Ed and God

manipulatedliving

Collin wrote:

I'm not contradicting myself. I can indeed see how "survival of the fittest" can be used as an excuse for selfish behaviour, and I can see how the Westboro baptist church can use the bible to justify their behaviour.

We all have an animal instinct, I believe this is true. Murder, rape, killing for fun etc. have been around for ages, though... it's as old as mankind itself. And you're right, you see this in the animal kingdom as well. I guess we must share a common ancestor or something, eh?

Don't you know any atheists in person? Do they hump your leg, rape people, kill and murder people, cut throats to get a better job? Or are they just normal people, like yourself, despite their beliefs that their father was a monkey?

Will you marry me?

Collin

manipulatedliving wrote:

Will you marry me?

Are you female?

Either way, I will only really know if I want to marry you once I sniff your butt

catefrances

Collin wrote:

Are you female?

Either way, I will only really know if I want to marry you once I sniff your butt

great! you just set the evolution theory back thousands of years.

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

When I say 'argue' I dont mean something negative. Philosophically 'argument' just means a piece of reasoning. Ok, if you really hadn't noticed that this was the point i was agreeing with you on (although it seems kind of clear on my post) then I withdraw my accusation of pettiness.

P.s. Just to clarify, do you believe in Angels?

i believe in a presence, an energy. i dont call it angels. so that'd be a no.

manipulatedliving

Collin wrote:

Are you female?

Either way, I will only really know if I want to marry you once I sniff your butt

Indeed I am, but if you want to sniff my butt anyway, that's cool with me.

anyway, back on topic

Collin

catefrances wrote:

great! you just set the evolution theory back thousands of years.

No worries. We've got that covered already: atavism (I can thank the Good Doctor for that one!), or in intelligent design terms "god's little mistakes."

manipulatedliving

catefrances wrote:

great! you just set the evolution theory back thousands of years.

Oohh maybe Ed will write a new song about us and feature it on the new album "You don't have to be a Christian to be a Pearl Jam Fan". That would be awesome.

chopitdown

Frncisca1920 wrote:

His Music Is All About Who You Are As A Person And How We Perceived The World Around Us.

what do you think religion is? it's about who you are as a person and how you interact with the world around us...so I'd say it's fairly easy to compare ed's music and religion.

timsinclair

Collin wrote:

I'm not contradicting myself. I can indeed see how "survival of the fittest" can be used as an excuse for selfish behaviour, and I can see how the Westboro baptist church can use the bible to justify their behaviour.

We all have an animal instinct, I believe this is true. Murder, rape, killing for fun etc. have been around for ages, though... it's as old as mankind itself. And you're right, you see this in the animal kingdom as well. I guess we must share a common ancestor or something, eh?

Don't you know any atheists in person? Do they hump your leg, rape people, kill and murder people, cut throats to get a better job? Or are they just normal people, like yourself, despite their beliefs that their father was a monkey?

For other example see: crusades, Spanish Inquisition, witch hunts in countless other countries...

Yes, most of my mates are atheists and they are not rapists or murderers, plus they dont usually hump my leg. I did not accuse you of any of these things either. Thats my point, we both actively resist the animal instincts that form the basis of evolutionary theory, we chose a different way. Im glad you agree that following 'survival of the fittest' is not a good rule for life and can justify immorality. I think this is what 'do the evolution' is about. The rather demented figure that sings it jusifies his actions saying 'its evolution baby' and he is being consistent with evolution, its just 'herd behaviour'. Interestingly, he also uses Christianity, 'here's my church, i sing in the choir' but here he is not being consistent, he is contradicting christianity, so he is a thief and a liar. Thats the difference, Hitler was being consistent with evolutionary thought when he decided that the 'fittest' should destroy the 'parasytical' races and that people with defective genes should not procreate, however he was being totally inconsistent with any teaching from the New testament.

timsinclair

catefrances wrote:

i believe in a presence, an energy. i dont call it angels. so that'd be a no.

Ok Cate. Since you have made a statement of faith, are you willing to have your belief scrutinized in the same way that you have scrutinized mine?
Is your energy/presence made of atoms and molecules or is it supernatural?
Is it a thing, or does it have a personality?

Keiran

Has anyone involved in this discussion read the book "The Selfish Gene " by Richard Dawkins?

It intelligently addresses many of the issues being bantered about in this forum. Might want to check it out.

Edited cause I couldn't find the ? on my keyboard!!!

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

Yes, most of my mates are atheists and they are not rapists or murderers, plus they dont usually hump my leg. I did not accuse you of any of these things either. Thats my point, we both actively resist the animal instincts that form the basis of evolutionary theory, we chose a different way. Im glad you agree that following 'survival of the fittest' is not a good rule for life and can justify immorality. I think this is what 'do the evolution' is about. The rather demented figure that sings it jusifies his actions saying 'its evolution baby' and he is being consistent with evolution, its just 'herd behaviour'. Interestingly, he also uses Christianity, 'here's my church, i sing in the choir' but here he is not being consistent, he is contradicting christianity, so he is a thief and a liar. Thats the difference, Hitler was being consistent with evolutionary thought when he decided that the 'fittest' should destroy the 'parasytical' races and that people with defective genes should not procreate, however he was being totally inconsistent with any teaching from the New testament.

I don't know, man... There's not much to resist. I certainly don't have a desire to kill or rape that I need to resist, not even passively.

I don't understand the reasoning behind your conclusion that Ed is thief and a liar. You'll have to explain that one again, dude.

Here's a must read:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/hitler-eugenics

edit: please read the whole site!
edit: you watched that movie, didn't you?

timsinclair

Collin wrote:

I don't know, man... There's not much to resist. I certainly don't have a desire to kill or rape that I need to resist, not even passively.

I don't understand the reasoning behind your conclusion that Ed is thief and a liar. You'll have to explain that one again, dude.

Here's a must read:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/hitler-eugenics

edit: please read the whole site!
edit: you watched that movie, didn't you?

I havn't watched your link yet but, I'm NOT saying Ed is a theif and a liar, I think the song is written from the viewpoint of a deranged, power crazed leader of some sort.

slightofjeff

Collin wrote:

I don't understand the reasoning behind your conclusion that Ed is thief and a liar. You'll have to explain that one again, dude.

Ed isn't. But the protagonist of DTE is: "I'm a thief, I'm a liar. Here's my church, yada yada."

timsinclair

Hi Collin.
I've looked at your link now. I never said that Darwinism was the ONLY cause of the Holocaust, how about 2000 years of Christian anti-semitism, that didn't help much either. Hitler also fervently believed the anti-semitic conspiracy document 'The Protocols of the Wise men of Zion', which i think was the no.1 factor. But the arian superiority element, and a large part of the justification for the holocaust was Darwinian Eugenics, no doubt. Yes later Darwinists like Lewontin and Gould have done much to exorcize Eugenics from Neo-Darwinism, but that doesn't alter the historical impact it had already had. I actually only heard about the film 'Expelled' yesterday, I just watched the trailer and it looks awesome. Everyone interested in this debate should check it out on the link below. Have you seen the whole film?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

JaqRoy

timsinclair wrote:

In my own spiritual journey Ed has been a constant voice, a co-searcher of truth. I used to be amazed how new albums seemed to reflect my own searchings. But now we are adrift, worlds apart. From Ten to Yield, Ed's lyrics beat a genuine, honest, and real, path to God. After the metaphysical groping of vitalogy and no code,Yield's affirmation of faith and heavy allusions to the crucifixion of Jesus in Given to fly, made it the the soundtrack to my own recent submission to God. However, although remnants remained on Binaural, it soon became clear that Ed had seen the truth, counted the cost, and turned back. Now I am dismayed by the anti-Christian videos on tenclubs activism page and the 'God is a delusion' messages in Ed's lyrics. I feel gutted that ed did not come along for the ride, he's missed the greatest discovery of all - Life as a disciple of Jesus. I feel like I've lost a friend, am I the only one who feels this way?

agreed

timsinclair

Keiran wrote:

Has anyone involved in this discussion read the book "The Selfish Gene " by Richard Dawkins?

It intelligently addresses many of the issues being bantered about in this forum. Might want to check it out.

Edited cause I couldn't find the ? on my keyboard!!!

Welcome to the thread.
I actually havn't read that one but I have read his later books 'the blind watchmaker' and 'The God delusion'. These are essential texts for anyone interested in the debate. The problem is that not so many people seem to have read the essential texts on the other side of the argument, such as 'Darwin on Trial' and 'Darwin's Black Box'. Too many people let Intelligent Design be defined by its critics, Dawkins and the like are scared shitless of ID, and they have led many to believe that it is a dangerous psuedo-scientific religion, I think that anyone who has read any ID books knows that this is a lie. If there is one bit of wisdom I can give you it is this: NEVER let a movement be defined only by its critics.

timsinclair

JaqRoy wrote:

agreed

What do you agree with?

Keiran

timsinclair wrote:

Welcome to the thread.
Too many people let Intelligent Design be defined by its critics, Dawkins and the like are scared shitless of ID,

Thank you for the welcome. You definitely have to get past Dawkins' personal feelings on religion when getting to the crux of his theory. For me, Dawkins' constant interjection concerning his hatred of religion was the biggest weakness of the book.

Does anyone ever think that maybe a creator (God, Allah, Eddie whatever you want to call it) was the entity that set the whole chain reaction process of evolution into motion?

Is it possible that the Genesis story of creation is a simpler telling of the evolutionary process? At times, the 6 days of creation appear to loosely follow what scientific theory.

Or we could use transitive logic (if a=b and b=c then a=c) to answer the question "Does Eddie believe in God?"

Eddie is god! (this is an obvious given)
Eddie believes in himself (as most successful people do)
Therefore: Eddie believes in god!!!
/im a loser

timsinclair

Keiran wrote:

Thank you for the welcome. You definitely have to get past Dawkins' personal feelings on religion when getting to the crux of his theory. For me, Dawkins' constant interjection concerning his hatred of religion was the biggest weakness of the book.

Is it possible that the Genesis story of creation is a simpler telling of the evolutionary process? At times, the 6 days of creation appear to loosely follow what scientific theory.

This is kind of old ground in this debate so here is my old post on the subject:

The idea of God and Darwin as mates is like a horse pulling a tractor. The tractor was created to replace the Horse, it has no need of the horse cos it can do the job all by itself. Darwinism was dreamed up as an alternative to the Genesis account and as I have said it is based entirely on the philosophy of naturalism, which explicitley rejects any divine cause for the natural world. Theologically, the problems of trying to fit the two together are massive. Genesis is clear that God's origional creation was 'very good', so evil, no sin, no death. Everyone, man and animal was vegetarian - no lions tearing Zebras apart with their teeth, as gen 1:30 says they were given 'every green plant for food’. Now, however much you try to allegorize these texts one vital thing is clear from the whole Bible: the entrance of pain, suffering, and death into the world is a consequence of Adam and Eve's rebellion against God. You can see this in Romans ch5: 'Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men… death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses'. Without this foundation, the whole mission of Jesus is meaningless since he was sent to reverse the effects of Adam's sin, as Rom ch5 goes on to say:

'For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.’

The problem is that if, when Adam and Eve were walking about in the garden of Eden, and God said it was all 'very good', they were walking on top of hundreds of feet of sedimentary layers brimming with dead animals and protohumans, death did not come through Adam's sin so the work of Jesus is useless. If death and bloodshed, the suvival of the fittest, are the way that God created the world, then he is squarely responsible for all the suffering in the world, not us. What kind of all-powerfull God would design a world that can only progress through the strong destroying the weak, to me this kind of world is not 'very good'. If what Jesus did on the cross was really to reverse the effects of Adam's sin and so defeat sin and death, then all the sedimentary layers full of dead creatures MUST be post-eden. How could this be? well the answer is found 5 chapters later in genesis. If their really was a global flood that drowned the entire stock of life on earth (except those on the ark), then hundreds of feet of fossil-filled sediment all over the world is exactly what we should expect to find, and guess what - we do.
Peace.