Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences


  • Please log in to reply
2034 replies to this topic

#1801 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,119 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:40 PM

Right. The question remains, "Whose image?"

/ Unless it's a case of original sin. Adam being Africa and Eve being everyone else.

Edited by theminister, 11 October 2012 - 09:42 PM.

  • 0

small.pngNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEsmall.png


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1802 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:48 PM

Right. The question remains, "Whose image?"

/ Unless it's a case of original sin. Adam being Africa and Eve being everyone else.



That's the problem, the 'religionists' are all clamouring to tell you 'who', as if they know, or as if they know based on what uneducated bronze age fable creators are opining.

There's no 'who' there that can be evidenced......as evidenced, since we're just figuring it out, and what we're figuring out runs opposite to what we've been told.

This is what irks me the most. People who don't have a clue are always front and center in telling us where and how to get one......of things that no one could possibly know without actual divine knowledge, or long ass hard scientific work in the field and the lab.

Edited by Sharpshooter, 11 October 2012 - 09:48 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1803 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,721 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:50 PM

Manica himself admits,

http://www.afp.com/e...als-didnt-breed

Manica freely admits it is entirely likely. That's not in debate. Their work does not address the circa 70,000 BCE genetic entry into Europeans and they know it.

Of course the original author must submit a counter paper to Manica's to note that the speciation and sub-structuring had already had included in the original paper as a factor and didn't explain the totality of the genetic variation as an all or nothing question.



Posted Image


It is known that we share a significant portion of our DNA with Neanderthals.
It is known that we lived in the same spots at the same times for 30,000 years.
It is known we are close enough genetically to breed with them willingly or not.
It is known humans will mate with animals.

You are free to draw your own conclusions if you'd like.


Humans also share DNA with cats, cows, mice, monkeys and even coral.

The conclusion I draw is that both sides on this matter are each making their own suggestions, neither of which are scientific fact at this time.
  • 0

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

rsz_theylive.jpg 11477626583_2368927097.jpg  7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#1804 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,721 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:41 PM

The peer reviewing has taken place for the last 2 years, since the findings were published in 2010.

I'm not sure, other than your own religious reasons, why you'd be hostile to these genetic evidences that are reproducable, which is what scientists ensure before they'd put their reputations on the line.

And the main thing that's been asserted is a 1-4% similarity....which is enough to say that many of us aren't 100% Homo Sapien, or made in 'the image of God', as per your religons' accepted 'story'.


Hostile?...really?

Perhaps it is because of my religious beliefs that you have made this assumption but while I am religious, I am also a science-loving and knowledge-seeking individual.




"Thus, based on common ancestry and geographic differences among populations within each continent, we would predict out of Africa populations to be more similar to Neanderthals than their African counterparts - exactly the patterns that were observed when the Neanderthal genome was sequenced; but this pattern was attributed to hybridisation," says Manica.

"Hopefully, everyone will become more cautious before invoking hybridisation, and start taking into account that ancient populations differed from each other probably as much as modern populations do."

http://www.tgdaily.c...th-neanderthals


I also don't really understand your story about God's image. If your belief is that the belief held within my religion is that human beings resemble God in any way, shape or form then you are grossly mistaken.

Edited by DarthNinja_S19Blade, 11 October 2012 - 10:47 PM.

  • 0

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

rsz_theylive.jpg 11477626583_2368927097.jpg  7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#1805 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:44 PM

If it turns out there is no God do I have to give my money to Al Gore? The science is settled right?
  • 0
Posted Image

#1806 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:50 PM

If it turns out there is no God do I have to give my money to Al Gore? The science is settled right?


Um...no one bit the first couple of times you used this lame line....maybe you should go back to the drawing board in your need to get noticed.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1807 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:20 PM

Hostile?...really?

Perhaps it is because of my religious beliefs that you have made this assumption but while I am religious, I am also a science-loving and knowledge-seeking individual.






I also don't really understand your story about God's image. If your belief is that the belief held within my religion is that human beings resemble God in any way, shape or form then you are grossly mistaken.


Oh that's right, your God lives outside the universe and never enters the universe but somehow affects all that happens in the universe.

If your religion's stories were a fish, it's be a full grown sturgeon.

I'll give you a slight tip of the cap though for being a 'science-lover' though. If only the vast majority of muslims were...





And here's the PBS (Save Big Bird from Mitt Romney) show that I was watching that led to this sub-topic:


  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1808 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:33 AM

Has anyone here checked out this page: http://www.facebook....ref=ts&filter=3

Vancouver based. Never heard about it until the other day. They have discussion forums solely for topics like this if discussing here doesn't quite cut it for you.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1809 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 10:21 AM

There's some interesting sounding books I've read and am planning on reading on this topic. Notably by Giberson, Dowd, Collins, and a few others on the reconciliation of evolution and belief in God. It's interesting stuff. We shouldn't believe simply because we want to, but we also shouldn't abandon belief just because evolution contradicts a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1810 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:03 AM

There's some interesting sounding books I've read and am planning on reading on this topic. Notably by Giberson, Dowd, Collins, and a few others on the reconciliation of evolution and belief in God. It's interesting stuff. We shouldn't believe simply because we want to, but we also shouldn't abandon belief just because evolution contradicts a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2.


The salesjob of God was built on Genesis 1 and 2. If that's contradicted by science, which you fully acknowledge, then why would you 'believe' the rest of the malarkey that was sold after it??

Do you behave like this is any other facet of life? Do you dismiss chain/scam letters as bunk, but still continue to believe that there's some Nigerian out there who want to give you a few million dollars, or that by forwarding an email will make your wishes come true??

Wake up my friend.
  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1811 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,530 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:37 AM

Yes, God is comparable to a Nigerian scam artist...

The 'salesjob' on God isn't wrapped up in Genesis 1 and 2 as much as he's been 'sold' as the majority belief system over the past 3,500 years.

Now if the Nigerian scam artist perhaps had 3,500 of majority belief in him to back him up, he'd be a bit more successful in his quest for cash, y'think?

Sory, but it'll take a lot more than a scientific debunking of the creation story to disprove God. If it were that easy, then he would've been officially abandoned by the masses quite awhile ago.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1812 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:57 AM

Yes, God is comparable to a Nigerian scam artist...

The 'salesjob' on God isn't wrapped up in Genesis 1 and 2 as much as he's been 'sold' as the majority belief system over the past 3,500 years.

Now if the Nigerian scam artist perhaps had 3,500 of majority belief in him to back him up, he'd be a bit more successful in his quest for cash, y'think?

Sory, but it'll take a lot more than a scientific debunking of the creation story to disprove God. If it were that easy, then he would've been officially abandoned by the masses quite awhile ago.


It's the first mention of God and it establishes his authority and power. If you stop to think critically, which I know you loathe to do, you'd realise that this is the basis for the rest of the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is the segue into the New Testament. None of the rest of the characters, or their actions or their authority could be possible without establishing the power, authority and divinity of the this story-book's central character.

No God....no God's deeds, actions, prescriptions, commandments, etc....and no Bible, and no religion.

The masses have become used to their opiate, which is why some can't let it go in the face of anything, much like other addicts who aren't able to just shrug off that which they too become hopelessly addicted to.
  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1813 Kryten

Kryten

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,446 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:58 AM

Yes, God is comparable to a Nigerian scam artist...

The 'salesjob' on God isn't wrapped up in Genesis 1 and 2 as much as he's been 'sold' as the majority belief system over the past 3,500 years.

Now if the Nigerian scam artist perhaps had 3,500 of majority belief in him to back him up, he'd be a bit more successful in his quest for cash, y'think?

Sory, but it'll take a lot more than a scientific debunking of the creation story to disprove God.  If it were that easy, then he would've been officially abandoned by the masses quite awhile ago.


A belief being ancient hardly gives it credibility. What was taught to be true 3,500 years ago being disproven shows that the teachings indoctrinated into the minds of the majority of the vulnerable peoples of our past is hardly infallible, and failed the test of time. The very core of Abrahamic Theistic belief; the infallibility of the word of God. Sharp's video may not disprove the intelligent designer belief but it sure strikes another blow against Abrahamic religions.
  • 2
Posted Image

#1814 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,214 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:00 PM

The salesjob of God was built on Genesis 1 and 2. If that's contradicted by science, which you fully acknowledge, then why would you 'believe' the rest of the malarkey that was sold after it??

Do you behave like this is any other facet of life? Do you dismiss chain/scam letters as bunk, but still continue to believe that there's some Nigerian out there who want to give you a few million dollars, or that by forwarding an email will make your wishes come true??

Wake up my friend.


Just because their are cyber bullies doesn't mean I'm going to dismiss the internet.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#1815 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:12 PM

The salesjob of God was built on Genesis 1 and 2. If that's contradicted by science, which you fully acknowledge, then why would you 'believe' the rest of the malarkey that was sold after it??

Do you behave like this is any other facet of life? Do you dismiss chain/scam letters as bunk, but still continue to believe that there's some Nigerian out there who want to give you a few million dollars, or that by forwarding an email will make your wishes come true??

Wake up my friend.

If the people who wrote the creation story wrote in allegory and poem to pass down the belief that God created everything, and never intended it to be read as a literal reading of an exact sequence of events (6 days, woman made from a rib, a tree with magical fruit, a talking snake etc.) why I should I disbelieve the Biblical God if scientists show it to not be literal.

To simplify that run-on sentence; if it was not written to be interpreted literally why should I disbelieve God if a literal reading is shown to be impossible/false/crazy? All that does is prove the fundies got it wrong and that they're too close-minded to admit it.
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1816 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:13 PM

Just because their are cyber bullies doesn't mean I'm going to dismiss the internet.


:huh:
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1817 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:15 PM

A belief being ancient hardly gives it credibility. What was taught to be true 3,500 years ago being disproven shows that the teachings indoctrinated into the minds of the majority of the vulnerable peoples of our past is hardly infallible, and failed the test of time. The very core of Abrahamic Theistic belief; the infallibility of the word of God. Sharp's video may not disprove the intelligent designer belief but it sure strikes another blow against Abrahamic religions.

The infallibility of scriptures is a relatively new western Christian belief. The Hebrews and Jews maintained that the scriptures were supposed to be read to glean different meanings for different individuals. They never claimed that it was perfect and that it was infallible. That's why the Jewish people are known for the studying of scriptures and debating their meanings.
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1818 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:21 PM

If the people who wrote the creation story wrote in allegory and poem to pass down the belief that God created everything, and never intended it to be read as a literal reading of an exact sequence of events (6 days, woman made from a rib, a tree with magical fruit, a talking snake etc.) why I should I disbelieve the Biblical God if scientists show it to not be literal.

To simplify that run-on sentence; if it was not written to be interpreted literally why should I disbelieve God if a literal reading is shown to be impossible/false/crazy? All that does is prove the fundies got it wrong and that they're too close-minded to admit it.


Wouldn't that God have been able to better forsee that the allegory would eventually be his undoing, and that to avoid the problem of being literally false, he should have and could have divinely inspired the author in such a way that left the very first line of his only work purposefully designed for his creation in some sort of unreproachable perpetuity?

Besides, even the allegory is quite specific. Specificity of that magnitude usually points to the author making truth claims.

OR, does Occam's Razor, simply cut toward the more reasonable explanation that men wrote that and the rest of the Bible as a result of their own imaginations at work, which were inspired by the many religions and gods and deities the preceding men created out of thin air as well?

So which sounds more reasoned and rational...honestly?
  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1819 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,868 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:31 PM

Oh Sharp :picard: ...reason and rationality :rolleyes:
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#1820 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:31 PM

Wouldn't that God have been able to better forsee that the allegory would eventually be his undoing, and that to avoid the problem of being literally false, he should have and could have divinely inspired the author in such a way that left the very first line of his only work purposefully designed for his creation in some sort of unreproachable perpetuity?

Besides, even the allegory is quite specific. Specificity of that magnitude usually points to the author making truth claims.

OR, does Occam's Razor, simply cut toward the more reasonable explanation that men wrote that and the rest of the Bible as a result of their own imaginations at work, which were inspired by the many religions and gods and deities the preceding men created out of thin air as well?

So which sounds more reasoned and rational...honestly?

Well I think you need to keep in mind who was writing Genesis and what the purpose was. Should God have explained to the author 4000 years ago the exact mechanisms for how he did his creating? Would the author have even been able to understand at the time? Would readers have been able to understand? People back then like to write in allegory to transmit meaning, perhaps in those days it was even more meaningful to write in a symbolic beautiful way then it was important to write down the exact mechanisms for a literal read. I don't know the answers but my only point is that we shouldn't discard a belief in God based on problems with a literal reading of Genesis - especially if the author intended it to be read allegorically. To discard it because of that would make no sense. Also who cares if it "sounds" specific if it was to be read allegorically for meaning rather than detail. That doesn't mean it should be taken as specific details.

Perhaps the Bible was written by the imaginations of 100 different authors, based on other religions or deities, imo it doesn't necessarily seem that way, though I think decent cases can be made from both sides of the coin on that issue. Which is another reason I like to take the agnostic approach to this particular issue.

Edited by Nevlach, 12 October 2012 - 12:33 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1821 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,530 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:17 PM

It's the first mention of God and it establishes his authority and power. If you stop to think critically, which I know you loathe to do, you'd realise that this is the basis for the rest of the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is the segue into the New Testament. None of the rest of the characters, or their actions or their authority could be possible without establishing the power, authority and divinity of the this story-book's central character.

No God....no God's deeds, actions, prescriptions, commandments, etc....and no Bible, and no religion.

The masses have become used to their opiate, which is why some can't let it go in the face of anything, much like other addicts who aren't able to just shrug off that which they too become hopelessly addicted to.

What's flawed about affixing the 'there is no God argument' strictly on what's in the Bible is that the majority belief in God now transcends the Bible.

Not saying that you're wrong about the creation story being false or fiction. I'm saying that any reasonable argument against the creation story (or 'Bible facts' in general) doesn't matter. Religion and God will still go on because merely denying the creation story isn't enough to extinguish God's or religion's existence. Esp. when countering belief with non-belief can only end up in stalemate.

Reason. Logic. Science. Critical thinking. While it makes little sense to the scientific mind, unfortunately none of these things will work towards disproving God or religion. Not as long as there are still believers. And not as long as there are still basic principles of our existence that science cannot fully explain. For example, science cannot even define religion, let lone disprove it.

There is middle ground to be had, however. Tons of scientists are religious and tons of religious types also believe in science. To go hard line in either direction is the essence of narrow-mindedness.
  • 1
Posted Image

#1822 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:23 PM

What's flawed about affixing the 'there is no God argument' strictly on what's in the Bible is that the majority belief in God now transcends the Bible.

Not saying that you're wrong about the creation story being false or fiction. I'm saying that any reasonable argument against the creation story (or 'Bible facts' in general) doesn't matter. Religion and God will still go on because merely denying the creation story isn't enough to extinguish God's or religion's existence. Esp. when countering belief with non-belief can only end up in stalemate.

Reason. Logic. Science. Critical thinking. While it makes little sense to the scientific mind, unfortunately none of these things will work towards disproving God or religion. Not as long as there are still believers. And not as long as there are still basic principles of our existence that science cannot fully explain. For example, science cannot even define religion, let lone disprove it.

There is middle ground to be had, however. Tons of scientists are religious and tons of religious types also believe in science. To go hard line in either direction is the essence of narrow-mindedness.

And let's keep in mind that there are a ton of things that are absolutely mind boggling to try and comprehend.

For just one example something had to always have existed (not even a god here...just something). That means something is literally eternal, it had no beginning, it has no end, it just is. Yet it can't have been around for an infinite amount of time because that's a logical impossibility. Nothing can be infinite yet something has to be eternal. If you try and comprehend how something can be eternal...no beginning or end...your mind explodes (figuratively of course I don't want anyone to think it will literally explode just because I said it will explode ;))
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1823 Kryten

Kryten

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,446 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:40 PM

The infallibility of scriptures is a relatively new western Christian belief. The Hebrews and Jews maintained that the scriptures were supposed to be read to glean different meanings for different individuals. They never claimed that it was perfect and that it was infallible. That's why the Jewish people are known for the studying of scriptures and debating their meanings.


The infallibility of scriptures is a relatively new western Christian belief . The Hebrews and Jews maintained that the scriptures were supposed to be read to glean different meanings for different individuals. They never claimed that it was perfect and that it was infallible. That's why the Jewish people are known for the studying of scriptures and debating their meanings.



Christianity and Judaism were born from fundamentalism, how is that relatively new? Yes the religions have evolved over time and considering the content of their self-described "holy books", that evolution is a testament of how they got it wrong, not right.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1824 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:50 PM

Christianity and Judaism were born from fundamentalism, how is that relatively new? Yes the religions have evolved over time and considering the content of their self-described "holy books", that evolution is a testament of how they got it wrong, not right.

Fundamentalist Christianity (especially the belief, as is the case in the current discussion, of a literal interpretation of Genesis) is a relatively new doctrinal belief. A couple of hundred years old. Though there were people hundreds of years ago (if not thousands) who did read it literally. But as far as making it a huge sticking point of christian beliefs that's relatively new. Unless Karen Armstrong, Robert Wright, and NT Wright were lying to me... :P
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1825 Kryten

Kryten

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,446 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:56 PM

Fundamentalist Christianity (especially the belief, as is the case in the current discussion, of a literal interpretation of Genesis) is a relatively new doctrinal belief. A couple of hundred years old. Though there were people hundreds of years ago (if not thousands) who did read it literally. But as far as making it a huge sticking point of christian beliefs that's relatively new. Unless Karen Armstrong, Robert Wright, and NT Wright were lying to me... :P


I meant fundamentalism as a descriptive term of orthodox belief. In this case pre-biblical teachings leading up to the collection of stories used to indoctrinate believers by coining this collection as a holy book.

Edited by Kryten, 12 October 2012 - 02:14 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#1826 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:43 PM

As we were just on slightly different pages.

Well maybe they got it all wrong...I dunno :P
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1827 G.K. Chesterton

G.K. Chesterton

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: 19-June 06

Posted 14 October 2012 - 12:40 AM

Fundamentalist Christianity (especially the belief, as is the case in the current discussion, of a literal interpretation of Genesis) is a relatively new doctrinal belief. A couple of hundred years old. Though there were people hundreds of years ago (if not thousands) who did read it literally. But as far as making it a huge sticking point of christian beliefs that's relatively new. Unless Karen Armstrong, Robert Wright, and NT Wright were lying to me... :P


N.T. Wright is awesome (although I've only ever read Simply Christian and this directly after Mere Christianity so while it did teach me some new things, it's hard to compete with the classic).


  • 0
“Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.” - G.K. Chesterton

“Unbelief is as much of a choice as belief is. What makes it in many ways more appealing is that whereas to believe in something requires some measure of understanding and effort, not to believe doesn't require much of anything at all.” - Frederick Buechner

“All human nature vigorously resists grace because grace changes us and the change is painful.” - Flannery O'Connor


“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis

#1828 Kryten

Kryten

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,446 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 14 October 2012 - 03:13 PM

As we were just on slightly different pages.

Well maybe they got it all wrong...I dunno :P


I don't know who those individuals are, looks like you just gave me some homework Nev. :P.

What I understand is that the Bible should be sitting next to Ovid's Metamorphosisis and Homer's Iliad on the shelf in the public library. A collection of allegorical stories of this magnitude should be the required reading of a college or university level curriculum, not the self-described source of Christian morality that happens to be taught to children who are unable to read Dr. Seuss books without help.

If those people you read are right, why the violence against apostasy in the past? Why the violence against heresy? Do they think the allegorical nature of the Bible was taught to converts by the inquisitions?
  • 0
Posted Image

#1829 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 10:03 PM

Just finished watching "When Rome Ruled", Rise Of Christianity". Pretty straightforward if one is open minded.

Political tool used by Emperor Constantine to become the ruler of Rome, solidify his rule and unite the Empire under one flag (religion).
  • 0

#1830 Super19

Super19

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,438 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 11:24 PM

Just finished watching "When Rome Ruled", Rise Of Christianity". Pretty straightforward if one is open minded.

Political tool used by Emperor Constantine to become the ruler of Rome, solidify his rule and unite the Empire under one flag (religion).

Unification through the means of religion is not unheard of. But it's ironic that the very same tool to unify is also a tool that creates separations. But at the end of the day, religions preach a sense of humane respect towards one another so even if their is a separation there should be peace.
  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.