Does Evolution threaten the idea of God as a Creator?
Moderator: Moderators
Does Evolution threaten the idea of God as a Creator?
Post #1How does evolution as we understand it from Darwin through the modern ideas of geneticists and biochemists threaten the idea that God created all things, including man? Can anyone tell me where in the bible the description and details are given of how God composed material and made man, beast, plant, etc, etc. Jesus used parables to teach principles of His gospel. The Bible is full of metaphor, symbolism, and ideas to introduce doctrine, and to teach man how to pray with faith to learn the meanings behind these symbols, images, etc. The creation, as taught in Genesis shouldn't be read any different than the rest of the bible. It describes what happened in terms of symbolism and ideas, there doesn't seem to be details about the intricacies of creation.
Post #2
It seems that only the literalist are going to argue over this. The rest of the world has moved on to a better understanding of this world and the bible.
There will always be some people that refuse to except reality. As an example I point to the flatearthers.
There will always be some people that refuse to except reality. As an example I point to the flatearthers.
"Before you judge a man, you should walk a mile in his shoes. That way you are a mile away and you have his shoes."
Post #3
I apologize for the lack of clarity in this posting. What I was trying to infer was why couldn't God use evolution as a process for creation. I wasn't trying to play at the literalist mind, I've made that mistake far too often.
If God created man, the universe, etc, it seems this would be a process rather than something that happens instantly. Why couldn't evolution be the process by which he creates living organisms?
If God created man, the universe, etc, it seems this would be a process rather than something that happens instantly. Why couldn't evolution be the process by which he creates living organisms?
Post #4
Evolution by natural selection could be a tool of creation it but carries many implications that would be unpalatable. I don't think it is at all acceptable to those who believe humans to be special above all other forms of life. It also contradicts the Christian notion of original sin, even though evolution is a perfect explanation for why we sometimes find ourselves in a struggle with our more primitive instincts.
For one point it is question of timing
Post #5For one point it is question of timing, and if words in a religious book alone are enough verification we need to grasp the reality of our universe.
When (at what time in the past) did god create this earth if he did at all? Failure to show a time with any reliance could mean that the universe, and life in it, could have been created 2 seconds ago with all our memories intact. There is no telling if the god just zapped you in from Galaxy XYZ a spit second ago with your memories all contrived and you only think this earth is reality.
If the earth was created to look old, and it is not old, what does that say about the integrity of a god to his created creatures i.e. man? That would make the creating god to be a liar at worst and highly deceptive at best. That is why we need to know the timing of events with solid evidance.
Evolution is more than just an attack to a few words in the bible, it is an attack on the entire structure of organized religions and the concept of the Christian god. Organized religions do not want people to have a grip on reality, as the religious thrive on believing in the unknown, and the greater ignorance a person has the easyer they are to control and manipulate. So if you can not stop a person from thinking then teach them lies, myth, and fantasy to contemplate. Either way religions make a person brain dead.
Once doubt is placed on the book of Gen. then the entire rest of the book is up for doubt also. When we say we are not going by a book, obviously written in ignorance and stupidity, you pull the rug right from under the entire set of Christian beliefs, and even the concept of god is questioned without fear or intimidations.
When humans are determined to gain their concept of reality from the tangible natural world, and not from a religious book, count on the organized religions folding into fantasy and myths in one generation, and then rejected.
The earth is shown to be as old as we can prove it to be with natural evidence, no god needed. Our 5 senses are reliable, and our thinking ability is plenty good enough. We are not going to claim as fact that what can not be shown as fact. We know the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, we know that just because we can think a thought that does not make the subject of those thoughts real. We understand our emotions, we are in control of them, and emotions are not expressions of being possessed by demons or angels. The meaning of our life is what we determine ourselves and not what others want to make of it. Knowledge of our environment, that evolution explains, gives us power to make correct decisions.
As an example, when Darwin made the statement (that is truly part of evolution) that if the next generation of a species does not happen (for any reason) the entire species, including humans, will go extinct. The religious community was up in arms against him. The reality of life on this earth was more than the religious could handle. We know for fact that Darwin is right, so we better be careful on how we treat our environment, to say the very least. We better be making sound and reliable decisions, and stop looking to the bible god for salvation, if we want our next generation to live and prosper.
Evolution strikes a tremendous blow to the very heart of the Christian religion. Evolution is a wound to bible beliefs that causes hemorrhages to the collection plate of organized religions, and the gang-green of mythology is not reliable to plot a course into the unknown future.
Evolution as a science, even in its expansion into the physiological make of humans, is a competing system on how to approach reality, and the Christian religions are failing to rise to the challenge. We now have choices. Evolution adds to our knowledge with no end in sight whereas bible beliefs does not but is rather stagnate, if not putting us back into the dark ages, where men can walk on water, snakes talk, and incest is acceptable.
Also it is not so much as evolution as a branch of science, but also it is the Scientific Method of how to organize our thoughts and observations so we gain the greatest advantage in life; how to find new knowledge that is reliable, and in science “truth by authority” has no value AT ALL. None of what the Christian religions offer, other than stuff just materializes by magic as the earth did in Gen., and truth by authority is the only truth there is. In the Christian religion, the kings decree can make the world flat, but no so when we have evidence to the contrary.
If you teach a person how to think effectively, and to test their 5 senses and they are found reliable, you have a very hard time controlling that person, as they become self reliant and no Christian bible or book god needed. The Preacher man can no longer say “god” and every one drops to their face, as a person dares to ask, “what god, and what evidence do you have?”
Evolution is only the tip of the iceberg of the destruction to organized religions and they know it. Evolution does not say sex is evil, does not call humans born evil, so religions loose the massive guilt trips they played on human for thousands of years, to say the very least.
Evolution, science in general, and our legal courts demand rules of evidence, the very thing religions refuse to acknowledge, accept, or to go by. Without the magic of myths, religions are worthless and they know it.
Religions are trying their transformation act of incorporating evolution into their doctrine but it is like oil and water; once you teach a person how to think, to think properly, with rules of evidence to go by, and they can show their 5 senses are reliable, the bible myths just loose their value. The earth is still as old as we can prove it be, regardless what a book says. When the religious start to reinterpret the bible, they sign their own warrant as being frauds. A person must ask, how many interpretations are there to the bible, and now you claim to have it right? Sure! And without physical evidence as backing, the bible means little more than poetry, and bad poetry at that.
The list is so long on how evolution, the science, is destroying the foundation of religions and god beliefs, I have not even started in this short essay. But seeing you asked, I answered. Thank you for your time, perhaps I will see you in the library, where knowledge is free for the taking, and we are not afraid to learn what is really out there in this strange and dangerous universe.
Don
When (at what time in the past) did god create this earth if he did at all? Failure to show a time with any reliance could mean that the universe, and life in it, could have been created 2 seconds ago with all our memories intact. There is no telling if the god just zapped you in from Galaxy XYZ a spit second ago with your memories all contrived and you only think this earth is reality.
If the earth was created to look old, and it is not old, what does that say about the integrity of a god to his created creatures i.e. man? That would make the creating god to be a liar at worst and highly deceptive at best. That is why we need to know the timing of events with solid evidance.
Evolution is more than just an attack to a few words in the bible, it is an attack on the entire structure of organized religions and the concept of the Christian god. Organized religions do not want people to have a grip on reality, as the religious thrive on believing in the unknown, and the greater ignorance a person has the easyer they are to control and manipulate. So if you can not stop a person from thinking then teach them lies, myth, and fantasy to contemplate. Either way religions make a person brain dead.
Once doubt is placed on the book of Gen. then the entire rest of the book is up for doubt also. When we say we are not going by a book, obviously written in ignorance and stupidity, you pull the rug right from under the entire set of Christian beliefs, and even the concept of god is questioned without fear or intimidations.
When humans are determined to gain their concept of reality from the tangible natural world, and not from a religious book, count on the organized religions folding into fantasy and myths in one generation, and then rejected.
The earth is shown to be as old as we can prove it to be with natural evidence, no god needed. Our 5 senses are reliable, and our thinking ability is plenty good enough. We are not going to claim as fact that what can not be shown as fact. We know the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, we know that just because we can think a thought that does not make the subject of those thoughts real. We understand our emotions, we are in control of them, and emotions are not expressions of being possessed by demons or angels. The meaning of our life is what we determine ourselves and not what others want to make of it. Knowledge of our environment, that evolution explains, gives us power to make correct decisions.
As an example, when Darwin made the statement (that is truly part of evolution) that if the next generation of a species does not happen (for any reason) the entire species, including humans, will go extinct. The religious community was up in arms against him. The reality of life on this earth was more than the religious could handle. We know for fact that Darwin is right, so we better be careful on how we treat our environment, to say the very least. We better be making sound and reliable decisions, and stop looking to the bible god for salvation, if we want our next generation to live and prosper.
Evolution strikes a tremendous blow to the very heart of the Christian religion. Evolution is a wound to bible beliefs that causes hemorrhages to the collection plate of organized religions, and the gang-green of mythology is not reliable to plot a course into the unknown future.
Evolution as a science, even in its expansion into the physiological make of humans, is a competing system on how to approach reality, and the Christian religions are failing to rise to the challenge. We now have choices. Evolution adds to our knowledge with no end in sight whereas bible beliefs does not but is rather stagnate, if not putting us back into the dark ages, where men can walk on water, snakes talk, and incest is acceptable.
Also it is not so much as evolution as a branch of science, but also it is the Scientific Method of how to organize our thoughts and observations so we gain the greatest advantage in life; how to find new knowledge that is reliable, and in science “truth by authority” has no value AT ALL. None of what the Christian religions offer, other than stuff just materializes by magic as the earth did in Gen., and truth by authority is the only truth there is. In the Christian religion, the kings decree can make the world flat, but no so when we have evidence to the contrary.
If you teach a person how to think effectively, and to test their 5 senses and they are found reliable, you have a very hard time controlling that person, as they become self reliant and no Christian bible or book god needed. The Preacher man can no longer say “god” and every one drops to their face, as a person dares to ask, “what god, and what evidence do you have?”
Evolution is only the tip of the iceberg of the destruction to organized religions and they know it. Evolution does not say sex is evil, does not call humans born evil, so religions loose the massive guilt trips they played on human for thousands of years, to say the very least.
Evolution, science in general, and our legal courts demand rules of evidence, the very thing religions refuse to acknowledge, accept, or to go by. Without the magic of myths, religions are worthless and they know it.
Religions are trying their transformation act of incorporating evolution into their doctrine but it is like oil and water; once you teach a person how to think, to think properly, with rules of evidence to go by, and they can show their 5 senses are reliable, the bible myths just loose their value. The earth is still as old as we can prove it be, regardless what a book says. When the religious start to reinterpret the bible, they sign their own warrant as being frauds. A person must ask, how many interpretations are there to the bible, and now you claim to have it right? Sure! And without physical evidence as backing, the bible means little more than poetry, and bad poetry at that.
The list is so long on how evolution, the science, is destroying the foundation of religions and god beliefs, I have not even started in this short essay. But seeing you asked, I answered. Thank you for your time, perhaps I will see you in the library, where knowledge is free for the taking, and we are not afraid to learn what is really out there in this strange and dangerous universe.
Don
Post #6
QED: you are right that evolution in all it's aspects does contradict the belief of original sin. Unless, of course, God feels that all of his creations are in a state of "sin" because they lack perfection. This would be hard to swallow for most christians, again because it puts man on the same par with God's other creations.
I wonder, does the fact that we are made from carbon chains, ribo and deoxyribo nucleic acids, minerals, and essential elements, amino acids, etc offensive to most christians? The fact that God can be a supreme chemist, physicist, etc shouldn't be offensive to them. Admitting that our structure is built from similar material to all living things has to lend to them the belief that we are on par with them at least from the biochemical and biomolecular standpoint. It is true that man's superiority over these organisms (at least in terms of cognition) is self-evident, but why couldn't this cognitive supremecy come from a superior line of evolution (a line further advanced than that of other living organisms in it's evolutionary transition). After all, science has not been able to prove origin, and our limited cerebral capacity could not bring us to this conclusion through sheer logic or philosophy, so it seems futile to discuss the origin of any evolutionary line (or web as some would postulate), only examining the fact that evidence leads us to believe that certain lines or webs of evolution are superior in terms of cognition, than others seems to bring us to some conclusion in terms of humans compared to other living things (or at least further advanced in transition than others).
Just a thought for fundamentalist christians.
I wonder, does the fact that we are made from carbon chains, ribo and deoxyribo nucleic acids, minerals, and essential elements, amino acids, etc offensive to most christians? The fact that God can be a supreme chemist, physicist, etc shouldn't be offensive to them. Admitting that our structure is built from similar material to all living things has to lend to them the belief that we are on par with them at least from the biochemical and biomolecular standpoint. It is true that man's superiority over these organisms (at least in terms of cognition) is self-evident, but why couldn't this cognitive supremecy come from a superior line of evolution (a line further advanced than that of other living organisms in it's evolutionary transition). After all, science has not been able to prove origin, and our limited cerebral capacity could not bring us to this conclusion through sheer logic or philosophy, so it seems futile to discuss the origin of any evolutionary line (or web as some would postulate), only examining the fact that evidence leads us to believe that certain lines or webs of evolution are superior in terms of cognition, than others seems to bring us to some conclusion in terms of humans compared to other living things (or at least further advanced in transition than others).
Just a thought for fundamentalist christians.
Post #7
Granted this is off the topic of evolution but I had to say it.
As to morality:
For fact no god is needed. Here is the proof. Go to “(your state) revised statutes” in google search and you can bring up every statute (law) that your state has. Included will be the revised criminal code and the UCC (universal commercial code) as adopted by your state.
It is also against every state and federal constitution to make religion, or a god belief, or a non-god belief a punishable crime. In the criminal law section we have what is called “rational laws”; these are crimes against property, crimes against persons, sex crimes, child morality and raising, and responsibilities of marriage, that have been consistent since recorded history, most all of what we copied about word for word from the old Greeks and Romans-- those devils.
These statutes came from Tort or common law, where the “concepts” of human justice, fairness, responsibility, peaceful social tranquility, property rights, and defenses to Tort are fallowed not given specific circumstances. Again Torts came from the nasty Romans and old Greeks long before there was ever such a thing as a Christian.
UCC ruling have to do with every moral code in the production of business and enterprise, contract law, product safety, implied warrantees, transportation, with responsibilities, defenses, and remedies.
(this is the short list)
You look at these codes and statutes, the way they are organized, for content, and rational, and then compare that to the mishmash of the bible, and it is clear, the bible is a total failure when it comes to morality and social equality.
I would not mind if religions sought to educate humanity, and uplift the mind of man, but they don’t, but the contrary. Religions have one intent, and that is to make a person as stupid as possible (as much as they can get away with), with the greatest amount of ignorance and to maintain that state of existence using every lie and deceit possible. It is obvious the further we get away from the gods, holy books, and religions, the more civilized we become.
There, I had my say—I’m happy, I will stay on topic now.
Don
As to morality:
For fact no god is needed. Here is the proof. Go to “(your state) revised statutes” in google search and you can bring up every statute (law) that your state has. Included will be the revised criminal code and the UCC (universal commercial code) as adopted by your state.
It is also against every state and federal constitution to make religion, or a god belief, or a non-god belief a punishable crime. In the criminal law section we have what is called “rational laws”; these are crimes against property, crimes against persons, sex crimes, child morality and raising, and responsibilities of marriage, that have been consistent since recorded history, most all of what we copied about word for word from the old Greeks and Romans-- those devils.
These statutes came from Tort or common law, where the “concepts” of human justice, fairness, responsibility, peaceful social tranquility, property rights, and defenses to Tort are fallowed not given specific circumstances. Again Torts came from the nasty Romans and old Greeks long before there was ever such a thing as a Christian.
UCC ruling have to do with every moral code in the production of business and enterprise, contract law, product safety, implied warrantees, transportation, with responsibilities, defenses, and remedies.
(this is the short list)
You look at these codes and statutes, the way they are organized, for content, and rational, and then compare that to the mishmash of the bible, and it is clear, the bible is a total failure when it comes to morality and social equality.
I would not mind if religions sought to educate humanity, and uplift the mind of man, but they don’t, but the contrary. Religions have one intent, and that is to make a person as stupid as possible (as much as they can get away with), with the greatest amount of ignorance and to maintain that state of existence using every lie and deceit possible. It is obvious the further we get away from the gods, holy books, and religions, the more civilized we become.
There, I had my say—I’m happy, I will stay on topic now.
Don
Post #8
I am a Christian and personally do not find evolution anti-thetical to my beliefs. I think of evolution as the process by which God created life. Cosmic evolution is the process by which the universe came to its current condition.
Evolution is anti-thetical to certain interpretations of the Bible and certain doctrines that some Christians hold. It is not anti-thetical necessarily to Christianity or the Bible.
There is a short thread on a similar theme as this one entitled Evolution is compatible with belief in God.
It is worth remembering that Luther and many other 16th century Christians claimed that Copernicanism was un-biblical and anti-thetical to Christian belief. I believe this controversy stemmed from a mis-understanding of the Bible, as well as a misunderstanding of what is really important about Christianity, including what Jesus was focused on. We had some discussion about this in the
COpernicansim versus Darwin thread.
As stated above, the problem is making overly literal interpretations of the Bible, when such interpretations were never insisted on by Jesus or probably intended by the authors. The strict literalism we see today is, I think, a fairly recent phenomenon, certainly post-Luther.
Obviously, having said all this, I would disagree with the following characterization of Christianity in particular, and religion in general.
Evolution is anti-thetical to certain interpretations of the Bible and certain doctrines that some Christians hold. It is not anti-thetical necessarily to Christianity or the Bible.
There is a short thread on a similar theme as this one entitled Evolution is compatible with belief in God.
It is worth remembering that Luther and many other 16th century Christians claimed that Copernicanism was un-biblical and anti-thetical to Christian belief. I believe this controversy stemmed from a mis-understanding of the Bible, as well as a misunderstanding of what is really important about Christianity, including what Jesus was focused on. We had some discussion about this in the
COpernicansim versus Darwin thread.
As stated above, the problem is making overly literal interpretations of the Bible, when such interpretations were never insisted on by Jesus or probably intended by the authors. The strict literalism we see today is, I think, a fairly recent phenomenon, certainly post-Luther.
Obviously, having said all this, I would disagree with the following characterization of Christianity in particular, and religion in general.
I would accept that one can cite many examples of ignorance fostered or spawned by religious belief. However, to say that organized religion is actively seeking to deceive people, give them a distorted picture of reality, etc. mischaracterizes much religious belief and millions of religious believers. THe idea that Martin Luther King was attempting to loosen people's grip on reality, for example, is simply preposterous. IMV, these comments paint with much too broad a brush.Dons wrote:Evolution is more than just an attack to a few words in the bible, it is an attack on the entire structure of organized religions and the concept of the Christian god. Organized religions do not want people to have a grip on reality, as the religious thrive on believing in the unknown, and the greater ignorance a person has the easyer they are to control and manipulate. So if you can not stop a person from thinking then teach them lies, myth, and fantasy to contemplate. Either way religions make a person brain dead.
I agree
Post #9I am a Christian and personally do not find evolution anti-thetical to my beliefs. I think of evolution as the process by which God created life. Cosmic evolution is the process by which the universe came to its current condition.
Evolution is anti-thetical to certain interpretations of the Bible and certain doctrines that some Christians hold. It is not anti-thetical necessarily to Christianity or the Bible.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don:
I agree that evolution goes against the creation part of the Gen., i.e. creation of the animals, Adam and Eve, and the story about Noah and the animals and humans repopulating the earth; that is a big piece out of the scriptures, and you also have to include the references in the bible to those scriptures that are no longer valid once the premises are shown to be in error. These references are also found in the NT.
It would make quite an interesting research project, to itemize and list out all the places where evolution contradicts the bible. For example, it is agreed that Adam and Eve could not populate the earth, a factual impossibility do to the genetic defects of inbreeding, (forget morality) then any reference to Adam in the bible would be void also. That would mean the doctrine of the first (original sin) would become void, at the least. But then how do we define sin?
To straighten out the bible with subjective terminality is also an impossibility. No more than you can tell me what this means: “My love is a red red rose.” I am the only one that can tell you what that means as I am an authority unto myself.
We do not have a definition of a Christian, of god, of what Jesus means, Christ, how to baptize, the symbolism of parables, holy spirit, and the list is long of “subjective interpretations” and there is not any guide to go by as to authority.
Most all doctrines go by commentaries about the bible any ways, and if that fails let's go to the ancient Geek and Hebrew language, and guess what the bible means when there is language interpretation on top of language interpretation. Then there are traditions, culture, and the loading of the language. There are thousands of words we commonly use that have religious connotations and implications all the way back to the pagan gods of the Greeks and Romans to say the least.
For example the word Myth is taken from the religious sect of Mythros (or Mithraism), the god of the Roman legions, that was the son of god that came every back every 25,000 years marked by the changing of the constellations, and every 25,000 years (as shown by science) our constellations do change. The last change was 2,000 years ago as we are now in the age of Aquarius. The changing of the constellations is fact, our galexcy rotates and the north star changes, but the god is not.
The Christians of the time destroyed the religious sect of Mythros but kept the word myth and turned it into a negative. I see politics has not changed all that much in human history. What son of god? There have been thousands of them, and to the old Greeks anyone was considered the “son of god” if they did noble and extraordinary deeds, now what do you do?
You say you are a Christian—OK, I believe you; I don’t see how you keep it all straight myself. Your mind must be far better than mine to jump through these many hoops and maintain your beliefs, let alone your sanity. How do you do that? I sincerely wish I had your talent, as I have to write everything down, make an organized list, search subject matter back to its source, or I get terribly confused; it is a real handicap for me at times, I’m by far too structured as I look for verification of point for point, and toss out contradictions, unfounded beliefs, and ambiguity. I’m working on it, self improvement that is.
You use a god as a foundation of your beliefs that no one can see or comprehend. I use the natural world that I can see, touch and experience and in part I can comprehend as my foundation; learning is on going, corrections are common.
For the record I would like to say—and I never meant it more sincere with actions than what I do now. I’m an atheist, but I would fight, have fought, for you to have your religious beliefs in god, unrestricted, and without any penalty in any way what so ever. Your beliefs are never be brought into question by society at large. The only line to be drawn would be to the laws of the land as written in the USA, criminal behavior and Tort, unless there was some form of inanity that made you a danger to yourself or to others. On these restriction No ONE is exempt, not even I or the president or the Pope.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is a short thread on a similar theme as this one entitled Evolution is compatible with belief in God.
It is worth remembering that Luther and many other 16th century Christians claimed that Copernicanism was un-biblical and anti-thetical to Christian belief. I believe this controversy stemmed from a mis-understanding of the Bible, as well as a misunderstanding of what is really important about Christianity, including what Jesus was focused on. We had some discussion about this in the
COpernicansim versus Darwin thread.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Based on what you said, what makes you think you do not have a misunderstanding of the bible? How do you determine what is the most important part about Christianity? Is it the belief in a god, any god, or the life you live? Do you honestly think that an all powerful god would have only one method to salvation? If there are two methods them why not a million? How do you make such a determination? What is the most important part of being a Christian? How about intelectual integrity. If it is to do justice, and care for your own human kind in TLC, then why are not all included that perform those acts, and if all are included, how do you define what is a Christian?
Rational laws as to human behavior, have been with humanity since recorded history. No religion nor god beliefs can show a monopoly nor exclusivity on this point. The Christian thinking leads to such nebulas, contradicting, ambiguous conclusions I just can’t make sense of it. The fault is mine for sure.
For example: Mithraism was around for about 1,500 years, and still is in parts. No telling what the word Christian will mean in 500 years. It used to mean strictly Catholic and the catholic doctrine and organization, but now the word can mean what ever you want, and each belief can be just as valid as the other, as subjectivity is used and not objectivity.
Can an atheist be a Christian at the same time? YES, by defining what culture I am from, not necessarily what my beliefs are. So, being a Christian is cultural influence and socialization and no god needed. One hell of a confusing world I live in.
If you say there is only one method to an all powerful god, that in itself is a contradiction, and such a god as being all powerful can not exist. I need something more definite than a god of whishes and dreams.
My lack of understanding does not prove anything to exist, or not to exist, and I hardly think it is wise for me to base belief, and my actions, on the unknown, much less ambiguity and contradictions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As stated above, the problem is making overly literal interpretations of the Bible, when such interpretations were never insisted on by Jesus or probably intended by the authors. The strict literalism we see today is, I think, a fairly recent phenomenon, certainly post-Luther.
Obviously, having said all this, I would disagree with the following characterization of Christianity in particular, and religion in general.
Dons wrote:
Evolution is more than just an attack to a few words in the bible, it is an attack on the entire structure of organized religions and the concept of the Christian god. Organized religions do not want people to have a grip on reality, as the religious thrive on believing in the unknown, and the greater ignorance a person has the easyer they are to control and manipulate. So if you can not stop a person from thinking then teach them lies, myth, and fantasy to contemplate. Either way religions make a person brain dead.
I would accept that one can cite many examples of ignorance fostered or spawned by religious belief. However, to say that organized religion is actively seeking to deceive people, give them a distorted picture of reality, etc. mischaracterizes much religious belief and millions of religious believers. THe idea that Martin Luther King was attempting to loosen people's grip on reality, for example, is simply preposterous. IMV, these comments paint with much too broad a brush.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If I remember my reading of history correct Martin Luther King, (not Martin Luther 1530AD), his message was for human justice with equality before the established laws of the land. I agree, and not the god he referred to. His organization had a purpose of demanding this equality, and he took his support where he could find it, all were included in his open and legal protest, his cause was openly fair and just. This singular purpose is what made him a valuable leader with his favorable mark in history, much needed at the time and still is needed, not the god he used as reference.
On the contrary have you read the essays written by Martin Luther (1530AD)? The man would be in jail today for his hate speech, degenerate influence, and blatant most evil crimes against the Jews, Catholics, and ladies to the most goose degree. (quotes provided on request). YET the modern Lutherans cite Martin Luther(1530) as a man of peace and love and a great reformer—now you tell me what I’m to think. This is a blatant and purposely deceitful (lie) revision of history by the modern Lutheran leaders.
And how about the 300 years of Christian religious wars in Europe, (about 1500 to 1800), and the Protestant raising up and slaughtered untold thousands of Catholics with their children in their sleep (France), and then the retaliation—the history pages drip red with human blood of one Christian against an other, for 2,000 years, each sect trying to see who could out lie the other with the biggest distortions and deceptions; human life had no meaning out side of your Christian cult. It was common in the courts of the time where the first thing a Judge asked was what religion are you, Protestant or Catholic, and then the gavel fell accordingly in obscene punishments, even burning alive to remove the devil.
You want to go into the Spanish Inquisition, that is fine with me; over 50 people at time impaled on poles in the public square, for not being Christian, and that included the Jews when ever found, and a race of people, the Moors, was systematically exterminated by any horrific means possible, and the millions of their books burned publicly, and any one found with a book, other than approved by the Pope, was killed.
Obviously reading and writing was not wide spread, and the Christian church wanted it that way. Such skills were only for the selected few, and then with limitations.
And since 1430AD as a point in history, lets talk about banned books by Christians, and the list is still growing and being published with penalties of hell fire from the pulpits and social excommunications.
I can stand my ground very easily on what I posted, and YOU being an honest person, loving and law abiding, caring for your fellow human across the board, a lover of life and children; I don’t blame you for wanting to redefine what a Christian is—I would do the same. If I paint with a broad brush, then define for me—conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt-- what a Christian is and how do you know.
Don
Evolution is anti-thetical to certain interpretations of the Bible and certain doctrines that some Christians hold. It is not anti-thetical necessarily to Christianity or the Bible.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don:
I agree that evolution goes against the creation part of the Gen., i.e. creation of the animals, Adam and Eve, and the story about Noah and the animals and humans repopulating the earth; that is a big piece out of the scriptures, and you also have to include the references in the bible to those scriptures that are no longer valid once the premises are shown to be in error. These references are also found in the NT.
It would make quite an interesting research project, to itemize and list out all the places where evolution contradicts the bible. For example, it is agreed that Adam and Eve could not populate the earth, a factual impossibility do to the genetic defects of inbreeding, (forget morality) then any reference to Adam in the bible would be void also. That would mean the doctrine of the first (original sin) would become void, at the least. But then how do we define sin?
To straighten out the bible with subjective terminality is also an impossibility. No more than you can tell me what this means: “My love is a red red rose.” I am the only one that can tell you what that means as I am an authority unto myself.
We do not have a definition of a Christian, of god, of what Jesus means, Christ, how to baptize, the symbolism of parables, holy spirit, and the list is long of “subjective interpretations” and there is not any guide to go by as to authority.
Most all doctrines go by commentaries about the bible any ways, and if that fails let's go to the ancient Geek and Hebrew language, and guess what the bible means when there is language interpretation on top of language interpretation. Then there are traditions, culture, and the loading of the language. There are thousands of words we commonly use that have religious connotations and implications all the way back to the pagan gods of the Greeks and Romans to say the least.
For example the word Myth is taken from the religious sect of Mythros (or Mithraism), the god of the Roman legions, that was the son of god that came every back every 25,000 years marked by the changing of the constellations, and every 25,000 years (as shown by science) our constellations do change. The last change was 2,000 years ago as we are now in the age of Aquarius. The changing of the constellations is fact, our galexcy rotates and the north star changes, but the god is not.
The Christians of the time destroyed the religious sect of Mythros but kept the word myth and turned it into a negative. I see politics has not changed all that much in human history. What son of god? There have been thousands of them, and to the old Greeks anyone was considered the “son of god” if they did noble and extraordinary deeds, now what do you do?
You say you are a Christian—OK, I believe you; I don’t see how you keep it all straight myself. Your mind must be far better than mine to jump through these many hoops and maintain your beliefs, let alone your sanity. How do you do that? I sincerely wish I had your talent, as I have to write everything down, make an organized list, search subject matter back to its source, or I get terribly confused; it is a real handicap for me at times, I’m by far too structured as I look for verification of point for point, and toss out contradictions, unfounded beliefs, and ambiguity. I’m working on it, self improvement that is.
You use a god as a foundation of your beliefs that no one can see or comprehend. I use the natural world that I can see, touch and experience and in part I can comprehend as my foundation; learning is on going, corrections are common.
For the record I would like to say—and I never meant it more sincere with actions than what I do now. I’m an atheist, but I would fight, have fought, for you to have your religious beliefs in god, unrestricted, and without any penalty in any way what so ever. Your beliefs are never be brought into question by society at large. The only line to be drawn would be to the laws of the land as written in the USA, criminal behavior and Tort, unless there was some form of inanity that made you a danger to yourself or to others. On these restriction No ONE is exempt, not even I or the president or the Pope.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is a short thread on a similar theme as this one entitled Evolution is compatible with belief in God.
It is worth remembering that Luther and many other 16th century Christians claimed that Copernicanism was un-biblical and anti-thetical to Christian belief. I believe this controversy stemmed from a mis-understanding of the Bible, as well as a misunderstanding of what is really important about Christianity, including what Jesus was focused on. We had some discussion about this in the
COpernicansim versus Darwin thread.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Based on what you said, what makes you think you do not have a misunderstanding of the bible? How do you determine what is the most important part about Christianity? Is it the belief in a god, any god, or the life you live? Do you honestly think that an all powerful god would have only one method to salvation? If there are two methods them why not a million? How do you make such a determination? What is the most important part of being a Christian? How about intelectual integrity. If it is to do justice, and care for your own human kind in TLC, then why are not all included that perform those acts, and if all are included, how do you define what is a Christian?
Rational laws as to human behavior, have been with humanity since recorded history. No religion nor god beliefs can show a monopoly nor exclusivity on this point. The Christian thinking leads to such nebulas, contradicting, ambiguous conclusions I just can’t make sense of it. The fault is mine for sure.
For example: Mithraism was around for about 1,500 years, and still is in parts. No telling what the word Christian will mean in 500 years. It used to mean strictly Catholic and the catholic doctrine and organization, but now the word can mean what ever you want, and each belief can be just as valid as the other, as subjectivity is used and not objectivity.
Can an atheist be a Christian at the same time? YES, by defining what culture I am from, not necessarily what my beliefs are. So, being a Christian is cultural influence and socialization and no god needed. One hell of a confusing world I live in.
If you say there is only one method to an all powerful god, that in itself is a contradiction, and such a god as being all powerful can not exist. I need something more definite than a god of whishes and dreams.
My lack of understanding does not prove anything to exist, or not to exist, and I hardly think it is wise for me to base belief, and my actions, on the unknown, much less ambiguity and contradictions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As stated above, the problem is making overly literal interpretations of the Bible, when such interpretations were never insisted on by Jesus or probably intended by the authors. The strict literalism we see today is, I think, a fairly recent phenomenon, certainly post-Luther.
Obviously, having said all this, I would disagree with the following characterization of Christianity in particular, and religion in general.
Dons wrote:
Evolution is more than just an attack to a few words in the bible, it is an attack on the entire structure of organized religions and the concept of the Christian god. Organized religions do not want people to have a grip on reality, as the religious thrive on believing in the unknown, and the greater ignorance a person has the easyer they are to control and manipulate. So if you can not stop a person from thinking then teach them lies, myth, and fantasy to contemplate. Either way religions make a person brain dead.
I would accept that one can cite many examples of ignorance fostered or spawned by religious belief. However, to say that organized religion is actively seeking to deceive people, give them a distorted picture of reality, etc. mischaracterizes much religious belief and millions of religious believers. THe idea that Martin Luther King was attempting to loosen people's grip on reality, for example, is simply preposterous. IMV, these comments paint with much too broad a brush.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If I remember my reading of history correct Martin Luther King, (not Martin Luther 1530AD), his message was for human justice with equality before the established laws of the land. I agree, and not the god he referred to. His organization had a purpose of demanding this equality, and he took his support where he could find it, all were included in his open and legal protest, his cause was openly fair and just. This singular purpose is what made him a valuable leader with his favorable mark in history, much needed at the time and still is needed, not the god he used as reference.
On the contrary have you read the essays written by Martin Luther (1530AD)? The man would be in jail today for his hate speech, degenerate influence, and blatant most evil crimes against the Jews, Catholics, and ladies to the most goose degree. (quotes provided on request). YET the modern Lutherans cite Martin Luther(1530) as a man of peace and love and a great reformer—now you tell me what I’m to think. This is a blatant and purposely deceitful (lie) revision of history by the modern Lutheran leaders.
And how about the 300 years of Christian religious wars in Europe, (about 1500 to 1800), and the Protestant raising up and slaughtered untold thousands of Catholics with their children in their sleep (France), and then the retaliation—the history pages drip red with human blood of one Christian against an other, for 2,000 years, each sect trying to see who could out lie the other with the biggest distortions and deceptions; human life had no meaning out side of your Christian cult. It was common in the courts of the time where the first thing a Judge asked was what religion are you, Protestant or Catholic, and then the gavel fell accordingly in obscene punishments, even burning alive to remove the devil.
You want to go into the Spanish Inquisition, that is fine with me; over 50 people at time impaled on poles in the public square, for not being Christian, and that included the Jews when ever found, and a race of people, the Moors, was systematically exterminated by any horrific means possible, and the millions of their books burned publicly, and any one found with a book, other than approved by the Pope, was killed.
Obviously reading and writing was not wide spread, and the Christian church wanted it that way. Such skills were only for the selected few, and then with limitations.
And since 1430AD as a point in history, lets talk about banned books by Christians, and the list is still growing and being published with penalties of hell fire from the pulpits and social excommunications.
I can stand my ground very easily on what I posted, and YOU being an honest person, loving and law abiding, caring for your fellow human across the board, a lover of life and children; I don’t blame you for wanting to redefine what a Christian is—I would do the same. If I paint with a broad brush, then define for me—conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt-- what a Christian is and how do you know.
Don
Post #10
Russia. China. Cambodia.I would not mind if religions sought to educate humanity, and uplift the mind of man, but they don’t, but the contrary. Religions have one intent, and that is to make a person as stupid as possible (as much as they can get away with), with the greatest amount of ignorance and to maintain that state of existence using every lie and deceit possible. It is obvious the further we get away from the gods, holy books, and religions, the more civilized we become.
100-million plus dead at the hands of godless politics?
And counting?
How many doctors and lawyers are Christians and Orthodox Jews, Hindus Sikhs or Muslims?
Ah ignorance. At least it is consistently practiced by every type of human.
