Are You a Creationist or an Evolutionist? (See Post For Details)

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Fish

I started with believing Genesis, then moved to Sea Demon's point of view.
Now I am with Antikristuseke.

This is a topic where I see people just voicing their own personal belief system. The beliefs they have come to accept for themselves. Nothing wrong in any of that. I'm not trying to change minds in this topic. In a way, I think Darwin was right. But he only knew of some of the processes. And looked at how changes in environmental aspects, could affect how life based systems were affected. He did not understand the origins. Darwin tried to make a case about evolutionary processes, but could not answer the big $64,000 questions of where "it all came from". IMO, these evolutionary processes are from God himself. I see DNA as a divinely based mechanism. To me, God made the system, but does not intervene in every cell or every life process.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by aaronblood

Do I need to prove there's a God? Could I even introduce perhaps a shadow of a doubt in the mind of an atheist? What represents our understanding of the infinite universe? If the universe were finite and represented a 12'x12' wall could I point to a pin-sized dot on the wall and say, "Here's what we understand?" Does it not take as much, if not more, faith to suggest that God doesn't exist in that vast infinite area that we know nothing about?

Nice way to make a point.

[Tex]

Hi guys. If you haven't seen this film it's worth a look. It's in 3 parts and the first part discusses christianity. Alot of it made sense. It's a long film if you watch all 3 parts, but staying on topic with this thread, part 1 is the only part you need to see.

Part 1 starts after a lengthy intro:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[XLjedi]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

You never know that scorned god might have something nasty in store for you. I can expain away my non-belief as simple dumbkopf ignorance of any god, but you would have been willfully worshipping a false one.

No... I would still be reporting to the same one infinite eternal God, I just would've been (in your mind) giving Him more credit than he deserved. In which, case I would say, beg your pardon God, I was just trying to give You the credit for everything in my life and all of existance. I think He would understand. ...and surely a God of all love would accept me with all my shortcomings. Especially since I was erring in the direction of His sovereignty.

On the other hand, if I'm right...

[XLjedi]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

maybe but until you have scientific evidence of this, heres one unbeliever who will continue to 'un-believe'

One of the 11 most famous Christians to ever live shared your belief, for a while...
His words were identical to yours, and his account preserved in the Bible.

If God had chosen to manifest himself in the present day and age instead of 2000 years ago, He may have said to Thomas. Look here in this microscope, and now look here beyond infinity in this telescope and tell me what you see. "My Lord and my God!"

Jesus goes on to say to Thomas, "Because you have seen you believe. Blessed are those who believe and have not seen."

[August]

I'm a Creating Evolutionary, or was that an Evolving Creationist? :hmm: Ah fuggedabout it, just don't call me late for supper!

[Boris]

Originally Posted by August

I'm a Creating Evolutionary, or was that an Evolving Creationist? :hmm: Ah fuggedabout it, just don't call me late for supper!

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I could call myself kinda the same...

I'm no atheist, but still accept that the rise of life was an evolutionary process. To take the Bible literally is folly. Sure the spark of life my have been created at some point... but not all at once.

[August]

Originally Posted by Boris

To take the Bible literally is folly.

Exactly. The way i see it, the concept of God is something that the human race barely begins to comprehend. The Bible is just an attempt to explain the unexplainable, quantify the infinite, define the undefinable.

If you want to really understand the point of the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran or any other religious text then you must think of them as being written like a childrens book where characters and their actions are used to illustrate a lesson or moral rather than recount a specific historical event.

For example nobody thinks there was an actual "Boy Who Cried Wolf" but the moral behind it; that nobody believes a liar even when he speaks the truth, is well illustrated by telling the story.

[geetrue]

I've found the best way to understand God is to just believe that God is in three persons ...

God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit

One of them lives in me at all times and He doesn't have to go ask the other two anything.

God is so big and so real that we the people are finite ...

We can not understand God due to the fact that He is infinite ...

[XLjedi]

Originally Posted by Boris

To take the Bible literally is folly.

Generally speaking, the problem isn't with folks who take the Bible literally. There are most certainly parts of the Bible that are poetic prose and indeed do have some allegorical qualities. But the allegory has a specific and literal meaning behind it. The parts of the Bible (Genesis, Psalms, Song of Soloman, Revelation) are indeed poetic and artful in their presentation at times, but the underlying message conveyed is pretty clear and meant to be taken literally.

The problem is when people refuse to take the parts of the Bible literally that are clearly not meant to be allegorical. You can tell which books have these specific overtones.

The argument being, "Well, you don't take the Bible literally do you?" In other words, I can read whatever I want into any verse and interpret it however it happens to suit me. ...and if for some reason I don't happen to like what it's telling me, I can easily just dismiss it as poetical nonsense. Or even though an entire book of the Bible is written without allegory, I can just say this one verse here is allegorical and I can interpret it however I like.

For those few books, I take them literally in the sense that there is a specific theme that was trying to be conveyed that I should pay attention to and do my best to understand as presented... as opposed to approaching each chapter/passage with my own pre-conceived notions and looking for loopholes.

Believe it or not, the great majority of books, chapters, and verses contained in the Bible are not subject to too much debate. We get all caught up in things like "What is a day to an infinite being?", "How many angels can fit on the head of pin?", "Did Adam have a belly button?", "Will my dog go to Heaven?" All interesting questions to ponder and perhaps one day pose to God, but too often given as some basis for dismissing the entire Bible outright.

When Jesus said to forgive your brother 7x70 times for instance, He was using a mathematical practice of the time that the people understood. They expressed very large (maybe even infinite) numbers by multiplication with larger numbers in multiples of 10 or 100 or even 1000. In Revelation where it talks of the 12 tribes of Israel and 12x12000 going to Heaven, that was meant to represent all nations of Earth... not literally, there's only 144,000 seats in Heaven.

Most good study (and non-denominational) study Bibles will include notes to help you understand the context of what's being conveyed.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by aaronblood

It's nearly impossible to pick up and literally read the Bible from beginning to end and fully comprehend its message. Just read Mark (carefully) and give me your impressions... some very interesting things in there about how Jesus interacted with his disciples. These twelve really come across as misfit misguided children... perhaps not the story you would expect to read. And certainly not the qualities you would expect to see in folks who are supposed to be the foundation for a religion. I try to put myself in Jesus shoes having to deal with these guys, and I think, "I'm done dealing with you hard-headed totally ignorant people." With His own disciples he had to do things with them, two, three times... and it still didn't sink in. He fed the multitudes, not once, but twice! He seemingly had to do everything at least twice... There's even a verse in Mark where Jesus asks, "Good? Why do you call me good? Only God is good." It's pretty remarkable actually.

King James version (KJV) can be difficult... I think people like to use that version when talking from the pulpit or for reading specific passages aloud during the holidays. It's got a certain historical grammatical appeal I s'pose...

New International Version (NIV) seems to have taken some liberties in some areas. I've noted that theologens seem to like this version the least, although I'm not saying they don't like it, or necessarily strongly disagree with it, just not the favorite.

I like the New American Standard version (NAS); seems to strike a happy balance. I can comprehend it, and the translation seems to be most on par with the KJV.

A friend of mine has a (very thick) version which has every single verse of the Bible in all three versions, to compare and contrast. Occasionally, he'll come across a verse where it's helpful in understanding to read all three.

I wonder, what makes you believe Mark? Mark is written 40 or 60 years after "Jesus' dead.
Long enough a time to make up some stories.
I ask you because there is not a single letter written about him (Jesus) during his live.
Not by romans, not by Jews while his live is full of wonders, waking the dead, walking on water, making wine from water etcetera etcetera.
For me the story could just be a hoax. They (the writers) know about the profetys, so they could use them to make the story even better.

[Skybird]

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=712905&archival=&posts=9

[August]

And the athiests trash yet another discussion. God forbid they feel left out...

[XLjedi]

Originally Posted by Fish

I wonder, what makes you believe Mark? Mark is written 40 or 60 years after "Jesus' dead.
Long enough a time to make up some stories.
I ask you because there is not a single letter written about him (Jesus) during his live.
Not by romans, not by Jews while his live is full of wonders, waking the dead, walking on water, making wine from water etcetera etcetera.
For me the story could just be a hoax. They (the writers) know about the profetys, so they could use them to make the story even better.

That's a great question. ...and something I wondered myself before I began to study the Bible. Let's be clear though, you're not just asking about Mark. You're really asking, "Why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?"

I happend to pick Mark, just because most Christians would tell you to read John, in which case you would've said, "Pffft... Typical, John 3:16 Christian nonsense." Am, I right?

My main question back to you then is, "Why didn't the writers make their stories better?"

One of the reasons (mind you, I said one) I believe the Bible is inspired is because it very specifically does not paint its "heros" in a favorable light... as you might expect from an historical account that has been influenced by man's natural tendencies toward revisionist history. The Biblical heros are all horribly tarnishd by at least one of the following: murder, selfishness, adultery, incest, lust, lack of faith, disobedience, idoletry, and drunkeness... I mean you name it, they did it. I look at the story of Noah in the old testament and wonder, "Why on Earth would the person writing this want to mention Noah layed out naked in a drunken stuper?" ...and then likewise, in the book of Mark I see Jesus asking people why they call him good if only God is good? Could someone not point to this and say, "Look here's Jesus himself saying He's not God."

If I were a writer, attempting to give an account of something that happened in my life, would I not be at least somewhat inclined to make myself look a little better in this picture? Mark speaks of the total ineptness, corruption, lack of faith, and failings of the apostles? They're a bunch of misfits. Is that really how I want to be remembered for all eternity. What man-made religion would want to start out with that storyline? ...these are suppose to be the founders of my religion!

I agree with you, "Wouldn't the writers want to make the story better?"

Also, the writers of the Bible were giving individual accounts, sometimes 30 and sometimes 100 or more years apart; in isolation of one another, in different parts of the world, some were even in jail at the time. There was not a concerted effort in the hearts of these writers to produce a single book to found a religion upon. Yet that's exactly what God had in mind as He inspired the writings.

All these stories, accounts, letters, poetry, and parables seem to overlap perfectly and tell the same repeated story. When combined into a single book they are intended to be proof that the authors were not only sincere but inspired by God. You may not believe one individuals account... so here's a whole book full of overlapping testimony. It actually makes it much more difficult to deny.

I have to view the Bible like a detective or scientist searching for the truth. I have done enough research to learn that there were many writers and eyewitnesses to the events that took place. The stories and letters were documented at different times, different places, in isolation of one another. The accounts overlap in details, chronology, and description of events. Individually I may not believe a single one... but together they make a very compelling argument that I just can't deny.

There's an underlying theme and correlation here between accounts that appears to me as being perfect in its execution. That's why I believe it to be the inspired Word of God, inerrant and infallible.

But like many, I did not easily or quickly come to that conclusion... and I was very skeptical. I was not raised as a Christian, so the notion of the Bible being literally from God was very difficult for me to accept. My honest attitude was, "Yeah, OK prove to me the Bible came from God before you expect me to believe any of it." ...and I am not one who is easily persuaded. Granted, I'm no genius but I don't consider myself a simpleton either. I've been thru 6 years of college, finished a Masters degree, worked in the business world for a decade, and have a pretty decent programming-mathematical-logic-oriented background. I honestly never expected that I would one day be arguing from this side of the street.

[XLjedi]

Originally Posted by August

And the athiests trash yet another discussion. God forbid they feel left out...

Hey, those cartoons above...

That would've been my post 15 years ago.