So, c'mon people.
I believe that God does reveal truth to his children.
Whenever something is learned that wasn't previously known, is that not revelation?! (Greek apocalypo or 'uncovering')
Now, evolution: Are we not all evolving in knowledge and, dare I say, physical capabilities? Genetics and stem cell research is showing us how to be more perfect and be more 'like God' (which is the ultimate goal here on this earth anyway.)
I believe that once we have found truth it doesn't mean we have completed our search. Knowledge can be added upon and truth can be clarified. The phrase 'I know' should be preceded by 'so far', as well as continued investigation of all evidence.
When man is becoming more good, more perfect, smarter, stronger, etc, then why is this not good? All good things come from God including knowledge. The glory of God is intelligence.
can you give me a solid, credible reason why you claim to be a christian?...whatever that is? My bet is you can't. ty
I do too. I wish we had more funding for stem cell research. But apparently, our American leaders would rather bail out bad businesses rather than finding the cure for cancer.
Hi, Friend what a nice information , I am a newbie for this forum site.
So, you want a medal?
You still believe in nonsense. Your silly beliefs still cause problems for the world and for individuals.
Who said we are becoming smarter? There is evidence that we are actually heading in the other direction - I'd say the increased religious fervor alone is good evidence of that!
..."I'm Christian. And I believe in Evolution & Stem Cell Research's good"
It sounds like if someone is Gay & Straight at the same time!
No I think 'Bi' is different. They are ok with both sexes. But a gay is not ok with the opposite sex & a straight is not interested in the same sex, so being both at the same time is not possible...Being Christian & believing in evolution is just like that!
Hilarious. But you clearly don't know the Christians I know.
Oh, wait. I do believe the atheists on HubPages DO know every Christian who has ever lived or who ever will live and everything they have ever thought or believed or ever will think or believe.
I guess we should just sit around and let you all remind us of what we do and don't know or believe. That will straighten the world out for sure and that will prevent all of the fighting. I feel so relieved.
You are joking? Perhaps my sarcasm detector is broken, but you seem serious. In the unlikely event you are serious (I like to give the benefit of the doubt) could you please explain to Professor Alister McGrath at Oxford who has a PhD in molecular biophysics, that the fact he is a Christian is simply "not possible". And would you be kind enough to share the response he gives you (assuming it can be shared without breaking obscenity rules). Many thanks.
yah I really dont know this guy Alister & to be frank dont knw wat molecular biophysics is & whether its related to evolution or not! So wat is he? Is he a Christian who thinks earth was created in 6 days, then a monkey named Adam took a million year to cut off his tail to turn into human & finally God decides to send his Son to teach this ape-mans science in the word of love?
That deserves a facepalm. (my favourite expression)
People who are "always right" don't know how to face up to the fact that they are wrong. Sheesh. Dontcha just hate destroying their prejudices? Oh wait, they haven't evolved far enough yet to recognize that they are biased and wrong, have they? What'll it take?
Yeah...I had exactly that facepalm when I was reading about ur Doctor divinity. So unfortunate that he didnt won a noble price or two for his divine evolution theory
U knw who is "always right"? The Son of God & His BaBBle. & yeah they need to evolve more than ever. If there is anything biased in this world, thats religion!!
I know a bit about Alister
Alister is a known Christian theologian and apologist.
But the Christians think He is an Einstein!
In my 2 years here, every scientist offered up as "proof" for the invisible entity has had a religious background and agenda.
They usually believe in "something" & then study science just to back up their claims & believes by misinterpreting scientific laws & findings. To get attention, in front of the media they will say something like "I was like you before, I was an atheist but God has opened my eyes...bla bla bla."...& Its not funny, its sad how they deceive people.
You made the ridiculous assertion that "opposite sex & a straight is not interested in the same sex, so being both at the same time is not possible...Being Christian & believing in evolution is just like that". You have to admit I did give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest it must be sarcasm. Unfortunately it appears it wasn't.
The fact there exists scientists who have an in depth knowledge and understanding of evolutionary theory and fact, have contributed to that body of knowledge, but who also happen to be theists, utterly refutes that assertion.
As for McGrath personally, someone's beliefs are irrelevant to the validity and truthfulness of their argument. Suggesting otherwise is a logical fallacy known as an ad-hominem (against the person) and is essentially meaningless. But of course you can't commit a logical fallacy because you are not a theist.
Alistair McGrath on the other hand can. And of course he spends his time "misinterpreting scientific laws & findings", not because any of his work suggest this, but simply by virtue of the fact that he is a theist.
Congratulations. You deserve:
Wow...looks like u r a grt fan of Alistair & obviously u didnt like my assumption as u say it is ridiculous. But Are You Watching Closely? The assumption is not about scientists, its about those who believe in evolution. Now if you find me an Evolutionary scientist who is also a Christian then you will have a point to argue.
The reason for such assumption is simple & I hope you have the minimal reasoning ability to understand it yourself. A true Christian must believe that world was created in 6 days, Adam was the first human accompanied by eve & they used to live in a beautiful place far far away from planet earth. Then finally they stole a fruit from a tree & then God sent them here on this planet.
On the contrary, A evolutionary scientist, based on the massive amount of evidence found so far, believes that it took us millions of years to reach the current state.
Now you see if a Christian says he believes in Evolution then he is not a True Christian at all because his believes are contradicting with Bible. In the same way if a evolutionary scientist says he believes in Christianity then he is just abandoning the rational approach of scientific community & cannot be considered a scientist in the field of evolution. Thus its not possible to be both at the same time. Theres nothing can be more ridiculous than believing in both at the same time!!
Your Alistair Mcgrath is not an evolutionary scientist buddy. A doctor divinity is not an accepted source for understanding evolution. I dont deny his wisdom in his related subject but at the same time I believe His thinking went wrong when he put it in philosophy or theology!
P.S. I DO KNOW HOW TO PUT PICTURES TOO & WHEN I WILL DO THAT, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS
I'm a fan of anyone who can make a sensible argument.
"A true Christian must believe that world was created in 6 days"
Well goodness me, all those Christians arguing amongst themselves about all the different interpretations of the bible, when all they needed to do was ask you. Because obviously you are the person who decides what a True Christian™ is
And there was me thinking a Christian is simply someone who professes a belief in Jesus as christ and follows his (interpreted) teachings. Well here's a deal. Provide me with evidence that every Christian denomination in the world accepts your definition of what a "true Christian" is and I will accept it also. In the meantime I'll stick with my definition of a Christian if it's all the same with you.
You said "Being Christian & believing in evolution is [not possible]" You didn't say being a Christian and being an evolutionary biologist (not that it makes a difference). So McGrath is a Christian and he believes the theory of evolution is the best explanation of evolutionary facts. Would you care to re-evaluate your remark in light of this? No?
How about if you include the late Francis S Collins. He was a Christian and he believed evolution is the best explanation of evolutionary facts. He was also director of the Human Genome Project. Again, would you care to re-evaluate the remark in light of that? No?
Well how about Theodosius Dobzhansky, a Russian Orthodox Christian (is that different to a True Christian?!) and geneticist who (obviously) believed evolution was the best explanation of evolutionary facts. He wrote the essay Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution (1973). No?
What about Martin Nowak of Harvard, a Christian evolutionary biologist and mathematician. Author of Evolutionary Dynamics (2006). Again care to re-evaluate the suggestion that "Being Christian & believing in evolution is [not possible]"? If the answer is no, I can only conclude that you are a troll. In which case congratulations, you got me good!
"P.S. I DO KNOW HOW TO PUT PICTURES TOO & WHEN I WILL DO THAT, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS"
Copy this: [img]picture URL[/img] obviously replacing "picture URL" with the address of the picture. There, knock yourself out.
I knew you would start the same old bullshiit called 'INTERPRETATION'! ...but still I was hoping you would have something better(sigh)...Interpretation is just an thousands of year old excuse for getting rid of the ridiculous & flawed religious craps & nothing else. The Muslims also got their interpretation issues (i.e. some think Jihad is not waging war, it struggling with ones self), so do the buddhists, hindus & all other religions. Why we have so many interpretations for a single religion??? The hundreds of interpretations of ur Bable only proves that you dont have a standard book & you don't know which one to rely on. So If the regular interpretation doesn't work for you anymore, Try a new one!
Can you tell me which verse of the Babble talks about evolution? Can you find me which law of the evolution talks about the forbidden fruit of heaven? Dont start with ur fancy interpretation again & dont tell me that by using the word 'Milk' god actually meant elements like Protein, 3.5% Fat, 4% Mineral matter & .75% Water, 87.25% Lactose & Babble is fully scientific.
The names you have mentioned are people who doesn't fall in the general definition of Christianity. Let me get this straight, If I say, I believe in Allah & Buddha, I pray to them but I am Christian! Is that possible? Remember theres no Universal Religion, its my way or highway!
Just like You cant believe in Allah, Buddha & be a Christian, You cant believe in Evolution & be a Christian...but again you can claim that you are both but it would be hypocrisy & illogical. Their claims doesnt make sense, it even surprises their colleagues & it has nothing to do with the original version of Christianity. Personal claims doesnt represent the majority of the sect.
May be I would have agreed with you only If pope had granted evolution & made a press release that Christianity approves evolution, there were some gospels missing which proves/accepts evolution is right & from now on its ok to believe in evolution
Im afraid you are one of them , pretending to be straight & gay at the same time but buddy you dont have much time to get straight ...
I think what Don is trying to say is that making fun of you is the best way of persuading you that you are not qualified to have an opinion on what a real christian is, whereas Don is, because he read it in a book so therefore it is right. The fact that Christians cannot decide what a real Christian is has no bearing on this.
I agree with you - evolutionary theory and the Christian religion are not compatible for a "true" christian that reads what the bible says and takes that as the perfect word of god. I have never met a true christian though.
In fact - evolutionary theory is not compatible with any deity that involves itself in the day to day process of life. For several reasons, not least of which the everything in the theory would need to be discarded in favor of "God dunnit."
The suggestion that we were the developmental destination, and therefore evolution has stopped is frankly ludicrous.
It also neatly discards the idea of an intelligent designer, because I would be hard pushed to find a more roundabout way to create something than the non-random evolutionary process. The staggering failure rate is too high to call this intelligent design if there is a destination in mind. Unless of course - my mind is too small to grasp the workings of this invisible magical designer. lol
All religionists miss the one argument they could use that would be impossible to argue against - but they are too small minded to think of it.
Christianity has a definition, and it's a perfectly sensible one. The comment "Being Christian & believing in evolution is [not possible]" is incorrect in light of that definition. The argument can be re-evaluated, or the definition of Christian changed to fit the argument.
As there is nothing wrong with the current definition of Christian (other than it doesn't fit the above argument) it makes more sense to re-evaluate the argument. There are intelligent people in the world who happen to be Christians according to the correct definition of the word. If you or Rishy Rich can't formulate an argument that addresses that without having to resort to changing a perfectly good definition, then your position is weak.
What argument is that Don? That "real Christians" should follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, give up all their worldly possessions, donate the money raised to orphans and widows, drop all familial ties and go abroad doing good works?
I have never met a real Christian Don and I do not really care that you choose to ignore the real definition of "Christian " which is actually being "Christ-like," in favor of some dictionary that told you what to think.
This is what a true Christian is - not your weak, ill-informed, dictionary definition. And lets face it - plenty of self-professed Christians will argue that Catholic/Protestants/Non-born agains are not real Christians.
Read the bible - says it right there in black and white. It is pretty plain what you need to do to be a Christian - and it is not simply believing that Jesus is the Christ and making fake attempts to follow the teachings. The teachings are real simple - as I just explained. You do not do that? You are not a real Christian. Simple. No "trying," to follow them - not good enough. Oh no. You must actually follow them. You cannot get the definition of a Christian from any where other than the bible.
Evolution easily proves that the bible is not to be taken literally. And - as history shows us, slowly but surely - what the bible says becomes "allegory."
The main problems for theists is the fact that all evolutionary theory must be rejected if there is a guiding hand involved, because it relies on natural selection and random mutation - which does not sensibly allow for a pre-determined developmental destination.
Perhaps you could explain how this might fit in with your Christian-Lite dogma? (That is the ones who cannot reject science, but manage to squeeze it into their beliefs in any case). Without resorting to "you would not be able to grasp the reasoning and process."
How can you explain that we evolved from slime, yet were created in the image of this god? Does it really take 4.5 billion years to make it happen? Yet the bible calls this a "day"?
It is becoming more and more difficult to reconcile what we know with religious dogma. And less and less people in the educated world are choosing to follow it.
Would you please give us the exact reference in the Bible where it says what you claim?
Plenty of nonsensical tribal war-mongering in that one too. Plus of course you can use "scripture to interpret scripture," to mean this one does not count.
Ah yes, the rich young ruler (not to be confused with the rich, middle-aged hubber ).
From the language in your earlier post, I thought you were talking about an explanation from the Bible of what the word "Christian" means, and as you know that word is only found three places in the Bible. None of them supplies a definition.
But if I understand you correctly now, you are saying that you would take Jesus' answer to the question "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" as being the explanation of what a "true Christian" is, in your view. Interesting that you omitted part of Jesus' response. But no matter.
Your choice of this passage does help to explain why you say you have never met a "true Christian," if that passage is the basis for your understanding of what a "true Christian" is, since there are very few people who have adhered to each one of those commandments perfectly throughout their life.
I thought you were going to give me an "in the Bible, black and white" explanation of a Christian as meaning "Christ-like," as you so adamantly asserted earlier. But of course it's not there, either in the passage you mentioned or anywhere else in the Bible. I'm guessing that you picked that phrase up from some sermon you have heard in the past or a book you have read, rather than from the Bible. It's not a bad description of the way many Christians try to live, but it also is not a definition either. Don W has explained the meaning of "Christian" quite eloquently and thoroughly, and I feel no need to repeat what he wrote.
I've no doubt some Christian individual or group somewhere agrees with your interpretation of what a Christian is. I also have no doubt that some Christian individual or group somewhere disagrees with it. That's the point. No interpretation of what a Christian is, is agreed upon by all Christian groups and individuals. That's the problem with defining a Christian based on the interpretation of scripture. But we don't need to do that.
All Christian individuals and groups hold the belief that Jesus is the 'Christ'. And that's exactly how the term came into being. As a way of distinguishing the group of Jewish people who believed Jesus is the 'Christ' from other Jewish people who didn't. We can still use that core, common belief today as a way of objectively identifying someone as a Christian, regardless of how they interpret the Bible.
So let's use your subjective idea of a Christian. Let's say a man gives up his worldly possessions, donates the money to orphans and widows, drops all familial ties and goes abroad doing good works. He is therefore by your definition a Christian. Except for one thing. He believes Mohammed is the greatest prophet of god, and has done the above to show his commitment to Islam. He is in fact a Muslim.
We can say his behaviour is 'Christ-like', and some Christians at a stretch might argue that he is a Christian on the basis of that behaviour, but not all Christians would. It's subjective.
On the other hand if we knew whether this man holds the common, core belief that all Christians hold and identified him on that basis, we would not have identified him as Christian. More importantly, this man's belief that Jesus is the 'Christ' is not debatable. He either does, or he doesn't. So our identification of him as a Christian would not be dependent on a debatable subjective criteria. It would be objective.
Being able to identify something objectively is in fact a stronger position than having to do so based on subjective criteria such as interpretation of scripture.
In terms of how Christianity can be reconciled with the theory of evolution, again that depends on interpretation of scripture. For some, including you, they are irreconcilable. For others with a different interpretation that's not the case. But I'm not a Christian apologist. I'm defending the definition of Christianity. Rishy Rish said "Being Christian & believing in evolution is [not possible]" because "A true Christian must believe the world was created in 6 days".
Even the subjective definition you offered of a "real Christian" doesn't support that. According to that anyone who sells all his things and goes off doing good deeds is a "real" Christian. So no need to believe the world was created in six days then. And the question of how a Christian reconciles the idea of a guiding hand with random mutation is a question I'd pose to McGrath and Nowak myself. I'd be interested to know. But Rishy Rish did not pose that question.
He said a person must believe the world was literally created in six days to be considered a real Christian. That is not supported by any definition anywhere, not even the subjective one you put forward. If Rishy Rich can't formulate an argument that supports exactly what he has said, then he should take it as a learning point and re-evaluate his thoughts on the matter.
No need for swearing. I haven't sworn at you and I'd appreciate if you returned the courtesy.
A literal reading of the bible is not a core tenet of Christianity, and you saying it is doesn't make it so. The common denominator for all individuals and groups identified as Christian (past and present) is the belief that Jesus is the 'Christ' and sacrificed his life etc.
A literal understanding of the Bible may have been a characteristic of early Christians, but that doesn't make it part of the definition of Christianity. Obviously there was no scripture at that point relating to Jesus. And a literal reading of Jewish scripture had nothing to do with people believing Jesus was the 'Christ'. The prophecies claimed by Christians to relate to Jesus were all allegorical in nature and a literal reading would render them meaningless. So a literal understanding is irrelevant to the core belief of Christianity, which is that Jesus is 'Christ'.
So you can think an interpretation is wrong and still be a Christian. You can not believe in talking snakes and still be a Christian. None of those things mean someone isn't Christian and in fact can't, because that's not what distinguishes someone as a Christian. It's is not what distinguished the "original" Christians as Christian.
Someone's attitude towards the figure of Jesus is what distinguishes them as a Christian. That was true in first century Palestine, and it's true now. The approach of some modern Christians to the Bible is different but their attitude towards the figure of Jesus is the same. That's the defining factor. You don't have to take the same approach to the Bible to be defined as a Christian. You do have to hold the same belief with regards to the figure of Jesus.
Guess what that means? It means anyone who professes belief that Jesus is the 'Christ' and tries to follow his teachings is, by definition, a Christian. They may be really bad at following those teachings. They may be really good at it. They may agree with one of the organised religions, or disagree with them. Regardless, they are Christians by virtue of what they believe about Jesus being the 'Christ'.
On that basis the people I mentioned above are all Christians. The fact they don't take the Bible literally doesn't make them less Christian. You can be more or less Christian. You're either Christian or not Christian. If you hold the belief described then you are Christian by definition. If you don't then you;re not.
I'm sorry if that's inconvenient for you. But if your argument can't address the fact that some intelligent, rational human beings are theists, then you need to re-examine your argument instead of wasting time trying to redefine Christianity so it fits your argument.
As for the Pope. What's the relevance? Do you put more weight on what the Pope says than any other Christian? Why? Anyway, the current pope, the previous pope and the pope before that have all said that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with Christian belief. Indeed the last pope said that advances in understanding mean that the theory of evolution should be considered more than just a theory. By your reasoning none of them are Christians
Oh, you are really annoying Don. You have defined Christianity well but I believe this is not the universally accepted definition. You will even find a lot of Christian hubbers here who will refuse to accept your definition!
So just believing in Christ is Christianity then? Are you trying to say that Jesus is the 'Christ' whose ancestors actually evolved from 'Monkeys'...making him a common relative of the ape family?? So what if someone believes that "Jesus is a descendant of the Monkeys who got anointed as Christ"? Will he be considered a Christian then?
Maybe evidence that even atheist apes need salvation?
In a slightly serious tone, a person can believe anything they want and make their own defenses for it. Definitions most often apply on a broader scale. Individually, it's harder to classify in text book style.
Therefore, my original quip of being "bi" could still work, depending on the person.
This definition is not subjective. People didn't call themselves Christians. They were identified as such to distinguish them from other Jewish people of the time. It's not based on what people perceived themselves to be. That doesn't mean there is not a subjective idea of what Christianity is. Christians have discussed what it means to be Christian and continue to do so. But there is an objective basis for the definition of a Christian, based on a common, core belief.
Put it this way. If you transported a Protestant, Methodist, Catholic and Baptist to Rome at the time of Christian persecution, they would all be identified as Christians. The fact that these groups differ in their various interpretations of certain scriptures is irrelevant. That's purely subjective. They would be objectively identified as Christians on the basis of their common, core belief. So our Catholic, Baptist, Protestant and Methodist would be just as likely to be thrown to the lions as their Jewish brethren of the time. That's because the thing they all believe is that Jesus is the 'Christ'. That's what defines them as a group to outsiders.
So identifying the evolutionary biologist Martin Nowak as a Christian is not dependent on what other Christians think of him. It's dependent on whether he holds the common, core belief of the group known as Christians. If he does, then he can be identified as a Christian. The definition of a Christian is not based on what one group of Christians perceives as Christianity over another group. It's based on the common, core belief of all Christian groups. That's the identifier. So Martin's thoughts on evolution are irrelevant to him being identified as a Christian from an objective view point.
And it works the other way too. Someone who does not believe Jesus is the 'Christ' but who lives according to the teachings of Jesus (intentionally or not) may be considered Christian from a subjective point of view. Whereas objectively they aren't in fact 'Christian' because they don't hold the common, core belief of those historically identified as Christians.
As for monkeys, what have they got to do with anything? Where do you get your information? Human beings are more closely related to apes than monkeys. Nowak is a an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University, so I'm sure he's aware of the theory and facts of evolution. Again none of that is relevant to whether he can be identified as a Christian.
I think Professor McGrath is a good example of confusing belief with honesty. His work may very well clash with his beliefs, but that doesn't mean he's going to be honest about it.
Maybe so. But a confused Christian is still a Christian.
I would agree with that, but anyone who only has to profess themselves to be a Christian can be a Christian, whether others agree with it or not. It is not for anyone but the person making the claim to deny.
Their actions, of course, might indeed show otherwise.
If someone does not believe Jesus is the 'Christ', we can say that by definition they are not a Christian, regardless of how they refer to themselves. It's not a matter of doctrine or interpretation. Being a 'Christian' and not believing Jesus is the 'Christ' is a contradiction in terms. Like being a Monarchist yet not believing in monarchy. Or being an atheist yet believing theism.
I'm a Christian because I believe that Jesus Christ lived and died for us to perfect ourselves and inherit what he has.
And yes, I would like a medal.
Did I say "solid" and "credible?" I see neither a solid nor a credible response in your response i.e.
" I believe that Jesus Christ lived and died for us to perfect ourselves and inherit what he has."
1. you do not know this jesus...never did.
2. a belief based upon that which you know nothing about isn't based upon "credibility.
3. You do not know that this jesus ever lived.
You do not know 1 word this jesus said...if indeed he did exist.
4.You have only an idea that this jesus died, how he died and what he died for.
5.you do not know what, jesus whoever he was, has now. Probably nothing.
6.You provide us with naught but hope adn conjecture.
Why is a "medal" deserved? I thought to earn a medal ya had to provide something worthy of it?.
Ya havent done that. So I must give you a bronx cheer BRRAAAAAAAKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK....
Shameful, disgusting arrogance based upon abject ignorance. You should be ashamed of yourself!
No insult just typing freely about what I think....lol
Interesting, so you believe God created the apes that eventually evolved into humans? Not meaning to ridicule just trying to see your point.
"I'm Christian. And I believe in Evolution & Stem Cell Research's good"
"Long road. Give it a rest."
I am Greek Orthodox but have a biology degree, and I am a proponent of evolutionary theory.
It works for me just fine
Yeah, but you are a left wing, radical, hippie, dolphin hater as well.
Actually - I am not sure what Greek orthodox dogma states. Do they consider Jesus Christ to be an actual god or one and only son of god and seeing as we are just talking monkeys - how does that fit in with the idea of god needing to send his son to save us from sin?
hehe - as you know, I am a little unconventional - you could say that I am a 'spiritual libertarian.'
The Greek Orthodox church, while still full of dogma, politics, greed and self-serving idiots, has one overriding philosophy that I like, the idea that a person should strive to become a 'little Jesus.' It has absorbed a lot of influence from the East - I find many aspects of Buddhism buried in there. If you substitute 'Little Buddha' for 'Little Jesus,' it makes little difference.
I am not 100% sure exactly what the Greek Orthodox line is on everything because, as you know, if you ask 10 Greeks a question, you will get 10 different answers. I am also still learning many things. They follow the idea of a trinity, but they reject the idea that humans are 'guilty' of original sin, and believe that the Adam and Eve story is metaphorical.
The wiki link isn't bad - you will see that there are a lot of differences from Catholic and Protestant beliefs, and there is a much more philosophical feel. Of course, I am fully aware that you will have your BS filters in operation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Or … ch#Trinity
I know an Archbishop and he laughs at people who interpret the bible literally - to him (a Greek speaker), it is allegory and metaphor, a philosophy and guide rather than a set of unbreakable rules.
by Claire Evans4 years ago
Atheists often ask for proof of Jesus being the son of God. If Jesus came to earth and everyone realized He is the son of God, would you still reject Him as your saviour?
by Curtis O Neill3 years ago
With the ever increasing overwhelming amount of Scientific knowledge that we humans now possess, I personally think it's only a matter of time before Religion is almost completley gone, forgotten if you will. What do I...
by marinealways247 years ago
I would like to have a debate on whether or not you believe we are or aren't inelligent design.I didn't post this in religion because I want logical explanations for why you believe what you write. If you write...
by Judy Specht3 years ago
It is 33 degrees as I write, 10:45 am, in sunny northern California. Have been wishing for global warming as I watch my tropical plant freeze. Why have we not heard about this story? Did you...
by jomine2 weeks ago
there is no evidence that jesus as a historical figure lived. is it not a myth then?
by Sherlock221b3 years ago
Since joining HubPages, I have read the many evolution versus creationism and atheism versus religion debates. As an atheistic evolutionist, I have read what I considered to be the strange views of a religious...
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.