Split from: DV Christians Unite! (Christian Only Thread)

[TheSilverWolf]

Well, I have to disagree with that, Xei. If, as it the Bible says, God always knew what was going to happen, then he knew he was going to send his Son to earth in human form, so that we may be forgiven our sins, right? This kickstarts entire chains of events, as Jesus had a huge impact on Earth. Therefore, when the time came, God did what he always knew he would do eventually. It's just a thought, anyway. I won't claim to know why God decided we didn't need to sacrifice animals (usually a sheep) anymore. Who really knows, other than God? He had a reason though, and just because we can't perceive what it is, doesn't make it an imperfection on HIS part. MAYBE the reason had something to do with us, not him. Maybe he wanted us to move beyond sacrifice. Perhaps he thought it would be better for us humans if we didn't have to keep doing that, I don't know. But I do know He has his reasons, whether or not I understand or can comprehend them right now. I am a human, he created me; it would be very arrogant to assume I could ever understand the way God thinks. ~SilverWolf~

[TimeDragon97]

Scientists also believe we have a conscious universe, are you going to believe that too? Its so easy for scientists please a secular crowd because they will believe anything told to them. Its rather sad. Go ahead please state your fossils, genetics and all your other evidence showing we came from apes. And in case you didnt know, we are more genetically identical to pigs than we are to apes, and yet we look nothing like pigs. For a person who believes in evolution you seem you dont know much. Let me set down a list of all your fossil evidence of our "evolution" from apes which by the way were all proven to be hoaxes. 1. The Piltdown Man-hoax: Scientists said that this skull was estimated to be 300,00 years old to 1 million years old and represented our evolution from apes. The skull of the fossil belonged to a 600 year old woman, and the jaw of the skull belonged to a 500 year old orangutan from the East Indies. Scientists lied on the time it came from and the truth of the fossil parts. 2. Nebraska Man- hoax- a "fossil" built by one tooth from an extinct pig, rendering the whole finding false. 3. Java Man-hoax: a "fossil" found in the early 20th century, which too was aimed to represent our evolution from apes. In truth this "finding" was nothing more than a piece of a random skull, a fragment of a random thigh bone, and three random molar teeth. The rest of this "fossil" was created by imaginations of plaster of paris workers. All these examples, that scientists said was fossil evidence of our evolution, were all proved to be a hoax. Theres your genetical and phenotypical evidence thrown down the drain. And dont worry ive got many more examples, please just ask for me to show you them and I will gladly do it. Keep relying on your lying scientists, and they will keep lying in peoples faces and the people will just believe them because of their title of a scientist. Go ahead be their guinea pigs, their sheep: or whatever you consider yourself. Are you effing kidding me here...? Scientists do not believe in a concious Universe; pantheists do. And pantheism is no more incorrect than any other position. Yes, there have been hoaxes, but for every hoax, there are countless more authentic fossils. Where did you here that we are more genetically identical to pigs than apes? We are nearly 99% genetically identical to chimpanzees. Humans and other apes also share many physical similarities. Anyone who even compares the two will see that. Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Educate yourself.

[Jesus of Suburbia]

We are nearly 99% genetically identical to chimpanzees. Humans and other apes also share many physical similarities. Anyone who even compares the two will see that. When people say "we're 99% identical to chimps" or in the case of pigs I believe it's 70%-80% because I have heard the figure before, it doesn't tell us anything at all about evolutionary relation. We may have the same genes, but how and how much those genes show is wildly different between different animals. Have you noticed that most mammals have four limbs and a tail? That's an example of having a lot of the same genes. As for God "changing His mind" disproving His omniscience, it very much doesn't. If you word it as "changing His mind" then yes, it does, but there's nothing as far as I know to suggest that He changed what He thinks, just that He changed how he treated us. Before Christ we may not have been very consistent or strong in teaching morals to each other, especially our children. We would have to put in more effort for forgiveness to help discourage us from being immoral in the first place. Then, once we started getting a hang of the whole morals thing, we didn't need as much discouragement and this time just had to admit to and apologize/ask forgiveness for our sins.

[TimeDragon97]

When people say "we're 99% identical to chimps" or in the case of pigs I believe it's 70%-80% because I have heard the figure before, it doesn't tell us anything at all about evolutionary relation. We may have the same genes, but how and how much those genes show is wildly different between different animals. Have you noticed that most mammals have four limbs and a tail? That's an example of having a lot of the same genes. Yeah, indicating that we probably have a common ancestor. You can look at the limbs of any tetrapod and see similarities.

[Sageous]

Yeah, indicating that we probably have a common ancestor. You can look at the limbs of any tetrapod and see similarities. Or, it could indicate that in the name of efficiency or personal preferance (or some Godly reasoning we don't understand) God opted to use similar genetic templates for his creations. The other thing I don't understand about the evolution/creationist argument is the refusal of either side to consider that God -- who by reputation would already know the outcome -- simply mixed and stirred the primordial soup, set earth's temperature just right, and then sat back for a few billion years until His brew matured through a process of His own invention: evolution. That seems to me a much easier argument to make than trusting the man-made math of the old testament.

[TimeDragon97]

Or, it could indicate that in the name of efficiency or personal preferance (or some Godly reasoning we don't understand) God opted to use similar genetic templates for his creations. The other thing I don't understand about the evolution/creationist argument is the refusal of either side to consider that God -- who by reputation would already know the outcome -- simply mixed and stirred the primordial soup, set earth's temperature just right, and then sat back for a few billion years until His brew matured through a process of His own invention: evolution. That seems to me a much easier argument to make than trusting the man-made math of the old testament. Sure, he could have, but God is not necessary for life to exist and evolve. Science can explain it just fine without him. It's like adding or subtracting 0 from an equation -- you can add/subtract as many zeros as you like, but the end result is the same either way and it's really unnecessary.

[Sageous]

^^ Agreed. What I was trying to point out, though, was that, though evolution certainly could have happened on its own, it is more reasonable to me for a Christian to argue that God initiated the evolutionary process billions of years ago than to argue that God created an "As is" world 6,000 years ago. By the same token, a scientist isn't hurting anyone by saying, "Sure, God could have gotten the ball rolling; though this can't be proven or disproven, so it isn't science, I have no problem with someone stirring the soup. Of course this is just a case of reason. A true creationist ought also to be just fine with the idea that God created the universe five minutes ago... He is God, after all.

[TheSilverWolf]

I don't really believe in the theory that God started evolution, I think he created man as is *or as was, if you count cave-men as less than human, which I don't.* That said, I don't know what God did or *how* he created us. he very well might have started this evolution thing; I just don't think so personally. I find it a lot easier to believe that God started life "evolving" than we just erupted out of the randomness of the universe, however. I have to disagree with cutting the OT from the Bible though. Yes, the NT makes much of the OT obsolete in terms of how we are to live and God's expectations of us, but there is a lot of important information in there that I think He obviously wanted us to know, such as the creation of Adam and Eve, Noah and his Ark, Soddam and Gohmorrah (sp?), etc. etc. etc. That said, it would be nice for those who are not religious to remember that there are *two* different "era's" of Christianity. ~SilverWolf~

[Jesus of Suburbia]

I have to disagree with cutting the OT from the Bible though. Yes, the NT makes much of the OT obsolete in terms of how we are to live and God's expectations of us, but there is a lot of important information in there that I think He obviously wanted us to know, such as the creation of Adam and Eve, Noah and his Ark, Soddam and Gohmorrah (sp?), etc. etc. etc. That said, it would be nice for those who are not religious to remember that there are *two* different "era's" of Christianity. Nobody wants the Old Testament cut from The Bible, you just aren't supposed to follow the rules from it any more. The New Testament is the new set of rules.

[OneUp]

Whether it rose again is irrelevant. It was still sacrificed. Humility is one thing, proudly disposing of your critical faculties is another. There is no definition for a perfect being? Your understanding of your own religion is awfully superficial. The characteristic of immutability is persistently prescribed to your deity. Actually whether it rose again or not is relevant, it shows that He was God. Jeez just think over what you say. Who I am and what I do is my life, not yours, so i dont care at all what you say about me or how i act and live my life. And no I do not understand everything about my religion, Im not even that good of a christian as I want to be. The Christian is supposed to love everyone no matter who they are, what they do, etc. I myself have failed to do that many times, and so have many other christians. The point of having a relationship with God is to realize that one cannot merely go on mans logic alone, because no man has ever fully understood God. I go by Faith though, meaning I know i wont get all the answers to the questions but i believe and "lean not on my own understanding" ~proverbs 3:5 That doesnt mean im irrational and completly diss logic, I just believe that logic cannot uphold everything. So no, I do not have the answers to everything and there is just some stuff i myself fail to explain. Dear Xei, Lol guess i left you dumbfounded either because you just couldnt reply because i explained it, or you cant read. I think its the first one. Now give me an actualy reply. Are you effing kidding me here...? Scientists do not believe in a concious Universe; pantheists do. And pantheism is no more incorrect than any other position. Yes, there have been hoaxes, but for every hoax, there are countless more authentic fossils. Where did you here that we are more genetically identical to pigs than apes? We are nearly 99% genetically identical to chimpanzees. Humans and other apes also share many physical similarities. Anyone who even compares the two will see that. Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Educate yourself. Wikipedia is constantly changed and can be changed by anyone who visits the site. And okay if there are countless more authentic fossils, give an example. And from what ive read from many sources we are 96% identical to apes, not 99%. One thing i dont understand about evolution though(bear with me here, im not that educated on all of evolution) is that how are there still some apes who are still just normal apes? How come they are still behind and not like us you know? And also, i might be wrong on this, but i havent seen any creature in evolution evolve into another creature. For instance a squirrel can evolve into another squirrel, but it was still be a squirrel in general. I havent seen anything like an ape evolving into a different creature such as a human, i havent read about a creature evolving into another creature anywhere. I have only seen one creature evolve, but yet it still stayed the same creature in general. Can anyone explain this to me? Is anybody else following this? By the way, in case you didnt figure it out yet, my reply was asking you questions about the quote i posted that started all of this.

[Sageous]

OneUpBoy71: Respectfully, I highly recommend that you stop talking about evolution, because based on what you're writing, you actually know very, very little about it, and I fear have been severely misinformed. You may be embarrassing yourself if people actually familiar with evolution read what you're writing. Some quick responses, though I hope someone else with more time and/or knowledge chimes in: And okay if there are countless more authentic fossils, give an example. One example that comes to mind is Australopithacus afarensis, or "Lucy," as she's popularly known. The name links to a site that is not Wikipedia if you'd like to read more. I am also sure that there are many, many more examples, if you'd care to look at sites that cover evolution, rather than echo-chamber sites that disparage it. Try doing some searches for phrases like "ascent of man" or "homo habilis," and you might find quite a bit of information from informed, research-based sources who may have a bit more credibility than Wikipedia. And from what ive read from many sources we are 96% identical to apes, not 99%. Do you have any links to those sources? I believe they were mistaken, but I suppose I could be. One thing i dont understand about evolution though(bear with me here, im not that educated on all of evolution) is that how are there still some apes who are still just normal apes? How come they are still behind and not like us you know? That's not how evolution works, and that you ask that question is very telling. Evolution is not about an entire species changing all at once into new species. It is about some members of a species making slight changes that help them thrive, so they pass those changes onto their young, and over a very long period of time those few expand into a new species (i.e., when that first early human stood up straight and and enjoyed the benefits of standing a little higher up, it took many thousands of years for there to be entire groups of these straight-standing people. We didn't all stand up straight once). That new species represents a departure from the old species, not an erasure of it. Only a few apes evolved into humans, the rest continued to thrive without a need for change. Again, someone else might be able to explain this better, but suffice it to say that evolution is done by small minorities of species, and the original majority will continue as it was (or perhaps evolve down a different path). This is not an all-inclusive process. And also, i might be wrong on this, but i havent seen any creature in evolution evolve into another creature. For instance a squirrel can evolve into another squirrel, but it was still be a squirrel in general. I havent seen anything like an ape evolving into a different creature such as a human, i havent read about a creature evolving into another creature anywhere. I have only seen one creature evolve, but yet it still stayed the same creature in general. Can anyone explain this to me? Yes, you're wrong . Of course you haven't seen a creature evolve into another creature. The process is extremely gradual and takes millions of years; it is not instant. Even mutations (like standing erect), which in individuals is fairly sudden, take many, many generations to become widespread enough to call something a new species. And yes, over those thousands or millions of years, that squirrel will likely appear to observers at the time to look pretty much like its parents; the changes are subtle. That said, there are likely exceptions to this, especially among species like insects that reproduce much more quickly. Also, I guess that you are seeing evolution happening all the time: that squirrel you're looking at is quite different from its ancestors from millions of years ago, and its descendents millions of years from now will be quite different from, it, so you are seeing a moment of evolution every time you look at a squirrel. BTW, Piltdown-man, Nebraska-man, and Java-man were all PT Barnum-esque side-show hoaxes that had nothing at all to do with actual scientific discovery or research. That you point them out at all is very odd. Again, I hope someone more knowledge clarifies these brief responses, and I sincerely hope you give their words some attention. Also, I hope I've presented this stuff as respectfully as possible, no insults or sarcasm were intended.

[Universal Mind]

Who are you to question what he wanted as a sacrifice? Who are you to question what the Flying Spaghetti Monster wants?

[Xei]

Dear Xei, Lol guess i left you dumbfounded either because you just couldnt reply because i explained it, or you cant read. No, it's because your post is gibberish and I guarantee you will not find anybody in this thread who has understood what you are talking about. I think that life can arise by accident, and I know that it is impossible for a dictionary to result from a printing explosion, so therefore I agree that these two things have similar probabilities? Er, no, this is not how logic works. Try again.

[Jesus of Suburbia]

Who are you to question what the Flying Spaghetti Monster wants? OH WOW SO FUNNY SO ATHEIST SO COMPARISON What is this, 2004? FSM isn't funny or clever anymore. You may as well be posting that you liek mudkipz.

[Universal Mind]

OH WOW SO FUNNY SO ATHEIST SO COMPARISON What is this, 2004? FSM isn't funny or clever anymore. You may as well be posting that you liek mudkipz. Oh, it's not 2004? Dammit, the analogy doesn't work any more. Okay, Jesus is Lord. Thank you for clearing up the issue I raised.

[Mzzkc]

OH WOW SO FUNNY SO ATHEIST SO COMPARISON What is this, 2004? FSM isn't funny or clever anymore. You may as well be posting that you liek mudkipz. What? You don't liek mudkipz? I'm gonna have to ask that you keep your hate speech out of this thread, please. More on point: as a member of the Roman Catholic church I am interested in being excommunicated (primarily to prevent the use of my name in perpetuating hate and violence). Have any of my fellow (or former) Christians gone through this process? And do you have any advice for navigating the gotchas of the Church's bureaucracy? Thanks.

[Jesus of Suburbia]

Oh, it's not 2004? Dammit, the analogy doesn't work any more. Okay, Jesus is Lord. Thank you for clearing up the issue I raised. The analogy never worked in the first place because the comparison wasn't valid. FSM was invented specifically to disprove other Gods. It was at least hilarious in the beginning, but it never represented a legitimate argument.

[Descensus]

More on point: as a member of the Roman Catholic church I am interested in being excommunicated (primarily to prevent the use of my name in perpetuating hate and violence). Have any of my fellow (or former) Christians gone through this process? And do you have any advice for navigating the gotchas of the Church's bureaucracy? Thanks. I was raised Catholic and within the past few years I became interested in formally "resigning" my membership to the church (I was baptized and confirmed, so they no doubt include me in their "LOOK HOW MANY CATHOLICS THERE ARE IN THE WORLD" statistics). Apparently all you had to do was send in a formal letter of defection to your local diocese. However, that practice was abolished in 2009. Formal acts of defection are no longer included in the Code of Canon Law. But, Although the act of "formal defection" from the Catholic Church has thus been abolished, public or "notorious" (in the canonical sense) defection from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church is of course possible, as is expressly recognized in the Code of Canon Law. Even defection that is not known publicly is subject to the automatic spiritual penalty of excommunication laid down in canon 1364 of the Code of Canon Law.

[Universal Mind]

The analogy never worked in the first place because the comparison wasn't valid. FSM was invented specifically to disprove other Gods. It was at least hilarious in the beginning, but it never represented a legitimate argument. The analogy does work because so many of the major arguments for the existence of any particular god apply equally to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is one of the best analogies in all of theology, and I will always use it. OneUpBoy71 asked who somebody is to question what God wanted as a sacrifice. The illogical nature of the point made by that rhetorical question is illustrated by my follow up question, which is the same question except with "God" replaced by "The Flying Spaghetti Monster." Asking the same question about a deity OneUpBoy71 was not taught to believe in helps illustrate for him that questioning unperceivable deities' wishes is completely logical. Throwing the FSM into theological discussions helps bring perspective. I still await an answer to the question I asked. Do you have one?

[Jesus of Suburbia]

I still await an answer to the question I asked. Do you have one? What question?

[Universal Mind]

What question? My FSM question you insulted but didn't help answer.

[JoannaB]

You can believe in a God who is omniscient, and you can believe in a God who changes the way he does things, but you can't believe in both at the same time. Actually, I think I can. Well, I do. And it is rather complicated but part of my belief hinges on what it means that God is outside of time and space: I believe that inside time God can and has learned - he could not be omnipotentent (capable of everything) if he were incapable of learning. Learning and change for the better are positive, and the God I believe in could not be good if he were not capable of changing for the better over time within time. Especially when in human incarnation, Jesus learned - there are examples of it in the New Testament. Humans have free will, and God loves us, and he could not if we could not influence him - part of love is a willingness to see the other's point of view and to be more like them. I believe that by becoming Jesus, God learned what it is like to be human. We were created in God's image, but we then influenced him in return. Within time that is. However, God also exists outside of time and space, and in a way He has access to all time in a nonlinear way, looking at it from the outside, and from that point of view he is omniscient, also omnipresent. However while he was Jesus in human form he was neither omniscient nor omnipresent, and he learned from that experience. That is my belief. I know it is not what all Christians believe of course - there is significant variation within Christian belief.

[TimeDragon97]

Actually, I think I can. Well, I do. And it is rather complicated but part of my belief hinges on what it means that God is outside of time and space: I believe that inside time God can and has learned - he could not be omnipotentent (capable of everything) if he were incapable of learning. If he has learned, he is not omniscient, unless humanity was that one thing he had yet to know. One cannot possibly have all knowledge and then gain more knowledge. And omnipotence is pretty much its own paradox and is logically impossible.

[Sageous]

If he has learned, he is not omniscient, unless humanity was that one thing he had yet to know. One cannot possibly have all knowledge and then gain more knowledge. Perhaps Human sentience (the foundation of free will and all the chaos that comes with it) was one thing that God hadn't anticipated. Sentience may have transcended God's plan, His expectations, His omniscience. A new thing existed outside His purview, and God may have found a need to learn something new after all those billions of years. And Perhaps He did send Himself to earth as Jesus to suss out the real nature of these ornery critters He'd created. So even God might have occasion to learn.

[Descensus]

Perhaps Human sentience (the foundation of free will and all the chaos that comes with it) was one thing that God hadn't anticipated. Sentience may have transcended God's plan, His expectations, His omniscience. A new thing existed outside His purview, and God may have found a need to learn something new after all those billions of years. And Perhaps He did send Himself to earth as Jesus to suss out the real nature of these ornery critters He'd created. So even God might have occasion to learn. If a theist accepts the above, they concede that their god is not omniscience. Anything transcending an omniscient being's knowledge is not compatible with omniscience itself.