End of the Universe Part Two

Observe:

Opinnion regarding the rationale of most "Believers":

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil Moo

IMO, I breaks down to this: if you ask someone whom consider themselves a God fearing/believing individual to choose between the Bible and science, they will choose the Bible no matter what they truely think. This is for a number of reasons.

Some Christians try to make evolution co-inside with their faith, but more and more simply choose not to go the difficult route of actually objectively justifying their beliefs or running the risk of exposing themselves to contrary evidence. It's alot easier just to curl into the fetal position and chant "jesus loves me".

---

Religous person goes the tough route and tries to justify religion with science (coinsides with opinnion:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moira

Just to pick up on a point made in another lengthy thread, scroll down to no 2 here, Horizons, which gives pause for thought. As the article points out, the visible universe is 28 million light years apart, yet has only been in existence for 14 million light years and heat couldn't have travelled at a faster speed than the speed of light to create the equilibrium we now have between the hot and cold spots created by any "big bang".

Surely this makes a case for a creator?

---

Summation of a long list of scientifc disprovals of religous person's theory:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Negative

The "reaction to [you] in this thread" is mainly due because of your trying to apply scientific concepts of which you have little to no knowledge (it's very obvious that you do not even understand the basic fundamental principles of evolution; the million/billion "typo" is another great example), rather than a reaction to your belief system.

---

Religous person fails to justify religons pretense objectively and becomes mildly beligerant. Goes on the immediate defensive while reverting to core faith regardless of evidence:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moira

Rubbish! I think the opposite - it's becoming harder and harder to admit to being a christian or have belief and faith. Just look at the reaction to me in this thread. It takes a brave person to actually come out and say, "yes, I believe in the bible, the trinity and in God". Much more socially inclusive to go down the evolution route.

---

Evil Moo's opinnion supported in real time.

I was going to give my several reasons for having this opinnion, but I realize that I didn't need to go into them after all.

Moira:

The same is true if an athiestic person where in a chapel. AO consists of highly technical and scientifically minded people. Picking battles is important, but so is choosing your battleground.

SO if you accept the testimants as symbolic why are they at odds with big bang or eveolution? OR do *YOU* get to pick and choose which parts are literal and which are symbolic...the few PHD's in thology I have talked with tend ot agree that the old testimaet(espicaly genisis) is leftovers form the polythistic period of the isrialites.

bballad, like yourself, I do not see that there is a fundamental contradiction between Christianity and evolution. We know that evolution happens..........we have evidence. That does not mean that the overall mechanism wasn't created? OK it doesn't mean that it was, either :)

As for the literature................. a lot of the Old Testament is pure historical accounts with little or no religion?............those parts I would consider to be "literal" in so far as history books can be (they tie in with accounts from other cultures). I would argue that the Old Testament is monotheastic rather than polytheastic, right from the book of Genesis.

Yes, you do have to choose what you believe............it isn't a "one stop shop", nor is it mandatory for what I would consider to be "mainstream Christians"

Nihil is correct. Evolution doesn't disprove God, it only shows that the Bible's authors were fallible. Based soley on the bias that we see in many history books, the Bible's authors were probably just as biased (imo).
If I were to use the Bible in any capacity, I would use it as a reference to the culture/beliefs of the time period. Just remember that if you use the Bible to support your beliefs, be prepared for those of a different mindset to use it against your beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil Moo

Picking battles is important, but so is choosing your battleground.

---

Heh, who wanted a battle? The idea was just to stimulate a discussion, I'm not looking for a war :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moira

Heh, who wanted a battle? The idea was just to stimulate a discussion, I'm not looking for a war :)

---

That statement would be true if you had stuck to your original statement and didn't change the nature of the thread into a defense of Christianity when offered evidence refuting that claim.

I agree with everything this guy has to say on the matter. Other than I don't think you have to make a choice that Jesus either is really the savior or a hack.

If you can use the don't take it so literal stance on the old testament I think you can easily do the same thing with the new testament.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/col...ary/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mohaughn

I agree with everything this guy has to say on the matter. Other than I don't think you have to make a choice that Jesus either is really the savior or a hack.

---

Errrrr, you do if you want to be a Christian ;)

Quote:

---

If you can use the don't take it so literal stance on the Old Testament I think you can easily do the same thing with the New Testament.

---

Not really............the Old Testament covers several thousand years............the New Testament covers 33 years, and contains no history lessons.

In the case of the New Testament it is more a case of interpretation and application to modern social scenarios.................. as we know "Jesus spoke in parables" :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil Moo

That statement would be true if you had stuck to your original statement and didn't change the nature of the thread into a defense of Christianity when offered evidence refuting that claim.

---

Did I hell do that!! I merely responded when attacked for my beliefs :fpissed: I'm not complaining - I set myself up for it I agree, by starting the thread in the first place, but please don't say the fact it turned into a heated discussion was ALL my fault :mad:

Moira,

"Credo in unum Deum, sanctificatur nomen Tuam, adveniat regnum Tuam.........................."

I didn't respond to Mohaughn completely..................

Quote:

---

That jesus is really the Saviour or a hack

---

I understood (I think) what you were saying, but would phrase it very differently. I think that if you believe in the existence of Jesus, then the questions should be:

1. Was he the Son of God?
2. Was he a prophet of God?
3. Was he a fake?

Well, let's look at it?

1. The Christians believe in #1 and #2.
2. The Christians, Moslems and the majority of Jews believe in #2
3. Others would say "yes" to #3 (remember I have excluded those who don't believe that he even existed)

I realise that there are those who would take an agnostic stance as to the existence of Jesus, but I don't see any point in complicating things?

Incidentally, believing in a God or Gods is a far different thing from Christianity ;) Creationism is not the sole prerogative of Christians, Moslems and Jews either..............as a concept it predates all those religions.

Have a happy Easter folks :)