The Top 10 Claims Made by Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories

[hookul]

The problem is that for the religious aspect to work it has to be literal. If original sin doesn't exist then there was no reason for Jesus to die on the cross. Christianity isn't a collection of philosophies that may or may not work for you. The Christians that are taking it literally are the only ones doing it right.

I do not understand why you and Rasheed are so persistent about this part. Is it because you have to generate an absurd enemy image that you can argue against with science and logic?

Despite everything mentioned in this thread - and common logic might I add - you insist that the REAL christians who got it RIGHT are the ones that take everything in the bible literally. This, despite the known fact that in every century, even at the very beginning of christianity, there have been very influential christian philosophers that clearly state that these stories are NOT to be taken literally. There are e.g. many interesting letter exchanges and written records of old greek vs. christian philosophers who deal with this issue. What you are doing is - again - taking what YOU believe constitutes a real christian and label with a broad brush because you need to argue that way so that you have it easier to label a christian "real" as a whacko nutjob. It is not that simple.

Christianity like other religions has a long and wide history with many directions, teachings etc. Just because one current direction that exists epecially in todays USA (hardcore creatonism) claims stupid things does not mean this represents christian believes. Neither historically nor logically.

This is similiar to claiming that e.g. the current ethical believe system of "the republican party" is the only real one for an american citizen ever, when in fact not only did the people and believes of the republican party changed over the decades/centuries but also that the republican party has at no point ever in time represented the believes of ALL american citizen or a REAL (whatever that means) american citizen.

Again, strictly speaking, to be a christian one should believe in the central teaching of a guy named thereafter as Jesus Christ. He himself did at no point ever indicated - at least as far as we know - that he takes the teachings of the old testament literally! Ironically, the revolutionary thing about him (if he existed in this manner) would be that he as a jew on purpose BROKE with many teachings of old jewish believe system!

[miller-time]

Again, strictly speaking, to be a christian one should believe in the central teaching of a guy named thereafter as Jesus Christ. He himself did at no point ever indicated - at least as far as we know - that he takes the teachings of the old testament literally! Ironically, the revolutionary thing about him (if he existed in this manner) would be that he as a jew on purpose BROKE with many teachings of old jewish believe system!

If Christianity was specifically about the moral teachings of Jesus then why not just lose the rest of the book? Why include everything about original sin and the concepts of heaven, hell, and salvation? What is the point of genesis if it is just allegory? If it didn't happen then it makes no sense to have Jesus die for our sins. It means that God didn't need to send his son to die but rather just have another messenger like Moses. The whole narrative and point falls apart.

[lakers_forever]

If Christianity was specifically about the moral teachings of Jesus then why not just lose the rest of the book? Why include everything about original sin and the concepts of heaven, hell, and salvation? What is the point of genesis if it is just allegory? If it didn't happen then it makes no sense to have Jesus die for our sins. It means that God didn't need to send his son to die but rather just have another messenger like Moses. The whole narrative and point falls apart.

The point is Jesus moral teachings are important not because he was a very smart man, but because he was God incarnated.

The point of Genesis is not to make a scientific explanation of universe's origin. It's a theological explanation. It makes us know that God created the world ex nihilo.

Pope John Paul II on the matter:

Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.

"What is the point of genesis if it is just allegory? If it didn't happen then it makes no sense to have Jesus die for our sins. It means that God didn't need to send his son to die but rather just have another messenger like Moses. The whole narrative and point falls apart."

What does Genesis being an allegorical description of world's origin have anything to do with Jesus not dying for us sins? Genesis is a book from the Old Testament. Jesus's life is told to us in the New Testament. I failed to see this online atheist logic that because there are some weird/obscure passages in the OT, somehow Jesus and Christianity become false.

[lakers_forever]

I do not understand why you and Rasheed are so persistent about this part. Is it because you have to generate an absurd enemy image that you can argue against with science and logic?

Despite everything mentioned in this thread - and common logic might I add - you insist that the REAL christians who got it RIGHT are the ones that take everything in the bible literally. This, despite the known fact that in every century, even at the very beginning of christianity, there have been very influential christian philosophers that clearly state that these stories are NOT to be taken literally. There are e.g. many interesting letter exchanges and written records of old greek vs. christian philosophers who deal with this issue. What you are doing is - again - taking what YOU believe constitutes a real christian and label with a broad brush because you need to argue that way so that you have it easier to label a christian "real" as a whacko nutjob. It is not that simple.

Christianity like other religions has a long and wide history with many directions, teachings etc. Just because one current direction that exists epecially in todays USA (hardcore creatonism) claims stupid things does not mean this represents christian believes. Neither historically nor logically.

This is similiar to claiming that e.g. the current ethical believe system of "the republican party" is the only real one for an american citizen ever, when in fact not only did the people and believes of the republican party changed over the decades/centuries but also that the republican party has at no point ever in time represented the believes of ALL american citizen or a REAL (whatever that means) american citizen.

Again, strictly speaking, to be a christian one should believe in the central teaching of a guy named thereafter as Jesus Christ. He himself did at no point ever indicated - at least as far as we know - that he takes the teachings of the old testament literally! Ironically, the revolutionary thing about him (if he existed in this manner) would be that he as a jew on purpose BROKE with many teachings of old jewish believe system!

Exactly. The old law told people to stone to death a woman who cheated on her husband. What the Jesus do? He told the angry crowd: "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".

And I guess all the Christians who had an allegorial interpretation of Genesis since the beggining of Christianity, the Catholic Church and several other Christian church who also defend allegorical interpretations are not real Christians.

Like I said catholics don't think everything of the OT apllies to Christians. And some christians (inspired by St. Paul) thinks that with the coming of Jesus, Christians should not obey the old law, because it was perfected by Christ.

[miller-time]

What does Genesis being an allegorical description of world's origin have anything to do with Jesus not dying for us sins? Genesis is a book from the Old Testament. Jesus's life is told to us in the New Testament. I failed to see this online atheist logic that because there are some weird/obscure passages in the OT, somehow Jesus and Christianity become false.

I didn't say they become false, that is a different debate. I'm saying that for the story to be internally consistent Genesis needs to be literal. The whole point is that the fall occurred and subsequently accepting Jesus takes that away from us. I honestly don't see any point in Genesis if it is only supposed to be symbolic or allegorical? I don't see why the message could not be conveyed with actual details instead of made up stuff.

Also how is Genesis obscure? I'm not talking about some bizarre passage in Leviticus. I'm talking about passages dealing with the overall story arc.

[Rasheed1]

I do not understand why you and Rasheed are so persistent about this part. Is it because you have to generate an absurd enemy image that you can argue against with science and logic?

Despite everything mentioned in this thread - and common logic might I add - you insist that the REAL christians who got it RIGHT are the ones that take everything in the bible literally. This, despite the known fact that in every century, even at the very beginning of christianity, there have been very influential christian philosophers that clearly state that these stories are NOT to be taken literally. There are e.g. many interesting letter exchanges and written records of old greek vs. christian philosophers who deal with this issue. What you are doing is - again - taking what YOU believe constitutes a real christian and label with a broad brush because you need to argue that way so that you have it easier to label a christian "real" as a whacko nutjob. It is not that simple.

For the umpteenth time I will say it again..... My point is not that christians must take everything literal...

the point is they obviously need to accept ALL the tenets of their denomination.. not only the ones they personally choose to believe in

there is a difference...

if you think there isnt a difference? then that is where we disagree..

[hookul]

For the umpteenth time I will say it again..... My point is not that christians must take everything literal...

the point is they obviously need to accept ALL the tenets of their denomination.. not only the ones they personally choose to believe in

there is a difference...

if you think there isnt a difference? then that is where we disagree..

And I responded to it that a) it is possible that oe of the many, many denominations out there might already completely match ones personally believes or b) that one might just as readily start their own "denomination" and still call oneself a christian...how do you think did all those denominations come into existence in the first place?

[Rasheed1]

And I responded to it that a) it is possible that oe of the many, many denominations out there might already completely match ones personally believes

Those people dont belong in the conversation if they accept all the tenets of their own religion

or b) that one might just as readily start their own "denomination" and still call oneself a christian...how do you think did all those denominations come into existence in the first place?

^like I already said... How many denominations there are and how they get started is totally irrelevant to my point

if you start your own denomination then you would expect the people who follow you to accept ALL of your religious philosophy, not just the parts they want to..

[hookul]

if you start your own denomination then you would expect the people who follow you to accept ALL of your religious philosophy, not just the parts they want to..

No I don't. Why should I...it would be my denomination...my rules...if the rules are very broad (a.k.a. be nice like jesus said but I do not care what else you do or believe in) then that is how it is. Obviously one would have to follow some CORE philosophies of mine but not ALL.

Edit: That is just similiar to the laws of a nation...there would be some key rules (do not kill etc.) but underneath this very broad umbrella the people of the nation are quite free to express themsleves

[Rasheed1]

but I do not care what else you do or believe in

I guess you can just have a religion where the goal is to believe whatever you want and just do whatever feel like...

but who creates a religion and is too lazy to even draw up a real set of beliefs?

Is there a real denomination that says "f*ck it, believe whatever you want"?

serious question..


If thats the case? I can create my own little 1 man religion in my heart and say Im real because in my own little religion, I am doing the right thing..

I mean people are free to do it..........but .......

it starts to cheapen the value of being a christian... Its starts to bring up the questions that Millertime was asking..

[-p.tiddy-]

The problem is that for the religious aspect to work it has to be literal. If original sin doesn't exist then there was no reason for Jesus to die on the cross. Christianity isn't a collection of philosophies that may or may not work for you. [COLOR="Red"]The Christians that are taking it literally are the only ones doing it right.[/COLOR] When you get into wish-washy apologetics and metaphorical explanations it makes the entire premise pointless. If you want to just accept the philosophical aspects then this should be your bible.

I disagree with this entire post 100%, just had a long ass debate with Rasheed over this so no need to repeat that, but who are you to tell them "they are doing it wrong"?

IMO some of the stories in the Bible are BLATANTLY symbolic and the ONLY way they can be taken is as such. (I won't tell the ones who take it literal they are doing it wrong though) For the religious aspect to work it doesn't have to be taken literal at all, and I don't see why you would think such a thing, the important part is what is being taught, not what really did or didn't happen.

Also, the words in the Bible will never change, but the way humans interpret those words certainly can change and evolve for the better. When something is glaringly wrong then Christians shouldn't be hard headed about it IMO, they should evolve their beliefs around what is now seen as more logical. There isn't isn't wrong with them doing so IMO. They aren't "doing it wrong" if they think Adam and Eve is symbolic rather than literal.



edit: just ignore this post, I didn't catch up to see this was already being debated

[-p.tiddy-]

No I'm not serious. I'm not religious at all anymore. Safe to say, I lost faith. Just too busy with school.

When you were religious did you believe that the Earth was only 6,000 years old?

[-p.tiddy-]

Doesn't matter. You are asking a very niche group of people, we don't represent the real population.

males of every race in a very large age range, like 15-40 which is pretty much prime years.

it really isn't that niche at all IMO...pretty much just males in general

oh, males of all types that watch the NBA lol



seriously though if 30% of the population believed the Earth is 6,000 years old there would definitely be a handful of them in here...

[DonDadda59]

When you were religious did you believe that the Earth was only 6,000 years old?

He and I used to get into long debates about religion when he used to post here regularly. I definitely remember him being a young Earth creationist (world being 6-10K years old, dinosaurs died out during the flood, same flood created the grand canyon, etc). But good to see he has become wiser with age.

I think the poster BugzBunny also believes that, and of course that lunatic superboy does. There's probably more here but they are in the closet. Despite you not wanting to believe it based on your personal circles, there is a large portion of this country who believe the Earth is max 10k years old. Some of them are among the most powerful and influential people, which is scary:

Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.

After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.

Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep...alinreligion28

And there was recently a big controversy over possible GOP presidential nominee Marco Rubio dodging the question about Earth's age (he since clarified). It's ridiculous that someone who wants to be the defacto leader of the free world has to answer a silly question like that.

[-p.tiddy-]

Don, I do not debate that there are many out there that believe that...certainly there are a lot of religious fanatics out there...but 30% seems way out there to me, that is 1 out of 3...I know many Christians and I don't think any of them buy into the whole 6k year thing with humans and dinos together and all that...Why weren't all these kids objecting during school when we were learning of the Jurassic period and all that? From what I witnessed, everyone was accepting of it.

Perhaps my guess of "less than 1%" is off, I'll give you that, but I still don't think it is close to 30%...