Religion

[JOEBIALEK]

With the passing of Pope John Paul ll, perhaps some reflection on religious beliefs is appropriate. Religion is defined as a set of beliefs concerned with explaining the origins and purposes of the universe, usually involving belief in a supernatural creator and offering guidance in ethics and morals. It also consists of any of several institutions with their own beliefs, rituals, and teachings. Throughout history and even still today, most religions claim to be the one true religion and all others are considered either phony imitations or some sort of heretical sacrilege. It is a sad reality that most people do not recognize the benefit of what can be learned from other religions along the way of their spiritual journey. If one studies the major religions of today such as Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etcetera they will find more similarities than differences. They are guides for how to live and grow spiritually. Some would argue that religion has been one of the biggest causes of humanity's problems but others counter that it is the misinterpretation of religious tenets that causes strife. Still further, many people see religion as a form of control over the masses whereas others see it as a necessary shield against evil influences.

I had the opportunity to read a book recently concerning near death experiences {NDE}. The book was a compilation of individual testimonies by those who left their bodies temporarily and returned to tell about their experience. The author characterized their stories and then pointed out the large similarities and small differences in each of the NDE's. Two personal friends of mine have had an NDE and shared their experience with me. I've also communicated with a deceased friend by way of a psychic medium. All three sources agreed that upon death of the body, we travel through a tunnel toward a bright, warm and loving light. Upon entering the light, we are given a life review. During the life review, we re-experience all the thoughts, words and actions that came from us. Anything negative is re-experienced as though we are the person on the receiving end of our negativity. For example, one of the contributors to the book re-experienced the event where he had severely beaten another man although this time, he felt the blows he had administered. The whole premise for experiencing the light appears to be an opportunity to examine what we have learned along our spiritual journey. In conclusion, it appears that Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Confucius, and Buddha were all very wise men who made a significant impact on humanity teaching spirituality as it applied to a specific civilization. Perhaps if humanity could somehow integrate all these religious belief systems toward the goal of one spirituality with God, we could finally begin to see the emergence of world peace.

[JoeE SP9]

The world would be a much better place if everyone followed on simple rule. Treat others as you would like to treated. Nothing else is required.

[MomurdA]

The thing i dont get about most religions is that they are fine with the status quo. There is never any progression of ideas. They are content with their belief that the world was created in a week, or what have you. Science is concerned with the exact same issues as most religions, but goes about it in a different(much better, IMO) way. Testing, testing, more testing. Discarding of hypotheses that dont match test results, instead of stomping out dissenting views. I mean come on, catholics dont believe in condoms. How ridiculous is that. (my family is catholic, not me though)
[/rant]

[JOEBIALEK]

good points...perhaps someday religion will evolve into spirituality

[piece-it pete]

Hmmm...

So scientific evidence supports changing most world Religions? Interesting. How about some proof.

And specifically Christianity. Just one little scrap?

MomurdA, be sure to apply your own testing to your theories! Proof is facts, not theories.

Christianity differs from other world religions in one important and all-encompassing way. Other religions teach that we can reach heaven, or nirvana, or whatever through our own actions. Christianity teaches that that is impossible. BIG difference!

Pete

[kexodusc]

Christianity differs from other world religions in one important and all-encompassing way. Other religions teach that we can reach heaven, or nirvana, or whatever through our own actions. Christianity teaches that that is impossible. BIG difference!

Pete

In my ignorance I find this comment very interesting, and quite significant...My understanding of Christianity is that God chooses who he touch and who will reach heaven (the impossibility you imply here).
Are all other religions really that different in that there are criteria, or checklists of accomplishments one can complete to get to heaven? I've never heard it put like this before.

[piece-it pete]

Hey kex!

Some have things I guess you could call lists, like Islam says if you die fighting for Jihad you'll go to heaven, etc, others like Hinduism say when you succeed to a certain level of inner peace you move to the next stage of heaven, etc, what is it, Budism? that rewards you with a better reincarnation, and so on, even ancient Catholicism was selling indulgences that got a loved one out of purgatory faster. Anamist (sp? where they worship animals, trees, etc, think native American) religions have their required offerings to say, appease the rain god or whatever. Satanists have set rules too, something like do whatever you want, it's ok, as long as you admit it IIRC. Spiritualists believe they have to be true to themselves, or something, I think it depends on who you talk to.

The key is, if you do A), you will get B).

As you obviously know this is wholy unfounded from a Biblical viewpoint, which says that we are totally corrupt in the eyes of God, unfit for Heaven. Because of this, anything we do is by extention corrupt as well, therefore we are unable to redeem ourselves. Hence the need for a redeemer.

BTW, Jesus was either 1) the son of God, 2) a liar, or 3) insane. To group Him into a group (gaggle? :) ) of self-proclaimed prophets conveniently ignores what he actually said repeatedly, like "I am the way. No man will go to heaven but through me".

Hope this helps!

Pete

[karl k]

Hey kex!

Some have things I guess you could call lists, like Islam says if you die fighting for Jihad you'll go to heaven, etc, others like Hinduism say when you succeed to a certain level of inner peace you move to the next stage of heaven, etc, what is it, Budism? that rewards you with a better reincarnation, and so on, even ancient Catholicism was selling indulgences that got a loved one out of purgatory faster. Anamist (sp? where they worship animals, trees, etc, think native American) religions have their required offerings to say, appease the rain god or whatever. Satanists have set rules too, something like do whatever you want, it's ok, as long as you admit it IIRC. Spiritualists believe they have to be true to themselves, or something, I think it depends on who you talk to.

The key is, if you do A), you will get B).

As you obviously know this is wholy unfounded from a Biblical viewpoint, which says that we are totally corrupt in the eyes of God, unfit for Heaven. Because of this, anything we do is by extention corrupt as well, therefore we are unable to redeem ourselves. Hence the need for a redeemer.

BTW, Jesus was either 1) the son of God, 2) a liar, or 3) insane. To group Him into a group (gaggle? :) ) of self-proclaimed prophets conveniently ignores what he actually said repeatedly, like "I am the way. No man will go to heaven but through me".

Hope this helps!

Pete

You have to BELIEVE and ACCEPT.

[kexodusc]

Thanks Pete,

I have to admit I'm not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to religion. As such, I tend not to get involved in discussions - except for the corruption and evil brought by man in the name of God...that's open season. :D

[JoeE SP9]

You have to BELIEVE and ACCEPT.
I believe they call that faith. Otherwise known as believing in something for which you have no proof. Science calls that deluded. Some of us call that insane.

[piece-it pete]

Karl, agreed.

Joe,


I believe they call that faith. Otherwise known as believing in something for which you have no proof. Science calls that deluded. Some of us call that insane.

Are you talking about evolution, or the big bang?

Pete

[piece-it pete]

Thanks Pete,

I have to admit I'm not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to religion. As such, I tend not to get involved in discussions - except for the corruption and evil brought by man in the name of God...that's open season. :D

kex,

Not many are knowledgeable anymore - even though it may be the biggest driving force behind human affairs (good and bad) we are not allowed to discuss it in public schools anymore...

Pete

[JoeE SP9]

Karl, agreed.

Joe,



Are you talking about evolution, or the big bang?


PeteEven ministers priests and other religious leaders will admit that faith requires believing without proof. One of my friends at Union Theological Seminary admitted to this. What has any of this to do with the big bang or evolution? By the way, I believe in "The Big Bang" and "The Theory Of Evolution". Neither of those have anything to do with belief in a supreme being. I am in the same catagory as a lot of scientists in this regard. I also believe in a supreme being but not the kind of selfish mean spirited and capricious god that most Christian sects come up with.

[piece-it pete]

Joe,

I absolutely agree that I believe without proof. You called it insane. But you acknowledge you believe in other theories without proof - therefore you too are insane. See, there is common ground :D !

For the record, I don't believe in what sects call "Christianity" - I go to the source. There I find that God is neither selfish, or meanspirited (sacrificed his own son for us) or capricious (there is a plan).

Pete

[Pat D]

Hmmm...

Christianity differs from other world religions in one important and all-encompassing way. Other religions teach that we can reach heaven, or nirvana, or whatever through our own actions. Christianity teaches that that is impossible. BIG difference!

Pete
Scientific evidence and also historical studies certainly support that the interpretation of religious texts has had to change. Biblical flat earth cosmology has been out of date for well over 2,000 years and by and large, Christians have not supported it. The Ptolemaic universe held sway for many years and were replaced by post-Copernican universes.

Anyway, I want to call attention to your last paragraph. Just where do you get the idea that other religions have no place for grace? Can you provide some source for this information? It ignores the popular Bhakti strains in Hindu religions, for example, a prime example being many passages in the best known text, the Bhagavad Gita, for example.

[piece-it pete]

Pat,

Where in the Bible does it say the earth is flat? And what scientific/historical data?

I'm not willing to do an entire dissertation on world religions, please cut me a leetle slack :) . Their texts are available to everyone. It has been some time since I researched it.

I've found the Bhagavad Gita and will attempt to read it this weekend, time permitting. Thanks!

Pete

[Pat D]

Pat,

Where in the Bible does it say the earth is flat? And what scientific/historical data?

I'm not willing to do an entire dissertation on world religions, please cut me a leetle slack :) . Their texts are available to everyone. It has been some time since I researched it.

I've found the Bhagavad Gita and will attempt to read it this weekend, time permitting. Thanks!

Pete
Genesis 1 for a start.

As I usually do for such matters, I suggest going to a couple of standard reference works: Buttrick, ed., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, and John L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible. There is a very learned article on Cosmogony in The Interpreter's Dictionary. You have to remember than in the Bible, "earth" refers to the land as opposed to the sea, not to a planet named Earth!

Here is a link to a guy who has done his homework pretty well and I am sure you can find other links if you try:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

The ancient Hebrews shared the pre-scientific world view of their contemporaries in the ancient Middle East.

[JoeE SP9]

Joe,

I absolutely agree that I believe without proof. You called it insane. But you acknowledge you believe in other theories without proof - therefore you too are insane. See, there is common ground :D !

For the record, I don't believe in what sects call "Christianity" - I go to the source. There I find that God is neither selfish, or meanspirited (sacrificed his own son for us) or capricious (there is a plan).

PeteThe best example I can give of a scientific theory is the Theory of Relativity. This is not based on belief but fact as all theories in science are. If I am Insane I am at least logical about it.

[shokhead]

I like the religion that i can kill and rape and steal and then just before my death,i say,i'm sorry and i'm forgiven and its all wiped out. I think you will get what you should on how you live your like. If there is a god,he knows whats in your heart,not how much you give a church.

[piece-it pete]

Pat,

None of those statements/verses show that the Bible subscribes to the flat earth theory. The people might have - but God never says so.

Using colloquialisms to "prove" this (or any) point isn't the best idea - one has to read into it, so they can be misread, even manipulated, based on ones' feelings toward the subject.

Consider "the sun rises in the east". If our discussion was taking place 300 years from now that could be used to show we believed in a flat earth. But that's rediculous - it's just a saying.

Look at it another way: If a martian was trying to explain something to you, and you did not know the scientific details of his point, he could bring the conversation down to our level, and phrase it based on what is normal or known to us. We do this all the time when we try to explain things to children. Imagine what historians could make of that!

To your link. He says: "The Biblical cosmology is never explicitly stated, so it must be pieced together from scattered passages." Therefore you must interpet. See paragraph two above.

He then goes on to use modern theories to "prove" the Bible is wrong. An unbiased scientist would see the problem with this. You need proven facts, not theories. We have none.

One point where we part ways, logically if you think about it, is miracles. As a believer, God is all-knowing and all-powerful - He can do whatever He wants, as He created everything. As a non-believer, one could consider belief in miracles proof of... wrongness?

However, whether one believes in God or the Big Bang proof is proof, a feeling or emotion exactly that. There is no proof now for either side. So, both arguments are based on faith, one side in man, the other in God.

BTW, I did not have a chance to read the Bhagavad Gita, sorry, I will post when I can.

_________________________

Joe,

My apologies for never saying hello. Hello. :)

If the Theory of Relativity is proven then why is it called a theory?

And what makes your faith more logical than mine?

________________________________


Shokker :D ,

My dad says things like that. While it is true (consider that Jesus promised the criminal convicted to death on the cross next to him eternal salvation), the Bible also says God knows your heart (as you mention), therefore you have to be sincere.

It is a by-product of grace.

Jesus explains it this way (a denarius equals a days' pay)

Matthew 20:1-16 NIV: The parable of the vineyard workers.

For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' So they went.

He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

'Because no one has hired us,' they answered. "He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner.These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

Shok I hope this at least helps explain.

Pete

[nobody]

I'm one of those annoying agnostocs who just can't give myself enough credit to really know whether there is a god or not, and if so what he's like. I'm just not smart enough to figure that out.

However, I do figure that if there is a god and he creates people imprerfectly on purpose and then punishes them by sending the vast majority of them into eternal damnation for screwing up, he's pretty much an *******.

[shokhead]

If there is a god,i dont belive he has a hand in anything,good or bad. He put us here to figure it out for ourselfs. We know right and wrong.

[piece-it pete]

Nobody,

According to the Bible, all people have the CHOICE. If they end up in hell it's no-ones' (nobodies? lol) fault but their own.

Shok,

Agreed that folks know right from wrong. We all do the wrong thing from time to time. How many times are we allowed to do the wrong thing?

Pete

[nobody]

Yes, but then you get into the whole predestination vs. free will argument and an omnicient being that knows most will fail the test and puts his supposedly beloved creations out there to take it anyway, severely and permanently punishing those who end up falling short in the inevitable conclusion. Sorry, sounds like a jerk to me.

And, in the workers example before, I think that boss is a dick too.

[JoeE SP9]

[QUOTE=piece-it pete]Pat,


Joe,

My apologies for never saying hello. Hello. :)

If the Theory of Relativity is proven then why is it called a theory?

And what makes your faith more logical than mine?

_________________________

Pet,

Hi to you also. It is rare to find someone who bothers with the amenities on the web. http://forums.audioreview.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
In science it is always called a theory. Ex: The Pythagoreum Theory. You know, thats the one about the relationships between the sides in a right triangle. Is that up for discussion?
I don't have any faith. IE: Belief without proof. My beliefs are logical because they are proovable.

[piece-it pete]

Joe,

Yea I know about the pleasantries and the web, but I'm happy to say I was broken into web forums here at AudioReview and it usually felt more like a get-together of friends, at least acquaintances, really.

Anyway, a theory is by definition unproven. Do I believe that the Pythagoreum Theory is correct? Yes. But to say that the current hot theory of evolution has anywhere near the credibility of something mathmatically shown correct over and over again - while evolution has not one proof - is a stretch in my mind to say the least.

I'm not picking on evolution, just using it as an example in a sea of possibles. I have come to realise that we, the enlightned educated of the information age, take a whole lot more on faith of one sort or the other than we care to recognise or admit.

Pete

[paul_pci]

Joe,

Yea I know about the pleasantries and the web, but I'm happy to say I was broken into web forums here at AudioReview and it usually felt more like a get-together of friends, at least acquaintances, really.

Anyway, a theory is by definition unproven. Do I believe that the Pythagoreum Theory is correct? Yes. But to say that the current hot theory of evolution has anywhere near the credibility of something mathmatically shown correct over and over again - while evolution has not one proof - is a stretch in my mind to say the least.

I'm not picking on evolution, just using it as an example in a sea of possibles. I have come to realise that we, the enlightned educated of the information age, take a whole lot more on faith of one sort or the other than we care to recognise or admit.

Pete


I hate to expose your ignorance but I feel compelled to largely because most Americans are too stupid when it comes to comprehending scientific epistemology. First of all, we need to get our terms straight and how they are used. Theories are explanations not facts. Can you (and others) get that through your head. Fact: species change. Species go extinct. Species increase. Explanation: Evolution and natural selection. Fact: objects fall to the ground when otherwise unimpeded. Planets revolves around celestial objects. Light bends. Explanation: gravity. Let me introduce a new term here: substantitation. Facts are more or less indisputable. Species change, die off, etc. There's no disputing that. Objects are attracted to the ground, planets revolve around the sun, there's no disputing that. Theories are designed to explain WHY facts are. In scientific epistemology, a theory is a well substantiated explanation, that is there is sufficent reason and evidence as to why we should think that a given explanation (evolution, gravity) is valid. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is an unsubstantiated explanation of factual phenomenon, a mere guess. What I hate to tell you and what you don't want to hear is that out of all scientific theories explaining natural phenomena, evolution is the MOST substantiated out there. Considering that scientists, through DNA technology, can trace biological lineage through different species, there leaves little doubt that evolution is just an idea that somone pulled out of their ass. Evolution, as a scientific theory, is far more substantiated than gravity, but never do you hear such complaints and doubts about gravity.

Your ignorance: a theory by definition cannot be proven. Theories are explanations for facts that are proven, and thus by definition, which you don't understand, are not of the same factual status as that which can be proven, but only substantiated. You may wish to deny that evolution has again and again been substantiated by a variety of facts and that is your perogative to be in denial. But to say that evolution is unproven just exposes your ignorance of how scientific epistemology operates and suggests you may wish to bow out of a debate you are not intelledtually equippred to participate in.

[shokhead]

Wow!! :)

[piece-it pete]

Paul,

You said: "My beliefs are logical because they are provable.".

For starters, there is no proof of evolution, only natural selection. If evolution as a theory has any real weight there should be according to that theory examples all over the place, as it happens largley incrementally as well as occasionaly by large steps. We've been looking hard for a long time, and found nothing conclusive - we should be finding examples all over the place! Has it stopped?

This thread is wwwaaaayyyy OT. I brought up the various theories because it was claimed the Bible has been proven wrong by science. There has not been one proof given.

If we wish to debate a particular theory or even the definition I suggest we create a new thread. [Edit: see this thread: http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?p=84283#post84283 ]

I will bow out with a quote:

"But then arises the doubt, can the mind of a man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? ....... Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

Charles Darwin

Pete

[JoeE SP9]

Paul,

You said: "My beliefs are logical because they are provable.".

For starters, there is no proof of evolution, only natural selection. If evolution as a theory has any real weight there should be according to that theory examples all over the place, as it happens largley incrementally as well as occasionaly by large steps. We've been looking hard for a long time, and found nothing conclusive - we should be finding examples all over the place! Has it stopped?

This thread is wwwaaaayyyy OT. I brought up the various theories because it was claimed the Bible has been proven wrong by science. There has not been one proof given.

If we wish to debate a particular theory or even the definition I suggest we create a new thread. [Edit: see this thread: http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?p=84283#post84283 ]

I will bow out with a quote:

"But then arises the doubt, can the mind of a man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? ....... Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

Charles Darwin

Pete
The biblical "theory" of evolution can be believed only by those who have faith in a Judeo/Christian based religion. There is not one shred of proof for this "belief". Only those who have "faith" can believe in it. As for the theory of evolution, Occams Razor comes to mind. I do not dispute the existance of a higher power. I do dispute miraculous explanations for the existance of the universe and humanity.

[JoeE SP9]

I hate to expose your ignorance but I feel compelled to largely because most Americans are too stupid when it comes to comprehending scientific epistemology. First of all, we need to get our terms straight and how they are used. Theories are explanations not facts. Can you (and others) get that through your head. Fact: species change. Species go extinct. Species increase. Explanation: Evolution and natural selection. Fact: objects fall to the ground when otherwise unimpeded. Planets revolves around celestial objects. Light bends. Explanation: gravity. Let me introduce a new term here: substantitation. Facts are more or less indisputable. Species change, die off, etc. There's no disputing that. Objects are attracted to the ground, planets revolve around the sun, there's no disputing that. Theories are designed to explain WHY facts are. In scientific epistemology, a theory is a well substantiated explanation, that is there is sufficent reason and evidence as to why we should think that a given explanation (evolution, gravity) is valid. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is an unsubstantiated explanation of factual phenomenon, a mere guess. What I hate to tell you and what you don't want to hear is that out of all scientific theories explaining natural phenomena, evolution is the MOST substantiated out there. Considering that scientists, through DNA technology, can trace biological lineage through different species, there leaves little doubt that evolution is just an idea that somone pulled out of their ass. Evolution, as a scientific theory, is far more substantiated than gravity, but never do you hear such complaints and doubts about gravity.

Your ignorance: a theory by definition cannot be proven. Theories are explanations for facts that are proven, and thus by definition, which you don't understand, are not of the same factual status as that which can be proven, but only substantiated. You may wish to deny that evolution has again and again been substantiated by a variety of facts and that is your perogative to be in denial. But to say that evolution is unproven just exposes your ignorance of how scientific epistemology operates and suggests you may wish to bow out of a debate you are not intelledtually equippred to participate in.
Love the way you phrased your response.May I quote you in other (off line discussions)?

[JoeE SP9]

I hate to expose your ignorance but I feel compelled to largely because most Americans are too stupid when it comes to comprehending scientific epistemology. First of all, we need to get our terms straight and how they are used. Theories are explanations not facts. Can you (and others) get that through your head. Fact: species change. Species go extinct. Species increase. Explanation: Evolution and natural selection. Fact: objects fall to the ground when otherwise unimpeded. Planets revolves around celestial objects. Light bends. Explanation: gravity. Let me introduce a new term here: substantitation. Facts are more or less indisputable. Species change, die off, etc. There's no disputing that. Objects are attracted to the ground, planets revolve around the sun, there's no disputing that. Theories are designed to explain WHY facts are. In scientific epistemology, a theory is a well substantiated explanation, that is there is sufficent reason and evidence as to why we should think that a given explanation (evolution, gravity) is valid. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is an unsubstantiated explanation of factual phenomenon, a mere guess. What I hate to tell you and what you don't want to hear is that out of all scientific theories explaining natural phenomena, evolution is the MOST substantiated out there. Considering that scientists, through DNA technology, can trace biological lineage through different species, there leaves little doubt that evolution is just an idea that somone pulled out of their ass. Evolution, as a scientific theory, is far more substantiated than gravity, but never do you hear such complaints and doubts about gravity.

Your ignorance: a theory by definition cannot be proven. Theories are explanations for facts that are proven, and thus by definition, which you don't understand, are not of the same factual status as that which can be proven, but only substantiated. You may wish to deny that evolution has again and again been substantiated by a variety of facts and that is your perogative to be in denial. But to say that evolution is unproven just exposes your ignorance of how scientific epistemology operates and suggests you may wish to bow out of a debate you are not intelledtually equippred to participate in.
Loved the way you phrased your response.http://forums.audioreview.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[paul_pci]

Love the way you phrased your response.May I quote you in other (off line discussions)?

Sure.

[Wireworm5]

I'm what people call a born again Christian, I however don't like this term, I've had what I would discribe as a change in mind or attitude adjustment from an unseen spirit or force that physically touched my heart. This for me is absolute proof that there is a loving God, but I can't prove this to anyone.
I also firmly belief in a Lying Spirit or Devil as I have seen and witnessed people speaking in tongues and prophesying falsely. They weren't acting and were completely controlled physically by this spirit or force.
I believe all religions today are false and are just man made rituals influenced by this Lying Spirit. This Lying Spirit is the cause of most wars in man's history, and has a lust for blood and would murder every human on earth if possible. His objective is to foil God's ultimate plan for mankind, which someday will come to fruitition because of Jesus Christ sacrifice on the cross and displace him as God and Ruler of this earth.
I accept science and what educated men have discovered of earth's past. Evolution does indeed seem to be the method of creation God used over billions of years. However this is not the complete story as it fails to explain mankinds relationship with the creator and our need for redemption.
I believe all men have the potential for good or evil and we will be judged according to the condition of our heart where the spirit of man resides, and not whether or not we believe Christ is God or some other religious belief.
What do you know, truth is stranger than fiction! :)