|
SlipUp posted:Meanwhile, look at all the different kinds of dogs we got out of wolves! A response to that I've seen from some, is that it's microevolution (which they roughly define as evolution of genes promoting different characteristics - so it's still "dog kind", even looking different), as opposed to macroevolution (species diversion), which they say doesn't exist.  It's complete nonsense, and willful ignorance of course; evolution is evolution. Pesky Splinter fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Apr 14, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:A response to that I've seen from some, is that it's microevolution (which they define as evolution of genes promoting different characteristics - so it's still "dog kind", even looking different), as opposed to macroevolution (species diversion), which they say doesn't exist. Pretty much. If you want to see more about the way they try to cover that inconsistency, read up on baramins.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Here we go:
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Ray and Shirley posted:Here we go: ITT I learned male hairiness is determined by proximity to the Mediterranean, unless you're a viking or ainu
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
edit: beaten
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
I've been pondering a question for quite some time. Why do creationists think they need science to prove their side correct? I was under the impression that belief in the Christian god is supposed to be based on faith and not proof.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Yaos posted:I've been pondering a question for quite some time. Why do creationists think they need science to prove their side correct? I was under the impression that belief in the Christian god is supposed to be based on faith and not proof. Scientific theories contradict statements in the bible. If we accept those theories then some parts of the bible must be wrong and that just can't be. The word of God can't be partially right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Yaos posted:I've been pondering a question for quite some time. Why do creationists think they need science to prove their side correct? I was under the impression that belief in the Christian god is supposed to be based on faith and not proof. Eh God proved Himself to people all the drat time in the Old Testament. It used to be totally cool to demand God do a bunch of ridiculous poo poo to prove He's real and has the powers He says. But apparently we credulous moderns should take everything on faith. Direct Divine Interventions were only required for the extremely skeptical empricism of your illiterate bronze-age shepherd or petty king.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Yaos posted:I've been pondering a question for quite some time. Why do creationists think they need science to prove their side correct? I was under the impression that belief in the Christian god is supposed to be based on faith and not proof. Because they think that if they 'prove' their side is right, a bunch of sceptics and scientists will immediately accept Jesus as their saviour and convert. Young Earth Creationism is tied pretty heavily to Evangelical Christianity, which, and I may be wrong here, takes how many people you've converted into account when it's tallying up your good deeds and bad deeds for the ol' heaven/hell afterlife dichotomy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I was taught many moons ago that it the hebrew word for "brother" is the same word used for cousin so there is ambiguity about James. This is the response I got when I asked a Catholic about it (though it would be Greek, not Hebrew). I'm not sure how well it holds up but I have never taken a Greek class in my life so I can't say. A browsing of Wikipedia seems to say that the Greek word used is adelphos which more or less means brother, and if it was cousins like Catholicism seems to claim it would be anepsios instead, but there may be other factors (like maybe adelphos was used for brothers and cousins in the time of Jesus but not in the modern day).
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Well, prehistoric Europe was one of the coldest places with large, permanent human population; and people of European descent tend to have the most body and facial hair, so... Like I said upthread, there is a highly visible example of human evolution based around climate: skin colour.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Like I said upthread, there is a highly visible example of human evolution based around climate: skin colour. No see, Canaan saw his dad's balls so therefore...
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Like I said upthread, there is a highly visible example of human evolution based around climate: skin colour. Wait... are you suggesting the first humans weren't lilly white? Say it ain't so!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Yaos posted:I've been pondering a question for quite some time. Why do creationists think they need science to prove their side correct? I was under the impression that belief in the Christian god is supposed to be based on faith and not proof. Creationists (and fundamentalists/"literalists" in general) are what you get when someone 1) accepts the Enlightenment ideal that Truth is based entirely on objective factuality, but 2) is too emotionally attached to their religion to actually view it objectively. Basically, you know how some atheists get a little wacky and insist that since the Bible contains stories that didn't really happen, it has no value? Fundamentalists basically accept this premise, but they'd rather throw out all of modern science than the Bible. This is why one of the most important things to point out to creationists is that creationism is not actually required to believe in their religion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Because they think that if they 'prove' their side is right, a bunch of sceptics and scientists will immediately accept Jesus as their saviour and convert. Young Earth Creationism is tied pretty heavily to Evangelical Christianity, which, and I may be wrong here, takes how many people you've converted into account when it's tallying up your good deeds and bad deeds for the ol' heaven/hell afterlife dichotomy. This or they believe that Christianity is The One True Path and that they are helping people by converting them. After all, everybody that isn't Christian just plain goes to Hell, even if they've never heard of Jesus, which makes sense because reasons. Some denominations and sects believe that witnessing is bonus heaven points. Others believe that Christians must save people from themselves by converting them and getting rid of every other religion in existence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
At least the Mormon belief lets people choose between conversion and hell when they die. If you call that a choice. It's not the good heaven though. Only the best, most-white Mormon gets in that place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Yaos posted:I've been pondering a question for quite some time. Why do creationists think they need science to prove their side correct? I was under the impression that belief in the Christian god is supposed to be based on faith and not proof. Have you actually read their crap? None of it is science, it's all made up bs you have to believe without facts
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:This is why one of the most important things to point out to creationists is that creationism is not actually required to believe in their religion. "The Bible is the Word of God and to say it didn't happen exactly as it says it happened is calling God a liar, you can't be a Christian if you think God is a liar."
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Just look at the Creation Museum and see cavemen riding dinosaurs. They don't have anything to contribute and instead just lump everything that is unavoidable into a homogenous "before sin" time. They always use whatever frontier of science we don't really understand as the hand of God. Dark matter/eneger? God. Must be. I know I said atoms were made of God and then you proved there was more to the story but dark matter is God! Because our current amount of knowledge is all we'll ever know and there won't ever be the odd scientific breakthrough that completely changes society! Now excuse me, I have to post on the internet about this book that talks about when I should sell my daughter into slavery. I will always remember the scene in The West Wing when Sheen completely destroys the female version of Andy's take on the Bible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r024iK2a7w
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:"The Bible is the Word of God and to say it didn't happen exactly as it says it happened is calling God a liar, you can't be a Christian if you think God is a liar." Right, that is the mindset that leads to fundamentalism, and it's important to point out that the part of this I've underlined is an unnecessary assumption that's not inherent to Christianity.  Or I mean, you can internalize that same crappy assumption and laugh at those cuh-raaaazy Christians and help reinforce and perpetuate their terrible beliefs. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
Oh no I'm just saying that's the fundamentalist response. And if you point out to them that there are other Christian denominations that say that Creationism isn't necessary to be a Christian then the fundamentalist will simply say those denominations/churches are not actually Christian and they're going to go to Hell for calling God a liar. Despite the fact that most of them are Protestant and believe in a "faith alone" style of salvation fundamentalists are actually very keen on works-based salvation where if you don't believe the "right" things it doesn't matter if you believe that Jesus is Christ, you're not really Christian. As far as they are concerned Creationism is completely required to be a Christian, even if you and I know this is not actually the case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
It all boils down to 'listen to me, do what I want you to do' and if the first paragraph of the book that you are trying to use to leverage power over is fake as poo poo, most people will see through it and not do what they say. This is why creationism is prominent with perpetual donation seeking churches and their need to make it all true, in order to con the marks out of their money with lesser fuss. happyhippy fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:"The Bible is the Word of God and to say it didn't happen exactly as it says it happened is calling God a liar, you can't be a Christian if you think God is a liar." Except that the Bible isn't the word of God and I'm sick of this unquestioned orthodoxy amongst Christians that it is. The Bible didn't come into existence fully-formed. It never refers to itself because the various documents that comprise the Bible weren't compiled into a single book until long after they'd all been written; the decisions as to which books were legitimate and which books were apocryphal were made by a committee of editors that are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Individual books do not claim to come directly from God either; at most they claim to be human records of events in which God spoke. This is supposed to be a major distinction between Judaism/Christianity and Islam; Muslims actually do claim that the Quran is literally precisely word-for-word what God said from start to finish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:Except that the Bible isn't the word of God and I'm sick of this unquestioned orthodoxy amongst Christians that it is. The Bible didn't come into existence fully-formed. It never refers to itself because the various documents that comprise the Bible weren't compiled into a single book until long after they'd all been written; the decisions as to which books were legitimate and which books were apocryphal were made by a committee of editors that are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Individual books do not claim to come directly from God either; at most they claim to be human records of events in which God spoke. This is supposed to be a major distinction between Judaism/Christianity and Islam; Muslims actually do claim that the Quran is literally precisely word-for-word what God said from start to finish. Growing up what I was taught was that while yes many individuals did write and edit the bible they were all "possessed", for lack of a better term, by the Holy Spirit meaning everything in it is literally as God wanted it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Hasters posted:Growing up what I was taught was that while yes many individuals did write and edit the bible they were all "possessed", for lack of a better term, by the Holy Spirit meaning everything in it is literally as God wanted it. And see, that's not in the Bible, that's heresy. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:Despite the fact that most of them are Protestant and believe in a "faith alone" style of salvation fundamentalists are actually very keen on works-based salvation where if you don't believe the "right" things it doesn't matter if you believe that Jesus is Christ, you're not really Christian. As far as they are concerned Creationism is completely required to be a Christian, even if you and I know this is not actually the case. Reminder that for a long time, Conservapedia's article on 'Faith' described it as a uniquely Christian concept. It's been amended since then, but it's still amazing. conservapedia.com/Faith posted:Faith goes beyond materialism to include a realization of the underlying reality, for the goal of achieving good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:Except that the Bible isn't the word of God and I'm sick of this unquestioned orthodoxy amongst Christians that it is. The Bible didn't come into existence fully-formed. It never refers to itself because the various documents that comprise the Bible weren't compiled into a single book until long after they'd all been written; the decisions as to which books were legitimate and which books were apocryphal were made by a committee of editors that are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Individual books do not claim to come directly from God either; at most they claim to be human records of events in which God spoke. This is supposed to be a major distinction between Judaism/Christianity and Islam; Muslims actually do claim that the Quran is literally precisely word-for-word what God said from start to finish. It's not a Christian thing, it's a Protestant thing (to a variety of greater or less extents depending on denomination). It just so happens the loudest andm ost annoying Christians on the internet are among the most fervent of the literalists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Eh God proved Himself to people all the drat time in the Old Testament. It used to be totally cool to demand God do a bunch of ridiculous poo poo to prove He's real and has the powers He says. In between the resurrection and the ascension the disciples are constantly asking jesus to do poo poo to prove he actually resurrected and isn't just a ghost or something and he doesn't seem to mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
I'd really like Andy to describe in detail the difference between "faith" in his version of Christianity and "submission" in his understanding of Islam, ignoring that they're directed at different gods. (Before anyone jumps on it, I actually have a rare bout of theological agreement with Andy that Islam and Christianity worship different gods; I think that the view that the two religions involve the same God is the Islamic view, while the view that they're different is the Christian view, and therefore a neutral position should be one of ambiguity.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:I'd really like Andy to describe in detail the difference between "faith" in his version of Christianity and "submission" in his understanding of Islam, ignoring that they're directed at different gods. (Before anyone jumps on it, I actually have a rare bout of theological agreement with Andy that Islam and Christianity worship different gods; I think that the view that the two religions involve the same God is the Islamic view, while the view that they're different is the Christian view, and therefore a neutral position should be one of ambiguity.) How on earth do you reach this conclusion? Islam explicitly goes into how it's the Jehova of Jesus that they're worshipping. It's completely nonsensical to say it's a different God, the most you could do is call Mohammed a false prophet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:How on earth do you reach this conclusion? Islam explicitly goes into how it's the Jehova of Jesus that they're worshipping. Precisely. That's an Islamic view; Muslims don't even have the same concept of what Jesus is. Christians should no more have to acknowledge that Islam worships their God than Jews should have to acknowledge that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:Precisely. That's an Islamic view; Muslims don't even have the same concept of what Jesus is. Christians should no more have to acknowledge that Islam worships their God than Jews should have to acknowledge that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah. Nope that's idiotic. It's the God of Abraham, deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:Despite the fact that most of them are Protestant and believe in a "faith alone" style of salvation fundamentalists are actually very keen on works-based salvation where if you don't believe the "right" things it doesn't matter if you believe that Jesus is Christ, you're not really Christian. As far as they are concerned Creationism is completely required to be a Christian, even if you and I know this is not actually the case. I think you're a little off on faith vs. works. Works are actually supposed to be doing good things, like feeding the homeless and protecting the weak-- in short, doing Jesus-like stuff minus the miracles. Believing in the right things by definition would be faith, not works. Most of fundamentalism gets around this via cheap salvation, meaning that if you're faithful all you need to do is say you're sorry to God and it's all good. This creates exactly the poo poo situation you'd think, where believers can be effectively as amoral as they wish, since it can easily be forgiven. Garbage like that is what drove me out of the church (my old church's position on LBGT people and increased education/skepticisim kept me away permanently) because it inverts any normal morality a person could hold-- the unsaved are bad regardless of what good they do, and the saved are awesome regardless of how poo poo they are as humans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:Precisely. That's an Islamic view; Muslims don't even have the same concept of what Jesus is. Christians should no more have to acknowledge that Islam worships their God than Jews should have to acknowledge that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah. Good point, another example would be mainstream Protestants and Mormons. The LDS says it's the same God but theres such a huge difference between the Book of Mormon and the Bible that many Protestants don't consider Mormons Christian. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Nope that's idiotic. It's the God of Abraham, deal with it. He is making perfectly good sense. Should Jews acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:He is making perfectly good sense. Should Jews acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah? That's not remotely what's being asked. Should Jews acknowledge that Christians worship Jehova? If Christians had to accept Mohammed you'd have a point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:That's not remotely what's being asked. Should Jews acknowledge that Christians worship Jehova? If Christians had to accept Mohammed you'd have a point. Many Christians claim that Catholics do not worship the same god as them either, because they disagree so vehemently on certain aspects that they do not want to be considered the same religion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Many Christians claim that Catholics do not worship the same god as them either, because they disagree so vehemently on certain aspects that they do not want to be considered the same religion. I'm not sure if that's supposed to be a defense of the argument or if you want me to claim that absolutely everyone that does this is an idiot, because I'm happy to go with the second. They worship the god of Abraham. If people want to claim they don't despite the fact they quite clearly do, then they're free to continue being objectively wrong. If you want to bog it down about differing beliefs then I'm pretty sure we're going to have a serious issue when someone points out the Bible is about two separate deities combined into one. It's irrelevant: they're the same god from the same traditions. The interpretations of various prophets and scholars causing divides repeatedly doesn't change that, much like an accent doesn't mean you aren't speaking the same language.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:To be fair in Christianity being Jesus' real brother would suck dick. According to Epistles to the Galtians, James actually did pretty well by himself. He headed the Church in Jerusuleum, his branch eventually being scuffed into obscurity eventually by the Paul influenced communities in Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople. Still catching up with the thread, but a quick note. The influence of Greek thought (which was HUGE) is not mythology based, its philosophically based. Aristotle left a far, FAR greater thumbprint on Christian religious thinking than Hesiod did. One could try to summarize the whole explosive and fiery struggles to define the religion as the fight to combine deep greek philosophies (such as Neo-platonism) to Jewish myth, with the former largely winning. A book I'd recommend reading is Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid McCulloch. Its fantastic and revelatory reading. I'll probably have more thoughts to post once I catch up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
Hasters posted:Good point, another example would be mainstream Protestants and Mormons. The LDS says it's the same God but theres such a huge difference between the Book of Mormon and the Bible that many Protestants don't consider Mormons Christian. They can worship the same god and not be christians. Frankly I don't see why mormons would be any more christian than muslims, they both have prophets and sacred texts that came after christ.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 18:17
|
|