I had a new message and I got excited but then it was spam

liberalchristian:

itsdetachable:

liberalchristian:

itsdetachable:

Actually, that’s exactly what it means. You did not give them all the information, they are therefore ignorant of the consequences of their actions. The only reason they know not to do…

Josephus was not a contemporary source - he was born in 37 CE and the writings which include references to Jesus weren’t written until around 97 CE. By that time he could have been easily influenced by anecdotal stories told by his elders as he was growing up, or by stories passed on to others by theory elders. It still is not proof positive of the existance of Jesus - until we get further corroborating sources, especially ones from the time period that Jesus lived in, we cannot for certain speak of factual proof. As it is, Jesus is a person whose existance ia based on faith, not evidence. Lack of evidence does not mean he didn’t exist, but it does not mean he did exist either.

(via lookalivewickedzombie)

Realization:

liberalchristian:

itsdetachable:

liberalchristian:

itsdetachable:

How could God give free will if he did not give Adam and Eve the knowledge to decide things themselves? He placed them in Eden, said “you can do anything you want except touch this tree, or you’ll die (while not lying, also not telling them the truth)” and excepted them to follow his words blindly.

That is not free will - ruling over an ignorant populace is a total dictatorship, not a free democratic state. When you have a totalitarian rule, where you decide what people do, where they go, and when, then you have taken away that people’s free will - which is what God did in the garden of Eden.

The serpent (who is often viewed as Lucifer/Satan, but of course can be interpreted in other ways) offered Eve the choice that God never did - he gave her the truth about the tree, and allowed her to decide for herself whether it was worth disobeying God’s command or not - he allowed their free will to be realized where before it was not.

Until Eve and Adam ate from the fruit of the tree, they did not know anything - not even the difference between good and evil. They had no morality. They had no knowledge. They could not make educated guesses and decisions because they were ignorant of what they did not know.

That seems to me to be a strange way to interpret the serpent’s role. Democracy functions best when it’s citizens are well-informed, but I think it’s a stretch to say that it doesn’t function at all and no longer is a democracy. In any case, I don’t think the relationship between God and Adam and Eve were or should be categorized as a governmental system- more like the interaction between a parent and children. Parenthood is certainly not a democracy.

As for the ignorance, they knew the rule about not eating the fruit. That they didn’t know about the potential consequences is not the same as being ignorant of the rule. If I tell a child ‘don’t stick a fork in that socket’, and they do, they will very quickly find out why I told them not to. -But-, the fact that I didn’t tell them exactly what would happen doesn’t mean I kept them ignorant and uniformed.

Adam and Eve knew of the rule. They choose to go against it. A single conversation with the serpent doesn’t change their fundamental nature(whether or not they had free will). And the fact that they did choose suggests to me that they HAD free will at the moment of their creation- it just took the serpent to convince them to act on that particular choice.

More to the point, why would you even speak in favor of devil-worship(not even satanism, as that’s not quite the same)?

Do I speak in favor of ‘devil-worship’? I find it interesting that you think so - maybe the way I was taught to look at scripture is different than yours. Critical thinking on the teachings of the Bible, their meaning and their structure as founding myths of the Christian (and Catholic, which is what the schools I went to were) religions was an essential part of all my religious classes. That included finding passages where the ‘goodness’ of God comes into question (and it does often in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament) and discovering which teachings were from God and which teachings in the Bible were merely those of the people of that time (which, unsurprisingly, the vast majority is. Comparatively, there are few instances where words “straight from God” are in the Bible, the majority is that of people’s interpretations of God’s laws).

It’s possible I was interpreting what you said in light of other posts I’ve seen lately about how great Lucipher was. In any case, I do believe in critical interpretation of the bible- I just see no justification for that particular interpretation.

Is that really an effective way to make a point about Christianity?

By questioning the founding creation myth of the religion? And questioning whether Lucifer/Satan (the devil, if you want) had a hand in shaping humanity in the way it has headed? Yes, yes I think it is. There is much too little emphasis in the teaching of the Bible and religion on the devil - other than calling him ‘evil evil evil’ and saying how ‘evil’ his works are. If God is the ultimate Good, there must also be an evil to balance him. As everything was created by God, it only stands to reason that God created evil as well (he can not exist as a Good being without having an Evil to be compared to, after all) so Evil, as much as Good, comes from God. This makes sense when we consider the story/myth of the fall of Lucifer - he was the brightest of Angels, the closest to God, God’s first creation, and he was the one to become the darkness to God’s light.

And, interestingly enough, the angels (including Lucifer) had a hand in creation, after all, so either way, we can say that Lucifer helped create humanity.

The truth is that Christianity, like many old religions, is founded on flimsy myth and legend. We have no proof other than our faith that what is written in the Bible has happened. That is fine - the important part, in order to learn the teachings of the Bible and understand what God wants of humanity is to never stop questioning that faith. It is only through recollections and meditations on those teachings that we can come to an understanding of them. We have the capacity to do so, the capacity to sit down and consider those teachings and find the answers within ourselves, and we should. (and yes, considering whether Lucifer had a hand in giving humans their free will is exactly that.)

I don’t know what you mean exactly by ‘we have no proof other than what is written in the Bible.’ There are sources outside the Bible that verify that many of the events did happen. Some parts of it are bound to faith, but historically, we have some idea of the actual events. Also, I never claimed to be opposed to questioning faith. I make a habit of it- and I still don’t agree at all with your interpretation of Adam and Eve. Nor do I think the line of reasoning is a particularly useful one.

If I tell a child ‘don’t stick a fork in that socket’, and they do, they will very quickly find out why I told them not to. -But-, the fact that I didn’t tell them exactly what would happen doesn’t mean I kept them ignorant and uniformed.

Actually, that’s exactly what it means. You did not give them all the information, they are therefore ignorant of the consequences of their actions. The only reason they know not to do something is because ‘you told them not to’, and that is no real reason. That’s what happened in Eden - God said ‘No’, but he did not say why. He expected them to follow his rule without question, because he did not expect them to do something to oppose him. Until the serpent tempted Eve, neither she nor Adam thought about opposing God’s rule, and to use their own minds to decide for themselves. God was keeping them ignorant, and an ignorant person is easy to keep in control. The same is true in a parent-child relationship, if you want me to switch to that analogy - a child that is constantly asking “Why” and is never given or answer, or is told not to question it, and is kept from sources that would give them that answer, has a high chance of becoming disinterested in things and eventually not wanting to go out and assuage their curiosity. It happens in the real world - families where children are kept uninformed and ignorant and the only reason they do things is because mom or dad tell them that that is how it has to be; they become set in their ways, they are unable to think outside the box the parents have built around them, and they blindly follow where the parent leads.

God’s relationship with Adam and Eve is not a healthy one - he gave them paradise and eternal life, in return for the ability to grow, learn, and gain knowledge and know mortality. When they gained the ability to reason, compare, and have a greater curiosity, they were thrown out of Eden and into the wild world. The overt lesson is “disobey God, suffer the consequences” but the subliminal lesson also shows “gain knowledge, lose paradise” - once knowledge is gained, once a person learns of good and evil and morality, the naivety of youth is lost and they find that what was before a great and wonderful world suddenly becomes one of an equal mix of wonder and doubt, discovery and fear.

In any case, I do believe in critical interpretation of the bible- I just see no justification for that particular interpretation.

What justification is needed for critical interpretation of anything? The answer is none. Really, why should there be? Just because you disagree with it doesn’t mean it wasn’t necessary for someone, for their growth or their learning.

I don’t know what you mean exactly by ‘we have no proof other than what is written in the Bible.’ There are sources outside the Bible that verify that many of the events did happen. Some parts of it are bound to faith, but historically, we have some idea of the actual events.

We have no proof outside the historical facts - the flood, the Jew’s as slaves in Egypt, King Herod, Pilate, all of that was factual. Jesus, God speaking to people, the visitations by angels - not factual. There is no hard evidence other than the writings of the Bible. Of all facts that we could find to prove that the parts of the Bible that have to do with God and Jesus are factual, finding a document about the hanging on the cross of a Jewish rebel supposedly bringing about a Jewish uprising would be a huge one. No such records (as of yet) have been found. No records outside the writings that were put together (or taken apart to be used in) the Bible speak of Jesus. His entire existance we believe on pure faith, not anything factual, and that is what I meant - the existence of God, Jesus, and his works on earth are all purely contained in the Bible, and no outside sources. Noah, the giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses, Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection are all purely based on faith.

Also, I never claimed to be opposed to questioning faith. I make a habit of it- and I still don’t agree at all with your interpretation of Adam and Eve. Nor do I think the line of reasoning is a particularly useful one.

I don’t understand why you think this is not useful; I think it’s quite useful and exploring the relationships between God, his creation, and the serpent/devil/Lucifer/what have you - at the beginning of the Bible, in the creation story that is supposed to show the beginning of creation. I find it extremely interesting that creation originally existed in what is implied to be a paradise of ignorance, devoid of knowledge of morality, but that’s just me.

I guess, in this end, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

News in Britain: stamps have gone up 14 pence
News in America: cannibal eats man's face
Britain: wat.
News in America: man throws his own intestines at police
News in Canada: body parts mailed to government

Spuds McKenzie at the Olympics

Eastern Wolves Are Hybrids With Coyotes: Study →

ALBANY, N.Y. — Wolves in the eastern United States are hybrids of gray wolves and coyotes, while the region’s coyotes actually are wolf-coyote-dog hybrids, according to a new genetic study that is adding fuel to a longstanding debate over the origins of two endangered species.

The study is unlikely to impact the management of the endangered red wolf in North Carolina and the eastern Canadian wolf in Ontario, but it offers fresh insight into their genetic makeup and concludes that those wolves are hybrids that developed over the last few hundred years.

Some scientists have argued that the red wolf, Canis rufus, and the eastern Canadian wolf, Canis lycaon, evolved from an ancient eastern wolf species distinct from the larger gray wolf, Canis lupus, that is found in western North America.

Wolf experts who adhere to that theory say the new study is interesting but falls short of proving anything. They say it doesn’t explain why hybrids appear only in some places and note that western wolves don’t hybridize with coyotes but often kill them.

In the study, published online earlier this month in the peer-reviewed journal Genome Research, 16 researchers from around the globe led by Robert Wayne of the University of California-Los Angeles, used information from the dog genome – the animal’s entire genetic code – to survey the genetic diversity in dogs, wolves and coyotes.

It was the most detailed genetic study of any wild vertebrate species to date, using molecular genetic techniques to look at over 48,000 markers throughout the full genome, said Roland Kays, curator of mammals at the New York State Museum and a co-author.

In a previous study of the dog genome published last year in the journal Nature, a Wayne-led international team of scientists reported that domestic dogs likely originated in the Middle East and shared more genetic similarity with Middle Eastern gray wolves than any other wolf population.

The recent study showed a gradient of hybridization in wolves.

In the West, wolves were pure wolf, while in the western Great Lakes, they averaged 85 percent wolf and 15 percent coyote. Wolves in Algonquin Park in eastern Ontario averaged 58 percent wolf.

The red wolf in North Carolina, which has been the subject of extensive preservation and restoration efforts, was found to be 24 percent wolf and 76 percent coyote.

Northeastern coyotes, which only colonized the region in the past 60 years, were found to be 82 percent coyote, 9 percent dog and 9 percent wolf.

In a study co-authored by Kays last year in the journal Biology Letters, museum specimens and genetic samples were used to show that coyotes migrating eastward bred with wolves to evolve into a larger form that has become the top predator in the Northeast, filling a niche left when native eastern wolves were hunted out of existence. The hybridization allowed coyotes to evolve from the scrawny mouse-eaters of western grasslands to robust deer-hunters in eastern forests.

The genetic techniques used in the recent study allowed researchers to estimate that hybridization, in most cases, happened when humans were hunting eastern wolves to extinction, Kays said.

“The few remaining animals could find no proper mates so took the best option they could get,” Kays said.

L. David Mech, senior research scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Prairie Research Center in St. Paul, Minn., and founder of the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minn., is skeptical of the theory that eastern wolves are hybrids.

“How do you reconcile this with the fact that gray wolves typically don’t breed with coyotes, but kill them?” Mech said. “We have no records in the West of wolves hybridizing with coyotes, even in areas where single wolves looking for mates have dispersed into the middle of coyote country.”

Mech also questioned whether the study tested enough Canadian and North Carolina wolves and whether those specimens were true representatives of those populations.

Although 48,000 genetic markers sounds like a lot, it’s actually a relatively small part of the entire genetic code, Mech said. So the evidence of a unique eastern wolf ancestor could simply be in another part of the code that wasn’t analyzed, he said.

Several researchers who consider the eastern wolf species separate from the gray wolf weighed in recently in an online discussion of the new study.

Brent Patterson, a genetics researcher at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, called the study “an important step forward.” But until more samples are analyzed, the hypothesis that a North American wolf evolved independently from the gray wolf was still viable, he said.

“It’s an academic issue,” Mech said. “It’s nice to know what the origins are from the standpoint of curiosity, but from a conservation standpoint, it shouldn’t make any difference.”

David Rabon, coordinator of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Red Wolf Recovery Program in North Carolina, said the federal agency has taken the position that the red wolf is a unique species that warrants protection. The new study, while interesting, won’t likely change management decisions, he said.