christianity and dinosaurs> can they be friends? (1 Viewer)

[ur_inner_child]

and the bible will always be around, it just depends on how we use it

exactly! they was we read it and interpret it. It IS a text, after all, and open to interpretation. The bible has lots of textual integrity in it

 

[Dougie]

exactly! they was we read it and interpret it. It IS a text, after all, and open to interpretation. The bible has lots of textual integrity in it

lol
sounds like english DID pay off

 

[waterfowl]

1. You didn't address why your religion is the correct view
2. You provide no authority for those somewhat dubious statistics

1. That wasn't my point.

2. It was a general statement, thats why I added the word "probably". I do have more important things to do than searching down statistics that you would most likely dismiss anyway.

 

[Comrade nathan]

yeah, there r some of us out there that believ that everything can somehow merge together and work. they don't have to be seperated

They are called hippies and they also believe that not washing tunes them to nature.

and the bible will always be around, it just depends on how we use it

Hopefull doorstops, coasters and heating full for poorer nations.

christians CAN believe in darwinism, not that it can used in the scientific process.

Yes they can, but before they wouldnt. They are getting more progressive but this has to lead some like what MS said. One day very little of the bible will be interpreted literally and will become no more then coffe table reading.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

1. That wasn't my point.

2. It was a general statement, thats why I added the word "probably". I do have more important things to do than searching down statistics that you would most likely dismiss anyway.

1 - that's right, it was MY point, which you have not addressed. There is a reason for that: because you can't. Whenever you ask any religious person, "what makes your religion the right view," they always seem to stumble around for answers, then end up avoiding the question.

2 - right... well I'm afraid your "general statement" can't really be relied upon in an argument when it's so controversial, random and unfounded. So I'd say my point about Christians not being able to break free remains unscathed for now.

 

[Comrade nathan]

exactly! they was we read it and interpret it. It IS a text, after all, and open to interpretation. The bible has lots of textual integrity in it

Hold on Gods word is open for interpretation now, isnt god omnisceint, omnipotent and omnipresent. How cna his word be open for interpretation Christains, Muslim and Jews are going to now start to debate their Gods word.

 

[ur_inner_child]

I'm not so sure. The elements have lasted...

"Do unto your brothers as I have done to you" - Christian/Catholic

"What you will do to others you will get back three times" - Wica

"What goes round comes around" - demonstration of karma and Buddhism as well as common saying.

(There's more...)

As well as any SANE atheist that knows that you should treat people with some respect.

I think it'll stay for a while.

 

[sub]

If it was so simple for you to say evolution is wrong then why has it not been disproved by the billions of scientists studying it?

excuse me...but i haven't seen it PROVED either...wer's the logic in that....billions studying it, yet it cannot be proved...i acknowldge the billions is an exaggeration becos its not possible. (only 6 billion alive)

evolution is one of those things that people dont want to give up on... in a largely non-religious (athiestic) world, anything that can be re-defined without the concept of "god" IS redefined. Darwin's theory is just that a THEORY. it is NOT the be all and end-all...

ur-Inner_child - u should NOT argue the validity of christianity on the basis of a theory, but rather on facts...so what if they wer the first to acknowledge darwinism... u haven't proved anything, except that should the theory be rong, u were the first to accept it as right when it was rong.

back to darwinism...if u look at the evolution of the horse (note i did this in year 9 science when darwinism was endorsed as part of the course) the evolution is not smooth...it DEevolves then evolves...which would be contradictory to what he suggests. darwinism is NOT a fact, and for those of u who still believe so explain the above phenomenon. i really do NOT see the point of arguing whether christianity can correlate to a theory... how does it affect whether it is right or not? how does one THEORY that hasnt been proven by, as sophie mentioned, "billions of scientists studying it" even relate to the authenticity of the bible? first allow for it to become a known fact, proven to perfection...then argue. all ur doing is badgering those christian to accept or mould christianity into accepting something that may not end up being true. argue what has been established... like the mountains holding the earth together, or the "invisible barrier" that separates salt water from fresh water at the junction of the two bodies of water, even though the water itself is not hindered... then u can prove the authenticity of the bible or other religions based on science.
NOTE: u shouldnt even ATTEMPT to prove ur religion with science...u should rather argue science (stuff that get discovered recently) and show that ur OWN Book or scriptures revealed the same thing only MANY MANY years ago...

 

[MoonlightSonata]

and the bible will always be around, it just depends on how we use it

exactly! they was we read it and interpret it. It IS a text, after all, and open to interpretation. The bible has lots of textual integrity in it

Well the proposition, "there is a God," is either TRUE or FALSE. Pick one.

i'd correct stalin if he posted on here and was still alive

then i'd be shot

I'm sure he needs correcting too hehe

 

[ur_inner_child]

Hold on Gods word is open for interpretation now, isnt god omnisceint, omnipotent and omnipresent. How cna his word be open for interpretation Christains, Muslim and Jews are going to now start to debate their Gods word.

If you THINK about it, all texts contain misinterpretation through language change, and the way in which a priest or religious figure reads and thus enforces his reading to the masses.

You can look at the word

"love"

And each of us will have a different intepretation, but intepretation also has a degree of limits.

Actually, Sunday Schools like to chat about their intepretation of God's Word, usually applying it to modern life.

 

[Dougie]

They are called hippies and they also believe that not washing tunes them to nature.



Hopefull doorstops, coasters and heating full for poorer nations.



Yes they can, but before they wouldnt. They are getting more progressive but this has to lead some like what MS said. One day very little of the bible will be interpreted literally and will become no more then coffe table reading.

HEY
i'm not putting down anyones point of view or religion, so screw u for criticising what I believe in. There are many of us who aren't literal interpreters of the Bible, we interpret everything in a modern context. I also reckon that EVERYONE has a right to believe what they want. So go to some spam thread if u want to blow off ppl's belief, but don't come on here unless u want to actually discuss!!!!! As for the bible, it will always be around, so many of the stories are as relevant now as they were ever!!

and anyway... what kind of future would use the Bible as coffee table reading... it's a little big?!

 

[ur_inner_child]

I believe there is a God. I don't see your point.

And I'm not a strict believer of the "traditional" (if there is such a thing), just read my previous posts please.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I can't believe this... after all this discussion no-one has actually given logical reasons for belief in God

(aside from the Bible, which is circular reasoning, so don't bring it up)

 

[ur_inner_child]

ur-Inner_child - u should NOT argue the validity of christianity on the basis of a theory, but rather on facts...so what if they wer the first to acknowledge darwinism... u haven't proved anything, except that should the theory be rong, u were the first to accept it as right when it was rong.
...

you missed my point. I'm saying it IS possible to merge the two.

 

[Dougie]

what we're tryin got say is there really isn't much proof.
it's all pple's word.
It's a BELIEF.
once u get over that fact, everything becomes a little more clear and open

 

[Dougie]

tell me, how can u prove a belief?

 

[ur_inner_child]

"I believe I will find my true love"

FACTS:
- Love is a construct in many ways, through the media, through little valentines cards as a rosey, perfect experience. This is often not true.

- Love is constructed in usually a heterosexual way, sometimes enforcing patriarchy, sexism, racism, depending on the context. The way love is depicted has flaws such as these.

- Love is depicted as "required" and you MUST end up with someone you love.

- How can one believe that they will find their true love without proof? How the hell will one know that you'll find "your true love" No one can see into the future. There is no logic in the belief.

- Love CONTROLS

I hope I don't need to explain to you why I've written this up. It's a BELIEF. Deconstruct as you will, but it doesn't seem to work.

 

[Dougie]

and that's what i mean...
u can't define it, there's no logic to it, a belief is a belief, just that.
and no-one should be criticised for their beliefs... ever.

 

[sub]

you missed my point. I'm saying it IS possible to merge the two.

no...u MISSED MY POINT!! i was saying, ur view that u can merge the two is flawed so long as darwinism is not proven...u can merge the two...so what? u have not proved anything through this merger. whether ur implying that should darwinism be true we can easily switch and agree...that is also in itself not a great argument, i cant discern from that last post.
merging darwinism into religion gets u nowhere. it only furthers the notion that god need not exist...once started we are left to our own devices...that is EXACTLY contrary to what ur religion and mine states. god has not left. u cannot give any proof that he has left, and neither can i, at the moment, that he is still here.
however, the argument for belief in god, can be rationalised...sophie if ur still on reply to my other post on the poll...there was a few dirceted at u, which u missed, or would not reply to...

 

[Sophie777]

Sub

I didn't say evolution was right. You are the one who made the fleeting statement that is was wrong. I was questioning who you were and why you were privy to information as to its illogicalities that the billions of scientists were not. So, in actual fact, you didn't answer my question.