That entails that God created us corrupt directly.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Deniars of Evolution:
- Thread starter NewGuyOnTheBlock
- Start date
That entails that God created us corrupt directly.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I don't get that - we are not corrupt at all. Sure humans are imperfect, but that is not corruption, or evil. We don't need salvation, we just need to learn more.
outhouse
Atheistically
Check out the genesis 2 thread running in scripture section.
We gots us one of them in thar thread
I dont believe it myself, it is very similar to an original sin idea but not necessarily. You said it yourself, imperfect but dont forget that humans are capable of evil. What I believe is we do need saving from the pains of the world but from a Buddhist type perspective. We need saving but we need to do it ourselves, no invisible entities are gonna come save us. If there is a way to overcome suffering we need to do it. Christians simply choose to continue waiting for this "savior" to come finish the job, another 1000 years idk.
I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Sports does not "cause" tribalism. Sports appeals to tribalism. There's a big difference. We all as humans go through stages of development, of which tribalism is an early, and necessary phase. But we also grow beyond it as we grow into higher and more inclusive forms of socialization. But with any earlier stage of development, they are always a part of us, even though we have negated them as the dominant controlling factor in our lives.
So systems like competition sports appeal to that "tribal warrior" in people. It's an outlet to let that savage man beat his chest and scream for blood in a sanctioned institution where that behavior is acceptable, whereas it is not in a more civilized society, one which strive to live and function beyond it tribalistic roots.
Now to religion. As I said at the outset, people operating at the tribalistic stage, the warrior, will interpret and live out religion at the tribalistic stages, whereas as people at the traditional will not live it out that way, let alone those at the modern, postmodern, or post-postmodern stages. It's still religion all the way up, but each stage of development translates and integrates it according to the level they are at. If religion "causes" tribalism, then everyone participating within it would be agreeing with the terrorists. But they do not, and in fact wholly reject their interpretation of religion as foreign to them.
But sports on the other hand...
Actually though, you do have more sophisticated forms of competition sports which are far less the symbolic blood-letting forms such as American football.Tribalism is any arena is inherently violent towards anything outside its own sanctioned group.
That's what my point is. Getting rid of religion will do nothing to stop the root cause of the violence. Tribalism did not create religion. Tribalism interprets religion. Take away the religion, tribalism finds something else to rally their power structures around.
Last edited:
You could, and each time I could point out how each one is not caused by religion, as if its absence altogether would make things better.
All those dead people? Centuries of geo-political conflict. The problems with school systems teaching abstinence only sex-ed? Puritanical values influencing those in power, either by being puritanical themselves, or appealing to puritanical "customers". Keep in mind: puritanical values can exist without religion.
Besides, the US education system in general is, frankly, criminally irresponsible in terms of what and how it teaches, not for religious reasons, but because it's under the false impression that knowledge of facts is the measure of intelligence and capability, in addition to making sure children grow up to be US patriots by teaching false history that glorifies the US over all else.
Tell me what that line is, and I'll tell you how I could use it as a weapon of war.
It can be, and far too often does. But it won't necessarily.
It's tribalism that causes social circles, sub-cultures, and cliques to form; they can coexist nonviolently, and do.
Humans are inherently a tribal species; that part of our psychology is never going away. But it can be tempered and worked with, so that the tribal boundaries are not set in stone, but dynamic. It should not be based on political boundaries, geographical locations, or shared ancestral history, except in the cases of surviving hunter-gatherer groups. In addition, a specific concept should be quite clear: no tribe is inherently better than another, and the sins of the father die with the father.
My ancestral Enemy is Caesar and his legions, who nigh destroyed my peoples. But they're all dead, now. Modern Italians and people who live in Rome the city are not my Enemies. And neither are the Roman people who lived under Caesar. I will not be teaching my children this concept of ancestral enemies, to avoid any chance of them developing hatred for anyone alive today. 'Tis a fine and fragile line that must be carefully tread; already too many Pagans are anti-Christian from misunderstood history. Caesar may be my Enemy, but he's an Enemy I respect.
Last edited:
Corruption would have come as a matter of course due to evolution. Once we became intelligent enough to understand the ramifications, suffering also became more prevalent also because of memory and intelligence, just with our ability to recall and analyze what has happened and what ought have happened.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Because the science is wrong. It starts out right, change happens, from there it attaches philosophical and imaginative wings and takes flight into a fairy tale of something that cant even be supported by all scientists.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Example please?
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
The tree of life model shows dogs coming from non-dogs.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Sure, dogs share a common ancestry with all mammals - what is your issue with that?
Convicted fraudster Kent Hovind, a man who spent his career co plaining about his tax dollars being spent on evolution - and was caught not paying taxes invented that silliness about how nobody has seen a dog give birth to a non-dog. Of course that is not something that evolution would predict anyway.
Last edited:
What really blows the mind is how males are born to females!
Seriously though, can you show the scientific model that shows dogs coming from chickens? I bet you can't do it. If you can, I'll convert to your beliefs.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
This is what I have a problem with, evolution being whatever anyone wants it to be in order to win an argument.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
From the real science of adaptation, we get the tree of life from the wings of philosophical naturalism.
Is it not whatever someone wants it to be. It's pretty specific. Not any nonsense can just be taught. If it's whatever they want it to be, then science would be embracing Creationism.
No, actually it's the other way around.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
No dog ever gave birth to a non-dog. No non-dog ever gave birth to a dog.
Because evolution does not happen to individuals, it happens to species. Each generation being just a tiny bit different to the last - so at no point does one critter need to give birth to a critter of a different species.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
No, the tree of life is drawn largely from genetic evidence - it is hard science.