Quote from Phunkie:
I grew up. Realized I needed to take the world into my hands.
God is not a crutch, or should not be. It takes no less guts to be a Christian than it does to not be one.
God didn't create Man, by the way.
We evolved from earlier hominids, who evolved from earlier species, going down the line to the first single-celled organisms that inhabited the early planet Earth.
Evolution created Man, through natural selection. We have fossil records of many different hominids that came before us and bones of ancient people, etc. That's sufficient proof to believe in it.
Can you be more specific? I'm no stranger to evolutionary theory but your case would be much stronger if you presented the evidence you're hinting at. It's also be much more concise in terms of general debate, not that I'm going to try to disprove evolution or anything.
I dunno if it's just me, but seeing a person spew out Bible verses to defend his claims of God and his rules is silly. Then again, it's the only source you people have.
But it's just a frickin' book.
I'm gonna go pick up The Catcher in the Rye and I'm gonna quote words that fit my claims as well. Both were written by Man, yeah?
The difference here is painfully obvious to me and I think to you as well. I don't think it'll do any good spelling it out any more than I already have though. What I thought we were concerned about was the integrity of the religion but what you're alluding to is the legitimacy. For the sake of our sanity we'd really need separate threads for that.
Quote from Newbienub:
Alright, I realized that there's more posts and the stuffs you're reading is probably the corrected bible with the much more "Friendlier" god for the 21st century.
The bible that I've borrowed off the school library was at the 16th century or something.
I'm pretty anal about my translations. If there's some question I go back to the earliest manuscripts preferably in the original language and break it down from there. Clearly there was one meaning they were trying to get across...rather than hassle with interpretations we need to find out what that was. It's often easier than it sounds. At any rate, I'm not watering anything down or pulling any punches if that's what you mean.
Nevertheless, people are still killing other people. Even during the 17th century, people are still killing each other for not believing in other's religions. From what I've read up on history books, popes and priests are promoting people to kill the non-believers if they refuse to have the same faith. Killing in the name of religion isn't a new thing, I'm pretty sure.
Nevertheless, the religion isn't telling them to kill people. Therefore, don't blame the religion, blame the people who are killing people. It's wrong to say it's the fault of the religion though there's no question that it was misconstrued to help promote such events.
George Carlin isn't my religious source.
-phew-
Very much like him, I used to go to a christian church, then a catholic one. Almost all; if not all of them, of my uncles, aunts and cousins are all either Christians or Catholics. And do trust me, I was brainwashed by them too when I was young. I've attended a Christian educational based school for 6 years, for 6 years I've been muttering my prayers for every day of the working week. Damn, I can even remember the thing right now.
Sounds disgustingly catholic that school, not to be confused with Christian. It's remarkable how different the taught Christian lifestyle and the Catholic lifestyle differ. It sounds as if they were indeed trying to brainwash you which is not something I approve of. I see it all the time and it breaks my heart. Also, I've never understood this whole candy dispenser prayer thing. Prayer is supposed to be between you and God...it makes no sense that someone else can tell you what to say.
The problem is that, pretty much like Carlin, the older I get and the way how schools are now teaching Science as a basis of fact is corrupting the image of god. I've started watching the news when I'm 14, reading newspapers and magazines, about how people does crimes and how they're being punished shown me that god isn't really doing anything. It's more of people. People are punishing people for doing crimes like stealing, like murders, assault, rape, drug abuse, selling drugs, armed robberies. Everything's all judged and punished by humans.
At 14 I went to a boarding school for the 'best and brightest' students in my state. There weren't very many Christians there and those who claimed to be didn't act like it. The disparity between the Christians I knew, the non-Christians I knew and the Christians in the bible was troubling. Gandhi said it best when he stated that he would be a Christian if they actually acted like they were taught to act...and adopting that as a sort of mantra I resolved to toss out any brain washing I might have received and start from scratch (eventually anyway). I got to wrestle with all the fun questions like 'why do bad things happen to good people' and vice versa. My faith is built from the bottom up or so I like to think. It's hard to just dismiss your early life so I'm constantly finding things that I believe without reason and having to address them.
As for schools teaching science, it's always been my second best subject behind math. Does that mean that sometimes I'm more skeptical than my peers? Probably, but not so much because of my religion as because I am a skeptic. Often times people just gloss over things without sufficiently presenting evidence because no one challenges it. If I lived like that I'd just be another brainwashed bible beater. I realize I can't exactly recreate experiments but the best thing about science is all the detailed notes people take so that I don't have to. I try to apply that same skepticism in all areas of my life though I realize there are some things that I believe that I cannot prove to others despite having weighed the evidence and being sure of it myself. You can call it my theory of a Father if you want, no Christian should be without one.
Besides, saying that everyone's evil unless they believe in god is selfish, don't you think?
Evil is such a poorly defined catchphrase, I don't really want to get into that. All have sinned though, whether they believe or not. So if by evil you mean a sinner, your belief doesn't change that.
Quote from Syrphid:
To appeal to authority here, virtually all biologists accept the theory of evolution, and believe that humans and other primates evolved from the same common ancestor. These are people who have spent decades learning about all the nuances of evolution, who have spent even more decades actually working within the framework of evolution, researching and discussing and publishing their findings for their peers to see.
Somehow I'm pretty sure there's an answer to your question. Have you tried googling? I too busy, will link dump you later if you want. Point is, I would require solid evidence to go against such a unified scientific consensus on something that I have no personal experience with. Likely you are in the same boat as me.
We could say the same thing about the earth being flat or some other since trashed theory. It'd be best to just stick with the evidence. I think I'll let someone else procure it though because my replies are already taking waaaay too long to write up t.t
Quote from Newbienub:
Then why are you evil? What is it that you've done wrong ever since you've came to this world that you're instantly labled as an evildoer the time where you've existed in your mother's womb?
This is one of the parts I can never understand.
In the womb I don't think it would be possible to sin, though it usually doesn't take long upon exiting. Of course, I can't be sure how you're defining evil so it's hard to respond. I might be able to answer if you rephrase it more clearly :x?
Quote from Phunkie:
As for abiogenesis, people have performed experiments to show that it is possible to form organics (which are carbon compounds) under the existing conditions of the early Earth. Check out the Miller-Urey Experiment.
These organic compounds could have eventually gone to form self-replicating RNA, then the first membranes and proto-cells, etc., etc. Eventually the first single-celled organism stepped on the scene.
And from there it's evolution, baby.
Linking to Miller-Urey is a good first step, but look at the bolded part again. This is good evidence, it's not by any means conclusive evidence. If it proves that life could have eventually arisen from such a set-up that is indeed exciting, but even then it is not a stretch to say that since creation was set up with the governing laws we've found in chemistry and physics and such that something like this would be possible under those laws. It does not rule out the creator jumping the gun and just placing some living organisms in place already.
It's a good start anyway.
Quote from Sin:
I believe you are trying to start an evolution debate with me, which is pointless. (Hebrews 11:6.)
Carry on elsewhere...Evolution is of no importance to me.
That verse doesn't mean we just stick our heads in the sand when confronted with something, but rather is a testament that somewhere along the line we have to rely on faith because we can't prove what we believe in.
Eve committed the original sin.
To be fair, Adam was right there and didn't do anything.
Quote from Makisushi:
So, consider global warming, if the planet heats up and water level rises and oxygen depletes and stuff, would humans or other creatures evolve to survive blistering heat and breathe another element underwater? Then we shouldn't worry about global warming then~
A few genetically unique children might live, but me and you would be screwed mate.
Quote from Newbienub:
Revised English Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The REB is the result of both advances in scholarship and translation made since the 1960s and also a desire to correct what have been seen as some of the NEB's more egregious errors. For examples of changes, see the references. The changes remove many of the most idiosyncratic renderings of the New English Bible, moving the REB more in the direction of standard translations such as NRSV or NIV.
No, no respectable Christian uses the REB. Any other questions?
The most accurate translation is no translation. Instead of reworking things just go back to the original manuscripts.
I'm pretty sure I've read up somewhere about an older, much more serious and sinister version of the old bible with a much more cruel god before the new changes in attempts to make god look like a softer, much more respectable character.
A source for this would be nice, I can't really refute it if neither of us knows exactly what you're talking about.
In the time it took me to write this two more pages have spawned, I'll read over them later t.t