View Full Version : Creationism / Kreationismus
Webmaster
20-09-2006, 17:20
[EN] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
[DE] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreationismus
[DE] http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/studium/0,1518,438161,00.html
what do you guys think about this?
Moryarity
20-09-2006, 17:51
Well.....I consider it more a metapher like thing....I beleibe n evolution..not cration out of nothing....
What I worry more about is the fact, that some coubntries do not allow to teach "evolution theory" in their schools and the US is one of them :scratch:
I think there are some things that are beyond possibilities of scholards to uncover the truth. Answer to a question "how did the life emerged" is one of them, in my opinion.
Everyone should have right to hear all the theories and make picture himself what means noone should disable teaching one or another theory.
At the same time noone has right to force the others to accept his theory because in this case one can only believe one theory or other.
Noone will ever be able to give me proofs that the God created it all and at the same time noone can bring proofs that he didn't do it. So I prefere those proofs that stand against the theories of Creationists
Angryminer
20-09-2006, 21:35
The evolutionist theory is a theory of biology. The creationist idea is a both biological and physical (precisely astronomical) theory.
In the following I will assume that we discuss creatism in the background of modern science, which includes astronomy and biology:
My most important point on the subject is define out what exactly you agree on.
I'll list a few points and comment on them. Beyond the "- " I'll write down personal opinions, where I won't explain too much because of the frame of the discussion.
1. Do you agree that at the time of the emerging of the universe, the point that is usually referred to as the Big Bang, a higher force conciously created what was later to become the universe, which is home to our galaxy, where later the sun and ultimately earth formed and mankind evolved through natural selection.
- This puts the point of creatism to the nearest point beyond the current barrier of explanation. Beyond this we have theories that might be true, but we don't have the technology to sufficiently test them and thus can't see if they are wrong. That also means we also can't test wether the creationist theory is incorrect. All theories are equally proven at this starting point - i.e. not at all.
It is important to respect the principle of "All theories are or might be correct until proven wrong" here. Or at least you have to respect the use of equal measure on all opinions.
Please also note what scientific "proof" actually is. A theory can not be proven. It can only be disproven or confirmed by a test. Nothing more.
2) Do you disagree with the theory of the so called Big Bang and believe that the universe was created in an instant by a higher concious force in the same state as it exists now?
If so, when did creation happen in your opinion?
2a) At the point where we currently assume the "Big Bang"
- This puts the creation to a point within logical explanation. Using maths you can reason from the above statement that 1 does not equal 1, or something similarly unlogical. In a nutshell: The only point all experimental data points to is that the universe was extremely small a long time ago. Which leads to the idea of the so called Big Bang.
(You noticed that I always emphasize "Big Bang" as a name, as it's just one unproven theory among other that describe what might have happened at the point where time began.)
Please note that the above statement does not stem on a theory that puts the experimental data together. I did not talk about dark energy to explain what happens, I talked about what we can see what happens.
2b) At a unspecified point of time somewhere. Ten seconds ago or 2 million years ago. The world was created at some time in that way that it looks like it was older. Due to this the point of creation can not be measured.
- Please read up on the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster). Still, despite this parody (which is intended to start a process of thought) your theory can not be proven wrong due to it's nature. It's true because according to the theory it's true and it can not be proven wrong because according to the theory it can not be proven wrong.
3. You agree on the scientific theories of the comeabouts of the earth but disagree on the theory of "random" creation of life.
If so:
3a) You believe in the evolutionist idea of what happened after creation of life.
- Then specify why you think the concept of "random" creation of life is wrong. From what we know about the younger earth and the chemical composition of it's oceans we can assume that it was possible that an early life form emerged. Indeed there is no proof of the creation of life through chemical processes, but the theory does withstand specific attacks (f.e. 'If the chemical composition of the early oceans allowed a creation by chemical means, do we find traces of these molecules?'). So do you disagree with this theory or do you regard it as "unproven but not disproven"?
3b) You do not agree on the idea of evolution at all. All life forms were created as they are now or as they went extinct.
- If so, please explain to me how you imagin the traceable changing of lifeforms due to human selection (like, f.e. breeding dogs for a specific fur lenght) under the background of the above theory and in what way the traceable change in the enviroment, f.e. heat cycles of the earth, did not influence the natural selection of the animals or ultimately humanity.
I currently can't come up with more ideas. Please add more theories if you have them so we can discuss them.
Some notes: Please note again that I'm just giving (sometimes reasoned) opinions on the theories I wrote down. I do not regard these opinions as absolute proof. I did not write them down to make you change your mind, but to give you something to answer. I would like to start a discussion on these points so we can all learn new ways of looking at things. :go:
I have to end the post now because of work that's waiting for me. Please feel free to add something or point out lacking flow of argumentation so I can change that. Also sorry for the lenghy reply. :smile:
Angryminer
What I worry more about is the fact, that some coubntries do not allow to teach "evolution theory" in their schools and the US is one of them :scratch:
WOA!!! Back up a bit now! You have been misled! The US does allow "evolution theory" in the schools, what they do not allow is "creation theory". And that is what has the conservative christian sector so upset.
I myself do not believe in "evolution theory", I do believe that things evolve, just not to the extent that is "evolution theory". I do not believe that mankind evolved from a form of apeman.
Being a christian, I do believe in "creation theory", I do believe that all was created by God. I believe he allows evolution in the process of nature. Some people say that everything came into being as the result of a "Big Bang", I was not there when the universe was created, so I do not know if there was a Big Bang that started everything to being or not. I do believe that if there was a "Big Bang" then God was the "Big Banger".
Largefry07
21-09-2006, 03:49
WOA!!! Back up a bit now! You have been misled! The US does allow "evolution theory" in the schools, what they do not allow is "creation theory". And that is what has the conservative christian sector so upset.
Yes I have been taught in our public school about the theory of evolution and NOT creationism. (I just wanted to confirm that by someone who has recently been in the US public school system) Now having said that, each state usaually determines it's own curriculum for its schools (for the most part) so some states may have outlawed the "evolution theory" and in its place taught creationism. (I don't know if any have or not. Utah may have but I can't say for certain)
Moryarity
21-09-2006, 14:27
I do not believe that mankind evolved from a form of apeman.
Thats one of the misunderstanding in evolution theory..two different spicies do not evolve "from" each other, but have common ancestors.......mankind has not evolved from an "apeman" but apes and mankind are two different "branches" of one common ancestor....
It's really funny how here kids are taught evolution from one subject, and creationism from another, whith each teacher claming that the other one is wrong. I believe that both theories are just a result of man's great imagination, and I also belive that if there were thousands of theories, none of them would be remotely true.
Webmaster
21-09-2006, 15:18
people can believe what ever they want. thats one big advantage of our reached freedom.
but children should be educated by common sense so they can learn to interact with our modern world and other human beings. they shall learn to be confronted with opposites and how to make their own picture of it.
I don't understand how a stete like USA claims being called the stronghold of Freedom and being te one who tries to export freedom to the entire world when it's schools are untouched by freedom. In some states they disable teaching evolution and in some they disable creationsism. How this could be called a country with freedom?
but it was offtopic.
As Moryarity said we are not evolved from Shimpanzee, we just have one common ancestor, like American Indians have common ancestor with the Chinese and Dog has one common ancestor with Woolf.
There are archaeological proofs for this, so we can talk about this, but we cannot argue How and Why the World had been created because there is no way to back your arguments with anything more than just belief
so it's a matter of belief how you see the beggining of the World and Life. You can believe in Big Bang, Creatin or any other theory. But they all have one thing in common, they are products of human imagination because humans needed to make up some theory explaining the very beggining of things.
The most funny theories are the ones explaining Why the World had been creted. How the hell can we know Why something was created when we have no clue How it had been done?
But once we have things existing we can collect materials proving one or another theory. They are still firstly products of human imagination but can be validated or disproved by excavations and state of things today.
I understand that it's very hard for many people (who believe we are something very special) to agree with the fact you have common ancestor with apes, but for me it's not any harder than to admit that I may have common ancestor with Adolf Hitler.
I can think I am better than this guy but why should I deny common ancestry when it might be true? How does it affect me?
RobinBanks
30-09-2006, 03:31
So if great-great-great-great-great-great. . . . . . . . great-grandpa was a monkey, what does that say? That I'm just a more highly evolved animal. Where I got my morals, values, and ethics, who knows, I probably picked that stray "gene" up somewhere along the line, thanks to one of those "helpful" mutations.
So if great-great-great-great-great-great. . . . . . . . great-grandpa was a monkey, what does that say? That I'm just a more highly evolved animal. Where I got my morals, values, and ethics, who knows, I probably picked that stray "gene" up somewhere along the line, thanks to one of those "helpful" mutations.
That we have our moral values and such things does it mean we can't lose them?
Look around you. Unless you are very lucky man you will see how badly people behave, how they treat each other.
For me it is a memento. Take care or you will fall "back" down.
Tell me what morality is in thinking you are the best and the only best in the world? Many God-believers don't think of the God being above them when treating animals or other people.
The better you know how it is to be down, the more you respect those who are up, the more you want not to fall down and the more you want your children to be better than you.
This is a way how you can actually evolve into a "better human" instead of being sticked as - sorry for the expression - just a "good believer"
So if great-great-great-great-great-great. . . . . . . . great-grandpa was a monkey, what does that say? (...)Please allow me to correct you - monkeys and humans share a common ancestor, we humans are not descendants from the monkeys.
--
...and I just read that Moryarity had come up with the same phrase, too. Sorry about that, thus. But it cannot be stressed enough, I think.
--
So, the topic is creationism. In the interpretation of it as the belief that [a] God created the universe, there is few discussion possible. It could well be that that is true, but as said, it's unprovable and pure belief. What I find difficult to understand is that people believe in a book as representing the truth, altough this might well be offtopic.
RobinBanks
04-10-2006, 00:59
@ Elvain:
I apologize. Looking back at my post, I can see where you're coming from. I did not mean to sound arrogant. All I meant by my post was, if evolution is true, what is the basis for morality, where did conscience come from, etc. When I said, " Where I got my morals, values . . . .", I meant where did I, as a human, get them. Again, I apologize for the confusion and the sarcasm. I'll try to keep my flipancy out of the picture in the future.
Hmmm Hot topic.I had to do a research paper on this last year.
I'm a strong believer in evolution because I believe in science. In other words I believe in solid,hard facts that to an extend prove things correctly. I must see to belive and that's part as to why I don't belive in creationism.
Creationism in my eyes is nothing more than another fabrication by die hard christians that refuse to see the facts and want other people to still believe in God, but in a more "modern scientific" kind of way even supporting evolution in some of it's branches but as a God controlled thing. In other words, they refuse to give up their 1500+ year old hold over people in today's more educated society.( the exeptions include people who still believe that earth is the center of the solar sytem)
Evolution is supported by science, Facts ( we have found fossils that are millions of years old, so how can you say that earth is only 5000 years old) that strongly support the theorys, because that's what science is. The best we have today, tomorrow some one can come up with a better theory to explain life and prove we are the decendants of aliens from Mars, and if the facts pressented by this individual make sence and explain life much better than Darwin's evolution theory, then it would be considered the new evolution theory.So sccience can be proved wrong, given you have all the facts that support your theory.
Creationism in the other hand offers no such thing as facts, reasoning nor common sense. Is either believe or be damned. It relies on faith and the believe of the individual as it can't be proved correct nor incorrect. It is based on the bible, religious book writen by men such as you and me that might have had personal reasons to do so. I don't mean to say religion is all bad, yes it has done more harm than good throughout history, but it has given society moral values in which today's society and even law system relies on to define the bad and good.
Anyways, science is science and religion is religion, both should be kept apart as they are 2 different things. Schools are to learn facts and things already proved to be correct. Religion in the other hand is something for the individual to decide weather to have faith in or no.
Sorry for the long newspaper:silly:
crusaderknight
06-10-2006, 22:28
Hmmm Hot topic.I had to do a research paper on this last year.
I'm a strong believer in evolution because I believe in science.Are you saying that science contradicts religion? My friend, you are most sadly mistaken. I too believe in science. And the more I learn about the wonders of the universe, the more my Faith in God is reinforced, for how else is it even possible for all that is the universe to come into existence except by Divine Creation?
In other words I believe in solid,hard facts that to an extend prove things correctly. I must see to belive and that's part as to why I don't belive in creationism.I take it that you do not believe in air then? Can you see air? No. You can see the effects air has (such as filling a balloon, or wind in the trees), but you have to believe that it really is the air doing it. You cannot actually see the air itself filling a balloon. Neither can you see the wind blowing the tree. You see the effect of the wind in the tree. But you do not actually see the wind itself. So by your own claim, you cannot believe in wind, because you cannot see it.
Creationism in my eyes is nothing more than another fabrication by die hard christians that refuse to see the facts and want other people to still believe in God, but in a more "modern scientific" kind of way even supporting evolution in some of it's branches but as a God controlled thing. In other words, they refuse to give up their 1500+ year old hold over people in today's more educated society.( the exeptions include people who still believe that earth is the center of the solar sytem)What are you saying here? That anybody with an education can see that Christians are wrong and that Evolution is obviously true? Gee, and here I thought that the fact that I'm taking college courses meant that I was educated. Silly me, I'm just an ignorant Christian with no free will...
Evolution is supported by science, Facts ( we have found fossils that are millions of years old, so how can you say that earth is only 5000 years old)Can you prove it? Carbon dating is not reliabe beyond a few thousand years old. Is there any way to actually prove that the fossils are millions of years old?
Oh, and BTW, the earth is 6,010 years old, not 5,000.
that strongly support the theorys, because that's what science is. The best we have today, tomorrow some one can come up with a better theory to explain life and prove we are the decendants of aliens from Mars, and if the facts pressented by this individual make sence and explain life much better than Darwin's evolution theory, then it would be considered the new evolution theory.So sccience can be proved wrong, given you have all the facts that support your theory.But science can only be proven wrong when the facts go against it. How can you say that the facts support Evolution, and then say that if someone finds some facts, he may prove Evolution wrong? That is a contradiction in terms. Either the facts support Evolution, and nothing can prove it wrong, or it is only a theory, which is not a thing to stake your beliefs upon unless it has something deeper than science to back it up.
Creationism in the other hand offers no such thing as facts, reasoning nor common sense.I beg your pardon! I am a rather reasonable fellow with quite good common sense. So how come I still believe in Young Earth Creationism, and that God made the earth in six days out of nothing?
It relies on faith and the believe of the individual as it can't be proved correct nor incorrect.Yes, that is true. The same is true of Evolution. There are not enough facts to support it, which is why it is still only a theory. If you believe it to be true, it is because you have faith that it is true, just as I have Faith that the Bible is true.
It is based on the bible, religious book writen by men such as you and me hat might have had personal reasons to do so.Evolution is based on a book written by a man such as you and me (Darwin) and he might have had personal reasons for writing it. Looks like he's not credible either.
I don't mean to say religion is all bad, yes it has done more harm than good throughout history,:nono:
but it has given society moral values in which today's society and even law system relies on to define the bad and good.And unless the Bible is true, then why does it matter or help us to use the morals that it gives us? If the Bible is just another book, then why not say "to heck with morals" and go live a fun life doing whatever the heck you want? What gives a government the authority to govern if not God? Who says that one thing is right and another is wrong if not God? Who else has the right to make such claims but God?
Anyways, science is science and religion is religion, both should be kept apart as they are 2 different things.Nicholas Copernicus would disagree with you there. As would many Renaissance Scientists. Science, when studied correctly, only further glorifies God.
Schools are to learn facts and things already proved to be correct.Then why do we teach Evolution in schools? It has not been proven to be correct. It is a theory.
Religion in the other hand is something for the individual to decide weather to have faith in or no.And how does one make that descion without being educated in the beliefs of a religion?
RobinBanks:
There's no need to apologise.
It didn't sound arrogant. I mean. For you is it important to know where the values came from? or is it more important to know if they are good or not? I know it sounds as subjectivism and relativism, but it's not. I personaly may be wrong, but when my values correspond in 90% with major human religions and ideas of humanism, I have right to think I'm not wrong. And when somene thinks I am, I am opened for discussion.
I don't care if it was God who gave those values or if it was Moses or Jesus. I find them good and I care not to cause bad things and when I do something bad I regret and try to make it good again.
Those who aren't like me probably need some supernatural legacy, so have it.
Do what will make you better human. If it means to follow some religion, so do it. But please, don't force me to believe that I was created by some god and that this god gave me my values.
crusaderknight:
you probably misunderstood the basic difference between religion and science.
Religion is here to make people strong in moments of personal crisis, to legitimate some social order which can't be legitimated no other way that that it was founded by higher entity. I am sure I forgot also other functions but definitely religion is not here to ASK questions, religion is here to give answers and many of those answers have to be believed in or, if someone doesn't believe, not.
On the other side, science primarily asks question. The reason of science are doubts which are understood as weakness in faith in terms of religion.
I too believe in science. And the more I learn about the wonders of the universe, the more my Faith in God is reinforced, for how else is it even possible for all that is the universe to come into existence except by Divine Creation?the problem is. Science is here not to be believed IN. It is religion what you beliebe IN. Science you believe the proofs given becaüse they are strong enough or not because you have something thatprooves them wrong.
You can believe that the world is product of Divine creation, you can believe that the world is product of Big Bang, you can believe thet the world is fruit of some supersperm or whatever, but this question, the question of Origin of the world is not a question of science but question of belief (religion or rather mythology). You can never prove How and even Why the world has been created.
How can you prove any answer? "I can't imagine it being diferent", "There has to be something intelligent beyond such big thing" but where is the proof?
I take it that you do not believe in air then? Can you see air? No. You can see the effects air has (such as filling a balloon, or wind in the trees), but you have to believe that it really is the air doing it. You cannot actually see the air itself filling a balloon. Neither can you see the wind blowing the tree. You see the effect of the wind in the tree. But you do not actually see the wind itself. So by your own claim, you cannot believe in wind, because you cannot see it.Sorry, I'm not labeling you but this is what religiously blinded people tend to do quite often. Cathing every word said little wrong.
Hard and solid proof which has to be seen does not meen seen physicaly. You have very nice theory and I can see that you mean All we see is just effect of God who we don't see. But you again misunderstood science and it's mechanism.
You can "see" the air through other senses, you can feel it, you can smell it when there's no wind, when you climb Mt.Everest you can breath lack of oxygen which is part of it. No, you are wrong, you can see the proofs of the air, not only effects. This, however can't be said about God.
Can you prove it? Carbon dating is not reliabe beyond a few thousand years old. Is there any way to actually prove that the fossils are millions of years old?relatively, carbon method is uncomparably more reliable than religious proofs of a kind "we have to be a product of an intelligent mind" and such.
Evolution is proven by simple fact of existence of relative organisms.
how is it posible that several millions ago there are fossils of something between tiger, cat and other animals like them, but none of actual species? and that actual species have something common with some other that have some common billion year old ancestor?
does it mean the cat and tiger were created later? or does it mean they evolved from their common ancestor?
I'm not a paleontologist, but when keeping my mind opened it's clear what does it mean
What are you saying here? That anybody with an education can see that Christians are wrong and that Evolution is obviously true? Gee, and here I thought that the fact that I'm taking college courses meant that I was educated. Silly me, I'm just an ignorant Christian with no free will...no way. You are educated, you just don't accept some facts what is your full right.
We all do it. When someone sais something I don't like, my first reaction is mostly that I don't accept it. But if my emotoions calm down, more or less I start to doubt about my statement and think about it, if it is important for me. It's natural
But science can only be proven wrong when the facts go against it. How can you say that the facts support Evolution, and then say that if someone finds some facts, he may prove Evolution wrong? That is a contradiction in terms. Either the facts support Evolution, and nothing can prove it wrong, or it is only a theory, which is not a thing to stake your beliefs upon unless it has something deeper than science to back it up.again you prove that you don't understand the way of thinking aplied by science and you think in a way religion thinks.
Something either is true or not.
But science doesn't claim it is absolutely true! Science always assumes possibility of limited knowledke (unlike religion). TRUE in science means "something very close to true. Untill someone proves it wrong, it can be considered as true."
Or do you believe that we today have the best way to get all information about everything? Though I'm far from being positivist I am sure that the way of finding new information will be better in future, so there is probability that something I agree with might be proven wrong. And it's my task to accept that the world has changed.
Science is here to adapt on changing conditions. Religion, on the other side, is here to ligitimate actual system and to make it stable.
But stability=staticity, the world, on the other hand is very dynamic
Oh, and BTW, the earth is 6,010 years old, not 5,000.exactly?
isn't it 6011 or 6009?
could you give me the formula that resulted in this numer?
I am not exactly sure about the dates but Old Mesopotamians had civilisation before 3500 BC (approximately 5500 years ago), they had some kind of script artound 3000BC (5000 years ago), though they don't have Any notes about the dinosaurs, even in myths. How is it possible that there are fosils of dinosaurs which were found comparatively much deeper under "mesopotamian" cultural levels?
How is it posible that the world is 6010 years old when Jewish calendar says it is 5767 years old, using the very same source for "the first days of the World" as the creationists do?
Are the Jews wrong because they didn't accepted Lord Jesus Christ and criucified him or because they use diferent callendar for last 1500 years so the diference could make some 10 years? where did those 243 years disappear?
And unless the Bible is true, then why does it matter or help us to use the morals that it gives us? If the Bible is just another book, then why not say "to heck with morals" and go live a fun life doing whatever the heck you want? What gives a government the authority to govern if not God? Who says that one thing is right and another is wrong if not God? Who else has the right to make such claims but God?that's it. Thanks for hitting the nail!
Do you take the Bible as absolute truth?
Do you take it as historical source and source for your moral values? both? ok.
But that's the diference. Moral values belong to religion and thus "religious metodology" should be applied on them. So those parts you understand as "moraly important" should be understood and researched in religious methodology.
On the other hand, those parts you accept as historical source (and the Bible is one of the greatest historical sources for Middle Eastern history!), you have to apply methors of history as science when asking religious questions.
This way you will realize that not everything that is written there (in the Bible-chronicle) is perfect true.
And now you will definitely disagree. This is what proves that religion was made up by the people.
The government has to have some legitimacy, moral values have to have some legitimacy.
Because it's human nature to do bad things those have to be restricted. One day some wise men said that those are the values we should follow. The powerfull agreed, but to force the people to respect this order they have to say it is The Law from the God, because otherwise the people wouldn't follow them.
Humanists in 17th and enlightonists in 18th century thought that education will teach people to follow moral values so they wouldn't need religious fundaments for those values. History proved them wrong.
The laws and values are here to protect the society from the bad. Their legacy needs to be confirmed somehow to be respected by the society. In religious society where the people need the values to have "supernatural" basis the values should be legitimated by supernatural power. In societies that are not religious there should be found some other legacy that will force people to respect them.
I deeply respect religion as the keeper of moral values, but I deeply disrespect religion for it's anti-dynamism.
It may sound nihilistic, but when some society disrespects it's own values, it deserves to die. The values are here to protect human lives and human society. I agree with those religious/moral orders that protect them, but I am the first to stand against those religious orders that disrespect them. And in history and even today, all religions had many such orders
Are you saying that science contradicts religion? My friend, you are most sadly mistaken. I too believe in science. And the more I learn about the wonders of the universe, the more my Faith in God is reinforced, for how else is it even possible for all that is the universe to come into existence except by Divine Creation?
You see, it does contradict it, The bible clearly states that earth is the center of the universe. Everthing in the universe is made up out of matter, elements,ect.. You and me and everthing in this and every single world, asteroid, star as made out of elements. Carbon is the basis of life, without it there can't be any living thing. Recently it has been found that it is possible that mars at one time had water, meaning possibility of life there millions of years ago, Scientist have found worlds that are similar to ours, but lack of tech has stop the possibility to find out if there is life there. So how you explain it? God created many different worlds with life? And killed them all and only left us here?
Sure is hard to believe that we, the only intelligent animal that can reason in this world, evolved from some ancestor that one could call a "monkey" , it is way easier to think that some supreme bieng simply did it all in 7 days, but it all will change the day men can explore the wonders of the universe and find other intelligent life form in a distant galaxy.
I take it that you do not believe in air then? Can you see air? No. You can see the effects air has (such as filling a balloon, or wind in the trees), but you have to believe that it really is the air doing it. You cannot actually see the air itself filling a balloon. Neither can you see the wind blowing the tree. You see the effect of the wind in the tree. But you do not actually see the wind itself. So by your own claim, you cannot believe in wind, because you cannot see it
Well if you couldn't tell see to believe is a metaphor, but you Can see air. Air is a mixture of different elements in gas form, all one needs to do is take these elements and make it into some other form, oxygen and hydrogen into water for example. :wink:
What are you saying here? That anybody with an education can see that Christians are wrong and that Evolution is obviously true? Gee, and here I thought that the fact that I'm taking college courses meant that I was educated. Silly me, I'm just an ignorant Christian with no free will...
Well if you see it that way, you are free to do so, won't coment any more about it..
Can you prove it? Carbon dating is not reliabe beyond a few thousand years old. Is there any way to actually prove that the fossils are millions of years old?
Oh, and BTW, the earth is 6,010 years old, not 5,000.
The same question can be asked about young earth's age. True it is not erxtremly reliavle, but it gives and average, meaning even if it isn't 75%, 50 % right it still means earth is millions of years old. Think about it, God created all animals in 7 days "6010" years ago, Including dinosaurs, and all animals that are pre Human according to evolution. So man lived among all this creatures, then they simple vanished in let say 1000 years just becuase god fell like it... Sounds reasonable to you? And where are all the fossils of the different human ancestors come from? Are they pure fiction? Are you saying that all research and fossiles are nothing more than a big lie?
But science can only be proven wrong when the facts go against it. How can you say that the facts support Evolution, and then say that if someone finds some facts, he may prove Evolution wrong? That is a contradiction in terms. Either the facts support Evolution, and nothing can prove it wrong, or it is only a theory, which is not a thing to stake your beliefs upon unless it has something deeper than science to back it up.
Because that's what science is, Bunch of theories that are supported by the knowledge we have now. Knowledge that is supported By FACTS, research and Reasoning. True evolution is still a theory for reasons such as missing links and the fact that carbon dating isn't too reliable, but there are many facts that show it to be true.
I beg your pardon! I am a rather reasonable fellow with quite good common sense. So how come I still believe in Young Earth Creationism, and that God made the earth in six days out of nothing?.
I said the Story depicted in the bible, and creationism are based on nothing more than what the bible says, no facts, no scientific reasoning, I didn't say people who belive on it are unreasonable. And you might believe on it for several reasons, your parents probably tough you from a young age, you have Faith on it,ect... and that's the beauty of todays world, you are free to believe on whatever you like, Freedom that was negated for more than 1800 years to men. If you even standed up against the corrupt church( because it still is, not as much as before, but is) you would burn at the stake for heresy...
Yes, that is true. The same is true of Evolution. There are not enough facts to support it, which is why it is still only a theory. If you believe it to be true, it is because you have faith that it is true, just as I have Faith that the Bible is true.
Once again.. Evolution at least has Facts to back itself up, while the bible, creatinism and everything of the like has absolutly no facts to back itself up, other than the bible itself, which 1.) was writen by men like you and me ( Humans are corrupted according to the bible after all) and 2.) Has changed 1000's of times, Scholars and religious people changed it over time to support their ideas as time and men's knowledge changed. Besides what makes your God any better than The Gods the greeks, Romans, egyptians and all other civilisations worshiped? What makes them not real and your god real? Did all this civilizations have faith in nothing? which brings me to my next point.
From the begining of mankind(cavemen, ect...) Man has tryed to find answers to things they couldn't explain, why did it rain? Why did like came from the sky? So what did men do? They created Gods to explain this fenomenoms. As men became more civilie, men looked for ways to maintain order, Ways to Rule over other men. The answer again was religion, So you see, that's what religion realy is in my eyes, A man made form to control the masses, a way to impose rules over other men, A way to control and maintain order.
Evolution is based on a book written by a man such as you and me (Darwin) and he might have had personal reasons for writing it. Looks like he's not credible either.
Well if he had personal reasons then he really did his homework, Because he presented Facts that other scientist to date have proved correct:cheers:
:nono:
Do you belive that the crusades were a just cause? The inquisitions, the destruction of great civilizations, Slavery, treating women pretty much like Crap, and the millions of people killed because of religion are good things? Give me a break...
And unless the Bible is true, then why does it matter or help us to use the morals that it gives us? If the Bible is just another book, then why not say "to heck with morals" and go live a fun life doing whatever the heck you want? What gives a government the authority to govern if not God? Who says that one thing is right and another is wrong if not God? Who else has the right to make such claims but God?
Please refer to my paragraphs above to find the answer. And Men has the right to say what's right, Not God.
And how does one make that descion without being educated in the beliefs of a religion?
The believe that if you do not fallow what this so called graetful "forgiving" God says, one day will burn in hell for eternity. In other words, Fear,my friend.
Anyways, you believe what you like to belive, I will belive what I see fit is the correct thing. If the day when my time comes to an end I find out that it is all true and go to the so called hell because I refused to belive and worship the biggest Tyrant know to men, then I guess I will burn there forever hapily, i will send you a greating card with one of satans deamons:rofl: , and if given the chance to do it all over again I would do it without hesitation, because I refuse to fallow a tyranical opressor. If there is no such thing, then I guess I will simply rot away like all other living things. Simple as that :rolleyes:
crusaderknight
07-10-2006, 04:59
crusaderknight:
you probably misunderstood the basic difference between religion and science.
Religion is here to make people strong in moments of personal crisis, to legitimate some social order which can't be legitimated no other way that that it was founded by higher entity. I am sure I forgot also other functions but definitely religion is not here to ASK questions, religion is here to give answers and many of those answers have to be believed in or, if someone doesn't believe, not.You and I see things from two opposite ends of the spectrum I guess. Religion exists because from the beginning of time, men have realized that the world could not have just appeared, and that something Supernatural had to have made it. And also because men realized that there must be something more to life than just this. Different ideas came about in different cultures, with most believing in an after life, and others believing in re-incarnation. But the fact is that they knew in their heart of hearts that there was something beyond this physical realm. Granted, not every religious belief system can be true. But neither can they all be false.
On the other side, science primarily asks question. The reason of science are doubts which are understood as weakness in faith in terms of religion.I'm not sure I entirely understood what you were saying in that second question...:confused:
the problem is. Science is here not to be believed IN. It is religion what you beliebe IN. Science you believe the proofs given becaüse they are strong enough or not because you have something thatprooves them wrong.I can agree with that. But, on the other hand, you do have to believe in the validity of the "facts" that support a scientific theory.
You can believe that the world is product of Divine creation, you can believe that the world is product of Big Bang, you can believe thet the world is fruit of some supersperm or whatever, but this question, the question of Origin of the world is not a question of science but question of belief (religion or rather mythology). You can never prove How and even Why the world has been created.
How can you prove any answer? "I can't imagine it being diferent", "There has to be something intelligent beyond such big thing" but where is the proof?My only problem is when people say, "The big bang is how it happened, and you don't need to learn any other possible way". I would make the same objection if you replaced "big bang" with "Divine Creation". Here's how If feel such unprovable topics should be tought, "Here is what we believe to be the way the universe was created (enter theory here). Here's why we believe it. Now here are some other theories on how everything was made. And here's why we don't believe it. But remember, whichever belief you accept, you are accepting it on faith alone, as there is no way to prove any of these right or wrong."
Sorry, I'm not labeling you but this is what religiously blinded people tend to do quite often. Cathing every word said little wrong.
Hard and solid proof which has to be seen does not meen seen physicaly. You have very nice theory and I can see that you mean All we see is just effect of God who we don't see. But you again misunderstood science and it's mechanism.
You can "see" the air through other senses, you can feel it, you can smell it when there's no wind, when you climb Mt.Everest you can breath lack of oxygen which is part of it. No, you are wrong, you can see the proofs of the air, not only effects. This, however can't be said about God.There are many who would beg to differ. I am one of them. When I pray, I can feel something extra-human around me. I can "feel" God's presence when I talk to him. I can feel His presence in an even more powerful way than I can feel the wind. And many other Christians would say the same thing.
relatively, carbon method is uncomparably more reliable than religious proofs of a kind "we have to be a product of an intelligent mind" and such.I do not argue that "we have to be a product of an intelligent mind". I argue that as there is not enough proof in any direction, and since my heart of hearts tells me to accept creationism, I accept it. Not "just because", but because I feel a deep conviction to believe that God made me. Just as there are many who feel a deep conviction that they are just random mistakes, and not beings made with Love.
Evolution is proven by simple fact of existence of relative organisms.
how is it posible that several millions ago there are fossils of something between tiger, cat and other animals like them, but none of actual species? and that actual species have something common with some other that have some common billion year old ancestor?
does it mean the cat and tiger were created later? or does it mean they evolved from their common ancestor?I'm sorry, but the only "proof" ever discovered of Evolution was later proven to be falsified evidence. My question is, "If there is so much proof of Evolution, why do scientists feel the need to 'create' missing link fossils and such?"
I'm not a paleontologist, but when keeping my mind opened it's clear what does it mean
no way. You are educated, you just don't accept some facts what is your full right.
We all do it. When someone sais something I don't like, my first reaction is mostly that I don't accept it. But if my emotoions calm down, more or less I start to doubt about my statement and think about it, if it is important for me. It's naturalThat's just it. You should not doubt yourself without good reason. I do my very best to only speak what I believe in my heart of hearts, my "conscience". And Martin Luther was right when he said, "To go against conscience is neither right nor safe".
again you prove that you don't understand the way of thinking aplied by science and you think in a way religion thinks.
Something either is true or not.
But science doesn't claim it is absolutely true! Science always assumes possibility of limited knowledke (unlike religion). TRUE in science means "something very close to true. Untill someone proves it wrong, it can be considered as true."If science doesn't believe in absolute truths, then why is it that almost every Evolutionist I've heard tells me that "Evolution is true, so just accept it. And Christianity is wrong. So just accept it."? Shouldn't they be saying, "Well, the evidence supports Evolution, at least, we think so, but we can't prove it true..."?
Or do you believe that we today have the best way to get all information about everything? Though I'm far from being positivist I am sure that the way of finding new information will be better in future, so there is probability that something I agree with might be proven wrong. And it's my task to accept that the world has changed.I believe that the scientists of the 16th century had it right when they realized that religion is not the be all end all of knowledge (as was previously thought) or that science is the be all end all of knowledge (as is now thought), but that, when science and religion work hand in hand, then the most accurate assumptions can be made, and we will find as close to the truth as we can about this wonderful universe that God made.
Science is here to adapt on changing conditions. Religion, on the other side, is here to ligitimate actual system and to make it stable.
But stability=staticity, the world, on the other hand is very dynamicAnd that is why it needs the stability provided by Faith.
exactly?
isn't it 6011 or 6009?
could you give me the formula that resulted in this numer?
I am not exactly sure about the dates but Old Mesopotamians had civilisation before 3500 BC (approximately 5500 years ago), they had some kind of script artound 3000BC (5000 years ago), though they don't have Any notes about the dinosaurs, even in myths. How is it possible that there are fosils of dinosaurs which were found comparatively much deeper under "mesopotamian" cultural levels?
How is it posible that the world is 6010 years old when Jewish calendar says it is 5767 years old, using the very same source for "the first days of the World" as the creationists do?
Are the Jews wrong because they didn't accepted Lord Jesus Christ and criucified him or because they use diferent callendar for last 1500 years so the diference could make some 10 years? where did those 243 years disappear?I was simply replying to the idea that some people believe the earth to be a mere 5000 years old. The three most common dates for Creation that I've seen from Creationists are:
1: c. 3700 B.C.
2: 4004 B.C.
3: c. 5490 B.C.
The youngest one would put the earth at some 5700 years old, the middle one (which I believe after reading through the Bible's geneologies and such man times) puts the earth at 6010 years old, and the last one puts the earth at roughly 7500 years old.
that's it. Thanks for hitting the nail!
Do you take the Bible as absolute truth?
Do you take it as historical source and source for your moral values? both? ok.Yes, I do. And that's why I can believe that there is a reason for my morals and values. But, without God, what need is there of morals? And without God, is there really anything that can define right or wrong?
But that's the diference. Moral values belong to religion and thus "religious metodology" should be applied on them. So those parts you understand as "moraly important" should be understood and researched in religious methodology.
On the other hand, those parts you accept as historical source (and the Bible is one of the greatest historical sources for Middle Eastern history!), you have to apply methors of history as science when asking religious questions.
This way you will realize that not everything that is written there (in the Bible-chronicle) is perfect true.I believe the Bible to be the inerrant and fully inspired Word of God, without a single error in it. And please note that I say that "I believe", in other words, I'm not saying to you that it is without a doubt and you'd better just accept it, but rather, I'm saying that in my mind it is without a doubt true, and I will accept it as such.
And now you will definitely disagree. This is what proves that religion was made up by the people.
The government has to have some legitimacy, moral values have to have some legitimacy.
Because it's human nature to do bad things those have to be restricted. One day some wise men said that those are the values we should follow. The powerfull agreed, but to force the people to respect this order they have to say it is The Law from the God, because otherwise the people wouldn't follow them.
Humanists in 17th and enlightonists in 18th century thought that education will teach people to follow moral values so they wouldn't need religious fundaments for those values. History proved them wrong.
The laws and values are here to protect the society from the bad. Their legacy needs to be confirmed somehow to be respected by the society. In religious society where the people need the values to have "supernatural" basis the values should be legitimated by supernatural power. In societies that are not religious there should be found some other legacy that will force people to respect them.
I deeply respect religion as the keeper of moral values, but I deeply disrespect religion for it's anti-dynamism.
It may sound nihilistic, but when some society disrespects it's own values, it deserves to die. The values are here to protect human lives and human society. I agree with those religious/moral orders that protect them, but I am the first to stand against those religious orders that disrespect them. And in history and even today, all religions had many such ordersIf religion was really made up by man, then how is it that the 20th century (the first century where Atheism became a strong belief) was the bloodiest century known to man, and that it was Adolf Hitler, a follower of the teachings Nitsche (the guy who said that God is dead) was one of the most terrible men ever to live on the earth?
--
You see, it does contradict it, The bible clearly states that earth is the center of the universe.Really? Can you show me where the Bible "clearly states" that the earth is the centre of the universe? I have read every book of the Bible up to Isaiah, as well as the four Gospels (and I'm currently working on Isaiah), and I have seen not once where the Bible says plain as day, "The earth is the centre of the universe".
Everthing in the universe is made up out of matter, elements,ect.. You and me and everthing in this and every single world, asteroid, star as made out of elements. Carbon is the basis of life, without it there can't be any living thing. Recently it has been found that it is possible that mars at one time had water, meaning possibility of life there millions of years ago, Scientist have found worlds that are similar to ours, but lack of tech has stop the possibility to find out if there is life there. So how you explain it? God created many different worlds with life? And killed them all and only left us here?Um... no. God made life of this planet, and on no other. The earth is a gem in a sea of worthless rocks. God made it special for us, His most beloved creation.
Sure is hard to believe that we, the only intelligent animal that can reason in this world, evolved from some ancestor that one could call a "monkey" , it is way easier to think that some supreme bieng simply did it all in 7 days, but it all will change the day men can explore the wonders of the universe and find other intelligent life form in a distant galaxy.You know what, I'm going to laugh in my grave the day mankind reaches another galaxy and this scene transpires:
Lieutenant, "Captain, we've just scanned every galaxy in our cluster. There is no such thing as life beyond earth."
Captain, "Well I'll be! Them Christians were right when they said earth-based lifeforms were the only things God made!"
Because I guess that's the only way that people will finally realize that we are special among the universe.
Well if you couldn't tell see to believe is a metaphor, but you Can see air. Air is a mixture of different elements in gas form, all one needs to do is take these elements and make it into some other form, oxygen and hydrogen into water for example. :wink: I could see that it is a metaphor. But my question is, how many scientific "facts" do you accept on faith because there really isn't any proof of them? Do you believe the earth has a molten core? We don't know for sure. The way everything works, we *think* that the core is molten, but for all we know it could be only semi-liquid or something. We don't know for absolute sure that the core is molten.
The same question can be asked about young earth's age. True it is not erxtremly reliavle, but it gives and average, meaning even if it isn't 75%, 50 % right it still means earth is millions of years old. Think about it, God created all animals in 7 days "6010" years ago, Including dinosaurs, and all animals that are pre Human according to evolution. So man lived among all this creatures, then they simple vanished in let say 1000 years just becuase god fell like it... Sounds reasonable to you? And where are all the fossils of the different human ancestors come from? Are they pure fiction? Are you saying that all research and fossiles are nothing more than a big lie?Pretty much. Every single "proof" of a missing link was made up. And if God ever really made dinosaurs (personally, I believe that he made the fossils so that one day we could have fossil fuel, but I don't believe that they ever really lived) they all died in the great flood.
Because that's what science is, Bunch of theories that are supported by the knowledge we have now. Knowledge that is supported By FACTS, research and Reasoning. True evolution is still a theory for reasons such as missing links and the fact that carbon dating isn't too reliable, but there are many facts that show it to be true.And many facts have been found to support the Bible (we've found lost rivers that were mentioned in the Bible but have "disappeared" since then, and we've found other Biblical sites as well).
I said the Story depicted in the bible, and creationism are based on nothing more than what the bible says, no facts, no scientific reasoning, I didn't say people who belive on it are unreasonable. And you might believe on it for several reasons, your parents probably tough you from a young age, you have Faith on it,ect... and that's the beauty of todays world, you are free to believe on whatever you like, Freedom that was negated for more than 1800 years to men. If you even standed up against the corrupt church( because it still is, not as much as before, but is) you would burn at the stake for heresy...Point A: The Church is not corrupt anymore (especially the Lutheran Church, which takes all doctrine solely from the Bible)
Point B: Wycliffe, Luther, and Calvin among others stood up to the corrupt Church and weren't burned.
Once again.. Evolution at least has Facts to back itself up, while the bible, creatinism and everything of the like has absolutly no facts to back itself up, other than the bible itself, which 1.) was writen by men like you and me ( Humans are corrupted according to the bible after all) and 2.) Has changed 1000's of times, Scholars and religious people changed it over time to support their ideas as time and men's knowledge changed. Besides what makes your God any better than The Gods the greeks, Romans, egyptians and all other civilisations worshiped? What makes them not real and your god real? Did all this civilizations have faith in nothing? which brings me to my next point.Okay, you know what, the Bible has not changed as much as you seem to think. You can read original Hebrew texts of the Old Testament and original Greek texts of the New Testament and they will not be divergent from what you can read today in English (in other words, the Bible was *not* changed 1000s of times). And you know what makes my God better than the others? My God is a God of love. My God loves me and He loves all of creation. He loves every last human so much that he sent his Son to die for us, so that we might not have to. Let's see Zeus or Odin beat that!
From the begining of mankind(cavemen, ect...) Man has tryed to find answers to things they couldn't explain, why did it rain? Why did like came from the sky? So what did men do? They created Gods to explain this fenomenoms. As men became more civilie, men looked for ways to maintain order, Ways to Rule over other men. The answer again was religion, So you see, that's what religion realy is in my eyes, A man made form to control the masses, a way to impose rules over other men, A way to control and maintain order.Religion is not at all like that. Men seek religion when they realize that there is something greater than themselves. Some political leaders decided to use the idea but they only used it after it had already existed. Religion is not an invention of man.
Well if he had personal reasons then he really did his homework, Because he presented Facts that other scientist to date have proved correct:cheers: You mean, he presented ideas which have only ever been supported by falsified evidence. Oh boy, very credible.
Do you belive that the crusades were a just cause? The inquisitions, the destruction of great civilizations, Slavery, treating women pretty much like Crap, and the millions of people killed because of religion are good things? Give me a break...The Crusades, yes. At first. The Crusades were a counter-strike to the Muslim invasions of Christendom and the butchery of Christians. The inquisitions were also good, at the start. The inquisition was created to root out and destroy heresy before it led too many people astray. But it became corrupt and was then a bad thing when it became a political weapon. The destructions of great civilzations was not right, and was in fact done for political purposes. Slavery is not in fact wrong, but neither is it right. What makes it wrong or right is how one treats one's slaves. It was not wrong for those slave owners who treated their slaves like Christian brothers to own the slaves (because they did not abuse them, misuse them, harm them, or mistreat them in any way) whereas in most cases, when men mistreated their slaves and abused them, that was wrong. And since that was the dominant method in which slaves were treated, it has given slavery a bad connotation, much the same way in which your middle finger is not bad, but since now-adays, when you stick out your middle finger, it is assumed to be an inappropriate gesture. Yet the middle finger is not bad, it is how you use it. Likewise, slavery is not bad, it is how you treat your slaves. On the next point, women were treated very terribly outside of Christendom, and in fact, in the early days of Christianity especially, as well as after the Reformation, women were treated better than their pagan counterparts. And on your last point, far more people have been killed by Atheists in this century alone than were killed by religious people in the past, so I guess that makes modern Atheists even worse, eh?
Please refer to my paragraphs above to find the answer. And Men has the right to say what's right, Not God.And what gave man the right to decide what is right and what is wrong? And which men have that right?
The believe that if you do not fallow what this so called graetful "forgiving" God says, one day will burn in hell for eternity. In other words, Fear,my friend.Boy do you have it wrong. Those who are condemned are not condemned because they don't believe in God. They are condemned because they refuse to repent of their sins, and they refuse to accept that Christ is their only way to Salvation. And I believe in God, not because I fear his wrath, but because I am so thankful that He saved me from Hell, even though I deserve nothing more than that very same Hell which He saved me from.
Anyways, you believe what you like to belive, I will belive what I see fit is the correct thing. If the day when my time comes to an end I find out that it is all true and go to the so called hell because I refused to belive and worship the biggest Tyrant know to men, then I guess I will burn there forever hapily, i will send you a greating card with one of satans deamons:rofl:I give you Luke 16:19-31
"There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, the dogs came and licked his sores. So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Then he cried and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented by this flame." But Abraham said, "Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus received evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us."
Then [the rich man] said, "I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment." Abraham said to him, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." And [the rich man] said, "No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent." But [Abraham] said to him, "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead."
and if given the chance to do it all over again I would do it without hesitation, because I refuse to fallow a tyranical opressor. If there is no such thing, then I guess I will simply rot away like all other living things. Simple as that :rolleyes:You know what, God is no tyrant. God made everything, He gets to make the rules. Or is Sunflowers tyrannical for defining the rules of how Knights of Honor is played? Are you going to tell Johan (the big guy at Paradox) that he's a tyrant because he defines how EUIII gets to be played? You gonna tell me I'm a tyrant because I wrote the rules to a game I'm working on?
And you know what, if given the chance to do it all over again, I would have been a better Christian, not because it would earn me anything, but because I could better show God how much I love Him for all He has done for me.
I don't see how you don't believe in a God who made you with Love, you gave you life, you sent His only Son to pay the price for *your* sins, so that you would not have to burn in Hell. How can you not accept His offer?
He/she is so much of a loving God that the bible is pretty much full of violence, Which he order men to do. Enjoy
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
If anything God seem worse than even Satan in the biblical story, God can be accounted for more destruction,death and chaos than satan.
He Orders the Israelites to kill every men, women, and children of every city they conquer in the promise land. 3:3-6
I can go as far as saying that this God of yours is no better than Hitler, the worse man of human kind!
So tell me where is this so called loving God shown....... Just give me a single chapter, no a single page in the bible where god does not do some kind of violence......
And what gave man the right to decide what is right and what is wrong? And which men have that right?
Reasoning gave man the right to decide what's right and what isn't.
Intelligence gave man the right to decide what's right and what isn't.
The ability to See beyond the horizons, to think outside the box, gave man the right to decide what's right and what isn't.
The Crusades, yes. At first. The Crusades were a counter-strike to the Muslim invasions of Christendom and the butchery of Christians. The inquisitions were also good, at the start. The inquisition was created to root out and destroy heresy before it led too many people astray. But it became corrupt and was then a bad thing when it became a political weapon. The destructions of great civilzations was not right, and was in fact done for political purposes. Slavery is not in fact wrong, but neither is it right. What makes it wrong or right is how one treats one's slaves. It was not wrong for those slave owners who treated their slaves like Christian brothers to own the slaves (because they did not abuse them, misuse them, harm them, or mistreat them in any way) whereas in most cases, when men mistreated their slaves and abused them, that was wrong. And since that was the dominant method in which slaves were treated, it has given slavery a bad connotation, much the same way in which your middle finger is not bad, but since now-adays, when you stick out your middle finger, it is assumed to be an inappropriate gesture. Yet the middle finger is not bad, it is how you use it. Likewise, slavery is not bad, it is how you treat your slaves. On the next point, women were treated very terribly outside of Christendom, and in fact, in the early days of Christianity especially, as well as after the Reformation, women were treated better than their pagan counterparts. And on your last point, far more people have been killed by Atheists in this century alone than were killed by religious people in the past, so I guess that makes modern Atheists even worse, eh?
And you have it wrong, How can you say that the crusades where a good cause, The slaugther of all people in the city, including christians when the muslims did not kill a single christian civilian insde the city. How dare you tell me that killing people just cos they don't belive in what You believe is a Good Cause.... If I'm thinking correctly that's exactly what Hitler Did, killing 1000's of jews....
Under Chritianity women lost all rights and freedoms. She was nothing more than a man's servant. In the story of bible the Women comes from a rib of the man, which in other words make women sort of a property of man...
Hmm that pagan women had no rights? hmmm I guess there never were women pharons in egypt, Where women had same rights as men. I guess that the Celtic women had it bad too when they could be Queens and have power...
Oh and am I reading wrongly or are you seriusly saying that slavery is ok? Are you out of you mind? Are you find with men owning other human beings? In What kind of a F#$@ up(sorry but had to be said) world do you live in?
I got one question for you. Are you ok with homosexuality? Or you belive that God should destroy a couple of more cities like he did with Sodom in the biblical story?
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.