Science & Christianity- debate over everything

[True_Avery]

snipped flaming/baiting comments

That's called adaption, not evolution. Note that the Flu Virus is still the Flu Virus.

Evolution is organisms changing over periods of time to adapt to their environment. Adaption -is- evolution.

 

Er..... what?

I'll say it again:

 

Interpretation is how people make their religious and spiritual beliefs. You read the Bible, and you take it as you do.

 

Oh really. I'm happy to say that you are 100%, dead-on, wrong. No, many people believe what I do. Do you really expect to defend your statement?

Yes, because religious beliefs are based on interpretation of what you are given. You read the bible, and thus you take the information how you see fit. That is why opinions within christianity differ.

 

Sure, show me someon who believes everything you do 100%, down to the last spec. If they differ in ANYTHING at all, then they have intepreted something differently than you, and this can be called another religion.

 

Well, only one interpretation is going to be right. There's only one truth about this.

 

If what I believed was against the Bible, then I would be wrong. But I don't go against the Bible, and many people do.

You are correct. Only one interpretation is right, to you. Yours. You read the bible, and you built your beliefs on what you assume is right.

 

Right... what the Bible actually says has nothing to do with it.

What the bible says has EVERYTHING to do with it. People take the information and build their beliefs off of it. Your opinion on certain sections of the bible will differ from others. That does not make them wrong, it makes it a differing opinion.

 

Again, you go on to prove that you believe only you are correct.

 

How humerous. You are now suggesting that I want people to burn in hell. I'm not going to comment;

Fine, then what does happen to those humans that do not believe 100% everything that you do? Salvation is salvation, and by your definition only a select few get it.

 

 

I have no idea what the heck you are trying to say here.

If there were truly people that held your exact religious beliefs, then there would not be individual opinions. There would just be clones of you. Groups of people that are acused of believing highly in the same thing are usually refered to as being part of a cult. No individuality. Clones of eachother.

 

Wrong again. Do you really think that what the Bible says is so interpretation-dependent?

There are a group of people in this thread arguing differing interpretations of the bible.

 

You deny that there are absolute truths about God? Everyone can't be different, and right.

Oh, yes they can. You just refuse to believe that someone other than yourself could actually be right. That would mean, to some degree, that your own beliefs could be seen as "Wrong".

You're quite right. In fact, I'll go listed to what He says about this. From the Bible, which is His Word. I'm not seeing anything that is contradictory to what I believe, so I think I'm good. If there was, I'd need to change some of my beliefs, since, after all God has the final say.

Not really. You don't actually know what God says. You can read from a book. A book that was written by man, and a bunch of people who think they knew the actual word of a power of which humans shouldn't have any comphrehension of.

 

Again, you have taken your interpretation of the bible and put it as absolute truth. Anybody who believes otherwise, even if they are of the same religion, is dead wrong.

 

I have no problem with what you believe, but you want to attack me for thinking I'm right about God. I'm sorry, its not my problem. I'm just doing what God says in the Bible.

 

Why don't you tell me what's wrong with what I believe, hmmm?

You are doing what the bible says. You have no idea what a God truly says, because the bible was written by religious humans. Wether god truly spoke through them or not is debatable, and there is no answer until we are dead I guess. But until then, neither of us can be right because you have not met god. Ever.

 

[RobQel-Droma] "I think that the bus sucks."

 

There, I wrote something with your name. If you were unaware of it being posts, and I managed to use your account to post that, people would believe that you said it. But you didn't. I posted it for you. Regardless, until you somehow prove that it was not you, people will believe it was you.

 

The same can be said for the bible. Ever consider that thousands of years ago, religious people may have just written the bible and called it god's word? If they did, then you are following the words of humans, not god. It was in human language, on paper. Prove to me that god really spoke through them and wrote this book.

 

Oh yeah. You can't. Because you are assuming you know what god is saying, but you simply repeat what the bible says. Until I hear it from god, the ability for religion to be named absolutely true is still up in the air for me. I have no real proof that the bible was not written by god, and I have no proof that it was.

 

 

 

Would you change your views no matter what I said?

I believe that religion can neither be proven, or disproven until I die. Either I disapear from existance, or I meet a god. I will question the god if that happens, and make my decision from there. Until then, neither science or religion has my side.

 

Yes. In fact, more personal, why are you no longer a Christian? (or, if you are, why this attitude?)

I am in-between all of this. I belong to no religion, but I don't belong to the science side of this either. I studied into religion, mostly christianity, as a child and learned quite early that there were many differing opinions and it would be wrong to say I knew the true answers to the universe.

 

Also, I stopped believing in fairy tales when I was 8.

 

Its what He says to do. You can ask Him about it when you die, I guess.

Well, because I am going to hell, I guess I'll miss the chance. Not missing much. I'm happy living as I am now, and I don't see how knowing the ACTUAL answers of life will improve anything from down there.

 

But... no. I'd rather have you come down to hell and explain this all to me when you are dead and up in heaven. You can either explain to me how right you were, and I'll achnoloedge how right you were... or you can explain to me why your god is an eight armed elephant and how off you were during life.

 

Believe, be baptized for the remission of your sins, and follow God.

 

Doesn't sound to complex to me.

I believe that humans cannot prove this to me. I believe having water splashed on me fixes nothing. And I will follow god when I meet god. Not selfish, childish, human beliefs.

 

It isn't complex is it? Thats why it is able to suck so many people into believing it. A simple, easy way to get salvation after death because we humans fear what is after death more than anything in existance. Knowing we will be saved makes death a comforting thought.

 

You deny that is part of what He says to do in the Bible?

 

Again, you can ask Him in Heaven. As for me, I'm going to do what He says.

I believe it is what humans say to do in the bible. I don't think you have the slightest clue what god actually wants.

 

But, I guess we'll find out after death wont we? So, your beliefs cannot be proved 100% until after we are dead... Now who is the one who cannot debate?

 

Ok, whatever....

Rub it off if you want. I don't expect to be praised when I say I am right over everybody else... Why should you?

 

Do you know what baptism is? It is the remission of our sins. If we don't have that, we aren't "good" at all, no one is. I find your claim to be somehow close to perfection childish.

Of course I know what baptism is. I just fail to see how H20, WATER, LIQUID, is a remission of our sins. And, by saying that, you have just called me and a number of people "bad".

 

Because, after all, I am going to hell anyway for not getting baptised. I don't see why life matters anymore at this point...

 

Give me a break. I am not going to hell for not getting splashed with some damn water.

 

Er.... how? I'm not the one discarding parts of the Bible. I was wondering why Rogue Nine was discarding every verse I put forth to stand by one single verse that doesn't even explicitly say that you don't have to be baptized. I accept that verse.... that doesn't mean anything. The verse doesn't say "all who believe, even if they aren't baptized"....

It is called interpretation. He reads it and understands it differently than you, but you read the same book. Now, what if he is right and you are wrong? That thought ever cross your mind?

 

I have yet to see any reasoning behind why you are right but "The book says it" and "You'll find out I am right when you die." Neither one are valid arguements, because one is a mass produced book that can be altered, and has been written by man, and your other point can only be proved once we are dead.

 

Fine. You claim that the Bible is not right? Because all I said was, anyone that doesn't follow the Bible is wrong. Do you disagree? I thought you claimed to be a Christian at one point?

 

Exactly. You claim you are correct, and everybody that doesn't follow your little book to be dead wrong and lacking salvation. So yes, I do disagree with your logic. I grew up as a child in a christian family, and went to church, but I realized that with the huge amount of religions in the world that mine could not possibly be the 100% way to go. I am not arrogant enough to assume that my belief system is the only correct one in all of creation.

 

 

Yea, sure they would. All roads lead to Heaven, though, right!? I mean, since no one is right or wrong.

It is more comforting than your system, which picks out non-believers and heretics. I, sadly, am not someone who assumes I know the vast truths of the universe. I have never met god, and probably never will. You have not met god, and probably never will.

 

The difference between us is that I am waiting for truth from the being who has the -actual- answers, if that being even exists. You assume you already know them. And, if you are right, I never will know those truths. Ever. And I am comfortable living like that for eternity.

 

But, if you sleep better at night assuming that there are definitive rights and wrong in the world, then you go ahead and do that. I'll live my life in the gray, and, as you say, I guess we'll find out when it no longer matters: When we die. And if God tells me I did wrong, I'll give god the finger before he takes away my free will and sends me to hell... you know, like any nice dictator would do.

 

I go to a "Church of Christ", which I guess is kind of a "non-denominational" Church, although it probably really is. I, however, do believe in baptism - if it does cleanse us of our sins, how is it optional? Wouldn't we be ugly to God if we were still carrying our sins around?

It seems to be pretty optional. I don't do it, and have not done it. Many people don't do it, ever. And I do not believe it is gods place to say who is ugly and who is not. God is not worthy of my attention if that is how a god thinks. If that sends me to hell, then hey... I'll go out saying "I knew I was right about you!"

 

Many early historians mention Jesus.

Many early historians also said the earth was flat, and that it was once wiped clean by a flood.. Yet somehow all of the animals of the world lived within walking distance of Noah, and 80 million different species of animal fit onto a wooden arc. Not everything early historians say can be applied to modern day knowledge of physics and science.

 

So... you believe something that you don't consider correct? What?

Yep. I do not believe my outlook on life is the correct one. Out of the billions of opinions out there, I realize that mine is only 1 of them. You may firmly believe you are the correct one out of those billions, and that is indeed a heavy stance to take. I'll go ahead and keep accepting that I am not ever truly right or wrong on matters of opinion and morals.

 

That might be hard for you to understand. Most people I find see it just as silly as I see your beliefs. But thats why I like my system. Everybody seems to believe themselves right in their opinion, so why not assume that right and wrong are opinion based. I have my own theories on what is right and wrong, and you have yours, and the guy over there has his.

 

The difference between you and me is that I see another opinion in them, another world, another worldveiw, and another sense of good and evil. You see someone that is downright wrong.

 

I should, by my own logic, think of you the same but I have trouble accepting people who believe they are the only one correct out of billions of humans. That logic leads to wars, death, destruction, and chaos. It lead to the Nazis. To the churches destruction of the south american native population. It lead to the cold war. It lead to world war 1 and 2. I do not believe that putting your opinion above all other opinions and calling it the absolute is anything less than selfish, arrogant, and childish.

 

I feel as though my opinion matters more, but when I look at the big picture I realize that in less than 100 years I will be dead and my beliefs will go with me. What lies beyond that I could care less, but what happens on earth is what I care about. If god wants to send me to hell for that, then I hope he sends me down with a bang because I refuse to believe in something that wont in turn believe in me and believe in everything I feel I can stand for. I will follow a free-thinker, not a dictator.

 

So yes: I believe something that I don't consider correct.

 

Lol, and True Avery's female? I didn't know that.

Yes, I am of the female species.

 

You mean to tell me that your interpretation is the end-all to how the Good Book should be read? That one must either read it the way you read it, or else one is 'not doing it right'?

Exactly. It is his way, or to hell you go. He, and apparently others, are the only ones who truly know how to read the bible. Everybody else is just commiting blasphemy.

Well, babies, when they die, supposedly go to Heaven without believing, because they are innocent.

I don't believe. Can I have free salvation too? I guess atheists get a free ride as well. Innocent is a term that is thrown around all too often I think. Children hit each other, bite each other, break things, scream, disobey. They are just mini versions of adults, but with less vocabulary. When does god decide to begin judging children? When they are 18? When they are 13? When they "understand" "right" and "wrong"?

 

Although, I guess I do not understand why babies are so important and special. I don't want any, and don't plan on having any. Guess it must be a love thing. Personally I find them disgusting

[Tommycat]

Personally I don't believe in hell. I think that god lets our decisions in life affect our afterlife. I mean to some the idea of angels singing, and basking in the glow of god would be hell. To others being surrounded by heavy metal fire and brimstone might be heaven(well maybe not the brimstone, but I dig heavy metal music and fire is warm haha). Some find pain pleasurable, others not so much, so to me it makes more sense that a god that loves his children(us) wouldn't want to destroy us, but would rather give us heaven in our own way. I would certainly not like to be sitting around with a bunch of Episcapalians. I'd rather be hanging out with the metalheads haha.

 

As for children, True_Avery, it'll hit you one day. If not, then the Catholics can have your share.

[Jae Onasi]

The flaming/baiting is getting out of control. RobQel-Droma and True_Avery, this is your public warning not to flame/bait any further in this thread and indeed on LF. I am slowly pruning out all the crap that you two have been throwing at each other. Tone it down. Neither of you need to be using sarcasm, you can write to each other with respect, or at least without being rude. If you can't do that, then don't respond at all. I will simply delete sarcastic/rude posts from here on because pruning takes an inordinate amount of time. If you don't want entire posts deleted, word them without the sarcasm.

 

jmac7142, stay on topic and avoid trolling/baiting.

 

Everyone--I'm seriously thinking of closing this thread if the level of sniping/flaming/baiting continues. There's no reason we can't write to each other with some level of respect. There are many different people here from many different cultures, and you can disagree without being rude. You can also learn some really fascinating things if you're willing to at least listen to someone who has a different viewpoint.

[Ray Jones]

Although, I guess I do not understand why babies are so important and special.

But even I do understand that! (A) They are so important because, have you ever tried to give birth to a fully grown, adult human?? And (B) the are so speshul because, they can make Niner feel safe, and also, they have small hands and grab your nose!! ^^

[Achilles]

What I mean is that a singular non-repeatable instance can be chalked up to being an anomaly. Testing it is impossible as it only occured once. Yet was sufficient to meet my needs.

Based on our recent PM exchange, I feel comfortable stating that you and I are both approaching this from completely different points of view. I'm referring to the "holy ghost" experience that most people refer to when they reference "a spiritual experience". You're talking about something completely different. Needless to say, I'm glad we cleared that up.

 

Without going into detail though, I do disagree that your experience can't be tested. We can take it back to PM at this point if you would like for me explain myself further. Thanks for your response.

 

Well in essence he may intend for me to be an artist and I choose the serial killer path. He may try to steer me away from that path, but if I continue to turn away from Him, then I have given him no alternative but to place me on the path to hell. You can have a predetermined good and predetermined bad outcome and still have it be destiny(Thinking of Bindu and the swirling destiny haha).

That's not predestination, that's consequences/rewards. If I tell my children that I will give them each $5 for doing their chores or ground them for a weekend if they don't, we cannot say that they were predestined to be grounded for the weekend when they make the choice not to do their chores.

 

This goes back to the earlier statement (I forget who made it) that god puts some people here knowing that they won't make it to heaven. That's predestination, and if it's true, then no matter what that poor sap does, he isn't going to make it. He has no choice, no option, no menu of selections. At the end of the day, he's going to hell. Doesn't sound like a loving god to me.

 

Unless of course, predestination doesn't exist (cue: free will). Then we have to begin questioning god's omniscience and his omnipotence. Creating a creature that he can't control which has future he cannot see is kinda like the old question about god creating a rock too heavy for him to lift.

 

You can let God decide everything for you, but then you have no control over how it happens. You can take full control of it and maybe screw it up. Or you can take some control but ask God for guidance, and hope you get his instructions right. The more control you take the more likely it is that you will fall off the path he has determined for you.

With considerable respect, it really sounds as though you're grasping at straws here

 

Personally, I simply choose to acknowledge that the god hypothesis doesn't make much sense and live my life accordingly.

 

Take care!

[Darth InSidious]

Since I'm probably going to have to launch the good ship "Defending the Catholic Church as the One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church", should I start a new thread?

[ET Warrior]

Wikipedia?

Not always the most reliable of sources, but there are external links to other documents if you truly feel that this article is complete hogwash (which it is not).

 

That's called adaption, not evolution. Note that the Flu Virus is still the Flu Virus.

The common misconception about evolution is that adaptation and evolution are somehow different things. Adaptation is evolution on a small enough time scale for us to observe it. The Flu virus manages to mutate significantly enough that our bodies are not prepared for it in a single year. Evolution takes millions of years.

 

Wait, people are still using the Peppered Moth? I thought everyone understood about that by now...

A lot of people do understand that by now. The peppered moths give us an example of Natural Selection in action, as opposed to adaptation or evolution. However, it is the combination of the two things that gives us evolution by natural selection, and I provided you with examples of both occurring on even a very small time scale.

 

So.... one or two fossils, and they say "the missing link!" How come, for instance, the whale-like one is suddenly a transitional fossil even though the only classification for that is that it is an amphibian

The article I linked you to was a basic example.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

There you will find a much more complete documentation of transitional fossils that have been found. They are transitional fossils because they demonstrate slight changes in traits that would have to exist for the eventual evolution of the species we see today from the species that used to exist. The fact that we continue to find more and more intermediary steps only cements the logic that evolution by natural selection is completely true.

 

What do you say to this, then: they have found several species of animals (that were supposedly evolving at different times) in the same layer of soil. How does evolution explain that?

Source? Not that it can't necessarily be true, but I'd like a specific example.

[MJ-W4]

I believe the most important thing for all of us, regardless of our individual beliefs and opinions, is TOLERANCE. There is a notable difference between having a belief or an opinion of one's own and forcing that belief or opinion onto others.

To quote an ancient Greek saying: 'Oida ouden eidos' - 'I know I know nothing.'

[mimartin]

Some people may interpret things differently, but usually it is to advance their own beliefs, and the passages they use are obviously misused. I think it tends to be very clear on what is right and wrong - it is inspired by God, after all, so it is His standard of Christianity. Anyone that follows something different to what the Bible says, is, sadly, wrong.

I would agree churches and people can misinterpret the Bible to advance their own beliefs. Can they also interpret it differently for their own needs? Example: Say I am having problems in my life and contemplating suicide, murder or whatever. I turn to the Bible for answers to my problems. If I find a passage, a verse that helps me though this time even if I completely misinterpret it meaning is that wrong? I believe when open to the Holy Spirit we are allowed to gain insight into the Bible. The Bible to me is a handbook for living my life and not an instrument of oppression.

 

I also do not believe God is arrogant or vengeful. I believe God is love and loved us enough to allow his own son to be tortured and murdered by mortal man. I can’t see him turning people away just because we did not follow the rules of a church or because we are not smart enough to follow the true meaning of a book written 2000 years ago by men. A book was translated to different languages by men. Scholars argue about what different words within the Bible meant 2000 years-ago compared to what their contemporary meaning how is some dumb Texan suppose to know the true meaning? Is God going to punish me for my misinterpretation?

 

Most of us practice the same religion of our family. Is God going to punish me because I was not born to one of your “pure” Christian households? Why would God put me in such a household? Even though I follow his word and my church’s teaching? Even if I ask God for his forgiveness of my sins?

 

This is why I don’t like getting involved in a Religious discussion. This is way too personal, but I messed up by getting involved in the first place. Just a side note this is what I believe I’m not in any shape or form saying it is right. I just saying this is how I get through life.

 

Achilles I gave you a few gopher balls here and in keeping with a baseball analogy the ten run rule is in effect.

 

I believe the most important thing for all of us, regardless of our individual beliefs and opinions, is TOLERANCE.

Agreed, and if we are unwilling to give tolerance and respect why should we expect tolerance and respect in return.

[Achilles]

I believe the most important thing for all of us, regardless of our individual beliefs and opinions, is TOLERANCE.

To split hairs for just a moment, I've always taken issue with the word "tolerance" being used in this way. "Tolerance" implies permissiveness, where one viewpoint allows another to exist, whereas I think "acceptance" allows all viewpoints to co-exist equally.

 

Unfortunately though, the truth is that some ideas are simply unacceptable. The idea that adults should be allowed to abuse children is unacceptable to most rational people. The idea that neighbors should be allowed to enslave and sell one another is unacceptable for most rational people. That some sort of exception should be made for one particular flavor of irrational belief is unacceptable for most rational people.

 

So, yes, I do agree that acceptance is important, however I only think it should be applied in situations where it is rational to do so (such as cultural diversity, etc).

 

There is a notable difference between having a belief or an opinion of one's own and forcing that belief or opinion onto others.

Absolutely.

 

I don't think that is the same thing as having said beliefs open to discussion.

 

To quote an ancient Greek saying: 'Oida ouden eidos' - 'I know I know nothing.'

I think there is a lot of wisdom in those words. Unfortunately, religion does not permit such a worldview, because there is an answer for everything and the answer is always "god" (except for when it's "jesus" or "satan"). So the whole, "I know that I know nothing" idea is DOA for those that hold a religious faith (generally speaking).

 

Thanks for your post and welcome to the discussion.

[MJ-W4]

To split hairs for just a moment...

 

--- snip ---

 

Thanks for your post and welcome to the discussion.

Thank you for your kind welcome.

To mend hairs, I am sorry not to have been clearer. When I use 'tolerance', I use it in the very meaning you gave for 'acceptance'. To me, tolerance has nothing to with permissiveness towards crime, it is my preferred term for openmindedness, to listen to others and to try and see through their eyes.

 

In my life, I have been to many parts of the world and met with many different people, cultures and religions. Looking back, people (like you and me, as opposed to governments or any other type of institution) around the world seem to share one common desire regardless of origin, country, religion or favourite lunchtime snack: Everybody wants to lead their lives in peace.

 

The thing I've learnt for myself is that sometimes, our hearts have more wisdom than all the books in the world. In every culture or religion I've come across, there is always a 'personal moral institution', something that tells us if what we're doing is right or wrong. This 'personal moral institution' is sometimes attributed to a god or deity, or even a philosophy, and it basically says 'harm no-one so that you may suffer no harm from others.'

Having seen so much, and all to the same ends, I dare not put any single one higher than another.

[Prime]

It is a strong argument against something, however. It should not be the only one, but still....

 

And seriously, do you believe that all life on this Earth is as complex as a set of 52 cards? Or even one in a million? It is astronomically greater; I'm not even sure if it could be computed. I'm not saying that is the only reason I believe in Creation, but I think you underestimated a little.

Of course not. But the point remains: improbable by no means equals impossible. Again, this happens all the time in all sorts of systems. The card example is just a simplified example. Take the most extreme example that you like. The odds of getting exactly that can be beyond imagining. But you can still get it.

 

Also, the odds of actually getting a certain combination are lowered if you increase the number of attempts. And the number of attempts can be pretty high over the course of millions of years. We see variations in bacteria that become resistant to anti-bioticts over the past few decades, so they have obviously changed their structure over that time. How much greater can changes be when that few decades is expanded to many, many, millenia?

 

Secondly, if you are arguing then from the point of evolution, you must understand that random mutations aren't good things. They're bad. In fact, according to Darwin's own law of natural selection, it would weed out those who have mutations because they wouldn't be able to survive. Take any kind of system in the human body. It would be so complex, and each part would depend so much on the other, that it would all have to coexist at the same time.

The vast majority of mutations are bad, yes. And they will be detrimental, and likely lead to the dead of the being. But the very small minority turn out to be beneficial. Typically, they are the only ones that are passed on.

 

Each stage and piece, however complex, has be functional on its own.

 

Which is not what, I hope, any Christian is doing. But let me point out that science has agreed/failed to destroy God for thousands of years.

Hmmm, none of my science classes had a course in attempting to destroy God. That is just how certain religions express it when they feel science contradicts their ideas.

 

Not trying to say, well, "that must mean that 'Goddunit'", but you get my point. In fact, Christianity and the Bible have even had some things about the nature of the Earth and the Universe that took science a very, very long time to accept.

No doubt they are right in certain cases. But how did they reach those conclusions? Not by actually figuring out and observing the answer.

[Rogue Nine]

Demons believe in one God. They don't believe (I wouldn't think) Jesus is their Savior. Bit of a difference there.

 

And way to go with completely ignoring my post! And most of Jae's too!

 

Sorry, but I don't recall any of your verses explicitly saying: You don't have to be baptized to be saved.

There aren't any that say that you do!

 

Allow me to use a spot of logic here. Someone once said in this thread (or another, I can't be arsed to remember which), that the Bible does not contradict itself because if it were to, then that would mean that God's Word is not right or perfect or something. Based off of that, I present to you...

 

John 3:36 - "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life..."

Mark 16:16 - "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..."

 

Using simple logic:

 

John 3:36

IF you believe in Jesus,

THEN you will have eternal life (be saved).

 

Mark 16:16

IF you believe (in Jesus)

AND you are baptized,

THEN you will be saved (have eternal life).

 

If Mark's statement is to be held true, then it contradicts dozens upon dozens of verses (John 3:36 being the immediate example) across the New Testament that refer to only believing in Jesus as the criteria for salvation. If it is a requirement for salvation, then why is it mentioned so few times? I even quoted a passage above where someone asks Paul and Silas point-blank "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They respond with "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." (Acts 16:30-31) If baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, then why didn't they tell the jailer so? Surely it is upon Paul and Silas to preach the Good Word to all, but by not specifying that one must be baptized to be saved, they could have potentially doomed thousands of souls who gave their lives to Jesus but didn't get baptized! As a result, those unbaptized souls are now languishing in Hell, all because Paul and Silas forgot to tell them to get baptized!

 

Several passages point out that if one does not believe in Jesus, then one cannot be saved. Hell, even the rest of Mark 16:16 points that out: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." This is how we know that believing in Jesus as Savior is an absolute, irrevocable requirement for salvation.

 

However, there is no such proviso made for baptism. Nowhere in the New Testament does it say 'if you are not baptized, then you cannot be saved' and it is fallacious to assume so, because we cannot assume that just because one statement is true, the negation of it is also true, unless it is specifically stated (as with the above verse).

 

Let's take your argument: "Sorry, but I don't recall any of your verses explicitly saying: You don't have to be baptized to be saved." By saying this, you assume the negation of your statement ('You do have to be baptized to be saved') to be true. Time for some more handy dandly logic tools!

 

Let J = I believe Jesus is my Savior.

Let B = I am baptized.

Let S = I am saved.

 

The following statements are all true:

J ∧ B ⊃ S - "I believe Jesus is my Savior AND I am baptized THEREFORE I am saved." (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38)

J ⊃ S - "I believe Jesus is my Savior THEREFORE I am saved." (John 3:16, numerous other verses in the New Testament)

~J ⊃ ~S - "I do NOT believe Jesus is my Savior THEREFORE I am NOT saved." (Mark 16:16, numerous other verses in the New Testament)

 

With what you stated above, you want to prove ~B ⊃ ~S or "I am NOT baptized THEREFORE I am NOT saved" and you cannot do that, simply based on the above criteria, because it does not make logical sense. In the same vein, you cannot assume B ⊃ S ('I am baptized, THEREFORE I am saved') to be true either!

 

I'm pretty sure Achilles or any of the other logical minded people will agree with me (in my application of logic, if not the message behind the statements. xD)

[Achilles]

I'm pretty sure Achilles or any of the other logical minded people will agree with me (in my application of logic, if not the message behind the statements. xD)

My continued opinion (which I think is more than supported by the exchange in this thread) is that holy texts are entirely open to interpretation, largely in thanks to contradictory information contained therein. Anyone that does not recognize this has not read their holy text and anyone that does not accept it is not being honest with themselves.

 

Thank you for inviting me to comment!

[MJ-W4]

With what you stated above, you want to prove ~B ⊃ ~S or "I am NOT baptized THEREFORE I am NOT saved" and you cannot do that, simply based on the above criteria, because it does not make logical sense. In the same vein, you cannot assume B ⊃ S ('I am baptized, THEREFORE I am saved') to be true either!

 

I'm pretty sure Achilles or any of the other logical minded people will agree with me (in my application of logic, if not the message behind the statements. xD)

Very well put and logical, too. Thumbs up.

[Darth InSidious]

[Tried to delete my previous post, but couldn't. I've decided not to open a new thread for now...If a mod want's to move the posts, though, that would also seem like a good idea...]

 

No. Do you need a family tree? There was no Bible that defined Christianity, there was no proto-Christianity from which Catholics splintered from. The name "Roman Catholic" was used to denote adherence to Roman authority and to distinguish itself from the Protestantism.

 

To put it another way: Protestantism splintered from the Church. In fact, I believe the Roman epithet was first used after the Great Schism with the Orthodox of the Nicaean Crede, and more specifically after the rift became almost irreconcilable, when Bruno put a Bull of Excommunication upon the high altar of Hagia Sofia some time c.1000 AD, as I recall…

 

Catholicism is in no way chrisitinity. for one, it is much more rediculous. It is a corrupted version of pure christinity, whoever started catholicism obviously didn't read his bible very well. the same for mormonism. those religions based off of chrisianity are rediculous.

Rubbish. Martin Luther, on the other hand, read some deliberate mistranslations, from the most unreliable Greek texts, and jumped to conclusions. And you need to learn to spell “Christianity”. Furthermore, “Christianity”, “Mormonism” and “Catholicism” are all proper nouns. J

 

*cough* Er, no it's not. [re: Catholicism is Christianity]

Um, that's a very interesting way to define a religion. Do you even know anything about what Catholicism teaches?

Just a bit. I happen to be a practicing Catholic.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Peter was never the first pope. Catholicism believes that, but Christianity never has.

Define ‘Christianity’.

 

“You are Peter, and on this rock I shall build my Church.”

 

And before you bring up the possible differences between “petra” and “petron”, in the first place, words indicate differences in contextual meaning by altering their endings in Greek; secondly, the possible differences in meaning were almost indistinguishable by the first century - in Koiné at least; third, Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Aramaic word closest in meaning to ‘petron’ is ‘kepha’ - which means a large rock, not pebble.

 

In fact, the core of Christianity and its books were mostly estabilished before the Roman Catholic church came along. I'd ask you to do some research yourself, my friend.

Likewise! For example, the canonical Bible was only formally instituted by a Council of the Catholic Church.

 

You need to realize that Christianity and Catholicism are two seperate things.

No. They are synonymous.

 

Roman Catholicism was the part of Christianity that was made the state religion of the Roman Empire and given power,

That is questionable.

 

whereas "pure" Christianity, in the Bible, is a much different religion.

There is no such alternate lineage of Christianity. All other denominations that call themselves Christian are splinters from the Roman Church.

 

Sure, Catholicism was kind of like the mutation of Christianity, but the two are not equal.

Again, wrong. Protestantism is the mutation.

 

From a certain point of view, yes.... they have become so large and split from most Christian doctrines that its hard to see the line between "denomination" and "new religion", but I see your point.

Funny, then, that it is Luther who denied Catholic doctrines, and not vice versa.

 

They also used to exchange money for salvation. [Learn about the *precise* meaning of 'indulgence' first.

Unless you understand the precise nature of indulgences, I’d be silent on this one. And given your generally poor knowledge of anything but ancient Protestant propaganda in this area, I’d suggest following my example.

 

I’m sure there’s information on the subject in the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which is freely available online.

I acknowledge that prior to Constantine, Chrisitianity was likely quite different. Careful there with your use of the term "Bible" however. That suggests there was One central teaching back in the day. No such thing. There was the Old Testament and various epistles, letters, and gospels some of which were appended and others omitted. The idea that Pure Christianity existed as homogenous belief is false and overly romantic. There were arguments even among the different sects, calling each other heretics. The Chrisitian Jews for example did not accept Gentiles as followers of Christ. The Gnostics believed that matter (that is, the world the God created) was evil and saw Jesus as a savior from the evil world.

Certain Gnostic gospels also contain some fascinating bits that would seem to disprove Dan Brown’s idea that the were more ‘tolerant’ of women - in fact, in one (I think the Gospel of Thomas) - Jesus says something along the lines that if any woman wants to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, she must make herself a man…!

 

But that’s another discussion altogether.

The Bible as you know it today and the most cogent aspects of modern Christianity owes its structure to the First Council of Nicaea under Constantine in 325. This is the root of modern Christianity, Catholic and Protestant alike.

 

Of course the church become corrupt with political power

What political power? Prior to the Investiture Controversy, the Church was entirely under the heel of secular authorities…

 

Martin Luther was in the right to point out the hypocrisies in the church's doctrines.

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

 

Throughout the mediaeval world there were major problems with corruption throughout the clergy - over which Rome made various attempts to correct the issue - frequently this was a job for the Inquisition. However, given the general disorganisation of the Inquisitions, their limited authority etc, they rarely managed. Most of the many monastic orders were founded by people who attempted to reform the state of the monasteries. So the idea that there was institutionalised corruption I would take exception to.

 

Let me get one thing straight. I've been a practicing Roman Catholic for the Last two years, and I for one am somewhat astounded at the idea that People think that Catholics aren't real Christians. Of Course, though I also know that Martin Luther was just a bit Anti-Semitic but you can take that to the Bank. I frankly am still new to the World of debating but All I can think of to say is that It seems odd that Christianity and Science are incompatible. I should know, since I'm an Evolutionist and a Proponent of The Idea that Adam and Eve never existed, but I'm getting off kilter to my point, if there ever was one. But I think I'm trying to say that I always thought Christianity has always been a successful religion because of how it can be interpreted to its followers, and the religion it self is suffering when one person can accuse another sect of Christianity of not being a true part of Christianity.

Welcome to the Church. I have to say that you are correct that science and Christianity are not necessarily incompatible - I think the great Catholic St. Thomas Aquinas would be shocked by the suggestion, to name but one.

I beg to differ. Jesus' apostles did not teach diverse teachings. In Galatians, I think, Paul specifically says that if anyone, even an angel, teaches something different to what they (the apostles) were teaching, they were to be accursed. The OT and the NT do not contradict each other; those other gospels, such as the gospel of Judas and whatnot, were false gospels. In fact, many of them were fakes put forth by other sects to try and justify what they were doing.

I was reading that passage just the other night…. I believe the point made in the selection of the four ‘canonical’ gospels was that they should be authentic in dating - that is, to have been evidently around for longer than the others, of an origin relating to the Apostles, and have some internal agreement. J

 

Why? In the beginning it was.

 

And, by definition, Pure Christianity would exist that way. I would not call these other sects "pure" by any means, since Pure Christianity would follow the original form of Jesus' teaching/the Bible.

“There was much else that Jesus did; if it were written down in detail, I do not suppose the world itself would hold all the books that would be written.” - John 21:25

 

One message that would seem to come across loud and clear from the New Testament is that on its own, it is not enough. It isn’t a manual on How To Be A Christian In 144 Simple And Not-So-Simple Steps. It wasn’t meant to be.

 

I suggest you re-read the Parable of the Sower and onwards.

 

Furthermore, the acceptance of the letters clearly shows that you do accept a Sacred Tradition of interpolating Jesus’ teaching and attempting to understand how His thought would apply to different situations…

Oh, I agree. But it started out as something pure, and then was corrupted by different factors. But those other denominations and viewpoints that split off can not be regarded as true Christianity.

Corrupting factors? Such as Paul?

Catholics believe that Peter was the first Pope (Christians don't), and they have a line of popes descending from him that are the highest authority on Earth to them. He is the ultimate power to them, and he can exercise his judgement on anyone in the Catholic Church. This kind of power over the Church or judgement placed in the hands of one man is not what the Bible teaches, nor is it what any other Christians adhere to.

See above on the Primacy of Peter. But clearly you do not understand the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. So let me try and explain in plain English. “Whatever you consider loosed on Earth shall be considered loosed in heaven; whatever you consider bound on Earth shall be considered bound in heaven.” In other words - final authority on Earth is granted to Peter, and then passed on via the Apostolic Succession.

 

But the Pope can neither demand what kind of shoes I should wear to work, nor demand that Catholics believe in a fourth member of the trinity (‘though plenty of anti-popes do similar things…). Papal authority extends firstly only to matters of faith and morals.

 

At this point, in order to proceed you have to understand the idea of the development of doctrine. Catholic doctrine does not change. This is the most basic thing to understand. There are no deviations from a set course - to ensure which, any ‘new’ development is passed through a series of Councils, tested against existing doctrines and dogmas, the Bible, the works of the Doctors of the Church, et cetera. The process can take years.

 

Further, this authority can only be used to define an existing doctrine as infallible.

 

So why does doctrine develop? Because new situations must be dealt with. In the first century AD, almost no-one had abortions. They were just as, if not more dangerous than childbirth, technically illegal in the Roman Empire, and really only done on the fringes of the Empire by prostitutes. There was no need for an expressed teaching on the subject. Fast-forward to 1967, and clearly there now is such a need. Now, I think we can both agree that if Christ said that “if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her” (Mt. 5:28), or “everyone who divorces his wife…makes her an adulteress; and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Mt. 5:32), it is unlike that he would support abortion.

 

The subject gets a lot more complicated than this, of course, but this is a simplified, brief explanation of the subject.

 

 

Oh, at this point I should probably make clear that we are discussing the Successor of Peter, Vicar of Christ, Prince of the Apostles, Patriarch of the West, Bishop of Rome and Servant of the Servants of God, and not Shenouda III, Patriarch of Alexandria. J

 

Catholics also believe in transubstantiation.

 

The precise words used in the NT Koiné are, if I recall, “toutos estin soma mou” - which literally translates as “itself, it is the body of me”. Methinks that transubstantiation has more than a little backing in Scripture….

 

Catholics also used to sell indulgences to buy salvation;

Again, see above.

 

still pray to Mary and others as saints; and etc.…

Lies.

 

Catholics ask Mary and the other saints to intercede, that is pray for them.

 

For example, if we take the most common of the Marian antiphons and dissect it:

 

“Hail Mary, full of grace” - ‘Hello Mary, who has much Divine Grace’ - there should be no objections to this…

 

“Blessed art thou amongst women” - the angel Gabriel says much the same thing.

“and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus” - OK, slight understatement, I suppose, but still…

“Holy Mary, Mother of God” - Still any objections?

“Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, Amen.” - So, pray for our salvation and deliverance, both now, and when we are about to die.

 

So you see, hardly ‘worship’.

 

I could go through a list of others, some minor, and some not, but I hope you see my point. None of what I listed is agreed with by the Bible/Christians.

And I’m sure there are plenty of refutations.

 

Wrong again. Do you really think that what the Bible says is so interpretation-dependent?

Given that very few people in the world are experts on first-century Aramaic and Koiné, yes.

*Pops popcorn*

 

Evangelical fights are the best!

I begin to understand your position on Christianity...

[Achilles]

I begin to understand your position on Christianity...

Maybe if you had stuck around in some of those other threads, we could have worked our way to this point sooner.

 

 

Take care and happy holidays!

[Darth InSidious]

Maybe if you had stuck around in some of those other threads, we could have worked our way to this point sooner.

I doubt it. Frankly, my opinion has been far more soured by the posts by others in this thread than your rhetoric could ever hope to cause.

 

In any case, I think I've made my position on 'science and Christianity' fairly clear before.

Take care and happy holidays!

And the same to you.

[Prime]

Keep it civil, kids...

[Achilles]

Keep it civil, kids...

Darth Insidious, I'll submit my reply via PM.

[Rev7]

God and Science

Questions, comments....

[matinee suxxx]

oh wow you have a lot of ideas, right so im only going to address a few of them. allthough i do agree with you that god is real, i have no doubt, but that doesnt garentee me a place in heaven,i need to follow a christian life and consantly ask for forgivenessand do much much more than just "believe in him".

 

secondly: god is the only entity that can be in our minds, know what we know. not even lucifer can read our thoughts, he's not in our heads telling us to sin, even you said he is a master at deception, he tempts gives us ideas, subtly, he does not come out and tell us to sin, he simply brings the thought to our attention.

 

three: i do not believe that humans lived amung the dinosaurs, just because of a mention of a sea creature. have you done more research then the bible? maybe the satanic bible by anton LaVey, the four books: Lucifer (air), Satan (fire), belile (earth), and the book of the water...**Leviathen** according to that and in the book of revalations when it talks about monsters(i wont go into detail about them i will jus call them monsters) come from the sea and the ground from hell, leads one to think the leviathen is just another representation of satan ( remember how he also appeared as a serpent to adam and eve) anyways i cant post anymore as i have to leave i will add more to this post later.

[Rev7]

I don't undersand what you are saying...do you agree with me, do you not? Only curious...

[matinee suxxx]

I don't undersand what you are saying...do you agree with me, do you not? Only curious...

 

the only things i dont agree with is that demons are in you headknowing your thoughts. i know they can posess but not read minds, and that all you have to do is believe. you need to do more then believe, you cant just go - o yeah gods real, lets go cheat on my wife, i'll still go to heaven because i believe in him. not how it works.the only two things.

now as for the antichrist i whole-heartedly agree with you, but i believe he wil come in the form of a baby. only the real jesus will come ful grown....i jus dont know about the dino thing..because almost every beast mentioned in the bible has to do with satan

[mur'phon]

God and Science

Questions, comments....

 

Things i noticed after reading a couple of articles is: They make several wrong asumptions considering what atheists believe in order to make it easy to ridicule Scientific evidence suporting their cause isn't properly explained, and they don't show sources. God is the default answer when science can't explain something (yet).