Faith Healing

[Veilan]

I think you are arguing mainly for Britains leap from catholiscism while the rest of us are talking about the protestant church as a whole.

That's my understanding at this point, too.

[MorbidKate]

I think you are arguing mainly for Britains leap from catholiscism while the rest of us are talking about the protestant church as a whole.

As I said, I was explaining the why and how of it. I referred to Henry VIII because if you look at the his timeline starting in 1525 (already posted) and stand that against the timeline of Protestantism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant you can understand his thinking, especially after 1526 to get what he wanted. As my original post stated, if someone tried that today they'd be labelled a cult.

I'm not debating the origin of Protestant (Lutheran) ideals of the day at all. It's just interesting to me how the actions of one man rushed a new religion onto the world scene because he wanted a divorce.

Kate

[Vaelahr]

[Constantine] legalized Christianity. Until then it was just a semi-tolerated cult with some occasional persecutions, not unlike the cult of Dionysus.

We can be certain that early Christianity (prior to 400 A.D.) was growing and surviving through fierce political and religious opposition before Constantine's rule. There were ten very significant persecutions that occured. As many as 100,000 of the early Christians were put to death between 64 A.D. and 337 A.D.
http://www.unrv.com/culture/christian-persecution.php
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/persecution-russell.html

The bible WAS completely assembled by various committees through its history, and the particular stories were largely lifted from other sources (compare Jesus and the Roman Dionysus story, for example, or any of the other mystery religions like the cult of Isis), that much is true.

I wouldn't say that's a credible assertion. The early Christians had nothing to gain by creating some new religion crafted from cultic legend - only persecution. The Roman cults of Dionysus and Isis shared an element of resurrection from death and that's the only shred of similarity. Another Roman cult worth mentioning would be that of Mithras, a contemporary religion that had converts to and from early Christianity. In fact, the birth date of Christ wasn't observed early on until Constantine created Christmas using the pagan holiday of Mithras's birth, December 25.

...at this time there were probably hundreds, if not thousands of different bibles floating around.

There were no bibles back then. The early Christians circulated many letters however, a handful of which survived and were later included in the New Testament. There were also several accounts of Jesus being written, four of which were made canon.

[Killthorne]

Eh.. lately I've been digging deeper into the christian faith with a bit more of an open eye, historically and scientifically. I kinda feel a bit misled after really digging up some unsettling facts that people are refusing to acknowledge to this day. Though, I don't think people even care, or want to care what they are following, and where the roots of their religion even stem from.

After careful examination of historical fact, I find most protestant faiths stemming from the same foundation the catholic church was founded on: $$$ and dead christians who worshipped away from that unholy union of greed and power. Luther did as much persecuting as the catholic church. In fact, he had christians killed outside his little money-making scheme as well. Just look at the recent possible renegging on the idea of purgatory by the current Pope... and how many people out there were actually paying for their dead relatives to get outta purgatory up until this point? It's sick, and there's no mention of purgatory ANYWHERE in the bible.

Being religious ain't so much about being a sheep, even though many portray it as such. Large groups of like-minded individuals persecuting anyone that aren't doing exactly what they are doing. I find being religious, as an uncomfortability. Persecution just seems to go hand-in-hand with it unless you're a part of a larger organization.

And I am not here to spank anyone around with a bible either. I would rather talk to a wall and get the same effect. I can't change anyone nor really want to. I just would hope that instead of taking the worst possible historical route that usually people take, or what they perceive in terms of outward blind zealotry, most people would look abit more into it without such a negative view on christianity. It ain't about the church at all. It ain't even about making sure everyone else is gonna be saved or are following the right way.

And although some believe I am anti-science, that is hardly the truth. There's tons of scientific laws that are proven to be true and that I do believe are relative to this world. And heck, without science we would not be as "advanced" as we are today.

I do however believe that there TONS of lies and disproven facts in science, that people tend to just blindly follow as badly as a religion. I do not believe in macro-evolution (that we are advancing in genetical structure from sea sludge billions of years ago, but are actually de-evolving), the big bang theory, where all the matter in the universe focused on one tiny point and then exploded ( where the heck did all that matter come from, hmm?) , carbon-14 dating ( Earth has yet to reach an equilibrium of accurate measurement for such and there have been many, many cases of where carbon-14 dating was WAY off in measurement ), along with the fact the earth isn't as old as many people think it is. Yeah, call me crazy, but like I said above... been digging deeper, scientifically as well as historically into this. I guess if anyone is interested in boring themselves to death with references and facts, pick up " The Evolution Handbook" compiled by Vance Ferrell. It's a compilation of quotes, facts, etc... from scientists.


I don't expect anyone to listen to me, or even begin to walk where I walk... but it's been an interesting journey, intelligently and spiritually. I guess I could never be an atheist, because just one look around and I know this wasn't all some random cosmic accident of this proportion. The calculations for such to happen rate near the impossible when it comes to the complexity of it all.


*shrugs*


~Killthorne~

[Vaelahr]

Good for you, for digging. There's many among faithful and faithless alike who do not.

"The most wonderful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed." ~ Albert Einstein

[Nyarlathotep]

http://evolution-facts.org/Downloads/Ev ... ncherP.pdf

For those interested there is a free DL of the Ferrell book. I haven't gotten to far into yet but it has already shown a very deep misunderstanding of modern day evolutionary theory by declaring Lamarckian as its basis and I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure the author called Darwin a witch...

It is not commonly known that Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by nationals. During horseback travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, he spent the rest of his life working on theories to destroy faith in the creator.

[Mulu]

The first review on Amazon of that book was sufficient for me:

I took the challenge extended by reviewers who said that one needs to read and seriously consider this book before dismissing it.

I picked up a copy in a used book store and devoted a weekend to reading and thinking about the book's points. I even reviewed a couple of sections of the book with religion-minded friends of mine. By the way, you can actually download a copy of this book for free from http://evolution-facts.org/Downloads/Ev ... ncherP.pdf.

I then took a sampling of the purported facts and did some research using Google and some online encyclopedias.

The result - this book is essentially all sizzle and no steak. I took a debate class many years ago and this book brought back many of the tactics taught in that class. If I knew NOTHING about science I would still recognize this book for what it really is - a clever use of specific, powerful, debating tactics designed to substitute style for substance.

First, why make your own argument if you can just question the argument of others. If you ask enough questions of the other person's argument, then the audience will automatically conclude that even if a small percentage of these implied problems with your opponent's case are legitimate, then your opponent's case must be bogus.

It's true - smear a person or an idea widely enough and you will inevitably raise doubt in people's minds - even if there is no basis in reality for the doubt. Think for a moment about cases in your own life where this has been true.

Second, repeat your idea over and over again in a pattern and that will encourage your audience to internalize your argument - even if these is no factual basis for your argument.

Third, dress up your personal feelings with scientific-sounding language. Since most people don't really know much about science and are too busy to fact check your statements, they will probably extend to you a degree of credibility. After all, you would not intentionally write a book filled with lies and half-truths - would you...?

This is where the fact checking comes in to play. Of the five 'scientific facts' disproving evolution I chose from this book, not one of them stands up to even casual fact checking.

Consider this quote from Darwin - '"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"'

The quote is over a hundred years old but it is treated as current wisdom. Scientists have in fact found numerous transitory species since Darwin made that statement. That scientists have not discovered EVERY transitory species is not at all surprising - can you recover the complete skeleton of every chicken eaten in the city of Chicago by going through the garbage dump? However, the fact that scientists HAVE discovered the remains of SO MANY species is actually pretty impressive.

I had the misfortune a couple of years ago to read a pamphlet that argued 'scientifically' that a commercial airliner could not have struck the Pentagon. The pamphlet included geometric drawings, air speed analysis and cited some reputable sounding scientific journals in its analysis. It looked convincing inasmuch that it looked a lot like stuff people saw in high school math and science textbooks, down to the fonts used in the captions attached to pictures.

I had to read this pamphlet because some young people I work with had become convinced by this book's arguments. It took a few hours to work through the math and another hour or two to do some fact checking. In the end though I was able to walk these kids through the inaccuracies, half-truths and outright lies of this pamphlet. Perhaps I will take the time to do this for The Evolution Cruncher this summer when I have some down time.

Unfortunately I have a feeling that too many people may fall in to the trap of believing that this book offers truth, wisdom or even a scientific critique of evolution. It offers comfort and juicy bits - the sizzle - but not much in the way of useful or truthful information - the steak.

[Mulu]

It is not commonly known that Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by nationals. During horseback travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, he spent the rest of his life working on theories to destroy faith in the creator.

That's hilarious. For what it's worth, Darwin withheld publishing his Origin of Species for a decade because he feared it would weaken people's faith in God. Darwin himself was a clergyman, though he eventually became agnostic.

I've often found the phrase, "it is not commonly known" to mean, "I'm pulling this out of my ass." Killy, if you really want to learn about evolution, take biology classes at college, instead of reading the specious works of Seventh Day Adventists who are afraid to spice their food. Just be sure not to disrupt the class for others.

The Origin of Species is also available for free online, as is the judicial opinion and trial transcript of Kitzmiller v Dover.

[Grand Fromage]

It is not commonly known that Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by nationals. During horseback travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, he spent the rest of his life working on theories to destroy faith in the creator.

Ahahahaha holy shit. You want to know why I think you have no idea what you're talking about whenever you open your yap about science, Killthorne? Using shit like this as your "evidence", thinking that gravity is because of the Earth's rotation, off-handedly declaring Newton to be an idiot... every time you talk about science you make it clear you have zero knowledge of it. And, ironically, you use a device constructed on the very principles you declare to be false (quantum mechanics, in this case) to issue your declarations of its falsehood.

[ayergo]

Ahahahaha holy sh*t. You want to know why I think you have no idea what you're talking about whenever you open your yap about science, Killthorne? Using sh*t like this as your "evidence", thinking that gravity is because of the Earth's rotation, off-handedly declaring Newton to be an idiot... every time you talk about science you make it clear you have zero knowledge of it. And, ironically, you use a device constructed on the very principles you declare to be false (quantum mechanics, in this case) to issue your declarations of its falsehood.

GF, i am shocked and appalled that you do not realize that there is no Evolution.

For those of us who are Chosen (pirates), know that He first created a mountain, a tree, and a midget. These things you perceive as "quantum mechanics" are in fact just His noodly appendages changing your calculations before your eyes.

Join the blessed. Partake in the beer volcano and strippers that await you in heaven!

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

[fluffmonster]

What if evolution *is* God's plan, and the manner of creation?

Creation itself by God's Own Hand says it is.

A book written by men says it isn't.

Who ya gonna put yer money on?

[NickD]

What really happened, according to a mormon guy at work, is that God created the Earth out of a whole bunch of other planets, and the dinosaurs were a part of one of the other planets, so that's why we find Dinosaur bones. And it's possible that evolution is real, but the planet is so new that humans haven't had time to evolve yet and are thus still in the image of God. Neathderals are the cast down warped bodies of Satan's soldiers that died in the conflict when Satan attempted a coup.

Also, God created heaps of planets and populated the other ones with humans too, so technically aliens are for realz.

I may have made some of that up as I went along.

[Grand Fromage]

What if evolution *is* God's plan, and the manner of creation?

Creation itself by God's Own Hand says it is.

A book written by men says it isn't.

Who ya gonna put yer money on?

Well, every word in the bible is true. We know this because the bible says so, and as we've already established every word of it is true, these are true also, therefore every word of the bible is true and you're going to hell for seeking out knowledge.

[Vendrin]

Joseph Smith managed it, and I don't think there was anything particularily special about him...

Now, I'll just preface by saying I was mormon, so probably just gut defensive reaction from my teachings as a kid, nor am I defending Mormonism, or belief in it, etc.

But I don't think he was all that ordinary. I mean the guy literally wrote a book of over 500 pages, that reads like the bible when he was a teenager.

I just don't think creating a religion, is all the easy work(which actually last longer then a few years) is all that easy work, and it takes a charismatic and smart individual to create one as such, especially one that is one of the richest churches in the world, and no one is able to quite figure out just how much the mormon church is actually worth.

Probably way off topic, and I figure I'll regret posting this in the morning, but eh whatever.

[NickD]

But I don't think he was all that ordinary. I mean the guy literally wrote a book of over 500 pages, that reads like the bible when he was a teenager.

Fair point, conceded. I did mean special by performing miracles and the like, but having the intelligence and charisma to pull it off are certainly special qualities.