally. They know his daily actions and his character. The fact that they say with him, and continue to sustain him as a prophet says something about his character. He states “I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation. I am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people.”
When Joseph Smith made these comments, he was speaking of the fact that the church members had stayed by him, specifically in the context that because the members of the church as a general body, knowing him as well as they did, continued to stay with him and remain in the church, this fact reflected positively upon his moral character against the slanderous lies of his accusers. Joseph is not talking about other aspects of his “work.” He is certainly not saying that in every respect, his work was greater than Paul, or John or Peter, or even Jesus. This would not only be incorrect, it would be inconsistent with Joseph Smith’s teachings throughout his life. He had great respect for the Apostles. And he taught that the Atonement of Jesus Christ was the greatest, most important event in the history of the world. He worshipped the Lord Jesus Christ as the living God. So, to imply that this quote indicates that he felt otherwise would be a distortion of his teachings.
Joseph is speaking here in the context of a referendum on his character, which had been repeatedly maligned by enemies of the church. He was rejoicing that the people have stayed with him rather than leaving as they did with Jesus and the apostles. And, in this area, Joseph’s statement is absolutely true. The followers of Jesus, who had once numbered in the tens of thousands, by and by became offended by his doctrine or frightened by the persecution which surrounded Him. At one point, the record states, “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?” (John 6:66-67) Paul too, had whole congregations who fell away from the true gospel. To the Galatians he wrote, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.” (Galatians 1:6) Further, once the Apostles of Jesus were killed, we believe that the original church became scattered and driven until the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was no longer on the earth. So, from this point of view, it is certainly understandable for Joseph Smith to have made such a statement.
So, that is my take on this quote.
Now, just a comment about isolated quotations from early church leaders: In my view, it is a questionable and misleading practice to single out isolated quotes, especially those from the early days of the church when electronic recordings or verbatim transcriptions of talks were not available, and to hold them up as representative of the teachings of the church. In the first place, they may not be accurate renditions of what was actually said. And, in the second place, we may not understand the full context of what was going on and what they were saying. It was a different time and place. So, to get an accurate picture of what these prophets taught, we properly look for patterns of teachings that were repeated over and over again, always comparing them to the scriptures and to the accepted teachings in the church today. We also have living prophets who can help us to interpret what previous ones have said. This keeps us on the right track.
I am often surprised and amused when I have a conversation with someone who is antagonistic against the church and I say, “we believe this.” To which they respond, “oh no you don’t! You really believe “this,” and I can prove it. Then they try to tell me what I believe by bringing up some isolated quote supposedly attributed to Brigham Young or Joseph Smith. To me, these tactics seem like rather flimsy and desperate attempts to undermine people’s faith.
Since the discussion has turned to Joseph Smith, I will simply state that I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that he restored the Church of Jesus Christ in its fullness to the earth. I know that you don’t agree, and I’m sure you will give me some reasons why you don’t agree. Can I just ask, when you do so, please remember that this is a person who I love and respect, just as you might love and respect the apostle Paul, for instance. So, please keep your comments civil and make sure that you don’t make accusations for which you don’t have solid documentation.
Your turn.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
William, I’m not going to lie and say that I do not want you (and anyone else who may be reading here) to realize that Mormon theology is faulty . I did tell you in the beginning that I believe that Mormonism is a false religion. And I invited you to convince me that I was wrong. What I’ve done so far is state WHY I am having problems with the legitimacy of this religion. And I am using your responses as my basis to explain these problems that I am having.
I agree that I did get carried away with my exlamation marks etc and I broke the rules by making judgemental comments. I slipped up, I apologize.
I do tend to get that way when my points aren’t acknowledged. And some of my points still haven’t been acknowleged / addressed. I am hoping that you will address them because these are some of the very reasons that I cannot accept this religion as valid.
I do not feel that our discussion MUST end in one of us changing our views. As I said, I am prepared to agree to disagree.
I have read what you’ve written so far in response to my question about salvation and I still don’t understand the justification of Mormonism theology on that point.
And your challenge came across to me as very presumptious. I cannot meet this challenge at this time because I do not agree with what you have presumed that I understand.
You said: ” If you hear people falsely state that Mormon’s don’t rely on or value the gift of salvation as much as other Christians do, or that Mormons believe they must earn part of the way to heaven, or that Mormons believe that Grace is secondary to works, I hope you will be honest and set the record straight.”
William, I still believe that Mormons do not rely completely on Christ’s gift as I explained already. You also must produce good works, so therefore you are also relying on yourself.. this is how I see it, I am not telling you what you believe.. I am basing my beliefs on exactly what you are telling me.
You said: “Mormons DO give all of the credit to Christ, we believe the works are simply fulfilling God’s requirements that He has put in place in order to receive the gift.”
You are right that you do have to GIVE ALL of the credit to Christ because He cannot take full credit on His own.. because YOUR good works are required to complete the process. This is how I still see it.
The only thing I understand about the theology is the concept that you must do something in order to receive something.. a very pratical and every day rule of thumb concept basically. But the problem is that Christ’s atonement is not a practical and every day thing. And I don’t God’s intention is for it to be handled or responded to as such (in that sense)…( I do understand that you do not consider Christ’s actual atonement an everyday thing). And as I explained earlier, there are obvious problems with treating it that way. One is that the whole point is missed. The REASON for the good works. It should be out of our love and gratitude for Him. When works are required first, that implyies that you are doing it to receive something in return, and as a result, you are OWED something..you have EARNED something… God will never owe us… we will ALWAYS owe HIM. By doing the good works first, it puts God in a debter situation. Do you feel that it is right to see God in that way? As someone who Owes us?
William, this is why I am having a problem with Mormon theology… basically there is not enough reverence for God… you can say over and over a thousand times.. “we give all the credit to God”, “Christ’s atonement saves us completely” etc etc. but if you stand by this theology that says DIFFERENTLY I cannot accept these statments. You are describing two different theologies.
Just as when I first asked you if good works were required… first you answered “no”. I asked you again and the second time you answered “yes”… see? These are two different theologies coming directly from you! This is one of the reasons that I am having problems with Mormonism. When I’ve heard answers to these questions from Mormons, they are not always compatible with the actual Mormon scriptures. But let me just say that I do believe you are being honest in your answers about what you believe. And I acknowledge that I can’t tell you what you believe. But I can say what Mormon scriptures say and if I believe the two are compatible.
You said: ” Please don’t tell me that we believe. And I will not tell you what you believe. Let’s have no more comments like, “it is a FACT that Mormon theology says …” Kay, if we don’t see it that way, then you have no right to make the accusation. Do you see that it would likewise be unfair for me to say, “it is a FACT that traditional Christians believe that they are saved by simply saying ‘I believe’ or ‘I accept Jesus as my Savior.’” You must accept that I am being honest in my statements about what we believe, and I must accept that you are being honest about what you believe. Otherwise we don’t have a discussion.”
William, you said “yes” to my question that Mormons believe that good works are required. So I stated that as fact. Is it not a fact? Now I’m getting confused. Isn’t it either one or the other?
I understand that you say that it is required in order to apply Christ’s Grace. But if you can’t get from point A to point C without going to point B, then B is required if you want to get to point C. This is a fact.. this is the truth… this is what you said to my question: “Is it possible to enter Heaven without doing good works?” …” My answer is: since it is not possible to enter Heaven without Christ, and since works (as defined above) are required for Christ’s Atonement to apply to us, my answer must be: no, it is not possible.”
So, saying that you can get to C by bypassing B would be a lie.. right? The opposite of truth / fact. Therefore, B is required to receive salvation and enter Heaven. This is a fact in Mormon theology… right?
And the idea that simple words will grant us salvation is a misconception. There is no basis for it, no scripture that says that, so I don’t see how those two examples compare.
Again, I believe that you are being honest about what you believe. But I am unable to see it’s compatibility with Mormon scriptures.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment awaiting moderation.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
As I see it, even mainstream Christians believe in “divine self within.” Jesus knocking at the door of your heart, the Holy Spirit giving gifts of the Spirit, etc. I sincerely believe that most if not all of the world’s religions have the same basic teaching at the core, but that people focus on the differences and fight and kill each other over those when it’s all so silly to do so.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Fighting over religious differences is tragic. And I agree that most religions are based on peace and love. It’s the extremists in each of these religions that produce the bloodshed. They use religion to justify their aggressive nature within themselves. It’s incorrect to blame religion itself for the actions of these people. Unfortunately, there are some religions that do promote violence in some of their writings. Islam is one of them. And because of one man, Mohammed, and his false writings, calling for death to infidels, we are living in the most dangerous time ever in world history.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Peace and love isn’t the core teaching I’m talking about Kay.
This is not the first time you’ve said you understood my point when in fact, what you said you got from what I said was NOT what I meant.
All spiritual teachings I know of throughout history (and probably prehistory) teach of a higher consciousness, awareness or power that is the ground of being of everything. The revelation that this ground of being is within each of us is also shared, along with helpful hints on how to realize it yourself.
However, it is impossible to convey direct experience using language. God could tell you in words how He created the universe, but words are clumsy and it would take countless trillions of years of nonstop talking to even begin to describe the processes, and even then it would only be a map, which should NOT be confused with the territory. Just as you breathe and digest your food without conscious effort, without having to describe every step in words, etc. so it is done.
So words fail anyway. Words can be used to share metaphors however, which are like a finger pointing at the moon. Alas, some people end up sucking the finger for comfort and go no further (thanks Alan Watts for that analogy).
As religions age they become concretized. They also become loaded with cultural artifacts and baggage that renders them less comprehensible to peoples of different cultures and times. The core teachings are still there, but are more difficult to discern UNLESS one is aware of them already. Then they are obvious, even if diluted or polluted.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Oh, and I hadn’t said what that core teaching was in the post you replied to, but I am pretty sure I’ve said it in one of my other recent posts to the Bill Keller frantic about Islam prayer day thread. So you put words into my mouth when you assumed that the core teaching was peace and love. The core teaching I’m talking about includes peace and love, and war and hate. It is both, and neither because the core teaching I talk about transcends all categories of thought.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
What ever you say TBG, sorry for the wrong assumption.. I was just trying to be agreeable for a change… honestly, I believe all of this higher consciousness stuff is silly. So many people get so caught up in it and really all it is is just philosophies that can go on and on and on… instead of reading all of those books just save yourself the money and time and take some drug. The books on this are and will be endless because anyone can come up with what ever and no one can say that they are wrong. It’s a scam for the most part in my opinion.
I do believe there is a higher consciousness, the Bible talks about it but going thru all of this stuff and leaving God out of it is again, is not only silly and a waste of time but tragic in my opinion.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have another comment awaiting moderation..
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
i’m with kay, lets take some drugs.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
No Kay, the higher consciousness is NOT something that is imagined or philosophical. It is something one experiences DIRECTLY, the surest form of knowledge. One KNOWS, even if one can’t put it into words, what Buddha, and Jesus, and Ramana Maharshi were talking about…
Drugs can sometimes simulate this form of consciousness, and some psychoactive substances throughout history have been used in sacred spiritual contexts, but drugs can be a trap and a dead end, more of a distraction than anything else.
The ground of being is there all the time, so awareness of or union with this state of consciousness does not require one do anything or go anywhere…it’s right here, right now.
Anyway, that’s how I see it. I hope I have explained what I believe adequately.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG, I think I understand. It’s all about a hightened awareness?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
It’s as if we are whirlpools in a stream, local patterns in the universe that have energy flowing through us, following the swirls and whirls of our patterns. Eventually this pattern dissipates, but the energy is eternal.
Supposedly, when one attains a particular state of awareness, one recognizes or realizes unity with all there is. Boundaries disappear. The ego vanishes and there is no sense of being a separate ego trapped in a bag of skin (Alan Watts again…I like some of what that guy said).
It’s a matter of how you look at it. Your skin doesn’t separate you from the rest of the universe; it joins you to it. Each of us is a function of what the whole universe is doing at a point called here and now. In effect, each of us IS the whole universe looking at itself through our eyes. There are states of consciousness where one KNOWS this, deeper than thoughts or feelings.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I accept that Jesus is one way to achieve union with the divine, but I reject the idea that one has to call the God within Jesus to have that experience. So as I see it, your Christian faith works for you and that’s fine, but I disagree with you if you claim that one HAS to be a Christian to be “saved.”
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Some might reply by saying, “Oh but it isn’t me that claims that…[then they open a Bible and point to a spot on a page] it says right here that…”
But that’s the way you interpret what you’re reading. There can be different ways to interpret the same passage, and even if the different interpretations contradict each other does not necessarily mean one interpretation is right and the other one is wrong.
One interpretation may be the only way some people can grasp what is being said, and that way is true and right for them.
A different interpretation may be what is needed for another person to receive a certain teaching from the text, and that way may be true and right for that person EVEN IF it contradicts the interpretation of somebody else.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
What I’m trying to say is that spiritual teachings such as from the Bible are powerful enough to work on many levels. To me, the fundamentalist style of interpreting text literally LIMITS God and is sheer hubris on the part of those who insist on such an interpretation.
Isn’t your God powerful enough, and your Bible holy enough, to have the power to reach different people in whatever ways are most appropriate for God’s plan?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
The Hindu saint Ramana Maharshi, who many people believe experienced the same type of awareness as Jesus did, is sometimes criticized for apparently contradicting himself some places. However, the explanation for the contradictions is what I say in post 98. Some people just don’t get it at some levels, so you dumb it down or smarten it up to communicate the teaching in a way they can receive yet. Just because two teachings seem to contradict each other doesn’t mean that one or the other or both are wrong.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG.. I think I do get what you’re saying but as a Christian.. the ultimate question is: Do you believe that Jesus’ sacrifice can save your soul? I understand the idea of different interpretations and I do agree with you in a sense, on some parts but the New Testament of the Bible is very clear to 99% of people who read it… they interpret it to mean what I described earlier… the gift of salvation that is for everyone who chooses to accept it. Are you saying that you do not believe in that interpretation?
Also, could you be more specific about the awareness that Jesus experienced… the passages that describe / allude to this?
And thanks, for your explanations… I do find it interesting, but I strongly feel that if it doesn’t include the fundamental message of God’s Grace, the acknowledgement and acceptance, then I still believe it is useless in the end.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment in the moderation bucket…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Hi Kay, and I have found that oftentimes the process of trying to explain something to someone else can help clarify one’s own understanding of a subject. I find it interesting that you use the words “fundamental message of God’s grace.” I get a big kick out of the fact that the etymology of the word fundamentalist comes from the Latin word for anus!
But seriously, yes I believe that one is saved by accepting Jesus as personal Saviour and all the things you apparently believe. However, I receive these messages on a symbolic rather than a literal level, up to and including the possbility that when Jesus makes statements about “I AM” and “ME” that “I AM”, that “ME”, is the higher consciousness within each of us. So yes you have to accept the Christ within, but you don’t have to be a Christian or call that Christ within Jesus for it to be real.
Of course this only works IF one is actually responding to the genuine Christ consciousness and not to some trick of the ego talking to itself.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
To paraphrase Orwell: everyone is different, but some are more different than others. My experience of being human is further from the average for the population because of my neurological condition. I actually experience life differently at the physical level and even more in the processing stage within the brain.
Now this has resulted in a lifetime of pain, loneliness, and longing for death, but after my studies of eastern philosophies something happened to broaden my mind’s horizons in a way that decades of studying Christianity never did. I no longer feel so isolated, and I find it easier to recognize the similarities between different faiths rather than focusing on the differences that are to me, trivial by comparision with the importance of the central message.
LikeLike
William said
Kudos to you Bicycling Guitarist!
If we would all spent more time focusing on our similarities and areas of agreement, rather than our differences, it would be a better world. The reason why Kay and I are engaged in this detailed discussion about works (which probably seems like splitting hairs to you–and it is!), instead of focusing on the more striking similarities about our faiths, is because this particular point is the “justification” that some use to accuse us of not being Christian.
In my book, if you believe in Christ, you are a Christian. If I believe in Christ, I am a Christian. And if Kay believes in Christ, she is a Christian. It’s sad that some groups feel that they have to reduce the conversation to labels like “not Christian” or “satanic cult” in order to make their point. These types of labels have no place in civilized discussion.
I too have extensively studied eastern philosophies and, I agree, they have much to teach us about life, particularly about such concepts as awareness, contemplation, humility, and service.
Truth comes from God and these true principles can be found in many places including religion, literature, philosophy, and science. There is also much that is false. The trick is to glean truth from as many sources as we can and then use the inner guidance of the Holy Spirit of God to help us to discern truth from error.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I consider myself a Christian, but I also consider myself a Buddhist and I see no contradiction or conflict between the two. Obviously there are some people who do, and some go so far as to claim that they have an exclusive handle on “truth.”
LikeLike
dorian said
“The trick is to glean truth from as many sources as we can and then use the inner guidance of the Holy Spirit of God to help us to discern truth from error.”
william, that’s good practice because all those sources give knowledge and all of us have the inner guidance and light. others who do not believe may not accept God’s spirit but that’s their choice.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
William, I just discovered your comment (#84). My comment (#85) was in response to comment #81. Yours (#84) must have been in moderation when mine was and I hadn’t noticed when it was finally approved. So I’ll read #84 now and respond.
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
Dorian said: “The trick is to glean truth from as many sources as we can and then use the inner guidance of the Holy Spirit of God to help us to discern truth from error.”
well, you won’t find any truth from Liveprayer’s Bill Keller
he is a scam artist. LOL give it up kay.
LikeLike
dorian said
actually P, william said that, i liked that he did because that’s what i do to learn and discern. i like coming here for the news because there’s fox news, msnbc, cnn, london times, etc..
bill keller made msnbc news? he must be happy.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
oh, i see, well, William says a lot of wise things.
for instance:
” Please, in the future, let’s keep to one topic at a time, or at least one topic per comment, so that people can follow what we are discussing. If you jump from topic to topic, or throw out too many questions at once, it makes me feel as if you are simply flinging out accusations, rather than trying to get at the truth about what we believe.”
truer words were never spoken.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
William, you said: “Just as a side note, to be honest, as I was reading some of your previous posts, and noticed you throwing out unrelated comments and accusations about Mormons, I thought I would find that you were rather shallow and that rather than thinking for yourself, you were simply repeating things that you had heard others say. But, on the contrary, so far in our discussions, I have found you to be quite intelligent and engaging. So, this has been a pleasant surprise.”
First, thank you for the compliment.
2nd, yes, I’ve been accused before of “parroting” someone else’s views. And I know as I’m typing the words that people are going to hastily assume so but 1) I believe those words to be true and put it the best way, and 2) I was too lazy to change up the words just to suit those who are unable to decipher the truth. And, I think, I wanted to expose those people to myself… see who would take the opportunity to jump on that “you can’t think for yourself” bandwagon. Needless to say I was never surprised. Except maybe by you.
But thanks for being honest and stating your thoughts / experience on this.. I appreciate it.
Although, I am curious about the part where you said: “and noticed you throwing out unrelated comments and accusations about Mormons”.
I would like to know which comments they were. I am always open for correction but I truly don’t know what I could have been incorrect about. Or, you used the word unrelated… they were factual but unrelated? Is that what you are saying?
In response to your defense of Joseph Smith’s quote…
You said: “So, we actually have no way of knowing whether or not Joseph actually used these words, or whether Mr. Bullock was simply writing his impression of what Joseph said. However, having established that the report may not be entirely accurate, let’s assume for the sake of our discussion that it is correct. ”
Granted… the quote may not be entirely accurate but then I hope that you are also treating every word that was written about JS the same… the good as well as the critical. By taking this stance you are pretty much discounting anything written about him, so when you quote something good written about him, I will want to remind you of this. But what I think is significant here is that the writers of the History of the Church were probably biased towards JS so it is very reasonable to assume that the good things “recorded” are more possibly untrue than true and the bad possibly more true than false… Why would someone who is biased for JS want to write something disparaging about him? Of course, these particular authors would have more credibility for when they did write good things about him.
So, now that I’ve addressed your first defense, I’ll now address your second defense which is to explain Smith’s boasting..to justify it..
Your quote of Joseph Smith’s…
““I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did. I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions.”
First, Paul’s persecutions and sufferings were infinitely more than Joseph Smith’s. The two are not comparable. It was wrong, in my opinion, for him to compare himself to Paul in this instance and even more wrong to claim that he had suffered more than Paul.
To be more precise… Paul’s persecutions were a direct response to his preaching the Gospel… nothing more.
Smith’s persecutions were largely for his ambitious desire to obtain power and money to empower himself and the religion and also for other selfish desires… plural marriages as one example.
His desire for power were displayed with his constant moves to infiltrate the government, the media (with his own newspaper), obtaining a state charter, building his own city, etc. People were starting to get concerned.
The way I see it, Joseph Smith brought on his own persecustions, not by preaching the gospel but by his own selfish desires. His suffering was not for Christ… Paul’s was.
And Paul’s “boasing” was about someone else! And he chastized himself every step of the way as he did it!
And when it was about his suffering… he made it clear that it was for Christ. I didn’t notice Joseph Smith mentioning suffering for Christ once… did he?
It appeared to me that Joseph Smith’s boasting here was blatant, selfserving and remorseless.
Yes, this quote: “Jesus also said, “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.” (Matthew 5:11-12)”
It’s about suffering for Christ.. as I pointed out earlier… Joseph Smith doesn’t mention Christ when he bragged about his “sufferings” and it wasn’t for preaching about Christ that he received his “persecutions” as I’ve shown some examples of below.
You said: “Then, speaking of these malicious legal attacks, and turning his attention to his followers, the members of the church, Joseph makes the point that the members are his best character witness. For they live among him and know him personally. They know his daily actions and his character. The fact that they say with him, and continue to sustain him as a prophet says something about his character.
He states “I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation. I am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people.” ”
Upon doing some research, it seems that many of his close followers fell away from him …
** By 1832, the twenty-six-year-old Smith led an organization of about a thousand followers. Not only were the burdens of his office beyond his experience, some disaffected former followers accused Smith of dictatorial ambition, deceiving the credulous, and the intent to take their frontier property.[38] On March 24, they encouraged a mob to drag Smith and Rigdon from their beds and beat them unconscious. Smith was tarred and feathered and narrowly escaped being castrated.[39] The attack encouraged him to accelerate a trip to Missouri.[40]
** The disaffection in Kirtland had spread to Missouri, and four of the earliest Mormon leaders, David and John Whitmer, William Phelps, and Oliver Cowdery were now expelled from the church, which had come under stronger influence of Sidney Rigdon. When the dissidents and their families lingered in Missouri, they were threatened by a group of semi-secret ruffians, the Danites, led by a cunning, resourceful, and unscrupulous recent convert, Sampson Avard, who put his band under oath to be “completely submissive” to Joseph Smith.
** [52] Many Latter Day Saints, including prominent leaders who had invested in the banking scheme, became disaffected and either left the church or were excommunicated. There were even a couple of unseemly rows in the temple, including one occasion on which guns and knives were drawn.[54] When a leading apostle, David W. Patten, raised insulting questions, Smith slapped him in the face and kicked him into the yard.[55] After a warrant was issued for Smith’s arrest on the charge of bank fraud, Smith and Rigdon fled Kirtland for Missouri on the night of January 12, 1838.[56]
** Smith faced growing opposition among his former supporters in Nauvoo, and he “was stunned by the defections of loyal followers.”[134
** Brigham Young later claimed that even Smith’s brother William said he hoped that Joseph would never get out of the hands of his enemies alive.
In continuing to justify and defend Smith’s boasting by arguing that what he said was true… you quoted Paul here as to the fact that he lost followers…” Paul too, had whole congregations who fell away from the true gospel. To the Galatians he wrote, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.” (Galatians 1:6)
I would like to post the rest of those passages because I find them extremely fitting to this whole debate…
7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.”
Paul lost some followers to heretic branches of the Gospel. As common then as they are today.
And this is the part, William, that I found most troubling of all. I was disturbed, troubled, hurt, and saddened by this…
You said: “He was rejoicing that the people have stayed with him rather than leaving as they did with Jesus and the apostles. And, in this area, Joseph’s statement is absolutely true. The followers of Jesus, who had once numbered in the tens of thousands, by and by became offended by his doctrine or frightened by the persecution which surrounded Him. At one point, the record states, “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?” (John 6:66-67)
In this part of your response, your bias was showing for Joseph Smith and… AGAINST Jesus.
If you were just posting facts my feelings might be different but you gave an inaccurate portrayal that Smith had more dedicated followers than Jesus did. And this is just not true! At the very least, there is no proof, no actual numbers to go by. Again, you said: “He was rejoicing that the people have stayed with him rather than leaving as they did with Jesus and the apostles. And, in this area, Joseph’s statement is absolutely true.”
This statement is extremely misleading and distorted. First, as I showed earlier, many people dissented from Smith, especially many of his close followers, but Smith (and you) completely ignore that, ALLOWING the impression that none left him.
THEN both of you perpetuate the illusion that most, including his apostles, left Him.
You said: “The followers of Jesus, who had once numbered in the tens of thousands, by and by became offended by his doctrine or frightened by the persecution which surrounded Him. ”
What does that statement imply? Jesus once had tens of thousands of followers and then he didn’t? “by and by (they) became offended and frightened”. The only passage that I know of that even remotely describes how many people dissented is the one you quoted…”From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” “Many” is extremely subjective. Can I ask what you are basing your implication on that Jesus once had “tens of thousands of followers” and then didn’t?
And as for his disciples, yes they did abandon Him, but they did come back and most (if not all) were willingly martyred for Him. Can that be said for Joseph Smith’s followers?
Joseph Smith was incredibly arrogant for making such a comparison. Yes, that is a judgement, it is my personal opinion and I did take into considertion your explanation for why he said what he did. I find these comments detestable. And I feel that you should also.
You said: “So, from this point of view, it is certainly understandable for Joseph Smith to have made such a statement. ”
Again, I strongly disagree… he should have shown humble gratitude for the people who stayed with him, and he should have given the credit to God. He did neither.
But, mostly, I want to reiterate here how saddened I was upon reading your comment / defense of Joseph Smith.
You defended Smith and distorted the truth of Jesus in order to do so. You put Joseph Smith before Christ. I feel like I witnessed first hand what Jesus might be feeling. And it deeply saddened me.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
comment awaiting moderation
LikeLike
William said
Dear Friend (Kay):
Please don’t be sad. I believe Joseph Smith was God’s prophet. And, when I defend God’s prophet, I am defending God. Jesus and Joseph Smith are not in competition as you have inferred. It would be like saying that if you defend Moses, you are somehow putting him above God.
Joseph Smith’s persecutions were precisely because he was a witness of Jesus Christ. He was mocked and tortured (as you have documented in your comments) along with many of the members of the church, because they believed that the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was being restored to the earth after centuries of confusion and darkness.
(By the way, you said you did “research” and appeared to be quoting from something; but since there is no reference, I have no idea what you were quoting! Some of the quotations have page numbers; others have no citation at all. However, it appears that all of the quotations are from a single source. Kay, reading one anti-Mormon book is not “research.”)
You say, “His desire for power were displayed with his constant moves to infiltrate the government, the media (with his own newspaper), obtaining a state charter, building his own city, etc. People were starting to get concerned.”
This comment implies that these actions were the cause of the persecutions. This is not true. Joseph Smith did obtain a city charter, and print a newspaper, and even run for President of the United States. However these actions came AFTER the bitterest persecutions and were made in response to the persecutions; they did not cause them. The newspaper and political actions were Joseph’s attempts to tell the story of the suffering of the Mormon people and to try to obtain redress for the wrongs our people had endured. The city charter for Nauvoo was an attempt to provide a place where our people could live unmolested. Nauvoo, Illinois was a mosquito-infested swamp when the Mormon refugees gathered there after having been cruelly expelled from the state of Missouri. There they built a beautiful city and a temple. But their peace was short-lived. Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were brutally murdered not many years after the city was built. And the people were again driven away. They finally found refuge in Utah, in a land that no one else wanted.
You have implied in your quotes that Joseph Smith and his people deserved the persecutions they received. Is this how you feel? Do you believe that citizens of the United States of America should be mercilessly harassed, murdered, raped, robbed, and tortured because of their beliefs? Do you believe that to drag someone from their home and tar and feather them is acceptable? Do you believe people should have to walk past pickets, be yelled at and spit on, and openly mocked on their way to church? I hope your answer is no. But this is the true story of what happened and is still happening to the Mormon people.
This Sunday is our semi-annual general conference in Salt Lake City where Mormons gather from all over the world to hear our leaders. As we walk to church, we will be mocked and yelled at and cursed and spit on by people who claim to be Christians. If the KKK were to openly mock and harass African American people who were walking into church as these so-called Christians do to us, there would be a public outcry. No so here. It happens every six months, year after year. We are learning to turn the other cheek.
We take comfort in the words of Jesus: “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”
You say, “It appeared to me that Joseph Smith’s boasting here was blatant, selfserving and remorseless.”
Again, let me say, that since this is a second-hand report, I’m personally not convinced that the tone of the quote is quite accurate. It certainly does not seem consistent with the tone of his personal writings. However, if it is accurate, and taking into account the fact that he was responding once again to unfounded legal accusations (which had previously illegally landed him in jail for extended periods), perhaps this was his way of laughing in the face of danger. Could he have expressed it in a better way? Yes, I certainly think so. I am the first to admit that Joseph Smith was not perfect. Neither was Peter or Moses or John. They were servants of Christ and did the best that they could. They were not perfect, but the gospel they preached was perfect. You will never hear a Mormon state that Joseph Smith was perfect. There has only been one perfect person to walk the face of the earth – the Lord, Jesus Christ. But, we believe that through Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ Himself restored His perfect Gospel to the earth.
You state: “Granted… the quote may not be entirely accurate but then I hope that you are also treating every word that was written about JS the same… the good as well as the critical. By taking this stance you are pretty much discounting anything written about him, so when you quote something good written about him, I will want to remind you of this.”
Kay, I agree. Second-hand accounts on both sides are not as reliable as the words that Joseph Smith wrote himself. These take precedence over things written about him on both sides. So, I don’t plan to get into a battle of quotes written about Joseph Smith and neither should you. There is a better way to know the truth.
Let me conclude my comments about Joseph Smith in this way. Joseph said that he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ, and that they spoke with him and gave him authority to restore the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Through angelic ministration, and by the gift and power of God, he brought forth the Book of Mormon, which is Another Testament of Jesus Christ. The whole foundation of Mormon Doctrine rests upon these basic beliefs.
If Joseph Smith really saw God and was commissioned by Him to restore His Church, then the Mormon Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is true and those who fight against it fight against God. On the other hand, if Joseph Smith did not see God, then Mormonism is false.
I believe that Joseph Smith did see the Father and the Son and that the Book of Mormon is true. But I also believe that each individual has the right and obligation to believe as their conscience dictates. To anyone reading this, you too can find out for yourself by reading the Book of Mormon. I encourage interested people to learn more and then decide for themselves.
Who knows the truth about whether Joseph Smith really saw God? Well, God knows, Joseph Smith knows, and those who have had the witness of the Holy Ghost that it is true also know. I am one of those who have received that witness.
LikeLike
William said
Hi Dorian, I have not forgotten you.
Dorian said: “William, the above statement makes it clear to me that the LDS has the same core beliefs as Christians regarding salvation. Can you tell me, in your opinion, what the core differences are between the two religions?”
Thank you for your question.
Members of the LDS Church (Mormons) believe that after the death of the Apostles of Jesus Christ, the authority to act and speak in the name of God, as the prophets and apostles did, was taken from the earth for a time. Because of sin and apostasy, the church was left in a state of confusion, and in the ensuing decades, some of the most precious doctrines of the gospel were lost or distorted. So, while we know that there is still much truth and good in the traditional Christian faiths, we believe that a direct restoration was necessary to bring back these important truths and to restore the Priesthood (the authority to teach and ordain as an authorized representative of God) to the earth.
One might ask, “why would God, who loves us, leave us stranded in this complex modern era with only the Bible to guide us?” or “why would miracles stop with Jesus and the Apostles?” or “with so many religions on the earth, including dozens and dozens of flavors of Christianity, which approach is right?” These are good questions and they underscore the need for direct contact and guidance from God today.
This direct restoration began in 1820 when Joseph Smith, in answer to humble prayer, saw God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. They spoke to him and initiated a flood of revelation and restoration through heavenly ministrations.
So, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not just another Christian denomination. We believe it is a restoration of the original Gospel of Jesus Christ in all of its fullness and purity. This puts us in a different class of Christian faiths. The first class would be our Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends, who believe that the authority of God passed from Peter in a direct line of succession to present leaders. The next class would be our Protestant friends, who believe that the Catholics went astray and who take their authority directly from the Bible. Mormons would be the final class, who believe that the authority of God was lost from the earth for a time and was restored by God to the earth through direct revelation.
We acknowledge that there is truth in all religions and we have a great many core beliefs that we share with our Christian brothers and sisters. In most cases, these are doctrines that are clearly set forth in the Bible. Our message to the world is: bring all the good and truth that you have and we will add to it. We believe that truth can be found in many places and we certainly don’t claim to have all truth in the church. (The disciplines of Microbiology or Calculus, for example, also contain truth and we certainly don’t learn about them in Sunday School.) But we believe that the fullness of those truths that are necessary to bring men and women to Christ and be exalted with Him are found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
So, with that introduction, here are some “core differences.”
1. We believe that God speaks to man today and that he has ordained prophets and apostles to guide us in these “latter-days.” Like the apostles and prophets in ancient times, they are not perfect. But they are God’s authorized servants; and just as Moses or Paul or John, they speak for God and lead us in the right direction in these troubling times.
2. We believe that the cannon of scripture is not closed and that additional scripture has been revealed in our day. The Book of Mormon, for example, is a sacred record, similar to the Bible, recorded by prophets who lived in the American Continent from 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. and includes a record of the appearance of the risen Christ to these ancient American inhabitants. It stands alongside the Bible as Another Witness of Jesus Christ. We love and revere the Bible and use it as one of our basic scriptures. But we are also grateful for these additional scriptures, which help to explain and clarify doctrines that are obscure or vague in the Bible.
3. We believe that people who read the Book of Mormon and ask in faith to find out whether or not it is true will have the truthfulness of it witnessed to them by the Holy Ghost. This Holy Spirit of God can also guide us and help us to discern truth from error.
4. We believe that the day of miracles has not ceased. Through the restored priesthood authority, the miraculous gifts of God such as healing, tongues, prophesy, revelation, and testimony are alive in the church today. (See Mark 16:17-18)
5. We believe that the glorious vision of The Father and The Son to Joseph Smith proved once and for all that, while they are one in purpose and glory, the Godhead is composed of three distinct individuals: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. So we reject the post biblical creeds of Christendom such as the Nicene Creed which states that the three are one essence.
I would say that these are the core differences.
I will conclude with the words of Joseph Smith, which he wrote when asked by a newspaper reporter what Mormons believe. Said he, “We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul–We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.” (Article of Faith, 13)
I believe that Joseph Smith did see The Father and The Son and that the Book of Mormon is true. But I also believe that each individual has the right and obligation to believe as their conscience dictates. I encourage interested readers to learn more and then decide for themselves.
One last point, for anyone who is interested to see what a Mormon apostle or prophet looks like and to hear what they are saying today, I invite you to tune into any session of our semi-annual General Conference, which happens to be this weekend (October 3-4). I think you will find it to be a refreshing change from TV Evangelists, etc. The conference is broadcast on TV in most major areas. There are two sessions each day, Saturday and Sunday, a morning session from 10-noon, and an afternoon session from 2-4pm. Just check your TV listings for “LDS General Conference.”
LikeLike
dorian said
william, thank you for the answers. i do have two cousins who converted to lds from catholicism many years ago, but neither they nor reference books are able to elucidate on your faith better than you did in your question and answer session with kay here. i like how the lds recognizes that the good teachings found in scripture can be added to and in a sense “evolved” for practical purposes and application to modern times. i can also see how fundamentalist christians will consider this heretical and thus words like “satanic” and “cult” are thrown your way. not much has changed since the days of the roman inquisition when it comes to the creed of ‘tolerance’ in orthodox religion.
i also thank kay for bringing up comparison points.
one last question. are your communities under separate jurisdictions under separate leaders or do you follow the same creeds and mandates put together by your high-ranking leaders? i realize that there are separate denominations/sects, (e.g. the flds) but is it like the roman catholics where the vatican sets the rules? i’m thinking of proposition 8. it’s known that the lds church has contributed to a majority of funds to support the ban on gay marriage. i also have a gay friend who was excommunicated from his church, as homosexuality is automatic grounds for excommunication with the lds. i am thinking that your church, like any other, has their fundamentalist factions who are dead set against any changes to the rules and doctrines, leading to the exclusion of a specific group of its members (however faithful) on account of their non-traditional lifestyle.
how are your leaders handling the gay situation? i discovered this http://www.affirmation.org/ but i would like to hear your views.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
william, i gather kay is getting her information from here:
http://www.answers.com/topic/joseph-smith
LikeLike
princessxxx said
but here is kay’s main source of info.
THE MORMON LIE
LikeLike
princessxxx said
and don’t forget here, this is what bill keller is being investigated by the i.r.s. for.
http://votingforsatan.com/
LikeLike
princessxxx said
and William, you may want to read this that kay posted.
https://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/glen-becks-deception/#comment-5802
it is a list of things kay claims a mormon won’t tell you, which she apparently parroted from here: http://www.mrm.org
LikeLike
dorian said
that mrm.org site is just vile. why are those people wasting so much time hating? they can’t be christian. oh wait, they claim to be! God have mercy on them because they will have to face up to their persecuting ways.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
well, that is the site that kay referenced,
oh wait,
kay is a vile christian.
LikeLike
dorian said
okay, now, let’s give kay a break…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Indeed, break time! I wish to believe that most people who spread “hate” about other religious groups do so from a sincere concern for the well-being of other people. Face it, if you really believe your way is the ONLY way, and you see other people believing something else, and you really do care or at least want to care about anyone besides yourself, you HAVE to “educate” those poor deluded fools to help save their souls. Although of course it is never you who can save their souls, only Christ, and hopefully Christ is working through you for God’s benefit and not for any selfish motives of your own.
Realistically though, humans like to be in the “in” group and for that to exist they have to define an “out” group. It also makes one feel more secure if one can somehow “prove” that the “out” group is “wrong.”
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Hey…. (using major restraint here from name calling).. that is not the site I refferenced for your info… why don’t you just butt out, you’re really starting to irritate me… you have no actual valid opinions anyway…
LikeLike
kay~ms said
btw that was for PP…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I appreciate you Kay, that in some instances you did get some of what I was trying to explain about my perspective. Hopefully we can all learn from each other here. A lot of bad feelings in the world happen because people *think* they understand someone else’s viewpoint but don’t quite have it.
I’ve heard a good test is if one can explain the other person’s viewpoint to that other person to their satisfaction even if one doesn’t agree with it. That other person should then ideally be able to explain your viewpoint to you to your satisfaction. Then if the two parties disagree, at least they are sure what they are disagreeing about.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
William, you said: “Please don’t be sad. I believe Joseph Smith was God’s prophet. And, when I defend God’s prophet, I am defending God. Jesus and Joseph Smith are not in competition as you have inferred. It would be like saying that if you defend Moses, you are somehow putting him above God. ”
I would like to further address this issue if that is ok. I am sincerely upset about this. This is one of the major points that mainstream Christians have a problem with… that Mormons appear to have more reverence for Joseph Smith than Jesus.
Honestly, I would like to interject here that, knowing the beliefs of Mormonism (as I believe I do, yes I could be wrong on some things), it is actually understandable in some ways… after all, Joseph Smith is now a god (right? or he will become one?)… equal with Jesus. But, with that observation being acknowledged, you do claim that that is not the case. That Jesus is more revered. Or am I wrong about that? I’m not clear on this.
Even if you view Jesus and Smith on the same level or worse, how could you even consider giving more reverence to Smith when he was not the sacrificial Lamb as Jesus is. Smith did not give up his life willingly for our sins.
So, could you please clear this up for me?
And also, as I mentioned earlier, it seemed obvious to me that you heavily favored Joseph Smith as having more loyal followers than Jesus did. You inferred that Jesus lost all (most) of His followers while Smith did not…. again, could you please tell me how you arrive at that conclusion? This is important because this is where I see your bias for Joseph Smith over Jesus. And as I described, I cannot see the justification for this. Please clear this up for me. thanks.
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
no, kay, you don’t tell me to butt out. you don’t tell me what to do.
i googled your references and that is what came up and wikipedia.
every comment down to the last detail.
so, if it isn’t where you got your info, where did it come from?
from now on, reference where you stole your comments.
and that comment that i have no valid opinions, i thing the others would disagree.
don’t think you can promote your brand of hate and get away with it.
LikeLike
William said
Hi Princess:
Thanks for these links. Actually, I have already looked at these items, which is why I set the ground rules before I was willing to have discussion with Kay and why I have demanded that she engage in an intelligent conversation rather than a debate of name calling and unfounded accusations. So far, she has at least attempted to follow these guidelines, for which I congratulate her. She has also apologized for her past comments, which is a huge step toward civilized dialogue. We have agreed to forget the past and move forward. I agree with The Bicycling Guitarist in my belief that Kay is sincere. She has just been sucked in by people who twist the truth about Mormons.
Now to briefly address the “Mormon’s won’t tell you” comments. I don’t have time to address all of the points one by one, but let’s suffice it to say that each of these statements is either a boldface lie, or they have taken a true Mormon belief and twisted it to present it in the worst possible light. The truth is that most of these militant types don’t want to engage in a civilized conversation. They just want to spew hate.
For example, I have many dear friends who are traditional Christians. Generally, I find them to be good, genuine, caring people who are trying to follow Jesus. But someone who hates Christians and wants to demean their faith might look at what has happened at abortion clinics and then concoct a statement like the following: “CHRISTIANS WON’T TELL YOU that they believe in murdering you if you do something they don’t agree with.” No matter how much these people might try to back up a statement like this using “quotes” or historical “facts,” it doesn’t change the fact it is a bold face lie designed to twist and distort and stir up hate from those who might read and accept it as fact.
I think Kay has come to realize that passing on these types of comments without investigating on her own was a mistake.
I say again, if you want to know what Mormons believe, ask a real practicing Mormon, not someone who has an agenda of hate. I invite everyone to tune in to our General Conference this weekend for just a few minutes just to see for yourself what Mormons are really like.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Princess… I would like you to BUTT OUT.. how’s that? I don’t appreciate your comments about me lately. I have an opinion that differs from yours. Why don’t you just get over it? You think Bill Keller is a fake… I DON’T okay… you think Obama is a legal citizen… I am questioning it..okay… you are the one who is being offensive because you can’t handle someone who has an opinion that is not in line with yours and also happens to be the correct opinion! That’s a problem you need to work out with yourself… DON’T take it out on me!!
Freakin take your meds..
Yes, your second guess is right…my source is Wikipedia… it wasn’t meant to be a secret… the points are still there to address either way.
And your accusation of hate… I am DEMANDING that you back that up… if you don’t, I won’t acknowledge you at all from here on out and I will exit this blog if your insults continue.
Again, do us all a favor and take your freakin meds…
LikeLike
princessxxx said
and William, i see you have a comment in moderation.
i often watch various religious stations on tv, one of them being the BYU station, which i have to say, i like better than the rest because it has almost zero hysterics and fundraising. they have a gardening show i like. and the best music.
i have no religious beliefs, i think it is fine if someone does, but what you mentioned earlier about the christian groups harrassing mormons, i forget what comment, so many.
well, i just don’t put up with anyone claiming to be a follower of christ and acting in such manner towards any group of people.
i realize i am showing a lot of anger toward kay, that is only because she promotes keller, a man who makes his living out of harrasing those that don’t believe what he does, he IS a real false prophet.
and i will be the first to admit, i have a low moral standard, so i don’t think i’m somehow more righteous.
I’M NOT REALLY BAD, I’M JUST DRAWN THAT WAY!
LikeLike
princessxxx said
see what i mean!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay says “you can’t handle someone who has an opinion that is not in line with yours and also happens to be the correct opinion!”
I for one cheerfully admit I could be wrong about anything or everything. Show me your sources. Explain your reasoning. If there’s proof I’ll change my mind.
What is this arrogance to claim that your opinion is “the correct opinion”? Now I haven’t done the following with you in this particular case, but there have been many times I have examined the sources and listened to the reasoning of those who disagree with me. Sometimes I’ve changed my mind. Frequently though, I find that I can clearly see errors in their sources and mistakes in their reasoning that the other parties either can not or will not admit.
Usually in such matters, once I realize that the other person’s mind is closed I drop the conversation. Perhaps Princessxxx and others are being a bit harsh in their criticism of you Kay. On the other hand, some of the people you identify with such as Bill Keller and others scare the hell out of me, not because I fear they might be right but because I’m pretty darn sure they’re wrong and it pisses me off to see them getting rich by preying on gullible people.
Peace. TBG
LikeLike
princessxxx said
TGB, i have a comment in moderation that addresses exactly what you just commented on.
the anger i have towards kay is all about keller ripping off people.
it gets my blood boiling.
check out this cool evolution gif i found, i looked it up just for you.
LikeLike
dorian said
kay, from what i read in william’s posts, joseph smith is not in competition with Jesus – joseph smith was witness to Jesus as moses was to God. that they believe in the holy trinity, God the father, the son (Jesus) and the holy spirit.
there are bad and there are good representatives in every religious group and it’s best we keep that in mind whenever extremely biased things are written or said about any particular group.
for all of us here, it’s good to include references whenever we post statements of fact for sources, and if its our own opinion or speculation then preface with IMO (in my opinion) or the like. that’s a good way of covering our butts anyway, from the copyright sticklers. just a remimder.
still slappin each other down, k and p? remember, all opinions valid here. just gotta be good sports.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Dorian, you said:
“that mrm.org site is just vile. why are those people wasting so much time hating? they can’t be christian. oh wait, they claim to be! God have mercy on them because they will have to face up to their persecuting ways.”
Dorian, I visited that site for the first time just now and while I haven’t looked at all of it, I feel pretty comfortable in defending it. Could you please be more specific about why you feel that site is vile? What are the particular words / comments that you are basing your opinion on? And why you find it vile.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
William, you said: “She has just been sucked in by people who twist the truth about Mormons. ”
William, could you please be more specific about this? I believe you’re talking about Bill Keller and I honestly don’t know what he has said that isn’t true.
To set the record straight for everyone here how has made incorrect assumptions about my views on Mormonism…
I first became aware of what Mormons believe by watching Bill Keller. He wasn’t on a “slam fest” , he was just stating certain Mormon beliefs, that of course, disagreed with the Bible as per his view. Up until then I had never heard those things before, I had always thought that Mormonism was another branch of Christianity. What Bill was saying sounded outrageous to me so I went on the internet and did my own research. One of the sites I viewed was this one..
http://mmoutreachinc.com/mormons/facts.html
I didn’t take this site as fact right off the bat just like I didn’t take what Bill Keller said as fact, right off the bat.
But like I have stated earlier, where I am at now is that I do not believe that Mormon theology is correct.
And the major reason I speak out about it is because I do believe that it is an organization that aggressively seeks converts but is not up front about their true beliefs. And I believe that this kind of practice is abhorrent. That is the problem I have and that is what Bill Keller has also stated is the problem that he has. When he has spoken out against Romney and Beck, he has made it clear that what his problem with them is that they are not being honest about their beliefs. Anyone who has a problem with that.. well, that’s their problem. Bill hasn’t done anything wrong.
William, this is what you said about the site I mentioned above …
http://mmoutreachinc.com/mormons/facts.html
“Now to briefly address the “Mormon’s won’t tell you” comments. I don’t have time to address all of the points one by one, but let’s suffice it to say that each of these statements is either a boldface lie, or they have taken a true Mormon belief and twisted it to present it in the worst possible light. The truth is that most of these militant types don’t want to engage in a civilized conversation. They just want to spew hate. ”
Since this site, this list, is what I am basing many of my questions on, could you please be more specific about your statements about this site? Which are the lies and which have been twisted? If you could just touch on a few to start with.
I would like to see for myself if this site is spewing hate or if they are raising legitimate concerns and stating actual Mormon doctrines / beliefs.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment in moderation
LikeLike
princessxxx said
kay are you serious? i got that site from you,
don’t believe me, look for yourself,
https://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/glen-becks-deception/#comment-5802
that is your comment, you posted that link, and claimed it as a source.
unless your going to say that it was tothewire pretending to be you.
oh, wait a minute, that was you pretending to be tothewire. LOL
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Oh, and I forgot to mention this…
William, you said: “I think Kay has come to realize that passing on these types of comments without investigating on her own was a mistake.”
I am truly not aware of any mistake I’ve realized that I’ve made as far as stating what Mormons believe goes. And that is why I’ve asked you to address these specifically. What I had apologized for at the beginning, which I think is what you are talking about, is certain judgemental remarks I’ve made in the past on this blog. I cannot think of any off hand that I’ve said but I’m sure I’ve said them. One of my first ever judgemental comments of Mormons was not here but on a CNN blog… something to the effect of … Mormon theology being extremely egotistical. Those are the comments that I am apologizing for at this point.
I can’t apologize for the assertions of Mormon beliefs until they are addressed and proven wrong.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have another comment awaiting moderation.
P, you are right. I didn’t recognize the site when I went to it (which was 6 months ago I will add). I am not even 100% sure that the other site I posted is the actual one I went to a couple of years back when I was researching Mormonism for the first time. I’ve noticed recently that there are several with the theme “what Mormons won’t tell you when they knock on your door”. There wasn’t that many 2 yrs or so ago.
I don’t know how much this matters though… I would like the actual claims on these sites of what Mormons believe to be addressed. Which I’m going to go ahead and post the same list here that is on the Glenn Beck post.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that they believe your Church is wrong, your Christian creeds are abomination to God, and you pastor or Priest is a hireling of Satan.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that there is salvation only in their church&emdash;all others are wrong.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that those who have been through their temples are wearing secret underwear to protect themselves from “evil”. This “evil” includes non- Mormons like you.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU about their secret temple rites at all. If they did, you would spot them as non-Christians immediately.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that they think “familiar spirits” are good, and that their Book of Mormon has a “familiar spirit”. Leviticus 19;31 says familiar spirits defile one, and are to be avoided at all costs.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that women receive salvation only through their Mormon husbands, and must remain pregnant for all eternity.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that they intend to be gods themselves some day, and are helping to earn their exaltation to godhood by talking to you.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that they intend to have many wives in heaven, carrying on multiple sex relations throughout eternity, until they have enough children to populate their own earth, so they can be “Heavenly Father” over their own planet!
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that you were once a spirit-child of their heavenly father, and one of his numerous wives before you were born on earth.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that the Virgin Mary really wasn’t a virgin at all but had sex relations with their heavenly father to produce the Mormon version of Jesus Christ
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that they believe Jesus had at least three wives and children while he was on this earth.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that the “heavenly father” they ask you to pray to with them, is really an exalted man that lives on a planet near the star base Kolob, and is not the Heavenly Father of the Bible at all.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that Jesus was really Lucifer’s brother in the spirit world, and it was only due to a “heavenly council” vote that Jesus became our redeemer instead of Satan!!
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that there are over one hundred divisions in Mormonism. They conveniently “forget” this while criticizing the many denominations within the body of Christ
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that all their so- called scriptures such as the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and even their official “Mormon Doctrine” statements contradict each other on MAJOR doctrinal points. The King James Bible is likewise contradicted.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that the reason the Book of Mormon has no maps is because there is not one scrap of archaeological evidence to support it!
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that the state of Utah, which is predominately Mormon, has a higher than the national average of wife-beating, child abuse, and teenage suicide.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that their prophet Joseph Smith was heavily involved in the occult when he founded Mormonism.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that that they encourage visitations from dead relatives from the “spirit world”, a practice forbidden in the Bible. (Deuteronomy 18:10- 12.)
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that there are many accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision besides he one they present to you, and all are different
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that their secret temple oaths are based on the Scottish Rite Masons.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that for years they considered the Negro race inferior, and even one drop of Negro blood prevented a person from entering their temple.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that they expect Christ to return to their temple in Missouri, but they haven’t built the temple He’s supposed to return to, because they don’t own the property. (It is owned by the “Temple Lot Mormons” who have plans o of their own, and won’t let the Salt Lake City group buy it).
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that they consider the Bible to be untrustworthy and full of errors.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that Jesus’ death on the cross only partially saves the believer.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that that according to Anton Lavey’s Satanic Bible, the demon god of the living dead is called “Mormo”. Is it just a coincidence that the Mormons are so concerned with the dead?
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that on their Salt Lake City Temple they prominently display an upside-down star which is a Satanic symbol known as the Goat’s head.. Why?
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that they believe the Archangel Michael came down to earth with several of his celestial wives, and became Adam in the garden of Eden.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that that they believe the angel Gabriel came down to earth and became Noah in the days of the flood.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that their Prophet Joseph Smith prophesied falsely many times. For example, he foretold the second coming of Christ for 1891. The Bible teaches that one false prophecy puts a prophet under death sentence. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that their Prophet Joseph Smith did not die as a martyr as they claim, but was killed during a gun battle in which he himself killed two men and wounded a third.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU about the Mountain Meadows Massacre in which they brutally murdered an innocent wagon train of settlers, of over one hundred men, women, and most of the children, traveling through Utah.
MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that Joseph Smith taught that there were inhabitants on the moon, and Brigham Young taught there were inhabitants on the sun as well!
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have another comment awaiting moderation.
LikeLike
dorian said
kay at this point many people have given you their honest answers as best as they can – three people of the LDS faith have been very articulate and thorough explaining their own religion to you. just like you still are not satisfied with the validity of your president being born in this country with the official document of the state of hawaii presented by the state then you won’t be satisfied with william’s answers. just continue with your belief that the lds religion is a satanic cult because we know and you know that’s what you feel in your heart and mind. and now you’re exhuming the same old arguments for chrissake. birthers are wanting the state of hawaii to produce a long form birth certificate when they didn’t produce one. i know somebody who was born the same year in oahu and she has the same certificate of live birth. it’s a non-issue. squeeze blood out of stone, will you? yes, mormons won’t tell you your church is wrong, and you should show the same respect.
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
and kay, i’m apologizing again for losing my cool with you.
it’s just, i don’t like your boyfriends. beck and keller, schoolyard bullies.
do you think there is something in the culture of the area where we live that makes you and i so argumentative?
anyway, kay, did you see where Roz of 1-800-AXE-GARY is somehow involved in a homicide at coconut and 21st street. i just saw that on the news. what’s up with that? i didn’t catch the whole story.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Thanks P, I appreciate that and I apologize also for doing the same. And to show everybody that I’m guilty of hypocrisy also sometimes, as I’m telling you to take your meds, mine have been sitting at the pharmacy for 3 days now… I’m the one who needs to take my meds!
I think it’s probably the heat also that gets us so worked up? Although, I’m sure you’ve noticed our nice little cold front today… ahhhhhhh! But I was inside all day and it’s hotter in here than outside… hence my crabby mood I guess, and of course not taking my meds.
I just looked up that story, I hadn’t heard about it.. I hate satelite tv I don’t get any local channels… I miss SNN and news 40. I can’t wait till my stupid contract is up and I can go back to Comcast.
It’s another sad story of a wasted life of a young person with a positive future ahead of them…
The guy was leaving a party at a house owned by Roz from Ask Gary..
http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/Aspiring-dentist-killed-in-Sarasota-shooting/6uzXhmiQDU-uQSIXrYyYlg.cspx?rss=794
http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/Sarasota-robbery-witness-murdered/F5q6hXX5fkeuQvKU4w9yHQ.cspx
LikeLike
William said
Dear friend (Kay):
Thank you for the conversations that we did have, I learned some things about Christians that I didn’t know before and for the most part enjoyed our discussions. I tried to encourage and inspire you to keep the conversation civil, to discuss one point at a time, and to think for yourself rather than copying. I had begun to think that we could actually have an intelligent dialogue. Apparently I was wrong.
But, 33 questions at once is not a discussion, it’s nothing more than flinging out accusations, which are unsupported distortions of our beliefs, in an effort to denigrate and slander members of my faith. If there is a site moderator, shame on you for allowing this type of blatant hate speech to be posted on your site again and again. Free speech is one thing, perpetuating hate speech and lies about a religious group is quite another thing altogether.
Kay, it’s too bad; I thought we were actually beginning to have a meaningful conversation. Sorry it didn’t work out, but I cannot, in good conscience continue to participate in a dialogue that has declined to this level.
To everyone, it has been a pleasure meeting you and having this dialogue. I have learned much from you and hope that you have found these discussions informative and interesting. You can find me at http://www.MormonBlog.com where I will take the time to address some of the more blatant lies presented above.
God Bless…
William
LikeLike
kay~ms said
William, sorry I messed up again. This list wasn’t brought up first by me. And you had mentioned it also when you made a claim that I had acknowledged that I knew I was wrong for posting these things (before). So I felt I had the right to post them here (in defense) since you made that incorrect statement.
I knew this is how our conversation would end. The restrictions were just too hard for me. Although I did make an honest effort to abide by your rules.
This list clearly upsets you and that isn’t what I wanted to do. But, I do want answers to these things that you say are not true. Do you think I am out of line for wanting to know the truth here?
This list might seem like hate speech to you but to non Mormons it is a list of beliefs that are or are not true. Just calling them lies and hate speach without any explanations or corrections is not a legitimate response. Which, by the way, is exactly the response that I’ve gotten several times now from Mormons. Just a sweeping general response that it is all lies or twisted truths. I can’t seem to get any detailed responses to each of these points…. why?
These claims/ questions are out there over and over, these aren’t isolated pionts and most are made by ex Mormons, which true or not that does give them some sense of legitimacy… if you want to dispell them they need to be addressed! Just calling it hate speech is just not enough.
William, you have said several times “ask a Mormon”… well, I AM! But because of a technicality you are now not going to answer? This doesn’t make sense to me.
I am not going to go to your site to get “some” of the answers. I wanted direct answers to direct questions and I know I won’t get them on your site, it was hard enough just getting them here.
There were several questions that I asked that did not get answered (not including the list).
Going all the way back to this one (comment #72)…
My question is: Then what was so special about Jesus that his sacrifice produced infinite power to save all if we can all become gods equal with Him and the Father?
Well, what can I say? I asked to many questions at once and so now you won’t answer any of them.
But, in one sense, I do give you credit for coming this far … Mormons are in a very tough spot in these situations, I do understand that.
In parting last words the most important thing I think I can say is to please put Jesus first always. He loves you more than Joseph Smith every could have. And He proved it.
LikeLike
dorian said
kay, you did try as best as you can.
Thank you, William, for sharing much of your time. it was not wasted. i know it wasn’t just me who learned much about the LDS faith. God bless..
LikeLike
princessxxx said
i know kay, isn’t this cooler weather great, i love this time of year.
i know what you mean, my drug dealer, oops i mean pharmacist, hasn’t come thru for me in a while. just kidding.
thanks for those links, i thought Roz from 1-800-axe-gary was somehow involved in the shooting. so many tragic teenage murders in our area, huh? it’s not just a chicago thing.
oh yes, and thanks for william for stopping by. he seemed like a nice guy.
i always thought mormons were really nice people,
but along came glenn beck.
and chet on mtv’s the real world, he was pretty annoying, too. but i guess there is one or two in every crowd.
i suppose that was the moral of the story all along.
LikeLike
dorian said
the end.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Dorian, I did try but I guess I could have been more diligent. In retrospest I wish I had made some changes to that list… I can see where “Mormons won’t tell you” is offensive. I should have changed it to “Do Mormons believe?”. And also I find fault with the creator of that list, they should have put their reasons for why those things are possible beliefs of Mormons. But I don’t know if these changes would have made a difference with William.
I don’t believe that those asserted beliefs just came out of nowhere. If I thought they were just made up claims with the intention of hurting Mormon believers as William has claimed, I would not want to pass them on. He is completely wrong on that accusation. I strongly believe that they are grounded in Mormon writings and they are also claimed beliefs by ex Mormons in many, if not all, cases. Yes, they could have been “twisted” or misrepresented in some instances but that is precisely why a Mormon should address them, why William should have addressed them… each one individually, so there is no misunderstandings.
The only thing that William should have found offensive about that list is the implication that Mormons are not honest about their beliefs. And, unfortunately, since he has chosen to not address these supposed beliefs it just furthers the assumption that that is the case.
I am not going to pass up the earned opportunity here to assert the very likely possibility that William exited this discussion because he could not answer my questions. I should have gotten answers to these and it is wrong for William to not answer them. Especially when he has stated over and over to ask a Mormon. Again, I’m asking…
Here are the questions that I would still like answers to and believe I am rightfully entitled to…
comment #72
My question is: Then what was so special about Jesus that his sacrifice produced infinite power to save all if we can all become gods equal with Him and the Father?
comment #77
If good works are required that means that all of the credit cannot be given to Christ for our salvation. One can say, “yes, Jesus saved me but I did this and this and this and that got me into heaven also…if I hadn’t done this and this and this… I wouldn’t have gotten in”.
How is that not taking credit for part of their salvation?
comment #77
If someone ignored God and rejected Christ’s gift, lived his own way thru out his life and then on his deathbed by some HONEST revelation became TRULY remorseful, and TRULY believed in what Jesus did for him, .. finally REALIZED the truth and accepted Jesus’ gift… why shouldn’t he be saved???
to add here…
If he is not granted salvation, wouldn’t that make Christ unforgiving? And wouldn’t that make His grace something to be earned instead of given? Does’t this take the grace out of “Grace”??
Comment #79
William said: ” If nothing more was required to apply the power of Grace to our lives than saying “I believe,” then why go to church, or study the Bible, or do anything else that is expected of a Christian? Good question.”
This statement proves my point… you are acknowledging here that the reason that you go to church, study the Bible or do anything else… is to EARN His Grace…
How is this not payment instead of Grace? HOw does this not invalidate Christ’s GIFT of salvation?
HOW can you now convince me (and yourself!) that you are not doing these works in order to receive something in return instead of out of love for Him??
How can you honestly tell me that this theology is not damaging to Christ’s sacrificial work on the cross??
And therefore, how can you be sure that this is not the work of satan? Which leads to another question that I would like a direct answer to…
Do you acknowledge that is a primary goal of satan’s, really his ultimate goal… to devalue Christ’s work on the cross? Wouldn’t that be his biggest accomplishment?
And so therefore, can’t you see how people would make the connection between Mormonism and satan?
And add to that the satanic symbols etc. that are present thru out this religion?
Comment #85
God will never owe us… we will ALWAYS owe HIM. By doing the good works first, it puts God in a debter situation. Do you feel that it is right to see God in that way? As someone who Owes us?
Comment #112
You said: “The followers of Jesus, who had once numbered in the tens of thousands, by and by became offended by his doctrine or frightened by the persecution which surrounded Him. ”
What does that statement imply? Jesus once had tens of thousands of followers and then he didn’t? “by and by (they) became offended and frightened”. The only passage that I know of that even remotely describes how many people dissented is the one you quoted…”From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” “Many” is extremely subjective. Can I ask what you are basing your implication on that Jesus once had “tens of thousands of followers” and then didn’t?
Comment #128
knowing the beliefs of Mormonism (as I believe I do, yes I could be wrong on some things), it is actually understandable in some ways… after all, Joseph Smith is now a god (right? or he will become one?)… equal with Jesus. But, with that observation being acknowledged, you do claim that that is not the case. That Jesus is more revered. Or am I wrong about that? I’m not clear on this.
And also, as I mentioned earlier, it seemed obvious to me that you heavily favored Joseph Smith as having more loyal followers than Jesus did. You inferred that Jesus lost all (most) of His followers while Smith did not…. again, could you please tell me how you arrive at that conclusion? This is important because this is where I see your bias for Joseph Smith over Jesus. And as I described, I cannot see the justification for this. Please clear this up for me. thanks.
These are the things that I am still left wondering about…. William, if you insist on not answering these questions I am asking that you please direct me to the website where I can get the answers to these questions. I feel that you at least owe me that much.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment in awaiting moderation.
LikeLike
dorian said
kay, if william feels that he’s given you the answers and doesn’t care to discuss anymore then we’ll go with that. i don’t doubt he’s capable of answering additional questions – he just chooses not to, per reasons he gave in post #148. i suggest cutting and pasting your questions in post #158 to
http://www.mormonblog.com/, perhaps someone else will answer. i just went there and saw an article by william, http://www.mormonblog.com/articles/74/1/224/Mormon-view-of-the-Godhead-compared-to-the-Trinity.html
best to keep a tone different from post #143 – if a mormon or muslim gave you something like that, you wouldn’t like it either. as they say, you get more bees with honey than vinegar (or something like that).
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Dorian, it might be acceptable for you but it isn’t for me. And he didn’t claim that he gave me the answers.. you keep saying that because it seems that you want to make me out to be unreasonable here. As per this comment, you said:
“kay at this point many people have given you their honest answers as best as they can – three people of the LDS faith have been very articulate and thorough explaining their own religion to you.”
I have no idea who or what you are talking about here…what 3 people? And William is the least of these 3 people to have “thoroughly” explained their religion to me.
William gave conditions that he knew I wouldn’t be able to follow. And he needed to do that to give himself an easy exit. He got to promote his religion and website to anyone who would listen and get out when the questions got too dificult to be able to answer honestly. As I can only assume (because he didn’t address it) he is working towards obtaining his godhood by preaching his “religion” to you.
It’s so upsetting to see what this “prophet” has done to so many people. As you have seen here, they are literaly brainwashed.
But it can’t all be blamed on Joseph Smith. People have to take some of the responsibility themselves. Over and over again, they make the choice to ignore conflicting information, facts and sensible reasoning.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
comment in moderation
LikeLike
kay~ms said
P, yes it is extremely sad, the guy in Chicago and this guy here. I’m so tired of seeing these stories. And it does seem like every other week there is a story like this here.
And I also want to say that yes, I believe that most Mormons are good people (mitt romney scares me though). I don’t want to perpetuate any kind of idea that they are not (as a whole).
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Still no response from William.. no reccomendation as to where I can get the answers to my questions that he refuses to answer because he was too offended to continue. I would think that if he truly wanted to defend those “lies” and truly wanted to explain the “correct” Mormon beliefs he would do so in spite of being offended. Especially since I have a valid argument for posting that list.. he brought it up first and made an incorrect assumption of me concerning it. That’s another reason why I failed to follow his rules… they were too one sided. He could bring those things up when it suit him but I couldn’t.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have another comment in moderation
LikeLike
princessxxx said
that comment should have stayed in moderation for all of eternity.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG, you said: “Kay, open your mind for a minute that perhaps all faiths are valid, that Jesus does teach us the same message as Buddha for example. I read the Bible and I get that message, clearly.”
TBG.. I do consider myself to have an open mind. I can say that I understand where you’re coming from. What you are saying does make sense… all of these religions (most) promote peace, brotherly love and a higher consciousness to be closer with our Creator.. did I get that right? Probably not…
but where you are wrong is when you make the erroneous claim of what Jesus’ message is, that it is the same as Buddha etc etc. Jesus’ message is clear.. to love God. He does teach about other things (God’s commandments) but His main message is to love God (the most important commandment) and understand that He loves us. And the primary way to understand that is to acknowledge what He did for us by sacrificing His Son for our Salvation.
Those that have had the chance to know His Son and what He did for us and then reject Him are condemned. That is what I believe.
You said: “There are billions of people who disagree, and your opinion that they are going to hell if they don’t believe things exactly the way you do is wrong, IN MY OPINION!”
Now, are you saying that I am wrong for choosing to believe in Jesus and what the Bible says or are you saying that you believe that my actual belief is wrong? I’m not sure what you’re saying here.
I hope you are not trying to say that I am wrong for making a decision to believe something that is different from what you believe to be the truth. If you are saying that you believe that my belief is wrong, I don’t have a problem with that. You disagree with the belief that people who reject Jesus will not receive salvation. I accept your choice to believe that. I don’t accept your belief.. I disagree with it.
You said: “What I’m trying to say in a nutshell is that different beliefs do NOT conflict with each other when one realizes and understands and KNOWS that the core message at the heart of these beliefs is the SAME! ”
Again, the core messages are NOT the same. The core message of Christianity is to humbly accept God’s gracious Gift of salvation. To know that He loves us and to love Him in return. It’s about God. It’s not about us obtaining a higher conscience or higher understanding. It’s about God!
You said: “Well, Kay,
Maybe Satan has clouded my mind to give me the viewpoint I have. Maybe by sharing that viewpoint I am doing the devil’s work and anyone who hears my opinion and agrees with it will burn in hell forever as a result.”
Did I read that you stated awhile back that you weren’t even sure if there was such a thing as sin?
If that is what you believe, then most definitely, satan has clouded your mind. I’ve heard that before from liberals. That is probably his biggest and best con job. It is akin to the false Mormon belief that works are required along with Christ’s sacrifice. To believe that sin doesn’t exist is to say, again, that what Christ did on the cross was meaningless.
Again, your philosophy makes sense… that all religions have the same message. But what is your basis for that belief other than it makes sense?
Like for example, with Christianity, we have the Bible and the documented history that goes with it. We have witnesses. What do you have to support your religion / philosophy?
There are so many “religions” out there that “make sense”. But none of them have anything solid to base those beliefs on. They mostly just have the writings of a single person.
Many Mormons have prayed to receive the truth and claimed to have received it also.. William as one example. So right there, one of you is wrong. Because William does believe that if you don’t believe in in Joseph Smith, as a true prophet, you won’t be saved. It’s very possible that you also mistakenly believe that you’ve received the “truth” after much prayer. And as a Christian, I can tell you that it is because neither of you were praying to the true God. That is my belief.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay, when you say “Now, are you saying that I am wrong for choosing to believe in Jesus and what the Bible says or are you saying that you believe that my actual belief is wrong? I’m not sure what you’re saying here.”
What I’m saying is that the message of Jesus is one story to communicate the one and only core spiritual teaching that is the basis of all faiths. You’re not wrong to believe in it. What I’m saying is that other religions DO teach the same message when you look at their core message, but use different stories to communicate that message because they were written by and for people of different cultures and different worldviews.
How do I know? There was a light bulb went off over my head when I had studied this subject from all sides for many years and when my mind was finally in the right place to receive it. It’s called enlightenment. That’s how. It is direct experience. I’m not taking anyone’s word for it second-hand. I’m not getting it from a book that’s thousands of years old and riddled with historical and scientific errors if you take it literally.
I also have witnesses and documented history to support my story, witnesses and documented history that is not as shaky as that which Christians claim support their Scriptures. The Gospels were written by uncertain authors decades after Jesus’s life and edited heavily by who knows how many more authors. The history of fulfilled prophecies in many cases is based on mistranslations or misinterpretations of older texts, and in some other cases the “prophecy” was written AFTER the fact to which it refers. Your witnesses and history are NOT good things to base your faith on, because as history goes it is very unreliable.
I know the fundies especially will dispute this, but another thing I have learned about those who insist on taking the Bible literally is that they have some type of mental blockage that prevents them from acknowledging evidence that contradicts their INTERPRETATION of what they believe, and that same condition somehow enables them to spread distortions and falsehoods. I am not sure whether or not they are aware of this condition, but I consider it a serious mental deficiency.
Again, I realize that some, maybe even most, Christians, fundies or not, mean well. Some may believe what they do out of fear, but some genuinely do act from love as Jesus instructs us. As Dorian pointed out, the world has some true Christians who are not even “Christian” by most people’s definitions of the word. I even end one of my essays on my web site with the observation that if you want to be like Jesus, become a Buddhist.
Before you start making lists of all your “witnesses and history” and demanding lists from me of mine, take a few deep breaths. I won’t provide them. I don’t need them anymore, and if you’re ready to receive what I’ve received you will find it yourself. If not, where you’re at is right for you. I do believe that insisting that your interpretation of the message of Jesus is the ONLY way for everyone is wrong, even though I acknowledge that is what most people who call themselves Christian believe.
Peace, TBG
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Also, when you say “You disagree with the belief that people who reject Jesus will not receive salvation.” that isn’t what I mean. What I mean is that people of other faiths DO accept Jesus, BUT they don’t call the God within Jesus.
Yes Jesus is the only way, but that “I am” is within each of us and one can have union with the divine consciousness that manifests us and the universe whatever culture you come from and whichever is the dominant religion of that culture.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay wrote: “It’s not about us obtaining a higher conscience or higher understanding. It’s about God!”
All the faiths I know of teach us to let go our ego, to let go and let God. That IS what it’s about. To insist that one’s own interpretation of whichever religion one belongs to is the ONLY way is the ego talking.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
So, you acknowledge that Jesus is the only way but it seems that you don’t agree that we must acknowledge and accept what He did for us on the cross in order to be saved? Is that right?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG said: “I do believe that insisting that your interpretation of the message of Jesus is the ONLY way for everyone is wrong,”
I am having such a problem with this. What you are saying is that, even though you advocate that all religions are “valid”, I am wrong for believing in mine. You are not making sense.
What YOU are insisting is that I believe YOUR way. And if I don’t I am wrong. And not only me and all Christians, but the Muslims, the Mormons, etc. etc. We are all wrong for believing what our religions say. What you are doing is judging the person for what they choose (ignoring their personal right) instead of judging the belief itself. And just as I am “insisting” that my beliefs are true… you are doing the very same thing.
I think I’ve figured out the problem here… you and Dorian and all of the other anti Christians here are offended whenever a Christian states their Christian beliefs. That part is clear. what I don’t understand yet is why. And are you equally offended when a Muslim or Mormon or a satanist or anyone else states their beliefs? I haven’t seen where that is the case. Could it be because you all do know that Christianity is the true faith? But you are fighting it? That’s the only sensible explanation I can come up with. It’s a simple case of ego.. not wanting to admit the truth. Because you don’t want to have to change the way you live.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Let me say it one more time, Kay.
Your interpretation of the story used by Christians to teach the one and only spiritual teaching of all time is right for you, but may not be right and doesn’t have to be right for everyone else. A Mormon’s interpretation or a Muslim’s interpretation or a Jew’s interpretation is right for them, but ONLY IF they genuinely seek the God within and follow the hints given in their respective belief systems to answer that knocking at the door of the heart. If they do, it does not matter whether or not they call that God within Jesus.
So let me see if I get what you’re saying. You believe that your way is the ONLY way for everyone, that the ONLY way is to accept Jesus as your personal saviour. I agree, but we differ on what that means. I believe one can accept Jesus as one’s personal saviour even if one belongs to a different faith and call Him by another name (or NO name) as long as it is indeed Jesus one is listening to and not one’s ego.
It is my opinion that you, or anyone that insists that their way is the ONLY way for everyone, is stuck in their ego self and hasn’t learned to “let go and let God.”
Am I clear enough? I obviously do not make the claim that you make, that my way is the ONLY way. I acknowledge that different people are at different levels of spiritual, intellectual, cultural, physical and emotional development and that works for one person might be totally incomprehensible to another. I also acknowledge that what SEEM to be conflicts between different belief systems are NOT actually conflicts unless one is focusing on the trivial details of how the spiritual teaching is delivered, missing the whole point of the message.
I don’t expect you to change your ways based on what I say. I hope you have a better understanding of where I’m coming from, even if you don’t believe me or agree with me at all.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
And I am offended by your telling me that Christianity is the one true faith and that is why I “fight it.” I am not fighting it. I have always loved truth above all else, and as I see it, Christians do NOT have a monopoly on the truth but they think they do because they are stuck in their ego and aren’t truly letting it go.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Dorian said it best, there are some true Christians in the world who are NOT Christian according to the generally accepted meaning of the word. The Gospel of Christ has been castrated. Jesus teaches us the exact same message as Buddha. I see it clearly. Obviously you don’t. I am not evil and I am not lying. You probably think either one or the other or both is the case. Oh well.
Like I said, there are different paths for different people, but some people can’t see that these different paths end up at the same place. You might be (probably are) one of those people, am I right?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I am NOT insisting you believe anything MY WAY!
Let me make it clear again. Your way IS a valid way. Where we differ is that you think your way is the ONLY way for everyone else.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I already acknowledged that your philosophical view makes sense and that I do see where you’re coming from. You’re the one who is having a problem here. You are insisting that I am wrong for believing what I believe.
You said: “A Mormon’s interpretation or a Muslim’s interpretation or a Jew’s interpretation is right for them, but ONLY IF they genuinely seek the God within and follow the hints given in their respective belief systems to answer that knocking at the door of the heart. If they do, it does not matter whether or not they call that God within Jesus.”
Now, are you not saying here that everyone is right as long as they intepret their religion the way you think they should??
Please, I’ve asked you several direct questions so far and you haven’t answered any of them in a direct manner. I am not really seeing much difference right now between you and William here.
I’ve asked about your belief on sin… do you believe it exists?
I’ve asked if you are saying that I am wrong for choosing my form of religion?
Are you telling me that I can believe in my religion but it should be the way you interpret it? That is what you are saying… You are saying that I am wrong for believing in what my religion says. And at the same time, you are saying that all religions are correct.
Just quit telling me I am wrong for utilizing my right to believe what I want…. that is extreme ignorance… that you are accusing me of being guilty off… can’t you see the hypocrisy here??
We disagree on what we believe… I don’t have a problem with you for disagreeing. I do have a problem with your beliefs.
You seem to be having a problem with me because of what I believe. You are telling me what I should and shouldn’t believe.
That even though my religion says that if someone does not accept Jesus as their saviour they will not be saved, I am wrong for believing that.
you said: “Your interpretation of the story used by Christians to teach the one and only spiritual teaching of all time is right for you, but may not be right and doesn’t have to be right for everyone else.”
Everyone has the right to choose to believe that or not. That’s you right. And it is my right to believe that what I believe does apply to everyone.
You are offended by that… that’s your problem.. DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO BELIEVE! You can disagree with what I beieve.. but don’t tell me what to believe!
And there is no ego involved here.. it’s only in your warped interpretation. Just as Hors claims that it is egotisitcal to believe that God cares about us.
I think I need to write another article.. it will be titled “Reverse Egotism”.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have to go for now… I will address the rest of your comments later…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Clarification (then I’ll shut up and wait for the fireworks)
The Gospel of Christ as it is understood and taught by most Christians is a castrated version of the teachings of Jesus.
Also, getting rid of one’s ego is the biggest ego trip there is. I am reminded of when Buddha told some students to get rid of desire. So they stomped on desire, they killed desire, they banished desire, then Buddha told them they were still desiring not to desire!
See the trap here? There is a way out. Some call it Jesus. Some have other names for the same experience.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
What you are trying to do is rewrite Christianity. You are saying.. “it’s okay to believe in Christianity as long as you don’t believe it’s main teaching.. that without accepting Jesus as our Saviour we will not be saved”
Yes, I do think you are fighting on the side of satan. Because you are insisting that I not believe what Jesus did for me and every other human being. You are trying to discount what Jesus did. You can give me some long explanation as to why I’m wrong.. but bottom line that is what you are doing.
later… and peace to you also TBG.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Okay, I’ll cut and paste your questions and answer them as if on a quiz show in the lightning round.
Kay: Now, are you not saying here that everyone is right as long as they intepret their religion the way you think they should??
TBG: No.
Kay: I’ve asked about your belief on sin… do you believe it exists?
TBG: If you believe it exists, it does exist for you. In general, no.
Kay: Are you telling me that I can believe in my religion but it should be the way you interpret it? That is what you are saying…
TBG: You are misinterpreting what I say and putting words into my mouth. That is NOT what I am saying.
Kay: And it is my right to believe that what I believe does apply to everyone.
TBG: Yep. I believe you are mistaken, but I freely admit I could be wrong and don’t advise anyone to listen to anything I say.
Kay: DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO BELIEVE!
TBG: OKAY! (I wasn’t anyway).
Kay: And there is no ego involved here.. it’s only in your warped interpretation.
TBG: From my perspective, yours is the warped interpretation. Whatever. I might leave this blog too as William did. It is pointless to argue with a fanatic. If I do stay, it will be because of Dorian and Princess. You are very intolerant Kay, but then, that’s what your particular brand of religion teaches you so it’s not entirely your fault. I forgive you.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Are you saying Kay that the God you believe in isn’t powerful enough or resourceful enough to reach different people by whatever means are most appropriate for whatever level of understanding they are capable of?
Just something to ponder..
LikeLike
princessxxx said
kay, this is off subject, but did you catch glenn beck this afternoon about the H1N1?
i couldn’t believe my eyes.
i’ve been watching him everyday for the last 5 weeks so i would know what i was talking about for “debating” purposes.
well, today, for the first time, he was reasonable and calm, none of the shouting and arm flailing and goofy cartoon faces. he gave both sides of the argument.
it was the first time i watched his show that i didn’t want to kick him in the nards.
he also admitted he was ADHD, which explains a lot. it doesn’t explain why he worships satan, but it does explain a lot. lol
I still hate him, though.
LikeLike
dorian said
P – glenn probably took his adhd meds. ritalin, maybe.
TBG, don’t leave us. you have a lot of knowledge to share and a lot of what you say reaffirms much of what i believe personally. kay’s passion for her beliefs drives her to test and challenge anyone else who isn’t in agreement. bottom line is kay will always insist that her truth is the only valid truth. many have brought up the need for tolerance and acceptance of other faiths and beliefs, and all were swept into “the hypocritical liberals” bin. she’s a fundie christian on fire and finds joy in fighting with the the non-fundies. so what do we do? just accept her for what she is and move on to discuss other topics with the others. i confess to recruiting those from the lds faith and others in order to feed our kay. because everybody needs a test of tolerance. and we all learn something new from the “discussions”. i have invited the satanists and the scientologists as well but no visits yet. the liberal christians were here last year. that was interesting. see http://liberalslikechrist.org/. anyway, everybody throws up their hands and leaves after a few days. and kay will gleefully declare herself a winner. because she’s vain. and that’s our basic formula for why adkob exists.
the subliminal mantra for this blog is ‘tolerance’. and that can be elusive at times.
our second mantra is ‘laughter is the best medicine’ and princess is dean for that department.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Oh, so Kay is one of the village idiots who are one of the, if not THE, main sources of strife in the world today. The ignorance, arrogance, and intolerance of those who only understand a fundamentalist interpretation of whatever religion they belong to is definitely one of the, if not THE, biggest problems facing humanity and one of the, if not THE, greatest threat to the future of the human race.
Kay does reason and communicate better than most fundies I’ve been exposed to, but as Frank Schaeffer pointed out, these people are “beyond crazy.” Of course, they’re PROUD of that and want everyone to be as insane as they are. That shows a curious lack of faith, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I hope Kay, that some of what I’ve said can reach you, just a little, in hopes that you will understand you don’t have to be as ignorant, arrogant, and intolerant as you are. Well, if you don’t get it in this lifetime, Jesus will tell you Himself.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay, I appreciate your passion for what you think is the truth, and I also appreciate your efforts to understand my point of view and your humility in saying that you probably don’t get it. Thanks for trying though. God Bless You and yours.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Dang, I tried to stop comment number 181 but was too late! My apologies to everyone. When I see ignorance, arrogance and intolerance it irks me, as it does most people I’m sure…Hey moderator! Any chance of deleting message 181 AND this one?
If not, well, I’ll stand by what I said. I don’t mean to hurt anyone. I stand for truth, and sometimes the truth hurts.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
oh no.. don’t delete it… you said it and I don’t have a problem with it because I have used those same words. When I use them I don’t mean them as insults, I mean them as true descriptions of another’s behaviour and if you are doing the same that is fine with me. I also, of course, would like to address those accusations…
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
i appreciate kay, she stands her ground and takes mega abuse, but she is like the energizer bunnie.
she often makes me mad as heck, but, that’s because i transfer bill keller on to her. sometimes i think she gets a kick out of busting our balls.
and dorian once told me that kay is inspiring and that she is. i think he said “inspiration comes from the strangest places” or something to that effect.?
so i don’t want either kay or TBG to leave. i could stand to learn a little tolerance myself.
JUST A LITTLE.
but you know what kay. it is a good time for you to post something new., it’s just been me and dorian and ota for a while. an art post. you must have an artist you like.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
The arrogant accusation I already admitted and it’s not exclusive to me on this blog. As for “ignorant” and “intolerant”.
I am going to ask that you please explain how you have come to those conclusions / accusations because I disagree.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I’ll see what I can find P… and thanks for tolerating me…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Hey I get to say it this time:
I have a comment awaiting moderation! lol lol lol
It is the one AFTER the one I wanted deleted and BEFORE the one where I request that one be deleted along with the request to delete it. It shows on my screen, but says it is awaiting moderation so I don’t know if anyone else (besides the moderator and me) can see it yet. Hey, what is the difference where some posts show up right away and others don’t?
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
oh no, i actually like you, i fight and argue with everyone.
even d9.
i’m always bustin his chops.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
In general, perhaps not in every case but certainly in general, arrogance, ignorance and intolerance are the three dominant personality traits of people who can only understand or believe in a fundamentalist literalist interpretation of whatever religion they belong to. It doesn’t matter whether or not we’re talking Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, even Buddhists…it’s the fundamentalists what cause unrest in the world.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
It’s like the local yokels who assume that everyone else in the world has an accent except for them; everyone else talks funny but not us, no sirree bob! When you study other cultures and other beliefs, not in an effort to put them down or find fault but in an honest inquiry for truth, you learn more about your own culture and beliefs. It gives perspective.
A lot of fundies cannot and will not tolerate anyone believing anything differently than what they believe. To me, that is the height of insecurity. I hadn’t used the phrase village idiot in terms of fundamentalism before, but it does fit perfectly. Fundie interpretations are the “slow ways for slow-witted people” I was talking about in another post.
There are also fast ways for quick-witted people. The quick-witted people may be able to see where the slow ways and the fast ways end up at the same place, and why they HAVE to be different, but the slow-witted people just can’t grasp that. They’re not in the place yet where they can. There’s no shame in that, but when they try to force their viewpoint on everyone else THAT’S what causes many if not most of the problems in the world.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Perhaps my answer seems arrogant, but I am just telling it like I see it. I will be the first to claim ignorance, arrogance and intolerance for myself. I am ignorant of ultimate knowledge and wisdom. I am arrogant to think I know anything at all. I am intolerant of lies and hatred. I am sure we can agree that we are alike in many ways.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
ok.. but I’m still waiting for you to explain how you have come to the conclusion that I’m ignorant and intolerant… I waiting for you to justify those accusations.
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
kay, while we are waiting for that, i wanted you to see this. remember you said world net daily wants everyone to have free speech? i’m not sure if those were your exact words but it was something like that.
what do you make of this?
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/outthere/otfarah.html
Exhibit 24: Joseph Farah, Crusher of Dissent
WorldNetDaily’s editor wants to censor views he disagrees with by bringing back the Hollywood blacklist.
By Terry Krepel
Posted 9/8/2003
How can Joseph Farah top himself after advocating the murder of adulterers? Why, bring back the Hollywood blacklist, of course!
Set off by an article in which Johnny Depp allegedly called the United States a “dumb puppy that has big teeth” (though he said later his views were misrepresented and insisted he wasn’t trying to be anti-American) Farah called for that draconian solution in a Sept. 4 column. Farah’s reasoned reaction to Depp? “I say we should make certain this scumbucket never works in America again.”
Farah went on to cite the usual suspects — Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, the Dixie Chicks, Janeane Garofolo, Sean Penn — and then demanded: “It’s time to silence these people. It’s time to force them to get real jobs and perform real work and learn the unusual and undeserved blessings America has bestowed upon them.” Like the First Amendment right of free speech, perhaps?
Farah then goes on to praise the blacklisting of suspected communists in Hollywood in the 1950s: “It was a good thing. It was the right thing to do at the right time in history. And, as America finds itself beleaguered in the world against – literally surrounded by – enemies who seek to destroy it, we cannot allow traitors privileged status in the entertainment industry.”
Farah followed this up the next day with a laundry list of celebrities he denounces as “dilletantes,” “spoiled-brat political activists masquerading as entertainers” and “enemies of the people” complete with allegedly “anti-American” quotes attributed to them.
What Farah — and, by extension, WorldNetDaily — really seems to be interested in is not the “fiercely independent” ideals it continually espouses (a cynical and bogus contention, as ConWebWatch has long ago exposed WND’s slanted and plagiarized stories and stacked commentary page) but the complete muzzling of views he disagrees with. He wants something more than to “stand up to these pathetic loudmouths in Hollywood” — he apparently wants to remove a particular viewpoint from the public forum.
Isn’t that a strange position for someone who calls himself a journalist to be taking?
or perhaps the 12th imam? LOL
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG said: “In general, perhaps not in every case but certainly in general, arrogance, ignorance and intolerance are the three dominant personality traits of people who can only understand or believe in a fundamentalist literalist interpretation of whatever religion they belong to.”
How is that any different from someone saying that anyone who doesn’t believe in the main message of Christianity has those same traits?
It is ok for you to deem people arrogant, ignorant and intolerant because they choose to believe in something that you don’t agree with? But I’m guessing that it would not be okay for me to say the same about people who don’t agree with Christianity?
Again, you are guilty of exactly what you are accusing me of.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
And you said: “Are you saying Kay that the God you believe in isn’t powerful enough or resourceful enough to reach different people by whatever means are most appropriate for whatever level of understanding they are capable of?
Just something to ponder..”
By my not agreeing with your philosophy in no way implies that I believe God’s power is limited… you are twisting / stretching things here. My belief is that God has made it pretty simple so that all of us can understand… at it really is simple… either you accept or reject God’s grace thru what Jesus did on the cross. There’s no need to complicate things… that was always one of the biggest problems I’ve had with people and their deep philosophies. It’s not necessary. And it would exclude an awful lot of people who couldn’t figure it out.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
And also, your accusation of my being a “fanatic”… how did I get that label?
What constitutes a religious fanatic to you?
And again here, you called me intolerant…
“You are very intolerant Kay, but then, that’s what your particular brand of religion teaches you so it’s not entirely your fault. ”
Please elaborate… and how does “my” “brand” of Christianity teach intolerance? Christianity teaches peace and love for all people.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
P, you went back to 2003 for that? Well, Fahar may not be for free speech for all. But I can certainly understand his frustration with the hollywood liberals. They have low moral standards and too much free press and influence… a bad combination. Just look at how they all supported Polanski.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG said: “Am I clear enough? I obviously do not make the claim that you make, that my way is the ONLY way.”
But you are advocating that your way is the only way… you are insisting that everyone believe that all faiths are valid.. that is your way. And if someone chooses instead to believe in Jesus as the only way to be saved (the Christian belief) then they are ignorant, arrogant and intolerant. Because they are not seeing it the way you do even though you have nothing to base your beliefs on other than a “lightbulb going off over your head” and some witnesses and history that you won’t reveal… got it.
And you said: “Also, when you say “You disagree with the belief that people who reject Jesus will not receive salvation.” that isn’t what I mean. What I mean is that people of other faiths DO accept Jesus, BUT they don’t call the God within Jesus.”
ok… what about the Muslims who believe Jesus was just a prophet I believe, but they do not believe in Him as their Saviour. In this sense, they are rejecting Jesus and in my faith that means that they will not be saved.
But I do agree with you in a sense that there are some in all religions that do know the REAL Jesus and do believe that He died for them. And I do believe that they will receive salvation. This is something that Billy Graham has come to believe.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
And the concept that sin doesn’t exist… Wow… I’ll have to address that tomorrow.
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
kay, they didn’t all support roman polanski
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
duplicitous
LikeLike
dorian said
P – it’s okay to repeat yourself. everybody sure does around here. it’s the OCD thing to do.
it’s okay to repeat yourself. everybody sure does around here. it’s the OCD thing to do.
for the lazy OCD-inflicted ones, there’s cut and paste, hooray!
LikeLike
kay~ms said
uh oh… could TBG be making an ungraceful exit like William did? I’m sorry Dorian if I keep chasing people away but I’m not going to stop being right in order to keep them here. Just keep ’em coming.. there’s plenty of them out there… and I’ll keep trying to help them realize how faulty their theology is.
P, you’re right, not all of them supported Polanski but you could say that all of the people who do support Polanski are Hollywood liberals… with the exception of the occasional French Culture Minister pervert.
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
kay, this bothers me.
you see, when i was in my senior year of high school, a married “christian” teacher, age 32, was having a sexual relationship with my sister age 14.
i found out about it. stupidly, i should have gone to the police and reported it. instead i went to another teacher whom i thought i could trust.
well, of course the married republican “christian” teacher and his fellow republican “christian”
teachers, instead of doing anything about it, covered it up.
they just transferred him to another school, where it turned out he had a sexual relationship with another 14 yr old girl. and guess what, he got caught again and transferred to another school and did it again.
the child molester never got arrested because the “christians” kept covering it up.
it turns out, several of the “christian” teachers were either having affairs with underage students or with other married “christian” teachers. so they didn’t want to get caught up in the scandal either.
from what i hear, the “christian” teacher is still teaching somewhere,
gee, i hope he isn’t your daughters teacher.
SO DON’T GIVE ME THAT “THIS IS ALL LIBERAL” BULLSHIT.
LikeLike
dorian said
don’t worry about it, kay. just be yourself. we’re all big boys and girls here, with strong opinions. the important thing is that everybody’s perspective and beliefs are expressed and heard.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Let’s look for things we DO agree on for a change:
Well Kay, at least we agree that there is a higher power or consciousness that creates or manifests the universe, even if we disagree on the details.
And I’d say we agree that it is good for humans to be in accordance with that higher power and not out for ego selves.
About letting go of the ego, letting go and let God, I think we agree about that too.
It’s funny that yes, I am being intolerant when I say I’m intolerant of intolerance. It is impossible to be truly selfless as long as one thinks of oneself as an ego trapped in a bag of skin. Goedel’s theorem comes to mind about the paradoxes resulting from self-reference.
Every religious group, in order to feel saved, must create an “out” group of those who are not saved or else they don’t have any meaning. This oneupmanship can be ridiculous, e.g. for one church to say we’re more tolerant than other churches, more inclusive, more aware of our shortcomings, whatever…
No, I haven’t run away, yet. Things are really bad in my personal life at the moment, but knowing that this pattern of energy will fade and dissipate brings me some measure of peace. ADKoB has nice people, including you Kay, and for a fundie you are more rational than most I’ve encountered. I do seriously believe that if you had the perspective I had, you would agree more with what I say. You might turn that around and say the same of me. Ideally each of us should be able to see the other’s perspective while still knowing what we know from our perspective, then that would be a more complete picture.
About the closest we could come to that would be if you try to explain my point of view to me, being corrected by me as you go until you can explain it to my satisfaction, while I do the same to you. It is my opinion that as our current level of interaction goes, I might be able to explain your point of view to you to your satisfaction more successfully than you can mine to me. That would be the point I was making in an earlier post, that some people can see the truths of more than one path clearly while others cannot.
Okay, step up to the plate again. Bring your bat!
LikeLike
dorian said
hey why not move the conversation to https://tothewire.wordpress.com/like-to-debate/
i’ll cut and paste TBG’s last post there and we can continue from there.
i hope your situation gets good, TBG. sending positive energy your way…
LikeLike
princessxxx said
oh and kay, my stupid “christian” parents, they were just involved in the cover up, because, they didn’t want any scandals or anyone’s reputation hurt.
“honour thy mother and father” i just tossed that commandment right out the window.
TBG, kay doesn’t have a bat, it’s an emery board. she pulls it out and i sharpen my claws. LOL
LikeLike
kay~ms said
P, that bothers me too. It’s disgusting, just like the all of the cover ups of the Catholic priests who were molesting boys.
My point was that a huge majority in the entertainment industry are liberal. And many of them ustilize there power and fame to spread their views and influence others. I think Fahar along with me wishes that they would be more responsible and less ignorant when deciding their stances before spreading them to their hundreds of thousands of listeners, who adore them btw. It’s just another form of abuse of power really.
Dorian, it is so frustrating when people (William for example and possibly TGB too) can no longer defend their theology so they just give up and I’m pretty sure, continue on with their faulty beliefs. It’s sad that they cannot think for themselves and instead let their ego and pride and / or false prophet control them. How sad, tragic and pathetic is that??
LikeLike
kay~ms said
oh… he’s back.. I’m glad you didn’t give up TBG…
LikeLike
princessxxx said
not as sad and pathetic as all of the “christians’ that molest children.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Intolerance of God… I just wanted to put that out there now.. I’ll elaborate and answer your comments later this evening…
LikeLike
kay~ms said
P, I got your point, although it is slightly biased and distorted… it’s not “Christians” that have a corner on the molesters, the dishonest, the hypocrites etc. it’s a human thing. Like I’ve said a thousand times now… it’s not the fault of Jesus and Christianity when humans don’t follow Jesus’ teachings.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Intolerance of God…
LikeLike
dorian said
well kay the thing is no one thinks their beliefs are “faulty”.
hey let’s move to the debate page – that way we can keep going, and can move from different topics in the same page. this thread breaks the record, i think.
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
kay said, …inotlerance of god.
oh, what’s the matter, is god unhappy because he’s not getting the worship he thinks he deserves?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay, I freely and cheerfully admit that I could be wrong about anything and everything. I advise nobody to listen to me and above all not risk their soul (if they have one or think they do) by believing what I say.
Are you humble enough to admit that, just maybe, you MIGHT be wrong? Is there any evidence or anything you might experience yourself directly (as opposed to reading it or hearing it from somebody else and choosing to believe it secondhand), that could possibly OPEN YOUR MIND AND HEART to “truth”?
If I didn’t know from what frame of mind you are coming from, I might take some of what you say seriously. As it is, if I have time to waste I might reply directly to some of your posts. As I see it though, it would be a waste of time. Perhaps other people reading my replies though might open their minds and hearts to other possibilities besides the ones they were conditioned into believing by their culture and by their own fears.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
oops…sorry Dorian about replying in this thread. Besides going a bit off-topic, the length of this thread is inconvenient especially because I don’t see any link to go to the “top of page” to browse this blog.
well, I don’t plan to continue “debating” Kay anyway. Basically one could cut and paste things I’ve already said to reply to just about any comment she could make on these subjects.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Well, just one more lol…
I was at a creation versus evolution debate back in the 1980s at the Christian Life Center in Vacaville, Calfornia. This was way before creationism was repackaged (crudely) as “intelligent design” and thoroughly debunked by the 2005 Dover trial.
As usual, the creationists consistently misquoted, quoted out of context, distorted facts and outright LIED to try to support their notion that somehow the evidence of the world proves their village idiot level of comprehending the Bible.
There was an interesting question at the end though. Somebody asked both parties, those who accepted the reality that evolution happens and those living in la-la land, if sufficient evidence were shown to them that they were wrong, would they change their mind? The scientists all answered “Yes, of course.” The creationists all said, “No, absolutely not.”
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
lol, no one is paying any attention to dorian.
i wonder if it is something in their DNA that makes them so stubborn?
the good news, evolution will kill them all off.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
As usual TBG, you are not making sense and you are contradicting yourself… you said:
“Kay, I freely and cheerfully admit that I could be wrong about anything and everything. I advise nobody to listen to me and above all not risk their soul (if they have one or think they do) by believing what I say.”
And then in this very next paragraph you say…
“Are you humble enough to admit that, just maybe, you MIGHT be wrong? Is there any evidence or anything you might experience yourself directly (as opposed to reading it or hearing it from somebody else and choosing to believe it secondhand), that could possibly OPEN YOUR MIND AND HEART to “truth”?”
Aren’t you here, implying that you do know the truth? And that I’m not humble enough and I have a closed mind and heart because I’m don’t agree with your theology? If you “freely and cheerfully admit that I could be wrong about anything and everything. I advise nobody to listen to me and above all not risk their soul (if they have one or think they do) by believing what I say.” ”
If you “freely and cheerfully” admit that you could be wrong then how do you justify making those accusations against me??
And here again, you make these accusations against me because I don’t agree with your philosophy, (even though you may be wrong as you say) …
“I hope Kay, that some of what I’ve said can reach you, just a little, in hopes that you will understand you don’t have to be as ignorant, arrogant, and intolerant as you are. Well, if you don’t get it in this lifetime, Jesus will tell you Himself.”
And you said…”As it is, if I have time to waste I might reply directly to some of your posts. As I see it though, it would be a waste of time. ”
You made some very direct accusations against me (above)… and you don’t think you should have to justify / explain them? That’s not right.
I have to say that more and more you are reminding me of William with your responses… and each time that happens the credibility of your beliefs diminishes a little more with me.
LikeLike
dorian said
okay then, children of the corn – feel free to cut and paste to your heart’s desire on this page. the cherokees aren’t complaining…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Considering some of what you posted when you thought I had run away, Kay, I am becoming more amd more reminded of a comic strip I saw about creationism. Trying to discuss theology with you is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. It will knock over the pieces, crap on the board, then fly back to its flock to proclaim victory.
I already explained in other posts to this blog that, in some cases, what APPEAR to be contradictions only look that way from a limited perspective, that when one has a larger perspective what appear to be contradictions are seen to be different answers in different contexts to fit the question and the questioner that actually point to the same reality.
If you’re unable or unwilling to understand that, it’s okay. Here, I’ll do your work for you: I proclaim Kay the WINNER who knows ABSOLUTE TRUTH and everybody MUST believe the Gospel of Christ THE SAME WAY she understands it or they will all burn in hell forever. Satisfied?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Further, if you think I am not making sense, why do you automatically assume that the problem arises from my end, hmmmm?
Could it be, just possibly, that you are either unwilling or unable to grasp higher concepts than what you hold now?
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
what? huh? did you say something dorian?
TBG, playing chess with a pigeon, good one.
LikeLike
dorian said
P – i said ‘zack bagan has his shirt off right now on channel 66’
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Hi Kay. I said “what appear to be contradictions are seen to be different answers in different contexts to fit the question and the questioner that actually point to the same reality.”
An example of this are the different religions of different cultures. There may appear to be contradictions between two faiths where it would seem that one or the other (or both) MUST be wrong, but when one understands the core message at the heart of ALL spiritual teachings, and even more when one understands the limitations of language to communicate experience, and how anything written down can become concretized, diluted and polluted by cultural artifacts, then the APPARENT contradictions disappear.
THAT is how I can say that when one’s heart is in the right place one can be a true Christian even if you never heard of Jesus Christ. You say even Billy Graham came to that conclusion and you don’t have any problems with it, so I don’t know why you’re arguing with me.
LikeLike
dorian said
TBG – here’s a hint:
recommended reading – ‘The joy of Arguing’ by Kay~ms
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
and kay wrote this:
try to make any sense out of that. good god.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay said: “As usual TBG, you are not making sense and you are contradicting yourself…”
WHOOSH (sound of my ideas flying over Kay’s head)
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay asked: “If you “freely and cheerfully” admit that you could be wrong then how do you justify making those accusations against me??”
It’s like this. I know I might be wrong, and I’m honest enough and humble enough to admit it. However, based on everything I’ve learned, thought, felt and realized in my life I’m pretty darn sure your world view as you describe it doesn’t accurately correspond to the reality I experience. My world view includes your world view and more, but yours seems awfully limited.
What gets me is how reluctant you seem to be to even admit the possibility you MIGHT be wrong! That is pride, the original sin (if there is such a thing as sin!)
The arrogance is your saying that you have a monopoly on truth. The ignorance is that you seem sincerely unaware that there is more to truth than you realize. The intolerance is that you seem unwilling to let others believe what they will, trying instead to convert them to your faith or otherwise convince them (or yourself?) that they are wrong. Arrogant, ignorant and intolerant seem to fit you, Kay, but as I said before, you are more rational and nicer than most fundies I’ve had discussions with.
Thanks for our discussions. Sometimes it’s nice to have somebody who disagrees so one can try to express one’s opinion in words to explain one’s viewpoint to the other party. Words are so limited though in what they can communicate, which is another reason why you might THINK I am contradicting myself or not making sense. It ain’t me…it’s the nature of the medium with which we are trying to oonvey our points of view. It doesn’t help if the other party has trouble understanding the use of metaphors and tends to think linearly and concretely.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG said: “The arrogance is your saying that you have a monopoly on truth. The ignorance is that you seem sincerely unaware that there is more to truth than you realize. The intolerance is that you seem unwilling to let others believe what they will, trying instead to convert them to your faith or otherwise convince them (or yourself?) that they are wrong. ”
I could say the very same thing about you.
And to correct you… I never claimed that I had a monopoly on truth… that is your distorted view. My claim is that CHRISTIANITY has a monopoly on truth. Really, why do you see it that way? Why does it bother non believers so much when someone follows the what the Bible teaches… particularly the part where those that don’t accept Jesus’ sacrifice will not be saved??? If it’s not what you believe why are you so threatened and bothered by it???
And, of course I realize that there is more to truth than I realize but I understand that I know all that I NEED to know. There is no need to complicate things. Knowing God and His love gives us all the peace we will ever need. When people choose to not accept God’s love that’s when they go searching for other things; “enlightenment” etc.
As to your intolerance accusation… YOU are the one who is intolerant of me because I choose to believe that Jesus is the only way according to what the Bible says. Your intolerance is displayed thru the accusations you’ve made against me for not seeing it the way you do. I have not done the same. I have not called anyone intolerant for not agreeing with my faith.
Do I try to help people see what I see, the faults of their theology? Yes, anytime someone wants to debate our different religions I am always willing to do so. My question to you all is why do you have such a problem with it when they are willingly participating in the debate?
You said: “THAT is how I can say that when one’s heart is in the right place one can be a true Christian even if you never heard of Jesus Christ. You say even Billy Graham came to that conclusion and you don’t have any problems with it, so I don’t know why you’re arguing with me.”
What I said, and what Billy Graham meant, was that people of other faiths can know about the real Jesus and accept Him as their personal Saviour. I’m not talking about your example. You know about the real Jesus but you have rejected Him. You don’t believe that he came here and died for our sins. That’s why I’m arguing with you. If you’ve truly studied the Bible you should already know this.
And if you’ve rejected the REAL Jesus, your heart is not in the right place. And you are DEFINITELY NOT a Christian.
Please stop trying to redefine Christianity. That’s exactly how cults get started. Men with huge egos who think they know the real “truth” after REJECTING the REAL TRUTH.
And also, I’ve stated several times that I don’t know 100% that I’m right, no one does.. not even you! That’s where faith comes in.
TBG said: “WHOOSH (sound of my ideas flying over Kay’s head)”
No, that’s the sound of you flying by my questions…
You just keep going into you long winded “ideas” instead of giving me direct answers.
you said: “Kay asked: “If you “freely and cheerfully” admit that you could be wrong then how do you justify making those accusations against me??”
It’s like this. I know I might be wrong, and I’m honest enough and humble enough to admit it. However, based on everything I’ve learned, thought, felt and realized in my life I’m pretty darn sure your world view as you describe it doesn’t accurately correspond to the reality I experience. My world view includes your world view and more, but yours seems awfully limited.
That still doesn’t justify those accusations you’ve made against me. YOu say that my world view doesn’t correspond to your reality… but isn’t it “my” truth? Why are you critisizing me for believing in my truth?? Just as you believe in your truth? Your world view doesn’t correspond in any way with my reality but I’m not calling you intolerant, ignorant and arrogant for not aggreeing with my world view.
You said: “Further, if you think I am not making sense, why do you automatically assume that the problem arises from my end, hmmmm?
Could it be, just possibly, that you are either unwilling or unable to grasp higher concepts than what you hold now?”
Ok.. then could you please explain to me what I’m unwilling to grasp?
You said you may be wrong and not to listen to you… THEN you critisize me for not listening to you… you say that I am not humble and that I have a closed mind and heart because I am choosing to believe a theology that you don’t agree with.
If the problem is on my end.. please explain it to me.. in a direct way if possible.
YOu tell me not to listen to you and then you critisize me for not agreeing with you. I think I’ve got a pretty good grasp here.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
LikeLike
dorian said
communication styles or more specifically, writing styles, differ and sometimes effects misinterpretation. then there’s the individual’s natural propensity for seeing the glass either “half full or half empty”. negative or positive outlook. yeah, we’re limited to this writing/blogging medium. words are powerful but it’s the action and the deed that matters most in the end. i doubt any of us do mean things to little animals, so even if we call each other names and smack each other down with words i think we’re all friends ’cause we’re all here. and we’re learning from each other, even subconsciously.
good thing we can’t throw sticks and stones at each other! but we sure try with words, don’t we? peace, brothers ans sisters!! – now can we start a cult?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Dorian, I have a comment awaiting moderation… thanks
LikeLike
dorian said
wow princess – that’s great stuff there – you’re turning into a real gifmaster!
LikeLike
princessxxx said
who knew that a tale of two wolves would turn into a tale of a pigeon crapping on a chessboard?
LikeLike
princessxxx said
Kay says: “Why does it bother non believers so much when someone follows the what the Bible teaches…”
that doesn’t bother me it all, it’s when the so called “believers” don’t follow what the bible teaches, that’s what ruffles my petticoat.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay, I was talking about the “real” Jesus. You seem to continually miss the point of what I’m talking about and instead respond to what YOU think I’m saying. I can’t make things any clearer for you if you can’t understand what I’ve said already. What is probably the case is you are not ready yet to understand these concepts. The funny thing is, these are not “harder” concepts than the ones you grasp now. They are simple, very simple.
Yes, Princess, a pigeon just knocked over the pieces and crapped on the chessboard again! Great image. Wish I’d come up with the idea, but like I said, I saw it in a comic strip.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I do believe the Bible has spiritual truth and power to change lives. I do NOT take a literal fundamentalist interpretation of it though. Besides missing the whole point of the message by focusing on the details of the stories used to communicate the message, that style of interpretation results in many inconsistencies and contradictions within the Bible itself and also between what the Bible says if taken literally compared to the evidence of the world God created.
Fundamentalism is truly the “village idiot” of any society.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Our basic disagreement is that Christianity has a monopoly on truth. You’re entitled to believe that, and preach it to others since that’s what Jesus told you to do. I see Christianity as one path to truth, but NOT the only path, and I make that claim not from hatred of Christianity or the Bible or Jesus but because from everything I’ve learned, thought, felt and (most importantly) realized over the past few decades I can SEE that is the case. If you can’t see things the way I do, that’s fine.
The REAL Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, and he is knocking at the door of everyone’s heart regardless of whatever faith or culture they are in. If they answer the REAL Jesus, even if they don’t know anything about the crucifixion or resurrection, and follow their heart sincerely with love of God above all else, then in my opinion they are true Christians, not hypocrites as most of those calling themselves Christians appear to be.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay, our basic disagreement is that Christianity has a monopoly on truth. You’re entitled to believe that, and preach it to others since that’s what Jesus told you to do. I see Christianity as one path to truth, but NOT the only path, and I make that claim not from hatred of Christianity or the Bible or Jesus but because from everything I’ve learned, thought, felt and (most importantly) realized over the past few decades I can SEE that is the case. If you can’t see things the way I do, that’s fine.
The REAL Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, and he is knocking at the door of everyone’s heart regardless of whatever faith or culture they are in. If they answer the REAL Jesus, even if they don’t know anything about the crucifixion or resurrection, and follow their heart sincerely with love of God above all else, then in my opinion they are true Christians, not hypocrites as most of those calling themselves Christians appear to be.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Connection problems! I didn’t think the first post went through! Oops. Oh well. It bears repeating anyway.
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
THE GOOD NEWS: GOD DOES MAKEOVERS
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Oh and by the way, taking a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is idolatry. We’re not supposed to do that! It’s another case of people confusing the map with the territory, of sucking on the finger that is pointing at the moon instead of looking to see where it points.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
In the context of Hinduism, Christianity is a bhakti yoga.
What I do on the bicycle playing guitar is a karma yoga. I didn’t realize that’s what it was when I started doing it in the early 1980s. I just did it. Now I know why.
Wikipedia is an excellent source of general information if you want to know what I mean by bhakti yoga and karma yoga. Namaste
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG, you said: ” he is knocking at the door of everyone’s heart regardless of whatever faith or culture they are in. If they answer the REAL Jesus, even if they don’t know anything about the crucifixion or resurrection, and follow their heart sincerely with love of God above all else, then in my opinion they are true Christians, not hypocrites as most of those calling themselves Christians appear to be.”
I think I can actually agree with this part. Because there are people who will never hear about Jesus and people who have lived in the past who have never heard about Jesus so what you are saying here, I think, does make sense and I think that is what Billy Graham was saying also. But, as I said earlier, you are one example of someone who does not fall into that category because you have heard about Jesus and what He has done for you and you reject it… primarily because you don’t believe His sacrifice was needed. So, as much as you would like to consider yourself a Christian, according to the books of the New Testament, you are not.
TBG… I do understand what you are saying, you are confusing my not understanding with me not agreeing. It seems like you automatically assume someone is just not understanding and not even considering the possibility that they just don’t believe you are right. You make a huge assumption that what you are saying is the truth… and it isn’t… if anything it’s going the long way to obtain a little bit of the truth when all you have to do is accept Jesus, the REAL Jesus, and you will obtain it fully. That’s the way I see it.
And why are you choosing to go the long way?? Because you are in denial. Denial about the existance of sin because then it would make you accountable. And you are also struggling with the fact that you are not in control… Hors and every other atheist that’s come thru here has the same denial issues.
And as to this comment…”Fundamentalism is truly the “village idiot” of any society.” Which alludes to the belief in creationism as opposed to ? Science? Creationism uses science… how can you say that it doesn’t? Quite possibly it’s just you misunderstanding the message and focusing only on the “details of the stories”. There is no evidence that God didn’t create the science that you put your faith in. If God didn’t creat it… where did it come from? Bottom line, where did that 1st cell come from that all of existence evolved from?? This is when the real “village idiots” are exposed.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Dorian, I have a comment awaiting moderation… thanks
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Thank you for finally posting my “now who’s the village idiot” post.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Creationism does NOT use science. It proposes supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, which isn’t bad but ain’t science. What makes it really not science though is that, instead of looking at the evidence and then drawing conclusions, creationists have their minds made up already and cherry-pick evidence to support their ideas and ignore or distort anything that proves their ideas wrong.
What good hearted but misinformed people do in the USA is try to legislate ignorance in public school science classrooms. Opposing ideas deserve equal time only if they can explain the evidence equally well. Evolution has been observed, tested and verified in the field and in the lab over and over. Evolution makes predictions that can be tested and that can lead to practical applications such as medicine, in addition to explaining the evidence of the physical world in a logical and consistent way. EVERY TIME evolution is challenged by creationism in a fair fight in a court of law, where FACTS are what matter and lies are exposed, the creationists come out looking like fools because they don’t have a shred of scientific evidence to support a literal reading of Genesis, and in fact the evidence of the world God created clearly FALSIFIES a literal reading of Genesis. Village idiots indeed!
I don’t mind anyone believing whatever they want to believe, but don’t try to push your ignorance of what is real onto my kids in public schools. Home school them or send them to private schools if you want to teach them the earth is flat. Creationism should be taught in schools, but NOT in science classrooms.
I actually wouldn’t mind teaching creationism in science classrooms, but the fundies wouldn’t like it when their children come home crying that the evidence of the world and reason and logic show that their parent’s ideas about biology are out of touch with reality.
IF you are a sincere seeker of truth, check the talk origins web site or newsgroup for accurate information on this subject.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
oh by the way, I happen to believe God created everything, although my belief of how and why is closer to the Hindu view than the Christian view. Obviously whoever or whatever started the universe created the “laws” of science by which everything operates, although these aren’t “laws” in the ordinary meaning of that term but simply regularities.
Also, the subject of how the universe started or how life began is NOT what evolution is about. Evolution only deals with how life developed after it started.
LikeLike
dorian said
looks like i’m the only admin who’s doing the moderation these past few months – if i’m out for an extended period, i see comments waiting for approval. i’ll be in and out of office these coming weeks and since princess is posting consistently (more than anyone else at this point) i would like to give her editor access just so she can approve. i trust that she will be most reliable in this capacity. P, will you give us your word of honor that you will fulfill your adkob editor duties to the best of your ability, with diligence and integrity so help you God and/or whomever?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay, when you make comments such as you made about creationism versus evolution, it demonstrates another problem I have with the fundie style of interpretation.
Evolution has so MUCH evidence of so MANY different types that clearly show it happened that it is about as close to certainty as it is possible for science to get even if we don’t completely understand the how or why. On the other hand, a literal reading of Genesis doesn’t make many predictions that can be tested. However, those predictions it makes that CAN be tested have been proven FALSE again and again (despite the denial of the fundies).
Since the fundies are so clearly and obviously WRONG about a subject such as evolution where there is abundant physical evidence to prove they are wrong, that makes me much less likely to trust their interpretation on spiritual matters where it is more a matter of faith than evidence. Since they are wrong about evolution, they might also be wrong about their interpretation of the message of Jesus. Not necessarily of course, but if they weren’t so blatantly stupid about some of the basic facts of the physical world that everyone can observe and measure, I would be more inclined to trust their judgement on other matters.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Ho ho Dorian. Looks like this “two wolves” thread will NEVER die, even though the vast majority of the posts in this thread have very little to do with the subject of the original posting!
Hi P! Congratulations!!!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
excuse me, Kay, you didn’t mention evolution specifically, you mentioned creationism and science. The contest isn’t between science versus religion as some people think.
The contest is between the science of 2000 B.C. (the fundie view) versus the science of 2000 A.D. Over the past four thousand years or so, and especially the past five hundred years, human beings have learned a LOT about the universe God created. There are still some people though, a frighteningly disgustingly sad high percentage of people in the USA, who are woefully misinformed on this subject.
Remember Galileo, that in his time it was the official position of Christianity that the sun goes around the earth instead of vice versa? I don’t know of any contemporary Christian denominations that still insist on this, but there are many that are in total denial of the fact of evolution. Oh well! Sooner or later those denominations will either have to get more in touch with reality or fade into obscurity as crackpot fringe cults.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG… How do you know that science wasn’t used to create the beginning of the universe? Where does it say that? Just because Genesis didn’t give a scientific formula,( which is completely understandable considering when the book was written and would also be completely understandable if it were written today)… that doesn’t in anyway exlude the use of measures that we could understand scientifically, whether it be today or in future scientific discoveries. You have no grounds for declaring that a Supreme Being, the Creator of science, didn’t use scientifically verifiable methods. It’s just that the Bible didn’t explain those methods… and I contend that YOU are missing the message of Genesis by focusing on the details (or lack of details in this instance) of the story. I mean really, aren’t you asking for details of how God created earth? And since none were given you deem creationism a false theology? You’re missing the MESSAGE that there is a Supreme Being who was responsible for our existance… Weren’t you just griping about the “so called Christians” missing the message??
You keep referring to “fundies” and I don’t know exactly what that means. I consider myself a Christian fundamentalist but I don’t exclude the idea of evolution. And I think that anyone who would want to exclude the theory of evolution from schools would be doing a disservice to our children. What we don’t have proof of though, is that we evolved from something other than what we are today… humans. There is no proof and therefore it shouldn’t be taught in school as fact. Teaching it as THEORY is fine I believe. And I also believe that the idea of a Supreme Being as being responsible for our existance should also be taught as another valid theory… also in a science classroom. And that these theories don’t necessarily cancel one another out… that they can be and most likely are compatible. That’s where I stand on this issue.
Also, you said: “Also, the subject of how the universe started or how life began is NOT what evolution is about.”
If you felt like researching thru older comments on this blog… you’d see where I’ve told several atheists that evolution and the birth of existance are two different things (that evolution does not explain how the universe began)…. you didn’t need to tell me that and I don’t really know what I said exactly that made you believe you had to “correct” me.
So to summarize, I think you are focusing on a small group of people who want to take the proven science of evolution out of the class room. I notice that you do that a lot… focus on any negative you can find on Christians… most Christians are sensible and logical and sincere. The sooner you focus on that instead of the minority the better off you’ll be. But from my experience so far with you, I don’t think that is what you want to do… the more fault you can find with Christians, the more it justifies your rejection of Christ. Unfortunately you are not alone on that. Where is Hors by the way??
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment in moderation… P? Dorian?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Uh, there was no science mentioned in Genesis if I remember correctly. Sorry, but the for the majority it is between science and religion… the non believers insist that if it can be proven scientifically that it disproves the existence of God. I’m pretty sure they’ll eventually be coming around on that one.. it’s seems that you have.
Again, I don’t think the majority of Christians want to remove proven science from the classroom and they also don’t want certain scientific theories taken out of the class room either just because atheists don’t agree with them. As long as there is no logical proven theory for how the universe was born (that basically our existence is NOT logical), a Supreme Being CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be excluded. And Genesis is one way, really the only way, to present that theory. And that theory is also known to me as our Creator’s will that we don’t know how it all came to be. And that is His Sovereign right. This aspect requires personal humility… another feature that atheists have a problem with.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
now I have two in moderation…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Genesis is by no means the only way to present the idea that the Universe is created or manifested by God. As for personal humility, you’re not showing much by insisting that your way is the ONLY way. Because the question of ultimate origins is beyond science at present, such discussions belong in philosophy or social science classrooms but NOT physical science classrooms.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I agree with you Kay that there is no science mentioned in Genesis. However, there are a great many people who insist that man was created as a clay figurine, that there was a worldwide flood, etc.,and those kooks want their version of events given equal time in science classrooms even when their ideas have been proven wrong.
For example, there are certain things we could expect to find as evidence if there had been a global flood, and we don’t. In addition, there are types of evidence we would expect to find if there hadn’t been a global flood and that is what we DO see.
Granted, God could have worked miracles in such a way as to disguise what happened, but why would He do that? To trick us? To test our faith?
As with the creation story in Genesis, I believe the flood story is to teach us a moral lesson and may not ever have been intended as actual literal history. Here’s that problem again where some people claim they can take some parts of the Bible symbolically or metaphorically, but for some reason they are in denial of the fact that the physical evidence of the world God created does NOT support a literal reading of Genesis. In fact, it falsifies it!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay, there is a LOT of proof of many different types that clearly show that, unless we cannot trust anything we can observe and measure, humans evolved from non-human ancestors. We are close cousins to Chimpanzees. About six million years ago there were no humans, there were no chimps, but there was a common ancestor to both. The fossils are not only in the rocks but also in our genes.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay said: ” I mean really, aren’t you asking for details of how God created earth? And since none were given you deem creationism a false theology?”
Nope. However, there’s a large number of people in the USA who take the Book of Genesis literally and ASSUME that the physical evidence of the world God created supports that view. It doesn’t.
Kay said: “What we don’t have proof of though, is that we evolved from something other than what we are today… humans. There is no proof and therefore it shouldn’t be taught in school as fact”
Kay, you’re way wrong here. It’s probably not your fault. You has obviously been misinformed by sources you thought you should be able to trust, perhaps a pastor, maybe a Creationist or intelligent design website.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
“And I also believe that the idea of a Supreme Being as being responsible for our existance should also be taught as another valid theory… also in a science classroom.”
Why in a science classroom? The idea of a Supreme Being is NOT a valid scientific theory. Can you cram God into a test tube? He’s there, of course, but cannot be measured and is thus outside the realm of science.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Okay, O KAY!
One last post in response to “You have no grounds for declaring that a Supreme Being, the Creator of science, didn’t use scientifically verifiable methods.”
I do NOT declare that a Supreme Being didn’t use scientifically verifiable methods. Where did you get the idea I ever said that? If God is the God of the Christian Bible, and created humans as described in the book of Genesis, then either He used scientifically verifiable methods to evolve humans from non-human ancestors OR He planted tons of false evidence which mean we can’t really trust anything we can observe and measure.
I agree with you that God made man from the dust of the earth. That dust went through some changes on the way to becoming human though. If it DIDN’T happen that way, why is there SO MUCH evidence of so many different types that indicates it did.
To summarize, either God used evolution as a tool of creation OR God is a malicious prankster to plant so much false evidence that indicates that.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
On the other hand, I do NOT limit God by insisting that He HAD to use scientifically verifiable methods. Such methods are all we humans have, but God might have all kinds of tricks way beyond our understanding!!!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay: “Again, I don’t think the majority of Christians want to remove proven science from the classroom and they also don’t want certain scientific theories taken out of the class room either just because atheists don’t agree with them.”
Man evolved from non-human ancestors. That is an example of proven science that many Christians want to remove from the classroom. (Nothing in science is absolute but there is way more than sufficient evidence to teach that as fact).
WHAT certain scientific theories do atheists want to remove from classrooms? Creationism is NOT a scientific theory, especially since the physical evidence of the world God created shows that the way fundie Christians present it is WRONG! Ditto for so-called “intelligent design”, which Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case clearly showed is also NOT science and is creationism crudely repackaged.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
You said: ” We are close cousins to Chimpanzees. About six million years ago there were no humans, there were no chimps, but there was a common ancestor to both. The fossils are not only in the rocks but also in our genes.”
That’s not proof, that’s theory and speculation. There is absolutely no definitive proof that we evolved from something other than what we are today. And if one thing is for sure, it’s that science is continuously adjusting their theories. One claim is made one year and then years later… “whoops.. we were wrong”. It happens all the time. You put way too much faith in science.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
That humans evolved from non-human ancestors is NOT theory and speculation. It is quite possibly one of the most well-proven facts known to man. Your ignorance is showing. FYI I quote from a message posted by Kermit to the Talk Origins newsgroup a couple of years ago:
Here are some of the many classes of evidence supporting the Modern Synthesis:
Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early, simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear transitional series.
Fossil evidence showing progression of whole ecosystems, with various types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils.
Fossil evidence corresponding to plate tectonics, magnetic striping, and other geological evidence.
Nested hierarchy of morphology.
Nested hierarchy of all the genomes studied so far.
The fact that these two nested hierarchies *match* is evidence in
itself.
Vestigial organs, structures, molecules, and behaviors.
Life is unified by a sharing of fundamental polymers, nucleic acids, protein catalysts, etc.
You should check out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Geologists believe many canyons have been carved out by water erosion. Have they ever seen one happen, and if so, have they tried to falsify that? Therefore, geology isn’t science, by your peculiar “standards” (Are they standards when nobody else pays attention to them?)
While it is important to remember that observations can be
misinterpreted or mismeasured (or even faked), generally we don’t
speak of trying to falsify *facts. Theories are falsifiable if they offer unique predictions which can be verified. The classes of evidence above are all verifiable, and predicted by evolutionary science.
The recent discoveries of the fossils of tiktaalik, and that
protocetacean intermediate between arteriodactyls and whales, are
specific examples.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Woohoo! I have SIX comments in this thread awaiting moderation! Sorry, Dorian and P!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Well, two comments are still in moderation. What are the guidelines about this? What triggers things whether or not a particular comment is posted immediately or has to wait?
Anyway, Kay, the subject we’ve shifted to in this thread is NOT one where anyone’s opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s, as when we were discussing theology. Science is based on evidence, and whatever your sources, you have been LIED to. I can say that with confidence, about as certainly as I can say I am sitting here typing this, because if you honestly search for the EVIDENCE it is there waiting for you.
I repeat what I said in an earlier post to make the point that Augustine made a LONG time ago when he warned about how stupid it makes Christianity look to non-Christians when ignorant Christians take Genesis LITERALLY and try to assert something that is plainly proven WRONG by the evidence of the world.
“Since the fundies are so clearly and obviously WRONG about a subject such as evolution where there is abundant physical evidence to prove they are wrong, that makes me much less likely to trust their interpretation on spiritual matters where it is more a matter of faith than evidence. Since they are wrong about evolution, they might also be wrong about their interpretation of the message of Jesus. Not necessarily of course, but if they weren’t so blatantly stupid about some of the basic facts of the physical world that everyone can observe and measure, I would be more inclined to trust their judgement on other matters.”
LikeLike
dorian said
TBG -we still haven’t figured out the exact wordpress default moderation criteria. all we know about are the expletives and multiple links and images. it might have something to do with IP address, but if that’s the case why do other posts go thru and others don’t for any of adkob’s commentators – it’s a mystery!
editor and administrators will just have to make sure to check the queue. it’a always good to give us a head’s up like kay does, if you find your comments are taking a long time to appear. if you want to be adkob contributor and do some posts of your own, let us know – you first have to open a free wordpress account at wordpress.com .
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I went to your link and I saw over and over “theories and hypotheses”. This is NOT the same as fact! This is a fundamental scientific truth. Evolution is still a THEORY! That you deem “evidence” as proof that the theory is now fact is extremely erroneous. It’s merely you wanting it to be fact.
Here is an exerpt from an recent article posted on this blog…
“…most scientists look at a fossil through the lens of their own presuppositions.”
And here is the link to this article…
And the reason why these theories and supporting evidence do NOT translate into fact is because, as I stated earlier, theories and evidence are always CHANGING! New evidence is always coming forth that will contradict previous theories! Theories and evidence is a long way from becoming fact in the scientific world. Especially on this subject.
And as to you last paragraph that you reposted… your argument for not believing what fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible says.. you are basing that opinion, again, on a small minority group of Christians. You are using the opinions of others as a basis for your rejection of an entire faith. It’s just more reaching to support your rejection of Christ.
Your obvious bias on this subject is severely handicapping your arguments. Hopefully YOU will be able to see that for your own good.
You said: “Anyway, Kay, the subject we’ve shifted to in this thread is NOT one where anyone’s opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s, as when we were discussing theology. Science is based on evidence, and whatever your sources, you have been LIED to. I can say that with confidence, about as certainly as I can say I am sitting here typing this, because if you honestly search for the EVIDENCE it is there waiting for you. ”
And as I stated earlier, we are still talking about THEORIES… not facts! You have no basis for stating that I’ve been “lied” to… because you’re basing that accusation on THEORIES! And my information also comes from theories… There are no facts here to prove or disprove anything at this point. You are the one who is perpetuating lies…
“No 1st century historians ever wrote about Jesus.”
“Jesus did not fulfill any of the prophecies.”
“That humans evolved from non-human ancestors is NOT theory and speculation. It is quite possibly one of the most well-proven facts known to man. ”
These are lies!
And you claim that you are searching for the truth?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
You said: “WHAT certain scientific theories do atheists want to remove from classrooms? Creationism is NOT a scientific theory, especially since the physical evidence of the world God created shows that the way fundie Christians present it is WRONG! Ditto for so-called “intelligent design”, which Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case clearly showed is also NOT science and is creationism crudely repackaged.”
I contend that, as I already stated, where we stand right now, according to science, OUR EXISTANCE IS NOT LOGICAL! So Creationism should not be excluded from the same class room that evolution theory is taught in. When you or someone else can give a VALID LOGICAL theory as to where that first cell came from then maybe Creationism taught in a science class room can be argued… but not now!
Our existance isn’t logical based on our present scientific knowledge… this is a FACT!
You are being very ignorant and un-scientifically presumptuous (and biased) to insist that Creationism be excluded.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment in moderation…
LikeLike
dorian said
kay, imo your best debates are in creationism vs science. i’m with you here in the “where did the first cell come from” aspect. TBG also acknowledges that there is a supreme being, a God. he gives a good argument that evolution is more about what came after the creation of that first cell. that’s where we have science to help humankind advance. i would like to see our schools have religion/spirituality classes offered as well, as an elective. faith and science complement each other. https://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/faith-and-science-genesis-and-darwin-friends-not-foes/
kay, you’re forgetting about this post of yours – https://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/was-jesus-a-real-person/
– it’s pertinent to your “jesus prophecies” debate. kay and TBG, i’m enjoying this debate. please go on!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay, you apparently have NO idea what science is or how it works. Otherwise you would not be suggesting that the mention of GOD or anything else supernatural be included as part of science.
The study of how life began is abiogenesis, NOT evolution. While science currently cannot explain how or why life developed from non-life, it is actively being studied and we may understand someday how and why it happened. It is a continuum between non-life and life, not black and white as some assume. Given the nature of the ingredients and the conditions they are in, it may be that when you put those together over time of course life will form! That may be what the Creator of the universe did. The creation of the universe is another subject, cosmology.
The universe has local patterns of energy that have specific characteristics based on their energy density and charge distribution. There are regularities in the universe as to how things interact with each other. Some people call these “laws” of nature, but they aren’t laws in the ordinary sense of the word but are simply regularities.
Whoever or whatever started the universe, and however life began, once life did begin it evolved. Evolution is as much an observed fact of nature as gravity is, and we actually understand MORE about how evolution works (i.e. the mechanisms) than we do about how gravity works.
Evolution, as I said, is quite possibly the most well-proven FACT known to modern man. I myself, with the tens of thousands of books I have read and all the decades of studying on multiple subjects of human inquiry, I myself am unaware of any other concept that has as much evidence of so many different types supporting it.
Most people who are in denial of the fact of evolution do so because they have been misinformed about what evolution is. They are arguing against a strawman. If evolution were the way creationists portray it, and if there weren’t so MUCH evidence to prove it (literally TONS), I wouldn’t accept it either.
Anyone who is in denial that life has evolved by biochemical means is either ignorant of the evidence, perhaps too stupid to understand it, evil enough to know it but deny it anyway for whatever reasons, or possibly insane. I don’t know any other possibilities here. Which are you?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay says: “And as I stated earlier, we are still talking about THEORIES… not facts!”
There is a common misunderstanding here. The FACT that evolution occurs (even macroevolution where different groups come from common ancestors) is as well-established and well-proven a FACT as the fact that gravity occurs. It really is that obvious.
There are THEORIES of evolution to explain that fact, but the fact of evolution doesn’t go away whether or not it can be explained completely. For example, gravity exists. Newton had a theory about it. Newton’s theory is good, but Einstein’s theory about gravity explains it better and is supported more by measurements of the physical universe. The FACT of gravity didn’t go away while scientists debated rival theories to explain it. Ditto for evolution.
We are here again with the scene from the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Evolution and the proof for evolution is the severed arm of the Black Knight lying on the ground. Scientists are King Arthur saying “Your arm’s off!” Creationists (including you, Kay) are the Black Knight saying “No it isn’t.”
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
IF someone were aware of the evidence for evolution and chooses not to believe because of their particular faith, I can respect that. But when some people try to tell me the evidence isn’t there, I know better! This is WAY different than when we discuss theology or philosophy Kay. You and I may be weaker or stronger but basically on a level playing field there compared to each other.
As far as science goes though, your statements in multiple posts indicate you do NOT understand what science is or how it works. You apparently don’t know how much evidence there is for evolution either.
Even if some ignorant, stupid, wicked or crazy person tries to tell me evolution isn’t real, that still doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is when ignorant, stupid, wicked or crazy people try to dumb down American children in public school science classrooms.
About Jesus not fulfilling the specific prophecies required for him to be the Messiah the Jews were expecting, how is that a lie Either he did or he didn’t, right? According to the Jews, he didn’t. It’s their prophecies, those specific prophecies are clearly spelled out, and clearly Jesus did NOT fulfill them at least not in his FIRST coming. Maybe he will in the SECOND coming (according to Christians), but that isn’t what those specific Jewish prophecies indicate.
Besides, whether or not Jesus was a historical personage and whether or not Jesus did or did not fulfill specific prophecies is much like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The scientific basis for accepting the fact that evolution happens is way different than that because of the overwhelming evidence that shows it happens, whether or not you choose to accept it.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Oh and by the way, I stand corrected about no first century historians writing about Jesus. I was wrong about that (although there still isn’t much, any at all is infinitely more than none).
So it wasn’t a LIE, it was an honest mistake. Now that I have been corrected, I won’t repeat that mistake.
About the Jewish prophecies, according to JEWISH sources Jesus did NOT fulfill THEIR prophecies. Shouldn’t they be the ones who know? I am passing it on, but if it is a lie then it is the JEWS who are lying. As far as I can tell, looking at the specific prophecies they’re talking about, they are right. Jesus didn’t fulfill them. Correct me if I’m wrong.
As far as humans evolving from non-human ancestors, I have MUCH more reason to accept that as fact than with the previous two statements that you claim are lies. You would have to come up with a plausible explanation to account for all the evidence that macroevolution happens. If you do, creationists around the world will love you forever. As it is though, creationism does not have a shred of scientific evidence to support its position, and the evidence that does exist falsifies creationism and supports evolution. How do you account for that? Is there a massive conspiracy among scientists to LIE about this?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I think in any correspondence with you from now on, Kay, I will refer to you as “The Black Knight.” Perhaps if you do some research you will change your mind on this subject. Maybe you have blinders of faith on that prevent you from acknowledging any evidence that challenges your presuppositions. If so, I feel sorry for you in some ways but envy you in other ways.
LikeLike
bettyslocombe said
Oh I am loving this
LikeLike
dorian said
monty python for evidence – that’s unfair advantage. a liberal distraction. but do go on…
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Hi Betty…yes, I’m sure you’re enjoying this 🙂
TBG…You said: “There is a common misunderstanding here. The FACT that evolution occurs (even macroevolution where different groups come from common ancestors) is as well-established and well-proven a FACT as the fact that gravity occurs. It really is that obvious.”
Great example… gravity is proven fact because we can see it happen, the theory is proven. That the earth is round and not flat is also a proven fact because we could finally actually prove it.
That man evolved from apes is NOT proven… we do not have anything to prove it… no half mam, half ape discoveries… where are they?? Again, I don’t disagree with the concept of evolution… I DO disagree with the THEORY that we evolved from apes and I do base that primarily on my faith. If there ever is PROOF that says differently, of course I will have to adjust my views on that… but there is no proof at the present time, sorry. There might be evidence that leads in that direction… but if you truly do know science… that is no where near enough to declare it as proven fact.
Here’s an example… how many times have we heard on the news, the promising EVIDENCE of a particular experimental medicine or treatment that can cure cancer??? All the time… how many actually become proven cures???? I think it’s none.. right?
So if you want to refer to me as the “Black Knight” you should really base it on a real example that I’m wrong about.. not your misconceptions…. as in what can be seen…. like the Knight’s arm laying on the ground! It is you who is misunderstanding the differences between fact and theory.
And while you acknowledged that you were wrong about 1st century writings of Jesus, I noticed that you didn’t acnowledge that you were also wrong when you stated that Jesus fulfilled “NONE” of the prophecies… “NOT ONE!”… but I noticed that you did change your wording…
This latest time you said: “About the Jewish prophecies, according to JEWISH sources Jesus did NOT fulfill THEIR prophecies.”
Where’s the “NONE!” and “not one!” ?? Obviously you are aware of your incorrect choice of words… You should have acknowledged that also… so much for truth and honesty that you keep insisting you are about.
And then you try to push off your declarations on the Jews… “well wouldn’t they know?”… you shouldn’t make the claim, ESPECIALLY as emphatically as you do, based on someone else’s biased and distorted beliefs that you are also, in addition, twisting to suit your agenda. Just more bias showing.
And, using your philosophy… if you can’t be honest about some things, and if you are clearly biased on the subject, how can anyone believe any claims you make? I’m not up on science obviously and to argue with you about macroevolution etc. will be especically hard for me.. if you were an honest (unbiased) opponent I would be more inclined to spend the time and effort to try to debate you here… but as it is.. I’m just going to assume that what you are claiming is also misconstrued and biased. and I’ll just save my efforts for debating the very dificult subject of science in this area with someone who is not so obviously dependent on suppositions and confuses theory with fact, it will be easier on me…. And bottom line, I’m certainly not going to give any credibility to your insistance of what is fact and what isn’t… especially since you’ve already proven that you can’t even understand the differences between “truth” and “belief”.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment….
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Which, “fact” and “theory” are so closely related to “truth” and “belief”. As I said in my post that’s awaiting moderation… you’ve clearly proven that you don’t understand the differences between those two.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
The Black Knight denies the existence of the following fossils:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens sapiens
The first you probably couldn’t distinguish from a chimp; the rest show a progression from chimp-like to human-like and finally fully human. Not all are ancestors; some are cousins. But they’re all family.
Now, put your fingers in your ears and go, “la la la la….”
The above list and comments are by Baron Bodissey from the Talk Origins newsgroup.
And if you read my post about the prophecies, it should be apparent that I am referring to the SPECIFIC prophecies the Jews have about their Messiah that make it clear exactly what THEIR Messiah is supposed to do. So far you have not addressed those.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
It’s funny but there really is a “Sir Kay” in the King Arthur stories! LOL
Seriously, I respect you greatly for admitting that you are not up enough on science to debate the scientific issues. I know you don’t want to believe what I say, which is why I urge you to do some research and find out the truth for yourself about this issue, IF you want to of course. Nobody has to be interested in anything, but if you are going to make claims that there are not any transitional fossils from ape to man when there clearly ARE such fossils, perhaps you should educate yourself about what evidence does exist. Bless you and yours, Kay.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
ok… I’ll do some honest research on that list and website… I really don’t want to be ignorant. It’s true that I don’t want to believe what you say just as I feel that you don’t want to believe in Christianity.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Well, I thought I would start here… I’ll research more tomorrow…
From a previous ADKOB post “The Case of the Missing Link…”
“Eldredge discloses that the Darwinian paradigm is so strong that paleontologists refused to admit defeat by acknowledging gradualism as wrong. “Paleontologists clung to the myth of gradual adaptive transformation even in the face of plain evidence to the contrary… ””
“..even in the face of plain evidence to the contrary..” Gee, this sounds familiar… how ironic.
Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin (London: Phoenix Giant, 1995), 63.
This is one of many Paleontologists who don’t support the THEORY of Darwin’s evolution and I’m sure they are familiar with that list you posted. As stated above, the theory of gradual adaptive transformation is considered a myth by men who know more about this that you do, sorry to be so blunt. If they don’t agree with your list / theory, I certainly don’t think it can qualify as proven fact. And certainly not “the most proven fact ever” or something like that.
Another excerpt from “The case of the missing link”
“Based upon the fossil evidence, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Cambrian fossils contradict Darwin’s theory.
2. Transitional fossils have failed to show up.
3. Most species don’t change.
4. Perplexed materialists are seeking non-Darwinian explanations.”
“Gerald Schroeder cites how microevolutionary examples are used by Darwinists as “proof” of macroevolution: “…when the London Museum ofnatural History, a bastion of Darwinian dogma, mounted a massive exhibit on evolution, occupying an entire wing of the second floor, the only examples it could show were pink daisies evolving into blue daisies, little dogs evolving into big dogs, a few dozen species of cichlid fish evolving into hundreds of species of—you guessed it—cichlid fish. They could not come up with a single major morphological change clearly recorded in the fossil record. I am not anti-evolution. And I am not pro-creation. What I am is pro-look-at-the-data-and-see-what-they-teach.”22”
22 Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God (New York: Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, 2001), 91.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment in moderation..
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
The Black Knight claims:
1. Cambrian fossils contradict Darwin’s theory.
2. Transitional fossils have failed to show up.
3. Most species don’t change.
4. Perplexed materialists are seeking non-Darwinian explanations.
Kay, all of these are FALSE claims and anyone who does even a little research can easily find out for themselves these are false claims.
I stand by what I said. You are quite wrong about this, and this is not a case where it is simply one person’s opinion versus another’s. My opinion is supported by evidence, literally TONS of evidence that you are blissfully ignorant of and apparently you wish to remain blissfully ignorant so you are going to sources that share your world view that are LYING to you about what the evidence is.
YOUR ARM’S OFF!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Sometimes creationists use the examples of so-called “living fossils” to argue that these somehow disprove evolution. If a species is well-adapted to a particular environment then there is no pressure from natural selection for it to change. This is PROOF of evolution, not disproof.
The Cambian “explosion” wasn’t as sudden as creationists make it out to be, and the fossils DO support the idea of evolution.
There ARE many transitional series of fossils, including some spectacular ones discovered the past twenty years of so about the evolution of whales from land animals. Perhaps the most spectacular example of the proof and predictive power of evolution is Tiktaalik, an ancient fish discovered a few years ago that is part of the lineage that led to land animals. What was found is what was expected to be found, in rocks of the expected type, in rocks of the expected age, and with the expected physical characteristics intermediate between fish and land animals. Its existence was predicted by evolutionary theory, and that it was found exactly as predicted is further proof of macroevoluton.
What creationists don’t seem to get is that there is enough evidence of many kinds to prove macroevolution even if we did not have ANY fossils at all! That we do have some fossils (and are finding more all the time) is icing on the cake, especially considering the special circumstances required for fossils to form.
You are very wrong about the subject of macroevolution, Kay, and on THIS subject the evidence of the world supports my opinion and falsifies yours, BIGTIME!
Hey Princessxxx, do you have any GIFs of a knockout punch, a wrestling slam, or similar images of a complete, total and overwhelming victory? Those would be appropriate here. Of course the Black Knight can say “No it isn’t” all she wants, but the fact remains the arm is severed laying there on the ground with blood shooting out the stump of the shoulder where it used to be attached. Yeah I know, it’s just a flesh wound. Whatever…
LikeLike
Search the Web on Snap.com said
Niles Eldridge DOES accept the fact of macroevolution. He disagrees with Darwin about gradualism. He along with Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium that in some cases explains the fossil record better but he does not, repeat, DOES NOT say that macroevolution doesn’t happen.
That’s another thing. Creationists and Darwin…calling people who accept evolution Darwinists and equating Darwinism with a religion and Darwin with a prophet. Darwin was wrong about some details, but he was quite right about evolution as an explanation for how life develops and also proposed Natural Selection as his theory of the mechanism. Darwin is undoubtedly one of the greatest thinkers the human race has yet produced, but science has learned a LOT more about evolution the past one hundred fifty years. Evolution is NOT “Darwinism.”
Another stupid creationist trick is to try to smear the character of Darwin, as if that would somehow invalidate his discoveries. It wouldn’t matter if he had been a rapist and a pedophile, the truth (yes Kay, TRUTH!) of what he discovered would still be true (yes Kay, TRUE!)
This is an argument with you where I not only KNOW I am right and you are wrong, but also where I KNOW that there are massive amounts of evidence supporting my opinion. You on the other hand are playing the part of the Black Knight denying such evidence exists. That to me is insanity.
What I would respect is someone who is not in denial of the evidence that is there for anyone to see, but says that in spite of the evidence they choose to not accept it because of their particular religious belief. It is childish to pretend that the evidence isn’t there though, and I encourage anyone and everyone to check this subject out for themselves.
There are some so-called Christian web sites such as Institute for Creation Reseach and Answers in Genesis that are notorious for misquoting scientists, quoting out of context (as with the Eldrige quotation you used), distorting facts, ignoring facts, or outright LYING to try to suggest that there is disagreement among scientists whether or not evolution occurs.
The disagreements aren’t about IF evolution happens but how and why it happens. Such so-called “Christian” web sites do nothing to honor God or Christ when they are so blatantly dishonest.
LikeLike
Search the Web on Snap.com said
The previous comment was mine. I do not know how it suddenly became listed as being from “search the web on snap.oom”
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
It happened again! I found that name in place of mine in the “Name” text box too late for me to stop it the second post, but THIS TIME I was able to catch it to post this message.
Let me take this opportunity to taunt a fundie in denial of reaity. You know, Kay, this issue is one of the main problems I have with Christianity, but most mainstream denominations accept the fact of evolution just as they accept the fact that the earth goes around the sun (even though the official position of Christianity in the time of Galileo was that the sun goes around the earth), even as they accept that the earth is spherical and not flat (even though a literal reading of the Bible makes it clear that its authors thought the earth is flat).
Hey Black Knight: “YOUR ARM’S OFF!”
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
and those fundies will say too that “no real Christian” can accept evolution. Well, if that’s the case, then of course I can’t be a Christian. I cannot deny the wonder and splendour of God’s creation, even if it conflicts with some crackpot fringe cult’s interpretation of the Bible.
IF evolution didn’t happen, then the God of the Bible is a malicious prankster to plant so much evidence that clearly shows it did happen. IF that’s the case, we humans obviously can’t believe anything we can observe and measure with our senses and reason about with our God-given mind, and that would include the Bible too!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay, the idea of macroevolution does NOT necessarily conflict even with a literal fundie reading of Genesis.
The Bible says God made man from the dust of the earth. So does evolution, except it doesn’t mention God because God is outside the realm of science. Evolution does not require that anyone deny or affirm the existence of a Creator. That is completely irrelevant to explaining the physical evidence of the world God created.
Now many people besides me have noted the above. I am not the first to realize that evolution says the same thing as the Bible about making man from the dust of the earth, but the following idea is original to me so far as I know (at least I thought it up without consciously copying anyone):
A major argument used by fundies is that the Bible clearly says animals bring forth their own “kind.” They THINK this means macroevolution conflicts with the Bible, but I realized it doesn’t because evolution ALSO says animals bring forth after their own “kind.” Let me explain.
The offspring of a set of parents closely resembles its parents. You never see a monkey give birth to a human for example. However what creationists don’t understand is that it isn’t individual organisms that evolve. It is POPULATIONS that evolve! Yes, any set of parents will bring forth offspring after their “kind” just as the Bible says, but over time, the allele frequencies of genes expressed in the POPULATION can shift in response to selection pressure from the environment (note “selection”, in other words, evolution is not the totally random process some creationists portray it as). Over time, this can result in a new species being formed. Over enough time, this results in the variety and diversity of living things we see today.
LikeLike
The Bicyclig Guitarist said
Hey Betty, Dorian, Princess, why don’t some of you weigh in on this issue?
As Kay’s use of the Eldredge quote shows, creationists misunderstand debate about the mechanisms of evolution with thinking that there is debate about whether or not evolution happens. Eldredge very much accepts the fact of macroevolution, and Kay (a.k.a. The Black Knight) apparently thinks he doesn’t. This is another case of Kay being WRONG about this subject!
If you are sincere about doing some HONEST research (not quote mining and cherry picking), consider the Talk Origins web site. It has many lists of FAQs (frequently asked questions). It even links to creationist sites and presents their arguments, then calmly and rationally shows how stupid and wrong those arguments are with links to scientific papers and other resources that present the evidence that the fundies are so much in denial of.
There is also a Talk Origins newsgroup where, if you have questions about this matter, many people will give you answers or links to more resources. Some of the Talk Origins regulars are scientists and philosophers who make a living in this field. There are also a few resident loonies who stick their fingers in their ears and go “la la la” because their view of reality is challenged by the evidence of the world God created.
The University of California at Berkeley has an excellent web site about evolution, made for students, teachers, and the general public. It is very well presented and IF you are an HONEST seeker of truth, I highly recommend visiting their web site.
What you could do Kay is admit that there ARE fossils and other evidence that make it LOOK like we evolved from apes, but your choice is to not believe the evidence of the world because you regard it as a test of faith. However, to claim as you do that the evidence ain’t there makes you look really, really DUMB!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Eek! last post somehow I became The “Bicyclig” Guitarist.
How about it Kay. Are you going to do any of that “honest” research you said you would? And come on other ADKOB regulars. Let’s hear from you too!
LikeLike
dorian said
i don’t want to interrupt the flow. you two are showcasing the creationism vs science argument. it’s classic.
LikeLike
Anonymous said
<3KLOE<3
THE WOLVES ARE BEAUTIFUL!!! WHAT COLOR ARE THEY? BLACK AND WHITE? ANY WAY, THESE CREATURES HAVE ALWAYS AMAZED ME!
LikeLike
kay~ms said
ok.. this is going to take awhile but for starters I did want adress your last comment..
You said: “What you could do Kay is admit that there ARE fossils and other evidence that make it LOOK like we evolved from apes, but your choice is to not believe the evidence of the world because you regard it as a test of faith.”
TBG.. I never denied that there are fossils that lead in that direction… go back and read if you don’t believe me… my contention still is that it is NOT proven fact.
You continuously make incorrect assumptions about my beliefs…
And to repeat a recent comment… there is / was lots of evidence of cures for cancer… that turned out to not be the case.
Our main argument here is the difference between proven fact and theories (and evidence).
You are wrong to insist that it is a proven fact that we evolved from apes. Does that list represent actual fossils for each of those? I haven’t gotten to that list yet…
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment waiting..
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Im beginning to like the Bicycling Guitarist. But why are we debating creationism? It is very possible from theological standpoint that Evolution is a way of explaining the unexplainable. Just with the creation myth was used to explain things that we will never understand in this life. Case in point, it has been preached in both Christian Churches and Jewish Synagogues about God being a being that exists outside of time and space as we know it. This is explained in the Torah a few times. In Moses and the Burning Bush, an angel had to hide Moses from God’s presence as he spoke. What happened next really is what puts the foundation for my point, paraphrased he (God) told Moses basically He is everything. This was iterated again in the new testament a few times on the subject of God. I am the Alpha and Omega beginning and end. It all plainly states that God does not see the passage of time as we do. Since the Bible and Torah was written by man’s interpretation of a vision or dream thought to be sent by God. The problem is it was an interpretation that was made on limited understanding. My point is what may seem like seven days to God may be Eons to us. There is an intelligent design to life and how it propagates and what not. I don’t think it is possible that life exists randomly. I also do not think it is possible for life not to be able to adapt to environmental conditions to survive. Survival is the one main goal for all forms of life. In the wild if a species cannot adapt to environmental changes (including Predators with tools) they cease to exist. If you look at fossil records the amount of different forms of life on this planet has declined since the protozoic era. This indicates to me that forms of life constantly cross breed to get a genetic trait or abnormality that helps it survive. A cheezy quote from a movie/book Life always finds a way. So we have all this physical evidence that actually both supports intelligent design and evolution. So why do they have to be exclusive to each other rather than inclusive? I can give you a theory on why, just as anything dealing with the way a human thinks it is a theory. But the social thought of humanity, which is different in every region of the world all strives to answer the questions “Why is life here?” “How did we get here?” “Do we exist because of chance or is there something higher?” I have found the answers that are right for me. Everyone is different with different life experiences. My answers to those same questions are not going to be exactly the same with anyone. There will be some similarities with like minded people, but there will always be variations. And Yes, I believe a collective human subconscious exists. To me it is logical and it explains a lot of “unexplainable” occurrences in humans like legitimate mind reading etc. It also explains humanities need to use spiritual practices as a way to define the universe, therein defining themselves. The reason why we debate about frivolous topics like creationism vs. evolution, and other dead horses that people just enjoy beating is we as human beings are competitive. We have a subconscious desire to show that we are superior to others in order to attract a mate to propagate our genetic code. In some instances a person can have no desire to actually propagate our seed but to just be happy. I have my own thoughts on why that is but I will leave those thoughts to the next “dead horse” that we will be beating. (Please note: I do not condone beating any animal alive or dead (there are situations where negative reinforcement must be used. I.E. Bad Dog! or Bad (Child’s Name Here) *spank* There is a difference between abuse and negative reinforcement.) and the phrase is a play on words talking about the frivolity of debating certain topics because they really have no end and neither side will ever win that particular debate. This is seen on every abortion debate on this site. All the debates end in a stalemate because we get bored saying the same thing different ways over and over and over again.) I know this was long it was ment to actually be my blanket response to 90% of the debates that popped up on this one post.
@kay- I thank you for your kind words but the search for knowledge and the truth as it pertains to them is different in everyone. (and here I thought you hated me.) I explained my thoughts on that subject above. I also believe that the word truth would pertain to honesty. In the parable.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Kay we share a classification with apes and there are similarities with apes, but scientific evidence from the earliest human fossils indicate that even though we are related the probability that an ape suddenly had minimal hair and started to show intelligence such as making and using tools are actually pretty low. I mean really if we came from a genetic abnormality of apes (actually Chimps and Gorillas they use tools and many have the intelligence of a five year old human child.) there would be more right? Chimps and Gorillas would have the same capacity of thought and communication we have. Some scientists THEORIZE that it is possible that we are descended from apes, but they are actually in the minority. For some reason we have a penchant for paying attention to the minority and not the majority. But that is not what evolution actually states. Evolution happens over a long period of time so that a life form actually adapts to the environment on a genetic level. Which is why people with a common ancestry from and people that are from the native peoples in Africa has an extra muscle in their legs to help them out maneuver and run from a predator of that continent. This extra muscle is not found in any other human to my knowledge. The existance of the appendix is another example of this. At one time the appendix had a purpose but in this day and age it does not. Also it has been found that babies are starting to be born without an appendix. These are subtle changes that happen over time. The fact we cannot find a so called missing link. More likely we are decendants of a creature that resembles an ape but stands on its hind legs and stays on the ground. Like the Sasquatch, or Skunk Ape, which it is theorized is not really an ape but a remnant much like the fish thought to be exitinct but was found in Madagascar.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
How’s this for a rephrasing of my main point then, Sir Kay?
There is so much evidence of so many different types that humans evolved from non-human ancestors, each piece of evidence standing alone but sometimes corroborating other pieces of evidence of completely different types in the most stunning fashion, that the conclusion humans evolved from non-human ancestors is the only logical one that can account for all these mountains of evidence.
Yes, that list of fossils shows a clear transition from ape-like to human-like forms. Now some creationists will say such and such is “just an ape” or “just a human”, but what’s really funny about those forms that are most transitional (towards the middle of that list of fossils) is that SOME creationists will say a particular fossil is ape while others will say that SAME fossil is human! There is at least one case where in different books the SAME creationist switches stories about a particular fossil! How transitional can you get? The older fossils are more ape-like and the forms become less ape-like and more human-like over time.
Also, as I pointed out, there is more than sufficient evidence that macroevolution does happen, way more than enough to teach it as as established FACT of nature just as gravity or electricity are FACTS of nature, that even if we had NO FOSSILS at all there would STILL be sufficient evidence to teach that as FACT.
We actually understand more about the mechanisms of evolution, about how it works, than we do about the mechanisms of gravity, something you are willing to accept as a fact. The quote you provided from Niles Eldredge purporting to show disbelief among paleontologists is an example of a “quote mine,” where statements are taken out of context and presented in such a way as to distort the meaning intended. Eldredge disagreed with the mainstream view that ALL macroevolution happens in gradualistic steps, but he does NOT deny the fact that macroevolution occurs. He embraces it! He and Gould were proposing another mechanism to explain some cases in the fossil record, but neither says that Darwin’s idea of gradualism was wrong in all cases and neither denies the FACT that evolution and natural selection occur.
Are you willing to admit, now that it has been pointed out to you and you can check it out for yourself IF you want to, that your use of Eldredge’s quote does NOT show dissent with macroevolution among paleontologists? I won’t hold my breath.
Some creationists have created a list of “scientists” that they claim disagree with macroevolution. Some of these “scientists” may have questionable credentials or whatever, but in response a group of scientists put together a list of those who DO agree with evolution, but only those whose names begin with Steve or Stephen or variants thereof. The scientist’s list of only those named Steve who agree that evolution happens is WAY bigger than the creationist’s list of people with any first name at all, and the credentials of the scientists named Steve are legit.
There’s another list of members of the Clergy, including some Baptists and other mainly fundie denominations, who agree that evolution happens. Last I heard there were over 11,000 signatures on that list.
LikeLike
dorian said
hello E_E!
yes, who would’ve thought a parable from the peaceful cherokee people would incite debates leading to the good old evolution/creationism topic. thank God the other topic with no end, the one that involves human zygotes, isn’t here too. if any viewers are curious, that has been debated heavily. just type in ‘abortion’ in the search field to the right. i’m not a fan of variations on the same theme,or rather, repeating myself, but understand that there are words worth repeating. after all, we each have own topics we are passionate about. right, kay?
thanks for the good perspective, E_E. yes, TBG has been sharing a lot with us lately. TBG, have you visited our esoteric sister site,
http://enkilleridos.wordpress.com/ ??
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
I need to post something on there I just really haven’t had the time. Learning French and going to college is time consuming, that along with my new studies of AMORC. Plus farmVille on facebook 😉 Mainly though the Learning French, college homework, and the AMORC studies take up a majority of my time. I dont have a lot of time to take my metaphysical observations revise them and post them. In high school I studied the Cherokee language mainly vocabulary and stuff I forgot most of it but I think the word for truth and honesty in that language is the same thing. Also something I really forgot to mention to kay about the pariable written and spoken in a language completely different from our own (easily the hardest language to learn originating from North America.) Ever hear of the phrase lost in translation? There are many words and concepts that we have that they just have one word for in their language. The actual language itself is complex and it is very hard to get a point across when the language I believe stresses the tone of voice that is lost in type. From what I remember one word in the Cherokee language can equate to a complete sentence and idea depending on the tone of voice. So those things where probably in the spoken parable in the language, just something that was more inbetween the lines.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Another thing about that list of fossils showing the transition from ape to human, why is it that the more ape-like fossils are found in older rocks, and as the rocks the other fossils are found in become younger and younger the forms become less and less ape-like and more human-like? Also, why does that fit the genetic information we have about apes and humans, where the form of a fossil of a particular age matches the amount of variation over time in the DNA of apes and humans? It sure LOOKS like, over time, some animals became more like chimps and others became more like humans after splitting from a common ancestor six million years ago. The fossils are not only in the rocks but also in our genes.
That ties in to the other list I presented earlier in this thread (my, isn’t this a long thread though), that shows some of the varieties of evidence that show evolution happens. Another example of how one type of evidence can support different types of evidence is the discovery of Tiktaalik (transitional form between fish and land animals) in rocks of exactly the age one would expect to find it in based on other fossils we already knew about, earlier fossils that were more fish-like and later fossils that were more land-animal-like. AND that age ALSO matches what is predicted from study of the DNA of existing species of fish and land animals…it all fits together logically and consistently.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
E.E. says: “Chimps and Gorillas would have the same capacity of thought and communication we have. Some scientists THEORIZE that it is possible that we are descended from apes, but they are actually in the minority.”
Nope. Chimps and Gorillas have evolved to fit their niche in the environment. Why should they turn out the same as we did? That doesn’t even make sense! In that case, every living thing would be exactly like every other living thing.
And your claim about the scientists who accept humans evolving from apes being in the minority is also WRONG! Check “Project Steve” for what I’m talking about!
You people making such ignorant assertions really do need to check your facts. I don’t just parrot anyone’s opinion on any subject. Whatever your sources, E.E. and Kay, you have been LIED to by them! Perhaps your sources are sincere, perhaps only ignorant and not stupid, evil or insane, but they could be any combination of the above.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Oui, E.E., I agree with you about the difficulities of translating from one language to another. I have also posted entries about the difficulty (nay, impossibility!) of truly communicating direct experience using only words even within the same language.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
We had a common ancestor but that common ancestor’s fossils cannot be found. It is a possibility that that common ancestor could be found on a continent that used to be above the water but is now under the water. I am not talking just about Atlantis but there have been other island continents in other mythos that have been mentioned. Atlantis is the most advanced lost continent that disappeared but there has been others. Actually my own personal theory that I wished I had the funding to investigate, is that the animal that Sasquatch is would be that missing common ancestor. Which is why he is called the missing link. But I also have a belief that if we could do a fossil survey of an area between California and Japan. (Think deepest point between those two.) I would go west from San Fran. I believe that is where we would find our missing fossils. Like I said the probability that we actually stem from a specific ape like Chimps, Gorillias, Orangutans, etc. is very unlikely. But an ape like creature that probably lived on the ground and walked at least semi erect with out being low to the ground. Covered in thick fur that thinned in the warmer months that lived post protozoic, but pre Ice-Age. I think that would be the safest bet to a common ancestor.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
What I am referring to is us being an offshoot of a chimp or Gorilla as many creationists I have spoke to on this subject has said. I did not say we did not share a common ancestor just that chimps and Gorilla’s are not our common ancestors
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
OH MY BAD! Yes, we are NOT descended FROM Chimps or Gorillas, but we do share a common ancestor with them. While it is next to impossble to determine whether or not a given fossil is an ancestor or a cousin, the ape-human fossils we already know about are getting closer and closer to that time when their grandpa was our grandpa. Perhaps as you say we will NEVER find a fossil of the exact common ancestor to chimps and humans. Even so, such a common ancestor did exist, and we already have the evidence of fossils in our genes and in our blood where finding a fossil in rocks would be nice but not necessary to prove common descent.
I don’t know why you think this ancestor lived on land now submerged between USA and Japan. All the other evidence points to Africa as the cradle of human evolution.
I also don’t think Sasquatch is a common ancestor. He would be a cousin, maybe a close cousin, perhaps closer in form to our common ancestor than modern chimps or modern humans, if he exists. The fossils we have that DO exist are more than what most creationists are willing to admit!
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG said: “Are you willing to admit, now that it has been pointed out to you and you can check it out for yourself IF you want to, that your use of Eldredge’s quote does NOT show dissent with macroevolution among paleontologists? I won’t hold my breath.”
TBG… you’re doing it again.. making incorrect assumptions… I wasn’t inferring that Eldredge doesn’t believe in macroevolution. I was showing that he and others don’t believe in Darwin’s theory of GRADUAL ADAPTIVE TRANSFORMATION.. that based on the Cambrian period, that theory isn’t valid.
And I’m purplexed by this…
““Gerald Schroeder cites how microevolutionary examples are used by Darwinists as “proof” of macroevolution: “…when the London Museum ofnatural History, a bastion of Darwinian dogma, mounted a massive exhibit on evolution, occupying an entire wing of the second floor, the only examples it could show were pink daisies evolving into blue daisies, little dogs evolving into big dogs, a few dozen species of cichlid fish evolving into hundreds of species of—you guessed it—cichlid fish. They could not come up with a single major morphological change clearly recorded in the fossil record. I am not anti-evolution. And I am not pro-creation. What I am is pro-look-at-the-data-and-see-what-they-teach.”22″”
why didn’t they have a display showing or describing these fossils of apes to man at this Museum?
Why is the article of the Missing Link completely ignoring your list?
This is something I’m going to have to get to the bottom of.
And I have this question…
Why can’t those transitions just be microevolution of the ape species??
Where does that concrete “factual” proof come in that shows the actual transition from ape to man?? And not just ape to a more evolved ape?
Help me understand this…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Oh, and to correct myself before anyone else catches me on it, Project Steve is about scientists who accept that macroevolution happens, not focusing on ape to human evolution in particular but of course, ape to human is the most controversial example of macroevolution.
For those who don’t know why I say macroevolution, it is because creationists are fond of conceding that wolves can beget dogs but no “kind” can produce another “kind.” I recently found a good explanation of why this is a fallacy at Ben Franklin, Compound Interest, and Evolution. Earlier in this thread I shared my own explanation of how macroevolution does NOT conflict with the literal interpretation of Genesis of animals bringing forth after their own “kind.”
LikeLike
kayms said
I have a comment in moderation
LikeLike
dorian said
ditto on the ‘lost in translation’. a translator or interpreter always faced with making subjective choices. the romance languages, for example, can have 4 to 5 different meanings or usage for one verb. we are lucky to have english as our mother language. there is an abundance of vocabulary in the english lexicons. i do contract work w/ a translation firm in london and even a two page document can take a long time to complete.
that’s why i’m interested in the amanda knox case. when she was questioned/interrogated by the italian police, her knowledge of the italian language was nowhere near advanced. i imagine that she missed a lot of important details in the conversations. given the different language and cultural nuances, the girl could’ve incriminated herself even more with all the confusion.
LikeLike
kayms said
Are we doing a little “back pedaling” here TBG? Do you or do you not subscribe to that ape to man list you posted?
LikeLike
dorian said
this is totally digressing from the parable, surprise! but speaking of evolution, the evolution of languages is something i’m very interested in. i’ve noticed more and more english words are being incorporated into other languages. but let me stop here before we get three topics going on at the same time. where’s my ritalin? oh and where’s princess? i’m hoping she’s well!!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I have been nothing but consistent in stating that the evidence of the world shows humans evolved from non-human ancestors. Where do you get the idea that I am “backpedaling.”
That list of fossils showing ape to human transitions is more complete than what we knew even ten years ago, but it is highly unlikely we will ever have a complete set of fossils showing every generation of the transition, and that level of evidence is not necessary to show the transition happened.
can
My computer is dying. I will try to save it, but it will be at least twelve hours or more before I can post again. Kay, why don’t you spend part of that time to investigate whether or not Niles Eldredge accepts the fact of macroevolution and report what you find? I say he does. You claim he doesn’t. Are you so easily confused as to mistake debating the mechanisms of HOW evolution happens with debating IF it happens? If so, it’s not entirely your fault. The dishonest practices of some creationist sources are quite well-documented.
Signing off for now, TBG
LikeLike
kayms said
TBG… please refer to comment #317…
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
I will post more after I read about Discovering Ardi.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
I will post more after I watch Discovering Ardi.
LikeLike
kayms said
And you list shows a progression from a “chimp” to a human.. but in comment #316 you say we did not descend from chimps.
And then you say…”That list of fossils showing ape to human transitions is more complete than what we knew even ten years ago, but it is highly unlikely we will ever have a complete set of fossils showing every generation of the transition, and that level of evidence is not necessary to show the transition happened.”
And yes it is necessary… otherwise you could easily just have two SEPARATE SPECIES evolving.
Why don’t you acknowledge that it is theory that man evolved from something else and not a proven fact.
You stating over and over that it is “fact” (although you have wavered at times) without showing PROOF is not acceptable.
LikeLike
kayms said
Glad to see you back here EE… I knew you would have much to say about this topic!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Haven’t started reformatting yet (can’t find any neighbors with CD’s to spare for backing up data).
Your quote from Eldredge does specifically address gradualism versus nongradualism as an explanation of some of the fossil record. However, the way you presented it and your comments about it (even to these most recent posts) indicate you misunderstand the subtleties of the subject.
Evolution does NOT depend on gradualism being the case in any or all examples of transition. It used to be that most biologists assumed gradualism, but that is not the only nor the most important contribution of Darwin to science. Darwin pointed out the FACT of evolution and proposed his THEORY of Natural Selection to explain that fact. Darwin assumed that any changes between species would be gradual, but a tiny change in the genome can sometimes lead to great changes in how genes are expressed resulting in different body forms in a relatively short time geologically speaking.
So even if Eldredge and many other paleontologists disagree with Darwin that change is usually or always gradual, that does NOT mean they disagree that evolution happens or that different types of living creatures share common ancestors.
And about that list of the ape to human transition, yes it is a list of apes going to a more evolved ape. That would be humans. Humans ARE apes, the third species of Chimpanzee. Why the Museum you talk about doesn’t include such a list of transitional forms is beyond me, UNLESS it is a creationist museum. Those are KNOWN for lying, to the shame of Christians everywhere.
Okay, a neighbor just got home who MIGHT have CD’s I can borrow to back up my family photos and email. Gotta go. Like I said, it might be at least twelve hours before I can read this blog or post again. I’m interested in what you find out, Kay. Peace TBG
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Yay I have CDs. Before I format, I do NOT say we evolved from chimps, and neither does the guy who wrote that list. What I have said over and over and over again is that there are multiple lines of evidence that indicate that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. In other words, six million years ago there were no humans; there were no chimps, but a creature that resembled a modern chimp more than a modern human was the ancestor to both.
Over millions of years some of the descendents of the population of that ancestor became more chimp-like as they adapted to their environment. Other descendents became more human-like as they experienced different mutations to their genes and were selected upon differently by their environment. Now we have two species of modern chimp and one species of modern human, but there were intermediate stages along the way that have left traces in the rocks and in our genes.
Read some of my posts. Try to understand. I know it must be difficult if the evidence conflicts with what your particular denomination of Christianity has been teaching you all your life, but ask yourself if God would lie in the evidence of the world he Created.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Seriously Kay, are you saying we have to have representative fossils of EVERY generation of our ancestors before you will accept the fact that you are cousins to a chimpanzee?
That is an unrealistic and unnecessary requirement. Even without ANY fossils of anything, there is enough evidence of other types that clearly show macroevolution happened.
About beating a dead horse, it wouldn’t be necessary except for some fringe cults that insist evolution didn’t happen regardless of the evidence for it. In this country it’s fundie Christians. In Turkey there’s a loony Muslim publishing huge books full of beautiful full-color glossy photographs and scientific distortions and lies trying to “prove” evolution isn’t possible.
One might as well try to prove it’s impossible for the earth to go around the sun. Why do you think Christianity finally came around to admitting they were wrong about that? It’s because the weight of evidence was finally so overwhelming that they HAD to or be the greatest laughingstock of all time. They also realized that such an INTERPRETATION is NOT necessary for the core message of salvation though Jesus Christ.
Evolution is at that place now in the dogma of some Christian denominations. While MOST Christian denominations accept the fact of evolution, as do most educated people worldwide NOT because of liberal brainwashing but because of logic and evidence, there are SOME very vocal minority sects of Christianity that insist on tying the message of salvation through Jesus Christ to denying the fact that evolution happens.
Their loss.
LikeLike
kayms said
you said: “And about that list of the ape to human transition, yes it is a list of apes going to a more evolved ape. That would be humans. Humans ARE apes, the third species of Chimpanzee.”
THEN you said: “I do NOT say we evolved from chimps, and neither does the guy who wrote that list. What I have said over and over and over again is that there are multiple lines of evidence that indicate that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.”
This seems like a clear contradiction to me.
As to your last comment #331… you left out “Once upon a time” at the begining…. I hope you are not claiming that is fact.
Really, if you could just be clear about what exactly is fact… and post the information to back it up. I’m not arguing against evolution as you seem to keep wanting to insist. I am arguing against us evolving from some other species…and you haven’t given any proof to the contrary except that list which you then contradicted by saying that we didn’t evolve from chimps.
ps… humans are not apes. These are two different species… look it up. Or go to the zoo.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
How it is a contradiction? Chimps are one type of ape, and humans are another type of ape. Cladistically speaking, all humans are apes but not all apes are humans. All apes are monkeys but not all monkeys are apes. So on down the line to where when you go back far enough, humans can truly be described as highly derived modifications of fish. The proof is not only in the fossil record but in the structure and development of our bodies. Neil Shubin, the guy who discovered Tiktaalik, wrote a book called Your Inner Fish that explains this further.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
The Black Knight declares “I’m not arguing against evolution as you seem to keep wanting to insist. I am arguing against us evolving from some other species…”
What the heck do you think evolution means? If you’re arguing against us evolving from some other species, you are displaying an abysmal ignorance of what evolution is AND how much evidence there is for it.
Look at the link I provided in an earlier post about Ben Franklin, Compound Interest and Evolution. It explains the fallacy of “micro-” versus “macro-” evolution you seem to be confused by. As for the evidence itself, I have provided you links and helpful hints on good sources of information. You have the internet. There are search engines.
LikeLike
kayms said
TBG said…”You people making such ignorant assertions really do need to check your facts. I don’t just parrot anyone’s opinion on any subject. ”
Uh, yes you do… you did it with the claim that no 1st century historians wrote about Jesus AND that Jesus didn’t fulfill ANY prophecies…”NOT ONE!”… These are both lies that you PARROTED before doing YOUR research.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I thought there were 2 kinds of evolution… micro and macro…. I agree with micro and possibly macro in some cases but not when it comes to humans.
I have a comment in moderation…
LikeLike
kay~ms said
you said: “Look at the link I provided in an earlier post about Ben Franklin, Compound Interest and Evolution. It explains the fallacy of “micro-” versus “macro-” evolution you seem to be confused by.”
so now you are disagreeing with the theory of microevolution and macroevolution? You mean a “proven fact” has now been proven wrong?
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
For a species to evolve from another species would take a major catastrophic event with the survivors. The fact that there is a 4% difference in the Chimp genome and in the human genome shows that Chimpanzees are our distant cousins. There is evidence to support this. Read more about that 4% difference here :
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
http://www.genome.gov/15515096
@TBG The reason why I think our missing ancestor that it will be found is the ancestor to all bipedal mammals of the Homo genius will be found in the pacific region is quite simple. Older fossils dated earlier than Homoerectus was found on an island in the pacific. Where the cradle of civilization happened around the mid east and Africa. I can draw a hypothesis that we can find fossils and evidence of a large land mass that was above the water is now below it, somewhere in the pacific ocean. I think this change occurred during the split of Pangaea where the probability of continents that did not survive the split is high. That kind of catastrophic occurrence could have caused a mass migration. Then later during the Ice Age the migration to warmer climates via a land/ice bridge from Russia to what is now known as Alaska.
@kay Im citing from a websource
1. Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.
Creationists have created another category for which they use the word “macroevolution.” They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.
Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.
Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.
2. There is evidence for supermacroevolution in the form of progressive changes in the fossil record and in the pattern of similarities among living things showing an absence of distinct “kinds.” This evidence caused evolution in some form to be accepted even before Darwin proposed his theory.
This was taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
A scientific paper was written that gives 29+ evidences that Macroevolution happens:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Be warned this is a thesis and it is long.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
that page was written to be read after the above link.
All those pages explain about micro and macroevolution. Microevolution can be observed, Macroevolution takes a very long time. Where Microevolution can actually be seen and happens on a small scale. See my post that mentions the appendix for an example.
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
hi ya’ll. well, i have been ill for a few days, so i see i missed out on some heavy debating.
it is going to take me a few hours to catch up.
achoo! god bless me.
i do want to say, i watched on a “christian” tv station over the weekend a report about the creation museum. http://creationmuseum.org/
so get this, they were saying that noah actually had dinosaurs on the ark. you see, what happened is, after the flood all of the herbivore dinosaurs died because those dinosaurs ate specific plants which did not survive the flood. and the carnivores, well, it’s simple, the carnivores were killed by man because they were predators.
lol, it makes so much sense to me now. god did not have enough foresight to see that the dinosaurs were not going to make it. had he have known, he could have saved noah a lot of time building that ark. think of all of that wasted space. all of those useless cubits.
you guys should watch more christian tv. it explains everything. how the world is only 6 thousand years old and why we should pass laws to make homosexuals illegal. plus, if you send them a thousand dollar seed right now, and it doesn’t matter if you don’t have it, just put it on your credit card, you can become rich or have your cancer healed. plus you will get either a prayer cloth or a healing oil or a cross that has semi precious stones embedded in it.
blessed be thy name.
i see here that dorian has invited my to do some editing. sounds like a lot of work. i dunno, it could cut into my prayer time.
ok, then, i will do it. if i need prayers there is always bkeller@liveprayer.com.
so let me catch up on my reading and i will get back to you
LikeLike
princessxxx said
this should explain everything
LikeLike
dorian said
thanks, P! i’m glad you’re back. south park explained it all, as usual.
Jesus interviewed
‘you never want to be crucified on an empty stomach’
‘the buddha was smart. that’s why he’s laughing.’
‘lazarus wasn’t dead, he was just drunk.’
bad news is i always thought i had my own guardian angel but turns out i share him with 6 other people.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Hi EE..
Can you tell me, is this list proof of macroevolution?
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens sapiens
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Here’s what that list shows Kay:
There are no fossils of modern humans from millions of years ago. Instead there are fossils that are in between apes and humans. As we get closer to the present, that sequence of fossils shows progressively less ape-like features and more human-like features until, very recently (less than 200,000 years) we find the first fossils of modern humans. Sometimes more than one species from that list co-existed. As Baron Bodissey pointed out, some from that list are not direct ancestors; they are cousis. However they’re all family.
How do YOU account for this sequence, that the oldest fossils are more ape-like and as they get younger the fossils show more and more human-like features? In addition, how do you account for the evidence from molecular biology, and the smoking gun of human chromosome 2 that clearly shows evidence of the fusion of two ape chromosomes (Miller talked about this during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial)
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
As for intermediates, australopithecus afarensis is about as in the middle as it’s possible to be. Looks kinda like a chimp, but walks like a human. Adjusted for body size, the brain is bigger than a chimp would be for that size but smaller than a human would be for that size, and it’s about halfway back to to the time of our common ancestor with chimps.
HOW do you account for that?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Got my cousins mixed up…perhaps a. africanus would be a better example of an intermediate being slightly larger in body and brain size than a. afarensis. One of the surprises of afarensis was that bipedalism (walking like a human) apparently developed before increase in brain size in human evolution.
The point is that these fossils are intermediate in form between apes and humans and show a progression over time of less ape-like and more human-like features, exactly what would be predicted by evolution. So how DO you account for these fossils (and the molecular evidence, chromosome 2 fusion, etc.)?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG..first, I would like to get your response to this…(comment 335)
TBG said…”You people making such ignorant assertions really do need to check your facts. I don’t just parrot anyone’s opinion on any subject. ”
Uh, yes you do… you did it with the claim that no 1st century historians wrote about Jesus AND that Jesus didn’t fulfill ANY prophecies…”NOT ONE!”… These are both lies that you PARROTED before doing YOUR research.
You said: “There are no fossils of modern humans from millions of years ago. Instead there are fossils that are in between apes and humans. As we get closer to the present, that sequence of fossils shows progressively less ape-like features and more human-like features until, very recently (less than 200,000 years) we find the first fossils of modern humans.
How do YOU account for this sequence, that the oldest fossils are more ape-like and as they get younger the fossils show more and more human-like features?”
I still ask, Why can’t this “progression” of ape to human simply be two different species evolving separately? Humans may have just come onto the scene much later than apes. What is the actual proof that the line is of the two as one line?
As for the molecular bioglogy evidence, I can’t argue with that because it is way over my head. All I can say is that, as an example, there is molecular evidence all the time, again as with a “cure” for cancer, that turned out to not give the conclusion that was originally believed.
What is the missing link? This recent article suggests it was finally found… but according to you there is no missing link?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/05/19/2009-05-19_missing_link_found_fossil_of_47_millionyearold_primate_sheds_light_on_.html
“A team of researchers Tuesday unveiled an almost perfectly intact fossil of a 47 million-year-old primate they say represents the long-sought missing link between humans and apes”
I’m trying to find THE (main) argument to your assertion that it is “fact” that we evolved from some other species… you keep mentioning the creationist’s arguments… could you please point me in the direction of where I can find these arguments?
And you keep referring to lists… the “steven” list and the pro creation scientist list.. I would really like to see those lists…
If you say you want an honest debate, please help me with links to where you are getting your information from. I haven’t been researching this as long as you obviously have.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Reread my post Kay. I did not say Jesus did not fulfill any prophecies. I make it clear I am talking about the specific prophecies that make it clear exactly what the Jewish Messiah is supposed to do. There are only a few of these specific prophecies, and as I correctly stated when you look at what the Jews were expecting of their Messiah Jesus did NOT fulfill any of these specific prophecies.
You apparently know how to use the internet. I HAVE given you resources to check (the Talk Origins web site, the University of California web site about evolution). Look up project steve or clergy list +evolution in any search engine for those other lists.
You can choose to ignore or disbelieve the evidence for evolution. Apparently though you are sincerely unaware of how much there is and how neatly it ties together. For example, the expected date of a predicted intermediate form between two living species based on comparison of their DNA and rates of mutation corresponds to the fossil record where we find just such a form in the rocks of the expected age as is predicted by studying the DNA of its descendents.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Well, you sure did a good job of making it look like Jesus fulfilled “none”… “NOT ONE!”.
As to the “specific prophecies”, Jesus can still fulfill them at the second coming. And He DID fulfill many other prophecies about the Messiah… And I would still like to hear your answer to my question on the other post, just for my own curiosity… If Jesus was a ficticious person as you like to claim, why wouldn’t the writers have him fulfilling these “specific” prophecies? What do you tell yourself about this?
And I’m not choosing to ignore the “evidence” for evolution… it is very arrogant and ignorant of you to insist that I believe YOUR view, which you erroneously claim as fact I might add, without me first getting the argument from the other side, which I might add again, you don’t seem to want to help me find. It’s very time consuming to sift thru all of the stuff out there… even on the Talk Origins site alone… I’m just asking for you to back up the claims that you are making.. and if you truly wanted to have an honest debate to find the truth I would think that you would be a little more willing to help me here… It’s like you think we’re having a contest with an eventual winner when I thought, and as you’ve stated, that you just want to find the truth. You clearly have been researching/ studying this subject for awhile now… I haven’t.
The least you could do is answer my questions I’ve asked…
1) I still ask, Why can’t this “progression” of ape to human simply be two different species evolving separately? Humans may have just come onto the scene much later than apes. What is the actual proof that the line is of the two as one line?
2) What is the missing link? This recent article suggests it was finally found… but according to you there is no missing link?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/05/19/2009-05-19_missing_link_found_fossil_of_47_millionyearold_primate_sheds_light_on_.html
“A team of researchers Tuesday unveiled an almost perfectly intact fossil of a 47 million-year-old primate they say represents the long-sought missing link between humans and apes”
I just feel like you are not giving me the whole story…you’re not unbiasedly volunteering any arguments from the other side…unless you can immediately knock it down…
You say you want the truth but you’re words and actions prove otherwise.
And this question also… If Jesus was a ficticious person as you like to claim, why wouldn’t the writers have him fulfilling these “specific” prophecies? What do you tell yourself about this?
You said: “For example, the expected date of a predicted intermediate form between two living species based on comparison of their DNA and rates of mutation corresponds to the fossil record where we find just such a form in the rocks of the expected age as is predicted by studying the DNA of its descendents.”
That doesn’t prove anything.. it is just more “evidence” that could have several different explanations… it’s not proof!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay says:
*************************
You said: “For example, the expected date of a predicted intermediate form between two living species based on comparison of their DNA and rates of mutation corresponds to the fossil record where we find just such a form in the rocks of the expected age as is predicted by studying the DNA of its descendents.”
That doesn’t prove anything.. it is just more “evidence” that could have several different explanations… it’s not proof!
*************************
Yes, it is more evidence, and especially strong evidence because one type (molecular evidence) makes a prediction of what should be found in another type (fossils) and that prediction is fulfilled. What are the odds of that, and what other explanation makes any sense?
These are the types of corroborating evidence I’m talking about where if macroevolution DIDN’T happen, why oh why would God plant all these types of corroborating evidence that are so logically and consistently explained by the idea of macroevolution?
I am confused by your question about the fossil sequence from ape to human representing two species…there are more than two species in the list. Do you somehow mean that all the fossils that are not anatomically modern humans are evolving apes, and that all of a sudden POOF! man appears in the fossil record?
That doesn’t make any sense and is ignoring the fact that the progression of fossils show a clear trend of becoming more human over time. IF it didn’t happen that way, then why would God make such a progression of fossils that LOOK like apes evolving into humans unless it did happen, and why would God also plant clues in the molecular biology to make it look even more like it did happen?
As for the media reports of “missing links,” they are misleading to say the least. When a fossil is found that is intermediate between two major groups such as between land animals and whales, or between apes and humans, it adds to our understanding. Some creationists though, instead of acknowledging that a transitional form has been found that is further proof of evolution, those creationists sometimes say that instead of one gap in the fossil record being filled the scientists now have TWO gaps to account for! Whatever…
We do not have and probably never will have complete fossil sequences of every generation between different species evolving, but as I said before that we have any fossils at all is icing on the cake but not necessary to understand or accept the fact of evolution happening.
That link I provided to the 29+ evidences of macroevolution is a good one. Yes there is a lot of material on the talk origins site. That’s my whole point about how the creationists are misinforming the public about what evidence exists for evolution. Talk Origins is good because it presents the creationist side too, explains the flaws in their arguments, and links to scientific papers and other resources that present the actual evidence. For an easier-to-digest introduction to the subject try the web site of the University of California at Berkeley about evolution.
Here is the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Here is the UC Berkeley site about evolution
I hope this helps.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
The strongest evidence of all for evolution is the “nested hierarchies” of many DIFFERENT types of data. Such a configuration of data is what would be expected if evolution is true, and that so many DIFFERENT types of data show a nested hierarchy and that these hierarchies MATCH is evidence in itself!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
The most important thing to realize is that accepting the fact of evolution does not have anything at all to do with accepting or denying Christ EXCEPT to some denominations who for whatever reason insist on tying a literal reading of Genesis to the message of salvation.
Remember that Christianity USED to insist that the sun goes around the earth, based on the same style of interpretation that is used to deny the fact of evolution.
I have shared how even when one insists on animals bringing forth their own “kind” that does NOT mean populations of animals, over time, can produce different kinds.
MOST mainstream denominations of Christianity accept the fact of evolution. It is only the fundies that have a problem with this.
Here is a link to the Wikipedia article about the Clergy Letter Project, and for good measure here is a link to the Wikipedia article about Project Steve.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
OOPS! It can be so confusing working with negatives!
I said in the previous post:
I have shared how even when one insists on animals bringing forth their own “kind” that does NOT mean populations of animals, over time, can produce different kinds.
I MEANT to say:
I have shared how even when one insists on animals bringing forth their own “kind” that does NOT mean populations of animals, over time, canNOT produce different kinds.
(note the extra NOT in the last line)
LikeLike
dorian said
TBG – get a wordpress blog already so you can edit your comments or post something!you don’t have to populate that blog, make it a back up for your posts here or something like that.
i think you, betty and E_E are our resident lecturers. lawman also was, in the beginning of adkob time, and bard, too. betty is headmaster. tothewire is mother superior. E_E is high priest. i’m the bard/fool/scribe and conjurer (i recruit). kay is a cross between morgan la fey and joan of arc. princess, well princess is HRH princess and she can be whoever or whatever she wants to be any given time. i drive her gilded coach sometimes.
what a group, eh?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG.. thank you for posting those links. I agree with your point about the “nested hierarchies”. It is very compelling evidence. But I do want to interject here the idea of presuppositions as the Y-origins article talked about. And along with that, much of the data or evidence collected is very subjective and can be misinterpreted… one mininterpretation can then lead to another and another and so on. All of the information collected in this field is contested or interpreted differently in some way or another by all of the researchers/ scientists. The “Steve” list is an argument for your point in this regard but it must also be noted that an overwhelming majority of scientists do not believe in God and I think that is one of the reasons why they are in this field. So of course they are going to agree with the concept that goes against the existence of God.
The evidence for ape to human evolution, as I said, could just be for an evolving of apes. The human fossils could be just for humans. The molecular similarities could just be similarities and nothing more. All of the animal world has a digestive system…does that mean we are all related and came from the same ancestor? Well, that is one view obviously Or it be that our Creator used the same concept for all living things (mammals etc) when He created everything… I know my ideas seem simplistic and scientifically ignorant but it’s true that the simple view shouldn’t be overlooked and with scientists, I think they do often overlook the simple, obvious view… for example, the fact that so many scientists are atheists… they are so involved with the scientific hows and whys of our history and existence that they completely ignore the ultimate question… where that first cell came from. The “big picture” view. The scientific community is biased for the most part when it comes to the existence of God and that is going to affect their “evidence”.
You ask a good question as to why God would have this evidence exist and lead people to come to these conclusions. I think of Jesus’ words… “Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened”… if we are truly looking for God, we will find Him and if instead we are looking for evidence that argues against the existence of God… we will find it also. But again, I want to stress that evidence is not proof. I can honestly say that looking at the compelling evidence for our evolving from apes has strengthened my faith. I’m not completely sure why but it definitely has.
I believe that the two concepts of evolution and Creationism don’t have to cancel each other out… in Genesis God created the world in 6 days… but a day to Him could be millions of years to us. The message of Genesis is that we have a Creator. And that message shouldn’t be excluded from class rooms because it is a theory just as evolution is a theory. And children should be given a chance to come to the same conclusion.. that both can be true. It’s blatantly wrong to exclude Creationism from the class roooms. And the main reason is because the birth of our existence cannot be scientifically explained. That fact should also be taught in class rooms.. why isn’t it??
As per this that I stated earlier…”The evidence for ape to human evolution, as I said, could just be for an evolving of apes. The human fossils could be just for humans. ”
To look at the Cambrian period… life just exploded onto the scene… that is what the evidence suggests. Humans could have done the same thing.
And also, the idea that an eye can’t evolve… it is too intricate and requires to much to function that it couldn’t have evolved slowly over time. It goes against the theory of evolution.
LikeLike
kayms said
I have a comment awaiting moderation.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
And to support my point that evidence can be misinterpreted … Piltdown Man fooled scientists for nearly 40 years…many scientists believed it was the missing link until it was discovered that it was nothing more than a lower jawbone of an orangutan that had been deliberately combined with the skull of a fully developed modern human. That paleontologists even thought that they could get away with that hoax shows how subjective fossil “evidence” is.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I was in shock to hear you admit that the nested hierarchies of data are compelling evidence for macroevolution. That is really what I’m looking for, not for anyone to change their mind about what the evidence means, but to at least admit that the evidence is there and that it suggests evolution happens. What you admitted is much, much more than most fundies ever admit.
The complexity of the eye has been used by many creationists to try to claim evolution can’t account for it, but there are intermediate forms in nature of every stage from simple light-detecting patches to eyes that in some ways are better than human eyes for certain applications.
Eyes evolved more than once in the history of life. To me, the evidence of how eyes evolved is pretty clear and is PROOF of evolution, not a reason to doubt it. As for Piltdown Man, that hoax was exposed by SCIENTISTS out to learn and describe what is the TRUTH, which is the main motivation of most scientists. Only a relatively few rabid atheist scientists have the mindset of looking for ways to disprove God, which is silly because God is outside the realm of science and can’t be proven or disproven.
Yes, there should be a few seconds in any science classroom to explain to the children that there may indeed be a Creator to the universe and life, but that whichever Creator they or their parents believe in is beyond the scope of the science classroom so we’re just going to focus on the physical evidence of the world and logical reasoning processes, m’kay? To give creationism the time it deserves in a science classroom wouldn’t take more than a minute or two at the beginning of the semester, then the students could focus on what SCIENCE can measure for the rest of the time. IF they WERE to actually teach the controversy, and do so honestly, a LOT of parents would be very upset for their children to learn the truth that their parents’ literal interpretation of Genesis is NOT supported by the evidence of the world, and in fact is FALSIFIED by it!
LikeLike
princessxxx said
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I don’t know why you were shocked… I’ve acknowledged at least twice that the evidence does lead in that direction; that we evovlved from apes… comments 285 & 304.
I find it interesting that now you are saying that you just want acknowledgement of the evidence’s implications, where before you wanted acknowledgement that this evidence lead to factual conclusions instead of theory.
But again, I want to reiterate that evidence often will have strong implications and then turn out to not be the case.
And with the clear evidence (piltdown man), fossil evidence can obviously be misinterpreted… which makes those implications even less reliable.
And of course SCIENTISTS exposed the hoax… who else was going to be able to do it?? The point is, why did it take them 40 yrs to do it???
You said: “The complexity of the eye has been used by many creationists to try to claim evolution can’t account for it, but there are intermediate forms in nature of every stage from simple light-detecting patches..”
Even the ability to detect simple light patches would require a very complex organ. Until it reaches even that capability the organ would be useless.
As to your last comments… my problem is that you insist this science be taught as fact when it is THEORY!. And the scientific evidence does NOT falsify Genesis… only if you take Genesis in the literal sense… and do you remember? Your gripes about people taking the Bible literally and missing the message??
You are bitterly opposed to bringing God into the class room… and that is because you are extremely biased against Christianity. The Genesis account doesn’t even mention Christianity. It’s the only historical record we have for describing our existence. And so it suffices as a way to introduce Creationism.
To present to children the idea that everything can be explained in a scientific way… including our existence is extremely misleading when you look at the big picture.. it encourages children to reject the idea of a Creator and believe in the science when only one theory is presented and focused on… that is what you are promoting. And the FACT is that our existence is not explainable in scientific terms! Is this not scientific IGNORANCE at the highest level?? Where the science came from is not explainable scientifically! yeah.. just keep on putting your fingers in your ears scientists… lalalalala.
And no comment on my comment about the Cambrain explosion? Why humans couldn’t have done the same thing?
And a couple of other questions you haven’t answered yet either…
a knock out P? Yeah, I agree…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay, your ignorance is still showing. Every claim you’ve made against evolution has been thoroughly debunked for some time. The Talk Origins web site has a list of hundreds of such claims, with explanations of WHY they are wrong and links to scientific papers AND creationist sites.
For example, your misunderstanding of the Cambrian period is explained in Cambrian explosion. That page has links to other claims debunked.
I am NOT trying to keep God out of schools. That would be useless since God is everywhere! However, to say in science classrooms of PUBLIC schools that evolution is “just a theory” is a lie. It is also a lie to claim that the Christian creationist or intelligent design ideas have ANY scientific evidence supporting their positions.
Kay, the Black Knight, now has both arms and both legs cut off but continues to scream “The Black Knight is invincible!” Showing his compassion, King Arthur sheathes his sword and declares, “Let’s call it a draw!”
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Again, I can’t argue with the scientific aspects except to say that much of it, on this issue, is subjective, speculative and theorized… and in many cases biasedly affected. Some of it will prove to be true but some will prove to be WRONG! That’s why it’s still called “THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION”. Scientific beliefs and theories are proven wrong all the time. You think truth and belief are the same thing, so of course you are going to insist that theory is fact when it isn’t. Sorry, but you deeming it as fact doesn’t make it fact.
Why is it called the Cambrian explosion if it isn’t an explosion? That site lists some exceptions to argue the issue but all in all there was a significant increase in life during that period that can’t be explained…. again, the same thing could have happened with humans. This is just one example of why it cannot be deemed as fact… there are still too many questions.
Bottom line, you want to claim that you’ve won this debate but you haven’t… evolution of man from apes is not fact, it is still considered theory…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
The point that has been proven beyond doubt many times by many people is that the creationist caricature of evolution, what THEY say it is and what THEY say is the evidnece (or lack thereof), is NOT EVEN CLOSE to truth.
Believe what you will. Thank God our founding fathers, good Deists that they were, put in that separation of church and state! If you don’t want your children learning what real science has learned, then send them to a private school. Don’t dumb down American children in public schools!
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I never said don’t teach it in schools… just don’t dumb them down with incorrect assertions of “fact” only later for them to learn that it was wrong. Even though you don’t understand the difference between fact and theory and truth and belief, others, even children, do understand that they are not the same thing. Don’t force your confusion onto them.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
TBG
You said there was not scientific proof for Intelligent Design. There is mathematical and metaphysical scientific proof that life on Earth could indeed be an experiment by a “higher being”. I will tell you why, the mathematical odds of life just happening by chance that a planet is in the right conditions, the right type of microbes with the right type of genetic structure to go through macro and microevolution is actually less likely. That is including all of the data we have currently. It is actually more likely that life on this planet was engineered either metaphysically or a genetically engineered organism that mutates at certain points in its development. Of course we are talking about a fraction of an increase. Let’s change the subject because we all agree that microevolution exists and has physical proof. In turn microevolution actually supports and proves macroevolution.
I want to actually know you’re thoughts on Metaphysical Science. Do you believe it is a legitimate science? Despite the fact that it is not recognized by the academic community as an actual science.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
There is and has been for some time way more than enough evidence for macroevolution to teach that it happens as an established fact of nature. To say otherwise shows an absymal ignorance of how much evidence there is of so many different types that all show this happened. Children deserve to be told the truth about what the evidence of the world is, whether or not such evidence conflicts with a narrow-minded or should I say simple-minded village idiot style interpretation of Genesis.
As for metaphysics, my opinion is that the universe is a manifestation of the Self playing hide and seek with itself for all eternity. Such an opinion may be in conflict with a literal reading of the Bible, but is in accord with many Hindus, Buddhists, and mystics even within Christianity.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
E.E., there is not any scientific proof for “intelligent design.” If there had been, it would have been presented at the Dover trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover).
“Metaphysical scientific proof”? What is that supposed to mean?
“…we all agree that microevolution exists and has physical proof. In turn microevolution actually supports and proves macroevolution.” While nothing in science can be proven to be true, what makes it science is the possibility of proving it false. So far, macroevolution has NOT been falsified and countless tests show its power as a unifying, explanatory and predictive idea.
LikeLike
dorian said
micro/macro evolution proves each others’ existence. i don’t want to expound on that since TBG has elucidated quite assiduously on it already!
metaphysical sciences legitimate in the esoteric circles, but it may take time for the academia to accept it as a legitimate science
science is powerful because it makes everything predictable and therefore controllable. but not everything can be explained by science. take for example all the new ghost-hunting reality shows on t.v now. the technology is getting more and more sophisticated and they’ve developed gadgets that can detect and record images and sounds not visible or audible to those investigating the supposedly haunted locations. what is debunked by logic (or science) is falsified. but there is recorded data that reveals what cannot be explained. so where does science go from there?
do we accept what cannot be proved false as evidence of truth? that ghosts really exist?
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. …”
arthur conan doyle
LikeLike
bettyslocombe said
Come back here: I’ll bite your bloody legs off!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay the Black Knight said: “an overwhelming majority of scientists do not believe in God and I think that is one of the reasons why they are in this field. So of course they are going to agree with the concept that goes against the existence of God.”
Once and for all, get it straight! Evolution does NOT go against the existence of God! All evolution does is explain and predict the evidence of the physical world. If you believe in a particular God that created this world, then all evolution does is explain and predict the evidence of the world that God created. If that evidence conflicts with your particular denomination’s interpretation of your sacred texts, too bad. You’re related to a monkey! Get over it!
Here is a link to God and Evolution from the Talk Origins site, but such information should be unnecessary. Once one realizes that evolution quite possibly is the most well-proven FACT known to modern man considering how much evidence of so many different types indicate it happens, then the only question remaining is how could one believe in an interpretation of a sacred text when that interpretation is falsified by the evidence of the world one’s God created? One’s God would have to be a malicious prankster to plant so much false evidence, and I wouldn’t want to believe in a God that tries to trick us.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Dorian said: “do we accept what cannot be proved false as evidence of truth? that ghosts really exist?”
This argument reminds me of the old joke about a murder trial. Your honor, the prosecution can produce three witnesses who said they saw my client murder the victim. But I can produce fifty witnesses who did NOT see him do it!
I am also reminded of the zen term “yugen” where one contemplates something such as a path leading up through the trees to the mountaintop as possibly going to that place we all have in the back of our minds, that fuzzy image of someplace we’d like to be. Of course one could follow that path, but then you’d know and the possibility wouldn’t exist anymore if that path DIDN’T go to that magical place.
There could be some physical reasons of energy fields, radiations, magnetism, gravity etc. why certain places that are historically known as “spooky” or haunted have certain physiological effects on people who visit there, cold chills, goosebumps, even seeing luminescent blobs of energy that in the imagination could resemble human forms.
I am open to the suggestion that there could be ghosts. That quotation from arthur conan doyle is not quite right though. Once you eliminate the impossible, there are many possibilities remaining, not all of which are necessarily the “truth.”
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG (the one who believes that truth and belief are the same thing) said: “Once and for all, get it straight! Evolution does NOT go against the existence of God!”
Are you kidding me? I have said numeruous times here that I understand and agree with that. You are the one who doesn’t have it straight.
My contention is that man did NOT evolve from apes. There is no proof… it is THEORY! You need to understand the differences between fact and theory. You have said that there is more than enough evidence to deem it fact… can you post some links to any scientists who say the same thing? That would be helpful.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay said: “My contention is that man did NOT evolve from apes. There is no proof… it is THEORY! You need to understand the differences between fact and theory.”
You’re wrong about that. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory might help clear your confusion some. One line in particular applies to your error: “Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.”
As for links to scientists who accept this as a fact, try contacting any of the Steves from that list, including the Nobel Prize winners. They wouldn’t have signed it if they didn’t know it was true.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
That link I posted has quotations from several noted scientists who do say exactly that. What’s more, consider the following paragraph from later in that essay:
We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word “fact.”
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG said: “You’re wrong about that. “Evolution is a Fact and a Theory” might help clear your confusion some. One line in particular applies to your error: “Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.”
I have a problem with Stephen Gould’s example here… these two examples are not comparable at all… we KNOW an apple won’t stay suspended in mid air… we still do not KNOW that man descended from apes… and he shows the lack of proof in his following comment! Below are quotes of his (go to this link for the sources https://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/the-case-of-the-missing-link-where-are-darwins-predicted-fossils/) that show his doubt about Darwin’s theory… and that he says that it is EITHER Darwin’s mechanism (that he has problems with) or “some other YET TO BE DISCOVERED” mechanism that proves evolution as “fact” … is contradictive to his assertion of “fact”. He is labeling something as fact and then acknowledging that there is no PROOF to support that fact at this time… much unlike the suspended apple. This is a great example of the biasness that clearly exists with scientists on this subject. I mean, am I wrong here?
Quotes from “The case of the Missing Link..”
“Stephen Gould, a staunch advocate of materialistic evolution, sums up the problem for Darwinists: “We do not know why the Cambrian explosion could establish all major anatomical designs so quickly. … The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.”11”
“According to Gould, with silence: “It’s not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”16 Gould, one of Darwin’s strongest advocates, also admits, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and notes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”17”
“Eldredge and his colleague Gould, however, responded to the lack of transitional fossils by developing a new theory called punctuated equilibria, a complete departure from Darwin’s basic premise of gradualism.20
The punctuated equilibria theory contends that evolution, rather than being a gradual process, flourished quickly in small, isolated geographic regions, and then stabilized. But evolution was the exception, and rarely occurred.
Gould and Eldredge have argued that a sudden jump from species to species is the only way to explain the missing transitional fossils. Denton contests their conclusions are difficult to believe. “To suggest that … possibly even millions of transitional species … were all unsuccessful species occupying isolated areas and having very small population numbers is verging on the incredible.”21”
“Regardless of one’s views of Charles Darwin, the geological record seems to have confirmed his worst fears; missing transitions, and the sudden appearance of new life forms. What Gould called the “trade secret” of paleontologists, the missing transitional fossils, points to the sudden appearance of new life forms, a phenomenon that Darwin said would be “fatal” to his theory of macroevolution.”
LikeLike
kayms said
I have a comment awaiting moderation…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
There are MANY transitional forms, examples abound between every group of living and extinct creatures clearly showing transitions in the fossil record that are substantiated by comparisons of the DNA, morphology and geographical distribution of living species.
The Cambrian is NOT a mystery anymore. Up until the Cambrian, life forms had not EVOLVED enough to leave substantial remains. This is because of the nature of the fossilizing process. Also, the so-called “explosion” took millions of years, hardly an instantaneous event as creationists portray it.
So you’re saying that all these scientists who have discovered all this evidence are WRONG? that they are LYING? that you are SMARTER than ALL OF THEM? Yeah, right… Go on back to your fundie church and declare victory like the pigeon playing chess, Black Knight Kay.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
ok.. if you say so… but the scientist YOU quoted believes otherwise…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
As an example of certainty, we are as certain that Chimps and humans have a common ancestor as we can be about ANYTHING, more so than most subjects because of the overwhelming evidence that shows this happened.
You doubted that evidence existed, that scientists accept that humans evolved from non-humans, many things…I have shown you that the evidence does exist and that scientists DO say that. Consider that since you were misinformed about these details that perhaps the sources you rely upon for your OPINION about evolution MIGHT be wrong!
That’s the point I’m trying to make. The style of interpretation used by some fundy sects to deny the reality of evolution is the SAME style of interpretation that was the basis for the official position of Christianity that the sun travels around the earth. Even the most fundy fundies no longer make that claim. Sooner or later they will also have to admit the reality of evolution, or be dismissed as crackpots.
Also, in regard to witnessing for Christ to spread the message of the Gospel, I know I am not the only one who has LESS faith in the fundie sects’ because I KNOW that the evidence shows humans DID evolve from non-humans. Since those fundie sects are clearly and obviously so completely and totally WRONG about something that can be so easily seen by anyone who looks at the evidence of the physical world, how can anyone take their word on spiritual matters that do NOT have such obvious clear evidence supporting them?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Here is a link (posted again!) about the creationist claims about the Cambrian Mystery
And here is one refuting the claim that there are no transitional fossils.
EVERY claim you make has been debunked again and again, for a long time now, yet creationists still make the same claims even AFTER they have been proven wrong! What’s that about not bearing false witness?
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Okay well no one really wants to change the subject? I mean we are beating a dead horse on this subject at the moment and the same evidence is being reported over and over again. Microevolution happens we can see that, maybe in a million years of subtle changes there may be a change drastic enough to prove Macroevolution completely. I mean what kay is contesting is what others talked about in debates versus if cloning will ever be possible. I can give other examples but microevolution in humans have been proved with the appendix and other organs that no longer have any relavance to our survival. The question is will we see homosuperior in our lifetime or will it take millions of years? Our species is quite young on the global age scale. Humanity in some form was not on the planet since the beginning of time. Just like abortion we are just debating semantics and it is going to be endless. There are endless possibilities on subjects for debate.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG… NONE of my points (the Cambrian period etc) have been “refuted”. You are just providing opposing views! And one of your “opposing” views (Gould) OPPPOSES your stance…. he is QUOTED as saying that the Cambrian period posses a problem for Darwin’s theory!
That there are OPPOSING theories proves that nothing has been “refuted”!
Quit making misleading and false claims!
You can’t quote one or two or however many scientists opinions and consider that proof of your stance when there are others that disagree… ESPECIALLY when those scientists are documented as saying otherwise!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I disagree E.E.
On subjects such as abortion there is not any debate over whether or not they happen.
With evolution, the anti-evolution crowd for the most part are sincerely misinformed about this subject. Once the FACT of macroevolution becomes more common knowledge, then whether or not one chooses to accept that FACT can be an informed choice.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
“I’m invincible!” The Black Knight yells with only one leg left, to which Arthur simply replies “You’re a looney!”
LikeLike
kay~ms said
oh yes…another example to support me point on the other post of how the liberals resort to labels of “crazy etc”… no doubt, the fake stupid laugh was present also… just a habitual reflex I’m sure, because I know that you are aware that I can’t hear you.. right?
LikeLike
dorian said
you can’t hear him, kay? i hear everything. you and princess sometimes wake me up in the morning screaming and hissing at each other. i hear your bat sometimes going “whoosh!” and princess screaming “ha ha, you missed!” and TBG’s bike horn going off, OTA giggling, etc…etc..boy, what a noisy group! i forget to put my computer on mute at night.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
TBG- Believe me I know this feeling. Its like yelling at a wall. I am not only talking to kay but in general when dealing with someone with a lot of faith in a religion or spiritual practice it is like this. I can successfully explain what an aura is and its purpose. I can tell you using both spiritual teachings and scientific understanding how the human chakra system works and how all of the chakras taught (there are over a million minor ones) how these teachings actually line up with the human nervous system. But because the aura cannot be measured by machines, mainly because one has yet to be developed, it does not exist. But auras can be seen to some extent by everyone. They just need to be trained in how to do so. But because not all of us have an awakened inner eye or sixth sense (do not sensationalize it. I am not talking about seeing dead people but in truth the term sixth sense refers to the ability to see or sense currents of energy around a person or in the environment.) Those that have that actually see these things are called crazy or borderline schizophrenic, doctors and scientists like to ignore the possibility. But must I mention that Sir Issac Newton believed in metaphysical science and did experiements that tried to prove thses things in his earlier cambridge days? He actually succeeded but since his experiments consisted of multiple unending variables he could repeat the same process and see the same results but when other people did those same experiments the results varied. So I know what it is like. Because niether side can embrace the possibility that both theories are fact. I mean do you subscribe to the there is no decernable order theory? Because people that subscribe to that theory usually see the smaller picture when compared to the vastness of the multiverse we actually live in. I can assure you that a pattern exists, I can say I have proof that Intelligent Design is plausible. But my methods in finding these patterns and proofs many would call questionable. But if you can without a resonable doubt prove that there is only one dimension, that there cannot be multiple dimensions all running parallel (I know this is touching some advanced quantum physics) that it is mathematically impossible then I will always believe my findings to be true to me.
Life is an experience truly unique to each individual.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I actually am inclined to accept the multiple universes theory as proposed by quantum physicists at Copenhagen back around 1930 or so. It would explain a LOT!
What’s more, everything is interconnected and mutually interdependent. Hindus and Buddhists know about this (Indra’s Net).
For subjects about which there is no physical evidence, it’s like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. However, the evidence for macroevolution DOES exist, and when creationists LIE about that it is easy (too easy!) to call them on it. The evidence of the world (their?) God created PROVES them wrong!
It is mainly about miscommunication and misunderstanding. Most of those who argue against evolution do so because they have been LIED to by sources they thought they could trust. I’m not talking about the Bible. What I mean are their well-intentioned but ignorant pastors who sincerely (but mistakenly) believe that the evidence isn’t there for evolution, or that there is ANY debate among scientists about whether or not it DID happen. The debate is not IF macroevolution happens, but HOW and WHY.
Creationist web sites such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research are riddled with errors that are EASILY found to be wrong. What’s more, such websites often have a statement of faith that more or less says that if the evidence of the world suggests their INTERPRETATION of the Bible is wrong, that it is the evidence of the world that is wrong and not their INTERPRETATION. Such ignorance! Such arrogance! It would be a joke if there weren’t so many gullible fools lobbying local school boards across the United States to deny our children the findings of modern science.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
I agree your comment made me chuckle. But you are the first that has cited the multiple universe theory that came out of Copenhagen. I think it is more plausible than Einstein’s theory, a lot of Einstein’s theories have actually been proven false with modern quantum physics. But I don’t think Einstein’s main field was quantum physics was it? I know some of his work is classified as such but not a lot of it. Just his most known works. Other than Atomic Energy paired with explosives makes a really big boom.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
More data is coming in from quantum physics experiments to suggest that nonlocality may be the way the universe works, which would be a problem for Special Relativity but ties in with the Indra’s Net idea of Hinduism and Buddhism about everything being interconnected and mutually interdependent.
While I think some new age physics such as the Dancing Wu Li Masters and the Tao of Physics went overboard in correlating modern physics with ancient Hindu teachings, it IS interesting that the more modern science learns the more it seems to confirm what the Hindus have known for thousands of years about the nature of reality. It is also interesting that the more modern science learns, the more it shows how WRONG a literal fundamentalist reading of the Christian Bible is, in spite of denials from people like Kay.
LikeLike
obama the antichrist said
Just a quick post here…dont wanna intrude too much. but didnt darwin have mental problems?
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=112
i dont know if this scholarly paper will show anyone that the creator of evolution (man from monkey) had mental problems.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Well OTA, it wouldn’t matter if Darwin was completely insane, and a pedophile, and a rapist, regarding whether what he discovered was true or not. It wouldn’t matter if he had changed his mind on his deathbed and said he made it all up.
The fact is that other people since then, many, many people, have checked what Darwin claimed and have found it to be one of the greatest insights explaining the diversity of life on this planet that any human has come up with yet.
Darwin is truly one of the greatest geniuses in history, regardless of whate4ver mental or other problems he might have had.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Oh, and look at the source of your information. Based on its coming from icr (Institute for Creation Research), I can just about guarantee that whatever it claims is false and, morever, that it wouldn’t take very long (a few minutes with a search engine) to EASILY prove that it is false.
Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis are two of the biggest LIARS on the internet! They should be ashamed of what they do in the name of Christ. They certainly bring no honor to God or to Christianity.
LikeLike
obama the antichrist said
I am talking about darwins monkey to man theory. facts can be turned into whatever you want it to be. The same Facts can prove or disprove your views. its all about how you want to interpret your data. If i gave you a person that was unstable mentally and his facts went against your facts then you would call him insane and did not prove anything. Its all about what you personally want to accept.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Again though, even if on the off chance that in this particular instance the Institute of Creation Research actually posts something that is true for a change, the state of Darwin’s mental health is completely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the insights he discovered.
Darwin was wrong in some of his details. He was by no means infallible. However, considering what information was available to him in his time, he made remarkable explanations and predictions that for the most part, have been found to be accurate.
LikeLike
obama the antichrist said
I can say the same for your sources. they are misled scientists who do nothing but run with their athiestic beliefs. its all about what you want to accept
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Facts are facts, OTA. You are apparently confusing them with opinions.
LikeLike
obama the antichrist said
and so are you TBG
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Not all scientists are atheists, and accepting the fact that evolution happens does no more to deny God than accepting the fact that the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa.
Have you forgotten that the same style of interpretation used by some to deny the reality of evolution is that style used for that other mistaken claim? And in this case, it isn’t using the same facts and interpreting them differently. The scientists base their acceptance on overwhelming evidence of many types. The creationists (at least the fundy Christian ones) base theirs on an INTERPRETATION of how to read the Bible that is a RECENT style of interpretation that is proven FALSE by the evidence of the world.
For example, there are things we should expect to see, physical proof, if there had been a single worldwide flood (the Noah story). We do not see such things as would be expected. However, there are other things we should expect to see if such a global flood did NOT happen, and that is what we DO see!
Perhaps the creation stories and flood stories of Genesis are METAPHORS to teach us moral lessons, that God created everything and has plans for us? WHy insist on taking things literally when the evidence of the world God created does NOT support such an interpretation? You might as well claim the earth is flat, another teaching if the Bible is really taken literally consistently.
LikeLike
obama the antichrist said
see i agree that things evolve such as adaptation or learning. but i do not believe that i came from a monkey (my mother may disagree due to the fact that she thinks that i was raised by monkeys).
and im sorry tbg but can you restate your flood point. i cant understand the wording. ahahhahaha.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
You can believe whatever you want, OTA. The evidence is what it is. I accept the reality of the world God created. I won’t call God a liar trying to trick us by planting false evidence. I won’t presume to limit God by insisting He couldn’t have used evolution as a tool of creation.
As far as Noah’s flood goes, there is no evidence we can find for such a flood ever happening. There IS evidence of the sort one would expect if such a flood did NOT happen. Figure it out. Again, is God trying to trick us by saying one thing in His book and another in His rocks? Or maybe it was a local flood that to all extents and purposes, for the people living there, WAS the whole world as far as they were concerned. Or maybe it never happened at ALL and the story is to illustrate a point about God’s judgement and God’s mercy.
When a story is used to teach a message, the details used to illustrate the message don’t matter as long as the message is conveyed. Fundies seem to be caught up in the details. It’s like they can only see the envelope a letter came in, and can’t open it up to read what’s inside.
LikeLike
obama the antichrist said
what proof is there that the flood never happened?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I cut and paste the following from the Talk Origins web site page Problems with a Global Flood. This isn’t the only source for my data, just the first that came up in a quick search.
6. Implications of a Flood
A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren’t the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn’t such evidence show up?
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn’t regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I have a comment awaiting moderation
LikeLike
kayms said
TBG… the “evidence” you posted is nothing but questions… that you think “debunks” opposing arguments. And likewise… there are valid questions that exist as to the proof of evolution… the Cambrian period… the eye… your “evidence” is considered “proof” by you and the opposing evidence you always deem “false”. It’s all the same… speculation, theories and questions left to be answered. You are extremely biased and you can’t even see it.
LikeLike
dorian said
uh-uh..back to the floods. noah’s saying “oh no, not again!” got the buckets, betty?
highly unlikely that the whole world would be flooded – another book of genesis allegory take literally. but let’s see if the archaelogists find an ark at the top of mt. ararat.
i’m more inclined to believe in the submerged city of atlantis than noah, though.
or this: https://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/and-when-the-sons-of-god-came-in-unto-the-daughters-of-man-the-nephilim/
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Not questions, Kay. What I posted shows what evidence people have discovered that conflicts with a literal worldwide flood ever happening at least since humans have EVOLVED from apes!
Do a little research IF you have an open mind to truth. The eye for example, is stunning proof evolution happens. There are intermediate forms at all stages among existing species that show that even half an eye is still useful enough to confer an evolutionary advantage over competing species without even that much ability to detect light.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Why is it that among scientists, accepting the FACT that humans evolved from apes is about as near to unanimity as humans can be on any subject, but among people who don’t know what the evidence is or how to analyze it, acceptance of that fact is much lower. Oh wait, I answered my own question!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Why don’t we wait for Hors to post his new article about the way ordinary people misunderstand science before commenting any more on this subject? This thread is WAY too long and takes forever for the page to load…besides changing subjects many times! I will hold my tongue, er, fingers, and refuse to post any more to THIS thread (about a hundred or two hundred posts after Dorian suggested it, lol).
Or why don’t YOU post a new article, Kay?
LikeLike
obama the antichrist said
TBG you are a very intelligent man. you arent going to change what i believe. but i still love to understand your side. thats why i asked for the evidence. a convo with you would be fun 😀
LikeLike
kayms said
True Lies & The Money Pit.
LikeLike
Anonymous said
When I was born agin of the Spirit, the wolf I used to be died.
LikeLike
Lucy said
Before I was born again and Christ made me a new creature, I was a wolf too. I no longer think like a wolf, walk like a wolf, talk like a wolf. I am a sheep.
LikeLike
Anonymous said
O:)
LikeLike
India News said
India News…
[…]The Two Wolves – A Cherokee Parable « A Different Kind of Blog[…]…
LikeLike
Deep Heat said
Deep Heat…
[…]The Two Wolves – A Cherokee Parable « A Different Kind of Blog[…]…
LikeLike
anses said
anses…
[…]The Two Wolves – A Cherokee Parable « A Different Kind of Blog[…]…
LikeLike
property Insurance said
property Insurance…
[…]The Two Wolves – A Cherokee Parable « A Different Kind of Blog[…]…
LikeLike
Sports Surfaces said
Sports Surfaces…
[…]The Two Wolves – A Cherokee Parable « A Different Kind of Blog[…]…
LikeLike
dressup game said
dressup game…
[…]The Two Wolves – A Cherokee Parable « A Different Kind of Blog[…]…
LikeLike
nevhost.com said
The coffee usually preferences completely fzntastic created because of this and
really can give your a jolt each day but itt really will a particular esptesso maker noot a coffee maker now not ideal for anyone who like the cup of coffee
each day. I really like my bialetti espresso maker and also know it probably makes the
very best coffeee of the many different allternatives about and also right now
we have relocated at my perfsonal nnew home that has a fuel cooker iim going in orrer to maie thhe work to make use of
it a lot more usually.
LikeLike