evolution is bogus

[lotrfreak]

actually, i would read lotr if it wasnt written by a christian author, but it would have to have some type of message from the Bible for me to read it. I dont read Harry Potter because I'm not allowed to, but frankly, I don't want to. Lord of the rings does have a biblical message: it just doesn't quote the Bible.In Lord of the rings, they try to overcome the evil with their own will power. In Harry Potter they got themselves into trouble. They went to find evil. They also went to a school to learn magic to make potions and fly on brooms? No, no, Lord of the Rings is nothing like that.

[Cheshirekatt]

Originally posted by RICHARD
OH OH...
seeing that eddie is a male.............


yikes!

Just take it as a compliment! ;)

[yorkster]

Originally posted by Cheshirekatt

First off all, if should be illegal to wear a butt ugly outfit like that.



:D :D :D ..........that's for sure!

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
actually, i would read lotr if it wasnt written by a christian author, but it would have to have some type of message from the Bible for me to read it. I dont read Harry Potter because I'm not allowed to, but frankly, I don't want to. Lord of the rings does have a biblical message: it just doesn't quote the Bible.In Lord of the rings, they try to overcome the evil with their own will power. In Harry Potter they got themselves into trouble. They went to find evil. They also went to a school to learn magic to make potions and fly on brooms? No, no, Lord of the Rings is nothing like that.

back it up a second.

tolkein wrote parts of LOTR during WWII when he served....
i am probably wrong but i think i heard he wrote
about the war.....

[lotrfreak]

well..correct me if IM wrong... but he wrote about the Bible

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
well..correct me if IM wrong... but he wrote about the Bible
actually i'm wrong it was WWI...
the evil he alludes to was the axis powers the allies were fighting....

would you please post a link or transcript to your bible reference....sounds interesting.

[lotrfreak]

what do u mean Bible reference? I told you his ideas are from the bible... he didnt write bible verses

[Uabassoon]

I told you his ideas are from the bible
lotr that's what richard means... he's asking for the bible references not quotes.

[lotrfreak]

oh.....sorry.... I will... sec... I'll log off while i find buches....

[Desert Arabian]

lotrfreak--- (keep in mind) he did not write it just using the Bible.

Many of the war/battle scenes in Lord of the Rings are based on the horrible sights and battles Tolkien had to endure during WWII.

[Cheshirekatt]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
oh.....sorry.... I will... sec... I'll log off while i find buches....

buches? What the heck are "buches"? ;)

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
[B Lord of the rings does have a biblical message: it just doesn't quote the Bible.In Lord of the rings, they try to overcome the evil with their own will power. [/B]

UA, thank you....you are correct...


LOTR,
i may have misunderstood your post...i was wondering what the biblical message is and
if someone else had made the connection..

the motive for destroying the "one ring that rules them all" was to get rid of evil from middle earth...i do not believe the message was to destroy evil, an impossible task anyway.

the journey undertaken by frodo and co.involved a little bit more than will.....it was for the good of middle earth, altruisitic in a sense, but i think Tolkien's message was one of what people, together, can do to make a bad situation, better.

thanks

[lotrfreak]

These Letters are from Tolkien himself:

From Letter #320:
...I think it is true that I owe much of (the character of Galadriel) to Christian and Catholic teaching and imagination about Mary.... -----------------------------------------------------------------

There are many other letters dealing with Tolkien's thoughts on his Christianity - both in relation to his works and general comments made to his family and friends.


From Letter #142:
The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like `religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.



From Letter #131:
...Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its `faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.
For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary `real' world. (I am speaking, of course. of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days.)... In the cosmogony there is a fall: a fall of Angels we should say. Though quite different in form, of course, to that of Christian myth. These tales are `new', they are not directly derived from other myths and legends, but they must inevitably contain a large measure of ancient wide-spread motives or elements. After all, I believe that legends and myths are largely made of `truth', and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode; and long ago certain truths and modes of this kind were discovered and must always reappear.



These are just facts:

Yet Tolkien's grand book has outlasted its cult-status. The Lord of the Rings is an undeniable classic: a work which invites repeated readings without exhausting its potential to deepen and define our moral and spiritual lives. Young and old alike keep returning to these big books for both wisdom and delight. True fantasy, Tolkien declared in his 1939 essay "On Fairy-Stories," is escapist in the good sense: it enables us to flee into reality. The strange new world of hobbits and elves and ents frees us from bondage to the pseudo-reality that most of us inhabit: a world deadened by bleary familiarity. Fantasy helps us recover an enlivened sense of wonder, Tolkien observed in this same essay, about such ordinary things "as stone, and wood, and iron; tree and grass; house and fire; bread and wine."


I.
Despite the eucharistic hint, Tolkien's work is not self-evidently Christian. As C. S. Lewis observed upon its first publication, the Ring epic is imbued with "a profound melancholy." The ending is tearfully sad. Frodo is exhausted by his long quest to destroy the Ring of coercive power that had been fashioned by the monster Sauron. Though the victory has been won, Frodo cannot enjoy its fruits. And so he sails away to the elven realm, leaving his companions behind. Sauron and his minions of evil may have been defeated, but the triumph is only temporary. Evil will reconstitute itself in some alarming new form, and the free creatures of Middle Earth will have to fight it yet again.

The word "doom" -- in its Anglo-Saxon meaning of damning judgment as well as final fate in ruin and death -- pulses like a funereal drumbeat throughout the entire work. Toward the end of Volume I, the elf Legolas offers a doom-centered vision of the world. It sounds very much like an elvish and Heraclitean version of entropy. "To find and lose," says Legolas, is the destiny "of those whose boat is on the running stream.... The passing seasons are but ripples in the long long stream. Yet beneath the Sun all things must wear to an end at last." Though elves are so long-lived that they seem immortal to humans and hobbits, the tides of time will sweep even them away. A deeply pagan pessimism thus pervades all three of the Ring books.

Yet it is a mistake, I believe, to read Tolkien's work as sub-Christian. Not by happenstance was Tolkien the finest Beowulf scholar of his day. His thesis about the Anglo-Saxon epic may also be applied to his own fiction. Beowulf is a pagan work, Tolkien argued, exalting the great Northern and heathen virtue of unyielding, indomitable will in the face of sure and hopeless defeat. Yet it was probably written by a Christian, Tolkien contended, who infused it with Christian concerns: "The author of Beowulf showed forth the permanent value of that pietas which treasures the memory of man's struggles in the dark past, man fallen and not yet saved, disgraced but not dethroned." So does The Lord of the Rings recount a pre-biblical period of the earth's ancient history -- where there are no Chosen People, no Incarnation, no religion at all -- yet from a point of view that is distinctively Christian.

There is little that is Christian about The Hobbit, Tolkien's first fantasy work, published in 1937. It is a standard quest-story about the seeking and the finding of a tremendous treasure, a delightful "there and back again" tale concerning the adventures of Bilbo Baggins. But by the time he published The Lord of the Rings in 1954 and 1955, Tolkien had deepened and widened his vision, especially concerning the nature of heroism. The Hobbits prove to be perennially attractive characters because they are very unconventional heroes. They are not tragic and death-defying warriors like Ajax or Achilles or Beowulf; they are frail and comic foot-soldiers like us. The Nine Walkers -- four hobbits, two men, an elf, a dwarf, and a wizard -- constitute not a company of the noble but of the ordinary.

They all learn, in a proleptically Christian way, what every mortal must confront: the solemn reality that we no sooner find our lives than we have to give them up. Unlike Bilbo, Frodo his nephew is not called to find but to lose, indeed to destroy, his great gem: the Ring of Total Control. It is not a task that he eagerly seeks but only reluctantly accepts. Yet Frodo proves to be a fit bearer of the Ring. Not only does he possess native powers of courage and resistance; he is also summoned by a mysterious providential grace. The destruction of the Ring is nothing less than Frodo's vocation. And the epic's compelling interest lies in our discovery of how, just barely, Frodo remains faithful to his calling. For in so doing, he does far more than save his beloved Shire from ruin. Frodo learns -- and thus teaches -- what for Tolkien is the deepest of all Christian truths: how to surrender one's life, how to lose one's treasure, how to die, and thus how truly to live.

Early in the narrative, Frodo recalls that his Uncle Bilbo, especially during his latter years, was fond of declaring that


... there was only one Road; that it was like a great river: its springs were at every doorstep, and every path was its tributary. "It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to."
Tolkien's work is imbued with a deep mystical sense of life as a journey or quest that carries one, willy-nilly, beyond the walls of the world. To get out of bed, to answer the phone, to open the door, to fetch the mail -- such everyday deeds are freighted with eternal consequence. They immerse us in the river of time: the "ever-rolling stream" which, in Isaac Watts's splendid rendering of the 90th Psalm, "bears all its sons away." From the greatest to the smallest acts of courage and cowardice, we travel irresistibly on the path toward ultimate joy or final ruin.

II.
For Tolkien the Christian, the chief question -- and thus the real quest -- is how we are to travel along this Road. The great temptation is to take short-cuts, to follow the easy way, to arrive quickly. In the antique world of Middle Earth, magic offers the surest escape from slowness and suffering. It is the equivalent of our machines. They both provide what Tolkien called immediacy: "speed, reduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result or effect" (Letters, 200). The magic of machination is meant for those who are in a hurry, for us who lack patience, for all who cannot wait. Sauron wins converts because he provides his followers the necromancy to coerce the wills of others, the strength to accomplish grand ends by instant means.

The noble prove, alas, to be most nobly tempted. Gandalf, the Christ-like wizard who literally lays down his life for his friends, knows that he is an unworthy bearer of the Ring -- not because he has evil designs that he wants secretly to accomplish, but rather because his desire to do good is so great. Lady Galadriel, the elven queen, also refuses the Ring of Force. It would make her enormous beauty mesmerizing. Those who had freely admired her loveliness would have no choice but to worship her. Perhaps alone among modern writers, Tolkien understood that evil's subtlest semblance is not with the ugly but with the gorgeous. "I shall not be dark," Galadriel warns, "but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!"

The one free creature utterly undone by the lure of total power is Saruman the wizard. Like Judas, he is impatient with the slow way that goodness works. He cannot abide the torturous path up Mount Doom; he wants rapid results. Since the all-commanding Sauron is sure to win, Saruman urges Gandalf and his friends to join forces with the Dark Lord. Those who face defeat can survive only by siding with the victor, using his coercive power to achieve their own noble aims: "We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends."

Saruman is doubly blind. He fails not only to see that laudable designs, when achieved by compulsive force, become demonic; neither does he perceive the hidden strength of The Hobbits. The chief irony of the entire epic is that hobbitic weakness becomes the paradoxical solution to the problem of Absolute Might. The Hobbits are worthy opponents of Sauron exactly because their life-aims are so very modest. Wanting nothing more than to preserve the freedom of their own peaceable Shire, they have no grandiose uses for the Ring. Their meekness uniquely qualifies them to destroy the Ring in the Cracks of Doom. This is a Quest that can be accomplished by the small even better than the great, by ordinary folk far more than conventional heroes. In fact, the figure who gradually emerges as the rightful successor to Frodo is the least likely hobbit of them all, the comically inept and ungainly Samwise Gamgee.

In the unlikely heroism of the small and the weak, Tolkien's pre-Christian world becomes most Christian. Their greatness is not self-made. As a fledgling community the Nine Walkers experience a far-off foretaste of the fellowship that Christians call the church universal. Their Company remarkably transcends both racial and ethnic boundaries. Though it contains representatives from all of the Free Peoples, some of them have been historic enemies -- especially the dwarves and the elves. Yet no shallow notion of diversity binds them together. They are united not only by their common hatred of evil, but by their ever-increasing, ever more self-surrendering regard for each other. Through their long communal struggle, they learn that there is a power greater than mere might. It springs not from the force of will but from a grace-filled fellowship of kindred minds and souls.


III.
Perhaps we can now understand what Tolkien meant when called The Lord of the Rings "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work." Its essential conflict, he insisted, concerns God's "sole right to divine honour" (Letters, 172, 243). Like Milton's Satan, Sauron will not serve such a Deity. He is intent upon his own supremacy, and he reads all others by his own light. He believes that anyone, having once possessed the power afforded by the Ring, would be determined to use it -- especially the magical power to make its wearer invisible. He assumes that Frodo and his friends will seek to overthrow him and to establish their own sovereignty. Yet Sauron's calculus of self-interest blinds him to the surprising strategy of the Company. Under Gandalf's leadership, they decide not to hide or use the Ring, but to take it straight back into the Land of Mordor -- Sauron's own lair -- there to incinerate it.

Not for want of mental power is Sauron thus deceived. He is a creature whose craft and power are very great, as his fashioning of the Ring proves. Sauron also embodies himself as a terrible all-seeing Eye. He can thus discern the outward operation of things, but he cannot discern the inward workings of the heart. Sauron's fatal lack is not intelligence, therefore, but sympathy. He cannot "feel with," and so he is incapable of community. The orcs, those evil creatures whom Sauron has bred to do his will, constantly betray each other and feud among themselves. Tolkien thus holds out the considerable hope that evil cannot form a fellowship: there is no true Compact of the Wicked, but there is a real Company of the Good.

The animating power of this Company is the much-maligned virtue called pity. Frodo had learned the meaning of pity from his Uncle Bilbo. When he first obtained the Ring from the vile creature called Gollum, Bilbo had the chance to kill him but did not. Frodo is perplexed by this refusal. 'Tis a pity, he contends, that Bilbo did not slay such an evil one. This phrase angers the wise Gandalf. It prompts him to make the single most important declaration in the entire Ring epic:


"Pity? It was pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that [Bilbo] took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity."
"I am sorry," said Frodo. "But ... I do not feel any pity for Gollum.... He deserves death."

"Deserves it! I daresay he does," [replies Gandalf]. "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.... [T]he pity of Bilbo will rule the fate of many -- yours not least."

"The pity of Bilbo will rule the fate of many" gradually becomes the motto of Tolkien's epic. It is true in the literal sense, because the Gollum whom Bilbo had spared so long ago is the one who finally destroys the Ring. But the saying is also true in a deep spiritual sense. Gandalf the pagan wizard here announces the nature of Christian mercy. As a creature far more sinning than sinned against, Gollum deserves his misery. He has committed Cain's crime of fratricide in acquiring the Ring. Still Gandalf insists on pity, despite Frodo's protest that Gollum be given justice. If all died who deserve punishment, none would live. Many perish who have earned life, Gandalf declares, and yet who can restore them? Neither hobbits nor humans can live by the bread of merit alone. Hence Gandalf's call for pity and patience: the willingness to forgive trespasses and to wait on slow-working providence rather than rushing to self-righteous judgment.
The unstrained quality of mercy is what, I suggest, makes The Lord of the Rings an enduring Christian classic despite its pagan setting. As a pre-Christian work, it is appropriately characterized by a melancholy sense of ineluctable doom and defeat: the night that comes shall cover everything. Such profound pessimism must not be disregarded. It has its biblical equivalent, after all, in the description of death found in Ecclesiastes 12:5: "Man goeth to his long home."

Yet this gloomy saying is not the ultimate word. Near the end of their wearying quest, Frodo and Sam are alone on the slopes of Mount Doom. All their efforts seem finally to have failed. Even if somehow they succeed in destroying the Ring, there is no likelihood that they will themselves survive, or that anyone will ever hear of their valiant deed. It is amidst such apparent hopelessness that Sam -- the bumbling and unreflective hobbit who has gradually emerged as a figure of great moral and spiritual depth -- beholds a single star shimmering above the dark clouds of Mordor:


The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of that forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.... Now, for a moment, his own fate, and even his master's, ceased to trouble him. He crawled back into the brambles and laid himself by Frodo's side, and putting away all fear he cast himself into a deep and untroubled sleep.
Sam here discerns that light and shadow are not locked in uncertain combat. However much the night may seem to triumph, it is the gleaming star which penetrates and defines the darkness. These hobbits cannot name their source, but they know that Goodness and Truth and Beauty are the first and the last and the only permanent things.

[lotrfreak]

need i say more?

[lotrfreak]

what? you still want more? well...okay

If the study of literature shows nothing else, it shows that every author, consciously or subconsciously, creates his (or her) work after his (or her) own world view. Tolkien is no exception. "I am a Christian..." he writes(1), and his books show it. Christianity appears in The Lord of the Rings not as allegory--Tolkien despises that(2)--nor as analogy, but as deep undergirding presuppositions, similarities of pattern, and shared symbols.

That there should be similarities between the presuppositions of of The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien's Catholic faith is to be expected given Tolkien's views on Christianity and myth. Regarding the gospel story Tolkien wrote, "The gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essences of fairy-stories."(3)Since all myths are subordinate to the overarching "myth," it would be surprising if parallels were not found between greater and lesser. This is certainly true where the author consciously recognizes his archetype. If he has at all grasped its form and meaning, if the archetype has at all succeeded in working its way to his heart, then it must also work its way to his pen.

The essence of the gospel and of fairy-tales is, in Tolkien's own word, euchatastrophe--the surprising, hopeful turn in all man's despair and sorrow. Joy is the result, a brief glimpse springing out of the inherent evangelium of the genre.(4)This is the dominant note of, and even the apology for, fairy-tales.

Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy is set in a pre-Christian world. Hence it cannot adopt an explicit Christianity. Nonetheless it can, and does, shadow Christianity just as the Old Testament pre-shadowed the New, although admittedly Tolkien's is a post-view set as a pre-view. The Christian types to be found in The Lord of the Rings which we will examine are of two sorts: shared world view and shared symbols.

The first category embraces such distinctly philosophical issues as good and evil, historical perspective, freewill and predestination, grace, mercy, providence, judgment and redemption. The development of these themes in The Lord of the Rings is Christian or at least Hebraic.

Shared imagery is no less important to the tenor of the whole work. An example of shared imagery is the antithesis of dark and light so evident in both John the Apostle and Tolkien. Observe the close connection between Haldir's statement, "But whereas the light perceives the very heart of darkness, its own secret has not been discovered,"(5)and John's "The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it."(6)

Focusing on the shared world view, we see that Tolkien's work embodies a definitely Judeo-Christian view of good and evil. Even is seen as perverted or fallen good. Perhaps the best expression of this characteristically Judeo-Christian viewpoint comes when Elrond, the high elf, says, "Nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so."(7)Evil is also seen as self-destructive--a theme which cannot be divorced from scripture.(8)Evil is self-blinded, too. That which it does in malice, that which seems to be its greatest victory, proves to be its own undoing. No clearer illustration of this truth is possible than Christ's resurrection which proved to be the surprising undoing of Satan's greatest triumph. The fiend underwent a devastating and unlooked for humiliation in achieving this victory.(9)It is akin to Sauron's defeat at the moment he was gloating in the stupidity of the march of Aragorn and his meagre six thousand to the gates of Mordor.

Another aspect of evil developed in Tolkien is the insatiable hunger to possess, to rule, to dominate. The Bible captures the same idea with pictures of locusts, of the sword, of wild beasts, of striving kings, and of Satan going about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he might devour. "Devouring" is an apt symbolization of insatiable lust. It closely parallels the Trilogy's symbol "hunger." In contradistinction to evil beings, good creatures are filled and satisfied over and again. They even partake of foods which are magically sustaining--miruvor and lembas. These two elements also serve to remind us of the water and bread of life.

C. S. Lewis conceived of devils as mirthless. Since "humor involves a sense of proportion and power of seeing yourself from the outside...we must picture Hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment..."(10)

Tolkien's view of evil beings has much in common with this of Lewis. Laughter is the domain of good; cruel mockery and joyless mirth is attributable to evil. The latter is always devoid of refreshment. One wonders how Tolkien viewed the widespread acceptance of put-downs and cruel repartee as popular forms of entertainment.

One last example will suffice to show the close similarity Tolkien's Ring sustains to the Christian dilineation of good and evil. This is desolation. With the fall came the curse, with evil barreness: foul wilderness, grimy desert, salton marsh. The Lord of the Rings presses home this point again and again: Isengard's smokes and fumes, Mordor's ash, wanton slashing by orcs, brown lands, and the vicious hewing down of the shire's trees. One catches a theme from Hosea in this: the birds and fish languish because of Israel's sin.(11)Fruitfulness for Tolkien, as for the Christian, is the joy of the good. Even the fact that The Lord of the Rings places rational creatures as masters of nature is significant. It is not a viewpoint one would necessarily find in (for example) a Hindu myth.

We turn now to The Lord of the Ring's view of history. Willis B. Glover remarks, "Tolkien's novel is a history not only in that its form is a narrative based on documents (eg.: The Red Book) that indicates a continuity with our own time, but also in that it presents events through which a future is being created by the actions of rational creatures." Glover considers Tolkien's sense of history as more Biblical than is usual in the modern novel, because The Ring ever suggests the existence of an "unnamed authority" to whom the actors are responsible and who works in history in ways inscrutable to finite creatures.(12)History transcends nature, is open ended, unrepetitive, and a creative interaction of God and men in nature. All modern history comes from one work: The City of God by Augustine of Hippo, which in turn found its beginning, middle, and end in Biblical creation the ages of man, and the final apocalypse. Tolkien's history is of this kind, rather than pagan cyclicism.

Because of history's open-endedness and the input of God and man, both free will and predestination intertwine. Out of respect for freedom, Gandalf, Elrond, and other good leaders consistently refuse to coerce those over whom they exercise authority (except in punishment, as with Saruman when his wand is broken) insisting instead upon the liberty each has to make choices, and directing a measure of rational persuasion wherever it seems essential. (In this way, Gandalf persuades Theoden, King of the Mark). Yet, because of his high position in Hobbit esteem, or indeed in the esteem of all free peoples, a word from Gandalf bears almost the force of a command. This insistance on free-will seems almost to contradict the story's underlying assumption of providential predestination. Frodo is told, for instance, that he is free to take or leave the great ring and yet Elrond--in almost the same breath--assures him that to take it is his fate.(13)Thus Tolkien maintains both elements and presents choice as a crucial event.

Where evil abounds, there must grace the more abound. Grace is not a fully developed theme in this pre-Christian world; but it is present. Much has been said in the literature of the providence which finally destroys the great ring through the greed of Gollum when Hobbit frailty was unable to do so. Undoubtedly this is a key aspect of the story, especially when we recall the numbr of merciful acts on the part of goodfolk which allowed Gollum to survive to become the destroyer of the ring. Important as this development is, I think the repentance offered the fallen is no less worthy of attention.

Of all those to whom repentance was offered, only Boromir accepted it. It has always been a disappointment to me that no one else repented. Especially disappointing was the eventual loss of Gollum. At one time he stood very near redemption, but Sam's suspicion pushed him back, and he soon after attempted his most vile deed, the attempted murder of Frodo by Shelob. Not one person with whom serious persuasion was used--Saruman, Gollum, Wormtongue--was able to change course.

There are whole classes of fallen which appear unreedemable. These are the orcs, trolls, balrogs, etc. In many ways their graceless existence seems akin to that of devils or demons. In other ways, this is not so; they remind the reader of those groups of people whom Israel was told to annihilate as if none were capable of salvation, because their wickedness was full.

In Tolkien's Middle Earth, each person receives his just deserts. Justice, while tempered with mercy, is inexorable in the end. For his betrayal of Frodo, Boromir dies of orc arrows. In remembrance of his repentance, however, he dies honorably; but it is death all the same, and flows as a direct consequence of his treachery; it was he who scattered the fellowship of the ring and made them vulnerable to attack.

Sauron, after bringing desolation to much of the world, is fated to gnaw himself through endless ages. Gnawing one's tongue is a symbol also used in the Bible of eternal doom. Even Frodo is penalized for his final failure at the brink of the chasm. He has a wound which will always give him pain. The same could be said also of Bilbo. Frodo's penalty may even include self-exile from Middle Earth.(14)Examples could be multiplied, but the list would be too long. One facet of Justice emerging from The Lord of the Rings is the incapacity of repentance to forestall just dessert.

For all that, hope is a dominant note of the trilogy: hope despite darkness, fear, or pessimism. Hope is possible only in a Christian world. It makes no sense to a non-believer; hence the despair of modern man in this post-Christian age. In any given situation neither characters in books nor their counterparts in the more complex real world know in what their choices will result. So limited is our vision and theirs, that circumstances and evil seem omnipotent. Without hope, such times would overwhelm the anxious heart. Such hope is found in the certitude of God, the Unseen Mover.

The Christian element I find among the most appealing is individual worth and responsibility. Even the smallest hobbit has great potential; indeed, only in Sauron's lands are the merits of individuality ignored. There, everyone has a number and not everyone a name. More explicitly Christian is the notion of the small thing, the weak and simple, overthrowing the wise and powerful.

Of all the elements remaining to be discussed, the most neglected among reviewers are the virtues of patience and perseverance. These two qualities, along with fidelity and humility, win the war for the free peoples. It is just the absence of these same characteristics which overthrows Sauron, despite his long years of patient brooding.

Having mentioned fidelity, perhaps I should note the stress Tolkien places on this virtue, for while he illustrates the others often enough, he indoctrinates us with this one. There are numerous examples and remarks decrying the hideous practice of oath-breaking, the need of oath-keeping, the sobriety with which oaths are to be sworn. This is biblical and in stark contrast to (say) the oathbreaking of Guthrum with Alfred the Great after swearing on his sacred bracelet. Whatever deadly price must be paid, an oath once made is sacred. We do not always remember what a nasty pincers the Israelites put themselves in when they made their treaty with Gibeon--war against the united forces of Southern Palestine. Yet, they fulfilled their pledge and it brought them their greatest victory.

Such is the message of Tolkien. When Faramir advises Frodo to break oath with Gollum, we think it wrong. This message is not to be disregarded, but one fears it too often was in the history of the church from which Tolkien draws his springs of virtue. And every war in history has been fought over the shards of a broken treaty.

One further Christian element I do not wish to neglect. This is resurrection. Every hero in the story goes toward his death and, against all hope, returns. Gandalf is the clearest picture, for we actually believe him dead for several chapters when he falls in Moria. Gimli, Aragorn, Legolas, and Pippin ride to Mordor's deadly gates while Sam and Frodo trudge helplessly to Mount Doom. With Eowyn and Faramir, Merry lies at the brink of death in the Houses of Healing. Yet each is finally plucked from death to stand greater than before and to fill a higher role, just as Christ after death ascended.

Other Messianic overtones in The Lord of the Rings may not be so obvious. Frodo patiently bears a "cross." Aragorn has titles remniscent of Christ, a bride to gain, and a kingdom to enter. The return of the heroes has eschatalogical overtones remniscent of Pauline or Johannine theology.

As we noted in the opening paragraph of this essay, Tolkien employs biblical symbols. Light and bride have already been mentioned. Others which come to mind are healing leaves, deep-rooted trees, pure water, precious jewels, ashes, redness as the color of sin, and secret sources of life. The sleeplessness of evil, so terrible in The Ring, is clearly the antithesis of blessedness. God grants to his beloved ones sleep.(15)

So far I have dealt with The Lord of the Rings as a Christian book, but it is only fair to turn briefly to a few elements which might seem both doubtful and out of place in such a definition. The greatest lack is Christ. Despite Messianic overtones, he has no place in the trilogy. Neither is there any atonement for sins or communion with the spirit world. Worship is most nearly approximated, suggests Sandra L. Meisel, in the free-folks' delight in beauty and nature.(16)

As we have noted, there is also a real lack of forgiveness of sin. To evade corruption, a being is furthermore cast entirely upon the resources of his nature and his friends. He has no help from the Holy Spirit. Thus it is obvious that I have used the term "Christian" most loosely. Tolkien makes no really Christian demand of his readers. At the same time it is fair to add that a Christian reader will not find the book opposed to his faith. It is at the very least decent reading--and if one looks at its literary qualities, much more than that.

Those qualities of the book which are most likely to come under heavy fire for being unchristian are warfare, magic, and sexism. Sexism I will not examine.

Warfare is an aspect of Tolkien which pacifist critics might deplore as unchristian. Against this the defense will have to argue that war is not always wrong. As long as the entire cosmos is a vast battleground between forces of good and evil, there must be a wars in the physical as well as the spiritual arena. In a moment of profound observation, Chesterton noted that there are some cultures and systems so utterly anti-thetical to one's own, that one can desire nothing but their annihilation.(17)At any rate, warfare with unremitting slaughter was characteristic of the pre-Christian era.

Magic, the second element needing defence, seems at first sight less defensible. Has it not always been anathema in the Judeo-Christian tradition?

There are distinct differences, however, between the magic in Tolkien, and magic, even white magic, as we know it. The magic of the pure is first of all latent power. Either you have it or you do not. It is never an attempt to seize power from outside oneself: that is sorcery. Spells never, absolutely never, are applied to people. Only objects receive them. Gandalf comes closest to using his magic against persons. He fights with his wand. Magic in The Ring is benevolent when good, and is uplifting. In a sense it symbolizes the supernatural or spiritual aspect of things which otherwise is lacking.

Tolkien's good magic does not show the invidious disregard for God and man which earthly magic must. When we turn to black magic, we see that those who use the machinery of magic (such as the palantirs and rings), are injured or destroyed by that machinery. Never once--and this is to Tolkien's credit--are we allowed to see black magic close up, its rites and sorcery. Angmar is called a sorcerer; his sorcery is never shown, but like all sorcerers fell under the power of the Black Lord.

Those who peer into powers not meant for them, especially shadow powers, are snared by the shadow. Tolkien clearly illustrates this in Saruman's case. Elrond pounds the message home, saying, "It is perilous to study too deeply the arts of the enemy, for good or for ill."(18)

All the same, the resurgence of interest in myths, the occult, and fantasy which Tolkien and C. S. Lewis (among others) engendered in the evangelical community is to be deplored. There seems to be a serious erosion of the uniqueness of Christian teaching.

This caveat aside, Tolkien's work is a monument of genius against which all other fantasies can aptly be compared. In general, The Lord of the Rings has an enduring quality lacking to much other fantasy, because it is built on permanent principles. Right and wrong do not change; Tolkien's absolutes are built on Christianity. the moral principles of tolkien justify his work. Despite casteism, sexism, sterotypes, and (sometimes) bad poetry, it remains a clear, beautiful, and moving appeal to our noblest impulses.

Could Tolkien have bettered the moral tone of the work? Probably not. More Christ would have endangered the work with sacrilege. More platitudes would have made it a bore. No, J. R. R. Tolkien has blended his multifarious elements with unparalleled wit, scholarship, and charm. The Lord of the Rings stands as a unique testimony to the power of a Christian pen.

[babolaypo65]

Before I read this, can you tell us the citation for it? IE, who wrote it? That's customary. Helps me understand it in context.

[babolaypo65]

I disagree. For the oldsters out there, Harry Potter is like Goofus and Gallant (from Highlights). All kids get into mischief, good kids do the right thing in the end, and they are rewarded, bad kids do the wrong thing in the end, and it never works for him. It's theme is very Christian actually! It's a very moral work. Good things come to people who do good.



Originally posted by lotrfreak
actually, i would read lotr if it wasnt written by a christian author, but it would have to have some type of message from the Bible for me to read it. I dont read Harry Potter because I'm not allowed to, but frankly, I don't want to. Lord of the rings does have a biblical message: it just doesn't quote the Bible.In Lord of the rings, they try to overcome the evil with their own will power. In Harry Potter they got themselves into trouble. They went to find evil. They also went to a school to learn magic to make potions and fly on brooms? No, no, Lord of the Rings is nothing like that.

[babolaypo65]

Okay, mean English teacher coming out: no, most of this isn't fact. This is just someone's opinion. A well reasoned opinion, I won't argue. Looks like someone's thesis. It would be an interesting thesis to do. (I'm sure it's been done many times).
When an author uses phrases like "I believe", and "grand", that suggests its his opinion. There are a few facts interspersed, but it's primarily a thesis statement, and a well reasoned argument.

One fact from this is: some scholars believe LOTR has christian themes.

PS, you might consider citing referenes of academic work. Someone spent a lot of time (probably years) doing this work.


Originally posted by lotrfreak
These are just facts:

Yet Tolkien's grand book has outlasted its cult-status. The Lord of the Rings is an undeniable classic: a work which invites repeated readings without exhausting its potential to deepen and define our moral and spiritual lives. Young and old alike keep returning to these big books for both wisdom and delight. True fantasy, Tolkien declared in his 1939 essay "On Fairy-Stories," is escapist in the good sense: it enables us to flee into reality. The strange new world of hobbits and elves and ents frees us from bondage to the pseudo-reality that most of us inhabit: a world deadened by bleary familiarity. Fantasy helps us recover an enlivened sense of wonder, Tolkien observed in this same essay, about such ordinary things "as stone, and wood, and iron; tree and grass; house and fire; bread and wine."
.

[carole]

Gosh i could not even be bothered reading all that, way too long, now back to the lady in purple, its people who file cases like that who really spoil it for the legit cases out there, silly woman, if that were said to me, i would just laugh it off or better still come up with something smart and witty back.SOME PEOPLE, gee this thread is really dragging along isnt it?

[RICHARD]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lotrfreak
[B]These Letters are from Tolkien himself:

From Letter #320:
...I think it is true that I owe much of (the character of Galadriel) to Christian and Catholic teaching and imagination



The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like `religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.





I.
Despite the eucharistic hint, Tolkien's work is not self-evidently Christian.


There is little that is Christian about The Hobbit, Tolkien's first fantasy work, published in 1937.

They all learn, in a proleptically Christian way, what every mortal must confront: the solemn reality that we no sooner find our lives than we have to give them up.




Perhaps we can now understand what Tolkien meant when called The Lord of the Rings "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work." Its essential conflict, he insisted, concerns God's "sole right to divine honour" (Letters, 172, 243). [QUOTE]


got it,
i believe that you may want to say that he was influenced by christianity and those teachings.
tolkein admits that the Galadriel/Mary connection
was influenced by the christian/catholic religion...one reference....but from that are we to glean that the LOTR was ALL a biblical revision??

the simarillion does read like Genesis for the most part.....

i'll look for the full text of his letters and
see what they say, in context. no, not that i do not believe you, it's just that a few snippets of a letter and an exhaustive interpretation of the body of his work can never accurately 'decode'
what he meant, or what the message of his books is. i can make the same correlation about stephen king's THE STAND...check it out

everyone plagerizes everyone else....

not doubting you....just looking for a bit more of what HE meant when he wrote the books...and just how much he borrowed from the bible!
thanks.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by carole
Gosh i could not even be bothered reading all that, way too long, now back to the lady in purple, its people who file cases like that who really spoil it for the legit cases out there, silly woman, if that were said to me, i would just laugh it off or better still come up with something smart and witty back.SOME PEOPLE, gee this thread is really dragging along isnt it?

check this out
(we are de-evolving!!!)

a security guard was recently counseled about greeting visitors and employees of the building with, 'have a wonderful and blessed day'

someone complained and he was told to stop-or lose his job!

ferpete'ssake!!!!

after the story hit the media the company changed it's policy and now supports him and his greeting!

imagine getting pissed about someone wanting to make you feel better

[Cheshirekatt]

Originally posted by carole
Gosh i could not even be bothered reading all that, way too long, now back to the lady in purple, its people who file cases like that who really spoil it for the legit cases out there, silly woman, if that were said to me, i would just laugh it off or better still come up with something smart and witty back.SOME PEOPLE, gee this thread is really dragging along isnt it?

Isn't that the truth? When I was working the front desk at a vet clinic this dirty old man came in and stated loudly to me, "Gee, if I'd known they had good looking dishes like you working here I'd come here more often"! LOL So I looked him right in the eye and said, "Thanks, Cupcake!" lol That shut him up. Everyone called him Cupcake after that.

[zippy-kat]

Originally posted by RICHARD
'have a wonderful and blessed day'



I think one of the Wiccan sayings is "Blessed be." Someone probably thought he was imposing his religious beliefs...:rolleyes:

[zippy-kat]

Originally posted by Cheshirekatt
"Thanks, Cupcake!" lol That shut him up. Everyone called him Cupcake after that.

LOL

Ya know...
I've heard Richard likes to be called Buttercup.... ;)

[carole]

That reminds me , alot of new zealanders say KIA ORA, its a maori word meaning hello, our indigenous people here, some european people get offended, but i say hey we have to embrace both our cultures, and i think it sounds nice and unique to N.Z.
My daughter has just spent a night at a maori marae part of her schooling, so she is learning the maori customs and way of life, i cant see any harm in it.

[Cheshirekatt]

people need to relax and not sweat the small stuff.

[lotrfreak]

The Lord of the Rings recount a pre-biblical period of the earth's ancient history -- where there are no Chosen People, no Incarnation, no religion at all -- yet from a point of view that is distinctively Christian.

sorry, I'll go look of the people who wrote all of this. Oh, and....*bunches

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by zippy-kat
LOL

Ya know...
I've heard Richard likes to be called Buttercup.... ;)


and to think i have evolved into that...:rolleyes:

[lotrfreak]

he left nothing that really tells who did this but you can write questions to:

[email protected]

[lotrfreak]

so..... back to evolution and creation.....

[catland]

A dog's viewpoint of humans.
They feed me.
They love me.
They take care of me.

They must be gods.


A cat's viewpoint of humans.

They feed me.
They love me.
They take care of me.

I must be a god.

;)

[lbaker]

so....back to evolution and creation
Why? :confused: we were just starting to have some fun (see above from catland & RICHARD)

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by catland



A cat's viewpoint of humans.

They feed me.
They love me.
They take care of me.

I must be a god.

;)

welcome to the Church of the Kitty Kat...

today's sermon is *cough, cough*

dang.........here comes a hairball.



as far as creation and evolution go......

i have evolved into thinking that creation isn't
all it's cracked up to be!

[lizbud]

Dog Story:


In Tennessee, a guy sees a sign in front of a house: "Talking Dog for Sale".

He rings the bell and the owner tells him the dog is in the backyard.

The guy goes into the backyard and sees a black mutt just sitting there.

"You talk?" he asks.

"Yep," the mutt replies.

"So, what's your story?"

The mutt looks up and says, "Well, I discovered this gift pretty young and
I wanted to help the government, so I told the CIA about my gift, and in no
time they had me jetting from country to country, sitting in rooms with
spies
and world leaders, because no one figured a dog would be eavesdropping.
I was one of their most valuable spies eight years running.
The jetting around really tired me out, and I knew I wasn't getting any
younger
and I wanted to settle down. So I signed up for a job at the airport to do
some
undercover security work, mostly wandering near suspicious characters and
listening in.
I uncovered some incredible dealings there and was awarded a batch of
medals.
Had a wife, a mess of puppies, and now I'm just retired."

The guy is amazed. He goes back in and asks the owner what he wants for the
dog.

The owner says, "Ten dollars."

The guy says, "This dog is amazing. Why on earth are you selling him so
cheap?"

The owner replies, "He's such a liar. He didn't do any of that stuff."

[zippy-kat]

:D Liz!

[RICHARD]

scientists recently found that a tribe of indianapolis indians born with a strange defect
that was being passed from generation to generation...the people there were evolving -
they were growing up with out nipples.

the scientists did a study of 500 members of the tribe.

when asked by the media about their findings they were unable to give a reason as to why there was an indian-nippleless 500.
:rolleyes:

[lbaker]

*mmmfffffph chortle chortle* oh Buttercup, and we did so try to behave while the Mayor was away.... :D :p ;) *sigh*

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by lbaker
*mmmfffffph chortle chortle* oh Buttercup, and we did so try to behave while the Mayor was away.... :D :p ;) *sigh*


speak for yourself......i still think that's within the bounds of being .....ah.......ah...
......oh, alright i'll take the blame for this one....


btw, the topic was evolution.



buttercup?!?!?!?!?!

thanks, zippy, remember-revenge is a dish best eaten cold......

[zippy-kat]

Originally posted by RICHARD


thanks, zippy, ......

:D No problemo, Buttercup!

[LoudLou]

:D ;) UMMMMM, are you all Running Amuck????;)

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by LoudLou
:D ;) UMMMMM, are you all Running Amuck????;)

actually it's more like a slow trot amuck!!!

:rolleyes: :)

you aren't gonna tell, are you???:(

[slick]

Ok so I'm joining in late

BUTTERCUP????? I didn't know you played sports......LOL LOL

[lbaker]

OMG Slick, I have tears running down my face :D :D I had to get up from my desk and shut my door :o I've heard the sole purpose of a middle name is so he can tell when he's really in trouble.... so what's your middle name Buttercup?
Laurie

[lizbud]

Richard,

" when asked by the media about their findings they were unable to give a reason as to why there was an indian-nippleless 500."

:p :p :p hee hee

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by slick
Ok so I'm joining in late

BUTTERCUP????? I didn't know you played sports......LOL LOL

hokay....

try this.....i was sent a form of the professor poopypants name changer....that one gave me the
name 'buttercup girdlehead'......this one gave me
'loopy bananahead'

http://www.ga2so.com/poop.html

go ahead, try it, make my day!


:)

[lbaker]

........ so your middle name is girdlehead? I can hear the Mayor right now "BUTTERCUP GIRDLEHEAD, go to your room this instant :mad: ) ;)

[slick]

Anything to put a smile on your face Richard.

Just call me Squeezit Wafflefanny!!!

[slick]

Originally posted by lbaker
........ so your middle name is girdlehead? I can hear the Mayor right now "BUTTERCUP GIRDLEHEAD, go to your room this instant :mad: ) ;)

I'm laughing so hard I'm crying........Why do we have to pick on poor Richard like this....

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by slick
I'm laughing so hard I'm crying........Why do we have to pick on poor Richard like this....

no problem......
it's friday!!!!

[lbaker]

I almost peed in my pants. I have to go home now. Catch ya later

[Cheshirekatt]

Poopsie Gerbiltush checking in....

[catland]

Originally posted by Cheshirekatt
Poopsie Gerbiltush checking in....

Poopsie!

I'm a Poopsie too:D actually, my full name is Poopsie Chucklebuns. I guess that makes me really PC (groan:eek: )

[I Love Brian, Forever <3]

I'm "Lumpy Liverhiney." :D :D

[slick]

My other names from Poopypants:
Hobbit name: Polly Grubb of Little Delving
Wu name: Phantom Observer
Hockey name: Shane McHeysdyk
Smurf name: Megatron Smurf

I still like Squeezit Wafflefanny the best. Just call me Squeezie for short.

:D

[babolaypo65]

Do you have the weblink? I'm mainly interested in knowing if the person was an academic. And, in academia was the person a theologian, a liturgical historian, a Literature student...
Each type of student would have his/her own context within which they wrote their argument.
thanks.
Remember, I never said it didn't have christian themes, just that it's not a christian book. Similarly, the musical group Creed has many christian themes, but they aren't a christian rock group.


Originally posted by lotrfreak
he left nothing that really tells who did this but you can write questions to:

[email protected]

[Desert Arabian]

LOL!!!!

My new name is: Booger Bananafanny. :p

I decided to type in names of people I know.

Mom's new name: Snotty Bananafanny
My old best friend's new name: Flunky Wafflehead
My German teacher's name: Falafel Toiletchunks (HAHAHAHAHA)
My neighbor's little girl's new name: Poopsie Pizzabuns

HA HA HA HA HA!

[lotrfreak]

back to evolution...
indian thing is sarcasm...right.....that isnt possible....

[lotrfreak]

true...I'll see what i can do...

[lotrfreak]

here is one: http://members.cts.com/king/e/erikt/tolkien/jrrtcrst.htm


here is another: http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/wood-classic.html

:)

[babolaypo65]

Thanks. I'll have a look. Seems that one is a lay person, and one university or similar program, seemingly a christian one. thanks

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
back to evolution...
indian thing is sarcasm...right.....that isnt possible....


it's a joke.

going back to evolution.

now,
what are we gonna do with the knowledge of how we got here?

of what use will that info be to us?

if 'god' has put us, as tangible three dimensional beings, plants, animals and other things on the planet, why the mystery about
who he is......a benevolent creator would want credit for being
so...........creative!

if god did put us on the planet where is that proof?

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by lbaker
OMG Slick, I have tears running down my face :D :D I had to get up from my desk and shut my door :o I've heard the sole purpose of a middle name is so he can tell when he's really in trouble.... so what's your middle name Buttercup?
Laurie

crybaby!!!!

lee.

:p

[catland]

Originally posted by RICHARD
if god did put us on the planet where is that proof?

I was a non-believer who had no proof...

then I saw pancakes on a bunny. If that is not a sign, what is?

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by catland
I was a non-believer who had no proof...

then I saw pancakes on a bunny. If that is not a sign, what is?

tis a sign....god works in mysterious ways ;) ......also 3700 'looks' and 318 posts in 18 days.............

:eek:

[mugsy]

Pinky Pottybrains here. Sheesh!

[LoudLou]

Originally posted by mugsy
Pinky Pottybrains here. Sheesh!

Sheesh is right! I am LUMPY TOILETTUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

[slick]

Originally posted by LoudLou
Sheesh is right! I am LUMPY TOILETTUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

LOL LOL - What a bummer!! :D :D

[babolaypo65]

Allow me to introduce myself, I am: Lumpy Pizzabuns


feel like we should have the hobbit name generator, considering the theme.

[IttyBittyKitty]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
need i say more?

It is not very impressive spouting big chunks of rhetoric when it is not one's own and saying "THERE" like a fraud putting the last splash of paint onto someone else's work of art and claiming it as their own.

By all means quote others who have researched the topic thoroughly, it is difficult to debate a topic without providing corroborating "evidence," but please do not claim other's words as your own by omitting a reference to the author.

Back to the point of the use of the word "Racism"versus "Bigotry" or "Prejudice." I would, myself, have no qualms in using the word "Racism" in describing anti-semitism as Jewish people were, as Semetic peoples, racially distinct from other Caucasians before the Holocaust. This ancestry has been diluted somewhat since, but it still remains and many Jews bear the unique phsyical characteristics associated with that race.

Likewise, in some situations, anti-Christian sentiments can be considered "Racist" as the Christian religion is often incorrectly linked with Western culture. Another striking example of race/religion associations is one we all know only too well - racism against those of Arabic descent (ironically also Semetic peoples) on the basis that they are assumed to be Islamic, and therefore are terrorists.

An interesting point to ponder. I do agree that the word "Racism" is bandied around and misused constantly, as an unjustified insult or "shock" value.

[lotrfreak]

this is a link to a couple of name generators one being a hobbit name:


http://www.barrowdowns.com/middleearthname.asp?Size=

[lotrfreak]

ahem....back to evolution...among other things.....

[lotrfreak]

oh, I see.....you are perfect. sorry, didnt know who I was dealin with here. Plus i did post it a few posts later. check the facts

[KYS]

Originally posted by IttyBittyKitty: Back to the point of the use of the word "Racism"versus "Bigotry" or "Prejudice." I would, myself, have no qualms in using the word "Racism" in describing anti-semitism as Jewish people were, as Semetic peoples, racially distinct from other Caucasians before the Holocaust. This ancestry has been diluted somewhat since, but it still remains and many Jews bear the unique phsyical characteristics associated with that race.
>>>>>>

I am a bit confused by this meaning?

Being Jewish is a religion and not a race: Check your
main stream History books and Encyclopedia.
The first Christians were Jewish.

[Cincy'sMom]

Stinky Wafflechunks?

My husband:Loopy Wafflechunks

And the wafflechunk puppies:
Snotty ( Sadie)
Buttercup (Cincy)
and Snotty II (Spot)

[babolaypo65]

I agree with ittybitty kitty. Historians and theologians have traditionally viewed the jewish peoples as both a distinct race AND a distinct religion.
And I personally would consider someone who dislikes a jewish person based on the fact that they are jewish a racist.




Originally posted by IttyBittyKitty: Back to the point of the use of the word "Racism"versus "Bigotry" or "Prejudice." I would, myself, have no qualms in using the word "Racism" in describing anti-semitism as Jewish people were, as Semetic peoples, racially distinct from other Caucasians before the Holocaust. This ancestry has been diluted somewhat since, but it still remains and many Jews bear the unique phsyical characteristics associated with that race.
>>>>>>
Originally posted by KYS:
I am a bit confused by this meaning?

Being Jewish is a religion and not a race: Check your
main stream History books and Encyclopedia.
The first Christians were Jewish.

[RICHARD]

lotr.


thanks for answering my questions i found your answers to be polite and chockfull of ......of.......of....


hey wait a second....you didn't say ANYTHING!!!!

sorry.

[Cheshirekatt]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
oh, I see.....you are perfect. sorry, didnt know who I was dealin with here. Plus i did post it a few posts later. check the facts

Wow, what an un-christian like attitude.

Hmmmm.....

[KYS]

parts quoted from The Encyclopedia Americana

(I appolized for the "now politically incorrect" for colors)

Quote:

Their is no such thing as a pure race per anthroplogists.

Blumembach who is the founder of anthropology in 1775
established 5 human races which differed in skin color.
Caucasion or white, Mongolian or yellow, Ethopian or black,
American or Red, Malayan or brown.

Very freqentley many individual humans could not be classified
as any one race.

incert: It would appear that anybody is intitled to
create races to suit their fancy. This prostitution of the race
concept reach it's peak in Nazi Germany.......................>>>>>


P.S. I am sadden that anyone could hate somebody simply
because of their religion or skin color.

[babolaypo65]

Timing... I'm watching last night's Law and Order:SVU".... anyway, there's a baby with tay sachs.... the doctor says: tay sachs is primarily limited to certain ethnic groups, jewish, ...

anyway, it got me to thinking of the difference between 'race' and "ethnic group"....

any thoughts?

[carole]

If you are indeed a so called christian, then please start acting like one,you are however HUMAN, i guess when someone is attacking your beliefs or opinions as you see it, you are going to react, but if you must preach, then practice what you PREACH ok

[IttyBittyKitty]

Originally posted by KYS
Originally posted by IttyBittyKitty: Back to the point of the use of the word "Racism"versus "Bigotry" or "Prejudice." I would, myself, have no qualms in using the word "Racism" in describing anti-semitism as Jewish people were, as Semetic peoples, racially distinct from other Caucasians before the Holocaust. This ancestry has been diluted somewhat since, but it still remains and many Jews bear the unique phsyical characteristics associated with that race.
>>>>>>

I am a bit confused by this meaning?

Being Jewish is a religion and not a race: Check your
main stream History books and Encyclopedia.
The first Christians were Jewish.

I have checked many history books on this matter, and other historical matters, having studied university history whilst still in high school and having a continued interest in this (and other) historical subjects. I didn't continue on as there are approximately zero jobs for arts graduates in this country.

Up until very recent times, the Jewish people remained a distinct race as persecution was very successful in preventing them from mixing with other races. The idea of segregation, or "Ghettoes," was not unique to Nazi Germany. It is a practice that is centuries old. The Nazis, in particular, persecuted the Jews on a basis of their racial difference to the Aryans - the idea that, as jews, they were a "sub-human" people.

Even today, it is acknowledged that Jews still have unique characteristic. One example is their intelligence - a characteristic for which they were often persecuted, as they were seen as "cunning" rather than simply shrewd.

[jonza]

I recently saw a Discovery program about a researcher who was DNA mapping humans from all over the world. I can’t remember the name of the program, I think it was “The Journey of Man”. He was trying to find out when ancient man migrated from Africa, and which routes they took and when.
Apparently there were two main migrations, one about 40000 years ago, and another much later, possibly 20000 to 15000 years ago. It seems that the ancestors of the present population of Europe didn’t come straight up from Africa, but moved first into central Asia and China before moving on to Europe later. He found a man in the middle of Asia whose DNA could be traced back 2000 generations, that’s to say about 40000 years. Some family tree he must have!
He concluded the program by stating that since we all originate from the same original people, we are, of course, in actual fact all the same race. We have just evolved differently. So the whole idea of racism is nonsense.

I’m no expert on this subject, but do feel that it gives food for thought.

(he he, I managed to get the words “racism” and “evolved” in the same post!) :D

[lotrfreak]

i am sorry.. i got out of line, but its the way i said it that i am sorry about not what i said

[mugsy]

Originally posted by jonza

(he he, I managed to get the words “racism” and “evolved” in the same post!) :D

Very impressive!;) :D

[RubyMutt]

Originally posted by popcornbird
I always thought of most Jews as being part of the same race. From what I know (correct me if I'm wrong) non-Jews cannot convert to Judhism because Jews are supposedly the *chosen* people, and people outside of them can't covert to the religion, which is why the Jewish population is SO tiny especially comparing to other monotheist religions (Islam and Christianity) both of which welcome new converts because they believe that God's guidance is for all of mankind. This is what I've heard all my life so I'm unsure of this. I know there are American/European Jews, but I believe they all originate (from thousands of years)from the same *race* which is from Israel. I always heard that today's Jews are from the generations of the followers of Prophet Moses, so the same people/same race, just going down in generations and spread out. :confused: Again, I'm not sure of this but this is what I've always heard. I'll look for resources later.

I'm not Jewish, but I think that non-Jews CAN convert to Judaism, it's just not always looked highly upon. Correct me if I'm wrong, that's just what I've heard.

[wolfsoul]

I would think that Jews could definatly convert into whatever they want, I mean it's not a law, it's a choice and they are allowed to be whatever they want :confused:

This thread has totally turned itself around lol

I don't know much about races and stuff, but I know quite alot about the haullocaust, and the Nazis attacks on Jewish people (read The Cage by Ruth Minsky, it's very educational, while interesting, and a true story). I've also seen real footage of it, and after that, nothing is bad. If you were to look upon those people and see how thin they were :eek: They were all skin and bones :eek:

I also read in some big book that every songle person on this earth had to at some point descended from atleast one black woman. I thought that was very interesting :D I also think that most of us probably carry other races, and we don't even know it, and that our ancestors have different religions that we never knew about. :)

Sorry if I got off-topic, this thread is getting rather confusing, and I'm pretty sure that I'm talking about what everyone else is now lol...

[lotrfreak]

I am pretty sure people can convert and be a "Jew" in the religious sense, but I don't think they will actually be Jew as in the Jews and the Gentiles.

[lotrfreak]

Back to evolution. You keep telling me to prove that God created the earth, sun, the moon, etc. And you also kep telling me I am stubborn and wont listen to other peoples thoughts. You havent tried to prove to me how evolution is/was exsistent.

[wolfsoul]

Back to evolution. You keep telling me to prove that God created the earth, sun, the moon, etc. And you also kep telling me I am stubborn and wont listen to other peoples thoughts. You havent tried to prove to me how evolution is/was exsistent.

We are doing the exact oppisite! Everyone is saying to you that you can't prove anything, not a single person asked you to give us proof that God created the Earth, because there is no proof, and everyone here is smart enought to know that. There is only evidence to everything, no proof, that is why no one is trying to give you proof of evolution. They have given you the evidence, there is no proof to give, what more do you want?

[wolfsoul]

I respect your opinion, but I still can't see it as proof. If it was proof, scientists wouldn't be searching for an answer, other people wouldn't be searching, everyone would know what is real, because proof splits apart the unknown and the known reality.

I can only see it as evidence, because no one can truly know..

The Bible and science contradict eachother in many ways. Where science says there is proof, there may only be evidence, where the Bible says there is proof, there may only be evidence. It's hard to know anything about anything that happened so long ago. I truly hope that one day people can know what the truth really is.

[mugsy]

Well, everyone will know the truth and have their proof when they die. I guess we'll have to wait and see and I for one am not in a big hurry to find out.

[wolfsoul]

Originally posted by popcornbird
Wasn't talking about the Bible. :) Even faithful scientist enjoy studying. Science really shows what amazing things God has created and how He runs them with gravity, atoms, oxygen, hydrogen, all that stuff, how He keeps the planets in orbit, etc. etc. Its all amazing and no one but God could do such great things. Science does NOT contradict religion and there's nothing wrong with learning science and figuring out how everything works in religion. Only certain issues in evolution contradict religion, but nothing else.

Ah, I get it now :D

[lotrfreak]

the Bible has been around for quite a while...right? Right. so....the Bibles says that the planets revovle around the sun. Ohh...then, thousands of years later...scientists come out with an astionishing conclusion....can u guess what it is.....the planets revovle around the sun....I guess we wont have to wait till we die after all.........

[lotrfreak]

also....interestingly enough....archaeology can prove the old AND New testaments of the Bible are true....

I can give u examples if you must have some

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
the Bible has been around for quite a while...right? Right. so....the Bibles says that the planets revovle around the sun. Ohh...then, thousands of years later...scientists come out with an astionishing conclusion....can u guess what it is.....the planets revovle around the sun....I guess we wont have to wait till we die after all.........


as a practicing member of the 'flat earth society'
i know the earth is flat...

have you ever seen a round map????

a globe is not a map....it's just a plot to make us think the world is round;)

[LoudLou]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
also....interestingly enough....archaeology can prove the old AND New testaments of the Bible are true....

I can give u examples if you must have some


.. Ok I wasn't going to post on this thread concerning the religion topic but this statement is in err.... Archaeologists can NEITHER PROVE NOR DIS PROVE parts of the Bible. The History Channel has a fantastic series on this.

[ramanth]

Don't any of you watch South Park?! Everyone knows it's Mormons who go to Heaven and everyone else goes 'Down Under'... figuratively speaking. ;) :D *laughs*


But seriously.... as a mutt of beliefs (more of a evolutionist pagan), I don't care what you believe. Kudo's to you for believing (or not believing) in something.

It's your life. :)

Like Mugsy says, we'll go where we want to go when we die. :)

[lotrfreak]

actually, i have a round map hanging up in my room, thank-you very much. Yes, arcaeologists can prove the Bible is correct.

I got these from books by Ralph O. Muncaster

These are the historical comparisons of Scientific insight
S= Science

All of these things were taught in the Bible. Next to the S shows who and when discovered it

The hydrologic cycle defined S-Perrault and Mariotte 1700s
The earth “hangs on nothing” in space S-Copernicus 1543
Light is in motion S- Newton, Huygens 1600s
Air has weight S- Toricelli 1643
Time, space, and matter had a beginning S-Einstein 1916
The order of creation S-1800s-1900s
First law of thermodynamics S- Joule Mayer 1842
The sun moves in a circuit of the galaxy S- Eary 1900s
Currents exsist in the oceans S-Matthew Fontaine Maury 1855


I have more………



Does the Bible conflict with Science?

The more the Bible is studied, the more surprising it becomes that people often think it is in conflict with science. Yet science’s rejection of the Bible has become common only in the last hundred years. Great scientists of the past, including Newton, Kepler, and Galileo, were all avid readers and believers of the Bible. As scientists are slowly becoming aware of the incredible wealth of the recently discovered information, a scientific return to the Bible is occurring.


Archaeology proves the Bible correct


God told Moses that the promised land would have “rocks of iron and copper that could be dug from hills” (Deuteronomy 8:9). Twenty miles south of the Dead Sea, a large area is dotted with ancient furnaces. The vast region is covered with heaps of copper slag, and some copper veins are still visible above ground.

Do you need more examples….because I have some…..

[lotrfreak]

actually, i have a lot more, I just got tired of writing

[lotrfreak]

its amazing no one has plumeted to their death off the edge of the world yet......

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
its amazing no one has plumeted to their death off the edge of the world yet......

aha!!!!!!

how are we to know???

after all how can you tell your story when you
have fallen off the planet?????


see! tolyaso!!!!!


:D

[carole]

Hey Ramanth its not so bad DOWN UNDER lol;) :D

[lotrfreak]

you'd think they'd have some type of techonolgy or somethin to report they were beginning to see nothing but space in their view ahead, especially if they had something like.. i dont know... binoculars

[mugsy]

Obviously, it doesn't matter what anyone says or what arguments are given everyone has his or her own beliefs and opinions, so I'm not sure why lotrfreak keeps trying to convince us all. Just asking.

Richard, Richard, Richard, haven't you studied your history?? Columbus didn't fall off the earth in 1492 (he just thought he was in India). lol

[Cincy'sMom]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
Archaeology proves the Bible correct


God told Moses that the promised land would have “rocks of iron and copper that could be dug from hills” (Deuteronomy 8:9). Twenty miles south of the Dead Sea, a large area is dotted with ancient furnaces. The vast region is covered with heaps of copper slag, and some copper veins are still visible above ground.



I don't see how this is proof that the Bible is correct. It may prove that there are facts in the Bible, but there are Hollywood movies and historical fiction books that facts in them too.

I'm not saying I don't believe in the Bible, just that one true statement does not make every statement true.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by mugsy


Richard, Richard, Richard, haven't you studied your history?? Columbus didn't fall off the earth in 1492 (he just thought he was in India). lol

history- yes
goegraphy- no

[mugsy]

Well Richard...in that case....*Mrs. Kendall puts on her geography teacher's hat* let's chat! lol

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by mugsy
Well Richard...in that case....*Mrs. Kendall puts on her geography teacher's hat* let's chat! lol

aren't you supposed to be on vacation???:p

[catland]

oh-oh Richard - looks like you've been sent to Summer School:eek: :eek: :eek: :cool:

[lotrfreak]

Cincy's Mom.....taht has ABSOLUTELY no point whatsoever. Here is a fact the sky is blue. The Bible had all of the facts before anyone chose to believe it was true. Hollywood movies have facts like the sky is blue and everyone knows that. It is just common sense

[Cincy'sMom]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
Cincy's Mom.....taht has ABSOLUTELY no point whatsoever. Here is a fact the sky is blue. The Bible had all of the facts before anyone chose to believe it was true. Hollywood movies have facts like the sky is blue and everyone knows that. It is just common sense

That is my point exactly!!! Okay, so a specific rock is more convincing then a generalization such as the color of the sky, but using ONE fact to say an entire documents is correct, does not work!!

The fact of the matter is the Bible has been passed down from generation to genereration, both orally and in written text. It has been translated and retranslated. To say that every fact is 100% correct, just can't be. You want proof? Pick up a King James' Bible and a Catholic Bible. Then throw in another translation of your choice. Read passage for passage. Do they all have the exact same meaning? You want to prove something using the Bible? You certainly can! You want to disprove it? You can do that too!
So which one is correct? So who is right?

[zippy-kat]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
Cincy's Mom.....taht has ABSOLUTELY no point whatsoever. Here is a fact the sky is blue. The Bible had all of the facts before anyone chose to believe it was true. Hollywood movies have facts like the sky is blue and everyone knows that. It is just common sense

But the sky isn't always blue. Here in NM it's often pink, orange, red....

And even when it is BLUE, there's many different shades......

Likewise, there isn't just one "right" view. There's different ideas, concerns, situations that can turn something "wrong" into something "right."

Keep in mind that the Bible has been translated into many different languages and meanings are often lost in those translations...

Also, sometimes the "good stuff" isn't just knowing that "the sky is blue"... it's good to question things... so... do you know WHY the sky is blue?

[mugsy]

lotrfreak....you are becoming a broken record here. Somehow I find it annoying that a young teen is telling the adults that they don't know what they are talking about. Pretty presumptuous if you ask me. Perhaps, lotrfreak, if you would listen instead of preach you might actually open your mind and learn something. It's awfully sad that someone so young has such a closed mind.

Richard....I NEVER stop teaching! hehehehe (ask Mike!)
First question: What body of water separates Spain from Africa? hehhehe

[wolfsoul]

lotrfreak....you are becoming a broken record here.

No kidding...I find it odd how lotrfreak posts again and again after the other posts he/she just made :confused: And what I find even more odd, is that Jesus Freak!!! did the exact same thing :confused: :rolleyes:

I don't know if it's just that lotrfreak doesn't know how to scroll down and fit all the info on one post, or if he/she is just constantly bumping the thread back up so more people can look and start it up again? :confused:


mugsy, I think I know the answer to your question :D *waits patiently for RICHARD to answer* ;)

[zippy-kat]

Originally posted by popcornbird
That's the thing about the Quran. It remains original unlike the Bible and Torah and other books revealed by God. God promised to keep it original, and God kept it as He sent it till today. Not a single letter is changed. That's why there can be no mistake in the Quran because its EXACTLY as God revealed it. Just had to say that. :o


I don't know squat about the Quran, but you're gonna have to provide me with some links before I buy that idea. :)

[NoahsMommy]

Originally posted by Cincy'sMom
The fact of the matter is the Bible has been passed down from generation to genereration, both orally and in written text. It has been translated and retranslated. To say that every fact is 100% correct, just can't be. You want proof? Pick up a King James' Bible and a Catholic Bible. Then throw in another translation of your choice. Read passage for passage. Do they all have the exact same meaning? You want to prove something using the Bible? You certainly can! You want to disprove it? You can do that too!
So which one is correct? So who is right?

I'm not trying to be mean...but I hate when people say this. I'm going to quote John 3:16 from every bible I can get my hands on at home an online. You be the judge...simple as that.

NIV:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

NASB:
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

MSG:
"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."

AMP:
"For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life."

NLT:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

KJV:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

ESV:
"For God so loved the world,[1] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

CEV:
"God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has faith in him will have eternal life and never really die."

NKJV:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

There are about 7 more translations. Please go here:
Bible Gateway (http://bible.gospelcom.net/) to learn what each translation is, if you are interested.

In MY opinion, that kind of negates the arguement that its been translated "SO" many times that it isn't true. I'd like people to have their facts, before making assumptions like that.

PCB....I agree with Zippy-Kat. I'd like some sort of way of checking that out. That's a pretty harsh statement....

[shais_mom]

Originally posted by zippy-kat
I don't know squat about the Quran, but you're gonna have to provide me with some links before I buy that idea. :)

I wanted to say something like this too, but couldn't think of what to say. How do you know that they just don't tell you that?
And don't say b/c that is what they said! :)

[Cincy'sMom]

Originally posted by NoahsMommy
I'm not trying to be mean...but I hate when people say this. I'm going to quote John 3:16 from every bible I can get my hands on at home an online. You be the judge...simple as that.

NIV:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

NASB:
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

MSG:
"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."



AMP:
"For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life."

NLT:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

KJV:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

ESV:
"For God so loved the world,[1] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

CEV:
"God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has faith in him will have eternal life and never really die."

NKJV:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

There are about 7 more translations. Please go here:
Bible Gateway (http://bible.gospelcom.net/) to learn what each translation is, if you are interested.

In MY opinion, that kind of negates the arguement that its been translated "SO" many times that it isn't true. I'd like people to have their facts, before making assumptions like that.

PCB....I agree with Zippy-Kat. I'd like some sort of way of checking that out. That's a pretty harsh statement....



I was not trying to get into a debate with those who really do study and understand the Bible, merely make a point to someone is is making a gneralization because of one statement. There are MANY, MANY passages that do have the exact same meaning throughout. That is why I said, readit passage for passage, not pick ANY passage. There are some that have dfferent meanings.... I can not quoate any at this second, and If I have time later, I will find some.

The only statement of yours I disagree with

I'd like people to have their facts, before making assumptions like that.

I do have my facts, and I am not making assumptions. I have studied the Bible in college classes, in parochial school, and by vivisting several differnt churches over my life. I believe in the Bible...butlike I siad, becuase of all the translations, you can not garuntee that every single passage as the exact same meaning in every single one.....

[IttyBittyKitty]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
actually, i have a round map hanging up in my room, thank-you very much. Yes, arcaeologists can prove the Bible is correct.

I got these from books by Ralph O. Muncaster

These are the historical comparisons of Scientific insight
S= Science

All of these things were taught in the Bible. Next to the S shows who and when discovered it

The hydrologic cycle defined S-Perrault and Mariotte 1700s
The earth “hangs on nothing” in space S-Copernicus 1543
Light is in motion S- Newton, Huygens 1600s
Air has weight S- Toricelli 1643
Time, space, and matter had a beginning S-Einstein 1916
The order of creation S-1800s-1900s
First law of thermodynamics S- Joule Mayer 1842
The sun moves in a circuit of the galaxy S- Eary 1900s
Currents exsist in the oceans S-Matthew Fontaine Maury 1855


I have more………



Does the Bible conflict with Science?

The more the Bible is studied, the more surprising it becomes that people often think it is in conflict with science. Yet science’s rejection of the Bible has become common only in the last hundred years. Great scientists of the past, including Newton, Kepler, and Galileo, were all avid readers and believers of the Bible. As scientists are slowly becoming aware of the incredible wealth of the recently discovered information, a scientific return to the Bible is occurring.


Archaeology proves the Bible correct


God told Moses that the promised land would have “rocks of iron and copper that could be dug from hills” (Deuteronomy 8:9). Twenty miles south of the Dead Sea, a large area is dotted with ancient furnaces. The vast region is covered with heaps of copper slag, and some copper veins are still visible above ground.

Do you need more examples….because I have some…..

I have read the Bible thoroughly, and I don't remember seeing anything like that explicitly stated. I may have merely forgotten, please provide references.

Even if it is there, translators have had the last couple centuries to change vague verses about the abovementioned concepts into what they had learnt to be the reality. This is where personal interpretations come into play in translations.

And once again, PLEASE, PLEASE provide citations for any rhetoric that you quote from (apart from the Bible, you are obviously not so keen to plagiarise God) ...

[mugsy]

PSSSTTT...Richard....I think you're ignoring me!! Where's my answer??

[ramanth]

This thread alone is why I disslike "organized" religion.

I may not have all my facts right, but the way I interpret the Bible is that everyone is born with sin.

So for example, a baby dies just a few short hours after it is born. A soul destined for hell because it wasn't baptized in the churches eyes.

However a serial killer on death row, a mere hour before their execution can truthfully ask God for forgiveness and be let into Heaven.

How is that fair?

I do not believe I was born with Sin. I believe that yes there is a Divine Power and I know for a fact that I will never truely understand what that power is... be it a god or an alien or whatever. I believe that I am in charge of my life and my decisions determine what kind of person I am or will be. I do not need to be in a church run by some child molesting predator for the power to hear my thoughts, worries, and prayers.

Jesus was born a Jew. How the heck did Christians take over?

Think of it this way.... millions of years from now some race digs up a DVD about David Copperfield and figure out how to unlock it's secrets.

"Did you see that?! He made that Statue dissapear! He must be a god!"

;)

[marysmerrycats]

So for example, a baby dies just a few short hours after it is born. A soul destined for hell because it wasn't baptized in the churches eyes.
However a serial killer on death row, a mere hour before their execution can truthfully ask God for forgiveness and be let into Heaven.

I have not read the Bible for a long time, so I can't comment on that... but no matter what the church might say, I don't believe that an innocent baby would be bound for hell. I think babies should be baptized, it is like you are telling God, I believe in you and here is my child, I will raise him/her to know you. to believe in you.
I don't believe that innocent babies/children go to hell.
suposedly, by what the church teaches, there is limbo, or purgatory, not just heaven/hell but I don't believe that babies would go there either.

as for the serial killer, if he is genuinely sorry, in his heart, and asks forgivenss, and believes in God, then yes I believe God would accept him into Heaven.
I don't know how often that actually happens, a death row priest would know...

I do not need to be in a church run by some child molesting predator for the power to hear my thoughts, worries, and prayers I understand what you mean, you can talk to God anywhere. but not all priests/ministers etc are child molesters you know. I actually have not gone to chruch for a long time, but when I go it is because I want to hear what they have to say, sometimnes I like listening to the priest, and i feel good in Church. but I absolutely am disgusted on their first response about the scandel, and I will not forget that first reaction...like i have said in other posts, it is that reacation that has made me consideer changing chruches.. something I never would have dreamed of before.

anyway, what does any of this have to do with evolution?

[catland]

If evolution is bogus, then why is 97% of human and chimpanzee DNA identical?

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by mugsy
PSSSTTT...Richard....I think you're ignoring me!! Where's my answer??

I'M TRYING TO GET MY TRIP SLIPS SIGNED.....


GEEZ....



organized religion is just a license to hate some one who does not believe in YOUR god...

[ramanth]

Originally posted by marysmerrycats
I understand what you mean, you can talk to God anywhere. but not all priests/ministers etc are child molesters you know.
I do know. I appologize for making that comment so blantently. Like you, the churches response to the whole thing really steams me.


anyway, what does any of this have to do with evolution?
In a sense, nothing really. The whole topic is pointless. Yes, I believe in evolution. But I shouldn't have to explain myself to anyone. It's obvious no one is going to change anyone elses mind on the matter.

It's a neverending circle of "I'm right, you're wrong and nothing you can say will change my mind."

I don't claim to be right and I don't think anyone is wrong to believe in something.

[RICHARD]

in the catholic religion babies are purported to be born with a lower form of sin.....venial sin
because of Adam and Eve....with baptism that sin disappears. it's not a big deal until you get to MORTAL SINS......that's when evil rocks your world...

and the baby who dies before baptism goes to the halfway house of Purgatory and then goes to heaven
after they 'work off' sin.....think of it as the
penalty box in the worldy game of hockey..

the official skates up the the box and says....

"Baby number 1,256,125,265 is going to the box for two minutes for venial sin..."
after two minutes he gets back in the game....



the killer about to be executed can be admitted into 'heaven' only if he is truly sorry for his 'sins'-that is the sign of a benevolent god....


and why does it have to be a serial killer??

isn't killing one person just as bad as killing a bunch?????

the old line is heaven doesn't want me and hell is afraid i'll take over....but then again why worry???

i'll be dead.

:eek:

[babolaypo65]

ah-ha. at last something that resembles a fact.

(sorry, not feeling very nice today. owen is sick!, we didn't sleep). regardless, yes, you're right 97% of human and chimp DNA is identical.


Originally posted by catland
... 97% of human and chimpanzee DNA identical?

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by babolaypo65
ah-ha. at last something that resembles a fact.

(sorry, not feeling very nice today. owen is sick!, we didn't sleep). regardless, yes, you're right 97% of human and chimp DNA is identical.


well, i'll be a monkey's uncle!!!!

[ramanth]

Makes sense Richard. I still don't agree with it. :)


Originally posted by RICHARD
and why does it have to be a serial killer??

isn't killing one person just as bad as killing a bunch?????
Yes. I just typed serial killer as an example.

[babolaypo65]

Indeed!


Originally posted by RICHARD
well, i'll be a monkey's uncle!!!!

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by ramanth
Makes sense Richard. I still don't agree with it. :)


Yes. I just typed serial killer as an example.

i made sense??? :(

thanks......i guess next i'll be serious....oh my!
i don't agree with it either-that's why deism is my choice of evil religions!

[Nomilynn]

Originally posted by RICHARD
organized religion is just a license to hate some one who does not believe in YOUR god...

I don't know that I would have put it quite like this, but I really agree!

I am a Christian. My parents were members of the Nazarene church (they aren't anymore, but that's a loooong story). I've never been baptised, but I was dedicated. However, I will not go to church. I have a really hard time accepting the word of a pastor who is preaching about accepting everyone and not judging people based of race or creed or whatever, and then in the same breath saying that gay people can't go to a Christian school (yes, this actually happened when I went to church one morning). Sorry, but isn't that JUDGING?? I beleive in God and from what I know of Him, I don't believe for one second He's that hypocritical.

It has always bugged me when Christians would "feel sorry" for people who weren't Christians (and I'm only basing this on my own experience); they always claimed it was compassion but it always seemed like a smug arrogance like "I'm right and they are wrong"

[catland]

Originally posted by Nomilynn
It has always bugged me when Christians would "feel sorry" for people who weren't Christians (and I'm only basing this on my own experience); they always claimed it was compassion but it always seemed like a smug arrogance like "I'm right and they are wrong"

Whoa - major flashback.

I can remember being around 13-14 years old at my church (Lutheran), and seeing in the hymnal a section on prayers. OK - that's kind of cool. Prayers for all occasions. Holidays, special events, weddings, etc. Then I saw a prayer about praying for all those poor non-Christian souls who didn't know any better....

Even though I never heard that specific prayer out loud, I was really offended by it. I knew that there was something that was, for lack of a better word, "unchristian" about it.

[Uabassoon]

and then in the same breath saying that gay people can't go to a Christian school

That is my reason for not going to church. It drives me nuts. I (ok Richard, I'm loading you with lots of ammo here) went to a gay church for a while, but then after going a few times I decided it wasn't for me. I didn't like the fact I couldn't choose which church I wanted to go to, instead I had to find a church that accpeted me. I didn't feel that was right at all. People should be able to feel comfortable at any church, I wanted to choose my religion and choose my specific church. I shouldn't have to go to a church because it's the only one in town that will accept me.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by Uabassoon
I didn't like the fact I couldn't choose which church I wanted to go to, instead I had to find a church that accpeted me. I didn't feel that was right at all. People should be able to feel comfortable at any church, I wanted to choose my religion and choose my specific church. I shouldn't have to go to a church because it's the only one in town that will accept me.


ah, religion...the only hypocrisy that GOD approves of.....

the funniest part is to walk into a new church and have all the parishoners check you out with a snap judgement....judge not lest you be judged...

in that case, i think i'll stay at home and take my chances with a life after death!! i mean, no cable or starbuck's, cell phones or taxes...

[RICHARD]

"By The Name of God the Most Merciful and Compassionate"

Do Not Adorn Yourselves as illiterate women before Islam (From the Koran)

To This Noble Family,

We hope that the family will stand with brothers of Islam and follow the basic Islamic rules of wearing the veil and possesing honorable teachings of Islam that the Muslims have continued to follow from old times.

We are the Iraqi people, the Muslim people and do not accept any mistakes.

If not and this message will be final we will take the following actions:

1. Doing what one cannot endure (believed to be rape)
2. Killing
3. Kidnapping
4. Burning the house with its dwellers in it or exploding it.

This message is directed to the women of this family.

Signed
---------------------------

From the article...

http://www.assyrianchristians.com/americans_stay_forever.htm

NOW THERE'S A COMPASSIONATE and MERCIFUL GOD!!!

they do no accept any mistakes-
i accept no imitations...

[lotrfreak]

waht part of RALPH O. MUNCASTER dont you understand?

[mugsy]

I'm just waiting for Richard's answer and then I'm outta here....I don't like banging my head against a brick wall with someone who obviously doesn't want to listen and learn something.

YooHoo.....RICHARD??????

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by mugsy
I'm just waiting for Richard's answer and then I'm outta here....I don't like banging my head against a brick wall with someone who obviously doesn't want to listen and learn something.

YooHoo.....RICHARD??????







quote:

Originally posted by mugsy
PSSSTTT...Richard....I think you're ignoring me!! Where's my answer??




I'M TRYING TO GET MY TRIP SLIPS SIGNED.....


GEEZ....




pay attention, teach!!!

[mugsy]

But you're late! lol

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by mugsy
But you're late! lol

i was waiting for the burning/exploding house-god to be distracted...... he scares me.

:(

[catland]

Originally posted by babolaypo65
ah-ha. at last something that resembles a fact.



sorry - I don't know what came over me ;)

[NoahsMommy]

Originally posted by ramanth
So for example, a baby dies just a few short hours after it is born. A soul destined for hell because it wasn't baptized in the churches eyes.
That is NOT true....I'm not sure why people believe that. Baptism is a profession of faith by a person to God and their peers. Its suposed to be done when someone is old enough to choose for themselves, NOT to save them from hell.

People that never had the chance to know who/what God is go to heaven! I don't have the exact scripture, but will find it when I get home. Its the same as say, someone living in a desolate place where they've never been approached by missionaries or whatever. I've read it personally.

[Desert Arabian]

Lotrfreak-

If I am correct, you have 65 posts. That is a good amount. Out of those 65 posts, 8 of them are posts in other threads outside of "evoloution is bogus". This is a pet/animal board...don't you think the bigger chunk of your posts should be about pets/animals!?

This is the only thread you constantly post in. It doesn't make sense to come on a pet board and make a thread about evolution, asking people to prove you wrong, and when they do you get upset.

Maybe I am the only one who feels this way (I don't think I am...!?), but I had to post my LAST comment on this thread.

-YellowLabLover

:o

(Sorry everyone else if this post knocked the "flow/topic" off track...if I did, just get back on the old track, and de-rail off of this track (lol) :p )

[NoahsMommy]

Originally posted by RICHARD
organized religion is just a license to hate some one who does not believe in YOUR god...
In my case, that couldn't be further from the truth. Jesus teaches (God commands) tolerance and love. Part of that is loving those that are different from you, regardless of why. It may be the psych student in me, but I do feel its on my heart to understand others. I frequently ask people with different faiths all about them, so I can understand them, NOT JUDGE or HATE.

I've learned so much from PCB about the Muslim religion and its helped me to understand her a lot. Its opened a door to who she is and I enjoy knowing that side of her...

This is common practice for me, I have friends of at least four different other faiths besides my own.

Please don't make assumptions like that Richard. :( Not EVERY religious person is like that.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by NoahsMommy

Please don't make assumptions like that Richard. :( Not EVERY religious person is like that.


it is not an assumption.

go to bosnia, go to hitler's germany, go to the middle east, go to any place on the planet where people DO NOT like each other BECAUSE of their religion....

i didn't say that about any particular religion or situation or EVERY religious person.....it was merely an opinion as to the crimes that men commit against each other because MY god is greater than yours. a benevolent god does not instruct his followers to commit ethnic cleansing, religious cleansing or to clad themselves in plastique, or C4 in order to remove an "occupation force" from their land..... a true religious follower DOES NOT disrespect their fellow man by trying to eradicate them and THEIR faith from the planet..


my point centers on the hypocrisy of ANY person who intertprets religious teachings that preach love and tolerance within that belief,
but takes that same religion, twists it into a
hatred that gives us firebombings, homicide bombers, mass graves and ethnic cleansing..all under the pretense of religion and god...

pcb,
what does god think about all the fighting over
the three religious sites in Jerusalem???

if he was the SAME god he should come down and kick a little ass on EVERYONE. He'd slap everyone silly and tell them to behave and live in harmony.......unfortunately he's left people in charge and as long that is going on NO ONE IS going to get along........

but what do i know??

2,000 plus years of bickering by the muslims, catholics and jews.....what a great atmosphere to bring the children up in!!!

if that is what god is all about i'll take a pass and sit on the sidelines, shake my head when i hear about another person dying because it's a
'religious thing'.

before i forget....if indeed those three same religions share the same god why can't they get just get together and learn to live in peace?

is that really so hard??? apparently it is.

answer that question and i will certainly entertain the thought of that BENEVOLENT GOD i keep mentioning........i know he's out there someplace.....he's just hamstrung by the fact that everyone has a different idea as to WHO HE IS.



amen.



:(

[RivenBorn]

I know what this is saying... Organized Relgion is bad or good or whatever people argue about.

Listen to what I have to say and it might make sense to all of you or maybe not.

Religion was created not to worship a God or to make amends to whatever... It was meant for people to gather and find a common belief. Finally Organized Religion came into play as a result of political system. Politics was founded over religion... Trying to organize the masses. The first known organized religion was Hinduism.

Richard you are very wrong by saying that on Organized Relgion. Look at Buddism or varies other organzied relgions you missed out. Relgion has nothing to do with war... War is created by mans fight for ruling not a fight over a god or goddess of God. Nothing to do with that. Organized Relgion is a factor to prevent fighting in a community and unit the world. However since man kind created religion it is flawed.

Man Kind evolutionary features is to controll and take over. Any world leader wants controll. Humanity is mean to conquer and controll. It is not a bad thing it is just the way humanity is.

Organized Relgion was a controll for the controll. Is was to protect people under a common belief system. Then have politics and then came the seperation of Church and State.

[marysmerrycats]

But I shouldn't have to explain myself to anyone
Ramanth- of course you don't have to explain yourself. you are entitled to your opinion:)

[marysmerrycats]

isn't killing one person just as bad as killing a bunch?????
good point especially since serial killers are usually crazy...

[marysmerrycats]

and the baby who dies before baptism goes to the halfway house of Purgatory and then goes to heaven well I may be a "bad Catholic" but the God I beleive in would not punish a baby or child. they are not sinful of any kind of sin. maybe the church teaches that so people baptise their kids into the Catholic church. so there is my opinion, a little in the middle, I don't believe UN baptised children go to hell, but i still think they should be Baptised... is that odd?

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by marysmerrycats
well I may be a "bad Catholic" but the God I beleive in would not punish a baby or child. they are not sinful of any kind of sin. maybe the church teaches that so people baptise their kids into the Catholic church. so there is my opinion, a little in the middle, I don't believe UN baptised children go to hell, but i still think they should be Baptised... is that odd?

no it's no odd...that is the beauty and the curse of religion. we can take the parts we like out of it.

i may be wrong---the BALTIMORE CATECHISM, not to be confused with the Orioles, may have changed since I was in school....but being inquistive kids we asked about all the people who were not catholic and what happened to them....
that was the story we were given....

I wonder if Sister Mary Torquemada is still about??? she'd know....

[lotrfreak]

First of all, Christians have an age of accountability too. God says he is love. He judges fairly. He doesn't care what the kid is like. Maybe he is a devil worshipper until he is around seven. (that isnt the real age. God doesnt set an age, because different perople have different abilities and circumstances to where they can hear about God) That baby would certainly go to God in Heaven to the place He has prepared for him. Second, I would like evidence that we have DNA 97% like that of monkeys.
Third, God lets us make ur own decisions. If we would come down and stop us from fighting then who's not to say he wouldn't come down here and make us all worship him. He would just be the puppeteer. Would you like it that way?

[lotrfreak]

oh....yeah... I have another question... what's this whole pancakes on your bunney. for some reason, without me knowing what it means...it just sounds funny.;) :confused:

[lotrfreak]

uh.. sorry *bunny

[mugsy]

Not that you will listen and learn from it, but, it's apes not monkeys....big difference.

[mugsy]

try these...

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/human.html

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

[babolaypo65]

ha. it wasn't a fact. My bad. Its actually 99.4% shared DNA.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/05/20/humans.chimps.ap/index.html

You can decide for yourself if you think they belong in the same genus as humans.

[mugsy]

Probably not....there aren't such things as genuses.:rolleyes:

[babolaypo65]

For fun, I asked one of our grad students, who's in primate studies about the percentage, and the genus designation. His response is basically this:

"As a comparision, there are three species of elephant, African,
African Jungle (which until recently was just considered the same as an
African) and indian. They are about as genetically similar as chimps humans
and bonobos and yet most people can't tell the difference. The fun part is
that tradition in cladistics is that when you merge two groups the oldest
designation stays the same so the reality is it should be pan sapiens not
homo troglodytes. Owen of course is still just a dog."

(I love how he worked owen into the discussion...)

[mugsy]

Have you noticed that lotrfreak hasn't posted since we gave her what she wanted?

Nice Owen reference....I'm impressed!:)

[babolaypo65]

I'm pleased with the owen reference too.
The grad students try to work him in to classroom discussions too, much to the amazment of the other profs.

[lotrfreak]

first of all, I only have an hour a day on the internet, and I had already used it all up before you posted. Second of all, my time ends at 9:00pm, so even if I hadn't used all my time, I couldn't get on.

[wolfsoul]

Originally posted by YellowLabLover
Lotrfreak-

If I am correct, you have 65 posts. That is a good amount. Out of those 65 posts, 8 of them are posts in other threads outside of "evoloution is bogus". This is a pet/animal board...don't you think the bigger chunk of your posts should be about pets/animals!?

This is the only thread you constantly post in. It doesn't make sense to come on a pet board and make a thread about evolution, asking people to prove you wrong, and when they do you get upset.


I was actually going to say the same thing lol :p ;)

[catland]

Originally posted by marysmerrycats
well I may be a "bad Catholic" but the God I beleive in would not punish a baby or child.

Sing along with me people:

"Jesus loves the little children,
all the children of the world.
Red and yellow, black and white,
they are precious in his sight.
Jesus loves the little children of the world."


I feel better now.

[lotrfreak]

So now you are telling me where to post? Like I said I only have an hour a day. I have to read all of this stuff and post. There goes my one hour,. At the beginning of this thread you thought it funny that i was gone for most of the debate. Now you want me to not be here for most of the debate. hmmmm

[jonza]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
So now you are telling me where to post?

Yes, we're telling you where to post.
I don't know if you've noticed yet, but this is Pet Talk, where we talk about pets 90% of the time. :rolleyes:

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by catland
Sing along with me people:

"Jesus loves the little children,
all the children of the world.
Red and yellow, black and white,
they are precious in his sight.
Jesus loves the little children of the world."


I feel better now.


you have a nice voice.

do you take requests?

[lotrfreak]

hmmm. well that makes me want to.......keep posting here in the dog house.....i want to post in the thread entitled evolution is bogus. You must think pretty highly of yourself to tell me where to post.

[mugsy]

You wanted proof, we gave it to you and now you ignore it....as you would say...hmmmmm.....

[lotrfreak]

sorry...I'll go check it out...brb...if my time runs out i'll post on that topic tomorrow

[lotrfreak]

Your "evidence states: “DNA has even been extracted from a well-preserved skeleton of the extinct human creature known as Neanderthal, a member of the genus Homo and often considered either as a subspecies of Homo sapiens or as a separate species. Application of the molecular clock, which makes use of known rates of genetic mutation, suggests that Neanderthal's lineage diverged from that of modern Homo sapiens less than half a million years ago, which is entirely compatible with evidence from the fossil record.”

I have this quote from a book by RALPH O. MUNCASTER it is called Creation Vs. Evolution.

“It was once thought that the Neandertal was a man. But recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).”

Your evidence also states: “ Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”

Well, I have to say this about that: The scientific method is the basic set of procedures scientists use for obtaining knew knowledge about the universe in which we live. The steps include: observe, form hypothesis, design experiment, collect information, interpret data, form conclusions. Evolution isn’t based on the scientific method, because no one was there to perform the scientific method.

Your evidence states this too: “No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education.”

I have to say this: Once again, evolution is not based on the scientific method. Shouldn’t it therefore not be “admissible as science?”

[KYS]

Originally posted by popcornbird:
Actually, Jews were the ones who supposedly crusified Jesus, and accused his virgin mother Mary of terrible crimes she didn't commit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It was this kind of thinking why so many people of the Jewish faith were slaughtered throughout history.
I normaly stay out of religious debates but I found popcorns post a bit disturbing in today's modern society.
Since I took Richards Pig drawing quiz, which states I like playing devil’s advocate, and I neither fear nor avoid discussions I decided to post.

The Roman Catholic Church interpretation of Jesus Death and
the current status of Judaism:
The Romah Catholic Church reject the concepts that all of the Jews in Palestine circa 30 CE were responsible for the execution of Jesus.
In general consensus among conservative Christians
that the 1st century Romans and leaders of the Jews in Judea were responsible for Jesus execution. Many Christian liberals tend to assess blame on the Roman army alone with a few
exception of a few fringe radical Christian groups nobody holds present day Jews responsible for Christs death.


I am only posting the conclusions from the Professors and
liberal theologian. To post the when, why and how they came to
their conclusions would take me 4 plus pages or more from
their writtings.

L. Michael White: Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin.

Conclusion: What role of the Jewish authority is in the actual arrest and execution of Jesus is difficult to say. My own feeling is that there's very little role by the Jewish authorites. Maybe the Temple leadership at most, but there's probably no direct historical evidence for an actual trial before the Sanhedrin and the Jewish leadership, and clearly the decision to execute on a capital crime was a Roman decision. Certainly it is the case that the idea of the masses of Jewish people gathered around the Temple had some voice in the death of Jesus in not part of history but a legacy of some later tradition.


continued on next post:

[KYS]

continued from 1st post.

Paula Fredriksen:
William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture, Boston University.

It is unclear how he actually gets into trouble. what Jesus is doing is fairy minimal. If he had been complaining
about the Priests, or criticizing them, or criticizing the
way the Temple was being run, this would just be business as usual. this is one of the aspects of being a Jew in the second Temple Judaism. So it's really unclear how he would have gotten into trouble for religious reasons, which are the reasons the gospels are concerned to construct. I think we have to settle
firmly on the historical fact that he was crusified and therefore
killed by Rome...

One leading theologian, John Dominic Crossan, regards the trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate as fictional events that never happened. Much of the story is not derived from "history remembered"
Crossan speculates that after Jesus attacked the moneychangers
tables in the Temple, he was arrested, and routinely executed.
There was no group of Jewish Leaders inflaming a mob of Jews,
demanding that Barabbas be freed and that Jesus be crusified. Pilate would not have been involved, the affair would have been handled at a much lower level by a Roman army officer.
With no acceptance of responsibiltiy by the Jewish leaders, and public in Jesus death and with the execution handled soley by the Roman army garrison, there is no logical reason why 1st century Jews in Jerusalem should be blamed for the death of Jesus.

[catland]

Subject : Hell

The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term exam. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well. *** Bonus Question ***
Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs Heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law, gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant, but fell short in producing a demonstration argument. One student, however, wrote the following:

"First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell Freezes over.

Considering then the postulate presented to me by Teresa K. during my Freshman year: that "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that over two years later, I still have not succeeded in having relations with her; then, #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze."

This student received the only "A".

[RICHARD]

well,

as a man, i feel for the author not hooking up with Theresa K.

as a semi religious person i'm GLAD that Theresa K. did not sleep with the author-the thought of WHERE all the souls would go when hell froze over is mind boggling....

talk about housing shortage...:eek:

[lotrfreak]

hmmm...I gave you an answer and you are ignoring it......

[babolaypo65]

I'm unclear to whom this was directed. Me, or another. Regardless, I'm done with this thread for the time being. I am not going to convince you, and you certainly aren't going to convince me. That's the nature of beliefs. There appears, then, to be no point.


Originally posted by lotrfreak
hmmm...I gave you an answer and you are ignoring it......

[jonza]

Catlands essay on Hell reminded me of this:


The following concerns a question in a physics degree exam at the University of Copenhagen:
"Describe how to determine the height of a skyscraper with a barometer."

One student replied:
"You tie a long piece of string to the neck of the barometer, then lower the barometer from the roof of the skyscraper to the ground. The length of the string plus the length of the barometer will equal the height of the building."

This highly original answer so incensed the examiner that the student was failed immediately. The student appealed on the grounds that his answer was indisputably correct, and the university appointed an independent arbiter to decide the case. The arbiter judged that the answer was indeed correct, but did not display any noticeable knowledge of physics. To resolve the problem it was decided to call the student in and allow him six minutes in which to provide a verbal answer which showed at least a minimal familiarity with the basic principles of physics.
For five minutes the student sat in silence, forehead creased in thought. The arbiter reminded him that time was running out, to which the student replied that he had several extremely relevant answers but couldn't make up his mind which to use. On being advised to hurry up the student replied as follows:

* "Firstly, you could take the barometer up to the roof of the skyscraper, drop it over the edge, and measure the time it takes to reach the ground. The height of the building can then be worked out from the formula H = 0.5g x t2. But bad luck on the barometer."

* "Or if the sun is shining you could measure the height of the barometer, then set it on end and measure the length of its shadow. Then you measure the length of the skyscraper's shadow, and thereafter it is a simple matter of proportional arithmetic to work out the height of the skyscraper."

* "But if you wanted to be highly scientific about it, you could tie a short piece of string to the barometer and swing it like a pendulum, first at ground level and then on the roof of the skyscraper. The height is worked out by the difference in the gravitational restoring force T = 2 pi sqrroot (l/g)."

* "Or if the skyscraper has an outside emergency staircase, it would be easier to walk up it and mark off the height of the skyscraper in barometer lengths, then add them up."

* "If you merely wanted to be boring and orthodox about it, of course, you could use the barometer to measure the air pressure on the roof of the skyscraper and on the ground, and convert the difference in millibars into feet to give the height of the building."

* "But since we are constantly being exhorted to exercise independence of mind and apply scientific methods, undoubtedly the best way would be to knock on the janitor's door and say to him 'If you would like a nice new barometer, I will give you this one if you tell me the height of this skyscraper'."

The student was Niels Bohr, the only Dane to win the Nobel prize for Physics.

[IttyBittyKitty]

Right.....


Originally posted by lotrfreak
Your "evidence states: “DNA has even been extracted from a well-preserved skeleton of the extinct human creature known as Neanderthal, a member of the genus Homo and often considered either as a subspecies of Homo sapiens or as a separate species. Application of the molecular clock, which makes use of known rates of genetic mutation, suggests that Neanderthal's lineage diverged from that of modern Homo sapiens less than half a million years ago, which is entirely compatible with evidence from the fossil record.”

I have this quote from a book by RALPH O. MUNCASTER it is called Creation Vs. Evolution.

Wow, a citation!


“It was once thought that the Neandertal was a man. But recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).”

What research? And how does that discount the fact that humans evolved from Neantherdal man? Scientists don't say that the Neantherdal was a man, see the quote you referred to above, merely that we share the same genetic history.


Your evidence also states: “ Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”

Well, I have to say this about that: The scientific method is the basic set of procedures scientists use for obtaining knew (what, this guy can't spell?) knowledge about the universe in which we live. The steps include: observe, form hypothesis, design experiment, collect information, interpret data, form conclusions. Evolution isn’t based on the scientific method, because no one was there to perform the scientific method.

No, but YOU weren't there when God supposedly created the Earth, were you? The evolution theory is the closest thing that science has come up with to explain the Big Unknown. As much as possible, the theory has evolved from years of research in the fields of astronomy, physics, botany, zoology, geology and many more.


Your evidence states this too: “No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education.”

I have to say this: Once again, evolution is not based on the scientific method. Shouldn’t it therefore not be “admissible as science?”

Do you accept that Stars are massive balls of gas? Even though no scientists have ever seen a star close up or experimented on one? Or do you think that God just poked a few holes in a black curtain and put a bright light behind it?? No, as mentioned above, they are limited in our study of evolution. If scientists were to discount it as scientific theory on this basis, they would have to shrug their collective shoulders and say, "Er, we don't have any idea how it all came about."

It is a THEORY for that reason. But it is certainly makes more sense to scientists as it is based largely on emprical evidence and reasonable logic. Creationistic theory is based on circular logic alone, a type of reasoning that does not sit well with the scientic method you mention above.

And that, I think, is enough. Now I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing! I don't know what I believe about who created the whole Shebang, I just hate weak arguments!! :D

[lotrfreak]

No, I always said my belief was based on faith. Evolutionists are the ones who said evolution was science.

[Cataholic]

Jonza,
That was very interesting to read!!! Please say hello to Fister for me, give him an extra treat, and move over so he can have your whole pillow, please. He told me- telepathically, of course, that he wanted those things.
Thanks.
Johanna

[jonza]

I believe in evolution and I have PROOF!

The proof goes by the name of Fister, and is lying on our pillows at the moment chilling out.
When we first lured him up from his feral life in the back yard, he was a very nervous, timid little guy who didn’t dare step out of line, he was even afraid of doors!
Now he considers himself not just to be on our level, but on an even higher plane.
He comments on nearly everything that we do, complains loudly if things don’t go exactly as he wants them, and bullies us in bed if we don’t give him enough room. He has turned into a quite different animal. And this in only five years! Imagine what he’d be like if he’d had 5 million years!

This is evolution in practice, staring us in the eyes every single day.

This is irrefutable, undeniable proof of the existence of evolution. :)

[lotrfreak]

first of all, who is fister, AND, how does he complain, does he bark?

[RubyMutt]

I believe Fister is a cat. Usually when the term "feral" is used it's referring to a wild cat. Also, take a look at Jonza's signature.

[lotrfreak]

duh, i am so stupid. so how does a cat prove evolution

[lotrfreak]

your evidence states:


Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

Anything proven by the scientific method is a fact and therefore science, right? Well if evolution is a theory then it hasn't been proved by the scientific mehtod and therefore isn't a science. And yet it is taught as though it were a science and a fact. It is taught in schools everywhere as a fact. Creation, however, is only a "claim of supernatural intervention in the origin of life"
If evolution is a "theory" then it is just as religious creation.
I think I see a double standard. hmmmm

[lizbud]

jonza,

I accept your proof of evolution. ;) ;)

[shais_mom]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
duh, i am so stupid. so how does a cat prove evolution

UUUMMMMM
B/c Fister started out as a W-I-L-D cat, didn't allow anyone to get near him and now over 5 years he has E-V-O-L-V-E-D into a happy healthy indoor cat, that rules the roost. Jon is saying if he evolved this much in 5 years. If he had 5 million years, he would probably be ..................................

[wolfsoul]

:D My cat evolved from evil....to a little less evil.....and she's still evil..;) I love my evil kitty! :D

[lotrfreak]

in five million years my only guess is that he'd be pushin up daisies

[lotrfreak]

hmmm...i gave u what u wanted and now ur ignoring it...

[yorkster]

Originally posted by jonza

Now he considers himself not just to be on our level, but on an even higher plane.


but of course he does! you go Fister! :cool: ;)

[yorkster]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
hmmm...i gave u what u wanted and now ur ignoring it...

hmmmm no, I think we are just attempting to lighten things up a bit. This thread has gone on and on and on and.................

(Fister's story is still a good example though :) )

[wolfsoul]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
hmmm...i gave u what u wanted and now ur ignoring it...

You gave me a - a - a - ?!?!!? ---- No wait...you didn't gave me anything I wanted....:( :rolleyes: My dreams are ruined. How tragic.

[shais_mom]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
hmmm...i gave u what u wanted and now ur ignoring it...

Maybe b/c your last comment was rude, ignorant and just plain mean. You obviously have not had a pet die.
And some of us are getting annoyed with your attention starved posts.

[IttyBittyKitty]

This thread has officially been stamped LAME for the following reasons:

LOTRFREAK is clearly a "troll," trying to stir up trouble and dissent. Someone who cannot think for themselves. All his/her theories are based on ideas that have come from other thinkers, and he/she still hasn't learn't how to cite other's works properly. Furthermore, LOTRFREAK clearly has NO discernable sense of humour and/or human decency.

IT'S TIME FOR THE ANTIBUMP

For those of you who don't know, sometimes Pet Talkers *bump* threads up to the top of the forum to keep them in circulation. The *antibump* works the opposite way - just stop posting, and perhaps LOTRFREAK will actually start talking about pets as this IS a forum about pets. Failing that, he/she will go to a religious forum where his/her opinions will be more relevant.

[Randi]

What a great idea to post about this on a religious forum! This subject seem to take up a lot of space on PT, which could be used to write about pets!!

Here's a link to some sites: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=utf-8&q=religious+forum&_sb_lang=da+en

[lotrfreak]

Actually, I have had 3 fish die: Tigger, Roo, and Nineva. I have had a black cat named snuggles die. A new kitten named Milo get run over. A cat named skamp ran away. We had to give a dog named honey and a cat named socks away. I have also had two litters of kittens i have had to give away. when i said that in five million years he would be......I was just stating the obvious

[Desert Arabian]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
Actually, I have had 3 fish die: Tigger, Roo, and Nineva. I have had a black cat named snuggles die. A new kitten named Milo get run over. A cat named skamp ran away. We had to give a dog named honey and a cat named socks away. I have also had two litters of kittens i have had to give away. when i said that in five million years he would be......I was just stating the obvious

Please don't get anymore pets...

[jonza]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
in five million years my only guess is that he'd be pushin up daisies

Perhaps daisies won't exist in 5 million years.
Or do you know better?
Perhaps you've got a direct line to God and he can tell you.
If he does, please post it, I'd love to know.

… and please, please don't have any more pets, you don't seem competent enough to own them.

[RubyMutt]

* thrusts fist in the air and chants "ANITBUMP! ANTIBUMP! ANITBUMP!" *

... this thread is sad and pointless :( :rolleyes: ...

[yorkster]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
Actually, I have had 3 fish die: Tigger, Roo, and Nineva. I have had a black cat named snuggles die. A new kitten named Milo get run over. A cat named skamp ran away. We had to give a dog named honey and a cat named socks away. I have also had two litters of kittens i have had to give away. when i said that in five million years he would be......I was just stating the obvious

all those poor animals that were given away or run over :(

AND.........if you spay female cats, they can't keep having unwanted kittens (that just end up being "given away")

[GoldenRetrLuver]

This thread is pointless. Its obvious LOTRFREAK is a snerk.

[yorkster]

Originally posted by GoldenRetrLuver
This thread is pointless. Its obvious LOTRFREAK is a snerk.

I like the sound of the word snerk , but I have never heard it before. What is it exactily? :confused: Maybe really out of touch :confused: :rolleyes:

[GoldenRetrLuver]

Originally posted by yorkster
I like the sound of the word snerk , but I have never heard it before. What is it exactily? :confused: Maybe really out of touch :confused: :rolleyes:

A snerk is someone who likes to tick people off, plain and simple. Comes to places like this just to get a argument started. If peoplen stop responding to this thread, it woud die down.

[marysmerrycats]

so now i have learned 2 words from this thread... so they were being a snerk because they were trolling? got it!:rolleyes:

[catland]

This is also the first time that I've heard the word "snerk" - but I think I would like it better as a verb instead of a noun.

I snerk.
You snerk.
He/She/It snerks.
We snerk.
I have had snerked.
We are snerking.
To snerk or not to snerk, that is the question.

[zippy-kat]

I dunno... I kinda like the noun form, as a verb it reminds me too much of smirk...

maybe it can be both, like the word 'snarf.'

snarf -
n. the nasty stuff around the edges of a dog's mouth
EX. "dog snarf"
v the act of wiping/blowing/slinging the aforementioned yucky stuff.
EX. "EWWWWWW.... Don't snarf on me, Sara!"

[lotrfreak]

actually, the owner said that both of the cats we got form her were boys. soon after, though, we spayed them. actually, i do very well with pets. we had to give socks away beacsue she was clawing everything up, we had to give the dog away because I am not a dog person and my siblings wouldnt take care of him. the kitten ran across the road and we tried to stop her with our bike tire and she squeezed through the spokes. my fish nineva i had had for over a year and he was a beta. my other two fish were goldfish and they dided within a week of me getting them so they were obviously sick because I got them at the same time from the same tank. skamp ran away because we live in the country and we had bought him from the country and move nextdoor to where we bought him four years later. he went and visited his dad and we never got a cahnce to neuter him.

[lotrfreak]

at this moment, I have a stong handsome boy cat named Oreo who will be turning for July 6. Joy, a girl, who will be turning five soon. Smokey, the oldest, who will be turning 6. and friskey who will be turning five also. I also have a goldfish named nike who will be turning two in November. I am very good with animals thankyou very much. I'll have you know my cats love me. my dad says they miss me when i am at school. if i had a scanner you could see my little kitties. the fish doesnt take photos well because the water gives a glare. What is this about me being a snerk and a troll? how mean can u be?

[lotrfreak]

The rules of Pet Talk state:

"By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."

I would think calling me a troll or a snerk would be hateful dont you. I am not trying to start anything. I stated my opinion. In fact I asked your opinion in a non-hateful way (pg.9). Why do u call me a troll? Is it because I dont believe what u do? I cant see any other reason. You said my comment was hateful and rude when i said I gave u what u wanted but you are ignoring it. You said that exact same thing whn i di not post on the 99.4% of dna thing. But when u said that, i said I was sorry and would look at it. Do ya'll just not like someone with different beliefs than you? I dont see why you are being so mean to me all of the time.
:(

[shais_mom]

B/c all you are doing is making trouble.

[shais_mom]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
actually, the owner said that both of the cats we got form her were boys. soon after, though, we spayed them.
good


actually, i do very well with pets. we had to give socks away beacsue she was clawing everything up, we had to give the dog away because I am not a dog person and my siblings wouldnt take care of him.
ummm bad not a good excuse, that is called a COP OUT not gonna fly here sorry.
the kitten ran across the road and we tried to stop her with our bike tire and she squeezed through the spokes.
once again COP OUT did you think of GETTING OFF THE BIKE??
my fish nineva i had had for over a year and he was a beta. my other two fish were goldfish and they dided within a week of me getting them so they were obviously sick because I got them at the same time from the same tank.
understandable
skamp ran away because we live in the country and we had bought him from the country and move nextdoor to where we bought him four years later. he went and visited his dad and we never got a cahnce to neuter him.
once again no excuse aka COP OUT


I understand that you are not an adult, but you should at least educate your parents, if you are going to have pets, just ask Britt aka floppsyladysally about all the educution she has given her parents about bunnies.

[lotrfreak]

How is the cat going through my spokes a Cop Out it happened in a flash. How is not having a chance to get my cat neutered a Cop Out? We brought the other four cats to get neutered and they said we could bring slamp in anytime to get neutered since he was more wild and only showed up every once in a while. He just never showed up again. The dog was scary to me, and it was out of my hands. My older brother and sister were the ones who wanted a dog but wouldnt wake up when time to feed him.

By the way, exactly how am i making trouble?

[lotrfreak]

here, i fixed my signature..

[lotrfreak]

just fixed the thing that tells where I am from.

[babolaypo65]

LOTRfreak. Can i make a request? You've said you only have a short period of time online. I understand that. You typically reply to a number of different comments, questions, statements directed toward you in one sitting. I understand that too. Can you please try using QUOTE so we at least know which post you're replying to? As it stands now I skim what you've written because I can never figure out to what it refers. Getting five of your posts back to back is a little confusing without a reference. Thanks.

[RockyRoad]

The dog was scary to me, and it was out of my hands. My older brother and sister were the ones who wanted a dog but wouldnt wake up when time to feed him.

Well then obviously whoever brought that dog back was a smart person. When your family gets a pet, they assume the responsibility of it. It saddens me to hear that your siblings were too irresponsble to wake up and feed a LIVING animal. I would wake up at any time, any day to feed any of my pets. I find it sad that your siblings were that mean to the poor dog not to feed it.

Just my two cents...

[yorkster]

Originally posted by FloppsyLadySally89
Well then obviously whoever brought that dog back was a smart person. When your family gets a pet, they assume the responsibility of it. It saddens me to hear that your siblings were too irresponsble to wake up and feed a LIVING animal. I would wake up at any time, any day to feed any of my pets. I find it sad that your siblings were that mean to the poor dog not to feed it.

Just my two cents...

YEP, gotta agree with you Floppsylady.
it just makes me sad and :mad: to think of that poor dog not even getting FED for Gods Sake!!!
I mean, how long does it take to at least put some food out once or twice a day anyway??! Where were the parents, and didn't they care if the dog got fed?
I know my parents would have done something about if there was a need to.

How can a person(s) be so christain, and yet let a animal starve?

[lotrfreak]

I agree with you except, we werent making him starve...we had to wake up at like five and stuff to feed him. my siblings wouldnt feed him, but my mom would, it is just that my mom needed her rest, and if they werent going to take care of him she was going to give him away.

I agree with you to, babolaypo65.;)

[shais_mom]

Sara luvs her Tinky
Tinky and Jupiter's mommy


Georgia, USA
Posts: 2715
Why does it seem like so many new people are coming here to post about their religious beliefs... or in this case non beliefs...
And choosing a pet board to do it on?!?!?! Seems a little suspicious to me.

I am getting tired of seeing people getting worked up over the same ole tiresome arguements.... I know this is the dog house but I think it odd a lot of new people keep joining with the same topics about "I believe or I don't"...


hmmmmmm..


This is from the "I don't believe in God thread"
Sarah summed it up perfectly. Lotrfreak- This is why I implied you were making trouble.
I don't know how many times this thread has started to die (albeit a slow painful death) and you post:
[i]I gave you what you wanted, why are you ignoring me"[i] (not a direct quote btw)
Why did you come to a pet board and start this??

[shais_mom]

OH and I reiterate this statement made by Mary:
05-13-2003 12:06 AM

marysmerrycats
cat watcher


Tucson Az
Posts: 1611
it does sound like you are just trying to irritate people. this is suposed to be a pet site, and even tho there are non-pet sections, for your first posts to be something like this. ...
have you even told us about your pets or posted a pic?


__________________

[jonza]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
duh, i am so stupid. so how does a cat prove evolution
Dear lotrfreak
I don’t think you’re necessarily stupid, just uneducated. I find your attitude provocative, immature, and lacking in understanding of other peoples points of view. Why don’t you just give up on this. Hasn’t it sunk in yet that NOBODY on Pet Talk can take you seriously. Neither believers nor non-believers.
What about a bit of tolerance and humility? Aren’t they mentioned in the Bible? Could it not be that our own individual, personal ideas about life and the universe aren’t the only right ones? There could be other “truths”.
Don’t you ever have any doubts at all about your beliefs? I find that very arrogant. Perhaps when you have lived for about another 50 years or so, you might have a slightly different and more tolerant view on things. Who knows?

But let’s not get personal, it was just meant to be a sarcastic comment to mirror the meaninglessness of this thread, and a way of involving our beloved pets into this discussion, which is on Pet Talk by the way. Even if this is the Dog House.

Fister is a cat, and a loveable, charming example of how evolution works in the real world. Believe it or don’t believe it, it’s up to you. I don't care. Unfortunately we can’t post pictures on this thread, so I can’t show you Fisters irrevocably final comment on all this (I take his opinion very seriously, we have to remember that cats are more intelligent than humans!). Perhaps I could start a thread on that too, at least it would involve pets.

Originally posted by lotrfreak
I am not trying to start anything. I stated my opinion. In fact I asked your opinion in a non-hateful way (pg.9). Why do u call me a troll?
I dont see why you are being so mean to me all of the time.
:(
Well, lotrfreak, one of the problems is that you didn’t just state your opinion, you made a blatantly provocative statement and then tried to persuade us all that your opinion was the only right one, and that our opinions were wrong.
If only you had moved the “is” to the beginning of the post title and added a question mark, you might have got a little more respect for your opinions.



john

[lotrfreak]

ohhh...now i thought you were totally nice and i believd you..i could have asked if evolution was bogus....but then you had to end it meanly. Yes this is a loving CHRISTIAN family. In fact, my parents just celebrated a HAPPY 23 anniversary on may 23. But, what you are trying to say is that Christians have a pewrfect life or are you saying because Christians are supposed to be an exampe, our pets cant die? I miss my cats very much, and just because I am a Christian doesn't mean they cant die. we didnt want them to die, it just happened. You have no right to say that. And you also said tah no one takes me seriously. Tell me then, why this thread is 32 pages long. obviously everyone here has no life. If you cant take me seriously and yet you post, you obviously have no life. EVERYONE keeps saying i think only MY ideas are right and everyone who goes against MY beliefs is wrong. did i ever do anything here to make you say that. NO. i stated my beliefs just as you did. when i sated my beliefs you sated yours...what's the problem? You obviously cant get me any other way then tell me how i am wrong because i say"my beliefs are right and yours are wrong" what is ya'lls problem. find a quote somewhere where i said something even remotely close to that. i just got on a new board and hoped everyone would like me. it is a christian forum. you get blessing from people if they think you deserve one or maybe you have touched them and then you can go do stuff. you also get blessings if you post. I only had 7 blessings and i couldn't do anything to earn more blessingsbecause i didnt have enough blessings to do them. i told them my problem, and guess what? Now I have 556 blessings from all my friends at that forum. I couldnt say the same for all you. yes, i did make a bad title. i have apologized for it, explained why i made such a title and restarted the thread. are you not able to forgive me?

[zippy-kat]

Originally posted by jonza

… and I don’t believe that the catalogue of unfortunate incidents with your pets would normally happen in a family of Christian, pet-loving people.

john

I feel that this is a bit of a cheap shot, John. I don't think it would normally happen in ANY pet-loving home, regardless of religious orientation (or lack thereof). Even though the post wasn't directed towards me or my family, I feel a bit slighted by this 'singling out.' Regardless, I know the gist of the point you were making. :)

LOTRFreak,

And you also said tah no one takes me seriously. Tell me then, why this thread is 32 pages long. obviously everyone here has no life. If you cant take me seriously and yet you post, you obviously have no life.
Have you noticed how many times people have started conversations on different topics? And how many times have you brought us back with "hmmm...I gave you an answer and you are ignoring it......" (did you ever stop to think they might be ignoring you)?

And while we're quoting from the registry (as you lovingly did 6 posts ago):

Welcome to Pet Talk. This is a family-friendly community built for the discussion of pets, people, and all that goes into our relationships with the animals in our lives.
Please explain to me how religion fits into your pets' lives.

I'm all for a good discussion and gettin' off topic but this is getting ridiculous. We're going in circles. You can't persuade anyone to change their beliefs, especially in the manner you are employing. Say a private prayer for them and move on to different topics.

I do wish your parents many more happy years together and I wish you the best at the new board.

[mugsy]

lotrfreak, thank you for reading the information, what you do with it is your choice. I'm sorry I haven't posted before this, but I have been REALLY busy and haven't had time for PT, unfortunately.

[wolfsoul]

Originally posted by mugsy
lotrfreak, thank you for reading the information, what you do with it is your choice. I'm sorry I haven't posted before this, but I have been REALLY busy and haven't had time for PT, unfortunately.

Not enough time for PT?!?!?!!? :eek: :D

[jonza]

Sorry lotrfreak, I agree with Zippy-kat that my last comment was a bit of a “cheap shot”, although I wasn’t trying to “single out” anything, please excuse me for this. It’s just that you have kept on regailing us about Christian beliefs in the case of evolution, and then you tell a story of your pets which unfortunately reads like a bit of a horror story if one doesn’t know any better. Remember, we are in Cyberspace, talking to a wide variety of people from all over the world with a multitude of different beliefs. One of the problems with communicating on forums and chat boards is that it is easy to think that we know the people we talk to. But we rarely know if we’re getting the whole story or not untill we have built up a more personal relationship with them. We sometimes don’t know anything about their cultural background or views at all.

If you insist on trying to propagate your views to others, you are going to get a reaction. I am in no way anti-religious, but I detest extremism in any form, whether it be Christian or Muslim or for that matter racial or political. I have been through the mill once too, when I thoughtlessly posted some very strong political satire in the Dog House at the wrong time. Boy did I get dumped on!

quote: obviously everyone here has no life

You see? Now you’re doing it again. Don’t let it get to you. We mustn’t take these things personally. I definately didn’t intend to hurt you, but that reaction will only escalate things even more. I’m glad to see that you are posting on other forums as well, so let’s swap stories and pics about our lovely animals instead! :)

It looks as if evolution has sort of “died” on us.

john

[lotrfreak]

thanks for your apology. I almost thought that like everybody hated me here:)

[lotrfreak]

i guess that is true...we can end this if ya'll want

[lotrfreak]

does anyone like my new signature?

[CattleDogMom]

ugggh.

This is a pretty heavy topic for a pet forum, don't you think?

Crystal
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid65/p5dc1c83518a76e3702dd6fa3e87b7edf/fbf0fd05.jpg

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by CattleDogMom
[B]ugggh.

This is a pretty heavy topic for a pet forum, don't you think?




no, not really....

it has it's humorous moments......

try this....look at you co-workers, friends, classmates....picture them nekkid and foraging for
food in the jungle/forest.....



see, made you laugh!!!;)

[catland]

I'm sooooo confused.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by catland
I'm sooooo confused.


it's de-evolution!!!

the current thought is that we evolved from nekkid, foraging beings to what we are today...

it's just a little exercise to make the connection from what we were to what we are!!!

[lotrfreak]

if no one has heard...we decided to quit this thread...so do ya'll like my signature...i havent ever had one before...

[CattleDogMom]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
if no one has heard...we decided to quit this thread...so do ya'll like my signature...i havent ever had one before...


yeah, I'm tapping out of this one....nothing kills a friendship faster than talking religion and politics....


on the flip side, I am a HUGE Tolkien fan! I have some of his books in collectors condition!

Crystal
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid65/p139507c8233496d687e46e91a2a3d10b/fbf0ff2b.jpg

[catland]

Originally posted by RICHARD
the current thought is that we evolved from nekkid, foraging beings to what we are today...


WE DID?

:eek: :eek: :eek:

well, knowing that, everything makes much more sense. Thanks for the clarification.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by catland
WE DID?

:eek: :eek: :eek:

well, knowing that, everything makes much more sense. Thanks for the clarification.



of course we did!!!!!!!
......i'd go foraging for the morning newspaper nekkid until the lady across the street called the cops... :eek:

[CattleDogMom]

Originally posted by RICHARD
of course we did!!!!!!!
......i'd go foraging for the morning newspaper nekkid until the lady across the street called the cops... :eek:


LOL...


Richard...talk like that will get people to thinking you're a Pagan.....

Crystal
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid65/pf64c0a9942c1fb4ac3e40dbda4118c84/fbf0fde1.jpg

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by CattleDogMom
LOL...


Richard...talk like that will get people to thinking you're a Pagan.....

Crystal
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid65/pf64c0a9942c1fb4ac3e40dbda4118c84/fbf0fde1.jpg


see, told you i'd make you laugh.....

and who said evolution was boring???

were you the one that called 911????

:eek:

[CattleDogMom]

um, no I havn't called 911.

I say that because I am a Pagan and I do believe in evolution...

Peace, Crystal

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by CattleDogMom
um, no I havn't called 911.

I say that because I am a Pagan and I do believe in evolution...

Peace, Crystal


so you were the one peeking thru the window???

:eek: lol

welcome aboard!!!!!

[CattleDogMom]

I'm afraid I lost ya....

[wolfsoul]

RICHARD is just jokin' around ;) as usual... :rolleyes: :p

[CattleDogMom]

I know he is, I just wigh I could get the joke....

:confused:

Crystal
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid65/p25e33230f15a7562a8996bfab5ffb42f/fbf0fdde.jpg

[RICHARD]

sorry!!!

i meant if you WEREN'T the person that called 911,
you must have been watching me scrounge the paper
thru the window!!!!:eek:


you'll learn to ignore me!!!
lol!
rich.....

[lotrfreak]

sorry to say i only have 8 tolkie books

[CattleDogMom]

Originally posted by lotrfreak
sorry to say i only have 8 tolkie books

I have The Hobbitt First Edition in hardback, and I have the Trilogy in hardback complete with maps, languages, family trees and timelines...

The bast part of it is, they are in collectors condition and I got them for $6.00 on ebay.

[lotrfreak]

cool...i have always wanted the collecter's edition red leatherette trilogy, but it is 75 bucks, and it wont go on sale. i tried halfprice books, but they end up being different books