Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Religious Beliefs

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by ~Dave View Post
    LOL! Yeah. I've gone that route with Christians before, too. But they just say that an all powerful God would be able to influence men to put into the Bible that which He wished to be in there. It was Divinely, inspired.

    ~Dave
    So in other words god overrides their free will.. They write what HE wanted them to write. Hmmmm sounds suspicious.
    Go home aliens, go home!!!!

    Comment


      Originally posted by ~Dave View Post
      Nope. The Bible is worded such that time is not undetermined except in certain cases. For example, if you see "the day of atonement", we have no way of knowing how long that was. But if there is a numeral, or an ordinal, we do. Such as "and it was evening and morning of the first day". In that case it was a 24 hour day. So, unless you want to completely recreate the Bible to conform to evolution, there's no way for it to be compatible.

      ~Dave
      Actually, certain numerals might not have to be taken literally. The bible was originally written in Hebrew. Some words in the Hebrew language have more than one meaning. Certain numbers, for example, can also mean something much less specific.

      And I'd like to add that nowhere does it say anything about a 24 hour day. It just uses the words "morning", "evening" and "day".

      The bible doesn't contradict evolution at all. And it doesn't even imply that the world is "X" number of years. That's merely one interpritation.


      Originally posted by Coco Pops View Post
      So in other words god overrides their free will.. They write what HE wanted them to write. Hmmmm sounds suspicious.
      No. They were perfectly willing for and open to Him writing through them.
      Fandoms come and go, but geekiness lasts forever.

      YouTube - DeviantART - Twitter - tumblr

      sigpic

      Comment


        Originally posted by Myn MacGeek, Third Sentinel View Post
        The bible doesn't contradict evolution at all. And it doesn't even imply that the world is "X" number of years. That's merely one interpritation.[/COLOR]
        Old Testament or New Testament? 'Cause Genesis is pretty definitive in its world view.
        sigpic

        Comment


          Originally posted by AvatarIII View Post
          my point was more like "if god is speaking to you in one ear, and the devil in another, and each sounds identical, since apparently imitation and deception are the devil's forté, how can you possibly know which is god and which is the devil?"
          it might be a case that the devil sounds more like what you expect god to sound like than god ctually does, in which case those that follow god are in fact following the devil.
          As I said before, one has to ask God for guidance and wisdom. If Satan exists, then God must as well. Evil isn't evil without goodness. Goodness and righteousness can't be without evil. Therefor, if Satan exists, so does God. If you pray to Him by name and and ask for guidance, He will hear you.

          sometimes i think, that if there really is a god, i think he would respect non-believers that do good for the sake of doing good, more than believers that do good for the sake of god, and that it is perhaps the devil, who perhaps created religion as we see it today through maniplulating people.
          The reason religion and the Bible are necessary is because even when people have good intentions they can still be led astray. The rules laid down in the Bible are like the laws different governments have to help make their people's lives better. They're easy guidelines for when people are confused or lost. Like ~Dave said before, the alternative to a standard code of conduct is anarchy. You obviously can't trust each and every person to agree with each other on what's right or wrong.

          And God does respect people who do good for the sake of doing good. The thing is, God is all things good. This "good" you speak of is God. So, if someone simply doesn't believe in God for lack of evidence, but tries their best to be a good person and lives their lives for the betterment of humanity, God will certainly have more mercy on them than on those who do horrible things in the name of Him. It's only because it's so much harder to know what is right or wrong and to be led astray than people care to think that God teaches us to strive towards Him and follow His Word.

          So... am I making sense? I'm not feeling well tonight and I can't think as clearly as usual... so just keep on asking if you're still confused.


          Originally posted by AvatarIII View Post
          i've always thought so too, and being raised a christian, and then rejecting christianity, i'd still rather do what i consider to be good, than what a book tells me to do, it defeats the object of free will if you do not get to choose what you consider to be right and wrong, and being told what to do, and not having a choice fits the MO of lucifer pretty well
          As ~Dave said, there you go. You had free choice of will and made your choice. It certainly doesn't defeat the purpose of free will, it is a choice to follow God's teachings. You may say, "Well, if I had free will and if God really respected that, then why is he going to send me to hell for not choosing Him?" That's the thing, hell isn't exactly a punishment, it's more of a consequence. Hell isn't as much an actual physical place as it is simple separation from God. Heaven is being with God, hell is being away. God is ultimate joy, being without God is ultimate suffering.

          And that brings me back to what I said about God having mercy on those who do good for the sake of good. Even though they don't believe in God, they're actually doing His will anyway. So He will have mercy on them and give them... when they die, it will be clear that He actually does exist. So those who were good people but didn't believe will have one last chance to accept His love and mercy.


          Originally posted by dalene View Post
          also, I don't say the "hail mary", bc that's praying to someone other than God & He said to not set up/create any other idols, or pray to anyone other than Him & this would include humans who have been faithful.
          I'm Catholic and certainly do say the Hail Mary. But I'd like to make one thing clear: no Catholic will tell you that they are worshiping the Mother of God as they should be God. The Hail Mary and other prayers to saints and such are forms of asking for their intersession, not forms of worship to them.

          "Hail Mary, full of grace, of Lord is with thee. Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy whom, Jesus": Just a greeting.
          "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, amen.": Just a request for her to intercede to her Son for us.

          See? We're just asking her to pray for us to her Son. Remember the wedding at Cana? When Mary told Jesus they had run out of wine? At first, He seemed reluctant to do anything about it. But Mary told the servants to do what He said, then He did turn the water to wine to please His Mother. That's why we ask her to pray for us, because as God's mother, she is the most influential person one can ask to pray for them.


          Originally posted by Pandora's_Box View Post
          Old Testament or New Testament? 'Cause Genesis is pretty definitive in its world view.
          Old. And.... not really. How is Genesis definitive?

          It's the New Testament that's definitive. And a lot of it is historically accurate. Well, all of it is, but I mean that even non-believers can see some of it.
          Fandoms come and go, but geekiness lasts forever.

          YouTube - DeviantART - Twitter - tumblr

          sigpic

          Comment


            For me it all boils down to how life itself originate on Earth.
            In a previous example, penguins were used as an example of evolution of different species of penguins. But how did the very first penguin come to be? And whatever the first penguin came from, where did that animal come from? How did the first ever living thing appear on Earth? Does all life on earth have one common ancestor? Because this is where religion claims to know the answer.

            ~Dave

            Comment


              Originally posted by Myn MacGeek, Third Sentinel View Post
              Actually, certain numerals might not have to be taken literally. The bible was originally written in Hebrew. Some words in the Hebrew language have more than one meaning. Certain numbers, for example, can also mean something much less specific.

              And I'd like to add that nowhere does it say anything about a 24 hour day. It just uses the words "morning", "evening" and "day".

              The bible doesn't contradict evolution at all. And it doesn't even imply that the world is "X" number of years. That's merely one interpritation.



              No. They were perfectly willing for and open to Him writing through them.
              With regard to the highlighted text, these are the people who claim this is approximately the year 6000. I don't know the exact number. But you get the idea? It was a 24 hour clock/day.

              *edit* This was from the creation of the animals, plants, and mankind given at the beginning of Genesis. Before that, the Earth was here, but we have no way of knowing what was here, or what happened. All we can do is dig up remains, and theorize. At least according to the people you mention.

              ~Dave
              Last edited by ~Dave; 13 December 2008, 06:50 AM.

              Comment


                Originally posted by ~Dave View Post
                I can accept that interbreeding between some species of animals can produce some interesting characteristics which could be another sub-species within a species. That along with some adaptive evolution to adjust to different climactic conditions.
                Evolution is evolution, you're trying to make a distinction where there isn't one.

                But I'm not seeing anything in nature or anywhere else to account for mankind as being evolved from lower animals of any kind.
                I don't see how, the fossil record speaks for itself. It's a falsifiable fact that evolution occurs in nature, so why would we not accept that it happened in the past? Especially given that what evolution predicts, is found exactly as we would have expected in the fossil record. How can a science be correct now and not then, and why would we think that anyway?

                "Putting two and two together", is not proof. There is simply nothing to prove primates turned into human beings no matter how much time passed to get it done.
                What would you consider proof? Everything evolution theory predicts is found in nature, we know evolution happens now, why would it have been different in the past? Do you question gravitation theory in this manner? Is gravity in doubt because we can't prove that it worked in the past as it does now?

                Comment


                  Originally posted by jenks View Post
                  Evolution is evolution, you're trying to make a distinction where there isn't one.



                  I don't see how, the fossil record speaks for itself. It's a falsifiable fact that evolution occurs in nature, so why would we not accept that it happened in the past? Especially given that what evolution predicts, is found exactly as we would have expected in the fossil record. How can a science be correct now and not then, and why would we think that anyway?



                  What would you consider proof? Everything evolution theory predicts is found in nature, we know evolution happens now, why would it have been different in the past? Do you question gravitation theory in this manner? Is gravity in doubt because we can't prove that it worked in the past as it does now?
                  Evolution predicts nothing. Evolution scientists observe remains and tries to put a theory on what they find. The theory changes over time as contradictory evidence is found. It is evolution which slaves to it's theory, not fossils which tell them anything. I think it's all guess work "substantiated" by unprovable/anecdotal/circumstantial fossil records. And we have a long history of jumping to the wrong conclusions based on this kind of evidence. But that's just my opinion.

                  ~Dave

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by ~Dave View Post
                    Not seeing it. If I'm reading the Bible correctly, then God did something about 4000BC that caused all life to be wiped out and then restarted life on Earth. (The Earth became void and without form.) So this is actually the second (at least) Earth age, and all the fossils which date before 4000BC belong to the previous age. And God began then to make all the animals and plants and people. From such a recent past, there is simply not enough time for evolution to play any part in the Christian Bible. At least according to my reading of it.

                    ~Dave
                    than how do you account for the existence of humanity before 4000 bc?
                    Vice Admiral and occasionally the Acting Leader of the Gateworld Cantina
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by ~Dave View Post
                      Evolution predicts nothing. Evolution scientists observe remains and tries to put a theory on what they find. The theory changes over time as contradictory evidence is found. It is evolution which slaves to it's theory, not fossils which tell them anything. I think it's all guess work "substantiated" by unprovable/anecdotal/circumstantial fossil records. And we have a long history of jumping to the wrong conclusions based on this kind of evidence. But that's just my opinion.

                      ~Dave
                      those three words describe what "evidence" you have for god.
                      Vice Admiral and occasionally the Acting Leader of the Gateworld Cantina
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by ~Dave View Post
                        Evolution predicts nothing.
                        It's scientific theory for crying out loud, of course it does! It predicts that animals that mutate helpful genes will gain an advantage over the rest of the population, and as such these genes will be spread around and become more prominent, over a period of time the changes in genetic make up of a population will be so significant that the population will no longer be the species it started as.

                        Evolution scientists observe remains and tries to put a theory on what they find.
                        No they don't, you're extremely misinformed. The scientific method behind evolution happens in a lab, evolution at the cellular level has been witnessed and studied. Hell, why do you think the flu vaccine needs to be updated every year? Because the virus mutates, changes to a point at which the vaccine no longer works, and thus evolves.

                        The theory changes over time as contradictory evidence is found.
                        Does it, how?

                        It is evolution which slaves to it's theory, not fossils which tell them anything.
                        Fossils aren't used to prove evolution, they're actually studied in order to try and disprove evolution, as if they showed us anything other than what evolution theory predicts then the science would be in doubt, as it happens of course, they don't, what we see is what the theory predicts perfectly.

                        I think it's all guess work "substantiated" by unprovable/anecdotal/circumstantial fossil records.
                        If you think that then you don't seem to understand scientific method. What you're describing is a hypothesis, not a theory.

                        And we have a long history of jumping to the wrong conclusions based on this kind of evidence. But that's just my opinion.
                        They're not jumping to conclusions, the theory is built by mountains of falsifiable evidence that you're either unaware of, or ignoring. Through our knowledge of biology, we know that evolution can't not happen.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Pandora's_Box View Post
                          Old Testament or New Testament? 'Cause Genesis is pretty definitive in its world view.
                          And its worldview is pro-evolution, as was concluded by Jewish theologians as early as 11th century. Which is why "Intelligent Design" doesn't fare well among Orthodox Jews.

                          "What we see marking the flight of galaxies with our telescopes, Maimonides saw from his metaphysical view."- Arnold Penzias, who earned a Nobel Prize for his Big Bang research.
                          If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.- Abba Eban.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by tombombadil View Post
                            those three words describe what "evidence" you have for god.
                            Exactly why I'm not invested in any single theory. Just because I can't prove something, doesn't mean I discount it. Just because evolutionists can't prove their theories to me, doesn't mean I say they are wrong. Just because creationists can't prove god exists, doesn't mean I discount that theory either. All sides have what they believe to be absolute proof they are correct. And yet neither is provable as far as I am concerned.

                            ~Dave

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Womble View Post
                              And its worldview is pro-evolution, as was concluded by Jewish theologians as early as 11th century. Which is why "Intelligent Design" doesn't fare well among Orthodox Jews.

                              "What we see marking the flight of galaxies with our telescopes, Maimonides saw from his metaphysical view."- Arnold Penzias, who earned a Nobel Prize for his Big Bang research.
                              I see that from circumstantial observable evidence that scientists believed the world was flat. Then they were able to see a little better, and changed that to the world is round, but is the center of the universe. That model worked well enough to predict seasons, although it was a bit complex. Then the sun became the center of the universe. And after that, the sun was only the center of our solar system of planets. Each theory got changed to fit the new observable evidence. And I maintain that in the future, as mankind's observation powers get better, they will find some of the things we believe today to be completely wrong as well. It has to happen. Yeah, I know. But we're modern. We know everything. But that's what they said when the world was still flat. Every age considers itself to be modern, and all knowing. A little humility would serve us well in this regard, I think.

                              ~Dave
                              Last edited by ~Dave; 13 December 2008, 12:56 PM.

                              Comment


                                Again, you're misunderstanding scientific method. The conclusion scientist may or may not draw from what they see, are different from what they can prove. Evolution isn't an idea dreamt up from what we can see, it's something that can be proven through testing, and has been, over and over again.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X