My Theory On Creationism/evolution

[nhlfan 0]

Been lurking in the religion forum for awhile now.....I'm not really sure if I believe in a "GOD" or not with all the bad crap that happens to innocent people, and I don't mean people doing things to people, I mean like kids with cancer and stuff. Why would a loving "GOD" allow that to happen? Anyway, my theory....I think it's possible that we did evolve from lower species, but that this was God's plan all along. I know the bible says "6 Days" and all, but those 6 days are God's days, not ours, I think.Any comments? Like I said, I still don't know how/what I believe. I am 32 and was brought up Catholic, but as I get more educated, the more I find myself quesitoning the whole "organized religion" thing. It sure is a good way to keep people under control. If I wanted to rule a bunch of uneducated people, I would tell them "you'd better behave and not attempt to overthrow me or kill me or steal my stuff or you'll go to a horrible place when you die and suffer forever!". I don't have any problem with anyone else's belief's either, just remember, NO ONE KNOWS THE TRUTH 100%. So anything you believe is just that, a BELIEF. You can quote the bible all you want, but there is NO PROOF that it is what it claims to be. But it very well could be! This is making my brain hurt...........

[crowTrobot 2]

I am 32 and was brought up Catholic, but as I get more educated, the more I find myself quesitoning the whole "organized religion" thing. It sure is a good way to keep people under control. If I wanted to rule a bunch of uneducated people, I would tell them "you'd better behave and not attempt to overthrow me or kill me or steal my stuff or you'll go to a horrible place when you die and suffer forever!".

yeah that's pretty much how and why catholicism started.

[speedz99 145]

I'm not really sure if I believe in a "GOD" or not with all the bad crap that happens to innocent people, and I don't mean people doing things to people, I mean like kids with cancer and stuff. Why would a loving "GOD" allow that to happen?

This really isn't an argument for or against the existance of the standard judeo-christian idea of god. It's pretty well established by believers that (assuming god exists) he is to be praised for all good things that happen, and any bad things that happen...well, that's just part of a bigger plan, so keep on praising him for being very well organized.I actually don't mind the theist argument that god is like a parent. Would you let your kid skateboard even though you know he might fall and break an arm? Well god's parenting is the same type of deal but on a much, much larger scale. Instead of broken arms we have to learn from disease, genocide, etc.

I think it's possible that we did evolve from lower species, but that this was God's plan all along. I know the bible says "6 Days" and all, but those 6 days are God's days, not ours, I think.

It's not possible we evolved from other species...we did. Whether or not that was god's plan is up to you, but inconsequential in the scheme of things.

I don't have any problem with anyone else's belief's either, just remember, NO ONE KNOWS THE TRUTH 100%. So anything you believe is just that, a BELIEF. You can quote the bible all you want, but there is NO PROOF that it is what it claims to be. But it very well could be!

You haven't lurked that much, have you? Of course the hardcore religious folks around here think that the bible is 100% infallible proof of whatever point they're currently arguing. It doesn't matter how many times you tell them this is incredibly backwards logic (using a document to prove arguments about the document itself), this is just the way things are when debating religion.

[SBriand 4]

This really isn't an argument for or against the existance of the standard judeo-christian idea of god. It's pretty well established by believers that (assuming god exists) he is to be praised for all good things that happen, and any bad things that happen...well, that's just part of a bigger plan, so keep on praising him for being very well organized.

I loved the Christian chick on Survivor. Early in one episode she stated that God put her there for a purpose, this was his plan for her to win. Then that night she got booted and in her exit interview she said that God has a different plan for her. Love that stuff.

[Balloon guy 158]

Of course the hardcore religious folks around here think that the bible is 100% infallible proof of whatever point they're currently arguing. It doesn't matter how many times you tell them this is incredibly backwards logic (using a document to prove arguments about the document itself), this is just the way things are when debating religion.

Although I see what you're saying, I want to clear one thing up.The Bible is not one book. It is a collection of 66 'books' with history, poetry, romance, letters of encouragement, instructional letters, etc. all bound together.So if I use a passage in one book to 'prove' something in another book, written 400 years earlier by a different person, than I am not using the same source to prove itself.The arguement is whether each book is reliable...I think they are, but mostly because others (who study such things) say they are, and I want them to be, so I stop investigating any further then what I've already done. Which is read a couple books on Biblical lookupancienttextology. I'd sound so much smarted if I remembered words, and didn't spit when I said Yessss.

[crowTrobot 2]

I think they are, but mostly because others (who study such things) say they are, and I want them to be, so I stop investigating any further then what I've already done. Which is read a couple books on Biblical lookupancienttextology.

ah yes the "it must be true because i want it to be" argument for christianity. damn hard to refute

[speedz99 145]

ah yes the "it must be true because i want it to be" argument for christianity. damn hard to refute

I can respect someone for saying that. At least they're being realistic.

Although I see what you're saying, I want to clear one thing up.The Bible is not one book. It is a collection of 66 'books' with history, poetry, romance, letters of encouragement, instructional letters, etc. all bound together.So if I use a passage in one book to 'prove' something in another book, written 400 years earlier by a different person, than I am not using the same source to prove itself.

eeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....maaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh.....weeelllllllllllllll...Those are the sounds of me shrugging and being unsure about how to explain the fact that I see what you're saying but still disagree. I don't really have the time or energy to get into it at the moment (bio lab to finish so I can drink tonight), but basically I'm not sure you can use the writings of someone who already believed the stories of the bible to be true as proof. That last sentence made very little sense, so I apologize...I just can't figure out how to explain it. I'm sure someone smarter and more motivated than me could flesh it out.Also, I'm not talking about "love your fellow man" stuff. I'm talking about using the Bible as "proof" of creationism and the existance of god himself.

[crowTrobot 2]

sometimes i think BG is on the verge of becoming an agnostic and he's just thrashing around trying to stop it from happening. maybe he will convert on his death bed

[Spademan 94]

I actually don't mind the theist argument that god is like a parent. Would you let your kid skateboard even though you know he might fall and break an arm? Well god's parenting is the same type of deal but on a much, much larger scale.

I mind that argument.It breaks down pretty quick.Would you let your kid put down the skateboard and rape a baby? God put in the part of a parent does.That scale, however much larger it may be, is used to weigh cocaine and sell it to pregnant women.

[speedz99 145]

I mind that argument.It breaks down pretty quick.Would you let your kid put down the skateboard and rape a baby? God put in the part of a parent does.That scale, however much larger it may be, is used to weigh cocaine and sell it to pregnant women.

Well I would, but I plan on being a pretty terrible parent.

[Loismustdie 0]

I mind that argument.It breaks down pretty quick.Would you let your kid put down the skateboard and rape a baby? God put in the part of a parent does.That scale, however much larger it may be, is used to weigh cocaine and sell it to pregnant women.

It's funny how God is given so much credit on a theoretical basis by unbelievers, and by believers, just enough credit leaning towards a realistic concept.

[checkymcfold 0]

Although I see what you're saying, I want to clear one thing up.The Bible is not one book. It is a collection of 66 'books' with history, poetry, romance, letters of encouragement, instructional letters, etc. all bound together.So if I use a passage in one book to 'prove' something in another book, written 400 years earlier by a different person, than I am not using the same source to prove itself.The arguement is whether each book is reliable...I think they are, but mostly because others (who study such things) say they are, and I want them to be, so I stop investigating any further then what I've already done. Which is read a couple books on Biblical lookupancienttextology. I'd sound so much smarted if I remembered words, and didn't spit when I said Yessss.

well, they're kinda different books. you have to remember that they're called the "canon" for a reason--they were canonized. at the time the orthodox church was formed, there were a whole bunch of gospels and letters and shit out there. there was a group of religious dudes who had to sit in a room and figure out what was going to go into the canon and what was going to be left out, and what status to bestow upon the more apocryphal writings out there. so, it's important to keep in mind that you're always looking at a work that may have been divinely inspired, but was nevertheless collected by human beings in a human context and set to papyrus, paper, or the printing press. it would only seem logical that such men in a room would want to canonize texts that seemed logically consistent with one another, eh? i'm not saying that these guys were necessarily out to dupe the world's population--only that it's always important to remain skeptical and curious to some degree, no matter how set in stone you think your beliefs may be.

[Loismustdie 0]

well, they're kinda different books. you have to remember that they're called the "canon" for a reason--they were canonized. at the time the orthodox church was formed, there were a whole bunch of gospels and letters and shit out there. there was a group of religious dudes who had to sit in a room and figure out what was going to go into the canon and what was going to be left out, and what status to bestow upon the more apocryphal writings out there. so, it's important to keep in mind that you're always looking at a work that may have been divinely inspired, but was nevertheless collected by human beings in a human context and set to papyrus, paper, or the printing press. it would only seem logical that such men in a room would want to canonize texts that seemed logically consistent with one another, eh? i'm not saying that these guys were necessarily out to dupe the world's population--only that it's always important to remain skeptical and curious to some degree, no matter how set in stone you think your beliefs may be.

That may be, except for the fact that they are absolutely terrible at adhering to what they put together. There is quite a bit in the Bible that directly contradicts Catholocism, so much so that during Mass it is barely even used. So, my argument is that while that may be the case, whoever did the translating, putting to paper, etc., did such a good job that nobody likes the result, or at least very few do. Why put out a manipulated work that you don't even want to follow? Why not doctor it then? And, while you are doctoring it, why not make it match up better, make some of the details work more perfectly? Make sure all characters remember the exact same things, etc. They didn't do that- why? The bigger question- what if this was what God intended? All of it- and every person involved played a part in what ultimately ended up being his word? Is he still protecting it to the point that a solid version is still out there, so his people have a text to go from? How much can Satan actually do to foul up the works so to speak? Curious, yes, even skeptical- except that's dangerous, because you can out yourself in a position mentally where you cannot see what God wants you to because your mind is not open- doubt is not good.

[speedz99 145]

That may be, except for the fact that they are absolutely terrible at adhering to what they put together. There is quite a bit in the Bible that directly contradicts Catholocism, so much so that during Mass it is barely even used. So, my argument is that while that may be the case, whoever did the translating, putting to paper, etc., did such a good job that nobody likes the result, or at least very few do. Why put out a manipulated work that you don't even want to follow? Why not doctor it then? And, while you are doctoring it, why not make it match up better, make some of the details work more perfectly? Make sure all characters remember the exact same things, etc. They didn't do that- why? The bigger question- what if this was what God intended? All of it- and every person involved played a part in what ultimately ended up being his word? Is he still protecting it to the point that a solid version is still out there, so his people have a text to go from? How much can Satan actually do to foul up the works so to speak?

Ah yes, the old "it must be accurate because of the inconsistencies" argument. LOVE IT!

Curious, yes, even skeptical- except that's dangerous, because you can out yourself in a position mentally where you cannot see what God wants you to because your mind is not open- doubt is not good.

The best part about believing beyond a doubt in God is that it turns out that He wants you to see exactly what you want Him to want you to see.

[Spademan 94]

Well I would, but I plan on being a pretty terrible parent.

Well played.

[Sheiky 0]

You got bored with organised religion so you decided to invent your own factless theory to keep yourself happy?

[antistuff 0]

That scale, however much larger it may be, is used to weigh cocaine and sell it to pregnant women.

i got rent to pay too don't be a hater.

[Spademan 94]

i got rent to pay too don't be a hater.

I chuckled.

[Balloon guy 158]

well, they're kinda different books. you have to remember that they're called the "canon" for a reason--they were canonized. at the time the orthodox church was formed, there were a whole bunch of gospels and letters and shit out there. there was a group of religious dudes who had to sit in a room and figure out what was going to go into the canon and what was going to be left out, and what status to bestow upon the more apocryphal writings out there. so, it's important to keep in mind that you're always looking at a work that may have been divinely inspired, but was nevertheless collected by human beings in a human context and set to papyrus, paper, or the printing press. it would only seem logical that such men in a room would want to canonize texts that seemed logically consistent with one another, eh? i'm not saying that these guys were necessarily out to dupe the world's population--only that it's always important to remain skeptical and curious to some degree, no matter how set in stone you think your beliefs may be.

Yes it's true that the men charged with canonizing the Bible had an agenda, to get the real stuff and cut out the fakes. I forget the particulars, but something like 60 guys and it took a while, thy still never really agreed on a couple books, Hebrews and one other I think, maybe James.But at the same time as you said, they didn't have an agenda to dupe the world, but to find the books, letters etc that were written with apostolic authority, and their criteria was high.But I can totally understand why it could be taken as a they only picked the books that supported what they already believed. It's easy to spin it either way on a face value look at it.I need to brush up on my Worms trivia to go any farther. But suffice it to say I have read many books that impressed me with the holiness that these men approached this task. And to concieve that people would get away with pulling any tomfoolery with the canonization is to have a cynical mind.There, that's all the big words I know all in one post. I'm spent.

[Balloon guy 158]

sometimes i think BG is on the verge of becoming an agnostic and he's just thrashing around trying to stop it from happening. maybe he will convert on his death bed

You mistake my lack of fear admitting that there are reasonable ways to see things as different than mine with worry about what I believe.I am sure that Heaven is where I am going, and not on my own merits, works or because I deserve it. I think my 6 years in AA keeps me more humble about what a scumbag I am and have been. And I have always had to deal with my lack of formal schooling and basic weak science understanding.But as the old saying goes; I may not know what I believe, but I know Who I believe. or is it Whom?Ignorant masses FTW

[Balloon guy 158]

IAlso, I'm not talking about "love your fellow man" stuff. I'm talking about using the Bible as "proof" of creationism and the existance of god himself.

The Bible is not a good source for proof of scientific anything, it isn't a science book. The existance of God though, I think the Bible has lots of reasonable ways to reach people where they are to give them a way to God.With a message of forgiveness and mercy, how can it not?

[crowTrobot 2]

I think the Bible has lots of reasonable ways to reach people where they are to give them a way to God.

then apparently so do the koran, vedas, book of mormon, and dianetics.giving people a "way to god" by appealing to emotionalism rather than actual objective evidence is not reasonable. if you think emotionalism is reasonable you might as well just believe whatever is most convenient that makes you feel good. which is exactly what you're doing.

[speedz99 145]

if you think emotionalism is reasonable you might as well just believe whatever is most convenient that makes you feel good. which is exactly what you're doing.

So then you guys agree.

[crowTrobot 2]

So then you guys agree.

on what?if we agreed that irrational faith-based belief has any value i'd certainly bypass my cultural heritage and make up something a little more imaginative to believe in than christianity. ****i am actually the immortal child of powerful aliens who will someday return to overthrow all governments and make me the filthy rich supreme dictator of all earth!!!!!!***no more crazy than believing you'll be reincarnated as a lesser animal if you have bad karma, believing virgins are waiting for you in the afterlife if you martyr yourself, or believing that the creator of the universe cares about every human enough to sacrafice his son, yet places us in an environment where the majority reject him.

[speedz99 145]

on what?

if you think emotionalism is reasonable

He obviously does.

you might as well just believe whatever is most convenient that makes you feel good. which is exactly what you're doing.

Right. It's exactly what he's doing...so where do we go from here? He thinks emotionalism is an ok way to use as a basis of faith, and is following a religion that fits what he's looking for emotionally. You said it yourself.