Christianity and Creationism - some clarification

[elmarko]

At the end of the day, if you can't give even one logically coherent reason for believing in a sky-santa then perhaps it's not us who should be asking for less proof, but you who should be asking for more.

I've yet to hear even a plausible reply to the problem of evil.

I've also yet to hear a reason for why god (who according to the bible was not afraid to use his powers to smite people) suddenly lost all of his powers ... right around the time we were able to start recording history in a reliable way.

Do people honestly think it's a coincidence?.

The ONLY reason you are a Christian/catholic/Muslim is because of the country you grew up in (environmental influences).

Think of a person who lives in a isolated community on a small island, currently untouched by modern civilisation - god does not exist to them, neither will he ever.

If you were born on that island - you would not believe in god - you would also have no notion of the Christian/Catholic god, your religion is nothing more than a geographical accident.

 

[RDM]

I meant neither.

Religions historically & some recently have actively encouraged the butchering & murdering of those outside of the religion - It's not racism by colour but by belief.

Just because a few of the world religions have toned it down in the last 100 years it does not excuse the last 2000 years of blood in the name of the various religions.

You are both wrong.

Ah, so we are both wrong because you don't know what racism is and you are still showing ignorance of the many non-evangelical religions and the many religions not involved in violence.

 

[elmarko]

Ah, so we are both wrong because you don't know what racism is and you are still showing ignorance of the many non-evangelical religions and the many religions not involved in violence.

I never said all religions are the same.

Just the three main Abrahamic ones over the last few thousand years have an incredible amount of blood on there hands, to deny this is to cherry pick history.

If Buddhism was the most prominent I would not mind, or even Jainism.

"Race is classification of humans into large and distinct populations or groups by factors such as heritable phenotypic characteristics or geographic ancestry, but also often influenced by and correlated with traits such as appearance, culture, ethnicity, and socio-economic status" - Wiki.

Perhaps you need to learn what the term "race" means - just because you personally one use the term race when applying it to skin colour, not everybody does.

Are you seriously suggesting that religions (on average) are not culturally divisive?, usually promote sectarianism which in turns ends up as racism.

 

[grimm]

At the end of the day, if you can't give even one logically coherent reason for believing in a sky-santa then perhaps it's not us who should be asking for less proof, but you who should be asking for more.

I've yet to hear even a plausible reply to the problem of evil.

I've also yet to hear a reason for why god (who according to the bible was not afraid to use his powers to smite people) suddenly lost all of his powers ... right around the time we were able to start recording history in a reliable way.

Do people honestly think it's a coincidence?.

The ONLY reason you are a Christian/catholic/Muslim is because of the country you grew up in (environmental influences).

Think of a person who lives in a isolated community on a small island, currently untouched by modern civilisation - god does not exist to them, neither will he ever.

If you were born on that island - you would not believe in god - you would also have no notion of the Christian/Catholic god, your religion is nothing more than a geographical accident.

This is pretty much exactly what I wanted to say, but you managed it in a much more diplomatic way that I would have done lol.

 

[Vonhelmet]

So there's no religions among isolated island communities? Orly?

 

[elmarko]

So there's no religions among isolated island communities? Orly?

Not all of them & not the Christian/Catholic god - they are not often monotheistic but usually polytheistic (which if they did receive the same message from "a divine being which was the same as the western god" it would not be one of many gods).

They may have earlier versions of primitive sun/sky gods - which in total honesty is understandable for a group of people who have no conception of what the sun actually is.

I can understand the thought process of those who believed in Thor, or the sun gods - they were used as an explanation to scientific phenomenon which was currently beyond there comprehension.

Show me an isolated community who also shares the exact same stories as the main three religions, or let me guess - god was limited in his presence to only include cultures/regions which MAN was able to travel between during the time.

Another massive coincidence.

 

[Xordium]

Just the three main Abrahamic ones over the last few thousand years have an incredible amount of blood on there hands, to deny this is to cherry pick history.

If Buddhism was the most prominent I would not mind, or even Jainism.

Stalin and Mao have the most blood I would guess and they were not religious at all and Buddhism was championed by the Khans who made Stalin and Mao look like Mother Theresa.

 

[elmarko]

Stalin and Mao have the most blood I would guess and they were not religious at all and Buddhism was championed by the Khans who made Stalin and Mao look like Mother Theresa.

Stalin & Moa did not kill in the name of atheism - atheism isn't a group with certain rules or doctrines.

It was a failed attempt to create a communist country which ended up as a dictatorship.


By the Khan's I assume you mean Genghis Khan,

"Genghis Khan's religion is widely speculated to have been Shamanism or Tengriism, which was very likely among nomadic Mongol-Turkic tribes of Central Asia. But he was very tolerant religiously, and interested in learning philosophical and moral lessons from other religions. To do so, he consulted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christian missionaries, and the Taoist monk Qiu Chuji."

Just because Stalin was an atheist that does not mean he killed in the name of atheism.

That would be like me saying "Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholic - therefore Catholicism has the blood of the entire holocaust on it's hands" - It's also worth noting that Hitler not only oppressed the Jews, but also oppressed the intelligentsia & the atheists.

But I don't say that, why? because Hitler did not kill in the name of Catholicism but for empire & power building.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Show me an isolated community who also shares the exact same stories as the main three religions, or let me guess - god was limited in his presence to only include cultures/regions which MAN was able to travel between during the time.

Another massive coincidence.

Well, given that the Bible already tells Christians to spread the message to the ends of the earth, I'd say God had pretty much factored Jesus' travel plans into account.

 

[elmarko]

Well, given that the Bible already tells Christians to spread the message to the ends of the earth, I'd say God had pretty much factored Jesus' travel plans into account.

It's taken 2000 years & still we are discovering new tribes - you know very well what I mean.

The point is that Muslims believe with the same conviction as the Jewish community, also with the same conviction as the Hindu's, or the Scientologists.

People forget, that the main religions are in the same boat as every single religious group ever conceived - ranging from the popular, to the downright odd & the ones which have died in history.

The Greek gods, Roman gods, Norse gods - every single one is equally valid & once thing is certain - They can't all be right.

A Greek person, thousands of years ago would be giving exactly the same arguments as to why Zeus exists as you would be for god.

The arguments never change, but the gods switch over in time - it's about money, power & control - like almost every single other organisation.

Why exactly do people think they are in the right, when there are just as many people who think exactly the same (about a million other different religions).

One would think this fact along would put doubt into a rational mind.

 

[Vonhelmet]

It's taken 2000 years & still we are discovering new tribes - you know very well what I mean.

The point is that Muslims believe with the same conviction as the Jewish community, also with the same conviction as the Hindu's, or the Scientologists.

People forget, that the main religions are in the same boat as every single religious group ever conceived - ranging from the popular, to the downright odd & the ones which have died in history.

The Greek gods, Roman gods, Norse gods - every single one is equally valid & once thing is certain - They can't all be right.

A Greek person, thousands of years ago would be giving exactly the same arguments as to why Zeus exists as you would be for god.

The arguments never change, but the gods switch over in time - it's about money, power & control - like almost every single other organisation.

Why exactly do people think they are in the right, when there are just as many people who think exactly the same (about a million other different religions).

One would think this fact along would put doubt into a rational mind.

It depends on the axioms that rational mind uses.

 

[spudbynight]

I recognise the differences too, however I am struggling to see what about being a woman makes them unsuitable to be priests, cardinals or popes. What is it about being a woman that makes them incapable.

When a priest celebrates mass he acts "in persona Christi Capitis" meaning he acts "in the person of Christ the head". A woman is unable to do this. There is no sexism involved whatsoever.

So the Catholic church is legitimately sexist. Not sure how that changes it being sexist.

No as above.

What about before a woman becomes pregnant? Considering we are talking about contraception and not abortion?

Catholics are not supposed to prevent procreation. Nothing sexist about it at all. It applies to men and women.

How about when the Catholic church was lobbying against homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption?

The church does not object to ANYONE getting married. It simply states that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Church wouldn't allow me to marry another man either. There is no discimination involved - there is a clear position that applies to all. The Church also believes that Children need a mother and father. You are confusing the Catholic Church's position on sin. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual practices are sinful. They are sinful no matter who engages in them.

The only circle seems to be you denying that not allowing a woman to be a priest, cardinal or pope is in someway not sexist.

Just to be perfectly clear I am not arguing against the right for the Catholic Church to be discriminatory towards homosexuals and women, I am just pointing out that they demonstrably are. My catholic wife would agree too and there are a fair number of movements within the Catholic church that would also agree, just google catholic women priests for example.

I think I have covered these points. I am aware that there are movements to ordain women as priests in the Church however those movements are heretical.

 

[Stretch]

I'd like to believe this, but having personally attended an 'Evolution vs Creationism' debate at a UK university, stating that a significant number of Christians in the UK (even university educated ones) believe in / follow creationism and reject / oppose evolution couldnt be any further from the truth.

Also, I dismiss every video that has been posted so far in this thread, and raise you this:

<snip>

^^ UK Christian school, government endorsed, 100% LEGAL.

If genuine, that really is cringe worthy.

My question is although the church accepts the mechanics of evolution do they also believe that the process has neither been influenced or guided by a higher being... aka creationism?

My biggest issue with the churches long overdue recognition of the theory is why they ever claimed to know any better in the first place.

The religious establishments acceptance seems rather begrudging and has only finally come about in the face of overwhelming evidence. They spent many years ridiculing the idea. It also goes to highlight how the steadfast attitude and inflexible philosophy of the church undermines all of it's teaching. If what's written in the bible is the word of god (or inspired by the teachings of god) then how can any of it possibly be called into question?

 

[Xordium]

Stalin & Moa did not kill in the name of atheism - atheism isn't a group with certain rules or doctrines.

It was a failed attempt to create a communist country which ended up as a dictatorship.


By the Khan's I assume you mean Genghis Khan,

"Genghis Khan's religion is widely speculated to have been Shamanism or Tengriism, which was very likely among nomadic Mongol-Turkic tribes of Central Asia. But he was very tolerant religiously, and interested in learning philosophical and moral lessons from other religions. To do so, he consulted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christian missionaries, and the Taoist monk Qiu Chuji."

Just because Stalin was an atheist that does not mean he killed in the name of atheism.

That would be like me saying "Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholic - therefore Catholicism has the blood of the entire holocaust on it's hands" - It's also worth noting that Hitler not only oppressed the Jews, but also oppressed the intelligentsia & the atheists.

But I don't say that, why? because Hitler did not kill in the name of Catholicism but for empire & power building.

Right so you can use a justification against something but not in defense of it. If you think all the actions of people throughout history were in the name of the church rather than for their own personal goals then you are quite naive. I bet you think the crusades were about religion too. And there was more than one Khan and the Buddhist influence on them was more profound throughout time which does not prove anything but merely that Buddhism was a powerful force in that region at that time - it does not mean that the actions taken were condoned or encouraged for anything other than material gain. Yet you can ignore that because it does not suit your prejudice. I would further add that the actions of the church etc are the actions of a manmade concept and not any applicable to any god who may or may not exist. You seem to be critical of a concept (ie religion) when you should be quite specific that it has very little to do with the religion and very much to do with the kind of people that are attracted to any kind of power they can hold over their fellow men. Like you they find no problem in trying to claim a moral imperative without actually seeing that they are not achieving what they think they are (as I highlighted earlier) and in fact have become like the very thing they so oppose (hence my Niezsche statement earlier) and this is something I would strongly throw at Dawkins also.

Let me ask you something - do you find any fault in the teachings of Jesus?

 

[elmarko]

Right so you can use a justification against something but not in defense of it. If you think all the actions of people throughout history were in the name of the church rather than for their own personal goals then you are quite naive. I bet you think the crusades were about religion too. And there was more than one Khan and the Buddhist influence on them was more profound throughout time which does not prove anything but merely that Buddhism was a powerful force in that region at that time - it does not mean that the actions taken were condoned or encouraged for anything other than material gain. Yet you can ignore that because it does not suit your prejudice. I would further add that the actions of the church etc are the actions of a manmade concept and not any applicable to any god who may or may not exist. You seem to be critical of a concept (ie religion) when you should be quite specific that it has very little to do with the religion and very much to do with the kind of people that are attracted to any kind of power they can hold over their fellow men. Like you they find no problem in trying to claim a moral imperative without actually seeing that they are not achieving what they think they are (as I highlighted earlier) and in fact have become like the very thing they so oppose (hence my Niezsche statement earlier) and this is something I would strongly throw at Dawkins also.

Let me ask you something - do you find any fault in the teachings of Jesus?

Learn to punctuate at even a basic level & I'll reply.

I'm not reading that wall of text.

 

[Xordium]

Learn to punctuate at even a basic level & I'll reply.

I'm not reading that wall of text.

Hit a nerve then

 

[RDM]

I never said all religions are the same.

No, you said that all religions were racist. Which is patently untrue.

"Race is classification of humans into large and distinct populations or groups by factors such as heritable phenotypic characteristics or geographic ancestry, but also often influenced by and correlated with traits such as appearance, culture, ethnicity, and socio-economic status" - Wiki.

Perhaps you need to learn what the term "race" means - just because you personally one use the term race when applying it to skin colour, not everybody does.

Using the definition from above exactly how does "Not Christian" come under the definition of race?

Are you seriously suggesting that religions (on average) are not culturally divisive?, usually promote sectarianism which in turns ends up as racism.

No, what I am seriously suggesting is that not all religions are racist. In counter to your suggestion that they were.

 

[spudbynight]

If genuine, that really is cringe worthy.

My question is although the church accepts the mechanics of evolution do they also believe that the process has neither been influenced or guided by a higher being... aka creationism?

My biggest issue with the churches long overdue recognition of the theory is why they ever claimed to know any better in the first place.

The religious establishments acceptance seems rather begrudging and has only finally come about in the face of overwhelming evidence. They spent many years ridiculing the idea. It also goes to highlight how the steadfast attitude and inflexible philosophy of the church undermines all of it's teaching. If what's written in the bible is the word of god (or inspired by the teachings of god) then how can any of it possibly be called into question?

Woohoo - back on topic!

Anyway, yes, the Church believes that evolution and in fact everything is influenced by God in some way. That doesn't conflict with science.

The bible makes great use of metaphor. Exegesis is a complex area - The Pontifical Biblical Institute specialise in it.

 

[elmarko]

Actually, I'm not the one who started referencing specific people & actions - I even said specifically that you CANT blame Catholicism for Hitler.

I'm talking about the actual things written in the holy books, the accepted tenants of the religions - the sexism, child gentile mutilation, murder for apostasy, encouraging the murder of infidels, the concept of atoning for another persons sins, the false dichotomy created by the religious notion of good & evil, the abandonment of reason, the divisive nature.

I don't need to reference specific peoples actions to criticise religion - it's flaws are systemic & apparent to those who have not been indoctrinated by it.

Extract - What's wrong with Jesus.

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

 

[spudbynight]

Learn to punctuate at even a basic level & I'll reply.

I'm not reading that wall of text.

Hmm, interesting. I think that others on this thread have overlooked your rudeness and lack of manners to engage with you. Maybe you might show some humility in return?