This will be my last totse post--partly because pages are taking like forever to load. I have signed onto zoklet.net as Greyfox--my "real" name--and hope to be modded for their Metaphysical forum, although there are two mods there already.

Thanks everyone for everything--see ya at zoklet!

ah young padawon - one must use the force to realize that all religons are based from great teachers who have discovered the force. indeed -

Jesus was a Jedi Knight
Muhommad was a Jedi Knight
Ghandi was a Jedi Knight
I am a Jedi Knight

use the force - do not fall to the dark side.

This would have been posted and refined better if I had known before hand about this "20 years its over" situation. Anyway,


There is a lopsidedness in discussions. I've accepted that. That won't hinder my explanations in any way. Do not appeal to some creationist assumptions about science to reject an idea that is the opposite of a strict evolutionary theory in order to make a reply.

Currently all facts are interpreted according to a person, the person uses a reference. even what I am doing right at this moment. Generally, Evolution is interpreted behind Naturalism. Naturalism assumes that things came into existence, without divine intervention. This includes that nonliving matter spawned living matter, apes gave way to humans, non-intellect created intelligence, yearning created religion, ect. Through Naturalism, you can deduce Evolution. Many accept Evolution as the correct answer to the question of descent, becuase creationism seems to be the only other option, and is unnacredided.

But we did not come to the idea because we discovered it, we guessed that it existed and then looked for proof. -who do you think would identify with this?

I reject believing in the modern evolutionist idea, and the modern humanistic and naturalistic viewpoints. I reject them becuase I interpret them as such (equate "without cause" as "without divine intervention" as in "by accident"):
The universe came into existence from generally unsubstantiated particles expanding, without known cause. The solar system formed in the right proportions to have the right combination of compounds and elements on Earth, which is the proportionally correct distance from the Sun, without cause. The non living matter on Earth came into a living form, without cause. The matter eventually became man, and man eventually became intelligent, and eventually discovered astronomy, mathematics, and the like, as by products, as accidents of the movements of atoms.
If it was all chance, if it was an accident, why should I believe the general interpretation to be true? Why should I accept the general consensus?

I don't question observational science dealing with discoveries made in real time during that given moment before the speculations and inferences, only the theories made from speculations about the past made as though they were observations that have yet to be proven wrong, or baseless assumptions as many in the past have (Bohr's idea of an atom, or early bloodletting).


We observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past. To prove something, a credible eye witnessing of the event is required. This is impossible for the time before we existed.

It is the belief that we are of primordial pond scum which originated from nonliving matter, and at the end we like everything else will become extinct and cease to exist, along eventually with the Earth and the entire universe for that matter which perplexes me. I actually hardly disagree with the entire statement, yet my idea of a man from dust turned back into dust after death in a world that will suffer a terminal apocalypse and end all existence is met with ridicule, loosely speaking. I see a marginal difference with heated debate and defensive walls only as a result of personal experience with persons and those persons' personal ideas and experiences. This is why I am confused, since the similarities are so ignored.

But to my arguments:



Evolution in the strict Naturalistic idea, refers that non living chemicals organize themselves into self replicating organisms. All current existing living matter are allegedly originated from this one process. The genetic encyclopedia of DNA had to be created from this nonliving matter. How did the matter do this? Through the self replication and slight mutation, causing genetic diversity.

But in modern times, the genetic diversity, at least for heterozygous reproducing organisms, comes from the reshuffling of the genetic data, since only a slight amount is stereotypically shown, and the greater amount genetically stored and held, recessive, or just cataloged. Millions of sperm everyone, millions of them. Mutations are rarely effective without the chance of drastic danger to the organisms survival. Mutations can also come in the form of deletion of genes, causing a loss of data. How does a mutation of a single celled organism, a loss of data, create a diversity? Likewise with the Founder effect, in relation to the bottleneck. The surviving organisms have a much lower amount of genetic diversity. This leads to the surviving genes being the only to repopulate the species. How does diversity rise from this? A species is formed since the genetic data is so drastically changed from the original species. Two new species, from the original gene pool.


I combine this with the lack of transitional species in or out of the fossil record to substantiate my skepticism of a evolutionary naturalistic tree of life. Particles to man is just unbelievable to me as a result of this. There are only gaps. I haven't seen a small vector of progress nor a large vector of progress, and I do eagerly want to see it. I do. "rapid evolution" and unfossilizable body parts are poor excuses. Turtles leave excellent fossils, and have no intermediates.

Fishes to amphibians are an example. It was accepted that amphibians spawned from the Rhipidistian fish, the coelacanth, which was explained that this fish used its fleshy fins to walk on the sea floor before going on land. No one refuted this, so it was accepted. It was impossible not to prove, since the last Rhipidistian lived 70 million years ago according to the fossil record. But a living coelacanth was discovered in 1938 and was observed that the fins were only used for swimming. The soft parts were not transitional. The earliest amphibian, Ichthyostega has fully formed legs, where there was no trace of in the discovered Rhipidistian. My point is that everyone accepted the general idea that they were transitional links, just becuase there was not at that time proof otherwise. This mistake in jumping to conclusions was not a lesson learned.

Another example is the Bacteria resisting penicillin. Don't say that the bacteria that developed a resistance to penicillin evolved. They already had the genetic resistance, but enough of the population and genetic data had to be deleted before it became prevalent. What does the descent have to do with new kinds and new information? Nothing. Then the idea that the mutation caused the resistance comes into play. Usually the bacteria's ability to fight off penicillin is controlled by a gene. The gene inhibits the resistance gene at a certain point. If the bacteria are overwhelmed, the mutation could occur in a form that would delete the controlling gene, allowing the bacteria to resist the penicillin more easily. What does this have to do with new data? Nothing. This is why I see the term evolution as badly stretched and confused. This is all pre existing information, and doesn't explain origin, which is evolutions true department. This doesn't explain particles to man, at least not to me.

A largely unrelated skepticism I have is the proposed evolutionary explanation for the development of Whales and dolphins. It is largely accepted that they originated from a land mammal, the Mesonychids. There are drastic changes required to transition from land to sea. The removal of the pelvis is first. Tail movements are counterproductive to any existing reproductive orifice located in the pelvic region of a land mammal, if referencing the tail movements of the Cetacean whales and dolphins. But the gradual shrinking pelvis would not benefit a land animal which would be unable to support itself, nor a sea creature unable to swim efficiently. The earliest whales had fully functional tales with no land mammal pelvis link. The long amount of time it would take for a mutation or natural selection to occur is also to be noted. The land organism, the Mesonychid, is dated 55 million years ago. Three other transitional creatures, none of which have proportional sizing for a whale, are Ambulocetus, 50 million years, Rodhocetus, 46 million years, and Prozeuglodon, 40 million years. For a mutation to cause an entire gene in the population to create the Land animal to Sea animal transition, it would take at least 5 million years to get 1,700 mutations for an organism living 10 years on average, (the whale). Not only is 1,700 mutated genes not enough to cause this drastic transition from two drastically physically disproportionate organisms, but two transitional applicants do not even cover the 5 million year minimum requirement, Ambulances and Rodhocetus. This is also assuming every single mutation would be beneficial. But the scientific community largely accepts this as the explanation of the whale and dolphin origins.

Then there is the ape to man discussion. Countless fossils such as the Australopithecus afarensis "Lucy" , the A. africanus, and the Homo H. erectus are believed to be the transitions to man. However these are further away in relation structurally and genetically to man than the chimpanzee is. The anatomist Charles Oxnard made detailed analysis of these species and discovered the stark differences including the fact that the species overlapped at many points. (C.E. Oxnard Nature 258:389-395, 1975.) These were not transitional species or missing links to the genus Homo. The genetic similarities between humans and any organism is an inference and interpretation, not a law. It is interpreted that one lead to the other, yet it could just as easily be interpreted that the car designer used the same car parts on two different cars at the same time, without assuming that he had to make one car, and then after making that car was able to make the next car with only advanced parts from the previous car.

Anomalies in evolution are common. These "exceptions to the rules" are mere examples of flaws in the theory. An antigen receptor protein has the same unique single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this isn't explained by a shark/camel linkage. The human lysozyme is closer to the chicken lysozyme than any other organism. But this is not explained by a human/chicken transitional fossil. Hemoglobin is found in vertebrates, but also in mollusks crustaceans, and bacteria. This similarity is not dependent on a transitional evolutionary link, and couldn't be, much as the similarities between man and ape are not dependent on an evolutionary link, but are only accepted as such.


As a result of all of this, I see divine intervention as my only possible basis for believing in science. If there was no divinity before and during existence, then the probability of order, or existence, would be low. Because of a belief in Divine intervention, I can have a belief in Science. I have faith, not knowledge, that this is a rational universe on laws, becuase of a rational divinity. Now everyone gets to make the assumption that I somehow think there is a bearded old man in the sky writing everyone's shit down for judgment, becuase of my simple belief.

I've spent countless hours here clacking away at my keyboard, deep in heated debate over this nation and it's multitude of religions. Though I have been absent for a long moment in time, I have not forgotten what transpired here.

Now that it is coming to an end, I just wanted to say that no matter what was said here, I had a great time, learned quite a bit, and made some lifelong friends. For this, I will never forget MGCBTSOOYG, let alone totse.com.

If anyone would like to remain in contact until we find an alternative (from this death shall be the birthing of something new!), I can be reached by email at desired.hush1_40gmx.com or on AIM, screen name: desired hush

I would also like to encourage anyone still interested in religious debate to check out the IRC channel on SlashNET. The channel name is #theology. Brilliant, right? :D

Until again our paths do cross, light laughter and sweet waters to you all.

Namaste ~

totse is shutting down.

:(

So I went to the library the other day and brought home "The Revised English Bible".

Now, I was not brought up on a religious faith of any kind. So I have never read the Bible. Ever since I was a young boy I've always known, there is a vast Universe deep within myself. A mysterious Cosmos that I would spend the rest of my life exploring. Trying to understand what this place really is, and my role in all of it. I've learned a lot in this small amount of time I've been here, through science and mysticism, esoteric contemplation and exoteric ritual, yet lately I've asked myself, "What is the bible?" This one book, of many versions and many interpretations, has had such a profound and awe inspiring impact upon the consciousness of man yet here I am. Unable to answer the question "what is the bible?" because I've never taken the time to read it, to create my own interpretation of this age old text.

I created this thread to gain the wisdom that others have attained during their own examination, their own journey through this book.

Now, I'm going to take this one chapter at a time, and ask questions that will aid me on my quest.

I cannot find the version I got from the library online, but it is close enough.

Genesis: I

6And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

In Hebrew firmament 'raqia' means "limitless expanse". This passage appears to suggest the existence of an aether above the vault (term used in revised English bible), but I didn't find an explanation for what is above the firmament. It couldn't be God because the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

If the Earth is below the 'raqia', then what is above?

I was walking home on the freeway one dark night; as an atheist, with cars coming pretty close to me, my mind began to wonder about organised religion and the after-life. I actually got scared that if at this point in my life I was going to die, and indeed Christianity was true after all, that I would face eternal suffering.

After coming home and not facing eternal bliss, I realised how many people must live their entire lives in fear like this, and I started to think how much religion is kept afloat by this very emotion - fear through uncertainty. So many people would be swept into this religion not through love, despite their desire of superficial appearance, but through fear.

What right do Christians have to go into foreign countries and spread their beliefs to those predating in age to theirs five, even ten-fold?

Of course the typical response here is for a Christian to write the token reply of, 'why target Christianity over all others?' Well it is in my mind that is it not without good reasoning on my behalf: when I look around it's the Christians and their fundamentalism inhibiting my society from furthering, not Islam or Buddhism.

My perspective on morals and ethics is that as long as I am not doing anything that harms anyone in anyway, directly or indirectly, why should it not be allowed? And indeed most of the people living within society I live possess this value. People are allowed to have their perspectives, but if it interferes with this lifestyle of others against their will of medical, personal or scientific furthering, it should in itself be prohibited. Having an invisible sky-daddy and a very disjointed, outdated book from a society so different to our own, then having the nerve to judge and condemn subjects of the status quo based on interpretive merit falls nothing short of stupid.

From stem cell research to pro-choice and same-sex marriage, it appears that it is indeed trying its hardest to outstrip personal choice and technological advancement in the name of 'morals'.

But that's just it, morals are only relative to their geographic counterpart and in essence are supposedly justified as they have been derived from obscure bible interpretation; and that's the problem right there. God's supposed "word" changes from time-to-time to accommodate with what's socially acceptable at the time of 'interpretation'.

I won't go into largely subjective rants as tempted as I am explaining why religion, at least this one, is absolutely full of shit, but I will say this. Why would anyone with a logical frame of mind believe in something so young (relatively speaking) as Christianity? Does the scale of the Earth's existence or even the history of man, when compared to the age of this religion not in itself render it silly? Even when compared to other organised religions, its youth and ambitiousness is astounding.

2009 (guesstimation of how many years have passed the prophet's birth) / 15,000,000,000 (scientific estimation through many different kinds of dating) to me = the very ignorance and arrogance that Christianity and its followers relish in. Even the four million years of man's evolution shows how ridiculous it is, not only that but the correlation between cognition of self (in terms of mind) and invention of organised religion.

Jesus was not important, special or unique. He just was. And what he was is a random genetic mutation child derivative of Mary and some guy she slept with, indifferent to any other, but nonetheless romanticised. Sure, he might have been nice but nice guys, maybe even nicer than him, have passed and will indeed continue to pass through history. In this digital age of recording facts and figures, could they stand the test of time and gain similar status through misinterpretation, exaggeration and infatuation? No. Fucking. Way.

This issue has been debated before, but it is such a key issue, I think it merits more discussion. Here's my position.

In my book, there is no such thing as luck. There are no coincidences, no accidents--everything happens for a reason. Even events which seem painful at the time work out in the long run to be in our own best interests. To put it theistically, God does not make mistakes. Some people dismiss this as wishy-washy, airy-fairy New Age bullshit.

I think it is what Jesus was talking about when he said "Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven--all else will be added unto thee." In other words, pay attention to your piriutal side and the material stuff will take care of itself.

Deepak Chopra said much the same thing in his book Power, Freedom, and Grace. I think he said something like, when you are in touch with your inner self (which is just another word for God, or the kingdom of God), the universe itself conspires to give you what you desire. (NOT, however, what you want. We push away what we want, and atteract what we fear.)

My wife calls this "living in the flow," but I don't think she originated the phrase. But as she puts it "I have a deal with the universe. I do my best, and in return, I get everyting I need."

In toher threads, I have listed dozenas of things that just seemed to fall into my lap, and some people dismiss them all as coincidence. But these sorts of things have happened so often that the odds by now are way past astronomical.

The latest was this morning. lately, it has been too cold to drive, and when it warmed up yesterday, my car broke down. My car is now in the shop, so I hitch hiked to the library. I stood by the highway for less than a minute before I got picked up, and the guy drove almost ten miles out of his way to take me straight to the library.

Check out these ads on UK buses. I think they're awesome.


"There probably is no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
Couldn't be said better.

HELLO everyone I the former Masta Thief of totse, yes that annoying trolling arrogant christian that pissed you off so long ago, have returned after nearly two years of retirement!!! - OH MY GOD HOW EXCITING:eek:-

-doubt anyone remembers ='( -

And now i regret to inform you im back to piss you off again, but this time because of logical pewning not ignorant trolling!!!

Lets start shall we, first off in a stunning and ironic turn events i shall be argueing against christianity and explain some of the myths and falsehoods of Christianity.

Now the atypical christian ussualy believes the following...

-Jesus was God incarnate and

-a Trinity between God, the holy spirit, and Jesus

-Jesus' was crucified as a sacrifice for all man's sins

-Miracles prophecies and so on and so forth

-everyone else burns in hell for not believing (ha)

We'll to all you Christians who fit this category, which would be Pauline Christianity, i'm gonna be blunt... Im almost absolutely certain that your DEAD wrong!

-Jesus never once in the bible refered to himself as the "Son of God" rather he said the "Son of man", aswell he never claimed himself to be God. Yes he did refer to God as father but dont we do the same didnt other followers of Jesus in the Bible? yes!

- Jesus quoted Hosea and said "Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice'." (Matthew 9:13).

"I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice; the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6).

Now for all the Literalists out there, it stands to reason, that Jesus' words are contradictory with what the biblical writers have said about him being a sacrifice for mans sins. Jesus said to "ask God for forgiveness and to to forgive all others who have sinned against you and God shall forgive you", and he said this before his death. Now according to popular myth Jesus had to die so we could be saved but Jesus himself said that you could be forgiven before he was ever crucified. And just to put it out there when he said to "trust and beleive in the gospel" which means good news, he meant the good news he preached, not the written gospel because the gospel was written generations after his death. And now you know a little bit about the "REAL" gospel. =)

Now for the miracles and prophecies part. Well i dont really have much to say but GOD DAMN use the reason he gave you!!! (Which would also require you to know that the old testament was just a collection of jewish laws and myths that made up the Israelites culture, just the same as any other ancient culture had that you would regard as false nonsense, so why wouldn't the old testament be (for the main part anyway)?

About hell, i'm not saying we dont pay for our sins, i hope those who are evil get punished, and thats not illogical as other deists assert, but it is illogical to believe that God would create us, reveal himself to just to a few million people, and let everyone else suffer eternal punishment for not beleiving in a God they have no reason to believe in. According to that belief you Christians have, belittled God because that would mean that humans are more logical than Him... No...were not!


3 last things

1. can anyone seriously and logicaly say and backup the claim that the bible is innerrant?

2. I want you all to understand that I am in a way a Christian, i beleive and follow the teachings of Jesus and what was original Christianity, natural religion, taught by Jesus' brother James, but I reject the lies of Pauline Christianity. And thus I follow Deism or if you want to be totally specific I am a technical agnostic(in the original meaning) and a practical Deistic thinking, Transcendentalist, Unitarian, Christian! :D

3. I support all types of Christianity, and all religions in fact (with the exception of satanism) because i understand how important it is to society and all the good things that comes with religion, which outweigh the bad, and me being a deist i am reasonable enough to understand that reason is not for everyone! So i dont ussually argue my views to others, but this is an open-minded debate and discussion forum so ill make an exception.

Ecclesiastes- "For as wisdom grows so does vexation, and to increase knowledge is to increase sorrow"



Recomended book- "Christianity as Old as the Creation" by Matthew Tindal


oh i forgot something!sorry. I'd like to add that Paul never met Jesus, he just claimed to have talked to him in a vision, and he put his own personal theology in his teachings. James, Jesus' brother and Peter his disciple, the people who really knew Jesus, disagreed with Pauls Teachings. They were called Nazoreans and was destroyed by the Romans and then Pauline Christianity took off, then they killed the gnostics. The church councils sided with Pauline Christianity and then revised the bible to follow Pauls theology. So to all you Pauline Christians what reason is there in following Pauls theology rather than what Jesus, whom you claim is God, actually taught?

I'd like for you to consider what I have to say, and tell me if you agree.

1.Atheists say, "I am absolutely certain that there is no such thing as an omniscient being." It is as though they are saying, "I have infinite knowledge that a being with infinite knowledge does not exist!" Is it not more intellectually honest to say, "I don't know"?

2.Isn't anyone who denies that Jesus existed just being willfully ignorant? The early Christians certainly would have known if he existed or not, and they were willing to die for their beliefs, under Nero and others. How could they have been willing to die for someone whom they KNEW never existed? Do you really think anyone is so foolish/stupid? Also, Jesus was written about by Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, and others.

3.Christians say that their god is omniscient, omnipotent, and just. He will judge everyone according to their deeds, sending them either to an everlasting heaven or hell. Now, if there is no such thing as everlasting judgment, could I not make the point that ultimately, nothing we do matters? It matters not whether I do good or evil, since I'm just going to be annihilated anyway. We are nothing more than highly evolved animals. Indeed, how can there even BE any such thing as good or evil, if there is no omniscient/omnipotent judge? So it certainly matters whether or not you believe the tenets of Christianity, for your beliefs determine your actions.

Anyway, I've enjoyed sharing my thoughts with everyone. Hopefully, we can discuss these things and learn from each other.

I want to become confused, please talk about it.

Greetings heathens,

If it hadn’t become an issue it wouldn’t have been an issue, but now it is…To me the question is simply do we have a perfect copy of the Word of God in our times. If you believe we have a mostly perfect copy or a pretty good copy your answer to the above question is no. My answer to the above is Yes. I happen to believe God has not left us without His word, and that means all His words. I believe the God who gave us His word is able to also preserve His word. I believe in the miracle of inspiration and I believe in the miracle of preservation.

The next question is if we have it where is it ? It can’t be all Bible versions because they are all different, some by little some by much. I believe God has given English speaking people a perfect Word of God in the King James Bible, because of the superior texts it was translated from and because of the superior translation methods that were used. I do not believe that the Wescott and Hort texts are better. They are recent discoveries and I for one do not believe God was waiting 1800 years to give us the true Bible. Nor can I accept that He was hiding this better manuscript in the Vatican ( does something smell fishy here…) and in the deserts of Egypt just waiting for the Laodecian church to find them. We already had the best manuscripts and they are the ones our King James Bible comes from. There are many excellent websites that go into detail about all this and you should visit there if you want to study the details.

Do I believe someone can get saved from another version ? Yes I do, in fact I believe you could get saved from a talking donkey if you told you enough true things. Of course four footed talking donkeys are not all that common…the two footed ones much easier to find. I am glad I did not receive the kind of education that taught me there was no true Word of God in our day…Pity those that did. Blinded by arrogant intellectualism and trapped now by their college loyalties they become evangelists in the cause of persuading others that they too have no reliable Word of God. What a sad situation. Professing themselves to be wise they have become fools…

God Bless,
Doctor Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

Feeling generous today MGCBSOYG. I just got finished watching a good movie called Baby, and realized it represented how God cannot send one to hell. This is my viewpoint, and I am happy I found an example that shows it perfectly.

Movie links are here:
../../rapidshare.com/files/180553753/Baby.part1.rar
../../rapidshare.com/files/180557738/Baby.part2.rar
../../rapidshare.com/files/180561788/Baby.part3.rar
../../rapidshare.com/files/180565718/Baby.part4.rar

Here is description of movie: ../../www.imdb.com/title/tt0457286/default.htm

Discussion first, thanks later.

Enjoy!

Hi Everybody,

Japan is an interesting place. No I have not traveled all over Japan but I have been there and I have observed some things. Japan is not the high tech place you have been led to believe, certain places in Japan are like that, most are not. The Japanese are years ahead in some of their inventions and technologies and decades behind in their administration, methods and procedures. Japanese young people often feel oppressed and suffocated by their countries cultural expectations of them. When they get away from their culture they often rebel dramatically and do wild and crazy things as if trying to make up for lost years of youthful fun. Japanese men can have a dark and weird side that I won’t comment on in detail but sufficient to say all is not as it seems on the surface sometimes. The population generally lives in denial about the countries world war two atrocities and school text books pass over the war except to detail the terrible things that happened to the Japanese people including of course the dropping of two nuclear bombs on their cities. Emperor worship which was supposed to be abolished after world war two is not dead, it is just dormant. It can be revived at a future point if so desired.

Japan definitely needs missionaries. It is a hard place to minister and Japanese people are hard to reach. Japanese churches have a disproportionate number of women to men in them. Men are hard to reach and heavily influenced by the opinions of their peers and work friends. Pray for the missionaries there they do it tough. The winter weather can be ferocious. The cost of living is exorbitant. They need help to stay there and endure all these hardships. The see little fruit compared to many other fields. Pray that the Lord would send more laborers and open a door to the hearts and souls of the Japanese people.

Regards,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish