Christianity, Creationism, and Evolution

[narlus]

question for you Christians out there:

is it inconsistent to agree w/ darwin's (et al) theories and be Christian, or do you need to have a strict interpretation of Genesis and believe in creationism?

discuss.

[ibismojo]

i believe evolution occurs, at the micro level. just about any biologist would agree on that. now us coming solely from single celled organism....that's a stretch. but even life had to have started somewhere.

[fourgivn1]

This is a tough one...not because I don't have an answer, but because this is not a subject you can just drop some knowledge on and be done with. That being said, to a certain extent, I do not believe that there's a problem with Christians believing in evolution at the micro leve. HOWEVER....believing that a person came from a single-celled organism is obviously a stretch. I just read an article last night from boundless.org that essentially showed that while there IS proof for evolution, the 'proof' for humans evolving over a period of billions of years from ONE cell to a human being is sketchy at best, and that considering the vast number of 'negative' mutations (ones that don't help, or actually hurt, the survival of a species) as opposed to positive ones, for us to have evolved in such a huge way would require that we live extremely-shortened lives (to allow for many more generations in between) with many more humans having existed, to 'have an effect' on evolution.

Here's a link to the article.....

http://www.boundless.org/2000/departments/isms/a0000420.html

I'm taking all this off the top of my head so it is possible that I'm misquoting or taking things out of context incorrectly...when I get home and can sit on my fat duff and check this all out :) I'll do so.

We need to have a straight up religious board. *LOL* Funny how ALL of these discussions ALWAYS come back to religion in some way.

[ibismojo]

or you could buy into the X-Files theory. A meteor landed on earth, and we're all alien life form which evolved into ourselves...but that doesn't account for the fact that we're 97% genetically similar to apes or monkey's.

[Babar]

I personally believe evolution is biggest prank(hoax) pulled off by mankind... It's so full crap, don'ytmake any sense don't have hardly any proof. But evolution in micro level- I personally don't call it evolution but just what god made it to do.

:)

[narlus]

aside from debating about the initial "spark of life" (for which there is no good explanation that i've really heard), i think that evolutionary paths are definitely how it happened, and don't have to be mutually exclusive w/ believing in a supreme creator.

for people who are curious about this, any number of Steven J Gould books are highly recommended.

one of the biggest red herrings thrown out about "disproving" evolution is the arguement of how can simple beings still coexist w/ higher developed species (ie, primitive lifeforms, like bacteria, ancient fish like the coelecanth, up to higher primates, etc). the key concept here is to think of evolution as a bush w/ many branches, rather than one contiguous straight line. sometimes the branches don't branch very far, and sometimes they do.

[Will_Jekyll]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


Here's a link to the article.....

http://www.boundless.org/2000/departments/isms/a0000420.html



I wouldn't exactly call that a non-biased source.

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Will_Jekyll


I wouldn't exactly call that a non-biased source.

I did not say this came from a non-biased source. No offense, but I don't know too many scientists out there who are non-biased. But at the very least, the guy is not an idiot, and knows something about the topic of which he speaks. Even Darwin himself admitted that there were not anywhere near the amount of intermediate 'links' that one should expect, if his theory on evolution is true, and Richard Dawkins, an obvious proponent of evolution, states in the article, ""It is as though they (they being fossils and the like, I assume) were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

[LeatherFace]

So no one here believes that we are descendants from Apes? Or you believe that Adam and Eve were the first "people." I remember when I was in 3rd grade, I turned to Miss Fabac and asked "If Adam and Eve existed, what about cavemen?" I went to Catholic school, mind you....And you know what? She didn't have an answer for me ;)

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
So no one here believes that we are descendants from Apes? Or you believe that Adam and Eve were the first "people." I remember when I was in 3rd grade, I turned to Miss Fabac and asked "If Adam and Eve existed, what about cavemen?" I went to Catholic school, mind you....And you know what? She didn't have an answer for me ;)

Well there you go. Proof that evolution is right and creationism is wrong. I guess I'll have to go give up all my beliefs. :D

(I'm obviously kidding.)

I never said (nor will anyone - or they shouldn't, unless they're on crack) that there's 100% proof for both arguments. That's where the whole 'faith' thing comes in. But that's my point...just as much 'faith' is required to 'believe' in evolutionism.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


Well there you go. Proof that evolution is right and creationism is wrong. I guess I'll have to go give up all my beliefs. :D

(I'm obviously kidding.)

I never said (nor will anyone - or they shouldn't, unless they're on crack) that there's 100% proof for both arguments. That's where the whole 'faith' thing comes in. But that's my point...just as much 'faith' is required to 'believe' in evolutionism.

But isnt there physical "proof" of evolution (i.e. fossils, bones, pottery, tools, camps), whereas the only "proof" of creationism is the Bible?

[Brian HCM#1]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


But isnt there physical "proof" of evolution (i.e. fossils, bones, pottery, tools, camps), whereas the only "proof" of creationism is the Bible? My thoughts exactally, so I guess if its written it MUST be true. So I'm going out on a ledge here...........I'm going to write......LeatherFace & Brian HCM#1 are two of the finest people to EVER walk the planet!!!!!


Everyone take note, this is true because its been written.:D

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Brian HCM#1
My thoughts exactally, so I guess if its written it MUST be true. So I'm going out on a ledge here...........I'm going to write......LeatherFace & Brian HCM#1 are two of the finest people to EVER walk the planet!!!!!


Everyone take note, this is true because its been written.:D

Yes...and now there is proof, thus says Brian HCM#1!

[Brian HCM#1]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Yes...and now there is proof, thus says Brian HCM#1! Eeeeats true

[fourgivn1]

That would really depend upon how you look at it. You're not going to find a plaque anytime soon that says "I, God, created the world, on this date/time/place." :D There's not exactly concrete proof specifically concerning ONLY creation. Creation was/is a one time event...unless someone was on hand with a camera or such, you're not going to find much about it. The absence of proof is arguably just as important as the presence of it.

Keep some things in mind, too. One, I am NOT and never will say evolution is a lie. It's been proved that species/cells and such can evolve, I believe. I don't argue that. But it's almost exclusively on a microscopic scale. It's my thought that if there was as much evolution going on as the theory would suggest, there would be one HELL of a lot more fossils and bones and such, from all the different mutations (good or bad). Two, creation and evolution are not necessarily opposite in all ways. It is obvious that different units of time are used in the Bible, and that at different times, the same unit is used to describe different lengths of time. A good example would be the prophecy of 69 weeks, concerning the future history of the Jews, the inauguration of God's kingdom, etc. , in the book of Daniel. Although it talks about a period of 69 'weeks' it is obvious that the actual time length is not weeks. Some research reveals that the word behind 'week' as used in the Bible is the Hebrew word signifying a heptad, which is used to mean a series or group of 17.

I could go on about that, but my point is that God did not necessarily create the world in 7 days. He's not limited to time, I would have to believe, since he's God. *L* People who think he was/is aren't doing their studying. He could have taken millions/billions of years to do so. This being said, a proponent of evolution can't say "HAH! We've got fossils bazillions of years old, and THAT proves the world isn't only 6000 years old!" People seem to think that since the entire line of people, from Jesus back to Adam, stretches only a few thousand of years, the whole freakin' earth was only created a week before Adam was made. I'm NOT saying evolution is crap...only that while it may have taken place on a much smaller scale, I do not believe at all that humans evolved from one cell.

[fourgivn1]

I'm surprised someone hasn't asked "Well, if God's all powerful, how come He doesn't create a rock that He can't lift?" yet. :)

[Brian HCM#1]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
That would really depend upon how you look at it. You're not going to find a plaque anytime soon that says "I, God, created the world, on this date/time/place." :D There's not exactly concrete proof specifically concerning ONLY creation. Creation was/is a one time event...unless someone was on hand with a camera or such, you're not going to find much about it. The absence of proof is arguably just as important as the presence of it.

Keep some things in mind, too. One, I am NOT and never will say evolution is a lie. It's been proved that species/cells and such can evolve, I believe. I don't argue that. But it's almost exclusively on a microscopic scale. It's my thought that if there was as much evolution going on as the theory would suggest, there would be one HELL of a lot more fossils and bones and such, from all the different mutations (good or bad). Two, creation and evolution are not necessarily opposite in all ways. It is obvious that different units of time are used in the Bible, and that at different times, the same unit is used to describe different lengths of time. A good example would be the prophecy of 69 weeks, concerning the future history of the Jews, the inauguration of God's kingdom, etc. , in the book of Daniel. Although it talks about a period of 69 'weeks' it is obvious that the actual time length is not weeks. Some research reveals that the word behind 'week' as used in the Bible is the Hebrew word signifying a heptad, which is used to mean a series or group of 17.

I could go on about that, but my point is that God did not necessarily create the world in 7 days. He's not limited to time, I would have to believe, since he's God. *L* People who think he was/is aren't doing their studying. He could have taken millions/billions of years to do so. This being said, a proponent of evolution can't say "HAH! We've got fossils bazillions of years old, and THAT proves the world isn't only 6000 years old!" People seem to think that since the entire line of people, from Jesus back to Adam, stretches only a few thousand of years, the whole freakin' earth was only created a week before Adam was made. I'm NOT saying evolution is crap...only that while it may have taken place on a much smaller scale, I do not believe at all that humans evolved from one cell. What I think the point is, there is more proof in evolution than what has been written. How did humans come to earth? Was it a abra kadabra *poof* there was man? Then if there was one Adam & Eve, how do you explain different races? Then if were only Adam & Eve that started the whole thing and they reproduce thats incest. Maybe thats were all the Jerry Springer guests are from...............Inbread:eek:

[fourgivn1]

I can sit here all day and throw up explanations and such but it won't do a bit of good if someone is simply arguing for the sake of arguing and for no other reason. If you are REALLY interested, go read the Bible, and/or commentaries on it.

[narlus]

zippy weighs in on the discussion (edit - note the title :thumb:):

[SVEN]

A couple issues I wanted to chime in on. Fourgiven's right, creation and evolution are not necessarily extreme opposites, and both require faith, and (if we care) due diligence to find out the truth for ourselves.

Now, one person chimed in about how evidence for evolution was more physical or concrete, and creation is only in the Bible, thus not substantiated. This is true, but only as long as a person assumes the Bible is unsubstantiated. What in my opinion a person owes it to themselves (again, if they care about issues like this) is to go about providing evidence that supports the truths that are spoken of in the Bible.

Example, if at some point in the Bible it states that the world went dark in the middle of the day on a given day, and an astronomer somewhere else from where the Bible was written writes about the very same event, that is evidence of it actually happening. There is other types of evidence too, based around circumstances. For instance (and this may seem off the topic but just stay with me here) there is no need to argue about IF the tomb of Jesus was empty. The Jews were the ones that wanted to show that the resurrection never occurred, but rather than saying "hey, wait a minute, he's still right there, rotting away" they said, "hey, you silly apostles, you stole the dude! Yeah, that's it!" So now it is just a question of the motivation of the apostles to due such a thing, rather than an issue of if it was empty at all, but this of course is another issue.

In sum, it is ignorant of us (I know because I used to be like this) to assume that the Bible is not substantiated by facts, history, documents, etc. When the research is done, one will find that it is one of the most backed up documenst ever written in classical literature. Basically, if we can show that everything else in the Bible has evidence for it, and there are no false claims that can be proven (discrediting all that the Bible claims), then we have no reason not to at least put our faith in the fact that the Bible is correct on its claims of Creationism.

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by SVEN


Now, one person chimed in about how evidence for evolution was more physical or concrete, and creation is only in the Bible, thus not substantiated. This is true, but only as long as a person assumes the Bible is unsubstantiated. What in my opinion a person owes it to themselves (again, if they care about issues like this) is to go about providing evidence that supports the truths that are spoken of in the Bible.

Example, if at some point in the Bible it states that the world went dark in the middle of the day on a given day, and an astronomer somewhere else from where the Bible was written writes about the very same event, that is evidence of it actually happening. There is other types of evidence too, based around circumstances. For instance (and this may seem off the topic but just stay with me here) there is no need to argue about IF the tomb of Jesus was empty. The Jews were the ones that wanted to show that the resurrection never occurred, but rather than saying "hey, wait a minute, he's still right there, rotting away" they said, "hey, you silly apostles, you stole the dude! Yeah, that's it!" So now it is just a question of the motivation of the apostles to due such a thing, rather than an issue of if it was empty at all, but this of course is another issue.

In sum, it is ignorant of us (I know because I used to be like this) to assume that the Bible is not substantiated by facts, history, documents, etc. When the research is done, one will find that it is one of the most backed up documenst ever written in classical literature. Basically, if we can show that everything else in the Bible has evidence for it, and there are no false claims that can be proven (discrediting all that the Bible claims), then we have no reason to at least put our faith in the fact that the Bible is correct on its claims of Creationism.

Thanks *L* I could NOT find the words for that, for some reason; thankfully someone else did. But last week was a LONG week for me. I would like to clarify 2 things though. First, if I'm not mistaken, the Bible is THE most backed up documents ever written in classical literature. I think Plato comes in at a distant 2nd with like 600 original manuscripts (to the Bible's 24000 or so). I could be wrong; Josh McDowell wrote the exact numbers in his books.

Second, I think you sort of misspoke. You put "if we can show......then we have no reason to at least put our faith...." and so on. I think you forgot the 'not.' :) That totally changes the meaning of the sentence. *LOL*

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by narlus

is it inconsistent to agree w/ darwin's (et al) theories and be Christian, or do you need to have a strict interpretation of Genesis and believe in creationism?


You'd have to be a complete dil to NOT believe in evolution.

For some reason or another, people have lost all semblance of what a "metaphor" is......

[Toshi]

Originally posted by Zonic Man
You'd have to be a complete dil to NOT believe in evolution.

For some reason or another, people have lost all semblance of what a "metaphor" is......
It's because they capitalize incorrectly. :eek: :D

You Christians above who are trying to justify your faith by "proving" that the Bible is not all made up (by verifying facts) seem to be misguided. Matters of faith are just that. Furthermore, I believe it is impossible for a rational human being to accept everything in the Bible as being true at face value -- but anything I say won't convince you, so I won't waste my breath, er, hand strength.

[SVEN]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


Thanks *L* I could NOT find the words for that, for some reason; thankfully someone else did. But last week was a LONG week for me. I would like to clarify 2 things though. First, if I'm not mistaken, the Bible is THE most backed up documents ever written in classical literature. I think Plato comes in at a distant 2nd with like 600 original manuscripts (to the Bible's 24000 or so). I could be wrong; Josh McDowell wrote the exact numbers in his books.

Second, I think you sort of misspoke. You put "if we can show......then we have no reason to at least put our faith...." and so on. I think you forgot the 'not.' :) That totally changes the meaning of the sentence. *LOL*


Thanks, i edited it. And its not plato, its Homer's Illiad in a distant second.

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by SVEN



Thanks, i edited it. And its not plato, its Homer's Illiad in a distant second.

Thanks to you :) That's why I said "I think" for the first 2 words, because I figured if I was pulling it from my head I'd pick the wrong philosopher. I should know this too since I'm reading this book right now. Oh well.

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Toshi

It's because they capitalize incorrectly. :eek: :D

You Christians above who are trying to justify your faith by "proving" that the Bible is not all made up (by verifying facts) seem to be misguided. Matters of faith are just that. Furthermore, I believe it is impossible for a rational human being to accept everything in the Bible as being true at face value -- but anything I say won't convince you, so I won't waste my breath, er, hand strength.

Gee, we Christians have this same problem when speaking to people about our beliefs/faith who are unwilling to listen (wasting our breath). :p

I'm confused here. It's okay to use concrete, physical proof for evolution (EVEN though - just like Christianity - there is not 100% proof for evolution; I think it's safe to say that belief in evolution requires faith as well). But when I try to back up my faith in Christ/the validity of the Bible/etc. with facts, I'm misguided, because this is only a 'matter of faith?' How else would a 'rational' human being 'rationalize' his belief in Christ? (Although most people just assume we Christians are irrational simply due to what we believe anyways.) I'm dead sure that there could be 100% proof of EVERYTHING in the Bible, and people would STILL refuse to believe it. It's almost like as long as there is NOT 100% proof (and there will NEVER be - until the end), people will shake their heads at how 'misguided' we silly Christians our.....despite the mountains of physical, concrete, hard evidence.

And NO I'm not going to list it all. *L* I don't have that much time on my hands. :D

[Toshi]

Everything else aside, there is nothing that would prove the Resurrection to me. A missing corpse and some stories do not constitute proof. Furthermore, I believe my skepticism is justified (and with two Catholic parents and 4 years of Jesuits at the blackboard the alternative view has been presented many times), so perhaps you are wasting your breath. Of course, in the sense that my skepticism and denial is based on measured thought of my own rather than pigheaded stubborness as you seem to imply, you are incorrect.

Just in case it's unclear from the above, the veracity of the Bible in its incidental facts does not validate the entire work, imo. It just proves that it was written in the period that it claims to have been written, and that the authors did not fabricate historical events.

[BMXman]

Originally posted by Toshi
Everything else aside, there is nothing that would prove the Resurrection to me. A missing corpse and some stories do not constitute proof. Furthermore, I believe my skepticism is justified (and with two Catholic parents and 4 years of Jesuits at the blackboard the alternative view has been presented many times), so perhaps you are wasting your breath. Of course, in the sense that my skepticism and denial is based on measured thought of my own rather than pigheaded stubborness as you seem to imply, you are incorrect.

Just in case it's unclear from the above, the veracity of the Bible in its incidental facts does not validate the entire work, imo. It just proves that it was written in the period that it claims to have been written, and that the authors did not fabricate historical events.

hmm...I'm beginning to really like Toshi!

[SVEN]

Originally posted by Toshi
Everything else aside, there is nothing that would prove the Resurrection to me. A missing corpse and some stories do not constitute proof. Furthermore, I believe my skepticism is justified (and with two Catholic parents and 4 years of Jesuits at the blackboard the alternative view has been presented many times), so perhaps you are wasting your breath. Of course, in the sense that my skepticism and denial is based on measured thought of my own rather than pigheaded stubborness as you seem to imply, you are incorrect.

Just in case it's unclear from the above, the veracity of the Bible in its incidental facts does not validate the entire work, imo. It just proves that it was written in the period that it claims to have been written, and that the authors did not fabricate historical events.


Ouch! remind me to allow you to sit on a jury where my life is on the line. Furthermore, from my post, what makes you assume I am a Christian. In my original post I was simply pointing out how there can be ignorance on both sides of this issue. I never waste my breath on anyone, I really have no concern of your eternal condition. You know the sides, you've made your decision, fair enough. If I am to believe the Bible, it clearly states that many people will not believe.:nono: All other issues aside though, from your posts it is very evident that, despite your schooling which obviously exceeds many, you have never spent the time to delve into the validity of the Bible. But as long as you are confident in your "measured thought" (I loved that line) than I am pleased as well. I'm Air Sven, and I'm out.

[LeatherFace]

I feel there is a difference between actual physical proof i.e. bones of our ancestors that date back hundreds of thousands of years than words written on a piece of paper. I don't know, call me a "doubting Thomas" ;) but there hasn't been any "proof" out there that I have seen that could substatiate anything that has been written in the Bible, other than these people lived during that time. Example: the plagues of Egypt. The Egyptians were probably the most thorough civilization when it came to recording events, and yet no where is it written that these horrible plagues happened. Don't you think if the son of the Pharoh died, it would be recorded SOMEWHERE? And Toshi is right about the Resurrection--that is the basis of all Christianity. How do you "prove" that one?

[Toshi]

Sven,

I actually was responding to fourgivn1's "wasting your breath" comment. You are right about my not having delved into the validity of the Bible, tho; maybe later in life I'll have the time and inclination to do so. As for now, I'm still young and arrogant ;) enough to hold my current beliefs.

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Toshi
Everything else aside, there is nothing that would prove the Resurrection to me. A missing corpse and some stories do not constitute proof. Furthermore, I believe my skepticism is justified (and with two Catholic parents and 4 years of Jesuits at the blackboard the alternative view has been presented many times), so perhaps you are wasting your breath. Of course, in the sense that my skepticism and denial is based on measured thought of my own rather than pigheaded stubborness as you seem to imply, you are incorrect.

Just in case it's unclear from the above, the veracity of the Bible in its incidental facts does not validate the entire work, imo. It just proves that it was written in the period that it claims to have been written, and that the authors did not fabricate historical events.

This is sort of my point. One, I don't recall saying a missing corpse and some stories constituted proof. By proof I do not mean stories. I mean proof that would be admissible in any court of law. Two, I also do not recall saying "There could be100% proof and TOSHI would not believe." This is why I used the word 'people.' Every DAY I encounter people who automatically throw up a wall to anything I say, once they learn what I believe, and no amount of 'proof' will do anything to tear that wall down.

Three, if incidental facts, when put together, do not prove the overall validity of the Bible (or, put another way, considering there's not 100% proof and never will be, if the amount of evidence proving people in the Bible existed, that the events occurred, etc. does not contribute to the overall validity of the Bible) then what would they prove? ONLY those events/people that they pertain to? If I'm not mistaken, courts take evidence, weigh it, and make a decision based upon that evidence, and if they do not have 100% proof, then the amount of evidence they do have is used to validate the overall story (or not) of the person on trial.

As you have said previously, anything I say won't convince you, so I won't waste any more hand strength. (On the keyboard, that is. *LOL*) Wait, that sounded bad. Ah, never mind....:p

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
I feel there is a difference between actual physical proof i.e. bones of our ancestors that date back hundreds of thousands of years than words written on a piece of paper. I don't know, call me a "doubting Thomas" ;) but there hasn't been any "proof" out there that I have seen that could substatiate anything that has been written in the Bible, other than these people lived during that time. Example: the plagues of Egypt. The Egyptians were probably the most thorough civilization when it came to recording events, and yet no where is it written that these horrible plagues happened. Don't you think if the son of the Pharoh died, it would be recorded SOMEWHERE? And Toshi is right about the Resurrection--that is the basis of all Christianity. How do you "prove" that one?

I do not say this to be rude or mean at all, but have you really sat down and done any research as far as finds that have substantiated stories/people in the Bible? Again, I do not say this to be rude; I say it because I'm ALWAYS hearing about this find or that find that validates a person/place/event in the Bible. There are so many archaeological finds that have validated a particular person/place/thing in the Bible, and not one of them has contradicted anything the Bible says. Yet I keep hearing this. (I say again, please don't take this wrong. *L*)

A perfect example is David. For THE longest time, non-Christian scholars kept asking 'Where is proof that David was not a figment of someone's imagination, or a fairy tale?' and sort of used that as one of the many examples of how we couldn't really find proof to substantiate anything in the Bible. (And yes, there IS plenty of concrete proof.) Christian scholars were getting tired of being asked how come there wasn't anything found mentioning David, one of the most famous 'characters' in the Bible.

About 6 months ago I read about an archaeological find that contained, among other things, references to David/David's kingdom, etc. (I'd have to go look it up to find exactly what it referred to.)

This is just one example. If you really do want to get an idea of what kind of proof is out there, again, go read Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell. Yes, he may be Christian, but before that, he was atheistic, and all of the information contained within was found during his research. It is NOT light reading..it's set up in outline form.

OK, so I lied...it wasn't my last post. *L* I guess I will revise my statement in the reply to Toshi's post, and say it was my last post intended to convince anyone about the validity of the Bible. This post wasn't really pertaining to that...more to convincing that there is, in fact, evidence supporting the Bible...not actually trying to convince anyone of the actual validity itself.

[SVEN]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
I feel there is a difference between actual physical proof i.e. bones of our ancestors that date back hundreds of thousands of years than words written on a piece of paper. I don't know, call me a "doubting Thomas" ;) but there hasn't been any "proof" out there that I have seen that could substatiate anything that has been written in the Bible, other than these people lived during that time. Example: the plagues of Egypt. The Egyptians were probably the most thorough civilization when it came to recording events, and yet no where is it written that these horrible plagues happened. Don't you think if the son of the Pharoh died, it would be recorded SOMEWHERE? And Toshi is right about the Resurrection--that is the basis of all Christianity. How do you "prove" that one?

OK, first off, better make sure that your dating methods are correct if you want to base your decisions about eternity on them. That's all I'm gonna say of this issue, because the ignorance on this issue is so deep and cavernous, even Air Sven wouldn't attempt to jump that gap. But, if you believe everything you were taught in school no matter what, then don't bother pursuing this issue at all. Second, you made a very safe statement when you said "there hasen't been any proof out there THAT I HAVE SEEN that could substantiate." Obviously you haven't seen the evidence, because if had done so you would have never made such a bold and ignorant remark. In my own life, I figured I owed to myself to find out about these types of issues, WEIGH THE EVIDENCE, and make a decision on them, knowing that there was a lot of information I wasn't given at school. I really don't care what decision you make (still working on loving and caring about others spiritual well-being) but I find it odd that anyone could make a decision on something they have not weighed the evidence for. Its like missing half of a trial and still sitting on the jury and attempting to make a decision. The Judge wouldn't have it. You make a couple of other staemenst i could expound on, like the "Bones of our ancestors", (that was cute), But I'd only like to answer the question at the end "How do you prove that one?" Well, simple, haven't you ever sat on a jury? There are two types of evidence you use, Legal, and Historical. You can also use a small amount of physical evidence, but nothing that really clinches the deal. On that note, what forms of evidence do you think you would use to prove Evolution? Obviously you feel physical evidence is one, are there any others? Are you confident with the physical evidence, or lack thereof, for evolution to base such a weighty decision around? What pieces of evidence have helped you make that decision?

[SVEN]

Originally posted by Toshi
Sven,

I actually was responding to fourgivn1's "wasting your breath" comment. You are right about my not having delved into the validity of the Bible, tho; maybe later in life I'll have the time and inclination to do so. As for now, I'm still young and arrogant ;) enough to hold my current beliefs.

thank you for your honesty, you may now be seated. I will not hold your current beliefs against you, unless you think I'm a lousy rider, then I get offended.

[fourgivn1]

That's something there's 100% proof for...I'm a lousy rider. (Note the words 'frickin' newbie' in my sig. Working on getting rid of the 'lousy' part. :D)

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


I do not say this to be rude or mean at all, but have you really sat down and done any research as far as finds that have substantiated stories/people in the Bible? Again, I do not say this to be rude; I say it because I'm ALWAYS hearing about this find or that find that validates a person/place/event in the Bible. There are so many archaeological finds that have validated a particular person/place/thing in the Bible, and not one of them has contradicted anything the Bible says. Yet I keep hearing this. (I say again, please don't take this wrong. *L*)

A perfect example is David. For THE longest time, non-Christian scholars kept asking 'Where is proof that David was not a figment of someone's imagination, or a fairy tale?' and sort of used that as one of the many examples of how we couldn't really find proof to substantiate anything in the Bible. (And yes, there IS plenty of concrete proof.) Christian scholars were getting tired of being asked how come there wasn't anything found mentioning David, one of the most famous 'characters' in the Bible.

About 6 months ago I read about an archaeological find that contained, among other things, references to David/David's kingdom, etc. (I'd have to go look it up to find exactly what it referred to.)

This is just one example. If you really do want to get an idea of what kind of proof is out there, again, go read Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell. Yes, he may be Christian, but before that, he was atheistic, and all of the information contained within was found during his research. It is NOT light reading..it's set up in outline form.

OK, so I lied...it wasn't my last post. *L* I guess I will revise my statement in the reply to Toshi's post, and say it was my last post intended to convince anyone about the validity of the Bible. This post wasn't really pertaining to that...more to convincing that there is, in fact, evidence supporting the Bible...not actually trying to convince anyone of the actual validity itself.

Actually, I know a lot about the Bible. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school for 12 years which meant Mass twice a week and religion class every school year. I am baptised and confirmed (my confirmation name is Anastasia :p ) and have done the sacrament of reconciliation and communion more times than I can count. I have read the Bible extensively, and have taken it both literally and figuratively. When I was raised with religion, I believed everything that was written about God, Jesus, and everything else that happened in the Bible. I reiterate: I BELIEVED IT ALL. But as I grew older and had more questions that my religious mentors could not answer, that is when I stopped going to communion, doing reconciliation, etc because I felt like I was lying if I went through the motions.

That said...I don't feel that an archaeological fing validates a "story" in the Bible. I am not denying that David or Jesus or whomever existed, I'm just saying that the whole basis of Christianity is centered upon what these people said, passed on by oral traditon until it was finally written down, and I think too much importance is placed on words on a page. That is where the proof is lacking for me. What other proof do we have of the lives and times of the people in the Bible other than what has been WRITTEN about them? How do we know that is what they really did, what they really said?

And I have done my own research regarding the Bible, particularly because it supposedly "condemns" my lifestyle, so I'm not just some joe-blow who doesn't have any background info about the Bible. The difference is now instead of taking it literally, like I did for 18 years of my life, I look at it as a work of fiction.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by SVEN


On that note, what forms of evidence do you think you would use to prove Evolution? Obviously you feel physical evidence is one, are there any others? Are you confident with the physical evidence, or lack thereof, for evolution to base such a weighty decision around? What pieces of evidence have helped you make that decision?

At its most basic, evolution refers to the change in the gene pool of a population over time or descent with modification. Evolution is also frequently used to refer to common descent, the idea that all living beings are descended from a common ancestor. This is sometimes called the general theory of evolution. In addition, evolution can also refer to the theories about the mechanisms of change, that is the mechanisms by which change in populations of living organisms take place. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have.

[LeatherFace]

Check this out--take a look at our "ancestors" ;)
Evolution of Man (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html)

Or this one: Compare the skulls (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html)

[ohio]

Originally posted by SVEN
There are two types of evidence you use, Legal, and Historical. You can also use a small amount of physical evidence, but nothing that really clinches the deal.

Doesn't that really depend on the type of trial? In a criminal trial, such as a murder case, I was under the impression that physical evidence is the single most important component of the case. Especially now that we have reliable DNA testing methods.

Come to think of it, forensics, evolutionary biology, and archeology are all very similar in practice.

[Brian HCM#1]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Actually, I know a lot about the Bible. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school for 12 years which meant Mass twice a week and religion class every school year. I am baptised and confirmed (my confirmation name is Anastasia :p ) and have done the sacrament of reconciliation and communion more times than I can count. I have read the Bible extensively, and have taken it both literally and figuratively. When I was raised with religion, I believed everything that was written about God, Jesus, and everything else that happened in the Bible. I reiterate: I BELIEVED IT ALL. But as I grew older and had more questions that my religious mentors could not answer, that is when I stopped going to communion, doing reconciliation, etc because I felt like I was lying if I went through the motions.

That said...I don't feel that an archaeological fing validates a "story" in the Bible. I am not denying that David or Jesus or whomever existed, I'm just saying that the whole basis of Christianity is centered upon what these people said, passed on by oral traditon until it was finally written down, and I think too much importance is placed on words on a page. That is where the proof is lacking for me. What other proof do we have of the lives and times of the people in the Bible other than what has been WRITTEN about them? How do we know that is what they really did, what they really said?

And I have done my own research regarding the Bible, particularly because it supposedly "condemns" my lifestyle, so I'm not just some joe-blow who doesn't have any background info about the Bible. The difference is now instead of taking it literally, like I did for 18 years of my life, I look at it as a work of fiction. Well put:)

[Woggle Bear]

If there is no God and you know this to be true, then why should it matter to you what christians believe? I mean "God" would just be a another word, right? So why care if it's in the pledge or on money. If you do not believe in it's meaning then how are you offended by it? I really don't understand that.

Some of you seem to be anti-religous. Godophobic.
It is like some biggot getting on here and asking gay or lesbian riders to provide him with proof that their sexual prefrence is not wrong. I would think you would all be offended by this, so why is it ok to pick on the christians?

What happened to live and let live?

You don't believe in God...ok.
You are a Christian... fine.
You are Jewish...cool.
Black, white, socialist, capitialist, east coast, west coast, north, south, XC, DH what ever. Why care?

Why should it matter? Respect the other guys opinions and go on with your life.

WB

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Woggle Bear


Some of you seem to be anti-religous. Godophobic.
It is like some biggot getting on here and asking gay or lesbian riders to provide him with proof that their sexual prefrence is not wrong. I would think you would all be offended by this, so why is it ok to pick on the christians?

What happened to live and let live?


Why should it matter? Respect the other guys opinions and go on with your life.

WB

I think you are missing the point of this thread. Initially, narlus asked:
question for you Christians out there:

is it inconsistent to agree w/ darwin's (et al) theories and be Christian, or do you need to have a strict interpretation of Genesis and believe in creationism?

discuss.

He was wanting to know everyone's view of this. And this thread isn't as offensive and negative as you would think. We have all debated/discussed other things before, and this is a way of getting to know eachother.

[SVEN]

I would agree, i have always been impressed with discussions on this board, and have never been offended, and hopefully I haven' offended any. We do have our different views, and different reasons for having those views. i certainly don't lose any sleep over other people not believing what i believe. If I wasn't confident in my beliefs, I wouldn't stand by them at all. but, alas, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. At first, i needed to go through these issues for myself (and continue to do so) so that i was confident I was weighing enough eveidence to make a decision. but once I allowd God to work in my life, evidence becomes much more personnal. For instance, as a child, not knowing what love is, you could tell me you love me and I would have to take it on faith. but after that, and after learning that love is a choice with actions that support it, when I see you actually loving me, I don't need you to tell me you love me anymore. i know it by experiencing it. I, in turn, know my faith is not in vain by what I have seen and experienced in my life, tangible things which, when added together, take away all reasonable doubt that I have been led astray.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by SVEN
I would agree, i have always been impressed with discussions on this board, and have never been offended, and hopefully I haven' offended any. We do have our different views, and different reasons for having those views. i certainly don't lose any sleep over other people not believing what i believe. If I wasn't confident in my beliefs, I wouldn't stand by them at all. but, alas, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. At first, i needed to go through these issues for myself (and continue to do so) so that i was confident I was weighing enough eveidence to make a decision. but once I allowd God to work in my life, evidence becomes much more personnal. For instance, as a child, not knowing what love is, you could tell me you love me and I would have to take it on faith. but after that, and after learning that love is a choice with actions that support it, when I see you actually loving me, I don't need you to tell me you love me anymore. i know it by experiencing it. I, in turn, know my faith is not in vain by what I have seen and experienced in my life, tangible things which, when added together, take away all reasonable doubt that I have been led astray.

Well put.

[Brian HCM#1]

Originally posted by Woggle Bear
If there is no God and you know this to be true, then why should it matter to you what christians believe? I mean "God" would just be a another word, right? So why care if it's in the pledge or on money. If you do not believe in it's meaning then how are you offended by it? I really don't understand that.

Some of you seem to be anti-religous. Godophobic.
It is like some biggot getting on here and asking gay or lesbian riders to provide him with proof that their sexual prefrence is not wrong. I would think you would all be offended by this, so why is it ok to pick on the christians?

What happened to live and let live?

You don't believe in God...ok.
You are a Christian... fine.
You are Jewish...cool.
Black, white, socialist, capitialist, east coast, west coast, north, south, XC, DH what ever. Why care?

Why should it matter? Respect the other guys opinions and go on with your life.

WB Unfortunetly some people have very narrow minds and only see one side.................Their side. They are not willing to open their minds for a second and rationaly see the other side. This is usally how they were raised and tought to believe.

Look at the suicide bombers, they are told for their actions they will go to a better place. Is this a true fact? This I'm sure has been writen for them and they follow it thinking that what they beleive is correct. I find them to be pycho Mo Fo's that don't even belong on the face of this planet.

I don't have anything against religion, but to me its a personal thing and should be kept to themselves. If someone feels that their actions here on earth will get them to the great after life, more power to them. Unless anyone can provide CONCRETE EVIDENCE on the bible or evolution, people need to STOP preaching that they are the only correct ones.

Anyways Christianity is a newer religion, are all the others before it a farce? Could Jesus have been a cult leader? Could David Korrish and Jim Jones been correct with their religious beliefs. Most look at those 2 as total wacko's loony pycho nut cakes.

Like I said, I don't care about people beliefs, as long as they are good people, its all good.

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Actually, I know a lot about the Bible. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school for 12 years which meant Mass twice a week and religion class every school year. I am baptised and confirmed (my confirmation name is Anastasia :p ) and have done the sacrament of reconciliation and communion more times than I can count. I have read the Bible extensively, and have taken it both literally and figuratively. When I was raised with religion, I believed everything that was written about God, Jesus, and everything else that happened in the Bible. I reiterate: I BELIEVED IT ALL. But as I grew older and had more questions that my religious mentors could not answer, that is when I stopped going to communion, doing reconciliation, etc because I felt like I was lying if I went through the motions.

That said...I don't feel that an archaeological fing validates a "story" in the Bible. I am not denying that David or Jesus or whomever existed, I'm just saying that the whole basis of Christianity is centered upon what these people said, passed on by oral traditon until it was finally written down, and I think too much importance is placed on words on a page. That is where the proof is lacking for me. What other proof do we have of the lives and times of the people in the Bible other than what has been WRITTEN about them? How do we know that is what they really did, what they really said?

And I have done my own research regarding the Bible, particularly because it supposedly "condemns" my lifestyle, so I'm not just some joe-blow who doesn't have any background info about the Bible. The difference is now instead of taking it literally, like I did for 18 years of my life, I look at it as a work of fiction.

OK, 2 questions. One, you mentioned that when your religious mentors could not answer your questions, you kinda 'stopped' (going to communion, doing reconciliation, etc.) I do hope that they weren't the only reason you stopped. I do indeed credit you wtih more intelligence than just to say "Hm, they can't answer it.....I guess I'll stop being a Christian." *LOL* But by the same token, there are some answers that we will NEVER know - not, at least, until we get to Heaven. I guess my question is, did you continue doing studies and such? I mean, you listed how you went to classes and such, and grew up Catholic....but you didn't really talk about doing outside research. I can read the Bible all day long, and I know for a fact that sometimes I just can't figure out what the heck they're saying....UNTIL I do some serious footwork and read what others have said/researched, etc.

Two, you essentially seem to say that while you have no problem believing that those specific people existed, you have a problem with what is written about them. That's like saying you believe that they existed, but that you do not believe anything said about them in the Bible. That doesn't make sense.

[fourgivn1]

I'd like to point something out that people (me included) miss a lot. In short, I'll always believe in what I believe in. And I would not be a very good Christian if I did not get upset when people attack what I believe in, or if I didn't defend what I believe in.

That said, one minute after I surf away from Ridemonkey, I'm still the same guy, and I'm perfectly happy. Despite what others believe, I still love chatting here, and I don't dislike anyone. I can't say I agree with everyone's views, but obviously that is to be expected. I hold no one's views against them, and I would hope that others would extend to me the same courtesy. I will also take this time to apologize to all those who have ever taken offense (intended or unintended) from anything I have said to them...such was not and will never be the case.

[ohio]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


Two, you essentially seem to say that while you have no problem believing that those specific people existed, you have a problem with what is written about them. That's like saying you believe that they existed, but that you do not believe anything said about them in the Bible. That doesn't make sense.

I don't want to put words in LF's mouth, but this is certainly what I believe. I think it is perfectly reasonable, and in my mind more logical, to view the bible and the stories it contains as potentially true when corroborated, but fallible in its interpretations of events and people. History has been written down by humans, and humans are fallible. There are many many historical documents that when viewed skeptically but taken as a whole, we can draw conclusions about actual events and people, but each document will have it's own religious/political/cultural spin. Example: Countless Egyptian documents record the phoroahs as a line of descendants from the gods. I believe these pharoahs EXISTED, I do NOT believe they were divine.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


OK, 2 questions. One, you mentioned that when your religious mentors could not answer your questions, you kinda 'stopped' (going to communion, doing reconciliation, etc.) I do hope that they weren't the only reason you stopped. I do indeed credit you wtih more intelligence than just to say "Hm, they can't answer it.....I guess I'll stop being a Christian."

Well, whenever I had questions about things that never seemed to jibe with the teachings of the religion, the priests/nuns/brothers/teachers always said "well, that's what faith is for." And no, I didn't stop practicing Catholicism, or any religion for that matter, because of several things. One was that I realized that I was just going through the motions and not really examining the teachings of what I believed at the time. Like, when I realized that Catholics believe that every single time during the consecration of the host at Mass, a miracle occurs and it literally turns in to Jesus' body and blood, I felt I couldn't partake in that sacrament because I didn't believe that that happened. It was a symbol to me, at best. Original sin I thought was the actual sin of Adam and Eve that was washed from us when we were baptised, but when I asked about evolution and how it conflicted with the Adam and Eve story, I was told that Original sin was whatever sin existed in the world at that moment I was born, and that was washed from me, to protect me. As I grew older, I studied the Bible from a different view, and found that my deep embedded beliefs still made me believe the absurd could happen, because God did it. For example, I took a "Bible as Literature" class, and we were talking about Moses in the desert, and the Hebrews were complaining because they were hungry, and the notion of "manna coming from the heavens." My professor explained how there were tamarask trees in the desert, and when a branch is broken off, a liquid comes out that soon dries in the sun. This in turn creates flat, unleaven bread like edibles. Nomads still eat this today. And the whole time I was thinking "You mean manna didn't rain from the heavens?" Duh! Too many inconsistencies. Too many changing explanations trying to fit with science.

Originally posted by fourgivn1

Two, you essentially seem to say that while you have no problem believing that those specific people existed, you have a problem with what is written about them. That's like saying you believe that they existed, but that you do not believe anything said about them in the Bible. That doesn't make sense.

Well, I guess I should clarify. I believe that specific people existed. I don't believe what they said or did as written in the Bible, because that is the only source of actual conversations , events, etc. How do we know what David or Mary Magdalene or Jesus for that matter said exactly? The only evidence is in the Bible, and no place else really. Believe me, I watch the programs that show the archaeological digs of locations in the Bible, like how they may have found the site of Sodom and Gomorrah. That is a possiblility (that the cities actually/physically existed). But that God destroyed them because all the men were homosexuals and Lot's wife was turned to salt when she looked back on the destroyed city? That is the kind of thing I have a problem believing.

[SVEN]

Originally posted by Brian HCM#1
Unfortunetly some people have very narrow minds and only see one side.................Their side. They are not willing to open their minds for a second and rationaly see the other side. This is usally how they were raised and tought to believe.

Look at the suicide bombers, they are told for their actions they will go to a better place. Is this a true fact? This I'm sure has been writen for them and they follow it thinking that what they beleive is correct. I find them to be pycho Mo Fo's that don't even belong on the face of this planet.

I don't have anything against religion, but to me its a personal thing and should be kept to themselves. If someone feels that their actions here on earth will get them to the great after life, more power to them. Unless anyone can provide CONCRETE EVIDENCE on the bible or evolution, people need to STOP preaching that they are the only correct ones.

Anyways Christianity is a newer religion, are all the others before it a farce? Could Jesus have been a cult leader? Could David Korrish and Jim Jones been correct with their religious beliefs. Most look at those 2 as total wacko's loony pycho nut cakes.

Like I said, I don't care about people beliefs, as long as they are good people, its all good.


I won't comment on any mor statemets, but I will answer questions, forgive me if they are rhetorical. About the age of christianity and what not, first, you are right, Christianity the religion is newer than some, older than others. Religion=man's attempt at pleasing, reaching, or otherwise living for/about God or gods. the key there is MAN made it, I don't defend Christianity, I don't think it is the best religion, i think all religions get tainted way or another (keep with me here). Secondly, my beliefs are not that off from Judaism (I hope no one is offended by this), with a major difference being that I believe that Jesus was the messiah prophesied about since the beginning of the Jewish religion. Therefore, my belief system is rooted, and can be traced, back to the beginning of man. But, yes, the religion of Christianity is newer.

Was Jesus a Cult leader? Could be, he could also have been downhiller who rode a V10, but that's just an idea with no backing evidence.

and about Korresh and Jones. They could have been right, but looking into there beliefs and lifestyles and influences I am more inclined to believe they were men that wanted to start something.

"But Sven, that sounds like Jesus!" Kinda does, to the uneducated and apathetic who are unwilling to look deeper into it. Again, I don't think Christianity is Right. But I do think that Jesus did in fact die for each and every one of us, and until I get proved otherwise (*which I am plenty open to, I would love to know that my beliefs are jaded, please challenge my faith in any way you see fit, I do not want to waste my time with a Savior who never saved) I will not live life as if he did not actually die for me. When someone dies for me, I take it seriously.

[SVEN]

Originally posted by ohio


I don't want to put words in LF's mouth, but this is certainly what I believe. I think it is perfectly reasonable, and in my mind more logical, to view the bible and the stories it contains as potentially true when corroborated, but fallible in its interpretations of events and people. History has been written down by humans, and humans are fallible. There are many many historical documents that when viewed skeptically but taken as a whole, we can draw conclusions about actual events and people, but each document will have it's own religious/political/cultural spin. Example: Countless Egyptian documents record the phoroahs as a line of descendants from the gods. I believe these pharoahs EXISTED, I do NOT believe they were divine.


I think you bring up a good point, and that is that it is very difficult and a waste of time to prove the Bible to someone. The best I can do is show how there are no inconsistencies, as long as you believe in God. I f you don't belive in a divine being that has the power to orchestrate events and even help a group of men put a book together, then it is nearly impossible to show the validity of everything in the bible. Even if I was able to provide a reason for every inconsiistency you may be able to muster about the Bible, in your mind there is still a chance something is fabricated. I can understand that. Basically, we both feel that the burden of proof is the other sides duty. I tend to give God the benefit of the doubt, and would seek to prove right anything that someone like you tries to prove wrong. You probably don't give God the benefit of the doubt ( I am assuming, of course) so you try to prove wrong anything I try to prove right in the bible. Does this make sense, i know my point but am having a hard time typing it. Ok, here is a good summary. You feel that because the Bible was written by human hand (who are admittedly fallible) then even if I backed up everything in it, something still may be wrong. I feel, that since the Bible is the very Word of God, that everything in it is true unless proven otherwise. like I said before, I would love for someone to provide evidence against the Bible, just as I would hope non-believers would like to hear why it is true.

[SVEN]

Originally posted by BAH
well if there is no god people who believe in him will live their lives thinking they did the right thing. people who dont believe in him will have done the same.
if there IS a god - the people who believe in him will get their reward- the people who dont believe in him- well.........:devil:

As far as my beliefs- it sounds like me and air sven agree. I believe the original message that jesus wanted to get across. The original message is basically just one of love for everybody. Why people have such a hard time with that- who knows? i understand a little because mankind has so twisted religions to suit their own needs- its almost worse than if you didnt believe at all IMHO. "religion" isnt where its at but your own personal relationship and willingness to do what you believe jesus would have wanted.


:monkey:

I do believe what you say here, BAH. But I have the feeling that there may be a little more to my beliefs than I am showing. Jesus' whole love message is great and all, but he also said that "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the father except through me." John 14:6 (I hope I quoted it right!) He also made numerous other claims that he was God incarnate, and he was going to die for the sins of the world, and be resurrected on the 3rd day. My belief is he was either a lunatic along the lines of Korresh and Jones, or he was Right. I lean to the side of Right.

[SVEN]

Originally posted by BAH
well if there is no god people who believe in him will live their lives thinking they did the right thing. people who dont believe in him will have done the same.
if there IS a god - the people who believe in him will get their reward- the people who dont believe in him- well.........:devil:

As far as my beliefs- it sounds like me and air sven agree. I believe the original message that jesus wanted to get across. The original message is basically just one of love for everybody. Why people have such a hard time with that- who knows? i understand a little because mankind has so twisted religions to suit their own needs- its almost worse than if you didnt believe at all IMHO. "religion" isnt where its at but your own personal relationship and willingness to do what you believe jesus would have wanted.


:monkey:


Sorry Bah, but on reading over your post here, I have to clear up some more things. BTW, are you still riding with me in Thursday to Whistler? Anyhoo, we can speculate on what Jesus' message was, but all we really have to go on is what he said in the 4 gospels. Though he did have a message of love, it was also one of redemption, judgment, and salvation. He was very clear that nothing a man could do in action could get him/her to Heaven, and that no man was perfect. he was also clear that he was God (this claim was the very rerason that the Jews wanted hime dead, as they saw it as blasphemy, which if untrue it certainly was) and that simply believing that he died for your sins was the only way to be in the presence of God for eternity. he did not always have a lovey-dovey message, he was quite specific and graphic about what would happen to those who would not believe in Him as Savior.

[ohio]

Originally posted by SVEN
I think you bring up a good point, and that is that it is very difficult and a waste of time to prove the Bible to someone. The best I can do is show how there are no inconsistencies, as long as you believe in God. I f you don't belive in a divine being that has the power to orchestrate events and even help a group of men put a book together, then it is nearly impossible to show the validity of everything in the bible. Even if I was able to provide a reason for every inconsiistency you may be able to muster about the Bible, in your mind there is still a chance something is fabricated. I can understand that. Basically, we both feel that the burden of proof is the other sides duty. I tend to give God the benefit of the doubt, and would seek to prove right anything that someone like you tries to prove wrong. You probably don't give God the benefit of the doubt ( I am assuming, of course) so you try to prove wrong anything I try to prove right in the bible. Does this make sense, i know my point but am having a hard time typing it. Ok, here is a good summary. You feel that because the Bible was written by human hand (who are admittedly fallible) then even if I backed up everything in it, something still may be wrong. I feel, that since the Bible is the very Word of God, that everything in it is true unless proven otherwise. like I said before, I would love for someone to provide evidence against the Bible, just as I would hope non-believers would like to hear why it is true.

Very well put. I agree wholeheartedly. I think I can trace the roots of my mindset to growing up in an academic environment. In academics, any piece of work you find, you criticize and look for holes in it. With Faith, it is true unless proven false. In academia, it is no more than theory, until it is absolutely irrefutable. It is better to be inconclusive/indecisive than to be wrong.

At the same time, on thing that is NEVER allowed in academics (though many "pop academics" get away with it) is to start with a conclusion, rather than a hypothesis, and search for evidence to support it, rather than run experiments to test it. So that is my objection to viewing the Bible as the word of God; your side of the argument requires that you start with the conclusion that the Bible is the word of God, and then finds evidence to support it; my side takes the evidence we have and tries to reach a conclusion.

I'm wondering to myself if the exact opposite can be argued back at me, but I think that it can't (I'm sure I'll soon find out:D), and that the subtle difference between the two sides is simply Faith.

Originally posted by SVEN

My belief is he was either a lunatic along the lines of Korresh and Jones, or he was Right. I lean to the side of Right.

So you're a fan of Mere Christianity? I also read it, and thought it was a fantastic argument. However (and I wish I could remember more specifically) I found that Lewis omitted several premises from his argument, that would have effected the logical conclusion...

[SVEN]

Originally posted by ohio



So you're a fan of Mere Christianity? I also read it, and thought it was a fantastic argument. However (and I wish I could remember more specifically) I found that Lewis omitted several premises from his argument, that would have effected the logical conclusion...


I actually have it but haven't read it. But you hear it (lunatic/liar/savior) alot in Christian circles, and it just makes sense to me, assuming that everything of importance that Jesus was trying to get across is actually contained within the Bible. One could make the argument that he had a lot more to say, but you would have to have faith in that idea, rather than have any backing evidence.

[SVEN]

Originally posted by BAH


yeah we are on the same page air sven- see my first paragraph- but there is a comment on this section that said no preaching in here so i didnt but youre getting awfully close :D :D :devil:


Gotcha, I'm not good with directions or rules. Need to pay more attention.:cool:

[fourgivn1]

What ohio said above - about never being able to start with a conclusion in the world of academics - is why no one who can not surrender their will, to a degree, or, put another way, give God the 'benefit of the doubt' as someone above put it, will be able to accept God at His word via the Bible. If God had wanted to give us 100% proof, I'm fairly sure He could have. But again, this is where faith comes in at. It constantly amazes me that the same people who can essentially put faith in evolution, can not do the same thing for religion (Christianity, in this case....I've also heard of cases where they shifted their views from another religion - Wicca and Hinduism, to be exact - to atheism).

I will also say for the record that I do NOT think God is DUMB enough to say "Hm, I think I will dictate my Words of Wisdom to a buncha bumbling idiots and HOPE they don't screw up the message in the meantime." Yes, there most certainly ARE bibles in production that DO have things in them that are wrong. It has also been shown that our current translations of the Bible (good ones, such as the KJV, NASB and the new ESV versions) differ less in interpretation from the earliest manuscripts found at Qumran, than our current interpretations of Shakespeare's writings differ from his earliest surviving documents. Obviously there's no DVD library anywhere that shows God, Moses, Jesus, Adam and Eve, and all the characters in the Bible dealing with all the events in the Bible. But by the same token, I can not believe that because there is not 100% proof for everything in the Bible, that it simply nullifies the rest of the evidence gathered. If that is what makes me 'irrational' by academic standards, then oh well, I guess I'm irrational.

[DHanamal]

Christianity is powered by a ton of ignorance. We forget that there were generations of Indians living on this continent we call North America for 40,000 years. Were they all just a bunch of bumpingly fools to believe that they're were seperate gods for each Earth event, rain, sun, floods, and they also believed in reincarnation. Or how about the South American tribes? Or the people that built the pyramids? Or the one BILLION people that follow Islam. Are they all wrong? Maybe Christians have it wrong.

[laura]

i had to take a class last semester called evolution and human variations. what i found after taking this class is that most peoples idea of what evolution is is totally misconstrued. everyone has a generall knowledge of the concept of evolution but most people dont know the details and let me tell you, there are a lot of details involved.

i personally believe in evolution and not in god. i was however forced to go to church and a church of christ school for most of my life so i am very biassed against all organized religion and belief in things that cant be seen.

i think that everyone should have to take a human variations class. i also think that just because you believe one thing doesnt mean that you shouldnt explore other options.

if you dont educate yourself, you are the one missing out.

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by DHanamal
Christianity is powered by a ton of ignorance. We forget that there were generations of Indians living on this continent we call North America for 40,000 years. Were they all just a bunch of bumpingly fools to believe that they're were seperate gods for each Earth event, rain, sun, floods, and they also believed in reincarnation. Or how about the South American tribes? Or the people that built the pyramids? Or the one BILLION people that follow Islam. Are they all wrong? Maybe Christians have it wrong.

Or maybe they don't. Maybe Muslims have it wrong. Or maybe Mormons have it all wrong. Or maybe Hindus have it all wrong. :D (I'm being somewhat facetious here.)

A note.......this doesn't apply to every Christian, but it at the least applies to me. I don't try to waste time proving just how WRONG other religions are. That would look conceited and closed-minded to anyone, I will grant that. But I DO take time to explain why I personally choose it, and why I BELIEVE it is 'right.'

To make a long story short, there's a lot of options out there as far as religion go. I don't waste time knocking other religions, personally. I believed when I was a kid because my parents believed. When I began to doubt, I went and did some actual/factual research, and that answered my questions and such.

Will it ever answer all my questions? Of course not. No religion has all the answers to everything. But it has enough answers, for me.

As far as educating oneself, I do have to point out something, and it isn't meant to be offensive.

You mentioned that if one does not educate oneself, then one is missing out, and that just because you believe one thing does not mean you can't explore other options. (I'm not looking for another religion, but I can say I am constantly learning. I'm in the middle of reading a big fat huge book about Islam, and another one about socialism, just because they are interesting.)

But 2 paragraphs above that, you mention that due to the school and the church you were forced to attend, you are very biased against all organized religion and belief in things you can't see.

This is why I get confused/frustrated at times. It seems that the same people who tell me I need to be more 'open minded' about things in opposition to what I believe (or, the people who tell me I'm too 'closed minded') are the ones who seem to be closed-minded about what I believe.

What Dhanamal said is something I wholeheartedly agree with today, to be honest...when he said that Christianity is powered by a ton of ignorance. I would make one change, though. I would have to say 'institutionalized Christianity.' The simple fact is that there as just as much underlying proof for the people/places/times/events in the Bible, as there is proof for evolution. It is one of those topics that Christians/non-Christians will always fight over.

[ohio]

fourgivn1, I just wanted to thank you for participating. You always post very thoughtfully, with reserve and respect for other people's opinions, and though we have different beliefs I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you have to say. Just wanted to let you know I appreciate your level-headed and humorous style...

cheers.

:thumb: :thumb:

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by ohio
fourgivn1, I just wanted to thank you for participating. You always post very thoughtfully, with reserve and respect for other people's opinions, and though we have different beliefs I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you have to say. Just wanted to let you know I appreciate your level-headed and humorous style...

cheers.

:thumb: :thumb:

Dude, that's awesome of you. I do worry a lot that I'm seen as trying to bash in people's head with my beliefs, so I try hard to state my beliefs while respecting others and not condemning their own beliefs. Thanks a lot for the comment :) :thumb:

And as far as humor goes, ya gotta laugh to keep a level head in today's world. I believe God has a sense of humor.....otherwise, he would not have created Jerry Falwell.

:D

[JesusFreak]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Well, whenever I had questions about things that never seemed to jibe with the teachings of the religion, the priests/nuns/brothers/teachers always said "well, that's what faith is for." And no, I didn't stop practicing Catholicism, or any religion for that matter, because of several things. One was that I realized that I was just going through the motions and not really examining the teachings of what I believed at the time. Like, when I realized that Catholics believe that every single time during the consecration of the host at Mass, a miracle occurs and it literally turns in to Jesus' body and blood, I felt I couldn't partake in that sacrament because I didn't believe that that happened. It was a symbol to me, at best. Original sin I thought was the actual sin of Adam and Eve that was washed from us when we were baptised, but when I asked about evolution and how it conflicted with the Adam and Eve story, I was told that Original sin was whatever sin existed in the world at that moment I was born, and that was washed from me, to protect me. As I grew older, I studied the Bible from a different view, and found that my deep embedded beliefs still made me believe the absurd could happen, because God did it. For example, I took a "Bible as Literature" class, and we were talking about Moses in the desert, and the Hebrews were complaining because they were hungry, and the notion of "manna coming from the heavens." My professor explained how there were tamarask trees in the desert, and when a branch is broken off, a liquid comes out that soon dries in the sun. This in turn creates flat, unleaven bread like edibles. Nomads still eat this today. And the whole time I was thinking "You mean manna didn't rain from the heavens?" Duh! Too many inconsistencies. Too many changing explanations trying to fit with science.



Well, I guess I should clarify. I believe that specific people existed. I don't believe what they said or did as written in the Bible, because that is the only source of actual conversations , events, etc. How do we know what David or Mary Magdalene or Jesus for that matter said exactly? The only evidence is in the Bible, and no place else really. Believe me, I watch the programs that show the archaeological digs of locations in the Bible, like how they may have found the site of Sodom and Gomorrah. That is a possiblility (that the cities actually/physically existed). But that God destroyed them because all the men were homosexuals and Lot's wife was turned to salt when she looked back on the destroyed city? That is the kind of thing I have a problem believing.

LF, again i will mention that ANYONE will be faced with inconsistencies in the catholic faith and the bible. personally, i believe it is the honest ones who realize that such are serious enough to warrant answers, and continuing without them is mindless.

i should also mention that there was a good reason for protestantism, and continues to be. "here i stand" (biography of martin luther) is interesting reading, and reveals a small part of the issue. one must be careful, however, not to just accept something because it is 'against' something else. this is a warning because all the cults disdain the catholic doctrine and practice also.

regarding the authenticity of biblical text - wether or not it really happened that way, (to start) there are a couple good, easy reading books that examine this and bibliography some of the real heavyweights for those wanting more research. "the case for christ" and "the case for faith" by lee strobel.

so, i commend you for seeking the truth but i don't think you'd tell me you've found the truth (no insult intended). Jesus is where it's at.