God exists!

[Guest]

At the risk of jumping ahead of Mike, let me say, Berj, that the sin would be missing in our lives under that scenario. And the sin is so sweet...

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berj:
What would have happened if the whole world would have lived by New Testament?

---

Are you arguing against the world living by the book of your religion? I'm not sure the point of your question. My point is that if more people were Christians in that they followed, and strove to live by, the teachings of Christ, we'd be much better off. This doesn't require belief in Christ as the living son of a living God.

Did I miss something in the New Testament? Isn't the gist of the New Testament simply "love"??? Didn't the New Testament take the world from a vengeful God requiring blood sacrificies to a loving God?

P.S. No human can absolutely live by the teachings of Christ--we can only strive.



[This message has been edited by Pilafhead (edited November 13, 2000).]

[Guest]

Oh no! Not these religion debates again! I mean, who was silly enough to actually START all this stuff!

[Guest]

When I am angry, when I feel alone, when I feel betrayed , when I feel hate , when I feel .......

Reading the Bible , going into the meanings of the words, going deep inside God ,this keeps me going....

His presence gives me strength to continue.

When we are strong we tend to forget Him, but when we need Him , He is always there.

 

P.S.

I once read that religion is the opium of the poor. Well, you figure out....

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berj:
"From the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word was God".

Iranyar joon,
There is a very interesting difference in the Armenian and Greek traslations of this passage compared to English and all the other languages.
In Armenian "the word" is translated as "ban", and it's not meaning "word". It is something more sensible than "word". To give you the meaning of its Armenian traslation I'll have to combine "thing-word-eternity-work-activity-it". And in Armenian it doesn't sound indefinite. In Greek too, they use "logos" for translation. I don't know how is it in Jewish, but English sounds poor

---

Berj jan,

I understand what you say Logos in Greek is more than word onley it has something more, more essence.
In Persian they have translated that to Kalame which is Arabic or semitic anyhow, I had a talk with some friends if the puritan Persian translation should use Vazhë (word) or Cäm (thema, meaning) but thannks to you I see that it is best approachable by the concept Hvarvatat which Zarathustra used, so it better be translated into Persian by xordad.
It is very intersting to reasearch the relationship between the Gathas of Zarathustra and the new Testament, however religious fantics don't like this suggestion.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berj:
"In Armenian "the word" is translated as "ban", and it's not meaning "word". It is something more sensible than "word". To give you the meaning of its Armenian traslation I'll have to combine "thing-word-eternity-work-activity-it". And in Armenian it doesn't sound indefinite. In Greek too, they use "logos" for translation. I don't know how is it in Jewish, but English sounds poor

---

I just realised that the Armenian "Ban" maybe is from the same root as the new Persian "Pand".

[Guest Fadi]

I just want to know who is Athe, believer or an agnostic here ?

 

Berj, are you underestimating Human intelligence by implying that they could not have invented bread ?

[Berj]

Hello Domino,

The idea of milling the corn for the sake of gathering enough flour to make bake smth. you're not sure about (that's how the first inventor of bread must have thought) is equivalent to the logic of the invention of atomic bomb or similar. This denies the evolution of human brain starting from Bronze Age all the way to 20th century. Well may be it didn't develop from the Dark Age to Bronze Age as well. So, Darvin's monkeys and we have similar quality of logic. This sounds unacceptable to me

Regards,

P.S. How did you dig out this topic

[Berj]

Domino, please don't tell me it was invented accidentally. The list of accidental inventions during history makes a huge statistics, which is an interesting subject itself.

 

Bye for now.

[Azat]

Berj,
I am not sure if you are interested in the invention of the bread or the existence of God. If bread, than I do not think that it was an accident. I am one of those people who believe that humans invented everything that we see around us. I cannot argue with anyone if this is right or wrong, it's just my belief.

Here is what "historians" believe happened.

There is no one person or date attributed to the "invention" of bread, but there are certain events that would lead us to the people who invented bread.

Man discovered fire half a million years ago and cereals were probably roasted over open fires at least 100,000 years ago. Cereals were first cultivated in the Middle East 10,000 years ago. Wheat and rice were probably the most widespread and still provide 40% of the world's food.

Wheat is now the most widely used of all. It is highly nutritious, containing the protein, carbohydrate and many of the vitamins needed for a healthy diet. These advantages are shared by other cereals but wheat differs from them in an important way - it makes the best bread. Because humans have been eating wheat for ten thousand years our bodies have learnt to make the enzymes and other physical mechanisms necessary to digest it.

c 8000 BC.
At first grain was crushed by hand with pestle and mortar. In Egypt a simple grinding stone (quern) was developed. All bread was unleavened, there were no raising agents and bread was made from a mixed variety of grains. Today's equivalents are Indian chapattis and Mexican tortillas.

c 5000 - 3700 BC.
Egypt developed grain production along the fertile banks of the Nile. Grain became a staple food and spread to the Balkans and throughout Europe, eventually being cultivated in Britain.

c 3000 BC.
Tougher wheat varieties were developed and the baking of bread became a skill in Egypt along with brewing beer. In this warm climate wild yeasts were attracted to multi-grain flour mixtures and bakers experimented with leavened doughs.

The Egyptians invented the closed oven and bread assumed great significance. Homage was paid to Osiris, the god of grain, and bread was used instead of money; the workers who built the pyramids were paid in bread.

c 2300 BC.
In India grain cultivation began along the Indus valley.

c 1500 BC.
Horses took over ploughing from men, using the first iron ploughshares.

c 1050 BC.
The south of England became a centre of agriculture - barley and oats were grown freely; by 500 BC wheat in Britain started to become important.

c 1000 BC.
In Rome risen, yeasted bread became popular and by 500 BC a circular quern was developed - a circular stone wheel turned on another which was fixed. This was the basis of all milling until the industrial revolution in the 19th century and is still the way stoneground flour is produced today.

c 450 BC.
In Greece the watermill was invented, although it was a few centuries before its significance was fully realised.

c 150 BC.
In Rome the first bakers' guilds were formed and well-to-do Romans insisted on the more exclusive and expensive white bread - a preference which persists in Europe and English speaking countries to this day. A Roman invented the first mechanical dough-mixer, powered by horses and donkeys.

c 55 BC.
Romans invaded Britain where wheat was still being crushed by hand and baked over open fires. More sophisticated techniques were introduced, including watermills.

c 40 BC.
Bread and politics. In Rome the authorities decreed that bread should be distributed free to all adult males.

and on and on and on.

[Guest Fadi]

Sorry Berj, Azat post makes more sense to me. I'm not questioning the existance of God here.(even if I may question it elswere wathever, maybe not...) The question of who invented bread seam to me like the question, "How the pyramide's have been build, and by who ?" Its like underestimating human capabilities. I believe everything invented(on Earth) has been invented by man.

[Berj]

Dear Azat,

Thank you for the info.

I'm interested in the comparison of the logic which led to the invention of bread (I'm just picking one example) and p.e. atomic bomb. Please, note, I'm not speaking about the tools that were invented to make the bread or the bomb, but simply the products themselves. Surely, each of these inventions registered a historic process with different stages in different regions of the world (I'm not sure, but as much as I know the theory, thechnical solutions and the implementation of the invention of the bomb took place in England, France, Germany, USA, etc.). But there must have been a single person (like Oppengaimer in case of the bomb) who combined all the previous experience to make the product, right? Besides this, in case of both products, there have been breakthrough stages. In case of bread I think it has been the decision to mill the corn to collect the tiny amount of flour in each corn of wheat or whatever cereal was used. I'm sure there have been a similar breakthrough stage in the invention of the bomb. Perhaps, someone with physics background could help us with this.

Now. If we compare the breakthrough stages in both inventions, it may be proved that the amount, direction, sharpness etc. of the logic involved in both cases may have been similar.

My first questions are: how do you explain the existence of human brain of similar quality in p.e. Roman times and 1940s. Isn't it against Darvin theory of evolution?

[Berj]

1.No need to be sorry, Domino.
2.I'm not underestimating them. But it's obvious that the human brain power is limited. After all, we still don't know where we come from, where are we going, who's really in charge of all of this, where is the start of starts and the end of ends.

[ May 13, 2001: Message edited by: Berj ]

[Azat]

Berj jan,
I am sorry, but I followed everything you said except this last statement. Wouldn't this be exactly Darwin's Theory of evolution. Survival of the fittest? (smartest, strongest)?

Does this not mean that people in the 1940 were smarter and all that to be able to invent the bomb?

Maybe I am all wrong and I did not understand your above question. I apologize in advance if I did not understand you.

[Pilafhead]

Man Berj, are you right!

[Pilafhead]

In tonight's performance, I will be playing the role of The Atheist. Although I do believe in spirits.

[Azat]

I too am on the same bus with the other Atheists.

 

Although I sometimes question my believes(non believes). This only happens when a loved one is in a critical health condition and I find myself asking someone, something, God, passed away relatives for help. This also makes me wonder what I am in terms of my relegeous situation.

 

By the way, is Atheism a religion. I believe it could be classiefied as one.

[Berj]

Azat jan,

1.Darvin's theory of evolution is one of the basic scientific researches in ths list of similar reaserches in different sciences "proving" that the universe or at least the Solar System started from the Big Bang. Survival of the fittest is one of his points. His reaserach as well as the reaserches of his followars were ment to prove the origination of human being from the animal. If I remeber right, the Biology book in our schools started from the "ameoba" thing (the first bio-unit that was water originating unisex cell), than there was "infusoria" (unisex mutiple-cell organism), than there were different kinds of mutiple cell organism. On one stage they devided into two sexes (I don't know the reason). Than they came out of the water developing into different kinds of organisms and animals, one of which, the monkey trasformed into human being.

This theory was stating that the evolution of monkey into human being was taking place because of the natural surroundings, wildlife etc. which forsed the monkeys (I'm calling them monkeys but they have scientific classification by historic time and origination territory) to be more smarter (attention!: "smarter" this is the part I don't believe).
Now, let's talk about this "more smarter" thing. First let me give you an example of retrospective comparison of the so called smartness. Question: Who is smarter Bill Gates or Albert Einstain? My answer is, their inventions are different. Bill Gates invented only a tool, a mechanical tool. Now, we must make a jump to the bread invention.
The cultivation of wheat by different ploughs which developed in time, the milling of corn by different kinds of mills are inventions similar to the invention of Bill Gates: inventions of tools. These inventions are a result of human effort to make the life easier. These inventions presume a certain amount of human brainpower and immagination.

The "weight" of the human brainpower used during the invention of bread must have been much much "heavier" than during the invetions of any kinds of mechanical tools, beacuse the inventor (or the inventors) could not possibly know what problem he was solving. Or, to put it right, there wasn't a problem to solve. They could continue to eat the corns without milling them. The only prolem would be how to produce more corns.

To be continued.

[Azat]

Dear Berj,

Now I see the point that you were trying to make. And while I agree with parts of your answer, there are parts that I do not agree with.

 

I think Darwin's theory of Evolution had 2 main point "variation" and "natural selection". In layman's terms(because I do not remember the scientific) variation means no two individuals from the the same species are exactly alike, organisms have different sizes, shapes, weight, etc. ANd natural selection which was the key point and it ment that those organisms from the same species that are the most fit to survive in their environment will reproduce, those that aren't suited to their environment will die off without without reproducing.

 

Now, I think the comparison of Gates and Einstein is not valid because Darwin's theories were not based on 2 individuals nor were based on such a short time span. In the history/time frame of Evolution Gates and Einstein are one and the same.

 

I can understand exactly what you mean with the "weight" of the discovery. And I do not have the answer for you on what was more important(carried more weight), the discovery of making bread or the discovery of brewing beer(okay, I just had to throw that in there because we all know which was more important), or the discovery of the atomic bomb.

 

Berj, do you agree that some discoveries occur because of no reason?

 

One can possibly also argue that there was a need for the "bread". I do not know what that need was, but maybe there was one.

 

I love to think about this a little more and send you another message. I feel like I am back in school and I have to research these things and write a paper.

 

BTW: I am probably the wrong person to give anyone insight on this topic. The last time I studied this was when we use to go school on horseback.

 

Now I have to go back to work before my boss hits me on the head again.

 

[ May 15, 2001: Message edited by: Azat ]

[Guest Fadi]

Berj Darwin hypotheses don,t stat that human come from mokey, but that human and monkey come from a common ancester. This is now praticly a certainty in science. There is to much to say, but I will let it for an another day.

[hayemyes]

I believe in God. I also believe that Christianity is a sort of package. When you believe in God, you automatically believe in Jesus-Christ, in Adam and Eve, in Noah's Ark, that God created the universe. You can't say I believe in God but I don't think he invented the universe. It's a take it or leave it situation.

Concerning Darwin, if there actually was evolution in the human being, why has that evolution stopped in the past 500 even more years? If evolution starts, it enver stops. It's rare to see the result of an evolution in our days.

That's my take on this. Plus, for me, being Armenian is also part of the Christianity package. Not saying that you're not Armenian if you're not Christian, but Armenians are suppposed to be Christians, not Atheists or anything like that. Why did 1,5 million Armenians die? For Christianity! Why did Vartan Mamigonian fight against Persians? For Christianity!!

Anyway, that's what I think.

[shiner]

I'm not saying that evolution is true or false. But regardless, even if it is true, no one claims it ever stops. If it is true evolution is an extremely slow process, and the results in humans can't be seen over a period of 500 years, or even 2000 years. By the theory of evolution human beings (and their ancestors) have existed for over a million years (maybe as many as 4 or 5 million). That is how long it has taken us to get to this stage.

Even though evolution can't be observed rapidly in humans, tere are other organisms in which it can be observed more rapidly. These organisms have shorter life spans and generation times (ex. some insects, bacteria, etc.)

[levonyeshilian]

Both the creation and the evolution may be right..God doesn't say ' I created universe and earth suddenly...He says in 7 days.So it must include phases...'A childish thought but it helps me in my contradictions..

[MJ]

How about "God may exist?"

 

[ May 20, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[Guest Fadi]

How about "God may not exist" ?