Christianity and Creationism - some clarification

[Glaucus]

I'm pointing out the contradiction in that prayer when it does supposedly work, never works for amputees.

What a stupid argument.
How does prayer never work for an amputee, do amputees only ever pray for new limbs.

What does giving new limbs be part of gods will?

If such a god portrayed in the bible existed, then of course such miracles won't happen. There is for a start free will and that new limbs appearing would kind of prove supernatural forces at work.

 

[RDM]

Do you deny that religious is a root of a large amount of the sexism (Catholicism, Islam), racism (all), homophobia (almost all) & paedophilia in the world? (Catholicism has the top prize for this)

Nice in theory, but as I said before - I never said all religions were racist.

It very much looks like you did above.

If you are going to continue attacking this fictional straw man, then good luck to you.

But attempting to misrepresent my argument because you lack any content is dishonest.

If you are going to complain about others grammar and writing style then you possibly need to be more concise yourself as the above post pretty much reads as all religions are guilty of racism.

 

[elmarko]

And you know they all worship the same God.

Which is why I referenced the Abrahamic religions specifically (the main three) earlier (which all 3 are exclusive/same god).

 

[Glaucus]

Which is why I referenced the Abrahamic religions specifically (the main three) earlier (which all 3 are exclusive/same god).

so the problem is? They all worship the one true god.
Do you really think that such a powerful being would really care which religion you picked as long as you have good intent and meaning. Do you really think such a powerful person would expect people to pick the right path after hundreds of thousands of years of being left to it.

 

[bam0]

Judaism is monotheistic, so is Christianity & Islam.

So what? Are you refuting my statement or not? Christianity and Islam are exclusive, Judaism isn't. Nor are many other religions.

 

[bam0]

Which is why I referenced the Abrahamic religions specifically (the main three) earlier (which all 3 are exclusive/same god).

Wrong; http://www.torah.org/features/spirfocus/tolerance.html Have you never wondered why you don't see proselytising Jews?

 

[Nitefly]

EDIT - I have refined my point on the next page - please read this post in light of my latter post.

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

I would argue quite strongly that it does.

Not because it literally goes against anything that evolution explains, but because it just adds this unnecessary faith based 'expansion pack' to evolution that isn't required, warranted or justified. If anything I think it's backwards reasoning. It's fitting faith around something else until you can make evolution work with god. Evolution and science doesn't work that way.

We have got to the point on this forum where creating the world in 6/7 days is rendered meaningless because 'aha well a day is not a day is might actually be longer!', which to me is a pretty desperate attempt at getting the pieces of the puzzle to fit together. Heck, using that reasoning you can pretty much say anything is anything and reduce any debate to the most fruitless of woolly discussion.

The last time I entered into such a discussion it came into a climax when we were discussing whether mutation of DNA was truly random or influenced by god. We observe that every so often (appalling layman speak considering the subject) a mutation occurs across DNA at different rates depending on the usefulness of a gene allele (molecular clock and that jazz). We cannot predict which base pair will be subject to that so we label that as random and the phenotype will be beneficial, neutral or deleterious. The element of randomness creates a variety of phenotypes that evolution non-randomly selects for (personal pet peeve of mine is when people say evolution is random, it most certainly isn't). So far, so good.

So why introduce this element that god guides the mutations? It's just a totally needless component, it works perfectly fine without it. We observe it is random, we theorise that it is random, which is falsifiable. Being falsifiable, we cannot say that it is not random with any weight, but we do not know why the purpose is of it being random.

This second question is silly and totally redundant - you can apply it to anything. Why is the sea blue, why do I get hungry, why do planes fly, why do we sit on chairs - you can answer each of these with 'because god influenced it' and despite there is no way of proving you wrong, you end up rendering the entire point of observation and theorising totally pointless - we know very clearly the answer to these questions without this god element.

Is it compatible with science that the sea is blue 'because god influenced it'? Is it compatible with science that I get hungry 'because god influences it'? Is it compatible with science that planes fly 'because god influences it'? I would answer these all with a resounding 'no' because it's like asking if my computer is compatible with an unnecessary slice of corned beef.

Actually, I can rest this slice of corned beef on my laptop, so I guess it is after all. Maybe I was wrong....

 

[elmarko]

It very much looks like you did above.



If you are going to complain about others grammar and writing style then you possibly need to be more concise yourself as the above post pretty much reads as all religions are guilty of racism.

Unfortunately you are once again incorrect - I've already addressed this comment (you seem incapable of processing so I'll speak slowly for you).

Out of the three main religions I was referencing, do you deny that Islam/Catholicism/Christianity imply that people who are not of there faith are due for a deserved eternal punishment of torture/pain & suffering (based on current religious affiliation being different to the religion in question?).

When I said "all" I meant all of the major religions - have you heard me specifically mentioning the bad points of the smaller religions?

I see you are fixating on a point which I've already responded to, makes one think you lack any content & are desperatly holding on this like it will somehow validate your point of view (which you have not done).

I could make constant mistakes, misquote, misrepresent & make illogical errors all day - it still would add nothing to the argument or add any validity to the concept of a deity.

How about you try to defend the points made as opposed to pick at minor points which have already been resolved.

 

[Glaucus]

We have got to the point on this forum where creating the world in 6/7 days is rendered meaningless because 'aha well a day is not a day is might actually be longer!', which to me is a pretty desperate attempt at getting the pieces of the puzzle to fit together. Heck, using that reasoning you can pretty much say anything is anything and reduce any debate to the most fruitless of woolly discussion.

....

Oh dear and it's a pretty desperate of people like you that hold onto these silly notions.

All you have to do is go back and look at the translations, then come back and say it means a day. It never has meant a day, some still hold onto it. But that doesn't make it so.

It has nothing to do with changing the meaning or getting it to fit.
It's using modern knowledge to correct translation errors, which can be verified with ever increasing ancient texts.

 

[elmarko]

Wrong; http://www.torah.org/features/spirfocus/tolerance.html Have you never wondered why you don't see proselytising Jews?

My main problem with Judaism is child genital mutilation - but the general beliefs are significantly more advanced than Catholicism/Islam/Christianity (the three I was referencing btw).

 

[elmarko]

Oh dear and it's a pretty desperate of people like you that hold onto these silly notions.

All you have to do is go back and look at the translations, then come back and say it means a day. It never has meant a day, some still hold onto it. But that doesn't make it so.

It has nothing to do with changing the meaning or getting it to fit.
It's using modern knowledge to correct translation errors, which can be verified with ever increasing ancient texts.

It still says god created light before the sun - clearly written by somebody who had no understanding of how the universe actually is.

 

[Glaucus]

My main problem with Judaism is child genital mutilation - but the general beliefs are significantly more advanced than Catholicism/Islam/Christianity (the three I was referencing btw).

Yep I also have an issue with that. But you also have to separate religion from tradition, that can sometimes be hard to do.

 

[Xordium]

/snip

So you see no problem with science adapting theories as time goes on to fit the new evidence it finds for a single specific problem. But you have an issue with the religious interpretations being adjusted about the acts of some all-powerful universe creating being as our understanding about that universe increases.

 

[Glaucus]

It still says god created light before the sun - clearly written by somebody who had no understanding of how the universe actually is.

 

[Nitefly]

Oh dear and it's a pretty desperate of people like you that hold onto these silly notions.

All you have to do is go back and look at the translations, then come back and say it means a day. It never has meant a day, some still hold onto it. But that doesn't make it so.

It has nothing to do with changing the meaning or getting it to fit.
It's using modern knowledge to correct translation errors, which can be verified with ever increasing ancient texts.

I know that it was never strictly speaking supposed to be a day, it's been done to death on these forums before. My point there is linked with the latter point of fitting religious text with acquired knowledge and shifting goalposts with unnecessary additions.

 

[Glaucus]

Bad bad example then, as it's not shifting goal posts at all. It's simply getting the correct translation. How can you slam that, gob smacking. It's almost like you want religion to stand still and not correct itself, just so you can tear into them.

 

[Xordium]

It still says god created light before the sun - clearly written by somebody who had no understanding of how the universe actually is.

Right so there was no light emitted in the universe anywhere until clouds of hydrogen coalesced into stars. Right ...

 

[Nitefly]

So you see no problem with science adapting theories as time goes on to fit the new evidence it finds for a single specific problem. But you have an issue with the religious interpretations being adjusted about the acts of some all-powerful universe creating being as our understanding about that universe increases.

Not at all. I just have a problem with the notion of taking two things which by their nature are so fundamentally different and calling them 'compatible'.

Keep science to the classrooms and religion to the church. Thankfully, this is a rather popular policy.

 

[elmarko]

Right so there was no light emitted in the universe anywhere until clouds of hydrogen coalesced into stars. Right ...

Because that's clearly what the man who wrote it meant.

 

[Glaucus]

They aren't incompatible, but I agree religion shouldn't be taipught in science.

However it shouldn't be kept to church. Churches for a start are not needed.
But the main reason is religion is a huge part of society and there should be basic education at school, if nothing else it helps to reduce the irrational intolerance as well as anyone who is "indoctrinated" in any form to see there are other sides, other religions and other ways. Not just science or religion.