Religion: Is it cool?

[jsun3thousand]

why is evolution the alternative to what VD posted? evolution has nothing to do with what he posted. VD's post doesn't even mention creation.

evolution is not a religion. evolution was not created by scientists to be an alternative to, or challenge to christianity. evolution is a scientific theory that emerged from the analysis of grounded, empirical evidence about decent with modification. the alternative to what VD posted would be what other religions believe or what atheist say, not "evolution is silly, too."

you might want to do some research into what the proponents of evolution actually say and not just what critics concerned with defending their religious beliefs say about evolution.

also look up what ironic means.

[bcr123psu]

why is evolution the alternative to what VD posted? evolution has nothing to do with what he posted. VD's post doesn't even mention creation.

evolution is not a religion. evolution was not created by scientists to be an alternative to, or challenge to christianity. evolution is a scientific theory that emerged from the analysis of grounded, empirical evidence about decent with modification. the alternative to what VD posted would be what other religions believe or what atheist say, not "evolution is silly, too."

you might want to do some research into what the proponents of evolution actually say and not just what critics concerned with defending their religious beliefs say about evolution.

also look up what ironic means.

:applausesmiley:

+2,137 internets

[sunspot]

why is evolution the alternative to what VD posted? evolution has nothing to do with what he posted. VD's post doesn't even mention creation.

When someone mocks something they are trying to show the absurdity of its belief. In turn, implicitly or not, they show that there is an alternative. Obviously, he thinks that Christianity is absurd. So, judging by the context of the thread, what is the alternative?

evolution is not a religion. evolution was not created by scientists to be an alternative to, or challenge to christianity. evolution is a scientific theory that emerged from the analysis of grounded, empirical evidence about decent with modification. the alternative to what VD posted would be what other religions believe or what atheist say, not "evolution is silly, too."

Evolution was not created in a vacuum. Darwin was influenced by the current trends in the Enlightenment, namely Hegelian thought. Evolution is only scientific in regards to microevolution not macroevolution. Microevolution is essentially adaptation while macroevolution is conjecture based on adaptation over a period of millions of years. There will always be adaptation in species due to the flexibility of DNA. This flexibility always remains in a particular species and has never transcended from one species to another. To suggest macroevolution as a fact is to step out of what is known and to be placed in the realm of unknown or, at best, what is supposed. To do this makes the scientist rely on faith rather observable evidence. Once they start doing this they start acting "religious."

While evolution may not be a religion in the strictest sense, it does have people who hold to it slavishly hoping to explain everything through its lenses: Physiology, Sociology, Biology, religion, origins, etc is interpreted through the lens of evolutionary thought. In other words, it is a worldview that people hold to interpret what and how they see, act, and behave. If anyone dares to give a different explanation to our origins, then they are laughed and scoffed at. There is no room for competing views, i.e., God.

you might want to do some research into what the proponents of evolution actually say and not just what critics concerned with defending their religious beliefs say about evolution.

Like Richard Dawkins?

Seriously, the same could be said of anybody: you might want to do some research into what the proponents of ______ actually say and not just what critics concerned with defending their ______ beliefs say about said belief.

With that said, what do proponents of evolution say that I am missing or neglecting?

also look up what ironic means.

coincidental; unexpected.

How is this not ironic: the satirical picture of Darwin's fascination with worms in an evolutionary way is close to what it actually seems to be, silly?

You take a picture that supposed to be a satire and it actually, unintentionally, shows the absurdity of the belief that it is satirizing. That seems to me to be coincidental and unexpected. The picture, from my understanding, is not mocking Darwin's theory but showing his fascination with worms. I think that the picture unwittingly shows a serious absurdity of Darwin's theory, something that it wasn't trying to do.

[vonDrehle]

What I posted was just taking what is written in the Bible and saying it in another way. It might be presented in an offensive way to some but I still don't see anything "inaccurate" in it.

As far as creation I don't take sides on any of the theories and honestly haven't looked into them. There is ZERO way to know we are talking about events that happened Millions and Millions of years ago.

So in conclusion.

[jubuttib]

I'll only note this: Micro and macro evolution were dreamt up by creationists, no such distinction exists in any scientific circles. It's just evolution.

[sunspot]

What I posted was just taking what is written in the Bible and saying it in another way. It might be presented in an offensive way to some but I still don't see anything "inaccurate" in it.

Zombie Jesus:

Zombie Jesus is misnomer. A zombie is typified as one that comes back being less than what they are. They are less human. Zombies are more in line with resuscitation rather than resurrection. Jesus was not a zombie because he didn't resurrect to something lesser like a human. He was in a glorified state that left some unable to recognize him (Luke 24: 13-34).
The modern understanding of zombie is more of a recent development and doesn't apply to those in the Early Church. I'm not aware of anyone in the Early Church or otherwise that suggested that Christ was a zombie.

Symbolically eating the flesh of Christ to live forever:

I'm not sure if anyone believes that if one "eats" Christ flesh symbolically that they will have eternal life. Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Jesus, so that might apply to them, but it is mentioned in that post that a person must do it symbolically rather than literally, so it can't apply to Catholics. The context that this is based in is in Matthew 26 (Luke 22) which is used by Jesus symbolically, but he doesn't say that a person will have everlasting life if they partake in the symbolic understanding of the Last Supper. The reference that Christ use is pointing to the what he must endure on the cross.

Telepathically tell him that you accept as your master:

Romans 10:8-13 " But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” "

Confessing with one's mouth is not just believing in one's heart, though both are expressed in this passage with the one overflowing to the other. There is an involvement of speech and something that goes beyond the mere expression of telepathy. If faith in Christ for salvation is reduce to telepathy then everyone is guilty of telepathy because everyone expresses an inward believe/faith towards someone or something. In other words, we are all guilty of the same thing. It becomes a matter of where you place your faith.

Evil Force in your soul:

Are you saying that there is an different entity inside us that we don't know about?

a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree:

Rib-woman did make me chuckle. Eve was made from Adam and not from another flesh because the other "flesh" (or animals) is not equal to human. God created humans for a different reason than animals, thus is was important that Adam would have someone of the same flesh to help and to help populate and have progeny.

The talking snake was inhabited by a being greater than itself, Satan. This could be taken literally or figuratively. Believing one over the other is not detrimental to the narrative.

Their was nothing magical about the tree. God created humans with a choice. God specified that one tree out of many was off limits. If God created automatons we wouldn't have this kind of responsibility.

[Working Stiff]

He made one decent point in that the whack-job fundamentalist that most Christians would disavow as crazy are in a lot of cases more closely in keeping with what is actually in the Bible than mainstream Christianity. That's a pretty gross generalization, and you can argue in circles because the damn book contradicts itself in a lot of places, but I still though it was a decent point.

Really, how so?

If you cherry-pick verses out of the Bible, you get stuff like Leviticus 20:13 that says "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." From that you get Westboro Baptist Church. Most Christians I know agree that Westboro Baptist Church is a bunch of whack-jobs, but Leviticus 20:13 is in the Bible. It's all in how you balance the Old Testament "crime and punishment" message against the New Testament message of forgiveness. The book as a whole is contradictory and that leaves it open to interpretation. His point in the movie was that if you take a more literal interpretation, you can both a) get closer to what the Bible actually says and b) get farther away from what mainstream Christianity preaches.

[sunspot]

I'll only note this: Micro and macro evolution were dreamt up by creationists, no such distinction exists in any scientific circles. It's just evolution.

Not true, the terms were coined by 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko (under the history of the concept of macroevolution)http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html.

In their conclusion they say, Is Microevolution distinct from Macroevolution and vice versa? We concluded that this depends very much on what is meant by "distinct" and so forth. All phenomena of microevolution – evolution below the species level – must necessarily have some effect above the species level. But whether this is an additive effect or not depends on the complexity of the relationships between the two levels in each case. At least some macroevolution is the result of microevolutionary processes. So we are only asking now if all is. This is open to debate: the E (environmental) factors that affect macroevolution are not within-species (Mi) forces, but do microevolutionary processes like gene frequency changes necessarily mediate them? And this question is still unresolved amongst specialists. One thing we can say now, though, is that we cannot draw a simple equals sign between the two domains. It is an open question, one much argued within evolutionary biology and related disciplines, whether Mi = Ma in any sense.

They conclude that "some" macroevolution is a result of microevolution processes. I disagree. To use the terms macro and micro evolution is not a creationist invention. If anything, the terms can be confusing even to scientists.

[vonDrehle]

He made one decent point in that the whack-job fundamentalist that most Christians would disavow as crazy are in a lot of cases more closely in keeping with what is actually in the Bible than mainstream Christianity. That's a pretty gross generalization, and you can argue in circles because the damn book contradicts itself in a lot of places, but I still though it was a decent point.

Really, how so?

If you cherry-pick verses out of the Bible, you get stuff like Leviticus 20:13 that says "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." From that you get Westboro Baptist Church. Most Christians I know agree that Westboro Baptist Church is a bunch of whack-jobs, but Leviticus 20:13 is in the Bible. It's all in how you balance the Old Testament "crime and punishment" message against the New Testament message of forgiveness. The book as a whole is contradictory and that leaves it open to interpretation. His point in the movie was that if you take a more literal interpretation, you can both a) get closer to what the Bible actually says and b) get farther away from what mainstream Christianity preaches.

The crazies, and Christians that haven't actually read the bible, always take the Gay part out of Leviticus and just ignore the other stuff like:

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."
"do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material."
"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you."
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property."
"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him."

So pretty much no clean shaven men, no poly cotton blend, no lobster, slaves for all, and we are all pretty much dead because everyone has cursed their parents when they were younger.

[veganray]

Yahweh requires vegetarianism:
"Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of the tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." - Genesis 1:29

[vonDrehle]

Yahweh requires vegetarianism:
"Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of the tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." - Genesis 1:29

That settles it VR is a prophet.

[Working Stiff]

The Year of Living Biblically is a funny read.

[jubuttib]

Yahweh requires vegetarianism:
"Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of the tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." - Genesis 1:29

Yeah, but he took it back after the whole flood thing, Noah and his descendants were allowed to eat animals.

[veganray]

I am aware of that (Genesis 9:3). Further malicious capriciousness on the part that pesky Yahweh, not unlike that cruel, dirty trick he played on Abraham.

[vonDrehle]

Another side topic: Does God acknowledge that there are other gods and he isn't the only one?

Exodus 20:3 - "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."