Creationism vs. Evolution

[LB_Industries 4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

coolotter: that has been covered, try to keep up. And BTW, death was not commanded for anything related to the Sabbath.

Christ did completely agree with the Old Testament, and said so. So many 'Christians', so few who have actually read the Bible. Fewer yet understand a single word. That much is apparent.

Edit: I made an incorrect assertion. However, as the text says, they were directly commanded by God. Would you tell him 'no'?

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: manticorefan coolotter: that has been covered, try to keep up. And BTW, death was not commanded for anything related to the Sabbath.

Christ did completely agree with the Old Testament, and said so. So many 'Christians', so few who have actually read the Bible. Fewer yet understand a single word. That much is apparent.quote>

Numbers 15:32-36

32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

quote>

And I did read your previous post about the death of Jesus nullifying the prior law. (Its in the other thread though, not this one)

However as coolotter's signature says:

".it committed a murder upon Jesus,in order to redeem mankind from the sin of eating an apple.." -Thomas Paine,on Christianity

quote>

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: manticorefan It is condemned every time it is mentioned. But as Christ said, '..such were some of you'.quote>

And so are plenty of other sins, like failing to help the poor and needy, or to abuse the name of the lord. Why should being attract to one of the same sex be any worse than refusing to help the poor?

And in response to your previous post, I must ask: Where then do you get your ideas about Christ? If the Bible isn't the Word of God, then why believe anything it says about Christ, or even God? It's like God was smart enough to create the universe, but couldn't figure out how to write His own book?

I'm not trying to start a flame war, so please stay cool everyone. There are just a lot of misconceptions about what being a Christian really means. It's not a democracy, doctrine is not determined by popular vote or 'the mores of the day'. It really is authoritarian, and you either take it or leave it. It isn't a buffet of tenets to pick and choose from, taking only what suits you.

Not that you are accountable to me for your own beliefs; I am simply stating fact. Too many people see gray areas not where there is one, but where they want one. Again, that don't make it so.quote>

From your descripton is God an out-of-this-world guy, perfect in every decision and thus unapproachable—while in fact, he posesses many human "qualities": He becomes tired, he is angry, man could make him change his mind. Take the story of Sodoma and Gomorra: He is angry at their actions, which makes him decide their destruction; however, our friend Abraham actually bartered with him, making him spare the cities if he could find a number of righteous men. Now, we all know that that scheme failed; however, we do learn that Lot and his family are spared, a man who politely ask the townsfolk who come to his house to rape his daughters instead of turning over the angels.

And Sodoma and the other cities which God destroyed weren't that special; Jerusalem was worse. And when the Lord talks about Sodoma, he cites their arrogancy, material wealth and failure to help the poor and needy explicitly; homosexuality may well have been one of those awful things, but the emphasis are on their egoistic lifestyle—not on sex, which is something that later became very important, the same way the modern concept of hell is different from the mid-eastern concepts.

And this touches on the problem with the Bible as "His Book"—unless you read the original pieces in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, you have to resort to one of many translations. And if you do read these old languages, you'll face the same problem as the young church: What composes the Bible? The books you read in the Bible are some of those available at that time, and they adhere to criterias set by the church. And to say it's not a democracy would be somewhat wrong; doctrine, creeds, and other important issues have been the subject of different councils which have established modern Christianity; the first would be the Council of Jerusalem, while the next, the Council of Nikea didn't happen before almost 300 years later. Christianity is much more open to interpretation than Islam, which has one holy book which Muhammad cited while in trance; the Koran is supposed to be read in Arabic, thereby eliminating the errors translator might have made or the change of meaning of words. The Hadith however, are more open to interpretation, and texts included here are screened to "ensure" authenticity.—just like Bible had to be composed; there's are reason why Matthew's gospel are included in the Bible and not Thomas's. The Bible didn't make itself.

[wir3d 2]

Wow, this thread always moves fast.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: sam

However as coolotter's signature says:

"it committed a murder upon Jesus in order to redeem mankind from the sin of eating an apple." -Thomas Paine on Christianity

quote>

quote>

 

That is such a purposeful distortion and misstatement of Christianity that it warrants no attention, other than to point out that it is downright silly. 

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: manticorefan It is condemned every time it is mentioned. But as Christ said, '..such were some of you'.quote>

And so are plenty of other sins, like failing to help the poor and needy, or to abuse the name of the lord. Why should being attract to one of the same sex be any worse than refusing to help the poor?

quote>

 

Aha! Someone that understands! It is mentioned together with other sins like theft and drunkenness, not above them. That is a critical point that many people miss. Only 1 sin was called unpardonable; and that because it is a 'point of no return'.

The idea of identifying oneself as gay is a western viewpoint. A gay Arab filmmaker pointed out the difference a while back, referencing Ahmadinejad's claim that there were no homosexuals in Iran. To a degree, he was accurate. Almost no Arab would claim to be gay in their nature. From an Eastern point of view it is considered a fetish or kink that can be enjoyed semi-secretly (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is purported to have a very lively gay scene) but not paraded or 'lived out' as it is here.  

[wir3d 2]

Yes, very true.

[wir3d 2]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 so you don't do work on the sabbath and you kill whoever does? come on, the bible has its outdated parts for our modern society because it IS a book that's thousands of years old (or for christians, as old as the universe which happens to be 6000 years *rolley eyes*). I think a new modern bible needs to be compiled because some of the ideals written are not pertinent to the times we live in.quote>

 

Sorry for double post.

Ok since you have not read the Bible in a while, im guessing,  God does not like religion, he rather you give your heart up to him and live like a Christian.   Im not saying you should become a christian, just wanted to clear that up.   And those sabbath things are really outdated.

God says NEVER  to change want the bible says.  It could really mess the meaning of the bible up.  Yes i know there is different versions of the bible BUT, they all mean the same thing, just in different context.  Thus anyone should never try to change a part in the bible.

[patriots_1228 51]

How could god tell us anything about the bible if god didn't write the bible, or tell us what to write?

the bible was written by humans. Please don't forget that. They did a pretty damn good job, but still, it is not the 100% word of god.

[belfastuniguy 18]

The idea of identifying oneself as gay is a western viewpoint. A gay Arab filmmaker pointed out the difference a while back, referencing Ahmadinejad's claim that there were no homosexuals in Iran. To a degree, he was accurate. Almost no Arab would claim to be gay in their nature. From an Eastern point of view it is considered a fetish or kink that can be enjoyed semi-secretly (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is purported to have a very lively gay scene) but not paraded or 'lived out' as it is here. quote>

And the problem with someone being openly gay is what??

Would you like for gay people to be closeted all their life living a sad and depressing existence becuase they feel wider society would shun and abuse them. I'm not an openly camp person I live a perfectly normal and successful life without having to scream my sexuality from the rooftops. Some like to do that, I can't say its for me but its their life to do with as they wish. People have such old stereotypical images of gay people and gay people in society. The majority of older gay men I know are extremely successful in stable and long-term relationships which can't be said for some of my heterosexual friends and contribute a lot to society. Younger gay men are happier when they are 'out' as they can enjoy life to the full without living a lie and unable to express themselves. I have been 'out' since I was 12/13 and have never experienced any homophobia, I feel very proud to be gay and be able to life my life how I wish and not feel repressed or hated by society.

A lot of that is to do with my background, I was very fortunate to have grown up in a pretty liberal and financially comfortable family and attend open minded schools where your sexuality was not an issue and had great friends. Sadly some of the views expressed here in this thread still exist in some communities and lead to a lot of young gay men feeling incredibly depressed and some taking their own lives precisely becuase people like wir3d still feel they can spread their un-Christian judgemental views in what is suppose to be an open and forward looking society.

Christians are not suppose to judge anyone, if you do then you hardly call yourself a Christian not matter how many times you pray or read the Bible or attend church. To believe so, is to be hypocrite. The Christian church is no place whatsoever to preach virtue to anyone given their long history of war, greed, child abuse, cover-up and countless other sinful deeds. As many have stated not every is so black and white as some like to think.

[belfastuniguy 18]

God says NEVER to change want the bible says. It could really mess the meaning of the bible up. Yes i know there is different versions of the bible BUT, they all mean the same thing, just in different context. Thus anyone should never try to change a part in the bible.quote>

Ohhh dear I'm afraid your several hundred years to late with that statement. You really should read about the history of how and when the Bible was created and how the Bible has already been changed and altered to suit certain faiths...

[patriots_1228 51]

The first thing I learned in CCD was that christianity accepts everyone. Secondly, being gay is somthing you are born with, not a decision. So, if person a is gay, and being gay is a problem in the eyes of the church, then the church will have to admit that god, the almighty god, has messed up, because being gay was not a choice, but rather a part of person a that he/she cannot change.

[jadebullet 0]

i would just like to say that i believe that the bible supports evolution. In Genesis it states that mankind was created from the clay of the Earth. I believe that this is symbolism (the bible is full of it) and that it means that we were slowly shaped from the squirrel like creature that scientists believe that we evolved from. (It wasn't apes contrary to popular belief.)

[autoVino 26]

Originally posted by: jadebullet i would just like to say that i believe that the bible supports evolution. In Genesis it states that mankind was created from the clay of the Earth. I believe that this is symbolism (the bible is full of it) and that it means that we were slowly shaped from the squirrel like creature that scientists believe that we evolved from. (It wasn't apes contrary to popular belief.)quote>

 

can you cite some evidence?, because apes sounds farfeched to me, but still possilbe.  But squirle just doesn't click.

[belfastuniguy 18]

No offence Jade while I applaud your support for evolution. Science has shown we evolved from apes. Given the fact our DNA is very similar and skeletal remains have shown this.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy ...still feel they can spread their un-Christian judgemental views in what is suppose to be an open and forward looking society.

Christians are not suppose to judge anyone, if you do then you hardly call yourself a Christian not matter how many times you pray or read the Bible or attend church. To believe so, is to be hypocrite. quote>

 

Nice job exposing yourself as a judgemental hypocrite. You have already passed judgement on someone else!

What I see is someone who wants the easy part of Christianity, while disregarding the actual work of reconciling what they think they believe with what they truly want. 

Something I hear often is the false assertion that 'church is full of hypocrites'. Like your workplace or favorite restaurant isn't? How about your favorite political party? 

Humanity is hypocritical. No matter what you identify yourself by, it touches you too. It's not discriminatory, or esoteric, or limited to any group.

[jadebullet 0]

sry bout the confusion. Apes evolved in a seperate branch from humans. We share a common ancestor but we didnt evolve from the apes. In reality it is believed that both humans and apes evolved from a man sized squirrel like creature. not like modern squirrels btw, bigger and more ape-like, but not an actual ape.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Nice job exposing yourself as a judgemental hypocrite. You have already passed judgement on someone else!

What I see is someone who wants the easy part of Christianity, while disregarding the actual work of reconciling what they think they believe with what they truly want.

Something I hear often is the false assertion that 'church is full of hypocrites'. Like your workplace or favorite restaurant isn't? How about your favorite political party?

Humanity is hypocritical. No matter what you identify yourself by, it touches you too. It's not discriminatory, or esoteric, or limited to any group.quote>

I'm perfectly secure in what I believe and I don't need organised religion or a flawed holy book to tell me otherwise. If we really want to engage in the historic hypocrisy of Christian churches then we can do, but you have the intelligence to perfectly understand what I mean. The difference between some of the judgements passed in this thread is that some hide behind their Bible to validate their views and use that as an excuse for their hatred.

You also didn't address my points regarding repressing homosexuality and being open. Interesting....

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

My perspective on homosexuality has been well covered, if the numerous verses in the Bible aren't enough. If you believe the Bible is flawed because it condemns homosexuality, then I am not the one with whom you need to register a complaint. You need to contact the Home Office for that, but I warn you...They won't change policy for anyone.

[deadwoods 542]

Originally posted by: wir3d ...  And those sabbath things are really outdated.

God says NEVER  to change want the bible says.  It could really mess the meaning of the bible up.  Yes i know there is different versions of the bible BUT, they all mean the same thing, just in different context.  Thus anyone should never try to change a part in the bible.quote>

And there's the challenge in the Bible...

As you say in your first paragraph, some of the content is no longer relevant in the modern context. So some isn't relevant to modern society and should be ignored. But who gets to decide what's relevant? Certainly not God; there are no patches or fixpacks applied to the Bible directly from heaven. It's up to the priests, pastors etc. to interpret and decide what to apply.

But in your second paragraph you say that the bible shouldn't be changed and that all the different versions say the same thing just in a different context. So this means it should be taken verbatim, that there's no interpretation allowed and the Sabbath stoning is still valid?

As has been mentioned, the Bible is a book written by men based on their beliefs (and perhaps political expediency at the time  if you take the cynical view). The New Testament is closest to the word of God as it was based on people who were with Jesus. The Old Testament is the stories handed down from generations. It is only a small faction of Christianity that takes the Old Testament verbatim. Most of Christianity is based on the great messages about living a good life in the New Testament, not on the Fire and Brimstone bedtime stories in the Old Testament.

[6underground 11]

Manticore, the problem with your opinion is that the Bible's passages are all to often down to interpretation:

Examples:

Old Testament:

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; dear and delightful you were to me; your love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women."

PRO-GAY

A pro-gay position might be that this is a clear indication that King David had a gay relationship, and to pretend otherwise is naive.

ANTI-GAY

An anti-gay opinion might be that the friendship between the two men was exactly that - a very close and loyal allegiance.

"They called to Lot and asked him where the men were who had entered his house that night. 'Bring them out,' they shouted, 'so that we might have intercourse with them.'"

ANTI-GAY

An anti-gay argument might say this story demonstrates the immorality of homosexuality, as has been accepted for generations, hence the term sodomy. Elsewhere in Genesis, God says of the men: "Their sin is very grave." It's an example of behaviour degenerating.

PRO-GAY

Of course the men's behaviour was wicked, but it was wicked because it's a tale of sexual assault and rape. When Jesus mentions Sodom, hundreds of years later, it appears to be in a context of a discussion of hospitality, rather than one of sexual morality

"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination."

ANTI-GAY

An anti-gay position would be that this line is unambiguous. It is also repeated elsewhere in the book. The speaker of the words is God, so this is an explicit indication that homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. It was one of the sins that justified God in giving the land of Canaan to the Israelites

PRO-GAY

A pro-gay argument might say that other verses in the same book forbid a wide range of sexual activities, including having sex with a woman who is having her period. This is an indication that the passage embodies specific cultural values rather than God's law.

"[A] man shall leave his father and mother, and be made one with his wife; and the two shall become one flesh."

ANTI-GAY

This indicates Jesus saw heterosexual relations as the proper way of behaving.

PRO-GAY

Jesus is actually talking about the sanctity of heterosexual marriage

"That is something which not everyone can accept, but only those for whom God has appointed it. For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or made so by men, there are others who have themselves renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept it who can."

PRO-GAY

This shows that Jesus is more concerned with people looking after their own relationship with God, than with enforcement of rules. The reference to being "born so" indicates that heterosexual marriage is fine for those who are heterosexual, but it's OK to be different. Again and again Jesus reaches out to those on the margins of society, like prostitutes and tax collectors, to include them.

ANTI

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

If you believe the Bible is flawed because it condemns homosexuality, then I am not the one with whom you need to register a complaint. You need to contact the Home Office for that, but I warn you...They won't change policy for anyone.quote>

The way I see it, the Bible isn't flawed because it says X, Y, or Z.   It's flawed because it was edited by a political committee during the Council of Nicea.  Like all political committees, it had its own agenda to pursue and the Truth wasn't it.

Actually, I take that back.  I do believe the Bible is flawed because of some of the things it says.  The behavior of some of the so-called "good" people in the bible would any of us arrested today and rightfully so.  But I also believe the political committee polluted it beyond recognition.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

The difference between some of the judgements passed in this thread is that some hide behind their Bible to validate their views and use that as an excuse for their hatred. quote>

Now here is the thing that I don't understand.   Back when I was a kid in church, one of the songs we would sing had the refrain "They will know we are Christians by our love".    Somehow, these days, people who claim they are the only "true Christians" seem to be spouting a lot of hatred.   How did things change from being about love to being about hate?

I know the saying "hate the sin, not the sinner".  That still doesn't make any sense to me.  Spewing hatred, no matter where it is directed, isn't going to get anyone any place they want to be.

As Obi-wan says "hatred leads to the dark side of the force".   It is my understanding that God doesn't want us to go there. 

If you don't like quoting Obi-wan, okay, look at the old saying "what goes around comes around".  Spewing hatred is going to come back and bite you.  

Or, if you like biblical terms, how about "bread cast upon the waters returns tenfold".   Hatred works the same way.

No matter how you phrase it, I don't see anything positive coming from hatred.  Why is it so popular these days among the "only true Christians"?

[belfastuniguy 18]

If you believe the Bible is flawed because it condemns homosexuality, then I am not the one with whom you need to register a complaint. You need to contact the Home Office for that, but I warn you...They won't change policy for anyone.quote>

I have no need to complain to anyone about what the Bible says about homosexuality, thankfully most intelligent people ignore it and go about creating a more inclusive society not based on religious prejudice. I'm fully protected by my government against open homophobia should I ever experience it and feel perfectly secure and happy with my lifestyle, shame others aren't.

[6underground 11]

Now here is the thing that I don't understand. Back when I was a kid in church, one of the songs we would sing had the refrain "They will know we are Christians by our love". Somehow, these days, people who claim they are the only "true Christians" seem to be spouting a lot of hatred. How did things change from being about love to being about hate?quote>

i think the old saying is true, the minority ruins it for the majority. I'm staunchly atheist and a Humanist, but I do have Christian friends that I love very much. They key thing is that not one of my Christian friends has ever told me that I'm a sinner or I'm going to hell for simply doing what I feel is right and with whom I care for. The thing I've come to realise is that Christians are not intrinsically linked into hating gay people like mindless drones heading one sole interpretation of the bible, rather many Chrisitans following many interpretations of it.

I am sure that, if there were a God and there was a Jesus, he would not be so sadistic as to condemn homosexuality all the while allowing nature (and I mean MANY MANY species) to engage in homosexual behaviour, sometimes long term. The evidence of which is all around.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

...I have no need to complain to anyone about what the Bible says about homosexuality, thankfully most intelligent people ignore it ...quote>

 

Again, a Christian doesn't ignore the Bible. So, let me summarize based on your previous statements:

The Bible is wrong, and not the Word of God. However, since it is the only source of information about Christ (except claims by the book of Mormon, but let's avoid that altogether), then...

 Christ's claim to Deity is suspect as well. If you discount Christ's essential Deity, then there's really no point in following Him, or pretending to. 

Scripture is a package deal. Either it is true as a whole, or untrue as a whole. To wit:

The Old Testament carried numerous prophecies concerning the Messiah. Christ's fulfillment of these prophecies established His claim as the Son of God. To deny, say, the Virgin Birth, or the Resurrection, is to deny His essential Deity; metaphorically making Him a mentally ill man on the level of someone who claims to be a poached egg. 

Why was He most harsh on the Pharisees? Because they knew by prophecy, that He was the Messiah. They were hypocrites using God's house to further their own power and greed; true. They detested Christ not because they didn't know who He was, but because they did know and it was a threat to their own wicked enterprises. Consider that, those who knew He was the Messiah, and saw the miracles personally, still had Him killed. Why would I expect any different nowadays?

When Scripture is viewed in the proper exegesis, an unbroken thread appears from beginning to end. Like the Passover ritual from Exodus foreshadowing the Cross, or the Temple curtain being split in half at the Crucifixion. The whole thing is tied with one string, not like sausages in a rope that can be cut up and picked through individually. If you want to ignore only the things with which you disagree, then don't bother choosing. Ignore the whole thing. That way you'll be much less surprised later on.

---

On interpretations, you guys are right. Interpretations are like....elbows, everybody's got at least one. That's the problem with people, you can't trust them to take a message properly. I don't see it as a problem with the text so much as a problem with the people who read it. Case in point: The President  of the USA wanting to argue over the meaning of the word 'is'. Remember that? In that kind of light, who would want anyone else's opinion on what the Bible means?

 There are many translations, there are Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic verbatim translations I've been told, but they are very difficult to read as not everything has an English equivalent. There are a few accepted standards that are good enough for the pickiest theological scholar. The New King James or NASB work well enough for general use, although I don't even like the NASB that much. It's really a straw man to nitpick over translation, it's been pretty much settled for most of us.

[jadebullet 0]

The Bible is flawed for 1 reason and 1 reason alone. It wasn't written by God. It was written by man. And edited by man. Don't believe me then what about the dead sea scrolls. Or the fact that Mary Magdaline was technically an Apostle and was never a whore. (it was a different woman that the bible talks about Jesus saving)

[wir3d 2]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

God says NEVER to change want the bible says. It could really mess the meaning of the bible up. Yes i know there is different versions of the bible BUT, they all mean the same thing, just in different context. Thus anyone should never try to change a part in the bible.quote>

Ohhh dear I'm afraid your several hundred years to late with that statement. You really should read about the history of how and when the Bible was created and how the Bible has already been changed and altered to suit certain faiths...[/q

Ok please tell me were you got this valuable piece of information?  Because that sounds like a lie.]

[Hamish 1,369]

Originally posted by: jadebullet sry bout the confusion. Apes evolved in a seperate branch from humans. We share a common ancestor but we didnt evolve from the apes. In reality it is believed that both humans and apes evolved from a man sized squirrel like creature. not like modern squirrels btw, bigger and more ape-like, but not an actual ape.quote>

But wouldn't one think if we shared ancestry with apes, wouldn't that mean that at some stage we evolved from apes?

And, What did squirrels evolve from?

I can believe apes/monkeys. But, as autoVino said, the squirle just doesn't click.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: wir3d Ok please tell me were you got this valuable piece of information?  Because that sounds like a lie.]quote>

The Bible isn't one book, neatly organised by God. It's a collection of several (66 in all) books—the word itself means "books". Before the Christian Bible was collected, the Jews used what is today the Old Testament as their Bible (which the continue to do today); however Greek Jews used a version a little different from the Hebrew Bible— Septuaginta has some books that the Hebrew Bible doesn't have, and Orthodox Christians uses this as their Old Testament, thereby differing from the Bible Western Christian uses. The books in the Christian Bible (the New Testament) were selected, based on the three principles: They should be written by or for a first hand witness to the events described (antiquity); they should be recognised by the whole church (catholisism); they should not contain new or contradicting teachings (orthodoxy). This was discussed the first centuries after Christ's death, but not finally confirmed before the 1500's. When the Reformation hit Northern Europe, som reformers also wanted to reform the Biblical Canon; however, this was not done.

Today the Protestant and Catholic churches uses the same Bible, but only Catholics have the Apocrypha, a set of writings which do not fulfil the criterias. The Orthodox Bible differs from these two again.

[deadwoods 542]

Originally posted by: krbe ...Before the Christian Bible was collected, the Jews used what is today the Old Testament as their Bible (which the continue to do today); however Greek Jews used a version a little different from the Hebrew Bible— Septuaginta has some books that the Hebrew Bible doesn't have, and Orthodox Christians uses this as their Old Testament, thereby differing from the Bible Western Christian uses. ...quote>

This brings up an interesting point. Does Judaism believe in a strict interpretation of the Old Testament (their Bible) and thus Creationism?