God Debate
Argue about Christianity and God..
Why do you think what you think?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by America on -
word
Natkat128 said:
America said:As a christian (mormon) I believe in evolution just fine. Do people excpect the bible to contatin an explanation of a theory involving hundreds of thousands of years to people who hadn't invented toilet paper yet? You can't argue that evolution doesn't occure, there's plenty of evidence that supports that it did and none that says we just sprang out of nothingness. I think the main argument against evolution and against creationism is just ignorance of the facts. People who expect a book that's a collection of even smaller books from over 2 thousand years and done in the dark ages shouldn't expect all these fancy charts and graphs explaining creationism, jesus taught in parables and most of the bibles is written as parables. While at the same time, to people who think the bible is the direct word of god and therefor evolution can't possibly exist because the bible doesn't say it consider this; If a 5 year old asks you how a plane flies you're more likely going to say magic or some other things because you can't be bothered explaining the complexities of the mechanical engine to a 5 year old....the jews hadn't even figured out regular bathing so i think god is jsutified in simplfying things to them lol.
Granted I'm iffy on the bible as a whole (it was created by a bunch of roman dudes for political purposes more than anything else). Point is, why can't there be a god who uses what we call "science" to make the universe work? Science and religion can get along just fine lol.
-
Permalink Reply by MrFrenchDog on -
Yeah well ok then, that's what i think.
Luigi-sp26 said:
yeah...that's not evolution. that is breeding between different types of dogs creating other breeds. however, they are still all the same species (Canis lupus). a yorkie and great dane are the same species.....just like Anderson Cooper and Eddie Murphy are the same species.
MrFrenchDog said:I didn't use the right words there gonna be honest ha, i meant like there's loads of species of dogs that have evolved from other dogs for example.
But i don't think you can get from fish -> human for example.
Luigi-sp26 said:what do you mean, "evolve within our species but not into other species"? after evolving "within our species" enough, wouldn't our genetic code have changed enough to consider us a separate species? this would just take hundreds of thousands to millions of years. and im willing to bet that you dont really know what Mr. Darwin (and lets not forget Mr. Wallace) really wrote about. you don't believe in evolution in the way Mr. Darwin wrote about....you believe in your own little "theory" that came straight from your imagination and is based on zero evidence. much like the way the "theory" of creationism was born.
**fun fact: the word "evolution" did not appear in Darwin's first edition of "The Origin of Species".
MrFrenchDog said:I do not believe in evolution the way that Mr Darwin wrote about, i think that men have always been men. I think that we can evolve within our species but not into other species.
-
Permalink Reply by MrFrenchDog on
-
The gospels aren't the only text that we have about Jesus existing, these people all wrote about him:
The Jewish historian Josephus (A.D. 37-100)
Pliny the Younger, imperial Roman Legate of Bythynia - in a letter to Emperor Trajan in A.D. 112
Tacitus - the important Roman historian
Suetonius - a Roman historian who compiled a biography of the first twelve Roman emperors in his "Life of Claudius"
Thallus and Julius Africanus in A.D. 52
Mara bar Serpion
kitten$ bieber ♥ said:i was mostly looking for your sources that call julius caesar's existence into question. you're absolutely wrong about caesar, at any rate. there are hundreds of preserved letters from cicero (a contemporary of caesar's) that either mention caesar or were written to caesar directly.
the gospels are not eyewitness accounts (and iirc, even the church acknowledges this). so if we're comparing actual letters to/from caesar vs. a retelling of the life of jesus christ (based on the gospel of mark, being the oldest and basis for the other gospels), there's more proof of the existence of caesar.
not that i'm denying the existence of jesus christ, the man. just pointing out that your argument is false.
MrFrenchDog said:Texts about Jesus were found much closer to the time that they were written that texts about Caesar.
I am talking about Jesus being the person that Christianity is based on whether real or not, i am not saying i have evidence that he walked on water etc.
Sorry but you can't disregard biblical text. The Gospels all account what happened at the time of Jesus.
kitten$ bieber ♥ said:sorry, but what are your sources for the claims re: the existence of jesus christ v. julius caeser? non-biblical, please.
MrFrenchDog said:Ok then people, there is enough evidence and proof to suggest that Jesus (the one in the bible) was an actual person that did exist, in fact there is more evidence of this than the existence of Julius Caesar who we all accept did exist.
So having to accept that he existed you have 3 options, was he:
a liar? a madman? or who he said he was?
-
Permalink Reply by if-i-were-an-orange on -
Oh I see, so you came to a conclusion based on nothing but you're own ignorance? Sounds like creationism
MrFrenchDog said:Yeah well ok then, that's what i think.
Luigi-sp26 said:
yeah...that's not evolution. that is breeding between different types of dogs creating other breeds. however, they are still all the same species (Canis lupus). a yorkie and great dane are the same species.....just like Anderson Cooper and Eddie Murphy are the same species.
MrFrenchDog said:I didn't use the right words there gonna be honest ha, i meant like there's loads of species of dogs that have evolved from other dogs for example.
But i don't think you can get from fish -> human for example.
Luigi-sp26 said:what do you mean, "evolve within our species but not into other species"? after evolving "within our species" enough, wouldn't our genetic code have changed enough to consider us a separate species? this would just take hundreds of thousands to millions of years. and im willing to bet that you dont really know what Mr. Darwin (and lets not forget Mr. Wallace) really wrote about. you don't believe in evolution in the way Mr. Darwin wrote about....you believe in your own little "theory" that came straight from your imagination and is based on zero evidence. much like the way the "theory" of creationism was born.
**fun fact: the word "evolution" did not appear in Darwin's first edition of "The Origin of Species".
MrFrenchDog said:I do not believe in evolution the way that Mr Darwin wrote about, i think that men have always been men. I think that we can evolve within our species but not into other species.
-
Permalink Reply by =gregor= on -
Africanus, lol
MrFrenchDog said:
The gospels aren't the only text that we have about Jesus existing, these people all wrote about him:
The Jewish historian Josephus (A.D. 37-100)
Pliny the Younger, imperial Roman Legate of Bythynia - in a letter to Emperor Trajan in A.D. 112
Tacitus - the important Roman historian
Suetonius - a Roman historian who compiled a biography of the first twelve Roman emperors in his "Life of Claudius"
Thallus and Julius Africanus in A.D. 52
Mara bar Serpion
-
Permalink Reply by MrFrenchDog on
-
No, i think what i think because of the bible, mainly.
Luigi-sp26 said:
Oh I see, so you came to a conclusion based on nothing but you're own ignorance? Sounds like creationism
MrFrenchDog said:
Yeah well ok then, that's what i think.
Luigi-sp26 said:
yeah...that's not evolution. that is breeding between different types of dogs creating other breeds. however, they are still all the same species (Canis lupus). a yorkie and great dane are the same species.....just like Anderson Cooper and Eddie Murphy are the same species.
MrFrenchDog said:I didn't use the right words there gonna be honest ha, i meant like there's loads of species of dogs that have evolved from other dogs for example.
But i don't think you can get from fish -> human for example.
Luigi-sp26 said:what do you mean, "evolve within our species but not into other species"? after evolving "within our species" enough, wouldn't our genetic code have changed enough to consider us a separate species? this would just take hundreds of thousands to millions of years. and im willing to bet that you dont really know what Mr. Darwin (and lets not forget Mr. Wallace) really wrote about. you don't believe in evolution in the way Mr. Darwin wrote about....you believe in your own little "theory" that came straight from your imagination and is based on zero evidence. much like the way the "theory" of creationism was born.
**fun fact: the word "evolution" did not appear in Darwin's first edition of "The Origin of Species".
MrFrenchDog said:I do not believe in evolution the way that Mr Darwin wrote about, i think that men have always been men. I think that we can evolve within our species but not into other species.
-
Permalink Reply by hintofcoolness on -
hey forget about WHEN the bible was written, anybody know how many edits it went through? ya know, not counting the different kings deciding what they wanted included or excluded...
anyone?
-
Permalink Reply by if-i-were-an-orange on
-
i haven't gotten past Numbers in the Bible...but im pretty sure nowhere in the text does it mention humans evolving within their own species or anything about the origin of dog breeds.
MrFrenchDog said:
No, i think what i think because of the bible, mainly.
Luigi-sp26 said:
Oh I see, so you came to a conclusion based on nothing but you're own ignorance? Sounds like creationism
MrFrenchDog said:
Yeah well ok then, that's what i think.
Luigi-sp26 said:yeah...that's not evolution. that is breeding between different types of dogs creating other breeds. however, they are still all the same species (Canis lupus). a yorkie and great dane are the same species.....just like Anderson Cooper and Eddie Murphy are the same species.
MrFrenchDog said:I didn't use the right words there gonna be honest ha, i meant like there's loads of species of dogs that have evolved from other dogs for example.
But i don't think you can get from fish -> human for example.
Luigi-sp26 said:what do you mean, "evolve within our species but not into other species"? after evolving "within our species" enough, wouldn't our genetic code have changed enough to consider us a separate species? this would just take hundreds of thousands to millions of years. and im willing to bet that you dont really know what Mr. Darwin (and lets not forget Mr. Wallace) really wrote about. you don't believe in evolution in the way Mr. Darwin wrote about....you believe in your own little "theory" that came straight from your imagination and is based on zero evidence. much like the way the "theory" of creationism was born.
**fun fact: the word "evolution" did not appear in Darwin's first edition of "The Origin of Species".
MrFrenchDog said:I do not believe in evolution the way that Mr Darwin wrote about, i think that men have always been men. I think that we can evolve within our species but not into other species.
-
Permalink Reply by hintofcoolness on
-
wow just noticed Jon's post, didn't bother to click on the video because I studied the Cult of Mithras as a religious studies minor at Cal many years ago, but for those of you who passed this up, check it out.
Also, though the following is from wikipedia, David Ulansey was my prof :P
good stuff
David Ulansey thinks Renan's statement "somewhat exaggerated",[211] but does consider Mithraism "one of Christianity's major competitors in the Roman Empire".[211] Ulansey sees study of Mithraism as important for understanding "the cultural matrix out of which the Christian religion came to birth".[211] Moreover, on the basis of his astronomical interpretation of Mithraism, Ulansey argues for a "profound kinship between Mithraism and Christianity", in that Mithras, like Jesus Christ, was considered to be "a being from beyond the universe".[212] Ulansey suggests that these two figures, Mithras and Jesus, "are to some extent both manifestations of a single deep longing in the human spirit".
brofessefef said:
-
Permalink Reply by PUPPIES! on -
I have no idea how many edits it went through. But I know it is a lot haha!
hintofcoolness said:
hey forget about WHEN the bible was written, anybody know how many edits it went through? ya know, not counting the different kings deciding what they wanted included or excluded...
anyone?
-
Permalink Reply by Lion on the floor (natkat) on -
So it seems that Christianity is basically Judaism with Mithraism thrown into a stew with some more spices added in...
hintofcoolness said:wow just noticed Jon's post, didn't bother to click on the video because I studied the Cult of Mithras as a religious studies minor at Cal many years ago, but for those of you who passed this up, check it out.
Also, though the following is from wikipedia, David Ulansey was my prof :P
good stuff
David Ulansey thinks Renan's statement "somewhat exaggerated",[211] but does consider Mithraism "one of Christianity's major competitors in the Roman Empire".[211] Ulansey sees study of Mithraism as important for understanding "the cultural matrix out of which the Christian religion came to birth".[211] Moreover, on the basis of his astronomical interpretation of Mithraism, Ulansey argues for a "profound kinship between Mithraism and Christianity", in that Mithras, like Jesus Christ, was considered to be "a being from beyond the universe".[212] Ulansey suggests that these two figures, Mithras and Jesus, "are to some extent both manifestations of a single deep longing in the human spirit".
brofessefef said:
-
Permalink Reply by Lion on the floor (natkat) on
-
I am pretty sure the 5 books of moses (and other OT scrolls) are pretty accurate when you compare the original hebrew version of today to what was found in Qumran ( Dead Sea Scrolls), which I believe is the oldest known copy at this time but I might be wrong. There are strict rules for copying a Torah scroll which needs to be done by a special scribe. If there are any errors in a single letter or even punctuation then it is not kosher (can't use it) and needs to be fixed. There are special scribes that are trained to check over the details and the scrolls need to be checked every few years (if there is a smudge.. it is not kosher). In my culture we believe there are 70 ways to interperet this text but that is a whole other story(ies) ;)
PUPPIES! said:
I have no idea how many edits it went through. But I know it is a lot haha!
hintofcoolness said:
hey forget about WHEN the bible was written, anybody know how many edits it went through? ya know, not counting the different kings deciding what they wanted included or excluded...
anyone?
© 2013 Created by Weezer.
