They do realise they’re not actual photos of “Adam and Eve” don’t they? I haven’t seen any evidence that the first humans had access to point & click technology, not even a crappy old first generation phone camera!
More of a challenge for the enlightened who do not want to acknowledge there is a difference between men and women and think gender is socially constructed.
As can be seen that’s a man and a woman – the difference between them is obvious to a two year old but not to the cultural elites of our age who actually encourage men to marry men and women to marry women – incompatible plumbing notwithstanding.
Durer would have considered our enlightened elites insane and he would have been right.
If this depiction of Adam & Eve getting ready to produce (by biblical accounts) a couple of sons gets creationists’ knickers in a knot I’d hate to be around when they try to explain how Adam’s grandchildren were conceived. Navels would be forgotten.
From andrei: As can be seen that’s a man and a woman – the difference between them is obvious to a two year old but not to the cultural elites of our age who actually encourage men to marry men and women to marry women – incompatible plumbing notwithstanding.
Yes, this picture (painted only 7000 years or so after the creation of the universe) is inconclusive proof that women and men go together and homosexuality is wrong. In fact, the only reason most people are straight is because of paintings like this – those fig leaves are obviously meant to go together – you don’t see a figleaf over their anuses. Regarding the influence of images on sexuality, perhaps church leaders should stop looking at pictures like this: http://www.ourchurch.com/member/p/poetrybyruthie/web_images/jesusandchild__2_.jpg
On another note, this photo shows Adam and Eve as white – which rubbishes the progressive agenda to say that we came out of Africa and had dark skin. This picture vindicates the use of scripture to encourage slavery of Africans, and the beatings and rapes that good Christian men handed out to their black property. It is abhorrent that atheists like Mark Twain have taken the right of white people to own black men and women.
As a young earth creationist, I would imagine Adam & Eve to have been cheeky darkies. Then after sinning, they covered their cheeks.
Tristanb, good Christian men never handed out beatings and rapes. You are thinking of bad ‘Christian’ men. Many fundamentalist Christians fought against slavery (e.g. William Wilberforce). Also, Mark Twain was not an atheist, he was more of a deist.
This version of the church in the wild wood , will make you cheerful. It would be much better if you have mates with you humming it or singing it and drink whiskey (or just any alcohol) on a nice day like today.
I find it interesting that the majority of those who talk about “belief” in global warming are the same ffolks who dispute evolutionary theory. Is there a connection? They can not only accept that the watchmaker is, indeed, blind, they refuse to accept that “puny little man” can have an effect on god’s creation.
Believe it or not, andrei – there is far more scientific evidence for global warming than there is for god.
Good Christian men never handed out beatings and rapes. You are thinking of bad ‘Christian’ men.
They’re only consider bad by some of today’s Christians who have updated their morality. For Christians of the time this was the norm, and it was considered God’s work. Religion is a horrible force for destruction and, as always, members take no responsibility. Currently Christians are bombing abortionists and dragging gay people to their death behind utes. But then you say that’s the ‘bad’ Christians.
It reminds me how when there’s a disaster, and people narrowly escape death, people thank God. But when that person dies, no-one blames God. He’s got it pretty sweet – all credit, no blame.
Why any Christian would believe in The Creation is beyond me. It makes you seem like a joke. Is it some kind of penance to look like an idiot, or is it “who can pretend to believe in the craziest story” and be the most holy? Sort of like wanting to receive eucharist on the tongue.
You believe in the same crap as the demented Muslims. And express your same hateful tone. There is very little difference between a Christian and a Muslim, except that Jesus was a pretty good guy and Mo was a bit of an asshole. (That, and hygiene).
Why don’t you leave the Creation crap to the nutter Muslims? It’s just so obviously untrue. Christianity needs to move to being more about doing good, and less about forcing people to believe ridiculous stories. Until you do that you are no better than the other crazy religions. Basically, a fundamentalist Christian is a Muslim who showers.
“If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be – a Christian.”
January 30th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Why do kiwi politicians start the day with a prayer? I think that is humour beyond belief. Just for big blouse and MyNameIsPaulP – I am Adam’s cousin and my bellybutton is far nicer than his.
Just another slack-jowled inbred, eh d4j?
Haven’t you got someone to beat up today? I suspect redbaiter is getting pretty stroppy with you and all.
You can’t prove God by science. God is a Spirit, therefore can’t be empirically analysed.
Just use your brain, common sense, eyes, ears, general knowlege, experiences and the lack of a credible alternative explanation for life, the universe and everything.
It’s wrong to conceive of opposition to the theory of evolution as coming from all of Christianity. The Catholic Church accepts it and even at the time of publication of Darwin’s works didn’t insist upon a literal interpretation of Genesis. Hence why it is taught in Catholic schools.
In fact Pope Benedict XVI said this, “While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 – 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.”
St Augustine theorised about evolution before the scientific knowledge to explain it came about. The issue is some Protestant denominations require a literal reading of the Bible and it is from there that much of the opposition to a perfectly valid scientific discovery comes from.
“You can’t prove God by science. God is a Spirit, therefore can’t be empirically analysed.”
You can certainly analyse a religion’s holy book to see if its statements about the physical universe match up to what can be empirically known. Unfortunately for xtians, the bible clearly gets an ‘F’ for science.
No Jack, I have studied the so-called science and it is a combination of presumption, pseudoscience, blinkered vision, wishful thinking and ‘group think’. Much like the Climate Change hoax, you have to study both sides of the debate to work out what is more likely true.
It’s wrong to conceive of opposition to the theory of evolution as coming from all of Christianity.
Back when I was 17, and blindly thought God existed, a non-religious friend of mine went out with a fundie*. She didn’t believe in evolution.
I didn’t understand this. I mean, it was obvious. You could see it happening within days to bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. Imagine a collection of grey mice – differing only by slide shades. It is obvious that if you put them in an environment with a black ground and an overhead flying predator the lighter ones would be picked off, and the population would end up blacker. Contrived example, but common sense. To ignore such a thing is to ignore all logic.
I thank that girl for making me realise the error of my ways, and that being Christian meant believing in ridiculous crap. The world was a much more awesome place that the bleak boring desert described in the Bible. Independently I became an atheist, but I still have a soft-spot for Catholicism with its ridiculous incense, strange hierarchy and chants etc. That’s why as a reformed-Catholic I do not like having fundies who believe in Creation calling themselves Catholic. It embarrasses me, and should embarrass any intelligent Christian (if there are any left).
* My friend had sex with her multiple times, but when they broke up and she went out with a fellow Bible-basher she told him she was a virgin. Typical lying Christian.
The real humour is that in this day and age people still believe in something as ridiculous as creationism.
No the real humour is that those who don’t believe in creationism ditch the idea out of hand without even understanding precisely what the Bible says about it AND precisely how the modern Christian communities interpret that. Hint: Southern US Bible-belt interpretors aren’t the only interpretors.
When I say “humour” I of course mean tragedy, not for those who bother to acquaint themselves with such and then make an informed decision but for those, which seems to be the vast vast vast majority, who don’t bother to do even that.
Jesus weeps for people like you, you know that much, one assumes.
“Christianinanity is just a phase we’ve been going through”.
Oh right James,grow up boy and learn to spell, has MyNameIsPaulP got that worked up that he created a melt down? Smelly old chap. Forget who gave us democracy matey. God gave us planet earth, now it’s about stuffed. Man not God made it that way.
More of a challenge for the enlightened who do not want to acknowledge there is a difference between men and women and think gender is socially constructed.
Actually, gender is by definition socially constructed – it means the differences between men and women that are cultural rather than physiological. Ignorant journos tend to use gender as a euphemism for sex, but the two are not synonyms.
Hang on. It must be the mustard seed. It IS the smallest seed of all isn’t it? Oh no, the bible is scientificaaly proven wrong again.
In the first place, although, the orchid seed may be the smallest, or one of the smallest plant seeds, and thus smaller than the mustard seed, it is not necessary to consider Jesus’ statement in Matthew 13:32 as containing scientific error since the class of seeds with which the mustard seed is associated is the garden herb group (lachana) which may possibly be interpreted as being the “all the seeds” category to which reference is made in the earlier part of the statement, “all” there being limited to the specific group (lachana) under consideration in the total context of the verse. Since the mustard seed probably was cultivated in Palestine in ancient times, for its oil, it may be argued that Jesus, when speaking of this type of seed, was talking about it in a comparison with all those seeds which were planted by farmers for food. Since panton is used with the lachana group in the parallel passage in Mark 4:31, it may be further argued that the panton ton spermaton group in both Matthew 13:32 and Mark 4:31 is intended to mean only the lachana species, the “all the garden herb” group. In this limited context of garden herbs then, Jesus speaks of the mustard seed as extremely small.
Secondly, that the expression comparing smallness with the size of mustard seed was a common Jewish saying argues for the fact that scientific literalness and preciseness need not be pressed upon it, it being able to be understood then, as men certainly understand it now, as a general and popular expression of smallness.
Bollocks. The Greeks, the Vikings and the Saxons gave us democracy. The roots of western civilisation go very very deep – Christianinanity is just a phase we’ve been going through.
Actually, that’s wrong, as Harold Berman points out in Thomas E Wood’s book “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilisation’
In most Western countries, if a person is convicted of murder and sentenced to death, but goes insane between the moment of sentencing and the moment of execution, he is kept alive until he regains his sanity and only then is he executed. The reason for this unusual proviso is entirely theological: Only if the man is sane can he make a good confession, receive forgiveness for his sins, and hope to save his soul.
Cases like this have led legal scholar Harold Berman to observe that modern Western legal systems “are a secular residue of religious attitudes and assumptions which historically found expression first in the liturgy and rituals and doctrine of the church and thereafter in the institutions and concepts and values of the law. When these historical roots are not understood, many parts of the law appear to lack any underlying source of validity.
“‘Professor Berman’s scholarly work, particularly his magisterial Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition, has documented the influence of the Church on the development of Western law. “Western concepts of law,” he argues, “are in their origins, and therefore in their nature, intimately bound up with distinctively Western theological and liturgical concepts of the atonement and of the sacraments.”
You can read more in the Google Books preview HERE
Our society is actually based on Judeo/Christian law.
And where’s your list of sciency stuff from the bible that’s been proven correct?
The biblical narrative is the only ‘creation’ texts that can be reconciled to science at all, the rest have the world on the back of a turtle or something similar.
Creation out of nothing, progression of the physical universe, the progression of animal species, and ultimate decay, are all confirmed by science and are essential to understanding our existence – the bible covers the lot.
He didn’t answer it himself, he copied and pasted a whole screed word for word from the net without attribution. The ultimate source of his science is “a paper published in the Grace Theological Journal” LOL.
Go away MyNameIsPaulP, really dude get a life, stretch says you are so full of hate the local workings mens club has banned you again. Really Paul why do you hate God so much. You are so sick. I hope the illness is not terminal? I must cut and paste your last email to me. Man you are evil. You need serious help asap.
The ‘pillars’ of the earth is most likely to be a figure of speech. I don’t discount the possibilty of some matching internal features of the earth though – it isn’t exactly fully explored.
If you don’t like my suggestions, you can scatter them to the four winds (what, there are only four?)… or you could ponder them until the sun goes down (yes it does; it even says so in the newspaper every day!)
Thousands of kilometres down? So made of liquid molten rock or iron then? Not really likely to “tremble” then are they, more likely to flow and splooge around a bit.
The mantle is now considered to be largely solid for thousands of Km’s down in parts of the earth. After the large boxing day earth quake that caused the tsunami the seismic waves bounced around inside the earth for weeks, scientists likened it too the effect of hitting a bell.
Would you say that striking a bell causes it to “flow and splodge” or tremble?
It says things happened, but it doesn’t say how they could have happened. Saying there was nothing and then suddenly there was something leaves quite a few gaps in the narrative.
So? Why do we require a possible creator God to divulge the exact method of creation? Is it possible that an exact understanding of the physical universe is not an essential part of the interaction this being had envisioned for us?
If you were to write poetry about the creation of the universe how would you write it?
Did you know that many discoveries of modern medical science were anticipated by thousands of years by the ancient Hebrews? Even now, we are just discovering the health advatages of male circumcision.
People wondered why the Jews had such a low death rate during the bubonic plague of Europe. Well it was because of the hygiene laws that Moses got from somewhere (or someone). http://www.hope-of-israel.org/bihealth.htm
For now I’d like to imagine what it would have been like for painters commissioned to paint an Adam and Eve. Fat or skinny, dark or light, tall or short, blond or brunette, straight or curly. I wonder how they decided.
“For now I’d like to imagine”that just one of pete george’s post weren’t saturated with meaningless questions and nauseating rhetoric.Watching paint dry would be more fun than reading his pathetic dribble. What an empty unit of nothing.
Right, so in two consecutive comments we have one xtian nutbar claiming it’s “likely a figure of speech” and another xtian nutbar claiming it isn’t. What is the possible informational value of a piece of writing if you can completely arbitrarily declare bits of it as metaphor or not? Surely you can see that’s bullshit and a meaningless cheat.
“If you were to write poetry about the creation of the universe how would you write it?”
Here’s a good way to start.
Whenever life gets you down, Mrs.Brown
And things seem hard or tough
And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft
And you feel that you’ve had quite enough
Just remember that you’re standing on a planet that’s evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour
That’s orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it’s reckoned
A sun that is the source of all our power
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour
Of the galaxy we call the ‘milky way’
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars
It’s a hundred thousand light years side to side
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick
But out by us, it’s just three thousand light years wide
We’re thirty thousand light years from galactic central point
We go ’round every two hundred million years
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, the speed of light, you know
Twelve million miles a minute and that’s the fastest speed there is
So remember, when you’re feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there’s intelligent life somewhere up in space
‘Cause there’s bugger all down here on Earth
Oh sorry pathetic pete, just remember I am a REAL PETER. I usually act the way God designed me. No problems here matey. I do not have to fill the empty void, unlike yourself and PaulP.,Graeme Blouse etc..
“alking with creationists will drive you crazy. It’s talking with an insane person. Best thing is to have a laugh and then forget about their nonsense:”
It’s utterly futile because you can’t reason with someone who has no interest in reason, or present facts to someone who thinks facts are irrelevent, and who believes that the gold standard of intellectual certainty is that something must be true if they emotionally want it to be true. I doubt any of these xtian loons will ever change their mind ( unless whatever malfunctioning part of their personality that makes them want this to be true changes for the better for some reason) , the best you can do is make them look ridiculous in front of bystanders who actually are still using their intelligence rather than fighting it. They can still be saved from the abyss of stupidity.
It’s utterly futile because you can’t reason with someone who has no interest in reason, or present facts to someone who thinks facts are irrelevent, and who believes that the gold standard of intellectual certainty is that something must be true if they emotionally want it to be true
I rarely debate evolutionists who think like that.
Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait…
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unravelling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!
“Since the dawn of man” is really not that long,
As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.
A fraction of a second and the elements were made.
The bipeds stood up straight,
The dinosaurs all met their fate,
They tried to leap but they were late
And they all died (they froze their asses off)
The oceans and pangea
See ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya
Set in motion by the same big bang!
It all started with the big BANG!
It’s expanding ever outward but one day
It will cause the stars to go the other way,
Collapsing ever inward, we won’t be here, it wont be hurt
Our best and brightest figure that it’ll make an even bigger bang!
Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
Debating out of here they’re catching deer (we’re catching viruses)
Religion or astronomy, Encarta, Deuteronomy
It all started with the big bang!
Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology
It all started with the big bang!
It all started with the big BANG!
There is not much point in debating this because there is so much that we don’t know and each ‘side’ can appeal to these gaps in our understanding.
But there are aspects that can be debated as there are irrational morons on both sides of the argument that like Pete said, can be exposed for the sake of bystanders seeking answers.
I no longer go to church because of the morons that happily submit their minds to the dude up the front without the slightest desire to generate an original thought themselves.
But in my journey out of organised religion I have never found Jesus to be at fault in any of this, rather the people that claim to follow him and the crazy ideas they preach in his name.
As a thinking, well-read, well-educated modern person who has raised 3 kids, travelled extensively, published, been married twice and worked in a variety of very diverse industries, I agree with CS Lewis, Mother Theresa, JRR Tolkien, Bob Dylan, Dave Dobbyn and several other billion people over two millennia, that God is real and Jesus Christ was something well beyond human.
This is a timeless reality for millions of human beings. “Science” (so-called) was created (that word again) about 300 years ago (Aristotle aside); faith is twenty times that old. Faith/Science are not incompatible or at enmity with each other. It’s just that humanity instinctively realised faith much earlier, and the intellectual pursuit of science was coupled together – staggeringly – millennia later.
Ross, other than the Bible, what is your most damning evidence against evolution?
The lack of a plausible mechanism to add information to the genome. That is, information for increased functionality / novel useful features. If you are of a scientific bent, you may like to follow this analysis of recent ‘scientific’ anouncements, covering various related fields. (I follow it via Google Reader).
Fair enough D4J, but I don’t need faith in anything to have morals. There is evil everywhere, Christians and non-Christians alike. I don’t think morals are enhanced by religion, nor are they eroded by a lack of it.
IMP “This is a timeless reality for millions of human beings. “Science” (so-called) was created (that word again) about 300 years ago (Aristotle aside); faith is twenty times that old. ”
Your point being? The length of time an erroneus primitive belief has been held before something better is discovered is no endorsement of the primitive beliefa. No matter how long religious people believed that mental illness is caused by demon possession and best cured by exorcism, it simply isn’t. The fact that it has been treated by science based medicine for a shorter length of time than it’s been treated by scaring away the bad spirits has no bearing on their relative values. One is true, one isn’t. Religion was a placeholder that people used in place of real answers. Now it’s clear that science is finding real answers, religion is obsolete and can do nothing but get in the way.
iMP (61) Says:
January 30th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
As a thinking, well-read, well-educated modern person who has raised 3 kids, travelled extensively, published, been married twice and worked in a variety of very diverse industries
As a non-thinking, illiterate, poorly educated, out-of-touch old fart who has fathered (yes, I’m sure) two children and supervised their growth, also married twice (like you, not for me learning from my mistakes) and also having worked in very diverse industries (read no bloody good at anything – always getting fired – also like yourself) I agree with your premis that God must exist.
In fact I go further and find the need for several (mine gave you the names of several days of your week).
None of mine were quite as murderous and downright nasty as yours but hey, they tried and, unlike yours, gave us the only religious rite worth partaking of – chocolate eggs at Easter.
He was! Not only that but he also fulfilled the Law. That’s why many Jews follow Him. That might be news to some…(!) And they apparently do so without compromising their Jewishness.
To ignore such a thing is to ignore all logic. …
That may seem compelling but such “logic” is merely a tautology. IOW, “Survival of the fittest” (or, “the fittest survive”) settles nothing because it’s true no matter what.
Faith/Science are not incompatible or at enmity with each other. …
It’s people like Richard Dawkins who put them squarely at odds with one another (so, irritatingly, do scientifically ignorant theists). The advocates of scientism claim that science is the only path to knowledge. This is a statement of faith which puts scientism at odds with other faiths, which is the battle Dawkins, et al, have chosen.
I have respect for Richard Feynman who didn’t seem to have a metaphysical agenda and advocated science as something you just “do” and observe what it throws up, rather than imposing on it what it can tell you. (I recommend an excellent BBC interview with him on Youtube.) Dawkins/Sagan/et al take science beyond its means and turn it into a kind of faith, then expend much energy attacking *other* faiths.
Unfortunately for the advocates of scientism, their faith is unscientific and thus self-contradictory. Biblical faith is NOT so – assuming God reveals himself to his people.
Now you’re being silly Zapper. Jesus didn’t preach “rape and pillage” now did he. The Old Testament is just that. The light is found in the New Testament, but you knew that, as your conscience tells you I am right.
>>Unfortunately for the advocates of scientism, their faith is unscientific and thus self-contradictory.
By “unscientific” I mean their belief is ungrounded in science since they don’t have the absolute scientific knowledge to justify their claim. It is truly a statement of “faith”: in the power of science to derive all “truth” accessible to humans.
Try some of this …re my point that many important scientific truths were revealed in the Bible thousands of years before they were discovered by ‘modern scientists.’
Just a few Scientific Truths Revealed in the Bible…. [is 9 enough? I can add more].
1. Earth is a sphere suspended in space. Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:7
2. The water cycle keeps the land watered. Job 36:27, 28, Ecclesiastes 1:7, Amos 5.8
3. The universe is running down. Isaiah 51:6, Psalm 102:26
4. Ocean Currents flow thru the sea. Psalm 8:8
5. Blood sustains life. Leviticus 17:11
6. The stars are incredibly distant from the earth and cannot be numbered. Job 22:12, Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22
7. The winds form a circulating system. Ecclesiastes 1:6
8. Earth rotates on its axis. Job 38:12, 14
9. Man’s body is composed of the same materials as the earth. Genesis 2:7, 3:19, Psalm 103:14*
(Since God made man from the dust it makes perfect sense.)
My point about the relative age of faith-acceptance vs science-acceptance, is that “modern science as all truth” is only a recent social invention. Therefore, 95% of humanity has to be rendered ridiculous and a pantomime of ignorance before “sophisticated modern scientific minds” arrived to redeem everyone. Frankly, the “Age of Enlightenment” has been a total disaster, we just use it to invent more and more destructive and cruel ways of destroying others.
That the planet is a sphere was recognised very early in, before the Bible was even a twinkle in a writers eye, even. So the creatives who wrote their version of history were, in fact, cognisant of philosophical (including science) findings, such as they were then.
For example, the diameter of the planet was first measured by a Greek mathematician, Eratosthenes, born 276BC. This, and early creation myths, implies that it was long recognised that the planet was a sphere.
All hail the invisible, inaudible, imaginary creator spirits!
Every grass skirt wearing stone age tribe believes in some sort of invisible creator spirit. But the xtian one REALLY REALLY IS REAL, hmmkay? It just is. I’m being serial. Everyone knows it is, and how could that many people be wrong?
DPF: I know you like to have fun but the fact that you haven’t seen your belly button in 20 years and your nipples touch the floor won’t be fixed by posting smart arse takes on art that no one really takes seriously.
And for goodness sake, the rest of you get a life.
I’ve never understood “moderate” xtians who only take some of the bible seriously. They acknowledge that the more bits of the bible people believe, the more they become embarassing dishonest hate-filled loons like creationist fundies. So if you realise that your holy book has a clear corelation between the amount believed and the amount of lunacy lies and hate, why believe any of it? Imagine a line on a graph that begins with a rational, well adjusted person who believes none of the bible and ends with the Rev Fred Phelps. Why would you put youself in the middle of that line when you could be at the start?
Someone who follows the socialist religion is just as bad as someone who follows xtianity. Both believing things that aren’t true because they really really really want them to be true and it makes them feel like they know something you don’t. Same psychology, just different jargon. A pox on both their houses!
Luc, the first 5 books of the OT were written 1200 years BEFORE Eratosthenes. Your history is totally out.
None of the few ancient manuscripts from the period of the OT in anyway compare with the orderly, coherent, rational and unified mastery of the OT Hebrew scriptures. It’s like Kiwiblog and PhilU vs Shakespeare and any serious scholar of old lit. knows that as an accepted baseline. Just read Genesis and then the Gilgamesh Epic. There is no comparison.
Nonsense imp, the bible is patched together out of different sources with sometimes irreconcilable conflicts. Why do you think there are two contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis chapter 1 and 2. ? The “priestly” and “yahwist” verisions both had their followers and they couldn’t choose one without offending the followers of the other tradition, so they just put both in there. Not a good start was it?
I have to admit, as long as many Christian people continue with the ‘us and them’ attitude, some of these guys have a point.
While personally I believe these types of Christians are pretty toothless regarding any ‘harm’ they can inflict on society, I also accept that as long as they preach their nonsense Christianity will always struggle for any relevance to our communities.
Personally I think Jesus has a brilliant and insightful take on human nature, a shame that most Christians don’t know much about him.
> The real humour is that in this day and age people still believe in something as ridiculous as creationism.
It is only slightly less absurd than believing in Global Warming – yet millions do.
What, two wrongs make a right?
Except that the evidence the world has in fact warmed is overwhelming. Witness all those retreating glaciers, and rising sea levels in the last 10,000 years. Whether man is responsible for GW is much more debatable (the case is looking increasingly shaky), and there is no evidence of impending catastrophy.
In contrast there is no evidence at all for young earth creation. Or creation, period. If god is behind all this, he has gone to great lengths to make it look like he wasn’t. So the creationists are now a sad spectacle of simply denying elementary, established results in evolution, physics, astronomy, and so on, of fabricating evidence and blowing out of all proportion unusual bits of evidence in nature, and of simply lying to defend their god. There is no other way, because none of the evidence points to their theory and all of it points away.
I can’t speak for anybody else, but for me, an important reason why I cannot bring myself to even consider religion is because faith now requires me to overlook reason and mountains of evidence, which makes me ask: surely no god who loves me and knows everything would require this?
And then, of course, I stop and and note that I am badly over-thinking this. The concept of god is an obviously human invention, and a masterstroke for those whose god succeeds (the great, great majority of god inventions have failed. Who still worships Zeus?) for obtaining power, control and wealth. In fac the whole concept is so transparent I can;’t believe 95% of the world has fallen for it. The power of indoctrination when young.
Blair, I think you mean t to write – Fortunately Christian faith does not require anything in the bible be true.
No, I didn’t. Why would you think I meant to write that? The Bible is forty Jewish guys (and one Greek physician) writing about their experience of God. Did they make some of it up? Well a lot of it is improbable, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. That’s why it’s called faith. Now sure, if it’s not actually true, then a great number of people are wasting their time. But my point was that the creationism/evolution debate does not interfere with Genesis as an account of the Fall of mankind. If evolution is a true theory, then one would have to conclude that the seven days of creation in Genesis are metaphorical for a process that happened over millions of years, something which has no theological implications at all for the rest of the Bible, or for the central message of Christianity.
Robin kills his family (minus the son of God, David), and – deliberately or otherwise – implicates his son. So while Robin left behind evidence implicating his son, the creator of the universe left behind evidence implicating evolutionism. It makes perfect sense.