Today's Poll: Do you believe in evolution?
Seriously? Over 1/3rd of respondents believe a magical space ghost tweaked its nose and created people?
If I was a science teacher, I'd cry.
If I was a preacher of any sort, I'd think "cool - got them to believe this crappola...now time to convince them that 'tithe' means TWENTY percent!"
"preacher of any sort"
Tim, not all preachers are like that. Some are, certainly, but not all. Just saying.
Like it or not, evolution is just a theory, not a fact, and it takes just as much 'faith' to believe in evolution as it does creationism. There is evidence for AND against evolution, just as there is evidence for AND against creationism. Those who prescribe to the belief in evolution tend to conveniently ignore the evidence against it and vice versa (people believe what they want to believe and look for evidence to confirm their beliefs, not disprove them). If evolution were all that it was touted to be then people who believed in it would be less likely to be intolerant of those who didn't believe in it. In fact in true scientific fashion they would be curious as to what exactly 1/3 of the respondants did believe (it doesn't necessarily have to be evolution or creationism) instead of making an absurd statement about believing in a magiacal space ghost. There are also different aspects to evolution, not just the belief that mankind evolved from a lower organism, but that a species can develop new features (evolve) to adapt to changing situations or circumstances, without evolving into an entirely different species. Open your mind, many people of faith challenge others to read the Bible for themselves, look into what archeaologists have discovered, etc. But many in the scientific community publish a paper or book and expect that people will blindly believe it without looking at their methods, the opposing views, etc.
Yes I do.My Government has evolved from good old guys creating a law of the land TO the corruption we have today.
Recently I watch a series of programs on TV ( Ancient Aliens ) that discuss the influence of ETs on ancient man. Some of the theories are far fetched, but the theory that ancient man's DNA was mixed with a superior intelligent was compelling. It does offer a third option in the debate of evolution vis. creation.
100% of respondents so far a people of great faith.
Well said, Bea. I don't understand why people think creationism and evolution can't go hand in hand.
The Bible says 7 days...That 7 days could represent the thousands or millions of years that the universe was created in.
I'm confident in my belief that God created us and everything around us AND that we are creatures of evolution.
"Evolution is just a theory, not a fact" -- I have a theory that you don't know what the word "theory" means in the scientific context versus the way I just applied it. One is a hunch, the other is regarded as fact through well-supported observations and well-documented supporting facts. In science, Theory is higher in the scientific pecking order than Law. It's the ultimate goal. Newton's Law of Gravity - to put it simply - states that if you drop something, it will fall. Newton's Theory of Gravitation attempts to explain why. Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job at it. Evolution is no different. There is a Law of Evolution, proven over generations of documented studies and genetic changes in all forms of life. The Theory of Evolution is then best demonstrated through Darwin's Natural Selection. It is currently the best explanation for the fact that it happens.
So in short, scientific theory means "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." While in the common vernacular, it means a guess or a hunch.
One thing that is missed in this constant denial of fact because of a perceived contradiction to religious beliefs is this -- Evolution in no sense attempts to explain the origins of life. It isn't trying to tell you how they appeared. It's merely explaining what happened to them after they got here, and why they differ based on environmental and other factors. Religious belief and evolution can easily co-exist, as they tackle different answers to different questions; they are not mutually exclusive. Wouldn't an all-powerful, all-knowing god know that in order for their creations to survive, they would need to adapt to the ever-changing world in which they created in the first place?
Bea and Jason pretty much nailed it
Thanks Bea, Jason & Tony, that's exactly how I see it as well.
"Wouldn't an all-powerful, all-knowing god know that in order for their creations to survive, they would need to adapt to the ever-changing world in which they created in the first place?" well said
This is another example of an argument kept alive in order to divide Americans so we don't see our rights being usurped and the theft of the individual's ability to live free.
Even the poll in the linked article was designed so Republocrats & Demicans will keep fighting each other.
Creation and evolution can certainly coexist, as long as you don't cloud it with the Bible. The Bible (I believe) is a clearly written, comprehensive source given by God through man. You either believe it in it's entirety or not at all. Because it is self-proclaimed to be the Divine written Word of God, disproving any part of it nullifies it as a whole, you can't arbitrarily pick and choose which portions are true or not. Therefore, evolution and the Bible cannot coexist. Evolution and whatever form of creationism and faith you adhere to can easily coexist, you just can't say I believe in both evolution and the Bible, to do so contradicts an understanding of either or both. Some will attempt to justify fence riding by "interpretation" but the Scriptures as written are clear on their own veracity.
Evolution has two separate aspects to it: 1)the biological process of a living organism adapting/changing over time to survive changes to it's environment and passing those traits on to the next generation. 2)the belief that all life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution). The first aspect can be considered scientific fact, as it meets the definition of a scientific theory: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." The second aspect does not meet that definition as it is impossible to confirm through OBSERVATION and experiment the development of life on this planet over the course of 3,800,000,000 +/- years. If only the first aspect is being discussed, than I see no difficulty with science and religion going hand-in-hand, however it is the second aspect of evolution which requires faith to believe.
"Like it or not, evolution is just a theory, not a fact, and it takes just as much 'faith' to believe in evolution as it does creationism"
Tony did a great job explaining the conceptual failure here, so I don't have to repeat it. Except to say that scientific theory often has a predictive value to it, as well. While Darwin came to understand natural selection was the mainspring of evolutionary change in species, he was in dark about the mechanism of action at play in individuals within species. It would be one hundred years before the discovery of DNA completed the puzzle, and the implication posed by the theory.
Sorry Jeff the Bible is not Literal the reason interpretation is needed is for 2 reasons. The Original Texts were written in different languages. Translation is always a problem when it being converted even with languages that are similar like french spanish and english. I believe that original texts for the Old Testament were archaic Hebrew then it was translated to Aramaic, Greek, Cyrillic and Latin during the time of Jesus then into all the languages it's printed in today. That process is impossible without some error in meaning and intent no matter how careful. Then we can look to the Catholic Church that altered and removed some books and text during
Unknown to almost all of the over two billion people who claim the Bible as their spiritual foundation is that there are several books and two sections missing missing from all but a few versions of that Bible. Perhaps one of the best kept secrets of the modern Protestant church is that the Bible used by that body is not the original King James Bible. That translation, completed in 1611, and the Bibles published for the use of the clergy and the church members until late in the 19th Century, contained 80 books. Although attempts to remove the 14 books known as the Apocrypha from the Bible began immediately after the King James translation was completed they remained in the Bible until the end of the 19th Century. There is no doubt that the 14 books of the Apocrypha were controversial, but it cannot be denied they were included in the original King James Bible.
The concept of the Protestant Church about the Apocrypha is virtually non-existent, with the general understanding that only the Catholic Church uses it. One would be hard-pressed to find any members of the clergy even aware that these books were ever included in the King James Bible. There are 155,683 words and over 5,700 verses contained in 168 chapters now missing from the King James translation of the Bible due to the exclusion of the Apocrypha. Although this only happened just over a hundred years ago, their existence as fully accepted scripture is virtually unknown.
A clear history exists of the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the King James Bible:
· In the year 1615 Archbishop Gorge Abbott, a High Commission Court member and one of the original translators of the 1611 translation, "forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment"
· "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (Early Christian Doctrines, J. Kelly)
· "In 405 Pope Innocent I embodied a list of canonical books in a letter addressed to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse; it too included the Apocrypha. The Sixth Council of Carthage (419) Re-enacted the ruling of the Third Council, again with the inclusion of the apocryphal books… "The Sixth Council of Carthage repromulgated in Canon 24 the resolution of the Third Council regarding the canon of scripture, and added a note directing that the resolution be sent to the bishop of Rome (Boniface I) and other bishops: ‘Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon [Canon 47 of the Third Council], because we have received from our fathers that these are the books which are to be read in church.’" (The Canon on Scripture, F. F. Bruce)
· "The holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent . . . following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates all the books of the Old and New Testament . . . and also the traditions pertaining to faith and conduct . . . with an equal sense of devotion and reverence . . . If, however, any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have by custom been read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed." (Decree of the Council of Trent in 1546)
· "In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. . . And the other books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine." (Articles of Religion of the Church of England, 1563, Sixth Article)
On top of that I also want to propose an experiment. I think in comparing God to our own, it is a great exaggeration to say that it could be compared to the understanding between a 40 yr old adult and a 5 yr old child. So go find a five year old and dictate to them the constitution its ideas and principles. Hell just read it to him and have him transcribe it. Bet some things aren't really as accurate as the original. Same principal here. Thats the second reason why the Bible isnt very clear and requires some interpretation.
As for Creationism vs Evolutionism well, for reality to work, it has to have rules. God as the creator of reality can bend it to his will. But not without consequence. Just like a game, it becomes pointless to play if you don't follow the rules. There is nothing that says both cant exsist side by side with equal truth.
As a side note to all those who stand fully on the side of Science to the point of disbelieving in God. Please explaint to me again science's great quest for...... the Higgs boson particle. Otherwise known as the God Particle.
Question: "What is the God particle?"
Answer: The "God particle" is the nickname of a subatomic particle called the Higgs boson. In layman’s terms, different subatomic particles are responsible for giving matter different properties. One of the most mysterious and important properties is mass. Some particles, like protons and neutrons, have mass. Others, like photons, do not. The Higgs boson, or “God particle,” is believed to be the particle which gives mass to matter. The “God particle” nickname grew out of the long, drawn-out struggles of physicists to find this elusive piece of the cosmic puzzle. What follows is a very brief, very simplified explanation of how the Higgs boson fits into modern physics, and how science is attempting to study it.
So science and God are not mutually exclusive of each other. Except in the minds of people unwilling to be open to possibilities. Like Greed, Bigotry and other beliefs just because someone believes it is the way to live, doesnt mean that it's the only or right way to live.
My post was not offered as an opinion, it was a statement of fact. The Bible asserts it's own infallibility, not me. You can't say that you believe in the concept and science of mathematics and then say that you interpret 2+2 as being something other than 4. No matter what version, paraphrase, or translation of Scripture that you choose, EVERY one makes the same claim about itself...I am not debating my view of the Bible, I am stating what it says and what it says about itself in every form of it's printing. You can disagree and you can down vote but the Bible is what it is, says what it says, and in none of it's versions can it support evolution.
You're confusing theory with scientific theory. What the average Joe calls a theory is "that thing you wrote on the back of a napkin last night at the bar".
In science, that's called a hypothesis. A scientific theory is a proven explanation of how nature works. Think of it more like you would germ theory, or music theory.
The only people who don't believe in evolution are the people that truly don't understand it,
Also we have witnessed Micro - Evolution tons of times.
God I hate copy and paste.....
Exactly, Jeff. Exactly.
Really Jeff? what chapter and verse does the Bible tout it's infallibility? I believe that claim comes from the church, not the Bible. As it its anyway when they decided to trim the Apocrypha from the King James Version..... It clearly states.... Revelation 22:19 says, “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Seems to me taking the Apocrypha counts as "taking away" and that it has had parts removed is undisputed historcally proven FACT.
And if you use the argument that God is infallible therefore the Bible which is his word is infallible the let me point you to Genesis 6: 5-8 Which refers to the story of Noah
5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
How can God regret an action that is infallible? He admits to a mistake and takes steps to correct it. But he spares Noah and after wiping everything except Noah's family and his menagerie he then makes a covenant with All living things that remained on the earth....
Genesis 9: 8-17
8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”
17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”
So if the Bible is infallible then here we have God showing regret, and correcting a mistake that we claim he is incapable of. Then making a covenant with all life on earth that remained that he would never do it again.
Kind of contradictory dont you think?
Kyle you have established two things in this thread, first you are adept at both research and copy/paste. Second, you believe the Bible to be fallible and contradictory. Therefore what it says should make no more difference to you than Green Eggs and Ham and my trying to prove it to you is a moot point. My suggestion would be this: the Bible is the most prolific book in history bar none, if you want to use it as a point of debate, read it cover to cover first so that you don't have to rely on those of us who have misinterpreted it.
It doesn't matter if anyone believes in it or not. We can see evolution in our DNA and we have fossil records. Evolution is observable the same way stars and planets can be observed forming.
I have read it cover to cover several times most recently last year (as in fall of 2013) And I believe my words were that the Bible was not literal, and open to interpretation. But besides that, Yes I have read it and I have provided Historical Facts that it is not the Book it was due to the manipulations of men (More specifically the Protestant Church which reduced the King James Version of the Bible from 80 books to 66 about 100 yrs ago to facilitate an easier divorce.
I am still waiting for your citation in scripture that the Bible asserts it's own infallibility. Until you do then your opinion on that is merely opinion and not based in any fact at all.
I'm not asking you to prove to me anything but again your incorrect as I do have an open mind and can reasonably accede the point that you claim is moot to me. If you could provide anything besides conjecture that the Bible asserts it's own infallibility. Just because the church tells you it is so, doesn't mean that it is. God is the truth and you have to find it, the church is not what Jesus created here It was supposed to be one church but like anything man has for long enough, it has become corrupted fractured and has wandered away from it's foundations.
In tracing the origin of the Bible, one is led to AD 325, when Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of 300 religious leaders. Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin.
The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and bigotry.
At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the church into two factions. Constantine offered to make the little-known Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would settle their differences. Apparently, he didn't particularly care what they believed in as long as they agreed upon a belief. By compiling a book of sacred writings, Constantine thought that the book would give authority to the new church.
Also, we do know that there were many books of supposed prophets floating around up until the time when the Council of Nicea decided which books were scripture and which ones were burned. Thanks to the notorious habit of early Christian leaders of destroying books/scrolls, we may never know what doctrine existed before the Council of Nicea.
The Roman Catholic Church created the canon of Christian scripture at the Council of Nicea, at the same time that they determined the doctrine of Trinity by one vote.
One thing that persisted in the council was that Jesus spoke primarily in parables, at least according to the Apostles and evangelist from whom the stories were collected. While the parables, or the teachings of Christ in the new testament are guidelines for living a Christian life, the Bible is not by any means a document of historical accuracy. The Old Testament, Genesis included, where stories past down over centuries and were written in a way that men of that time could comprehend the concepts of God and man's place in God's realm.
While I take much stock in the teachings of Christ which were defined in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, I find it clear that Jesus spoke indeed most often in parables, so that the concept or the meaning of God were recognizable to a varied mass of people. I believe in Jesus, That however is New Testament, the Old Testament is rife with stories and Psalms which again were parable like, expressing more the concept rather than historical reference, Genesis included.
"A member of the clergy once asked, "If we believe that God created the universe, then why can't we believe that evolution was part of the grand plan?""
Is by far the best distinction that I have read on this thread. I believe that science and faith in God can and do coexist, and that anyone who proclaims creationism as defined in the Old Testament actually understates the power of God or whatever one might see as a supreme being.
We all tend to Humanize God because the magnitude of such a controlled evolution is beyond, way beyond all of our comprehension.
In summary, if you believe that God is all powerful and wise, then the complexity of creation, which I believe is rooted in evolution is clearly determined by God who put the building blocks in place that made evolution a reality. The fossils, the earth's strata the very fiber of our lives DNA are all to me evidence that God exist though it is we that strive to figure out just how God did it.
The Biblical references, the cut and paste Historical accounts of the Bible's origin are all meaningless in light of the clear anthropological evidence of evolution. My faith tells me that all of this is but a fraction of a second in God's timeline (Billions of years in our time line}
The funny thing about faith is you either have it or you don't,
Mark writes "The Biblical references, the cut and paste Historical accounts of the Bible's origin are all meaningless in light of the clear anthropological evidence of evolution"
First, I agree that the historical accounts are meaningless in this debate. The issue is that the Bible as written makes numerous claims about itself (Kyle, if you've read it several times and missed those fundamental passages both Old and New Testament on it's infallibility, then I can't help you there) and one either accepts them or does not. If you accept them, then evolution and the Bible cannot co-exist. If you refute the veracity of Scripture, then anything can co-exist.
Second, evolution is being upheld here as settled science. It is FAR from settled science. Evolutionary science has merited and proven concepts such as natural selection, survival of the fittest, and adaptation. Those concepts are the ones primarily taught, backed up by science, and easily understood by both the layman and the scholar. However, they are not the crux of evolution as Darwin presented it. Evolution holds that all species evolved from one and that one species evolved from nothing and therein lie the MAJOR holes that neither layman nor scholar has been able to prove, nor are they discussed in the academic setting because they undermine the narrative. Those elements include: trans-genus, trans-class, trans-species evolution, intermediary forms, and functional transitional organisms. Evolution depends on those elements, none of which have been found. The chronology of fossil evidence has ALL the before and after but NONE of the in between necessary to piece it together in a coherent way. There is also the problem of mathematical probability of the beginnings of evolution. The mathematical probability of a single molecular chemical change necessary for the evolutionary process has been calculated at 10 X 415th power, multiply that by the billions of unique molecules in human DNA and we have a legitimate scientific issue. Borel's law of probability puts 10 X 50th power at an impossibility.
It takes great amounts of faith to believe either evolution or creation, however, evolution leaves far more questions than does God's intelligent design. Primarily time and space. If we find the beginning of time scientifically (Big Bang), what was before that?, or before that?, or before that? If we scientifically find the edge of the universe, what is beyond that?, or beyond that?, or beyond that?
God and science can co-exist and do in many ways. Following either or both still takes a tremendous amount of faith in the unknown, the unanswered, and the unprovable. I choose to follow God's explanation of things as they are. It's ALL faith, it only differs in whom or what you put your faith.
"I choose to follow God's explanation of things as they are." , writes Jeff.
If it is in the Bible, then we must follow. No deviation, right Jeff?
Exodus 21:7 - I can sell my daughter into slavery
Exodus 35:2 - Working on the Sabbath - penalty death
Lev 11:7 -touching the skin of a pig makes one unclean - did you play football?
Just as an aside, I plant crops side by side and wear clothes made of two different threads. I bet you do too.
Bea, your argument has been made by many including President Jed Bartlett. However, it fails to take into account the entire revelation of God's Word, the purpose of the Old and New testament, the fulfillment of the law, and Jesus Christ becoming sin for us so that we were no longer bound by the law but saved by grace. For those who believe the Bible to be contradictory and/or fallible, debates on it's merit are foolishness. I am as long winded and preachy as anyone on here, often times to a fault. My "high horse" is as tall as they come. But one thing I won't do is compromise my faith in the veracity of Scripture, it's contextual use in debate and the omniscient nature of God. You may disagree with my beliefs and how I support them, but my faith in them is steadfast and grounded in my own research, reading, and life experience, not what some church, preacher, or denomination has told me.
Bea, the ridiculous parts of the bible are exactly why I think the entire bible is ridiculous. Parts of the bible that could be considered "good advice" are just common sense rules to live by. The rest of it is just hocup pocus written by superstitious men, and it was written so that males were superior to everything else. Imagine that.
Like I posted earlier Doug,
"The funny thing about faith is you either have it or you don't,"
Jeff, your pick and choose.
It's a function of the brain. People from all over the world created their own gods and depending on where you're born now dictates what god you pray to. Native peoples of this continent (people that were here before Europeans), had many gods. Those gods are all pretty much dead and forgotten now because Christianity was hammered into their head like nails into an old pine coffin. Greek gods are also dead, now to be called mythology. The preponderance of evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and the lack of evidence for creationism is infinite.
I have faith in myself and the people I can see right in front of me. Never once in my life have I felt the presence of a supreme being, and believe me, it was drilled into my head to believe. I guess my head is drill proof.
Jason - concerning your insistence on "observation"... Were YOU ther when Jesus rose from the dead? No? Then it must not have happened.... Were YOU there when the founding fathers formed this country? No? Well, then- it must not have happened...
Yeah, those are ridiculous examples intended to expose a ridiculous argument.
"Evolution requires more faith than god"?!?
PROVE YOUR GOD EXISTS TO ME!!!
You can't - another specious argument. Another failing science grade.
There is no need for anyone to prove the existence of God, it's already on His agenda for the Judgement. Besides, He is much better at it than us.
My issue with religion is not that people believe that brouhaha - it is with those that insist others live by their particular mythology's tenets. I don't care if it your superstitions center around mohammad/sharia, jesus/christianity, or pagan/mother earth.
Heck, we all have unsubstantiated beliefs... I will get remarried one day; I will win the lottery; the Bills will win the Super Bowl in my lifetime (listed in order of decreasing odds of coming true).
But I will NOT try to force others to live per my bizarre fantasies, unlike many christianists (Palin, Santorum, Bush). You do not have to help me find a bride, or treat me as if I was wealthy, or even root for the Bills...
Mr. Wheaton says it best...
Sadly, your god's followers (as well as other gods' followers) partake in that "judgement" thing yourselves, even though you claim it is that god's realm...
And that is fine - judge me all you want.... But keep your superstitions out of my country's laws. Dealing with the opinions of the superstitious is easy. Having to fight for my rights because I don't follow your superstitious beliefs is not easy....and it is not what this country was founded on.
Tim, in this thread, I have not brought any judgement on you nor have I forced my beliefs on anyone. I simply stated that I take God at His word. You're accusing others of judging you while at the same time predetermining our arguments to be specious, we are failures at science, and our beliefs to be superstition so who is judging whom?
Admittedly, I am judging those who would force their superstitions on others....
I did not state you yourself did so, although I was inelegant in my overly generalized statement of "you gods followers....". I should have specified "too many of your god's followers".
And, quite frankly, your arguments ARE superstitious... "1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome."
FWIW - I will fight for your right to believe in whatever superstitious nonsense you wish to believe in....that is the basis of freedom of religion/religious belief.... Each of us has the RIGHT to believe whatever nonsense we want to (as long as it does not force repression on others).
“There is no need for anyone to prove the existence of God, it's already on His agenda for the Judgement.”
Certainly no “judgment” here…sounds more like a threat.
I personally wouldn’t worship a god who tortures its own creation for behaving the way s/he/it made them, and I wouldn’t threaten others with my personal god, for disbelieving my personal god. What kind of god is that, anyway, like Marlon Brando?
Pardon my skepticism.
Re: Above article. There are so many polls polling what Americans supposedly think, but I’ve never been asked MY opinion on any of these polls. Must be all those other Americans.
“The Pew Research Center released new numbers Monday on how Americans view evolution. (The question was asked in a way to include those who believe God or a supreme being guided the process.) About six in 10 accept it, the poll found…”
Well that’s crystal clear. Why not post the actual question rather than tiptoe around it…. and maybe include who and how many people were actually polled (if any).
“(Some academics believe the recession helped to depress belief in warming, as people's worries about their immediate livelihood trumped longer-term concerns.)”
Now that’s funny! “My beliefs are dependent upon whatever else I’m thinking about at the time.”
And oh my Allah….there are partisan differences in beliefs!! Now let’s fight about it until we puke.
Love the little graph with the squiggly lines and random numbers, though.
"Certainly no “judgment” here…sounds more like a threat." Julie, it's not a threat, it's just something God promised He will do. The beauty of how God works is that you are free to choose to follow Him or ignore Him. You said that you will not worship a god who tortures his own creation. That is your free will and He will not hunt you down and compel you to worship Him, nor will I. If you believe Scripture is a bunch of hogwash, God will allow you to happily live your life believing that without interference.
Befitting of much of my experience with those who outright reject God is too mock, marginalize, and demean those who believe. Very tolerant, very classy, very enlightened.
" God is dead...signed Freidrich Nietzsdie, Nietzsdie is dead.....signed God. "
Jeff, "my high horse is as tall as it gets."
Perhaps, you might want to consider:
Bea, I believe I addressed that in the statement prior to the one you quote. But thank you for taking me to task just the same.
Yeah, Jeff....cuz the christians are always so civil...
Tim, show me where I (me) demeaned you or your beliefs. There is no shortage of Christians, or people calling themselves Christians who embarrass the faith. They are not who or what we are debating in this thread, you chose to go the low road by marginalizing my beliefs (superstitious, specious, irrational, brouhaha, failure, nonsense,,,did I miss anything?). I am not offended, I'm a big boy and have been called worse, it's just that you can't say what you said then claim the high ground by pointing out that others do it too.... own it.
Links pointing to extremes that are mocking extremes from the other side does not make a cohesive argument.
If a god exists and it created everything, what created the god before everything existed?