My weakest trait

[jay_swift]

Most of religion is window dressing. Dogma, ritual, and prayer are just so much stinking dung. What is needful is simple. If you aren't doing what is needful, you're just hinding in a dung-hill.

Jesus prayed alot. I'm not sure if you know what you're saying.

 

[Arikay]

Then apparently the majority of christians are not "true christians" because the majority of christians accept evolution.

I did not say that you should go and pick and choose which verses to take literally and which verses not to. If you believe god created the universe, he does that for you.

If god created the universe and nature, then nature is gods creation.
Science is the study of nature.
Thus, science is the study of gods creation.

If gods creation disagrees with a human interpretation of the bible, which is incorrect? Gods creation or human interpretation of the bible?

I would assume god does not lie to us, thus if gods creation disagrees with our falible interpretation of the bible, I would guess that it would be our interpretation that needs changing.

A quote I stole from Lucaspas Sig,

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437;​

Many agree with this quote.

Tell me, do you believe the earth is flat? Do you believe the sun and planets revolve around the earth?
At one time, both of these things were believed because of a literal interpretation of the bible (and still are believed by small groups). Yet many seem to accepts what gods creation tells them, that those verses should not be taken literally.


Just the same, I am not saying you should arbitrarily pick and choose what you take literally, I am saying that you should look at all the evidence in gods creation and let that evidence tell you what you should not take literally.

Just as the evidence suggests certain geocentric verses of the bible not be taken literally, the evidence also suggests that creationist and young earth verses in the bible should not be taken literally. This of course does not diminish any of the other verses, nore jesus, or original sin, etc., and has allowed many christians to delve deeper into the verses that they used to take literally and get further inspiration from.

I'm very impressed with your post in response to mine, Arikay! Very deep indeed.



If I don't believe the literal interpretation, then I don't think I would be a real Christian. If I got to pick and chose which parts of the Bible were true and which were for the sake of the overall story, then what's stopping me from saying The Commandments were wrong? (There might be some theory that contradicts a passage) Plus if I buckle under every hard question about the Bible, do I really believe what it says?

 

[jay_swift]

I would assume god does not lie to us, thus if gods creation disagrees with our falible interpretation of the bible, I would guess that it would be our interpretation that needs changing.

A literal reading is not an interpretation. I mean a verse like Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;" does not say that the world is flat because you can't see a whole sphere from one point... that's an interpretation. It says the devil showed Him the kingdoms. It doesn't say that Jesus was on mount everest because the further you get from something big the more you can see of it... that's an interpretation. It only says the devil showed Him the kingdoms.

To be literal is not to take something out of context or to interpret. To get meaning out of a passage in the Bible is not the same as interpreting it.

 

[Arikay]

The problem is, you have now either made god a liar, or the devil stronger than god.

Gods creation says creationism is false. Creationists say a literal reading of the bible says creationism is true. If the literal reading of the bible must be true, then gods creation must be false, and god created an elaborate lie to try and trick us.

Does your god lie?

A literal reading is not an interpretation. I mean a verse like Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;" does not say that the world is flat because you can't see a whole sphere from one point... that's an interpretation. It says the devil showed Him the kingdoms. It doesn't say that Jesus was on mount everest because the further you get from something big the more you can see of it... that's an interpretation. It only says the devil showed Him the kingdoms.

To be literal is not to take something out of context or to interpret. To get meaning out of a passage in the Bible is not the same as interpreting it.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

As is my understanding, if Darwinism is true then there is no Christian God.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong, but thank you for playing.

Common descent says everything started from one single organism. The Bible, however, says that God created all living creatures...

So the Who and How questions are both answered. The problem here is what exactly?

then Adam named them.

Adam means man. You will be aware that man did indeed name the animals. I don't recall evolutionary theory having a different explanation of the origin of the word "cat". I think we all agree that they're called cats because men gave that name to furry things with whiskers that meowed.

That theory is against God.

Doesn't seem to be from what you've said.

Science isn't athiestic, but many of the theories assume it is.

Nope. I know what assumptions evolution is based on:

Variation in species
Overproduction of offspring
Heredity

Didn't spot "non-existence of God" in that list.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

A literal reading is not an interpretation. I mean a verse like Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;" does not say that the world is flat because you can't see a whole sphere from one point... that's an interpretation. It says the devil showed Him the kingdoms. It doesn't say that Jesus was on mount everest because the further you get from something big the more you can see of it... that's an interpretation. It only says the devil showed Him the kingdoms.

No. That the devil took Jesus up to a mountain involves interpretation. It shows you are intepreting the story as an event rather than a figurative story, for example. And others will disagree with that interpretation.

To be literal is not to take something out of context

It is if you take, for example, the words of Job's comforters literally.

or to interpret.

But it is. You have already interpreted the text as literal. It may not be. Just as you interpret the story of the Prodigal Son as not literal, so you interpret another passage as being literal. You have some basis for doing so; you interpret.

To get meaning out of a passage in the Bible is not the same as interpreting it.

No, getting meaning out of something is exactly the same as interpreting it. That's why we call people who turn French speech into English speech "Interpreters", because they get meaning from the French.

 

[jay_swift]

I know what assumptions evolution is based on:

Variation in species
Overproduction of offspring
Heredity

Darwinism contains the theories of 1. Evolution 2. Common Descent 3. Multiplication of species 4. Gradualism 5. Natural Selection.

The only one of those 4 that doesn't conflict with the Bible is natural selection, which says that species do change through adaptation and survival of the fittest. All the others assume that life came from a single celled organism.

Adam means man.

That is an interpretation, which I have already discussed.

And as I said, if Darwinism exists, the Bible is false and everything about the Christian God is doubtful. You only need to prove the Bible to be wrong once in order to question the entire thing.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Darwinism contains the theories of 1. Evolution 2. Common Descent 3. Multiplication of species 4. Gradualism 5. Natural Selection.

I'm not sure these are really distinct theories like that. For example, Natural Selection is a mechanism of evolution.

The only one of those 4 that doesn't conflict with the Bible is natural selection, which says that species do change through adaptation and survival of the fittest. All the others assume that life came from a single celled organism.

I see. The problem you are having here is that like many others you are conflating "a literal interpretation of the Bible" with "the Bible". They are not the same thing. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is not appropriate, because apart from anything else it contradicts the account in Genesis 2.

That is an interpretation, which I have already discussed.

Yes. Just like yours is.

And as I said, if Darwinism exists, the Bible is false and everything about the Christian God is doubtful.

Same mistaken conflation again.

You only need to prove the Bible to be wrong once in order to question the entire thing.

I'd dispute that, but it's a theological question and a different issue. But no-one is proving the Bible to be wrong - all that's disproved by the triumph of evolutionary theory is a particular, extreme fundamentalist, interpretation of it, which even most evangelicals consider to be nonsense.

 

[jay_swift]

I'm not sure these are really distinct theories like that. For example, Natural Selection is a mechanism of evolution.

Ernst Mayr, in One Long Argument (A Harvard Press book) states that Darwinism contains those beliefs. You should read up if you're going to argue about this.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

And as I said, if Darwinism exists, the Bible is false and everything about the Christian God is doubtful. You only need to prove the Bible to be wrong once in order to question the entire thing.

That's why creationism becomes the greatest threat to Christianity.

If you tie Christianity to being only a literal interpretation of your religious text, then you put it up for easy falsification. If Christianity can exist ONLY if a literal interpretation of that text is true, then it becomes quite simple to disprove Christianity. In effect, by that equation of literal Bible to true Christianity, then Christianity has been proven false for nearly two centuries now.

However, considering more allegorical and metaphorical interpretations of stories like the creation story and the global flood which are obviously inconstitent with reality if taken literally, they gain a much more poetic and profound meaning, in my opinion (although I don't think there is any reason to believe Christianity is true in the first place). It also is the only way you can save Christiantiy from falsification because taking the text literally is demonstrably not in line with reality.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Ernst Mayr, in One Long Argument (A Harvard Press book) states that Darwinism contains those beliefs.

They aren't beliefs and they aren't individual theories, and I think that's what he's saying--not that they aren't part of the theory of evolution.

You should read up if you're going to argue about this.

This is ironic coming from someone who admits to knowing very little about biology and geology.

 

[Gracchus]

Jesus prayed alot. I'm not sure if you know what you're saying.

But an omniscient God knows our hearts. He knows our needs and wants. He knows whether we love, and whether we trust. Why then, should we pray? Is God so small as to need our reassurances?

If Jesus prayed, what of it? I am not saying, "Don't pray." I am saying it is unecessary.

 

[Arikay]

Um, just to point out most of these Are part of the theory of evolution.
Darwinism is a very old term and rarely used anymore, by using it the writter is basically starting to build his own strawman.

Sorry that you have such weak faith in the bible, however, anti christians love it when you say things like that.

Is your god a lier? As currently you have made him out to be one, because if evolution is not true, then your god has planted quite a bit of evidence to trick us.

Darwinism contains the theories of 1. Evolution 2. Common Descent 3. Multiplication of species 4. Gradualism 5. Natural Selection.

The only one of those 4 that doesn't conflict with the Bible is natural selection, which says that species do change through adaptation and survival of the fittest. All the others assume that life came from a single celled organism.



That is an interpretation, which I have already discussed.

And as I said, if Darwinism exists, the Bible is false and everything about the Christian God is doubtful. You only need to prove the Bible to be wrong once in order to question the entire thing.

 

[jay_swift]

But an omniscient God knows our hearts. He knows our needs and wants. He knows whether we love, and whether we trust. Why then, should we pray? Is God so small as to need our reassurances?

Read the beginning of Romans and you will see how Paul is talking to people who feel the same way you do.

This is ironic coming from someone who admits to knowing very little about biology and geology.

I have done my homework on evolution.

As currently you have made him out to be one, because if evolution is not true, then your god has planted quite a bit of evidence to trick us.

God planted evidence? Humans are the ones thinking up these crazy ideas. You must think God has his hand in everything. If that were true we could blame God for everything bad that happens!

 

[Arikay]

How much of the things you say arent true have you really researched?

Do you really think that people are just making up stuff about geology and evolution?
Its all based on evidence, evidence found in gods creation. So, either the evidence was planted there or it is true.

If it was planted there, then either the devil is more powerfull than anyone has thought, or god planted it.

If its true, then its true.


Currently you are claiming that even though the evidence points towards an old earth and evolution, that its false, and thus the most likely cause is that god planted it there to lie to us and trick us.

Again, how much have you actually studied?
I mean studied from real science books and not creationist literature?

Read the beginning of Romans and you will see how Paul is talking to people who feel the same way you do.



I have done my homework on evolution.



God planted evidence? Humans are the ones thinking up these crazy ideas. You must think God has his hand in everything. If that were true we could blame God for everything bad that happens!

 

[Gracchus]

Read the beginning of Romans and you will see how Paul is talking to people who feel the same way you do.

I hope you will forgive me for pointing out that Paulus did not know Jesus, quarreled with the apostles who did know him and broke with the church in Jerusalem, which was led by James, the brother of Jesus.

I do not recognize Paulus's authority. And I wonder why you cite him instead of Jesus.

I note that you do not give any logical reason why prayer is necessary.

God planted evidence? Humans are the ones thinking up these crazy ideas. You must think God has his hand in everything.

So you're saying He doesn't have His hand in everything? Then maybe He stood aside and let evolution happen.

If that were true we could blame God for everything bad that happens!

I remember a story of two rabbis: The first one said, "I told God, that if He would forgive me, I would forgive Him." The second replied, "You let Him off too easy, you should have demanded that He forgive everybody."

KJV John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

"Anything" would include guinea worms, Yersinia pestis, cancer, etc. If all were good, we would not know good from evil. Thus, this discrimination is the beginning of spiritual education.

KJV Genesis 3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: …

Please note that I am neither Christian nor Jew, so I do not regard your holy book as inerrant. But I do and will mine it for the nuggets of truth that may be found amongst mountains of dross. The road to knowledge of the Lord is not well trodden, but it is direct, well-marked, (although many have posted misdirection's) and requires neither intermediaries, nor inerrant scripture, nor long study.

One more time: KJV Micah 6:8

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Or, to put it another way: Matthew 7:12

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

That is all of it. The rest is just commentary, for which you must drop your dime on the collection plate.

 

[Michali]

Christianity is far beyond the Bible. Its not like the Bible is one of the God head. Imagine, if God were real and the Bible was divine, it would be so much more than what it is. For, nothing could possibly compare to an assembled text of the sayings of God. Heck, if it were divine, we'd have to recite it as a requirement to get to heaven. But, as it turns out, we don't even have to have read a single word of it. One reason is that the Jews knew that it was written by people. People that they knew. Now, if Islam is true, then I understand the embracement they place on scripture. But Christianity doesn't have that. Why? Because writing is not divine.

Rather, take only the proof of Jesus. God's manifestation and finisher of our faith. Hear the accounts, and read the gospels. It is the only proof we Christians have. And to say he never existed, is to me, a ridiculus comment. He performed miracles, and many, many people saw them. No one could have made up the story.