Repent for being a Mac user!!

Originally posted by MDLarson

Yes it does, and think (and read) for yourself. The pope cannot override the Bible, and certainly does not dictate to protestant Christians. Very simply and quickly, to defend my 1 statement, let me show how Genesis truly conflicts with evolution…

Evolution is a process of struggle and death when it comes down to it, that is beyond dispute. Before the original sin of Adam & Eve, God proclaimed all of Creation "very good". After the sin was committed, God cursed all mankind as punishment and one of the curses was death. The key point here is that before this curse of death, humans were designed to live forever.

If you follow the written text, your only logical conclusion is to discount the validity of the Bible, as you did. Now you can comfortably live with evolution and still (somehow?) consider yourself a Christian.

I'm sorry for diverting this thread somewhat, but I have to defend myself! :(
Click to expand...

1. why do you have to defend yourself? have i attacked you?
2. the pope by admiting to such thing as evolution is not contradicting the bible.

first off, do you take verythig you read literally? why do you think christians should take the bible literally? waht's more impportant? believing a and old book word for word? or doing good in your society? what makes you a better chrsitina? arguing like that mad man (the author of that stupid article) or having positive action?
 
Originally posted by vic
1. why do you have to defend yourself? have i attacked you?
2. the pope by admiting to such thing as evolution is not contradicting the bible.

first off, do you take verythig you read literally? why do you think christians should take the bible literally? waht's more impportant? believing a and old book word for word? or doing good in your society? what makes you a better chrsitina? arguing like that mad man (the author of that stupid article) or having positive action?
Click to expand...
I have to defend my statement, otherwise I'm a weeny. You didn't "attack" me, but you did say I was wrong in saying what I said.

Christians ought to take the Bible literally (and seriously) because it defines them! How can you claim to be a Christian if you don't even believe your own faith-book? There are places in the Bible where an absolutely literal interpretation would be ridiculous (poetry, hyperbole). But for the most part, the Bible should be taken straight-forward. And amazingly enough, the Christian is expected to do good works. Not like Dr. Paley, he does more harm than good, I thought that at least that was clear from my previous posts.

Please explain how the pope did not contradict the Genesis account when he said "evolution is A-OK with me". I'm dying to know.

Please, friends, do not take this as me pushing my beliefs on anybody–I just want to clarify true Biblical doctrine.
 
Please explain how the pope did not contradict the Genesis account when he said "evolution is A-OK with me". I'm dying to know.
Click to expand...

what vic meant, if he will allow me to explain, is that the pope was not contradicting the bible, because he does not take the bible literally. if i say that tortoises don t race hares, am i contradicting the story of the tortoise and the hare? no, because that never happened. it is just a story with a moral, and the moral is true whether the story actually happened or not.

i believe that vic made this point pretty clear, if you reread his posts
 
All that you have convinced me of is that the pope does not believe the Bible. This still does not solve the question of whether or not evolution contradicts with the Genesis account (which is still part of the Catholic Bible, I believe).

Wether or not you believe a certain passage to be literally true or not is irrelevant when determining if it is simply contradictory to another belief. THAT is what I'm getting at.

So let me ask again; can you believe Genesis and evolution at the same time? I challenge anybody to explain how it can be so. I will be happy to move to a new thread for this discussion, as this one is quickly moving away from Dr. Paley's article… :rolleyes:
 
I think we need to stop calling him "Dr. Paley". There are so many more expressive words, most of which have four letters, that would be a much more appropriate prefix for "Paley". :) :)
 
Originally posted by lethe


what vic meant, if he will allow me to explain, is that the pope was not contradicting the bible, because he does not take the bible literally. if i say that tortoises don t race hares, am i contradicting the story of the tortoise and the hare? no, because that never happened. it is just a story with a moral, and the moral is true whether the story actually happened or not.

i believe that vic made this point pretty clear, if you reread his posts
Click to expand...

thnak you! if i wil need a lwayer i will call on you first :)
 
LMFAO!!!! OMG!!
I am a Christian and a Mac user...and I couldn't get enough of the web page
Talk about brainwashing kids...

STAY AWAY FROM ATHEISTS!!!
GO TO CHURCH, DON'T SLEEP, EAT, TALK TO GIRLS, OR MAKE MONEY!!!
THE EARTH IS 10,000 YEARS OLD!
I guess that means that the perfect Christian is an anorexic, gay, poor insomniac (I guess that's why the priests are molesting people)

they may as well say GOING #2 IS EVIL!! THAT'S COMPRESSED EVIL FROM SATAN COMING OUT OF YOU!!! GOD WILL HATE YOU IF YOU DO THAT!!!

Isn't Darwin a very fitting term for Apple's FreeBSD, considering when developers tinker with the source code, the OS EVOLVES?!!

Waaaaaay to funny...I'm sure overprotective parents actually believe that horse ****.
 
Originally posted by MDLarson
All that you have convinced me of is that the pope does not believe the Bible. This still does not solve the question of whether or not evolution contradicts with the Genesis account (which is still part of the Catholic Bible, I believe).

Wether or not you believe a certain passage to be literally true or not is irrelevant when determining if it is simply contradictory to another belief. THAT is what I'm getting at.

So let me ask again; can you believe Genesis and evolution at the same time? I challenge anybody to explain how it can be so. I will be happy to move to a new thread for this discussion, as this one is quickly moving away from Dr. Paley's article… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

can you believe an apple can be red and yellow and green?

sure you can.

can you define the question?

there are many ways you can believe something.

u mean believe in geneseis as literal description of a historical account?
 
MDLarson - I just have to know: What about the bits where the bible contradicts itself? I mean, you've got two different creation myths sort of shuffled together in Genesis, right?

Oh, incidentally, the reason the site is down is because it (finally, inevitably) got slashdotted.

I still think the whole thing is a parody. As someone pointed out on slashdot - the university the guy claims to teach at doesn't exist, or at least is not referred to online anywhere other than this one website. And, a professor of theobiology? The only place other than this site I could find that referred to such a field was the "Vedic Cultural Fellowship", whoever they are.
 
As an athiest, I can't really say that I know a lot about the Bible or can tell anybody what they should do with respect to religion, but I do know that the Bible does not have to be taken literally and thus does not contradict evolution.

Also, on another note, like WDRAM pointed out, "Darwin" is not necessarily related to the evolutionary theory of the creation of Earth. "Darwin" simply refers to the evolution of the operating system, and the name was only chosen because of who came up with the theory. Just because the underlying system is named "Darwin" doesn't necessarily mean that all users of that system need to believe in evolution, nor does it imply that evolution is true.
 
hey matt, how many people did God create in the garden of eden?

just checking to see how well you know this source you take as literal truth.:)

frankly, i agree with the article and find it a very supportive argument for using a mac:p ;)
 
is precisely what you said, it supports the argument for using a Mac.

But iPaley does have a point, I'm a commi (theoretically) atheist (actually).:D
 
I don't want to address anything other than the original point of discussion right now, and that is the unanswered question: "How can the theory of evolution happily coincide… Woah, a fruit-fly bug just flew into my cereal!

Anyway, how can evolution be true and Bibilical creation be true as well?

C'mon people, there are theories on the matter, and I haven't heard one yet--I just hear people saying "Well, I just know that the Bible doesn't have a problem with evolution." WHY? I say it does, and I'm willing to defend my position.

Scruffy, I'd be willing to talk about those apparent contradictions privately–I just can't keep up in a public setting like this.
 
The Bible has been so drastically changed, reinterpreted -- equally the church has reinterpreted and changed their views on all matters concerning society and the law of God according to the bible.

Christianity today is not the same law or philosophy as it was 500 years, 200 years, even 100 years ago. This inevitably came about due to social change and demand. Relaxed views towards other cultures, genders etc. But also, the church HAD TO give in to popularist views of the society. (Do you really think the church would tolerate homosexuality if it was left to it's own devices?)

The church, or more specifically, christians acceptance of the evolution theory could possibly fall under these changes.

However, to your question:

'how can evolution be true and Bibilical creation be true as well? '

Logically, it can't. And I for one think that Biblical creation doesn't. However, their is no reason why somebody can't go through life without thinking otherwise. The great thing is, you don't have to accept either one or the other propositions, mainy because (I presume) you live in a society that accomodates both viewpoints. However, the crux of this forum is Dr Paley's article. And it is people like Dr Paley who would have us only submit to his belief. Very dangerous indeed.

As an atheist (though I don't transcribe to an atheist belonging), or to better position myself, as an agnostic, I would not seek a reconciliation of both views existing side-by-side, this, I would see this as trying to conform to a sympathetic-diplomatic solution in order to please the opposing party.
 
Who's to say that there weren't "lesser" forms of humanity before Adam and Eve? Think about it. Do you think God said 10,000 years ago. "Hrm... well this rock is boring, let's put some people here, not to mention some animals..."

So, Genesis doesn't contradict itself. Just so long as you change your view point.

Let's look at it this way. "And so God made man in his image" Maybe there was neanderthal running about, but they didn't have souls as we do. That's what makes angels different than man. Angels have no souls according to every religious scripture I've studied. (Qur'an, Torah, Bible) So if God's messengers have no souls isn't it possible that early man didn't have a "soul"?

I know that animals have feelings, but do they act "civilized" no. They don't hold grudges (for long) nor do they weep or laugh. Or do they?

My beliefs are leading me to realize that there are many stages and levels of everything. An ant with its 8 neurons knows danger, food and loyalty. A wasp with 18 neurons knows danger, anger, food, community and loyalty. We leap up to cats and dogs and suddenly see the same core responses that live in the ant... and in ourselves.

"Blind faithers" as I coin the term ignore the facts and ignore the fact that the whole world is one. They thrive on focusing on differences and will strive to eradicate them. They are right because "God says so right here." They are dangerous to not only themselves, but to humanity as we know it. Thoughts are exceedingly powerful. Everytime you curse at your computer, do you think it stops at your computer? No, that animosity carries forward, landing on someone or something. Everytime someone cuts you off and you respond my giving them some childish hand gesture they don't "take it" it goes somewhat to them, but most of it keeps on going, hitting someone else.

I would encourage everyone with a true open-mind and those who are looking for answers. i.e. Why doesn't God talk directly to me when I pray?, Is there a God?, How can God exist if he took Mom, Dad, Grandpa, Brother, Sister etc., There is no God. I would encourage you to read Conversations with God.

As fair warning most people consider this book to be heretical, even "Written by Satan himself!" (As iPaley would say)

*end rant
 
Aah - another Religion thread, tailor made for Matt. I love these :eek:)
Originally posted by MDLarson
Anyway, how can evolution be true and Bibilical creation be true as well?
Click to expand...
Some reasons:
  1. Darwin was a Christian, and a creationist. He managed to believe the two could co-exist.
  2. The bible doesn't specify how god created the species. Would deliberately designing the mechanism for evolution be any less of a creation that conjuring organisms out of thin air? God could even have taken however many days Genesis says he did to lay down the groundwork for evolution to occur.
  3. Evolution doesn't say how life came about, just that species change progressively. Life could have been created, and then evolve.
    This is not the first time the Bible has supposedly been at odds with Scientific fact. Back in the 17th Century (I think), before it was proven otherwise, the bible was interpreted as saying that the world was the centre of the universe, and the Sun revolved around it. That turned out to be a load of crap, so the Bible scholars admitted that their interpretation must have been flawed.
    Why can't people do the same with Evolution? The literal interpretation came about before the evidence about evolution came to light, why can't hardcore Creationists just say "Well, looks like we interpreted it wrong, what does this new evidence tell us about how we ought to have interpreted it?" Isn’t it kind of arrogant of some Creationists to think that their interpretation of God’s words are so flawless that they can never be proved wrong? After all, they’re just mortals – and therefore fallible. By putting forward the idea that belief in their religion and in scientific fact are mutually exclusive, they do their religion a great disservice.

End Rant ;o)

Bernie :eek:)
 
gee Matt, yoou ignored my question. isit because you don't know the answer?:(

let me also assure you that the answer might even be related to how creationism and evolution can coexist.;)

but for other more obvious things that contribute -

language differences - unless you have been reading the Torah in the original Hebrew, then you are getting a version that has gone thru various translations and interpretations to arrive to you in english. plus it is probable that the language that was used in the original does not have all the same meanings it does today or even at the time of translation.

calender differences - keeping track of time was a very different concept back then. it certainly wasn't a science at that point.
 
religion is an explanation for things humans did not understand at a certain time in history.

religion believed the sun went round the earth, when a guy sid no, everything goes around the sun (in our solar system) they burned him alive. does anybody now believe that the sun goes around the earth?

so you see, this is why i don't take aboslutely anything from the bible literally. this is why the more scientific knowlege evolves the more religion looses its meaning and truth... actually there is no truth to religion, it's myth and popular myth. it's power comes from it's popularity not it's truth. and whoever asked that silly question 3 times , no the two beliefs canot coexist, at an equal level of belief, one has to be more true than the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top