I'm not here for a fight, honestly. I am a Christian, but not a mainstream one, and certainly not a fundalmentalist.
I can't imagine not being a spiritual person I love my spiritual life and only regret that I don't put more into it than I do. I have to say, that I'm not too fond of most Christians in general. I feel they are bullies and use their (our) beliefs to feel superior and powerful. Which to me is in direct conflict with what spiritual beings should be. Believe me, I'm not where I'd like to be at all, but I do have a goal...
I would like to point something out though to non believers. Christianity is a religion with a Book and Words to guide them. They can't just change it to make it more palatable to non believers or to other denominations. It's what they believe. To them it is the Word of God. It is sacred. Believers are afraid that you are going to Hell if you do not believe in Christ. They were told by Christ through the Bible that they must love you enough to tell you. It's suppose to be about love and sharing. .But there are rules to religion set down by prophets and such, which can not be changed to make it more politically correct. It is not about tolerance, but it is not about attacking anyone either.
I don't blame non Christians for running from most Christians. That horrible group who protest our Heros' funerals is an example of why people have begun to dispise what was suppose to be a religion based on the Greatest Love. And because a group of people use what was suppose to be the greatest example of Love as a weapon, and as a means to feel superior, it is now one of the most hated of religions.
. True Chrisianity should shine through the person. A light and a beacon. Each Christian should radiate love and therfore lead people to Christ instead of chasing them with brimstone. It's been twisted and used as a weapon, which I never believe it was intended to do.
Now having said all that, I believe in evolution, physics, and the possibility of life in other gallaxies...I believe in dinasaurs(I know people who don't), cave men, and ghosts...LOL...I told you I wasn't main stream.
the mainstream is broad though the gate in the dam so small.
really just wanted to say Howdy
I can't agree with you about what the Bible teaches.
Two things. First, I don't hate Christians. I really don't. It's just that there is such a seemingly large group of Christians out there who think science is out to get them, who think that allowing people they don't approve of to get married somehow threatens their marriage, who think that teaching children evolution in school is a threat to their religious freedom, who think that the wall of separation between Church and State.
Second, I have tried, but I can't figure out how a religion that professes love and tolerance uses as it's inspiration and the place where all of it's ideals come from a book which is full of intolerance, ethnic cleansing, discrimination, rape, torture, death and has been used as the justification for more human atrocities than any other book in history. The only explanation that makes any sense is that hardly any Christian ever really reads the Bible.
I do not believe that the Bible teaches love and tolerance, even the New Testament. I don't believe that being a fundamentalist is corrupting the religion. Christianity changes to suit the times. It fights this change tooth and nail. It was late in accepting equality for blacks, for women. It is late in accepting homosexuality, but it is.
I respect the fundamental literalists more sometimes than more tolerant Christians. They may be almost everything I despise about religion, but they are uncompromising and abide by the Bible more faithfully than most. However, I much prefer to be around the more tolerant ones, seeing as how I'm an Atheist.
LOL...I understand. I sometimes wish I could be fundamental...I honestly do. But I can't. I read! I know that evolution is real...to me, it's crazy to deny that...I just have no problem believing that God used physics to put this world together...I look at him as larger than the old man with a white beard on a throne...He's not human...He's nothing we can understand... He's a force...
About the Bible and love and tolerance, you're right, to a degree....Now look I'm no Bible scholar, so no shooting me over some of this...a lot of what I know is what I've been taught all my life...and a lot is from trying to read it...and from reading scholars, which I tend not to understand...LOL...But I do know that I read the sermon on the Mount...and that's where I get the "love" part...I read the stories of what Jesus did...that's love too....Now..the rest of the Bible? Scares the hell of of me if I can use a pun...You're right...it's a harsh book. But remember how old it is, and the people it was written by, and the world they lived in...They weren't too civilized yet...
I have a problem too with judgemental Christians regarding gay couples...I believe in decency..I just don't think decency and gay love is mutually exclusive... I have a close friend who is gay and has been in a long term relationship...he's one of the most decent Christian guys I know. Things like that are what God told us to quit judging....It's not for us to judge...follow your own heart ...To me, being cruel and judgemental is a WHOLE lot worse than homosexuality...I KNOW that is a sin....I'm not sure about homosexuality..
if by civilized , you mean lacking in true spiritual sense. I can agree, it is a pity there is no exams about knowing the bible as anyone can call themselves "Christian" and who in this world can argue?
I have an aunt who seems into whitchcraft, one of her best friends is a retired vicar, a man of the cloth who seems to worship the church though rather than the God it is supposed to represent -but hasn't for a long time!!!
Actually, there ARE exams that test your Bible knowledge. You are just not required to take them just to join a church. Sometimes, I wish that WAS the case. SO many people misinterpret the Bible... enthusiastically, and with sometimes tragic results.
1 - Science isn't out to get me, so you can scratch that off the list under my name. I love science with a passion.
2 - Marriage is a religious institution and action. The secular world doesn't even consider fornication wrong so what is the need to be "married"? Wouldn't a civil union for legal rights serve it better? And I personally don't care what they do as I don't balance the cosmos, God does. Although that sounds harsh I mean it kindly and sincerely.
3 - Teaching darwinism in schools is not a threat to religous freedom itself but to the fabric of honesty in science. Though I will state my stance here briefly, the full elaboration isn't appropriate in this context so we'll save it for another heading. There are no full transitionary findings for any species. Breeders for over the past five hundred years have proven there are definitive limits which will revert the species to original or simply go no further in the direction of change(Ernst Mayr - genetic homeostasis). The geologic column is a collection of speculatory imaginative writings that pick random numbers for the layers' age even when contridictions are found. Dinosaurs have been found less decayed than the corpses meant to be preserved by the egyptians meaning the billions idea is a child's tale. Natural selection moves in a loss of information and results in less information rather than any gains whatsoever. Just to touch on the idea.
4 - The human attrocities are just that, "human" attrocities so I don't see your connection with them "claiming" God told them to kill for Jesus. As for Old Testament, the world was a war state created of it's own accord before God ever began killing off people who thought sacrificing children was ok. But none of us know the nitty gritty details so I'm unsure why people bring it up as if it justifies any belief or lack of belief. People kill people, and people can do no more. God may kill a person, and take them to a place He made before He made the earth so I guess He's evil for changing their location? lol We have no clue where those people are, they could be in Hell, Heaven, on another adventure in time... He knows all their thoughts and can send them all specifically one by one based on their choices. We don't know much of anything beyond face value, and anyone with wits about him knows face value isn't worth spitting at.
5 - The Bible doesn't teach tolerance. It teaches love, patience, mercy, and forgiveness. The Bible never said that God tolerates anything, but rather said He is patient, loving, merciful, and forgiving to those who will listen to instruction, seek to do good, and ask forgiveness for doing things that are evil or destructive. It also says God is just, so why anyone assumes He is suppose to be tolerant escapes me completely. People who refuse not to destroy, kill, steal, inflict pain.. they intend to keep doing these things and God will not let pain continue but so far. That is what the Bible says happens is "unrepentant" people are punished because they refuse to care that they are doing harm to others and will continue.
6 - What need is there for a Christian to be tolerant? If you are doing things I'm not allowed by serving God (my choice) and they influence me, I may choose to be around those who agree but it doesn't mean I'm here to judge you for what you are doing. All I'm told to do, is to tell you what God has done for me, and shown me, and what I know in my heart, mind, and soul as a man like every other man under God ( yes I know you don't believe ). I'm not going to chase you around, but I'm not going to hide who I am or what I believe and know in my mind. That would make me a coward now wouldn't it. That doesn't mean that because you see things another way I'm somehow an enemy of you... I'm just a man, and so is every other man on the globe.
7 - Classifying everyone literalist or who knows what else might be pushing the bill I think. There are literal writings, and symbolic ones (which have literal meanings obviously) but if someone says the entirety of the text in the Bible is written one way or the other or it "depends on you" then they have failed to accept reality. If a man jumps off a 7 story building, whether to him in his mind the concrete is real does not matter.. The truth is going to hit him as hard as concrete. The truth is there is concrete and gravity and the combination of the two with a man and distance equals death no matter what "his interpretation" is. There is only ONE truth and reality, and that is that death is non-negotiable for a man that takes such an action.
Not sure how many conclusions you have that are based on humanity, but considering their record I've personally never been a fan of following the majority or large actions on the part of humanity period. They seem to play dice quite a lot and fool themselves in the act.
#2 - Marriage has traditionally been a secular institution. It has only recently (historically speaking) become a religious "thing" I don't think religion has any particular claim on it. That being said, the only reason you need to get married is because of the legal benefits you can get from it, and once you do that, it is most decidedly a SECULAR institution, not religious. The church (any church) has no right to make any rules of exclusion concerning marriage. The ritual of marriage might be a religious construction, but since you can get married just by obtaining a license, that point is fairly moot.
#4 - Humans are always killing "In the name of God" or they are using the Bible to get other people to kill or to justify their own killing. If you look at the Bible the same way many people who ban books for being to violent look at those books, there would be no Bibles in libraries anywhere. By that yardstick, it is the single most dangerous publication in the world.
#5 - The Bible doesn't teach tolerance. It teaches forgiveness (as long as you are truly sorry for what you do) It doesn't teach love. It teaches fidelity. Big difference, and it most decidedly does not teach mercy. God and Jesus are vengeful and very cruel when it comes to dealing with their enemies. I don't see any mercy in it except for those who decide to convert. Mercy only to those who capitulate is not true mercy.
Generally speaking, I don't give religion a second thought in my normal day. It's like seeing an empty box when more than 40% of the rest of the world see's a rabbit inside the box. I'm happy they're happy they can see what I think is an imaginary rabbit. I only get upset when the bother me and say "You must see the rabbit. It's so obvious, and I can prove it scientifically." I tolerate these people until they demonstrate that they really have no idea what science really is, then I begin ignoring them. It's only when they don't let me ignore them (eg prayer in school, creationism taught in school, trying to destroy the Separation Clause, etc) that I start to fight back, and justifiably so. I should be allowed to worship (or not) as I see fit. When they threaten that, then I get my back up.
Well no need for the formalities. Vector will do fine.
Since my time is closing for today, we'll try to keep it short and elaborate later hopefully. I also see some filler food in there I think, but we'll get to it later in depth, lol.
As for now:
For 2 - You are making claims without substantial backing, self-admittedly. "I don't think..."
For 4 - You are basing your conclusions on selfish actions of people? The records in the Bible are nothing in comparison to the things I've glanced at walking by the television. The world is full of war at this very instant and God clearing people out for murdering their own children is judged by us? There isn't even enough information recorded to make a fair judgement, let alone base our eternal destiny and finalize our conclusion on such things. Pardon, but I see see your words pertaining to this issue a little biased. (Just being honest)
For 5 - Please note I've already stated it does NOT teach tolerance but justice, which you seem to be alluding to as vengence. And If Jesus Christ is God then the "conversion" idea isn't reality as there is only one God and one Law (Matthew 22:37-40). This means that if you aren't giving credit where it's due, or loving your neighbor as yourself you're rebellious and causing pain in some way or another. To "convert" from that would be to stop causing pain and destruction.
To forgive a debt such as a murder to a man who in his heart feels he wishes he had never done such a deed to to gain a new man from an old destructive one in God's eyes. A man that does not wish to cause harm when at one time he (being a free-will being) wished to do so. And fidelity is not opposite of love. Unsure where you got such notion. A man who loves a friend and will die in his friends place is loyal and loving. Jesus Christ paid the fine in the spiritual world that would have been so high a price that the very soul of the person would be required. (money is worthless in spirit, only assets and actions will do for payment) To top all this off, you're simplifying a very complex subject and you can't put four 2 inch buttons on a 3 inch panel no matter how bad you want to fit it in your pocket and carry it around.
For the rest, you seem threatened by the very presence of a person who believes in something you don't. You are also putting descriptions of the worst of the worst in your writing and that seems somewhat over the top.
If you tolerate to a "point" and then no more then there isn't much "tolerance" is there? lol
No one can prove God is real to anyone be it by science or otherwise. Only God is able to answer a man on whther He is there or not and I know this from experience. I despise heresay
Regarding 2: It has only been since the about the 13th century that the Church had any say in marriage in the western world. Before that it was either a business arrangement or a personal matter. That's more than a thousand years without being a religious institution. This is a documented matter of history, not my own opinion. Crack any textbook on the history of marriage and you'll find the same information. The Church claiming ownership of marriage is questionable at best.
"And If Jesus Christ is God then the "conversion" idea isn't reality as there is only one God and one Law (Matthew 22:37-40)" Those are the things that keep me away from religion. I do not wish to have an argument about whether I should believe or not. I don't, and I reject Gods law. Taking my punishment from the Bible... from God's example, I should be killed along with my family (including my children) I'm not saying that's what you believe, or even the majority of Christians. I'm saying that a LOT of people have used the Bible to justify that sort of behavior. Statistically, that makes the Bible an extremely dangerous book by the standards of those who used to burn books and who today seek to keep some books off the shelves of our libraries. I bring that up as an ironic lesson. Of course it's ridiculous, and by extension, so is the idea that the Bible is the Inviolate Word of God. It was even edited by the Pope before being bound into the first "BIBLE" It's a book, nothing more and nothing less. Dangerous? possibly, but then all ideas are dangerous. Insightful? Probably. The Word of God? Even if God does exist, I question the Bible. Better he come and explain himself in person.
As for converting me: If God wants me to follow his law, then it's up to him to convince me he's right, not just say "Do this" Otherwise, I either do what he says out of fear or the hope of reward, or I say 'no'
I am not threatened by the presence of those who believe. I actually enjoy their company for the most part. Like I said, I only feel threatened when religion gets politicized, when people start saying things like "to protect our religious freedoms, we have to stop non-religious ideas in our schools" or demand I agree with them or when religious people try to convince me they're right by using science (usually more amusing than threatening).
"Those are the things that keep me away from religion. I do not wish to have an argument about whether I should believe or not."
Then what in the world have you been doing all this time and why you think I should read any further when such a subject is nullified by your stark bias is beyond me. Respectfully, these are notions that are to be presented at the beginning of things as your actions (your many posts) declare otherwise (or to be plain, opposite of your statement quoted above).
I find such a presence of a person with his heels dug into the dirt of the earth a bitter one when he is in a place where the conversation is obviously in contrast to what he claims he wishes. I think in such a case it would be best not to waste people's time.
It's not so much your stance that bothers me, but that you come here and declare it to all and then say you are not here to argue. An argument is your point of view, and you have bodly proclaimed yours so I think I'm done here seeing as confusion lay scattered about me.
If you are out to make friends and just talk without hearing others' point of view, well I hate to break it to ya... You're in the wrong place friend.
I also wanted to note for the record you bring a lot of things up "people" have done and yet they have nothing to do with me. The strawman argument is useless to me whether it is legit in your mind or not.
Not to offend you in this either to mention, but I'm a very honest person and as is I see no point in discussing anything with you because you made it clear you weren't here for discussion. I don't know what you're here for. And you are right, God is the only one able to show you the truth. But with the earplugs you've got shoved into your cranium friend, I doubt He's going to shout to get through to tell you anything.
In other words, God works how He works.. it's not His reponsiblity to prove anything to you. If you stand before Him, you aren't going to be asking anything. You'll be speechless and unable to move. lol
God bless swordsbane.
PDS, you have posted on a religious thread, please gather your coat, and leave by the front entrance. You have violated ..........?
Irrelevant, please leave by the front entrance.
You are an exceedingly very nice person, Hollie Thomas.
Ahhh, for the response below, not above. But still, gather your belongings....
vector: Seriously? Did you even read my comments? I said "I do not wish to have an argument about whether I should believe or not." I did NOT say: "I'm not here for discussion"? I said nothing even remotely like it.
I don't want to ARGUE about whether I should believe in God or not because I don't really care whether God exists or not. I want to have discuss the friction between science and religion. That's what I've been doing. I thought that was what you were doing. Now I don't know what you've been doing.
I never attacked your beliefs and in fact went out of my way to explain that I was NOT necessarily talking about you, or even a majority of Christians. I was explaining about what I disliked about some Christians and what makes me confront them about their behavior.
Taking offense at things I haven't done is weird. Please stop it.
First of all, it's called evolution, not darwinism and secondly, you just contradicted yourself by saying you love science with a passion and then dismiss it in the next sentence.
What need is there to show Christianity tolerance, then?
Actually, it's the other way round, you are seeing things that are not of reality and deny/reject that which is.
You are fallaciously comparing gravity to the Bible, but only one of them has been shown to be the truth of reality.
TM: I was trying to avoid bringing up the Evolution thing.
vector: I'm sorry, but you do not understand science (at least as it relates to Evolution) Decades of research into Evolution contradicts what breeders think (by non-scientific reasoning I might add) Breeders breed for traits. Dominant genes will reassert themselves without continual enforcement of recessive genes (ie, when a breeder selects for a certain trait, that trait is not environmentally based so it is not reinforced) Breeders put two animals together that have the traits they want and then hope. Nature selects for animals better suited to specific environments (ie winter coats in cold regions will be reinforced, winter coats in tropical regions will not) Nature selects for environment. Humans select for fashion. Nature usually wins.
And don't forget that Nature has millions of years to do it's selecting. Breeders have only been around as long as man has domesticated animals. Give human-controlled breeding the same time frame as evolution and I bet we could do it faster.
Anyhow, a virus that begins only able to infect animals then becomes able to infect humans would be impossible without the principles of Evolution being true, and our efforts to find cures for those viruses would also be impossible. Much of modern medical science is based on the principles of Evolution. We would not have many of those advancements if Evolution was wrong.
And before you respond, understand that species is a human construct. Nature does not divide life forms by species. There are simply those creatures who have more traits in common than other creatures. Nature has no dividing line that says "This is one species" and "this is another" Humans created those labels so that categorization and study would be easier, so there is no difference between variation within a species and evolution from one species to another except the time frame.
For one thing the reply button you clicked here isn't in response to any post of mine. Just for the record, such a action looks like a dodge response in a wish and hope the person leaves it alone. Not that it was your intention, but the good people reading might think it with such odd actions.
For the second thing, you have less of a clue what I know about darwinism than a flea does of the existence of neptune so please spare the act and show some respect and humility in knowing you and I are both human yes? No one here reads minds and you haven't read much of anything regarding my knowledge on the subject.
I think me and you should just agree in disagreement, as you seem a little bitter and to top it off the door for anything beyond your faith in darwinism is closed.
You can keep posting with my name if you like though. But I'm pretty well known around here as it is, so the publicity really doesn't matter. lol
I was replying to both you and TM: as you would have noticed if you actually read my post.....
and as he said: It's Evolution. Not Darwinism. Darwinism is not a recognized scientific theory. It was a made term up by Creationists a while ago and has nothing to do with science. I was talking about Evolution attacked by religious people, and don't know and don't care what "Darwinism" says.
Also, I never said anything about what you knew, except where you demonstrated ignorance about the claims of Evolution.
Oh I noticed Mr bane... But what you don't know is I was trying to tell you kindly I won't be responding to randomly placed responses. Since nice wouldn't work though.. lol
And the bitterness flows more freely. Look, this is why me and you won't be discussing anything
" Definition of Darwinism (n) bing.com · Bing Dictionary
1. support for Darwin's theory: belief in or advocacy of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution "
Now, since that covers the subject for me I'll leave my opinion out of it. Anyone reading may also search numerous places across the globe and find the same conclusion.
Good day Mr swordsbane. I wish you the very best.
So you noticed, then chose to ignore it. Very mature.
And just so you know.... failing to address my points and then trying to get out of the discussion is your right, but it has no effect on whether you are right or not. It just makes you look silly.
Once again: Darwinism is not a recognized scientific Theory. Everything in Darwinism has been subsumed under Evolution, and the old term isn't used anymore. The most current use of the word "Darwinism" is by Creationists who don't know what Evolution really is, and it usually carries with it ideas that Darwin never expressed in the first place (eg It says nothing about dinosaurs) which is why it means nothing to me
Please try not to insult my intelligence again by using Bing as a substitute for real scientific terminology. That's like using Wikipedia in place of a real encyclopedia.
Ok...let's go there:
Did you actually read the entry on Darwinism?
Darwinism: theory of the evolutionary mechanism propounded by Charles Darwin as an explanation of organic change. It denotes Darwin’s specific view that evolution is driven mainly by natural selection.
Evolution: evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory.
I earlier claimed that Darwinism isn't used anymore except in an historical context or by people who are really referring to Evolution, but don't really understand the difference (apparently such as yourself) but that is not entirely correct. Darwinism IS still referred to commonly when specifically speaking about natural selection, because that is mainly the subject of Darwin's research.
Simplified: Darwinism is variation of species, which you said you didn't believe in:
"Teaching darwinism in schools is not a threat to religous freedom itself but to the fabric of honesty in science. "
A "threat to the fabric of honesty in science" ....and yet you also said that you did believe in variation in species but that you didn't believe in species evolving into other species. Variation of species is the central subject of Darwin's theory. He speculated that species might evolve into entirely new species, but that wasn't the focus of his research.
"There are no full transitionary findings for any species. Breeders for over the past five hundred years have proven there are definitive limits which will revert the species to original or simply go no further in the direction of change (Ernst Mayr - genetic homeostasis)."
Leaving aside the fact that I disagree that no transitory findings have been found (a point you have failed to address along with others), that says that limited variation is possible but one species turning into another is not.....The first is Darwinism which you claimed was wrong. The second it is Evolution, which you haven't yet even acknowledge exists, or if you do, you keep calling it Darwinism, which is also wrong, by the source YOU brought up.
I'm sorry, but not only are you wrong about Darwinism, you confused it with Evolution. I know you think me amusing and dreadfully wrong, but you also claim I am not interested in discussion. I am. On the other hand, you seem to want to go off on useless tangents instead of addressing my points. If you're going to finally address the points you previously ignored when you accused me of things I didn't do, this would be the time to do it.
By the way you are writing things it's clear you are upset. You say a lot of things that seem redundant to me.
I haven't the time for this, and though I've said goodbye twice, on another day I will possibly start a thread specifically for this matter.
Please note as well, I'm not upset, offended, bothered, or trying to be ugly in any way, but under no circumstances take my words or actions seriously. I will not throw my joy to the side due to grumpiness on anothers part, even if the claim is I caused it.
I'm very understanding and I may have said some things in a fashion easily misunderstood, but we also have some distinct disagreements.
But - these will have to be resolved on another thread at another time. I have no time to get into nitty gritty details at the moment, nor do I have the desire as my day has been quite long.
I hope you will relax and see me as less of a threat and more of a man just poking fun while making points. I've been engulfed in more things than just one and this exercise of discussion is not the top priority on the multi-tasking list.
Until I start the thread, I wish you the best and I hope we can meet on level ground very soon regardless of our views.
First of all, Evolution is a wrong and outdated theory. Secondly, science can not tell that G_d doesn't exist. You have enough ground.
ATN: Evolution is accepted by most scientists and is certainly not "outdated" as there have been no other scientific theories published to replace it. Also I'm not sure why you said that science can't prove that God doesn't exist, since no one has said that it can.
I'd like to hear more about why you think Evolution is wrong, though.
Micro evolution happens. Not macro evolution. It's that simple. Besides that, if you want to believe in science fiction, then well and good.
G_d doesn't exist. But we can not say that G_d can not exist (but you must also define first what you mean by G_d).
ATN: As I said in an earlier post, there is no difference between variation within a species and evolution of one species to another. The label: "Species" is a human term. Nature has no dividing line. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are no different. They are used by people without a good grasp of the fundamentals of Evolution to describe a difference that doesn't exist.
You can believe that Evolution is wrong. I have no problem with that, but if you want to provide scientific evidence for your position, you can't because there isn't any. As I said, there has been no alternate theory published to replace Evolution. It fits our observations. You can challenge it on grounds of faith. Knock yourself out, and I won't say anything against it. However, if you want to challenge it scientifically, you need to play by the rules of science. You aren't.
There is no scientific theory (or challenge to a scientific theory) that includes only one sentence and the words "It's that simple"
Well no one ever proved macro evolution, just the way no one proved a massive cosmic expansion (Big Bang). These are hypothetical models. And these are pretty irrational models as well.
" there is no difference between variation within a species and evolution of one species to another. The label: "Species" is a human term. Nature has no dividing line."
Well, if you follow that line of thinking, then things get easier. If a person's skin gets darker because of sunlight, does that make him the member of a non-human species? If you believe that, then macro evolution does happen.
A Troubled Nurse: You need to understand what a "Theory" is in science. It is an idea that has gained support through observation and experimentation AND has withstood dozens, sometimes hundreds of other scientists who would like nothing better than to prove it wrong. It does this on a more or less constant basis from the time the theory is first published and NEVER ends.
Evolution (including what you call "macro evolution") has withstood this assault since even before Darwin's time. The Big Bang has withstood it for several decades. Both are "Theories", not "hypothetical models" and continue to stand against this process.
As I said before, you don't have to believe in them, but you cannot say that they are not scientifically accepted theories. That is flat wrong. They have gone far beyond hypothetical models.
I understand that. You have belief in Evolution and in Big Bang. Be happy.
I am happy. Thank you very much
But I have no belief in Evolution or the Big Bang. In fact, I would much rather the Big Bang wasn't true. However, no amount of wishing on my part will change the fact that the Big Bang has the support of the general scientific community. That support is not an opinion. It is a fact. Same with Evolution.
Impressive explanation, indeed.
"Why is a theory true? Because the scientific community says so!"
You misunderstand what science is. It is the best explanation for what we see going on in the universe. Things that reach the status of "Theories" are pretty much true...... until they're not.
Don't misunderstand that for being unsure. As I said, an idea has to go through a lot before it becomes a Theory. If you want to say Evolution is wrong, then you have to find something that fits the observations we know BETTER than Evolution does. To date, that hasn't been done.
As a scientist you need to look at the OT as a compilation of history, poetry, moral lessons etc. In other words if there are reports of atrocities the book is not telling you to go out and commit more! There is some historical reporting in the OT. Even some christians make the same study mistake as you and,say, start sleeping with their daughters "cuz that's what happened in the bible once with Lot and his daughters "! Duh??
A good point, the OT is supposed to be there for people to learn from mistakes. As far as Lot though; his daughters slept with him as they wanted babies or something. And your quote from the immoral incest rapist shows that evil tries to infiltrate and use the bible/s for it's own means! Great example!
Odd you think you can claim to be a Christian - then reject everything the bible says and attack all the other Christians as not being true Christians.
The bible is clear - unbelievers get to go to the lake of fire. This is not a loving god's actions. Nor is it "twisting," anything.
Why do you need to lie about Christianity and what your book says?
Not quite sure why you are being so hostile towards me...You don't have to agree with anything...there are as many opinions on this as there are ...well...there are a lot of opinions...Until we die and either face the consequences from all being wrong...or never waking up again...it's still in the future for both of us.
Is justice also a non-loving action? Or would you scream freedom for the unrepentent (I'll do it again if you let me) murderer?
I like what you have to say. My own spirituality is based on what I feel is the presence of Christ in my life, and this only enhances the beauty and wonder - and mysteries - of the physical world. You could say that evolution and the Kingdom of Heaven are both a work in progress together leading perhaps to a more peaceable world.
And, Mark...Not all branches of Christianity believe the same thing...If we all agreed, there wouldn't be so many denominations.
Ah - sorry. Didn't recognize your new persona. This one is to wind up the Xtians huh?
Mark..why did you feel the need to post here? If it wasn't something you cared for...why make a nasty presence? Does it make YOU feel superior? Maybe you are..so you "get off" being nasty to people you consider less than you? Doesn't that make you a school yard bully? Would you like to see me cry, Mark? You don't even know me...Chances are you would like me in person...would you bloody my nose in person, Mark?
He's calling you a troll Ladymudd. You'll have to ignore Mark. He is a troll himself, albeit a good one I'll admit.
He got your goat there killa. Don't mind his poking. He'll squeeze the patience right out of you like a 4 year old with a car horn if you let him.
Vector, I am brand new to hub pages but keep running across Mark, his snipes and rants. Your analogy is a good one. Trolls need love too I guess, (they certainly want attention).
Yeah, ol' Mark is trip. He's like my best buddy on here. You should check out the Hub he done specifally for me in my youthful days when I posted something including my beliefs he didn't like! lolol
I hope he still has it up, at first I didn't like it - but now... now that I know Mark better it makes me feel much more special.
Just remember to watch out for his snares and pit falls and you'll have fun around him.
Is this what these Hubpages is about? Are you accusing me of being someone you know? Did you post that little remark to cause people to wonder? My name is Ginger Orick Barritt. Anyone may look me up on the internet. I am not afraid or ashamed of what I believe or don't believe. Yes...I'm sure you got what you came here for, Mark. Yes you "got" me. But you don't "get" me. You obviously hate Christians...ALL Christians no matter what. I am a questioner by nature...I question everything. I pray, Mark...for understanding the mysteries I see in life. If that makes me laughable to you, then I can't stop you. What I don't understand is why? Why you came to a post that has nothing to do with you. I'm not trying to attack the "xtians". I have no interest in it. I was simply stating that Christians come in all packages, and most aren't pretty. You think YOU are allowed to bash us all, but we can't question each other? Or our own beliefs? You have NOTHING to look forward to...I have everything. Being Christian is to believe that Jesus Christ lived, breathed and died and is alive again. I believe in the afterlife...you don't. So don't tell me I'm "claiming" to be a Christian just because you in your ignorance don't know ANYTHING about us except what you've chosen to believe. I'd hate to be hollow inside...I'm not...I feel WONDERFUL inside...but I am still human...and you have pissed me off...happy?
How is it possible to have so many denominations of a religion based entirely on one book? And, how is it possible that the "Word of God" is not agreed upon by all Christians?
Is it because that Christianity, like many other religions, is something people have been indoctrinated to believe as opposed to what they are supposed to believe?
Is it because that Christianity, like many other religions, is something people have been indoctrinated to believe as opposed to what they are supposed to believe?
How is it possible to have so many denominations of a religion based entirely on one book?
= - = - =
That is because the original "Formal" religion had just a few major flaws in it.
And for the next 1000 years this religion interpreted scripture for it's own profit and abused its powers in a multitude of ways.
Then in the 14th century after the bubonic plague kills 1/3 to 2/3 s of the population in Europe and Asia; Martin Luther and others addressed many of the most obvious faults being perpetrated by the church leaders. Lutherans and Protestant broke away from the church making certain changes in doctrine in an effort to correct the before mentioned flaws. However the original flaws were not addressed. The original crack in the original foundation remains.
Just because this organization while professing that it was Gods representative on earth does a poor job of representing God, This is NOT proof that the God does not exist which they say they are representing. It seems that everyone thinks that all of the other denominations aren't doing it right and they want to fix it. However, that is an impossible task as long as the crack remains in the foundation.
It may sound like a joke but is not funny at all.lol
Why? I guess you just demonstrated why.
Scratch the surface and there it is.
Ditto...You came in my house and crapped on the floor.
Ladymudd: Don't take it personally. There are those who have made up their minds about things and nothing you say will make a difference there.
Intolerance is not merely people who hate others. It's people who are inflexible and can't accept change.
I think it's healthy and progressive for Christianity to change to fit current morality, and I don't believe that the Bible was intended to be the unchanging and set in stone Word of God. I think that it is a collection of moralistic stories told by and to people who lived 2,000 years ago. I just think that the Christian world should own up to and embrace that basic truth. It doesn't invalidate their religion to do so.
It is both hipocritical and pretty stupid to accept current Christian morals, yet claim that the Bible is the unchanging Word of God. It is a logical paradox. You can't have both be true.
Which was suppose to be my ineptly made point. I really don't usually take things personally in forums, I'm a veteran of viscious forums on another site I inhabit, Redbubble.com. But he got to me because it was out of left field and so smug....and didn't make sense to me.
....and thank you...I hate to leave this place...but I just don't think it's gonna work with my personality...I'd love for you to find me on FB Swordsbane. Thanks a lot...
Very good point, can we then assume that Christianity does not teach morals and that morals evolved along with humans?
Of course Christianity teaches morals. So does Evolution, so does Judaism and Islam. So does Norse, Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian and Native American Mythology.
Morals come from humans sitting around thinking about how to cooperate better, and so does religion.
Seems more as if religions command their followers to do or not to do certain things without explanation as opposed to teaching them anything.
Oh they do, but they call it morality. The difference is in the process used to turn an idea into a moral. Outside of religion, whatever turns out to work is used. Inside religion, what controls makes the population more tractable is what is used. Religious organizations don't have any power if their followers aren't frightened of not obeying. The Bible provides the framework and the priests hang the meat on it. The meat is just what smells good at the time.
Power? Apologies, but I'm reading something else I guess. Jesus tells me to do good to everyone and share and be fair and make sure every man and woman is taken care of and loved and fed.. and umm... Yeah, not seeing your controlling the masses notion here.
If you're talking about Hell, well that's not to scare you. It's the spiritual equivalent of prison. We have a need for prisons yes? And looking at the numbers I'd say fear isn't much of a factor in directing people's actions maybe?
If God is real, and He made certain laws to maintain purity (happiness and no pain for everyone) and then said those who have commited crimes can be forgiven if they'll stop being destructive would that be evil to send the ones who refuse to stop inflicting pain to prison?
If in the spiritual world every action doesn't end with the execution of the action but creates a positive or negative effect that continues into eternity and is only resolved by the consistent filling of the created hole.. if a person creates the hole who should fill it for eternity? If God will forgive and fill the void then what a gift. If the person that created the hole refuses to accept God's help in fixing this problem that he isn't capable of fixing himself, God is evil for making the individual sustain whatever burden he is able to fill of what he removed eternally while in prison? God didn't dig all the holes yet offers to fill them, and the people who refuse to let Him help fill their holes say He is evil for making them fill their own hole while they are seperated because they also refuse to stop digging them?
Yes, I am speaking on a different perspective. If God is real then such perspective exists whether I be correct or if it is more complex and vastly different than the example.
Considering physics, quantum mechanics, and electromagnetic force... if one removes himself and views the cosmos from a neutral perspective our world is much more bazaar than the things most people reject as is.
People are simplistic in their conclusions compared to the reality of the matter regardless what their conclusions may be. They may have hit a couple nails by accident.. but lets face it, we are all insanely simple compared to the universe or compared to the things we know must exist beyond our capability of seeing and observing.
vector7: I speak of religious organizations, not the religion itself. They have proven to be drastically different. I find Catholics, for example to be far less sinister than the Catholic church. I dislike the people who, in my opinion are USING the faith of others, manipulating it for their own ends. I try not to get involved in debating the relative merits of the religions themselves. It is easy to see what the Bible says and too many have justified seriously messed up things with it.
When people start to bring up science in the context of religion, however.... That is something that I am very familiar with. The difference between science and religion is a small word with very wide-ranging implications: faith. Anyone who says different is selling something. You can say that science and religion are after the same thing: truth, but the simple fact of the matter is that scientific discoveries often contradict religious conclusions. Science can be demonstrated. Religion can't. I don't mean that as a slam against religion. Against the most important of religious principles; the existence of God, science has nothing to say pro or con and probably never will. Science is observation. God cannot be disproven, but on the other hand neither can observation. Once it was discovered that the Earth did indeed orbit the Sun, there was no way to make the observable data say that the Sun orbited the Earth anymore, no matter how much religious people would have liked it to.
With regard to Hell (and this is a personal observation only) I only have trouble with two things: that Hell is supposed to be an eternal sentence, and the crimes that land you there. I've heard Christians that think the Three-Strikes law in California is harsh.... but that's got nothing on Gods laws. Given what I've read in the Bible, and what various Christians have told me, if God (Jesus) really does exist.... he's kind of an asshole.
So, because people don't accept your beliefs, they are to be placed in prisons? They are criminals according to you?
Should people be free to spread immorality?
A Troubled Nurse: "Should people be free to spread immorality?"
Yes, because if you can demonstrate that something is immoral, you can convince people to stop doing it. If you can't, then no amount of threatening can or should stop them. If you're talking to people who don't believe in your God, then you have to use something other than "God doesn't like it" to get people to stop. Many religious morals are accepted in the secular world (eg murder is wrong, theft is wrong, etc) because it can be demonstrated WHY they are a detriment to society and to individuals. If your only argument is that God doesn't like it, how is that supposed to convince someone like me; who doesn't believe God exists? And if you can't convince me, what gives you the right to force me?
Interesting comment. How does Evolution teach morals? Through "Survival of the fittest?"
Survival of the fittest is a misconception. It is "survival of the ones that fit their environment better"
As to how Evolution teaches morals is a simple progression of civilization. People learn that being in groups is better for their quality of life and better for their survival. At some point they realized that rules dealing with people interacting with other people helped everyone stay on the same page and gave them an edge over those who didn't have those rules. Gradually, it is becoming understood that a balance of individual freedom and loyalty to the community makes the society prosper, and tyranny and dictatorships aren't as prosperous and the people are generally unhappier. Freedom becomes a moral and tyranny becomes a sin. We don't always use those labels, but the thought process is the same. religion often tries to take credit for some morals, but if you dig deep enough, you find that the moral existed before the religion. Incorporating it into religion, though, compelled people to adhere to the moral who may not have otherwise.
Just another Christian, saying "Not MEEEE, I'm not one othe THOSE Christians."
I'm NOT one of THOSE Christians...and proud of it. How could anyone defend those Christians protesting at soldiers funerals. How can anyone justify the cruelty...Christ walked with the lowest and loved them dearly. He taught them and showed them love. I do not see that in most modern Christians.. You don't have to agree with someones life...you don't have to associate with it. But inciting hate is not what Christ would do. He took away the rock throwing. God gave us free will and then he gave us a way back to Him...God said judgement was HIS business. Quit being so proud...I believe God said he didn't like that...
Sorry but umm.
"I'm NOT one of THOSE Christians...and proud of it."
"Quit being so proud...I believe God said he didn't like that..."
Just struck my funny bone is all. lol
Two ways to read it.
* one of THOSE Christians
* proud of it"
(i.e. not proud of it)
"I'm proud not to be one of those Christians."
Did she mean the latter? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
@Ladymudd, beautiful OP.
I'm a non-denominational Christian who believes in evolution, an old universe, miracles, but also reincarnation, karma and the resurrection.
I think the key things wrong with Christianity, today, boil down to one element -- ego.
But ego is the source of all evil. Ego in the Christian has them put their denomination or interpretation ahead of everything else. They are unwilling to search for truth, because they believe they have already found it. Anyone who does not view Christianity as they do are heretics. They judge and condemn, and don't realize the crimes they are committing by doing so.
Personally, I love it when I find someone who does not view things as I do, but is willing to discuss such things openly. This type of individual seems to be too rare. It seems that American society has been brainwashed by the Corporate Party media into instant gratification -- feeding the ego. And this vulnerability makes them susceptible to being manipulated.
I have changed my views of Christianity many times over the past 60 years, ever since I first attended my Southern Baptist minister grandfather's church in Texas, at the age of 3.
I remember having a tough discussion with my grandmother about reincarnation, when I was 13. She told me that she had only lived once. And I couldn't have agreed with her more. But the body lives once and only a short while, but the true self (the child of God, soul, Holy Ghost), within, lives for an eternity, at least potentially.
Many so-called Christians are following the wrong master -- their own egos -- the master of this world.
Ego is the blindfold we pulled over our spiritual eyes so long ago, plunging us into darkness -- unable to see without the use of physical means. That's why God created these Homo sapiens bodies. He needed a method for rescuing His children. His children needed a method for continuity of consciousness to work out escape.
Forty-one years ago, I experienced a taste of spiritual awakening -- full-blown spiritual awareness -- an ability to see the world around me without the need for Homo sapiens eyes. It took me 41 years to realize more clearly the relationship between ego and the darkness of spiritual blindness.
I have always known this lifetime that I am a spiritual being with a human body. I was born believing in God, before I even understood English or my grandfather's sermons. My dreams spoke to me of faith, doubt, humility and love.
I dislike how some so-called Christians twist the words of the Bible to fit their limiting interpretation and then condemn science because it doesn't match that shallow, lazy interpretation.
I watched a great movie a couple of days ago called, "Agora," about the burning of the Library at Alexandria, and the murder by Christians of a female scientist. All of the crimes Christians have committed come because of ego and not understanding the words of Christ. If they had only listened to the message of love, they would not have judged. Like Jesus said to his disciples, if someone doesn't accept the message, simply dust off your shoes and move on to the next town. He said nothing about murdering them or destroying their property.
One Christian I met at a party 6 years ago told me that he was so happy to have been saved, because now he could commit any crime and still go to heaven. This is what his minister told him. If this teaching were true, then I seriously doubt that Jesus would've told the adulteress to "go and sin no more."
Following Christ means following his teachings. If you lust after crimes for personal gain, then you are no longer following Christ, but ego, instead.
The problem with changing the teachings to be more compatible with the morals of the current society is that it doesn't work. That's like throwing monkey wrenches into a machine just because monkey wrench throwing is now a popular sport. The machine is going to break down! Anyone who tells you different clearly hasn't thought the whole thing through, or they have a sinister, ulterior motive. And yes, there are a few people in the world who do that sort of thing.
Christianity does not in any way obliges any one to become a christian. It is however evident that most people envy and love to be. Christianity is the best thing that has ever happened and would ever happen because it is life its self. it comes from the creator himself and its power comes directly from the creator. most of the posts and the main article it's self, is a manifestation of ignorance. If you want to criticize something, you have to know it, and what I see from the article is simple ignorance of the author as well as ignorance of the posts. If you want to know more about Christianity find out more or if not, stop writing trash. Take my advice, it is very 'amateur-like' to write about something you have not researched on, or struggle to comment on what you have no clue at all about.
you get to decide for yourself. Of course I don't expect you to accept the answer to your question because your question is not a question : its an argument disguised as a question. For what convoluted reason? "Heaven knows "
by schoolgirlforreal6 years ago
Well,I hear alot of these forums end up in insults etcMy question to you iswhy not move to a communist country? there is no worship allowed there like China- they don't allow the Bible without extreme punishment- at...
by Mmargie19665 years ago
I am a Christian, and an American. I believe in the freedom to believe in anything you choose to (or not). What I don't understand is why Christianity is under attack.I don't necessarily believe in...
by Captain Redbeard21 months ago
I just read a post from someone stating that Christianity is based on the Bible which stands to reason, "If Christianity is based off the bible then that means it would have never come to furition since the book...
by Yoleen Lucas3 years ago
You guys - I posted this in the Questions section, but because it turned into a full-blown discussion, HubPagers advised me to move it to Forums. Here it is:"Cult" is defined as a system of beliefs that...
by tlmcgaa702 years ago
23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.24 Seventy weeks are determined...
by Matthew Dawson19 months ago
Though I know that being homosexual is not accepted still in today's society why is it individual feel it is there moral and civic duty to cast hatred animosity towards those who live within that population? Does not...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.