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).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't it pretty much Adam and Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit (not very far sighted on God's behalf) that gave us self-awareness and ultimately, free will? So, God giving us free will was a consequence of us doing something He didn't want us to do? How does that work?

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

Evolution is not a proven theory. Micro evolution is a proven concept, but macro evolution is not proven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't it pretty much Adam and Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit (not very far sighted on God's behalf) that gave us self-awareness and ultimately, free will? So, God giving us free will was a consequence of us doing something He didn't want us to do? How does that work?

if we didn't have free will and god told us not to eat the fruit then we wouldn't have eaten the fruit. The fruit is only giving you knowledge of what is right and wrong. For example being naked in public is wrong

 

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

Evolution is not a proven theory. Micro evolution is a proven concept, but macro evolution is not proven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't it pretty much Adam and Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit (not very far sighted on God's behalf) that gave us self-awareness and ultimately, free will? So, God giving us free will was a consequence of us doing something He didn't want us to do? How does that work?

if we didn't have free will and god told us not to eat the fruit then we wouldn't have eaten the fruit. The fruit is only giving you knowledge of what is right and wrong. For example being naked in public is wrong according to our society. For all we know, god's pissed at us for not accepting our and other's natural beauty in a public environment.

I don't believe God made religion to be concrete. There are things like homosexuality and sexual urges which I consider tests, and if you fail these tests I don't think God will be mad at all. I often wonder if God believes, "I'd rather see someone fail and understand life, then succeed without understanding life" (made-up quote). So I believe God's intent isn't the interpretation by man, I believe religion is metaphorical and broad. You have to push away the petty interpretations by man to uncover the true word of God hidden in the text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMHO.

I don't believe God made religion to be concrete. There are things like homosexuality and sexual urges which I consider tests, and if you fail these tests I don't think God will be mad at all. I often wonder if God believes, "I'd rather see someone fail and understand life, then succeed without understanding life" (made-up quote). So I believe God's intent isn't the interpretation by man, I believe religion is metaphorical and broad. You have to push away the petty interpretations by man to uncover the true word of God hidden in the text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMHO.

 

 

 

I think you're right when you say that we understand life better when we fail. It's when I fail miserably I realise that I need Jesus. When things are seemingly going well, I tend to think that I deserve the salvation more than before, when it's actually the other way around. When you start to think that perhaps you're worthy of getting to heaven, you are worse than ever. Because then if you fall into sin, you're without hope as you've relied on your own ability to be worthy.

Why is everyone saying that the main problem they have with religion is the requirement that we don't question God. News flash, ask any priest if its a sin to question why things are the way they are (in reference to the Bible, sacred Traditions, and the church Magesterium) and they will emphatically tell you that it is a good thing to question your religion. Note, I said question, not throw away aspects you disagree with. They will agree with you that we have minds able to think in a complex manner and free will so that we can question things that don't seem to make sense to us. I understand where it may seem like at time that we all accept everything at face value, but I guarantee you that I have at some point or another questioned almost every part of the Catholic religion and almost always I come to the conclusion that their position is right. However, in the event that I do disagree, that doesn't mean that I'm not a part of the church anymore, but merely that it is possible that the church is wrong on some things. Like others have brought up, the church did at one time support slavery, the church had a policy of not getting involved during the holocaust. They eventually realize they were wrong and usually correct themselves.

They eventually realize they were wrong and usually correct themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*cough* Anti-Semitism, homosexuality, male priests only *cough* cough*

 

They eventually realize they were wrong and usually correct themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*cough* Anti-Semitism, homosexuality, male priests only *cough* cough*

 

 

 

I was unaware of rampant Anti-semitism in the church

 

 

 

I agree with you on homosexuality, I did say eventually. I think once it becomes generally accepted that homosexuality is not a choice, the church will change its position, but as it stands right now most people view it as a "lifestyle choice".

 

 

 

And as far as male priests go I consider them to be correct. It may sound irrational, as I can't see any real reason no to have female priests other than what the Bible says on it, but I consider a female priest on the same level as a male wet-nurse, it just can't happen.

 

 

They eventually realize they were wrong and usually correct themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*cough* Anti-Semitism, homosexuality, male priests only *cough* cough*

 

 

 

I was unaware of rampant Anti-semitism in the church

 

 

 

I agree with you on homosexuality, I did say eventually. I think once it becomes generally accepted that homosexuality is not a choice, the church will change its position, but as it stands right now most people view it as a "lifestyle choice".

 

 

 

And as far as male priests go I consider them to be correct. It may sound irrational, as I can't see any real reason no to have female priests other than what the Bible says on it, but I consider a female priest on the same level as a male wet-nurse, it just can't happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anti-Semitism was made as an example of something that occured within the chucrch and has since been corrected. I should have made that clear, sorry.

Ohh.. I see. I was really confused about that for a second.

 

 

 

I agree with you on homosexuality, I did say eventually. I think once it becomes generally accepted that homosexuality is not a choice, the church will change its position, but as it stands right now most people view it as a "lifestyle choice".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that's just the church taking it for "face value". I doubt God nor Jesus have any opinion on it, this is why you have to dig deeper than the face value of the Bible, a lot of it is rubbish, and I include the majority of the Old Testament in that, but that isn't the point, the point is morals and the self, and being one with God, and FAITH, etc. This is how I fuse all the religions into one, when they're broken down, they all have basic core values. And the Church can justify homosexuality. I mean, who's to say God didn't make it as a test? And who's to say God supports people passing this test?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't it pretty much Adam and Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit (not very far sighted on God's behalf) that gave us self-awareness and ultimately, free will? So, God giving us free will was a consequence of us doing something He didn't want us to do? How does that work?

if we didn't have free will and god told us not to eat the fruit then we wouldn't have eaten the fruit. The fruit is only giving you knowledge of what is right and wrong. For example being naked in public is wrong

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

xplsv: Actually, Adam and Eve were both naked when they ate the apple

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assasin, if they had freewill how did they get tempted to eat the apple? Maybe God wanted it to happen?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IT gave us shame and those type of feelings (man I gotta touch up on this stuff). It was not God that punished them, it was their own conscience.

 

 

 

 

I agree with you on homosexuality, I did say eventually. I think once it becomes generally accepted that homosexuality is not a choice, the church will change its position, but as it stands right now most people view it as a "lifestyle choice".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that's just the church taking it for "face value". I doubt God nor Jesus have any opinion on it, this is why you have to dig deeper than the face value of the Bible, a lot of it is rubbish, and I include the majority of the Old Testament in that, but that isn't the point, the point is morals and the self, and being one with God, and FAITH, etc. This is how I fuse all the religions into one, when they're broken down, they all have basic core values. And the Church can justify homosexuality. I mean, who's to say God didn't make it as a test? And who's to say God supports people passing this test?

 

 

 

I think you're right. I call myself a Catholic, but when you get down to it almost all religions profess helping other, living with good morals, self-control/help, and having faith in something. I too believe that a lot of the Bible has more symbolic meaning than literal meaning.

 

 

 

The thing I disagree with you on is homosexuality as a test. I don't think God would condemn average people to a life of being stigmatized by society merely so He could see if they were faithful and would follow His laws. I guess more or less I just don't want it to be true, cause no one likes to feel like they have failed, and definitely not in the eyes of their own Lord. I suppose if that is true though, then I have failed and maybe I'm not worth of God...but thats what having faith is about. Knowing that you may be wrong, but you are loved anyway and you can always redeem yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Upon reading this again it looks more like your reference to homosexuality as a test was more of a hypothetical. Sorry if you feel I put words in your mouth.

Although i was brought up in a catholic family, ive always found the idea of religion distasteful.

 

 

 

I mean, c'mon, look at islam. Some of the participate in suicide bombings because they go right to heaven (coughs) yeah..that'll feed the wive and kids buddy..

\I think you're right. I call myself a Catholic, but when you get down to it almost all religions profess helping other, living with good morals, self-control/help, and having faith in something. I too believe that a lot of the Bible has more symbolic meaning than literal meaning.

 

 

 

The thing I disagree with you on is homosexuality as a test. I don't think God would condemn average people to a life of being stigmatized by society merely so He could see if they were faithful and would follow His laws. I guess more or less I just don't want it to be true, cause no one likes to feel like they have failed, and definitely not in the eyes of their own Lord. I suppose if that is true though, then I have failed and maybe I'm not worth of God...but thats what having faith is about. Knowing that you may be wrong, but you are loved anyway and you can always redeem yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Upon reading this again it looks more like your reference to homosexuality as a test was more of a hypothetical. Sorry if you feel I put words in your mouth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually it's quite confusing. See, I see homosexuality as a test not of whether or not you can pass it and become straight, but whether you can see and understand life, love, and the self. Essentially, the way to pass this test is to fail and not conform, I think God is testing your (and societies) understanding of life, love, and the self.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not His law, he never expressed opinion either way, what is made is merely assumptions.

 

\I think you're right. I call myself a Catholic, but when you get down to it almost all religions profess helping other, living with good morals, self-control/help, and having faith in something. I too believe that a lot of the Bible has more symbolic meaning than literal meaning.

 

 

 

The thing I disagree with you on is homosexuality as a test. I don't think God would condemn average people to a life of being stigmatized by society merely so He could see if they were faithful and would follow His laws. I guess more or less I just don't want it to be true, cause no one likes to feel like they have failed, and definitely not in the eyes of their own Lord. I suppose if that is true though, then I have failed and maybe I'm not worth of God...but thats what having faith is about. Knowing that you may be wrong, but you are loved anyway and you can always redeem yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Upon reading this again it looks more like your reference to homosexuality as a test was more of a hypothetical. Sorry if you feel I put words in your mouth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually it's quite confusing. See, I see homosexuality as a test not of whether or not you can pass it and become straight, but whether you can see and understand life, love, and the self. Essentially, the way to pass this test is to fail and not conform, I think God is testing your (and societies) understanding of life, love, and the self.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not His law, he never expressed opinion either way, what is made is merely assumptions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is rather confusing, but I really like your outlook on life. I think that is actually a rather true statement. Its not a test to see you conform to "God's will", but rather to see if you are able to come to grips with your sexuality and live life to the best of your ability with what you are given. You've truly given me a new perspective on what I used to see as a flaw in myself. Thank you.

That is rather confusing, but I really like your outlook on life. I think that is actually a rather true statement. Its not a teat to see you conform to "God's will", but rather to see if you are able to come to grips with your sexuality and live life to the best of your ability with what you are given. You've truly given me a new perspective on what I used to see as a flaw in myself. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wanted to add to my original post by saying, the one who fails the test to conform has surpassed societies restrictions, has learned the true meaning of love (I hope that doesn't sound too hippy-like :P), and lives above the influence of society. To live for yourself with God/Brahman/Allah/etc. And in some cases Jesus/Mohammad, etc. And to learn to be able to accept yourself for who you are without society making the decisions for you, as you mentioned.

It's not His law, he never expressed opinion either way, what is made is merely assumptions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You did say that your belief is a sort of mixture of many religions, did you not? I guess what I'm about to say applies to Bible-believing Christians only, but here goes... In 2 Corinthians (I think it's in that book) it says that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God. And, since the Bible says that ALL scripture is God-breathed, God says that it is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I hope this post doesn't get me more enemies. That's what usually seems to happen when I post in the Off-Topic board...)

 

It's not His law, he never expressed opinion either way, what is made is merely assumptions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You did say that your belief is a sort of mixture of many religions, did you not? I guess what I'm about to say applies to Bible-believing Christians only, but here goes... In 2 Corinthians (I think it's in that book) it says that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God. And, since the Bible says that ALL scripture is God-breathed, God says that it is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I hope this post doesn't get me more enemies. That's what usually seems to happen when I post in the Off-Topic board...)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That goes along with my broad generalization/metaphorical view of the Bible IMHO. Remember, the Bible was written by man, it was only influenced by God and Jesus.

 

It's not His law, he never expressed opinion either way, what is made is merely assumptions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You did say that your belief is a sort of mixture of many religions, did you not? I guess what I'm about to say applies to Bible-believing Christians only, but here goes... In 2 Corinthians (I think it's in that book) it says that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God. And, since the Bible says that ALL scripture is God-breathed, God says that it is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I hope this post doesn't get me more enemies. That's what usually seems to happen when I post in the Off-Topic board...)

 

 

 

Actually the quote is 1 Corinthians 6:19, it is a listing of grave sins for which you will not inherit the Kingdom of God. It includes boy prostitutes (boys in Greece who were supposed to, in society's eyes, have a sexual relationship with their tutors) and sodomites. But, and I know this may sound hypocritical from someone who claims to actually have faith in the Bible, I sincerely think that although it is God's word handed down to man, it may not be infallibly given/written. I mean Islamics take the Koran as being completely and totally 110% infallible and look at some of the quotes coming from it.

Actually the quote is 1 Corinthians 6:19, it is a listing of grave sins for which you will not inherit the Kingdom of God. It includes boy prostitutes (boys in Greece who were supposed to, in society's eyes, have a sexual relationship with their tutors) and sodomites. But, and I know this may sound hypocritical from someone who claims to actually have faith in the Bible, I sincerely think that although it is God's word handed down to man, it may not be infallibly given/written. I mean Islamics take the Koran as being completely and totally 110% infallible and look at some of the quotes coming from it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Somewhere in the Qur'an it says the sun sinks into a pond at the end of each day, can't remember where though, I'll have to find it when I read the Qur'an. But first I'm finishing Hinduism.

As part of my theology class last year, I did a miniature version of what you are doing Victor, but more from a standpoint of learning about the histories and general ideas of Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and one other that I can't remember. It was an enlightening experience, but some ideas of Hinduism and Buddhism were way over my head no matter how hard I tried. I guess what I'm trying to say is I really respect that you put so much effort into learning about different faiths and I hope that when I have more time I will do the same.

As part of my theology class last year, I did a miniature version of what you are doing Victor, but more from a standpoint of learning about the histories and general ideas of Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and one other that I can't remember. It was an enlightening experience, but some ideas of Hinduism and Buddhism were way over my head no matter how hard I tried. I guess what I'm trying to say is I really respect that you put so much effort into learning about different faiths and I hope that when I have more time I will do the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep, I believe everyone should open up to learn about other religions. There are some people who feel religion shadows the word and covers it and is the root of all evil, true this may be to an extent, but so much can be learned about yourself from religion. Even if you dismiss the theory of God and go for science (IMO science and religion coexist, even Evolution coexists but I won't bother getting into that now) you can still learn morals and philosophies that help make you a better person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One thing that's always made me mad is how uneducated politicians are about, say Islam for example. The religion is not an extreme religion, a few just ruin it for the rest. The people are just like us, they are just more deeper into their religion. Like in Europe, I think it should be REQUIRED in the US that any politician have theology classes before entering office.

I'm curious why people who will accept micro evolution are so quick to dismiss macro evolution. Could you explain why it's so unbeleviable given a timeline of billions of years? I'm studying some key concepts of cell biology and genetics this semester and can't, for the life of me, understand why our DNA would somehow miraculously prevent us from conveying beneficial mutations to an extent where we see specieation (or speciesisation? the term I'm looking for is the creation of a new species).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try and respond without a belief too, please. Keep in mind the question is based on the evidence that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. If you don't like that little piece of information, please, try not to quote bible verses or beliefs at me. Answer as if you were a scientist.

I'm curious why people who will accept micro evolution are so quick to dismiss macro evolution. Could you explain why it's so unbeleviable given a timeline of billions of years? I'm studying some key concepts of cell biology and genetics this semester and can't, for the life of me, understand why our DNA would somehow miraculously prevent us from conveying beneficial mutations to an extent where we see specieation (or speciesisation? the term I'm looking for is the creation of a new species).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try and respond without a belief too, please. Keep in mind the question is based on the evidence that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. If you don't like that little piece of information, please, try not to quote bible verses or beliefs at me. Answer as if you were a scientist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Warrior, see, I'm going to be honest here and I'm not trying to sound bigoted, but, you're looking at the face value of religion. Science and religion can fit together, I don't believe any religious text should be set in stone, why couldn't God be at the seat of the universe and still control Evolution, why can't God be nature. After all, they both control the universe. Essentially we believe in the same thing, to me God=Nature, one is just a deity who is more conscious to each person and the other is unconscious to each person, mentally. Two different outlooks, but also very similar at the same time.