ForumsWEPRChristians + Evolution

50 14852
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,444 posts
Jester

This is NOT an evolution debate, as both sides are in agreement that the process is fact.

I have a question for the select Christians who claim that science and Christianity can coexist; more specifically the ones who claim that evolution is driven by the Abrahamic God. According to Christianity, the creation story of how Adam and Eve sinned and therefore sin was born into everyone else is the main reason why Jesus was sent to die on earth, to absolve the original sin. Without that story taken as literal truth, does Christianity fall apart?

  • 50 Replies
StDrake
offline
StDrake
194 posts
Lord

I'd say mythology is mythology because we can actually disproove the stories it feeds us without chance for reproval..since noone follows it.

As for Christianism - I see a lot of claims against it that make just as much sense as the babbling of fanatical followers that don't try to understand anything.
Christianity in its basis should not worry about the mythological part - the main point is in Christs TEACHINGS. Everything else you might as well call marketing. The comming of Christ might not have saved us from a sin we never performed, but it does give us a chance to save ourselves from sin we might have otherwise performed..or at least from that sort of harm, since sin is supposedly not a sin if done unaware - another contradiction of the first sin, since Adam and Eve could not have known it was a sin before gaining that knowledge after they performed it.

Of course the religions that claim to be christianic did screw this up, preferring to have something shiny to bow down to.

Please tell - if Christianity says "treat not others how you would not like to be treated yourself" and especially "you shall not kill" - then how the heck are crusades, spanish inquisition and witch hunts christianic?

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,557 posts
Jester

:O Bill Nye!

Who doesn't remember this guy from science class in middle school?

Bill Nye on Creationism.

He may be technically incorrect about creationists being unable to become scientifically literate or succeeding in other unrelated fields of science, but the general idea here I fully agree with.

ComradeWolf
offline
ComradeWolf
358 posts
Nomad

Christianity is a faith based on two ideals. Forgiveness and tolerance. Which is funny considering there is many ignorant followers of the faith, although there is many good people who do embody the ideals of the faith. As for christianity and science coexisting, well its coexisting now isn't it? People will always hold onto an ideal if its embedded enough in them. Humans are stubborn like that. For people who do not support the theorem of evolution and science in general that is there choice, in my eyes as long as they don't wave their opinions and try to force them into our faces I could care less. We shouldn't attempt to do the same either if they are unwilling, let them come willingly.

Besides, ideals and faiths, scientific beliefs or opinions in general are like a penis. You can have one, but please don't wave it in public and don't shove it down my child's throat.

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Christianity is a faith based on two ideals. Forgiveness and tolerance.


Really? We really could tell that to the original Christians, ah?

Which is funny considering there is many ignorant followers of the faith, although there is many good people who do embody the ideals of the faith


How is ignorance tied to forgiveness and tolerance?

As for christianity and science coexisting, well its coexisting now isn't it?


No. Christians are vehemently trying to get creationism into schools in many places, as well as considering it on par with actual science, for example.

People will always hold onto an ideal if its embedded enough in them. Humans are stubborn like that.


Which is pretty much a good thing, or you could be told what to do by any random passerby.

For people who do not support the theorem of evolution and science in general that is there choice, in my eyes as long as they don't wave their opinions and try to force them into our faces I could care less.


I thought you just said that Christianity was getting along fine with science?

We shouldn't attempt to do the same either if they are unwilling, let them come willingly.


If the truth is known, it should be shared. A truth like the origin of the species should be shared as fact, with the opposing and incorrect viewpoints exposed as incorrect. That is how science works, that is how we advance.

Besides, ideals and faiths, scientific beliefs or opinions in general are like a penis.


No. Scientific beliefs don't fit in their at all.

ou can have one, but please don't wave it in public and don't shove it down my child's throat.


Since apparently science kills children?
Blackbeltr0
offline
Blackbeltr0
769 posts
Jester

GOD CREATED THE WORLD AND THE BIBLE HAS BEEN supported by EVERY ARTIFACT RELATING TO IT

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

I wonder why Creationism is so strong in America, when in Europe, a "Post-Christian" mindset is all in the rage. Cultural differences? Could the Puritan nature of the Founding Fathers really have left such a grim mark on the nation centuries later?

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,133 posts
Jester

I wonder why Creationism is so strong in America, when in Europe, a "Post-Christian" mindset is all in the rage. Cultural differences? Could the Puritan nature of the Founding Fathers really have left such a grim mark on the nation centuries later?


this interview might be interesting for you =)
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

GOD CREATED THE WORLD AND THE BIBLE HAS BEEN supported by EVERY ARTIFACT RELATING TO IT


No it hasn't...
Strobel Under Fire - Part 1 of a Four-Part Series
ComradeWolf
offline
ComradeWolf
358 posts
Nomad

How is ignorance tied to forgiveness and tolerance?
It isn't. You missed my point. I said I find it funny, ironic how a faith which is supposedly structured around forgiveness and tolerance, has so many people within that faith who are ignorant and intolerant. It is a case of irony my good sir.
I thought you just said that Christianity was getting along fine with science?

I said coexisting, coexisting doesn't mean they are cooperative. If they weren't cooexisting, one of them would have destroyed the other by now wouldn't it? it may be in the process of that, but currently they are co existing. And the scientific community has the edge right now, considering the human race's dependance upon technology.

If the truth is known, it should be shared. A truth like the origin of the species should be shared as fact, with the opposing and incorrect viewpoints exposed as incorrect. That is how science works, that is how we advance.

Of course, let it be shared. When I say don't force an opinion on people, I mean an OPINION. Such as, "religion is for the ignorant." It is an opinion, one that may be based upon keen observation, but it is not a established fact. I never said, keep your factual information to yourself. By all means share it.
My point with that as well is, don't bother giving information to people who are ignorant of your ideals. If they choose to ignore your information, don't bother. If they want to learn they will listen. If they want to be left behind so be it.

No. Scientific beliefs don't fit in their at all.
Beliefs. I did not say, scientific facts. A scientific belief is a theory or theorem that has yet to be proven by valid experimentation. We cannot prove per say, string theory at this point or very high end physics, we can't even say life is outside our planet yet. Due to our experimentation so far, we can estimate, if only that, that there is a possibility of life beyond our own planet. We cannot say there is life outside our planet as a fact yet though. An example of a scientific belief is I believe there is life outside our own planet, but my belief in that isn't proven. So until I find proof, I won't bother sharing it to people who are not interested in discussing it.

Since apparently science kills children?


No, science doesn't kill children, the actions of ignorant people soliciting unproven, radical ideas and change or
constrictive laws or traditions within a faith harm or even kill them. An example of radical change causing great harm? Look at the Middle East. Many nations are changing their political systems in a rapid hurry and it's brought nothing but bloodshed and misery. Want constrictive laws in tradition/faith? Look at the Amish in America, they live in isolated communities with repressive leadership, which has caused grief and suicide.

As for my analogy that beliefs, ideals and faith are like a penis, it is a accurate if lewd comparitive. We can be proud of it. We can have it. But please don't use to to shove it into other's unwillingly and force it upon them. If they want to hear about it great, if they don't , let them be ignorant.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

It isn't. You missed my point. I said I find it funny, ironic how a faith which is supposedly structured around forgiveness and tolerance, has so many people within that faith who are ignorant and intolerant. It is a case of irony my good sir.


Since when was it structured around forgiveness and tolerance?

I said coexisting, coexisting doesn't mean they are cooperative. If they weren't cooexisting, one of them would have destroyed the other by now wouldn't it? it may be in the process of that, but currently they are co existing. And the scientific community has the edge right now, considering the human race's dependance upon technology.


"Coexisting" in a way similar to how a man "coexists" with the thorn in his foot, or how we coexisted with smallpox, you see the point. It can hardly be called coexisting when they are direct opposites of each other, one must be destroyed for the other to thrive.

Of course, let it be shared. When I say don't force an opinion on people, I mean an OPINION. Such as, "religion is for the ignorant." It is an opinion, one that may be based upon keen observation, but it is not a established fact. I never said, keep your factual information to yourself. By all means share it.


Then why would you suggest science not be shared?

My point with that as well is, don't bother giving information to people who are ignorant of your ideals. If they choose to ignore your information, don't bother. If they want to learn they will listen. If they want to be left behind so be it.


So you are saying give up against people who I would actually want to argue against? It is pointless and useless to argue against someone who already believes the same as you, and if you don't believe the same as me you are likely wrong. If you are wrong, especially in a religious way, then you are either ignorant of the truth or directly ignoring the truth. By this logic, no one would be able to debate on this forum.

Beliefs. I did not say, scientific facts. A scientific belief is a theory or theorem that has yet to be proven by valid experimentation. We cannot prove per say, string theory at this point or very high end physics, we can't even say life is outside our planet yet. Due to our experimentation so far, we can estimate, if only that, that there is a possibility of life beyond our own planet. We cannot say there is life outside our planet as a fact yet though. An example of a scientific belief is I believe there is life outside our own planet, but my belief in that isn't proven. So until I find proof, I won't bother sharing it to people who are not interested in discussing it.


As I said, scientific beliefs don't fit that description at all. Are you saying that scientific beliefs, as you put it, are on the same level as religious beliefs? You just said you want us to share the truth, yet here you say that you don't want to share the truth if the other person does not want to hear it. How would you debate against a religious fundamentalist under your rules? How in hell do we say anything under your rules?

No, science doesn't kill children, the actions of ignorant people soliciting unproven, radical ideas and change or
constrictive laws or traditions within a faith harm or even kill them. An example of radical change causing great harm? Look at the Middle East. Many nations are changing their political systems in a rapid hurry and it's brought nothing but bloodshed and misery. Want constrictive laws in tradition/faith? Look at the Amish in America, they live in isolated communities with repressive leadership, which has caused grief and suicide.


So how does that fit with your little genitile analogy?

As for my analogy that beliefs, ideals and faith are like a penis, it is a accurate if lewd comparitive. We can be proud of it. We can have it. But please don't use to to shove it into other's unwillingly and force it upon them. If they want to hear about it great, if they don't , let them be ignorant.


Once again, you say "Spread the truth if you want". Then you turn around and say "But don't spread it". Do we spread the truth or not? Your statements are as self defeating as the Torah.
StDrake
offline
StDrake
194 posts
Lord

Since when was it structured around forgiveness and tolerance?

Since the teachings of Jesus Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth if one prefers. One thing of note - I'd call those people clinging to ignorance and intolerance claiming to be of christian faith, not actually being true to it. I guess it's just me tending to tell apart religions from faiths.

I fail to see where ComradeWolf is but suggesting not to share science. However..
So you are saying give up against people who I would actually want to argue against? It is pointless and useless to argue against someone who already believes the same as you, and if you don't believe the same as me you are likely wrong. If you are wrong, especially in a religious way, then you are either ignorant of the truth or directly ignoring the truth. By this logic, no one would be able to debate on this forum.

I do see being against arguing, and I agree with that - arguing is pointless and useless in general. It's discussion that's lost it's track and became a fight - and that's where any sensible arguments (not to mistake with "arguements&quot lose value, since it's now all only about destroying the other side like you mentionned already. Debates on the other hand are not meaningless - those base on the assumption that the other side might not be AWARE of the WHOLE truth, but willing to learn about it.

One thing I'll agree with again though - don't ignore the ignorant. Present your view at least once - if they choose to ignore it that's their problem. They've been given a chance to know better and dropped it. After that it's meaningless to try further, unless you're just one of those who prefer forcing their views onto others.

Kindof fits into the genital analogy too doesn't it?
warriorcats123
offline
warriorcats123
694 posts
Nomad

We aren't made perfect.
god is perfect.
god made us in his image.
we are perfect.
or god failed. what makes god not perfect.

you know god could have made us in most of his image but purpesly made us not perfect
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,557 posts
Jester

you know god could have made us in most of his image but purpesly made us not perfect


Take it to the Theism vs Atheism thread. This is supposed to be about how Christians reconcile observable phenomena which contradicts the literal interpretation of Genesis.

To answer you though, if he purposefully made us imperfect that just means he's a not too nice guy.
ellock
offline
ellock
385 posts
Blacksmith

To answer that question you have to look at it in the full story, not just that one statement. God did make us in his image, however he did give us free will to do what we want (including sin)after Adam and Eve sinned there was a punishment (not going into that because I don't want to explain the whole book of Genisis). So as a result of there sinning we still have to work and there is still pain and suffering because we live in a imperfect world. Also, when he died, he did not die so that way our sins would count as nothing, he died so that way our sins could be forgiven (without the sacrafices and such that had to be done before). If you want to go into the evolution side of it, God simply gave animals and plants the ability to adapt to there surroundings think about it... we probably don't look like our original ancestors. I think there is evolution but it can't exist without a creator allowing it.

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,508 posts
Jester

God did make us in his image, however he did give us free will to do what we want (including sin)after Adam and Eve sinned there was a punishment (not going into that because I don't want to explain the whole book of Genisis). So as a result of there sinning we still have to work and there is still pain and suffering because we live in a imperfect world.


Why give us free will but then punish us for doing something he doesn't want us to do? It's similar to a mother showing her children the cookie jar, pointing out that they have the ability to take the cookies from the jar, and declare they will be punished if they ever take one. Why give us the ability to sin if he punishes us for sin?

Also, when he died, he did not die so that way our sins would count as nothing, he died so that way our sins could be forgiven (without the sacrafices and such that had to be done before).


But Jesus of Nazareth was a sacrifice himself. Why go through the trouble of creating a vessel for absolving people of sin when His Omnipotence has the ability to Will it away without causing more pain?

I think there is evolution but it can't exist without a creator allowing it.


Evolution is an autonomous mechanism, or "works automatically". It operates by genetics and is influenced by the environment. There is no need for a higher power to intervene every time an animal mates and gives birth. If we can observe Evolution in real-time and see the effects it has on the organisms by also manipulating their environments, we can deduce that there is no need for a god to intervene.
Showing 31-45 of 50