Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:29:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1190 times
|
| |
|
|
SRC wrote:
> > Fundamental question: What is it about the subjective ideals
> > held by the Bible (I.E. X is right because the Bible says so)
> > vs some other text?
>
> The Bible is the Word of God. [1] You can't seriously be telling
> me that you don't see the difference between the Bible and the
> words of Bob or Joe or me.
> [1] 2 Timothy 3:16
> All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
> correcting and training in righteousness,
This is one of the other basic problems I see with Christianity. The Bible was
written by MEN. Poorly written in many cases. No one can adequately explain to
me WHY God seemed to be so chatty with his people 2K years ago, then promptly
zipped his lips. I don't buy it.
Why trust what "simple" (read uneducated, at least as compared to Modern Man) men
wrote down 2K years ago as The Word Of God over what anyone says today? Why are
those men so much more believable than the people arguing against them today (or
even in the far past)?
> I don't know how common it is, but I certainly don't support the notion
> that "God created the world via evolution over millennia." It's a cop-out.
So He created fossil evidence (dinosaurs and plants millions of years previous,
all the way up to pre-historic man and the cave drawings), and radioactive decay
that can prove rocks that are BILLIONS of years old just for kicks? Or are you
saying the some of the Six Days were *24 hour DAYS*, but some were BILLIONS of
years, and the Seventh Day is just a short period previous to the written history
of the Bible? THAT'S rather a cop-out for avoiding MASSIVE inconsistencies.
> > The question becomes, though, at what point are you "forced" to
> > actually change your interpretation of the Bible? And at what point
> > is that interpretation changed sufficiently such that it is no longer what
> > it once was? And at what point is it no longer salvageable?
>
> In all our 6000 years, I've not seen an instance of such a change.
> There have been situations where us fallible humans have realized
> that we've miss-interpreted the Bible, but God's Word is infallible
> and will always remain so. [2]
6000 years? You need to read up on radioactive dating, friend. Radioactive decay
is pretty much DEAD accurate, and can give us PRETTY accurate dating over BILLIONS
of years.
> > Basically, is creationism necessary to the religion?
>
> Well if by "the religion" you mean what I believe - yes, the
> account of creation in Genesis is an integral part of it. Anyone
> who rejects part of God's Word wouldn't fit my definition of a
> Christian, but many people do so. I can only answer for me.
>
> > Is the EXACT story of Jesus necessary?
>
> The precise actual wording? Clearly not - every language will use
> different words, and the four gospels even give "different" accounts
> of Christ's life, death, and resurrection.
Yes, because they were written by MEN. Just like the rest of the Bible. Many
fiction writers of our century could have written a much more consistent and
believable Word.
> > Is it not more fundamental that one have faith, be good, and love others?
>
> The fundamental importance is the One you have faith IN.
I "have faith" in MYSELF. That seems to be of the greatest importance to me.
People that don't have faith in themselves are lacking. Faith in some Supreme
Being isn't necessary in my opinion.
> > > That's the theory for which I say there is no evidence,
> > > and it's the other main branch I referred to.
> >
> > Like I said, only bits of evidence to support the theory have been
> > found. Not enough to 'verify' it by any scientific method I know of.
>
> Yet "your cohorts" present a theory for which there is scant
> evidence as though it has been scientifically established as fact.
It's got more evidence than Creationism. You believe in it simply because a book
says so. I can show you LOTS of books that are flat out WRONG about reality, why
do you think the Bible is so infallible?
> > > When I present creation as evidence of the Creator in our
> > > hypothetical court and you? disallow it,
> >
> > I suppose it's not that I disallow such evidence, but that I disallow
> > such a conclusion. It does not make logical sense to me to assume that
> > a complex creation like our universe REQUIRES an intelligent creator.
>
> A complex creation doesn't require an intelligent creator? That's one of
> the things that truly baffles me about people who believe in Darwinism.
> If I told you that the <set:8002> sitting (assembled and functional) on
> my desk wasn't created by me out of parts created by TLC, (using
> instructions created by their staff) but rather that a truck carrying ABS
> pellets crashed into a UPS van with some rubber bands and other
> items outside my office and the firemen found it amongst the rubble,
> you would (rightly) call such a statement absurd. In the next breath
> however, "you" posit the same thing about the earth - something far
> more complex and intricate - and don't see why _I_ say absurd?!?
Considering what MEN can create these days in labs, why can't you even think about
the possibility of the Great Lab Earth creating life over BILLIONS of years of
pure chance chemical encounters?
> > By all means you may try and show why the theory of evolution
> > as it stands doesn't hold up under scientific analysis-- but I'll most
> > likely argue that your objections either say nothing concrete or are
> > subject to similar critique by the scientific method.
>
> Meaning that you are believing Darwinism based upon faith in the
> same way I believe Creationism - that there isn't much evidence
> for either of them. I would of course say that the evidence there
> is supports creation - You would (I expect) say the opposite.
Nobody has ever given me any concrete evidence of Creationism. There's far more
evidence of Evolution (not necessarily the Darwin version).
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) No - God always keeps his promises. According to your example, both Bob and Joe repented of their sins and accepted Christ as their Savior. (...) Interesting - It seems to ME every time I try and correct one of your false assumptions, you (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
