The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
If God inspired the Bible then it is hard to argue that you should take Genesis figuratively. It reads like a literal account of what happened, and other parts of the bible refer to it as literal. It is not told like a dream or a parable which is obviously symbolic.
There is nothing in my reading of the Bible that suggests the creation account can't be taken figuratively/allegorically. Quite a lot of Jews never took it literally either. Rabbinical studies, anyone? I suggest you take some theology courses that cover the original Hebrew before closing your mind to the concept.
The foreword in my Bible specifically refers to the creation story as an allegory. Apparently there's a story with a talking donkey in it in the Bible too, which is not taken literally either (by the person who wrote the foreword, at least.)
Back in Catholic grade school / high school, we were taught that the important points in the creation story are that God made the world, that the world is good (as opposed to religions where the world is an illusion/bad/something to be escaped from), and that the bond of marriage is stronger than the bond of family, which would have been a bigger deal back when it was written than it is now.
One of the most irritating arguments of creationists is that evolution happens, but not up to the point that a separate species is created. Because it magically . . . doesn't happen. Yeeeeah.
It all comes down to the fact that you don't have any evidence that it's the inspired word of God other than the book itself saying so.
Lots of things say they're the inspired word of a deity. Why is the Bible alone right?
Well, the original question was "Is it possible to believe in evolution and the Bible?" As I understood it, it didn't really have anything to do with whether you should believe the Bible or not. The question was if you do believe that man evolved from lower forms of life, can you believe in the Bible as the inspired word of God (or vice versa)?
The foreword in my Bible specifically refers to the creation story as an allegory. Apparently there's a story with a talking donkey in it in the Bible too, which is not taken literally either (by the person who wrote the foreword, at least.)
Back in Catholic grade school / high school, we were taught that the important points in the creation story are that God made the world, that the world is good (as opposed to religions where the world is an illusion/bad/something to be escaped from), and that the bond of marriage is stronger than the bond of family, which would have been a bigger deal back when it was written than it is now.
One of the most irritating arguments of creationists is that evolution happens, but not up to the point that a separate species is created. Because it magically . . . doesn't happen. Yeeeeah.
Well, a lot of the examples given for evolution seem to be of the sort where a new genetic feature is not created. IE 90% of the moths are white and 10% are grey, and then pollution causes the trees to be covered in soot, and after a while 90% are grey and 10% are white.
If you call that evolution, then creationists will agree with you that stuff like that happens. But they generally think that the likelyhood of random mutations being beneficial enough to be naturally selected and significant enough to create a new species are really really low.
As far as what your Bible forward says, creationists wouldn't take it as having any kind of authority, and they are likely to take the talking donkey literally.
The foreword in my Bible specifically refers to the creation story as an allegory. Apparently there's a story with a talking donkey in it in the Bible too, which is not taken literally either (by the person who wrote the foreword, at least.)
Back in Catholic grade school / high school, we were taught that the important points in the creation story are that God made the world, that the world is good (as opposed to religions where the world is an illusion/bad/something to be escaped from), and that the bond of marriage is stronger than the bond of family, which would have been a bigger deal back when it was written than it is now.
One of the most irritating arguments of creationists is that evolution happens, but not up to the point that a separate species is created. Because it magically . . . doesn't happen. Yeeeeah.
Well, a lot of the examples given for evolution seem to be of the sort where a new genetic feature is not created. IE 90% of the moths are white and 10% are grey, and then pollution causes the trees to be covered in soot, and after a while 90% are grey and 10% are white.
If you call that evolution, then creationists will agree with you that stuff like that happens. But they generally think that the likelyhood of random mutations being beneficial enough to be naturally selected and significant enough to create a new species are really really low.
As far as what your Bible forward says, creationists wouldn't take it as having any kind of authority, and they are likely to take the talking donkey literally.
Nylon eating bacteria pretty much prove that it is possible despite be low. And given how many generations there are, it doesn't have to be high.
Couscous on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited November 2006
dplaisted,
with regard to new genetic features "being created", there are myriad examples of such things occuring - I don't think you know what you're talking about here. Genetic features != superficially observable difference.
However, a far more interesting fact is that entirely new abilities, traits and genetic structures in general are produced all the time. These things are individual events (most of the time), caused by mutation, and are not fixed within a population (and are thus not evolution). However, when it is fixed in a population you often get entirely new and exciting things occuring.
Perhaps one of the most interesting is that of Flavobacterium sp. K172. A simple frame shift mutation rendered this strain of bacteria unable to metabolise normal carbohydrates, instead, it can only metabolise nylon. Nylon didn't exist before 1935, so, if it isn't the evolution of a new feature, then what did it eat before we invented nylon?
EDIT: Curse you titmouse. You may be faster, but I am betterer.
As far as what your Bible forward says, creationists wouldn't take it as having any kind of authority, and they are likely to take the talking donkey literally.
Oh yeah, I realize that. I just wanted to point out that some people don't take it literally and still believe it's the word of God, just illustrating a different point than, "So, the universe: what's the literal explanation for its start?"
Even creationists tend to ignore large sections of the Bible, though, like "Don't touch a woman who's menustrating" and such. Or Jesus' parable about the sheep and the goats . . . I doubt if most of them believe it's actually about livestock.
The problem with the creation story and the subsequent story of Jesus is that evolution cripples the idea of original sin which is a necessity for the backbone of christianity. All people are born with original sin because of stupid Eve. Jesus couldn't have sin, so he was a virgin birth. No original sin.
If you take away Adam and Eve, you take away original sin, which takes away the idea that there is no person without sin.
The problem with the creation story and the subsequent story of Jesus is that evolution cripples the idea of original sin which is a necessity for the backbone of christianity. All people are born with original sin because of stupid Eve. Jesus couldn't have sin, so he was a virgin birth. No original sin.
If you take away Adam and Eve, you take away original sin, which takes away the idea that there is no person without sin.
Not really. Everybody sins. I defy you to find someone who hasn't sinned who is beyond the age of three or so.
It all comes down to the fact that you don't have any evidence that it's the inspired word of God other than the book itself saying so.
Lots of things say they're the inspired word of a deity. Why is the Bible alone right?
Well, the original question was "Is it possible to believe in evolution and the Bible?" As I understood it, it didn't really have anything to do with whether you should believe the Bible or not. The question was if you do believe that man evolved from lower forms of life, can you believe in the Bible as the inspired word of God (or vice versa)?
The problem with the creation story and the subsequent story of Jesus is that evolution cripples the idea of original sin which is a necessity for the backbone of christianity. All people are born with original sin because of stupid Eve. Jesus couldn't have sin, so he was a virgin birth. No original sin.
If you take away Adam and Eve, you take away original sin, which takes away the idea that there is no person without sin.
Not really. Everybody sins. I defy you to find someone who hasn't sinned who is beyond the age of three or so.
Someone who died before they were three. Perhaps some mentally handicapped people. Me. What kind of sins are we talking about anyway?
The problem with the creation story and the subsequent story of Jesus is that evolution cripples the idea of original sin which is a necessity for the backbone of christianity. All people are born with original sin because of stupid Eve. Jesus couldn't have sin, so he was a virgin birth. No original sin.
If you take away Adam and Eve, you take away original sin, which takes away the idea that there is no person without sin.
Not really. Everybody sins. I defy you to find someone who hasn't sinned who is beyond the age of three or so.
Someone who died before they were three. Perhaps some mentally handicapped people. Me. What kind of sins are we talking about anyway?
Okay, with original sin gone, Jesus didn't save toddlers. He still saved everyone else. That's a pretty large percentage. I'd give the win to the J-man.
Also, you are totally a sinner. Don't tell me you've never coveted your neighbour's wife. And remember that "neighbour" is a loose translation.
The problem with the creation story and the subsequent story of Jesus is that evolution cripples the idea of original sin which is a necessity for the backbone of christianity. All people are born with original sin because of stupid Eve. Jesus couldn't have sin, so he was a virgin birth. No original sin.
If you take away Adam and Eve, you take away original sin, which takes away the idea that there is no person without sin.
Not really. Everybody sins. I defy you to find someone who hasn't sinned who is beyond the age of three or so.
Someone who died before they were three. Perhaps some mentally handicapped people. Me. What kind of sins are we talking about anyway?
Okay, with original sin gone, Jesus didn't save toddlers. He still saved everyone else. That's a pretty large percentage. I'd give the win to the J-man.
Also, you are totally a sinner. Don't tell me you've never coveted your neighbour's wife. And remember that "neighbour" is a loose translation.
Hell, I'm sinning right now.
Well, I don't regard that as a literal part of the bible, so it's not a sin for me. Anyway, Jesus is suppose to save all of mankind, not just some. Original sin is a pretty important part of the doctrine, especially for certain sects, who are usually creationist nutbags anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.
No YodaTuna, do not talk about theology when you have clearly not researched it at all. Only Augustine theorized that Original Sin was passed on genetically. Aquinas felt that was wrong and cleared it up.
Princeps on
It goes like this
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah
No YodaTuna, do not talk about theology when you have clearly not researched it at all. Only Augustine theorized that Original Sin was passed on genetically. Aquinas felt that was wrong and cleared it up.
Because everyone completely agrees with what Aquinas wrote and everything was peaches and cream about original sin after that point :roll: You'd find a lot of Christians who would take issue with your assertion.
Anyway, Jesus is suppose to save all of mankind, not just some.
Only if they believe in him. That's pretty cut and dry.
Sucks to be those babies then.
Oh, you've got Limbo for stuff like unbaptized babies. If you're Catholic, that is. Pretty sure other denominations think it's a free pass to Heaven.
But seriously, Jesus comes right out and says you're only saved if you believe in him. John 3:18.
My statement stands then.
Anyway :arrow: back to the original arguement. If you want to talk about theology and the differences of opinion on original sin, new thread. My point is simply that I don't know, if in the long run, evolution and the Judeo-Christian religions can coexist.
The problem with the creation story and the subsequent story of Jesus is that evolution cripples the idea of original sin which is a necessity for the backbone of christianity. All people are born with original sin because of stupid Eve. Jesus couldn't have sin, so he was a virgin birth. No original sin.
If you take away Adam and Eve, you take away original sin, which takes away the idea that there is no person without sin.
Uh.
So for one counter example to this particular "but you HAVE to look it this way" case is the whole fricking catholic church, since the papacy has on multiple occasions since 1950 reiterated the idea that science's explanation of the origin of mankind does not contradict things like original sin or the special creation of man-- because science explains the origin of man's body, but the biblical account still explains the origin of man's soul, and it is man's soul (says the Catholic church) that makes him special.
This opinion, if they continue sticking to it, neatly avoids any possible future conflict with science, since science will never be able to explain the origin of the soul, since, like, it doesn't exist and stuff.
The problem with the creation story and the subsequent story of Jesus is that evolution cripples the idea of original sin which is a necessity for the backbone of christianity. All people are born with original sin because of stupid Eve. Jesus couldn't have sin, so he was a virgin birth. No original sin.
If you take away Adam and Eve, you take away original sin, which takes away the idea that there is no person without sin.
Uh.
So for one counter example to this particular "but you HAVE to look it this way" case is the whole fricking catholic church, since the papacy has on multiple occasions since 1950 reiterated the idea that science's explanation of the origin of mankind does not contradict things like original sin or the special creation of man-- because science explains the origin of man's body, but the biblical account still explains the origin of man's soul, and it is man's soul (says the Catholic church) that makes him special.
This opinion, if they continue sticking to it, neatly avoids any possible future conflict with science, since science will never be able to explain the origin of the soul, since, like, it doesn't exist and stuff.
Yea I can make up all sorts of reasons why they can coexist to, but that doesn't mean they are actually supported. I admire the catholic church for jumping on the bandwagon and everything, but they only did it because they knew it was a losing battle, just like every other time they tried to fight it. So they make up an excuse, not directly supported by any scripture or writing of the era.
The problem with the creation story and the subsequent story of Jesus is that evolution cripples the idea of original sin which is a necessity for the backbone of christianity. All people are born with original sin because of stupid Eve. Jesus couldn't have sin, so he was a virgin birth. No original sin.
If you take away Adam and Eve, you take away original sin, which takes away the idea that there is no person without sin.
Uh.
So for one counter example to this particular "but you HAVE to look it this way" case is the whole fricking catholic church, since the papacy has on multiple occasions since 1950 reiterated the idea that science's explanation of the origin of mankind does not contradict things like original sin or the special creation of man-- because science explains the origin of man's body, but the biblical account still explains the origin of man's soul, and it is man's soul (says the Catholic church) that makes him special.
This opinion, if they continue sticking to it, neatly avoids any possible future conflict with science, since science will never be able to explain the origin of the soul, since, like, it doesn't exist and stuff.
Yea I can make up all sorts of reasons why they can coexist to, but that doesn't mean they are actually supported. I admire the catholic church for jumping on the bandwagon and everything, but they only did it because they knew it was a losing battle, just like every other time they tried to fight it. So they make up an excuse, not directly supported by any scripture or writing of the era.
Wait...so if someone provides a reason for why they can co-exist and you don't like the "someone" you can just proclaim it to be not good enough?
That's an awesome power. Use it wisely.
Problem being the power itself is anti-wisdom...so I guess you have to wield it like an idiot.
The problem with the creation story and the subsequent story of Jesus is that evolution cripples the idea of original sin which is a necessity for the backbone of christianity. All people are born with original sin because of stupid Eve. Jesus couldn't have sin, so he was a virgin birth. No original sin.
If you take away Adam and Eve, you take away original sin, which takes away the idea that there is no person without sin.
Uh.
So for one counter example to this particular "but you HAVE to look it this way" case is the whole fricking catholic church, since the papacy has on multiple occasions since 1950 reiterated the idea that science's explanation of the origin of mankind does not contradict things like original sin or the special creation of man-- because science explains the origin of man's body, but the biblical account still explains the origin of man's soul, and it is man's soul (says the Catholic church) that makes him special.
This opinion, if they continue sticking to it, neatly avoids any possible future conflict with science, since science will never be able to explain the origin of the soul, since, like, it doesn't exist and stuff.
Yea I can make up all sorts of reasons why they can coexist to, but that doesn't mean they are actually supported. I admire the catholic church for jumping on the bandwagon and everything, but they only did it because they knew it was a losing battle, just like every other time they tried to fight it. So they make up an excuse, not directly supported by any scripture or writing of the era.
Wait...so if someone provides a reason for why they can co-exist and you don't like the "someone" you can just proclaim it to be not good enough?
That's an awesome power. Use it wisely.
Problem being the power itself is anti-wisdom...so I guess you have to wield it like an idiot.
Actually, I just have a problem with how the catholic church and the hierarchy within functions. Assuming the bible is the word of god, where is the catholic church coming up with an explanation to fit within their already established dogma. It's the same thing as limbo... they adopted the idea to make catholicism more appealing, yet there is no scriptural evidence of any kind supporting it. They just say it's there, is that right or wrong? I suppose it's not any different than coming up for the rules for a religion 2000 years ago or 30 years ago(I'm look at you scientology).
I always thought that was the base assumption of most, if not all, sects of christianity, including catholicism.
Well, as far as they go, one of the assumptions of catholicism is that the bible is divinely inspired-- but they also consider certain other things to be divinely inspired as well and thus are under no particular requirement to rely on the bible exclusively.
I always thought that was the base assumption of most, if not all, sects of christianity, including catholicism.
Well, as far as they go, one of the assumptions of catholicism is that the bible is divinely inspired-- but they also consider certain other things to be divinely inspired as well and thus are under no particular requirement to rely on the bible exclusively.
Fair enough, then what divinely inspired thing gave rise to this idea? The pope? Laughable honestly. I mean if they want to believe he can talk to god, more power to them. But he rose through the ranks of the catholic church just like rising through the ranks of a corporation. There is nothing special about him. They are just making up things that are the most politically expediant at the time. Given a couple decades, if all goes well, I bet the pope abolishes the idea that homosexuality is a sin. Politically expediant.
Failings of science? Not to sound like a technocrat but science doesn't fail. Scientific reasoning is a tool that has been created to consistently get results to problems with set goals.
Where the hell does it fail.
I keep saying it. Pretty much the entire debate over creationism could be solved if everybody had to take a year of senior biology. There are answers to each of the retarded questions that are asked over and over again in these threads.
I'm an agnostic these days, but I come from a Catholic background and believed in evolution as well as well as Christianity, so I did give some thought to the whole original sin thing. My hypothesis was that the point at which humans (or, more probably, hominids) gained sapience would have been the equivalent of "eating from the tree of knowledge."
By the Catholic definition, you have to KNOW what you're doing is wrong in order to sin. Most animals are amoral and simply can't sin. They make choices, but never based on morality. (There might be a few exceptions to this among advanced, social mammals.)
These days I don't believe in any particular religion and just don't worry about original sin.
Politics and Religion get so many people worked up, I try to avoid it when talking to people, but looking through this thread, I'm glad most of you guys aren't going for the predictable "You're going to hell!" or "You fucking bible thumper!" insults
Politics and Religion get so many people worked up, I try to avoid it when talking to people, but looking through this thread, I'm glad most of you guys aren't going for the predictable "You're going to hell!" or "You fucking bible thumper!" insults
Politics and Religion get so many people worked up, I try to avoid it when talking to people, but looking through this thread, I'm glad most of you guys aren't going for the predictable "You're going to hell!" or "You fucking bible thumper!" insults
GJ internet, you win
It's a lot easier to discuss these things and remain civil on the internet, and I think that's a large part of the appeal of forums like this.
I've very rarely seen most of the stuff we discuss, discussed in real life without someone getting really pissed off.
It's a lot easier to discuss these things and remain civil on the internet, and I think that's a large part of the appeal of forums like this.
I've very rarely seen most of the stuff we discuss, discussed in real life without someone getting really pissed off.
...it's just the opposite with me.
I actually got into a fistfight last week arguing about the UCLA police brutality thing. Me: black eye, bloody nose. Him: black eye, broken hand. A bit of alcohol was involved though . .
so arguing on the internet is definitely a better option for me.
geckahn on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
Failings of science? Not to sound like a technocrat but science doesn't fail. Scientific reasoning is a tool that has been created to consistently get results to problems with set goals.
Where the hell does it fail?
We get things wrong sometimes (subluminous ether, for instance), but science is self-correcting over time. So critics of evolution who say "what science believes to be true right now may turn out to be false" have a point. It's just that their resaoning up to and after that point is pretty much garbage.
It's a lot easier to discuss these things and remain civil on the internet, and I think that's a large part of the appeal of forums like this.
I've very rarely seen most of the stuff we discuss, discussed in real life without someone getting really pissed off.
...it's just the opposite with me.
I actually got into a fistfight last week arguing about the UCLA police brutality thing. Me: black eye, bloody nose. Him: black eye, broken hand. A bit of alcohol was involved though . .
so arguing on the internet is definitely a better option for me.
Posts
The foreword in my Bible specifically refers to the creation story as an allegory. Apparently there's a story with a talking donkey in it in the Bible too, which is not taken literally either (by the person who wrote the foreword, at least.)
Back in Catholic grade school / high school, we were taught that the important points in the creation story are that God made the world, that the world is good (as opposed to religions where the world is an illusion/bad/something to be escaped from), and that the bond of marriage is stronger than the bond of family, which would have been a bigger deal back when it was written than it is now.
One of the most irritating arguments of creationists is that evolution happens, but not up to the point that a separate species is created. Because it magically . . . doesn't happen. Yeeeeah.
Well, a lot of the examples given for evolution seem to be of the sort where a new genetic feature is not created. IE 90% of the moths are white and 10% are grey, and then pollution causes the trees to be covered in soot, and after a while 90% are grey and 10% are white.
If you call that evolution, then creationists will agree with you that stuff like that happens. But they generally think that the likelyhood of random mutations being beneficial enough to be naturally selected and significant enough to create a new species are really really low.
As far as what your Bible forward says, creationists wouldn't take it as having any kind of authority, and they are likely to take the talking donkey literally.
with regard to new genetic features "being created", there are myriad examples of such things occuring - I don't think you know what you're talking about here. Genetic features != superficially observable difference.
However, a far more interesting fact is that entirely new abilities, traits and genetic structures in general are produced all the time. These things are individual events (most of the time), caused by mutation, and are not fixed within a population (and are thus not evolution). However, when it is fixed in a population you often get entirely new and exciting things occuring.
Perhaps one of the most interesting is that of Flavobacterium sp. K172. A simple frame shift mutation rendered this strain of bacteria unable to metabolise normal carbohydrates, instead, it can only metabolise nylon. Nylon didn't exist before 1935, so, if it isn't the evolution of a new feature, then what did it eat before we invented nylon?
EDIT: Curse you titmouse. You may be faster, but I am betterer.
Oh yeah, I realize that. I just wanted to point out that some people don't take it literally and still believe it's the word of God, just illustrating a different point than, "So, the universe: what's the literal explanation for its start?"
Even creationists tend to ignore large sections of the Bible, though, like "Don't touch a woman who's menustrating" and such. Or Jesus' parable about the sheep and the goats . . . I doubt if most of them believe it's actually about livestock.
If you take away Adam and Eve, you take away original sin, which takes away the idea that there is no person without sin.
Not really. Everybody sins. I defy you to find someone who hasn't sinned who is beyond the age of three or so.
I'm aware, I was just indulging in an aside.
Someone who died before they were three. Perhaps some mentally handicapped people. Me. What kind of sins are we talking about anyway?
Okay, with original sin gone, Jesus didn't save toddlers. He still saved everyone else. That's a pretty large percentage. I'd give the win to the J-man.
Also, you are totally a sinner. Don't tell me you've never coveted your neighbour's wife. And remember that "neighbour" is a loose translation.
Hell, I'm sinning right now.
Well, I don't regard that as a literal part of the bible, so it's not a sin for me. Anyway, Jesus is suppose to save all of mankind, not just some. Original sin is a pretty important part of the doctrine, especially for certain sects, who are usually creationist nutbags anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.
Only if they believe in him. That's pretty cut and dry.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Sucks to be those babies then.
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah
Because everyone completely agrees with what Aquinas wrote and everything was peaches and cream about original sin after that point :roll: You'd find a lot of Christians who would take issue with your assertion.
Now, who hasn't done any research?
Oh, you've got Limbo for stuff like unbaptized babies. If you're Catholic, that is. Pretty sure other denominations think it's a free pass to Heaven.
But seriously, Jesus comes right out and says you're only saved if you believe in him. John 3:18.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
My statement stands then.
Anyway :arrow: back to the original arguement. If you want to talk about theology and the differences of opinion on original sin, new thread. My point is simply that I don't know, if in the long run, evolution and the Judeo-Christian religions can coexist.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2387589,00.html
Uh.
So for one counter example to this particular "but you HAVE to look it this way" case is the whole fricking catholic church, since the papacy has on multiple occasions since 1950 reiterated the idea that science's explanation of the origin of mankind does not contradict things like original sin or the special creation of man-- because science explains the origin of man's body, but the biblical account still explains the origin of man's soul, and it is man's soul (says the Catholic church) that makes him special.
This opinion, if they continue sticking to it, neatly avoids any possible future conflict with science, since science will never be able to explain the origin of the soul, since, like, it doesn't exist and stuff.
Technically all we know for sure is that a book with undocumented sources asserts Jesus said you're only saved if you believe in him. Technically.
Yea I can make up all sorts of reasons why they can coexist to, but that doesn't mean they are actually supported. I admire the catholic church for jumping on the bandwagon and everything, but they only did it because they knew it was a losing battle, just like every other time they tried to fight it. So they make up an excuse, not directly supported by any scripture or writing of the era.
Wait...so if someone provides a reason for why they can co-exist and you don't like the "someone" you can just proclaim it to be not good enough?
That's an awesome power. Use it wisely.
Problem being the power itself is anti-wisdom...so I guess you have to wield it like an idiot.
Actually, I just have a problem with how the catholic church and the hierarchy within functions. Assuming the bible is the word of god, where is the catholic church coming up with an explanation to fit within their already established dogma. It's the same thing as limbo... they adopted the idea to make catholicism more appealing, yet there is no scriptural evidence of any kind supporting it. They just say it's there, is that right or wrong? I suppose it's not any different than coming up for the rules for a religion 2000 years ago or 30 years ago(I'm look at you scientology).
He said in two sentences what it took me a paragraph to say, kthx.
I always thought that was the base assumption of most, if not all, sects of christianity, including catholicism.
A world of difference exists between "inspired by" and "actual precise Word of God".
Well, as far as they go, one of the assumptions of catholicism is that the bible is divinely inspired-- but they also consider certain other things to be divinely inspired as well and thus are under no particular requirement to rely on the bible exclusively.
Fair enough, then what divinely inspired thing gave rise to this idea? The pope? Laughable honestly. I mean if they want to believe he can talk to god, more power to them. But he rose through the ranks of the catholic church just like rising through the ranks of a corporation. There is nothing special about him. They are just making up things that are the most politically expediant at the time. Given a couple decades, if all goes well, I bet the pope abolishes the idea that homosexuality is a sin. Politically expediant.
Where the hell does it fail.
I keep saying it. Pretty much the entire debate over creationism could be solved if everybody had to take a year of senior biology. There are answers to each of the retarded questions that are asked over and over again in these threads.
Fuck.
By the Catholic definition, you have to KNOW what you're doing is wrong in order to sin. Most animals are amoral and simply can't sin. They make choices, but never based on morality. (There might be a few exceptions to this among advanced, social mammals.)
These days I don't believe in any particular religion and just don't worry about original sin.
Politics and Religion get so many people worked up, I try to avoid it when talking to people, but looking through this thread, I'm glad most of you guys aren't going for the predictable "You're going to hell!" or "You fucking bible thumper!" insults
GJ internet, you win
You fucking Bible thumper.
I'll see your ass in HELL.
It's a lot easier to discuss these things and remain civil on the internet, and I think that's a large part of the appeal of forums like this.
I've very rarely seen most of the stuff we discuss, discussed in real life without someone getting really pissed off.
...it's just the opposite with me.
I actually got into a fistfight last week arguing about the UCLA police brutality thing. Me: black eye, bloody nose. Him: black eye, broken hand. A bit of alcohol was involved though . .
so arguing on the internet is definitely a better option for me.
We get things wrong sometimes (subluminous ether, for instance), but science is self-correcting over time. So critics of evolution who say "what science believes to be true right now may turn out to be false" have a point. It's just that their resaoning up to and after that point is pretty much garbage.
O_o
i don't tend to have those kinds of problems.