Christians and their church.
View: 1005x730
ReportReport this topic to moderators FlagFlag as not safe for work.
Views: 2,855
RATE
49
Posted: 2010-04-02 09:20:32
Psst.
Responses (114) / Sorted by points
Sadly too true. But let me say, we are not all like this. I'm not trying to be prideful, but I don't want people getting the impression that all Christians use Jesus as a get out of jail free card. Not when there are people like Rob Fogg, who dedicate their lives to helping the needy, and spreading the love of Christ.
Depends on what faith you are. Some understand Jesus was God in human form, one in the same. Others believe Jesus was the son of God. God being the father of all of our souls. Others still believe in God, but that Jesus was no one special.
For those that don't believe in God or Jesus, it's not that we need Christ to help the needy. It's that the value system he taught helps us understand how to be better people.
For those that don't believe in God or Jesus, it's not that we need Christ to help the needy. It's that the value system he taught helps us understand how to be better people.
lmao this is just funny but my friend pointed this out a couple of months back:
"you know, all the prophets of the three great religions had their revelations either on high mountains or next to a burning bush (moses) and so wouldn't that deprive them of oxygen, so they cant think clearly?!" i was like LMFAO nice..
"you know, all the prophets of the three great religions had their revelations either on high mountains or next to a burning bush (moses) and so wouldn't that deprive them of oxygen, so they cant think clearly?!" i was like LMFAO nice..
Well, from my understanding, Jesus teaches us his relationship with the Father when he prays for his disciples and says to God which I refer to as heavenly father, "Please make them(the disciples) one even as you (God) and I are one." Some believe Jesus and God are one in the same, this shows us that they are separate. Why would one pray to them self?
Jesus was known in the Old Testament as Jehova, which is commonly called the "God of the Old Testament." Jehova was the "God of Israel." For all intents and purposes he was their God. He guided them, spoke with their prophets, etc. When he condescended and was born into this world he was known as Jesus. He is referred to by many names, Lamb of God, Son of Man, Son of God, Son of David, God of Israel, etc. Usually when he refers to himself with one of these names he is doing so to teach or make a point.
People broadly say Jesus is God. Well what does that mean? I believe there are three that we can conceive as our Gods or God head. There is God the Father, Jesus prays to him in many occasions and he is the Father of all of our Spirits. Then there is Jesus Christ, we all know him and he is the son of God both spiritually like we all are and physically. And then there is the Holy Ghost, who has no flesh and bones.
Aside from arguing the truthfulness of this, I was just trying to point out that Jesus wasn't crazy saying he was Son of God one time and then changed it to being God another time. He's not a lamb either, it's much like symbolic talk which is how most Eastern cultures speak. It's to teach and make a point, though he is both the Son of GOD (Heavenly Father) and God (God of Israel).
Jesus was known in the Old Testament as Jehova, which is commonly called the "God of the Old Testament." Jehova was the "God of Israel." For all intents and purposes he was their God. He guided them, spoke with their prophets, etc. When he condescended and was born into this world he was known as Jesus. He is referred to by many names, Lamb of God, Son of Man, Son of God, Son of David, God of Israel, etc. Usually when he refers to himself with one of these names he is doing so to teach or make a point.
People broadly say Jesus is God. Well what does that mean? I believe there are three that we can conceive as our Gods or God head. There is God the Father, Jesus prays to him in many occasions and he is the Father of all of our Spirits. Then there is Jesus Christ, we all know him and he is the son of God both spiritually like we all are and physically. And then there is the Holy Ghost, who has no flesh and bones.
Aside from arguing the truthfulness of this, I was just trying to point out that Jesus wasn't crazy saying he was Son of God one time and then changed it to being God another time. He's not a lamb either, it's much like symbolic talk which is how most Eastern cultures speak. It's to teach and make a point, though he is both the Son of GOD (Heavenly Father) and God (God of Israel).
When Jesus is praying to himself, it was more of a flesh to spirit talk. You have to remember, Jesus was a man, he suffered the same temptations as every other man and he still did no sin. That is why he is a perfect sacrifice and savior.
Posted: 2010-05-12 13:47:01 Report
If you believe that Jesus is God, which is clearly shown in this verse.
"I and my Father are one."
John 10: 30 (spoken by Jesus)
So if he and his father are the same, He is God and He did pray to himself.
"I and my Father are one."
John 10: 30 (spoken by Jesus)
So if he and his father are the same, He is God and He did pray to himself.
Posted: 2010-05-15 06:40:40 Report
Read Jesus's prayer to his apostles in John 17. he says, twice:
11: "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."
21: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
So are you saying Heavenly Father and Christ are one entity, and he wants the Apostles to all be one entity? Or does he mean that in the same way The Father and The Son are one in purpose he wants the Apostles to be one in purpose. He isn't praying to himself to make the apostles one thing, he wants them to be one in the same way that he is one with the father. LITERALLY he says those exact words "that they may be one, as we are."
11: "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."
21: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
So are you saying Heavenly Father and Christ are one entity, and he wants the Apostles to all be one entity? Or does he mean that in the same way The Father and The Son are one in purpose he wants the Apostles to be one in purpose. He isn't praying to himself to make the apostles one thing, he wants them to be one in the same way that he is one with the father. LITERALLY he says those exact words "that they may be one, as we are."
Posted: 2010-05-15 09:25:35 Report
Ok, here's some other scripture.
John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 1: 14
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
Now if the Word (God) was made flesh and dwelt among us, we must assume that there was a holy and perfect being on earth. Sounds like Jesus to me. Would you like to point out another man that fits that description?
John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 1: 14
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
Now if the Word (God) was made flesh and dwelt among us, we must assume that there was a holy and perfect being on earth. Sounds like Jesus to me. Would you like to point out another man that fits that description?
Posted: 2010-05-15 20:57:41 Report
Well if you believe that the English translation of the Bible is the end all be all then the "Word was God" I guess can suit you fine. However, the previous line in the same sentence contradicts the next line. If you subsitute names in there is makes no sense, In the beginning was Ghettoshen, and Ghettoshen was with Ghettoshen and Ghettoshen was Ghettoshen. Sounds like there was something lost in translation there.
Some believe that it should have been translated more like In the beginning was the Word (Greek for Logos, but commonly referenced as Christ) and Christ was with God (God being heavenly Father) and Christ was (a) God. The a added because the of the nominative case, so I read, but regardless, here is my understanding.
There is more scripture to indicate that Christ and His Father are separate entities than there are to indicate they are the same. Just the sheer fact of the number of times that Christ prays to His Father alone should dictate to any reasonable human being they are not one entity. But the retarded Nicene Creed in combination with the simple fact that translating any writings, ESPECIALLY eastern culture styles into English is a recipe for disaster. The Nicene Creed only served to confuse people and in my opinion make a mockery of the simple teachings of Christ.
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible."
"There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church."
Those statements are retarded especially since we are made in his image? We are made in the image of something that is made out of nothing of another substance or essence. Stupid.
Heavenly Father looks like us he has a body of flesh and bones and is immortal. Christ has a body just the same. We are the spirit offspring of our Heavenly Father, brothers with Christ. They are both Gods, but they are not one entity.
Some believe that it should have been translated more like In the beginning was the Word (Greek for Logos, but commonly referenced as Christ) and Christ was with God (God being heavenly Father) and Christ was (a) God. The a added because the of the nominative case, so I read, but regardless, here is my understanding.
There is more scripture to indicate that Christ and His Father are separate entities than there are to indicate they are the same. Just the sheer fact of the number of times that Christ prays to His Father alone should dictate to any reasonable human being they are not one entity. But the retarded Nicene Creed in combination with the simple fact that translating any writings, ESPECIALLY eastern culture styles into English is a recipe for disaster. The Nicene Creed only served to confuse people and in my opinion make a mockery of the simple teachings of Christ.
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible."
"There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church."
Those statements are retarded especially since we are made in his image? We are made in the image of something that is made out of nothing of another substance or essence. Stupid.
Heavenly Father looks like us he has a body of flesh and bones and is immortal. Christ has a body just the same. We are the spirit offspring of our Heavenly Father, brothers with Christ. They are both Gods, but they are not one entity.
Posted: 2010-05-16 08:51:17 Report
I neutralized it I guess that helps?
anyway I didint do that because I believe in god or jesus or in all that I just did it because defending in something u believe in is something I admire
anyway I didint do that because I believe in god or jesus or in all that I just did it because defending in something u believe in is something I admire
Actually, the two are equally important. What's the point of having a relationship with God when you are going to hell?
God also wants you to go to heaven. Actually, nearly everybody should know this as it is shown in one of the most famous verses in the world:
John 3: 16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Everlasting life is heaven.
John 3: 16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Everlasting life is heaven.
Wow, really? No offense, but if you think there is no scientific support of Christianity, you're pretty ignorant. Or do you just think over half of the population of the US is too stupid to see the 'truth'? See, the problem is, organizations like the ACLU have taken the Bible out of schools so much, people know nothing about it, or the evidence for it. For example, just look at the fossil record. Explain how there are trees that go through supposedly millions of years of rock layers? Obviously, it was some sort of flood, in which trees always bump around, the limbs get knocked off, and the root ball sinks, causing the tree to stand vertically underwater. Now, here's the thing. For these trees to become buried like this, it can't have happened over millions of years, they would deteriorate before becoming completely buried. This is one of thousands of scientific evidence for the Flood, let alone the whole Bible.
no i studied christianity and all other major religions for near 7 years in school...learning about the bible was like reading a fairytale just not a very good one...btw did you just ask me whether i thought half the population of the USA are stupid? i dont believe this. i believe that the whole population of america is fucking retarded but thanks for setting me up for this insult
Posted: 2010-05-12 22:23:48 Report
good thing i dont fall under this category lolz i put on a pair of jeans some tennish shoes and a shirt the first one i grab and thats my church outfit more people should be like me
im a baptist. where i go were out helping more than we actually go to the church.
Agnosticism, as usually professed, is a type of Atheism : ).
Theism is about belief, and Gnosticism, is about knowing. Thus, using the two words and their opposites, we have four categories of basic people (and infinite subcategories):
Gnostic Theist: One who professes to know there is a God, and has a belief in one. This is fairly pervasive.
Agnostic Theist: One who does not profess absolute certainty that God exists, but believes for some other reason. This is slightly more rare.
Gnostic Atheist: One who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God, and lacks belief in one. This category is EXTREMELY rare.
Agnostic Atheist: This would be where both myself and you reside. One who Does not know for sure either way if there is a God or not, yet lacks belief in one. This where the majority of those who term themselves "Atheistic" or "Agnostic" reside.
To be an Atheist is not to be completely against the concept of a God... it is simply to not believe in that concept. To say "yes" to the question, "Do you believe in God?" you must be a Theist. To say anything else (I don't know, No, etc.) you must be an Atheist. To say "yes" to the question, "Do you know there is a God?" you must be a Gnostic (Theist). To say "No" conclusively, you must be a Gnostic (Atheist) as well. But, to say "I don't know," you must be Agnostic (Atheist or Theist).
So many people are scared of the term Atheist : ). Don't be.
Theism is about belief, and Gnosticism, is about knowing. Thus, using the two words and their opposites, we have four categories of basic people (and infinite subcategories):
Gnostic Theist: One who professes to know there is a God, and has a belief in one. This is fairly pervasive.
Agnostic Theist: One who does not profess absolute certainty that God exists, but believes for some other reason. This is slightly more rare.
Gnostic Atheist: One who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God, and lacks belief in one. This category is EXTREMELY rare.
Agnostic Atheist: This would be where both myself and you reside. One who Does not know for sure either way if there is a God or not, yet lacks belief in one. This where the majority of those who term themselves "Atheistic" or "Agnostic" reside.
To be an Atheist is not to be completely against the concept of a God... it is simply to not believe in that concept. To say "yes" to the question, "Do you believe in God?" you must be a Theist. To say anything else (I don't know, No, etc.) you must be an Atheist. To say "yes" to the question, "Do you know there is a God?" you must be a Gnostic (Theist). To say "No" conclusively, you must be a Gnostic (Atheist) as well. But, to say "I don't know," you must be Agnostic (Atheist or Theist).
So many people are scared of the term Atheist : ). Don't be.
lol I did not know there was a name 4 it but im a Gnostic Atheist
Haha. Nice. I appreciate that point of view, just accept that I could be wrong : ). Also I am somewhat lacking in general conviction- at least lacking enough that I don't feel comfortable making bold statements like that at this point.
But in general I agree.
But in general I agree.
lol well everyone messes up once in a while but as long as u dont disrespect my opinions & my "BELIEF" I wont disrespect ur's
I'm an Agnostic Atheist. I think that because we do not know for certain (though we can't prove there is a god) It's unwise to discount the possibility of god's existance 100%. That being said however, we don't assume something exists until we prove it (By assuming something exists because it hasn't been disproven, one can justify believing in anything.) so the Atheist/Agnostic seems like the most reasonable stand point.
.... No? The equation E=mc^2 is the universal conversion between matter and energy, not anything to do with the supernatural.
Einstein unequivocally was against the concept of a personal God.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. "
Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954.
Where do you get that Einstein believed in, let alone professed, to have proven a God's existence?
Einstein unequivocally was against the concept of a personal God.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. "
Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954.
Where do you get that Einstein believed in, let alone professed, to have proven a God's existence?
Before Einstein died his faith was reborn to an extent. Before I continue I ask that you please put aside all of your notions of what God is for one moment. I do not have a reference source to give you but regardless the logic Einstein once said I feel speaks for itself on its own.
You did a perfect job giving an explanation so let me quote you here;
The equation E=mc^2 is the universal conversion between matter and energy, not anything to do with the supernatural.
Top to bottom you nailed it, even the part where you said not anything to do with the supernatural. Who said God is supernatural?
In that equation Einstein also found out one other fact. If conversion between matter and energy (E=mc^2) is true then that means matter and energy may only trade places. You can not destroy energy or make matter. Only change the two. Believing the equation to be true Einstein once thought "where did it all come from?"
Einstein like me had no idea what holy book is the correct one, or what hat you should wear on what day but he like me knows that there is something out there. We just don't understand what it is.
You did a perfect job giving an explanation so let me quote you here;
The equation E=mc^2 is the universal conversion between matter and energy, not anything to do with the supernatural.
Top to bottom you nailed it, even the part where you said not anything to do with the supernatural. Who said God is supernatural?
In that equation Einstein also found out one other fact. If conversion between matter and energy (E=mc^2) is true then that means matter and energy may only trade places. You can not destroy energy or make matter. Only change the two. Believing the equation to be true Einstein once thought "where did it all come from?"
Einstein like me had no idea what holy book is the correct one, or what hat you should wear on what day but he like me knows that there is something out there. We just don't understand what it is.
I feel as if you are putting words in that German's mouth. Einstein, while a subscriber to what some deem "Einsteinian Religion" which is a pseudo-religion in which the words God and Universe are interchangeable, did not ever support his ideals of that kind with E=mc^2. Being the devout physicist he was, he was generally fine with the phrase "I don't know." Since he didn't know, and failed to create his theory of everything, he did not attempt to prove or really comment on a god.
The origin of mass-energy is a sticky question, but there are plenty of perfectly acceptable explanations that don't require anything relating to a god.
The origin of mass-energy is a sticky question, but there are plenty of perfectly acceptable explanations that don't require anything relating to a god.
to some of us that something that makes up us all, the energy that your body is made of, that everything is made of, many would consider that to be God. God is everywhere and everything. From nothing he can make something. God can dived by zero. i am not saying god has ever spoken to man, or is it something we can understand. what i am saying is E=mc^2. Energy can not be created or destroyed. yet here we are. God is more often than not the answer to why something happens, not how it happens. Science is good, i think god made us to learn. i base that tidbit on nothing more than what observations i have made threw life. If you believe in the big bang then you would agree that is the beginning. what was before the beginning? What can there be before there is anything? Some questions we may never know or be able to explain. That is but not always the work of God. For what reason only he knows.
Ok, I appreciate your worldview in this regard. However, it has nothing to do with science, as you are presenting.
The big bang was most likely caused by Vacuum Fluctuation of virtual particles that was slightly off-balanced in the sub-quantum foam. Either that or a false vacuum was destabilized by a stray tachyon, resulting in a true vacuum, that eventually contained matter, force, etc. While the big bang was the beginning of our space-time, it is an intolerable presumption to assume that it was the beginning of all space-times.
The big bang was most likely caused by Vacuum Fluctuation of virtual particles that was slightly off-balanced in the sub-quantum foam. Either that or a false vacuum was destabilized by a stray tachyon, resulting in a true vacuum, that eventually contained matter, force, etc. While the big bang was the beginning of our space-time, it is an intolerable presumption to assume that it was the beginning of all space-times.
Posted: 2010-05-11 17:29:46 Report
You realize this is pointless right? You're telling him that God exists and hes telling you that God does not exist. Those are the two main points of both of your arguments. God is not able to break the laws of math if there is no God. For the record, I am a Christian and I do go to church and praise God. I'm just trying to make you guys see that this argument is pointless because no one is going to win.
Posted: 2010-05-15 06:45:39 Report
if you believe that E=mc^2 then you know matter or energy can not be made. all the energy that ever will be is here already. the day that is not true will blow my mind on religion but as of today something or some one, many would call this person God, did the undo-able. The math is there unless you have a better theory on how energy can be created. to do that you must first disprove E=mc^2.
Science is good, and we should never stop looking for answers but science can not answer all questions. there is no scientific way to prove that you have a soul but a great man once said, "I think there fore I am."
Science is good, and we should never stop looking for answers but science can not answer all questions. there is no scientific way to prove that you have a soul but a great man once said, "I think there fore I am."
Posted: 2010-05-11 19:47:54 Report
math tells us that something never comes from nothing. Something had to break the laws of math to make energy. the fact that we are here, we have souls and are not just mindless drones is enough for me. if you looking for a scientific explanation of God you missed the point. we don't understand God yet, just as we don't understand what a soul is yet we all have one. God works in ways man may or man not ever understand. all we can do is look for the truth, no matter what it may be.
Posted: 2010-05-12 08:02:17 Report
According to Logos, you are arguing an invalid point. He does not believe we have souls as science has not found a soul. If there is no evidence of a soul, one can infer that there is no such thing as a soul. He also does not believe in the concept of God for the same reason. Most of your points require much faith. Your last comment also destroyed your argument. You said something never comes from nothing. Where did God come from? He is something yet he came from nothing.
Posted: 2010-05-12 14:00:33 Report
look im not trying to say your wrong but i know at my church all we do is help people that are in need yeah some churchs arent but thats what we do
i really disagree with this post if you act like that then you are not really catholic or christian either. You may be going to church but it's a hollow gesture if you dont at least try to live by the values of the bible and Jesus,note i said values of them not the doctrine of the church im catholic and i dont agree with alot of what the church says.
Fuck religion. Religion leads to arguments over who's religion is better.
that and wars if you go back in history a good deal of wars were caused over religion the crusades for one and hundreds of other examples
ummmm yes there would be people...ofc if we all knew that god didnt exist then wed probably be worshipping something else...personally i worship tits but thats just me...if we all worshipped tits the twin towers would be standing and wed be 1000 years more technologically advanced because the dark agaes would never have existed...i dont hate people that have faith in something but i do have a problem with people that have a faith in something that cant be proved who then try to tell people that their beliefs are the only correct ones and all others are wrong...im still waiting for a fucking miracle here, preferably ashley greene knocking on my door seeking a shower and fresh clothes as hers got muddy and wet...the day that happens i become the biggest believer ever
bit off topic. i know a catholic kid who doesn't think the IRA are terrorists. his desktop picture is just the initials 'IRA'
if adam and eve were real and we were never descended from monkeys, which we clearly were, that would mean we are all related...incest is a sin u dirty religious people...also adam and eve are always portrayed as white people so where do blacks and asians come from? it cant be evolution seeing as christians dont believe in it...there. ive just proven that god doesnt exist...the big bang is real and my ancestor was a fucking gorilla
no trust me i do. im a sane person so i do believe in evolution and not in a guy and his bitch made from a rib of his...maybe thats why condoms are ribbed haha i just dont get how christians can deny science. we are proven to be almost genetically identical to apes...look at george bush for fucks sake!
I'm not bashing it, I'm simply referring to the fact that science in a public school is very one-sided, and that a lot of people come away from a high school education thinking that evolution is proven fact, and knowing nothing about religion. Now, while I understand why religion is kept out of schools, I think it should at least be taught in a religion class.
If by one-sided you mean siding on the side of legitimate scientific practice? You may have a point.
Evolution is proven fact.
Many religious teachings are touched on in Philosophy classes and history classes, and that's really as far as the Constitution will let state-run facilities go.
Evolution is proven fact.
Many religious teachings are touched on in Philosophy classes and history classes, and that's really as far as the Constitution will let state-run facilities go.
Posted: 2010-05-12 19:20:30 Report
precisely. evolution is proven and no religion can be. yes i did have a public school education but it was not one sided. there was only one side to be taught and that is the sensible, logic truths. surely you did physics and biology? i very much doubt that when an exam asked "how did the big bang occurr?" you wrote "it didnt. god created it because he is amazing" thats not a legit answer. i bet you were also asked about darwin's evolution theories...do you have a photo of him on a dartboard with several darts in his head?
Posted: 2010-05-12 22:28:34 Report
Evolution is not proven fact, and is, in fact, receiving a lot of criticism in the scientific community. Although as a scientific theory it makes a good amount of sense, new scientific discoveries and the archeological record raise up some major contradictions.
Edit: to answer ardhow, you seem to think I'm some angry religious nut who just has it out for anyone who believes in evolution. This is not the case. I am merely defending my beliefs, which is something not enough people do these days. My answer to that question about the big bang would be, on a test, "according to the theory of evolution...." then go on to explain how the big bang would work if it had happened. There are ways to answer a question legitimately without assuming it is factual. No, I do not have a Darwin dart board.
Notice that I have said again and again on this website that evolution is a legitimate theory, but I don't believe it to be accurate. As opposed to you who discredits even the most remote possibility of Christianity being correct, and resorts to insulting me.
Edit again: as far as the Constitution keeping religion out of schools, even to the point of not allowing teachers to speak of their beliefs in the classroom, I think you'll find that is the doing of groups such as the ACLU, who have exaggerated and twisted the original meaning. Separation of Church and State was meant to keep the government from setting up a national religion, and to keep the government from controlling what religions were allowed. It was not intended to restrict education about religion, which is censorship, and goes against much of what America once stood for.
Edit: to answer ardhow, you seem to think I'm some angry religious nut who just has it out for anyone who believes in evolution. This is not the case. I am merely defending my beliefs, which is something not enough people do these days. My answer to that question about the big bang would be, on a test, "according to the theory of evolution...." then go on to explain how the big bang would work if it had happened. There are ways to answer a question legitimately without assuming it is factual. No, I do not have a Darwin dart board.
Notice that I have said again and again on this website that evolution is a legitimate theory, but I don't believe it to be accurate. As opposed to you who discredits even the most remote possibility of Christianity being correct, and resorts to insulting me.
Edit again: as far as the Constitution keeping religion out of schools, even to the point of not allowing teachers to speak of their beliefs in the classroom, I think you'll find that is the doing of groups such as the ACLU, who have exaggerated and twisted the original meaning. Separation of Church and State was meant to keep the government from setting up a national religion, and to keep the government from controlling what religions were allowed. It was not intended to restrict education about religion, which is censorship, and goes against much of what America once stood for.
Posted: 2010-05-13 15:23:46 Report
Sir, you would be considered just as bad as you are trying to portray Mr. Cash, among the scientific community. Darwin never once said that man came from monkey's because that is ignorant. now he would argue that man and prime apes have a common ancestor somewhere like 200,000- 500,000 years ago but two different creatures, we aren't mutations of chimps as you would have it. With all that said, I'm with you John in that God is the why and Evolution is the how. It's a beautiful thing, Evolution, it shows the complexity of nature in it's purest form.
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
Post a response
Related posts
