Religious Beliefs

[Quietus]

If you think there are ulterior motives just remember that John 3:16 comes with nine strings attached.

Fixed .

That video is just ... wow. It starts off well enough, but it makes zero sense very quickly. Not because it's claims about the bible not making sense are correct, but because they started to bring up points that 'Any normal, intelligent adult' would be able to put together, even from outside of the Christian view.

That said - I voted Atheist, though technically (by the atheist/agnostic thread) I would be an Agnostic Atheist. Sort of... I think. I neither dispute the existence of gods, nor do I claim that they do exist. They might, but I have no way of knowing. All that I do know is that if the Christian god exists, I have zero respect for him.

 

[grimreaperofsouls]

wut i dont understand is why people refuse to beieve that we were created.
it is impossible for a being this complex to happen by pure chance
so what are your theories on evolution and creationism and what not

 

[Ariadne]

wut i dont understand is why people refuse to beieve that we were created.
it is impossible for a being this complex to happen by pure chance
so what are your theories on evolution and creationism and what not

sort of....God*) created evolution. It's the shortest way to describe it but not the most accurate one.


*) just a name, read my previous posts.

 

[Module88]

Can anyone explain to me why evolution and creationism are separate theories in the first place? Has anyone thought about the possibility *gasp* that God created us in one way, and we evolved over time? Would that not agree with both science and religion?

 

[Ariadne]

Can anyone explain to me why evolution and creationism are separate theories in the first place? Has anyone thought about the possibility *gasp* that God created us in one way, and we evolved over time? Would that not agree with both science and religion?

That's what I say. Kind of.

 

[Sergeant]

Christian - Other per the poll choices. Specifically, I'm of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. LDS for short. Also known as Mormons.

No we don't have multiple wives, please don't fall for that weed of a misconception.

No we don't have horns.

No I won't show you my special underwear, whatever that means.

Yes we believe in Christ, hence the name of our church. He's the central figure of our religion.

No we don't hate gays, sacrifice babies or have secret rituals.

There, I think that about clears things up.

 

[Star Dust]

EDIT:

Theist (to both) - "God/s exist."

Atheist (to both) - "God/s do/es not exist."

Agnostic (to both) - "Prove it."

Happy?

Better, but your labels aren't correct. It would have to be:

[Gnostic/Strong] theist (to both) - "God exists."

Strong atheist (to both) - "God/s do/es not exist."

Agnostic (to both) - "Prove it."

 

[Dondrei]

wut i dont understand is why people refuse to beieve that we were created.
it is impossible for a being this complex to happen by pure chance
so what are your theories on evolution and creationism and what not

Actually no, it is possible. It is however impossible for living organisms to exist this long in a mutagenic environment with selective pressure without evolving.

Can anyone explain to me why evolution and creationism are separate theories in the first place? Has anyone thought about the possibility *gasp* that God created us in one way, and we evolved over time? Would that not agree with both science and religion?

Don't tell Grim, but Intelligent Design actually accepts evolution. And makes no comment on whether or not we were created. God just tweaks the evolution process a bit...

 

[Dondrei]

No we don't hate gays

No, you just hate their condition, right? :scratch:

Welcome back, long time no see.

 

[Moosashi]

Pastafarian


Star Dust is right.

The statement: "one is either theist or not theist (=atheist)" is a tautological truth. Just like it's absolutely true that it is either raining or it is not raining. Since agnostics don't believe in god(s), they must be atheists as well.

 

[bladesyz]

Can anyone explain to me why evolution and creationism are separate theories in the first place? Has anyone thought about the possibility *gasp* that God created us in one way, and we evolved over time? Would that not agree with both science and religion?

Then, where does God come from? How did he create the universe?

 

[Star Dust]

Since agnostics don't believe in god(s), they must be atheists as well.

There are agnostics who believe in a god, too. They do so through faith or any other kind of irrational "reason."

 

[Dondrei]

Pastafarian


Star Dust is right.

The statement: "one is either theist or not theist (=atheist)" is a tautological truth. Just like it's absolutely true that it is either raining or it is not raining. Since agnostics don't believe in god(s), they must be atheists as well.

True, except "not theist" =/= "atheist", despite what the Latin root means. Atheist has a specific English usage.

P.S. "x is either in A or in A~" is not always true.

 

[RevenantsKnight]

Can anyone explain to me why evolution and creationism are separate theories in the first place? Has anyone thought about the possibility *gasp* that God created us in one way, and we evolved over time? Would that not agree with both science and religion?

They're separate theories because some people take the seven days of creation literally. Additionally, many of them and others also believe that God created "perfect" forms, and therefore the kind of change suggested by evolution is unnecessary.

Of course, there are also significant numbers of believers who see no conflict between the existence of the Christian God (or any deity) and evolution.

 

[Dondrei]

They're separate theories because some people take the seven days of creation literally. Additionally, many of them and others also believe that God created "perfect" forms, and therefore the kind of change suggested by evolution is unnecessary.

Yeah, God made them perfect and so they didn't evolve, but a lot of creationists will also tell you that people "degenerated" after Adam and Eve (and again after the flood) to patch up the fact that otherwise the human race would've been breaking God's commandments against incest.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Yeah, God made them perfect and so they didn't evolve, but a lot of creationists will also tell you that people "degenerated" after Adam and Eve (and again after the flood) to patch up the fact that otherwise the human race would've been breaking God's commandments against incest.

Meh.

I've always considered God to be a rational being. I.e. he didn't give us rules just to be annoying and ruin our fun, but that there's a reason behind them. (Much like a "Do Not Enter" sign on a one way street). Figuring out what those reasons are and the spirit of the law, is, in my opinion, much more important than just blindly following the letter of the law.

You can thump someone over the head with the Bible all day, screaming at them about how the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, but if you fail to take into account the context of the passage, and its full meaning (Not engaging in ritual homosexual sex and temple prostitution as a part of keeping Israel separate from the surrounding pagan practices), you've become a Pharisee, to blindly quote the law without trying to fulfill the underlying reasoning.

 

[Module88]

Then, where does God come from? How did he create the universe?

It's said that he existed, and that it is beyond our comprehension. At the very least, religion puts an end to the chain. With science, you can't ever stop asking , "how did this come from that," and so on.

They're separate theories because some people take the seven days of creation literally. Additionally, many of them and others also believe that God created "perfect" forms, and therefore the kind of change suggested by evolution is unnecessary.

Does it say anywhere in the Bible that God created "perfect" forms? Created in his image is one thing. Created perfect is quite a stretch from there.

 

[bladesyz]

It's said that he existed, and that it is beyond our comprehension. At the very least, religion puts an end to the chain. With science, you can't ever stop asking , "how did this come from that," and so on.

Why is it, then, that Religion is trying to answer Scientific questions?

 

[Module88]

Why is it, then, that Religion is trying to answer Scientific questions?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I certainly hope you're not trying to take the words of "religious authority" as the words of the entire religion. In the end, they're words of flawed humans. That doesn't, however, mean that religion and science can't be unified.

 

[Dondrei]

Meh.

I've always considered God to be a rational being. I.e. he didn't give us rules just to be annoying and ruin our fun, but that there's a reason behind them. (Much like a "Do Not Enter" sign on a one way street). Figuring out what those reasons are and the spirit of the law, is, in my opinion, much more important than just blindly following the letter of the law.

You can thump someone over the head with the Bible all day, screaming at them about how the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, but if you fail to take into account the context of the passage, and its full meaning (Not engaging in ritual homosexual sex and temple prostitution as a part of keeping Israel separate from the surrounding pagan practices), you've become a Pharisee, to blindly quote the law without trying to fulfill the underlying reasoning.

Yeah, but you're sensible so you're not really the sort of person I had in mind.