So you would say that if the Pope accepts evolution then the Pope is not Christian? Is that what you are saying?
And for that matter was St. Augustine not a Christian?
-
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!
Ex-Christian here.
- Thread starter Ethos88
- Start date
And for that matter was St. Augustine not a Christian?
Ethos88
Member
fantôme profane;1998749 said:
What I'm saying is, if you believe in the bible which is the word of GOD, then you obviously cannot believe in the concepts of evolution
. My point is that there are several people that claim to be Christian by simply picking and choosing passages from the bible, yet the accept theories like evolution. In my opinion if you are going to half *** it, you might as well go all the way.
Why not? That's how it was canonized.
Ever hear of the Book of Enoch? The Book of Jubilees? Maccabees? Shepherd of Hermas? Apocalypse of Peter?
Last edited:
What I'm saying is, if you believe in the bible which is the word of GOD, then you obviously cannot believe in the concepts of evolution
Why not? The Torah doesn't claim to be literal history.
Besides, being a Christian simply means following Jesus Christ. There are actually several Christian groups that reject the Tanakh.
Last edited:
Thesavorofpan
Is not going to save you.
And she wouldn't have decided to make these better decisions if she didn't meet Christ.
Ethos88
Member
And she wouldn't have decided to make these better decisions if she didn't meet Christ.
You can make major life adjustments in your life without meeting "christ"
I graduated High school at the back of my class, was at a dead end job and was headed nowhere. I decided to start working hard and to go to college and ended up at Texas A&M which is ranked in the top 100 colleges in America. I'm about to graduate with a degree in civil engineering, and work for a great company. All this without the help of God, but with the help of self motivation.
Thesavorofpan
Is not going to save you.
Good for you mate! I'm glad God opened open a path in your life to those self motivations class's or books etc. I'm glad your not a bum, but your actually doing something with your life.
Ethos88
Member
LyricalDutchess
Chi-Alpha Daughter
Not really. The thing that had me so low had nothing to do with a decision i made, or anything i did. But when God made Himself known to me, showed me His love, that is when i decided to take my tragedy and allow God to mold it and shape it for my good, my betterment.
tarasan
Well-Known Member
What I'm saying is, if you believe in the bible which is the word of GOD, then you obviously cannot believe in the concepts of evolution
erm, there is alot of evidence to support that genesis doesnt have to be taken seriously so much so that somone from 1600 years ago says we shouldnt need to take gensis seriously...
, and a church father!ok are you im gonna go ahead and make a small challenege...... were you a christian and did you study ANY christian doctrine when you where a christian or did you merely decide to make the swap, cause you seem to know nothing about what makes our faith... our faith.
just because youre trying to make a divide in science and religion doesnt mean there is one and stating what we have to DO to be chrsitians when there is 2000 years of history that prove you wrong is illogical and stupid.....
tarasan
Well-Known Member
ohhhhhh my word.......
your using that stupid agruement of the speggitti monster?
any apologise I know laughs at that one, cause every sinlg elogical fallacy it has, does affect our God in any way, heck it doesnt effect any of the five major religions.
its teh reason we dont relay on college kids to make sounds arguements..
:biglaugh: The ignorance here is truly laughable. You really need to get out more. May I ask you age?
I would disagree here. The term Four Corners of the Earth, which is a term based on the concept of a flat earth appears no less than 5 times in the Bible. In Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1, Job 38:13, Jeremiah 16:19, and Daniel 4:11. In Matthew 4:8 the Devil takes Jesus to a high mountain to show him "all the kingdoms of the world in their glory" something that could only happen if the world was flat. Similarly the concept of a geocentric universe is laid out in the bible as well in Psalm 93:1, 96:10 104:5; Eccl 1:5; 1 Chronicles 16:30; and Isaiah 14:18. Job 9:6, 38:4 claim the earth sits on pillars. Job 11:9, 28:24, 37:3, 38:13 claim the earth has edges.
The age of the earth as proposed to be about 6,000 years old is simply based on adding up the ages given in the bible as literally as possible as much of the bible is just a long drawn out genealogy. This leads to the claim that the earth was created sometime in the evening on October 22, 4004 BCE.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Why do you try to compare God and a spaghetti monster? There is no comparison.
Both of these arguments are based on literalism, which is not necessary. The Bible is poetry, primarily.
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
Welcome.
I, too, am glad that you are distancing yourself from fundamentalist drivel, but I would point out that not all religions or religious people take such a literal stance toward their religious teachings, nor do all religious people look to religion for factual truth, which is better suited to history or science.
For instance, two theologians I know of who are popular among Unitarian Universalists who identify as Christian (as well as other liberal Christians) are Bishop John Shelby Spong and the theologian, Marcus Borg. Karen Armstrong also has much in common with them. Your criticisms cannot apply to their theology or religion, which do not make fundamentalist claims. Fundamentalist Christianity is, indeed, a modern variation on Christianity.
Also, not all God-concepts can be said to "exist," nor are they supposed to. The sense of the divine I relate to is an internal experience, much like a taste or a smell, not a being.
And while you all religion as being inferior to science, it is again important to point out that not all religious people look to their religions to make truth claims or discover facts. Much of religion is metaphorical, and not only in fringe religion, but in the major world traditions, as well. Mythology is not supposed to be literal. It is the voice of an ancient people, and their story.
Again, welcome to the forums. : )
I, too, am glad that you are distancing yourself from fundamentalist drivel, but I would point out that not all religions or religious people take such a literal stance toward their religious teachings, nor do all religious people look to religion for factual truth, which is better suited to history or science.
For instance, two theologians I know of who are popular among Unitarian Universalists who identify as Christian (as well as other liberal Christians) are Bishop John Shelby Spong and the theologian, Marcus Borg. Karen Armstrong also has much in common with them. Your criticisms cannot apply to their theology or religion, which do not make fundamentalist claims. Fundamentalist Christianity is, indeed, a modern variation on Christianity.
Also, not all God-concepts can be said to "exist," nor are they supposed to. The sense of the divine I relate to is an internal experience, much like a taste or a smell, not a being.
And while you all religion as being inferior to science, it is again important to point out that not all religious people look to their religions to make truth claims or discover facts. Much of religion is metaphorical, and not only in fringe religion, but in the major world traditions, as well. Mythology is not supposed to be literal. It is the voice of an ancient people, and their story.
Again, welcome to the forums. : )
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
Going back through the forums I found this quote:
You are really showing an ignorance of the history of these ancient writings. The Torah came down to us from oral traditions, some of which were conflicting. For instance, there are two creation accounts in Genesis because there were two main myths, so they were both included. These myths were not understood to be literal or including them together side by side would have been self-defeating. Furthermore, much of scripture, including the Genesis myths, have been understood as allegorical since ancient times.
You are imposing fundamentalist Christian beliefs -- which is a MODERN variant of Christianity -- on the entire religion in a very simplistic way. Many of the stories of the Bible -- and stories of other cultures as well -- were intended by their authors as metaphors, and there are plenty of arguments and research offered to back those points up. Again, you might check out the authors I mentioned in the previous post.
You should not be a Christian if it does not make sense to you. But you should not be ignorant of the religion as a whole, either. Your criticisms only apply to modern fundamentalist Christianity.
What I'm saying is, if you believe in the bible which is the word of GOD, then you obviously cannot believe in the concepts of evolution
You are really showing an ignorance of the history of these ancient writings. The Torah came down to us from oral traditions, some of which were conflicting. For instance, there are two creation accounts in Genesis because there were two main myths, so they were both included. These myths were not understood to be literal or including them together side by side would have been self-defeating. Furthermore, much of scripture, including the Genesis myths, have been understood as allegorical since ancient times.
You are imposing fundamentalist Christian beliefs -- which is a MODERN variant of Christianity -- on the entire religion in a very simplistic way. Many of the stories of the Bible -- and stories of other cultures as well -- were intended by their authors as metaphors, and there are plenty of arguments and research offered to back those points up. Again, you might check out the authors I mentioned in the previous post.
You should not be a Christian if it does not make sense to you. But you should not be ignorant of the religion as a whole, either. Your criticisms only apply to modern fundamentalist Christianity.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
I disagree. Both ideas have equal amounts of supporting evidence. Both are omnipotent. Both are omniscient. Both are completely invisible and untraceable. I defy you to tell the difference!
I disagree. Both ideas have equal amounts of supporting evidence. Both are omnipotent. Both are omniscient. Both are completely invisible and untraceable. I defy you to tell the difference!
Let's see... one is relatively undefined, has several ideas and concepts, many of which can contradict, and some of which can be directly experienced and touched.
Whereas the other was designed from the beginning to be a parody not to be taken seriously in any way.