However I do agree that the morals set out in the bible are, or the most part, good. (Minus the more extreme views of homosexuality, abortion, ect.)

I would of course argue that while the bible contains some example of good morality it never actual set any of it out. Morals existed far before the existence of the bible and of course one must have their own views on morality before reading the bible in order to decide which bits are good and which bits are bad as you showed in your own post by saying "Minus the more extreme views of homosexuality, abortion, ect"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would have to agree with you. Most of it is simply how I've been raised and, to an extent, the question is the same kind of idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@Bari: it is good to know at least that #1 wouldn't get to heaven, I'm mostly curroius about #2. ;p.

Ugh, I honestly can't say. I'd have to read Isiah...and that's gonna take a while.

Its cool, I figured this thread needed something to spice it up ;o.

 

 

But it's not totally true. I don't want to get into another Bible debate, but the Bible was written by man; it's not going to be perfect, especially not for every generation... seriously, there's nothing wrong with finding what is and isn't correct and useful for us today in the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and if the Christian God exists (doubt it), he used evolution. That stuff in Genesis is just fluffy stuff and fables to read to kids at night.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, can't you see the anti-women feeling of the time all over the story of Adam and Eve? It's the opinion of man at the time. They're just stories.

 

 

 

There are many ways of saying something that is true. Just because it's written by man and man isn't perfect, doesn't mean God can't use man to write a book the way he intended . Don't limit God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the kind of reasoning I have trouble swallowing. You claim God used man to write a book the way he intended. Galilei, a devout Catholic, wrote a book in support of the heliocentric worldview of Copernicus. Yet, he was deemed a heretic by the clergy.

 

 

 

How does one combine the two: on one hand saying the bible was written with Divine inspiration, but on the other hand dismissing a possible similar inspiration (which was proven right later on) as herecy ? Maybe God used Galilei to correct his original legacy ? Oh, but God is infallable ? The same basically goes for the evolution theory and Darwin.

 

 

 

I'm stuck in a loop here, but to me it seems the followers of God do a good job in limiting God as well.

 

 

 

The Bible itself doesn't teach a geocentric model. Galilei proved that the Bible had been misinterpreted. If science doesn't correspond with the Bible, it's either a misinterpretation of the Bible or that the scientific theory is wrong. You don't need divinie inspiration to figure out that the earth is not the centre of the universe. Galilei didn't correct the Bible, he corrected people misinterpreting the Bible.

I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it Luke 18:17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe in God, you have to believe to really understand. You're wasting your time trying to figure out a 'plausible' answer, love your God and one day you'll fully understand :)

 

 

 

These verses (or rather the whole creation story) doesn't make any sense to me if we evolved from other species:

 

 

 

Genesis 1:

 

 

 

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27 So God created man in his own image,

 

 

 

in the image of God he created him;

 

 

 

male and female he created them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe I missed your point but to me God must correspond with the Bible as I believe it's his words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if you believe that the bible was divinely inspired you still must accept the limitations of the people who wrote the bible. Ideas such as evolution, DNA and many other concepts didn't exist. For all we know 'God creating man in his image' could be about biological evolution but was written with the mind of a person thousands of years ago, so the word evolution didn't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps a modern version of the bible would contain a passage like, 'God made man with the matter of the universe and the laws which govern them'. The universe itself was created by God, so in some respects it is his image and the matter and laws would also be his image since they are components of his universe.

What, in your opinion, would be more likely to get into heaven on the basis god is real:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. A man who belives in god but doesn't follow much of his word, 'repents' but doesn't mean it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. A man who does not belive in god but gods word.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible's response to A. This is concerning a Church that is following God supposedly but is really being the weekend warrior types...

 

 

 

"5I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarmÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

OK, before I start, I am an athiest. So I don't believe in the teachings of most religions, and I reject the idea of God - there is a perfectly logical, scientific explanation to everything in my eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I personally am a believer in Free Religion. That is, there should be no State Religion. Therefore, I do not believe that laws should be based on religious teachings. They should be made on the basis of the culture of those peoples, however, I do accept that religion is a part of culture, and I wouldn't mind so much if it brought into a law through culture, through religious teaching. For example, just because I have no God, doesn't mean I'm an anarchist. Things like murder are still big no noes in my mind, and that line of thinking roots itself in the code of laws I follow, which are based on Christianity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, if the government of my country made a bill that proposed that Christianity be taught in classrooms, complusory, across the whole land, I would strongly oppose it. People should have the right to go and receive an education, without being deliberetly targeted with an attempt to convert them into Christians, or Muslims, or Jews - whatever. People should be free to make their own minds regarding religion, and the RE syllabus that we follow in the UK educates people on culture and religion, without the intent to bias them towards converting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having said that, I cannot get my head round the existence of god. To pick out Christianity, the World's biggest religion, there are several instances where the church says one thing then scientists disprove it. The most obvious being "The end of the world". But also, the way in which it holds hypocracy within its own ranks. For example, the issue of Gay rights. Why is it Jesus taught "Love thy neighbour" if leading figures of the Catholic Church can't accept Gay priests? Another case of hypocracy is the Slave Trade. Kind of relevent considering it's the 200th anniversary of the Slave Trade Abolition Act last Sunday. The church actually supported the Slave Trade, justifying it by saying "They have no souls, we are spreading the love of God, Christianity and Civilisation to the hordes of scavengers"! Only now, the church tells us it was very wrong and we should now help them. Now I'm not saying the rest of the population was more morally minded regarding slaves, but surely if the Bible hasn't changed in 2,000 years (well, never actually I guess), their teachings would also remain constant?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's such mental dilemas that confuse me in regards to religion. So I look to the only thing that seems to make logical sense - Mathematics and Science.

 

 

 

Even if you believe that the bible was divinely inspired you still must accept the limitations of the people who wrote the bible. Ideas such as evolution, DNA and many other concepts didn't exist. For all we know 'God creating man in his image' could be about biological evolution but was written with the mind of a person thousands of years ago, so the word evolution didn't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps a modern version of the bible would contain a passage like, 'God made man with the matter of the universe and the laws which govern them'. The universe itself was created by God, so in some respects it is his image and the matter and laws would also be his image since they are components of his universe.

 

 

 

I can't say that it's impossible for God to have used evolution (again macro). However, I have good reasons not to believe it. The theory of evolution pretty much says we're the same as other animals, just another species. God says we're the image of God and are meant to rule the earth. If the theory of evolution was true, some other species could in the future be the most prominent species on the earth.

Korskin, what you're doing is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you realise that evolution is a proven theory, yet because it contradicts with the creation story in Genesis you refuse to accept its validity relevant to what we see around us. You have to accept that whatever your beliefs, the Bible as we know it has been proven to be faillable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the theory of evolution was true, some other species could in the future be the most prominent species on the earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's happened in the past, in terms of time we're really not that special. Most of history was bacteria, millions of years was dinosaurs and we've been around for a few thousand really. It's entirely conceivable that we won't always be the dominant species (i.e. Homo Sapiens as we know it).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If, there is a God, the chances of him being the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible are really very small.

Assassin, where's this die-hard proven fact called evolution? Last I heard, it's still speculation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would take a case study thousands of years long to prove evolution. It's just as likely as Creation at this point.

Assassin, where's this die-hard proven fact called evolution? Last I heard, it's still speculation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would take a case study thousands of years long to prove evolution. It's just as likely as Creation at this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fossil records amongst many other things pretty much prove evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm really not the man to argue this though, I'll wait for someone else to jump in and build apon it in more detail.

Korskin, what you're doing is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you realise that evolution is a proven theory, yet because it contradicts with the creation story in Genesis you refuse to accept its validity relevant to what we see around us. You have to accept that whatever your beliefs, the Bible as we know it has been proven to be faillable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the theory of evolution was true, some other species could in the future be the most prominent species on the earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's happened in the past, in terms of time we're really not that special. Most of history was bacteria, millions of years was dinosaurs and we've been around for a few thousand really. It's entirely conceivable that we won't always be the dominant species (i.e. [bleep] Sapiens as we know it).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If, there is a God, the chances of him being the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible are really very small.

 

 

 

You saying "it's proven or it's not proven" doesn't make it valid for me. I'm not a scientist or whatever, but I've heard just as many people saying it's not proven as to it's proven. When talking about macro-evolution. What I've learned from this forum is people who says:

 

 

 

And why would you believe in Microevolution but not Macroevolution? Is there not the chance the Macroevolution is just Microevolution on a large scale? That being, that all it is, is a bunch of Microevolution shoved together until it's considered "Macroevolution". Why is that impossible? Because the fossil record doesn't support it? That hardly has any meaning to me at all, considering that they've only found like 7 T-rex skeletons out of the probable MILLIONS of them (at least) that ever walked the Earth. Sometimes, you have to think that either we have yet to find it, or it won't be found because it wasn't in the right conditions to fossilize.

 

 

 

Sorry to bring this up again. But it seems like the fossil-records aren't very convincing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do like that you think that the story of Genesis contradicts evolution. I agree with that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't really want to participate in a detailed evolution debate due to my lack of knowledge on the subject.

I don't really want to participate in a detailed evolution debate due to my lack of knowledge on the subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looks like to me your not really in the position to be able to discredit evolution if you know little of it.

 

Assassin, where's this die-hard proven fact called evolution? Last I heard, it's still speculation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would take a case study thousands of years long to prove evolution. It's just as likely as Creation at this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fossil records amongst many other things pretty much prove evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm really not the man to argue this though, I'll wait for someone else to jump in and build apon it in more detail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All that proves is that some species lived and went extinct! The fossil record can not verify that mankind evolved from freak protein strains. Or that mankind evolved from anything, to be honest.

 

I don't really want to participate in a detailed evolution debate due to my lack of knowledge on the subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looks like to me your not really in the position to be able to discredit evolution if you know little of it.

 

 

 

I discredit it from a christian view, where the Bible is the truth and it contradicts the evolution theory.

Assassin, where's this die-hard proven fact called evolution? Last I heard, it's still speculation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would take a case study thousands of years long to prove evolution. It's just as likely as Creation at this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, my use of the word "proven" is misleading. Of course, not scientific principle can be proven with absolute certainty, but there is a massive, massive amount of evidence in favour of evolution, and none against it. That's pretty good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read more here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, Korskin, if you've as many people saying it's not proven as it's proven you're obviously hanging out with wrong crowd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, less than 0.15% of relevant (by this I mean specialists in topics to do with biology/evolution) American scientists (a very religious country anyway) don't believe in evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Less than 0.1% of relevant worldwide scientists don't believe in evolution.

Another misleading statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you take adaptation (aka Microevolution) into account, the number of scientists that do not believe in Macroevolution jumps drastically to almost 50%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And by "scientists" we are of course referring to people who study evolution in general.

Another misleading statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you take adaptation (aka Microevolution) into account, the number of scientists that do not believe in Macroevolution jumps drastically to almost 50%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And by "scientists" we are of course referring to people who study evolution in general.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that macroevolution is more subjective does nothing to spoil the massive evidence in favour of mirco-evolution, which still easily accounts for everything we see around us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This might make it more clear anyway

 

Another misleading statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you take adaptation (aka Microevolution) into account, the number of scientists that do not believe in Macroevolution jumps drastically to almost 50%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And by "scientists" we are of course referring to people who study evolution in general.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that macroevolution is more subjective does nothing to spoil the massive evidence in favour of mirco-evolution, which still easily accounts for everything we see around us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This might make it more clear anyway

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Odd, every evolution debate I've gotten into makes grandiose claims of macroevolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I believe in adaptation (aka microevolution). It explains quite a bit, yet still does not disprove Creation like macroevolution strived to do.

 

 

Another misleading statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you take adaptation (aka Microevolution) into account, the number of scientists that do not believe in Macroevolution jumps drastically to almost 50%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And by "scientists" we are of course referring to people who study evolution in general.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that macroevolution is more subjective does nothing to spoil the massive evidence in favour of mirco-evolution, which still easily accounts for everything we see around us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This might make it more clear anyway

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Odd, every evolution debate I've gotten into makes grandiose claims of macroevolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I believe in adaptation (aka microevolution). It explains quite a bit, yet still does not disprove Creation like macroevolution strived to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I say more subjective I mean more in the sense that Darwinian evolution is almost entirely non-subjective, marcoevolution is still a very sound theory.

I will refer to the simpsons episode I watched yesterday. Professor Frink is asked: "So does this theory of evolution necessarily mean that there is no God?" He replies: "Of course not. It just says that God is an impotent nothing from nowhere with less power than the Under Secretary of Agriculture, who has very little power in our system".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These verses (or rather the whole creation story) doesn't make any sense to me if we evolved from other species:

 

 

 

Genesis 1:

 

 

 

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27 So God created man in his own image,

 

 

 

in the image of God he created him;

 

 

 

male and female he created them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe I missed your point but to me God must correspond with the Bible as I believe it's his words.

 

 

 

Sidenote: I do care to some extent what other people think of me (I think everyone does), however I do not let that stop me from expressing what I believe in. Kind of like the saying: "I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I'm not."

 

 

 

There is no time frame present in those verses. It just says that humans should rule the earth. Find some useful verses to prove your point, if you would.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since there isn't a different place for this I figured I'd throw out some food for the thought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What, in your opinion, would be more likely to get into heaven on the basis god is real:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. A man who belives in god but doesn't follow much of his word, 'repents' but doesn't mean it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. A man who does not belive in god but gods word.

 

 

 

The logical response would be B, but then again, plenty of people lack logic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't really want to participate in a detailed evolution debate due to my lack of knowledge on the subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looks like to me your not really in the position to be able to discredit evolution if you know little of it.

 

 

 

I discredit it from a christian view, where the Bible is the truth and it contradicts the evolution theory.

 

 

 

#-o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You just said you discredit it from what you've heard by scientists, and then you went back to the fallacious Christian defense. Stick to your points, please.

 

 

 

#-o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You just said you discredit it from what you've heard by scientists, and then you went back to the fallacious Christian defense. Stick to your points, please.

 

 

 

I was saying that from what I've heard, evolution might aswell be not proven or proven, as I've heard people saying both. But I'm not trying to discredit evolution from a scientific view, as I don't have the sufficient knowledge to do so.

Just to throw this out there....anyone ever thought that creationism is just a HUGE metaphor about free-will? While evolution may be true, that does not diminish the meaning behind Ada(a)m and Eve (Hawa).

Ugh, I honestly can't say. I'd have to read Isiah...and that's gonna take a while.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you do, let me know if you come across the passage about some little kids pissing Isiah off and then him summoning a bear, who proceeds to rip them apart. I remember reading it once and tried to argue with it in Religion class today. :P