Adam, The Dinousaurs. The Creation..How do you BELIEVERS reconcile the EvolutionFolk?

[Elvis]

everyone in this thread may not be who they appear to be.

everything you know is wrong.

lol.

 

[diamond]

For the kind ppl that PMed me..I thank you.:idea:
For those that despise me..Godspeed to you:idea:

DB9 :idea:

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Bubba:
I think we agree on the fact that the Bible is full of metaphors. (That's good!). The original question I believe had something to do with how we rationalize the difference between what evolution/science tells us and what the Bible tells us. As a Christian, a person is professing a belief in the Bible. That it is God's word, right? My objection to the entire debate over time and the origin of our species lies in the fact that nobody with any sense should trust the authors of the Bible. Those men were human, just as you and I....even just like some unsavory characters like Osama Bin Laden, George W. Bush, Orpah, you name it (LOL)....Okay let's not get off the point. What I dislike about the bible or the Koran or any piece of faith-based literature is that it was written by a species that will alter history, distort reality, and flat out lie in order to exert power and influence over other people.

I don't know the truth. But I have learned the nature of human beings and I'm not going to have blind faith in a book that was written by "men" over 2000 years ago. It may contain facts, but I'm in no place to begin choosing what's real and what's made up.

That's my objection.

I'd also like to add that I don't question the power of God to have an impact or influence on humans. I believe that honest, charitable people can speak to God. I really do. I don't, however, intend to do whatever they tell me just because they "spoke to God the other night".

Here's a question from Bubba and everyone else: If someone came before you tomorrow and said they spoke to God the other night and were told to kill 15 dogs, 17 cats, and all the birds in the neighborhood, would you laugh at him, call the police, or help him with his "assignment"?
You know where I'm going, so I won't explain the point of the question. Humans wrote the bible. That's a fact. The Catholic Church as well as other houses of worship have altered and censored portions of the original scripture because it didn't fit in with their agenda. That's a fact. With this fact in particular, I find it hard to believe in it's entirity. Believing in a God, sure, but the Bible is another question.

Dano,

It's getting late, so I will desparately try to be brief.

First - and speedracer absolutely NAILED this point - certainly, people can twist the truth for their own gain, but that can't be said for the earliest Christians. These people faced at least persecution, and at worst DEATH for their beliefs. On this world, at least, there was NO benefit for casting your lot with Jesus of Nazareth.


Second, we are NOT to trust the Bible or any religious document blindly. Call it conscience, human reason, intuition, God, or the Holy Spirit (the Third Person of God), but we ALL have an innate sense of whats true - and we're supposed to test ANY supposed book of God against that innate sense. Basically, if the Bible does not ring true to you, you should reject it.

On the flip side, the Bible rings of divine truth to me.

(And before you say it doesn't ring true to you, ask yourself if you've read it throughly and with an open mind.)


Third, we have old enough documents to know that the Bible as it now stands was NOT drastically altered by the church. There's a reason that some books were not included, certainly; those books struck the church as not fitting with canon. But that is a far thing from editing the books to fit an agenda.


Fourth, your hypothetical question is - compared to Christianity - severely flawed.

In your example, a man walks up to us and says God spoke to him. Certainly, many religious texts are like that; the author claims to have had a divine vision and is reporting that vision. Not to name names, but the Koran comes immediately to mind. Even the Bible has certain books that are like that - the Revelation being the most obvious example.

BUT the absolutely necessary books of the Bible - the CORE of the faith: the Gospels and the Epistles, the "biographies" of Christ and the letters to the early church - are NOT proclamations of a divine vision. They are, first and foremost, a testimony of a HISTORICAL EVENT: namely, the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

Consider Paul's first letter to the church of Corinth (1 Corinthians 15:3-9, Today's English Version):

I passed on to you what I received, which is of the greatest importance: that Christ died for our sins, as written in the Scriptures; that he was buried and that he was raised to life three days later, as written in the Scriptures; that he appeared to Peter and then to all twelve apostles. Then he appeared to more than five hundred of his followers at once, most of whom are still alive, although some have died. Then he appeared to James, and afterward to all the apostles. Last of all he appeared also to me?even though I am like someone whose birth was abnormal. For I am the least of all the apostles?I do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted God's church.

This is a list of people who claimed to see the risen Christ - MOST of whom were still alive. I hate to paraphrase Paul (and to do so with such irreverance), but he might as well have said this:

"Jesus died and rose from the grave. I saw him up and about, Peter, James, the other apostles, and some 500 other people saw him. MOST of these witnesses are still alive. If you doubt me, ASK THEM."

That's a BIT more substantial then Paul claiming that he alone saw some divine vision commanding him to kill puppies.

 

[Elvis]

I've often wondered what a mistranslation of the old testament would lead to...

oh that's right... the new testament.


Some people here, while they claim knowledge on specific things... they LACK knowledge on the basis of the knowledge they claim.. there is much mininsformation going around... and it has been for thousands of years.

Educate yourself in many cultures, philosophies, and religions... until you do so.. your views/education is extremely limited and biased.

 

[deep]

I ve read countless books. I have a library full of books:idea:



Peace
Out
DB9

 

[diamond]

LMAOROTF...
H
O
O

H
A
H

DB9

 

[Stories for Boys]

arun....you've been talking so much about what you don't believe....i want to know what you do believe....i mean, personally, i'm just not sure what to believe right now....and i honestly don't think it's one of those life and death things....

but inquiring minds want to know......

 

[Achtung Bubba]

I've often wondered what a mistranslation of the old testament would lead to...

oh that's right... the new testament.


Some people here, while they claim knowledge on specific things... they LACK knowledge on the basis of the knowledge they claim.. there is much mininsformation going around... and it has been for thousands of years.

Care to elucidate?

Bubba

 

[rafmed]

First I have to say that I respect the freedom of everyone to believe in teh religion they chose, and that this most be respected from any point of view.

Now going to some of what I have read here, its pretty obvious that even for those that claim that the scriptures were passed from God to HUMANS, is clear that HUMANS are the ones that has been responsible to chose what they want to believe of this, or translate it or what they chose should be in the bible and what not, the reasons can be diferent, but those were HUMAN apreciations and HUMAN decitions, HUMANS created churchs, I'm sorry for my lack of confidence, but who can tell us all this people that had to make this choices are all blessed with wisdom from God, in that case, from all the variations that now exist of the cult to God and Jesus, just to focus on these religions, not all can be right, since at many moments many have chosen to split, and create their own interpretacions, now is this what God wants? to divide instead of unite?


In another part Bubba ask someone to read the bible with an open mind, how can one be sure one is reading it with an open mind, can you be sure you did it? Is not posible that you read it with a biased mind to believe what you want to believe? who gave you the unmistakeble certain that u had an open mind? God blessed u with that? I'm not stating that u are wrong in your beliefs, but to disqualify someone, is so easy.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

First I have to say that I respect the freedom of everyone to believe in teh religion they chose, and that this most be respected from any point of view.

Now going to some of what I have read here, its pretty obvious that even for those that claim that the scriptures were passed from God to HUMANS, is clear that HUMANS are the ones that has been responsible to chose what they want to believe of this, or translate it or what they chose should be in the bible and what not, the reasons can be diferent, but those were HUMAN apreciations and HUMAN decitions, HUMANS created churchs, I'm sorry for my lack of confidence, but who can tell us all this people that had to make this choices are all blessed with wisdom from God, in that case, from all the variations that now exist of the cult to God and Jesus, just to focus on these religions, not all can be right, since at many moments many have chosen to split, and create their own interpretacions, now is this what God wants? to divide instead of unite?

Well, I doubt God is terribly pleased with the vast number of different denominations, but there are few good alternatives. God did not reveal everything in absolute clarity; he left room for different interpretations, so there are going to be different schools of belief. If we forced unity AGAINST those differences, it would result in one school of belief oppressing the others.

I suspect that, at the end of time, the Truth in all its glory will be revealed, and there will be one school of thought - God's school. At that point, there will be one denomination; the church will be redeemed and restored.

Until then, there are different denominations for people with deeply held but genuinely different beliefs.

In another part Bubba ask someone to read the bible with an open mind, how can one be sure one is reading it with an open mind, can you be sure you did it? Is not posible that you read it with a biased mind to believe what you want to believe? who gave you the unmistakeble certain that u had an open mind? God blessed u with that? I'm not stating that u are wrong in your beliefs, but to disqualify someone, is so easy.

I didn't ask someone to read the Bible with an open mind; I asked Dano to ask himself whether or not he's done the same. There is a difference, in that I did NOT assume what he did.

There's a reason why I brought it up: some who criticize Christianity do so with no firsthand knowledge of what we believe. They criticize on the basis of hearsay, and that's not fair to my faith.

Then there are those who give the Bible a cursory once-through and reject it for seeming contradictions - such as the two different lineages of Christ in two different Gospels. They never research the possible/probable explanations (such as the possibility that one geneology is for Mary, the other for Joseph), and they unfairly reject what they read.

Then there are those who bring in such hardened biases that they never consider the possibility that the Bible is historically true in any case. Some believe that God does not exist, so they think miracles are impossible, so they reject as impossible Scripture that mentions miracles. That too is an unfair reading.

...and those are the types of scenarios I would like to see avoided. If they are, if a skeptic DOES read Scripture with a genuinely open mind and still rejects it, then it seems that the skeptic at least gave it a shot.

Either way, I didn't reject the possibility that Dano is an open-minded skeptic.

But while we're on the topic, I don't think I - as you put it - "read it with a biased mind to believe what (I) want to believe."

The simple reason is this: the more I read the Bible and the more I study it, the LESS I like what it says. "Love thy enemies" simply repulses me as a philosophy. But I am convinced from external sources that this repulsive philosophy is the TRUTH.

First, research into the history of the New Testament convinces me that the core beliefs about Christ arose far too quickly to be mere legend and arose in a time where such beliefs could not have been motivated by personal gain.

But beyond that, there is an internal nudge - coming, I believe, from God Himself - TELLING me to believe the conclusions I'm coming to.

I don't believe Scripture because it is convenient to do so; it is decidely inconvenient, but I still believe because I believe it to be true.

 

[diamond]

Im sticking w The Ply-Doh Doctrine.
Thank you
DB9

 

[KingPin]

Im sticking w The Ply-Doh Doctrine.
Thank you
DB9

The playdoh doctrine is totally and completely unfounded and flawed. It's got no basis in Science. It's got no basis in Scripture or Religion.

Just because God doesn't mention Dinosaurs doesn't mean they weren't on earth, and that he put bones here just to screw with us. That would serve no purpose.

I'm sorry, but your Play Doh doctrine may make you happy, but it doesn't hold up to any amount of scrutiny. If you want to maintain the respect of your peers, (the ones with any intelligence or reason) keep the Play Doh doctrine to yourself.

That sounded really harsh. I don't think I intended it to be.

 

[V Nura]

the ppl who do not like this theory are the kids who liked legoes as kids



the play doh children understand this

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I liked both Legos and Play-doh as a kid. Where does that put me?

 

[diamond]

Thats ok.
LegosScmegos.
I got my answers.
Works for me and some of them..

hoo
hah
DB9

 

[Mrs. Edge]

Speaking of evolution.....this is quite topical! From today's Toronto Star:

Skull deepens evolution riddle

It's been pushed back another million years by Chad discovery

OTTAWA ? The startling discovery of a fossil skull of man's earliest known ancestor in a central African desert has pushed the start of human evolution back at least another million years, according to a report published today.

The skull, about the size of a chimp's, is dated between 6 million and 7 million years old. It shows that the earliest human ancestors ranged far beyond the Great Rift Valley in Kenya in East Africa, where most early-human fossil discoveries have been made.

Experts say it provides convincing evidence that man's evolution from the apes is much more complicated than once thought.

"Missing links simply don't exist. They're fool's gold and we should stop talking about them," said Daniel Lieberman, a Harvard University anthropologist.

Lieberman, one of a handful of experts who have had a chance to examine the fossilized cranium, was referring to a 19th century theory, pegged to Charles Darwin, that there was a hypothetical creature, or "missing link," between modern humans and their anthropoid ancestors.

Instead, the latest discovery reinforces the view of fossil-hunters like Meave Leakey, that human evolution is more like a series of false starts, with dead ends and detours. That means some of the much-publicized hominid fossil finds of the past decade could be no more than branch lines.

"The difficulty is that things evolved more than once and some don't lead back to the supposed ancestor at all," said Bernard Wood, a paleoanthropologist from George Washington University who wrote a commentary for the journal Nature.

The fossil hunters displayed their discovery yesterday in N'Djamena, the capital of Chad.

The team of French and Chadian paleontologists nicknamed the skull Toumai, or "hope of life" in the local Goran language.

The skull, plus two pieces of lower jaw and three teeth, were all uncovered a year ago in a desert in Chad, half a continent away from the previous finds in East Africa.

Experts agree that the skull is a major discovery predating all other fossil evidence of hominids, the term used to describe members of the human family after the apes and chimps separated from some common ancestor.

The next-oldest hominid skull is at least 3 million years more recent than Toumai and the oldest hominid bones until now were dated at 6 million years.

Fossil hunter Tim White predicted the find would spark a flood of information as scientists sought out new African fossil sites for the period between 5 million to 7 million years ago, a Dark Age for paleontologists.

"We're in a position to really write the earliest chapter of hominid history. Toumai won't do it alone, but it's a herald of what's to come," said White, a University of California paleontologist who works closely with the French-Chad team.

The flat-faced skull with thick eyebrows was found in a remote region of desert dunes bordering the Sahara desert, a locale considered unpromising compared to the better-known fossil troves of Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania along Africa's Rift Valley.

Yet Michel Brunet of the University of Poitiers, who has spent more than two decades hunting pre-human fossils west of the Rift Valley, finally found rich fossil layers in the Chadian desert in the mid-1990s.

Since then his 40-member team has uncovered thousands of fossils from prehistoric mammals, including antelopes, three-toed horses and crocodiles.

An undergraduate Chadian student found the skull.

The mammal fossils indicate Toumai lived in a region rich in wildlife and grassland but also including desert and large lakes.

It's unclear whether the hominid regularly walked upright, since no leg bones have been found. The scientists say Toumai was "probably male." "The position of where the spine enters his head doesn't prove that he is bipedal but it shows he could be," said Brunet in an interview relayed by Nature from Chad.

The key evidence of Toumai's hominid status is a canine, or eye, tooth that is much smaller than canine teeth in modern apes or chimps and worn away in the same fashion as human eye teeth.

Toumai is different enough from other pre-humans that it has been classed in its own scientific genus, named Sahelanthropus after the Sahel region. The species name is tchadensis, based on the French spelling for Chad.

"We keep thinking that the farther we go back, the complexity is going to fall away and we're going to be left with just one creature that is the origin of the human species," said Wood. "This discovery shows matters were no less complex 7 million years ago."

 

[diamond]

Speaking of evolution.....this is quite topical! From today's Toronto Star:

Skull deepens evolution riddle

It's been pushed back another million years by Chad discovery

Experts say it provides convincing evidence that man's evolution from the apes is much more complicated than once thought.

"Missing links simply don't exist. They're fool's gold and we should stop talking about them," said Daniel Lieberman, a Harvard University anthropologist.

Lieberman, one of a handful of experts who have had a chance to examine the fossilized cranium, was referring to a 19th century theory, pegged to Charles Darwin, that there was a hypothetical creature, or "missing link," between modern humans and their anthropoid ancestors.

Instead, the latest discovery reinforces the view of fossil-hunters like Meave Leakey, that human evolution is more like a series of false starts, with dead ends and detours. That means some of the much-publicized hominid fossil finds of the past decade could be no more than branch lines.

"The difficulty is that things evolved more than once and some don't lead back to the supposed ancestor at all," said Bernard Wood, a paleoanthropologist from George Washington University who wrote a commentary for the journal Nature.

The fossil hunters displayed their discovery yesterday in N'Djamena, the capital of Chad.

Experts agree that the skull is a major discovery predating all other fossil evidence of hominids, Valley.

Yet Michel Brunet of the University of Poitiers, who has spent more than two decades hunting pre-human fossils west of the Rift Valley, finally found rich fossil layers in the Chadian desert in the mid-1990s.

Since then his 40-member team has uncovered thousands of fossils from prehistoric mammals, including antelopes, three-toed horses and crocodiles.

An undergraduate Chadian student found the skull.



It's unclear whether the hominid regularly walked upright..

Mrs Edge-
My point exactly.
Finite man continues to play contact the dots, much to their aggravation and befuddlement.:idea:
Whats next they'll claim that perhaps Arun is the missing link?
Thank you for the insightful post..
Sincerely-
DB9

 

[V Nura]

now diamond


logically...


between you and me


which is more likely to be a neanderthal???

 

[rafmed]

now diamond


logically...


between you and me


which is more likely to be a neanderthal???

 

[drumkeeran]

Finally found time to read this entire thread. I'm impressed by everyone's (well, mostly everyone) well thought out support of his/her own beliefs.

Born and bred Catholic, not as strong in Bible related issues as I'd like, but I do read it everyday (NT anyway) to help me in my daily personal life. I believe in God, that He created us all, loves us and could not imagine that anything other than God created ALL. Because I am human and a creation of God with free will, I have a strong enough ego to make certain choices in my life. That said...

I truly love the PLAY DOH theory

Now I know why it drives me nuts when my kids play with either playdoh or legos...their trying their best to imitate God!!!

Oh, and another point (not that I've made any points here), God certainly has a sense of humor and I experienced it in the spiritual sense in Hamilton (with a special thank you to Arun!!!).

Very big HaHas!! Thank you Diamond!!

(This does not mean I don't respect everyone's right to individual beliefs...God's relationship with each and everyone of us is very personal and spiritual...as I've said before...religion is human...spirit is of God)

 

[drumkeeran]

now diamond


logically...


between you and me


which is more likely to be a neanderthal???

Would you guys stop trying to make life difficult with impossible choices!!!!!!!!

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I truly love the PLAY DOH theory

What on earth is that? I'm intrigued by just the name. Someone enlighten me, please.

 

[diamond]

Arun-
As fars as Neandrathals..
I theorize Raf has US both BEAT

For ALL YOU sending me Private Messages..thank you for you support.
Keep hope alive
DB9

 

[V Nura]

will all those ppl stop sending diamond pms??


your just encouraging this

 

[rafmed]

Arun-
As fars as Neandrathals..
I theorize Raf has US both BEAT

Too bad that the evolucion played a bad joke on you

 

[V Nura]

Darwin

Salk

Einstein

Diamond

 

[diamond]

Umm..
I choose..bachelor #3.


DB9

 

[adamswildhoney]

Ummmmm......okay! Nice

 

[V Nura]

Oh come on diamond...you picked einstein over jonas salk???


look at him...he's a dimonsexy for sure

Umm..
I choose..bachelor #3.


DB9

 

[Sicy]

diamond is a monkey