Continuation of Christianity debate.

[luns101]

I don't claim to be some evolution expert by a loooooong shot, there are others here with far more knowledge of the subject than I, but the concept makes sense to me. Then again I am not religious so perhaps that's why evolution seems to be perfectly logical and ID does not...and vice versa with you theists. Perspective.

Well, don't you think you owe it to yourself to research the subject a little bit more? I mean, if you're going to stake your eternal destiny on something that you merely think makes sense, it seems that it would be worth reading about a little more in depth.

I guess my problem with some of your statements up to this point has been your references to mythical "this" or "that". That would insinuate that Christians or theists aren't able to distinguish between fantasy and reality. If this were true then Christians shouldn't be able to hold jobs or interact in society because of their inability to discriminate the real from the unreal. I could provide you with some references by evolutionists which actually admit that to adhere to the theory is tantamount to believing in fairy tales. It was one of the things which caused me to read up a little more on the subject.

[Backglass]

I guess my problem with some of your statements up to this point has been your references to mythical "this" or "that". That would insinuate that Christians or theists aren't able to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

Well, when you boil it down, I do believe that religion must cloud the mind somewhat. How else could things that (to me) are no different than Greek mythology (people parting oceans, talking snakes, dead people coming to life, flying angels, tempting demons) be believed wholeheartedly and without question by the religious, especially when they all supposedly happened thousands of years ago?

I'd like to think that a good many don't really believe the stories but go along with the flow because of A: the potential for outcast/social problems from family, in smaller towns and bible belt areas, B: the "Better safe than sorry" pascals wager and C: in our pro-christian society "thats what good people do" and most people want to fit in and be thought of as "good". Plus, it shows well. Much like every drug smoking gangster rapper thanks god first when he gets his MTV award...it makes mom think "awww he cant be all that bad, he thanked GAWD after all!"

If this were true then Christians shouldn't be able to hold jobs or interact in society because of their inability to discriminate the real from the unreal.

Not necessarily. John Travolta and Tom Cruise, we would both agree believe wholeheartedly in extreme fantasy, yet they hold down real jobs. There are plenty of people in society holding down jobs and more who believe in snake handlers, healers, joseph smith and l ron hubbard.

I could provide you with some references by evolutionists which actually admit that to adhere to the theory is tantamount to believing in fairy tales. It was one of the things which caused me to read up a little more on the subject.

I don't doubt you. And I am sure I could find quotes by ID experts saying similar things and jumping ship, but what would that prove?

[CrazyAnglican]

I'm just curious. I'm not a bad guy; we just got carried away in the last exchange .)

Don't believe him for a second, Backglass. If he wasn't such a bad guy then why does he live in Georgia?

Good point luns...I saw Deliverance.

Hey! My cousin may have six fingers, but he's a heck of a banjo player!

[luns101]

Well, when you boil it down, I do believe that religion must cloud the mind somewhat. How else could things that (to me) are no different than Greek mythology (people parting oceans, talking snakes, dead people coming to life, flying angels, tempting demons) be believed wholeheartedly and without question by the religious, especially when they all supposedly happened thousands of years ago?

Except the Bible goes beyond just story-telling and actually is bold enough to predict the future. It also references actual people from history, not just demi-gods who have degenerate tendencies.

I'd like to think that a good many don't really believe the stories but go along with the flow because of A: the potential for outcast/social problems from family, in smaller towns and bible belt areas, B: the "Better safe than sorry" pascals wager and C: in our pro-christian society "thats what good people do" and most people want to fit in and be thought of as "good".

I think that's actually a pretty good assessment. I would add that there is at least two more groups: (1) those that are curiously and honestly searching to see if it's all for real, and eventually come to the conclusion that it is. (2) those whose lives have become so terrible that they break down and say "I've got nothing to lose by putting my faith in Christ". (I don't know if you'd count that group within your Pascal's Wager crowd)

Much like every drug smoking gangster rapper thanks god first when he gets his MTV award...it makes mom think "awww he cant be all that bad, he thanked GAWD after all!"

...or Paris Hilton!

I am sure I could find quotes by ID experts saying similar things and jumping ship, but what would that prove?

I haven't read any quotes from ID experts "jumping ship", but I'm going to go look and see if I can find some...simply because it would be interesting reading.

The reason for showing quotes from evolutionists admitting their bias would be to dispel the notion that only Christians "blindly" follow what they want to be a reality. It goes both ways.

[CrazyAnglican]

Well, when you boil it down, I do believe that religion must cloud the mind somewhat. How else could things that (to me) are no different than Greek mythology (people parting oceans, talking snakes, dead people coming to life, flying angels, tempting demons) be believed wholeheartedly and without question by the religious, especially when they all supposedly happened thousands of years ago?

Okay luns fastposted me and did a better job. Not bad (for a Californian).

I'd like to think that a good many don't really believe the stories but go along with the flow because of A: the potential for outcast/social problems from family, in smaller towns and bible belt areas, B: the "Better safe than sorry" pascals wager and C: in our pro-christian society "thats what good people do" and most people want to fit in and be thought of as "good". Plus, it shows well. Much like every drug smoking gangster rapper thanks god first when he gets his MTV award...it makes mom think "awww he cant be all that bad, he thanked GAWD after all!"

Probably true for some, I don't think any of us could tell how many though. Personally, I'd rather deal with a fervent atheist than a half-hearted Christian. I believe in people as well, but good people get good ideas from good worldviews (be they philosophies, religions, or personal experiences).

Anyway back to monkeys and bananas.

So, if I get it right:

1) micro evolution is sitting by the river and noticing that all of the water
is going one way.

2) macro evolution is sitting by the river and noticing the same thing,
then saying it's a pretty good bet the water was ice in the mountains
and will be brine in the sea.

Sorry to put it in layman's terms, but is that pretty close to the mark?

[zarvinny]

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

[Jenos Ridan]

I should point out that my understanding of evolution comes from reading about it in the encyclopedia, various web-sites and assorted history books. I never took a biology class in high school and I might not bother with one in college. My understanding of the basics of the theory is thusly limited but I'd think marginally better than average.

[KiwiTaker]

It is arguments like this that made me turn to Buddhism.

[AlgyTaylor]

So, if I get it right:

1) micro evolution is sitting by the river and noticing that all of the water
is going one way.

2) macro evolution is sitting by the river and noticing the same thing,
then saying it's a pretty good bet the water was ice in the mountains
and will be brine in the sea.

Sorry to put it in layman's terms, but is that pretty close to the mark?

Sort of, but not really.

In creationist terms, micro evolution relates to small scale changes (eg a species of dog getting bigger or smaller), whilst macro evolution relates to large changes (one species become a new species).

However, in scientific terms there is rarely if ever any distinction made between the two; macro evolution would just refer to lots of micro evolutionary changes over a prolonged period of time.

I would highly recommend reading The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, though (2nd version's the best and most common one) ... take it out of your local library and just read it. It's heavy going in parts, but by and large most reasonably intelligent people will follow it. Really interesting book, it covers a huge area of biology really. His writings on the behavioural evolution of some species/varieties are nothing short of amazing, even if you're not in to the whole evolution thing then even as a natural history study it's fascinating.

Although I have to say, if you read it you'll probably end up as an evolutionist ... his evidence is rock solid for the areas he covers, and most of the arguments/questions put up by creationists today were answered by Darwin 148 years ago.

[MR. Nate]

Buddhism would be a lot more palatable if you were actually allowed to care about anything or anyone.

[vtmarik]

Buddhism would be a lot more palatable if you were actually allowed to care about anything or anyone.

Who says you aren't? There's a difference between being aware and caring about external, wordly things and being obsessed/held back by worldly things.


Why do you think the Dalai Lama keeps coming out and preaching world peace?

[MR. Nate]

Your not supposed to be attached to anything because that can cause suffering.

If you love your wife, and she dies, you're going to emotionally suffer (which is not the path to enlightenment) therefore, don't love your wife.

[Kugelblitz22]

Your not supposed to be attached to anything because that can cause suffering.

If you love your wife, and she dies, you're going to emotionally suffer (which is not the path to enlightenment) therefore, don't love your wife.

That's not really accurate. The idea is understand the concept that your wife isn't permanent as you aren't either so don't become attached to her like she is going to be in this life forever, because she isn't that doesn't mean don't love people.

[Kugelblitz22]

Buddhism would be a lot more palatable if you were actually allowed to care about anything or anyone.

I see you are a recent graduate of a seminary. You want to get your money back if this is how well they taught you this concept.

[MR. Nate]

So when you say "don't get attached" you mean that your supposed to love her in such away that you won't suffer when she dies?

Please, enlighten me.

[CrazyAnglican]

Although I have to say, if you read it you'll probably end up as an evolutionist ... his evidence is rock solid for the areas he covers, and most of the arguments/questions put up by creationists today were answered by Darwin 148 years ago.

Nothing like going to the original work. I'll look into it, Thanks.

[got tonkaed]

So when you say "don't get attached" you mean that your supposed to love her in such away that you won't suffer when she dies?

Please, enlighten me.

Although at best im only a disinterested observer of the religion, the philosophy seems to be more engaged with the impermenance concept than your practical issue. The idea seems to be that since nothing will continue on forever, to devote inordinate amounts of attention, and as a result potential for suffering, to a single object is off the middle path. Now can you love another person and follow this concept? I believe you probably could, and i would struggle to believe that anyone who does choose to do so is doing so without the sober realization that yes the person who they care for will eventually die, and there be no need to flee from this notion.

I actually think the religion can provide a neat practical way to love another person, since you have the oppertunity to really embrace the fullness of a person in this life, without the need to carry them on forever. And since you are in love with the person as is, and not in order to complete you in any fashion, since such would only bring suffering, you get to love someone for who they are and they can love you for what you are....

Kinda neat under the right light

[OnlyAmbrose]

So when you say "don't get attached" you mean that your supposed to love her in such away that you won't suffer when she dies?

Please, enlighten me.

Although at best im only a disinterested observer of the religion, the philosophy seems to be more engaged with the impermenance concept than your practical issue. The idea seems to be that since nothing will continue on forever, to devote inordinate amounts of attention, and as a result potential for suffering, to a single object is off the middle path. Now can you love another person and follow this concept? I believe you probably could, and i would struggle to believe that anyone who does choose to do so is doing so without the sober realization that yes the person who they care for will eventually die, and there be no need to flee from this notion.

I actually think the religion can provide a neat practical way to love another person, since you have the oppertunity to really embrace the fullness of a person in this life, without the need to carry them on forever. And since you are in love with the person as is, and not in order to complete you in any fashion, since such would only bring suffering, you get to love someone for who they are and they can love you for what you are....

Kinda neat under the right light

It's that kind of thinking (the Buddhists') that makes me think why on earth can't these people forget all the philosophizing and enjoy life?

Enlightenment, inner peace, whatever, who really cares? If enlightenment means not caring about anything just because it's finite, then I'd rather be unenlightened thankyouverymuch.

I get annoyed with extremes. Philosophy is no different. People who just toss thinking about it to the wind (and there's all too many of them here in SoCal- a lot of folks here don't care what happens as long as there's waves to surf and drugs to buy) bug the crap out of me, but likewise, people who think too much into it are almost equally bad. So many people can't just live, and likewise many other people can't live with a purpose.

[griffin_slayer]

CALEB! I told you not to post her. Leave.

1. I believe you mean 'here' not 'her'.
2. I'll post here, for now, because this keeps manicman from spamming my recruitment thread in the Callouts.
3. If you don't want me to post 'her', give up, because I'll post as long as I feel like it.

okay, I made a typo. And im suprised a christian like you would talk like that.

ohh, and one mare think.

STOP POSTING YOU F*CKHEAD. CC RELIGION DEBATES ARE THE DUMBEST THING EVER. EVERYONE ELSE ON THE LIST HAS STAYED AWAY, EVEN JAY. WHY CANT YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

we can't stay away we're doing what we were called to do, and please listen to caleb.

[griffin_slayer]

[quote=jay_A2j]1. dinosaurs: were pre-garden of Eden. They had become extinct before the creation of man.

here's a refference for ya job 41:13-21 :

13 Who can remove his outer coat?
Who can approach him with a double bridle?

14 Who can open the doors of his face,
With his terrible teeth all around?

15 His rows of scales are his pride,
Shut up tightly as with a seal;

16 One is so near another
That no air can come between them;

17 They are joined one to another,
They stick together and cannot be parted.

18 His sneezings flash forth light,
And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

19 Out of his mouth go burning lights;
Sparks of fire shoot out.

20 Smoke goes out of his nostrils,
As from a boiling pot and burning rushes.

21 His breath kindles coals,
And a flame goes out of his mouth.

how's that. it also reffers to dragons

[griffin_slayer]

You can call it what you want but keep in mind it is God's who ultimately decides what is just and what isn't since he is the one who must uphold it.

This is presumably the justification used by abortion doctor murderers, by Fred Phelps, and by all atrocities committed in the name of god, allah, whatever. I am of course not suggesting that anything other than a tiny minority of xians and muslims think like this, but the framework is there for them to do so - as is the unshakeable belief held by hindus, jews, muslims, christians, zoroastrians, shintoists, animists, scientologists etc that their religion is the one true faith. If you believe that, you can do whatever you want in its name. And that is dangerous, and one reason why I do have contempt for organised religion as a whole.

As far as spreading god's word to savages goes, i do not feel foolish in saying that i believe mankind did very well before the white man arrived with his smallpox and his homilies and his promises of paradise. As for the scholarly opinion - that these people will be judged on their conscience - well, it seems incredibly unfair, given that god is the supreme moral arbiter and we cannot know for sure what he wants. Could be slaughtering women and children one day, child sacrifice the next, turn the other cheek the next. So these poor ignorant savages discover, at death, that they are going to be judged according to a set of rules they had no idea existed and which may have absolutely no cultural bearing on how they lived as a people...

So yes, i do have aproblem with religion, with unproveable assertions of the supernatural and promises of rewards after death for sticking to some rulebook while you are alive. My country is heading towards a secular, humanist future, and the sooner the better as far as i am concerned.

that's just it there is no proof it's all based on faith and what you choose to believe. we realise we can't force you to beleive in god, but we can help you understand what we know. and those rules are impossible to keep which is why GOD sent JESUS to die on the cross for our sins. now do you know why we do the things we do?

[mbell82]

I realize I am coming late to this part of the discussion (back on Feb 1). I re-read these things from time to time.

“YES morality changes. Back in jesus' time it was OK to stone a woman to death for adultery. Jesus didnt; wade in and say 'dont; stone people, it's barbaric and wrong!' - instead he just pointed out their hypocrisy. I am glad morals change with time - we are becoming a more moral society, no thanks to the bible.”

Actually…that’s not true. And, I really get sick of people using this out of context and without referring to the original requirement. The original law says the MAN AND WOMAN should be stoned if they are caught in adultery. The particular instance you refer to said the woman had been caught IN THE ACT and was brought over to be stoned. The man was not brought. That is the way worldly religion works—which you rightly condemn. The hypocrisy was not in their wanting to stone the woman, it was in only living by part of the law. Jesus revealed their religious hypocrisy by upholding the law and not stoning the woman. (Please recall, too, that he did address her guilt.)

[mbell82]

WOW…I can’t believe I missed all of this stuff earlier…(quoted from 21 March 2007)…

Even if this were the case - if there was a giant flood - so what? Al teh shared stories prove is that a lot of people experienced it. And if they DID, than the biblical version is wrong, because no one excpet noah and his family survived it!

Sorry…that argument doesn’t quite follow. My college professors gave me a much better understanding of how oral histories get transmitted. Using the line of reasoning that cultural memory is begun verbally and eventually written down (something stated once or twice in this thread, as I recall), this could still be true.

The Bible (and other religions and their writings, I think, though I am not certain) says that there was a scattering of the people and a multiplication of languages. On an extreme leap, take that to mean there was a big family squabble and everyone went their own way. The event histories and memories carried by each dispersed group would essentially be the same. The event would then be carried by all culture groups in their religion/oral history/whatever. So, it is still possible for the flood to be real, and a shared cultural memory.

[griffin_slayer]

However, religion has provided a foundation for civilization for many centuries and will continue to do so till then end. To think you can explain away religion is folly.

Example:
The Mayan religion - bloodthirsty sun-worshipping. They didn't realise that the sun wasn't a whimsical god but a giant fusion reactor millions of miles away. You do know this (i hope), and would never believe in their gods. Yet it was a foundation for their civilisation. Xianity is no less bonkers, objectively speaking, and has doubtless been a foundation for western civilisation (lol @ Ghandi). Time to outgrow it now though.
Look at Jay's belief in the 'rapture'. It's saddening - nothing more than grasping at straws, as if instead of facing death and coming to terms with it you start believing that god is going to whisk you up to heaven any day now. It might provide comfort to these people, i suppose, but it's delusional and that cannot ultimately do anybody any good. Look at the fundagelical beliefs about Israel, the Palestinians and the 'end times'... nothing good can come of that nonsense. And yet religion provides all the framework these people need to further their bigotry and insane agendas.


And i think i can offer an explanation for religion. Originally it spread through group natural selection. Those tribes with a common religious purpose, that were ready and willing to work together and show courage in battle under their god, were better equipped to survive than others. Simple beginnings. The 'religious gene', for want of a better phrase, spread.

My comment is not aimed to say that any one religion would not be at some point dismantled but that religious beliefs will continue to be a major part of society and civilization.

Good point, I would agree with you about most religions. But the spread of Christianity was different than any other religion. It was fiercly opposed, hundreds of thousands were killed in it's infancy. Christianity has had some of the fiercest threats to it's existence, that man could throw at it.

exactly, do you think the apostles would've died for a lie? i mean all they had to do was admit that it was a lie. take peter for example, he thought himself unworthy to die the same death as JESUS he asked to be crucified up side down. that's devotion.

[griffin_slayer]

heavycola, stop reading selectivly.

This particular story follows the women of the Moab and Midian seducing Isrealite men so that God would be unhappy with them, and the Isrealites would have to fight without his protection. So God specifically told them kill the people groups that had planned and executed the seduction.

So: God won't be happy if the Israelites assimiliate, so god orders this slaughter. This is not, to me, a moral or just act. It is petty, murderous and juvenile. Yet Kokunai insists that it must have been just because god ordered it - and my point was that this line of reasoning could be used to justify anything. It is why i believe we are growing out of religion (i am an optimist). Yeah yeah, god is love, peace etc. Fine. That belief is there top be had also. But when Fred Phelps holds signs up saying 'god hates fags' at the funerals of US servicemen, he also believes as strongly that that is what god wants him to do based on his reading of scripture.

And are you really going to tell me that the OT god was a reasonable, honourable, just guy? Because that would be a laughable assertion.

it means that god had a reason for every thing that he did though we may not understand it.


no eye has seen
no ear has heard
no heart could fully know
how wondrous
how beutiful
you are

as in no one can understand the mind of GOD.